40 réponses à ce sujet

[jones81381]

Something I've noticed that happens a lot in RPG games like Mass Effect or Dragon Age or Fallout etc is that being a good person and helping people very nearly always works out to be you helping yourself which makes being a good person and helping people far too easy. What I mean is, you are presented with a "moral choice" but whether you choose to be good or bad, your own objectives are furthered in some way. Your choice matters little other than to serve to move your alignment meter in one direction or another. What I would like to see is an abundance of situations where taking the good guy route actually costs you in some way. You expend a bunch of extra ammo, it takes a lot longer, you get nothing more than a thank you as reward, that sort of stuff. The good guy who is always helping people should not also easily be the wealthiest man in the galaxy, as an example. It should be significantly harder to play a truly good character because being bad, robbing weak people and taking their supplies is a far easier option than helping them at your own expense.

[Cyonan]

I can agree with the idea that the good option shouldn't always result in being rewarded with stuff.

 

However being a complete dick to other people tends to have the effect that nobody likes you, which in itself can make things difficult. Even if you have good personal resources yourself, you have very few allies to call on.

 

So I would say that playing the good route shouldn't necessarily make the game more difficult.

[ActualOjou]

I somewhat agree.

 

I definitly agree with the notion that making the "good" choice isn't always the ideal solution, and should sometimes be penalized.

 

This isn't really a super example, but I remember doing Mordin's quest in ME2, and I felt like the paragon choices were just super idealistic and even judgemental. Left me making more "middle" and even I believe a renegade choice. Those fit better with what I really felt than the Paragon route.

 

But overall, I think "good" and "bad" should be a bit more gray and unclear in the game anyways. You don't make the "good" or the "bad" choice, you make the most realistic choice based on how you really feel, or how you are roleplaying the character. The result of that choice comes out to be whatever follows, but you did it because it meshed with how you felt.

[Youknow]

Being a nice guy should generally result in better things happening to you if only because of how far you go when you aren't nice. The issue is that the range of being nice versus being not nice is way too far on the polarity scale. 

 

IRL: Do you like puppies? Yes or No? And you answer "No" you don't like puppies and go about your business. You might not like puppies because you hate how much fur they get all over the place, and no one will hate you for not liking puppies. In Bioware games it's like: 

 

Bioware: Do you like puppies Yes or No? And you answer "No," and your character proceeds to pull out a machine gun and mow down 15 puppies. The range is so utterly ridiculous that it's almost hilarious. 

[Ajensis]

I agree overall that it would be nice with some disadvantages to being a purely Paragon type of person, but I'd vastly prefer the consequence to be narrative and not a punishment on the level of gameplay, like it "[taking] a lot longer". That would just feel like an annoyance with no meaningful reward; you basically just got swatted over the nose for being a Paragon.

Other consequences would be a lot more interesting, like unintentional collateral damage in the pursuit of 'saving everyone' (especially if it's bordering on a refusal to make a hard decision/sacrifice), or someone taking advantage of you for always wanting to do the right thing. Just make it meaningful. Decreasing your ammo capacity and making a fight longer isn't the way to go, in my opinion. It has no effect on the story and it adds nothing to your character.

[JoltDealer]

In KOTOR, I feel like the good and bad side of things were more of what you were looking for.  Being evil in KOTOR got things done in record time.  Can't afford an item?  Threaten violence or flat-out kill the merchant!  Being good often meant that you had to actually pay for things or take the long way around.

[Mcfly616]

Doesn't always work in Witcher 3. Tends to come back and bite you in the ass.

[NeonFlux117]

Meh, I just want to play as a BAMF, ultra cool, sociopathic, space marine that shoots scrubs in the face and bangs hotties. I could care less about the problems of the lesser races of Adromeda, I invested and cared about the people's and issues of the original trilogy and didn't get nearly the same care back.

So I'm gonna role play my Andromeda character as Vic Mackey in Space.

[Panda]

I think this is good idea. I would like to see paragon and renegade options having unpredictable outcomes as well and not always end up being in favor of main character, I'd like them to backfire time to time.

[SpaceLobster]

I think this is good idea. I would like to see paragon and renegade options having unpredictable outcomes as well and not always end up being in favor of main character, I'd like them to backfire time to time.

(A few) Paragon decisions do backfire, like saving the Rachni Breeder, doing Zaeed's loyalty mission the paragon way or Rewriting the geth heretics.

Certain renegade choices can backfire too, like killing the Rachni Queen (and then saving the Breeder) or destroying Maelon's data.

[mickey111]

Bioware have always done this but and it's something I used to pay attention to. I've gamed a lot and Bioware is easy to the point that I'm in it for the entertainment alone. I feel largely unaffected by a bit of a "good" bias, and I have enjoyed them more since I stopped trying to game the system by save scumming (the act of reloading previous saves after making a decision).

[Malleficae]

I want to be badass and make good-in-long-term decisions. You can't do that in BioWare games. You need to lick butts or you will be angry kid. I am the danger but I am kawaii danger. Obey me BioWare.

 

[Dean_the_Young]

I agree overall that it would be nice with some disadvantages to being a purely Paragon type of person, but I'd vastly prefer the consequence to be narrative and not a punishment on the level of gameplay, like it "[taking] a lot longer". That would just feel like an annoyance with no meaningful reward; you basically just got swatted over the nose for being a Paragon.

Other consequences would be a lot more interesting, like unintentional collateral damage in the pursuit of 'saving everyone' (especially if it's bordering on a refusal to make a hard decision/sacrifice), or someone taking advantage of you for always wanting to do the right thing. Just make it meaningful. Decreasing your ammo capacity and making a fight longer isn't the way to go, in my opinion. It has no effect on the story and it adds nothing to your character.

 

Not even unintentional collateral- one of the common themes of paragon is the deliberate acceptance of risk in order to maintain moral integrity. The 'I won't let fear compromise who I am,' while the Renegade Big Decisions often take a precautionary approach. 'I accept this cost now, because if I don't bigger costs may come later'. Paragon morality was regularly a risk-taker bordering on the irresponsible.

 

The thing was, though, that the ME trilogy never had those risks materialize. It almost always kicked potential issues far into the future, while Renegade costs were immediate. That was a narrative weakness in any sort of 'balanced' morality system- further complicated by how Bioware couldn't decide what they wanted Paragon and Renegade to mean. A reflection of political principles, ala ME1? Tone of conversation, regardless of principle? Red scars?

 

My recommendation would be what it's always been: let Paragons eat the consequences of their own actions, much like Renegades have, and share the vindication (and failure) of having successes and failures.

 

Sometimes being generous should come back to help you. Sometimes it should mean you're taken advantage of. Similarly, sometimes taking risks should pay off- and sometimes they have to be paid.

[themikefest]

I'm not a fan of the goody-two-shoe character. Majority of my playthroughs have been ruthless. Depending on the playthrough, a goody-two-shoe can have more dead than a ruthless playthrough. I know. I've done it.

[Helios969]

Not even unintentional collateral- one of the common themes of paragon is the deliberate acceptance of risk in order to maintain moral integrity. The 'I won't let fear compromise who I am,' while the Renegade Big Decisions often take a precautionary approach. 'I accept this cost now, because if I don't bigger costs may come later'. Paragon morality was regularly a risk-taker bordering on the irresponsible.

 

The thing was, though, that the ME trilogy never had those risks materialize. It almost always kicked potential issues far into the future, while Renegade costs were immediate. That was a narrative weakness in any sort of 'balanced' morality system- further complicated by how Bioware couldn't decide what they wanted Paragon and Renegade to mean. A reflection of political principles, ala ME1? Tone of conversation, regardless of principle? Red scars?

 

My recommendation would be what it's always been: let Paragons eat the consequences of their own actions, much like Renegades have, and share the vindication (and failure) of having successes and failures.

 

Sometimes being generous should come back to help you. Sometimes it should mean you're taken advantage of. Similarly, sometimes taking risks should pay off- and sometimes they have to be paid.

Exactly so.  There should be pros and cons of either leadership style.  I would love to see where choosing the "morally right" path blows up in your face.  It could manifest in a number of ways.  I wonder how many Paragons would choose to save the Rachni queen or Counsel if the cost was sacrificing one of your companions?  Or conversely how many Renegades would execute an enemy or sacrifice a population of people for expediency if the result was one of the companions getting ticked off and leaving the party?  Of course, people will just metagame after awhile to achieve the optimal playthrough, so you'd need some mechanisms in place to dissuade such...not sure if that last part is really possible.

[Lonely Heart Poet]

It is sheer logic that when you do good deeds and make friends it just benefits you in the end, usually it is like that in the real life. I hate unlogical and overly surprising results. Realism is the key word for me.
However, some choices could be more gray. I liked when you have to choose to save or delete Maelon's data and I liked also the hard choice of saving the Aralakh Company or the Rachni queen (letting the Aralakh Company die upsets me everytime). Also upgrading or destroying the code for the Geth consensus is also a great example of gray.

I think most of the outcomes in Mass Effect were actually well balanced. What really bothered me was renegade Shepard's sometimes odd and stupid behaviour, they should fix that first.

 

[Mcfly616]

It is sheer logic that when you do good deeds and make friends it just benefits you in the end, usually it is like that in the real life.

 

 

 

 

You sure there's "real people" in your real life? You know, human beings. Many of which will say and do whatever to get ahead in the world because they're only looking out for themselves (naturally). Not sure what utopian fairy tale you reside in but there's a reason that people ask "why do bad things happen to good people?"

 

 

You say you hate "unlogical" results, but your take on the world is extremely illogical.

[Lonely Heart Poet]

 

 

 

You sure there's "real people" in your real life? You know, human beings. Many of which will say and do whatever to get ahead in the world because they're only looking out for themselves (naturally). Not sure what utopian fairy tale you reside in but there's a reason that people ask "why do bad things happen to good people?"

 

 

You say you hate "unlogical" results, but your take on the world is extremely illogical.

I meant what I said and I don't live in a fairytale world thanks for asking. Maybe I wasn't clear enough (my language skills limits this sometimes). In the end yeah I fully believe that being a good person benefits you more. That is my experience. There is lot of bad in the world even going on in this moments and I too have met very bad and irrational people in my life. But the good surpasses the bad. I seem to have a house, nice people around me and a job wich I enjoy. I consider myself lucky.

AND even if I did not have, the good is still stronger. In the end.

"why do bad things happen to good people?"

I am not even touching that, I wasn't speaking about that kind of things. I was speaking about a games logic.

 

 

[Dean_the_Young]

Exactly so.  There should be pros and cons of either leadership style.  I would love to see where choosing the "morally right" path blows up in your face.  It could manifest in a number of ways.  I wonder how many Paragons would choose to save the Rachni queen or Counsel if the cost was sacrificing one of your companions?  Or conversely how many Renegades would execute an enemy or sacrifice a population of people for expediency if the result was one of the companions getting ticked off and leaving the party?  Of course, people will just metagame after awhile to achieve the optimal playthrough, so you'd need some mechanisms in place to dissuade such...not sure if that last part is really possible.

 

Renegade players already got Mordin and Wrex in ME3.

 

That said- 'kill a companion' consequences are generally bad, and screw the narrative going forward. Unless you have a package deal like the Virmire Survivor, where Ash or Kaiden survive and then adopt the same role going forward as if they were a single character, you get ME3's necessary (but at times ridiculous) reflection of the ME2 suicide mission: every character who could die, suddenly was irrelevant.

 

The better consequences will try to be on the same terms and grounds as the payoff of the choice. If your choice is to save civilians with a face, let the consequence if it fails be civilians with a face. If your choice is to save someone at risk of a war, let that person carry the guilt if a war does break out.

 

In ME3, the reflection of Project Overlord is that Doctor Archer is overwhelmed with guilt for what he did. He'll even commit suicide in certain conditions. All well and good, especially when his brother can be found at Grissom academy.

 

But why is Project Overlord never used, or the success we're told it had vindicated, when the Reapers recruit the Geth and still have some afterwards? Why isn't/can't it be used, to get word that 'geth attack on Human colony stopped', or 'Geth pockets freed from Reaper control'? The Overlord choice was framed in these sort of terms- so why not?

 

 

The same thing can go for lesser choices as well. In ME1, one of our first decisions was to let... Fist(?), an agent of the Shadow Broker, flee or not. In ME2, if he lived, he was a cameo in the Omega pub- but there was nothing if he died.

 

Why not? It's easy to say that 'well, you killed him,' but that's just an argument for why he shouldn't return. Did he have no friends? Family? Someone grateful he's gone and dead?

 

Imagine if we went to the bar, and found a young man who, upon learnin who we are, goes 'Hello. I am Inigio Fist. You killed my father. Prepare to die.'

 

Wouldn't that be a cool reflection of choice?

[N7Jamaican]

I don't mind playing the hero.

[Mcfly616]

"why do bad things happen to good people?"

I am not even touching that, I wasn't speaking about that kind of things. I was speaking about a games logic.

 Art has a tendency to imitate life. Bad things can happen to good people. This should be reflected in a game that focuses on the choices you make over the course of the narrative.

[SpaceLobster]

Doesn't always work in Witcher 3. Tends to come back and bite you in the ass.

I'll have to remember that... It usually worked in Witcher 1. Witcher 2, not so much...

[AlanC9]

(A few) Paragon decisions do backfire, like saving the Rachni Breeder, doing Zaeed's loyalty mission the paragon way or Rewriting the geth heretics.
Certain renegade choices can backfire too, like killing the Rachni Queen (and then saving the Breeder) or destroying Maelon's data.

However, you can avoid any negative consequences from the Zaeed paragon choice and rewriting the heretics.

[AlanC9]

That said- 'kill a companion' consequences are generally bad, and screw the narrative going forward. Unless you have a package deal like the Virmire Survivor, where Ash or Kaiden survive and then adopt the same role going forward as if they were a single character, you get ME3's necessary (but at times ridiculous) reflection of the ME2 suicide mission: every character who could die, suddenly was irrelevant.[/i]

Isn't this an artifact of the trilogy structure to some extent? You can kill characters at the end of their storyline involvement as long as you don't have to care about bringing them back for a sequel. See, for instance, Wing Commander 3, which worked fine. Though WC4 retconned Vagabond's death if he died (only to kill him off), and made Rachael the canon LI since Flint might have died. (IIRC Maniac only dies on the losing path, and other WC3 characters either always die or don't come back.)

But why is Project Overlord never used, or the success we're told it had vindicated, when the Reapers recruit the Geth and still have some afterwards? Why isn't/can't it be used, to get word that 'geth attack on Human colony stopped', or 'Geth pockets freed from Reaper control'? The Overlord choice was framed in these sort of terms- so why not?

Presumably because most of us didn't play Overlord, and aren't aware that there are any geth under Reaper control after Rannoch -- isn't that just an MP thing? Though, yeah, they could have worked geth back into the main narrative if Overlord was going to be accounted for. I guess they just didn't want to burn the wordcount.

Wouldn't that be a cool reflection of choice?

It'd be kinda funny if Wrex killed Fist, too. "You're too late, kid; the guy you want died on Virmire."

[capn233]

IIRC in ME1 you made more credits going through the game pure Renegade.  You also could save a few points on Intimidate if you wanted to pass all the persuasion checks.

 

In ME2 you have a few easier fights if you go renegade.  You do in fact spend more ammo going paragon, since you didn't sabotage the gunship, didn't blow up the krogan with the gas pipe, didn't kill several of the Eclipse at the beginning of Miranda's mission, etc.  The renegade path for Zaeed's mission has an arguably superior upgrade compared to the paragon.

 

In ME3, there was no appreciable difference.