2656 réponses à ce sujet

[Coreniro]

android654 wrote...

N7Raider wrote...

Duncaaaaaan wrote...



I just thought Shepard and Garrus having a talk about life, philosophy, past actions, past regrets, and the future, in the middle of a raging firefight, could actually be profoundly awesome. That's all. Doesn't need to be logical. A lot of the science fiction elements in the ME universe aren't logical in the first place.

It's not about logic it's about narrative, there's no set structure to good storytelling but you do have to be immersed in the world and the characters.  Having Garrus and Shepard have a conversation like that would be un-immersive and out of place.  If the characters don't care about the situation they're in why should we as the player/audience care?  Them having some philosophical conversation would be the easiest way to remove the audience from the situation.  

Look at it from this perspective. IF there's going to be dialogue between characters on a battlefield it shouldn't be specific to the character dynamic. For example if Garrus is discussing what they should do, and my Shepard dislikes Garrus, this would be a goo place to put an option for my Shepard to tell him "no" and to continue with a plan of my own choosing. If my Shepard is fond of him, it would be a good place to put an option to agree with him and tighten the bond Shepard has with this character.

Removing this weakens the immersion which is vital to an interactive medium.

What if there isn't another path? What would happen then?

Garrus: This is my planet, just follow me through this road.
Shepard: No, you suck, I'm the commander! let's do it my way! Ehm... let's take that road!
Garrus: Actually that is where I wanted to go in the first place, but, yeah, you the commander, you lead the way!

This is not Dragon Age 2. Shepard isn't a comedian, like Hawke.
(By the way, I loved the "moron" answer you could pick in Dragon Age 2.)

[Rickin10]

I saw the Casey Hudson Interview yesterday when he said of the 3 modes 'They're basically the same' , but...wow.

[Someone With Mass]

Almostfaceman wrote...
The point was there isn't a whole lot of room for role-play in the middle of a fight, since that bogs down the narrative.

Indeed. 

They also can't add that much dialogue to the game.

If Shepard says something automatically in a generally neutral tone, then it's okay with me. I don't need the game to appeal to all my viewpoints and stances, since that'd be a little...impossible. 

[Mahrac]

preorder canceled

[BentOrgy]

JuiceIsJuice wrote...

The funny thing is that people like you are screaming for CHOICE, but when Bioware gives you Choice then its suddently BAD. 

Its just a symptom of being spoiled like a 5 years old kid.

Example?

[Hunter of Legends]

Duncaaaaaan wrote...

Justicar wrote...

Nexis7 wrote...

>tries to greentext in BSN
>mfw

>im just cool like that
>typing like this makes me cool
>yfw

>>>/v/

To be honest I feel good for Hunter of legends, this game was made specifically for gamers like him, so I hope he enjoys it.

ANd I will:wizard:

Thank you for not acting like others and trying to rain on my parade.

[SomeKindaEnigma]

I disagree

[JuiceIsJuice]

hhh89 wrote...

Hunter of Legends wrote...


Seeing irrational people kicking and screaming like five year olds because instead of the blue car they got a red one.

Irritating.<_<

I don't gey why people should be forced to like "the more autodialogue" system.
It's not like the majority of the people who posted there and don't like the autodialogue system said "this game sucks, Bioware sucks". This is a forum, and people are free to express their opinion about Bioware games (without insulting).

I dont understand why we should be forced to accept that its bad that there is more autodialogue. Do you see where this goes. Everyone just wants his opinion to be accepted and this discussion is going nowhere.

[shep82]

BentOrgy wrote...

Dear God that was painful. I understand not needing input everywhere; ME2 demonstrated that SOME auto-Dialogue could even improve a scene by making it more cinematic, but this....

This is pathetic.

I disagree 100%. Nothing I saw was bad IMO.

[sam1612]

Hunter of Legends wrote...

sam1612 wrote...

Hunter of Legends wrote...

Duncaaaaaan wrote...

It's interesting actually how the majority of the old timers here are the ones that are concerned over this game, whereas the newer members seem to welcome it.

In with the new out with the oldB)

Action mode is clearly made for people like you, and I'm glad it's there so you don't have to made choices 'in the midst of combat' (not that it really happened that often in ME1 and 2 anyway). Some people (if not most) would like a bit more fleshing out. You seem to have a hard time grasping this concept.

I play RPG son.

Fleshing =/= pointless options that do nothing/breaking immersion.

Your opinion = pointless
Again, most people enjoy "pointless" options. It helps with attachment to your character. Are you really that dense to understand this? Don't answer, we already know.

[android654]

Coreniro wrote...

android654 wrote...

N7Raider wrote...

Duncaaaaaan wrote...



I just thought Shepard and Garrus having a talk about life, philosophy, past actions, past regrets, and the future, in the middle of a raging firefight, could actually be profoundly awesome. That's all. Doesn't need to be logical. A lot of the science fiction elements in the ME universe aren't logical in the first place.

It's not about logic it's about narrative, there's no set structure to good storytelling but you do have to be immersed in the world and the characters.  Having Garrus and Shepard have a conversation like that would be un-immersive and out of place.  If the characters don't care about the situation they're in why should we as the player/audience care?  Them having some philosophical conversation would be the easiest way to remove the audience from the situation.  

Look at it from this perspective. IF there's going to be dialogue between characters on a battlefield it shouldn't be specific to the character dynamic. For example if Garrus is discussing what they should do, and my Shepard dislikes Garrus, this would be a goo place to put an option for my Shepard to tell him "no" and to continue with a plan of my own choosing. If my Shepard is fond of him, it would be a good place to put an option to agree with him and tighten the bond Shepard has with this character.

Removing this weakens the immersion which is vital to an interactive medium.

What if there isn't another path? What would happen then?

Garrus: This is my planet, just follow me through this road.
Shepard: No, you suck, I'm the commander! let's do it my way! Ehm... let's take that road!
Garrus: Actually that is where I wanted to go in the first place, but, yeah, you the commander, you lead the way!

This is not Dragon Age 2. Shepard isn't a comedian, like Hawke.
(By the way, I loved the "moron" answer you could pick in Dragon Age 2.)

Or more correctly a renegande Shepard would say, "Just watch it Vakarian. This isn't Omega and I plan on walking out of here. You'll give us the route and we'll go on ahead."

[Dragoonlordz]

Hunter of Legends wrote...

Dragoonlordz wrote...

Someone With Mass wrote...

Wulfram wrote...

It's not about the amount of talking.  It's about talking without any player input.  I'd be far happier if Shepard had remained utterly mute.

It does no good for her to be chatting up a storm on the Normandy if she's acting out of character on all of the missions.

Right, and my point is that there's no need for player input in some places, since most conversations often leads to dead ends when you already have an objective and pretty much all the information you need. If the turian general, for example, tells you that the communication tower is at the north gate and that it's busted and he needs someone to fix it and clear out the place, since it's crawling with husks, then you don't need to ask someone else what to do.

It's more about priorities than anything. What's more important? Re-establishing communications with the Palaven command center and find out who's the next Primearch or ask what the gate guard had for lunch?

Subjective. Whether or not leads to a dead end is up to the writing, whether or not it is relevant to the story or improve it again quality of writing. Whether it needs to be present is irrelevant and all you need might be DA2 style arrow telling you what to click or where to go. Role playing involves defining the character through both actions and dialogue and this is a case of 'more is better' because it better defines them, if your only in it for the story then use the story mode but if you replace RPG mode with story mode yet keep calling it RPG mode at the same time.. It is not a good thing.

I would rather they not waste resources coming up with "every" hypothetical response/action and instead take logical chocies.

Then you must hate that they wasted any time on three different modes when could of just had action or story mode alone then. The fact is they do have three modes and it appears the RPG mode if that is indeed what the review or video shows is actually more story mode in disguise meaning nothing added to increase the role playing element for others. Also your logical choice is not everyone elses logical choice. That is why in war both sides try using tactics that is most logical to them but the end result does not play out the way they hoped. As said role playing mode should be about giving the player more choices, more dialogue as both those elements better define your character. Now I am not going to bicker with you about definition of RPG is in gaming as that never ends but (imho) that is how I feel regardless of if you agree or disagree which you are free to do.

[jbg927]

I just wish that when liara asked "should I go back and take a look?" the game gave us the choice to say no and then send vega instead. it seems that this is a direct result of them removing a lot of dialogue choices. and does anyone else notice that the VS was not on the character select screen at the beginning of the video?

[Duncaaaaaan]

Hunter of Legends wrote...

Duncaaaaaan wrote...

Justicar wrote...

Nexis7 wrote...

>tries to greentext in BSN
>mfw

>im just cool like that
>typing like this makes me cool
>yfw

>>>/v/

To be honest I feel good for Hunter of legends, this game was made specifically for gamers like him, so I hope he enjoys it.

ANd I will:wizard:

Thank you for not acting like others and trying to rain on my parade.

There was perhaps a sarcastic tinge to my post, you may have missed it.

[Dave of Canada]

We're not asking for a philosphical debate in the middle of the battlefield.
We're asking for options, which the game doesn't provide.

[Almostfaceman]

I think the main reason we're not seeing a lot of the game where many choices are present (and anyone who doesn't own or hasn't seen the whole game has only seen a small percentage of the game) is because story spoilers are in the dialogue, and Bioware is trying to keep story spoilers to a minimum. Which is fine by me, I haven't read the "leaked script" nor have I looked at the supposed leaked endings. Pretty much most of what's being leaked now in game footage is stuff talked about in the Known Features thread.

[BentOrgy]

shep82 wrote...

BentOrgy wrote...

Dear God that was painful. I understand not needing input everywhere; ME2 demonstrated that SOME auto-Dialogue could even improve a scene by making it more cinematic, but this....

This is pathetic.

I disagree 100%. Nothing I saw was bad IMO.

Congrats, we have a difference in opinion.

[Hunter of Legends]

sam1612 wrote...

Hunter of Legends wrote...

sam1612 wrote...

Hunter of Legends wrote...

Duncaaaaaan wrote...

It's interesting actually how the majority of the old timers here are the ones that are concerned over this game, whereas the newer members seem to welcome it.

In with the new out with the oldB)

Action mode is clearly made for people like you, and I'm glad it's there so you don't have to made choices 'in the midst of combat' (not that it really happened that often in ME1 and 2 anyway). Some people (if not most) would like a bit more fleshing out. You seem to have a hard time grasping this concept.

I play RPG son.

Fleshing =/= pointless options that do nothing/breaking immersion.

Your opinion = pointless
Again, most people enjoy "pointless" options. It helps with attachment to your character. Are you really that dense to understand this? Don't answer, we already know.

Pointless options bog down development and produce crappy games.

Why are you being needlessly arrogant?

[Wulfram]

Someone With Mass wrote...

Right, and my point is that there's no need for player input in some places, since most conversations often leads to dead ends when you already have an objective and pretty much all the information you need. If the turian general, for example, tells you that the communication tower is at the north gate and that it's busted and he needs someone to fix it and clear out the place, since it's crawling with husks, then you don't need to ask someone else what to do.

It's more about priorities than anything. What's more important? Re-establishing communications with the Palaven command center and find out who's the next Primearch or ask what the gate guard had for lunch?

Asking the guard where's his commanding officer was OK, actually.

But take the scene on the shuttle. That's a pure character development moment - Shepard's reflecting on the fall of Earth, worrying about probably Garrus - why the hell can't I choose my response there?  With the general, why do you need to say "that's going to complicate things" just before you choose dialogue?  Why not leave it up to you whether you're going to be that insensitive?

For the whole of that dialogue with the general, why can't you choose the tone - whether you're diplomatic and deferential to a superior officer or brusque and dismissive of an alien?  That ability to choose the manner Shepard has spoken has been part of the game from the beginning, and scrapping it makes it basically impossible for me to play the same character I have in previous games.

[Hunter of Legends]

Dragoonlordz wrote...


Then you must hate that they wasted any time on three different modes when could of just had action or story mode alone then.

I do.

[InHumanTurtle]

Damn, I'll be really dissapointed if this is true. I've never had to facepalm at the dialogue of my Shepherd before the ME3 demo.

[Duncaaaaaan]

Dave of Canada wrote...

We're not asking for a philosphical debate in the middle of the battlefield.
We're asking for options, which the game doesn't provide.

My dad and his side of the family is from Canada.

[BentOrgy]

Hunter of Legends wrote...

sam1612 wrote...

Hunter of Legends wrote...

sam1612 wrote...

Hunter of Legends wrote...

Duncaaaaaan wrote...

It's interesting actually how the majority of the old timers here are the ones that are concerned over this game, whereas the newer members seem to welcome it.

In with the new out with the oldB)

Action mode is clearly made for people like you, and I'm glad it's there so you don't have to made choices 'in the midst of combat' (not that it really happened that often in ME1 and 2 anyway). Some people (if not most) would like a bit more fleshing out. You seem to have a hard time grasping this concept.

I play RPG son.

Fleshing =/= pointless options that do nothing/breaking immersion.

Your opinion = pointless
Again, most people enjoy "pointless" options. It helps with attachment to your character. Are you really that dense to understand this? Don't answer, we already know.

Pointless options bog down development and produce crappy games.

Why are you being needlessly arrogant?

You mean like KOTOR, Mass Effect 1 and 2, Heavy Rain, etc....

[Daywalker315]

Dragoonlordz wrote...

Hunter of Legends wrote...

Dragoonlordz wrote...

Someone With Mass wrote...

Wulfram wrote...

It's not about the amount of talking.  It's about talking without any player input.  I'd be far happier if Shepard had remained utterly mute.

It does no good for her to be chatting up a storm on the Normandy if she's acting out of character on all of the missions.

Right, and my point is that there's no need for player input in some places, since most conversations often leads to dead ends when you already have an objective and pretty much all the information you need. If the turian general, for example, tells you that the communication tower is at the north gate and that it's busted and he needs someone to fix it and clear out the place, since it's crawling with husks, then you don't need to ask someone else what to do.

It's more about priorities than anything. What's more important? Re-establishing communications with the Palaven command center and find out who's the next Primearch or ask what the gate guard had for lunch?

Subjective. Whether or not leads to a dead end is up to the writing, whether or not it is relevant to the story or improve it again quality of writing. Whether it needs to be present is irrelevant and all you need might be DA2 style arrow telling you what to click or where to go. Role playing involves defining the character through both actions and dialogue and this is a case of 'more is better' because it better defines them, if your only in it for the story then use the story mode but if you replace RPG mode with story mode yet keep calling it RPG mode at the same time.. It is not a good thing.

I would rather they not waste resources coming up with "every" hypothetical response/action and instead take logical chocies.

Then you must hate that they wasted any time on three different modes when could of just had action or story mode alone then. The fact is they do have three modes and it appears the RPG mode if that is indeed what the review or video shows is actually more story mode in disguise meaning nothing added to increase the role playing element for others. Also your logical choice is not everyone elses logical choice. That is why in war both sides try using tactics that is most logical to them but the end result does not play out the way they hoped. As said role playing mode should be about giving the player more choices, more dialogue as both those elements better define your character. Now I am not going to bicker with you about definition of RPG is in gaming as that never ends but (imho) that is how I feel regardless of if you agree or disagree which you are free to do.

Story mode is just an uber-easy difficulty setting and Action mode is just where it auto-chooses most dialogue for you without ever bringing up the dialogue wheel. I highly doubt they "wasted" a lot of development time on those brain busters.

[Duncaaaaaan]

Hoo boy, lockdown imminent.