125 réponses à ce sujet

[Riot Inducer]

siltsonata wrote...

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.

Agreed with the OP and this entirely, Miranda died on my first playthrough for no other reason than that I had picked the paragon/renegade choices naturally instead of always hopping on the blue/red options. It's so limiting and frustrating that you are punished for natural decision making.

[ZennExile]

Kileyan wrote...

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.

Completionists make up about 5% of any given market.  The vast majority of gamers do need the developer to baby them.  That was the main reason Bioware changed from the real story(this is admitted by Bioware) to a story with limited impact on the average gamer who couldn't possible understand that the 2 at the end means it was a sequel.  So in essence ME2 was designed for the lowest of the low.  The stupidest possible gamer.

It's a western market trend because publishers force developers to try and mass appeal their projects.  Instead of funding lots of different projects and allowing the industry to grow and mature we are stuck in ****ing retard land bacause companies like EA think that every project has to sell 2 million units on release or it's not wirth their time to even consider.

[Rip504]

ZennExile "Completionists make up about 5% of any given market. The vast majority of gamers do need the developer to baby them. That was the main reason Bioware changed from the real story(this is admitted by Bioware) to a story with limited impact on the average gamer who couldn't possible understand that the 2 at the end means it was a sequel. So in essence ME2 was designed for the lowest of the low. The stupidest possible gamer.



It's a western market trend because publishers force developers to try and mass appeal their projects. Instead of funding lots of different projects and allowing the industry to grow and mature we are stuck in ****ing retard land bacause companies like EA think that every project has to sell 2 million units on release or it's not wirth their time to even consider."



And now that they have,Bioware will make up for it in their epic ending ME3...

[tmp7704]

Markinator_123 wrote...

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

My Shepard had Ashley shoot Wrex when it appeared the discussion came to standstill. Why? Because strictly in-game it's a laughable idea a krogan battlemaster would let anyone just talk them or intimidate them out of getting his hands on the cure for his people. Especially a non-krogan who had to be taught what the genophage even was mere days/weeks ago. So having to pick between a krogan and the mission, she picked the mission.

There's few situations in ME where the magic blue/red dialogue options just totally break the immersion and leave the game mechanics all exposed in their stupidity. That was one of them

[ZennExile]

I seriously doubt it. ME2 didn't do as well as their marketing suggests it should. I am willing to bet ME3 ends up even worse off the ME2 for exactly the same reasons. More mass appeal and less actual appeal. ME3 could be great if they completely disregard ME2 but that will never happen. ME3 doesn't really stand a chance unless something massive changes in the way development is handled. They basically wrote ME2 on the fly based on 7 characters that "sounded" neat and had nothing to do with the Mass Effect Universe. Everything beyond that is an excuse for that poor decision. I have a feeling they will do exactly the same thing again.

[Meistr_Chef]

I agree. Something has to be done about this.

I found out the hard way. After playing through mostly "on the rails" as a paragon soldier the first time, I didn't realize there was such a thing as "persuasion checks". Morinth? Hmm who to kill. Miranda/Jack? Easily solved. Legion/Tali? Cool as a the Fonz.

Then I started a new character as a Vanguard, this time really mixing up the paragon and renegade. And now I'm trying to recruit Morinth, and found that I had no choice to do so. What the hell just happened? I'm not even a power gamer or whatever, I only know that Morinth is recruitable because the first playthrough had that option. And now I don't know why the heck I can't recruit her. Scouring the forums have not shown me anything definitive. And now I'm loathe to continue the game because I might be losing out on Miranda/Jack and Tali/Legion because I like them all and I hate these kinds of choices taken away from me.

I don't see why my mixed paragon/renegade Shepard is seen as "weaker" as it is. It's not like I'm picking the "I'm indifferent" options in the game - I am actively taking a stand in nearly every engagement. So what if I still care for my squadmates and some of the more worthy souls in the universe, but bring out the hurt on criminals?

It's cool if I had to decide killing the Rachni or something; I can take a hit knowing that I have to deal with the consequences later. But somehow not able to recruit Morinth or losing loyalty seem to be too arbitrary at this point.

Disclaimer time. I love Mass Effect 2 in that the game brims with focus and a sort of exhilirating ambition. But this searing showstopper of a game mechanic really dampened the magic for me. I'm not sure if I have a solution for this (haven't thought it through) but it really pisses me off when I don't have a choice to do something that I know was possible before, and why.

Modifié par Meistr_Chef, 25 février 2010 - 06:19 .

[Markinator_123]

Please stay on topic people. This about morality-based alignment persuasion not about dumbing down to appeal to western audiences. I just want to say this before this turns into to a different discussion.

Modifié par Markinator_123, 25 février 2010 - 06:08 .

[erilben]

Markinator_123 wrote...

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).

Yes, it is. In ME1, charm/inimitable are tied to paragon/renegade. The ME wiki agrees: http://masseffect.wi...#Paragon_points

[Raphael diSanto]

erilben wrote...

Markinator_123 wrote...

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).

Yes, it is. In ME1, charm/inimitable are tied to paragon/renegade. The ME wiki agrees: http://masseffect.wi...#Paragon_points

This.

You can't play a Paragon character with high intimidate because you needed renegade points to unlock the ability to buy those high intimidate skills. The cap for base-level renegade alignment was what, 4 or 5 points in Intimidate?

[ZennExile]

Markinator_123 wrote...

Please stay on topic people. This about morality-based alignment persuasion not about dumbing down to appeal to western audiences. I just want to say this before this turns into to a different discussion.

They are one and the same.  That's the problem.  Bioware used to attempt to avoid these kinds of good/evil cliche` mechanics.  They used to allow Paragon and Renegade options ALONG SIDE nuetral options or combination options but now it's boiled down to the retard stock in order to appeal to a larger less "complex" audience.  Bioware used to let the player choose how they wanted to play.  Now you are forced into these preform roles that they think will appeal to stupid people and any sort of complex behavior or interactions are shunned and rediculed.

[Collider]

Markinator_123 wrote...

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.

YES! I agree 100%. If ANY of the dialogue options depend on how paragon or renegade you are, it should only be options having to do with reputation. But not everyone is going to know about Shepard or even care about his reputation. Just have a skill that increases persuasion.

[Durpmeister1]

Well I can agree to some degree with some of the points made in the thread, I have to say that while there are flaws to the paragon/renegade system, I think they're consistent with the Mass Effect experience. I mean, it's better than having to put points into something like persuade (if you want to talk about breaking immersion, not having enough persuade is much worse than the paragon/renegade thing) or taking your time to give party members gifts just so they'll like you (a la DA:O). I think the paragon/renegade choices at the side is supposed reward players who consistently choose a certain path. When you think about it, if you consistently choose the neutral choice, you're not really building up a reputation of some who is to be trusted or to be feared. I know a lot of ME is all about choice, but I think a better description for ME is the effects of your choices. That being said, you're not really going to establish some sort of consistency by going towards the "mixed/middle path" the whole time.



Also, I don't think the system was made for the idiot demographic. I think it was more or less forced by the choice they made in presenting dialogue choices, to which I honestly don't mind because that's one of the things I liked the most from ME.

[Markinator_123]

erilben wrote...

Markinator_123 wrote...

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).

Yes, it is. In ME1, charm/inimitable are tied to paragon/renegade. The ME wiki agrees: http://masseffect.wi...#Paragon_points

True- but for new Game+ in me2 there is no carry through in alignment.

Modifié par Markinator_123, 25 février 2010 - 06:30 .

[Internet Kraken]

Raphael diSanto wrote...

erilben wrote...

Markinator_123 wrote...

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).

Yes, it is. In ME1, charm/inimitable are tied to paragon/renegade. The ME wiki agrees: http://masseffect.wi...#Paragon_points

This.

You can't play a Paragon character with high intimidate because you needed renegade points to unlock the ability to buy those high intimidate skills. The cap for base-level renegade alignment was what, 4 or 5 points in Intimidate?

Not true. I got both my renegade and paragon scores high enough to solve nearly any situation with charm or intimidate. This was supposed to be my neutral character, but since I'm a pansy it turned into a paragon. Yet despite having a ton of paragon points, I still had gotten enough renegde poitns to have high intimidate.

[ZennExile]

It doesn't make sense because you don't want to see the truth about the game. I was designed for idiots just to make sure no one is too stupid to play the game. That is EA's grand marketing strategy. It's what they have always done and always will do. It's unfortunate that they confuse the "all gamers" demographic with RPG players like this but there is nothing we can do about it until the market either collapses from stagnation or a publisher with enough money behind it steps up and says **** YOU MASS APPEAL and starts making games because they are good instead of because they are easy enough for retards to play.

[Markinator_123]

ZennExile wrote...

Markinator_123 wrote...

Please stay on topic people. This about morality-based alignment persuasion not about dumbing down to appeal to western audiences. I just want to say this before this turns into to a different discussion.

They are one and the same.  That's the problem.  Bioware used to attempt to avoid these kinds of good/evil cliche` mechanics.  They used to allow Paragon and Renegade options ALONG SIDE nuetral options or combination options but now it's boiled down to the retard stock in order to appeal to a larger less "complex" audience.  Bioware used to let the player choose how they wanted to play.  Now you are forced into these preform roles that they think will appeal to stupid people and any sort of complex behavior or interactions are shunned and rediculed.

I agree with you. By the way, my statement was not an attack on you but rather a reminder. You know how discussions can take a different turn on these forums. But you are right on point my friend.

[IntrepidProdigy]

erilben wrote...

Markinator_123 wrote...

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).

Yes, it is. In ME1, charm/inimitable are tied to paragon/renegade. The ME wiki agrees: http://masseffect.wi...#Paragon_points

Each time you started a new game with the same character in ME1, you had the opportunity to increase your charm/intimidate even further which would ultimately allow you to pick either option in conversation that you wanted in proceeding play-throughs. You could also just spend points into charm or intimidate directly (you also got free points upon becoming a spectre). In ME2, your persuasion is directly based on your paragon/renegade score. On top of that, your P/R is always reset each time you start a new game (unless you import an ME1 character), which in turn makes it more frustrating to the player that wants to roleplay the way that they want.

[Suron]

Bill Hooks wrote...

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.

except..it -IS- how it works...sorta anyway.

depending on how you talk to them you get renegade or paragon points..which will be used to resolve the situation.

EXACTLY what you said you wanted..only...you can get those points doin other things too

[Serillen]

Markinator_123 wrote...

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).

In ME1 your charm/intimidate scores were directly tied to your paragon/renegade levels. Without enough paragon points the higher levels of charm remained locked and vice versa with renegade and intimidate. All ME2 did was remove the need to dump points into charm/intimidate.

Modifié par Serillen, 25 février 2010 - 06:39 .

[Durpmeister1]

ZennExile wrote...

It doesn't make sense because you don't want to see the truth about the game. I was designed for idiots just to make sure no one is too stupid to play the game. That is EA's grand marketing strategy. It's what they have always done and always will do. It's unfortunate that they confuse the "all gamers" demographic with RPG players like this but there is nothing we can do about it until the market either collapses from stagnation or a publisher with enough money behind it steps up and says **** YOU MASS APPEAL and starts making games because they are good instead of because they are easy enough for retards to play.

Okay, now your comments are becoming insulting. You're claiming that just because Mass Effect doesn't have one extra "neutral" choice or give something else to "persuade" with that it instantly makes it a game for idiots? You're saying that you'd rather have all our choice not have any real meaning or have no real effect in what happens around us? The fact that Mass Effect is filled with complex situations, social critique and exploration of various consequences means it was made for the "all gamer" demographic? The absurdity.

[Meistr_Chef]

Suron wrote...

Bill Hooks wrote...

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.

except..it -IS- how it works...sorta anyway.

depending on how you talk to them you get renegade or paragon points..which will be used to resolve the situation.

EXACTLY what you said you wanted..only...you can get those points doin other things too

The problem is that it is not obvious how the system works, which makes decision making hard in a bad way.

What makes Shepard an effective mediator? That fact that he helps people regardless of the situation (paragon)? The fact that he acts like a cold hearted ass (renegade)? Those do not seem to be congruent with the characteristics of an effective mediator.

Modifié par Meistr_Chef, 25 février 2010 - 06:45 .

[Onyx Jaguar]

Serillen wrote...

Markinator_123 wrote...

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).

In ME1 your charm/intimidate scores were directly tied to your paragon/renegade levels. Without enough paragon points the higher levels of charm remained locked and vice versa with renegade and intimidate. All ME2 did was remove the need to dump points into charm/intimidate.

I agree the current system makes more sense.  Leveling up Charm/Intimidate was pointless at a point and a waste of skill points when you could get the decisions just based on Renegade V Paragon in the normal bar (except you can't convince Saren to kill himself).  ME 2's system makes more sense.

However I also agree with the point that the alignment-based persuassion is a bit too simple, I liked Dragon Age and its persuassion which was not based on alignment it was based on choices to the situation.  

[Raphael diSanto]

Internet Kraken wrote...

Raphael diSanto wrote...

erilben wrote...

Markinator_123 wrote...

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).

Yes, it is. In ME1, charm/inimitable are tied to paragon/renegade. The ME wiki agrees: http://masseffect.wi...#Paragon_points

This.

You can't play a Paragon character with high intimidate because you needed renegade points to unlock the ability to buy those high intimidate skills. The cap for base-level renegade alignment was what, 4 or 5 points in Intimidate?

Not true. I got both my renegade and paragon scores high enough to solve nearly any situation with charm or intimidate. This was supposed to be my neutral character, but since I'm a pansy it turned into a paragon. Yet despite having a ton of paragon points, I still had gotten enough renegde poitns to have high intimidate.

" I still had gotten enough renegde poitns to have high intimidate."

I think that was my point. Without getting those renegade points, you would not have been able to increase your intimidate beyond the base level.

[Meistr_Chef]

This is definitely an interesting problem...I'm starting to question my own reasoning.



I wonder if this system is pissing me off because it's making me make decisions I don't like. Or maybe it's making decisions I don't like in the presence of more appealing but unavailable choices.



If I always had to choose between Miranda/Jack and Morinth/Samara I'd probably just get on with it instead of agonizing over the fact that there was a way out. Hmm...

[IntrepidProdigy]

Raphael diSanto wrote...

" I still had gotten enough renegde poitns to have high intimidate."

I think that was my point. Without getting those renegade points, you would not have been able to increase your intimidate beyond the base level.

The difference is, in ME1 you could continue that character and continue to max both paragon/renegade as you saw fit without wasting any combat points into them. There is no such flexability in the persuasion system in ME2 since persuasion is directly linked into paragon/renegade. You are forced to start from scratch each time and only make choices on 1 side of the extreme if you wish to make any key decisions in the game.

Modifié par IntrepidProdigy, 25 février 2010 - 07:00 .