125 réponses à ce sujet

[superimposed]

TLK Spires wrote...

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.

Yep, because black and white are so immersive.

[Nightwriter]

I don't like it when the game restricts me.



Don't, like, oppress me, man. I'm like, a free bird and stuff. Don't be "the man", man. Yeah. Good and evil gaming is like, a cage for your soul. I'm a free spirit. I fly free, man.

[lumen11]

adam_grif wrote...

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?

Hehe, that's a nice point.
However, the way I see it, persuasion in ME is based on Shephard being a forceful personality, which in turn is determined by things like reputation, sincerety and practice. There is very little negotiation in ME. Usually there is not enough time and the stakes are too high.

Nightwriter wrote...

I don't like it when the game restricts me.

Don't,
like, oppress me, man. I'm like, a free bird and stuff. Don't be "the
man", man. Yeah. Good and evil gaming is like, a cage for your soul.
I'm a free spirit. I fly free, man.

Modifié par lumen11, 25 février 2010 - 01:25 .

[Habelo]

They should make it hidden, so that you cant **** for paragon or renegade points.

[BHRamsay]

I disagree with the OP and here is why. BW doesn't reward you for being stupid as one poster put it. I have yet to have a single problem resolving the Jack/Miranda dispute. I do their loyalty missions early and I max out the class mastery bar ASAP. The interrupt system accounts for a fair amount of points one way or the other if I'm any judge of how MYgames have been going. May I respectfully suggest that if you really want to neutral your way through the game then you just have to work a lot harder getting what you want out of the game. I'm guessing that you no longer run through a room blazing away at all and sundry when your doing an insanity run. you are careful and thoughtful about how to get what you want and survive . Treat the alignment system the same way and i doubt you will have any problems of course that's just my opinion and I'm sure I've already been dismissed as a bioware fanboy. :-)

[Vaenier]

I just wonder why that if I have 100% Paragon and 50% Renegade, I cant use either option sometimes.

[DaveTheJackal]

My reason for proposing a 'middle road' option here

[Ulicus]

IntrepidProdigy wrote...

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.

This is made even more ironic when you remember that the reason most people wanted the NG+ to return (remember when it wasn't coming back?) was so they could have most of the dialog options available right from the start and play the story any way they wanted! 

Lol. Oh well.

[Jackal904]

I completely agree with the OP. This is my biggest gripe with ME2. I feel like I am forced to go straight paragon or renegade, or else I'll miss out on important dialogue options. I can't simply choose what I want.

Below is a link to an episode of the podcast called Feedback From G4TV. If you watch near the end of it they discuss the persuation and dialogue system and they complain about this very issue and few others regardly the dialogue and persuation system.

g4tv.com/thefeed/blog/post/702504/Feedback----BioShock-2-Edition-With-A-Little-Mass-Effect-2.html

And these arguements against choosing the middle (neutral) dialogue option is stupid. The middle dialogue option is not always a neutral thing to say. Most of the time it isn't. So these arguements against picking neutral options don't even apply to Mass Effect.

Modifié par Jackal904, 25 février 2010 - 02:34 .

[Markinator_123]

Some people still seem to think that following one route is the best way. You can't be caring towards everyone or hostile towards everyone. It is not realistic.

[SimonTheFrog]

Here's an idea for ME3:



Both paragon and renegade choices are counting for one single "Diplomacy" bar. This needs to be high in order to have extra dialog options.



Selecting one of the two more often than the other results in different "extra dialog options" and different appearance (scars, whatever).



So, like this you may always select paragon or renegade like you wish and you don't have to worry about not being able to have significant dialog options later. But still, selecting one of the two significantly changes your character and opens different paths during the game.



Whatcha think...

[kraidy1117]

I never had problems with it.... and I don't even pay attention to the moral system. I make decisions I would make and I was able to do every charm and majority of intimate options. Sigh I swear there is cry babies here.

[SimonTheFrog]

kraidy1117 wrote...

I never had problems with it.... and I don't even pay attention to the moral system. I make decisions I would make and I was able to do every charm and majority of intimate options. Sigh I swear there is cry babies here.

So, you are trying to say that nobody has a valid point because it didn't bother you?

That's interesting...

[Sina84]

dan107 wrote...

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.

Being harsh aggressive when it's necessary and nice and polite when it's appropriate is not being "wishy-washy", it's using your head and adjusting to the demands of any given situation. Presumably you wouldn't talk to your mother the same way you would to a guy trying to pick a fight with you IRL, and it makes no sense to do so in a game.

Well said.

[JamieCOTC]

In ME1 I played pretty much a Paragon, w/ a few exceptions. I went in the game w/ a (slightly altered) Batman rule. If someone is trying to kill me, kill them first. If someone can be reasoned w/ take the high road. I broke that rule once, in the Toombs mission, where I killed the unarmed Cerberus scientist. (I had a sole survivor background). To me that is real role playing. With the new system, it's doubtful I would have been able to do something like that.

[GenericPlayer2]

I wouldn't say they need to do away with the system, but it does need balancing. If you have full Paragon points then all paragon blue options are available. This is not the same for renegade, you can have a full renegade bar and still be locked out of red conversation options. What they have now is a hybrid system, that depends on points AND on based on previous decisions. Sticking with either a point alignment system OR a 'previous decisions' system would be nice, but this hybrid system is just pissing me off.

[They call me a SpaceCowboy]

In my second play through, playing a renegade character, I was holding off doing the jack loyalty because I knew I'd have trouble resolving it if my paragon wasn't high enough. However I happened to max my class skill, Operative, I think, and this basically doubled my renegade and paragon points. Anyone else notice this? it might be an option for those compaining about being stuck with low scores when playing more neutral. I'll try it next play through.



Also, jacks loyalty, and I assume Legion/Tali's, can be fixed later once you get your points up. Just talk to them again.

[guise709]

Same here wish there was just a "persuasion skill" you feat into. I like how DAO did it everything felt morally grey and justified from many perspectives.

[Ackillez]

The system is not broken beyond repair, but it is flawed in the ME2 iteration.



It was probably a good idea to separate it from the skill points system. But by being too harsh with decision requirements, it has had the unfortunate sideeffect of promoting an even more polarised playstyle than ME1, where you could at least make up for your mix of p. and r. choices by sinking points into the skills. It was possible to max out both meters and both skills in a single playthrough, although this would gimp combat capabilities. And the toughest decisions only required 75% full bar of either (to unlock the entire intimidate/persuasion tree), whereas there are situations in ME2 where even a bar that is seemingly 100% full is not sufficient to select the appropriate dialogue option.



Being a bit more benign with the requirements would probably do a lot to mitigate the complaints, because the problem now is that players feel they have to select certain dialogue responses not because this is the way they want the story to pan out but because they need the points in order to be able to use persuasion/intimidate options later on. This is not good storytelling- this is an immersion-breaker and encourages metagaming. Personally, I know that I'm always tempted to go with a route that maximizes the total amount of alignment points I get- both paragon and renegade- because I like to have as many conversation options open as possible. However, the result of such a playstyle is a terrible bipolar mix- kind of a Dr. Jekyll and mr. Hyde. Note that I'm not saying that selecting a mix of p. and r. responses makes a character inconsistent in any way- far from it, in fact- but playing the optimal alignment points maximizing-route certainly does.



Another thing the system fails to realize is that in diplomacy, persuasion and intimidation is to some extent two sides of the same coin- the stick and the carrot, if you will. Persuasion is usually about pointing out the desirable consequences of following your instructions/advice in a reasonable manner, intimidation is usually about pointing out the undesirable consequences of NOT following your instructions/advice in a forceful manner. Successful diplomacy will often have to rely on both, the 'iron fist in a velvet glove' as it's known. In other ways, paragon and renegade are different things- paragon being the willingness to make sacrifices for others, embodying Kant's assertion that every sentient being must be treated as an end in themselves, not just a means to an end, while renegade embodies a utilitarian worldview where sacrificing others is acceptable to further your own goals, provided those goals are worthy enough. And these philosophies ARE mutually incompatible.



Bioware should totally revamp the way points are earned. Make it dependent more on what you do rather than what you say, and focus on the important and semi-important decisions instead of the minor ones. This gives players more control over the general flow of conversations allowing them to be snarky or polite (or, god forbid, selecting the dreaded middle options that usually give no alignment points) according to the way they want their characters to respond, instead of worrying about what will give them the alignment points they need.

[Torguemada]

Ackillez wrote...
Bioware should totally revamp the way points are earned. Make it dependent more on what you do rather than what you say, and focus on the important and semi-important decisions instead of the minor ones. This gives players more control over the general flow of conversations allowing them to be snarky or polite (or, god forbid, selecting the dreaded middle options that usually give no alignment points) according to the way they want their characters to respond, instead of worrying about what will give them the alignment points they need.

Thats exactly how i played my Renegon Vanguard and there have been like 2-4 blue choices i couldn't chooce and zero red choises.

[Ackillez]

Torguemada wrote...

Ackillez wrote...
Bioware should totally revamp the way points are earned. Make it dependent more on what you do rather than what you say, and focus on the important and semi-important decisions instead of the minor ones. This gives players more control over the general flow of conversations allowing them to be snarky or polite (or, god forbid, selecting the dreaded middle options that usually give no alignment points) according to the way they want their characters to respond, instead of worrying about what will give them the alignment points they need.

Thats exactly how i played my Renegon Vanguard and there have been like 2-4 blue choices i couldn't chooce and zero red choises.

I make no claim of fully understanding the alignment system, but it's also the way I played my Renegon and I ended up not being able to use intimidate to break up Tali/Legion despite the bar being 100% full. It's not gamebreaking, not by a long shot, but it could do with some improvements and there's no reason BW needs to reward players for always picking the extreme options.

[Forsakerr]

Ackillez wrote...

The system is not broken beyond repair, but it is flawed in the ME2 iteration.

It was probably a good idea to separate it from the skill points system. But by being too harsh with decision requirements, it has had the unfortunate sideeffect of promoting an even more polarised playstyle than ME1, where you could at least make up for your mix of p. and r. choices by sinking points into the skills. It was possible to max out both meters and both skills in a single playthrough, although this would gimp combat capabilities. And the toughest decisions only required 75% full bar of either (to unlock the entire intimidate/persuasion tree), whereas there are situations in ME2 where even a bar that is seemingly 100% full is not sufficient to select the appropriate dialogue option.

Being a bit more benign with the requirements would probably do a lot to mitigate the complaints, because the problem now is that players feel they have to select certain dialogue responses not because this is the way they want the story to pan out but because they need the points in order to be able to use persuasion/intimidate options later on. This is not good storytelling- this is an immersion-breaker and encourages metagaming. Personally, I know that I'm always tempted to go with a route that maximizes the total amount of alignment points I get- both paragon and renegade- because I like to have as many conversation options open as possible. However, the result of such a playstyle is a terrible bipolar mix- kind of a Dr. Jekyll and mr. Hyde. Note that I'm not saying that selecting a mix of p. and r. responses makes a character inconsistent in any way- far from it, in fact- but playing the optimal alignment points maximizing-route certainly does.

Another thing the system fails to realize is that in diplomacy, persuasion and intimidation is to some extent two sides of the same coin- the stick and the carrot, if you will. Persuasion is usually about pointing out the desirable consequences of following your instructions/advice in a reasonable manner, intimidation is usually about pointing out the undesirable consequences of NOT following your instructions/advice in a forceful manner. Successful diplomacy will often have to rely on both, the 'iron fist in a velvet glove' as it's known. In other ways, paragon and renegade are different things- paragon being the willingness to make sacrifices for others, embodying Kant's assertion that every sentient being must be treated as an end in themselves, not just a means to an end, while renegade embodies a utilitarian worldview where sacrificing others is acceptable to further your own goals, provided those goals are worthy enough. And these philosophies ARE mutually incompatible.

Bioware should totally revamp the way points are earned. Make it dependent more on what you do rather than what you say, and focus on the important and semi-important decisions instead of the minor ones. This gives players more control over the general flow of conversations allowing them to be snarky or polite (or, god forbid, selecting the dreaded middle options that usually give no alignment points) according to the way they want their characters to respond, instead of worrying about what will give them the alignment points they need.

you exactly explained everything i had in mind exept you explained it better than i could .

In some situations i would choose to be an ass with people who are threatening me but nice to people that did nt do nothing to me or i could care about but i cant because in later game i wont be able to resolve situations , so it s either be an ass to everyone in the galaxy or be an angel with everyone ,which i think that it s flawed

[yuncas]

I say give a single skill to Player characters that can have points invested in it at the level up screen that allows you to persuade/coerce. Then you can have the freedom to behave how you would like to behave, and not have to stick to one extreme or the other, or if you want to you can.

Modifié par yuncas, 26 février 2010 - 07:35 .

[Torguemada]

Ackillez wrote...
I make no claim of fully understanding the alignment system, but it's also the way I played my Renegon and I ended up not being able to use intimidate to break up Tali/Legion despite the bar being 100% full.

Thats very intresting as not only did i have the intimidation option availebul, but also the charm option