13 réponses à ce sujet

[tmelange]

I just finshed my first playthrough of ME2 and I'm trying to pinpoint my lingering sense of...dissatisfaction with what is obviously a superior effort on the part of the BW developers, and I think I've gotten it narrowed down to the Loyalty system as the thematic crux of ME2.

Does anyone else out there feel like it was...a poor thematic choice to enable Shepard to gain the loyalty of his entire team? I think the game would have been much more emotionally griping for me if I could only sway a portion of the team to "loyalty" as an absolute restriction (for instance, a paragon is never going to gain the loyalty of the morally ambiguous characters). I played a paragon as I usually do and I'm basically all noble and nice to everyone, and it seemed that simply by being so, and by doing each character's sidequest in an understanding manner, you had loyalty as a given. The only two times there were conflict (Miranda/Jack, Tali/Legion) I had enough charm to keep everyone happy. The fact that it is so easy to engender the loyalty of the entire crew by simply being nice and doing their sidequest took away from the exigency of the circumstances, the importance of the decision on who to cultivate, and the consequences of being consistent to your alignment as a player-character. Sure, you could simply decide not to do a squad member's sidequest, but why would you do that unless you're setting up a contrivance? I hazard a guess that most people would do all the sidequests as a matter of course.

Anyway, my conclusion is that although the whole Loyalty system as the main thing that you're "doing" in the game (trying to get your team ready) seems really good in theory, in practice it's not what it's cracked up to be. It's a lot of sound, signifying nothing. Makes a good sound bite or video clip but the real gut impact is not there. I don't think this game did as good a job as DA:O in mapping mutually exclusive decisions in the playthrough to significant consequences in the endgame.

Or, perhaps, my experience is simply a consequence of playing an absolute paragon. lol

[packardbell]

Then don't do the personal missions of the 'morally ambiguous' characters.



Problem solved.

[izmirtheastarach]

I don't believe in the Kobayashi Maru. I absolutely hated the forced choice on Virmire in ME1. I saved Kaidan, but told Ashley that I would be coming for her too, but then the game would not let me do so.

The fact that I was able to bring my whole team into line through my leadership and character is great. And that fact that I was able to reach the end of the game without anyone dying is great too.

I do understand what you are saying, though. But if I was unable to keep everyone alive, I would not have been happy with the game.

Modifié par izmirtheastarach, 30 janvier 2010 - 11:03 .

[COdeNameSly]

I agree. I would have preferred there be some sort of approval system. Doing the loyalty quest would give you a HUGE boost, but you'd still have to work hard, choose the right dialog options, etc. to get opposite-aligned team members loyal.

[tmelange]

packardbell wrote...

Then don't do the personal missions of the 'morally ambiguous' characters.

Problem solved.

Why would I simply not do the sidequest of some of my squadmates, when I'm doing all the others? Why would I do this from a reality perspective when the loyalty missions are so important to the gameplay? You're being facetious in "solving" my problem, your response being analagous to telling a reader that complains about story development to simply "skip over that chapter".

[tmelange]

izmirtheastarach wrote...

I don't believe in the Kobayashi Maru. I absolutely hated the forced choice on Virmire in ME1. I saved Kaidan, but told Ashley that I would be coming for her too, but then the game would not let me do so.

The fact that I was able to bring my whole team into line through my leadership and character is great. And that fact that I was able to reach the end of the game without anyone dying is great too.

I do understand what you are saying, though. But if I was unable to keep everyone alive, I would not have been happy with the game.

I can understand this point. I think, however, I would have preferred there be some way to mitigate the dis-loyalty of squadmembers so that you could still succeed at the end; it would just be harder, and require more tactical planning, perhaps knowing where to use a person with conflicted loyalties as opposed to relying on them to go the extra mile just because you asked him/her to. For instance, even though I had Zaeed's loyalty, I assumed that because he's the only squadmate being paid that his loyalty was...transitory. I sent him back to the ship with the rescued crewmembers. I'm just saying that the Loyalty system was almost...too easy, and turned the crux of the story into a checklist, instead of a series of gripping choices.

[Evil_Sarevok]

I'd rather not have to go for the whole effort of switching out a character when I dont want to loose rep with them on a situation I dont like, or end up having a female character bite my head off for talking to the other because I raised rep with two female characters using trinkets and such. The DA:O method seemed a bit long winded to me, that being said some characters would be automatically loyal in ME2 due to past events really.... Though the missions for loyalty are normally quite short, its normally something that affects them personally and greatly so going out of your way for them is a reason enough for loyalty, and its not grindy for re-playthroughs, unlike the scanning and resource gathering would be.

Modifié par Evil_Sarevok, 30 janvier 2010 - 11:25 .

[Edje Edgar]

packardbell wrote...

Then don't do the personal missions of the 'morally ambiguous' characters.

Problem solved.

If you look at it from an RPG perspective, which the author clearly does, then that would be considered meta game thinking. Clearly the OP prefers to stay true to character, a paragon would be weary of jack for example but there is no moral reason not to blow up the facility. Apart from it being empty and long abandoned, it was an "evil" project anyway. A choice that would have made a LOT more sense for a paragon would be simply not to take jack on. But there's no way to close the quest line and do so.

[tmelange]

COdeNameSly wrote...

I agree. I would have preferred there be some sort of approval system. Doing the loyalty quest would give you a HUGE boost, but you'd still have to work hard, choose the right dialog options, etc. to get opposite-aligned team members loyal.

I can see how making the Loyalty system be an either/or (Loyal/Not Loyal) is a simplification of the typical RPG system of the increasing/decreasing approval meter, and liikely it will appeal to most, but I found it too...superficial to be engaging. There was no gradient, lol, which, I suppose, is the nature of an either/or proposition.

I guess I'm basically saying that I'm not feeling this particular change to the traditional RPG paradigm. LOL

[packardbell]

tmelange wrote...

packardbell wrote...

Then don't do the personal missions of the 'morally ambiguous' characters.

Problem solved.

Why would I simply not do the sidequest of some of my squadmates, when I'm doing all the others? Why would I do this from a reality perspective when the loyalty missions are so important to the gameplay? You're being facetious in "solving" my problem, your response being analagous to telling a reader that complains about story development to simply "skip over that chapter".

You're also under the assumption that most of the renegade types of the group are complete psychos and close-minded to the paragon path and unable to listen to reason.

That is story progression by itself, the games story does not progress via real time y'know.

[Engagin Psyco]

Well you can't gain the loyalty of everyone. If you mess up on Samara's loyalty mission by letting her daughter get away, I don't think there is any way to get her loyalty. And I'm sure there is some missions other than that that you can lose, but idk..... and to Edje Edgar: instead of not letting Jack on, just find a way to get her killed; that completely solves that problem lol

[tmelange]

Evil_Sarevok wrote...

I'd rather not have to go for the whole effort of switching out a character when I dont want to loose rep with them on a situation I dont like, or end up having a female character bite my head off for talking to the other because I raised rep with two female characters using trinkets and such. The DA:O method seemed a bit long winded to me, that being said some characters would be automatically loyal in ME2 due to past events really.... Though the missions for loyalty are normally quite short, its normally something that affects them personally and greatly so going out of your way for them is a reason enough for loyalty, and its not grindy for re-playthroughs, unlike the scanning and resource gathering would be.

I think you're missing my point. I'm not disputing whether the sidequests are reason enough for loyalty. I'm arguing that there should be some depth to the notion of engendering a person's loyalty; that such a decision take into account more than a finite series of actions that can be accomplished regardless of any mitigating factor, and that the determination be based in some measure of traditional RPG concepts like alignment, because, in reality, people with diametrically opposed dispostions tend to not get along.

Modifié par tmelange, 30 janvier 2010 - 11:41 .

[tmelange]

Edje Edgar wrote...

packardbell wrote...

Then don't do the personal missions of the 'morally ambiguous' characters.

Problem solved.

If you look at it from an RPG perspective, which the author clearly does, then that would be considered meta game thinking. Clearly the OP prefers to stay true to character, a paragon would be weary of jack for example but there is no moral reason not to blow up the facility. Apart from it being empty and long abandoned, it was an "evil" project anyway. A choice that would have made a LOT more sense for a paragon would be simply not to take jack on. But there's no way to close the quest line and do so.

I also think the game would have benefited from allowing the PC the option to not take someone on, or to dismiss them. I would still want to be able to complete the game successfully, however, but it would just be harder.

[tmelange]

Engagin Psyco wrote...

Well you can't gain the loyalty of everyone. If you mess up on Samara's loyalty mission by letting her daughter get away, I don't think there is any way to get her loyalty. And I'm sure there is some missions other than that that you can lose, but idk..... and to Edje Edgar: instead of not letting Jack on, just find a way to get her killed; that completely solves that problem lol

I gained the loyalty of everyone. Quite easily, in fact, which might be a side effect of playing a straight paragon. However, this comes back to my original point that the Loyalty system seems to be saying that the PC can engender anyone's loyalty, regardless of their personality, character and circumstances, just because he's a nice guy. lol