91 réponses à ce sujet

[Sylvius the Mad]

Morality meters always encourage choosing one side over the other. That's why it's better for games not to have them. This is a clear improvement DAO made over previous BioWare games, including Mass Effect.

Given that they're willing to change the game dramatically from one entry to the next, hopefully they'll completely remove the morality meter in ME3.

[Blue_dodo]

Deiser wrote...

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?

I hated having to put points in those, between that and other skills, I prefer who me2 handes it, now it is more based off of your alignment but if you have both bars high you may actually keep yourself from an intimidating/charming...not so big on that lol.

personally I like the options, yes it would be nice if there were more nuetral options but you can't always get want.

[AntiChri5]

LoweGear wrote...

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.

Yes and at that point (pretty sure what you are talking about) The Renegade interrupt is to shoot her when she pulls out her gun.

What? That is the RENEGADE interrupt? Someone in an enemy uniform pulls a gun on me and i shoot her that is considered ruthless?

[finnithe]

Bioware's justification for killing her is that she was begging for her life, and you still shot her. I think it's good that they're punishing you for choosing to spare her. My problem with the morality system is that there's not much incentive to choose one side or another as you know there will be a way out either way.



I played the game without devoting myself to one side or another, and by the end of the game, i had around 8x% renegade an 6x% paragon. There were only a few situations where I could not do the charm option, but the intimidate option was usually just as diplomatic then. I think it's luck.

[AntiChri5]

finnithe wrote...

Bioware's justification for killing her is that she was begging for her life, and you still shot her. I think it's good that they're punishing you for choosing to spare her. My problem with the morality system is that there's not much incentive to choose one side or another as you know there will be a way out either way.

I played the game without devoting myself to one side or another, and by the end of the game, i had around 8x% renegade an 6x% paragon. There were only a few situations where I could not do the charm option, but the intimidate option was usually just as diplomatic then. I think it's luck.

If you beg for your life fine, i will consider letting you live, make your case. go for your gun while pleading your innocence and i shoot.

[casedawgz]

I played as relatively neutral, and the only choices I wasn't able to do were the intimidate while playing good cop/bad cop, and the charm/intimidate at the end of Samara's quest. Beyond that, I was basically able to charm or intimidate as I saw fit for the entire game, and had no problems with the implementation.

[Invalidcode]

Agree with most point.
First play through I am sort of in the middle group, P:R is around 6:4. There are a few thing I wanted to solve but cannot because I don't have enough P or R point to unlock the conversation.

Current play through I am going full R but actually most choices I made are the same as my first play through, but to get enough R point to unlock the conversation I had to force to pick the 'douche bag' lines so I get enough points.

And there are some problems that even you do full P/R, you are forced to do those missions late if you want to have a chance to unlock the conversation option since it requires a very high P/R check.

ME1 handles it better, it gave you the choice to put talent points to charm/int. ME2 on paper have talent that increases you P/R, but those are necessity tbh this time.

Modifié par Invalidcode, 03 février 2010 - 07:05 .

[rumination888]

Its not your morality meter. Its your persuasion/intimidation skill. Armor that adds to negotiation directly adds to your paragon/renegade bar. If you can't pick a top left choice, its because your persuasion skills suck. If you can't pick a bottom left choice, its because your intimidation skills suck.

[LoweGear]

I actually didn't like sinking points into charm/intimidate in ME1 for some reason. It just felt... artificial to me, and given that you get points from having a high renegade and paragon score anyway having to dump points was pretentious. I'd rather that my in-game actions reflect my interactions instead of acquiring it through skill points.



Also, it's not like ME2 forces you to be all-Paragon/all-Renegade anyway, since you can be a paragon in one conversation and renegade in another, and still have enough points on each for some of the decisions.

[Coik]

I really didn't have a problem with the way the paragon/renegade system works in ME2. My Shep is a pretty staunch Paragon (though she does it at least as much to have people grateful to her and owing her favors as "it's the right thing to do"), but is just Renegade enough to keep people guessing. I really like the implementation of the interrupts for this reason; as far as I can tell there's no meter requirement for them, and it lets my Paragon Shep shove some d-bag out of an 80th story window if he pisses her off too much.

[Ravenshrike]

Deiser wrote...
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.

Whether or not you really give a crap about species based racism and whether you would care about actual killing and violence against aliens are entirely two separate things.

[ODST 5723]

I think the main issue here is not the morality system, but that some people are disatisfied that they cannot achieve their optimal solution without following a certain path.



Unfortunately, that's life.



I found that it wasn't very difficult to be full paragon on the meter and choose some very renegade options.

[newcomplex]

I agree.



Their needs to be more renegade/paragon specific choices. Their are a few in the game, but not NEARLY enough.

[Frotality]

agreed completely. the evolution of the morality system in games is its removal, let us face the consequence of our actions directly and make our own morality of it.

[LoweGear]

I really like the implementation of the interrupts for this reason; as far as I can tell there's no meter requirement for them, and it lets my Paragon Shep shove some d-bag out of an 80th story window if he pisses her off too much.

Yes, the Interrupts have no meter requirement, just a good eye and a fast finger to engage it. I also like the interrupts because they're often so enticing to press, and the rewards are satisfying (*cough* Al Jalani *cough* ).

[paysage]

My explanation/excuse for the meters and this phenomenon goes a couple ways. One is that the meters represent "charm/intimidate XP." Practice makes perfect and all that. The other is that they represent fame/infamy. If you're famous for being really diplomatic and for helping people, someone you're trying to persuade is more likely to believe you're genuine, and if you're known for busting a few kneecaps to get the job done, someone you're trying to intimidate is going to have that in mind.



It's not perfect and it doesn't capture every aspect of persuasion, fame, and morality, but short of having an AI ship as part of the game engine to analyze your choices and adjust accordingly (which the 13th amendment ought to prohibit), we're going to end up with these simplifications.

[Justin2k]

Crawling_Chaos wrote...

There is no "real choice." This isn't for you to play "like you would in real life" Games like this are akin to Choose Your Own Adventure books.

This.

People are confusing ME with a RPG where you can play as yourself.  I.e DA, Oblivion etc etc.

This is a story driven RPG.  Shepard is pretty much set out as Bioware wants him and you can have him good or evil.

Its more a choose your own adventure than a full fledged RPG and this is why a lot of people are upset with it.  Although I find it a great concept.

[unda647]

What Sylvius posted is 100% correct. Morality systems imo need to evolve or go the way of the dinosaur. In dragon age you make each choice based on the consequences it could have not the good/evil points that come with it. It's cool to see if you been more paragon or renegade but really it just puts pressure on you to stick to one path and that's it.



I hope in 3rd bioware adds a persuasion skill where we decide between paragon and renegade response.

[fortunesque]

Yeah, the new system totally screws over the Paragades/Renegons.



I mean, in ME1, my choices led me to be about 60% renegade and 40% paragon. Now they are forcing you into choosing an alignment so you can get better outcomes.



If the decisions are supposed to be about morally gray areas in this game (which the devs have touted), then we should be able to have a morally gray character without a penalty to our dialogue options.



Charm and intimidate should be skills; after all, they're 'skills' of a sort in real life.

[newcomplex]

Justin2k wrote...

Crawling_Chaos wrote...

There is no "real choice." This isn't for you to play "like you would in real life" Games like this are akin to Choose Your Own Adventure books.

This.

People are confusing ME with a RPG where you can play as yourself.  I.e DA, Oblivion etc etc.

This is a story driven RPG.  Shepard is pretty much set out as Bioware wants him and you can have him good or evil.

Its more a choose your own adventure than a full fledged RPG and this is why a lot of people are upset with it.  Although I find it a great concept.

That really has no bearing on bioware not rewarding players for role playing mixed alignment shepherd (aka: acting like a real person)

[Ahglock]

paysage wrote...

My explanation/excuse for the meters and this phenomenon goes a couple ways. One is that the meters represent "charm/intimidate XP." Practice makes perfect and all that. The other is that they represent fame/infamy. If you're famous for being really diplomatic and for helping people, someone you're trying to persuade is more likely to believe you're genuine, and if you're known for busting a few kneecaps to get the job done, someone you're trying to intimidate is going to have that in mind.

It's not perfect and it doesn't capture every aspect of persuasion, fame, and morality, but short of having an AI ship as part of the game engine to analyze your choices and adjust accordingly (which the 13th amendment ought to prohibit), we're going to end up with these simplifications.

Or they coulkd just remove the entire morality bar and just have choices and responses to those chocies, like the good ol days

[Malcroix]

I agree with the OP, although from a slightly different viewpoint.

Morality ---> Persuasion kinda makes sense (you "train" ruthlessness -> you become better with intimidation; you practice kindness and compassion -> you're better at charm; you try to be jack of both trades -> you're master of none).

What I'm starting to hate, though, is that some choices end up costing you content in the future games.

Examples:

I follow the Renegade code. In ME1, I killed Shiala and destroyed the Rachni queen. In ME2, I don't get to access the Shiala and Rachni quests. Maybe I've lost Thorian/Rachni connected content in ME3 as well.

Now, playing ME2, I'm starting to be afraid of making Renegade choices - because it may cost me content in ME3! Do I have to take Paragon characters through three games just to be able to access content which should have been available to ALL players? Because I don't want that, I find Paragon annoying and would never consider playing one through ME1 - ME2 - ME3.

Instead of just cutting out content for Renegades, why couldn't BioWare come up with alternative missions? And depending on your choice in the previous game, you'd get either one or the other, not one or nothing!

It's either an underhanded marketing trick, or not enough creativity on BioWare's part. If they want a FULLY functioning morality system, they've gotta stop scaring players with losing content in the next installment of the series.

Modifié par Malcroix, 03 février 2010 - 08:02 .

[ranger smith]

The hottest places in hell are reserved for those who, in times of great moral crisis, retain their neutrality.



And Jack > You.

[Invalidcode]

ODST 5723 wrote...

I think the main issue here is not the morality system, but that some people are disatisfied that they cannot achieve their optimal solution without following a certain path.

Unfortunately, that's life.

True on paper.
The thing is that sometimes it handcuff the players too much, let me use my first character for example: There is a mission that I cannot achieve the optimal solution, I found out yesterday from my 2nd character (a full R) the end result if I achieve the optimal solution and I really want it for ME3 import.
So chances are I will replay the first character and make all the same choices again, the difference is that I just have to talk to everyone like a douche bag OR a pure saint so I get enough P:R for that mission. But all the other decision that actually matters will remain the same.

Dragon age didn't have this problem, in ME1 you could 'fix' it by spending talent points.

[LoweGear]

The thing is, the threshold to having high Paragon/Renegade points in ME2 is much lower than in ME1. I had full Paragon even before I got halfway through the game, so I had much more freedom to pursue Renegade options. And since decisions from both sides net both Paragon and Renegade points, you can still level up one side or the other.



And Mass Effect 2 is morally grey: many Paragon and Renegade choices are actually justifiable no matter which way you go, especially in the latter parts of the game. Like how I outlined my experience with that killer ingame earlier, sometimes being a pure Paragon might turn out to be a "wrong" decision, while being a Renegade isn't necessarily bad, just different. You're morally grey because no matter if you choose being a Renegade or a Paragon, there are always positive and negative consequences for each action.