131 réponses à ce sujet

[Il Divo]

SebastianDA wrote...

I understand that video games as a medium can only code so much, and provide so many options. That is why I am not really receptive to the autodialogue complaints. I really still feel Shepard is a pre-determined character with just a small grid of variations that you can control, most of which have no real impact on the character's trajectory.

That video games can only code so much isn't really an argument, when previous Bioware games were able to provide a more interactive Shepard. You're still confusing Shepard being pre-determined with the player having no control over influencing Shepard. Sure, there's going to be contradictions and there's going to be points where the player doesn't have the option he wants, but that's still not a good argument for why dialogue should be continually removed.

[Il Divo]

RiouHotaru wrote...

Neutral dialogue was pointless half the time. I'm fairly darn sure most of you didn't pick the middle option during ME1 or 2. I know I certainly didn't especially during ME2, I think the only times I picked "neutral" options was on Horizon.

And, as the last time you posted this, you'd be wrong. You're doing a bad job of establishing a general trend by using only your experiences as a basis. Ex: I tend to do renegade playthroughs- I'm sure most players only chose renegade options, so we should get rid of everything else. That's the essence of your logic.

Modifié par Il Divo, 04 juin 2012 - 05:51 .

[chemiclord]

Il Divo wrote...

RiouHotaru wrote...

Neutral dialogue was pointless half the time. I'm fairly darn sure most of you didn't pick the middle option during ME1 or 2. I know I certainly didn't especially during ME2, I think the only times I picked "neutral" options was on Horizon.

And, as the last time you posted this, you'd be wrong. You're doing a bad job of establishing a general trend by using only your experiences as a basis. Ex: I tend to do renegade playthroughs- I'm sure most players only chose renegade options, so we should get rid of everything else. That's the essence of your logic.

Whether or not you liked it or not is fairly irrelevant to the big picture.

That big picture told Bioware this was what fans wanted.  Maybe if more people like you had spoken up when other fans were whining non-stop about how cumbersome the dialogue wheel was, this wouldn't have happened.

Honestly, I think a lot of the problems that have occurred with game elements in this series was because Bioware listened too MUCH to fan complaints than too LITTLE.  They were catering to the demands of people who frankly were NEVER going to be content or satisfied with the end result.

[NRieh]

Shepard will always be a Marine and have his history already chosen. He neither has the depth of say Geralt

Geralt of Rivia?! Geralt is MUCH MORE premade then Shep, actually. For those people who read books, at least, you know. This is a complete and canonized character of a Sapkovsky's world, with little room for variations!Same with any other Withcer chars, locations and events. And those who read, knew him perfectly well long before game industry reached him. Or (at least) watched Polish series (which treated book well). No matter what they did to him to "fix" the lore issue - it stinks even more then all the autodialogues and Horizons combined.

And "Marine Shepard" may "officialy" have 3 different backgrounds+3 different profiles, even apart from any further choices and actions and aligments (go do combinations math yourself). And don't tell me spacer\\ruthless and earthborn\\war hero are supposed to be exactly same "Marine Shepards". It does not matter to YOU, unless entirely affects each line and action? Well...happens, I guess...

[ME..]That's not an RPG to me...

And may I ask what is? BG? NWN? Or ADOM, probably?

ADnD? GURPS? SPECIAL?

I'm with "live" RPGs since I was a kid, we did it long before we got PCs and consoles, and did not even know those are called "RPG". It did not need anything xept for pen and paper (and some dices). I used to both play and GM, and I know that "total freedom" is a dangerous thing even at the table, you either keep story (preferably, without trying to overpower players too much), or story falls apart into chaos.

Was any party member "free" to say " you know, we are not going to fight that dragon, I think dragons are cool"? Or " I don't feel like andevturing today - I'd rather stay with that lady in a tavern"?

Even "prototype" RPGs had logical restrictions. Feelings, emotions and relations were player-side - always. But not really actions and absolutely not consequences of player's actions.


And once again - we all understand, that videogame has limited capacity of any kind of freedom. To think it over - RL is not much different about "freedom of choices" as well, you can find a job or you can ask your dad for creds, or you can rob a bank... some variety - sure, but not infinite no-repeating ways.   

Modifié par Nrieh, 04 juin 2012 - 08:06 .

[Sebby]

I knew Shepard wasn't my character when s/he started saying stupid **** like comparing the genophage to the FCW.

[Terror_K]

Prior to ME3, we at least got to guide Shepard, even if they weren't fully ours. And on top of that, you could help forge your Shepard's personality in different ways. While Shepard is always a hero, a full-on Paragon Shepard is rather quite different from a full-on Renegade one, with many shades in-between influenced by various factors, including background and how we as players perceive different Shepard's reacting to different situations.

Now with ME3 Shepard is pretty much the same for almost every playthrough, and because he/she says things automatically so often and is so restricted in dialogue options, it's just so common for Shepard to suddenly act out of character, saying things that certain Shepards would just never say because every Shepard now just says it.

Shepard's gone from being personal and somewhat malleable into no more different, unique or "ours" than Batman from the Arkham games, Kratos from God of War, Marcus Fenix from Gears of War, Nathan Drake from Uncharted, etc. And games like The Witcher 1&2 which actually had a more defined protagonist are actually even more personal now and give the player more power over the way they help define Geralt.

[wright1978]

If Bioware wants to make linear shooters with none of their traditional RPG character dialogue control functions then that's their prerogative. I do take issue with the fact they couldn't have waited till the ME3 series was over, didn't mockingly call one of the modes RPG mode and didn't tell all and sundry beforehand that players would have exactlythe same control as before.

[Il Divo]

chemiclord wrote...

Whether or not you liked it or not is fairly irrelevant to the big picture.

As with any element. But his statement did not say this. His statement was that he did not choose any neutral options, ergo no one did. ****** poor arguments help no one.

That big picture told Bioware this was what fans wanted.  Maybe if more people like you had spoken up when other fans were whining non-stop about how cumbersome the dialogue wheel was, this wouldn't have happened.

 We already have statements from Mac Walters indicating that autodialogue was discarded because he wanted to make ME3 more similar to Uncharted. And there's also the fact that Kinect is more difficult to implement with more dialogue options. That some people were complaining about how cumbersome the dialogue wheel was, that was never a significant complaint on here, certainly not on the scale of arguments against the Mako or the RPG elements of ME2. Far as I recall, we also had statements from twitter indicating that the neutral options hadn't been discarded in the full game.

Modifié par Il Divo, 04 juin 2012 - 12:16 .

[The Sarendoctrinator]

SebastianDA wrote...

Thanks everyone for their replies.

I think the crowd I was most confused by were those who really went out of their way to criticize virtually everything Shepard said that they didn't agree with. For example, I saw a few people post, "MY Shepard would not be talking about Ashley's death. I didn't like Ashley and thought she was a bigot. <autodialogue rant>"

To those people, who really felt that they should have had so much control over the character that they could choose whether Shepard should comment on past characters, or care about them, etc. really concerned me because they seemed to think that the prior games provided such options and control. I never felt that way.

One of the things that I really liked from ME1 and ME2 was that it gave options to select how Shepard felt about the Virmire sacrifice. In ME1, there was a conversation with the survivor about dealing with this death that had three choices, ranging from sympathy to accepting the possibility that soldiers will die to grieving after the war is over. At the beginning of ME2, Shepard was asked how he/she felt about the sacrifice on Virmire, and again there was a choice (two this time, I believe) that Shepard could feel guilt about this or not. Add to that the fact that it's possible to play a Shepard in ME1 and ME2 who doesn't show Ashley any kindness at all.

Although, I'd like to point out that when the time comes for Shepard to mention Ashley in ME3, it's only the Paragon option that does this. The Renegade dialogue avoids it, if I remember right.

RiouHotaru wrote...

Neutral dialogue was pointless half the time. I'm fairly darn sure most of you didn't pick the middle option during ME1 or 2. I know I certainly didn't especially during ME2, I think the only times I picked "neutral" options was on Horizon.

Like I said the last time you posted this, I used the neutral options a lot. That dialogue choice I mentioned above, where Shepard can say that he/she would grieve later? One of my favorites in the entire series, and also a neutral option.

chemiclord wrote...

But there's a lot of issues that really... the fans have no one to blame but themselves for.

This entire discussion about the dialogue options?  Wanna know why its that way?  Because fans complained incessently about 4-5 choices that all wound up saying the same thing and breaking the flow of the conversation.  They then LOVED how it was handled in Lair of the Shadow Broker.

Shockingly, Bioware gave fans more of it.  Less shockingly, fans now claim they hate it.

I think these are just different sets of fans. I never played LotSB (or any DLC), but didn't like what I read about all the autodialogue. Most of the people on BSN that I talked with said they hated the autodialogue and forced friendships. I've seen comments from people who liked it, of course - but not the same people who said otherwise before ME3.

Modifié par The Sarendoctrinator, 04 juin 2012 - 09:41 .

[AdamJenson]

He wasn't YOUR Shepard because you were playing with MY Shepard. Quit playing with MY Shepard and get your own.

[inko1nsiderate]

o Ventus wrote...

The argument is made because ME3 restricts the player control to such a staggering degree, which ME1+2 never did. The control wasn't infinite, but it was more than we have now.

It's not a fallacy, since there is no established canon the the ME universe (Barring the overarching story elements, like Saren and the Collectors). So yes, every Shepard is the product and creation of the player and is under their whim, to an extent.

The argument is at least partially incorrect.  Replay ME1.  A good deal of the time you are presented with 2 options with the dialogue on both sides of the wheel (as opposed to the Paragon/Renegade choice) you say the same lines regardless of which one you choose.  This is bridging dialogue that got automated in ME3.  Moreover, in a lot of the times you are presented with 3 dialogue options, the middle option is actually the top or bottom option (as in when the middle option is selected you deliever the same dialogue as the top or bottom choice as it switches in each dialogue).  Sometimes it isn't, and represents an actual third option, but this is often only for 'big decisions' type dialogue.  ME2 did have significantly less 'fake choice diaglogue' choice, but it still had some.  ME3 eliminated this misleading dialogue and fake dialogue and gives you what seems like far less choice, but is certainly comparable to the actual amount of choice you have in ME1.

Frankly, it really pisses me off how many times ME1 presents the dialogue as if you had a choie, only to deliever the same lines regardless of which option you choose.  I'd rather be presented with the choices I actually have, even if it means increased auto-dialogue.

Modifié par inko1nsiderate, 04 juin 2012 - 10:07 .

[Cybernetic_Queen]

Personally I think that a person can in a way "own" a Shepard, far more than any other character in RPGs with set canon (ie, any Final Fantasy character, Revan from KotOR, etc).

Think of it like actors in a play. Find 10 actors to play the same role, each being removed from seeing the other's preformances and you'll have 10 different characters (or close enough to it). You see this all the time in Shakespeare. The best and most simple example: Hamlet is either mad, or the best manipulator of all time, depending on how he is played.

This is amplified for Shepard. Leaving aside certain small details like inko1nsiderate said, that are the exact same whichever option you pick, you have a HUGE variety of choice. Take a Paragon Female Shepard Adept from a War Hero, Spacer background is the same character as a Renegade Male Shep. Soldier with Ruthless and... Orphan/Earth? (IIRC), and tell me they're the same character, or rather that your choices didn't influence the way they act. As for ME3... Take aside the small dialogue options (which could be described as pressure of war) and take into account the big options. Even the final 3 are huge decisions Shepard have to make (even if people don't like em ;P )

[chemiclord]

inko1nsiderate wrote...

The argument is at least partially incorrect.  Replay ME1.  A good deal of the time you are presented with 2 options with the dialogue on both sides of the wheel (as opposed to the Paragon/Renegade choice) you say the same lines regardless of which one you choose.  This is bridging dialogue that got automated in ME3.  Moreover, in a lot of the times you are presented with 3 dialogue options, the middle option is actually the top or bottom option (as in when the middle option is selected you deliever the same dialogue as the top or bottom choice as it switches in each dialogue).  Sometimes it isn't, and represents an actual third option, but this is often only for 'big decisions' type dialogue.  ME2 did have significantly less 'fake choice diaglogue' choice, but it still had some.  ME3 eliminated this misleading dialogue and fake dialogue and gives you what seems like far less choice, but is certainly comparable to the actual amount of choice you have in ME1.

Frankly, it really pisses me off how many times ME1 presents the dialogue as if you had a choie, only to deliever the same lines regardless of which option you choose.  I'd rather be presented with the choices I actually have, even if it means increased auto-dialogue.

It boils down to the illusion of choice, which leads to the illusion of ownership.

The many different "options" that really weren't options at all... how many fans honestly played through the game so many times that they realized that Shepard was actually saying the same damn thing?  The autodialogue in ME3 shattered that illusion of choice, and people realized, "This isn't mine."

What they're tripping on is the fact that it never really was theirs at any point.  The illusion has been shattered... much like when a magician's tricks are revealed, the act never holds the same majesty, something very similar has happened here.

[JamieCOTC]

o Ventus wrote...

The argument is made because ME3 restricts the player control to such a staggering degree, which ME1+2 never did. The control wasn't infinite, but it was more than we have now.

It's not a fallacy, since there is no established canon the the ME universe (Barring the overarching story elements, like Saren and the Collectors). So yes, every Shepard is the product and creation of the player and is under their whim, to an extent.

Yep.

Patrick Weekes responded to Shepard being on "auto-pilot" via Twitter at the end of April.

Q: I did wish there were more dialogue choices (felt at times like Shep was on auto-pilot), but it didn't wreck the game for me.

A: autodialog a bit different. Partly to make it easier to do so many scenes, yes...
https://twitter.com/...830019866210304

Weekes continues to dsicuss the subject.

...but also to get more natural dialog. Hard to make impactful, player-involved scene when you pick each line.
https://twitter.com/...830230780973056

We're looking at reception. I can see times I wish we'd had another choice -- but also times choices we HAD clunked the scene.
https://twitter.com/...830519156150272

did you play LotSB? Tried middle ground, using interrupts to take over conversation. Problem: people missed 'em.
https://twitter.com/...834018644340736

always after interface that balances player control, ability to make fast, emotional, cinematic scenes. Never perfect. Yet.
https://twitter.com/...834845899489280

I hated the autodialogue too, even though w/ my main Shep I was lucky. About 90% of the dialogue fit  to the choices I had made in the previous game.  It sounded like her. 

Modifié par JamieCOTC, 04 juin 2012 - 10:36 .

[WizenSlinky0]

The problem with the basic premise of this thread is that it appears to come from a place of detachment. If from the very beginning of the franchise you never felt any sort of attachment to Shepard, the characters, or "your" world...then of course you're not going to understand what the big deal is. However, a lot of people did have that connection. They did feel like it was "their" Shepard.

There is no argument against, or for, the point of this thread because it is a subjective experience. The arguments come from two separate state of mind that can't be reconciled into a single point of view.

[Caihn]

It was my Shepard .. until ME3.

[chemiclord]

WizenSlinky0 wrote...

The problem with the basic premise of this thread is that it appears to come from a place of detachment. If from the very beginning of the franchise you never felt any sort of attachment to Shepard, the characters, or "your" world...then of course you're not going to understand what the big deal is. However, a lot of people did have that connection. They did feel like it was "their" Shepard.

There is no argument against, or for, the point of this thread because it is a subjective experience. The arguments come from two separate state of mind that can't be reconciled into a single point of view.

Well, from my angle, it's not a matter of detachement.  It's a perspective issue to me.

I cringe everytime someone talks about "their Shepard" or "their story", because there is simply NO level that it works for me.  Even if you go simply by an emotional and time investment, the players STILL pale in comparison to the creators of the work.

For every hour you put into the game, the people at Bioware have put in a hundred.  For every emotion you spent, the writers of that work felt it a hundred times over.

There is simply no measure in which a fan's investment is greater than the creator's.  Ergo, there is no measure in which the characters or the story are "yours."  It just... isn't.  I'm sorry if I have sounded dismissive or offensive, but that's just how I see it.

[iSousek]

chemiclord wrote...

WizenSlinky0 wrote...

The problem with the basic premise of this thread is that it appears to come from a place of detachment. If from the very beginning of the franchise you never felt any sort of attachment to Shepard, the characters, or "your" world...then of course you're not going to understand what the big deal is. However, a lot of people did have that connection. They did feel like it was "their" Shepard.

There is no argument against, or for, the point of this thread because it is a subjective experience. The arguments come from two separate state of mind that can't be reconciled into a single point of view.

Well, from my angle, it's not a matter of detachement.  It's a perspective issue to me.

If the whole issue starts at one's perspective then there isn't really one objective true answer 

[Feanor_II]

Of course, games have their limitations and at least at short/mid term we won't have total decission freedom.... But in ME1 & 2 I could model my Shepards personality quite well adapting to my wishes.

But now in ME3 for example with the kid, the most obvious, it doesn't suit 3 of my 4 Sheppard, also Sheppard in ME3 is quite despicefull with the Council:
- John: Never would be traumatized at that level with the kid, good hearted but strong willed and allways looking forward, doesn't forget the past but diesn't let be chained to it. Neither would he despise the Citadel Council, despite all deceptions he is loyal and supports it.
- Virgin: A hardened bastard, another war vitim wouldn't torment her. Yes, she would despise the Council for their inefficiency.
- Sam: Another traumatic dead on his shoulder... a heavier burden.... His attitude towardws the Council is similar than Virgine's, but he is a bit more marally "corrupt". (To some extent like the tipical movie cop who is alcoholic, accept bribes and is traumatized by a failure on his past)
- Kate: An Iron Soldier, wouldn't waste energies crying for someone who cannot be saved, she has a mission to fulfill. Wouldn't despise the Council, she is a soldier and the Council is above her in the command chain, it's not up to her to judge them.

None of them is comfortable with the excesively fixated personality.

[chemiclord]

iSousek wrote...
If the whole issue starts at one's perspective then there isn't really one objective true answer 

Sure there is.  It just means that depending on your perspective, you don't see/hear/comprehend what you might from another perspective.

In this case, however, probably not.  I understand why people say "my Shepard", but when I inherently dismiss the very premise, there can be no middle ground reached.

[mopotter]

RiouHotaru wrote...

Neutral dialogue was pointless half the time. I'm fairly darn sure most of you didn't pick the middle option during ME1 or 2. I know I certainly didn't especially during ME2, I think the only times I picked "neutral" options was on Horizon.

Maybe not most, but certainily some of us did use and miss the neutral option.  I know I did.  I wanted a neutral Shepard.  I had a rather balanced Shepard who couldn't sway both parties in a disagreement but that's what I was looking for in some of my Shepards.  I had the Paragon and the slightly Renegade Shepards also.  

I didn't have just one Shepard and  I missed the neutral option in ME3.  I missed having  many and diverse dialogue options in ME3.  I was always the VS friend but people who weren't, should have had to option of saying something.

For me,  My Shepards in ME1 were mind.  Some started fading away in ME2 but for the most part still mostly mine. They are pretty much gone in ME3.  I do of course have one or two who fit fine in ME3 but that leaves a number of them who must have had a unrecognized medical problem or maybe some drug abuse which caused a personality change in ME3.   Especially the ones who were neutral, not obsessed with paragon or renegade results.

[WizenSlinky0]

chemiclord wrote...

WizenSlinky0 wrote...

The problem with the basic premise of this thread is that it appears to come from a place of detachment. If from the very beginning of the franchise you never felt any sort of attachment to Shepard, the characters, or "your" world...then of course you're not going to understand what the big deal is. However, a lot of people did have that connection. They did feel like it was "their" Shepard.

There is no argument against, or for, the point of this thread because it is a subjective experience. The arguments come from two separate state of mind that can't be reconciled into a single point of view.

Well, from my angle, it's not a matter of detachement.  It's a perspective issue to me.

I cringe everytime someone talks about "their Shepard" or "their story", because there is simply NO level that it works for me.  Even if you go simply by an emotional and time investment, the players STILL pale in comparison to the creators of the work.

For every hour you put into the game, the people at Bioware have put in a hundred.  For every emotion you spent, the writers of that work felt it a hundred times over.

There is simply no measure in which a fan's investment is greater than the creator's.  Ergo, there is no measure in which the characters or the story are "yours."  It just... isn't.  I'm sorry if I have sounded dismissive or offensive, but that's just how I see it.

Except that the product Bioware put out has no story until the player actually puts it together. It's part of how the choice-based system works. Even if you consider the choices insignificant they are still there, and require the player to deviate in different directions. You're considering things on a hard, creation level. But what they create is flat, barren, and broken. Not to say it isn't amazing but the player is REQUIRED by the nature of both the medium and their creative choices...to produce the content of the story.

In that way, the "story" belongs to the player in a sense. If a multitude of people can play the same game and have different stories there is no way to get around the fact the player is a unique and necessary part of producing the story.

It's a complex issue. I don't necessarily see it as "my" shepard except in the sense that I produced the story with the tools they created. I really just like the game. The autodialogue was terrible for me not because I didn't have the choices I wanted, but because I like choices in my games. The more the better. But I can definitely see why people would see it as "theirs" because on some level it is.

As soon as someone is asked to participate, on some level, in putting the story together it can be considered unique to them. This is different from say, a book, that is a passive consumption of information. We can process it in different ways but the story and text is still the same. Video games are an active medium. That is where the complexity lies.

Modifié par WizenSlinky0, 05 juin 2012 - 12:23 .

[chemiclord]

Say I build a bike, and let you ride it. Does that make the bike yours?

Yes, I use a very hard, logical definition of the term, because that is the only one that counts.

Modifié par chemiclord, 05 juin 2012 - 12:27 .

[WizenSlinky0]

The bike provides the same experience every time. It is a passive experience.