111 réponses à ce sujet

[Karstedt]

I wish there was a better way to be a mean nice or vice versa. For instance, the ruthless bastard with a rep for killing people can be very persuasive while being nice with just that underlying threat that you know he kills people.



Wishful thinking though, as it would require a lot more dialog. I'm just imaging a subtle and very complex system.

[kraidy1117]

UsagiVindaloo wrote...

kraidy1117 wrote...

UsagiVindaloo wrote...

Knoll Argonar wrote...

UsagiVindaloo wrote...

I disagree. I found the ME1 gameplay fine, and I *much* prefered the overheat system to the current ammo system... it gave things a bit more challenge. You couldn't just fire, reload, fire... if you fired too long, you would have to wait. Skilling up weapons was also kind of a neat element, although not one I mourn for intensely. And I definitely found ME1 to play like a shooter. In fact, in some ways it was more like a shooter than ME2, namely in that I never had to tell my party to do anything. Half my time in ME2 is spent choosing abilities from the pause menu.

I think that BOTH games had/have good gameplay, when we get down to it. It's just different. Not better, not worse... different. No reason to say one was bad, just say, "Hey, ME1 was fine for what it was, but I prefer ME2." Much more respectful and gets the same point across.

? I though that was ME1 for me 0_ò

I think ME2 was clear and simple, tactical but functional. In ME1 you wonder How the hell you got the N7 title when in Eden Prime you don't even know how to shoot.

Anyway, a Charm ability doesn't affect the ME2 playstyle at all. It just adds "diplomacy" in the skill.

To clarify: I found that in ME1, my party members seemed a lot better at using their powers effectively. Or perhaps it was more that their powers were universally useful and thus the NPCs could spam as much as they like and I wasn't about to stop them. My party was Soldier Shepard, Liara and Tali, and I pretty much took potshots while Liara kept stuff CCed and Tali blew stuff up. It was SO. MUCH. FUN. I miss the days of seeing entire roomfuls of badguys floating gleefully through the air...

In ME2, I find that the abilities are much more situational, and you have to use the correct NPC abilities to best progress. For example, if I'm up against stuff with shields, I have to tell Miranda to use her Overload ability, otherwise the useless **** is likely to start warping things and wasting her cooldowns. The need to micromanage your party isn't necessarily a BAD thing, it's just... a thing. But I've definitely found I need to tell them what to do to get the best results. ("No, really, Tali. You can use your AI hacking on these guys. You don't need to pull out Chikkita for the fifteenth time.")

What do you play ME2? If you play on the 360 just click the left or right D-pad (what ever side Miri was assinged)  Move your cruser to the guy you want to kill, press the D-pad (left or right) and she will use what ever power is nessary. Bioware made ME2 in a way where you never need to go into the power whee, only once in a blue moon.

I use the 360, but I didn't want to assign anything to the Dpad because I want to keep those free for assigning people on point. Plus there are so many squadmates that I'd get their assignments all confused. The pausing is sort of nice in that it provides a break in the action and lets me queue up multiple actions all at once (hooray for triple Overloads!)

You don't need to assign anything there, I never do. Just briung your cruser to lets say a shield foe. Lets say you have Garrus and he is assigned to the right D-pad. Press it and he will use overload. You don't need to assign anything. It makes the combat more fluid and enganning.

[Knoll Argonar]

I think that one solution could be that "not-colored-options" also give a substancial amount of Paragon or Renegade points, and not being restricted to ONE option if you want the game to say "hey, this one is a very Paragon guy".



Or maybe increase the number of Coloured options, by adding more available options to the Dialog wheel. (instead of 6 options, 8, for example). Or even a "Paragon menu" or "Renegade menu" with different effects, different charm and intimidate points.

[SantosCapela]

I must say that I don't have much love for the way me1 did the all paragon/renegade thing. I do think that the actions made during game should affect dialogue options as done in me2 and not just give the occasional point to charm and intimidate as it did in me1. In me1 it basically didn't matter unless you spent some points in charm or intimidate. You kind had to spent points for dialogue options that should come naturally according to your actions. I wouldn't mind however the possibility of spending points to compensate your specific "moral" path. Something like one more ability in me2 that could compensate for paragon or renegade points, according to player in-game option, but not both. This one ability shouldn't however come with more points for the player to spent so that the option of spending them would reflect in the other abilities of the player.

[Mallissin]

UsagiVindaloo wrote...
Why is being an XBox owner such an issue? I'm an XBox owner myself, you realize. 

I'm just teasing him.

[Mallissin]

They should have made sub-skills for Persuasion and Intimidate. Like for Persuasion, after 7-10 points, a skill called "Orator" opens up that helps you convince crowds and such. Or for Intimidate, you have a Cunning or Subversion skill that lets you do sneaky things to sway numerous people.

[RiouHotaru]

UsagiVindaloo wrote...

Mallissin wrote...

1.) Bioware likes shackles. They can be really sadistic bastards.
2.) Too complicated.
3.) If you noticed in ME2, skills were downplayed or "streamlined". You're not playing a shooter RPG anymore, Mass Effect is officially an RPG shooter now.
4.) This one will start a "3rd person narrative" debate. Gonna leave it alone.

I like the ideas, games with a lot of choices are nice, but rough with games like Mass Effect that have heavy voice acting.

Well, to be honest, they HAVE done it successfully before... see Mass Effect 1. I found the balance there was just right.

You do have a point about the whole streamlining thing, but I don't think it would be a huge shock to the shooter system if you did it pretty simply. Just have a "Charisma" skill with the tooltip, "Makes you more convincing in your conversations with other people." Same 4 ranks as everything else; in terms of gameplay mechanics, it just unlocks "harder" and harder Charm/Intimidate options (e.g. the Jack/Miranda fight requires a skill of 4) Gun-happy shooter fans don't have to bother with it if they don't want, and it's reasonably clear cut enough so that they understand what it is.

I don't want to have to spend skill points on a conversation skill.  I honestly like the system as it stands.  I mean, I know plenty of people who play Paragade or Renegon Sheps and do just fine.  If you're going out of your way to pick neutral options, thats your choice.  The point behind Paragon/Renegade IS a show of Shepard's charisma by firmly taking a stance in either one camp or the other.  No one is going to be persuaded by Shepard's charisma if Shepard stays perfectly in the middle.

[Jamelo]

The thing I hate is that intimidating always works and being nice always works. It's not as if you have to choose what to do depending on the person.

[Asari]

Jamelo wrote...

The thing I hate is that intimidating always works and being nice always works. It's not as if you have to choose what to do depending on the person.

as in Warhero, Ruthless and Sole Survivor? or Paragon Renegade?

[Jamelo]

Asari wrote...

Jamelo wrote...

The thing I hate is that intimidating always works and being nice always works. It's not as if you have to choose what to do depending on the person.

as in Warhero, Ruthless and Sole Survivor? or Paragon Renegade?

I mean when something happens.


For example.


Random character: I promise you I don't have the data!

Paragon Shep: We need that data to save the colony!

Renegade Shep: Hand over the data now before I kill you!



Both options work. It's incredibly unrealistic. People aren't equally affected by charm and intimidation.

Modifié par Jamelo, 20 mars 2010 - 09:08 .

[GuardianAngel470]

Mallissin wrote...

I preferred ME1 in many ways too. But Mass Effect is evolving away from it. The Ammo system for one, which I've been told will not be changing again.

I'd prefer to go back to more RPG elements like Usagi suggests as well. I just don't see it happening.

I blame the fact it's being targeted at the Xbox 360. Game Developers seem to think console owners are dumber.

I don't think Bioware thinks that console owners are dumber.  We handled ME1 just fine.  I wasn't on the forums after ME1 was released so I don't know what the complaints were but I can say that many people, even PC owners, complained about the inventory system.  I own a 360 and the only thing I thought was bad about the inventory system in my 7 playthroughs was that the inventory didn't stack like items.  I solved this by getting rid of things at the stores, which did stack like items. I always leveled up both charm and intimidate fully.  I hated that I had to choose one side or the other in ME2, it cheapened the experience for me.

A charisma option like in KOTOR would be great, and I'd welcome it wholeheartedly. 

[GuardianAngel470]

RiouHotaru wrote...

UsagiVindaloo wrote...

Mallissin wrote...

1.) Bioware likes shackles. They can be really sadistic bastards.
2.) Too complicated.
3.) If you noticed in ME2, skills were downplayed or "streamlined". You're not playing a shooter RPG anymore, Mass Effect is officially an RPG shooter now.
4.) This one will start a "3rd person narrative" debate. Gonna leave it alone.

I like the ideas, games with a lot of choices are nice, but rough with games like Mass Effect that have heavy voice acting.

Well, to be honest, they HAVE done it successfully before... see Mass Effect 1. I found the balance there was just right.

You do have a point about the whole streamlining thing, but I don't think it would be a huge shock to the shooter system if you did it pretty simply. Just have a "Charisma" skill with the tooltip, "Makes you more convincing in your conversations with other people." Same 4 ranks as everything else; in terms of gameplay mechanics, it just unlocks "harder" and harder Charm/Intimidate options (e.g. the Jack/Miranda fight requires a skill of 4) Gun-happy shooter fans don't have to bother with it if they don't want, and it's reasonably clear cut enough so that they understand what it is.

I don't want to have to spend skill points on a conversation skill.  I honestly like the system as it stands.  I mean, I know plenty of people who play Paragade or Renegon Sheps and do just fine.  If you're going out of your way to pick neutral options, thats your choice.  The point behind Paragon/Renegade IS a show of Shepard's charisma by firmly taking a stance in either one camp or the other.  No one is going to be persuaded by Shepard's charisma if Shepard stays perfectly in the middle.

We go out of our way to pick either paragon or renegade.  It is out of our way to pick one or the other, our natural playstyle is to play something more neutral.  We have to make decisions in ME2 that aren't what we would normally do, breaking immersion somewhat.  Just because you don't care about what feels natural doesn't mean you have the right to destroy the RP part of RPG for the rest of us.

EDIT: Changed PRG to RPG

Modifié par GuardianAngel470, 20 mars 2010 - 09:45 .

[GuardianAngel470]

Spending skill points on a charisma skill is how every RPG I have ever played does it. Both KOTORs and Fallout 3 used charisma, and it is a meaningful thing to have.

[Computron2000]

UsagiVindaloo wrote...
I don't know, I think I'd like a neutral leader because I know he/she would take all sides into consideration. Also, a neutral Shepard is still taking a stand (Collectors bad!), he just doesn't get involved in side squabbles etc.

That is the thing right there. Not getting involved in side squabbles means people don't feel you have their back, thus loss of loyalty in squabbles between legion/tali, miri/jack.

Listening to all sides is actually more paragon than neutral.

[Computron2000]

Jamelo wrote...
I mean when something happens.


For example.


Random character: I promise you I don't have the data!

Paragon Shep: We need that data to save the colony!

Renegade Shep: Hand over the data now before I kill you!



Both options work. It's incredibly unrealistic. People aren't equally affected by charm and intimidation.

Er, you did notice that paragon and renegade scores needed to convince for some people are actually higher or lower than the other option right? Meaning a 50% paragon convince may be a 80% renegade convince. This noted by one of the devs for either legion/tali or miri/jack conversations

[Wild Still]

The intimidate / charm maximum levels were tied to your paragon and renegade values, the system is still the same, it's just automated. Intimidate and charm were just more of the unnecessary clutter of skills that plagued ME1. The system works on a mechanical level in ME2. However, Paragon and renegade could use being a little less extreme. To get those bars full you either have to be a complete **** or an unbearably saccharine goody-two-shoes, it feels kind of wonky to me. I always kind of envisioned Shepard as hard nosed but not completely a-moral.

[Onyx Jaguar]

The new system makes sense, the old system is just clutter imo

[Jamelo]

Computron2000 wrote...

Jamelo wrote...
I mean when something happens.


For example.


Random character: I promise you I don't have the data!

Paragon Shep: We need that data to save the colony!

Renegade Shep: Hand over the data now before I kill you!



Both options work. It's incredibly unrealistic. People aren't equally affected by charm and intimidation.

Er, you did notice that paragon and renegade scores needed to convince for some people are actually higher or lower than the other option right? Meaning a 50% paragon convince may be a 80% renegade convince. This noted by one of the devs for either legion/tali or miri/jack conversations

Still..how does that make any sense what so ever. That is even a dumber part of the system. I can't use a certain dialogue option because I haven't chosen to be an **** during the whole game? That makes a lot of sense. No matter how much it takes to do either decision it doesn't matter because there is no thinking involved. Whether you are paragon or renegade you can get out of every situation in the game that is possible to get out of.

Not to mention this system rapes players who aren't extremely paragon or extremely renegade in the ass because they don't have the chance to do a lot of the dialogue options, and if they could the system would sitll be messed up because that means that the system is totally useless since everyone is still getting every dialogue option.


Remove the Renegade/Paragon meter totally, or at least move it so we can't see it. Have all dialogue options open to everyone, but have some options not work. This opens up more interesting dialogue since now your not going to succeed every time when you try to intimidate someone with an extremely strong will. Have a hidden Intimidate/Charm skill that depends on your past actions and your gear/Background/History which determines how good you are at intimidating or charming.

Modifié par Jamelo, 21 mars 2010 - 03:51 .

[Karstedt]

I hate hidden mechanics. It just means I have to work harder to unhide it and document stuff. I prefer greyed out options to ones that function on some hidden system.

Modifié par Karstedt, 21 mars 2010 - 03:54 .

[Ieldra]

I feel motivated to unearth this topic because I'm increasingly frustrated by being forced to play for the numbers in ME2. I didn't notice how bad things really are for some time, but it's gotten worse since I've been trying to play different Shepards.

By "playing for the numbers", I mean I feel forced to make decisions I wouldn't normally make with a certain Shepard in less important conversations, just to get enough Paragon/Renegade points that I can make some other choices I really want to make in more important ones, but normally wouldn't have enough points for.

In ME1, I had two more ways for enabling charm/intimidate options beyond collecting P/R points: I could put points in the skills, or I could replay ME1 developing the the skills with free points. Both options are gone in ME2, and that hampers my roleplaying.

So, to come to the point of this point: yes, I want conversational/diplomatic skills back. I want to be able to play a Shepard who is Paragon most of the time, but still can take a Renegade choice in an important matter now and then. Or vice versa. If that comes at the expense of my combat skills, as in ME1, where I often spent 10-16 points in charm/intimidate, then so be it. The point is that it's my choice, as it should be, in ME1. But not in ME2. I want that choice back in ME3.

Until then, I'm going to cheat. I'll give myself temporary P/R points to enable choices in conversations and subtract them later so that the P/R meter correctly reflects my choices after the conversations. I don't want to do that, but it's the only way to get the Shepard I want.

Modifié par Ieldra2, 19 mai 2010 - 12:54 .

[Collider]

Agree with Ieldra. Let the player roleplay. Just make a persuade skill and allow the player to use charm or intimidate without depending on how many paragon or renegade points they have.

[Ieldra]

scyphozoa wrote...
I don't like either ME1 or ME2's moral system. Bring back Jade Empire's moral scale for ME3.

I think the Paragon/Renegade system works well in principle, even if the implementation of choices is not always optimal. It's the restriction of conversation options by P/R points only in ME2, instead of P/R points and manually distributeable skill points as in M1, that concerns me.

But I don't know the Jade Empire system. How does that work?

[Dr. Peter Venkman]

Ieldra2 wrote...

I feel motivated to unearth this topic because I'm increasingly frustrated by being forced to play for the numbers in ME2. I didn't notice how bad things really are for some time, but it's gotten worse since I've been trying to play different Shepards.

By "playing for the numbers", I mean I feel forced to make decisions I wouldn't normally make with a certain Shepard in less important conversations, just to get enough Paragon/Renegade points that I can make some other choices I really want to make in more important ones, but normally wouldn't have enough points for.

In ME1, I had two more ways for enabling charm/intimidate options beyond collecting P/R points: I could put points in the skills, or I could replay ME1 developing the the skills with free points. Both options are gone in ME2, and that hampers my roleplaying.

So, to come to the point of this point: yes, I want conversational/diplomatic skills back. I want to be able to play a Shepard who is Paragon most of the time, but still can take a Renegade choice in an important matter now and then. Or vice versa. If that comes at the expense of my combat skills, as in ME1, where I often spent 10-16 points in charm/intimidate, then so be it. The point is that it's my choice, as it should be, in ME1. But not in ME2. I want that choice back in ME3.

Until then, I'm going to cheat. I'll give myself temporary P/R points to enable choices in conversations and subtract them later so that the P/R meter correctly reflects my choices after the conversations. I don't want to do that, but it's the only way to get the Shepard I want.

[apotheosic]

i support this.

I like how in ME1 i could play a paragon but put all of my ranks into intimidate, sinc ei was ruthless. really added to the character, i feel.

having your persuasion dictated by your paragon/renegade score is just silly. how does being good or evil make you more persuasive?