161 réponses à ce sujet

[snfonseka]

Place your vote....



http://social.biowar...933/polls/6113/

[Markinator_123]

Linking the charm/intimidate to the paragon/rengade bar was indeed the worst aspect of ME2 for me. A 100% paragon character and a 100% renegade character are both unappealing for obvious reasons that have already been stated.

By the way, here was something I found interesting. Apparently, sticking my gun in someone's face and telling them I am spectre is more renegade than beating someone unconscious (Thane's loyalty mission). Good logic there Bioware!

Modifié par Markinator_123, 27 mai 2010 - 02:57 .

[Bookman230]

Personally, I prefer NO morality, like Dragon Age. 

[MrNose]

Markinator_123 wrote...

Linking the charm/intimidate to the paragon/rengade bar was indeed the worst aspect of ME2 for me. A 100% paragon character and a 100% renegade character are both unappealing for obvious reasons that have already been stated.

By the way, here was something I found interesting. Apparently, sticking my gun in someone's face and telling them I am spectre is more renegade than beating someone unconscious (Thane's loyalty mission). Good logic there Bioware!

I don't think they paid that much attention to comparing how many points they gave out per action tbh.  Logic wasn't a factor.

Modifié par MrNose, 27 mai 2010 - 03:52 .

[Lumikki]

My point here is shake some of you wake from you dream world and see what you are really asking here in this thread.

First why would you need to be only paragon or genegade or neutral. You can choose your action just fine. Nothing is stoping you people. So, this thread is not about not having choise as action, it's about what consequences of those choises can have.

This thread seem to be all about players who wants access to everyting and they don't like when they choises shuts some doors close. This is about you as player not wanting make choises based you roleplaying, what can have negative access you playing situations. You as player think because you want sertain outcome to happen and it requires that you character has to be done sertain choises, it force you character to make those choises. That's just BS.

It's you as player wanting sertain outcome, not about you roleplaying your character. If You would roleplay you character right, then you would do choises based what you character is and accept when you character fails on something. That's it, it's about player behind character who can't deal the situations as failing as not getting what player wants.

If your character wants something as roleplaying perspective to happen, doesn't mean the universe will bend on you characters will. So, learn to fail and get disapointment. It's not real roleplaying as getting everyting what you want as player, it's player who can't deal with negative consequences.

Sheapard is famous in the Mass Effect galaxy, but how the npcs see you is based your small and big actions. Did you accomplish those tasks by cruelty as causing fear to others, like some dictator or where you some kind of pease keeper as seen compassionate and wise to people. If You are just know as famous, but people don't fear or respect you much, why would they bend they will on you decissions.

What You really want is to player have all choises to open all the time or have just one choise, because it will give you as player possibility have positive outcome allways. Come on, you call that roleplaying. Basicly what I'm saying, start realy roleplay your character and stop looking those numbers and let them affect your characters decissions making, because you as player want sertain outcome. Be real roleplayer, don't use roleplaying as excuse to your own desire as player.

Maybe game developers should hide those numbers, so that you people would learn to roleplay.

Modifié par Lumikki, 27 mai 2010 - 10:31 .

[Collider]

It's not that we don't ever want options closed off for us. It's that we don't want options closed off for stupid reasons.

so that you people would learn to roleplay.

...really? Really?

[Lumikki]

Collider wrote...

It's not that we don't ever want options closed off for us. It's that we don't want options closed off for stupid reasons.

What is stupid reason, can you give example?

so that you people would learn to roleplay.

...really? Really?

Hehe, I got you people wake at least.

My point was that Mass Effect as game doesn't restric you roleplaying. It's the players who is disapoinment of you consequences of choises what you character made. Player vs character.

Modifié par Lumikki, 27 mai 2010 - 10:35 .

[Dean_the_Young]

Not having a reputation to inspire or terrify people into submission is a pretty sensible reason. No one has adequately addressed why it fails except in the 'I don't want the right-side options'.

[Collider]

Dean_the_Young wrote...
Not having a reputation to inspire or terrify people into submission is a pretty sensible reason. No one has adequately addressed why it fails except in the 'I don't want the right-side options'.

You seem to forget that
a) Not everyone is going to know about Shepard's reputation
Not everyone is going to care about Shepard's reputation

[Lumikki]

So, you say because you character can't accomplish something, because character hasn't build right image is reason why character should allways accomplish something.

I see it more like character makes choises. Every choise what character makes has consequences. Meaning npcs can talk and spread gossip. What cause sertain reputation to go around Shepard. Example when You meet new npc, that npc can have heard gossip who cruel you are and cause fear in that npc. What cause that npc to be easyly be influence by intimidate actions.

Now other hand Shepard can be very neutral and not leave much of impression to npcs around him, so not much a gossip goes around and new npc when they see Shapard only feel, yeah, that's the famous person. They don't really fear or see you as respected and wise. So, when you meet them, they are polite, but keep they own decission alot easyer. If npc doesn't know you why would you able to persuade npc to do something, if npc has strong own will. It's like saying stranger from street can persuade you doing something what you dont' want?

Now does it make any sense to allow character allways have negative or positive successful affect. That is what you ask is it?

In my opinion it makes more sense and it's resonable that Shepard pass choises builds reputation what affects npcs behavior. If You are the quiet mouse Shepard, wise Shepard or cruel Shepard, then npcs think you as one and behave by it.

Modifié par Lumikki, 27 mai 2010 - 11:11 .

[Nightwriter]

I think with the way alignment went in ME2 they were trying to replace those two extra charm and intimidate skill bars with a tidier system where renegade and paragon meters just counted as your charm/intimidate skills.

Well, if they were going for tidier, they should've just combined them into one skill bar, persuade.

[Lumikki]

Nightwriter wrote...

I think with the way alignment went in ME2 they were trying to replace those two extra charm and intimidate skill bars with a tidier system where renegade and paragon meters just counted as your charm/intimidate skills.

Well, if they were going for tidier, they should've just combined them into one skill bar, persuade.

To have one persuade bar is simplifyed what they now have.

Because now they have split that one persuade bar to three different route. Be crue, be neutral, be nice. What can cause two different reputations and two ways to do the persuation. Neutral means no persuation possibility, because you aren't building reputation. Cruel means that you intimidate npcs and cause fear on them. Nice means you have compassion and npcs think you are pleasant and wise.

What means if there would be only one bar as persuation, it would not matter at all if you charm or intimidate. Because there is not difference in outcome as consequences. So, there would not be reputation at all. So, the choises what you make would not matter, because you would allways get pass with high persuade skill.

I think that's flat way to look situation, compared what we now have.

[EffectedByTheMasses]

What annoys me the most is that the options that are most like myself in the minor dialogue are the neutral ones, or evenly split between paragon/renegade replies; however if I choose those dialogue options then later on (eg. resolving squadmate conflicts) I am forced to take sides and am unable stay neutral, which is an option only presentable with a high enough paragon or renegade score and an option that I would always take in real life.



So either I can role play myself throughout the majority of the game and then not be able to make the major choices based on myself, or I have to take an extreme moral high or low road just to be able to do what I actually want when it comes to the big decisions. Which sucks.



I think, sticking to the example of solving squadmate arguments example, it would make more sense if the "neutral" option was available depending on the amount that the player talks to each squadmate, and how they react (open and caring or professional and cold).

[Lumikki]

EffectedByTheMasses wrote...

What annoys me the most is that the options that are most like myself in the minor dialogue are the neutral ones, or evenly split between paragon/renegade replies; however if I choose those dialogue options then later on (eg. resolving squadmate conflicts) I am forced to take sides and am unable stay neutral, which is an option only presentable with a high enough paragon or renegade score and an option that I would always take in real life.

This I agree. You should have option not to take side and example have consequence what would lose boths loyalty.

So either I can role play myself throughout the majority of the game and then not be able to make the major choices based on myself, or I have to take an extreme moral high or low road just to be able to do what I actually want when it comes to the big decisions. Which sucks.

I think, sticking to the example of solving squadmate arguments example, it would make more sense if the "neutral" option was available depending on the amount that the player talks to each squadmate, and how they react (open and caring or professional and cold).

Yes, this is all about choises and consequences of those choises. Sometimes game doesn't give you enough choises, like forcing to sertain path. You don't have to take morality, it's a choise as well.

Modifié par Lumikki, 27 mai 2010 - 01:19 .

[Nightwriter]

Lumikki wrote...

To have one persuade bar is simplifyed what they now have.

Because now they have split that one persuade bar to three different route. Be crue, be neutral, be nice. What can cause two different reputations and two ways to do the persuation. Neutral means no persuation possibility, because you aren't building reputation. Cruel means that you intimidate npcs and cause fear on them. Nice means you have compassion and npcs think you are pleasant and wise.

What means if there would be only one bar as persuation, it would not matter at all if you charm or intimidate. Because there is not difference in outcome as consequences. So, there would not be reputation at all. So, the choises what you make would not matter, because you would allways get pass with high persuade skill.

I think that's flat way to look situation, compared what we now have.

I myself think it is a flaw when the game penalizes you for playing, say, paragade.

Good or bad decisions would still result in paragon or renegade points, and paragon or renegade choices would still have positive or negative effects - however it would be your experience points that go in to the persuade skill.

I've just never seen how becoming more evil or more good makes you a more persuasive talker. And constricting us this way means we play the system more than we make real choices on our own.

[Dean_the_Young]

Collider wrote...

Dean_the_Young wrote...
Not having a reputation to inspire or terrify people into submission is a pretty sensible reason. No one has adequately addressed why it fails except in the 'I don't want the right-side options'.

You seem to forget that
a) Not everyone is going to know about Shepard's reputation
Not everyone is going to care about Shepard's reputation

a)Shepard is famous for a variety of reasons, even back in ME1. The people who don't know him also don't require significant paragon/renegade checks (like looters, or random strangers).
b)For those who don't care, there isn't a paragon/renegade option in the first place.

Modifié par Dean_the_Young, 27 mai 2010 - 12:13 .

[Dean_the_Young]

EffectedByTheMasses wrote...

What annoys me the most is that the options that are most like myself in the minor dialogue are the neutral ones, or evenly split between paragon/renegade replies; however if I choose those dialogue options then later on (eg. resolving squadmate conflicts) I am forced to take sides and am unable stay neutral, which is an option only presentable with a high enough paragon or renegade score and an option that I would always take in real life.

So either I can role play myself throughout the majority of the game and then not be able to make the major choices based on myself, or I have to take an extreme moral high or low road just to be able to do what I actually want when it comes to the big decisions. Which sucks.

I think, sticking to the example of solving squadmate arguments example, it would make more sense if the "neutral" option was available depending on the amount that the player talks to each squadmate, and how they react (open and caring or professional and cold).

I don't see why that sucks as opposed to being a natural (and deserving) consequence for choosing to be neutral. The character disputes are one of the rare occasions the other side isn't content with you being neutral and forces your hand.

You aren't playing neutral in either of the squade mate disputes, you're overruling them by force of personality: you can either put the fear of Shepard in them as a Renegade who they have no doubt will carry through with a threat, or persuade them with an oratory only a true paragon could be believed in.

[Dean_the_Young]

Nightwriter wrote...

Lumikki wrote...

To have one persuade bar is simplifyed what they now have.

Because now they have split that one persuade bar to three different route. Be crue, be neutral, be nice. What can cause two different reputations and two ways to do the persuation. Neutral means no persuation possibility, because you aren't building reputation. Cruel means that you intimidate npcs and cause fear on them. Nice means you have compassion and npcs think you are pleasant and wise.

What means if there would be only one bar as persuation, it would not matter at all if you charm or intimidate. Because there is not difference in outcome as consequences. So, there would not be reputation at all. So, the choises what you make would not matter, because you would allways get pass with high persuade skill.

I think that's flat way to look situation, compared what we now have.

I myself think it is a flaw when the game penalizes you for playing, say, paragade.

Good or bad decisions would still result in paragon or renegade points, and paragon or renegade choices would still have positive or negative effects - however it would be your experience points that go in to the persuade skill.

I've just never seen how becoming more evil or more good makes you a more persuasive talker. And constricting us this way means we play the system more than we make real choices on our own.

Not rewarding you is not a penalty. Paragon/Renegade choices are a reward system, outside the baseline experience. They don't even matter for the critical plot decisions in the game. Arguably only three Paragon/Renegade checks in the game have significant effects, and two of those (the squadmate confrontations) are with people who are most exposed (and acclimated) to just how far you're willing to go on an issue.

Besides the now trite 'Renegade isn't evil and Paragon isn't good', there's reputation. People with a fearsome reputation can intimidate others, building a more impressive reputation by increasing the number who submit. People with charisma will be more effective the more people are impressed by the results of their charisma. Both are self-reinforcing cycles.

What grounds does a Paragade have to charm bitter enemies to make peace or intimidate people long-since used to them into suppressing their anger?

[Dean_the_Young]

Lumikki wrote...

EffectedByTheMasses wrote...

What annoys me the most is that the options that are most like myself in the minor dialogue are the neutral ones, or evenly split between paragon/renegade replies; however if I choose those dialogue options then later on (eg. resolving squadmate conflicts) I am forced to take sides and am unable stay neutral, which is an option only presentable with a high enough paragon or renegade score and an option that I would always take in real life.

This I agree. You should have option not to take side and example have consequence what would lose boths loyalty.

That would be a good one. Or, extending the idea, they fight, and you can either let both kill eachother or save one but have already lost her loyalty as well.

[EffectedByTheMasses]

Dean_the_Young wrote...

EffectedByTheMasses wrote...

What annoys me the most is that the options that are most like myself in the minor dialogue are the neutral ones, or evenly split between paragon/renegade replies; however if I choose those dialogue options then later on (eg. resolving squadmate conflicts) I am forced to take sides and am unable stay neutral, which is an option only presentable with a high enough paragon or renegade score and an option that I would always take in real life.

So either I can role play myself throughout the majority of the game and then not be able to make the major choices based on myself, or I have to take an extreme moral high or low road just to be able to do what I actually want when it comes to the big decisions. Which sucks.

I think, sticking to the example of solving squadmate arguments example, it would make more sense if the "neutral" option was available depending on the amount that the player talks to each squadmate, and how they react (open and caring or professional and cold).

I don't see why that sucks as opposed to being a natural (and deserving) consequence for choosing to be neutral. The character disputes are one of the rare occasions the other side isn't content with you being neutral and forces your hand.

You aren't playing neutral in either of the squade mate disputes, you're overruling them by force of personality: you can either put the fear of Shepard in them as a Renegade who they have no doubt will carry through with a threat, or persuade them with an oratory only a true paragon could be believed in.

Ok. I will admit that makes sense. If you put it that way though, it amazes me that as a paragade/renegon player shepard can't think of a way to get a grip over the squadmates in question, yet he/she can make up a ridiculously awe-inspiring speech on the spot during the suicide mission, which according to your logic would count as a speech carried through by 'force of personality' (Not trolling on your comment, just my opinion).

If that is the case, then shepard should have a third morality bar- one based on logic. So he would use cold logic and detached viewpoints to solve conflicts, which could be something somehow invested in and a third, alternate way to solve conflicts.

[Dean_the_Young]

Some impressive speach to you is not necessarily impressive to the crew. For all you know, they could be like Mordin: "Never saw the point in it myself. Always preferred to get job done and go home. Military bravado. Chest thumping."



Someone based on logic would be a paragade, picking the most logical reason any position. But he'd suffer the same problems of a paragade player: he doesn't demonstrate the passion one way or another to awe or intimidate others.

[EffectedByTheMasses]

Dean_the_Young wrote...

Some impressive speach to you is not necessarily impressive to the crew. For all you know, they could be like Mordin: "Never saw the point in it myself. Always preferred to get job done and go home. Military bravado. Chest thumping."

Someone based on logic would be a paragade, picking the most logical reason any position. But he'd suffer the same problems of a paragade player: he doesn't demonstrate the passion one way or another to awe or intimidate others.

Which is why I'm saying that personally, it would greatly appeal to me (Although very unlikely to happen) to have a logic-based morality bar as well. but that's just my own wish that will most likely never happen. And totally become like, a Spock-esque character. 

Also on another note, having "I'm commander shepard and this is my favorite store on the citadel" blasting out of EVERY single store in the Citadel in exchange for a discount doesn't seem like paragon, it seems like borderline position-abuse and fraud. 

[Dean_the_Young]

Logic-based is already covered in the current morality/reputation system, so what's the point? Why would it be more effective as a separate bar when it doesn't pass muster in the current one?



Nothing abusive about giving a voice over for anyone who wanted. Nor is there fraud, since you never claimed (and they never asked) for exclusiveness.

[EffectedByTheMasses]

Still makes me lol everytime I hear it.

[Dean_the_Young]

Paragon Shepard always was something of a tool for the Citadel...