103 réponses à ce sujet

[Default137]

Seriously.

In every Bioware games, there are two paths, the good path, which if you go this route evertything is always sunshine, happiness, and flowers, and the evil/mean/thug path, which if you go this way, every big choices ends up having serious negative repercussions down the road, NPCs don't want to talk to you, and most of the choices involve you being a total idiot. And I got to thinking, why is this? Why is it that choosing the "good" choice is always the right one? Why can't for once, things play out like they would realisitically, and choosing a "good/idealisitc" choice could possibly come back and bite you in the ass, is it because Bioware is to scared the thousands of players would find this to complex, or be fruserated they can't just hop and sing through the game, or is there something else besides it.

Let me give some examples here, using both Dragon Age, and Mass Effect,

Alright, in Dragon Age, at one critical junction, you have to choose who will lead Ferelden, you get to choose between your best buddy, who is kind of a klutz, not very politically savvy, and overal very childlike if he doesn't get his way, and a very politically savvy chick who is kind of a ****, but does have the nations best interests at heart, and knows exactly how to get them.

Realistically, while promoting your buddy should be a good aligned choice, why is it the BEST choice, I am almost 100% sure those who chose the **** will end up regreting it in DA2, because she'll suddenly revert to near idiocy levels, try to kill you numerous times, or go against her character and damn the whole country for no reason whatsoever other then for Bioware to pull a gigantic "WE TOLD YOU SO HURR" to the fans who took that choice, meanwhile, the happy idiot will manage to fully lead the country to a new golden age the likes of which it has never seen, will be the GREATEST KING EVAR, and will fully listen to you at all times despite the fact he can barely tie his shoes without your help, and can't understand the very basics of politics, as shown by his tantrum at the Landsmeet.

Yeah, its nice, but it doesn't make any sense, why shouldn't it be the opposite, choosing the idiot while a good choice, leads to many innocent people getting killed by his ineptitude, while the savvy **** would lead the nation to a new glory age, and manages to use you to full effect to shut down any threats to her nation.

Its the same with Mass Effect, let me use the Council as a new example here.

In ME1 you get the option to save the Council, or let it die, if you save them, apparently thousands if not tens of thousands of human military personnal get killed, yet this has absolutly no effect in ME2, and will probably not even be mentioned in ME3, yet if you kill them, suddenly everyone hates you, no aliens want to talk to you, and the Galaxy thinks your trash. I would love to see this come back and bite people in the ass in ME3, where if you saved the Council, the Alliance would not be able to summon enough troops to defend against the Reapers, and many innocent people would die, because they are still reeling from the casualties at the battle of the Citadel, you know what will most likely happen though? If you saved the Council, they will listen to you far faster then a human led, or new council would be willing to, and you will be able to save the day FASTER, HURRAH FOR US ALL.

Another example from the end of ME2, choosing to destroy or save the base, if we save it, chances are, we will get screwed by that choice in ME3, wheras destroying it will be the heroes option, with no negatives whatsoever, as always, why can't it be set up that if you don't grab the base, our weapons and armor are not as powerful as they could be in ME3, and crew members will die in an attack, or our mother will die if we are a Spacer, because her ship was oldtech, or colonies will fall that would not normally have fallen, as with that tech we could have better defended ourselves.

tldr : I think the reason people always go good rather then choosing the more evil/blunt options is not because people don't like playing more evil minded, but rather because being good has no consequences they have to deal with, while being evil has a ton, if the choice to save the Council meant that humanity would suffer heavily, and I'd see that suffering in later games, I'd put much more thought into it then I did, which at the time was basically "Huh, I don't like Udina, STICK IT TO THE MAN" or in ME2 the Collectors base, which was mainly "I DON'T LIKE TIM, STICK IT TO THE MAN P2 STICK IT HARDER"

[finnithe]

I'm sort of in the same boat as you are, but it's hard to evaluate this since Mass Effect 3 has yet to come out. It's very possible that destroying the Collector Base WILL have negative effects on Sheps who did so in ME3. Even then, I don't think this is likely as TIM obviously still has access to Reaper tech (see Grayson and ME: Retribution. This will probably just substitute for the Collector technology Renesheps might have.



In short it's difficult to evaluate this argument because much of it could be proven or disproven by what happens in ME3. Still, I'm inclined to believe that it's true.

[holidayc]

I agree 100%, while to be fair I think bioware has made some baby steps at making paragon descisions the wrong decisions at times. The one that comes to my head is the female merc on Thane's recruitment quest, that turns out to be the murderer. Now who knows if that'll get followed up in 3. DAO shifted from this also with the Harrowmont vs Bhiel dwarf quest.



I really do agree however that Bioware games are a bit one dimensional because going through any bioware game I know that if I do ALL good that I'll get the largest content and somehow everything will work out even if it doesnt make sense at first.



The game has always encouraged you to pick one path over the other, and really its always been more rewarding to choose 100% goodguy paragon/paladin/lightside/openpalm, you get the longer gameplay experience and things always seem to work better for you than they do for the badguy.





Obisidian entertainment in KOTOR 2 was the only game of this type that encouraged being a moderate, you actually got powers for doing so. That was cool, I'd love to see some negative consequences for going all Paragon in the past 2 games to balance things out. For instance, saving the rachni leads them to turn on you once again as soon as the Reapers arrive. Or saving the genophage cure turns out to create more problems. Who knows, Mass Effect 2 seem to take some baby steps in this direction, but it isn't balanced yet by anymeans.

[77boy84]

Actually, it sounded like some of the paragon choices in ME2 would end up biting people in the ass in ME3.



The Alliance is weakened, there's a possibility of the geth-reaper virus coming back, and the collector station could have given tons of info about reapers and how to defeat them.

[DarthCaine]

BioWare should take cues from The Witcher

[Taritu]

Should be negatives from certain Renegade decisions too, as far as that goes. They aren't big on consequences overall.

Mind you, although I tend to make more paragon decisions than renegade, I make some renegade ones.  I don't choose based on what color it is, but on what my character will do.

Modifié par Taritu, 04 février 2010 - 12:33 .

[SunfighterG8]

The only direct negative from paragon ive seen in ME2 is you let a murderer go during the recruit mission for the justicar....

[Anthropophobic]

holidayc wrote...

I agree 100%, while to be fair I think bioware has made some baby steps at making paragon descisions the wrong decisions at times. The one that comes to my head is the female merc on Thane's recruitment quest, that turns out to be the murderer.

You mean Samara's mission?

Modifié par Anthropophobic, 04 février 2010 - 12:36 .

[Barquiel]

Taritu wrote...

Should be negatives from certain Renegade decisions too, as far as that goes. They aren't big on consequences overall.

I agree.

[GnusmasTHX]

I don't.



It's a game. I want to be rewarded good things for being the 'good guy'. If I wanted to get screwed over just for doing something nice; I'd go outside.

[NoX1ous]

You treat people the way you want them to treat you. Stop going Renegade if you can't handle the consequences, just like it should.

Renegade gives bonus' such as money, during the mission to save the Scientist from the plagued district...

[holidayc]

Taritu wrote...

Should be negatives from certain Renegade decisions too, as far as that goes.

You kidding? Try doing some renegade activities then. In the first game, you can miss out on 2 squad members, close a sh*t ton of side quests, and miss out on all of the romances, if you decide to go full renegade.

If you made the renegade decision not to save the council, everyone hates you. If you play full renegade you miss out on getting full loyalty in some quests. If you decide to save the collector's base TIM practically beats you over the head with the information that hes going to use this for more than just fighting the reapers.

Renegade is all about consequences, paragon is not.

[Cutlass Jack]

I just learned you dance better if you go Renegade. That's penalty enough if you've seen the Paragon dance...

[MagicianCamille]

Yeah because, in real life, there are no advantages to being likable and polite to people. And there are certainly no disadvantages to being a rude ass to everyone either. "Burning bridges" just means literally burning bridges, it's not a sociological phrase at all.

[Gill Kaiser]

I Took a Third Option. I got Alistair to marry Anora.

[Default137]

Taritu wrote...

Should be negatives from certain Renegade decisions too, as far as that goes. They aren't big on consequences overall.

Mind you, although I tend to make more paragon decisions than renegade, I make some renegade ones.  I don't choose based on what color it is, but on what my character will do.

Thing is, there already is negatives for Renegade choices, and will continue to be.

I don't mind if saving the Collector Base will cause TIM to become mad with power, as long as there is also a benefit, but 99.9% likely based on Biowares track record, destroying it will have no negatives, everything we have will be 100% ready to fight the Reapers off with, and that tech would have just sat in a basement somewhere, meanwhile, Renegades who took a whatever it takes approach will suddenly have to deal with a TIM who has gone mad with power, no longer cares about humanity, sacrificed colonies himself, and turned himself into the Reaper leader, just to shat on our parade of taking the "whatever it takes approach"

Meanwhile, if I go Paragon? And do things that militarily/politically/even told in the game are completely stupid idealistic ideals that WOULD NOT WORK, it all manages to work together in a nice little package, everyone goes home happy, there are no problems in the galaxy, lets all kiss and make up.

It makes no sense whatsoever.

Yes being nice to people in real life, and being an ass to people in real life has their own seperate things, I get that, I don't mind if people hate my Renegade Shepard, and in fact, I understand that fully. But when someone puts an idiot who can't tie his shoes together without help, and has the political accumen of a rock, and he suddenly becomes the greatest military leader the world has ever known, you get the feeling something is not working correctly with how choices pan out.

Modifié par Default137, 04 février 2010 - 12:48 .

[SunfighterG8]

GnusmasTHX wrote...

I don't.

It's a game. I want to be rewarded good things for being the 'good guy'. If I wanted to get screwed over just for doing something nice; I'd go outside.

I think you dont understand the concept of games like these.

[Feops1]

Well.



The renegade path is more of a "screw you all" route. Or "screw everyone different than me". Either way, renegade Shep is never going to win any popularity contests, but does get sweet revenge on a regular basis.



I think ME3 will play out roughly equal in overall strength. Paragon Shep will have a lot of allies while renegade Shep will have a superpowered humanity. I wonder if perhaps the strongest ending to ME3 will involve a moderate path.

[pacer90]

Paragon's lose the reaper tech inside the collector's base.



They also have the turian councillor to deal with.



Who is better off again?

[Giantevilhead]

Black Isle/Obsidian is better with this aspect of the game. They actually make the evil choices rewarding. Neverwinter 2: Mask of the Betrayer is probably the best example of this. That game had an awesome evil ending.

[mrmitra]

In KOTOR, being good made you popular but you had less powerful powers and had less money. Dark side brought more powerful powers and lots more money but at the cos of squadmates and NPC support.



I agree though, I would like more consequences for moral choices. Like one of the countless criminals a paragon has given a second chance ends up becoming a criminal lord or something. Perhaps even this criminal affects a potential squadmate and prevents them from joining. Or make a paragon turn down a very powerful weapon for a moral reason.



I like the formula of paragons gain popularity at the cost of riches and power, with renegades having the opposite effect.

[The_mango55]

Elnora the Mercenary

[Default137]

Lunarionsilver wrote...

Playing full Paradon or full Renegade has never struct me as something to do. I base my decisions on how my character would. Sometiems those choices are 'Paragon' and sometimes they are 'Regegade'. Playing either or just isn't realistic I'd say.
That said, I think you used poor examples from both those games. I find that usually the decisions are more in tones of grey.
For example: In DAO you can choose the Dark Pact, which would be the 'wrong' choice, possibly have a happy ending, and get screwed when it comes into frution. Or you could deny the Pact, possibly have a craptastic ending, but at least know it wouldn't come back to bite you.

Mass Effect and Mass Effect 2 are very similar. How do you know those idealist choices won't ruin you? Reprogram the Geth? Could turn on you instead of helping defeat the Reapers. Cure the Krogan? Could help fight the Reapers, or perhaps form a Horde and nother Rebellion, costing thousands of lives. Quarrians going to war? Maybe they would win and defeat the bulk of the Geth who would have joined the Reapers, or maybe they would have lost, thus destroying the largest fleet in the galaxy.

The 'good' choices in a game don't always have happy endings.

My basis right now is on Biowares track record, not only from previous games, but also from ME1 to ME2.

In ME1, if you save the Council, you did so at the cost of oh lets say, 7 million human lives, you also practicially destroyed one of humanities main fleets, and it would probably take anywhere from 5-6 years to fix all that up, all for the sake of saving 4 people. That never came back, and judging by how Bioware handled its previous games, it never will, that loss of life and loss of a fleet at most will get a minor mention in ME3, but they'll have magically fixed any potentiol consequence it might have had, because apparently being good is more important then realistic scenarios.

And thats kind of what I'm getting at here, there is no consequence for being good in Bioware games, you just threw away an entire fleet for no reason? Aww, don't worry, you won't have to see how the weakened Alliance fleet will be unable to protect its border colonies during the full out Reaper attack, and billons will die because of your idealism, because in your perfect Paragon world, bad things don't happen!