87 réponses à ce sujet

[Sylvius the Mad]

All well and good for breakfast. But enslaving the organic races to avoid killing the biggest threat to them was Sovereigns plan.

Sovereign's plan contained those elements, yes, but that doesn't give Sovereign a monopoly on those elements.

[Sylvius the Mad]

That's perfectly fine for your playthrough but that causes problems when you talk to other people outside the game in the real world. You took my statement made from one perspective and whine that it doesn't work from your different perspective.

Then I misunderstood.

I'm indifferent to the ooc perspective.

That's totally false. There are almost never guarantees like that. Remember the conversation about the Collector Cruiser? I made the reasonable conclusion that there was only one, which you seemed to agree with. It was reasonable based on the evidence, but it was not guaranteed to be true.

I was agreeing that the conclusion that there were many, which was not supported by the evidence, was unreasonable. You opposed that conclusion (even though in conformed to facts revealed later), and I agreed with you.

As you say, the evidence rarely guarantees a conclusion. As such, drawing a conclusion is rarely a good idea.

That's easy to say when you're not one of the eggs and are the one who gets to eat the omelet.

And I am, so that's settled.

[Natureguy85]

Then I misunderstood.

I'm indifferent to the ooc perspective.

 

I'm aware of that. I use both because while I do enjoy role playing, I'm also a lover, consumer, and amateur editor of fiction.

[Sylvius the Mad]

I'm aware of that. I use both because while I do enjoy role playing, I'm also a lover, consumer, and amateur editor of fiction.

I also enjoy fiction.

But roleplaying, to me, more closely resembles the writing of fiction than the reading of fiction.

[Natureguy85]

I also enjoy fiction.

But roleplaying, to me, more closely resembles the writing of fiction than the reading of fiction.

 

That sounds correct, but a game like Mass Effect has both, though it leans more on the "reading." The writing part is largely choosing among predetermined paths. Though you have some room to assign motivations to certain actions.

[Dabrikishaw]

Mass Effect 2 was the only time I felt Paragon/Renegade was restricting.

[Sylvius the Mad]

That sounds correct, but a game like Mass Effect has both, though it leans more on the "reading." The writing part is largely choosing among predetermined paths. Though you have some room to assign motivations to certain actions.

I don't think a game can do both. Either it grants the player control over the protagonist's mental state or it doesn't.

[Dr. Rush]

Outdated? The morality system in ME is one of the weakest components of the whole game. Even the game developers themselves couldn't give you an objective and universal definition of what Paragon and Renegade mean.

 

The morality system in ME:A should be completely rebuilt from scratch. Paragon/Renegade is an incredibly shallow system that actively teaches gamers how NOT to roleplay. It teaches bad habits in decision making, rather than roleplaying a character, they immediately meta-game for optimal consequences. 

 

All of morality, choices and consequences in the ME series need to be redesigned, starting with the Paragon/Renegade system. 

 

I doubt any of that will happen.

[shodiswe]

The Paragon Renegade meter represents how a character tends to treat people and what reputation they have built up. Characters in game will expect them to behave according to the established reputation.

 

It will most likely fail at catching individual quirks like being Racist against a special Species or AI's, meaning if the player hates AI or Krogans, then the system isn't likely to believe or expect that the player actually wants to torture and murder them and the player might not get the chance to live out their dreams if the system doesn't allow such behaviour out of a Paragon.

 

People can be more complicated than this system allows for. Some people can be very generous and helpful and gentle when among their peers, but ruthless and brutal towards people they don't like quite as much.

[Natureguy85]

I don't think a game can do both. Either it grants the player control over the protagonist's mental state or it doesn't.

 

Games do both already. They may give a character motivation or thought on one subject but not another. Or they give limited control, by allowing you to choose from predetermined options. I'm aware you want absolute control over all things though.

 

 

 

 It teaches bad habits in decision making, rather than roleplaying a character, they immediately meta-game for optimal consequences. 

 

This is the big problem with any such system. People don't tend to like them, but hidden systems help with this. Metro did a decent job as the "morality points" tied into the narrative.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Games do both already. They may give a character motivation or thought on one subject but not another. Or they give limited control, by allowing you to choose from predetermined options. I'm aware you want absolute control over all things though.

We're always going to be choosing from predetermined options, but the nature of those options matter.

We should not get to choose what path the story takes, for example. That's too much control.

We should get total control, though, over our character's motives and reasoning.

There's no other way to make decisions from an in-character perspective. If we're not permitted perfect knowledge of our character's thoughts, then we can't actually see that character's perspective. And choosing where the story will go introduces perverse incentives in the form of metagame concerns.

[Odintius]

I always thought this feature should been a choice at character creation as well as for example sole survivor option. This way they could add variety of scripts between the two giving more dialogue options to chose from without the worry having to chose a dialogue that gives paragon when you didn't want it if going renegade for example just my two cents IMO.

[They call me a SpaceCowboy]

The intent of the writer and the intent of the scenes. They are there to convey information, not only to the character, but also to the player, who is the video game version of a movie or TV audience. I'm not trapping myself in your role play bubble. Apparently you're not all the time either. In the second post I quoted, you said you don't see Cerberus as bad guys, not that Shepard didn't.

 

And viewed from an in-character perspective, it was a reasonable conclusion that Cerberus had implanted their soldiers with Reaper tech. Even if you destroy the Collector base, Cerberus somehow gets a piece of Reaper Jr. and nobody notes this as problematic, IIRC.

 

 

 

 

Well if a pile of corpses doesn't do it, nothing will.

 

And then there's Mirandas father who is literally making husks from "volunteers" with Cerberus help and protection.