187 réponses à ce sujet

[slimgrin]

I would argue the point of a morality meter is to facilitate simplistic writing.

[Evil Johnny 666]

Talogrungi wrote...

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.

Don't forget that you can shove a punch in a reporter's face no matter your aligment. Could Bioware drop the balls? Of course not, it's not like no studio is safe from that.

[Talogrungi]

slimgrin wrote...

I would argue the point of a morality meter is to facilitate simplistic writing.

Does the morality meter really facilitate simplistic writing though?

All it really does is prevent certain players from progressing down an extreme route.

I would argue that the real point of the morality meter is to promote meta-gaming, distance the two distinct progression paths and hence, increase the replayability of the game. My first instinct upon beating the game following a primarily Paragon path was to replay it as Renegade to see how the game differed.

Heh, forcing us to progress down the paths that have been laid out for us .. Bioware are the Reapers!

Modifié par Talogrungi, 23 janvier 2011 - 08:25 .

[slimgrin]

Talogrungi wrote...

slimgrin wrote...

I would argue the point of a morality meter is to facilitate simplistic writing.

Does the morality meter really facilitate simplistic writing though?

All it really does is prevent certain players from progressing down an extreme route.

I would argue that the real point of the morality meter is to promote meta-gaming, distance the two distinct progression paths and hence, increase the replayability of the game. My first instinct upon beating the game following a primarily Paragon path was to replay it as Renegade to see how the game differed.

Heh, forcing us to progress down the paths that have been laid out for us .. Bioware are the Reapers!

I always felt like I was being corralled into one moral paradigm or the other.

Modifié par slimgrin, 23 janvier 2011 - 08:34 .

[RAF1940]

slimgrin wrote...

Talogrungi wrote...

slimgrin wrote...

I would argue the point of a morality meter is to facilitate simplistic writing.

Does the morality meter really facilitate simplistic writing though?

All it really does is prevent certain players from progressing down an extreme route.

I would argue that the real point of the morality meter is to promote meta-gaming, distance the two distinct progression paths and hence, increase the replayability of the game. My first instinct upon beating the game following a primarily Paragon path was to replay it as Renegade to see how the game differed.

Heh, forcing us to progress down the paths that have been laid out for us .. Bioware are the Reapers!

I always felt like I was being corralled into one moral paradigm or the other.

As did I at some points. I wanted to play a neutral character, but then I couldn't do some of the cool morality checks (or absolutely vital ones, like the fights).

[JKoopman]

I fail to see how the system in ME2 makes more sense than the system in ME1. Think about it.

If a kid in high school takes 2 hours of debate class after school, he's probably going to be more persuasive than the kid on the soccer team who shirks his studies to kick a ball around; the trade-off is that the kid on the soccer team is probably going to be more physically fit and faster. Similarly, in ME1, if you chose to invest in your powers of persuasion, you became more persuasive at the expense of increasing your combat abilities; and if you chose to invest in your physical fitness and weapon accuracy, you lacked the finer argumentative skills of the former.

You could BE a Paragon in ME1 and still intimidate people in conversations and vice versa. In ME2, the only way to be intimidating is to be a Renegade. Your conversation options are inexplicably tied to your "morality". ME1's system not only made the most sense, it also allowed for far more flexibility and choice. Some people just couldn't handle the fact that putting points into persuasion options meant they couldn't easily acquire all those fancy combat skills, and that putting points into buffing their combat abilities meant that some of those more difficult diplomatic options were closed to them; they want everything from the start without having to earn it. They want to be the world-class hostage negotiator AND the top marksman AND the heavy-weight bodybuilder all at the same time. That's not the way life works, and it's not the way roleplaying works.

Modifié par JKoopman, 23 janvier 2011 - 09:33 .

[Evil Johnny 666]

JKoopman wrote...

I fail to see how the system in ME2 makes more sense than the system in ME1. Think about it.

If a kid in high school takes 2 hours of debate class after school, he's probably going to be more persuasive than the kid on the soccer team who shirks his studies to kick a ball around; the trade-off is that the kid on the soccer team is probably going to be more physically fit and faster. Similarly, in ME1, if you chose to invest in your powers of persuasion, you became more persuasive at the expense of increasing your combat abilities; and if you chose to invest in your physical fitness and weapon accuracy, you lacked the finer argumentative skills of the former.

You could BE a Paragon in ME1 and still intimidate people in conversations and vice versa. In ME2, the only way to be intimidating is to be a Renegade. Your conversation options are inexplicably tied to your "morality". ME1's system not only made the most sense, it also allowed for far more flexibility and choice. Some people just couldn't handle the fact that putting points into persuasion options meant they couldn't easily acquire all those fancy combat skills; they want everything from the start without having to earn it. They want to be the world-class hostage negotiator AND the top marksman AND the heavy-weight bodybuilder all at the same time.

Exactly, thank you. I don't know why some people can't seem to understand this. And I don't know why people think being an ubermensch is fun either. But, I'm not telling ME1's system was perfect either, only that it made more sense.

[Lumikki]

JKoopman wrote...

I fail to see how the system in ME2 makes more sense than the system in ME1. Think about it.

Because you think ME2 system like it's skill, it's not skill, it's moral reputation.

Okey, moral is more like right and wrong. Reputation is like what you have done in past is someway affeting your situation where you are now. Meaning if you become famous to anyting, it will affect others behavior. More fame you have more people are affected. How ever, moral reputation is not fame, it's how others see you by actions what you have done past. Shepard is famous even without any moral reputation. Example Hitler is famous person from history, but do we see him as loving or feared person is depending actions what Hitler has done. What is based Hitlers moral.

Skill is more like how well you are able to do something. You can learn many different skills and learn to become better in it, example in games put points to skill. Even if there are also rpg's where you learn only what you use.

Now what's problem with ME2 moral reputation system? Simple way sayed, it only reward players doing extreme morals and doesn't allow same benefit players who doesn't have extreme morals.

Now what's problem with ME1 persuation skill system? Simple ways sayed, it allows players to bypass dialog choises with 100% positive results. Meaning dialog system is there for choises, but persuation "choise" is better than any normal dialog choises. I ques it's like having super gun in combat, not just extra, but it makes all other guns obsolite when the super gun can be used. Meaning persuation offers player the most comfortable alternative to solve situation. Also more important it doesn't really require player to be as this super diplomat, it only requires player to put points to skill.

So, the main difference between system is that one game learns what you are by choises what you do, while in other you define what you are, but you don't have follow the path what you have defined.

Point is that persuation skill and moral reputation are totally different thing. So, what's better thing in ME2? It's that it tries to create system with consequences of past choises. Other ways it wasn't any better.

Modifié par Lumikki, 23 janvier 2011 - 10:06 .

[The Spamming Troll]

i dont see a need for a morality meter. it means i can only be mr rogers or snake pliskin. it mostly sucks for the neutral players. just because i do one thing good and one thing bad, shouldnt mean im incapable of earning that dialogue option if i instead made 2 paragon or 2 renegade decisions.



there should be one meter like "fame" which governs how much youve done, not in the way youve done it. it should simply be based off earned experience, just use your EXP bar as a measure of what you have done and relate that to what you can do in the future. i just dont see a need to make it black or what, while excluding the grey.

[Evil Johnny 666]

Lumikki wrote...

JKoopman wrote...

I fail to see how the system in ME2 makes more sense than the system in ME1. Think about it.

Because you think ME2 system like it's skill, it's not skill, it's moral reputation.

Okey, moral is more like right and wrong. Reputation is like what you have done in past is someway affeting your situation where you are now. Meaning if you become famous to anyting, it will affect other behavior. More fame you have more people are affected. How ever, moral reputation is not fame, it's how others see you by actions what you have done past. Shepard is famous even without any moral reputation. Example Hitler is famous person from history, but do we see him as loving or hated person is depending actions what Hitler has done. What is based Hitlers moral.

Yeah, but Hitler's reputation didn't changed when he decided to marry his wife or get with her. Hitler's reputation didn't change when he started swearing about people we don't even know. Hitler's reputation changed because of his big actions, not petty opinions. And what does a reputation has anything to do with your ability to do something? Reputation =/= real life personality. Plus, like you said, people view Hitler differently, same should happen with Shepard, so people should react to him differently. Problem is, if your maxed out in paragon or renegade (which 90% of everyone does otherwise you miss on things = metagaming) you never fail. Do you think a dangerous Omega criminal would dig Shepard going all "I'm not here to fight"? Do you think he wouldn't dig Shepard shoving his gun because he's "apparently" too much of a saint? Omega is Omega, and a criminal is a criminal, I'm pretty sure that if he doesn't take the threat seriously, he'd at least try to shoot Shepard or something, if Shepard doesn't shoot him first.

Now what's problem with ME1 persuation skill system? Simple ways sayed, it allows players to bypass dialog choises with 100% positive results. Meaning dialog system is there for choises, but persuation "choise" is better than any normal dialog choises. I ques it's like having super gun in combat, not just extra, but it makes all other guns obsolite when the super gun can be used. Meaning persuation offers player the most comfortable alternative to solve situation. Also more important it doesn't really require player to be as this super diplomat, it only requires player to put points to skill.

Only if you decide to be a rhetoric god, you don't get to be a combat god, thus not bypassing everything. That's what we call roleplaying. The analogy with the super gun doesn't work, unless it means that you have to take it over something handicapping you. There are consequences for maxing your intimidate skills, there's no consequences for choosing all the renegade options. Eh, isn't that "bypassing dialog choices with 100% positive results"? It's even EASIER to do this in ME2:huh:

[Lumikki]

Evil Johnny 666 wrote...
 Eh, isn't that "bypassing dialog choices with 100% positive results"? It's even EASIER to do this in ME2:huh:

No it's not as easy in ME2, but you are right that ME2 has same problem with extreme paths.

As for roleplaying comment, You made me smile. It's metaplayers way, not roleplayers.

Okey, let me ask question and be honest to you self.

In any ME1 play troughs, did you not put ANY points to persuation or intimidate skill?
(Assuming it's not full renegade ass hole path played)

Modifié par Lumikki, 23 janvier 2011 - 10:13 .

[JKoopman]

Lumikki wrote...

JKoopman wrote...

I fail to see how the system in ME2 makes more sense than the system in ME1. Think about it.

Because you think ME2 system like it's skill, it's not skill, it's moral reputation.

Okey, moral is more like right and wrong. Reputation is like what you have done in past is someway affeting your situation where you are now. Meaning if you become famous to anyting, it will affect others behavior. More fame you have more people are affected. How ever, moral reputation is not fame, it's how others see you by actions what you have done past. Shepard is famous even without any moral reputation. Example Hitler is famous person from history, but do we see him as loving or feared person is depending actions what Hitler has done. What is based Hitlers moral.

Skill is more like how well you are able to do something. You can learn many different skills and learn to become better in it, example in games put points to skill. Even if there are also rpg's where you learn only what you use.

Now what's problem with ME2 moral reputation system? Simple way sayed, it only reward players doing extreme morals and doesn't allow same benefit players who doesn't have extreme morals.

Now what's problem with ME1 persuation skill system? Simple ways sayed, it allows players to bypass dialog choises with 100% positive results. Meaning dialog system is there for choises, but persuation "choise" is better than any normal dialog choises. I ques it's like having super gun in combat, not just extra, but it makes all other guns obsolite when the super gun can be used. Meaning persuation offers player the most comfortable alternative to solve situation. Also more important it doesn't really require player to be as this super diplomat, it only requires player to put points to skill.

So, the main difference between system is that one game learns what you are by choises what you do, while in other you define what you are, but you don't have follow the path what you have defined.

Point is that persuation skill and moral reputation are totally different thing.

Did I say "morality" anywhere? Go back and read my first post in this thread. I'm well aware that Paragon/Renegade is reputation rather than morality.

The point is, being persuasive IS a skill in real life. Just because you're a dick to everyone, that doesn't make you intimidating. And just because you're a nice guy, that doesn't make you persuasive. To use your own example, Hitler was a horrible person with a vicious reputation but he was still very persuasive. He didn't go around intimidating everyone, although he obviously wasn't above doing so; he was genuinely charismatic and many people followed him willingly and even loved him.

This was possible in ME1. You could have a Renegade reputation but still be charismatic and friendly and use persuasion where appropriate. In ME2, if you've got a Renegade reputation, you're basically restricted to a "psychotic a-hole" persona with friends and enemies alike; and vis-à-vis, if you have a Paragon reputation, you're restricted to a "Mr. Rogers" persona even among those who clearly deserve a bullet to the head.

Just because I shoved my gun in Conrad's face when he's acting the fool doesn't mean I want to be screaming at and berating my own crew. And likewise, just because I want to be sensitive and fatherly with my crew doesn't mean I want to act like a pansy towards the belligerent merc who won't give me the information I'm searching for. This is what linking reputation and persuasion forces you into, and it's why ME1 did it better.

The rest of what you said I either can't follow or makes no sense.

Modifié par JKoopman, 23 janvier 2011 - 10:28 .

[Lumikki]

JKoopman wrote...

This is what linking reputation and persuasion forces you into, and it's why ME1 did it better.

Sorry, it seem we have disagreement here. ME1 allowed PLAYER to do what ever they wanted with persuation, even if actions what they character did was totally out of character role played so far. ME2 did not allow this, it tryed to learn what "role" was played and only allow to choose moral action what was based that role. That's the different.

I ques this is little like disagreement totally free choise or choises based what you really are.

Modifié par Lumikki, 23 janvier 2011 - 10:33 .

[Evil Johnny 666]

Lumikki wrote...

Evil Johnny 666 wrote...
 Eh, isn't that "bypassing dialog choices with 100% positive results"? It's even EASIER to do this in ME2:huh:

No it's not as easy in ME2, but you are right that ME2 has same problem with extreme paths.

As for roleplaying comment, You made me smile. It's metaplayers way, not roleplayers.

That may be because of ME1's simplicity. Boot up Daggerfall, Morrowind or Oblivion. It's taking the skill thing to the extreme with more than 20 which you can't max up at the same time. Now tell me, is it metagaming? There's so many choices, ubermensch are not possibe from the get-go, only at the end of the game.

Okey, let me ask question and be honest to you self.

In any ME1 play troughs, did you not put ANY points to persuation or intimidate skill?
(Assuming it's not full renegade ass hole path played)

I did... at least 4 Mass Effect playthroughs, choosing different characters for each of them. I don't remember much, but I must had one full paragon with full charm and one full renegade with full intimidate (never tried a grey dude with non-maxed out charm AND intimidate). I also made at least 2 characters which I either didn't touch those skills or only lightly. In fact, despite me maxing my intimidate and charm skills for 2 characters in ME1, I didn't only put points in these skills before any other ones, but did so in a way I thought I would still manage to get decent combat skills - I was playing on higher difficulties. I ended up not being able to choose certain options because of that. So even with my full renegade whom I tried to max out his intimidate skills, I never actually managed to kill the crazy company dude on Feros in ANY of my playthroughs. I never cared about getting all these options, i did my full renegade
and paragons only to see how it plays and what happens when you choose
those options.

Let me ask you a question, when you put charm points, didn't you do it at the expense of your decrypting or hacking abilities? Didn't it disable you from getting several quests or items? If you get 100% charm skills, you still don't get everything.

Modifié par Evil Johnny 666, 23 janvier 2011 - 10:44 .

[Evil Johnny 666]

oops

Modifié par Evil Johnny 666, 23 janvier 2011 - 10:34 .

[JKoopman]

Lumikki wrote...

JKoopman wrote...

This is what linking reputation and persuasion forces you into, and it's why ME1 did it better.

Sorry, it seem we have disagreement here. ME1 allowed PLAYER to do what ever they wanted with persuation, even if actions what they character did was totally out of character role played so far. ME2 did not allow this, it tryed to learn what "role" was played and only allow to choose moral action what was based that role. That's the different.

I ques this is little like disagreement totally free choise or choises based what you really are.

That's how real people work. I hate to use Hitler as an example again, but that he ordered the genocide of an entire ethnic group didn't mean that he was incapable of going home and sharing a tender moment with his wife.

To only allow you one conversation path or the other restricts your depth of character and makes Shepard rather one-dimensional.

[Lumikki]

JKoopman wrote...

That's how real people work. I hate to use Hitler as an example again, but that he ordered the genocide of an entire ethnic group didn't mean that he was incapable of going home and sharing a tender moment with his wife.

To only allow you one conversation path or the other restricts your depth of character and makes Shepard rather one-dimensional.

Yes, but are they really that. Can real people switch they morality just like that really?

I mean can you be Mother Teressa and go home and beat you kids to dead. My point is that tender moment with his wife may not be moral based goodness, but also from fear of his husband. People are complex and they actions can change, but they moral compass doesn't swing in different direction all the time. It's allways behind you and can seen by others.

Modifié par Lumikki, 23 janvier 2011 - 10:45 .

[Evil Johnny 666]

Lumikki wrote...

JKoopman wrote...

That's how real people work. I hate to use Hitler as an example again, but that he ordered the genocide of an entire ethnic group didn't mean that he was incapable of going home and sharing a tender moment with his wife.

To only allow you one conversation path or the other restricts your depth of character and makes Shepard rather one-dimensional.

Yes, but are they really that. Can real people switch they morality just like that really?

I mean can you be Mother Teressa and go home and beat you kids to dead. My point is that tender moment with his wife may not be moral based goodness, but also from fear of his husband. People are complex and they actions can change, but they moral compass doesn't swing in different direction all the time. It's allways behind you and can seen by others.

That's not switching morality, that's acting accordingly to YOUR morality. Who said you'd get from Mother Teresa to beating your kids to death? In real life, I don't react to events while thinking "what does my morality tells me?".

So, according to you and ME2:

-Telling TIM you feel well (renegade)
-Telling Jacob you trust him but works for the wrong person (paragon)
-Comforting a mother in grief (paragon)
-Defend a Quarian who gets bullied (paragon)
-Threathen a dangerous criminal on Omega (renegade)
-Being a commander with strong authority (renegade)

Doing all this would be me swinging a moral compass in different directions all the time? There's no contradiction at all. It's only showing myself as a deep character, has someone with a real way to view things, rather than a one dimensional "saint" character or "badass" one. I have my morals, it's not because the game tells me some actions are from different alignments that I'm swinging my moral compass in different directions all the time. Maybe ME2's system is just incredibly flawed.

Modifié par Evil Johnny 666, 23 janvier 2011 - 10:51 .

[Lumikki]

Those examples are not moral based actions, they are counting you choises morality. Left side is the action taken, right side is the try. You can try anyting, but you can't take action beyond moral base.

Try is when Mother Teressa takes gun and put it your face.
How ever, because Mother Teressa's morality, gun will never be fired. It would be action agaist what she is.
Meaning try will fail in result or renegade morality action is not available.

Modifié par Lumikki, 23 janvier 2011 - 11:01 .

[Evil Johnny 666]

Lumikki wrote...

Those examples are not moral based actions, they are counting you choises morality. Left side is the action taken, right side is the try. You can try anyting, but you can't take action beyond moral base.

Try is when Mother Teressa takes gun and put it your face.
How ever, because Mother Teressa's morality, gun will never be fired.
Meaning try will fail in result or renegade morality action is not available.

Wut? They are ALL moral based actions. Only the gun thing is the try, and even then, it DOES affect your morality. And again, in real life, you're telling me I wouldn't be able to do this? It's not because the game says so that it's of any realism or it makes sense.

The Mother Teresa analogy is terrible. Shepard doesn't even fire his gun when he threaten the criminal, you know... And then, you're assuming your character has a certain extreme morality. What if it's not the case? Most people think and act differently, thus most people have different moralities that are far more complex than black and white stuff like there is in ME2.

Modifié par Evil Johnny 666, 23 janvier 2011 - 11:04 .

[JKoopman]

Lumikki wrote...

JKoopman wrote...

That's how real people work. I hate to use Hitler as an example again, but that he ordered the genocide of an entire ethnic group didn't mean that he was incapable of going home and sharing a tender moment with his wife.

To only allow you one conversation path or the other restricts your depth of character and makes Shepard rather one-dimensional.

Yes, but are they really that. Can real people switch they morality just like that really?

I mean can you be Mother Teressa and go home and beat you kids to dead. My point is that tender moment with his wife may not be moral based goodness, but also from fear of his husband. People are complex and they actions can change, but they moral compass doesn't swing in different direction all the time. It's allways behind you and can seen by others.

So now we're talking about morality again? I thought we were talking about reputation? You were very clear on the fact that Paragon/Renegade was reputation and not morality.

Modifié par JKoopman, 23 janvier 2011 - 11:11 .

[Lumikki]

Damm how would I make you understands what I mean.

Try is when you do something, but it's not resolved what the end result is. Right side of dialogs are all tries. When the dialogs ends it's the end result. End result is the final action, not the try to do something. Left side of dialogs aren't tries, they go directly moral base end result. That's why it can't be allowed to do someone who's moral is't right. Others need to try and see what happens.

Of course most people are not black and white, that's the problem in ME2 systen, not to have the gray area as not having any kind of morality. (neural path)

How ever, in persuation there is no area at all, because anyone can be everyting anytime they want. You can switch you compass anyway you like in middle of talking.

Modifié par Lumikki, 23 janvier 2011 - 11:14 .

[Lumikki]

JKoopman wrote...

So now we're talking about morality again? I thought we were talking about reputation? You were very clear on the fact that Paragon/Renegade was reputation and not morality.

?

Paragon and renegade system in ME2 is moral reputation, it has both components. Meanign the choises is counted it's morality base, but multible past of choises creates reputation, based morality.

Modifié par Lumikki, 23 janvier 2011 - 11:17 .

[Evil Johnny 666]

Lumikki wrote...

Damm how would I make you understands what I mean.

Try is when you do something, but it's not resolved what the end result is. Right side of dialogs are all tries. When the dialogs ends it's the end result. End result is the final action, not the try to do something. Left side of dialogs aren't tries, they go directly moral base end result. That's why it can't be allowed to do someone who's moral is't right. Others need to try and see what happens.

Of course most people are not black and white, that's the problem in ME2 systen, not to have the gray area as not having any kind of morality. (neural path)

How ever, in persuation there is no area at all, because anyone can be everyting anytime they want. You can switch you compass anyway you like in middle of talking.

Was this directed to me? If so, I don't understand at all what you're trying to tell me as I know all this. You said we shouldn't change our morality compass sides all the time, and I showed you that according to the game you could do so in a way that totally makes sense with the character you're making. Half of the options I presented you were paragon/renegade, yet all those options can fit in someone's morality. You were telling me that it wouldn't make sense, yet it does.

And adding to this, you were talking about switching a morality compass' sides. But thing is, in ME2, you can play as a real friggin saint, yet at the SAME TIME, you punch a reporter or torture someone to get information out of him. How isn't that changing you're morality compass sides? Why I can do real bad action as a saint, but I can't only threathen someone who is actually a dangerous criminal? I don't get how people like you can try to defend Bioware that much considering contradictions like these...

[JKoopman]

So are you or are you not saying that executing a group of thugs who are threatening an innocent doctor rather than negotiating with them (ala the incident with the batarians and Mordin's assistant aboard Omega) means that I should be incapable of "swinging my moral compass" enough to calmly deal with a conflict amongst my crew (ala telling Miranda and Jack that the mission is more important than their differences instead of simply flying into a rage and telling them to STFU because it's my way or the highway)?

The idea that, because I have a Renegade reputation, I can only EVER use a heavy hand to deal with every situation because "that's my morality" is ludicrous and one-dimensional, and greatly restricts your ability to role-play.

Modifié par JKoopman, 23 janvier 2011 - 11:30 .