189 réponses à ce sujet

[Obadiah]

C'mon, the enemies in DA2 warped out of nowhere. Are least here they arrive as reinforcements and have enough AI to flank and help each other.

[Face Melter]

Wasn't one of the most highly praised features of the trilogy the excellent dialogue? What da ****.

[Super.Sid]

Killjoy Cutter wrote...

SalsaDMA wrote...

Heartrot wrote...

Some awkward animations, low res textures, and a not so great FOV.  Basically, what was in the demo is in the game.  If you played the demo and liked it then you'll enjoy ME3.  If you didn't enjoy the demo I have no idea why you'd blow $60 on the game.  Give yourself something to cry about on these forums I suppose.

That reminded me of the people crying: "Don't slag the game based on the demo!" when people started to complain about issues they didn't like with the demo...

Guess it's DA2 all over again in some areas.

[appologist]

"ME and DA have different teams!"

[/appologist]


( EDIT:  you'd never believe the word I just found out is censored, PM me if you want a good laugh. )

And since the series is over, the teams would be distributed among Dragon Age and SWTOR

[Doctoglethorpe]

A little bit less choice in dialog but far more dialog in general and far more depth and significance in what is being said and it all happening far more cinimatically. 

Yeah... Its a trade off I'm not only okay with, I prefer it.  

I also don't mind all the general chatter that takes place outside of cutscenes and characters not engaging in said scenes with convo trees unless they are actually going to talk to you about something important rather then just say "can it wait a bit, I'm in the middle of some calibrations".  Saves the time of pointlessly trying to engage with them. 

All in all, yes the system is more streamlined, but its all for the better imo.  Sure you can be cynical and just look at the plain out of context fact that there is generally less choice involved and cry foul.  But accept it and take the time to play with it and you should see it makes for a more solid experience then what we had before, and its not like there isn't any choice at all.  So what if a lot of the convos don't have the middle answer, did anybody even use those more then once a blue moon anyways?  I sure as hell didn't. 

Modifié par Doctor Moustache, 08 mars 2012 - 08:12 .

[razor150]

Salaya wrote...

When someone complains on the Bioware forums about one of the games, he/she is automatically branded as a troll, a crybaby or a "nutjob". I don't see any insults in the OP post, but many direct attacks to the forum user that started this topic.

If the new forum rules were something near to the objective of making new, softer and enjoyable ambience, the users that insulted the OP should be banned. But, somewhat, I'm certain that it won't happen.

Of course not, the rules were created because of the backlash Bioware was getting, not because forum poster aren't polite to each other. They never have been. Bioware just doesn't want to be criticized for their boneheadedness. 

[Killjoy Cutter]

razor150 wrote...

Salaya wrote...

When someone complains on the Bioware forums about one of the games, he/she is automatically branded as a troll, a crybaby or a "nutjob". I don't see any insults in the OP post, but many direct attacks to the forum user that started this topic.

If the new forum rules were something near to the objective of making new, softer and enjoyable ambience, the users that insulted the OP should be banned. But, somewhat, I'm certain that it won't happen.

Of course not, the rules were created because of the backlash Bioware was getting, not because forum poster aren't polite to each other. They never have been. Bioware just doesn't want to be criticized for their boneheadedness. 

Exactly.  The rules changes were about stiffling discontent, not about a more civil environment. 

[Killjoy Cutter]

Doctor Moustache wrote...

All in all, yes the system is more streamlined, but its all for the better imo.  Sure you can be cynical and just look at the plain out of context fact that there is generally less choice involved and cry foul.  But accept it and take the time to play with it and you should see it makes for a more solid experience then what we had before, and its not like there isn't any choice at all.  So what if a lot of the convos don't have the middle answer, did anybody even use those more then once a blue moon anyways?  I sure as hell didn't. 

I used the middle answers all the time. 

It's only a more solid experience if you like to have Shep spoonfed to you, instead of playing Shep as you envision Shep.

[AndrewRogue]

Because the new rules have clearly prevented anyone from stating valid negative opinions regarding ME3. The forums now only contain positive posts regarding ME3, Bioware and EA.

Anyhow. Only two and a half hours in (on ze moon grabbing a Primarch) and I will agree that, possibly, they went a little too far on the auto-dialogue side of things. Time will tell.

On the other hand, every single instance of character interaction I've seen so far? Leagues better. Shep talking to VS on the Citadel and meeting with Garrus again? Far more engaging and provided a much better sense of camaraderie than ME1/2. Honestly, I'd say Bioware is a lot closer to finding that sweet spot of RP and story presentation.

But again. 2.5 hours, opinion able to change, etc.

[Johanna]

Heartrot wrote...

I've been playing Bioware games since the first Baldur's Gate and I can say this, from a personal opinion standpoint, classic RPGs are dead. They're dead because frankly they're not fun anymore. They replace exciting compelling combat with absurd and unnecessary skills, inventory juggling, and incredibly boring dungeon crawling. If all that mentioned above is what makes an RPG for you then there are plenty of B rated developers out there still shelling that kind of drivel out on people.

Pffft. Atlus.

[Killjoy Cutter]

Heartrot wrote...

I've been playing Bioware games since the first Baldur's Gate and I can say this, from a personal opinion standpoint, classic RPGs are dead. They're dead because frankly they're not fun anymore. They replace exciting compelling combat with absurd and unnecessary skills, inventory juggling, and incredibly boring dungeon crawling. If all that mentioned above is what makes an RPG for you then there are plenty of B rated developers out there still shelling that kind of drivel out on people.

No, that's not what makes an RPG.

ME3 is also NOT what makes and RPG.

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


What defines an RPG?  

The ability to play a role -- the character aspect. 

It's not about numbers and rules and rolls.  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 computer games in those early "RPGs".  Many people who've only played something like D&D in that adversarial board-game manner, or who've only been exposed to the term "RPG" as it's misused in the computer gaming industry, believe that "RPGs" are defined by customizing attributes and skills and gear for best effect. 

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.  In ME1 and ME2, who Shepard was depended on the choices that you, as the player, made.  In DA:O, you defined so much about the character. 

Player agency was king when it came to the character. 

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.  Player agency has its heart ripped out on the altar of the the writers' need to indulge in their "art". 

Back at the tabletop, in a roleplaying game, the last thing you want is a gamemaster so in love with and bound to his own story, that he has no room for the players to change things and make things happen of their own volition -- the ending they want is the ending you're going to get, no matter what.  And yet Bioware has turned into "that guy". 

Like that GM, maybe Bioware should just go write a book or make a movie. 

Modifié par Killjoy Cutter, 08 mars 2012 - 08:41 .

[AndrewRogue]

Killjoy: The problem being, of course, that video games? Will always be, 100%, strictly inferior to PnP in terms of actual RP. The more games try to imitate "true" RP, the more obvious the limitations become.

Also. Fun fact. RPGs originated from tabletop wargaming.

Edit: And, since I love saying it. Like the player who thinks he should get to dictate 100% of how everything goes, maybe you should go write your own book or movie as well!

Double Edit: And to be clear, Killjoy. You are entitled to your opinion, I just disagree with you. And since you are fairly well spoken, you're more fun to disagree with. Just so you know that I'm not singling you out to be an ass or anything.

Modifié par AndrewRogue, 08 mars 2012 - 09:07 .

[Crashloop_No]

Killjoy Cutter wrote...

Heartrot wrote...

I've been playing Bioware games since the first Baldur's Gate and I can say this, from a personal opinion standpoint, classic RPGs are dead. They're dead because frankly they're not fun anymore. They replace exciting compelling combat with absurd and unnecessary skills, inventory juggling, and incredibly boring dungeon crawling. If all that mentioned above is what makes an RPG for you then there are plenty of B rated developers out there still shelling that kind of drivel out on people.

No, that's not what makes an RPG.

ME3 is also NOT what makes and RPG.

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


What defines an RPG?  

The ability to play a role -- the character aspect. 

It's not about numbers and rules and rolls.  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 computer games in those early "RPGs".  Many people who've only played something like D&D in that adversarial board-game manner, or who've only been exposed to the term "RPG" as it's misused in the computer gaming industry, believe that "RPGs" are defined by customizing attributes and skills and gear for best effect. 

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.  In ME1 and ME2, who Shepard was depended on the choices that you, as the player, made.  In DA:O, you defined so much about the character. 

Player agency was king when it came to the character. 

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.  Player agency has its heart ripped out on the altar of the the writers' need to indulge in their "art". 

Back at the tabletop, in a roleplaying game, the last thing you want is a gamemaster so in love with and bound to his own story, that he has no room for the players to change things and make things happen of their own volition -- the ending they want is the ending you're going to get, no matter what.  And yet Bioware has turned into "that guy". 

Like that GM, maybe Bioware should just go write a book or make a movie. 

My biggest issue with ME3 is that it feels like a intewractive movie mixed with Gears of War. If I knew this when buying that the rpg mechanics should be this shallow I wouldn't have bought it expecting an RPG. Starting the game expecting an RPG and slowly realize there is no point is kind of sad. ME3 isn't a bad game for what it does, it simply just doesn't deliver at all when it copmes to rpg mechanics. It's like Bioware gone suddenly retarded and forgot what good RPG mechanics are all about. They maybe want to replay BG2 and DA:O to see the light properly again...

The game will not be played through for now. I'll stove it away and go back to it when I'm ready to play it as a TPS game. Atleast I ain't going to buy more games from Bioware as a pre order, SWTOR was a great singleplayer RPG experience. The only issue with SWTOR was that it was a MMO... DA2 well nice action game, but not an RPG, they did say they had learned from that. BUT ME3 is more of the same ideas DA2 was, even more streamlined in some aspects. :/

[Killjoy Cutter]

AndrewRogue :

I do acknowledge that solo computer gaming is inferior to freeform or pen-and-paper RPGs in terms of roleplaying -- thus the phrase "to the extent allowable by the medium". 

A computer RPG can foster or stiffle the player's sense of agency.  Take for example two games that progress towards a set ending -- DA:O and DA2. 

In DA:O, the player has a goal of defeating the archdemon, and so it's natural to strive and progress towards that end.  Important details of how the archdemon is defeated are controlled by the player -- for example, the protagonist sacrifices their life, a companion sacrifices their life, or the ritual is used.

In DA2, the climax of the game is something that comes at the player, it's not a goal or something the player is working towards. 

Both are set in stone, but the former maintains a sense of agency by being something the player wants and works to achieve. 


Likewise, in DA:O, the player has a lot of choice in the character's background and abilities and personality, even though there are still limits. 

In DA2, Hawke's background is set in stone, and the classes are far more defined and structured.  There are no archery warriors, there are no armor-wearing mages, etc...

Modifié par Killjoy Cutter, 08 mars 2012 - 09:23 .

[panamakira]

Gibb_Shepard wrote...

Dragon Age 2 has far more dialogue choice than ME3.

THIS. People were talking crap about DA2 but ME3 took away even more "choices" from the dialogue, endings....etc

[Super.Sid]

What was the writer thinking and how did the team approve of it

[Killjoy Cutter]

Crashloop_No wrote...

My biggest issue with ME3 is that it feels like a intewractive movie mixed with Gears of War.

Yup -- "interactive cinematic experience". 

[Crashloop_No]

AndrewRogue wrote...

Killjoy: The problem being, of course, that video games? Will always be, 100%, strictly inferior to PnP in terms of actual RP. The more games try to imitate "true" RP, the more obvious the limitations become.

Also. Fun fact. RPGs originated from tabletop wargaming.

Edit: And, since I love saying it. Like the player who thinks he should get to dictate 100% of how everything goes, maybe you should go write your own book or movie as well!

Double Edit: And to be clear, Killjoy. You are entitled to your opinion, I just disagree with you. And since you are fairly well spoken, you're more fun to disagree with. Just so you know that I'm not singling you out to be an ass or anything.

No doubt about the fact PnP RPG's are superior compared to computer RPG's. The thing is you can create a good RPG on a computer, Bioware has done it before. You don't have 100% freedom to do whatever you want, but based on the story you can allow the player to choose his own path without railroading him onto a specific path. Baldur's gate 2 was a good RPG for it's time, it had epic story, characters that really stood out like Minsc and Boo, you had choices and a relatively free world to explore. You weren't forced into a path, neither was your character taken control of and played by the game. 

ME3 does some railroading, it also takes control of your character in dialogues and force you as a player to sit back and view your character being debeloped by the story in the game rather then yourself. The rpg mechanics are there, but sadly they feel shallow. The cutscenes and autodialogue, are enhancing the feeling that I am nothing but a viewer of a interactive movie where I can choose dialogue options without actually controlling the fate of my character. Sure it has an impact, but for me the game just don't manage to give me the feeling I actually control shepard and his fate. :/

[AndrewRogue]

Killjoy: The problem is that, in the end, constructing a cohesive and coherent narrative with allowances for the level of interaction you're looking at is damaging to the game. Not to say that ALL choice is bad. I actually believe the ideal RPG experience for video games revolves more around defining the big choices the character makes and using those to define the character. Best of both worlds, as it were. Hell, your given example (DA:O's conclusion) is largely achievable in any game.

Taking the Dragon Age example. The problems is that you remain very aware of your limitations and the ways in which you can approach matters. You still have to walk into traps, you can't avoid the secret PC mess, etc. Despite the "freedom" of dialogue you are given, you still have to play the creator's game.

What makes this really obnoxious as a problem is that the Warden (like the Bhaalspawn before him)? Is more or less a non-entity. Since the game has to be built around the ability to navigate ALL the choices inserted, it is very difficulty to really construct the game in a way that deeply connects the central protagonist (you) to the story. I remain quite aware that it is "me" in the game, and not a character. When the only meaningful connection you have to a character is that they're "yours," you're losing out on a lot of potential.

I'll be honest. Warden vs Hawke? I never really felt either was more free or more mine than the other.

[AndrewRogue]

Crashloop_No wrote...

No doubt about the fact PnP RPG's are superior compared to computer RPG's. The thing is you can create a good RPG on a computer, Bioware has done it before. You don't have 100% freedom to do whatever you want, but based on the story you can allow the player to choose his own path without railroading him onto a specific path. Baldur's gate 2 was a good RPG for it's time, it had epic story, characters that really stood out like Minsc and Boo, you had choices and a relatively free world to explore. You weren't forced into a path, neither was your character taken control of and played by the game. 

ME3 does some railroading, it also takes control of your character in dialogues and force you as a player to sit back and view your character being debeloped by the story in the game rather then yourself. The rpg mechanics are there, but sadly they feel shallow. The cutscenes and autodialogue, are enhancing the feeling that I am nothing but a viewer of a interactive movie where I can choose dialogue options without actually controlling the fate of my character. Sure it has an impact, but for me the game just don't manage to give me the feeling I actually control shepard and his fate. :/

I suppose what I'm trying to get at is that this vaunted "freedom" really, in the end, amounts to nothing. All you had the power to really do was make up some flavor about a character and pretend that's how it worked when, really, you were just sort of inserting whatever lines you wanted into a script.

[Killjoy Cutter]

I'll take the sense that the character is as "mine" as possible over the sense that the character is someone else's. (DA:O vs DA2, ME1/2 vs ME3).

DA2 as actually better than ME3 is being made out, in terms of how much the character "belongs" to the player.

Perhaps you see an empty vessel that provides nothing -- I see something waiting to be filled.

[Darth Death]

The lack of dialogue options grants Shep a more defined personality by BioWare vision, and not my own. That's the problem. It creates contradiction on how I envision my Shep to be like versus what BioWare's vision for Shep. I wouldn't have cared if this were the case in the past two installments, but alas it wasn't so.

I also don't like the "DLC dialogue" treatment that the main cast have. Although there's a lot of dialogue for them to say, there isn't any dialogue options for my Shep to respond back with. Again, that's the problem. Even DA2 gave me more options to pick from than in ME3.

[Killjoy Cutter]

Darth Death wrote...

The lack of dialogue options grants Shep a more defined personality by BioWare vision, and not my own. That's the problem. It creates contradiction on how I envision my Shep to be like versus what BioWare's vision for Shep. I wouldn't have cared if this were the case in the past two installments, but alas it wasn't so. 

It's that hard change of course that makes the way ME3 works unacceptable. 

In 1 and 2, you play your Shep.  Then, having become attached to that character, you're told that you cannot play him or her, and instead you can only play Bioware's Shep. 

[Crashloop_No]

AndrewRogue wrote...

Crashloop_No wrote...

No doubt about the fact PnP RPG's are superior compared to computer RPG's. The thing is you can create a good RPG on a computer, Bioware has done it before. You don't have 100% freedom to do whatever you want, but based on the story you can allow the player to choose his own path without railroading him onto a specific path. Baldur's gate 2 was a good RPG for it's time, it had epic story, characters that really stood out like Minsc and Boo, you had choices and a relatively free world to explore. You weren't forced into a path, neither was your character taken control of and played by the game. 

ME3 does some railroading, it also takes control of your character in dialogues and force you as a player to sit back and view your character being debeloped by the story in the game rather then yourself. The rpg mechanics are there, but sadly they feel shallow. The cutscenes and autodialogue, are enhancing the feeling that I am nothing but a viewer of a interactive movie where I can choose dialogue options without actually controlling the fate of my character. Sure it has an impact, but for me the game just don't manage to give me the feeling I actually control shepard and his fate. :/

I suppose what I'm trying to get at is that this vaunted "freedom" really, in the end, amounts to nothing. All you had the power to really do was make up some flavor about a character and pretend that's how it worked when, really, you were just sort of inserting whatever lines you wanted into a script.

Making up a flavour and all is something I always do. But when the game then take my control of the character away and add flavor to it that I don't intend to add to him I get a bit annoyed. It doesn't help for me to add flavor then, and specially not when I feel that my character is railroaded. It simply takes away the freedom of choice, and tells me a story rather then allow me to play the story.

[BigBody26]

I agree. I am not far into the game and don't even feel like I am playing MY Shepard. He says things and does things my Shepard wouldn't do. During conversations there have been NUMEROUS times I would have liked the choice of how to reply. I just finished on Tuchanka too. I can't imagine how much more of the game I will have to through Biowares version of MY Shepard.

While this is a serious complaint, I am still enjoying the game very much....just wish I was given more convo choices.

[Julia343]

And there are times in these games, not just in ME, but in other games as well, where I wanted to put a bullet through someone's skull or run them through with a sword, but alas, the game mechanics wouldn't let me draw the sword in that location, or fire my weapon let alone draw it, or they had the particular person tagged as "Plot" or "Essential" and that person couldn't be killed anyway even though the opportunity was perfect. GMs used to pull this crap in PnP too, and get real PO'ed when one took advantage of the opportunity. "I know he's the villain and this is the perfect opportunity to make the hit and my character is just an evil s***, and that's all the justification I need." No. That didn't fly either.

Then in the CRPGs, killing a character at an inopportune time can break a quest, and even break the main plot. So you can't "own" the character like you can in a PnP. Bethesda learned this one after many people BMC'd pre-Morrowind. Then in Morrowind you could do it, but you'd get a "Killing this person will break the main quest. Do you still want to do this?" And people would, and then complain. So this lead to essentials in Skyrim which people are complaining about.

And then when you carry a story over multiple games the choices and ownership of each come back to bite the devs and writers in the butt. This leads to people complaining about retcons. It gets more complicated the more installments there are. Finally by the last installment your character should be fleshed out. Auto dialog during combat? I don't have a problem. I'm not going to be worried about conversation choices and being all touchy-feely during combat. I'm more worried about not dying and killing the enemy.

Post combat? Maybe have a few things to say but while moving to the next zone I'm not going to be all that concerned about exploring ones feelings about stuff. Maybe I might want to get pertinent information. I need maybe three dialog choices at most. (explain) -- (sympathetic) or (Let's just make sure it doesn't happen again). What more do you need? The thing is in ME3 we ARE at WAR. The situation is urgent and desperate.

I feel I am playing my Shepard. Of course I did play my Shepard this way in the first two games. You want more than that you'll have to ask a people person.