82 réponses à ce sujet

[Lumikki]

JKoopman, what you talk is like you thread left side choises in dialogs as they would be the main thing in "roleplaying". Lets call then as RE and PA choise. Then in right side of dialogs we have P,N and R choise. What in your opinion has not much meaning except providing way to get PA and RE choises by collecting points. No wonder you see as system limiting you "roleplaying", because I have never seen more metagamer thinking. Meaning you consider try actions as no meaning, while only successful end result has meaning. Not much to say, good luck for you.

[Terror_K]

@JKoopman



My advice is to simply ignore Lumikki here. Trust me... I've been down this very path before in pretty much exactly the same manner. It'd be easier for you to persuade an entire theatre full of bricks and rocks than make any real headway here. Especially ironic considering Lumikki admitted to never actually roleplay and only metagaming when playing the games in that case.

[Collider]

Paragon and renegade limits roleplaying. Why? Because the availability of charm/intimidate is dependant on it. Even mores in ME2.

[Lumikki]

Terror_K wrote...

Especially ironic considering Lumikki admitted to never actually roleplay and only metagaming when playing the games in that case.

That is not what I sayed. I sayed that I'm not any good at roleplaying, so I mostly metagaming.

Also if you people really think then here is the differences.

ME2 - there is 2 metagaming and 3 role path.

PA  P
    N
RE  R

ME1- There is 2 metagaming and 3 role path

PE
P
N
R
IN

What I would Like to see - there is 5 metagaming and 5 role path.

PA P
HU H
NE N
SE S
RE R

Metagaming here means choises rewared over normal dialog choises. Role path are real choises in dialogs.
Metagaming choises are only available by opportunity, defined by developers.

Why people want more ME1 like system is simple, they want to combinate all roles and metagaming any ways they like. Meaning metagaming reward of role is not based role played, but players free choises. ME2 system doesn't allow metagaming rewards used so freely, they are only connected to two extreme roles. What means if you want the reward, you have to play sertain role to get it (metagaming).

So, what I would like to see two more (gray) roles and so that the rewards aren't behind extreme roles only, but put equal ways behind all roles. What kind of roles I would like to see? Maybe compassion with understanding need diplomatic solutions, careless playful or humoristic friendly role as funny buddy type, reason based problem solver who knows that compromized are needed, paranoid security person who has hard time to trust others, cruel professional person what doesn't care who's getting hurt or insulted as long the job is done like assassin.

Modifié par Lumikki, 08 février 2011 - 10:58 .

[ZLurps]

Lumikki, while I'v been reading this topic I recalled what you said in some previous discussion about R/P and took Mother Theresa as example. You wrote how it wouldn't be realistic for paragon kind of person suddenly just pull a gun kill some folks because they happen to annoy her or something.

I mean no offense, but when I read it I didn't think it was necessarily the best way to demonstrate how you felt about R/P system (I found it very hilarious though, Mother Theresa dual wielding AK-47's or something I mean.) I'v come to think that maybe you were onto something with that example.



Shepard is exceptional person, that much is established in the beginning of ME1. Among many candidates Shepard has chosen to be SPECTRE training and later in ME1 his exceptional will power is also mentioned. This is also made clear in ME2.

But even Shepard is exceptional individual among humans s/he is still a human. A hero who has faced very extraordinary situations, but still a human, not a super human.

As mere human he is bound in the same limitations as other humans, we can choose things but we can't choose everything.

Playing a character than could choose any way to react at any time would require character also choose the outcome. Character like that would not be a human but a super human.

[Lumikki]

Yeah, little bit that I have tryed to say, that humans can't just be everyting (super human), but what they are is affecting they choises they make. Mother Teressa was example how very high moral would affect her behavior, because moral it self has restricting nature. In real life we self restric our choises all the time, even if in teory we could make any choise. Laws, morals, values, believes and so on, all cause self restriction on our human behaviors.

I can understand why others would want so that game doesn't restric players choises, because they believe it's up to player to restric them self, way they want. That allows like freedom to do what ever game allows and player would deside the roles. This is nice consept and offers alot of freedom.

How ever, can we really be so good roleplayers that we can self restrict our behaviors so well? Can you example play high moral character like Mother Teressa, if in real life player example doesn't have much moral left. Would that person understand how high moral would affect character behavior. I don't think they can. That's why I have support increase tryed to do choises, but don't neccassary allow access to roles end result, if player aren't really playing that role.

Not sure what is in end better. Limit little bit so that players get feel of role played or just allow players to think they played that role even if they did not really do it. Meaning is it really good thing to allow player to access roles end result, when they played role doens't support it.

Modifié par Lumikki, 08 février 2011 - 07:19 .

[JKoopman]

ZLurps wrote...

Lumikki, while I'v been reading this topic I recalled what you said in some previous discussion about R/P and took Mother Theresa as example. You wrote how it wouldn't be realistic for paragon kind of person suddenly just pull a gun kill some folks because they happen to annoy her or something.
I mean no offense, but when I read it I didn't think it was necessarily the best way to demonstrate how you felt about R/P system (I found it very hilarious though, Mother Theresa dual wielding AK-47's or something I mean.) I'v come to think that maybe you were onto something with that example.

Shepard is exceptional person, that much is established in the beginning of ME1. Among many candidates Shepard has chosen to be SPECTRE training and later in ME1 his exceptional will power is also mentioned. This is also made clear in ME2.
But even Shepard is exceptional individual among humans s/he is still a human. A hero who has faced very extraordinary situations, but still a human, not a super human.
As mere human he is bound in the same limitations as other humans, we can choose things but we can't choose everything.
Playing a character than could choose any way to react at any time would require character also choose the outcome. Character like that would not be a human but a super human.

Saying that a Paragon Shepard couldn't be intimidating because it would "be like Mother Theresa pulling a gun on someone" is a logical dead end because it assumes that Shepard only has two options for development: either being Mother Theresa (Paragon) or being Hitler (Renegade). It's a self-reinforcing argument. Paragon Shepard is "like Mother Theresa" because a Paragon Shepard has no other choice but to be like Mother Theresa. Ironically, it's this limitation that is the basis for every argument against the current system (that it shoehorns you down one extreme path or the other by locking you out of other options as the story progresses). To be honest, that those two extremes (Mother Theresa and Hitler) are what people associate with being Paragon and Renegade is a better argument against ME2's system than anything else I can think of.

There's no reason why a Paragon Shepard can't be Paragon to friends and innocents but still hate Batarian slavers enough to pull his gun on one in a bar confrontation, for example. But a Paragon Shepard can't do this because being Paragon prevents him from exploring Renegade dialog in that situation, so his only recourse is to "be like Mother Theresa" and give the slaver a moving speech about tolerance between races instead of shoving a gun in his face so he pisses himself and then knocking him on his ass like he deserves.

In my opinion, BioWare needs to either bring back the Charm and Intimidate skills in ME3 or they need to distill them both into one catch-all "Persuasion" skill and let players decide whether they want to be charming or intimidating in a given situation. That's the only way to promote real role-playing instead of the "I'm just going to select all top right/left options because I'm a Paragon and that gets me the most points" mentality that ME2 encourages.

Terror_K wrote...

@JKoopman

My advice is to simply ignore Lumikki here. Trust me... I've been down this very path before in pretty much exactly the same manner. It'd be easier for you to persuade an entire theatre full of bricks and rocks than make any real headway here. Especially ironic considering Lumikki admitted to never actually roleplay and only metagaming when playing the games in that case.

Yes, I've come to the same conclussion.

Modifié par JKoopman, 08 février 2011 - 05:58 .

[ZLurps]

JKoopman: I think paragon/renegade like very simple abstraction of something very complex.

How PC acts influences his/her surrounding, namely the way NPC's react to him/her.
Something are easy to model, kill someone in ME1 and PC won't see that person again in ME2, simple action and consequence.
Some are more difficult, say PC acts very nice or is very ruthless. S/he gains reputation and credibility (There are weak spots with this, I know)
So Say, a person who is known to ruthless might not be seen very believable negotiation partner in peace talks but very believable for forcing his/her way by force if necessary.
Or, ruthless character says (paragon option) in negotiations that s/he only needs to take out target X in the zone Y and there won't be any civilian casualties. However, because his/her reputation negotiation partner won't believe what Shepard claims, so paragon option fails.
However, if character says (renegade option) That s/he is going to get there anyway, and if negotiation partner won't collaborate, casualties starts from him/her. Because Shepards reputation, this is believable and so renegade options succeeds.
You wrote earlier how you would like to at least have an option to try and there abstraction comes to into way. Instead of dialogue line like "We don't believe you, you would kill civilians in your path anyway" we just see paragon option grayed out.

There are problems, like how doing random paragon or renegade deeds on some backwater planet or helping some people who doesn't even know who you are can have any influence to how you are seen elsewhere. I can make myself believe that those kind of deeds are process in Shepards mind and over time gives him/her more confidence in what s/he does and that shows up. I don't expect anyone else to see that like I do.

I don't really play ME like RPG's. Dilemma is however interesting.

Modifié par ZLurps, 08 février 2011 - 07:01 .