261 réponses à ce sujet

[DeinonSlayer]

One of the big complaints about ME3 is the copious amount of autodialogue we sit through. Some, myself included, see this as immersion-breaking, as you don't own your own responses; your own character. You're not role-playing, you're "watching."

If you could break up just one piece of auto-dialogue in order to deliver a response more appropriate for your Shepard, what would it be?

(Sorry if this needs to be moved.)

Modifié par DeinonSlayer, 30 avril 2012 - 03:53 .

[Jaron Oberyn]

There are really too many to just narrow it down to one to be honest. :/ you are correct though in that we do not have control over Shepard in me3 like previous games. He's more defined, canon now.

- Polite

[Noelemahc]

For FemShep, it's playing along with Vega's flirting without being able to either press him into a kiss or to slap him silly for attempting it. And, of course, not being able to shut him up about it to begin with.

For both Sheps, it's being nice to everybody. I'm sure lots of Renegades that didn't like Tali, yet failed to kill her in the SM, didn't enjoy Rannoch at all.

[Amioran]

DeinonSlayer wrote...
If you could break up just one piece of auto-dialogue in order to deliver a response more appropriate for your Shepard, what would it be?

(Sorry if this needs to be moved.)

A little off-topic but I think this need to be addressed since people continue to mix things up.

It doesn't exist a thing as your Shepard. Shepard is Shepard.

While you get to control some of Shepard's actions and choices that's a different thing than owning a character, a completely different thing.

The archetype of Shepard is created by the authors. Shepard, at the root, is what the authors want him/her to be, so Shepard will always be him/her as created by the authors fundamentally. You just get to control him/her for a while but s/he will never be yours, just because Shepard is not an archetype created by yourself. You never create the context for the character, you never create Shepard, it already exists as an individual with his/her own characteristics.

The choices you can have etc. will always have boundaries set by the type of archetype the authors decided to create. So when I hear phrases of the kind: "my Shepard would never do a thing as that" or "my Shepard would do otherwise" referred to the way the authors decided to script some parts I cannot but shake my head in disbelief. "Your" Shepard doesn't exist and it is perfectly fitting for the authors to make Shepard consistent with their view of the character they created. Shepard is what the authors wants him/her to be at the root, you just control his/her modus operandi for a while, nothing more.

A total different thing is, instead, when you create an archetype yourself. In that case the character will be yours in the real sense and things as that would be really inappropriate (they happen the same but for motives of resources, but they usually get masked). You get to decide everything about that character because it is your character, starting from the context of the same. Examples of these type of archetypes are characters you can create in games as Baldur's Gate, or Temple of Elemental Evil, Fallout, Skyrim or the old SSI rpgs, etc.

They are totally different in scope than characters that are already formed in the context, that are already archetypes created by the authors. Examples of these types of characters are: Hawke, Shepard (in fact), Geralt, Jensen and so on and so forth. All of them are already what they are at the root and you cannot make that character "yours" no more than you can do that with another real person.

There's a great difference between the two types. For the Shepards' types it doesn't exist an "yours" about them, while for the other kind yes because they don't exist as individuals before you create them (in the way you want).

Modifié par Amioran, 30 avril 2012 - 03:33 .

[DeinonSlayer]

@Amioran
A good point, and I wouldn't deny it. The thing is, though, compared to the previous two titles, ME3 has more auto-dialogue than any other. Choice (even the illusion of it) is completely removed. Even Shepard's last words are auto-dialogue.

Modifié par DeinonSlayer, 30 avril 2012 - 03:54 .

[FJVP]

Shepard's reaction after Thessia. I facepalmed so hard during all that dialogue that my hand almost went through my skull.

[Amioran]

DeinonSlayer wrote...

@Amioran
A good point, and I wouldn't deny it. The thing is, though, compared to the previous two titles, ME3 has more auto-dialogue than any other. Choice (even the illusion of it) is completely removed. Even Shepard's last words are auto-dialogue.

In fact this is another thing. I said that what I specified was a little off-topic, it was mostly addressed to the use of the sentence "your Shepard" that you employed, and I took it as a sort of bait to make a point about it, that's one of the things that bothers me more when people start with their "my Shepard will never..." (especially when talking about the SC) to prove how the ending is "bad writing".

More auto-dialog is another thing, and I agree on the fact that it is a little too overdone in this last chapter.

Modifié par Amioran, 30 avril 2012 - 03:36 .

[Doctor_Jackstraw]

i thought shepard showing compasion when I didnt want them to was an example of this. Part of the renegade thing is that you can play as someone who doesnt go out of their way for others, who doesnt dwell on the deaths of the innocent. This kind of got lost in ME3 and it was kind of a bummer (though conversely, paragon got the shaft in favor of renegade in ME2)

[weirdnerd]

Amioran wrote...

DeinonSlayer wrote...
If you could break up just one piece of auto-dialogue in order to deliver a response more appropriate for your Shepard, what would it be?

(Sorry if this needs to be moved.)

A little off-topic but I think this need to be addressed since people continue to mix things up.

It doesn't exist a thing as your Shepard. Shepard is Shepard.

While you get to control some of Shepard's actions and choices that's a different thing than owning a character, a completely different thing.

The archetype of Shepard is created by the authors. Shepard, at the root, is what the authors want him/her to be, so Shepard will always be him/her as created by the authors fundamentally. You just get to control him/her for a while but s/he will never be yours, just because Shepard is not an archetype created by yourself. You never create the context for the character, you never create Shepard, it already exists as an individual with his/her own characteristics.

The choices you can have etc. will always have boundaries set by the type of archetype the authors decided to create. So when I hear phrases of the kind: "my Shepard would never do a thing as that" or "my Shepard would do otherwise" referred to the way the authors decided to script some parts I cannot but shake my head in disbelief. "Your" Shepard doesn't exist and it is perfectly fitting for the authors to make Shepard consistent with their view of the character they created. Shepard is what the authors wants him/her to be at the root, you just control his/her modus operandi for a while, nothing more.

A total different thing is, instead, when you create an archetype yourself. In that case the character will be yours in the real sense and things as that would be really inappropriate (they happen the same but for motives of resources, but they usually get masked). You get to decide everything about that character because it is your character, starting from the context of the same. Examples of these type of archetypes are characters you can create in games as Baldur's Gate, or Temple of Elemental Evil, Fallout, Skyrim or the old SSI rpgs, etc.

They are totally different in scope than characters that are already formed in the context, that are already archetypes created by the authors. Examples of these types of characters are: Hawke, Shepard (in fact), Geralt, Jensen and so on and so forth. All of them are already what they are at the root and you cannot make that character "yours" no more than you can do that with another real person.

There's a great difference between the two types. For the Shepards' types it doesn't exist an "yours" about them, while for the other kind yes because they don't exist as individuals before you create them (in the way you want).

do you not understand what an rpg  is 

it means role playing game, as in you become shepard and vice versa if it truly is immersive

[ZombieGambit]

The only things that "breaks immersion" for me are the weird turn to the camera when you talk to James for the first time, the weird long pause when EDI asks to go with you to the Cerberus base and the other one when he's asking if anyone has any info on Cerberus. They're just hilariously out of place.

[Amioran]

weirdnerd wrote...
do you not understand what an rpg  is 

it means role playing game, as in you become shepard and vice versa if it truly is immersive

I see that you did read well what I wrote and tried to comprehend it fully, good.

Role playing means, in fact, playing a role, but the role can be that of an already pre-existent archetype, or it can be a role of an archetype you construct yourself. Role-playing doesn't mean that the role you interpret must be created by yourself to apply.

The fact that you can immedesimate in the Shepard's point of view it doesn't mean that Shepard is your creation no more than watching a movie and immedesimating in the protagonist make that protagonist (as it is) your creation.

Modifié par Amioran, 30 avril 2012 - 04:14 .

[AlienSpaceBats]

"I'll sleep when I'm dead"

Was this written by a thirteen year old or something?

The Shepard in ME3 is not the same Shepard I played in ME and ME2.

[Apple_NdiB]

"Big. Stupid. Jellyfish".

I will say however that much of the auto-dialogue at the beginning is dependent upon whether you played the previous games or not. I noticed the change from "the **** you done" to "when you blew up the Batarian relay" and the warmer, more personal greeting my Shepard gave Ashley after playing the demo.

Modifié par Apple_NdiB, 30 avril 2012 - 04:25 .

[GengisKhan]

The sad thing is that I cant stand another playthrougth, I find my self bored playing with my renegate femshep after some 30min, they really feckedup this game, at least for me anyway.

[Daennikus]

"That was for Miranda you son of a b."

What if I didn't care much for her?

[shepskisaac]

The Catalyst conversation. The most important conversation in the entire franchise and we get a single dialogue wheel lol? Not to mention that it happens right after the amazing TIM confrontation scene that had multiple wheels, interrupts and interesting variables taken into account.

Modifié par IsaacShep, 30 avril 2012 - 04:41 .

[abaris]

All the autodialogue gets annoying pretty fast, since there are only one or two interrupts with very limited choices. That way I was spamming the space bar on my keyboard when trying a second character since I already knew what's been said.

But the most annoying part of autdialogue was certainly the first dream, followed by Liara, followed by Trainor, followed by Hacket. That's exactly at the point where I always keep thinking, am I allowed to do something already?

[danteliveson]

Anything that was meant to be emotional.

Respecting any authority figure.

Modifié par danteliveson, 30 avril 2012 - 04:51 .

[fainmaca]

I think pretty much every line of dialogue Shepard has needs to be overhauled, as it all takes away from the player's control of the character (And you can say what you like about it being the author's character to do with as they wish, it doesn't change the fact that they gave us a pretty damn broad array of customisation options for the version of Shepard we got in ME1 and 2, but then gave us next to none in ME3. Every conversation choice is another node of customisation for the Shepard we get, so to give us few to none in ME3 is incongruous with the product we were led to believe we were getting).

In particular, I'd like to have seen us get the chance to deliver the speech to the fleets. Shepard's been the tip of the spear for the entire campaign. He's the leader of the Galaxy's forces in all but name. So shift your arse, Hackett.

Also, I wanted a chance to threaten the Quarians a bit more. Not with the Geth upgrades, but with my retribution. They were set to wipe out a sentient race. I wanted to be able to threaten them that, if they didn't back off, they'd have me to deal with, and if the Geth were to die by their hand then their precious Rannoch would burn in retribution.

[fainmaca]

Also, change the goddamn interrupt system.

In ME2, taking an interrupt radically changed the path of an interaction, from shooting a guy to shoving someone out of a window to stopping Miranda from shooting her friend. In ME3... handshakes?!?! You take it, you shake their hand. You don't, you stand around like a dumb idiot. Wow.

[wickedgoodreed]

"You're such a tease, Vega. You ever going to make good on all this flirting?"

*cringe*

Also this:

IsaacShep wrote...

The Catalyst conversation. The most important conversation in the entire franchise and we get a single dialogue wheel lol? Not to mention that it happens right after the amazing TIM confrontation scene that had multiple wheels, interrupts and interesting variables taken into account.

[AVPen]

IsaacShep wrote...

The Catalyst conversation. The most important conversation in the entire franchise and we get a single dialogue wheel lol? Not to mention that it happens right after the amazing TIM confrontation scene that had multiple wheels, interrupts and interesting variables taken into account.

^ This.... <_<

[BatmanPWNS]

Amioran wrote...

DeinonSlayer wrote...
If you could break up just one piece of auto-dialogue in order to deliver a response more appropriate for your Shepard, what would it be?

(Sorry if this needs to be moved.)

A little off-topic but I think this need to be addressed since people continue to mix things up.

It doesn't exist a thing as your Shepard. Shepard is Shepard.

While you get to control some of Shepard's actions and choices that's a different thing than owning a character, a completely different thing.

The archetype of Shepard is created by the authors. Shepard, at the root, is what the authors want him/her to be, so Shepard will always be him/her as created by the authors fundamentally. You just get to control him/her for a while but s/he will never be yours, just because Shepard is not an archetype created by yourself. You never create the context for the character, you never create Shepard, it already exists as an individual with his/her own characteristics.

The choices you can have etc. will always have boundaries set by the type of archetype the authors decided to create. So when I hear phrases of the kind: "my Shepard would never do a thing as that" or "my Shepard would do otherwise" referred to the way the authors decided to script some parts I cannot but shake my head in disbelief. "Your" Shepard doesn't exist and it is perfectly fitting for the authors to make Shepard consistent with their view of the character they created. Shepard is what the authors wants him/her to be at the root, you just control his/her modus operandi for a while, nothing more.

A total different thing is, instead, when you create an archetype yourself. In that case the character will be yours in the real sense and things as that would be really inappropriate (they happen the same but for motives of resources, but they usually get masked). You get to decide everything about that character because it is your character, starting from the context of the same. Examples of these type of archetypes are characters you can create in games as Baldur's Gate, or Temple of Elemental Evil, Fallout, Skyrim or the old SSI rpgs, etc.

They are totally different in scope than characters that are already formed in the context, that are already archetypes created by the authors. Examples of these types of characters are: Hawke, Shepard (in fact), Geralt, Jensen and so on and so forth. All of them are already what they are at the root and you cannot make that character "yours" no more than you can do that with another real person.

There's a great difference between the two types. For the Shepards' types it doesn't exist an "yours" about them, while for the other kind yes because they don't exist as individuals before you create them (in the way you want).

*Sigh*

Yes, Shepard isn't 100% our character but to some degree we could influence his personality a bit. Even ME3, there is 0%. Shepard can't be xenophobic at all, Shepard has to 100% flirt with Vega (At least Jacob could be avoided by pressing the renegade options), Shepard cares a hell of a lot about every species, Shepard seems to love Earth no matter what. These characteristics weren't presented in the previous games so I don't know why Bioware suddenly decided to "Hey, lets give Shepard a personality in the last game of the series and screw anyone else who had a different personality in the game".

[Nenya Higurashi]

Daennikus wrote...

"That was for Miranda you son of a b."

What if I didn't care much for her?

What if both thane and Miranda Died in ME2? Now I'm really curious °_°