82 réponses à ce sujet

[Ryzaki]

It makes far more sense for Shep's background (ruthless, war hero, sole survivor) to color his interactions with people than paragon/renegade.

[Zulu_DFA]

Ryzaki wrote...

It makes far more sense for Shep's background (ruthless, war hero, sole survivor) to color his interactions with people than paragon/renegade.

This too.

Reputation > karma.

Perhaps, the background should give a permanent modifier to the P/R points aqcuired, something like this:

Ruthless: R = x1.5; P = x1.0
Sole survivor: R = x1.25; P = x1.25
War Hero: R = x1.0; P = x1.5

Modifié par Zulu_DFA, 06 février 2011 - 04:08 .

[Manic Sheep]

Lumikki wrote...

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.

I just got home from work, my brain is a sad shrivelled husk right now  and I’m likely completely misinterpreting what your saying here but do you mean having charm or intimidate based on if you actually picked the right dialogue choices in a conversation rather than being a glowing red or blue insta win option? If so then hell yes I would want that. In fact it’s something I’ve bee thinking about quite a bit and wish would be implemented in games. I would be perfectly happy to fail to influence an NPC  if while staying in character my PC just didn’t strike the right cords with that NPC. In fact I absolutely would LOVE that, if they implemented something like that it would be a way to have role-playing part of the game play and have actual consequences for the way you role-play that doesn’t feel contrived and restrictive. It would also add an extra layer of challenge to a game that is not combat based because you would actually have to figure out how to approach and manipulate a NPC. Naturaly you would end up with people just reloading till they get the right option but you will always have people meta game no matter what you do and it realy isn't an issue. The problem is a system like that would probably be very hard to do , it would take allot more branching dialogue than what is currently in ME and more thought than something point based witch is why I don’t generally bring it up.  I don’t see it happening but I wish it would. In general I do think we do need to move away from simply having most things dependent on stats in you're typical RPG. They may have been trying to get the same sort of effect with the para/ren system in ME2 but they did it badly. Simply swapping bad point system for even worse one.


The problem I have with the current system is that actions taken a one time determine's the outcome of a completely unrelated event with NPC's you have never meet or spoken too in a point based system that quite frankly just doesn’t t make sense. Even if the speech option is completely in character for how I have decided my Shep speaks and acts andeven tho he/she has consistantly used charm or intimade i can't because I didn’t strictly follow the para or ren path. At the moment I tend cheat points up and then purposefully opt out of allot of the speech checks myself if it’s not in character or I think its just bypasing a tough choice.

Modifié par Manic Sheep, 06 février 2011 - 05:45 .

[Shotokanguy]

Capeo wrote...

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.

You know what I said by "role play", right? Because, even though I said "everyone is different", I don't see how you could think Fallout 3's character is anything other than a vessel for your guns and a way for you to be the super good guy or the evil bad guy.

How many people actually TRY role playing their Shepard? Give him a personality, stick to choices that he would make, and in cases where Shepard might do something differently than the options that you have, pick one and find a way to justify it. You'll develop an appreciation for your characters that you normally won't get letting yourself get distracted by stupid things like how many points you need. Especially since that part isn't even hard.

[Lumikki]

Manic Sheep wrote...

Lumikki wrote...

 Example what if the persuation would be inside the dialog it self. If you can play the role, then choose the "right" dialog choises.

I just got home from work, my brain is a sad shrivelled husk right now  and I’m likely completely misinterpreting what your saying here but do you mean having charm or intimidate based on if you actually picked the right dialogue choices in a conversation rather than being a glowing red or blue insta win option?

Yes, I was talking that persuation would not be skill, but if player wanna try to find more "diplomatic" solution. Player would need to think more what dialog choises to choose, based what kind of npc player is trying to persuade to do what player wants. Meaning that there would be more and longer choises in dialogs. Little like if you failed the talking ends faster, but with right choises you can start persuate npcs to your "side".

Yes, I also agree it would be harder for player to get positive result, but if done right, it would not be so automatic like it's in both ME systems so far. Meaning if you really can play role of "diplomat", then you would know what to choose to get result what you want. I'm not sure if it's good idea, because it could cause some players use more save reload game option to find the "best" option, when they could just play the game if it would not exists. More I think these stuff more I come to conclusion that best system is something what we players can't see or know it's there.

Modifié par Lumikki, 06 février 2011 - 04:59 .

[AdamNW]

JKoopman wrote...

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... <_<

You know what body language is right?

[johnny532]

I think the whole Paragon/Renegade system needs to be scraped because it forces players to either be a saint or the biggest evil ****** in the galaxy. I agree with the OP in that this system limits true role-playing because you know if you want to have enough persuasion skill for the really tough persuade checks you need to "role-play" one extreme or the other. I much prefer the DAO system where there is no good/evil bars you just invest skill points into a persuasion skill and you can be a good or evil as you want.

[ciastoludek1]

johnny532 wrote...

I think the whole Paragon/Renegade system needs to be scraped because it forces players to either be a saint or the biggest evil ****** in the galaxy.

I agree. Being neutral does not pay off, because later you won't have the abbillity to make the choices you want.

[Tony_Knightcrawler]

I'd like to point out a few things. First of all, being as clever as Commander Shepard isn't easy. Just like you have to practice shooting/biotics/tech to get better at then, you've got to practice being diplomatic/an awesome ass to get better at that. You think it's easy for RenShep to come up with all those creative ways to get people hurt or killed? No sir, that takes some practice! Just because the players is given all the time in the world to think about their dialogue option doesn't mean Shepard would have that.

And if you want to improve your negotiations skills, just equip the Death Mask or Inferno Armor. Won't work for the catfights on-board the ship, but it will work for everything else.

Modifié par Tony_Knightcrawler, 07 février 2011 - 06:32 .

[KiraTsukasa]

I think that you're looking at the paragon and renegade meters the wrong way. Think of the paragon meter as Shepard's experience meter in how to be diplomatic and the renegade meter as his experience in how to be "screw you hippie." Thinking of it that way helps make sense why you can't do some options. If Shepard has low paragon then he has less experience in being diplomatic so he may not think of diplomacy as an option in a certain situation. This actually HELPS roleplaying in the game, since we don't have options pop up when we talk to people and have to think of things on our own.

[AlanC9]

Lumikki wrote...

Yes, I was talking that persuation would not be skill, but if player wanna try to find more "diplomatic" solution. Player would need to think more what dialog choises to choose, based what kind of npc player is trying to persuade to do what player wants. Meaning that there would be more and longer choises in dialogs. Little like if you failed the talking ends faster, but with right choises you can start persuate npcs to your "side".

Hmm... so characters wouldn't be any different in their diplomatic abilities, right? It would all come down to the player's skill at navigating the conversations, or his willingness to cheat via save/reload. This is the diplomatic equivalent of making combat based on the player's reflexes rather than on the character's weapon skill. And to play an undiplomatic character, I have to deliberately pick bad choices. Also note that on replays we'd all be better at diplomacy to the extent we remember the correct choices.

Conceptually, I don't have a huge problem with this, but it is yet another move away from traditional RPG gameplay.

Anyway,  I don't think this is likely to happen; since they'd burn a lot of dev time and VO work implementing it they'd have to really believe in the feature.

More I think these stuff more I come to conclusion that best system is something what we players can't see or know it's there.

I remember being very annoyed with ToEE because you didn't know which conversation skill would work on an NPC, so you ended up cycling through all your characters to see what might work. I don't think obscurantism is an effective design approach for RPGs.

[Lumikki]

AlanC9 wrote...

Conceptually, I don't have a huge problem with this, but it is yet another move away from traditional RPG gameplay.

Yes it would be, but that doesn't mean it's bad move? I mean there isn't reason why all RPG has to build same rules than traditional RPG. In my opinion Mass Effect is not really traditional RPG. So, I think what fits better the general style of Mass Effect could be better, I'm not saying it is, but maybe it will improve the experience, than trying to force something in it what doesn't fit well in the style.

Lumikki wrote...

More I think these stuff more I come to conclusion that best system is something what we players can't see or know it's there.

I remember being very annoyed with ToEE because you didn't know which conversation skill would work on an NPC, so you ended up cycling through all your characters to see what might work. I don't think obscurantism is an effective design approach for RPGs.

Hard to say what is better, because not knowing require player using they own mind, while showing the numbers just leads players to solution easyer way. I would say showing the stuff is more traditional RPG, while not showing is more impression based, where player deside, not game system. I ques it's more like what kind of game Mass Effect really is in style, defined by Bioware. 

Modifié par Lumikki, 07 février 2011 - 08:43 .

[ZLurps]

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?

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'v been wondering this for a while and I think ME2 system is basically fine. However I think there may be problems if player want to play psychopath or mentally unstable character and I'm not sure about psychopathic character, more about that later.

First the game system and feedback to player. Say player have always option to try whatever dialogue options, however outcome is unsure. Like someone else has posted in this topic, leaving player without feedback would just obscure the system for players. This might be done via additional NPC dialogue but would require more writing, more voice acting, longer development time, larger budget etc.
So let's say they implement the feedback other way, for example some dialogue options would be grayed out... uups..

Then character.
Say we Shepard has a meeting with Udina in his office. Only Udina, Shepard and Shepard's squad mates are going to be present in this meeting. In this meeting Udina is trying to manipulate Shepard away from his mission to defeat the Reapers, insult him, maybe tries to threaten him. Addition to other conversation options player have a paragon and renegade way to solve this problem. Let's focus on them.
Situation is bit extreme so say paragon option would be something like Shepard's paragon option on Feros when Shepard had conversation with Ethan Jeong. (Note: Remembering how Ashley comments that encounter afterwards is important, it shows how your squad mates, people close to you respond to your actions).
Then renegade option. I must make this up because I haven't played any renegade character yet.
So Shepard shows who is in charge, s/he gets physical, grabs Udina throat and pushes him on his knees on the floor. Like said, situation is bit extreme and Shepard doesn't wan't to leave any questions about what is the outcome if Udina doesn't back off. So Shepard pull a pistol and waves that to Udina. Udina's dialogue could be something like "Uuurgh.... you... wouldn't... dare..."
So Shepard needs to either let him go or make sure his/her point is going to be clear so say we cross to line even further and humiliate Udina, say we penetrate him. As there are female players too, we could implement that like Shepard pushes pistol in Udina's mouth, we could have presentations, like hear how Udina's teeth breaks and see how his eyes widen from pain and fear and so on. Shepard could have a line like "I heard your children are in (insert planet name here) You wouldn't want any harm come to them?" and so on.. And so renegade have his/her way.
There could be other scenes with Udina later again with paragon option manipulating Udina and renegade way to shoot him anyway because there isn't use for him anymore.

How would you react if you were one of Shepard's squad mates and witnessed that scene? (again remember conversation with Ash after Feros in ME1).
Then how believable you would think that someone you have known for being very constructive would suddenly do something like that? Wouldn't you perhaps tell that person to get help instead of adoring him/her?

Then psychopath route: Psychopath can be seen as free from any moral restrictions and could choose any option that would seem best way to reach his/her goal. However what we know about psychopaths establishes, even in some cases  master manipulators and very charismatic but unable to express deeper feelings and communicate when situation would require deeper understanding of emotions. As example there are very successful people who don't write their own speeches  and it's not always because they don't have time for that.

[aeetos21]

Kim Stolz (BioWare) recently revealed the secret behind Paragon and Renegade in one of the technical support forums. The game keeps its own hidden bar of the maximum amount of Paragon or Renegade you can obtain every time you enter an area. It then takes a percentage of that hidden bar to calculate how much you need at that moment to pass the check. The more times you miss a possible place to get Paragon or Renegade, the more checks you eventually fail. The more checks you fail, the more you miss getting Paragon or Renegade. It's a snowball effect.



To simplify: The game keeps track of all of your missed opportunities in getting Paragon or Renegade in every single area. If you start falling behind, you will most likely never catch up. You HAVE to continuously act Paragon OR Renegade. This becomes much easier if you start out with a Paragon/Renegade import bonus from ME1, specialize in your class skill that gives +100% Paragon/Renegade instead of +70%, or wear Negotiation bonus armor (only in missions where you're not in casual attire).



In addition, the ship arguments have different percentages. Miranda/Jack is easier to resolve with Renegade and Tali/Legion is easier to resolve with Paragon. Doing those missions earlier can be slightly in your favor only because you haven't missed as many opportunities yet.

NOW, that we have the system out of the way and how it ACTUALLY works...

[JKoopman]

aeetos21 wrote...

Kim Stolz (BioWare) recently revealed the secret behind Paragon and Renegade in one of the technical support forums. The game keeps its own hidden bar of the maximum amount of Paragon or Renegade you can obtain every time you enter an area. It then takes a percentage of that hidden bar to calculate how much you need at that moment to pass the check. The more times you miss a possible place to get Paragon or Renegade, the more checks you eventually fail. The more checks you fail, the more you miss getting Paragon or Renegade. It's a snowball effect.

To simplify: The game keeps track of all of your missed opportunities in getting Paragon or Renegade in every single area. If you start falling behind, you will most likely never catch up. You HAVE to continuously act Paragon OR Renegade. This becomes much easier if you start out with a Paragon/Renegade import bonus from ME1, specialize in your class skill that gives +100% Paragon/Renegade instead of +70%, or wear Negotiation bonus armor (only in missions where you're not in casual attire).

In addition, the ship arguments have different percentages. Miranda/Jack is easier to resolve with Renegade and Tali/Legion is easier to resolve with Paragon. Doing those missions earlier can be slightly in your favor only because you haven't missed as many opportunities yet.

NOW, that we have the system out of the way and how it ACTUALLY works...

When even the devs themselves admit that not consistently playing to one extreme or another effectively snowballs the system and locks you out of more and more options down the road, you have to agree that there's a problem.

How the current system ever got passed the drawing board without someone pointing out that it forces you into one of two character cliches with virtually no wiggle room for true roleplaying is beyond me.

[Lumikki]

JKoopman wrote...

How the current system ever got passed the drawing board without someone pointing out that it forces you into one of two character cliches with virtually no wiggle room for true roleplaying is beyond me.

What true roleplaying has to do with these two paths?

There is three choises in right side of dialogs, what defines you roleplaying possibilities. Left side of dialogs are more like positive consequence taking those two extreme path. Game did not force you to take those extreme paths, if you let the game system lure you into those extreme paths because benefits then you aren't true roleplayer, you are metagamer. Try to learn the difference.

The difference between metagamer and true roleplayer is this. Gamemaster gives player 5 different choise to make as actions.

True roleplayer would look all options and then deside what to do based what is the character role as what players character would do. The end result doesn't matter, only what character would really choose.

Metagamer would look all option and consider what to do based what would give player most benefits or rewarding result. Meaning player is looking to benefit from knowledge as knowing how game system works.

When you blame that there is only two rewarding forced extreme path, that's is first sign of metagamer. True roleplayer would not base the blame on benefits, but lack of choises in right side of dialogs. It's the difference between really playing role and player getting what player wants.

Modifié par Lumikki, 08 février 2011 - 04:56 .

[JKoopman]

Lumikki wrote...

JKoopman wrote...

How the current system ever got passed the drawing board without someone pointing out that it forces you into one of two character cliches with virtually no wiggle room for true roleplaying is beyond me.

What true roleplaying has to do with these two paths?

There is three choises in right side of dialogs, what defines you roleplaying possibilities. Left side of dialogs are more like positive consequence taking those two extreme path. Game did not force you to take those extreme paths, if you let the game system lure you into those extreme paths because benefits then you aren't true roleplayer, you are metagamer. Try to learn the difference.

It has nothing to do with metagaming to be locked out of choosing dialogs or actions because the game determines that your Renegade score isn't sufficient to be able to pull a gun on a merc who's threatening you or tell off a smartass thug, or because your Paragon score isn't sufficient to allow you to be polite to a reporter or respectful to a superior officer. That limits my ability to roleplay a character.

Metagaming is saying "I should choose all Paragon options because I want to be able to get the best outcomes in certain conversations and plot decisions later in the game." Ironically, this is something that ME2's system at best supports just as well and at worst makes even easier than in ME1, because you always know that as long as you stick to one path or the other in dialog (eg: shoehorning your character down one cliched path or the other) you'll always be able to make every charm or intimidation roll presented to you, whereas in ME1 you never knew how many Charm or Intimidation points the next persuasion dialog might require. Roleplaying is saying "I want my Shepard to be able to put this smug merc in his place but the option to pull my gun on him is greyed out so instead I just have to put up with him. This f-ing sucks." Try to learn the difference please.

That there are certain tangible in-game benefits that go hand in hand with choosing an extreme path is secondary to the argument.

Modifié par JKoopman, 08 février 2011 - 04:55 .

[Lumikki]

You left side is locked out because it's NOT YOUR ROLE. Meaning you haven't played role what would open those BENEFITS what are connected to those ROLES.

You are saying that even if I don't play the role where those benefit belongs, I should get it. That's metagaming.

Also the TRY to do something as roleplaying, is IN RIGHT SIDE OF DIALOGS. But you keep complaining the left side dialog options, what belongs ONLY for those two extreme paths.

If You really want to complain ME2 paragon/renegade system based dialogs and benefits then do it right.

METAGAMER:

Why I'm lured only these two exteme paragon or renegade roles, why aren't any other role rewarded?

ROLEPLAYER:

I find that only three choises in right side of dialogs is limiting my roleplaying. This is also because two of the choises are so extreme ways and that lefts only neutral choise to make. We need more choises, like humoristic, playful, paranoid, diplomat without compassion, cold but not cruel and so on.. Meaning more gray scale, because everyting isn't so black and white.

Modifié par Lumikki, 08 février 2011 - 05:34 .

[JKoopman]

Lumikki wrote...

You left side is locked out because it's NOT YOUR ROLE. Meaning you haven't played role what would open those BENEFITS what are connected to those ROLES.

You are saying that even if I don't play the role where those benefit belongs, I should get it. That's metagaming.

Also the TRY to do something as roleplaying, is IN RIGHT SIDE OF DIALOGS. But you keep complaining the left side dialog options, what belongs ONLY for those two extreme paths.

If You really want to complain ME2 paragon/renegade system based dialogs and benefits then do it right.

METAGAMER:

Why I'm lured only these two exteme paragon or renegade roles, why aren't any other role rewarded?

ROLEPLAYER:

I find that only three choises in right side of dialogs is limiting my roleplaying. This is also because two of the choises are so extreme ways and that lefts only neutral choise to make. We need more choises, like humoristic, playful, paranoid, diplomat without compassion, cold but not cruel and so on.. Meaning more gray scale, because everyting isn't so black and white.

And for the umpteenth time, it's not the game's place to tell me what my ROLE is in a role-playing game. I determine my character's moral code. I say what actions my character would and would not take, and the things that he would and would not say. To take that control away from the player is to make Mass Effect a generic action-adventure game and not a role-playing game.

Your argument is to basically say "If you're charming to your friends, then you can't be intimidating to your enemies because that's not your role." I won't even bother explaining why that doesn't make sense. Try running any tabletop D&D game and telling a player "Sorry, you can't say that because you rolled a Chaotic Good character and that's clearly something a Lawful Evil character would say!" See how long it takes before they replace you.

I'm not arguing that everyone should be able to perform every action and choose every dialog option. In fact, that's exactly what I'm arguing against and it's what ME2 allows. In ME2, your ability to charm or intimidate characters through dialog and special actions is tied inextricably to your Paragon or Renegade rating and you know that if you always choose the Paragon or Renegade option in conversations (Top Left/Right or Bottom Left/Right), you will always be able to make every persuasion roll and therefor "get all the benefits". That's metagaming! That's what ME2 not only allows for but encourages. And not only is it metagaming, it's metagaming at the expense of role-playing.

What I'm arguing for, and what ME1 had, is a return to a system where the player dictates whether he's able to make a persuasion roll. Give me back my Charm and Intimidate skills! Then I--not the game--can decide whether my character is charming or intimidating and to what extent, and I won't always know that I'll have enough points to succeed in every persuasion roll I'm presented with as long as I consistently choose the top or bottom dialog paths. Then I can role-play and not have to worry that being mean to an enemy and kind to a friend will prevent me from exploring other dialog paths down the road, because my ability to be charming or intimidating isn't tied to some arbitrary and nonsensical "moral score".

Modifié par JKoopman, 08 février 2011 - 07:08 .

[JKoopman]

Just thought I'd throw this out there because there seems to be a lot of misunderstanding as to what the term actually means... *cough*

http://en.wikipedia....-playing_games)

In role-playing games, metagaming can be defined as any out of character action made by a player's character which makes use of knowledge that the character is not meant to be aware of. (Metagaming while taking part in relatively competitive games, or those with a more serious tone, is typically not well received, because a character played by a metagamer does not act in a way that reflects the character's in-game experiences and back-story.)

Examples of metagaming include:

• Adjusting a character's actions based on foreknowledge of the long-term intentions of the gamemaster.
• Acting on any knowledge that the character is not aware of.
• Using knowledge of the game's mechanics to gain an advantage in the game by having the character do something incompatible with that character's personality.
• Deciding on a character's course of action based on how the game's mechanics will affect the outcome without more significant regard placed on how the character would actually behave.

That last one is highlighted for particular relevance.

Now, what does that sound more like to you? Does it sound like "My Shepard has a Colonist backstory and hates pirates and slavers for killing his family and all his friends. He's confronted in a bar by a particularly smug Batarian slaver who's trying to pick a fight and he would like nothing more than to pull out his pistol and put two rounds between each set of eyes, but the game says that he can't do so because he's been too nice to all the innocent colonists he's spoken with before now, so his only choice is to put up with his antagonism or give him a sappy speech about tolerance between races. This is lame." Or does it sound like "I know that if I choose the top left dialog option, Shepard will peacefully resolve the situation and I'll recieve Paragon points; which will furthermore allow me to complete all future Paragon persuasion rolls provided I maintain that path, so I'm going to select nothing but top left/right options because I know that's the most advantageous to me."

HINT: The former is limited role-playing, and it's what I'm complaining about. The later is metagaming, and it's what we get with ME2.

Modifié par JKoopman, 08 février 2011 - 07:04 .

[johnny532]

JKoopman wrote...

aeetos21 wrote...

Kim Stolz (BioWare) recently revealed the secret behind Paragon and Renegade in one of the technical support forums. The game keeps its own hidden bar of the maximum amount of Paragon or Renegade you can obtain every time you enter an area. It then takes a percentage of that hidden bar to calculate how much you need at that moment to pass the check. The more times you miss a possible place to get Paragon or Renegade, the more checks you eventually fail. The more checks you fail, the more you miss getting Paragon or Renegade. It's a snowball effect.

To simplify: The game keeps track of all of your missed opportunities in getting Paragon or Renegade in every single area. If you start falling behind, you will most likely never catch up. You HAVE to continuously act Paragon OR Renegade. This becomes much easier if you start out with a Paragon/Renegade import bonus from ME1, specialize in your class skill that gives +100% Paragon/Renegade instead of +70%, or wear Negotiation bonus armor (only in missions where you're not in casual attire).

In addition, the ship arguments have different percentages. Miranda/Jack is easier to resolve with Renegade and Tali/Legion is easier to resolve with Paragon. Doing those missions earlier can be slightly in your favor only because you haven't missed as many opportunities yet.

NOW, that we have the system out of the way and how it ACTUALLY works...

When even the devs themselves admit that not consistently playing to one extreme or another effectively snowballs the system and locks you out of more and more options down the road, you have to agree that there's a problem.

How the current system ever got passed the drawing board without someone pointing out that it forces you into one of two character cliches with virtually no wiggle room for true roleplaying is beyond me.

I couldn't agree more and this sums up perfectly why I think the paragon/renegade system is broken and shouldn't have gone past the concept stage.

[Lumikki]

JKoopman wrote...

HINT: The former is limited role-playing, and it's what I'm complaining about. The later is metagaming, and it's what we get with ME2.

You still don't get it.

You are blaming "metagaming" features as limiting you roleplaying. That's the problem. Blame correct feature when target sertain playing styles. Point is that the true roleplaying is not limited by paragon/renegade feature in left side of dialogs. When you get that inside your big skull. It's right side of dialogs what is limiting true roleplaying, because it's the one what gives player the try to do choises in different ways.

When you play role with gamemaster, you are making tries of action and gamemaster decide with rules will it be success or failure. That's how ME's right side of dialogs works.

How ever, left side of dialogs aren't try's, they are 100% succesful actions allways. Basicly it's same as ignoring gamemaster and player does what they want how they want. Like I pull my gun and kill all enemies. Notice difference between try to do someting and 100% successfull end result. This is reason why left side action aren't allowed by everyone, because they are connected to only sertain type of roles.

I don't get why this is so hard to understand. Point is that left side is not limiting you at all, it's right side what's doing it. Left side is reward related sertain role played. You many not like it how it's done, but please try to blame right problem, when you talk roleplaying limits.

PS: Our argument are going circles and I don't think it will never end.

Modifié par Lumikki, 08 février 2011 - 08:16 .

[Xerxes52]

Honestly I think it would be easier to include a "coercion" score onto your class skill (along with health, damage, etc).

[JKoopman]

Lumikki wrote...

JKoopman wrote...

HINT: The former is limited role-playing, and it's what I'm complaining about. The later is metagaming, and it's what we get with ME2.

You still don't get it.

You are blaming "metagaming" features as limiting you roleplaying. That's the problem. Blame correct feature when target sertain playing styles. Point is that the true roleplaying is not limited by paragon/renegade feature in left side of dialogs. When you get that inside your big skull. It's right side of dialogs what is limiting true roleplaying, because it's the one what gives player the try to do choises in different ways.

When you play role with gamemaster, you are making tries of action and gamemaster decide with rules will it be success or failure. That's how ME's right side of dialogs work.

How ever, left side of dialogs aren't try's, they are 100% succesful actions allways. Basicly it's same as ignoring gamemaster and player does what they want how they want. Like I pull my gun and kill all enemies. Notice difference between try to do someting and 100% successfull end result. This is reason why left side action aren't allowed to by everyone, because they are connected to only sertain type of roles.

I don't get why this is so hard to understand. Point is that left side is not limiting you at all, it's right side what's doing it. Left side is reward related sertain role played. You many not like it how it's done, but please try to blame right problem, when you talk roleplaying limits.

PS: Our argument are going circles and I don't think it will never end.

First of all, I think you've got your hands mixed up. The right side is the static side. The left side is where Charm and Intimidation options are presented.

Secondly, the right side of the dialog tree is the "RPG-lite" side. It's the difference between saying "Definitely", "I agree", and "Sure". All means to the same end with little difference between them, and it's primary purpose is to facilitate earning piecemeal Paragon and Renegade points so you can use the aforementioned Charm and Intimidation options. The left side is where all the decisions that actually matter are made. The left side is the difference between giving a moving speech that persuades the entire mercenary squad to lay down their arms and surrender, and shooting the leader between the eyes to send the rest of the squad running. Playing solely on the right side of the dialog wheel simply so you aren't limited by the Paragon/Renegade system is just handicapping your ability to role-play in a different way, so I fail to see how you can advocate that as some sort of solution. Your entire position and argument is literally baffling to me.

Do you or do you not agree that the Colonist Shepard from my prior post should be able to shoot that Batarian slaver? Do you or do you not agree that shooting the Batarian slaver would make sense given the circumstances and situation? Do you or do you not agree that an inability to shoot that Batarian due to a predominantly Paragon "alignment" precludes character development and hinders the player's ability to role-play effectively? I don't see how you can anser "No" to those, and if your answer is "Yes" then I don't see how you can argue that the current system makes sense or is an improvement.

Modifié par JKoopman, 08 février 2011 - 08:29 .

[Vena_86]

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"

^ This pretty much sums up the problem with the system. It has to go away. It is not good for anything. It makes no sense and is not fun. The only thing the system actually does well is beeing frustrating.