158 réponses à ce sujet

[Giantdeathrobot]

 

 

Even then, Roche has to save Geralt from getting killed by Radovid's men and it's Phillipa who kills Radovid.

During the victory celebration Dijkstra tries to kill Roche and Thaler and you can either help or walk away.

 

 

 

That's exactly what I meant. Whenever Djikstra wins and becomes King of Redania, with dominion over the North, or Roche's plan works and either Ciri or old Emhyr get to control the entire Continent, is down to whoever Geralt supports this one time because he's such a decisively good fighter. The situation is engineered wholecloth to enable the White Wolf to decide the history of the Continent for (probably) centuries to come, complete with Djikstar the spymaster suddenly deciding he should grab an axe and go toe to toe with two special forces operatives and one of the best swordsmen in the setting.

 

I'm not sure how this isn't giving the player massive empowerement.

[AlanC9]

Funny saying this on a thread where everyone is complaining about how other players use the Renegade/Paragon system. I merely pointed out that both systems can be exploited so trading one for the other is kind of pointless. They both need some fine tuning.

Ah, that makes sense. I didn't realize that exploitation was supposed to be the problem with P/R. And caring about how other players use P/R is a waste of time too. Exploitation can be an issue, but only if the game keeps handing me tools to do the exploiting, like DA:O's awful gift system.

Also, my complaint about DA's system is that I would rather be surprised and have the disapproval/approval spring up during a discussion. Not have it pop up on my screen every time I so much as breathe. If I want their opinion I'll ask for it.

Well, yeah, it'd be nicer to do that in dialogue. How many scenes would you cut to free up that wordcount? It'd be workable if there were only a very few decisions. ME3 manages this, for instance.

[rapscallioness]

Then have them do it (dialogue reactions) for a few scenes and put an approval meter in the characterization/upgrade menus. I do not want to see the credits rolling of approval/disapproval for all those moments. It distracts from the moment and breaks immersion.

 

I really don't like it in DAI. I want them to stop doing that. It's annoying as heck.

 

edit

[rapscallioness]

As far as OP, yes I agree.

 

For me, the best recipe for game hero/journey is mud-struggle-payoff.

[Hazegurl]

That's exactly what I meant. Whenever Djikstra wins and becomes King of Redania, with dominion over the North, or Roche's plan works and either Ciri or old Emhyr get to control the entire Continent, is down to whoever Geralt supports this one time because he's such a decisively good fighter. The situation is engineered wholecloth to enable the White Wolf to decide the history of the Continent for (probably) centuries to come, complete with Djikstar the spymaster suddenly deciding he should grab an axe and go toe to toe with two special forces operatives and one of the best swordsmen in the setting.

 

I'm not sure how this isn't giving the player massive empowerement.

That is true, but not to the extent you are suggesting.  Geralt doesn't directly influence anything. He takes Ciri to see her father and it's he who convinces Ciri to become Empress even if you don't like it. She doesn't even tell Geralt until the end of the game after she had already decided to take the position. The player has no way of knowing what will happen from this without metagaming.

 

As for Dijkstra, well Geralt steps in of his own free will and naturally his men aren't gonna beat the White Wolf. It's not like Thaler and Roche were begging Geralt to be on their team.  But at the same time, you can't expect them to tell Geralt to split. I know I wouldn't. Not even Dijkstra asked Geralt to join him. He simply told Geralt to leave. I agree it was stupid for him to try to fight. He probably should have tried to assassinate them from the shadows but with as good of an investigator as Thaler is I'm not sure how he would be able to pull that off. An ambush seems like the only route that has some chance of success. 

 

I just don't see how that's massive levels of empowerment that you are suggesting. I agree that it is player empowerment but not to the degree of  a non human/non noble deciding who will be the King or Queen of a nation during a landsmeet or conversing with Gods and solving ancient conspiracies.  Most of Geralt's choices are private and has to do more with what his friends and loved ones are up to moreso than anything he is directly involved in.  Saying Geralt is the direct influencer is like saying Geralt was the leader of the Underground railroad for Witches in Novigrad just because he helped Triss out once or twice.

[Hazegurl]

Ah, that makes sense. I didn't realize that exploitation was supposed to be the problem with P/R. And caring about how other players use P/R is a waste of time too. Exploitation can be an issue, but only if the game keeps handing me tools to do the exploiting, like DA:O's awful gift system.

Well, yeah, it'd be nicer to do that in dialogue. How many scenes would you cut to free up that wordcount? It'd be workable if there were only a very few decisions. ME3 manages this, for instance.

Some people complain that P/R limits their roleplay because they feel forced into choosing R or P.  But most of the complaints I've come across throughout the years have been related to how other people use it and I agree that it is pointless to focus on how others play the game. My only issue with the system is that there isn't a fair balance of rewards and consequences. Paragon gets the vast majority of rewards and content.

 

I think we could still have a fair amount of decisions and still hear how the companions feel about it. DAO did it by having the companions comment on the choices made. I really liked that the most. That and a surprise "I'm fed up with you"(Low approval) or "You're pretty cool" (High approval) cut scene that happens without even clicking on them, like when you walk into a room or something would be nice.

 

Then have them do it (dialogue reactions) for a few scenes and put an approval meter in the characterization/upgrade menus. I do not want to see the credits rolling of approval/disapproval for all those moments. It distracts from the moment and breaks immersion.

 

I really don't like it in DAI. I want them to stop doing that. It's annoying as heck.

 

 

Right, that would work for me too. Put a meter in the menu or something.  The approval/disapproval notifications annoyed me so much I wanted to turn them off. 

[UpUpAway]

This is remarkably similar to one of Sylvius the Mad's arguments: RPGs aren't games.

 

Are you saying RPG's aren't games... because that's not what I'm saying.  I'm saying there is an inherent problem with role-playing within games related to a dichotomous set of player expectations (Sylvius represents the camp that just wants role-playing... and to heck with the game; but there is also a camp that wants the game and to heck with the role-playing).  It's a situation that puts the game making company inherently in the middle between a rock and a hard place.  Because an RPG that walks the divide between the two camps can appeal to both... that's where the company is going to want to "write" it.

 

The ME trilogy is undeniably a game with role-playing elements.  It is also a highly enjoyable game and it did very well for sales.  It also is one of the most complained about games out there in the marketplace.  The fact still is that the P/R system (as it evolved in ME3 in particular) is not as inflexible nor as one sided as every one makes out.  Some of the scenarios don't play out well, but the system overall works OK in ME3.

 

It seems to me that what people are asking for here boils down to wanting "positive" rewards for renegade behavior and "positive" rewards for paragon behavior at the same time.  That's not realism either, IMO.  They are also asking for "realistic" role-playing, which is an oxymoron in itself... since we're talking about a sci-fi universe where player expectations are that they can bang aliens and throw out biotic charges, etc.

 

So, as I mentioned on other threads... ME:A really doesn't have a snowball's chance of satisfying people who are so adamantly stuck in one camp or the other.  People like me who will compromise a little from both sides are the ones more likely to be happy with this game... the question remains which groups are in the majority (i.e. where BioWare can make the most sales).

[vbibbi]

That's exactly what I meant. Whenever Djikstra wins and becomes King of Redania, with dominion over the North, or Roche's plan works and either Ciri or old Emhyr get to control the entire Continent, is down to whoever Geralt supports this one time because he's such a decisively good fighter. The situation is engineered wholecloth to enable the White Wolf to decide the history of the Continent for (probably) centuries to come, complete with Djikstar the spymaster suddenly deciding he should grab an axe and go toe to toe with two special forces operatives and one of the best swordsmen in the setting.

 

I'm not sure how this isn't giving the player massive empowerement.

It is player empowerment the same way that any RPG allows for player choices to have diverging consequences, but I do think the examples given are better handled than many PC power fantasies. In none of these situations is Geralt actually seeking out the work or trying to change things; all consequences are an inadvertent side effect of whatever mess he's gotten himself involved in. We could say it's unlikely that he would be involved in so many world-changing events, but when many of his employers are politicians, it makes sense that there will be some large scale results to his jobs.

 

The game sets it up so that Geralt's choices have consequences, but he's reacting to NPCs rather than actively seeking these choices. That seems more realistic to me, and provides non-PCs agency.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Let's not go crazy with that one. We did, after all, basically just come out of a game where Bioware forced us to more or less side with the Space Nazis.

Work with, not side with. Important difference.

And I already question whether the ME games are RPGs anyway.

[Hazegurl]

 

It seems to me that what people are asking for here boils down to wanting "positive" rewards for renegade behavior and "positive" rewards for paragon behavior at the same time.  That's not realism either, IMO.

I think what most are asking for is for rewards and consequences to not be tied to a morality system where selecting "good" aka Paragon almost always leads to the best results and higher content.  A single mission doesn't have to have positive results for both paths.  Let the player make a bad decision that results in a negative outcome. But don't always let the negative outcomes be tied to one path. 

[UpUpAway]

I think what most are asking for is for rewards and consequences to not be tied to a morality system where selecting "good" aka Paragon almost always leads to the best results and higher content.  A single mission doesn't have to have positive results for both paths.  Let the player make a bad decision that results in a negative outcome. But don't always let the negative outcomes be tied to one path. 

 

The negative outcomes are not always tied to the Renegade path since the points where the P/R points are assigned usually involves dialogue choices... and, at those points in the game, there is usually a way to get the positive outcome using renegade dialogue choice (as illustrated in my previous post). 

 

You can also get negative results by choosing paragon options (i.e. some people definitely feel that curing the genophage is a negative consequence).  You can, BTW, still cure the genephage by selecting only renegade dialogue choices throughout Priority: Tuchanka... all you have to do is not invoke the renegade interrupt and not shoot Mordin in the back.

 

The P/R system is not as B&W nor as one-sided as people generally put forth here.

[Giantdeathrobot]

It is player empowerment the same way that any RPG allows for player choices to have diverging consequences, but I do think the examples given are better handled than many PC power fantasies. In none of these situations is Geralt actually seeking out the work or trying to change things; all consequences are an inadvertent side effect of whatever mess he's gotten himself involved in. We could say it's unlikely that he would be involved in so many world-changing events, but when many of his employers are politicians, it makes sense that there will be some large scale results to his jobs.

 

The game sets it up so that Geralt's choices have consequences, but he's reacting to NPCs rather than actively seeking these choices. That seems more realistic to me, and provides non-PCs agency.

 

I get you, but I'm not sure Geralt stumbling into conveniently world-changing events is any better than the Inquisitor being the right wo/man in the wrong place and then seeking out ways to do their job, except as window dressing. As far as I see it, The Witcher is clearly a power fantasy; not as much the the most egregious examples such as Bethesda games, but about as much as any Bioware game. Besides, even if Geralt isn't a leader, there are times he might as well be, such as when he is instrumental to the Mage underground's success and Triss defers to him in a matter of great importance to the organization.

 

And that's not a bad thing. It's how RPGs work. No one wants to play as Soldier no. 14957 as he marches all day, fights people once a month, and dies in a ditch in the Fourth Battle of Nowhere, Alaska. Unless you play games like This War of Mine, I guess, where depowering the player for gameplay and reality's sake is the point.

 

Indeed, Dragon Age 2 might be a cautionary tale on the subject. It's one of those RPGs that empowers players the least. The results are known. 

[Hazegurl]

The negative outcomes are not always tied to the Renegade path since the points where the P/R points are assigned usually involves dialogue choices... and, at those points in the game, there is usually a way to get the positive outcome using renegade dialogue choice (as illustrated in my previous post). 

 

You can also get negative results by choosing paragon options (i.e. some people definitely feel that curing the genophage is a negative consequence).  You can, BTW, still cure the genephage by selecting only renegade dialogue choices throughout Priority: Tuchanka... all you have to do is not invoke the renegade interrupt and not shoot Mordin in the back.

 

The P/R system is not as B&W nor as one-sided as people generally put forth here.

Almost always negative results not always negative. And most paragon players choose to cure the Genophage because they truly believe its the right call and the game pretty much never let's them face any sort of backlash from choosing it. As a matter of fact, most would never get Wreav as King  and Eve dead in their playthroughs to even get the negative outcome from curing the Genophage, which is a power mad Krogan ruler with no one to keep him in check.  The personal opinion of other players is not the same.  And not shooting Mordin and allowing him to cure the Genophage is the Paragon choice regardless of what you selected previously. Except for if Wrex and Eve are dead. And I actually think they switched it and made it a renegade choice...I'm not sure so don't hold me to that.  What I do remember is that freeing the "evil" Rachni Queen in ME3 was suddenly a Renegade choice while freeing the "good" Rachni Queen again in ME3 was Paragon. The devs purposefully switched it up because heaven forbid if the Paragon player makes a bad call by freeing the wrong Queen.

 

What I mean by facing negative consequences for a Paragon choice would be to cure the Genophage with Wrex and Eve alive and still have it blow up in the player's face that selecting that option leads to some bad things happening which could be prevented if the player had made the renegade choice.  I usually play Renegade with some Paragon sprinkled about so I know it can be tweaked during a playthrough, I'm never purely either side. However, you must almost always eventually go Paragon with a decision to get extra content or a much better result from your actions.

 

IMO, a good example of good intentions gone wrong is the Orzamarr ruler choice in DAO. Behlan is portrayed as a scumbag and you feel like you're making a crappy choice if you support him. However, he is the best choice to rule while Harrowmont, who was portrayed as reasonable and good, turns out to be a crappy choice.

[UpUpAway]

Almost always negative results not always negative. And most paragon players choose to cure the Genophage because they truly believe its the right call and the game pretty much never let's them face any sort of backlash from choosing it. As a matter of fact, most would never get Wreav as King  and Eve dead in their playthroughs to even get the negative outcome from curing the Genophage, which is a power mad Krogan ruler with no one to keep him in check.  The personal opinion of other players is not the same.  And not shooting Mordin and allowing him to cure the Genophage is the Paragon choice regardless of what you selected previously. Except for if Wrex and Eve are dead. And I actually think they switched it and made it a renegade choice...I'm not sure so don't hold me to that.  What I do remember is that freeing the "evil" Rachni Queen in ME3 was suddenly a Renegade choice while freeing the "good" Rachni Queen again in ME3 was Paragon. The devs purposefully switched it up because heaven forbid if the Paragon player makes a bad call by freeing the wrong Queen.

 

What I mean by facing negative consequences for a Paragon choice would be to cure the Genophage with Wrex and Eve alive and still have it blow up in the player's face that selecting that option leads to some bad things happening which could be prevented if the player had made the renegade choice.  I usually play Renegade with some Paragon sprinkled about so I know it can be tweaked during a playthrough, I'm never purely either side. However, you must almost always eventually go Paragon with a decision to get extra content or a much better result from your actions.

 

IMO, a good example of good intentions gone wrong is the Orzamarr ruler choice in DAO. Behlan is portrayed as a scumbag and you feel like you're making a crappy choice if you support him. However, he is the best choice to rule while Harrowmont, who was portrayed as reasonable and good, turns out to be a crappy choice.

 

According to some, curing the genophage does lead to a very negative consequence... It leads to the Krogan overpopulating the galaxy and another inevitable Krogran rebellion (regardless of Wrex and Eve).  It's just that the ending of the game was too immediate for that consequence to play out within that game.

 

Let's bring in a big decision from ME2.  If you opted to go get the Reaper IFF immediately after TIM tells you about it; you put yourself in a situation where later on, if you make the paragon choice to rescue your crew (by going through the Omega 4 relay right after they are abducted), you will likely lose squad mates because your ship is likely not fully upgraded at that point nor are all your crew (or even most of them) loyal yet.

[shodiswe]

I think flaws should be based on player choice and preferences. Maybe drinking too much makes you a drunk that sometiems get caught at a bad moment and puts you at a dissadvantage. Or other interests that distracts you.

 

I'm not a fan of hardcoded flaws. I could accept a "handicaped" protagonist and play with that in mind, but I don't think that would add too much to this type of story. You wouldn't be likely to send someone with a dissability to explore rough and dangerous terrain, unless you had damn good reasons.

 

It could be interesting is a flaw gave you a leg up in interaction with certain people, perhaps with similar flaws. 

 

I could see background choices affecting flaws and advantages. 

 

Anyway, it could be interesting to play slightly different characters, with somewhat different experiences.

Don't expect huge differences though, it wouldn't be possible to accomodate too much story branching do to it or the story itself will get short and suffer. 

[vbibbi]

I get you, but I'm not sure Geralt stumbling into conveniently world-changing events is any better than the Inquisitor being the right wo/man in the wrong place and then seeking out ways to do their job, except as window dressing. As far as I see it, The Witcher is clearly a power fantasy; not as much the the most egregious examples such as Bethesda games, but about as much as any Bioware game. Besides, even if Geralt isn't a leader, there are times he might as well be, such as when he is instrumental to the Mage underground's success and Triss defers to him in a matter of great importance to the organization.

 

And that's not a bad thing. It's how RPGs work. No one wants to play as Soldier no. 14957 as he marches all day, fights people once a month, and dies in a ditch in the Fourth Battle of Nowhere, Alaska. Unless you play games like This War of Mine, I guess, where depowering the player for gameplay and reality's sake is the point.

 

Indeed, Dragon Age 2 might be a cautionary tale on the subject. It's one of those RPGs that empowers players the least. The results are known. 

 

Agreed, TW3 is still power fantasy. I just think it's better hidden within the game. We're not supposed to be a leader and so many of our actions are just reacting to jobs given by NPCs in power.

 

While DA2 was too far in the wrong direction, I still appreciate that Bio went against the grain with it. The narrative issues, independent of short development time, show that it is really hard to make an RPG where the player's agency isn't world-changing. I don't think it can't be done well, it's just a radical idea and so not many people have tried and perfected this idea yet.

 

For me personally, this is also where DAI was weak. I think it was a mistake to have the PC end up as the leader of this large organization, because that's a level of power fantasy that is almost impossible to implement realistically and satisfyingly. Bioware works best when just dealing with characters in a smaller scale. The Inquisitor doesn't see most of the work that goes into the Inquisition's strategy, that's all the advisors. I think the leader of the Inquisition should be proactive and try to bring the battle to the enemy rather than wait for clues to fall into their lap. But being proactive is very difficult in RPGs, because we're used to the quest structure where an NPC tells us what to do and we do it. There's no easy way to investigate leads and then choose a course of action.

 

Almost always negative results not always negative. And most paragon players choose to cure the Genophage because they truly believe its the right call and the game pretty much never let's them face any sort of backlash from choosing it. As a matter of fact, most would never get Wreav as King  and Eve dead in their playthroughs to even get the negative outcome from curing the Genophage, which is a power mad Krogan ruler with no one to keep him in check.  The personal opinion of other players is not the same.  And not shooting Mordin and allowing him to cure the Genophage is the Paragon choice regardless of what you selected previously. Except for if Wrex and Eve are dead. And I actually think they switched it and made it a renegade choice...I'm not sure so don't hold me to that.  What I do remember is that freeing the "evil" Rachni Queen in ME3 was suddenly a Renegade choice while freeing the "good" Rachni Queen again in ME3 was Paragon. The devs purposefully switched it up because heaven forbid if the Paragon player makes a bad call by freeing the wrong Queen.

 

What I mean by facing negative consequences for a Paragon choice would be to cure the Genophage with Wrex and Eve alive and still have it blow up in the player's face that selecting that option leads to some bad things happening which could be prevented if the player had made the renegade choice.  I usually play Renegade with some Paragon sprinkled about so I know it can be tweaked during a playthrough, I'm never purely either side. However, you must almost always eventually go Paragon with a decision to get extra content or a much better result from your actions.

 

IMO, a good example of good intentions gone wrong is the Orzamarr ruler choice in DAO. Behlan is portrayed as a scumbag and you feel like you're making a crappy choice if you support him. However, he is the best choice to rule while Harrowmont, who was portrayed as reasonable and good, turns out to be a crappy choice.

Yeah I really just want the "good" outcomes to be more evenly divided between choices if we're keeping the paragon/renegade system. I would be okay with removing the system, anyway, maybe just using more of the reputation system from ME3.

 

Honestly, one of my biggest peeves is just that a lot of the paragon choices are overly naive or optimistic yet rarely come back to bite us later. Really? That many people in the galaxy are willing to be altruistic or trust in allies who had until just now been enemies for decades?

[Hazegurl]

According to some, curing the genophage does lead to a very negative consequence... It leads to the Krogan overpopulating the galaxy and another inevitable Krogran rebellion (regardless of Wrex and Eve).  It's just that the ending of the game was too immediate for that consequence to play out within that game.

Yes but that is player opinions which is totally irrelevant and I agree that the game ends before facing such consequence. I'm 100% for sabotaging the Genophage for those very reasons. However, according to the game world Shepard made the right call, did something legendary, and is generally fawned over for that choice.  Wrex and Eve continue to prove to Shepard that they made the right call by seeking diplomatic solutions to their problems.  Even the ending slides are all about how that choice was the good one.

 

What would have made sabotaging the Genophage questionable is if Wrex threatens the council and starts making preparations to use a Krogan force to steal a planet for his people to live on.  Or an ending slide about the troubles the other races are having with a possible future Krogan uprising.

 

Yeah I really just want the "good" outcomes to be more evenly divided between choices if we're keeping the paragon/renegade system. I would be okay with removing the system, anyway, maybe just using more of the reputation system from ME3.

 

Honestly, one of my biggest peeves is just that a lot of the paragon choices are overly naive or optimistic yet rarely come back to bite us later. Really? That many people in the galaxy are willing to be altruistic or trust in allies who had until just now been enemies for decades?

 

Right, I don't mind the P/R system, it just needs some work and I think a simple fix would be to balance out the reward and consequences. I do like the rep system as well. 

 

I agree, Paragon Shepard can get away with a lot to the point of utter ridiculousness.  ie. Zaeed is still willing to work with him after screwing up his chance at revenge that he'd wanted for over twenty freaking years. You don't spend twenty years dreaming about killing a man only to let it go because someone Paragons you into doing it. 

[Ieldra]

Regarding the topic:

 

I agree it gets tiresome to have NPCs always tell you how great you are. At the same time, Bioware's latest games deny me the kind of gratification I'm looking for, as far as it doesn't come from simply doing stuff in the game. Here are my two sides of this coin:

 

(1) The gratification that exists...

....for me, lies mostly in simply doing stuff in the game. How I do things in the game depends on how I envision my characters, which goes into the decisions they make in the games. Whether or not I'm applauded for a decision, my characters will usually stand by them because they're the best decisions from their point of view. In fact, these decisions would feel much more authentic and believable as part of a story if not everyone was always happy about how I do things, because that's just not plausible. A reaction somewhere between "It's not how I'd have done it, but you're the boss" and "I can't support this. I'm leaving." should be possible in addition to the agreeable options. 

Would this be enough? Almost. It could be, if Bioware wasn't so determined to make you lose something important in the end...

 

(2) The gratification almost always denied me...

...would lie in acquiring something for myself (speaking for my character of course) in the course of the story, that I can take with me if I leave the story at its end. Bioware's characters often acquire some special trait, power, knowledge or item(s) in order to complete their mission. If that's taken away at the end (speaking only for myself), it nullifies all gratification I may have had from simply doing stuff in the game. Had I not acquired that "something special", that would be fine, but having it, and, at the end, being denied it as if you were only a tool of fate, to be discarded when your job is done, that's insulting.  

 

Some examples:

 

In the ME trilogy, Shepard acquires the Cipher, which enables him to understand Prothean communication, and unique cybernetic upgrades that turn him into a kind of super-soldier.

 

In Dragon Age: Origins, the Warden acquires unique Warden powers (granted, they're as much a curse as a boon, but still) and the fiefdom of Amaranthine.

 

In Dragon Age 2: Hawke acquires a nice estate in Kirkwall, the ancestral home of the distaff side of his family.

 

In Dragon Age Inquisition, the Inquisitor acquires political power and a magical power that enables them to close rifts and walk into the Fade.

 

I observe that none of these protagonists is allowed to keep anything of all that (some lose it by dying), except that DAO's Warden stays a Warden. People telling me how great I am doesn't mean much in the first place, but in the face of this it's like an insult of the story.

 

Meanwhile, the kind of gratification I'd like to see more often is exemplified by DAO's Witch Hunt story arc for a Warden who came to love Morrigan and followed her through the eluvian, and by later hearing he's looking for a cure for the Taint. Why? Because rather than denying you what you acquired in the course of the story, it's enhanced and used to create an interesting future, and you're in the company of another person who's special in her own way. In short, I don't need everyone's regard, I don't need political power unless I envisioned a character invested in such a thing, I'm quite ok with becoming anonymous again in the end. What I don't want is to become normal again in the end. Give me that, and everything else doesn't matter much in terms of gratification. Deny me that, and everything else doesn't matter much either.

[vbibbi]

According to some, curing the genophage does lead to a very negative consequence... It leads to the Krogan overpopulating the galaxy and another inevitable Krogran rebellion (regardless of Wrex and Eve).  It's just that the ending of the game was too immediate for that consequence to play out within that game.

I agree. However, continuing the theme of paragon being the "right" way of doing things, I think Bioware as a company sees the paragon choices as the right ones. It's up to interpretation but I think the extended cut epilogue slides show curing the genophage as the correct path, just as the synthesis ending is shown as the best option. The slides show happy krogan with babies, quarians empowered by geth systems in their suits, etc. There is no mention of impending conflict or potential issues.

 

The DAO epilogue slides included potential conflicts that were brewing, so if ME3 really wanted to show krogan expansion as a negative, I think there would have been mention of it. Of course, maybe after the reaction to the original endings they just made all epilogues as positive as possible to avoid further backlash.

[UpUpAway]

Yes but that is player opinions which is totally irrelevant and I agree that the game ends before facing such consequence. I'm 100% for sabotaging the Genophage for those very reasons. However, according to the game world Shepard made the right call, did something legendary, and is generally fawned over for that choice.  Wrex and Eve continue to prove to Shepard that they made the right call by seeking diplomatic solutions to their problems.  Even the ending slides are all about how that choice was the good one.

 

What would have made sabotaging the Genophage questionable is if Wrex threatens the council and starts making preparations to use a Krogan force to steal a planet for his people to live on.  Or an ending slide about the troubles the other races are having with a possible future Krogan uprising.

 

Well, you want Bioware then to say outright that curing the genophage was a wrong choice in all cases... but overall, it's still a debatable thing.  Is it "right" to sterilize genetically handicapped persons in our society just because they have the potential to "breed" as rapidly as the non-genetically handicapped persons?  (because that's the question I actually feel is being asked by the genophage scenario)... and would you really want BioWare to weight in so definitively on such a morally sensitive situation IRL... i.e. to effectively say "Yes, it's right?"  By setting it up the way they did (with Wrex hinting that he would want a new colony in the truck, the issue is merely left open.  The neither the negative nor the positive consequence is completely locked out.  If they showed the negative, the positive gets completely locked out.

[UpUpAway]

I agree. However, continuing the theme of paragon being the "right" way of doing things, I think Bioware as a company sees the paragon choices as the right ones. It's up to interpretation but I think the extended cut epilogue slides show curing the genophage as the correct path, just as the synthesis ending is shown as the best option. The slides show happy krogan with babies, quarians empowered by geth systems in their suits, etc. There is no mention of impending conflict or potential issues.

 

The DAO epilogue slides included potential conflicts that were brewing, so if ME3 really wanted to show krogan expansion as a negative, I think there would have been mention of it. Of course, maybe after the reaction to the original endings they just made all epilogues as positive as possible to avoid further backlash.

 

I agree - BioWare is inevitably going to insert a slant that errs towards "Paragon" is "right" because that is what mainstream society generally believes.  They have done it in such a way, with the genophage at least, that the potential negative consequences can still be imagined... but the moment they affirm the negative consequences of such mainstream ideas... they lock out the "paragon" and risk alienating the mainstream of Western society.  I don't know of any commercial company that should really be risking that much.

[Hazegurl]

Well, you want Bioware then to say outright that curing the genophage was a wrong choice in all cases... but overall, it's still a debatable thing.  Is it "right" to sterilize genetically handicapped persons in our society just because they have the potential to "breed" as rapidly as the non-genetically handicapped persons?  (because that's the question I actually feel is being asked by the genophage scenario)... and would you really want BioWare to weight in so definitively on such a morally sensitive situation IRL... i.e. to effectively say "Yes, it's right?"  By setting it up the way they did (with Wrex hinting that he would want a new colony in the truck, the issue is merely left open.  The neither the negative nor the positive consequence is completely locked out.  If they showed the negative, the positive gets completely locked out.

No, I don't want them to outright say it. I want the story to show that the Paragon choice isn't always the absolute correct choice for nearly every decision path. Sure it's debatable, like I said I am 100% for sabotaging the genophage no matter what the game shows.  But just because that is my opinion doesn't mean the game has proven me right. What the game however does go out of its way to show us is that there are zero consequences for making that choice and all the negatives are just your imagination. Sure you could argue that the slides aren't 100% true or that no one knows what will happen in the far future.  But it doesn't change the fact that the game currently shows that it is the correct choice and the renegade reasons for sabotaging it are left up to imagination.

 

As for IRL morals. If BW allows IRL sensibilities to rule their stories then that is a major problem because the writer should never be hindered by IRL opinions. I just don't believe that should be the case. If a person can't tell the difference between fiction and real life, then they have issues a video game can't solve.  BW most certainly can weigh in on an issue they've created for their own world and tale, otherwise what is the point in creating the issue for the story?  It's better to just not write it than to do a half-assed job of it out of fear of backlash.

 

Showing some negative sides to a decision does not automatically lock out the positives. It shows that there are pros and cons to a choice made and the individual has to decide if they are willing to push forward and accept them. 

[Lebanese Dude]

Now I'm not one to talk because I'm the type that aligns REALLY well with the Paragon ideologies so I almost always go full on Paragon and can't even manage to play Renegade without quitting.

 

...but if you're always going Paragon or Renegade then obviously your character is going to be somewhat one-dimensional relative to someone who goes hybrid. You are allowed to inject your own flaws any time you wish.

 

Think of a Paragon Shepard who hates women because an ex-girlfriend left him traumatized. Proceed to be a douche with all female (/Asari) characters in the game.

On a more serious note, you can be a Renegade who has a soft spot for his friends.... Actually this is probably the only Renegade hybrid I managed to play without wincing.

[Jedi Comedian]

I don't wanna be a hero nor a savior, I just wanna do what I want.

[Iakus]

Now I'm not one to talk because I'm the type that aligns REALLY well with the Paragon ideologies so I almost always go full on Paragon and can't even manage to play Renegade without quitting.

 

...but if you're always going Paragon or Renegade then obviously your character is going to be somewhat one-dimensional relative to someone who goes hybrid. You are allowed to inject your own flaws any time you wish.

 

Think of a Paragon Shepard who hates women because an ex-girlfriend left him traumatized. Proceed to be a douche with all female (/Asari) characters in the game.

On a more serious note, you can be a Renegade who has a soft spot for his friends.... Actually this is probably the hybrid I managed to play without wincing.

I like playing Paragon too.

 

Though that doesn't mean I don't want to play a Knight In Sour Armor sometimes too