103 réponses à ce sujet

[Phaedon]

 It is.

Let me explain why. Character attributes have passed on to CRPGs from D&D style board games.
They did have a real purpose back then. Imagine being stuck in a corner, by three gigantic trolls. The GM asks you what your next move will be. A somewhat intelligent player could just say "I convince them to let me go, L O L!". Think about it, as much as gamebreaking the response is, it's valid, within the rules.

How do we know that you would be able to do that? 
Now, as we all know, in most WRPGs, you play as your own character, not a pre-determined one. In CRPGs, you are usually (as in, in all games other than Facade) you can only choose from a limited amount of options. Considering that you can't 'god-mod', why do we need a character attribute to limit our roleplaying? This is something I don't understand for all RPGs.

Don't get me wrong.
I am not defending the paragon/renegade attribute. In both systems, you are assigning (directly or not) points to a stat that determines to an extent your roleplaying. I don't see the point in neither.

What I suggest?
Complete freedom over dialogue choice. But make choosing the right options more difficult. No, don't turn this into an interrogation game, but don't have all of the options being valid all of the time.

As for the effect of morality points?
Shepard's appearance, auto-banter (like LotSB) and NPC reactions.

[CroGamer002]

[Phaedon]

Oh, and I chose I/C instead of P/R in the title, because that seems to be more popular.

Both systems are just as flawed, imo.

Modifié par Phaedon, 05 mai 2011 - 07:04 .

[Pepper4]

Agreed.

[Galad22]

Is it coming back then?

This is good thing if it is. So i fully disagree with op.

[Phaedon]

No, it hasn't been confirmed.

And please explain.

[Skyblade012]

Complete freedom over dialogue choice. But make choosing the right options more difficult. No, don't turn this into an interrogation game, but don't have all of the options being valid all of the time.

Ok, and what exactly are the mechanics you suggest for this? This is the entire purpose of both systems. Both systems have had faults, but you need to do more than just point them out. Give an example of how your new system would work, how it would be implemented. All you have said is "make it restrictive and difficult, but not so much that it becomes the focus of the game". It's really easy to do a broad summary of what you want, it is much harder to translate that into a working game mechanic.

[Phaedon]

Skyblade012 wrote...

Complete freedom over dialogue choice. But make choosing the right options more difficult. No, don't turn this into an interrogation game, but don't have all of the options being valid all of the time.

Ok, and what exactly are the mechanics you suggest for this? This is the entire purpose of both systems. Both systems have had faults, but you need to do more than just point them out. Give an example of how your new system would work, how it would be implemented. All you have said is "make it restrictive and difficult, but not so much that it becomes the focus of the game". It's really easy to do a broad summary of what you want, it is much harder to translate that into a working game mechanic.

I think I explain what I mean in the OP.

You can choose ALL options. It's just that in some particular characters, not all work.
Miranda, for example, would be impressed if you went with the intellectual dialogue choice, but would disapprove if you went with the suave dialogue choice. 

Or, the turian councilor, would be motivated to help you if you told him that Palaven is endangered, but not if you tell him that Earth is endangered.

[Black Raptor]

Phaedon wrote...

Skyblade012 wrote...

Complete freedom over dialogue choice. But make choosing the right options more difficult. No, don't turn this into an interrogation game, but don't have all of the options being valid all of the time.

Ok, and what exactly are the mechanics you suggest for this? This is the entire purpose of both systems. Both systems have had faults, but you need to do more than just point them out. Give an example of how your new system would work, how it would be implemented. All you have said is "make it restrictive and difficult, but not so much that it becomes the focus of the game". It's really easy to do a broad summary of what you want, it is much harder to translate that into a working game mechanic.

I think I explain what I mean in the OP.

You can choose ALL options. It's just that in some particular characters, not all work.
Miranda, for example, would be impressed if you went with the intellectual dialogue choice, but would disapprove if you went with the suave dialogue choice. 

Or, the turian councilor, would be motivated to help you if you told him that Palaven is endangered, but not if you tell him that Earth is endangered.

Basically all dialogue should be like the one where you are trying to convince Morinth back to her apartment but without the answers being so obvious. 

[Phaedon]

Black Raptor wrote...
Basically all dialogue should be like the one where you are trying to convince Morinth back to her apartment but without the answers being so obvious. 

Pretty much, yes.

[Da Mecca]

I can't say I agree man.

Part of role playing is choosing what abilities to upgrade to better define your character, not everyone is a smooth talker, and not everyone will be able to smooth talk themselves out of situations.

[Galad22]

I just like the game to have non-combat stats that are meaningful.

Fallout: New Vegas has speech. It is very useful in the game but not necessary to complete game, if you increase it you can put less points in combat skills. You can for instance completely talk yourself out of final fight if you have high enough speech.

Something similar to that would be excellent. It is essential that rpgs have other ways to progress than combat. Why not use skills for those options too.

Modifié par Galad22, 05 mai 2011 - 07:18 .

[Da Mecca]

Phaedon wrote...

Black Raptor wrote...
Basically all dialogue should be like the one where you are trying to convince Morinth back to her apartment but without the answers being so obvious. 

Pretty much, yes.

Okay, I see what your saying now.

I like that.

But you would need more than the typical three answer ME system for this to be satisfactory.

Modifié par Da Mecca, 05 mai 2011 - 07:18 .

[Phaedon]

Da Mecca wrote...

I can't say I agree man.

Part of role playing is choosing what abilities to upgrade to better define your character, not everyone is a smooth talker, and not everyone will be able to smooth talk themselves out of situations.

Part of role-playing is to role-play.

You create your own character, because you are the character. In WRPGs, at least.

[Da Mecca]

Phaedon wrote...

Da Mecca wrote...

I can't say I agree man.

Part of role playing is choosing what abilities to upgrade to better define your character, not everyone is a smooth talker, and not everyone will be able to smooth talk themselves out of situations.

Part of role-playing is to role-play.

You create your own character, because you are the character. In WRPGs, at least.

And that's one way to do it. The fact is not everyone should be able to talk their way out of situations just because.

In an ideal world, your dialogue options would be effected by your background, your class, your relationship with the characters and your reputation in whatever area you are in.

Thatt's the only proper way to do what you are suggesting.

[Phaedon]

Da Mecca wrote...
And that's one way to do it. The fact is not everyone should be able to talk their way out of situations just because.

In an ideal world, your dialogue options would be effected by your background, your class, your relationship with the characters and your reputation in whatever area you are in.

That sounds like the exact opposite of role-playing, sorry.
The player can make decisions considering their past history, but they game shouldn't restrict them and force them to do so.

Thatt's the only proper way to do what you are suggesting.

Obviously, the difficulty wouldn't be high enough for everyone to need to be a smooth talker. At least in most cases.

[Da Mecca]

Well not everyone should be able to do anything just because.

Roleplaying has restrictions because you are playing a role, your aren't the whole cast.

That's why choices matter so much in RPGs, not everyone should be experiencing the same thing, the experience is supposed to be unique for each player depending on the role they choose to play.

[Ahriman]

Phaedon wrote...

Black Raptor wrote...
Basically all dialogue should be like the one where you are trying to convince Morinth back to her apartment but without the answers being so obvious. 

Pretty much, yes.

That's good thing sometimes, but then it will become "save-load until win scenarion". When you choose [persuade] option you expect Shepard will try to convince someone. When you choose "wanna cake?" and then realize that this person likes cheez it may be tiresome sometimes. BTW I don't want persuation to be win-button, it must fail sometime, Shepard isn't God after all.

Modifié par Wizz, 05 mai 2011 - 07:30 .

[Dr. rotinaj]

Phaedon wrote...

Da Mecca wrote...
And that's one way to do it. The fact is not everyone should be able to talk their way out of situations just because.

In an ideal world, your dialogue options would be effected by your background, your class, your relationship with the characters and your reputation in whatever area you are in.

That sounds like the exact opposite of role-playing, sorry.
The player can make decisions considering their past history, but they game shouldn't restrict them and force them to do so.

  To me that is the exact definition of a role playing game. A player creates a personality and set of skills based around the character's background, class, etc. and the gameplay elements/stats are meant to reflect that.

  For example: In some of the ME backgrounds it makes more sense for Shepard to be diplomatic and paragon, so during the game the player will invest more in the Charm skill. Where as another Shepard should be a more shoot-first-talk-later type and invest in weapon/power skills.

  The current system is a mess that not only removes an element of  roleplaying, it encourages meta-gaming.
I would much rather have ME1's persuasion system over ME2's.
 

Modifié par Dr. rotinaj, 05 mai 2011 - 07:40 .

[Phaedon]

Da Mecca wrote...

Well not everyone should be able to do anything just because.

Roleplaying has restrictions because you are playing a role, your aren't the whole cast.

That's why choices matter so much in RPGs, not everyone should be experiencing the same thing, the experience is supposed to be unique for each player depending on the role they choose to play.

Well, the players are the protagonist.

epending on the role they choose to play.

And? I don't see how restrictions help.

Wizz wrote...
That's good thing sometimes, but then it will become "save-load until win scenarion". When you choose [persuade] option you expect Shepard will try to convince someone. When you choose "wanna cake?" and then realize that this person likes cheez it may be tiresome sometimes. BTW I don't want persuation to be win-button, it must fail sometime, Shepard isn't God after all.

While they shouldn't be too difficult, I think that just missing an option shouldn't mean losing the conversation.  

[Phaedon]

Dr. rotinaj wrote...

Phaedon wrote...

Da Mecca wrote...
And that's one way to do it. The fact is not everyone should be able to talk their way out of situations just because.

In an ideal world, your dialogue options would be effected by your background, your class, your relationship with the characters and your reputation in whatever area you are in.

That sounds like the exact opposite of role-playing, sorry.
The player can make decisions considering their past history, but they game shouldn't restrict them and force them to do so.

  To me that is the exact definition of a role playing game. A player creates a personality and set of skills based around the character's background, class, etc. and the gameplay elements and stats are meant to reflect the character's personality.

  For example: In some of the ME backgrounds it makes more sense for Shepard to be diplomatic and paragon, so during the game the player will invest more in the Charm skill. Where as another Shepard should be a more shoot first talk later type and invest in weapon/power skills.

  The current system is a mess that not only removes an element of  roleplaying, it encourages meta-gaming.
I would much rather have ME1's persuasion system over ME2's.
 

But metagaming in RPGs, is impossible!
That's the point. Every decision adds a new facet to your character. The character isn't established for you, you create it while in the rp-ing process. This is not a JRPG.

To role-play means to play a role, while dialogue stats don't restrict you, they only allow you to play specific roles. You can only be renegade and paragon Shepard, but you can't be "Shepard who likes all races but the krogan".

Modifié par Phaedon, 05 mai 2011 - 07:42 .

[Da Mecca]

Well losing the conversation would be a consequence of you choice.

We shouldn't be afraid of consequences if we want choices.

To want choices with no consequences defeats the purpose of it.

[Phaedon]

Da Mecca wrote...

Well losing the conversation would be a consequence of you choice.

We shouldn't be afraid of consequences if we want choices.

To want choices with no consequences defeats the purpose of it.

Well, it's one thing to not lose the conversation and another to have consequences.

If you pick a wrong choice, the other person will get progressively suspicious, or in extreme cases it could ask you to leave, for example, but you can still try picking the right choice at that point to win them over.

I remember a Law and Order game that did that.

Modifié par Phaedon, 05 mai 2011 - 07:46 .

[Elvis_Mazur]

Why can't we simply have a system equal to that of DA:O?

I know just because it worked there doesn't mean it will also work in Mass Effect, but I see no reason as to why it wouldn't work.

And I know that probably means ignoring the renegade/ paragon points that one would carry on to Mass Effect 3.

[Da Mecca]

Phaedon wrote...

Dr. rotinaj wrote...

Phaedon wrote...

Da Mecca wrote...
And that's one way to do it. The fact is not everyone should be able to talk their way out of situations just because.

In an ideal world, your dialogue options would be effected by your background, your class, your relationship with the characters and your reputation in whatever area you are in.

That sounds like the exact opposite of role-playing, sorry.
The player can make decisions considering their past history, but they game shouldn't restrict them and force them to do so.

  To me that is the exact definition of a role playing game. A player creates a personality and set of skills based around the character's background, class, etc. and the gameplay elements and stats are meant to reflect the character's personality.

  For example: In some of the ME backgrounds it makes more sense for Shepard to be diplomatic and paragon, so during the game the player will invest more in the Charm skill. Where as another Shepard should be a more shoot first talk later type and invest in weapon/power skills.

  The current system is a mess that not only removes an element of  roleplaying, it encourages meta-gaming.
I would much rather have ME1's persuasion system over ME2's.
 

But metagaming in RPGs, is impossible!
That's the point.

To role-play means to play a role, while dialogue stats don't restrict you, they only allow you to play specific roles. You can only be renegade and paragon Shepard, but you can't be "Shepard who likes all races but the krogan".

Now that I agree with.

ME suffers from trinity morality syndrome.

There's Paragon, Neutral, and Renegade. No in between and no different extremes.

It would be nice to have more dialogue options.