Anylizing the RP mechanics in Mass Effect Andromeda, and where to go from here.

I disagree. "Anylizing" is pretty much the opposite of desirable RP mechanics. We need more specific role-playing not just bland Beliebigkeit.

Hmm... well some of the complaints I see stem from Ryder's lack of backbone (i.e. no renegade) and forced friendships.

For the former, while this was essentially a "coming of age" story, perhaps that now Ryder is more confident in their leadership skills, moving forward something similar to renegade/paragon could return. Personally, my main complaint with the renegade/paragon system was how it could lock you out of choices and dialogue, restricting you to one side or the other. The reputation system of ME3 seemed to remedy that to some extent. Maybe Ryder could have some form of "reputation" in the future (beyond Lexi's analysis in the codex)?

(I don't think morality should necessarily be color-coded in the future, though. I did like how its absence left some choices as more ambiguous to your preferred alignment, but as strictly a dialogue/interrupt option, it would work better imo.)

For the latter, while I don't think the approval system of Dragon Age has to happen, more fluidity on the state of their relationships with squad mates could. Let a Ryder who sticks to "professional" responses actually have professional relationships and not be forced to be buddies with some. "Casual" and "emotional" responses lead to friendships, etc.

Now you're speaking his langage

Actually, I was fine with the dialog options in ME:A. They were more fitting for the story, and the character, than the binary Paragon/Renegade choices Shepard had available. Shepard was a character in a time of conflict whereas the Ryder's are characters who are supposed to be in a place of exploration.

In future Ryder stories there should be a defining of the character, not a wholesale re-write to make him more of a tough guy. Besides, there are options to behave in a fairly ruthless manner in ME:A. Keep those moments, expand on them, but suddenly having Ryder become a borderline sociopath wouldn't fit the character they introduced.

Ryder was too feminine with the pleasing nature.

Shepard on the other hand didn't give a fuck. He had one love in his life destroying the Reaps and railing Miranda in the engine room.

I think the "story branching" aspect of Andromeda highlights Bioware's biggest change in direction......usually,player choice will create radically different changes to story,relations,persona and perks etc,hence why people enjoy playing Bioware games multiple times.

Andromeda on the other hand abandons Bioware's own trademark style of story branching,replacing it with multiple options that result in the same outcome,having very little impact on the story,character etc.

IF Bioware didn't care about model clones,animations,character customization etc ,then I suspect they didn't care about story/character branching either.

true also.

none of Ryder's squad mates will die depending on some of his/her choices. ( as in not choosing Mordin to accompany the Normandy crew in ME2 or how you behave with Miranda in ME3 ).
Maybe it's something to come in MEA2 ( if a sequel was ever conceived in the  first Place ).

I agree with the suggestions. 

Something like this perhaps?

I felt like Ryder was really good for roleplaying for who he/she was when the game started. Ryder is green and new. Much as I like having a more evolved character who seems more decisive and less naive, this is who we got. So for that character, Ryder had good range. You could build him/her a myriad of ways. Some people didn't like dialogue options which I think to a degree in that they were spot on. The dialogue was not stellar and sometimes awful, but you could still get the tone of a character mostly.

The choices however for the sake of RPing were lackluster and part of that not having solid renegade type choices but I consider that part of the youth factor. Young and naive and paragon in nature because he/she came from a paragon type upbringing in general. However, to get more renegade options in the future as part of ryder's evolution they really need to create more events that shape ryder that way. Not sure we had enough stuff this time to really bring out the renegade whereas with Shepard (just as a comparison here) in ME2 had a lot of reason to become more renegade. Alliance essentially disgraced him/her indirectly by not standing behind what shepard said. Council did the same. Shepard just wanted to save people and keep something horrible from happening and was mocked for it (you hear this often through omega sound system) and had to team up with someone who was shady as hell and turned on you the first chance that came as well as throwing you to the wolves as it suited him to further the agenda. That can create a very renegade shepard as part of the natural development of the character. We do not have that yet but all that happened in MET specifically in ME2 so we could still have it happen, but they have not set up any situations where it would have a logical flow. They would need to add something to create that element that would trigger that jadedness. But that is only for the organic development of a renegade character. Some want to just start with it like the ruthless version of MET. To just be that hardcore darkness right out of the gate and there was no option for that at all.

Outside of that, the choices were generally lackluster. Krogan vs salarian meh. Kadara really was more about who feels better to you without any truly powerful kind of moral quandary. Romances were flirts which were sort of shameful compared to DAO where you had full conversations that created a feel of getting to know a character in a much more immersive way. Here you couldn't really RP much with them. There was zero complexity to them and zero complexity to their development. I remember in DAO romancing certain characters felt like really seeing things from their POV or at least not being against their POV. At times romancing in DAO through the conversation felt like walking through a minefield if a character said something and you really wanted a certain response that felt true to your character but that response was not the one that would win them over. Here? Flirt and screw. Shameful in design. Ideally, there should have been conversations where if you are not of the same mind with the character you are romancing then that becomes something you have to find some compromise in how you see things. Frankly, if they did that, I think that would make romances far better and develop those characters much more. And it should be conversations you have with all the characters even if you do not romance them. For instance, Cora about her dependence on others expecting sarissa to save them could have made for an amazing set up if you had a discussion about not seeing the need to have her save you then you and then you enter the ark and discover what you discover about sarissa. Liam - discussions about his doing end runs around rules and regs prior to his loyalty would have made that more powerful. PB could have been lack of responsibility and focused only on what she wants prior to her loyalty mission. While having them be part of all the conversations (not just romance limited), seeing how they factor into a developing romance to create some more depth in things would have been interesting. Now you have to decide where you sit in relation to what they believe and if they grown and change or you change in response to that. Conversations that could cause either option would be great or acceptance of divergent beliefs from both parties when fitting. That would be fascinating RPing for romances but I doubt they ever would bother.

I think the biggest renegade/paragon seeming choice was saving moshea and did you save angarans or destroy the base. Yet each of them are more complex and grey because there are short term/long term implications with each. Directly what happens right then would be renegade/paragon but likely aftermath could make the renegade choice seem less renegade. I think instead of renegade/paragon the system I noticed was hardcore pragmatic vs emotional.

Also RPing around the characters was limited to the point of nonexistent. Ideally, kicking PB and Liam off the tempest should have been an option.

My thoughts:

Most of my characters are nice people in games, diplomatic and generally kind-hearted

But I like the ability to be mean too. I dont think the conversation styles in MEA gave enough of a difference between them, rather than being able to choose whether you want to be a dark, more anti-hero character or a true hero i felt that 'hero' was just stuck and the dialogue options were there just to change the wording of what Ryder said... I mean, I think KOTORs conversation options were a lot more varied and better and that was released a long time ago

As much as I didnt like being restricted to paragon/renegade (especially the points system) I find MEA has even more restrictions about what characters I can make in comparison with that, even, there just isnt enough difference between the options for my taste

About the choices in the game... again, not much difference, there arent many different outcomes to make playthroughs vastly different from each other, and the choices dont have any consequences beyond changing a few lines of dialogue... I understand that its the first game in the series and everything, but looking back on games like ME2, DA2, DAO... the choices you made in the games and how you acted (especially when it came to characters in ME2 and DA2) could influence the outcome of the game, even if you didnt take into account actions in previous games

Until the next game comes out, im probably not gonna do another playthrough... theres very little point at the moment, there really isnt enough difference in terms of the different Ryders, theres no class system for different gameplay, the choices dont make too much of a difference... theres very little reason to... as much as I love the game, there are some definite problems with the rp mechanics in my opinion, not enough complexity or differences in the decisions

I personally think they should have opted for a more DA2 approach with the dialogue options, being able to choose your characters personality AND them being different... I mean, I know not everyone likes DA2 (I love it though) but it had some seriously good ideas, including the friendship/rivalry, the ability to have your interactions with characters decide whether theyll betray you or not... I mean, there are lots of things I wish they had done differently with the rp stuff im sure it will be fine when the next game comes out though!

I don't get why so many people seem to think the dialogue choices in Mass Effect were binary, there were often 3 or more ways to respond in conversations, it's not the Paragon/Renegade systems fault that some players felt the need to mash red or blue, and the P/R lockouts were simply there to prevent you 'breaking character' too egregiously. In my main play through of the TOT Shepard was a one of the most nuanced characters I ever encountered in an RPG game, in particular the way that you could allow events to shape the character throughout the series. By Mass Effect 3 the game had even picked up on a my characters distrust for Krogan, I don't personally know anybody who got this scene, nor can I find it on Youtube, where Wreave pulls Shepard to one side and asks "Why are you doing this Shepard, everyone knows you despise Krogan" (this was a 60% renegade Shepard)