82 réponses à ce sujet

[Jona.R]

I just finished my fourth playthrough as a renegade vanguard and I couldnt help but notice that the Renegade-Paragorn system is not really doing what it is supposed to do.

I always considered the system a way to reward people for proper roleplaying. If you always choose the "straight to the point" dialogue option you get less points and hence will have it harder to resolve problems later. However, if I take interest in what is going on and take a stance I will get rewarded.

However since it can be fairly difficult to obtain enough Renegade/Paragorn points I found myself not thinking "mhm, what would I do in this situation?", but rather "what will give me the most Renegade points because I will need them later to persuade person X to do Z"

There is really not much margin for error in the system, too. When I finished the Shadowbroker DLC after suicide mission my Renegade bar was 9/10 full but I still couldnt use the Renegade option before the fight against Tela Vasir.

Another weird thing was that I did not have enough points to solve the Legion/Tali dispute with the renegade option. But I could talk to Legion directly afterwards and convince to become loyal again (successfully using the Renegade option of course).

Gametrailers said in their review of Mass Effect 2 that the Renegade/Paragorn is not "a zero sum game" but I honestly dont know what gave them this impression. More options are always nice and I hope that in ME3 Paragorn and Renegade points will be easier to come by. The roleplaying aspect of the game would benefit a great deal from that.

[Confused_Shepard]

Agreed. I should be able to say what I want and the Para/Ren points should only decide how people respond to be. Too much skew in either direction can cause entire side-quests too be blocked

[Chewin]

Jona.R wrote...

There is really not much margin for error in the system, too. When I finished the Shadowbroker DLC after suicide mission my Renegade bar was 9/10 full but I still couldnt use the Renegade option before the fight against Tela Vasir.

You'll need 100% Paragon/Renegade bar for it to succeed with Tela Vasir.

However, according to Mass Effect Wiki:
"There has been multiple reports of level 30 Renegade characters being unable to select the Renegade
dialogue option, even with a full Renegade bar, before further
maximizing points by selecting the +100% Paragon/Renegade class power
evolution as opposed to the +70% Paragon/Renegade class power evolution.
This suggests that the requirements to select the Renegade dialogue
option are higher than that which is graphed on screen. This may also be
true for the Paragon choice, as some characters with "full" morality
bars on both ends of the spectrum were unable to select the Paragon
option for the encounter, only the Renegade option."

[Lumikki]

What roleplaying has to do with this?

Only metagamer looks game system and thinks how do I get this choise done, because it's more rewarding. Real roleplayer plays role and accept also "negative" result as unable to do something, because role. What OP is complaying is that metagaming wasn't easyer enough get rewards what player wanted. Roleplaying possibilities is "limited" in ME2 by right side of dialogs, the three choises as what to choose.

Modifié par Lumikki, 04 février 2011 - 06:09 .

[Flamewielder]

The system is not designed as a reward, it's only a gauge of how people perceive you. If an option is greyed out, it means Shepard's either:



1) not charming/trusted enough for the paragon option to work

2) not threatening/intimidating enough for the renegade option to work



Simple.

[Jade Elf]

Chewin3 wrote...


You'll need 100% Paragon/Renegade bar for it to succeed with Tela Vasir.

No, you don't. At least not necessarily. The way the system works in ME2, the higher the level, the harder it is to pass the check. But even at level 30 I've managed to pass the check without having 100% of either Paragon or Renegade.

[Gleym]

Lumikki wrote...

What roleplaying has to do with this?

Only metagamer looks game system and thinks how do I get this choise done, because it's more rewarding. Real roleplayer plays role and accept also "negative" result as unable to do something, because role. What OP is complaying is that metagaming wasn't easyer enough get rewards what player wanted. Roleplaying possibilities is "limited" in ME2 by right side of dialogs, the three choises as what to choose.

You know, you keep throwing metagaming around so much whenever a complaint about Paragon/Renegade comes up I honestly am starting to think you don't really know what the word means. To be honest, if anything is metagaming, then it's the Paragon/Renegade system. Why? Because what's more metagaming than a big, colored bundle of text that says 'Press This to Automatically Succeed'.

[skan5]

Gleym wrote...

You know, you keep throwing metagaming
around so much whenever a complaint about Paragon/Renegade comes up I
honestly am starting to think you don't really know what the word means.
To be honest, if anything is metagaming, then it's the Paragon/Renegade
system. Why? Because what's more metagaming than a big, colored bundle
of text that says 'Press This to Automatically Succeed'.

Are you serious? Look up metaming. A direct example of metagaming from Wiki:

"In role-playing games, a player is metagaming when they use knowledge that is not available to their character
in order to change the way they play their character (usually to give
them an advantage within the game), such as knowledge of the
mathematical nature of character statistics, or the statistics of a
creature that the player is familiar with but the character has never
encountered. In general, it refers to any gaps between player knowledge
and character knowledge which the player acts upon."

Now reread what the OP says:

Jona.R wrote...

However since it can be fairly difficult to obtain enough Renegade/Paragorn points I found myself not thinking "mhm, what would I do in this situation?", but rather "what will give me the most Renegade points because I will need them later to persuade person X to do Z"

Yes, Metagaming can refer to lots of things, but this is cut and dry, as the in-game Shepard would have absolutely NO IDEA of "oh, I'm a need to be more renegade so I can solve an argument these people are gonna have!"

Can the Para/Ren system be tweaked? Yes. Does it have flaws? Yeah. Can I guess as to what they tried to do, as in an attempt to keep people from just easily maxing out both Paragon and Renegade and having 100% access to the "I win" dialogue? Yeah, and I can appreciate that if that's the case.

But doesn't mean thinking along those lines isn't metagaming.

By the way, I'm with others in that such attempts should always be available but should have a chance to fail in a similar fashion to DAO and NWN.

Modifié par skan5, 04 février 2011 - 07:38 .

[Whatever42]

Yup, if you roleplay, it will cost you opportunities. However, I would argue that that's a good thing.

If you're a perfectionist, completionist who wants the perfect outcome then you will metagame. However, when I roleplay then I want a more realistic result where I don't achieve the perfect outcomes.

My first playthrough, I pretty much did a paragon run and with my imported paragon points, it was easy to walk through the whole game and get every bit of blue text possible. However, roleplaying on an NG+, where I was renegon, talking tough but often making the soft choices, I didn't always get it. That's a grittier, more realistic game and a good thing.

Modifié par Whatever666343431431654324, 04 février 2011 - 07:47 .

[Manic Sheep]

I think they either need to ditch they system because it encourages players to stick to on path, bring back stat based persuasion/intimidate or stop giving out points on unrelated things. By that I mean you could gain points as you use it, the more you intimidate the better you get, the more you charm the better you get but not have the points on big decisions and random line in normal conversations. Lumping everything together just doesn’t work well, not dose it makes sense. I also think you should be able to fail checks rather than simply being bared from trying at all.

[Gleym]

skan5 wrote...

Jona.R wrote...

However since it can be fairly difficult to obtain enough Renegade/Paragorn points I found myself not thinking "mhm, what would I do in this situation?", but rather "what will give me the most Renegade points because I will need them later to persuade person X to do Z"

Yes, Metagaming can refer to lots of things, but this is cut and dry, as the in-game Shepard would have absolutely NO IDEA of "oh, I'm a need to be more renegade so I can solve an argument these people are gonna have!"

Can the Para/Ren system be tweaked? Yes. Does it have flaws? Yeah. Can I guess as to what they tried to do, as in an attempt to keep people from just easily maxing out both Paragon and Renegade and having 100% access to the "I win" dialogue? Yeah, and I can appreciate that if that's the case.

But doesn't mean thinking along those lines isn't metagaming.

By the way, I'm with others in that such attempts should always be available but should have a chance to fail in a similar fashion to DAO and NWN.

I was more referring to Lumikki's post than the OP's. Whenever someone criticizes Paragon/Renegade, Lumikki's first argument is 'anything else is metagaming!!'. The fact of the matter is that the P/R system is self-feeding, meaning that if you do a Paragon action, you automatically succeed AND get a ton of Paragon points. How is that not metagaming? You KNOW it will give you points AND let you win.

[skan5]

Gleym wrote...

I was more referring to Lumikki's post than the OP's. Whenever someone criticizes Paragon/Renegade, Lumikki's first argument is 'anything else is metagaming!!'. The fact of the matter is that the P/R system is self-feeding, meaning that if you do a Paragon action, you automatically succeed AND get a ton of Paragon points. How is that not metagaming? You KNOW it will give you points AND let you win.

I agree with both of you. What Lumikki's pointing out is correct, as is what I meant in my reply. And I think you're also correct.

I think what Lumikki's trying to say is that the system is incredibly limited by the 3 natural choices (again, only think - I have hard time understanding his/her posts sometimes). You really only have +Paragon, Neutral and +Renegade, as apposed to DAO, NWN, BG, or whatever where you often had 4 to 6.

It would be so much better if the options were more veiled and weren't always in the exact same place. As is now, the only real option you get to decide for your Shepard is:

Is s/he going to react as a good guy/politely/be diplomatic about this?
Is s/he going to be cold blooded/react aggressively/be a hardass about this?
Is s/he going to just be flat about it?

And that's really it. In that case, it really is limited. But I don't see it as the fault of Paragon/Renegade, but rather how it's executed, as I see Para/Ren as nothing more than, say, the alignment bar in NWN.

I hope I'm being clear, as I have hard time explaining my thoughts

[JrayM16]

Hmm, I don't know. Cause I remember once I did an exclusively paragon playthrough, then accidentally got a few renegade points. All of a sudden, almost all of the Intimidate options at that point in the game(Illium) were unlocked, and I could keep going like this and have intimidate usually available with only a few points in it for all but the biggest initimidate challenges.

[Lumikki]

Gleym wrote...

I was more referring to Lumikki's post than the OP's. Whenever someone criticizes Paragon/Renegade, Lumikki's first argument is 'anything else is metagaming!!'.

Actually I don't say this, you are twisting my message to fit you own purpose. How ever, it's maybe my fault as my ability express my words in english is limited. 

What I say, if you say paragon/renagade paths in ME2 limits you roleplaying, I would argue back, because reward (metagaming) system isn't limiting roleplaying.

Start saying that the three right side dialog choises in ME2 isn't enough for roleplayer, then I don't argue back. Or start saying that paragon/renegade system lures metagamer to only these two extreme moral path and doesn't reward any other roles, I will not argue back.

The fact of the matter is that the P/R system is self-feeding, meaning that if you do a Paragon action, you automatically succeed AND get a ton of Paragon points. How is that not metagaming? You KNOW it will give you points AND let you win.

I never denied this. Extreme paragon and renegade path are metagaming in ME2, if you do it because game system lures you to do it with rewards.

How ever, like skan5 sayed, the real limitations for roleplaying is in right side of dialogs as there is only three choises and they even are all moral based in ME2.

Modifié par Lumikki, 05 février 2011 - 05:01 .

[snfonseka]

Yes, they are preventing us from role-playing. That's why I favor DA:O system over ME.

[JKoopman]

Flamewielder wrote...

The system is not designed as a reward, it's only a gauge of how people perceive you. If an option is greyed out, it means Shepard's either:

1) not charming/trusted enough for the paragon option to work
2) not threatening/intimidating enough for the renegade option to work

Simple.

And how does giving a dying civilian in an abandoned alley on Omega some medi-gel to save his life influence my ability to intimidate a merc on Illium who's never met me?

The "it just reflects people's opinion of you" rationale doesn't fly unless you can influence each person you meet individually ala Dragon Age: Origins. Nor does it make sense that being polite to a friend means that I can't be intimidating to an enemy.

You should always be able to choose persuasion or intimidation options in conversations. The only thing that Paragon/Renegade scores should influence is your ability to succeed at those actions. Let my hardass Renegade try to be flowery and sweet, even if it blows up in his face and the person he was trying to persuade sees right through it. Let my fatherly Paragon try to intimidate that merc even if the merc ultimately laughs in his face and calls his bluff. Don't lock me out of the option to explore those dialogs simply because "Oops, you score isn't high enough, so you can't be charming/threatening!"

Tying Paragon/Renegade scores into which conversation options you can and can't explore limits your ability to roleplay and ultimately penalizes the person who plays a balanced human being instead of a one-dimensional cliche.

[Lumikki]

JKoopman wrote...

Flamewielder wrote...

The system is not designed as a reward, it's only a gauge of how people perceive you. If an option is greyed out, it means Shepard's either:

1) not charming/trusted enough for the paragon option to work
2) not threatening/intimidating enough for the renegade option to work

Simple.

And how does giving a dying civilian in an abandoned alley on Omega some medi-gel to save his life influence my ability to intimidate a merc on Illium who's never met me?

This is what most of here doesn't seem to understand.

As paragon/renegade system in ME2 is about moral.

What is MORALITY?

Moral is like what you are, knowing what's right and wrong. So, person who has high moral would NEVER even try to do unmoral action. Meaning high moral person would self limit them self not doing unmoral actions. Same with person who has no morality at all. This person would never do high moral actions, because that person would not care others. Example unmoral person would never waste medi-gel to someone else, but be selfish and keep it to him/her self, they could how ever kill the person just for fun of it and then loot.

Point is there is no persuation or intimidation at all in ME2, unless you count the right side of dialogs as try choises what can cause those effects in someways. It's all morality based consequences as you morality starts limit your character when too extreme. Morality is restricting as it's own nature as what it is. While persuation and intimidation open better option as it's nature. Point is they are totally different things and work different ways.

Now other question is was it well done in ME2, I don't think so. Example too many exterme morality has no negative side at all. Also neutral as who are more unknow as what they morality really is, did not have any moral based consequences at all. I can understand it, that neutral has not many of them, but at least some consequences should exist in they path too.

Modifié par Lumikki, 05 février 2011 - 05:51 .

[JKoopman]

Lumikki wrote...

JKoopman wrote...

Flamewielder wrote...

The system is not designed as a reward, it's only a gauge of how people perceive you. If an option is greyed out, it means Shepard's either:

1) not charming/trusted enough for the paragon option to work
2) not threatening/intimidating enough for the renegade option to work

Simple.

And how does giving a dying civilian in an abandoned alley on Omega some medi-gel to save his life influence my ability to intimidate a merc on Illium who's never met me?

This is what most of here doesn't seem to understand.

As paragon/renegade system in ME2 is about moral.

What is MORALITY?

Moral is like what you are, knowing what's right and what wrong. So, person who has high moral would NEVER even try to do unmoral action. Meaning high moral person would self limit them self not doing unmoral actions. Same with person who has no morality at all. This person would never do high moral actions, because that person would not care others. Example unmoral person would never waste medi-gel to someone else, but be selfish and keep it to him/her self, they could how ever kill the person just for fun of it.

Point is there is not persuation or intimidation at all in ME2. It's all morality based consequences. Meaning if you are with high morality or no morality at all, it has consequences as what you can do. Because character is self limiting his/her own actions. If that would not happen then morality would not be at all part of the game. Morality is restricting as it's own nature as what it is. While persuation and intimidation open better option as it's nature. Point is they are totally different things and work different ways.

1) BioWare have said time and time again that Paragon/Renegade is not a morality meter. Whether you're Paragon or Renegade, Shepard is always the HERO and he's always working to save the galaxy. Paragon and Renegade are simply "people first" or "mission first". It's "Are you nice or are you a jerk?" It's NOT "Are you GOOD or EVIL?"

2) Since when is it the game's place to dictate to me the morals of my character? The actions and words of my character are my business. Even in old D&D games where you actually chose your morality at the start of the game (ex: Lawful Good or Chaotic Evil), you could still choose whichever dialog options and actions you felt best suited your character; the game didn't dictate them for you. If I want my character to be polite and caring when it comes to his crew and innocent civilians but not hesitate to lay down the Wrath of God on mercs and anyone else who gets in the way of his mission, why is it the game's place to say "Nope, can't do that. You can only be a saint to everyone in the galaxy or a d*ck to everyone in the galaxy. You can't do both."?

[Lumikki]

D&D you can choose your morality, but that doesn't mean you need to follow you morality as be what you choose to be. In ME2, game learns characters morality by choises what player does and restrict then player to follow the morality choosen for character. Meaning you are what you do, philosophy.

"People first" is about compassion as high morality, like "others first".
"Mission first" or "Selfish jerk" or "cruel person" in ME2, what is same as low morality.

How ever, maybe you are right it's nor directly exact like morality, but it seem to work very same ways than morality.

Modifié par Lumikki, 05 février 2011 - 06:14 .

[PsychoWARD23]

All I'm going to say is that DA does it better.

[JKoopman]

Lumikki wrote...

D&D you can choose your morality, but that doesn't mean you need to follow you morality as be what you choose to be. In ME2, game learns characters morality by choises what player does and restrict then player to follow the morality choosen for character. Meaning you are what you do, philosophy.

So, basically, in the games that are about morality you can choose the moral trait that defines your character but then break it every step of the way, but in the game that isn't about morality the game "learns" that I'm "good" via the fact that I gave a dying civilian some medi-gel and didn't backhand my crewman when he spoke out of turn and decides that this means that I can no longer be intimidating to the merc half a galaxy away who I'm pointing a gun at.

And this system is better (and makes more sense) how?

Again, explain for everyone why helping a dying civilian or speaking politely to your friends means that you can't threaten a mercenary or be intimidating to an enemy without "changing your morals".

Modifié par JKoopman, 05 février 2011 - 06:18 .

[Lumikki]

Make sense?

Morality does affect how we do action. Meaning high morality person would not intimidate. Low morality person would never been good in persuation, because nature of they personality. Meaning high morality would refuse to do action agaist they morality, while no morality person would not want to do high moral action.

How ever, that doens't mean, both could not exist in same game. In ME2 character based persuation or intimidate just was not there.

if you morality is low, you would not care the person who is dying. Meaning you would not waste time or material to heal. You would kick the person head, steal him or shoot him. Person with sertain morality does sertain type of actions, because that is what they are.

Modifié par Lumikki, 05 février 2011 - 06:29 .

[xentar]

Lumikki wrote...

What roleplaying has to do with this?

Only metagamer looks game system and thinks how do I get this choise done, because it's more rewarding. Real roleplayer plays role and accept also "negative" result as unable to do something, because role. What OP is complaying is that metagaming wasn't easyer enough get rewards what player wanted. Roleplaying possibilities is "limited" in ME2 by right side of dialogs, the three choises as what to choose.

The problem with this argument is that it completely frees game developers from an incentive to develop interesting and balanced character advancement and interaction system. Because, you know, no matter how crappy and biased the system is, a real roleplayer will accept negative consequences, and everyone else is a metagamer and doesn't deserve attention.

Modifié par xentar, 05 février 2011 - 06:29 .

[xentar]

Lumikki wrote...
Morality does affect how we do action. Meaning high morality person would not intimidate. Low morality person would never been good in persuation, because nature of they personality.

Than politicians do not exist.

Modifié par xentar, 05 février 2011 - 06:35 .

[Lumikki]

xentar wrote...

Lumikki wrote...

What roleplaying has to do with this?

Only metagamer looks game system and thinks how do I get this choise done, because it's more rewarding. Real roleplayer plays role and accept also "negative" result as unable to do something, because role. What OP is complaying is that metagaming wasn't easyer enough get rewards what player wanted. Roleplaying possibilities is "limited" in ME2 by right side of dialogs, the three choises as what to choose.

The problem with this argument is that it completely frees game developers from an incentive to develop interesting and balanced character advancement and interaction system. Because, you know, no matter how crappy and biased the system is, a real roleplayer will accept negative consequences, and everyone else is a metagamer and doesn't deserve attention.

I don't think roleplayer would accept crappy system, but roleplayer would complain the REAL problem what restrict they roleplaying. Not system what isn't part of they roleplaying, but belowns to metagamers. As for metagamers, as what they deserve. I think most of us are metagamers, but just different degree. So, it's not gonna be easy for game developers balance roleplaying, metagaming and powerplaying, so that every one is happy about it.

I'm not usually agaist improving metagaming, but I'm often agaist "number" playing and creating game system what weakes other game system in same game. I'm my self metagamer mostly, but I would wanna be more roleplayer. I just haven't been able to be any good at it.