187 réponses à ce sujet

[Lumikki]

In general I agree you, some situation was not well done in ME2. But that's not the problem of the idea, just execution of the system. No-one here is saying ME2 system was perfect, it was far from it. How ever, idea behind it was in right direction in my opinion.

Moral compass can slowly change in time, but you can really well switch it like on / off to different direction based sitaution. Because you can't change what you really are.

It only restric you play, if you have morality, you can allways play without morality too.  Roleplaying means you have defined role to play, not change you moral compass like yo-yo in situation based.

Modifié par Lumikki, 23 janvier 2011 - 11:38 .

[Dreggon]

JKoopman wrote...

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.

It gets even better when you max out your Paragon/Renegade meter but have the respective conversation option blacked out.

[wizardryforever]

I think the point here is that it's not your morality that influences the game, it's Bioware's morality.  Thus things like cooperating (without fuss) with Cerberus and supporting the genophage count as Renegade simply because they are more Renegade than the alternatives.  It's exceedingly difficult for a game manufacturer to gauge the player's intent when they choose dialogue options.  This is why the morality meter exists, to let you know how your actions are perceived by others in the game, and thus influence Shepard's character.  Everything that Shepard does that has a moral tint to it (by Bioware's standard) affects his/her character, making him/her more of an archetype with each step.  Even neutral options do this, by adding to both paragon and renegade.  Shepard's actions shape the character, restricting his/her development (mentally and socially) along certain lines.  For instance, acting like Mother Theresa for the bulk of the game means that you are mostly a nice person and can't pull off intimidation very easily.  For such a character, only the most easily swayed people would be intimidated.  Same with charming.

The morality meter is there to let you know how not only other people view Shepard, but how Shepard thinks of him/herself and what his/her personality is.

[Evil Johnny 666]

Lumikki wrote...

In general I agree you, some situation was not well done in ME2. But that's not the problem of the idea, just execution of the system. No-one here is saying ME2 system was perfect, it was far from it. How ever, idea behind it was in right direction in my opinion.

Moral compass can slowly change in time, but you can really well switch it like on / off to different direction based sitaution. Because you can't change what you really are.

It only restric you play, if you have morality, you can allways play without morality too.  Roleplaying means you have defined role to play, not change you moral compass like yo-yo in situation based.

No one's trying to change the moral compass, you're assuming this, but that's because we all have a different morality, not everyone can compare themselves. The role you play is the one you want to play, if you can't play the role you want to, the game fails as an RPG. If a game forces you a role and tells you that something you want to do doesn't fit in your role, that's not right, no one should tell you what fits your role, it's yours after all.

[Lumikki]

Okey, I agree and disagree.

Roleplaying means you choose role to play and you can choose what ever role you like. How ever, it doesn't not mean you can do what ever you like. Because you choosen role can restrict what you can do.

Exteme example to show the point.

I choose to be role of Mother Teressa. How ever, game should not allow me to play my Mother Teressa like some psychopath serie killer.

Modifié par Lumikki, 23 janvier 2011 - 11:49 .

[Evil Johnny 666]

But roles are hardly defined in ME2. Or maybe they're just way too defined to make the experience really fun. Being a full paragon or renegade can be fun, but with a serious playthrough, I expect to have a little bit of freedom and be able to make a compelling character. Problem is, Shepard isn't really your character, all you do is choose which personality you want him to have.

[Lumikki]

Yeah, I agree. ME2 did not reward other roles much at all, just those two extreme ones. So it would be nice if developers would notice that not everyone plays roles of some extreme moral based.

[JKoopman]

Lumikki wrote...

In general I agree you, some situation was not well done in ME2. But that's not the problem of the idea, just execution of the system. No-one here is saying ME2 system was perfect, it was far from it. How ever, idea behind it was in right direction in my opinion.

Moral compass can slowly change in time, but you can really well switch it like on / off to different direction based sitaution. Because you can't change what you really are.

It only restric you play, if you have morality, you can allways play without morality too.  Roleplaying means you have defined role to play, not change you moral compass like yo-yo in situation based.

So you're saying it would be impossible to roleplay someone who was cruel but used persuasion and manipulation to get what they want instead of just intimidating everyone? I would emphatically disagree. For an example, look at Chancelor Palpatine from Star Wars. A morally evil character without a doubt. Did he intimidate Anakin Skywalker into joining the Dark Side with threats and violence? No, he rationally and calmly persuaded him to his side.

Persuasion is neither inherently good nor inherently evil. It can be used for either. There is no reason why a character with a Renegade reputation should be incapable of influencing a person through words and can only resort to intimidation tactics, especially if that person would be considered a friend. There is no reason why a character with a Paragon reputation should be incapable of intimidating an enemy if the situation warrants it. A person can be a complete dick to people they don't like and still be polite and loving among friends and family. That's not "switching your morality ON/OFF". That's being a balanced human being.

Modifié par JKoopman, 24 janvier 2011 - 12:04 .

[Lumikki]

Persuation is skill, not morals.

What I say, npcs what you character is affecting, can have compassion (trust kind) to you, but same time they can't fear you. Meaning you moral reputation can only be one or other. If You have mixed reputation then it's same as neutral one, because npcs would not know what you really are. Clear reputations ends in clear image.

Yes, there is reason why paragon can't intimidate so well enemies. Reason is that they don't belive you, because you moral reputation is agaist you action you do. This is like Mother Teressa puts gun to someone head and does the other person believe Mother Teressa will kill. No, because it would be out of character of Mother Teressa. This means paragon moral reputation lowers the effect of intimidate.

Point is that it can lower the result so much that it's not anymore succesful options as end result, just try.

Basicly you could have persuation system and moral reputation system in same game. They don't close each other out, but they do affect each others.

Modifié par Lumikki, 24 janvier 2011 - 12:34 .

[ZLurps]

Lumikki, something that surprised investigators who went after soldiers who were guards on ****s concentration camps was that many of them were known as devoted and gentle husbands.

I can however think that Paragon/Renegade system may be some kind of attempt to present some sort of "sliding". Say, you do something positive and get positive feedback from that. As consequence it boosts your self-esteem and you may become more confident and daring in what you do. Or hurting someone is difficult, but more times you do it, the easier it comes.
I can't know what Bioware was thinking when they created Paragon/Renegade system for ME2, but it might be something like what I tried to explain above.


However, in real life it can take decades to build a reputation and then it can be lost it in minute.
Famous politician makes front page because s/he took bribes, even it might be in the distant past and s/he only did it once. That may end her/his career.
Some Hell's Angels division president starts looking into his past, want's to make something different. Word gets around that he has lost his edge. Some see that his actions are threatening the reputation of division. They go and kill him. End of career. ...and so on.

Now I really can't know, but I think that implementing truly realistic cause->consequence paragon/renegade system might be either pretty hard to write or many players might experience it as hostile.

I think system in ME gave more freedom to players and ME2 system might be more accessible for new players.

Modifié par ZLurps, 24 janvier 2011 - 12:45 .

[JKoopman]

Lumikki wrote...

Persuation is skill, not morals.

What I say, npcs what you character is affecting, can have compassion (trust kind) to you, but same time they can't fear you. Meaning you moral reputation can only be one or other. If You have mixed reputation then it's same as neutral one, because npcs would not know what you really are. Clear reputations ends in clear image.

Yes, there is reason why paragon can't intimidate so well enemies. Reason is that they don't belive you, because you moral reputation is agaist you action you do. This is like Mother Teressa puts gun to someone head and does the other person believe Mother Teressa will kill. No, because it would be out of character of Mother Teressa. This means paragon moral reputation lowers the effect of intimidate.

Point is that it can lower the result so much that it's not anymore succesful options as end result, just try.

Basicly you could have persuation system and moral reputation system in same game. They don't close each other out, but they do affect each others.

I don't recall Mother Theresa being a member of an elite Special Forces organization that's above the law and charged with maintaining world stability at any cost, nor do I remember her wading through thousands of enemy troops to single-handedly save the planet from a giant metal squid from space, so that anaology somewhat falls on it's face. When an armed soldier that's just killed 99 other men in your mercenary squad puts a gun to your head, you're going to take him seriously.

You seem to be arguing that it would make no sense for Shepard to be both cruel AND kind to the same people; that you can't be loved and feared by the same person. I agree, that would be irrational and bipolar. What *I'M* arguing, and the reason why ME2's system falls flat comapred to ME1's, is that it considers being cruel to your enemies as NO DIFFERENT than being cruel to your friends. In other words, I don't WANT my crew to fear me. I DO want ENEMIES to fear me. Unfortunately, when you tie your reputation to your ability to eloquently converse with people, it FORCES you to either be a complete dick to EVERYONE, even your friends, or be an absolute saint ALL THE TIME, even to your enemies.

[Lumikki]

ZLurps wrote...

Lumikki, something that surprised investigators who went after soldiers who were guards on ****s concentration camps was that many of them were known as devoted and gentle husbands.

Yes you are right, situation where human is can have affect they morality temporary, this how ever depense how strong someone morality is. Real strong morality doesn't change easyly, because person refuse to do wrong morality actions. That's why some refuse to go to war. Also you past is allways there as reputation.

I think system in ME gave more freedom to players and ME2 system might be more accessible for new players.

Yes, ME1 offered more freedom, but that is what my problem is with it. You can play mother Teressa in ME1 and next mission be serie killer and then turn back to Mother Teressa. There is no consequences at all in you choises, you can choose to be what ever you want, what ever situation.

JKoopman wrote...

You seem to be arguing that it would make no sense for Shepard to be both cruel AND kind to the same people;
that you can't be loved and feared by the same person. I agree, that would be irrational and bipolar. What *I'M* arguing, and the reason why ME2's system falls flat comapred to ME1's, is that it considers being cruel to your enemies as NO DIFFERENT than being cruel to your friends. In other words, I don't WANT my crew to fear me. I DO want ENEMIES to fear me. Unfortunately, when you tie your reputation to your ability to eloquently converse with people, it FORCES you to either be a complete dick to EVERYONE, even your friends, or be an absolute saint ALL THE TIME, even to your enemies.

You may not want to you crew fear you, but they will if you reputation is so. I understand you point, but that bipolarity moral happens only if you moral is more to neutral (low or mixed). When you get stronger moral in one direction, it will start to affect everyone same ways, do you want or not.

Modifié par Lumikki, 24 janvier 2011 - 01:14 .

[meiwow]

The "point" of the metter is so that you can't just suttenly play nice guy like nothing ever happened after you have gone through the entire game behaving like an ****. Pretty realistic if you ask me, mass effect is about credibility of choise and not about letting you do whatever you want. You make enough choises down a certain path and you have to live with it.
That's the "point".
Let's also not forget that this game is also an rpg remember? google that up.

Modifié par meiwow, 24 janvier 2011 - 01:14 .

[The Spamming Troll]

meiwow wrote...

The "point" of the metter is so that you can't just suttenly play nice guy like nothing ever happened after you have gone through the entire game behaving like an ****. Pretty realistic if you ask me, mass effect is about credibility of choise and not about letting you do whatever you want. You make enough choises down a certain path and you have to live with it.
That's the "point".

but why does a previouse renegade choice mean i cant make a future paragon choice? does John McRandomNPC have any idea if i saved the rachni or not, or if im mean to conrad vernor? nope, so why would killing the rachni queen have anytihng to do with my conversation John McRandomNPC? ill agree with living with consequences, as in i could see storylines changine throughout, but allowing/disallowing an aproach to a certain situation merely because you were really nice or really mean doesnt make sense to me.

[Lumikki]

Okey, I try to explain it.

Mother Teressa (alot of paragon actions in past) puts gun in you head. This is renegade action try in right side of dialogs. This action is fail, because target (you) do not belive Mother Teressa would kill you. So, Mother Teressa's renegade "try" action fails.

Point is the try and end result.

Right side of dialogs are try. (fail or success of end result unknown)
Left side dialogs are short cuts directly  to positive end result. (100% succesful end result action)

Because Left side is directly postive end result (paragon or renegade) can only person who would actually able to do them be allowed to do them. This means Mother Teressa had paragon shot cut action, but not renegade one. Because Mother Teressa has no reputation what would guarantee that 100% success end result in renegade action. In simple way sayed, other do not fear enough Mother Terassa to believe her "bad" actions to be true.

Modifié par Lumikki, 24 janvier 2011 - 01:33 .

[JKoopman]

Lumikki wrote...

Yes, ME1 offered more freedom, but that is what my problem is with it. You can play mother Teressa in ME1 and next mission be serie killer and then turn back to Mother Teressa. There is no consequences at all in you choises, you can choose to be what ever you want, what ever situation.

Maybe some people want to roleplay a bipolar serial killer with multiple personalities? Why is it the game's place to decide for them what conversation paths they can go down?

If your logic is to be followed, you're basically advocating that the VERY FIRST conversation decision you make in the game decides the path that you must follow for the rest of the game. If you wake up on the operating table and the very first dialog you pursue is the upper-right Paragon option, then you're locked in as a Paragon and can never make any Renegade decisions. Likewise, if you select the lower-right Renegade dialog, your character is forever an a**hole to every person he meets, friend and enemy alike. Because after all, you've established your characters morality, and alternating after that would be flip-flopping and "swinging your moral compass".

Is that the kind of system you're endorsing?

Lumikki wrote...

You may not want to you crew fear you, but they will if you reputation is so. I understand you point, but that bipolarity moral happens only if you moral is more to neutral (low or mixed). When you get stronger moral in one direction, it will start to affect everyone same ways, do you want or not.

Why would my friends fear me for having a ruthless reputation among my enemies?

Trying to play a neutral (aka believable) character is what we've been talking about this whole time. People aren't pure black or pure white, we're all shades of gray in between. Being ruthless where appropriate and being kind where appropriate. And it's that kind of flexibility that ME2's system prevents. Being cruel to those mercs who were threatening innocent civilians nets me Renegade points and, whoops, now I can only be a colossal dick to my crewmates. Or I give a dying civilian some medi-gel and, whoops, now my only option when dealing with this scumbag merc is to talk about his feelings. All because what I can SAY is tied inextricably to some arbitrary system of what's right and wrong.

Modifié par JKoopman, 24 janvier 2011 - 01:40 .

[Lumikki]

JKoopman wrote...

Maybe some people want to roleplay a bipolar serial killer with multiple personalities? Why is it the game's place to decide for them what conversation paths they can go down?

They could, but that kind person would have two personality. It's possible, but very rare.

Is that the kind of system you're endorsing?

You kidding? You just make like I want system where you first choise define max morality. That's not how reputation works, it learn slowly what you are and you start in beging of the game as neutral. GAme learn you moral.

Why would my friends fear me for having a ruthless reputation among my enemies?

Good question, why anyone fear anyone, if they haven't done anything? How ever, when you friends see what you do, it does define you. Does it matter to whom you do it. Yes it does, but slowly even you "friends" get affected, if you really are cruel.

Trying to play a neutral (aka believable) character is what we've been talking about this whole time. People
aren't pure black or pure white, we're all shades of gray in between.

I agree ME2 lacks there, lack of neutral path rewards and roles. Too much just mortal based gameplay.

But totally freedom isn't any better. Because it allows you do what ever you want, like I sayed. Play person with two personality switch moral and personality and roles anytime to anything. Problem is it really anymore roleplaying or is abusing system to so that player gets what they want.

Then comes the real question, is what player wants or ability play the role how it should be, the fun?

I ques I could accept that if anyone want persuation skill system because ability be what ever they want for fun. But when it's used as excuse for been good roleplaying, that's what I don't accept. It's the difference between many roles and playing the role choosen.

Modifié par Lumikki, 24 janvier 2011 - 01:56 .

[JKoopman]

You make it out like Paragon Shepard is Jesus Christ incarnate and Renegade Shepard eats babies in his spare time. As has been established multiple times, Paragon and Renegade are not morality and regardless which path you choose Shepard is always a "Good Guy".

Which is why the system irritates me. It arbitrarily labels certain actions as "Paragon" or "Renegade" when they can easily be looked at otherwise. My Shepard chooses to kill the Rachni Queen. The game considers that a Renegade action. Why? A pragmatist would look at that situation and say "Killing the Queen is the right choice. Letting her go free is too risky in light of the rachni's history." Yet, now my character is labeled a "bad guy" and, according to you and ME2, that means he can only ever be a cruel, heartless bastard to everyone he meets.

You seem to be saying "You can't be Mother Theresa AND Hitler all in the same package," but that's a wild exaggeration. We're simply saying you should be able to give a dying civilian some medi-gel and still put a gun to the head of a beligerant merc and be intimidating. That isn't some moral contradiction.

Modifié par JKoopman, 24 janvier 2011 - 02:23 .

[didymos1120]

Dreggon wrote...
It gets even better when you max out your Paragon/Renegade meter but have the respective conversation option blacked out.

Then you don't actually have it maxed.  The bars don't have fine enough gradation to distinguish between "full" and "a few points shy of full".  If you're on the PC, go ahead and test it out using the save editor. 

[Soahfreako]

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.

I agree with you sir.

[The Spamming Troll]

Lumikki wrote...

Okey, I try to explain it.

Mother Teressa (alot of paragon actions in past) puts gun in you head. This is renegade action try in right side of dialogs. This action is fail, because target (you) do not belive Mother Teressa would kill you. So, Mother Teressa's renegade "try" action fails.

Point is the try and end result.

Right side of dialogs are try. (fail or success of end result unknown)
Left side dialogs are short cuts directly  to positive end result. (100% succesful end result action)

Because Left side is directly postive end result (paragon or renegade) can only person who would actually able to do them be allowed to do them. This means Mother Teressa had paragon shot cut action, but not renegade one. Because Mother Teressa has no reputation what would guarantee that 100% success end result in renegade action. In simple way sayed, other do not fear enough Mother Terassa to believe her "bad" actions to be true.

what if it was lebron james. some people think hes a villian, some think hes a hero. if lebron pointed a gun at your head, what would you do? what would you do! youd prolly spill the beans regardless, because hes got a GUN POINTED AT YOUR HEAD!

but then again, when you hit up noveria, that asian gaurd(mateo?) asks for shepard and crews weapons, while shepard is pointing his gun at her, but she stills says you have three seconds to hand over your weapons(again, while my gun is pointed at her head) and then starts counting down from 3......essentially counting down the seconds to her life. anyones else notice that was weird?

Modifié par The Spamming Troll, 24 janvier 2011 - 03:05 .

[StowyMcStowstow]

Holy crap. The English in this thread is atrocious. Although for some of you I doubt that English is your first language...



Anyway. Here's something I noticed: You are given almost no choice. Sure, you can "choose" either paragon, neutral, or renegade, but switching between them all willy-nilly will gimp you in the end-game. There's no way around it. You have, HAVE to be either paragon or renegade. There is no middle ground, unless you want your squad to die.



Also, loyalty should be earned over time, not in an hour and a half by doing something for someone. It should be earned over the course of the game, culminating near the end, when it is needed.

[Balerion84]

I'll just sneak in here and say that I agree that the morality meter should be scrapped for ME3 and any other future games.

It ruins the feeling of freedom in conversations and character development and in creating "your own Sheppard".

[Lotion Soronarr]

You don't need a morality meter to have consequences. There is no morality meter in RL.



Dragon Age proves that any such meters are unnecessary, and furthermore LIMITING.

[slimgrin]

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

You don't need a morality meter to have consequences. There is no morality meter in RL.

Dragon Age proves that any such meters are unnecessary, and furthermore LIMITING.

I have to agree. I like both Mass Effect games, but they feel distinctly different, even limited, compared to DA in their approach to role playing.