182 réponses à ce sujet

[Sanunes]

 

 

 

As people in this thread are clearly proving there are plenty of ideas, and surely developers have those same ideas but, why then have we not seen them implemented in some fashion?

 

 

They made changes to the system with every game to try and make improvements, I also think scrapping the system during Mass Effect 2 or 3 would have become a bigger issue then the removal of the Mako in Mass Effect 2.  Now if the system stays as it is with Andromeda to me there is less available wiggle room since we are starting a whole new story and making sure the system can be adapted between multiple games shouldn't be a concern now.

[CannotCompute]

Imo, the P/R system needs refining.. it wasn't perfect in the OT.

I like the concept of P/R persuasion, linked to a Persuasion skill, in which you can throw points. But I want to be able to choose more P&R conversation options at the same time. It feels too black & white most of the times.. give us light, medium and dark red & blue options (ascending in severity).

I also don't like that persuasion has a 100% chance to succeed. It would be cool if some characters are unpersuadable (or at least very hard to). Or that you have to do something extra for them, should you succeed in a persuasive attempt. So, less predictability and no instant win.

[AlanC9]

Might be the way to go in ME, but with some adjustments. I could live with making a demeanour choice during character setup, nothing concrete, just setting the tone for non-critical interactions. Do away with the set-archetype at threshold "x" and allowing players to make choices outside of that demeanour in most situations, have limits be placed based upon prior actions. Say, my aggressive demeanour PC killed a colony of civilians to achieve his objectives in the last mission, have that reflected in future interactions with characters that might dissapprove of such action, regardless of whether it was for the greater good kinda thing.
 

Wait a second ... wouldn't that example work better if the PC didn't have an aggressive demeanor? The point is that the two things would be independent, right?

[fchopin]

Morality in Mass Effect is a big joke, I give it one out of ten.

I just pick what text I like and don't really care what paragon or renegade I get.

[KaiAdamori]

Wait a second ... wouldn't that example work better if the PC didn't have an aggressive demeanor? The point is that the two things would be independent, right?

 

Hehe, yeah i think your right! Scratch aggressive demeanour and replace with diplomatic demeanour lol That said, I would like to see NPCs with solid ideolgies/outlooks taking a more assertive stance when my pc takes an action that is counter to their ideals. It's just more realistic. I'd be fine if the NPC in question was uncertain, malleable or what have you. Then you can have the chance to sway them either through dialogue or action. Some characters this wouldn't work with. I think the persuasion check suggested a couple of posts back would work but i think that starts to drift into a more stat based crpg than bioware has gone for in the recent past and I can't see them going back to that really.

 

Again it's what would fit into ME as an already established universe and what BW would think of as our expectations for the property.

 

In another game with another setting, I'd like to see something more stat character based, which might be where a clearly defined morality system would fit more comfortably, ala dnd-esque characters. Similar to SW:Kotor.

 

Then you have the charisma-social based stat checks, alongside, faction and alignment checks during dialogue. It lends itself to a more flexible free flow system, while at the same time, introducing character builds geared towards persuasion.

 

They'd have to completely overhaul, not just the dialogue system but the entire character system to achieve something like that. BW has been steadily moving away from that way of doing things for some time now. Sadly. I liked the old school rpg character design. The only game that I've really seen that sort of thing work well with the third or even first person action gameplay was probably Vampire the Masquerade Bloodlines. And that had nothing in the way of squad gameplay. Infact it had very little in common with ME at all. Awesome game tho, despite it's horrendous bugs and poor design.

[Quarian Master Race]

Though Al-Jilani is a bit excessive (though always rather amusing), frankly I'd say a punch to the gut is the least Han'Gerrel deserves given what he'd done, and I never felt it was out of place for a Shep with at least some renegade leanings of either gender to do so.

 

But even so, these are minor events. The overarching gist of being a renegade is not about punching people. It's about serving the greater good.  It's about making sacrifices in order to achieve success. It's about being prepared to do what it takes to stop the Reapers no matter the cost.

ehm......successfully destroyed an enemy Reaper controlled Dreadnought with no one one the boarding team being killed or even wounded? That aside, it serves as the perfect example of how inconsistent Renegade was. The Renegade option in the briefing was to tell the quarians to attack the Dreadnought as soon as the Reaper signal is disabled.....which is exactly what Gerrel does, so why does Renegade Shep suddenly turn into a whiny coward who is deathly afraid of danger close and sympathetic to toasters post mission?

Remeber what s/he did at Torfan? Gerrel's tactic was a lot less extreme than something like that and got a lot less people killed in the name of success (i.e. zero), so Renegade Shep complaining about it is bombastically hypocritical. No, that interrupt were it consistent should have been Paragon, similar to the one you get with Gavin Archer, seeing as Paragon is the one who has been whining about toaster rights(lol) and calling the quarians a bunch of mean bullies up to this point, and who actually (stupidly, given tactical the situation) tells them to retreat to the relay once the signal is down, but is subsequently (and rightfully) ignored. Them throwing a temper tantrum over something like that actually makes sense.

Now, the ones who deserved a Renegade punch in that situation were Commander Shitbird and Admiral Useless for sitting there on the Dreadnought shooting the breeze with an enemy combatant and fiddling with consoles to release it while people outside were actually dying, as opposed to simply setting demo charges on the core and making their exfil from the enemy vessel. No wonder Gerrel gets fed up waiting for them to stop wasting time, and provides an incentive to get moving.

Al-Jilani is arguably even more childish, because it doesn't really make sense for any Shepard. What are you accomplishing by punching her? Proving that you are such a thin skinned immature (wo)man-child that you can't even take an irrelevant reporter saying mean things about you? How the hell did someone non adjusted malcontent like that even survive the mean Drill Sergeants at boot camp, let alone N7 school? I'd have laughed if she immediately went to get C-Sec and critical mission failure'd Commander Dumbarse for committing assault in full view of about 100 witnesses.

The P/R system should be junked along with the cringeworthy one liner spouting, impulsively violent wannabe badass. Unless of course they want to actually include some reasonable consequences for acting like Wayne Rooney in space.

[KaiserShep]

If they set demo charges on the dreadnought's core instead of freeing Legion, how would they have escaped the ship, or would it simply be a straight up suicide mission? Without Legion they wouldn't have made it to the fighter bay and they might not have been able to even fly one if they did.

I suppose it's worth pointing out the irony that setting charges and trying to escape would probably have cost more lives in the end than Legion shutting down the ship's shields and weapons.

[Quarian Master Race]

If they set demo charges on the dreadnought's core instead of freeing Legion, how would they have escaped the ship, or would it simply be a straight up suicide mission? Without Legion they wouldn't have made it to the fighter bay and they might not have been able to even fly one if they did.

Seeing as they seemingly didn't even bother to think up an exfil plan before boarding the Dreadnought, and Commander Dumbarse is so stupid that s/he actually thinks software need escape pods (though seeing as the geth are also stupid, given they put a cockpit and bipedal platform in their fighters for no reason, this isn't entirely unreasonable) I'll try to come up with something reasonable.

Set charges, go back to the Normandy (still docked safetly at the tube Tali/Xen and squadmate(s) came through), not the nonsensical fighters. Blow the charges, oh and make sure to shoot the talking toaster in the face too, so it can't call for backup to potentially defuse them.

The fact that my Shepard got character derailed, and had to ally with and let that thing on the Normandy just to push Biower's garbage toaster hugging narrative was among the worst things about ME3 IMO. I should have at least been able to disable it and let Admiral Xen have a look at it.

[Cyberstrike nTo]

 

I do think it comes back to developers not really having a good grasp on creating a believeable or relateable "anti-hero" Sure it has been done to great effect in some games, but they are few and far between. Maybe it's the juggling of different character behaviour that is the challenge, which would also come down to writing and the delivery from an actor.

 

 

 

 

I watched this episode of Extra-Credits where they discussed about games allowing players to be the anti-hero but they stated their opinion as too why you don't see them all that much in games without making the hero a complete and total jerk.

 

It's an interesting theory I'm not 100% sure I agree with it however.

[KaiserShep]

I suppose a way around Legion's Intel on the bases would be Xen forcibly extracting the data, if you so choose.

[Quarian Master Race]

I suppose a way around Legion's Intel on the bases would be Xen forcibly extracting the data, if you so choose.

That's the idea, though that "intel" wouldn't have been hard to acquire at all in the first place if the Migrant Fleet had recon capability close to what the US and USSR had in the form of satellite photography during the goddamn 1960s. Seriously, the Reaper base is a huge above ground facility sticking out of the middle of a barren desert. It should have taken minutes to find. 

Apparently, they can precisely target and destroy the entire geth fleet from half a solar system away, but they don't have cameras that can survey a planetary surface. Wat?

[SnakeCode]

Having any sort of scale that measures how good/bad you are is anything but mature. It lacks nuance that difficult decisions are made up of. If you do a bad thing for the right reasons is it still bad? If you do the right thing for the completely selfish, self-serving reasons does it cease to be good?

 

I'd rather they handled morality with some complexity instead of "blue is for good, red is for bad."

[KaiAdamori]

@Quarian Master Race. You hit upon a point i've been struggling to make (and gave me a laugh along the way) I actually liked the geth mind you, I'm a certified hippy toaster hugger that way!

 

But some of the renegade actions just made so little sense. There should be repercussions for such flagrantly abusive actions. As it stand shep can be a complete jerk and the ME univerese just shrugs it's shoulders. When theres no comeback, it lacks meaning and just becomes redundant.

 

@snakecode

 

I get what your saying about the having a scale to tell us how good/bad we are being, not really being mature, but in truth I don't mean to suggest that we have an actual bar, representing our, for us, the players to look at, level of goodlyness or badishness (totally not words but i'm using em anyway) , but if your going to have nuanced dynamic reactions from other npc's and the game world at large that information needs to be tracked internally atleast within the game, or you just can't build that kinda of depth into interactions. What I'm trying to get at is how developers define actions internally so as to build believeable and complex reactions from NPCs as a consequence to our actions, thereby giving those choices weight and significance. At the moment the thinking behind say, the hen'garel example, which I call simplistic and poorly thought out and then executed makes for a character that behaves in an irrational or unbelievable manner, to then follow that up with no consequence, no fall out with other characters. It just comes across as hammy.

 

As others have been saying, alot of these situations, in game, might be subjective, but for the sake of narrative the developers need to establish some form of internal system by which weight is given to actions in a for/against format, or good/bad. With clearly defined consequences for, us, the players to discover. Having the player smack Al Jhilani in the kisser was a hoot first time around. But once the laugh wears off and you play the game again and take the same choice, suddenly it's just stupid in the context of the game and the PC's current situation.

 

Fortunately developers should be aware of the a games story and content, which would allow them to program a system that, if done well and with considerable for-thought, could be very deep, very nuanced and very complex. We, as players would then have the joy that is "peeling back the layers of the onion" and discovering the nature of the choices we make through the consequnces and impact of our choices.

 

The withcer series started to do this, my PC would make a choice that, on the face of it, seemed like the right descision for his personality, help people, only to have the situation shift and suddenly that peasant I helped turned out to be an ass that goes on to kill somebody else. Unfortunately the witcher stop it right there. The developers didn't expand on the idea, there are no companions that react and play off of the decisions I made and the bleak crapsack world, remained a bleak crapsack world regardless of the action of my character so I didn't really care too much.

[Silvery]

I do not mind the morality system but I think it is time to yet it go in Mass Effect. For a game like Fable it works because it changes drastically how you look and fits in with the style and humorous nature of the game. For ME:A I think they should dump the morality system like Fallout 4 and DA:I did. Do something like those two games (or the Witcher 3) where it is more shades of grey in a lot of cases, where right and wrong is not a obviously color coded choice, but something you really have to think through and decide. 

[Enigmatick]

I hate persuasion skills in general, much would rather just fields of knowledge being "skills" you can select and they may play into dialogue.

 

Morality meters need to be left behind.

[Seboist]

Unless the choices have a tangible impact on the gameplay, whether or not there's a morality system is a moot point as far as I'm concerned.

[afgncaap7]

I think Dragon Age Origins had the right idea for a "morality system". Having a separate level of approval for different individuals made a lot more sense than "You're pretty much Captain America, but because you punched this one guy instead of giving him a hug you're suddenly too weak-willed to resist Morinth because reasons".

​In DAO your ability to persuade, intimidate and otherwise deal with a given situation was tied directly to YOUR ABILITY TO PERSUADE, INTIMIDATE AND OTHERWISE DEAL WITH A GIVEN SITUATION. There was never some omnipresent karma god hovering over your shoulder dictating what you could or couldn't do, you chose your path and you dealt with the consequences. You could be a good guy but still have the freedom to pick the "renegade" options if you felt they were a better choice. Likewise, you could be an absolute dick but still have enough sense to know that being evil just for the sake of being evil is usually a terrible idea. Your companions had differing opinions on whether you did right or wrong, but that's life.

​I'm not saying DAO did it perfectly. I'd never say that about any system where you can literally bribe your way to 100% approval across the board. But I'd take that any day over Mass Effect's moon-logic domino-effect system of "You didn't shoot this puppy in the face so you're clearly not hardcore enough to threaten a scumbag with your Spectre status even though you brutally killed about a hundred guys just in the last sidequest".

[Sartoz]

                                                                                      <<<<<<<<<<(0)>>>>>>>>>>

 

I still don't get why some people are all hung up on having a  P/R gameplay mechanic. Personally,  a AAA title can be written without that baggage. It's really a replacement for charisma or lack there of. Furtherrmore, since we will meet new aliens with different value systems, P/R is meaningless to them while charisma ought to have an impact.

 

Get rid of the timed P/R events and just include a charisma trait. A charismatic leader can get more out of people than a P/R value system.

[frylock23]

First off. I think it's a mistake to say good/evil. For one thing, we're the hero of the game, so what we're really looking at is somewhere on the spectrum between Superman/Captain America to someone like Punisher or Deadpool (someone who's definitely an @ss but still does unmistakably heroic things and/or plain gets the job done). To see our hero as a Hitler or Idi Amin or a John Wayne Gaycee just seems really wrong. Who'd follow that guy?

 

And I think to do it right, there needs to be the proper options and reactions. Sure what the heroes do will ultimately work, but there are also side effects from their methods, both good and bad. Those ought to be brought in too.

[vbibbi]

I hate persuasion skills in general, much would rather just fields of knowledge being "skills" you can select and they may play into dialogue.

 

Morality meters need to be left behind.

 

I like how DAI did it with the knowledge perks that unlocked special dialogues. Although there weren't enough dialogue checks for my liking.

 

I would like if there were a persuade skill that just supplemented an existing knowledge skill. So if a nobility knowledge skill check needed 20 to succeed, the persuade skill gave 7 points toward the check. Or for a low knowledge check, if the PC doesn't have that skill they can bluff knowledge with persuade. Granted, neither DA or ME function in this skills focused way so it's moot.

[KaiAdamori]

First off. I think it's a mistake to say good/evil. For one thing, we're the hero of the game, so what we're really looking at is somewhere on the spectrum between Superman/Captain America to someone like Punisher or Deadpool (someone who's definitely an @ss but still does unmistakably heroic things and/or plain gets the job done). To see our hero as a Hitler or Idi Amin or a John Wayne Gaycee just seems really wrong. Who'd follow that guy?

 

And I think to do it right, there needs to be the proper options and reactions. Sure what the heroes do will ultimately work, but there are also side effects from their methods, both good and bad. Those ought to be brought in too.

 

Quite alot of people followed those guys! Not condoning their actions or philosphies and we could discuss endlessly why people did, but there can be no doubt that people really did follow them. Err lets not discuss that though I get a headache just thinking about it!

 

I think this is what I'd like to see. Actual tangible consequences. The morality meter is abit pointless. It worked in older games, particularly dnd settings where the underlying framework of the ruleset made for clearly defined reception between various characters of different alignments and such. Games today don't have that same uniformity under the hood. But I feel like what we have in it's place is abit of an amorphous mess when it comes to the more questionable decisions. In order to let players know that the choice their making is an unsavoury one, BW has to make it red and ensure the delivery screams "Being an ass" it lacks subtlety.

 

 

 

[frylock23]

@KaiDdamori, OK, you're right. People did follow those guys. I guess to better explain, I am assuming we are supposed to be the heroes of the story which leaves us with two options: hero, anti-hero. People like the ones I mentioned are villains in the context of a game, and while there is a place for them in gaming, anyone who would be put in a video game as an NPC where we are assumed to be following a heroic storyline is going to be doing all kinds of character violating things if they're running around devoted to someone who behaves like Idi Amin.

 

But perhaps BioWare will suprised us and we'll actually be tasked with playing a murderous, dictatorial PC storyline and our only options are gradations between Caesar and Pol Pot.

[Drone223]

The series is better off without a morality systems since its way too arbitrary/simplistic.

[Draining Dragon]

I've never thought of Paragon and Renegade as being about morality. They represent reputation. Paragon is how much you are loved and lauded as a hero. Renegade is how much you are feared and regarded as a badass. They could have been implemented better, but the concept is sound.

[Dean_the_Young]

I think the Paragon/Renegade system will remain inherently contradictory as long as they use it as both a tone-based morality system (nice vs mean) and an ideological morality system (position A vs position . The two can be used separatly, but should never be crossed.

 

Tone-based morality is the worse one, in my opinion, because there is no logical consistency to it in terms of position or principle. 'Being nice' is always a matter of context, and suffers when actually pressed with complicated issues or viewpoints. When it gets tied into ideology, you get points of internal contradiction when 'nice' doesn't fit 'ideology'- such as Paragon Shepard's tendency to be an exemplar in justice and upholding the rules and opposing corruption, except when sympathetic friends needed the rules bent in their favor.

 

Ideological-based morality is more interesting to me. Some broad positions can be 'meaner' than others, but when there's a broad ideological position (such as ME's positions on Council politics- deference to fierce independence and skepticism), the tone can flip without making the player a hypocrite. If nuance makes you to favor tone over position... well, Paragade should certainly be for you.

 

But if you want any sort of ideological purity persuasion check- 'you must be this Paragon to be convincing'- the system should be consistent and have a clear idea of what it means to be 'Paragon' or 'Renegade.'