147 réponses à ce sujet

[revengeance]

Mallissin wrote...

This is one of the reasons I felt ME2 was not an RPG. They removed a great amount of the RPG elements and made it into more of a FPS adventure game by focusing skills on combat.

This took away a lot of choices from the player and in the end we only really had two choices when developing the character; the class and which power we won't level to max (since there aren't enough points for all).

Felt very un-Bioware to me.

I have a feeling they tried to trim down the game, thinking more people would enjoy or complete it. I'd be really interested to compare ME1 statistics to the ME2 statistics that were released by IGN to see if the changes were successful.

http://xbox360.ign.c.../1117896p1.html

If not, then I hope we get a return to more ME1 style RPG elements.

Yes.

[revengeance]

Big stupid jellyfish wrote...

I do agree with the OP.

I had been playing ME2 and roleplaying my Shep making paragon or renegade choices/interrupts according to her character. In the end I felt I was kind of 'punished' when I didn't have a chance to choose several options because of not maximising blue/red points (even though these options could've been very in-character for my Shep).

I do understand a 'You can't choose this ultimate renegade option because you're 70% paragon now' reason. However, I don't think it can be applied to ME2.

Jack/Miranda conflict can be a good example: should the scene take place in the beginning of the game, I can use the paragon option and persuade both girls. I'm, say, 70% paragon and 30% renegade at this point. Should the scene take place in the end, the paragon option is grayed out. But I'm still 70% paragon!

Also, this system prevents you from choosing neutral answers because no red/blue points => less dialogue options further.

That's my point the game punishes you for not farming red/blue points in a game where most of the fun comes from relationships and conversation! You should not be forced or encouraged to choose options you should be able to choose what is right in your eyes.

[Evil Johnny 666]

revengeance wrote...

Big stupid jellyfish wrote...

I do agree with the OP.

I had been playing ME2 and roleplaying my Shep making paragon or renegade choices/interrupts according to her character. In the end I felt I was kind of 'punished' when I didn't have a chance to choose several options because of not maximising blue/red points (even though these options could've been very in-character for my Shep).

I do understand a 'You can't choose this ultimate renegade option because you're 70% paragon now' reason. However, I don't think it can be applied to ME2.

Jack/Miranda conflict can be a good example: should the scene take place in the beginning of the game, I can use the paragon option and persuade both girls. I'm, say, 70% paragon and 30% renegade at this point. Should the scene take place in the end, the paragon option is grayed out. But I'm still 70% paragon!

Also, this system prevents you from choosing neutral answers because no red/blue points => less dialogue options further.

That's my point the game punishes you for not farming red/blue points in a game where most of the fun comes from relationships and conversation! You should not be forced or encouraged to choose options you should be able to choose what is right in your eyes.

Totally agreed, they morale isn't all black and white. ME's dialogue system isn't very good anyway. Take KOTOR for example, you had choices, you could act like an **** if you wanted killing people for no reason among others, but you could also be flat out evil, using them as well as showing cruelty. You could also just accept someone's money, or act like a saint and refuse it. There was tons of choices, basically ME gives you no choice; you either 'choose' if you want to learn more or just take the 'choice' you already chose in the beginning of the game. They all talk about "your Shepard", while the only things that make him so, is being either Renegade or Paragon, the few big choices you make, your LIs and if you're male or female. Plus, the paragon/renegade thing makes no sense. Often does renegade options sounds totally normal. If Shepards acts a little bit irritated or just do what he think is fair, he gets renegade points, as soon as he shows peaceful intentions or agrees with someone, he gets paragon points.

This makes no sense whatsoever, they should scrap all this, give us REAL, numerous choices which aren't yes/no or black/white without all this moral thing, just give us two types of dialogue skills which are related to the more 'threatening' side of it or the more compassionate one, screw this weak morale thing. We need more depth, more complexity. Shepard is one of the most boring video games character ever because he has such a plastic, one dimensional personallity and he his the main one! Give him some life! He's either a jackass or a saint, this is just stupid.

[Evil Johnny 666]

Autoclave wrote...

I like the ME2 system, and i HATE the ME1. This is stupid, even from role playing perspective. Oh look! I invested some skill points into my persuading abilities! Now I can convince the bastard into completing my objective. Hell, Neverwinter Nights even had 3 (!!!) different skills of this kind: Persuation, Bluff, Intimidate. Instead of investing in some really useful gameplay skills, i had to put my skill points into this just because i could not complete some quests...

You're telling me anyone without rhetoric skills can convince anyone about doing anything? Don't be ridiculous, this makes sense. I bet you hate rpgs... the whole point of skills is for character customization, building your character. In real life, the more you run the better you are, the more you do anything, the better you are at these things, you have skills you 1000 different skills in real life.

[Mycrus Ironfist]

i would say all dialogue options should give you red or blue points... i tend to avoid neutral choices because there was no points to be gained from it...



i play a wierd paragon... mostly paragon choices in game and then a renegade decision for the final big decision... i played that way for me1 & me2

[revengeance]

Evil Johnny 666 wrote...

revengeance wrote...

Big stupid jellyfish wrote...

I do agree with the OP.

I had been playing ME2 and roleplaying my Shep making paragon or renegade choices/interrupts according to her character. In the end I felt I was kind of 'punished' when I didn't have a chance to choose several options because of not maximising blue/red points (even though these options could've been very in-character for my Shep).

I do understand a 'You can't choose this ultimate renegade option because you're 70% paragon now' reason. However, I don't think it can be applied to ME2.

Jack/Miranda conflict can be a good example: should the scene take place in the beginning of the game, I can use the paragon option and persuade both girls. I'm, say, 70% paragon and 30% renegade at this point. Should the scene take place in the end, the paragon option is grayed out. But I'm still 70% paragon!

Also, this system prevents you from choosing neutral answers because no red/blue points => less dialogue options further.

That's my point the game punishes you for not farming red/blue points in a game where most of the fun comes from relationships and conversation! You should not be forced or encouraged to choose options you should be able to choose what is right in your eyes.

Totally agreed, they morale isn't all black and white. ME's dialogue system isn't very good anyway. Take KOTOR for example, you had choices, you could act like an **** if you wanted killing people for no reason among others, but you could also be flat out evil, using them as well as showing cruelty. You could also just accept someone's money, or act like a saint and refuse it. There was tons of choices, basically ME gives you no choice; you either 'choose' if you want to learn more or just take the 'choice' you already chose in the beginning of the game. They all talk about "your Shepard", while the only things that make him so, is being either Renegade or Paragon, the few big choices you make, your LIs and if you're male or female. Plus, the paragon/renegade thing makes no sense. Often does renegade options sounds totally normal. If Shepards acts a little bit irritated or just do what he think is fair, he gets renegade points, as soon as he shows peaceful intentions or agrees with someone, he gets paragon points.

This makes no sense whatsoever, they should scrap all this, give us REAL, numerous choices which aren't yes/no or black/white without all this moral thing, just give us two types of dialogue skills which are related to the more 'threatening' side of it or the more compassionate one, screw this weak morale thing. We need more depth, more complexity. Shepard is one of the most boring video games character ever because he has such a plastic, one dimensional personallity and he his the main one! Give him some life! He's either a jackass or a saint, this is just stupid.

Yes well said sir.

[erilben]

How is ME1 any good? Did people actually liike how you could go to Feros early and you'd need to have 12 points of charm to talk down Jeong? You couldn't even get 12 charm on a new character that early. Charm ranks unlocked as you got more paragon points.

[revengeance]

erilben wrote...

How is ME1 any good? Did people actually liike how you could go to Feros early and you'd need to have 12 points of charm to talk down Jeong? You couldn't even get 12 charm on a new character that early. Charm ranks unlocked as you got more paragon points.

How can you say that. Mass effect one was fantastic and if not for it's great success we would probably not have ME2 or atleast one of this quality. ME 2 is so much more closed and linear i don't really like that also the fact that the most enjoyable factor of RPG's is gone. (Getting awesome loot and always wondering if the weapon your gonna pick up will be better than one you already have.) I could ramble about the pro's and con's of the two endlessly but ill stop wwith this, basically they need to add way more RPG back into it and figure out how to make the shooter aspect more enjoyable.

P.S also...it's an RPG why would you want to do anything early and rush the story lol? That's not how you play an RPG.

Modifié par revengeance, 26 novembre 2010 - 05:10 .

[Sidney]

revengeance wrote...3

Ok that is fine but i do not feel that it is fun or necessary to force me to be an absolute i like my neutral choices they reflect my personality,  why can i not play the way i feel is right and not pay for it later?

This rationale is ridiculous. You want consequence free decision making? If you play as Ghandi for an entire game and then you want to go all Jack the Ripper you think, as a public figure, you might have a credibility problem?

What you really want is not to have to role play. You, and so many others, confuse role playing with stat leveling. ME2 makes your choices have consequences - the way you play your role matters. In ME1 as long as pump stats into "Charm" you can kill everything that looks cross-ways at you and still charm the heck out of anyone.  There's functinally not much different between the ME2 style of "use it and increase" approach to conversational skills than there is to Oblivions system for improving skills by using them.

[cachx]

Sidney wrote...

revengeance wrote...3
Ok that is fine but i do not feel that it is fun or necessary to force me to be an absolute i like my neutral choices they reflect my personality,  why can i not play the way i feel is right and not pay for it later?

This rationale is ridiculous. You want consequence free decision making? If you play as Ghandi for an entire game and then you want to go all Jack the Ripper you think, as a public figure, you might have a credibility problem?
What you really want is not to have to role play. You, and so many others, confuse role playing with stat leveling. ME2 makes your choices have consequences - the way you play your role matters. In ME1 as long as pump stats into "Charm" you can kill everything that looks cross-ways at you and still charm the heck out of anyone.  There's functinally not much different between the ME2 style of "use it and increase" approach to conversational skills than there is to Oblivions system for improving skills by using them.

Have to agree with Sid here. Even if ME2 system isn't perfect (needs a lot of balancing) at least encourages consistency. If you want to do whatever you want, whenever you want to, why not get rid of the paragon/renegade system completly, and adopt something similar to DAO?

[Nashiktal]

For those against a single persuasion "skill" to invest in...



I just want to have my shepherd react how I want him to. There are times when a situation for my paragon shep, is so horrifying, or just strikes him a certain way, NOT act like a complete saint to achieve his goals.



Sometimes I want to do a renegade option, and sometimes my renegade shep wants to act professional for one reason or another.

[Evil Johnny 666]

Sidney wrote...

revengeance wrote...3

Ok that is fine but i do not feel that it is fun or necessary to force me to be an absolute i like my neutral choices they reflect my personality,  why can i not play the way i feel is right and not pay for it later?

This rationale is ridiculous. You want consequence free decision making? If you play as Ghandi for an entire game and then you want to go all Jack the Ripper you think, as a public figure, you might have a credibility problem?

What you really want is not to have to role play. You, and so many others, confuse role playing with stat leveling. ME2 makes your choices have consequences - the way you play your role matters. In ME1 as long as pump stats into "Charm" you can kill everything that looks cross-ways at you and still charm the heck out of anyone.  There's functinally not much different between the ME2 style of "use it and increase" approach to conversational skills than there is to Oblivions system for improving skills by using them.

Bull****. Not wanting to be a super one-dimensional character without any depth doesn't mean we don't want to roleplay. There's tons of paragon or renegade answers which doesn't feel like ones at all. How many times I've been left in awe because I got renegade points for saying something. Morale systems are stupid, they make no sense, no one is black/white, it shouldn't be like this. You can be consistent in your choices in your morale, yet not always choosing the top up or top down answers.

The ME2 dialogue system gives you NO consequences. Being purely paragon or renegade gives you the same advantages, taking the grey road giving you NONE. It's not a question of consistency, if you have a certain way to think, a morale and choosing on its account, it is consistent. But ME2 imposes you a morale which is flat out wrong. This makes ME2's system very simplistic, giving you no choices and real consequences, advantage for using this or that different placed answer each time. Everyone playing a pure renegade or paragon has the same advantages. ME2 tells you that saying you have confidence in someone means you're a paragon, and acting though in front of dangerous people of Omega renegade. ME needs more choices, choices which have different consequences and outcomes without any top up or top down roads for you to follow. Well, yes, if you want to be purely the "good guy" or "bad guy". Yes some outcomes are different when being pure, but you are at the same advantage for using any of the two, which clearly shouldn't work like this. The ME2 system gives no choice, if you want a game which enables you to do certain things, you choose right at the beginning which boring type of character you want to be, the rest plays by itself except for the "big choices".


So what if I want to roleplay, to make choices which has a real consequences on the outcome and how I will be advantaged? What if I don't want to play a pre-written character? Because really, Shepard isn't yours, he's already written, you just choose tid-bits of what you will be saying, often not knowing how it will really turn up, sometimes not how you'd like. Use the top choice because you think it fits than the others, yet you may get a preachy Shepard, something you didn't want without knowing from the little bit you highlighted. Use the bottom one and you may get something similar. ME2 was made for you to always choose the same option, which is a really bad design choice, it makes you choose for a specific type of Shepard, and it stops there. Too often you don't know what to choose because all three choices aren't even what you want, the game lacks choices, depth and different consequences, give us something like KOTOR, it wasn't perfect but it was sure as hell that it had a lot more depth overall, giving you a real to chance to you know, roleplay unlike ME2.

[Evil Johnny 666]

jollyorigins wrote...

The mass effect 1 level up and dialogue investment system was much better than ME2 in my opinion, they should bring it back in ME3, i hate having to be a saint 24/7 just because I went paragon, sometimes I want them to be scared of Shepard too.

Yeah, why Shepard can't be a fundamentally good guy yet shows a tiny bit of authority to his crewmates, shows you shouldn't mess with him and/or just showing big confidence to dangerous mercenaries? There's nothing not consistent about this, yet doing this in ME2 makes sure you can't do some particular things.

And it makes no sense. Why following a pre-established morale all the way makes you more apt to answer a certain way to several situations? Why can't it be about, you know, rhetoric skills like in ME1 at least?

[voteDC]

I'm another one who prefered the system in the first game.

While I love the conversation interupt in Mass Effect 2, I feel completely tied to take one path or another. Even if my Shepard is a Paragon why can't I not tell a criminal I am a Spectre?

Shepard saved a colony single-handed (well in my chosen background) stopped Sovereign, killed hundreds if not thousands of Geth, stole a prototype star-ship, travelled to a system even council ships wont go to and took down Saren.

Surely all that should buy me a bit of a Bad-Ass reputation with a crime-boss.

[Evil Johnny 666]

Hell, you get RENEGADE POINTS for telling the Illusive man you're doing well. Why can't you follow YOUR morale? That's why morale systems don't work, because they give you one and say deal with it, it creates problems to people who don't want to follow it, making actual choices. And the system is flawed beyond that too.

[Sidney]

Evil Johnny 666 wrote...

Bull****. Not wanting to be a super one-dimensional character without any depth doesn't mean we don't want to roleplay. There's tons of paragon or renegade answers which doesn't feel like ones at all. How many times I've been left in awe because I got renegade points for saying something. Morale systems are stupid, they make no sense, no one is black/white, it shouldn't be like this. You can be consistent in your choices in your morale, yet not always choosing the top up or top down answers.

Touchy when the truth hurts aren't we?

You want to be able to pick any door and still get the fabulouos prize. You dislike that decisions you make have an affect you do not like on the game which is really the heart of an CRPG. Role playing means you can't always win, you can't be for both the Legion and NCR in FNV, you pay a terrible price in KoTOR for trying to be a neutral jedi.

The thing is nothing in ME2 is a gamebreaking about the morality system. The penalty in KoTOR was much higher for trying to straddle the fence. I'd argue the cost saving in BG2 were a bigger "reward" for min/maxing good and evil. If you don't earn enough Paragon/Renegade you lose out on a handful of dialog options and only one of them really seems to matter - the Jack vs Miranda argument. The thing is "buying" skills wouldn't save you on that front unless you just min/maxed the hades out of a skill. The biggest problem with the P/R system in ME2 is that the threshold for sucess in the Jack/Miranda thing is really too high. The problem is you let this out-of-game knowledge cloud how you want to role play instead of just playing and lett9ing the chips fall where they may.

It is just funny as all get out that you defend the KoTOR system's depth when it was by far the most black and white system ever built.

[Nashiktal]

Renegade and Paragon is flawed in the ME series anyways. Paragon isn't "good", and renegade isnt "evil."

[Sidney]

voteDC wrote...

I'm another one who prefered the system in the first game.

While I love the conversation interupt in Mass Effect 2, I feel completely tied to take one path or another. Even if my Shepard is a Paragon why can't I not tell a criminal I am a Spectre?

Shepard saved a colony single-handed (well in my chosen background) stopped Sovereign, killed hundreds if not thousands of Geth, stole a prototype star-ship, travelled to a system even council ships wont go to and took down Saren.

Surely all that should buy me a bit of a Bad-Ass reputation with a crime-boss.

FDR and Stalin defeated a dictator, killed thousands of innocent civilians to achiev their ends, built terrible weapons so they're all the same right? So now you wind up in the hands of th FBI or the KGB. Both might threaten you, both might yell at you but, in the end, do you buy that the FBI is gonna put a bullet in your brain if you don't talk? Do you think the KGB will? Yeah, that's the difference in crediblity.

You are not forced to play all or nothing. I sure as heck didn't. You choose to play that way because you have a pre-determined outcome you want to achieve.

[Evil Johnny 666]

Sidney wrote...

Evil Johnny 666 wrote...

Bull****. Not wanting to be a super one-dimensional character without any depth doesn't mean we don't want to roleplay. There's tons of paragon or renegade answers which doesn't feel like ones at all. How many times I've been left in awe because I got renegade points for saying something. Morale systems are stupid, they make no sense, no one is black/white, it shouldn't be like this. You can be consistent in your choices in your morale, yet not always choosing the top up or top down answers.

Touchy when the truth hurts aren't we?

You want to be able to pick any door and still get the fabulouos prize. You dislike that decisions you make have an affect you do not like on the game which is really the heart of an CRPG. Role playing means you can't always win, you can't be for both the Legion and NCR in FNV, you pay a terrible price in KoTOR for trying to be a neutral jedi.

The thing is nothing in ME2 is a gamebreaking about the morality system. The penalty in KoTOR was much higher for trying to straddle the fence. I'd argue the cost saving in BG2 were a bigger "reward" for min/maxing good and evil. If you don't earn enough Paragon/Renegade you lose out on a handful of dialog options and only one of them really seems to matter - the Jack vs Miranda argument. The thing is "buying" skills wouldn't save you on that front unless you just min/maxed the hades out of a skill. The biggest problem with the P/R system in ME2 is that the threshold for sucess in the Jack/Miranda thing is really too high. The problem is you let this out-of-game knowledge cloud how you want to role play instead of just playing and lett9ing the chips fall where they may.

It is just funny as all get out that you defend the KoTOR system's depth when it was by far the most black and white system ever built.

You don't get what I'm trying to say. And truth is, ME2's dialogue system is utterly simplistic and one dimensional. The game encourages you to follow the pure roads, the lines are written from a purely paragon, renegade or grey perspective, and following those roads give you everything. You're the one who said roleplaying isn't about getting everything and I wholeheartly agree, but the game doesn't give you real, subtle choices. Choosing some renegade and paragon choices makes you look stupid, one second you may be agreeing with the Illusive Man, and the other saying you trust Jacob but he doesn't work for the good people. This shows how much the system is flawed, ME2 doesn't let you roleplay. Like I said, the KOTOR system wasn't perfect, but at least you had CHOICES. Yes the grey road didn't gave you much rewards, but you could build a much complex character and have different outcomes. You didn't get it, I DON'T want everything, but being all-out something SHOULDN'T give you everything like it's in ME2. In KOTOR, there wasn't the good, the bad and the neutral, you could be an ****, or completely evil, there was depth and this affected the outcomes. In ME2, if you don't always choose the top or bottom answers or the middle, well you're taking the grey road, thus the outcomes being the same as if you take the totally grey road, you had more than 3 choices in KOTOR, multiple good ones and multiple bad ones, so you couldn't be either a preachy ****** or an ****, you could be acting like a good guy without being preachy, and a bad guy without being super evil. And then, you had different outcomes for the situation. In ME2, the moment you do not follow one of the pure morales, it's as if you take the grey road, there's no depth at all.

I don't know why you're trying to act like I'm getting played by all this and all. Why should I defend my point if I knew I was wrong? Why should I be bothered if the ME2 system was good? Makes no sense, don't try to play with my sentiments or whatever. And I find the morality system of ME2 to be gamebreaking, a morality system bounds to fail. And anyway, KOTOR is a Star Wars game, it's less problematic if you follow the evil or good path, that is not a morality, it's a... stance. I mean a jedi is either good or evil, otherwise you can get from one to the other. And even then, like I said, KOTOR gave you much more choices, there wasn't the evil, good and grey choices, often you had a handful of them, several for each, making your character more your own and less one dimensional like any other's character.

But a morality system? Everyone has a different morality, and with less choices which doesn't always reflect what you think they are, it sucks. Telling the Illusive Man you feel good is renegade? Really? You wanted me to say to him to go to hell? There's so many things like this, asking how your crewmates are doing is paragon? Showing mercs confidence is renegade? In the beginning of the game, I had a choice to tell Jacob I trust him, okay I'll tell him that "but you work for the wrong people" **** you Shepard! I just trust him, it stops there. Other choices? I don't trust you or I'll keep an eye on you.... How has this ANYTHING to do with morality? It lacks depth it hurts. And then, if I want to be paragon, I have NO CHOICE but stick with a ****ing preachy saint. Shepard is one of the most boring characters ever, no depth, no real personallity, he's like a character from children stories. You get points for such petty things sometimes.... Like I said, Shepard isn't your character, you just choose from already written ones, how is this a good system?

Seriously, how can anyone say the system is good is beyond me. We all know Bioware haven't made a real complex rpg in quite some time (not even counting KOTOR, or it's at the fence at least), they just make very good games, but bad rpgs overall.

Modifié par Evil Johnny 666, 27 novembre 2010 - 07:52 .

[Hulk Hsieh]

Don't make people to trade off between "combat skill" and "dialog skill" if the game is combat heavy and most combat can't be avoided by dialog. The value of skill points put into combat or dialog will never be balanced.

In ME1, one need to sacrifice a lot of combat skills to get full dialog skills, but those dialog skills don't really contribute that much to the game.

The buttomline is that you can rely solely on combat skills to finish a game, but not on dialog for most games.
So don't make combat and dialog share the same "level up resource".

Modifié par Hulk Hsieh, 27 novembre 2010 - 08:32 .

[Evil Johnny 666]

Hulk Hsieh wrote...

Don't make people to trade off between "combat skill" and "dialog skill" if the game is combat heavy and most combat can't be avoided by dialog. The value of skill points put into combat or dialog will never be balanced.

In ME1, one need to sacrifice a lot of combat skills to get full dialog skills, but those dialog skills don't really contribute that much to the game.

The buttomline is that you can rely solely on combat skills to finish a game, but not on dialog for most games.
So don't make combat and dialog share the same "level up resource".

Why not? It's a trade-off. Any good RPG does that. The Elder Scroll series for example, tons of different skills and not all them are related to combat, you have athletics, acrobatics, some related to dialogue, it's all about building your character. You can't work on different skills at the same time, if you work on dialogue skills, you have less time to work on combat skills. Otherwise, everyone will have top dialogue skills and combat, makes no sense. You have to pay for your superior dialogue skills which may help you get things which can maybe be worth for combat.

[Jaron Oberyn]

I just want more dialogue choices like in ME1 rather than the significant amount of automatic dialogue in ME2.



-Polite

[HappyHappyJoyJoy]

Sidney wrote...

FDR and Stalin defeated a dictator, killed thousands of innocent civilians to achiev their ends, built terrible weapons so they're all the same right? So now you wind up in the hands of th FBI or the KGB. Both might threaten you, both might yell at you but, in the end, do you buy that the FBI is gonna put a bullet in your brain if you don't talk? Do you think the KGB will? Yeah, that's the difference in crediblity.

You are not forced to play all or nothing. I sure as heck didn't. You choose to play that way because you have a pre-determined outcome you want to achieve.

Exactly my thoughts, thank you.

As a counterpoint, would you believe the KGB if they tried a "nice guy" path?  Of course not, that's not how they worked.

ME1 allowing you to act like a jerk and still put points into being "charming" was simplistic.  You get to be charming/intimidating by doing, and I like ME2's system of having you become better by doing.