Smeelia wrote...
I agree that the system is seriously flawed and limits roleplaying. I wouldn't mind if you could earn persuasion skill by "practice" or following a consistent approach (because of your reputation or whatever), as some have suggested, but unfortunately the ME2 system just doesn't work like that (due to the mechanics as described above).
But the system does work that way! Granted, not very well, and it is confusing, but it does work like that. The game takes notice of the actions you take and how they define your character. It tells itself, "okay, Shepard is behaving like a Renegade mostly, so naturally bonus Renegade options make more sense than bonus Paragon options." The game does not let you make a wishy-washy, ill-defined, Mary Sue character. Your actions shape Shepard's personality which mold some of the dialogue to suit that personality. The player is still given the freedom to not pursue these bonus options if they do not want to, but whining that the bonuses aren't available to your character is like whining that Soldiers have no biotics. That's the way it simply is based on your choices, and you can't have everything.
I do prefer the ME1 system really, your character can learn to be persuasive (using Charm or Intimidate) just like they learn to use any other skill (like weapon handling). I don't really like the way that the skills are tied to your Paragon and Renegade bars though, it might make some sense that reputation or practice would affect your persuasiveness but Shepard has also had a lot of time working on missions before Mass Effect begins so it's not unreasonable that they could have learned a few things and be able to develop persuasion skills based on that. I also think that the "neutral" conversation options are kind of wasted since they lack a persuasion choice (maybe something like "Reason", although having all three options for all characters would be better).
Tying the skills to your morality scores (and level) made perfect sense in context. Essentially, you could train as an expert charmer, but only have limited success if your actions don't live up to your words. In this way, people who are harder to sway would require a dedicated charmer who is also backed up by their actions. Otherwise the words just come across as empty to them. Neutrals aren't rewarded in either system, but they are not penalized either, like so many like to moan.
If you want to play a persuasive character then you're restricting your personality choices, I think that persuasion makes sense as a skill rather than being an aspect of your personality. A villain can still be charming and a hero can still be intimidating so it's unrealistic to restrict you to fewer character interpretations. One of my favourite characters that I use as a foundation for roleplaying in every game I can is basically evil and selfish but usually keeps a good reputation so that it's easier to get close to people and manipulate them for his gain, complex options like this aren't really available in Mass Effect because of the way the systems work. I'm not saying they need every character interpretation available, Shepard has to be an elite operative type in some ways and there are certain personalities that are unlikely to be in that kind of position, but the systems we've had so far are more restrictive than they need to be and take some of the roleplaying out of the roleplaying game.
Well, having skills tied to persuasion is just as arbitrary and abstract as basing it on your actions. The only difference is that you are spending in game resources (skill points) to convince people of your trustworthiness rather than simply doing things that demonstrate that trustworthiness. Another thing is that certain people are harder to persuade than others. Maybe they are stubborn, maybe they see through the pretty words, maybe they just get a bad feeling about you, either way, some people are just difficult to charm/intimidate. This is how the game illustrates that a villian is charming to the gullible, and a hero is only intimidating to cowards. Knowing what these people have done in the past puts a pretty big damper on the effectiveness of the words. A villian that is known for backstabbing cities that sign treaties with him is going to be less convincing when he tells people that he wants only peace. A hero that has a reputation for taking enemies alive or not hurting innocents is going to have a hard time intimidating a terrorist group into releasing hostages (for example). Granted, it is more complicated than that, but I think the system currently reflects such things much better than a simple skill check.
I think it's also worth noting that having an option available doesn't mean you have to use it. In Dragon Age the persuasion skill gives you access to a variety of persuasion options including charm and intimidation, if I'm playing a character as the type who doesn't like to threaten or harm others then I can simply choose not to use intimidation options (even if they would work). Perhaps that's another flaw in the design of the system, persuasion is the only way to positively resolve some problems rather than just being another option. For example, in a hostage situation you can use persuasion to have the hostages released but there should be other skills you could use to deal with the situation. Perhaps an Infiltrator could use their cloak to get into position to free the hostage without being seen, an Engineer might be able to use knockout gas or overload a system to create a distraction, a Soldier could make the shot to give the captors no chance and so on. Some interrupts give those kinds of options but they're not based on skills at all.
Well, it is not the only way to positively resolve situations, at least not when the checks are difficult. It is perfectly viable to not take options when they appear. You are not "shoehorned in" as some people like to claim. They are bonus conversation options for the most part. You can resolve pretty much any situation in the game using only white options and still receive the "best outcome." The loyalty fights are the only place where there is a consequence for not using charm/intimidate, and people harp on this as being a reason the system sucks. First off, the loyalty fights don't matter too much for keeping people alive. Just take their lack of loyalty into account when you assign people tasks on the suicide mission. Second, it is very easy to simply go talk to whoever you sided against later and charm/intimidate them back to loyalty. Anytime I couldn't charm/intimidate them during the fight, I was
always able to do so afterwards. That kinda puts a hole in the argument that you are "forced" to be paragon or renegade, and that you are "penalized" for not being so.
Is the system perfect? No, of course not, and it can definitely be improved and fine-tuned. But I have to agree with the OP, the system is not an epic failure. Being unable to roleplay with the system says more about the complainer than the system.
Retour en haut
