141 réponses à ce sujet

[Homebound]

do you guys think shepard's ever been paragon charmed or renegade intimidated by a character? its not like our fourth wall perception reaches the other characters.

like that one time in mordin's mission, when you want to destroy the phage cure research but then he says it might be useful in the future. was that a speech check for mordin to us?

[AdmiralCheez]

Dariuszp wrote...

1. Your whole argumentation is bad. I disagree with you 100%.

Why?

2. Whole renegade system is bad by design and be execution.

Yes, there are problems with it.  But it's because of its flaws that it has unintentional psychological consequences.

3. I don't want to explain it again. Read my post here:

http://social.biowar...3557/22#8292993

1. Paragon does not equal good, renegade does not equal bad.
2. BBCode, learn it.

Thank you

You're welcome.

[celuloid]

Cheez, I want to roleplay in a roleplaying game. I do not want the game telling me what is pious (Paragon) or macho (Renegade) and enforcing some ill-conceived morality rules.

[Dariuszp]

AdmiralCheez wrote...

Dariuszp wrote...

1. Your whole argumentation is bad. I disagree with you 100%.

Why?

2. Whole renegade system is bad by design and be execution.

Yes, there are problems with it.  But it's because of its flaws that it has unintentional psychological consequences.

3. I don't want to explain it again. Read my post here:

http://social.biowar...3557/22#8292993

1. Paragon does not equal good, renegade does not equal bad.
2. BBCode, learn it.

Thank you

You're welcome.

It's still telling you to act "good" or "bad". Call if as you like.

[Arppis]

It would be even better if the paragon/renegade points would be spendable currency so to speak. So you would have to think twice before you use them. Would add another gameplay element to the conversations.

[Nashiktal]

No thank you. Leave morality out of my persuasion skill.

I don't see why being a goody two shoes makes me awesome at speech. Same thing with being a dick.

I can understand reputation giving bonuses one way or another, but actually deciding how well you are at persuading people? Even if the way you persuade someone isn' all that impressive?

Harrumph.

[Sebby]

The only instance where the persuasion points make any sense is with the interrogation of Elias Kelham where such a criminal would take Renegade Shepard's intimidation(there's no charm) seriously due to her reputation.

Otherwise it's ridiculous that I have to meet an execution quota and make an arbitrary amount of "renegade" decisions in order for my Shepard to angrily shout at the Quarian admirals in Tali's LM.

[Leonia]

Paragade/Renegon for the win.. there's plenty of flaws with attaching morality to every single dialogue in the game and giving 2 points R for every 2 points P for nearly every conversation (yay balancing act that makes no sense whatsoever!). I'd rather go back to the ME1 system where total values matter (instead of some hidden percentages based on how consistent you've been over the game) or ditch it altogether. If grey morality is to be lauded then why is Shepard not allowed to pursue it?

[Phaedon]

Oh God. Persuasion skills? Yeah, no, thank-you-very-much.

I'd much rather have my reputation based on my actions on both games alter the way people view me, even if it doesn't make much sense lore-wise, rather than the game rendering my character, who actually has a background, as an unintimidating or socially retarded galactic hero.

I tend to play Paragade, and I never had problems with it on the long run. The game most definitely does not play me.

Some of you know very well that in my opinion, they need to skip stat-based dialogue decisions as a whole, and allow the player pick which option seems the most charming/intimidating one. You don't exactly have to be charming as a person to do that. You need to umm...talk to people.

But anything is better than an abomination of a system which decides a huge aspect of my character by itself.

[Someone With Mass]

AdmiralCheez wrote...
I think you missed the point a little.  I was talking about how the game uses the paragon/renegade system to subvert your own values and tricks you into thinking an artificial substitute is correct.

You know how people talk about the devil and angel on your shoulders?  It'd be like if they each gave you a cookie for doing what they told you.

Angel: Now go tell Mordin what a dirtbag he is for killing krogan babies.

You: But he's not a dirtbag--

Angel: DO YOU WANT THIS COOKIE OR NOT!?

You: OKAY MORDIN YOU'RE A DIRTBAG FOR KILLING KROGAN BABIES NOW COOKIE PLZ?!

*time passes*

You: Wow, there's no way I'd tell Mordin he's a babykiller just for a cookie.  Maybe... maybe he is a babykiller, but I don't want to admit it because he's my friend...

(SCIENCE!)

This is so true to the point where it's sad.

They should definitely improve this and the morality system.

Make it so I have a lesser chance of getting the outcome I want if my Paragon/Renegade score doesn't meet the requirement, but don't gray it out.

[zingro]

AdmiralCheez wrote...

inb4 Soviet Russia

So, you know how most major decisions in the game are split into paragon and renegade?  And you know how you have to accumulate points in one or the other in order to pass specific persuasion checks?

Well, duh.  You play Mass Effect, don't you?

Anyway, a lot of people complain that it's silly to divide everything into two categories, even sillier to give you points for choosing those categories, and downright absurd to have to keep getting points in order to select certain conversation options.  And you know what?  It kind of is.  But there are design limitations in videogames such as these, and that sort of thing is ultimately subjective anyway.

However, that's not the point.  The point is that this system has created a special sort of beast that may or may not have been intentional.  This beast is one that gets in your head and messes with you, adding a psychological challenge that, once you realize it's there, is just as fun as the rest of the game.

See, the system is classic positive reinforcement.  Do this, and get rewarded.  Punch that guy, and get badass points.  Even better, these points can be used to bypass certain obstacles that would normally give you a headache, such as having to pick sides in an argument or grit your teeth through a boss fight.  In fact, since several points in the game virtually require you have a certain amount, they're more like currency than a stat boost.

That's right.  You are being paid to behave in a certain way.

So after testing the waters a little bit, most people pick a side they feel more comfortable with and stick with it.  People who would rather be calm, kind, and principled go paragon, and people who would rather be practical, badass, and less trusting go renegade.  Easy enough.

But as you play more and more to one side in order to get more and more "money," you may start to notice that the paragon/renegade's thought patterns are different from yours.  You may come across a decision you disagree with, or perhaps there's a line of dialogue that just seems stupid.

At this point, you have a choice: either sacrifice your next "paycheck" to do what feels right, or grit your teeth, go for your usual flavor, and snatch up the points you know you'll probably need later.  However, because you've been choosing similar responses over and over, you've been conditioning yourself into thinking that a certain behavior is "correct."  Because your moral alignment of choice has been rewarding you so far, part of you starts to feel like the other side is inherently less desirable.

"Wait a sec," you ask yourself, "if I go paragon/renegade on this, does that mean I'm being a sissy/douchebag?"

The game, by offering you a reward for picking a side, has suckered you into thinking in black-and-white terms.  Additional reinforcement is gained by watching your Shepard act out your decisions, and suddenly you find yourself inwardly (or outwardly if you're a BSN regular) justifying your side while bashing the other.

In a game like Mass Effect, where you are constantly being reminded by various characters and events not to fall into a single way of thinking or give into snap judgments or generalizations, you are being rewarded for doing just that.

Whether intentional or not, I think that's absolutely brilliant.  It's the ultimate sucker punch and a great way to sneak a psychological lesson into a videogame.

(lol playin a vidya gaem maed me smarturr)

Whoa! mini essay and over analyzation much.. hehe j/k Interesting read;)

I tend to play many games with pure para or renegade and also neutral with a pinch of everything depending on the situation:D  like the interrogation scene in csec.

Its good to be bad:devil:

Modifié par zingro, 09 septembre 2011 - 08:51 .

[Someone With Mass]

Or make the neutral response less crappy. The only time I've ever used it was in the cabin with Liara.

Modifié par Someone With Mass, 09 septembre 2011 - 08:54 .

[Gustaf lampa]

What really surprises me about this thread is that noone ever made a soviet russia joke. Ol' yakov must be rolling over in his grave by now.

[didymos1120]

Gustaf lampa wrote...

What really surprises me about this thread is that noone ever made a soviet russia joke. Ol' yakov must be rolling over in his grave by now.

Um, the OP had one in the very first line of her post.  And then another was made here.  And yet another here.  Also, Yakov Smirnoff isn't dead.

Modifié par didymos1120, 09 septembre 2011 - 09:16 .

[Gustaf lampa]

didymos1120 wrote...

Gustaf lampa wrote...

What really surprises me about this thread is that noone ever made a soviet russia joke. Ol' yakov must be rolling over in his grave by now.

Um, the OP had one in the very first line of her post.  And then another was made here.  And yet another here.  Also, Yakov Smirnoff isn't dead.

In soviet russia, i embarrass YOU.

[Ieldra]

AdmiralCheez wrote...
In a game like Mass Effect, where you are constantly being reminded by various characters and events not to fall into a single way of thinking or give into snap judgments or generalizations, you are being rewarded for doing just that.

Whether intentional or not, I think that's absolutely brilliant.  It's the ultimate sucker punch and a great way to sneak a psychological lesson into a videogame.

I don't find it brilliant. To me it was a promise betrayed. I never wanted to play a one-sided character and I never let the game suck me into doing that. I did play the min-maxing game but on both sides and only for a time, and none of my characters have more then 25% difference between their Paragon and Renegade scales. I just timed my missions so that choices were maximized.

Instead, I resent that the game makes my preferred playstyle so hard to realize, and I feel betrayed because the universe promised moral ambiguity but mostly didn't deliver. Instead, we have Paragon favoritism at every turn, though I have some hope that might change somewhat in ME3 after all the complaints.

While I'm at it: you should always be able to attempt a persuasion. The system should only determine if you succeed. Railing at the Admiralty Board with the Renegade persuade at Tali's trial was so very much in character for several of my Shepards, I wish I always had that option. My reputation may not be badass enough to succeed, but that doesn't matter as much as being able to say what I want.

[stysiaq]

Phaedon wrote...

Oh God. Persuasion skills? Yeah, no, thank-you-very-much.

I'd much rather have my reputation based on my actions on both games alter the way people view me, even if it doesn't make much sense lore-wise, rather than the game rendering my character, who actually has a background, as an unintimidating or socially retarded galactic hero.

I tend to play Paragade, and I never had problems with it on the long run. The game most definitely does not play me.

Some of you know very well that in my opinion, they need to skip stat-based dialogue decisions as a whole, and allow the player pick which option seems the most charming/intimidating one. You don't exactly have to be charming as a person to do that. You need to umm...talk to people.

But anything is better than an abomination of a system which decides a huge aspect of my character by itself.

This, basically.
OP: No.

[Leonia]

Ieldra2 wrote...
I don't find it brilliant. To me it was a promise betrayed. I never wanted to play a one-sided character and I never let the game suck me into doing that. I did play the min-maxing game but on both sides and only for a time, and none of my characters have more then 25% difference between their Paragon and Renegade scales. I just timed my missions so that choices were maximized.

Instead, I resent that the game makes my preferred playstyle so hard to realize, and I feel betrayed because the universe promised moral ambiguity but mostly didn't deliver. Instead, we have Paragon favoritism at every turn, though I have some hope that might change somewhat in ME3 after all the complaints.

While I'm at it: you should always be able to attempt a persuasion. The system should only determine if you succeed. Railing at the Admiralty Board with the Renegade persuade at Tali's trial was so very much in character for several of my Shepards, I wish I always had that option. My reputation may not be badass enough to succeed, but that doesn't matter as much as being able to say what I want.

Hear, hear!

This is by far my biggest issue with ME2.

[Icinix]

I support choices and consequences - not red option for evil blue for good.

The rengade / pargaon interupts were good. It paid to take them when you saw them.

If people are really anti charm / intimade (which provided better / different outcomes outside of morality) as well as red choice / blue choice .

Then perhaps the best middle ground is only having new dialogue choices if you took certain actions prior. E.g Talis Trial and rallying the crowd etc.

Ditch the whole colour coded setup all together.

[Silent X]

Ouch. Okay, Admiral, you got me. I fall pretty naturally into playing paragon, overall, but I did gradually realize that the game was skewing me in not quite the same way I would skew myself independently. In ME1, I didn't fuss quite so much; the vast majority of the time I chose paragon responses, but there were a goodly number of instances where I took the neutral option because it felt like a better fit. Once or twice I chose a renegade option in dialogue. Never having played the game before, the conditioning you mention wasn't there immediately. I seriously agonized over whether to kill or spare the Rachni Queen. In the end I decided that I just couldn't kill a helpless creature who posed no immediate threat, was begging for her life, and was the last hope (that we know of) for the survival of an entire species. I spared her, but I was not at all sure that it was the right decision. I was terrified that I had, in fact, unleashed something that would cost billions of lives down the line.

I finished ME1 and went on to ME2. By now I was familiar with the system, but I was still second-guessing it early on. There were times when the abbreviations on the dialogue wheel didn't make sense to me in terms of their paragon/renegade placement. After getting "burned" a few times by this, I started just choosing the paragon response practically every time because it generally was the best fit for what I wanted to say or do. Sometimes the way I interpreted a phrase on the dialogue wheel didn't match up with the tone of the actual corresponding line. So I gave up on trusting the text and put my faith in the positioning of it instead. And I found that slightly frustrating. Most of the time I was alright with it, but I do feel that my Shepard, who in ME1 was idealistic but had enough sense to be a bit reserved and cautious, came on as more heavy-handed in the second installment.

The real culmination of this was Legion's loyalty mission. Early on I agreed completely with the paragon response that it was wrong to brainwash the heretics. When I got to the end of the mission and saw rewriting the heretics in the upper right of the wheel, I had a major WTF moment. (I'm sure I'm not the only one.) But I did it anyway, knowing that I chose it solely because it was given as the paragon option, even though I didn't agree with it. I didn't want to see that punishing little window telling me I'd gotten renegade points. And when I realized this, I was like, "That's f***ed up." And I've been trying to rationalize it ever since. Legion says something, I think, about it being wrong to impose human or organic values on the geth, as they are a different sort of race. I think Shepard can also argue, during the course of his loyalty mission, that the heretic geth "are a part of you" or somesuch, so I can almost see an argument that Shepard would be wrongly imposing his/her values on the geth by killing them rather than "rewriting" them, and/or that integrating the experiences of the "reformed" heretic geth would ultimately enrich the geth species as a whole by increasing their understanding of the concepts of opinion and dissent, which might also help them learn to understand and coexist with other races. But does that make it okay for Shepard to decide to change their minds for them, because s/he's sure s/he's right? If my Shepard had to choose between death and indoctrination, she'd choose death in a heartbeat. So I still feel like a terrible hypocrite.

Whew, sorry for that wall of text. Thanks to anyone who actually bothers to read all of it.

[Dominus]

Yes, ME2 has a strange introspective psychological effect that reminds me of the Approve/Dissaprove in DA:O, as well as the Friend/Rival system used in DA2, but in notably different ways. With dragon age, you're typically making decisions while keeping in mind the potential responses from your comrades. Also, it's more for gameplay reasons in ME2 - that's just based on the way P/R was designed. With approve dissaprove, it's a bit more realistic in how your allies may respond. ME2 touched on this slightly with contextual moments, but not to the same extent.

Anyways, I like this thread. DominusVita approves (+5).

[Reever]

Kaiser Shepard wrote...

I play mixed and never had any problems with choosing the persuasion/intimidate options I wanted, except for Morinth's (whom I would've killed anyway).

Wanted to say this first, but then I read this:

AdmiralCheez wrote...

Biotic Sage wrote...

Yeah,
this sort of meta-gaming that the paragon/renegade system inevitably
leads to has kind of annoyed me in the Mass Effect games. I like the
system in DA2 (one of the few things I did like about it) where your
responses indicated intent, not where they fell on the morality scale.

And forcing you to choose all paragon or all renegade options in order to get a high enough persuasion rating is just awful.

I
think you missed the point a little.  I was talking about how the game
uses the paragon/renegade system to subvert your own values and tricks
you into thinking an artificial substitute is correct.

You know
how people talk about the devil and angel on your shoulders?  It'd be
like if they each gave you a cookie for doing what they told you.

Angel: Now go tell Mordin what a dirtbag he is for killing krogan babies.

You: But he's not a dirtbag--

Angel: DO YOU WANT THIS COOKIE OR NOT!?

You: OKAY MORDIN YOU'RE A DIRTBAG FOR KILLING KROGAN BABIES NOW COOKIE PLZ?!

*time passes*

You: Wow, there's no way I'd tell Mordin he's a babykiller just for a cookie.  Maybe... maybe he is a babykiller, but I don't want to admit it because he's my friend...

(SCIENCE!)

...and I remembered I didn´t really like to say that to Mordin on my Paragon playthrough (but it was an intended Paragon Shep, mind you.)
Still, don´t know what I said on my first playthrough anymore (that I played accordingly to my own moral inclinations...). I surely wasn´t a pure Paragon though, was around 30-40% Renegade IIRC.
Still, most of the time I don´t really think about having enough Paragon/Renegade points to be able to do something. I just play 

[sorentoft]

I like the dialogue wheel, but the Paragon/Renegade thing has to go after ME3 (right now it makes sense to keep it because that is the way the series was designed). I really do prefer the way DA2 handled it, despite all the flaws in that game the dialogue wheel was done really well. There you can adjust how your Hawke reacts to things based on a lot of things - do he/she joke or is he/she a boring saint? It is really preferable to the two streamlined paths in ME (there is no real reason to go with the middle, and much more logical, option - I did that a lot in my first game and found out it was actually suboptimal because I gained nothing).