81 réponses à ce sujet

[redzin]

Warning: Some minor ME2 spoilers ahead.


I've played through Mass Effect 1 countless times (both the PC and XBox versions) and Mass Effect 2 4-5 times (only the PC version), and while the sequel is no doubt greatly improved, there are a few changes that I don't feel were completely thought through. I'm only gonna talk about the changes to the morality system, because it's really the only thing that I feel didn't improve at all (and I also don't want to clutter the thread).


The Problem:
In ME 1 the Paragon/Renegade scores didn't have any real effect on anything. In ME 2 the morality scores affect your ability to persuade people. Higher Paragon/Renegade scores unlock new options in conversations. In addition, if you aren't very, very persuasive then it's impossible to ensure the survival of your entire team.

In other words, if you don't have a very high Paragon or Renegade score, then some of your team members will die (due to low loyalty).

So why is that a problem? It's a problem because to get a high Paragon/Renegade score, you have to perform a certain set of actions. Essentially, when a player is faced with a choice then the player should ideally think "Hmm, what do I feel is the right thing to do in this situation?" but because the player is forced to collect a high amount of Paragon/Renegade points the player will instead think "Hmm, how do I get the most do-gooder/douchebag points in this situation?"

And not only that, it also forces players to focus exclusively on either the do-gooder or the douchebag points - you have to always pick the Paragon or always pick the Renegade option to get enough points in either.

Some examples: Being anti-Cerberus and pro-genophage will, respectively, gain Paragon and Renegade points. Being pro-Rachni and anti-Geth is also "contradictory". With the system in ME2 you couldn't make many of these "contradictory" choices, unless you were willing to sacrifice some team members. You have to follow either the Paragon or Renegade paths, which is sad because the game works excellent without this restriction.

TL;DR version / Summary: the need to have a high amount of Paragon or Renegade points has reduced decision making to remembering whether you want the red or the blue points.


My Suggestion:
Simply disconnect the ability to persuade from the morality compass, like it was in ME1. Addtionally I feel the morality compass would make more sense with just one bar; it goes up on "paragon" actions and down on "renegade" actions. (Or just scrap the morality compass completely like in Dragon Age...)



I hope I exlained the issue properly, and sorry if it was a bit rant-ish.

Modifié par redzin, 07 janvier 2011 - 05:07 .

[SpockLives]

I agree completely. The stupid morality persuade skill is one of the dumbest changes to ME2. Please, Bioware, give us an actual persuade skill to put points into and do away with Paragon/Renegade based persuasion. The ME2 system encourages metagaming.

[Chuvvy]

Take out Paragon and Renegade all together. It makes morally grey impossible.

[supakillaii]

Yeah the morale talky thing in ME2 was complete ****. For ME3 there should be a single skill, like there were two in Mass Effect, that open the Paragon and Renegade options. The Paragon and Renegade points should have nothing to do with them.

[supakillaii]

-snip BiowareSlowcialNetwork-

Modifié par supakillaii, 07 janvier 2011 - 03:32 .

[xentar]

This has been discussed to death here already. Some people think this is actually normal (i. e. your reputation helping you in persuasion efforts and inability to persuade being a result of your "ambivalent" nature). I tend to think similarly to the OP that morality has little to do with persuasion. Given the existing amount of discussion, I don't think there needs to be more of it.

[redzin]

xentar wrote...

This has been discussed to death here already. Some people think this is actually normal (i. e. your reputation helping you in persuasion efforts and inability to persuade being a result of your "ambivalent" nature). I tend to think similarly to the OP that morality has little to do with persuasion. Given the existing amount of discussion, I don't think there needs to be more of it.

But I wasn't part of that discussion Just go away if you've had enough of it.

Anyway, the morality system is not a representation of your reputation. Your reputation is decided through the reputation choice you made when creating the character in ME1 (Ruthless, Lone Survivor, War Hero) and your actions throughout ME1 also affects your reputation in ME2 to some degree.

Little spoiler ahead, sorry...
And also, choosing a mixture of paragon and renegade actions doesn't make your character ambivalant. Choosing to affirm that Mordin did the right thing with the genophage (a renegade choice) doesn't mean I'll let him shoot his former student (stopping him is a paragon action). That's not being ambivalent, that's realizing the difference between preserving galactic stability and committing murder. But again, you have to think about the points...

(Also, I know you agreed with me, but you were still the only one to present a counter argument...)

Modifié par redzin, 07 janvier 2011 - 05:51 .

[Praetor Knight]

I prefer one skill to be able to both Charm or Intimidate anyone in all conversations. But the two Bars can remain if there will some sort of success check, similar to how Dragon Age handled conversations.

I would also prefer to replace the % Paragon/Renegade increase with a similar gameplay mechanic to the Coercion skill in DA, and maybe connected to the class passive, but I'm fine with whatever, as long as the score system of ME2, stays in ME2.

Also knowing exactly what Shep will say would be nice too.

[redzin]

m4walker wrote...

You are right, in real life , the people to who you are talking doesn't know how good you are or how bad, there's something called rhetoric in lenguage...that is how you make someone understand something, or maybe making him (her)change his(her) mind.

but, here's the "thing":

for example,  being against the genophage is something paragon, so, everyone should say "shepard is a hero, he saved the krogan from genophage" or something like that..that makes everyone trust more in you, because you are a hero, got me? so, maybe the way bioware did it is pretty good, i dont know..

is that what you meant with the topic, right?

That is what I meant, yes.

But being renowned for doing various things (like saving the Krogan) is ok, that is not the problem. The problem is that you have to always pick the "same" options. Either you're ALWAYS a Paragon, or you're ALWAYS a renegade. You can't sometimes pick the red option and and then other times pick the blue option, depending on what you personally think is best. If you do that, your team members will be dying. For example, what if you want to save the Krogan, but also want to stay with Cerberus and generally like Cerberus? You can't do that, unless you want to lose your ability to persuade people.

It's not a bad thing to be renowned for doing stuff, but the system in ME2 limits you to only 2 paths, when there could easily be an infinite number, like in the first game. Or like in Dragon Age. My point is simply that it's a bad thing to be forced to always take the red, or always take the blue options.

[JrayM16]

I agree with the sentiment, but disagree that ME1 did it any better. Forgive me if I'm mistaken, but I recall that in ME1, you were required to have a certain amount of paragon or renegade points to make higher tiers of the respective charm or intimidate skills available for purchase.



What I mean is, you would have to have a paragon score of say, 25, and then you would be allowed to buy the next three ranks along the charm skill.

[ScotOfClanDonald]

The "talky" skills in the first game were really quite annoying. The system in ME2 was much more streamlined, and I preferred it overall, largely because Shepard shouldn't have to be levelling up his or her speech at this point; (s)he's the damned galactic hero already! The reputation speaks for itself.

[xentar]

ScotOfClanDonald wrote...

The "talky" skills in the first game were really quite annoying. The system in ME2 was much more streamlined, and I preferred it overall, largely because Shepard shouldn't have to be levelling up his or her speech at this point; (s)he's the damned galactic hero already! The reputation speaks for itself.

That argument can be used for any skill or ability.

[Nightwriter]

Roleplayers don't like it when they are forced to polarize themselves just to become persuasive.

Agree with the OP muchly.

[redzin]

JrayM16 wrote...

I agree with the sentiment, but disagree
that ME1 did it any better. Forgive me if I'm mistaken, but I recall
that in ME1, you were required to have a certain amount of paragon or
renegade points to make higher tiers of the respective charm or
intimidate skills available for purchase.

What I mean is, you
would have to have a paragon score of say, 25, and then you would be
allowed to buy the next three ranks along the charm skill.

You're right, I had forgotten that. The difference really is that in ME 1 you could get by without unlocking the last 1-2 points. In ME2 it has major plot implications if your paragon/renegade score isn't high enough.

But yeah, it was an issue in the first game too.

ScotOfClanDonald wrote...

The "talky" skills in the first
game were really quite annoying. The system in ME2 was much more
streamlined, and I preferred it overall, largely because Shepard
shouldn't have to be levelling up his or her speech at this point;
(s)he's the damned galactic hero already! The reputation speaks for
itself.

I agree that the system in ME1 wasn't perfect, but it only got worse in ME2. Essentially the system in ME2 means that there's only 2 viable ways to play the game; either you're a complete paragon, or you're a complete renegade. You can only play the game in these 2 predefined ways... unless you want your team to die.

In any case, it doesn't make sense for your reputation to be the major factor in how diplomatic or menacing you can present yourself. Tali for example has a huge reputation with the quarians, but is still unable to present herself well in her loyalty mission. Being of high reputation doesn't mean you can present yourself convincingly, and vice versa.

Increasing persuasiveness could come from the class skills. In ME 2 the class skills give a % bonus to your paragon/renegade scores. They could just change it so that it flatly opens new dialogue options with each point. This would be sort of like ME1, but wouldn't feel like a waste of points because you also get other bonuses from the class skills.

Anyway, I don't claim to have the best solution, I'm just pointing out a problem with the conversation/morality system, which certainly didn't get any better in ME2. They fixed one issue by creating many other.

Modifié par redzin, 07 janvier 2011 - 09:10 .

[slimgrin]

Slidell505 wrote...

Take out Paragon and Renegade all together. It makes morally grey impossible.

This is why the devs at CD projekt condemned it. It might be best to scrap the idea for the sake of meanigful choice and consequence. I doubt that will happen. 

[Comdawg]

I preferred ME2 over ME1 because in Mass Effect almost all the skills are centered around your combat, and then you had these these two outside skills for conversation. Which means that basically you had to be weaker in combat in order to do full charms or intimidates. I think ME2 had the right idea with combining your class skill with your ability to charm or intimidate, they just need to not make some decisions with such high charm/intimidate requirements so that players can have more flexibility making decisions and not feel penalized.

[DJBare]

redzin wrote...
My Suggestion:
Simply disconnect the ability to persuade from the morality compass, like it was in ME1. Addtionally I feel the morality compass would make more sense with just one bar; it goes up on "paragon" actions and down on "renegade" actions.

I do not agree, that's saying a person can only be good or bad, I attempt a balance of both paragon and renegade, the reason being is I can use paragon speech checks on the so called good guys and renegade on the so called bad guys.

[darknoon5]

Keep the ME2 system, but allow for points to be put into charm/intimidate as well to make unlocking all the options easier.

[Catsith]

slimgrin wrote...

Slidell505 wrote...

Take out Paragon and Renegade all together. It makes morally grey impossible.

This is why the devs at CD projekt condemned it. It might be best to scrap the idea for the sake of meanigful choice and consequence. I doubt that will happen. 

They didn't condemn anything. One guy said they weren't going to do the red/blue color coding. Bloodlines did it too, but it was a way more open system with more options instead of the clearly defined righteous and ruthlessness we have in the ME games. If they could do something like Bloodlines, or the Fallout games, that would make me very happy. 

[BringerOfChaos]

redzin wrote...

Warning: Some minor ME2 spoilers ahead.


I've played through Mass Effect 1 countless times (both the PC and XBox versions) and Mass Effect 2 4-5 times (only the PC version), and while the sequel is no doubt greatly improved, there are a few changes that I don't feel were completely thought through. I'm only gonna talk about the changes to the morality system, because it's really the only thing that I feel didn't improve at all (and I also don't want to clutter the thread).


The Problem:
In ME 1 the Paragon/Renegade scores didn't have any real effect on anything. In ME 2 the morality scores affect your ability to persuade people. Higher Paragon/Renegade scores unlock new options in conversations. In addition, if you aren't very, very persuasive then it's impossible to ensure the survival of your entire team.

In other words, if you don't have a very high Paragon or Renegade score, then some of your team members will die (due to low loyalty).

So why is that a problem? It's a problem because to get a high Paragon/Renegade score, you have to perform a certain set of actions. Essentially, when a player is faced with a choice then the player should ideally think "Hmm, what do I feel is the right thing to do in this situation?" but because the player is forced to collect a high amount of Paragon/Renegade points the player will instead think "Hmm, how do I get the most do-gooder/douchebag points in this situation?"

And not only that, it also forces players to focus exclusively on either the do-gooder or the douchebag points - you have to always pick the Paragon or always pick the Renegade option to get enough points in either.

Some examples: Being anti-Cerberus and pro-genophage will, respectively, gain Paragon and Renegade points. Being pro-Rachni and anti-Geth is also "contradictory". With the system in ME2 you couldn't make many of these "contradictory" choices, unless you were willing to sacrifice some team members. You have to follow either the Paragon or Renegade paths, which is sad because the game works excellent without this restriction.

TL;DR version / Summary: the need to have a high amount of Paragon or Renegade points has reduced decision making to remembering whether you want the red or the blue points.


My Suggestion:
Simply disconnect the ability to persuade from the morality compass, like it was in ME1. Addtionally I feel the morality compass would make more sense with just one bar; it goes up on "paragon" actions and down on "renegade" actions. (Or just scrap the morality compass completely like in Dragon Age...)



I hope I exlained the issue properly, and sorry if it was a bit rant-ish.

 Cool story bro.

[dweller]

wait, what.. I played the entire game just doing what I felt was right and I still managed to max my paragon bar and fill almost half the renegade one - and I never worried about the points



besides, if you really agree with the genophage (for example), gaining renegade points once in a while ain't gonna kill you. I mean, if you played paragon the entire game, about half your points would've gone to nothing - so you really have nothing to fear if you sometimes decide for the option which the game recognizes as renegade while you're playing a mostly paragon character ( or vice versa )

[Whitestrake]

Every single time I've played through the game I've managed to fill one bar, & get pretty damn close to filling the other.

Your example was that your persuade skill could be too low, & cause allies to die, & I take it you mean in situations like the paragon path for Zaeed's loyalty or the Tali/Legion, & Miranda/Jack arguments, But, I have never once not been able to use the appropriate persuade option on those.

And in the crew arguments I've even always had both the paragon, & renegade option.

I don't play strictly one alignment or the other either, I pretty much make each choice based on my feelings about it.

You could more than likely go through the game, & make exactly half of your choices paragon, & half renegade, & still be able to pass all the speech checks.

So I just don't see where this problem's coming from.

[redzin]

DJBare wrote...

redzin wrote...
My Suggestion:
Simply disconnect the ability to persuade from the morality compass, like it was in ME1. Addtionally I feel the morality compass would make more sense with just one bar; it goes up on "paragon" actions and down on "renegade" actions.

I do not agree, that's saying a person can only be good or bad, I attempt a balance of both paragon and renegade, the reason being is I can use paragon speech checks on the so called good guys and renegade on the so called bad guys.

No it's not. If you do a mix of both, then you'll end up in the middle. Nothing wrong with that, I'd probably be there myself.

In any case, I didn't mean to imply that my suggestion was the best possible solution. I really just wanted to bring attention to the problem. I don't care how it's fixed, as long as the result is that I can make the decisions that I want (in the game).

BringerOfChaos wrote...

 Cool story bro.

I know, right? Cool enough to bring you here at least.

dweller wrote...

wait, what.. I played the entire game
just doing what I felt was right and I still managed to max my paragon
bar and fill almost half the renegade one - and I never worried about
the points

besides, if you really agree with the genophage (for
example), gaining renegade points once in a while ain't gonna kill you. I
mean, if you played paragon the entire game, about half your points
would've gone to nothing - so you really have nothing to fear if you
sometimes decide for the option which the game recognizes as renegade
while you're playing a mostly paragon character ( or vice versa
)

I've tried that too, didn't work for me. Good for you that it worked out for you, even though you played the game as you wanted. It didn't work out for me.

It shouldn't be a question of whether it can work out or not anyway. The system is flawed, even if the flaw didn't affect you. And playing the first half of the game with the mindset "I must fill out the paragon/renegade bar" is still not the way it should be.

Modifié par redzin, 07 janvier 2011 - 10:55 .

[redzin]

Renard the Bard wrote...

Every single time I've played through the game I've managed to fill one bar, & get pretty damn close to filling the other.
Your example was that your persuade skill could be too low, & cause allies to die, & I take it you mean in situations like the paragon path for Zaeed's loyalty or the Tali/Legion, & Miranda/Jack arguments, But, I have never once not been able to use the appropriate persuade option on those.
And in the crew arguments I've even always had both the paragon, & renegade option.
I don't play strictly one alignment or the other either, I pretty much make each choice based on my feelings about it.
You could more than likely go through the game, & make exactly half of your choices paragon, & half renegade, & still be able to pass all the speech checks.
So I just don't see where this problem's coming from.

You can't go through the game making half/half decisions and still be persuasive enough. Perhaps if you did every side mission and every DLC pack you might possibly have enough. It doesn't matter though.

As I said in my previous post, the system is still flawed. Your persuasiveness shouldn't be affected by your morale score. It makes no sense, and encourages people to chose 2 distinct paths based on points, rather than personal opinion.

Modifié par redzin, 07 janvier 2011 - 11:05 .