100 réponses à ce sujet

[Toasted Llama]

Pardon me if someone else has already made a thread like this.

 

Something that bugged me in the ME trilogy is that the paragon and renegade options were always two extremes and neutrality was never rewarded and sometimes even completely removed.

 

It was incredibly hard for me to create a renegade character I actually liked as renegade was basically summed up as 'a*hole'. Of course I also enjoy a complete and utter jackass/a*hole playthrough, but I'd appreciate it so much more if I could make some of my PCs more pragmatist with the same intentions as a paragon, but using the tools of a renegade to get there.

 

If I remember correctly, a lot of people tried to play paragade or renegon, but ended up being punished by the game for not choosing a side (not having enough points to choose certain paragon/renegade options)

 

What I'd like to see is a scenario where the goody-two-shoes character tries to use diplomacy but fails because it takes too long, the pragmatist succeeds at the cost of a life (or several) to save the many and an evil character makes things worse (to make a statement?) or twist the horrible situation to their own benefit.

 

I haven't been up to date with Andromeda as much as I'd like so if something like this has already been 'confirmed'  to be taken into account, just ignore this topic.

[TheN7Penguin]

I'd like to see some more damn right evil moments. But I also like the way the other games work in terms of morality, especially ME3.

[Mcfly616]

Paragon/Renegade system needs to be completely overhauled, if not removed entirely. Renegade choices should never be full-on "evil", but more aligned with an Anti-Hero. After all, we're not the villain. Paragon choices shouldn't be the "good choice" every time around. More often than not, good people get walked all over. It's a cold world/universe. Bioware should portray it a bit more realisticly instead of making us golden gods in a power fantasy.

[Sartoz]

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

 

Why is there a need for good/evil, paragon/renegade?

 

This game is about our protag fulfilling the mission mandate of colonization... finding a new home. Hard choices will be made but why must they be categorized?  Choices will make the mission mandate easier or more difficult.

 

A leader cannot allow their personal emotions get in the way of the mission mandate. Not in this case. This case is about humanity's survival in the cluster. There is no good/evil, paragon/renegade choices.... just survival choices, intelligent choices, good judgement vs poor/bad judgement. The RPG elements is evolving the leader's traits and skills... the necessary ones for making allies and fighting opponents.

 

Good/evil paragon/renegade are irrelevant in this game.

 

Well, that's my view.

 

PS: Since exploration is a main theme, will there be an "exploration trait/skill" in the attributes tree?

 

[Toasted Llama]

Paragon/Renegade system needs to be completely overhauled, if not removed entirely. Renegade choices should never be full-on "evil", but more aligned with an Anti-Hero. After all, we're not the villain. Paragon choices shouldn't be the "good choice" every time around. More often than not, good people get walked all over. It's a cold world/universe. Bioware should portray it a bit more realisticly instead of making us golden gods in a power fantasy.

 

 

I'd like to see some more damn right evil moments. But I also like the way the other games work in terms of morality, especially ME3.

 

Interesting how the first two posts already seem to go two completely different directions.

 

And funnily enough, I don't disagree with either.

[Toasted Llama]

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

 

Why is there a need for good/evil, paragon/renegade?

 

This game is about our protag fulfilling the mission mandate of colonization... finding a new home. Hard choices will be made but why must they be categorized?  Choices will make the mission mandate easier or more difficult.

 

A leader cannot allow their personal emotions get in the way of the mission mandate. Not in this case. This case is about humanity's survival in the cluster. There is no good/evil, paragon/renegade choices.... just survival choices, intelligent choices, good judgement vs poor/bad judgement. The RPG elements is evolving the leader's traits and skills... the necessary ones for making allies and fighting opponents.

 

Good/evil paragon/renegade are irrelevant in this game.

 

Well, that's my view.

 

PS: Since exploration is a main theme, will there be an "exploration trait/skill" in the attributes tree?

 

You raise a good point, but don't you think that the leader would be almost robotic? There'd be very little room for peronality other than skills/intellgience. As much as a leader should put aside their emotions, I think they - when it boils down to it - can't.

[Draining Dragon]

As I have stated in other threads on this topic, Paragon and Renegade is a perfectly good system as long as you make it about reputation (paragon=hero, renegade=badass), and not objective morality (paragon=good, renegade=evil).

[RoboticWater]

As I have stated in other threads on this topic, Paragon and Renegade is a perfectly good system as long as you make it about reputation (paragon=hero, renegade=badass), and not objective morality (paragon=good, renegade=evil).

The problem there is that actions aren't construed consistently across populations. Generally hero-liking people aren't going to like heroic actions if they benefit people they hate.

 

For a sci-fi game, where morality is almost guaranteed to differ across species from different planets, boiling down our actions to a one dimensional axis just isn't going to work.

[themikefest]

I just like to see more renegade interrupts. ME3 was lacking in that department

[capn233]

Mass Effect never really had a "good v evil" morality / reputation system.

[TheN7Penguin]

Interesting how the first two posts already seem to go two completely different directions.

 

And funnily enough, I don't disagree with either.

 

I like being evil in videogames, what can I say?

 

I spend most of my time murdering people and eating them in Fallout 4.

[themikefest]

I like being evil in videogames, what can I say?

Have you done a playthrough like the one in my signature? It might interest you.

[The Elder King]

I actually think a lot of ME2's renegade choices were more pragmatic then evil/extremistic, It was (in my opinion) the best portrayal of Renegade so far.

I don't think the P/R system is necessary though. I'd say it'd be interesting to scratch it and implement choices without putting them under labels, so they have more freedom. They can make different type of choices based on the various situations. It'd also mean the third choices aren't just a middle path between P/R.

[UpUpAway]

The player was not "punished" in ME2 for selecting some neutral options or for selecting different mixes of options that were labeled paragon or renegade.  The inability to resolve certain fights if the player did not lean a certain way was not a punishment... but rather an exercise that required the player to resolve keeping disloyal squad mates alive using other means available in the game.  It is entirely possible to save everyone and yet not have every squad mate loyal.

 

The issue with the paragon/renegade system is not, IMO, so much with the workings of the system... but in how people interpret it.  There are numerous places where the players can select neutral options or options that are on the opposite side of wheel from the primarly slant they want to give their characters where they are not actually forfeiting paragon or renegade points or being awarded unwanted paragon or renegade points.  The "fun" in developing a Shepard character rests in mixing up the individual convo choices to make a "complex" person rather than just following a self-imposed line of being a "paragon" or "renegade" or even a conventional "renagon" or "paragade" and working through the "consequences" (which involves resolving disputes in different ways or in relating to disloyal individuals).

 

Can improvements be made?  Certainly, but I really don't see where changing the labels does anything... people want consequences to be present in the game for their choices.  Regardless of how Bioware names these choices... people themselves are always going to head canon them into being about "good" or "evil" or "pragmatic" etc. etc. etc.  Ultimately, it will all still boil down to the choices you make in the game and whether or not you can accept the consequences of those choices (including the possibility of not being able to make everyone completely devoted to you).

 

Sartoz mentions an "exploration attributes/skill" tree... i.e. still a means of awarding "points" for convo choices?  If that's the case, then I guess the requirement for getting the most points might be for finding ways to pry additional details out of everyone (i.e. to thoroughly "explore" every topic) whether you "charm" or "intimidate" people... but sometimes being "neutral" IS the way to get people to talk more indepth as well... and here we go again, then.

[Pasquale1234]

As I have stated in other threads on this topic, Paragon and Renegade is a perfectly good system as long as you make it about reputation (paragon=hero, renegade=badass), and not objective morality (paragon=good, renegade=evil).

This sort of reminds me of the morality system in DA:O. If you'd invested some (non-combat) skill points in Coercion, you were given opportunities to attempt intimidation (badassery) or persuasion in certain conversations. The method of Coercion you used was not necessarily aligned with the decision you made.

I think part of the problem with paragon/renegade is that the words themselves sort of connote some form of objective morality is in play. That's not so much the case with intimidation (you can intimidate someone into doing the "right" thing) or persuasion (you can persuade someone to evil).

One of my issues with the way P/R points are accumulated is that there is an assumption of motives or morality behind the choices, or at least some of them. That wasn't entirely consistent throughout the series.

Of course, I'd also like to see the return of non-combat skills.

[AlanC9]

The player was not "punished" in ME2 for selecting some neutral options or for selecting different mixes of options that were labeled paragon or renegade.  The inability to resolve certain fights if the player did not lean a certain way was not a punishment... but rather an exercise that required the player to resolve keeping disloyal squad mates alive using other means available in the game.  It is entirely possible to save everyone and yet not have every squad mate loyal.

I don't follow the argument. Making the PC less capable of persuasion isn't a punishment?

And while you can save everyone without making everyone loyal, this requires knowing the Hold The Line values, which are not known to the player without metagaming and are not rationally determined.
 

The issue with the paragon/renegade system is not, IMO, so much with the workings of the system... but in how people interpret it.  There are numerous places where the players can select neutral options or options that are on the opposite side of wheel from the primarly slant they want to give their characters where they are not actually forfeiting paragon or renegade points or being awarded unwanted paragon or renegade points. 

Could you give an example of this?

As for the general topic, I'm going to agree with others upthread. Morality systems are worse than useless in RPGs and should never be implemented. Reputation systems can work, but in a situation like Andromeda you'll need multiple tracks.

[Yggdrasil]

I would prefer just being able to choose from a range of options without an overarching scorecard of my character's personality.  I don't think it's possible to implement a morality system that isn't mechanical.  Just let us make a choice with the way people react being the payoff for the kind of choice we made.

[KirkyX]

I would prefer just being able to choose from a range of options without an overarching scorecard of my character's personality.  I don't think it's possible to implement a morality system that isn't mechanical.  Just let us make a choice with the way people react being the payoff for the kind of choice we made.

Pretty much this. I'd still like some kind of persuasion mechanic - I like playing 'talky' characters in RPGs - but it ought to be tied to a skill, rather than your moral alignment.

 

On the 'scorecard':

It's not the same thing, exactly, but I will say that I really liked DA2's approach, having the personality type you identified with the most colour other character's reactions to you, the tone of your ambient dialogue, and a whole bunch of other stuff. It felt like a smart evolution of paragon/renegade that removed the moral/persuasion aspect - so you didn't feel compelled to just always pick one, regardless of whether it fit your idea of who your character was - and just helped make dialogue wheel-based role-playing easier.

[TheN7Penguin]

Have you done a playthrough like the one in my signature? It might interest you.

 

Done most of it. I like keeping most of the squadmates alive though. Also would never pick the Geth over the Quarians. Their helmets are too awesome.

[Sifr]

Paragon/Renegade system needs to be completely overhauled, if not removed entirely. Renegade choices should never be full-on "evil", but more aligned with an Anti-Hero. After all, we're not the villain. Paragon choices shouldn't be the "good choice" every time around. More often than not, good people get walked all over. It's a cold world/universe. Bioware should portray it a bit more realisticly instead of making us golden gods in a power fantasy.

 

I concur, Renegade half the time made Shepard come across as a bigoted, selfish and untrustworthy jerk that his subordinates would probably have rather fragged than remain loyal to. Rather than being a ruthless, driven and coldly pragmatic individual, RenShep's choices were often petty and cruel, like someone who'd kick puppies for no other reason because it was fun or amused them.

 

Renegade should be more like James Bond (the Daniel Craig iteration in particular), a character that ticks all the boxes for being a psychopath, but is functional enough to have chosen a line of work that allows them to direct their more negative tendencies towards positive ends, making them the perfect "blunt instrument" to be sent to deal with problems.

 

Being Neutral should get us some kind of benefit as well. Perhaps a Neutral score would allow us a better chance to solve things diplomatically because we're seen as impartial, unbiased and realistic. The Neutral's way of thinking ("Let's solve this via compromise"), would be seen a better choice than Paragon's unfettered idealism ("Let's solve this via peace") and Renegades pure pragmatism ("Let's solve this via force").

[Blooddrunk1004]

My biggest issue with paragon-renegade system is that many times it locks you from making a specific decision and it forces you to go down one path.

I also find it stupid that decisions like Rachni Queen, fate of Heretics and Collectors Base that are a lot more grey, yet it still tells you what is "good" and "bad".

[UpUpAway]

I don't follow the argument. Making the PC less capable of persuasion isn't a punishment?

And while you can save everyone without making everyone loyal, this requires knowing the Hold The Line values, which are not known to the player without metagaming and are not rationally determined.
 

Could you give an example of this?

As for the general topic, I'm going to agree with others upthread. Morality systems are worse than useless in RPGs and should never be implemented. Reputation systems can work, but in a situation like Andromeda you'll need multiple tracks.

 

The result of not being able to immediately persuade both squad mates to settle was to open up another whole round of possible dialogue with one or the other squad mates to regain their loyalty... since when does provide access to additional content in a videogame constitute "punishment" of the player?

 

In addition, if the player actually wanted to go into the SM with disloyal squad mates, not resolving the squabbles was a means of doing so without forfeiting the ability to have done that squad mate's loyalty mission (i.e. they could also access that content).

 

P/R System vs. Reputation System... IMO, same wolf, just sheep's clothing.

[SKAR]

Pardon me if someone else has already made a thread like this.

Something that bugged me in the ME trilogy is that the paragon and renegade options were always two extremes and neutrality was never rewarded and sometimes even completely removed.

It was incredibly hard for me to create a renegade character I actually liked as renegade was basically summed up as 'a*hole'. Of course I also enjoy a complete and utter jackass/a*hole playthrough, but I'd appreciate it so much more if I could make some of my PCs more pragmatist with the same intentions as a paragon, but using the tools of a renegade to get there.

If I remember correctly, a lot of people tried to play paragade or renegon, but ended up being punished by the game for not choosing a side (not having enough points to choose certain paragon/renegade options)

What I'd like to see is a scenario where the goody-two-shoes character tries to use diplomacy but fails because it takes too long, the pragmatist succeeds at the cost of a life (or several) to save the many and an evil character makes things worse (to make a statement?) or twist the horrible situation to their own benefit.

I haven't been up to date with Andromeda as much as I'd like so if something like this has already been 'confirmed' to be taken into account, just ignore this topic.

so between liberals and conservatives, you want to be independent. That is the best comparison I could sum up. P.S. let's not talk about politics here. Just making a comparison.

[AlanC9]

The result of not being able to immediately persuade both squad mates to settle was to open up another whole round of possible dialogue with one or the other squad mates to regain their loyalty... since when does provide access to additional content in a videogame constitute "punishment" of the player?

If I can't pass the earlier check, I probably won't pass the later check either -- it's possible, but unlikely, since the mechanics are the same and the P/R breakpoints aren't separated by much. Though I suppose the additional content counts for something anyway.
 

In addition, if the player actually wanted to go into the SM with disloyal squad mates, not resolving the squabbles was a means of doing so without forfeiting the ability to have done that squad mate's loyalty mission (i.e. they could also access that content).

I'll take your word for it that this is a thing. The approach is so metagamey that I didn't even consider it.
 

P/R System vs. Reputation System... IMO, same wolf, just sheep's clothing.

You can think of P/R as a reputation system, sure. The problem is that the P/R implementation would be an awful and incoherent reputation system. I prefer to think of P/R as controlling Shepard's skill checks instead because it limits the damage to that skill rather than NPC reactions in general.

[UpUpAway]

If I can't pass the earlier check, I probably won't pass the later check either -- it's possible, but unlikely, since the mechanics are the same and the P/R breakpoints aren't separated by much. Though I suppose the additional content counts for something anyway.
 

I'll take your word for it that this is a thing. The approach is so metagamey that I didn't even consider it.
 
You can think of P/R as a reputation system, sure. The problem is that the P/R implementation would be an awful and incoherent reputation system. I prefer to think of P/R as controlling Shepard's skill checks instead because it limits the damage to that skill rather than NPC reactions in general.

 

The approach can be relevant to a certain type of role play... for example, the Shepard who loves Miranda but sides with Jack philosophically about Cerberus.  It's a means of constructing yet a different story within the confines of an inherently limited platform (cinematic RPGs).  Yes, many players "view" it as "punishment"... but that different players will insert their own "good" vs. "bad" connotations into the mix is part of why I'm saying that morality systems and reputation systems are virtually the same thing... just with different labels (sort of like 'politically correct" language).  In order to construct "consequences" to actions, the game endeavours to keep track of (count, etc.) or assign a value to various actions in order to change the content of the game in some way to "match" those actions.  The total paragon=good and renegade=evil is really, IMO, more a construct of the player base.  If metagaming means that I discard the blanket good/evil association and just work with the various paths the game takes me down relative to whatever personality I'm constructing for my Shepard in that playthrough... then yeah, it's metagaming.  Works for me and I don't get hung up on whether my Shepard is "good" or "evil" and it allows me to add depth to my PC.