74 réponses à ce sujet

[Inarai]

Nautica773 wrote...

Inarai wrote...
So, dismantle something essential to how they designed/present the game?  Alignment absence is not always to right call.  Now, binary systems annoy me, but, Shepard is assumed-good.  Paragon/renegade represents 2 different approaches to this.

Except that the alignments don't affect anything (save your conversation skills in ridiculously arbitrary fashions).

While I doubt they'll remove the system all together in the third, I do hope that it can be cut from any further games in the franchise. Paragon/Renegade really don't mean anything save for creating stark contrasts between reactions for the sake of extremes.

And while the interrupts were interesting, I feel that they were hindered by the alignment system. When an option for an interrupt came up, you only had the alignment reward to suggest to you what your interrupt would be, taking away even more control from the player in their ability to play as Commander Shepard. The dialogue wheel was bad enough, but the interrupts are making social interactions even more obtuse.

Not to mention most of the alignment choices are your typical "give baddie a hug and long speech about redemption" vs "shoot baddie in the face then kick a nearby puppy for good measure."

Actually, they do impact something: How people see you, and how you think (That's just how the brain is.).

And Paragon/Renegade represent 2 different types of people.  The Paragon is the absolute hero, who tries to save everyone, who believes in the rule of law, who always tries to find another way.  The Renegade does whatever it takes to get the job done.

And WOW but that's an oversimplification - to an extent that literally, it's without factual merit to respond to.

[DaveTheJackal]

Toxik King wrote...

That would make no sense.

So lets say two people are having a fight, you could resolve it with Paragon (Charm) or Renegade (Intimidate), which makes sense.
But then, you say "Hey, I'm nuetral" and get Renegade points because you have more Paragon...
If I'm wrong, I'm sorry, but this is what I got from the OP.

Balance not neutral so it's "Should we bomb the baddies" or "should we save the prisoners" or "you bomb I'll go save them on my own"... etc.

Or maybe
Paragon: talk mealy mouthed
Renegade: hit them
Balance: talk tough.

etc.

Using the minimum of the two means it can show aspects of one trait and a lesser aspect of another, but not if it's too low.

So, the stat bonuses from different choices might differ, e.g. if Paragon/Renegard get +3, You might get a +2/+1 split between the two.

ALTERNATIVE: Have Paragon choices which require a lower paragon but also a minimum Renegade and vice versa.

[DaveTheJackal]

poisonoustea wrote...

The alignment system is simple and effective; if you really want to "roleplay", then you shouldn't care about the stats.

It's quite easy to tell what actions are available in the wheel. If you want to be sensitive about, say, people's personal issues, you can choose the Paragon lines. At the same time, if someone threatens you, you might think it's better to shoot first.
It's not necessary to go all-Paragon or all-Renegade.

Then what would be the problem with adding more varied role playing?

[BioDan10]

Instead of three, maybe in the next game, it could push for multiple questions/answers which result in certain information been given out, rather than all at once - too easy.

[DaveTheJackal]

BioDan10 wrote...

Instead of three, maybe in the next game, it could push for multiple questions/answers which result in certain information been given out, rather than all at once - too easy.

Indeed, I'd like to see more options that actually influence the way the game progresses too, but not without warning. i.e. make the convo wheel flash brightly or twinkle so we know we're doing something important. i.e. more subtle (if signposted) ways of changing the plot, rather than just who lives or dies or some other big critical mission decision.

poisonoustea wrote...

Then what would be the problem with adding more varied role playing?

Well,
that would mean a lot more work to do. I'm saying that you can make
pretty realistic decisions in almost every situation with the dialogue
system as it is. I admit some issues could've been given some more
decent options (Mordin's loyalty mission. I can't believe the only
Paragon option you get is 'you're a cold-hearted killer!') but the
problem is not with the system, it's in those specific dialogue lines
in my opinion.

Perhaps, but bioware already use ambiguous statements, which can apply to both paragon and renegade, for dialogue, the meaning changing with the option you select.

If there were cases where there was only a limited number of renegade/balanced/paragon options (i.e. one or more was missing), it needn't mean much more work.

Modifié par DaveTheJackal, 21 février 2010 - 02:35 .

[FlintlockJazz]

DaveTheJackal wrote...

FlintlockJazz wrote...

Actually, that sounds too complicated, plus there are other problems that I won't go into, it'd be okay but instead I'd prefer it if they weighted the Paragon/Renegade options differently so that one choice would work better than the other in given situations. For instance, intimidating a couple of thugs who are about to shoot you to back down would probably take less effort than taking the longer route of explaining things to them by which point they'd probably already started firing anyway, so you only need a few Renegade points for the Renegade option but alot of Paragon points for the Paragon option. This not only would be more realistic, but it would require players to put a bit more thought into it, especially if they could still choose the option and fail, requiring them to take into account the current situation!

Just my thoughts anyway, and as to bring back the charm/intimidate skills? Paragon/Renegade points are effectively social xp, and are automatically spent on the side that you are most using, since why should a guy who is never nasty to anyone be able to be mean just by spending arbitrary points? If you are constantly acting one way, then you are more practiced at doing it that way, that's how I see it anyway.

Jazharah wrote...

Oh, and while we're at it, let's toss
in a pink option as well to define flirty comments that lead to love
interests. Not so much to be able to pick them, but to avoid them.
(Jacob LI, anyone?)

Oh yes, so very yes!

So taking the lowest is complicated where as a weighting formula is easy?

Yes, because it avoids having to work out some middle path and doing extra work, whereas taking the lowest actually gives those who take the middle path the advantage of adapting to the situation, while still giving advantages to the extremes.  It helps differentiate them more, and makes it more likely that each of the three types won't be able to deal perfectly with all situations. 

[DaveTheJackal]

FlintlockJazz wrote...

Yes, because it avoids having to work out some middle path and doing extra work, whereas taking the lowest actually gives those who take the middle path the advantage of adapting to the situation, while still giving advantages to the extremes.  It helps differentiate them more, and makes it more likely that each of the three types won't be able to deal perfectly with all situations. 

Even your response is overly complicated and I'm not sure it holds water. See my above posts on why it wouldn't necessarily mean more work.

Modifié par DaveTheJackal, 22 février 2010 - 11:27 .

[FlintlockJazz]

DaveTheJackal wrote...

FlintlockJazz wrote...

Yes, because it avoids having to work out some middle path and doing extra work, whereas taking the lowest actually gives those who take the middle path the advantage of adapting to the situation, while still giving advantages to the extremes.  It helps differentiate them more, and makes it more likely that each of the three types won't be able to deal perfectly with all situations. 

Even your response is overly complicated and I'm not sure it holds water. See my above posts on why it wouldn't necessarily mean more work.

Your method requires the addition of a third dialogue choice, which requires more voicework to be done, which will reduce the amount of convo in the rest of the game as they have to relocate their budget to making these third way options.  Your method also requires the player to understand how the third option works, and a deliberate intention to keep the ren/pa scores equal (removing the option for mostly paragon or renegade options, instead adding just another extreme choice), whereas my method works exactly the same as it currently does, the points required are just not equal for Paragon/Renegade options, and allows characters who are mostly but not fully paragon and minor renegade or vice versa to still be viable.

[DaveTheJackal]

FlintlockJazz wrote...

DaveTheJackal wrote...

FlintlockJazz wrote...

Yes, because it avoids having to work out some middle path and doing extra work, whereas taking the lowest actually gives those who take the middle path the advantage of adapting to the situation, while still giving advantages to the extremes.  It helps differentiate them more, and makes it more likely that each of the three types won't be able to deal perfectly with all situations. 

Even your response is overly complicated and I'm not sure it holds water. See my above posts on why it wouldn't necessarily mean more work.

Your method requires the addition of a third dialogue choice, which requires more voicework to be done, which will reduce the amount of convo in the rest of the game as they have to relocate their budget to making these third way options.  Your method also requires the player to understand how the third option works, and a deliberate intention to keep the ren/pa scores equal (removing the option for mostly paragon or renegade options, instead adding just another extreme choice), whereas my method works exactly the same as it currently does, the points required are just not equal for Paragon/Renegade options, and allows characters who are mostly but not fully paragon and minor renegade or vice versa to still be viable.

As stated previously,. there's no need for all conversations to have all three conversation options. As bioware already uses ambiguous dialogue which are used for both paragon and renegade, I don't see why that should change here.

[Soruyao]

Just tossing this out there, but jade empire had charm, intimidate, intuition, and intellect (or was it wisdom?)



There are options for some other dialogue choices that could get you through a situation. Maybe something that would work well for a future bioware game would be something like logic. Paragon and renegade think with their emotions and might not see a simpler solution, logic would be a balanced approach where you solve problems by explaining things so that they make more sense.



So like, in a situation where there's a thug threatening to shoot you, the renegade option might be to stare them down and tell them you're going to shoot them in the crotch, the paragon might be telling them you saved a kitten on the way there and they should leave you alone, and the logic would be explaining to them how you going past them and doing your mission actually benefits them somehow in the future.



Just brainstorming here.

[FlintlockJazz]

DaveTheJackal wrote...

FlintlockJazz wrote...

DaveTheJackal wrote...

FlintlockJazz wrote...

Yes, because it avoids having to work out some middle path and doing extra work, whereas taking the lowest actually gives those who take the middle path the advantage of adapting to the situation, while still giving advantages to the extremes.  It helps differentiate them more, and makes it more likely that each of the three types won't be able to deal perfectly with all situations. 

Even your response is overly complicated and I'm not sure it holds water. See my above posts on why it wouldn't necessarily mean more work.

Your method requires the addition of a third dialogue choice, which requires more voicework to be done, which will reduce the amount of convo in the rest of the game as they have to relocate their budget to making these third way options.  Your method also requires the player to understand how the third option works, and a deliberate intention to keep the ren/pa scores equal (removing the option for mostly paragon or renegade options, instead adding just another extreme choice), whereas my method works exactly the same as it currently does, the points required are just not equal for Paragon/Renegade options, and allows characters who are mostly but not fully paragon and minor renegade or vice versa to still be viable.

As stated previously,. there's no need for all conversations to have all three conversation options. As bioware already uses ambiguous dialogue which are used for both paragon and renegade, I don't see why that should change here.

In which case why would we need a third option when the method I have suggested would make more sense in that context.  And great tactic of just nitpicking one thing and ignoring the rest of my post!

[DaveTheJackal]

FlintlockJazz wrote...

DaveTheJackal wrote...

FlintlockJazz wrote...

DaveTheJackal wrote...

FlintlockJazz wrote...

Yes, because it avoids having to work out some middle path and doing extra work, whereas taking the lowest actually gives those who take the middle path the advantage of adapting to the situation, while still giving advantages to the extremes.  It helps differentiate them more, and makes it more likely that each of the three types won't be able to deal perfectly with all situations. 

Even your response is overly complicated and I'm not sure it holds water. See my above posts on why it wouldn't necessarily mean more work.

Your method requires the addition of a third dialogue choice, which requires more voicework to be done, which will reduce the amount of convo in the rest of the game as they have to relocate their budget to making these third way options.  Your method also requires the player to understand how the third option works, and a deliberate intention to keep the ren/pa scores equal (removing the option for mostly paragon or renegade options, instead adding just another extreme choice), whereas my method works exactly the same as it currently does, the points required are just not equal for Paragon/Renegade options, and allows characters who are mostly but not fully paragon and minor renegade or vice versa to still be viable.

As stated previously,. there's no need for all conversations to have all three conversation options. As bioware already uses ambiguous dialogue which are used for both paragon and renegade, I don't see why that should change here.

In which case why would we need a third option when the method I have suggested would make more sense in that context.  And great tactic of just nitpicking one thing and ignoring the rest of my post!

Why not have a combination of all of the above. Weighting still gives a big advantage to the player with a high stat in one character type. Still rewards obvious alignment stacking. That's what I was trying to get around. It's also more complex.

Modifié par DaveTheJackal, 22 février 2010 - 01:31 .

[FlintlockJazz]

DaveTheJackal wrote...

Why not have a combination of all of the above. Weighting still gives a big advantage to the player with a high stat in one character type. Still rewards obvious alignment stacking. That's what I was trying to get around. It's also more complex.

In your system if someone has 75% Paragon and 25% Renegade then they will be at a disadvantage when compared to a 100% Paragon 0% Renegade, 0% Paragon 100% Renegade and a 50% Paragon 50% Renegade, so your system would just add a third option to which you would feel compelled to develop your character towards, as opposed to just roleplaying them.  I understand what you are trying to do, but I don't think adding a third way is the best method, rather they should make the convos more involved.

[EternalWolfe]

Although not exactly to do with the idea in this thread(an okay idea, but I always seen the middle of wheel as the 'neutral' option, points or no), I have a nice one.



Make dialogue choices that further a love intrests a seperate line, rather then Paragon. Pretty much, if you choose the Paragon option atm you start giving out the little 'i'm into you vibe', whether you want to or not.

[Lotion Soronarr]

poisonoustea wrote...

The alignment system is simple and effective; if you really want to "roleplay", then you shouldn't care about the stats.

It's quite easy to tell what actions are available in the wheel. If you want to be sensitive about, say, people's personal issues, you can choose the Paragon lines. At the same time, if someone threatens you, you might think it's better to shoot first.
It's not necessary to go all-Paragon or all-Renegade.

Except that a high paragen/renegade score unlocks more conversation options.
Frankly, that should be left out. ME doesn't NEED any aligment - you cna still leave the quicktime events and loose nothing.

[DaveTheJackal]

FlintlockJazz wrote...
In your system
if someone has 75% Paragon and 25% Renegade then they will be at a
disadvantage when compared to a 100% Paragon 0% Renegade, 0% Paragon
100% Renegade and a 50% Paragon 50% Renegade, so your system would just
add a third option to which you would feel compelled to develop your
character towards, as opposed to just roleplaying them.  I understand
what you are trying to do, but I don't think adding a third way is the
best method, rather they should make the convos more involved.

I agree with more involved convos. But, if they give more even bonuses (e.g. +2 Ren +2 Par rather than +4 Par) for 'middle road' options, why would anyone lose out?

The person with 75% para and 25% ren would have the advantage of being able to choose more middle road options than a 100% para, and more para options than a 50-50 middle roader.

Flexibility over specialisation.

At the moment, since many options require very high Ren/Para scores, this sort of flexibility is far harder to come by.

Modifié par DaveTheJackal, 22 février 2010 - 05:56 .

[DaveTheJackal]

poisonoustea wrote...

At the moment, since many options require very high Ren/Para scores, this sort of flexibility is far harder to come by

I think it's more natural than it seems. If I'm a peaceful person and I'm used to talking and acting in a peaceful way, I'm naturally less inclined to taking violent actions to solve problems and vice versa.

And anyway, Shepard's a hero. Mass Effect is an epic scenario. A character choosing the "middle road" can't go that far in such a context. You need a Paragon or a Renegade to have the problems solved. Strong decisions one way or the other.

Not everyone's like that though. Many people go for what works: passive with a crying child, forceful with a Krogan. Intelligent decisions should be rewarded as much as characateur.

[Lotion Soronarr]

Is there any compelling reason to have Paragon/Renagade scores at all?

Is there a reason to have their score dictate conversation options?

[Selvec_Darkon]

Intimidating someone doesn't always cause them to back down. Sometimes it causes them to get violent. Being persuasive to someone can sometimes cause them to get annoyed, causing them to react when you didn't want them to.



The flipside to choosing a particular pathway should be displayed as often, if not more so, then the reward. Taking a risk by trying to be persuasive or intimidating needs to have just that, RISK.

[DaveTheJackal]

poisonoustea wrote...

Not everyone's like that though. Many people go for what works: passive with a crying child, forceful with a Krogan. Intelligent decisions should be rewarded as much as characateur.

Uhm, it's not like the game prevents you from doing that. As far as I can tell, I was still able to headbutt that Krogan on Tuchanka, AND talk it out with the Batia Frontiers lady on Ilium. I'm not saying that Shepard should go one way or another for all his career; it's just that it's hard to have the guts to make big choices if you don't believe fully in your modus operandi, or if you're not accustomed to it. I think the game flows well in this aspect; what's wrong is that some of the dialogue lines are not intelligent enough: back on Mordin's mission, he explains everything about the Genophage, why it's done. Mordin has a lot of demons haunting him, still you don't get a chance to tell him "Mordin, you're a good man. I'm glad someone like you had to take such a decision."
You can only say "Oh you're so evil!" or "Genophage FTW, Kroganz r n00bz". This is what bothers me the most... I mean, Shepard must be an hero, must take hard decisions etc. But sure as hell he shouldn't be able to change the Galaxy if he's not acting smart, especially if he's going the Paragon way.

Currently, the game prevents you from doing this AND unlocking special convo options.

If ME3 is going to have convo based Ren/Par points and if they are going to have unlockable options then it would be nice if players who choose a varied/middle path were rewarded like everyone else.

Get it now?

I agree that many of the options were a bit off, but I'm sure I got the opportunity to tell Mordin he'd done the right thing at some point. Besides that's an entirely different issue. It's not a case of either or. Start a thread about it, if it concerns you so much.

Modifié par DaveTheJackal, 23 février 2010 - 11:52 .