125 réponses à ce sujet

[Jazharah]

Yay for save editors and maxing out both paragon and renegade points so I can just make choices how *I* see fit, instead of basing my decisions on 'omg, gotta go blue otherwise I'm screwed later'.

Fully agree, OP.

/signed

[Meistr_Chef]

IRMcGhee wrote...

I like the ME2 system since it forces you to be consistent with your character. You're not stopped from making lesser P/R decisions (more so if you bump up your class skill), but the game doesn't let you swap back and forward whenever you like if you think you can get some advantage. Unless you're Shepard is schizophrenic that's hardly realistic It isn't a simplification of the game, "hardcore" RPGs (esp PnP) like D&D often penalise you for not sticking to your alignment.

Playing neutral isn't really a choice IMO, you have to be seen to a strong leader and not taking a stand doesn't really cut it.

Then there really is only two viable character paths if you want to ensure control over some of the key decisions regarding your team. In fact, some have reported difficulty with mainly renegade characters...which leaves paragon as the most effective path.

Makes all that talk about free will and choices a bit limiting when it comes with such huge caveats.

[Godeshus]

Disagree with OP. I enjoy the renegade and paragon choices. My Shepard is generally ruthless, and therefore I almost always make renegade choices. He is my character, He has been a renegade his whole life, and because of that he has that aura.



If you choose to play a neutral character, one who has a neutral history, then he won't have the experience and reputation behind him to be able to convince people in red or blue. The choice was yours to be neutral, and if that is what you truly like, then you should be content making neutral choices.



If you're anything at all like me, though, then you probably want to make those red/blue choices mostly because you can't.



-godeshus

[Snowraptor]

i figured if thier was less ****ing (female dog) the world would be a better place

[Massadonious1]

The only shade of grey you need is your ship's bulkhead.



Pick a side.

[Meistr_Chef]

Godeshus wrote...

Disagree with OP. I enjoy the renegade and paragon choices. My Shepard is generally ruthless, and therefore I almost always make renegade choices. He is my character, He has been a renegade his whole life, and because of that he has that aura.

If you choose to play a neutral character, one who has a neutral history, then he won't have the experience and reputation behind him to be able to convince people in red or blue. The choice was yours to be neutral, and if that is what you truly like, then you should be content making neutral choices.

If you're anything at all like me, though, then you probably want to make those red/blue choices mostly because you can't.

-godeshus

How is making a good mix of renegade and paragon choices "neutral"???

Just because I saved one person's life and I killed a hardened criminal without remorse I am "neutral"?

Let's be clear here. Most of us who have issues with this persuasion system are those who plan to play this game many times, and are not taking the "I don't care, let's wait" choices.

Modifié par Meistr_Chef, 25 février 2010 - 09:20 .

[IRMcGhee]

Meistr_Chef wrote...

Then there really is only two viable character paths if you want to ensure control over some of the key decisions regarding your team. In fact, some have reported difficulty with mainly renegade characters...which leaves paragon as the most effective path.

Makes all that talk about free will and choices a bit limiting when it comes with such huge caveats.

That's metagaming.  It's no less viable to play "neutral" or mix P/R choices than it is to stick mostly to one path, but there's consequences later. "The Price Of Neutrality".

[charles shepherd]

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.

This exactly!

This may have been my biggest complaint about the internal structure of ME2 (apart from the mineral probing). The system really does punish honest choices. They should just give you separate points to assign to persuasion/intimidation that coincide with your character level. That way, the decisions you make can be as honest as you want them to be.

[magnuskn]

No, they don't.

[ZennExile]

yes they do

[Massadonious1]

Maybe, they might.

[BobbyTheI]

Rabbit season!

[Amethyst Deceiver]

CaptFrost wrote...

I agree completely. I liked ME1's setup more where you had Charm and Intimidate skills that you could build up and that carried over. Opened up a whole ton of options with dialog, especially on your second time through.

My 2nd ME2 playthrough I spent about two hours cheating my alignment up to about half renegade and half paragon so that I could play the game all the way through and make my own decisions the way I wanted to make them without worrying about derailing my endgame. So it'd feel more like a Mass Effect 1 NG+.

You know what the result was?

From a dramatic perspective I enjoyed my 2nd ME2 playthrough an order of magnitude more.

+1. i use the ini editor to max out paragon and renegade from the start for all my playthroughs. it makes the game so much better to not have to worry about something as stupid as "leveling up" morality points.

such an unnecessary forced obstacle

[SurfaceBeneath]

I finish all of my games with either 100% in one meter and 50% in the other. I'm not sure how it's difficult for people to not get enough points to pass any check...



Heck, I've actually gone a playthrough with the intent of getting both meters as high as I can. I was able to get Paragon up to 100% and Renegade up to a bit over 80%. I probably could have gotten Renegade even higher since I was maxed on Paragon going into the Suicide Mission but wanted to nuke the facility on that particular run.

[MutantSpleen]

tmp7704 wrote...

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

I did the same thing.

Yeah sometimes I purposely don't pick those blue/red choices when it just seems stupid. Sometimes playing the neutral character is more realistic becasue some of the stuff that Shep charms or intimidates her way out of really stretch my suspension of disbelief.  The blue/red choices allow you to bypass a lot of difficult situations.

In my mind killing Wrex was more of the Renegade option than just talking him into my point of view with my magic red dialogue becasue if you were actually in that situation Wrex would have been a lot harder to placate and how would you really be sure that he wouldn't flip out at some critical moment and endanger the mission.

[Xandurpein]

I am in general not a big fan of aligment systems. I tihnk it was great that it was removed alltogether from DA:O. That said, I think that the alignment/persuasion system in ME2 makes a lot of sense.

Persuasion or intimidation is both trying to convince people of seeing things your way. Obviously how convincing you are will depend on what impression you have made upon other people previously. If you are known to be ruthless bastard your threats have a much higher chance of being successful than if you are known to be a wimp. Even if you meet people you have never known before, chances are that you will be more convincing when you threaten them if you have that glint in your eyes you only get from actually going through with a few threats in your life.

The same of persuasion. If those around you know you to be a selfless voice of reason in almost every previous case, then chances are much better that they will stop and listen to your arguments when tempers are flaring, than if you don't trust you.

Sure the system can seem a little clumsy and there is always possible to devise situations where it won't seem to fit, but it sure beats any old alignment system, at least to me.

Modifié par Xandurpein, 25 février 2010 - 11:32 .

[lumen11]

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.

I would like to point out that it is perfectly possible to gather a lot of renegade points or paragon points while playing a neutral style game.

O lot of people seem to miss the point of what Bioware is trying to do here. Bioware is trying to stimulate you to look at individual situations and come up with the best solution for that particular situation based on radically different options. Bioware doesn't want you to adopt a typical good or evil style, but they do want you to make radical choices instead of taking the middle road (without actually taking that option away). Hence the paragon/renegade system.

I really enjoyed how ME2 made you choose in so many different situations. There were countless points in the game where I knew I had to make a choice and suffer the consequences, as apposed to just a few lynchpin story moments like in so many other games. And like it or not, but the only feasible way of creating such a sense of choice is by adoption a system of opposites (whether it works like that in the real world or not).

So I don't think it's necessarily a problem that the game rewards you for making paragon or renegade choices, so long as the game doesn't urge you to select either a paragon or renegade path, and I don't believe it does.

That being said, the paragon/renegade peruasion options do make it a little too easy to escape the consequences of your choices, mostly because you can typically select both a paragon and a renegade line to convince someone and it's not that diffecult to get enough points to open up both options, let alone one.

It's interesting to contemplate a system adding a third line of choise to the paragon/renegade system. A yellow option added to the red and blue so to speak. That yellow option shouldn't reflect the neutral path, however, because that wouldn't solve the problem. Also, I suspect it would make dialogue design much to complex, and in any case, Bioware should stick with the paragon/renegade system for for ME because the universe is built on that system.

[Torguemada]

Rip504 wrote...

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".

Thats very intresting considering thats exactly what i did.
Went with the paragon route of fleet security comes first and then after Alarei shouted down the Admirality board.

Meistr_Chef wrote...
Then there really is only two viable
character paths if you want to ensure control over some of the key
decisions regarding your team. In fact, some have reported difficulty
with mainly renegade characters...which leaves paragon as the most
effective path.

Makes all that talk about free will and choices a
bit limiting when it comes with such huge caveats.

My Vanguard has full Renegade Bar and half full paragon bar and i have still playing left to do and i even took some neutral conversation options when they feeled like right choises.
Ofcource that was an imported ME1 renegon character, that might have some impact.

So i cant understand this whining about having to allways pick lower/upper right shoice in conversations.

[i7206]

Totally agree with the OP.



Choices should solely be rewarded with consequences, not a few points added to a graph in the pause menu.

[adam_grif]

but they do want you to make radical choices instead of taking the middle road (without actually taking that option away).

You do realize that taking the middle ground is the founding principle of negotiations and persuasion right? How does it make sense that being neutral puts at a disadvantage for negotiating with people?

[ZennExile]

BobbyTheI wrote...

Rabbit season!

DUCK SEASON!!

[Amethyst Deceiver]

MutantSpleen wrote...

tmp7704 wrote...

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

I did the same thing.

Yeah sometimes I purposely don't pick those blue/red choices when it just seems stupid. Sometimes playing the neutral character is more realistic becasue some of the stuff that Shep charms or intimidates her way out of really stretch my suspension of disbelief.  The blue/red choices allow you to bypass a lot of difficult situations.

In my mind killing Wrex was more of the Renegade option than just talking him into my point of view with my magic red dialogue becasue if you were actually in that situation Wrex would have been a lot harder to placate and how would you really be sure that he wouldn't flip out at some critical moment and endanger the mission.

that whole situation pretty much only makes sense if you already did wrex's loyalty mission. when you talk him down based on trust its believable. and plus, there is no magic morality wheel needed to get that option.

Modifié par Amethyst Deceiver, 25 février 2010 - 12:31 .

[superimposed]

I like to renegade the baddies and paragon the goodies. There should be a 'neutral' option which uses your combined paragon and renegade score, rather than getting rid of the paragon/renegade options. T

[TLK Spires]

neutrality never changed the fate of a galaxy.



beacon of hope, or beacon of fortitude. it's not good versus evil, it's lawful good versus chaotic good.

[AngryFrozenWater]

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.

It's part of the fun. Each time I encounter that reporter, I look at my paragon/renegade scores to see if it is save to talk to her. Two of my characters have spoken to her and both got a different outcome. Very cool. I hope my third gets another one.

Modifié par AngryFrozenWater, 25 février 2010 - 12:57 .