141 réponses à ce sujet

[Kyria Nyriese]

luk4s3d wrote...

didymos1120 wrote...

luk4s3d wrote...

didymos1120 wrote...

luk4s3d wrote...

jreezy wrote...

luk4s3d wrote...
Take ME2 for example, when your crew start falling out, if you have'nt got full Para or Rene points you insta-fail and have to sacrifice one of 'em in the suicide mission.

Your example isn't always true.

I know, it's a simplistic example to get my point across.

No, it's just plain incorrect, and in multiple ways: you don't need full P/R, and you're also not automatically forced to have an SM casualty as a result of failing either of those persuasions.

youre just being argumentative.

If you havent got NEARLY full para rene, youre gonna loose squadmates.

Happy now?

Anal post is anal! 

No, because you're not forced to use those non-loyal squadmates to do anything.  Lost Tali's loyalty?  Oh well. Just use Legion in the vents instead.  Or Kasumi.  Lost Jack's?  Use Samara or Morinth for the biotic barrier. Nor are you forced to make other bad SM decisions that will get those characters killed, like siding with Jack and then taking a non-loyal Miranda to the final boss.  And no: failing to recruit potential substitutes and/or gain their loyalty doesn't make this claim right either.  That's entirely on you, and also isn't dependent on P/R scores (no, not even Samara's loyalty mission.  You don't need to use persuasion at all to succeed there).

Wrong post is wrong.

You must have a different game to me then, because whoever is'nt loyal dies at the last part, if they're with you or not!

Jesus christ, wind your neck in!

See my post above, I've played at least two play throughs with at least one person not loyal to me because of failed persuasion checks and have  yet with any play through of ME 2 that I've done lost anyone on the SM.

[naledgeborn]

jreezy wrote...

naledgeborn wrote...
 People really like their Blue/Red I win button.

I'll never understand peoples' fascination with that. I don't let Paragon/Renegade choices dictate how I play my game.

I agree with you. But I'm one of the lucky people who brought in a lvl 60 Shepard into ME2.

[didymos1120]

luk4s3d wrote...


You must have a different game to me then, because whoever is'nt loyal dies at the last part, if they're with you or not!

Jesus christ, wind your neck in!

This is also completely incorrect.  See the SM guide if you want the details, but in short, if you don't leave good defenders someone might die during the "Hold The Line" sequence. If the game determines that someone should die, then non-loyal squadmates go first. 

Modifié par didymos1120, 11 septembre 2011 - 02:54 .

[JeffZero]

jreezy, there's also another matter. Some players (like myself in a couple of files) like to orchestrate specific deaths for particular 'dramatic' impact. I wanted to end a run with several people dead once and I've concluded two more with two to three squadmates dead each time. Sometimes I want it to end dirty like that.

[didymos1120]

jreezy wrote...

Is the SM really that complicated that people need a guide for it?

Not really.  That guide is more a result of people being curious about the mechanics and experimenting with various SM scenarios.  Usually people consult it in order to arrange pretty specific outcomes.

I thought it was fairly easy to keep people alive.

It is.  The one thing a significant number of people had trouble figuring out initially was how to keep Mordin from dying during the "Hold the Line" sequence, because the mistakes you can make there aren't very obvious.  It's not like the other stuff where you can just go "Oh, guess so-and-so wasn't the right choice for that job."

Modifié par didymos1120, 11 septembre 2011 - 03:09 .

[Leonia]

Sometimes even the best laid out plans can go awry if you mis-calibrate that Hold the Line score..can't tell ya how much time I've invested in meta-gaming and plotting on the SM just to make each playthrough feel completely unique. Also the amount of time spent meta-gaming on the blasted morality system which itself fails at being consistent.

[wizardryforever]

jreezy wrote...

JeffZero wrote...

jreezy, there's also another matter. Some players (like myself in a couple of files) like to orchestrate specific deaths for particular 'dramatic' impact. I wanted to end a run with several people dead once and I've concluded two more with two to three squadmates dead each time. Sometimes I want it to end dirty like that.

Oh yeah I can see a guide being useful for that. I plan on doing that as well in one of my playthroughs.

The guide is also useful for getting tha elusive "Shepard dies" ending.  It is far easier to come out with no casualties than to epic fail enough that Shepard dies.  I tried three times before succeeding at that.

[Nashiktal]

Tali's loyalty mission is an excellent example of why the morality bar is silly. Do you want to save Tali? Do you want to do it that doesn't rely on some morality bar which uses a math that cannot be figured out unless you dig through the games files? Do you want your shep to do it in a smart way?

During the trial you don't have to use the persuasion abilities to save Tali from exile. Instead it relies on previous choices. If you managed to keep Kal Reegar alive, and didn't give veetor away to cerberus, all you have to do is rally the crowd.

Now its still not perfect, as not giving veetor away gives you paragon points (which plays into that inane P and R system) but it gives you the option of doing something DESPITE you morality. You can save Tali even if you can't persuade anyone.

We need more of that. Even if we have to suffer the P and R bar for the last game in the trilogy, at least give us ways to do as we wish without them. Give us choices that don't rely on those morality bars, which Bioware was trying to move away from in the first place.

[The Twilight God]

jreezy wrote...

naledgeborn wrote...
 People really like their Blue/Red I win button.

I'll never understand peoples' fascination with that. I don't let Paragon/Renegade choices dictate how I play my game.

Well, technically it does. Don't have enough p/r you have choices removed. So yes, it can dictate your choices. The only one that really pisses me off is Jeong on Feros. You have to have maxed out points to spare him (or at least next to maxed out). Why do I need enough points to make Saren suicide himself at the end of the game at a junction that could very well occur in the beginning. So if you do Feros first he can't be spared. There is simply no way I'll have 75% of any morality by that point. Why should the order in which I play effect who lives or dies? They should scrap the "i win" button. DA:O was perfect with simply having diferent outcomes vs better/worst outcomes.

The a ME1 import, ME2 has never been an issue. I do whatever I want and still can make all the choices I want (accept for being uneffected by Morinth).

The least they could do is not show the options you can't use. It's as if Biowares wants you to be aware that you're playing the game "wrong".

[StarcloudSWG]

I never bother with "Oh, this is a paragon choice" or "Oh, this is a renegade choice." I think to myself, "On this run, I'm playing Shepard with these traits. Which of these conversation options best fits Shepard this time?"

[Nashiktal]

Problem is, there are times where the choice that best fits shep are taken away from me because I wasn't enough of a dick to my crew.

Go figure.

[Computer_God91]

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)

I do really enjoy the thought you put behind all this and you are spot on with the psychology behind why most people stick hardcore Paragon/Renegade. However, I am one of the people that do the choice I want to do (or would do if I were in the given situation) regardless of Paragon or Renegade points. While I play the majority of the game as a Paragon because I am primarily what  you described a Paragon as above, I do have plenty of Renegade choices to go along with the Paragon because in some situations I see Renegade as the only real way to solve the problem at hand. Somehow even while picking all the choices I choose I still have enough points to pick the dialogue options I want. Not once during the game is my decision sway'd by points.