150 réponses à ce sujet

[HiroVoid]

It's not laziness. Its streamlining. Bioware's constantly looking for that bigger audience.

[vvDRUCILLAvv]

Terror_K wrote...

vvDRUCILLAvv wrote...

Terror_K wrote...

I have to add, this was a real "WTF?!!" moment for me too. I mean... who seriously thought this was a good move out of the devs? And the fact that Casey approved of it and there must have been a majority in favour of it boggles the mind even more-so. I just comprehend why on Earth they've make a design decision like this. To me it's like putting your testicles on a railroad track when you hear an incoming train and thinking it's a good idea.

Seriously, BioWare... what paint were you drinking when you thought this was even a remotely good idea at all?

There is only one word I can think of to sum it up.......laziness.

Yeah... funny how they were always lazy whenever it came to the aspects I like most about Mass Effect, but not with the stuff I don't really care about so much, or didn't even want at all. <_<

If it's laziness, then it's definitely selective laziness. If it's mainstream and appeals to the casual and/or mainstream gamer and newcomer it gets lots of work. If it's for the longtime Mass Effect fan and for people who like RPGs and choice in their games, it gets half-assed.

Geez... BioWare quite frankly made me sick to my stomach lately.

Wow, you just summed up my thoughts exactly. The long time fan gets screwed as it would seem and this new MP atrocity...........I won't even get started on that subject.

[RuthlessGravity]

I remember in ME, there was three options during the scene when Anderson talks to Shepard about Saren. Three of the options sounded different and I picked each of the three on my new playthroughs. Shepard ended up saying the same thing three times. I kinda lol'd but made me sad.

[vvDRUCILLAvv]

HiroVoid wrote...

It's not laziness. Its streamlining. Bioware's constantly looking for that bigger audience.

Streamlining? You mean dumbing down. 

[Terror_K]

HiroVoid wrote...

It's not laziness. Its streamlining. Bioware's constantly looking for that bigger audience.

Yep. And they never learn when it backfires and blows up in their faces... they keep soldiering on, with this stupid belief they can gain new fans and still keep their old ones, despite the fact they just produce half-assed products that don't please either side enough to be great. Too shallow for their longtime RPG fans, too "talky" and complex for the hardcore CoD/Gears nuts.

They didn't learn from Dragon Age 2, they haven't learned from ME3, and they show no sign of learning in the future. They're simply too misguided, stubborn and up themselves to admit to their faults and learn from them. They can't admit to what was wrong with DA2 and are forging ahead with another half-assed console action game they masquerade as an RPG with DA3, they can't admit to ME3's faults, even when it comes to its ending, quoting nonsense like "artistic integrity" and refusing to just admit that the ending is bad.

BioWare are these days, quite frankly, a lost cause.

Modifié par Terror_K, 21 mai 2012 - 07:25 .

[Terror_K]

vvDRUCILLAvv wrote...

HiroVoid wrote...

It's not laziness. Its streamlining. Bioware's constantly looking for that bigger audience.

Streamlining? You mean dumbing down. 

In game development these days, they are one and the same. Especially with BioWare. The term has been warped to suit the industry. To game developers terms like "streamlining", "broadening appeal/audience" and "more accessible" basically mean "dumbing down" when it comes down to it. As such, such terms always ring alarm bells for me these days.

Oh, and "we want to draw in a whole new fanbase to *insert IP here*" is another one. Often combined with, "we want to appeal to old fans, but also bring in a new fanbase."

[jojon2se]

It has been mentioned before in the thread, but from what I understand, it was not a matter of laziness, nor streamlining, nor dumbing down, but purely for cinematic purposes; good dialogue flow -- the same reason they tried to break away from going into closeup on Shepard's face, every time you are to select a dialogue option. (EDIT: You may remember how, in some other BW games, they have the character's face emote the dialogue options, while hovering over them...)

To break down the likely reasoning:

•  First of all; What has been said earlier in the thread, about the dialogue not suspending the "action". Characters can do things like walk while talking, without stopping every five steps to give the players time to evaluate their options.
•  Most people tend to check all the investigate options anyway, so I suppose they figured lining them up without user input, would at the end of the day amount to the same result.
•  If you can select them in any order, there can be no natural progression from question to question, unless you record separate sets for each one, depending on when it is asked in relation to the others, resulting in a jarring "reset" to the flow of the dialogue (on top of the pause while selecting), where Shepard's intonation and references become those of stand-alone "from the beginning" statements, when a reflexive one would sound more natural: I'm sure most of us have, at some time, thought something along the lines of: "Ok, isn't it time we dropped that noun, by now, and substituted a pronoun?". It also allows the tone to progress throughout the dialogue, whereas it has to remain more or less neutral (almost "lifeless", at times) otherwise, or you might have had sudden strange, bipolar jumps from distraught to angry, to gleeful.

Not saying that I agree with the entire thing as it stands (EDIT: I haven't even touched upon the right hand options), but it's easy to come up with good rational reasons.

Modifié par jojon2se, 21 mai 2012 - 08:19 .

[DaJe]

Abreu Road wrote...

They intended to keep the dialogues high level.

"Intended"...
We fight or we die.

This isn't about tactics, this is about survival.

Thes citadel? The fight is here.



They did it to cut corners and justify it with "cinematic flow". As if ME2 didn't have enough cinematic flow.

But everyone knows that people play games to watch cutscenes. Makes perfect sense.

Interactivity? Choice? Let some other type of media take care of that like....uhmmm...like....hm?


Oh and something these brilliant game designers didn't consider as well.
In ME1 and ME2 you were used to get a choice for the next thing Shepard says. It bacame a given and you accepted it as part of the game. It never broke the flow because it was part of it.

In ME3, every time after 5 minutes of auto-dialog a choice (between two options) comes up it really breaks the flow, because you as the player are already used to a passive stance. Then when Shepard doesn't do anything you "wake up" and realize now it is time to actually participate in the game.
That's not flow, that's indecisive, bad game design.

Modifié par DaJe, 21 mai 2012 - 08:29 .

[jojon2se]

Agreed: Long unskippable what-amounts-to cutscenes (wow, trying to correct one's badly imported face over and over again, with that monolith of a beginning... found it fastest to alt-F4 out and restart the game), really does rip the game out of the player's hands.

I actually found myself wondering whether BW had consulted Kojima.

[CrystalCircuit]

Usually it didn't bother me. There were a couple instances that really annoyed me though.

[Terror_K]

I have to say, "cinematic purposes" and "good dialogue flow" don't really explain why there was so much autodialogue in places like The Normandy and The Citadel, and why your crew were given the Zaeed/Kasumi treatment more often than not. What is "cinematic" about Shepard just standing there babbling on as the person they talk to just speaks back when it doesn't even go into a cinematic camera change or style, let alone give players any input.

If it's about immersion, there's few things more immersion-breaking than your Shepard just saying things without input you often feel they wouldn't say because the game doesn't want to give you control unless it has to.

On top of that, if it's going to give dialogue options at certain points anyway, why only two 95% of the time? And why so few Charm/Intimidate ones.

BioWare is becoming too focused on creating "interactive cinema" as opposed to creating RPGs, and they've actually been making it less interactive as a result.

[Swimming Ferret]

I got annoyed with the autodialogue; my Shepard just wouldn't shut up or she would say really stupid crap. I wanted to smack her sometimes.

"WE FIGHT OR WE DIE!!!11!!!JKAJKFKLFL;A!!!"

Modifié par Swimming Ferret, 21 mai 2012 - 09:43 .

[Icinix]

DaJe wrote...

Abreu Road wrote...

They intended to keep the dialogues high level.

"Intended"...
We fight or we die.

This isn't about tactics, this is about survival.

Thes citadel? The fight is here.



They did it to cut corners and justify it with "cinematic flow". As if ME2 didn't have enough cinematic flow.

But everyone knows that people play games to watch cutscenes. Makes perfect sense.

Interactivity? Choice? Let some other type of media take care of that like....uhmmm...like....hm?


Oh and something these brilliant game designers didn't consider as well.
In ME1 and ME2 you were used to get a choice for the next thing Shepard says. It bacame a given and you accepted it as part of the game. It never broke the flow because it was part of it.

In ME3, every time after 5 minutes of auto-dialog a choice (between two options) comes up it really breaks the flow, because you as the player are already used to a passive stance. Then when Shepard doesn't do anything you "wake up" and realize now it is time to actually participate in the game.
That's not flow, that's indecisive, bad game design.

there was actually times in ME3 cutscenes where they dragged on without any player interaction that I actually left and did things in the kitchen before coming back. This was an area that BioWare really dropped the ball. Don't get me wrong, their cinematics and in game cutscenes are all pretty cool - but what made Mass Effect great was that player control through them.

[Karlone123]

Terror_K wrote...

I think it's a sign of the direction BioWare is heading: less dialogue choice, more railroading, etc. as their games go away from being proper RPGs and head more into the style of cinematic, story-driven action games.

I'm also still suspicious that Kinect was somewhat responsible: there's less chances of it choosing the wrong options if there just aren't enough of them.

One of the worst moves BioWare made, IMO. I hated this more than the bad ending. Another case of BioWare dumbing down their games, taking away choice and RPG aspects and another example of them just removing choices and consequences entirely, railroading not only the player, but our Shepards and the story as a whole.

I'd never use Kinect, Bioware tried to please all but didn't work with it's new installments e.g. story mode, action mode, Kinect and the combat system and Mac Walters. So they removed a percentage of RPG yet again to make room for action. This was done DA2 and it's somewhat saddening to see it again in my all time favourite gaming series.

[Karlone123]

Nyoka wrote...

Just remembered...

Man, threads like this really make me question the intelligence of the community. Yes, sometimes there are less dialogue choices. Sometimes there are more. Jeez, peeps.

The intelligence and behaviour of the community is disgusting at times but people do hate it when something they like is fixed even though it wasn't broken and put in new things that they really tend to hate.

Modifié par Karlone123, 21 mai 2012 - 03:11 .

[Karlone123]

Icinix wrote...

DaJe wrote...

Abreu Road wrote...

They intended to keep the dialogues high level.

"Intended"...
We fight or we die.

This isn't about tactics, this is about survival.

Thes citadel? The fight is here.



They did it to cut corners and justify it with "cinematic flow". As if ME2 didn't have enough cinematic flow.

But everyone knows that people play games to watch cutscenes. Makes perfect sense.

Interactivity? Choice? Let some other type of media take care of that like....uhmmm...like....hm?


Oh and something these brilliant game designers didn't consider as well.
In ME1 and ME2 you were used to get a choice for the next thing Shepard says. It bacame a given and you accepted it as part of the game. It never broke the flow because it was part of it.

In ME3, every time after 5 minutes of auto-dialog a choice (between two options) comes up it really breaks the flow, because you as the player are already used to a passive stance. Then when Shepard doesn't do anything you "wake up" and realize now it is time to actually participate in the game.
That's not flow, that's indecisive, bad game design.

there was actually times in ME3 cutscenes where they dragged on without any player interaction that I actually left and did things in the kitchen before coming back. This was an area that BioWare really dropped the ball. Don't get me wrong, their cinematics and in game cutscenes are all pretty cool - but what made Mass Effect great was that player control through them.

Yeah like the first meeting with the council in ME3 is a good example.

[Karlone123]

DaJe wrote...

Abreu Road wrote...

They intended to keep the dialogues high level.

"Intended"...
We fight or we die.

This isn't about tactics, this is about survival.

Thes citadel? The fight is here.



They did it to cut corners and justify it with "cinematic flow". As if ME2 didn't have enough cinematic flow.

But everyone knows that people play games to watch cutscenes. Makes perfect sense.

Interactivity? Choice? Let some other type of media take care of that like....uhmmm...like....hm?


Oh and something these brilliant game designers didn't consider as well.
In ME1 and ME2 you were used to get a choice for the next thing Shepard says. It bacame a given and you accepted it as part of the game. It never broke the flow because it was part of it.

In ME3, every time after 5 minutes of auto-dialog a choice (between two options) comes up it really breaks the flow, because you as the player are already used to a passive stance. Then when Shepard doesn't do anything you "wake up" and realize now it is time to actually participate in the game.
That's not flow, that's indecisive, bad game design.

More player interaction in combat and less player interaction in RPG terms to put it simply.

Modifié par Karlone123, 21 mai 2012 - 03:13 .

[Karlone123]

HiroVoid wrote...

It's not laziness. Its streamlining. Bioware's constantly looking for that bigger audience.

Overlooking some of us.

[Karlone123]

Swimming Ferret wrote...

I got annoyed with the autodialogue; my Shepard just wouldn't shut up or she would say really stupid crap. I wanted to smack her sometimes.

"WE FIGHT OR WE DIE!!!11!!!JKAJKFKLFL;A!!!"

You click one line of dialogue and shepard talks in paragraphs.

[b09boy]

I recall pointing out this problem quite a few times in the months leading up to release. The previews and demo showed a distinct lack of dialogue options, even during the few conversations we witnessed, but there were still a couple options available here and there so we could see it wasn't in Action mode. But when this concern was brought up what was the response from Bioware? People who were concerned over it were, let's not mince words, called stupid for believing what we had seen was indicative of what we would see in the final product.

This was one of the major disappointments in the game and one of the primary reasons I simply won't be buying from Bioware any longer without first knowing that whatever they create is solid, months after any hype has died down and the price has dropped. Don't care what they decide to put for preorder bonuses, that just makes me want to avoid the title all the more by this point. I became a fan of this company for one major reason and it sure wasn't gameplay.

Modifié par b09boy, 21 mai 2012 - 03:48 .

[AlanC9]

Did Karlone123 just set a board record for most consecutive posts? I don't think I've ever seen six before.

Modifié par AlanC9, 21 mai 2012 - 05:14 .

[matthewmi]

There is tons of dialogue in ME3 I've read that is over 40,000 lines of dialogue somewhere in a story that is a lot. There are less neutral options for sure. I think they were going for a more cinematic feel in some of the scenes allowing movement while talking. Each time there is a dialogue wheel there is a pause to let players think it breaks up a scene if they have to stop walking/moving. I like the dialogue changes for the most part, there are a few times where I wish there was a paragon renegade interrupt available.

Modifié par matthewmi, 21 mai 2012 - 05:21 .

[Karlone123]

AlanC9 wrote...

Did Karlone123 just set a board record for most consecutive posts? I don't think I've ever seen six before.

Make it seven.