150 réponses à ce sujet

[Nashiktal]

While I agree on principle, I have to say the neutral options for me2 were surprisingly effective. I would suggest trying that at least once.

In that regard though, I never got how being a saint or a dick meant you were the master of persuasion. :/

[Sisterofshane]

Nashiktal wrote...

While I agree on principle, I have to say the neutral options for me2 were surprisingly effective. I would suggest trying that at least once.

In that regard though, I never got how being a saint or a dick meant you were the master of persuasion. :/

That's were the first game got it right --in order to be persuasive, you had to put points into either charm or intimidate.  A lot of people didn't like that it detracted from upgrading your combat skills, but I think it worked just fine depending upon what kind of game you wanted to play.

[Brand New]

I like to do playthroughs with the sensible thing to do which is usually pretty obvious.

[JKFerg]

^ In ME1 didn't you have to increase your paragon or renegade "bar" in order to open more slots in the charm or intimidate section?

[darthnick427]

Without morality and order we are simply animals fighting amongst ourselves to secure our dominance over others.

Haha. I like the morality system. As long as I can do a few renegade interupts during paragon playthroughs i'm happy. Paragade all the way

[Sisterofshane]

JKFerg wrote...

^ In ME1 didn't you have to increase your paragon or renegade "bar" in order to open more slots in the charm or intimidate section?

Yeah, but it wasn't very hard to do -- it didn't force you to be mutually exclusive in one or the other. (as in keeping certain sqauddies loyalty).  The charm and intimadate options were cool, but never prevented you from being able to complete core element of the game.

[lovgreno]

One of the important themes of the ME story is that there is always at least two relevant point of wievs and at least two ways of doing this (those who needs to be right all the time finds this frustrating) wich is told primaly by the renegade/paragon options and bars. Therefore I think it should stay as it is a important part of the ME story.

[Lotion Soronarr]

I sopport the OP.

Morality meters need to go the way of the dodo.

[Dean_the_Young]

There were only three points in the game in which not making a Paragon/Renegade pass was 'bad' for the player:the two loyalty conflicts and Morinth.

Morinth herself was more of an easter egg than a real character, I'd have been just as happy had the loyalty conflicts had not cop-out options at all. Pick A OR B.

[Lotion Soronarr]

Sisterofshane wrote...

JKFerg wrote...

^ In ME1 didn't you have to increase your paragon or renegade "bar" in order to open more slots in the charm or intimidate section?

Yeah, but it wasn't very hard to do -- it didn't force you to be mutually exclusive in one or the other. (as in keeping certain sqauddies loyalty).  The charm and intimadate options were cool, but never prevented you from being able to complete core element of the game.

They never prevented you, but they RESTRICTED you in a way that make no sense.

Why not make all convo options availalbe? What's even the point of para/renegade other than have some visible meter?
Heck, in half of the choice, there isn't even a consistency in what Paragon/renegade are supposed to represent.

[Veex]

Jafroboy wrote...

And it detracts by stopping people from Role playing, as they are encouraged  to get full paragon or renegade to get the best out of the game (it even specifically instructs you to in cutscenes).

An individual's desire to min/max is all that stops them from roleplaying in relation to morality meters. If you want to play a middle of the road character you can do that. I'd actually posit that the way the current morality system works enhances roleplay, because you can actually find yourself in a situation where there isn't a silver bullet.

[Sisterofshane]

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

Sisterofshane wrote...

JKFerg wrote...

^ In ME1 didn't you have to increase your paragon or renegade "bar" in order to open more slots in the charm or intimidate section?

Yeah, but it wasn't very hard to do -- it didn't force you to be mutually exclusive in one or the other. (as in keeping certain sqauddies loyalty).  The charm and intimadate options were cool, but never prevented you from being able to complete core element of the game.

They never prevented you, but they RESTRICTED you in a way that make no sense.

Why not make all convo options availalbe? What's even the point of para/renegade other than have some visible meter?
Heck, in half of the choice, there isn't even a consistency in what Paragon/renegade are supposed to represent.

Yeah, I agree that it was a restriction, but it wasn't a senseless one.

A "paragon" Shep would be more willing to be diplomatic, or charming, when dealing with people and situations. 
A "renegade" Shepard would be more likely to use force and intimidate people to get his/her way.

I think the "consistency" that people want pertains to the solution, or overall outcome of the specific dialogue as it relates to Paragon/Renegade, as opposed to the means of which the outcome is resolved.

The whole morality system is the way the dev's resolved turning a tps into an rpg -- it gives us the ability to roleplay and create a character who, within a limited story, is ultimately our own.  Paragon and Renegade is a "flavor" of Shep, and to just make all choices available kind of cheapens the rpg aspect.

[Sisterofshane]

Dean_the_Young wrote...

There were only three points in the game in which not making a Paragon/Renegade pass was 'bad' for the player:the two loyalty conflicts and Morinth.

Morinth herself was more of an easter egg than a real character, I'd have been just as happy had the loyalty conflicts had not cop-out options at all. Pick A OR B.

Try playing completely neutral sometime and you will realize that there were more than just three options in which the morality bar mattered -- it completely restricts the player to a one-dimensional storyline in which none of your actual choices are influential to gameplay.

But, for most of us (who tend to identify and stick with a moral code of either P/R), I agree, there is really only a handful of instances where we are "screwed over", in a sense, by not playing either full paragon or renegade.

[Dean_the_Young]

Sisterofshane wrote...

Dean_the_Young wrote...

There were only three points in the game in which not making a Paragon/Renegade pass was 'bad' for the player:the two loyalty conflicts and Morinth.

Morinth herself was more of an easter egg than a real character, I'd have been just as happy had the loyalty conflicts had not cop-out options at all. Pick A OR B.

Try playing completely neutral sometime and you will realize that there were more than just three options in which the morality bar mattered -- it completely restricts the player to a one-dimensional storyline in which none of your actual choices are influential to gameplay.

I have. Which is why I said it.

The most paragon/renegade persuades matter is salad dressing, not plot. Persuading Priavte Stonewaller to back down rather than push him out a tower doesn't matter to the plot: it's superficial. Keeping Tali's loyalty AND having her not exiled from the fleet is primarily superficial to the migrant fleet plot, and even that's achievable by other means.

There isn't a single Big Decision in the plot that requires Paragon/Renegade besides the Loyalty choices (when high-persuasion is the only copout) and the Morinth-Samara match (when a high bar is needed to get the option of a choice).

[Dean_the_Young]

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

Why not make all convo options availalbe?

Because not all people can adopt all tones at any time. A habitually rude, blunt person isn't going to be able to charm a person. A dyed-in-wool compromiser isn't going to be taken seriously by his teammates if he tries to put his foot down and overpower someone verbally and by threats.

The persuade options are representative of something that requires exceptional, not basic, manner AND reputation to be able to pull off. About the only concession I'd freely give is that they should have allowed the Fallout-style 'try and fail' approach.

What's even the point of para/renegade other than have some visible meter?

As a combination of reputation and personality to justify being able to make exceptional statements.

[Dariuszp]

lovgreno wrote...

One of the important themes of the ME story is that there is always at least two relevant point of wievs and at least two ways of doing this (those who needs to be right all the time finds this frustrating) wich is told primaly by the renegade/paragon options and bars. Therefore I think it should stay as it is a important part of the ME story.

Problem is that there is not so much "pure evil" in any story. I love stories where even that "evil enemy" have reason to do something. Brainless "destroy the world" is not fun at all.
Witcher 1 was best there in matter of choices.

You had 2 sides. Humans that was new in "old world". They push back elves and dwarfs. They spread across the land. They rule over everything else. And after hundreds of years they were another race in this region. From time to time they killed bunch of elves. You know - mob rules. Riots and other stuff that not so great anymore Britan do right now (well... not to elves ).
They seeing in elves, dwarfs etc bunch of terrorists (it's almost like first Americans and Indians - they came across the sea and conquer).
For Dwarfs and Elves, humans are someone who conquer their land and they are trying to fight back.

So humans are evil conquerer ? Ask a King - yes, we rule. Ask a farmer - no, i just plant crops and I'm trying to live here.
So elves are terrorists ? Ask humans - yes, they are. Ask elves - No, we are freedom fighters.

So from one point of view, humans are evil, they rule with force and they must be put down. From other they just make a home here, plant crops and live peaceful lives.
From one point of view, elves are bunch of terrorists that kill people. From another they are freedom fighters that fight for their land that people took.

What you do - you can help one of them or... just stand aside and make them deal with each other.

Question is - who is evil here ? Not so simple.

Modifié par Dariuszp, 19 août 2011 - 06:50 .

[Dionkey]

I'll say this once and I'll say it again: Alpha Protocol has the best interactive dialogue system ever done in a video game.

[Lotion Soronarr]

Sisterofshane wrote...

Lotion Soronnar wrote...
They never prevented you, but they RESTRICTED you in a way that make no sense.

Why not make all convo options availalbe? What's even the point of para/renegade other than have some visible meter?
Heck, in half of the choice, there isn't even a consistency in what Paragon/renegade are supposed to represent.

Yeah, I agree that it was a restriction, but it wasn't a senseless one.

A "paragon" Shep would be more willing to be diplomatic, or charming, when dealing with people and situations. 
A "renegade" Shepard would be more likely to use force and intimidate people to get his/her way.

I think the "consistency" that people want pertains to the solution, or overall outcome of the specific dialogue as it relates to Paragon/Renegade, as opposed to the means of which the outcome is resolved.

The whole morality system is the way the dev's resolved turning a tps into an rpg -- it gives us the ability to roleplay and create a character who, within a limited story, is ultimately our own.  Paragon and Renegade is a "flavor" of Shep, and to just make all choices available kind of cheapens the rpg aspect.

Bollocks.

The very existence of those meters and restruictions cheapns the RPG aspect. It doesn't add anything to it - it takes away from it. Without being limited by hte meters, we can have greater roleplaying abilities.

And Paragon/renegade isn't consistant in what it represents. Renegade fluctuates from practical to downright douchebag. Paragon from diplomatic to downright idiotic.

Modifié par Lotion Soronnar, 19 août 2011 - 07:07 .

[Nashiktal]

People are missing the point of roleplaying.

Having all convo options available would not limit roleplaying at all, no in fact it would encourage it! It would be up to the player to make the shep they would see fit. Want a perfect mary sue shep? Go right ahead. Want to make a shep who is generally an ass, but with a heart of gold? Go ahead, hug Tali without fear of being unable to keep the loyalty of your crew.

Now what people are thinking of is not roleplaying. but a game mechanic. Limitations to add challenge. The problem with the challenge, is that it limits your character. We were LUCKY to have the neutral options in ME2 to be viable. In fact, the way neutral decisions were handled is something I would prefer to the paragon and renegade.

I will give an example. During Tali's loyalty mission, after you retake the Alerai you are given several choices on how to proceed. However let us assume you want to keep Tali's loyalty, and thus withholding the evidence. Let us also assume that you do not have enough paragon or renegade choices to save her with.

So how do you save Tali? By having your previous choices in the game matter of course! Remember Veetor, the nervous wreck of a quarian you met not two hours in the game? Well if you save him, and choose the middle option (rally the crowd.) He will come forth and speak for Tali, even though he is still recovering from his breakdown. However, he will only do this if you do not let cerberus take him. (And thus he is sane enough to defend Tali) Then added to this, is Kal Reegar. If you manage to keep Reegar alive during Tali's recruitment mission, he will also come forth to defend Tali. If these two criteria are met, you can save Tali without having to use an I win button.

This is what ME3 should do! Make your choices in game matter! Of course they need to be a little more balanced, so the trigger happy people can have some sort of reward, but still its a very good example. SHEP PERSUADES A CROWD WITHOUT P OR R.

Why can't we have more of those? Why can shep be persuasive without P or R here, but not in other places? I still see no reason to being tethered to an arbitrary number, which has seemingly random values given to vague conversation lines. (Wait, how did I get these renegade points?)

[Nashiktal]

Dionkey wrote...

I'll say this once and I'll say it again: Alpha Protocol has the best interactive dialogue system ever done in a video game.

Agreed! Very dissapointed that its not getting a sequel, all it needed was some polishing. Polishing I say!

[Lotion Soronarr]

Dean_the_Young wrote...

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

Why not make all convo options availalbe?

Because not all people can adopt all tones at any time. A habitually rude, blunt person isn't going to be able to charm a person. A dyed-in-wool compromiser isn't going to be taken seriously by his teammates if he tries to put his foot down and overpower someone verbally and by threats.

The persuade options are representative of something that requires exceptional, not basic, manner AND reputation to be able to pull off. About the only concession I'd freely give is that they should have allowed the Fallout-style 'try and fail' approach.

What's even the point of para/renegade other than have some visible meter?

As a combination of reputation and personality to justify being able to make exceptional statements.

And I say bollocks to that too.

There's a little thing called acting.
Not to mention that youre reputation mean nothing in 99% of the conversations, as you never even introduce yourself. Reputation only serves to set up a initial reaction. But everyone knows reputations can be misleading.

That my options on what  I can even TRY to do are completely limited by how  I talked to a completely different person before is sheer stupid.

[Sebby]

The two paths are laughably inconsistent. Paragon is diplomatic and friendly one minute and the next it's threatening to break the legs of an Elcor and nearly assaulting a C-Sec officer. Renegade on the other hand can't make up it's mind on whether it wants to be the punisher or a crooked cop on the take.

[Youknow]

Dionkey wrote...

I'll say this once and I'll say it again: Alpha Protocol has the best interactive dialogue system ever done in a video game.

I never played it, what did they do there? 

[Humanoid_Typhoon]

Seboist wrote...

The two paths are laughably inconsistent. Paragon is diplomatic and friendly one minute and the next it's threatening to break the legs of an Elcor and nearly assaulting a C-Sec officer. Renegade on the other hand can't make up it's mind on whether it wants to be the punisher or a crooked cop on the take.

Or just a complete douche.

[starwars5393]

I agree it retricts too much i play renegade alot but sometimes i wanna choose that paragon option unfortunately its locked. Mabye instead of having a certain dialogue choice be that magical one that persuades people or gets you what you want game devs should make it so that a combo of choices is what persuades the person, makes them help you, calms them down, etc. This way you can be that badass with a heart of gold or whatever you want to be with no dialouge being barred from you