48 réponses à ce sujet

[Regan_Cousland]

I hope that ME:A doesn't tie the conversation/persuade system to the paragon/renegade morality system like ME2 and ME3 did.

 

When I played as a more neutral (and realistic) Commander Shepard who was neither truly heroic nor truly wicked, I found that I couldn't persuade anyone to do anything in conversations. All of the special speech options were greyed out because, apparently, being a well-adjusted, middle-of-the-road kind of individual, who makes the most appropriate choice for the circumstance, means you're a terrible leader with no charisma. lol

Yes, according to BioWare, if you want to convince someone to see your point of view, you have to be a Jesus-level paragon of virtue or a raving, trigger-happy lunatic. 

So I'm requesting that Andromeda return to the ME1/Dragon Age: Origins ​approach of letting us actually spend skill points to improve our "speech" or "charisma" ability -- regardless of our moral alignment, or lack thereof.

[Vortex13]

I hope that ME:A doesn't tie the conversation/persuade system to the paragon/renegade morality system like ME1 and ME2 did.

When I played as a more neutral (and realistic) Commander Shepard who was neither truly heroic nor truly wicked, I found that I couldn't persuade anyone to do anything in conversations. All of the special speech options were greyed out because, apparently, being a well-adjusted, middle-of-the-road kind of individual, who makes the most appropriate choice for the circumstance, means you're a terrible leader with no charisma. lol

Yes, according to BioWare, if you want to convince someone to see your point of view, you have to be a Jesus-level paragon of virtue or a raving, trigger-happy lunatic. 

So I'm requesting that Andromeda return to the ME1/Dragon Age: Origins ​approach of letting us actually spend skill points to improve our "speech" or "charisma" ability -- regardless of our moral alignment, or lack thereof.

 

 

Agreed. Being a charismatic person involves developing a skill just like any other feat in the game, I don't see why we can't get more crunchy RPG goodness. 

[Regan_Cousland]

Agreed. Being a charismatic person involves developing a skill just like any other feat in the game, I don't see why we can't get more crunchy RPG goodness. 

 

Yes, especially crunchy RPG goodness that BioWare has already proven itself capable of providing in older games -- and then for some reason taken away.

[PhroXenGold]

Oh god yes. Playing extreme characters - whether good or evil - should never be rewarded.

 

As for spending points upgrading "charisma", given how CRPGs tend to work, I would like it provided the points you spend are separate from those you use of your combat abilties. Have a range of "non-combat" skills, which include things like enhanced talking skills, hacking etc. which the player can chose from every x levels.

[Regan_Cousland]

Oh god yes. Playing extreme characters - whether good or evil - should never be rewarded.

 

As for spending points upgrading "charisma", given how CRPGs tend to work, I would like it provided the points you spend are separate from those you use of your combat abilties. Have a range of "non-combat" skills, which include things like enhanced talking skills, hacking etc. which the player can chose from every x levels.

 

That'd be great. And that's exactly what BioWare did in Origins and KOTOR. You had a variety of non-combat abilities like poison-making, trap-making, speech, repair, awareness, security, computer, etc., that could be upgraded independently from your combat trees.

I'd love to see something like that appear in Mass Effect. Good RPGs should be about more than just fighting. You should be able to tailor other aspects of your character's skillset and personality to your liking, so as to create a unique individual with unique strengths and weaknesses. 

 

[Vortex13]

That'd be great. And that's exactly what they did in Origins and KOTOR. You had a variety of non-combat abilities like poison-making, trap-making, speech, repair, awareness, security, computer, etc., that could be upgraded independently from your combat trees.

I've love to see something like that appear in Mass Effect. Good RPGs should be about so much more than just fighting. You should be able to tailor other aspects of your character's skillset and personality to your liking, so as to create a unique individual with unique strengths and weaknesses. 

 

 

 

To add to that, developers need to make games that will actually let the player fail. What I mean is, don't handhold us when we go into our skill trees; I made an absolute train wreck out of my Warden in DA:O because I built him wrong, but it was a learning experience and it let me experiment with non-optimal builds. The more streamlined the level up process becomes, the more safety lines they throw on the experience, the less customization we get out of our characters in the long run (IMO).

[Panda]

I liked DA2's approach most. I like having aligments or personality types, not sure what really call them, but it's nice to have that choice to build your characters personality a bit and get some bonuses from  that you wouldn't get without. In DA2 I liked how our characters dialogue changed a bit according our aligments (peaceful, sarcastic, aggressive) and how you got different options in some quest for them. For example there was quest in DA2 where you could side with "evil" if you were aggressive Hawke, one where you could side with Sister Petrice and this resulted into her surviving other scene where she normally dies. So you got even extra scenes for that. Things like that are what makes multiple playthroughs worth it.

[Regan_Cousland]

To add to that, developers need to make games that will actually let the player fail. What I mean is, don't handhold us when we go into our skill trees; I made an absolute train wreck out of my Warden in DA:O because I built him wrong, but it was a learning experience and it let me experiment with non-optimal builds. The more streamlined the level up process becomes, the more safety lines they throw on the experience, the less customization we get out of our characters in the long run (IMO).

 

Yeah. I like that in Origins you can actually screw up your character by mis-allocating attribute points if you don't read about what attributes do.

I'm not entirely against "streamlining" in RPGs ... but there's a difference between streamlining an interface to make it easier to use and sucking all of the complexity and challenge out of a thing. 

My advice to developers would be: "Respect the player's intelligence."

Even when I was a kid I didn't find the complexity of KOTOR daunting. I found it fascinating. I was happy to play a game that wanted me to think.

[Master Race]

I fixed this problem a long time ago by just using cheats to get both charm and intimidate at the very start. That way i could pick anything i want and play the way i want to play (paragade for instance)

[Wulfram]

ME3 didn't punish you for mixing as far as I recall. To quote a Bioware blog on the subject

"There’s no penalty for mixing Paragon and Renegade [...] In Mass Effect 3, your Reputation score determines both Charm and Intimidate options, and that score is determined by adding your Paragon and Renegade scores together"

I hope they continue with that policy.

[Kevinc62]

That'd be great. And that's exactly what BioWare did in Origins and KOTOR. You had a variety of non-combat abilities like poison-making, trap-making, speech, repair, awareness, security, computer, etc., that could be upgraded independently from your combat trees.

I'd love to see something like that appear in Mass Effect. Good RPGs should be about more than just fighting. You should be able to tailor other aspects of your character's skillset and personality to your liking, so as to create a unique individual with unique strengths and weaknesses. 

 

 

They had those abilities in ME1. I think it was techonology, electronics and hacking? I remember that if you or one of your squats didn't have enough level, you couldn't open some crates or artifacts. But that went away in ME2. Let's hope they return for MEA

[PhroXenGold]

To add to that, developers need to make games that will actually let the player fail. What I mean is, don't handhold us when we go into our skill trees; I made an absolute train wreck out of my Warden in DA:O because I built him wrong, but it was a learning experience and it let me experiment with non-optimal builds. The more streamlined the level up process becomes, the more safety lines they throw on the experience, the less customization we get out of our characters in the long run (IMO).

 

I would agree with the caveat that the player should have all the information they need to build an effective character available to them from the word go. If they misinterpret that information, or simply don't bother to look at it, then I have no problem with them being punished with a less effective character, as they have made a mistake. But they should not be punished for the game failing to explain how things work to them.

[Regan_Cousland]

I fixed this problem a long time ago by just using cheats to get both charm and intimidate at the very start. That way i could pick anything i want and play the way i want to play (paragade for instance)

 

That sounds great, but ...

1. We shouldn't have to resort to videogame DIY. 

2. I'm a lowly console peasant. "Mods" to me are no more real than unicorns (or Griffins in Thedas). They sound wonderful but I doubt I'll ever see one. lol

[Jeremiah12LGeek]

(Title spelling and grammar correction, because I don't know how to delete threads:

 

Click the edit button. When the interface pops up, look for the button marked "Use Full Editor." Click that. A new interface will open with additional options, including a text field for the title that can be edited.

 

Edit: The OP is the post that has to be edited in full editor to access the title's field.

[Jeremiah12LGeek]

Oh, and for the record, I agree. Spending skill points or practicing persuasion are better ways to improve it than by attaching its success to arbitrary moral choices.

[Regan_Cousland]

Click the edit button. When the interface pops up, look for the button marked "Use Full Editor." Click that. A new interface will open with additional options, including a text field for the title that can be edited.

 

Edit: The OP is the post that has to be edited in full editor to access the title's field.

 

Thanks! I did it. Now people will go back to thinking that my spelling and grammar are infallible. lol

Well ... not the people who visited the forum in the last hour -- or, um, anyone who reads this post ... but still. Thanks.

[Jeremiah12LGeek]

Well ... not the people who visited the forum in the last hour -- or, um, anyone who reads this post ... but still. Thanks.

 

No problem.

 

I feel like I should make a "donged that bullet" reference, but I'm not sure if anyone outside of Off Topic would get it!

[Regan_Cousland]

I liked DA2's approach most. I like having aligments or personality types, not sure what really call them, but it's nice to have that choice to build your characters personality a bit and get some bonuses from  that you wouldn't get without. In DA2 I liked how our characters dialogue changed a bit according our aligments (peaceful, sarcastic, aggressive) and how you got different options in some quest for them. For example there was quest in DA2 where you could side with "evil" if you were aggressive Hawke, one where you could side with Sister Petrice and this resulted into her surviving other scene where she normally dies. So you got even extra scenes for that. Things like that are what makes multiple playthroughs worth it.

 

I'm a big fan of DA2 in general. In terms of roleplaying and combat I'd rate it slightly higher than Inquisition.

The only thing that drags DA2 down for me is the re-used environments. Combine DA2's roleplaying and combat with Inquisition's stunning graphics and environments, and you'd have an amazing game, IMO.

I kinda went off my own topic there, didn't I? Whoops. 

[Vortex13]

I would agree with the caveat that the player should have all the information they need to build an effective character available to them from the word go. If they misinterpret that information, or simply don't bother to look at it, then I have no problem with them being punished with a less effective character, as they have made a mistake. But they should not be punished for the game failing to explain how things work to them.

 

That would go without saying.  Give the players the all the tools they need up front, and let them go wild with them. If a player messes up and hangs themselves out to dry then let them. Don't remove almost all semblance of player input and customization for the sake of players who accidentally (maybe even intentionally) make sub-optimal characters.

[Regan_Cousland]

That would go without saying.  Give the players the all the tools they need up front, and let them go wild with them. If a player messes up and hangs themselves out to dry then let them. Don't remove almost all semblance of player input and customization for the sake of players who accidentally (maybe even intentionally) make sub-optimal characters.

 

We also have the ability, in recent BioWare games, to respec our characters for an in-game price.

So even if someone chose the wrong attribute points and skills early on, they'd be able to remedy the problem later once they realized their mistake.

[RandomSyhn]

I like the option to spend the skill points, I'd also like the persuade options to be available even if you don't have the points so you can screw up. It's fun to role play a charming charismatic character, but it's also fun to play a bumbling hero that trips over their own tongue.

[Cheviot]

They fixed this in ME3, if you saw it as a problem.

[Cyonan]

I want to play as Civilization series Ghandi.

 

Although this is one of my main issues with a binary morality system like what Mass Effect uses.

[Panda]

I'm a big fan of DA2 in general. In terms of roleplaying and combat I'd rate it slightly higher than Inquisition.

The only thing that drags DA2 down for me is the re-used environments. Combine DA2's roleplaying and combat with Inquisition's stunning graphics and environments, and you'd have an amazing game, IMO.

I kinda went off my own topic there, didn't I? Whoops. 

 

You did, but I agree I loved DA2, it just needed more time to be truly great game.

[cap and gown]

Speech systems are for the birds. No amount of schooling in Dale Carnegie techniques is going to persuarde Tories to become Laborites, or Republicans to become Democrats. People act based on self-interest. The DA2 system of rivalry vs friendship is vastly preferable to a speech system. Either an NPC sees you as someone they generally agree with, and therefore will side with you, or they see you as someone they generally disagree with and therefore will not side with you. Either faction and/or character alignments should matter, not membership in the toastmaster club.