235 réponses à ce sujet

[Brovikk Rasputin]

Agreed, OP.

The auto dialogue in 3 makes the conversations flow so much better, and allows for more interesting stuff, like the characters walking around the room while talking. I'd much rather have this, than three options that says the same thing, and breaks the flow of the conversation.

[Darth Death]

An example I can think of currently was my shep's behavior regarding EDI in ME2. My shep hated her with all his heart (& all AIs for that matter), never once giving a grain of trust. In ME3 however, my shep suddenly befriended EDI, no longer having any problems with her existence. That's just one of many scenarios auto-dialogue had established.

Modifié par Darth Death, 13 août 2012 - 06:09 .

[Tritium315]

Pitznik wrote...

Tritium315 wrote...

So now if a conversation is interesting it's okay? You've backpeddled so much to try and justify your original argument that you're basically saying what I've been saying. Dialogue should be it's own reward; that's the point of an RPG, and choices within said dialogue should be there for the purpose of allowing you to define your character.

I didn't backpeddle, it is you who is trying to make my arguement much more radical than it was, all the time presuming something about why I play the game or why I pick some choices over another. When the purpose of dialogue is to only move conversation forward, the autodialogue should be used, just like you can have options in more traditional RPGs of "go on" or "what happened next?", its only purpose being breaking up what other character says into something less than walls of text.

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.

 

It's hard not to make your argument sound stupid when you say **** like that. If the options in a conversation are: Yea! (+1 paragon), Hell yeah! (+1 renegade), and Okay (no change) even I would say that's a pointless choice, but for you it would apparently be meaningful since there's some alignment change involved with it.

Pitznik wrote... 

Tritium315 wrote...

There is no such thing as "good roleplaying" and there should be no reward; that's the point. Your "reward" is how the game plays out and how characters respond to the different things you say.

Of course there is, if you really have some sort of motivations or vision of your character in your head when you're playing. If one conversation you strongly support something, just to stop supporting it seconds later, that is a bad roleplaying.

Since you love alignments you should know that in that case you're roleplaying someone that's chaotic neutral. Additionally, if your motivations are "I wanna be a good guy" then you wouldn't make that choice unless you're purposely trying to break the game (in which case you're not exactly roleplaying anymore, are you). Adding paragon/renegade just assumes the player is an idiot by color coding the choices (This is the good guy choice little Timmy, pick blue if you want to be GOOD).

Pitznik wrote... 

Tritium315

Personally I'd have been a hell of a lot happier with ME without the paragon/renegade system. If ME3 did one thing right it was how they overhauled that awful mess. Simply because I decided shoot a ****load of people in one situation shouldn't mean that I'm all of a sudden incapable of being charming in a different one. Hell, in real life sociopaths are often extremely charming individuals. 

Even if this is logical, it kill replayability a bit - every Shepard in ME3 has pretty much the same exact options available. On the other hand, ME2 and ME1 rewarded extreme viewpoints. I see both good and bad sides of this system, but I wouldn't like it removed entirely, because that just takes away one layer of the game.

It doesn't kill replayability at all. Having an awful story kills replayability. Replaying a good game is like rewatching a good movie or rereading a good book. Everytime I replay PST I end up as chaotic good because that's the story I enjoy experiencing.

[garrusfan1]

Well sometimes it is neccasary I mean on missions when can you imagine having a dialouge wheel during a gun fight. Anyways but on the Normandy and places like that and the citadel the amount of it is ridiculous.

[BD Manchild]

I wasn't too bothered by the auto-dialogue, to be honest. Yes, the dialogue wheel might have seemed more organic, but the fact is that dialogue is linear by its very nature. It also made it easier to avoid the hurdle of trying to initiate a conversation after a chapter only to find they don't have a damn thing to say; no witticism gets any funnier the more it's repeated. To be honest, I felt the conversations flowed more naturally in this one.

Modifié par BD Manchild, 13 août 2012 - 03:14 .

[Elite Midget]

Eh. Bioware should just scrap the gimmick and just make our Shepards act how they feel. Make everything auto, no choices.

Don't wanna romance Liara? Too bad!

[fchopin]

Auto dialogue = set character

I don’t mind in ME3 as Bioware’s Shepard is how i play Shepard but i can understand how upset people are if their Shepard is different.

[Apocaleepse360]

While you did provide some valid points, I think the main thing is, is that there was MORE of those than less in ME3, despite everyone's complaints over their presence in previous games. My Shepard had always been the sort of logical thinking kind of guy, and for him to have an outburst every time someone DARED to mention another planet's problems besides Earth threw all that logical thinking right out of the window.

Modifié par Apocaleepse360, 13 août 2012 - 03:32 .

[NM_Che56]

BaladasDemnevanni wrote...

Auto-dialogue is a perfectly valid complaint, particularly if you enjoy the interactive nature of conversations and when autodialogue exists far and beyond what either ME1 or 2 included.

A lot of times, the interactive nature was kind of an illusion since you just got the same responses after you exhausted the dialogue options with a character.  You'd spend unnecessary time figuring out that the character had nothing new to say.

[Gogzilla]

Auto dialogue is the worst thing to ever happen to mass effect

I hate it , i hate it and i hate it.

Sometimes it does work and that ok.

But its overused so much, it gives Shepard a personality i never thought he would have.

[Pitznik]

Tritium315 wrote......


It's hard not to make your argument sound stupid when you say **** like that. If the options in a conversation are: Yea! (+1 paragon), Hell yeah! (+1 renegade), and Okay (no change) even I would say that's a pointless choice, but for you it would apparently be meaningful since there's some alignment change involved with it.

That is really awful example, yet it still makes more sense that than just Yea!/Hell yeah!/Okay! without anything. Either meaningful, or just skip it, my original arguement. But this example makes as much sense for presenting my point of view as it does for presenting yours.

Tritium315 wrote......

Since you love alignments you should know that in that case you're roleplaying someone that's chaotic neutral. Additionally, if your motivations are "I wanna be a good guy" then you wouldn't make that choice unless you're purposely trying to break the game (in which case you're not exactly roleplaying anymore, are you). Adding paragon/renegade just assumes the player is an idiot by color coding the choices (This is the good guy choice little Timmy, pick blue if you want to be GOOD).

I should clarify - if you're intending to play lawful good, but you lie in situation when this lie is an obvious advantage, you should feel the consequences. That is what I consider bad roleplaying - jumping OOC for some immediate gain. You call it not roleplaying, I call it bad roleplaying.

And yes, color coding/direction coding the paragon/renegade response is somewhat of autopilot, I'm guilty of making one important choice completely OOC because it was renegade on my first ME3 playthrough. But that is not what like about paragon/renegade system, quite the opposite.

Tritium315

It doesn't kill replayability at all. Having an awful story kills replayability. Replaying a good game is like rewatching a good movie or rereading a good book. Everytime I replay PST I end up as chaotic good because that's the story I enjoy experiencing.

That is you. But many people replay the game for a different experience, not for the repeat of the same, this is actually what people complain about in autodialogue. Having new options open as a different character is a good thing anyway, like discovering previously unseen interrupts in ME2.

[NM_Che56]

Gogzilla wrote...

Auto dialogue is the worst thing to ever happen to mass effect

I hate it , i hate it and i hate it.

Sometimes it does work and that ok.

But its overused so much, it gives Shepard a personality i never thought he would have.

Wait...what?

[Grub Killer8016]

It is a bogus complaint. Some gamers playing ME3 are new to the series, and like to use the auto-dialogue. If you don't like it, just don't complain about it.

[BaladasDemnevanni]

Master Che wrote...

A lot of times, the interactive nature was kind of an illusion since you just got the same responses after you exhausted the dialogue options with a character.  You'd spend unnecessary time figuring out that the character had nothing new to say.

But that's not an argument in favor of autodialogue. That's an argument for Bioware removing responses once you've spoken to a character on a topic. Once I've spoken to Tali about Quarian politics, the conversation is over with.

An illusion is when the player believes he is influencing the conversation, but it's really following one track (Ex: Game gives three dialogue options, Shepard responds the same exact way, no matter what). This was an issue in ME1, but not as much in ME2 where it did a better job of blending cinematic nature with interactivity. The extent ME3 takes it to is unnecessary, imo.

It's not even about playing a consistent Shepard. It's about feeling actively involved at every point of the experience.

[NightHawkIL]

BS. Having a choice is always better than having none at all, even if the selections do not reflect the player perfectly every time. Who cares if for continuity's sake multiple choices sometimes lead to the same thing? You only would ever realize that on a second play through, which requires having enjoyed the game enough in the first place to start one. I have not gotten there with ME3, much because of the auto dialog that provides absolutely no mental stimulus whatsoever.

It's about as enjoyable as insomnia.

[His Name was HYR!!]

AngryFrozenWater wrote...

The OP thinks that interaction is the problem. That means he/she bought the wrong game.

Oh look, AngryFrozenWater purposely interpretting something she doesn't agree with into a complete falsehood.

Tell me more of your fascinating headcanon stories about Control/Synthesis while you're at it.

[Nicksta92]

HYR 2.0 wrote...

AngryFrozenWater wrote...

The OP thinks that interaction is the problem. That means he/she bought the wrong game.

Oh look, AngryFrozenWater purposely interpretting something she doesn't agree with into a complete falsehood.

Tell me more of your fascinating headcanon stories about Control/Synthesis while you're at it.

[NM_Che56]

BaladasDemnevanni wrote...

Master Che wrote...

A lot of times, the interactive nature was kind of an illusion since you just got the same responses after you exhausted the dialogue options with a character.  You'd spend unnecessary time figuring out that the character had nothing new to say.

But that's not an argument in favor of autodialogue. That's an argument for Bioware removing responses once you've spoken to a character on a topic. Once I've spoken to Tali about Quarian politics, the conversation is over with.

An illusion is when the player believes he is influencing the conversation, but it's really following one track (Ex: Game gives three dialogue options, Shepard responds the same exact way, no matter what). This was an issue in ME1, but not as much in ME2 where it did a better job of blending cinematic nature with interactivity. The extent ME3 takes it to is unnecessary, imo.

It's not even about playing a consistent Shepard. It's about feeling actively involved at every point of the experience.

I don't disagree that having meaningful diaglogue is better than auto-dialogue, but based on my experience with the last two games, I prefer to not spend my time sorting through dialogue options to find the new one and just to find out that it's the same options from the last conversation.

[Tritium315]

Pitznik wrote...

Tritium315 wrote......


It's hard not to make your argument sound stupid when you say **** like that. If the options in a conversation are: Yea! (+1 paragon), Hell yeah! (+1 renegade), and Okay (no change) even I would say that's a pointless choice, but for you it would apparently be meaningful since there's some alignment change involved with it.

That is really awful example, yet it still makes more sense that than just Yea!/Hell yeah!/Okay! without anything. Either meaningful, or just skip it, my original arguement. But this example makes as much sense for presenting my point of view as it does for presenting yours.

It makes zero sense either way; if you think some arbitrary alignment gain suddenly makes the choice meaningful then that's just idiotic.

Pitznik wrote...

Tritium315 wrote......

Since you love alignments you should know that in that case you're roleplaying someone that's chaotic neutral. Additionally, if your motivations are "I wanna be a good guy" then you wouldn't make that choice unless you're purposely trying to break the game (in which case you're not exactly roleplaying anymore, are you). Adding paragon/renegade just assumes the player is an idiot by color coding the choices (This is the good guy choice little Timmy, pick blue if you want to be GOOD).

I should clarify - if you're intending to play lawful good, but you lie in situation when this lie is an obvious advantage, you should feel the consequences. That is what I consider bad roleplaying - jumping OOC for some immediate gain. You call it not roleplaying, I call it bad roleplaying.

Actually, I'd call it not roleplaying a lawful good person. Plenty of people in real life are only nice when it suits them. If you do that in game then you're not going OOC; you're just roleplaying a dick who's only nice to people when it's convenient.

Pitznik wrote...

Tritium315

It doesn't kill replayability at all. Having an awful story kills replayability. Replaying a good game is like rewatching a good movie or rereading a good book. Everytime I replay PST I end up as chaotic good because that's the story I enjoy experiencing.

That is you. But many people replay the game for a different experience, not for the repeat of the same, this is actually what people complain about in autodialogue. Having new options open as a different character is a good thing anyway, like discovering previously unseen interrupts in ME2.

The point is a good story breeds the desire to replay the game; not arbitrarily locking out content based on a morality system. It makes no sense that because I was nice in a certain situation I'd all of a sudden be incapable of smashing some dude in the face later on (You're not renegade enough to pistol whip this ****, sorry).

[Anthadlas]

Just because you disagree with a complaint doesn't make it any less valid

[MegaSovereign]

While I agree that the old system had problems, they weren't as immersion breaking as auto-dialogue.

To be blunt, I'd take the old system over the new one if it means that my Shepard does not feel as "canon" as he does in ME3. It's the lesser of the two evils.

[Cyberstrike nTo]

Some people here seem to want to have full control over every single word out of Shepard's mouth.

[Cyberstrike nTo]

Brovikk Rasputin wrote...

Agreed, OP.

The auto dialogue in 3 makes the conversations flow so much better, and allows for more interesting stuff, like the characters walking around the room while talking. I'd much rather have this, than three options that says the same thing, and breaks the flow of the conversation.

I feel the same way, I think some people feel that they should control every single word that comes out Shepard's mouth.

[Total Biscuit]

While all those things in the OP are true, I see nothing that excuses the autodialogue in 3.

No one is saying the dialogue wheel didn't have flaws previously, or that the choices couldn't have been improved and responses made more distinct and different.

ME3 dosn't even attempt to improve it though, it just takes it away almost entirely.

And the whole argument about 'cinematic flow' is total bollocks. If you want that, play literally any other game. Mass Effect was appealing precisely because of its dialogue choices and ability to craft a character the way you wanted, more or less. Taking that out just cheapens the game and makes it far more generic.

Frankly Shepard should never express an opinion without the player being asked what it should be. If you want that choice taken away, so you can pretend you're playing Space Uncharted, turn on Action Mode.

Modifié par Total Biscuit, 13 août 2012 - 05:11 .

[BaladasDemnevanni]

Master Che wrote...

I don't disagree that having meaningful diaglogue is better than auto-dialogue, but based on my experience with the last two games, I prefer to not spend my time sorting through dialogue options to find the new one and just to find out that it's the same options from the last conversation.

But what I'm getting at is, how are the two specifically related? Autodialogue provides a solution, but not the only solution or even the best solution. A better organized dialogue wheel can already clear up all those problems, so we don't have redundant conversations, which has been an annoying inconvenience of Bioware games.  

Ex: If there's nothing left to talk about with Tali, we don't really need a dialogue option asking "So how've you been Tali?". That's the kinda stuff that led to all those calibration jokes from Garrus in ME3, since it was a waste of the player's time. .  

Modifié par BaladasDemnevanni, 13 août 2012 - 05:58 .