203 réponses à ce sujet

[asaiasai]

Thornquist wrote...

Agree with the whole thread.
Mass Effect is a roleplaying game at its core.
And by forcing us to go all "good" or "evil", it removes a large portion of that roleplay.

This is not Star Wars Bioware.

I agree with this one can not role play if one has to follow a linear path of either paragon or renegade responses to every situation. Sure the system may work as designed but that does not mean the design is right for the application. I can not role play effectively if i am forced to continually choose a dialog response that does not follow how i want to play a particular character,  but has to follow what i need to generate the required points to open up the dialog options i want to open later in the game. In a sense i have to constantly meta game my way through ME2 and by being placed into a meta game situation because the design does not fit the application, completely blows any immersion in the ME2 realm.

It is much better to force the player to choose whether they want to use talent points for skills regardless if those skills are combat, tech, or dialog related. Forcing the player to make a difficult choice regarding, combat, dialog or tech skills because the points to assign are finite makes the player responsible for the choices they made. Die in combat you may need more points there and less in tech. You can not open up the dialog option you want hey maybe your too tech heavy for this play through. You just can not seem to pop that safe maybe you should have invested a few more points in tech.

As it stands right now in ME2 i do not have the flexibility to play the characters as i choose. I can not remain immersed in the game because i must always be looking for the little bit of extra dialog to generate additional points because i know a serious event involving 4 squaddies is comming up, so i need to act out of character now to ensure that i can resolve a situation later. The current system requires me to meta game through ME2 and because of it ME2 is less of a game experience than ME was imho.

Asai

[Schattenkeil]

 I had a similarly frustrating experience yesterday. I am playing through Mass Effect on insanity again. I tried everything to catch every single "paragon" answer I might come across, reloaded a billion times and redid countless of fights just because I thought I might have missed a paragon answer in the resulting conversation. And when it came to the fight between Miranda and Jack it still wasn't enough!

I think the morality system they got in Mass Effect 2 is the worst, barring the loyality system in Hordes of the Underdark (when you only learn such a system exist when your allies turn against you in the final fight and you realize that you actually lost the game like 30 game hours ago, you just didn't realiize it). It is just not transparent. You can never no for sure when you're winning and when you're loosing. Assuming you're going for paragon: being awarded 4 paragon points might be loosing, if there was an option for six. That mean you only got two thirds, and that's a catastrophic ratio. Being awarded 10 renegade points might still be alright if there was no option for paragon points. It completely lacks transparency the point bars are actually worse misleading and actually worse than nothing at all, because they give you a false image of your standing.

The only indication that it was going not as good as I hoped was, when I didn't get to choose the paragon answer when Morinth was trying to seduce me. Still I have no idea what might have possibly gone wrong.

And I agree with my previous speakers. In my initial game I actually thought you had the freedom to choose whatever you like. But the game only rewards the two stereotypes. I chose to let the rachni queen go and chose to destroy the geth (I don't wanna go into detail why here, I thought about both and I had my rasons). My character is paragon mostly but I find it frustrating how the game penalizes me if I don't click on completely pointless "let's negotiate" options, how I can't choose to follow a hard line when I got enough and come to the conclusion that any other effort would be in vain, while I mostly stand for peace, justice, bunnies and flowers.

Modifié par Schattenkeil, 12 octobre 2010 - 08:27 .

[GuardianAngel470]

The_Numerator wrote...

Well, I read the explanation of the system. Anyone know how it works with respect to renegade/paragon "action" triggers coming up and whatnot?

Edit: Oh, also-- How does the percent-modifier given by your class-specific skill affect things? Or more specifically, does it affect the points... Oh, yes, of course it would. Okay, nevermind. Still, original question stands though.

Yes, the interupts are constants, they always appear at certain times.

In regards to the percentage question, because the ability to persuade is a ratio between points earned : points possible, it snowballs.

That said, two things can skew your points earned score. First, import bonuses. This imports a set amount of points that gets added to your points earned score, increasing your ratio.

Second, is the class skill. This skill, when fully upgraded, gives you 100% of your total points earned.  So if you earned 500 paragon points this skill would give you 500 more for a total of 1000 paragon points. Don't get confused by the increments though. As you level up the class skill you get certain percentages of your points earned. These don't stack, so the difference between the level 3 skill with 70% increase is a 30% increase, not a 100% increase.

[GuardianAngel470]

Schattenkeil wrote...

 I had a similarly frustrating experience yesterday. I am playing through Mass Effect on insanity again. I tried everything to catch every single "paragon" answer I might come across, reloaded a billion times and redid countless of fights just because I thought I might have missed a paragon answer in the resulting conversation. And when it came to the fight between Miranda and Jack it still wasn't enough!

I think the morality system they got in Mass Effect 2 is the worst, barring the loyality system in Hordes of the Underdark (when you only learn such a system exist when your allies turn against you in the final fight and you realize that you actually lost the game like 30 game hours ago, you just didn't realiize it). It is just not transparent. You can never no for sure when you're winning and when you're loosing. Assuming you're going for paragon: being awarded 4 paragon points might be loosing, if there was an option for six. That mean you only got two thirds, and that's a catastrophic ratio. Being awarded 10 renegade points might still be alright if there was no option for paragon points. It completely lacks transparency the point bars are actually worse misleading and actually worse than nothing at all, because they give you a false image of your standing.

The only indication that it was going not as good as I hoped was, when I didn't get to choose the paragon answer when Morinth was trying to seduce me. Still I have no idea what might have possibly gone wrong.

And I agree with my previous speakers. In my initial game I actually thought you had the freedom to choose whatever you like. But the game only rewards the two stereotypes. I chose to let the rachni queen go and chose to destroy the geth (I don't wanna go into detail why here, I thought about both and I had my rasons). My character is paragon mostly but I find it frustrating how the game penalizes me if I don't click on completely pointless "let's negotiate" options, how I can't choose to follow a hard line when I got enough and come to the conclusion that any other effort would be in vain, while I mostly stand for peace, justice, bunnies and flowers.

Mmmmm, bunnies.

Seriously though, I agree. I hate that I can't play a realistic character because the system won't let me. I hate that I have to metagame like asai said.

In me1, I just made decisions because I thought they were right or because I was experimenting after my 6th playthrough. 

[GuardianAngel470]

ODST 3 wrote...

GuardianAngel470 wrote...

If I want a shooter I will play Halo:Reach, Crysis, Brothers in Arms, or any of the dozens of shooters I own.

I play ME for the characters and the story, which I have so far been satisfied with, not for the shooter elements. I played ME1 about 10 times, progressively getting more and more completionist, and suffered through the clunky combat because it wasn't why I was playing.

So you're saying they should make the combat ****ty like ME 1 was for the sake of a Morality System tweak. That makes no sense at all.

It does, from the perspective of a gamer who isn't playing the game for the shooting. Like I said, if I wanted to play a shooter I would play one of the games I own that was designed around that singular concept. The combat is not why I play ME. In fact, it is one of my lowest priorities when I play ME.

You can disagree with me about why you play the game, but from my perspective it makes total sense.

[GuardianAngel470]

Christmas Ape wrote...

This whole damn thread....
Arrrrrgh! This game is poorly designed! Whenever I eat this cake, I don't have cake any more!

Besides, I hate cake.

[Christmas Ape]

asaiasai wrote...
I agree with this one can not role play if one has to follow a linear path of either paragon or renegade responses to every situation. Sure the system may work as designed but that does not mean the design is right for the application. I can not role play effectively if i am forced to continually choose a dialog response that does not follow how i want to play a particular character,  but has to follow what i need to generate the required points to open up the dialog options i want to open later in the game. In a sense i have to constantly meta game my way through ME2 and by being placed into a meta game situation because the design does not fit the application, completely blows any immersion in the ME2 realm.

This is complete garbage. Sorry to be so blunt about it, but it's nonsense. You are not forced down the Paragon or Renegade path in any decision at any time. You have decided to. You have decided that using the blue or red I Win button in the squadmate arguments is a higher priority than roleplaying Shepard however you desire. You have a vision in mind for Shepard which you choose to disregard for the sake of ending the game with all squadmates loyal, a state in no way required to complete the game.

It is much better to force the player to choose whether they want to use talent points for skills regardless if those skills are combat, tech, or dialog related. Forcing the player to make a difficult choice regarding, combat, dialog or tech skills because the points to assign are finite makes the player responsible for the choices they made. Die in combat you may need more points there and less in tech. You can not open up the dialog option you want hey maybe your too tech heavy for this play through. You just can not seem to pop that safe maybe you should have invested a few more points in tech.

...wow. Do you really not see how this is actually the ME2 Morality philosophy applied differently? Let me see if I can help.
"Forcing the player to make a difficult choice regarding their vision of Shepard and increasing a reputation bar because the opportunities are finite makes the player responsible for the choices they make." Letting the player choose to metagame is letting the player choose to metagame no matter what it's about.

As it stands right now in ME2 i do not have the flexibility to play the characters as i choose.

Yes, you do. You just don't get to also have all the bonus outcomes turn out in your favor.

I can not remain immersed in the game because i must always be looking for the little bit of extra dialog to generate additional points because i know a serious event involving 4 squaddies is comming up, so i need to act out of character now to ensure that i can resolve a situation later.

Horsecrap. You can resolve the situation without using the I Win buttons; it just requires you plan a little more carefully during the Suicide Mission if you also want all four of those squadmates to survive. You have made Persuading your way through two ideological clashes a higher priority than roleplaying Shepard the way you want to. Stop blaming the game for your decisions.

The current system requires me to meta game through ME2 and because of it ME2 is less of a game experience than ME was imho.

The only one requiring you to metagame is you.

If I want to end a playthrough with a complete wipe just for fun, I don't get to complain that the game makes me skip the loyalty missions to do so - well, I have the right to, but I look like a child doing it. In pursuit of my desired outcome, I made that choice.

[AmstradHero]

Okay, Christmas Ape you've made some valid points here, albeit not communicated very clearly. I was ready to dismiss your opinion after your first post, but you've raised a valid point.

The reason that some people are complaining about the system is because it forces them to pursue mostly paragon or renegade in order to be able to pick every relevant pursuasion check. Note that I said "mostly" not "wholly", because there is a moderate amount of leeway in choosing the "other" option and still being able to be pick every possible persuasion option. There's even more leeway if you import an ME1 character.

A large portion of the players complain about this because it means they then don't get the loyalty of some characters, and they end up dying on the suicide mission. This is not preventing roleplaying at all, it is preventing roleplaying while obtaining the exact outcome that a player wants - which is actually metagaming NOT roleplaying.

Simply put:
Being able to choose whatever dialogue options you want and still obtain an "optimal" outcome (whatever that definition of "optimal" might be) is not roleplaying.

As I stated before, the complaint that can/should be directed at the system is that fact that you can be unable to choose some persuasion options despite the fact that your gauge for renegade/paragon is completely full. This indicates to the player that they have "maximum" persuasion power, and hence being unable to pick an associated speech option is a failing of the UI in that it is giving the player inaccurate information. It's still not pure roleplaying (because you're relying on numbers/meters), but it is a failure.

[Schattenkeil]

GuardianAngel470 wrote...

Christmas Ape wrote...

This whole damn thread....
Arrrrrgh! This game is poorly designed! Whenever I eat this cake, I don't have cake any more!

Besides, I hate cake.

What kinda cake are we talking about here. I don't quite understand the cake-remark though. There are two points the critics of the current system have:

• The system isn't transparent enough: No matter how hard you try you may still fail and not know why. Additionally the system itself isn't explained at any point, while there are strong indications for an actually  wrong understanding of the system within the game itself.
• The system rewards two exact paths for no particular reason and leaves everyone penalized.
• For a lot decisions it's very arguable whether they are paragon, renegade, or whether that depends on why you make them. The difference between paragon and renegade is typically a "the end justifies the means" attitude. But  that leaves open which ends are desirable and which means may be justified on their own and which won't.

A game with unknown rules, with pretty random rewards, and with unknown scores is just not a particularly good one.

Modifié par Schattenkeil, 12 octobre 2010 - 09:49 .

[Christmas Ape]

AmstradHero wrote...
As I stated before, the complaint that can/should be directed at the system is that fact that you can be unable to choose some persuasion options despite the fact that your gauge for renegade/paragon is completely full. This indicates to the player that they have "maximum" persuasion power, and hence being unable to pick an associated speech option is a failing of the UI in that it is giving the player inaccurate information. It's still not pure roleplaying (because you're relying on numbers/meters), but it is a failure.

And I'll absolutely give you that both the UI and the exact application need work; I've even cited the one that bothered me (being unable to flash my badge at Kelham less than an hour after reinstatement). I accept that the system can be misleading if you're using it as a metagame guide (Okay, maxed out Paragon, time to work on the Renegade meter), but the suggestion that not being able to get everything you want all at once is the problem is outright absurd, and it's not the first time it's come up. Perhaps I jumped the gun by not covering that these are all player decisions first; sort of thought that would be obvious.

A lot of people seem to mistake not roleplaying at all for being prevented from roleplaying.

[AmstradHero]

Schattenkeil wrote...
What kinda cake are we talking about here. I don't quite understand the cake-remark though. There are two points the critics of the current system have:

• The system isn't transparent enough: No matter how hard you try you may still fail and not know why. Additionally the system itself isn't explained at any point, while there are strong indications for an actually  wrong understanding of the system within the game itself.
• The system rewards two exact paths for no particular reason and leaves everyone penalized.
• For a lot decisions it's very arguable whether they are paragon, renegade, or whether that depends on why you make them. The difference between paragon and renegade is typically a "the end justifies the means" attitude. But  that leaves open which ends are desirable and which means may be justified on their own and which won't.

A game with unknown rules, with pretty random rewards, and with unknown scores is just not a particularly good one.

Uh, that's three points.

1. Yes. I agree. The UI is inaccurate.
2. No. It "penalizes" people by potentially killing off squadmates if Shepard is not persuasive enough on two extremes of a scale.  People choosing to pursue one or the other deliberately to be able to choose all persuasion options are metagaming, not roleplaying. They get "rewards", but there's no inherent failure in this system.
3. So? Yes, there are some situations where it probably would be better for the paragon or renegade shift to not be applied, but any game involving meaningful decisions paints particular decisions in a postive or negative light. This is inherent whenever there is a morality system in a game, because people's rationale for various decisions are many and varied. Mass Effect tries to give a base reason/decisions while still allowing players to define their own internal thought process leading to that decision by not having Shepard explicit state his/her reason for the decision.

Yes, there are weakness in the system, but people are confusing the fact that their choices have consequences with a supposed inability to roleplay.

[Keldon Northwind]

The Paragon/Renegade system needs a rework. It's clunky and odd, at best.



As for the Lair of the Shadow Broker: I found it very odd that I could pass the renegade/paragon checks with a fresh character (he was like lv8 or so by the time I hit the Lair) while I couldn't do it with an old character I've already completed the game with where I just swung back and did the Lair. Very odd, indeed.

[Shiratori]

Not that odd really. The mechanics of the system was detailed in another thread (somewhere) but the short version was that passing the check usually meant that you had a certain percentage of the maximum possible value you could have had at that point in the game. So yes it's possible for a low level character to pass a say a paragon check if he/she got as many of the points needed (so he/she is at about 100%) while a high level character may have a higher score, but a lower percentage.

[Schattenkeil]

AmstradHero wrote...


Yes, there are weakness in the system, but people are confusing the fact that their choices have consequences with a supposed inability to roleplay.

The problem is that consequences of decisions are by no means related to the decisions themselves. There is no reason to assume my character wasn't able to withstand Morinth's charm or to mediate between Jack and Miranda. Playing my Shepard's role would have means you're actually able to choose how you play it.

The problem is that the game does not only set me in front of the consequences but controls on how I play my character's role. That the game decides on how I may play my role.

My Shepard doesn't understand Geth as living entities but more like a articfial natural catastrophy that may be utilized, repurposed to some degree and has no actual free will on its own (until she meets Legion) so she can't withstand Morinth? Where is the logic in that? My character chooses to make her point but not obsess about it and not cry out in naive indignation, yet remain calm, determined and understanding. So she gains 4 paragons points were 6 might be gained? How does not acting like a naive school girl, but remain calm, confident and determined bar her from withstanding Morinth's charm? Why can't she even try to mediate between Miranda and Jack instead of siding with one of them, mediating is surely the only sane thing to do in their fight?

Modifié par Schattenkeil, 12 octobre 2010 - 10:46 .

[Vaeliorin]

AmstradHero wrote...
2. No. It "penalizes" people by potentially killing off squadmates if Shepard is not persuasive enough on two extremes of a scale.  People choosing to pursue one or the other deliberately to be able to choose all persuasion options are metagaming, not roleplaying. They get "rewards", but there's no inherent failure in this system.

There's a very large inherent failure in the system, because the system equates morality with persuasive ability, which is completely inane.  How persuasive you are has nothing to do with morality, as demonstrated by countless people throughout history.

Personally, I'd make the paragon/renegade meter a single meter (kind of like the light side/dark side meter in KOTOR) and make persuasion a skill.  When trying to persuade someone, the difference between your morality and theirs would be checked, and applied as a bonus or penalty.  This would mean that it's easier to persuade someone with morals similar to your own (which I feel is reflective of reality) and very difficult or impossible to persuade someone with a completely different world view.

For example, it makes very little sense to me that someone who's as much of a hardass as, say, Jack would be so willing to listen to Rainbows and Kittens Shepard and just back down at a few words from him.  It seems to me that Jack would think that Ranbows and Kittens Shepard was a wuss, not someone she should have any reason to respect, and is more likely to shoot in the face than listen to. 

Similarly, someone like Jacob who appears to be pretty moral would, I think, have less respect for and be less likely to listen to Evil Badass Shepard.  Jacob makes it pretty clear that he's willing to put an end to his relationship with Cerberus if they do things that he thinks are wrong, and I don't see why he should feel any differently about Shepard (other than that Shepard is the protagonist, but that's entirely a copout reason.)

This would mean that, while neutral people would have a broader range of people they could persuade, those who lean to either extreme would be able to persuade people that neutral people and people of the opposite extreme couldn't.  This, to me, seems like a pretty decent compromise, and, again, somewhat representative of reality (politically, think of centrists as neutral Shepards.  They'll have a decent chance of convincing people who aren't radicals of something, but be unlikely to convince the radicals of anything.  Renegade/Paragon Shepards would be radicals, and be able to convince radicals of their own ilk, be fairly successful with those who learn towards their side, fairly unsuccessful with those who lean the other way, and completely unable to convince radicals on the other side.)

Admittedly, this would mean that the devs would have to figure out how paragon/renegade the various people you talk to are, but the characters you interact meaningfully with should be developed enough that doing so shouldn't be too difficult.

Regardless of all that, it's not like Shepard's activities are immediately beamed into the brains of everyone in the galaxy, hence his actions in ME2 probably shouldn't effect the opinions of those he's not in fairly close contact with, so the argument that his reputation would get people to agree or disagree with him is kind of absurd.  If anything, Shepard's reputation from ME1 should have more of an effect on the common people he interacts with (as when they think of Shepard, the likelihood is they'll think of the hero of the Citadel, however he's portrayed by the media after the Battle of the Citadel) than whatever reputation he develops during ME2.

[Killjoy Cutter]

Tony Gunslinger wrote...

I think a lot of you are blowing this out of proportion. A full-on paragon or renegade character should have benefits over characters who are in-between. The ability to charm/intimidate is a luxury that you work for, not a standard option whenever you feel like it. Is it really fair that a Shepard who did a few bad things can C/I Miranda and Jack the same way as a Shepard who worked hard to be a consistent leader? IRL, is it fair that a co-worker of yours get the same bonus as you even though you know he slacked off more than you did?

If you like to be a hero but think it's funny to shoot an injured merc or let a Batarian die to grab his loot, then you don't deserve to be a hero. Similarily, if you like to be a badass and yet you want everyone to like you, you're not much of a badass. Long story short, you can't have your cake and eat it too.

ME2 is about a suicide mission, you are recruting people who may die. To have everyone survive is suicide mission is extraordinary, to have a few of your squadmates die is the norm. The morality system plays a big part on who live and who dies, you're complaining that on one hand you can game it for the max result, yet on the other hand, you don't like the choices you make when you're gaming the system.

If you know that there is a Miranda/Jack crisis, what was your reason that kept you from doing it so late in the game in the first place? Because you think Jack is a useless member and you don't need her upgrades that much, therefore other loyaly missions were more important? That's not role-playing, that's power-gaming. If you wanted to make it a "canon" experience, then do the loyaty missions the moment they pop up.

Furthermore, the morailty system is a lot more flexible than you think. Moments like joking during Samara's mission gives you a measely +2 renegade, and those instances are not going ruin a generally high paragon. On NG+ went renegae on Zaeed's mission, Jacob's mission, headbutted Uvek, destroyed the heretics, and still managed to save everyone.

The legitimate complains I have are post-suicide mission and that screws up the DLCs.

The underlying assumptions that divide Paragon and Renegade "paths" are inherently flawed to begin with, and you actually did a good job, unintentionally, of demonstrating them.  Real interpersonal interactions are far more nuanced and gray and complicated than what we're given in ME2.

Modifié par Killjoy Cutter, 12 octobre 2010 - 02:52 .

[Killjoy Cutter]

Vaeliorin wrote...
There's a very large inherent failure in the system, because the system equates morality with persuasive ability, which is completely inane.  How persuasive you are has nothing to do with morality, as demonstrated by countless people throughout history.

^ This.


In fact, I'd say that persuasive ability and moral shortcomings often stem from the same personality traits.

[maxernst]

Vaeliorin wrote...

AmstradHero wrote...
2. No. It "penalizes" people by potentially killing off squadmates if Shepard is not persuasive enough on two extremes of a scale.  People choosing to pursue one or the other deliberately to be able to choose all persuasion options are metagaming, not roleplaying. They get "rewards", but there's no inherent failure in this system.

There's a very large inherent failure in the system, because the system equates morality with persuasive ability, which is completely inane.  How persuasive you are has nothing to do with morality, as demonstrated by countless people throughout history.

Personally, I'd make the paragon/renegade meter a single meter (kind of like the light side/dark side meter in KOTOR) and make persuasion a skill.  When trying to persuade someone, the difference between your morality and theirs would be checked, and applied as a bonus or penalty.  This would mean that it's easier to persuade someone with morals similar to your own (which I feel is reflective of reality) and very difficult or impossible to persuade someone with a completely different world view.

Regardless of all that, it's not like Shepard's activities are immediately beamed into the brains of everyone in the galaxy, hence his actions in ME2 probably shouldn't effect the opinions of those he's not in fairly close contact with, so the argument that his reputation would get people to agree or disagree with him is kind of absurd.  If anything, Shepard's reputation from ME1 should have more of an effect on the common people he interacts with (as when they think of Shepard, the likelihood is they'll think of the hero of the Citadel, however he's portrayed by the media after the Battle of the Citadel) than whatever reputation he develops during ME2.

Although I agree with much of what you say, I think a better solution would be to drop the attempt to force the PC's actions into simplistic moral categories completely.  Let the decisions of your characters influence how your companions see you in a direct sense (more like Dragon Age) that is individual rather than good/evil.  And really, so often the Paragon/Renegade options are really about being nice versus being mean rather than morality anyway.  It should be perfectly possible to play an oily, persuasive character who is completely immoral or an essentially good person who bullies people to get his way.  Or something in between.  I'm on my first playthrough of ME2, and although I'm still more paragon than renegade, I'm finding my Shepherd getting a fair amount of renegade points for dialogue options that aren't--to my mind at least--wicked at all. There are just some people he deals with that he sees no reason to be polite to.

The only game I've seen with a morality meter that I ever thought worked well was Fallout 2, because whether actions were viewed positively or negatively was faction-specific...which is logical.

[Schattenkeil]

It doesn't only rule how persuasive you are but also how easily you are persuaded.See the dialogue with Morinth as a paragon character. You don't have to persuade Morinth, you have to resist Morinth's persuasion.

With all the critics here: I never had aproblem with the morality meters in KotOR. Firstly that's appropriate for a Star Wars Force user, secondly it was transparent, and thirdly it didn't limit your choices in such a way. If you were overall a light side user and clicked the light side answers, you were granted the according you were granted the appropriate dialogue options. Sometimes it just wouldn't work, but that depended more on the answer itself than how much light/dark side you were.

You didn't have to go to extremes. In Mass Effect 2 you can choose a paragon answer every single time, but if there were another path of answers that woudld have granted more paragon points you're falling behind, even though you actually did give a paragon answer. If you don't talk to a random passer by you might have talked to you're falling behin because you might have gained points from talking to him. So even if you bahve perfectly paragonic the game might still decide that you're unworthy. That was never the case in Knights of the Old Republic.

Modifié par Schattenkeil, 12 octobre 2010 - 03:32 .

[The_Numerator]

Interesting. I'd always assumed the "interrupts" only appeared if you'd possessed some requisite respective amount of paragon or renegade.

And as concerns the original matter, if I understand things right, a relatively simple solution would be to take make a double-check. First (paragon-accumulated + renegade-accumulated)/(possible-paragon), and then the original (paragon-accumulated)/(possible-paragon), instead of only the second. [Using paragon as an example, but renegade being identical except with renegade in the denominator for renegade option availability.]

Conceptually then, the first would introduce a sort of "decisiveness" characteristic: By acting decisively, whether "paragon" or "renegade", would both contribute to some measure of your ability to take action when needed. This would determine what "difficult" actions you could take.

The second, original check would then just be whether you were paragon enough for the paragon option, or renegade enough for the renegade option, as usual.

So the first abstractly represents your decisiveness, and the second your, eh, "preferred method of problem solving".

Modifié par The_Numerator, 12 octobre 2010 - 04:45 .

[Killjoy Cutter]

Christmas Ape wrote...

This is complete garbage. Sorry to be so blunt about it, but it's nonsense. You are not forced down the Paragon or Renegade path in any decision at any time. You have decided to. You have decided that using the blue or red I Win button in the squadmate arguments is a higher priority than roleplaying Shepard however you desire. You have a vision in mind for Shepard which you choose to disregard for the sake of ending the game with all squadmates loyal, a state in no way required to complete the game.

It doesn't help that you can't, for example, tell Miranda to back down, thus keeping Jack from going off the deep end, and then when Jack is gone, turn to Miranda and say "Wow, that girl really needs some help.  Sorry about that, you do know I just said that to keep her from tearing the place up, right?" 

(Never mind that the whole thing between Miranda and Jack reduces them to the level of a couple of high-school sophmores, and that Miranda at least should be above the alpha-female nonsense that makes them look like they're 14 or 15.)

[AmstradHero]

[quote]Vaeliorin wrote...
There's a very large inherent failure in the system, because the system equates morality with persuasive ability, which is completely inane.  How persuasive you are has nothing to do with morality, as demonstrated by countless people throughout history.[/quote]
[/quote]
Reframe your thinking. Don't think about it as morality translating into persuasive ability. Think about it as Shepard practicing his or her ability to communicate with people and either persuade or intimidate them into his/her way of thinking. By practicising one style of speech over the other, Shepard actually gains skills and the ability to "persuade" he/she would otherwise not be able to. You may have heard of games like Fable, Dungeon Siege and Dungeon Master, that required you to use skills in order to get better at them? This is akin to the approach the persuasive skills are taking.

If you want "inane" then you should look no further than the standard "point buy" system of levelling up. Biotic Shepard shoots two hundred enemies with a gun without using a single biotic power and reaches a magic "level up" point. Shepard then increases his/her biotic ability.  THAT is inane and illogical.  But, it's a commonly accepted mechanic. (I also happen to like it, but recognise that it doesn't make sense)

Modifié par AmstradHero, 12 octobre 2010 - 09:02 .

[Sidney]

Killjoy Cutter wrote...

Vaeliorin wrote...
There's a very large inherent failure in the system, because the system equates morality with persuasive ability, which is completely inane.  How persuasive you are has nothing to do with morality, as demonstrated by countless people throughout history.

^ This.


In fact, I'd say that persuasive ability and moral shortcomings often stem from the same personality traits.

You are looking at this wrong. It isn't about morality making you "persuasive". It isn't a skill it is a credibility factor. If I am known as an amoral scuzzbull (and Shep is clearly a known quantitity) then when I put a gun to the head of someone and threaten to pull the trigger they'll buy the threat. Same with a paragon option where if I am honorable and people know I'm a man of my word that has credibility. That actually makes a ton more sense to me than the silly "buying" paragon and renegade points in ME1 which makes no sense.

[The Spamming Troll]

i hate alignments. why do i need a bar that tells me how good or bad ive been? for real its for 6 year olds.



i can understand pointing the gun in someones face to intimidate them but why did i have to play as a renegade in order to point a gun in some guys grill? i might save every character, free every slave, donate all my money to the circle, but that doesnt mean i cant point a gun in someones face in order to get whatever it is that i need.



the only bar that should be used in influencing choices is your EXP bar.

[GuardianAngel470]

Christmas Ape wrote...

AmstradHero wrote...
As I stated before, the complaint that can/should be directed at the system is that fact that you can be unable to choose some persuasion options despite the fact that your gauge for renegade/paragon is completely full. This indicates to the player that they have "maximum" persuasion power, and hence being unable to pick an associated speech option is a failing of the UI in that it is giving the player inaccurate information. It's still not pure roleplaying (because you're relying on numbers/meters), but it is a failure.

And I'll absolutely give you that both the UI and the exact application need work; I've even cited the one that bothered me (being unable to flash my badge at Kelham less than an hour after reinstatement). I accept that the system can be misleading if you're using it as a metagame guide (Okay, maxed out Paragon, time to work on the Renegade meter), but the suggestion that not being able to get everything you want all at once is the problem is outright absurd, and it's not the first time it's come up. Perhaps I jumped the gun by not covering that these are all player decisions first; sort of thought that would be obvious.

A lot of people seem to mistake not roleplaying at all for being prevented from roleplaying.

Ok, I think I understand where you are coming from Ape.  Let me explain to you my circumstances so that you can better understand why I dislike this system. 

When I play, I'm not looking for every single piece of cake I can get. I want to make the decisions I would make in the game and not be restricted to taking sides. I'm the kind of person that is more likely to try and resolve a conflict than choose a side.  I'm as likely to explain the logical ramifications of a situation as I am to threaten somebody who would be more receptive to that.

So I'm not trying to paragon through every single last check and still play neutral. I'm trying to have options. I couldn't paragon Jack and Miranda but I could renegade them, which was fine by me because both responses would be true to my personality.

I couldn't Renegade Tali and Legion but I could paragon them, which again, was fine by me.

I'm not trying to have it all like you keep arguing against, I'm just trying to have options to resolve situations like I would if I were there.

As far as the reputation issue goes, I believe that a paragade should be able to persuade the passerby and intimidate the criminal because my past choices don't give either side a reason to distrust what I say. My Robin Hood analogy pretty much defines what it means to me to play a Paragade.