91 réponses à ce sujet

[Malcroix]

ranger smith wrote...

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

What makes a man turn neutral? Lust for gold? Power? Or were you just born with a heart full of neutrality?
© Zapp Brannigan

[Allen63]

I agree with the original post.

In "real life", intelligent, objective people with "life experience" (like Shepard) understand all points of view and know all the possible responses. In "life and death" situations, those intelligent people may elect to say the "right thing" -- regardless of their personal "leanings".

Better to limit the responses based on "intelligence".

Of course, "intelligence" is not a character parameter in Mass Effect 2. It should be, I think.

Modifié par Allen63, 03 février 2010 - 08:09 .

[Justin2k]

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

Because its not a RPG where you act like a real person.  You have limited options as to whether you can be a good guy or a bad guy.  The game isn't planning you to be neutral.  That shouldn't be hard to understand.

This is not an RPG.  Its a story based action game.  The only "RP" is that you play as the role of Shepard and can point him in a few directions somewhere along the line.  Your rewards come from levelling up paragon or renegade.  By not levelling either up, then you don't get the reward for it.

Its common sense.  Its just people expected this to be a RPG and it really isn't.  Even ME wasn't a real RPG although it had more elements.

[paysage]

Ahglock wrote...

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

I dunno.  I see the appeal of both ways.  Dragon Age--no bar--had the freshness of not having the beyond the fourth wall incentivisation to act a certain way, but different choices in different parts of the story felt slightly isolated from each other.  ME--with a bar--gives you a bit of a reason not to take one of two conventional paths, but you see results when you start filling up those bars, even if it's just a simple illusion. 

[Tom Adama]

My first ME1 Shepard was more Paragon than Renegade, but she was still a little mixed. I did the same thing for 1/2 of this game but after the Miranda/Jack fight, I tried my darndest to regain Jacks loyalty. I looked at the prerequisites to do so and it required max paragon or renegade...

WTF???

So basically if you plan on playing ME2 in the moral grey area, plan on blowing off Tali/ Legion and/or Miranda/Jack.

Stupid. I thought this game was about choice. Bioware basically handcuffs you to become a 'saint' or 'sinner',

Sigh. I miss Persuade and Intimidate.

Aside: Jack is still not loyal to me even though I spent the last 1/2 of ME2 being purely Paragon. My blue bar is 1/2 between the top-most quadrant, that should be over 80% Paragon.

Modifié par Tom Adama, 03 février 2010 - 09:02 .

[GlassRain]

This is the trouble with dual social skills. I've always had issue with "intimidate" "persuade" systems in that you are locked into a certain set of options. The only real choice is to give the player one "social" skill and allow them to use it as they see fit regardless of moral choices.



In my own play-through, however.. I ended the game with 100% renegade and 60% paragon. I was using blue text as often as red whenever the mood struck me. The game played out pretty smoothly as well without any 180 degree neck breaking mood swings I was expecting. so the option of neutrality is there if you play for it.



Still, this small bit isn't going to ruin the game for me.

[Havokk7]

I don't like it that Renegade = Jerk.



From the first game I got the impression that Renegade Shepard was still a good guy, just someone who believed that the ends justified the means. If ParagonShep is Joe Friday, RenegadeShep is Harry Callaghan.



In the second game, it seems that RenegadeShep is simply mean, petty, insulting and insensitive, attitudes that seem, to me, to be inconsistent with being a professional law enforcement agent.



I enjoyed the Renegade path in ME1. I'm not enjoying it in ME2.



B

[SonsofNorthWind]

Agree.  If anything, non-extremists should have an easier time with dipomacy in many situations - being able to see all sides allows different conversation options IRL, while extremists on either side tend to judge and alienate.  Read some Marshall Rosenberg, Bioware.

I'd like to see a Rep system for the next game, where you can get a rep as "nicey mcgoodguy", "open to all options guy,", and "badass mcoverreacty."  Then different people would respond better or worse according to your rep, but you'd have a full slate of dialogue options rather than simply unlocking a best choice based on your moral compass.

[medlish]

I had problems with the options later on in the game because I tried a playthrough with a neutral /whatever-fits character. Didn't import from ME1. So from my viewpoint this system is lacking.

[Khavos]

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.

I'm not sure if you get what's really being discussed.  I'll keep this as spoiler-free as possible, but there are certain points where you essentially have to pass Paragon/Renegade checks in the game or end up kind of screwing yourself.  They have nothing to do with obscure issues like alien racism; one in particular - irony of ironies - will not allow you to STAY NEUTRAL unless you have enough Paragon or Renegade.  

It's pretty absurd.

[Demonzr2009]

I understand the problem stated here, and I think it's been both a blessing for me and a curse. In games, I tend to swing for omnibenevolent superhero status if it's an option at all; being the good guy is something I live for in an RPG experience.
But the fact of the matter is that humans are a mercurial bunch; we can change our minds, and there is no karmacounter in the sky telling us we're too nice to do this or too wicked to do that.

For instance: Let's say our (fem or guy)Shep is captain kindness, the font of goodness and light. He or she is noble and upright, strong of conviction and kind. If our Shep were a real person, there would be nothing, -nothing- preventing him or her from having a momentary break from this standard, even in a very extreme way, due to some internal conflict. A child is shot by a ruthless terrorist, let's say, and our sterling paladin loses their composure, ripping the gun from said villain's hand and beating him to death with it in a brutal and horrific act of vengeance. Is this contrary to who the character is, and thus an impossibility? I say no. The paladinic hero/heroine might regret this choice, certainly, might feel horrible for deserting their ethics even for a moment... But it happens. That is how real people (and deep characters) behave. There is no light side or dark side to fall back on... A person is more than the sum of their choices: they are their beliefs and instincts, their past traumas and triumphs, their current fears and hopes.

Now, on a more technical note, for my part I found the charm/intimidate skills frustrating and a bit distracting, in the way they diverted character progression into mechanical and narrative branches (I have this problem with most of the 'social' skills in modern RPGs)... But at least in most games, including ME1, you weren't necessarily forced (persuaded strongly, but not forced) to stick to one sort of interaction or the other.

I agree with the topic's creator that the implementation of renegade/paragon in this game handicaps it. It feels a bit like a throwback to KotOR, which isn't to say KotOR was bad, so much as that the Star Wars universe is quite simplistic in its take on human nature.

Bioware for life,

-Demonzr

[Soruyao]

I had a very morally gray character who picked differently based on the situation, but because I maxed out my class power, there was only one time in the entire game where I had both charm and intimidate options grayed out.



I won't mention what it was due to spoilers, but there weren't any negative consequences from not being able to charmtimidate. Just evolve your class skill towards negotiation and you should be fine.



Also, about the topic title: A singular handcuff wouldn't be very restricting. Just sayin'. X3

[durasteel]

Not all of the paragon choices are sweet-natured, though. There are a few times where the paragon path takes you right up into someone's personal space, offering to throw them a beating. A couple of paragon interrupts involve someone getting shot, and another one knocks an innocent guy onto his rear end, for his own good.



Being a paragon isn't all milk and cookies.

[Taritu]

unda647 wrote...

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.

Most Dragon Age decisions didn't mean much, and the gift system made them irrelevant when dealing with your party members.  Ridiculously so.

I actually liked BGs system, which was Reputation.  "This is what people think about you based on what you've done, and they react based on it.  If they think you're a mass murdering scumbag they try and kill you, if they think you're a force for good who rescues kittens, old ladies and maidens, then they help you."

Modifié par Taritu, 04 février 2010 - 12:45 .

[kab]

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?

The options more often than not are not extreme opinions so this argument holds no water.



The Paragon/Renegade change in the dialogue really was just bad. The interrupts are a good idea, I just don't agree with the way they were implemented. Charm intimidate made a lot more sense and worked a lot better. Instead of an improvement they trivialized it so that anyone can make use of them simply by existing, unless you happen to play a neutral character, in which case you're screwed.

[kab]

I actually liked BGs system, which was Reputation. "This is what people think about you based on what you've done, and they react based on it. If they think you're a mass murdering scumbag they try and kill you, if they think you're a force for good who rescues kittens, old ladies and maidens, then they help you."

The D&D reputation score that BG used is terrible. A mass murdering psychopath walks into your store and you... try to price gouge him? No. The KOTOR/ME approach of having things like Charm/Intimidate and having a separate Good/Evil, Light/Dark, Paragon/Renegade, etc. is much better. It's just not good in ME2 because they combined Charm with Paragon and Renegade with Intimidate. It doesn't work because there's a disconnect, being a Good/Paragon doesn't make you more charming, in point of fact that could very well make you less charming to various sorts.



What it really boils down to is that dialogue is about what your character says, what they can convince someone to do based on their charm or ability to intimidate. Whether or not you let someone on Virmire live isn't going to change that. If anything they ought to have Paragon/Renegade dialogue options in addition to the Charm/Intimidate ones, not in place of.



Also there's just too many situations where the only remotely rational dialogue option requires one or the other and if you're a neutral character you get neither, forcing you into an idiotic and uncharacteristic response.

[greghorvath]

I think its pretty irritating that your first playthrough choices have very little or no impact on second playthrough possibilities. With charm/intimidate they did give you more options for a new playthrough. I have played through twice, thinking that the system worked similar to ME1, but I had no catfight options, and couldnt even persuade that idiot Zaeed, and no possibility to gain Morinth's loyalty skill (which was basically why I played through the second time). I really dont feel like playing it through again with an extremely one sided morality stance just to get one bonus skill.



I think question of morality would be very good issue to improve for the next game. It would be great to have some real difference between the consequesces, as the choices now dont really count. Just a different movie to see, but your decisions do not actually MAKE a difference.

[Frotality]

im going to sum this up in a very simple way for you bioware:

ME2 moral views=2

moral views spanning across humanity >2

very simple logic here as to what you should do about the 2-sided morality system.

[Gabey5]

neutral players get the shaft... to get much options you need to be almost pure renegade or paragon

[Chrisimo79]

Nomadder wrote...

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.

If you are always balanced you are not really trained to be extreme. It takes practice to think like a renegade or paragon and the more practice you have, the more your character changes. It's like a nicy guy in real life who tries to be an ****. He has to try hard at first to act like that but as time goes on he finds it easier and easier and may even do it automatically.
It adds another dimension to your roleplaying experience because you cannot just add points to a skill but must actually practice that skill (being renegade or paragon).

You are right, this removes some choices, but that's just like it works in real life. Only few people can be a master at many things. Sometimes you just don't know what to say and you cannot convince someone to do something. It's like that in ME2. If you want to be balanced and don't practice your paragon/renegade skills, you will encounter situations that you cannot resolve the way you want. It adds another dimension of choice. You want to have a high paragon skill? Then you have to choose Paragon answers even if you don't always like them. That's a choice, too. A choice and a consequence.

Modifié par Chrisimo79, 15 février 2010 - 09:41 .

[finc.loki]

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.

That's not right either.

They are making your choices black and white. No one is like that.
You could be a really good person but at times you'd snap and say something mean or set someone straight.

The way they have the game is that at certain points if you played the game like a NORMAL human with varying choices, then you're screwed.
Miranda/Jack fight, if no paragon or renegade you have no option but to choose which you want to side with.
How about if I don't want to side with either and just tell them to shut up and act proper. You can't ,nope, no way you have to side with one or the other.
Just because you played the game as a normal person.

I am overall a nice guy, but if someone is stupid I will tell them off (renegade).
In a game with lethal enemies and gun play I would be more inclined to take a more drastic/harsh approach at times.

Essentially, both paragon and renegade choices should ALWAYS be available in the dialogue, then depending which you choose will form your overall character.

How it is now is like this:
If you play mostly paragon for some reason you all of a sudden become completely incapable of lashing out or acting tough, or can do no wrong.

How is that realistic, even if you're a good person we can all get angry and choose a "renegade" option.
Same goes the other way.
Just because you take no **** and lash out doesn't mean you can't be warm and nice at times.

Right now if you want to be able to "deal" with certain game choices you have to funnel into either paragon or renegade.
If your in the grey area you lack option.

Isn't it silly to have a "greyed" out renegade or paragon dialogue option?
So for some reason I am incapable of acting though/say an insulting comment, cause I am nice in general?
It's extremely frustrating coming across a dialogue and you really want a renegade option cause the situation screams for one and all your left with is a sissy paragon reply or a neutral choice.

It's like being muzzled.

[finc.loki]

Chrisimo79 wrote...

Nomadder wrote...

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.

If you are always balanced you are not really trained to be extreme. It takes practice to think like a renegade or paragon and the more practice you have, the more your character changes. It's like a nicy guy in real life who tries to be an ****. He has to try hard at first to act like that but as time goes on he finds it easier and easier and may even do it automatically.
It adds another dimension to your roleplaying experience because you cannot just add points to a skill but must actually practice that skill (being renegade or paragon).

You are right, this removes some choices, but that's just like it works in real life. Only few people can be a master at many things. Sometimes you just don't know what to say and you cannot convince someone to do something. It's like that in ME2. If you want to be balanced and don't practice your paragon/renegade skills, you will encounter situations that you cannot resolve the way you want. It adds another dimension of choice. You want to have a high paragon skill? Then you have to choose Paragon answers even if you don't always like them. That's a choice, too. A choice and a consequence.

So let's say you're a nice guy.
Someone then picks on your child or harass your wife/gf, are you that 'neutered' that you couldn't tell someone to F-off without going to some class where they teach you to respond?

I guess if a person look like this( actor DJ Qualls)  I would understand if there is no "renegade" option:





At times it can take a lot to push me over the edge and I am nice in general, however if I start to feel frustrated or I know something is wrong or I am right, holy hell you don't want to be around me,  Dr.Jekyll and Mr.Hyde comes to mind.

You can be a nice person, but still pack the cojones to stand up for yourself or dish out the pain if needed.
I think most people are capable, just a matter of how far it needs to go.

Also, don't forget your role playing "commander Shepard" the ass kicker of the galaxy and yet somehow if you play him nice, he is completely uncapable of doing a renegade option (greyed out dialogue), in certain situations if he is too paragon.

Right there your argument fails, Shepard is a tough guy nice or mean, he should always be able to choose to act upon that in dialogue/cut-scenes.

Modifié par finc.loki, 15 février 2010 - 10:20 .

[Zacarius2]

I agree. Once you pick your first renegade/paragon you are pretty much locked into always choosing that path. Failing to do so actually hurts your character and team down the road.



But on another point made repeatedly in this thread. I think the fights between Miranda/Jack and Tali/Legion were handled wrong. I think you should have had to pick a side. Not simply paragon/renegade your way out of being forced to choose. It would have made these scenes much more important than a simple skill check at not making a decision.



I have never seen a time when two people are fighting when anyone can walk up and go " I am super badass/ultra nice guy so you both have to get along." The choices are always side with one, the other hates you, or say F it and both hate you.

[Massadonious1]

Shepard can talk random strangers into resolving issues with their love lives or pregnancy situations.



I'm pretty sure he could talk his own teammates down from a spat.

[piemanz]

I dont think paragon and rengade should be tied to chat options.



Maybe renegade could be tied to weapon boosting abilties at the expense of health and paragon tied to health at the expense of abilities.,or something like that.



I'm sure there are 1000 reasons why this wouldnt work,i have'nt really thought it through,but as others have said,sometimes you might want to renegade even though you are mainly paragon,just because the situation seems to warrant it.