411 réponses à ce sujet

[Lumikki]

I agree that npcs doesn't react right in situation, but that's again money cost problem, because it would require that all npcs have as many different reaction as there is behavior model in right side dialog. That would cost alot of money. So, developers maybe desided that it's more cost efficient just make the left side special choise to fit the characters and npcs behavior model.

Game doesn't force you in roles, you choose to follow archtype role because you real life player need of metagaming. I do agree that there could be more choises in right side of dialogs allow more variet actions for players. But again it could cost more money to make.

Modifié par Lumikki, 08 décembre 2010 - 04:50 .

[Lumikki]

Terror_K wrote...

But then, you yourself admit to not being a roleplaying and being a metagamer yourself, so I shouldn't be surprised I guess.

Okey I say it this ones so that you understand it.

I UNDERSTAND what you want perfectly and why you want it. How ever I disagree, because what you want is not what I want.  I disagree because in my perspective what you want would make roleplaing less good, but improve metagaming.

Meaning right side dialog is try action, they define you role of actions. Left side dialog is moral reputation action, consequence of you role. If you don't have right reputation for role, you can't do the left side action, because it's not trying, it's succeful action based reputation of role, what you may not have in you characters role. So, you Terror_K want to do action what is out of you characters reputation role. That is not roleplaying. What you should do, is ask reputation scenes to left side what does fit you roles, if they are missing from game. Example neutral role scenes.

Modifié par Lumikki, 08 décembre 2010 - 06:57 .

[Googlesaurus]

Lumikki wrote...

I agree that npcs doesn't react right in situation, but that's again money cost problem, because it would require that all npcs have as many different reaction as there is behavior model in right side dialog. That would cost alot of money. So, developers desided that it's more cost efficient just make the left side special choise to fit the characters and npcs behavior model.

I'm not sure it would cost a lot of money or a lot of time, but don't you think it would be time/money well spent? 

Lumikki wrote...

Game doesn't force you in roles, you choose to follow archtype role because you real life player need of metagaming. I do agree that there could be more choises in right side of dialogs allow more variet actions for players. But again it could cost more money to make.

I don't know what you're saying in the first sentence. 

Modifié par Googlesaurus, 08 décembre 2010 - 04:56 .

[Lumikki]

Googlesaurus wrote...

Lumikki wrote...

I agree that npcs doesn't react right in situation, but that's again money cost problem, because it would require that all npcs have as many different reaction as there is behavior model in right side dialog. That would cost alot of money. So, developers desided that it's more cost efficient just make the left side special choise to fit the characters and npcs behavior model.

I'm not sure it would cost a lot of money or a lot of time, but don't you think it would be time/money well spent?

Maybe, I can't tell. Sure I agree it would be nice. It's game companies decission, is it worth of they time.

Lumikki wrote...

Game doesn't force you in roles, you choose to follow archtype role because you real life player need of metagaming. I do agree that there could be more choises in right side of dialogs allow more variet actions for players. But again it could cost more money to make.

I don't know what you're saying in the first sentence.

I don't know if I can explain, because it would require you to look out of your own perspective. I try.

There is three dialog choises in right side, they are all different kind of action. Lets not go yet there why they are sertain actions. Just that they are different ones.

This is like three actions possibility for player.

1. Kiss the npc
2. Shake hands with the npc
3. Hit the npc face

This means player as character CAN ALLWAYS choose one of these actions to try. It may not work to npcs how player wanted, but player can try. This means that player can also try mixed action, kiss some npcs while hit other to face. There is no other limitation than what these three dialog choises give for player. Because you as player can't do action out side of these three possiblity. Les not go left side.

Now if player how ever deside that only dialog choise 1 fits my role, that's players choise of action. But nothing did force player to do that choise. Like saying why can't I do action 3. You can. If you don't do it because "paragon" or "renegade" points, then you aren't roleplaying role of character, you are metagaming you character. Meaning only you as player knows what of these three choises fits in you character role. Roleplayer would allways choose what fits best in role of character, not think is this paragon or renegade path. Because those has no meaning for roleplayer, only the role and choise of action has meaning.

Meaning you people look like it's path what has to be followed way the developers design it, when in reality there is allways the three choises to make. Now only real limit in roleplaying is that if the three choises doesn't give enough choises to play the role of character how you want. Then there is not enough choises in right side of dialog. Because those right side in dialogs are the try diffrent kind of action, they define players role possibilities.

Meaning if you have played you role of character and you as player notice you seem to go pretty much paragon path. Now if there is situation, where you character would hit the npcs face, because role would demand it, but if you deside not to do it as player bcause in game it's renegade action. Then you just did go out of you character role, that's metagaming. Because player defines the role of character, not same system. Game system just gives the possibilities do actions.

Now you could complain that if game doesn't allow you do action what fits the role of character in your opinon. That's fine, because that means there isn't enough choises in right side option. Now the real conflict what we have been here is, if you are more extreme way in path, would game even offer choises what seem to be out of role of character. Meaning if game developers deside that this kind of character in this kind of role would never do that kind of action and don't offer that option. It's question, who is right developers or player.

Now comes my opinion, they should offer it in right side of dialogs, but left side as special action, they never should do it. Because left side isn't try action, it's succesful action based you characters moral behaviors in past. Meaning left side is tracking you charcaters moral choise, like it or not, they are addinal action possiblities, they don't define you role, they are consequences of you role.

Modifié par Lumikki, 08 décembre 2010 - 05:35 .

[Googlesaurus]

Lumikki wrote...

I don't know if I can explain, because it would require you to look out of your own perspective. I try.

There is three dialog choises in right side, they are all different kind of action. Lets not go yet there why they are sertain actions. Just that they are different ones.

This is like three actions possibility for player.

1. Kiss the npc
2. Shake hands with the npc
3. Hit the npc face

This means player as character CAN ALLWAYS choose one of these actions to try. It may not work to npcs how player wanted, but player can try. This means that player can also try mixed action, kiss some npcs while hit other to face. There is no other limitation than what these three dialog choises give for player. Because you as player can't do action out side of these three possiblity. Les not go left side.

Now if player how ever deside that only dialog choise 1 fits my role, that's players choise of action. But nothing did force player to do that choise. Like saying why can't I do action 3. You can. If you don't do it because "paragon" or "renegade" points, then you aren't roleplaying role of character, you are metagaming you character. Meaning only you as player knows what of these three choises fits in you character role. Roleplayer would allways choose what fits best in role of character, not think is this paragon or renegade path. Because those has no meaning for roleplayer, only the role and choise of action has meaning.

Meaning you people look like it's path what has to be followed way the developers design it, when in reality there is allways the three choises to make. Now only real limit in roleplaying is that if the three choises doesn't give enough choises to play the role of character how you want. Then there is not enough choises in right side of dialog. Because those right side in dialogs are the try diffrent kind of action, they define players role possibilities.

Meaning if you have played you role of character and you as player notice you seem to go pretty much paragon path. Now if there is situation, where you character would hit the npcs face, because role would demand it, but if you deside not to do it as player bcause in game it's renegade action. Then you just did go out of you character role, that's metagaming. Because player defines the role of character, not same system. Game system just gives the possibilities do actions.

I'm referring to your lack of prepositions in the initial sentence. 

That's all fine and good, but how does the reinforcing Paragon/Renegade system serve towards that type of roleplaying? As I mentioned before, I can't play certain roles because I need to choose other dialogue options to fill my respective meter.

Modifié par Googlesaurus, 08 décembre 2010 - 05:40 .

[Lumikki]

Googlesaurus wrote...

I'm referring to your lack of prepositions in the initial sentence. 

That's all fine and good, but how does the reinforcing Paragon/Renegade system serve towards that type of roleplaying? As I mentioned before, I can't play certain roles because I need to choose other dialogue options to fill my respective meter.

You think because game has these pre-define paragon and renagade paths, you MUST follow them to play role. WHY you think that way?

Why can't you just choose the other option (wrong moral path) from the right side of dialog?

Oh, addning here. Paragon and renegade system add something more in the game, consequences of roles. Of cause it's very limited as it only support two roles, while player can play many other roles. How does it help roleplaying it self? It adds better scene fits to those two roles when opportunity happens. Like you self sayed, the right side dialog choises doens't catch the emotions of npcs and players right, only the left side does it. But to do it, you need to know what emotions player character has, that's why it's counting the choises made. Consequences of past actions. Other ways, player could choose scene what doesn't fit the players character role played or npcs reactions to players past.

Modifié par Lumikki, 08 décembre 2010 - 06:04 .

[Googlesaurus]

Lumikki wrote...

You think because game has these pre-define paragon and renagade paths, you MUST follow them to play role. WHY you think that way?

Why can't you just choose the other option (wrong moral path) from the right side of dialog?

No. But for some reason some morality choices require other morality choices, choices that my particular character would not choose. He may play Paragon initially because those choices correspond to a particular part of his personality, but by doing so he loses the Renegade choices that are also a natural part of his personality.

[Lumikki]

Sorry, are you saying that right side dialogs doesn't allow wrong morality actions, because players morality is too much in other positions?

Or are you taking left side dialog options?

Modifié par Lumikki, 08 décembre 2010 - 06:12 .

[Googlesaurus]

Lumikki wrote...

Sorry, are you saying that right side dialogs doesn't allow wrong morality actions, because players morality is too much in other positions?

No. I'm saying the system punishes players who want their characters to be more nuanced than pure Paragon and pure Renegade. 

[Lumikki]

Googlesaurus wrote...

Lumikki wrote...

Sorry, are you saying that right side dialogs doesn't allow wrong morality actions, because players morality is too much in other positions?

No. I'm saying the system punishes players who want their characters to be more nuanced than pure Paragon and pure Renegade.

I ques you could look it that way too. Meaning other roles don't get these cool scene rewards. How ever, that's not reason to get accesses to rewards what doesn't belong to you character role, it's reason ask rewards what fits role what you play?

Example, why doesn't neural character get neutral role scenes?

Modifié par Lumikki, 08 décembre 2010 - 09:40 .

[Jebel Krong]

Googlesaurus wrote...

Again you run into the problem between forcing players into archetypal roles and actually allowing them to make full fleshed-out characters. Why can't the dialogue system allow me to become Henry Morrison from The Stepfather, a psychotic killer who is also a nice cheerful neighbor? 

because shepard is still a semi-independent character - as in me1 - you have a certain amount of "wiggle room" in interpretation and playstyle, but not complete freedom to break the base traits of the character (hence renegades not being *evil*).

[LogosDiablo]

Terror_K wrote...

What the hell are you talking about? Of course it limits roleplaying. I just gave several examples of how that's the case. Options are cut off unless you have a certain degree of reputation one way and/or the other.

You do not seem to understand, and I agree with Lumikki. The Paragon/Renegade conversation system is the same as the dark side/light side conversation system in KOTOR. Exceptionally high Paragon status earns you an extra choice/action, as a reward for being strongly enough Paragon. The difference in ME2 is that it also shows you the extra choice/action you would have earned if you were Renegade. And so the effect is now that since gamers such as yourself can see what that ability was, they become incensed and feel entitled to something they didn't earn.

The way Mass Effect 2 is it's basically saying that I'm not allowed to kill a person who screwed me over in a dialogue choice because I haven't murdered 20 innocent babies in the past.

This is just extreme hyperbole.

Sometimes I just think you contradict me for the sake of it, Lumikki, rather than actually properly reading what's been said and actually looking at the way ME2 does things objectively.

These types of accusations could be directed either way and are not constructive to the conversation. If you feel so frustrated, perhaps you should simply agree to disagree.

[LogosDiablo]

Gleym wrote...

Lumikki wrote...

Metagamers looks rewards what they can get while roleplaying and think if they don't get rewards by playing role they like, then they think it cuts of they roleplaying. In reality the metagamers often change they role temporary because rewards. REAL roleplayer doesn't care rewards, they just play role what they have choosen no matter what. If you don't understand this, then you don't understand what roleplaying REALLY is.

What a hilarious twist in that now you're declaring knowledge of what 'roleplaying really is', when you and Phael were repeatedly putting me and others down because of our conception of what a 'proper RPG is'. Well done, you are officially a hypocrite.

That is not at all the case. "Roleplaying" and a "proper RPG" are not the same thing. Roleplaying is a defined concept, with standards set for what is good and bad. "Proper RPG" is a phrase designed to validate the speaker's own beliefs and ridicule those of others.

[Lumikki]

I think there is two problem with ME2 paragon/renegade system. One, it's missing neutral path scene roles. Meaning if player character isn't so extreme ways to one or others, the character should have reason based roles as options. Second is, that in my opinion there should be three scene, paragon, neutral and renegade and not all of them should be allways possible in same situations. Npcs should have they own mind and not allways all type of roles works to every npcs. Meaning sometimes only reason works, sometimes two type of roles work, but not all.

In this thread suggested "persuation skill" is bad options, because it's like paragon now in ME2. Allways able to get npcs do what player wants. Npcs can't have they own mind, if player can allways bypass they personality with persuation skill. So, ME2 is in right track, but just badly executed. Meaning player past action choises should creates role consequences, what can give player role based opportunity options with npcs interactions.

My point here is that people here hate that player who isn't paragon or renagade doens't have any moral reputation role options in dialogs left side. While paragon and renagade gets allways those options when it's possible to get, both gets them. When all of roles should get options, but not every role allways. Meaning all roles has to have advances and disadvances more equal ways, but scenes should be different based players role what is roleplayed.

Modifié par Lumikki, 08 décembre 2010 - 09:45 .

[Jebel Krong]

Terror_K wrote...

Except --as I've said a hundred times now it seems-- the problem isn't that the option isn't available at all, but that it's only available to Renegades who have already done so much red bar of Renegade actions in the past.

We're not talking about not having access to options that aren't there at all, we're talking about not having access to actions that are there IN. THE. GAME. but simply aren't available to a more Paragon character (or in other cases, a Renegade one).

Now before you respond to this post, Lumikki (if you do), I encourage you to read what I wrote at least 5 times and then think on it for at least a couple of minutes.

there's no difference between that mechanism and not being able to carry/use all weapons with all classes, you are fine with one, but not the other because of your very restricted view of what constitutes an rpg. literally your problem boils down to "i play a paragon/neutral character until near the end then, if i want to do something very renegade, i can't!" well, big surprise - of course you can't, because that's not how you've played the character to that point. the fact that the choice *is* there (but greyed out) is moot, it would be illogical to allow it. for one, as a reputation system as much as anything - shepard as a well-known character in the universe is often recognised - a paragon suddenly doing something renegade, or vice-versa, wouldn't be believed even if he wanted to be taken seriously. it's not like it was much different in me1, despite the skill-point attribute, because - without multiple playthroughs, you probably wouldn't have enough points to do it, without seriously sacrificing something else.

[Terror_K]

Just FYI, I'm just not going to bother discussing this paragon/renegade stuff any more. So long as Lumikki just doesn't get it and keeps going in circles, etc. I don't really see the point in wasting my time any further and repeatedly repeating myself.

[Lumikki]

Terror_K wrote...

Just FYI, I'm just not going to bother discussing this paragon/renegade stuff any more. So long as Lumikki just doesn't get it and keeps going in circles, etc. I don't really see the point in wasting my time any further and repeatedly repeating myself.

And you have to say this?

Just ignore me and talk with others, if you want. If my opinions is so much problem to you.

[Jebel Krong]

lumikki gets it just fine, terror_k, it's you and your very narrow-minded world-view that doesn't.

[Gleym]

No, Jebel. The fact of the matter is that as much as Lumikki might CLAIM to get it, the fact is towards the contrary: That pursuing this as a form of intellectual debate is wholly pointless. Lumikki's posts make it very clear what Lumikki wants: For everyone to eventually agree with their stance in the issue. As much as you might love to cynically put me, and others who share my views or opinions, down and declare us 'narrow-minded', the facts remain the same: That at least on our side of the fence, we are willing to concede to points in hopes of finding a middle ground whilst not compromising what we hold as our opinion. What Lumikki, and to an extent yourself, want, Jebel, is for everyone to agree with your way, and Lumikki is willing to endlessly, and ceaselessly circle around in a repetitious parroting of the same thing over and over again without giving any sort of ground, or actual detail when asked. And whenever called on it and outright asked for these details straight-out? Repeating the same thing again.



As always, Jebel, it comes down to the facts in this matter. The facts of the debate, and not the game. The facts, and not the opinions or views.



And the facts are these: Trying to engage Lumikki in a reasonable debate, or rather, in a reasonable case of dialetics, is wholly meaningless when Lumikki intentionally sidesteps anything that might compromise their views and never brings anything new to the discussion in the slightest. This is fact. After having attempted to engage Lumikki in this futility, Terror_K, and myself, and inevitably Johnny no doubt to follow also, have concluded that we would have more luck trying to solve 1st grade mathematics by bashing our heads against a wall covered in spikes than to get Lumikki to actually engage in intelligent and equal discussion, and thus rather than wasting our breath, there is no point in pursuing the matter and simply ignoring the inconsequential parroting of Lumikki is the only course of action left available.

[Lumikki]

It's not ME, Terror_K, Gleym, Jebel or some others. It's all of us, we have disagreement how stuff should be done and we ALL do not give up our own positions as perpective. So, some of us try to talk about it, but there is NO solution to make all happy. Then others start to blame that other don't understand or listen. It's not the case, it's about we all thinking that what ever is our own way, is how it should be done.

Modifié par Lumikki, 08 décembre 2010 - 11:46 .

[Vena_86]

Phaelducan wrote...

Vena... the "least" ME3 should have would be to use the ME2 engine, not really tweak anything, and sell another 5 millions games or whatever.

Again, it's fine to want some things to be different with the game, but it's unrealistic and to be honest slightly arrogant to propose that your system would somehow "fix" a best-selling and critically acclaimed product.

Again, I think traits would be cool, no issue with them. However, if ME3 does absolutely NOTHING different with it's advancement system, it will still please a ton of gamers and the game will be a smash hit.

You are setting yourself up for disappointment if you cling to the idea that ME3 has to have big changes to it's progression system.

*facepalm*

I can not recall using the word "fix" anywhere in this thread! This is about improving depth while maintaining the usability. It is also about providing some brainstorming for BioWare, since Christina Norman has already confirmed that deeper RPG elements are one of the goals for the game!
For crying out loud, I started the first post with this... Did anyone actually read the text part?!!!

All you do is push me into some generic RPG-fanatic box, without further consideration. I don't even want to change the game for people who think ME2 is perfect. I want to ADD improvement for those who see it's unnecessary shortcommings. And it does have shortcommings as proven by many other games and thousands of posts in forums. If I would hate ME2 I would not bother investing any further thought in the franchise. You call me arrogant for purposing possible improvements that are already very streamlined and would not change the game for those who don want it to. But simply because of the fear that anything could be different you see this as some kind of threat.

Modifié par Vena_86, 08 décembre 2010 - 11:51 .

[Terror_K]

Gleym wrote...

No, Jebel. The fact of the matter is that as much as Lumikki might CLAIM to get it, the fact is towards the contrary: That pursuing this as a form of intellectual debate is wholly pointless. Lumikki's posts make it very clear what Lumikki wants: For everyone to eventually agree with their stance in the issue. As much as you might love to cynically put me, and others who share my views or opinions, down and declare us 'narrow-minded', the facts remain the same: That at least on our side of the fence, we are willing to concede to points in hopes of finding a middle ground whilst not compromising what we hold as our opinion. What Lumikki, and to an extent yourself, want, Jebel, is for everyone to agree with your way, and Lumikki is willing to endlessly, and ceaselessly circle around in a repetitious parroting of the same thing over and over again without giving any sort of ground, or actual detail when asked. And whenever called on it and outright asked for these details straight-out? Repeating the same thing again.

As always, Jebel, it comes down to the facts in this matter. The facts of the debate, and not the game. The facts, and not the opinions or views.

And the facts are these: Trying to engage Lumikki in a reasonable debate, or rather, in a reasonable case of dialetics, is wholly meaningless when Lumikki intentionally sidesteps anything that might compromise their views and never brings anything new to the discussion in the slightest. This is fact. After having attempted to engage Lumikki in this futility, Terror_K, and myself, and inevitably Johnny no doubt to follow also, have concluded that we would have more luck trying to solve 1st grade mathematics by bashing our heads against a wall covered in spikes than to get Lumikki to actually engage in intelligent and equal discussion, and thus rather than wasting our breath, there is no point in pursuing the matter and simply ignoring the inconsequential parroting of Lumikki is the only course of action left available.

Exactly. Despite his claims to understand the situation and claiming to even agree with certain points brought up, in the very next post he backtracks and goes back to what he said in the first place again, justifying things with his own imaginary spin on the situation and still making silly claims (such as repeatedly claiming that said system creates metagaming rather than real roleplaying) that seem to completely ignore the facts surrounding the situation. If this was purely an opinion related matter it wouldn't be an issue, but he's not only completely disregarding and ignoring the opinion-based nature of it but the cold hard facts as well.

With you, Jebel, and others that I often disagree with I can usually at least have a decent debate and conversation and discussion about these things  because for the most part  you and the others will at least raise logical and well-defined points and counterpoints, even if I don't really agree with them and --in some cases-- strongly disagree with them. The debate at least moves forward because both sides can fully grasp what's being discussed and there's a good back and forth as well as a progression of moving the debate and discussion forward. With Lumikki this is next to impossible because he's like a broken tape that constantly rewinds and despite claims to understanding and sometimes even agreeing, the whole nature of his argument rewinds again and resets as if everything said simply wasn't, no matter how valid the arguments and points brought up against him are. I can't help but know what the FBI agents felt like in The Simpsons when they were trying to set Homer up as "Homer Thompson" after participating in this thread.

[Sheepie Crusher]

Great Ideas

You should work at Bioware

[Lumikki]

Like I sayed before, keep ignoring me, I have no problems with it, but no need to depate do I depate how you like it. You have free floor, keep discussing, I don't interfare, lets see the real depate.

[SithLordExarKun]

Why aren't you guys in any video gaming company? Since you oh so know it all.