189 réponses à ce sujet

[adembroski]

It's not that I want to not salute Hackett... that's one of many symptoms. The real problem is two fold... 1st, this doesn't feel like "my" Shepard, and 2nd, I'm not invested in the conversations.

It feels like a '90s JRPG. Pretty cut scenes, but no meaningful input in them. A decision that effects the ending or a decision that effects the next 17 seconds is still a decision in my hands. Last night, I got up and walked away from the PC during a conversation with Hackett, and the entire conversation played out without my input. It was a 4 minute dialogue in which I had ZERO input.

That's not Mass Effect.

[OdanUrr]

Lee T wrote...

However, important NPCs turning Zaeed, that I will have a hard time forgiving.

If you're saying what I think you're saying, Zaeed was free DLC.

[cipher86]

Renegade Shepard is supposed to be a rebellious sort. Saluting Hackett sucks if that's what you've been role-playing all along, protocol be damned.

[Itkovian]

Are people actually complaining that there is more Zaeed type dialogue in ME3?

SERIOUSLY?

Do these people no realize that what this dialogue means is that now we get actual reactions from our missions. In ME2, when you finished a mission the only person to have something special to say about it would be Zaeed (sometimes Joker and the yeoman).

Now, in ME3, whenever you complete a mission you can actually get feedback on the mission from almost EVERYONE on the ship. That's _excellent_. It is a _net gain_ of dialogue over ME2. Now we have feedback from missions when we almost never did (except from the one or two NPCs concerned by the mission in the first place).

Just because it's not fully animated with conversation branches does not make it worse. It is still better than the NOTHING we got in ME2.

Get some perspective a little: this is not dialogue that replaces full on branching conversations, it's extra lines we get from almost all characters in reaction to recently completed missions, something we did NOT have in ME2 in the first place.

I have to feel bad for the devs: no matter what they do someone will complain about it. Here they added something that clearly adds to the experience, and they get criticized because they apparently didn't put enough effort into it (the reason it's not animated or with convo branches is it's a lot easier and cheaper to implement these "flavour" lines, which means they can actually afford to have a ton of these). After all, If they hadn't put that in at all, no one would have complained, as they were missing in ME2 in the first place.

Well, I for one enjoy these "conversations". It gives life to the characters, as they now react far more often to what is going on around them, instead of sitting there with nothing to say all the time until something triggers their personal dialog progression.

Itkovian

[Descy_]

 I thought the point of less squadmates was so that we got more dialogue with existing squadmates, lol.

[evil m0nk3y 64]

it has nothing to do with ea, all ea does is publish the game and if you see how much funding bioware gets from ea then you'll see it has nothing to do with money either, that means that all of this is down to the creators choice

[Eifoz]

I am enjoying the combat and the storyline, but I am very frustrated with all the auto-dialogue. It doesn't feel like I am playing MY Shepard, which makes the game less enjoyable.

[cipher86]

Thoug there is more canned dialogue, it hasn't eradicated the amount of dialogue wheel conversations either. It just prevents you from bringing up a new dialogue wheel to go through a no-choice dialogue system. It also has the plus of letting me know when I've exhausted all dialogue options with someone. Instead of bringing up a dialogue option to choose topics I've already looked into, I just get a "Commander" response and I can keep moving.

[Corvus Metus]

More posts how dialogue choices are what makes an RPG?

Do people forget that the genre existed before '97 or something?

[FAButzke]

"The constant backlash from Dragon Age 2 wasn't enough?"

Since when do "backlash" solves anything?
Don't get me wrong. I'm a PC elitist and a ME purist myself but I'm just tired of complaining to no end.
When I see a post like yours today, I just smile. Because I see myself saying those exact words a few years back.
They won't listen. Neither EA nor Bioware or any other big company. Just get over it.

Yeah, i'm telling you all to bend over and let it go. There's no point. The proof is right here. Accept it or don't but please, move on. You're just wasting your time complaining (like I did for years now.) If some day in the future another Mass Effect game comes out, and the market it's still the same one we have today, I bet my arm that we're going to see exactly the same concepts, we all hate and complain about now, thrown down our throats.

If you really want to make a difference, then the best option is to not buy it and then come here to tell them why you didn't.

I did buy it (preorder it even) and fully expected to get disappointed. I knew it was a console port (hate those). I knew it was going to have crappy textures (hate those too). I knew it was going to get even more dumbed down (don't get me started on this). Why did I do it then? Because I'm used to get raped these days. The trick lies on how you perceive the felony: Do you struggle against it or do you try to enjoy the moment. I'm trying... For the sake of the Mass Effect Universe I'm trying... And it's not that bad actually. I kinda like it. Really. *moans*

[Killjoy Cutter]

Lee T wrote...

They wanted a more cinematic style, cinematic means more scripted events and a more scripted discussions.

If that's indeed why they did it then I understand. However since games like ME are defined by the degree of freedom they give to the player (be it illusory or not) I disagree with it for the same reason I disagreed with DA2's story forcing you to witness events rather than acting (the main character should be more than an extra).

I understand why they did it.

Why they did it is one of the reasons it was a mistake. 

"Cinematic style" is just code for "the player is along for the ride". 

[KnifeForkAndSpoon]

Corvus Metus wrote...

More posts how dialogue choices are what makes an RPG?

Do people forget that the genre existed before '97 or something?

They were part of what makes a Mass Effect game.

[Killjoy Cutter]

FAButzke wrote...

If you really want to make a difference, then the best option is to not buy it and then come here to tell them why you didn't.

If you didn't buy ME3, you can't post to most of the ME3 threads, as of two days ago. 

If you have not paid the geld, Bioware doesn't care what you think, even if you're a long-time customer.

Modifié par Killjoy Cutter, 07 mars 2012 - 03:49 .

[Corvus Metus]

cipher86 wrote...

Renegade Shepard is supposed to be a rebellious sort. Saluting Hackett sucks if that's what you've been role-playing all along, protocol be damned.

Honestly, I see no problem with even a Renegade saluting Hackett at all.  After all, he is likely the only character in all the games that respects Shepard no matter what he does and trusts him.   He's always had your back throughout all the games. 

Then again, my Renegade also have about 50% Paragon so maybe I'm doing it wrong.

[Gibb_Shepard]

Corvus Metus wrote...

More posts how dialogue choices are what makes an RPG?

Do people forget that the genre existed before '97 or something?

The genre came from tabletop RPGs in which you took up a role and made decisions based on your character's personality aspects.

Dialogue options and decisions are what defines RPG. It was the core aspect of their origins.

[Corvus Metus]

KnifeForkAndSpoon wrote...

Corvus Metus wrote...

More posts how dialogue choices are what makes an RPG?

Do people forget that the genre existed before '97 or something?

They were part of what makes a Mass Effect game.

You mean like in ME1, where the neutral and paragon dialogues were the same?  And sometimes, all three choices would lead to the same line regardless?  Maybe I see things different than some people, but I'd rather have less choices that actually mean something than the illusion of choice.

[cipher86]

Shepard is an actual defined character now. He's had a voice since the first game but not much personality, he had to evolve to keep the series interesting. This was never DA:O or BG.

[LeBurns]

I recall my reaction to DA2 (yet oddly enough I couldn’t tell you want I had for breakfast).  I backlashed.  I really hated BioWare for changing everything I liked in DAO.  I backlashed.  I backlashed because I thought that they would listen if enough people did it.  I backlashed because I thought they would see the simple truth that if players like something, you don’t really have to change it all that much make them happy.
 
But it has become apparent that BioWare views the forums though rose-tinted glasses and only sees what it wants to see.  They pay for professional review and then actually believe them.  They believe that any change that makes putting the game out quicker and cheaper is exactly what the player wants.
 
DA3 will never be on my radar.  ME3 I will not buy unless some new DLC adds some additional ending options, because for me it was the story that held these games together, not the combat.  I can do a shooter anywhere.  Going on a map and going from Point A to Point B and killing everything that moves is not why I played the ME games.

I don’t know, I just do not understand.  Maybe I skipped breakfast this morning…

Modifié par LeBurns, 07 mars 2012 - 03:39 .

[Kakita Tatsumaru]

BobSmith101 wrote...

Gibb_Shepard wrote...
Dragon Age 2 has far more dialogue choice than ME3.

As mind blowing as that idea is. It's true.
I can see why they do it ,and it does have it's advantages. But it's not Bioware.

Me too. That's the strengh of J-RPG: each liberty taken from the player if one gained for the scenario writer.
But doing that after two western-style RPG isn't a good thing IMHO.

Modifié par Kakita Tatsumaru, 07 mars 2012 - 03:48 .

[Whiskey Six]

I think some people need to step back and get some perspective on what Bioware has actually done here.

Why people are railing away against what people have coined "auto-dialogue" (what a rediculous term) is completely lost on me. There are enough instances in the dialogue where your past actions are referenced that it actually took me by surprise. I actually felt sorry for the game creators because it must be such a huge and monumental task to track choices, write and record dialogue depending on these choices, and then try and seemlessly integrate it into a huge game like this.

Now its a very minor and simple example, but like in the introduction where Shep is talking to Anderson walking down the corridor... it will play out differently depending on past decisions and whether or not you've completed some DLC. Its integrated seemlessly and I think that's pretty cool (and to me, much preferred to just tacking on an extra dialogue option in the conversation wheel).

I figured that these instances would be few and far between, but they're not. I'm about 8 hour in and the number of references to the other games and DLC still surprise me.

I'm not sure if this was a design decision or a design necessity, but the results have been fantastic for me and the time I've invested in this series. People can disagree if they want (and certain people will always complain) but I'd much rather have past decisions smoothly intergrated into the conversation than a cluncky dialogue option added on making a reference to something that barely seemed like it mattered.
Just my opinion.

[Wulfram]

Someone With Mass wrote...

Here's my question: What would not saluting an admiral of the same military you're a part of actually accomplish in terms of practicality?

It would establish that you're not just his subordinate any more.

Modifié par Wulfram, 07 mars 2012 - 03:56 .

[Corvus Metus]

Gibb_Shepard wrote...

Corvus Metus wrote...

More posts how dialogue choices are what makes an RPG?

Do people forget that the genre existed before '97 or something?

The genre came from tabletop RPGs in which you took up a role and made decisions based on your character's personality aspects.

Dialogue options and decisions are what defines RPG. It was the core aspect of their origins.

Except that tabletop RPGs are not defined by your character's actions but the mechanics behind the game system you are using.  For example, as a long time Dungeons & Dragons player I've gamed with groups that focus on narrative storytelling and others that played it as a glorfied wargame.   Neither method is incorrect.

I'm not refering to tabletop RPGs, however.   I'm refering to computer RPGs.  I don't recall a whole lot of conversation in any old dungeon crawler.  I don't recall any in most rogue-likes.  Yet both are still computer RPGs, same as Mass Effect and other modern games. 

[AkiKishi]

Kakita Tatsumaru wrote...

BobSmith101 wrote...

Gibb_Shepard wrote...
Dragon Age 2 has far more dialogue choice than ME3.

As mind blowing as that idea is. It's true.
I can see why they do it ,and it does have it's advantages. But it's not Bioware.

Me too. That's the strengh of J-RPG: each liberty taken from the player if one gained for the scenario writer.
But doing that after two western-style RPG isn't a good thin IMHO.

Spot on. But I don't think the half way ME3 does it is particularly good since you get the weakness of both approaches in the same package.

[MakeMineMako]

Descy_ wrote...

 I thought the point of less squadmates was so that we got more dialogue with existing squadmates, lol.

I was wondering when somebody would point this out.

I'm not a big fan of the over use of autodialogue. A certain amount is fine and expected. But the amount we have in ME3 goes against what the franchise has been traditionally about,

[AndrewRogue]

I'm going to be honest.

Bioware mains? Have always been the weakest parts of their games. I find them to be completely dull and largely superfluous to the story they are involved in. The only thing they are ever good for is showing off the NPCs. The very fact that they have no role other than being the player's avatar makes it very easy to imagine removing them and having the story go on just the same.

I do think it is a good thing that they are evolving their style. Should they do away with choice completely? No, of course not. But I do think creating a more solidified main character that we can care about for more reasons than "HE'S MINE!", but still influence the actions of and interactions with, is the right way to go.

What's that the snarkers always say? If you want to get told a story a go read a book? Well, how about if you ant to write a character, go write a book!

Now, that aside, I won't blame anyone fully invested in the "every dialogue must be mine!" system for being annoyed. Because it is a change/evolution to the game and it is your right to be annoyed. But I do ask you to actually sit down and think about the merits and demerits involved instead of just crying.