416 réponses à ce sujet

[ThinkSharp]

MassivelyEffective0730 wrote...

See though, that's what people are arguing against on here.

You nailed it, but you kind of interpreted it differently than some.

It's the fact that the spammers who do mindlessy click upper-left get away with a lot of the **** in the game. We don't want the consequences for doing so to be so straight as you say. 

I don't think anyone is objectively arguing that any one philosophy is better than another.... except David.

I personally advocate a true neutral approach. My decisions and my morals are based on the context of each situation I find myself in with whatever info I have.

I'll agree that I wish the negative effects of paragon options had been more visible, as the negative effects of some renegade options were.

But if spammers want to spam, then I don't really care. That's how they play the game, let them. I'll play the way I want to play.

[ThinkSharp]

David7204 wrote...

DeinonSlayer wrote...

@ThinkSharp
Another good point. In DA:O, you could use the very same Persuade/Intimidate dialogue options, but unless you had enough cunning/strength/persuasion level, the target would remain unconvinced - it was possible to fail at a persuasion. Switch over to Mass Effect, and any unlocked persuasion option becomes a get-out-of-jail-free card, the only exceptions in the entire trilogy being picking away at Saren and TIM's indoctrination.

That's a trivial detail.

The option in Mass Effect is merely greyed out, while the option in DA:O results in failure. There's no real difference. They're both unusable if you don't have the skill.

Not entirely true, David. In DA:O, you can attempt to persuade--still choose it--but it may fail and backfire on you. So there's risk. Not so much in ME. If it isn't grayed out, you're golden.

Modifié par ThinkSharp, 03 juin 2013 - 06:52 .

[DeinonSlayer]

@ThinkSharp
That's the whole point, though. Shuffle the deck, and spammers can't spam anymore. Players have to pay attention to what's happening, formulate opinions based on what they know and what they personally believe to be the right thing to do, and choose dialogue accordingly.

[MassivelyEffective0730]

David7204 wrote...

On second thought, maybe I shouldn't have said that. It's not really true. Not every 'choice' has a good side and a bad side. Nor should they.

If heroism is meaningful, 'good' choices need to lead to 'good' outcomes.

You have a different opinion of 'meaningful' and 'heroism' than everybody else here.

Not every 'good' choice needs to lead to a 'good' outcome. Define 'good' for that matter. You're limiting it to the morally right, compassionate version. There's more than one definition for it.

I think I can say that we all (except David) want a game where we can define our Shepard as Paragon, Renegade, or Neutral, but in which all actions have consequences, even negative or seemingly unforeseen ones. It makes the player mindful of each decision he makes, and mindful of all possible scenario's. Make the player uncertain of the consequence and putting more thought into each decision.

Modifié par MassivelyEffective0730, 03 juin 2013 - 06:55 .

[MassivelyEffective0730]

ThinkSharp wrote...

MassivelyEffective0730 wrote...

See though, that's what people are arguing against on here.

You nailed it, but you kind of interpreted it differently than some.

It's the fact that the spammers who do mindlessy click upper-left get away with a lot of the **** in the game. We don't want the consequences for doing so to be so straight as you say. 

I don't think anyone is objectively arguing that any one philosophy is better than another.... except David.

I personally advocate a true neutral approach. My decisions and my morals are based on the context of each situation I find myself in with whatever info I have.

I'll agree that I wish the negative effects of paragon options had been more visible, as the negative effects of some renegade options were.

But if spammers want to spam, then I don't really care. That's how they play the game, let them. I'll play the way I want to play.

Just to clear it up, by spammer, I just mean the people who spam the upper-left option/left trigger perpetually and get away with having a perfect game.

[David7204]

DeinonSlayer wrote...

@ThinkSharp
That's the whole point, though. Shuffle the deck, and spammers can't spam anymore. Players have to pay attention to what's happening, formulate opinions based on what they know and what they personally believe to be the right thing to do, and choose dialogue accordingly.

I don't much care about choices either way, since the 'right' option is obvious enough anyway.

But dialogue? No. If I want to be friendly and polite, I don't want to hunt around ten times a conversation for the right option to do that. I shouldn't have to 'think deeply' to do that. Because I don't in real life, do I? Besides, that requires the developers to make it clear in just a few words which reponse is friendly and polite, which response is neutal, and which reponse is rude or angry. With hundreds of conversations, mistakes will inevitably happen.

Modifié par David7204, 03 juin 2013 - 07:00 .

[grey_wind]

I'm all for getting rid of the P/R system altogether.

However, if Paragon/Renegade has to stay, it should only exist to indicate the tone of the dialogue you're picking from the wheel. Actual choices (like curing or sabotaging the Genophage) shouldn't have any alignment.
As the dialogue wheel currently stands, its paraphrased versions of the dialogue you're picking are simply awful. Either they need to make better paraphrases, or they need to have a way to show the full dialogue before Shep picks the option, or they need something to indicate the context Shep is going to use when you pick said option.

[David7204]

They did an outstanding job paraphrasing the dialogue.

[DeinonSlayer]

David7204 wrote...

DeinonSlayer wrote...

@ThinkSharp
That's the whole point, though. Shuffle the deck, and spammers can't spam anymore. Players have to pay attention to what's happening, formulate opinions based on what they know and what they personally believe to be the right thing to do, and choose dialogue accordingly.

I don't much care about choices either way, since the 'right' option is obvious enough anyway.

But dialogue? No. If I want to be friendly and polite, I don't want to hunt around ten times a conversation for the right option to do that.

It's not as hard as you're making it out to be. Even stripping out karma and randomizing dialogue in a game as constricting as ME3's choices were would have forced players to pay more attention and think for themselves.

[David7204]

It's not about hard, it's about implementing a pointless system that is only going to cause frustration and mistakes. This is not a calculus exam, this is not writing a speech. It's being friendly. 'Thinking for yourself' doesn't come into it.

What will come into it is a lot of irritating conversations when the protagonist reponses differently than what the player intended.

Modifié par David7204, 03 juin 2013 - 07:06 .

[ThinkSharp]

I agree that choices should be thought about.

But are you saying that the player should have to spend more than a few seconds weighing the consequences of every single piece of dialogue? That's a bit much.

I mean it's one thing to have to really think about how you're going to present Tali's case to admirals. It's another thing when you're telling Avina what you think about its speeches.

When it comes to the small stuff in most dialogue there isn't a real advantage to top or bottom anyway.

Modifié par ThinkSharp, 03 juin 2013 - 07:11 .

[Grand Admiral Cheesecake]

Hmmm, I don't actually care much one way or another.

I support whichever option David opposes, unless he decided to support it of course then I'd pick the other one.

Modifié par Grand Admiral Cheesecake, 03 juin 2013 - 07:11 .

[DeinonSlayer]

What I'm suggesting is, keep the exact same dialogue options, but scramble their positions on the wheel (or display them in a list) and drop the morality meter. People could look at it in seconds and determine what's friendly and what's not. Heck, DX:HR set its dialogue wheel up with moods. Professional. Sarcastic. Confront. Ignore. Mouse over each, and see what dialogue will be spoken by selecting it.

[MassivelyEffective0730]

ThinkSharp wrote...

I agree that choices should be thought about.

But are you saying that the player should have to spend more than a few seconds weighing the consequences of every single piece of dialogue? That's a bit much.

I mean it's one thing to have to really think about how you're going to present Tali's case to admirals. It's another thing when you're telling Avina what you think about its speeches.

Of course we aren't talking about mundane things.

Like when getting information, or talking to a crewmate on the ship.

Your own example is perfect really. To add to the Avina dialogue, Shepard would look rather idiotic debating ethics of the genophage (which you can kind of due in ME1) with a VI with a set programmed identity and information.

Modifié par MassivelyEffective0730, 03 juin 2013 - 07:16 .

[DeinonSlayer]

Not that they need to rip off Deus Ex more than they already have, mind you; the point being that models exist.

[ThinkSharp]

I guess what I'm trying to say is that having a set place for each tone just makes it more efficient when it is mundane.

OK, make it randomized. Make people have to read it. Spammers will still always choose the most "polite" or what they consider good option just because they think it will get them the best result in game. The place on the wheel isn't the real problem as far as that's concerned.

[David7204]

DeinonSlayer wrote...

What I'm suggesting is, keep the exact same dialogue options, but scramble their positions on the wheel (or display them in a list) and drop the morality meter. People could look at it in seconds and determine what's friendly and what's not. Heck, DX:HR set its dialogue wheel up with moods. Professional. Sarcastic. Confront. Ignore. Mouse over each, and see what dialogue will be spoken by selecting it.

And that's not a good idea. Because I don't want to have to hunt around every single time I just want to be friendly in a conversation. That also means every single line of dialogue needs to be paraphrased very clearly in 5 words or less. Mistakes are inevitable in thousands of lines of dialogue. That's technically the case now, but the writers have breathing room since players know which responses are friendly and which are rude.

Modifié par David7204, 03 juin 2013 - 07:17 .

[MassivelyEffective0730]

DeinonSlayer wrote...

Not that they need to rip off Deus Ex more than they already have, mind you; the point being that models exist.

Well, I'd rather they ripped off the dialogue from Deus Ex than BGR

[MassivelyEffective0730]

David7204 wrote...

DeinonSlayer wrote...

What I'm suggesting is, keep the exact same dialogue options, but scramble their positions on the wheel (or display them in a list) and drop the morality meter. People could look at it in seconds and determine what's friendly and what's not. Heck, DX:HR set its dialogue wheel up with moods. Professional. Sarcastic. Confront. Ignore. Mouse over each, and see what dialogue will be spoken by selecting it.

And that's not a good idea. Because I don't want to have to hunt around every single time I just want to be friendly in a conversation. That also means every single line of dialogue needs to be paraphrased very clearly in 5 words or less. Mistakes are inevitable in thousands of lines of dialogue.

Now you're just making it a bigger problem than it is.

Here's how I'd do it:

Top right: Professional/diplomatic
Top left: Friendly/nice/whatever
Bottom right: Sarcastic/angry
Bottom left: Aggressive/confront
Middle right: Neutral/ignore

Simple as that. 

[David7204]

That sounds exactly like what we have now, just with more options.

[sH0tgUn jUliA]

I am a monster. I stood there asking questions while a sick batarian was coughing. I kept pressing him about Mordin Solus. I wasn't interested in his troubles. I am a monster. I deliberately missed the paragon interrupt and watched him croak. I felt nothing. I am a monster. I got 7 renegade points. I was playing an Earthborn/Ruthless Shepard.

I've shot Wrex. I've shot Legion. I've deliberately sent characters who were disloyal as the specialist on the suicide mission, or taken them on the last leg of the mission. I am a monster. Hmmm.... that's something to do with Jacob. Romance him, don't do his loyalty mission, and take him on the last leg. Awww.....

Seriously, they need to dump the system. Go back to putting skill points into speech. Combine that with a reputation system. Persuade or Intimidate. The more side missions you do, the higher your reputation -- but get a better journal system FFS.

[David7204]

sH0tgUn jUliA wrote...

I am a monster. I stood there asking questions while a sick batarian was coughing. I kept pressing him about Mordin Solus. I wasn't interested in his troubles. I am a monster. I deliberately missed the paragon interrupt and watched him croak. I felt nothing. I am a monster. I got 7 renegade points. I was playing an Earthborn/Ruthless Shepard.

I've shot Wrex. I've shot Legion. I've deliberately sent characters who were disloyal as the specialist on the suicide mission, or taken them on the last leg of the mission. I am a monster. Hmmm.... that's something to do with Jacob. Romance him, don't do his loyalty mission, and take him on the last leg. Awww.....

Seriously, they need to dump the system. Go back to putting skill points into speech. Combine that with a reputation system. Persuade or Intimidate. The more side missions you do, the higher your reputation -- but get a better journal system FFS.

So...do you want the game to treat you like a monster or not?

[Sajuro]

Khelish wrote...

Yes. Kotor had it right, Dragon Age had it right, Mass Effect has too many people mindlessly adhering to one side or the other.

I want you to repeat this to yourself outloud.
Kotor had an arbitrary alignment system, good was helping the widow while bad taking all of her money. You could give the baby a piece of candy or you could murder the entire family
Mass Effect and Jade Empire refined the system and the problem with Kotor was the choices were either good or undeniably evil.
Origins had a good system but I think that Dragon Age II took it to another level with the rivalry and friendship scales.
If we could do morality more like Fallout or even get rid of the visible scales.

[Silcron]

The system worked well for KotOR, and it would in SWTOR if not for having some gear unlocked by your level of ligh or darkside. (that still annoys me a little, I may roleplay as much as I want but at the end I'll just end up farming the first flashpoint for ligh or dark V to get better gear)

The choices weren't outlined as to which are good and which are bad, but they were easy to guess which would give you points for each side. It works well with star wars and jedi/sith because light and darkside are a sort of inuniverse reality (in the lore it has also been discussed that they don't exist, that the force just amplifies everything in a force user, meaning that instead of being menacing one just slams a person into a wall if he doesn't have selfcontrol)

But for ME, what is supposed to be a more morally complex story it doesn't make sense. Specially since it falls back to that swtor, instead of better gear if you want better outcomes choose red or blue path.

And it's been talked about but I support not every seemingly good choice leading to good outcomes. For example, in Deus Ex: Human Revolution you get at one point a secondary quest. There's a very small glitch (like getting a bit of lag in the HUD, it's ingame, happens very rarely) in the implants and they announce that they've found the solution. So the quest is to go and have them fixed, nothing to pay, just get into a clinic, say you're there for that, cutscene, experience and money. There were sme people cynical about it, and you investigating some people with ties to them could make you cynical about it too. And easy quest that shows the clinics doing a real job, more inmersion, that's good.

Now when you face one of the bosses it is revealed that it was all a trap, part of hte master plan to create mindless pawns out of people. If you had the implants "fixed" you lost your HUD and you implants, having to rely solely on weapons (no cross to aim either) for that fight until you found a scientist that fixed it, it was part of the main campaign so you couldn't miss it.

And this was great. You had the choice of fixing them of not, which was a simeple sidequest turned into something important with consecuences. Fixing them was technically the good choice to do. There's a problem, why not fix it? And it had a bad outcome, and that was fine. Yes, you can argue that not fixing them is the good choice, but the first time you do it you have no real reason to say no to them, the only people saying no are kind of these paranoid cynics.

And I think that is what we want. Choices with consecuences in which the first time at least, we don't know which is the good or bad option, and that if you roleplay, none of the two are better than the other or at least not that much better. And this one didn't have a neutral option, you either went into the clinic and do it or not.