103 réponses à ce sujet

[Da Mecca]

Phaedon wrote...

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.

Deus Ex: HR supposedly has something like that.

It would work well in ME.

[Big stupid jellyfish]

Ok, I clicked on this thread in terror thinking that Phaedon is completely wrong but after reading the first post --

Phaedon's idea > c/i > p/r

Speaking of dialogues, I believe there should be some class/background-specific dialogue options here and there. I'm also not against some options' availability being based on your high p/r score but only if they are rare and are spicing things up instead of granting you a win outcome in an otherwise no-win situation.

[Sentox6]

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.

He has a valid point. By giving a character persistent and unfettered access to all dialogue options, including the ones that lead to optimal outcomes, it's implicitly saying that they are a "smooth talker", so to speak. Diplomatic speech is a skill.

If we're going to go with the "you are the character" reasoning, all our Shepards should die at the first engagement due to zero combat experience.

The speech skill (when done right) forces you to make a choice between a more combat proficient character and one that can find alternative resolutions, and is one of the better RPG standbys in my opinion. This almost certainly won't happen for ME3 though, given the current trends, so I'm not sure why you're bothering with your post.

Modifié par Sentox6, 05 mai 2011 - 07:50 .

[Phaedon]

@DaMecca
Interesting, I didn't know that, thanks for the information.

Modifié par Phaedon, 05 mai 2011 - 07:50 .

[Da Mecca]

PetrySilva wrote...

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.

Frankly, I don't like the system anyway.

Too polarizing and makes for unnecessary labeling.

There should be no morality system, your morals should be your own.

DA:O did this well.

[Phaedon]

Sentox6 wrote...
He has a valid point. By giving a character persistent and unfettered access to all dialogue options, including the ones that lead to optimal outcomes, it's implicitly saying that they are a "smooth talker", so to speak. Diplomatic speech is a skill.

If we're going to go with the "you are the character" reasoning, all our Shepards should die at the first engagement due to zero combat experience.

If you don't have an shooter experience, you do. 

The speech skill (when done right) forces you to make a choice between a more combat proficient character and one that can find alternative resolutions, and is one of the better RPG standbys in my opinion. This almost certainly won't happen for ME3 though, given the current trends, so I'm not sure why you're bothering with your post.

You mean that the speech skill won't return?
Maybe, but the fanbase likes it, and I don't see the point.
Sure, it's better than the p/r system.  But other than that?

Modifié par Phaedon, 05 mai 2011 - 07:52 .

[Ahriman]

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

Not sure if you get my point. Anyway these system shoudn't exclude each over. Persuation in dialog is like breaking a door instead of using key. The only difference that you use charisma instead of brute force. Perfect variant is when you can search necessary information/artifacts/whatever and may be sure that it will work or you can try persuation with chance of failure.

[Dr. rotinaj]

Phaedon wrote...

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".

Dialogue stats (and all other stats) are not restrictions. They reinforce your character's personality, skills and flaws. Being unable to pass a speech check is the result of the developement of your character, the choice you made the level up screen. These choices are just as  important to the role as conversation choices. 

[Sentox6]

Phaedon wrote...
If you don't have an shooter experience, you do. 

Touche

You mean that the speech skill won't return?
Maybe, but the fanbase likes it, and I don't see the point.
Sure, it's better than the p/r system.  But other than that?

I just don't see BioWare returning to a mechanic that's so very... well, RPGish. I really do like it, personally; it's a simple but effective method of requiring the player to decide what type of character they want to develop.

As you say, it's certainly better than the P/R system, which essentially restricts players to being effective in only on response style.

I see some merit in your idea, but I suspect it's too much of a paradigm shift for BioWare.

Phaedon wrote...
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".

Yes, but, it's not really dialogue stats that cause this binary restriction, it's BioWare's morality system.

Modifié par Sentox6, 05 mai 2011 - 08:04 .

[Shadowrun1177]

Phaedon wrote...

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.

From this statement (the bolded part) it sounds like you want a dialog system similar to Alpha Protocol which I really couldn't stand cause it felt constrained to me. That's as bad as the guy asking for a timed response like Alpha Protocol which I couldn't stand either.

[Paul Sedgmore]

Phaedon wrote...
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.

Sounds like you want something along the lines of Alpha Protocols conversation system, where you need to know the persons character well to get the best respose from them. While this can work well when done properly I think it would be too much of a departure for the final game in the trilogy to use I wouldn't be against it for a new game in the franchise

[sevach]

I like this idea a lot.
Over the first 2 games the Charm/Intimdate options have been big "get out of jail free cards", an easy way out of problems, if you had the option lighted up you knew that picking it would take you to best possible ending of that situaton, everything turns out fine.

The idea would be to have the options always available, but not always solving your problems, not having enough persuade points didn't blank out the option of trying to on other RPGs, you still could try persuading someone, you would just get laughed on your face/****** people off for making such a ludicrous sugestion.

Try to intimidate (who's not susceptible to intimdation) someone? they call your bluff, big fight errupts.
Same for charm.

[Da Mecca]

The problem with Bioware games, is that there is no risk/reward system for speech options.

They should not work 100% of the time.

[Autoclave]

The problem of RPG non-combat skills is that a lot of them don't psychologically reward the player when he invests skill points in them. When you get this extra better aiming, you get to actively use it and feel the difference, the advantage in combat.

Non-combat skills like persuasion don't psychologically reward me so well when I get to convince somebody. If however I lack persuasion, it causes a lot of frustration when that dialog tree is closed for me.

In short:
Combat skills: Feels bad when you don't have them, feels great when you get them.
Non-Combat Skills: Feels horrible when you don't have them, feels NOTHING when you have them.

This is why I hate this aspect of RPGs. I like the way ME2 went, and I am OK with the direction ME3 takes.

I shall never forget how frustrating were the citadel levels in ME1, when I had to give up on combat and invest into paragon/renegade just to able to complete some quests and get experience.

GOOD RIDDANCE.

[Da Mecca]

Nothing when you have them?

How do you feel nothing from making Saren see the error of his ways and finally persuading him into one last act of heroism?

I totally disagree.

[AK404]

 One thing I missed from ME1 was that Charm/Intimidate actually had a small effect on your combat stats.

A small one, but there it was.

One thing I hated about ME2 was that even as a Paragon, there were certain Renegade options that I would have taken like a shot, given half the chance.

Modifié par AK404, 05 mai 2011 - 08:27 .

[didymos1120]

AK404 wrote...

 One thing I missed from ME1 was that Charm/Intimidate actually had a small effect on your combat stats.

A small one, but there it was.

Huh? No they didn't. They unlocked dialogue options and at certain levels, they'd affect the prices at stores (Charm got you discounts. Intimidate got you more when selling). 

[ReallyRue]

I agree, I like the idea of almost anything that allows for more options and variety. I liked the dialogue wheel during Samara's mission (when talking to Morinth) for that very reason. Even if the correct options had already been handed to us on a plate. It's more interesting than a 'nice person pick this'/'rude person pick this' option.

[naledgeborn]

I'd like a more streamlined version of ME1's system. Maybe combining charm/intimidate into 1 skill and your proficiency in negotiation is tied to the amount of points dumped into it. Both blue/red options get highlighted depending on the difficulty of the check and points invested in the "negotiation skill".

The Paragon/Renegade system of ME2 breaks roleplaying unless you import a Paragade from ME1.

[naledgeborn]

didymos1120 wrote...

AK404 wrote...

 One thing I missed from ME1 was that Charm/Intimidate actually had a small effect on your combat stats.

A small one, but there it was.

Huh? No they didn't. They unlocked dialogue options and at certain levels, they'd affect the prices at stores (Charm got you discounts. Intimidate got you more when selling). 

I think he's mixing the morality points with charm/intimidate. If your Renegade score is high Shepard does more weapon damage. If Paragon, Shep heals quicker.

Modifié par naledgeborn, 05 mai 2011 - 08:48 .

[Dragoonlordz]

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.

That is a worse system as far as I am concerned. Instead of having attributes that can 'change' the outcome of those choices you pick in dialogue you instead have a set in stone reply for each answer based off pre-set personality of the NPC. This adds nothing to the game in fact I would say removes something which if was real would have an effect when communicating with someone.

Say you go upto someone two different times and say the same thing the way it worked with renegade and paragon is like asking the same question either aggressively or peacefully, the person being asked much like normal people would react differently to someone being aggressive towards them or gentle. There is one major above all else flaw with this being that takes time to build up those renegade or paragon points to level high enough to effect change in response. This annoyed me big time in ME2.

Even DA2 the system is flawed for two reasons, first being paraphrased really blady and what was picked was hardly ever what was said and in some cases wasn't even in the same ball park as what was picked. Secondley just like ME2 P/R system the DA2 system again took time to lock in personality persona.

Your system is worse (imho) because it removes any tone or change in the manner to which you talk to people or they respond, it's set in stone regardless based off pre-set personality of the NPC and companions.

I prefer first person style silent and fantasy type dialogue because I generally prefer first persona style RPing, however since ME has always been third person style RP with VO I am fully happy to keep it that way and don't see a desire to change it for this series, it is; what it has always been in otherwords I expected no different so was not disappointed and don't mind it having the wheel and emotion or P/R system. The biggest problem is both VO systems R/P and DA2 version E/S (emotion system I call it) suffer from the same bad aspect of time takes to build up points to effect change and/or lock in the persona which changes reactions.

Modifié par Dragoonlordz, 05 mai 2011 - 08:55 .

[Chuvvy]

I hate being shoe horned into the Paragon/Renegade. I think there should be one dialog, option or a series of options (Maybe more would equal a hire check replacing the hire Para/Ren score?) that will defuse a situation. Not one magical "I solved everything" button. The dialog options wouldn't be obvious, obviously. Different ones would work on different people. Not always top left/bottom left.

Modifié par Slidell505, 05 mai 2011 - 08:57 .

[Haventh]

OP, I couldn't have said it better myself (seriously, there is no way i could).  *thumbs up* 

Modifié par Haventh, 05 mai 2011 - 09:04 .

[Aumata]

Rather have a system with charm and intimidation or something similar towards Dragon Age 2 than the system in ME2. I like playing as a intimidating paragon, or a charming Renegade.

[Dragoonlordz]

In essence your system wont work.

a) You want all options open to pick.

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.

But want something that affects what options show.

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

It does not work I think personally.

Now if you remove the second part of being locked out of options via personality types of NPCs and companions it might work because you wouldn't have to replace with a reaction or emotion system to comphensate. In the end result being a VO version of DAO system. All options no limitations based on NPC or companion personalities but with VO added.

Modifié par Dragoonlordz, 05 mai 2011 - 09:19 .