Snip
Shepard isn't Hercules. Get over it. You're the only one bringing up Greek mythology. Everybody else is talking about Mass Effect. If you want to play as an awkward schizo, go right ahead. Advocate for it.
And I'll continue to advocate for the P/R system to be completely rebooted or dropped entirely. Carry on...
It all comes down to the way the dialogue is written.There is nothing wrong with choosing Renegade option for one issue and Paragon for another. As an example, Shepard can be very passionate for curing the genophage but he can also be very passionate about killing the geth. The two extremes don't necessarily contradict each other. Having the options restricted by Paragon/Renegade points limits roleplaying opportunities. ME3 Reputation system was quite a good compromise IMO, since it allowed the player to choose whatever option he wanted, provided that he had passed the Reputation check. And colored dialogue options did not feel out of character even for pure Paragon or Renegade players. For example, peace between geth and quarians. One can easily see Paragon Shepard saying the red colored dialogue line.
I liked Paragon/Renegade, good vs evil, I understand that people want to roleplay and be more nuanced but I find that seems to have come at the expense of a lesser story in DAI
In fact, I'm choosing a ton of renegade options on this play through (ME2) with both Tali and Grunt, even though it is a paragon play through. Both seem to like me better for as well.
*shrug*
I don't really care if they assign you a value based on your decision. What I absolutely do not want is any incentive to always pick paragon or always pick renegade. ME had this tying it to charm and intimidate success which is a poor mechanic. Let us play the character the way we want without fear of shooting ourselves in the foot.
This is kind of why I don't want companion content hidden behind an influence system either. I don't mind the companion not liking me because of ACTIONS I take. But I find myself constantly choosing dialogue to appease my companions, when playing games that have the system, rather than what I want to say.
I don't really care if they assign you a value based on your decision. What I absolutely do not want is any incentive to always pick paragon or always pick renegade. ME had this tying it to charm and intimidate success which is a poor mechanic. Let us play the character the way we want without fear of shooting ourselves in the foot.
This is kind of why I don't want companion content hidden behind an influence system either. I don't mind the companion not liking me because of ACTIONS I take. But I find myself constantly choosing dialogue to appease my companions, when playing games that have the system, rather than what I want to say.
What I'd really like is the ability to directly apply points to our dialogue stats, similarly to how ME1 did it. But instead, a mix between that and a bit of what Inquisition introduced in its perks. I don't want to gather points in the same way you do Influence, but I'd like to be able to unlock options that could be relevant to any given situation, like history, technology, government knowledge, law, etc., when applicable. I'm not overly fond of the PC being totally ignorant of the world around him/her, like Shepard's dumb dialogue with Wrex about the genophage, or just about anything big and important that any reasonably well-read person in a space-faring military should have a keener awareness of. I'd like to be able to dive into a more educated protagonist. The ability to threaten or charm people into doing whatever I want can be fun and such, but it's sort of an I Win option to resolve conflicts, and it's fairly predictable.
Shepard isn't Hercules. Get over it. You're the only one bringing up Greek mythology. Everybody else is talking about Mass Effect. If you want to play as an awkward schizo, go right ahead. Advocate for it.
And I'll continue to advocate for the P/R system to be completely rebooted or dropped entirely. Carry on...
And i am talking about Mass Effect if you are incapable understanding analogy and understanding how literature tropes can be used in one story can also be used in another story that's your failing not mine. What amazes me is I have continued to state i want the system changed and or removed but I'm pretty sure you never bothered to read my posts, again that's your failing not mine.
Any system that forces you along the rails of one extreme or another like you want is just as bad as the current P/R system. People are more nuanced and they are not robots that always pick one way to act. You think if you don't always act as a paragon or conversely always act as a renegade you are being "schizo" yet people don't act at all how you are advocating. People get angry and do things that are not "in character" to their normal behaviour but to you that's bad roleplaying, yet that's how people often respond in real life so in actual fact its good roleplaying. People take positions that are not contradictory to each other but would be on opposite sides of the paragon / renegade divide as Vazgin has clearly articulated. According to you that being a schizo when its actually nothing of the sort. It is very reasonable for Shepard to be pro organic life and 100% must be utterly destroyed, towards synthetic intelligence. Given the the reapers are the pinnacle of synthetic intelligence and they are trying to "harvest" the galaxy Shepard acting this way is not only reasonable its also rational. But according to you that's being schizo, why because it crosses the paragon / renegade divide.
Sorry but your forced system does nothing to remove and eliminate the problems of the current Paragon / Renegade system. It simply changes the current system to "something else" while maintaining the flaws that make the current system childish and unnuanced. I'd prefer a system that treats us like adults as these are mature titles for adults. We don't need hand holding to tell us this was a "good" choice and this was a "bad" choice. As I pointed out the best moral choice in the series was the Legion loyalty quest. What is better to kill an entire culture or to remove their free will? How is either of these choices a "paragon" choice? in any other situation in the series stripping someone of their free will would be view as a renegade action but nope in the childish world of ME morality system its a paragon choice because there are no shades of grey only blue and orange.
What I'd really like is the ability to directly apply points to our dialogue stats, similarly to how ME1 did it. But instead, a mix between that and a bit of what Inquisition introduced in its perks. I don't want to gather points in the same way you do Influence, but I'd like to be able to unlock options that could be relevant to any given situation, like history, technology, government knowledge, law, etc., when applicable. I'm not overly fond of the PC being totally ignorant of the world around him/her, like Shepard's dumb dialogue with Wrex about the genophage, or just about anything big and important that any reasonably well-read person in a space-faring military should have a keener awareness of. I'd like to be able to dive into a more educated protagonist. The ability to threaten or charm people into doing whatever I want can be fun and such, but it's sort of an I Win option to resolve conflicts, and it's fairly predictable.
ME2 started the series down the role of "I win" situations. When you think of it the Crew confrontations in ME2 should have been constructed with no "I win" outcome. You should have had only three options to pick a side maintaining the loyalty of one or remain neutral losing the loyalty of both. This would be equivalent to the Virmire choice where you CAN'T save everyone, but they went down the rabbit hole of Shepard can save everyone in ME2 and it translated into ME3 where no one dies because Shepard can save everyone except Mordin and a terminally ill Drell. The greatest crisis in the galaxy and Shepard is such a super duper awesome trooper that Shepard never has to make any hard choices as there is always an "I win" choice to save everyone. I think this is the biggest failing of the Paragon / Renegade system that it is, by design, intended to create an "I win" result. And yet I was more impacted by the Virmire choice because it meant I was losing a member of my crew they were out of the series. There was no "I win" option because it wasn't a choice crafted under the morality system. The only reason I give the legion loyalty mission top marks for the best crafted choice in the ME series is because I did not know how to answer that question at first glance. But i would rather see more Virmire style choices in ME because I am kinda tired of the Messiah-esque nature of Shepard. You can't save everyone (unless you are Shepard).
I'd be fine if you could save everybody as long as it reflected the actual virtues of a good leader. The Suicide Mission actually demanded that you were familiar with your squadmates' capabilities, but more nuanced versions of that scenario would be welcome in the next game.
What I liked about the Paragon/Renegade system is that it made me build my character one way or the other. For me that really helps with immersion into the universe itself. In real life people respond to your actions and the decisions you make, you are handled according to your personality. Some things in life wont be available to you that is available to others simply because of who you are or what you stand for. I like that the dialogue options are handled in the same manner. You don't get to have your cake and eat it too. The P/R system made me worry about dialogue decisions. I should be thinking about what I'm going to say or how I handle the situation. It's a system that needs work for sure but not something to be abandoned all together. I hope to see an improved version in the next ME. Perhaps a hybrid with NPC approval / disapproval of DAI.
ME2 started the series down the role of "I win" situations. When you think of it the Crew confrontations in ME2 should have been constructed with no "I win" outcome. You should have had only three options to pick a side maintaining the loyalty of one or remain neutral losing the loyalty of both. This would be equivalent to the Virmire choice where you CAN'T save everyone, but they went down the rabbit whole of Shepard can save everyone in ME2 and it translated into ME3 where no one dies because Shepard can save everyone except Mordin and a terminally ill Drell. The greatest crisis in the galaxy and Shepard is such a super duper awesome trooper that Shepard never has to make any hard choices as there is always an "I win" choice to save everyone. I think this is the biggest failing of the Paragon / Renegade system that it is, by design, intended to create an "I win" result. And yet I was more impacted by the Virmire choice because it meant I was losing a member of my crew they were out of the series. There was no "I win" option because it wasn't a choice crafted under the morality system. The only reason I give the legion loyalty mission top marks for the best crafted choice in the ME series is because I did not know how to answer that question at first glance. But i would rather see more Virmire style choices in ME because I am kinda tired of the Messiah-esque nature of Shepard. You can't save everyone (unless you are Shepard).
Well, and Kaiden/Ashley. #goteamash
What I liked about the Paragon/Renegade system is that it made me build my character one way or the other. For me that really helps with immersion into the universe itself. In real life people respond to your actions and the decisions you make, you are handled according to your personality. Some things in life wont be available to you that is available to others simply because of who you are or what you stand for. I like that the dialogue options are handled in the same manner. You don't get to have your cake and eat it too. The P/R system made me worry about dialogue decisions. I should be thinking about what I'm going to say or how I handle the situation. It's a system that needs work for sure but not something to be abandoned all together. I hope to see an improved version in the next ME. Perhaps a hybrid with NPC approval / disapproval of DAI.
This... so much this!
I'm in that same camp that while I definitely don't think the system is by any means perfect and of course needs some work, I still think it has a place in the series.
I like what you're saying: I don't think you should be able to have your cake and eat it too. A lot of posts this thread seem to have the philosophy that "I should be able to successfully pull off any decision regardless of others that I've made, simply on the basis of being the player." and I personally couldn't disagree more with that outlook. If you have built up a reputation as having an extremely renegade-oriented personality, then I don't think you should have any business being able to serve as a diplomat for a peaceful situation.
Sure Shepard, despite the fact that you from day 1 you have held a human-supremacist outlook, routinely shoot first/ask questions later (if at all), bend rules of engagement for your own benefit, and spend your down time punching out reporters, sure! Please come serve as a reputable inter-species liaison for solving problems cooperatively.
An extreme example, but you get the idea.
While I respect the opinions in the camp of "My Shepard should be omnipotent/invincible with regard to choices, and be able to choose anything on cue," I personally disagree. The system isn't perfect, but at least it allows a practical spectrum for other NPC's to predicate their outlooks. in my humble opinion, If you spend the entirety of the game being a pr!ck, then (much like in real life if you're always a pr!ck) don't expect the luxury of suddenly being able to accomplish huge feats of cooperation and tolerance from others, at least not without a LOT of work to change those outlooks.
This... so much this!
I'm in that same camp that while I definitely don't think the system is by any means perfect and of course needs some work, I still think it has a place in the series.
I like what you're saying: I don't think you should be able to have your cake and eat it too. A lot of posts this thread seem to have the philosophy that "I should be able to successfully pull off any decision regardless of others that I've made, simply on the basis of being the player." and I personally couldn't disagree more with that outlook. If you have built up a reputation as having an extremely renegade-oriented personality, then I don't think you should have any business being able to serve as a diplomat for a peaceful situation.
Sure Shepard, despite the fact that you from day 1 you have held a human-supremacist outlook, routinely shoot first/ask questions later (if at all), bend rules of engagement for your own benefit, and spend your down time punching out reporters, sure! Please come serve as a reputable inter-species liaison for solving problems cooperatively.
An extreme example, but you get the idea.
While I respect the opinions in the camp of "My Shepard should be omnipotent/invincible with regard to choices, and be able to choose anything on cue," I personally disagree. The system isn't perfect, but at least it allows a practical spectrum for other NPC's to predicate their outlooks. in my humble opinion, If you spend the entirety of the game being a pr!ck, then (much like in real life if you're always a pr!ck) don't expect the luxury of suddenly being able to accomplish huge feats of cooperation and tolerance from others, at least not without a LOT of work to change those outlooks.
Except many "Renegade" choices would not be view by the galactic community as very renegade. The two that come to mind are killing the rachni queen in ME1 and killing the Geth in Legions loyalty mission in ME2. now there is an argument to be made that these are both "renegade" actions because they involve killing but along the idea that certain action makes the galaxy think you are a guy willing to break the rules to get things done both of these actions fail to pass the renegade litmus test. The Rachni are a bit of a boogie man in citadel space and you could argue that actually setting the Rachni loose with no restrictions or monitoring would be view as a renegade action. The biggest "know" threat to peace were the rachni and you just set them free to start things all over again? And your assurance they wont kill us all is that this was then when they heard a sour yellow note but they don't hear it now? And in ME2 the biggest "known" threat are the geth and you killing the major outpost of them who are bent on attacking organics in citadel space and that makes you view as a loose cannon? How is "mind control" the paragon choice? In any other situation mind controlling someone would be view as a renegade option but in a world with no nuance because all choices have to be broken down into blue and orange you get ludicrous outcomes of stripping someone of free will equals being the "good" guy.
So many choices just don't logically break down into blue and orange, and far too often the system creates the exact opposite of consequence based choices because when you go "all in" with the R/P system you get the "I Win" dialogue option. Many people are saying remove the "I win" dialogue options. Allow us to make a diplomatic or threatening dialogue choice regardless of what we did in the past as not all situations should be solvable with the same tool, but remove the "I win" dialogue options from the game for EVERYONE, not just the people who don't go all in.
I am an adult I don't need a game telling me I am acting heroically or not. I can let my actions speak for themselves, I am perfectly happy having NPCs react based on what I do not on some metre that I fill up with arbitrary values given one action over another. I don't need for every major conflict to be solved in ME3/2 with an "I win" button. I can handle not being able to save everyone. I can handle making hard choices, hell i look forward to them. No win choices like Virmire are what's needed not some silly adolescent ideas that the hero always saves the day. I want my mature titles to tell mature stories not just have a mature rating because they show blue side boobs.
This... so much this!
I'm in that same camp that while I definitely don't think the system is by any means perfect and of course needs some work, I still think it has a place in the series.
I like what you're saying: I don't think you should be able to have your cake and eat it too. A lot of posts this thread seem to have the philosophy that "I should be able to successfully pull off any decision regardless of others that I've made, simply on the basis of being the player." and I personally couldn't disagree more with that outlook. If you have built up a reputation as having an extremely renegade-oriented personality, then I don't think you should have any business being able to serve as a diplomat for a peaceful situation.
Sure Shepard, despite the fact that you from day 1 you have held a human-supremacist outlook, routinely shoot first/ask questions later (if at all), bend rules of engagement for your own benefit, and spend your down time punching out reporters, sure! Please come serve as a reputable inter-species liaison for solving problems cooperatively.
An extreme example, but you get the idea.
While I respect the opinions in the camp of "My Shepard should be omnipotent/invincible with regard to choices, and be able to choose anything on cue," I personally disagree. The system isn't perfect, but at least it allows a practical spectrum for other NPC's to predicate their outlooks. in my humble opinion, If you spend the entirety of the game being a pr!ck, then (much like in real life if you're always a pr!ck) don't expect the luxury of suddenly being able to accomplish huge feats of cooperation and tolerance from others, at least not without a LOT of work to change those outlooks.
The spectrum you argue in favor of is also intrinsically flawed. For a in-game reputation system to have verisimilitude, it needs to account for asymmetrical information and NPC priority. Without those two, the player's evaluation of said system is at risk of being dictated by metagame concerns (e.g. I should do x because I know for certain it will lead to y).
I'd be fine if you could save everybody as long as it reflected the actual virtues of a good leader. The Suicide Mission actually demanded that you were familiar with your squadmates' capabilities, but more nuanced versions of that scenario would be welcome in the next game.
Being a good leader can't stop your unit from getting casualties, people die in war yet not on Shepard's watch. Mechanically speaking the suicide mission wasn't badly implemented what was wrong with it was that it was written with an outcome where Shepard saves EVERYONE. Its suppose to be a suicide mission yet once you know the mechanics of it, it becomes trivial because no one dies. The mission doesn't feel difficult because if everyone is loyal and you pair people up with OBVIOUS skills sets to roles you get a perfect result. This just doesn't happen in combat, combat is messy and people die even under excellent leadership. Hell sometimes you have to send people to their deaths/give them very risky jobs to save your unit, that was what the Virmire choice was all about, yet they eliminated these type of situations from the series. Shepard isn't given any choice in the series after Virmire where there is no "perfect" call. From then on there is no major plot event that Shepard can't save everyone. That's just bad writing.
Being a good leader can't stop your unit from getting casualties, people die in war yet not on Shepard's watch. Mechanically speaking the suicide mission wasn't badly implemented what was wrong with it was that it was written with an outcome where Shepard saves EVERYONE. Its suppose to be a suicide mission yet once you know the mechanics of it, it becomes trivial because no one dies. The mission doesn't feel difficult because if everyone is loyal and you pair people up with OBVIOUS skills sets to roles you get a perfect result. This just doesn't happen in combat, combat is messy and people die even under excellent leadership. Hell sometimes you have to send people to their deaths/give them very risky jobs to save your unit, that was what the Virmire choice was all about, yet they eliminated these type of situations from the series. Shepard isn't given any choice in the series after Virmire where there is no "perfect" call. From then on there is no major plot event that Shepard can't save everyone. That's just bad writing.
Technically, Shepard and his crew rarely participate in full scale war. Most of their missions are the equivalent of Special Forces operations, where the variables are considerably easier to account for. War causalities happen for a near-infinite number of reasons, but the two biggest factors are overwhelming variables and lack of key information. You never have to deal with those two, so it makes the gameplay more reasonable on a surface level. Not to mention in the ME universe, there are a lot of cushions for potentially life-ending situations.
If Mass Effect were to imitate real war in all its complexities, then the game would be unplayable. Shepard would have died 1075697 times before the end of ME3 whenever a bullet went through his skull after his shields were broken. The Suicide Mission would have squadmates randomly dying, separate from whatever actions you took beforehand, because of Magnus effect and crumbling cover and Garrus stumbling over a crack in the floor. You could help Wrex all the way to ME3 and then he gets spaced in a space ambush no one could predict. That would be realistic, and then no one would play the game without smashing their keyboard.
In short, there are few alternatives to 'leadership' that provide a measure of control, which aren't either totally unrealistic or indulge the worst aspects of players. Obviously the game can set up scenarios where there is no "best choice, everyone lives", but that doesn't mean those should be the norm. That would also be unrealistic. Undesirable scenarios must be justified by context.
The system is supposed to work that way. In real life sometimes the right decision turns out to be the wrong one later on. The whole point of the P/R system is to make you think about decisions with greater detail. I always remember that being what made Mass Effect feel so special to me, no other game really ever did that to me before.Except many "Renegade" choices would not be view by the galactic community as very renegade. The two that come to mind are killing the rachni queen in ME1 and killing the Geth in Legions loyalty mission in ME2. now there is an argument to be made that these are both "renegade" actions because they involve killing but along the idea that certain action makes the galaxy think you are a guy willing to break the rules to get things done both of these actions fail to pass the renegade litmus test. The Rachni are a bit of a boogie man in citadel space and you could argue that actually setting the Rachni loose with no restrictions or monitoring would be view as a renegade action. The biggest "know" threat to peace were the rachni and you just set them free to start things all over again? And your assurance they wont kill us all is that this was then when they heard a sour yellow note but they don't hear it now? And in ME2 the biggest "known" threat are the geth and you killing the major outpost of them who are bent on attacking organics in citadel space and that makes you view as a loose cannon? How is "mind control" the paragon choice? In any other situation mind controlling someone would be view as a renegade option but in a world with no nuance because all choices have to be broken down into blue and orange you get ludicrous outcomes of stripping someone of free will equals being the "good" guy.
So many choices just don't logically break down into blue and orange, and far too often the system creates the exact opposite of consequence based choices because when you go "all in" with the R/P system you get the "I Win" dialogue option. Many people are saying remove the "I win" dialogue options. Allow us to make a diplomatic or threatening dialogue choice regardless of what we did in the past as not all situations should be solvable with the same tool, but remove the "I win" dialogue options from the game for EVERYONE, not just the people who don't go all in.
I am an adult I don't need a game telling me I am acting heroically or not. I can let my actions speak for themselves, I am perfectly happy having NPCs react based on what I do not on some metre that I fill up with arbitrary values given one action over another. I don't need for every major conflict to be solved in ME3/2 with an "I win" button. I can handle not being able to save everyone. I can handle making hard choices, hell i look forward to them. No win choices like Virmire are what's needed not some silly adolescent ideas that the hero always saves the day. I want my mature titles to tell mature stories not just have a mature rating because they show blue side boobs.
The system is supposed to work that way. In real life sometimes the right decision turns out to be the wrong one later on. The whole point of the P/R system is to make you think about decisions with greater detail. I always remember that being what made Mass Effect feel so special to me, no other game really ever did that to me before.
I'm not saying it's perfect it needs a lot of work. I wasn't a fan of ME3's middle ground options, the P/R became almost a non factor with the exception of dialogue unlocked at the crucible but if you played all three games and imported your Shepards you saw how P/R shaped your story.
Your defence of the system rings hollow with this quote "In real life sometimes the right decision turns out to be the wrong one later on." While I agree 100% with this point the system does NOT do this. Saving the Rachni queen in Me1 is the "right" choice you get this large paragon boost for it AND in Me3 you get a large war asset boost. There is no right choice turns out to be bad situation in this scenario, why? because the whole P/R system is childish and flawed.
Lets look at the otehr example i gave Legion's loyalty quest, it doesn't make one bit of difference what choice you make. if you kill the geth the Quarian fleet is stronger but the geth fleet is weaker by an equal amount, If you mind control the geth the geth fleet is strong and the Quarian fleet is weaker by an equal amount. Its a 100% pointless choice consequence wise because the total War assets of the combined fleets is the same regardless.
Also the system doesn't make you think about your decisions because of the mechanics of the system you better go "all in" or you gimp yourself, which means you no longer are thinking about your choices you are simply spamming the side you picked for this playthrough. The system is crap because it doesn't do any of the things you say it does and it doesn't take a seemingly good choice and make it turn out to be a bad choice. Never once do you actually have to "think" about your choices and discern what is the "best" option because the best option is to pick the same option 95% of the time to maintain you ability to use the "I win" dialogue options.
If you remove the stupid blue/orange binary system you can actually get shades of grey where the world isn't constructed into polar morality. Suddenly you can have multiple choice to a situation because you are not forcing everything into a childish non nuanced moral system. Sometimes diplomacy isn't the best tool for the job sometimes a threat works better and if these skill/abilities are NOT tied to a stupid morality system you can actually THINK about the situation and try to determine what the best response would be without worrying about some stupid meter filling up or not filling up.
I am an adult, I want ot be treated like an adult when I buy a mature game.i don't just want my mature titles to be because there are breasts shown in the game. I want them to tell stories where sometimes there is no "right" answer to a situation. Virmire was great it was a no win choice and then the series went to shite with regards to creating the "i win" button tied to the paragon / renegade system.
Technically, Shepard and his crew rarely participate in full scale war. Most of their missions are the equivalent of Special Forces operations, where the variables are considerably easier to account for. War causalities happen for a near-infinite number of reasons, but the two biggest factors are overwhelming variables and lack of key information. You never have to deal with those two, so it makes the gameplay more reasonable on a surface level. Not to mention in the ME universe, there are a lot of cushions for potentially life-ending situations.
If Mass Effect were to imitate real war in all its complexities, then the game would be unplayable. Shepard would have died 1075697 times before the end of ME3 whenever a bullet went through his skull after his shields were broken. The Suicide Mission would have squadmates randomly dying, separate from whatever actions you took beforehand, because of Magnus effect and crumbling cover and Garrus stumbling over a crack in the floor. You could help Wrex all the way to ME3 and then he gets spaced in a space ambush no one could predict. That would be realistic, and then no one would play the game without smashing their keyboard.
In short, there are few alternatives to 'leadership' that provide a measure of control, which aren't either totally unrealistic or indulge the worst aspects of players. Obviously the game can set up scenarios where there is no "best choice, everyone lives", but that doesn't mean those should be the norm. That would also be unrealistic. Undesirable scenarios must be justified by context.
Right because everyone hated ME1 when it first came out because you HAD to lose a squad member. I recall the outrage and the broken keyboards and the nerd rage over the virmire choice... oh wait no i actually remember people loving ME1 and people praising the Virmire choice because horror of horrors it felt marginally like a real combat choice.
The suicide mission in Me2 has overwhelming variables and NO absolutely zero intelligence, by your very admission there SHOULD be casualties regardless of leadership ability but nope not in the one mission billed as a suicide mission. It should NEVER have been possible to save EVERYONE. Not a single crew member dies once a player knows to do the loyalty mission first. Hell i figured that out in my first play through so its not exactly rocket science to solve that tactic.
When the only casualties in ME2 and 3 are a terminally ill drell and a scientist that sacrifices himself and you could even save him so that only ONE person dies who was terminal any ways. i have to say the story is poorly written given that this is the BIGGEST THREAT in galactic history kills no one on your team. Ashley/kaiden's death made the conflict with saren/Sovereign feel "real" it made you feel a sense of loss. What's worse is this BS "Shepard can save everyone" trope translates in Shepard being able to save every species in crisis. The Krogen, Geth, Rachni and Quarian all can be save by that super dooper awesome trooper Shepard, it trivializes the entire conflict because Shepard can just go "all in" and obtain the "I win" button. No hard choices, no casualties for frak sake the only reason the memorial on the Normandy has any names on it is because of the fraking prologue of ME2.
I am an adult give me tragedy in war don't BS me by making war into rainbows and unicorns.
I agree. I think the SM needed some forced casualties to feel more 'real', as well as solve another technical issue of who lives and who dies so as who to bring in for ME3.
I think there should have been 2-3 mandatory deaths for certain characters, a death or two that depends on your level of readiness and whether you accomplished a loyalty mission and got upgrades, and a death that is similar to the Virmire choice where you choose between two characters to make the ultimate sacrifice.
And I do feel the same in ME3. They implemented this well. They had 2 mandatory death's: Thane, though very technically speaking, if you don't talk to him at all, he never appears in the story, thus technically sparing him from Leng's blade, though we can only assume that he passes from Kepral's Syndrome later, and Legion, who dies regardless of what you do. Nearly all the other ME2 characters have variable deaths, with varying levels of hoops to go through if you want them to live: Mordin arguably has the most difficult way of surviving, and Miranda isn't easy to keep alive either, whereas other characters survival depends on their loyalty from ME2 (Zaeed, Grunt, Kasumi, though she might not technically be dead), a P/R prompt (Samara), or bothering to do their mission at all (Jack is later huskified and fought if you don't rescue her from Grissom academy, and Jacob is presumably killed with the other Cerberus scientists). Tali can also be killed if you side against the Quarians.
I agree, I feel that too many people want to have an 'I win' victory with no real or visible or tangible costs whatsoever. They want to curbstomp the Reapers with the power of hero.
Most of my issues with the Paragon/Renegade system center on its role as a gameplay mechanic. The P/R system is an evolution of the Persuasion system with one notable difference: it can't fail. This right away removes the risk of selecting Paragon/Renegade options if they are available to you. It makes those options automatically the best options. Choosing grey options becomes a fail-state because the player knows they had a better option available. Even worse, there are often times when choosing the P/R option vaults the player above the moral dilemma that the game has just spent building up. An excellent example is Tali's loyalty mission in ME2. The core tension for the player in that mission becomes exposing Tali's father and destroying her emotionally, or covering up the truth and letting her be exiled. This is compelling because it presents two paths that each have obvious benefits and drawbacks. The P/R options let you cover up the crime while also keeping Tali with her people, which undermines the point of having a dialogue wheel there in the first place.
So due to P/R options always being better, we're limited to - at most - two ways to resolve a dilemma. But for several reasons, there's actually only one for a given playthrough:
1. Because of the points system, until Mass Effect 3 you were only ever going to have either the P or R persuasion option available to you. Since the Reputation system resolved this issue in ME3 I don't consider it a problem anymore. However, there is a deeper problem...
2. Because players are always rewarded for choosing Persuasion options with good consequences, most choices in Mass Effect boil down to the morality of the action itself, and not the consequences. Accordingly, Paragon choices are superior because they involve noble actions, such as forgiveness and diplomacy, instead of ruthlessness, which doesn't make sense unless it's necessary. Once it becomes obvious that the Renegade path isn't necessary, it forfeits the primary reason for going that path in the first place.
Can the system be salvaged for ME4? Sure, and it centers around one simple concept:
P/R options shouldn't automatically be the best choice for any situation. Moreover, the game should promote mixing and matching choices based on the situation. If the game presents to you a situation where diplomacy obviously isn't an option, but you pick the Paragon choice that attempts negotation, it should fail and result in a worse state than if you had picked a different option. Additionally, P/R should not be seen as override commands that are better than grey options. They should not be a better version of the corresponding up-right down-right grey option. Make them distinct and part of role-playing.
My biggest problem with the paragon/renegade system is ....I already know right from wrong. I dont need a blue and red meter to tell me I'm not getting any gifts from santa this year.
My suggestions for improving this system are to hide the meter. Dont let me see it. that way I wont know if my actions have had an impact on how people view me. If I'm playing evil I wont care much but still.
Make it hard to be good. Tempt me like the devil. its too easy to be good in Biowares games because they dont give you a reward or a bigger reward for being evil.
If you run an errand for a shopkeeper you should have an option to either hand it back because its the right thing to do or sell it for a larger amount of cash than you would get for doing the "right thing".
Actions should have consequences iof I decide to punch someone out or kill someone. Too many times as Shepard I got away with knocking reporters out or allowing bad things to happen to people. And yes I know I was a spectre but still. The whole purpose is to make the player think about their actions not just pick blue because the armour there wearing really doesnt go with the colour red.
The P/R system does not allow for this. You don't have to be anti-alien to be full renegade. Not all renegade responses are tied to being anti-alien, so a renegade Shepard doesn't preclude him from being pro alien. This is the problem with the P/R system it doesn't have any nuance. Its ham handed and adds little to the game. It promotes playing for the reward to open up dialogue options so you are no longer playing to the actual events of a given situation. Any system that promotes this is a bad system and shouldn't be incorporated into ME4, as ME4 is a perfect point to move to a more nuance system or better yet no morality system at all. Let our choices be our moral compass.
Yes, yes it does. I'm not saying full renegade or full paragon are tied to a singular world view, just that the system won't stop you from having a change of heart. And it really doesn't. My example is sound.
Also, although I understand how the P/R system could make people pick dialogues based on it rather than on their personal preference, it's not the system fault, but the player's.
The paragon/renegade system was awful, and if the developers of the next game have any sense they will drop it entirely.
It encourages you to just pick the red or blue option so you can meet the quota's required for things like brokering peace between Tali and Legion, rather than actually thinking about the decisions your making.
If you try to actually think about decisions and their reprecussions rather than spamming red or blue you can easily end up screwed because you're in the neutral zone and can't get any of the 'ideal' outcomes that need paragon/renegade checks. It's ridiculous.
Retour en haut