235 réponses à ce sujet

[Pitznik]

Gibb_Shepard wrote...

Making choices IS roleplaying. Jeebus, the BSN man.

Roleplaying as in playing a role. Not only making choices, but trying to present some kind of person, like an actor. You know, like in RPG games, pen and paper. You can't really roleplay by choosing from 2 or 3 predefined paths. Do you understand now, or still not quite?

[Tritium315]

Pitznik wrote...


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.

It'd dumb because you feel that a conversation that has no effect on gameplay is pointless where as if the EXACT SAME conversation affected the paragon/renegade scale by adding a single point to one or the other then you'd suddenly feel the conversation was no longer pointless (even though the difference is completely arbitrary).

Playing RPGs like that is, quite frankly, the complete opposite of how they should be played. The reason PST doesn't show you how conversations affect your alignment is because that defeats the purpose of playing an RPG. The point is to play a role, not to metagame your way to a powerful item you don't even need simply because it's there. It's the equivalent of reading a book to watch the page number increase instead of to learn the story.

[Pitznik]

Tritium315 wrote...

It'd dumb because you feel that a conversation that has no effect on gameplay is pointless where as if the EXACT SAME conversation affected the paragon/renegade scale by adding a single point to one or the other then you'd suddenly feel the conversation was no longer pointless (even though the difference is completely arbitrary).

Playing RPGs like that is, quite frankly, the complete opposite of how they should be played. The reason PST doesn't show you how conversations affect your alignment is because that defeats the purpose of playing an RPG. The point is to play a role, not to metagame your way to a powerful item you don't even need simply because it's there. It's the equivalent of reading a book to watch the page number increase instead of to learn the story.

Again, you are making the point increase the reason I pick a specific choice, while it is not. I pick it, because I agree with it, but it doesn't change the fact I want it to affect something.

PST doesn't show you how the conversation affects alignment to avoid changing conversations to "pick 2 for law and 3 for chaos", but it still does add those points, rewarding you for consequence and playing the chosen role. Solution for that in ME would be adding paragon/renegade points to every dialogue, but mixing up where they are on the wheel, but not by  meaningless choices. What options you choose should be reflected in game, even if it is only VA like in DA2.

Modifié par Pitznik, 13 août 2012 - 01:29 .

[xxskyshadowxx]

HYR 2.0 wrote...

fiendishchicken wrote...

You're obviously just trying to elicit a reaction from everyone on here, OP.

Right. That's why I jotted down 8 different points backing up my opinion, just to elicit reaction.

And people wonder why I don't respect the average BSN user's opinions much. You're not entitled to my repsect - it's earned, not given. Do people expect me to be okay with these responses? And to quote Bill Maher, it's hard not to be condescending when you're talking to an idiot.

Speaking of bogus complaints....*stares at yet another complaint about complaints thread*

Auto-dialogue is not a "bogus complaint.' It's a complaint that is based on someone's opinion that you happen to not agree with. I could easily argue that your points are "bogus," as well, but I won't because they are your own opinion and you have your right to them.

Your 8 different points are rather meaningless however, because the title of your thread is clearly meant to start an arguement, and therefore invalidates the point you are trying to make. Respect is earned, and if you want folks to respect your opinion, then you should modify your thread title to "Why I completely disagree with the Auto-dialogue complaint."

[Nightwriter]

[quote]HYR 2.0 wrote...

Problems with the old systems:

1.) Dialogue Wheel responses leading to saying the exact same thing.[/quote]
Vastly improved in ME2. No special complaints.

[quote]HYR 2.0 wrote...

2.) DW responses leading to saying the same thing with just slightly nuanced opinion (as opposed to, a contrary opinion).[/quote]
Not much worse than the polarized binary opinion choices of ME3. I'll take all the variety I can get, however small.

[quote]HYR 2.0 wrote...

3.) DW reponses assuming your motivations behind a decision. ("I'm not going to let fear compromise who I am!" ugh...)[/quote]
Same problem exists in ME3.

[quote]HYR 2.0 wrote...

4.) DW response otherwise not reflecting your opinion on a development.[/quote]
Not improved with auto-dialogue.

[quote]HYR 2.0 wrote...

5.) DW options not always reflecting the actual response very well.[/quote]
Player agency > paraphrase confusion. Give me options that are occasionally mislabeled over complete lack of control.

[quote]HYR 2.0 wrote...

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.[/quote]
[/quote]
Reputation system met with my approval.

[quote]HYR 2.0 wrote...

8.) Abundance of forced opinons (friendships, railroading) even before ME3, despite the dialogue-wheel.[/quote]
Valid.

[Memnon]

I thought auto-dialoge was the tendency of Shepard to continue to have a conversation without your input - not necessarily related to dialogue wheel. It didn't bother me too much, but I noticed it in ME3 - especially when talking to the Catalyst. When Shepard responded to his Control choice by saying, "So the Illusive Man was right" I wanted to punch my monitor

[Tritium315]

Pitznik wrote...

Again, you are making the point increase the reason I pick a specific choice, while it is not. I pick it, because I agree with it, but it doesn't change the fact I want it to affect something.

I'm not making a point about you, I'm going by what you said. You literally stated that a choice is pointless unless it affects something within the game; even if it affects something as trivial as alignment. Apparently that all that is required to make a choice meaningful, and with the absence of that then it's pointless and has no business being in the game.

Pitznik wrote... 


PST doesn't show you how the conversation affects alignment to avoid changing conversations to "pick 2 for law and 3 for chaos", but it still does add those points, rewarding you for consequence and playing the chosen role. Solution for that in ME would be adding paragon/renegade points to every dialogue, but mixing up where they are on the wheel, but not by  meaningless choices. What options you choose should be reflected in game, even if it is only VA like in DA2.

 
 
Why must it be reflected within the game though? If in the real world I'm a dick to some random schmuck in an alley where no one can see me how would people know what I did? They wouldn't. Who you are within an RPG is defined by you, not the game. By having games be the way you desire them to be you're no longer playing a role but metagaming toward some predetermined classification. PST was great because alignment was such a subtle part of the experience. You simply played the way you felt your character would and your alignment naturally gravitated toward that. Hell, if alignment didn't exist it would have been virtually the exact same game (except not for you, apparently, since every conversation would have been pointless).

[Khajiit Jzargo]

I wished there was a good mix of auto-dialogue and decisions. I felt I went to long without picking what to say, also there should be a middle dialogue wheel.

[N7Infernox]

Auto dialogue does not stop the game from being good. However, overuse repeatedly drives a hammer through the sense of immersion and roleplaying that was created by the previous games.

Modifié par N7Infernox, 13 août 2012 - 02:18 .

[His Name was HYR!!]

Mr.House wrote...

So you have no problem with femshep flirting with Vega with no player input despite the fact she could already be in a romance or not be interested in males and forced emotions that might not fit a Shepard(Colonist Shepard would really not feel that bad seeing the kid dies)

Yeah, I did hate how Shepard leaned on the table and said "I'm more interested in just talking for a bit" to Vega and continued the rest of the conversation like she was flirting.

Oh whoops, that was Jacob!

[Memnon]

I'm having a hard time understanding why you would prefer autodialogue - because hitting space 5 times instead of 2 is just way too much?

[silentassassin264]

Stornskar wrote...

I'm having a hard time understanding why you would prefer autodialogue - because hitting space 5 times instead of 2 is just way too much?

silentassassin264 wrote...

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.

 

It is not simply skipping through the conversation.  It is the game saying, this is how you will respond to X when in ME1 and ME2 you have been able to establish that that is not how your Shepard should be responding to X.  

[chemiclord]

Stornskar wrote...

I'm having a hard time understanding why you would prefer autodialogue - because hitting space 5 times instead of 2 is just way too much?

The illusion of choice Bioware offered me in terms of interaction was entertaining... once.

After it became clear that much of your "choice" was just reskinned versions of two distinct choices, it became tedious and obnoxious for me.

If you're not going to make dialogue interaction particularly robust, I figure you might as well just do away with it.  It's not as much that I LIKE auto-dialogue as much as I'd rather have it than blindly hitting the space bar repeatedly because it really doesn't matter what I WANT to say.

Modifié par chemiclord, 13 août 2012 - 02:27 .

[dreaming_raithe]

My Shepard didn't feel like my Shepard at several points in ME3. Off the top of my head, the three major ones would be:

Her regular flirting with Vega. She's homosexual (and didn't actually romance anyone outside of a Liara Ninjamance in ME1).

Her caring so terribly about the death of the vent-kid. She was a Ruthless Earthborn and quite used to the losses of war. She'd care, for sure (she was mostly Renegade, but usually went Paragon when there was needless loss of life involved). The dreams in general felt very out of character for her--it felt like Bioware was trying to implant their vision on Shepard, when they were relatively light-handed about that in the previous games.

Her getting so mushy in the hospital with Ashley/Kaiden (I have playthroughs with both surviving with her that I did). This is a similar problem to the above with the kid, but in a lot of ways it's worse. Neither of the little speeches she gives from my picking one dialogue option felt right. They could have made this somewhat better by allowing a few dialogue choices, the way they do with the "final battle speeches."

If I were to go through line by line I'm sure I could find others. My problems in general are an outgrowth of the auto-dialogue problems. It comes down to Bioware deciding they knew Shepard best, when I felt like they didn't know *my* Shepard at all.

I've only gotten through the game with this particular Shepard, and my Paragon Shepard would probably feel a bit more natural. My psycho Renegade Shepard would feel completely out of place, though, for sure.

[His Name was HYR!!]

Gibb_Shepard wrote...

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?

It's not about uncharacteristicness.

See, I don't like people bull***ing me...

So if they forced me to do stuff in ME1 and ME2 where there was otherwise a choice, so the next story could make narrative sense later, I would be 100% FINE with that.

As an example: Legion in ME2. There's an option to sell him to Cerberus. This is stupid. Why? Because in ME3, you're required to have him or his replacement on the ship, even if you didn't trust him enough to activate him on the ship the first time because maybe you just didn't trust the geth, or roleplayed as a character who did not.

And ME2 is to blame for that, not ME3. ME2 made a promise it couldn't keep. When I saw that decision, I thought to myself, "there's no way they're going to make that work, Legion was just way too important a character to be taken out of the narrative." I was right, and it's just baffling that BW didn't have that foresight themselves.

They should have scrapped that choice altogether. Period. And sure, there would be complaints from some as to why their character is forced to work with the geth and it being OOC or whatever. But it would have been better for narrative continuity, and better overall.

Similarly, you can basically be a racist thought much of ME1. In ME2, you hear nothing about Shepard recruiting Garrus if you turned him away the first game because "hurr, you're a t00rian!"

So, no. The series would have been much better off if this system was in place long ago.

Modifié par HYR 2.0, 13 août 2012 - 02:34 .

[Pitznik]

Tritium315 wrote...

I'm not making a point about you, I'm going by what you said. You literally stated that a choice is pointless unless it affects something within the game; even if it affects something as trivial as alignment. Apparently that all that is required to make a choice meaningful, and with the absence of that then it's pointless and has no business being in the game.

Yes. That doesn't mean it would satisfy me to have option of "+2 Paragon" without anything. I want both role playing and reflection of this roleplaying in the game. If something isn't important to affect anything, it might as well be reduced to auto-dialogue.

Tritium315 wrote...

Why must it be reflected within the game though? If in the real world I'm a dick to some random schmuck in an alley where no one can see me how would people know what I did? They wouldn't. Who you are within an RPG is defined by you, not the game. By having games be the way you desire them to be you're no longer playing a role but metagaming toward some predetermined classification. PST was great because alignment was such a subtle part of the experience. You simply played the way you felt your character would and your alignment naturally gravitated toward that. Hell, if alignment didn't exist it would have been virtually the exact same game (except not for you, apparently, since every conversation would have been pointless).

You would know - how you act affects what you become, what starts to come naturally for you. Neither alignment in PST or morality in ME reflect what others think about you, but your own character's character development. You do not have to "metagame toward predetermined classification" but you can get there by consequence of your choices made through roleplaying. Metagaming is an option, but not the only option, just like it is now, since you can metagame towards pure Paragon asap if you feel like it, auto-dialogue or not.

I disagree that lack of alignment wouldn't change PST, it was a very important part of the game, since all of the PST/DnD philosophy and planes is built around this system. Those moral systems in games and benefits from them are part of the experience, they make it richer. I'm not sure if you would find RPG game without any moral system or experience system satisfying and interesting to play, but I probably wouldn't, maybe that is what pushes me away from Bethesda games. And without it any PST conversation that isn't interesting in itself or plot progressing could be reduced to auto-dialogue. Of course it would be really hard to find conversations in PST that weren't interesting or plot-progressing, but that is an entirely different matter.

I consider perks coming from being LG or full Renegade to be a reward for good roleplaying and that gives me additional satisfaction from the game.

Would you be happy with the whole ME paragon/renegade system, with interrupts and charm/intimidate entirely removed?

[Memnon]

HYR 2.0 wrote...

Gibb_Shepard wrote...

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?

It's not about uncharacteristicness.

See, I don't like people bull***ing me...

So if they forced me to do stuff in ME1 and ME2 where there was otherwise a choice, so the next story could make narrative sense later, I would be 100% FINE with that.

As an example: Legion in ME2. There's an option to sell him to Cerberus. This is stupid. Why? Because in ME3, you're required to have him or his replacement on the ship, even if you didn't trust him enough to activate him on the ship the first time because maybe you just didn't trust the geth, or roleplayed as a character who did not.

And ME2 is to blame for that, not ME3. ME2 made a promise it couldn't keep. When I saw that decision, I thought to myself, "there's no way they're going to make that work, Legion was just way too important a character to be taken out of the narrative." I was right, and it's just baffling that BW didn't have that foresight themselves.

They should have scrapped that choice altogether. Period. And sure, there would be complaints from some as to why their character is forced to work with the geth and it being OOC or whatever. But it would have been better for narrative continuity, and better overall.

Similarly, you can basically be a racist thought much of ME1. In ME2, you hear nothing about Shepard recruiting Garrus if you turned him away the first game because "hurr, you're a t00rian!"

So, no. The series would have been much better off if this system was in place long ago.

Sounds like your issue isn't with autodialogue, but with game design on Bioware's part

[His Name was HYR!!]

xxskyshadowxx wrote...

Speaking of bogus complaints....*stares at yet another complaint about complaints thread*

Auto-dialogue is not a "bogus complaint.' It's a complaint that is based on someone's opinion that you happen to not agree with. I could easily argue that your points are "bogus," as well, but I won't because they are your own opinion and you have your right to them.

It's not about opinion and the right to them. The point is to talk about the game, not just say "this is my opinion and now leave me alone." That's why I didn't just say "autodialogue is a bogus complaint" and leave it at that, I told people why I think that.

So yes, you absolutely should tell me why my points are bogus if you think that.

Also, I would have to suggest growing a thicker skin to someone if they think calling an opinion "bogus" is offensive.

[silentassassin264]

HYR 2.0,you are missing the point. If Mac Walters had been the lead Writer in ME1 and ME2, I am pretty sure ME3 with Cerberus being all evil for evil's sake and the catalyst and all that stuff would have made sense and have been better paced rather than thrown all into the last game. The problem was that it wasn't and you can't just jump into the thrid installment of a trilogy and do that. If I was getting Mass Effect games because I expected Mass Effect and then you take away my choices and retcon my alignment I am going to be pissed. So yeah, if they had autodialogue and forced choices from ME1, it would have fit with three much better.

I also would not have gotten ME2 or 3.

[His Name was HYR!!]

Stornskar wrote...


Sounds like your issue isn't with autodialogue, but with game design on Bioware's part

It's all part of the same thing. I can't/don't expect Bioware to account for evvvverything. And they've proven time and again of trying to bite off way more than they can chew.

So if they need to make things linear - dialogue or other stuff - for the narrative to have less issues, that's really not a big deal.


If anything, they should be blamed for not figuring that out sooner and leaving us with these unrealistic expectations.

[Urdnot Amenark]

When done as often as it currently is, auto-dialogue really interferes with the RP'ing elements that players have enjoyed most out of the game. What makes it worse is that they've effectively removed neutral options in the third game, leaving no room for middle ground and in some cases forcing players to make responses that normally wouldn't make sense for their characters. While the cinematic elements are nice, they should take a backseat and not intrude on the gameplay.

I respect your opinion, but you're way off suggesting their criticisms are invalid just because you don't agree with them.

[His Name was HYR!!]

silentassassin264 wrote...

HYR 2.0,you are missing the point. If Mac Walters had been the lead Writer in ME1 and ME2, I am pretty sure ME3 with Cerberus being all evil for evil's sake and the catalyst and all that stuff would have made sense and have been better paced rather than thrown all into the last game. The problem was that it wasn't and you can't just jump into the thrid installment of a trilogy and do that. If I was getting Mass Effect games because I expected Mass Effect and then you take away my choices and retcon my alignment I am going to be pissed. So yeah, if they had autodialogue and forced choices from ME1, it would have fit with three much better.

I also would not have gotten ME2 or 3.

I don't see how I'm missing the point, exactly.

They did a lot of things where they gave you choice/dialogue but it was clear they had no clue how to make them work, and ended up invalidating MANY those choices anyway. It's not because they wanted to put autodialogue in, it's because they simply couldn't continue to write the story and support those things.

ME1 and ME2 made us empty promises.

[Memnon]

HYR 2.0 wrote...

Stornskar wrote...


Sounds like your issue isn't with autodialogue, but with game design on Bioware's part

It's all part of the same thing. I can't/don't expect Bioware to account for evvvverything. And they've proven time and again of trying to bite off way more than they can chew.

So if they need to make things linear - dialogue or other stuff - for the narrative to have less issues, that's really not a big deal.


If anything, they should be blamed for not figuring that out sooner and leaving us with these unrealistic expectations.

You're still addressing the wrong issue. From a design standpoint, it makes sense for Bioware to provide multiple branches early on - if you run out of time (like they did), you can always close the branches or merge them (which is what they did), but from a design standpoint placing the options early on - in ME1 and ME2 is the right way to go. This is design vice time to implement the design, I don't see how it is related to autodialogue as a superior mechanic

Modifié par Stornskar, 13 août 2012 - 02:51 .

[TheJiveDJ]

I think an important aspect about auto dialogue many here are overlooking is the fact that in the previous two games we could opt out of certain convos or actions. Maybe I DON'T want to investigate Kaidan's sob story because maybe my Shep is just a dick. So for people to come out and say, "well the auto dialogue is the equivalent of investigate options from the previous games" I say to you: what if I DIDN'T want to investigate? What if I DIDN'T want to hug Liara when I first saw her again? Sometimes the words that aren't spoken, catch the most ears.

[Pitznik]

HYR 2.0 wrote...

As an example: Legion in ME2. There's an option to sell him to Cerberus. This is stupid. Why? Because in ME3, you're required to have him or his replacement on the ship, even if you didn't trust him enough to activate him on the ship the first time because maybe you just didn't trust the geth, or roleplayed as a character who did not.

I find this choice very useful, actually. By giving Legion to Cerberus, I'll have no emotional attachment to him, and I'll get Geth VI instead, who is nowhere near as convincing. That in turn will let me easily get rid of the Geth on Rannoch, even before they'll get a chance of becoming fully self aware. And then I won't have a problem with a race of fully aware beings being annohilated in destroy. One somewhat metagaming choice, followed by two more choices of clean(er) conscience for my Shepard.