131 réponses à ce sujet

[mopotter]

chemiclord wrote...

lillitheris wrote...

chemiclord wrote...

It seems silly to lose your mind over a structure that you had absolutely no problem with the first two times.

You don’t understand what the difference is even with the explanations provided, and that’s fine.

Just please understand that a huge amount of people do see a difference, regardless of how illusory you think it is.

I guess I just don't get it.  Maybe you can "clarify" it for me.

I can understand being furious with Casey Hudson for pretty much outright lying about the content of the game... and if that had been my sole reason for buying it, I'd be furious too.

But I didn't listen to a word of that tool's promises, nor did I buy the game solely for them, and I think if everyone here was being honest, they weren't sold on the game by Hudson either.  They were going to buy it regardless.  It's an excuse to be angry, not a reason.

There's plenty of things to not like about ME3.  The ending (I refuse to give that abortion a plural) was atrocious; it looked like Mac Walters composed a first draft and called it good.

There are also a **** ton of bugs and continuity errors that deserve to be pointed out, as well as how little impact your ME2 squadmates have on ME3 (Hey Padok... I mean, Mordin.  I'm sorry, the both of you pretty much do the exact same thing, it's hard to tell you apart sometimes).

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.

All that exploration that fans claimed they loved?  They sure had a funny way of showing it, considering they venomously hated every attempt by Bioware to do it.

The steady loss of RPG elements?  Yeah, also steadily cut because of fan complaints.

Blaming Bioware for doing what the fans wanted, then screaming at them afterwards for doing so... sorry, that doesn't make much sense to me.

You see, I did trust Casey.  He told those of us who didn't think we would like ME1` becuase of the shooter aspects that we would be surprised and happy.  I was surprised and very happy with it.  He told us in ME2 that the VS was not there becuase they didn't want to risk them being killed and that we would see them again.  I belived him and they are in ME3.  So I believed him when he talked about ME3.  I belived BioWare's representatives when they said ME3 would bring the series to a grand finish.  When I started hearing the rumors I ignored them because I trusted.  I pre-ordered ME3 because I trusted.    Well, they have lost my trust and I find that very sad.

I have thought about Shadow broker dlc.  I tend to think a lot of the love was because everyone missed the ME1 threesome and this featured one of them.  I saw a lot of hope that the VS would each have their own dlc like it.  And I do remember seeing complaints by people who don't like Liara about being forced to be nicer to her than they wanted, so not everyone loved it and I'm not positive it was even a majority.

And the complaint about all the dialog sounding the same no matter which option you picked is a valid one.  When you play a game that has options like paragon, neutral, renegade you should have dialogue that reflects different words depending on your choice.  One of my favorite is when your talking to Harken in ME3 and you have 3 different options to his sweetheart  comment. and when they see the Thorian and there are 3 different reactions.  This should be the norm.

ME3, just seems to me that they got tired of working with Shepard and wanted it over so got rid of some options and made it a movie with the occasional dialogue choice.  

[chemiclord]

WizenSlinky0 wrote...

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

But you could take it down the street.  You could take it up into the mountains.  You could take it on a trail next to a lake.  The experience could be different every time... but it still wouldn't change the fact the bike is not yours, and I could take it back at any time I wanted.

[WizenSlinky0]

chemiclord wrote...

WizenSlinky0 wrote...

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

But you could take it down the street.  You could take it up into the mountains.  You could take it on a trail next to a lake.  The experience could be different every time... but it still wouldn't change the fact the bike is not yours, and I could take it back at any time I wanted.

You can read a book upside down or by a fountain but the experience is still rigid, passive. It provides the same experience. A book contains a story and a bike moves on two wheels.

The game does not. It deviates. Something can happen in one shepards story that another shepards story doesn't even come close to experiencing. In this way, it actively relies on the player for input and choices to produce the story.

Each story is therefore a unique creation of the player within the constraints of the game.

[chemiclord]

WizenSlinky0 wrote...

You can read a book upside down or by a fountain but the experience is still rigid, passive. It provides the same experience. A book contains a story and a bike moves on two wheels.

The game does not. It deviates. Something can happen in one shepards story that another shepards story doesn't even come close to experiencing. In this way, it actively relies on the player for input and choices to produce the story.

Each story is therefore a unique creation of the player within the constraints of the game.

A game CAN deviate.  It doesn't HAVE to.  There are perfectly linear games out there.  Whatever choice is given to you is given to you by the people who created and own it, and I wouldn't even call it choice, really.

If I say, "You can choose Path A or Path B", but at the end they both lead to Point C... is that really a choice?  Not to me.  That's the ILLUSION of choice.

[mopotter]

chemiclord wrote...

ItsTheTruth wrote...

It is a RPG, you're supposed to be able to control Shepard and define his attitude to some degree; instead in the beginning of ME3 you watch a dumb US marine spout nonsense then take orders between explosions for 15 minutes.

I'd be kinda hard pressed to call Mass Effect an RPG, honestly.

Then again, I really don't consider MOST of the video games that call themselves RPGs to be such either.  You really don't create the character more than choose a handful of options... at best.  It is entirely up to the game's writers just how much rope they give you.  If they choose to give you a lot, great.  If they choose to give you little, that's their right too.

That's not an RPG to me... it's more akin to a Choose Your Own Adventure.

Is it a GOOD thing to suddenly turn the rope into a noose and wrap it around a players neck?  No.  It's in fact, quite stupid.  But hey, it's their right to do so.  Just like it's my right to never buy another one of their products ever again.  And as it stands, I won't be.

Courious as to what game is an RPG to you?  For me I have to be able to create my character M or F and I have to have stats fo some kind that I can put where I want and have dialogue choices.  I don't have a lot of games needles to say.

I won't be pre-ordering anything for a long long long time if ever.  Whether or not I purchase it will depend on what I find out after it's released.  UGH  This is so sad.  

[WizenSlinky0]

chemiclord wrote...

WizenSlinky0 wrote...

You can read a book upside down or by a fountain but the experience is still rigid, passive. It provides the same experience. A book contains a story and a bike moves on two wheels.

The game does not. It deviates. Something can happen in one shepards story that another shepards story doesn't even come close to experiencing. In this way, it actively relies on the player for input and choices to produce the story.

Each story is therefore a unique creation of the player within the constraints of the game.

A game CAN deviate.  It doesn't HAVE to.  There are perfectly linear games out there.  Whatever choice is given to you is given to you by the people who created and own it, and I wouldn't even call it choice, really.

If I say, "You can choose Path A or Path B", but at the end they both lead to Point C... is that really a choice?  Not to me.  That's the ILLUSION of choice.

Bioware essentially creates the constraints. They produce text that has no meaning until the player gives it. Admittedly, it's a very constrained model of an active text, but an active text nonetheless. Yes, a game doesn't HAVE to deviate. It can be a passive experience (except if you want to talk rigid, technicalities...in which case having to hit any button ever is in a way "actively" producing the content. But I don't really feel like getting into that).

I gained this point of view from studying new media and the hypertext format. As I once had it explained to me, say two people read a story and talk about it the next day, one person says "How about that dog, weird right?" and the friend says "What dog?". The story can sufficiently deviate that not just the interpretations are different but the actual story itself is different. This is an actively experienced story.

So although the creators can produce the constraints, the art, the text, and everything else...they cannot create the story. The story must, by both the medium and the creative decision of Bioware, be produced by the player.

Yes, people can legitmately claim it is "their" shepard. The story is uniquely produced by them. We can discuss illusion of choice vs actual choice if you'd like. In which case, I'd be taking the point of view that everything from tone to attitude in the choices produces a unique characterization that produces a unique story even if the end result is the same.

[chemiclord]

mopotter wrote...
Courious as to what game is an RPG to you?  For me I have to be able to create my character M or F and I have to have stats fo some kind that I can put where I want and have dialogue choices.  I don't have a lot of games needles to say.

I won't be pre-ordering anything for a long long long time if ever.  Whether or not I purchase it will depend on what I find out after it's released.  UGH  This is so sad.  

Among video games?  I haven't played one, and I don't think they exist.

An RPG, to me, is something where I basically build the character from scratch.  Every element of that character is my own decision.  There are video games that come close, but not quite... computer processing power pretty much requires that you don't have that total freedom of creation.

Video Games, as I've said before, can only offer the ILLUSION of control, of choice, of ownership.  I accept that.  It would be impossible to give that total freedom without having someone right there programming content for you.  I'm at the mercy of the narrative already established, and even if I wind up HATING that narrative... oh well, them's the breaks.

And not pre-ordering anything is a very good policy to begin with.  Whenever you throw down money ahead of time for a product, you're basically acting on blind faith... which, as you have now seen, can come back to bite you square on the ass.

[mopotter]

chemiclord wrote...

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.

Now this is definitely something I can agree with totally.   I think it's nice that there is a place we can all talk about what we like or dislike about their games, but I think they would have been so much better off if they had made the 3 games the way they wanted to and said - here is our game we hope you enjoy it.  

There will always be things people hate and love about the games and one of the things that brought me to them back in the day was the idea that they were making the games they wanted to play and invited me to play them too. 

[chemiclord]

WizenSlinky0 wrote...

So although the creators can produce the constraints, the art, the text, and everything else...they cannot create the story. The story must, by both the medium and the creative decision of Bioware, be produced by the player.

Yes, people can legitmately claim it is "their" shepard. The story is uniquely produced by them. We can discuss illusion of choice vs actual choice if you'd like. In which case, I'd be taking the point of view that everything from tone to attitude in the choices produces a unique characterization that produces a unique story even if the end result is the same.

And this is where we are clearly going to have an impasse.

Because, frankly, I think you're wrong.  You do not own the copyright.  You did not create the character.  You did not write the dialog.  Basically, everything that led to that disc being in your drive was NOT done by you.  You could never play the game at all, and that story would still exist.

And yes they created the story.  Every "uniquely produced" choice was in fact, produced by them, not you.  There is no option that you can exercise in that game that they did not create.  IT.  IS.  NOT.  YOURS.

This will be the last I say on the matter.  I will never sway you, and you will never sway me.

But hey, at least we've proven we can have a discussion on the internet that doesn't devolve into petty insults.  That's something, right?

Modifié par chemiclord, 05 juin 2012 - 12:58 .

[Feanor_II]

mopotter 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.

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.

Well, in my case I found myself using neutral choice specially when "building" Kate.... with an attitude like "Don't ask me, I just follow orders"............

[mopotter]

chemiclord wrote...

mopotter wrote...
Courious as to what game is an RPG to you?  For me I have to be able to create my character M or F and I have to have stats fo some kind that I can put where I want and have dialogue choices.  I don't have a lot of games needles to say.

I won't be pre-ordering anything for a long long long time if ever.  Whether or not I purchase it will depend on what I find out after it's released.  UGH  This is so sad.  

Among video games?  I haven't played one, and I don't think they exist.

An RPG, to me, is something where I basically build the character from scratch.  Every element of that character is my own decision.  There are video games that come close, but not quite... computer processing power pretty much requires that you don't have that total freedom of creation.

Video Games, as I've said before, can only offer the ILLUSION of control, of choice, of ownership.  I accept that.  It would be impossible to give that total freedom without having someone right there programming content for you.  I'm at the mercy of the narrative already established, and even if I wind up HATING that narrative... oh well, them's the breaks.

And not pre-ordering anything is a very good policy to begin with.  Whenever you throw down money ahead of time for a product, you're basically acting on blind faith... which, as you have now seen, can come back to bite you square on the ass.

Thanks.

[mopotter]

Feanor_II wrote...

mopotter 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.

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.

Well, in my case I found myself using neutral choice specially when "building" Kate.... with an attitude like "Don't ask me, I just follow orders"............

  I liked neutral.  One of mine was based on what I would hope I would do if it were real and she did a lot of neutral comments with a few paragon ones thrown in here and there.  Have to say she didn't do real well in ME2 because she didn't have the paragon or renegade passion, but this is the kind of stuff that made 1 and 2 interesting to me.  ME3 I don't have a real reason to replay it 10 - 15 or 20 times because it's pretty much the same thing each time.   i can even pick my ending choice.  Not what I was hoping for.  

[chemiclord]

SkyeHawk89 wrote...

I just wished that they listened to the fans not New Comers or the Money makers. They did take much out. The game great but need lots of fixing and working to do.

Well, here's a very harsh fact for you.

A game's lifeblood is NOT in appealing to the old fans, but enticing and bringing in new ones.

Because old fans are fickle.  You lose those fans over the course of a series... sometimes slowly, sometimes quickly.  Perhaps they get upset over a plot element and stop playing.  Maybe they decide the gameplay has gotten boring.  There need not be anything malicious about it... because people are different, and you're not always going to appeal to everyone.

Regardless, a game series that focuses entirely on its existing fanbase without appealing to a new fanbase eventually finds itself without fans.

Games are inherently going to target the "casuals" or the "new comers" or the "money makers" for that very reason.  The "fans" kinda need to accept that, or they are never going to be satisfied with any game series.  It's not betrayal, it's business.

[WizenSlinky0]

chemiclord wrote...

WizenSlinky0 wrote...

So although the creators can produce the constraints, the art, the text, and everything else...they cannot create the story. The story must, by both the medium and the creative decision of Bioware, be produced by the player.

Yes, people can legitmately claim it is "their" shepard. The story is uniquely produced by them. We can discuss illusion of choice vs actual choice if you'd like. In which case, I'd be taking the point of view that everything from tone to attitude in the choices produces a unique characterization that produces a unique story even if the end result is the same.

And this is where we are clearly going to have an impasse.

Because, frankly, I think you're wrong.  You do not own the copyright.  You did not create the character.  You did not write the dialog.  Basically, everything that led to that disc being in your drive was NOT done by you.  You could never play the game at all, and that story would still exist.

And yes they created the story.  Every "uniquely produced" choice was in fact, produced by them, not you.  There is no option that you can exercise in that game that they did not create.  IT.  IS.  NOT.  YOURS.

This will be the last I say on the matter.  I will never sway you, and you will never sway me.

But hey, at least we've proven we can have a discussion on the internet that doesn't devolve into petty insults.  That's something, right?

You're creating a distinction between the story and the elements and for no particular reason. So yes, our debate is likely just an exercise in futility. But humans do love futile endevours so here we are! A story cannot have a copyright. Everything and everybody tells a story. The story is created by the combination of the elements, the restrictions, that are given to gamers. Sometimes the only element is the story itself (a book) but sometimes the story is a combination of the elements such as character, enviroment, and plot. All of which are designed, created, and owned by Bioware.

By playing the game and mixing the elements Bioware created the player creates a unique story that is owned, in a sense, by the player. It is of course within Bioware's rights to change the elements gamers are given. I don't believe the autodialogue railroading makes the shepards any less "owned" by the players who complain about it. It's just a more restrictive version of an active consumption. I think people would be more honest if they just said a game that offers that much autodialogue doesn't appeal to their tastes rather than saying "their" shepard wouldn't do or say that. Because if they played the game he obviously would and already has.

It's the difference between liking and disliking the story they experienced. As for having a conversation with insults..not my style. I debate and engage. I see no reason to attack. It gains me nothing. And as the old saying goes, "attack the idea not the person."

chemiclord wrote...
Games are inherently going to target the
"casuals" or the "new comers" or the "money makers" for that very
reason.  The "fans" kinda need to accept that, or they are never going
to be satisfied with any game series.  It's not betrayal, it's business.

We may or may not agree here. It's definitely true a franchise can not be sustained solely on its existing fanbase. There is a natural decline in returning fans that is sometimes substantial. However, I do wish developers would recognize that targeting new players doesn't necessarily mean targeting the largest group of players. Because it essentially gains us nothing except a bunch of decent but oddly similar games. The market is oversaturated already for the market Bioware is attempting to target. They may or may not succeed to become a major player within the market...but I sadly find the niche markets slowly fading away.

I likely will not be satisfied with many, if any, game series in the near future. It's one of the reasons I play very few games anymore. None of them pique my interest. That doesn't make the games bad but it does push me out of the market since I see no reason to continually buy games that give no real satisfaction to me as a gamer anymore.

I just wish more developers would target niche markets and regain the variety of the game market that has been disappearing steadily. But it is business and I'm certainly not going to see it as some betrayal. I'll just find a new hobby. Like wood-working, Sewing, or kicking over peoples trashcans.

[lillitheris]

WizenSlinky0 wrote...

You're creating a distinction between the story and the elements and for no particular reason. So yes, our debate is likely just an exercise in futility.

It is. They have to either be trolling or be exceptionally dense to not understand the difference between trying to assert IP rights on the character Commander Shepard, and player agency, being able to relate to a character at a nearly arbitrary level.

[wright1978]

chemiclord wrote...

SkyeHawk89 wrote...

I just wished that they listened to the fans not New Comers or the Money makers. They did take much out. The game great but need lots of fixing and working to do.

Well, here's a very harsh fact for you.

A game's lifeblood is NOT in appealing to the old fans, but enticing and bringing in new ones.

Because old fans are fickle.  You lose those fans over the course of a series... sometimes slowly, sometimes quickly.  Perhaps they get upset over a plot element and stop playing.  Maybe they decide the gameplay has gotten boring.  There need not be anything malicious about it... because people are different, and you're not always going to appeal to everyone.

Regardless, a game series that focuses entirely on its existing fanbase without appealing to a new fanbase eventually finds itself without fans.

Games are inherently going to target the "casuals" or the "new comers" or the "money makers" for that very reason.  The "fans" kinda need to accept that, or they are never going to be satisfied with any game series.  It's not betrayal, it's business.

Games can try and appeal to new players, that's fine. However the mainstay of the game should be based on the existing players. That's why Bethseda didn't make Skyrim a shooter, activision doesn't make the next call of duty a rpg. Ideally you want toattract lots of new players but you shouldn't wish to butcher your own heartlands by removing aspects of the key appeal of your games as well as misinforming those people about what would be in the game

[deatharmonic]

lillitheris wrote...

WizenSlinky0 wrote...

You're creating a distinction between the story and the elements and for no particular reason. So yes, our debate is likely just an exercise in futility.

It is. They have to either be trolling or be exceptionally dense to not understand the difference between trying to assert IP rights on the character Commander Shepard, and player agency, being able to relate to a character at a nearly arbitrary level.

+1

@chemiclord - totally missing the point, we know bioware made and technically own the game and its contents. The thing is, everyone who plays has their own subjective experience of it, the story and the shepard they play. Through that subjective experience people identify on a personal level with the shepard they play which is how they're able to say 'my shepard' because there is a certain level of personal identification, even though everything was provided by bioware. saying 'my shepard' is a way of labelling ones subjective experience, so whilst shepard is not technically theirs 'my shepard' is merely a label used to signify personal experience. It's a matter of semantics.

Modifié par deatharmonic, 05 juin 2012 - 10:12 .

[jeweledleah]

allow me to give you an ice cream analogy.

imagine that you come into an ice cream shop. its a small shop, only has 3 ice cream flavors and 3 different topings. they only sell 3 scoop banana splits. but. you get to pick out exactly which flavors and which toppings go on yours. so if you want all three scoops chocolate and only whipped cream for a topping? you can have that. or if you want all 3 scoops to be different flavors and heap all 3 toppings? you can have that as well. you get to arrange the order in which the scoops are placed in the dish, as well.

this is the experience that we got in ME1 and ME2. we didn't create the flavors and toppings, but we did get to customize them.

now what happens in ME3? instead of getting an option to customize our banana split- we pick one scoop of ice cream and machine picks out everything else for us automatically. no more playing around with flavors. all chocolate or all vanilla and toppings are always the same.

the "your sundae" turned into "shop's sunday" masquerading as your sundae. if you are lucky? the 2 selections that shop decided to limit you to, are what you've been always making your sundae as, so you are fine with a shop making up your ice cream for you, since you are still getting what you came for. but far from everyone is so lucky.

I can make the same analogy using burgers.

but I hope you get the idea by now.

I used to have a variety of very different banana splits, I mean Shepards. I'd pick whichever i felt like playing at any given time and would have a unique experience each time. in ME3? they all taste essentially the same.

so yes, Shepard used to be "my Shepard" and now its just... Shepard.

Modifié par jeweledleah, 05 juin 2012 - 10:24 .

[wildannie]

jeweledleah wrote...

allow me to give you an ice cream analogy.

imagine that you come into an ice cream shop. its a small shop, only has 3 ice cream flavors and 3 different topings. they only sell 3 scoop banana splits. but. you get to pick out exactly which flavors and which toppings go on yours. so if you want all three scoops chocolate and only whipped cream for a topping? you can have that. or if you want all 3 scoops to be different flavors and heap all 3 toppings? you can have that as well. you get to arrange the order in which the scoops are placed in the dish, as well.

this is the experience that we got in ME1 and ME2. we didn't create the flavors and toppings, but we did get to customize them.

now what happens in ME3? instead of getting an option to customize our banana split- we pick one scoop of ice cream and machine picks out everything else for us automatically. no more playing around with flavors. all chocolate or all vanilla and toppings are always the same.

the "your sundae" turned into "shop's sunday" masquerading as your sundae. if you are lucky? the 2 selections that shop decided to limit you to, are what you've been always making your sundae as, so you are fine with a shop making up your ice cream for you, since you are still getting what you came for. but far from everyone is so lucky.

I can make the same analogy using burgers.

but I hope you get the idea by now.

I used to have a variety of very different banana splits, I mean Shepards. I'd pick whichever i felt like playing at any given time and would have a unique experience each time. in ME3? they all taste essentially the same.

so yes, Shepard used to be "my Shepard" and now its just... Shepard.

very well put, especially the bolded part, my  shepard (forged with the choices provided by Bioware in ME and ME2) was unrecognisable in ME3. My shepard was also Bioware's shepard, but they chose not to continue my shepards story in ME3.

[NRieh]

An RPG, to me, is something where I basically build the character from scratch. Every element of that character is my own decision. There are video games that come close, but not quite... computer processing power pretty much requires that you don't have that total freedom of creation.

You should've answered my post couple of pages ago then, I guess.
Not to make people jump links I'll repost most essential part:
---

[ME] is not a RPG for me...

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

I'm with "live" RPGs (open air LARPs, room LARPs etc, table 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 story-related restrictions. Feelings, emotions and relations were player-side - always. But not really actions, settings and absolutely not consequences of player's actions.
------

"Perfect" unrestricted RPG gameplay is something I never, actually, experienced, xept for few cases with really close friends - with such people it is THORETHICALLY possible to build a full-scale non-GMed RPG process, but it is much harder then it sounds. Everything that involves GMing and has strict setting WILL limit your freedom more or less.

And as for bike you build - it's a bad example, BW did not just build the bike, they build the bike and sold it with a bagpack of custom stuff (some of which could be purely aesthetic, but nice). Any objections that this CUSTOM bike that I payed money for and that I painted up to my liking is MINE?..

[Il Divo]

jeweledleah wrote...

allow me to give you an ice cream analogy.

imagine that you come into an ice cream shop. its a small shop, only has 3 ice cream flavors and 3 different topings. they only sell 3 scoop banana splits. but. you get to pick out exactly which flavors and which toppings go on yours. so if you want all three scoops chocolate and only whipped cream for a topping? you can have that. or if you want all 3 scoops to be different flavors and heap all 3 toppings? you can have that as well. you get to arrange the order in which the scoops are placed in the dish, as well.

this is the experience that we got in ME1 and ME2. we didn't create the flavors and toppings, but we did get to customize them.

now what happens in ME3? instead of getting an option to customize our banana split- we pick one scoop of ice cream and machine picks out everything else for us automatically. no more playing around with flavors. all chocolate or all vanilla and toppings are always the same.

the "your sundae" turned into "shop's sunday" masquerading as your sundae. if you are lucky? the 2 selections that shop decided to limit you to, are what you've been always making your sundae as, so you are fine with a shop making up your ice cream for you, since you are still getting what you came for. but far from everyone is so lucky.

I can make the same analogy using burgers.

but I hope you get the idea by now.

I used to have a variety of very different banana splits, I mean Shepards. I'd pick whichever i felt like playing at any given time and would have a unique experience each time. in ME3? they all taste essentially the same.

so yes, Shepard used to be "my Shepard" and now its just... Shepard.

Well said.

[Xellith]

Il Divo wrote...

jeweledleah wrote...

allow me to give you an ice cream analogy.

imagine that you come into an ice cream shop. its a small shop, only has 3 ice cream flavors and 3 different topings. they only sell 3 scoop banana splits. but. you get to pick out exactly which flavors and which toppings go on yours. so if you want all three scoops chocolate and only whipped cream for a topping? you can have that. or if you want all 3 scoops to be different flavors and heap all 3 toppings? you can have that as well. you get to arrange the order in which the scoops are placed in the dish, as well.

this is the experience that we got in ME1 and ME2. we didn't create the flavors and toppings, but we did get to customize them.

now what happens in ME3? instead of getting an option to customize our banana split- we pick one scoop of ice cream and machine picks out everything else for us automatically. no more playing around with flavors. all chocolate or all vanilla and toppings are always the same.

the "your sundae" turned into "shop's sunday" masquerading as your sundae. if you are lucky? the 2 selections that shop decided to limit you to, are what you've been always making your sundae as, so you are fine with a shop making up your ice cream for you, since you are still getting what you came for. but far from everyone is so lucky.

I can make the same analogy using burgers.

but I hope you get the idea by now.

I used to have a variety of very different banana splits, I mean Shepards. I'd pick whichever i felt like playing at any given time and would have a unique experience each time. in ME3? they all taste essentially the same.

so yes, Shepard used to be "my Shepard" and now its just... Shepard.

Well said.

This.  Bioware gone done screwed up.

[igreenmagei]

I'm just at the end of my second play-through of 3, playing as a renegade Shepard.
playing as her in 1 and 2 was SO different from my paragon playthroughs of those games and really made replaying into a great experience, but in 3 it barely felt different at all. I don't know if any of my other shepards are going to get a run-through of 3. It's almost pointless once you've played it once. Not to mention that without the hype and excitement of playing through the first time, you really start to notice the wear and tear around the edges of the game. It feels a little unfinished/underdeveloped.