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.
Yep.
I also saw no reason to have Anderson on the Citadel. Give TIM a handgun instead of pulling it out of Anderson's backside, and the scene would be the same.
Plus the many fascist and racist options that fall under the aegis of renegade (and give you points). Bioware shoved a lot of values and ideas under paragon and renegade and unfortunately renegade got a lot of crazy and violent ones.
Very true. I will say that are a few times when the renegade option makes the more sense. Namely pushing the merc out the window in ME2 when recruiting Thane and punching Admiral Korris after he nearly killed Shepard, Tali, Legion, and the other squad mate and blew up the geth dreadnought in ME3. Other times like telling off her/his superior officers is Shepard acting an unprofessional jackass.
But if Shepard is willingly working with Cerberus, (which is a KNOWN terrorist group), and then s/he goes to Citadel where Shepard and company could (and should) be arrested, court-martialed and either sent to prison and/or executed for treason, now that is just plain stupid on all fronts.
Paragon is about the journey, Renegade is about the destination.
Paragon thinks long-term, Renegade is NOW.
Renegade was never consistent, so trying to get some basis for it is pointless, the only thing which always was with Renegade - passion for punching people and aliens alike.
P.s. If Paragon was thinking long-term he wouldn't cure Genophage.
Renegade was never consistent, so trying to get some basis for it is pointless, the only thing which always was with Renegade - passion for punching people and aliens alike.
P.s. If Paragon was thinking long-term he wouldn't cure Genophage.
I agree... neither side (paragon or renegade) follows a consistent philosophy. I think that's a plus since it allows the player to select different individual options to create different characterizations of Shepard based on philosophy. Where the system goes wrong, particularly in ME2 is with the assigning of the points that make certain dialogue options unavailable unless the player is following one path or another sufficiently consistently. That's why in an earlier post, I suggested that they perhaps keep the idea of paragon and renegade points in the game... but rather than having them make dialogue wheel options unavailable just use them to "give" the player a particular weapon, power, or mod near the end of the game.
I almost never play to a single paragon or renegade path now. In ME2, I use a spreadsheet that calculates the points I've taken against the points available to the part of the game where I'm at, so that I'm aware of what major decisions I won't have enough points to deal with in particular ways beforehand and I can shift my order so that I trigger them at moments when I can pass the checks to resolve them how I want to. It's heavy duty metagaming, but it has gotten me through a lot of different Paragade or Renegon runs in ME2. It would be nice though if I didn't have to go to all that just to develop a character with a particular individual philosophical outlook that guides his/her behavior.
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.
Saying that Bioware intended the hug to be interpreted as "Yay, my friendly beloved squadmate" is saying that they intended for the hug to be interpreted in a specific way. I'm saying they only intended the hug moment to be cinematically compatible with the "other" cinematic where Shepard kisses his LI Liara - to save on programming resources (time) and just didn't really anticipate the situation where people would be perturbed at hugging her.
I agree that books are not interactive (although the concept of authors writing books to be somewhat interactive might yet happen). An RPG is, though, in some respects like writing multiple books on the same story... and there are only so many directions an author can allow the RPG story to go in before, essentially, there is just no coherent story left.
I accept that a lot of people disagree with me... but I've played a lot of playthroughs in the ME Trilogy... and I have come to believe over those playthroughs that there is a lot more player choice available in that game than people generally give it credit for... without forfeiting a coherent and engaging story in the process. Of course, Bioware can insert more choices... I'm just saying there will most likely be a cost to them to do so - paying more programmers more time, paying voice actors for more lines of dialogue, paying the writers for essentially writing more divergent storylines to reflect the greater range of choices... so I'm asking whether or not we, the players, are prepared to pay an increased price for the game for those choices? It's a fair question, I think.
In addition, with more choice selection, the game itself would probably get larger and require a larger system to run... are we prepared to buy those larger systems to run such games? Again, a fair question.
Those are questions that Bioware and the entire gaming industry has to ask... if they don't want to wind up producing the "perfect" RPG in theory... but one that people won't pay the price to buy.
Never make assumptions on behalf of the player character.
To be frank, I don't like these blank state charakters as in Skyrim (boring/tend to have a constant "poker face") and prefer fleshed out-ISH protagonists. With Hawke, Shepard or Geralt I feel like I am actively part of the conversation, the friendships with Liara and Tali or the relationships in the witcher series felt much more organic to me than anything we got in Bethesda games, Origins or Inquisition for example. I want my characters to be alive on screen, not in my head.
I think this can be an interesting discussion. I'll just say two things:
1. The games that let the character 'be alive on your head', only make it easier. In the end, in most ways it is the exactly the same as a more flashed out character, but because you didn't hear the character saying a threat, you can pretend it was a joke, even if the NPC clearly perceived it as a threat as is scared of you (for example).
2. Mass Effect is clearly the latter case. It got progressive more like that with each game. In ME3 I thought you lost too much control of Shepard in some times, and in others there weren't options that clearly should be there. But the point is, that is the line Andromeda is going to follow. It won't do a 180 and go back to a more Baldur's Gate/KoTOR dialogue system.
I prefer "blank slate" character (like you say). I want to make all the decision and not have them made for me. That's why I never liked Hawke or Shepard that much. They didn't give enough freedom to me as a player to define who my character is or what his motivations are.
I think MEA might be going more to DAO/DAI approach. I got sense of that reading some recent interviews. I'm very hopeful at least.
I prefer "blank slate" character (like you say).
And that's why people like you have DA. So wouldn't you kindly leave ME to those who like the other type of protagonist?
And that's why people like you have DA. So wouldn't you kindly leave ME to those who like the other type of protagonist?
You had the original trilogy. Why should MEA be like that?
2. Mass Effect is clearly the latter case. It got progressive more like that with each game. In ME3 I thought you lost too much control of Shepard in some times, and in others there weren't options that clearly should be there. But the point is, that is the line Andromeda is going to follow. It won't do a 180 and go back to a more Baldur's Gate/KoTOR dialogue system.
Yep. At times I was playing my Shepard's stunt double who would say and do things that my Shepard wouldn't say or do.
You had the original trilogy. Why should MEA be like that?
Because there will be another DA which will be like DA.
Also you've guessed wrong. I liked both DA and ME, each in a different way. That's why I'm annoyed by "turn ME into DA" and "turn DA into ME" requests.
Saying that Bioware intended the hug to be interpreted as "Yay, my friendly beloved squadmate" is saying that they intended for the hug to be interpreted in a specific way. I'm saying they only intended the hug moment to be cinematically compatible with the "other" cinematic where Shepard kisses his LI Liara - to save on programming resources (time) and just didn't really anticipate the situation where people would be perturbed at hugging her.
I agree that books are not interactive (although the concept of authors writing books to be somewhat interactive might yet happen). An RPG is, though, in some respects like writing multiple books on the same story... and there are only so many directions an author can allow the RPG story to go in before, essentially, there is just no coherent story left.
I accept that a lot of people disagree with me... but I've played a lot of playthroughs in the ME Trilogy... and I have come to believe over those playthroughs that there is a lot more player choice available in that game than people generally give it credit for... without forfeiting a coherent and engaging story in the process. Of course, Bioware can insert more choices... I'm just saying there will most likely be a cost to them to do so - paying more programmers more time, paying voice actors for more lines of dialogue, paying the writers for essentially writing more divergent storylines to reflect the greater range of choices... so I'm asking whether or not we, the players, are prepared to pay an increased price for the game for those choices? It's a fair question, I think.
In addition, with more choice selection, the game itself would probably get larger and require a larger system to run... are we prepared to buy those larger systems to run such games? Again, a fair question.
Those are questions that Bioware and the entire gaming industry has to ask... if they don't want to wind up producing the "perfect" RPG in theory... but one that people won't pay the price to buy.
I said the hug wasn't meant to be interpreted "in any specific way", in the sense that BW didn't intend for it to be open to any interpretation. An expression of affection was all it was supposed to be.
Anyway, I don't want to keep repeating myself, I already brought up FNV as an example of a game without a larger than usual budget or price that yet gave the player much more freedom to shape their character than ME did. It's proof that it can be done without raising the cost of the game or the hardware all that much.
ME isn't exactly a story deserving a Pulitzer prize, it's your run of the mill big bad wants to destroy the world, work on stopping him kind of plot. And so is FNV, on a more local scale. The difference is, FNV let's you decide who the big bad actually is, in your character's eyes, and act accordingly. A simple choice that opens up a lot of new opportunities for the player without drastically changing the gameplay. Why not let the players work either with or against Cerberus in ME3 still, after doing exactly that in 2? Just one thing that could have been easily implemented and would have offered a little bit more variety in the actual roleplaying. It's not like they were lacking in generic baddies to mow down.
Saying that Bioware intended the hug to be interpreted as "Yay, my friendly beloved squadmate" is saying that they intended for the hug to be interpreted in a specific way. I'm saying they only intended the hug moment to be cinematically compatible with the "other" cinematic where Shepard kisses his LI Liara - to save on programming resources (time) and just didn't really anticipate the situation where people would be perturbed at hugging her.
If that's the case why is there a hug with either Ashley or Kaidan, on Horizon, if romanced, but a handshake if not romanced?
If that's the case why is there a hug with either Ashley or Kaidan, on Horizon, if romanced, but a handshake if not romanced?
Mac Walters
I said the hug wasn't meant to be interpreted "in any specific way", in the sense that BW didn't intend for it to be open to any interpretation. An expression of affection was all it was supposed to be.
Anyway, I don't want to keep repeating myself, I already brought up FNV as an example of a game without a larger than usual budget or price that yet gave the player much more freedom to shape their character than ME did. It's proof that it can be done without raising the cost of the game or the hardware all that much.
ME isn't exactly a story deserving a Pulitzer prize, it's your run of the mill big bad wants to destroy the world, work on stopping him kind of plot. And so is FNV, on a more local scale. The difference is, FNV let's you decide who the big bad actually is, in your character's eyes, and act accordingly. A simple choice that opens up a lot of new opportunities for the player without drastically changing the gameplay. Why not let the players work either with or against Cerberus in ME3 still, after doing exactly that in 2? Just one thing that could have been easily implemented and would have offered a little bit more variety in the actual roleplaying. It's not like they were lacking in generic baddies to mow down.
If you want everything that ME3 had while working for Cerberus in a game that also allows you to work against Cerberus... you are essentially doubling the content o fthat game. You want the option to "hate" Anderson throughout the entire game aa well as keep the ability to "like" him... then you are essentially doubling the dialogue work related to Anderson. Where does it end then... do we now expect to have a choice to be able to like or dislike every single NPC in the game - e.g. I wanted to spit Rupert Gardner's calamari gumbo in his face and return the expensive provisions to get my 500 credits back... but that option wasn't there. Should it have been? (I don't think so because I think we, as players, need to accept and expect that there will be some limitations within a cinematic game as to what we will be able to choose or not choose).
If you want all the cut scenes to reflect radically different actions towards every NPC based on how the character feels towards them as well, you are doubling, quadrupling, etc. all of those scenes. You can't add and add and add to a game without removing something else unless you increase the size of the game and increase the cost of producing that game. IF ME3 had all the additional range of options to accommodate every player out there... it WOULD have been a much more expensive game and would not have run on the Xbox 360 or the PS3. There will be more in Andromeda because it's not being "crammed" onto an Xbox 360 or a PS3... but designing and programming more and more different cinematics will cost more in programming time (salaries) than it would without those additional choices.
You don't know Bioware's budgets so you're not in a position to say how much "more game" they can produce than ME3 within a reasonable budget. FNV probably reduces costs in some areas that Bioware doesn't... maybe they pay their programmers less or offer less in staff benefits, etc. I don't know and likely neither do you... but the principle still holds... you can't just add and add and add indefinitely without it "costing" something somewhere else... that's basic economics.
My original post about this said that there had to be a "reasonable" limit. I'm not saying it should be "unreasonably" limited... but that players also need to not make "unreasonable" demands about player choices. These are games and the developer's have to write the characters in them... not the players.
... and since you're still dodging answering the question, I'm going to assume it's "No," you're not willing to pay a whole bunch more for a "perfect" cinematic RPG. I'm not either.
*all the stuff above snipped for space*
Sigh. Are we really going to defend BW's games' direction choices by saying "well, maybe they don't do this thing other developers do because they're paid less"?
Look, I'm not asking for all possible options to be covered, I'm just saying an RPG needs a number of meaningful, differing options, with consequences. That's what makes it an RPG, at least for me. Cosmetic alterations don't. How about instead of drastically inflating their budget a developer cuts down on pointless content. Take DAI for example. Origins had pc races that all had some kind of influence on the plot, including different starting quests for all of them. DAI had cosmetic races that barely added three lines of dialog to the game, and a ton of boring fetch quests that affected nothing. Obviously someone had the time and money to write and animate them. Better resource allocation could have fixed that, no need for additional costs. The old "quality over quantity" issue.
I wasn't aware I was "dodging" a question, but if you want my answer on whether I would shell out a large sum for a system and a game that was a truly spectacular RPG experience, then yes, yes I would. Might have to save up some money, but it'd be better than shelling out smaller sums for a number of inferior games. But that's hypothetical. For now all I can hope for is that developers keep improving their games in small ways.
Also why do you assume I want a "cinematic" RPG? My personal view is that this drive to make games "cinematic" is one of the reasons core gaming elements get cut down. I don't want an interactive movie, I just want to feel like I'm significantly affecting the plot. Leave the cinematic experience to linear action games.
I really feel this discussion is circular now and like I said I don't want to keep repeating myself, so maybe let's leave it.
Sigh. Are we really going to defend BW's games' direction choices by saying "well, maybe they don't do this thing other developers do because they're paid less"?
Look, I'm not asking for all possible options to be covered, I'm just saying an RPG needs a number of meaningful, differing options, with consequences. That's what makes it an RPG, at least for me. Cosmetic alterations don't. How about instead of drastically inflating their budget a developer cuts down on pointless content. Take DAI for example. Origins had pc races that all had some kind of influence on the plot, including different starting quests for all of them. DAI had cosmetic races that barely added three lines of dialog to the game, and a ton of boring fetch quests that affected nothing. Obviously someone had the time and money to write and animate them. Better resource allocation could have fixed that, no need for additional costs. The old "quality over quantity" issue.
I wasn't aware I was "dodging" a question, but if you want my answer on whether I would shell out a large sum for a system and a game that was a truly spectacular RPG experience, then yes, yes I would. Might have to save up some money, but it'd be better than shelling out smaller sums for a number of inferior games. But that's hypothetical. For now all I can hope for is that developers keep improving their games in small ways.
Also why do you assume I want a "cinematic" RPG? My personal view is that this drive to make games "cinematic" is one of the reasons core gaming elements get cut down. I don't want an interactive movie, I just want to feel like I'm significantly affecting the plot. Leave the cinematic experience to linear action games.
I really feel this discussion is circular now and like I said I don't want to keep repeating myself, so maybe let's leave it.
Stop twisting generic examples of "basic" economics into "more" - like a specific "defense" of Bioware. Basic economics - you can't add content without that content costing "space" and "time" etc. IF FNV has content you like that doesn't mean that it overall has "MORE" - something else was cut to keep the cost in line. You just don't like Bioware's choices but you like the other companies choices. That's personal preference. Neither company can just add, add, add. IF FNV is so perfect for you... play it.
Stop twisting generic examples of "basic" economics into "more" - like a specific "defense" of Bioware. Basic economics - you can't add content without that content costing "space" and "time" etc. IF FNV has content you like that doesn't mean that it overall has "MORE" - something else was cut to keep the cost in line. You just don't like Bioware's choices but you like the other companies choices. Neither company can just add, add, add. IF FNV is so perfect... play it.
I did play it. Many times. Sometimes I still play it. But I'd like something new. And I literally just said "BW could cut some redundant stuff and instead make more meaningful stuff". I'm not saying FNV has more stuff, I'm saying it has better stuff. Bolded - yes, that's what I'm saying. But I like some things that BW does too, so I'm hoping they keep those and change the bad stuff into good stuff.
Honestly, let's just leave it.
Sigh. Are we really going to defend BW's games' direction choices by saying "well, maybe they don't do this thing other developers do because they're paid less"?
Look, I'm not asking for all possible options to be covered, I'm just saying an RPG needs a number of meaningful, differing options, with consequences. That's what makes it an RPG, at least for me. Cosmetic alterations don't. How about instead of drastically inflating their budget a developer cuts down on pointless content. Take DAI for example. Origins had pc races that all had some kind of influence on the plot, including different starting quests for all of them. DAI had cosmetic races that barely added three lines of dialog to the game, and a ton of boring fetch quests that affected nothing. Obviously someone had the time and money to write and animate them. Better resource allocation could have fixed that, no need for additional costs. The old "quality over quantity" issue.
I wasn't aware I was "dodging" a question, but if you want my answer on whether I would shell out a large sum for a system and a game that was a truly spectacular RPG experience, then yes, yes I would. Might have to save up some money, but it'd be better than shelling out smaller sums for a number of inferior games. But that's hypothetical. For now all I can hope for is that developers keep improving their games in small ways.
Also why do you assume I want a "cinematic" RPG? My personal view is that this drive to make games "cinematic" is one of the reasons core gaming elements get cut down. I don't want an interactive movie, I just want to feel like I'm significantly affecting the plot. Leave the cinematic experience to linear action games.
I really feel this discussion is circular now and like I said I don't want to keep repeating myself, so maybe let's leave it.
Look, I don't necessarily disagree. But your point about DA:O is absurd. DA:I if anything had more reactive race dialogue apart from the self-contained vignette of the Origin, which is a plot that's so quickly abandoned you'd think it had a virulent plague. The rest of the game, elves are treated the same. Even in Denerim, where there is a literal law against armed elves!
I think this can be an interesting discussion. I'll just say two things:
1. The games that let the character 'be alive on your head', only make it easier. In the end, in most ways it is the exactly the same as a more flashed out character, but because you didn't hear the character saying a threat, you can pretend it was a joke, even if the NPC clearly perceived it as a threat as is scared of you (for example).
2. Mass Effect is clearly the latter case. It got progressive more like that with each game. In ME3 I thought you lost too much control of Shepard in some times, and in others there weren't options that clearly should be there. But the point is, that is the line Andromeda is going to follow. It won't do a 180 and go back to a more Baldur's Gate/KoTOR dialogue system.
The character can't be "alive" in your head when it's a dead raccoon in-game. Part of being alive is the ability to actually interact with your world, and being part of your world. If there is no difference in my backstory between 1) flesh-eating pod person from XZlasgosaj 22b shapeshifting into the form of a human and 
a colonist from Earth, the setting has a problem.
The misunderstand point doesn't work. It never works. If someone thinks, for example, I've insulted them, my immediate and natural reaction is to apologize and try to fix the misunderstanding. Games don't let you do that - they aren't designed to have misunderstandings.
The other thing is that KoTOR and DA:O, for example, weren't all that different in how the dialogue was written. It also wasn't meant to be a conduit for mental fantasy.
Look, I don't necessarily disagree. But your point about DA:O is absurd. DA:I if anything had more reactive race dialogue apart from the self-contained vignette of the Origin, which is a plot that's so quickly abandoned you'd think it had a virulent plague. The rest of the game, elves are treated the same. Even in Denerim, where there is a literal law against armed elves!
But that's all it was: three lines of dialog. Everyone still hailed you as the blessed herald of Andraste even if you were a Qunari mage. It was all cosmetic. In DAO there was the whole Alistair romance/marriage deal that took your origins pretty heavily into account. Story wise, it made sense - no one cares if a grey warden is a mage, or an elf or a dwarf, but they did care if you could possibly become their queen. They should care if the same issue crops up regarding a possible holy prophet. Not just ambient dialog-wise, plot-wise. Why not put that in in place of endless fetch quests?
Ultimately, I'm not saying it was perfectly executed, my main point was resource allocation. I'm sure those origin stories took time and money to make. Yet they were made. Saying "well BW can't give us more options cause that would cost too much" just sounds untrue to me in the light of that.
But please guys, it's friday afternoon where I am and I'm getting too drunk to keep talking about this... 
But that's all it was: three lines of dialog. Everyone still hailed you as the blessed herald of Andraste even if you were a Qunari mage. It was all cosmetic. In DAO there was the whole Alistair romance/marriage deal that took your origins pretty heavily into account. Story wise, it made sense - no one cares if a grey warden is a mage, or an elf or a dwarf, but they did care if you could possibly become their queen. They should care if the same issue crops up regarding a possible holy prophet. Not just ambient dialog-wise, plot-wise. Why not put that in in place of endless fetch quests?
Ultimately, I'm not saying it was perfectly executed, my main point was resource allocation. I'm sure those origin stories took time and money to make. Yet they were made. Saying "well BW can't give us more options cause that would cost too much" just sounds untrue to me in the light of that.
But please guys, it's friday afternoon where I am and I'm getting too drunk to keep talking about this...
Everyone still hailed you as the blessed Grey Warden despite being a traitor to the realm. Especially in Denerim, where you are actually a criminal (and actively breaking the law). Story-wise, it made no sense at all, because racists don't stop being racists when you slap on a griffin on your shield and coat of arms after you literally just murdered a bunch of nobles. If you accept that people can get over race as a Grey Warden thing, then you can accept that people can get over race when they're a heretical cult worshiping you as, basically, the divinely chosen representative of the setting's equivalent to Jesus.
Plot-wise, Alistair (and Anora) don't distinguish between HN and "others". And that's, really, one point. DA:I had so much more reactive content to a mage, frankly, that I think it outpaces any of the race stuff.
But sure, we can agree to disagree. I just really disagree. 
Plot-wise, Alistair (and Anora) don't distinguish between HN and "others". And that's, really, one point. DA:I had so much more reactive content to a mage, frankly, that I think it outpaces any of the race stuff.
But sure, we can agree to disagree. I just really disagree.
Wait, what do you mean they "don't distinguish"? 
I'm pretty sure you literally can't marry your luvwub Alistair and become queen unless you're a human noble? That's a plot point to me, and an acknowledgment of your cc choices. Nothing actually happens in the DAI plot if you're a mage afaik.
Still, as I said, I mostly brought this up as a resource allocation issue. We can disagree on the plot relevance all we want, I'm not even a big fan of DAO tbh. Cheers!
Retour en haut