891 réponses à ce sujet

[UpUpAway95]

But it would be good to have options as to how to approach challenges. Fire fight vs. Infiltrate, for example. If we choose fire fight, do we charge in the front door or look for another entrance?

Even if that second entrance doesn't exist, being able to look for it offers more roleplaying opportunities than simply being funnelled toward the front door. If we look at the level design in ME3, there was usually only one way to go. We never had decisions to make about which path to take. Even if only one path works, the others should still be there. The world seems less real if the only place we can go is the place we need to go.

 

OK, if I'm understanding you on this one, we do have some point of agreement.  Within the individual missions, ME1 was much less linear in design... and I liked that.  For example, there were a few different paths to get through the different battles on Noveria in ME1 and there were some consequences to taking the different paths; but there was only 1 path through a battle sequence in ME3.  In ME:A, yes, I would like to see more pathing options through the battle/mission sequences.

[AlanC9]

What it's incompatible with is narrative urgency combined with side quests, which I don't imagine as many of us would want to completely eliminate side quests just to have narrative urgency that makes sense on top of the fact that BioWare has already said they want to focus on exploration again.
 
Which means there should be quite a bit of side content.

Well, you can still have urgency in intermittent bursts.

[Sylvius the Mad]

So, now it seems, like you're upset about there being a lack of pure filler in ME3. You could do the N7 missions as they came up... or you could wait to do all of them near the end of the game (there were some consequences). You could do both Attican Traverse and Turian Platoon/Turian Bomb after doing Rannoch (again, there were consequences). The game did make you aware of things in such a way that one would perhaps naturally follow the suggested story line... but there were ways that you could do those missions in different orders... and unlike ME1, if you did juggle the order, it resulted in consequences that affected the main story line (apparently causing you to believe that they were part of the critical story rather than the optional side missions they actually were).

I needed the war assets. I remember now. Not doing those missions just seemed dumb. Since I wasn't going to play any MP, I needed to complete those in order to get the war assets I needed.

ME1 actually gave you very little room to juggle the main storyline and, where you could, it had so little consequence to the main story that it was really not worth bothering about. You could, for example, do Therum, Feros and Noveria in any order... but did it really make any difference at all to the story or how the NPCs responded to Shepard's character? No. You could do Therum after Virmire, which did change Liara's reaction to being rescued - a very little bit... and that was about the extent of it.

I don't really like the distinction between the critical path and side quests. ME1 gave us all those Uncharted Worlds to explore in whatever order we wanted and for whatever reason we could imagine.

ME2 offered nothing of the sort. ME3 offered some, but again, the need to acquire war assets forced our hand somewhat.

If, however, it had worked like Power in DAI, where there was vastly more available than we needed, then we could have done them or not done them as we saw fit.

I also don't understand how the war assets in ME3 make any sense with regard to the ending.

A fully Renegade Shepard could save the council just as easily as Paragon Shepard and both successfully took down Saren in virtually the same way... no matter what they did prior in the game.

That's a definite plus. Being constrained in our choices later because of what we did earlier limits our possible character designs.

Maintaining the coherence of the protagonist's personality is the player's job. The developers need to stay out of the way and let us do that. Since they cannot know what motives we used to justify previous choices, they can't know what future choices are compatible with that.

[UpUpAway95]

I needed the war assets. I remember now. Not doing those missions just seemed dumb. Since I wasn't going to play any MP, I needed to complete those in order to get the war assets I needed.
I don't really like the distinction between the critical path and side quests. ME1 gave us all those Uncharted Worlds to explore in whatever order we wanted and for whatever reason we could imagine.

ME2 offered nothing of the sort. ME3 offered some, but again, the need to acquire war assets forced our hand somewhat.

If, however, it had worked like Power in DAI, where there was vastly more available than we needed, then we could have done them or not done them as we saw fit.

I also don't understand how the war assets in ME3 make any sense with regard to the ending.
That's a definite plus. Being constrained in our choices later because of what we did earlier limits our possible character designs.

Maintaining the coherence of the protagonist's personality is the player's job. The developers need to stay out of the way and let us do that. Since they cannot know what motives we used to justify previous choices, they can't know what future choices are compatible with that.

 

I don't see that as a plus to role playing... it's just making the idea of "going Renegade" vs. "going Paragon" meaningless.  It's not just the both were able to save the Council in some way... but both were able to save the Council in precisely the same way.  You just had to put points into both Charm and Intimidate as you went along... and it was pretty hard not to get enough Paragon or Renegade points to actually prevent you from being able to put some points into both categories.  There was just no tangible difference between a Paragon or a Renegade... so why bother to "role play" as either?

 

This is where I get the impression that people are asking for "consequence free" play rather than "role play" where the "director" provides logical consequences to the character having behaved in a particular way.  If you felt that it was more in line with your mission to go after the large Quarian fleet rather than rescue 1 Turian platoon (of an ally you already had in the bag), you were "allowed" to do that.  If you did and ignored the urgency of that situation long enough... the bomb goes off, it pisses off the Krogans and you lose some respect from the Turian primarch... all logical consequences that would not normally be within the "control" of a person making a similar decision IRL.  In ME3 moreso than in ME1, I felt like it was being allowed to logically make a poor decision.  In ME1, I felt like even my potentially poorest decisions had very few, if any, negative consequences.

[AlanC9]

What if we are? What if we have a different definition of "terrible things"?

Depends on the things, and to some extent on the established background for the PC if there is one. There are levels of stupidity, irresponsibility, and psychopathy which don't make sense for someone with Shepard's known history, and there's no reason the devs should throw resources into making the game less coherent. Other times, the choice and consequence would be conceivable, but would just fail the ROI check.

Sometimes it would be worth doing, like failing in Arrival or picking Refuse. Those were relatively cheap since they ended fast. Similarly, DA:O could have and probably should have implemented a Warden deserting and running away; you'd just need different ending slides. (Could just segue right into Darkspawn Chronicles if that had been in the base game at launch.)

Being forced to be heroic is part of the problem. Even if we do heroic things and play the part of the hero, actually being heroic and having heroic motives shouldn't be a requirement.

Sure. That's what I meant by the position of the hero, rather than necessarily being the hero.

[AlanC9]

I needed the war assets. I remember now. Not doing those missions just seemed dumb. Since I wasn't going to play any MP, I needed to complete those in order to get the war assets I needed.

Wait a minute. This is your character deciding that he needed the best possible war effort. What's the problem? You had an in-universe choice, and you made it.

I don't really like the distinction between the critical path and side quests. ME1 gave us all those Uncharted Worlds to explore in whatever order we wanted and for whatever reason we could imagine.

Well, that was the problem. Most of the time I couldn't imagine a reason. I could imagine a fake reason that I didn't actually think made sense but I could pretend my PC did, but that's an empty exercise.

[Sylvius the Mad]

I don't see that as a plus to role playing... it's just making the idea of "going Renegade" vs. "going Paragon" meaningless. It's not just the both were able to save the Council in some way... but both were able to save the Council in precisely the same way. You just had to put points into both Charm and Intimidate as you went along... and it was pretty hard not to get enough Paragon or Renegade points to actually prevent you from being able to put some points into both categories. There was just no tangible difference between a Paragon or a Renegade... so why bother to "role play" as either?

Roleplaying involves acting in accordance with your character's personality. Simply "going Paragon" or "going Renegade" seems like a much shallower approach.

If I have a character who, despite being primarily a Paragon to that point, understands that saving the Council doesn't benefit anyone if Sovereign wins, he should still be able to save the council.

This is supposed to be a roleplaying game, not a choose your own adventure story. It's not about having a branching narrative, it's about being able to play the character you designed within the narrative.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Wait a minute. This is your character deciding that he needed the best possible war effort. What's the problem? You had an in-universe choice, and you made it.

As I said, I didn't remember. I forgot I could just skip those.

But if I did them, they were very linear, with typically only one actual choice anywhere in them.

Well, that was the problem. Most of the time I couldn't imagine a reason. I could imagine a fake reason that I didn't actually think made sense but I could pretend my PC did, but that's an empty exercise.

I'm not a trusting person, and I tend not to play trusting characters. I also tend not to accept the game's asssumptions about what my character thinks or wants.

I did a lot of the ME1 uncharted worlds looking for evidence against Saren, particularly early in the game when the scope of Saren's plan isn't known.

[Addictress]

Roleplaying involves acting in accordance with your character's personality. Simply "going Paragon" or "going Renegade" seems like a much shallower approach.

If I have a character who, despite being primarily a Paragon to that point, understands that saving the Council doesn't benefit anyone if Sovereign wins, he should still be able to save the council.

This is supposed to be a roleplaying game, not a choose your own adventure story. It's not about having a branching narrative, it's about being able to play the character you designed within the narrative.

I am confused because the post you replied to is precisely about how ME1's narrative doesn't branch.

It's like the branches branch out then meet up and meld together again, making a loop. A loopy tree. No actual branches.

[Sylvius the Mad]

There are levels of stupidity, irresponsibility, and psychopathy which don't make sense for someone with Shepard's known history

This is a line of reasoning I never accept, particularly if those limitations aren't made clear to the player prior to character creation.

This is also why I favour mysterious stranger protagonists with no acknowledged background.

Sometimes it would be worth doing, like failing in Arrival or picking Refuse. Those were relatively cheap since they ended fast. Similarly, DA:O could have and probably should have implemented a Warden deserting and running away; you'd just need different ending slides. (Could just segue right into Darkspawn Chronicles if that had been in the base game at launch.)

Because those end fast, I'm perfectly willing to headcanon those. If Hawke decides to head back to Ferelden after the Blight, game over, create a new character.

But how about not recruiting all the allies in DAO?

ME2 did this somewhat, though the mechanics of how the loyalty missions improved the suicide mission outcomes were pretty contrived.

[Cyonan]

I did a lot of the ME1 uncharted worlds looking for evidence against Saren, particularly early in the game when the scope of Saren's plan isn't known.

 

I can picture it now:

 

Ashley: Commander, we need to find intel on Saren's activities. We have three solid leads from the council that we should investigate ASAP.

 

Shepard: f*** it, let's go explore random planets and hope we find stuff.

[Sylvius the Mad]

I am confused because the post you replied to is precisely about how ME1's narrative doesn't branch.

It's like the branches branch out then meet up and meld together again, making a loop. A loopy tree. No actual branches.

There don't need to be different end points for there to be different paths on the way.

Particularly once we take the Uncharted Worlds into account, the number of paths through ME1 is much higher than the number of paths available through ME2 or ME3.

[Addictress]

There don't need to be different end points for there to be different paths on the way.

Particularly once we take the Uncharted Worlds into account, the number of paths through ME1 is much higher than the number of paths available through ME2 or ME3.

Then why do people complain about Mass Effect 3 if there don't need to be different end points?

[dreamgazer]

I can picture it now:
 
Ashley: Commander, we need to find intel on Saren's activities. We have three solid leads from the council that we should investigate ASAP.
 
Shepard: f*** it, let's go explore random planets and hope we find stuff.

"Race Against Time".

[Totally Not a Poodle]

I'm not a fan of ME1. I much prefer the more linear design of ME2 and 3. If I get more of that, I will probably be happy. If I get more of ME1, I probably won't be.

[Sylvius the Mad]

I can picture it now:

Ashley: Commander, we need to find intel on Saren's activities. We have three solid leads from the council that we should investigate ASAP.

Shepard: f*** it, let's go explore random planets and hope we find stuff.

If that works for our characters, we should be able to do that.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Then why do people complain about Mass Effect 3 if there don't need to be different end points?

There are many reasons to complain about ME3, but the endings aren't one of them.

I saw nothing wrong with the content of ME3's endings. The mechanics of how they were tied to the war assets, sure. The inability of Shepard to support the control option when it was mentioned at any point in the game prior to the very end. The extensive non-interactive cutscenes and auto-dialogue.

But the endings were fine.

[Cyonan]

If that works for our characters, we should be able to do that.

 

Sure but what if I'm playing a Shep who isn't a moron and that doesn't work for my character?

 

There's no valid reason to go off and explore uncharted worlds when you've got 3 decent leads. Even going after Liara, which is the weakest of the three, still has far better chances of yielding useful intel than just exploring random planets.

 

Add in the sense of urgency the main plot tries to throw at you and actually wanting to do the bulk of the game's content now limits my RP potential because I have to break character in order to have a reason to go do any of that content.

 

Or I have to RP that I'm playing an idiot who in all reality shouldn't even be promoted to spectre status because they're a god damn idiot.

 

This is part of why I say the first game isn't really any better at roleplaying than the 2nd or 3rd. They give us no real reasons to actually go out and explore all those planets and I now have to tailor my character to fit the reasons rather than making the reasons fit my character as it should be.

[AlanC9]

Then why do people complain about Mass Effect 3 if there don't need to be different end points?

Hey, that never made sense in the first place. ME3's end points are plenty different

[Sylvius the Mad]

Sure but what if I'm playing a Shep who isn't a moron and that doesn't work for my character?

Then you don't do it. But the choice is yours, and that's what matters.

There's no valid reason to go off and explore uncharted worlds when you've got 3 decent leads. Even going after Liara, which is the weakest of the three, still has far better chances of yielding useful intel than just exploring random planets.

I always thought Therum was the best of the big 3 leads, because there's more information there. Feros and Noveria seemed like shots in the dark.

And that the leads come from the council makes them less trustworthy, not more.

Add in the sense of urgency the main plot tries to throw at you and actually wanting to do the bulk of the game's content now limits my RP potential because I have to break character in order to have a reason to go do any of that content.

That's what multiple playthroughs are for.

Or I have to RP that I'm playing an idiot who in all reality shouldn't even be promoted to spectre status because they're a god damn idiot.

Much like the time I played a coward who should never have been made a Grey Warden.

Doing something entirely unexpected often produces my most rewarding playthroughs.

[Cyonan]

I always thought Therum was the best of the big 3 leads, because there's more information there. Feros and Noveria seemed like shots in the dark.

And that the leads come from the council makes them less trustworthy, not more.

 

but they're still links to Saren. Even if you don't trust the council, taking something with even a 1% chance of having useful intel is far better odds than exploring random uncharted planets.

 

Much like the time I played a coward who should never have been made a Grey Warden.

Doing something entirely unexpected often produces my most rewarding playthroughs.

 

Playing an unconventional character can be fun, but Mass Effect 1 completely fails at giving good reason to do the majority of the game's content from a RP perspective because the only reasons to go run off and do side quests in Mass Effect 1 involve Shep being an idiot about hunting down Saren.

 

My point that you seem to be ignoring is that I have to play a rather specific style of character in Mass Effect 1 if I want a RP reason to do 95% of the game's side content because of how everything is structured in that game.

 

That doesn't make for good roleplaying. I don't care if it can be rewarding, I want to play my character. I don't want to have to change my character's entire personality just because I want to do some side quests.

[Ihatebadgames]

To answer the thread title,I want a good solid RPG.

[capn233]

Thread has gone down the rabbit hole.

 

Sure but what if I'm playing a Shep who isn't a moron and that doesn't work for my character?

 

Apparently if for the game to really have role-playing, then they need to add a lot of inane things to cover every possible thing that anybody could imagine.

[Cyonan]

Apparently if for the game to really have role-playing, then they need to add a lot of inane things to cover every possible thing that anybody could imagine.

 

No they don't. That's not at all what I have been saying.

 

Mass Effect 1 actively discourages you from doing side content if we're looking at it from a RP point of view because of how the main questline is set up and how the game tries to convey a sense of urgency in finding Saren and beating him to the conduit.

 

If it weren't for the urgency the main quest tries to convey, this would be a non issue.

 

Playing through Shadowrun Hong Kong the quests are laid out in a very similar fashion to Mass Effect 1 but without the game trying to tell me about how important it is that I race against time. Suddenly running off to do a side mission doesn't feel like a stupid move and I can headcanon my own reason as to why my character wanted to do that particular run.

[AlanC9]

Mass Effect 1 actively discourages you from doing side content if we're looking at it from a RP point of view because of how the main questline is set up and how the game tries to convey a sense of urgency in finding Saren and beating him to the conduit.
 

in contrast to, for instance, ME2, where at most moments Shepard has no way to advance the main mission, and can only prepare for it. Or screw around doing N7s if that's how she's rolling.