416 réponses à ce sujet

[CynicalShep]

I'm all for dropping it. I might be a SW fan but I'll take an "influence" system like the one in Kotor over a DS/LS scale any day.

[ReallyRue]

They should either get rid of it, or balance it out. Paragon/Renegade originally seemed to be introduced as 'two different ways to get the job done/save the galaxy/whatever', but as the series progresses, it seems more like Paragon is your default 'I win' option (particularly amusing in ME3, when everyone is telling you that hard choices and ruthlessness will win the war), while Renegade changes from your ruthless option to 'random pointless cruelty' option. Or the plain stupid option. The game should make us really think about the moral choices we're deciding on, not go 'oh, Paragon, that's the good person option and if I click it, everything will work out fine'.

Moral choices shouldn't be attributed to only Paragon and Renegade too. Just look at the Rachni choice in ME3 if you killed the Queen in ME1. Paragon is to kill the obviously indoctrinated breeder, Renegade is to recruit it? Wouldn't it have made more sense for the Paragon and Renegade options to feature killing it in a different way (merciful/callous), whilst a third option could be your 'be an idiot' option.

However, ME3 had the right idea about making a reputation bar that we can use for both charm and intimidate. It makes for more balanced characters.

[DeinonSlayer]

sH0tgUn jUliA wrote...

People will be able to exploit any system once they know the mechanics of it. That's the bottom line. Some people are better at persuading and intimidating people than others are. That is why I advocate allocating skill points for this skill. Now you're going to say "But that takes away from the consequences of your decisions."

No. Use both systems. I also advocate a "karma" system in addition. And I advocate a reputation system in addition to that. They're thinking of making the next ME more open space so the more side missions you do, the higher your reputation for good or ill with various factions.

Basically being a smooth talker will get you far, but it will only get you so far. Your actions will get you the rest of the way. But actions alone will not cut it either. We know that to be true in our own world.

I think they should have speech, a karma system, reputation, and factions.

Perfect, no. Complicated, yes.

Apologies for the bump, but this made me think of something.

If the player character becomes rather infamous for their silver tongue over the course of a game (frequently using persuasion), perhaps other characters should acknowledge it - and resist it, unwilling to hear you out because they expect you to try to manipulate them as you have so many others.

There will always be dialogue mechanics of some form in the background in RPGs... subtlety of this sort would be a welcome twist.

[Anubis722]

I'm all for dropping the system

[thehomeworld]

No they shouldn't drop it but they do need to workout the responses instead of Idealist Superman or Crazy LOLz simi ruthless con man.

Maybe Para shep or good marked choices should be practical, soft when needed but hard when required and ren choices should be fast swift and sometimes brutal.

Neutral should also make a come back wheel wise it needs to be the third captain kirk options that can combine both ideals together. Everytime the wheel is given and the flashing icons the writers need to look at the dialogue and make sure it makes sense for each moment the wheel is used.

I do hope however they get rid of the flashing icons of para and ren I don't want to have to be on prompt alert when a cutscene goes BW just make a choice shep's chased Kensen all this way she has a grenade I shouldn't have to press prompt to shoot her just have shep freaking shoot her why? Because only an insane person lets someone detonate an explosive in their radius!

[xAmilli0n]

Drop the binary system. Two often it ends up being a choice between being a white knight and total a**hole (though a very entertaining one).

A dialogue wheel with multiple choices not associated with any alignment would be better, I think.

[christrek1982]

yes a DA:O or DA2 system would be better.

[Sable Rhapsody]

Scrap it and adopt the DA2 or TOR style dialogue wheel. Paragon/Renegade only got more grating as the series went on. It was ok in ME1, more restrictive in ME2, and pretty much gutted ME3's roleplaying.

[Sundance31us]

I enjoy interrupts and would like to have been given an option to do to Howe what my Shepard (colonist background) did to Balak.

As for labeling the option paragon or renegade I really don't care...an action being positive or negative doesn't influence my decision. I go with what feels right for my character instead of trying to play a specific "path".

[Erez Kristal]

This thread made me change my mind.
at first i was pretty clear on dropping the renegade and paragon.
But now i think its better to leave them but also make you pay more often for clicking only renegade or paragon mindlessly.
You should be teached not to do this very early in the game so you would be able to forget your bad habits.

The amount of points you have shouldnt be simplfied to a number that allows you to have certian dialouge options. such as wrex on virimire, tali-legion conflict and miranda-jack conflict.

If you they do want to have blocked dialouge options then this dialouge options should be plot related.
The paragon - renegade points could be connected to the hero reputation and not affect the plot in a meaninful way

[Nightwriter]

I don't like the system. Reasons:

• It doesn't fit the ME universe, and never did. One of the best things about Mass Effect is the complex moral and political issues it presents you with. I don't think a Star Wars-esque morality meter is appropriate in such a setting. Look at the characters around Shepard -- their views are frequently more nuanced. In ME2 Mordin believed the genophage was necessary, but still felt empathy for the krogan. Ashley distrusted other nations but was not a racist or a human supremacist. Captain Bailey accepted bribes and roughed up suspects, but clearly had his heart in the right place and helped you out numerous times at potential risk to his interests. These characters fit the backdrop of the ME universe quite well imo. I'd like to be able to roleplay a character who fits the backdrop too.
• It lumps together ideas that don't belong together, leading the game to make erroneous assumptions about your motivations. Most renegades I have talked to killed the rachni queen in ME1 because they were not willing to risk millions of lives on her word. Yet when Shepard actually kills her, his attitude is one of pitilessness, not responsibility -- he tells her the rachni are a dead race whose time is done. Where is the Mordin-like ability to end her life with a heavy heart, or a cerebral attitude? Gone, because the game labeled the decision as renegade, and thus assumed the choice must have been made from a place of heartlessness. Things like this are usually fairly annoying. No one likes to grin and bear bad dialogue in order to make the decision they believe in. Yet this ends up being what many people have to do. I have actually heard some players say they mute the game when they make certain decisions so they don't have to hear Shepard's wince-worthy dialogue for it.
• It forces arbitrary labels on our decisions. Was rewriting the heretics really paragon? Was destroying them really renegade? People argued it for months. The ultimate answer was that there was no right answer -- the issue was debatable and interpretive, like it should be, and like much of Mass Effect is. Forcing labels on complex issues like this is just going to result in a schizophrenic labeling system that often overlaps or contradicts itself to the point of uselessness. Which raises the question: why use labels at all? Let us draw our own conclusions.
• Often it seems like BioWare can't decide if "paragon and renegade" means "good and evil" or not. It's no surprise, then, that people argue over which actions are paragon or renegade -- they're really arguing over which actions are bad or good. Thus we get a gajillion threads debating the assertion that Synthesis is paragon, or that Destroy is paragon, or what have you. If that many people don't want to believe their preferred choice is renegade, it probably means renegade wasn't very well presented in the game.
• Responses that are harder to classify are forced out entirely. Especially with this new two-option dialogue wheel that screens out gray or neutral options. This is bad, because some of the best decisions and dialogue options are ones that are difficult to classify. I don't like a morality system that screens out my Jolee Bindo options.
• It stops people from thinking. BioWare rewards paragon decisions the majority of the time. What does it matter if I have good reasons for choosing a renegade action, if the reality is that it almost always results in a loss of future content? Easy to train yourself to always pick that upper right option. If you're like me, and you actually want to roleplay instead of just surrendering to BioWare's judgments, you end up spending four hours exploiting a glitch which maxes out both your renegade and paragon meters.

I'm open to an improved and revamped P/R system, but in my experience few things in ME are successfully revamped. If we complain about a feature they often just gut it entirely. For once, I think it might be safer that way. Gutting it will probably get rid of most of my problems, revamping it might not.

Modifié par Nightwriter, 26 juin 2013 - 07:16 .

[David7204]

- Demanding an absence of  "arbitrary labels" under the guise of 'everything is subjective' is frankly ridiculous. Subjectivity should not make us helpless, as is so often and unfortunately the case. Yes, there are debates, but there are also very heavy consensus that saving lives, being compassionate and generous is 'good' and that killing people, being selfish and cruel is 'bad'. The entire concepts of good and evil, heroes and villains lose all meaning if we do this, which is absurd.

- You seem to be making two incredibly contradictory complaints. Paragon and Renegade is bad because is shoehorns us into being good and evil but Paragon and Renegade is also bad because it isn't clearly defined as good and evil?

- I'm sensing this attutude that you think you're somehow outsmarting the writers by picking Renegade. That those silly stupid writers want you pick Paragon, but you stick it to them by picking Renegade! And that really just does not work. There's absolutely nothing wrong with wanting to be a 'good' character and trusting the ethics of the developers will align with your own.

- How is removing the Paragon and Renegade system going to do a single thing to ensure the motives of the character match up with the motives of the player?

Modifié par David7204, 26 juin 2013 - 07:31 .

[Nightwriter]

I have been observing you in your natural habitat with my safari hat on, crouched in the bushes on the savannah with my camera. The things I've been seeing haven't filled me with a whole lot of confidence and I'm wondering if you could give me some kind of incentive to come out of the bushes and engage in a dialogue with you.

[David7204]

You might change my mind.

Your confidence in what, exactly? Your confidence in me? In yourself? In the 'dialogue'?

[Nightwriter]

Yes, in you.

[David7204]

I see. What have I said that has diminished your confidence in me?

[Lady Abstract]

Hell No.

this shouldnt even be in question

[Nightwriter]

David7204 wrote...

I see. What have I said that has diminished your confidence in me?

Well I can't really answer that, can I? I'd be told to take it to a PM or something, which of course I can't because you're not on my friends list and it's silly to friend someone just to explain why you're leery of them.

So I suppose I'll just ignore my misgivings and blaze on ahead since that's the only way to stay on topic and avoid personal discussion. Ain't the new PM policy great.

David7204 wrote...

- Demanding an absence of  "arbitrary labels" under the guise of 'everything is subjective' is frankly ridiculous. Subjectivity should not make us helpless, as is so often and unfortunately the case. Yes, there are debates, but there are also very heavy consensus that saving lives, being compassionate and generous is 'good' and that killing people, being selfish and cruel is 'bad'. The entire concepts of good and evil, heroes and villains lose all meaning if we do this, which is absurd.

I don't understand how removing the P/R system removes any of those concepts. They exist in Dragon Age, which has no binary morality meter.

David7204 wrote...

- You seem to be making two incredibly contradictory complaints. Paragon and Renegade is bad because is shoehorns us into being good and evil but Paragon and Renegade is also bad because it isn't clearly defined as good and evil?

No clue what you mean.

I think the system seems like it's supposed to be "separate but equal" but is often treated like "right and wrong," if that's what you mean, yes.

David7204 wrote...

- I'm sensing this attutude that you think you're somehow outsmarting the writers by picking Renegade. That those silly stupid writers want you pick Paragon, but you stick it to them by picking Renegade! And that really just does not work. There's absolutely nothing wrong with wanting to be a 'good' character and trusting the ethics of the developers will align with your own.

Most of my decisions are paragon.

David7204 wrote...

- How is removing the Paragon and Renegade system going to do a single thing to ensure the motives of the character match up with the motives of the player?

It won't make the game able to read the player's mind, but it will mitigate the number of false assumptions (as in "player chose renegade option, must have been for douche reasons").

[David7204]

Nightwriter wrote...

I don't understand how removing the P/R system removes any of those concepts. They exist in Dragon Age, which has no binary morality meter.

It wouldn't. But this reasoning doesn't stop at the P/R system. Demanding an enforcement of 'moral ambiguity' necessitates the removal of a great deal of content, and really most of the meaningful themes in the story.

Nightwriter wrote...

No clue what you mean.

I think the system seems like it's supposed to be "separate but equal" but is often treated like "right and wrong," if that's what you mean, yes.

In your third paragraph, you praise 'moral ambiguity,'  advocate an issue with 'no right answer' as well written, and ask that players be allowed to 'draw their own conclusions.' And then in the very next paragraph you criticize players arguing over what the correct ending choice is as if it's a result of poor writing and that a properly done choice should have all players in agreement. You don't see any contradiction there?

Nightwriter wrote...

Most of my decisions are paragon.

The point is that as long as you're playing a BioWare game, you're working within the bounds that BioWare gave you. Advocating 'resistence' to the writers is a silly attitude that necessitates a contradictory relationship between the player and writer. You cannot 'fight' the developers. It's their story.

Nightwriter wrote...

It won't make the game able to read the player's mind, but it will mitigate the number of false assumptions (as in "player chose renegade option, must have been for douche reasons").

Why?

Modifié par David7204, 26 juin 2013 - 09:08 .

[Nightwriter]

I'm not sure what the "enforcement of moral ambiguity" means. Did you feel that Dragon Age enforced moral ambiguity at the expense of valuable content?

I think you misunderstood. I didn't say there was no right answer to the heretic decision. I said there was no right answer to "which choice was paragon and which was renegade?" Both decisions borrowed themes from both schools of thought. It's interpretive.

I then said people often debate whether a choice was paragon or renegade as if they are debating whether it was right or wrong. So, to clarify: People debating what is right or wrong is a good thing. But people debating as if paragon = right and renegade = wrong probably isn't.

If you mean that as long as you're playing a BioWare game you must agree with everything they do or think, I think that is a bit silly.

[Erez Kristal]

If players want to be led by the hand choose the upper or lower choice without questioning then they should.
I always played a mixture of paragon and renegade. i think it helps understanding the dialouge tree.
The upper is the Morally right, Dreamer, appeaser the characer who believes in a higher cause of justice- the lawful good paladin.

The lower choice - The character who is doing what is right, the character who looks for the most practical choice, who isnt bound by being nice or doing what other expect of him. hes the chaotic good.

The neutral choice - Its the neutral good character.

They are all good because thats railroading we accept when we first start playing mass effect. we accept to be the alliance top hero, first human spectre who is willing to risk his life for the galaxy.

Collecting points is a mini game and a karma meter. i think there should be less dialouge choices which are influenced by this in order not to promote a character for being extreme. or to also enable the neutral characters a fair share of the loot.

[David7204]

I haven't played the Dragon Age games, so I can't much comment on them. But I can say that the desire for a 'morally ambiguous' ending necessitated that an option many players find repulsive is presented just as warmly and heroically as the other choices, resulting in many enraged players convinced BioWare as a company advocates Synthesis. Because morally ambiguous choices have to be toughly equal, or it's not ambiguous. I can say the desire for a 'morally ambiguous' ending prevented Destroy from showing Shepard's fate beyond the breathe scene, deeply upsetting a great deal of players. But that's how it has to be, because showing Shepard's survival would elevate Destroy too much over the other choices, and that's just not morally ambiguous enough.

I can say 'moral ambiguity' necessitates the absence of heroism. Because heroism is not ambiguous, is it? It's just heroism. All these phrases..."arbitrary labels"  "no right answer" "debatable and interpretive"  "draw our own conclusions. " They all lead to the same end. A story where a developer is helpless to integrate any meaningful moral content because the slightest implication upsets 'ambiguity.'

You've got it backwards. The audience isn't obligated to agree with the writer. The writer is obligated to agree with the audience. More or less. If a supposedly 'good' option comes off to players as evil or wrong, the solution is not picking another option in some misguided attempt to prove the writers wrong. The solution is rewriting the damn choice so the 'good' option is no longer evil.

Modifié par David7204, 26 juin 2013 - 09:42 .

[Nightwriter]

The issue is not that the game should be more ambiguous. It's that our ability to respond is often too polarized.

[Clayless]

Yes.

I mod my game so I don't have to worry about Paragon/Renegade, and so I can make the best choices while being Paragade.

[Helios969]

Keep it. Like DA system too, but prefer the interupts P/R offers...treat my companions and allies good, ruthless toward my enemies.