203 réponses à ce sujet

[Killjoy Cutter]

Sidney wrote...

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.

Because, of course, this guy in a shop on the Citadel knows that 3 days ago, I slaughtered a bunch of mercs who tried to surrender to me at a secret base somewhere in the Terminus systems....

[Sidney]

Killjoy Cutter wrote...

Because, of course, this guy in a shop on the Citadel knows that 3 days ago, I slaughtered a bunch of mercs who tried to surrender to me at a secret base somewhere in the Terminus systems....

Yeah you missed all those GNN broadcasts that update people on what you are doing didn't you?

As if you can "train" yourself to be a tough guy or a goodie-good. THAT makes sense.

[Sidney]

GuardianAngel470 wrote...
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.

If Mother Teresa put a gun to your head do you feel any real fear? How have Al Capone, feel a different level of fear? If Jimmy Carter tries to talk me down that has a whole different flavor than if Joe Stalin does it.

[Sidney]

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.

Asai

You can play "as you wish". What can't do is min/max however you wish.  You want to have no consequences for your actions which I find really funny for a "role player". You can choose expedient options in the dialog (renegade-ish) choices but depending upon your choices you can't access the top-end renegade options.

You can 100% finish with a middle of the road character and there's nothing of the level of impact even in KoTOR where your light/dark meter affected your ability and effectivess at killing. That game really encouraged all or nothing gameplay.

[Vaeliorin]

AmstradHero 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.

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.

The problem with this is that various decisions that give you paragon/renegade points don't necessarily have anything to do with being persuasive or intimidating.  There is, for example, a paragon interrupt in the whole missing credit chit side quest that ends up with Shepard threatening a cop and a volus.  That's somehow him practicing his ability to persuade?  Threatening to break the legs of the elcor merchant on Omega is practicing being persuasive?

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)

No doubt.  I don't particularly care for levels or classes (this is despite my favorite character advancement system in a cRPG being a combination of level-based classes and learn-by-doing.  Admittedly, I haven't seen a cRPG do a decent non-class and non-level based character progression system.)  But I doubt I'm going to convince Bioware to make any changes about that for ME3, while there's a much better chance they'll make changes to the persuasion system.

Sidney wrote...
You want to have no consequences for your actions which I find really funny for a "role player".

Personally, I want consequences that make sense.  And being unable to make peace between team members (which means they are no longer "loyal" , which somehow makes them vulnerable to a stray bullet...but I'm not going to get started on the whole loyalty system) because I wasn't nice enough or mean enough, regardless of how I've treated that particular team member, doesn't make much sense to me.

Modifié par Vaeliorin, 13 octobre 2010 - 12:54 .

[GuardianAngel470]

Sidney wrote...

GuardianAngel470 wrote...
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.

If Mother Teresa put a gun to your head do you feel any real fear? How have Al Capone, feel a different level of fear? If Jimmy Carter tries to talk me down that has a whole different flavor than if Joe Stalin does it.

Did you even read my post? I said ROBIN HOOD, not mother teresa. 

[GuardianAngel470]

Sidney wrote...

GuardianAngel470 wrote...
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.

If Mother Teresa put a gun to your head do you feel any real fear? How have Al Capone, feel a different level of fear? If Jimmy Carter tries to talk me down that has a whole different flavor than if Joe Stalin does it.

And yes, you're damn right I'd feel fear. I don't give a hoot who's holding the gun, if they have a gun pointed at my head of course I would feel fear, only a moron or a psycho wouldn't!

When death is on the line, it's stupid to make assumptions.

Modifié par GuardianAngel470, 13 octobre 2010 - 12:59 .

[Getorex]

asaiasai wrote...

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

This general complaint is fairly ridiculous. There is NO WAY to make a computer game that will allow you to "role play" any way YOU want to. Impossible. There are limits to programing, and limits to technology. They have to set parameters within which you must operate. They cannot generate unlimited possible responses for which they'd need their actors to produce responses for ad inifinitum.

What you (and others with this complaint) seem to want is a board game with a "Dungeon Master", 12-sided dice, etc. To even begin to approach what you seek, the costs would be prohibitive and the game would have trouble fitting on a couple DVDs. Tone down your expectations a bit because no one anywhere is going to give you the ultimate role playing computer game - without eliminating the story itself and simply making it a MM online game with people speaking (or typing) their responses in almost realtime.

[GuardianAngel470]

Getorex wrote...

asaiasai wrote...

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

This general complaint is fairly ridiculous. There is NO WAY to make a computer game that will allow you to "role play" any way YOU want to. Impossible. There are limits to programing, and limits to technology. They have to set parameters within which you must operate. They cannot generate unlimited possible responses for which they'd need their actors to produce responses for ad inifinitum.

What you (and others with this complaint) seem to want is a board game with a "Dungeon Master", 12-sided dice, etc. To even begin to approach what you seek, the costs would be prohibitive and the game would have trouble fitting on a couple DVDs. Tone down your expectations a bit because no one anywhere is going to give you the ultimate role playing computer game - without eliminating the story itself and simply making it a MM online game with people speaking (or typing) their responses in almost realtime.

And you're wrong, that isn't what we want. We want a system that isn't hidden from the player, a system that doesn't function to punish players for being both compassionate and pragmatic, and one that makes sense both graphically and logically.

We understand that a real-life simulator is impossible and we haven't asked for one. I personally have given a suggestion for how to fix the current system and still maintain consistency.

What have you provided besides the typical "You're idea is stupid, even though I don't know what it is" ?

[asaiasai]

I am saying that the current system forces the player into a path they may not want to or mean to take. Some people need a slap and some need a hug, but the current system does not allow for this flexibility on an indivudual basis. It is slaps for everybody or hugs for everybody forcing the player to one extreme or another. So you walk up and pistol whip an a55hole, according to the current system, i have to walk up and pistol whip Mother theresa as well or i loose or do not gain enough points to resolve issues later, to the point that later in the game because of this deficit i can not pistol whip or hug anybody at all.

This creates the system where the player can not role play as they choose, but MUST always be cognizant of the system, which means they are worried about a system and not worried about the next mission. This is the immersion breaker now i am worried about game mechanics as opposed to playing the game.

Asai

Modifié par asaiasai, 13 octobre 2010 - 02:23 .

[The Spamming Troll]

does anyone here know why we have alignments in the first place???

[wizardryforever]

asaiasai wrote...

I am saying that the current system forces the player into a path they may not want to or mean to take. Some people need a slap and some need a hug, but the current system does not allow for this flexibility on an indivudual basis. It is slaps for everybody or hugs for everybody forcing the player to one extreme or another. So you walk up and pistol whip an a55hole, according to the current system, i have to walk up and pistol whip Mother theresa as well or i loose or do not gain enough points to resolve issues later, to the point that later in the game because of this deficit i can not pistol whip or hug anybody at all.

This creates the system where the player can not role play as they choose, but MUST always be cognizant of the system, which means they are worried about a system and not worried about the next mission. This is the immersion breaker now i am worried about game mechanics as opposed to playing the game.

Asai

You can resolve EVERY situation in the game even if you completely ignore the system and roleplay as you wish.  The only problem is that you may not be able to resolve everything the best possible way if you do that.  I don't get the complaint.  The game does not "force" you to pick one way or the other, and you can get everyone through alive with no major decisions botched even if you always pick the neutral options.  If you want to play that way, great, if not, the game doesn't reward inconsistency.  It doesn't penalize it either, it just doesn't reward it.  Really, you can be a bastard with a heart of gold (major Paragon decsions but acts like a jerk to everyone) and get enough Paragon to charm people.  Likewise, you can be a villian with good reputation (major Renegade decisions but act nice to everyone) and still intimidate people.  Really it's just the major decisions that have a major impact, how you treat individuals doesn't do too much to influence the system.

[Killjoy Cutter]

Sidney wrote...

Killjoy Cutter wrote...

Because, of course, this guy in a shop on the Citadel knows that 3 days ago, I slaughtered a bunch of mercs who tried to surrender to me at a secret base somewhere in the Terminus systems....

Yeah you missed all those GNN broadcasts that update people on what you are doing didn't you?

No. 

There just aren't that many about directly about Shep, they're mainly references to things you did in ME1 that don't actually mention that Shep was involved in any way.

You have to listen carefully and put yourself in the shoes of someone listening who wasn't there when it happened, the average civilian in other words.

[GuardianAngel470]

wizardryforever wrote...

asaiasai wrote...

I am saying that the current system forces the player into a path they may not want to or mean to take. Some people need a slap and some need a hug, but the current system does not allow for this flexibility on an indivudual basis. It is slaps for everybody or hugs for everybody forcing the player to one extreme or another. So you walk up and pistol whip an a55hole, according to the current system, i have to walk up and pistol whip Mother theresa as well or i loose or do not gain enough points to resolve issues later, to the point that later in the game because of this deficit i can not pistol whip or hug anybody at all.

This creates the system where the player can not role play as they choose, but MUST always be cognizant of the system, which means they are worried about a system and not worried about the next mission. This is the immersion breaker now i am worried about game mechanics as opposed to playing the game.

Asai

You can resolve EVERY situation in the game even if you completely ignore the system and roleplay as you wish.  The only problem is that you may not be able to resolve everything the best possible way if you do that.  I don't get the complaint.  The game does not "force" you to pick one way or the other, and you can get everyone through alive with no major decisions botched even if you always pick the neutral options.  If you want to play that way, great, if not, the game doesn't reward inconsistency.  It doesn't penalize it either, it just doesn't reward it.  Really, you can be a bastard with a heart of gold (major Paragon decsions but acts like a jerk to everyone) and get enough Paragon to charm people.  Likewise, you can be a villian with good reputation (major Renegade decisions but act nice to everyone) and still intimidate people.  Really it's just the major decisions that have a major impact, how you treat individuals doesn't do too much to influence the system.

But it does penalize you. Because you don't receive the points you could have your percentage gets skewed and it snowballs the more you do it. The worse the percentage is the less likely it is you can resolve the conflict.  You get forced into choosing a side, which makes it possible for a teammate to die, which is a well recognized penalty of a system that we have no real control over and no knowledge of without this thread.

[GuardianAngel470]

wizardryforever wrote...

asaiasai wrote...

I am saying that the current system forces the player into a path they may not want to or mean to take. Some people need a slap and some need a hug, but the current system does not allow for this flexibility on an indivudual basis. It is slaps for everybody or hugs for everybody forcing the player to one extreme or another. So you walk up and pistol whip an a55hole, according to the current system, i have to walk up and pistol whip Mother theresa as well or i loose or do not gain enough points to resolve issues later, to the point that later in the game because of this deficit i can not pistol whip or hug anybody at all.

This creates the system where the player can not role play as they choose, but MUST always be cognizant of the system, which means they are worried about a system and not worried about the next mission. This is the immersion breaker now i am worried about game mechanics as opposed to playing the game.

Asai

You can resolve EVERY situation in the game even if you completely ignore the system and roleplay as you wish.  The only problem is that you may not be able to resolve everything the best possible way if you do that.  I don't get the complaint.  The game does not "force" you to pick one way or the other, and you can get everyone through alive with no major decisions botched even if you always pick the neutral options.  If you want to play that way, great, if not, the game doesn't reward inconsistency.  It doesn't penalize it either, it just doesn't reward it.  Really, you can be a bastard with a heart of gold (major Paragon decsions but acts like a jerk to everyone) and get enough Paragon to charm people.  Likewise, you can be a villian with good reputation (major Renegade decisions but act nice to everyone) and still intimidate people.  Really it's just the major decisions that have a major impact, how you treat individuals doesn't do too much to influence the system.

I want to know if you have actually played a neutral playthrough. My first playthrough Jack died because I didn't have enough renegade or paragon to persuade them. That was my only real neutral playthrough as after that I was metagaming for 11 subsequent playthroughs.

You cannot solve every conflict playing neutral. You have to play a mix of both. If you pick the neutral dialog then you can't really do anything.

I challenge you to try it, just pick the middle options where applicable. 

[asaiasai]

In order to resolve situations like the Miranda/Jack fight one must accumulate enough either Renegade or Paragon points. In order to accumulate enough points of either type for the satiafactory resolution of this issue the choice i made early in the game to either slap or hug must be adhered to. Regardless of how i want to deal with the situations before the Miranda/Jack fight i must as a player be aware that this situation is comming (meta game and immersion breaker). Knowing it is comming i then must choose all renegade or all paragon responses to generate the necessary points to resolve the Miranda/Jack fight to keep both squaddies happy. 


Now either the morality system is borked because as a player knowing this is a situation that is comming up i must slap or hug everybody because i want the optimum outcome as does everybody who plays the game. Because of this desire for the optimum outcome and because of the way the system works this forces the player to make choices based not on how they want to RP the particular character (immersion breaker) but on how they want to resolve a later issue (also an immersion breaker). In this particular case i am not playing the game but playing the game mechanics (major immersion breaker). The player should not be penalized for pistol whipping a55holes and hugging puppies on an as needed basis. I am at this point in the game forced to either hug a55holes to unlock the option to hug puppies, or i have to pistol whip puppies to get the option to pistol whip a55holes. I must also adhere to either choice regardless of how i want to resolve a situation because this is how one generates the points necessary to resolve the Miranda/Jack fight keeping both squaddies happy.
 

So it is either the morality system is borked because of the way it forces the player down a particular path, or the game is borked for having a happy resolution avaliable to the player who accumulates enough points of one particular type to reslove the Miranda/Jack fight. I am saying that if you want to hug everybody or pistol whip everybdy this should be an option to the player, but how it works now is the player is penalized for rational behavior by issuing hugs and slaps as apropriate, which is borked and a major immersion breaker. This penalty for rational behavior is why the system is borked, it needs to be reworked so that the player who excercises rational behavior is not at a disadvantage when it comes to the game situations. So either remove the option for a happy outcome in the Jack/Miranda fight forcing the player to pick, or fix the morality system so that the points generated by a player who excercises rational behavior will be enough to resolve the situation keeping both squaddies happy. 


My point is that the system as it is now forces the player to be a total a55hole or daisy dropper and that is not role playing because i am not playing the game but playing to a game mechanic. I think a better way since most of you seem to find the DAO or ME mechanic where it is an actual skill point the player chooses to spend as less than optimal is some sort of a combo type points requirement. Using the Jack/Miranda fight as an example in order to get the happy ending, based upon the players level and how early or late in the game they choose to resolve this issue they need 100 points just to keep the numbers simple.  As the player has played the game the choices they made have generated 75 paragon points and 25 renegade points. This gives the player enough points to resolve the situation in the optimal way but the dialog option that opens is only the paragon response. The response would be keyed off of the side with the greater points total, if in the above example the player was more renegade than paragon only the renegade repsonse would be avalable. Now as a player i can truly role play the game with out fear of having to constantly be aware of the game mechanic, instead of making the necesary choices based not on how i want to play but on how i want to manipulate the mechanic. You still get the option for full Paragons, full Renegades but we now have added a third option the Rational.

Asai

Modifié par asaiasai, 13 octobre 2010 - 04:48 .

[wizardryforever]

GuardianAngel470 wrote...

wizardryforever wrote...

asaiasai wrote...

I am saying that the current system forces the player into a path they may not want to or mean to take. Some people need a slap and some need a hug, but the current system does not allow for this flexibility on an indivudual basis. It is slaps for everybody or hugs for everybody forcing the player to one extreme or another. So you walk up and pistol whip an a55hole, according to the current system, i have to walk up and pistol whip Mother theresa as well or i loose or do not gain enough points to resolve issues later, to the point that later in the game because of this deficit i can not pistol whip or hug anybody at all.

This creates the system where the player can not role play as they choose, but MUST always be cognizant of the system, which means they are worried about a system and not worried about the next mission. This is the immersion breaker now i am worried about game mechanics as opposed to playing the game.

Asai

You can resolve EVERY situation in the game even if you completely ignore the system and roleplay as you wish.  The only problem is that you may not be able to resolve everything the best possible way if you do that.  I don't get the complaint.  The game does not "force" you to pick one way or the other, and you can get everyone through alive with no major decisions botched even if you always pick the neutral options.  If you want to play that way, great, if not, the game doesn't reward inconsistency.  It doesn't penalize it either, it just doesn't reward it.  Really, you can be a bastard with a heart of gold (major Paragon decsions but acts like a jerk to everyone) and get enough Paragon to charm people.  Likewise, you can be a villian with good reputation (major Renegade decisions but act nice to everyone) and still intimidate people.  Really it's just the major decisions that have a major impact, how you treat individuals doesn't do too much to influence the system.

I want to know if you have actually played a neutral playthrough. My first playthrough Jack died because I didn't have enough renegade or paragon to persuade them. That was my only real neutral playthrough as after that I was metagaming for 11 subsequent playthroughs.

You cannot solve every conflict playing neutral. You have to play a mix of both. If you pick the neutral dialog then you can't really do anything.

I challenge you to try it, just pick the middle options where applicable. 

I've never felt the need to play a character who is consistently inconsistent.  A character devoted to neutrality is one of the most unbelievable characters in existence, even less believable than a radical.  Any conflict between characters can be solved by picking a side.  There you go, problem solved.  You can go apologize to the offended party if you wish, and chances are said neutral character will have accumulated enough Paragon or Renegade by accident to win their loyalty back.  Every time I haven't had enough percentage points to pick the charm/intimidate in the convo, I've always had enough to win them back later.  Even if you don't think that's possible, you can win the suicide mission (without metagaming) with only three loyalties, so being unable to resolve those two situations is not enough to lose someone.  If you really are playing a rational Shepard that is (don't make stupid choices in the suicide mission).

I'll withdraw my argument if you can point out ONE place where the game forces you to pick a charm or intimidate.  A white-text option is always there, and the game gets finished just fine if you play neutral.

[asaiasai]

wizardryforever wrote...

GuardianAngel470 wrote...

wizardryforever wrote...

asaiasai wrote...

I am saying that the current system forces the player into a path they may not want to or mean to take. Some people need a slap and some need a hug, but the current system does not allow for this flexibility on an indivudual basis. It is slaps for everybody or hugs for everybody forcing the player to one extreme or another. So you walk up and pistol whip an a55hole, according to the current system, i have to walk up and pistol whip Mother theresa as well or i loose or do not gain enough points to resolve issues later, to the point that later in the game because of this deficit i can not pistol whip or hug anybody at all.

This creates the system where the player can not role play as they choose, but MUST always be cognizant of the system, which means they are worried about a system and not worried about the next mission. This is the immersion breaker now i am worried about game mechanics as opposed to playing the game.

Asai

You can resolve EVERY situation in the game even if you completely ignore the system and roleplay as you wish.  The only problem is that you may not be able to resolve everything the best possible way if you do that.  I don't get the complaint.  The game does not "force" you to pick one way or the other, and you can get everyone through alive with no major decisions botched even if you always pick the neutral options.  If you want to play that way, great, if not, the game doesn't reward inconsistency.  It doesn't penalize it either, it just doesn't reward it.  Really, you can be a bastard with a heart of gold (major Paragon decsions but acts like a jerk to everyone) and get enough Paragon to charm people.  Likewise, you can be a villian with good reputation (major Renegade decisions but act nice to everyone) and still intimidate people.  Really it's just the major decisions that have a major impact, how you treat individuals doesn't do too much to influence the system.

I want to know if you have actually played a neutral playthrough. My first playthrough Jack died because I didn't have enough renegade or paragon to persuade them. That was my only real neutral playthrough as after that I was metagaming for 11 subsequent playthroughs.

You cannot solve every conflict playing neutral. You have to play a mix of both. If you pick the neutral dialog then you can't really do anything.

I challenge you to try it, just pick the middle options where applicable. 

I've never felt the need to play a character who is consistently inconsistent.  A character devoted to neutrality is one of the most unbelievable characters in existence, even less believable than a radical.  Any conflict between characters can be solved by picking a side.  There you go, problem solved.  You can go apologize to the offended party if you wish, and chances are said neutral character will have accumulated enough Paragon or Renegade by accident to win their loyalty back.  Every time I haven't had enough percentage points to pick the charm/intimidate in the convo, I've always had enough to win them back later.  Even if you don't think that's possible, you can win the suicide mission (without metagaming) with only three loyalties, so being unable to resolve those two situations is not enough to lose someone.  If you really are playing a rational Shepard that is (don't make stupid choices in the suicide mission).

I'll withdraw my argument if you can point out ONE place where the game forces you to pick a charm or intimidate.  A white-text option is always there, and the game gets finished just fine if you play neutral.

Your argument makes sense if your idea of consistency is to hug a55holes and puppies or slap a55holes and slap puppies. But that is not people. Take a bum for example, most folks will hand a sober bum some loose change and walk right past an intoxicated one. But the current system forces me to hand loose change to all or none, when in fact there is more to the choice than that. What i am saying is that the current system penalizes me for handing loose change to a sober bum, if i refuse to hand loose change to the intoxicated one, and that is the problem. I have to give loose change to everybody or no body, the current system does not allow the player to make a rational choice, with out penalty.

Asai

Modifié par asaiasai, 13 octobre 2010 - 05:03 .

[GuardianAngel470]

wizardryforever wrote...

GuardianAngel470 wrote...

wizardryforever wrote...

asaiasai wrote...

I am saying that the current system forces the player into a path they may not want to or mean to take. Some people need a slap and some need a hug, but the current system does not allow for this flexibility on an indivudual basis. It is slaps for everybody or hugs for everybody forcing the player to one extreme or another. So you walk up and pistol whip an a55hole, according to the current system, i have to walk up and pistol whip Mother theresa as well or i loose or do not gain enough points to resolve issues later, to the point that later in the game because of this deficit i can not pistol whip or hug anybody at all.

This creates the system where the player can not role play as they choose, but MUST always be cognizant of the system, which means they are worried about a system and not worried about the next mission. This is the immersion breaker now i am worried about game mechanics as opposed to playing the game.

Asai

You can resolve EVERY situation in the game even if you completely ignore the system and roleplay as you wish.  The only problem is that you may not be able to resolve everything the best possible way if you do that.  I don't get the complaint.  The game does not "force" you to pick one way or the other, and you can get everyone through alive with no major decisions botched even if you always pick the neutral options.  If you want to play that way, great, if not, the game doesn't reward inconsistency.  It doesn't penalize it either, it just doesn't reward it.  Really, you can be a bastard with a heart of gold (major Paragon decsions but acts like a jerk to everyone) and get enough Paragon to charm people.  Likewise, you can be a villian with good reputation (major Renegade decisions but act nice to everyone) and still intimidate people.  Really it's just the major decisions that have a major impact, how you treat individuals doesn't do too much to influence the system.

I want to know if you have actually played a neutral playthrough. My first playthrough Jack died because I didn't have enough renegade or paragon to persuade them. That was my only real neutral playthrough as after that I was metagaming for 11 subsequent playthroughs.

You cannot solve every conflict playing neutral. You have to play a mix of both. If you pick the neutral dialog then you can't really do anything.

I challenge you to try it, just pick the middle options where applicable. 

I've never felt the need to play a character who is consistently inconsistent.  A character devoted to neutrality is one of the most unbelievable characters in existence, even less believable than a radical.  Any conflict between characters can be solved by picking a side.  There you go, problem solved.  You can go apologize to the offended party if you wish, and chances are said neutral character will have accumulated enough Paragon or Renegade by accident to win their loyalty back.  Every time I haven't had enough percentage points to pick the charm/intimidate in the convo, I've always had enough to win them back later.  Even if you don't think that's possible, you can win the suicide mission (without metagaming) with only three loyalties, so being unable to resolve those two situations is not enough to lose someone.  If you really are playing a rational Shepard that is (don't make stupid choices in the suicide mission).

I'll withdraw my argument if you can point out ONE place where the game forces you to pick a charm or intimidate.  A white-text option is always there, and the game gets finished just fine if you play neutral.

First of all, it isn't inconsistent. It is adhering to a different moral viewpoint. I'm telling you it isn't neutral, it is Paragade. There is a difference. Neutral would choose the apathetic dialog choices, Paragade is moral but practical. Paragades comfort the victims and punish the wicked and those two reputations aren't mutually exclusive, therefore Paragades shouldn't be punished with being forced to take a side based on reputation.

You selectively state the alignment as neutral when I am telling you it isn't. 

Secondly, I want to clarify my position. I am willing to take a side if that side is the right one but if a situation can be resolved by forcing both sides to understand the other's position and thus recognize the futility of arguing then I should be able to do that as a Paragade.

[AdamNW]

Oh no, I have to be paragon to do paragon-heavy persuasion! This is a terrible idea---WOW, you guys are ****ing horrible people.

Of course, I would prefer the conversation choice still be there, but with the chance to fail if your sore wasn't high enough.  But seriously, the way they did it is fine.

Modifié par AdamNW, 13 octobre 2010 - 06:06 .

[asaiasai]

GuardianAngel470 wrote...

First of all, it isn't inconsistent. It is adhering to a different moral viewpoint. I'm telling you it isn't neutral, it is Paragade. There is a difference. Neutral would choose the apathetic dialog choices, Paragade is moral but practical. Paragades comfort the victims and punish the wicked and those two reputations aren't mutually exclusive, therefore Paragades shouldn't be punished with being forced to take a side based on reputation.

You selectively state the alignment as neutral when I am telling you it isn't. 

Secondly, I want to clarify my position. I am willing to take a side if that side is the right one but if a situation can be resolved by forcing both sides to understand the other's position and thus recognize the futility of arguing then I should be able to do that as a Paragade.

Exactly, the current system penalizes paragades because in order to accumulate enough points to resolve the more important game decisions like Miranda/Jack or Tali/Legion a paragade does not have enough of either points. How a paragade is created is by a player choosing the RATIONAL responses to the dialog options when presented, instead of sticking to the paragon or renegade responses no matter how out of character those responses may be. This does not facilitate role playing but forces the player as i said, to play to, or manupulate, a game mechanic, being constantly reminded and having to be aware of the choices and the penalties associated with those choices. This promptly tosses the player out of the game and into the real world where they must then decide which is more important, thier role playing choices, or the desire to unlock future dialog choices. The player should NEVER be put in a position where this happens and because it does in ME2, this a solid indicator that there is something broken with in the game mechanic.

I just do not understand how some folks can agrue that this mechanic is not broken, if you have no problem with the game forcing you to create a renegade or paragon Shepard everytime you play. If you have no problem as there are really the only 2 choices the player has with out creating a character that can not accumulate enough points that after a few hours not a single renegade or paragon option will be avalable for ther player to choose as they do not have enough points to unlock even the most rudimentary choices. If you have no problem with a game mechanic that severely limits the replayability of an already limited RP game even further as now there is really only paragon or renegade Shepard regardless of the class, because the player must choose one of 2 avalable choices or suffer a penalty for colloring outside of the lines. If the player does not mind that once a renegade or paragon Shepard is created each subsequent play will be identical because of the limits and penatties associated with not staying to either side of the dialog tree. If the player does not mind being kicked to the real world while they try to decide which dialog option they need to pick to ensure the desired outcome for later events, thus having thier immersion broken with every conversation.

Asai

[AmstradHero]

GuardianAngel470 wrote...
You cannot solve every conflict playing neutral. You have to play a mix of both. If you pick the neutral dialog then you can't really do anything.
...
 You get forced into choosing a side, which makes it possible for a teammate to die, which is a well recognized penalty

asaiasai wrote...
This creates the system where the player can not role play as they choose, but MUST always be cognizant of the
system, which means they are worried about a system and not worried  about the next mission. This is the immersion breaker now i am worried  about game mechanics as opposed to playing the game.
...
This does not facilitate role playing but forces the player as i said, to play to, or manupulate, a game mechanic, being constantly reminded and having to be aware of the choices and the penalties associated with those choices.

The above is not roleplaying. The above is metagaming.

When your complaints about the system are based on the premise that it is "preventing roleplaying" when you're metagaming rather than roleplaying, your complaints are rendered void.

If you are focusing on how many Paragon and Renegade points you're getting and whether you're going to be able to use persuasion attempts later on in the game, or the ability to save particular squadmates because you know how the mechanics work, you are metagaming.

FYI, my first Shepard was a paragade and has only had a single persuasion option that he was not able to select. Every action he made was based on "what would Shepard do in this situation", not "how many paragon/renegade points will this get me". Mileage varies significantly for different character ideas and personas.and depending on your character's moral compass, there may be some options that you cannot select, but that's what happens when you roleplay as opposed to metagame.

I understand the complaint, but the problem is that the rationale that is being provided does not support the argument. If you make a conscious choice to metagame, you can't then turn around and claim the game won't let you roleplay.

Modifié par AmstradHero, 13 octobre 2010 - 10:51 .

[Getorex]

asaiasai wrote...

GuardianAngel470 wrote...

First of all, it isn't inconsistent. It is adhering to a different moral viewpoint. I'm telling you it isn't neutral, it is Paragade. There is a difference. Neutral would choose the apathetic dialog choices, Paragade is moral but practical. Paragades comfort the victims and punish the wicked and those two reputations aren't mutually exclusive, therefore Paragades shouldn't be punished with being forced to take a side based on reputation.

You selectively state the alignment as neutral when I am telling you it isn't. 

Secondly, I want to clarify my position. I am willing to take a side if that side is the right one but if a situation can be resolved by forcing both sides to understand the other's position and thus recognize the futility of arguing then I should be able to do that as a Paragade.

Exactly, the current system penalizes paragades because in order to accumulate enough points to resolve the more important game decisions like Miranda/Jack or Tali/Legion a paragade does not have enough of either points. How a paragade is created is by a player choosing the RATIONAL responses to the dialog options when presented, instead of sticking to the paragon or renegade responses no matter how out of character those responses may be. This does not facilitate role playing but forces the player as i said, to play to, or manupulate, a game mechanic, being constantly reminded and having to be aware of the choices and the penalties associated with those choices. This promptly tosses the player out of the game and into the real world where they must then decide which is more important, thier role playing choices, or the desire to unlock future dialog choices. The player should NEVER be put in a position where this happens and because it does in ME2, this a solid indicator that there is something broken with in the game mechanic.

I just do not understand how some folks can agrue that this mechanic is not broken, if you have no problem with the game forcing you to create a renegade or paragon Shepard everytime you play. If you have no problem as there are really the only 2 choices the player has with out creating a character that can not accumulate enough points that after a few hours not a single renegade or paragon option will be avalable for ther player to choose as they do not have enough points to unlock even the most rudimentary choices. If you have no problem with a game mechanic that severely limits the replayability of an already limited RP game even further as now there is really only paragon or renegade Shepard regardless of the class, because the player must choose one of 2 avalable choices or suffer a penalty for colloring outside of the lines. If the player does not mind that once a renegade or paragon Shepard is created each subsequent play will be identical because of the limits and penatties associated with not staying to either side of the dialog tree. If the player does not mind being kicked to the real world while they try to decide which dialog option they need to pick to ensure the desired outcome for later events, thus having thier immersion broken with every conversation.

Asai

I don't play that way (I don't "role play" that way). I always play my Shep as "what would I do in this situation?" and play that, come what may. Now there is nothing stopping you from playing your Shep as totally divorced from you and wigging out on being a nasty f*ck or priss out and be the Puritan, but worrying about points one way or another is a bit much.

The ONLY time I was concerned about my paragon or renegade points came when I had to deal with the fight between Jack and Miranda. When I finally managed to get that worked out so I kept BOTH their loyalties, I didn't sweat anything else - I just played my Shep true to me.

Sure maybe it would be cool to have dialog and action selections that secretly affect later options available to you (instead of clearly color coding some dialog and actions as "blue" or "red") - then you could play more "naturally" and not worry at all about which way, specifically, your points are adding up (though in many cases it would be obvious). The problem lay in complexity. You are seeking many more choices and that causes dramatically more problems for the game developers (to a geometric degree). Please view: which addresses this issue nicely.

[MobiusTyr]

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.

ughm...okay...?

[wizardryforever]

First, I think we need to clarify what "penalizing" means.  If the game gave a negative consequence to not picking charm/intimidate (like the mission is completely botched), then it would be penalizing.  But it doesn't do that, it rewards those who play dedicated characters.  The argument that the game "penalizes" neutral characters (or whatever you want to call them) is flatly untrue.  There is nowhere in the entire game where it is flat out necessary to pick a charm/intimidate option.  Those options are there for characters with the wherewithal to use them.  There is no "penalty" for not taking them.  This whole argument boils down to some kid crying that his sibling got more allowance than him, even though said sibling did more to get that allowance.  The kid is not being "penalized," he is simply not being rewarded.

There is nothing stopping you from making whichever contradictory decisions you want, but being contradictory is not rewarded by the game, simple as that.