157 réponses à ce sujet

[Gothfather]

I am of the opinion that there is a place for three types of choices in RPGs. (Generally speaking)

 

1) The Virmire choice where it is a zero sum game you lose someone and there is no way around this. I think these are powerful choices because people who do dangerous jobs especially ones that include combat often have to make these choices. Also in mundane life we often have to make choices that are either or with no possibility of both. There is also power behind lose as a storytelling tool. Despite the mature =/= dark crowd, Lose isn't actually dark, lose is the INEVITABLE outcome of all relationships because we are finite beings. So lose should be an integral part of games. This doesn't have to just be limited to who lives or dies, it could be who do you support for an alliance. What speciality goods your colonies create. What equipment you lose on a mission. These are all examples where you have to make a choice that is one or the other not both.

 

2) The 'simple' choices of choice X gives the best result and choice Y gives an inferior result. This is rather simplistic but often a much maligned style of choice in games because it feels like no choice at all. The key to this choice is for some of these choices to have a DELAY in the consequences of the choice so that you don't immediately know which is the superior choice.  Games are notoriously bad for providing instant gratification and instant consequences because they want to keep the player hooked. Yet as a storytelling technique it lacks power and impact in the long run if every choice is instantly resolved in terms of reward and punishment.  Regardless there is a place for some choices being the 'right' one and some being the 'wrong' one. And as much as player complain that the 'wrong' one always seems skewed towards the 'bad' path game theory has pretty much definitively proven that the 'pragmatic' route is inferior to desired results that the 'altruistic' route. Don't believe me? just do a google search of prisoner's dilemma. It is a well studied aspect of 'game theory' and it pretty much debunks the idea the 'pragmatic' choices are superior. 

 

3) Complex choices These are choices that are not resolved simply in the moment but are resolved by the choices make before reaching this point. ME3 had two examples of this the ME1 squad mate believing you or Udina at the climax of the Cerberus attack on the citadel. The other was the Quarian/Geth choice where it is possible to broker peace between them. I find this system far superior than the paragon/Renegade reputation checks as it truly creates a dynamic where your choices in the game have impact in ways that you normally wouldn't expect.

 

Some issues I see with choices in games;

 

The war assets system is flawed in that there were so many ways to gain war assets that it created no consequences to the game. You literally play all the trilogy just to make only one choice that matters what colour do you prefer? This is because all the choices were boiled down into war assets. So it is important not to boil down all your choices into an abstract representation because in so doing you trivialize all the choices in the end if your choices options are gated by reaching x score in your abstract representation.

 

In hindsight which is always 20/20, in other words it is so much easier to be an armchair developer after the fact, I would have gated the synthesis choice to only those players able to bring about a Geth/Quarian peace and control for those who built up so many 'control' points based on choices like siding or not siding with TIM at the ME2 or doing side quests against Cerberus in me1 and me3. The point being that your ability to gain this option should hinge on choices made in the entire series not the mid range option based on war assets gained.

 

The choice I hated the most was the Rachni queen because this changed nothing it was pointless. If you killed her the reapers find another 'queen' to create the rachni husks out of and you have to fight them in all the same locations. If you save her she gets captured by the reapers resulting in rachni husks. It was a fraking pointless choice. Yet it was tied to the binary morality system so it ruined any kind of thought provoking analysis of the choice because you have to 'game' the choice because of the fraked up mechanics of the paragon/renegade system. This should have been a brilliant choice killer her and you never run into rachni husks and any battles where these husks would have been are made easier. Save her and you have to deal with Rachni husks and do the quest to stop the husk production as is in ME3. Kill her and you find a failed attempt by the reapers to create rachni husks with grunt and you basically fight your way into the facility and fight your way out with against non rachni husks. But that means the developers have to make two quests vs one and be willing to have less diverse enemies in your battles for some playthroughs. Perhaps not a feasible approach but it would have felt like this was a 'real' choice as the results to game play were actually divergent by more than what texture the rachni queen had in ME3.

 

There is one thing i think some choices need for a mature title and that is unintended consequences not all choices should resolve in the ways we intend life is filled with unintended consequences both good and bad. Games should do a better job of adding this very real part of life to their game play.

[Gothfather]

I was amazed at how many problems could be traced back to three mercenary groups and poor parenting.

 

This is why i don't rate Me2 as highly as others do. I found the loyalty missions to be either incredibly well done or incredibly bad. Therapy down the barrel of a gun got old real fast.

[Gothfather]

The Virmire choice was ridiculous. There were many ways you could have been able to save both Ashley and Kaidan, but you don't get to do any of those because drama. Bioware even had it at one point where you could, but then cut it out. 

Yeah combat is just riddled with examples of people being able to save everyone. I mean no commander ever in the history of combat has ever had to make a choice of who to save and who to let die. Ridiculous.

[Hanako Ikezawa]

Yeah combat is just riddled with examples of people being able to save everyone. I mean no commander ever in the history of combat has ever had to make a choice of who to save and who to let die. Ridiculous.

Yes, such situations have occurred innumerable times in history. Virmire is not one of them because there were things that could have been done but aren't even brought up and instead have everyone be idiots to have the sacrifice forced on you because drama. Bioware originally designed it to be a situation where you could save both, albeit that option being very challenging, since there are audio files for it, but decided to cut it for no other reason than to make a lose-lose situation because again, drama. 

[Seboist]

Virmire choice is kinda lame, as it ultimately boils down to "who do you want to bang?" or "who do you like less?".

[Zeroth Angel]

The only decision I felt was though was the genophage one in ME3.

 

The Virmire one wasn't even that hard because both Kaiden and Ashley were one of the least interesting companions compared to the rest of the gang.

[Linkenski]

"Do you want to save the village from burning or do you want it to burn down?"

 

- Bioware

[Linkenski]

 

Virmire choice is kinda lame, as it ultimately boils down to "who do you want to bang?" or "who do you like less?".

Nevermind the fact that you'll have to sacrifice a member of your team.

[Iakus]

"Do you want to save the village from burning or do you want it to burn down?"

 

- Bioware

I prefer "Do you want to save the puppy or eat the puppy?"  

[Vox Draco]

Virmire choice is kinda lame, as it ultimately boils down to "who do you want to bang?" or "who do you like less?".

 

Uh? What? There was a choice on Virmire? It never really occurred to me you were able to sacrifice someone else than Ashley ... ^^ Seriously though, it was at lwast more interesting a decision to make than, well, another decions later in the series, much, much later...

 

Suicide-Mission-decisions (that sounds cool!) were also okay - of course they had almost no impact as most of the way-too-big-cast was scrapped anyway, and good riddance to many of them. But at least the concept was neat, and should have been rather in ME3 than ME2 ...

 

Overall ... choices and all that...people should not concentrate so much on this. I often get the imperssion that people have the assumption they could get drastically different stories because "meaningful" choices are promised. And then they get dissapointed because the story stays more or less the same anyway, and the impact of the "meaningful" choices are minor at best. Rachni being a good example. How excited people were about how they Rachni could play a part in the story - and naturally it was kind of a letdown ... (would have been fun though if letting the Queen live in ME1 would have led to us unleashing them on the Reapers in ME3 and drastically change the outcome in our favour. Probably how we all expected choices and consequences of the trilogy to impact the story's end ...alas ...

[wright1978]

I like Virmire even if i accept how it's presented is gamey. Would have preferred just a execution rather than playing to allow players a choice.

Definitely a choice that had weight for me. i don't really accept because someone may find Kaidan dull shouldn't dilute from it an ingame weight, that should be tough for the character. I may find Vega dull but i have to approach the  character in true manner in regards Shep.

 

Me3 boiling down war assets to a point generator to work out which of the utter trainwreck options you qualify for was just terrible. For me the obvious way to use these war assets was to refine the suicide mission mechanic where choices had consequences which had the potential for truly tough but which was designed with potential for too much slack. Have squadmates(not being coddled playing poker on the Normandy during the fight) but out there alongside former squadmates and other war assets, lives hanging in the balance dependent on a mixture of choices and the presence of specific assets.

[Milan92]

The only decision I felt was though was the genophage one in ME3.

 

The Virmire one wasn't even that hard because both Kaiden and Ashley were one of the least interesting companions compared to the rest of the gang.

 

Hey you take that back! Ashley is great!

[KaiserShep]

I'm not likely to play any of the Mass Effect games for a while, but I'll always remember the loyalty missions as being one of Bioware's career highlights.

 

 

Eh, the only loyalty mission that I consider to be really meaningful is Mordin's, because it explore's a character's moral quandary, while the rest follow a bit too consistent a pattern of paternal/maternal shenanigans. Legion gets a notable mention for having no emotional hangups, as does Kasumi, because I love a party that ends with explosions. 

[Hanako Ikezawa]

Eh, the only loyalty mission that I consider to be really meaningful is Mordin's, because it explore's a character's moral quandary, while the rest follow a bit too consistent a pattern of paternal/maternal shenanigans. Legion gets a notable mention for having no emotional hangups, as does Kasumi, because I love a party that ends with explosions. 

Grunt is also an exception to the rule, since his doesn't have any real emotional hangups or mommy/daddy issues. He's just going through puberty.

But for the rest it's either revenge or family issues(direct or indirect): 

Jacob: Family issues

Miranda: Family issues

Garrus: Revenge

Jack: Revenge

Zaeed: Revenge

Samara: Family issues

Thane: Family issues

Tali: Issues brought by family

[mopotter]

I would like fewer "outs" for the tough decisions. In ME1 it was either Ashley or Kaidan, not both. Save the Council or focus your efforts on the Reaper, not both. But after ME1 you always had outs, making the hard decisions easy.

Quarians or Geth? Why not both!

Not everyone will survive this suicide mission. But actually they pretty much always all survive! 

If you cure the genophage the Krogan might become a massive threat to the galaxy. Unless they don't, because Wrex is 2cool4you!

 

The premise of "hard choices" shouldn't have workarounds.

 

I loved those options so I would hate to lose them.  I love ME1   I had games where I left Kaiden, romanced Kaiden and left him, games where I saved him and if there had been another couple of options, save both, leave both, I'd eventually have done that too.   

 

ME2 I only had one or two games where everyone survived, for the same reason.   I never intentionally tried to kill anyone but I sent people to do jobs they were qualified for but the game system killed some of my team.  It was great.  I got teary when Jack was carried off because she saved Miranda and when Tali was killed or Garrus.      

 

Once or twice I intentionally tried to make Jack and Miranda get along, or Tali and Legion work together. But it was more fun for me to just play and see what happened.  I had some games where it worked and some where it didn't and this is a major reason I continued to play if for so long.   And I liked being a soldier who could get opposite groups to work together once in awhile.  

 

Without these options I'd have stopped playing because story wise ME2 was not my favorite, but the way I could play kept me entertained from the day it was released to the day ME3 came out.

 

I really like options, the more the better.

[Wulfram]

I'd rather have a focus on interesting decisions than "tough" ones. Also, varied ones.

I think the Destroy vs Rewrite choice with the Geth Heretics was interesting because of the moral question of whether essentially brainwashing people is better than just killing them. I think Tali's loyalty mission could have been interesting if it focused on whether it was right to cover up her father's crime. If the peace option isn't available, then the Geth/Quarian choice is interesting because it raises issues of the value of synthetic life, as well as perhaps asking the player to untangle a thorny knot of guilt and culpability in the conflict.

(Though I do think that a third option was appropriate in that one, even if it shouldn't have been so perfect. Peace should have required the Quarians giving up on their homeland, and probably heavy Quarian losses before they accept that.)

But a lot of the choices weren't all that interesting. A lot of them fell into a risk vs reward category that in this sort of authored medium ends up feeling to me like a game of chicken with the writers - "If you don't do bad thing, then worse thing might happen." Which was made less interesting by the fact that in Mass Effect the writers basically always blinked, but even if they didn't I don't really find that choice interesting.

And many of the other choices seemed to be "do you murder the bad person?" which just gets a bit boring.

Mass Effect didn't really have this issue, but another thing to be wary of is greyness induced apathy. If all I'm doing is deciding which of two or three jerks wins out, I'm not going to be interested because I just don't care very much.

[KaiserShep]

Grunt is also an exception to the rule, since his doesn't have any real emotional hangups or mommy/daddy issues. He's just going through puberty.

But for the rest it's either revenge or family issues(direct or indirect): 

Jacob: Family issues

Miranda: Family issues

Garrus: Revenge

Jack: Revenge

Zaeed: Revenge

Samara: Family issues

Thane: Family issues

Tali: Issues brought by family

 

Yeah, I forgot about Grunt. I will give Zaeed's mission some credit though. If you choose the Renegade ending, there's a pretty badass death scene for Vido XD

[Il Divo]

Eh, the only loyalty mission that I consider to be really meaningful is Mordin's, because it explore's a character's moral quandary, while the rest follow a bit too consistent a pattern of paternal/maternal shenanigans. Legion gets a notable mention for having no emotional hangups, as does Kasumi, because I love a party that ends with explosions. 

 

To a large extent, it depends on what you're looking for. Bioware tends to get a lot of acclaim for their character writing, so for me anything that draws attention to that is a plus. I found ME1 very disappointing in that the character writing felt like it took a back seat (imo) so the return in ME2 was a pleasant surprise.

 

There definitely was repetition amongst their backstories (the daddy issues), but that is actually more of a Bioware problem than an ME2 problem. Even if we look back at something like KotOR, of the 9 companions (one of whom is a placeholder), 5 of the character backgrounds all involve parental issues to a significant extent. Family issues tends to be their default, for better or worse. 

[SwobyJ]

I'd rather have a focus on interesting decisions than "tough" ones. Also, varied ones.

I think the Destroy vs Rewrite choice with the Geth Heretics was interesting because of the moral question of whether essentially brainwashing people is better than just killing them. I think Tali's loyalty mission could have been interesting if it focused on whether it was right to cover up her father's crime. If the peace option isn't available, then the Geth/Quarian choice is interesting because it raises issues of the value of synthetic life, as well as perhaps asking the player to untangle a thorny knot of guilt and culpability in the conflict.

(Though I do think that a third option was appropriate in that one, even if it shouldn't have been so perfect. Peace should have required the Quarians giving up on their homeland, and probably heavy Quarian losses before they accept that.)

But a lot of the choices weren't all that interesting. A lot of them fell into a risk vs reward category that in this sort of authored medium ends up feeling to me like a game of chicken with the writers - "If you don't do bad thing, then worse thing might happen." Which was made less interesting by the fact that in Mass Effect the writers basically always blinked, but even if they didn't I don't really find that choice interesting.

And many of the other choices seemed to be "do you murder the bad person?" which just gets a bit boring.

Mass Effect didn't really have this issue, but another thing to be wary of is greyness induced apathy. If all I'm doing is deciding which of two or three jerks wins out, I'm not going to be interested because I just don't care very much.

 

I like:

 

Geth - They build super structure but now one integrated into Rannoch and with a virtual model of including 'Quarians' in a sad tribute to them, and Quarians that came to the fleet die (slight prospect for galactic repopulation?). I'd also have the Reaper upgrade in itself be less overtly 'Reaper' as the story we got, but still include the hint of it (related, I'd also have had the implementation of the Genophage cure have to include a bit of Reaper tech or derived tech, among other changes). Make clear that this way, instead of Peace, is one that is still arguably the Geth choosing their own future (even if its also arguably NOT that).

 

Peace - Through -insert events, maybe unintended consequences of Reaper upgrades-, Rannoch is blown up or ruined past fixing, and a superstructure seems no longer desired. We still get the integration between Geth and Quarians and a more visible and audible merging of what they're doing in the war, but also some more ominous hints that the Quarians losing Rannoch has brought a loss of their cultural identity and integrity, and that the Geth that have joined the Quarians are going down suspiciously insidious, or at least alien to their desires in ME2, lines.

 

Quarian - They retake Rannoch, Geth destroyed, and Geth are pursued as tools again thanks to Xen (though RP could have things inclined towards resistance to her agenda, I'm okay with Bioware still basically going 'Quarians gonna Quarian/tinker with AI').

 

Results of all: Geth may return in some form, Quarians may have enough population to rarely appear, and both can have stories that evolve past yet are similar in ways to the trilogy. Geth can be rebuilt by some Quarians, or be more synthetic platforms from a new Consensus, or be vessels as extensions from a future Quarian-Geth melding. Quarians can live on Rannoch, or have some that resisted the call to fleet and now have a few that meet in specific ways to allow future plot, or be more organic vessels as extensions from a future Quarian-Geth melding.

 

Javik talks of organic 'extinction' through melding and I'd have liked more to do with that. Make me creeped out that I went for peace instead of domination over the machines (if I picked Peace for example). (Instead of only dismayed that I went for killing robots instead of having a technological evolution, which is more the gist I got from the game we played, if I picked Quarian-siding stuff.)

 

I like the concept that all 3 paths could be argued to be freedom, but instead we lopsidedness. Characters 'want' the Red, mostly. Factions 'want' the blue, mostly. Situations 'want' the Green/3rd option, mostly. I don't prefer a little bias for the Red in general - I consider Shepard himself to be a 'Red' character in the larger scale, and his 'war' to be a Red thing (yay color coding) - but I'd have liked to have seen more clearly that all paths in Rannoch were both 'bad choices' and yet 'worthy choices'. Instead, many of us just get either an uncertainty (Geth, Quarian) or 'is this supposed to be the best choice then, and the rest suck?' (Peace).

 

If there's some longer term point Bioware is going to make about jumping for best-solution-shortcuts, then fine, see you in Andromeda - but if this is just to stay in ME3 alone, I don't think I enjoy it as much as I could have. Too much 'feely goody goody' with Full Cure on Tuchanka, Peace on Rannoch, and even Synthesis on Earth. Even in tone, make it clear that something is being given up, while also making the concepts more overt (Synthesis is especially bad for just 'popping up' for most players, even if there's little, optional lines hinting parts of it throughout the game).

 

Basically... I approve of Rannoch being (physically) lost in Peace, while I'd also like the Dyson Sphere('s typical planning) to be lost as well, and the replacement plan to be something we're not necessarily comfortable with either. Give me a cost to peace. So far in ME3's narrative, we only get a few hints at weirdness going on, and that's often just with Javik being installed and commenting on it. Bleh.

[Iakus]

To a large extent, it depends on what you're looking for. Bioware tends to get a lot of acclaim for their character writing, so for me anything that draws attention to that is a plus. I found ME1 very disappointing in that the character writing felt like it took a back seat (imo) so the return in ME2 was a pleasant surprise.

 

There definitely was repetition amongst their backstories (the daddy issues), but that is actually more of a Bioware problem than an ME2 problem. Even if we look back at something like KotOR, of the 9 companions (one of whom is a placeholder), 5 of the character backgrounds all involve parental issues to a significant extent. Family issues tends to be their default, for better or worse. 

In most Bioware games, the companions are people you meet along the way who choose to help you, for whatever reason.  In ME2, though, they are people you have to recruit because you "need" them for your mission.  That's what makes ME2 different.  These aren't just random people you happen to meet, these are the bad@sses with a "particular set of skills" you need them for.

 

Sure the companions themselves are good.  But I had a hard time reconciling what my motivation was for recruiting them.  Only Mordin, Tali, and Okeer really made sense (Mordin bwas expressly recruited for his scientific expertise in being able to counter the seeker swarms.  Tali for her past experience with Shepard, and Okeer because he had dealings with the Collectors and could hopefully provide some insight) One could also argue Garrus as a companion that made sense, but at the time "Archangel" was just another bad@ss merc as far as Shepard was concerned.

 

Interestingly, Legion is more fo a "classic" Bioware companion as it is someone who happens to cross Shepard's path and offers to help out.

[Seboist]

In most Bioware games, the companions are people you meet along the way who choose to help you, for whatever reason.  In ME2, though, they are people you have to recruit because you "need" them for your mission.  That's what makes ME2 different.  These aren't just random people you happen to meet, these are the bad@sses with a "particular set of skills" you need them for.

 

Sure the companions themselves are good.  But I had a hard time reconciling what my motivation was for recruiting them.  Only Mordin, Tali, and Okeer really made sense (Mordin bwas expressly recruited for his scientific expertise in being able to counter the seeker swarms.  Tali for her past experience with Shepard, and Okeer because he had dealings with the Collectors and could hopefully provide some insight) One could also argue Garrus as a companion that made sense, but at the time "Archangel" was just another bad@ss merc as far as Shepard was concerned.

 

Interestingly, Legion is more fo a "classic" Bioware companion as it is someone who happens to cross Shepard's path and offers to help out.

Recruiting a bunch of people to form a squad to fight a space battle after we go through a relay that leads to someplace we have zero idea where it leads or what's on the other side(could be a collector space armada on the other side for all we know) is quality bioware writing. "Fortunately", through the powers of plot contrivance, this becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy as we miraculously need to use their abilities upon reaching the CB. Well, except for Thane, he's serves no purpose whatsoever.

 

Nevermind the fact that you'll have to sacrifice a member of your team.

 

Not much of a "sacrifice" if you don't care for the character and how Shepard isn't hampered by their loss in any way.

[Il Divo]

Sure the companions themselves are good.  But I had a hard time reconciling what my motivation was for recruiting them.  Only Mordin, Tali, and Okeer really made sense (Mordin bwas expressly recruited for his scientific expertise in being able to counter the seeker swarms.  Tali for her past experience with Shepard, and Okeer because he had dealings with the Collectors and could hopefully provide some insight) One could also argue Garrus as a companion that made sense, but at the time "Archangel" was just another bad@ss merc as far as Shepard was concerned.

 

 

 

I wouldn't say there was all that great a motive in place, Mordin aside. My enjoyment from ME2 was much less from the main story (which rightfully gets a lot of flack) and more from Bioware focusing on my single favorite of their games, bar none. But in general, this does form the basis for Smudboy's "ME2 plot analysis" where if I remember right he concludes something similar. 

 

 

Interestingly, Legion is more fo a "classic" Bioware companion as it is someone who happens to cross Shepard's path and offers to help out.

 

 

That depends in what sense we want to consider them a classic. I've heard people talk about how much they enjoy Bioware characters, but I don't hear all too often acclaim in regards to just picking people up for the ride. 

 

I don't for example consider Mission a "classic" Bioware character because she happens to unlock a door, at which point her relevance essentially evaporates. On the other hand, ME2 probably should have put more effort into an actual plot, but I'd argue most Bioware plotlines aren't all that great to begin with (Jade Empire aside). 

[ZipZap2000]

You'll all get what you're given you little ingrates.

[Iakus]

Recruiting a bunch of people to form a squad to fight a space battle after we go through a relay that leads to someplace we have zero idea where it leads or what's on the other side(could be a collector space armada on the other side for all we know) is quality bioware writing. "Fortunately", through the powers of plot contrivance, this becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy as we miraculously need to use their abilities upon reaching the CB. Well, except for Thane, he's serves no purpose whatsoever.

 

You know, the whole "Suicide Mission" deal would have made a lot more sense if the Collector Ship mission was done first instead of Freedom's Progress.  At least then you'd have a general idea that there's a "Collector Base" you needed to build a team to raid.  Rather than a big question mark concerning what you're going to do with this team of random bad@sses.

[KaiserShep]

To a large extent, it depends on what you're looking for. Bioware tends to get a lot of acclaim for their character writing, so for me anything that draws attention to that is a plus. I found ME1 very disappointing in that the character writing felt like it took a back seat (imo) so the return in ME2 was a pleasant surprise.

 

There definitely was repetition amongst their backstories (the daddy issues), but that is actually more of a Bioware problem than an ME2 problem. Even if we look back at something like KotOR, of the 9 companions (one of whom is a placeholder), 5 of the character backgrounds all involve parental issues to a significant extent. Family issues tends to be their default, for better or worse. 

 

I agree about ME1. For the most part, they didn't contribute nearly as much as one might want. Wrex, I feel, is a fair exception though, because he has a bit more insight about certain things and has more to say than the others do, not to mention is the only one in the game that is scripted to have a serious conflict with Shepard.