30 réponses à ce sujet

[Ravellion]

 Hello everyone,

Heavy spoilers coming up about all three games.

What I in hindsight disliked about some parts of ME2 and ME3 is the way the paragon/renegade system acted like a get out of jail free card for difficult and meaningful decisions, namely:

• ME2: Tali's trial: Evidence or Exile
• ME2: Miranda vs Jack fight - choose a side, resulting in loyalty loss of one party member
• ME2: Tali vs Legion fight - choose a side, resulting in loyalty loss of one party member
• ME3: Geth vs Quarian conflict - choose a side

The above four choices at the very least (there might be more) presented a renegade or paragon option that completely negated the difficult choice. If we look at some of the more interesting decsions in ME1, save ashley/kaidan or save council/concentrate on sovereign, there was no get out jail free card.

Would these decision have added more drama to the game (in a positive way) if you couldn't sidestep them ?

[CDR David Shepard]

Misread the question.

I wouldn't have liked it.

It would have forced me not to run some squadmates loyalty missions...so then I wouldn't have to pick a side.

Modifié par CDR David Shepard, 19 novembre 2012 - 05:35 .

[AVPen]

Not sure if the ME3 Quarian/Geth conflict could be considered the same as the rest, because the Paragon/Renegade choices to obtain peace was only possible if certain actions and prior choices were made in the previous game (along with two other choices in ME3).

[capn233]

It's hard to say. I think most of the players didn't actually like the no win scenarios, which is why they were essentially gone by ME2. But of course you had to have enough paragon or renegade to get the charm or intimidate options in that game.

Quarian - Geth peace is one that is handled ok in my opinion. It is actually mostly dependent on past actions and not a simple rep check.

[Forst1999]

AVPen wrote...

Not sure if the ME3 Quarian/Geth conflict could be considered the same as the rest, because the Paragon/Renegade choices to obtain peace was only possible if certain actions and prior choices were made in the previous game (along with two other choices in ME3).

That's right. And Tali's trial could be solved by talking to the admirals, handing Veetor to Tali and saving Reegar, which is more effort than selecting the "I-win-line". I agree that charm and intimidate take away to many difficult choices. But I think it got better in ME3

[CDR David Shepard]

Forst1999 wrote...

AVPen wrote...

Not sure if the ME3 Quarian/Geth conflict could be considered the same as the rest, because the Paragon/Renegade choices to obtain peace was only possible if certain actions and prior choices were made in the previous game (along with two other choices in ME3).

That's right. And Tali's trial could be solved by talking to the admirals, handing Veetor to Tali and saving Reegar, which is more effort than selecting the "I-win-line". I agree that charm and intimidate take away to many difficult choices. But I think it got better in ME3

What you call the "I-win-line"...I call common sense.

For example...it's common sense for Shepard to tell Miranda and Jack that we need to focus on fighting the Collectors, not each other...and it's reasonable that they would understand that.

It would really be ridiculous for Shepard to need to pick a side during these conversations.

Modifié par CDR David Shepard, 19 novembre 2012 - 06:00 .

[Forst1999]

CDR David Shepard wrote...

What you call the "I-win-line"...I call common sense.

For example...it's common sense for Shepard to tell Miranda and Jack that we need to focus on fighting the Collectors, not each other...and it's reasonable that they would understand that.

It would really be ridiculous for Shepard to need to pick a side during these conversations.

Sure. But it would be better if the peace making options were tied to something you DID. For example Jack backing down if you made her care about the mission, and Miranda being less stubborn if you made her question Cerberus at least a bit. So I guess I'm okay with taking away difficult choices as long as it's not as arbitrary as the Charm/Intimidate system.

[CDR David Shepard]

Forst1999 wrote...

CDR David Shepard wrote...

What you call the "I-win-line"...I call common sense.

For example...it's common sense for Shepard to tell Miranda and Jack that we need to focus on fighting the Collectors, not each other...and it's reasonable that they would understand that.

It would really be ridiculous for Shepard to need to pick a side during these conversations.

Sure. But it would be better if the peace making options were tied to something you DID. For example Jack backing down if you made her care about the mission, and Miranda being less stubborn if you made her question Cerberus at least a bit. So I guess I'm okay with taking away difficult choices as long as it's not as arbitrary as the Charm/Intimidate system.

Well...to be fair...it is tied to something you "DID".

It's tied to a lot of things. It's tied to all the paragon or renegade choices you've previously made.

Anyways...I think the idea of making them put aside their differences to focus on the much bigger problem lying ahead is much, much, better than making them change their mind completely...especially where ME2 is concerned...since ME2's storyline/theme is about Shepard putting aside his "feelings" about Cerberus to work together and focus on a much bigger problem in the Collectors.

To each their own. 

Modifié par CDR David Shepard, 19 novembre 2012 - 06:37 .

[Binary_Helix 1]

The morality system should have been rewarded in some way and ME2 did that. Fans were upset so it was removed.

Bioware needs to distinguish between unlimited fan wants and what their games actually need. Morality needed to matter.

[Yate]

I agree the options should have been removed for the Miranda/Jack and Tali/Legion conflicts because it's stupidly easy to get everyone to survive the suicide mission. But the others, nah.

[Drayce333]

Binary_Helix 1 wrote...

The morality system should have been rewarded in some way and ME2 did that. Fans were upset so it was removed.

Bioware needs to distinguish between unlimited fan wants and what their games actually need. Morality needed to matter.

For ME2 you either needed to be entirely good or bad or you were locked out of choices, it was entirely black or white. The morality system sucked. When replaying the game you can see how lame morality was.

They should just remove it all together and just give you options that have more of a effect on individual characters and whatever they are associated with.

[Binary_Helix 1]

Being locked out of content is exactly what I wanted from a trilogy emphasizing "choice".

A small reward for anyone playing pure paragon/renegade wasn't a big deal in my view.

Modifié par Binary_Helix 1, 19 novembre 2012 - 11:47 .

[iSousek]

Isn't that the point of paragon/renegade? To get me out of though situation because I am charismatic or fear inspiring.

I enjoy it, and have no problem with it, especially if my alternative is a dead companion

[Forst1999]

Binary_Helix 1 wrote...

Being locked out of content is exactly what I wanted from a trilogy emphasizing "choice".

A small reward for anyone playing pure paragon/renegade wasn't a big deal in my view.

I see it more as a punishment for not selecting an answer because it's up or down. I found ME2's coercion system to be far too restrictive, considering it's consequences. People dying because you were too nice a few missions back is bad. Not having a choice because you interacted with the character in the wrong way is interesting. Getting a choice because your considered a nice guy is a bit stupid, getting it because of actions that actually have something to do with it is good.

[Islandrockzor]

I do feel that the Paragon/Renegade system did limit the choices. By rewarding you for having a one-sided character instead of making choices based on your Shepard's past experiences it kind of dumbs down the RPG format a little.

[CDR David Shepard]

Islandrockzor wrote...

I do feel that the Paragon/Renegade system did limit the choices. By rewarding you for having a one-sided character instead of making choices based on your Shepard's past experiences it kind of dumbs down the RPG format a little.

To each their own.

I think that not having a choice to make your squad realize that we have to focus on the Collectors would "dumb down the RPG format".

It's odd how so many people think that less choices means better RPG.

Modifié par CDR David Shepard, 20 novembre 2012 - 02:32 .

[Islandrockzor]

In that particular situation, the options were illogical, yes. But I don't feel the Paragon/Renegade system was needed to fix that, nor does that one situation really justify the paragon/renegade-system.

Modifié par Islandrockzor, 20 novembre 2012 - 02:34 .

[AnxiousManatee]

Yes, and for this reason I just pretended I was color blind/ignorant of choice type locations on the conversation wheel when it came to making conversation choices. Do the same with all bioware games that have a conversation wheel.

[Ravellion]

CDR David Shepard wrote...

It's odd how so many people think that less choices means better RPG.

Which is kind of the point. You might be presented with several options in this case, but when one of them is so much better than the others, the other ones might just as well not even have been there. Two choices that are suboptimal vs. one easy win. I once read that the squadmate fights were supposed to be "virmire" kind of decisions (a designer posted it somewhere, years ago). It is obvious that these fights never achieved that status.

By having the "easy outs" at certain points in the story, the system further incentivised not choosing based on content ("what does this line say") but instead on the basis of dialogue wheel position ("there might be paragon points behind this choice."). This reduces the RPG potential as you are basically locked in an extreme paragon/renegade role from the start.

[CDR David Shepard]

Ravellion wrote...

CDR David Shepard wrote...

It's odd how so many people think that less choices means better RPG.

Which is kind of the point. You might be presented with several options in this case, but when one of them is so much better than the others, the other ones might just as well not even have been there. Two choices that are suboptimal vs. one easy win. I once read that the squadmate fights were supposed to be "virmire" kind of decisions (a designer posted it somewhere, years ago). It is obvious that these fights never achieved that status.

By having the "easy outs" at certain points in the story, the system further incentivised not choosing based on content ("what does this line say") but instead on the basis of dialogue wheel position ("there might be paragon points behind this choice."). This reduces the RPG potential as you are basically locked in an extreme paragon/renegade role from the start.

These arguments are much different than the Virmire choice though.

On Virmire...you literally couldn't save both of them.

Here...it's not unreasonable to think that Shepard would try to keep the peace...and it's not unreasonable to think that the two squadmates would realize that they have bigger enemies than each other.

So it's really hard to compare these two situations.

[capn233]

Besides the Suicide Mission (which has the appearance of maybe having Virmire like choices if you are playing for the first time and haven't read the mechanics), I think they could have used Reaper IFF as their opportunity to leave someone behind.

In any event, most people didn't like having to make a Virmire choice, and I find it odd that they thought petty disagreements in ME2 should be like Virmire. These arguments would be massively stupid if there was no way to tell the two parties to shut up and do their job.

[Binary_Helix 1]

Scripted deaths like Virmire were a perfect way to thin out the squad for ME3 while allowing you to retain your favorites.

[gw2005]

Binary_Helix 1 wrote...

Scripted deaths like Virmire were a perfect way to thin out the squad for ME3 while allowing you to retain your favorites.

I remember reading it somewhere before ME3 came out that there's supposed to be one where you have to choose between your LI and Liara. It was probably on Mars. I can't remember where, and the thread it probably gone now. I think it was cut after the leak.

<_<

[Lazengan]

the only actual paragon and renegade choice in the entire trilogy

was the mission on Feros

Choose to kill the colonists and guarantee the completion of the mission

or endanger yourself and your squad, but saving every colonist

or anything in between

a pure paragon/renegade choice that is executed through gameplay, not a silly dialogue choice. And one that is truly morally gray

[Forst1999]

Lazengan wrote...

the only actual paragon and renegade choice in the entire trilogy

was the mission on Feros

Choose to kill the colonists and guarantee the completion of the mission

or endanger yourself and your squad, but saving every colonist

or anything in between

a pure paragon/renegade choice that is executed through gameplay, not a silly dialogue choice. And one that is truly morally gray

Well, saving them is very easy. And apart from the bit of work to save these people, there's no downside. It's not a choice, it's succeeding or failing.