cdtrk65 wrote...
voteDC wrote...
Illusion of choice can be as important as actual choice. I know that when I play Mass Effect now that what I am doing doesn't make that great a difference on what happens at the end, however the game tricks you into thinking that your choices are making a difference.
Even though I made very few different choices between my first and second run in ME1, I felt the experience to be different. I made wildly different choices between my first and second run in ME3 (1st on PC, 2nd on 360) and I didn't feel as if they made the slightest bit of difference.
I get what you are saying but when Shepard says the samething no matter what you choose, and the other characters react the same way; then to me it is disgused autodialogue and I think a lot the first game suffers because it forced the illusion rather than let the conversations play out.
I don't mind when the game gives a choice and Shepard says something different, even though the person Shep is talking to reacts the same way. To me that changes the story, if only for one character.
The thing is, while this was indeed a problem now and then with ME1, it was almost eliminated in ME2, and yet it didn't resort to only two choices most of the time and lots of autodialogue. ME3's way of going about things was a completely stupid and unnecessary change that only took away player control and made Shepard automatically sprout things that he or she may not realistically say if you'd built them a certain way (e.g. saying "this is for Thane!" when the character didn't even like him, and the amount of players I've heard complain about their Shepard automatically saying they miss Kaidan or Ashley.) Shepard should never give an opinion on a matter without the player's input, with the possible exception of generic "The Reapers must be stopped!" comments.
And while many may say that a lot of the times it's merely the illusion of choice, but that's also important. Not everything everybody says has to result in the person they are talking to doing things differently. This has been a factor in cRPGs since the start: that certain NPCs are always going to respond in the same way to a good portion of things, or at the very least do the same thing. But the player should still be able to make those choices and direct the character how they want and not just be reduced to Shepard speaking for them. It's not just the outcome that matters, but the intent and personality of the character, and even if they end up doing the same thing anyway, the reasons and feelings can be quite different
I remember, for instance, having a debate with somebody here a few weeks ago (sorry... can't remember the poster's name now) who thought the Council decision at the end of ME1 was poorly designed in having three options when the middle one was exactly the same as the bottom, more Renegade one outcome wise. I felt the complete opposite: I thought it was
good design, because it illustrates the importance if intent when making a decision. Yes... sacrificing The Council still ends up with them dead with either choice, but it's all about the intent behind it. Shepard's reasons between these two choices are quite different: sacrifice The Council because it may take the pressure of Sovereign enough to result in a defeat, or deliberately saboutage the and let them die because Shepard hated their actions or is a human supremacist. Same basic results, yes, but the intent and reasoning behind them is very, very different. The middle choice isn't always complete neutrality.
And that's why the excuse of "it's the final part in a trilogy with full-on war, Shepard can't afford to be neutral" from BioWare is such a weak cop-out above all else: because the middle choice is not always neutral. Shepard in ME3 no longer gets the chance for players to express their intent or opinion on matters. It's always pick side A fully or side B fully, with no in-between. The middle option is a perfect way to have a Shepard express themselves, and bring in factors like reluctanct support or reluctant walking away. In ME3 Shepard can either cure The Genophage or saboutage it, and the reasons why are either very black and white or explained by Shepard for the player rather than expressed through Shepard via the player. There's no room for the reluctant Shepard who doesn't think it's the best option in the long run, but feels it's a necessary evil. There's also no room for the Shepard who'd like to help the krogan, but just can't bring himself to cure their disease because of the possible repercussions.
Shepard in ME3 is pretty much reduced to "Paragon of Virtue" Shepard or "Sadistic Douchebag" Shepard, with nothing really inbetween. And thanks to so much autodialogue, he/she can wildly swing between these two nonsensically, with Renegade Shepards saying really Paragon things automatically and visa versa (granted, it's usually the former that's more common). For a game where BioWare kept saying they wanted Shepard to have more personality and express themselves more, they sure ended up railroading the player and reducing the player's ability to make their Shepard more personal.
But then... that is the problem with any character that a player is supposed to have control over: the more personality and more developed the player-character already has, the less personal they are and the less the player themselves get to develop them.
And that's why illusion of choice is often necessary. Illusion or not, it's still a form of choice, and taking it away to the degree ME3 did just eliminates choice entirely. Intent, motive and being able to express your character are important factors in any RPG, whether you craft the character entirely yourself, or you're playing one who is already somewhat pre-defined like Shepard. About the only thing ME2 lacked, IMO, was a few more chances to try and reject, put-down or berate TIM and Cerberus. Even if it had TIM spouting another line that kicked me onto his path anyway, it would have at least given my Shepard the opportunity to rebel against an organisation I hated. ME3's way of going about things with dialogue and interaction is what killed this, by taking away player choice utterly, and "fixing" something than in the prior game wasn't really that broken.
ME3 went too far, and BioWare's excuses are illogical and forced, IMO. A feeble defense for bad design decisions that were made not because it was better for the game, but because they wanted to make the whole thing more cinematic and epic, because they wanted to keep players on the same rails the whole way through, because they couldn't be bothered giving long-time players proper consequences and branching paths, and because they wanted to appeal more to an audience who thought Mass Effect was too talky and who were far more their focus than those players who were in on the ground-floor.
Because hey... they already had those players, right? Why make a game rich and deep and complex when the only audience who want that are those who have already pretty much handed over their cash?
Modifié par Terror_K, 06 août 2012 - 02:44 .
Retour en haut
).
