56 réponses à ce sujet

[implodinggoat]

NaclynE wrote...

Jacob: After Horizon first thing. You choose options wondering why he was a bit mopey after the meeting with Illusive Man. Also I belive the armor upgrade is required from him. Also needs to be used and leveled at least once or twice (feel free to hit store planets to level).
Mordin: After two or three missions after Horizon Kelly will let you know he wants to see him. Mordin will mention about Collector attack iniment and info about friend. Also his tech upgrade is required. Also needs to be used and leveled at least once or twice (feel free to hit store planets to level).
Grunt: Krogan shotgun is required. Also needs to be used and leveled at least once or twice (feel free to hit store planets to level).
Jack: LX chip blah blah's for Jack is required. Also needs to be used and leveled at least once or twice (feel free to hit store planets to level).
Miranda: Scanning device is required. Also needs to be used and leveled at least once or twice (feel free to hit store planets to level).
Zaeed: Nothing
Garrus: New ship cannons and a few missions is required. Also needs to be used and leveled at least once or twice (feel free to hit store planets to level).
Tali: Reflectors required. Also needs to be used and leveled at least once or twice (feel free to hit store planets to level).
Thane: Probes is reqruied. Also needs to be used and leveled at least once or twice (feel free to hit store planets to level).
Samara: Fuel cells is required. Also needs to be used and leveled at least once or twice (feel free to hit store planets to level). *Note* Morinth is automaticlly loyal when obtained.
Legion: Research Geth sniper rifle. Also needs to be used and leveled at least once or twice (Feel free to hit store planets to level).

Good info, I always wondered what triggered some of those.  Grunt's is particularly annoying since he's better with the Eviscerator than he is with the Claymore, it makes it seem more like a 15000 platinum tax and I never have enough bloody platinum.

[implodinggoat]

For Anyone Interested Here is a Complete Guide for all the Paragon and Renegade Points in ME2.

http://masseffect.wi...(Mass_Effect_2)

That guide will tell you how many paragon or renegade points you can get from every response in the game. Though you should avoid it like the plague if you haven't finished the game since it spoils absolutely everything.

Modifié par implodinggoat, 10 avril 2010 - 02:45 .

[AmstradHero]

It's not absolutely necessary to do every single paragon option in order to be able to use the paragon option for these moments. My "main" Shepard is mostly paragon, but he doesn't shy away from doing the occasional renegade action where it fits with his moral compass. I was able to use the paragon option for both circumstances you specified.



To be honest, I like it the way they've implemented the decisions in ME2, even if occasionally I do get bitten by it. As much as I love having a Shepard where everything goes right (though there were a couple of circumstances where being a good guy did bite me), I love the fact that sometimes it does hit the proverbial fan and there's nothing I can do to solve the problem. Choice and consequence, my friend, choice and consequence.

[implodinggoat]

My Thoughts on Paragon and Renegade.



I'm starting to think the whole charm/intimidate mechanic needs to die at this point.  In ME1 it was a skill which you never knew how much to invest in and in ME2 its a mechanic which punishes you if you don't take a particular path and stick too it.  If ME2 just carried over your Paragon and Renegade scores when you import a completed ME2 save it wouldn't be as big an issue since you might be forced down a set path on your first play through; but on your second you could play on your own terms.   Unfortunately since you have to try and harvest as many paragon and renegade points as you can on every play through you're punished if you don't go down a set path and you naturally avoid the neutral responses even if it better conveys your feelings since you'll often be punished for doing so.  That's a huge waste since it essentially compels the player to avoid experiencing nearly a third of Shepard's dialogue and often forces unnatural responses. 

Easy Fix for ME3

Simply let the player retain all their paragon and renegade points from any imported save (ME2 or ME3) so that once they have an import they can play the game entirely on their terms without worrying about sticking to a set path.

A More Radical Fix for ME3

Scrap charm and intimidate options alltogether.    Admit it whenever you see a charm or intimidate option you always take it don't you?  Of course you do, because the game conditions you to understand that those options always produce the best possible results.  In effect you are given a dialogue mechanic which mandates a correct response or an incorrect response and which consequently compels the player to react in a set way rather than choosing the dialogue choice which best expresses their feelings.  So I ask you, if the point of dialogue choices is to give the player control over the narrative, why have a system which compels the player towards a particular choice?

I would propose that charm and intimidate option be scrapped entirely and be replaced with a system which demands more thought from the player.  Here is what I would propose... 

#1:  The best possible answer is never made obvious to the player (it doesn't glow blue or red).

#2:  The player must use logic to deduce the best possible answer by analyzing the situation and the personality of the individual they are conversing with.  For example if the player were addressing a moral individual the best solution might be to appeal to their sense of justice, while the best solution when addressing a corrupt individual might entail appealing to their greed.

#3:  Using the same sort of response on individual's with different personalties could prove advantageous in one case and disasterous in another.  For example using intimidation  on a coward might cause him to cave in and give you everything you need while using it on a badass might  cost you an opportunity or provoke a firefight.

#4:  Frequently the best possible solution is only available if the player has a good reputation with the character they are addressing.  For example if you spend your free time exterminating Cerberus operatives you might have much poorer relations with their agents then you would if you were a Cerberus lapdog (pardon the pun).

Modifié par implodinggoat, 10 avril 2010 - 03:17 .

[OniGanon]

The easiest way I find is to recruit Jack second (after Mordin), get both Miranda's and Jack's upgrades and talk to them both after every mission. Do both their loyalty missions as soon as possible. Maybe wear the Death Mask on Jack's mission, if possible (not entirely sure that helps, as you don't have a helmet on during their catfight). Because of this messed up system, the sooner you get this conflict, the easier it is to resolve. Using this method, I was able to resolve this fight the Paragon way in my NG+ with only two blue bars and one red (renegade option was also available). This is despite being unable to resolve it the first time around which was a lv60 import partway into her last blue bar.

[JedTed]

I don't know why people continue to have a problem with this, the only speech check i have trouble with is resisting Morinth's mind control.



I always do Miranda and Jack's missions right after Horizon and i do Legion's mission after getting the Reaper IFF. If you do that then you should have no problem at all. If you don't wanna worry about points then you can easily boost your P/R score by talking to all the shopkeepers on the Citadel and Omega for some free points.

[implodinggoat]

JedTed wrote...

I don't know why people continue to have a problem with this, the only speech check i have trouble with is resisting Morinth's mind control.

Its not so much that its a challenge to clear the speech checks if you're focus on maximizing paragon OR renegade.  Rather its that it prevents you from playing the game on your terms without shooting yourself in the foot.  If you stick 100% paragon or 100% renegade you'll never have a problem clearing a speech check; but the choices in an RPG are supposed to be a reflection of your thoughts and opinions on a situation not a reflection of your desire to max out your charisma (how many times did you choose the neutral response?).

The fact that this problem even exists demonstrates that the system is imperfect.   As I said I would prefer the elimination of charm and intimidate alltogether; but I'd settle for retaining my points in NG+.  As it is the only way you can play on your terms is when you import an ME1 save file and even then you'll still have to favor one path heavily over the others.

[AmstradHero]

To people saying "you must take 100% paragon or 100% renegade", the problem I have with your argument is: "no, you don't". If you try and walk both paths, you will fail to succeed at some checks, but that's the price you pay for walking the grey path.  If you fail to pick the charming/intimidatory option frequently enough, you're not going to be practiced at the speechcraft necessary to talk your way out of hard decisions.  I see no problem with this.

I find it rather amusing that some people complain that there is a lack of meaningful choice in the game, and then at the same time they complain that they can't gain everyone's loyalty because they wanted to play both the paragon/renegade paths.  That is your choice and it is having consequences on your game.

The idea of not making renegade/paragon decisions obvious (by coloring them) is an interesting suggestion, and while it might be a nice touch... perhaps that has already been implemented in part? Certain paragon/renegade decisions are unavailable based on some of your previous dialogue decisions... and many decisions that you make (that are not colored) have the result of giving you paragon/renegade points. While no colored options could be good in some ways, I can see a lot of players taking issue with it.  It's the difficulty of balancing realism with a defined game mechanic that players can actually use and see a benefit for the choices they have made.

What do I mean by this?  Imagine all the responses that are currently colored now look the same as any other dialogue option.  This would mean that when you are choosing those responses, you have no indication that your paragon/renegade level is having any effect on the gameplay.  The only time you are told is when the response is greyed out.  This goes against one of the tenets of game design of "not punishing the player".  In a single game mechanic, you're not demonstrating any reward for it, only punishment.  Some might argue that you're still being punished in certain circumstances (because you don't have enough paragon/renegade to make the persuasion check to keep a squad member loyal), but at least you've got many, many other cases where it''s demonstrated that your choices have given you a benefit by demonstrating that you've unlocked certain conversation options.

As for the suggestion of ditching the system or allowing a complete carry-over from ME1, I could not disagree more. You get bonuses to paragon/renegade for carrying a character from ME1 over. If you carried over a complete paragaon/renegade bar, that would remove any impetus for choice within ME2.  My paragon could just pick all the renegade options in ME2 and I could choose whichever competent persuade I wanted for any conversation.  And what about new players that don't import a Shepard over? What happens to them?

Ultimately, people taking issue with the system seem to come across as a "Why can't I do whatever I want and still save everyone??!?!??!" metagame. If you can tell me what is wrong about forcing players to make decisions that subsequently affect how the story unfolds in a significant fashion - ie force you to pick between two squad members which will cause one of them to die - then I'd love to hear it.  For me, that's a demonstration of fantastic roleplaying and choice and consequence, as your actions have determined the ultimate fate of another character within the game universe.

Modifié par AmstradHero, 10 avril 2010 - 11:07 .

[OniGanon]

On the subject of getting points from shopkeepers, I've found that the easiest shopkeeper to persuade is the Salarian on the Citidel (probably because he's a big fan of yours). I find he has both paragon and renegade options up even when all other shopkeepers on the citidel do not. Good for NG+ and default games.

And the problem with the system is that people have differring opinions on what is good and bad, right and wrong etc and they do not always match with whoever decided what was paragon and what was renegade. I remember having a dummy spit back in BDTS when the game told me I was severely renegade when I refused to let go a terrorist who very nearly annihilated a planet with millions of people on it. And again with the Council. The fate of all organic life in the galaxy is at stake, but I'm supposed to risk it to save three stupid, easily replaceable politicians?

So if I roleplay what I consider to be the 'good guy,' I get punished by this new system because some of my choices were decided by someone to be the 'jerkwad' option. To be the good guy in this game, I must be someone else's idea of good guy, all the time in every conversation to every person ever. Either that or I have to metagame like crazy so I get those choices early in the game, and therefore pass them easier.

I don't like that at all. Y'know, I hope in the next game you get some paragon choices coming back to haunt you and not just the renegade ones! That guy you let go on Jack's loyalty mission has started a new facility, more brutal and horrific than the last. Hundreds of little biotic children have been tortured and killed because of you. The virus released on the Geth Heretics caused unexpected results when they reintegrated with the true Geth. All Geth now share the Heretics' views. Nice job, paragon.  Legion warned you that might happen. Without the evidence from the Alarei to bolster Admiral Whatshisface's anti-war movement, the Quarians go to war with the Geth and get annihilated. The Quarians are now functionally extinct, and Tali blames you for letting her own childish stupidity stop you from doing the right thing. The Biotic God becomes Project Zero One of the re-established Teltin facility and actually becomes a biotic god, and now leads a large cult of biotically powered psycho mini-Jacks

Modifié par OniGanon, 10 avril 2010 - 01:14 .

[Koralis]

AmstradHero wrote...

The idea of not making renegade/paragon decisions obvious (by coloring them) is an interesting suggestion, and while it might be a nice touch... perhaps that has already been implemented in part? Certain paragon/renegade decisions are unavailable based on some of your previous dialogue decisions... and many decisions that you make (that are not colored) have the result of giving you paragon/renegade points. While no colored options could be good in some ways, I can see a lot of players taking issue with it.  It's the difficulty of balancing realism with a defined game mechanic that players can actually use and see a benefit for the choices they have made.

Part of this could be tied to game difficulty level.  On Hardcore and Insanity you'd actually have to use your brain to determine the proper response for your character.  They can balance this by making the checks somewhat less demanding, which means that the player can afford to botch a few without being hurt badly.

I've got to say that while it's gratifying to see the blue or red lines (payoff!), it pretty much makes those the only options worth choosing.  Randomly spacing non-colored lines around would be better and require more thought.

Ultimately, people taking issue with the system seem to come across as a "Why can't I do whatever I want and still save everyone??!?!??!" metagame.

No, you're overstating it.   People don't mind having choices have a consequence.  The mechanic, that totally unrelated choices earlier in the game dictate whether other choices are even available later, is odd at best.

Example:  How you resolve an arguement between a Quarian and a Volus.  

Scenario A (ME2 ish):  The paragon resolution means that you're given the option to talk down a terrorist that wants to blow up a city.
 
Scenario B:  The two are totally unrelated, so you should always have an opportunity to talk down the terrorist.

Scenario C:  The terrorist knows the Quarian you helped, which makes them sympathetic to your arguements.


Scenario B is the most real-world, but isn't really much of a game.  Scenario C everyone would understand... how you handled a previous issue impacts a later issue.  Scenario A is silly, frankly, but it's an added mini-game and not completely unenjoyable.

The problem with Scenario A is that the mini-game basically dictates responses, and that's what people are annoyed with.  If you want to "win" the mini-game, your path is largely dictated to you.

If you can tell me what is wrong about forcing players to make decisions that subsequently affect how the story unfolds in a significant fashion - ie force you to pick between two squad members which will cause one of them to die - then I'd love to hear it.  For me, that's a demonstration of fantastic roleplaying and choice and consequence, as your actions have determined the ultimate fate of another character within the game universe.

The problem mainly stems from it being an ARBITRARY consequence of choices, rather than a LOGICAL consequence of choices.

Modifié par Koralis, 10 avril 2010 - 02:18 .

[EAT1]

archurban wrote...

how can you fill 100% paragon and renegade? even I import ME2 character to run through, it is impossible to do that. I don't know about ME1 or import it to make them 100%. but within ME2, you can't simply do that. no way. you can almost reach to 70-75% in my experience. tell if I am wrong because I just finish 10th game two days ago. I can say that I know better than what people know about this game. I don't think that there are many people finished 10 times this game yet.

there's actually a couple of ways to totally max out BOTH paragon and renegade bars, without resorting to save editors.  But if you've played through 10 times, and NEVER max out either one......you're either choosing the neutral path most of the time, or you're not doing any paragon/renegade ACTIONS, or you don't intimidate/charm anybody.  Personally, I think that would be rather boring, espcially in THIS game!

[EAT1]

AmstradHero wrote...

To people saying "you must take 100% paragon or 100% renegade", the problem I have with your argument is: "no, you don't". If you try and walk both paths, you will fail to succeed at some checks, but that's the price you pay for walking the grey path.  If you fail to pick the charming/intimidatory option frequently enough, you're not going to be practiced at the speechcraft necessary to talk your way out of hard decisions.  I see no problem with this.

I find it rather amusing that some people complain that there is a lack of meaningful choice in the game, and then at the same time they complain that they can't gain everyone's loyalty because they wanted to play both the paragon/renegade paths.  That is your choice and it is having consequences on your game.

The idea of not making renegade/paragon decisions obvious (by coloring them) is an interesting suggestion, and while it might be a nice touch... perhaps that has already been implemented in part? Certain paragon/renegade decisions are unavailable based on some of your previous dialogue decisions... and many decisions that you make (that are not colored) have the result of giving you paragon/renegade points. While no colored options could be good in some ways, I can see a lot of players taking issue with it.  It's the difficulty of balancing realism with a defined game mechanic that players can actually use and see a benefit for the choices they have made.

What do I mean by this?  Imagine all the responses that are currently colored now look the same as any other dialogue option.  This would mean that when you are choosing those responses, you have no indication that your paragon/renegade level is having any effect on the gameplay.  The only time you are told is when the response is greyed out.  This goes against one of the tenets of game design of "not punishing the player".  In a single game mechanic, you're not demonstrating any reward for it, only punishment.  Some might argue that you're still being punished in certain circumstances (because you don't have enough paragon/renegade to make the persuasion check to keep a squad member loyal), but at least you've got many, many other cases where it''s demonstrated that your choices have given you a benefit by demonstrating that you've unlocked certain conversation options.

As for the suggestion of ditching the system or allowing a complete carry-over from ME1, I could not disagree more. You get bonuses to paragon/renegade for carrying a character from ME1 over. If you carried over a complete paragaon/renegade bar, that would remove any impetus for choice within ME2.  My paragon could just pick all the renegade options in ME2 and I could choose whichever competent persuade I wanted for any conversation.  And what about new players that don't import a Shepard over? What happens to them?

Ultimately, people taking issue with the system seem to come across as a "Why can't I do whatever I want and still save everyone??!?!??!" metagame. If you can tell me what is wrong about forcing players to make decisions that subsequently affect how the story unfolds in a significant fashion - ie force you to pick between two squad members which will cause one of them to die - then I'd love to hear it.  For me, that's a demonstration of fantastic roleplaying and choice and consequence, as your actions have determined the ultimate fate of another character within the game universe.

amen

[InvaderErl]

I found with a fairly balanced morality that is paragon/renegade bars that were almost equal I passed almost all of the persuade checks. The only two I couldn't do was resisting Morinth and paragon loyalty gain for Zaeed, everything else I was able to do.

[swk3000]

AmstradHero wrote...

To people saying "you must take 100% paragon or 100% renegade", the problem I have with your argument is: "no, you don't". If you try and walk both paths, you will fail to succeed at some checks, but that's the price you pay for walking the grey path.  If you fail to pick the charming/intimidatory option frequently enough, you're not going to be practiced at the speechcraft necessary to talk your way out of hard decisions.  I see no problem with this.

I find it rather amusing that some people complain that there is a lack of meaningful choice in the game, and then at the same time they complain that they can't gain everyone's loyalty because they wanted to play both the paragon/renegade paths.  That is your choice and it is having consequences on your game.

The idea of not making renegade/paragon decisions obvious (by coloring them) is an interesting suggestion, and while it might be a nice touch... perhaps that has already been implemented in part? Certain paragon/renegade decisions are unavailable based on some of your previous dialogue decisions... and many decisions that you make (that are not colored) have the result of giving you paragon/renegade points. While no colored options could be good in some ways, I can see a lot of players taking issue with it.  It's the difficulty of balancing realism with a defined game mechanic that players can actually use and see a benefit for the choices they have made.

What do I mean by this?  Imagine all the responses that are currently colored now look the same as any other dialogue option.  This would mean that when you are choosing those responses, you have no indication that your paragon/renegade level is having any effect on the gameplay.  The only time you are told is when the response is greyed out.  This goes against one of the tenets of game design of "not punishing the player".  In a single game mechanic, you're not demonstrating any reward for it, only punishment.  Some might argue that you're still being punished in certain circumstances (because you don't have enough paragon/renegade to make the persuasion check to keep a squad member loyal), but at least you've got many, many other cases where it''s demonstrated that your choices have given you a benefit by demonstrating that you've unlocked certain conversation options.

As for the suggestion of ditching the system or allowing a complete carry-over from ME1, I could not disagree more. You get bonuses to paragon/renegade for carrying a character from ME1 over. If you carried over a complete paragaon/renegade bar, that would remove any impetus for choice within ME2.  My paragon could just pick all the renegade options in ME2 and I could choose whichever competent persuade I wanted for any conversation.  And what about new players that don't import a Shepard over? What happens to them?

Ultimately, people taking issue with the system seem to come across as a "Why can't I do whatever I want and still save everyone??!?!??!" metagame. If you can tell me what is wrong about forcing players to make decisions that subsequently affect how the story unfolds in a significant fashion - ie force you to pick between two squad members which will cause one of them to die - then I'd love to hear it.  For me, that's a demonstration of fantastic roleplaying and choice and consequence, as your actions have determined the ultimate fate of another character within the game universe.

The issue isn't the consequence thing. I understand that sitting on the fence would make me less able to persuade the most devout Paragons or the most cutthroat Renegades. That I can see. That I can happily live with.

The issue in question here is role-playing a character. I'd love to tell Mordin that, while I don't like what the Genophage is, I do agree that it was the only possible option for the situation. I understand that. The problem is that any concession that the Genophage might have been right, for any reason at all, was decided by someone at Bioware to be a Renegade action. Since my character is a Paragon, I essentially cannot role-play my character the way I want to because of the decision of some random Bioware employee.

Also, allow me wax philosopical and quote Garrus: "It's so much easier to see the world in black and white. Grey? I don't know what to do with grey."

Essentially, this particular quote defines one of the biggest problems with not just Bioware's Paragon/Renegade system, but with any sort of white/black system. The world is not black and white. It is, in fact, many different shades of grey. The Genophage is one example. Legion's loyalty mission is another (kill them because they don't agree, or take away their right to choose in the first place?). You cannot define the world in black and white.

[AntiChri5]

EAT1 wrote...

archurban wrote...

how can you fill 100% paragon and renegade? even I import ME2 character to run through, it is impossible to do that. I don't know about ME1 or import it to make them 100%. but within ME2, you can't simply do that. no way. you can almost reach to 70-75% in my experience. tell if I am wrong because I just finish 10th game two days ago. I can say that I know better than what people know about this game. I don't think that there are many people finished 10 times this game yet.

there's actually a couple of ways to totally max out BOTH paragon and renegade bars, without resorting to save editors.  But if you've played through 10 times, and NEVER max out either one......you're either choosing the neutral path most of the time, or you're not doing any paragon/renegade ACTIONS, or you don't intimidate/charm anybody.  Personally, I think that would be rather boring, espcially in THIS game!

How?

[tigriscaesius]

swk3000 wrote...

The issue isn't the consequence thing. I understand that sitting on the fence would make me less able to persuade the most devout Paragons or the most cutthroat Renegades. That I can see. That I can happily live with.

The issue in question here is role-playing a character. I'd love to tell Mordin that, while I don't like what the Genophage is, I do agree that it was the only possible option for the situation. I understand that. The problem is that any concession that the Genophage might have been right, for any reason at all, was decided by someone at Bioware to be a Renegade action. Since my character is a Paragon, I essentially cannot role-play my character the way I want to because of the decision of some random Bioware employee.

Also, allow me wax philosopical and quote Garrus: "It's so much easier to see the world in black and white. Grey? I don't know what to do with grey."

Essentially, this particular quote defines one of the biggest problems with not just Bioware's Paragon/Renegade system, but with any sort of white/black system. The world is not black and white. It is, in fact, many different shades of grey. The Genophage is one example. Legion's loyalty mission is another (kill them because they don't agree, or take away their right to choose in the first place?). You cannot define the world in black and white.

This has already been discussed on other forums (such as Gamasutra), and I /believe/ a Bioware employee made a comment about this somewhere, but I can't support that with a link. Anyways, the point is that Commander Shephard is going to be essentially the same Commander Shephard regardless of what path you choose: This is not a situation of good/evil, like in KotOR and similar games. Commander Shephard is a hero and is doing heroic things; the problem is /how/ he chooses to do them, and that's up to you. This is what happens in character-driven stories where the character isn't really yours, but someone else's (the writer/author's in this case). We can just put a personalized spin on things, as players. I know /this/ has been said by Bioware, multiple times: Mass Effect is Commander Shephard's story. We each have our variation of Commander Shephard, but he/she remains Commander Shephard nonetheless. (Compare this with a game like Dragon Age, where we create an Avatar that /is/ almost wholly our own, as players).

That said, I happen to heartily disagree that this is a black/white game/situation. I think it may seem as such given the polarized axes: An unavoidable problem when there are only two "morality" choices. If there were three axes, I doubt we'd be having this discussion. The polarization is essentially: "For the greatest good of all with minimal collateral damage," or "By whatever means possible regardless of collateral damage." The problem is that every choice what needs to be made does not fit neatly into either of these positions. The Genophage is a good example. However, any choice that begins to even remotely weigh the Genophage as a pro leans towards the latter position, and is thus /more/ Renegade than Paragon, hence the Renegade points.

I agree it's not a perfect system. It might be better implemented with a third axis (which would require an immense amount of commitment by the writers), or if some options gave /both/ Renegade and Paragon points. The reward for that is minimal, however, as it's no different from choosing a smattering of Paragon/Renegade options as seems appropriate for your Commander Shephard. Also, the choice to keep the axes separated (rather than joined, as in NWN's Law/Chaos ethical meter and Good/Evil morality meter) reflects how a hero can make both decisions without entirely compromising either  philosophy. However, the ability to gain too many points in either ultimately undermines the philosophical choice and merit of choosing one "path" over the other. The 100% Paragon or 100% Renegade option is a powerful ideal that, as far as I can tell, is meant to be a very hard path to follow in either circumstance, and yet rewarding in its way (such as freeing up certain dialogue choices). Such a path is, however, limiting.

Anyways, to simplify: Paragon is not essentially "good" (white) just as Renegade is not essentially "evil" (black). One could argue that true "Paragon" if it were really /good/ would be a pacifist who manages to save the galaxy through negotiation alone, or something like that. The writers have presented two contrary paths that are appropriate to their vision of the Commander Shephard character. I don't think they're making a statement that these are the only options; they're simply the only options available to this particular hero because of who he/she is.

(Also, from a design perspective, dramatic tension can not be realized if there are too many options. In theory, it could be managed, but in practice, every additional option extends the time necessary for a player to stop and think, slowing the game's action. Reduction is a hard decision for writers/designers, who I'm sure suffered quite a bit when having to decide what options to cut. Especially when they very much realize they can't please every person/philosophy/what have you.)

Modifié par tigriscaesius, 10 avril 2010 - 04:53 .

[AmstradHero]

Superbly stated, tigriscaesius. Mechanics and pacing dictate that there must paragon and renegade choices, or else the "persuasion" attempts from either side would have to be removed entirely.  Yes, it's the choice of the writers, but it's a necessary evil to make the mechanic work. And I don't think I've felt on any occasion that their choice is unjustified. Would a paragon let innocent people die to kill one terrorist?  To take another fictional character, Jack Bauer from 24 is fairly "renegade" by Shepard's standards, but I imagine he'd still let the terrorist go to save lives.

Also, the black and white argument is a different issue to the initial problem raised in this thread.  I acknowledge that the black and white system isn't perfect, but it's clearly delineated and allows BioWare to tell us Commander Shepard's story while still allowing us some leeway to change his/her character.  What's more, no matter how many choices you give players, someone will still complain there isn't enough choice or "I didn't get to say exactly what I wanted.

I made a mod for NWN2 called Fate of a City, where I catered for Good, Lawful, Neutral, Chaotic and Evil alignments within the dialogue chains., That's five different options potentially resulting in different dialogue and reactions from people later in the game.  The amount of time it took to cater for those different choices was phenomenal, and I still had people delivering the aforementioned complaints. And yes, I still ran into the problem of people saying "I don't think choice X is alignment Y." Players have a different opinion on alignments, even when the structure of the dialogue tree identifies the nature of the choice (be it D&D alignment or ME2 paragon/renegade); the "greyer" the decision, the more likely that someone will take issue with it.

Game designers only have a set amount of room to play with, and simplifying the system into black or white allows for some benefits to be gained through a conversation gameplay mechanic. What's more, they can potentially avoid the issues of people saying "I didn't get to say exactly what I wanted", because you're presented a limited set of options, which takes away the player expectation that they will be able to do that.

[davidshooter]

AntiChri5 wrote...

EAT1 wrote...

archurban wrote...

how can you fill 100% paragon and renegade? even I import ME2 character to run through, it is impossible to do that. I don't know about ME1 or import it to make them 100%. but within ME2, you can't simply do that. no way. you can almost reach to 70-75% in my experience. tell if I am wrong because I just finish 10th game two days ago. I can say that I know better than what people know about this game. I don't think that there are many people finished 10 times this game yet.

there's actually a couple of ways to totally max out BOTH paragon and renegade bars, without resorting to save editors.  But if you've played through 10 times, and NEVER max out either one......you're either choosing the neutral path most of the time, or you're not doing any paragon/renegade ACTIONS, or you don't intimidate/charm anybody.  Personally, I think that would be rather boring, espcially in THIS game!

How?

I'd like to know that too

[9thLich]

@How?

http://masseffect.wi...m/wiki/Morality

[davidshooter]

Unless I'm missing something that link just details the various glitches available in the game to max paragon or renegade. I'm aware of all of those - I use the Samara glitch all the time when I'm playing the game and choosing a lot of the neutral options or mixing renegade and paragon but want to ensure loyalty from all my crew by the end of the game. Maybe I misread the original post regarding maxing paragon and renegade but I took it to mean that there was a way within the game without exploiting glitches and/or save editors.

[9thLich]

Well, I read it that there are ways to max paragon/renegade without save editors. Which doesn't exclude the exploitation of glitches.

[davidshooter]

Yeah, you're probably right, I think I just incorrectly assumed he was referring to a way of choosing responses in game that resulted in maxing both bars without glitches.

Thanks for the links anyway

Modifié par davidshooter, 11 avril 2010 - 03:56 .

[FFTARoxorz05]

The only thing I don't do paragon is Zaeed's mission I think, and after reading this I'll continue doing it last. Keeping things under lock unless you go one way or the other every time is really boring roleplaying-wise, and I'm surprised that Bioware didn't transcend this since every other moral choice system is equally flawed.



If only developers listened to Yahtzee...

[AntiChri5]

FFTARoxorz05 wrote...

The only thing I don't do paragon is Zaeed's mission I think, and after reading this I'll continue doing it last. Keeping things under lock unless you go one way or the other every time is really boring roleplaying-wise, and I'm surprised that Bioware didn't transcend this since every other moral choice system is equally flawed.

If only developers listened to Yahtzee...

Please tell me that isn't serious?

[RiouHotaru]

AmstradHero wrote...

Superbly stated, tigriscaesius. Mechanics and pacing dictate that there must paragon and renegade choices, or else the "persuasion" attempts from either side would have to be removed entirely.  Yes, it's the choice of the writers, but it's a necessary evil to make the mechanic work. And I don't think I've felt on any occasion that their choice is unjustified. Would a paragon let innocent people die to kill one terrorist?  To take another fictional character, Jack Bauer from 24 is fairly "renegade" by Shepard's standards, but I imagine he'd still let the terrorist go to save lives.

Also, the black and white argument is a different issue to the initial problem raised in this thread.  I acknowledge that the black and white system isn't perfect, but it's clearly delineated and allows BioWare to tell us Commander Shepard's story while still allowing us some leeway to change his/her character.  What's more, no matter how many choices you give players, someone will still complain there isn't enough choice or "I didn't get to say exactly what I wanted.

I made a mod for NWN2 called Fate of a City, where I catered for Good, Lawful, Neutral, Chaotic and Evil alignments within the dialogue chains., That's five different options potentially resulting in different dialogue and reactions from people later in the game.  The amount of time it took to cater for those different choices was phenomenal, and I still had people delivering the aforementioned complaints. And yes, I still ran into the problem of people saying "I don't think choice X is alignment Y." Players have a different opinion on alignments, even when the structure of the dialogue tree identifies the nature of the choice (be it D&D alignment or ME2 paragon/renegade); the "greyer" the decision, the more likely that someone will take issue with it.

Game designers only have a set amount of room to play with, and simplifying the system into black or white allows for some benefits to be gained through a conversation gameplay mechanic. What's more, they can potentially avoid the issues of people saying "I didn't get to say exactly what I wanted", because you're presented a limited set of options, which takes away the player expectation that they will be able to do that.

 I agree completely.  The problem isn't with the game, it's with the players.  We ALL have a different idea of what constitutes a particular response, and whether we think the response is a particular alignment.  Like Samara herself says "If you have 3 humans in a room, you'll have 6 opinions."  With this in mind, it will be impossible to please everyone as there's no realistic way to cover ALL the different variations of what answers a person could have.  With that in mind, Bioware wrote situations with responses they felt fell within Paragon/Renegade.  Sadly, there will aways be at least ONE person who disagrees.