235 réponses à ce sujet

[Conniving_Eagle]

Player: ASSUMING DIRECT CONTROL!

Shepard: Assumptions make an ass out of you and me. Assumption failed

Modifié par Conniving_Eagle, 12 août 2012 - 09:45 .

[Tritium315]

HYR 2.0 wrote...

Problems with the old systems:

1.) Dialogue Wheel responses leading to saying the exact same thing.
2.) DW responses leading to saying the same thing with just slightly nuanced opinion (as opposed to, a contrary opinion).
3.) DW reponses assuming your motivations behind a decision. ("I'm not going to let fear compromise who I am!" ugh...)
4.) DW response otherwise not reflecting your opinion on a development.
5.) DW options not always reflecting the actual response very well.
6.) Persuation system forcing you to play strictly to one morality to unlock persuation options rather than in-character.
7.) Being left with only one (persuation) dialogue response as a result of the above.
8.) Abundance of forced opinons (friendships, railroading) even before ME3, despite the dialogue-wheel.


I will agree there should have been less of it in ME3. But complaining about its presence outright is absurd. Given some of the issues up top, it's practically necessary.

1,2) I'd rather have the illusion of choice than the certainty of a lack of it.

3,4,5,8) Those problems are even worse with auto-dialogue.

6,7) Those are issues of the paragon/renegade system; not the dialogue wheel.

[jeffyg93]

Man, you guys are really dramatic and excel at exaggeration.

The option to say miniscule things was taken away from me? DIS GAEM IS PRETY MUCH CAL OF DUTY!!!!!!!

Yes. You are totally right. Instead of disagreeing with you I'll just reply to circlejerk and add nothing to discussion. Because playing ME3, a game with a significant amount of recorded dialogue, a game with themes and a focus on story and characters, a game focused on hard decision making reminds me of call of duty or gears of war only because I wasn't able to make my Shepard choose between saying "Who are you?" or "What are you?" And fluid combat is a bad thing. I'd rather control Shepard as if he were a tank and use unbalanced abilities. That's how true RPGs work!

But seriously, no. In the end it doesn't matter what genre label you put on the game. It's a video game. The series overall hasn't changed much gameplay wise since ME1. It's still about taking cover, utilizing abilities to your tactical advantage, maintaining a party, shooting different guns, and utilizing your surroundings. Ya know, like most shooters. Mass Effect is not a unique snowflake. Mass Effect, even your beloved ME1, was never a pure RPG and for good reason. Go back to the old Final Fantasy games if you want some hardcore RPG grinding.

[RebelTitan428]

OFF WITH HIS HEAD!!!

or her head?....

OFF WITH ITS HEAD!!!

[Pitznik]

AresKeith wrote...

Pitznik wrote...

How are those people who can't stand autodialogue ever got over the fact they can't make Shepard farmer, or that Shepard always likes Liara. There is always something you will be forced to, even if you don't like it, in ME1, ME2 or ME3. That is how this game works. You can't have a somewhat realistic conversation with Shepard saying only meaningful things, all the time. Believe me, when Shepard says something through autodialogue, your both options in full dialogue wheel would be extremely similar anyway.

As for neutral option, I don't really care, since game is constructed the way lack of Paragon/Renegade points is always bad, never a good thing. Nothing comes from it really. DA2 system ain't bad, developing personality based on majority of choices and unlocking some special "interrupts" - but it is not a neutral option, it is Paragon, Renegade and Smartass.

well maybe people like being a smartass, instead of Shepard saying something without us picking it

Eh, nevermind, I apparently failed at english if that is what you understood from my post I tried to say that if Shepard is going to say something trivial, it doesn't really make much sense to make a choice out of it. And if he says something meaningful through autodialogue, both options would be constructed in the way that both would be so very similar conversation would go the same way. Autodialogue = removal of redundancy, not removal of choice.

[DukeOfNukes]

ME1, I could sit there and say "what would I do in this situation"
ME2, I lost it a lot by being forced to work with Cerberus and having to actively defend them against other people telling you they weren't to be trusted.
ME3, it was gone completely. I don't identify with a man who kills Vorcha in cold blood, who's a jerk to Liara's mother, and randomly throws a hissy fit against his best friends and allies.

I also couldn't relate to somebody who was nice to Vega. WTF was that about?

[Tritium315]

Pitznik wrote...

AresKeith wrote...

Pitznik wrote...

How are those people who can't stand autodialogue ever got over the fact they can't make Shepard farmer, or that Shepard always likes Liara. There is always something you will be forced to, even if you don't like it, in ME1, ME2 or ME3. That is how this game works. You can't have a somewhat realistic conversation with Shepard saying only meaningful things, all the time. Believe me, when Shepard says something through autodialogue, your both options in full dialogue wheel would be extremely similar anyway.

As for neutral option, I don't really care, since game is constructed the way lack of Paragon/Renegade points is always bad, never a good thing. Nothing comes from it really. DA2 system ain't bad, developing personality based on majority of choices and unlocking some special "interrupts" - but it is not a neutral option, it is Paragon, Renegade and Smartass.

well maybe people like being a smartass, instead of Shepard saying something without us picking it

Eh, nevermind, I apparently failed at english if that is what you understood from my post I tried to say that if Shepard is going to say something trivial, it doesn't really make much sense to make a choice out of it. And if he says something meaningful through autodialogue, both options would be constructed in the way that both would be so very similar conversation would go the same way. Autodialogue = removal of redundancy, not removal of choice.

It's the removal of characterization. There are many different ways to say the same thing, and all imply a different type of person.

Auto-dialogue takes away the most important part of a role playing game.

[Pitznik]

Tritium315 wrote...


It's the removal of characterization. There are many different ways to say the same thing, and all imply a different type of person.

Auto-dialogue takes away the most important part of a role playing game.

True roleplaying isn't possible in game like this, and never was. Don't think that roleplaying was ever "the most important part of CRPG", as stupid it may sound. At least not in the games I love, like BG2, PST, DAO or Arcanum. It was always about decisions, not saying the same thing in slightly different way.

Modifié par Pitznik, 12 août 2012 - 10:00 .

[Ryzaki]

Autodialogue turned my renedouche and saint paragon into nearly the same person 90% of the time.

That's a serious problem. I can't even PLAY my renedouche anymore because of autodialogue.

[Leonardo the Magnificent]

Everyone, both of them are bad. I prefer tasteful autodialogue to the clunky wheel, though. That being said, the ideal system would be something like DX:HR or FO:NV. Or DA2, now that I think about it.

[silentassassin264]

My problem was not with the autodialogue as I liked the concept. Why give me the DW for three options that don't change anything or are all slight variations on saying the same thing? My problem is that for those options when it was 3 of the same things, the point was neutral. It was like, we have to take that AA tower down, "Yes", "Yeah", and "Hell Yeah". I am fine with that being autodialogued. I am not however happy with my Shepard autodialoged to be paragon when I am playing a renegade. I also do not like my lesbian femshep who is quite content with Liara flirted with Vega. Using autodialogue to force Shepard to make opinions that I should be able to control, which I controlled in ME1 and 2, is not cool. Not cool at all.

[The Spamming Troll]

alpha protocol.

thats the kind of dialogue responses i like to choose from.

[F4H bandicoot]

LA noire has a decent interrogation dialogue system.

And a very tough choice [Tougher than many of the ME ones]

[Conniving_Eagle]

F4H bandicoot wrote...

LA noire has a decent interrogation dialogue system.

And a very tough choice [Tougher than many of the ME ones]

Too bad the cases are only minimally affected. However, Rockstar hinted that LA Noire has a future. I hope they can perfect this in upcoming titles.

Also, C-Sec in the early days  - www.youtube.com/watch

[F4H bandicoot]

Conniving_Eagle wrote...

F4H bandicoot wrote...

LA noire has a decent interrogation dialogue system.

And a very tough choice [Tougher than many of the ME ones]

Too bad the cases are only minimally affected. However, Rockstar hinted that LA Noire has a future. I hope they can perfect this in upcoming titles.

Also, C-Sec in the early days  - www.youtube.com/watch

I wan't so bothered by the cases being affected by accusing someone incorrectly tbh, although I should have been.

ME needed choices on a scale with that of whether to put the murderer or Paedophile away though.
Something that was truly horrible.

[Tritium315]

Pitznik wrote...

Tritium315 wrote...


It's the removal of characterization. There are many different ways to say the same thing, and all imply a different type of person.

Auto-dialogue takes away the most important part of a role playing game.

True roleplaying isn't possible in game like this, and never was. Don't think that roleplaying was ever "the most important part of CRPG", as stupid it may sound. At least not in the games I love, like BG2, PST, DAO or Arcanum. It was always about decisions, not saying the same thing in slightly different way.

Are you ****ting me? PST is my favorite game of all time so I'll use that as an example of why you're wrong.

*spoilers to follow for everyone who didn't play it*

For the ending there were basically three ways to finish the game: kill TTO, merge with him, or unmake yourself. However, there were literally dozens of ways to achieve these endings ranging from learning the truth about yourself through the bronze sphere, convincing him to merge through logic, willing yourself out of existance, killing yourself with Coaxmetal's blade, etc. Every option there implied a different type of character, a different type of person.

An even more poignant example though conerns your conversation with Deionarra near the end. At this point it doesn't matter what you say; you're going to go to the roof to face TTO. However, when you talk to her you can either tell her the truth about everything, or add another layer to the lies. This has zero effect gameplay wise but has a massive effect on how you perceive your own character. PST is brimming with conversations like that, while they have no effect on the game, allow the player to define TNO as their own unique entity. 

PST, as well as the rest of the games you described (and Mass effect outside of the third one), is defined by the ability to roleplay. Decisions play a major role because of this, not in addition to it. Superflous choices and gameplay effecting choices are both equally important to building both a character and a conection between the player and said character, and neither of these should be sacrificed on the altars of time and budget.

[SpamBot2000]

Tritium315 wrote...

Pitznik wrote...

Tritium315 wrote...


It's the removal of characterization. There are many different ways to say the same thing, and all imply a different type of person.

Auto-dialogue takes away the most important part of a role playing game.

True roleplaying isn't possible in game like this, and never was. Don't think that roleplaying was ever "the most important part of CRPG", as stupid it may sound. At least not in the games I love, like BG2, PST, DAO or Arcanum. It was always about decisions, not saying the same thing in slightly different way.

Are you ****ting me? PST is my favorite game of all time so I'll use that as an example of why you're wrong.

*spoilers to follow for everyone who didn't play it*

For the ending there were basically three ways to finish the game: kill TTO, merge with him, or unmake yourself. However, there were literally dozens of ways to achieve these endings ranging from learning the truth about yourself through the bronze sphere, convincing him to merge through logic, willing yourself out of existance, killing yourself with Coaxmetal's blade, etc. Every option there implied a different type of character, a different type of person.

An even more poignant example though conerns your conversation with Deionarra near the end. At this point it doesn't matter what you say; you're going to go to the roof to face TTO. However, when you talk to her you can either tell her the truth about everything, or add another layer to the lies. This has zero effect gameplay wise but has a massive effect on how you perceive your own character. PST is brimming with conversations like that, while they have no effect on the game, allow the player to define TNO as their own unique entity. 

PST, as well as the rest of the games you described (and Mass effect outside of the third one), is defined by the ability to roleplay. Decisions play a major role because of this, not in addition to it. Superflous choices and gameplay effecting choices are both equally important to building both a character and a conection between the player and said character, and neither of these should be sacrificed on the altars of time and budget.

Yeah, this.

[Pitznik]

Tritium315 wrote...

Are you ****ting me? PST is my favorite game of all time so I'll use that as an example of why you're wrong.

*spoilers to follow for everyone who didn't play it*

For the ending there were basically three ways to finish the game: kill TTO, merge with him, or unmake yourself. However, there were literally dozens of ways to achieve these endings ranging from learning the truth about yourself through the bronze sphere, convincing him to merge through logic, willing yourself out of existance, killing yourself with Coaxmetal's blade, etc. Every option there implied a different type of character, a different type of person.

An even more poignant example though conerns your conversation with Deionarra near the end. At this point it doesn't matter what you say; you're going to go to the roof to face TTO. However, when you talk to her you can either tell her the truth about everything, or add another layer to the lies. This has zero effect gameplay wise but has a massive effect on how you perceive your own character. PST is brimming with conversations like that, while they have no effect on the game, allow the player to define TNO as their own unique entity. 

PST, as well as the rest of the games you described (and Mass effect outside of the third one), is defined by the ability to roleplay. Decisions play a major role because of this, not in addition to it. Superflous choices and gameplay effecting choices are both equally important to building both a character and a conection between the player and said character, and neither of these should be sacrificed on the altars of time and budget.

Throughout the game different responses resulted in either different outcomes, or at the very least added minor points to alignment scales. Choices were meaningful, with very real and probably measurable effect on gameplay. I don't know, but probably Deionarra conversation could be the same, which could result in pushing your alignment into new territory. There really weren't many, if any at all, completely superfluous choices in Infinity RPGs.

Btw, how you end the game is not a good example - your decision affects what actually -happens-.

As I understand, instead of pointless choices we got more actual content. I can't say they annoy me, or that they make my experience worse, but if that means I get more gameplay or more plot, I'm happy they got rid of them. If that is not the case, I'm not.

Do you happen to know if any works of Obsidian at least touch the level of awesomeness that was PST?

[Tritium315]

Pitznik wrote...

Tritium315 wrote...

Are you ****ting me? PST is my favorite game of all time so I'll use that as an example of why you're wrong.

*spoilers to follow for everyone who didn't play it*

For the ending there were basically three ways to finish the game: kill TTO, merge with him, or unmake yourself. However, there were literally dozens of ways to achieve these endings ranging from learning the truth about yourself through the bronze sphere, convincing him to merge through logic, willing yourself out of existance, killing yourself with Coaxmetal's blade, etc. Every option there implied a different type of character, a different type of person.

An even more poignant example though conerns your conversation with Deionarra near the end. At this point it doesn't matter what you say; you're going to go to the roof to face TTO. However, when you talk to her you can either tell her the truth about everything, or add another layer to the lies. This has zero effect gameplay wise but has a massive effect on how you perceive your own character. PST is brimming with conversations like that, while they have no effect on the game, allow the player to define TNO as their own unique entity. 

PST, as well as the rest of the games you described (and Mass effect outside of the third one), is defined by the ability to roleplay. Decisions play a major role because of this, not in addition to it. Superflous choices and gameplay effecting choices are both equally important to building both a character and a conection between the player and said character, and neither of these should be sacrificed on the altars of time and budget.

Throughout the game different responses resulted in either different outcomes, or at the very least added minor points to alignment scales. Choices were meaningful, with very real and probably measurable effect on gameplay. I don't know, but probably Deionarra conversation could be the same, which could result in pushing your alignment into new territory. There really weren't many, if any at all, completely superfluous choices in Infinity RPGs.

Btw, how you end the game is not a good example - your decision affects what actually -happens-.

As I understand, instead of pointless choices we got more actual content. I can't say they annoy me, or that they make my experience worse, but if that means I get more gameplay or more plot, I'm happy they got rid of them. If that is not the case, I'm not.

Do you happen to know if any works of Obsidian at least touch the level of awesomeness that was PST?

Wait, so all you need to have a choice be defined as meaningful is for there to be a minor alignment change? So if there were tiny renegade/paragon rewards for every single convo with multiple choices you'd be all about it, but not with having the choices simply being there?

Why exactly do you even play games? To see a number change?

As for my example being poor, I disagree. To elaborate, it doesn't matter how you force TTO to merge with you (logic, threaten with blade, threaten with unmaking yourself, etc.) the cutscene that plays is the same, but how you perceive your character based on that decision changes greatly. The same is true for the other paths (whether you kill him or end yourself). The only extra content here is a slightly different conversation, but apparently extra conversations are pointless unless there's some gameplay benefit according to you.

[Pitznik]

Tritium315 wrote...

Wait, so all you need to have a choice be defined as meaningful is for there to be a minor alignment change? So if there were tiny renegade/paragon rewards for every single convo with multiple choices you'd be all about it, but not with having the choices simply being there?

Yes. That would exactly make it worth having that choice in the first place.

Tritium315 wrote...
Why exactly do you even play games? To see a number change?

Are you suggesting it is the only reason I play games, or are you implying that I said so? I don't and I didn't. But yes, number changing (be it level, exp, statistics, or some sort of morality system) is important. It is pretty much a very big part of what RPG is, having your character changing and developing with your actions.

Tritium315 wrote...
As for my example being poor, I disagree. To elaborate, it doesn't matter how you force TTO to merge with you (logic, threaten with blade, threaten with unmaking yourself, etc.) the cutscene that plays is the same, but how you perceive your character based on that decision changes greatly. The same is true for the other paths (whether you kill him or end yourself). The only extra content here is a slightly different conversation, but apparently extra conversations are pointless unless there's some gameplay benefit according to you.

It is not about cutscene but what exactly happened in game - not the result alone, but also the action which caused that result. Just like for me curing or not the genophage is a huge choice, because it impacts greatly ingame world, even if people claim that "their choices didn't matter" and it is just "EMS". I just consider actions with results (either gameplay results or ingame world results) being much more important than just empty talk. Dialogue wheel options will never really properly reflect who my particular Shepard is, so I'm fine with skipping the BS to get to what really affects ANYTHING.

I'll repeat my question - since you're a PST fan, and Obsidian are mostly former Black Isle people, did you happen to play any of their games and consider them to be as good or nearly as good as PST?

[Tritium315]

Pitznik wrote...

Tritium315 wrote...

Wait, so all you need to have a choice be defined as meaningful is for there to be a minor alignment change? So if there were tiny renegade/paragon rewards for every single convo with multiple choices you'd be all about it, but not with having the choices simply being there?

Yes. That would exactly make it worth having that choice in the first place.

I'm done argueing with you because that is literally the dumbest **** I've read in a while, and if you believe that then there's no point in even trying to have a discussion with you. When I played PST I never even paid attention to the effect decisions had on my alighnment; I simply just made choices based on what I felt was right. Hell, the first time I played I didn't even realize alignment was part of the game until I got to Trias and found I couldn't use Celestial Fury.

As for your question: I haven't played any game, by anyone, that even comes close to PST besides the BG series, and even that's a distant second. Fingers crossed the rumored PST successor that Avellone is thinking of doing via kickstarter will change that.

[Pitznik]

Tritium315 wrote...

I'm done argueing with you because that is literally the dumbest **** I've read in a while, and if you believe that then there's no point in even trying to have a discussion with you. When I played PST I never even paid attention to the effect decisions had on my alighnment; I simply just made choices based on what I felt was right. Hell, the first time I played I didn't even realize alignment was part of the game until I got to Trias and found I couldn't use Celestial Fury.

It is funny how the same people complain about auto-dialogue and supposed meaningless choices in ME3, while those dialogue wheel choices that were replaced by auto-dialogue are pretty much definition of meaninglessness, and ME3 choices have very real ingame world consequences, even if actual gameplay isn't always affected much. Hater's paradox.

There is nothing dumb about what I've said. I like to have a choice when it affects anything - my character, other character's opinion/reaction, ingame world, anything. I don't care about choices not affecting literally anything - some ME1 conversations being great, even literal example.Unfinished product, or intentional deception.

I played like that for first few playthroughs, but year or so ago I modded PST with Qwinn's fixes and twitches, and in fact great many lines of dialogue add really miniscule amounts of law/chaos or good/evil. That makes it rather important to play consequently and stick to truth, even if it makes sense to lie - if you care about stuff like Celestail Fury or Tears of Salieru Dei.

[Pitznik]

And double post.

Modifié par Pitznik, 13 août 2012 - 12:53 .

[Gibb_Shepard]

Holy mother of idiocy.

So instead of having a DW that could possibly lead to uncharacteristic remarks, you believe auto-dialogue where the player has no control over the the choice of remarks, will prevent uncharacteristic remarks?

The logic, it's remarkable.

[Gibb_Shepard]

Pitznik wrote...

Tritium315 wrote...


It's the removal of characterization. There are many different ways to say the same thing, and all imply a different type of person.

Auto-dialogue takes away the most important part of a role playing game.

True roleplaying isn't possible in game like this, and never was. Don't think that roleplaying was ever "the most important part of CRPG", as stupid it may sound. At least not in the games I love, like BG2, PST, DAO or Arcanum. It was always about decisions, not saying the same thing in slightly different way.

Making choices IS roleplaying. Jeebus, the BSN man.