73 réponses à ce sujet

[Raizo]

I agree with your brother its part of what made ME fun.
And I agree with DA even though I enjoyed it. The thing about real life is it sucks. Kids are great but I don't need or want either one of those things in my games.
I don't really need an in game friend who agrees and disagrees. I need a character who's worldview I can shape to suit the world I'm building through THEIR interactions.
That's why I like characters like Leiliana.
I also agree with you but I don't think character interactions and P/R System are the same thing.

Even though I think the Paragon/Renegade system of the ME games is very archaic and unrealistic I must admit that I prefer it to how morality ( or rather approval since this is my main issue ) is handled in the DA universe. I've owned and played every DA game but I have yet to finish a single one, I always end up giving up roughly 10% through these games because I find that trying to keep everyone happy ( or at least the characters you like happy ) is just to much micro managing for me to cope with. I'm all for more realistic characters and all that but it's pretty intimidating knowing that some of your favourite characters in the game will walk out on you or possibly die because you picked the wrong dialogue choice some 40+ hours earlier in the game. I play video games for entertainment and escapism and I find micro managing a large number of squad mates moods and personalities ( while also trying to romance a specific party member ) to be to much like real work.

[MissMayhem96]

Paragon and Renegade are outdated now, as stated above, it mirrors the Light side and Dark side, Good and Bad, etc.

Thinking back on FO3 Karma system it makes sense. Depending on the choices you make, pragmatic or idealistic could affect your "Standing" of morality amoung your crew. Doing this will give approval or disapproval like DA:I would be fine.

[Shechinah]

I feel the paragon and renegade system can be a severe obstacle to roleplaying a complex character especially since sometimes the choice considered reasonable can be locked behind a point meter. It does not help that paragon and renegade points are sometimes distributed based some odd choices that are not related to morality such as in the bar with James Vega where Shepard has the choice of finishing a military motto with  Vega and two other soldiers. 

[Enigmatick]

There's no need to change, just get rid of it completely.

[Neverwinter_Knight77]

It might indeed be best to ditch the whole system.  Charm and intimidate are essentially Jedi Mind Tricks, and it doesn't really make sense.

[AlanC9]

When I did it, I was unaware that there was a third possible option. I somehow didn't know that until I'd done most of the work to install a different Divine. The problem is that the game assumes that you don't ever change your mind when faced with new information. The game continued to act as if my preference was different from what it was, and provided me only options to advance that incorrect preference.

I wanted to publicly withdraw my support for someone, but the game seemed to assume perfect foreknowledge on the part of the player.

Right, there's no way to un-do that operation, or do another one.

Out of curiosity, what was the new information? I suppose that ought to be spoiler tagged.

[AlanC9]

DA:O craps all over ME in terms of tangible impact from choices as well. Those allies you recruit for the battle in denerim? They saddled up and fought alongside you in the actual gameplay. The ones in ME3 you recruit OTOH? You see a four second cutscene.

In retrospect, it's amazing how important stuff like that is for some of us, even when it doesn't actually have any impact. One set of sprites or another, the battle plays out just the same.

[wright1978]

DA:O craps all over ME in terms of tangible impact from choices as well. Those allies you recruit for the battle in denerim? They saddled up and fought alongside you in the actual gameplay. The ones in ME3 you recruit OTOH? You see a four second cutscene.

 

Don't agree suicide mission was excellent in terms of previous choices having an impact.

[MissMayhem96]

I feel the paragon and renegade system can be a severe obstacle to roleplaying a complex character especially since sometimes the choice considered reasonable can be locked behind a point meter. It does not help that paragon and renegade points are sometimes distributed based some odd choices that are not related to morality such as in the bar with James Vega where Shepard has the choice of finishing a military motto with  Vega and two other soldiers. 

 

Actually, I never understood why this was a renegade action anyways. Nice to see it brought up.

[ZipZap2000]

Agreed. I'm just not clear on what's "ruined" by the PC not getting to set the world state exactly the way he wants it.

Though I can see how there could be a transparency issue for a later run where you want to get to a result you haven't already seen but don't see the way to it.

Its exactly as you say in you second paragraph. You set out with goals that are difficult to achieve without prior knowledge of the system or its workings. So you're essentially digging in the dark hoping you get it right this time, unless you visit the forum to recheck, you can screw it all up for yourself along the way.

I thought Viv too heavy handed to be divine wound up with her twice.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Right, there's no way to un-do that operation, or do another one.

Out of curiosity, what was the new information? I suppose that ought to be spoiler tagged.

Spoiler

I discovered that Leliana was an option.

Choosing between Vivienne and Cassandra, I strongly preferred Cassandra. But given Leliana as a third option, I strongly preferred Leliana.

[MissOuJ]

I'm not sure about bringing random chance into the dialogue system. It seems interesting in theory and gets rid of the usual "high persuasion=instant win" mechanic, but in reality most of us would be constantly reloading the nearest save after failing to convince someone. Not always being able to win everything (both in dialogue and battle) would be a nice change though.

 

I totally recognize myself there (in regards to reloading after failing a persuasion check e.c.). I was probably being a bit vague: I didn't mean that all persuasion outcomes should be left up to chance (because IMO that would have serious potential to become just plain weird) but that important plot-based missions / story points would have (partially?) random-based outcomes.

 

Like, you can save a group of colonists or let them die. Let them die --> 1) Bad outcome: leads to some sort of diplomatic incident, loss of support from faction A; 2) good outcome: they were in fact a band of bandits, destroying them nets support from faction A. Let them live --> 1) Bad outcome: they were bandits / enemy infiltrators and end up stealing your resources; 2) good outcome: they are not bandits and end up giving you approval / gear / etc.

 

On the one hand using this kind of system could end up feeling really cheap and unfair from the players' perspective (you can't reason / research your way into the best outcome by investigating / examining codex entries / listening to ambient dialogue etc. which could potentially make the system incredibly frustrating in regards to bigger RP-decisions, particularly if the outcome is only revealed X number of missions later), but on the other hand we're often forced to make decisions based on incomplete information and using that as a mechanic could be interesting and add to the game's replayability. But then again, the system would probably lead to such a huge amount of branching dialogue / story / character arcs that the branching decisions / choices would probably have to be really small for the system to be anywhere near manageable as to be mostly just a gimmick, so... IDK.

[AlanC9]

Its exactly as you say in you second paragraph. You set out with goals that are difficult to achieve without prior knowledge of the system or its workings. So you're essentially digging in the dark hoping you get it right this time, unless you visit the forum to recheck, you can screw it all up for yourself along the way.
I thought Viv too heavy handed to be divine wound up with her twice.

I'd say this is a problem with metagaming, not RP. Your PC shouldn't always know the system and its workings, after all.

In practice, I don't think this is necessarily a problem unless you want to metagame with your first PC. By the time you're on your second run you can just look up how the decision works on the wiki, right? I haven't familiarized myself with the specific mechanics of the Divine choice because it isn't really important to me ATM; my current PC is a conservative human noble who's probably going to be OK with Vivienne, and the next one's going to be a qunari anarchist who won't give a damn about the whole thing.

[ZipZap2000]

I'd say this is a problem with metagaming, not RP. Your PC shouldn't always know the system and its workings, after all.

In practice, I don't think this is necessarily a problem unless you want to metagame with your first PC. By the time you're on your second run you can just look up how the decision works on the wiki, right? I haven't familiarized myself with the specific mechanics of the Divine choice because it isn't really important to me ATM; my current PC is a conservative human noble who's probably going to be OK with Vivienne, and the next one's going to be a qunari anarchist who won't give a damn about the whole thing.

Right over your head.

Like vrooooom.

[Coolbeans225]

I would like the paragon, and renegade thing to be scrapped or at least more ambiguous. But I think it might be cool if some choices added both paragon, and renegade points.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Its exactly as you say in you second paragraph. You set out with goals that are difficult to achieve without prior knowledge of the system or its workings. So you're essentially digging in the dark hoping you get it right this time, unless you visit the forum to recheck, you can screw it all up for yourself along the way.

I thought Viv too heavy handed to be divine wound up with her twice.

Your PC shouldn't necessarily be able to achieve his goals.

I do think the Divine choice was poorly done, because it's possible to lock in the selection with more information still incoming, but I don't mind that it's possible to get a Divine you don't want.

My complaint is that I was asked to make irreversible choices with no indication that I had another option. It would be like if DAO told us about the third option in Redcliffe only after Connor was dead.

[Neverwinter_Knight77]

In regards to the divine, I was expecting three dialog choices. Instead at the end, it's just like "Oh, by the way, I'm going to be the new Divine."

[karushna5]

I mean Jade empire did it well because it was incorparated into the plot and open palm and closed fist were portrayed with a bit of nuance. Heck even Kotor made being in the middle a major choice and also made it part of the world.

 

I like haveing meters/bars I mean Fable was a great game to me as a kid and I always get some sort of glee it being incorporated into the game (which fable also did to a lesser extent) but that is the thing, it has to matter, and scars versus no scars just mean I am as scared losing my scars going renegade as I am offending someone in paragon.

 

They need to matter. 2 factions? great. having branching storylines, great but difficult to do. Making Renegade and Paragon defined as representing something like in infamous? also great. Also preferable is something that recognized the middle path. I loved in Kotor when we finally got a companion (a jedi no less) who was morally ambivalent and his meter showed.

 

I just want it to mean something other than red versus blue. In jade empire, characters would notice our leanings and remark on it. It would effect quests and what was open to us. It effected our endings and romances and we could try to convert others. I get a huge reason all these aren't option is sequels are the majority now, and no new franchises so everything needs to be thought for 6 more sequels rather than being a complete story. But if we could have Paragon and Renegdade mean more that would be great.

[teh DRUMPf!!]

 I was thinking about this today, actually. There are people out there who just... they have a way of making you believe their BS. Charm, confidence, inflection, whatever it is, they manage to nail it and get their way. So, I think there is a certain element of truth/reality toward a persuasion system where you invest points into the skill and are able to get your way from time to time. Or, one that you "perfect" over time from being naturally charming/intimidating/both (I liked the ME3 Rep system, as well as DA2's friend/rival thing).

 

 

That said, people also do not change their minds that easily either, so the opportunity to persuade should be a much rarer thing than it is in BW games. A lot of people are giving DA:O kudos ITT but I found that the PC too often is able to get his/her companions to do a 180 on their beliefs if your persuasion is high, and that just cheapens the characters IMO (especially ones like Morrigan who are supposed to be particularly independent-minded)

[AlanC9]

Right over your head.
Like vrooooom.

Yeah, I thought you weren't making too much sense there myself. I guess I missed something.

So try again. What did I miss? Why should your PC always know how to get his way? Why should he even be able to get his way?

[karushna5]

Actually, been playing Jade empire again, and I forgot how much I liked the system. What if every decision couldn't be solved by Charm and Intimidation, but Charm OR Intimidation?

 

Obviously less drastic consequences would probably be in order (I hate that if you don't have charm you don't just fail but are stopped dead and thats just boring). Certain people respond better to one or the other and both checks come up. Having a win button for all situations kinda sucks, having a win button for half situations? Makes sense for a leader like Shepard.

[ioannisdenton]

paragon - renegade is too iconic to be scraped imo. i would certainly miss it.
I mean look at the t-shirts!!!
A revamped paragon-renegade would be the best option imo.
i did not like the me3 route cause it did not matter what you chose much but also in me2 it forced you to go a certain route all the time.

[Dabrikishaw]

Outside of 2, I've never had an issue with the roleplaying aspect of Paragon/Renegade.

[Raizo]

I'd say this is a problem with metagaming, not RP. Your PC shouldn't always know the system and its workings, after all.
In practice, I don't think this is necessarily a problem unless you want to metagame with your first PC. By the time you're on your second run you can just look up how the decision works on the wiki, right? I haven't familiarized myself with the specific mechanics of the Divine choice because it isn't really important to me ATM; my current PC is a conservative human noble who's probably going to be OK with Vivienne, and the next one's going to be a qunari anarchist who won't give a damn about the whole thing.

While I appreciate what you are trying to say and I agree with the sentiment ( at least on paper ) my reality is that the older I get, the less disposable time I have on my hands. I may have been able to play ME2 a dozen or so times between 2010 and 2012 but most modern AAA games are getting larger and the thought of playing something the size of Dragon Age: Inquisition more than once isn't very appealing. As such, I'm under a certain amount of pressure to make sure my first play though of a game is as thorough as possible and that I'm not missing out on any content since my first playthrough might end up being my only playthrough. It's scary playing games like DA:I where you are constantly afraid that you are 1 dialogue choice from permanently f*****g something major up and locking yourself out a major piece of content or the outcome you want/need and by the time you've realised your mistake you end up having to restart the whole entire game from scratch to undo 'wrong' choice you made 'x' hours earlier.