37 réponses à ce sujet

[caraniente]

Don't spend much time on these forums, so don't know if this has been addressed before - didn't spot it on a quick search, so here goes

I like the paragon/renegade system. I like that it doesn't cancel out. I could pick a paragon ending to this quest, a renegade one to that, and it never hindered me. I find it mildly irritating that paragon = persuasive whereas renegade = thug (personally my ruthless characters are the ones that sweet-talk and offer the world, because they have no intentions of sticking with it!) but I understand that Bioware wanted to simplify and it was easier to do it this way. Plus, renegades are badass

So yeah, all good. Until that bl**dy fight between Miranda and Jack.

Why on earth do I need virtually full paragon or full renegade points to keep both of them loyal? Whether I've been a guardian angel or a ruthless badass makes no difference to solving that fight, other than to make me jump through some hoops or risk my crew dying  I realise I can 'retrain powers' but I haaaaaaaaaaate doing that, it's just not logical from a role-play perspective.

If paragon/renegade also has to mean persuade/intimidate, that's fine, just don't force me into a particular playstyle so I can tick boxes to get the best outcome. And if you do, implement it in a way that makes sense, because in that situation, it really didn't.

[Shepard Lives]

Yeah, this has been discussed quite a bit. Most people agree that the way ME2 forces you to be full Paragon or Renegade is very annoying.

Also, I think you're the first person I have ever met who censors "bloody".

[RobinTheRude]

That specific quarell has annoyed a fair lot of people, since you need a suprising amount of paragon or renegade points to get them to save it for when the mission is over (that's how it works with both persuasion methods). Two things that can make it easier for you :
-it takes a lot less Renegade points than Paragon points to keep them both loyal in that specific fight (Tali and Legion's is the other way around).
-Due to how the Paragon/Renegade system works, it's a TON easier to start off your campaign trying to avoid any decisions you want to go againist your 'main' affiliation with (for example if you want to blow up the Heretic Geth on a Paragon run) until after you're through the persuasions giving you trouble. It's usually easier to do Miranda and Jack's missions early, doing some easy Renegade stuff along the way, then doing whatever Paragon stuff you have in mind.

It's totally possible to do an absolute "Paragade" run, getting through tough persuations on both Paragon and Renegade ends of the spectrum, but it requires a lot of metagaming on how the persuation system works and doesn't make too much sense roleplay wise.

Modifié par RobinTheRude, 23 juin 2011 - 01:41 .

[Lumikki]

caraniente wrote...

So yeah, all good. Until that bl**dy fight between Miranda and Jack.

I find this funny, why?

In Virmine you had to choose between Asley and Kaidan. No-one is complaining that, why not?

So, what's the different choosing between Jack and Miranda?

What if there whould not even be any other choise than choose one or other? Why people assume that player is suppose to be able make them both loyal? It's like people have really hard time to take anything even little negative when they know that there is better sulutions.

PS: Yeah this all has been taked many times..

Modifié par Lumikki, 23 juin 2011 - 01:35 .

[amcnow]

Lumikki wrote...

caraniente wrote...

So yeah, all good. Until that bl**dy fight between Miranda and Jack.

I find this funny, why?

In Virmine you had to choose between Asley and Kaidan. No-one is complaining that, why not?

So, what's the different choosing between Jack and Miranda?

What if there whould not even be any other choise than choose one or other? Why people assume that player is suppose to be able make them both loyal? It's like people have really hard time to take anything even little negative when they know that there is better sulutions.

PS: Yeah this all has been taked many times..

You just answered your on question.  The bolded is what makes this different.  

[Shepard Lives]

Lumikki wrote...

caraniente wrote...

So yeah, all good. Until that bl**dy fight between Miranda and Jack.

I find this funny, why?

In Virmine you had to choose between Asley and Kaidan. No-one is complaining that, why not?

Because the Virmire choice is not tied to Persuasion? (Not to mention that even if it was, absurdly enough, tied to Persuasion, the ME1 system is a thousand times better than ME2's)

And also because being forced to leave your subordinate, and often friend/lover, to die is quite a bit more dramatic than solving a catfight.

[Lumikki]

amcnow wrote...

Lumikki wrote...

caraniente wrote...

So yeah, all good. Until that bl**dy fight between Miranda and Jack.

I find this funny, why?

In Virmine you had to choose between Asley and Kaidan. No-one is complaining that, why not?

So, what's the different choosing between Jack and Miranda?

What if there whould not even be any other choise than choose one or other? Why people assume that player is suppose to be able make them both loyal? It's like people have really hard time to take anything even little negative when they know that there is better sulutions.

PS: Yeah this all has been taked many times..

You just answered your on question.  The bolded is what makes this different.  

Yeah, I know that's why I did writen it. But in roleplaying game roleplayers are compaining that they did not get the optimal solutions. Gah..

[RobinTheRude]

Shepard Lives wrote...

And also because being forced to leave your subordinate, and often friend/lover, to die is quite a bit more dramatic than solving a catfight.

Solving? More like postponing

Can't wait to see how this little dally ends in ME3 if both survive.

Modifié par RobinTheRude, 23 juin 2011 - 01:45 .

[caraniente]

Lumikki wrote...

Yeah, I know that's why I did writen it. But in roleplaying game roleplayers are compaining that they did not get the optimal solutions. Gah..

Got no objections if it was done so as to make sense.

If Miranda was a goody-two-shoes save-everyone type and you needed high paragon to bring her round, or high renegade to talk down Jack who respects strength and sees 'caring' as weakness, it'd make sense.

As it is, in that situation, whether you've been a guardian angel or an evil badass should make no difference to whether you can solve that fight. Whether you're a silver-tongued devil or your team-mates are afraid of you, THAt makes a difference.

[Smeelia]

My main problem with the fight (and the system in general) is that it undermines Shepard's character as being a compelling leader that inspires loyalty.  It's (presumably unintentionally) forcing you to stick to one morality or the other in order to maintain the character of Shepard.  If you don't want your Shepard to be persuasive then in ME1 you simply didn't buy the points/use the options, in ME2 you can ignore the options if you want but there's no guarantee they'll be there in the first place and the only way to get them is to play your character a specific way.  There's no optional trade in here, you simply have to be within specific personality limits in order to take advantage of the persuasion system.

The fight between Miranda and Jack should be easy for a persuasive Shepard to diffuse, the fact that you can't persuade because you lack a certain "morality" is ridiculous.  The loyalty isn't that important in gameplay terms, it's still possible to have everyone survive (though it may impact ME3) but the real problem is that the system weakens role-playing and that's unacceptable.

[Lumikki]

What you say doesn't explain why only both loyal makes you stop complaining.

You wanted optimal result and could not accept anything else, so you make excuses why you don't like it. It still doesn't explain why you complain only when not been able to make both them loyal. Why aren't any of you complaining that you can't cause both become unloyal?

Modifié par Lumikki, 23 juin 2011 - 02:01 .

[The Baconer]

Yeah, that fight isn't the only reason why I hated ME2's P/R systems. There are tons of instances just like that where you get punished for roleplaying instead of metagaming.

[Smeelia]

Lumikki wrote...

What you say doesn't explain why only both loyal makes you stop complaining.

You wanted optimal result and could not accept anything else, so you make excuses why you don't like it. It still doesn't explain why you complain only when not been able to make both them loyal. Why aren't any of you complaining that you can't cause both become unloyal?

Well, I did say that Shepard is often said to be able to command loyalty.  For Shepard to fail to do so casts doubt on the validity of those statements.  That's not necessarily a major problem in itself though.

That's not the issue anyway, gaining loyalty isn't relevant to the persuasion system.  The fight could require persuasion to retain just one loyal crew member or even to make both disloyal, that wouldn't have any effect on improving the persuasion system.  The persuasion system is also just as flawed for every other decision in the game (it's just less noticeable because this particular incident requires significant adherence to one morality or the other).

Modifié par Smeelia, 23 juin 2011 - 02:21 .

[Whatever42]

The Baconer wrote...

Yeah, that fight isn't the only reason why I hated ME2's P/R systems. There are tons of instances just like that where you get punished for roleplaying instead of metagaming.

And a few places where you get rewarded for roleplaying. Don't have the points for the magic red text in questioning the crook on the Citadel so you can't intimidate him? Then you get to beat on him. If that's not a renegade RP reward then I don't know what is. 

I also loved shooting Grunt. 

If you really want to roleplay then the magic Shepard indoctrination text is an ugly intrusion. In real life, you simply can't talk people into anything. 

[Guitar-Hero]

Lumikki wrote...

What you say doesn't explain why only both loyal makes you stop complaining.

You wanted optimal result and could not accept anything else, so you make excuses why you don't like it. It still doesn't explain why you complain only when not been able to make both them loyal. Why aren't any of you complaining that you can't cause both become unloyal?

I don't think that it's about wanting the optimal result, it's the fact that the game forces you to play a certain way if you want a full experience, that breaks emmersion and punishes the player by dangeling a carrot in front of you, it would be like sayin" You can save both Ash. and Kaiden.. Oh you don't have the magical shoebox? what a shame,  you should have played the game the way we wanted you to play."  

[Whatever42]

Steffen wrote...

I don't think that it's about wanting the optimal result, it's the fact that the game forces you to play a certain way if you want a full experience, that breaks emmersion and punishes the player by dangeling a carrot in front of you, it would be like sayin" You can save both Ash. and Kaiden.. Oh you don't have the magical shoebox? what a shame,  you should have played the game the way we wanted you to play."  

A "full experience"? The red/blue text give you a different experience but not a more full experience. As mentioned in my earlier post, you miss out on some cool moments if you simply indoctrinate your way out of it.

Modifié par Whatever666343431431654324, 23 juin 2011 - 02:22 .

[Smeelia]

Whatever666343431431654324 wrote...

And a few places where you get rewarded for roleplaying. Don't have the points for the magic red text in questioning the crook on the Citadel so you can't intimidate him? Then you get to beat on him. If that's not a renegade RP reward then I don't know what is. 

I also loved shooting Grunt. 

If you really want to roleplay then the magic Shepard indoctrination text is an ugly intrusion. In real life, you simply can't talk people into anything.

You can still choose those other options when the Charm/Intimidate option is available, it doesn't add anything when the option is absent.

Charm/Intimidate do make more sense as skills, if your Shepard is able to be convincing (and at the right level) then they can make people do what they want (when the option is available) and if they're not then they can't.  The ME2 system has no basis in character ability or role-playing.

Modifié par Smeelia, 23 juin 2011 - 02:25 .

[Whatever42]

Smeelia wrote...

You can still choose those other options when the Charm/Intimidate option is available, it doesn't add anything when the option is absent.

Charm/Intimidate do make more sense as skills, if your Shepard is able to be convincing (and at the right level) then they can make people do what they want (when the option is available) and if they're not then they can't.  The ME2 system has no basis in character ability or role-playing.

If you're roleplaying, then a magic "get the NPC to do whatever I want" button is an intrusion imo. Otherwise, almost everyone takes that text because its all pretty and screams "pick me! I'm special" and misses out on some cool moments.

In reality, there is very little that you need the magic red/blue text for. You still recruit Grunt without it. You still complete Thane's loyalty mission without it. So you punch instead of sweet talk the reporter. Big deal.

Even the Miranda/Jack fight - even without the magic text, no one has to die.

I'm not really a fan of the system either but you really aren't missing out on anything by roleplaying. 

[Lumikki]

I understand blaming the system. That's not how ever the issue here.

Issue is that people complain that system doesn't allow you "roleplay" well enough. When we all know that system does allow you to get both loyal status too, it's just faulty how it can be get. Issue is that people never complained from roleplayers perspective that system does NOT allow at all to get both unloyal case. This means as roleplaying perspective people never did care does ALL roleplaying option exist, they only cared the most positive result.

So, people statement related roleplaying is hypocrisy. Real motive was just wanting the most positive result to be there for you self.

So, while you people may be right about system be bad, your actions doesn't really support roleplaying perspective, but you own motives are in elsewhere.

Modifié par Lumikki, 23 juin 2011 - 02:37 .

[amcnow]

Lumikki wrote...

amcnow wrote...

Lumikki wrote...

caraniente wrote...

So yeah, all good. Until that bl**dy fight between Miranda and Jack.

I find this funny, why?

In Virmine you had to choose between Asley and Kaidan. No-one is complaining that, why not?

So, what's the different choosing between Jack and Miranda?

What if there whould not even be any other choise than choose one or other? Why people assume that player is suppose to be able make them both loyal? It's like people have really hard time to take anything even little negative when they know that there is better sulutions.

PS: Yeah this all has been taked many times..

You just answered your on question.  The bolded is what makes this different.  

Yeah, I know that's why I did writen it. But in roleplaying game roleplayers are compaining that they did not get the optimal solutions. Gah..

To their defense: The purpose of a roleplaying game is to present an open ending to various scenarios.  Mass Effect does a good job of this at certain times.  With that said, the Mass Effect series is 3rd person shooter (action) with some elements of roleplay thrown in.  However, it is not a true roleplaying game.  I think this causes some confusion (and BioWare isn't helping <_<).  When people see the game classified as action roleplaying, they assume they are getting the best of both worlds.  Most often, however, they are simply getting a hybrid of the two (action and roleplay).  Obviously, roleplayers will complain when being pigeonholed into a certain type of decision.

BTW:  I'm sure plenty of people complained about the virmire decision during the heyday of ME1.

[Smeelia]

Whatever666343431431654324 wrote...

If you're roleplaying, then a magic "get the NPC to do whatever I want" button is an intrusion imo. Otherwise, almost everyone takes that text because its all pretty and screams "pick me! I'm special" and misses out on some cool moments.

That's why I prefer a skill based system, you need to invest in the ability to be able to use it and you can choose not to.

Whatever666343431431654324 wrote...

In reality, there is very little that you need the magic red/blue text for. You still recruit Grunt without it. You still complete Thane's loyalty mission without it. So you punch instead of sweet talk the reporter. Big deal.

Doesn't that undermine your point? If it makes so little difference then surely there's nothing wrong with having it (and you can still choose not to use it).  There are some occasions where having persuasion has a significant effect but generally speaking it's just another way to do things.

Whatever666343431431654324 wrote...

I'm not really a fan of the system either but you really aren't missing out on anything by roleplaying. 

You do miss out as a result of the system though, you can't choose persuasion and role-playing if the character you want to be isn't within tightly defined parameters.  With a skill based system, you get more flexible role-playing and can still choose whether or not to have persuasion (and the choice has more to it as well, since you may have to invest in it at the cost to other areas).

It's worth noting that ME3 will probably have something that is a little better than ME2, in that you might be able to invest in higher Paragon/Renegade (and thus persuasion) over more combat skills.  That said, it may run the risk of giving the worst of both worlds rather than the best (it remains to be seen).

[caraniente]

I'm not complaining the system doesn't allow you to roleplay. I'm stating that using paragon/renegade for persuade checks does not make sense.

If you can tell me how me being a good person or not should change the outcome of that fight, please explain.

[Lumikki]

caraniente wrote...

I'm not complaining the system doesn't allow you to roleplay. I'm stating that using paragon/renegade for persuade checks does not make sense.

In ME2, there is no persuation. Problem is that you think hole consept like some persuation point, when there isn't one.
It's more like reputation causing behavior changes. If you meet USA president face to face, does it change you behavior without saying single word.

If you can tell me how me being a good person or not should change the outcome of that fight, please explain.

I'm too tired for this, because in end it doesn't matter, you still keep you opinion and I mine. This has been talked in ME(2) forum section many time with long talks. People don't change they perspectives, they see what they want to see.

Modifié par Lumikki, 23 juin 2011 - 02:46 .

[Whatever42]

Smeelia, I'm not arguing that its a good system. I'm 100% on-board with you there. I'm not sure I would be good with a skill based system unless they made the skill actually worthwhile, though. For example, take a gun skill if you want to shoot your way past the guards but take persuasion if you want to talk your way past the guards. As implemented in ME, persuasion is just fluff, even in ME1.

Now I'm not against that. Actually, I would be 100% for that. I'm always for more choice in roleplaying games, as long as the choice is meaningful.

I'm simply arguing that its possible to roleplay the game and accomplish everything without worrying about metagaming. Sure, there is a greater chance of some negative consequences. Jack or Miranda are more likely to die unless you pursue some other actions or make some other decisions correctly but you aren't missing out on anything.

Well, except the ability to roleplay someone with the power to indoctrinate absolutely everyone regardless of your paragon/renegade score. But that's not a huge loss.

I've had roleplay runthroughs. They work quite well, I don't miss out on anything and it was fun to play. Again, I still don't really like the system. Having the magic text out there makes people feel like they have to pursue it or they miss out on something, which is simply not the case.

[caraniente]

Reputation causing behaviour change is possible if the people involved have characters that will respond to that behaviour, or you've treated them a certain way in the past.

And no, in the end it doesn't matter. I didn't start the thread to complain. I started it to simply point out something that, to me (and clearly a lot of other people now you guys have kindly directed me to the ME2 forum discussions) didn't make sense and could be improved upon in ME3.