187 réponses à ce sujet

[Capeo]

shatteredstar56 wrote...

The morality meter was frustrating, but it was needed. Without it, you could just get the easy happy ending and not have to work. Having a meter, you had to work to get the points, and eventually influence someone to do something completely right or wrong.
I got frustrated when trying to get both Jack's and Miranda's loyalty, but it was necessary. Either you work hard enough to get all the points you need, or you just take the easy way out and choose one of them.

See, I don't think that is needed though.  It doesn't make sense.  Perhaps if certain situations dictated that you had to be one or the other then I think that would be more realistic and make your choice of how you play more meaningful.  But because the option to retain loyalty is open to both the game is basically punishing you for playing a balanced, nuanced character.

A far better system would be to have loyalty based on your interactions with squad members and how they view the choices you make.  Each squad member could have a loyalty meter akin to the meters in Dragon Age: Origins.  Then, during dialog have all options open, with some of those options endearing you to some characters, some being neutral to it and some losing loyalty over it.  This would give your choices heft and make the squad members have personalities you'd actually have to take into consideration when making decisions.  When it comes to intimidation and charming NPCs that should just be skills you choose to take or not.

[BassChamber]

I agree with OP and with a lot of other posters here.

Once you know how morality works in ME2, you feel somewhat "forced" to play fully paragon or fully renegade.

IMHO, morality system should only show one of the two special dialogues greyed. And depending on situation, paragon would have a different effect than renegade.

Currently, both special dialogues solves situations. That spoils the result.

My suggestion is to just show two different dialogue options for some special events: one for paragon, the other for renegade. You could choose just one of them, depending on your paragon/renegade ratio.

Those paragon/renegade options would have different outcomes.

This way, depending on how paragon or renegade you are, you will have different story results.

Modifié par BassChamber, 27 janvier 2011 - 06:57 .

[wizardryforever]

Allow me to repost what I put in the other thread about this subject.

Again, I would like to reiterate that nobody forces
you to do anything.  The game is perfectly completable without ever
using Charm or Intimidate.  Thus you can do just fine with a 50/50
character.  All white options are available 100% of the time.  The game
does reward characters who play to an archetype with additional EXTREME
options.  These options require a high percentage of Paragon/Renegade
because the game uses the abstract concept of actions determining who
your character is.  Thus, pick Paragon actions and Charm options open
up.  This is because the Charm option is only something a serious
Paragon would even think of, let alone try.  Ditto with Intimidate and
Renegade.  It's not hard to understand, I don't know why so many people
seem to have difficulty understanding this.

If you don't want to
play a dedicated character, then fine, don't.  But don't complain that
your wishy-washy character isn't compassionate enough to pull off a
Charm check, nor badass enough to pull off an Intimidate check.  These
are rewards for playing a dedicated character, a carrot in the
carrot/stick analogy of rewards/punishments.  They are not a stick for
those who choose not to play one, since there is no negative effect on
the game for not taking these options.

The system isn't perfect,
but I think it makes more sense than being able to pull off absolutely
anything you put your mind to.  That's hardly realistic either.  The
only beef I have with the system is that it is not adequately explained
anywhere in the game or the manual.  Thus we have threads like this one
crop up every month or so.

[BassChamber]

Sorry but the system is flawed. Player experience wise, it is annoying to know selecting neutral dialogue options is going to spoil your score; because that is what morality is: an score.



I mean, the better the score (doesnt matter if paragon of renegade), the better results you will have. And that is flawed when applied to character personality.



I would prefer to choose between two different moral outcomes than being able to get perfect outcomes but forced to play in a certain way in order to achieve that.



for example: if you are mostly paragon, then you keep your Tali loyalty but loose Legions one. If you are mostly renegade, you keep Legion loyalty but loose Talis one.



Being able to get both loyalties being extremely paragon or extremely renegade is not good, IMHO.

[Schneidend]

BassChamber wrote...

Being able to get both loyalties being extremely paragon or extremely renegade is not good, IMHO.

Well that's silly. Charm/Intimidate is no longer a reward at that point. Besides, you can already accomplish the example by choosing the white options.

wizardry sums up everything I was going to say as far as the realism and purpose of the ethics meters go. NINJA'd.

Modifié par Schneidend, 27 janvier 2011 - 07:25 .

[Lumikki]

ME2 systems fault is that it only rewards's extreme moral roleplaying and doesn't allow enough choises in dialogs right side. How ever, ME2 system does not force anyone to play extreme moral roles, there is still neural path also available. I have no problem people complainign about that they can't play the role as they want, IF they would refer that they problem would come from lack of right side of dialog choises. How ever, that's not what most of them do. Also I have no problem if players would complain that character what doesn't have extreme role, why they don't also get rewarded by they roles.

Here is my problem with complain. These people complain that system limits roleplaying because the extreme paragon and renegade forces them to narrow roles. This is 100% BS. Why?

Because right side of dialogs is what limits roleplaying, not the left side. Left side "rewards" for extreme roles doesn't force anyone else to do it, except powerplayers and metagamers. Not real roleplayers. So, I don't like when these metagamers use roleplaying as they excuse for they complaining.

Modifié par Lumikki, 27 janvier 2011 - 07:34 .

[Capeo]

wizardryforever wrote...

Allow me to repost what I put in the other thread about this subject.

Again, I would like to reiterate that nobody forces
you to do anything.  The game is perfectly completable without ever
using Charm or Intimidate.  Thus you can do just fine with a 50/50
character.  All white options are available 100% of the time.  The game
does reward characters who play to an archetype with additional EXTREME
options.  These options require a high percentage of Paragon/Renegade
because the game uses the abstract concept of actions determining who
your character is.  Thus, pick Paragon actions and Charm options open
up.  This is because the Charm option is only something a serious
Paragon would even think of, let alone try.  Ditto with Intimidate and
Renegade.  It's not hard to understand, I don't know why so many people
seem to have difficulty understanding this.

If you don't want to
play a dedicated character, then fine, don't.  But don't complain that
your wishy-washy character isn't compassionate enough to pull off a
Charm check, nor badass enough to pull off an Intimidate check.  These
are rewards for playing a dedicated character, a carrot in the
carrot/stick analogy of rewards/punishments.  They are not a stick for
those who choose not to play one, since there is no negative effect on
the game for not taking these options.

The system isn't perfect,
but I think it makes more sense than being able to pull off absolutely
anything you put your mind to.  That's hardly realistic either.  The
only beef I have with the system is that it is not adequately explained
anywhere in the game or the manual.  Thus we have threads like this one
crop up every month or so.

No, the game does force you to be a raging **** or a complete patsy just to have the ability to charm or intimidate.  You can be an intimidating badass without tossing helpless people out windows, punching unarmed women in the face, killing people you just said you'd let go and being an **** to your squad mates who should tell you to eff off and head their own way given how you act if you stay on the Renegade path.  You can be a good person and still be intimidating.  They oversimplified the charm and intimidate system to the point where if you want to be able to do so your forced to always choose the same way.  That's stupid.  Charm and intimidation should be skills and nothing in the dialog should be greyed out.  You should have the chance to charm or intimidate without knowing you'll succeed.  Dialog options then can be open to allow you speak the way you want.  You can be an ass to certain people and not others.  You can be a charmer who is still a bit of a dick.  You can be a soft spoken person who is still intimidating.  With this oversimplified system you have none of those options.

[Lumikki]

Capeo, there is no charm or intimidation system in ME2 at all?

There is different between using learned skill and your present as what you are is affecting others.

Charm, persuation and intimidation are skills. While moral reputation is more what you are, as what your past has made you to be.

Modifié par Lumikki, 27 janvier 2011 - 07:51 .

[Capeo]

Lumikki wrote...

Capeo, there is no charm or intimidation system in ME2 at all?

There is different between using learned skill and you present as what you are is affecting others.

Of course there is.  That's what the hackneyed Paragon/Renegade system amounts to.  Using either option results in the same outcome but one appeals to reason and goodwill while the other appeals to threats or intimidation.  It's an outgrowth of the charm/intimidation system of ME1.  I was also speaking in terms of the charm and intimidation system I suggested above.  Sorry, I could have made that more clear.

[wizardryforever]

Capeo wrote...

No, the game does force you to be a raging **** or a complete patsy just to have the ability to charm or intimidate.

Your definitions of Paragon or Renegade notwithstanding, the ability to charm/intimidate is tied to morality and past actions in reality as well, it's just more abstract.  People seem to think they are entitled to do whatever the heck they want with their character, regardless of how likely that would actually be for someone in the character's position.  Charm and intimidate options are a reward for playing a dedicated character, no one forces you to go for that reward.  If you want the options, then you need to actually act like someone who could use charm or intimidate realistically.  I'd like to point out that it is perfectly possible to finish the game, and even complete the suicide mission with no casualties, without EVER USING charm or intimidate. 

You can be an intimidating badass without tossing helpless people out windows, punching unarmed women in the face, killing people you just said you'd let go and being an **** to your squad mates who should tell you to eff off and head their own way given how you act if you stay on the Renegade path.  You can be a good person and still be intimidating.

Of course you can, but to be effective at it, you need to have actually done some of the things you are threatening, or people quickly come to realize that it's an empty threat.  The difficult checks are on people who have strong personalities or feelings on the situation they are in, and as such, only someone who can back up their threats/promises with past actions could really be expected to sway them.  There are plenty of times in which both Charm and Intimidate seem to always be options, simply because the check is so low.  The guy at the window is like this; I always have enough points to do either charm or intimidate, no matter how few options I've chosen for to back up each.  This is because the merc is not particularly committed to his position, and is easily convinced that holding out on you is stupid.  This is also one of the times when the Charm option is just a lesser version of Intimidate, a "good person being intimidating."

They oversimplified the charm and intimidate system to the point where if you want to be able to do so your forced to always choose the same way.  That's stupid.  Charm and intimidation should be skills and nothing in the dialog should be greyed out.  You should have the chance to charm or intimidate without knowing you'll succeed.  Dialog options then can be open to allow you speak the way you want.  You can be an ass to certain people and not others.  You can be a charmer who is still a bit of a dick.  You can be a soft spoken person who is still intimidating.  With this oversimplified system you have none of those options.

The system is oversimplified, but only because this was the best way for having past actions dictate the character of Shepard.  I can't think of a better way to show the influence of actions on the character in this context.  I agree that options shouldn't be greyed out.  They just shouldn't be there if you can't take them.  That way people that never break out of their comfort zone don't see what they're missing, and don't come online to complain about it. <_<

[Capeo]

Lumikki wrote...

There is different between using learned skill and your present as what you are is affecting others.

Charm, persuation and intimidation are skills. While moral reputation is more what you are, as what your past has made you to be.

I see that essentially as the point.  The system does what the skills would do without allowing you to morally define your character.  How charming you are should have no basis in morality.  Some of the most charming people in history were morally bankrupt.  Ditto for intimidation.  The current morality system doesn't give you that choice.  To be exceedingly charming you have to be a goodie two shoes.  To be exceedingly intimidating you have to be a morally bankrupt scumbag.  And worse, neither path effects what your squad mates think of you.  Both paths always lead to the same effective outcome.  In games like FO3, New Vegas and DA:O if you do things your companions don't agree with or if you're horrible to them they'll leave you or eventually even attack you.

[BassChamber]

Schneidend wrote...

BassChamber wrote...

Being able to get both loyalties being extremely paragon or extremely renegade is not good, IMHO.

Well that's silly. Charm/Intimidate is no longer a reward at that point. Besides, you can already accomplish the example by choosing the white options.

wizardry sums up everything I was going to say as far as the realism and purpose of the ethics meters go. NINJA'd.

Exactly, i would prefer if renegade/paragon score were not a reward system.

[Lumikki]

Capeo wrote...

Lumikki wrote...

Capeo, there is no charm or intimidation system in ME2 at all?

There is different between using learned skill and you present as what you are is affecting others.

Of course there is.  That's what the hackneyed Paragon/Renegade system amounts to.  Using either option results in the same outcome but one appeals to reason and goodwill while the other appeals to threats or intimidation.  It's an outgrowth of the charm/intimidation system of ME1.  I was also speaking in terms of the charm and intimidation system I suggested above.  Sorry, I could have made that more clear.

In ME1 you had paragon and renegade paths, but they did not actually affect anyting else than you ability learn persuation and intimidation skills. So, ME1 was build around characters skills affecting npcs.

In ME2 they droped hole persuation and intimidation and made so that paragon and renegade affected directly npcs behaviors.

Now to understand the difference, persuation and intimidation skill requires you do something what affects npcs. How ever, ME2's paragon and renegade system doesn't require you to do anything. Basicly it's presentation where npcs get affect by just you to be around them, because they reputation as what they are. You don't need to say or do anything. I'm not sure how I can explain this to you people.

Example if you would be same room, with USA president or Actor Julia Roberts or The Pope as dishop of Rome, they would affect you behavior just been there in same room. Now the point isn't that they are famous, because in Mass Effect Shepard is also famous, but how they are famous. What kind of affect they create to you. Would you fear them or be honor to be there with them. So, when they "talk" it's not anymore that they need to persuade you to make you to do something, they present allready created that affect to you. That's what ME2 tries to simulate, moral reputation. The moral reputation is like defineing what you are by past what you have done, so that it cause you to be honored or feared.

The two system are totally different.

Modifié par Lumikki, 27 janvier 2011 - 08:23 .

[Capeo]

wizardryforever wrote...

Your definitions of Paragon or Renegade notwithstanding, the ability to charm/intimidate is tied to morality and past actions in reality as well, it's just more abstract.  People seem to think they are entitled to do whatever the heck they want with their character, regardless of how likely that would actually be for someone in the character's position.  Charm and intimidate options are a reward for playing a dedicated character, no one forces you to go for that reward.  If you want the options, then you need to actually act like someone who could use charm or intimidate realistically.  I'd like to point out that it is perfectly possible to finish the game, and even complete the suicide mission with no casualties, without EVER USING charm or intimidate.

Of course you can, but to be effective at it, you need to have actually done some of the things you are threatening, or people quickly come to realize that it's an empty threat.  The difficult checks are on people who have strong personalities or feelings on the situation they are in, and as such, only someone who can back up their threats/promises with past actions could really be expected to sway them.  There are plenty of times in which both Charm and Intimidate seem to always be options, simply because the check is so low.  The guy at the window is like this; I always have enough points to do either charm or intimidate, no matter how few options I've chosen for to back up each.  This is because the merc is not particularly committed to his position, and is easily convinced that holding out on you is stupid.  This is also one of the times when the Charm option is just a lesser version of Intimidate, a "good person being intimidating."  

I'm quite aware that you need not use any of the Paragon/Renegade options.  This discussion is about the implementation of them so that fact has no bearing.  And realistically?  Realistically you can be intimidating as hell by being a person that will wreck you if you mess with them without being a person who kills needlessly.  Such a reputation would be just as intimidating as someone whose actions border on sociopathy.  Also, being a relentless ass to your squad members generally wouldn't realistically engender their loyalty.

wizardryforever wrote...

The system is oversimplified, but only because this was the best way for having past actions dictate the character of Shepard.  I can't think of a better way to show the influence of actions on the character in this context.  I agree that options shouldn't be greyed out.  They just shouldn't be there if you can't take them.  That way people that never break out of their comfort zone don't see what they're missing, and don't come online to complain about it. <_<

The speech/charm/loyalty mechanics in the FO3, New Vegas and DA:O, for all their faults, still build a far more realistic character while giving you freedom to define said character by your choices. 

Oh, and they also let you break out of your comfort zone in a way that makes sense rather than being shoehorned into it, sly insults notwithstanding.

[Sentox6]

wizardryforever wrote...
If you don't want to play a dedicated character, then fine, don't.  But don't complain that your wishy-washy character isn't compassionate enough to pull off a Charm check, nor badass enough to pull off an Intimidate check.

This whole line of reasoning falls over though, it assumes three things:

1. The behaviour manifested in every charm check is exclusively bound to a compassionate outlook.
2. The behaviour manifested in every intimidate check is exclusively bound to a badass personality.
3. A person cannot be truly compassionate while convincingly aggressive when circumstances require.

I simply do not believe this. Why can I not go out of my way to help those in need while still sticking a gun in the face of a predatory criminal without remorse?

My 'canon' Shepard is a Sole Survivor; I've always envisioned her as someone who accepts the the harshness of her existence without becoming embittered or excessively cynical; Paragade, in short. She'll deliver an impassioned speech to the Quarian admirals extolling Tali's achievements, but she'll talk about the reality of being a soldier to Khalisah Al-Jilani. The game says she can't do this (at least not without being inconsistent to her real character elsewhere) :|

There are better ways of creating reward systems than impairing people's role-playing in a role-playing game.

[Capeo]

Lumikki wrote...

Capeo wrote...

Lumikki wrote...

Capeo, there is no charm or intimidation system in ME2 at all?

There is different between using learned skill and you present as what you are is affecting others.

Of course there is.  That's what the hackneyed Paragon/Renegade system amounts to.  Using either option results in the same outcome but one appeals to reason and goodwill while the other appeals to threats or intimidation.  It's an outgrowth of the charm/intimidation system of ME1.  I was also speaking in terms of the charm and intimidation system I suggested above.  Sorry, I could have made that more clear.

In ME1 you had paragon and renegade paths, but they did not actually affect anyting else than you ability learn persuation and intimidation skills. So, ME1 was build around characters skills affecting npcs.

In ME2 they droped hole persuation and intimidation and made so that paragon and renegade affected directly npcs behaviors.

Now to understand the difference, persuation and intimidation skill requires you do something what affects npcs. How ever, ME2's paragon and renegade system doesn't require you to do anything. Basicly it's presentation where npcs get affect by just you to be around them, because they reputation as what they are. You don't need to say or do anything. I'm not sure how I can explain this to you people.

Example if you would be same room, with USA president or Actor Julia Roberts or The Pope as dishop of Rome, they would affect you behavior just been there in same room. Now the point isn't that they are famous, because in Mass Effect Shepard is also famous, but how they are famous. What kind of affect they create to you. Would you fear them or be honor to be there with them. So, when they "talk" it's not anymore that they need to persuade you to make you to do something, they present allready created that affect to you. That's what ME2 tries to simulate, moral reputation. The moral reputation is like defineing what you are by past what you have done, so that it cause you to be honored or feared.

The two system are totally different.

The Paragon/Renegade system in no way effects how NPCs react to you.  The dialog is always the same.  You just may have a Renegade or Paragon option.  What your saying is something like the reputation systems in Bethesda games when this is nothing like that.  In those games your reputation actually proceeds you and your conversations with NPCs are actually different based on that reputation.  Furthermore both Paragon and Renegade conversation options always arrive at the same result so in the end they are just window dressing.  You have no real reputation that anyone reacts to.  There's no consequence to either path. 

[Lumikki]

The dialogs systems right side as try to do something is allways same, but try is not same as successful action, so player can allways choose these anytime. How ever, left side of dialogs is successful action and it's totally based players paragon/renegade status, so it's not allways available for everyone.

Basicly this argument what we have is more like. Allow players do what ever they want when they want or make so that player at least try to stay in roles what they have choosen.

Modifié par Lumikki, 27 janvier 2011 - 08:49 .

[wizardryforever]

Sentox6 wrote...

wizardryforever wrote...
If you don't want to play a dedicated character, then fine, don't.  But don't complain that your wishy-washy character isn't compassionate enough to pull off a Charm check, nor badass enough to pull off an Intimidate check.

This whole line of reasoning falls over though, it assumes three things:

1. The behaviour manifested in every charm check is exclusively bound to a compassionate outlook.
2. The behaviour manifested in every intimidate check is exclusively bound to a badass personality.
3. A person cannot be truly compassionate while convincingly aggressive when circumstances require.

I simply do not believe this. Why can I not go out of my way to help those in need while still sticking a gun in the face of a predatory criminal without remorse?

My 'canon' Shepard is a Sole Survivor; I've always envisioned her as someone who accepts the the harshness of her existence without becoming embittered or excessively cynical; Paragade, in short. She'll deliver an impassioned speech to the Quarian admirals extolling Tali's achievements, but she'll talk about the reality of being a soldier to Khalisah Al-Jilani. The game says she can't do this (at least not without being inconsistent to her real character elsewhere) :|

There are better ways of creating reward systems than impairing people's role-playing in a role-playing game.

This is the difficulty with creating a system where past actions affect your character in concrete ways.  It attempts to generalize all actions and their intentions into easily labeled moralities.  I understand that the motivations for any given actions can be extremely varied, but think of it this way: how do you implement those motivations and still have past actions reliably influence your character?  I can't think of a way.  I believe that the system accomplishes what it set out to do: implement a cause and effect system that changes your character's personality based on their actions.  The fact that Bioware can't foresee every eccentiricity that a given player gives tp Shepard really isn't something that is reasonable to complain about, now is it?  How can you expect Bioware to "know all" about different roleplaying styles?  The morality system is in place to show how your actions, in broad terms, affect your character's personality and reputation.  Any console/computer RPG is going to limit your options for roleplaying in some way, this is how ME2 does it.

Modifié par wizardryforever, 27 janvier 2011 - 08:49 .

[Sentox6]

Lumikki wrote...
Basicly this argument what we have is more like. Allow players do what every they want when they want or make so that player at least try to stay in roles what they have choosen.

The charm/intimidate options generally lead to a more ideal outcome to conversations, correct? The real argument is what sacrifice we want the player to made in order make these outcomes available. ME1 forces you to trade-off with your combat abilities. ME2 forces you to stay consistent one of two character types.

Since I can imagine more personality types than two, I'm not a fan of the latter.

I mean really... it says, functionally, that a Shepard could be consistently empathetic with her crew in private and solve disputes in a 'paragon' manner, but because of that she might not be able to intimidate a mercenary who's never met her into giving up information. Guns and armour and the fact she does actually shot people in the face on a daily basis notwithstanding. That merc must have at least a dozen or so doctorates in pscyhological and human behaviour for a start.

wizardryforever wrote...
Any console/computer RPG is going to limit your options for roleplaying in some way, this is how ME2 does it.

Which is why I consider the more traditional RPG approach of trading off with other abilities better. That way, people who are particularly concerned with roleplaying can achieve whatever story path they want. People who aren't particularly concerned about roleplaying aren't as likely to care either way.

The ME2 system obstructs more intricate roleplaying while imposing no penalty on people who don't care about it in the first place :|

I realise you sacrifice the impact of past morality actions on the character, but I consider that the lesser of two evils.

Actually, this a really good video on the topic: www.youtube.com/watch. Don't be too offput by the voice, you get used to it 

Modifié par Sentox6, 27 janvier 2011 - 09:10 .

[weedlink10]

adam_grif wrote...

Yes, it's terrible. They should have scrapped it entirely and just gone with some kind of reputation system. Choices you've made are known by the NPCs which will influence how they interact with you. The only impact Paragon/Renegade has is influencing your persuade, which is unnecessary anyway. They can just make it a skill like in ME1.

i really don't want it to be a skill, i would never use skills points on that skill when i have powers and weapon skills to upgrade.

[Lumikki]

Sentox6 wrote...

ME1 forces you to trade-off with your combat abilities.

Does it really? I mean to have trade-off, requires all options are equal good and you really have to trade-off something, does it?

ME2 forces you to stay consistent one of two character types.

Only if you are powerplayer or metaplayer, there is allways the middle option there for real roleplayer who has choosen to play less extreme character.

Modifié par Lumikki, 27 janvier 2011 - 09:15 .

[Sentox6]

weedlink10 wrote...
i really don't want it to be a skill, i would never use skills points on that skill when i have powers and weapon skills to upgrade.

See to my mind, trying to decide whether to advance your combat training versus your diplomatic ability seems like a more meaningful choice than "should I choose the blue option to unlock more blue options or say what I think?"

Lumikki wrote...
Does
it really? I mean to have trade-off, requires all options are equal
good and you really have to trade-off something, does it?

A trade-off does not require all choices to be equally good, just that you have to give up one thing to gain another. Putting points into speech skills instead of combat skills is always a trade-off, even if it's an easy choice for an individual player because perhaps they don't care about speech skills.

Only
if you are powerplayer or metaplayer, there is allways the middle
option there for real roleplayer who has choosen to play less extreme
character.

That's a shallow understanding of "real roleplaying"; it just generalises characters to two extremes or non-commital neutral. For example, when it comes to my 'canon' Shepard who I put some effort in to, there are scenarios where I choose charm, scenarios where I choose intimidate, and scenarios where I choose from the right side of the tree despite have speech checks available. I choose based on what I feel the most character-consistent response is.

Obviously a game can never model the infinite shades of grey in reality, but that's why having a system that starts locking you out of one of the few responses you do have really doesn't help.

[Lumikki]

Sentox6 wrote...

A trade-off does not require all choices to be equally good, just that you have to give up one thing to gain another. Putting points into speech skills instead of combat skills is always a trade-off, even if it's an easy choice for an individual player because perhaps they don't care about speech skills.

But who says I would have put any point in combat skill even without speech skill. Maybe I just have extra point to spend, because have no real good other choises to make.

Obviously a game can never model the infinite shades of grey in reality, but that's why having a system that starts locking you out of one of the few responses you do have really doesn't help.

Yeah, but here is where our opinion disagree. Because in my opinion, games paragon/renegade system doesn't lock out or force you, you do it to you self, by letting game system choose for you and not make your own mind when there is choise.

Modifié par Lumikki, 27 janvier 2011 - 10:01 .

[Capeo]

Yeah, but here is where our opinion disagree. Because in my opinion, games paragon/reneagade system doesn't lock out or force you, you do it to you self, by letting game system choose for you and not make your own mind when there is choise.

That's no real choice though.  To maintain all your squads loyalty you have to go down one of two predefined paths with your character.  If your charm and intimidate skills were distinct abilities that you had control over then that would be choice because you could still roleplay your character as you see fit but be able to handle those loyalty situations if you chose to put points in those skills.  Having to follow predefined personality paths in crafting a character to achieve something is not choice in an RPG.  Compounding the futility of the system, outside of those two loyalty instances, your further choices are meaningless because the outcome is always the same.  No NPCs treat you differently based on your morality.  You squad loyality is not effected no matter how you treat them.  It's simplistic, dichotomous and leaves little actual choice.

Modifié par Capeo, 27 janvier 2011 - 10:04 .

[Lumikki]

Okey, let me explain.

First you say "maintain all you squads loyalty". Why you should be able to make them all loyalty in first place? Also when you look as reward (in this case loyalty) it makes you metagamer, because you are looking game system to justify you choises. Roleplayer playes the role allways, it doesn't matter to roleplayer if someone isn't loyal, because it's the consequence of the role played.

Yes, if you use character skill based system like persuation, you can still roleplay well all roles. How ever, only maybe 2% of players can really do it. Most of us would just use the system our benefit as metagamer to get what we want. The positive result. Exactly what you self where looking when you did bring the loyalty example. Player doesn't have to follow pre-define path, it can just happen because it's players role. Actually if you start following the path because you believe it's best way to play, you are again metagamer. Because that what metagamers do.

Yes, npcs does treath you differently. Example, try to compare paragon choises in left side dialog and paragon choise in right side dialog, they result different end result, because the moral reputation system.

Roleplayer plays role no matter what the end result is. Metagamer looks end result and then plays the role where player can get the end result by using game system knowledge.

Modifié par Lumikki, 27 janvier 2011 - 10:27 .