Paragon and Renegade was world apart, although just two, at least we got 2 way. This new system? Good intention gone wrong, lacks in the execution department, emotional/logical/casual/profesional all the same. Sure, to shape our Shepard we had a ton of neutral things to say as well, but by the end, we got paragon/renegade to make it worthwhile. If I do not see a real difference between a profesional and an emotional Ryder bar the worthless codex psychprofile, why have it in the first place? Would vode paragon/renegade everytime if it meant variety and distinction. Ryder is all about "yes 'mam, your wish is my comannd", same shit in four different colors, but no matter what, it smells still like shit. Enough people out there who like it, will never understand it.
I disagree massively. I played Scott as Casual/Emotional and am now playing Sara as Logical/Professional and the more I play and the further I get along in the story, the more I'm noticing subtle differences in their auto dialogue, as well as in their dialogue options. I seriously wonder if people are underestimating the new system.
I noticed no way to say no to things, or call people on being idiots, just 'logically yes' or 'emotionally yes' Unless suddenly Ryder develops a spine and starts telling people to grow the hell up, and stops being a walk over the differences are as described: flavours of shit.
That's really great and Bioware should totally add to option to play as one.
Except this should lead to an automatic 'mission failure' screen followed by a cutscene where you're fired and incarcerated.
and being as weak as Ryder should lead to a 'game over' and you being tortured to death by Kett. Seriously Bioware made a game about colonialism, the only darker topic would be a game about the holocaust, genocide is exactly what colonialism IS, the eradication or subjugation of the native population by the colonial power, don't want to cover that, don't make a white wash of a truly horrible human endeavor. For example the 'least bad' empire, the British one, starved millions of Indians to death during world war 2, as a matter of policy, the 'Denial Of Rice', and the 'Denial of Boats' had British forces destroying crops and water craft to deliberately create a famine in the path of a possible Japanese invasion, and deny both the locals and the possible invaders access to craft that could be used to go further afield to get more.
As the human race we are naturally curious and creative. So is it not in our interest to paint beauty where there was none as apposed to cutting the heads of flowers?
That's really great and Bioware should totally add to option to play as one.
Except this should lead to an automatic 'mission failure' screen followed by a cutscene where you're fired and incarcerated.
and being as weak as Ryder should lead to a 'game over' and you being tortured to death by Kett. Seriously Bioware made a game about colonialism, the only darker topic would be a game about the holocaust, genocide is exactly what colonialism IS, the eradication or subjugation of the native population by the colonial power, don't want to cover that, don't make a white wash of a truly horrible human endeavor.
They'd have to beat Ryder in combat first (which they can't). In any case, I don't think I'd care to play Christopher Columbus in space.
and being as weak as Ryder should lead to a 'game over' and you being tortured to death by Kett. Seriously Bioware made a game about colonialism, the only darker topic would be a game about the holocaust, genocide is exactly what colonialism IS, the eradication or subjugation of the native population by the colonial power, don't want to cover that, don't make a white wash of a truly horrible human endeavor.
They'd have to beat Ryder in combat first (which they can't). In any case, I don't think I'd care to play Christopher Columbus in space.
His idiocy and weakness should have defeated him first, but we don't get to see the penalty for being so weak. if you don't do it the Cortez way, you fail and your colony dies.
Ok - Ryder is supposed to be young and inexperienced. But I found it very difficult to relate to him.
Shepard was a hard-ass. Tough and uncompromising. In numerous play-throughs of ME1-3, I played his full spectrum - from honorable, competent, professional - to ruthless psychopath. One had the choice. If you didn't want to - then Shepard didn't take shit from anyone.
Ryder - on the other hand - is a pansy. No matter what is done to him - or said to him - he mostly goes: "Aw shucks - that wasn't very nice...."
In most conversations, I was only given two choices - and the vast majority of them were very tame.
Having just finished Andromeda, I have not been able to care about him. With Shepard, I was deeply invested in his/her fate - and after every game, I was eager for more.
Frankly, I couldn't care less, if I never see Ryder again - unless he is toughened up for MEA2.
I'd be interested to see if anyone else feels the same?
This is a broken record around here, and I'll never understand how people think being nice equates to being a "pansy," a "pushover," or a "pussy."
One of the nicest people I've ever met in real life was a good friend of my father's when I was a kid. He was polite, no attitude, never raised his voice in anger, didn't provoke or threaten, tried to talk through bad situations. The man was also retired Army Special Forces, with years of combat experience and a chest full of medals to prove just how badass he actually was. He didn't have to be a dick to people to prove he was awesome and he was never a dick just because he could get away with it.
As far as I'm concerned, the events of Habitat 7 alone proved Ryder is anything but a pansy. Surviving a shuttle crash, proving himself in combat and saving lives are things I consider very "badass." I don't need asshole dialogue to convince me of it.
Ryder is a Pathfinder who primarily utilizes diplomacy. Shepard is a Spectre who can operate above the law.
They are, fundamentally, very different characters.
Yes, and yet Shepard spent all of ME3 as a diplomat, trying to get everyone to play nice. It's basically the same thing the inquisitor did later in far less compelling ways. And what Ryder does now AGAIN. Ridiculed by the council, even thrown in jail. Shepard was never really above the law, but basically a soldier operating in a "civilized society" with the help of the military.
Andromeda is the new frontier, the AI/pathfinder only just starting to establish a society. Far fewer laws and obligations. Nothing is set in stone yet. Shepard as a Spectre was allowed to operate outside the law at times but still very much an agent of council space.
To me Andromeda is a missed opportunity to break out of the constraints of law and order and offer a greater roleplaying opportunity. Peaceful diplomacy OR forceful colonization. Laws or anarchy. But Bioware is too afraid these days to step on anybody's toes, can't be getting people upset about promoting imperialism, so nobody put guns on the Nomad, even if that's just common sense. Space Care Bears is what we got, yay!
I agree, I don't feel connected to Ryder or the sqadmates. If I was able to clone chars from the OT, Jack and Zaeed are in the list of chars.
In other threads it seems people concluded that the reason renegade options are not an option is because Ryder is an diplomatic exploreer. Shepard was an "above the law" enforcer. Ryder is trying to build positive relationships and build a society.
I don't agree that we should, more often than not, have between 2 to 4 dialogue responses that all basically mean the same thing. I love being bad asses in games, there may be points when you should choose a paragon response, but not on a constant basis. What wide spread consiqunces would it be to be a bad ass to the exiles (who are already at war with the Nexus) and other people with no political connections be?
People want to say, "Oh this is only the 1st game in Andromeda series, so there aren't major decisions/consiqunces yet, there will be later in the series." Well there were major decisions/consiqunces in ME1...
I hope Ryder's personality and decision options evolve through the series giving more renegade options in later games. I'm not saying to bring back the p/r bar and special dialogue options, just the ability to say "No sir" and be more ruthless.
If I want to play a pansy, I go back to my real life...
Paragon Shepard was BADASS! That was the beauty of the trilogy, both Shepards were tough as nails.
I don't need a relatable idiot, I want somebody inspiring!
Thats the point, though I would not ultimately call Shepard badass (just do not like that adjective), Shepard was a born leader, who inspired and commanded loyalty. In and outside of combat. Ryder? Well tough and good in combat, but outside? A weakling without charisma (f and m). This is not just about "experience", I met people in RL who were followed because of their sheer presence and charisma and after they accomplished something, they got undivided loyalty. Ryders inspire nothing. Even by the end of the game I do not see why anyone is following them. Ryders are both yay sayers, that is a trait that does not make you a leader. And games like this, where you HAVE to "lead" a squad and crew, you need a leader. Ryder is good, more realistic, at simulating an average joe. I do not see the Ryders to be pathfinders, they could grow into the role, but the path was blocked with meaningless dialogue options.
I think what this probably boils down to again is the lack of role playing possibilties since the introduction of "the wheel".
I guess having to choose between "badass shepard" and "more badass shepard" is more satisfying than having to choose between, as someone put it, "emotional yes", "casual yes", "rational yes" for a less inspiring character. Guess we have to live with the fact that choices are more limited the more complicated animations become (and we have seen how those turned out).
Also, Ryder is a Spectre's kid, so there should be a bit of Shepard in there (and Alec Ryder had pretty badass 5 min) ;p.
They'd have to beat Ryder in combat first (which they can't). In any case, I don't think I'd care to play Christopher Columbus in space.
His idiocy and weakness should have defeated him first, but we don't get to see the penalty for being so weak. if you don't do it the Cortez way, you fail and your colony dies.
Wait, are we talking about Ryder's weakness against the Kett or something? Killed a fuck-ton of those guys so I'm not sure what that's about, but how would a "Cortes way" game really play out? What would the factions be? What would be our role, and what would our options be in terms of how we want to resolve the game's central conflict? Cortes is cool and all, but fuck that guy. He wasn't no dang spaceman.
I don't think Ryder is a pansy, there's just no reason for Ryder to act like renegade Shepard does in this story. The stakes aren't as high, for one. Ryder is an explorer looking for allies and outposts to establish. The Kett are a nuisance sure, but there are few personal stakes to push Ryder to the edge. Alec dies, but it happens early and you move on. Your twin is in a coma, but they are otherwise safe for the time being. It's not really until the end game that we start to see Ryder being pushed to make tough decisions, like on the Salarian ark, or the extremes Ryder is willing to go to control the Remnant tech. But even much of that is foreshadowing of potentially darker places the character could go.
How is finding out all of the golden worlds are a wash and find there is no place to call home not high stakes? Food, water, and even power are all reaching critical stages with still 1000's of people in cryo. Add to that the mutiny and missing arks. If anything I think the game doesn't do a good enough job of showing just how dire things are at the beginning of the game. Really none of this changes until the very end of the game. I think a renegade character would have totally worked in this game or at least ake it so my Ryder isn't constantly apologizing for my decisions. As someone else already mentioned Ryder doesn't have a backbone and i agree with that.
Ryder is a Pathfinder who primarily utilizes diplomacy. Shepard is a Spectre who can operate above the law.
They are, fundamentally, very different characters.
I think that's a bad excuse.
Shepard was a spectre that could primarily uses diplomacy, there are Shepards out there who were very similar to Ryder. But he could do other things. The problem with Ryder is that we can almost exclusively be diplomatic, the game should give the options to play the game in other ways and, if necessary, punish you for bad decisions.
Ryder is a Pathfinder who primarily utilizes diplomacy. Shepard is a Spectre who can operate above the law.
They are, fundamentally, very different characters.
I think that's a bad excuse.
Shepard was a spectre that could primarily uses diplomacy, there are Shepards out there who were very similar to Ryder. But he could do other things. The problem with Ryder is that we can almost exclusively be diplomatic, the game should give the options to play the game in other ways and, if necessary, punish you for bad decisions.
...it already does all that.
Patreon (for my writing, posting chapters of my novel)
I don't have a problem with giving an option to be an '' epic badass '' as long as it doesn't come between my option to play my male Ryder as an emotional, casual whippersnapper who cries when things don't go his way. You had your fun in MET, now it's time for me to have fun, or then we both have equal fun by BW letting us actually roleplay the game.
If you want Shepard, go play Shepard. It's Ryder time.
Except Shepard gave us the option to be a peace loving hippie (casual whipper snapper who cries bucket as you want) or Switzerland OR murder she wrote. Can't you see at all why people are disgruntled with Ryder?
1. Letting the Angara murder Ruth Bekker so they can't escape with a sample of the disease and use it later 2. Telling Addison she's 100% at fault for Spender being unleashed and cutting awful deals and getting people killed 3. Informing the Initiative of Addison's deal supplying and arming mercs who ended up killing people and stealing more supplies. 4. Saying I don't give an f* what Tann thinks when I sided with the Krogan 5. Not taking crap from Sloane Kelly and actively mocking her for her ridiculous over the top personality and throne room 6. Allowing Reyes to have someone assassinate Sloane when I could have saved her because I didn't like her 7. Shooting Kalinda when Peebee was trying and wanting to save her because she just tried to kill us and the Remnant tech was more important than her life 8. Outing Sarissa for allowing her Pathfinder to die and having her released as Pathfinder. If one of our squadmates had left us for dead we'd be out for blood. No different in this situation. I'd never trust Sarissa to have my back. 9. Telling off Liam viciously for being an idiot with the whole Verand situation and that he was so close to destroying everything 10. Allowing Drack to drop the merc working for Spender just for kicks despite him being useful evidence against Spender 11. Not destroying the Kett Exaltation facility so that I can save the Angara (or on the more ruthless flip side, destroying it and sacrificing all those Angara) but still shooting the Cardinal in the back because no way I'm letting that monster walk away.
Okay, number 9 and 10 I didn't actually do personally in my playthrough but I've watched on Youtube and seen the results when you do. I don't know. I guess I don't miss having the psychopath, completely ruthless personality. I never used it before and I enjoy not feeling forced in to one of two boxes to keep my character at and actively being punished if I say or do something different based on the situation I'm in. Personally, I think some of the above is pretty brutal all things considered.
I personally don't think Ryder is "too soft" or weak willed. I kind of like the new dialogue system. I understand why some people don't, but you still can be a jerk/merciless in situations.
Last Edit: May 2, 2017 18:55:09 GMT by liquidsnake
When you let yourself believe or disbelieve, and the truth turns out to be the opposite of what you thought, your reactions become sluggish - Roronoa Zoro
Dovie'andi se tovya sagain - matrim cauthon
What's the point of a pig being able to talk - Ban, Fox's Sin of Greed
Don't knock the little winds. They're important - for morale.
Games: Mass Effect Trilogy, Dragon Age: Origins, Dragon Age 2, Dragon Age Inquisition, KOTOR, Baldur's Gate, Jade Empire, Mass Effect Andromeda, SWTOR, Anthem Origin: correctamundo1 Prime Posts: A thousand and then some. Prime Likes: They never liked me! No one likes me! Posts: 2,831 Likes: 5,274
Ryder is a Pathfinder who primarily utilizes diplomacy. Shepard is a Spectre who can operate above the law.
They are, fundamentally, very different characters.
Yes, and yet Shepard spent all of ME3 as a diplomat, trying to get everyone to play nice. It's basically the same thing the inquisitor did later in far less compelling ways. And what Ryder does now AGAIN. Ridiculed by the council, even thrown in jail. Shepard was never really above the law, but basically a soldier operating in a "civilized society" with the help of the military.
Andromeda is the new frontier, the AI/pathfinder only just starting to establish a society. Far fewer laws and obligations. Nothing is set in stone yet. Shepard as a Spectre was allowed to operate outside the law at times but still very much an agent of council space.
To me Andromeda is a missed opportunity to break out of the constraints of law and order and offer a greater roleplaying opportunity. Peaceful diplomacy OR forceful colonization. Laws or anarchy. But Bioware is too afraid these days to step on anybody's toes, can't be getting people upset about promoting imperialism, so nobody put guns on the Nomad, even if that's just common sense. Space Care Bears is what we got, yay!
Just how the fuck is the Initiative going to forcefully colonise the Angara or the Kett? 20000 civilians in cryo pods against two spacefaring civilisations.
Anyway regarding all this bollocks about your Ryders not being able to say no or being forceful. Either you haven't played the game or you FAILED at playing the game. My 2nd play through has been all about telling people to step in line and doing as they're told. It is true that Ryder isn't Shepard (duh), a SPECTRE (double duh) and is more bound by diplomacy but you get ample opportunities to trample peoples feelings, lives, heritage, tell them to shove it and shoot them in the face or the back, whichever suits you the most. If you failed at that it's all on you, the player.
Last Edit: May 2, 2017 19:05:57 GMT by correctamundo
Yes, and yet Shepard spent all of ME3 as a diplomat, trying to get everyone to play nice. It's basically the same thing the inquisitor did later in far less compelling ways. And what Ryder does now AGAIN. Ridiculed by the council, even thrown in jail. Shepard was never really above the law, but basically a soldier operating in a "civilized society" with the help of the military.
Andromeda is the new frontier, the AI/pathfinder only just starting to establish a society. Far fewer laws and obligations. Nothing is set in stone yet. Shepard as a Spectre was allowed to operate outside the law at times but still very much an agent of council space.
To me Andromeda is a missed opportunity to break out of the constraints of law and order and offer a greater roleplaying opportunity. Peaceful diplomacy OR forceful colonization. Laws or anarchy. But Bioware is too afraid these days to step on anybody's toes, can't be getting people upset about promoting imperialism, so nobody put guns on the Nomad, even if that's just common sense. Space Care Bears is what we got, yay!
Just how the fuck is the Initiative going to forcefully colonise the Angara or the Kett? 20000 civilians in cryo pods against two spacefaring civilisations.
Anyway regarding all this bollocks about your Ryders not being able to say no or being forceful. Either you haven't played the game or you FAILED at playing the game. My 2nd play through has been all about telling people to step in line and doing as they're told. It is true that Ryder isn't Shepard (duh), a SPECTRE (double duh) and is more bound by diplomace but you get ample opportunities trample peoples feelings, lives, heritage, tell the to shove it and shoot them in the face or the back, whichever suits you the most. If you failed at that it's all on you, the player.
case in point just did the other side of Sleeping Dragons last night. Holy crap.
Patreon (for my writing, posting chapters of my novel)
When you first talk to him he says something like "you seem different than everyone else here they all just want to shoot me". Then there are two options first option is to shoot him and the second option is to talk to him more about his situation.
I think the mission is Aspirations which you can get from an explanation point
I don't have a problem with giving an option to be an '' epic badass '' as long as it doesn't come between my option to play my male Ryder as an emotional, casual whippersnapper who cries when things don't go his way. You had your fun in MET, now it's time for me to have fun, or then we both have equal fun by BW letting us actually roleplay the game.
If you want Shepard, go play Shepard. It's Ryder time.
Except Shepard gave us the option to be a peace loving hippie (casual whipper snapper who cries bucket as you want) or Switzerland OR murder she wrote. Can't you see at all why people are disgruntled with Ryder?
Sure, but are people annoyed that they can't roleplay an epic badass, or that Ryder isn't an epic badass by default with loads of muscle and a short haircut to really amp up the masculinity and EPICNESS. There's a difference.
I personally thought male Ryder/Scott wasn't emotional and soft enough, or rather I wasn't given the option to be as big of a cry baby that I envisioned my male Ryder to be.