153 réponses à ce sujet

[MonkeyLungs]

A system where Charm and Intimidate were based on skills you could put points in (it is FUN to have non combat skill ya know) with Par/Ren meter being a reflection of your choices and maybe add a modifier would be preferrable by me (and maybe others).

[TJSolo]

"So, no one could ever be strong enough to give orders without being either completely good or completely evil? What?"



Paragon/Renegade is not good vs evil. A renegade Shepard doesn't go around stealing lolipops from babies. In respect to ME a renegade is more willing to threaten/harm people to accomplish goals. Given the option to execute someone for their crimes or let them go; will pick execute more often then not.



You forget that in your one fight example that both parties aren't the military or even in a militaristic organization so are not obliged to follow orders.

Outside of that fight in other conversations nobody is obliged to follow Shepards' orders.

[Dethateer]

People always follow a leader, regardless as to whether they're in the military or not (that's ignoring the fact that in 2 Renegade and Paragon really are good an evil substitutes). There aren't only two paths in life, and you don't get punished for not threatening everyone you meet or being overly nice.

[BrandNewMan]

nicodeemus327 wrote...



Meh, I disagree. I like the way it works. It forces you to make choices. If anything I'd want more of those kind of situations.

It influences many people to make the same polarized decisions over and over again. Paragon? Top-right. Renegade? Bottom-right. There, all of your dialog options are set for the rest of the game.

[Public Enemy 001]

Ahhh...I was going to actually make a topic about this later tonight. I could not agree more with the OP. I'd rather see a game that actually forces you to make difficult decisions without locking you into a moral class. I think a good example would be the quest in trying to get back Samesh's wife's body in the first game. Both choices were ambiguous, and I had to think about which one I would choose to end the mission. The only difference was that you either got +3 Regegade, or +3 Paragon.

[TJSolo]

There isn't any punishment for picking one path one path or the other.

Renegade/Paragon isn't directly substituted for good/evil.

In games that used a good/evil system being evil meant you go around doing anything you wanted and violate laws.(killing innocents, property damage, theft..)



Being a leader for the whole "The Reapers are coming" thing doesn't mean Shep can stop a cat fight or is able to get store discounts without using some personality push.

[Dethateer]

You're missing my point. There is a punishment for not sticking exclusively to one of them. No one in real life is either perfectly paragon or perfectly renegade. Not being allowed to pick a renegade action because you've been too paragon up until that point is an artificial limiter, and so is being stuck with the loss of a squaddie's loyalty if you've been even slightly offtrack as a paragon (which happened to me).

[TJSolo]

BrandNewMan wrote...

nicodeemus327 wrote...

Meh, I disagree. I like the way it works. It forces you to make choices. If anything I'd want more of those kind of situations.

It influences many people to make the same polarized decisions over and over again. Paragon? Top-right. Renegade? Bottom-right. There, all of your dialog options are set for the rest of the game.

Sure the options of what choice means what happen in the same location.(Technical implementation) It doesn't mean a player has to pick them all the time for the duration of the game. A player can still be full of one and have picked some of the other for conversations.

Saying that it polarizes a player to only pick one for the duration of the game is just an exaggeration.
It is optional for the player to play Renegade/Paragon. There are just incentives to pick one.

Why is it people complain about having options and choices...play another genre that is linear.

[Dethateer]

There aren't any options, that's just the problem. You can either be goody-goody, or you can be a dick to everyone. If you're on the middleground, you're stuck in the void, because you won't be able to pick options of either type. It isn't "indecisiveness", that's what you fail to understand. People are actually gray, not black or white.

[Grizzly46]

Its a difficult position, and a difficult way to measure if the player is being a good guy or a bad guy, and I don't think there is a perfect system. My gripe with the system is that you use two scales, one for paragon and one for renegade, when it is to me quite clear that they are two ends on the same axis. Therefore, if you do something that could be considered good you will slide towards the paragon end; and likewise, do something bad and you will slide towards the renegade end. But it doesn't work well.

One very prominent example of the problem with this is during Thane's loyalty mission when you are about to question Kelham. If you have a high renegade level, you can begin the interrogation with "I'm a Spectre, start talking" and Kelham will spill the beans immediately. If you don't have that renegade level, the option will be greyed out and you will have to play int out until the lawyer turns up. Then you will have another, neutral option of telling the lawyer and Kelham you are a Spectre and get the info needed. Something is clearly wrong there.

I think that convo options and renegade/paragon points should be separated, and that the paragon/renegade level should have more to do with how people view you. A renegade will be met with suspicion and fear, a paragon with trust and respect - all of course depending on who you are talking to and why. The same goes for LIs - a Jack might be more interested in a renegade; a Tali more in a paragon; Miranda something in between.

Still, that wouldn't be a perfect system, and the ME system is not perfect either, but it works. An interesting problem to be solved...

[TJSolo]

Dethateer wrote...

You're missing my point. There is a punishment for not sticking exclusively to one of them. No one in real life is either perfectly paragon or perfectly renegade. Not being allowed to pick a renegade action because you've been too paragon up until that point is an artificial limiter, and so is being stuck with the loss of a squaddie's loyalty if you've been even slightly offtrack as a paragon (which happened to me).

So the outcome was losing loyalty. It can be fixed or managed differently for later in the game.
There are limiters to what options you have in games; you can't do assassin missions with a high reputation, you can't do defend missions if you're a moral scumbag, and you can't convince some people to do X if you don't harden them.
If I have a high reputation does that mean I don't know how to assassinate someone? No but within the games rules I get excluded.
Think of it like this even though you can  see the renegade/paragon options on screen. Shepard has not had enough use of those respective skills and doesn't even think of saying them.
Like in real life there are different ways to steal yet one thief doesn't know of every way to steal.

[Dethateer]

No, it can't, I tried talking to Miranda after maxing out the last points I was missing in Paragon and still couldn't talk to her. So... no. And you still haven't addressed my point. How the hell can someone be either only paragon or renegade? Even if Shep was a full-blown paragon, that doesn't mean he'd be incapable of shoving someone into a spike or something.

[AlanC9]

TJSolo wrote...

Dethateer wrote...

So, you're basically saying that if I'm willing to execute someone in cold blood, but also help a person in need, I'm indecisive, and therefore incapable of telling two squaddies to STFU and focus on the mission?

You can pick either since the two are different situations.
Picking one option over the other builds up as Paragon or Renegade. The amount you have of either shows how consistent and decisive you have been with the choices you can make in the game.

Having neither of them high shows that you aren't decisive enough for all situations.

You're equating consistent with decisive for no apparent reason. Well, except that it makes your argument seem to make sense, I guess.

[A Fhaol Bhig]

I like it. TJ sums it up nicely.

Modifié par A Fhaol Bhig, 03 mars 2010 - 10:29 .

[AlanC9]

TJSolo wrote...
Why is it people complain about having options and choices...play another genre that is linear.

That isn't the complaint. The complain is that the game encourages making decisions according to the Paragon/Renegade meter, rather than according to any role-playing principle or even good sense.

[Inarai]

Dethateer wrote...

No, it can't, I tried talking to Miranda after maxing out the last points I was missing in Paragon and still couldn't talk to her. So... no. And you still haven't addressed my point. How the hell can someone be either only paragon or renegade? Even if Shep was a full-blown paragon, that doesn't mean he'd be incapable of shoving someone into a spike or something.

Which would be an interrupt.

As for Intimidation options...  Being an absolute Paragon WOULD prevent him from intimidating people.  Wouldn't be convincing with his threats.

And at LEAST on an import, you do NOT have to go full Paragon or full Renegade.

[Dethateer]

Import, mostly paragon, half renegade, then nearly full paragon and less than half renegade in 2. I'm not an idiot, despite what you and TJ seem to think.

[Daewan]

If Superman threatened to impale you on a spike, would you be intimidated? Probably not, because even though he absolutely could do it, that's not how he operates. That would be completely out of character for him. You'd feel pretty safe blowing that off.

If Bob from Accounting threatened to impale you on a spike, would you be intimidated? Well, a little, because who knows what he would do. Why would this even come up in conversation? Who knows, anything could happen. It's a chance - but even if he did, he's an accountant. By spike, he probably means a pencil. It's probably safe.

If Faith the Vampire Slayer threatened to impale you on a spike, would you be intimidated? Well, yeah, she's nuts and really good at the whole impaling thing. She is also usually quite crazy and does bad things for fun. She can't be trusted, don't turn your back on her, tell her what she wants to know before she practices her vampire hunting on you. Sure, she might technically be considered a 'good guy' but she's not much different from the bad ones.



The Paragon/Renegade checks are supposed to reflect how people react to you. It's an artificial game mechanic that lets you build up credibility by acting in certain ways. It's a lot better than rolling dice at any rate. It's still artificial but the whole point of the game is forcing you to see the consequences of your actions. You choose a path, you take your chances.



It's not likely that your choices will force you to 'lose' the game but it will certainly have an effect on the way that you 'win.'

[TJSolo]

AlanC9 wrote...

TJSolo wrote...
Why is it people complain about having options and choices...play another genre that is linear.

That
isn't the complaint. The complain is that the game encourages making
decisions according to the Paragon/Renegade meter, rather than
according to any role-playing principle or even good sense.

Encouragement and reward is not forcing any player to pick full Paragon/Renegade.
A
player not wanting to look at the meter and raise one over the other
and yet wanting to have the same reward or outcome is a complaint.
The OP says it isn't fair the option isn't there; his actions up until that point made the access to the option not appear.
The OP would rather hack the game data to get full Paragon/Renegade then use the game mechanics to skill up one over the other.

I had to re-read that wall of text. Looking at it again makes it clear the OP wants it all from the start without actually having to do anything for it.

[Madame November]

Daewan wrote...

If Superman threatened to impale you on a spike, would you be intimidated? Probably not, because even though he absolutely could do it, that's not how he operates. That would be completely out of character for him. You'd feel pretty safe blowing that off.
If Bob from Accounting threatened to impale you on a spike, would you be intimidated? Well, a little, because who knows what he would do. Why would this even come up in conversation? Who knows, anything could happen. It's a chance - but even if he did, he's an accountant. By spike, he probably means a pencil. It's probably safe.
If Faith the Vampire Slayer threatened to impale you on a spike, would you be intimidated? Well, yeah, she's nuts and really good at the whole impaling thing. She is also usually quite crazy and does bad things for fun. She can't be trusted, don't turn your back on her, tell her what she wants to know before she practices her vampire hunting on you. Sure, she might technically be considered a 'good guy' but she's not much different from the bad ones.

The Paragon/Renegade checks are supposed to reflect how people react to you. It's an artificial game mechanic that lets you build up credibility by acting in certain ways. It's a lot better than rolling dice at any rate. It's still artificial but the whole point of the game is forcing you to see the consequences of your actions. You choose a path, you take your chances.

It's not likely that your choices will force you to 'lose' the game but it will certainly have an effect on the way that you 'win.'

I am totally and unreservedly in love with you.<3 Don't get on Xbox live and call me lover, though, without first verifying that it's me. lol
Seriously, we've got Bob from accounting and Buffy references...*sigh* OMG! The writing... It's my dream come true! You are Joss Whedon aren't you!<3

Modifié par November Cousland, 03 mars 2010 - 10:50 .

[Dethateer]

TJSolo wrote...

AlanC9 wrote...

TJSolo
wrote...
Why is it people complain about having options and
choices...play another genre that is linear.

That
isn't
the complaint. The complain is that the game encourages making
decisions
according to the Paragon/Renegade meter, rather than
according to
any role-playing principle or even good sense.

Encouragement
and reward is not forcing any player to pick full Paragon/Renegade.
A
player
not wanting to look at the meter and raise one over the other
and
yet wanting to have the same reward or outcome is a complaint.
The
OP says it isn't fair the option isn't there; his actions up until that
point made the access to the option not appear.
The OP would rather
hack the game data to get full Paragon/Renegade then use the game
mechanics to skill up one over the other.

I had to re-read that
wall of text. Looking at it again makes it clear the OP wants it all
from the start without actually having to do anything for it.

That's because being able to tell someone to f**k off shouldn't require that you have been a bastard up until that point!

Modifié par Dethateer, 03 mars 2010 - 10:50 .

[A Fhaol Bhig]

TJSolo wrote...

AlanC9 wrote...

TJSolo wrote...
Why is it people complain about having options and choices...play another genre that is linear.

That
isn't the complaint. The complain is that the game encourages making
decisions according to the Paragon/Renegade meter, rather than
according to any role-playing principle or even good sense.

Encouragement and reward is not forcing any player to pick full Paragon/Renegade.
A
player not wanting to look at the meter and raise one over the other
and yet wanting to have the same reward or outcome is a complaint.
The OP says it isn't fair the option isn't there; his actions up until that point made the access to the option not appear.
The OP would rather hack the game data to get full Paragon/Renegade then use the game mechanics to skill up one over the other.

I had to re-read that wall of text. Looking at it again makes it clear the OP wants it all from the start without actually having to do anything for it.

I want to play true to what I mainly am, which is 70% nice decisions, 30% not nice.

That always gives me enough, and when I feel like being a jerk, I am one, when I feel sorry for someone, I do something about it.

I've never noticed any limitations in my speeches.

[Buzyfe]

Octorox wrote...

 Agree. I think they should make it so each character judges you individually (Like I've heard DA does)

The only thing that DA does is how you interact with your chat selections... and what your chat interactions do in DA... is absolutely nidda.

[TJSolo]

AlanC9 wrote...

TJSolo wrote...

Dethateer wrote...

So, you're basically saying that if I'm willing to execute someone in cold blood, but also help a person in need, I'm indecisive, and therefore incapable of telling two squaddies to STFU and focus on the mission?

You can pick either since the two are different situations.
Picking one option over the other builds up as Paragon or Renegade. The amount you have of either shows how consistent and decisive you have been with the choices you can make in the game.

Having neither of them high shows that you aren't decisive enough for all situations.

You're equating consistent with decisive for no apparent reason. Well, except that it makes your argument seem to make sense, I guess.

Me saying Shepard is indecisive is my viewpoint of a Shepard that is neither high in Paragon or Renegade. It is akin to others attaching good/bad to Paragon/Renegade.

Then there is my use of decisive in referring to the player that doesn't want to decide between Paragon or Renegade.
Bioware has stated that Shepard has two paths(extremes,yes) and the player decides which path to take, each path has its own consequences and benefits. 
One of the benefits is more dialogue trees inline with your(player) alignment.
One of the consequences is less dialogue trees outside of your(player) alignment.
To fully explore the impact Shepard can make in ME a player needs to be decisive and pick one of the paths to gain access to the benefits.
I am calling players that can't pick between the two options for a playthrough indecisive.

[TJSolo]

A Fhaol Bhig wrote...

TJSolo wrote...

AlanC9 wrote...

TJSolo wrote...
Why is it people complain about having options and choices...play another genre that is linear.

That
isn't the complaint. The complain is that the game encourages making
decisions according to the Paragon/Renegade meter, rather than
according to any role-playing principle or even good sense.

Encouragement and reward is not forcing any player to pick full Paragon/Renegade.
A
player not wanting to look at the meter and raise one over the other
and yet wanting to have the same reward or outcome is a complaint.
The OP says it isn't fair the option isn't there; his actions up until that point made the access to the option not appear.
The OP would rather hack the game data to get full Paragon/Renegade then use the game mechanics to skill up one over the other.

I had to re-read that wall of text. Looking at it again makes it clear the OP wants it all from the start without actually having to do anything for it.

I want to play true to what I mainly am, which is 70% nice decisions, 30% not nice.

That always gives me enough, and when I feel like being a jerk, I am one, when I feel sorry for someone, I do something about it.

I've never noticed any limitations in my speeches.

In ME2 there are not many Paragon/Renegade checks.
There are only 2 instances, I can recall, where if your skill isn't high enough that effected the outcome.
All of the interupts are accessible.