203 réponses à ce sujet

[Tony Gunslinger]

wizardryforever wrote...

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.

That's the thing, they complain that they "can't get what they want" when the actions they've made in the past made them look like either they're an apathetic, indecisive, misunderstood, or a bipolar leader. If they actually go through the game item by item, most of the important paragon choices are actually quite neutral and rational. And they blow it out proportion to say that in order to pass ME2's toughest persuades, they have to stick to one side for the entire game, which is simply not true. I think what they're really complaining is thay their sense of morality does not fit with the ME2's universe. "I am right in my mind, but the game does not reward me" is basically what they're talking about. Guess what, there are rewards for the "grey" heroes, it's the white text choices that are there already. To think that you deserve something more than the white text for being nice on one mission and then being mean in the next mission --- or simply not care enough --- is just patently ridiculous in the context of ME2. That was my sarcasm from my last post.

You are a respected leader, a symbol, recruiting a motely crew of clashing egos and values to bring their A-game on the toughest mission in the galaxy, and you think that "doing whatever you fee like" is going make you succeed on the mission? It's a suidice mission, and if you look it up, people die in those missions. To have no one die is an extraordinary outcome. There is only a hair-splitting difference between a Superbowl champion and the runner-up, and difference is the level of dedication, sacrifice, conviction, and chemistry. It takes extraordinary effort and circumstance to get the impossible done, and being extraordinarily grey is still, unfortunately, very figgin grey. That's just not your A-game, sorry.

[GuardianAngel470]

Tony Gunslinger wrote...

wizardryforever wrote...

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.

That's the thing, they complain that they "can't get what they want" when the actions they've made in the past made them look like either they're an apathetic, indecisive, misunderstood, or a bipolar leader. If they actually go through the game item by item, most of the important paragon choices are actually quite neutral and rational. And they blow it out proportion to say that in order to pass ME2's toughest persuades, they have to stick to one side for the entire game, which is simply not true. I think what they're really complaining is thay their sense of morality does not fit with the ME2's universe. "I am right in my mind, but the game does not reward me" is basically what they're talking about. Guess what, there are rewards for the "grey" heroes, it's the white text choices that are there already. To think that you deserve something more than the white text for being nice on one mission and then being mean in the next mission --- or simply not care enough --- is just patently ridiculous in the context of ME2. That was my sarcasm from my last post.

You are a respected leader, a symbol, recruiting a motely crew of clashing egos and values to bring their A-game on the toughest mission in the galaxy, and you think that "doing whatever you fee like" is going make you succeed on the mission? It's a suidice mission, and if you look it up, people die in those missions. To have no one die is an extraordinary outcome. There is only a hair-splitting difference between a Superbowl champion and the runner-up, and difference is the level of dedication, sacrifice, conviction, and chemistry. It takes extraordinary effort and circumstance to get the impossible done, and being extraordinarily grey is still, unfortunately, very figgin grey. That's just not your A-game, sorry.

I can see this discussion is going nowhere.  Robin hood is not bipolar, indecisive, or apathetic. But you just don't want to recognize that you are talking about a playstyle that only yourself and the other people for the current system are. You aren't listening when the rest of us tell you that you are wrong because we know better than you how it is we play and instead you insist on arguing a point that has no relevance.

[AmstradHero]

GuardianAngel470 wrote...
I can see this discussion is going nowhere.  Robin hood is not bipolar, indecisive, or apathetic. But you just don't want to recognize that you are talking about a playstyle that only yourself and the other people for the current system are. You aren't listening when the rest of us tell you that you are wrong because we know better than you how it is we play and instead you insist on arguing a point that has no relevance.

Whoa, there's a "my opinion is right and yours is wrong" argument right there!

This isn't a matter of who is right and wrong, is a matter of analysing the arguments being put forward and the rationale behind them. 

The Robin Hood analogy is pointless, because like many of the other arguments being put forward, it's unclear and can easily be picked apart.  Analogies can be useful for demonstrating a point or opinion, but they're usually bad as a basis for an argument as it's easy to identify how the analogy does not fit the situation, making the logic of the argument fall down.

The core complaint that has been made is that the morality meter is preventing you from roleplaying. This is blatantly false. You're arguing that unless you pick mostly paragon or renegade choices, you are unable to make the appropriate persuasion options later in the game.  Being able to pick those choices is a benefit from making particular choices that give "special" rewards - keeping certain people alive.  In this case, surely the game is also preventing you from roleplaying because crew members will die if you do not spend time mining resources to upgrade the Normandy and hence save crew members.  

As pointed out previously, being able to make persuasion choices is an unusual situation - it's a special reward for pursuing particular actions or a particular ethos.  The video linked previously provides a definition of choice and problem - keeping your whole team alive in ME2 is both. It is a problem because it is possible to get an "optimal" outcome of saving everyone, but it is also a choice because you can choose to pursue it in two different ways.  Additionally, you are not forced to keep everyone alive in order to save the day.  It is possible to have crew members die and still "win" the game.

For me, the reason this argument falls flat is because it comes across as people demanding the ability to gain a "perfect" outcome while picking whatever choices you want.  That's consequence-free gaming, and I believe that is wasting the potential we have to tell powerful and dynamic stories in modern RPGs.

Modifié par AmstradHero, 14 octobre 2010 - 07:47 .

[Onyx Jaguar]

I agree with AmstradHero

[Godeskian]

The problem remains that real leadership, in this real world we live in, sometimes requires a little out of column a and a little out of column b.



Rightly or wrongly, that is not well represented when added to a desire to achieve an optimal outcome that leaders should always strive for.



And since this thread is going in ever more bitter circles, I shall bow out at this point.

[Crunchyinmilk]

AmstradHero wrote...
The Robin Hood analogy is pointless, because like many of the other arguments being put forward, it's unclear and can easily be picked apart.

I got the gist of it just fine, its an attempt to describe a different system.  One where persuasive technique and morality/reputation are separate, but linked.  Where an NPCs own morality/reputation work for or against the players. Mitigated or enhanced further by a players investment in persuasive technique.

Under this system who you're talking to matters as much if not more than who you are.  The ME2 system really seems to revolve around the Shepard Sun.  All that matters is what you've done so far, and how one sided you've been to date.  It doesn't really matter who you're talking to, or what their agenda is.

The core complaint that has been made is that the morality meter is preventing you from roleplaying. This is blatantly false. You're arguing that unless you pick mostly paragon or renegade choices, you are unable to make the appropriate persuasion options later in the game.  Being able to pick those choices is a benefit from making particular choices that give "special" rewards - keeping certain people alive.

The people it fails are the people who want to roleplay Shepard as clever/manipulative, but actually care about who the NPC is and how they'd react to an archetype (P/R) so different from their own.

I don't know why discussion here seems to swim around the 'neutral loses out' drain.  If anything the biggest losers as a result of the ME2 system are the paragons and renegades.  There's no need to listen to an NPC, no need to think about a decision, no need to worry.  Just be a sinner or a saint and you'll never fail.  Everything comes up trumps for the Paragon or Renegade.

Honestly, the best play through of ME2 (in terms of consequences) in my opinion is one where you don't pick a damn red or blue line.  Ever.  No one has to die, people who disagree with you tell you so and change their behaviour toward you.  Team mates don't swoon to your paragon/renegade bollox and remain loyal, despite that you just shouted at/betrayed their principles or race/ignored them.  The amount of awesome content the average slave to red/blue lines misses out on is staggering.

As pointed out previously, being able to make persuasion choices is an unusual situation - it's a special reward for pursuing particular actions or a particular ethos.

A special reward for not thinking or paying attention or at least a reward that requires neither. For those that want to stick to their archetype guns, there's no harm or consequence for doing so when compromise could be the better option.

For me, the reason this argument falls flat is because it comes across as people demanding the ability to gain a "perfect" outcome while picking whatever choices you want.  That's consequence-free gaming, and I believe that is wasting the potential we have to tell powerful and dynamic stories in modern RPGs.

I think you're misinterpreting the argument, and the notion of dynamic stories.  In the current system, perfect outcome = hit either red or blue, every time.  Consequence free gaming says hello.  Giving people the option to choose how to approach a situation, based on what the situation demands and not based on just investing further in Blue/Red points is less dynamic?

Ideally I'd like to see the truly red/blue lines remain restricted to the truly renegade/paragon shepards, but nix their 100% success rate.  Have NPCs who react positively or negatively to not just one or the other archetype, but to different extremes of them as well.

I'm thinking of the dialogues on Tuchanka with the Krogan.  The Krogan almost universally respond positively to renegade lines, but as a comparatively weak and vulnerable human I would have expected more instant death when trying out the truly renegade dialogue (red lines) and interrupts.

The biggest flaw is that the reward for playing an archetype is that you become more persuasive.  I like that ME2 tried to move away from persuasion as a skill, but I don't like that its so tied up in having to play one extreme or another. Persuasion is still a gameplay mechanic rather than just player choice, and is tied so closely to the morality system.

Modifié par Crunchyinmilk, 14 octobre 2010 - 02:32 .

[Xilizhra]

I find it remarkably hard to care about this, but that might have to do with the fact that I find a total Paragon playthrough to be quite reasonable/realistic, albeit sometimes a bit overly optimist. That said, I also always import and I've never had any persuasion difficulties.

[Mallissin]

Think of the children being indoctrinated. Imagine a world where people hug each other when they're crying, or kick an evil soldier out of a window.



Can you imagine? Srsly, HORRIBLE!

[Dean_the_Young]

Just so I can skip the last 8 pages...



Which game altering persuasion checks, exactly, are at issue here?



The loyalty clashes, which both can be resolved later and even without Loyalty do not prevent you from winning the game without losing a single person?



Recruiting Morinth, which only becomes very high at the very end of the game?



I'm trying to think of any other actual game-altering choices, and I'm coming up short.



Tali's loyalty can be kept with zero renegade/paragon, and you can even keep her from being exiled if that's what you really want if you're just good to two other Quarians (again, requiring no para/renegade check).



Interrupts are always free for players. I've never been unable to do shopkeeper checks after a few interrupts as well.



Pretty much every other persuasion in the game is either inconsequential or can be solved with just a little more blood shed.

[AmstradHero]

Crunchyinmilk wrote...
Under {Robin Hood} system who you're talking to matters as much if not more than who you  are.  The ME2 system really seems to revolve around the Shepard Sun.  All that matters is what you've done so far, and how one sided you've been to date.  It doesn't really matter who you're talking to, or what their agenda is.

Given one of the complaints was about the lack of transparency of the current system, how does making it so that you can have "too much" paragon/renegade improve that? It only serves to make it worse!

Crunchyinmilk wrote...
In the current system, perfect outcome = hit either red or blue, every time.  Consequence free gaming says hello.

Once again, that is not roleplaying, it is metagaming. Once you're metagaming, all complaints about the reality of the system can be directed at the nearest wall because you're deliberately trying to manipulate them.

Crunchyinmilk wrote...
Ideally I'd like to see the truly red/blue lines remain restricted to the truly renegade/paragon shepards, but nix their 100% success rate.

So you want a system that prevents players from any roleplay flexibility, and also means that they still have to rely on chance to get a reward for that. This is a game. Games are supposed to be fun. This idea is most definitely not fun.

Crunchyinmilk wrote...
The biggest flaw is that the reward for playing an archetype is that you become more persuasive.  I like that ME2 tried to move away from persuasion as a skill, but I don't like that its so tied up in having to play one extreme or another. Persuasion is still a gameplay mechanic rather than just player choice, and is tied so closely to the morality system.

I'd argue it's a design decision rather than a flaw. The system has to somewhat transparent in that it should allow the player to translate their actions into potential benefits/consequences. The system does that. Is it the ideal means of implementing persuasion in a game? Perhaps not, but I haven't seen a single suggestion so far that would actually work better.

I have some thoughts on it, but an aspiring game designer has to keep some aces up his sleeve.

[MrFob]

I agree, the system is not very good. Actually I didn't know exactly how it worked until I read another thread yesterday. I also hope it will change for ME3.

To be fair though, the ME1 system isn't exactly perfect either and also introduces a lot of meta gaming. For example, RP wise it is prudent to go to Feros first after leaving the citadel because reports indicate that the colony may be under attack. However, given that Feros includes the most difficult persuasion option in the game, you might want to go later to give you enough time to max out your charm/intimidate skill first (which you don't want to do until you got 75% of paragon/renegade bar or you loose a free skill point). Not to mention the people who actually play through the game 4 times to max out the skills without spending a single point on them (although that is a little extreme ).

So yeah, if they come up with a system for ME3, that is similar to ME1, they should balance the game in a way, so that the difficult persuasions are towards the end or something.

[Crunchyinmilk]

AmstradHero wrote...
Given one of the complaints was about the lack of transparency of the current system, how does making it so that you can have "too much" paragon/renegade improve that? It only serves to make it worse!

I can't for the life of me understand what you're saying here.  Where do you get "too much" ?

Crunchyinmilk wrote...
Ideally I'd like to see the truly red/blue lines remain restricted to the truly renegade/paragon shepards, but nix their 100% success rate.

AmstradHero wrote...
So you want a system that prevents players from any roleplay flexibility

No, don't know where you got that impression.  I begin to question what your definition of roleplaying is...

AmstradHero wrote...
[Players][...] have to rely on chance to get a reward? This is a game. Games are supposed to be fun. This idea is most definitely not fun.

I'm suggesting they have to pay attention to the game they're playing, not roll a dice.

Either pick a response that suits the situation/NPC, or stick to their archetype guns and enjoy the consequences, even if they're a little negative.  Since when does always coming out ahead equate with fun?  I thought you where big on roleplaying... welcome to roleplaying.  

You play your Shepard in a particular manner, take the good and the bad and enjoy the ride for the ride.  Playing an archetype because its the easy way to win is neither roleplaying or fun. The reward for playing a renegade Shepard is watching Shepard kick peoples teeth in, getting to see it happen.  Not in knowing that no matter who's teeth he kicks in, he'll wind up ahead for doing so.

AmstradHero wrote...
The system has to [be] somewhat transparent in that it should allow the player to translate their actions into potential benefits/consequences. The system does that.

As has been already stated, you can win the game without touching a red/blue line and consequences are few and far between so long as you stick with red/blue.

Modifié par Crunchyinmilk, 15 octobre 2010 - 12:02 .

[AmstradHero]

Crunchyinmilk wrote...

AmstradHero wrote...
Given one of the complaints was about the lack of transparency of the current system, how does making it so that you can have "too much" paragon/renegade improve that? It only serves to make it worse!

I can't for the life of me understand what you're saying here.  Where do you get "too much" ?

From my understanding of your previous post, the implication was that a player would be unable to persuade someone who was "moderate" if they had an extreme paragon/renegade score, because their point of view would be too far out ot whack with the person with whom they were trying to convince.  I don't see what other conclusion I could draw when you were talking about a system that wasn't entirely reliant on Shepard's persuasion abilities.

Crunchyinmilk wrote...

Crunchyinmilk wrote...
Ideally I'd like to see the truly red/blue lines remain restricted to the truly renegade/paragon shepards, but nix their 100% success rate.

AmstradHero wrote...
So you want a system that prevents players from any roleplay flexibility

No, don't know where you got that impression.  I begin to question what your definition of roleplaying is...

You refer to a system that makes persuasion decisions only available to "true"/pure paragon/renegades and then make it random as to whether they succeed.  Requiring someone to pick solely paragon/renegade is hideous. And you question my definition of roleplaying?

Crunchyinmilk wrote...

AmstradHero wrote...
[Players][...] have to rely on chance to get a reward? This is a game. Games are supposed to be fun. This idea is most definitely not fun.

I'm suggesting they have to pay attention to the game they're playing, not roll a dice.

Either pick a response that suits the situation/NPC, or stick to their archetype guns and enjoy the consequences, even if they're a little negative.  Since when does always coming out ahead equate with fun?  I thought you where big on roleplaying... welcome to roleplaying.  

You play your Shepard in a particular manner, take the good and the bad and enjoy the ride for the ride.  Playing an archetype because its the easy way to win is neither roleplaying or fun. The reward for playing a renegade Shepard is watching Shepard kick peoples teeth in, getting to see it happen.  Not in knowing that no matter who's teeth he kicks in, he'll wind up ahead for doing so.

Yet in your previous point you were referring to rolling dice. Your arguments are inconsistent.

In case you didn't notice, I don't stick with an archetype. I don't pick solely paragon or renegade. I pick the decisions I want and roll with them.  Sometimes they benefit me, sometimes they don't. I'm not the one complaining about the system here - I'm merely pointing out why the arguments against it fall down because the rationale on which they are based is inaccurate.

I don't argue that there are weaknesses in the current system, but on the whole this thread isn't delivering a concrete and reasoned basis for identifying them.  Saying "I don't like it", is fine. Saying "it is bad" without being able to give a clear and reasoned explanation of why is not fine.

In essence, I'm not purely defending the current system, I'm also playing devil's advocate somewhat to see if people can actually elaborate the reasons why it doesn't work for them. That interests me, because that helps to identify ways to improve it.

Modifié par AmstradHero, 15 octobre 2010 - 04:17 .

[maxernst]

On the subject of whether your past actions should make it easier to intimidate or not intimidate people, I agree that there could realistically be some impact, but the paragon/renegade scale is far too blunt an instrument to use. Consider Garrus. If Garrus were the protagonist of the game, I'm pretty sure he'd be mixed paragon and renegade because he's basically a ruthless guy with good intentions. I don't think the fact that he has a reputation for doing some good things would make me any less intimidated if he stuck a gun to my head.

[asaiasai]

The problem is that the current system is a morality/reputation system. It is trying to do to many things on one mechanic as such the system is poor in delivering either. Reputation and morality are completely seperate ideas. It is because of this that the seperation of them into 2 seperate mechanics would be necesary for the players choices to have consequences. As it is right now if a player picks red or blue there are NO consequences to either dialog option where as there are consequences to not staying on a color.



Asai

[azerSheppard]

pffff, i never had a problem with the morality system in the first game, max out both, then choose depending on sitiuation.



However, in the second game, i have to agree with you.

[duranii]

Honestly, Charm/Intimidate really limits how we can roleplay our Shepard in the game. Rather than using a Blue or Red "I Win" button in a conversation, why not let the player just pick the response most suitable to his character? That's one of the things I liked about Baldur's Gate 2, was that you, 95% of the time, simply picked the response you think your character would say. I can think of quite a few NPC encounters where I liked the standard "White" response better than the Charm or Intimidate response. However, if I did that, then I'd have to suffer the consequences, and for what exactly?



Of course, what you say will have different consequences, but at least it gives you more roleplay freedom with your Shepard, and makes the gameplay more dynamic. The current system almost punishes you for not using a Charm or Intimidate option, which pretty much defeats the purpose of it entirely.



Gosh, imagine if the Tali trial didn't have Charm/Intimidate options? It would have surely made it more challenging and entertaining. Currently though, you press the Red or Blue "I Win" button, and your Shepard goes on a tirade, immediately convincing the Admiralty Board with no real thought from the player.



By allowing the player to simply choose the response that best fits the character, it would feel like more of an accomplishment if they actually convinced or intimidated an NPC. Of course, that all depends on how the player wants to RP their Shepard, and also what the player would want to do given the particular NPC's personality and background.



In all, remove the Red and Blue "I Win" options and just let the player decide in ME 3. More freedom = more fun. I think if most people were given the choice, most people's Shepards would be more middle-of-the-road. Forceful and "renegadish" when they need to be, and noble when they need or want to be. The whole "alignment" system determining your Charm or Intimidate options is extremely flawed and needs to be removed from ME3 completely.

[CroGamer002]

^Fail

[Geowil]

Mesina2 wrote...

^Fail

QFT.


Although I do not hate the morality system and I have never had any problems with it per say.  The OP mentioned the part with Vasir, I had no issues like that, both options were open to me and I was 60% Para 50% Rena on an imported Shep (75%P/25%R), I chose the Renagade option, cuz that's how my Shepard rolls , bludgeoning thru bureaucracy and deleting bugs on the way to real errors.


I hope they do change it slightly but they shouldn't get rid of it entirely.  Some of the best one liners in both games come from those options!  They need to bring the skill system form ME1 back though, to justify closing off the choices, if they do not then they should always be open.

Modifié par Geowil, 17 octobre 2010 - 07:56 .

[Crunchyinmilk]

AmstradHero wrote...
From my understanding of your previous post, the implication was that a player would be unable to persuade someone who was "moderate" if they had an extreme paragon/renegade score, because their point of view would be too far out ot whack with the person with whom they were trying to convince.  I don't see what other conclusion I could draw when you were talking about a system that wasn't entirely reliant on Shepard's persuasion abilities.

Well, I was thinking more of NPCs that are directly oppositional (on the P/R scale) rather than just 'moderate'.

I actually think there are a couple of points in ME2 where a particular NPC only offers a renegade persuasion line.  As if no matter how paragon Shepard is, the NPC wouldn't have a bar of that type of persuasion, so the choice is not offered.  I would like to see more NPCs with strong reactions to the paragon/renegade lines.

What would be so wrong with still offering Shepard both lines though, rewarding Shepard with P/R points for selecting them (playing true to their character) but only the 'correct' (for that npc) response results in a story reward (money, item, persuasion success, whatever).  

Imagine paragon Shepard trying to appeal to Aria's good nature.

You refer to a system that makes persuasion decisions only available to "true"/pure paragon/renegades and then make it random as to whether they succeed.  Requiring someone to pick solely paragon/renegade is hideous. And you question my definition of roleplaying?

No.  Never random. I never meant to suggest random chance (or dice rolls, did I mention dice?).  The percentage comment (nix the 100% success rate) was purely in relation to the point I was trying to make, above.  That Shepard face more situations and npcs where a paragon or renegade interaction is 'right', but not both.  Too often it seems like either will do, so long as you have enough P/R points.  Rendering the situation kind of 'meh' .  The impression of the NPC 'meh', and the impression of Shepard as some magical pied piper, leaving me feeling 'meh'.

Yet in your previous point you were referring to rolling dice. Your arguments are inconsistent.

I'm sorry you got that impression.

In case you didn't notice, I don't stick with an archetype. I don't pick solely paragon or renegade. I pick the decisions I want and roll with them.  Sometimes they benefit me, sometimes they don't.

Really?  How often did you genuinely feel right away that things turned out poorly for Shepard after picking a red/blue line? Did you never get struck by how renegade some of the paragon lines sounded? (Harrot?)  Never notice how inane some of the renegade lines where to differentiate them from the paragon line?  If you stuck with pure renegade or paragon, you might have wondered at how 'all over the place' an archetype Shepard can seem.

Saying "I don't like it", is fine. Saying "it is bad" without being able to give a clear and reasoned explanation of why is not fine.

I think some of the complaints against the system have been pointed out and discussed just fine.  That there have been little to no decent arguments in favour of the existing system is more telling.  The strongest argument for the current system is 'its a simple means for players to reward themselves' which doesn't amount to much for those players seeking an engaging experience.

[achwas]

[

Dean_the_Young wrote...
...
Which game altering persuasion checks, exactly, are at issue here?

The
loyalty clashes, which both can be resolved later and even without
Loyalty do not prevent you from winning the game without losing a single
person?

...........

I'm trying to think of any other actual game-altering choices, and I'm coming up short.

Well, the Miranda/Jack check is.... rather important. Jack is the only Area  of Effect capable character of the companions, and, IMHO, if you don't  play Vanguard or Adept (each themselves capable of Shockwave), becomes
rather important to have around for the second and third part of the  suicide mission on high difficulties (hardcore+) for dealing with Husk
Plus, she is only one of two characters strong enough to  serve as the "shielding" biotic in part II of the SM. If she is not loyal there, her demise will massively affect the endgame.

Tali'sLM is one of the few which you can actually fail, especially if one did not use a paragonic interrupt on Haelstrom and Kal'reegar died back  there (which is rather random ). making "rallying the crowd" impossible  in the LM... leading to it being impossible to pull of her LM  succesfully without para/rene chocices. Which in turn kills off one of  the major characters from ME-1, in addition to leading to a randomly picked casualty before even starting the SM.....
Besides if one does not  own the Kasumi DLC and sold-off Legion to Cerberus - who one is not  supposed to know at that point will be a valuable companion, it is  Meta-knowledge -  it means not having a loyal security/tech-specialist  for the SM part-I. Sloppy design.

In the same vein it is - to my  mind - absolutely ridiculous that it is much easier to pass Jack's  loyalty check (on paragon) if you do her LM immediately after Miranda's, and both immediately after Horizon, than doing it later in the game,  say after the Thane loyalty mission. And most certainly easier than  after Zaeed's mission, where, depending on your choice, you "miss out"  on a lot of either renegade or paragon points.

Plus that quite a  number of  Paragon and Renegade checks seem to be rather....  deliberately falsified in attitude  ? Say, like the "Ehnora check" on  Samara's LM, where one cannot pass "judgement" on the Eclipse girl, who
one knows has murdered at least one innocent being to even join up ( and likely more) , been shooting at you a few moments ago, and does not  even let go of her weapon while asking for mercy... unless you take a  Renegade-interrupt ? Nevermind that you let her escape (because "I do  not renegade-interrupt"^^ ) and find her blog later, clearly self-implicating her, you feel utterly foolish not having trusted your instincts, especially since a paragon should be much more inclined to  take her out of business than say a renegade who could care less ?
After all summary judgement and execution is just about what you do on every single mook in the game who is unfortunate enough to be targeted with a "red frame",without any serious implications for your "moral purity" ? But yeah, obviously summary justice is "renegade" here.


And - slightly unrelated - there are a handful of "interrupts" which only a specific  sex will get to see and make... the "mercenary recruiter" on Omega comes to mind (only fem-sheps get this interrupt) . Makes you wonder how they calculate these into the "percentage gained" formula. Or you gain two "white renegade" options on garrus mission.. if you brought DLC Zaeed along....

Last but not least : Just what  is the point of a system that actually  features abilities that raise the "effect of para/rene points" - like  the main character's class ability, especially one with differing rates  as a trade off for other boni, and two equipment pieces with boni to  "negotiation results", if the actual score is irrelevant, just the
percentage ?
Guess it's not worth having the Death Mask helmet from Tuchanka around then....

Modifié par achwas, 21 octobre 2010 - 08:05 .

[madman0311]

The paragon/renegade system should be removed COMPLETELY.

The way it is in ME2 is it forces you to take a single road as either a boyscout or an a**hole, and removes any illusion of choice in a game in which your choices don't affect anything anyway.


It also basically tells the player "hey, pick this if you are a good guy, or this if you are the bad guy". It almost seems like BioWare are afraid the masses of 6 year old boys flocking to buy their game will hate it because the choices are too hard and it doesn't hold your hand telling you what to pick.

Modifié par madman0311, 20 février 2011 - 05:03 .

[Collider]

The paragon/renegade system should be removed COMPLETELY.



The way it is in ME2 is it forces you to take a single road as either a boyscout or an a**hole, and removes any illusion of choice in a game in which your choices don't affect anything anyway.

I agree for the most part.

[AkiKishi]

GuardianAngel470 wrote...

I don't care if you make the combat as clunky as a 1940's ford truck suffering from rust decay, FIX THIS!  Above anything, I play the Mass Effect Series for the Role playing. This breaks the role playing completely because I can't play how I want and even when I try I get screwed over by the code behind the curtain.

That's not roleplaying. You made your choices you live with the consequences some of which are not being able to do what you like.