103 réponses à ce sujet

[mjh417]

Even as someone who prior to reading this thread championed the return of the Charm/Intimidate mechanic from ME1 because I hated the use of the paragon/rengade point system in ME2, I think I can really get behind what Phaedon is suggesting, to an extent at least. I think the solution is to keep the basic ME dialogue framework intact as is. You have the wheel and you can choose Paragon, Neutral, or Renegade responses on the wheel or investigate. Choosing a Paragon or Renegade option earns you the related points.These points however, rather than controlling your ability to select a charm or intimidate option in the dialogue wheel would instead dictate the tone in which one's convincing options would take. There would be no need for individual charm or intimidate points in this system. Convincing a character would work like Phaedon suggested and have a right or a wrong direction in a branching dialoge tree based on the disposition and personality of the NPC being adressed, but the tone and actual dialogue spoken by Shepard in either path would be dictated by whether one has more Paragon or Rengade points. Essentially the actual number of points doesn't matter, only their balance, and in either case it merely only dictates Shepard's manner of convincing, not whether the subject wil or won't be convinced.

[didymos1120]

naledgeborn wrote...
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.

Oh. That.  It was actually more complicated: Paragon at 25% dropped First Aid cooldown by 10%. 50% got you an extra 10% health.  At 75%, all powers cooled down 5% faster.  Renegade at 25% dropped weapon power cooldowns by 10%. At 50%, you got 1 health per second regen. At 75%, you got 5% more damage/duration for everything.

[didymos1120]

ReallyRue wrote...
 Even if the correct options had already been handed to us on a plate.

Those aren't really the correct options.  You can explore her dialogue tree and find other ways to get her interested in you.  You can even get away with outright annoying her up to, I think, two times and still make a recovery.

[Dragoonlordz]

mjh417 wrote...
You have the wheel and you can choose Paragon, Neutral, or Renegade responses on the wheel or investigate.
 Choosing a Paragon or Renegade option earns you the related points.

So same as P/R and E/S to being with allocating a value or point to one side or another.

These points however, in the dialogue wheel would dictate the tone in which one's convincing options would take.

 
Same as DA2 E/S system then where you can choose your options based on tone and later one when persona locked in by adding enough of those points you mentioned it changes the the way dialogue plays out.

Convincing a character would have a right or a wrong direction in a dialoge tree based on personality of the NPC, the tone and actual dialogue spoken by Shepard would be whether one has more Paragon or Rengade points.

The NPCs persona will never change though so it's set in stone you will always get same response only varying depening on whether what your tone or points have sided mostly with P/R or E/S. You even said yourself this would be like using P/R above and it's true it's the same since the NPC personality does not change.

Essentially the actual number of points doesn't matter, only their balance, and in either case it merely only dictates Shepard's manner of convincing, not whether the subject wil or won't be convinced.

This is different from P/R in that those require (x) amount in one side or the other but I think your saying even if have just one point in P and zero in R then if picked a response using P would give you an NPC reaction which R would not. This I approve of but at the same time dislike.. I'll explain.

You wont have to wait for persona to be present (locked in or above (x) amount in one or other) and effect reactions. But same time it locks out dialogue choices because its a one way or another not an option of both.

Modifié par Dragoonlordz, 05 mai 2011 - 09:44 .

[Praetor Knight]

For ME3, I'd really like there to be a system that could use a pass/fail check with coercion attempts (the red and blue dialogue options).

I understand that having a pass/fail check with attempts would mean more work involved in writing dialogue and recording it, but on further consideration maybe not that much.

I figure that the best way to keep consistency between the three games is to have the pass/fail checks of the attempts based on the Paragon / Renegade scores (since it's number crunching, it seems possible). To me, the Paragon / Renegade bars feel like Shep's reputation to others; and using those numbers would make the pass/fail check easier to handle for the engine, and not too much changes with how dialogue has been handled before.

ME1 and ME2 already seems to have something related, that when you did not pass the check the red and blue options were grayed out, so including a pass/fail check seems doable if would not burden the story.
 
But again, with the capacity to do pass/fail checks with either red and blue dialogue options, the burden goes to recording more dialogue "sound bites" for the possible permutations.


tl;dr

So instead of having the blue and/or red dialogue option grayed out/ inaccessible, have all possible dialogue options available but using coercion can fail based on your reputation (the Paragon/Renegade scores).

Then with more diverging paths in the progression of conversations in ME3, dialogue would feel more dynamic and in the player's control; and that would be awesome IMHO.
Edit: trying to clean up my babbling

Modifié par Praetor Shepard, 05 mai 2011 - 10:09 .

[Anacronian Stryx]

I pretty much think that despite all it flaws Alpha Protocol had the perfect dialogue system (minus the timer), Conversations just flowed better by taking stances instead of choosing every single line of dialogue and in the end the AP system was just as responsive and informative as the ME system.

[Ahglock]

I like some of Phaedon's ideas, but I see no reason not to have a skill. I'd want is something like this.

1. All conversation options are open.
2. Success if in part determined by a persuasion skill.
3. Modifiers are in place for each character making certain dialog choices easier to pull off. Kind of like how SMGs are good against shields.

For example the bouncer at the door of a club has a Persuasion resist of 20. You have a skill of 15 but, seduction based persuasion tactics hit 50% harder against this bouncer. So your total skill if you choose a seduce option is 22 and you would succeed and get into the club ahead of the line. Had you chosen an intimidate option which he is resistant to, your total modified skill would have been 6. Not only do you fail, you fail dramatically and he publically mocks you and wont let you in the club even if you wait in the line.

[Manic Sheep]

Maybe  tho not paragon/ renegade affecting auto banter unless they change it to be only dialogue that you get the points from and not major decisions. Then it might be ok. I don't want my character automatically being a douche to squad mates because she has more ren points. Especially when most of that is not for dialogue and when it is from dialogue it’s usually not from her being an ass.

Modifié par Manic Sheep, 05 mai 2011 - 10:30 .

[Ahglock]

Manic Sheep wrote...

Maybe  tho not paragon/ renegade affecting auto banter unless they change it to be only dialogue that you get the points from and not major decisions. Then it might be ok. I don't want my character automatically being a douche to squad mates because she has more ren points. Especially when most of that is not for dialogue and when it is from dialogue it’s usually not from her being an ass.

I know I don;t want to see that.  Virtually all of my renegade points are form big story decisions or dealing with criminals.  I wrack up just as many or more paragon points with my interactions with my crew and the average joe.  I see no need to be an ass, just a need to be a bad ass.  

[Feanor_II]

I always thought that our charm/intimidate habilities being related with the paragon/renegade bars makes more sense.

[Bluko]

Phaedon wrote...

 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.

Well said. And I agree. Making people's dialogue choices based on a stat is pretty shallow way to make a game more of an "RPG". All dialogue choices should be available to everyone.

Phaedon wrote...

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.

Agreed. Just let people choose what dialogue option they want. If people want to Paragade, let them. I'm not sure why Bioware makes it so you basically have to play mostly Paragon or Renegade. While sometimes this alright if you're trying to play a very noble or ruthless Shepard, what about more inbetween Shepards?

I hate hate hate the Charm/Intimidate Skill Trees from ME1. I cannot tell you how much it annoys me in ME1. Even when I max out bar as much as I can for my level there are still a number of situations where I can't use Charm/Intimidate. I mean seriously what the heck? I need to be a certain level to talk to some people, but the rest of the game automatically adjusts to my level? That's just dumb.

ME2 was a slight improvement in that you didn't really have to unlock a dialogue skill tree. It was more or less based on your percentage of points. This works better if you play mostly Paragon/Renegade, but it really leaves Paragade or more neutral players in the dust. That's not good roleplaying.


I agree make all the dialogue choices open to everyone. Perhaps make it so you have to choose mostly Paragon/Renegade line options in the dialogue before you unlock the Charm/Intimidate option at the end. Basically make it more natural. If you want to Charm someone you have to talk to them "nicely"  first before you can Charm them. This would allow people to play how they want in specific scenarios, though should you choose only neutral responses beforehand then no Charm/Intimidate option for you. Sounds like the way to go to me.

I mean would you rather meta-game Paragon/Renegade points for the entire game, or just that one conversation?

But yeah then just make Paragon/Renegade points effect how Characters react to you, your appearence, and maybe whether or not get specific. Like if you get 80% of the Paragon Points in-game you unlock a Paragon Assignment. Leave little bonuses like that to encourage, but not force, players to go a Paragon/Renegade route.

[InvincibleHero]

Bluko wrote...

ME2 was a slight improvement in that you didn't really have to unlock a dialogue skill tree. It was more or less based on your percentage of points. This works better if you play mostly Paragon/Renegade, but it really leaves Paragade or more neutral players in the dust. That's not good roleplaying.

How so? Taking a different path through the game should net a different result. I'd call that roleplaying. You want the I win despite not following the choices Bw determines as necessary to get there. IF BW determines only the most paragon players can get a few select options in the game and renegades as well then that is fair. Where does this entitlement mentality come from.

I'd say various outcome options allows more roleplaying and different outcomes make the game more replayable. You are supposed to segregate player knowledge from Shepard knowledge as you play the game. You wouldn't know hey jack and Miranda fight coming up. A real roleplayer accepts the results and moves on.

If your DM determined you could not convince the prison guard to unlock your cell are you going to complain but my charisma is x amount I should have made that check. The game says you failed the check and that's all. You can play the game how you want just you end up with some things being different. You can choose para and ren anytime and that is great choice and great RP opportunity. Just because the chips don't fall how you like doesn't mean it is a flaw in the system.

The suggestions throughout this thread are tantamount to saying BW just remove any options and give us two choices para and ren.

[Kusy]

So what this thread is about?

[Vena_86]

Agreed. Although, if they wont implement your idea, I would still rather go with a single persuasion skill you can invest in rather than ME2s narrow nonsense system.

[GodWood]

Phaedon wrote...
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.

Yes!

As for the effect of morality points?
Shepard's appearance,

NO!

auto-banter (like LotSB)

NO!

and NPC reactions.

Yes!

[Seboist]

Charm/Intimidate attribute is just as bad as ME2's system. The only difference is that with the attribute you're using the game itself to metagame.

[InvincibleHero]

Exactly. Who doesn't level it up as quickly as possible so as to not miss out on red//blue I win lottery of more points and better outcomes? Most grognards are mad because of the removal of an exploit where they could play through3-4 times with all free points be maxed out to import into ME2. Not my idea of fun.

[Varen Spectre]

As always, it is a matter of preference and I have a feeling that I will be in minority on this one.  

I, as a hopeless metagamer , would not appreciate the proposed system very much for two related reasons. 1. It allows me to do anything I want to in one single playthrough and 2. It removes one nice game mechanism and makes game too simple.  

1. 
For me, at least in cases of important dialogues, it means that I would simply use a method of trial and error until I find the "right" combination of answers for every conversation and achieve anything I want to in one sigle playthrough. Without any restrictions. 

In comparison, both paragon-renegade and charm-intimidate systems do not allow me to do such thing no matter how hard I try or how many times I reload. I have to choose from two routes, i.e. I have to take something and give away something. 

I admit, the feeling that I can not do everything in one playthrough could be achieved by conditioning some of characters' responses by my previous feats and decisions. Without actual conversation system, such conditions and choices would have to be much more often. 

2.
I think that some kind of system of long-term management of character's ability to conversate with NPCs enriches the gameplay. Even though it reduces the ability to role-play itself. 

I think that the game would be too simple. You would just come to NPC, enter the conversation and "achieve" what you want / have to. This process might be prolonged by more complicated structure of dialogues with less obvious "right" answers but again, that would be a question of few quickloads.

There would be no long-term management of skills and no worries about about character's ability to convince NPCs in future. I personally like it when I have to bear those factors in mind. 

- The fact that not everyone has the same speaking skills and it would be nice if this was reflected in the game has alredy been covered, so I can only agree with the proponents.

[Evercrow]

I feel like this thread should go into future DA game forum(if there will be one).

I'm not supporting changing dialogue system so drastically in the last game of trilogy. What most of you proposing will allow players to metagame and see majority of content through one playthrough.If some persuasions options fail, you just reload and pick another one.So what's the point of hours of additional VO recording(in game it may be not much, but acting right takes time ,you know) - just to show players their short-term fails?

Besides, failing some persuasion checks could be pretty punishing in ME3(like losing an entire faction support),that will encourage metagame further.We have whole right side of the wheel to show when persuasion fails or not an option. 

So no, I'l stick with the 2 "win" buttons and having to play consistently to accumulate rating.
ME2 system worked actually rather well with my mixed Shepard. There's not that much of high level checks in the game, though you have to use knowledge of previous walkthroughs. Still better then ME1 - mixed Shepard had to invest heavily in non-combat stats, which obviously hinders gameplay.

Loved the idea with modifiers ,Ahglock

[PsychoWARD23]

Didn't read, Paragon/Renegade system is almost broken.

[Kabanya101]

I preferred the system in Mass Effect 2, but then again I wasted time to play three times with one character in Mass Effect to get all the free points to Charm and Intimidate.

[dmljr]

InvincibleHero wrote...

Exactly. Who doesn't level it up as quickly as possible so as to not miss out on red//blue I win lottery of more points and better outcomes? Most grognards are mad because of the removal of an exploit where they could play through3-4 times with all free points be maxed out to import into ME2. Not my idea of fun.

You call it an exploit. I would call it a reward for playing through the game mutliple times with the same character.
ME2 system is definitely better for the intial playthrough, I agree with your complaint. You shouldn't be forced to level up and wasting points on non battle skills or running through the game multiple time to unlock more options. But other than running through the game once as a para, then again as a ren, there is no real reason to play again with that character, your better off making a new one and trying out another class/play style. I think you should be rewarded for playing through multiple times with one chracter by allowing them to chose any dialog option with any alignment.

[Gatt9]

Phaedon wrote...

 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.

Here's the thing,  you pretty clearly demonstrate you've never played an RPG. 

First,  RPGs aren't board games.

Second,  Attributes exist in RPGs because you are not your character,  that's pretty much the whole purpose behind an RPG.  The attributes model the Characters chances of success or failure.

Third,  the situation you use as an example wouldn't occur.  Trolls don't communicate,  you can't rationalize with them,  and finally the DM's response would be "You were eaten,  roll a new character".  The only time your situation exists in an RPG is in what is termed as a Munchkin game,  which I'd recommend Googling,  because it's pretty relevant to what you're describing throughout your post

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.

It's because in an RPG,  you are not your character.  Self-insertion is not a facet of RPGs.  I'll try to use a example that should make it easy to understand what I mean,  and please don't take that as an insult,  the difference is actually pretty daunting to try to process.

In Avatar,  Jake enters the body of one of the Navi.  If he were taking on the Role of a Navi,  then the Navi would have it's own intrinsic qualities seperate from his own.  It would have it's own language,  it's own ability to persuade the other Navi,  it would know how to ride one of their horses,  or one of their flying lizards.  Because it is a Role,  the abilities are already established in the Role he assumes.  This doesn't happen though,  he cannot speak the language,  he can't ride,  he can't fly,  he has no idea how to shoot an arrow,  doesn't know the customs and traditions.

So what he took on was an Avatar,  not a Role.  The body is just a housing for Jake's abilities,  his knowledge.  It speaks English because Jake speaks English.  It can shoot a rifle,  but not a bow,  because that's what Jake can do.  Jake must learn the language,  the culture,  how to ride,  how to fly.

That's the difference between Roleplaying and Self-insertion.  Jake inserted himself into the body of a Navi.

That's why a Roleplaying game has attributes,  because you're assuming the Role of some character who has qualities of his own,  that you do not possess,  and most of the time cannot ever possess.  No one here has any idea how to use a Biotic power,  or to speak Turian,  how to fly a spaceship.  But Shepherd does,  and we model your Shepherd's abilitiy throught attributes and stats.

Now it's *really* important to understand the difference between Roleplaying and a Roleplaying Game.  Roleplaying is what someone does when they dress up as a Cop and pretends to be one,  even though they've no idea how to be one,  a RPG is when the person takes on the Role of a cop who knows how to do the things a cop does,  and the game facilitates the use of the Cop's knowledge that you don't actually possess.

Picking dialogue choices does not make a game an RPG,  If all you're doing is picking whatever you feel like picking,  independent of the Character you've actually created and established,  then you're just self-inserting.  For example,  I played a 100% paragon in ME2,  and I kicked someone off a building without reason.  In an RPG,  I either wouldn't have had the option because I'd established that behavior was contrary to my Shepherd,  or my Shepherd would've suffered consequences for his action in terms of conflict with at least his team members.  ME2 just basically ignores it.

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.

Now,  you have a solid point here.

In any RPG system,  even AD&D,  you're not limited by "Morality" in what you choose.  If you choose to reform,  there's *nothing* stopping you,  or if you choose to degenerate.  There's no reason for it to be gated by some artificial alignment statistic.

But as far as Charm/Intimidate goes,  the reason they seem off is because Bioware chose to ignore the other half of the attributes portion of the system that lets it make sense.

A RPG makes Charm/Intimidate a function of your Charisma,  your Strength (For intimidate),  and potentially your reputation.  These things combine for a reaction check based upon the character you created.  You could try to Charm someone,  but your character faces a skill check to see if he succeeds,  or if this time he just came off as an Emo,  just like if you go out and try to charm someone in real life,  it's a function of a bunch of things.  Same with intimidate,  I'm not a big dude,  if I try and intimidate someone in real life,  it's not going to happen.  So if my character has a low strength score,  odds are good he won't intimidate someone either.

Bioware left out half the system,  so it ends up not making sense.

[Raizo]

I have better things to do than invest my hard earned ( and limited ) skill points into charm/intimidate attribute's. While it was not perfect. I liked the way things were done in ME2.

[MDT1]

I liked the P/R system, because it gives you your dialoge options "for free".
This is good for me because I ALWAYS preorize charm/persuasion skills if there are any. So I don't loose a possible experience.
If theres a problem for me it's just the limited options.

It's a matter of taste in the end, and like in all discussions about taste you shouldn't expect it to give a conclusion.