107 réponses à ce sujet

[GenericPlayer2]

In any RPG we are often left with the feeling that there are no dialog options that  quite articulate what we want to say, and it can often be a source of frustration. As such, our normal response is "I wish I had more choices". But is more choices better, or do fewer, tougher choices make the game more interesting? 

For instance, on Legion's loyalty quest, you only get two options - rewrite or blow up. That forced me to sit there and really consider both options before I made my decision. We can argue whether that choice will make a difference in ME3, but I think we can all agree that at the time, we felt like we were making an important decision, we felt the weight of what we were about to do.

Contrast that to Tali's quest. Instead of 2 tough decisions (exile or scandal) we are presented with 3 positions that are essentially 'have your cake and eat it too'. I don't want to discuss the merits of each decision (there are tons of other threads for that). But for me the abundance of choices robbed me of the 'soul searching' experience I had on Legion's quest. Same thing on Zaeed's loyalty quest - knowing you can gain his loyalty and save the workers somehow 'cheapens' the Paragon route - in my opinion anyway.

I like how persuasion and intimidate work when you are negotiating a discount or convincing a Krogan scout to return to his clan - but I also feel they prevent us from making the game more interesting when resolving conflicts between Miranda/Jack and Tali/Legion. I am curious how other people feel, do you think being forced to choose between exile and scandal, between people's lives and Zaeed's loyalty, between the loyalty of one member instead of both, would make the game more interesting, or just more frustrating?

[Zulu_DFA]

Ah, yes... "BIG CHOICES"...

Personally I'd prefer the togh choices. And the "suicide mission" should have at least three Virmire choices, to make it plausible and ... well "emotionally engaging".

But it seems that most of people prefer a fairy tale with "happily ever after" happy ending.

Modifié par Zulu_DFA, 12 mars 2010 - 04:38 .

[Ecael]

Technically speaking, you get 3+ options for some loyalty missions - one being that you don't do them.

I don't know if that will have a unique consequence:

Legion - Heretic geth still free?
Mordin - Maelon still developing cure for Blood Pack genophage?
Miranda - What happens to Oriana if you don't interrupt their plan?
Samara - What happens to Morinth?
Tali - Does she get exiled anyway and the Alarei is still infested?
Grunt - Does he go into a blood rage without a clan?
Jack - Does she go into a blood rage without closure?

Also, Tali and Thane are essentially dead if you don't recruit them, and Samara is forced to kill some innocent if you don't recruit her.

[Multifarious Algorithm]

Whether a choice is a good one depends if it's presented in a way which is sensible. The character conflicts don't work if they're forced to be binary, because they're conflicts between crew mates on the same ship - why should they be binary? There is always going to be a compromise position if these people are capable of working together in the first place.

Conversely, Legion's loyalty mission makes sense as a binary choice - you can't half and half such a decision by any measure. When you went into the mission, you were going to kill everyone - now you have a choice to do something morally grey but not kill everyone. I thought a lot about that one when it came up. Still do - I think I've settled on my preferred answer, but it is different to what I initially did.

The thing about having several choices which end up accomplishing something similar is that the journey is as important as the destination - how you get things done determines what sort of person you're modelling your Shepard into, and how the characters around you develop.

I'm not against tough choices, but they need to make sense. Zaeed's choice is about character development - it shows us who Zaeed is. Tali's trial is almost more about how much you understand the Quarians and Tali then it is about making a choice. They need to exist because they represent intractable dilemmas with mutually exclusive options that are not being driven by two characters being uncharacteristically stubborn (i.e. idiot plot, essentially).

[Beholderess]

I see where you are going from, but for me always having just 2 equially bad (or good) choices would be pretty uncomfortable. Being a highly idealistic person in rl, I am very glad when the game gives one an opportunity to choose neither of 2 evils, to go for the third option. Preferrably in some crazily awesome way, like on Tali's trial.



As for Zaeed's loyalty - truth be told, I didn't expect that there was a way to keep it and save the workers, and went to save them anyway. I didn't want his loyalty at that price - he could die in suicide mission for all I cared. Still, being able to retain his loyalty was a pleasant surprise.



As for Jack/Miranda and Tali/Legion - as I understand, it is not possible to leave noone behind if not everyone in the team is loyal? And being unable to mediate these disputes would give you 2 unloyal members, no matter what you do...So, impossible to finish the final mission without casualties? No, thanks.

[DRACO1130]

I rather strongly suspect that while this is admittedly a worthy topic of game mechanics, the answer to it has nothing whatsoever to do with game mechanics.

The Bioware team put ME2 out in, for the industry, an incredibly short amount of time. I think that the whole issue of 'choices' came down to factors of time, budget and importance to the 'big picture'. my speculation, reasons for are posted elsewhere, is that in ME3 you will absolutley need the quarian fleet - Legion's heretics not so much. So with that in mind, anything involving the quarians- the volus accusation on the citadel, the slave trader on illium, the 'journey' on Omega - ALL of these are vital for Shepard to earn credibility with the quarians - credibility that will be crucial in ME3

so while in an ideal world every possible choice would be offerred, in reality, the 'Big Picture' dictates what is there and what is not.

Hope that helps.

[Beholderess]

Zulu_DFA wrote...

Ah, yes... "BIG CHOICES"...

Personally I'd prefer the togh choices. And the "suicide mission" should have at least three Virmire choices, to make it plausible and ... well "emotionally engaging".

But it seems that most of people prefer a fairy tale with "happily ever after" happy ending.

Not sure about most people, but yes, I do prefer happy endings.
Good thing we both can get whatever ending we desire, no?

[GenericPlayer2]

What about loyalty missions that have a singular outcome? All outcomes in Miranda and Jacob's quest lead to gaining their loyalty - though you can quite easily lose Miranda's loyalty later on. But with Mordin or Grunt, the only way to keep them non-loyal is to not do their missions. Should there have been a 'tough choice' option to tell Mordin that you will leave Maelon in charge of the Krogan hospital despite his objections? Should there be an option to tell Grunt that tagging the keystone is a bad idea?

Edit: Also, on Legion's loyalty quest, at the start, you learn of the possibility of re-write. Your second team mate will question whether you can trust the Geth in the long term if you make them stronger now. The responses you are given only deal with the ethics of rewriting, and not related to what your team just said, and what is admittedly truly on my mind. Seriously speaking, was anyone out there thinking about the ethical standard of rewriting the Heretics, or were they in fact thinking about long term effects of strengthening the Geth?

Modifié par GenericPlayer2, 12 mars 2010 - 04:49 .

[Zulu_DFA]

Beholderess wrote...

Zulu_DFA wrote...

Ah, yes... "BIG CHOICES"...

Personally I'd prefer the togh choices. And the "suicide mission" should have at least three Virmire choices, to make it plausible and ... well "emotionally engaging".

But it seems that most of people prefer a fairy tale with "happily ever after" happy ending.

Not sure about most people, but yes, I do prefer happy endings.
Good thing we both can get whatever ending we desire, no?

It's good for you. It makes me, who intentionally got 5 squadmates killed , for the sake of the story being more plausible, look "bad". Some people even don't understand it. Not that I care a lot, but still it's bothering, because it constantly reminds me, that this game isn't too serious.

[Beholderess]

GenericPlayer2 wrote...

What about loyalty missions that have a singular outcome? All outcomes in Miranda and Jacob's quest lead to gaining their loyalty - though you can quite easily lose Miranda's loyalty later on. But with Mordin or Grunt, the only way to keep them non-loyal is to not do their missions. Should there have been a 'tough choice' option to tell Mordin that you will leave Maelon in charge of the Krogan hospital despite his objections? Should there be an option to tell Grunt that tagging the keystone is a bad idea?

I'd say that more options are always nice.

[GenericPlayer2]

DRACO1130 wrote...

I rather strongly suspect that while this is admittedly a worthy topic of game mechanics, the answer to it has nothing whatsoever to do with game mechanics.
The Bioware team put ME2 out in, for the industry, an incredibly short amount of time. I think that the whole issue of 'choices' came down to factors of time, budget and importance to the 'big picture'. my speculation, reasons for are posted elsewhere, is that in ME3 you will absolutley need the quarian fleet - Legion's heretics not so much. So with that in mind, anything involving the quarians- the volus accusation on the citadel, the slave trader on illium, the 'journey' on Omega - ALL of these are vital for Shepard to earn credibility with the quarians - credibility that will be crucial in ME3
so while in an ideal world every possible choice would be offerred, in reality, the 'Big Picture' dictates what is there and what is not.
Hope that helps.

I see what you are saying, that without knowing what happens in ME3 its impossible to know why these choices are there.

[Beholderess]

Zulu_DFA wrote...

Beholderess wrote...

Zulu_DFA wrote...

Ah, yes... "BIG CHOICES"...

Personally I'd prefer the togh choices. And the "suicide mission" should have at least three Virmire choices, to make it plausible and ... well "emotionally engaging".

But it seems that most of people prefer a fairy tale with "happily ever after" happy ending.

Not sure about most people, but yes, I do prefer happy endings.
Good thing we both can get whatever ending we desire, no?

It's good for you. It makes me, who intentionally got 5 squadmates killed , for the sake of the story being more plausible, look "bad". Some people even don't understand it. Not that I care a lot, but still it's bothering, because it constantly reminds me, that this game isn't too serious.

Well, I can understand doing all sort of things for more dramatic effect. I've heard that some people intentionally get their LI die on the final mission, for example, and there isn't anything strange about that.
Still, the fact stands that right now both you and I can have their desired ending. Would you prefer only people who share your preferences being able to get the ending they are happy with, but the people who share mine - don't?

[Zulu_DFA]

We have to keep in mind that there is the general storyline of the trilogy for the *canon* Shepard, and *our* Shepards cannot deviate from it indefinitelly. I just hope that lack of certain options to chose in ME1 and ME2 will repay in ME3 by real consequences for those options that were available, including biting in the arse some of the stupid paragon choices.

[Commander Shepard]

Toygh choices make the game great

[Zulu_DFA]

Beholderess wrote...

Zulu_DFA wrote...

Beholderess wrote...

Zulu_DFA wrote...

Ah, yes... "BIG CHOICES"...

Personally I'd prefer the togh choices. And the "suicide mission" should have at least three Virmire choices, to make it plausible and ... well "emotionally engaging".

But it seems that most of people prefer a fairy tale with "happily ever after" happy ending.

Not sure about most people, but yes, I do prefer happy endings.
Good thing we both can get whatever ending we desire, no?

It's good for you. It makes me, who intentionally got 5 squadmates killed , for the sake of the story being more plausible, look "bad". Some people even don't understand it. Not that I care a lot, but still it's bothering, because it constantly reminds me, that this game isn't too serious.

Well, I can understand doing all sort of things for more dramatic effect. I've heard that some people intentionally get their LI die on the final mission, for example, and there isn't anything strange about that.
Still, the fact stands that right now both you and I can have their desired ending. Would you prefer only people who share your preferences being able to get the ending they are happy with, but the people who share mine - don't?

Well, all you think about is to get max fun (as you understand it) for every dollar invested in your copy of the game.

To me, it's not a matter of personal preference. I think the devs should try more artistic approach to what they do, instead of just wishing to please as many people as possible, to collect their dollars. But I undertand, that in the free market economy thing work your way, so I don't blame BioWare. Yet, I don't have to be happy about it either.

[GenericPlayer2]

Zulu_DFA wrote...

We have to keep in mind that there is the general storyline of the trilogy for the *canon* Shepard, and *our* Shepards cannot deviate from it indefinitelly. I just hope that lack of certain options to chose in ME1 and ME2 will repay in ME3 by real consequences for those options that were available, including biting in the arse some of the stupid paragon choices.

Agreed, without the whole picture its difficult to judge. But I doubt we will see paragon choices penalized - BW already had too many chances to make that happen. They could have added a news report about Balak taking more hostages or getting more people killed, but they didn't. Its reached the point for me that I would be extremely happy if people who kept Pitne For out of jail in ME2 will be able to get access to a special store of his in ME3 and get weapons or upgrades that the Paragons can't. But it won't happen.

But back to my main point, I just feel that too many choices trivializes the decision. Fewer choices makes me spend some time thinking them through. I know, from experience, that you don't need to recruit everyone or have everyone's loyalty to get the job done without casualties, so if I was forced to choose one loyalty over another, it would make the game more interesting for me.

[mothbanquet]

GenericPlayer2 wrote...

Zulu_DFA wrote...

We have to keep in mind that there is the general storyline of the trilogy for the *canon* Shepard, and *our* Shepards cannot deviate from it indefinitelly. I just hope that lack of certain options to chose in ME1 and ME2 will repay in ME3 by real consequences for those options that were available, including biting in the arse some of the stupid paragon choices.

Agreed, without the whole picture its difficult to judge. But I doubt we will see paragon choices penalized - BW already had too many chances to make that happen. They could have added a news report about Balak taking more hostages or getting more people killed, but they didn't. Its reached the point for me that I would be extremely happy if people who kept Pitne For out of jail in ME2 will be able to get access to a special store of his in ME3 and get weapons or upgrades that the Paragons can't. But it won't happen.

I concur with these statements.  I strongly hope that the people who trusted previously barbaric and destructive races such as the rachni (saving the queen) and krogan (curing the genophage) get a nasty surprise as they turn on them in the middle of the quest to stop the reapers, perhaps weakening other allies in the process.

I can't see that happening either though tbh, although I pray the BioWare will see the genius in creating consequences that go beyond mere 'good and evil' - consequences that will be completely unforeseen...

[RinpocheSchnozberry]

I like a girl with big choices.

I like a game with big choices too.

In magical Candyland, all games would let you do whatever you want and adjust so that running after a Reaper in nothing but a grape smuggler and wielding nothing but a majorette's baton would some how let you kill the Reaper and save the galaxy. 

In reality, to tell a tight and interesting story, only certain options are available.  I see what you're getting at OP, but I think there's a trade off between soul searching and deliverable.  A well written story can arrange the plot and characters in such a way that the game can do both.  Like in DAO when Alistair says "**** everyone, it's me or Logain."  Tough choice for some characters, notably if you play a good character trying to heal the land.  ME2' delievered the same thing for me in Garrus's loyalty quest.  Sidonis deserved to die, but Garrus murdering to avenge a wrong is just as wrong as Sidonis helping to kill people.

Desirable, yes.  Deliverable, not always.  A good balance is best.

Modifié par RinpocheSchnozberry, 12 mars 2010 - 05:30 .

[Beholderess]

GenericPlayer2 wrote...

Agreed, without the whole picture its difficult to judge. But I doubt we will see paragon choices penalized - BW already had too many chances to make that happen. They could have added a news report about Balak taking more hostages or getting more people killed, but they didn't. Its reached the point for me that I would be extremely happy if people who kept Pitne For out of jail in ME2 will be able to get access to a special store of his in ME3 and get weapons or upgrades that the Paragons can't.

This I can sertainly agree with.
One of the thing I liked the best about ME1 is that the game did not tell you which way -  paragon/renegade/whatever else in between - is the right way. All of them worked, each one got good results, the only difference is in how.
However, most paragon choices from ME1 have more pleasant consequences in ME2, which runs contradictory to the previosly established impression that both ways are right.

What I think would be best, however, is for every decidion to have both good and bad things as a consequence.

[Beholderess]

mothbanquet wrote...

GenericPlayer2 wrote...

Zulu_DFA wrote...

We have to keep in mind that there is the general storyline of the trilogy for the *canon* Shepard, and *our* Shepards cannot deviate from it indefinitelly. I just hope that lack of certain options to chose in ME1 and ME2 will repay in ME3 by real consequences for those options that were available, including biting in the arse some of the stupid paragon choices.

Agreed, without the whole picture its difficult to judge. But I doubt we will see paragon choices penalized - BW already had too many chances to make that happen. They could have added a news report about Balak taking more hostages or getting more people killed, but they didn't. Its reached the point for me that I would be extremely happy if people who kept Pitne For out of jail in ME2 will be able to get access to a special store of his in ME3 and get weapons or upgrades that the Paragons can't. But it won't happen.

I concur with these statements.  I strongly hope that the people who trusted previously barbaric and destructive races such as the rachni (saving the queen) and krogan (curing the genophage) get a nasty surprise as they turn on them in the middle of the quest to stop the reapers, perhaps weakening other allies in the process.

I can't see that happening either though tbh, although I pray the BioWare will see the genius in creating consequences that go beyond mere 'good and evil' - consequences that will be completely unforeseen...

Well, they proved that they can - the choice between Harrowmont and Bhelen in DA:O.

[smudboy]

I don't see the number of options for a choice being the issue. I would argue the whole P/R system is flawed and should be done away with (look at Tali's Loyalty mission where you have literally 5 choices at her trial, with 7 different results (if you didn't talk to the admirals for the P/R options.))



The problem is when some choices (no matter how tough or big) do not fit the theme or character you wish it to. The obvious is at the start: not arguing with Cerberus, and the end, the Reaper base. Would a character (who played a Paragon sole survivor, who helped Corporal Toombs) really just go along with everything TIM asks? This is one of the first, fundamental problems with the railroading of the story in ME2: the choices we made in the first game mean no characterization or impact on the plot of ME2.



Instead of P/R, imagine ME2 allowed you to align yourself with certain factions: Cerberus, Alliance, Spectre, Justicar Code, various merc groups, or neither. You could then have the "faction choice", which would benefit such a group. Or having aligning with multiple factions. Being a double agent. etc. That is role playing.



P/R is just an attitude surrounding the choices, which, really doesn't add to Shepard characterization.

[Collider]

We already have tough choices. There are some choices that you can get a universally positive result (though it's ultimately subjective) with enough persuasion. But that is realistic, the outcome of certain situations often has a lot of do with how you phrase things, even if you're essentially saying the same thing. That's just how it works, emotional appeals can be quite effective. At the same time, we still have plenty of choices which realistically have nothing to do with Shepard's silver tongue. Rewrite or destroy for instance. Either way, Legion is loyal.

[Hyper Cutter]

Beholderess wrote...

However, most paragon choices from ME1 have more pleasant consequences in ME2, which runs contradictory to the previosly established impression that both ways are right.

To be fair, most Renegade options led to the people kind of, uh, dying...

[SteelEagleShane]

Zulu_DFA wrote...

Beholderess wrote...

Zulu_DFA wrote...

Beholderess wrote...

Zulu_DFA wrote...

Ah, yes... "BIG CHOICES"...

Personally I'd prefer the togh choices. And the "suicide mission" should have at least three Virmire choices, to make it plausible and ... well "emotionally engaging".

But it seems that most of people prefer a fairy tale with "happily ever after" happy ending.

Not sure about most people, but yes, I do prefer happy endings.
Good thing we both can get whatever ending we desire, no?

It's good for you. It makes me, who intentionally got 5 squadmates killed , for the sake of the story being more plausible, look "bad". Some people even don't understand it. Not that I care a lot, but still it's bothering, because it constantly reminds me, that this game isn't too serious.

Well, I can understand doing all sort of things for more dramatic effect. I've heard that some people intentionally get their LI die on the final mission, for example, and there isn't anything strange about that.
Still, the fact stands that right now both you and I can have their desired ending. Would you prefer only people who share your preferences being able to get the ending they are happy with, but the people who share mine - don't?

Well, all you think about is to get max fun (as you understand it) for every dollar invested in your copy of the game.

To me, it's not a matter of personal preference. I think the devs should try more artistic approach to what they do, instead of just wishing to please as many people as possible, to collect their dollars. But I undertand, that in the free market economy thing work your way, so I don't blame BioWare. Yet, I don't have to be happy about it either.

The issue here is that art, like beauty, is in the eye of the beholder. I don't consider a group of specialists, the elite in their fields, surviving a mission that required preparation and intelligence as much if not wildly more than execution to be unplausible or a happy ever after ending since my character put the time into taking as much of the risk out as possible. Nor do I consider characters being killed off and you having to suffer losses because the game deems it emotionally engaging to do so to be artistic. That and Virmire didn't do much for me because the choice was arbitrary and therefore not engaging.

But this is my opinion. You may consider it to be more artistic and you are right- in your own opinion.

[Collider]

Having tough choices with no easier ways out sort of invalidates charm and intimidate. I wouldn't mourn their loss, but I'm sure plenty of people like charm/intimidate especially the RPG and roleplaying people.

What constitutes as tough is subjective...for me for example the legion choice wasn't hard for me.
Still, it's clear they intended some choices to be tough - as was choosing between Kaidan and Ashley for some players.
I think there's a matter of taste that developers and writers need to be keep into perspective. I don't think most people want unavoidable choices where you have to be a selfish ****** in order for your Shepard to live or for your romance interest to live.

You might say Ashley Versus Kaidan on Virmire, but that doesn't fit what I mean by selfish ******. In the case of Kaidan versus Ashley, even if you romanced one of them,
it's still choosing between one human or the other human - as in equal.