147 réponses à ce sujet

[Mr. MannlyMan]

HappyHappyJoyJoy wrote...

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.

That's not what people are talking about. People want to have the option of being neutral-renegade and netural-paragon, and still be able to act like a real leader by telling Miranda and Jack to cool off. They want unlockable persuasion options that are accessible to people who like to play more balanced characters. 

ME1 restricted how far you could progress your charm/intimidate skills based on how full your paragon and renegade meters were. So true paragons were unable to max-out their Intimidate skillbar, so a really paragon-aligned Shepard would rarely be able to convince Saren to kill himself, and so on.

If anything, your preference (that intimidate/charm options should be dependent on Shepard's alignment) would work better if the rule was applied to Interrupts instead of dialogue branches. We all know that interrupts are naturally more forceful and tend to fall towards the extremes of Renegade/Paragon, so why not make those dependent on your alignment meters? They could be specially exclusive to the more extreme characters.

I think you and Sid are bringing in too much psychology into the discussion. The bottom line is that true-Renegade and true-Paragon Shepard shouldn't always equal Most-Charismatic Shepard. It doesn't make any sense. There should be room for the player to make a range of paragon and renegade choices without being made to feel like he's gimping his Shepard.

The consequences for your actions should come through in the actual story, not in whether or not you'll have enough data points to convince so-and-so to surrender later on ( and does this random colonist really know about the bad things I've been doing while I've been away on top-secret missions for the Council? I hope not. So your arguments about Shepard's reputation fail).

Modifié par Mr. MannlyMan, 27 novembre 2010 - 11:13 .

[Omega-202]

I completely disagree with this sentiment.

I don't want to have to choose between handicapping my character's combat abilities or allowing him to complete the game with the optimal dialogue options.

In ME1, you had to choose between being able to maximize your combat efficiency or being able to talk properly. In my opinion, ME2 was a huge step forward in this regard.

Was ME2's system perfect? No, but it was a step in the right direction. Do I agree that there shouldn't be a "penalty" for people who choose to go more towards the "mixed" route? Absolutely, but wasting talent points on "Persuasion" abilities isn't the answer.

[Gleym]

I'd prefer it if my accuracy was once more affected by my stats and skill points. That's what made ME1 a blend between RPG and Shooter to me. Once they removed that, along with everything else remniscent of an RPG, it just became a Shooter with dialog options and a character creation screen, not an RPG.

Omega-202 wrote...

I completely disagree with this sentiment.
I
don't want to have to choose between handicapping my character's combat
abilities or allowing him to complete the game with the optimal
dialogue options.

Why not? That's what an RPG is about: Making judgement calls on how you want to create and customize your character. The problem is that these days, casual gamers have the attention span of a goldfish and just want to go in guns blazing without bothering to even try to learn to play a game. Content is traded in for casual gaming. And that's never a good thing.

Modifié par Gleym, 28 novembre 2010 - 01:10 .

[Praetor Knight]

I'd suggest using something like in Dragon Age with the Coercion skill, that in Mass Effect the skill would be tied to the class passive (you get a % paragon/renegade bonus anyway right?).

so for example, if you are a lvl 4 Commando you then have all of persuasion options open for conversations. Having the two extremes together should not be a big deal, and would make being a paragon and renegade more situational, especially with how ME does morality as it is already.

And then to add another fun layer, for example, if you try to be paragon with a krogan you might fail in the attempt to persuade them, and then you face the consequences, sort of like some conversations in Dragon Age, the Landsmeet for example was nicely done.

Edit: spell check fail...

Modifié par Praetor Shepard, 28 novembre 2010 - 01:33 .

[thebrute7]

My only question is why have such a tree at all. Just give us all the options from the start, or let them unlock as our character gains levels, that way when you hit max level you can do all options or something.



I want to be able to play my characters personality however that characters personality is, not how the game designers want me to be.

[maxut85]

I agree. It makes much more sense to have skill investment instead of making you stick renegade or paragon. Hey I want a mix of paragon and renegade actions.

[HappyHappyJoyJoy]

I do agree about the threshold.  I played a Renegade Shepard once, and failed both Samara-Morinth and Tali-Legion. 

[Super ._. Shepard]

there should be more dialogue choices like in DA

[HBC Dresden]

What pisses me off is when the two head doctors said the Paragon/Renegade system is more flexible in ME2 than ME1. Total and absolute BS.

[Omega-202]

Gleym wrote...

I'd prefer it if my accuracy was once more affected by my stats and skill points. That's what made ME1 a blend between RPG and Shooter to me. Once they removed that, along with everything else remniscent of an RPG, it just became a Shooter with dialog options and a character creation screen, not an RPG.

Why not? That's what an RPG is about: Making judgement calls on how you want to create and customize your character. The problem is that these days, casual gamers have the attention span of a goldfish and just want to go in guns blazing without bothering to even try to learn to play a game. Content is traded in for casual gaming. And that's never a good thing.

Why not?  Because such a limitation is a relic of days past.  There used to be a purpose to this min/maxing.  It kept old RPG's balanced on a macroscopic scale.  This is no longer necessary.  Newer RPGs can be balanced with a different set of assumptions of the power of "conversation skills".  In the past, a single "persuasion" dice roll could completely change or avoid an encounter.  Mass Effect conversations don't have that level of power.

The only reason you like this facet is nostalgia.  It reminds you of games past.  There is nothing inherently good about having to pointlessly sacrifice intrinsic abilities in order to fully experience part of the game.  A game like Mass Effect has enough replay value without needing to artificially gate certain facets through additional skill-point lock out. 

The fact of the matter is that what you consider "casual gaming" is more widely enjoyed than your "hardcore" gaming. 

Let me ask you this: what was "learned" by having separate skill points for conversation skills in ME1?  The only thing I learned was that it was a waste to put points into them because by the third NG+, you could max them out without having to invest a single point.  Inherently, that points to it being a bad system.  

There are still PLENTY of judgement calls in building your character in ME2.  Do I think there should have been more customization?  Yes.  But skill points for conversations would not have accomplished this at all.  

Modifié par Omega-202, 28 novembre 2010 - 02:10 .

[ooglatjama]

I never noticed the accuracy in ME1 as I just spammed pistol shots everywhere.

[Ponchoe]

 I'd prefer that they remove the R/P system and just give us an array of choices instead, with their consequences attached. Something more along the lines of DA:O.

Honestly, I just find it silly how I need to invest into my personality, to speak well. Or act "good".

Or how some random conversation gave me Paragon points, and then let's me inch closer to conversation options that require high points (threshold). 

Modifié par Ponchoe, 28 novembre 2010 - 02:35 .

[Gleym]

Omega-202 wrote...

(Snip)

You know what? Screw it. I'm fed up trying to reason with people. If you can't beat 'em, join 'em. So from now on I'll just advocate the casual gamer crowd since it's so much more enjoyable. I've seen the light. Let's just remove all options from gameplay altogether. Keep it simple. That way nobody has to bother thinking, since that hurts the brain so much these days. After all, games are about having fun, right? Who wants to think while playing a game. Better to just sit down with a controller and shut off your brain while playing - cause all gamers who truly value the entertainment factor of gaming these days only play on the Xbox and PS3, so to hell with the PC gamer crew, those guys are just a bunch of gimps anyways, most of 'em hardcore gamers who want those silly things like choices and a learning curve to their game to make it innovative and increase the replay value. That stuff's for losers, after all.

Should cut down the dialog too. There's too much dialog in the game. People don't have time to listen to people chatter on when there's aliens to shoot! And screw the dialog choices too. Just give us two options: Yes, and No. And both options end with Shepard shooting someone in the FACE! Cause that's what badass shooter games are all about. Should remove all the male characters too, except for Joker. Cause he's your snarky sidekick character. The rest of the party should be nothing but big-breasted chicks like Miranda who are all about sex appeal. The third-person thing is overrated too. The game should focus more on being like other shooter games and be in first-person. And you should only be able to visit two types of places outside of the ship: Places where you shoot people, and strip clubs. I mean, where else would you even WANT to go?

Yep, casual gaming is awesome. In fact, I'm gonna play some Duke Nukem now, cause that's what all games should be like. Nothing but ******, and shooting aliens.

Modifié par Gleym, 28 novembre 2010 - 07:02 .

[revengeance]

Mr. MannlyMan wrote...

HappyHappyJoyJoy wrote...

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.

That's not what people are talking about. People want to have the option of being neutral-renegade and netural-paragon, and still be able to act like a real leader by telling Miranda and Jack to cool off. They want unlockable persuasion options that are accessible to people who like to play more balanced characters. 

ME1 restricted how far you could progress your charm/intimidate skills based on how full your paragon and renegade meters were. So true paragons were unable to max-out their Intimidate skillbar, so a really paragon-aligned Shepard would rarely be able to convince Saren to kill himself, and so on.

If anything, your preference (that intimidate/charm options should be dependent on Shepard's alignment) would work better if the rule was applied to Interrupts instead of dialogue branches. We all know that interrupts are naturally more forceful and tend to fall towards the extremes of Renegade/Paragon, so why not make those dependent on your alignment meters? They could be specially exclusive to the more extreme characters.

I think you and Sid are bringing in too much psychology into the discussion. The bottom line is that true-Renegade and true-Paragon Shepard shouldn't always equal Most-Charismatic Shepard. It doesn't make any sense. There should be room for the player to make a range of paragon and renegade choices without being made to feel like he's gimping his Shepard.

The consequences for your actions should come through in the actual story, not in whether or not you'll have enough data points to convince so-and-so to surrender later on ( and does this random colonist really know about the bad things I've been doing while I've been away on top-secret missions for the Council? I hope not. So your arguments about Shepard's reputation fail).

Well said sir...well said

[revengeance]

ooglatjama wrote...

I never noticed the accuracy in ME1 as I just spammed pistol shots everywhere.

Lol

[revengeance]

HBC Dresden wrote...

What pisses me off is when the two head doctors said the Paragon/Renegade system is more flexible in ME2 than ME1. Total and absolute BS.

Yeah it was better, you should not be forced to go down one path. They basically force you to be pure evil or vice versa in this game.

Modifié par revengeance, 28 novembre 2010 - 10:54 .

[revengeance]

thebrute7 wrote...

My only question is why have such a tree at all. Just give us all the options from the start, or let them unlock as our character gains levels, that way when you hit max level you can do all options or something.

I want to be able to play my characters personality however that characters personality is, not how the game designers want me to be.

Exactly this is what i am saying. It's that simple, we buy video games to have fun and i do not find it fun to be forced to do something like that you know. It ruins this kind of game for me.

[revengeance]

Blasto the jelly wrote...

Blasto approves of this thread, Bring back dialogue skills to ME3 please.

You sir are the man.

[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.

[nutshell43]

Your class skill already gives a massive bonus to paragade.
Make dialogue choices completely dependent on the class skill (to allow people to role-play as they want and because it's stupid that a bad guy can't be charming) but have interrupts depend on paragade (because they're by and large pretty extreme actions. It makes sense that you can only take them if your personality skews in that direction anyway).

Everyone is happy and world peace breaks out - unless you start WWIII with a renegade interrupt, of course. =)

Modifié par nutshell43, 28 novembre 2010 - 01:40 .

[Jonny110]

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.

listen to this man  !!

[Mecha Tengu]

please remember kiddies. Mass Effect is a TPS not an FPS. Stop calling it an FPS

[Autoclave]

Evil Johnny 666 wrote...

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.

Trade off? Oh yeah?? Then accept the ME2 trade off, that you are not some sort of shizoid with split-personality disorder. If Shep is sane, he will not bounce from one extreme of his character to another. 

I really hate sharing the combat skills and persuasion skill from the same skill pool. I don't want and I HATE to play half of the game with a gimped character that cannot shoot a damn fly just because he was forced to waste his skill points on some charming skill. 

I understand having a tradeoff between revenant and widow for example. This is a true RPG trade off. All this dialogue crap is disgusting. And if you are saying persuasion being a skill that has to be learned, well, shep is learning it by actually talking! The more you speak like a badass, the more intimidating you are able to seem later. 

You are all ppl pissed off because you cannot get some quests solved by staying neutral. Some of you really need a third "neutral" dialogue skill. 

Finally, as a smart person has noted here, Mass Effect is not fallout (1,2) were you can talk you way out of some combat situations. And I'd hate to invest my skill points into charming instead of a level 4 charge, just to convince miranda and jack to stay cool. 

Modifié par Autoclave, 28 novembre 2010 - 03:33 .

[Evil Johnny 666]

Autoclave wrote...

Evil Johnny 666 wrote...

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.

Trade off? Oh yeah?? Then accept the ME2 trade off, that you are not some sort of shizoid with split-personality disorder. If Shep is sane, he will not bounce from one extreme of his character to another. 

I really hate sharing the combat skills and persuasion skill from the same skill pool. I don't want and I HATE to play half of the game with a gimped character that cannot shoot a damn fly just because he was forced to waste his skill points on some charming skill. 

I understand having a tradeoff between revenant and widow for example. This is a true RPG trade off. All this dialogue crap is disgusting. And if you are saying persuasion being a skill that has to be learned, well, shep is learning it by actually talking! The more you speak like a badass, the more intimidating you are able to seem later. 

You are all ppl pissed off because you cannot get some quests solved by staying neutral. Some of you really need a third "neutral" dialogue skill. 

Finally, as a smart person has noted here, Mass Effect is not fallout (1,2) were you can talk you way out of some combat situations. And I'd hate to invest my skill points into charming instead of a level 4 charge, just to convince miranda and jack to stay cool. 

Thing is the ME2 trade off makes no sense. Schizoid with split personality disorder? Your out of your mind. ME2 FORCES you a morale, so following your own morale is being schizord with split personality disorder? Telling the Illusive Man you're doing well and then telling Jacob you trusts him (while telling him  he works for the wrong people, you don't know Shepard's going to say this and there's no options for telling Jacob you trust him without telling this) is having a split personallity disorder? If I want to be a mercyful savior but show dangerous mercs on omega who's boss, I have a split personallity disorder? Your either a ****ing saint or a jackass, both one-dimentional boring personalities, if my shepard is a schizoid, the purely paragon or renegade one suffers from the not-having-any-personallity personallity disorder. Each choice are often different, but TIED to a morale stance, so if you want your Shepard to say something in particular, often you have to deal with him turning preachy which you don't want him to, yet it's the only option which you want to use. If anything it's the developpers who makes you a schizoid, not me, it's them who have a broken dialog system.

Then, tell me why I should get a conversational trade-off from my moral stance? How is this logic? It's a SKILL, it's not because you SHOW yourself as more paragon or renegade that you're better to convince people to do things. Sharing dialog skills and combat skills only makes sense, you can't practice too skills at the same time. In real life, someone who practices his rhetoric a great deal will have less time to do other things depending on his choice. Someone can be far better than you at rhetorics, but can keep up with you in sports because that's what you practice most. This makes sense, it's archaic or whatever, it's realistic, a real trade-off. You are not forced to "waste" skill points in conversation if you want to be a good shooter, just upgrade your shooting and let the conversation one, you can't get everything you know and that's the power of a real RPG. The good RPG will let you choose between several things, things which can make you better at some, worse at other things and that's okay, because agan it's realistic and only makes your character deeper. I can tell you hate real RPGs...

Modifié par Evil Johnny 666, 28 novembre 2010 - 04:10 .