179 réponses à ce sujet

[Grimwick]

beyondsolo wrote...

I wouldn't say that the dialogue design improved generally. However, I agree with you that the dialogues have become more "mobile" and saturated with animation beyond the face/head. I have to say, though, that this has happened largerly at the expense of options in the dialogue wheel because many of the dialogues feel more like watching than participating. Often Shepard will walk around, turn away, make all sorts of gestures while speaking, but there is no dialogue wheel. I agree that the animations enhance the dialogue scenes visually, but the complexity of explorative and decisive dialogue options has decreased in ME3.

Yes and this is a problem for me too. ME2 had the perfect balance in my opinion, it had a reasonable amount of dynamics whilst still enabling nearly full use of the dialogue wheel and didn't really diminish the explorative feel.
ME3 on the other hand went almost completely for these dynamics. It had a huge variety of panning shots, wide cuts and movement from place to place. You are right when you say this came at a cost to the actual dialogue and it did make you feel like you were simply watching - something that really annoys me with ME3.

In retrospect, I don't think there was anything wrong with the static dialogue in ME1, though that's a matter of preference. It's true that ME2 improved on that somewhat without sacrificing (much) of the choice complexity. I have to say that what annoys me most about ME3's dialogue is the lack of dedicated conversation mode with NPCs. Had they just implemented static conversations like in ME1 with secondary NPCs and in secondary conversations aboard the Normandy, the game would have been much better in my opinion.

I 100% agree with you on this. This is one of the (if not the) most annoying aspects of ME3. There is far too little dedicated conversation and it almost ruins the game for me.
I agree with the more static approach - maybe similar to either ME1 or ME2 - and with your sentiments.

I'm afraid I don't understand what you mean by auto-dialogue being "disguised." Can you please elaborate on that? I played through Mass Effect 1 recently and found that Shepard wouldn't say a word without me picking an option, but maybe I'm misunderstanding what you mean.

When I played ME1 the first few times I didn't notice it too much - but when I replayed the game it began to become more apparent.
It's not 'auto-dialogue' in the sense you don't pick when you say it, but it's auto-dialogue in the sense that whatever of the three conversation options you pick, they all say the same thing. 
This happens a fair few times and particularly during plot-important dialogues.
I don't personally mind it much because it is negligible and it is much better done than in ME3.

[AlanC9]

Grimwick wrote...

AlanC9 wrote...
Well, except for the bit where you defeat the Reapers, of course.

The problem is that we never really defeat the reapers. They are only dead in 1 ending and the endings are all things that the SC suggests.

Dead, controlled, transformed. How is this not defeat?

Then, consider this. One rumored piece of DLC is fighting with Aria to retake Omega. What does it matter? With the endings, the only purpose of the DLC is to decide where she dies when the ending takes place - on the Citadel or on Omega. Either way, she's toast.

Why would she die in either place? Again, assumptions.

Shepard is dead in 2/3 endings for sure. In destroy we get a pointless breathing scene in which we don't actually know if Shepard survives longer than her first breath.
The ending forces your character into dying - something which makes the story ultimately pointless.

We were talking about Aria, not Shepard. If you're going to quote something, you might want to read it.

And how does the main character's death make a story pointless?

Modifié par AlanC9, 10 mai 2012 - 08:27 .

[AlanC9]

Grimwick wrote...

beyondsolo wrote...
In retrospect, I don't think there was anything wrong with the static dialogue in ME1, though that's a matter of preference. It's true that ME2 improved on that somewhat without sacrificing (much) of the choice complexity. I have to say that what annoys me most about ME3's dialogue is the lack of dedicated conversation mode with NPCs. Had they just implemented static conversations like in ME1 with secondary NPCs and in secondary conversations aboard the Normandy, the game would have been much better in my opinion.

I 100% agree with you on this. This is one of the (if not the) most annoying aspects of ME3. There is far too little dedicated conversation and it almost ruins the game for me.
I agree with the more static approach - maybe similar to either ME1 or ME2 - and with your sentiments.

But in ME1 and ME2, you didn't actually have more conversations on the Normandy. You entered conversation mode only to find out that the NPC didn't actually have anything new to say. In ME3 when there's no new full conversation available you get a one-liner, and much of the time it's a unique one-liner that reacts to the last mission.

I don't quite see how this is a problem.

[beyondsolo]

Grimwick wrote...

When I played ME1 the first few times I didn't notice it too much - but when I replayed the game it began to become more apparent.
It's not 'auto-dialogue' in the sense you don't pick when you say it, but it's auto-dialogue in the sense that whatever of the three conversation options you pick, they all say the same thing. 
This happens a fair few times and particularly during plot-important dialogues.
I don't personally mind it much because it is negligible and it is much better done than in ME3.

Ah, I see what you mean. I must admit that I never noticed that, but that's probably because most of my playthroughs were Paragon, usually resulting in me picking the same dialogue options, with maybe one or two Renegades inbetween. Nice catch, though.

AlanC9 wrote...

But in ME1 and ME2, you didn't actually
have more conversations on the Normandy. You entered conversation mode
only to find out that the NPC didn't actually have anything new to say.
In ME3 when there's no new full conversation available you get a
one-liner, and much of the time it's a unique one-liner that reacts to
the last mission.

I don't quite see how this is a problem.

I feel that it's a problem because you could at least zoom in on the characters in ME1/ME2. The lack of dedicated conversation mode in ME3 makes Shepard very detached from the whole character interaction. For example, you can only look at the characters up close when the game decides that there's going to be a major conversation. Outside of that, you are stuck with looking at all NPCs over Shepard's shoulder, and they even have those ugly orange interaction brackets on them. You can't look at their faces, their gestures up close, none of that. In my opinion that's a major problem of immersion and character closeness.

Modifié par beyondsolo, 10 mai 2012 - 08:37 .

[Grimwick]

AlanC9 wrote...

Grimwick wrote...

AlanC9 wrote...
Well, except for the bit where you defeat the Reapers, of course.

The problem is that we never really defeat the reapers. They are only dead in 1 ending and the endings are all things that the SC suggests.

Dead, controlled, transformed. How is this not defeat?

Then, consider this. One rumored piece of DLC is fighting with Aria to retake Omega. What does it matter? With the endings, the only purpose of the DLC is to decide where she dies when the ending takes place - on the Citadel or on Omega. Either way, she's toast.

Why would she die in either place? Again, assumptions.

Shepard is dead in 2/3 endings for sure. In destroy we get a pointless breathing scene in which we don't actually know if Shepard survives longer than her first breath.
The ending forces your character into dying - something which makes the story ultimately pointless.

We were talking about Aria, not Shepard. If you're going to quote something, you might want to read it.

And how does the main character's death make a story pointless?

I did read it, it was a fairly ambiguous 'she'... but I take your point.

Re: death of the protagonist,

I often find that when a character dies at the end - especially in video games where you play the character - it disociates your interests from the narrative. Throughout the story we care for the character, we care about the characters the character cares about and we often care about the universe of the character (but not as much).

When the protagnonist dies in a story it needs to be backed up by supporting character influence, otherwise we lose all of our emotional investment - there's little reason to care about the end of the story. ME3 fails in this respect because it forgets the supporting characters and the universe, making Shepard's death pointless. A side note is that of forced sacrifice, I don't want to include too many spoilers but being forced into a sacrifice makes it lose any significant meaning in it's actions.

The story ultimately becomes pointless because it will therefore lack a satisfying ending, or an ending that is 'complete' and makes the events that lead up to the death of the character seem a pointless narrative construct.
I'm ok with the sacrifice of the protagonist in certain cases - particularly when you are emotionally invested in the side characters as well as the protagonist - but only if the game shifts the focus back onto what we really care about. 

Personally, I don't believe ME is a case where the protagonist should die and I think we should be given more options as to the happy-ish resolution of the story. Definitely blue babies at least.

[Grimwick]

AlanC9 wrote...

Grimwick wrote...

beyondsolo wrote...
In retrospect, I don't think there was anything wrong with the static dialogue in ME1, though that's a matter of preference. It's true that ME2 improved on that somewhat without sacrificing (much) of the choice complexity. I have to say that what annoys me most about ME3's dialogue is the lack of dedicated conversation mode with NPCs. Had they just implemented static conversations like in ME1 with secondary NPCs and in secondary conversations aboard the Normandy, the game would have been much better in my opinion.

I 100% agree with you on this. This is one of the (if not the) most annoying aspects of ME3. There is far too little dedicated conversation and it almost ruins the game for me.
I agree with the more static approach - maybe similar to either ME1 or ME2 - and with your sentiments.

But in ME1 and ME2, you didn't actually have more conversations on the Normandy. You entered conversation mode only to find out that the NPC didn't actually have anything new to say. In ME3 when there's no new full conversation available you get a one-liner, and much of the time it's a unique one-liner that reacts to the last mission.

I don't quite see how this is a problem.

The thing is that when the characters actually did have something to say in a cinematic conversation- which is far more often than they did in ME3 - it was a large, well written dialogue which overall added up to far more than a one liner after each mission.

The detached feeling of watching Shepard just get some weird reply or line from a team mate in 3rd person and without any conversation choices made this approach incredibly boring and de-immersifying. I'd rather play my own Shepard, not BW's.

[jijeebo]

For me, the main issues were the underwhelming motive given for the reapers and the entire concept of this catalyst controlling the reapers - which sort of killed everything that made the reapers a brilliant villain.

I also had issue with things like all three being 95% the same ending, my war assets playing as big a role as Morinth in the overall scheme of things, and smaller things like teleporting squadmates and Joker high-tailing it in the middle of the battle for the galaxy.

[AlanC9]

Grimwick wrote...
The thing is that when the characters actually did have something to say in a cinematic conversation- which is far more often than they did in ME3 - it was a large, well written dialogue which overall added up to far more than a one liner after each mission.

Like I said in the other thread, I don't check your numbers on this. I count as many full convos in ME3 as ME2 had.

The detached feeling of watching Shepard just get some weird reply or line from a team mate in 3rd person and without any conversation choices made this approach incredibly boring and de-immersifying. I'd rather play my own Shepard, not BW's.

Kinda like what beyondsolo said above, I guess.

I find having a conversation that's an exact repeat of the one I just had -- because the NPC doesn't have any new lines -- to be even more de-immersifying. There's a reason "calibrations" are a running gag on this board.

[ZombieGambit]

It wasn't the happy ride-off-into-the-sunset ending that all the idiots wanted.

[Grimwick]

ZombieGambit wrote...

It wasn't the happy ride-off-into-the-sunset ending that all the idiots wanted.

Honestly, that's the best flamebait you can come up with?

Nothing wrong with happy endings, don't generelise them as childish, nor generelise people that wanted one as idiots.

Modifié par Grimwick, 10 mai 2012 - 09:15 .

[Il Divo]

jijeebo wrote...

For me, the main issues were the underwhelming motive given for the reapers and the entire concept of this catalyst controlling the reapers - which sort of killed everything that made the reapers a brilliant villain.

I also had issue with things like all three being 95% the same ending, my war assets playing as big a role as Morinth in the overall scheme of things, and smaller things like teleporting squadmates and Joker high-tailing it in the middle of the battle for the galaxy.

Nailed it.

[DaJe]

ZombieGambit wrote...

It wasn't the happy ride-off-into-the-sunset ending that all the idiots wanted.

That is exactly the small minded approach to this problem that leads to massive missunderstandings.

There have been countless elaborate articles and videos on this matter. This forum is full of well argumented reasons for why it is bad (lack of happy ending is not the main problem).

People ignoring arguments and logic is one of the main reasons why we can't have nice things.

[The Razman]

Subject M wrote...

A new character appears the last 10 minutes and NOTHING Shepard has achieved allows him or her to do anything except react to the outlandish alternatives as defined by the catalyst.

I can understand and even accept Shepard meeting "the Architect" (but should it not really have been much better if it was Harbinger, or Harbinger in disguise trying to trick Shepard before you expose the trick?) but the problem is that  not only are Shepard's agency gone (Shepard can not disproove the catalyst and send it and the Reapers packing, or simply somehow destroy it and with it the Reapers - as options should have been given certain accomplishments) and you have no clue what the choices you are offered really would mean, but what you do understand of the alternatives rhymes ill indeed with what many Shepard's out there fought for.

You keep using the word "alternatives". Alternatives to what, exactly? What was the original plan to destroy the Reapers that the Catalyst is offering "alternatives" to?

[legion999]

xsdob wrote...

Seeing a lot of elitest rhetoric being thrown around here, and frankly it's pissing me off. This whole 'you don't agree with my view so you must be a noob, stupid, not paying attention, an apologist, or just a troll' attitude that's rearing it's head now in may is really making me wonder why I try to relate to either side.

Anyone else feel the same or am I talking to a wall in this issue?

Both sides need to chill the **** out. Some of the pro-enders need to get off their high horse and some of the anti-enders need to calm down before threatening people or insultng them.

[legion999]

ZombieGambit wrote...

It wasn't the happy ride-off-into-the-sunset ending that all the idiots wanted.

Trolololololololol.

[The Razman]

DaJe wrote...

ZombieGambit wrote...

It wasn't the happy ride-off-into-the-sunset ending that all the idiots wanted.

That is exactly the small minded approach to this problem that leads to massive missunderstandings.

There have been countless elaborate articles and videos on this matter. This forum is full of well argumented reasons for why it is bad (lack of happy ending is not the main problem).

People ignoring arguments and logic is one of the main reasons why we can't have nice things.

Look, there have been countless elaborate articles and videos on the matter. And all of them ignore the fact that for some people (more than you'd like to believe) the biggest single problem with the ending is that there's no non-depressing option to finish on.

You can't accuse someone of small-mindedness and then ignore that fact.

[legion999]

The Razman wrote...

DaJe wrote...

ZombieGambit wrote...

It wasn't the happy ride-off-into-the-sunset ending that all the idiots wanted.

That is exactly the small minded approach to this problem that leads to massive missunderstandings.

There have been countless elaborate articles and videos on this matter. This forum is full of well argumented reasons for why it is bad (lack of happy ending is not the main problem).

People ignoring arguments and logic is one of the main reasons why we can't have nice things.

Look, there have been countless elaborate articles and videos on the matter. And all of them ignore the fact that for some people (more than you'd like to believe) the biggest single problem with the ending is that there's no non-depressing option to finish on.

You can't accuse someone of small-mindedness and then ignore that fact.

Some does not equal all. (S)he was stating that everyone who disliked the ending because it wasn't happy.

[The Razman]

legion999 wrote...

The Razman wrote...

DaJe wrote...

ZombieGambit wrote...

It wasn't the happy ride-off-into-the-sunset ending that all the idiots wanted.

That is exactly the small minded approach to this problem that leads to massive missunderstandings.

There have been countless elaborate articles and videos on this matter. This forum is full of well argumented reasons for why it is bad (lack of happy ending is not the main problem).

People ignoring arguments and logic is one of the main reasons why we can't have nice things.

Look, there have been countless elaborate articles and videos on the matter. And all of them ignore the fact that for some people (more than you'd like to believe) the biggest single problem with the ending is that there's no non-depressing option to finish on.

You can't accuse someone of small-mindedness and then ignore that fact.

Some does not equal all. (S)he was stating that everyone who disliked the ending because it wasn't happy.

That doesn't matter. The statement "lack of happy ending isn't people's main problem" was made.

There's a serious tendancy to play down the opinions of those who didn't like it because it was depressing in favour of "legitimate" arguments.

[Grimwick]

The Razman wrote...

legion999 wrote...

Some does not equal all. (S)he was stating that everyone who disliked the ending because it wasn't happy.

That doesn't matter. The statement "lack of happy ending isn't people's main problem" was made.

There's a serious tendancy to play down the opinions of those who didn't like it because it was depressing in favour of "legitimate" arguments.

Lack of a happy ending is a legitimate reason to want a different ending. And it is certainly one of the reasons I hate it.

It may have been quoted and cited many times before but JK Rwoling changed the ending to Harry Potter to please the fans in this respect.

A lot of people are annoyed by the unhappiness because it was described as 'bittersweet' by the developers, only to turn out just bitter. Endings that are just bitter need to actually lead to that conclusion in order for it to work on a narrative, emotional and thematic level. ME didn't do that.

[The Razman]

Grimwick wrote...

The Razman wrote...

legion999 wrote...

Some does not equal all. (S)he was stating that everyone who disliked the ending because it wasn't happy.

That doesn't matter. The statement "lack of happy ending isn't people's main problem" was made.

There's a serious tendancy to play down the opinions of those who didn't like it because it was depressing in favour of "legitimate" arguments.

Lack of a happy ending is a legitimate reason to want a different ending. And it is certainly one of the reasons I hate it.

It may have been quoted and cited many times before but JK Rwoling changed the ending to Harry Potter to please the fans in this respect.

A lot of people are annoyed by the unhappiness because it was described as 'bittersweet' by the developers, only to turn out just bitter. Endings that are just bitter need to actually lead to that conclusion in order for it to work on a narrative, emotional and thematic level. ME didn't do that.

It really, really isn't a legitimate argument. The day we start treating "That story made me sad, so it should be changed" as a legitimate argument in any conversation is the day we should all shoot ourselves.

If you can't see the sweet because you're obsessed with the bitter, then that's really not the writer's problem. The sweet is there; you beat the Reapers, you save the galaxy, you save your love interest's life and the lives of your crew. All of that happens, and all of that is sweet. If you're saying "that's not sweet, because this bad thing also happened" ... then I think you might have missed the point of the word "bittersweet".

[Mirajin]

Having played multiple characters now from 1 - 3 right to the end, I have slowly begun to accept the "Catalyst's" logic, and the ending as a whole. I still think it's flawed logic, and would have loved a renegade interrupt...or at the VERY least been able to argue or disagree. But I have accepted it.

What I still absolutely hate about the ending is how very abrupt and WTF it is. It's a 2 minute wrap up on a 150 hour experience with no spoken dialogue after you make your choice. W......T........F!!!!?

I have a lot of faith riding on the Extended Cut to give us a longer ending.

[legion999]

The Razman wrote...

Grimwick wrote...

The Razman wrote...

legion999 wrote...

Some does not equal all. (S)he was stating that everyone who disliked the ending because it wasn't happy.

That doesn't matter. The statement "lack of happy ending isn't people's main problem" was made.

There's a serious tendancy to play down the opinions of those who didn't like it because it was depressing in favour of "legitimate" arguments.

Lack of a happy ending is a legitimate reason to want a different ending. And it is certainly one of the reasons I hate it.

It may have been quoted and cited many times before but JK Rwoling changed the ending to Harry Potter to please the fans in this respect.

A lot of people are annoyed by the unhappiness because it was described as 'bittersweet' by the developers, only to turn out just bitter. Endings that are just bitter need to actually lead to that conclusion in order for it to work on a narrative, emotional and thematic level. ME didn't do that.

It really, really isn't a legitimate argument. The day we start treating "That story made me sad, so it should be changed" as a legitimate argument in any conversation is the day we should all shoot ourselves.

If you can't see the sweet because you're obsessed with the bitter, then that's really not the writer's problem. The sweet is there; you beat the Reapers, you save the galaxy, you save your love interest's life and the lives of your crew. All of that happens, and all of that is sweet. If you're saying "that's not sweet, because this bad thing also happened" ... then I think you might have missed the point of the word "bittersweet".

What the actual **** at the bolded part. Also why can't one of the endings be happy? Having variety in the endings would be good no? And my squadmates starving to death is not sweet.

[string3r]

It was rushed and made no logical sense.

[The Razman]

legion999 wrote...

The Razman wrote...

Grimwick wrote...

The Razman wrote...

legion999 wrote...

Some does not equal all. (S)he was stating that everyone who disliked the ending because it wasn't happy.

That doesn't matter. The statement "lack of happy ending isn't people's main problem" was made.

There's a serious tendancy to play down the opinions of those who didn't like it because it was depressing in favour of "legitimate" arguments.

Lack of a happy ending is a legitimate reason to want a different ending. And it is certainly one of the reasons I hate it.

It may have been quoted and cited many times before but JK Rwoling changed the ending to Harry Potter to please the fans in this respect.

A lot of people are annoyed by the unhappiness because it was described as 'bittersweet' by the developers, only to turn out just bitter. Endings that are just bitter need to actually lead to that conclusion in order for it to work on a narrative, emotional and thematic level. ME didn't do that.

It really, really isn't a legitimate argument. The day we start treating "That story made me sad, so it should be changed" as a legitimate argument in any conversation is the day we should all shoot ourselves.

If you can't see the sweet because you're obsessed with the bitter, then that's really not the writer's problem. The sweet is there; you beat the Reapers, you save the galaxy, you save your love interest's life and the lives of your crew. All of that happens, and all of that is sweet. If you're saying "that's not sweet, because this bad thing also happened" ... then I think you might have missed the point of the word "bittersweet".

What the actual **** at the bolded part. Also why can't one of the endings be happy? Having variety in the endings would be good no? And my squadmates starving to death is not sweet.

1. The day we live in a society where we start trying to change artworks that don't make us feel happy emotions is the day we should pack in living.

2. We've been over why you can't have a happy ending in conjunction with a sad one already.

3. Why in the name of hell would you squadmates starve? Does that look like a barren planet with no edible vegetation to you? Seriously ... how is anyone meant to take complaints about the ending seriously when that's the kind of thing that people are believing about it?