206 réponses à ce sujet

[Zulu_DFA]

Folks want CONSEQUENCES and BAD ENDINGS!!!

What Paragon choices are most likely to bite you in the *** in ME3?

What Renegade choices are most likely to bite you in the *** in ME3?

ME 3 Chance for failure?

Mass Effect 3: Should failure be an option?

Modifié par Zulu_DFA, 23 août 2010 - 07:38 .

[Nightwriter]

I want consequences. I want choice outcome variance. I don't know about bad endings. I hate having bad and impossible situations forced on me where I have to kill someone or sacrifice someone or something in one of those "THE DEAL" moments.

[Asari]

Nightwriter wrote...

I want consequences. I want choice outcome variance. I don't know about bad endings. I hate having bad and impossible situations forced on me where I have to kill someone or sacrifice someone or something in one of those "THE DEAL" moments.

I like those moments just because because it adds some excitement in the games, I love those "nail-biting"-moments ^^ Maybe not when they appear way too often. But when you come across a crossroad you can't do much but to choose.

[Liam1995]

I really hope there is an ending where you die and the galaxy and everyone in it is killed/destroyed.

[Pulse-eater]

I like it. But you provide two "Shepard win" outcomes, how about a second downgraded "Reapers win" outcome:

Shepard lives. Escapes into another galaxy with fleet of survivors. Ostensibly to "start over". Reapers unstoppable. Reapers win. Present galactic civilization annihilated.

I think that would be a sexy ending.

[ill-intent]

I only hope there is some sort of ending that cannot be obtained without importing from previous games. I know Bioware wants to make the game stand-alone, but you need to have an import-unique ending. If you don't, and all of ME3's endings can be played as a stand alone, then there is absolutely no purpose of ever even bothering to have made the first 2 games have an import feature.

Modifié par ill-intent, 15 août 2010 - 11:45 .

[Seth Burns]

Well, you can die. I mean, it's a pretty big choice in the suicide mission, making the right ones in order not to die. Sure you'd have to suck to get killed, but I'm pretty sure that affects the entire trilogy forever.

[smudboy]

Though a rather confusing and somewhat subjective topic, outcomes tend to have around 4 levels.

1. Shepard wins, Reapers die. Galaxy saved. Commander Shepard asked to arrange the new order (become a President).

2. Shepard dies, Reapers die. Galaxy saved, but lies in ashes. Depending on the choices there is more or less ashes and TIM/Udina/Anderson/TurianCouncillor/RachniQueen/UrndotWrex/Legion becomes an Emperor.

3. Shepard dies, Reapers win. Galaxy eaten.

Here we have positive, positive, and negative outcomes to the galaxy, with variations on the protagonist and antagonists.  However, we can see variations on this per variable.  I've found at least 4 states in most outcomes, that is, a positive, negative, neutral, or different/neither response.  It's the 4th step which is interesting.

Thus:
a) Shepard: wins/loses/stalemates/(something else) -- where something else could be anything from being put into cryo, running away, or being integrated with a Reaper
Reapers: win/lose/stalemates/(something else) -- where this can become anything from only killing one but not the rest, or being reprogrammed as an integrated host/mutualism/parasitic elder/servant species.
c) Galaxy: saved/destroyed/damaged/(something else) -- where this can literally be anything that incorporates all life (including Reapers) into the equation, to having all life become cybernetic/semi-Reaper (to ward off future Reaper threats), to adopting new technology/disregarding old technology (ME fields.)

Then there are the obvious variations on winning (human dominance) and losing (only humans obliterated), and stalemating (Reapers + everything else in various states of damage and change.)  When we look at particular variables, we can  gauge general outcomes: how effective an impact the Rachni will have, what the Collector Base might procure, what all those Prothean artefacts mean, what role the Quarians and Geth will play, etc.

[Mr. Gogeta34]

Hopefully Paragon/Renegade points aren't as important to ME3 as the actual choice you make.



You could have a great moral compass and still make the wrong actual decision.

[Asari]

I wonder if you can do all the "wrong" choices in ME1 and ME2 but do all the "right" choices in ME3 and still defeat the reapers.

[Zulu_DFA]

Asari wrote...

I wonder if you can do all the "wrong" choices in ME1 and ME2 but do all the "right" choices in ME3 and still defeat the reapers.

I doubt it. Even if they adopt the "reward / punishment" approach instead of "you get what you want" (which I doubt at this point), they'll make it so that everything can be corrected in ME3.

It'd be a thrill though, if the wrong choices, as they were revealed to be such in ME3 required sacrifices to be corrected. Like, lives of companions, NPCs, Shepard, or entire races' fleets to be decimated, which could itself constitute a hell of a Big Choice.

BioWare can make it all unexpected, yet still both plausible and quite "fair" towards all players. I would call it a balanced assymetrical reward approach, like this:

ME1 Coucil lives (risky-paragon) => Aliens +50
         Coucil dies (cautious-renegade) => Humans -50

ME2 Base blown (caustious-paragon) => Aliens -50
         Base kept (risky-renegade) =>Humans +50

This way "pure" players (both paragon and renegade) will find themselves in ME3 right where they started. Rewarded will be those that have taken the most risky approach. The too cautious will be punished. But this assymetry against the cautious players can be balanced out by whatever the ME3 "Biggest Choice" will be (only it will have to have 4 options,  to not upset the para/rene balance again), like this: risky-paragon & risky-renegade (= bad) and cautious-paragon & cautious-renegade (= good).

Anyway, I still think BioWare should try and make it all interesting, instead of just letting everyone shape out the Galaxy the way they want to see it with no biting in the arse and no strings attached, which would just cheapen the whole concept of the choices' carry-over.

[brfritos]

Zulu_DFA wrote...

This way "pure" players (both paragon and renegade) will find themselves in ME3 right where they started. Rewarded will be those that have taken the most risky approach. The too cautious will be punished. But this assymetry against the cautious players can be balanced out by whatever the ME3 "Biggest Choice" will be (only it will have to have 4 options,  to not upset the para/rene balance again), like this: risky-paragon & risky-renegade (= bad) and cautious-paragon & cautious-renegade (= good).

I really liked more if my decisons actually have some meaning.

For example, in the first game you can call Ash a coward on Eden Prime. When you are back on the Normandy she'll jump on your throat and you have the option to apologise or basically tell her that she's a terrible soldier.
Whatever is your response, it doesn't matter.

Later in the game she still 'available" to you.

I mean, if a person call me a coward and incompetent, this is the last person I would like to talk about my personal life.

Gianna Parsini is another one, you have the option to not help her and at the same time screw with her, giving the evidence she needs to Lorik Qui'in.
Then even if you tell her you don't like her attitude and think she is a stuck up b****, she still ask for your help on Illium.

WTF? <_<

[Asari]

brfritos wrote...

I really liked more if my decisons actually have some meaning.

For example, in the first game you can call Ash a coward on Eden Prime. When you are back on the Normandy she'll jump on your throat and you have the option to apologise or basically tell her that she's a terrible soldier.
Whatever is your response, it doesn't matter.

Later in the game she still 'available" to you.

I mean, if a person call me a coward and incompetent, this is the last person I would like to talk about my personal life.

Gianna Parsini is another one, you have the option to not help her and at the same time screw with her, giving the evidence she needs to Lorik Qui'in.
Then even if you tell her you don't like her attitude and think she is a stuck up b****, she still ask for your help on Illium.

WTF? <_<

LOL!? I didn't know that, have always assumed that if you don't help her she wont be there asking for your help  will she be angry with you then? I mean on Illium.. would be cool if she were.


But yeah, I know what you mean. Remember the quest from ME1 with Helena Blake? I love how she becomes when you tell her to disband the gang, walk away from it and let her survive..
 If you let her walk away, I'd say it really changed her. Might have an impact on omega in ME3 or something--


As for everything you do changes the story, like letting Saren shoot himself or rather convincing him. Maybe that have would have an impact on the reapers.. maybe they want to know how you were able to convince/persuade him to stop working for them or yeah f*ck it I dont know! I just think everything changes something..but how, that is what matter.

[Zulu_DFA]

Asari wrote...

LOL!? I didn't know that, have always assumed that if you don't help her she wont be there asking for your help  will she be angry with you then? I mean on Illium.. would be cool if she were.

Yes, she says she's gotten at Anoleis anyhow, so she wouldn't mind if you screwed up yet another job for her. She likes the challenge, I suppose.

[Schattenkeil]

 I would prefer to have each choice its own direct consequences. It would be great of that would have a grave impact on the gameplay in Mass Effect 3, not in a way that makes it harder or considerably easier, but in a way that makes it different. Every choice should have both advantages and disadvantages.

It would not enrich my game experience that I had chosen the path which turns out to be the worst possible, that's for sure and that importing a character who played through both  Mass Effect 1 and 2 is a disadvantage over taking "default" character who made "good"  decisions in past games.

Modifié par Schattenkeil, 19 octobre 2010 - 10:49 .

[Nozybidaj]

ratzerman wrote...

There are no BIG CHOICES. There is only the illusion of choice.

Save Ashley or Kaidan? - doesn't matter. Both get identical cameos.
Save the Council? - doesn't matter. You're treated the same, regardless.

This.  All the "choices" ultimately lead to the same end anyway.  The marketing of the trilogy being built on choices was just that, marketing.

[Asari]

Nozybidaj wrote...

ratzerman wrote...

There are no BIG CHOICES. There is only the illusion of choice.

Save Ashley or Kaidan? - doesn't matter. Both get identical cameos.
Save the Council? - doesn't matter. You're treated the same, regardless.

This.  All the "choices" ultimately lead to the same end anyway.  The marketing of the trilogy being built on choices was just that, marketing.

Yes, I choose to treat my team badly. We all survived and the collectors are no more.. Wait a minute, nobody survived!  Now I cant play ME3!! AAaaaaawwwwww!

[brfritos]

It's interesting that Conrad Verner became the example of a choice that affects Shepard, albeit in the wrong way.
For clarification, he's a bug error. Or game, engine, import, sintax, whatever the name you wanna give, but that's what he really is.
A error.

But at the same time he affects Shepard, because if you don't have him the price of upgrades on Illium will became substancially higher and will jeopardize the speed Shepard can buy them.
He's not a major participant in the game, nor have the influence in your fight against the Reapers, but at the same time he has a impact in the way Shepard progress, because you have to change the missions planned before going to the Collector Ship, since you won't have money for the SMG, AR, health and shield upgrades.

You can call him a "support role". LOL

But this apparently insignificant error will influnce Shepard and the path you play the game, that is the point.
That's really the sort of things I like to see more in the game.
 

[AdmiralCheez]

I sincerely doubt that the choices we made in ME1/ME2 will have an effect on whether we can win or lose ME3. The game should be just as playable for the new guys as for the veterans, but it should also provide rewards and consequences for those of us that spent 30 or more hours really getting into the series. Sure, most of our imported glory may be in the background, but that's not necessarily a bad thing, and that doesn't mean you have to give up the possibility of a lose/lose situation in the end, either. Note that, while your actions in ME1 had little impact on the overall outcome of ME2, they did seriously change the environment in which you played. Paragons had more allies, but renegades had caused a much greater shift in power. And, regardless of what you did in ME1, ME2 still gave you the option of either epic victory or complete failure (okay, maybe not COMPLETE failure, since the Collectors were still stopped, but you get the idea), and added a lot of interesting choices to the mix (to genophage or not to genophage, for example).



So here's what I think: How you played ME1 and 2 will determine who your allies are and the overall political environment of the galaxy. Paragons will have created greater unity, and thus will have more races and factions at their sides during the final battle, but they probably nuked the Collector base and gave TIM the finger, so they won't have that much of a tech advantage. Renegades will have far less friends, but humanity will have reached its peak in power, so while you have the smallest final attack force, you get the biggest guns. Equal chance of victory for both, but with a completely different flavor. The "default" Shepard will probably get a mix, where relations with other races are tense, but a few are willing to cooperate, and the Alliance is certainly a major player but is not quite as strong as, say, the turian military. The new kids are missing out on a few goodies, certainly (no awesome weapons based on Collector tech, no alliance with the geth), but they aren't being completely cheated out of a fair fight.



The battle itself, however, should completely rely on what decisions you make in ME3. I can see results similar to the suicide mission: either it is a) a triumphant victory over the Reapers, a long and hard battle in which casualties are massive and Shepard him/herself dies, but there are enough survivors left to pick up the pieces and start over, or c) you are completely unprepared for the final confrontation, get completely wiped out, and the Reapers make tasty milkshakes out of you and mindless slaves out of all your friends. Hopefully, the decisions that lead up to this will be less about moral alignment and more about strategy and effort.



Of course, if you get ending A, I expect a nice epilogue in which either all the races are sitting in a circle singing Kumbaya (mostly paragon) or humanity is kicking the sh!t out of those arrogant alien dirtbags and ruling the galaxy (mostly renegade). Or tensions remain (neutral), and no one is sure where everyone will end up, but there is no doubt that things will be different from now on.



Note that the paragon/renegade outcomes are less about good and evil, but more about doing the RIGHT thing or doing the SMART thing. The typical paragon, while level-headed and diplomatic, still makes decisions based on their own morals; the average renegade, on the other hand, is a selfish, violent, racist buttmunch, but often chooses the most practical solution. Interesting how that works out, really, with the emotional ones using their brains and the logical ones thinking with their hearts... You'd think it'd be the other way around.

[AdamNW]

Why do people think that minimal impact = choices never mattered? They matter just as much as the choices in DAO+DLC, and that was a two year period as well.

[Moiaussi]

What I don't understand is why they didn't use ME2 as a means of promoting additional ME1 sales. They could have packaged them together at a discount rate on ME1. With ME3, they could release a 'trilogy package' and promote the fact that 'decisions carry through, get all three for the whole experience!'



But instead they write off ME1 and don't really promote it, essentially write off key decisions...



Their head of marketing was really slacking

[Babli]

Moiaussi wrote...

What I don't understand is why they didn't use ME2 as a means of promoting additional ME1 sales. They could have packaged them together at a discount rate on ME1. With ME3, they could release a 'trilogy package' and promote the fact that 'decisions carry through, get all three for the whole experience!'

But instead they write off ME1 and don't really promote it, essentially write off key decisions...

Their head of marketing is really slacking

Fix´d.

[terribletowel]

my son is 10 and he plays alot of mw2 and call of duty world at war but one day I noticed him playin me2 which he didnt get to any sexual scenes or anything thankfully but at first he took the time to listen and read and choose his replies but that didnt last long he started to just  point and click.  I sat and watched just to see what reactions he recieved from his choices and he pissed alot of ppl off.  now they keep there conversations with him short and hardly talk to him.  so if i picked up the joystick and played under his profile i could not get important info from characters in the game.  so choices do make a difference in the game but you could still get by but youll have to figure alot of things out on your own and miss out on alot of added or extra things that can benefit you during the game.  atleast its not like fable 2 when he did that in fable he got ran out of every town, got arrested and everyone kicked his dog lol.

[Omnicrat]

phatpat63 wrote...

OP is a little harsh, but I agree in principle. I find it hard to be that optimistic though. Big choices didn't mean much change in ME2. Couple of different news clips here, an email or two there, a line of dialogue ever few hours. The biggest changes from game to game is whether you have an almost identical conversation with Ashley or Kaden, Wrex or Wreave(please correct me if you think I'm mistaken). Even the state of the Citadel makes perfect sense if you killed the counsel, but it's that way even if you saved them, given the requisite omission of one line about race riots.

While the player preception of differences is pretty identical (I assume do to limmited programing capabilities/needing to allow for the third game), the acctual universe greatly reflects the changes.  Wrex is compleatly restructuring Krogan socioty.  So, what you say to him is pretty similar to what you say to Wreave, this doesn't chang what he is doing!  OOH!

[Last Vizard]

Use logic and you should win

Use emotions and you should get everyone killed