148 réponses à ce sujet

[InvincibleHero]

This is simple. People like to meta-game instead of roleplaying. If they made it so the blue and red options never showed up instead of being grayed out then you would notice nothing. Ignore them and play the character as you intended. You really shouldn't know I neeed to be super paragon/renegade because later in the game I am going to have to settle an argument between Jack/Miranda or Tali/Legion. A real Shepard would not have that knowledge so the Roleplaying failure is on your part.

Just because you meta-game don't blame it on BW or lack of Role playing. You are letting the game lead you by the horns instead of choosing to play how you want to define Shepard. Yes you may miss out on some optimal resolutions but a playthrough doesn't have to be perfect and in real life there is no 100% win with a blue or red option. Just resolve things how your Shepard would do things according to what options you have at the time. Just because you want to maximize a game play doesn't mean the game should be designed around that as well.

You know actually roleplay instead of meta-game. You'll still get to the end even if you have to pick some neutral choices and be a lot less stressed about it. Play the game and don't let it play you.

[Silmane]

Uhh, what? It's not a failure, but it's certainly flawed and needs refinement.

Thanks for trying to tell me how to play the game, though.

[InvincibleHero]

@Silmane

They give you plenty of choices to facilitate role-playing. You only lock yourself into picking ren\\para all the time. You ultimately choose so it is not a failure of the system. BW doesn't choose for you after all but supplies a menu.

I am satisfied with everyone of my playthroughs. I never felt forced to choose any of the options.

What refinement would you suggest? Allowing you to meta-game without penalty? Yup that is likely what most anti wheel people want. These same people likely bemoan ME2 has less RP in it.

My suggestion is not have meta-game info like a missed blue red option even show up in the first place. That would be great. Then people would only know because they read a FAQ or guide and realize hey that was awesome before they moan I could have did it this way BW sucks. LOL Even though they would have thought awesome as they finished the game blissfully ignorant of when they could get the red/blue choices.

Modifié par InvincibleHero, 15 mars 2011 - 03:16 .

[Silmane]

I feel that you should have multiple choices that aren't tied to Paragon/Renegade at all. You can have the wheel all you want, but why have black and white choices?

I play the game with a gut instinct. When the Doctor on Noveria was giving me crap info, I instantly went to the "I am annoyed option" which is obviously renegade, and my Shepard said she was wanting to punch someone in the throat. Why was that renegade at all? Even the highest paragon can get annoyed.

It's too black and white for me. period.

[chester013]

Well don't blame me for wanting to play the game how I want and being funnelled into dialogue choices earlier in the game to do so. I can't push a merc out of a window because I need to persuade my crew to stop fighting later in the story? I should be able to do both but a karma system pigeon holes me, this is what I liked most about DA2 (stay on topic don't hate DA2 here) that I could be who I wanted to be instead of having to make the same choices every time without being punished.

[Merci357]

After playing DA2 - which has it's fair share of flaws for sure, I guess I can say one thing for sure. They handled the dialogue wheel far better, it's doesn't pidgeonhole you. The addition of a mostly sarcastic approach was a great addition as well as the ability to be flexible. Mostly good and diplomatic doesn't impair you to be snide or rude if the situation demands it.

[Undertone]

The system is flawed not only in terms of mechanics but in terms of consistency - one path (paragons) is continuously rewarded, while the other (renegades) is continuously punished. It's turned into a petty dark vs light morality choice except you don't get any benefits for choosing the dark side unlike KotoR. And renegade was supposed to be getting the mission done no matter what the odds or the situation, being professional. The first time I didn't kill the Council to put Humanity on top or anything. I did it because stopping Sovereign was a priority and the galaxy could have been destroyed. Then in ME2 everyone hates me as if I rail-roaded humanity on a power trip, when I saved the galaxy. It was then when I became a human supremacist and pro-Cerberus.

And in ME1 at least you could level up both Charm and Intimidate that way you could roleplay anything. ME2 is all about completely one-sided, almost unbelievable characters - one side we have a complete **** who is incapable of any human emotion or empathy and is more like a machine while on the other we have a blubbering super-idealistic idiot who's incapable of harming any criminal, which makes me wonder how he/she got in the military in the first place.

Modifié par Undertone, 15 mars 2011 - 08:58 .

[Silmane]

Well said. ^

[Undertone]

Silmane wrote...

Well said. ^

If it was meant for me, thanks. My views however are usually minority on this forum apparently.

[Zulu_DFA]

Fanboys are desperately needed on the DA2 forum at the moment.

[azerSheppard]

InvincibleHero wrote...

This is simple. People like to meta-game instead of roleplaying. If they made it so the blue and red options never showed up instead of being grayed out then you would notice nothing. Ignore them and play the character as you intended. You really shouldn't know I neeed to be super paragon/renegade because later in the game I am going to have to settle an argument between Jack/Miranda or Tali/Legion. A real Shepard would not have that knowledge so the Roleplaying failure is on your part.

Just because you meta-game don't blame it on BW or lack of Role playing. You are letting the game lead you by the horns instead of choosing to play how you want to define Shepard. Yes you may miss out on some optimal resolutions but a playthrough doesn't have to be perfect and in real life there is no 100% win with a blue or red option. Just resolve things how your Shepard would do things according to what options you have at the time. Just because you want to maximize a game play doesn't mean the game should be designed around that as well.

You know actually roleplay instead of meta-game. You'll still get to the end even if you have to pick some neutral choices and be a lot less stressed about it. Play the game and don't let it play you.

I approve of this, i liked what they did with  DA2, you didn't have to be good or bad all the time, when i play ME2, i have to either go 90% renegade, or 90% paragon.

Also ME3 needs funnyman lines, hopefully one that isn't afraid to crack racist jokes:devil:

[Whatever42]

I whole-heartedly agree that ignoring the system and just role-playing will give any player a much more dramatic and enjoyable experience. The crime of the renegade/paragon system is that is encourages you to do otherwise. I like the idea of not showing the greyed out choices. So many times a player feels like their missing out on something, when often that magic text is not even the most entertaining option.

And ME1 sucked too. Your max cham/intimidate was based on your paragon/renegade scores as well. For example, to get full blue/red options through the reporter/admiral discussion on the citadel, you needed a pretty high paragon/renegade score to get your charm up the the appropriate levels.

[tonnactus]

Whatever666343431431654324 wrote...

I whole-heartedly agree that ignoring the system and just role-playing will give any player a much more dramatic and enjoyable experience..

The much dramatic and enjoyable experience would be that shepardt,a supposed to be good leader(but okay,lets get close to finish a cruiser off"),is even  to dumb resolve "high school **** fights" like between jack and miranda...
How enjoyable...
Some people here could gloss over almost anything it seems,even obvious flaws.

Modifié par tonnactus, 15 mars 2011 - 10:09 .

[Jzadek72]

InvincibleHero wrote...
 Ignore them and play the character as you
intended. You really shouldn't know I neeed to be super paragon/renegade
because later in the game I am going to have to settle an argument
between Jack/Miranda or Tali/Legion. A real Shepard would not have that
knowledge so the Roleplaying failure is on your part.

A real Shepard might be very persuasive and charismatic, I know I try to play mine like that, but to access that, I have to make sacrifices.

InvincibleHero wrote...
Just
because you meta-game don't blame it on BW or lack of Role playing. You
are letting the game lead you by the horns instead of choosing to play
how you want to define Shepard. Yes you may miss out on some optimal
resolutions but a playthrough doesn't have to be perfect and in real
life there is no 100% win with a blue or red option. Just resolve things
how your Shepard would do things according to what options you have at
the time. Just because you want to maximize a game play doesn't mean the
game should be designed around that as well.

But the game is designed around having to metagame, so just because there's a workaround that only half works doesn't make the system any less of a failure.

[Jaesun999]

Undertone wrote...

The system is flawed not only in terms of mechanics but in terms of consistency - one path (paragons) is continuously rewarded, while the other (renegades) is continuously punished. It's turned into a petty dark vs light morality choice except you don't get any benefits for choosing the dark side unlike KotoR. And renegade was supposed to be getting the mission done no matter what the odds or the situation, being professional. The first time I didn't kill the Council to put Humanity on top or anything. I did it because stopping Sovereign was a priority and the galaxy could have been destroyed. Then in ME2 everyone hates me as if I rail-roaded humanity on a power trip, when I saved the galaxy. It was then when I became a human supremacist and pro-Cerberus.
 

That was the CHOICE you chose. And in doing that, there was a consequnce for that. That's an indication the system is doing a good job.

[DarkSeraphym]

Undertone wrote...

The system is flawed not only in terms of mechanics but in terms of consistency - one path (paragons) is continuously rewarded, while the other (renegades) is continuously punished. It's turned into a petty dark vs light morality choice except you don't get any benefits for choosing the dark side unlike KotoR. And renegade was supposed to be getting the mission done no matter what the odds or the situation, being professional. The first time I didn't kill the Council to put Humanity on top or anything. I did it because stopping Sovereign was a priority and the galaxy could have been destroyed. Then in ME2 everyone hates me as if I rail-roaded humanity on a power trip, when I saved the galaxy. It was then when I became a human supremacist and pro-Cerberus.
 

I'm an extremely Renegade player, but as much as I hate to say it, I actually liked this particular consequence to this particular decision. Sometimes one of the consequences to making the hard decisions is that everyone is going to hate you for it. Happens to politicians all of the time. People love to find negativity when it comes to public figures regardless of wherever you can find it. I'd actually be a little surprised to hear people praising me for sacrificing the Council to save the galaxy.

Modifié par DarkSeraphym, 15 mars 2011 - 11:17 .

[Serena Firewing]

Just because my sheppard is overall a good guy I can't put a gun to Elias Kelham to get the information I need? I mean it is impossible to do so! Yeah that is great roleplaying options right there...
Both ME1 and ME2 is riddled with these things where some options to roleplay the character as you want is blocked.
And these reasons is why I sometimes "cheat" my way to maximum Paragon/Renegade so all options are unlocked and I can roleplay the character as I want to.

Edit: Making some choices not appear if you don't have the required paragon/renegade score is not a solution it is a lazy work-around

Modifié par Serena Firewing, 15 mars 2011 - 11:13 .

[Jzadek72]

Serena Firewing wrote...

Just because my sheppard is overall a good guy I can't put a gun to Elias Kelham to get the information I need? I mean it is impossible to do so! Yeah that is great roleplaying options right there...
Both ME1 and ME2 is riddled with these things where some options to roleplay the character as you want is blocked.
And these reasons is why I sometimes "cheat" my way to maximum Paragon/Renegade so all options are unlocked and I can roleplay the character as I want to.

Edit: Making some choices not appear if you don't have the required paragon/renegade score is not a solution it is a lazy work-around

This. Because it was put so perfectly, it needs quoting.

[DarkSeraphym]

Serena Firewing wrote...

Just because my sheppard is overall a good guy I can't put a gun to Elias Kelham to get the information I need? I mean it is impossible to do so! Yeah that is great roleplaying options right there...
Both ME1 and ME2 is riddled with these things where some options to roleplay the character as you want is blocked.
And these reasons is why I sometimes "cheat" my way to maximum Paragon/Renegade so all options are unlocked and I can roleplay the character as I want to.

Edit: Making some choices not appear if you don't have the required paragon/renegade score is not a solution it is a lazy work-around

To be honest, I think this particular scenario is a little more true to what Paragon and Renegade were supposed to mean as opposed to the "good vs. evil" that a lot of people have come to let it mean.  Paragon is supposed to be more diplomatic and compassionate while Renegade is supposed to be more ruthless and aggressive about its responses. If you are equating the "overall a good guy" Shepard to the Paragon, it makes sense as to why he is not going to put a gun to Kelham's head to get information out of him based upon what the definition of Paragon was from Mass Effect. He is supposed to be more compassionate about justice, which probably means he is not going to resort to threats to extort information that he wants.

Modifié par DarkSeraphym, 15 mars 2011 - 11:22 .

[tonnactus]

DarkSeraphym wrote...

To be honest, I think this particular scenario is a little more true to what Paragon and Renegade were supposed to mean as opposed to the "good vs. evil" that a lot of people have come to let it mean.  Paragon is supposed to be more diplomatic and compassionate while Renegade is supposed to be more ruthless and aggressive about its responses. If you are equating the "overall a good guy" Shepard to the Paragon, it makes sense as to why he is not going to put a gun to Kelham's head to get information out of him based upon what the definition of Paragon was from Mass Effect. He is supposed to be more compassionate about justice, which probably means he is not going to resort to threats to extort information that he wants.

Who said that a paragon couldnt bluff at least?

[DarkSeraphym]

tonnactus wrote...

DarkSeraphym wrote...

To be honest, I think this particular scenario is a little more true to what Paragon and Renegade were supposed to mean as opposed to the "good vs. evil" that a lot of people have come to let it mean.  Paragon is supposed to be more diplomatic and compassionate while Renegade is supposed to be more ruthless and aggressive about its responses. If you are equating the "overall a good guy" Shepard to the Paragon, it makes sense as to why he is not going to put a gun to Kelham's head to get information out of him based upon what the definition of Paragon was from Mass Effect. He is supposed to be more compassionate about justice, which probably means he is not going to resort to threats to extort information that he wants.

Who said that a paragon couldnt bluff at least?

Actions speak louder than words. If Shepard is such a public figure and is known to be in favor of compassion when it comes to serving justice, wouldn't you imagine that people who are aware of his reputation are going to call his bluff? If I were a criminal and I was dealing with someone who has been known to shoot people who get in the way, something that Spectres are typically known for, I'm probably going to be a bit more inclined to take those threats to heart than if I had someone who appears to "choke" when it comes down to that.

If Paragon Shepard wants to bluff, he'll either have to deal with someone who knows nothing of his reputation or have to understand that people are going to try to create order out of chaos. Thus, they are going to assume his behavior is confined to specific patterns (a logical assumption for most people) and individuals who are typically more heroic and compassionate are less prone to being aggressive and violent. It's not at all uncommon in storytelling to see someone who has that kind of reputation attempting to bluff and then failing to do so. Sure, BioWare could have included the option, but I doubt it would have gotten ParaShep anywhere. Kelham is the kind of guy who got to where he did by manipulating others, he is the kind of person who is going to be a shrewd judge of character.

Modifié par DarkSeraphym, 15 mars 2011 - 11:37 .

[Serena Firewing]

DarkSeraphym wrote...

To be honest, I think this particular scenario is a little more true to what Paragon and Renegade were supposed to mean as opposed to the "good vs. evil" that a lot of people have come to let it mean.  Paragon is supposed to be more diplomatic and compassionate while Renegade is supposed to be more ruthless and aggressive about its responses. If you are equating the "overall a good guy" Shepard to the Paragon, it makes sense as to why he is not going to put a gun to Kelham's head to get information out of him based upon what the definition of Paragon was from Mass Effect. He is supposed to be more compassionate about justice, which probably means he is not going to resort to threats to extort information that he wants.

My Sheppards are not saints, they do some questionable things depending on the circumstances and their mood at the time. The games however without cheating up the scores makes such a playstyle impossible. You are forced into one route and can not choose the other even when that choice makes the most sense.

Taking the Kelham incident again as an example:
My Shep came to the Citadel to save Thanes son from doing something that might destroy his future. Time was short and we did not know where or when the hit was going to take place. There were simply no time to play games with Kelham which is why Sheppard pulled a gun to get the information and stop Kolyat.

Does doing that make my Sheppard less of an overall good guy? Should the choice be impossible to make for someone who goes more for diplomacy then aggression?
The same is true in reverse for other choices aswell, which is why I want all the choices available as to fully be able to roleplay my Sheppards.

Edit: spelling errors.

Modifié par Serena Firewing, 15 mars 2011 - 11:37 .

[DarkSeraphym]

Serena Firewing wrote...

DarkSeraphym wrote...

To be honest, I think this particular scenario is a little more true to what Paragon and Renegade were supposed to mean as opposed to the "good vs. evil" that a lot of people have come to let it mean.  Paragon is supposed to be more diplomatic and compassionate while Renegade is supposed to be more ruthless and aggressive about its responses. If you are equating the "overall a good guy" Shepard to the Paragon, it makes sense as to why he is not going to put a gun to Kelham's head to get information out of him based upon what the definition of Paragon was from Mass Effect. He is supposed to be more compassionate about justice, which probably means he is not going to resort to threats to extort information that he wants.

My Sheppards are not saints, they do some questionable things depending on the circumstances and their mood at the time. The games however without cheating up the scores makes such a playstyle impossible. You are forced into one route and can not choose the other even when that choice makes the most sense.

Taking the Kelham incident again as an example:
My Shep came to the Citadel to save Thanes son from doing something that might destroy his future. Time was short and we did not know where or when the hit was going to take place. There were simply no time to play games with Kelham which is why Sheppard pulled a gun to get the information and stop Kolyat.

Does doing that make my Sheppard less of an overall good guy? Should the choice be impossible to make for someone who goes more for diplomacy then aggression?
The same is true in reverse for other choices aswell, which is why I want all the choices available as to fully be able to roleplay my Sheppards.

Edit: spelling errors.

If we were dealing with someone who didn't have the traits that Kelham has, I'd agree with you. However, like I said, Kelham appears to be your caniving snake character and Shepard is a rather public figure. If your Shepard spent a lot of time in the Mass Effect side quests arresting characters, it is going to paint a different picture than if your Shepard spent a lot of time getting involved with criminals who were killed in the process of his involvement in the case.

Basically, to sum up my argument, your threats only mean something if the person at the barrel of the gun believes you are actually going to pull the trigger. BioWare should have offered you the chance to bluff and it should have been based upon how you've made decisions with smaller side quests from the first game. That or at least should have been based upon your Paragon/Renegade values (I dislike this option however because it makes less sense than the Intimidate option that is already there). I play a character who never has the first digit of Paragon full and even Kelham called my bluff until I told him that I was a Spectre. He probably connected the dots as to who I was after that and decided it was in his best interest not to toy with me. That seems rather realistic to me.

Modifié par DarkSeraphym, 15 mars 2011 - 11:48 .

[DinoCrisisFan]

I really like the Paragon/Renegade system. The road to darkness is not set in a single moment, but instead by a series of decision.

[tonnactus]

DarkSeraphym wrote...




Actions speak louder than words. If Shepard is such a public figure

Fact is,he/she isnt. Kelham not even knows that shepardt is a spectre(or was one) and not even know what rights spectres have. In all recruiting missions only thane knows who shepardt is.(aside from the tali and garrus of course)
Shepardt is all but a public figure in Mass Effect 2.(the writing is horrible/mordin knows about cerberus but not who shepardt is/this supposed to make sense i guess)

Modifié par tonnactus, 15 mars 2011 - 11:56 .