107 réponses à ce sujet

[Karstedt]

GenericPlayer2 wrote...

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 totally thought I was writing off Zaeed's loyalty when I gave him a nice big cup of STFU... and was dissapointed that my initial reaction to making that choice was really just a waste. It did cheapen the experience (and/or the character) when it turned out to be unimportant.

[WarChicken78]

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.

Yes and no. I think if you don't want to loose someone, you should have to work a lot harder to get the "fairy tale - happy ever after" ending.

For example Zaeeds Loyality. If you choose to help the workers, a timer should start running. If you manage to beat the mission in that timeframe, you'll get Vido and get Zaeeds loyality. If not, Vido escapes, and you can not gain Zaeeds loyality anymore. That would be a great choice that fits both Zaeeds personality and the game.

Since zaeed is a badass jerk, this would be a mission where it gets complicated when you choose the paragon path.
On another mission it might be the other way where you'll have a much harder time if you want to be the renegade.
That would make the missions more interesting and would add more to the roleplaying aspect.


In the suicide mission you actually have some serious choices. If you don't pick the right person for the right assignment, they die. Try picking Garrus as a specialist or Tali as fire team leader or Miranda as Biotic expert. They will die. Even if they're loyal.

I'd like it on the other hand if it were possible to save members if you survive against really hard odds if you made a bad choice. When the fire team leader calls "We're pinned against the door..."
it should be "We're pinned down near the door" and you should get the option to rush in and save their asses.
And in this situation you should be unable to save and reload. If you don't get it done that member is dead. If you die trying the option to rush in should be grayed out after respawning the section before that.
This way the "It depends on me" feeling would be really dense.

Just my 2 cens here...

[Collider]

There is nothing inherently more meaningful for the death of a character over the survival of a character.

[GodWood]

Collider wrote...

There is nothing inherently more meaningful for the death of a character over the survival of a character.

We get it dude, you like Fairy Tale Endings...

[Mcjon01]

Shandepared wrote...


With more choices we can both be happy. I'm like Zulu; I want character deaths for the drama and meaning it gives to the narrative. Happy endings are good, but in certain stories I find them a little hard to swallow. The suicide mission is in many ways one such example...

I'm thinking in the future I'm just going to have to approach my role-playing from a different angle.

I was going to make a crack about how you probably made sure all the aliens died in the suicide mission, but then I realized that would probably be what you considered a happy ending.

/That is a joke.

[RiouHotaru]

Beholderess wrote...

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.

To be perfectly honest, Shepard tells TIM this sentence if you let Tali take Veetor: "Ever tried being nice to people once in a while?" Or something to that effect.  That's the thing, the reason paragon options aren't widely penalized is because usually, being more open-minded and nice to folks results in you getting more from them in return.  Only time it doesn't is when the other side expects you to use force (like the Krogans, where being diplomatic is lost on them).

Renegades do benefit from their choices, but most of the time the benefits come immediately, without any plans for a long term investment.  If you think about it, being a Paragon is a bit of a thankless job.  The Council still thinks you're nuts, and occasionally dangerous criminals are allowed to escape.  But in the long run, likely BW won't keep Renegades from beating back the Reapers, but that doesn't mean they won't make it harder or require you to use a different route.

[Collider]

GodWood wrote...
We get it dude, you like Fairy Tale Endings...

That's an exaggeration. If someone imports a playthrough where all their favorite character dies, I'd wager they'll be less emotionally affected.

I'm not saying everything should be perfect, but that they should have a sense of taste.

[RiouHotaru]

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...

And why should Paragons be penalized?  I mean, you're calling the rachni "barbaric and destructive" after the queen promises to be good, and so far has KEPT that promise.  And the krogan?  Under Wrex's rule they'll be stronger than ever, and inclined to want to help Shepard.  So far that's 2 for 2.  I'm not against the idea that Renegades should get something for their troubles.  But add more benefits, don't inflict penalties.

[HeyBlade789]

The Virmire decision was frankly the best and most emotional bit of gameplay ever. we need to see more of that i think.

[Collider]

Shandepared wrote...

Collider wrote...

There is nothing inherently more meaningful for the death of a character over the survival of a character.

I disagree. A story has a lot more impact and a villain a lot more menace when they manage to kill some of the heroes.

It depends on how it is done and what character it is, and how the story reflects on the death. A death can matter a little, or it can matter a lot. But a lot of the emotional attachment can be lost if a character is dead. As an example, the difference between having your LI die at the end of ME2 (oh boy you get sad music) versus having the relationship continue with turbulence in ME3.

[Collider]

That's my point really. Deaths are not inherently more meaningful than survival - as you can see with Tali and Garrus. At most it seems, you get some sad music. If Shepard could mourn them throughout ME3, it would be different, but seeing as what was done with ME2 squad mates dying and Kaidan/Ash dying, I really doubt anything like that will happen.

[Zulu_DFA]

No one get left behind on the "suicide mission"? The game feels like... a game tailored for kids to clap their hands at gettingt the "No one left behind" medal.



Characters die on the "suicide mission"? The game feels like... a game... about a suicide mission.

[Urazz]

Shandepared wrote...

Zulu_DFA wrote...

No one get left behind on the "suicide mission"? The game feels like... a game tailored for kids to clap their hands at gettingt the "No one left behind" medal.

Characters die on the "suicide mission"? The game feels like... a game... about a suicide mission.

Exactly. It's not much of a suicide mission if nobody dies. Ultimately if you saved everyone it would seem that the assault on Saren's base, where you had far more support personnel, was way more dangerous than 12 people marching into a base in enemey territory with no back-up...

You actually have a bigger and deadly team than what you had in ME1.  Sure you had your alliance crew, but they were basically fodder for the enemy anyways.

I actually would've preferred some deaths in the suicide mission as well but would've preferred it more as a chioce like on Virmire as well.

[Skilled Seeker]

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?

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?

I was thinking about the long term effects. Which is why I always destroy the station. Strengthening the Geth is NOT a good thing for the galaxy no matter how much of a Geth apologist you are.

[Skilled Seeker]

HeyBlade789 wrote...

The Virmire decision was frankly the best and most emotional bit of gameplay ever. we need to see more of that i think.

I disagree, I didn't like how it felt forced.

[Skilled Seeker]

No I mean it was forced in the sense that only Ashley or Kaiden could help out the STG or set up the bomb. Why couldn't another squad member or some redshirt do it?



In the suicide mission you can choose out of a range of people who does what.

[GenericPlayer2]

I am not arguing about the validity of one decision over the other, just that the charm/intimidate system is being used to 'have your cake and eat it too" far too many times in the game. In Tali's quest you are given 3 opportunities to avoid exile and keep her father's work secret. I felt it would been better to have just 2 options, exile or scandal.



Same is true for resolving crew disputes, you can keep everyone loyal instead of taking a stance - This would have made people really think their decisions through, and would have been the ME2 equivalent of the Virmire situation. Its all too easy, and I believe people who lost crew on their first play through did so because poor role selection as opposed to loyalty issues.The fairy tale ending is great for children stories, not for a mature game that is billed as dark and edgy, with the fate of the galaxy at stake. Some of my favorite "suicide mission" movies like Kelly's Heroes or the Devil's Brigade all involved deaths on the team. Even Shepard's reactions to the deaths is emotionally ubiquotos, the death or your LI (e.g. Tali) is handled the same way as say, the death of a squad mate you never liked (e.g. Jacob).

[Zulu_DFA]

Shandepared wrote...

Skilled Seeker wrote...

No I mean it was forced in the sense that only Ashley or Kaiden could help out the STG or set up the bomb. Why couldn't another squad member or some redshirt do it?

In the suicide mission you can choose out of a range of people who does what.

True enough. What I wonder is why you couldn't send some of your other red-shirt marines to help the salarians as well. Speaking of which, nobody seems to care about the marine who died defending the bomb.

It's possible to save that marine.