45 réponses à ce sujet

[cap and gown]

How often do you feel pressured to take an interrupt, or one of the persuade options, whether charm or intimidate, when playing the trilogy? Pretty often, I am guessing. Sometimes it is mandatory if you don't want some horrible outcome. (Say, for instance, if you want peace between the Quarians and Geth.) The problem is, rather than you defining who your character is, the game is doing it for you. This is why straight paragon or renegade playthroughs annoy me: a computer could play the game easier than a person, just always pick upper or lower dialogue options with no thought involved.

Well, I just started a playthrough of ME2 where I wanted to fool around as an Adept. I had no particular RP agenda for this Shepard, it was mostly about the gameplay. With that in mind, I decided to start exploring some of the dialogue options I had never seen before, in particular, avoiding interrupts and persuade checks. Well, the game is quite different if you stop using those persuade/interrupt options. For instance, this is the first time I have seen Mordin's assistant Daniel shot by the Batarians, or chased off the Batarian bartender rather than inciting the crowd or forcing him to drink his own poison.

This got me to thinking that the whole persuade system may actually detract from role playing. Rather than responding the way you think your character should, you tend to become railroaded into choosing certain dialogue options because they are red or blue and therefore will get you some favorable outcome. There they sit, practically screaming "pick me, pick me, and something cool will happen!"

Now, the idea of being able to persuade some NPC to do something is not a bad idea. But knowing up front that you will succeed simply because that option is not greyed out actually takes away from the suspense, as well as the RP.

I think a system where building up a rapport with an NPC in order to succeed with a persuasion would be better. Moreover, the level of trust/distrust with a given NPC should be hidden from the player. Then, when it comes to the persuade check, you don't know if you will succeed or not. The dialogue option would be there and not stand out as something special, nor would you know how they are going to respond to it. All of that would be "under the hood" so to speak.

This system would, I believe, allow more freedom to the player to play his/her character the way they want without feeling pressure (or at least as much pressure) from game mechanics to take any particular path. Maybe you like some NPC so you treat them well, or vice versa. Or maybe you are a manipulative jerk who smiles in their face while planning to stab them in the back. Either way you can get what you want if you play your cards right, but none of that is revealed to you until either succeed or fail.

[Bob from Accounting]

It's very difficult to take these kinds of arguments seriously when you admit to being incapable of resisting the supposed 'pressure' of the narrative to not make a simple choice.

How can players possibly expect to have their 'agency' taken seriously if they're so helpless?

Your solution is really no different, by the way. Players would simply say whatever it takes to please the person in question. So instead of being supposedly 'forced' to say nice or intimidating things, they're just supposedly 'forced' to say whatever the NPC wants to hear.

Modifié par Bob from Accounting, 19 février 2014 - 10:20 .

[cap and gown]

Bob from Accounting wrote...

It's very difficult to take these kinds of arguments seriously when you admit to being incapable of resisting the supposed 'pressure' of the narrative to not make a simple choice.

How can players possibly expect to have their 'agency' taken seriously if they're so helpless?

You obviously don't know what you are talking about in many of these cases. For instance, with Daniel, look at the upper right versus the upper left/persuade option. Tell me what difference there is. None. They both say the same thing: no one has to die. But the upper right gets Daniel killed while the upper left has the Batarians let him go.

[Bob from Accounting]

And that renders you incapable of choosing the option you supposedly want to roleplay how, exactly?

[BeastSaver]

The one scene I never do the persuade checks is during Thane's loyalty mission in ME2 while interrogating Elias Kellam (my Shepard is typically still a Spectre - I haven't tried this with Spectre status revoked). The way the conversation plays out is superior IMO.

Modifié par BeastSaver, 19 février 2014 - 10:49 .

[AlexMBrennan]

I think a system where building up a rapport with an NPC in order to succeed with a persuasion would be better. Moreover, the level of trust/distrust with a given NPC should be hidden from the player. Then, when it comes to the persuade check, you don't know if you will succeed or not

Do you remember the discussion of the ME2 system? Because the requirements where hidden the developers had to make multiple posts explaining in detail why the system was not, in fact, broken but working as intended... As such, making a complicated system hidden from the player seems likely to be extremely frustrating and confusing with little payoff.

This system would, I believe, allow more freedom to the player to play his/her character the way they want without feeling pressure

No, it would just change which system the player has to game.

[CrutchCricket]

What you're describing is no different from people always picking top because top= good and bottom=bad. If you want to roleplay you overcome that automated response and actually evaluate your options.

BeastSaver wrote...

The one scene I never do the persuade checks is during Thane's loyalty mission in ME2 while interrogating Elias Kellam (my Shepard is typically still a Spectre - I haven't tried this with Spectre status revoked). The way the conversation plays out is superior IMO.

Disagree completely. The "shortest interrogation ever" is about how someone of Shepard's badassery should interact (and effect) insignificant scum like Kelham.

[DeinonSlayer]

It's interesting to see all the options with that stock boy in Thane's loyalty mission if you don't simply pick the first persuade option available. Everyone has seen the "health inspector" versus "run before it explodes!" tree, but there are actually two additional branches it opens into if you simply try to politely brush him off.

Two of my Shepards had different approaches to the Tali/Legion confrontation. My canon MaleShep (who views the Geth as alive, but sees them as three-hundred-year-old war criminals) wasn't thrilled about Legion's act of espionage and sided with Tali; several conversations with Legion afterwards he grudgingly admitted to Legion he could have handled that better (regained loyalty, paragon). My canon FemShep (Cerberus member who does not view synthetics as alive but sought to cultivate the Geth as cannon fodder) sided with Legion in the same confrontation and later persuaded Tali that it would be better to have the Geth around "to soak enemy fire" (regained loyalty, renegade).

I agree with you, OP. Players are more often than not conditioned to click any persuasion open to them because it typically provides a better outcome.

[cap and gown]

AlexMBrennan wrote...


Do you remember the discussion of the ME2 system? Because the requirements where hidden the developers had to make multiple posts explaining in detail why the system was not, in fact, broken but working as intended... As such, making a complicated system hidden from the player seems likely to be extremely frustrating and confusing with little payoff.

.

I wasn't around then. I hadn't considered that. I guess leaving things hidden could be even worse since in ME2 you are practically forced into either the paragon or renegade side if you want to pass certain persuasion checks that you know are coming up, such as the Vasir, Jack/Miranda and Tali/Legion confrontations. And that is just what I would like to avoid.

[CrutchCricket]

cap and gown wrote...
I wasn't around then. I hadn't considered that. I guess leaving things hidden could be even worse since in ME2 you are practically forced into either the paragon or renegade side if you want to pass certain persuasion checks that you know are coming up, such as the Vasir, Jack/Miranda and Tali/Legion confrontations. And that is just what I would like to avoid.

That's different, though. That's railroading you into a path, saying "if you want to have the best options you have to go full saint or full ****". That is counterproductive to roleplay, and very annoying to boot.

Luckily Gibbed can help you bypass that if you're on PC.

[RangerSG]

CrutchCricket wrote...

What you're describing is no different from people always picking top because top= good and bottom=bad. If you want to roleplay you overcome that automated response and actually evaluate your options.

BeastSaver wrote...

The one scene I never do the persuade checks is during Thane's loyalty mission in ME2 while interrogating Elias Kellam (my Shepard is typically still a Spectre - I haven't tried this with Spectre status revoked). The way the conversation plays out is superior IMO.

Disagree completely. The "shortest interrogation ever" is about how someone of Shepard's badassery should interact (and effect) insignificant scum like Kelham.

Agree with CC on this. Kelham is small-time scum. The kind of person the "I kill thugs like you on the way to real problems" line deserved to be repeated for. The shortest interrogation ever is perfect. Not to mention Thane's deadpan delivery of his analysis is simply funny. 

[CrutchCricket]

StreetMagic wrote...

It's a cool line, but I don't like being and/or claiming to be a Spectre in ME2. So I just take other options. I find it equally funny that I'm just some washed up ex-Spectre, and Bailey still admires me enough to use his interrogation room.

Washed-up my ass. Shepard earned that title several times over and lived up to its mandates more than any other Spectre in history.

The real insult is how little it takes for the Council to yank it away. I would've loved to be able to say something along the lines of: "Revoke it one more time and I swear I'll laugh when the lot of you burn. Hell I'll set up seats and charge admission."

[RangerSG]

StreetMagic wrote...

CrutchCricket wrote...

StreetMagic wrote...

It's a cool line, but I don't like being and/or claiming to be a Spectre in ME2. So I just take other options. I find it equally funny that I'm just some washed up ex-Spectre, and Bailey still admires me enough to use his interrogation room.

Washed-up my ass. Shepard earned that title several times over and lived up to its mandates more than any other Spectre in history.

The real insult is how little it takes for the Council to yank it away. I would've loved to be able to say something along the lines of: "Revoke it one more time and I swear I'll laugh when the lot of you burn. Hell I'll set up seats and charge admission."

Depends on the roleplaying.

He's definitely a little washed up in my playthrough. Which brings me to another Persuasion check that I avoid: Kalisah's interview in ME2. I like just walking away from her and breaking up a bit about Kaidan/Ash dying at Virmire. When you walk away, she says "Commander Shepard. Once a darling of the Alliance. Now a broken man" or something to that effect.

It's not I play incompetent though. It's my excuse for going Paragon in ME2. He gets raised from the dead, and starts feeling guilty about what kind of dick he was before. So he's softer, "washed up", and even acts nice to Conrad Verner.

Meh, "washed up" has nothing to do with 'soft.' It has to do with incompetence. And if Shepard was ever incompetent, it would be game over. I've played a couple pure paragons who didn't see the need to put down Verner. They were not washed up. Just generally decent until they decided something was a threat. Then they deaded it. 

[CrutchCricket]

The Al-Jilani interviews are a complete break from any roleplaying for me. I just punch her every time. It's not that I think my Shepard would do that (he wouldn't even give her the time of day). I just do it for the lulz.

Edit: And I don't think you have to be "washed-up", "soft" or incompetent to not be a dick to Verner. My Shep can't decide whether he's amused or exasperated by Verner's antics. Mostly exasperated, since he doesn't really want to see the idiot hurt himself. He doesn't tolerate fools generally, but at least Verner's a well-meaning, amusing fool.

Modifié par CrutchCricket, 20 février 2014 - 01:56 .

[CrutchCricket]

What's he got to be guilt-ridden for in ME2? And were you full-on **** in ME1, that he "softened" by ME2? Also, CloneShep is none of those things, he's just a tool.

[CrutchCricket]

RangerSG wrote...
Just generally decent until they decided something was a threat. Then they deaded it. 

If you wanted to describe my Shepard but had a character limit, this would be a pretty good way to do it.

[eyezonlyii]

CrutchCricket wrote...

What's he got to be guilt-ridden for in ME2? And were you full-on **** in ME1, that he "softened" by ME2? Also, CloneShep is none of those things, he's just a tool.

A tool wielded and shaped by something outside of his control:crying:

seriously though, I wish they would have let you save him and send him off to lead his own special team or something.

[ImaginaryMatter]

I usually skip more than half of the interrupts in ME2, then again it helps that I actually know what they are. When I first started playing I usually pressed them as a reflex but seeing how they turned out I usually restarted (I usually like my Shepard using their words not their fists).

Having said that I do dislike some of the ME2 Renegade interrupts. Unless I'm playing my Sentinel, I'm not hesitant to knock people out or silence entire races, but I don't like my Shepard displaying some sort of satisfaction from it -- they do it because it's necessary. Although this isn't a problem restricted solely to Renegade interrupts. On the other hand I don't have a problem with any of the Paragon interrupts as far as I can recall.