261 réponses à ce sujet

[2Pac]

AlanC9 wrote...

alliance commander wrote...

^ Oh Hell no, The morality system makes mass effect fun especially the choices you make.

What do choices have to do with having a morality system?

Nothing, I am just stating my opinion we should have a morality system for the choices we make Bad renegade, Good Paragon ETC.

[AlanC9]

OK. I was confused because you specifically mentioned choices.

What's fun about having a morality system?

Modifié par AlanC9, 01 février 2014 - 03:42 .

[Dextro Milk]

Take off the labels for paragon and renegade, and suddenly people will have to think about the situation they are in, and make an actual decision... Which choice is "right or wrong" in their eyes.

[sr2josh]

AlanC9 wrote...

Makai81 wrote...

AlanC9 wrote...
Why is is a good thing that the game cares how Paragon or Renegade Shepard is? What's actually good about "motivating you to take a Paragon or Renegade path"? You just assume this is a good thing but you can't, or won't, expain what's good about it.

Edit: unless you're just saying that this is your personal choice in RPGs, and you simply like letting the P/R meter tell you what to do. De gustibus, right?

They don't make sense because I'm not in 100% agreement with your OPINION.  Trying to help you understand any point is futile.  

So you really can't say why having the P/R meter tell your character what to do is a good thing? You just like to be told what to do?

I know you can't actually mean something that stupid. So what do you mean?

Edit: actually, I don't understand your position enough to know if you don't like having the system tell your characters what to do. It's just that I've never run into anyone else who thinks that what ME really needs is more railroading.

Wow you're easily confused and/or just making things up now.  I even mentioned multiple times that the P/R meters in ME2 didn't force or tell you to do anything.  There's nothig railroading about it other than your shockingly stupid intellect.  It's no wonder the campaign forums are mostly a ghost town now, it's over run by trolls like you that get pissy anytime someone isn't 100% in agreement with them.  

[sr2josh]

spirosz wrote...

As much as I like ME2 better than the rest of the trilogy, it's really hilarious to try to defend a system that forces you to take one side over the other, no one is that one dimensional, except maybe Liara Makavilian.

It doesn't force you to do anything.  Why is this so hard to understand?

[sr2josh]

AlanC9 wrote...

dreamgazer wrote...

Makai81 wrote...

A handful of your friends coming to your side is proof of nothing as well.  Oh here's your source:  AlanC9

User blog? Nice!  Here's a source for you, too: Bioware Finally Gets the Morality Meter Right in 'Mass Effect 3'

Give the man points. I asked for one other player who felt the way he did. He found one.

  Who has ever heard of those two sites?  I provided you one from Game Informer which you complain about and then provide two cherry picked sites that are unheard of.

[sr2josh]

CronoDragoon wrote...

Makai81 wrote...
A handful of your friends coming to your side is proof of nothing as well.  Oh here's your source:  AlanC9

So long as we're making conspiratorial accusations, that user blog is clearly yours.

/s

Ok kid 

[teh DRUMPf!!]

Makai81 wrote...

spirosz wrote...

As much as I like ME2 better than the rest of the trilogy, it's really hilarious to try to defend a system that forces you to take one side over the other, no one is that one dimensional, except maybe Liara Makavilian.

It doesn't force you to do anything.  Why is this so hard to understand?

Because you're wrong.

You do not understand how the system works. I know you think you do, but you don't.

ME2's persuasion system works by checking [how many Paragon -or- Renegade points the player has accumulated] out of [the total number of Paragon and Renegade points available for the player to accumulate in every location they have visited thus far]. It's a percentage score. Fact: a BioWare dev explained the whole thing, on this 'board.

This means that if, say, the player just started playing ME2 and there have only been 10 possible Paragon or Renegade points for him to potentially accumulate, and he has scored +5 Paragon, +3 Renegade, and missed out on the remaining P/R points by selecting the neutral response once -- his Paragon score is 50%, Renegade is 30%. This player will fail to unlock any Paragon dialogue that requires >50% Paragon. He'll fail to unlock any Renegade dialogue that requires >30%. The only way to overcome this issue is to keep playing strictly Paragon or Renegade, because that's the only way to improve the percentage rate. Neutral dialogue widens the gap on both ends, so choosing it hurts your chances of being persuasive down the line.

You think that just because you've never missed a locked Paragon or Renegade dialogue when you needed it means that the game doesn't require the player to RP heavily to one morality or the other. It simply means that you just happened to play the game in a way that the system didn't screw over your ability to get those options. That's called a fluke.

Modifié par HYR 2.0, 01 février 2014 - 06:51 .

[spirosz]

^Thank you.

[AlanC9]

StreetMagic wrote...

It's pretty easy to get those ME2 checks.. at least for me it is. Follow the general order of the quest journal and you'll easily get most things unlocked. The "percentages" progress nicely that way it seems. The tough ones are recruiting Morinth and getting the "Spectre" line in Thane's quest. That isn't a big deal if you miss them.

I don't think anyone's saying that the system can't be manipulated into working. The question is why you should have to manipulate the system in the first place. Doing the quests in journal order in order to pass dialogue checks? Pass. I'd rather fail the checks than metagame.

[AlanC9]

StreetMagic wrote...

Dextro Milk wrote...

Take off the labels for paragon and renegade, and suddenly people will have to think about the situation they are in, and make an actual decision... Which choice is "right or wrong" in their eyes.

Switch the top and bottom from time to time too. Like the Vorcha game. "Winner, winner chicken dinner!"

Anyone who was on these boards when KotOR came out should remember the time Bio actually did this. KotOR dialogues usually went LS--neutral--DS, but in a big confrontation in the endgame the DS choice -- which irrevocably puts the PC on the Dark Side -- was the first choice. A lot of idiots accidentally fell to the Dark Side. I don't think it was a high percentage, though.

[AlanC9]

scyphozoa wrote...

 The morality system in ME4 needs to be seriously redesigned. The paragon/renegade system is the worst morality scale Bioware has ever had. Light Side/Dark Side, Open Palm/Closed Fist are all more grounded in lore and make sense. The morality of Mass Effect never was really defined. Sometimes Renegade meant ruthless, sometimes renegade meant greedy, sometimes renegade meant impatient, sometimes it meant stupidly cruel. There was no coherent definition of what this morality scale actually menat or implied, it was just red vs blue. 

The problem was in the original concept, I think. The ME1 manual makes it sound as if the distinction is between idealism and pragmatism. This makes superficial sense since all Shepards are supposed to be, broadly speaking, pursuing the same goals, so with ends identical the question is means. But in order to use this distinction for game decisions the Renegade choices would have to generally be superior to the Paragon choices; if there's no benefit to the Renegade action then the Renegade should pick the Paragon choice. Bio couldn't bring themselves to punish players for being "good."

Modifié par AlanC9, 01 février 2014 - 04:24 .

[Ultim Asari]

I like the morality system. Leave it alone.

[ImaginaryMatter]

AlanC9 wrote...

The problem was in the original concept, I think. The ME1 manual makes it sound as if the distinction is between idealism and pragmatism. This makes superficial sense since all Shepards are supposed to be, broadly speaking, pursuing the same goals, so with ends identical the question is means. But in order to use this distinction for game decisions the Renegade choices would have to generally be superior to the Paragon choices; if there's no benefit to the Renegade action then the Renegade should pick the Paragon choice. Bio couldn't bring themselves to punish players for being "good."

This is my main problem with the morality system, there's no reason to be pragmatic because the Paragon option allows Shepard to have his cake and eat it too.

[dreamgazer]

Makai81 wrote...

  Who has ever heard of those two sites?  I provided you one from Game Informer which you complain about and then provide two cherry picked sites that are unheard of.

Wait, you're calling my sources out on their validity (and yes, I've read and heard of both) when you're citing a user blog from the gaming mag owned by GameStop? That's cute!

[dreamgazer]

HYR 2.0 wrote...

Makai81 wrote...

spirosz wrote...

As much as I like ME2 better than the rest of the trilogy, it's really hilarious to try to defend a system that forces you to take one side over the other, no one is that one dimensional, except maybe Liara Makavilian.

It doesn't force you to do anything. Why is this so hard to understand?

Because you're wrong.

You do not understand how the system works. I know you think you do, but you don't.

ME2's persuasion system works by checking [how many Paragon -or- Renegade points the player has accumulated] out of [the total number of Paragon and Renegade points available for the player to accumulate in every location they have visited thus far]. It's a percentage score. Fact: a BioWare dev explained the whole thing, on this 'board.

This means that if, say, the player just started playing ME2 and there have only been 10 possible Paragon or Renegade points for him to potentially accumulate, and he has scored +5 Paragon, +3 Renegade, and missed out on the remaining P/R points by selecting the neutral response once -- his Paragon score is 50%, Renegade is 30%. This player will fail to unlock any Paragon dialogue that requires >50% Paragon. He'll fail to unlock any Renegade dialogue that requires >30%. The only way to overcome this issue is to keep playing strictly Paragon or Renegade, because that's the only way to improve the percentage rate. Neutral dialogue widens the gap on both ends, so choosing it hurts your chances of being persuasive down the line.

You think that just because you've never missed a locked Paragon or Renegade dialogue when you needed it means that the game doesn't require the player to RP heavily to one morality or the other. It simply means that you just happened to play the game in a way that the system didn't screw over your ability to get those options. That's called a fluke.

Winner, winner.

[GreyLycanTrope]

In reference to the OP. I'd push the morality system into the background and loose the meter on the character page all together. Make it work something similar to the DA2 personality system except instead of having it be preselected make it accumulate over time via decisions you make in game. Assign them value but do let the player actually see what it is so that NPC can react to the reputation you build for yourself over the course of the story.

Persuasion should also be detached from it and made closer to an RPG skill you can just put points into so we don't have people just blindly picking the options in the upper right hand/lower right hand just to rack up points without actually thinking about the given situation.

[Reorte]

ImaginaryMatter wrote...

AlanC9 wrote...

The problem was in the original concept, I think. The ME1 manual makes it sound as if the distinction is between idealism and pragmatism. This makes superficial sense since all Shepards are supposed to be, broadly speaking, pursuing the same goals, so with ends identical the question is means. But in order to use this distinction for game decisions the Renegade choices would have to generally be superior to the Paragon choices; if there's no benefit to the Renegade action then the Renegade should pick the Paragon choice. Bio couldn't bring themselves to punish players for being "good."

This is my main problem with the morality system, there's no reason to be pragmatic because the Paragon option allows Shepard to have his cake and eat it too.

Very few of the choices are pragmatic, when there's clear morality too often it's "be naive or be a jerk". Plus since pragmatism and idealism aren't diametrically opposite it's hard to use that basis as a criteria for two contrasting choices. Sometimes it works that way, but by no means always. Sometimes the neutral choice should be the most appropriate.

[MassivelyEffective0730]

Ultim Asari wrote...

I like the morality system. Leave it alone.

Why do you like it?

[Barquiel]

I just hope it doesn't force me to metagame decisions to unlock dialogue choices later on...the morality system in ME3 was OK in my opinion. ME2 and DA2 were not so good.

Modifié par Barquiel, 01 février 2014 - 07:00 .

[Tyrannosaurus Rex]

Barquiel wrote...

I just hope it doesn't force me to metagame decisions to unlock dialogue choices later on...the morality system in ME3 was OK in my opinion. ME2 and DA2 were not so good.

DA2? I thought the friendship/rivalry system was one of the few things DA2 did right.