139 réponses à ce sujet

[upsettingshorts]

Even after his interrogation I still had to basically say to myself, "Yeah this will probably work out fine considering its an RPG" to not kill him.

At least he can turn on you later if you don't raise his approval. 

Had it been a Paragon choice in Mass Effect it woulda been all sunshine and roses from then on with no negative repurcussions to speak of.

Modifié par Upsettingshorts, 30 octobre 2010 - 11:36 .

[soteria]

Actually, I killed him the first time I played as well, but I still interrogated him first. From my character's perspective, I was trying to learn more about whoever sent him. It didn't make sense to kill him outright without getting some information first. But, I agree that taking Zevran along at all is a questionable decision without metagaming. I suspect a lot of the players who RP more loosely just figure, "Eh, it's a game; if he betrays me or something I can always just kill him." After all, it's not as though the player has to worry about dying if he chooses wrong.

[maxernst]

Mr. Man wrote...

maxernst wrote...

Mr. Man wrote...

Reaverwind wrote...


One doesn't really need to accept all that Flemeth and Morrigan say to know that the battle went terribly wrong. There's Alistair's reaction - and the reaction of various NPC's in Lothering. Imo, what Bioware should have done was stop with the scene where your party is overwhlemed in the Tower of Ishaal. I can accept having a cutscene there, since a scripted sequence at that point can be difficult to pull off without overly confusing and frustrating the player. The rest of the cutscene was meta-gaming knowledge which ended up detracting from the story. You're spoon-fed 3rd-person knowledge - when it would have added more emotional impact to the story to leave the player in the dark and allow the PC to slowly piece together what happened.

Now we are being spoon-fed 3rd person knowledge? I love how you first person advocates act all elitist and think those who like cinematics are simply action-craving rabble. This isn't the case, I simply realize that being in the dark and not understanding whats going on around you is boring and confusing. Story-telling is supposed to mean actually telling a story (through interactive cut-scenes I prefer) not a lack thereof, which seems to be what you want. Have you played Farcry 2, you may like it; weak story and you never leave the first person.

Excuse me, but you're the guy who ,keeps telling those of us who actually want to play our characters and feel like we're in their world should go play action games.  The thing is I don't want to be TOLD a story, I want to experience a story, I want to be part of a story.  There are other media which are better for pure story telling--films, books, theatre.  I realize that finding things out for yourself is more satisfying than passively being told them.  No one is saying they don't want story, but I want to experience the story not watch it play out on the screen in front of me.

How do you experience a story without being told it. If they don't tell you a story there can be no story, considering it's fiction and your not the writer, somebody is always going to have to be telling you the story.

Not wholly.  Part of the story is what YOU do, therefore you are not simply being told a story.  When the story plays out as you play the game, you're using the game itself to tell your personal story.  In a cut scene, you're not active, you're just watching.  Yes, you might have a dialogue option, but that's not intrinsic to the cut scene.  You can have dialogue options without graphics, let alone cut scenes.   A cut scene is simply when they stop the game to show you a movie in the middle of it.  I don't see why you have so little faith in the ability of games to tell stories that you think you can't have a story without constantly interrupting the game with cut scenes.  Older Bioware games managed to tell stories with far fewer cut scenes. Cant' you watch what's happening around you and listen to the people talking without having to stop everything else?  It's not like Bioware can't do it.  The companion banter happens without cut scenes. 

The reason I prefer first person for the narrative (though not necessarily the viewpoint for reasons of practicality) is a third person narrative turns me into a disinterested observer.  Watching the battle of Ostagar doesn't pull me into the game world.  I am in the game world fighting for my life with an ogre on top of the tower to light that beacon...and then suddenly I'm a detached observer of a battle from the safety of my home office.  I might as well be watching Gladiator.  Maybe it would be different if I had a strong vested interest in the characters, but I just met Duncan and Cailan and no one else is familiar.  I don't see why a short cut scene showing me getting overwhelmed, fade to black, wake up in Flemeth's wouldn't work. 

I don't know why you think you can only have good stories in the omniscient third person.  Have you really never read a novel that was written in the first person or in the third person subjective (which is almost the same, though writers who use it will often use multiple points of view character)?  It's only film and theatre that  typically have an objective narrative perspective--and even there, I've seen films get very interesting results from shooting from the point of view of a particular character.

Modifié par maxernst, 30 octobre 2010 - 11:56 .

[maxernst]

soteria wrote...

Actually, I killed him the first time I played as well, but I still interrogated him first. From my character's perspective, I was trying to learn more about whoever sent him. It didn't make sense to kill him outright without getting some information first. But, I agree that taking Zevran along at all is a questionable decision without metagaming. I suspect a lot of the players who RP more loosely just figure, "Eh, it's a game; if he betrays me or something I can always just kill him." After all, it's not as though the player has to worry about dying if he chooses wrong.

I think that was the only time in my first playthrough that I really felt I was metagaming was sparing Zevran.  It does seem awfully risky and would be hard to do in real life, especially after my HN's family's experience with Howe.

[Mr. Man]

soteria wrote...

Actually, in practice I don't know how much it messed up RP. The cutscene basically tells you Loghain has hired an assassin (Zevran) to kill you. The Warden is already aware at this point that Loghain wants you dead. The cutscene doesn't tell you that Zevran is a recruitable ally--all you really know is that he is an assassin. When you interrogate him, he pretty much tells your character what the player already knows, adding that he'd be willing to join you.
If anything, what really messes up the perspective is going into the game knowing Zevran is recruitable. Not knowing that would make it a lot easier to just kill him outright.

First time I played, I actually thought he was just a boss I was going to have to kill. I had no idea he was recruitable, until he started talking to me after the fight.

[soteria]

The reason I prefer first person for the narrative (though not necessarily the viewpoint for reasons of practicality) is a third person narrative turns me into a disinterested observer. Watching the battle of Ostagar doesn't pull me into the game world. I am in the game world fighting for my life with an ogre on top of the tower to light that beacon...and then suddenly I'm a detached observer of a battle from the safety of my home office. I might as well be watching Gladiator. Maybe it would be different if I had a strong vested interest in the characters, but I just met Duncan and Cailan and no one else is familiar. I don't see why a short cut scene showing me getting overwhelmed, fade to black, wake up in Flemeth's wouldn't work.

I have to ask, why the disinterest? I wasn't disinterested watching Gladiator; maybe you were. You're saying you really didn't care about Russel Crowe's character one way or the other? If I watch the Oklahoma play Nebraska, I'm disinterested, but if it's the Colts and the Giants, then I'm invested in what I'm watching. You seem to be implying that if you're watching a movie (or, by extension, reading a book), you're disinterested in the outcome. I just don't understand that and can't relate at all. Wouldn't the problem be that you're watching a crappy movie if it fails to engage you?

[Sylvius the Mad]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

Part of the reasons people get upset at each other on these forums needlessly is stuff like that, assuming people must have played some silly console game or must be a mouth-breathing shooter playing Neanderthal to like Mass Effect 2, and so on.

I don't get upset that people liked Mass Effect 2.  I'm just baffled that anyone thinks Mass Effect 2 is even vaguely similar to DAO.

The way I play DAO (or BG, or NWN, or KotoR) simply doesn't work in Mass Effect because I'm not permitted to control my character to the extent that I find necessary.  What I consider a natural thought process behind a person's every expression is denied me with Shepard, and thus I find it impossible to play him with anything approaching a sense purpose.  His behaviour seems random to me because I can't perceive his motives or reasoning.

[maxernst]

soteria wrote...

Actually, in practice I don't know how much it messed up RP. The cutscene basically tells you Loghain has hired an assassin (Zevran) to kill you. The Warden is already aware at this point that Loghain wants you dead. The cutscene doesn't tell you that Zevran is a recruitable ally--all you really know is that he is an assassin. When you interrogate him, he pretty much tells your character what the player already knows, adding that he'd be willing to join you.
If anything, what really messes up the perspective is going into the game knowing Zevran is recruitable. Not knowing that would make it a lot easier to just kill him outright.

Thinking about it, I don't know.  I haven't played that scene in a while--does Zev do anything prior to the dialog to make it obvious that he's specifically after you?  If I approached it without knowing that Zevran was an assassin hired to kill me, couldn't I simply think I had been attacked by bandits, which happens often enough in the game.  It might never occur to me that I was actually being specifically targeted, in which case I might kill him without interrogation, like you do zillions of other people in the game. 

But my real objection to that scene is that it removes the element of surprise from the encounter making it less enjoyable, not that it allows me to metagame.

[Sylvius the Mad]

soteria wrote...

I have to ask, why the disinterest? I wasn't disinterested watching Gladiator; maybe you were. You're saying you really didn't care about Russel Crowe's character one way or the other? If I watch the Oklahoma play Nebraska, I'm disinterested, but if it's the Colts and the Giants, then I'm invested in what I'm watching. You seem to be implying that if you're watching a movie (or, by extension, reading a book), you're disinterested in the outcome. I just don't understand that and can't relate at all. Wouldn't the problem be that you're watching a crappy movie if it fails to engage you?

Gladiator doesn't ask for your input.  If it did, and you occasionally were asked to tell Maximus what to do, would have had much interest in which option you selected beyond just what you thought would be interesting to see?  I suggest not, and that's one of the problems I had with ME.

Also I look for different things from movies and RPGs.  When I play an RPG I want to engage with a world and work with the detailed framework that is personality.

When I watch a movie I'm looking for light entertainment.  Even the highest concept art film is less engaging than a good RPG.

I spend about one hundred hours each month playing or reading about or talking about RPGs.  I might spent 5 hours a month watching movies.  That seems to be a fairly good measure of how much I value each medium.

[Sylvius the Mad]

maxernst wrote...

soteria wrote...

Actually, in practice I don't know how much it messed up RP. The cutscene basically tells you Loghain has hired an assassin (Zevran) to kill you. The Warden is already aware at this point that Loghain wants you dead. The cutscene doesn't tell you that Zevran is a recruitable ally--all you really know is that he is an assassin. When you interrogate him, he pretty much tells your character what the player already knows, adding that he'd be willing to join you.
If anything, what really messes up the perspective is going into the game knowing Zevran is recruitable. Not knowing that would make it a lot easier to just kill him outright.

Thinking about it, I don't know.  I haven't played that scene in a while--does Zev do anything prior to the dialog to make it obvious that he's specifically after you?  If I approached it without knowing that Zevran was an assassin hired to kill me, couldn't I simply think I had been attacked by bandits, which happens often enough in the game.  It might never occur to me that I was actually being specifically targeted, in which case I might kill him without interrogation, like you do zillions of other people in the game. 

But my real objection to that scene is that it removes the element of surprise from the encounter making it less enjoyable, not that it allows me to metagame.

I'm not sure that cutscene really matters.  The player should be able to compartmentalise what his character knows and make in-game decisions based only on that.

If there were irritating parts, it was that I already knew Zevran was recruitable (but that was the fault of the pre-launch marketing - I really think BioWare should keep all the companions' names secret), and that my party ran forward to help that woman simply to get ambushed.  That second part was terrible.  What if my character is more cautious than that?  Blinding trusting the bait was stupid.

[maxernst]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Upsettingshorts wrote...

Part of the reasons people get upset at each other on these forums needlessly is stuff like that, assuming people must have played some silly console game or must be a mouth-breathing shooter playing Neanderthal to like Mass Effect 2, and so on.

I don't get upset that people liked Mass Effect 2.  I'm just baffled that anyone thinks Mass Effect 2 is even vaguely similar to DAO.

The way I play DAO (or BG, or NWN, or KotoR) simply doesn't work in Mass Effect because I'm not permitted to control my character to the extent that I find necessary.  What I consider a natural thought process behind a person's every expression is denied me with Shepard, and thus I find it impossible to play him with anything approaching a sense purpose.  His behaviour seems random to me because I can't perceive his motives or reasoning.

I didn't find it that bad,but it is really annoying when your character does things that you don't expect.  I mean, am I not supposed to be controlling him?  Why did he shout that out?  And the interrupt system terrifies me.  It's like, do you want to press the red button?  What does it do?  Who knows, press it and find out. 

And I never called console games silly either (I don't have enough experience of them to comment on their silliness or seriousness--I've heard Heavy Rain is not silly at all), but if you compare the archetypal PC/Western RPG series (Baldur's Gate or the Elder Scrolls) are (like all pen 'n paper games) essentially first person.  The archetypal console RPG's like Final Fantasy and Zelda re not.  It's a very different narrative approach, and those games strike me as much more like Grim Fandango, Sanitarium, the Longest Journey--all of which are excellent games, but they're not what I want from RPG;s.

And before I get called out on this, yes, I realize there are first person RPG's that are console only (Fable) and Western RPG's that are pretty much third person like the Witcher. The latter has a wonderfully non-linear narrative but I just can't get into the character.

[Sylvius the Mad]

maxernst wrote...

And before I get called out on this, yes, I realize there are first person RPG's that are console only (Fable) and Western RPG's that are pretty much third person like the Witcher. The latter has a wonderfully non-linear narrative but I just can't get into the character.

I need to retry The Witcher.  I couldn't get past the combat system the first time I played, but I didn't give it nearly as much effort as I did with ME2, and I'm confident I liked ME2's combat even less.

I've just acquired some of Andrzej Sapkowski's short stories; perhaps those will inspire me.

[maxernst]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

maxernst wrote...

soteria wrote...

Actually, in practice I don't know how much it messed up RP. The cutscene basically tells you Loghain has hired an assassin (Zevran) to kill you. The Warden is already aware at this point that Loghain wants you dead. The cutscene doesn't tell you that Zevran is a recruitable ally--all you really know is that he is an assassin. When you interrogate him, he pretty much tells your character what the player already knows, adding that he'd be willing to join you.
If anything, what really messes up the perspective is going into the game knowing Zevran is recruitable. Not knowing that would make it a lot easier to just kill him outright.

Thinking about it, I don't know.  I haven't played that scene in a while--does Zev do anything prior to the dialog to make it obvious that he's specifically after you?  If I approached it without knowing that Zevran was an assassin hired to kill me, couldn't I simply think I had been attacked by bandits, which happens often enough in the game.  It might never occur to me that I was actually being specifically targeted, in which case I might kill him without interrogation, like you do zillions of other people in the game. 

But my real objection to that scene is that it removes the element of surprise from the encounter making it less enjoyable, not that it allows me to metagame.

I'm not sure that cutscene really matters.  The player should be able to compartmentalise what his character knows and make in-game decisions based only on that.

If there were irritating parts, it was that I already knew Zevran was recruitable (but that was the fault of the pre-launch marketing - I really think BioWare should keep all the companions' names secret), and that my party ran forward to help that woman simply to get ambushed.  That second part was terrible.  What if my character is more cautious than that?  Blinding trusting the bait was stupid.

Well, yes...but that happened in every major encounter in the game, so it's not unique to that particular situation.  Like I said, I'm not opposed to all cut scenes just ones that either show me movies about things my character can't know or things that grab hold of my character and make him do out of character things like charging into battle or stepping out of hiding to have a conversation with somebody I know I'm going to fight, or just to make the battle more "epic".

And of course, you should be able to ignore OOC information (you have to on subsequent playthroughs), but can't I have my first playthrough have some surprises, please. 

[maxernst]

soteria wrote...

The reason I prefer first person for the narrative (though not necessarily the viewpoint for reasons of practicality) is a third person narrative turns me into a disinterested observer. Watching the battle of Ostagar doesn't pull me into the game world. I am in the game world fighting for my life with an ogre on top of the tower to light that beacon...and then suddenly I'm a detached observer of a battle from the safety of my home office. I might as well be watching Gladiator. Maybe it would be different if I had a strong vested interest in the characters, but I just met Duncan and Cailan and no one else is familiar. I don't see why a short cut scene showing me getting overwhelmed, fade to black, wake up in Flemeth's wouldn't work.

I have to ask, why the disinterest? I wasn't disinterested watching Gladiator; maybe you were. You're saying you really didn't care about Russel Crowe's character one way or the other? If I watch the Oklahoma play Nebraska, I'm disinterested, but if it's the Colts and the Giants, then I'm invested in what I'm watching. You seem to be implying that if you're watching a movie (or, by extension, reading a book), you're disinterested in the outcome. I just don't understand that and can't relate at all. Wouldn't the problem be that you're watching a crappy movie if it fails to engage you?

Well, okay, maybe I wasn't that disinterested in Gladiator.  In fact, I cared a lot more about Russell Crowe's character than I did about Cailan and Duncan, whom I hardly knew.  And it's battle scenes are better...so yes, I'd rather watch Gladiator than the Battle at Ostagar.  But it's very rare for a movie to make me identify with a character to the same extent as a good RPG.  There's no sense that I have something at stake here.  It's something playing out somewhere else that I can't control the outcome of, so there's no point in getting too worked up about. 

[Urazz]

soteria wrote...

Actually, I killed him the first time I played as well, but I still interrogated him first. From my character's perspective, I was trying to learn more about whoever sent him. It didn't make sense to kill him outright without getting some information first. But, I agree that taking Zevran along at all is a questionable decision without metagaming. I suspect a lot of the players who RP more loosely just figure, "Eh, it's a game; if he betrays me or something I can always just kill him." After all, it's not as though the player has to worry about dying if he chooses wrong.

Lol. Actually, I didn't even think about it as a metagaming perspective when I first ran into Zevran.  At first it was just to get information out of him and then since I liked him from the conversation I had (and the fact that my human noble warrior was a bit of a crazy person) I decided to recruit him.

[AmstradHero]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

maxernst wrote...

And before I get called out on this, yes, I realize there are first person RPG's that are console only (Fable) and Western RPG's that are pretty much third person like the Witcher. The latter has a wonderfully non-linear narrative but I just can't get into the character.

I need to retry The Witcher.  I couldn't get past the combat system the first time I played, but I didn't give it nearly as much effort as I did with ME2, and I'm confident I liked ME2's combat even less.

I've just acquired some of Andrzej Sapkowski's short stories; perhaps those will inspire me.

I'm going to guess that you're going to absolutely hate The Witcher, Sylvius. Geralt frequently says a whole bunch of dialogue without any interaction whatsoever from the player.  If you didn't like that in Mass Effect, you're going to detest it in The Witcher.


As for Zevran, I interrogated him.  My character wanted to find out why this elf wanted me dead, and then who paid him to kill me.  Did I trust him? No.  But I had already defeated him when he was accompanied by a bunch of goons, so I was pretty sure I could handle him when he was alone.  I took his story that his life was forfeit regardless with a small amount of scepticism, but I couldn't see an assassination group taking to kindly to favour so his words rang somewhat true. Regardless, I was sending him back to the camp where he was going to be watched carefully by the other party members I'd already recruited.

[soteria]

maxernst wrote...

Thinking about it, I don't know. I haven't played that scene in a while--does Zev do anything prior to the dialog to make it obvious that he's specifically after you? If I approached it without knowing that Zevran was an assassin hired to kill me, couldn't I simply think I had been attacked by bandits, which happens often enough in the game. It might never occur to me that I was actually being specifically targeted, in which case I might kill him without interrogation, like you do zillions of other people in the game.

I'm 71% sure one of the assassins yells something to the effect of "kill the Warden." Also, there's the fact that the people you are fighting are labeled "assassin[s]," but I guess that's technically OOC knowledge.

But my real objection to that scene is that it removes the element of surprise from the encounter making it less enjoyable, not that it allows me to metagame.

I actually didn't make the connection until I saw Zevran. Sufficient time passed between the cutscene and the ambush that I didn't immediately think I was being ambushed by Loghain... I was quite sure it was an ambush all the same, and I agree with you and Sylvius (and 90% of the rest of the players) that being forced to walk right into it was frustrating.

Well, okay, maybe I wasn't that disinterested in Gladiator. In fact, I cared a lot more about Russell Crowe's character than I did about Cailan and Duncan, whom I hardly knew. And it's battle scenes are better...so yes, I'd rather watch Gladiator than the Battle at Ostagar. But it's very rare for a movie to make me identify with a character to the same extent as a good RPG. There's no sense that I have something at stake here. It's something playing out somewhere else that I can't control the outcome of, so there's no point in getting too worked up about.

Part of the problem was that they needed to kill those characters early to set up conflict, but killing them early meant we never really got to know them. It's not like, say, ASoIaF where Mr. Martin could build up a character for an entire book or more, kill them off, and still have a story to tell.

See, I come to a different conclusion from the same data. I figure in an RPG, ultimately I'm still not really controlling the outcome. In DA:O I could quit, or I could kill the Archdemon. I might get ticked if I don't like the outcome they wrote (*cough*FO3), but I generally accept that I'm only going to have choices within the framework of a certain story.

Sylvius wrote...

Gladiator doesn't ask for your input. If it did, and you occasionally were asked to tell Maximus what to do, would have had much interest in which option you selected beyond just what you thought would be interesting to see? I suggest not, and that's one of the problems I had with ME.

Also I look for different things from movies and RPGs. When I play an RPG I want to engage with a world and work with the detailed framework that is personality.

When I watch a movie I'm looking for light entertainment. Even the highest concept art film is less engaging than a good RPG.

I spend about one hundred hours each month playing or reading about or talking about RPGs. I might spent 5 hours a month watching movies. That seems to be a fairly good measure of how much I value each medium.

Dang it, and I had money on a response to the effect of, "but that's Russel Crowe's character.

Thing is, I don't see such a huge difference between third and first person. Books can be written from either perspective; in fact, they can be written from limited or omniscient third person. I personally enjoy all three methods.

When I play a video game, I do it because I enjoy the gameplay and I love a good story. RP is there as well if it's an RPG, but for me it takes a backseat to gameplay and story. For example, I don't RP my stat choices or my tactics in combat. I RP within the confines of the story, but I see it more as a tool to enjoy the same story multiple times from different points of view than the primary objective.

[Jedi31293]

I prefer a real cutscene over a scripted event. While some games have done scripted events well (Call of Duty, Half-Life) a lot of games can't pull off good scripted events (*cough* Assassin's Creed *cough*). To be honest, a scripted event is simply a cutscene with only one camera (the player's). It's not like you can actually change what happens during the event.

In my opinion, a cutscene does far more to immerse the player in a situation. Not only are there different and dramatic camera angles, the music fits perfectly with the cinematography and everything is choreographed for a certain purpose. These things just cannot be achieved by allowing the player to control the camera or having one camera.

Would any of the intense conversations with the Council in ME1 have been as dramatic or effective if the entire thing had taken place from over the shoulder of Commander Shepard? Close-ups, arms waving, fingers pointing, and facial expressions were all choreographed together during these scenes to make a point.

[maxernst]

Jedi31293 wrote...

I prefer a real cutscene over a scripted event. While some games have done scripted events well (Call of Duty, Half-Life) a lot of games can't pull off good scripted events (*cough* Assassin's Creed *cough*). To be honest, a scripted event is simply a cutscene with only one camera (the player's). It's not like you can actually change what happens during the event.
In my opinion, a cutscene does far more to immerse the player in a situation. Not only are there different and dramatic camera angles, the music fits perfectly with the cinematography and everything is choreographed for a certain purpose. These things just cannot be achieved by allowing the player to control the camera or having one camera.
Would any of the intense conversations with the Council in ME1 have been as dramatic or effective if the entire thing had taken place from over the shoulder of Commander Shepard? Close-ups, arms waving, fingers pointing, and facial expressions were all choreographed together during these scenes to make a point.

See, this is where we fundamentally differ.  Changing camera angles makes the game much less immersive; it reminds me that I'm watching something, and I'm not really there.  And when they do it in battle, it disorients and confuses me.  Besides, you actually can (sometimes) interfere with a scripted sequence.  It depends on the game and the scene.  And even if you can't, at least you're in control of how your character reacts to the script.  But as I've said before, dialog cut scenes don't bother me that much, it's the "it's a boss battle" cut scene, the "I have to hit the player over the head with the fact that new enemies have entered the room" cut scenes, the cut scenes portraying events outside my characters knowledge that bother me.

Modifié par maxernst, 31 octobre 2010 - 01:49 .

[AlanC9]

soteria wrote...

I'm 71% sure one of the assassins yells something to the effect of "kill the Warden." Also, there's the fact that the people you are fighting are labeled "assassin[s]," but I guess that's technically OOC knowledge.

Actually, Zevran himself has the line "The Grey Warden dies here!" before the fight starts.

[maxernst]

AlanC9 wrote...

soteria wrote...

I'm 71% sure one of the assassins yells something to the effect of "kill the Warden." Also, there's the fact that the people you are fighting are labeled "assassin[s]," but I guess that's technically OOC knowledge.

Actually, Zevran himself has the line "The Grey Warden dies here!" before the fight starts.

Ah, I had forgotten that.  Still don't think the cinematic with him getting hired adds anything to the game.

[AlanC9]

maxernst wrote...

Jedi31293 wrote...

I prefer a real cutscene over a scripted event. While some games have done scripted events well (Call of Duty, Half-Life) a lot of games can't pull off good scripted events (*cough* Assassin's Creed *cough*). To be honest, a scripted event is simply a cutscene with only one camera (the player's). It's not like you can actually change what happens during the event.
In my opinion, a cutscene does far more to immerse the player in a situation. Not only are there different and dramatic camera angles, the music fits perfectly with the cinematography and everything is choreographed for a certain purpose. These things just cannot be achieved by allowing the player to control the camera or having one camera.
Would any of the intense conversations with the Council in ME1 have been as dramatic or effective if the entire thing had taken place from over the shoulder of Commander Shepard? Close-ups, arms waving, fingers pointing, and facial expressions were all choreographed together during these scenes to make a point.

See, this is where we fundamentally differ.  Changing camera angles makes the game much less immersive; it reminds me that I'm watching something, and I'm not really there.  And when they do it in battle, it disorients and confuses me.  Besides, you actually can (sometimes) interfere with a scripted sequence.  It depends on the game and the scene.  And even if you can't, at least you're in control of how your character reacts to the script.  But as I've said before, dialog cut scenes don't bother me that much, it's the "it's a boss battle" cut scene, the "I have to hit the player over the head with the fact that new enemies have entered the room" cut scenes, the cut scenes portraying events outside my characters knowledge that bother me.

Reading this, it occurs to me that you two are thinking of different things when you think of cutscenes, with only minimal overlap. I doubt Jedi31293  is a huge fan of the Noveria in-battle cutscenes, and I'm pretty sure you're not actually objecting to the way ME handled the Council cutscenes.