So, over the last few weeks we have had quite an increase in the amount of new information on what ME3 will be like. However, so much of this information is combat-related. Even most of the "RPG Elements" section in the known features thread is filled with combat powers and weapon customization. If one didn't know better, one could think from the news that ME3 was going to be a plain shooter.
So, I would like to ask if, perhaps, there will be a time when official information on changes to the persuasion system in ME3 is released. When such time would come would be an even more interesting piece of information to know about.
Note, however, that I decided not to watch any E3 videos, if the information has already been released, sorry for creating this thread.
----Optional analysis----
Additionally, to allow myself a modicum of self-expression, I would like to present my thoughts and, perhaps, make a late suggestion on how persuasion could have been handled in the Mass Effect series. Readers who are short on time could skip to the "Finally, that last suggestion I mentioned" line.
The morality or, as it is implemented in Mass Effect series, bias-based persuasion has a significant number of flaws. Your reputation should only be a modifier applied to your rhethoric abilities, and those shouldn't apply to every person you speak to (as not everyone might know you well enough). Unless you are dealing with omniscient zealots who wouldn't listen to ou in the first place, it should not by any means determine the conversation outcome alone. Moreover, this kind of system can create feedback loops when your previous actions of certain morality (and lack of those of the opposite morality) lock you out of actions of opposite morality literally forcing you down a certain path. Even the TES series have skill trainers to allow for adjustments without in-game practice.
Ultimately, your reputation and morality's influence is best applied on a case by case basis and should be similar to that of your class and background.
So, the first alternative way to handle persuasion is the trueand tried skills. This is obviously the way things were handled in ME1 with the exception of the nasty but mostly bearable bias-based skill caps. Their obvious advantage is the freedom of choice in development and natural incorporation into the character advancement system.
The disadvantages exist as well, of course. First of all, in the Mass Effect series as well as most other RPGs, persuasion skills can be quite overpowered. So overpowered, in fact, that players who are not fond of failure may say that they simply have to be taken in order to enjoy the game fully. This can be fine-tuned, but it is indeed difficult and more applicable to more generic RPGs with lots of other non-combat skills (New Vegas seems to be a reasonable recent example, even being relatively combat heavy).
Secondly, while this approach is my favorite (perhaps even the only acceptable one) in the aforementioned more generic RPGs, Mass Effect games aren't those. They have been called "role playing shooters" for a reason: persuasion is pretty much, the only adjustable non-combat ability in ME2 while in ME1 those abilities were tied to combat skills anyway. This, combined with the first point, is the reason why a significant amount of people preferred the bias-based system: it allows variable persuasion without necessarily taking away any combat abilities.
The second alternative has been seen in ME2 as well: it's combining persuasion with some combat skills. The advantage for a combat-centered game is that, of course, you don't have to sacrifice any combat abilities for the sake of persuasion. The disadvantage is that you are, of course, forced to take those combined skills if you want to be diplomatic even if you dislike their combat parts. So, my engineer had to become a mechanic because, apparently, demolishers didn't have rhethoric courses in their curriculum. Personally, I don't find this solution very appealing.
Another way to handle this is similar to Alpha Protocol: open up all the possibilities but make different characters susceptible to different approaches. This again enables persuasion without using any skills but makes people very inclined to reload and exhaust all the options until they get a satisfying result. Alpha Protocol addressed this rather controversially with timed decisions and forced save overwrites. I would definitely not want to see something like this in ME3 and I don't really know how to fix this otherwise at the moment. Perhaps, time will tell.
Finally, that last suggestion I mentioned earlier. So, if persuasion is so important, irreplaceable and even diversified, why not just give it regular increases every few levels, like perks in S.P.E.C.I.A.L. The player would then have a choice to apply those increases to charm, intimidation or, optionally, convert them to combat ability points or have both skills increase at the expense of those points. Note that while it raises similar problems to those created by a skill system, the situation here is quite different: in the first case you already have a persuasive abilities and sacrifice them in favor of combat (perhaps, you are roleplaying a character with some behavioral deviations?). In the second case you are getting improved diplomatic abilities that should only help you play a certain specific way and are not required for full game enjoyment.
Of course, this method also has significant flaws. Problem is, it favors people who specialize in a single skill and can lead to disasterous practical implementations combining the worst parts of both systems if, for example, uncapped linear level-based scaling is used for the difficulty of the cheks. In this case people who split the increases evenly might find themselves failing most checks and unable to compensate in time as difficulty rises with their levels. This is, however, partially adjustable.
Of course this list is by no means complete (note that I intentionally left out systems that enhance the bias-based one, such as having a persuasion skill boost your morality grades) and other alternatives could be useful, if only for some potintially harmless philosophical theorization or, perhaps, even some influence on some future games in the series.
As for me, I would still prefer the "tried and true" skill system with no bias-based caps whatsoever and a well-balanced influence of persuasion on the game events.
Modifié par xentar, 18 juin 2011 - 06:17 .
Retour en haut
