107 réponses à ce sujet

[Collider]

GenericPlayer2 wrote...

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.

How wold you propose changing the charm/intimidate system then?

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.

It's clear that the game will not have a fairy tale ending, people will die in the course of beating the reapers. That much is obvious. But that doesn't that our favorites need to die to fill some arbitrary quota of edginess.

[GenericPlayer2]

Collider wrote...

GenericPlayer2 wrote...

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.

How wold you propose changing the charm/intimidate system then?

Charm/Intimidate works fine for things like convincing the Turian guard to let you into the plague zone. You don't use it and the guards in the area fire on you. But using it to avoid uncomfortable plot decisions is not what I would like. It removes any weight or impact from things like saving the refinery workers or not using evidence at a trial.

Collider wrote...
It's clear that the game will not have a fairy tale ending, people will die in the course of beating the reapers. That much is obvious. But that doesn't that our favorites need to die to fill some arbitrary quota of edginess.

Why is it clear the game will not have a fairy tale ending? Outside of the Virmire decision, the game so far has not really forced the player into making tough choices. I am not advocating that we have to get rid of your favorite character, I am saying that favoring one character should come at a cost. For example, if a player favors Tali, then he should side with her during the argument at Legion, and there by putting Legion in a potentially risky situation. The 'fairy tale' aspect comes from the fact that instead of being forced to make tough choices or take a side, you are given options to keep everyone happy, everyone gets along. The alternative is to intentionally get people killed - its pandering vs telling a great story.

For loyalty disputes like Jack/Miranda and Tali/Legion the options should have been to side with one or the other, or do nothing and lose both loyalties or have them 'duke it out', with one person dying or leaving the team.

Modifié par GenericPlayer2, 20 mars 2010 - 03:23 .

[GenericPlayer2]

Even if we leave the issue of crew fatalities for the moment, the game does not even attach any cost to delaying the IFF mission. No more colonies are hit, no more news of collector activity. Thus you are not even faced with the decision of going in with what you have versus waiting until the team and its loyalties are complete. From a gameplay stand point, the only reason to do the IFF mission right away is to get your team, and possibly yourself, killed.

[Collider]

GenericPlayer2 wrote...
Charm/Intimidate works fine for things like convincing the Turian guard to let you into the plague zone. You don't use it and the guards in the area fire on you. But using it to avoid uncomfortable plot decisions is not what I would like. It removes any weight or impact from things like saving the refinery workers or not using evidence at a trial.

I see. I would have to agree with you for the most part, especially considering how wacky the charm/intimidate system is. Specifically, if you have too many paragon points, you can use some intimidate options and if you have too many renegade points, you can't choose some charm options. This inhibits roleplaying and does not make logical sense.

Why is it clear the game will not have a fairy tale ending?

People will die, that much is certain. Technically possible to make ME3 all peachy and happy, but that isn't going to happen.

Outside of the Virmire decision, the game so far has not really forced the player into making tough choices.

Well, that's all subjective. The Virmire decision wasn't hard for everyone. A lot of people hated one or the other or thought that one or the other deserved to die a hero.

The 'fairy tale' aspect comes from the fact that instead of being forced to make tough choices or take a side, you are given options to keep everyone happy, everyone gets along. The alternative is to intentionally get people killed - its pandering vs telling a great story.

Fortunately for the people who want it, you're perfectly able to not use charm and intimidate. That is exactly quite important. Reconsidering what we're talking about, I'm not sure I understand the fixation of wanting some choices to be tough for other people. Especially since it is very possible not to use charm or intimidate. You seem to be pretty opposed to fairy tale get out of jail free cards, so you could realistically not use charm or intimidate, while the people who do want fairy tale endings can use it. But another important thing to consider is roleplaying.

In the Tali trial for instance, you either use charm/intimidate or you are very succint in your words. If your Shepard feels passionate about defending Tali, why not be able to use charm? After all, this is a trial with admirals who are split down the middle in favor or against exiling Tali. Realistically, in some situations people can serve as mediators with enough charisma.

I wasn't expecting you to use squad mate disputes as an example as we have no idea how it is going to play out in ME3. My real point is that while I'm fine with struggles along the way, I don't want to forced to choose my favorite squad mates or at the very least my LI at the consequence of essentially being a selfish jerk, or have to choose between Shepard or the galaxy. There's plenty of ways for Bioware to make a dark science fiction game but still heeding to taste.

[Asari]

Ecael wrote...

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.

Always wondered that myself. I Played through the first game without recruiting Wrex just to see what happends to him in the second game since he'll just stand in the citadel waiting for you in Choras Den for you to recruit him so he can help you take down Saren. As I imported my character it said "Wrex survived Virmire" .. Kinda funny how he wouldn't since he was on the citadel! Anyhow, as I get to Tuchaunka..I find Wreave sitting on the Throne and he was all like "When Wrex died his friends became mine and now im the leader! We're the strongest!!" I expected to find a third person on the throne, but the third option-- not wanting Wrex in your squad in the first game doesn't matter. Same thing goes for Garrus, if you don't take him with you he will still become Archangel -- 
Here is a vid of that for those interested.www.youtube.com/watch?v=Oq-FbWbFkR8


Anyway, makes me wonder what will happen if you dont do the loyalty missions. I also wondered what would happen what if you wouldn't help Helena Blake take care of the Crime Lords? Or what if I let Father Kyle run his little cult? Or perhaps if I let the AI go crazy on Luna? Or maybe the Alliance could take care of those reasons without Shepards help? Or perhaps its eeh.."better" to not know the answer of those questions? ...!

[Collider]

I would imagine that some of the loyalty missions matter. Tali would definitely be dead if you didn't save her,

Thane might have died too. Samara I don't know, but it seems her code doesn't allow her to be taken in, she will resist if I'm correct. Would may mean she'll fight to the death. Or she could get away and keep being a Justicar.



And Thane and Samara don't seem to have a reason to join you in ME3 if you didn't recruit them.

[BaladasDemnevanni]

My biggest issue with the Virmire decision is it forced me to take a step back and metagame my reaction. They pitted your two human party members against each other, both you could fall in love with. My love interest was Ashley, so there was very little pause to decide which person deserved to be save and the situation lost its impact. If it had been between Garrus and Wrex, etc. Well, you now have a bigger issue because you're making a call between two characters who are weighted equally against each other.

[Asari]

BaladasDemnevanni wrote...



My biggest issue with the Virmire decision is it forced me to take a step back and metagame my reaction. They pitted your two human party members against each other, both you could fall in love with. My love interest was Ashley, so there was very little pause to decide which person deserved to be save and the situation lost its impact.

It's tough being male, choosing between the ranking officer or love interest! ^^

Collider wrote...



I would imagine that some of the loyalty missions matter. Tali would definitely be dead if you didn't save her,



Thane might have died too. Samara I don't know, but it seems her code doesn't allow her to be taken in, she will resist if I'm correct. Would may mean she'll fight to the death. Or she could get away and keep being a Justicar.



And Thane and Samara don't seem to have a reason to join you in ME3 if you didn't recruit them.

Garrus, Grunt and perhaps Mordin as well..Jack would still be in Cryo. Altho I think you have to recruit all of them, is it possible to skip..lets say Jack? Do a few sidequests instead of recruiting her =)

[Multifarious Algorithm]

Virmire sort of goes either way: you can save the person at the AA gun, and ostensibly be rushing to also save the remainder of the Salarian's attached to them, or you can save the person with the bomb and ostensibly be protecting the mission.
It doesn't work out that way, but protecting the mission is generally the most defendable choice. It depends how you meta-narrate it.
EDIT: Virmire really would've worked better if you could really screw it up by not protecting the bomb. Letting your feeling get in the way of the mission or the like. Which seems to be how a lot of people managed to lose people on the suicide mission.

Modifié par Multifarious Algorithm, 20 mars 2010 - 04:43 .

[GenericPlayer2]

Asari wrote...

Garrus, Grunt and perhaps Mordin as well..Jack would still be in Cryo. Altho I think you have to recruit all of them, is it possible to skip..lets say Jack? Do a few sidequests instead of recruiting her =)

As far as I know you must recruit the first four (Garrus, Mordin, Jack and Grunt), and at least one of post-Horizon Dossiers. I have completed the game without recruiting Tali, but I have not done it with skipping 2 out the last 3. 

Edit: You don't have to recruit Grunt, but you do have to go to Korlus for the Okeer mission, which is where you get Grunt.

Modifié par GenericPlayer2, 20 mars 2010 - 05:05 .

[Zulu_DFA]

Asari wrote...

BaladasDemnevanni wrote...

My biggest issue with the Virmire decision is it forced me to take a step back and metagame my reaction. They pitted your two human party members against each other, both you could fall in love with. My love interest was Ashley, so there was very little pause to decide which person deserved to be save and the situation lost its impact.

It's tough being male, choosing between the ranking officer or love interest! ^^

Sans metagaming (that is you assume that that maybe you will have the time to rescue both Ashley and Kaidan, but any decision you take maybe wrong in the middle of a mission) the Virmire choice is this:

     "Go back to the bomb to insure it goes off no matter what"
                                                 = OR=
"Go to the AA tower to have better chances of escaping the blast"

So for me Kaidan always dies on Virmire, although I value him more than Ashley, because Kaidan is more suited to work with the aliens and provide tactical feedback to Shepard. there for he always ends up at the AA tower.

[Bigdoser]

I wonder why there was not an option to kill both of them? hmmm

[UsagiVindaloo]

One thing I thought would help with this whole "too many (easy) choices" thing is to go back to the original Charm/Intimidate setup from ME1, where it wasn't connected directly to Paragon/Renegade. I think this would provide much better game balance, because it would "force" people who wanted to charm or intimidate people into getting along/doing whatever to make sacrifices... specifically, actual *gameplay* sacrifices. You wouldn't be able to get your combat abilities up to snuff as quickly as someone who just ignored Charm/Intimidate; it's a tradeoff of words for weapons. Plus it would allow people more freedom in roleplaying (ie no more paragon/renegade checks screwing over Paragades) and let people who want the tougher choices play accordingly.



Having said that, I found nothing "fairy tale" about my No One Left Behind ending, or resolving the arguments. Those actually felt like good storytelling and, moreover, realistic. Being a level headed negotiator and a reasonable person SHOULD allow you to help two arguing people reach a consensus, and doing as much prep work and upgrading etc for a mission SHOULD improve your chances of survival. My only concern about the suicide mission is that it means obsessional completionists like myself sort of "stumble" into the happy ending almost by accident, and have to go out of their way to get people killed in subsequent playthroughs. I'm not sure how I'd fix it, but some options would be A) the Virmire route (ie choosing who dies), more of a random element (i.e. choosing a tech expert shouldn't ONLY be Tali or Legion all the time), or C) make the key element for saving everyone a tricky thing that not everyone would stumble upon on their first play through (e.g. perhaps the order of the Loyalty missions was important? Perhaps there's a single planet that becomes available after the IFF/before the relay where scanning it gets some Macguffin?)

[Maera Imrov]

I like having choices. This includes the choice/ability for me to spend more time ensuring my entire squad survives. Or the choice to let some die, for the sake of my RP. Trying to force the issue and remove the charm/intimidate from some of the choices makes no sense to me. If you don't want to use it to 'cop out' of a hard decision, then don't? Because what most everyone seems to be talking about here is RP, and their Shepard's story, and I don't take any choice I don't want to, even if it would make something 'easier to resolve' unless I feel like it. But I'm not going to tell Bioware to remove it so that my RP-ego is placated at the expense of someone else's potential enjoyment.



This whole choice thing works both ways. That said, I liked Virmire, and wouldn't be opposed to a one or the other choice in the context of a noble sacrifice. But a 'one or the other' for loyalty, which not only is for the final mission, but also skills that carry over in NG+? No. Cuz some people just like to play and get skills and don't pay any attention to RP, and there's no sense in making them have to replay twice to get the skills from Tali/Legion and Jack/Miranda. I am not one of these skill-shoot-idc about story types, but some are and I think they need the options to streamline as much as possible, too.

[BaladasDemnevanni]

Zulu_DFA wrote...

Sans metagaming (that is you assume that that maybe you will have the time to rescue both Ashley and Kaidan, but any decision you take maybe wrong in the middle of a mission) the Virmire choice is this:

     "Go back to the bomb to insure it goes off no matter what"
                                                 = OR=
"Go to the AA tower to have better chances of escaping the blast"

So for me Kaidan always dies on Virmire, although I value him more than Ashley, because Kaidan is more suited to work with the aliens and provide tactical feedback to Shepard. there for he always ends up at the AA tower.

Same. This is how I always played it out in subsequent playthroughs (where I knew exactly what would happen). Ashley was also my love interest, so by sending her with the bomb I had reason to keep the LI alive and complete the mission. If they really wanted to face you with a moral qualm, here's what should have happened:

One character (whom you choose) is sent with the Salarian team. You manage to successfully land  and prime the nuke, as your party member's position is being compromised. On the way to help him, you find out Saren/Geth are attempting to deactivate the bomb. Instead of party members, you must now choose between the mission and your squad. This would have been terrific and felt less like an excuse to kill off a human party member, potentially LI.

[Zulu_DFA]

BaladasDemnevanni wrote...

Zulu_DFA wrote...

Sans metagaming (that is you assume that that maybe you will have the time to rescue both Ashley and Kaidan, but any decision you take maybe wrong in the middle of a mission) the Virmire choice is this:

     "Go back to the bomb to insure it goes off no matter what"
                                                 = OR=
"Go to the AA tower to have better chances of escaping the blast"

So for me Kaidan always dies on Virmire, although I value him more than Ashley, because Kaidan is more suited to work with the aliens and provide tactical feedback to Shepard. there for he always ends up at the AA tower.

Same. This is how I always played it out in subsequent playthroughs (where I knew exactly what would happen). Ashley was also my love interest, so by sending her with the bomb I had reason to keep the LI alive and complete the mission. If they really wanted to face you with a moral qualm, here's what should have happened:

One character (whom you choose) is sent with the Salarian team. You manage to successfully land  and prime the nuke, as your party member's position is being compromised. On the way to help him, you find out Saren/Geth are attempting to deactivate the bomb. Instead of party members, you must now choose between the mission and your squad. This would have been terrific and felt less like an excuse to kill off a human party member, potentially LI.

Unless going for the squad was penalized with "critical mission failure" or, even better, an alternate ending sequence with the successful Reaper invasion, going for the mission would be largely perceived as "just a very dickish/moronish thing to do". And if going for the squad was penalized, there'd be a lot more "WTF, BioWare?!", than BioWare can live with.

Great idea, nonetheless!

Modifié par Zulu_DFA, 20 mars 2010 - 05:47 .

[Knoll Argonar]

Virmire was retarded IMO. It wasn't a "tough" choice, it was a "well, let's put some dramatics in this game". And besides, it wasn't tough for me at all. I ALWAYS nuked Kaidan. I didn't even considered anything different for a second. I think poor Kaidan was even Shocked xDD



Anyway, I like the Suicide Mission style: you're the leader, you decide what roles do your teammates play. Depending on those choices, or in what you do during the game, someone may die. And it will be YOUR fault, not any "dramatic" device to put some sad music on the Normandy.



That said, and even knowing that I am like the only people on my "friends group" to have saved them all in my first try, I would say that it could have been more difficult. More "Miranda/Jack-Tali/Legion" scenes, and more choices in the Suicide Mission would be better.



And, well, I got even Chakwas killed. And watching Kelly dying affected me more than any ME1 "tough"choice during my first try.

[UsagiVindaloo]

On subsequent consideration, I wonder if the whole issue isn't so much an issue of "people who like 'realistic' outcomes vs. people who like 'fairy tale' outcomes" and more an issue of what various people consider to be realistic in the first place. Some people feel like you can't win them all and that there's always going to be something or someone who gets screwed over; others, however, believe just as strongly that success can be reached as long as you approach things the right way and/or work hard enough. The different world views thus end up clashing over ME debates like this one.



Take, for example, Virmire. A more pessimistic person (for lack of a better term) might consider the inability to save both Ash and Kaiden a good dramatic turn, and a realistic choice. I, on the other hand, did find it dramatic, but at the same time unrealistic. There must have been ways to save them both (e.g. splitting up more of your team?) but the game did not allow me to pursue them. So although the incident was effective, I was still left grumbling over its theatricality. The Wrex issue seemed to be handled better; that had multiple outcomes that reflected your own hard work, determination and even sacrifice (because damnit, it sucked having to ignore my combat skills in favor of Charm!)



Another example, the ME2 arguments between Jack/Miranda and Tali/Legion. A pessimist would feel that you can't keep everyone happy and thus finds it unrealistic that you can Charm/Intimidate your way into an equitable solution. Conversely, an optimist feels that anyone can find common ground and compromise, and thus would find it unrealistic to NOT have a Charm/Intimidate option that helps people get along.

[Asari]

Captain Kirrahe and his salarian troops are with either Kaiden or Ashley at the AA-Towers. Even if you go back to make sure the bomb goes off, Kirrahe and his troops will still leave with you on the Normandy..Can that be explained? O.o

[Knoll Argonar]

Asari wrote...

Captain Kirrahe and his salarian troops are with either Kaiden or Ashley at the AA-Towers. Even if you go back to make sure the bomb goes off, Kirrahe and his troops will still leave with you on the Normandy..Can that be explained? O.o

Now THAT'S a plot hole lol

But, if I remember correctly, Kirrahe is in a different group than Kaidan's or yours. Normandy gets to save Kirrahe, but not Kaidan's group.

[GenericPlayer2]

Maera Imrov wrote...

I like having choices. This includes the choice/ability for me to spend more time ensuring my entire squad survives. Or the choice to let some die, for the sake of my RP. Trying to force the issue and remove the charm/intimidate from some of the choices makes no sense to me. If you don't want to use it to 'cop out' of a hard decision, then don't? Because what most everyone seems to be talking about here is RP, and their Shepard's story, and I don't take any choice I don't want to, even if it would make something 'easier to resolve' unless I feel like it. But I'm not going to tell Bioware to remove it so that my RP-ego is placated at the expense of someone else's potential enjoyment.

The game tells you from the very start that this is a suicide mission, and that people will die to accomplish the objective. However, it seems that with enough negotiation skills this is not the case - its not about RP ego, its about the game staying consistent. If you really like a character or want to stand by a principle, having an opportunity cost associated with that makes the story richer and better - negotiating your way out of every situation just dilutes the story.

I would rather have fewer choices that had greater impact instead of more choices that just get blurred together in the next installment of the game.

Modifié par GenericPlayer2, 20 mars 2010 - 06:26 .

[Collider]

GenericPlayer2 wrote...
The game tells you from the very start that this is a suicide mission, and that people will die to accomplish the objective. However, it seems that with enough negotiation skills this is not the case

False. The colonists die regardless of how quick you get there.

If you really like a character or want to stand by a principle, having an opportunity cost associated with that makes the story richer and better - negotiating your way out of every situation just dilutes the story.

Again, having characters able to die does not inherently make the story richer. It's a matter of execution - no pun intended.
There's no negotiating the crew. Either you get there soon enough or they all die save Chakwas.

[Zulu_DFA]

Asari wrote...

Captain Kirrahe and his salarian troops are with either Kaiden or Ashley at the AA-Towers. Even if you go back to make sure the bomb goes off, Kirrahe and his troops will still leave with you on the Normandy..Can that be explained? O.o

The Salarians were divided it three teams, so we always can assume that the Normandy extracted one or two of them while you're chatting with Saren... And the third team dies at the AA tower. However, Cpt. Kirrahe himself is at the tower, so logically he can't be saved if you go for the bomb... Myself, I always forgo the 3rd assist Kirrahe spot (drone recharge depot - I actually missed it on my 1st playthrough) to get Kirrahe killed, for dramatic effect and evasion of the paradox.

Knoll Argonar wrote...
But, if I remember correctly, Kirrahe is in a different group than Kaidan's or yours. Normandy gets to save Kirrahe, but not Kaidan's group.

If you go for the tower, you actually see Cpt. Kirrahe there.

Modifié par Zulu_DFA, 20 mars 2010 - 06:21 .

[UsagiVindaloo]

GenericPlayer2 wrote...

Maera Imrov wrote...

I like having choices. This includes the choice/ability for me to spend more time ensuring my entire squad survives. Or the choice to let some die, for the sake of my RP. Trying to force the issue and remove the charm/intimidate from some of the choices makes no sense to me. If you don't want to use it to 'cop out' of a hard decision, then don't? Because what most everyone seems to be talking about here is RP, and their Shepard's story, and I don't take any choice I don't want to, even if it would make something 'easier to resolve' unless I feel like it. But I'm not going to tell Bioware to remove it so that my RP-ego is placated at the expense of someone else's potential enjoyment.

The game tells you from the very start that this is a suicide mission, and that people will die to accomplish the objective. However, it seems that with enough negotiation skills this is not the case - its not about RP ego, its about the game staying consistent. If you really like a character or want to stand by a principle, having an opportunity cost associated with that makes the story richer and better - negotiating your way out of every situation just dilutes the story.

Except I found that that made the story feel more realistic. Real life is about negotiation, compromises and finding common ground; in some ways, forcing things into an "X or Y" framework would have felt even more unrealistic.

I still say the whole thing could be fixed by making Charm/Intimidate a separate skill again. Because then you would have to make actual *gameplay* sacrifices in order to focus on your people skills. I might be able to help Tali and Legion see eye to eye, but that takes so much effort that I can barely shoot straight, damnit. ;D And it would mean that people who prefer things being dramatic (ie tough choices) could avoid the Charm/Intimidate options altogether (not saying they don't already, but it's the difference between avoiding *existing* options on the wheel and taking steps to ensure those options aren't there in the first place)

[Knoll Argonar]

I think it's safe to admit that Joker and Kirrahe left Kaidan behind on purpose.



Poor guy xD