177 réponses à ce sujet

[Spartas Husky]

Lord_Tirian wrote...

Mrxknown wrote...

Agreed, I'm an Engineer as well. It's a fun class, I just wish there was dialogue based on the class you chose.

Ditto, Dragon Age did that, IIRC. I'd loved to see my Shep say something like "I'm not going to shoot you, I'm going to set you on fire."

all i wanted was  vanguard of ME1..... but then they changed it and added charge... so teh 'vanguard" became a sentinel.

sentinel with assaulty rifle, and ammo powers would be just fine... better than the soldier.

PS: I want to see the tech armor during cutscenes that will be sweet

[Eradyn]

spacehamsterZH wrote...

Bioware ComplainBoard Selective Reading Comprehension in full effect, yo. You guys need to read the whole interview, he also points out that only something like 15% of dialogue in the game gets skipped over, so obviously they're not looking to eliminate the dialogue system. The only way the statement makes any sense is if he meant that the storytelling should focus more on showing the action instead of characters standing around delivering exposition. Show, don't tell - it's an old maxim that applies to any visual medium, be it film, comics or video games.

Not that I expect this simple observation to calm the nerdrage - according to the usual suspects here on the Bioware ComplainBoard, too much exposition isn't a feature of weak storytelling, but of "deep roleplay mechanics", and ME2 already didn't have enough of it. Apparently the ideal RPG takes place after everything has already happened and consists of nothing but five characters standing in a room talking about what they did.

You comprehended his statement differently. Others understood it differently. None of us can say with 100% certainty what he meant because the statement itself requires a lot of "between the lines" reading. It's too open to interpretation, too vague. Which is a fault of the BW spokespeople; it happens all too regularly. If he meant "we're going to make dialogue more organic and flowing with the action" then that's one thing. But he didn't say that, hence people getting up in arms. Frankly, I see nothing wrong with certain things being shown and not told...but that doesn't mean I want less dialogue. I would rather see it open up more squad banter and character interactions. Not "less dialogue." But I guess it really depends on just what, exactly, Hudson means. Which brings me back to their need to be more clear about the statements they make. Would save a lot of fan grief (although you'll always have people who will never be satisfied).

Modifié par Eradyn, 08 septembre 2010 - 04:44 .

[ODST 5723]

I really enjoyed LotSB, especially all of the exra dialogue during the battles. That's something i'd want to see more in ME3, along with more concepts like the Paragon/Renegade interrupts which allow you to interact w/ the story.

[shootist70]

I'm assuming he means that the dialogue will be streamlined along with the inventory. In other words, we might possibly be saying goodbye to backstory and infodump as the dialogue becomes limited to dramatic decision making only.

It could be very good, or it could make the whole experience very shallow. All depends on how skillfully it's done.

Modifié par shootist70, 08 septembre 2010 - 04:52 .

[Raanz]

Ieldra2 wrote...

Hathur wrote...

Woa.. roughly 80% of people played as male shep.. that surprised me (not in a pleasant way) since I found fem shep's voice acting far stronger in terms of line delivery.

Also, most played class was soldier - more than all other classes combined.. that's depressing

And my favorite class is the least played.. Engineer

^This

I really don't understand what people find in playing Soldiers. It's so boring. The only class I never play. I love my femShep Engineer.

Personal preference, thank god for that.  I love to play Soldier, and a male one at that.  According to some folks in this community that means you are a witless frat-boy that doesn't read the dialogue either.  Neither one is true of this male/soldier playing Shepard.

[Bourne Endeavor]

Throw_this_away wrote...

only 15% of people skipped
dialogue. so even the shooter crowd that did grunts mission and played
soldiers with their male sheps seemed to appreciate dialogue.

I wonder just how many of those 15% where skipping dialogue due to having already scene it before, perhaps after having died. I know when I died a couple times I began to skip dialogue because I had no desire to hear the same lines repeated three or four times. It was not too often, however still enough to likely corrupt that statistic.

In response to the Soldier class being the most popular. Well that should be a given Bioware, you made it the easiest, nigh stupid-proof class in the game. Anyone new to the series or our 'beloved' shooter fans are likely to give it a whirl first to introduce themselves to the ME experience. The shooter crowd would do so merely because it better emulates their preferred style of gaming, ie shoot stuff. Finally, the other classes had a required learning curve that a Soldier did not...

Vanguard - Charge was suicidal on harder difficulty settings and easily so even on Normal if you flung yourself all across the battlefield. You have to pick your spots and be ready to retreat to cover, likely playing a large portion of the game with minimal health.

Infilitrator - Tactical Cloak is awesome however he forgo recovery while in it, and have to be quick about picking your spots, whether you move to cover for a better angled shot or attempt the more Kasumi-esque role and melee things to death. One wrong turn, one misplaced step and your cloak vanishing may lead to a dire situation.

I cannot comment on the rest due to having little experience with them at this juncture, so someone else can provide more feedback there. Suffice it to say, Soldier was the "hold your hand" class of the game. This is not to insinuate it is monotonous; it is fun to be a human tank, just simplitic.

shootist70 wrote...

I'm assuming he means that the dialogue will be streamlined along with the inventory. In other words, we might possibly be saying goodbye to backstory and infodump as the dialogue becomes limited to dramatic decision making only.

It could be very good, or it could make the whole experience very shallow. All depends on how skillfully it's done.

That is my concern because it could all but confirm that the squad in ME2; Garrus and Tali included, are going to experience the Wrex Effect, and we will receive 'new' characters with limited interaction and possibly mundane characteristics due to the sole reason this series has exhausted partically every archetype one could utliize under the present story setting. I have no interest in learning about some random Turian replacement, I want to see Garrus fleshed out more and will be damn irritated if he is not available for the conclusion of the story (ie: Mass Effect 3). The cheap cop out excuse may have gained ground here however going to remain optismistic that Bioware will deliver.

[Bourne Endeavor]

Strange, site hiccup, and double posted.

Modifié par Bourne Endeavor, 08 septembre 2010 - 05:23 .

[SomeBug]

Eradyn wrote...

spacehamsterZH wrote...

Bioware ComplainBoard Selective Reading Comprehension in full effect, yo. You guys need to read the whole interview, he also points out that only something like 15% of dialogue in the game gets skipped over, so obviously they're not looking to eliminate the dialogue system. The only way the statement makes any sense is if he meant that the storytelling should focus more on showing the action instead of characters standing around delivering exposition. Show, don't tell - it's an old maxim that applies to any visual medium, be it film, comics or video games.

Not that I expect this simple observation to calm the nerdrage - according to the usual suspects here on the Bioware ComplainBoard, too much exposition isn't a feature of weak storytelling, but of "deep roleplay mechanics", and ME2 already didn't have enough of it. Apparently the ideal RPG takes place after everything has already happened and consists of nothing but five characters standing in a room talking about what they did.

You comprehended his statement differently. Others understood it differently. None of us can say with 100% certainty what he meant because the statement itself requires a lot of "between the lines" reading. It's too open to interpretation, too vague. Which is a fault of the BW spokespeople; it happens all too regularly. If he meant "we're going to make dialogue more organic and flowing with the action" then that's one thing. But he didn't say that, hence people getting up in arms. Frankly, I see nothing wrong with certain things being shown and not told...but that doesn't mean I want less dialogue. I would rather see it open up more squad banter and character interactions. Not "less dialogue." But I guess it really depends on just what, exactly, Hudson means. Which brings me back to their need to be more clear about the statements they make. Would save a lot of fan grief (although you'll always have people who will never be satisfied).

The only possible way this could be up for debate on the inferrence of meaning is if you took it completely out of context of what else they have said regarding design philosophy.

Stop looking for controversy.

[Jebel Krong]

SomeBug wrote...

The only possible way this could be up for debate on the inferrence of meaning is if you took it completely out of context of what else they have said regarding design philosophy.

Stop looking for controversy.

This. For an elitist bunch, the rpg crowd sure have problems with reading comprehension at times... or is it just forumites that love to complain, especially when they don't understand adult conversation?

Modifié par Jebel Krong, 08 septembre 2010 - 07:41 .

[Eradyn]

Wow, hypocrites much? Perhaps someone should make use of reading comprehension courses...for priding yourselves on it, you seem to fail with it in equal measure. My point is that spokespeople for BW need to make their statements clear, not vague. People interpret things differently. Nothing "controversy-stirring" about that and when people working for BW make vague statements, it leaves it open for various interpretations. Or is acknowledging this "elitest"? Pot, kettle's calling.

[PHub88]

Well whatever else....If they do try to have less dialogue in ME3....I will try to spend less of my dollars on ME3



Overlord had the makings of one of the coolest addons of all time but the freaking cutscenes where major things are happening and no one is talking kinda threw it off that route.

[spacehamsterZH]

Eradyn wrote...

Wow, hypocrites much? Perhaps someone should make use of reading comprehension courses...for priding yourselves on it, you seem to fail with it in equal measure. My point is that spokespeople for BW need to make their statements clear, not vague.

That one sentence about "getting away from dialogue" is vague if you take it completely out of context, and only if you deliberately interpret it so that it contradicts everything else said about the role and popularity of dialogue in ME2. If you read everything, it's clear enough. You're getting hung up on the poor wording of one sentence. Hence why you're being accused of stirring the pot for no reason.

And besides, come on, does anyone honestly believe the folks at Bioware don't realize that the dialogue is far and away their biggest strength? I mean, aside from the "they're clearly trying to make Gears of War 4" crowd, that is.

[shootist70]

I don't see what the big deal is, the dev is probably just referring to a raising of standards. Dialogue can contain a lot of pitfalls that betray weak storytelling. Fleshing out characters with blocks of backstory, progressing a plot with hamfisted exposition, clunky infodump and excessive incluing - all these crimes have so far been committed in the ME series and in DAO. I don't blame them for wanting to rip all this out, and it is NOT dumbing down or whatever. It's exactly what all decent writers do.

Dialogue should flesh characters out while being simultaneously plot progressive. It's not easy to master, but it's a requirement for decent drama.

Modifié par shootist70, 08 septembre 2010 - 09:17 .

[Daeion]

Hathur wrote...

Woa.. roughly 80% of people played as male shep.. that surprised me (not in a pleasant way) since I found fem shep's voice acting far stronger in terms of line delivery.

Also, most played class was soldier - more than all other classes combined.. that's depressing

And my favorite class is the least played.. Engineer

well when their goal is to attract the shooter crowd, most people are going to play the shooter class.

[Siansonea]

Am I the only one concerned that telemetry data will be dictating what share of the pie future content will receive? How about options for which no telemetry data is available, i.e., options that don't currently exist in the game? How do the numbercrunchers evaluate those things?

[haberman13]

Daeion wrote...

Hathur wrote...

Woa.. roughly 80% of people played as male shep.. that surprised me (not in a pleasant way) since I found fem shep's voice acting far stronger in terms of line delivery.

Also, most played class was soldier - more than all other classes combined.. that's depressing

And my favorite class is the least played.. Engineer

well when their goal is to attract the shooter crowd, most people are going to play the shooter class.

Just because they "streamlined" the game, removed all semblance of traditional RPG mechanics and focused strictly on action doesn't mean they were going for the shooter crowd.

If anything, they are trying to dumb us all down so there are no more crowds, only people, people who like to shoot.

[Lord_Tirian]

Daeion wrote...

well when their goal is to attract the shooter crowd, most people are going to play the shooter class.

Eh, even among RPG players/fans, two classes keep being the most favoured: fighters and mages. In other words: soldiers and adepts.

The basic idea of a guy who wins through sheer grit, determination and courage is an archetype for a reason - and as such, it appeals to a lot of players across all genre boundaries.

Though I'd love to see a bit more love for the engineer and I think adding some physics effects would accomplish that very well - currently biotics are hogging *all* cool ragdolling/physics effects (engineers should totally get a detonate that can throw people away through the blast wave - or something like a sonic beam - I'm fine with biotics having the precise and most powerful physics effects... just share the love a little bit).

[shootist70]

haberman13 wrote...

Just because they "streamlined" the game, removed all semblance of traditional RPG mechanics and focused strictly on action doesn't mean they were going for the shooter crowd.

If anything, they are trying to dumb us all down so there are no more crowds, only people, people who like to shoot.

You know, after playing the LotSB DLC I'm reminded of what a great thing this streamlining can be: emotive, fast paced drama propelled by effective, economic dialogue and characterisation. Stick true roleplaying in there through slick narrative choice, again driven by effective dialogue, and you've got a perfect, full throttle roleplaying experience. No hanging around to loot half a dozen bodies for loose change, no pausing to rifle through cupboards for bread and apples, no sorting through dozens of mundane items in a vast backpack, no standing at vendors for minutes at a time.

Seriously, less is often a hell of a lot more if stripping away the tedious allows you to focus on the strongest elements of a genre.

[Nightwriter]

Moving away from dialogue? Oh, BioWare, say it isn't so. That's like saying you're trying to move away from good storytelling.

[shootist70]

Nightwriter wrote...

Moving away from dialogue? Oh, BioWare, say it isn't so. That's like saying you're trying to move away from good storytelling.

Maybe, but not necessarily, as I've said in this post:

I don't see what the big deal is, the dev is probably just referring to a raising of standards. Dialogue can contain a lot of pitfalls that betray weak storytelling. Fleshing out characters with blocks of backstory, progressing a plot with hamfisted exposition, clunky infodump and excessive incluing - all these crimes have so far been committed in the ME series and in DAO. I don't blame them for wanting to rip all this out, and it is NOT dumbing down or whatever. It's exactly what all decent writers do.

Dialogue should flesh characters out while being simultaneously plot progressive. It's not easy to master, but it's a requirement for decent drama.

[Nightwriter]

We really don't know what he means. I mean we all know Casey has no history of saying ambiguous things.

However I think it implies something negative more than it implies something positive. You have to put what he said in context with ME2, where people were dying for some more inter-character dialogue. Lack of dialogue actually hurt this game, and that they would say this is the direction they're going for is mildly troubling.

Dialogue can lead to weak storytelling, yeah, but you must not avoid it altogether just because there's a risk it might go wrong. Something is always better than nothing.

[shootist70]

Nightwriter wrote...

Dialogue can lead to weak storytelling, yeah, but you must not avoid it altogether just because there's a risk it might go wrong. Something is always better than nothing.

I really can't see Bioware as just another shooter developer. I'm...almost confident that's not what he means.

[Nightwriter]

Oh, I don't think dialogue is going to be totally neglected or done away with, if that's what you mean. Just sort of downsized. If that's the case, what I really mean is that more is always better than less, if we're keeping cases like ME2 in mind.

[Ileanos07]

javierabegazo wrote...

You're just taking it out of context. What BioWare seemed most proud of, was moments when you could SEE just how hurt Ashley was when Shepard berated her after Eden Prime.

They want to achieve a level of cinematic quality that you could see the person's emotions, just as in real life, rather than have a flat face, and big words.

Well if it is like that - ok, that is a good goal. But less dialogues? I dont think it would be a good way. It woulde be more like suicide.

[Urazz]

It's kind of hard to tell what was meant on cutting dialogue. Are they just gonna cut all the smaller dialogue that isn't needed. I.E. playing 20 questions in a conversation or having a character explaining something in detail more when you ask?