[UPtimist]

For me there are these issues to consider here:

First of all, the problem with having moral decisions in a computer game is simply that they are the views of the makers. What is good and what is bad is simply their idea of it. This also has a very big issue about non-certain moral choices (as in, you can't be sure that if you choose one you'll get the outcome you're looking for): the results are predetermined and even if there's a success/fail option involved, it's more a matter of statistics and not true interaction. Therefore you cannot judge these actions via true moral measurements but simply by extremely artificial measurements, which would lead to a very unrealistic and unsure results. I'd rather be sure that what I feel that always would result in a good result in real life, does that also in a game. Therefore in that sense it's good that when I do a moral choice, I know that it will lead to what I want.

Second, Mass Effect has a very-limited-information dialogue system - it's not rare to me that something completely unforeseen happens when I think I'm saying something else. If you're not sure what you're doing and then it's something you didn't wish and things go bad, it is extremely frustrating. Again, if I'm not exactly sure what I'm doing, I'd rather I know at least that it will lead to a positive result (in the player's perspective, whether it leads to a negative or positive impact in the game (as in, if you want to be evil, then it's a positive thing to you that evil things happen in the game and vice versa)).

If you can't be sure that you're going to get a positive result one will shy away from doing those things. If you feel that the result will be more or less random, one will more or less shy away from these things. Also, if you can't fix this choice and the bad outcome, not only is it unrealistic (yet this often is the case in games), one will shy away from it (repetition! yay!)

Anyways, I'm not taking "sides" here, I'm just stating things that I feel need to be considered

[Crunchy in milk]

I don't agree that players will avoid playing a renegade character unless they achieve positive (tangible) story results all the time, from being an asshole.

Likewise I don't agree (or support in any way), always rewarding the paragon option with a positive (tangible) story result.

The best decisions are those that are hard to make, and harder still to predict a positive outcome.

Its not all about big decisions though. Take for example the merchants on the Citadel in Mass Effect 2. Imagine if a particular merchant was unable to be intimidated. Through observation Shepard may even become aware of this prior to speaking to them.

In the conversation, all options are available to Shepard. They can pick whether to be charmingly paragon, and receive a discount, or if they where playing Shepard as a hard ass renegade, attempt the intimidation anyway.

In this case, it results in a fist fight and the Merchant is rendered unconscious. No discount for Shepard but a renegade reward (see them behave like an asshole) all the same.

Renegade players worth their salt will not charm the merchant (roleplaying). Blind paragons will be rewarded in this instance, but later... look out! Smart Shepards who paid attention will know how to manipulate the merchant.

Ideally every person you meet and can talk to in game, would respond better to paragon or renegade interaction. ME2 has some small elements of this, particularly noticeable on Tuchanka where bottom right side dialogue is often received more positively by Krogans.

Some characters might respond to mild renegade (lower right on the wheel), but push too far (choose the left red option) and they snap. Some characters might respect a kind natured paragon response (upper right) but be turned off by blind idealism (upper left).

The player has the option of paying attention to NPCs to choose the best response, OR stick to their archetype guns and take the good and 'bad' results of doing so.

[Periglo]

Originally Posted by Crunchy in milk

Ideally every person you meet and can talk to in game, would respond better to paragon or renegade interaction. ME2 has some small elements of this, particularly noticeable on Tuchanka where bottom right side dialogue is often received more positively by Krogans.

Exactly. Paragon and renegade are supposed to be "nice" or "rough", not "good" or "evil". Sometimes ME2 gets it right, like cool renegade move in Tuchanka I remember.

Alpha protocol also goes in the right direction sometimes, with three approaches that may be changed according to your personality and the NPC you are interacting with.

Jade Empire, on the other hand (and imho, kotor, 1 & 2) fail miserably: "closed fist", or "dark side basically" mean just "evil".

[UPtimist]

(Edit: Wait, why is there a smiley on the beginning of my last post? It was never supposed to be there... Makes a whole other mood than I intended. I suppose that's why the post was taken a bit differently than I intended As I said, I wasn't against either side, I was just saying what I thought was important to notice )

Now first of all, I have to say that I haven't quite understood everything that people have been saying here, and what I said probably was a little off-subject. Having said that...

Originally Posted by Crunchy in milk

I don't agree that players will avoid playing a renegade character unless they achieve positive (tangible) story results all the time, from being an asshole.

I'm sure I'm not quite understanding what you're saying, but then why would the players play a renegade character if not to play a renegade character?

Likewise I don't agree (or support in any way), always rewarding the paragon option with a positive (tangible) story result.

I'm not saying it should be like that, it's just that the way things work now, I feel it has to be like that or otherwise it will just feel random and unfair to the player since they can't know how the creators made the results, and because it isn't like reality where they could really predict these things (characters act very unrealistically all the time in games).

The best decisions are those that are hard to make, and harder still to predict a positive outcome.

I'm not quite sure I'm following you here... Doesn't matter though.

Its not all about big decisions though. Take for example the merchants on the Citadel in Mass Effect 2. Imagine if a particular merchant was unable to be intimidated. Through observation Shepard may even become aware of this prior to speaking to them.
In the conversation, all options are available to Shepard. They can pick whether to be charmingly paragon, and receive a discount, or if they where playing Shepard as a hard ass renegade, attempt the intimidation anyway.

In this case, it results in a fist fight and the Merchant is rendered unconscious. No discount for Shepard but a renegade reward (see them behave like an asshole) all the same.

Sure, but it's not like they can just do it like that so easily. Takes a heck of a lot of work to make it so, rather than just the simple thing it is now.

Some characters might respond to mild renegade (lower right on the wheel), but push too far (choose the left red option) and they snap. Some characters might respect a kind natured paragon response (upper right) but be turned off by blind idealism (upper left).

The player has the option of paying attention to NPCs to choose the best response, OR stick to their archetype guns and take the good and 'bad' results of doing so.

If it would work, then sure, that'd be ideal. However, it's much harder to do in games, especially convincingly, it takes a lot more time and effort (especially to convey this in a way that isn't too obvious or too vague) and it still would be just the makers' view on things.

If this were done right, of course it would be better, but it takes a lot more than just "let's add this to ME3" to do right...