90 réponses à ce sujet

[Jackal904]

Valtonis wrote...

In ME, Paragon/Renegade does not mean Good/Evil.

when the choices come up it is not a matter of whether it is a good deed or and evil deed but whether it is a peaceful choice or a more violent one.

deciding between paragon or renegade is not like in DAO where it is a decision of whether something is good or evil but more of whether you believe the end justify the means.

for example, dropping the nuke on Hiroshima.
Paragon option is No,
Renegade option is Yes.

is the renegade option evil?
No. in fact it can even be construed as good because of the lives it would save in the longer run.

That's totally irrelevant to the topic. You know what we mean when we say good or evil.

Toastysoul wrote...

Jackal904 wrote...

No, you cannot just go with your instinct. You have to either choose paragon for almost every situation or renegade for almost every situation or you miss out on a lot of very important dialoge options. Plus the dialogue options are always set as good is on top, neutral is in the middle, and bad is at the bottom. There is no thinking of "I wonder what would be the nice/bad thing to say?" It's all laid out for you very clearly, and too clearly.

I disagree with you. The dialog wheel summaries that you base your descisions on are not always accurate enough to allow you to make an informed choice as to what to say next. Without some structure to help you discern your characters intentions, the 2-3 words that summarize your potential course of action is not enough to make randomizing the dialog worth it. If you could hove over a choice and have the full content of your response appear as text or something, maybe.

TBH, this system isn't really broken. It needs some polish, but not an overhaul. You seem to think that they simply forgot to include an option for a neutral character to resolve those 2 situations (I know which ones you are talking about). I don't think they did. You want to play a neutral character? Those are the consequenses. You can't ride the fence with your dialog all the time and still have 2 polar opposite characters like you. That's part of the "I'm not getting into it" mentality. Often, both end up hating your for it. Certainly you can't be complaining about how the situation resolves itself if you don't want to get involved enough in the first place. You choose one or choose neither. If you want to solve the sitation better, practice your diplomacy/intimidation skills. You want to have your cake and eat it too. I'm sorry, but it doesn't work that way.

I liked ME1 system for leveling Charm/Intimidation, but I also liked ME2 system as well. It's not better or worse in my mind, just different.

I understand the issue with needing to place dialogue options at certain points so you have a better idea of what you are going to say. But I wouldn't mind that if didn't have to worry about being hardcore paragon or renegade in order to gain access to important dialogue options. All BioWare needs to do is connect your character's persuation ability to their passive skill. Instead of making it just give you more paragon and regenade points, just make it so that if you have your passive maxed out, you will have access to all charm and intimidate dialogue options.

And choosing the neutral dialogue option doesn't always mean you take nobody's side. It could just be a whole different decision from the paragon and renegade option, that isn't neutral, it's just a third choice. Which is why I don't like how each dialogue option is already predetermined as paragon, renegade, or neutral. Because sometimes options that are renegade don't see very renegade, and the same goes for each alignment.

For example; After talking to Ash on Horizon, whom I had a relationship with in ME1, Kelly asked me if I still had feelings for her. The top choice was "no", the middle choice was "I don't know" and the bottom choice was "yes." And I still liked Ashley after the arguement, so I chose "yes" and I got renegade points for that. Please explain to me how that is worthy of being considered as a renegade thing to say? It makes no sense.

[Ahglock]

Inarai wrote...



... I'm sorry, but you have no understanding of the difference here.  A dialogue option in ME isn't just a single line.  Shepard will say a whole lot of stuff, and directly converse, based on that thought.  Part of the reason the DA:O system can't work with that is, well, space on the screen.  And potring the DA:O system over would force the voice actors to stick to the script, verbatim - this is BAD.  Meaning that realistically, you won't see a DA:O style listing, and it wouldn't WORK for the kind of experience ME is designed to deliver.  These are different games designed to be different experiences.  Their dialogue systems are set up to service that experience, but they won't serve the experience in the other.  If you don't get this concept, you don't have much of a grasp on the concept of game design, which is central to this discussion.

There is a difference in not understanding and not agreeing.

There are fully voiced cinenmatic games where the full line of dialogue is shown.  The NPC responds, and then you respond with yet another full line of dialgue.  Thinking that system is better does not mean you don't understand game desgin, you just disagree with the choices made in ME.

[Inarai]

Ahglock wrote...

Inarai wrote...



... I'm sorry, but you have no understanding of the difference here.  A dialogue option in ME isn't just a single line.  Shepard will say a whole lot of stuff, and directly converse, based on that thought.  Part of the reason the DA:O system can't work with that is, well, space on the screen.  And potring the DA:O system over would force the voice actors to stick to the script, verbatim - this is BAD.  Meaning that realistically, you won't see a DA:O style listing, and it wouldn't WORK for the kind of experience ME is designed to deliver.  These are different games designed to be different experiences.  Their dialogue systems are set up to service that experience, but they won't serve the experience in the other.  If you don't get this concept, you don't have much of a grasp on the concept of game design, which is central to this discussion.

There is a difference in not understanding and not agreeing.

There are fully voiced cinenmatic games where the full line of dialogue is shown.  The NPC responds, and then you respond with yet another full line of dialgue.  Thinking that system is better does not mean you don't understand game desgin, you just disagree with the choices made in ME.

That's not cinematic, however, and does not accomplish a goal.  A character doesn't deliver a line, then another line, and so on - they deliver lines, and then a bunch more lines, and so on.  There's voiced games that attempt your way, yes - it doesn't work so well.  VA quality is significantly reduced, as is that of cinematography and general flow of dialogue.  Again, bad.

In fact, by definition, NOT cinematic.

[Ahglock]

Inarai wrote...


Return to the structure from the first game.  You may place points, or you might get points from going paragon/renegade.  Make Charm/Intimidate open up more distinct paths.

But it makes SENSE that your alignment has an impact, as that's going to represent habits, thought patterns, reputation, how you carry yourself...

I don't think it makes any sense at all.   In games where you build alignment points it hinders any form of logical growth in a character.  Events shape you, how you react to them can follow a strict pattern but it can also drastically deviate.  A single event can totally change a person but in a alignment point system you illogically still have 5 metric tons of paragon points stacked on your back.  That does not make sense in the slightest, sure I can agree with a rep side of things but that is the limit of it.  Outside of that it narrows character growth to the point it makes no sense. 

[Ahglock]

Inarai wrote...

Ahglock wrote...

Inarai wrote...



... I'm sorry, but you have no understanding of the difference here.  A dialogue option in ME isn't just a single line.  Shepard will say a whole lot of stuff, and directly converse, based on that thought.  Part of the reason the DA:O system can't work with that is, well, space on the screen.  And potring the DA:O system over would force the voice actors to stick to the script, verbatim - this is BAD.  Meaning that realistically, you won't see a DA:O style listing, and it wouldn't WORK for the kind of experience ME is designed to deliver.  These are different games designed to be different experiences.  Their dialogue systems are set up to service that experience, but they won't serve the experience in the other.  If you don't get this concept, you don't have much of a grasp on the concept of game design, which is central to this discussion.

There is a difference in not understanding and not agreeing.

There are fully voiced cinenmatic games where the full line of dialogue is shown.  The NPC responds, and then you respond with yet another full line of dialgue.  Thinking that system is better does not mean you don't understand game desgin, you just disagree with the choices made in ME.

That's not cinematic, however, and does not accomplish a goal.  A character doesn't deliver a line, then another line, and so on - they deliver lines, and then a bunch more lines, and so on.  There's voiced games that attempt your way, yes - it doesn't work so well.  VA quality is significantly reduced, as is that of cinematography and general flow of dialogue.  Again, bad.

In fact, by definition, NOT cinematic.

Not so.  It can be very cinematic.  You do not need the entire scene to unfold from one decision to make something cinematic.  Why even have multiple questions you can ask a person if you need it to be one scene and not be broken up a bit.  Just have 2 options at the begning of every conversation, Nice guy, douche bag. 

[Inarai]

Ahglock wrote...

Inarai wrote...


Return to the structure from the first game.  You may place points, or you might get points from going paragon/renegade.  Make Charm/Intimidate open up more distinct paths.

But it makes SENSE that your alignment has an impact, as that's going to represent habits, thought patterns, reputation, how you carry yourself...

I don't think it makes any sense at all.   In games where you build alignment points it hinders any form of logical growth in a character.  Events shape you, how you react to them can follow a strict pattern but it can also drastically deviate.  A single event can totally change a person but in a alignment point system you illogically still have 5 metric tons of paragon points stacked on your back.  That does not make sense in the slightest, sure I can agree with a rep side of things but that is the limit of it.  Outside of that it narrows character growth to the point it makes no sense. 

And if it were an actual good/evil opposed system, that would be relevant.  It isn't.  Paragon/Renegade represents a different approach to problem solving, basically.  Just because you start doing things one way doesn't mean you don't lose your biuilt up skill and ability instantaneously at another.  The brain doesn't prune that fast.

[Inarai]

Ahglock wrote...

Inarai wrote...

Ahglock wrote...

Inarai wrote...



... I'm sorry, but you have no understanding of the difference here.  A dialogue option in ME isn't just a single line.  Shepard will say a whole lot of stuff, and directly converse, based on that thought.  Part of the reason the DA:O system can't work with that is, well, space on the screen.  And potring the DA:O system over would force the voice actors to stick to the script, verbatim - this is BAD.  Meaning that realistically, you won't see a DA:O style listing, and it wouldn't WORK for the kind of experience ME is designed to deliver.  These are different games designed to be different experiences.  Their dialogue systems are set up to service that experience, but they won't serve the experience in the other.  If you don't get this concept, you don't have much of a grasp on the concept of game design, which is central to this discussion.

There is a difference in not understanding and not agreeing.

There are fully voiced cinenmatic games where the full line of dialogue is shown.  The NPC responds, and then you respond with yet another full line of dialgue.  Thinking that system is better does not mean you don't understand game desgin, you just disagree with the choices made in ME.

That's not cinematic, however, and does not accomplish a goal.  A character doesn't deliver a line, then another line, and so on - they deliver lines, and then a bunch more lines, and so on.  There's voiced games that attempt your way, yes - it doesn't work so well.  VA quality is significantly reduced, as is that of cinematography and general flow of dialogue.  Again, bad.

In fact, by definition, NOT cinematic.

Not so.  It can be very cinematic.  You do not need the entire scene to unfold from one decision to make something cinematic.  Why even have multiple questions you can ask a person if you need it to be one scene and not be broken up a bit.  Just have 2 options at the begning of every conversation, Nice guy, douche bag. 

But the way that single-line forces you to choreograph the scene cuts you off at the knees.  OR makes the whole thing incredibly choppy - either way, it doesn't achieve the design goal.

[Shatakai]

Toastysoul wrote...

Also, I'd be in favor of Bioware completely dropping the number values of your morality. This allows them to handle issues mentioned in Feedback, such as abortion and gay marriage, because neither option would be dubbed "good" or "evil".

Because FemShepard may accidentally knock up Liara/Samara and they decide to either get married or not to have the kid? That is a rediculous concept to add into this game. It's not sunday school or a PSA. Moralilty choice in the game need only involve real plot points and NPC character development within the scope of that plot. Anyone looking to for that kind of content is looking at the wrong game.

I'm not requesting that these types of confrontations be in the game, they were just examples of common points of disagreement in today's society. These were simply examples of things that developers, writers, directors, etc. all have to handle very carefully in order to not alienate a large part of their fanbase.

[Jackal904]

Ahglock wrote...

Inarai wrote...

Ahglock wrote...

Inarai wrote...



... I'm sorry, but you have no understanding of the difference here.  A dialogue option in ME isn't just a single line.  Shepard will say a whole lot of stuff, and directly converse, based on that thought.  Part of the reason the DA:O system can't work with that is, well, space on the screen.  And potring the DA:O system over would force the voice actors to stick to the script, verbatim - this is BAD.  Meaning that realistically, you won't see a DA:O style listing, and it wouldn't WORK for the kind of experience ME is designed to deliver.  These are different games designed to be different experiences.  Their dialogue systems are set up to service that experience, but they won't serve the experience in the other.  If you don't get this concept, you don't have much of a grasp on the concept of game design, which is central to this discussion.

There is a difference in not understanding and not agreeing.

There are fully voiced cinenmatic games where the full line of dialogue is shown.  The NPC responds, and then you respond with yet another full line of dialgue.  Thinking that system is better does not mean you don't understand game desgin, you just disagree with the choices made in ME.

That's not cinematic, however, and does not accomplish a goal.  A character doesn't deliver a line, then another line, and so on - they deliver lines, and then a bunch more lines, and so on.  There's voiced games that attempt your way, yes - it doesn't work so well.  VA quality is significantly reduced, as is that of cinematography and general flow of dialogue.  Again, bad.

In fact, by definition, NOT cinematic.

Not so.  It can be very cinematic.  You do not need the entire scene to unfold from one decision to make something cinematic.  Why even have multiple questions you can ask a person if you need it to be one scene and not be broken up a bit.  Just have 2 options at the begning of every conversation, Nice guy, douche bag. 

Ya I don't really see the whole cinematic arguement thing. What's the problem with showing whole sentences as dialogue options? But I think they should at least have 3 options, and there's not necessarily paragon option, renegade option, and one neutral option. They don't need to be categorized. They could just simply be a dialogue option.

[Inarai]

Jackal904 wrote...

Ahglock wrote...

Inarai wrote...

Ahglock wrote...

Inarai wrote...



... I'm sorry, but you have no understanding of the difference here.  A dialogue option in ME isn't just a single line.  Shepard will say a whole lot of stuff, and directly converse, based on that thought.  Part of the reason the DA:O system can't work with that is, well, space on the screen.  And potring the DA:O system over would force the voice actors to stick to the script, verbatim - this is BAD.  Meaning that realistically, you won't see a DA:O style listing, and it wouldn't WORK for the kind of experience ME is designed to deliver.  These are different games designed to be different experiences.  Their dialogue systems are set up to service that experience, but they won't serve the experience in the other.  If you don't get this concept, you don't have much of a grasp on the concept of game design, which is central to this discussion.

There is a difference in not understanding and not agreeing.

There are fully voiced cinenmatic games where the full line of dialogue is shown.  The NPC responds, and then you respond with yet another full line of dialgue.  Thinking that system is better does not mean you don't understand game desgin, you just disagree with the choices made in ME.

That's not cinematic, however, and does not accomplish a goal.  A character doesn't deliver a line, then another line, and so on - they deliver lines, and then a bunch more lines, and so on.  There's voiced games that attempt your way, yes - it doesn't work so well.  VA quality is significantly reduced, as is that of cinematography and general flow of dialogue.  Again, bad.

In fact, by definition, NOT cinematic.

Not so.  It can be very cinematic.  You do not need the entire scene to unfold from one decision to make something cinematic.  Why even have multiple questions you can ask a person if you need it to be one scene and not be broken up a bit.  Just have 2 options at the begning of every conversation, Nice guy, douche bag. 

Ya I don't really see the whole cinematic arguement thing. What's the problem with showing whole sentences as dialogue options? But I think they should at least have 3 options, and there's not necessarily paragon option, renegade option, and one neutral option. They don't need to be categorized. They could just simply be a dialogue option.

Because ME dialogue isn't single sentence options, and such a situation is not serviceable for what ME aims to do.  And, even in the current system, Paragon top and Renegade bottom are tendencies, and don't ALWAYS apply. Not everything has Paragon/Renegade impact.

[AlexXIV]

I actually also like the 'Karma' approach of decisions. Many people believe that doing good things comes back to you, and so is doing bad things. So having positive Karma draws ceirtain people closer to you, and Bioware accounts that in opening dialogue options with different result. I don't know any way it could be handled better. Dragon Age was horrible, you could even 'buy' your friends.
 
How you compare these both things and conclude that Dragon Age was better is beyond me. Especially considering in ME you are a hero in the end. No matter how many people you kill and why, in the end you save more by stopping something that is worse than you in any case. The paragon way is probably just the 'beyond duty' thing. When someone says about you, besides of what was expected of you, you went beyond. Which is the very definition of a true hero. Also you can look at it that Paragon is rather someone who solves problems peacefully, with words. And renegade with brute force and threats.

The only morally ... interesting ... thing ... in ME2 I see in Shepard's death and resurrection. Somehow to me it speaks for a victory of science over religion. Religions usually suggest an 'Afterlife'. While Shepard ends up there after his/her death, it is only a nightclub on Omega  Obviously Shepards soul did not ascend or descend or whatever but instead his/her 'next life' was assured by science. If there was life after death how could Shepard return from the dead? I kinda wondered that religious people/groups seemed to just accept a fact that totally goes against their belief. Even Ashley ...

Modifié par AlexXIV, 13 février 2010 - 12:08 .

[RighteousRage]

I think more apt names for paragon and renegade would be "reasonable and considerate" and "brash idiot who screws everything up", respectively

[tzeraph1]

Aedan_Cousland wrote...

Neutral characters are penalized in ME2 because they are unable to diffuse two confrontations between squadmates, whereas someone who plays as strictly paragon or strictly renegade can. This wasn't an issue in ME1 because in that game you actually assigned points into charm or intimidate as you levelled. IMO, that was a better system, since even characters that weren't 100% paragon or renegade could max out either their charm or intimidate skill, depending on which way they leaned.

I agree with this one. Making one stat dependent on the other creates problems. A better approach would be to make Paragon/Renegade to effect Diplomacy and Intimidate skills (ie, paragon score effect diplomacy, renegade effect intimidate).

[Jackal904]

tzeraph1 wrote...

Aedan_Cousland wrote...

Neutral characters are penalized in ME2 because they are unable to diffuse two confrontations between squadmates, whereas someone who plays as strictly paragon or strictly renegade can. This wasn't an issue in ME1 because in that game you actually assigned points into charm or intimidate as you levelled. IMO, that was a better system, since even characters that weren't 100% paragon or renegade could max out either their charm or intimidate skill, depending on which way they leaned.

A better approach would be to make Paragon/Renegade to effect Diplomacy and Intimidate skills (ie, paragon score effect diplomacy, renegade effect intimidate).

It already is like that...

[Jackal904]

.

[Costin_Razvan]

I generally agree with what the OP has to say in this thread. It is very annoying how you need almost 90% renegade for instance to scare the **** out of the guy in Thane's quest. or that you need you need at least 80% Paragon/ 60% Renegade to stop Miranda and Jack from killing each other.



However I would like to point out that if you have maxed Renegade and/or Paragog bar in ME1 and then import that char to ME2, then you get a massive bonus to points ( almost 1/5 of the total Paragon/Renegade bar ) If Bioware were to lower the points needed for certain confrontations, then an imported char could do whatever the **** they wanted and still have enough points do to any paragon/renegade option in the game.