225 réponses à ce sujet

[dreman9999]

Spartas Husky wrote...

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

They didn't stop.
The whole problem people have with the ending with EC is that the choices are too moraly conflicting.

[Ryzaki]

dreman9999 wrote...
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.

Actually no. The endings doesn't stop the autodialogue, the lineraity or the other things I don't like in ME3.

Not it doesn't. I just got finished playing Rannoch with a dead Tali. Only difference is I don't have to deal with her dialogue and I can't get peace (which I didn't do anyway). Everything else folds out nigh identically. (not sure about dead Legion but if Tali didn't change it much I doubt Legion will). No the genophage plot doesn't change vastly. You have the same mission parameters. It does however change if you can persuade Mordin to fake the cure however. (and you have to have destroye the cure in ME2 to be able to do this along with killing Wrex). You get some dialogue differences and different implications for the future. (which to me WOULD be enough...if I was able to play something other than BW's Shep. But since I'm getting such railroaded dialogue why on earth am I getting such limited differences?)

Uh no. How about you just realize it doesn't bother you while it bothers other people and leave it at that.

[savionen]

@txgoldrush

There is absolutely no character development in ME3 other than maybe Shepard turning PTSD/emo.
ME2 had a weak central plot, but ME3's plot was phenominally terrible.

Which is basically what I'm saying. Mass Effect's plot overall has always been mediocre at best.

[dreman9999]

Darc_Requiem 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.

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.

No one ever choosed what causes ptsd or when it happens. The same concept is still with the dreams, we don;t choose it be how we react it it is up to us.
That the same concept of rpg's in general. The player does not choose the event going on around them, the only choose how to react to and deal with the events around them. Complining that an event in an rpg is bad because your forced to deal with it goes ageints the concept of an rpg.

[dreman9999]

savionen wrote...

@txgoldrush

There is absolutely no character development in ME3 other than maybe Shepard turning PTSD/emo.
ME2 had a weak central plot, but ME3's plot was phenominally terrible.

Which is basically what I'm saying. Mass Effect's plot overall has always been mediocre at best.

I'm sorry . I could not read that with a straight face.

Modifié par dreman9999, 01 juillet 2012 - 09:12 .

[Ryzaki]

dreman9999 wrote...

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.

Wrong. Being attached by Thieves in Skyrim is acombat mechanic. Those dreams don't do anythig other than establish Shepard's mental state. Something that used to be left up to the player and taken away for no reason other than because BW can and to give Starbrat a form. They don't do anything with this other than give Shep nightmares. It just confirms again that BW's Shep is the only one left.

...As for your last bit uh...yeah when the hell did I say anything about Shep changing everything around him? I distinctly recall mentioning changing how Shep reacted to most things. Not how things reacted to him. Those are two very different things. And BW allowed me to do it in a much greater amount (of course not completely because that's a programming nightmare) in ME1 and ME2 than in the extremely limited manner in ME3. (If I even got the choice at all). But if I'm forced to listen to a canonized Shep drone on and on hell yes I should be able to influence the plot to a ridculous amount. It's not like I can do anything else!

And no vast amounts of autodialogue isn't needed for a coherent plot. DAO and DA2 do just fine without abundances of autodialogue and still manage to make the plot go along. (DAO significantly better than DA2).

Modifié par Ryzaki, 01 juillet 2012 - 09:18 .

[Apocaleepse360]

txgoldrush 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.

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.

Having the game filled with auto-dialogue did the story absolutely no favours whatsoever. It just made my Shepard look like an idiot in some of the auto-dialogue moments.

[naddaya]

Deepening emotions in the game wasn't a bad thing. Making them forced was. As many others, I didn't like being forced to like certain characters and feel bad about things I didn't give a **** about.

[txgoldrush]

savionen wrote...

@txgoldrush

There is absolutely no character development in ME3 other than maybe Shepard turning PTSD/emo.
ME2 had a weak central plot, but ME3's plot was phenominally terrible.

Which is basically what I'm saying. Mass Effect's plot overall has always been mediocre at best.

LOL

So EDI doesn't define herself and learns to become a person.

So Javik doesn't realize that he was wrong about the current cycle and how its methods mean its closer to victory more so than in his time.

So James doesn't learn to put the past behind him and doesn't muster the courage to join N7.

So Liara never realizes that she is not in control of everything, that she can be wrong,and that her relationship with Javik never matters.

Cortez never moves on with his loss.

Ken and Gabby never fall in love, same with Tali and Garrus.


Yeah, no character development...lol

[txgoldrush]

Apocaleepse360 wrote...

txgoldrush 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.

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.

Having the game filled with auto-dialogue did the story absolutely no favours whatsoever. It just made my Shepard look like an idiot in some of the auto-dialogue moments.

And Shepard wasn't more of an idiot through the dialogue options of ME1 and ME2? Please.

[Apocaleepse360]

txgoldrush wrote...


And Shepard wasn't more of an idiot through the dialogue options of ME1 and ME2? Please.

Only if you made him/her one.

[savionen]

txgoldrush wrote...

LOL

So EDI doesn't define herself and learns to become a person.

So Javik doesn't realize that he was wrong about the current cycle and how its methods mean its closer to victory more so than in his time.

So James doesn't learn to put the past behind him and doesn't muster the courage to join N7.

So Liara never realizes that she is not in control of everything, that she can be wrong,and that her relationship with Javik never matters.

Cortez never moves on with his loss.

Ken and Gabby never fall in love, same with Tali and Garrus.

Yeah, no character development...lol

Yeah, and compare that to ME2 and it's zzz......

Modifié par savionen, 01 juillet 2012 - 09:18 .

[Ryzaki]

Apocaleepse360 wrote...

txgoldrush wrote...


And Shepard wasn't more of an idiot through the dialogue options of ME1 and ME2? Please.

Only if you made him/her one.

Yup. The only part I recall Shep being forced to be an absolute moron in ME1 was when talking to Wrex and comparing the genophage to the first contact war. 

That Liara stupidity when asking "OMG you guys can reproduce with each other?" is purely optional. You choose to make your Shep a moron in that conversation.

[dreman9999]

Ryzaki wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...

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.

Wrong. Being attached by Thieves in Skyrim is acombat mechanic. Those dreams don't do anythig other than establish Shepard's mental state. Something that used to be left up to the player and taken away for no reason other than because BW can and to give Starbrat a form. They don't do anything with this other than give Shep nightmares. It just confirms again that BW's Shep is the only one left.

...As for your last bit uh...yeah when the hell did I say anything about Shep changing everything around him? I distinctly recall mentioning changing how Shep reacted to most things. Not how things reacted to him. Those are two very different things. And BW allowed me to do it in a much greater amount (of course not completely because that's a programming nightmare) in ME1 and ME2 than in the extremely limited manner in ME3. (If I even got the choice at all).

And no vast amounts of autodialogue isn't needed for a coherent plot. DAO and DA2 do just fine without abundances of autodialogue and still manage to make the plot go along. (DAO significantly better than DA2).

You not geting it. And even then, you put your self in a corner because the dreams are interactive, meaning they are michanical.
It matter not if it a cut scene or gameplay. In an rpg, the concept is that the player has no control of what event may happen on there adventure. The only thing the player has control over ishow they react to the events and how they solve those events. This can be said with doing the main quest of Skyrim, the main quest of ME1 and ME2, Balders gate1 and 2 that also had dreams the player had no control over, DA:  O which also had dreams which the player had no control over. Nearly every rpg has this concept on events.  Aperson has no control over what they dream. They have not control whne they get ptsd or what causes it. And if who ever is planing the events of any rpg plans for it to happen, you as the player only have to option to react to it. And you as Shepard have that power as well, you canlet it effect your shepard or not. 

[txgoldrush]

savionen wrote...

txgoldrush wrote...

LOL

So EDI doesn't define herself and learns to become a person.

So Javik doesn't realize that he was wrong about the current cycle and how its methods mean its closer to victory more so than in his time.

So James doesn't learn to put the past behind him and doesn't muster the courage to join N7.

So Liara never realizes that she is not in control of everything, that she can be wrong,and that her relationship with Javik never matters.

Cortez never moves on with his loss.

Ken and Gabby never fall in love, same with Tali and Garrus.

Yeah, no character development...lol

Yeah, and compare that to ME2 and it's zzz......

at least they don't develop on the errand girl system.....

and EDI blows any ME2 teammate out of the water when it comes to character development.

[Auckmid]

I liked the fact that there was SOME sadness in ME3 and it made you actualy feel like you were fighting to stop the total anihalation of the galaxy. However, I will admit that even after the extended cut which was way better then the orriginal, none of the endings are bright enough. While it is true that it would be kind of pointless if at the end, everyone had one realy happy ending mixed among all the very bittersweet endings which already exist, this is where I expected War Assets would make a difference.

[Auckmid]

Wow, somehow every post I make seems to end up looping back to the ending, lol.

[dreman9999]

savionen wrote...

txgoldrush wrote...

LOL

So EDI doesn't define herself and learns to become a person.

So Javik doesn't realize that he was wrong about the current cycle and how its methods mean its closer to victory more so than in his time.

So James doesn't learn to put the past behind him and doesn't muster the courage to join N7.

So Liara never realizes that she is not in control of everything, that she can be wrong,and that her relationship with Javik never matters.

Cortez never moves on with his loss.

Ken and Gabby never fall in love, same with Tali and Garrus.

Yeah, no character development...lol

Yeah, and compare that to ME2 and it's zzz......

No, compare that to ME2 and it the same concept of character growth. You just don't have a full mission along with it. Are you saying you need a combat mission and exploins to have get character development.

[dreman9999]

m_k wrote...

Deepening emotions in the game wasn't a bad thing. Making them forced was. As many others, I didn't like being forced to like certain characters and feel bad about things I didn't give a **** about.

When was it forced?

[savionen]

dreman9999 wrote...

m_k wrote...

Deepening emotions in the game wasn't a bad thing. Making them forced was. As many others, I didn't like being forced to like certain characters and feel bad about things I didn't give a **** about.

When was it forced?

How about for the 50th time that Shepard obsesses over the dead kid but the audience doesn't give a ****.

[Ryzaki]

dreman9999 wrote...
You not geting it. And even then, you put your self in a corner because the dreams are interactive, meaning they are michanical.
It matter not if it a cut scene or gameplay. In an rpg, the concept is that the player has no control of what event may happen on there adventure. The only thing the player has control over ishow they react to the events and how they solve those events. This can be said with doing the main quest of Skyrim, the main quest of ME1 and ME2, Balders gate1 and 2 that also had dreams the player had no control over, DA:  O which also had dreams which the player had no control over. Nearly every rpg has this concept on events.  Aperson has no control over what they dream. They have not control whne they get ptsd or what causes it. And if who ever is planing the events of any rpg plans for it to happen, you as the player only have to option to react to it. And you as Shepard have that power as well, you canlet it effect your shepard or not. 

It is however not COMBAT and it's something that was pruposely scripted for the sheer reason of developing Shep's characterization.

And yes it does matter if it's a cutscene vs gameplay. And the player doesn't have anywhere NEAR as much control over how Shep reacts to events in ME3 as the rest of those games.

Baldur's Gates 2 dreams actually were for plot purposes. They also consisted of the big bad screwing with you, you seeing your sister? cousin? whatever Imoen was situation (not sure about BG1 I'm talking about BG2) and your fighting from the inside to get your body back.

DAO dreams also were plot related. They were the taint allowing the Warden to see Archie. The Warden's also not the only one who gets these dreams. Other wardens get them as well. Not all but some.

If the dreams had been revealed to be indoctrination or attempts to give the player information that Shep couldn't have known any other way you'd have a point with those comparisons. As it is the dreams have no such function. They're just there to show emotional strain. Something that can be left up to the player to decide but BW decided to canonize everyone's Shep. It always effects Shepard. Only difference the player makes is if he/she tells others about it.

[Ruilus]

In all cases, "more emotional" means "less sensible". You don't wanna break the balance.

[Creighton72]

savionen wrote...

@txgoldrush

There is absolutely no character development in ME3 other than maybe Shepard turning PTSD/emo.
ME2 had a weak central plot, but ME3's plot was phenominally terrible.

Which is basically what I'm saying. Mass Effect's plot overall has always been mediocre at best.

I disagree, I thought ME had a strong plot and gave the series a good base, but after that it did not seem to know where to go. Or I should say it new where it wanted to go but was not sure how to get there. Emotion is fine in any plot and usually adds to the story, but some writers tend to go for emotional impact over substantive writing.

In the is case Hudson new what he wanted, he wanted Shepard to die and he wanted you to pick Synergy. But instead of giving you any decent reasons for why Shepard should die or why to pick synergy he just kind tried to make you do it and make it happen. Shepards death makes little sense any of the three endings. In Destroy he walks into an explosion, in Synergy they need DNA so he jumps into an energy beam. I am pretty sure that you can get DNA a lot easier than that. In control he body is incinerated so his mind can be uploaded. His mind is no where near powerful enough to control a vast army of reapers and how does incinerating the guys body upload his mind. Legion managed to do this without killing Shepard. I don't mind him sacrificing himself but really give me a good reason why he died. I would have been fine if he died like Anderson bleeding out from his wounds after he pushed the button, or died when the Citadel exploded. Or explain to me why if the Catalyst wants to end the cycle he just does not stop the Reapers who he claims to control.

It's really sloppy writing, Hudson just wanted to sacrifice Shepard nad chose some really goofball ideas as to how it should be done. He ll I don;t even need the catalyst, I would have been fine if Shepard had activated the giant plot divice and bled out next to Anderson watching the reapers defeat. The illusive man could have and should have been the guy giving you the information you needed. In fact the plot whould have just been simpler and tighter if he had part of the Crucible data on how it worked after he got the Prothean AI. The whole catalyst thing is so out of place, and was added for dramatic effect only. I am not looking for charater growth in the final chapter of a story. Even though it would have been done for emotion I would have like to see a flash back of Kaidan as Shepard is dying, it would have been a full circle moment for me when it comes to choices you make in the game. Or Ash for those who picked Ash. It has heavy emotional impact for the character and is self explanitory in terms of closure and plot.

Modifié par Creighton72, 01 juillet 2012 - 09:33 .

[Apocaleepse360]

Ryzaki wrote...
It is however not COMBAT and it's something that was pruposely scripted for the sheer reason of developing Shep's characterization.

And yes it does matter if it's a cutscene vs gameplay. And the player doesn't have anywhere NEAR as much control over how Shep reacts to events in ME3 as the rest of those games.

Baldur's Gates 2 dreams actually were for plot purposes. They also consisted of the big bad screwing with you, you seeing your sister? cousin? whatever Imoen was situation (not sure about BG1 I'm talking about BG2) and your fighting from the inside to get your body back.

DAO dreams also were plot related. They were the taint allowing the Warden to see Archie. The Warden's also not the only one who gets these dreams. Other wardens get them as well. Not all but some.

If the dreams had been revealed to be indoctrination or attempts to give the player information that Shep couldn't have known any other way you'd have a point with those comparisons. As it is the dreams have no such function. They're just there to show emotional strain. Something that can be left up to the player to decide but BW decided to canonize everyone's Shep. It always effects Shepard. Only difference the player makes is if he/she tells others about it.

Yeah, the dreams are kind of annoying for me too, because my Shepard had to suffer through seeing his friends and family captured by Batarian slavers and being the only survivor against a Thresher Maw attack. The whole point of the ME story for my Shepard was to overcome these traumatic events, but BioWare suddenly decide that my Shepard has to succumb to them instead. Over one damn kid that he didn't know, despite seeing many like him when the Batarians invaded his colony. <_<

Modifié par Apocaleepse360, 01 juillet 2012 - 09:37 .

[dreman9999]

savionen wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...

m_k wrote...

Deepening emotions in the game wasn't a bad thing. Making them forced was. As many others, I didn't like being forced to like certain characters and feel bad about things I didn't give a **** about.

When was it forced?

How about for the 50th time that Shepard obsesses over the dead kid but the audience doesn't give a ****.

I'm sorry. I was never forced to morn the kid. I always picked the bottum left hand choice to brush it off.