189 réponses à ce sujet

[PaganPoetry]

The Zaeed comment is the most random thing in this topic.

[Killjoy Cutter]

cipher86 wrote...

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.

Shepard was as defined as the player made him/her in ME1 and ME2. 

No need for Bioware to dictate more definintion in the final game of the series, let our Sheps continue to be our Sheps. 

Too late for that, it seems.  All the more reason to spend my money elsewhere. 

[schnydz]

Please. Dialog is fine. We're in the middle of extinction. Really? What more needs the be said.

Just go out there and get the job done son.

[Rogue Eagle]

It's a sad day indeed. Dialogue options are what lured me towards Bioware games to begin with. In ME3 (while I'm still having fun), it feels very on the rails and like the only few dialogue choices I actually get to have a say in are for meaningless conversations that have no bearing on anything remotely important.

Add to that, I'm just fighting waves of the same thing every 20 feet. Feels like dragon age 2 all over again (admittedly, less recycled dungeons and the game still holds my interest 10 hours in).

PS: Zaeed rocks.

[Gibb_Shepard]

Corvus Metus wrote...

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. 

The only thing that RPG's have that seperate them from any other genre out there is the ability to craft a character. Everything else is present in other games. If an element is exclusive to a particular genre, it is usually a core part in the definition of such a genre.

What would mass Effect be without choice? A better written version of Gears of War. And i don't mean that in a deroogatory way. It would literally have no elements that sets it apart from that game, just some improved elements. If people think that Roleplaying a character is not integral to RPGs, the genre should just be abolished. It has nothing that sets it apart from anything else otherwise.

Modifié par Gibb_Shepard, 07 mars 2012 - 04:22 .

[Killjoy Cutter]

Corvus Metus wrote...

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. 

Actually, what defines an RPG *IS* the character aspect.  Not the numbers.  It's a role-playing game, not a roll-playing game. 

Now, many people don't get that, and treat them as very complex open-space board-games -- and it's that approach which was first adapted to the computer in those early "RPGs" that you were talking about, and too often that's still what people are asking for when they ask for "RPG elements" in a game (see also, the gun mods and so on that people wanted back for ME3). 

Series like Fallout, Dragon Age, Mass Effect, and so on, changed that.  You could, to the extent allowable by the medium, define and control who your character was.  They brought elements of actual roleplaying games to the computer. 

Now, after DA2 and ME3, it appears that Bioware wants to go off into the "interactive cinematic experience" direction, which has ABSOLUTELY nothing to do with roleplaying games. 

[cljqnsnyc]

FAButzke wrote...

"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*

Well, I haven't bought it. It was pre ordered but canceled after the demo left me worried about things to come. So, I guess I came out on top?

[tfive24]

If u were fine with the ME2 streamlining, then u should be fine with the ME3 streamlining. I have been watching the game on multiple streams, and i;m shocked at the lack of options of dialogue for your Shepard. What i find funny is when people said that the Mass Effect team was different from the Dragon Age team. But after watching the game, I can say they are same team with the same ideas, but on different franchises.

[Killjoy Cutter]

Expanded version of an earlier post: 

http://social.biowar...34/blog/211602/

Modifié par Killjoy Cutter, 07 mars 2012 - 04:36 .

[Killjoy Cutter]

tfive24 wrote...

If u were fine with the ME2 streamlining, then u should be fine with the ME3 streamlining. I have been watching the game on multiple streams, and i;m shocked at the lack of options of dialogue for your Shepard. What i find funny is when people said that the Mass Effect team was different from the Dragon Age team. But after watching the game, I can say they are same team with the same ideas, but on different franchises.

I was...willing to accept the streamlining in ME2, but I think that's mainly because I was given ME2 as a gift and played it first. 

I got in trouble for saying it before, but talk about different teams for different games always struck me as gullible and naive acceptance of the company line.  Bioware is Bioware is Bioware, and the way the changes to ME line up with the changes to DA, over time, makes it perfectly clear that the direction to dumb down the games and strip them of player agency comes from above the level of individual development teams. 

[SalsaDMA]

Killjoy Cutter wrote...

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". 

Ironically, I always felt ME1 was far more cinematic than ME2.

ME1 felt like a tv-sci-fi serie playing out on my monitor with me in charge of what my character did and what happened. In ME2 I felt like I was playing a game and the tv-sci-fi series feeling was gone.

I haven't played ME3 (and am seriously considering it will only be done by buying it used on a console at some point so as not to actually fund this kind of development Bioware is in at the moment), but from the sounds of it it's more "gamey" and less "tv-sci-fi series" even more.

[Mirajin]

Tesclo wrote...

Zaeed dialogue? Really? We needed more of that?

We do if we want to be big, goddamn heroes! But maybe I'm just waxing goddamn nostalgic...

Modifié par Mirajin, 07 mars 2012 - 04:45 .

[Lee T]

OdanUrr wrote...

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.

I meant the apparent (haven't played the game yet so I can't vouch for it) non interactive dialogue Shep now has with most of the crew.

cipher86 wrote...

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.

Shepard is ours to make. If the Bioware staff wanted to make a cinematic action game featuring a strong central character in the ME universe then the franchise is big enough, however ME3 should be ME3 not "a third ME game" which happens to be different game than the first two in what happens to be the only ongoing trilogy in the video game history.

I'll see the game and hope very much that my experience of the game will be different than the experience of those that are disapointed (unfortunatly by aspects of the game that do matter to me)

[Killjoy Cutter]

Lee T wrote...

cipher86 wrote...

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.

Shepard is ours to make. If the Bioware staff wanted to make a cinematic action game featuring a strong central character in the ME universe then the franchise is big enough, however ME3 should be ME3 not "a third ME game" which happens to be different game than the first two in what happens to be the only ongoing trilogy in the video game history.

I'll see the game and hope very much that my experience of the game will be different than the experience of those that are disapointed (unfortunatly by aspects of the game that do matter to me)

DA2 proved that Bioware has no reluctance to create an entirely new sort of game and call it a "sequel" if they think it will sell better that way.

[tfive24]

Killjoy Cutter wrote...

tfive24 wrote...

If u were fine with the ME2 streamlining, then u should be fine with the ME3 streamlining. I have been watching the game on multiple streams, and i;m shocked at the lack of options of dialogue for your Shepard. What i find funny is when people said that the Mass Effect team was different from the Dragon Age team. But after watching the game, I can say they are same team with the same ideas, but on different franchises.

I was...willing to accept the streamlining in ME2, but I think that's mainly because I was given ME2 as a gift and played it first. 

I got in trouble for saying it before, but talk about different teams for different games always struck me as gullible and naive acceptance of the company line.  Bioware is Bioware is Bioware, and the way the changes to ME line up with the changes to DA, over time, makes it perfectly clear that the direction to dumb down the games and strip them of player agency comes from above the level of individual development teams. 

I agree. I always found it funny when people would say that ME and DA team were different. I still haven't bought the game myself and i will not anytime soon, but i will say the combat looks alright. When they took the ability to customize my team, I knew this game isn't for me at full price. 

[AndrewRogue]

Honestly. I'm kind of confused as to why a lot of people seem to refuse to acknowledge that there is a halfway point between ALL THE CHOICES! and ALL NON-CHOICES. Honestly, at most junctions when I've felt like I should be able to give input, I've had dialogue options.

[Killjoy Cutter]

SalsaDMA wrote...

Killjoy Cutter wrote...

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". 

Ironically, I always felt ME1 was far more cinematic than ME2.

ME1 felt like a tv-sci-fi serie playing out on my monitor with me in charge of what my character did and what happened. In ME2 I felt like I was playing a game and the tv-sci-fi series feeling was gone.

I haven't played ME3 (and am seriously considering it will only be done by buying it used on a console at some point so as not to actually fund this kind of development Bioware is in at the moment), but from the sounds of it it's more "gamey" and less "tv-sci-fi series" even more.

That's a matter of the ambiance of the game. 

The issue of the gameplay and player agency is different.  Did you feel like Shepard was your character in ME1, or an established character in a series of scenes you were directing for a movie? 

[AndrewRogue]

Killjoy Cutter wrote...

DA2 proved that Bioware has no reluctance to create an entirely new sort of game and call it a "sequel" if they think it will sell better that way.

Except it isn't an entirely new sort of game. The change is similar to the jump from say... Persona 2 -> Persona 3.

[Travie]

brunomalta wrote...

Foolsfolly wrote...

Zaeed dialogue? Really? We needed more of that?

Yes. Yes we needed that.

Yes..i agree! I Love Zaeed!

Zaeed is the ultimate 'grandpa story time' character.

[Killjoy Cutter]

AndrewRogue wrote...

Killjoy Cutter wrote...

DA2 proved that Bioware has no reluctance to create an entirely new sort of game and call it a "sequel" if they think it will sell better that way.

Except it isn't an entirely new sort of game. The change is similar to the jump from say... Persona 2 -> Persona 3.

We'll have to agree to disagree.

[Soulwatcher1974]

Tesclo wrote...

I'm just curious why Bioware thought people would actually enjoy less dialogue and having decisions made for them without us being able to do anything about it? The constant backlash from Dragon Age 2 wasn't enough? Do you people even listen to a word the people that play your games even say? Or is it just bow down and lick EA boot all day long? Seriously, who thought my renegade Shepard should be saluting Hackett? Who thought it was a good idea to take one of the most criticized aspects of Mass Effect 2 and make it standard? Zaeed dialogue? Really? We needed more of that? Who thought it was a good idea to take one of the most criticized aspects of Dragon Age 2 and make it standard? I need to sit there and fight endless waves of npcs during almost every mission?!

Dialogue? We don't need no stinkin dialogue! Don't need no player choices! ONE ENDING FOR YOU! MORE ZAEED! EA told us to make Gears of War!

I can tell you who EA.  My guess they figure if they dumb it down enough the FPS crowed will be all over it. And lets be honest here there are way more FPS players then RPG players. Ea has ruined Bioware, my next Bioware game will be bought out of the bargin ben!

Modifié par Soulwatcher1974, 07 mars 2012 - 05:16 .

[gabe2gg]

Ajwol Semreth wrote...

Gibb_Shepard wrote...

It would be fine if they did this with a new IP. But to do it for the last game where people have already created their Shepards, it's just rewriting the character they created.

Shepard was already pre-defined before ME3 though, so I'm not sure where this criticism is coming from.

Also, why wouldn't Renegade Shepard salute Hackett exactly? He's still part of the military...

Can you link me to where it was said Shepard was pre-defined?

[tfive24]

gabe2gg wrote...

Ajwol Semreth wrote...

Gibb_Shepard wrote...

It would be fine if they did this with a new IP. But to do it for the last game where people have already created their Shepards, it's just rewriting the character they created.

Shepard was already pre-defined before ME3 though, so I'm not sure where this criticism is coming from.

Also, why wouldn't Renegade Shepard salute Hackett exactly? He's still part of the military...

Can you link me to where it was said Shepard was pre-defined?

the Shepard is pre-defined is just an excuse. Shepard never has been pre-defined until this game. 

[SalsaDMA]

Killjoy Cutter wrote...

SalsaDMA wrote...

Killjoy Cutter wrote...

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". 

Ironically, I always felt ME1 was far more cinematic than ME2.

ME1 felt like a tv-sci-fi serie playing out on my monitor with me in charge of what my character did and what happened. In ME2 I felt like I was playing a game and the tv-sci-fi series feeling was gone.

I haven't played ME3 (and am seriously considering it will only be done by buying it used on a console at some point so as not to actually fund this kind of development Bioware is in at the moment), but from the sounds of it it's more "gamey" and less "tv-sci-fi series" even more.

That's a matter of the ambiance of the game. 

The issue of the gameplay and player agency is different.  Did you feel like Shepard was your character in ME1, or an established character in a series of scenes you were directing for a movie? 

I did. Even though some of the dialogue options lead to the same end, the intonation and implications led to different characters saying them, depending on which choice you picked.

While this was still partly true in ME2, it felt to me that alot of the character development for Shepard had been pushed in the background to "pay" for the slightly smoother combat gameplay.

Fleshing out of companions in ME2 was done better than in ME1, though, imo. Just a shame it felt like people from ME1 had more or less been "reset" in who they were as persons once you encountered them in ME2, compared to their evolvements in ME1.

From the sounds of it, ME3 took away completely the ability to make you feel Shepard was someone you molded as a person.

[DaJe]

Oron345 wrote...

brunomalta wrote...

Foolsfolly wrote...

Zaeed dialogue? Really? We needed more of that?

Yes. Yes we needed that.

Yes..i agree! I Love Zaeed!

Damn right!

Uhm...I'm pretty sure the OP did not mean dialog of Zaeed, but rather how dialog was handled in the Zaeed DLC.