inherit
♨ Retired
24
0
Member is Online
Apr 20, 2024 12:37:05 GMT
24,249
themikefest
14,804
August 2016
themikefest
21,655
15,426
|
Post by themikefest on Nov 21, 2018 2:30:15 GMT
I'm not saying the SR2 would have told them to evacuate. Sending out the alert Shepard does later in the DLC if you so choose would work. Even sending out that alert, the Batarians would still wonder what is going on. They don't know who sent out the alert. I would imagine they would seek out someone who is up in the chain-of-command to get answers to explain what is going on. They won't have an answer. Bring in the SR2 and squadmates before Shepard sees the vision? If the artifact is able to send out a pulse to knock out Shepard, then what's stopping it from doing the same to the squadmates?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
Deleted
inherit
guest@proboards.com
10036
0
Apr 20, 2024 12:38:45 GMT
Deleted
0
Apr 20, 2024 12:38:45 GMT
January 1970
Deleted
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 21, 2018 11:30:11 GMT
A couple minutes considering how quickly the Normandy showed up when we finally do call it. Isn't that because the SR2 was in the area since it did drop off Shepard on Aratoht? What about "Get the F out of here Normandy, I'm going to blow this Relay to stop the Reapers from invading this sector. There's nothing you can do to fight them if they arrive and no need to get yourself caught up in the explosion." At least then, Shepard would be assured of saving his ship and crew. Ok. Lets say that happens, the reapers would win since Shepard won't be around to destroy them in ME3. The other thing is Joker might make an attempt to pick him/her up no matter the message sent by Shepard. Unknown. Shepard never tried. Nor would I want Shepard to try. With nothing to confirm, it would be a waste of time. You're using what happened after that point in the story to justify the lack of a moral choice. Since you asert that all is lost with Arotoht at that point and there's no point in warning Batarians, then Shepard sending Normandy out of the area is the "more moral" choice in that moment. It at least saves the ship and crew. Shepard doesn't know for sure that Normandy can pick him/her up and clear the zone ahead of the explosion anyways. All he/she is doing by calling the ship in to save him/her is putting their lives at risk as well as his/her own. Do the Reapers arbitrarily win? Not necessarily. Garrus is aboard Normandy, so is Liara. Anderson and Hackett are still in the game and fighting to convince the rest of the galaxy about the Reapers. (Perhaps we would have wound up playing ME3 as Garrus). Your Shepard is, perhaps, just too egotistical to make the morally better choice. That Joker could disobey and opt to save Shepard anyways just shows that Bioware could have offered us that choice and not changed the outcome of the DLC. Yet, they didn't offer that choice.
Givin how quickly Joker was able to raise the 5th Fleet to fight Sovereign, I would also say there was a chance that at least some of the fleets could have arrived at Arotoht to launch an offensive against the Reapers had Shepard called Hackett right after he found out of Kenson what she was doing... on the premise that doing so might save the destruction of an entire Relay and the sacrifice of the lives of all the people in that sector... not just the Batarians on a single planet. Joker was able to get to the Arcturus sector after having dropped Shepard off on Ilos and be at the Citadel with the 5th Fleet in tow in time save time it took Shepard to travel from Ilos to the Citadel via relay and fight his way up the tower. Surely, the fleets have demonstrated that they can mobilize quite quickly.
|
|
inherit
♨ Retired
24
0
Member is Online
Apr 20, 2024 12:37:05 GMT
24,249
themikefest
14,804
August 2016
themikefest
21,655
15,426
|
Post by themikefest on Nov 21, 2018 12:48:51 GMT
Do the Reapers arbitrarily win? Not necessarily. Garrus is aboard Normandy, so is Liara. For ME3? Garrus could be dead. T'soni leading? hahaha. No.
Who was Anderson trying to convince? He's the same guy who told Shepard it's up to him/her to find a way to stop the reapers. He never cared. **** him. Who was Hackett trying to convince? Play as Garrus? Is that the same turian who thought it would be a good idea to fight mercs instead of finding a way to stop the reapers for 2 years? The same can be said for yours. Ah yes, the offer of more choices. Well, why couldn't this happen when Shepard is about to choose an ending? Was it Joker that raise the 5th fleet? Or was it Hackett? And how would that look? Some Alliance ships going up against the reapers. The reapers would deal with them very easily, then deal with the Batarians. The relay would not be destroyed. The reapers move to the rest of the galaxy. So what was accomplished?
|
|
slayer299
N1
Not Dead
Games: Mass Effect Trilogy, Dragon Age: Origins, Dragon Age 2, Dragon Age Inquisition, KOTOR, Baldur's Gate, Neverwinter Nights, Jade Empire, Mass Effect Andromeda
Origin: slayer299
XBL Gamertag: slayerprime399
Posts: 38 Likes: 21
inherit
1418
0
Jan 16, 2022 20:52:42 GMT
21
slayer299
Not Dead
38
Sept 3, 2016 23:36:25 GMT
September 2016
slayer299
Mass Effect Trilogy, Dragon Age: Origins, Dragon Age 2, Dragon Age Inquisition, KOTOR, Baldur's Gate, Neverwinter Nights, Jade Empire, Mass Effect Andromeda
slayer299
slayerprime399
|
Post by slayer299 on Nov 21, 2018 17:37:54 GMT
Without a doubt, definitely not. Good does not equal the best outcome and it would be really limiting and unfair to everyone who didn't want to play a perfectly lawful goody hero.
|
|
inherit
3439
0
9,164
alanc9
Old Scientist Contrarian
7,820
February 2017
alanc9
|
Post by alanc9 on Nov 21, 2018 19:11:54 GMT
Do the Reapers arbitrarily win? Not necessarily. Garrus is aboard Normandy, so is Liara. For ME3? Garrus could be dead. T'soni leading? hahaha. No.
How about Vega? It's not like the arbitrary plot magic that makes Shepard able to do the impossible isn't transferable by author fiat.
|
|
inherit
♨ Retired
24
0
Member is Online
Apr 20, 2024 12:37:05 GMT
24,249
themikefest
14,804
August 2016
themikefest
21,655
15,426
|
Post by themikefest on Nov 21, 2018 20:18:56 GMT
Vega the leader? How would that work in ME3?
|
|
Iakus
N7
Games: Mass Effect Trilogy, Dragon Age: Origins, Dragon Age 2, Dragon Age Inquisition, KOTOR, Baldur's Gate, Neverwinter Nights, Jade Empire, Mass Effect Andromeda
Posts: 20,875 Likes: 49,330
inherit
402
0
Dec 21, 2018 17:35:11 GMT
49,330
Iakus
20,875
August 2016
iakus
Mass Effect Trilogy, Dragon Age: Origins, Dragon Age 2, Dragon Age Inquisition, KOTOR, Baldur's Gate, Neverwinter Nights, Jade Empire, Mass Effect Andromeda
|
Post by Iakus on Nov 21, 2018 20:37:45 GMT
Without a doubt, definitely not. Good does not equal the best outcome and it would be really limiting and unfair to everyone who didn't want to play a perfectly lawful goody hero. Playing "good" and "evil" should be a separate factor to the game outcome.
You should be able to play a goody-two-shoes Knight In Shining Armor and get a good ending, or screw up and doom everyone with your good intentions.
And you should be able to play a Riddick-style heroic sociopath and slaughter your way to victory, or just create a bloodbath and get everyone killed.
|
|
inherit
♨ Retired
24
0
Member is Online
Apr 20, 2024 12:37:05 GMT
24,249
themikefest
14,804
August 2016
themikefest
21,655
15,426
|
Post by themikefest on Nov 21, 2018 20:53:02 GMT
I've played an all-paragon Shepard while still having the memorial wall completely filled, sabotaging the genophage that ended with 0 krogan war assets, choosing the geth over the quarians, and then choosing destroy. That is a good ending. excellent.
I've played full renegade with the fewest names on the memorial wall, Mordin is alive, choosing the quarians, and then choosing destroy. Again. That is a good ending. excellent.
Even the playthrough in my signature has a good ending. Why? Because the reapers are destroyed. excellent
|
|
inherit
3439
0
9,164
alanc9
Old Scientist Contrarian
7,820
February 2017
alanc9
|
Post by alanc9 on Nov 21, 2018 21:41:02 GMT
Vega the leader? How would that work in ME3? Well, I'm assuming that game sales aren't an actual constraint on the writing. If they are, this hypothetical can't exist anyway.
|
|
inherit
10686
0
3
talemore
6
December 2018
talemore
|
Post by talemore on Dec 18, 2018 13:12:07 GMT
You were supposed to be chosen one. You are supposed to balance the paragon and renegade. Not leave it in the darkness by killing off your whole team and turn into the one.
|
|
inherit
10735
0
Jul 17, 2022 15:59:28 GMT
362
sassafrassa
292
January 2019
sassafrassa
|
Post by sassafrassa on Jan 1, 2019 22:27:43 GMT
In my opinion the righteous path carries a lot less weight and meaning when there is no cost to it. We do look up to heroes because they face no trials; quite the opposite. The most righteous people in the Western tradition are those we recognize, rightly or wrongly, of having eschewed the temptations of power, vengeance, cruelty, or any other vice you might choose for the time and place.
To me, in Mass Effect the Paragon was someone all about trust and compassion. Thus their consistent disposition towards the Council and alien races and condemnation of human exceptionalism or nationalism which was generally portrayed as the result of mistrust or pride. However, it doesn't really say much about you to be trusting of trusting people. It is easy to defend doing the moral good when the best outcome is the result, but will you still defend it when things go wrong? When innocent people died because you chose your conscience over what was prudent, can you still defend your actions? I suspect you can, but at times that will be a painful burden to bare and may yet be tempted to become disillusioned with your lofty ideals.
|
|
dmc1001
N7
Biotic Booty
Games: Mass Effect Trilogy, Dragon Age: Origins, Dragon Age 2, Dragon Age Inquisition, KOTOR, Baldur's Gate, Neverwinter Nights, Jade Empire, Mass Effect Andromeda, SWTOR, Mass Effect Legendary Edition
Origin: ferroboy
Prime Posts: 77
Posts: 9,941 Likes: 17,668
inherit
Biotic Booty
1031
0
Apr 19, 2024 16:40:05 GMT
17,668
dmc1001
9,941
August 2016
dmc1001
Top
Mass Effect Trilogy, Dragon Age: Origins, Dragon Age 2, Dragon Age Inquisition, KOTOR, Baldur's Gate, Neverwinter Nights, Jade Empire, Mass Effect Andromeda, SWTOR, Mass Effect Legendary Edition
ferroboy
77
|
Post by dmc1001 on Jan 3, 2019 18:39:27 GMT
This is true, which is why I make my Shep Paragade. There are difficulties, there are choices that don't make him virtuous. When you get down to it Shepard is a marine and will kill whoever and whatever gets in his way. I have a tendency to be anti-mercenary so I will kill them on sight.
|
|
Hrulj
N3
Games: Mass Effect Trilogy, Dragon Age: Origins, Dragon Age 2, Dragon Age Inquistion
Posts: 263 Likes: 271
inherit
3276
0
Mar 19, 2023 16:55:53 GMT
271
Hrulj
263
February 2017
hrulj
Mass Effect Trilogy, Dragon Age: Origins, Dragon Age 2, Dragon Age Inquistion
|
Post by Hrulj on Jan 6, 2019 13:29:23 GMT
I believe it should be the exact opposite. Good ends need tough and difficult choices. These "multi choice" games really have only one way to play and punish you for being mean or lying
|
|
degs29
N3
Games: Mass Effect Trilogy, Dragon Age: Origins, Dragon Age 2, Dragon Age Inquistion, Jade Empire
Posts: 470 Likes: 499
inherit
933
0
499
degs29
470
Aug 12, 2016 16:22:42 GMT
August 2016
degs29
Mass Effect Trilogy, Dragon Age: Origins, Dragon Age 2, Dragon Age Inquistion, Jade Empire
|
Post by degs29 on Jan 10, 2019 21:05:13 GMT
In a I don't believe "best" endings should be based on morality, but on another metric instead. Otherwise it's pushing you down one play style.
|
|
inherit
Ohm's Law Compels You
207
0
19,211
Qui-Gon GlenN7
In theory there is no difference between theory and practice. In practice there is.
5,762
August 2016
quigonglenn
Bottom
Mass Effect Trilogy, Dragon Age: Origins, Dragon Age 2, KOTOR, Jade Empire
qui_gon_glenn
2108
|
Post by Qui-Gon GlenN7 on Jan 11, 2019 16:20:54 GMT
Being morally good in all instances should lead to an ending.
The quality of that ending should be up to interpretation, but it may not be the "optimal" ending.
Sometimes making the morally correct choice has unintended consequences. Mass Effect has even played on that theme.
I would like a RPG that has many endings available depending on player choice. We were promised that before and got RGB. Yes, multiple endings takes more work. Great games take more work is my answer.
|
|
inherit
265
0
11,980
Pounce de León
Praise the Justicat!
7,910
August 2016
catastrophy
caustic_agent
|
Post by Pounce de León on Jan 11, 2019 18:29:56 GMT
What is "best ending"? Prime interest should be satisfying and fitting ending for a path you chose.
|
|
dmc1001
N7
Biotic Booty
Games: Mass Effect Trilogy, Dragon Age: Origins, Dragon Age 2, Dragon Age Inquisition, KOTOR, Baldur's Gate, Neverwinter Nights, Jade Empire, Mass Effect Andromeda, SWTOR, Mass Effect Legendary Edition
Origin: ferroboy
Prime Posts: 77
Posts: 9,941 Likes: 17,668
inherit
Biotic Booty
1031
0
Apr 19, 2024 16:40:05 GMT
17,668
dmc1001
9,941
August 2016
dmc1001
Top
Mass Effect Trilogy, Dragon Age: Origins, Dragon Age 2, Dragon Age Inquisition, KOTOR, Baldur's Gate, Neverwinter Nights, Jade Empire, Mass Effect Andromeda, SWTOR, Mass Effect Legendary Edition
ferroboy
77
|
Post by dmc1001 on Jan 13, 2019 14:30:33 GMT
I don't know. I think allowing the Reapers to exist is giving tacit approval for a billion years of genocide. Not acceptable to me. I hate to say it but I'd have let Shepard die before allowing the Reapers to continue.
|
|
inherit
7671
0
1,046
NotN7
1,080
Apr 15, 2017 17:34:16 GMT
April 2017
notn7
Mass Effect Trilogy, Dragon Age: Origins, Dragon Age 2, Dragon Age Inquisition, Neverwinter Nights, Mass Effect Andromeda
|
Post by NotN7 on Jan 13, 2019 15:19:10 GMT
To me the best ending is the one I choose (within the confines of the writers of course) it doesn't matter whether I take the high road or the low road the end is based on how I played the game at that particular time.
|
|
inherit
∯ Alien Wizard
729
0
Sept 14, 2023 6:08:41 GMT
9,897
Ieldra
4,771
August 2016
ieldra
Mass Effect Trilogy, Dragon Age: Origins, Dragon Age 2, Dragon Age Inquisition, KOTOR, Baldur's Gate, Mass Effect Andromeda
25190
6519
|
Post by Ieldra on Jan 13, 2019 19:31:03 GMT
I say no to the OP's question. This is why:
The classical hero does not weigh lives against each other. They don't choose the cold-hearted strategic good over the immediate intuitive good if there is still a remote chance to achieve both. Making such choices carries a risk. If those risks never manifested, they wouldn't be heroic choices in the first place. Everyone would act like this. It would devalue the hero.
The anti-hero does occasionally weigh lives. They harden their heart and choose for the strategic outcome, even if they must do some immediate evil for it. The point of such a decision is to avoid the risks incurred by the heroic decision. If avoiding such a risk never had a point, then this choice wouldn't be an anti-hero's choice but a villain's choice. It would devalue the point of being an anti-hero.
Also, there is the point of being believable. We know the world doesn't work like that, we know the hero's choice is not always rewarded, and we know that sometimes making cold-hearted strategic decisions carries the better outcome. That's why there are anti-heroes in stories who aren't villains in the first place.
Thus, a one-sided setup, in either direction btw., devalues both stances and makes the world unbelievable on top of it. If a story has only one major decision, then it can go either way depending on the point the story wants to make. However, if a story has several major decisions, then their outcomes should not always follow the same pattern. Even less in a roleplaying game, where as a rule, not all players want to play the same kind of protagonist.
|
|
inherit
7754
0
Apr 18, 2024 17:10:28 GMT
3,397
biggydx
Finished Dissertation long ago lol. Now happily employed :D
2,202
Apr 17, 2017 16:08:05 GMT
April 2017
biggydx
Mass Effect Trilogy, Dragon Age: Origins, Dragon Age 2, Dragon Age Inquistion, Jade Empire, Mass Effect Andromeda
|
Post by biggydx on Jan 18, 2019 4:11:58 GMT
Without a doubt, definitely not. Good does not equal the best outcome and it would be really limiting and unfair to everyone who didn't want to play a perfectly lawful goody hero. Playing "good" and "evil" should be a separate factor to the game outcome.
You should be able to play a goody-two-shoes Knight In Shining Armor and get a good ending, or screw up and doom everyone with your good intentions.
And you should be able to play a Riddick-style heroic sociopath and slaughter your way to victory, or just create a bloodbath and get everyone killed.
It's all dependent upon the choices the player makes, as well as how elaborate the developer makes the consequences of those decisions. (Not disagreeing with you, just making a statement)
|
|
Cyberstrike
N4
is wanting to have some fun!
Games: Mass Effect Trilogy, Dragon Age: Origins, Dragon Age 2, Dragon Age Inquisition, KOTOR, Baldur's Gate, Jade Empire, Mass Effect Andromeda, Mass Effect Legendary Edition
XBL Gamertag: cyberstrike nTo
PSN: cyberstrike-nTo
Prime Posts: 1,732
Prime Likes: 467
Posts: 1,872 Likes: 3,041
inherit
634
0
May 14, 2017 17:50:43 GMT
3,041
Cyberstrike
is wanting to have some fun!
1,872
August 2016
cyberstrike
Mass Effect Trilogy, Dragon Age: Origins, Dragon Age 2, Dragon Age Inquisition, KOTOR, Baldur's Gate, Jade Empire, Mass Effect Andromeda, Mass Effect Legendary Edition
cyberstrike nTo
cyberstrike-nTo
1,732
467
|
Post by Cyberstrike on Jan 23, 2019 21:19:33 GMT
Or should you have to make neutral, or even morally evil, choices in order to achieve the best ending possible? I know "best" sometimes borders the line between objective/subjective, but I do think there is some merit in having to make some decisions that fall outside your own morality. Though we're obviously dealing in science-fiction, sometimes the most jarring (but memorable) moments in media are when morally good/righteous characters make a decision they deem as good, only to negatively affect everyone else around them. A recent example of this is in the game Assassins Creed: Odyssey. In the beginning section of the game, you have a choice to save the life of a family that survived a plague outbreak (in one of the towns) from a group of radical priests that want to slay them; in hopes of saving others. A child friend of yours, Phoibe, advocates that you save their life. If you do, though the family gives you a reward and Phoibe thanks you, the plague ultimately spread throughout much of the island once you leave and return again. I know that, generally speaking, most players prefer to play the morally good route, but making people uncomfortable with the decisions they make is what helps foster player investment in the story. If I can just choose to be a nice guy at every instance and never be punished for it, then really, what point is their to morality affecting my choices in the first place? The same goes for being morally abhorrent. I don't think constantly picking the morally evil or selfish option should inevitably lead you down the path of having the worst ending ever. Going back to that AC:O example I gave, maybe choosing the other option is the better outcome for everyone, even if it is seen as morally reprehensible by others; in the game.
Sadly it doesn't matter which option you chose in AC:O the outcome is still the same regardless of what you do. You get a message that the plague spreads if you save the family or not. At least I did. Maybe it's been changed or patched. I don't know since I can't keep up with updates for video games now of days.
|
|
inherit
1363
0
Dec 31, 2021 19:39:42 GMT
1,233
garrusfan1
1,826
Aug 30, 2016 16:55:35 GMT
August 2016
garrusfan1
|
Post by garrusfan1 on Mar 8, 2019 1:01:09 GMT
No it should be mixed between good,bad,and grey. And I generally play pure paragon so having it be pro paragon would be good for me.
|
|
inherit
1822
0
Jan 20, 2021 21:05:53 GMT
157
feuerrabe
163
Oct 19, 2016 13:01:51 GMT
October 2016
feuerrabe
|
Post by feuerrabe on Mar 8, 2019 23:21:51 GMT
what is morally good choice? is it short term feel good choices or is it long term choices that helps Many people? That is quite the philosphical question. I tend to say I was going with Kant because it sounds cool, but I never quite got my head around what he means by the "maxim" of an action. I also suspect that he means something different by a natural law than what I do.
|
|
inherit
1822
0
Jan 20, 2021 21:05:53 GMT
157
feuerrabe
163
Oct 19, 2016 13:01:51 GMT
October 2016
feuerrabe
|
Post by feuerrabe on Mar 9, 2019 0:32:48 GMT
Or should you have to make neutral, or even morally evil, choices in order to achieve the best ending possible? I know "best" sometimes borders the line between objective/subjective, but I do think there is some merit in having to make some decisions that fall outside your own morality. Though we're obviously dealing in science-fiction, sometimes the most jarring (but memorable) moments in media are when morally good/righteous characters make a decision they deem as good, only to negatively affect everyone else around them. A recent example of this is in the game Assassins Creed: Odyssey. In the beginning section of the game, you have a choice to save the life of a family that survived a plague outbreak (in one of the towns) from a group of radical priests that want to slay them; in hopes of saving others. A child friend of yours, Phoibe, advocates that you save their life. If you do, though the family gives you a reward and Phoibe thanks you, the plague ultimately spread throughout much of the island once you leave and return again. I know that, generally speaking, most players prefer to play the morally good route, but making people uncomfortable with the decisions they make is what helps foster player investment in the story. If I can just choose to be a nice guy at every instance and never be punished for it, then really, what point is their to morality affecting my choices in the first place? The same goes for being morally abhorrent. I don't think constantly picking the morally evil or selfish option should inevitably lead you down the path of having the worst ending ever. Going back to that AC:O example I gave, maybe choosing the other option is the better outcome for everyone, even if it is seen as morally reprehensible by others; in the game.
I do sometimes feel cheated because paragon decisions in Mass Effect never truly bite me in the ass. I mostly played paragon choices, but there were some renegade choices.
For example in the end of Mass Effect when you have to decide to save the council, I knew for a fact that, if I choose to save the Destiny Ascension, the game isn't going to tell me: "Alright, during the time you waste Sovereign takes the Citadel, opens the game, judgement day is here. Game over. You loose." ... that just isn't how these games work. But that would have been meta-game thinking, Shepard couldn't have known this, it might have been the end of the world to save the Destiny Ascension, thus I chose not to.
The one paragon choice I felt most uncomfortable with was letting the Rachni Queen go. The complete train of thought going on in my mind at that: As that is part of the fun of it, I take as much time as I need on these choices, even when Shepard doesn't really have time to think. With the Rachni Queen, I was aware that, in a century or a millenium, that could mean the death of billions, as another Rachni invasion seemed very possible, even likely. While I desire a pluralistic galactic society in the image of the Asari, my first duty is to protect its people. And yet, the Rachni Queen posed no immediate threat. To kill her would be irrevertable, for she might well be the last Rachni Queen.
My impression of the Rachni was, that they were a hive minded insectoid race with little to no sense of individuality; the very concept of diplomacy, trade with anything outside their hive eluded them. And yet the Rachni Queen plead for my help. That proved that she realised that I am a creature with my own wishes that is seperate from herself, not just a feature of the environment. To my understanding, nobody had achieved communication with Rachni before, the Rachni never had a need to communicate to anyone outside their hive. This was an achievement. She might still have seen me as an enemy and fooled me, but the ability to do so would have proven that she was capable of doing otherwise. So I could kill her, stop to worry, problem solved. The downside is that creating an understanding with the Rachni woud be more benefitial on the long run, the Rachni are almost certainly not the only such species. If the council proves that it can reach an understanding with the a species such as the Rachni, that will make it easier to deal with the next. Whereas the opposite, a reputation of annihilating all too alien races, will only make such races consider the council more of a threat and act more aggressively.
In the end it boils down to game theory: Always assume that your opponent will make the best possible move available to them. I gave her a chance for peace. That is her best option. On the other hand, the Rachni may be superior ground forces, especially without the Krogan to help, but we can always nuke our own infested planets to oblivion if we have to. Assured destruction is a pretty strong incentive, especially after we proven we are in principle able to do it. And even if it weren't so, an attack would benefit the Rachni less than peace.
I already saw the images of violent creatures tearing the people I had sworn to protect; it was one hell of a risk, but by my assessment, the potential benefits were worth the risk. I clicked the bloody option.
And at that time it felt a little shale, because I knew, by the design of the game, that I was not going to be punished for it anyway. Making a paragon choice is always a risk. If it works, you'll likely end up being stronger than if you did not. If works, well, then you have a serious problem. The game design to basically make it always work steals a bit of the risk. Then again: If it weren't that way, maybe a few more gradual options would be in order (e.g. taking the Rachni Queen captive), as well as meaningful means to assess the risk, assuming that the player pays attention to codex entries and the likes.
Renegade choices are also risk. You can never know for certain that you've really got them all, you cannot never really know whether this action you just performed incites a war. The basic assumption of the renegade choice is that it renders the other incapable of reacting. The truth is: It isn't always so, in fact, if such an attitude became known, others might be more inclined to kill you preemptively.
(Note that I will always kill a Kett, given a chance. They are fundamentally parasitic. They are in fact more similar to viruses, incapable of reproducing on their own, but manipulating the flesh of their enemies to become them. As opposed to the Rachni Queen, given the chance to kill the last of all Kett, I will take it, because the entire logic does not work in the case of a Kett.)
Long story short: Every now and then one's the player's choices should bite him or her in the ass, to make the choices more meaningful. How to actually implement that... I don't know. Either choice should potentially lead to a welcome outcome, depending on the circumstances... or it might not. However, a system that involves a level of randomness, however slight, would not be welcome by the player base.
|
|
anarchy65
N3
Games: Mass Effect Trilogy, Dragon Age: Origins, Dragon Age 2, Dragon Age Inquisition, KOTOR, Mass Effect Andromeda
Posts: 891 Likes: 1,080
inherit
8825
0
1,080
anarchy65
891
Jun 25, 2017 23:54:40 GMT
June 2017
anarchy65
Mass Effect Trilogy, Dragon Age: Origins, Dragon Age 2, Dragon Age Inquisition, KOTOR, Mass Effect Andromeda
|
Post by anarchy65 on Mar 9, 2019 1:03:00 GMT
Yes, I think sometimes trying to make the morally good choice could lead to certain problems.
In Divinity: Original Sin, for example. You could try to just kill the villain or try to fuse her with her sister so they become one being to help you. But the game really warns you: It could go wrong. And it does, since in the final boss fight, the new being makes some moves against you when the evil sister takes the wheel. In The Witcher 3 you may create a witcher potion to save a girl only later to find out she didn't die, but went insane because of the potion (the potion was supposed to be only to witchers)
In many Bioware games the only reason we may struggle in making a "good" decision is characters telling us "This has a small chance of going bad" or something like that, but it never does. You let a terrorist escape to save hostages? No problem, you never hear from him again. You unleash the rachni on the galaxy? That's fine, the queen turns out to be good. Never your seemingly "good" decisions bite you in the ass.
|
|