148 réponses à ce sujet

[wizardryforever]

GuardianAngel470 wrote...

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.

Even if you must pick a side and somehow don't have enough skill to charm/intimidate them after the fight (I don't think that's even possible), it is still very possible to get everyone alive through the Suicide Mission.  And that is without Zaeed and Kasumi.  Because the loyalty fights will only lose two loyalties out of 10, it seems kind of ridiculous to claim that you must lose someone without those two loyalties.  It's not like there is anyone who is indispensible to the mission.  For every task, there is at least one viable backup.  Don't have Jack's loyalty?  Then use Samara/Morinth.  Don't have Miranda's loyalty?  Then use Jacob or Garrus.  Don't have Tali's loyalty?  Then use Legion (or Kasumi, but she's optional).  Ditto with Legion's loyalty, just use Tali.  None of these characters are necessary to have their loyalty as long as you do everything else to prepare and don't make dumb decisions on the mission.

[GuardianAngel470]

wizardryforever wrote...

GuardianAngel470 wrote...

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.

Even if you must pick a side and somehow don't have enough skill to charm/intimidate them after the fight (I don't think that's even possible), it is still very possible to get everyone alive through the Suicide Mission.  And that is without Zaeed and Kasumi.  Because the loyalty fights will only lose two loyalties out of 10, it seems kind of ridiculous to claim that you must lose someone without those two loyalties.  It's not like there is anyone who is indispensible to the mission.  For every task, there is at least one viable backup.  Don't have Jack's loyalty?  Then use Samara/Morinth.  Don't have Miranda's loyalty?  Then use Jacob or Garrus.  Don't have Tali's loyalty?  Then use Legion (or Kasumi, but she's optional).  Ditto with Legion's loyalty, just use Tali.  None of these characters are necessary to have their loyalty as long as you do everything else to prepare and don't make dumb decisions on the mission.

Not once have I been able to charm/intimidate the character in over 14 playthroughs. Either I game the system and have enough to resolve the conflict or I never do. It is most definitely possible.

And you have avoided the main point of the post: Bad writing. Neutral players should always have the ability to salvage the situation the hard way, requiring the completion of past actions like the Geth Incursions mission and Miranda's loyalty mission. There is no rational reason why Miranda can't be talked down by bringing up your actions with Oriana, especially if you convinced Miranda to speak with her.

There is no way that Tali, a character bound by loyalty to her people and to you even before the trial, could not be reasoned with the hard way.

Even if you didn't have enough during the fight but later did you would STILL be required to use the Win dialog because neutrals have no options. You either let it be and risk the failure of the mission by not having their loyalty (if you aren't metagaming) or possibly watch a character die arbitrarily even though a fifth grader could have said the right thing to resolve the issue.

In the current system, neutrals always lose; They next to no options when it comes to loyalties. That is what I was trying to illustrate with my example but apparently I didn't account for all variables.

Just as you didn't account for all variables by saying it's next to impossible to not resolve the loyalty post-fight.

[Baihu1983]

Fun but flawed and glitched. Im full renegade but i was unable to put both Tali and Legion in their place today as the option was blacked out.

[InvincibleHero]

tonnactus wrote...

DarkSeraphym wrote...




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

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

Well I'm willing to give some pass because Shepard was "dead" for two years. Not everyone got the tweet that said "i'm back".

[InvincibleHero]

DarkSeraphym wrote...

Serena Firewing wrote...

I have no problems with the renegade options, they are often the best choices I just don't like how they are portrayed in the game. How they are said or how Sheppard acts is a little to "evil" for my tastes sometimes.
I guess I'm more of a Paragade or Renagon then a true follower of either path but as my first playthrough are without any modifications at all I tend to take the paragon route even though I think some choices are stupid.

I just thinks that the options should be open to take no matter which route you usually goes and that the renegade and paragon choices should be less good/evil then they can sometimes get. Not without consequenses mind you, if you go Paragon all the way then pull a gun and threaten a knowledgable criminal he should call you out on it.

This is my biggest complaint with the Paragon and Renegade system. The fact that you go home to Ashley or Liara and ask them "How was your day?" but shot and/or tortured a couple of criminals for the "good of the galaxy" equates to 60% Paragon and 40% Renegade is absolutely ridiculous. Actions should always speak louder than words and if your Shepard cares enough about his crew to help fix their problems but is ruthless enough to shoot Elias Kelham simply because you want information out of him, I already fail to see how you aren't mostly Renegade anyway given their definition of Paragon and Renegade.

Anyway, at the very least I like how the Paragon and Renegade system is consistent in this game and consistency is something that is important in character design. This is why I think it makes sense for only Renegade Shepard to be able to pull a gun on Elias Kelham and actually make it work, as Elias Kelham is going to expect consistency in your character and bluffing is only going to work if he thinks you have the nerve to shoot him. It appears to me that the essence of Paragon Shepard is he would rather be loved, while Renegade Shepard would rather be feared. Thus, it makes sense to me that having a higher Paragon should eliminate the possibility of successfully pulling a gun on Kelham.

Let's be realistic here. How often do you find someone who is against the death penalty on the grounds that it is "cruel and unusual", yet is also violent enough at the sametime to pull a gun on someone and possibly shoot them in the leg because they want information?

I agree with the attempt to make it a stable personality trait. Sometimes I have disagreements with why is this rengade or why is this paragon or why so many or so little points awarded compared to such and such I got earlier. However, I think overall it tries to class paragons and rengades as totally different play styles. It segregates the gameplay and it works more than fails. It's why persuede vs. intimidate is delineated.

[celuloid]

Sorry, there are no redeeming traits in current system, yet people still seem to defend it.

1. You are forced to pick a so called moral alignment and stay with it the whole game. This moral alignment is inconsistent and it depends on what authors seem to think is good and evil, or selfless and macho in this case. If you pick only red options or only blue options, you are rewarded with ability to influence world around you. In other words: you can roleplay. You should be able to do this all by yourself without following some ill-conceived gameplay mechanic.
Compare this to "The Witcher", RPG where authors do not make any judgments about morality. You should play it someday.
2. The system is misleading, punishing, mindless and confusing.

[Zulmoka531]

I don't think it'd be so much of an issue if persuade/intimidate checks weren't tied solely to paragon/renegade.

[Dave of Canada]

I'd think it would be fine if...
1) It remained consistent.
2) Renegades weren't punished with less cameos and stuff.
3) Renegades weren't forced to spend 75k resources to fix those damn scars.
4) Shouldn't tie Paragon/Renegade points to simplistic things.
5) If Paragons couldn't be hypocritical.

[PlumPaul93]

Dave of Canada wrote...

I'd think it would be fine if...
1) It remained consistent.
2) Renegades weren't punished with less cameos and stuff.
3) Renegades weren't forced to spend 75k resources to fix those damn scars.
4) Shouldn't tie Paragon/Renegade points to simplistic things.
5) If Paragons couldn't be hypocritical.

2)Thats what happens when you kill things...
3)I thought it was only 50K and I bought it anyway hoping It would fix garrus face if it makes you feel better .
Finally it's not to bad just sucks that it has to be real high to say some things. But ooh well. BTW I was just giving you a hard time

Modifié par PlumPaul82393, 29 mars 2011 - 07:43 .

[Dave of Canada]

PlumPaul82393 wrote...

2)Thats what happens when you kill things...

That shouldn't really stop cameos from showing up, though.

Spared Shiala? She shows up.
Killed Shiala? Liz shows up.

Spared the Rachni Queen? Queen talks to you.
Killed the Rachni Queen? Scientist from Noveria talks to you.

Anything that doesn't make the Renegade world feel hollow, it doesn't even have to make much sense. Could simply be somebody's wife being pissed off at you for killing her husband by destroying something.

Somebody who imported from ME1 into ME2 as a renegade shouldn't have recieved less content than the Paragon player, both of them went through the same quests and stuff. Leave the hollow blank world for the default players.

3)I thought it was only 50K

Could be, I thought it was 75k. Mm... I must ponder on this revelation.

and I bought it anyway hoping It would fix garrus face if it makes you feel better .

I buy it on all my characters to punish myself for playing Paragon, it's the only punishment the Paragons suffer.

BTW I was just giving you a hard time ../../../images/forum/emoticons/lol.png

/murderknife

Modifié par Dave of Canada, 29 mars 2011 - 07:49 .

[InvincibleHero]

Undertone wrote...

Jaesun999 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.
 

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

Oh really?  Thanks for notifying me that I made a choice Captain Obvious.

Not everyone sees it (and uses it) as an oppurtunity to get rid of the Council. I know I didn't the first time I used it. Considering Shepard saved the galaxy and won the battle of the Citadel through her action it's ludicrious everyone would hate her and not allow her to explain reasoning. Not to mention any military strategist would be able to see the gravity of the situation, so the turians should understand. After all as a Spectre she is doing what she should do.

And don't pull that stupid paragon argument - "Well you could have saved them and killed Sovereign, see paragon always wins" cause there was no way for you to know what would happen the first time you did this.

The system is flawed and that is evident.

It might not have been really obvious that letting the Council die would result in humanity as usurpers. You knew they were hungry and ready to pounce, but I don't think the others would have backed down as quickly. Yes they lost more than humanity, but would the alliance really have obliterated the Asari, Turians, and salarians. If they fought together certainly not.

However, regardless of your intentions Shepard is human and human hate from aliens is dominant. Anger knows no reason and boy these boards illustrate that.

Paragon does not always win. If you spare the asari female Eclipse merc, you find out you've been had. Disproves your always theory.

[T764]

It works well enough, I like the idea of the system (paragon's should get visual effect's too.) but i find it hard to follow just the one path for the whole game, i end up with a large number of the opposite points. I would like a third choice, a mediator or neutral response path. I can also only think of one mission in which i disagree with options.

[InvincibleHero]

Hah Yes Reapers wrote...

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.

Yeah it is a temptation many are quite willing to succumb to. I think hiding the red blue and mixing up placement and not having a big +16 paragon in blue text appear when you pick a blue option will go a long way towards people roleplaying vs. metagaming. If they have to check their totals after every action. Scratch that make ren and paragon totals hidden as well. I would love it. Do you truly know how you stand even with your friends?

I see lots of other posters hating the system but offering no suggestions. What just make it easier to make all checks? Boring. Have no system and just choose the text  with every option unlocked. Just have so many plot points since what you do and how you act will now be irrelevant. why would they offer multiple solutions if there is no ren\\para system.

[Dave666]

InvincibleHero wrote...

Hah Yes Reapers wrote...

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.

Yeah it is a temptation many are quite willing to succumb to. I think hiding the red blue and mixing up placement and not having a big +16 paragon in blue text appear when you pick a blue option will go a long way towards people roleplaying vs. metagaming. If they have to check their totals after every action. Scratch that make ren and paragon totals hidden as well. I would love it. Do you truly know how you stand even with your friends?

I see lots of other posters hating the system but offering no suggestions. What just make it easier to make all checks? Boring. Have no system and just choose the text  with every option unlocked. Just have so many plot points since what you do and how you act will now be irrelevant. why would they offer multiple solutions if there is no renpara system.

I've already offered an alternative, bring back the ME:1 style Charm and Intimidate skills.  If you want to be able to RP however you want spend points in it.  If not then you spend points in combat related skills.

[T764]

Dave666 wrote...

I've already offered an alternative, bring back the ME:1 style Charm and Intimidate skills.  If you want to be able to RP however you want spend points in it.  If not then you spend points in combat related skills.

In ME:1 don't you need to have acquired a set number of Paragon/Renagade points to be able to invest in charm and intimidate?

[Dave666]

T764 wrote...

Dave666 wrote...

I've already offered an alternative, bring back the ME:1 style Charm and Intimidate skills.  If you want to be able to RP however you want spend points in it.  If not then you spend points in combat related skills.

In ME:1 don't you need to have acquired a set number of Paragon/Renagade points to be able to invest in charm and intimidate?

Nope, there are two ways of increasing your Charm and Intimidate skills.

1:Spend skill points.

2:Gain Paragon or Renegade points, every time you reach a certain percentage you gain a point in Charm Or Intimidate. 25%, 50%, 75% and 100%.

[T764]

It's been some time since i paid attention to ME1. As i recall you start with the three unlocked, gain a free point in each one and unlock another three(?) when you become a Spectre,
do the blocks appear as you gain levels? I remember them only unlocking as you gain paragon/renegade points, you still have to invest points in them after that.

[Dave666]

T764 wrote...

It's been some time since i paid attention to ME1. As i recall you start with the three unlocked, gain a free point in each one and unlock another three(?) when you become a Spectre,
do the blocks appear as you gain levels? I remember them only unlocking as you gain paragon/renegade points, you still have to invest points in them after that.

First playthrough you start off at zero, then you gain 1 free in each when becoming a Spectre, then the rest at the percentage points.  Each playthrough you could get 4 free points in both (if you tried) and it took three playthroughs to max both without spending points.  In a way i wish that they hadn't gone the free points route, because if the only option had been to actually spend points then people would be used to the idea when ME:2 came along and it would have been easier to implement.  

The free points, did however encourage multiple playthroughs though.  What I used to do is on the first playthrough try to get 4 in both, second playthrough by the time you get to Lorric you have 5 in both and qualify for the infinite glitch so I did that first then had fun on the second playthrough to see what happens if I choose X rather than my usual Y.  Then on my third playthrough I play propperly and make all of my final decisions the way that I wanted too origionally.

[T764]

So if you gain them at paragon/renegade percentages aside from investing points into it how does it differ from the ME2 system?

[Dave666]

T764 wrote...

So if you gain them at paragon/renegade percentages aside from investing points into it how does it differ from the ME2 system?

Its different because Charm and Intimidate were effectively removed and replaced with just Paragon or Renegade, plus the fact that in ME:1 you could choose to spend points (in roleplaying terms think of it as Shepard working on his skills behind the scenes). In ME:1's system if you wanted to blast through the story while still doing everything then you could spend points and choose Charm, Intimidate or Neutral responses wherever you felt that it was appropriate.  In ME:2's system you can't do this.  Some options are greyed out if you don't choose consistently Paragon or Renegade choices then you are penalized later in the game.  Neutral options then become non-options because choosing a Neutral option means you lose out on both Paragon and Renegade points. It ends up where instead of using a Renegade response to a merc and a Paragon response to a Squaddie you have to stick to one side or the other.  How is this realistic?  Who is hostile to both friends and foes? Or nice to everyone including those trying to kill them?

And yet if you choose responses that you feel are appropriate, what happens?

Modifié par Dave666, 05 avril 2011 - 06:06 .

[CulturalGeekGirl]

T764 wrote...

So if you gain them at paragon/renegade percentages aside from investing points into it how does it differ from the ME2 system?

Well, you could be a total paragon and "invest" six points in badass, and still be able to make some intimidate checks if you needed. It was easier to play as a Paragade, because you just had to put a few points into Charm in order to get the good resolutions.

So issues like the "Help, my Miranda and Jack are fighting and my paragon option is grayed out because I've been playing Paragade" didn't happen. Basically it was easier to walk the line, and make up for it by investing a few points. (I always kept a handfull of unspent points, in case I came across a paragon option I liked and didn't have enough charm yet.)

[Dave666]

CulturalGeekGirl wrote...

T764 wrote...

So if you gain them at paragon/renegade percentages aside from investing points into it how does it differ from the ME2 system?

Well, you could be a total paragon and "invest" six points in badass, and still be able to make some intimidate checks if you needed. It was easier to play as a Paragade, because you just had to put a few points into Charm in order to get the good resolutions.

So issues like the "Help, my Miranda and Jack are fighting and my paragon option is grayed out because I've been playing Paragade" didn't happen. Basically it was easier to walk the line, and make up for it by investing a few points. (I always kept a handfull of unspent points, in case I came across a paragon option I liked and didn't have enough charm yet.)

Thanks CGG, thats probably a better way of describing it, I'm not exactly on form today. lol

[T764]

Right yeah i see (badly thought out comment on my side). It has just occurred to me that the ME2 system could be seen as more organic, the more you use charm/intimidate skills the better you become at them, it removes the abstraction of spending points on a skill you rarely apply in the world.
While i do not agree that the ME1 system is superior, i do agree that a system that gives you other ways to resolve issues is needed.

[CulturalGeekGirl]

T764 wrote...

Right yeah i see (badly thought out comment on my side). It has just occurred to me that the ME2 system could be seen as more organic, the more you use charm/intimidate skills the better you become at them, it removes the abstraction of spending points on a skill you rarely apply in the world.
While i do not agree that the ME1 system is superior, i do agree that a system that gives you other ways to resolve issues is needed.

I think a hybrid system is the best, especially because the "using charm more makes you better at charm" thing doesn't reflect ALL P/R choices.

Like... why should the fact that I stabbed a guy in the back who was trying to repair a gunship to shoot my friend make Miranda less likely to listen to me later? If nothing else, that Renegade action shows I care about my friends. Same thing with punching al-Jilani, or shooting out the gas pipe below that Krogan, or shooting that damn eclipse merc, or pinging that bot through Garrus's scope, or headbutting that Krogan, or killing that Asari after she was involved in unethical medcal experiments for the second time, or doing any of the Renegade interrupts that aren't about charm or intimidation, but are just about good tactial decisions that also happen to be totally badass. 

I play it pretty Paragon on my !cannon shep, but even she gets tempted sometimes. I end the game with a full+ Paragon bar and a 1/4 full Renegade bar, and I could got a bit further Renegade without feeling bad, but I'm worried about the crew-based infighting screwing me over if I do.

Now I'm willing to sacrifice something else gameplay wise in order to get away with my shades of grey playstyle, and I think a few extra skill points are one of the neatest, most balanced ways to do it. There are other possible ways, but most of them require creating new content, which I'm not opposed to, but which might not be the best use of resources.

Modifié par CulturalGeekGirl, 05 avril 2011 - 06:48 .