89 réponses à ce sujet

[Cyberstrike nTo]

I enjoy RPGs a lot. I enjoy them even more when there's no set-in-stone karma status or black-and-white choices. ME had problems with this; most Paragon decisions made Shepard a godly caring hero, most Renegade decisions made Shep a flamboyant douchebag. I'd love to see the ParEnegade system gone, with no karma system in place telling us how good or evil our character is. I want US to decide how we play our character. In addition, more grey choices would be amazing, or just outright neutrality.

 

While I'm not sure about neutrality in how would that work (short of the PC never actually not have any way of actually making any choice which would be kind boring IMHO) I would like to see it gone as well it have served it's purpose. 

[The Elder King]

I honestly doubt there's a way to make everyone happy.
I guess I'd prefer a DAO/DA2 system.

[Mirrman70]

I like good and bad karma systems so long as good isn't goody-two-shoes and bad isn't jerk. I enjoyed the first Fables's karma system.

[KaiserShep]

I'm happy to see that I'm not the only one that thinks it was really bad.

Same goes with the emotes in DA2 and onward.

Any kind of indication of characters behaviour or change of "alignment" kills the conversation system for me.

I stop thinking about the situation I'm in and start to care if I loose my renegade points or if I choose this option them my character will sound like idiot or tell another not funny joke.

 

I don't really see the problem with the tone indicators in the dialogue wheel, since they're just a way to show the intention of the line. Besides, they are optional. You can turn them off entirely. 

[KaiserShep]

I liked DA:I actually - where the opinion of your companions is largely concealed until they either snub you, react horribly to you, or shower you with praise.  THAT is how you know if you're making people happy.

 

I don't even want the numbers to pop up at all.  After every big decision... I want dialogue with my companions.  Some, who are angry force cut scenes (a la Alistair with Connor) where they have an argument with me... one that I might even be able to diffuse or make worse.  Some, do the same - with thanks or praise - and likewise I can increase their approval or decrease it with dialogue lines in that scene.  While others just don't care about that particular event... but will make a comment the next time you find them and speak with them (not unlike ME when you can ask them about the previous mission).

 

I strongly believe that a situation should be able to be explained.  Not just a flat -/+.  Companion 1 hates that you blew up a shuttle?  He confronts you and you can either explain that you WERE conflicted about it, that it wasn't an easy choice - but that the other option could have cost more lives.  And then Companion 1's opinion of the situation improves a little (though should almost never be erased completely) - OR you say:  Tough eggs, I'm the boss and it was the easiest way to do it.  In which case it could drop Companion 1's opinion of you even more.

 

Though - again, no numbers or charts of any kind indicating where I sit with that person.  It should all be through story.

 

Yes, I very much enjoy the lack of a meter for approval. I like that the only indication that the companion is warming up or getting colder is their response to the PC when you select to interact. I thought it was even better in the way Inquisition did it by even flagging how frequently or infrequently you interacted with companions by having a character remark on it.

[Ambivalent]

I think problem isn't about moral system of Mass Effect series. Kinda more deep.

 

The thing is most people(and that includes some game developers too) can't understand the term of "banality of evil".

 

Some people through out the history were evil, i agree. But that's not because they shoot lasers from their eyes or full of hatred against anything like an adolescent emo kid. 

 

They had some reasons and/or benefits by being an evil. Simple as that. 

 

So far i honestly think only Obsidian can understand that. They also mess it up from time to time but at least they have "knowledge" of creating a sensible morality. (Questionable good people, bad people doing some good things etc.)

 

Renegade instead of evil was a nice step in correct direction, so i think they can build on that in next game. Hopefully.

[Arppis]

If they would even do it, it should be off screen. You shouldn't be able to know when you get paragon or renegade score. I feel like it should be your character's reputation (pretty much what they TRIED to do here).

 

Like your reputation tells if you are a big fat liar or a person who always tells the truth. And the characters will take your reputation into account when it comes to dialogue options (off screen) and make some sort of risk calculation if they go with your way of  thinking or not based on your reasoning and your reputation.

 

When you keep the effects off the screen, it becomes a way better system.

 

Because I really think that what your character does should carry over to interactions. You can't just (easily) intimidate someone if you have a reputation of taking diplomatic route trough things. I think Paragon/Renegade or something like it could work, if it had more depth and we wouldn't be allowed to see how it works.

[Silvair]

Your companions didn't even cringe when you did things like shove an electric tool into some guy's neck.

That was easily the most evil Renegade option in the entire trilogy.  Seriously, its like Shepard did it solely to listen to a bloodcurdling scream of agony for like 15 seconds straight.  Coulda just sabotaged the gunship like the drones, but nope, had to shove a sparker directly into a poor guys spines.

I mean granted, he was a batarian so I don't feel too bad, but still.

[Arppis]

That was easily the most evil Renegade option in the entire trilogy.  Seriously, its like Shepard did it solely to listen to a bloodcurdling scream of agony for like 15 seconds straight.  Coulda just sabotaged the gunship like the drones, but nope, had to shove a sparker directly into a poor guys spines.

I mean granted, he was a batarian so I don't feel too bad, but still.

 

That was actually one of the renegade inputs I didn't feel bad to do. He was going to die in the comming fire fight, might as well do it now.

[Hazegurl]

So Shep stabbing a guy to death right before going into a base to blast hundreds of people in the face is evil.  But not stabbing the guy and going into the base to blast hundreds of people in the face is good?  

[Dabrikishaw]

I guess I'm the odd man out here. Every critique I've seen in this thread? I don't hold at all. I'd be perfectly fine with any morality system.

[Arppis]

 

I guess I'm the odd man out here. Every critique I've seen in this thread? I don't hold at all. I'd be perfectly fine with any morality system.

 

And there is nothing wrong with that. I'd be ok with morality system as well. But I'd rather have it be less visible. I don't want to "score points" at coversations, if you know what I mean?

[Dabrikishaw]

And there is nothing wrong with that. I'd be ok with morality system as well. But I'd rather have it be less visible. I don't want to "score points" at coversations, if you know what I mean?

I understand why these critiques are being made, I'm just completely fine with stuff like tracking my karma and seeing how many approval points I gained with companions because it's useful information for me to have.

 

And even if it wasn't, I just plain don't have any problems with morality systems. I do acknowledge that sometimes they feel arbitrary, but it never bothered me.

[The Elder King]

That was easily the most evil Renegade option in the entire trilogy.  Seriously, its like Shepard did it solely to listen to a bloodcurdling scream of agony for like 15 seconds straight.  Coulda just sabotaged the gunship like the drones, but nope, had to shove a sparker directly into a poor guys spines.
I mean granted, he was a batarian so I don't feel too bad, but still.

You couldn't Sabotage it like the mech because Salkie (the batarian) was working on the gunship. He'd have noticed.
Regardless of the execution, it was a necessary step to avoid problems later with the gunship.

[KaiserShep]

That was easily the most evil Renegade option in the entire trilogy.  Seriously, its like Shepard did it solely to listen to a bloodcurdling scream of agony for like 15 seconds straight.  Coulda just sabotaged the gunship like the drones, but nope, had to shove a sparker directly into a poor guys spines.
I mean granted, he was a batarian so I don't feel too bad, but still.

The best way to sabotage a machine is to kill the guy working on it. It's the renegade option I can never ignore.

[Golden_Persona]

Your companions didn't even cringe when you did things like shove an electric tool into some guy's neck.

Probably because Shepard's crew in ME2 mostly consists of blood thirsty mercs, Krogans, trained assassins and hardened Cerberus operatives who are, mind you, going into that mission fully expecting to have to murder every single person they come across and get in their way. If Jack suddenly grew a conscience when I shocked the poor Batarian it would have completely broke her character.

[Golden_Persona]

I personally love karma systems as I feel they add to replayability. The problem is that the paragon and renegade options were blatantly labeled, and people who didn't think much of RPing beyond "I want a solely good guy playthrough, or solely bad guy playthrough" would just hold up-left/down, or down-left/right without even looking at the options. The games fully allowed you to do just fine by playing by the situation.

 

They could possibly just stop highlighting which options are which and it'd be fine. I liked how being a renegade gave me cool glowing red scars. I wouldn't want to see them gone with the karma system.

[Fetunche]

I prefer to make decisions based on what I think my character would do and not worry about being locked out of dialogue options later on.

[Toasted Llama]

I personally want a certain level of reputation or something like that to be tracked, albeit not directly visible to the player.

 

For example; Tali comitting suicide if you gave Rannoch to the geth and basically eradicated all quarians to me seems like the only appropriate reaction to that decision, no matter how "wise" or "good" the decision might've been.

If you act like an a**hole, people should treat you for what you are; an a**hole. If you act like a trustworthy hero, people should treat you for what you are; a trustworthy hero. I personally find it very immersion-killing/annoying when people love my protagonist regardless of what they have done.

[Hazegurl]

@Golden_Persona, I agree.  I wouldn't mind morality systems being tossed, if replaced by something better but I would rather have them work on what they have and improve it. Especially because I don't have much faith in BW storytelling.  I think that not highlighting which choices are "good" or "bad" could help a lot along with writing missions that doesn't completely reward only one type of morality. 

 

@Toasted LIama, I agree, I also would like it if certain characters just hated me because they think I'm an a**.  However, I also would want characters to hate me for acting like a trustworthy hero if they hate that type of person.  In other words, I would like a mixed bag of jerks, neutrals, and goody two shoes squadmates.  Some would like me, others wouldn't care either way, and some would hate my guts no matter how I behaved.

[Toasted Llama]

@Golden_Persona, I agree.  I wouldn't mind morality systems being tossed, if replaced by something better but I would rather have them work on what they have and improve it. Especially because I don't have much faith in BW storytelling.  I think that not highlighting which choices are "good" or "bad" could help a lot along with writing missions that doesn't completely reward only one type of morality. 

 

@Toasted LIama, I agree, I also would like it if certain characters just hated me because they think I'm an a**.  However, I also would want characters to hate me for acting like a trustworthy hero if they hate that type of person.  In other words, I would like a mixed bag of jerks, neutrals, and goody two shoes squadmates.  Some would like me, others wouldn't care either way, and some would hate my guts no matter how I behaved.

Ah, yes! I agree with characters who hate you for being a goody two shoes, characters like Morrigan. I've grown quite tired of "if I do everything well everyone will praise me! yay!" or "if I act like an ******* EVERYONE will hate me, yay!" type of companions. Not only makes them feel very black-and-white, flat and copy-pasted/all the same, but also friendships with characters that generally go against your point of view feel so much more satisfying as they often require much more effort and care. The "despite the odds stacked against you" sort of thing.

[Hiemoth]

But Paragon/Renegade isn't a morality system, it's a reputation system that represents how Shepard approaches solving issues. Because of the larger goal being the same, Hence you can quite easily build a character within the system who cares a lot, but will always take the drastic approach, or a jerk, who will always choose the rigth appraoch. Thus I don't have similar issues with P/R system than I had with Light/Dark side in KOTOR, as that is a morality system and a very limiting one at that. I also feel that it is justified to have that behaviour be a limiting factor for future huge choices, as if your Shepard is a cold-blooded killer who just puts everyone down, having them suddenly be able to make others understand the value of mercy via passionate speech would seem quite of weird. What I would not want them do is to follow the ME2 system, where instead of looking at the absolute values they looked at the difference, which was a really weird approach.

 

I'm also not quite certain why the companion reactions are brought up here, as that is a separate issue from a morality system. What I would like, personally, to see is the ME team stick with P/E, but continue to build it and perhaps go deeper in to the concept of what do they want it represent, as I think that was something that got a little bit unclear in the shuffle. I also would prefer if it was mostly dictated by big decisions, not by reaction choices, and thus act as a definition of how the character approaches problems instead of how they act.

[Hiemoth]

Ah, yes! I agree with characters who hate you for being a goody two shoes, characters like Morrigan. I've grown quite tired of "if I do everything well everyone will praise me! yay!" or "if I act like an ******* EVERYONE will hate me, yay!" type of companions. Not only makes them feel very black-and-white, flat and copy-pasted/all the same, but also friendships with characters that generally go against your point of view feel so much more satisfying as they often require much more effort and care. The "despite the odds stacked against you" sort of thing.

 

But isn't what was just described almost completely how DA2 approached the issue?

[Toasted Llama]

But isn't what was just described almost completely how DA2 approached the issue?

Which doesn't have the paragon-renegade thing and the reputation is bound per companion, so it's not entirely how ME did it (and possibly the reason why people want to ditch the paragon/renegade version)

 

But yeah basically DA2s system, but then for important characters/groups of people/factions(a bit like WoW in the case of factions) beyond just companions and WITHOUT it being visible.

[Seboist]

So Shep stabbing a guy to death right before going into a base to blast hundreds of people in the face is evil.  But not stabbing the guy and going into the base to blast hundreds of people in the face is good?

 

Reminds of how in Thane's recruitment mission Bioware expects me to give a damn about killing an extra merc by throwing him off the building after I intruded on private property and slaughtered most of his compatriots and gives me a dumb "alternative" that involves letting him loose in the middle of a battle where I'm about go after the rest of them. What a "moral dilemma".