Mass Effect Remastered coming soon and new Mass Effect Game in the Works

[Zevox]

I meant "once you choose to have moral choice gameplay." Not blanket "in most games." Quite obviously there wouldn't a morality meter in, say, Doom.

Dragon Age is a special case because nearly all the choices are bad ones (morally speaking), fitting the crapsack setting they were going for. Mages vs Templars, Bhelen vs Harrowmont, Elves vs Werewolves... don't get me wrong, I think they pulled it off quite well in DAO, but I wouldn't expect every RPG I played to have those kind of quandaries. Sometimes you do want the simpler Jean-Luc Picard heroism vs. Dirty Harry grittiness dichotomy. And as DA2/DAI showed, keeping it going presents... challenges.

I don't see how. I was speaking of the entire series, not just Origins, with that remark. Of all the criticisms I've seen (and made) of DA2 or Inquisition, the lack of a morality system has never been one of them.

There's simply no need for it. The game doesn't need a way to codify what the morality of your actions are - you can simply choose for yourself what to do and why, and if it has any impact on anything afterward, that too can be accomplished without needing a morality bar to represent it. Events and their impact are simply treated on an individual, case-by-case basis, rather than plugged into a universal, binary meter. Which I would argue is strictly better, personally.

[Anteros]

The best thing DA2 did was to have the disposition affect how Hawke acted outside of your choices. If you were snarky the whole game Hawke would start spontaneously telling jokes even in situations where the player might not find it appropriate. An aggressive Hawke might haul off and hit someone without the player telling them to do so. You determine your character's personality organically and the game reacts.

Paragon/Renegade never covered that. Being a Renegade meant being a jackass a lot of the time, but your interactions with companions on board ship rarely affected that meter. My Renegade Shep wound up bi-polar as a result - aggressive and threatening off the ship, a perfect goody two-shoes on board. There was no permanent "this is who your character is" meter filling up off screen. It also punished nuanced decisions - I've always felt that siding with Mordin on the genophage in ME2 is the correct choice based on what Mordin and Shepard knew at the time. However, one is considered Paragon (good) and the other Renegade (evil).

Secret black op genocides seem pretty Renegade to me.

[factotum]

Dishonored actually did a great job of making the kill route NOT be a straight easy mode.

They also did a pretty good job of balancing it so you wouldn't end up on the high chaos route without meaning to--one or two kills in a mission wouldn't do it, you'd have to really go to town. In fact, when I did a High Chaos run I only did the main game and didn't move on to the DLC, because I was so thoroughly sick of killing people I just didn't feel like it.

[Morty]

I don't see how. I was speaking of the entire series, not just Origins, with that remark. Of all the criticisms I've seen (and made) of DA2 or Inquisition, the lack of a morality system has never been one of them.

There's simply no need for it. The game doesn't need a way to codify what the morality of your actions are - you can simply choose for yourself what to do and why, and if it has any impact on anything afterward, that too can be accomplished without needing a morality bar to represent it. Events and their impact are simply treated on an individual, case-by-case basis, rather than plugged into a universal, binary meter. Which I would argue is strictly better, personally.

Moreover, if you don't have a universal morality tracker, you can have all kinds of decisions falling along different moral, ethical and ideological lines. If you do have one, then you're stuck with it - like Mass Effect, where many decisions were shoehorned into the Paragon/Renegade binary, regardless of how little sense it made.

[Rodin]

Secret black op genocides seem pretty Renegade to me.

That's why I said correct choice rather than Paragon/Renegade.

The Paragon/Renegade system had two big flaws. Firstly, it was not equal in the rewards. Paragon was typically the "correct" choice whether or not it made sense. The second problem was that it punished nuanced decisions and changing your mind. It actively hurt you to play the game balanced between Paragon and Renegade - you couldn't pass some loyalty tests in ME2 if you did, and in my first playthrough Legion died as a result.

In the case of the genophage there would not have been a Mass Effect series if the genophage had not been used - the Krogan would have overrun the galaxy. Yes, it's a very Renegade decision, but Mordin looked at the data and concluded it was the only way to save the galaxy. The death of millions vs the death of billions. The loss of one culture vs. the loss of everyone else. Mordin's speeches in ME2 convinced me of that and I sided with him. I still do, in fact.

Then we get the best scene in ME3, and it's one most of the players never saw. It requires a Renegade Shep hiding the tampering with the cure and throwing Mordin's speech in his face. Mordin gives an impassioned response (I MADE A MISTAKE!!!) and the player has to switch to Paragon to let him go and repair it.

The morality meter is actively detrimental to that kind of storytelling. Choosing the bad choice not because you're evil, but because it is necessary. Changing your mind when new information comes to light, or simply because you've had a change of heart. It lacks nuance, and I was very glad when they ditched the meters.

[Anteros]

That's why I said correct choice rather than Paragon/Renegade.

The Paragon/Renegade system had two big flaws. Firstly, it was not equal in the rewards. Paragon was typically the "correct" choice whether or not it made sense. The second problem was that it punished nuanced decisions and changing your mind. It actively hurt you to play the game balanced between Paragon and Renegade - you couldn't pass some loyalty tests in ME2 if you did, and in my first playthrough Legion died as a result.

In the case of the genophage there would not have been a Mass Effect series if the genophage had not been used - the Krogan would have overrun the galaxy. Yes, it's a very Renegade decision, but Mordin looked at the data and concluded it was the only way to save the galaxy. The death of millions vs the death of billions. The loss of one culture vs. the loss of everyone else. Mordin's speeches in ME2 convinced me of that and I sided with him. I still do, in fact.

Then we get the best scene in ME3, and it's one most of the players never saw. It requires a Renegade Shep hiding the tampering with the cure and throwing Mordin's speech in his face. Mordin gives an impassioned response (I MADE A MISTAKE!!!) and the player has to switch to Paragon to let him go and repair it.

The morality meter is actively detrimental to that kind of storytelling. Choosing the bad choice not because you're evil, but because it is necessary. Changing your mind when new information comes to light, or simply because you've had a change of heart. It lacks nuance, and I was very glad when they ditched the meters.

That kind of storytelling only existed because of the decisions though. That scene has nothing to do with the meters at all. Unless you're arguing that choices should never matter, I don't see how it's relevant.

[warty goblin]

That kind of storytelling only existed because of the decisions though. That scene has nothing to do with the meters at all. Unless you're arguing that choices should never matter, I don't see how it's relevant.

I think what Rodin is saying is that the choices do, and should, matter. Adding meters to the choices does not make them more interesting, and penalizes you for engaging with the decision on it's own merits.

[Anteros]

I think what Rodin is saying is that the choices do, and should, matter. Adding meters to the choices does not make them more interesting, and penalizes you for engaging with the decision on it's own merits.

It's more like a reputation meter than anything though. Like when Jack and Miranda argue and a paragon Shepard can calm them down by asking them to do so. That's because he's built a reputation and a sense of trust. Just like a renegade Shepard can threaten them to stand down, because they know not to **** with her. A paragon Shepard can't threaten, because no one would take them seriously, and vice-versa. It makes complete sense.

[GloatingSwine]

It's more like a reputation meter than anything though. Like when Jack and Miranda argue and a paragon Shepard can calm them down by asking them to do so. That's because he's built a reputation and a sense of trust. Just like a renegade Shepard can threaten them to stand down, because they know not to **** with her. A paragon Shepard can't threaten, because no one would take them seriously, and vice-versa. It makes complete sense.

But a Renegade Shepard who has been too nice just the wrong number of times, or vice versa, can't do either because Mass Effect 2 only cares about the extremes of the meters and will actively punish you for trying to play a nuanced decisionmaker.

[Rodin]

But a Renegade Shepard who has been too nice just the wrong number of times, or vice versa, can't do either because Mass Effect 2 only cares about the extremes of the meters and will actively punish you for trying to play a nuanced decisionmaker.

Exactly! And it gets worse. Your Paragon/Renegade rep extends across party members. If you support Tali to the hilt but side with Mordin on a mission Tali didn't even go on? No Geth/Quarian peace for you, because you just lost a point on a secret meter you can't even see. The Paragon/Renegade meter also doesn't take into account the morality of the specific party members you're dealing with. A fully Paragon Shep has no more problems with Jack than a fully Renegade one.

Your reputation should be broken down into individual groups and people, and acting the same way all the time should have consequences depending on who you're dealing with.

[Dienekes]

It's more like a reputation meter than anything though. Like when Jack and Miranda argue and a paragon Shepard can calm them down by asking them to do so. That's because he's built a reputation and a sense of trust. Just like a renegade Shepard can threaten them to stand down, because they know not to **** with her. A paragon Shepard can't threaten, because no one would take them seriously, and vice-versa. It makes complete sense.

The problem is that this is an abstraction that does not make sense when broken into particulars. If I spent my time being friendly and understanding to my crew, especially the half mad psychic, I expect them to trust me at least a little. Even if at the same time I have brutally wiped off the face of the earth those that oppose me.

Or we get the people who for some reason think that Shepard won’t shoot their face off amidst a confrontation despite the fact I’ve single handedly stopped an invasion, killed a great Specter, and left more bodies in my wake than the plague.

And if you are not worried about the particulars then sure it works fine. It does about as well as can be expected for a single bar.

Though personally were I designing something like this, I’d separate out individual important characters opinions of you, then general reputation. So on theory you can make it well known you don’t care about whichever companion you don’t like so they will not stand down from any sweet words you give them. But to the outside world you’ve developed a reputation as a great diplomat your word carries more weight.

That is of course more work.

[Artanis]

That's why I said correct choice rather than Paragon/Renegade.

The Paragon/Renegade system had two big flaws. Firstly, it was not equal in the rewards. Paragon was typically the "correct" choice whether or not it made sense. The second problem was that it punished nuanced decisions and changing your mind. It actively hurt you to play the game balanced between Paragon and Renegade - you couldn't pass some loyalty tests in ME2 if you did, and in my first playthrough Legion died as a result.

In the case of the genophage there would not have been a Mass Effect series if the genophage had not been used - the Krogan would have overrun the galaxy. Yes, it's a very Renegade decision, but Mordin looked at the data and concluded it was the only way to save the galaxy. The death of millions vs the death of billions. The loss of one culture vs. the loss of everyone else. Mordin's speeches in ME2 convinced me of that and I sided with him. I still do, in fact.

Then we get the best scene in ME3, and it's one most of the players never saw. It requires a Renegade Shep hiding the tampering with the cure and throwing Mordin's speech in his face. Mordin gives an impassioned response (I MADE A MISTAKE!!!) and the player has to switch to Paragon to let him go and repair it.

The morality meter is actively detrimental to that kind of storytelling. Choosing the bad choice not because you're evil, but because it is necessary. Changing your mind when new information comes to light, or simply because you've had a change of heart. It lacks nuance, and I was very glad when they ditched the meters.

One problem I always had with Paragon/Renegade was that only Paragon really felt consistent. It always seems like the Paragon choices were the obvious "be the Good Guy" choices, while Renegade felt like it could be anything from "understandably snarky" to "callously genocidal".

[GloatingSwine]

That's just Bioware with the "bad" side of whatever morality meter they're using today.

It's the same in Jade Empire, where Closed Fist was supposed to be self improvement through struggle and such, but it was mostly just "be a git".

[DaedalusMkV]

That's just Bioware with the "bad" side of whatever morality meter they're using today.

It's the same in Jade Empire, where Closed Fist was supposed to be self improvement through struggle and such, but it was mostly just "be a git".

The funny thing is that there are a few circumstances where you actually get to do Closed Fist the way it was described, and it was great. There's a scene where a slave is being abused by their master, and the Open Palm response is to free the slave and beat up the master and their guards (or something like that). There are two Closed Fist; one where you brush the whole thing off, and one (worth more alignment points) where you toss the slave a knife and tell them that what happens next is up to them. If Jade Empire had had more choices like that, where Open Palm amounted to 'solve people's problems' and Closed Fist was more 'convince people to solve their own problems' it would have been nuanced and interesting. But nope. By about halfway in Closed Fist is magically enslaving all their companions and killing people for pocket change, and there's only a bare handful of 'give the slave a knife' moments in the entire game.

The best game I've ever seen for making the player's choices matter is the otherwise quite flawed Alpha Protocol. The entire endgame is totally different depending on how you played up to that point. What you're doing, who you're doing it with and why you're doing it can vary immensely from one playthrough to another. There's no morality meter in the game, just an ungodly number of flags that trigger different outcomes. It also has probably my favorite dialogue system of any game ever (Telltale basically cribbed it instantly, IIRC, but never managed to be quite as snappy with it), along with the explicit notation that this isn't here for roleplaying purposes, damn it, you're a spy and you're supposed to be manipulating these people to your advantage. No 'good option evil option neutral option', you had 'snarky response, professional response, intense response, sympathetic response', permanently mapped to the same four buttons every time, along with the rarely implemented (in other games, it's entirely possible to never pick anything else in Alpha Protocol) 'don't say anything' option, which was even sometimes the best way to get what you wanted. Of course, Obsidian spent so long working on the dialogue and branching story that they ran out of budget to finish the thing, so it's an imbalanced buggy mess with blatant holes in the content here and there and a few placeholders still in the final project, which just goes to show the costs associated with doing that sort of thing.

[Zevox]

The funny thing is that there are a few circumstances where you actually get to do Closed Fist the way it was described, and it was great. There's a scene where a slave is being abused by their master, and the Open Palm response is to free the slave and beat up the master and their guards (or something like that). There are two Closed Fist; one where you brush the whole thing off, and one (worth more alignment points) where you toss the slave a knife and tell them that what happens next is up to them. If Jade Empire had had more choices like that, where Open Palm amounted to 'solve people's problems' and Closed Fist was more 'convince people to solve their own problems' it would have been nuanced and interesting. But nope. By about halfway in Closed Fist is magically enslaving all their companions and killing people for pocket change, and there's only a bare handful of 'give the slave a knife' moments in the entire game.

Actually, that particular choice was an example of them doing things badly. Because the choice wasn't about what to do with the slavers, it happened after you'd already beaten them. You then had to deal with the slave and the person who'd intended to buy her. You could either tell the buyer that the girl wasn't for sale anymore (Open Palm), toss the girl a knife and tell her to take matters into her own hands (Closed Fist)... or tell the buyer that you were now the one selling the girl. The last of which was worth more Closed Fist points than encouraging the girl to kill the buyer.

So, yeah, that's more an example of them treating Open Palm/Closed Fist as straight good and evil. Especially since even the "encourage her to fight for herself" option just has you encouraging her to murder someone who couldn't fight back (the buyer was a helpless merchant with no weapons or fighting skill).

[DaedalusMkV]

Actually, that particular choice was an example of them doing things badly. Because the choice wasn't about what to do with the slavers, it happened after you'd already beaten them. You then had to deal with the slave and the person who'd intended to buy her. You could either tell the buyer that the girl wasn't for sale anymore (Open Palm), toss the girl a knife and tell her to take matters into her own hands (Closed Fist)... or tell the buyer that you were now the one selling the girl. The last of which was worth more Closed Fist points than encouraging the girl to kill the buyer.

So, yeah, that's more an example of them treating Open Palm/Closed Fist as straight good and evil. Especially since even the "encourage her to fight for herself" option just has you encouraging her to murder someone who couldn't fight back (the buyer was a helpless merchant with no weapons or fighting skill).

Huh. I prefer my version. Ah well, you're probably right. I do remember being relentlessly disappointed with how Closed Fist was presented in the game.

[LibraryOgre]

That's just Bioware with the "bad" side of whatever morality meter they're using today.

It's the same in Jade Empire, where Closed Fist was supposed to be self improvement through struggle and such, but it was mostly just "be a git".

Much like any "bad guy" option, yes.

About the only one that frequently had great options was Planescape: Torment... because they'd give the chance to say the exact same thing as the Good option, but be lying.

[Anteros]

But a Renegade Shepard who has been too nice just the wrong number of times, or vice versa, can't do either because Mass Effect 2 only cares about the extremes of the meters and will actively punish you for trying to play a nuanced decisionmaker.

That doesn't really happen much though unless you're just playing someone who is bipolar. I picked plenty of renegade options on my paragon run, and vice versa and never had any issue at all with the meters.

Yeah, if you constantly waffle back and forth then you'll have issues with people not believing you. And you should.

[Mechalich]

About the only one that frequently had great options was Planescape: Torment... because they'd give the chance to say the exact same thing as the Good option, but be lying.

Torment also has conversation trees with some truly gigantic walls of text.

Ethical complexity is ultimately, well, complex, and so if you want to present any sort of involved or nuanced choices in a game you have to be prepared to go into some serious detail. That basically means lots and lots of text - you simply can't have a voiced conversation in a game where each character gives multi-paragraph speeches as part of the back and forth, players would get bored and log out. Even Bioware games acknowledge this, as many of the more nuanced ethical and moral reflections are often presented in text prompts that show up after the action has come to an end. SWTOR is the most obvious about this by having NPCs send out post-mission emails in this way, but the Mass Effect games have some of them too.

Something like Paragon/Renegade is a compromise half-measure, but it's about as much as an action-oriented game like ME can be expected to handle. That level of moral interactivity is about the best you can expect to get from a cover shooter RPG. Whether that level is better than just not having any is debatable though.

[Morty]

I don't see why the charm/intimidate options can't just be available, without having to "earn" them by always acting the same way. It creates a sense of accomplishment, but a hollow one.

[GloatingSwine]

I don't see why the charm/intimidate options can't just be available, without having to "earn" them by always acting the same way. It creates a sense of accomplishment, but a hollow one.

If only the game had some sort of skill point system where you could invest in different types of gameplay.

Those are all the rage these days.

[Morty]

If only the game had some sort of skill point system where you could invest in different types of gameplay.

Those are all the rage these days.

I don't like that, either, because it's an illusion of choice. You have multiple points to spend, but ultimately there's only one choice: whether you spend them on Charm or Intimidate. That's how it usually is with persuasion skills in RPGs, see also Coercion in DA:O.

[LibraryOgre]

Social skills only on your main also become something of a "point tax"... You either HAVE to spend points on them, or get locked out of those options.

To an extent, I somewhat like the idea of how Andromeda did it, if they made it more meaningful... like, Peelee will usually respond better to Casual, but Cora will respond to Professional, but both respond well to Emotional if you've romanced them. Peelee's responses will be more negative if you're always Professional with her, but Liam, while he prefers Emotional, will respond to Professional or Casual well (and doesn't like Logical).

Instead of skill points that you gain, or Paragon and Renegade which will fluctuate, you build relationships with your team based on how you act. You might be able to game Cora or Peelee in their individual conversations, but when you're talking in a group, you wind up having to choose a bit.

[Inarius]

That doesn't really happen much though unless you're just playing someone who is bipolar. I picked plenty of renegade options on my paragon run, and vice versa and never had any issue at all with the meters.

Yeah, if you constantly waffle back and forth then you'll have issues with people not believing you. And you should.

It really depends more on whether you imported a character from ME1 or not. If you don't 2-3 larger renegade or paragon choices can be enough to lock you out from solving the Legion and Tali fight. If you did import a character though the quirks of the system basically make it so youre starting out at above 100% Paragon/Renegade points so you have a pretty big 200 point cushion to do whatever you want.

[Rodin]

It really depends more on whether you imported a character from ME1 or not. If you don't 2-3 larger renegade or paragon choices can be enough to lock you out from solving the Legion and Tali fight. If you did import a character though the quirks of the system basically make it so youre starting out at above 100% Paragon/Renegade points so you have a pretty big 200 point cushion to do whatever you want.

That explains the difference between my experience and Anteros's then. I never played ME1 so I didn't have that buffer. I wasn't playing towards a particular "type" so my Shep wound up reflecting me - mostly Paragon. Renegade choices came from being snarky or practical along with the primary choice of going full Renegade with Mordin. I wound up with something like 3 bars Paragon, 1 bar Renegade, and the fight required 4 bars in either direction.

[Clertar]

I don't like that, either, because it's an illusion of choice. You have multiple points to spend, but ultimately there's only one choice: whether you spend them on Charm or Intimidate. That's how it usually is with persuasion skills in RPGs, see also Coercion in DA:O.

In KC:D it's an interplay of your skill points for Speech, Charisma or Strength (for intimidation), plus your reputation. Effects on the player (if you're dirty and bleeding, or clean and classy) and on the interlocutor (you can poison them to lower their stats) also play a role. I liked it, I think it's a sweet spot between just a fake choice and a way too complicated system.

[Kish]

KC:D is what now?

[Rynjin]

KC:D is what now?

Kingdom Come: Deliverance, sounds like.

[Clertar]

KC:D is what now?

Sorry---yes, what he said.

[Beleriphon]

Exactly! And it gets worse. Your Paragon/Renegade rep extends across party members. If you support Tali to the hilt but side with Mordin on a mission Tali didn't even go on? No Geth/Quarian peace for you, because you just lost a point on a secret meter you can't even see. The Paragon/Renegade meter also doesn't take into account the morality of the specific party members you're dealing with. A fully Paragon Shep has no more problems with Jack than a fully Renegade one.

Your reputation should be broken down into individual groups and people, and acting the same way all the time should have consequences depending on who you're dealing with.

Didn't DA:I work this way? You could build a reputation with each part member separately from your blue/orange meter? Obviously some members liked certain blue or orange options, but those weren't inherently detrimental to the individual party member.