And if it was connected like that it would be a rep system. But it's not, it's you didn't earn enough goody goody points in order to say the good thing in this conversation. Once it effects people you never met and never heard of you it's kind of weird.
In the games we never had a chance to interact with other species and earn their favor. All they have going on is if we have a reputation as trustworthy and compassionate or a fearsome person not to be trifled with.
While reputation with each faction troughout several games would be great, I dont think it will be done. And I would rather have some semblance of system rather than having the magical "solve all problems dialogue option" available always
No its not. If you opposed Quarians and hurt them before why should they trust you when you ask them to put their lives in your hands. Limits based on actions are what makes role play for me.
The problem with this line of thinking is that one's current P/R score has nothing to do with how you've treated quarians in the past. It's a summation of all of the point-awarding choices you've made thus far. The way P/R points are awarded is frequently based around the writer's assumptions wrt motives, which can easily be wrong.
I agree that keeping it for the purpose of interrupts makes sense so that we have some idea what the PC is likely to do when using them.
For dialogue, I would still like them to continue using the position on the wheel and/or graphical cues like in the last two DA games to hint at the tone of the response, but maybe change the points system to measure reputation and factional allegiance instead. Another problem is that Paragon/Renegade seemed to encompass several different types of contrasts: polite vs. confrontational, idealistic vs. expedient, and sometimes trusting vs. suspicious towards non-humans (though that was mainly in ME1), and sometimes you couldn't be on the same side of all these contrasts at once. I think all of my Paragon Shepards yelled at Gerrel in ME3 and got Renegade points for it, but they were mostly mad at him precisely because they saw his actions as reckless warmongering. In a situation like that, Shepard could just get positive or negative reputation points with Legion and the various quarian admirals, instead of having to classify it as Paragon or Renegade.
If they did not change the system with every iteration of Mass Effect changing the mean with each release of the franchise where ME:3 paragon/renegade choices were totally dissociated with the original and to a degree the ME:2. The choices were meant (IMO) to be clear contrasts from white knight or what ever it takes to get it done. With renegade usually being a dark or morally questionable way to go about solving the problem. To a more cinematic approach having to little to nothing if you were a renegade or not. They need to back to the basics and stick to a meaning.
Let use the boxing scene with Vega the Paragon/Renegade choices were basically meaningless just a way to make a scene play out more smoothly. Now let us use ME:1 system with that same scene; Shepard would fight fairly with the Paragon choice, and/or use positive dialogue. With Renegade all bets would be off with snide comments with sucker punches/low blows, fighting to win at any costs.
Could the system have used more tweaking yes, but with that system it made the player stick with choices that the player more often than not chose. Rather than being a sociopath who's mood depended on the time of day or a player gaming the system for the best possible outcome and complaining about not being able to choose a certain dialogue path because for the previous 99% of the game they played the other way.
tl;dr
I am fine with the Paragon/Renegade system if they stick to ONE methodology and be consistent with it! Else trash it.
Paragon 4-life! I really hope they don't get rid of it, tweak it some, get rid of the color codes while talking and mix up the choice options some so you actually have to read them instead of picking top or bottom (phrasing ftw) to get your points
My biggest problem with the paragon/Renegade system was that it was a system designed to create tense dramatic moments but in reality created a "I win" button eliminating all drama from a scene. It went so far in trying to manufacture drama with the system that it in fact made the consequences of these dramatic scenes juvenile sapping out any drama possible. ME2 lauded as the pinnacle of the series by many (i would even hazard saying a majority) is completely devoid of dramatic consequences unless you take deliberate steps to make choices designed to fail. The game tries to build drama with crew conflicts and poof you press the 'I win' button and now everything is peachy. This results in the climax suicide mission becoming a cake walk. The only drama to the system is based in the unknown which only happens in the first play through. There is zero inherent drama to the mission because of the 'i win' mechanics of the games morality system.
In me1 they created serious moments of drama that were ALLOWED to play out vs. the player ALWAYS having an out. Sometimes you can't stop bad things from happening, it is what you do after that creates drama and good story telling. When you can always get rainbows and unicorns as a result you lack drama, and even if those rainbows are coming out of the unicorn's ass it is still rainbows and unicorns. Good drama requires tragedy, requires loss, requires that yes the player wins but you can't win a cost free victory ALL the fraking time.
I have zero problem with a paragon/renegade system they simply need to remove the mechanics from it. Adding game mechanics to the system with gated content eliminates people playing the events but rather they are playing the mechanics. 'If i do X now I wont be able to get y later,' do we really want a drama to be boiled down to a mechanical calculation?
I know a lot of players want the happy ending and I am fine with happy endings but a GOOD ending is far better than a happy ending simply for the sake of a happy ending. And a happy ending doesn't have to be devoid of loss, wars are not fought with zero casualties, when the allies win the battle in WW2 movie it is a happy ending but more importantly it isn't presented like war is cost free. People suffer loss.
I think it is high time that they look at removing the mechanics from the P/R system and allow it to be a reaction meter to how people respond to your actions in general vs. the mechanic that lets you unlock gated material or create the consequence free 'I win' button.
[edit] i think the more complicated specific event based systems to determine peace in the Quarian/geth conflict, or where you have to shoot the alliance squad member from Me1 in the Cerberus attack in ME3 are better foundations to a gated system then your Blue meter needs to be x fill or your red meter needs to be y filled.
[Examples of what i mean]
Spoiler
the choices that influence the Virmire survivor's overall trust level:
FactorYesNo
Romanced Ashley/Kaidan in Mass Effect +2 +0
• Cheated on them in Mass Effect 2 −1 +0
Saved the Council in Mass Effect +1 −1
Kept Kirrahe or Thane alive through to Mass Effect 3 +0 −2
Shepard was kind to Ashley/Kaidan during Priority: Mars +1 −1
Visited Ashley/Kaidan in the hospital once (when they were awake) +2 +0
• Admitted and/or apologized for cheating on Ashley/Kaidan (if Shepard did cheat on them in Mass Effect 2) +0 −1
• Visited them in the hospital a second time +1 +0
Note: The Reputation check's requirements are complex. First, there are factors which seem to be purely pass/fail; missing even one of them flunks the Reputation check:
Shepard must have at least four bars of Reputation.
Tali and Legion must both be present, which requires an imported save from Mass Effect 2. If no save was imported, Tali will have been exiled and will not be able to support Shepard with an Admiral's authority, while Legion will not appear at all.
The mission Rannoch: Geth Fighter Squadrons must be completed.
Additionally, there are other factors which build up Shepard's trustworthiness to both parties; if Shepard has not done enough of them, the Commander will not have the groundswell of goodwill needed to moderate a cease-fire. According to the official Prima Games guide, each factor has a certain "point" value, and at least 5 "points" are necessary for the cease-fire to occur. These factors are:
(+2 points) Destroying the heretic geth in Legion: A House Divided. In shipboard conversation, you can ask Legion about the repercussions of your decision, and it will mention that the absence of the Heretics made the consensus to join the "Old Machines" more difficult to achieve. Geth forces are also considerably weakened without the aid of the Heretics, giving the Migrant Fleet an edge in the battle and reducing the quarians' overall casualties.
(+2 points) Preventing Tali's exile in Tali: Treason without presenting evidence of Admiral Rael'Zorah's experiments on the geth.
(+1 point) Brokering a peace in the Tali/Legion loyalty argument. If the player did not have sufficient Paragon/Renegade points at that time, loyalty of either Tali or Legion would have been lost. In that case -- even if loyalty had been regained later -- this "point" will not count towards the five needed to pass the Reputation check (and broker the ceasefire).
(+1 point) Completing Rannoch: Admiral Koris.
(+1 point) Saving Admiral Koris during Rannoch: Admiral Koris.
Foundationally this could be used to create a far better action to consequence system then a pointless and rather clunky make a moral choice to fill your meter system by X amount. The key is to not tie the choices made previously to an " i win" button moment. Let our choices themselves be non gated but the consequences of previous choices create gated results. Build on the actions have consequences system as shown above so that morality still plays a part in game play but remove the mechanics from actual moral system. Specific actions have specific consequences but actions in general do not created a gate key to experience content or allow a consequence free result.
I want it gone. It just makes everything feel arbitrary with the "bottom option being bad and top being good" approach. I want to be able to see good things despite being a ruthless fucker.
It's basically a saint-dick system and it's showing it's age with recent games like Witcher 3 releasing.
Retour en haut
