44 réponses à ce sujet

[Mister Mida]

It's too late to remove the P/R system from ME3. I tolerate the system in ME2. I prefer ME (1)'s version of P/R, even though it's not without flaws.

Modifié par Mister Mida, 08 avril 2011 - 07:18 .

[Vanaer]

I like the ME2 P/R system if it were tweaked a bit. Grey decisions should get split in Pp/2 and Rp/2. In other words, when you choose a Grey option it should add Renegade and Paragon points, but half of it to the Paragon and Renegade bar as one would have gotten if choosen a 'full paragon/renegade' choice.

It's quite logical in my opinion, as I see the paragon/renegade system as a sort of reputation system (and not a skill) - we know Shepard is charismatic - but based on his/her reputation people will actually buy his/her paragon or renegade speech. It would be hollow if Shepard did a paragon speech on peace with the Geth, when all Shepard had done was kill and being agressive. If you had choosen a moderate view, it can mix with your 'total' reputation, either as a Renegade or as a Paragon. It will prevent people from going full Paragon just to get all the Paragon options, while leaving the Renegade option disabled.

Adding a Moderate action (Moderate Persuasion should be added - Capacity to do so is Pp+Rp/2) would also greatly enhance this.

*Pp = Paragon points / Rp = Renegade points

Modifié par Vanaer, 08 avril 2011 - 09:32 .

[BlackEssence]

twisty77 wrote...

BlackEssence wrote...

I respectfully, but HIGHLY, disagree with you and the article.

The whole point of the paragon/renegade system, in MY OPINION, I want to make that clear to everyone who is reading what I am saying right now-IN MY OPINION-was to appeal to you emotionally when dealing with those on your ship and who you encounter. This is key when they allow YOU to be able to customize yourself so that you can put YOURSELF into the game. If having morality in a game is becoming a problem for gamers, then that  is something that I feel that is very, very disturbing. That tells me that the person(s) playing have no morals in real life as well.

<snip>

I am not put off by what you said at all. I am in fact a gamer that has very high personal moral standards. I very highly support a morality system in games; I just think that the Paragon/Renegade system needs to be redone or not be tied to the conversation options that you have available. I'm fine with the conversation options giving you P/R points.

One of the options that I saw in here, I really like. While your conversation choice will count towards one direction or the other, if you start to run along one line, then you will build a rep in that direction. I think I'm going to modify my opening statement and say that it shouldn't be removed, just modified. Sent back to ME1 status or something else.

I agree with that, Twisty! I am with you on that. It definitely needed a balance in there to seem a bit more...realistic. In ways, it was VERY realistic, but what I am saying is, there were times like during the scene where my Female shepard faced Kaidan again on Horizon and she had the option to tell him that she was out of it for two years which was why he hadn't heard from her.

Her response about "I was out of it or something." had to be the stupiest...I can go in on that all day, but the point is, it would take forever and month of Sunday's for them to tweak it in a way that certain responses gets you P/R points needed to advise certain situations. But, I agree with you most definitely. I sure do.

[Mr0TYuH]

I liked the way the system was in the first game. I agree with CulturalGeekGirl that the Paragon/Renegade system is probably the best morality system I've come across. While I like some of the innovations of ME2, such as the interrupts, I feel, in ME2, it devolved into more of the traditional good/evil system, with idealistic idiot Paragon and douche Renegade. I also didn't like linking the persuasion option with the % of potential Paragon and Renegade points. While it does allow persuasions early in the game that might not have otherwise been possible, it also encourages players to pick one morality and stick with it without any thought. I think if you have both the Paragon and Renegade bars three-quarters of the way full, you shouldn't be punished for roleplaying. Also, in ME2, the were a few choices where I think they inverted the Paragon and Renegade choices. The example I usually use is the decision about the Collector base. It should have been the Paragon decision to keep the base, because you were acquiescing to authority and idealistically hoping the benefits would outweigh the risks. It should have been Renegade to destroy the base, since you were ignoring orders to pragmatically avoid the risks involved in keeping active Reaper technology.

I do like the ideas about having different reactions to your actions from squadmates, instead of the cut and paste ones we got in ME2. Also, while I know they have the whole Shepard cult of personality, and I liked the ability to influence my squadmates, I also liked it in Baldur's Gate when squadmates would leave if they disagreed with your actions or would refuse to work with certain other people. I would like to be able to influence some or most of my crew, but I would like there to be certain issues about which there would be no compromise.

Finally, I would like more varying reaction from NPCs given your reputation, other than, "Hey, you're Shepard, you did X! The rest of the conversation from here on will be exactly the same.'

So, in conclusion, I like the P/R system, but I hope BioWare puts more thought into the decisions to make them more consistent and interesting. It has great potential, and, with some work, I think it could be really great.

[Dean_the_Young]

CulturalGeekGirl wrote...

Nathan Redgrave wrote...

I like the Paragon/Renegade system, except when trying to be a mix of the two has a negative impact on my gameplay for no apparent reason. When the game encourages you to be uber-consistent for the sake of always being able to use those Charm or Intimidate options, you start not wanted to mix up your moral choices depending on when you think it's morally okay to perform this or that Renegade/Paragon action. Thus a perfectly reasonable allows-for-shades-of-grey moral-choice system nudges you into black-or-white territory. This is the Paragon/Renegade system's main flaw.

Way to sum up my wall of text in a paragraph, jerk. Stupid concise people, getting their points accross succinctly.

Indeed. And had ME2 taken out just one particular context of Paragon/Renegade persuasion, ME2 would have been pretty much golden: the Loyalty Conflicts.

While the context of particular choices can be argued (in my view, the Paragon/Renegade option for Tali's trial was completely backwards), ME2 largely avoided Paragon/Renegade dependant options. There was never a case in which Paragon or Renegade were required in order to choose a Big Decision, and Paragon/Renegade persuades were always gravy. Even in the two most specific cases besides Loyalty that required a high check (Tali and Samara's LM), they weren't plot-altering: Morinth never supplanted Samara in terms of altering the plot (not least because Samara never promised, guaranteed, or offered anything after the SM), while Tali's end-level check was both (a) fluff, since keeping Tali from being exiled hasn't shown any signs of 'helping', and ( also achievable by certain persuasion-neutral choices (Veetor and Kal).

If it weren't for the Loyalty conflicts, the biggest changes lost out on would have been superficial, and only in one case would loyalty have been at stake. Otherwise, the Paragon/Renegade delimmas wouldn't have felt (as much) like punishments for failing.

Instead, however, the game had a strong and reoccuring focus on getting everyone loyal and 'focused' as the desirable achievement. While the character disputes were interesting, only being able to resolve them by persuasion meant that anyone who couldn't meet the requirements had 'failed' for the most part.

Had there been another means, or even had there been no cop-out at all, people would have accepted it and not worried so much about the other, overall, Para/Rena conflicts.

[Anacronian Stryx]

I vehemently despise the whole Paragon/Renegade system, Especially in ME2 - To me the system seems geared towards putting the wagon in front of the horse.

You don't get Paragon/Renegade points because of your actions, No you can DO actions because you have Paragon/Renegade points, So instead of being a curiosity relating as to how the galaxy sees you it instead becomes You the player.

You are not Shepard a guy/gal who sometimes do Paragon or Renegade actions, No instead you are a Paragon(or Renegade) named Shepard, Players feel pressured to do either one of the P/R actions because "That's" who they are, That's who they have been playing like so far and why deviate now?

ask : Why save the Rachni queen?

answer : Well my guy is Paragon that's why he saved her.

This ain't role playing, It's red/blue the choice books.

[jeweledleah]

speaking of paragon/renegade options, how come renegade speech you can give to Kalisah IF you killed the council is more paragon then actual paragon speech?

being restricted with persuasion checks is pretty significant. more so in ME2 then ME1. IMO. at least in ME1 you had separate meters for persuasion vs you paragon/renegade scores. sure alignment influence how far you could take those meters, but you still weren't As restricted in your options as you are in ME2 unless, you mod yourself into full bars (which is what I've been doing lately)

[Anacronian Stryx]

thurmanator692 wrote...

Anacronian Stryx wrote...

I vehemently despise the whole Paragon/Renegade system, Especially in ME2 - To me the system seems geared towards putting the wagon in front of the horse.

You don't get Paragon/Renegade points because of your actions, No you can DO actions because you have Paragon/Renegade points, So instead of being a curiosity relating as to how the galaxy sees you it instead becomes You the player.

You are not Shepard a guy/gal who sometimes do Paragon or Renegade actions, No instead you are a Paragon(or Renegade) named Shepard, Players feel pressured to do either one of the P/R actions because "That's" who they are, That's who they have been playing like so far and why deviate now?

ask : Why save the Rachni queen?

answer : Well my guy is Paragon that's why he saved her.

This ain't role playing, It's red/blue the choice books.

You aren't restricted from doing anything besides persuasion due to paragon and renegade. Its basically a speech check, if Shepard has a rep for being a brutal backstabber who stops at nothing to do his job, would people find them very charming? no

Some of the most violent persons in history has also been some of the most charming.

Let me say it like this : The way the system works i ME2 = On Garrus recruitment mission you have the option to blow the head of a mech, Those points gained by that little action have influence over weather or not you can talk down the argument between Legion and Tali, Two persons you probably haven't even got in your squad at that point.

As it is now the way the P/R points have influence over completely unrelated actions is what makes the whole system a Railroad - it quickly dawns on players that they have to do all the actions in one category or they will be punished for by not being able to preform the action they desire - hence - A Paragon or Renegade named Shepard instead of Shepard the Paragon/Renegade.

Modifié par Anacronian Stryx, 10 avril 2011 - 11:44 .

[Gyroscopic_Trout]

Personally, I think they should drop the charm/intimidate idea altogether and replace it with a system like they have in Dragon Age 2. There is no persuade skill in DA2, like there was in Origins; instead, you have certain options available to you in conversation dependent upon Hawk's personality, which is based upon which dialogue options you use most often. A 'good' Hawk can sometimes solve problems through negotiation; a 'witty' Hawk can lie or trick people; and an aggressive one can threaten. However, the situations where you can use these options are not the same. On my first play through, I got into a fight with some templars, and there was apparently no way out of it. On my second character I was sticking to mostly sarcastic dialogue and got an option to trick them all into buggering off and avoided the fight entirely.

That seems to me to be an effective way of doing paragon/renegade, and it also improves the replay value of the game, since you can't solve every situation with one or the other. In ME 1 & 2, charm/intimidate are pretty much interchangeable and often lead to exactly the same outcome. If both a paragon and renegade option were not available with every conversation, you might be more inclined to play again to see what you missed.

It also wouldn't hurt to make Paragade an official morality.

[Malanek]

twisty77 wrote...

BlackEssence wrote...

I respectfully, but HIGHLY, disagree with you and the article.

The whole point of the paragon/renegade system, in MY OPINION, I want to make that clear to everyone who is reading what I am saying right now-IN MY OPINION-was to appeal to you emotionally when dealing with those on your ship and who you encounter. This is key when they allow YOU to be able to customize yourself so that you can put YOURSELF into the game. If having morality in a game is becoming a problem for gamers, then that  is something that I feel that is very, very disturbing. That tells me that the person(s) playing have no morals in real life as well.

<snip>

I am not put off by what you said at all. I am in fact a gamer that has very high personal moral standards. I very highly support a morality system in games; I just think that the Paragon/Renegade system needs to be redone or not be tied to the conversation options that you have available. I'm fine with the conversation options giving you P/R points.

You can have strong morality themes in games without having a morality system. In fact they usually work better because they leave ambiguous grey areas up to the player to judge rather than a developer making a somewhat arbitrary decision.

I'm not suggesting they change this for ME3, paragon/renegade is too deeply entrenched. Mixing them up on the dialogue wheel is also not an option because the paraphrases are already too misleading. It is something I think they should move away from in the future.

[jeweledleah]

Gyroscopic_Trout wrote...

Personally, I think they should drop the charm/intimidate idea altogether and replace it with a system like they have in Dragon Age 2. There is no persuade skill in DA2, like there was in Origins; instead, you have certain options available to you in conversation dependent upon Hawk's personality, which is based upon which dialogue options you use most often. A 'good' Hawk can sometimes solve problems through negotiation; a 'witty' Hawk can lie or trick people; and an aggressive one can threaten. However, the situations where you can use these options are not the same. On my first play through, I got into a fight with some templars, and there was apparently no way out of it. On my second character I was sticking to mostly sarcastic dialogue and got an option to trick them all into buggering off and avoided the fight entirely.

That seems to me to be an effective way of doing paragon/renegade, and it also improves the replay value of the game, since you can't solve every situation with one or the other. In ME 1 & 2, charm/intimidate are pretty much interchangeable and often lead to exactly the same outcome. If both a paragon and renegade option were not available with every conversation, you might be more inclined to play again to see what you missed.

It also wouldn't hurt to make Paragade an official morality.

this is exactly how paragon/renegade works.  you stick to certain path and you get to use that path to solve problems.  the reason why I liked DAO system (and ME1 system)  is becasue my paragon/renegade aproval/disaproval scores didn't affect whether I could persuade someone... or threaten.. often on the same character.  my actions would affect the p/r a/d scores, yes and open or close certain dialogue options, but at the same time, my role playing possibilities weren't as limited.  I could in essence truly be a paragade. 

it doesn't need to be official morality either.  my biggest problem with having these polarising moralities is that they basicaly end up limiting you to 3 characters, 3 personality profiles. 

[Gyroscopic_Trout]

jeweledleah wrote...

this is exactly how paragon/renegade works.  you stick to certain path and you get to use that path to solve problems.  the reason why I liked DAO system (and ME1 system)  is becasue my paragon/renegade aproval/disaproval scores didn't affect whether I could persuade someone... or threaten.. often on the same character.  my actions would affect the p/r a/d scores, yes and open or close certain dialogue options, but at the same time, my role playing possibilities weren't as limited.  I could in essence truly be a paragade. 

it doesn't need to be official morality either.  my biggest problem with having these polarising moralities is that they basicaly end up limiting you to 3 characters, 3 personality profiles. 

Not exactly.  In Mass Effect, you can have points in both paragon and renegade, and will have paragon and renegade options for every influence check in the game.  Paragon/renegade interrupts aside, there are no charm checks that do not also give you the alternative of using intimidate instead.  Sure the option may be greyed out because you don't have enough points, but the option is still there.  Also, if you're importing a character from ME1, or playing new game+, it's quite easy to have respectable scores in both and thus having both options active.

In DA2, people will usually only respond to one option, and if you don't have it, then you're out of luck.  A particular conversation may allow you to intimidate, but not trick someone, no matter how witty you are.  I thought it was a neat little mechanic, even if it didn't pop up as often as I'd like.

[gosimmons]

I agree that at some points having to use renegade reaction when you're a renegade character can maintain some consistency, (you shouldn't necesarrily get the option to apologize to a guy after going out of your way to ruin his life) but there's the whole thing about how we interpret our different decisions.
Like, say I get renegade points for supporting the genophage to prevent a war like the Krogan rebellions. That doesn't mean I'm going to mouth off to my crew or threaten civilians. This can make you lose balance when you have to stick to one set of options, so you might lose the best ending just for seeing Paragon as the right choice for one decision and Renegade for another. Isn't one of the themes of Mass Effect that the world isn't black and white?

I recall how Yatzee put it. 

"Late in the game, persuasion options pretty much need all Paragon or all Renegade, which messes up the roleplaying a bit. When you're choosing whether to free a race of slaves or force them to strip off and dance about while you take photographs, you're not thinking, "What would I do in this situation?" You're thinking, "Which option gives me the best d*ck points, because I need them to persuade Crewman A to take her top off."

Modifié par gosimmons, 11 avril 2011 - 02:28 .

[ISpeakTheTruth]

The only thing I want them to get rid of is the Paragon/Renagade check where you can only say something or reason with someone if you have enough points in said area. I don't want to be a Paragon drone just so I can keep Miranda and Jack loyal.

[royal22eric]

thurmanator692 wrote...


In this way, it makes sense to pentalize persuasion options, if somebody was space jesus, would you expect them to go through with threats? if somebody was brutal, would you trust them not to kill you?

im sorry but thats just stupid! so what you say is that shepard can only be a saint or a **** ! thats why this system is a fail in many way!

1- shepard is a soldier ! not a saint or a devil . so in my head it seem pretty stupid to put that kind of restriction on how he behave . i mean isnt normal that a man/women would be nice to some peoples and a **** to other??? but no if you want to kill a murderer it punish you at the 3/4 of game because you didnt chose paragon all the way (or Renagade)

2- there is nothing less realistic or roleplaying than forcing peps in 1 way or the other! + check shepard background and tell me that this guy have been all the way from earth street to specter by being always a jesus type or a psychopath??? the alliance hire psychopath or priest to be the humanity military face ???? this is a god/evil system not a morality system!
i mean this is NOT A BAD system but they should make it less 1 way pick a side and stick with it (more realistic in other word) or at least let you keep your point in the NG+ so you can have fun . but the way it is its chose your side a the beginning and stick with it the do a NG+ and pick the other side! that its not a roleplaying system! a good roleplaying system would be to make you think if this guy worth to be patient and make him understand or that he is not the kind of man you want to sympathize and you just punch him and make him talk!

3- for all those who say that its a be consistent thing ! wrong! if you are defending the helpless agains the bad guy then you team up with 1 of the bad guy or take a decision that put innocent life in danger because its what the blue txt say then there is nothing consistent in this!

Modifié par royal22eric, 28 août 2013 - 04:44 .

[MassivelyEffective0730]

Holy 2 Year Necro!