657 réponses à ce sujet

[Revan Reborn]

For most of the Mass Effect trilogy, the story and choices you had were rather black and white. Be a paragon or be a renegade. I'd argue there weren't really a lot of tough decisions, certainly not a lot that made me think twice about what I was doing. Maybe the ending of ME3? Lets not get into that...

 

The best example of a moral dilemma that I can even remember in ME1 was the Virmire choice: Kaidan or Ashley. Now, this was never hard for me, being a heterosexual male, I always threw Kaidan to the dogs. However, what I would like to see is difficult choices (like this may have been for some) to be more frequent and happen more often.

 

In my opinion, moral dilemmas can lead not only to a more engaging experience, but also increase the value one sees in the decisions he/she make. Rather than just pressing every paragon choice you see pop up overtime, I'd like to really formulate my character's personality by tough decisions and having to live with them.

 

Another example of a moral dilemma that was likely more challenging for folks in ME1 was whether to kill the rachni queen, ending any potential threat of another galactic war, or to spare her, knowing another conflict could potentially happen in the future. Unfortunately, BioWare ended up undermining this great example of a moral dilemma, but that struggle of trying to decide what is the better choice certainly illuminates what this thread is about.

 

 

While this infamous trailer was ultimately BS, it harps back to the fact that BioWare did intend, at some point, to really have moral dilemmas in Mass Effect.

 

Yea? Or nay?

[Dalakaar]

I feel like there should be more more moral choices in ME:AMP.

[Revan Reborn]

I feel like there should be more more moral choices in ME:AMP.

And then...?

[malloc]

Moral Dilemma,

 

what color is the dress?

 

[Revan Reborn]

Moral Dilemma,

 

what color is the dress?

 

I HATE OPTICAL ILLUSIONS!!!

 

IT'S BLUE AND BLACK DAMMIT!!!

[Osena109]

I could see if you have a chance to get some vital  intel  or save a  group of special needs children form merc forces  I want hard choices.

[Revan Reborn]

I could see if you have a chance to get some vital  intel  or save a  group of special needs children form merc forces  I want hard choices.

Likewise. It reminds me a bit of the moral dilemma quiz you had to take on Kashyyyk in KotOR 1. You had to answer questions accurately of what Revan would have done under these circumstances during the Mandalorian wars.

 

Save a city filled with millions of innocent lives from an imminent attack by the Mandalorians? Or sacrifice the city by sneaking behind the Mandalorians, greatly crippling their offensive campaign against the rest of the galaxy?

[LineHolder]

Sorry, no offense, but what nonsense is this?

 

Saving Kaidan or Ashley is not a 'moral' dilemma. It's a tactical one. The mission parameters and priorities trump sexuality, romance and 'feelz'.

 

If Bioware have suddenly developed the ability to have their 'moral choices' affect things within the game they were presented, then sure, I'd like more of them. But if they're gonna stick with laughable choices where the only feedback you get is how that choice makes you and others 'feel', then no. Cut the bullshit.

[Dalakaar]

But if they're gonna stick with laughable choices where the only feedback you get is how that choice makes you and others 'feel', then no. Cut the bullshit.

Yes, give in to the dark side.

[Osena109]

Likewise. It reminds me a bit of the moral dilemma quiz you had to take on Kashyyyk in KotOR 1. You had to answer questions accurately of what Revan would have done under these circumstances during the Mandalorian wars.

 

Save a city filled with millions of innocent lives from an imminent attack by the Mandalorians? Or sacrifice the city by sneaking behind the Mandalorians, greatly crippling their offensive campaign against the rest of the galaxy?

It would be vary edgy if Bio did this and I would salute them but the "PC Police" would go of the deep end and have a  conniption fit. 2003 and 2016 are just too different.

[Revan Reborn]

Sorry, no offense, but what nonsense is this?

 

Saving Kaidan or Ashley is not a 'moral' dilemma. It's a tactical one. The mission parameters and priorities trump sexuality, romance and 'feelz'.

 

If Bioware have suddenly developed the ability to have their 'moral choices' affect things within the game they were presented, then sure, I'd like more of them. But if they're gonna stick with laughable choices where the only feedback you get is how that choice makes you and others 'feel', then no. Cut the bullshit.

Wha?

 

I was using the Virmire decision as an example of a moral dilemma in ME1. I never said it was a great example, but it was the only one that came to mind. Of course I'd like better moral dilemmas than "sacrifice companion A or B."

[Revan Reborn]

It would be vary edgy if Bio did this and I would salute them but the "PC Police" would go of the deep end and have a  conniption fit.

This is true.

 

"BSN. There is no greater hive of scum and villainy. We must be cautious." - Obi-Wan Kenobi

 

Irrespective of that, I would gain a lot of respect for BioWare and their storytelling if they began treating us like intelligent consumers.

[Osena109]

This is true.

 

"BSN. There is no greater hive of scum and villainy. We must be cautious." - Obi-Wan Kenobi

 

Irrespective of that, I would gain a lot of respect for BioWare and their storytelling if they began treating us like intelligent consumers.

pandering to the lowest common denominator seems to work for them and sell games but I stay loyal as I love the old Bio.

[Cyonan]

Sorry, no offense, but what nonsense is this?

 

Saving Kaidan or Ashley is not a 'moral' dilemma. It's a tactical one. The mission parameters and priorities trump sexuality, romance and 'feelz'.

 

If Bioware have suddenly developed the ability to have their 'moral choices' affect things within the game they were presented, then sure, I'd like more of them. But if they're gonna stick with laughable choices where the only feedback you get is how that choice makes you and others 'feel', then no. Cut the bullshit.

 

It's neither a moral choice nor a tactical one.

 

You're asked to pick between two squad mates with no consequences other than the one you didn't pick dies. It's more an emotional choice than anything else, provided you actually care about either of them. If you don't care, then it's just an arbitrary choice.

 

Of course the whole thread I imagine more is asking if we should have more choices that aren't so clear cut in "This one is nice side and this one is jerk side", or the "choices" which have a correct answer like who to send as specialists on the suicide mission in ME2.

 

I like Legion's loyalty mission as a better example personally, other than the fact that they felt the need to label one side as paragon and one as renegade when those labels don't really fit the choices presented to you.

[LineHolder]

Yes, give in to the dark side.

 

Yeah, the force around me gets disturbed the longer I stay on an internet forum.

 

*sigh*

 

*deep breath*

 

https://youtu.be/8lAKfUD169U?t=45s

[LineHolder]

It's neither a moral choice nor a tactical one.

 

You're asked to pick between two squad mates with no consequences other than the one you didn't pick dies. It's more an emotional choice than anything else, provided you actually care about either of them. If you don't care, then it's just an arbitrary choice.

 

Of course the whole thread I imagine more is asking if we should have more choices that aren't so clear cut in "This one is nice side and this one is jerk side", or the "choices" which have a correct answer like who to send as specialists on the suicide mission in ME2.

 

I like Legion's loyalty mission as a better example personally, other than the fact that they felt the need to label one side as paragon and one as renegade when those labels don't really fit the choices presented to you.

 

Will you go protect the nuke or save an STG team that was meant to be the diversion in the first place?

 

Less tactical than this choice is who you send with the STG team. That one's based more on emotion, if at all. I think it doesn't because you have to expend one of your squadmates that will directly have an impact on how you play the mission (if you tend to pick Kaidan or Ashley regularly).

[Revan Reborn]

pandering to the lowest common denominator seems to work for them and sell games but I stay loyal as I love the old Bio.

For sure. I can only hope they'll try to treat us with more respect with future titles. I can always be hopeful.

 

It's neither a moral choice nor a tactical one.

 

You're asked to pick between two squad mates with no consequences other than the one you didn't pick dies. It's more an emotional choice than anything else, provided you actually care about either of them. If you don't care, then it's just an arbitrary choice.

 

Of course the whole thread I imagine more is asking if we should have more choices that aren't so clear cut in "This one is nice side and this one is jerk side", or the "choices" which have a correct answer like who to send as specialists on the suicide mission in ME2.

 

I like Legion's loyalty mission as a better example personally, other than the fact that they felt the need to label one side as paragon and one as renegade when those labels don't really fit the choices presented to you.

The choice can be morally ambiguous, but it's more about tough decisions in which there isn't a right or wrong answer. That's why I brought up the Virmire decision, because you have to kill off one of your crew mates and there is no right or wrong answer.

 

With respect to Legion, are you referring whether to destroy the heretics or try to change them being the moral dilemma?

[Cyonan]

Will you go protect the nuke or save an STG team that was meant to be the diversion in the first place?

 

The bomb gets armed and is going to go off no matter what.

 

The fact that the bomb is going to go off is the reason why you can't save both of them. The choice is nothing more than which teammate do you want to save, even if we ignore meta knowledge as a player.

 

 

The choice can be morally ambiguous, but it's more about tough decisions in which there isn't a right or wrong answer. That's why I brought up the Virmire decision, because you have to kill off one of your crew mates and there is no right or wrong answer.

 

With respect to Legion, are you referring whether to destroy the heretics or try to change them being the moral dilemma?

 

That's the one I was talking about, yeah. It's basically a choice between brainwashing or destroying an entire group of beings. Neither are exactly great options, so there is no right here.

[Undead Han]

The player should be presented with some tough choices, whether they're tactical, moral, ect. I'd love it if Andromeda lived up to the ad slogan used in that teaser for the original Mass Effect.

 

That said, Bioware would need to be careful with the consequences for those decisions. The player character shouldn't be making decisions that can result in entire species or factions disappear from the game universe. Instead they should be written in a way that is similar to the Orzammar story arc in Dragon Age: Origins. Player choice has a massive impact on the future of the dwarven city-state, but neither choice results in dwarves going extinct. All choice & consequence should be written with the possibility of a sequel in mind, and you can't adequately carry over player choices if one choice deletes whole factions from the game universe, and another doesn't.

[LineHolder]

The bomb gets armed and is going to go off no matter what.

 

The fact that the bomb is going to go off is the reason why you can't save both of them. The choice is nothing more than which teammate do you want to save, even if we ignore meta knowledge as a player.

 

But the PC doesn't know that. All he knows is that Saren is coming in and there's a good chance that he might disarm it or displace it. A RPG requires some role playing from the player and this is how we can have 'moral or tactical' choices.

 

So there's a role playing reason for this being a tactical choice (holding Saren back from the nuke) and a gameplay one (the one that survives stays on your team).

[Revan Reborn]

The player should be presented with some tough choices, whether they're tactical, moral, ect. I'd love it if Andromeda lived up to the ad slogan used in that teaser for the original Mass Effect.

 

That said, Bioware would need to be careful with the consequences for those decisions. The player character shouldn't be making decisions that can result in entire species or factions disappear from the game universe. Instead they should be written in a way that is similar to the Orzammar story arc in Dragon Age: Origins. Player choice has a massive impact on the future of the dwarven city-state, but neither choice results in dwarves going extinct. All choice & consequence should be written with the possibility of a sequel in mind, and you can't adequately carry over player choices if one choice deletes whole factions from the game universe, and another doesn't.

I agree entirely. Not all of these dilemmas need to be massive and sweeping either. They can come in all sizes and shapes. It just allows for more educated decisions rather than "pick the blue or red option." It's more of a ripple effect in that these choices can accumulate and have a major impact later, such as a future game. I would just find that kind of approach to decisions to be far more interesting as well as engaging making me really think of what I want to do next.

[Cyonan]

But the PC doesn't know that. All he knows is that Saren is coming in and there's a good chance that he might disarm it or displace it. A RPG requires some role playing from the player and this is how we can have 'moral or tactical' choices.

 

So there's a role playing reason for this being a tactical choice (holding Saren back from the nuke) and a gameplay one (the one that survives stays on your team).

 

I know how role playing works, that's why I said "even if we ignore meta knowledge as a player" =P

 

We actually don't know that Saren is coming in. We know that a bunch of Geth got dropped off at the bomb site and the bomb has been activated on a short timer to ensure that it goes off.

 

At that point Shep has no real reason to think that the bomb has any reasonable chance of being stopped, considering that the soldiers that armed the bomb are still alive and defending it(even if they're going to get overwhelmed eventually).

[Original Mako]

The reason the Virmire choice was meaningful was because you couldn't do both (though some might argue it was unrealistic to not be able to try). Cut-scene induced time sensitivity made it what it was. Time needs to be a "resource" in the series, otherwise you can "just save everybody" like always. I really felt they blew this opportunity with the Reaper invasion in ME3.

 

Various games handle "time as a resource" in different ways, but ME almost not at all. I know completionist cry-babies will whine about not being able to collect all their Pokemons and whathaveyous, so maybe the amount of time could be determined by difficulty level or an option setting.

 

The Paragon/Renegade options were lame because they worked too well, so you would just ALWAYS choose them if they were available. Sometimes, being enough of a nice guy or enough of a jerk shouldn't help you get out of a situation. It'd be nice if things like class or party composition mattered more instead. Like how you needed a tech expert to crawl through the shaft of the Collector Base in ME2 or someone would eat it.

[LineHolder]

We actually don't know that Saren is coming in. We know that a bunch of Geth got dropped off at the bomb site and the bomb has been activated on a short timer to ensure that it goes off.

 

At that point Shep has no real reason to think that the bomb has any reasonable chance of being stopped, considering that the soldiers that armed the bomb are still alive and defending it(even if they're going to get overwhelmed eventually).

 

Yes, it could be stopped, it might not be. There's not enough info apart from one line from one character. This is the first time the PC has engaged in a prolonged struggle with the reclusive Geth, moments ago he just talked with a Reaper claiming responsibility for the extinction of the Protheans and witnessed quite a few cases of indoctrinated agents. Anything could be possible.

 

His priority has to be the nuke. If it also saves a squad member in the process, all the better.

[rapscallioness]

I'm not trying to start a flame war, but one of the toughest decisions I've ever had to make in a game was in TW3 Bloody Baron quest. I...I just..I didn't know either way. Even though I had read some in universe books about some.. strange things. And then it was what have I unleashed, or conversely what have I done?

 

It wasn't game universe changing like some other choices, yet it was one that had the most impact for me. It still haunts me. Neither choice was "right", and it did help to be informed but even then...those consequencesss.

 

If BW puts a just a couple of those in ME:A, oh god.