225 réponses à ce sujet

[Ryzaki]

dreman9999 wrote...

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

I play on PC so bully for you.

It's not but his story's been done (and I was not replaying 35+ hours just to not recruit Tali. No. Just no. I'm not going through ****ing Overlord hell again). I shouldn't have to replay the game to kill off a character to avoid autodialogue forcing us to be buddy buddy. The damn dialogue should be optional like it was in previous games.

[dreman9999]

Ryzaki wrote...

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?

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

Yes, I have. You don't verbally abuse your crew untill they disagree with you. You not always attacking your crew or everyone you talk to.

[dreman9999]

Ryzaki wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...

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

I play on PC so bully for you.

It's not but his story's been done (and I was not replaying 35+ hours just to not recruit Tali. No. Just no. I'm not going through ****ing Overlord hell again). I shouldn't have to replay the game to kill off a character to avoid autodialogue forcing us to be buddy buddy. The damn dialogue should be optional like it was in previous games.

Your complaining about relpay a game you have muliple playthroughs in...

[Ryzaki]

savionen wrote...

@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.

Also this. The only replayability I'm getting out of ME3 is from the combat. I mean...it's sad.

I can't believe there's full conversations that are ****ing autodialogue! I just...WAT.

[Ryzaki]

dreman9999 wrote...
Your complaining about relpay a game you have muliple playthroughs in...

Because of the combat. Not because of the story. For reference? 

ME1 - 20+ playthroughs  6 different main Shepards 3 variations of those six 2 other Shepards

ME2 - 20+ playthroughs same as ME1

ME3 - 3 playthroughs same Shep just different classes Infiltrator, Biotic, Vanguard.

That's most of the fun I'm getting out of Me3. Shooting things.

[Auztin]

staindgrey wrote...

To everyone saying Bioware "took a chance" with ME3's emotional, bittersweet endings...

In DA2, your companion betrays you, an entire church is blown to hell with everyone inside, the leader of the mages turns to blood magic in desperation and tries to kill you, oh, and your mother, sibling and possibly other sibling all die. That, and the city you've protected for seven years now lays in ruin and chaos while you run away and leave it to die before the Divine decides to exalted march the **** out of it.

I sided with the mages as a mage & had everyone except Fenris on my side.You must have only done the main missions or something.It actually alot more sense with Extended Cut & I actually for some reason like Refusal even though you lose.

Modifié par Auztinito, 01 juillet 2012 - 08:40 .

[savionen]

Ryzaki wrote...

savionen wrote...

@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.

Also this. The only replayability I'm getting out of ME3 is from the combat. I mean...it's sad.

I can't believe there's full conversations that are ****ing autodialogue! I just...WAT.

Exactly, I played multiplayer for awhile and ever since then it's just been sitting on my shelf. If I replay the game again, it's going to be basically exactly the same. There were so many options for different shades of Paragon and Renegade in ME 1and ME2. For example when you're interrogating on Thane's loyalty mission. You can be nice, you can be mean, you can beat the **** out of him, or you can just play good cop. Now it's "Give me the info" or "Please give me the info" and then Auto-Dialogue for 3 minutes.

[Ryzaki]

dreman9999 wrote...
Yes, I have. You don't verbally abuse your crew untill they disagree with you. You not always attacking your crew or everyone you talk to.

How about you talk to Ash and Liara again (and Jack too for that matter. Don't gain her loyalty or lose it by siding with Miranda). And you don't do it even to get them to disagree with you. Renedouche does it because he's a jerk.

I never said always. But he's not nice either.

[Ryzaki]

Caenis wrote...

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 ) 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.

Huge post is huge but yeah I don't know...I felt like I was watching a movie in ME3. I lost investement because I felt so detached from the whole experience.

[Ryzaki]

savionen wrote...
Exactly, I played multiplayer for awhile and ever since then it's just been sitting on my shelf. If I replay the game again, it's going to be basically exactly the same. There were so many options for different shades of Paragon and Renegade in ME 1and ME2. For example when you're interrogating on Thane's loyalty mission. You can be nice, you can be mean, you can beat the **** out of him, or you can just play good cop. Now it's "Give me the info" or "Please give me the info" and then Auto-Dialogue for 3 minutes.

Are there any missions in ME3 that have remotely as much choice? Even the Coup has paragon/renegade/shoot them (or let them be shot) as choices.

The genophage was actually the one plot that had multiple ways of dealing with it. Sadly that was the exception rather than the rule.

[txgoldrush]

savionen wrote...

@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.

Because making the "player's Shepard" is flawed, Shepard is too established.

Sorry but when choices do not make logical sense like being plain mean to your crewmates for no good reason, its flawed plain and simple.

Player choice is overrated, if done wrong, its a bad thing which can WEAKEN not strengthen a story.

Storytelling is by far MORE important than RPG elements for the sake of RPG elements.

[Darc_Requiem]

txgoldrush wrote...

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.

Shepard isnt an established character. One of the key features Bioware talked about in Mass Effect was being able to play Shepard your way. One of the coolest things about ME was that you and a friend could talk about how you accomplished a mission in completely different ways. Noveria in particular was a great example having multiple ways to finish a mission depending on your Shepards personality. You can't do that in ME3. In ME3, you have limited dialog options and little to no interaction with most quest giving NPCs.

The dream sequence with the kid annoys me. Most of my Shepards, even my paragons would not be up night over one death. The fact that my renegade , Butcher of Torfan, Shepard is dreaming about the death of one child is not only completely OOC it's laughable.

[txgoldrush]

Ryzaki wrote...

savionen wrote...
Exactly, I played multiplayer for awhile and ever since then it's just been sitting on my shelf. If I replay the game again, it's going to be basically exactly the same. There were so many options for different shades of Paragon and Renegade in ME 1and ME2. For example when you're interrogating on Thane's loyalty mission. You can be nice, you can be mean, you can beat the **** out of him, or you can just play good cop. Now it's "Give me the info" or "Please give me the info" and then Auto-Dialogue for 3 minutes.

Are there any missions in ME3 that have remotely as much choice? Even the Coup has paragon/renegade/shoot them (or let them be shot) as choices.

The genophage was actually the one plot that had multiple ways of dealing with it. Sadly that was the exception rather than the rule.

Wrong....many story arcs involve decisions...they are once again far more subtle.

Then again, most dialogue options in ME1 and ME2 amount for saying the same thing...at least when ME3 has a dialogue option, they are more different....different in content instead of tone.

[Ryzaki]

txgoldrush wrote...
Wrong....many story arcs involve decisions...they are once again far more subtle.

Then again, most dialogue options in ME1 and ME2 amount for saying the same thing...at least when ME3 has a dialogue option, they are more different....different in content instead of tone.

O rly? 

Like what. I'll wait. And it has to be more than the basic paragon or renegade choices plz.  I missed all these story arcs. Silly me I guess.

Modifié par Ryzaki, 01 juillet 2012 - 08:55 .

[txgoldrush]

Darc_Requiem wrote...

txgoldrush wrote...

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.

Shepard isnt an established character. One of the key features Bioware talked about in Mass Effect was being able to play Shepard your way. One of the coolest things about ME was that you and a friend could talk about how you accomplished a mission in completely different ways. Noveria in particular was a great example having multiple ways to finish a mission depending on your Shepards personality. You can't do that in ME3. In ME3, you have limited dialog options and little to no interaction with most quest giving NPCs.

The dream sequence with the kid annoys me. Most of my Shepards, even my paragons would not be up night over one death. The fact that my renegade , Butcher of Torfan, Shepard is dreaming about the death of one child is not only completely OOC it's laughable.

Guess you do not know how PTSD works....nevermind that this is th emost innocent death he witnesses in the series.

However, through your player choice, you can shrug the dreams off.

[Dragoonlordz]

Ryzaki wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...

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

I play on PC so bully for you.

It's not but his story's been done (and I was not replaying 35+ hours just to not recruit Tali. No. Just no. I'm not going through ****ing Overlord hell again). I shouldn't have to replay the game to kill off a character to avoid autodialogue forcing us to be buddy buddy. The damn dialogue should be optional like it was in previous games.

Gibbed application, no need to replay ME2 in first place since said your on the PC.

[savionen]

txgoldrush wrote...
Because making the "player's Shepard" is flawed, Shepard is too established.

Sorry but when choices do not make logical sense like being plain mean to your crewmates for no good reason, its flawed plain and simple.

Player choice is overrated, if done wrong, its a bad thing which can WEAKEN not strengthen a story.

Storytelling is by far MORE important than RPG elements for the sake of RPG elements.

Considering the storytelling in ME3 is so weak I don't really see your point. The strongest RPG aspects of Mass Effect was interacting with the characters, and that's all but removed now.

Modifié par savionen, 01 juillet 2012 - 08:57 .

[Ryzaki]

Dragoonlordz wrote...
Gibbed application, no need to replay ME2 in first place since said your on the PC.

Oh I know. I use that to kill her off  (along with others) for my ME3 run. My whole point is that the choice is pretty much have her dead and have my character be OOC, or have her alive and have my character be even more OOC. Not much of a choie. Though I did find the former preferable.

Modifié par Ryzaki, 01 juillet 2012 - 08:57 .

[Ryzaki]

txgoldrush wrote...

Darc_Requiem wrote...

txgoldrush wrote...

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.

Shepard isnt an established character. One of the key features Bioware talked about in Mass Effect was being able to play Shepard your way. One of the coolest things about ME was that you and a friend could talk about how you accomplished a mission in completely different ways. Noveria in particular was a great example having multiple ways to finish a mission depending on your Shepards personality. You can't do that in ME3. In ME3, you have limited dialog options and little to no interaction with most quest giving NPCs.

The dream sequence with the kid annoys me. Most of my Shepards, even my paragons would not be up night over one death. The fact that my renegade , Butcher of Torfan, Shepard is dreaming about the death of one child is not only completely OOC it's laughable.

Guess you do not know how PTSD works....nevermind that this is th emost innocent death he witnesses in the series.

However, through your player choice, you can shrug the dreams off.

Oh yes I'm sure Shepard never saw more innocent people die on Elysium or on Mindoir or when Talitha is ordered to be shot by the sniper.

Nope. Only the child is innocent.

@Darc: That kid's the most annoying and forced contrived idiotic...I could go on piece of whatever in the whole ME3 series. I just...whatever BW was trying to do backfired spectarcularly with me. I can't stand that damn kid. I can't stand that damn dreamsequence and just...Ugh it's a giant ball of annoyance.

Modifié par Ryzaki, 01 juillet 2012 - 09:00 .

[dreman9999]

Ryzaki wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...
Your complaining about relpay a game you have muliple playthroughs in...

Because of the combat. Not because of the story. For reference? 

ME1 - 20+ playthroughs  6 different main Shepards 3 variations of those six 2 other Shepards

ME2 - 20+ playthroughs same as ME1

ME3 - 3 playthroughs same Shep just different classes Infiltrator, Biotic, Vanguard.

That's most of the fun I'm getting out of Me3. Shooting things.

But that'swas the issue on the endings, not on the choices in the game.Before with the ending we had, there was no real difference to the out comes we had based on out choices. Now we have varided results.
Having Legion or Tali dead changes the rannoch missions alot. Have wrex dead or destroying the genophage changes the tuchanganke MIssion tone vastly as well.
How varied ME3 is based on how many saves and differnct choices you made in the last 2 games. With the different endings we have now, ME3 has lots of replayablity.
Being hung up of autodiologue is very short sighted.

[Ryzaki]

savionen wrote...

txgoldrush wrote...
Because making the "player's Shepard" is flawed, Shepard is too established.

Sorry but when choices do not make logical sense like being plain mean to your crewmates for no good reason, its flawed plain and simple.

Player choice is overrated, if done wrong, its a bad thing which can WEAKEN not strengthen a story.

Storytelling is by far MORE important than RPG elements for the sake of RPG elements.

Considering the storytelling in ME3 is so weak I don't really see your point. The strongest RPG aspects of Mass Effect was interacting with the characters, and that's all but removed now.

Also this. The ME series plot was never very strong. Even ME1. What made it interesting was shaping Shepard and by extent his/her interactions with the world and characters around him/her.

Without that ME is medicore.

[Spartas Husky]

Yes, and it worked flawlessly until they stopped focusing on it.

[txgoldrush]

savionen wrote...

txgoldrush wrote...
Because making the "player's Shepard" is flawed, Shepard is too established.

Sorry but when choices do not make logical sense like being plain mean to your crewmates for no good reason, its flawed plain and simple.

Player choice is overrated, if done wrong, its a bad thing which can WEAKEN not strengthen a story.

Storytelling is by far MORE important than RPG elements for the sake of RPG elements.

Considering the storytelling in ME3 is so weak I don't really see your point. The strongest RPG aspects of Mass Effect was interacting with the characters, and that's all but removed now.

storytelling weak?

Lets talk about how ME1 is pretty much directionless until Virmire, or the fact that ME1 lacks character development, despite all the dialogue options, where only Wrex develops and everyone else becomes a talking codex.

Or ME2, where while the character development is great, the plot is weak and short, with the loyalty system being contrived. Shepard, the errand girl.

ME3 is the ONLY game in the series with both strong plot progression AND character development. In fact, the best thing about ME3 is how the characters react to the plot. This is barely done in ME1, and even less so in ME2. With all those dialogue options, why don't the characters outside Kasumi have opinions on missions?

While there is less dialogue options, the dialogue is just simply BETTER. The characters are far nore human, there is less talking codex, there is far stronger character development, etc.

And really, its not roleplaying at all, its flawed Bioware formula....the flaws of a good/bad system and the flawed notion of the three talks, one small quest is enough for character development (which leaves them underdeveloped). ME3 abandons this flawed formula.

[dreman9999]

Ryzaki wrote...

txgoldrush wrote...

Darc_Requiem wrote...

txgoldrush wrote...

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.

Shepard isnt an established character. One of the key features Bioware talked about in Mass Effect was being able to play Shepard your way. One of the coolest things about ME was that you and a friend could talk about how you accomplished a mission in completely different ways. Noveria in particular was a great example having multiple ways to finish a mission depending on your Shepards personality. You can't do that in ME3. In ME3, you have limited dialog options and little to no interaction with most quest giving NPCs.

The dream sequence with the kid annoys me. Most of my Shepards, even my paragons would not be up night over one death. The fact that my renegade , Butcher of Torfan, Shepard is dreaming about the death of one child is not only completely OOC it's laughable.

Guess you do not know how PTSD works....nevermind that this is th emost innocent death he witnesses in the series.

However, through your player choice, you can shrug the dreams off.

Oh yes I'm sure Shepard never saw more innocent people die on Elysium or on Mindoir or when Talitha is ordered to be shot by the sniper.

Nope. Only the child is innocent.

@Darc: That kid's the most annoying and forced contrived idiotic...I could go on piece of whatever in the whole ME3 series. I just...whatever BW was trying to do backfired spectarcularly with me. I can't stand that damn kid. I can't stand that damn dreamsequence and just...Ugh it's a giant ball of annoyance.

A person with PTSD does choose what causes it and when it comes. It comes on it own with no control over it. Complaining about the dreams in an rps is like complaining about  being attcked by Thevies when playing Skyrim. RPG is not about the player controling the events around him, it about the player reactiong and choosing what to do about the events around them.

[Darc_Requiem]

txgoldrush wrote...

Darc_Requiem wrote...

txgoldrush wrote...

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.

Shepard isnt an established character. One of the key features Bioware talked about in Mass Effect was being able to play Shepard your way. One of the coolest things about ME was that you and a friend could talk about how you accomplished a mission in completely different ways. Noveria in particular was a great example having multiple ways to finish a mission depending on your Shepards personality. You can't do that in ME3. In ME3, you have limited dialog options and little to no interaction with most quest giving NPCs.

The dream sequence with the kid annoys me. Most of my Shepards, even my paragons would not be up night over one death. The fact that my renegade , Butcher of Torfan, Shepard is dreaming about the death of one child is not only completely OOC it's laughable.

Guess you do not know how PTSD works....nevermind that this is th emost innocent death he witnesses in the series.

However, through your player choice, you can shrug the dreams off.

If you want to take that angle with things at least have the facts of the situation. Colonist Shepard watches nearly all his/her family and friends get killed or taken by Batarian slavers. The exclusive quest in ME1 for that background has Shepard talk down a survivor from the attack. One that had been enslaved by the Batarians for the past decade. You hear what the Batarians did during the attack, what Shepard saw.

The PTSD angle poor because not everyone's Shepard is the same. That was a selling point of franchise for two games. In the last game of trilogy, Bioware threw that aspect out the window.