surf dtoid with 
Rising (10+)
People you follow
Your answer is Dragon Age.
Also, inFamous proved your point much better than the Mass Effect series.
Also, inFamous proved your point much better than the Mass Effect series.
Morality systems in games is something I think a lot about. They're due for a change and I get the feeling it will happen soon. What that change will be is still up in the air though.
Mass Effect is a step in the right direction, but by stepping a little to the left you get into an escalator.
Very good point. I think the renegade/paragon, good/evil systems need to die. Developers have demonstrated that they cannot use them correctly. It's the same way with a lot of reward systems. Too many people focus on getting the best ending or the best rewards and not enough on enjoying the experience, and developers are enabling that kind of behavior.
Also, some of the renegade/paragon click events didn't even make sense.
SPOILER
When I was saving Garrus from the gangs of Omega, I got renegade points for killing someone who was fixing a gunship that was going to be used to take out Garrus. I can sort of see the reasoning there, as I don't think he was in a gang, but come on. Was I supposed to let them fix their gunship? And the most bullshit moment was shortly after that when I got renegade points for shooting a droid with a sniper. Why. That was exactly what I was going to do after the cutscene ended, so why the hell did it count as a bad thing. And it was a robot!
Also, some of the renegade/paragon click events didn't even make sense.
SPOILER
When I was saving Garrus from the gangs of Omega, I got renegade points for killing someone who was fixing a gunship that was going to be used to take out Garrus. I can sort of see the reasoning there, as I don't think he was in a gang, but come on. Was I supposed to let them fix their gunship? And the most bullshit moment was shortly after that when I got renegade points for shooting a droid with a sniper. Why. That was exactly what I was going to do after the cutscene ended, so why the hell did it count as a bad thing. And it was a robot!
Dragon Age does a much better job of giving you the hard choices. I wonder if Bioware feels trapped with the Paragon/Renegade system because it's part of the series' legacy at this point.
I feel like Bioware blinked in this game. They built this whole narrative about sacrifice and loss. But if the player invests enough time and resources, they can get everyone to like them and not lose anything/anyone.
I almost think it would've been better if there wasn't a way to get everyone to like you or to get everyone out alive. But they have to cater to that empowerment fantasy even at the expense of good story telling.
I feel like Bioware blinked in this game. They built this whole narrative about sacrifice and loss. But if the player invests enough time and resources, they can get everyone to like them and not lose anything/anyone.
I almost think it would've been better if there wasn't a way to get everyone to like you or to get everyone out alive. But they have to cater to that empowerment fantasy even at the expense of good story telling.
My favorite morality system was in Jade Empire. Not because it was particularly innovatIve or thought provoking, I just liked having that cool halo over Wu's pretty little head.
God dammit, Anthony.
I won't be able to write anything about Mass Effect 2 now that you've essentially spoken at length about all the issues I feared would arise and other developing complaints I have with how the story and interaction is handled, without sounding like I'm just retreading all the same steps.
Sometimes I hate agreeing with you.
I guess I'll have to write about something we disagree on, like No More Heroes 2.
Oh. Wait.
HOLMES!!
I won't be able to write anything about Mass Effect 2 now that you've essentially spoken at length about all the issues I feared would arise and other developing complaints I have with how the story and interaction is handled, without sounding like I'm just retreading all the same steps.
Sometimes I hate agreeing with you.
I guess I'll have to write about something we disagree on, like No More Heroes 2.
Oh. Wait.
HOLMES!!
@Daed
Most morality systems are black and white because it's much easier to do from a design standpoint, and people love the "GOOD/EVIL" system because it's familiar and easy to follow. See Fable I and II, inFamous, Dante's Inferno (apparently), Mass Effect, Jade Empire, Fallout 3, etc.
The answer is "don't tell the player what's wrong or right"; aka morally grey. Dragon Age and The Witcher already changed this pre-conceived notion of morality in games.
Most morality systems are black and white because it's much easier to do from a design standpoint, and people love the "GOOD/EVIL" system because it's familiar and easy to follow. See Fable I and II, inFamous, Dante's Inferno (apparently), Mass Effect, Jade Empire, Fallout 3, etc.
The answer is "don't tell the player what's wrong or right"; aka morally grey. Dragon Age and The Witcher already changed this pre-conceived notion of morality in games.
What happened to your face(beard)?
Other than that, I think the idea is that making the paragon/renegade choice over and over again is not always easy. Yes, it is a way of gaining those eventual charm/intimidate conversation options, but selecting only paragon or renegade options over and over again did not always result in an ideal situation, at least not for me. Whether or not I actually wanted to select them, or whether I was going out of my way for the charm/intimidate options, I was still, not really disappointed, but a little surprised with how some conversations turned out.
I agree that to actually play as an average person you would end up picking from both sides of the coin. However, when I personally think about it in a more roleplaying way, I as a commander and leader may have to think about the good of all, or at least the good of my party and and crew, as well as the mission in some of those situations. Depending on how I've been playing thus far, an extreme paragon/renegade option that would bypass anything negative happening that would affect the mission I'm currently in the middle of pursuing, is something I wouldn't think twice about using.
At the same time, these paragon/renegade options are still just options, they are a reward for playing a certain way, but you are free to pass on it in favor of one that will produce a more dramatic outcome.
Other than that, I think the idea is that making the paragon/renegade choice over and over again is not always easy. Yes, it is a way of gaining those eventual charm/intimidate conversation options, but selecting only paragon or renegade options over and over again did not always result in an ideal situation, at least not for me. Whether or not I actually wanted to select them, or whether I was going out of my way for the charm/intimidate options, I was still, not really disappointed, but a little surprised with how some conversations turned out.
I agree that to actually play as an average person you would end up picking from both sides of the coin. However, when I personally think about it in a more roleplaying way, I as a commander and leader may have to think about the good of all, or at least the good of my party and and crew, as well as the mission in some of those situations. Depending on how I've been playing thus far, an extreme paragon/renegade option that would bypass anything negative happening that would affect the mission I'm currently in the middle of pursuing, is something I wouldn't think twice about using.
At the same time, these paragon/renegade options are still just options, they are a reward for playing a certain way, but you are free to pass on it in favor of one that will produce a more dramatic outcome.
I really like that you referenced the original Fallout, and your point is true. Why shouldn't a charmer be less of a warrior? As long as they program in some way for battles to be winnable (charming warrior NPCs into fighting for you) then yeah.
Obviously a big part of this issue (the sorta elephant to the whole thing) is that everybody has drastically different conceptions of morality. We all know the big stuff, like murder is evil (in most contexts) and giving aid to the unfortunate is holy, but the infinite shades of gray in between those gigantic good/evil disparities is what we deserve to see more of in video games.
I read (don't know if it was a rumor but it sounds true) that in the original Fallout, the initial programming (later scrapped) had it that if you helped the seemingly holy sherif in Junktown, defeat the seemingly evil crime lord, that later on the sherif would become drunk with power and turn into a tyrant, while if you had tried to take the evil track and help the crime lord kill the sherif, then the crime lord would bring wealth and acclaim to Junktown.
I think that is what you were sorta speaking about in this rant, about how awesome it would be to have a game genuinely surprise the player by revealing that some "obvious" moral choices don't always turn out just so.
Anyways great rant.
Obviously a big part of this issue (the sorta elephant to the whole thing) is that everybody has drastically different conceptions of morality. We all know the big stuff, like murder is evil (in most contexts) and giving aid to the unfortunate is holy, but the infinite shades of gray in between those gigantic good/evil disparities is what we deserve to see more of in video games.
I read (don't know if it was a rumor but it sounds true) that in the original Fallout, the initial programming (later scrapped) had it that if you helped the seemingly holy sherif in Junktown, defeat the seemingly evil crime lord, that later on the sherif would become drunk with power and turn into a tyrant, while if you had tried to take the evil track and help the crime lord kill the sherif, then the crime lord would bring wealth and acclaim to Junktown.
I think that is what you were sorta speaking about in this rant, about how awesome it would be to have a game genuinely surprise the player by revealing that some "obvious" moral choices don't always turn out just so.
Anyways great rant.
ill just assume that this rant will totally ruin mass effect 2 for me so ill go ahead and not watch it. thanks again for the spoiler in the first line yesterday.
Being incredibly underwhelmed by the first (including it's whole decision system)I had no plans at all to buy this game even after all it's amazing reviews. However this rant is pushing me to want to buy it after thoroughly disliking the first, assuming I don't do the overly paragon or overly renegade thing which you mentioned here that means that my choices could actually make characters die/permanently view me differently in a meaningful way? Call it morbid but I love when characters die (besides the obvious ones like the wise old sick guy) in games, it just adds so much drama to the story and assuming that I actually cared about said characters (could be a problem seeing how I couldn't care less about anyone in the first). The game may look generic and boring to me from what I've seen, but with what you've said here I guess I finally have a reason to be interested.
I guess I've moved from being "entirely uninterested" to "waiting for STEAM sale".
I guess I've moved from being "entirely uninterested" to "waiting for STEAM sale".
I really don't think there is a game that lets you choose whatever and then feel rewarded. Even inFamous had the one concrete plotline, regardless of what your decisions were in the game.
@J03yyz:
That really pissed me off too. There were some slight spoilers in the video, but nothing you couldn't guess yourself. Still, is it really that fucking hard to put a spoiler tag somewhere visible?
That really pissed me off too. There were some slight spoilers in the video, but nothing you couldn't guess yourself. Still, is it really that fucking hard to put a spoiler tag somewhere visible?
Yeah, I don't like the fact that there's no system-aware reason to pick the 'neutral' path unless your morality of choice option doesn't exist.
I also find the placement of Paragon/Renegade utterly arbitrary. Sometimes the pro-paragon path support Cerberus, sometimes it does not. It also does this at the weirdest times. I just got Tali, then did the catharsis mission. The paragon/renegade and pro/anti Cerberus choices were all over the place between those two missions. Soon, they'll a Paragon choice will come up, and I'll shoot somebody in the face, that'll be really surprising!
In ME1, those 10 points I put into my engineer's charm skill made me that much less deadly. I made the decision that I'd hack, decript, and talk my way through the game, and I suffered for it.
In Dragon Age, talking down your foes yielded less XP--generally--and my chatty rogue ended up much less prepared for the final battle than my "kill everything in my path" mage.
I also find the placement of Paragon/Renegade utterly arbitrary. Sometimes the pro-paragon path support Cerberus, sometimes it does not. It also does this at the weirdest times. I just got Tali, then did the catharsis mission. The paragon/renegade and pro/anti Cerberus choices were all over the place between those two missions. Soon, they'll a Paragon choice will come up, and I'll shoot somebody in the face, that'll be really surprising!
In ME1, those 10 points I put into my engineer's charm skill made me that much less deadly. I made the decision that I'd hack, decript, and talk my way through the game, and I suffered for it.
In Dragon Age, talking down your foes yielded less XP--generally--and my chatty rogue ended up much less prepared for the final battle than my "kill everything in my path" mage.
If someone is talking critically about a game I don't actually want spoiled...
I probably shouldn't be looking at related coverage.
Just puttin that out there.
I probably shouldn't be looking at related coverage.
Just puttin that out there.
@Jo3yyz there was no spoiler in the first line of Anthony's previous post.
besides telling you that there is a chance of crew members dieing. which is something you are told very early in the game.
besides telling you that there is a chance of crew members dieing. which is something you are told very early in the game.
The paragon/renegade system has always been Mass Effect's biggest weakness.
Not only does it water down the plot by allowing you to make choices without consequences, it also punishes you for acting like a realistic person whose behavior isn't always perfectly consistent with some moral paradigm.
And if you want to really get down to it, morality meters always strip down a character by denying them of something all real people have: free will. The whole idea that choices get grayed-out, that you cannot choose to be evil in a given context unless you've built up your "evilness" for the past 20 hours, etc, is just plain ridiculous. Why not just give my character free will?
Not only does it water down the plot by allowing you to make choices without consequences, it also punishes you for acting like a realistic person whose behavior isn't always perfectly consistent with some moral paradigm.
And if you want to really get down to it, morality meters always strip down a character by denying them of something all real people have: free will. The whole idea that choices get grayed-out, that you cannot choose to be evil in a given context unless you've built up your "evilness" for the past 20 hours, etc, is just plain ridiculous. Why not just give my character free will?
Didn't want spoilers so didn't watch yet, but guessing from previous thoughts on this the answer is simple. Just play the game and don't worry about the nitpicks, you'll likely end up with that dramatic storyline you are looking for...at least in a Bioware production.
Characters don't die out of "luck" or "multiple choice" in the final mission.
You must have made some bad decisions regarding who was the leader of the other team, the tech expert etc.
You must have made some bad decisions regarding who was the leader of the other team, the tech expert etc.
I've always hated the fact that combat and conversation are more and more separated as time goes on. I want a game that allows me to have a conversation system as well as a combat system, both usable at the same time. That way I can have a heated conversation where I can always have the ability to punch the guy in the face if he says something about my mom or something.
I hope someday games like Mass Effect and Dragon Age are able to do better than to have dialog trees in a totally separate mini games. I think it would be better to see it all integrated somehow.
I hope someday games like Mass Effect and Dragon Age are able to do better than to have dialog trees in a totally separate mini games. I think it would be better to see it all integrated somehow.
I generally agree that charm feels right when its at the expense of other skils.
But I think ME2's system makes alot of sense in terms of defining the operational method of the character. The more Paragon actions you choose, the more "paragon skill" you acquire. Reasonably, its divorced completely (save for the Sentinal skills, at least) from your combat skill progression. It says, "If you walk a paragon path, you can do some amazing pargonish things". That, I think, if pretty reasonable and powerful: You can't be this total paragon, and then flip out and do this exactly opposite, out of character renegade thing.
The way the system is used, however, pushes you into what do amount to narrative cop outs. I kind of would have enjoyed having to choose between crew members in that one conflict, but I'd run such a powerful "Shepard" role up to that point that I was able to resolve it and maintain the squad unit. True enough to the character, but I kind of miss out on some meaty conflict.
Similar to your issue with the final conflict, I feel, the way the game uses the systems it has in place feels a bit lacking. Lacking in regards to narrative punch. A seasoned gamer knows how to game a system, and I think most of us do it easily: what's gonna let me win. As opposed to "What do I actually feel about the situation".
But I think ME2's system makes alot of sense in terms of defining the operational method of the character. The more Paragon actions you choose, the more "paragon skill" you acquire. Reasonably, its divorced completely (save for the Sentinal skills, at least) from your combat skill progression. It says, "If you walk a paragon path, you can do some amazing pargonish things". That, I think, if pretty reasonable and powerful: You can't be this total paragon, and then flip out and do this exactly opposite, out of character renegade thing.
The way the system is used, however, pushes you into what do amount to narrative cop outs. I kind of would have enjoyed having to choose between crew members in that one conflict, but I'd run such a powerful "Shepard" role up to that point that I was able to resolve it and maintain the squad unit. True enough to the character, but I kind of miss out on some meaty conflict.
Similar to your issue with the final conflict, I feel, the way the game uses the systems it has in place feels a bit lacking. Lacking in regards to narrative punch. A seasoned gamer knows how to game a system, and I think most of us do it easily: what's gonna let me win. As opposed to "What do I actually feel about the situation".
100% agree. It's frustrating to play a game that presents moral choices but you pretty much to choose from the beginning to be all good or all evil, otherwise you may miss something in the game.
Seems to me that the moral choice concept in games is only there to extend the life of the game and not do anything interesting with it. Playthrough once as a heroic figure, then playthrough the second time as the bad guy. In order to use all the powers or see two sides of the story, you must play the game this way. It would be far more interesting if I can do one playthrough by doing good or bad thing whenever I feel the situation calls for it, and have the story revolve around that.
Seems to me that the moral choice concept in games is only there to extend the life of the game and not do anything interesting with it. Playthrough once as a heroic figure, then playthrough the second time as the bad guy. In order to use all the powers or see two sides of the story, you must play the game this way. It would be far more interesting if I can do one playthrough by doing good or bad thing whenever I feel the situation calls for it, and have the story revolve around that.
@eduh:
"Two of my crew are dead. I knew that lives would be lost on this mission, but it still came as a surprise to see two of my crew members -- one of whom I especially cared for -- die right in front of me."
That's not a spoiler? I don't recall anyone in game telling me anything like that. And even if it is to be expected, maybe keep that for after the jump.
"Two of my crew are dead. I knew that lives would be lost on this mission, but it still came as a surprise to see two of my crew members -- one of whom I especially cared for -- die right in front of me."
That's not a spoiler? I don't recall anyone in game telling me anything like that. And even if it is to be expected, maybe keep that for after the jump.
My GOD you said so many big words in those 3 minutes. For ALL the dialogue you just spoke, I can only reply with this. I couldn't agree with you more bro!
In Fallout 3 you could go the neutral route though...
In Fallout 3 you could go the neutral route though...
I agree with this. I also think that the achievements also take away from it. There was an achievement for everyones loyalty. So while going through them i found myself doing what the guy wanted not necessarily what i wanted to do. And like you said even if i kind of went against them, either i did something or their mind set changed into your favor and they became loyal anyway.
@Lakai
Good point on the neutral route, but the game still told you point blank that blowing up Megaton was "wrong", or giving water to a nameless homeless man, who may or may not be a thief, was "right".
Good point on the neutral route, but the game still told you point blank that blowing up Megaton was "wrong", or giving water to a nameless homeless man, who may or may not be a thief, was "right".
Basically, it sounds like Mass Effect 2 could you use 1 or 2 small "mini boss" missions where you have to assign crew roles, to get more mileage out of what seems like a pretty sound crew/ship stat system.
Yes because you felt your answer on a multiple choice question was not a choice...what? You were given specifics on the job needed and you sent other people in who had no idea what the hell they were doing. That was a choice and a stupid one at that.
Magnalon:
The choices in inFamous may have been ludicrously cut-and-dry, but at least the Good powers were drastically different than the Evil powers; in choosing to be good, you were giving up the (awfully satisfying) ability to increase the damage radius of all of your attacks, and blow things up more efficiently, and so on. There was some degree of sacrifice and choice involved.
In Mass Effect, nothing about your gameplay changes, and the story loses drama. Not the same thing.
The choices in inFamous may have been ludicrously cut-and-dry, but at least the Good powers were drastically different than the Evil powers; in choosing to be good, you were giving up the (awfully satisfying) ability to increase the damage radius of all of your attacks, and blow things up more efficiently, and so on. There was some degree of sacrifice and choice involved.
In Mass Effect, nothing about your gameplay changes, and the story loses drama. Not the same thing.
I like having cake and eating it too. They didn't shove the fork in your mouth. You'll play Far Cry 2 with made-up rules but you can't stop yourself from crafting an interesting story for yourself in ME2? Play it again and play it the way you want. Don't get everybody's loyalty. Be morally ambiguous. Ignore the gameplay elements that incentivize Paragonism and do it the way you want. The game you want is in there.
@gamadaya
*spoilers*
If I recall correctly, when you're talking to the gunship mechanic, you don't know that you're going after Garrus. Taking out the mechanic is going against your stated objective which is helping the merc gangs take out the [Garrus' Nickname]
*spoilers*
If I recall correctly, when you're talking to the gunship mechanic, you don't know that you're going after Garrus. Taking out the mechanic is going against your stated objective which is helping the merc gangs take out the [Garrus' Nickname]
Anthony, more beard please. This is true internet sincerity. I also have to say that it really isn't that easy to be Paragon or Renegade all the time. It all really depends on the situation, or at least it does for me. Just like in Dragon age, I don't want to go around being a dick to everyone. That's not who I am in life, so I wouldn't enjoy playing that way. It's amazing how you can make all the "right" or Paragon choices in Mass Effect, like saving Wrex, the council, etc.. but still be Renegade through conversation alone.
In the original mass effect, paragon and renegade were based more on your ability to choose between the "knightly" choice versus the "unorthodox" choice. For example, killing the rachni queen isn't an evil thing to do, it is however not a knightly thing to do. I liked that, because in a game where you're saving the world you can't really be EVIL. The game's justification is that being renegade is more about being a "badass" than "evil", but I don't buy that at all.
Your third rant of similar topic. I'm gonna paste my replies here.
***Spoilers abound!!***
***
***
I had the same feeling about the ending of ME but in ME2 you find out that a lot of people died at the cost of saving the council and a bunch of people hate you for it. Another great thing is that a lot of situations where even if you choose paragon persuade options you don't always get the expected outcome. For example ***BIGGER SPOILER HERE***
***
You will go to a prison ship. On seeing an inmate being savagely beaten you have the option to stop the guards. If you do you will recieve an email later from the prisoner, detailing his escape, his plans to carve your name into the corpses of people and eventually to come and kill you.
On legion's loyalty mission you get the option to convert the geth or to destroy them. After speaking with geth, neither option is particularly good. Kill millions of sentient creatures or brainwash them?
***
***END 'BIG' SPOILER***
I was constantly surprised at how grey everything became compared to the previous game. There are a lot of tough decisions with hazy outcomes.
Maybe it's a user issue. My perception of decisions or outcomes in certain situations seemed grey. Maybe you're looking for the game to give you more notification of the outcomes of your choices or maybe your set of values just differs from mine. It seems to me more likely to be the former, you're looking for gameplay alterations from your alignment. I was satisfied with just being able to empathise with the characters and feeling for the consequences.
The prison section and the information about saving the council are the ones that stuck out in my mind the most. It didn't change the gameplay but my mercy brought many people's deaths. Sure they weren't real people but I felt bad. I didn't feel like i needed the game to hurt me in any mechanical sense. I really put myself into the game and got a lot of emotional reward back.
I was really impressed with Mass Effect 2's handling of morality and am saddened that other people don't seem to notice it.
***Spoilers abound!!***
***
***
I had the same feeling about the ending of ME but in ME2 you find out that a lot of people died at the cost of saving the council and a bunch of people hate you for it. Another great thing is that a lot of situations where even if you choose paragon persuade options you don't always get the expected outcome. For example ***BIGGER SPOILER HERE***
***
You will go to a prison ship. On seeing an inmate being savagely beaten you have the option to stop the guards. If you do you will recieve an email later from the prisoner, detailing his escape, his plans to carve your name into the corpses of people and eventually to come and kill you.
On legion's loyalty mission you get the option to convert the geth or to destroy them. After speaking with geth, neither option is particularly good. Kill millions of sentient creatures or brainwash them?
***
***END 'BIG' SPOILER***
I was constantly surprised at how grey everything became compared to the previous game. There are a lot of tough decisions with hazy outcomes.
Maybe it's a user issue. My perception of decisions or outcomes in certain situations seemed grey. Maybe you're looking for the game to give you more notification of the outcomes of your choices or maybe your set of values just differs from mine. It seems to me more likely to be the former, you're looking for gameplay alterations from your alignment. I was satisfied with just being able to empathise with the characters and feeling for the consequences.
The prison section and the information about saving the council are the ones that stuck out in my mind the most. It didn't change the gameplay but my mercy brought many people's deaths. Sure they weren't real people but I felt bad. I didn't feel like i needed the game to hurt me in any mechanical sense. I really put myself into the game and got a lot of emotional reward back.
I was really impressed with Mass Effect 2's handling of morality and am saddened that other people don't seem to notice it.
Absolutely. There's definitely a serious design flaw in the system when you can truly get everything you want, and how you want as long as you put enough points in one specific skill. That being said, as someone who invests in characters and stories that I enjoy, I like being able to save the day or resolve the unsolvable conflict because I'm charming or intimidating enough. As far as how the system relates to the rest of your abilities and how overwhelmingly powerful it is in Mass Effect, there's no argument that the blue/red choice is the "win button" in every conversation (at least in ME1). While I don't think they should do away with it altogether, I think it should "cost more". Maybe you can only invest in half of the bar on your first playthrough, but it completely unlocks on a New Game+? That way you can experience some of the difficult choices without an easy way out, but still experience the "perfect/everybody wins" ending if you really want to see it.
@Jumbo
That's true, you don't know it's Garrus, but that doesn't matter. Your stated objective is to get Archangle on your crew, not help the gangs.
That's true, you don't know it's Garrus, but that doesn't matter. Your stated objective is to get Archangle on your crew, not help the gangs.
Jumbo:
The difference between the Far Cry 2 permadeath run and this is that in an FC2 run, you give yourself a totally arbitrary, difficult goal (beat the game without dying) and do whatever humanly possible to reach that goal. This forces you to think in different ways, measure your buddy use in a way you never would have before, and generally play the game with much more of an eye toward strategy. You must utilize every single mechanic in the game to its fullest in order to succeed.
Conversely, not choosing Paragon/Renegade options in Mass Effect doesn't add more strategy to the game, or force you to understand more about the mechanics; it's just you compromising your own gameplay wishes ("win the game") for the sake of forgiving a massive drama/design flaw.
The difference between the Far Cry 2 permadeath run and this is that in an FC2 run, you give yourself a totally arbitrary, difficult goal (beat the game without dying) and do whatever humanly possible to reach that goal. This forces you to think in different ways, measure your buddy use in a way you never would have before, and generally play the game with much more of an eye toward strategy. You must utilize every single mechanic in the game to its fullest in order to succeed.
Conversely, not choosing Paragon/Renegade options in Mass Effect doesn't add more strategy to the game, or force you to understand more about the mechanics; it's just you compromising your own gameplay wishes ("win the game") for the sake of forgiving a massive drama/design flaw.
The problem with morality systems is without them the character is not you. With them it's not complex enough to be you. If a morality system existed that was so invisable you would not realize it's there existed it would be a great morality system. However the amount of time to develops all these different outcome would take years.
I feel that the Paragon/Renegade system in Mass Effect 2 is a left over from the previous game's mechanic. Bioware as a developer has had many games where there are black and white choices that don't really change play mechanics in a real significant way. It wasn't until Dragon Age: Origins that they started to get away from moral absolutism and allow you to make difficult choices that alter the narrative of the game. Hopefully in the future they will continue to explore this, but I am willing to believe that they morality system from Dragon Age was not brought over to Mass Effect 2 due to two main reasons; They were in development at roughly the same time, and they wanted to keep Mass Effect 2 as close to Mass Effect as they could. In fact, I am almost certain the Paragon/Renegade divide will persist in Mass Effect 3, and I would be okay with it. If they were to make a new game (major release, not this iPhone crap) set in the Mass Effect universe, then I would want to see a bit more of the messy morality brought in from Dragon Age, but I do not expect them to jump to a new "system" for the last game in a trilogy.
crikky, lay of the speed man. your point goes nowhere when you're flying through a thousand words a second.
either that or calm down man, its just a video game.
either that or calm down man, its just a video game.
I agree with you for the most part with this. I had qualms about how the morality system would be in Mass Effect 2 when it was revealed that it would change your appearance. I mean, at least in the first Mass Effect, you had to use points from your other skills to increase your charm/renegade abilities.
I did like how I came out of a lot of conversations with pluses to both my Paragon and Renegade scores at the same time though. That was one thing I felt was made better about that system in ME2(I found it happened more often).
I find it hard to judge about this 'easy win choice' mentality though, because it is very possible that in the third game they could take a lot of choices and flip them all around on their heads. Like *SPOILERS* your example of the Jack and Miranda conflict. I chose the intimidation option, and Shepard said something along the lines of 'you two can go at it, but finish the mission first'. The direct result is that they cool down, but story wise, nothing has been resolved conflict wise. The two still hate each other. Something like that could totally come back to bite my character in the ass in the third game.
*END Spoilers*
I did like how I came out of a lot of conversations with pluses to both my Paragon and Renegade scores at the same time though. That was one thing I felt was made better about that system in ME2(I found it happened more often).
I find it hard to judge about this 'easy win choice' mentality though, because it is very possible that in the third game they could take a lot of choices and flip them all around on their heads. Like *SPOILERS* your example of the Jack and Miranda conflict. I chose the intimidation option, and Shepard said something along the lines of 'you two can go at it, but finish the mission first'. The direct result is that they cool down, but story wise, nothing has been resolved conflict wise. The two still hate each other. Something like that could totally come back to bite my character in the ass in the third game.
*END Spoilers*
Sorry, but the Paragon/Renegade system is the best morality system in gaming. Why? Its not good and evil, its more based on idealism vs cyncism, and both actions to a problem can have negative consquences.
Its well done and players should be rewarded for sticking to their philosophy and not wavering, even when the outcome is not great. Unlike most games with a morality system in which the "good" option is rewarding, its far less so here, and can lead into uncomfortable outcomes. I played a Paragon playthrough and its hard not to go Renegade from time to time. Many decisions are also very gray, in which maybe the Renegade option is more "right" than the Paragon.
Also Paragon is an idealism that puts life and strict code of conduct above all else, regardless of the consquences. A Renegade however believes the ends justify the means and would sacrifice a few to save a hundred without any quelms. Its more of a cynical view based more on rationality and less on morals. This is far from good and evil. For example, in Zaeed's mission you can save the workers or get the bad guy, can't do both. Both choices have nasty consquences.
The problem is not the system, its the player.
Its well done and players should be rewarded for sticking to their philosophy and not wavering, even when the outcome is not great. Unlike most games with a morality system in which the "good" option is rewarding, its far less so here, and can lead into uncomfortable outcomes. I played a Paragon playthrough and its hard not to go Renegade from time to time. Many decisions are also very gray, in which maybe the Renegade option is more "right" than the Paragon.
Also Paragon is an idealism that puts life and strict code of conduct above all else, regardless of the consquences. A Renegade however believes the ends justify the means and would sacrifice a few to save a hundred without any quelms. Its more of a cynical view based more on rationality and less on morals. This is far from good and evil. For example, in Zaeed's mission you can save the workers or get the bad guy, can't do both. Both choices have nasty consquences.
The problem is not the system, its the player.
@gamadaya
Killing the mechanic in that fashion in Garrus's recruitment quest is a Renegade action. Why? Because its a treacherous kill on a defenseless person, a decision to abandon morality for the greater good (a weaker gunship).
Paragons sometimes have actions backfire in their faces. Thats the naivety of the philisophy.
Killing the mechanic in that fashion in Garrus's recruitment quest is a Renegade action. Why? Because its a treacherous kill on a defenseless person, a decision to abandon morality for the greater good (a weaker gunship).
Paragons sometimes have actions backfire in their faces. Thats the naivety of the philisophy.
It is not self-defeating to allow the player to circumvent those things in the game. I don't understand why you take such a fatalistic stance on these things. Your basically saying that the player should be forced to compromise in those situations where compromise seems inevitable rather than be able to talk their way around it. Why? I played things by ear my first time through Mass Effect 2 and accrued a half and half of paragon and renegade. And because of that I had to make some tough decisions, particularly with Tali. But if you play through the game like a boy-scout and don't ever say anything bad to anyone, in real-life terms that just makes you an ass kisser. And characters respond to that. Just because being the ass-kisser is the path of least resistance doesn't somehow ruin every other path you can take or, more importantly, make the other paths somehow wrong. In my mind, the team at Bioware had a certain degree of faith in their audience with their design choices. I heard you can loose every character in your party if you do it right. That's still a victory condition. As long as you see credits roll then you won. It's your own device if you decide that ending X isn't a real victory condition. You don't have to be the boy-scout and make nice with all your crew. You can just jump in there and kill things and still win the game. So its all up to your personal preference how you play the game since no matter what you can't loose.
follow
