115 réponses à ce sujet

[brfritos]

Whatever666343431431654324 wrote...

shootist70 wrote...

Jebel Krong wrote...

you don't have to play 100% renegade (or 100% paragon) all the time. it's quite easy to play the antihero if you want, or the jerk (depending on your taste).

True, but again you have to make sure you're juggling the options enough to ensure that decisions later in the game are open to you.  I'd rather see better writing in the first place than such a contrived solution on the part of the player.  The latter really doesn't help with suspension-of-disbelief.

I think that Bioware is trying to give your dialogue choices some meaning. They can't fork the convesation and/or story on every dialogue option and they want your dialogue options to have some consquence. I agree that the paragon/renegade system could be improved, but any system they put in place will be "gamed".  I'm not really sure how to get around that, within the limitations of a finite game.

Like shooting some enemy with a sniper rifle and gainning renegade points for?
What's the logic behind it? 

And like shootist70 said, in many situations Shepard will totally act in a contradictory manner, because he/she needs the 5 paragon and 4 renegade points of the conversation.

I don't know, the system in the first game wasn't good, but this leaves a lot to be desired.
At least we had Lorik Qui'in to help us, but now... :innocent:

Modifié par brfritos, 05 août 2010 - 04:35 .

[ElectronicPostingInterface]

How often do you get to play as a total ****? Pretty much never. I enjoy the experience - not that I would actually DO these things, but it's just an interesting refreshing experience.



As for the persuasion system - it's annoying. But I dunno, being able to do every check everytime is kind...it's more interesting for a dynamic game play experience if you can't always, if you really had to make decisions of life and death or losing loyalty. I play often with a Paragon character who ends up ALMOST just as Renegade. Hell, sometimes it's even more like being a Renegon.



It's just a different way of doing and viewing things. I don't think I would've liked if the Renegade options were like "Paragon making unpleasant choices." Renegade and Paragon is an actual contrast now - Renegade wants to do things quickly, doesn't want to hear your stories, willing to kill or make major sacrifices or be mean to get the job done.



I personally don't struggle to avoid being mean to people I care about as Renegade - there's always neutral or just being paragon to the ones you love close, like an **** with a heart of gold. I like having the OPTION to kill ---spoilers removed--, even though I've never taken it. You can choose your own extremities of renegade.



Besides, if you take the 100% Paragon/Renegade bonus and import a guy, there's only one check I never seem to be able to pass and it's not a major impact.

[Whatever42]

brfritos wrote...

Like shooting some enemy with a sniper rifle and gainning renegade points for?
What's the logic behind it? 

And like shootist70 said, in many situations Shepard will totally act in a contradictory manner, because he/she needs the 5 paragon and 4 renegade points of the conversation.

I don't know, the system in the first game wasn't good, but this leaves a lot to be desired.
At least we had Lorik Qui'in to help us, but now... :innocent:

Any paragon/renegaded system requires consqueces and so will force decisions on you. I'm not sure if people just think ME2 is too rigid in that regard, that they want a bit more flexibility to make neutral or opposite choices, of if they dislike being shepherded towards a  direction at all.

If its not just tweaking, but if they don't want to be constrained in their choices at all then we need another consquence for making dialogue choices in the game. As I mentioned, forking dialogue/story options is probably not in the cards - it would dramatically increase the dialogue and storywork.

I'm not against scrapping this reworked lightside/darkside mechanic from KOTOR, its how to replace it. DA limited it by having your choices affect your companion's loyalty, which was clever. But regardless, any system will result in players "gaming" it for a particular result. Even in DA, people would probably be nice or nasty depending on which compansion they wanted to impress. Or they would, if you simply couldn't buy your shallow friends with gifts.

Modifié par Whatever666343431431654324, 05 août 2010 - 05:16 .

[casedawgz]

Yeah, I agree. There's no way to really be a John Marston, gentleman-but-don't-cross-me kind of antihero. You can practically hear Mark Meer twirling his moustache in the studio.

[PsyrenY]

shootist70 wrote...

Nobody is forcing you to be pure renegade. If you want to make your Shepard more complex  (as I did) then do it. As I said before, you can max out your Renegade bar without being 100% Renegade.

Your argument is like the guy suing Macdonalds because eating it exclusively made him fat; try varying your diet.

I covered this argument already. It's a player-contrived solution, and player-contrived solutions aren't consistent with suspension-of-disbelief, and the latter is vital to anything with dramatic content.

It's like saying to somebody who's reading the Twilight series 'try imagining that it's much better written than it actually is'.

Of course roleplaying is driven by the players. You're the one playing the role.
I really can't write it any more simply than that.

And the Twilight series? Not a roleplaying game. Bad analogy is bad.

[maddenking2010]

I play renegade, maxed it out, but you dont have to be a jerk to do it. I chose the dialogue options I wanted, I never once chose to take a renegade dialogue option if i didnt think it was the right thing to say, and I always spoke with respect and regard to the people who mattered to me. Theres alot of unjust hating on renegades

[shootist70]

Optimystic_X wrote...

Of course roleplaying is driven by the players. You're the one playing the role.
I really can't write it any more simply than that.

And the Twilight series? Not a roleplaying game. Bad analogy is bad.

But we're not playing the role are we? We're choosing from roles that Bioware have mapped out for us - my argument is that one of those roles doesn't fit the story. Nobody wants to cast an obnoxious jerk in the role of galaxy saving hero. I guess it'd be fine if there was an element of character transformation in there, but there isn't. ME2's renegade fails at being an antihero you can sympathise with. Or at least one that I can sympathise with, anyway. I admit, a lot of this is going to come down to personal preference. Wanting to see if anybody agreed was the point of the thread.

As for the analogy, don't be stupid. The whole point of an analogy is to compare two different things - that's why it's an analogy.

Modifié par shootist70, 05 août 2010 - 05:45 .

[brfritos]

Whatever666343431431654324 wrote...

brfritos wrote...

Like shooting some enemy with a sniper rifle and gainning renegade points for?
What's the logic behind it? 

And like shootist70 said, in many situations Shepard will totally act in a contradictory manner, because he/she needs the 5 paragon and 4 renegade points of the conversation.

I don't know, the system in the first game wasn't good, but this leaves a lot to be desired.
At least we had Lorik Qui'in to help us, but now... :innocent:

Any paragon/renegaded system requires consqueces and so will force decisions on you. I'm not sure if people just think ME2 is too rigid in that regard, that they want a bit more flexibility to make neutral or opposite choices, of if they dislike being shepherded towards a  direction at all.

If its not just tweaking, but if they don't want to be constrained in their choices at all then we need another consquence for making dialogue choices in the game. As I mentioned, forking dialogue/story options is probably not in the cards - it would dramatically increase the dialogue and storywork.

I'm not against scrapping this reworked lightside/darkside mechanic from KOTOR, its how to replace it. DA limited it by having your choices affect your companion's loyalty, which was clever. But regardless, any system will result in players "gaming" it for a particular result. Even in DA, people would probably be nice or nasty depending on which compansion they wanted to impress. Or they would, if you simply couldn't buy your shallow friends with gifts.

I think I'm putting wrong, is not that I don't want a paragon/renegade system (although I don't mind if I don't have one).

It''s allright to give Shepard's actions some meaning, but there's a lot of them in the game that don't make any sense at all.
This is a no-spoiler section, so I can't enter in details.
My early example is one of it, what's the logic behind your defending yourself against an attack and shooting someone with the sniper, then gainning renegade points for it?

Or in a certain mission when you have the option to:
a) arrest the guy
leave him to be killed by the others
c) force him to commit suicide

So leave him to be killed by others is better and more "right" than kill him by yourself?
"I wash my hands, said Herod". 

In the first game there were more logic in the way you gain P/R points.
I'm not saying it was perfect, let's make this clear, but for example in Noveria you have the option to do a task for an Asari and in the end you could ask her for more money.
It doesn't matter if you charm or threat her, in the end you gain renegade points.
You are blackmailing her, after all!

Now most of the time is black and white or better saying, blue and red.

As for the middle of the road and beign able to pass the checks is not difficult at all to follow, you only need to plan your Shepard right (and own the consequences in the beginning of the game for doing this). 

[FuturePasTimeCE]

so some guy is a anti-hero for saving more than 10 billions of lives everyday... even if he has a attitude problem every now and then?

[Whatever42]

So you want a better application of the existing system. I can't argue with that. Some of the decisions are don't make much sense, I completely agree. I'm sorry if I misunderstood anyone.

[PsyrenY]

shootist70 wrote...

Optimystic_X wrote...

Of course roleplaying is driven by the players. You're the one playing the role.
I really can't write it any more simply than that.

And the Twilight series? Not a roleplaying game. Bad analogy is bad.

But we're not playing the role are we? We're choosing from roles that Bioware have mapped out for us - my argument is that one of those roles doesn't fit the story. Nobody wants to cast an obnoxious jerk in the role of galaxy saving hero. I guess it'd be fine if there was an element of character transformation in there, but there isn't ME2's renegade fails at being an antihero you can sympathise with.

As for the analogy, don't be stupid. The whole point of an analogy is to compare two different things - that's why it's an analogy.

I disagree. Renegade Shepard is not 100% "obnoxious jerk." He/she is "obnoxious humanocentric jerk." It is thus possible for Shepard to both be a hardass and still be heroic, because he is involved with the Reapers/Saren due to the threat to humanity.

This is a Shepard who is forced to work with the first alien race to attack humanity. This same Shepard then goes to the Council to air her grievances with one of their Spectres - another member of that same race - and is summarily dismissed. Thanks to their inaction, she is then forced into a galaxy-wide chase to clean up their mess, and has every decision she makes second-guessed and picked apart by said Council. And you expect her to transform into favoring aliens?

And your analogy is bad not because Twilight and Mass Effect have entirely different subject matters (as all analogies do); your analogy is bad because I, the reader, have no control over the Twilight story. I do have control over that of Mass Effect. If you feel the Twilight protagonist is lacking there is nothing you can do about it, but if you feel the Mass Effect protagonist is lacking, you have the power to change it. Thus, your analogy fails on a very basic level - comparing static media to interactive ones.

[PseudoEthnic]

I finished ME2 with a maxed-out Renegade meter and a 60% Paragon meter just fine. When the Tali/Legion confrontation came up, I had both Persuade options open.

Anyways, I love playing renegade. A lot of people in this universe need a swift kick to the face.

[shootist70]

Optimystic_X wrote...


And your analogy is bad not because Twilight and Mass Effect have entirely different subject matters (as all analogies do); your analogy is bad because I, the reader, have no control over the Twilight story. I do have control over that of Mass Effect. If you feel the Twilight protagonist is lacking there is nothing you can do about it, but if you feel the Mass Effect protagonist is lacking, you have the power to change it. Thus, your analogy fails on a very basic level - comparing static media to interactive ones.

You're starting to waffle a little now, but no, not really. If I try to correct my Shephard towards what I see as a decent antihero, something that better fits the story, I end up with something contradictory and bipolar. I don't have 'the power to change it'  because the only choices are too disparate for them to be combined in any sensible way. If I can't have more control then what I would like is better characterisation...just as I might with something like Twilight. Does that make it any clearer?

Modifié par shootist70, 05 août 2010 - 06:39 .

[PsyrenY]

shootist70 wrote...

Optimystic_X wrote...


And your analogy is bad not because Twilight and Mass Effect have entirely different subject matters (as all analogies do); your analogy is bad because I, the reader, have no control over the Twilight story. I do have control over that of Mass Effect. If you feel the Twilight protagonist is lacking there is nothing you can do about it, but if you feel the Mass Effect protagonist is lacking, you have the power to change it. Thus, your analogy fails on a very basic level - comparing static media to interactive ones.

You're starting to waffle a little now, but no, not really. If I try to correct my Shephard towards what I see as a decent antihero, something that better fits the story, I end up with something contradictory and bipolar. I don't have 'the power to change it'  because the only choices are too disparate for them to be combined in any sensible way. If I can't have more control then what I would like is better characterisation...just as I might with something like Twilight. Does that make it any clearer?

How am I waffling? 
My Earlier post: Twilight is a bad analogy for Mass Effect.
My Recent post: Twilight is a bad analogy for Mass Effect.
Elaborate, please.

Perhaps you can provide an example of how your Shepard ended up being contradictory? All of mine were pretty consistent, even combining Paragon and Renegade options. For example, my Paragon Shepard still tazed the Blue Suns guy fixing the gunship (Renegade interrupt) because I consider that a relatively humane way of taking him out. My Renegade Shepard told the Quarians not to go to war (Paragon dialogue), because she doesn't care about anything more than she cares about beating the Reapers, even if that means getting those suit-wearing ninnies to get their fleet in gear for the big fight.

Provide examples like that; show me where you're coming from. Justifying a Paragon Shepard with minor Renegade choices, or vice-versa, is simply a matter of having enough creativity.

Modifié par Optimystic_X, 05 août 2010 - 06:53 .

[Shotokanguy]

Calling Renegades antiheros isn't the right idea. This topic was flawed to start with.



An antihero is more chaotic than a Renegade Shepard. Renegade Shepard still follows an ideology and can be compassionate. BioWare did a good job with the characterization, I don't know what you're all complaining about.



Let me point out one of my favorite lines from both games. It's from Bring Down the Sky, if you refuse to let Balak go and Simon gets mad at you for letting the hostages die.



"Part of my job is to accept responsibility for decisions like that. I'll be glad to let Kate's face keep me awake tonight if it means your family sleeps soundly."

[shootist70]

Optimystic_X wrote...


How am I waffling? 
My Earlier post: Twilight is a bad analogy for Mass Effect.
My Recent post: Twilight is a bad analogy for Mass Effect.
Elaborate, please.

This is even more waffle. The analogy was a passing remark in addition to that particular post. I'm not even sure why you're focusing on it. For the sheer sake of bringing this part of the discussion back into focus I'll recap my argument:

The renegade option for Shep doesn't isn't well characterised enough for him to elicit enough empathy from the player, because he comes across more as a jerk than a convincing antihero. Gaining empathy for the protag is essential in almost all drama, because if you don't care for him then you don't care what happens to him - that's elementary story-telling.

Mixing up the dialogue options to try and soften the jerk side of him ends up with a contradictory character that doesn't act as a convincing vehicle - it becomes an incongruous immersion breaker.  The dialogue choice system just isn't complex enough to do that convincingly. And no, I'm not going to 'provide examples' - go and get more widely read if you need to understand what 'characterisation' and 'antihero' are. There are plenty of other people on this thread who understand where I'm coming from.

For a decent, classic antihero that can gain adequate player empathy amongst most gamers we either need 1) a much more diverse dialogue system, or 2) better characterisation and dialogue for the renegade

Now please, if you want a decent discussion then try not to rehash your points again, or bang on about analogies.

Modifié par shootist70, 05 août 2010 - 07:31 .

[PsyrenY]

shootist70 wrote...

Now please, if you want a decent discussion then try not to rehash your points again, or bang on about analogies.

Right back at you. I still have no examples of this contradictory nature that you keep espousing, despite having provided you with three of my own.

But I don't suppose you'd be a very effective troll if you actually had evidence.

[TheBoss1138]

Anti-Hero, theyre still the good guy but they get the job done in not the most fashionable way...and at times theyll even punch or stomp on other good guys for questioning the results of a mission complete lol...

[Marzillius]

I've only done one Renegade playthrough. It was horrible. I always feel like a complete jerk who shouldn't live when I'm Renegade.

I have done a few playthrough, but I have a special Shepard who is my canon Shepard. He is paragon. I can't believe that the default John Shepard is a renegade (he is Earthborn and Sole Survivor).

[shootist70]

Optimystic_X wrote...

Right back at you. I still have no examples of this contradictory nature that you keep espousing, despite having provided you with three of my own.

But I don't suppose you'd be a very effective troll if you actually had evidence.

Oh please, don't go falling back on the 'you're a troll' defence. I wanted a productive discussion, not amateur dramatics.

If you had any idea of what you're talking about you would have discussed characterisation elements such as empathy building and identification and how these are relevant to the renegade shep, rather than rehashing the same dull points about game mechanics.

I could have respected and gotten into a discussion on that level.

[PHub88]

Eh, I never enjoyed doing renegade...It felt like being an azz for no reason for the most part....I wish it was more like "im a major badass" rather than "im gonna be a dick for no reason about everything"

[PsyrenY]

shootist70 wrote...

Optimystic_X wrote...

Right back at you. I still have no examples of this contradictory nature that you keep espousing, despite having provided you with three of my own.

But I don't suppose you'd be a very effective troll if you actually had evidence.

Oh please, don't go falling back on the 'you're a troll' defence. I wanted a productive discussion, not amateur dramatics.

If you had any idea of what you're talking about you would have discussed characterisation elements such as empathy building and identification and how these are relevant to the renegade shep, rather than rehashing the same dull points about game mechanics.

I could have respected and gotten into a discussion on that level.

Still no examples.

[MTN Dew Fanatic]

Mass Effect 1, I would say Shepard is an antihero, but in Mass Effect 2, he's a jerk.

[shootist70]

Still no examples.

On any forum, there are people who want to discuss/debate, and people who just want to disagree. Im not writing an essay, I'm having a general discussion about characterisation and ME2's ineffectiveness of the renegade shephard character. If you keep on vacantly asking me to 'provide proof' of that it's simply because you don't have any decent discussion to put forward.

[PsyrenY]

It's not about "proof." Your "debate" consists entirely of you saying "Renegade Shepard was badly written because he is inconsistent." To which I reply "In what way is he inconsistent?" And you answer: "He just is." Without examples that support your point of view, how the hell can we have any discussion?



You're the one who's preventing discussion here, not me.