81 réponses à ce sujet

[Lumikki]

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...)

ME2 never had any persuation. ME2 had reputation moral system based player past choises.

Persuation is basicly ability bypass all negative affects in choises so that player can allways get 100% guaranteed positive results without any consequences from past choises.

Did ME2 do it right? No they did not. But it was still better system in right direction, than persuation has been in past. Problem with ME2 system was that there was just two possible "moral" role, paragon or renegade and nothing else. What also reflected too much in dialog choises and gameplay.

What Bioware should try to do is system where player can have multible roles, but doesn't allow players bypass past consequences. Past consequences here means choises what player has done before, what defines players characters role by choises what player has made and doesn't allow players just bypass that role when player feels like going out of role, because situation in game with different role is more rewarding.

Some really good roleplayer could stay in roles even without guide, in totally free system. Problem is that maybe under 1% of players can actually do it. So, it's better to have system what guides players in right direction, but the guide is done by players own choises. Meaning if you play role of killer, some npcs starts to see you as killer and don't believe that you have compassion. It change npcs behavior. Past is affecting the future.  Example as killer role. You meet npcs and try to get npcs to do something. You have multible way to try, but not everyting works, because you past has changed npcs behavior.

Modifié par Lumikki, 07 janvier 2011 - 11:37 .

[Uszi]

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.

Er, I've never had both bars full.  But I have had a full part and like 20% the other.

The reason you might not have ever run into the problem, and why the systemis really inane, is that it scaled based on number of available points.  So if you eat up every single available point in the area, I believe that you probably wouldn't have a problem.

I ran into the problem because my canon renshep, who has been sitting at the conclusion of Jack's loyalty mission for 6 months, isn't a total douchebag.  I always played him as an extreme but fair guy, the heroic badass.  There is little room for my type of renegade, especially when that kind of renegade is played by a completionist player like me who made the mistake of visiting like every location and saving Jack/Miranda's loyalty missions for last.

Modifié par Uszi, 07 janvier 2011 - 11:40 .

[Uszi]

If you're curious about how it works, it was revealed a long time ago:
http://social.biowar...index/1197668/3

(Emphasis addded)

Kim Stolz wrote...
...
There are potential paragon and renegade points throughout the game. When the user arrives in an area (ie: Omega) the game registers every single paragon or renegade decision that can be made and increases the difficulty of the persuade system based on these potential points. If the user collects all of these points (either paragon OR renegade) they break even they can almost never get ahead of the system, you can only keep apace. If the user misses these oppotunities to collect all of the points the game still keeps these points you missed so the player will actually fall behind. If the player falls behind it is very difficult and almost impossible to catch back up because everywhere you go more potential points are being mounted against you and making the persuasions more difficult. So when you arrive at the most difficult persuasions in the game where you are already at a disadvantage due to the difficulty of the persuade and these potential points that you missed stack up to make it even more difficult and then you try to paragon persuade jack and miranda which makes it even more difficult(it's easier to renegade persuade those two and paragon persuade legion and tali) you are going to fail it; not because it's a bug but because the system was made that way.
...

So this means the more thoroughly you play the game, the harder the persuasions ---- which doesn't make a lick of ****ing sense, btw, BW.

It also means that neutral playthroughs are easier if you rush through them.

The single most depressing thing about Kim Stolz's reply, 11 months ago when the game first came out, was:

Kim Stolz wrote...
... I've talked to the people who made this system and decided on the bonus for starting a newgame+ and the odds of this being changed or made easier are very, very low.
...

Another example of why this system sucks is how convoluted neutral-Shep guides can get:
http://social.biowar...5/index/2990124

I mean, you'd think that more people would listen to the neutral keeled guy over the homicidal jackass or the nambypansy.

Modifié par Uszi, 07 janvier 2011 - 11:51 .

[redzin]

Lumikki 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. (Or just scrap the morality compass completely like in Dragon Age...)

ME2 never had any persuation. ME2 had reputation moral system based player past choises.

Persuation is basicly ability bypass all negative affects in choises so that player can allways get 100% guaranteed positive results without any consequences from past choises.

Did ME2 do it right? No they did not. But it was still better system in right direction, than persuation has been in past. Problem with ME2 system was that there was just two possible "moral" role, paragon or renegade and nothing else. What also reflected too much in dialog choises and gameplay.

What Bioware should try to do is system where player can have multible roles, but doesn't allow players bypass past consequences. Past consequences here means choises what player has done before, what defines players characters role by choises what player has made and doesn't allow players just bypass that role when player feels like going out of role, because situation in game with different role is more rewarding.

Some really good roleplayer could stay in roles even without guide in totally free system. Problem is that maybe under 1% of players can actually do it. So, it's better to have system what guides players in right direction, but the guide is done by players own choises. Meaning if you play role of killer, some npcs starts to see you as killer and don't believe that you have compassion. It change npcs behavior. Past is affecting the future.

I'm all for past actions having consequences, but that's not the result or the objective of the system in ME2.

When you have to persuade various people to your point of view (for example during Tali's loyalty mission), that has nothing to do with your past reputation; the quarians hardly know who you are. It has everything to do with your ability to present yourself and persuade your peers (the quarians in this case). And again, when the various crew members start arguing, you have to convince them that they should calm down, without making them disloyal. Again, this doesn't have anything to do with your past actions, simply your ability to be a convincing and charismatic leader.

Besides, NPC's don't react differently based on your paragon/renegade scores. The only effect it has is your ability to persuade people. So it doesn't represent your reputation. If it did, people would comment or react differently, which they don't.

I love it when my actions carry consequences later in the game (or the series). For example, I suspect that the Rachni will be a potential ally in ME3, depending on your decisions in ME1. This has nothing to do with the faulty morality/conversation system in ME2 though.

We do agree that it's a bad thing that there's only 2 valid choice paths in ME2 though. But they can't be fixed by adding more paths; they have to make the ability to choose independent from your morality score. (Or come up with a new ingenous system that I can't personally envision... could be a nice surprise though.)

Modifié par redzin, 08 janvier 2011 - 12:05 .

[redzin]

Uszi wrote...

Er, I've never had both bars full.  But I have had a full part and like 20% the other.

The reason you might not have ever run into the problem, and why the systemis really inane, is that it scaled based on number of available points.  So if you eat up every single available point in the area, I believe that you probably wouldn't have a problem.

I ran into the problem because my canon renshep, who has been sitting at the conclusion of Jack's loyalty mission for 6 months, isn't a total douchebag.  I always played him as an extreme but fair guy, the heroic badass.  There is little room for my type of renegade, especially when that kind of renegade is played by a completionist player like me who made the mistake of visiting like every location and saving Jack/Miranda's loyalty missions for last.

Aha, that explains my problems too. I'm a completionist, and generally play the game neutrally too (not because I want to be neutral, it just usually ends up that way).

[Uszi]

I forgot to Opine on the specific topic:

I always enjoy playing the diplomatic type, and I liked how the Fallout games, KotOR games, and ME1 made me sacrifice potential combat ability to be more persuasive. That is a good trade off!  You actually have to think about it.  It's more of a choice and less of a calculation that can be done on a spreadsheet.

ME2 weakened this system. Yes, you have a skill that boosts your persuasive ability. But it's a necesary skill thats linked to decrease cooldowns, increased health and increased damage. Because it's so necessary, its effects are built into the game -- the Dev's assumed you'd be boosting your reputation by at least 70%.  Which nullified any effect of taking the skill, until you chose whether or not to evolve it into 100%.

The same choice in other games becomes a spreadsheet calculation in ME2 when it's such a simple trade off.  Do I want 30% more reputation at the cost of 10% damage?  Wow... what a thrilling and dynamic choice.

IMHO, people would have complained less if there were 1 more skill in the game, a pure "Reputation" skill severed completely from your class skill, that boosted your reputation by 25%, 50%, 75% and then evolved into 100%.  This would mean that if you really wanted to hit every dialogue option, you could, but boy would you pay for it.  Because you just sank 10 points into nothing but reputation boosting.

That way hardcore RPers could play the way they wanted to play, and just make due with level 2 skills.

Modifié par Uszi, 08 janvier 2011 - 12:08 .

[Lumikki]

redzin wrote...

When you have to persuade various people to your point of view (for example during Tali's loyalty mission), that has nothing to do with your past reputation; the quarians hardly know who you are.

You can not persuade anything in ME2, because there is no persuation in ME2. Don't mix reputation or normal dialog choises in persuation.

Reputation is when you past choises or actions is affecting situation. Normal dialog choise means that choises allways does the same, you characters role, skill or talent has no affect to them, it's pure players choise. Persuation is situation based, meaning character skill or talen or role or aligment is affecting the situation so that past has not affect to it.

Example of persuation skill how it works in games. You meet boy and kill him or not. Later in future you meet the boys sister. In persuation what ever you did the boy has absolute zero affect what you can do with the sister. That's persuation, you get what player wants based you character abilities, without any consequence what you have done past.

Modifié par Lumikki, 08 janvier 2011 - 01:23 .

[FaildTCnect]

Great Thread ! I hope Bioware will have a look at it . Totally agree with you

Modifié par FaildTCnect, 08 janvier 2011 - 01:47 .

[Zlarm]

Agreed completely. I actually wrote a post arguing the same thing way back when the system was revealed hoping they'd change it before they released ME2 (yeah, no chance in hell-I know). BioWare are always saying how much they want their game to force you to make tough decisions and then they set up a system that provides incentive to always choose either paragon or renegade. Suddenly all of those tough decisions are made at the character creation screen; should I be paragon or renegade this playthrough?



I really hope they uncouple bonuses to going one route, or at least offer similar incentives for those who don't want to play a character that is exclusively paragon or renegade.

[redzin]

Lumikki wrote...
You can not persuade anything in ME2, because there is no persuation in ME2. Don't mix reputation or normal dialog choises in persuation.

Reputation is when you past choises or actions is affecting situation. Normal dialog choise means that choises allways does the same, you characters role, skill or talent has no affect to them, it's pure players choise. Persuation is situation based, meaning character skill or talen or role or aligment is affecting the situation so that past has not affect to it.

Example of persuation skill how it works in games. You meet boy and kill him or not. Later in future you meet the boys sister. In persuation what ever you did the boy has absolute zero affect what you can do with the sister. That's persuation, you get what player wants based you character abilities, without any consequence what you have done past.

Persuasion is about changing the opinion of others; it has nothing to do with past actions. In a game where you can kill a guy, and then later intereact with his sister as though it never happened says nothing about whether that game allows you to persuade anyone. It might as well just be bad game design.

An act or persuasion could theoretically be about convincing someone to ignore the past, but it might as well be something entirely different. For example, if you meet a suicidal person (which you can in a quest in ME1), then the act of convincing her to not kill herself is an act of persuasion. That's not about using your reputation or anythingh though, it's just about talking her out of suicide. The same kind of persuasion takes place in Tali's loyalty mission - it has nothing to do with your reputation, and everything to do with presenting yourself in a convincing way. In ME2 you can only do that with a high paragon or renegade score.

Look up the definition of persuasion please.

In any case, I don't care what you call it. The system in ME2 is flawed, regardless which words you describe it with. It encourages players to focus exclusively on one of 2 predefined paths and takes away the fun in making moral decisions.

Modifié par redzin, 08 janvier 2011 - 11:32 .

[Lumikki]

I agree with you that persuation is about changing other opinions. But there are other stuff what also change others opinions. Meaning what kind of opinion change we have in ME2. You want to call it persuation, because it's change of opinion, I call it reputation, because how it change the opinion. It's question what fits better in the system how it behaves. Persuation is character skill based, while reputation is based past choises. There is difference between them. Example ME1 had persuation skill, but ME2 has moral reputation.

Now is ME2 system flawed? Yes it is. But it's still better that "persuation skills" systems. So, when you suggest something new, make it better than old one. My point is that ME1 system was even worst, because there was no consequence at all in choises. Player get allways 100% guaranteed postive result and what role player did play has ZERO affect to it. Problem is that bypass dialogs choises with persuation skill, weakens why we have dialogs in first place. Dialogs are about our role choises, as path we choose and it's consequences. Your role and past has no affect in persuation skill system, because it bypass the dialog choises. It's the ultimate powerplayer system.

To make you understand better what I mean, I make estimate from hat.

1% of players here are real roleplayers, who actually doesn't look systems, but play roles no matter what.
70% of players here are metagamers, who thinks they are roleplayers.
29% of players here are powerplayers, who don't even pretend to be roleplaing.

Now if you create system what allows total freedom to do what ever you want as persuation bypass dialog choises, most of the metagamers will be lured in powerplaying, because they don't try to play role, they try to find the optimal solution. You can recognize these players easyly, because they complain how something happen in the game way they did not like, they complain the game system. Example Jack vs Miranda situation. Real roleplayer accept negative results too, doesn't complain. (Actually in this case real roleplayer would have complain that there is no situation where both becomes unloyal).

My point is that because most "roleplayers" in reality are metagamers. It's better for they roleplaying goal, what they try to do, is game to guides player to roles. ME2 problem was that there was just two roles to guide, that way too limited. Meaning the roles we play doesn't often fit in just two extreme moral roles, there is alot of between them too as role to play.

PS: I'm my self more a metagamer, but I do know what real roleplayer is.
PPS: There was three role possibilities in ME2, two guided. Think about it.

Modifié par Lumikki, 08 janvier 2011 - 01:22 .

[Lvl20DM]

While I hope they tweak this a bit in ME3, I think the op overstates the impact of some of the more difficult dialogue choices. You don't need everyone to be loyal in order to keep everyone alive - though it doe make it a bit harder.

[redzin]

Lumikki wrote...

I agree with you that persuation is about changing other opinions. But there are other stuff what also change others opinions. Meaning what kind of opinion change we have in ME2. You want to call it persuation, because it's change of opinion, I call it reputation, because how it change the opinion. It's question what fits better in the system how it behaves. Persuation is character skill based, while reputation is based past choises. There is difference between them. Example ME1 had persuation skill, but ME2 has moral reputation.

Now is ME2 system flawed? Yes it is. But it's still better that "persuation skills" systems. So, when you suggest something new, make it better than old one. My point is that ME1 system was even worst, because there was no consequence at all in choises. Player get allways 100% guaranteed postive result and what role player did play has ZERO affect to it. Problem is that bypass dialogs choises with persuation skill, weakens why we have dialogs in first place. Dialogs are about our role choises, as path we choose and it's consequences. Your role and past has no affect in persuation skill system, because it bypass the dialog choises. It's the ultimate powerplayer system.

First of all, the actions in ME1 did have consequences; you could lose 2 team members and was forced to lose at least one. Also, many of the consequeces of your actions in ME1 wasn't felt untill ME2 (or even ME3 I predict).

My point here is that the morality system in the Mass Effect games is largely detached from consequences of your actions. The consequences are part of the story script.

Lumikki wrote...

To make you understand better what I mean, I make estimate from hat.

1% of players here are real roleplayers, who actually doesn't look systems, but play roles no matter what.
70% of players here are metagamers, who thinks they are roleplayers.
29% of players here are powerplayers, who don't even pretend to be roleplaing.

Now if you create system what allows total freedom to do what ever you want as persuation bypass dialog choises, most of the metagamers will be lured in powerplaying, because they don't try to play role, they try to find the optimal solution. You can recognize these players easyly, because they complain how something happen in the game way they did not like, they complain the game system. Example Jack vs Miranda situation. Real roleplayer accept negative results too, doesn't complain. (Actually in this case real roleplayer would have complain that there is no situation where both becomes unloyal).

My point is that because most "roleplayers" in reality are metagamers. It's better for they roleplaying goal, what they try to do, is game to guides player to roles. ME2 problem was that there was just two roles to guide, that way too limited. Meaning the roles we play doesn't often fit in just two extreme moral roles, there is alot of between them too as role to play.

PS: I'm my self more a metagamer, but I do know what real roleplayer is.
PPS: There was three role possibilities in ME2, two guided. Think about it.

I absolutely disagree. There has been many succesful RPGs that didn't have the stupid restrictions (or "guide") system that ME2 has. ME1, Dragon Age, Neverwinter Nights, KotOR, Fallout, Oblivion and many other were succesful and good games, none of which had the unnecessarily restrictive system of ME2. They freely allowed people to act as they wanted, yet they all had consequences based on your actions as you seem to want.

Besides, you can have a guide system for the non-roleplayers that doesn't hinder the real roleplayers. Mass Effect 1 did just that. The system they chose for ME2 is not a step in the right direction, it just obscures the issue a bit more.

[Walker White]

The technical term described by the OP is a "positive feedback loop". You need paragon to get more paragon, and same with renegade. This is generally recognized as poor game design.

[Lumikki]

redzin wrote...

First of all, the actions in ME1 did have consequences; you could lose 2 team members and was forced to lose at least one. Also, many of the consequeces of your actions in ME1 wasn't felt untill ME2 (or even ME3 I predict).

First ME1 consequences what you talk. One of them has nothing to do with persuation as it was FORCED choise to make, there was no way around, you losed team member anyway, it did not matter what you do. I'm talking players choise between Kaidan/Asley.

Second choise was pure based do you have enough persuation skill, that's all what required. If You want to keep Wrex, just add enough point to persuation. That's what I talk about bypass dialog choises. Ability get postive result no matter what role you play.

My point here is that the morality system in the Mass Effect games is largely detached from consequences of your actions. The consequences are part of the story script.

Consequences can be part of pre-define story script, but that's BAD roleplaing, because it doesn't matter what players do, it's predefine consequence. What ME2 tryed to do have more variable consequences, what was determied players choises in dialogs. Now it may not been good, because it's was too much just one way or other. Meaning only two guided role path and even so extreme ones. Also problem was that thsoe two path droped same trap what ME1 did with persuation. If you where extreme enough you go the 100% guaranteed positive results. Same problem what persuation skill system has.

I absolutely disagree. There has been many succesful RPGs that didn't have the stupid restrictions (or "guide") system that ME2 has.

True, but free to play out of role for players isn't better roleplaying. Restriction is about guide you in the roleplaying, because other ways you are just powerplaying or metagaming. I may need to explain what guiding means here, when I talk about it. I talk about game learning players role so that it starts to guide players to that role. It also means it doesn't anymore allow player to go too extreme ways out of that role game has learned. Why it's important to restrict players roles? Because without it, there is no consequence what are comming from role you play. Without any restriction players can change they role all the time to anything to get best optimal result. That's not roleplaying.

ME1, Dragon Age, Neverwinter Nights, KotOR, Fallout, Oblivion and many other were succesful and good games, none of which had the unnecessarily restrictive system of ME2. They freely allowed people to act as they wanted, yet they all had consequences based on your actions as you seem to want.

I agree, it's more freedom, but the question is it better roleplaing isn't the same. When only few people are able to stay in roles in free systems.

Besides, you can have a guide system for the non-roleplayers that doesn't hinder the real roleplayers. Mass Effect 1 did just that. The system they chose for ME2 is not a step in the right direction, it just obscures the issue a bit more.

Free systems are good for real roleplayer, because they stay in chhosen roles, no matter what. Was ME2 good for real roleplayer, no it wasn't. How ever, real roleplayers are the 1% of player base, who can actually do the roleplaying. Rest of us, we abuse the system when we should try to roleplay. Meaning you aren't mad because you can't roleplay, you are mad because you can't abuse the system way you want. That's the different.

ME2 limited us too much, ME1 allowed abuse the system. We need system what doesn't allow abuse the system, but allows enough freedom.

Modifié par Lumikki, 08 janvier 2011 - 04:07 .

[xentar]

Comdawg wrote...
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.

One of the feature of decent character advancement systems is the choice of your abilities from a limited amount of opportunities. You can choose to be more diplomatic at the expense of your combat abilities or vice versa. Makes sense to me.

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 )

Was fairly close to that. Problem is, the red options got grayed out for me eventually. I could have adjusted this at the expense of other skills in a skill-based system but I couldn't and ended up being more paragon than I should be.

Lumikki wrote...
I agree with you that persuation is about changing other opinions. But there are other stuff what also change others opinions. Meaning what kind of opinion change we have in ME2. You want to call it persuation, because it's change of opinion, I call it reputation, because how it change the opinion. It's question what fits better in the system how it behaves. Persuation is character skill based, while reputation is based past choises. There is difference between them. Example ME1 had persuation skill, but ME2 has moral reputation.
[...]
Now if you create system what allows total freedom to do what ever you want as persuation bypass dialog choises, most of the metagamers will be lured in powerplaying, because they don't try to play role, they try to find the optimal solution.

There is an actual skill or ability to change people's opinions despite having filthiest of reputations. Politicians use it all the time. Shepard can't (edit: in ME2, at least). Note that I am indeed not enough of a roleplayer to accept a flawed system or screw myself over intentionally when there is an "autowin" blue option... notice how this system might actually force metagamers into powerplaying more than any other. Bacause the "fully free" system will only have the white ones (it wouldn't make sense otherwise).

PS: it seems now I don't have to find the thread where we already had this conversation to show to the OP.

Modifié par xentar, 08 janvier 2011 - 04:17 .

[Big stupid jellyfish]

This has been discussed before, yes; but it won't hurt to agree with the OP because I support the idea of 'disconnecting the ability to persuade from the morality compass'.

The system as it is encourages the player to choose either route, paragon or renegade, and makes the player refrain from neutral responses.

Modifié par Big stupid jellyfish, 08 janvier 2011 - 04:00 .

[Lumikki]

Big stupid jellyfish wrote...

This has been discussed before, yes; but it won't hurt to agree with the OP because I support the idea of 'disconnecting the ability to persuade from the morality compass'.

The system as it is encourages the player to choose either route, paragon or renegade, and makes the player refrain from neutral responses.

Yes, but isn't that more lack of neutral path encouragement, than need to destroy system, because lack of other roles?

I mean dialog system is what creates our role possibilities as how we talk and react to others. If we create systems what can bypass the dialog system, it removes the consequences of the dialogs. Sure, it' s more positive system, but it isn't really better roleplaying, when so many player can abuse the system.

Why not just ask that they improve dialogs system so that there is more roles to play and all of them get encourages based style of roles taken. How ever, all roles should also have disadvances, advances and consequences.

Modifié par Lumikki, 08 janvier 2011 - 04:37 .

[xentar]

Lumikki wrote...
Why not just ask that they improve dialogs system so that there is more roles to play and all of them get encourages based style of roles taken. How ever, all roles should also have disadvances, advances and consequences.

I'd rather shape my own role than select one from a pre-defined set.

Modifié par xentar, 08 janvier 2011 - 04:38 .

[Lumikki]

xentar wrote...

Lumikki wrote...
Why not just ask that they improve dialogs system so that there is more roles to play and all of them get encourages based style of roles taken. How ever, all roles should also have disadvances, advances and consequences.

I'd rather shape my own role than select one from a pre-defined set.

Okey, but how you gonna do it?

I ask, because persuation skill does not do that, it does the opposite, it allows bypass all roles and create one super positive role where players allways gets what they want, without any consequences. Meaning if there is situation with npcs, player can allways bypass (solve) that situation with persuation.

Modifié par Lumikki, 08 janvier 2011 - 04:58 .

[xentar]

Lumikki wrote...

xentar wrote...

Lumikki wrote...
Why not just ask that they improve dialogs system so that there is more roles to play and all of them get encourages based style of roles taken. How ever, all roles should also have disadvances, advances and consequences.

I'd rather shape my own role than select one from a pre-defined set.

Okey, but how you gonna do it?

I ask, because persuation skill does not do that, it does the opposite, it allows bypass all roles and create one role only.

I fail to see that. We seem to have different understandings of what shapes a character. In my opinion it's not only one's decisions but (very importantly for a game) a set of skills and abilities. So, by putting points into persuasion, I would actually be defining my role. Admittedly this works a bit better in games with a wide variety of development possibilities, including non-combat ones. For example, in a balanced character advancement system a  charismatic and technically apt character would be less than adequate in combat, thus being reduced to support roles and having a tough time alone.

Modifié par xentar, 08 janvier 2011 - 05:07 .

[Big stupid jellyfish]

@Lumikki

I guess we're talking about different systems here. I merely want to detach an ability/skill to persuade people from a number of paragon/renegade points Shepard has. (Destroying all the dialogue system isn't one of my ideas, I assure you. )



Should we do this, all dialogues and dialogue options would still retain all the consequnces they bring, such as: how did the quest end? was the person we were talking to charmed/intimidated/impressed/whatever? did Shepard gain any renegade/paragon points that may somehow affect scars/minor quests given/etc?

[james1976]

I'm not sure what the correction solution is here. I know in ME1 I had 100% of the Paragon bar and 0% of the Renegade, but in ME2 I had 100% of Paragon bar AND nearly 20% of the Renegade bar....which seemed really odd. In other BioWare games I remember a good and evil scale that adjusted. so 100/20 would have been impossible. I suppose that is good for a character who might swing either way depending on the situation. Maybe even make that character seem more real as I am sure we aren't all one or the other.

[Big stupid jellyfish]

Lumikki wrote...
I ask, because persuation skill does not do that, it does the opposite, it allows bypass all roles and create one super positive role where players allways gets what they want, without any consequences. Meaning if there is situation with npcs, player can allways bypass (solve) that situation with persuation.

I guess 'can' is a keyword here for me. Investing skills into persuasion means that player/character can use persuasion and solve a situation by means of it. But if you roleplay it may be so that you won't choose the option to persuade because your character is edgy when it comes to this particular quest, or because persuasion here sounds too OOC, or whatever. But the opportunity is here so you can look through all the options available and choose the one that fits the character most.

Moreover, investing points into the persuasion skill (=ability to see have more options in dialogues, options that can define your character) is also a choice you can make without metagaming (unless you're all like 'What would my character have chosen?' when looking at points and skills menu).

In ME2 you sometimes have to metagame to have more dialogue/roleplaying options later.

Modifié par Big stupid jellyfish, 08 janvier 2011 - 05:30 .

[Evil Johnny 666]

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.

I really don't get this argument. Why wouldn't you be able to put a gun on someone's face if I'm not seen as "renegade" enough? How everyone knows how I am to everyone? Why Shepard's reputation is so easy to change? For such a well-known personna, you'd think Shepard's reputation is mostly already in rock by ME2. Again, how does your reputation has ANYTHING to do with your ability to persuade? "Shepard, you're not evil enough, I don't dig it" How the hell can anyone fully guess how someone is evil or not? I'm pretty sure despite his reputation, Shepard can make himself very convincing. Plus, isn't your reputation changed via actions? Why wouldn't you be able to make certain persuasive actions? If you have the ability to do it, wouldn't it only give you more paragon or renegade points than usual? A persuasion system (huh?) based on reputation makes no sense. Period. You may think it works well within the context of the game (which I don't), but that doesn't mean it makes more sense. Eh, you can do plenty of purely renegade or paragon actions without any need to be either, it's not even consistent.

I don't know why developpers insist on keeping such a broken system (at least it's broken as in ME2) instead of getting on with all the morality bull**** and try to make something new that actually makes sense.

Modifié par Evil Johnny 666, 08 janvier 2011 - 05:26 .