187 réponses à ce sujet

[MoonlitChimera]

I never really had a lot of problems with the Paragon/Renegade meters. Mostly I just picked what felt right for me at the moment (or most interesting) and never really had trouble with persuasion (and I definitely didn't always pick Paragon). I agree that a lot of the things you can say are kinda black and white though, but like Samara says: have 3 humans in a room and you have 6 opinions, so kinda hard to implement that ;-)

[Encarmine]

Dreggon wrote...

"I would like you two to stop fighting, please."
"Sorry dude, you only have 78% Paragon, you need 80%."
"But--"
"80%."

 this. It gimps the game, i hope they change the system, like others have said, I hate having to go to one extreme or the other. Its not that the system is broken, but the way we Need to be at certain % to avoid loosing loyalty, sure If im more red than blue then maybe I can only respond red, but to see red and blue BOTH greyed out sucks

[masterkajo]

I personally play and decide on the spot and that leaves me being pretty neutral at the end. In ME2 I had a lot of moments I could select either Paragon or Renegade option. Hope they come up with something for people who like to just make each decision individually and not think about having to be Paragon to charm someone in the end.

[Bozorgmehr]

The whole Par/Ren system is basically only spoilers. Without knowing the consequences of ones action, Bioware already spoils the outcome using this system.

[xentar]

jacob marez wrote...
i hate it to,i just mod mine both full so i can play the game the way its supposed to be played

Some people here argue that the way it's supposed to be played is you lose half of your squad and let crap happen if you aren't enough of a particular kind of arbitrary stereotype.

[Aigyl]

I don't fully agree with the morality system but it does make sense in its own way.

The further down a morality path your Shepard goes, the stronger his/her personality is going to be. Thus Shepard is going to be more persuasive. The more Paragon a Shepard is the more diplomatic and compassionate he/she is, and so will be better at charming people than a Shepard who is less Paragon. Vice versa for Renegade.

BTW my main Shepard was mainly Paragon but would pick occasionally pick the Renegade choice. If I wanted an Intimidate option I usually had the Renegade points to pick it, most of the persuade checks are fairly low until late in the game. The only real exceptions to this were the high-level Intimidates (like Morinth or Crew fights), in which case the Charm option fit my Shepard better anyway considering his previous actions.

He did have the import bonuses mind, but I don't really see the flaw in rewarding people who played ME1.

[Lumikki]

What's strenght or wisdom or any other attribute in RPG?

Morality is one of those attributes what affect game situations. Basicly morality in games allow us to have morality based consequences.

You people who hate morality you problem is very simple. You conserate to much in GAME SYSTEM and too little just choose what you want to choose in dialog choises. You allow game system make decissions behave you, when you should just make choises what you like in dialogs.

Now as morality in ME1 and ME2 did not work well, but idea as counting players "morality" actions is fine. It's just execution how it affects player gameplay that need improvements.

Modifié par Lumikki, 23 janvier 2011 - 05:07 .

[Ulzeraj]

I'm content with it. I never liked the way [Diplomacy] and [Persuade] like options magically solves complicated problems on games like NWN2 and DA:O.

[Evil Johnny 666]

JKoopman wrote...

Mezzil wrote...

Actually it's suppose to be a "repuation" meter.

What he said.

Paragon/Renegade isn't a "morality" meter, nor does it represent Good vs. Evil. It's simply an "Are you known as a fair and just diplomat or a takes-no-nonsense hardass?" meter.

And it kind of makes sense that it influences your ability to persuade others. For example, if you're known for being a law-abiding goody-two-shoes and you try to intimidate someone, it may not work as well as if you're known for putting bullets in people at the slightest provocation.

I don't know about you, but I wouldn't take someone's threat - putting his gun in front of my head - lightly in ANY circumstances, reputation or not. But that's the problem with a reputation system, it's a reputation, it's how people view you, and not what you are. So it shouldn't really affect how you are able to persuade someone, if you're really as a certain way, you bet you'd still be able to be plenty persuasive.

Plus, I don't get it, doesn't Shepard ALREADY has a reputation by ME2? And most people think he his dead.

Please, someone elnighten me on these questions:

-How does telling the Illusive Man, in a super secret meating, that you simply feel well affect your reputation (negatively at that for some obscure reason), when the council doesn't even know you're alive yet?
-How does telling Jacob that you either trust him or not remotely affect your reputation? How does that change how people view you? How does it change your reputation when it's you, telling someone working for Cerberus on a dangerous mission, keeping his interactions with the crew?
-How does your interaction with dangerous criminals on Omega change your reputation? It's a damn criminal who could care less about you. How would anyone on the citadel or even Ilium would learn about what you said or did to someone on Omega? When most people think you're dead anyway unless you get to meet them.
-How does what you say to the council change your reputation? They surely keep their meetings secret.
-How can I friggin' hit a reporter, yet can't threathen a dangerous criminal with my gun? How can a gun not be threathening? Does the gun inherit my "reputation"?

A reputation isn't something built with small, very small actions like these. Shepard got a reputation, but that was for becoming the first Specter, to save the council (or not) and saving the citadel. Shepard isn't a politician, he's a soldier, how can anyone truly know HOW he is? I'm pretty sure his reputation wouldn't dictate his actions. Plus, you bet I wouldn't take a politician's reputation too seriously, you never know what he hides and who he really is. If I met Shepard or any character that his reputation precedes him, I'd still have my doubts regarding his personna. Reputations of bigger than nature persons are rarely accurate. Thinking Shepard's character can be truly mirrored in a cerain reputation is naive and simplistic at best.

If anything, if reputation could really work in the first place as a credible system (which it doesn't), then it'd be more "regional reputations" or "group reputations". As far as I know, I'd be normal for an organization of mercs, or a group of dangerous criminals (as the people on Omega) to view you differently than other people, and react to you differently. And if anything, if people really use your reputation to get intimidated or not, we should be able to try, and fail. But truth is, ME2's dialogue system is incredibly shallow, you can do it, or not. Concersations can't change or get in tangents because you failed to convince someone to do something and it ends up with unforseen repercutions.

The whole system is just ridiculous and very shallow.

Modifié par Evil Johnny 666, 23 janvier 2011 - 06:03 .

[Omega-202]

The ME2 system is a heck of a lot better than ME1 in my opinion. At least in ME2 you didn't have to choose between gimping your character in combat or being able to persuade people. The fact that I had to play through ME1 THEE times just to max out my Charm and Intimidate stats is pretty unreasonable.

Do I think that they can improve ME2's system? Sure. Do I think that getting rid of Paragon/Renegade is a good idea? Absolutely not. Should they go back to Charm/Intimidate? No way.

[Evil Johnny 666]

Omega-202 wrote...

The ME2 system is a heck of a lot better than ME1 in my opinion. At least in ME2 you didn't have to choose between gimping your character in combat or being able to persuade people. The fact that I had to play through ME1 THEE times just to max out my Charm and Intimidate stats is pretty unreasonable.
Do I think that they can improve ME2's system? Sure. Do I think that getting rid of Paragon/Renegade is a good idea? Absolutely not. Should they go back to Charm/Intimidate? No way.

I don't know, in real life, when I decide to play guitar for 4 hours straight, I have 4 hours less to do homeworks. Or practice my mp skills in Halo Reach. You can't have everything, it's just realism. Shepard is a soldier, not a diplomat. If you want rhetoric skills and such, you should be able to buy them, to feel the CONSEQUENCES (a key word in RPGs) of your actions. If by some point you barely got your charm points up and can't make a situation work in a certain way to your favour, it's too bad your you. Congratulations, you successfully played your role. Role playing isn't about being able to do everything, it's about having a certain defined character through your actions, a character that is both limited and competent in different fields. From what I understand, you don't seem to play many RPGs beside Bioware games. You'd swear otherwise at the amount of things you wouldn't be able to do in other games. That's why ME2 sucks as an RPG, no matter what your class is, you can easily do and get everything. Where's the real customization and feel of consequences?

Modifié par Evil Johnny 666, 23 janvier 2011 - 06:15 .

[Lumikki]

Evil Johnny 666 wrote...

The whole system is just ridiculous and very shallow.

It maybe so, but it's still better than NONE or what persuation system did.

Meaning paragon/renegade reputation moral systems at least tryed to player have some moral based consequences. If you have no system you have no consequences, based you character roles. If you have persuation system, you bypass all consequence when persuation is available and lower meaning of dialog choises.

My point, it may not be good system, but it was still best so far. It just needs more development and way to find how it actually works better. Problem what it did have was that it was too limited, like two sided and both two extreme side was fully bypass consequences. Meaning there was no negative side to be extreme or there was no positive side to be neutral. That was ME2's moral reputation system problem. How ever, other ways it was step in right direction, making dialog choises have longer lasting consequences.

Modifié par Lumikki, 23 janvier 2011 - 06:25 .

[Evil Johnny 666]

Lumikki wrote...

Evil Johnny 666 wrote...

The whole system is just ridiculous and very shallow.

It maybe so, but it's still better than NONE or what persuation system did.

Meaning paragon/renegade reputation moral systems at least tryed to player have some moral based consequences. If you have no system you have no consequences, based you character roles. If you have persuation system, you bypass all consequence when persuation is available and lower meaning of dialog choises.

My point, it may not be good system, but it was still best so far. It just needs more development and way to find how it actually works better. problem what it did have wa sthat it was too limited, like two sided and both two extreme side was fully bypass consequences. Meaning there was no negative side to be extreme or there was no positive side to be neutral. That was ME2's moral reputation system problem. How ever, other ways it was step in right direction, making dialog choises have longer lasting consequences.

I already wrote a post just above in regards to several things, but I'll add some to it here. Consequences based on morality? If the system doesn't work, those consequences are fake. You know what, I'll make a shooter and in a certain mission I'll throw an enemy who dissapears after 5 minutes. If you don't kill him, you won't have a certain option after the mission. But you have to take risks to kill him! If you don't, you'll have to deal with the consequences. I just made a system with consequences, does that make it good? Not at all, it was just stupid. Same thing in ME2 for the resons I explained in the post of the part you quoted.

ME1 doesn't allow you to "bypass" all options. It HAS consequences. The consequences of training your charm or intimidate skills is your inability to train as much in other skills, just like in real life. In real life, if someone, every day every time, just practice his rhethoric skills, he'll be formidable in convincing people and doing things. I'm not saying ME3 should have ME1's exact dialogue system, of course not as it was quite flawed too, but not as much as the carcass that ME2's system is. ME3 should have options that fail, conversations which doesn't evolve as planned. In short, conversations should be dynamic and change depending on who your character is. There should be MORE persuasion skills. There should be charm, intimate, act, etc... More skills means that less chances of being able to get every "superior" option. Hell, the "superior" option shouldn't always be the one that requires persuasion skills. But certain options should be only attainable via one or several skill of the genre, or all of them. Some choices should work better with particular skills. And you should always be able to try, but it's your skill, and which skills you have that would dictate how the conversation evolves. Skills should also be able to work in pairs. Say a situation has a certain option, but in order to succeed, you need good intimidate AND act skills. But if you only have one of the two, maybe the conversation won't turn too bad. And conversations should turn differently depending on what skills you have are the best, maybe you'll be able to use an option to your advantage, but depending on what skill is your best it will still turn out differently.

Like I said, there ARE consequences in the ME1 system, I feel like you throw out the bypass thing just because you don't like the system. But it's you who decides to be able to "bypass", on the expense of your fighting skill. How is that not playing your role? How is that not what RPGs are about? Choices with consequences. BUT ME1's system is indeed still simplistic, bare-bones, but it's still miles ahead ME2's poor excuse of a system that can't even explain itself credibly. ME1's system is much closer to good RPG mechanics, even if it's not particularly good. But like I said, it has always been a problem with Mass Effect, the poor dialogue system. While KOTOR's system was all based on light/dark side and very simplistic too, at least normal options enabled your character to be more as you'd like him, more grey. The intimidate and charm options were most of the time to get more money anyway.

[Omega-202]

Evil Johnny 666 wrote...


I don't know, in real life, when I decide to play guitar for 4 hours straight, I have 4 hours less to do homeworks. Or practice my mp skills in Halo Reach. You can't have everything, it's just realism. Shepard is a soldier, not a diplomat. If you want rhetoric skills and such, you should be able to buy them, to feel the CONSEQUENCES (a key word in RPGs) of your actions. If by some point you barely got your charm points up and can't make a situation work in a certain way to your favour, it's too bad your you. Congratulations, you successfully played your role. Role playing isn't about being able to do everything, it's about having a certain defined character through your actions, a character that is both limited and competent in different fields. From what I understand, you don't seem to play many RPGs beside Bioware games. You'd swear otherwise at the amount of things you wouldn't be able to do in other games. That's why ME2 sucks as an RPG, no matter what your class is, you can easily do and get everything. Where's the real customization and feel of consequences?

That's YOUR definition of roleplaying.  That's not the modern definition as there is no singular accepted version.  BioWare felt that you should be able to do "everything" as that's what they've allowed us to do in both ME games so far.  You COULD pass every speech check and you COULD max out your rhetoric skills without sacrificing your combat skills, you just had to play a certain way.  In ME 1, you just needed to do some NG+'s.  In ME2, you just had to focus on staying on one path or the other.  

You say ME2 was a failure as an RPG, I say it was a complete success.  You're using an old school rubric to measure its quality, I'm using a more relevant current one.  

You want to talk realism?  Really?  The fact of the matter is that Shepard is NOT someone defined by his limitations.  He is written as an Ubermensch, a space messiah.  Your roleplaying should not be about what Shepard CAN or CANNOT do, but what Shepard CHOOSES to do.  Arbitrary game mechanics that limit your CHOICE are a handicap to roleplaying.  You're therefore forcing a choice on the player based on a choice irrelevant to the situation at hand.  You force metagaming by limiting the player in that way.  

So your argument distills down to this:

- Does choice come from the actual conversational decisions and actions we take 
  --  OR --
- Does our choice come from some shallow metagaming where we allocate arbitrary points that gate off more meaningful narrative choices later

You've got the ass-backwards blinders of Ye Olde RPG's bolted on.  

Modifié par Omega-202, 23 janvier 2011 - 06:51 .

[BioticInfiltrator]

Bluko wrote...

I liked it better simply because you could for once actually Charm or Intimidate people. In ME1 good luck with that. Even if you do dump all your points into the Charm/Intimidate skills you generally aren't a high enough level to use them for most of the game's scenarios. ME1 was far worse since more often then not your options will be grayed out until you get to the middle or end of the game. For what it's worth I've tried Paragade in ME1 and it didn't work at all. Rather then being able to intimidate or charm I could do neither. Couldn't talk down Saren even with 12 points in both.

ME1 is really no different. You can't do both of the bonus Paragon/Renegade missions in a singleplaythru.

I don't get it how do you not lean more Paragon or Renegade? Honestly how can you play a character that flip floppy that they save one innocent bystander but let another die in a similar situation? Is your Shepard Bipolar? I've had mostly Paragon playthrus in ME2 where I could still use Intimidation in a few cases, and never had any issue of not being able to use Charm once. I don't get what you people are doing. It's not like making a few Renegade decisions is going to hinder your Paragon progress that much more, or vice versa. Look you either play more Paragon or more Renegade, that's how the game is, and frankly every Bioware game has been just about that way. If you play as a True Neutral character you plain and simple won't be persuasive. You can't be a pure saint and pure badass at the same time. Doesn't work and frankly doesn't make sense.

That said the Miranda/Jack and Tali/Legion are probably the hardest conversations to get the check for. Still I don't think I've had a playthru where I couldn't negotiate those situations. Probably helps if you invest early for your general class skill with the highest Paragon/Renegade modifier.

^This is exactly how i've played I still get the occasional intimidate. Personally though I think there is a seperate hidden morality system for the crews arguments depending on how you treat them, though I don't have any actual proof it's just theory, part of that theory came from the post by Zombie Chow and from my own playthroughs.

and also this: Morality Squad Banter in ME3: Building Consensus

Modifié par BioticInfiltrator, 23 janvier 2011 - 07:27 .

[Evil Johnny 666]

Omega-202 wrote...

Evil Johnny 666 wrote...


I don't know, in real life, when I decide to play guitar for 4 hours straight, I have 4 hours less to do homeworks. Or practice my mp skills in Halo Reach. You can't have everything, it's just realism. Shepard is a soldier, not a diplomat. If you want rhetoric skills and such, you should be able to buy them, to feel the CONSEQUENCES (a key word in RPGs) of your actions. If by some point you barely got your charm points up and can't make a situation work in a certain way to your favour, it's too bad your you. Congratulations, you successfully played your role. Role playing isn't about being able to do everything, it's about having a certain defined character through your actions, a character that is both limited and competent in different fields. From what I understand, you don't seem to play many RPGs beside Bioware games. You'd swear otherwise at the amount of things you wouldn't be able to do in other games. That's why ME2 sucks as an RPG, no matter what your class is, you can easily do and get everything. Where's the real customization and feel of consequences?

That's YOUR definition of roleplaying.  That's not the modern definition as there is no singular accepted version.  BioWare felt that you should be able to do "everything" as that's what they've allowed us to do in both ME games so far.  You COULD pass every speech check and you COULD max out your rhetoric skills without sacrificing your combat skills, you just had to play a certain way.  In ME 1, you just needed to do some NG+'s.  In ME2, you just had to focus on staying on one path or the other.

Yeah, you had to do NG+ in order to do so in ME1, so that doesn't count. In ME1, you couldn't max out your rhetoric skills, decrypting, hacking and combat skills at the same time.

You say ME2 was a failure as an RPG, I say it was a complete success.  You're using an old school rubric to measure its quality, I'm using a more relevant current one.

A "relevant" ****ty one indeed. Even then, I'd say ME2 fails a good game too. The only good thing it has is the universe. The writing is poor, half the characters are bland and are tired clishés and sterotypes. I can't believe how anyone would prefer ME2's characters, each and every one in ME1 were tied in some interesting way in the universe, they deepened it. Only Mordin, Garrus and Tali (two of those who are from ME1) were great. Miranda helped show a certain side of Cerberus and Thane was interesting. Samara brought in a ridiculous element to the universe, Grunt is merely a "I'm so violent, pure Krogan, blah blah blah" super soldier we're tired of, Jack was just your angsty emo teenager. The dialogue system is incredibly shallow (even more than ME1's) and the only other thing the game has besides the dialogue system is the combat. Even better than ME1's it still manages to become boring mid-game because they all changed the level design to one of a railroad third person shooter instead of an RPG one where you could explore a bit and get some quests. And the story, or lack thereof...

You want to talk realism?  Really?  The fact of the matter is that Shepard is NOT someone defined by his limitations.  He is written as an Ubermensch, a space messiah.  Your roleplaying should not be about what Shepard CAN or CANNOT do, but what Shepard CHOOSES to do.  Arbitrary game mechanics that limit your CHOICE are a handicap to roleplaying.  You're therefore forcing a choice on the player based on a choice irrelevant to the situation at hand.  You force metagaming by limiting the player in that way.

You're talking about how he was defined in ME2, otherwise we wouldn't have this argument... An handicap? How it's not limiting, it's defining. You have plenty of choices, but these choices have consequences, just like in real life. It's much more exciting when you can feel the consequences of your actions, rather than being able to do everything. The Ubermensch should be your end-game state, not what you are in the beginning, otherwise it completely annnihilates to reason to play an RPG. What is fun, is to see your character grow stronger and in the end, become "god-like". ME2 makes this character progression non-existent (it wasn't particularly deep in ME1 either).

And you're talking about what Shepard chooses to do? You're kidding right? Because in ME2, there's no choice at all. Top choices all the time and you get everything, how is that choosing something to do? Plus, if you decide to take the grey road, you ARE limiting your character, what you said to be an handicap. If you decide to really choose what you would personally do, you're in for contradictions and a split-personnality problem. I did so and I ended up backstabbing who I said I trusted and worked for which was not my intention. Each of the 3 dialogue lines are written as 3 different Shepard character, the game was made to stick to only one path, how is that choosing at all? If you want real choices, you need real consequences. ME2 offers nothing of this. Hell, remember the ME1 choices regarding the council, rachni and all? These were real choices, something ME2 lacks. And if you killed off the rachni, you get limited in ME2. Real choices = consequences. It's how it works.

So your argument distills down to this:

- Does choice come from the actual conversational decisions and actions we take 
  --  OR --
- Does our choice come from some shallow metagaming where we allocate arbitrary points that gate off more meaningful narrative choices later

You've got the ass-backwards blinders of Ye Olde RPG's bolted on.  

The first option is incredibly flawed like I already written in this thread. It's not because they tied conversation decisions with choices that they made it in a right way.

The second choices, I'll have to say you completely missed the point of "arbitrary points". Those points are skills. Practice guitar for 5 hours in a day, you'll get better, but you could have used this time to get better at kickboxing. Those points are there to represent what your character did when you get up one level. It's not arbitrary at all, it's not because you don't like it that it is. As for metagaming, it's not my problem if you decide to do it, I couldn't care less. All I want is a decent experience AT ALL. ME started off as a decent RPG and I expected ME2 to be a decent RPG. Not only ME2 is far from a decent RPG, it's barely a decent game. At least I could've accepted the lack of RPG depth if the game was very good in the first place.

I'm not against trying to "advance" the RPG genre, but in order to do so, you have to keep what makes an RPG: customization and character progression/development. Ask Bethesda, ask even Bioware. They'll tell you these are essential parts of an RPG and also will add choices. I don't think choices are essential (albeit important) since most JRPGs completely forgo that. But Bioware failed in giving real choices in ME2, they failed at giving deep customization besides what any non-RPG can do, and failed at giving Shepard a certain pregression throughout the game. Back to advancing RPGs, Bethsada are actually doing it. They deleted classes and attributes, they made so you level up based on what skill you level ip, how many of them you do so and at which level they are. I have my fears, but I'm confident they'll put out something which works out at least smoothly. Maybe I'll prefer not having classes and attributes, but at least I know they're keeping a certain level of depth, keeping what the Elder Scrolls is about, and what RPGs are about. They're making sure people will react to you depending on how you treated them and your reputation and yourspeechcraft skill  - charming, intimidate. It's all about freedom of customization and choices, something ME2 utterly lacks. And ME2 failed to deliver the original ME experience, unlike the TES games which are all very different. Hell, ME2 feels more like a ME reboot than a sequel which should have worked ON the elements they introduced instead of scrapping half of them and alienating their fanbase.

[Omega-202]

This is one of those times where I have to realize I'm talking to someone who is deeply entrenched in an outdated mindset.

There can be no convincing you as you're stuck clasping to a dying viewpoint. You want someone to put up arbitrary retaining walls on your game that are only there to give you some sort of illusion of "individuality". Developers have realized that the general gaming public does not want that anymore.

Your mindset is a relic of the past and I applaud BioWare for leaving it in the dust. Good luck with finding a game that still uses your definition of "depth" that is inherently meaningless.

Modifié par Omega-202, 23 janvier 2011 - 07:36 .

[casedawgz]

Omega-202 wrote...

Evil Johnny 666 wrote...


I don't know, in real life, when I decide to play guitar for 4 hours straight, I have 4 hours less to do homeworks. Or practice my mp skills in Halo Reach. You can't have everything, it's just realism. Shepard is a soldier, not a diplomat. If you want rhetoric skills and such, you should be able to buy them, to feel the CONSEQUENCES (a key word in RPGs) of your actions. If by some point you barely got your charm points up and can't make a situation work in a certain way to your favour, it's too bad your you. Congratulations, you successfully played your role. Role playing isn't about being able to do everything, it's about having a certain defined character through your actions, a character that is both limited and competent in different fields. From what I understand, you don't seem to play many RPGs beside Bioware games. You'd swear otherwise at the amount of things you wouldn't be able to do in other games. That's why ME2 sucks as an RPG, no matter what your class is, you can easily do and get everything. Where's the real customization and feel of consequences?

That's YOUR definition of roleplaying.  That's not the modern definition as there is no singular accepted version.  BioWare felt that you should be able to do "everything" as that's what they've allowed us to do in both ME games so far.  You COULD pass every speech check and you COULD max out your rhetoric skills without sacrificing your combat skills, you just had to play a certain way.  In ME 1, you just needed to do some NG+'s.  In ME2, you just had to focus on staying on one path or the other.  

You say ME2 was a failure as an RPG, I say it was a complete success.  You're using an old school rubric to measure its quality, I'm using a more relevant current one.  

You want to talk realism?  Really?  The fact of the matter is that Shepard is NOT someone defined by his limitations.  He is written as an Ubermensch, a space messiah.  Your roleplaying should not be about what Shepard CAN or CANNOT do, but what Shepard CHOOSES to do.  Arbitrary game mechanics that limit your CHOICE are a handicap to roleplaying.  You're therefore forcing a choice on the player based on a choice irrelevant to the situation at hand.  You force metagaming by limiting the player in that way.  

So your argument distills down to this:

- Does choice come from the actual conversational decisions and actions we take 
  --  OR --
- Does our choice come from some shallow metagaming where we allocate arbitrary points that gate off more meaningful narrative choices later

You've got the ass-backwards blinders of Ye Olde RPG's bolted on.  

Correct.

[Evil Johnny 666]

Omega-202 wrote...

This is one of those times where I have to realize I'm talking to someone who is deeply entrenched in an outdated mindset.

There can be no convincing you as you're stuck clasping to a dying viewpoint. You want someone to put up arbitrary retaining walls on your game that are only there to give you some sort of illusion of "individuality". Developers have realized that the general gaming public does not want that anymore.

Your mindset is a relic of the past and I applaud BioWare for leaving it in the dust. Good luck with finding a game that still uses your definition of "depth" that is inherently meaningless.

I don't know if wanting a deep and engaging system, a satisfying experience is having an outdated viewpoint:lol: That's what people who deeply disagrees with someone who has a different opinion but lacks the spirit to defend his point usually resorts to.

Like I said, it's not "arbitrary retaining walls", it's called realism. It's a shame to know I'm the only one who cares about a deep gaming experience that offers you more than simplistic 3 gameplay options, a game that offers no real reward depending on how to play it. But that's normal, gamers are spoiled nowadays and want to be able to do everything and have everything at the expense of having actually a fun game. Instead, everyone plays the same way and always get the same things.

"Arbitrary retaining walls" Just like life "arbitrarily put retaining walls" so I can't be a ubermensch and do everything. Every hot girl doesn't fall in my arms, I don't have the body of a greek god, I'm not good at everything... What I find exciting with Elder Scroll games, is in a certain game I can be an utterly weak character, but relying on my sneak skills I can make money another way than by killing bandits, with my good alchemy skills I can make potent poisons, and with my good archery skills, coupled with my sneak skills, I can be an incredibly dangerous assassin who kills silently and fast. Since I have good acroatic skills too, I can reach plenty of places my other barbarian character can't giving advantages. But, my barbarian is a beast. He can wear the heaviest of armors which defends him well and head first into combat, do a lot of damage, disarm people because of his high blunt weapon skills. I can loot much more than my frail assassin because of my high endurance, so I make my money out of all the heavy but very expensive weapons I find. But I'll never be able to do some killing without getting guards on my back, nor would I be able to steal this very rare weapon I want. But I could still be able to do it via another way. And I could continue on, and on, and on. Yes my characters are limited, but it's because of choices I made, choices which had consequences. And that's why it's so much more interesting, because each of my characters are truly different, PLAY differently too. Each game of ME2 I made, even with different classes were too identical, the boring shooting changes slightly, and I only have 3 choices for dialogues, 3 choices which ends up with extremely shallow and generic lines. Either I'm a saint, or a ****ing redneck. How is that fun?

Anyway, have fun with your low quality standards and accepting any trash that is thrown at you without question. I'll enjoy only picking up the best and having more exciting experiences. Like I said, it's not only about the RPG (ME2 could be a solid shooter and I'd accept it), but a good game.

[Talogrungi]

I hate the monochrome morality too. I don't like being punished on the basis that I don't want to meta-game and follow a predetermined path for paragon/renegade playthroughs. As it stands, we know that picking the neutral option is ALWAYS a bad idea .. so you don't do it .. even if it's what you'd prefer to do, and what you think your character would do in that situation.

Or, you do as I do and "cheat" the paragon/renegade points in order to play the game without the need to meta-game and hope like hell that doing so doesn't cause problems when it comes time to import into ME3.

[Soahfreako]

Well, just warning here I'm about to ask you to think, just think about it. As you get closer and closer to an event that could cause your death, I mean really think about it here, don't you think it'll take a bit more convincing to do things? If you're mind was just blown, you were warned so I am not liable.

[shinobi602]

I love the Paragon/Renegade system.

[Evil Johnny 666]

Talogrungi wrote...

I hate the monochrome morality too. I don't like being punished on the basis that I don't want to meta-game and follow a predetermined path for paragon/renegade playthroughs. As it stands, we know that picking the neutral option is ALWAYS a bad idea .. so you don't do it .. even if it's what you'd prefer to do, and what you think your character would do in that situation.
Or, you do as I do and "cheat" the paragon/renegade points in order to play the game without the need to meta-game and hope like hell that doing so doesn't cause problems when it comes time to import into ME3.

yeah, I don't get people defending the system by telling us it stops meta-gaming. In my opinion, it only makes it worse. Not only to be able to have certain options, but to be able to have a character that doesn't have a split-personality nor does constantly contradict himself.

Modifié par Evil Johnny 666, 23 janvier 2011 - 08:13 .

[Talogrungi]

Soahfreako wrote...

Well, just warning here I'm about to ask you to think, just think about it. As you get closer and closer to an event that could cause your death, I mean really think about it here, don't you think it'll take a bit more convincing to do things? If you're mind was just blown, you were warned so I am not liable.

Personally, I think that if someone like Shepard, who has done the things that Shepard has done, accomplished the things that Shepard has accomplished against impossible odds while slaughtering his/her way through armies of enemies .. if that Shepard sticks a gun in your face and tells you to do something .. you're gonna do it.

You ain't gonna gamble on your life against a Shepard who, even if he/she was as Paragon as Paragon could be, has wiped out literally hundreds (thousands?) of people before they get to you.

[Soahfreako]

shoving a gun in someones face is a way of convincing.