82 réponses à ce sujet

[JKoopman]

Lumikki wrote...

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.

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.

You keep using the word "morality". It's NOT morality. I don't know how many times that can be explained.

And no, there is NO reason why helping a dying civilian means that you inherently have high "morals" and therefor are a peerless saint who can do no wrong. My Shepard's "morals" can certainly be flexible enough for him to make a distinction between a combatant and a non-combatant, and deal with both appropriately. A Renegade Shepard most certainly would not "kick in the head of a civilian and steal his credits," which makes me question whether you understand what Paragon and Renegade are at all; he simply wouldn't stop to waste time with him because the mission takes priority over all else. Renegade's aren't EVIL; they're just pragmatists focused on end-results.

The most hardassed marine in Iraq can still stop to give a little girl a lolipop or pick a homeless puppy up off the street and care for it, and there are real world examples of this happening all the time. Are they "moral contradictions"? The world isn't as black and white as you seem to think. Your "morals" don't define you; you define them.

[xentar]

Lumikki wrote...

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.

Aren't choices supposed to be about what the player wants and cares about?

[Lumikki]

xentar wrote...

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.

Good point, there are people who are excelent actors as lying to other what they are. How ever, politicians aren't like renegade in ME2. ME2 renegade is selfish jerk. Politicians are more like neutral in ME2, trying juggle in middle to please everyone. But like I sayed, neutral path was not rewared in ME2.

xentar wrote...

Aren't choices supposed to be about what the player wants and cares about?

Other good point. I think it's developers decission, do they try to force players to play the role players them self choose or give freedom to do what ever player wants without restrictions.

Modifié par Lumikki, 05 février 2011 - 06:44 .

[Lumikki]

JKoopman wrote...

You keep using the word "morality". It's NOT morality. I don't know how many times that can be explained.

Yuo don't want it to be morality, it still acts like morality. If it walks like duck, it's a duck.

And no, there is NO reason why helping a dying civilian means that you inherently have high "morals" and therefor are a peerless saint who can do no wrong. My Shepard's "morals" can certainly be flexible enough for him to make a distinction between a combatant and a non-combatant, and deal with both appropriately. A Renegade Shepard most certainly would not "kick in the head of a civilian and steal his credits," which makes me question whether you understand what Paragon and Renegade are at all; he simply wouldn't stop to waste time with him because the mission takes priority over all else. Renegade's aren't EVIL; they're just pragmatists focused on end-results.

The most hardassed marine in Iraq can still stop to give a little girl a lolipop or pick a homeless puppy up off the street and care for it, and there are real world examples of this happening all the time. Are they "moral contradictions"? The world isn't as black and white as you seem to think. Your "morals" don't define you; you define them.

Flexiable moral means neutral.

Why would renegade person help the dying person like in Omega?

You say because renegade cares only the end result, I agree. How ever, how you renegade character know that healing the dying person affects anyway your end result?

Modifié par Lumikki, 05 février 2011 - 07:17 .

[xentar]

Lumikki wrote...

Good point, there are people who are excelent actors as lying to other what they are. How ever, politicians aren't like renegade in ME2. ME2 renegade is selfish jerk. Politicians are more like neutral in ME2, trying juggle in middle to please everyone. But like I sayed, neutral path was not rewared in ME2.

This is just one example, there could be, people like assassins who would gain their victims' trust and stab them in the back (while, if they are good, maintaining a decent reputations). Then there are lawyers, the 'devil's advocates' who help rapists and murderers exclusively. The problem with rewarding paths, neutral or otherwise, is that most players would have a path of their own that doesn't necessarily coincide with what the developers might have thought and that may lead to worse experience from a game for no good reason.

[Manic Sheep]

Lumikki wrote...

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.

 Oh you killed this merc pointing a gun at you, you must have “low morality, you could not possibly care about civilians and people who are not a threat to you. You insulted someone who had just insulted you? Oh you must be an **** and nothing else otherwise the idea to insult them would never even have crossed your mind right? It’s just “who you are”. Mission first and selfish douche are not the same thing and most people aren’t so 2 dimensional that they respond to every situation in the exact that same way and treat every person in the exact same way. You are not either a dick or a nice person all the time to everyone you meet no matter the circumstance.

And how exactly does this affect you ability to be persuasive or charming to people you have never meet exactly? There are plenty of people who are ****s but are also very manipulative and persuasive and people who are nice but are freakin scary when you ****** them off or hurt someone close to them.

 Sacrificing one in game skill such as for another in game skill is fine. Sacrificing the ability to roleplay for a skill because the system has decided to lump anything that may be even loosely related things together is stupid. Roleplaying is the one thing you should not be attempting to stop player from doing in a game like this.

Modifié par Manic Sheep, 05 février 2011 - 06:58 .

[Lumikki]

Manic Sheep wrote...

And how exactly does this affect you ability to be persuasive or charming to people you have never meet exactly? There are plenty of people who are ****s but are also very manipulative and persuasive and people who
are nice but are freakin scary when you ****** them off or hurt someone close to them.

There is no character based persuation or charming skill in ME2. How morality affects the situation? I allready explained, morality is self restricting as it's nature. Meaning character would not do actions agaist they own morality.

 

Sacrificing one in game skill such as for another in game skill is fine. Sacrificing the ability to roleplay for a skill because the system has decided to lump anything that may be even loosely related things together is stupid. Roleplaying is the one thing you should not be attempting to stop player from doing in a game like this.

Yes, but the having skill like persuation also have many other affects. Example it promote easy way to solve conflicts in dialogs with persuation skill for all metagamers. So, while the system did improve roleplayers possibilities, it also make metagaming even more simple railroaded. Question is what you people don't ask, is there other way around this. Example what if the persuation would be inside the dialog it self. If you can play the role, then choose the "right" dialog choises.

Modifié par Lumikki, 05 février 2011 - 07:07 .

[Shotokanguy]

Everyone is different. I think Mass Effect is one of the best RPG's out there when it comes to role playing a character.

I don't really ever have a problem with Paragon/Renegade points. I just play the game.

[Capeo]

Manic Sheep wrote...

Lumikki wrote...

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.

 Oh you killed this merc pointing a gun at you, you must have “low morality, you could not possibly care about civilians and people who are not a threat to you. You insulted someone who had just insulted you? Oh you must be an **** and nothing else otherwise the idea to insult them would never even have crossed your mind right? It’s just “who you are”. Mission first and selfish douche are not the same thing and most people aren’t so 2 dimensional that they respond to every situation in the exact that same way and treat every person in the exact same way. You are not either a dick or a nice person all the time to everyone you meet no matter the circumstance.

And how exactly does this affect you ability to be persuasive or charming to people you have never meet exactly? There are plenty of people who are ****s but are also very manipulative and persuasive and people who are nice but are freakin scary when you ****** them off or hurt someone close to them.

 Sacrificing one in game skill such as for another in game skill is fine. Sacrificing the ability to roleplay for a skill because the system has decided to lump anything that may be even loosely related things together is stupid. Roleplaying is the one thing you should not be attempting to stop player from doing in a game like this.

This 100% exactly.  The system is stupid.  BW wanted to streamline the skill system so they rolled Intimidation and Charm into Renegade and Paragon.  It says it directly during load scenes.  It's a ridiculous system that hugely reduces roleplaying.  By removing charm and intimidate as skills and instead forcing you to chose a personality type to have these skills, it effectively nullifyies deciding your own personality.  Instead it makes a person who wants to charming also an angel with a predefined moralty.  I can't be a charming person yet have opinions?  I can't be charming yet still agree the genophage is necesary?  I can't be a charming snake in the grass with ulterior motives?  Conversely, I can't be intimidating yet actually care about the emotional well being of my crew?  I can't be intimidating yet care about innocents dying?  It's idiotic.

And don't give me, oh well you can choose anything you want.  Yes, you can.  I can choose to actually react in the ways I want to roleplay.  And the game punishes me for it.  I can't keep the loyalty of my crew by being a well reasoned person with differing opinions on different subjects.  And don't give me the effing metagaming claptrap (I'm so sick of that stupid term).  A roleplaying game should allow you choice.  If charm and intimidate were skills I could choose to put points in them or not.  In ME2 if I want to be charming or intimidating from a roleplating perspective then the only way to achieve that is to allow the game to define my personality.  That's an epic fail by the developers. 

Modifié par Capeo, 05 février 2011 - 07:36 .

[Capeo]

Shotokanguy wrote...

Everyone is different. I think Mass Effect is one of the best RPG's out there when it comes to role playing a character.

I don't really ever have a problem with Paragon/Renegade points. I just play the game.

When it comes to Role Playing?  Really?

Have you played Oblivion, Morrowind, any of the Fallouts, or even Dragon Age?  They are all far superior when it comes to allowing your to craft the character you want and it effecting the world around you.

[Kaldarm]

JKoopman wrote...

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.

I think this sums it all up quite nicely. The system in ME2 is bad, it was another thing the developers simplified, probably to make the game more accessible to the masses (FPS fans that perceive RPG's as only for the beardy ppl, for example). Pretty much all the game mechanics were simplifed to make it more accessible to non RPG regulars and in doing so, they over simplified the game and took away much of the depth that made ME1 so freaking awesome in the first place.

[Jona.R]

Kaldarm wrote...

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.

THIS....

Modifié par Jona.R, 05 février 2011 - 07:58 .

[Elvis_Mazur]

Yes, at least to some people that choose complete paragon or renegade so they can have everyone loyal.

I don't mind the system, though. If I find any situation where I don't have enough points for something, I just deal with it and choose whichever choice is available.



But, I would be glad if BW comes up with a system that doesn't force you on how to play in this aspect.

[JKoopman]

Lumikki wrote...

JKoopman wrote...

You keep using the word "morality". It's NOT morality. I don't know how many times that can be explained.

Yuo don't want it to be morality, it still acts like morality. If it walks like duck, it's a duck.

No, when we're told repeatedly by devs that Paragon and Renegade are not Good and Evil, what we want doesn't factor into the equation. That you want Paragon and Renegade to be morality does not make it so, and that some dialog options convey the impression that Paragon is "Lawful Good" and Renegade is "Chaotic Evil" is a failing of those certain dialogs in ME2, and not indicative of the system as a whole.

Simply put, if there is a dialog option/action whereby the Renegade path has Shepard kicking a puppy down a flight of stairs, I'm not going to choose that option even if I'm playing a predominantly Renegade Shepard, because that's not who my Renegade Shepard is. Conversely, if there's a Paragon option whereby my Shepard goes all "Dr. Phil" on a mercenary who's holding a gun on a civilian and asks him about his feelings, I'm not going to take that option even if I'm playing a predominantly Paragon Shepard, because that's not who my Paragon Shepard is. That's roleplaying, and it's what ME2's system actively prevents.

The way ME2's system works, you're basically forced (via being penalized otherwise, and having options blocked from use) to make your Shepard either a full-time p*ssy or a one-dimensional sociopathic ****** instead of roleplaying a balanced human being who's capable of distinguishing between friend and foe and acting as befits each situation.

Lumikki wrote...

JKoopman wrote...

And no, there is NO reason why helping a dying civilian means that you inherently have high "morals" and therefor are a peerless saint who can do no wrong. My Shepard's "morals" can certainly be flexible enough for him to make a distinction between a combatant and a non-combatant, and deal with both appropriately. A Renegade Shepard most certainly would not "kick in the head of a civilian and steal his credits," which makes me question whether you understand what Paragon and Renegade are at all; he simply wouldn't stop to waste time with him because the mission takes priority over all else. Renegade's aren't EVIL; they're just pragmatists focused on end-results.

The most hardassed marine in Iraq can still stop to give a little girl a lolipop or pick a homeless puppy up off the street and care for it, and there are real world examples of this happening all the time. Are they "moral contradictions"? The world isn't as black and white as you seem to think. Your "morals" don't define you; you define them.

Flexiable moral means neutral.

Why would renegade person help the dying person like in Omega?

You say because renegade cares only the end result, I agree. How ever, how you renegade character know that healing the dying person affects anyway your end result?

No, flexible does not mean neutral. Neutral would be not caring either way. "Neutral" does not exist in the real world. Flexible means being Renegade where appropriate and being Paragon where appropriate. Flexible means sympathizing with an injured non-combatant and stopping to help, while also being willing to pull a gun on and threaten a belligerent thug who has vital information. Flexible is how real people work.

And you're trying to apply one-dimensional thought processes to an argument against one-dimensional characters. Why would a Renegade Shepard stop to help a dying civilian? Because Shepard isn't just "Renegade" or just "Paragon". That's what I've been trying to make you understand this whole time. Your character shouldn't be defined by some arbitrary number or word. You make your Shepard how you want him or her to be. You define their moral codes, not the game. If I want my Shepard to be a hardass no-nonsense marine who stops to give little girls lolipops, I shouldn't be penalized or prevented from doing so by some arbitrary "morality" system. And if I want my Shepard to be a manipulative snake-in-the-grass who persuades people to her way of thinking while making all the big Renegade decisions, that also should be my choice. And it was my choice in ME1.

My Renegade Shepard is a Spacer with a long and proud history of service to the Alliance, and he respects and admires each and every soldier in the service, particularly those under his command. He also has a Ruthless psychological profile, meaning he willingly sent dozens of his soldiers to their deaths on Torfan attempting to destroy the Batarian slavers there. But how can that be? The two contradict each other, no? No. You see, he hates Batarians for what they did on Elysium and he doesn't abide slavery in any form. He had a job that needed doing, and the only way to do it was to sacrifice a great many of his men. To this day, he still treats anyone in the service with polite respect, and maintains a fatherly demeanor with those under his command. But if some merc pulls a gun on him, threatens anyone in his squad or a non-combatant bystander, he won't hesitate to rain unholy vengeance down upon them without a second thought, and the mission always comes first no matter what. If it helps the mission, then so be it. If it doesn't, then it can wait.

According to you and ME2, this character can't exist because he's just a "walking moral contradiction". How can he be nice and polite to some people and merciless to others? Clearly that makes no sense.

Modifié par JKoopman, 05 février 2011 - 08:16 .

[Kaldarm]

I think the system should be akin to the one we saw in KotOR so long ago. ALL dialogue options were open to you but dependent on your skills, you wouldn't automatically succeed in the choice you made. That is how it should work. You should be given the option to TRY and resolve any situation through Paragon or Renegade choices as you see fit, it just means that dependant on how you've played your Shepard so far, your chances of pulling it off are linked to your skills, not by how many times you've previously attempted a Para/Rene option, as it is in ME2.

[PsychoWARD23]

Kaldarm wrote...

I think the system should be akin to the one we saw in KotOR so long ago. ALL dialogue options were open to you but dependent on your skills, you wouldn't automatically succeed in the choice you made. That is how it should work. You should be given the option to TRY and resolve any situation through Paragon or Renegade choices as you see fit, it just means that dependant on how you've played your Shepard so far, your chances of pulling it off are linked to your skills, not by how many times you've previously attempted a Para/Rene option, as it is in ME2.

Again, like DA.

[Merci357]

Kaldarm wrote...

I think the system should be akin to the one we saw in KotOR so long ago. ALL dialogue options were open to you but dependent on your skills, you wouldn't automatically succeed in the choice you made. That is how it should work. You should be given the option to TRY and resolve any situation through Paragon or Renegade choices as you see fit, it just means that dependant on how you've played your Shepard so far, your chances of pulling it off are linked to your skills, not by how many times you've previously attempted a Para/Rene option, as it is in ME2.

This. Usually my characters are neither black nor white - but ME2 tends to penalise a character that is compassionate and caring towards the crew, but somewhat ruthless towards enemies. In my opinion paragade/renegon are valid ways to approach the game, and ME1 allowed it. I'd prefer a system that has a coersion skill separated from the alignment.

[Lumikki]

JKoopman wrote...

According to you and ME2, this character can't exist because he's just a "walking moral contradiction". How can he be nice and polite to some people and merciless to others? Clearly that makes no sense.

That's not what high morality is, but we seem to be in loop now, as both will NEVER change our mind and we start repeat same stuff. You can easyly be nice to someone and cruel to other, but you can't have high morality if you are that person. So, I can only agree that I disagree with you. 

Modifié par Lumikki, 05 février 2011 - 09:02 .

[AdamNW]

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?

Because someone who does naturally good things tend to give the impression that they are good-aligned to anyone, whether or not they've actually talked to them. See: Star Wars

[silver_sparrow]

It sucked in ME2. I hated being forced to make strict paragon or renegade decisions and having to stick to either or. it didn't provide much for those that play in different shades of grey.

[danitiwa]

Confused_Shepard wrote...

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

I think the problem with this would be the following: Bioware already has their hands full when it comes to giving you alternatives in the games. They have to sort all the sound files under what happened earlier, Shepard's gender, Shepard's reputation, Shepard's background, whoever might have died earlier, Shepard's choices before the dialogue in choice. If you make them give you more options and split the margins for how Shepard does things even more, it will make a huge mess out of the sound files and how they're sorted, thus killing the gameplay with some odd responses. These are already present in both games from time to time.
One example is when you play femshep at some points you get called "sir" by people at certain points. The same goes for Conrad Verner always saying you put a gun to his face, even if you used the paragon option on him in ME1.

Although I agree that it doesn't really give you much variation. Shepard always has the same goals and intentions whether you pick the renegade or paragon way. You're either a saint or a sinner but in the end both are doing the same thing.
I think in this aspect, Knights of The Old Republic is better. Because if you chose to go Dark side your character actually does different things, and ends up with a completely different set of intentions... In the first game at least.
Because whatever you say Shepard is always against the reapers. As opposed to for example, wanting to join them.

Modifié par danitiwa, 06 février 2011 - 12:26 .

[JKoopman]

AdamNW wrote...

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?

Because someone who does naturally good things tend to give the impression that they are good-aligned to anyone, whether or not they've actually talked to them. See: Star Wars

And in Star Wars, the more "evil" acts you perform the more your appearance changes to reflect it. In reality, whether or not someone is "good" or "evil" at heart is indiscernible from their outward appearance and any actions they perform--especially those performed half a galaxy away and out of sight of any witnesses--would have no influence. So probably not the best comaprison.

Oh, wait. That's right. BioWare decided to add the glowing eyes and scars that change depending on your "morality" in ME2. Perhaps you have a point... <_<

[Zulu_DFA]

One of the fixes I'd like to see in ME3 for the P/R system is this:

Persuasion dialogue options (the ones in red and blue) DO NOT ADD P/R points to Shepard. Only interrupts and normal (right-side-of-the-wheel) dialogue options/actions earn these points, while the persuasion options are only attmpt to use the current socia; skills of Shepard, but fon't really develop it.

Another fix would be that the persuasion options are always available (never grayed out), but every NPC Shepard interacts with has a hidden "resistance score", separate for paragon and renegade persuasion. So if Shepard attempts to Charm an NPC, but the NPC has a "Charm resistance" score higher than Shepard's current paragon score, the attempt fails. But maybe Shepard can then attempt to Intimidate the same NPC... although the "Intimidate resistance" score of the NPC is already higher than it was before the failed Charm attempt.

This way, before trying to persuade each NPC, Shepard will have to figure out which option is going to work better, considering this NPCs alignment and Shepard's own reputation/karma.

The Krogans and Batarians would generally have higher "Charm resistance", as they think it’s “wussy”, and the Turians and Quarians would be generally more resistant to Intimidation, as they are too proud. Asari, Salarians, Humans' "resistance" scores may vary from NPC to NPC.

Modifié par Zulu_DFA, 07 février 2011 - 06:58 .