91 réponses à ce sujet

[Nomadder]

I'm writing this not to get into a debate, but simply to voice my concern so that hopefully the devs see.  If others agree then hopefully they add their voices.
Mass Effect is supposedly about player choices, but at a certain point, if you
play any way other than "Super Nice Guy" or "Galactic Jackass" you
start finding yourself punished with fewer dialogue options, and in
many less desirable situations because of that.
(...Some of which would seem to be
common sense for ANYONE.  Like NOT picking a side in a cat fight. 
Apparently since I only had three bars of Paragon, and one of Renegade,
I was too stupid to figure out that YOU DON'T PICK A SIDE. 
Also, in the interrogatioon scene, since I was too much of a
goody-goody, I wasn't able to say "I'm a Spectre", but apparently
I wasn't too nice to think of beating the guy to a pulp... )
Why am I being punished for adding nuance and balance to my character?
Taking out persuasion/intimidation and simply basing it on choices might have seemed like a good idea on paper, but it actually discourages playing freely.  It discourages "playing like I would be".  It discourages real CHOICE.
To restate, why are we following a model of Specialization and Comparitive Advantage... for personality and morality???

I have other problems with the game, and I suppose I'll quickly list them just in case anybody from Bioware listens.  I'm sure some of these have been gone over in other posts so I won't go into detail.
Simplistic overhaul of inventory and skill systems.
Why do the character sub-plots now comprise the bulk of the game?

There, those are my concerns with the direction the series has taken.

[MonkeyLungs]

My second play through is more of a nuetral character ... I'm starting to think I need to boost some points on one side so i can talk through some situations better but it was my choice to be a paragon sometimes and a renagde other times. I just did what felt my character would do, rather than always choosing one side or the other.

[Deiser]

While I do agree that the removal of the intimidate/charm skills were not an improvement, I think of it this way: You designed your character in such a way that he ends up never believing in the extreme views of both Renegade and Paragon sides. As such, why would he want to suddenly show such an extreme opinion (the options you can't pick) when he was never really inclined to before?



Also, why is your post formatted so oddly?

[CzarBlip]

I actually agree with this. I'm playing through as a renegade, but I find sometimes I have to be a douche for no reason just to get more points.

[Jigero]

It's because life isn't about being neutral, even in life, being too neutral even in life it either pisses everyone off or no one even cares about your opinion. And your not handcuffed even though I was full paragon I still did some renegade things I thought weren't so bad and even made a few neutral choices and the Neutral thing is only  to supplement not be you main choice.

Modifié par Jigero, 01 février 2010 - 05:09 .

[Nomadder]

Sorry for the strange formatting, I copy/pasted and it got all screwy.

The point is that if you take a more neutral path the game punishes you for not specializing, not just by removing dialogue options, but by leaving you in crappier situations because of those missing options. In effect, punishing you for playing any way other than pure paragon/renegade.

Modifié par Nomadder, 01 février 2010 - 05:10 .

[boardnfool86]

I agree, I get where BioWare is coming from, it was too easy in ME1 to max out both bars, albeit at the expense of other categories.



The problem is, I like the RP in RPG, and I would never goody two shoes my way through every conversation. I am nice off the bat, but **** with me and I'll get heated, which, especially if I was Shepard and lived outside the law, I'll punch you in your face - I don't know how they could do it better, I just wish you had a little more control other than letting it dictate every encounter



I love walking the line of moral ambiguity

[Selvec_Darkon]

After DA they probably wanted to run and hide from Grey areas xD.

[MonkeyLungs]

My character for PT2 has made paragon or renegade choices based on the situation, not a meta-gaming knowledge that I will need more of one type of point later on. She is mostly a good hearted person, she doesn't like hurting innocents, but she doesn't have much mercy for people that would have been shooting at her had the situation turned out a little different.



By just making choices that made sense to me I have earned almost an equal amount of ren/para points and it is starting to get to the point where I don't quite have enough of either to get charm or intimidate options.



Further, alot of the renegade choices aren't just 'not so bad' but are actually the things you should be doing. Walking around being all nicey nicey in situations with tons of hostiles and people with guns ready to shoot you would be a sure fire to get killed.

[Nuclear_Xmas]

should'nt you have to work to get some of the more helpful paragon choices?

[Deiser]

Nomadder wrote...

Sorry for the strange formatting, I copy/pasted and it got all screwy.

The point is that if you take a more neutral path the game punishes you for not specializing, not just by removing dialogue options, but by leaving you in crappier situations because of those missing options. In effect, punishing you for playing any way other than pure paragon/renegade.

But that's what I mean by what I said earlier. If Shepard maintains a generally-neutral tone the entire time, then realistically he'd not have a more-extreme view. For example, if he doesn't care one way or another about how species-based racism is handled for most of the story, it'd be very unlikely (and probably unrealistic) if suddenly he blurted out that killing non-humans was right/wrong.

The reason why a more "neutral" tone is punished here is mainly because you're also not taking a firm decision on any one thing, and as such other people won't take you seriously. On top of that, neutrality for the most part means you aren't influencing events as heavily as you would if you went for an extreme (since you're essentially going to be pushing and pushing your beliefs until something comes out of it) and that lack of of influence means that you won't get as many extra opportunities in your ME2 life.

[Profane69]

Nuclear_Xmas wrote...

should'nt you have to work to get some of the more helpful paragon choices?

If they gave us more than one paragon choice then yes.  Watching Tali suffer because i base my conversation responses on what i think instead of powergaming paragon/renegade only choices just makes me want to quit playing the game.


And Deiser you are missing out on the fact that its possible to have quite extreme viewpoints towards both renegade and paragon based on the situation.  I took that internet political questionary and it put me exactly the same place as Gandhi and im a firm believer in capital punishment and an eye for an eye justice.

Modifié par Profane69, 01 février 2010 - 05:35 .

[sinosleep]

I have 3 bars of paragon, 41/2 of renegade and I broke up the catfight without picking a side just fine. I didn't even choose the paragon boosting ability to evolve, I went Destroyer instead of champion. The only option I wanted that was greyed out for me all game was the "I'm a spectre" reply.

Modifié par sinosleep, 01 février 2010 - 05:35 .

[SnowHeart1]

Meh.  Look, I had the same "issue" on my first playthrough.  I was mostly Paragon but had quite a few Renegade points, too.  And, actually, for most of the game that gave me MORE dialogue options -- not fewer.  Let's be clear about that.

I did wind up with a few points were I did not have both options highlighted, but I only had ONE incident where neither were highlighted, and that was the "cat fight" to which you're referring.  Maybe for some reason you experienced more problems with this than I did -- as Bioware likes to claim, nobody's experience will be the same as anyone elses.  But, I guess I just don't see the big deal. 

[ITSSEXYTIME]

Charm/Intimidate have always been "get out of jail free" cards.



tbh I've yet to play a bioware game (or even any game) with a morality system that didn't strongly encourage you to play exclusively one extreme or the other. There's never any depth to the decisions you make especially in ME where the "Good decision" is always on the top right and the "Bad" decision is always on the bottom right.



Morality is always done so poorly in games.

[sinosleep]

SnowHeart1 wrote...

Meh.  Look, I had the same "issue" on my first playthrough.  I was mostly Paragon but had quite a few Renegade points, too.  And, actually, for most of the game that gave me MORE dialogue options -- not fewer.  Let's be clear about that.

I did wind up with a few points were I did not have both options highlighted, but I only had ONE incident where neither were highlighted, and that was the "cat fight" to which you're referring.  Maybe for some reason you experienced more problems with this than I did -- as Bioware likes to claim, nobody's experience will be the same as anyone elses.  But, I guess I just don't see the big deal. 

Yup, I had more options than the average player becuase more often than not both the paragon AND renegade options were available to me, whereas if you go to one extreme or the other after a while you lose out on the opportunity to occasionally go the other way.

[Nomadder]

Deiser wrote...

Nomadder wrote...

Sorry for the strange formatting, I copy/pasted and it got all screwy.

The point is that if you take a more neutral path the game punishes you for not specializing, not just by removing dialogue options, but by leaving you in crappier situations because of those missing options. In effect, punishing you for playing any way other than pure paragon/renegade.

But that's what I mean by what I said earlier. If Shepard maintains a generally-neutral tone the entire time, then realistically he'd not have a more-extreme view. For example, if he doesn't care one way or another about how species-based racism is handled for most of the story, it'd be very unlikely (and probably unrealistic) if suddenly he blurted out that killing non-humans was right/wrong.

The reason why a more "neutral" tone is punished here is mainly because you're also not taking a firm decision on any one thing, and as such other people won't take you seriously. On top of that, neutrality for the most part means you aren't influencing events as heavily as you would if you went for an extreme (since you're essentially going to be pushing and pushing your beliefs until something comes out of it) and that lack of of influence means that you won't get as many extra opportunities in your ME2 life.

So we reward extremism?  What about diplomacy, persuasion, or manipulation?  Since when did the ability to sway others come from morality?  Games that base your dialogue choices on INTELLIGENCE always seem to make the most sense to me.  Certainly you can defend the game with its own logic.  I'm saying that logic is flawed.
Also, I haven't made one neutral choice in the game.  I've alternated between P/R, but apparenlyt I'm just not extreme enough to break up a catfight I guess.
Even if the dev team is following this logic of extremism, the end result is that you ARE punished.  And for a game supposedly about choices, this discouragement of real choice, regardless of the reasoning, goes against the stated design philosophy.

"The best lack all conviction, while the worst are full of passionate intensity."
-W B Yeats

Modifié par Nomadder, 01 février 2010 - 06:10 .

[danielxrefused]

Interaggation? Bah thanks for the spoilers

Please at least try not to reveal plot elements not matter how small they are.

I sort of agree with your post up until that sentence (refused to read more ) as it can be a pain seeing as there is no benefit to being a neutral kind of character. That said, thats exactly the kind of treatment someone might expect for a neutral character.

[Svest]

I've been playing a fairly neutral path as well (slightly more paragon but not by much) and I have never had this problem. Almost every single time both renegade and paragon options have been available. I guess it depends on how you play neutral. I'm tough with some people and nice to others depending on the situation. That gives me plenty of points in both. If you always pick the middle path you won't get those points, but it also makes sense from a role-play perspective that if you always pick the middle of the road option you wouldn't have the extremes available to you.

Also, you do not have to pick sides in the cat fight you mention. There is an option to tell them both to knock it off even if the other options are grayed out.

Edit: OP do you have your class skill that boosts paragon/renegade bonuses maxed out?  Maybe that's the difference.  Mine is maxed and I don't have a problem.

Modifié par Svest, 01 février 2010 - 06:12 .

[AtreiyaN7]

There's never going to be a perfect system, but this is somewhat more organic than just dumping points into persuade or intimidate at least. Look, if you want to play both sides and make strictly situational decisions without taking a definitive stance on anything like that other user said, then you have to accept that you're not going to be highly persuasive or terribly intimidating. What happens is based on your actions and you chose your path. I did many things, mostly Paragon, some Renegade. I played it as being someone who does good but also as someone who will occasionally get dirty if necessary. Did you up Assault Mastery/whatever it is in your class that gives you Paragon/Renegade bonuses? That may or may not help you.

[CzarBlip]

Also, rather than paragon-renegade, it should say pacifist-douchebag. A lot of the paragon options are giving a pass to someone who is going to kill more people. I have yet to see many options that I would consider as being a renegade, but you get frequent points for being a total douche to people.

[AntiChri5]

I hate having to restrict myself to one or the other.

[LoweGear]

And even then, being all Paragon sometimes nets "bad" results depending on your point of view... like one one mission where I chose the Paragon responses, then found out that the person I talked to was a killer. Had I known, I would've gone Renegade on that part.



As already mentioned though, it's not like because you made one Renegade choice in-game doesn't mean you had to go Renegade all the way: Mass Effect 2 does give you the option of doing both Paragon and Renegade actions throughout the game, and sometimes even completely Paragon or Renegade responses will net out both Paragon points and Renegade points. And then there were all the Renegade Interrupts I did even when I was playing an all-Paragon stance.

[Enoch VG]

ITSSEXYTIME wrote...
Charm/Intimidate have always been "get out of jail free" cards.

tbh I've yet to play a bioware game (or even any game) with a morality system that didn't strongly encourage you to play exclusively one extreme or the other. There's never any depth to the decisions you make especially in ME where the "Good decision" is always on the top right and the "Bad" decision is always on the bottom right.

Morality is always done so poorly in games.

This. 

Building in 'morality points' is an easy way for developers to say that the players' choices have consequences, without having to do any extra design work.  Giving you +2 on your character sheet is a lot easier than, say, making other characters react in realistic and interesting ways.  Make this +2 a step toward a larger power-up, and you satisfy the Progress-Quest urge that RPG players get, too.

In KotOR and their earlier D&D stuff, tying character abilities to morality meters made sense because there were defined metaphysical reasons why being "good" or "evil" would have some effect on your future options.  (Falling to the darkside and all that rot.)  I really don't know why Bio imported this into the ME universe, though.  (Note that this was also in ME1 in a slightly different form-- the maximum points that you could put towards Charm/Intimidate was determined by your Jerk/Sap status.)

One possible solution if they don't want to upset the whole apple cart:  Include situations where only 1 of Charm/Intimidate can work, with medium-level thresholds to pass.  It's logical, and it leads to a result where purists will miss some opportunities just like more neutral characters do now. 

Off-topic, but the game I'm looking to as a chance to break this trend is Alpha Protocol.