416 réponses à ce sujet

[CronoDragoon]

NeroonWilliams wrote...
There were all sorts of things being tracked with a numerical meter in ME3, and I'm not referring to the WA/GR numbers.

I agree, but by extension you'd have to remove dialogue options only available to certain tiers of P/R...but that was an issue largely solved in ME3 anyway.

[AlanC9]

DeinonSlayer wrote...

I say, get rid of them. Leave the actions and words in there, but let people decide for themselves what's right and wrong without their own decision-making being literally colored by somebody else's judgement, and let them come here and debate the merits of their choices with their own reasoning.

I think we'd still need the P/R concepts as guides for interpreting paraphrases, unless they're replaced by a new system such as DA2's tones.

[AlanC9]

NeroonWilliams wrote...

All of these things (and probably others that I'm either forgetting or still don't know about) are governed by a meter that is hidden from the player completely.  Why not keep that Para/Rene/Reputation meter hidden as well?  DAO seemed to have a decent handle on this.

What useful function would such a meter serve?

[Reorte]

AlanC9 wrote...

DeinonSlayer wrote...

I say, get rid of them. Leave the actions and words in there, but let people decide for themselves what's right and wrong without their own decision-making being literally colored by somebody else's judgement, and let them come here and debate the merits of their choices with their own reasoning.

I think we'd still need the P/R concepts as guides for interpreting paraphrases, unless they're replaced by a new system such as DA2's tones.

The text should be clear enough on its own; admittedly that does have a bit of a risk and requires careful phrasing sometimes (or over-exaggerating them).

[LiarasShield]

No I defifintly believe not paragon and renegade gives you more options and truly allows to show what your personality is wether heartless murder or galactic savior.

[Taki17]

Every decent RPG needs a morality system. The Paragon-Renegade in ME was one of the best I've ever seen. At least definitely better than the light side-dark side system in KotOR, which was too extreme, I think. You could be either the ultimate good guy or the savage brute.

Mass Effect's morality system does it better: Paragon is the soldier, who's not afraid of combat, but tries to minimize casaulities; and the Renegade is the kind of a man, who gets the job done, no matter what. Either way, they are doing it for the greater good.

[Dextro Milk]

Did either of you even read this thread, the people that posted prior?

[CronoDragoon]

Captain Proton wrote...

Every decent RPG needs a morality system.

Not true. If the more recent example of the Witcher 2 doesn't do it for you, then look to the best example of story branching based on choices ever: Tactics Ogre. No morality system, meaningful choices that shape not only the story but the characters who follow you....I mean, it was just the best.

[Redbelle]

Bottom line (for me anyway)

If I sit down to play a game built on rules action I want to know what clicking button A's effect is..... If that means seeing a graphical representation that shows how para or rene I've been thus far and unlocks more of these options the further into the game I go then so be it.

Because....... I don't get reputation! I just don't understand what effect it has on conversation's or playthroughs. And it frustrates me immensely, when a game mechanic is not properly explained in the game so you can start manipulating that mechanic to your maximum benefit!

Same with supporting converations. The first time I ran across one I had no guidance on what to do, what the repercussions would be etc...... I eventually figured it out. But that is not the point.

The game's acclimatation phase of the game should ease players into the game world and settings. And for all the complaints against para and rene options, the game is fundamentally built upon the foundations of good and evil throughout all three titles to the point that Shepard's face came to bear scars for however, renegade he or she was.

The reason why para and rene work is that as a mechanic, it is simple and straightforward. By all means, tweak it so that it is incorporated into the games narrative a little better. And if Citadel DLC is anything to go by, generate some extra prompts for actions, Pull ups on the bar, or shots at a bar showed a better grasp of game play mechanic interaction. But doing pull ups or shots is neither paragon nor renegade.

[DeinonSlayer]

@Redbelle
Re: reputation, more fetch quests earns more reputation. More reputation = more coercion. Red and blue are meaningless in ME3, because if you have enough rep, it unlocks both persuasion and intimidation, not one and/or the other like in ME2.

In DA:O, you had three factors contributing to coercion. Coercion, cunning, and strength. More strength made the Warden more intimidating, more cunning made the Warden more persuasive. But here's the thing: you could use Persuasion and Intimidation both to good and evil ends. In Mass Effect, persuasion is always paragon and intimidation is always renegade. In DA:O, you might persuade the werewolves to commit genocide against the Dalish, or intimidate a slave trader into letting his charges go.

You weren't forced to roleplay in any particular way to unlock persuasion checks. Just leveling up Cunning, Strength, and Persuasion - you have brains, you have brawn, but you choose how to use them. In ME2, you were forced to play to one track to be able to unlock dialogue. In ME3, many still behaved as though they were despite Rep being the only factor in coercion.

Modifié par DeinonSlayer, 05 juin 2013 - 08:52 .

[Redbelle]

Hmmmm......

I'm not sold.

ME1 was played through several times in order to travel down paths that had previously been barred. That's simply the way the game design was made to work. It encouraged repeat playthroughs, And caused many different Shepards to emerge from one player. In short, ME1 became, not one game, but two, as the character became a different person. Think of one movie, shot twice with the same narrative and events, but with Superman in one and Batman in the other. People would be naturally curious to see if they could see any difference with two leads in seperate films of the same script when both are dynamically opposed to each other.

Or to put it another way.

Rep may be the way forward..... but my gut tells me that in doing so BW have oversimplified the mechanic to the point that para and rene have no impact on who Shepard is or will grow to become. Not important in his third outing perhaps. But if ME4 offers us a new protagonist, lacking the structure of keeping the character in line with regard to how you decided to play them from the beginning, may lead to a character who is less........ defined, than Shepard.

It may be better to keep para and rene as the mechanic of choice in the first playthrough, whereby the second unlocks rep.

I don't know. Something feels off about diminishing the effects of choosing a morality for the character you choose to play. Espcially when it is that characters first outing and is a blank sheet. I don't doubt the player would enjoy it. But players enjoyed ME1 too. It's the character who the player embodies I think could suffer as hey run the risk of becoming an Avatar of wish fullfilment that the game cannot reach out to, and tussle your hair every now and then.

*edit

It just seems to me that asking for all morality issues to be unlocked at all times is a bit like asking for every firearm to be unlocked and available at the start of the game. It takes away from the fun of having to do the work of finding and collecting them. And while I enjoy a well developed user interface. I don't want the interface to hand me everything on a plate. Working for the benefits is just as important. That's why games are fun. By playing them you are automatically compelled to overcome the challenges they set. Maxing para or rene in the first plathrough is a challenge that is removed by having rep cover both of these moralities. It leads to one definitive playthrough on the first playthough. And discovering the variations by working to unlock them is more satisfying than having all branches open at the start. It's choice without effort or the reward for that effort.

Modifié par Redbelle, 05 juin 2013 - 09:41 .

[DeinonSlayer]

Redbelle wrote...

Hmmmm......

I'm not sold.

ME1 was played through several times in order to travel down paths that had previously been barred. That's simply the way the game design was made to work. It encouraged repeat playthroughs, And caused many different Shepards to emerge from one player. In short, ME1 became, not one game, but two, as the character became a different person. Think of one movie, shot twice with the same narrative and events, but with Superman in one and Batman in the other. People would be naturally curious to see if they could see any difference with two leads in seperate films of the same script when both are dynamically opposed to each other.

Or to put it another way.

Rep may be the way forward..... but my gut tells me that in doing so BW have oversimplified the mechanic to the point that para and rene have no impact on who Shepard is or will grow to become. Not important in his third outing perhaps. But if ME4 offers us a new protagonist, lacking the structure of keeping the character in line with regard to how you decided to play them from the beginning, may lead to a character who is less........ defined, than Shepard.

It may be better to keep para and rene as the mechanic of choice in the first playthrough, whereby the second unlocks rep.

I don't know. Something feels off about diminishing the effects of choosing a morality for the character you choose to play. Espcially when it is that characters first outing and is a blank sheet. I don't doubt the player would enjoy it. But players enjoyed ME1 too. It's the character who the player embodies I think could suffer as hey run the risk of becoming an Avatar of wish fullfilment that the game cannot reach out to, and tussle your hair every now and then.

*edit

It just seems to me that asking for all morality issues to be unlocked at all times is a bit like asking for every firearm to be unlocked and available at the start of the game. It takes away from the fun of having to do the work of finding and collecting them. And while I enjoy a well developed user interface. I don't want the interface to hand me everything on a plate. Working for the benefits is just as important. That's why games are fun. By playing them you are automatically compelled to overcome the challenges they set. Maxing para or rene in the first plathrough is a challenge that is removed by having rep cover both of these moralities. It leads to one definitive playthrough on the first playthough. And discovering the variations by working to unlock them is more satisfying than having all branches open at the start. It's choice without effort or the reward for that effort.

I'm not talking about having all dialogue unlocked at all times. Not at all.

I pointed to DA:O because it was an example where coercion was unlocked independent of roleplay. A smarter Warden can talk rings around people. A beefier Warden can intimidate people. Whether you use coercion or intimidation for good or evil (each can be used for both) is up to you. Themes are there, but morality is neutral - players make decisions on the dictates of their conscience, and the direct outcomes of those decisions, rather than a colored bar, are what you judge your performance by.

Coercion is dependent on levelling up in DA:O, only you aren't forced to choose a specific dialogue path throughout to ensure you have enough (blue/red) in your meter to unlock persuasions. It is not dependent on levelling up in Mass Effect 2; rather, on never letting yourself stray from one side of the wheel. Mass Effect 3 added neutrality in the sense that you weren't forced to conform to one or the other to unlock persuasion. Reputation was a good change, but the now-meaningless Paragon and Renegade are still providing a carrot/stick dynamic to dialogue which players have continued to respond to.

Hide the meter, hide the (+2 Paragon) (+2 Renegade), scramble the dialogue choices in the wheel so players will look for what they want to say based on their own morality instead of picking whatever is in a certain position on the wheel because they've been conditioned to do so. There is no challenge in consistently picking a certain spot on the wheel. Players don't even have to pay attention and think about the issues being presented to them. As I noted earlier, paragon and renegade aren't even really that consistent.

However, there is a challenge in paying attention to what's said, taking a stand based on your own morality, coming up with your own reasons for making the choices you make and defending them in outside debate.

Modifié par DeinonSlayer, 06 juin 2013 - 12:01 .

[Tron Mega]

yes. id drop it immediately.

the most important part about it is, is bioware capable of accomplishing what they want to do within a trilogy with a save game carry over? if its another series of handwaves, retcons, and twitter cannon, id say stop making the game NOW.

another bad reasoning for it is the story will have definitive choices that are hard to implement across a series, like saving the counsil in ME1 for example.

id much rather have it like dragon age or alpha protocol where there is a change in mood or attitude. like replying sincerely, cocky, sarcastically, and humourosly. i dont need or want a game where im being mr rogers, or murderer mcgee.let the main story take place as it should. honestly im not so much a fan of shepard saying one thing, and uniting the geth and quarians. if it was that easy, whyd it take shepard then?!?!?

hopefull they look at the ME sereis as a failure and attempt to do better. i mean wtf really.

Modifié par Tron Mega, 06 juin 2013 - 01:07 .

[Redbelle]

If morality was dropped then it would require an overhaul of the game user interface.

But the simplicity of concept is so good that I can't see it disappearing entirely.

Interrupts for example. When you see the icon flash on the left with it's respective icon, you know its time to hug a bunny.

Whereas the right, indicates the opportunity to tie it up in sack.

But the problem of removing morality entirely as a game mechanic is that it turns an active play experience into a passive one.

Think of it this way. Passive play experiences are things that just happen and do not stop till you have cleared the section. It's odd, but combat can be seen as passive in this sense as you know what you have to do. The rules are mandidtory. Kill the enemy with your skill set. You as the player are active in choosing how to do this, but you do not have a choice in not doing this. You cannot choose not to kill the enemy. Its already decided for you or you cannot progress.

Active play experiences are like the who survives Virmire decision. The action stops and refuses to let you wiggle out of it. And I cannot help but notice that decisions like this are noticably absent in ME3. Sure. Mordin's sacrifice is like it, but Mordins death is not manditory. Its avoidable through your decisions.

Kaiden or Ashley's demise is not avoidable and represents a time when the game reached out and forced you to choose who lives and who dies, and forced you to accept the consequences. It was a time when the game manipulated the player, instead of the player manipulating the game.

Rep may be the way forward, but I'm wary of it. To many times in ME's lifecycle game elements have been yanked, by fan request, which led to a less interactive video gameplay experience. Calling for a passive morality system to replace the active one may simply lead to another element that causes ME rely so heavily on what remains that if we get another Catalyst moment, the entire gameplay experience slumps because no other gameplay elements or mechanics exist to compensate for it.

Open world driving and hacking may have been unpopular to some. But when they were removed, they were removed, not replaced with a substitute. And by doing so the scope of ME initial gameplay ambitions were shrunk.

I'm not saying it cannot be streamlined and incorporated into the game better. DA2 demonstrated an innovation compared to DA:O. But Mass Effect has lost open world driving and mini game hacking, which regardless of opinion, offered something more than run and shoot gameplay. Likewise, I enjoyed spending ME2's resources on upgrades, (collecting them less so), more than I enjoy spending cash at a terminal to buy upgrades for weapons that frankly, should be given to Shepard on account that it's a Reaper war. And who doesn't give the best solider the best weapons for the most dangerous or critical missions?

If morality is removed and replaced. Then as opposed to removing open world driving and hacks, I would like something to replace the lost mechanic, rather than see it cut entirely. I hope that is what will happen, but losing other mechanics and seeing nothing to replace them leaves me worried that losing para and rene could lead to another emptying of the core gameplay experience with no refill of something better to replace it.

[LucianaIV]

I'd say drop it, but not neccesarily for the reasons you stated.

For me it would be more because in ME3, it made little to no difference at all whether you went Paragon or Renegade in ME2, literally there's no difference between whether Shepard kept the base intact or blew it up, no difference between a Paragon Shep thoroughly pissing the Illusive Man off at the end and a Renegade Shep who even shows willingness to work with Cerberus to the end ''if he (TIM) can keep up''.

I felt nothing of it mattered at all.

Modifié par LucianaIV, 06 juin 2013 - 09:25 .

[Redbelle]

LucianaIV wrote...

I'd say drop it, but not neccesarily for the reasons you stated.

For me it would be more because in ME3, it made little to no difference at all whether you went Paragon or Renegade in ME2, literally there's no difference between whether Shepard kept the base intact or blew it up, no difference between a Paragon Shep thoroughly pissing the Illusive Man off at the end and a Renegade Shep who even shows willingness to work with Cerberus to the end ''if he (TIM) can keep up''.

I felt nothing of it mattered at all.

Thought about it some more, and I'd suggest keep it, but use it in conjunction with Reputation.

If reputation is essentially fame. Then if you meet an Asari and you are not famous enough to be known even while having high para or renegade scores) she might say.
"I was told you were coming, what did you want to discuss"?

If you were famous but didn't have enough para or rene to be considered either she could say,
"It's not every day I see a celebrity in my office".

If you have high fame and high paragon status it becomes,
"It is an honour to have you here. If there is anything I can do for you.....".

And if high fame and high renegade status,
"I want you to know that if I hadn't been told to co-operate I'd have you locked up and put against the wall when the revolution comes".

Reputation, as a description, seems to be suited for people knowing who the character is through fame.

Para and Rene, would decide if the character is seen as being positively famous, or negatively infamous.

[AlexMBrennan]

What this tells me is that a lot of people out there thoughtlessly click the top of the wheel without thinking for themselves about what they're actually doing; about what is actually right or wrong

Well, that's really the fault of the audience though who seem to think - for reasons I couldn't possibly imagine - that ME is just another generic shooter. You can't really blame the developer if the players are too stupefied by CoD to get the idea of "role playing".

Having said that, the way it was implemented was suboptimal at best prior to ME3 (for the best outcomes, you slavishly had to pick the same all the time in every conversation), and renegade options do have less good outcomes (mostly because the devs haven't managed to come up with many interesting renegade options beyond pointless cruelty and violence).

There is nothing inherently wrong with giving the player paragon or renegade options to respond to events but what you do with it; if you make a bonus mission that's only available if you pick renegade every single time then guess what, that's what people will do.

[Bleachrude]

*sigh*...the snobbery against casual gamers in this thread is disappointing...

Here's a question though..is the idea that people are mindlessly picking the top right option actually true?

Take a look at the geth/quarian choice...even though "upload the code" is the top right option, there's only 10% difference between choosing the geth over the quarians. Much less than the Wreav situation.

There's also the issue that Bakara/Eve is a powerful voice in favour of curing the genophage...(I think this is ironically one of the situations where Wrex is dead makes for a better narrative. With Wrex alive and Eve and only the dalatress as an opposing choice, curing the genophage seems like a no-brainer.

With Wreav vs Eve though, both offering compelling reasons for and against the genophage)

[agrael92]

Never had any doubts that they should be dropped. Probably the game would be a bit harder to make though (especially if it consists in a trilogy of episodes so directly connected one to another as the ME trilogy was).

[teh DRUMPf!!]

LiarasShield wrote...

No I defifintly believe not paragon and renegade gives you more options and truly allows to show what your personality is wether heartless murder or galactic savior.

The fact people look at the system like this is more reason it should be dropped.

[Redbelle]

HYR 2.0 wrote...

LiarasShield wrote...

No I defifintly believe not paragon and renegade gives you more options and truly allows to show what your personality is wether heartless murder or galactic savior.

The fact people look at the system like this is more reason it should be dropped.

Or..... rather than have a Mako-esque classic knee jerk reaction which ultimately does more harm than good to the franchise.......

The model of morality in decision making should be redeveloped. Keeping the core theme of character development alive, while changing how this is put into practice within the game environment.

To be blunt HYR, your response to something you don't like is the problem with how ME developed, in that just because you don't like something you want it stripped out...... Not replaced, or redefined.

Just.

Gone.

And to heck with the hole it leaves in the gameplay.

So plsplspls, if you keep saying take it out, at the very least say that something should replace it. BW read these forums and if they feedback that the fans want something cut out and not replaced, that's what they are highly likely to do.

Mako/Hammerhead and hacking lend some credane to this. So if your after a redeveloped morality interaction system that is more versatile than the old one that allows for greater variance of emotion and intent then say so.

Otherwise we increase the chances that the next game really will be COD in space.

[DeinonSlayer]

@Redbelle
That's why I cited DA:O's system. Individual companion approval ratings. Persuasion and intimidation checks used for good or ill, contingent on strength/cunning, which are themselves neutral. ME3 neutralized it with Reputation, but people still hug to the now-meaningless Paragon/Renegade, letting how the bar perceives them dictate their actions instead of making their own decisions in line with their own morality.

[Redbelle]

DeinonSlayer wrote...

@Redbelle
That's why I cited DA:O's system. Individual companion approval ratings. Persuasion and intimidation checks used for good or ill, contingent on strength/cunning, which are themselves neutral. ME3 neutralized it with Reputation, but people still hug to the now-meaningless Paragon/Renegade, letting how the bar perceives them dictate their actions instead of making their own decisions in line with their own morality.

TBH, I'm warming to the idea of redeveloping the morality system. But it would have to be a redeveloped system. Not an absent system.

[Bleachrude]

DeinonSlayer wrote...

@Redbelle
That's why I cited DA:O's system. Individual companion approval ratings. Persuasion and intimidation checks used for good or ill, contingent on strength/cunning, which are themselves neutral. ME3 neutralized it with Reputation, but people still hug to the now-meaningless Paragon/Renegade, letting how the bar perceives them dictate their actions instead of making their own decisions in line with their own morality.

I absolutely hate the DA:O system...it shares the problem of many other stat based conversation checks where the cunning hero is absolutely loads better since the so called opportunity cost of putting points into your persuasion skill/stat is never matched by what you lose....

Unless you purposely avoid it with the idea of your hero being somewhat mundane in intelligence or even dimwitted, it simply becomes a spreadsheet game...