148 réponses à ce sujet

[Nashiktal]

The Paragon and Renegade system is FAIL my good man. If you do try to roleplay your character besides being a saint or a dick, you lock yourself out of any of the advance persuasion options.

Locking out any of the choices like that is fail.

I already made multiple in depth posts about why the system is fail, ill see if I can find it and copy paste it.

[Labrev]

My issue with the system is that it compels players to meta-game. I see a pretty obvious Paragon-bias with all the decision making, and having a high score/percentage collection of points from either side make your persuation go up for dealing with issues like the Jack/Miranda or Legion/Tali stuff. The choice is the players, but when there is clear incentive to go one way, it makes more sense to game the system than role-play.

Personally I try to put it out of my head and act in character for my Shepard at all times. I'm not going to whine like a baby about the genophage to Mordin so I can get Paragon points. I'm not going to be an unfeeling renegade a-hole about things where I'm not one. If my Shepard is too stupid to realize that taking a side in a catfight is going to get the other woman PO'd at him, then that's what he gets. Based on the kinds of dialogue he gets and things he says at times, it's safe to say he's not the brightest bulb anyway.

[Barquiel]

I prefer the ME1 system (Charm/Intimitade points)...but to be fair, you don't have to play either FULL paragon or FULL renegade to resolve the catfight and the Legion/Tali confrontation. I ended the game with 816 paragon points and 509 renegade points...and I could resolve the squaddie conflicts; the paragon option during Tali's trial was available and I could recruit Morinth too.

[Fyk0]

Even the system kinda sucks at least points can be edited in save editor, so you can as well max the points so you will never be limited with either path.

[Nashiktal]

Nyoka wrote...

Nashiktal wrote...
The Paragon and Renegade system is FAIL my good man. If you do try to roleplay your character besides being a saint or a dick, you lock yourself out of any of the advance persuasion options.

That's simply not true. I have finished ME2 an hour ago for the first time. I roleplay my character and I have seen the red and blue options a lot of times.

What you can't expect is to get all the options available always even in the thoughest situations. It would be like complaining because basic AI hacking doesn't work against Geth Prime. Threatening some nobody to get him out of your way is one thing; making a convincing argument in front of the admirals of the migrant fleet to save Tali from exile is completely different. If you're not skilled and experienced enough, you shouldn't be given that option.

You see, the problem with this comparison is on how you define "Experienced." The way you describe it, my shep being an ass all game makes him a pro at negotiating, or my full on paragon shep is a master because he likes whining about how the genophage is bad.

If "persuasion" was an investable skill in which you sacrifice combat skills for conversation I would agree with you. However it's not, and the current system rewards flicking your joystiq up or down for the majority of the game.

Modifié par Nashiktal, 16 mars 2011 - 06:23 .

[Nashiktal]

Nyoka wrote...

Not a pro at negotiating. A pro at being impatient, outspoken, blunt if necessary, and at not ****ing around. Later in the game, you've got a lot of practice. Also, you don't get your Paragon bar full by whining about the genophage, that gives you only a few Paragon points.You're exaggerating. To be full Paragon, you have to do many more things. Disapproving the genophage is one bit among many that pictures your character as compassionate, so in the future he will be more inclined to make compassionate arguments. Every decision taken one by one is small by itself. Decision after decision you are taking your character along the path you prefer, building her into paragon, renegade, "paragade" or nothing at all.

Semantics.


See the problem with this analogy is that Shep already has PLENTY of experience from his time in ME1, even if you never played the first game. The Genophage comment was an example. Despite what you say, these "little points" as you say add up. However what happens when I roleplay and my shep doesnt get enough points to unlock later choices? I get a lot of "little" points in both directions that get me nowhere just because my shep is trying to be something other than a two-dimensional character. What happened to all my "negotiating" skills from the first game? Why can't my character react the way he wants? I'm not even talking Paragade, or Renegon. 

Why should I be punished for wanting a character who isnt nice all the time? Why must I be punished for having a character who doesnt want to insult and crack down on people every other conversation?

Sacrificing combat skills? Why? You get combat powers by combatting and you get persuasive skills by doing persuasive things. You don't do both things at the same time. There's time for both. In ME1 you did sacrifice skill points to put them in charm/intimidate. Do you like the ME1 system better?

I think you got confused reading my last post. I was responding to YOU about the AI hacking analogy.

The problem here is that its a flawed mechanic. If you make it an investable skill you are sacrificing combat skills for increased negotiation. Its flawed, but at least its MY choice. (It was still influenced by my Paragon/Renegade choices in ME1, so no I did NOT like it. Was closer than in ME2 however.) If it limits player choices its flawed.

If you make it based on whether you make renegade or paragon decisions, you potentially lock out players who don't have a "consistent" style for their shepherd. I was unable to keep some characters loyal in a subsequent "roleplay" playthrough because of this. This makes the game less built around "choice" or more built around the "metagame."

[celuloid]

If Shepard cannot make simple decisions like choose between Samara/Morinth just because he was not jerk to everyone around, or did not emphatize with everybody along the way, is pure FAIL. Period.

Modifié par celuloid, 16 mars 2011 - 08:12 .

[Markinator_123]

I don't see why Bioware rewards a idealistic moron or a sociopathic jerkface. Somebody hit the nail right on the head when they said that the game rewards metagaming and not roleplaying. It's interesting that I am saying this because I managed to work the game to my advantage and have everybody loyal despite being 80P/60R. Here were some of my noticeable choices.

Paragon:
Saved workers on Zaeed's loyalty
Rewrote heretics
Kept Genophage Data
Solved Tali/Legion's fight paragon
(ME1) Saved Rachni

Renegade:
Killed Joram Talid
Let Garrus both kneecap Harkin and kill Sidonis no questions asked
Kept the Collector Base
Solved Miranda/Jack fight Renegade (Did missions after Horizon)
(ME1) Sacrificed Council

Modifié par Markinator_123, 16 mars 2011 - 09:58 .

[wizardryforever]

The tiny amount of Paragon/Renegade that you get from most dialogue barely influences your scores, so you really only have to be consistent with your "big picture" choices.  Any time a mission offers you a choice at the end, you usually get at least 10 times the amount that you would get in dialogue (except N7 missions).  This means that you can be a "jerk with a heart of gold" and be a dick to everyone in conversation, but make the compassionate big decisions and have more paragon than renegade.  You really don't have to "play" the system to get what you want, and every situation is solvable without using the colored text options.  The game rewards archetypes simply because archetypes are far easier to reward than more idiosyncratic characters with lots of player design.  It does not punish anyone at any point for not being extreme enough, it does however reward those who are extreme with extra dialogue.  Because really, that's all it is in the long run: extra dialogue.

I really don't see how persuasion skill(s) make the situation any better.  You're still meta-gaming, except now you are using in-game resources to meta-game.  That seems more "fail" to me than out-of-game meta-gaming.  But that's just me.

[Markinator_123]

However what happens when I roleplay and my shep doesnt get enough points to unlock later choices? I get a lot of "little" points in both directions that get me nowhere just because my shep is trying to be something other than a two-dimensional character.

You are exaggerating again. My Shepard is not a two dimensional character. If you don't tend to gravitate to either side (notice the difference between "tend to gravitate" and "being an ass to everybody" or you will exaggerate again in your next comment) and you have about the same amount of points in both bars, your character will have a contradictory mind, which is neat if you want that. Because of her ambivalent personality, she will not be able to stand up in the hardest moments, when a focused and determined will is needed. In my opinion the system is logical.

I don't see what is contradictory between being completely ruthless towards towards your enemies and caring very deeply about innocent people.

[Undertone]

Nyoka wrote...

However what happens when I roleplay and my shep doesnt get enough points to unlock later choices? I get a lot of "little" points in both directions that get me nowhere just because my shep is trying to be something other than a two-dimensional character.

You are exaggerating again. My Shepard is not a two dimensional character. If you don't tend to gravitate to either side (notice the difference between "tend to gravitate" and "being an ass to everybody" or you will exaggerate again in your next comment) and you have about the same amount of points in both bars, your character will have a contradictory mind, which is neat if you want that. Because of her ambivalent personality, she will not be able to stand up in the hardest moments, when a focused and determined will is needed. In my opinion the system is logical.

What happened to all my "negotiating" skills from the first game?

That I don't know. Maybe they should be imported along with the name and the face. I don't know.

Why should I be punished for wanting a character who isnt nice all the time? Why must I be punished for having a character who doesnt want to insult and crack down on people every other conversation?

You tend to take things to the extreme to strengthen your point. You don't need to do that. "being nice all the time" is a dumb thing to say. You don't need to be nice all the time. "In every other conversation" is a dumb thing to say, too. You know it's not true that you have to insult and crack down on people on every other conversation. You're saying those things so the system looks worse than how it actually is, so you win internet forum points or something.

If you make it based on whether you make renegade or paragon decisions, you potentially lock out players who don't have a "consistent" style for their shepherd.

Good. The game should force a minimal level of consistency. If you build a decent, honest, and law-abiding Shepard, and she is involved in an ugly situation like torturing a witness, she can't handle it, because torturing is just not like her. You built her that way.

The system is flawed and anyone with a little bit of logic can see this. What you are arguing is purely emotional. And since we are arguing with emotions I'll tell you that - anyone is capable of anything with the right circumstances. So no, your logic fails because humans are anything but consistent. I've seen idealistic, honourable people capable of unimaginable cruelty within my life because of the situation they were put it. Ordinary people. And Shepard is in the military so quit the act please.

[Serena Firewing]

I tried telling supporters of this extremely black and white system that most humans are not that consistent, but they refused to listen

[DPSSOC]

My problem with how the Paragon and Renegade system in general is that it's always seemed to lack consistent definition.  Sometimes Renegade is an ends justify the means, victory at all cost sort, but then they're a criminally insane thug (assaulting civillians without provocation).  This is mainly a problem because Bioware seems to insist on creating a dichotomy between the two.  Paragons are merciful and selfless so Renegades must be merciless and selfish.  Renegades are ends justify the means so Paragons must save everyone.  This generates a problem because if saving everyone is the mission both Paragon and Renegade mean the same thing.

Another problem is that it ignores the fact that Paragon and Renegade, just like good and evil, are schools of thought that can be applied to any action.  I can save the Council for purely Renegade reasons or I can save the CB for purely Paragon; Paragon and Renegade are not (or at least should not be) actions they are motivations.  Admittedly it's hard to gauge a player's motivation but there are ways it could be done.

Another problem I have with the system is that with every major choice there has to be a Paragon and Renegade option.  No, no, no, a thousand times no.  Looking at Tali's trial refusing to turn in the evidence is Paragon; you're honoring your friend's wishes and choice to accept the consequences.  Turning in the evidence is also Paragon; you're doing the right thing submitting evidence in a criminal investigation to the legitimate authorities in pursuit of justice.  Both options are, at their heart, Paragon, but because one results in a friend hating you it must be Renegade.  Or Legion's mission.  Choosing to blow up the station and kill all Geth on board is Renegade; you are comitting mass homocide (xenocide I suppose) in order to eliminate a threat with no consideration for civillians or other innocents who may be on board.  Choosing to re-write the Geth is also Renegade; if you believe the Geth to be truly living, and worthy of being given a chance to live, then what you are doing is undermining the freewill of an entire people to suit you; you are deciding to alter the way they think because you aren't satisfied with the conclusions they've drawn; in what way shape or form does that fit in with a Paragon.  Sometimes you run into a situation where you're caught between two "right" choices and can only choose one, and sometimes there is no "right" choice.

With regards to charm/intimidate options I just don't understand it.  By requiring you to have certain levels of Paragon or Renegade the game is implying that the c/i options are extremes of a particular behaviour, and they aren'talways.  Threatening to shoot Kelham is not the most Renegade thing you could do; beating the tar out of him until he tells you what you want to know is.  Similarly the charm option with Al Jilani isn't the most Paragon thing you could do, that would be to play the good little soldier and refuse to get involved.

[Undertone]

Nyoka wrote...

Undertone wrote...
The system is flawed and anyone with a little bit of logic can see this. What you are arguing is purely emotional. And since we are arguing with emotions I'll tell you that - anyone is capable of anything with the right circumstances. So no, your logic fails because humans are anything but consistent. I've seen idealistic, honourable people capable of unimaginable cruelty within my life because of the situation they were put it. Ordinary people. And Shepard is in the military so quit the act please.

No, I rather won't.

"Everything is possible" is not a very convincing argument. You are watching Casablanca. Laszlo enters the police station and talks with the German general. He's about to leave when he suddenly turns around and says 'you know what? Screw this. I want to enter the German Army. How do I enlist?'.

It contradicts all the character is. It makes no sense at all. It would only satisfy people who don't make any sense themselves (then again, when you make a movie or a game you can't please everyone). For people who know what character they are building, it would completely kill immersion. It would be a bad joke. So yeah, the game still should force a minimal level of consistency to make the character credible. It shouldn't let Laszlo join the german army, as it shouldn't let Shepard join the Geth. This possibility is not even considered in the game, and it's a good thing that it isn't.

By minimal I mean exactly that. For example, all plot-related decisions should be yours (and they are, IIRC). You can awake Grunt and Legion or not; you can do whatever you want with the collector base, etcetera. Zaeed is a good example: you can choose to help him kill Vido and gain his loyalty, or you can save the workers and let Vido escape. However, you still can gain Zaeed's loyalty, but now you need to be very persuasive because he's really pissed off. You can't expect a Shepard that can barely talk to be able to persuade Zaeed into loyalty just after he has seen how his concerns count for exactly nothing. Makes all the sense in the world. Same for ME1: Rachni queen, Shiala, the Council, Kaidan or Ash... everything related to the main plot is entirely yours. This is necessary because otherwise the player would feel the story is driving her, instead of her driving the story through her actions.

It's funny that you accuse me of being irrational and of not having a little bit of logic just before saying people don't need to make sense because people can do anything under certain circumstances, including all kinds of inconsistent, nonsensical stuff. I'd rather have a game that makes sense, thanks. Guess I'm being too logical here. Oh well.

I have no clue what soap opera you are talking about nor do I care. And I don't see where Shepard should join the Geth. Shepard is a trained professional with the ability to handle many situations - it doesn't matter whether they are paragon or renegade. To get the goal done you can try to seduce, persuade or intimidate if you need info. All can be done and should be given as an option. If I really need something I'll try and get it by convincing the other person and depending on the necessity if it doesn't work I would get physical. If I know I can save somebody I care for, I would do anything. So again you are talking jack. Nobody hear talks about Shepard somehow joining the Geth, the Rachni or whatever.

I was talking about the mechanic behind the system. It's not balanced. The results are not balanced either because it's biased towards paragon.

And yes people can do anything provided with enough stimulation. But you can pull your "holier then thou" act all you want.

Modifié par Undertone, 17 mars 2011 - 02:03 .

[wizardryforever]

Undertone wrote...

Nyoka wrote...

Undertone wrote...
The system is flawed and anyone with a little bit of logic can see this. What you are arguing is purely emotional. And since we are arguing with emotions I'll tell you that - anyone is capable of anything with the right circumstances. So no, your logic fails because humans are anything but consistent. I've seen idealistic, honourable people capable of unimaginable cruelty within my life because of the situation they were put it. Ordinary people. And Shepard is in the military so quit the act please.

No, I rather won't.

"Everything is possible" is not a very convincing argument. You are watching Casablanca. Laszlo enters the police station and talks with the German general. He's about to leave when he suddenly turns around and says 'you know what? Screw this. I want to enter the German Army. How do I enlist?'.

It contradicts all the character is. It makes no sense at all. It would only satisfy people who don't make any sense themselves (then again, when you make a movie or a game you can't please everyone). For people who know what character they are building, it would completely kill immersion. It would be a bad joke. So yeah, the game still should force a minimal level of consistency to make the character credible. It shouldn't let Laszlo join the german army, as it shouldn't let Shepard join the Geth. This possibility is not even considered in the game, and it's a good thing that it isn't.

By minimal I mean exactly that. For example, all plot-related decisions should be yours (and they are, IIRC). You can awake Grunt and Legion or not; you can do whatever you want with the collector base, etcetera. Zaeed is a good example: you can choose to help him kill Vido and gain his loyalty, or you can save the workers and let Vido escape. However, you still can gain Zaeed's loyalty, but now you need to be very persuasive because he's really pissed off. You can't expect a Shepard that can barely talk to be able to persuade Zaeed into loyalty just after he has seen how his concerns count for exactly nothing. Makes all the sense in the world. Same for ME1: Rachni queen, Shiala, the Council, Kaidan or Ash... everything related to the main plot is entirely yours. This is necessary because otherwise the player would feel the story is driving her, instead of her driving the story through her actions.

It's funny that you accuse me of being irrational and of not having a little bit of logic just before saying people don't need to make sense because people can do anything under certain circumstances, including all kinds of inconsistent, nonsensical stuff. I'd rather have a game that makes sense, thanks. Guess I'm being too logical here. Oh well.

I have no clue what soap opera you are talking about nor do I care. And I don't see where Shepard should join the Geth. Shepard is a trained professional with the ability to handle many situations - it doesn't matter whether they are paragon or renegade. To get the goal done you can try to seduce, persuade or intimidate if you need info. All can be done and should be given as an option. If I really need something I'll try and get it by convincing the other person and depending on the necessity if it doesn't work I would get physical. If I know I can save somebody I care for, I would do anything. So again you are talking jack. Nobody hear talks about Shepard somehow joining the Geth, the Rachni or whatever.

I was talking about the mechanic behind the system. It's not balanced. The results are not balanced either because it's biased towards paragon.

And yes people can do anything provided with enough stimulation. But you can pull your "holier then thou" act all you want.

You've never heard of Casablanca?  What kind of rock have you been living under?

It seems to me like you are completely missing the point of Nyoka's argument.  Essentially, you are arguing about freedom of choice in a CRPG, and the counter-argument is that certain actions should be disallowed because they make no freaking sense for the character to take those actions given what we know of them.  If you've spent the entire game defining your Shepard as a results-at-all-costs, callous, badass, it makes no sense for him/her to suddenly be able to charm someone out of a deeply held belief or calm them down with reason in a tense situation.  That is simply not the character that you have chosen to define, and the game doesn't let you take those actions to enforce some standards of believability.  

If it makes you feel any better, think of the greyed-out charm and intimidate options as being "thought of, but discarded as unlikely to work," in Shepard's mind.  Bioware is making you live with the consequences of Shepard's actions in that they define his/her personality.  Certain options will be less likely to work given certain personality types (a narcissist has difficulty expressing sympathy, for example), or those personality types simply won't think of those options at all.  This is why we don't have an "anybody can do anything" game, and it is like that in reality also.

[Nashiktal]

wizardryforever wrote...

Undertone wrote...

Nyoka wrote...

Undertone wrote...
The system is flawed and anyone with a little bit of logic can see this. What you are arguing is purely emotional. And since we are arguing with emotions I'll tell you that - anyone is capable of anything with the right circumstances. So no, your logic fails because humans are anything but consistent. I've seen idealistic, honourable people capable of unimaginable cruelty within my life because of the situation they were put it. Ordinary people. And Shepard is in the military so quit the act please.

No, I rather won't.

"Everything is possible" is not a very convincing argument. You are watching Casablanca. Laszlo enters the police station and talks with the German general. He's about to leave when he suddenly turns around and says 'you know what? Screw this. I want to enter the German Army. How do I enlist?'.

It contradicts all the character is. It makes no sense at all. It would only satisfy people who don't make any sense themselves (then again, when you make a movie or a game you can't please everyone). For people who know what character they are building, it would completely kill immersion. It would be a bad joke. So yeah, the game still should force a minimal level of consistency to make the character credible. It shouldn't let Laszlo join the german army, as it shouldn't let Shepard join the Geth. This possibility is not even considered in the game, and it's a good thing that it isn't.

By minimal I mean exactly that. For example, all plot-related decisions should be yours (and they are, IIRC). You can awake Grunt and Legion or not; you can do whatever you want with the collector base, etcetera. Zaeed is a good example: you can choose to help him kill Vido and gain his loyalty, or you can save the workers and let Vido escape. However, you still can gain Zaeed's loyalty, but now you need to be very persuasive because he's really pissed off. You can't expect a Shepard that can barely talk to be able to persuade Zaeed into loyalty just after he has seen how his concerns count for exactly nothing. Makes all the sense in the world. Same for ME1: Rachni queen, Shiala, the Council, Kaidan or Ash... everything related to the main plot is entirely yours. This is necessary because otherwise the player would feel the story is driving her, instead of her driving the story through her actions.

It's funny that you accuse me of being irrational and of not having a little bit of logic just before saying people don't need to make sense because people can do anything under certain circumstances, including all kinds of inconsistent, nonsensical stuff. I'd rather have a game that makes sense, thanks. Guess I'm being too logical here. Oh well.

I have no clue what soap opera you are talking about nor do I care. And I don't see where Shepard should join the Geth. Shepard is a trained professional with the ability to handle many situations - it doesn't matter whether they are paragon or renegade. To get the goal done you can try to seduce, persuade or intimidate if you need info. All can be done and should be given as an option. If I really need something I'll try and get it by convincing the other person and depending on the necessity if it doesn't work I would get physical. If I know I can save somebody I care for, I would do anything. So again you are talking jack. Nobody hear talks about Shepard somehow joining the Geth, the Rachni or whatever.

I was talking about the mechanic behind the system. It's not balanced. The results are not balanced either because it's biased towards paragon.

And yes people can do anything provided with enough stimulation. But you can pull your "holier then thou" act all you want.

You've never heard of Casablanca?  What kind of rock have you been living under?

It seems to me like you are completely missing the point of Nyoka's argument.  Essentially, you are arguing about freedom of choice in a CRPG, and the counter-argument is that certain actions should be disallowed because they make no freaking sense for the character to take those actions given what we know of them.  If you've spent the entire game defining your Shepard as a results-at-all-costs, callous, badass, it makes no sense for him/her to suddenly be able to charm someone out of a deeply held belief or calm them down with reason in a tense situation.  That is simply not the character that you have chosen to define, and the game doesn't let you take those actions to enforce some standards of believability.  

If it makes you feel any better, think of the greyed-out charm and intimidate options as being "thought of, but discarded as unlikely to work," in Shepard's mind.  Bioware is making you live with the consequences of Shepard's actions in that they define his/her personality.  Certain options will be less likely to work given certain personality types (a narcissist has difficulty expressing sympathy, for example), or those personality types simply won't think of those options at all.  This is why we don't have an "anybody can do anything" game, and it is like that in reality also.

But that is exactly the problem! Its not that I want my shep to "charm" or "intimidate" the person I want to persuade, I just want to be able to negotiate a situation! Why force me to follow one roleplaying "path" to unlock an *I-win* button to situtations, (and yes, it is an I-win button. Avoiding enemy conflict, getting allies to work together, gettin the rewards without the risk)

So my shep isnt a violent person, but he isnt a saint, so he cant talk his way out of the situation? Thats what i'm complaining about, not that I can't "charm" or "intimidate."

[wizardryforever]

Nashiktal wrote...
But that is exactly the problem! Its not that I want my shep to "charm" or "intimidate" the person I want to persuade, I just want to be able to negotiate a situation! Why force me to follow one roleplaying "path" to unlock an *I-win* button to situtations, (and yes, it is an I-win button. Avoiding enemy conflict, getting allies to work together, gettin the rewards without the risk)

So my shep isnt a violent person, but he isnt a saint, so he cant talk his way out of the situation? Thats what i'm complaining about, not that I can't "charm" or "intimidate."

You can negotiate a situation just fine with the white options.  Charm and Intimidate are never necessary for completing the game, or even completing the game with no casualties.  I'm baffled by your desire for these options on all characters when you regard them as "I win" buttons.  If you disdain the effect of these options and they strain your believability then why complain about not being able to do them?  There are many situations that really only make sense for dedicated characters to negotiate their way out of.  Take the Jack/Miranda fight.  Anyone but a fairly dedicated paragon will not have enough "charisma" (for lack of a better word) to talk them down peacefully.  Force of personality is all it is really.  Ditto with renegades and intimidation.  Also note that it is much easier to regain loyalty than it is to maintain it during the fight.  For instance, side with Jack, then go talk to Miranda in private.  I bet you'll be able to either charm or intimidate her to regain her loyalty.  Ditto with Tali and Legion.

[Undertone]

wizardryforever wrote...

You've never heard of Casablanca?  What kind of rock have you been living under?

It
seems to me like you are completely missing the point of Nyoka's
argument.  Essentially, you are arguing about freedom of choice in a
CRPG, and the counter-argument is that certain actions should be
disallowed because they make no freaking sense for the character
to take those actions given what we know of them.  If you've spent the
entire game defining your Shepard as a results-at-all-costs, callous,
badass, it makes no sense for him/her to suddenly be able to charm
someone out of a deeply held belief or calm them down with reason in a
tense situation.  That is simply not the character that you have chosen
to define, and the game doesn't let you take those actions to enforce
some standards of believability.  

If it makes you feel any
better, think of the greyed-out charm and intimidate options as being
"thought of, but discarded as unlikely to work," in Shepard's mind. 
Bioware is making you live with the consequences of Shepard's actions in
that they define his/her personality.  Certain options will be less
likely to work given certain personality types (a narcissist has
difficulty expressing sympathy, for example), or those personality types
simply won't think of those options at all.  This is why we don't have
an "anybody can do anything" game, and it is like that in reality also.

I am sure I know and I've seen things about the world you've never even imagined considering
how much I travelled. Some stupid soap opera does not concern me really and it is typical western arrogance to assume that I should know everything about your culture, otherwise I am some sort of barbarian.

I do understand the argument. It is clear. But it's incosistent, because people are always shifting, emotion and logic are tied together. You yourselves are taking it to extreme - you assume we roleplay our
characters to the extreme and then whine about not being able to do the other alignment. Just because my Shepard cuts lose odds, kills criminals, has a viligante persona and is a human supremacist doesn't mean she is going to let that woman be senselessly killed on Jacob mission. Or that salarian or batarian who is bleeding out and it's well within my power to help without costing me anything. Now saving the Council might cause the galaxy to die, ergo leave them to die, focus on Sovereign. This are all rational choices and you don't have to be goody-goody hollier then thou to be persuasive - there are number of ways to be persuasive. Logic, seduction, intimidation, trickery, coyness, pretended innocence and so on.

In real life a person changes around the environment, the social attitude, the financial aspect, the people he is with, the political situation. The Maslow pyramid of needs is good example. You are arguing people are
consistent like a brick which is everything but correct. Maybe can be applied for some spoiled rich brat with the level of maturity and experience of a snail. People are adaptable and changable especially when it comes to survival. 

Obviously there should be consequences for the actions. That should be as a result for the actions I took, not the methods I took them with. Imagine killing Fist had repercussions and his gang buddies decided to find you and kill you - they would kill you not because you thought Fist was killing innocent people or because you just wanted to kill him to satisfy your hunger for blood - but simply because you killed him, the reason or method or desire is inconsequential.

Modifié par Undertone, 17 mars 2011 - 10:33 .

[Asheer_Khan]

www.youtube.com/watch

This is Casablanca^_^.