133 réponses à ce sujet

[Raiil]

Repearized Miranda wrote...

Valentia X wrote...

I think half of the issue would be solved if we had options to justify or explain our options; I play a renegon and one of the reasons why I don't go full renegade is because I'm not pro-humanity, and I hate how it seems that renegades are shoehorned into it. If we could clarify why, at least for some options, I think there would be a lot less heartburn.

Justfication doesn't seem to work though (Ash/Kaidan on Horizon; The Council, or even TIM), And with most renegades, they wouldn't even think about wasting their breath because you'll get the three above examples again.

Shep: I have my reasons for doing what I did!
Ash: You still betrayed the Alliance!

Note that the diplomatic choices were no matter in that situation either.

They already made up their minds. As someone said, "Hate doesn't need reason. It just needs a target!" Which is true to the core given the amount of venom spewed in ME2 - even if you're diplomatic about it.

Horizon was horrifically done, period.

As I said, I play a renegon, and sometimes I do things in-game considered renegade for what might be ultimately considered paragon reasons. A common theme for a lot of us renegons/paragades is Legion's 'A House Divided' mission; we destroyed the heretic geth not because it would avoid a fight, or because we don't want the good geth to have their brethren back, but (as all the paragon options up to that point say) because brainwashing is ultimately much worse than killing beings who chose to be my enemy. If there had been something as simple as talking to Kelly about it afterwards, where I can speak my piece, I'd have been much happier. 

Some of us just want to be able to justify it to ourselves. This tends to be more true, I think, for those of us who straddle the fence as paragades and renegons.

[Lumikki]

Persuation or charm or intimidate and so one..

These are skills what you can learn, they efficient is based situation when you use them. Past choises has no meaning at all in these skills. Meaning what choises you did choose in past doesn't change you skill.

In gameplay point in ME2, you make choises what increase number based points (paragon or renegade),  based what choises you make in dialogs. Those choises are paragon, neutral and renegade.

Now reputation other had is something where you past choises can increase it. That's why I call it reputation, because it's consistent of the behavior how it really happens in gameplay perspective in ME2.

ME1 persuation and intimidate skills worked totally different. Past choises did not affect them at all. Gameplay only used progression of paragon and renegade to affect how fast you can learn the skill. But it was the skill what desided the outcome.

Do you see the difference?

Now I think OP is trying to make point that if player can choose right way in dialogs, it's the effect. It's little like is it player or character skill. Player skill has been there allways allready. Now the real point is can player allways get the "positive" effect they want. I don't support it. In my opinion if players allways get what they want, what's the point of choise.

Modifié par Lumikki, 25 juin 2011 - 07:00 .

[wizardryforever]

marshalleck wrote...

My point about the greyed out options is seeing them forces the player's mentality into a meta-gaming state. Once the greyed out option pops up you're no longer thinking about how your character would react in the conversation, you're now wondering where you missed points, and who's going to die or otherwise screw over your Shepard as a result of your having insufficient persuasion skills. That's why I'd like to see them go away if you can't use them in the first place.

It's an imperfect solution (like most of them) because that leads to a Guide Dang It! moment.  You've heard rumors that you can talk your way out of this difficult situation from someonee else.  "Bollocks!" you say, "I've never had the option to talk out of that fight!"  But lo and behold, the game hid that knowledge from you, and you had to resort to guides or helpful forum-goers to figure out how to do it.  But I suppose it's no worse than the current system.

[ApplesauceBandit]

I like the Charm/Intimidate options, especially my "Renegade Punch people in the face" option.

[Repearized Miranda]

Valentia X wrote...

Repearized Miranda wrote...

Valentia X wrote...

I think half of the issue would be solved if we had options to justify or explain our options; I play a renegon and one of the reasons why I don't go full renegade is because I'm not pro-humanity, and I hate how it seems that renegades are shoehorned into it. If we could clarify why, at least for some options, I think there would be a lot less heartburn.

Justfication doesn't seem to work though (Ash/Kaidan on Horizon; The Council, or even TIM), And with most renegades, they wouldn't even think about wasting their breath because you'll get the three above examples again.

Shep: I have my reasons for doing what I did!
Ash: You still betrayed the Alliance!

Note that the diplomatic choices were no matter in that situation either.

They already made up their minds. As someone said, "Hate doesn't need reason. It just needs a target!" Which is true to the core given the amount of venom spewed in ME2 - even if you're diplomatic about it.

Horizon was horrifically done, period.

As I said, I play a renegon, and sometimes I do things in-game considered renegade for what might be ultimately considered paragon reasons. A common theme for a lot of us renegons/paragades is Legion's 'A House Divided' mission; we destroyed the heretic geth not because it would avoid a fight, or because we don't want the good geth to have their brethren back, but (as all the paragon options up to that point say) because brainwashing is ultimately much worse than killing beings who chose to be my enemy. If there had been something as simple as talking to Kelly about it afterwards, where I can speak my piece, I'd have been much happier. 

Some of us just want to be able to justify it to ourselves. This tends to be more true, I think, for those of us who straddle the fence as paragades and renegons.

That's the thing. I think everyone regardless of the group you're in should be able to justify his/her Shep's actions! If you're still called an ass, so what? If Shepard being such gets his/hers out the fire, then so be it! Why on earth do people use the expression: "Everything happens for a reason," then, since that applies justification. Yet, this again negate because though renegades don't always listen to reason, it doesn't mean they don't have their own. It's very easy to say: "It was bad writing," but the "I don't give a damn" crowd does exist whether you justify your actions or not.

[Raiil]

And that's why I think it should be an option- that's why I used being able to talk to Kelly as a reason. Something that can be avoided, but giving some of us the chance to clarify. Sorry if I wasn't being clear about it.

It's just residual annoyance over walking the middle ground.

[Lumikki]

Valentia X wrote...

Repearized Miranda wrote...

They already made up their minds. As someone said, "Hate doesn't need reason. It just needs a target!" Which is true to the core given the amount of venom spewed in ME2 - even if you're diplomatic about it.

Horizon was horrifically done, period.

Actually Horizons is good as pointing the problem. Same as Miranda and Jack fight too.

REAL issue here is that players have hard time accepting situation when it doesn't go way the players wanted.
Meaning NPCS actually make they own mind and don't let player to change it.

Modifié par Lumikki, 25 juin 2011 - 07:09 .

[Raiil]

Lumikki wrote...

Valentia X wrote...

Repearized Miranda wrote...

They already made up their minds. As someone said, "Hate doesn't need reason. It just needs a target!" Which is true to the core given the amount of venom spewed in ME2 - even if you're diplomatic about it.

Horizon was horrifically done, period.

Actually Horizons is good as pointing the problem. Same as Miranda and Jack fight too.

REAL issue here is that players have hard time accepting situation when it doesn't go way players wanted.
Meaning NPCS actually make they own mind and don't let player to change it.

Actually, a lot of the annoyance stems from the fact that in order to maximise the game, you have to metagame. The fact that sometimes the choices don't even make sense (again, A House Divided stands out) only makes it more irritating. I know a lot of renegades feel the same way- if you want to enjoy the max amount of content, jump on a white horse and be an angel. I won't argue whether it's 'right' or 'wrong' but it is a pain in the ass.

[Repearized Miranda]

Valentia X wrote...

And that's why I think it should be an option- that's why I used being able to talk to Kelly as a reason. Something that can be avoided, but giving some of us the chance to clarify. Sorry if I wasn't being clear about it.

It's just residual annoyance over walking the middle ground.

You were very clear. I only replied because as I stated, it should be "limited" to only Renegons/Paragades. I'm not saying you said that, but it seems as if the P/R debate won't stop for whatever reason. (The meter itself, choices, Shep's reactions and whatnot)

[Raiil]

Repearized Miranda wrote...

Valentia X wrote...

And that's why I think it should be an option- that's why I used being able to talk to Kelly as a reason. Something that can be avoided, but giving some of us the chance to clarify. Sorry if I wasn't being clear about it.

It's just residual annoyance over walking the middle ground.

You were very clear. I only replied because as I stated, it should be "limited" to only Renegons/Paragades. I'm not saying you said that, but it seems as if the P/R debate won't stop for whatever reason. (The meter itself, choices, Shep's reactions and whatnot)

Oh, okay, I see what you're saying now. That makes sense.

[Lumikki]

Valentia X wrote...

Lumikki wrote...

Actually Horizons is good as pointing the problem. Same as Miranda and Jack fight too.

REAL issue here is that players have hard time accepting situation when it doesn't go way players wanted.
Meaning NPCS actually make they own mind and don't let player to change it.

Actually, a lot of the annoyance stems from the fact that in order to maximise the game, you have to metagame. The fact that sometimes the choices don't even make sense (again, A House Divided stands out) only makes it more irritating. I know a lot of renegades feel the same way- if you want to enjoy the max amount of content, jump on a white horse and be an angel. I won't argue whether it's 'right' or 'wrong' but it is a pain in the ass.

Could be, I hardly ever try to play like renegade, it just feels so wrong. Renegade choises where sometimes just shocking, how bad they where.

Metagaming is about optimize the result. Roleplaying is accepting negative results too.

In general I think people who play renegade something thinks that they are "heroes" and should be rewared, that's the problem. 

Oh yeah, ME2 neutral was left totally out of "rewards". Mostly it was about paragon or renegade as extreme ways.

Modifié par Lumikki, 25 juin 2011 - 07:20 .

[Raiil]

Lumikki wrote...

Valentia X wrote...

Lumikki wrote...

Actually Horizons is good as pointing the problem. Same as Miranda and Jack fight too.

REAL issue here is that players have hard time accepting situation when it doesn't go way players wanted.
Meaning NPCS actually make they own mind and don't let player to change it.

Actually, a lot of the annoyance stems from the fact that in order to maximise the game, you have to metagame. The fact that sometimes the choices don't even make sense (again, A House Divided stands out) only makes it more irritating. I know a lot of renegades feel the same way- if you want to enjoy the max amount of content, jump on a white horse and be an angel. I won't argue whether it's 'right' or 'wrong' but it is a pain in the ass.

Could be, I hardly ever try to play like renegade, it just feels so wrong. Renegade choises where sometimes just shocking, how bad they where.

Metagaming is about optimize the result. Roleplaying is accepting negative results too.

In general I think people who play renegade something thinks that they are "heroes" and should be rewared, that's the problem. 

Oh yeah, ME2 neutral was left totally out of "rewards". Mostly it was about paragon or renegade as extreme ways.

Renegade was supposed to be Jack Bauer. It ended up becoming Jerkass. And I think sometimes neutral should be the best option.

[Commander Shep4rd]

Paula Deen wrote...

I admit, I do hate the "THESE CONVERSATION OPTIONS ARE CORRECT."

One of the really nice things about Samara's loyalty mission is that your assignment is all about conversational skill, and not about having a high Paragon or high Renegade (no love for mixed, apparently) stats.

Morinth, "Conversational skills" Lol you basically just had to choose the lefr choices holding down the stick to the lower-left choices and press x like a madman.

[Lumikki]

Valentia X wrote...

Renegade was supposed to be Jack Bauer. It ended up becoming Jerkass. And I think sometimes neutral should be the best option.

Yeah, I agree.

[The Baconer]

Lumikki wrote...

In general I think people who play renegade something thinks that they are "heroes" and should be rewared, that's the problem. 

A comment like that really makes me question your credibility regarding this subject. We might as well boot Paragon and Renegade meters entirely and just change it to Right and Wrong.

Renegade players SHOULD be 'rewarded' just as much as Paragon players. Bioware wanted Renegade to mean 'direct, forceful, pragmatic, always focused on completing the mission, at any cost' but apparently that actually means being a dick, a total heel, or a common criminal at worst. There are too few actual 'Renegade' decisions that can be made the game. Thankfully, ME1's system allowed you to approach conversations the way YOU wanted, while still being able to use Renegade persuasion options if you put points into it.

ME2's system forces you to act like a moron if you want to accrue enough Renegade points to be able to pass those late-game checks.

[Repearized Miranda]

Valentia X wrote...

Lumikki wrote...

Valentia X wrote...

Repearized Miranda wrote...

They already made up their minds. As someone said, "Hate doesn't need reason. It just needs a target!" Which is true to the core given the amount of venom spewed in ME2 - even if you're diplomatic about it.

Horizon was horrifically done, period.

Actually Horizons is good as pointing the problem. Same as Miranda and Jack fight too.

REAL issue here is that players have hard time accepting situation when it doesn't go way players wanted.
Meaning NPCS actually make they own mind and don't let player to change it.

Actually, a lot of the annoyance stems from the fact that in order to maximise the game, you have to metagame. The fact that sometimes the choices don't even make sense (again, A House Divided stands out) only makes it more irritating. I know a lot of renegades feel the same way- if you want to enjoy the max amount of content, jump on a white horse and be an angel. I won't argue whether it's 'right' or 'wrong' but it is a pain in the ass.

So, is ME2 (and 1 & 3 for that matter)  biased towards paragons or renegades? This isn't mean to regurgiate the debate, but it's weird &  because it seems like Renegades get it in spades

Renegades = Equal [Always] being jerks, but they get awesome interrupts
The perception that Renegades = losers (ie: Bad ending, everyone dies or that's what they should get)
Renegades = Target practice = everybody hates you!

While Paragons get essentially the complete opposite.

So, yeah, I definitely understand your middle-ground view, but when it comes to how others perceive you ... it's one thing if you want to be middle ground, but it's another to say that such a "yellow" choice should have as much "Ummph" as a Red or Blue one!

Neutral means just that = neutral.

Walking into diffuse arguments between Jack/Miri, Legion/Tali, Samara/Morinth, only to say: "Leave me out of this!" People do that, but if that were an option, would people actually do it?

[Repearized Miranda]

Valentia X wrote...

Repearized Miranda wrote...

Valentia X wrote...

And that's why I think it should be an option- that's why I used being able to talk to Kelly as a reason. Something that can be avoided, but giving some of us the chance to clarify. Sorry if I wasn't being clear about it.

It's just residual annoyance over walking the middle ground.

You were very clear. I only replied because as I stated, it shouldn't be "limited" to only Renegons/Paragades. I'm not saying you said that, but it seems as if the P/R debate won't stop for whatever reason. (The meter itself, choices, Shep's reactions and whatnot)

Oh, okay, I see what you're saying now. That makes sense.

[Dangerfoot]

In game choices, just like RL political affiliations, shouldn't be split into a red or blue binary. But unfortunately it looks like both of those awful systems are here to stay for a very very long time.

[Lumikki]

The Baconer wrote...

Lumikki wrote...

In general I think people who play renegade something thinks that they are "heroes" and should be rewared, that's the problem. 

A comment like that really makes me question your credibility regarding this subject. We might as well boot Paragon and Renegade meters entirely and just change it to Right and Wrong.

Renegade players SHOULD be 'rewarded' just as much as Paragon players. Bioware wanted Renegade to mean 'direct, forceful, pragmatic, always focused on completing the mission, at any cost' but apparently that actually means being a dick, a total heel, or a common criminal at worst. There are too few actual 'Renegade' decisions that can be made the game. Thankfully, ME1's system allowed you to approach conversations the way YOU wanted, while still being able to use Renegade persuasion options if you put points into it.

ME2's system forces you to act like a moron if you want to accrue enough Renegade points to be able to pass those late-game checks.

That's not what I meaned. I meaned that some people seem to thinks that renegade is the "Good" guy, just playing hard. Maybe renegade should be more like that, but in both ME's renegade is a jerk.

Modifié par Lumikki, 25 juin 2011 - 08:04 .

[Repearized Miranda]

Lumikki wrote...

The Baconer wrote...

Lumikki wrote...

In general I think people who play renegade something thinks that they are "heroes" and should be rewared, that's the problem. 

A comment like that really makes me question your credibility regarding this subject. We might as well boot Paragon and Renegade meters entirely and just change it to Right and Wrong.

Renegade players SHOULD be 'rewarded' just as much as Paragon players. Bioware wanted Renegade to mean 'direct, forceful, pragmatic, always focused on completing the mission, at any cost' but apparently that actually means being a dick, a total heel, or a common criminal at worst. There are too few actual 'Renegade' decisions that can be made the game. Thankfully, ME1's system allowed you to approach conversations the way YOU wanted, while still being able to use Renegade persuasion options if you put points into it.

ME2's system forces you to act like a moron if you want to accrue enough Renegade points to be able to pass those late-game checks.

That's not what I meaned. I meaned that some people seem to thinks that renegade is the "Good" guy, just playing hard. Maybe renegade should be more like that, but in both ME's renegade is a jerk.

Yeah, Paragons are the heroes while the Renegades are the anti-heroes. I will agree that they went too far with "being a jerks," but you could say that went too far with Paragons being "the answer to everything." However, in BWs defense (animation wise)sometimes it takes more than verbal threats to get a point across.

If the roles were reversed and Paragons were a-holes (and they can be sometimes if you really think about it)

How is threatening to kill (or at least hinting at it?) any better than actually doing it? (ie: Elnora)

[Repearized Miranda]

Dangerfoot wrote...

In game choices, just like RL political affiliations, shouldn't be split into a red or blue binary. But unfortunately it looks like both of those awful systems are here to stay for a very very long time.

You may well say that there should literally no figurately be any fences for stradding! What's the point of choosing or having choices then?

[Repearized Miranda]

Dangerfoot wrote...

In game choices, just like RL political affiliations, shouldn't be split into a red or blue binary. But unfortunately it looks like both of those awful systems are here to stay for a very very long time.

Accidental double post. Ignore this!

Modifié par Repearized Miranda, 25 juin 2011 - 08:21 .

[Skirata129]

but too often, Renegade is the correct way to go going ONLY on the info we're given in the game. It's slightly annoying because Renegade decisions have yet to see a positive result, and Paragon decisions have yet to bite anyone in the ass aside from the INCREDIBLY minor issue with the new eclipse merc Elanor.

Also, the dialogue and opinions make absolutley no sense given the spirit of a renegade player. People who want to get the job done at all costs and in the most efficient manner do NOT go out of their way to antagonize people and burn bridges or choose to accept bribes, be an ahole to their teamates or joyfully start an unnecessary firefight when it could easily have been avoided to a more positive result.

It's like they had 10 different people doing the dialogue and choices and all of whom were given a different explanation of what Renegade was supposed to be and had no one go through it all and make sure it was consistent and streamlined.

[Repearized Miranda]

Skirata129 wrote...

but too often, Renegade is the correct way to go going ONLY on the info we're given in the game. It's slightly annoying because Renegade decisions have yet to see a positive result, and Paragon decisions have yet to bite anyone in the ass aside from the INCREDIBLY minor issue with the new eclipse merc Elanor.

Also, the dialogue and opinions make absolutley no sense given the spirit of a renegade player. People who want to get the job done at all costs and in the most efficient manner do NOT go out of their way to antagonize people and burn bridges or choose to accept bribes, be an ahole to their teamates or joyfully start an unnecessary firefight when it could easily have been avoided to a more positive result.

It's like they had 10 different people doing the dialogue and choices and all of whom were given a different explanation of what Renegade was supposed to be and had no one go through it all and make sure it was consistent and streamlined.

Paragons don't or shouldn't kiss everyone's behinds whomever he or she comes in contact with either.

[nhsk]

Repearized Miranda wrote...

Dangerfoot wrote...

In game choices, just like RL political affiliations, shouldn't be split into a red or blue binary. But unfortunately it looks like both of those awful systems are here to stay for a very very long time.

You may well say that there should literally no figurately be any fences for stradding! What's the point of choosing or having choices then?

The point is to see the outcome later, not getting told "this was the right thing to do"

DA:O did hidden checks, no morality meter, it was glorious.