17599 réponses à ce sujet

[xsdob]

Cheesy Blue wrote...

Vertigo_1 wrote...

twitter.com/#!/PatrickWeekes/status/196803270944108544
"2) Military, wartime tone of game didn't fit with regular middle neutral path. Rarely really had three very diff things to say."

Really?

"Commander, should we take the ridge!?"

"Yes, we need that cover"   "No, it's too risky and we need the men here,"  "...Maybe. I don't know...Do whatever you like...I should go."

I hated that in mass effect 1 the neutral answer for anderson was just another of the 2 options. Would have loved a third option for him to go with.

For all the games, the third option in big scinarios was always, "Screw it. I don't know, you decide for me computer."

Modifié par xsdob, 30 avril 2012 - 08:05 .

[Pattonesque]

xsdob wrote...

Cheesy Blue wrote...

Vertigo_1 wrote...

twitter.com/#!/PatrickWeekes/status/196803270944108544
"2) Military, wartime tone of game didn't fit with regular middle neutral path. Rarely really had three very diff things to say."

Really?

"Commander, should we take the ridge!?"

"Yes, we need that cover"   "No, it's too risky and we need the men here,"  "...Maybe. I don't know...Do whatever you like...I should go."

I hated that in mass effect 1 the neutral answer for anderson was just another of the 2 options. Would have loved a third option for him to go with.

For all the games, the third option in big scinarios was always, "Screw it. I don't know, you decide for me computer."

The middle option doesn't need to be wishy-washy.

When you're deciding on the fate of the council, the paragon option is "Save the council". The renegade option is "Let the council die". Crucially, the middle option is "Concentrate on Sovereign". This is important from a role-playing perspective -- it accomplishes the same thing as "Let the council die", but it reflects a different motivation -- pragmatism rather than a power grab or human supremacy. The dialogue in the epilogue changes, as does what Shepard says in the original scene.

[Atakuma]

Liara: "Shepard, do you really think we can stop the reapers?"
Shepard(Neutral): "All I know, is that my gut says maybe."

(Shepard on suicide mission)
Shepard(Neutral): "If I don't survive, tell Ashley, 'hello'."

Modifié par Atakuma, 30 avril 2012 - 08:18 .

[xsdob]

Pattonesque wrote...

xsdob wrote...

Cheesy Blue wrote...

Vertigo_1 wrote...

twitter.com/#!/PatrickWeekes/status/196803270944108544
"2) Military, wartime tone of game didn't fit with regular middle neutral path. Rarely really had three very diff things to say."

Really?

"Commander, should we take the ridge!?"

"Yes, we need that cover"   "No, it's too risky and we need the men here,"  "...Maybe. I don't know...Do whatever you like...I should go."

I hated that in mass effect 1 the neutral answer for anderson was just another of the 2 options. Would have loved a third option for him to go with.

For all the games, the third option in big scinarios was always, "Screw it. I don't know, you decide for me computer."

The middle option doesn't need to be wishy-washy.

When you're deciding on the fate of the council, the paragon option is "Save the council". The renegade option is "Let the council die". Crucially, the middle option is "Concentrate on Sovereign". This is important from a role-playing perspective -- it accomplishes the same thing as "Let the council die", but it reflects a different motivation -- pragmatism rather than a power grab or human supremacy. The dialogue in the epilogue changes, as does what Shepard says in the original scene.

I know it makes it feel like it's unqiue to you, and that's cool, but to me it sort of chepeans the whole thing.

It's basically autodiolouge that tricks you, it makes you think that 'oh, if I pick this than I may be able to save the council but still have enough men to attack soverign.' isntead it's just renegade wearing a mask.

Basically I thought I'd lose some people on the destiny ascension and some alliance ships, not just the council all together.

[Fire2theSky]

xsdob wrote...

Pattonesque wrote...

xsdob wrote...

Cheesy Blue wrote...

Vertigo_1 wrote...

twitter.com/#!/PatrickWeekes/status/196803270944108544
"2) Military, wartime tone of game didn't fit with regular middle neutral path. Rarely really had three very diff things to say."

Really?

"Commander, should we take the ridge!?"

"Yes, we need that cover"   "No, it's too risky and we need the men here,"  "...Maybe. I don't know...Do whatever you like...I should go."

I hated that in mass effect 1 the neutral answer for anderson was just another of the 2 options. Would have loved a third option for him to go with.

For all the games, the third option in big scinarios was always, "Screw it. I don't know, you decide for me computer."

The middle option doesn't need to be wishy-washy.

When you're deciding on the fate of the council, the paragon option is "Save the council". The renegade option is "Let the council die". Crucially, the middle option is "Concentrate on Sovereign". This is important from a role-playing perspective -- it accomplishes the same thing as "Let the council die", but it reflects a different motivation -- pragmatism rather than a power grab or human supremacy. The dialogue in the epilogue changes, as does what Shepard says in the original scene.

I know it makes it feel like it's unqiue to you, and that's cool, but to me it sort of chepeans the whole thing.

It's basically autodiolouge that tricks you, it makes you think that 'oh, if I pick this than I may be able to save the council but still have enough men to attack soverign.' isntead it's just renegade wearing a mask.

Basically I thought I'd lose some people on the destiny ascension and some alliance ships, not just the council all together.

You chose to leave it in the hands of fate, which is fine, it just turns out that the council was "fated" to die unless you do something specific to stop it. The players motivations might interpret it as renegade in a mask, but Shepard making that call means he is doing everything he can, and he feels that the best choice is to concentrate on Sovereign, unfortunately, that choice comes with a price.

[Vertigo_1]

IsaacShep wrote...
I hate this autodialogue, but ME3 unfortunately had the same developement time as ME2 so I have to admit it was inevitable.

Proof? 
Hudson said in the Final Hours App that "In many ways this third game is the most ambitious Mass Effect yet but with the shortest development cycle."

They also mention that ME2 had a smooth development cycle (not so much for ME3 sadly...)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

EDIT:
How about you guys knock it off with the "Zealot Retakers" and other nonsense (both sides).

I don't think folks would want this thread to get locked due to mudlsinging and name calling

Modifié par Vertigo_1, 30 avril 2012 - 08:46 .

[xsdob]

I agree, and to help re-rail this topic.

'I did wish there were more dialogue choices (felt at times like Shep was on auto-pilot), but it didn't wreck the game for me.'

and the repsone

'We're looking at reception. I can see times I wish we'd had another choice -- but also times choices we HAD clunked the scene.'

EDIT: Think I should take down that one post under my other response a page back? Can't tell if it's funny or offensive.

Modifié par xsdob, 30 avril 2012 - 09:10 .

[Vertigo_1]

xsdob wrote...
EDIT: Think I should take down that one post under my other response a page back? Can't tell if it's funny or offensive.

I would
--------------------------------------------------------------

twitter.com/#!/masseffect/status/197057155000565761
Join us as we chat with @MassEffect Development Director @RobinMayne in this new dev interview on the @BioWare blog! http://bit.ly/IKOlu1

Modifié par Vertigo_1, 30 avril 2012 - 09:11 .

[Pkxm]

"In many ways this third game is the most ambitious Mass Effect yet but with the shortest development cycle."

it definitely shows. so many bugs, glitches, and rushed feeling especially during the last mission. i hope they learn from this and stop trying to rush out the games so fast

[Atakuma]

Jsxdf wrote...

"In many ways this third game is the most ambitious Mass Effect yet but with the shortest development cycle."

it definitely shows. so many bugs, glitches, and rushed feeling especially during the last mission. i hope they learn from this and stop trying to rush out the games so fast

They don't have a choice. EA is forcing them to make games in two years or less. I highly doubt the developers like being rushed and overworked.

[Trebor1969]

Atakuma wrote...

Jsxdf wrote...

"In many ways this third game is the most ambitious Mass Effect yet but with the shortest development cycle."

it definitely shows. so many bugs, glitches, and rushed feeling especially during the last mission. i hope they learn from this and stop trying to rush out the games so fast

They don't have a choice. EA is forcing them to make games in two years or less. I highly doubt the developers like being rushed and overworked.

Agreed, but the excuse of 'Artistic Integrity' is not the most appropriated

[CARL_DF90]

I know. One of the worst excuses ever. Also, if I had to name just ONE thing that could point to a rush job was the horrid journal system used. I mean, it was almost perfect for the first 2 games but then a total failure in the finale? Hmm...me thinks something not right here.

[Dyorgarel Inkin]

xsdob wrote...

"Commander, should we take the ridge!?"

"Yes, we need that cover"   "No, it's too risky and we need the men here,"  "...Maybe. I don't know...Do whatever you like...I should go."

I hated that in mass effect 1 the neutral answer for anderson was just another of the 2 options. Would have loved a third option for him to go with.

For all the games, the third option in big scinarios was always, "Screw it. I don't know, you decide for me computer."

Tarquin Victus : The bomb was set by turians.
Shepard : Para "You idiot!", Reneg "Clever!", Neutral "Extreme but understandable" or just "Understood".

I miss so much the neutral answer.

[CARL_DF90]

I do too although it is one of the few changes I find myself being able to live with. The autodialgue not so much. Still, I'm pretty sure Bioware has received more than enough feedback on and off twitter regarding that.

[xsdob]

simfamSP wrote...

Seeing these points I regret my post on neutral options... Yes, in some cases there shouldn't be. But in most there should.

Don't feel too bad, I was jsut illustrating that because most of th game is that kind of diolouge that a third option might break the action up to much. The worst thing you can do for action sequences is to make it feel disjointed and segmented.

[Vertigo_1]

twitter.com/#!/PatrickWeekes/status/197463923069427712
"Lot of questions asking if things got cut, do I regret cuts? Stuff always gets cut. Usually for the best. Part of making games."

twitter.com/#!/PatrickWeekes/status/197464103340605440
"An ME2 convo got cut. I thought cutting it was a mistake. Fans found it in unused dialog, said, "Wow, this is dumb." GOOD CUT."

twitter.com/#!/PatrickWeekes/status/197466235691212800
"And to clarify: unused dialog includes nice lines, good convos. But didn't fit with theme we needed right then."

twitter.com/#!/PatrickWeekes/status/197466917462736898
"Where "theme" can be "is it appropriate to discuss ___ at this point in game" or "Do we want player spending time doing this?"

twitter.com/#!/PatrickWeekes/status/197467129149267971
"Obviously, opinions will vary. But not as simple as "things only get cut because mean people make us." Cuts are part of art."

[xsdob]

I agree with what has been said above this post. It's a job that is a grim necessity, and you don't always know what should or shouldn't be cut but all you can do is hope for the best and go to it.

[MACharlie1]

Did anyone ask him then why was so much of Ashley cut to the point where she literally has no dialog on the Normandy for a non-romanced Shepard? She had a great convo about the other side before that got the axe...would have been perfect.

[Icinix]

Vertigo_1 wrote...

twitter.com/#!/PatrickWeekes/status/197463923069427712
"Lot of questions asking if things got cut, do I regret cuts? Stuff always gets cut. Usually for the best. Part of making games."

twitter.com/#!/PatrickWeekes/status/197464103340605440
"An ME2 convo got cut. I thought cutting it was a mistake. Fans found it in unused dialog, said, "Wow, this is dumb." GOOD CUT."

twitter.com/#!/PatrickWeekes/status/197466235691212800
"And to clarify: unused dialog includes nice lines, good convos. But didn't fit with theme we needed right then."

twitter.com/#!/PatrickWeekes/status/197466917462736898
"Where "theme" can be "is it appropriate to discuss ___ at this point in game" or "Do we want player spending time doing this?"

twitter.com/#!/PatrickWeekes/status/197467129149267971
"Obviously, opinions will vary. But not as simple as "things only get cut because mean people make us." Cuts are part of art."

Revisions, ammendments and touch ups are part of art too.

In the future I hope to see a Mass Effect 3: Directors Cut that had all those things cut out.

[Iakus]

MACharlie1 wrote...

Did anyone ask him then why was so much of Ashley cut to the point where she literally has no dialog on the Normandy for a non-romanced Shepard? She had a great convo about the other side before that got the axe...would have been perfect.

I'm curious too

[CARL_DF90]

Seconded.

[Dyorgarel Inkin]

simfamSP wrote...

Seeing these points I regret my post on neutral options... Yes, in some cases there shouldn't be. But in most there should.

*FrenchAngerOn*

In ME3, I'm farting forced to judge any farting thing!! I'm farting paragade! I do understand the two sides. Know i'm saying?!

Faaaart! J'me barre, j'en ai marre !

*FrenchAngerOff*

[Silent Rogue]

Trebor1969 wrote...

Atakuma wrote...

Jsxdf wrote...

"In many ways this third game is the most ambitious Mass Effect yet but with the shortest development cycle."

it definitely shows. so many bugs, glitches, and rushed feeling especially during the last mission. i hope they learn from this and stop trying to rush out the games so fast

They don't have a choice. EA is forcing them to make games in two years or less. I highly doubt the developers like being rushed and overworked.

Agreed, but the excuse of 'Artistic Integrity' is not the most appropriated

One piece of evidence towards the game being rushed or just plain laziness that struck me are the flashbacks towards the end of the game. I'm actually surprized I haven't heard anyone mentioning anything about this. You see the flashbacks of Joker, Anderson and your LI . Okay... where's the rest??? I get those 3 where important characters but for christ's sake so was most of your squad. Garrus anyone? He was a squad member in all 3 games. And so was Tali.