107 réponses à ce sujet

[Aurvan]

Multifarious Algorithm wrote...

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).

That's not really a 3rd choice, because if you don't do the quests you don't KNOW what you have a choice in doing. You usually get intel once you ARE on the quest.

[Collider]

UsagiVindaloo wrote...
And it would mean that people who prefer things being dramatic (ie tough choices) could avoid the Charm/Intimidate options altogether.

Yep. I don't understand the fixation on forcing other players to make tough decisions in situations where charm or intimidate can be used. If you want a tough choice, just don't use charm or intimidate.

[Asari]

Knoll Argonar wrote...

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

Poor guy xD

lol hell yes lets blame Joker for that!

Another thing I found rather amusing about the end of Virmire is Sarens Amazing tracking skills, doesn't matter if you go to the AA-tower or the bombsite he'll still found Shepard AND he outran a nuclear blast with that flying platform of his I have to give him some credit for that.

[mortons4ck]

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

In my mind, its because Ash was such a bad-ass, she single-handedly manned the AA-Towers allosing Kirrahe to escape. They don't call her "the Chief" for nothing (aside from rank).

Also, in regards to the suicide mission. I really think the RPing should come down to your Psychological Profiles. My main Shepard was a War-Hero Colonist, who lost everyone once and vowed to never let it happen again (and seems somewhat fatalistic about it). It would make sense for him to go out of his way to make sure everyone survived.

However, if someone was using a Ruthless Shepard; it would seem absolutely ridiculous (RP wise) to have him/her save everyone seeing as s/he's more concerned with the big picture. If a few squadmates sacrifice themselves for the greater good, it is acceptable if it means saving a billions of potential lives.

Modifié par mortons4ck, 20 mars 2010 - 06:38 .

[GenericPlayer2]

Collider wrote...

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.

Colonists don't count, no matter what your choice is in the game, they will die. By crew I meant the team, not Chakwas and the red-shirt NPC's - yes that part of the game is done well, go immediately to save them all or wait and suffer casualties.


Deaths of characters that have developed over the course of the game adds content because it makes you re-think decisions and weigh alternatives. It also presents the villain as a credible threat (as opposed to abducting  nameless colonists). Everybody is frustrated that choices from ME1 did not seem to matter. The game presents you with crisis situations like Miranda/Jack, the refinery workers, Tali's dilema, and yet provides you with easy ways to negotiate your way out of each conundrum. What is the point of these false crises if you can cop out each and every time?

[UsagiVindaloo]

Collider wrote...

UsagiVindaloo wrote...
And it would mean that people who prefer things being dramatic (ie tough choices) could avoid the Charm/Intimidate options altogether.

Yep. I don't understand the fixation on forcing other players to make tough decisions in situations where charm or intimidate can be used. If you want a tough choice, just don't use charm or intimidate.

To be fair, the red/blue choices are shiny. Seriously, I'm not being flippant... they stick out so much, and confer such useful bonuses for the most part, that having them thrust in your face can be tempting. It doesn't help that they also tend to offer more Paragon/Renegade bonuses. It's actually getting rather annoying in my current playthrough; I want my Shepard to be a cold and ruthless b*tch with max Renegade, but often the Intimidate options aren't really that "ruthless" compared to the basic ones, leaving me to choose between getting the Renegade points or being a Renegade... wait, what? 

[Collider]

GenericPlayer2 wrote...
Deaths of characters that have developed over the course of the game adds content

It literally does not add content, unless you think that having sad music and looking at a coffin is adding content.

because it makes you re-think decisions and weigh alternatives.

I think you mean having the possibility of squad mates dying, not squad mates dying in general. And that is not necessarily going to happen to the player, they are not necessarily going to rethink it. Quite literally, if a squad mate died whose loyalty mission you did not complete, you lose out on content. And you're going to lose out on content if a squad mate died in ME2 and you import to ME3.

It also presents the villain as a credible threat (as opposed to abducting  nameless colonists).

Oh really? I think you could easily have had Saren as a great villain if he didn't kill Nihlus. That was literally the ONLY person we saw him kill, yet he still a great villain. The way he acted to the council near the beginning of the game was fantastic and made me love to hate him. It's rather uncreative to think the only way to make a villain credible or compelling is to see him or her kill someone.

The game presents you with crisis situations like Miranda/Jack, the refinery workers, Tali's dilema, and yet provides you with easy ways to negotiate your way out of each conundrum. What is the point of these false crises if you can cop out each and every time?

Miranda and Jack was a crisis situation? You're exaggerating here. The Council was a crisis decision. And if you really care to have tough decisions, you're always able to not use charm or intimidate. I think it's fairly clear there will be choices in ME3 that do not have charm or intimidate yet are complex problems. Rewriting or destroying the geth for instance, there was literally no one to persuade there. What's wrong with having a mix of decisions that can be charmed and decisions that can't be?

[UsagiVindaloo]

GenericPlayer2 wrote...

Collider wrote...

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.

Colonists don't count, no matter what your choice is in the game, they will die. By crew I meant the team, not Chakwas and the red-shirt NPC's - yes that part of the game is done well, go immediately to save them all or wait and suffer casualties.


Deaths of characters that have developed over the course of the game adds content because it makes you re-think decisions and weigh alternatives. It also presents the villain as a credible threat (as opposed to abducting  nameless colonists). Everybody is frustrated that choices from ME1 did not seem to matter. The game presents you with crisis situations like Miranda/Jack, the refinery workers, Tali's dilema, and yet provides you with easy ways to negotiate your way out of each conundrum. What is the point of these false crises if you can cop out each and every time?

Again, though, while I see your point (and semi agree with you in some cases), to not offer a third option would feel unrealistic and unsatisfying. If I am forceful and charismatic enough, why shouldn't I be able to make Zaeed see reason, or defend Tali well at her trial, or make Miranda and Jack see eye to eye? To force one decision or the other might make for some dramatic tension, but it also ends up feeling unrealistic to many people and frustrates them in that they were unable to pursue a third choice as they would wish.

Here's a case in point: the Collector's Base. You have a binary choice: destroy it, or give it to Cerberus. Dramatic! Tense! Also... not particularly satisfying or realistic. My Shepard would have used his Paragon Charm to tell TIM to stuff it, then kept the base as evidence to give to the Council and Alliance. But the lack of the "third choice" meant I was railroaded.

[Zulu_DFA]

UsagiVindaloo wrote...

To be fair, the red/blue choices are shiny. Seriously, I'm not being flippant... they stick out so much, and confer such useful bonuses for the most part, that having them thrust in your face can be tempting. It doesn't help that they also tend to offer more Paragon/Renegade bonuses. It's actually getting rather annoying in my current playthrough; I want my Shepard to be a cold and ruthless b*tch with max Renegade, but often the Intimidate options aren't really that "ruthless" compared to the basic ones, leaving me to choose between getting the Renegade points or being a Renegade... wait, what? 

Perhaps it could make more sense if you could EARN para/rene points via interrupts and white dialogue options, and SPEND them on blue/red dialogue options. So if you are out of para/rene points, here is the tough chioce, you're going to lose something. I you've healed/killed enough people, you have an easy way out of next situation... Probably would lead to massive metagaming, though...

Modifié par Zulu_DFA, 20 mars 2010 - 06:53 .

[Collider]

Zulu_DFA wrote...
Perhaps it could make more sence if you could EARN para/rene points via interrupts and white dialogue options, and SPEND them on blue/red dialogue options. So if you are out of para/rene points, here is the tough chioce, you're going to lose something. I you've healed/killed enough people, you have an easy way out of next situation... Probably would lead to massive metagaming, though...

That's not a very good idea. Spending paragon and renegade points does not make sense.

[Zulu_DFA]

Collider wrote...

 Spending paragon and renegade points does not make sense.

Why?

[Knoll Argonar]

Zulu_DFA wrote...

Collider wrote...

 Spending paragon and renegade points does not make sense.

Why?

Because that means your ability to Intimidate will literaly decrease over time =/

[Zulu_DFA]

Knoll Argonar wrote...

Zulu_DFA wrote...

Collider wrote...

 Spending paragon and renegade points does not make sense.

Why?

Because that means your ability to Intimidate will literaly decrease over time =/

And increase back as soon as you take some naughty action.

[UsagiVindaloo]

Collider wrote...

Zulu_DFA wrote...
Perhaps it could make more sence if you could EARN para/rene points via interrupts and white dialogue options, and SPEND them on blue/red dialogue options. So if you are out of para/rene points, here is the tough chioce, you're going to lose something. I you've healed/killed enough people, you have an easy way out of next situation... Probably would lead to massive metagaming, though...

That's not a very good idea. Spending paragon and renegade points does not make sense.

I don't know, I sort of like the idea in a way. It would be a gameplay shorthand for, "You have built up a reputation as a ruthless jerk/happy fluffball, now capitalize on that reputation in a pinch." Also, it would mean you'd have a reason to continue getting Paragon/Renegade points even after you've maxed out one of the bars (my main Shepard is some sort of super Paragon, he needs another full bar to contain the power of his awesome )

However, I can also see some problems:
1) In some ways, the mechanics wouldn't make a lot of sense... I am Fluffy Shepard, Hugger of Worlds, but because I'm using some Paragon points I get demoted to Fist Pumper of Worlds. Why did I suddenly get less fluffy and loveable?  (possible solution is to specifically phrase it in terms of a favor; you're basically asking for a freebie based on your reputation, making people less likely to want to give you more freebies)
2) Still does not solve the problem of neutral Shepards wanting to Charm/Intimidate, or Paragon Sheps wanting red Renegade options in specific situations (or vice versa)

[Collider]

UsagiVindaloo wrote...

Collider wrote...

Zulu_DFA wrote...
Perhaps it could make more sence if you could EARN para/rene points via interrupts and white dialogue options, and SPEND them on blue/red dialogue options. So if you are out of para/rene points, here is the tough chioce, you're going to lose something. I you've healed/killed enough people, you have an easy way out of next situation... Probably would lead to massive metagaming, though...

That's not a very good idea. Spending paragon and renegade points does not make sense.

I don't know, I sort of like the idea in a way. It would be a gameplay shorthand for, "You have built up a reputation as a ruthless jerk/happy fluffball, now capitalize on that reputation in a pinch."

No one "spends" reputation. Reputation can be done in a much better way. As in Paragon and Renegade points are your reputation. Make Paragon/Renegade reputation and have charm and intimidate purchasable at all ranks regardless of your paragon or renegade score. Some choices will make it easier or harder to use charm/intimidate based upon your reputation. That's a much better way IMO.

[Asari]

mortons4ck wrote...
In my mind, its because Ash was such a bad-ass, she single-handedly manned the AA-Towers allosing Kirrahe to escape. They don't call her "the Chief" for nothing (aside from rank).
Also, in regards to the suicide mission. I really think the RPing should come down to your Psychological Profiles. My main Shepard was a War-Hero Colonist, who lost everyone once and vowed to never let it happen again (and seems somewhat fatalistic about it). It would make sense for him to go out of his way to make sure everyone survived.
However, if someone was using a Ruthless Shepard; it would seem absolutely ridiculous (RP wise) to have him/her save everyone seeing as s/he's more concerned with the big picture. If a few squadmates sacrifice themselves for the greater good, it is acceptable if it means saving a billions of potential lives.

I approve! But then again, people might change-- In ME1 I started of creating my awesomenesslyessly(O.o) Warhero shep from Earth if I recall. And I killed the Rachni, killed the thorian/colonists..I even killed Shiala! Nooo! however, knowing that the reapers are the threat after Virmire I ended up saving the council. the Ruthless, Warhero and Sole Survivor is just a reputation after all, but I like the Idea of it might change you a little or that maybe people could really see you. Like a if a Ruthless Shep keeps doing honorable dicisions then they might say: "Wow he's not how I imagined him". Might be a bit too late to add to ME3 but yeah I approve of it!

[BaladasDemnevanni]

GenericPlayer2 wrote...

Deaths of characters that have developed over the course of the game adds content because it makes you re-think decisions and weigh alternatives. It also presents the villain as a credible threat (as opposed to abducting  nameless colonists). Everybody is frustrated that choices from ME1 did not seem to matter. The game presents you with crisis situations like Miranda/Jack, the refinery workers, Tali's dilema, and yet provides you with easy ways to negotiate your way out of each conundrum. What is the point of these false crises if you can cop out each and every time?

See, my problem with looking at it like this is that it adds a 'death count' to make any conflict seem worthwhile. Lord of the Rings films are a good example. Most of the characters do not find themselves dying, despite being surrounded by war. In Star Wars, the only character Vader kills is Obi-Wan (and many anonymous henchman). Palpatine doesn't kill anyone, yet he's a perfect villain.

I viewed killing a character in ME2 as something to be considered carefully. Instead of killing off my least favorite characters such as Samara, I killed off anyone I thought would make sense to die, like Thane.

[Collider]

BaladasDemnevanni wrote...

GenericPlayer2 wrote...

Deaths of characters that have developed over the course of the game adds content because it makes you re-think decisions and weigh alternatives. It also presents the villain as a credible threat (as opposed to abducting  nameless colonists). Everybody is frustrated that choices from ME1 did not seem to matter. The game presents you with crisis situations like Miranda/Jack, the refinery workers, Tali's dilema, and yet provides you with easy ways to negotiate your way out of each conundrum. What is the point of these false crises if you can cop out each and every time?

See, my problem with looking at it like this is that it adds a 'death count' to make any conflict seem worthwhile. Lord of the Rings films are a good example. Most of the characters do not find themselves dying, despite being surrounded by war. In Star Wars, the only character Vader kills is Obi-Wan (and many anonymous henchman). Palpatine doesn't kill anyone, yet he's a perfect villain.

I viewed killing a character in ME2 as something to be considered carefully. Instead of killing off my least favorite characters such as Samara, I killed off anyone I thought would make sense to die, like Thane.

Thanks for an intelligent post. Villains don't need to kill anyone on screen to be compelling and feel dangerous. You could tell the Emperor was pure evil plenty of different ways. Same went for Saren - even if he did not kill Nihlus, he would still be a great villain.

[Zulu_DFA]

UsagiVindaloo wrote...

However, I can also see some problems:
1) In some ways, the mechanics wouldn't make a lot of sense... I am Fluffy Shepard, Hugger of Worlds, but because I'm using some Paragon points I get demoted to Fist Pumper of Worlds. Why did I suddenly get less fluffy and loveable?  (possible solution is to specifically phrase it in terms of a favor; you're basically asking for a freebie based on your reputation, making people less likely to want to give you more freebies)

Your bar of fluffiness can remain the same whether you use it or not to charm people around you. But to perform a charm on an NPC costing, say 25 points, you will need to earn those points first. So you meet anouther quarian in trouble and help him out [+20 paragon] and use a paragon interrupt to push some stranger away from below a falling brick [+10 paragon]. So you have now 30 paragon points and can go and charm the NPC to give you the pasword to a secret dapabase [-25 charm points (hidden, not withdrawn from paragon scale)]. And you still have some change to try to get a discount for that shiny ugrade in the volus shop.

It's like you do good thing, and accumulate positive mood, which allows you to influence other people. After performing some tricks you are out of this positive energy, weared off. Sort of balance of the Force.

2) Still does not solve the problem of neutral Shepards wanting to Charm/Intimidate, or Paragon Sheps wanting red Renegade options in specific situations (or vice versa)

Exactly this solves problems for the Netral Sheprards. Neutral Shepards' main problem is that they take sometimes paragon action, sometimes renegade, and therefore don't have much score on either scale. But with enough overall action points (both paragon an renegade) they could likewise use them sometimes to charm people, and sometimes to intimidate.

Modifié par Zulu_DFA, 20 mars 2010 - 07:27 .

[UsagiVindaloo]

Zulu_DFA wrote...

Exactly this solves problems for the Netral Sheprards. Neutral Shepards' main problem is that they take sometimes paragon action, sometimes renegade, and therefor don't have much score on either scale. But with enough overall action points (both paragon an renegade) they can likewise use them sometimes to charm people, and sometimes to intimidate.

Ah, I gotcha. I was thinking more of someone who just continually picked the middle option.

[Karstedt]

I used up all my renegade intimidating the clerk at the grocery store yesterday, so now I am unable to be ruthless because I spent all my renegade.

[Zulu_DFA]

Karstedt wrote...

I used up all my renegade intimidating the clerk at the grocery store yesterday, so now I am unable to be ruthless because I spent all my renegade.

You've been intimidating people for too long without bringning any real punishment upon them. They don't believe you are so tough any more. They think it's all a joke! They should regret this! Use a couple of renegade interrupts to show them, who's the boss!!!

Modifié par Zulu_DFA, 20 mars 2010 - 07:37 .

[DrunkenGoon]

UsagiVindaloo wrote...

GenericPlayer2 wrote...

Collider wrote...

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.

Colonists don't count, no matter what your choice is in the game, they will die. By crew I meant the team, not Chakwas and the red-shirt NPC's - yes that part of the game is done well, go immediately to save them all or wait and suffer casualties.


Deaths of characters that have developed over the course of the game adds content because it makes you re-think decisions and weigh alternatives. It also presents the villain as a credible threat (as opposed to abducting  nameless colonists). Everybody is frustrated that choices from ME1 did not seem to matter. The game presents you with crisis situations like Miranda/Jack, the refinery workers, Tali's dilema, and yet provides you with easy ways to negotiate your way out of each conundrum. What is the point of these false crises if you can cop out each and every time?

Again, though, while I see your point (and semi agree with you in some cases), to not offer a third option would feel unrealistic and unsatisfying. If I am forceful and charismatic enough, why shouldn't I be able to make Zaeed see reason, or defend Tali well at her trial, or make Miranda and Jack see eye to eye? To force one decision or the other might make for some dramatic tension, but it also ends up feeling unrealistic to many people and frustrates them in that they were unable to pursue a third choice as they would wish.

Here's a case in point: the Collector's Base. You have a binary choice: destroy it, or give it to Cerberus. Dramatic! Tense! Also... not particularly satisfying or realistic. My Shepard would have used his Paragon Charm to tell TIM to stuff it, then kept the base as evidence to give to the Council and Alliance. But the lack of the "third choice" meant I was railroaded.

EXACTLY.. The Collector base is something that is argued on these forums all the time and many people wish they could have handed it over to the Council.. Myself included.. So to force a hard decision on people is not always a good thing.. All those hard decisions do is make it easier for BioWare to program the next game.. Either they have Ash or Kaiden to program.. A more realistic way to have the game is to allow more options.. Not everything in real life is cut and dry.. It works some of the time.. but not all of the time..

[FlyinElk212]

GenericPlayer2 wrote...

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.

Absolutely, 100% agree, Gen.

The Dragon Age: Origins Bioware team did the tough decisions correctly: choose the morally correct king in Harrowmont or the logically better choice Bhelen? Choose the potentially evil choice in going with Morrigan's ritual in order to save yourself, or go into the final battle with the Darkspawn, knowing you probably will die? Kill Loghain for his crimes or spare him, knowing you'll lose Alistair in the process?

Each decision really held weight and had numerous pros and cons. They force players to think, while still offering choices that'll satisfy all sorts of player's desires. Mass Effect 2, on the other hand, offers "cop-out" cards within their choices, with the fear that if they don't place them, they'll anger their fans. Instead of intelligently encorporating decisions to get "that happy ending" some players desire within the two morally difficult choices, they offer entirely new choices without the penalties of the other two.

Having a way for Tali to be found innocent within her trial without her father's evidence is a joke. It'd be as if Dragon Age: Origins gave a choice to the player where they could choose Harrowmont and make him a great king, or partake in Morrigan's ritual, but her baby miscarries, or you can spare Loghain and still keep Alistair happy.

[BaladasDemnevanni]

Absolutely, 100% agree, Gen.

The Dragon Age: Origins Bioware team did the tough decisions correctly: choose the morally correct king in Harrowmont or the logically better choice Bhelen? Choose the potentially evil choice in going with Morrigan's ritual in order to save yourself, or go into the final battle with the Darkspawn, knowing you probably will die? Kill Loghain for his crimes or spare him, knowing you'll lose Alistair in the process?

Each decision really held weight and had numerous pros and cons. They force players to think, while still offering choices that'll satisfy all sorts of player's desires. Mass Effect 2, on the other hand, offers "cop-out" cards within their choices, with the fear that if they don't place them, they'll anger their fans. Instead of intelligently encorporating decisions to get "that happy ending" some players desire within the two morally difficult choices, they offer entirely new choices without the penalties of the other two.

Having a way for Tali to be found innocent within her trial without her father's evidence is a joke. It'd be as if Dragon Age: Origins gave a choice to the player where they could choose Harrowmont and make him a great king, or partake in Morrigan's ritual, but her baby miscarries, or you can spare Loghain and still keep Alistair happy.

I'm willing to give Bioware some leeway here. They'd been developing Dragon Age for a total of five years, compared to ME's 2 years (perhaps more). I agree we weren't given a millions of options to choose from, but choices are nothing if you don't feel their weight. Dragon Age's expansion for example cuts out your LI's to send you to Amaranthine so they would have to worry less about continuity.  

Modifié par BaladasDemnevanni, 20 mars 2010 - 08:36 .