133 réponses à ce sujet

[Dionkey]

They should have it like L.A. Noires system in which you have to appeal (as the OP stated) to that persons personality and mindset. It makes no sense how you can win some hard ass leader over with some idealist speech after he just killed a bunch of civilians. Intimidate and Charm are really just instant win buttons. So, I agree, take them out.

[Lumikki]

Not sure how to say this. But paragon, neutral and renegade are more like styles how players character deal situation. They don't it self affect anyway is it right or wrong choise.

So, paragon "does" kiss everyones ass.
While renegade does "hit" everyone in face

I don't mean them as literary, but as style. If player doesn't want to do just one kind style, then player needs to mix choises based situation. Yeah, I know (ME2) the game system doesn't reward mixing, but player can do it.

How ever, I do agree that not every renegade choise is bad or every paragon choise good. Sometimes action has unexpected consequences. Meaning paragon choise can hit you face later or renegade choise can become benefitial, compared to paragon. How ever, most time action is what they are, because actions creates usually same kind of actions.

Modifié par Lumikki, 25 juin 2011 - 08:58 .

[Dionkey]

Lumikki wrote...

Not sure how to say this. But paragon, neutral and renegade are more like styles how players character deals situation. They don't it self affect anyway is it right or wrong choise.

So, paragon "does" kiss everyones ass.
While renegade does "hit" everyone in face

I don't mean them as literary, but as style. If player doesn't want to do just one kind style, then player needs to mix choises based situation. Yeah, I know (ME2) the game system doesn't reward mixing, but player can do it.

How ever, I do agree that not every renegade choise is bad or every paragon choise good. Sometimes action has unexpected consequences. Meaning paragon choise can hit you later face or renegade choise can become benefitial, compared to paragon. How ever, most time action is what they are, because actions creates usually same kind of actions.

But the problem with this is that it is just different paths to victory. Its like a railway that all converge at one point no matter which of the 3 paths you take. That isn't really an outcome, just a different perspective.

[Repearized Miranda]

nhsk wrote...

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.

But don't/won't we see the outcome later? Take the Base! I think what's irking people is that they think that they should all get the same thing - especially if someone else did.

"Hey, I blew up the base, so once the Reapers gone, no more can be built." Another player may NOT want that -- let alone, expect that he/she should get it! It's about what the players want - not what they think they should have. If it were the latter, then why is BW talking consistently about player freedom if many players feel that it doesn't exist with the "shoe-horning"? That's the thing: "I'd advise you to do this!" "I'm not saying you HAVE to!" (ie: Character/Playstyle debate)

In the case of "right and wrong" (Diplomatic/Pragmatic), what that may be for me - may nor be for someone else. If that weren't the case, why are there four possible directions, Shep's morale can go in?

Modifié par Repearized Miranda, 25 juin 2011 - 09:15 .

[Lumikki]

Dionkey wrote...

But the problem with this is that it is just different paths to victory. Its like a railway that all converge at one point no matter which of the 3 paths you take. That isn't really an outcome, just a different perspective.

Yeah, they are path of styles.

I ques you are right, that it doesn't in end matter what path you did take, but for style how you did get there does matter.

All Biowares games allways cause same thing to happen no mater what you choose. But what you choose does affect to the style as how it happens, not as what happens as end result in story. Meaning there are small differences, while the hole picture is pretty much same.


PS: I also agree with you comment about WIN button. It's little sad to see how much players are unable to deal negative consequences. Perfect example post below me.

Modifié par Lumikki, 25 juin 2011 - 10:33 .

[Slothful Koala]

I agree I'm sick of being forced into certain paths because I'm punished for not being all out Paragon or Renegade for those damned options. I would like to respond to people the way I feel and not be punished for doing so by loosing someones loyalty or loosing a character all together.

[Raxxman]

Dangerfoot wrote...

I'm on board. The faux morality system in ME2 was wildly uneven, mostly irrelevant, and totally railroaded me into meta-gaming 90% of the time.

This is the basic crutch of the situation.

What you're trying to say is your actions have significant rammifcations to the game environment.

What you're actually saying, is your actions have significant rammifactions to the game unless you act in one of 2 highly restrictive ways.

Polarising characters is somewhat dull, you just need to actually look at the most popular characters (IE Garus, morally ambiguous, you have the ability to mold him, like your protege) with the least popular ones (Jacob, who is basically paragon regardless of what you do).

The % system is about the single worst way of implementing choices, it stops the 'pick this option because it looks cool' and enforces the 'pick this option because its the correct one'.

By all means keep these options in the game, but introduce ways out that require paragon + renegade combined to allow people who make shades of grey.

Or we'll just keep cheating around the system.

Modifié par Raxxman, 25 juin 2011 - 11:16 .

[implodinggoat]

Raxxman wrote...

By all means keep these options in the game, but introduce ways out that require paragon + renegade combined to allow people who make shades of grey.

That was definitely my biggest problem with the ME2 morality system, until I started modding the game to give myself a ton of paragon and renegade points.

In ME1 I could play the game however I pleased although it did require me to throw a ton of points into charm and intimidate when I leveled up.  The ME1 system was at least superior to the ME2 system in that it gave you the ability to play however you wanted without much concern about how it would effect your ability to use charm or intimidate.  However; even the ME1 system was irritating in that it forced you to sink points into charm and intimidate and kept you guess about how many you might need.

I'd prefer ME3 used the ME1 system to the ME2 system;  but I'd still prefer the complete removal of charm and intimidate altogether.   I like having unique options; but those should really be tied to the players past actions not to some meta statistic like the Paragon or Renegade score.

[implodinggoat]

Lumikki wrote...

PS: I also agree with you comment about WIN button. It's little sad to see how much players are unable to deal negative consequences. Perfect example post below me.

I'm down for dealing with negative consequences provided that they're consequences of my decisions; but not if they're consequences of meta gaming.