261 réponses à ce sujet

[xPandaHunterx]

STEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEVVVVVVVVVVEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE!!!!!!!!!


you sure?

[NOD-INFORMER37]

 I'd have to say all of them because while some auto-dialogue might work for one person's Shep, it wont work for another's. (I.E, if Shep says something Paragon because of auto-dialogue it could be completely out of place when you're playing Renegade. And vice-versa.)

[xsdob]

None so I'm not allowed to comment here.

[abaris]

Shelmusk wrote...

There are no quests involved with these dialogues. That's more or less the same as in ME2 with the Elcor and the Asari shopping tech modules on the Citadel or the Elcor bouncer on Omega. Just something to listen to...

OK, get it. Like the "let me in, Aria is expecting me" on Omega.

[Fireblader70]

You know what really annoyed me?

EDIT: Some scene at some point on the citadel, where Shepard acts like an idiot with no vision. Involving a certain councillor and certain plans for something.

Cut out spoilers for obvious reasons.

Modifié par Fireblader70, 30 avril 2012 - 07:35 .

[HiddenKING]

Everytime the Illusive Man says "You Men" or "You Manatee".

[DeinonSlayer]

ItsFreakinJesus wrote...

I don't know; I don't get immersed in games when I play them.

It's kind of the whole point of a role-playing game. Unless you're here for the dakka...

I, personally, don't like how Shepard auto-dialogues that (s)he's a soldier and doesn't know how to be anything else. I always pictured Shepard going on to do something else after their military career (or at least HOPING to do so), and a poll I took showed that a good majority agree. It would have been nice to have some say in that, a "never-say-die" option, but by that point it seems the writers were done with Shepard. No point in letting players decide who they are - they'll be killed off soon anyway.

Just because the narrative stopped caring by that point doesn't mean we did. <_<

Modifié par DeinonSlayer, 30 avril 2012 - 11:26 .

[Bonanza16]

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).

Your point being? What good does knowing this arbitrary "difference" accomplish anyway?

You're obviously going into too much detail about something most role-players already understand. We're aware that Shepard is not a character that we've created but he/she should be ours to develop. When referring to his/her Shepard the gamer refers to the choices he/she made.

[slyborg]

All of the post Thessia talk bothered me, auto-dialouge and all. Both Shepard and Garrus have seen their homeworlds ravaged by the reapers, but neither of them lost their **** like half the ship did after Thessia was attacked.

[chengda85]

AlienSpaceBats wrote...

"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.

ya that was retarded, a commander should know better than to sleep deprive himself before an important mission.

[sp0ck 06]

I actually didn't mind a lot of the auto dialogue. Replaying ME1, and I've noticed in the majority of "filler" conversations, which is most of the convos in the game, it really makes zero difference what dialogue you choose, the NPCs still say the exact same thing.

I thought in ME3 Shepard was much more of a character, rather than an empty vessel like in previous games. Sometimes it was annoying, but a lot of the time I thought it made conversations flow and seem cinematic, and when you are faced with a dialogue choice, it actually changes the scene significantly.

For example, on Sur'Kesh when you first meet Eve, you can either tell her she's "The last hope for the krogan race" or "A bargaining chip." If you choose the bargaining chip, she will reference that throughout the whole mission and all her dialogue towards Shepard is changed. That doesn't happen in ME1.

[Drummernate]

The whole Rannoch story part....

My Shepard was such an idiot.
In real life I would have shot Garrel as soon as I got back on the Normandy.
I would have talked Legion into finding something else to upload the code... EDI perhaps?
If a Reaper was talking to me and saying it was going to kill us all I would pee on it.

[jojon2se]

slyborg wrote...

All of the post Thessia talk bothered me, auto-dialouge and all. Both Shepard and Garrus have seen their homeworlds ravaged by the reapers, but neither of them lost their **** like half the ship did after Thessia was attacked.

It wasn't even about the fall of Thessia, or even about the Holy MacGuffin of Last Hope being whisked away, which is what disturbed me. it was all: "Oh, boohoo - I lost.".

It makes sense that there'd be some stunned disbelief, when the most advanced civilisation in the galaxy folds like a house of cards, at a mere discrete cough from the big bad reaper - even after the previous atrocities, which after all at least had an extremely pale semblence of a "fighting chance" and resilience about them.
They should temper the reaction, however - I don't deny that. I think it may show a bit of the disconnection, when teams work separately on different parts of the game and the overall "track list" may possibly not have been finalised until rather late. "Whole picture" kind of thing...

I'm sure the writers enjoyed putting a dent in Shepard's stoicism, but it didn't work at all for me -- it came across as adolescent sulking, where I'd rather see dignified humility and a retained sense of what matters -- I might even have preferred some unbearably cocky: "Temporary setback - we're on it.", to emo-Shep.

Modifié par jojon2se, 30 avril 2012 - 10:49 .

[wright1978]

Sorry but for me autodialogue was game breaking. Now beyond the forced emotion for the silly kid etc there were the moments where the game deliberately railroaded or retconned shep's behaviour. An obvious example is shep's view of the Alliance. ME2 allowed severe negative views of the alliance to be expressed by shep but apparently the alliance indocrinated shep between games as that shep is nowhere to be seen. Autoshep leads shep down an utterly paragon avenue that conflicts with potential ME2 development. unfortunately ME2 seems to be the oddity where player choice matters.

[fainmaca]

sp0ck 06 wrote...

I actually didn't mind a lot of the auto dialogue. Replaying ME1, and I've noticed in the majority of "filler" conversations, which is most of the convos in the game, it really makes zero difference what dialogue you choose, the NPCs still say the exact same thing.

I thought in ME3 Shepard was much more of a character, rather than an empty vessel like in previous games. Sometimes it was annoying, but a lot of the time I thought it made conversations flow and seem cinematic, and when you are faced with a dialogue choice, it actually changes the scene significantly.

For example, on Sur'Kesh when you first meet Eve, you can either tell her she's "The last hope for the krogan race" or "A bargaining chip." If you choose the bargaining chip, she will reference that throughout the whole mission and all her dialogue towards Shepard is changed. That doesn't happen in ME1.

Not the point, man. The NPCs react the same way, sure, that's because the NPCs aren't going to change dramatically because we're there. The whole point of these conversations was to control how Shepard reacts, not everyone else. Shepard was your avatar, your representation in the game world.

Hell, that's why his personality is kept fairly blank. You're meant to impose your desired personality on him/her rather than deal with a set personality. Shepard is not a character in the story, he's the player, he's the epitome of a Self-Insert into a story you're meant to be writing. Having him control the big choices shapes the story, but having him control the little things like whether to say 'Hi' 'Bye' or 'Fart' shaped the SHEPARD. Without that, my drive to play the game (and that of a fair percentage of others around here, if the forums are to be believed) is gone. If I wanted to play a pre-determined protagonist, I'd go for one that I had no control of the personality of from the beginning, like Nathan Drake or Starkiller.

You can't give players complete control in one installment, then remove that control in the next. That's just inconsistent. And unfair to those who bought into the franchise because of that specific core aspect of the game.

[DatIrishFella]

WAAAAAAAAAAAAYYYYY too many moments in the game. A lot of the things EA's Sheperd said were God awful. In my mind, when the writers were collaborating, they were all probably thinking, what would make a 12 year old kid go "AWESOME" and then chose what dialogue they thought fitted that.

Auto-dialogue = bad.

If Dragon Age III incorporates the same concepts as Mass Effect 3, then I won't even rent it. All this appealing to the pre-teen kids is disheartening.

[DatIrishFella]

fainmaca wrote...

sp0ck 06 wrote...

I actually didn't mind a lot of the auto dialogue. Replaying ME1, and I've noticed in the majority of "filler" conversations, which is most of the convos in the game, it really makes zero difference what dialogue you choose, the NPCs still say the exact same thing.

I thought in ME3 Shepard was much more of a character, rather than an empty vessel like in previous games. Sometimes it was annoying, but a lot of the time I thought it made conversations flow and seem cinematic, and when you are faced with a dialogue choice, it actually changes the scene significantly.

For example, on Sur'Kesh when you first meet Eve, you can either tell her she's "The last hope for the krogan race" or "A bargaining chip." If you choose the bargaining chip, she will reference that throughout the whole mission and all her dialogue towards Shepard is changed. That doesn't happen in ME1.

Not the point, man. The NPCs react the same way, sure, that's because the NPCs aren't going to change dramatically because we're there. The whole point of these conversations was to control how Shepard reacts, not everyone else. Shepard was your avatar, your representation in the game world.

Hell, that's why his personality is kept fairly blank. You're meant to impose your desired personality on him/her rather than deal with a set personality. Shepard is not a character in the story, he's the player, he's the epitome of a Self-Insert into a story you're meant to be writing. Having him control the big choices shapes the story, but having him control the little things like whether to say 'Hi' 'Bye' or 'Fart' shaped the SHEPARD. Without that, my drive to play the game (and that of a fair percentage of others around here, if the forums are to be believed) is gone. If I wanted to play a pre-determined protagonist, I'd go for one that I had no control of the personality of from the beginning, like Nathan Drake or Starkiller.

You can't give players complete control in one installment, then remove that control in the next. That's just inconsistent. And unfair to those who bought into the franchise because of that specific core aspect of the game.

Perfect summary, although somehow I don't think BioWare would really care about what their established fanbase thought. 

Modifié par DatIrishFella, 30 avril 2012 - 11:09 .

[wright1978]

DatIrishFella wrote...

WAAAAAAAAAAAAYYYYY too many moments in the game. A lot of the things EA's Sheperd said were God awful. In my mind, when the writers were collaborating, they were all probably thinking, what would make a 12 year old kid go "AWESOME" and then chose what dialogue they thought fitted that.

Auto-dialogue = bad.

If Dragon Age III incorporates the same concepts as Mass Effect 3, then I won't even rent it. All this appealing to the pre-teen kids is disheartening.

Yep agree completely auto-dialogue is bad which is why it should be used extremely sparingly.

[SNascimento]

I think dialogue in ME3 was an improvement over the other two games...
.
... but the scene after Thessia, where Shepard start to ask if anyone know where Cerberus is, it's just dead silly. Shepard sounded like a teacher, asking the class if anyone know the answer for a question.

[DeinonSlayer]

fainmaca wrote...

sp0ck 06 wrote...

I actually didn't mind a lot of the auto dialogue. Replaying ME1, and I've noticed in the majority of "filler" conversations, which is most of the convos in the game, it really makes zero difference what dialogue you choose, the NPCs still say the exact same thing.

I thought in ME3 Shepard was much more of a character, rather than an empty vessel like in previous games. Sometimes it was annoying, but a lot of the time I thought it made conversations flow and seem cinematic, and when you are faced with a dialogue choice, it actually changes the scene significantly.

For example, on Sur'Kesh when you first meet Eve, you can either tell her she's "The last hope for the krogan race" or "A bargaining chip." If you choose the bargaining chip, she will reference that throughout the whole mission and all her dialogue towards Shepard is changed. That doesn't happen in ME1.

Not the point, man. The NPCs react the same way, sure, that's because the NPCs aren't going to change dramatically because we're there. The whole point of these conversations was to control how Shepard reacts, not everyone else. Shepard was your avatar, your representation in the game world.

Hell, that's why his personality is kept fairly blank. You're meant to impose your desired personality on him/her rather than deal with a set personality. Shepard is not a character in the story, he's the player, he's the epitome of a Self-Insert into a story you're meant to be writing. Having him control the big choices shapes the story, but having him control the little things like whether to say 'Hi' 'Bye' or 'Fart' shaped the SHEPARD. Without that, my drive to play the game (and that of a fair percentage of others around here, if the forums are to be believed) is gone. If I wanted to play a pre-determined protagonist, I'd go for one that I had no control of the personality of from the beginning, like Nathan Drake or Starkiller.

You can't give players complete control in one installment, then remove that control in the next. That's just inconsistent. And unfair to those who bought into the franchise because of that specific core aspect of the game.

I couldn't have said it better myself. I've been playing through ME1 again, and yes, there are some parts where the dialogue choices make Shepard say the same thing, but there is still so much more variety. You define the character as you see fit for two games... and then ride the rails to the finish line.

[Foxhound2121]

What creeps me out the most is the action and story options at the beginning that accompanies the auto-dialogue.

I am very afraid that Bioware is planning to turn the next Mass Effect into Gears of War with no dialogue choices. If that happens, I won't be into it. The only reason I liked this series was because of the customization and choices. Playing a cannon Paragon Shepard makes me want to puke.

[Sdrol117]

Daennikus wrote...

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

What if I didn't care much for her?

I never thought about that. Touche.