103 réponses à ce sujet

[Phaedon]

PsychoWARD23 wrote...

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

If you read, you'd see that I agreed with you. Oh well.


Anyway, I'll reply to some of your posts later.

Modifié par Phaedon, 08 mai 2011 - 02:23 .

[Phaedon]

Shadowrun1177 wrote...

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 wrote...
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

No, I really don't.

I don't want a choice tagged as 'suave' or 'professional'. It's just that some options are, well...suave. 

[Da Mecca]

So basically you want an unrestricted dialogue wheel with more options besides three?

I support that, but I think Bioware is stuck in its ways at this point.

[darknoon5]

Hell yes.

The only thing I really dislike in either ME is the stupid paragon renegade decision. It actually makes it much harder to play a role, especially if you are unfamiliar with the system. Not being able to charm/threaten somebody because you haven't committed genocide/rescued some kittens that day is very annoying. It makes it difficult, for example, to play a good guy with violent outbursts and vice versa.

It can also trivialize choices, such as in Legion's loyalty mission. It is probably one of the most difficult choices in the game, but you know that Bioware want you to think that it is the morally wrong thing to do based on the paragon/renegade point assignment. Other examples include the base and the council. You also don't have to think about what the right thing to in a situation is nearly as much, if at all, because bottom of the wheel=bad top of the wheel=good. (to clarify, that is more related to dialogue wheel. I think the moral choices should be randomly scattered and not colour-coded so you actually have to judge for yourself.)


FInally, Kotor managed fine without it. Infact, pretty every other Bioware game I've played was fine without a Paragon/renegade system It's not a rich rpg feature, it actually hinders role play.

EDIT: I'd like to keep morality meteres, like in Kotor, just to clarify. Also lke in Kotor, I believe you should be able to chose every dialogue option regardless of your previous actions.

Modifié par darknoon5, 08 mai 2011 - 03:22 .

[Da Mecca]

I agree.

The paragon/renegade system pigeonholes you into making decisions f0r the sake of filling up a meter, not because that's necessarily the decision you wanted to make.

No one ever has to think hard about their choices because they know top equals good and bottome equals bad.

Modifié par Da Mecca, 08 mai 2011 - 03:34 .

[The Spamming Troll]

i like have more options, but playing a RPG i think there should be limitations on your dialogue in the same way theres limits on your abilities.

the thing that i dont like is that it HAS to be renegade or paragon. theres no other option in a story other then being a goody too shoes, or a dick. why cant i just be a cool dude who has a slight addiction to red sand, and just wants to save the galaxy with a few alien buddies? nope, i just have to punch reporters in the face.

[PsychoWARD23]

Phaedon wrote...

PsychoWARD23 wrote...

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

If you read, you'd see that I agreed with you. Oh well.


Anyway, I'll reply to some of your posts later.

Okay, I actually read it now haha. I agree, except when you say that some options wouldn't beome optional all the time what do you mean? If there's no "speech points" then how would they be able to do that?

[PsychoWARD23]

Da Mecca wrote...


No one ever has to think hard about their choices because they no top equals good and bottome equals bad.

I hate this, HATE it. 

[UBER GEEKZILLA]

i completly agree with the OP

[kalwren]

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.

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.

I disagree. I want them to bring it back.

When you play a role playing game, your character is defined by specific character traits often decided by the player. If you can do everything without some form of restriction, then you become omnipotent, you have the ability to do everything, which lessons the importance of those choices, as well as often creates situations that might not make any sense. For example a character flip-flopping decisions, isn’t going to seem very consistent, if you are playing a consistant character, instead of a madman. 

A real person does not have the ability to do everything. A real person is defined by personality, mental and physical traits, among other things. Most people are not good at everything, there are always weaknesses along with strengths, even with fictional superheroes. So having these types dialogue skills in a role playing game allows developers to simulate both strength and weakness in the characters we play. Additionally if you put those choices in the players hands and allow them to cater each trait to their preferred play-style then you have a much broader canvas for enjoyment of the game, by many different types of player. You can play the game multiple times, and each time create a very different sort of character that is forced to deal with situations differently dependant on the choices they have been making about their characters along the way.

It brings more freedom and choice to role-playing. 

Modifié par kalwren, 08 mai 2011 - 04:03 .

[Phaedon]

PsychoWARD23 wrote...
Okay, I actually read it now haha. I agree, except when you say that some options wouldn't beome optional all the time what do you mean? If there's no "speech points" then how would they be able to do that?

Nah, all options would be selectable. There are still paragon and renegade choices, it's just that the uber-paragon and the uber-renegade ones are unlocked as well and mixed with the rest. You just have to decipher them and pick the right ones.

[Phaedon]

kalwren wrote...
I disagree. I want them to bring it back.

When you play a role playing game, your character is defined by specific character traits often decided by the player. If you can do everything without some form of restriction, then you become omnipotent, you have the ability to do everything, which lessons the importance of those choices, as well as often creates situations that might not make any sense. For example a character flip-flopping decisions, isn’t going to seem very consistent, if you are playing a consistant character, instead of a madman.

A real person does not have the ability to do everything. A real person is defined by personality, mental and physical traits, among other things. Most people are not good at everything, there are always weaknesses along with strengths, even with fictional superheroes. So having these types dialogue skills in a role playing game allows developers to simulate both strength and weakness in the characters we play. Additionally if you put those choices in the players hands and allow them to cater each trait to their preferred play-style then you have a much broader canvas for enjoyment of the game, by many different types of player. You can play the game multiple times, and each time create a very different sort of character that is forced to deal with situations differently dependant on the choices they have been making about their characters along the way.

It brings more freedom and choice to role-playing. 

That's incorrect in two ways.
If you mod ME1 and ME2 from the beginning you can already do that. And it makes sense.

Secondly, having an extreme reaction to a specific subject while you are pretty much paragon to everything else, just creates a facet to the character. It's just human.

Aren't there some topics that are always touchy?

--
Let's come up with an imaginable scenario.

You are a police officer who tends to be the "bad cop". He often hits his suspect in order to gain a confession, is rough with his collagues, etc. However, he is always kind to victims of a specific crime, because his sister/brother was also a victim of it in the past.

[Ahriman]

AwesomeName wrote...
I think they should just keep the system used in ME2 but change one thing: unlock p/r dialogue equally, either as you gain more P/R points (e.g. so 100% P should unlock everything, even if you have no R) or as your level increases.

So saving hundred of kittens will give the option to scare someone to death? I cannot agree with that.

[byzantine horse]

I prefer Paragon/Renegade over Charm/Intimidate as I would rather spend points on things that impact combat than conversations. I think that the two should be separate "mini-games" if you will within the game without too much connection to eachother. For example, I don't wish to end up in a gunfight but realize that I can't win because I am not Charming enough just as much as I don't want get stuck in a conversation because my Gunskill is too low. Obviously not one of my more applicable examples but it brings forth the point I wish to make.

If it is a tie between ME1 and ME2 systems I would much rather keep what ME2 gave us. Combat and conversation are not intertwined and I never felt as penalized in ME2 as I do in ME1 over the choices I make. Sure, choices should be penalizing but rather not in a way where my conversational options are screwed because I wanted to be stronger in combat.

[Varen Spectre]

Well, it seems that the positions of both sides are quite clear now.

One group of players does not want to be restricted by some "arbitrary" system which would limit the number of answers available in the convesation from the start, because it limits their ability to roleplay in that dialogue...
The other group does not want to be able to everything for free, because they deem it too simple (maybe shallow) and unrealistic.

So unless we want to organize some kind of battle somwhere on the planes to duke it out, we should start looking for compromises and other solutions.

My first idea would be very unoriginal suggestion in the vein of "if you can't pick between the two, why don't you take both".  So I would propose the return of charm / intimidate system (I personally am fine with both C/I and P/R systems, but it seems that more people prefer C/I) and to make it optional. That means one tick somewhere in the menu and... voilà, your C/I skill trees would be full (might become even invisible if graphics would be so kind) and you would be able to pick whatever answer you want.

The rest of us, would play it the hardcore way with C/I trees empty (and visible in menu / stats). 

This solution could work with paragon / renegade system as well (even better).

The question though would be, how to adjust the distribution of all skill pints in both playstyles , so that the experience outside of conversation would be similar for both groups of players. For now, I don't know. ^_^Of course, this solution would work better with P / R system because that is completely independent from any skillpoints.

Modifié par Varen Spectre, 08 mai 2011 - 05:50 .

[PsychoWARD23]

Phaedon wrote...

PsychoWARD23 wrote...
Okay, I actually read it now haha. I agree, except when you say that some options wouldn't beome optional all the time what do you mean? If there's no "speech points" then how would they be able to do that?

Nah, all options would be selectable. There are still paragon and renegade choices, it's just that the uber-paragon and the uber-renegade ones are unlocked as well and mixed with the rest. You just have to decipher them and pick the right ones.

And no more "top right is good, bottom is right is bad"? Because I'd love that.

Dragon Age: Origins had a better morality system because it didn't have a morality system.

Modifié par PsychoWARD23, 08 mai 2011 - 06:19 .

[bald man in a boat]

 I agree with the OP. I did like DA:O's system, I found the way dialogue was handled in that game to be my favourite, including squad banter. 
*sigh* Morrigan disapproves.

[Da Mecca]

Oh that Morrigan.

But yes I think no morality system is the best morality.

Besides morals are subjective.

[PsychoWARD23]

Da Mecca wrote...

Besides morals are subjective.

I don't think BioWare has figured this out, what might be the "right" choice for one person could be the "wrong" choice for someone else.

[Phaedon]

Varen Spectre wrote...

Well, it seems that the positions of both sides are quite clear now.

One group of players does not want to be restricted by some "arbitrary" system which would limit the number of answers available in the convesation from the start, because it limits their ability to roleplay in that dialogue...
The other group does not want to be able to everything for free, because they deem it too simple (maybe shallow) and unrealistic.

So unless we want to organize some kind of battle somwhere on the planes to duke it out, we should start looking for compromises and other solutions.

My first idea would be very unoriginal suggestion in the vein of "if you can't pick between the two, why don't you take both".  So I would propose the return of charm / intimidate system (I personally am fine with both C/I and P/R systems, but it seems that more people prefer C/I) and to make it optional. That means one tick somewhere in the menu and... voilà, your C/I skill trees would be full (might become even invisible if graphics would be so kind) and you would be able to pick whatever answer you want.

The rest of us, would play it the hardcore way with C/I trees empty (and visible in menu / stats). 

This solution could work with paragon / renegade system as well (even better).

The question though would be, how to adjust the distribution of all skill pints in both playstyles , so that the experience outside of conversation would be similar for both groups of players. For now, I don't know. ^_^Of course, this solution would work better with P / R system because that is completely independent from any skillpoints.

I'd love that. But that's an unrealistic expectation.

Modifié par Phaedon, 08 mai 2011 - 08:03 .

[DDK]

My main peeve about the system is being locked out of decisions I'd like to make.

I'll repeat what I said in another thread (of my making): 

It's about making the decisions I want to make, when I want to make
them. The Toombs example is a perfect one. The decision I want to make
is not to kill Toombs or the scientist. I want to talk Toombs down and
get him the help he needs, and put the scientist behind bars for his
crimes. And yet, at 10/12 Charm and 10/16 paragon,
I STILL can't make that choice.

Now, if this was some sort of
major plot point that the survival of the galaxy depended on, then maybe
I could understand having some sort of system in place to limit one's
options. A good example of this is talking Saren down; I can understand
that having some sort of prerequisite attached. However, most of the
decisions I'm locked out of are supposed to be well before going to
Virmire. And yet the only feasible way for me to unlock them is to
either wholly specialise in Paragon and Charm, or the opposite, Renegade
and Intimidate, which then takes away from me any real choice and
becomes more about choosing optimal outcomes rather than roleplaying
options.

I'm actually starting to think that the only real way to have a satisfying play-through of this game requires two conceits:

1) You have to play through it once already and then use a character that has close to maximum paragon AND renegade scores in order to make the decisions you actually want to make throughout the story.

2) Conveniently ignore the plot that has you going straight to Noveria and Feros first-up and instead 'pretend' to scoure the galaxy for clues, and thus do all the decision points and content of the game before being locked out by the plot and ending.

Modifié par Malisin, 11 mai 2011 - 08:23 .

[MrGone]

OK only read the first two pages, cause I am sleepy but wanted to respond to OP.

There is at least one flaw that the p/r only system has that the original Charm/Intimidate system does not, and a great reason for ropleplaying purposes as far as I'm concerned:

If I want to play a ******.

If I'm playing a guy who doesn't think about convincing others via words, it helps to have a point buy system for speech skills, as I can not put points into the skill to represent his/her lack of conversational ability. Having the paragon/renegade option in ME2 doesn't prevent this, but it doesn't help it either, and the OP's suggestion nullifies it somewhat by presenting tempting "smarter" options in every conversation.

What about that situation then? Hmmmm?

[CajNatalie]

Varen Spectre wrote...

Well, it seems that the positions of both sides are quite clear now.

One group of players does not want to be restricted by some "arbitrary" system which would limit the number of answers available in the convesation from the start, because it limits their ability to roleplay in that dialogue...
The other group does not want to be able to everything for free, because they deem it too simple (maybe shallow) and unrealistic.

So unless we want to organize some kind of battle somwhere on the planes to duke it out, we should start looking for compromises and other solutions.

My first idea would be very unoriginal suggestion in the vein of "if you can't pick between the two, why don't you take both".  So I would propose the return of charm / intimidate system (I personally am fine with both C/I and P/R systems, but it seems that more people prefer C/I) and to make it optional. That means one tick somewhere in the menu and... voilà, your C/I skill trees would be full (might become even invisible if graphics would be so kind) and you would be able to pick whatever answer you want.

The rest of us, would play it the hardcore way with C/I trees empty (and visible in menu / stats). 

This solution could work with paragon / renegade system as well (even better).

The question though would be, how to adjust the distribution of all skill pints in both playstyles , so that the experience outside of conversation would be similar for both groups of players. For now, I don't know. ^_^Of course, this solution would work better with P / R system because that is completely independent from any skillpoints.

Everyone read this guy's post for a good suggestion^

Now for my input on the topic...
Honestly, the Charm/Intimidate things are there to give you a bonus of some kind. They're not just simple dialogue choices... if you just want to be nice/mean just pick the options from the right side of the wheel. To get a bonus you need to work for it. Either by the ME1 point-spending (or replaying the game for freebies) or ME2's system of percentages of each acquired.

It makes very little sense to go around being an ass and telling people to quit whining, then suddenly flicking on the sparkly eyes and going on about how much you care about someone and they should give you what you need.
It makes very little sense to go around being all friendly and caring then suddenly acting like you're King/Queen of the Universe and everyone should do as you say.
If you want to play a character with a personality schizm, then go cheat your points in.
Understandably, because a lot of people like to whine about how they don't get to be split-personalitied Shepards, the idea I quoted would work well... a little switch in the Options... probably under Gameplay, but it should really go under a section called Cheats.
Of course you'd then have it easy because you'd be reaping the benefits of all those talked-through situations.
Like I said... it should be considered a Cheat.

Also, I support the top=nice and bottom=mean system, because it's easier to play an ass or a hero and you're not likely to screw up by picking the wrong option. For replaying the game as someone who's solidly one way or the other as the ultimate Paragon/Renegade you don't want to be wasting your time over the options... keep the flow going!
It makes perfect sense.

Modifié par CajNatalie, 11 mai 2011 - 11:17 .

[Gatt9]

CajNatalie wrote...

Varen Spectre wrote...

Well, it seems that the positions of both sides are quite clear now.

One group of players does not want to be restricted by some "arbitrary" system which would limit the number of answers available in the convesation from the start, because it limits their ability to roleplay in that dialogue...
The other group does not want to be able to everything for free, because they deem it too simple (maybe shallow) and unrealistic.

So unless we want to organize some kind of battle somwhere on the planes to duke it out, we should start looking for compromises and other solutions.

My first idea would be very unoriginal suggestion in the vein of "if you can't pick between the two, why don't you take both".  So I would propose the return of charm / intimidate system (I personally am fine with both C/I and P/R systems, but it seems that more people prefer C/I) and to make it optional. That means one tick somewhere in the menu and... voilà, your C/I skill trees would be full (might become even invisible if graphics would be so kind) and you would be able to pick whatever answer you want.

The rest of us, would play it the hardcore way with C/I trees empty (and visible in menu / stats). 

This solution could work with paragon / renegade system as well (even better).

The question though would be, how to adjust the distribution of all skill pints in both playstyles , so that the experience outside of conversation would be similar for both groups of players. For now, I don't know. ^_^Of course, this solution would work better with P / R system because that is completely independent from any skillpoints.

Everyone read this guy's post for a good suggestion^

Now for my input on the topic...
Honestly, the Charm/Intimidate things are there to give you a bonus of some kind. They're not just simple dialogue choices... if you just want to be nice/mean just pick the options from the right side of the wheel. To get a bonus you need to work for it. Either by the ME1 point-spending (or replaying the game for freebies) or ME2's system of percentages of each acquired.

It makes very little sense to go around being an ass and telling people to quit whining, then suddenly flicking on the sparkly eyes and going on about how much you care about someone and they should give you what you need.
It makes very little sense to go around being all friendly and caring then suddenly acting like you're King/Queen of the Universe and everyone should do as you say.
If you want to play a character with a personality schizm, then go cheat your points in.
Understandably, because a lot of people like to whine about how they don't get to be split-personalitied Shepards, the idea I quoted would work well... a little switch in the Options... probably under Gameplay, but it should really go under a section called Cheats.
Of course you'd then have it easy because you'd be reaping the benefits of all those talked-through situations.
Like I said... it should be considered a Cheat.

Also, I support the top=nice and bottom=mean system, because it's easier to play an ass or a hero and you're not likely to screw up by picking the wrong option. For replaying the game as someone who's solidly one way or the other as the ultimate Paragon/Renegade you don't want to be wasting your time over the options... keep the flow going!
It makes perfect sense.

Why make it optional?

It's an RPG.  Why remove underlying mechanics for people who obviously aren't fans of RPGs?  Should we remove ammo from all Shooters?  Should we make all Simulations have an Arcade Mode?  Should Football games remove plays? Should RTS's let you start every map with a fully built base and unlimited resources?

Why is it that RPGs should comprimise their mechanics for a group of people who don't like RPGs,  but the same suggestions made in any and every other genre would meet with endless laughter?

I don't see a need to make it optional.  If you don't like the type of game,  you don't like it,  there's no need to remove features so "Everyone can like it!".  I really seriously do not understand why this happens with RPGs.

Modifié par Gatt9, 11 mai 2011 - 11:51 .