125 réponses à ce sujet

[Markinator_123]

For me, this was the worst aspect of Mass Effect 2. Why on Earth does bioware reward you for strictly playing on one side? Solving disputes like Jack/Miranda and Tali/Legion are very difficult if you lean more towards neutral. I am sorry but this persuasion system was just a ludicrous move on Bioware's part because it hurts the roleplaying.

[Zhijn]

Lol i agree to a degree, it is abit silly you cant say one thing because your not strong enough in the force.

Yeah i said the force.. Mindtricking people to his will. =P

But then again it is a BioWare sci-fi, your either a saint or an evil jerk. And if you play the grey areas someone will die.

[A Blind Bandit]

I agree. Its hard to make the choices you want when you know that somewhere down the line you're going to need enough points to get the desired outcome.

[cronshaw8]

It actually makes perfect sense if your squad-mates see you constantly doing compassionate things, helping people out. They will defer to the paragon Shepard, confident he knows what is good for everyone. Conversely if they see you constantly bullying people and sticking your boot up people's asses they will be afraid of renegade shepard and do what he says. If Shepard is wishy-washy they won't be sure what to think.

Modifié par cronshaw8, 25 février 2010 - 04:50 .

[Darth Garrus]

And become like DAO, in that sense? Please, don´t! I think the alignment, and the alignment-based decisions are still a great part of Bioware´s games.

[Computron2000]

I think it actually makes sense. Neutral is not selecting the middle option. Neutral is using paragon options and renegade options together. Its not D&D where alignment is a 0 sum game and if you're good, you can't be bad or your alignment changes.



The Paragon and Renegade gauges are better than alignments IMO because generally you might be good guy but there are times when you're at your limit and need to use harsh methods (reflects being human more accurately).



As for handling the various mirinda/jack, tali/legion disputes, note that its not impossible to ****** one side off then get them back nor calm both sides down without full paragon or renegdae.

[RighteousRage]

I'd rather the player just have to actually select certain options and be persuasive in the regard of knowing what to say, rather than just selecting the upper left or lower left options.

[Bill Hooks]

I see the logic of what cronshaw8 says -- but I'd still prefer it if, say, your ability to resolve the Jack and Miranda argument was based specifically on how you interacted with those characters, rather than on how many puppies you've saved/kicked in total.

[siltsonata]

The only problem I have with it is that it doesn't allow me to play the game the way I want to. There were a lot of times where I would have liked to choose a renegade option for my paragade shep, but I didn't because I knew I would need those paragon points later to stop Miranda and Jack's ****fight.



I did like that I didn't have to put any level-up points into it, so I could focus entirely on building my character for combat, but if it's one or the other I'd rather be able to make the choices I want.

[Markinator_123]

cronshaw8 wrote...

It actually makes perfect sense if your squad-mates see you constantly doing compassionate things, helping people out. They will defer to the paragon Shepard, confident he knows what is good for everyone. Conversely if they see you constantly bullying people and sticking your boot up people's asses they will be afraid of renegade shepard and do what he says. If Shepard is wishy-washy they won't be sure what to think.

It hurts the roleplaying that way. Basically, you are saying that we should act like compassion towards everyone or ruthless/rude towards everyone. That is just ridiculous. Why on Earth would you be compassionate towards a merc who is trying to kill you? Likewise, why you would be a jerk to everyone you meet including allies, friends, and innocents? It is not wishy-washy, it is judging situations on a case-by-case basis. Situations are not always so black-and-white.

[tmp7704]

cronshaw8 wrote...

It actually makes perfect sense if your squad-mates see you constantly doing compassionate things, helping people out. They will defer to the paragon Shepard, confident he knows what is good for everyone. Conversely if they see you constantly bullying people and sticking your boot up people's asses they will be afraid of renegade shepard and do what he says. If Shepard is wishy-washy they won't be sure what to think.

Except you can also do this with people you've never ever met, ones who have no idea what sort of person you are, or with your own squad mates right from the very start when they lack this "constantly see you do things" aspect, which pretty much wrecks this logic...

[IntrepidProdigy]

OMG, I'm in COMPLETE agreement op! I don't mind the alignment system in general, I like it even. What I don't like is that you can only make key plot point decisions if you're on one side of the spectrum. This completely waters down the variety of characters that you can roleplay as throughout the game, and makes the game less interesting as you continue to make different play-throughs IMO. I didn't like the system in ME1 either, but at least you could max out both charm and intimidate permanently (without even actually spending points in them at that). I really hope that this is remedied in ME3, without completely taking out paragon and renegade (much like they did with the inventory).

[ZennExile]

Average gamers don't like complex ideas messing up their game experience. If Bioware tried to release a game that didn't use a good/evil point system to determine how the player should respond "avergae" gamers would lose their ****in minds like those retards on the gamefly commercials.

[Markinator_123]

Ultimately, though, I see the situation as this



Full Paragon (meaning no renegade) = lawful stupid

Full Renegade (meaning no paragon) = chaotic stupid



The game rewards for you being stupid.

[Kileyan]

Didnt' read all response but I agree with you and expect from a pure gaming perspective even Bioware agrees with you.



Problem is they want replay value, and being able to choose any choice at any time really destroys replay.



How does Bioware create diffrent choices for each replay, yet let you hug the enemy into submission or kick them out the window in the same playthrough?

[IntrepidProdigy]

ZennExile wrote...

Average gamers don't like complex ideas messing up their game experience. If Bioware tried to release a game that didn't use a good/evil point system to determine how the player should respond "avergae" gamers would lose their ****in minds like those retards on the gamefly commercials.

That's the thing though, Bioware has been seemingly doing way to much catering to the "average/casual" gamer crowd. I can understand that they are trying to make bank and what not, but It's irritating that they shafted a lot of their original fan base. /rant

Back on topic though, instead of basing your decisions on the alignment system, I think they could have pulled off the renegade/paragon decisions by making a seperate point system from the combat skill tree. They could still keep the alignment system, but make persuasion a seperate matter. That way you wouldn't have to act out of character to complete the game the way you originally intended to.

Modifié par IntrepidProdigy, 25 février 2010 - 05:26 .

[Rip504]

I agree I like to play as a paragon Shep,and sometimes I enjoy the renagade choice.



Example: In ME1 (if it used ME2's system)when your on Virmire and it is time to kill Wrex or let him live,this would be based on how you played the game up until this point.Evil-Kill Good-Live and not your CHOICE. If I played as a Renagade I always wanted Wrex to live period.

[Sina84]

Very much agreed with the OP. This is my biggest grievance with Bioware games and specifically Mass effect. You're essentially penalized for not sticking to one of the extremes, in a game that's supposedly about the different shades of morality gray and choice.

[Chuvvy]

I'm about 70/30 but with the +100% thing it makes my paragon 100% and my renegade 40/50% .

[Markinator_123]

Rip504 wrote...

I agree I like to play as a paragon Shep,and sometimes I enjoy the renagade choice.

Example: In ME1 (if it used ME2's system)when your on Virmire and it is time to kill Wrex or let him live,this would be based on how you played the game up until this point.Evil-Kill Good-Live and not your CHOICE. If I played as a Renagade I always wanted Wrex to live period.

Even my racist renegade Shepard didn't kill wrex. Why? Because it is stupid to kill Wrex period.

[erilben]

Rip504 wrote...

I agree I like to play as a paragon Shep,and sometimes I enjoy the renagade choice.

Example: In ME1 (if it used ME2's system)when your on Virmire and it is time to kill Wrex or let him live,this would be based on how you played the game up until this point.Evil-Kill Good-Live and not your CHOICE. If I played as a Renagade I always wanted Wrex to live period.

You could use intimidate (Renegade) on Wrex to get him to live.

And ME2 is really the same as ME1. In ME1, higher paragon/renegade was used to open up higher ranks of charm/intimidate. All ME2 did was changed it so that you get charm/intimidate for free.

[Kileyan]

ZennExile wrote...

Average gamers don't like complex ideas messing up their game experience. If Bioware tried to release a game that didn't use a good/evil point system to determine how the player should respond "avergae" gamers would lose their ****in minds like those retards on the gamefly commercials.

I disagree, no one needs a developer telling them how to play. The dumbest player or the most self professed advanced rpg player would make decisions based upon what they wanted to do at the time, rather than making decisions to pad their +good rating for decisions 20 hours later in the game. The problem with Biowares games is you must do extreme thing often to get the reward of the super awesome end extreme choice that is totally unrelated to those choices you made 20 hours ago.


This system is not in place to baby people that can't make a choice. It is in place to make sure everyone has to play the game more than once to get all options.

[Markinator_123]

erilben wrote...

Rip504 wrote...

I agree I like to play as a paragon Shep,and sometimes I enjoy the renagade choice.

Example: In ME1 (if it used ME2's system)when your on Virmire and it is time to kill Wrex or let him live,this would be based on how you played the game up until this point.Evil-Kill Good-Live and not your CHOICE. If I played as a Renagade I always wanted Wrex to live period.

You could use intimidate (Renegade) on Wrex to get him to live.

And ME2 is really the same as ME1. In ME1, higher paragon/renegade was used to open up higher ranks of charm/intimidate. All ME2 did was changed it so that you get charm/intimidate for free.

No it is not. ME1's system was based upon skill points. Those skill points could be used anywhere. They were not directly tied to alignment like they are in ME2. For example,  in ME1I can play a paragon character with a high intimidation score (bascially a blunt paragon).

[Rip504]

In your second playthrough.In ME2 NG+ one of the only things that is reset besides upgrades is your alignment.

On Tali's side quest if you pick paragon/renagade in the "first part"(Before saving the ship) of the trial,during the "second part" of the trial(After saving the ship) you can only pick either paragon or renagade but not either.
So if you go paragon in "part 1" you can't go renagade in "part 2".
In ME1 you could pull this off because both of your bars were full.(Not Tali's mission but the Idea)

Modifié par Rip504, 25 février 2010 - 05:48 .

[Inquisitor Recon]

I am no fan of requiring a high paragon/renegade score for many of the conversion options where you don't get screwed over in some way. I was mainly a paragon but I couldn't resist things like shooting your "old friend" on Illium in the foot, punching that criminal your interrogating a bit, and so forth.