Aller au contenu

Photo

Did Bioware focus TOO much on creating an emotional plot?


  • Veuillez vous connecter pour répondre
225 réponses à ce sujet

#101
Ryzaki

Ryzaki
  • Members
  • 34 410 messages
@dre: Which is my point. My Shepard got replaced by BW's Shepard in ME3 a vast majority of the time. And I don't give a damn about BW's Shepard and thus any emotion he tried to trigger was lost on me. Frankly it was replaced by irritation because my Shepard was gone even when it only would've took a single line difference to have him remain.

...what? That wasn't my point. My point was Shep brings Tali along because she's a tech expert. (and actually Shep can lack one if you don't have Kasumi installed). She's useful. That's why he recruits her. It has **** to do with friendship or liking her. You can't kick her off the ship once she's recruited and if she survives the SM (which isn't all that unlikely) she's still unloyal and Shep still isn't that fond of her. But the game pretends that they're BFFs and the autodialogue (that's not even OPTIONAL) reflects this.

Modifié par Ryzaki, 01 juillet 2012 - 08:01 .


#102
savionen

savionen
  • Members
  • 1 317 messages

dreman9999 wrote...

savionen wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...
Nuetrality is not an emotion, it's a beleif and concept  that can't be labled. You confusing nuetrality with indifference. 
Those oare not the same concept. A paragon or renagade have strong nuetral beliefs and be paragon or reneage.
It's the same concept of a neutral character being able to do both good and evil things.


In terms of neutrality my point was that you couldn't be indifferent in conversations. You're either the angry serious hero or you're positive serious hero. There's literally nothing else in ME3.

But that not a problem. Why is not being indiffent  a problem in a game that makes you pich choices?


Indifference is a choice that simply does not exist in ME3. Tons of people come to you, you're forced to care about their lives in ME3. You're forced to agree or disagree. But honestly, I don't care as much about neturality. The point is that I played mostly Renegade, and being pure Renegade is pretty much impossible in ME3. You're forced to care about everybody, especially the stupid kid. I mean, my Renegade Shepard chose the option on Zaeed's DLC to let all the factory workers die. There's absolutely no way a child's death would get to him.

In ME1/2 you could be a douchebag, angry, goody two shoes, saint, good cop, bad cop, a joker, or indifferent.

ME3 you're reduced to good-natured hero or angry hero.

ME1 I remember being TOTALLY brutal to Liara. It was my choice to do so. It was hilarious. Now it's like "I agree Liara" or "RAGGH I AGREE LIARA."

Modifié par savionen, 01 juillet 2012 - 08:03 .


#103
Ryzaki

Ryzaki
  • Members
  • 34 410 messages

savionen wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...

savionen wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...
Nuetrality is not an emotion, it's a beleif and concept  that can't be labled. You confusing nuetrality with indifference. 
Those oare not the same concept. A paragon or renagade have strong nuetral beliefs and be paragon or reneage.
It's the same concept of a neutral character being able to do both good and evil things.


In terms of neutrality my point was that you couldn't be indifferent in conversations. You're either the angry serious hero or you're positive serious hero. There's literally nothing else in ME3.

But that not a problem. Why is not being indiffent  a problem in a game that makes you pich choices?


Indifference is a choice that simply does not exist in ME3. Tons of people come to you, you're forced to care about their lives in ME3. You're forced to agree or disagree. But honestly, I don't care as much about neturality. The point is that I played mostly Renegade, and being pure Renegade is pretty much impossible in ME3. You're forced to care about everybody, especially the stupid kid. I mean, my Renegade Shepard chose the option on Zaeed's DLC to let all the factory workers die. There's absolutely no way a child's death would get to him.

In ME1/2 you could be a douchebag, angry, goody two shoes, saint, good cop, bad cop, a joker, or indifferent.

ME3 you're reduced to good-natured hero or angry hero.


The weird thing is you can actually get douchebag Shepard popping out at the weirdest times (like betraying Wrex once he comes to confront you and letting Samara kill herself and then killing her daughter) but during the meat of the game he's completely absent. The mind boggles. Especially since douchebag Shepard then contradicts himself hilariously by acting like a nice guy five seconds later. It's just a giant Wut?

Playing my renedouche in ME3 was painful. Felt like he was bipolar. :mellow:

#104
dreman9999

dreman9999
  • Members
  • 19 067 messages

Ryzaki wrote...

Which is my point. My Shepard got replaced by BW's Shepard in ME3 a vast majority of the time. And I don't give a damn about BW's Shepard and thus any emotion he tried to trigger was lost on me.

...what? That wasn't my point. My point was Shep brings Tali along because she's a tech expert. (and actually Shep can lack one if you don't have Kasumi installed). She's useful. That's why he recruits her. It has **** to do with friendship or liking her.



If Shep did care for Tali, why bother with her? Even wanting to use her skill bring Tali to a point of importance.  Hell, that scene can be said to be manipualtion on Sheps part as well.

#105
txgoldrush

txgoldrush
  • Members
  • 4 249 messages

savionen wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...

savionen wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...
Nuetrality is not an emotion, it's a beleif and concept  that can't be labled. You confusing nuetrality with indifference. 
Those oare not the same concept. A paragon or renagade have strong nuetral beliefs and be paragon or reneage.
It's the same concept of a neutral character being able to do both good and evil things.


In terms of neutrality my point was that you couldn't be indifferent in conversations. You're either the angry serious hero or you're positive serious hero. There's literally nothing else in ME3.

But that not a problem. Why is not being indiffent  a problem in a game that makes you pich choices?


Indifference is a choice that simply does not exist in ME3. Tons of people come to you, you're forced to care about their lives in ME3. You're forced to agree or disagree. But honestly, I don't care as much about neturality. The point is that I played mostly Renegade, and being pure Renegade is pretty much impossible in ME3. You're forced to care about everybody, especially the stupid kid. I mean, my Renegade Shepard chose the option on Zaeed's DLC to let all the factory workers die. There's absolutely no way a child's death would get to him.

In ME1/2 you could be a douchebag, angry, goody two shoes, saint, good cop, bad cop, a joker, or indifferent.

ME3 you're reduced to good-natured hero or angry hero.

ME1 I remember being TOTALLY brutal to Liara. It was my choice to do so. It was hilarious. Now it's like "I agree Liara" or "RAGGH I AGREE LIARA."


And thats ME1 and ME2's fault, because they were not consistanmt in the writing of Shepard. In the first two Shepard wasn't a real character, just in the netherwrodl of suck between an established character and a modfiable one, with the weaknesses of both. In both games, Shepard by far had the weakest dialogue, and by far is the most inconsistant in tone. Really, many of the Renegade lines in ME2 are plain stupid and do not fit. And really ME1 and ME2 didn't get what Paragon and Renegade is about, they missed the point by making Paragon's act like an angel all the time and Renegades act like jerks. Sorry, but Paragon and Renegade is about idealism vs praticalism, not nice vs jerkass.

They had two options for ME3, leave the flaw in, creating a much weaker Shepard acting out of character (why is it logical to be mean to your teammates in the first place, disagreeing with them is one thing, being pointlessly mean to them like ME1 is another) or while making the character inconsistant as a trilogy, make Shepard more defined and the morality system far more subtle. They choose th elatter.

Face it, ME1 and ME2's conversation system was badly flawed in so many ways...

#106
SpamBot2000

SpamBot2000
  • Members
  • 4 463 messages
It's a valid point I suppose. Not many games really support more than one play style, as in "you can do this in a hysterically polite or rather rude way, but you're doing it". And ME 3 certainly leaves Shep less room for a variety of attitudes, even. Guess I've gotten used to lowering my expectations in this regard.

/Edit: Also I personally feel no pressing need to play a douchy character, so I guess I'm better catered for than those who do.

Modifié par SpamBot2000, 01 juillet 2012 - 08:15 .


#107
Ryzaki

Ryzaki
  • Members
  • 34 410 messages

dreman9999 wrote...

Ryzaki wrote...

Which is my point. My Shepard got replaced by BW's Shepard in ME3 a vast majority of the time. And I don't give a damn about BW's Shepard and thus any emotion he tried to trigger was lost on me.

...what? That wasn't my point. My point was Shep brings Tali along because she's a tech expert. (and actually Shep can lack one if you don't have Kasumi installed). She's useful. That's why he recruits her. It has **** to do with friendship or liking her.



If Shep did care for Tali, why bother with her? Even wanting to use her skill bring Tali to a point of importance.  Hell, that scene can be said to be manipualtion on Sheps part as well.


I just TOLD YOU WHY! She's a top engineer! She's excellent at hacking. Shep DOESN'T have to have a dedicated Tech at the time he recruits Tali! Kasumi is DLC and you don't even know about Legion until the game's almost over!

Why the hell would he pass up a tech if he's on a Suicide Mission and has no experts in hacking? Can't always rely on EDI.

And no running after someone who jumps off a cliff isn't manipulation. As for the rock why would Shep need to manipulate her at that point? She's already fighting. She's well aware of what she's fighting for.

Didn't help that I can't stand ME3 Shepard. So whatever BW was trying to do only weakened Shep's character to me and made him repulsive.

Modifié par Ryzaki, 01 juillet 2012 - 08:17 .


#108
txgoldrush

txgoldrush
  • Members
  • 4 249 messages

Ryzaki wrote...

savionen wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...

savionen wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...
Nuetrality is not an emotion, it's a beleif and concept  that can't be labled. You confusing nuetrality with indifference. 
Those oare not the same concept. A paragon or renagade have strong nuetral beliefs and be paragon or reneage.
It's the same concept of a neutral character being able to do both good and evil things.


In terms of neutrality my point was that you couldn't be indifferent in conversations. You're either the angry serious hero or you're positive serious hero. There's literally nothing else in ME3.

But that not a problem. Why is not being indiffent  a problem in a game that makes you pich choices?


Indifference is a choice that simply does not exist in ME3. Tons of people come to you, you're forced to care about their lives in ME3. You're forced to agree or disagree. But honestly, I don't care as much about neturality. The point is that I played mostly Renegade, and being pure Renegade is pretty much impossible in ME3. You're forced to care about everybody, especially the stupid kid. I mean, my Renegade Shepard chose the option on Zaeed's DLC to let all the factory workers die. There's absolutely no way a child's death would get to him.

In ME1/2 you could be a douchebag, angry, goody two shoes, saint, good cop, bad cop, a joker, or indifferent.

ME3 you're reduced to good-natured hero or angry hero.


The weird thing is you can actually get douchebag Shepard popping out at the weirdest times (like betraying Wrex once he comes to confront you and letting Samara kill herself and then killing her daughter) but during the meat of the game he's completely absent. The mind boggles. Especially since douchebag Shepard then contradicts himself hilariously by acting like a nice guy five seconds later. It's just a giant Wut?

Playing my renedouche in ME3 was painful. Felt like he was bipolar. :mellow:


Wrong

You want to talk about bipolar, try ME1 and ME2 where trying to sway both ways results in Shepard, Bipolar Bear. In fact because ME3 makes the Renegade far more subtle and more tortured, she is LESS bipolar, even not at all. Hell, nuetral characters rule in ME3, they are amazing consistant. Why? Because they dropped the nice vs jerk element out of the Paragon and Renegade system, because IT WAS NEVER ABOUT THAT. It was about being idealistic vs being practical.

Nevermind Shepard being consistant in the tone of her voice this time while alternating between the two.

#109
dreman9999

dreman9999
  • Members
  • 19 067 messages

savionen wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...

savionen wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...
Nuetrality is not an emotion, it's a beleif and concept  that can't be labled. You confusing nuetrality with indifference. 
Those oare not the same concept. A paragon or renagade have strong nuetral beliefs and be paragon or reneage.
It's the same concept of a neutral character being able to do both good and evil things.


In terms of neutrality my point was that you couldn't be indifferent in conversations. You're either the angry serious hero or you're positive serious hero. There's literally nothing else in ME3.

But that not a problem. Why is not being indiffent  a problem in a game that makes you pich choices?


Indifference is a choice that simply does not exist in ME3. Tons of people come to you, you're forced to care about their lives in ME3. You're forced to agree or disagree. But honestly, I don't care as much about neturality. The point is that I played mostly Renegade, and being pure Renegade is pretty much impossible in ME3. You're forced to care about everybody, especially the stupid kid. I mean, my Renegade Shepard chose the option on Zaeed's DLC to let all the factory workers die. There's absolutely no way a child's death would get to him.

In ME1/2 you could be a douchebag, angry, goody two shoes, saint, good cop, bad cop, a joker, or indifferent.

ME3 you're reduced to good-natured hero or angry hero.

ME1 I remember being TOTALLY brutal to Liara. It was my choice to do so. It was hilarious. Now it's like "I agree Liara" or "RAGGH I AGREE LIARA."

Indifferance is not a choice. It's an emotion.

It's literal meaning is :Lack of interest, concern, or sympathy .

Picking anything in this game doesn't stop you from feeling indifferance.  Having to pick a choice doesn't stop indiffecance.
Nuetrality is a choice, but what choices are nuetral of not is not define by the action but by the person choosing the choice.

Modifié par dreman9999, 01 juillet 2012 - 08:17 .


#110
Ryzaki

Ryzaki
  • Members
  • 34 410 messages

txgoldrush wrote...

Ryzaki wrote...

savionen wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...

savionen wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...
Nuetrality is not an emotion, it's a beleif and concept  that can't be labled. You confusing nuetrality with indifference. 
Those oare not the same concept. A paragon or renagade have strong nuetral beliefs and be paragon or reneage.
It's the same concept of a neutral character being able to do both good and evil things.


In terms of neutrality my point was that you couldn't be indifferent in conversations. You're either the angry serious hero or you're positive serious hero. There's literally nothing else in ME3.

But that not a problem. Why is not being indiffent  a problem in a game that makes you pich choices?


Indifference is a choice that simply does not exist in ME3. Tons of people come to you, you're forced to care about their lives in ME3. You're forced to agree or disagree. But honestly, I don't care as much about neturality. The point is that I played mostly Renegade, and being pure Renegade is pretty much impossible in ME3. You're forced to care about everybody, especially the stupid kid. I mean, my Renegade Shepard chose the option on Zaeed's DLC to let all the factory workers die. There's absolutely no way a child's death would get to him.

In ME1/2 you could be a douchebag, angry, goody two shoes, saint, good cop, bad cop, a joker, or indifferent.

ME3 you're reduced to good-natured hero or angry hero.


The weird thing is you can actually get douchebag Shepard popping out at the weirdest times (like betraying Wrex once he comes to confront you and letting Samara kill herself and then killing her daughter) but during the meat of the game he's completely absent. The mind boggles. Especially since douchebag Shepard then contradicts himself hilariously by acting like a nice guy five seconds later. It's just a giant Wut?

Playing my renedouche in ME3 was painful. Felt like he was bipolar. :mellow:


Wrong

You want to talk about bipolar, try ME1 and ME2 where trying to sway both ways results in Shepard, Bipolar Bear. In fact because ME3 makes the Renegade far more subtle and more tortured, she is LESS bipolar, even not at all. Hell, nuetral characters rule in ME3, they are amazing consistant. Why? Because they dropped the nice vs jerk element out of the Paragon and Renegade system, because IT WAS NEVER ABOUT THAT. It was about being idealistic vs being practical.

Nevermind Shepard being consistant in the tone of her voice this time while alternating between the two.


If you say wrong you might want to actually prove me wrong. As for ME1 and ME2. Again it was player choice to make their Shep bioplar. You didn't choose one option only for Shep to automatically do the opposite without your input. Try again. Autodialogue steamrolled any player characterization of Shep and yes that made Shep in some cases extremely bipolar when the player would have Shep act one way but the autodialogue in another.

As for tone of voice. That was always all over the place though signficiantly less so with Meer than Hale.

Modifié par Ryzaki, 01 juillet 2012 - 08:20 .


#111
dreman9999

dreman9999
  • Members
  • 19 067 messages

Ryzaki wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...

Ryzaki wrote...

Which is my point. My Shepard got replaced by BW's Shepard in ME3 a vast majority of the time. And I don't give a damn about BW's Shepard and thus any emotion he tried to trigger was lost on me.

...what? That wasn't my point. My point was Shep brings Tali along because she's a tech expert. (and actually Shep can lack one if you don't have Kasumi installed). She's useful. That's why he recruits her. It has **** to do with friendship or liking her.



If Shep did care for Tali, why bother with her? Even wanting to use her skill bring Tali to a point of importance.  Hell, that scene can be said to be manipualtion on Sheps part as well.


I just TOLD YOU WHY! She's a top engineer! She's excellent at hacking. Shep DOESN'T have to have a dedicated Tech at the time he recruits Tali! Kasumi is DLC and you don't even know about Legion until the game's almost over!

Why the hell would he pass up a tech if he's on a Suicide Mission and has no experts in hacking? Can't always rely on EDI.

And no running after someone who jumps off a cliff isn't manipulation. As for the rock why would Shep need to manipulate her at that point? She's already fighting. She's well aware of what she's fighting for.

Didn't help that I can't stand ME3 Shepard. So whatever BW was trying to do only weakened Shep's character to me and made him repulsive.

If you have a WHY than she has an importance and a reason for caring for.

#112
rpgfan321

rpgfan321
  • Members
  • 1 311 messages

timj2011 wrote...

I like the fact that they took a chance with it


Me, too. ME3 was quite the rollar coaster, and felt I got every dollar out playing it despite the ending. They had an opportunity, with the franchise being a continuous story one game to next, and liked how they took the story even further. There were some moments where it went overboard (like the nightmare sequences), but felt like ME3's story was a bit different than previous Bioware installments. 

Just my opinion.

#113
Ryzaki

Ryzaki
  • Members
  • 34 410 messages

dreman9999 wrote...

Ryzaki wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...

Ryzaki wrote...

Which is my point. My Shepard got replaced by BW's Shepard in ME3 a vast majority of the time. And I don't give a damn about BW's Shepard and thus any emotion he tried to trigger was lost on me.

...what? That wasn't my point. My point was Shep brings Tali along because she's a tech expert. (and actually Shep can lack one if you don't have Kasumi installed). She's useful. That's why he recruits her. It has **** to do with friendship or liking her.



If Shep did care for Tali, why bother with her? Even wanting to use her skill bring Tali to a point of importance.  Hell, that scene can be said to be manipualtion on Sheps part as well.


I just TOLD YOU WHY! She's a top engineer! She's excellent at hacking. Shep DOESN'T have to have a dedicated Tech at the time he recruits Tali! Kasumi is DLC and you don't even know about Legion until the game's almost over!

Why the hell would he pass up a tech if he's on a Suicide Mission and has no experts in hacking? Can't always rely on EDI.

And no running after someone who jumps off a cliff isn't manipulation. As for the rock why would Shep need to manipulate her at that point? She's already fighting. She's well aware of what she's fighting for.

Didn't help that I can't stand ME3 Shepard. So whatever BW was trying to do only weakened Shep's character to me and made him repulsive.

If you have a WHY than she has an importance and a reason for caring for.


No. Shep needed a tech expert. Tali was the best he had available, he went with her. Later on he found Legion. More useful and Tali just became a backup. In ME2 he had no need for a tech expert because EDI had amobile platform. Tali's usefulness was strictly reglated to the Geth plot. Her usefulness had squat to do with him encouraging her about her homeworld and by the time she kills herself her usefulness is gone. Chasing after her is bleh. If it had been a paragon interrupt (and not merely diving overboard) I would've been whatever. But it's an automated action. And no this Shep has let people kill themselves if they felt it necessary before constantly in ME1 and ME2 (he doesn't stop Samara either) so him chasing after Tali is OOC.

Modifié par Ryzaki, 01 juillet 2012 - 08:24 .


#114
dreman9999

dreman9999
  • Members
  • 19 067 messages

Ryzaki wrote...

txgoldrush wrote...

Ryzaki wrote...

savionen wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...

savionen wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...
Nuetrality is not an emotion, it's a beleif and concept  that can't be labled. You confusing nuetrality with indifference. 
Those oare not the same concept. A paragon or renagade have strong nuetral beliefs and be paragon or reneage.
It's the same concept of a neutral character being able to do both good and evil things.


In terms of neutrality my point was that you couldn't be indifferent in conversations. You're either the angry serious hero or you're positive serious hero. There's literally nothing else in ME3.

But that not a problem. Why is not being indiffent  a problem in a game that makes you pich choices?


Indifference is a choice that simply does not exist in ME3. Tons of people come to you, you're forced to care about their lives in ME3. You're forced to agree or disagree. But honestly, I don't care as much about neturality. The point is that I played mostly Renegade, and being pure Renegade is pretty much impossible in ME3. You're forced to care about everybody, especially the stupid kid. I mean, my Renegade Shepard chose the option on Zaeed's DLC to let all the factory workers die. There's absolutely no way a child's death would get to him.

In ME1/2 you could be a douchebag, angry, goody two shoes, saint, good cop, bad cop, a joker, or indifferent.

ME3 you're reduced to good-natured hero or angry hero.


The weird thing is you can actually get douchebag Shepard popping out at the weirdest times (like betraying Wrex once he comes to confront you and letting Samara kill herself and then killing her daughter) but during the meat of the game he's completely absent. The mind boggles. Especially since douchebag Shepard then contradicts himself hilariously by acting like a nice guy five seconds later. It's just a giant Wut?

Playing my renedouche in ME3 was painful. Felt like he was bipolar. :mellow:


Wrong

You want to talk about bipolar, try ME1 and ME2 where trying to sway both ways results in Shepard, Bipolar Bear. In fact because ME3 makes the Renegade far more subtle and more tortured, she is LESS bipolar, even not at all. Hell, nuetral characters rule in ME3, they are amazing consistant. Why? Because they dropped the nice vs jerk element out of the Paragon and Renegade system, because IT WAS NEVER ABOUT THAT. It was about being idealistic vs being practical.

Nevermind Shepard being consistant in the tone of her voice this time while alternating between the two.


If you say wrong you might want to actually prove me wrong. As for ME1 and ME2. Again it was player choice to make their Shep bioplar. You didn't choose one option only for Shep to automatically do the opposite without your input. Try again.

As for tone of voice. That was always all over the place though signficiantly less so with Meer than Hale.

The fact you can choose to not talk to character makes the claim that he renaduche is bipolar go out the window. 
renaduche  never was apersona that verbaly attcked everyone he saw left and right. He was a character who didn't care about anyone. If you don't care about any one, why even take to them?

Modifié par dreman9999, 01 juillet 2012 - 08:24 .


#115
txgoldrush

txgoldrush
  • Members
  • 4 249 messages

Ryzaki wrote...

txgoldrush wrote...

Ryzaki wrote...

savionen wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...

savionen wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...
Nuetrality is not an emotion, it's a beleif and concept  that can't be labled. You confusing nuetrality with indifference. 
Those oare not the same concept. A paragon or renagade have strong nuetral beliefs and be paragon or reneage.
It's the same concept of a neutral character being able to do both good and evil things.


In terms of neutrality my point was that you couldn't be indifferent in conversations. You're either the angry serious hero or you're positive serious hero. There's literally nothing else in ME3.

But that not a problem. Why is not being indiffent  a problem in a game that makes you pich choices?


Indifference is a choice that simply does not exist in ME3. Tons of people come to you, you're forced to care about their lives in ME3. You're forced to agree or disagree. But honestly, I don't care as much about neturality. The point is that I played mostly Renegade, and being pure Renegade is pretty much impossible in ME3. You're forced to care about everybody, especially the stupid kid. I mean, my Renegade Shepard chose the option on Zaeed's DLC to let all the factory workers die. There's absolutely no way a child's death would get to him.

In ME1/2 you could be a douchebag, angry, goody two shoes, saint, good cop, bad cop, a joker, or indifferent.

ME3 you're reduced to good-natured hero or angry hero.


The weird thing is you can actually get douchebag Shepard popping out at the weirdest times (like betraying Wrex once he comes to confront you and letting Samara kill herself and then killing her daughter) but during the meat of the game he's completely absent. The mind boggles. Especially since douchebag Shepard then contradicts himself hilariously by acting like a nice guy five seconds later. It's just a giant Wut?

Playing my renedouche in ME3 was painful. Felt like he was bipolar. :mellow:


Wrong

You want to talk about bipolar, try ME1 and ME2 where trying to sway both ways results in Shepard, Bipolar Bear. In fact because ME3 makes the Renegade far more subtle and more tortured, she is LESS bipolar, even not at all. Hell, nuetral characters rule in ME3, they are amazing consistant. Why? Because they dropped the nice vs jerk element out of the Paragon and Renegade system, because IT WAS NEVER ABOUT THAT. It was about being idealistic vs being practical.

Nevermind Shepard being consistant in the tone of her voice this time while alternating between the two.


If you say wrong you might want to actually prove me wrong. As for ME1 and ME2. Again it was player choice to make their Shep bioplar. You didn't choose one option only for Shep to automatically do the opposite without your input. Try again.

As for tone of voice. That was always all over the place though signficiantly less so with Meer than Hale.


How does Shepard do the opposite of what you selected? Thats BS.

And wrong again, Hale has far better range, but her tone between Paragon and Renegade is consistant. Try Again.

Just because their is "more player choice" doesn't mean its better. "Player choice" may make the character be allowed to ACT OUT OF CHARACTER....see Deus Ex HR and Red Dead Redemption.

#116
dreman9999

dreman9999
  • Members
  • 19 067 messages

Ryzaki wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...

Ryzaki wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...

Ryzaki wrote...

Which is my point. My Shepard got replaced by BW's Shepard in ME3 a vast majority of the time. And I don't give a damn about BW's Shepard and thus any emotion he tried to trigger was lost on me.

...what? That wasn't my point. My point was Shep brings Tali along because she's a tech expert. (and actually Shep can lack one if you don't have Kasumi installed). She's useful. That's why he recruits her. It has **** to do with friendship or liking her.



If Shep did care for Tali, why bother with her? Even wanting to use her skill bring Tali to a point of importance.  Hell, that scene can be said to be manipualtion on Sheps part as well.


I just TOLD YOU WHY! She's a top engineer! She's excellent at hacking. Shep DOESN'T have to have a dedicated Tech at the time he recruits Tali! Kasumi is DLC and you don't even know about Legion until the game's almost over!

Why the hell would he pass up a tech if he's on a Suicide Mission and has no experts in hacking? Can't always rely on EDI.

And no running after someone who jumps off a cliff isn't manipulation. As for the rock why would Shep need to manipulate her at that point? She's already fighting. She's well aware of what she's fighting for.

Didn't help that I can't stand ME3 Shepard. So whatever BW was trying to do only weakened Shep's character to me and made him repulsive.

If you have a WHY than she has an importance and a reason for caring for.


No. Shep needed a tech expert. Tali was the best he had available, he went with her. Later on he found Legion. More useful and Tali just became a backup. In ME2 he had no need for a tech expert because EDI had amobile platform. Tali's usefulness was strictly reglated to the Geth plot. Her usefulness had squat to do with him encouraging her about her homeworld and by the time she kills herself her usefulness is gone.

Sorry, Kasumi doesn't exsist? I don't need to get Tali.

#117
savionen

savionen
  • Members
  • 1 317 messages

txgoldrush wrote...

And thats ME1 and ME2's fault, because they were not consistanmt in the writing of Shepard. In the first two Shepard wasn't a real character, just in the netherwrodl of suck between an established character and a modfiable one, with the weaknesses of both. In both games, Shepard by far had the weakest dialogue, and by far is the most inconsistant in tone. Really, many of the Renegade lines in ME2 are plain stupid and do not fit. And really ME1 and ME2 didn't get what Paragon and Renegade is about, they missed the point by making Paragon's act like an angel all the time and Renegades act like jerks. Sorry, but Paragon and Renegade is about idealism vs praticalism, not nice vs jerkass.

They had two options for ME3, leave the flaw in, creating a much weaker Shepard acting out of character (why is it logical to be mean to your teammates in the first place, disagreeing with them is one thing, being pointlessly mean to them like ME1 is another) or while making the character inconsistant as a trilogy, make Shepard more defined and the morality system far more subtle. They choose th elatter.

Face it, ME1 and ME2's conversation system was badly flawed in so many ways...


So lack of variety and lack of customization is a good thing? I see. I thought this was a roleplaying game with a focus on dialogue and choices.

You could be a total jackass in ME1 or ME2, but there were also several shades of grey. All there is now is good-natured hero and angry hero. I honestly don't get why ME3 even had Paragon or Renegade.

Modifié par savionen, 01 juillet 2012 - 08:28 .


#118
Ryzaki

Ryzaki
  • Members
  • 34 410 messages

dreman9999 wrote...The fact you can choose to not talk to character makes the claim that he renaduche is bipolar go out the window. 
renaduche  never was apersona that verbaly attcked everyone he saw left and right. He was a character who didn't care about anyone. If you don't care about any one, why even take to them?


...really? 

THE DIALOGUE ON RANNOCH ISN'T OPTIONAL. THAT'S EXACTLY MY DAMN PROBLEM!

I just...WAT.

Renedouche didn't verbally attack everyone? Have you ever played a full renedouche? Half the fun of playing renedouche comes from verbally ****slapping people.

#119
Ryzaki

Ryzaki
  • Members
  • 34 410 messages

dreman9999 wrote...


Sorry, Kasumi doesn't exsist? I don't need to get Tali.


Yeah Kasumi costs money. You know everyone doesn't have money to throw at DLC. Not to mention Kasumi wasn't available at launch. (I did have Kasumi installed after my renedouche playthrough though. But she wasn't an option for me during my original renedouche playthrough.)

#120
playoff52

playoff52
  • Members
  • 69 messages

Hackulator wrote...

Art is designed to evoke emotion, not always positive. Art that evokes sadness can still be valuable and beautiful.


Provided it's executed in a way that art is intended to be. You don't just storm down someones front door and shoot their family and call it art when they cry about you executing their family.

Making a badly constructed sad story is simply bad art. While it may hit the emotional level it's going for, it loses something to the poor execution.

Art should be thought provoking and meaningful yes, but it shouldn't leave you feeling like you just ate a lemon and an onion.

#121
txgoldrush

txgoldrush
  • Members
  • 4 249 messages

savionen wrote...

txgoldrush wrote...

And thats ME1 and ME2's fault, because they were not consistanmt in the writing of Shepard. In the first two Shepard wasn't a real character, just in the netherwrodl of suck between an established character and a modfiable one, with the weaknesses of both. In both games, Shepard by far had the weakest dialogue, and by far is the most inconsistant in tone. Really, many of the Renegade lines in ME2 are plain stupid and do not fit. And really ME1 and ME2 didn't get what Paragon and Renegade is about, they missed the point by making Paragon's act like an angel all the time and Renegades act like jerks. Sorry, but Paragon and Renegade is about idealism vs praticalism, not nice vs jerkass.

They had two options for ME3, leave the flaw in, creating a much weaker Shepard acting out of character (why is it logical to be mean to your teammates in the first place, disagreeing with them is one thing, being pointlessly mean to them like ME1 is another) or while making the character inconsistant as a trilogy, make Shepard more defined and the morality system far more subtle. They choose th elatter.

Face it, ME1 and ME2's conversation system was badly flawed in so many ways...


So lack of variety and lack of customization is a good thing? I see. I thought this was a roleplaying game with a focus on dialogue and choices.


But when you have an established character like Geralt....you can't have him acting out fo character. Notice that CD Projeckt was careful in how they did player choice....they allowed choice and freedom while not allowing Geralt to act out of character.

Shepard acts out of character in ME1 and ME2. Not so in ME3.

#122
Ryzaki

Ryzaki
  • Members
  • 34 410 messages

txgoldrush wrote...
How does Shepard do the opposite of what you selected? Thats BS.

And wrong again, Hale has far better range, but her tone between Paragon and Renegade is consistant. Try Again.

Just because their is "more player choice" doesn't mean its better. "Player choice" may make the character be allowed to ACT OUT OF CHARACTER....see Deus Ex HR and Red Dead Redemption.


How doesn't he? If you want to call it BS tell me how I'm wrong.

No it's not not even remotely. Hale's renegade is far too aggressive with her paragon far too kind. Meer merely sounds like he's gotten pissed off when he voices renegade and his Paragon tends to be in a neutral tone of voice. Switching from Meer's paragon and renegade is far more natural and fluid sounding than with Hale.

Then if it bothers you so much...don't make your character act bipolar? It's not forced on you where me making a choice that's wrong has automated dialogue make my Shep act the "correct" way. Shepard is not Adam jensen or whoever the main character or RDR is. If I wanted to play a forced character. I'd play those games. ME1 and ME2 weren't originally those kinds of games and pulling that crap in ME3 (especially when the devs LIED about how much choice I'd get) is BS. And yes I have every right to be pissed and call it nonsense. It is. My Shep's been retconned for some BS wangsty art.

Modifié par Ryzaki, 01 juillet 2012 - 08:32 .


#123
Caenis

Caenis
  • Members
  • 166 messages

Ryzaki wrote...

Which is my point. My Shepard got replaced by BW's Shepard in ME3 a vast majority of the time.
 


I totally agree with this statement. When playing ME3 I really felt like My Shepard was completely replaced by Bioware's Shepard. I remember thinking wait...I didn't say that...I didn't even feel that way in some places. It felt like a cinematic movie, but I still felt emotionally connected to Shepard despite that.

I also knew that Shepard was going to die I guess though I had some hope, Bioware did emphasize that this was going to be the end. I know Bioware said they wanted to try new things. I know that it's really difficult to carry over player-choice, and that ending Shepard's story so that you don't have to stress over continuation etc. is hard, as can you imagine sitting down to write a script where every mission and choice the character made was effected by so many choices before--that just adds up.

I feel  like the opposite of the original posters question. That instead Bioware focused too little on creating an emotional plot and the consequences of actions, like mixing 'gameplay/action' + emotion, those two things are experimental territory that no one was prepared for. I feel the evidence shows by the end related to the lack of closure, they did so good with evoking emotion throughout the game... and then we get to the end and there was no closure. Killing off Shepard was put as the top priority over giving any closure. The EC offered more closure for me, "Time to say goodbye", but still. I feel like they were very weak with this aspect and that they focused on things like multiplayer more, or other aspects of the game that had nothing to do with emotion. 

I feel very emotionally invested in this game, and when people play with evoking emotions they really get into something where they need to handle how to end a game gracefully, as once you emotionally invest in a character and play as that character how you terminate that character can become a very traumatic experience when not done properly. I read many reviews and some comments here where people experienced literal sadness and needed to step away and needed time and some who are still 'hurt' by the ending. Objectively being 'hurt' by a game or the actions of the people who created a game seems laughable by some, but are feelings that were provoked regardless. I think Bioware addressed that 'part' in the EC by acknowledging we needed time to say goodbye, but my point is...Bioware's focus wasn't that it focused too much on emotional plot, but that they didn't think or consider what would happen to people emotionally by investing a player and then cutting the experience instantly just like that.

Because Bioware is so good at what they do I am still afraid of emotionally investing in another story they create with a single character that goes on like this. This is actually one of the first games that I know of that Bioware has made that has gone this emotionally deep with several games, and the feelings and the emotional connection is much larger than a single game with the Warden, or Hawk. 

I believe that the experience towards the end at least for me was somewhat traumatic or at least weighed heavily on my heart. Even if you know you're going to die or this is going to be an end...to have it happen the way it did so quickly. And even though I think Bioware figured out that players need closure (and that the vast majority of their players also need plot holes filled :P) that fear of emotionally investing again and having something like that happen at the end is...Bioware is experimenting with emotions and I have to ask myself if I will risk going through another emotional experience with them, or if I can trust that they will handle the emotional experience better next time?

We are getting to a point where games are becoming extremely complex, and we are demanding more complexity in emotions and response. We want to laugh, cry, and we don't necessarily want fairytale endings, but we want to leave feeling like we did a job well done. I imagine that as games get more complex, they will get to a point where inflicting death on a character is something that will have to be handled with a certain finesse. Because  games will become to such a complexity where the experiences in game will be much more integrated but emotionally AND physically into our perceptions. It is crucial to ensure that when you are dealing with emotions and trying to draw them out, that you realize you're getting into shaky territory, 'psychological' territory. And being able to simulate feelings of happiness and sadness, can also lead to simulating emotions like depression. This may sound 'laughable' but my point is this is the game we are playing, and the outrage/backlash was an example of that. There is real psychology that goes into gaming, real psychology that comes with emotions, and ending a game by using 'death' with a character you have 'emotionally invested' in, for years, is CRUCIAL. And I think Bioware is coming to understand at least part of it, though I still think many people don't realize how 'deep' this is, almost to the point in which it can feel a little scary...that works of art can move you so much that you can become physically ill or feel literally depressed.

We should always be thinking about what emotions we want to evoke and how to cushion players against a dangerous feeling of emptiness. (Some people I think have referred to this as 'nihilism') whatever we call it, this is important. I know I WANT games that draw me in emotionally, but I don't want to be afraid that when it comes time to say goodbye I'm going to have to become so frightened of what will happen that I feel nauseous, sick, that I'll have to step away, that I'll be driving home feeling empty and sad over a loss...that I'll have to feel literal emptiness or numbness after the fact, and even feel resistant to replaying any of the games over again. Emptiness and Despair is NOT what I want games to evoke in me. "Accomplishment" and maybe a state of "Inner Peace", the state of "Being able to put something to rest" towards the end. Which Bioware did well enough with the EC, and the rest of it is just coming to terms with saying goodbye to my character which I've just started to come around doing.

Modifié par Caenis, 01 juillet 2012 - 08:37 .


#124
dreman9999

dreman9999
  • Members
  • 19 067 messages

Ryzaki wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...


Sorry, Kasumi doesn't exsist? I don't need to get Tali.


Yeah Kasumi costs money. You know everyone doesn't have money to throw at DLC. Not to mention Kasumi wasn't available at launch. (I did have Kasumi installed after my renedouche playthrough though. But she wasn't an option for me during my original renedouche playthrough.)

PS3 VERSION...:whistle:
aND IT'S clear your renaduache is not your first Shep.
And the games can be replaed and changed.

#125
savionen

savionen
  • Members
  • 1 317 messages
@txgoldrush
Yes, and he's no longer the player's Shepard. That's the point. You can't be a dirty Spectre that still gets the job done. What's wrong with people playing Shepard how they wanted to play? Why does it matter? There's still a "canon" Shepard for all purposes. ME3's Shepard is just a generic hero.

Part of the reason there's no replay value in ME3 is because of this. I had 3 Shepards with 3 greatly different personalities. It was fun to play different ways. Now you can't, aside from simple actions like siding with either the Salarians or the Krogan.

Modifié par savionen, 01 juillet 2012 - 08:34 .