Well, I'll say I didn't fare well at missions like that (the Thorian one) simply because they were confusing at first or I ran out of grenades.
Years later, it's nothing, and I can easily save every one of them. But then, that's pretty dumb too.
Sometimes it just comes down to being a game. And games are just about reading patterns. And you don't always read the patterns well in unfamiliar conditions. That's what makes games fun. It has nothing to do with being "evil".
Well, I'll say I didn't fare well at missions like that (the Thorian one) simply because they were confusing at first or I ran out of grenades.
Years later, it's nothing, and I can easily save every one of them. But then, that's pretty dumb too.
Sometimes it just comes down to being a game. And games are just about reading patterns. And you don't always read the patterns well in unfamiliar conditions. That's what makes games fun. It has nothing to do with being "evil".
I agree... sometimes the mechanics are confusing. I know my first playthrough with UNC: Beseiged Base... I wound up killing all the scientists because I thought the screen was showing me how many I had saved rather than killed accidentally. On Feros, the higher number was the Paragon results; for UNC, you ideally want no number to show up at all.
Still, Feros is set up such that there are a number of levels of "evil" and "goodness" that you can role play through it - ranging from arguably the most evil Shepard who simply tells his squad to kill everyone, to one who is perhaps less evil - that tells his squad to try to avoid hitting them yet winds up shooting them anyway (both would get full Renegade points). The most paragon would be the individual who punches each colonist down and doesn't release any "untested" toxins into the environment; where as the one who uses the questionable "untested" gas grenades might be considered to be slightly more pragmatic (i.e. wanting to accomplish the task more quickly or perhaps of the view that gassing the colonists is less likely to cause them physical injury than punching them. Both of these Shepards though would get the same number of Paragon points... potentially. Of course, there is also an option to kill some of the colonists either intentionally or accidentally and the number of points is scaled accordingly. The player can also change the role of Shepard a bit using the dialogue options with both Jeong and Juliana... Shepard can be reluctant to try the grenades or in favor of doing them, can negotiate with Jeong or shoot him... all of which can be used to "refine" Shepard's attitude towards what Exo-Geni is doing (i.e. his/her stance on using unwilling test subjects in scientific experiments).
Of course, the dialogue options are never perfect and I would love to have more to be able to refine the role playing aspect further... but there is a lot more variance available than just "good" vs. "evil" here.
Sure, so long as your crew responds in kind to anything that goes against the point of the Arc project and Ryder gets a bullet to the head or gets a nice dose of Mutiny.
Sure, so long as your crew responds in kind to anything that goes against the point of the Arc project and Ryder gets a bullet to the head or gets a nice dose of Mutiny.
Well that's why when they aren't looking you pre-emptively eject the crew out of the airlock along with any stuffy superiors!
Well, I'll say I didn't fare well at missions like that (the Thorian one) simply because they were confusing at first or I ran out of grenades.
I had to look that specific part of the Thorian mission because I kept thinking I'd done something wrong. That's how I ended up discovering that you could just have Shepard knock their lights out.
I had to look that specific part of the Thorian mission because I kept thinking I'd done something wrong. That's how I ended up discovering that you could just have Shepard knock their lights out.
Huh.. I didn't know that either.
Huh.. I didn't know that either.
Oh yeah, you just have to walk up and melee them. Sometimes I tend to forego the grenades altogether and just have Shepard punch their way through the mindcontrolled colonists. This allows me to save the grenades for the times where I might really need them during the section.
I want evil options.
Me too.
But what is really the most important thing to me... is to be able to decide myself who my character loves or hates or who she is loyal to. This was a problem in the original trilogy. I hate when the game decides for you what your character feels. Like in ME2 when you first visit the citadel and C-Sec Officer says: "I hear you and captain Anderson used to be pretty tight." NO, I HATED Anderson and so did my Shepard - but there is no option to express this! Don't make assumptions for my character if there is no way for the player to correct it!
And that is just one of many similar incidents. I hate some things about ME3 - the autodialogue, forced friendships with characters and how Shepard is forced to return to Alliance and how there is no way to express how much he hates it. They locked him up for months. Yet you can't even say anything about that (as far as I remember it's been a while since I played ME3).
Never make assumptions on behalf of the player character. Never. Another example is how in ME3 when Shep arrives to Ilium, he goes to meet Liara and they hug. Why? They weren't friends and my Shepard would not have wanted to hug her. Bioware needs to understand this. To be able make these little choices is very important. I understand Shepard was never meant to be "players character" (like Warden and the Inquisitor are) but I'm hopeful that we'll get much more freedom with Ryder.
So what I'm trying to say is that it's very important that player is allowed to decide what kind of relationship they have with other characters and we need many options that vary from love to hate. This is the ideal - I understand that it might not be that easy to make happen but I say all or nothing. It's just as important that the player is allowed to decide who their character is loyal to - in Shepard case: Alliance, Council or Cerberus? Another important thing is characters motivations - does she care about the people, greater good and all that stuff - or is she selfish, only seeking profit for herself, does she simply enjoy violence, action and adventure?
Good or Evil. They say they are going to the grey area - well then they need represent all the shades of grey. The dark and light. Evil options are part of this and so are the good ones. And if there are different factions I want us to be able to decide who our character wants to work for - the villains or the heroes. I understand this might not be possible for story reasons, but then at least give us the option to tell how our character feels about being forced to work for the Alliance (Shepard in ME3.)
More freedom for the player is always going to be good. This is by the way why I love SWTOR. For example Imperial Agent and Smuggler are great because they give so much freedom to the player. IA: you start as a servant of the Empire, but might end the game as Republic Spy, Hand of Jadus, Loyal Imperial, etc! This is what I want for every character I play.
I rather like the preset Anderson relationship. I always sort of imagined Shep as this scrappy kid he's always had faith in. I guess that's a little hypocritical of me, since I don't like presets with others.
Like in ME2 when you first visit the citadel and C-Sec Officer says: "I hear you and captain Anderson used to be pretty tight." NO, I HATED Anderson and so did my Shepard - but there is no option to express this! Don't make assumptions for my character if there is no way for the player to correct it!
I don't like Anderson. As soon as he said "Its up to you Shepard to deal with the reapers", I wanted a renegade interrupt to throw him over the balcony. He never cared. Just as he and the Alliance made no effort to confirm Shepard's death.
And that is just one of many similar incidents. I hate some things about ME3 - the autodialogue, forced friendships with characters and how Shepard is forced to return to Alliance and how there is no way to express how much he hates it. They locked him up for months. Yet you can't even say anything about that (as far as I remember it's been a while since I played ME3).
The worst part is at the beginning is when Anderson will say that all he wants Shepard to do is help find a way to stop the reapers. There should've been a renegade interrupt or at least a dialogue option, very harsh dialogue, directed to Anderson for Shepard to call him out on the fact he and the Alliance wasted two years doing a whole lot nothing to make any effort to find a way to stop the reapers.
Never make assumptions on behalf of the player character. Never. Another example is how in ME3 when Shep arrives to Ilium, he goes to meet Liara and they hug. Why?
That what-the-crap hug makes no sense especially for a Shepard who tells the asari that he/she will throw her back in the volcano if she doesn't quit her whining.
Me too.
But what is really the most important thing to me... is to be able to decide myself who my character loves or hates or who she is loyal to. This was a problem in the original trilogy. I hate when the game decides for you what your character feels. Like in ME2 when you first visit the citadel and C-Sec Officer says: "I hear you and captain Anderson used to be pretty tight." NO, I HATED Anderson and so did my Shepard - but there is no option to express this! Don't make assumptions for my character if there is no way for the player to correct it!
And that is just one of many similar incidents. I hate some things about ME3 - the autodialogue, forced friendships with characters and how Shepard is forced to return to Alliance and how there is no way to express how much he hates it. They locked him up for months. Yet you can't even say anything about that (as far as I remember it's been a while since I played ME3).
Never make assumptions on behalf of the player character. Never. Another example is how in ME3 when Shep arrives to Ilium, he goes to meet Liara and they hug. Why? They weren't friends and my Shepard would not have wanted to hug her. Bioware needs to understand this. To be able make these little choices is very important. I understand Shepard was never meant to be "players character" (like Warden and the Inquisitor are) but I'm hopeful that we'll get much more freedom with Ryder.
So what I'm trying to say is that it's very important that player is allowed to decide what kind of relationship they have with other characters and we need many options that vary from love to hate. This is the ideal - I understand that it might not be that easy to make happen but I say all or nothing. It's just as important that the player is allowed to decide who their character is loyal to - in Shepard case: Alliance, Council or Cerberus? Another important thing is characters motivations - does she care about the people, greater good and all that stuff - or is she selfish, only seeking profit for herself, does she simply enjoy violence, action and adventure?
Good or Evil. They say they are going to the grey area - well then they need represent all the shades of grey. The dark and light. Evil options are part of this and so are the good ones. And if there are different factions I want us to be able to decide who our character wants to work for - the villains or the heroes. I understand this might not be possible for story reasons, but then at least give us the option to tell how our character feels about being forced to work for the Alliance (Shepard in ME3.)
More freedom for the player is always going to be good. This is by the way why I love SWTOR. For example Imperial Agent and Smuggler are great because they give so much freedom to the player. IA: you start as a servant of the Empire, but might end the game as Republic Spy, Hand of Jadus, Loyal Imperial, etc! This is what I want for every character I play.
Sure - more freedom to the player is a big deal for RPGs... but there are limitations players need to recognize to be reasonable. If the developer tries to write a game that allows dialogue for every possible conceivable feeling the player might want to invoke at any point in time... well, we'll need to buy huge systems just to load the game and we better be prepared to pay much much more for the games than we do now.... not even to mention the fact that it's very hard to write any sort of cohesive story line without forcing a "direction" with at least some of the NPCs and each game would probably take at least twice as long to develop.
This is all I can think of, after reading the OP. Dr. freaking Evil.
Sure - more freedom to the player is a big deal for RPGs... but there are limitations players need to recognize to be reasonable. If the developer tries to write a game that allows dialogue for every possible conceivable feeling the player might want to invoke at any point in time... well, we'll need to buy huge systems just to load the game and we better be prepared to pay much much more for the games than we do now.... not even to mention the fact that it's very hard to write any sort of cohesive story line without forcing a "direction" with at least some of the NPCs and each game would probably take at least twice as long to develop.
And developers won't do that because they need their games to be available for quite a big number of people, many of whom have limited incomes, like the younger audience.
Still, I don't think that excuses severely limiting options in RPGs. Quite a lot of variety can be achieved with a limited budget, as evidenced by my fav game ever that I keep bringing up repeatedly - Fallout New Vegas. You can be a saint or a despicable bastard or a neutral guy just trying to get by, or even a guy who changed his evil mind and decided to atone halfway through, or the other way round. FNV is not the perfect execution of the mechanic, but something I feel should be expanded on, rather than cut down to "kind response/rude response > ultimately pretty much the same outcome achieved".
And developers won't do that because they need their games to be available for quite a big number of people, many of whom have limited incomes, like the younger audience.
Still, I don't think that excuses severely limiting options in RPGs. Quite a lot of variety can be achieved with a limited budget, as evidenced by my fav game ever that I keep bringing up repeatedly - Fallout New Vegas. You can be a saint or a despicable bastard or a neutral guy just trying to get by, or even a guy who changed his evil mind and decided to atone halfway through, or the other way round. FNV is not the perfect execution of the mechanic, but something I feel should be expanded on, rather than cut down to "kind response/rude response > ultimately pretty much the same outcome achieved".other
However, "severely limiting" is a subjective thing. In some relationships with a few characters, there was a fair bit of room to interact in different ways even in ME3. With others - like the relationship with Anderson - the ways to interact were more limited (and did not include an opportunity to "hate" him). The players will always focus their energies towards complaining about whatever specific relationships they find are limited... claiming then that the game "severely limits" their ability to role play, etc. The developer cannot reasonably satisfy a diverse group of players... some will want the ability to "hate" Anderson and others won't care but instead want the ability to "hate" Joker or Dr. Michel or Dr. Chakwas or Rupert Gardner, etc. Heck, the developers can't even be expected to reasonably be able to forecast what range of emotions players might want to invoke in every given situation in the game since people come from different cultures. For example, hugging Liara (mentioned by themikefest above) even though Shepard might not like her very much would just be done according to "custom" in some cultures... it should really be no big deal.
In ME3, the autodialogue was put in cutting out a lot of the "fake" dialogue choices in the first two games - i.e. where you could go through the mechanic of selecting from three choices on the wheel but Shepard basically said the same line no matter what you selected. From that perspective, I found a lot of the autodialogue to be more convenient and allowed the game to flow quicker WITHOUT limiting my choices (since had they stayed to the same design as the previous two games, those would have been places where Shepard would say the same line regardless of my selection).
In addition, some of the "impression" about how limiting a game is comes from the how well the player's life philosophy, attitudes, etc. meshes with those of the authors. We see evidence of that here on this thread where different players themselves define "being evil" in very different ways. So, while you might find Fallout New Vegas provides you with the ability to play a "saint" - I might disagree because I might basically define what it is to be a "saint" differently than you.
Would I like more real choices in ME:A... definitely. I'd also like autodialogue in those places where the developer would not have a relevant choice to be made anyways... rather than spending time "selecting" dialogue that makes no difference.
However, "severely limiting" is a subjective thing. In some relationships with a few characters, there was a fair bit of room to interact in different ways. With others - like the relationship with Anderson - the ways to interact were more limited (and did not include an opportunity to "hate" him). The players will always focus their energies towards complaining about whatever specific relationships they find are limited... claiming then that the game "severely limits" their ability to role play, etc. The developer cannot reasonably satisfy a diverse group of players... some will want the ability to "hate" Anderson and others won't care but instead want the ability to "hate" Joker or Dr. Michel or Dr. Chakwas or Rupert Gardner, etc.
I recognize that BW kinda take their games in a different direction and concentrate on telling a specific story which requires them to set certain events and relationships from the get-go. Doesn't mean I like it. 
I'm just saying that taking another direction doesn't necessarily require massive amounts of money and resources. Personally, I'd prefer if BW took a more Fallout approach to their role playing elements. That's just my own preference though.
Heck, the developers can't even be expected to reasonably be able to forecast what range of emotions players might want to invoke in every given situation in the game since people come from different cultures. For example, hugging Liara (mentioned by themikefest above) even though Shepard might not like her very much would just be done according to "custom" in some cultures... it should really be no big deal.
In ME3, the autodialogue was put in cutting out a lot of the "fake" dialogue choices in the first two games - i.e. where you could go through the mechanic of selecting from three choices on the wheel but Shepard basically said the same line no matter what you selected. From that perspective, I found a lot of the autodialogue to be more convenient and allowed the game to flow quicker WITHOUT limiting my choices (since had they stayed to the same design as the previous two games, those would have been places where Shepard would say the same line regardless of my selection).
In addition, some of the "impression" about how limiting a game is comes from the how well the player's life philosophy, attitudes, etc. meshes with those of the authors. We see evidence of that here on this thread where different players themselves define "being evil" in very different ways. So, while you might find Fallout New Vegas provides you with the ability to play a "saint" - I might disagree because I might basically define what it is to be a "saint" differently than you.
Would I like more real choices in ME:A... definitely. I'd also like autodialogue in those places where the developer would not have a relevant choice to be made anyways... rather than spending time "selecting" dialogue that makes no difference.
Eh, I'd say if the developers wanted the hug to possibly be interpreted as a cultural thing without any specific emotion behind it they'd have to have established it as such. In the absence of any cultural explanation the player will substitute their own views, which on planet earth are almost universally "expression of affection". This is a consequence of having a limited gameworld that should be taken into account. In fact, it would take less resources to omit it, and avoid the problem entirely.
Obviously no one is a fan of dialog choices leading to the same line being spoken, or at least I doubt many players enjoy it. But if you're trying to offer choices in your game at all, you have to make sure the autodialog is not emotionally charged in either direction, or you'll be breaking some player's immersion. Also obviously, developers cannot account for every nuanced emotion the player may want to express, but they can at least give an approximation of a general direction one might want to take in a conversation along the basic lines of good/evil/neutral. The rest can be supplied by the player's imagination in regard to why the particular option was chosen by their own character. The issue for me is that ME and many other BW games assume that intention for me. This is what I feel limits my options in a grating way, along with the forced turns the plot takes. Example: Cerberus is a racist, supremacist organization you're forced to work with in ME2. That is fine, it's explained by the story as to why you have to go along with them. Then you're given the option of supporting or contesting their point of view. All good. But then in ME3 it's back to square one. You're against Cerberus no matter your previous opinion on them, because of plot. This is the kind of thing that annoys me the most in BW brand of RPGs.
<<<<<<<<<<(0)>>>>>>>>>>
I much prefer no evil options at all and I don't understand anyone wanting it. Evil is anti-life. There is no other definition.
Eh, I'd say if the developers wanted the hug to possibly be interpreted as a cultural thing without any specific emotion behind it they'd have to have established it as such. In the absence of any cultural explanation the player will substitute their own views, which on planet earth are almost universally "expression of affection". This is a consequence of having a limited gameworld that should be taken into account. In fact, it would take less resources to omit it, and avoid the problem entirely.
Obviously no one is a fan of dialog choices leading to the same line being spoken, or at least I doubt many players enjoy it. But if you're trying to offer choices in your game at all, you have to make sure the autodialog is not emotionally charged in either direction, or you'll be breaking some player's immersion. Also obviously, developers cannot account for every nuanced emotion the player may want to express, but they can at least give an approximation of a general direction one might want to take in a conversation along the basic lines of good/evil/neutral. The rest can be supplied by the player's imagination in regard to why the particular option was chosen by their own character. The issue for me is that ME and many other BW games assume that intention for me. This is what I feel limits my options in a grating way, along with the forced turns the plot takes. Example: Cerberus is a racist, supremacist organization you're forced to work with in ME2. That is fine, it's explained by the story as to why you have to go along with them. Then you're given the option of supporting or contesting their point of view. All good. But then in ME3 it's back to square one. You're against Cerberus no matter your previous opinion on them, because of plot. This is the kind of thing that annoys me the most in BW brand of RPGs.
I'm not saying that "Bioware wanted interpreted in any specific way" - I'm saying that they can't possibly anticipate when writing the story every possible way that different people might want to interpret every part of the story... and then provide options that suit everyone. That specific hug was, IMO, an overlap... a romanced Sehp and Liara would come together "to kiss," so to make the cinematics for the "other" Shepard's similar they threw in a hug (to save programming resources). Some people seem to be perturbed by it... but, quite frankly, I wasn't even though I had a Shepard who wasn't particularly kind to Liara because I have a "cultural background" where people frequently just great each other with a hug.
Bioware makes a particular style of RPG... one I happen to really like. I don't like Fallout 4... It's not my style of story and I just can't get into it. Same with Game of Thrones and Baldur's Gate. Because I'm not into the characters and the story, I could say I find parts of those games "severely limiting" because it's just not the style of story I want to play. People don't like every book they read... that doesn't mean the authors should have to write books that suit everybody. If every author was expected to write books to suit everybody's taste in that genre... books would also cost a lot more money and take a lot longer to write. If we want Bioware to expand their writing to offer us more choices... the question is are WE prepared to pay an additional price for that extra quality? (or will Bioware just wind up filing for bankruptcy with a "perfect" RPG game that no one will afford to buy?)
Mass Effect did offer a lot of story choice... but people generally don't focus on that. They just tend to focus on what they feel is "missing."
I'm not saying that "Bioware wanted interpreted in any specific way" - I'm saying that they can't possibly anticipate when writing the story every possible way that different people might want to interpret every part of the story... and then provide options that suit everyone. That specific hug was, IMO, an overlap... a romanced Sehp and Liara would come together "to kiss," so to make the cinematics for the "other" Shepard's similar they threw in a hug (to save programming resources). Some people seem to be perturbed by it... but, quite frankly, I wasn't even though I had a Shepard who wasn't particularly kind to Liara because I have a "cultural background" where people frequently just great each other with a hug.
Bioware makes a particular style of RPG... one I happen to really like. I don't like Fallout 4... It's not my style of story and I just can't get into it. Same with Game of Thrones and Baldur's Gate. Because I'm not into the characters and the story, I could say I find parts of those games "severely limiting" because it's just not the style of story I want to play. People don't like every book they read... that doesn't mean the authors should have to write books that suit everybody. If every author was expected to write books to suit everybody's taste in that genre... books would also cost a lot more money and take a lot longer to write. If we want Bioware to expand their writing to offer us more choices... the question is are WE prepared to pay an additional price for that extra quality? (or will Bioware just wind up filing for bankruptcy with a "perfect" RPG game that no one will afford to buy?)
Mass Effect did offer a lot of story choice... but people generally don't focus on that. They just tend to focus on what they feel is "missing."
Of course BW didn't intend for the hug to be interpreted in any specific way, they intended it to be interpreted as "yay, my friendly beloved squadmate!". But obviously that's a thing that's going to make some people go "wait, what?" precisely because they never felt friendly towards Liara before, and took options that in some way reflected that. Then BW goes "nah, you like her!". Honestly, I don't even remember that scene myself, but I can see how that that would crudely retcon stuff for some people. I'm just saying, don't force these kinds of "emotional" moments on people if you've allowed them to play differently before. It's not about making options that would please everyone, it's about not forcing options that clearly don't fit some possible playstyles. "Possible" in the sense that they could have been chosen in your game. Then the choices you actually offer are an entirely separate issue.
Anyway, I do agree with you overall. Developers make games in their own style. I didn't particularly like Fallout 4, but then again, that's because I feel they went more "the BW route" than FNV or even FO3 did. I just personally don't like that direction. I have this dream RPG in my mind that combines rich personal npc storylines with the freedom and versatility Fallout used to offer, and that's why I'm even talking about it on a forum. Maybe some developers somewhere are listening and have a thing like that in mind, but I'd be happy if at least some elements of what I'm imagining made it into either a BW or Bethesda game. I'm just sharing my opinion. And as an addendum, books are not interactive, so I think they're governed by slightly different rules.
All that said, I kinda disagree on your opinion that ME offered "a lot of story choice", but then for me the ending kinda makes the story, so again, it's my personal view.
That hug scene was written by Mac, if I recall. Explains everything.
He also did Anderson in ME3.. which I don't mind.. but I see why it would bug people for the same reason. Even Casey Hudson had to pull the reins in and make him cut the extended Anderson scene at the end. I happen to like it, but that would be too much for some people.
That hug scene was written by Mac, if I recall. Explains everything.
He also did Anderson in ME3.. which I don't mind.. but I see why it would bug people for the same reason. Even Casey Hudson had to pull the reins in and make him cut the extended Anderson scene at the end. I happen to like it, but that would be too much for some people.
Fortunately I was able to let Anderscum get killed at the end of ME3. I hated being railroaded into having shepard be close to him, especially since shep can act rude with him in ME1 and 2.
Retour en haut
