148 réponses à ce sujet

[Smeelia]

wizardryforever wrote...

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'd say it's sufficiently bad to be counted as not working and it's not really clear that it was even intended to work that way.  If the idea was to restrict your choices based on the personality you choose then the interrupts should also be covered, it makes no less sense for my 100% Paragon character to be able to beat up suspects for information or push a mercenary out of a window than it does for them to be able to intimidate someone to make them back down (at least the intimidate options are often used with the intention of avoiding conflict, rather than getting your attack in first).  If they are bonus options (like the interrupts) then why not just have them available to everyone so the player can choose which ones to use rather than having them restricted with a poorly made system?

Shepards that make choices other than going 100% to Paragon or Renegade don't have to feel wishy washy, if they do then that's a bit of a design flaw in itself since it only gives two well made choices and makes any others pointless.  There are multiple reasons to make decisions so two different Shepards might make the same choice for different reasons.  If they only wanted you to play one of two pre-made characters then they would be just as well letting you pick one at the start of the game.

A big part of the problem is that persuasion was a skill in ME1 but in ME2 it's not.  If they really wanted a reputation driven system then they shouldn't have made it look like the old persuasion system and instead they should have had options that anyone could pick but would only work with the right reputation (possibly with an indicator if it'll succeed, although not having one could be interesting if the system was strong enough).  It makes more sense that Shepard can't intimidate because they don't have the skill to try it than because they know for sure their reputation isn't good enough.

Basically the current system is needlessly restrictive, having persuasion and personality be separate choices gives the player more options for the character they want to play while having them bound together reduces the choice.  There's really no benefit to reducing the choice the player has in who they want their Shepard to be.

wizardryforever wrote...

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.

As I said, I liked the ME1 system better.  It made more sense and it gave more options for the character, I can't see why it wouldn't work in ME2.  I don't hate the restrictions and I didn't find them problematic even with more neutral characters, I'm just not sure they really added anything.

Completely neutral characters aren't really supported with the persuasion system, it would have been nice to have had a third bar (although it might be harder to define) and another persuasion skill but it's unlikely they considered that and they may not have had time to implement it even if they wanted to.

wizardryforever wrote...

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'm not really convinced that the current system is better than a skill check.  If someone is difficult to persuade then a skilled negotiator will be more likely to succeed, a well made argument and good reading of a person can help overcome any disadvantage that reputation or similar may create (a person may be convinced to rely more on their judgement of what they are seeing in person rather than what they have heard from others).  A weak pistol in the hands of a skilled user can be better than a powerful rifle in unskilled hands, one common element of RPGs is choosing what your character is good at and if they're good enough at talking then that should be represented.  Reputation makes more sense as a modifier on your skill check than an absolute decider of whether you can even attempt to use persuasion.

wizardryforever wrote...

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.

It's true that the persuasion options are often only "bonuses" or alternatives and the biggest problem is definately in those few times where they do matter.  Unfortunately the system is flawed in ME2 and that isn't going to change.  I agree that it's not an "epic failure" but the restrictions really don't contribute anything to the game while occasionally causing problems for those who roleplay outside of the main two characters.  Removing the restrictions altogether would give the player more choice and more roleplaying flexibility without losing anything positive.  I've never had a problem with the system myself but that doesn't mean I'm going to pretend that it's perfectly fine or assume that others must be doing something wrong.

[Slayer299]

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.

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.

This is late, but I completey agree! 

[GuardianAngel470]

wizardryforever wrote...

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.

I love how you consistently discount the validity of playing a neutral character. How is a neutral character or a combination of paragon and renegade any less valid than a strictly paragon or renegade Shepard?

You are essentially saying that there are only two valid choices and that REASON is invalid over COMPASSION and CRUELTY.

Rare is the man that can't be won by reason yet by your standards reason is an invalid way to play the game. You even discount the fact that the option exists by calling it wishy washy.

Seriously Wizard, I know you're into illogical things like magic and spells but that doesn't mean that reason doesn't exist.

[wizardryforever]

GuardianAngel470 wrote...

I love how you consistently discount the validity of playing a neutral character. How is a neutral character or a combination of paragon and renegade any less valid than a strictly paragon or renegade Shepard?

You are essentially saying that there are only two valid choices and that REASON is invalid over COMPASSION and CRUELTY.

Rare is the man that can't be won by reason yet by your standards reason is an invalid way to play the game. You even discount the fact that the option exists by calling it wishy washy.

Seriously Wizard, I know you're into illogical things like magic and spells but that doesn't mean that reason doesn't exist.

Geez, ad hominem attacks much?  I never said that playing neutral was invalid.  In fact I said the exact opposite by pointing out how you can play the game and even get the "best outcome" (to both the game and pretty much every situation in it) while being neutral.  My whole point is that Shepard's actions define the character, and that the charm and intimidate options are mostly just bonus dialogue (that may even be less cool than the default options).  My personal feelings about playing this game "neutrally" notwithstanding, it is nevertheless a valid playstyle, it just isn't rewarded by the system.  It would be cool to have certain dialogue unlock only if you have a certain percentage of both Paragon and Renegade, thus rewarding neutrals and hybrids as well as the more extreme archytypes.

Also, quite a few of the neutral options are essentially "I don't care, let's just move on."  Those are the options you take if you either really don't care, or you're trying to avoid the extremes for some reason.

Modifié par wizardryforever, 19 mars 2011 - 05:50 .

[GuardianAngel470]

wizardryforever wrote...

GuardianAngel470 wrote...

I love how you consistently discount the validity of playing a neutral character. How is a neutral character or a combination of paragon and renegade any less valid than a strictly paragon or renegade Shepard?

You are essentially saying that there are only two valid choices and that REASON is invalid over COMPASSION and CRUELTY.

Rare is the man that can't be won by reason yet by your standards reason is an invalid way to play the game. You even discount the fact that the option exists by calling it wishy washy.

Seriously Wizard, I know you're into illogical things like magic and spells but that doesn't mean that reason doesn't exist.

Geez, ad hominem attacks much?  I never said that playing neutral was invalid.  In fact I said the exact opposite by pointing out how you can play the game and even get the "best outcome" (to both the game and pretty much every situation in it) while being neutral.  My whole point is that Shepard's actions define the character, and that the charm and intimidate options are mostly just bonus dialogue (that may even be less cool than the default options).  My personal feelings about playing this game "neutrally" notwithstanding, it is nevertheless a valid playstyle, it just isn't rewarded by the system.  It would be cool to have certain dialogue unlock only if you have a certain percentage of both Paragon and Renegade, thus rewarding neutrals and hybrids as well as the more extreme archytypes.

Also, quite a few of the neutral options are essentially "I don't care, let's just move on."  Those are the options you take if you either really don't care, or you're trying to avoid the extremes for some reason.

I may have misunderstood you but when you described the third option as wishy washy it gave a distinct impression that you felt that the third option was invalid.

Nevertheless, the fact that the system doesn't support a third option and only allows rewards for two decision paths is exactly the point that this thread is trying to prove.

Yes it is possible to have a lot of both BUT it is not easy and, in my experience, had to be striven for specifically, which is also known as metagaming. And, even if you do have a lot of both you still might not have enough for an optimal outcome.

The fact that only two options are recognized and the rest are actively discouraged by the percentage system the game uses is what we are trying to explain.

IF a system that hid the existence of Win dialog was implemented THEN it must not make any critical choices using said system. You cannot have a decision like the Miranda/Jack confrontation exist ver batim using that sort of system. It would be developer suicide. An argument can be ended using smart choices in dialog OR the use of a Win option but you can't have the result hinge on the Win dialog and the price for lacking said dialog be the death of a character.


In short, the argument in question was so limited that only one path to an optimal outcome existed.

As it is it is already deceptive enough to cause an outcry. Entire guides exist to help gamers through that single choice because of the end result of it.

Modifié par GuardianAngel470, 19 mars 2011 - 06:04 .

[Almostfaceman]

GuardianAngel470 wrote...

I may have misunderstood you but when you described the third option as wishy washy it gave a distinct impression that you felt that the third option was invalid.

Nevertheless, the fact that the system doesn't support a third option and only allows rewards for two decision paths is exactly the point that this thread is trying to prove.

Yes it is possible to have a lot of both BUT it is not easy and, in my experience, had to be striven for specifically, which is also known as metagaming. And, even if you do have a lot of both you still might not have enough for an optimal outcome.

The fact that only two options are recognized and the rest are actively discouraged by the percentage system the game uses is what we are trying to explain.

IF a system that hid the existence of Win dialog was implemented THEN it must not make any critical choices using said system. You cannot have a decision like the Miranda/Jack confrontation exist ver batim using that sort of system. It would be developer suicide. An argument can be ended using smart choices in dialog OR the use of a Win option but you can't have the result hinge on the Win dialog and the price for lacking said dialog be the death of a character.


In short, the argument in question was so limited that only one path to an optimal outcome existed.

As it is it is already deceptive enough to cause an outcry. Entire guides exist to help gamers through that single choice because of the end result of it.

Agreed.

I don't feel comfortable playing anything other than straight Renegade or Paragon because I don't want a squadmate to die.  Even when I play an import with the bonus it gives, I still get nervous.  It's kinda ridiculous.

[celuloid]

I think Bioware's view is that the function of morality system is to differentiate gameplay experience, so that people do not get identical playthroughs. It is not so much to enforce consistency of Shepard's personality as some pro-system people say. For example, it is totally possible for Shepard to be a hero to the vagrant quarian, only some time later to beat the hell out of Kelham.

ME2 is, at least in theory, not that much more difficult than ME1 in conversation checks. The difference is that ME1 at least lets you directly control your progress in persuasion ability. Although ME2 has persuasion boosting skill, too. It can double your P/R points. (Sometime I like to think about them as public relations points). So if you metagame real hard, it should be possible to persuade everyone in either way.

The reasons people hate the system are:
1. No points for neutral decisions. Only some choices are honored with points, despite every choice having their own reason behind it.
2. You are fighting losing battle in this system, for every dialogue choice you miss your P/R score goes down. Even choices in dialogues you did not even had.
3. Confusing information. You can have full P/R scale on your stats screen and still fail at conversation checks.
4. Flashy interrupts invite you to click them, even if you are of other moral alignment. Who does not want to witness another cool thing Shepard does? It is like "click this if you want to win, big style" button. Is is harmful because it hides another solutions. Maybe if we got conversation wheel plus interrupt choice at once, it might become less mindless. These interrupts just dilute P/R points further.
5. They turned morality system and dialogues into some sort of game. You have to earn "experience" by picking good choices and then you are rewarded down the way at conversation checks. Argument for the consistency of character does not hold either, there are many ingame and real life examples which refute this.

DAO did it great. There was some simple persuasion skill, but the magic was something else. If you wanted to get along well with characters, you had to guess what might work with them best. You had to show strong resolve, compassion, selfishness when they were expected. Witcher is even better - it just lets you pick any choice. And then you see consequences, which are quite profound.

And to share my particular experience, here it goes:
In my "canonical" Paragon universe despite playing the 190/0 import, I did not pass exactly 3 conversation checks:
1. Morinth/Samara choice
2. Zaeed argument about mission outcome
3. Jack/Miranda argument
The outcome is, in my universe Jack and Morinth are dead, Zaeed lives. That might not be such a big deal, since they are the most Renegade characters and my canon Shepard is Paragon. The problem is, in case one, I could not do plot-relevant decision myself, and in case three, I could not win Jack back despite having full Paragon scale. I am aware there are many people who did not have any problem, but they should be aware that the system has many negative traits which can conspire against you.

Modifié par celuloid, 19 mars 2011 - 03:32 .

[DPSSOC]

Out of curiousity does anyone know Bioware's reasoning for going with the % of points possible system rather than a tally of points earned like ME1 (hit a certain P/R level get a bonus to C/I)?

[Nathan Redgrave]

InvincibleHero wrote...

@Silmane

They give you plenty of choices to facilitate role-playing. You only lock yourself into picking renpara 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.

The game actively encourages you to align yourself with a single side most or all of the time, so you do. You don't need to know what possible arguments you'll have to resolve; you just need to know how Charm and Intimidate work.

The system feels a lot more free in Dragon Age II, where the Paragon/Renegade system isn't there to provide "incentive" to choose certain dialogue over others. There is the rival/friendship thing, but that isn't so easy to abuse without knowing beforehand what you need to do.

[Dave666]

I find it somewhat amusing that for a thread created with the purpose of claiming that the system was not an 'epic failure' (which it isn't epic, but I still feel it could have been better) there are more posts here arguing the case that it is, than those claiming it isn't. Have the masses spoken? lol

[InvincibleHero]

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 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.

At least someone else appreciates the idea that they do not hamper roleplaying. Yeah not having the "magic text" appear greyed out would solve most of the problems.

I don't think it forces you to be all ren or paragon to the degree people are complaining about. My first playthrough with import I ended over 100% para (still kept choosing some para options) but I was about 50-60% ren too. I did not miss out on any blue option and still had many reds showing up. True you can never get all red and blue options at once but the system is not menat for it. That is not a weakness. Some people seem to think they need to be able to do everything. Well your soldier Shepard cannot do biotics so why not just give him every power as well. Seems the same logic right?

Yeah but people think I roleplay by adding points into my intimidate and charm skills and I'm set. Putting points into skills is not RP. Besides with the free points they metagame the system. It's why they prefer ME1. In ME2 you have to earn higher tier blue/red with consistent roleplaying.

[InvincibleHero]

tonnactus wrote...

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.

So you think the situation is not serious. Both women have strong personalities. Miranda is used to getting what she wants. Jack is a don't mess with me I do what I want rebel. Shepard is the bone in the middle they are fighting over. In real life do you think you could get two less passionate and bull-headed women to like and coo-operate with each other? I highly doubt it. It is magic that it is even an option for and extremely persuasive Shepard. Intimidate work together or else might work.

[Dave666]

InvincibleHero wrote...

Yeah but people think I roleplay by adding points into my intimidate and charm skills and I'm set. Putting points into skills is not RP. Besides with the free points they metagame the system. It's why they prefer ME1. In ME2 you have to earn higher tier blue/red with consistent roleplaying.

Just a small point on this one, that putting points in a skill is not roleplaying, I disagree. Putting points is supposed to be symbolic, its meant to represent your character working on said skills, in this case Charm and Intimidate.  One can practice in front of a mirror for example or your crew.

Modifié par Dave666, 24 mars 2011 - 05:06 .

[wizardryforever]

Dave666 wrote...

InvincibleHero wrote...

Yeah but people think I roleplay by adding points into my intimidate and charm skills and I'm set. Putting points into skills is not RP. Besides with the free points they metagame the system. It's why they prefer ME1. In ME2 you have to earn higher tier blue/red with consistent roleplaying.

Just a small point on this one, that putting points in a skill is not roleplaying, I disagree. Putting points is supposed to be symbolic, its meant to represent your character working on said skills, in this case Charm and Intimidate.  One can practice in front of a mirror for example or your crew.

Yeah, but that happens in the background, off-screen.  With the current system, your actions dictate your personality.  You determine what role you want Shepard to be by playing the game; role-playing.  I get where you're coming from though.

[Dave666]

wizardryforever wrote...

Dave666 wrote...

InvincibleHero wrote...

Yeah but people think I roleplay by adding points into my intimidate and charm skills and I'm set. Putting points into skills is not RP. Besides with the free points they metagame the system. It's why they prefer ME1. In ME2 you have to earn higher tier blue/red with consistent roleplaying.

Just a small point on this one, that putting points in a skill is not roleplaying, I disagree. Putting points is supposed to be symbolic, its meant to represent your character working on said skills, in this case Charm and Intimidate.  One can practice in front of a mirror for example or your crew.

Yeah, but that happens in the background, off-screen.  With the current system, your actions dictate your personality.  You determine what role you want Shepard to be by playing the game; role-playing.  I get where you're coming from though.

True, it happens off screen, but we're supposed to assume things happen off-screen anyway. Kelly talking to crew members, Shep sleeping (or going to the bathroom for that matter) etc, so it makes sense.  With the current system your actions simply turn you into a saint or a *insert expletive here*, neither of which have anything whatsoever to do with communication skills. Spending skill points after gaining experience has been like this in RPG's for a very long time.  You spend points on a weapon skill for example and its meant to represent that off-screen your character has been practicing with said weapon etc.

Modifié par Dave666, 24 mars 2011 - 05:32 .

[Bourne Endeavor]

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.

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.

This is partially inaccurate. If you import a file from Mass Effect where you have both Paragon and Renegade maxed. You are capable of being quite liberal with your choices. For instance one of my Shepard was able to pass the renegade check for Miranda and Jack's conflict and the Paragon check for Tali and Legion's. I favored renegade for the most part but had a heap of paragon points.

Unfortunately, this requires you either have replayed one Mass Effect file three times exploiting the morality reward for each playthrough or you exploit the Lorik Qui'in or Lost Module (Paragon points only) glitches. You also cannot import a ME2 file as you do not receive the morality benefit.

Frankly, this is was one aspect that Dragon Age has done immensely better. Dialogue should not be based upon an arbitrary mechanical system and instead up to the player's preference at that specific moment.

[Dave666]

Bourne Endeavor wrote...

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.

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.

This is partially inaccurate. If you import a file from Mass Effect where you have both Paragon and Renegade maxed. You are capable of being quite liberal with your choices. For instance one of my Shepard was able to pass the renegade check for Miranda and Jack's conflict and the Paragon check for Tali and Legion's. I favored renegade for the most part but had a heap of paragon points.

Unfortunately, this requires you either have replayed one Mass Effect file three times exploiting the morality reward for each playthrough or you exploit the Lorik Qui'in or Lost Module (Paragon points only) glitches. You also cannot import a ME2 file as you do not receive the morality benefit.

Frankly, this is was one aspect that Dragon Age has done immensely better. Dialogue should not be based upon an arbitrary mechanical system and instead up to the player's preference at that specific moment.

The part about having to do three playthroughs is not strictly true, thats just us gaming the system.  If they patched ME:1 and removed gaining Paragon= points in Charm etc then we would have to roleplay properly. We would be left with a choice, do I want to spend some of my precious skill points on Persuasion skills, or Combat related ones?

The way they linked levels of Paragon and Renegade in ME:1 to getting certain missions kinda made sense and IMHO should have been all that Paragon and Renegade were used for (as much as I love using the Lorik glitch).

[Bourne Endeavor]

Dave666 wrote...

Bourne Endeavor wrote...

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.

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.

This is partially inaccurate. If you import a file from Mass Effect where you have both Paragon and Renegade maxed. You are capable of being quite liberal with your choices. For instance one of my Shepard was able to pass the renegade check for Miranda and Jack's conflict and the Paragon check for Tali and Legion's. I favored renegade for the most part but had a heap of paragon points.

Unfortunately, this requires you either have replayed one Mass Effect file three times exploiting the morality reward for each playthrough or you exploit the Lorik Qui'in or Lost Module (Paragon points only) glitches. You also cannot import a ME2 file as you do not receive the morality benefit.

Frankly, this is was one aspect that Dragon Age has done immensely better. Dialogue should not be based upon an arbitrary mechanical system and instead up to the player's preference at that specific moment.

The part about having to do three playthroughs is not strictly true, thats just us gaming the system.  If they patched ME:1 and removed gaining Paragon= points in Charm etc then we would have to roleplay properly. We would be left with a choice, do I want to spend some of my precious skill points on Persuasion skills, or Combat related ones?

The way they linked levels of Paragon and Renegade in ME:1 to getting certain missions kinda made sense and IMHO should have been all that Paragon and Renegade were used for (as much as I love using the Lorik glitch).

You misunderstood. This was specifically in response to Mass Effect 2, wherein the only means to play through the game with some liberty was to game the system in the previous game and import that file.

Frankly, I dislike either system since it restricts choice in character development. My paragon should not be required to place points in an arbitrary numerically based system and instead make them based on how I have chosen to play that Shepard's personality. This was why I found Dragon Age's concept superior. You could choose any dialogue option and were given points because of it.

[Powgow]

I think it is a flawed system, and its one if the things that is better in Dragon age.

Paragon and Renegade are black and white in a world where everything is a tint of grey. Good and bad are relative, and people have their own views of it. Thats why the "approval" system of Dragon Age is better in my opinion. Things

Paragon, for instance, does not take note of the fact that, when you are constantly nice, some people will tend to abuse it. This never manifests. And decisions that at first seem the right thing can backfire.

[AGogley]

I like the paragon/renegade system in ME2 better than having to put character development points into either Charisma or something else like we did in ME1. That said, I don't like the options we are presented with. I'm annoyed, which seems like a rather neutral choice, suddenly turns into "I want to put a gun to somebody's head", a renegade option.Half the time you can't figure out what Shepherd will say based on the dialog wheel. To me that's the real issue.

[WhiteAden]

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 is where the "purple" option from Dragon Age 2 would be amazing...

where you could act like a d-bag and point guns at people without having to worry about what they think about you... I agree with the max-paragon/renegade option, in my average playthrough I end up 50/50 on Paragon/Renegade, this leaves both red & blue options unavailable.... O_o that just sucks, lol!

so a purple option should be available when you're in an approximate even (say 15% points diff. (e.g. 500 ParPoints vs 425 Ren points would give you this option, 505Par-600Ren would not) a third option would become available!

would be the ultimate fix / upgrade for me ^__^

[InvincibleHero]

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

How often would a good by the books cop do it? Never. People that follow the rules and have morals find ways within the rules to get the job done. A renegade says screw the rules and does what is expedient.

I doubt many would like it if I made the morality system. If you got +15 renegade then it also vaporises a like number of paragon points from your total. How can you say you are just as good as you were before you tortured someone even for a good reason? Exactly.

Well cheat if you must after all it is your game. We don't have all the options in real life so why should we in games? it must be earned to have any meaning IMO.

[LTD]

ME2's Paragon/Renegade system is ridiculous. Matters not whether you are a meta gamer or roleplayer or something in between, the system can only bring you headache. It is build in such way it encourages and rewards a play style that embraces a dumb black or white approach to the entire game.Meanwhile, Shepard played in more complex and human  fashion will end up missing out due to not having high enough score in eithe paragon or renegade..

Approach featured in ME1 was vastly superior; player was free to pick as complex and contradicting  bundles of decisions as he deemed appropriate. Resulting in something very human, no?
In ME2 you are either an utter **** or open-to-abuse naive do-gooder. Land anywhere inbetween and game punishes you. Where is the sense in that?

Modifié par LTD, 25 mars 2011 - 04:57 .

[InvincibleHero]

DinoCrisisFan wrote...

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.

I tend to dislike the bean count approach to morality in games. However, what evelse can you do.

I think it might be neat to start with 1000 paragon or rengade points and lose them if say you perform an action on the opposite axis. Any gains would be less than the losses. Changing your overall personality should be more extreme than maintaining the staus quo. So everyone can do what they want to a point until they became not renegade/paragon enough because they violated their core personality too much.

[GuardianAngel470]

InvincibleHero wrote...

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 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.

At least someone else appreciates the idea that they do not hamper roleplaying. Yeah not having the "magic text" appear greyed out would solve most of the problems.

I don't think it forces you to be all ren or paragon to the degree people are complaining about. My first playthrough with import I ended over 100% para (still kept choosing some para options) but I was about 50-60% ren too. I did not miss out on any blue option and still had many reds showing up. True you can never get all red and blue options at once but the system is not menat for it. That is not a weakness. Some people seem to think they need to be able to do everything. Well your soldier Shepard cannot do biotics so why not just give him every power as well. Seems the same logic right?

Yeah but people think I roleplay by adding points into my intimidate and charm skills and I'm set. Putting points into skills is not RP. Besides with the free points they metagame the system. It's why they prefer ME1. In ME2 you have to earn higher tier blue/red with consistent roleplaying.

It hampers roleplaying because without the para/rene win options there is no optimal outcome for at least 2 circumstances. In the tali trial if you didn't have enough paragon or renegade points you could still rally the crowd if you saved the marine and the guy from Freedom's progress. That is an example of the current system done right.

However the current system done wrong would be the two arguments. If you don't have Zaeed or Kasumi then almost invariably one of those four characters will die. This isn't even as acceptable as the VS decision when you KNEW one of them would die. In that decision, you CHOSE which to save.

In ME2, not only is the writing of the situation unbelievable (Legion's a robot and can't get mad and Miranda's a big girl whose sister you saved so neither of them should hold it against you to that degree) but without the win dialog you are FORCED to choose a side. Role playing would be navigating the circumstance with only your intelligence and knowledge of the characters to guide you. Neutral players and those of shades of gray have no other option but the Win dialog. Only with optional characters can you hope to keep everyone alive.