48 réponses à ce sujet

[AlanC9]

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.

This is correct. However, ME3's system introduces a completely different problem. Since Reputation grows with completing quests and NPC conversations, the dialogue checks are essentially completionism checks. To play a non-charismatic character, you have to blow off large parts of the game. Even that might not be enough; no import Shepard can fail the dialogue check with the VS in Priority: The Citadel, although you can manage to not get the check at all if you're mean enough to the VS earlier.

[pdusen]

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.

 

I can't disagree with this strongly enough. Systems like that are the worst, because if you don't want to miss content you pretty much have to dump all of your skill points into, say, Charm, as quickly as you can at the expense of other skills.

 

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

 

I wouldn't say *never*, but rewards should be spread across the spectrum. 

[Vortex13]

I can't disagree with this strongly enough. Systems like that are the worst, because if you don't want to miss content you pretty much have to dump all of your skill points into, say, Charm, as quickly as you can at the expense of other skills.

 

I can see that side of the discussion, but couldn't missed content be tacked later with subsequent playthoughs? If the game has a series of quests that can only be accessed by having a stellar charisma score, and the player's current character doesn't meet that requirement, couldn't he/she just go and create another, more charismatic hero on another save file? For instance, in DA:I the player can't have both the Templars and Mages on their side prior to Haven and choosing one side's quest locks out the other path. The only way to see both outcomes is to have two separate save files.

 

 

I wouldn't say *never*, but rewards should be spread across the spectrum. 

 

 

That is where the problem you mentioned in the first part of your post stems from (IMO). If the narrative was balanced better, so that having higher charisma meant players would get access to different content than combat monsters, rather than given them more content, we could have games with a greater focus on roleplaying instead of just punishing players for not having maximized stats. 

 

It's like a tabletop RPG, the charismatic 'face' character is going to be way better at approaching situations diplomatically than the soldier, but any GM/DM worth their salt will allow the solider to approach things in different ways. Those exceptionally talented few GMs will actually let face and soldier character types achieve different but similarly satisfying outcomes to their quests.

[Jeremiah12LGeek]

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.

 

Believe it or not, people have actually used words to convince others to change their minds.

[AlanC9]

I can't disagree with this strongly enough. Systems like that are the worst, because if you don't want to miss content you pretty much have to dump all of your skill points into, say, Charm, as quickly as you can at the expense of other skills.

Wait a sec. How often do you outright miss content because of poor dialogue skills?

[Sylvius the Mad]

The only way to play any of the ME games, I think, is to use a save editor to max out both Paragon and Renegade at the start of the game.

[BronzTrooper]

I can't disagree with this strongly enough. Systems like that are the worst, because if you don't want to miss content you pretty much have to dump all of your skill points into, say, Charm, as quickly as you can at the expense of other skills.

 

Well, if you go back to DA:O and KOTOR, putting points into Speech or Coercion didn't affect how many points you could put into combat skills since they were set into different sections along with other non-combat skills.  Also, if you bring ME1 into the mix, you could put points into your speech-related skills at the cost of putting them into other skills, but you could spec your squad in ways to pick up the slack.

 

Though, I'd think that you'd prefer the DA:O/KOTOR system of having your speech skill being separate from combat.

 

I wouldn't say *never*, but rewards should be spread across the spectrum. 

 

This makes me think of the whole 'everyone's a winner' thing that, imo, is a load of BS.  The only way that this could maybe work (again, imo) is that the reward(s) you'd get would be increasingly substantial depending on how well you played/handled certain situations.  If you handled a situation in a game poorly while someone else handled it very well, the latter player should get a much better reward than you.  This would encourage the player to try harder to get better rewards instead of letting them put minimal effort into the game and get the same result as everyone else.

 

Other than that, I agree that you should be able to be charismatic regardless of your alignment.  If anything, your alignment should affect in what way you're charismatic instead of blocking out which dialogue options are available to you in order to force you to pick something else due to your alignment score not being high enough.

[Mcfly616]

They need to give us the anti-hero option. Snake Plissken and Marion Snow type stuff. I'm sick of going from one extreme (Paragon) to the next (Renegade). Somewhere in the middle is just fine.

[AlanC9]

The only way to play any of the ME games, I think, is to use a save editor to max out both Paragon and Renegade at the start of the game.

 

You're OK with always playing the most persuasive character possible?

[cap and gown]

You're OK with always playing the most persuasive character possible?

 

I am in favor of my character being able to pick whichever dialogue options fit with the background and personality of the character I have constructed. If that means choosing a red or blue dialogue option because it fits that character then I want to be able to pick that option. If it means picking a non-persuade option because it fits that character then I will pick that option. In some ways my entire channel on youtube is about breaking out off the paragon/renegade box that reduces most Let's Plays to mindless "all paragon all the time" or "all renegade all the time" bore-fests. (not that I claiming my playthroughs are any less boring.)

 

I never missed having a persuade system in DA2 or DAI. Indeed, I felt the roleplaying possibilities were stronger in those games by providing more consistent alignments than just being goody-two-shoes or hard-nosed-jerk. DA2 had a consistent theme of pro-mage freedom or anti-mage vigilance. While not as consistent, DAI did allow you to construct anti-mage or pro-mage, pro-Chantry or anti-Chantry Inquisitors.

[Sylvius the Mad]

You're OK with always playing the most persuasive character possible?

I don't always choose the I WIN options.

I choose dialogue options without regard for their position on the wheel. But I dislike that some dialogue options aren't available because of Paragon and Renegade points.

I also wish they didn't always work. The persuade options shouldn't be I WIN buttons.

[Hazegurl]

I wasn't fond of the renegade/paragon persuasion thing but I also didn't like the DAO method either because you feel compelled to upgrade persuasion skills at a cost of all others. 

 

I like the DA2 system of tying dialogue to personality. 

 

ex: Aggressive Hawke could get away with threatening people but sarcastic Hawke gets laughed off when attempting the same thing.

 

I wouldn't mind persuasion being tied to the plot along with personality and relation to the character.  Such as, if the player gathered certain pieces of info, they can persuade using the info they have, threatening people should work more for a renegade than paragon, while being diplomatic might fail for a renegade who attempts it. But a renegade who is friends with a character should be able to use diplomacy skills while a paragon who doesn't get along with a character will fail when attempting diplomacy.  That way, not everything is tied to one system with an "I win" button for everything.  It would depend on other factors to get the desired outcome.

[Regan_Cousland]

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.

 

I can't disagree with this strongly enough. Systems like that are the worst, because if you don't want to miss content you pretty much have to dump all of your skill points into, say, Charm, as quickly as you can at the expense of other skills.

 

Miss content?

 

In a BioWare game you technically "miss content" every single time you select a dialogue option because you're ignoring a different dialogue option and its related outcome.

 

Thus, failing to persuade an NPC to do something because you, personally, decided not to invest points in the speech skill is hardly "missing content". You're missing a few lines of dialogue and possibly a reward, and you're missing them because being a smooth talker clearly isn't as important to you as picking locks, hacking computers or making delicious elfroot stew. 

If you want your character to be a persuasive talker you should have to make sacrifices in other areas, surely. That's the nature of an RPG: making tough decisions as you craft a character who possesses the talents, fighting abilities and personality traits you value the most. You can't be great at everything. That defeats the purpose of this kind of game.
 

[sH0tgUn jUliA]

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.

 

That warmonger? Here I am trying to be the peaceful Romans and he's always declaring war.

[Star fury]

I'd like to be like Gandhi in Civilization series, he's pretty badass there tbh.

 

Spoiler

[O'Voutie O'Rooney]

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.

I don't mind having extreme characters rewarded. I do object to the often simple minded ideas about morality that are assumed in games. An example that comes to mind is the "evil merchant who charges customers too much during a crisis". It just isn't as simple as Bioware writers have made it in all of the installments of this scenario, namely, giving everything away for free is "good". It would be nice if there were a way to have a moral system work which would perhaps give consequences for moral consistency (or lack thereof) without pigeonholing everything into a preset idea of good and evil based upon the usually not very nuanced ideas of the writers.

[Joseph Warrick]

I like that you can put points on non-combat skills such as being a charming individual. Jade Empire had this too in addition to ME1. Or something like the Inquisition war table perks that unlock conversation options. Maybe in Andromeda we could spend resources on gathering intelligence rather than building guns and therefore be able to parlay with the filthy aliens instead of whacking them on sight.

[Keitaro57]

In Galacitic Civilization 3 you can choose between benevolant, malvolant and pragmatic. Why not build entirely a third way?

[iM3GTR]

I think ME1's system was the best, by putting points into Charm and Intimidate to unlock different options. I don't know why they got rid of that from 2 and 3.

[cap and gown]

I think ME1's system was the best, by putting points into Charm and Intimidate to unlock different options. I don't know why they got rid of that from 2 and 3.

 

They got rid of it because that is a anti-roleplaying system. It forces you to be either Paragon or Renegade since you don't want to waste points on both charm and intimidate. In other words, your character has to always respond either upper right or lower right, and not based on their background, world view or anything outside of the position of a dialogue option on the wheel.

[Arcian]

In what world is Hitler the Paragon equivalent? I feel that I must ask since Ghandi is obviously the Renegade equivalent.

[AlanC9]

They got rid of it because that is a anti-roleplaying system. It forces you to be either Paragon or Renegade since you don't want to waste points on both charm and intimidate. In other words, your character has to always respond either upper right or lower right, and not based on their background, world view or anything outside of the position of a dialogue option on the wheel.

 

 

But ME2 has the same problem -- if you want to pass the difficult checks you have to be consistently P or R. If having two skills was the problem, the answer is to make them into one skill.

[Regan_Cousland]

In what world is Hitler the Paragon equivalent? I feel that I must ask since Ghandi is obviously the Renegade equivalent.

 

Well, now that you mention it, I am British, and Ghandi stood up against British occupation in India, so to my people Ghandi is a renegade. lol

[Arcian]

Well, now that you mention it, I am British, and Ghandi stood up against British occupation in India, so to my people Ghandi is a renegade. lol

I was more referring to how he goes nuclear after 5 turns.