222 réponses à ce sujet

[TobyHasEyes]

Surely with bi-sexuality being what it is, even having a male Shepard romance a female character doesn't go against that characterization

Are people seriously suggesting that it would be out of character for a bisexual individual to only be sexually interested in one member of a team.. who is of the opposite gender?

[Il Divo]

Killjoy Cutter wrote...

This "it didn't happen in all playthroughs" thing reminds me of the nonsense about the contrived binary nature of Zaeed's LM being just fine because both events never happen in the same playthrough.

That's great, except I don't care. You're the one claiming retcons. So, show me where the retcon took place, since apparently Mass Effect establishes Shepard as heterosexual. I personally was unaware that potential dialogue/romance options were valid in establishing a character as pre-defined. I can do that with any choice in the game, and it still wouldn't be a valid comparison.  

Modifié par Il Divo, 23 octobre 2011 - 04:02 .

[Bostur]

In Exile wrote...

Bostur wrote...
I think the fourth use of the dialogue wheel is silly. When the player has no impact on what is going on, it's a cheap trick to make it seem like it's an important choice. The other ways to use the dialogue wheel is fine though.

Illusion of choice makes a significant effect on enjoyment. It's like saying that video-games are silly, because you're just sitting down/lying prone for hours on end moving a plastic clump while looking at a screen. If it improves the experience, then it's worthwhile. 

I agree, but if the illusion is easily broken it takes away from the experience instead of adding to it.

[fdgvdddvdfdfbdfb]

Jesus I thought this was about the dialogue wheel, would it make you happy if you could only have a homosexual romance in a new game/never romanced a member of the opposite gender?

Modifié par fdgvdddvdfdfbdfb, 23 octobre 2011 - 04:12 .

[Il Divo]

Bostur wrote...

I agree, but if the illusion is easily broken it takes away from the experience instead of adding to it.

It does vary for some people.

If you take three dialogue options like:

Where am I?
What is this place?
What am I doing here?

For some players, the "illusion" of choice is shattered, while for others constantly choosing that dialogue still makes it feel personalized to your Shepard. Of course, this worked better with the silent protagonist where your character said exactly what you selected. The paraphase system leads to scenarios where your character says the exact same thing anyway, so choosing the icon really does feel meaningless.

[Killjoy Cutter]

Il Divo wrote...

Killjoy Cutter wrote...

This "it didn't happen in all playthroughs" thing reminds me of the nonsense about the contrived binary nature of Zaeed's LM being just fine because both events never happen in the same playthrough.

That's great, except I don't care. You're the one claiming retcons. So, show me where the retcon took place, since apparently Mass Effect establishes Shepard as heterosexual.

ME1 and ME2 establish exactly that, via what Shep can never do in any playthrough.

Modifié par Killjoy Cutter, 23 octobre 2011 - 04:23 .

[Il Divo]

Killjoy Cutter wrote...

ME1 and ME2 establish exactly that, via what Shep can never do in any playthrough.

I already explained the absurdity of this position. Let's try another example. I can never make Shepard eat in Mass Effect 1, ergo if we see Shepard eat in Mass Effect 3, that's a ret-con.

I'll say it again in the hopes you'll understand me: what your Shepard can do in Mass Effect 3 can be entirely consistent with his actions in Mass Effect 1 and 2, since I don't have to romance a character and I never have to explain to anyone my sexual preferences. Mass Effect never establishes Shepard as hetero-sexual because potential actions are not actual actions.

[Il Divo]

Cthulhu42 wrote...

Then by that argument, you could say that ME1 established that Shepard could never be in a relationship with Tali. Which, as ME2 illustrates, was obviously not the case.

Exactly. I mean, since when do we take optional courses of action as an indicator of canon? 

Modifié par Il Divo, 23 octobre 2011 - 04:31 .

[Il Divo]

Gatt9 wrote...

I'm going to have to disagree with you there.  First,  because Bioware's reputation is one where they only offer you Good or Evil choices,  with no gray areas. 

I highly recommend the Mass Effect series. Great games, with interesting moral dilemmas for the player to experience.

Second,  if you're trying to show off a game where the player interacts with the game and can affect the direction of the game,  what you really want to show is more choices.

Not when your dialogue system is the same exact one utilized in the past. As much as anything else, people want to see what's new in your game, and given Bioware's tendency towards dropping plot spoilers like the plague, I'd rather they avoid showing dialogue, since I already know exactly how it works. The combat system is new and improved. The dialogue wheel? Same since the beginning.

I'm also not in agreement on the topic of waiting for the demo to find out,  that's what people insisted everyone should do with DA2,  and when the demo proved to be exactly as expected,  they insisted everyone wait for the final game,  and when that turned out to be identical to the demo and the previews,  well,  it went downhill very rapidly.

Which,  TBH,  is what I expect to happen here at this point.

What else would you say to anyone whining about how X game looks terrible? That you think this is an argument limited just to Bioware is interesting. People complain, you tell them to play the demo, which either turns out good or bad. This is not some foreign concept.

[Travie]

I agree with Divo on that first point. In this game expecially they aren't offering you two different choices that surmount to either good or evil.

With this one its more doing the right thing from two (or three) different perspectives.

[Bostur]

Il Divo wrote...

Bostur wrote...

I agree, but if the illusion is easily broken it takes away from the experience instead of adding to it.

It does vary for some people.

If you take three dialogue options like:

Where am I?
What is this place?
What am I doing here?

For some players, the "illusion" of choice is shattered, while for others constantly choosing that dialogue still makes it feel personalized to your Shepard. Of course, this worked better with the silent protagonist where your character said exactly what you selected. The paraphase system leads to scenarios where your character says the exact same thing anyway, so choosing the icon really does feel meaningless.

Thats true, and I bet that illusion works for me quite often as well, but it's hard to tell sometimes because we don't know exactly what the game will do with the dialogue in that specific circumstance.

I think your example works better if the options are more specific. An alternate set of options could be:

- Ugh, this place is scary.
- What are those things?
- More blood for my axe!

A generic NPC response to all of those could be:
"Well we need to carry on, I'm not staying any longer than I have to."

Even if those options don't do anything at all, it's an opportunity for the player to do a bit of mental character building on the side, and it adds to the flow of dialogue. These options have some emotions added to them, but they don't assume any decision making or judgement on part of the player character. In that case I don't expect much of a consequence. It's different if they player character is called upon to make a statement or decision, then I would be expect more of a consequence.

Modifié par Bostur, 23 octobre 2011 - 04:55 .

[Nashiktal]

Il Divo wrote...

Killjoy Cutter wrote...

ME1 and ME2 establish exactly that, via what Shep can never do in any playthrough.

I already explained the absurdity of this position. Let's try another example. I can never make Shepard eat in Mass Effect 1, ergo if we see Shepard eat in Mass Effect 3, that's a ret-con.

I'll say it again in the hopes you'll understand me: what your Shepard can do in Mass Effect 3 can be entirely consistent with his actions in Mass Effect 1 and 2, since I don't have to romance a character and I never have to explain to anyone my sexual preferences. Mass Effect never establishes Shepard as hetero-sexual because potential actions are not actual actions.

Hell my shep never even bothered with romances in ME1. Does that mean its a retcon when shep romanced someone in ME2? Shep never showed an interest in anyone before then.

Modifié par Nashiktal, 23 octobre 2011 - 05:01 .

[Il Divo]

Bostur wrote...

Thats true, and I bet that illusion works for me quite often as well, but it's hard to tell sometimes because we don't know exactly what the game will do with the dialogue in that specific circumstance.

I think your example works better if the options are more specific. An alternate set of options could be:

- Ugh, this place is scary.
- What are those things?
- More blood for my axe!

A generic NPC response to all of those could be:
"Well we need to carry on, I'm not staying any longer than I have to."

Even if those options don't do anything at all, it's an opportunity for the player to do a bit of mental character building on the side, and it adds to the flow of dialogue. These options have some emotions added to them, but they don't assume any decision making or judgement on part of the player character. In that case I don't expect much of a consequence. It's different if they player character is called upon to make a statement or decision, then I would be expect more of a consequence.

Great point and Bioware has (on occasion) taken that approach before. I think they should focus on it; it maximizes character options, while still minimizing the necessity of altering the dialogue responses for npcs. Best of both worlds, so that we're not sitting here wondering to ourselves what was the point of pressing those buttons. 

[Nizzemancer]

Il Divo wrote...

Bostur wrote...

I agree, but if the illusion is easily broken it takes away from the experience instead of adding to it.

It does vary for some people.

If you take three dialogue options like:

Where am I?
What is this place?
What am I doing here?

For some players, the "illusion" of choice is shattered, while for others constantly choosing that dialogue still makes it feel personalized to your Shepard. Of course, this worked better with the silent protagonist where your character said exactly what you selected. The paraphase system leads to scenarios where your character says the exact same thing anyway, so choosing the icon really does feel meaningless.

I don't remember who said it but I think it was a dev on Fallout 2:
"Choice is an illusion, no matter how many options you get you'll always end up doing what the developer wants you to do; play the game"

[Il Divo]

Nizzemancer wrote...

Il Divo wrote...

Bostur wrote...

I agree, but if the illusion is easily broken it takes away from the experience instead of adding to it.

It does vary for some people.

If you take three dialogue options like:

Where am I?
What is this place?
What am I doing here?

For some players, the "illusion" of choice is shattered, while for others constantly choosing that dialogue still makes it feel personalized to your Shepard. Of course, this worked better with the silent protagonist where your character said exactly what you selected. The paraphase system leads to scenarios where your character says the exact same thing anyway, so choosing the icon really does feel meaningless.

I don't remember who said it but I think it was a dev on Fallout 2:
"Choice is an illusion, no matter how many options you get you'll always end up doing what the developer wants you to do; play the game"

There's alot of truth in that statement. For some, I can see how that would be hard to accept, since they love RPGs and the idea of choice is an important one, but it really is about effectively maintaining the disguise. It's like the difference between a good magician and a bad magician; the good ones will keep you so enthralled that you don't care that it's all an illusion.

Modifié par Il Divo, 24 octobre 2011 - 01:19 .

[Killjoy Cutter]

Nizzemancer wrote...

I don't remember who said it but I think it was a dev on Fallout 2:
"Choice is an illusion, no matter how many options you get you'll always end up doing what the developer wants you to do; play the game"

Oddly enough, I didn't play Fallout 2 after trying to demo... so I guess he was wrong. 

[KainrycKarr]

Bostur wrote...

Il Divo wrote...

Bostur wrote...

I agree, but if the illusion is easily broken it takes away from the experience instead of adding to it.

It does vary for some people.

If you take three dialogue options like:

Where am I?
What is this place?
What am I doing here?

For some players, the "illusion" of choice is shattered, while for others constantly choosing that dialogue still makes it feel personalized to your Shepard. Of course, this worked better with the silent protagonist where your character said exactly what you selected. The paraphase system leads to scenarios where your character says the exact same thing anyway, so choosing the icon really does feel meaningless.

Thats true, and I bet that illusion works for me quite often as well, but it's hard to tell sometimes because we don't know exactly what the game will do with the dialogue in that specific circumstance.

I think your example works better if the options are more specific. An alternate set of options could be:

- Ugh, this place is scary.
- What are those things?
- More blood for my axe!

A generic NPC response to all of those could be:
"Well we need to carry on, I'm not staying any longer than I have to."

Even if those options don't do anything at all, it's an opportunity for the player to do a bit of mental character building on the side, and it adds to the flow of dialogue. These options have some emotions added to them, but they don't assume any decision making or judgement on part of the player character. In that case I don't expect much of a consequence. It's different if they player character is called upon to make a statement or decision, then I would be expect more of a consequence.

One of the best points in the thread.

[The Spamming Troll]

but thats no better then picking "ok." i dont want to have a dialogue wheel just to continue a dialogue. and i dont need 3 ways to say "ok" either, especially when what i say doesnt effect the persons response anyways.

what your getting at is more like a personality choice, instead of an alignment choice. your 3 options are more like sarcastic, professional, and aggressive. i can get behind dialogue choices that can set a different tone like that. but i dont need douchebag sheaprd to have three different option in saying "ok."

[HK-90210]

Best I can tell, there are only a few things about Shepard that are absolutely out of the player's control.

1. Shepard is/was an Allaince Soldier. No matter the background/service history, this is unchangable.

2. ME1 occured. In other words, Shepard became a Spectre, killed Saren and stopped Sovereign. Fate of Council/Rachni, which squadmate(s) you lost, etc are all up to the player.

3. ME2 occured. In other words, Shepard was killed, brought back by Cerberus, stopped the attack on Horizon, recuited a team of operatives to take down the Collectors, and did so. Even if you do a 'Shepard dies' playthrough, he/she accomplishes these things.

4. LotSB and Arrival occured. I'm still a bit miffed about Shepard committing genocide in Arrival. But in BW's defense, you are allowed to 'fail' by letting the time run out. If you do that, the Reapers arrive and kill everyone, GAME OVER.

But none of these things define Shepard's personality, sexuality, reasons behind being who he/she is. They set certain boundaries, which is done in every RPG. In order to tell a story, you need those boundaries. And the real fun in Mass Effect, for me anyway, is being able to choose within those boundaries. Paragon, Renegade, none of the above? All up to the player. Mass Effect has, in part, been defined by the Paragon/Renegade dialogue system, and the choices players make within Shepard's role in the story. Through them, people can get such a variety Shepards, it boggles the mind.

But adding more boundaries, restricting player choice? Sorry, Bioware is not that stupid. They know there is no way any defined character they come up with will ever match that of any individual's 'canon' Shepard. If from the beginning they had defined Commander Shepard as a character, they might have been able to pull it off. Shepard might have been on par with Uncharted's Nathan Drake, or Assassin's Creed's Ezio Auditore da Firenze. But because they didn't, because they allowed players to choose so many aspects of Shepard's character, IMHO they made Commander Shepard greater than any other gaming character in this generation.

The dialogue wheel stays because without it, Shepard's entire character, and part of what made ME great in the first place, is lost.

[The Spamming Troll]

CastonFolarus wrote...

Best I can tell, there are only a few things about Shepard that are absolutely out of the player's control.

1. Shepard is/was an Allaince Soldier. No matter the background/service history, this is unchangable.

2. ME1 occured. In other words, Shepard became a Spectre, killed Saren and stopped Sovereign. Fate of Council/Rachni, which squadmate(s) you lost, etc are all up to the player.

3. ME2 occured. In other words, Shepard was killed, brought back by Cerberus, stopped the attack on Horizon, recuited a team of operatives to take down the Collectors, and did so. Even if you do a 'Shepard dies' playthrough, he/she accomplishes these things.

4. LotSB and Arrival occured. I'm still a bit miffed about Shepard committing genocide in Arrival. But in BW's defense, you are allowed to 'fail' by letting the time run out. If you do that, the Reapers arrive and kill everyone, GAME OVER.

But none of these things define Shepard's personality, sexuality, reasons behind being who he/she is. They set certain boundaries, which is done in every RPG. In order to tell a story, you need those boundaries. And the real fun in Mass Effect, for me anyway, is being able to choose within those boundaries. Paragon, Renegade, none of the above? All up to the player. Mass Effect has, in part, been defined by the Paragon/Renegade dialogue system, and the choices players make within Shepard's role in the story. Through them, people can get such a variety Shepards, it boggles the mind.

But adding more boundaries, restricting player choice? Sorry, Bioware is not that stupid. They know there is no way any defined character they come up with will ever match that of any individual's 'canon' Shepard. If from the beginning they had defined Commander Shepard as a character, they might have been able to pull it off. Shepard might have been on par with Uncharted's Nathan Drake, or Assassin's Creed's Ezio Auditore da Firenze. But because they didn't, because they allowed players to choose so many aspects of Shepard's character, IMHO they made Commander Shepard greater than any other gaming character in this generation.

The dialogue wheel stays because without it, Shepard's entire character, and part of what made ME great in the first place, is lost.

none of ME1 or ME2 matters if you killed shepard in ME2. youll start ME3 with a fresh character, which im not sure if theyll be chooseing their previous choices via comic strip either.  even worse then ME2, ME3 will be even more of a stand alone game, relying little on previouse what-have-yous considering noob ME3 shepard. am i right about that tho?

i dont think the OP wants the dialogue wheel removed. its a perfect method in accomplishing what youd want. its easy, understandable, and straight forward. it shouldnt be dropped and it should be used in more games even. but i think the need for it to be so prevelanet is the concern. if youve played deus ex human revolution youll see some difference. thers not as much dialogue in DX but none of it is unnessesary. ME3s biggest problem is its stuck in good VS evil story mode. and theres just not a reason for me to care abotu what hes saying if its only nice guy VS douchebag. im more in need of variety in respones, whether they are goor OR evil. let me be awkward, funny, intelectual, suave, profesional, whatever.

im bored of :

paragon- no need to thank me.
nuetral- i should go.
renegade- wheres my reward?

[didymos1120]

Killjoy Cutter wrote...


ME1 and ME2 establish exactly that, via what Shep can never do in any playthrough.

Interesting.  So, it is therefore canon that Shep never:

1. Eats (but does imbibe a bit of booze from time to time)
2. Sleeps (but can be knocked unconscious via external means)
3. Urinates
4. Defecates
5. Vomits
6. Menstruates (if Femshep. Well, MShep too, but that kinda goes without saying)
7. Celebrates birthdays
8. Changes his/her underwear
9.  Or socks
10. Practices proper dental hygeine
12. If MShep, bathes (FemShep can take a shower if you do the right ME2 romance)
13. Does any sort of physical conditioning to keep in fighting trim
14. As of ME2, crouches unless in cover or near a piece of same (must've been a side-effect of Project Lazarus)
15.  Any number of other things which expose the complete ridiculousness of this notion

[Killjoy Cutter]

didymos1120 wrote...

Killjoy Cutter wrote...

ME1 and ME2 establish exactly that, via what Shep can never do in any playthrough.

Interesting.  So, it is therefore canon that Shep never:

1. Eats (but does imbibe a bit of booze from time to time)
2. Sleeps (but can be knocked unconscious via external means)
3. Urinates
4. Defecates
5. Vomits
6. Menstruates (if Femshep. Well, MShep too, but that kinda goes without saying)
7. Celebrates birthdays
8. Changes his/her underwear
9.  Or socks
10. Practices proper dental hygeine
12. If MShep, bathes (FemShep can take a shower if you do the right ME2 romance)
13. Does any sort of physical conditioning to keep in fighting trim
14. As of ME2, crouches unless in cover or near a piece of same (must've been a side-effect of Project Lazarus)
15.  Any number of other things which expose the complete ridiculousness of this notion

Don't be daft. 

Which romantic paths Shep can take are strictly constrained by Shep's gender, and none of them homosexual.  Suddenly opening up homosexual romantic possibilities for Shep in ME3 consitututes a drastic change to the established facts of the character. 

And no, "but Shep couldn't romance Tali or Garrus in ME!" doesn't count, NEITHER gender of Shep could, it has nothing to do with the question at hand. 

Suddenly Bi Shep is just transparent fanservice that contradicts established facts. 

Someone wants to create a new protagonist for some other game that's default bisexual or homosexual, fine, be my guest.  But don't go changing established characters for the sake of fanwank shipping. 

Modifié par Killjoy Cutter, 25 octobre 2011 - 02:20 .