158 réponses à ce sujet

[Khrystyn]

.... there is nothing wrong with smaller, more personal stories.... they're actually easier to make believable.  You're not deciding the fate of a galaxy, a world, or even a nation.  Just your own fate, or those near you.  Even a city is much harder to swallow.  It's just a matter of making the game feel personal, like your choice did make a difference, and in a way that makes sense.

 

Heck look at Telltale's Walking Dead game.  The player, as Lee, is not trying to stop the zombie apocalypse, or rebuild civilization, or kill every bandit he comes across.  The goal is simply to keep Clementine safe.  One little girl

 

I totally agree. Excellent point, Iakus!

 

Though, lol, I guess saving the city-colony on Mindoir is a background plot that is much harder for you to swallow too!

Just kidding - I hope you know that! But anyway...

 

Your comment about the hero PC that isn't trying to save the galaxy, but trying to save what he/she can save, or keeping someone safe, reminds me of Clint Eastwood's movies like Pale Rider, Gran Torino, Unforgiven, and The Outlaw Josie Wales. His hero or anti-hero characters were not fighting to save the world - just his little corner of it and the people he cared about. His characters had close relationships that made sense (eventually), even if they were unconventional, and in the end there is the triumph of spirit, even though his fate may be left hanging. (Shane!) - and at times it can be intriguing when we are left with a cliff-hanger, not a resolution. We all well know that comic books and TV soap operas are ripe with this type of story-telling element.

 

Still, 'fighting to protect our own little world', however that is defined in the plot, means that our character is living in 'a little world,' not an open world as a Sci-fi game will want encompass. But little 'moving moments' as seen in the "I Remember Me' assignment, where Shepard was at his/her most humane level of compassion (if you were a colonist paragon), are what become more memorable to me. I'm looking for game story moments where deeper character development is seen at a more personal level while the greater threat is still looming and must be dealt with in time. So long as there are more personal assignments that really flesh-out the character's character, revealing layers of their very nature and essence and personal history, and for all of the companions too!, we will care about the PC and our teammates even more; we find out what makes them 'tick', with warts, flaws and all. Jack's Loyalty Mission was terrific! Extra, extra kudos to the writing team for that jewel of a mission!

 

As you are positively referring to, let's not forget that there are many things closer to home that we are fighting for as well. It seems to me that having more assignments in this vein are a much better way to make a 'more open' world - or rather, a more 'filled-in' world, rather than driving for hours across empty moonscapes and dunes, or sending hundreds of probes to 50+ planets for resources, for a significant amount of our game time. Fighting on Haestrom to find Tali, and Therum to find Liara, are much more interesting, so why can't more assignments involve scaled-down rescuing or fighting to find (for example) people we need to talk to - that have a d*mned, excuse me, a significant influence on moving the plot forward, and doing things that are very personal to the PC, instead of massive resource finding errands. In Andromeda - where we have no prior experience - we're likely going to need to talk to many people to get intel and learn about the really, really, really important resources and connections they can hook us up with. I am not asking for an overwhelming number of personal interest assignments - more like a few that are very well developed with interesting things to know about our PC. BW writers have done this very well in many instances.

 

Shepard's standing by to support Ashley with her sister's memorial for her KIA husband is typical of a useful story element that fleshes out our PC's character and the personal bond it creates for our PC with a squadmate - even if it goes renegade or has a negative outcome. It was excellent. John Lennon commented: "Life is what happens while you are busy making other plans" (or something like that; don't quote me). I feel that simply fighting to take out a bunch of baddies that are setting up a communications station on some no-nothing planet or moon, or destroy some haywire AI - and then go back to the ship - becomes a bit boring to me after a while, and these seem more like 'make work game-stuffing' filler to make the game 'bigger.' JM2C.

 

I hope I've made some sense here: Fewer resource finding activities, and more personal interest activities. It may make for a 'smaller' game, but I want to be engaged all of the time, not wasting my time for hours on end. Great novels never do this to the reader - everything is important, even when it seems to be trivial. After all, the Enterprise in ST: TOS never made a fuel stop, and they didn't film any bathrooms either. Maybe in Andromeda we will have to find toilet paper so that it is more 'realistic' for some of the idiotic nit-picking purists! Enough with the 'housekeeping chores!' It's not a 'hero experience'.

 

 

Edit: I liked the Serrice Ice Brandy assignment for Dr. Chakwas. A nice touch to add in to the game. But what would have made it even more personal, after reminiscing about former crew mates and shared experiences, is if they both got drunk, stuck on the floor, and Miranda walks in and says to Shepard: "You idiot! We didn't bring you back just so you can get drunk with your ol' drinking buddy!" I would have howled in laughter. Talk about an assignment getting personal! Perhaps Shepard could have used Engineer Scott's line: "It's green."

[vbibbi]

In ME1:
 
1) You can also help get Jenna out of Chora's Den using the Renegade dialogue options to intimidate Chellick.  Once you convince him to let her go, you can meet the krogan arms dealer and kill him and keep the mod... and it will have no affect on Conrad Verner's fate.

It's been a while since I played ME1, but I thought one of the renegade options was to convince Jenna to stop the investigation, which wouldn't lead her to be present in ME3. But I am not certain of that so won't claim it.
 

2) Yes, saving the Rachni queen does yield more war assets... but as mentioned, you don't need more than 3,100 EMS (with the Extended Cut) to get the "best" ending unlocked... so anything above that is unnecessary.  It is quite easy for people who play multiplayer to get much more EMS than a single player who doesn't... but also easy enough to get above 3,100 EMS in single player only even after having killed the Rachni Queen.

 
My point is just that all else being equal, paragon choices are more likely to result in positive results. Yes, we don't need the rachni queen war assets to achieve a specific ending, but the paragon choice doesyield more assets.
 

3) You can use Intimidate (renegade) options to convince Anolais to give you a pass and allow you to keep Lorik Quin's evidence as well.  You can then turn that evidence over to Gianna and she will still appear in ME2.  The side quest in ME2 merely gets you a store discount in ME2 and has no effect on ME3.

That's playing the alignment system more than choosing a renegade option, though. The end result of playing both parties against each other is the same as if we had chosen the paragon (Gianna) option the entire time.
 

4) See Item 2 above.
 
ME2
 
1) Jack's loyalty mission... Saving Aresh does give you a positive email; however, if you save Rana Thanoptis in ME1, you'll get an email indicating that she's killed a number of high ranking asari military officials... so it does go both ways at different points in the game.

Yup. And I included her in the bottom of my previous quote about the few instances I remembered where renegade options had better outcomes.
 

2) Samara vs. Morinth:  One of the neatest moments for me in ME2 was the time I chose Morinth over Samara; and appointed Morinth as leader of the Second Team (with Jack holding up the barrier.)  Morinth was shot by the door and died... a bit of a redeemed hero (and there is a neat bit of dialogue that goes with her death).
 
3)  Maelon's Data:  However, killing Wrex in ME1 can result in allowing Shepard to sabotage the genophage and keep Mordin alive.

True, and one of the better aspects of the morality and import system, IMO, is that some of the results in ME3 do take so many variables in place to achieve. I do think the renegade options are still limiting, though, since killing Wrex eliminates several of the "best" outcomes for the krogan, and deleting Maelon's data removes the ability to save Eve, who is arguably more important to ongoing krogan advancement than Wrex.
 

4) Destroying the collector base in ME2 actually results in fewer war assets in ME3 as opposed to keeping it.  Destroying it yields the Reaper Heart at 80 WA and keeping it yields the Reaper Brain at 110 WA.  So, despite what your crewmates think of the decision... keeping the collector base and turning it over for research is the most advantageous choice for the war effort later on.

Okay I always forget which option yields more points, as I think the points were changed with the extended cut? Or they change if we don't have the minimum amount of points by that point in the game.
 

ME3
 
Siding with the Cafe Owner (not the C-Sec officer), allowing him to keep his surveillance videos yields +5 WA; whereas supporting the C-Sec officer yields -2 WA; Likewise, supporting the Dock Officer in turning away the refugee ship yields +7 WA; whereas supporting the Refugee yields -2 WA.  There are several of these where the + WA isn't on the side one would intuitively think as being paragon.

True, I didn't consider the Citadel dialogue points since they only yield reputation points rather than morality points, but I agree that they should be considered paragon and renegade. But there are just as many of these dialogue options that favor the paragon choice, IMO, so it does balance out. Still, interesting to have the renegade options have better results.
 

The only WA affected by Diana Allers is Diana Allers.  If you let her on board and don't ever throw her off, you get her WA... but you don't actually have to speak with her again to keep her War Asset.  The only result of not talking with her is that Shepard (if male) can't bang her and he/she won't get the email about her holding a wake for Shepard near the end of the game.

If we speak with her after Tuchanka and Rannoch with the paragon option, our positive message gives a few war assets to krogan/quarian troops. If we choose the renegade option, we shut down the interview before we have the chance to give a speech to the masses.
 

Some of my highest WA yielding playthroughs have been the ones that have leaned towards the Renegade side of things.  If you want to verify anything I've stated here... the information is also available in the Wiki (and I have verified the Wiki as correct through my playthroughs).

I don't disbelieve you. I do think it's still more likely for paragon options to have "better" results, though. And in order to get the highest yield of WA playing renegade, one has to replay the entire trilogy and choose very specific actions, whereas the casual gamer who chooses mostly paragon or mostly renegade options will have an easier time with paragon. Especially if only playing ME3 with no import.
 

[UpUpAway]

.

 

I don't disbelieve you. I do think it's still more likely for paragon options to have "better" results, though. And in order to get the highest yield of WA playing renegade, one has to replay the entire trilogy and choose very specific actions, whereas the casual gamer who chooses mostly paragon or mostly renegade options will have an easier time with paragon. Especially if only playing ME3 with no import.
 

[UpUpAway]

It's been a while since I played ME1, but I thought one of the renegade options was to convince Jenna to stop the investigation, which wouldn't lead her to be present in ME3. But I am not certain of that so won't claim it.
 

 
My point is just that all else being equal, paragon choices are more likely to result in positive results. Yes, we don't need the rachni queen war assets to achieve a specific ending, but the paragon choice doesyield more assets.
 

That's playing the alignment system more than choosing a renegade option, though. The end result of playing both parties against each other is the same as if we had chosen the paragon (Gianna) option the entire time.
 

Yup. And I included her in the bottom of my previous quote about the few instances I remembered where renegade options had better outcomes.
 

True, and one of the better aspects of the morality and import system, IMO, is that some of the results in ME3 do take so many variables in place to achieve. I do think the renegade options are still limiting, though, since killing Wrex eliminates several of the "best" outcomes for the krogan, and deleting Maelon's data removes the ability to save Eve, who is arguably more important to ongoing krogan advancement than Wrex.
 

Okay I always forget which option yields more points, as I think the points were changed with the extended cut? Or they change if we don't have the minimum amount of points by that point in the game.
 

True, I didn't consider the Citadel dialogue points since they only yield reputation points rather than morality points, but I agree that they should be considered paragon and renegade. But there are just as many of these dialogue options that favor the paragon choice, IMO, so it does balance out. Still, interesting to have the renegade options have better results.
 

If we speak with her after Tuchanka and Rannoch with the paragon option, our positive message gives a few war assets to krogan/quarian troops. If we choose the renegade option, we shut down the interview before we have the chance to give a speech to the masses.
 

I don't disbelieve you. I do think it's still more likely for paragon options to have "better" results, though. And in order to get the highest yield of WA playing renegade, one has to replay the entire trilogy and choose very specific actions, whereas the casual gamer who chooses mostly paragon or mostly renegade options will have an easier time with paragon. Especially if only playing ME3 with no import.
 

 

That's the bottom line of it being a game though - one has to select very specific options to get an actual characterization of Shepard instead of just blindly following what they assume to be Paragon or Renegade.  People can rag on BioWare to put in more choice and more depth... but part of that problem is that the generally players don't work or vary their own play enough to make use of the amount of choice that is actually already there in the game.

[Degenerate Rakia Time]

Bioware doesnt have the intelligence to do this, not to mention that most of their fanbase can only get praised in a game since they are complete failures in life

[BaaBaaBlacksheep]

Bioware doesnt have the intelligence to do this, not to mention that most of their fanbase can only get praised in a game since they are complete failures in life

[Khrystyn]

...part of that problem is that generally players don't work or vary their own play enough to make use of the amount of choice that is actually already there in the game.

 

And that's why the P/R system is a flawed game system and is wrong to include - it intrudes into our making realistic and 'mixed' hero dialog choices. When opportunities became penalties. Yuck! Being a true-to-form paragon or renegade shouldn't be a goal. It should give us a 'framework' for a style we can role-play, but I'm always fearful of messing up a paragon choice that leads to my being opted-out of an important decision later in the game.  But this has been well discussed in other threads.

 

In keeping with the OP's thread, it is more gratifying to feel completely at ease with any dialog choice we can make. Still, I know that choices have consequences, so dialog and choices can't be entirely free. It's a balance thing.

[UpUpAway]

And that's why the P/R system is a flawed game system and is wrong to include - it intrudes into our making realistic and 'mixed' hero choices. Being a true-to-form paragon or renegade shouldn't be a goal. It gives us a style we can role-play, but I'm always fearful of messing up a paragon choice that leads to my being opted-out of an important decision later in the game.  But this has been well discussed in other threads.

 

Part of me wants to respond to this by saying write your own book instead then.  This is a game and games generally set themselves up to have a means to "win" and a means to "lose"... that means being opted out of being able to make certain choices later on in the game.  In a board game set up with multiple paths, you usually can't get back to select the other one and so you have to progress as best you can down the path you chose to the end of the game.  So it is in life as well - we realistically make choices based on what we think might lead to a certain outcome... but if things don't fall the way we though, we don't get a "do over" to make the "other" choice.  So, from all of this, I would just conclude that "realistic" role-playing is inherently incompatible with gaming in general.

[Khrystyn]

Part of me wants to respond to this by saying write your own book instead then.  This is a game and games generally set themselves up to have a means to "win" and a means to "lose"... that means being opted out of being able to make certain choices later on in the game.  In a board game set up with multiple paths, you usually can't get back to select the other one and so you have to progress as best you can down the path you chose to the end of the game.  So it is in life as well - we realistically make choices based on what we think might lead to a certain outcome... but if things don't fall the way we though, we don't get a "do over" to make the "other" choice.  So, from all of this, I would just conclude that "realistic" role-playing is inherently incompatible with gaming in general.

 

And I completely agree. I have said this ("Write your own book") to others in other threads. Sometimes, like this, my comments can fall on both sides of the fence, and I thank you for kindly pointing it out. Ultimately, I didn't find the P/R system as gratifying as I had initially hoped for the 'hero experience.' I'm still trying to figure things out to have a better gaming experience. Just human, I guess. Thank you for your comment; it's appreciated.

 

Edit: My game play to this point has heavily involved making P/R choices simply for the sake of improving my P/R points (or ratio), so I can steer my efforts towards the outcomes that I want to achieve later in the game. But it is disappointing and unsatisfactory in many ways. I am FORCED to make dialog choices that I don't always want to have to choose. Intervening between Miranda and Jack, and Legion with Tali, shouldn't have required some unknowable high level of P/R points or ratios. It should have been much easier to handle their disputes when I have already gained their loyalties. I think those particular disputes are  great story elements in ME for those four characters. Differences between squadmates ARE realistic, engaging, and fun. Decisions like these (and unrelated to the plot) shouldn't be slaved or blocked regarding my making non-paragon or non-renegade dialog choices in other areas of the game that are completely unrelated to my relationship with other characters.

 

I KNOW there are other threads focused on the value of the P/R system, and that my comments are nothing new. I don't want to go off-topic, and I'm enjoying many of the comments I've been reading here.

[vbibbi]

That's the bottom line of it being a game though - one has to select very specific options to get an actual characterization of Shepard instead of just blindly following what they assume to be Paragon or Renegade.  People can rag on BioWare to put in more choice and more depth... but part of that problem is that the generally players don't work or vary their own play enough to make use of the amount of choice that is actually already there in the game.

Yeah and that's why I liked ME3's morality system better than ME2's. The combination of reputation and morality was what counted rather than pure paragon points or pure renegade points to get the most difficult dialogue checks.

[wright1978]

Yeah and that's why I liked ME3's morality system better than ME2's. The combination of reputation and morality was what counted rather than pure paragon points or pure renegade points to get the most difficult dialogue checks.

 

Ideally they get rid of the morality system itself in MEA.

[MrFob]

Ideally they get rid of the morality system itself in MEA.

 

I really like DA's approval system. You could implement this for characters but also for factions in the game world.

I like it because it gives you the freedom to choose any dialogue option and change your surrounding accordingly without being bound to a one dimensional morality axis.

It also offers interesting role playing and game mechanic choices. Are you going to be a push-over in order to make everyone happy and make your life easier or will you stand by certain values and/or people/factions and accept that it will put you at odds with others.

Ideally, you would even attach the progress of the main plot to this. If the plot is modular you'd get certain quests that advance the plot in a particular direction from one side if their approval is high enough or from another if you chose their path instead. You could end up working for different people, just based on the decisions you make and instead have others for enemies.

It would be tough to balance but I think it could make for a very dynamic ROG experience.

It would also add a heck of a lot of replay value since you could experience say only 30-40% of the story missions in one play through. Maybe it would be a bit of a shorter game for a single playthrough but I think it would be an interesting approach.

 

EDIT: By the way, I am not at all ashamed to admit that I cheat in ME2, filling up both my paragon and renegade scores with Gibbed so that I can actually roleplay without that stupid mechanic hindering me. Paragades and renegons for the win!

[Mistic]

Ideally they get rid of the morality system itself in MEA.

 

 

That or don't let the morality meter have any influence on the gameplay. I still remember that in ME2 not being full paragon or full renegade could rob you of several options. Very important options, I might add. A system like that punishes role-playing.

[Shechinah]

I'm in favor of removing the morality meter or at least, revamping it. I think I can understand what was intended with the morality system but I find it more detrimental now than beneficial.

 

I do dislike feeling like I need to base my character's actions not on characterization but on how much I've filled a meter. It feels like it punishes trying to roleplay a complex or complicated character because if I do not have my character act this way or this way a certain amount of times then I'm locked out of options not because of actions but because I failed to fill a quota.

 

This was especially egregious during Mass Effect 2 concerning confrontations between Jack and Miranda or Legion and Tali where an insufficent paragon or renegade meter meant that the option to compromise rather than pick sides were greyed out. I feel like it would have been better if this was the result of actions, not points.

 

There is also the silliness of how and what morality is sometimes applied to what choices. Sometimes it feels like morality points are distributed to choices because there weren't enough choices otherwise to fill the meter.  

 

If I had to choose between the morality system of Mass Effect and the approval system of Dragon Age, then I'd prefer the latter without questions. The approval system have a meter, yes, but being locked out of options or outcomes because the character related to the option and outcome has a low opinion of me feels more logical and beneficial to roleplaying than the morality meters do which feels like it tries to pressure me into taking certain options, not because of the choice itself but because of the color of the choice.

 

Note: I know the morality points can be seen as the result of actions and therefore lock-outs as consequences of actions but I do not see them or consider them as such because it has less to do with the action and more do with the color of the action. Commit this many red actions or commit this many blue actions to fill the respective meter.

[Ahriman]

That or don't let the morality meter have any influence on the gameplay. I still remember that in ME2 not being full paragon or full renegade could rob you of several options. Very important options, I might add. A system like that punishes role-playing.

On the other hand it made you actually choose, instead of pressing "win dialog" button. 

I suppose critical story decisions shouldn't be solved by whatever persuasion system there is. I know people tired of Witcher mentions, but it used persuasion only in side stories, leaving main choices for your preferences and planning, if you had any.

[Shechinah]

On the other hand it made you actually choose, instead of pressing "win dialog" button. 

I suppose critical story decisions shouldn't be solved by whatever persuasion system there is. I know people tired of Witcher mentions, but it used persuasion only in side stories, leaving main choices for your preferences and planning, if you had any.

 

It's not necessarily the presence of a persuasion system but the logic of the persuasion system. In Dragon Age: Inquisition, you could unlock certain additional options to add to the dialogue wheel that were tied to unlockable perks.

 

I did not mind that so much especially since characters who had a background where they would logically already have one knowledge perk actually started with that knowledge perk unlocked.

 

To name two examples; the Trevelyan had a background connected to human nobility and so had the knowledge perk about nobility, Cadash had a background connected to criminality and so had the knowledge perk about criminal matters. It made sense.

 

I do admit that I would prefer for a storyline's major decisions to be affected and decided by and through choices and approval.
 

[Mistic]

On the other hand it made you actually choose, instead of pressing "win dialog" button. 

 

Isn't it the opposite? Instead of choosing what would fit my character better, I had to select what wouldn't take future options away from me.

 

Note: I know the morality points can be seen as the result of actions and therefore lock-outs as consequences of actions but I do not see them or consider them as such because it has less to do with the action and more do with the color of the action. Commit this many red actions or commit this many blue actions to fill the respective meter.

 

Good point. I'm all for having past actions influence future options, but it should make sense narratively. Not being able to make peace between geth and quarians because you didn't save the people who were pushing for it is not the same as not being able to stop a fight between Legion and Tali because you weren't a paragon or renegade X times before it happens.

 

When I saw the unlocked options, I kept wondering: "what stopped Shepard from saying that line before getting a high enough karma level?".

[Ahriman]

I do admit that I would prefer for a storyline's major decisions to be affected and decided by and through choices and approval.

 

And I'm against it actually, approval should affect teammates and teammates only. This scope should be insignificiant in grand scheme of things. Bioware already did it with Shepard's Touch when all former squadmates ended generals, admirals or whatever, in attempt to justify their importance in Reaper War. Which felt unnatural at best. Approval system is good for picturing squad dynamics, but it's not a replacement for character's reputation in the game world.

 

Isn't it the opposite? Instead of choosing what would fit my character better, I had to select what wouldn't take future options away from me.

Ah, naturally, winning fits your character best.

[UpUpAway]

If I had to choose between the morality system of Mass Effect and the approval system of Dragon Age, then I'd prefer the latter without questions. The approval system have a meter, yes, but being locked out of options or outcomes because the character related to the option and outcome has a low opinion of me feels more logical and beneficial to roleplaying than the morality meters do which feels like it tries to pressure me into taking certain options, not because of the choice itself but because of the color of the choice.

 

Note: I know the morality points can be seen as the result of actions and therefore lock-outs as consequences of actions but I do not see them or consider them as such because it has less to do with the action and more do with the color of the action. Commit this many red actions or commit this many blue actions to fill the respective meter.

 

The consequences of not passing the two most stringest P/R tests in ME2 were merely the inability to keep both squadmates loyal.  IMO, this is pretty much the same as saying that squadmate now has a low opinion of the PC (so the difference between ME and DA seems to be just so much window dressing - keeping in mind that I haven't played DA). 

 

The consequences of the one squadmate becoming disloyal were, for the most part, completely avoidable; that is, one could keep a disloyal squadmate alive through the entire Suicide Mission by not selecting them in any major role.  Also, if one dis not immediately pass the P/R test on the first dialogue sequence, there was also an option to regain the loyalty of the squadmate if the PC passed a P/R test that wasn't quite as stringent.  The only consequence then of losing and then regaining the loyalty of a squadmate was that Shepard could not romance that character.

[Mistic]

Ah, naturally, winning fits your character best.

 

Not at all. What if, for example, in a given scene the renegade option suits my character better than the paragon option, but I can't take it because previously I've not been renegade enough? I have the "win dialogue" button right at my hand, yet it breaks the role-playing because that's not what I feel my Shepard would do in that situation.

 

I would understand it better if it was some class perk (for example, engineers knowing more about engines, or biotic users having some special dialogue options) or the logical consequence of previous acts (don't save that person and their companions will hate you. You sold the evidence to the other faction? Good luck convincing this one to help). But karma doesn't work so well.

 

If it's a matter of "it wouldn't work without enough reputation", then unlock every dialogue option but have different effects for them. You are known as a renegade? Then if you try to be diplomatic for once people won't believe it and think it's a trap. Everybody believes you're a paragon? Then your threats may not be as convincing as you think.

[Hazegurl]

Honestly, DA's approval system annoys me.  It's just another system that players exploit for an 'I win'.  It's even gotten to the point where the DA team just dish out approval/disapproval points even when companions aren't around and I just hate those pop ups telling me who gave a crap about my opinion.

 

I wouldn't mind it if they kept the R/P system but make it a tweaked up personality system moreso than something players use to decide anything major or a morally system. Give us TW3 type of choices where the morality could be good or could be bad but also gray, and bar certain choices based on previous choices made.  If you make a decision that is just a bad call (note: I do not mean morally bad), then deal with the consequences.   As for companions, I don't need to know whether or not they approve of the crap I'm saying or doing every single time, but when I talk to them, I wouldn't mind hearing their opinion about what happened, or just plain have them come and surprise me with their disappointment. Let a companion just bust in my room cause he/she is just tired of my BS.  Let me argue and fight with them or see eye to eye with them. And allow me to handle the situation in a way that is realistic to my character's personality and/or position. 

 

That might a bit much though with resources and all. lol!

[Giantdeathrobot]

It's an RPG thing, not a Bioware one.

 

The Witcher allows Geralt to directly influence the future of all the North purely because he's such an unmitigated badass everyone wants him on their side.

 

The Courier (Fallout New Vegas) is so good they alone determine who rules the Mojave, and can rule it themselves. All the Fallout games feature this to some degree in fact.

 

In Pillars of Eternity, the Watcher ends up consorting with gods and their power allows them to decide the future of the Dyrwood and beyond as they unravel a millenia-old conspiracy in a few months.

 

Planescape: Torment has you play a straight up immortal character, who can end up as a demigod capable of simply *willing* the Big Bad out of existence.

 

In Alpha Protocol, Thorton can go from a lowly recruit to basically controlling vast parts of US intelligence and a huge corporation from the shadows.

 

Don't even get me started on The Elder Scrolls, where you almost literally always are the Invincible Hero of Prophecy Destined To Save Us. Skyrim pulls this trope no less than 4 times even, in a variety of fashions.

 

By comparison, the Inquisitor (for instance) being able to kill Corypheus, indirectly choose the ''victor'' of the Mage/Templar War and manipulating who gets to rule Orlais isn't anything out of bounds.

 

If you want player choice to matter, you have to empower the player. There's just no way around it. A common person simply isn't going to provide the player agency that makes RPGs fun to play at all.

[AlanC9]

Honestly, DA's approval system annoys me.  It's just another system that players exploit for an 'I win'.  It's even gotten to the point where the DA team just dish out approval/disapproval points even when companions aren't around and I just hate those pop ups telling me who gave a crap about my opinion.

I don't see your problem. Who cares what other players do with the approval system? And if you don't care what the companions approve of or don't approve of, why does it matter if the information pops up?

[Hazegurl]

It's an RPG thing, not a Bioware one.

 

The Witcher allows Geralt to directly influence the future of all the North purely because he's such an unmitigated badass everyone wants him on their side.

 

If you want player choice to matter, you have to empower the player. There's just no way around it. A common person simply isn't going to provide the player agency that makes RPGs fun to play at all.

I assume you mean TW3. Geralt doesn't directly influence the future of the North and it isn't even a case of everyone wanting him on their side.

 

Radovid asks Geralt to track Phillipa. Geralt is a great tracker so it's reasonable to give him the job. This is after he already had his own men searching for her.

 

Roche asks for Geralt's help about Ves which is a small and personal matter.

Geralt has to be on good terms with Dijkstra just to even gain access to the rest of the quests, which is easy to miss. I think I broke his leg in my first playthrough and missed all the Radovid assassination stuff.

 

Even then Geralt is only asked to pick up Thaler, who tells him nothing about the overall plan.

Phillipa then asks Geralt to lure Radovid to the assassination spot by giving him his father's ring (proving that you found her).

 

Even then, Roche has to save Geralt from getting killed by Radovid's men and it's Phillipa who kills Radovid.

During the victory celebration Dijkstra tries to kill Roche and Thaler and you can either help or walk away.

 

But I do agree that there needs to be some empowerment of the player to have some sort of player choice.  I personally liked how TW3 did it because the only power Geralt has is to help out his friends or not, obey a King(who isn't even his King) or not, and whether or not he'll be a d**k to someone.

 

 

I don't see your problem. Who cares what other players do with the approval system? And if you don't care what the companions approve of or don't approve of, why does it matter if the information pops up?

 

Funny saying this on a thread where everyone is complaining about how other players use the Renegade/Paragon system.  I merely pointed out that both systems can be exploited so trading one for the other is kind of pointless. They both need some fine tuning.

 

Also, my complaint about DA's system is that I would rather be surprised and have the disapproval/approval spring up during a discussion.  Not have it pop up on my screen every time I so much as breathe. If I want their opinion I'll ask for it.

 

Vivienne Greatly Greatly Disapproves

Iron Bull somewhat approves but will increase his approval if you help him kill dragons.

Sera will have a snack before approving

Dorian Kind of sort of maybe approves

Cassandra will consult the Chantry mother before approving

 

Blah

[AlanC9]

Part of me wants to respond to this by saying write your own book instead then.  This is a game and games generally set themselves up to have a means to "win" and a means to "lose"... that means being opted out of being able to make certain choices later on in the game.  In a board game set up with multiple paths, you usually can't get back to select the other one and so you have to progress as best you can down the path you chose to the end of the game.  So it is in life as well - we realistically make choices based on what we think might lead to a certain outcome... but if things don't fall the way we though, we don't get a "do over" to make the "other" choice.  So, from all of this, I would just conclude that "realistic" role-playing is inherently incompatible with gaming in general.

This is remarkably similar to one of Sylvius the Mad's arguments: RPGs aren't games.