411 réponses à ce sujet

[Big stupid jellyfish]

Terror_K wrote...

Re: Paragon and Renegade

The problem in ME2 with the self-feeding, reputation-based variant is you can't really truly play a character very well beyond being either full-on Paragon or full-on Renegade unless you max both sides and end up skewing your character's reputation in order to do it. You can't easily play the game as, for example, a pro-human Paragon or an understanding Renegade. You can't decide to create a character who is mostly Paragon, but may simply hate turians, or a Renegade who may hate slavery, etc. because when those options end up coming up they're often greyed out because they apparently clash with your current alignment. The game basically forces you to either pick one side or the other in order to succeed and punishes you if you don't. A key example is one my flatmate wondered: "why does my 100% bar-filled Paragon Shepard get an option to kill Samara, but my 80% Renegade one doesn't?"

This. I can't say the new Paragon/Renegade system introduced in ME2 is very bad but it definitely doesn't seem to be well-thought from the roleplaying (=roleplaying your character) perspective.

I do play Paragade (2:1) and finding options that would suit my character grayed out is frustrating; and that may happen with both red and blue ones. Moreover, this system prevents you from choosing neutral options as somewhere at the back of your mind you know that choosing it means less red/blue points and thus less choice in the future dialogues.

[Terror_K]

uzivatel wrote...

Except you have to fill your Paragon / Renegade bars first to actually unlock Charm / Intimidate ranks to invest your skill points.

While this is true, I've personally never had it be an issue. But that may be because I'm generally a completionist, and the only character I've had who wasn't one was pretty much a pure Renegade (it was the reason for him not being a completionist in fact: he was supposed to be a Renegade by the definition: no time wasting and do whatever it takes to do the mission as quickly as possible).

[Jebel Krong]

Terror_K wrote...

Jebel Krong wrote...

really?
because you are the one constantly wanting to be rewarded like a baby
with xp for every little action you take in-game, otherwise the whole xp
system becomes redundant for you...

I don't expect to be rewarded for everything action I take in-game. I just expect for there to be some indication as to where the experience came from beyond a meaningless, seemingly arbritrary number thrown at me at the end of each mission without clarification or context. If the experience you earn has no meaning, why even have it at all? As it stands there's not even any real indication at all that the XP you get at the end of each mission is based on anything and for all we know it could just be a random number BioWare came up with.

The whole point of XP is that they are "experience points" that you earn through your actions. When I have to idea why I earned what I did and how I did it, then it's completely pointless. Simply saying "you got them for completing the mission" is meaningless, especially when I get the same no matter how I went about it. It's like doing an exam made up of fifty questions and everybody who did it getting an A+ with no ticks or crosses or even comments beside which questions were right and wrong.

i hate to break it to you, but the xp rewards - however they are presented are always arbitrary. sure they can be paced so you don't level up too early, but whether they work piece-meal or lump-sum they are still that: arbitrary. the advantage of the me2 system is that you aren't preoccupied with the xp rewards and can enjoy playing the actual game instead.

saying you don't know how you earned xp is ridiculous - you know what actions you took during your playthrough, and it shouldn't be dependent on imaginary rewards, but you, y'know, roleplaying - you of all people should be advocating that, not the reverse.

[Gleym]

SithLordExarKun wrote...

Tell that to the ME1 fanatics seeing as how ME1 isn't the holy grail of video game nor is it a life changing revolutionary game that they lie to themselves about.

And yet ME2 fanatics are just as bad. Only difference is that ME1 fanatics bring up examples of what made ME1 so good, while ME2 fanatics just point at the ratings and reviews and declare that all points are moot on account of its financial success, in spite of the fact that a vast majority of those sales came from the pre-established fanbase of ME1 fanatics.

But I digress. The point is relatively simple, really. ME1 was a strong RPG with weak and flawed Shooter mechanics, while ME2 was a stronger Shooter with the equatable RPG mechanics of God of War and Halo Reach.

[Lumikki]

Terror_K wrote...

What do you even mean by these "special rewards" you keep bringing up all the time? The really tough, hard to get dialogue options or something?

Right side is three main dialog options. Sometimes you get the left side paragon or renegade option, can be greyed too. Those leads small cinematic scene what is based character moral reputation in past. That's what I call rewards, because it rewards player with nice scene and allow player do positive succesful action with npcs.

Does it lure players to play two roles, paragon or renegade. Of course it does, but they are NOT only role what can be played. If player is real roleplayer, they would ignore those "rewards" and play like role of character should be played. Only metagamer like me would play how I like, but take also count "I want those rewards too", so I adjust little bit my playing. Of couse I don't have to adjust much, because paragon side seem to be close to my metagaming anyway.

That is how you give players additional or special dialogue options as rewards for past actions, for reputation and for morality: you actually link the option to the events themselves or events related to it. You don't simply cut players out from having proper dialogue choices because their little red or blue bar isn't high enough.

This isn't moral reputation, it's information reputation as consequences. Yeah, these could be nice too. But they are totally different stuff. One is more like past action consequences and other is emotional consequences from past. It's like different between I own you favor or I help you because you are nice.

I don't know what to say to you. We are talking same thing, but totally from different position, AGAIN.  It's like difference how someone want to see the system as what position. The system is same, but it can be interpret different ways.

If I have read and understand you right, you want that what every role you play, you should have access to these greyed dialog options or you belive that because game system is this way it force you play sertain roles. Both of these sentense are metagaming, because first is going out of roles if player use those options and second would mean player thinks that playing role what they want is less important that playing role what gets rewarded.

So in all, I think only thing what actually matters is, does dialog system right side have enough options to fill roleplayers needs. The left side (moral ones) has no real meaning for roleplayer, they are just addional "rewards", because you get same end result from right side too. You just miss the nice scene.

Modifié par Lumikki, 07 décembre 2010 - 12:42 .

[Kronner]

Terror_K wrote...

As far as I'm concerned, Alpha Protocol was a better RPG than ME2 was in almost every respect. But that's another matter.

I agree. But, Mass Effect 2 is a better game.

[Jebel Krong]

Gleym wrote...

SithLordExarKun wrote...

Tell that to the ME1 fanatics seeing as how ME1 isn't the holy grail of video game nor is it a life changing revolutionary game that they lie to themselves about.

And yet ME2 fanatics are just as bad. Only difference is that ME1 fanatics bring up examples of what made ME1 so good, while ME2 fanatics just point at the ratings and reviews and declare that all points are moot on account of its financial success, in spite of the fact that a vast majority of those sales came from the pre-established fanbase of ME1 fanatics.

But I digress. The point is relatively simple, really. ME1 was a strong RPG with weak and flawed Shooter mechanics, while ME2 was a stronger Shooter with the equatable RPG mechanics of God of War and Halo Reach.

surprise surprise you are wrong: both are TPS/RPG hybrids, ME1 was never "more of an rpg" than anything else, nor was it ever intended to be. you, like terror_k and a few others can keep making that assertion, but you can't change the truth.

[Lumikki]

Jebel Krong wrote...


surprise surprise you are wrong: both are TPS/RPG hybrids, ME1 was never "more of an rpg" than anything else, nor was it ever intended to be. you, like terror_k and a few others can keep making that assertion, but you can't change the truth.

I disagree. ME1 was more "traditional RPG" than ME2. Also because ME2 is missing some elements, like Mako driving (exploration), ME2 feels more combat. Also in ME1 some RPG element where little bit larger than ME2. So, I think saying ME1 was more RPG than ME2 isn't totally wrong, even if both are still TPS/RPG hybrid, but balance is little different between these games.

[Jebel Krong]

Lumikki wrote...

Jebel Krong wrote...


surprise surprise you are wrong: both are TPS/RPG hybrids, ME1 was never "more of an rpg" than anything else, nor was it ever intended to be. you, like terror_k and a few others can keep making that assertion, but you can't change the truth.

I disagree. ME1 was more "traditional RPG" than ME2. Also because ME2 is missing some elements, like Mako driving (exploration), ME2 feels more combat. Also in ME1 some RPG element where little bit larger than ME2. So, I think saying ME1 was more RPG than ME2 isn't totally wrong, even if both are still TPS/RPG hybrid, but balance is little different between these games.

mako driving isn't an rpg or really any genre-specific element. the balance of certain mechanics may have changed (like rpg mechanism affecting combat, for example - no stat-based aiming in the sequel) but both games were aimed squarely at being a hybrid rather than an rpg-with-shooter-elements-tacked-on or vice-versa - you can see that with the evolution of particularly the first game in dev videos etc.

Modifié par Jebel Krong, 07 décembre 2010 - 12:48 .

[Terror_K]

Lumikki wrote...

Terror_K wrote...

What do you even mean by these "special rewards" you keep bringing up all the time? The really tough, hard to get dialogue options or something?

Right side is three main dialog options. Sometimes you get the left side paragon or renegade option, can be greyed too. Those leads small cinematic scene what is based character moral reputation in past. That's what I call rewards, because it rewards player with nice scene and allow player do positive succesful action with npcs.

Does it lure players to play two roles, paragon or renegade. Of course it does, but they are NOT only role what can be played. If player is real roleplayer, they would ignore those "rewards" and play like role of character should be played. Only metagamer like me would play how I like, but take also count "I want those rewards too", so I adjust little bit my playing. Of couse in trough I don't have to adjust much, because paragon side seem to be close to my metagaming anyway.

I see... so these "rewards" you've been speaking of all this time are a little term you've coined for yourself rather than a commonly known aspect of the game almost all the players here would readily recognise then.

See now why these back-and-forths have been an issue? How can I properly debate with somebody referring to something that they've coined themselves as if it's common knowledge?

BioWare never decribed the left-side options as "rewards" or anything like that, they simply said that the right side options are ones that generally move the story along and take you further into the conversation while the left ones give you additional information and choices as to the subject you're currently discussing.

I don't know what to say to you. We are talking same thing, but totally from different position, AGAIN.  It's like difference how someone want to see the system as what position. The system is same, but it can be interpret different ways.

If I have read and understand you right, you want that what every role you play, you should have access to these greyed dialog options or you belive that because game system is this way it force you play sertain roles. Both of these sentense are metagaming, because first is going out of roles if player use those options and second would mean player thinks that playing role what they want is less important that playing role what gets rewarded.

Again, not metagaming at all. It's the direct opposite of it. ME2 almost forces metagaming by funneling you into being one way or the other. As I've said before, proper roleplaying should allow the player to actually roleplay their character in a manner they like. While they may choose to metagame in order to get the best rewards, this isn't automatically the case.

As I said before, if I want to play a Picard-like Shepard then I can't. How can you call it meta-gaming when I'm trying to roleplay a character as intended by the character's personality by making choices they would make? Picard is generally a Paragon character, but hates The Borg. So when the game doesn't allow me to harm a Borg because this would generally be considered a Renegade action because my Picard Shepard doesn't have enough Renegade points then the game is not allowing me to roleplay my character, because Picard Shepard would harm that Borg if he had the choice. In that sense, the game is instead forcing me to metagame my character and choose an option he wouldn't because the option he would pick isn't available.

Now... seriously... please, please, PLEASE tell me this has gotten through to you now, because I don't think I can dumb it down any more, and you still don't seem to understand. No offense, but it's not rocket science.

[Terror_K]

Jebel Krong wrote...

surprise surprise you are wrong: both are TPS/RPG hybrids, ME1 was never "more of an rpg" than anything else, nor was it ever intended to be. you, like terror_k and a few others can keep making that assertion, but you can't change the truth.

Despite early videos of the original game, the fact that BioWare always referred to it as an RPG and never a TPS and that it was never referred to as a shooter in any way at all until the early ME2 videos just prior to E3 2009 where BioWare started saying "it's as much a shooter as an RPG now" (which also, funnily enough, indicates that before it wasn't as much a shooter as it was an RPG).

So... yeah... the truth. The truth is that it didn't really become a RPG/TPS hybrid until ME2 came along. Before that it was an Action-RPG with TPS combat.

[uzivatel]

Terror_K wrote...

While this is true, I've personally never had it be an issue. But that may be because I'm generally a completionist, and the only character I've had who wasn't one was pretty much a pure Renegade (it was the reason for him not being a completionist in fact: he was supposed to be a Renegade by the definition: no time wasting and do whatever it takes to do the mission as quickly as possible).

My characters tend to be more Paragon and as such I usually ended the game with some 8(?) Intimidate points unlocked.

[Jebel Krong]

Terror_K wrote...

Jebel Krong wrote...

surprise surprise you are wrong: both are TPS/RPG hybrids, ME1 was never "more of an rpg" than anything else, nor was it ever intended to be. you, like terror_k and a few others can keep making that assertion, but you can't change the truth.

Despite early videos of the original game, the fact that BioWare always referred to it as an RPG and never a TPS and that it was never referred to as a shooter in any way at all until the early ME2 videos just prior to E3 2009 where BioWare started saying "it's as much a shooter as an RPG now" (which also, funnily enough, indicates that before it wasn't as much a shooter as it was an RPG).

So... yeah... the truth. The truth is that it didn't really become a RPG/TPS hybrid until ME2 came along. Before that it was an Action-RPG with TPS combat.

yeah... now watch those videos again and listen to anyone talking: everyone explicitly states, from very early on, they were aiming for a hybrid. did it start out more rpg-y? yes because that's what the company knows best, but the development and iterations are quite clear if you can follow a linear pattern, that is.... <_<

[Lumikki]

Terror_K wrote...

Now... seriously... please, please, PLEASE tell me this has gotten through to you now, because I don't think I can dumb it down any more, and you still don't seem to understand. No offense, but it's not rocket science.

Sorry, I don't think we can ever agree.  This is not about how the system works, we don't have disagreement there, it's more about perspective from which you are working on it. You view point is so negative way to look at it, that I don't see the system that way.

Modifié par Lumikki, 07 décembre 2010 - 01:30 .

[aeetos21]

Man falling off cliff: "Noooooooo!!!!!!!!!!!!!"



Look there's RPG and then there's RPG. One of the biggest complaints of ME1 was hey, wtf, Shepard is an N7 marine and he's recruiting a badass commando team. Why the hell can't he fire an AR accurately? Hell why can't he hit the broad side of a barn with a shotgun? He isn't a marine and Wrex sure as hell isn't a battlemaster. Couple weeks go by... oh so in a few weeks of Mass Effect 1 missions these two manage to become the elite commandos they were said to be at the beginning of the game?



"You proved yourself in the Blitz! Everybody knows what you can do!" A collector drone in ME2 could shoot better than the majority of Shepards at the start of ME1. So here's the kicker, there's RPGs and then there is RPGs. It takes skill to use a longbow, it takes skill to fight with a shield and sword, it takes skill to pick a lock, it takes skill to cast a fireball or a virulent bomb or revival or whatever Dragon Age magic spell you want to use per example. These are your primary abilities in game like DAO or Oblivion or whatever medieval setting game you'd like to play. Mass Effect is an entirely new story.



You are an N7 marine, the equivalent of a Navy SEAL or British SAS trooper or FBI HRT no matter if you are an adept or a soldier. You are 30 years old at the start of ME1 with over a decade of military experience, you are the top dog - this goes double for ME2 since you're not only the top Alliance marine and former spectre but your entire squad is composed of the best of the best. It makes no sense from a role-playing standpoint to not have Jack (who we see tear through three YMIR mechs and blow holes through steel walls) not be able to lift a lone Blue Sun soldier up in the sky.



In short if you want to learn how to fight with a sword and shield, go play Dragon Age. If you want to be an N7 Marine and Spectre - don't ask to start out with Lancers and shields that can barely take three hits before dissipating and you can't fire at a geth accurately at one hundred yards. These were heavily criticized in ME1 and thankfully addressed in ME2. They way Shepard started out in ME1... he should've still been in boot camp.

[Evil Johnny 666]

Lumikki wrote...

Terror_K wrote...

Re: Paragon and Renegade

The problem in ME2 with the self-feeding, reputation-based variant is you can't really truly play a character very well beyond being either full-on Paragon or full-on Renegade unless you max both sides and end up skewing your character's reputation in order to do it. You can't easily play the game as, for example, a pro-human Paragon or an understanding Renegade. You can't decide to create a character who is mostly Paragon, but may simply hate turians, or a Renegade who may hate slavery, etc. because when those options end up coming up they're often greyed out because they apparently clash with your current alignment. The game basically forces you to either pick one side or the other in order to succeed and punishes you if you don't. A key example is one my flatmate wondered: "why does my 100% bar-filled Paragon Shepard get an option to kill Samara, but my 80% Renegade one doesn't?"

Game doesn't force you, that's what metagamer does, trying to optimize the result as using game system knowledge to they own advance. Meaning REAL roleplayer would not care about paragon/renegade reputation system, just play the role of character regardless of the outcome. Yeah, not everyting worked well in it, but it's alot better than persuation skill was or is.

Except a real roleplayer could end up with a character with personality disorder. I'll return with my TIM example. When making my more renegade character recently, I told TIM I felt well(renegade?), and I agreed with him completely. Then, since I fully trust Cerberus, I tell Jacob I trust him, but since that answer is not just a choice I can make about something I want to tell, but actually a choice about being paragon, renegade or grey, MY Shepard end up saying something which I didn't intended and is incompatible with my character. A moment ago I was being nice to TIM and agreeing with him, the one after I absolutely need to tell Jacob I don't trust him (renegade?) in order to not contradict myself. How is this good design? It isn't. Attributing choices like liking (paragon, no opinion (grey) and not liking (renegade) makes no sense whatsoever. The system is fundamentally flawed no matter how you see it. Roleplaying means being able to play the character YOU want, not letting the game decide for you. Choices should be what I want to tell, not my alignement, and on top of that you never know what **** Shepard could come up with by choosing a line. How is that good roleplaying? It isn't, it's terrible. You never answered me as to why the whole TIM thing made sense. Again, I wrote whole paragraphs about how a moral system doesn't work and how a reputation work is even more absurd. It's not realistic, it makes no sense, it's poor, poor roleplaying, etc... Defending ME2's dialog system over the ME1 which actually makes MORE SENSE is naive. Instead of telling you don't like sacrificing combat points for persuasion ones (which makes sense) and that the ME2 one is fine because it doesn't involve so, you should actually come up with something which makes sense, involving good roleplaying. The moment we have a good, realistic system that makes sense and I won't be able to do something because I roleplayed for real, then we'll agree.

[Evil Johnny 666]

Terror_K wrote...

Now... seriously... please, please, PLEASE
tell me this has gotten through to you now, because I don't think I can
dumb it down any more, and you still don't seem to understand. No
offense, but it's not rocket science.

I think there's nothing to do. I wrote full paragraphs several times and the only thing I get is a couple of sentences. If he doesn't agree with me he should at least address my specific points and tell me why, rather than I don't get what you want with this or no it's called a reputation based moral system rather than a moral system and disregarding all my points which are as valid. Then when we talk about the core roleplaying elements and why they're dumb down, he keeps telling me all I want is a traditional rpg experience which is not true, instead of actually debating my points. It's like "I don't agree with you but I won't tell you a good reason that will stop you from too often reitaring the same thing".

Modifié par Evil Johnny 666, 07 décembre 2010 - 02:10 .

[Lumikki]

So, basicly you say, because story goes sertain way it doesn't allow you to do what you want. Like sayed before, you can't play agaist story.

Example remember situation in ME1, when you where in concil meeting and Saren was there. Did the dialog allow you to say what you wanted. Hell no.

Example in Kotor 2, when you are entering in secret base in north, did game allow not to surrender. Hell no.

Meaning, game force you in sertain ways in story, even if you would want to do or say something little different ways. Because game can't allow players to go beyond story.

I have no problem understand the paragon and renegade moral reputation system, it makes perfect sense to me. Is it perfect system? Far from it, but it's alot better than persuation system. Even if they are little different. Mostly because persuation has no consequences, its one time deal to get npcs do what ever you want as most postive result as possible in all roles. In paragon and renagade system this happens only in pure path role situation, not in all roles.

What's the big deal? One system allow bypass all dialogs when it's possible in all roles. That's not good thing, because it means roles has no dialog consequences.

Evil Johnny 666 wrote...

It's like "I don't agree with you but I won't tell you a good reason that will stop you from too often reitaring the same thing".

More like whats the point of arguing, when somesone can't accept reasons, because they disagree with the reasons. It's imposible tell someone anyting, if they dismiss your counter arguments, because they don't accept reasons as reasons. Same happens both ways, you to me and me to you. So, in the end, it ends in disagreement, what can't be solved.

Modifié par Lumikki, 07 décembre 2010 - 02:26 .

[Vena_86]

aeetos21 wrote...

Man falling off cliff: "Noooooooo!!!!!!!!!!!!!"

Look there's RPG and then there's RPG. One of the biggest complaints of ME1 was hey, wtf, Shepard is an N7 marine and he's recruiting a badass commando team. Why the hell can't he fire an AR accurately? Hell why can't he hit the broad side of a barn with a shotgun? He isn't a marine and Wrex sure as hell isn't a battlemaster. Couple weeks go by... oh so in a few weeks of Mass Effect 1 missions these two manage to become the elite commandos they were said to be at the beginning of the game?

"You proved yourself in the Blitz! Everybody knows what you can do!" A collector drone in ME2 could shoot better than the majority of Shepards at the start of ME1. So here's the kicker, there's RPGs and then there is RPGs. It takes skill to use a longbow, it takes skill to fight with a shield and sword, it takes skill to pick a lock, it takes skill to cast a fireball or a virulent bomb or revival or whatever Dragon Age magic spell you want to use per example. These are your primary abilities in game like DAO or Oblivion or whatever medieval setting game you'd like to play. Mass Effect is an entirely new story.

You are an N7 marine, the equivalent of a Navy SEAL or British SAS trooper or FBI HRT no matter if you are an adept or a soldier. You are 30 years old at the start of ME1 with over a decade of military experience, you are the top dog - this goes double for ME2 since you're not only the top Alliance marine and former spectre but your entire squad is composed of the best of the best. It makes no sense from a role-playing standpoint to not have Jack (who we see tear through three YMIR mechs and blow holes through steel walls) not be able to lift a lone Blue Sun soldier up in the sky.

In short if you want to learn how to fight with a sword and shield, go play Dragon Age. If you want to be an N7 Marine and Spectre - don't ask to start out with Lancers and shields that can barely take three hits before dissipating and you can't fire at a geth accurately at one hundred yards. These were heavily criticized in ME1 and thankfully addressed in ME2. They way Shepard started out in ME1... he should've still been in boot camp.

Okayyyy....what are you refering to? Who is your post directed at? I have seen noone suggesting that Shapard starts weeker than in ME2 or unable to use weapons properly, me included. All the traits are already in the game, in the form of a combined single power. Judging from your post you somehow expect a backwards progress from something like "durability", eventhough it is the opposite.

I really want this to be clear:

There is no intend of making Shepard start out as a weakling. The character should become even better, stronger, faster, smarter throughout the game for the sake of progress, on many possible paths for the sake of customization. Shepard would still start out as the able Spectre he/she is in ME2. Improvement, not reduction!

Some people see something remotely looking like stats and expect World of Warcraft or some Dungeons and Dragons pen and paper copy. Please, read the provided explanation before making assumptions that are missleading to other people who might read the thread!

Modifié par Vena_86, 07 décembre 2010 - 02:57 .

[Evil Johnny 666]

Lumikki wrote...

So, basicly you say, because story goes sertain way it doesn't allow you to do what you want. Like sayed, before you can't play agaist story.

Example remember situation in ME1, when you where in concil meeting and Saren was there. Did the dialog allow you to say what you wanted. Hell no.

Example in Kotor 2, when you are entering in secret base in north, did game allow not to surrender. Hell no.

Meaning, game force you in sertain ways in story, even if you would want to do or say something little different ways. Because game can't allow players to go beyond story.

Are you seriously comparing important story elements with character interaction (for the lack of a better word)? What's the same thing about not being able to surrender in KOTOR 2 and not being able to make a real conversation choice (which happens ALL THE TIME, it was just an example)? I thought highlighting an option meant having a choice "I trust you", that's what I want to say "I trust you Jacob but I think you're working for the wrong people" wut? While I never said ME1 was perfect (it certainly isn't and the dialog is flawed too), with the council thing you actually knew what you were going to say. In fact, ME1's dialog system isn't so tied with morality that your choices are actually choices, and they're paragon/renegade according to logic. Telling TIM you feel good shouldn't be renegade. There was choices in the council thing and choosing any of them resulted in a line of dialog along the lines of what you choose. Taking the words out of my mouth because I had NO WAY WHATSOEVER to know Shepard was going to say something else, an opinion without me knowing it is stupid. On line should equal one opinion, and they at least (even if it makes no sense) should be tied to morality in a logical way. My example wasn't about forcing your way around the STORY, but MY character itself, it's basically taking choice out and severely dumbing down roleplaying. Again, like I said, all 3 choices are basically spoken from different characters, it still doesn't make sense even if the game throws me around and I accept that. But as far as I know, we're not talking about ME1, but ME2, it's not because I say this or that about ME2 that I hold ME1 as the pinnacle, not true at all, the game had several problems, but none were as worse as in ME2.

I have not problem understand the paragon and renegade moral reputation
system, it makes perfect sense to me. Is it perfect system? Far from it,
but it's alot better than persuation system. Even if they are little
different. Mostly because persuation has no consequences, its one time
deal to get npcs do what ever you want as most postive result as
possible in all roles. In paragon and renagade system this happens only
in pure path role situation, not in all roles.

You know what? I write big posts about why it doesn't make sense, and rather than defending your opinion and trying to prove me wrong, you just say that you think it does. Oh and a sentence or two explaining this, but I already talked about it, so I'd have AGAIN, to write why it doesn't make sense only to see you telling me it does. Like when I tell you why ME2's RPG mechanics are dumbed down and instead of trying to prove me wrong, the only thing you can come up wit is "but you want a traditional RPG experience"! Wrong. Then I tell you why and you keep spewing out the same pre-chewed things. It's basically a one way conversation with you, aren't we supposed to debate here or not?

Modifié par Evil Johnny 666, 07 décembre 2010 - 02:36 .

[Omega-202]

lazuli wrote...
Those strike me as interesting and attractive alternatives.  I especially like how points for non-combat skills would be separate from points for combat skills.  To draw a parallel in another company's work, Blizzard seems to be heading in this direction with Diablo 3.  By their reasoning, players should not have to choose between an exciting new active skill and boring numbers that might actually be more effective.

I guess part of the reason I favor ME1's system over ME2's is that ME1 does not punish you for repeated playthroughs, while ME2 does.

Are you referring to the fact that ME2 does not carry over Paragon/Renegade points in NG+?  I think they said that it was an artifact of how the new system works where your ability to unlock a conversation option is not linked to the TOTAL number of points you've earned, but the total number earned divided by the total number that is available at that point in the game.  

I think that it was a huge mistake not to have SOME sort of carry over, but I don't think they did it on purpose.  

[Terror_K]

Lumikki wrote...

So, basicly you say, because story goes sertain way it doesn't allow you to do what you want. Like sayed, before you can't play agaist story.

Example remember situation in ME1, when you where in concil meeting and Saren was there. Did the dialog allow you to say what you wanted. Hell no.

Example in Kotor 2, when you are entering in secret base in north, did game allow not to surrender. Hell no.

Meaning, game force you in sertain ways in story, even if you would want to do or say something little different ways. Because game can't allow players to go beyond story.

That's all very well when the options are never there in any playthrough. It's another story when they're only there for certain Shepards because of the state of their Paragon or Renegade meter though.

[Evil Johnny 666]

Lumikki wrote...
What's the big deal? One system allow bypass all dialogs when it's possible in all roles. That's not good thing, because it means roles has no dialog consequences.

It wasn't the case in ME1. Not every role implied having persuation skills. Plus, charm and intimidate brought different dialog options.

Evil Johnny 666 wrote...

It's like "I don't agree with you but I won't tell you a good reason that will stop you from too often reitaring the same thing".

More like whats the point of arguing, when somesone can't accept reasons, because they disagree with the reasons. It's imposible tell someone anyting, if they dismiss your counter arguments, because they don't accept reasons as reasons. Same happens both ways, you to me and me to you. So, in the end, it ends in disagreement, what can't be solved.

Well if you disagree with the reasons why don't you explain me why! Basically, I try to explain something and the only thing you can come up with is "I disagree"! If we had real debate exchanges and we reach a stage where we really can't reach an agreement because of different views I can get it, but here I don't have arguments in relation with your views, I only get your overall view, not why you think so, and that's the point of debating. You can't keep saying why you think you are right while ignoring my arguments and then telling me we can't agree with each other's points. My arguments may not be good, but I'll never know this since you barely address my points.





And I'd still like to know and anyone can answer me here, why does the game (ME1 was that way too) FORCES me a morality? Why can't I make a character consistent with his views yet either end up with a character with personality disorder or not be able to persuade someone about something because I'm not "good enough"? It's all subjective to a certain point and particularly ME2 is VERY specific about this.

Why such things as bypassing and hacking exists when there is no skill involved, there could be an auto-hack button and it would just save you time. How taking character progression out of the equation is as much RPG?

Modifié par Evil Johnny 666, 07 décembre 2010 - 02:42 .

[Lumikki]

Evil Johnny 666 wrote...

Are you seriously comparing important story elements with character interaction (for the lack of a better word)? What's the same thing about not being able to surrender in KOTOR 2 and not being able to make a real conversation choice (which happens ALL THE TIME, it was just an example)? I thought highlighting an option meant having a choice "I trust you", that's what I want to say "I trust you Jacob but I think you're working for the wrong people" wut? While I never said ME1 was perfect (it certainly isn't and the dialog is flawed too), with the council thing you actually knew what you were going to say. In fact, ME1's dialog system isn't so tied with morality that your choices are actually choices, and they're paragon/renegade according to logic. Telling TIM you feel good shouldn't be paragon. There was choices in the council thing and choosing any of them resulted in a line of dialog along the lines of what you choose. Taking the words out of my mouth because I had NO WAY WHATSOEVER to know Shepard was going to say something else, an opinion without me knowing it is stupid. On line should equal one opinion, and they at least (even if it makes no sense) should be tied to morality in a logical way. My example wasn't about forcing your way around the STORY, but MY character itself, it's basically taking choice out and severely dumbing down roleplaying. Again, like I said, all 3 choices are basically spoken from different characters, it still doesn't make sense even if the game throws me around and I accept that. But as far as I know, we're not talking about ME1, but ME2, it's not because I say this or that about ME2 that I hold ME1 as the pinnacle, not true at all, the game had several problems, but none were as worse as in ME2.

In both games ME1 and ME2 I was forced often say what I did not want. But that's, I don't start complain every time I can't do what I want. Yes, it would be nice if dialog choises where not so idiotic. Often when I choose renegade option, Shepard acts like ****. That's why I more often did choose neutral or paragon option, because they made better sense. I never feeled like they are three different persons, but I do understand why someone could, because those paths where allways so extreme. This includes both games.

You know what? I write big posts about why it doesn't make sense, and rather than defending your opinion and trying to prove me wrong, you just say that you think it does. Oh and a sentence or two explaining this, but I already talked about it, so I'd have AGAIN, to write why it doesn't make sense only to see you telling me it does. Like when I tell you why ME2's RPG mechanics are dumbed down and instead of trying to prove me wrong, the only thing you can come up wit is "but you want a traditional RPG experience"! Wrong. Then I tell you why and you keep spewing out the same pre-chewed things. It's basically a one way conversation with you, aren't we supposed to debate here or not?

I can't prove you to be wrong, because you opinion is just opinion, there is no right or wrong here, just opinions. You want depate something, then write one subject here and we depate that if you want. Or do you just want to complain how I avoid depating with you?

Modifié par Lumikki, 07 décembre 2010 - 02:48 .

[Evil Johnny 666]

Terror_K wrote...

Jebel Krong wrote...

surprise surprise you are wrong: both are TPS/RPG hybrids, ME1 was never "more of an rpg" than anything else, nor was it ever intended to be. you, like terror_k and a few others can keep making that assertion, but you can't change the truth.

Despite early videos of the original game, the fact that BioWare always referred to it as an RPG and never a TPS and that it was never referred to as a shooter in any way at all until the early ME2 videos just prior to E3 2009 where BioWare started saying "it's as much a shooter as an RPG now" (which also, funnily enough, indicates that before it wasn't as much a shooter as it was an RPG).

So... yeah... the truth. The truth is that it didn't really become a RPG/TPS hybrid until ME2 came along. Before that it was an Action-RPG with TPS combat.

Even then, nothing excuses one or two of the elements of an hybrid genre to suck. An RPG/TPS hybrid doesn't mean it's any less of an RPG, bad RPG mechanics doesn't make the whole thing better because it's an hybrid. 1 half-asses + 1 half-assed still = half assed. If there's RPG in the name it HAS to be an RPG, if there's shooter in the name, it HAS to be a shooter. If it has both in the name, it HAS to be both. So even if people disagree about ME being an RPG or hybrid, it still has to be RPG.