968 réponses à ce sujet

[dreman9999]

Ieldra2 wrote...

RiouHotaru wrote...

Ieldra2 wrote...

People are telling me Shepard is autodialogued into rejecting Oleg's offer of friendship because he was working for Cerberus.

So....can anyone confirm this can't be avoided? What an idiotic thing to say, as if Shepard didn't work for Cerberus in ME2. Annnd...what about Miranda? Shepard slept with the Cerberus 2IC after all. Did someone brainwash Shepard - *my* Shepard - between games?

Just as I was finding some good news, Bioware's new approach to roleplaying - telling MY character what he's thinking - kicks in again and ruins everything.

...Why in the world would you -want- to take Oleg's offer?  It's pretty much a known fact that Cerberus in ME2 wasn't being morally ambiguous because that's what they are.  They were morally ambiguous to deceive Shepard.  Knowing this, why would you take that offer in good conscience?

And you can't use Invasion as evidence because that's technically meta-gaming.  Also, saying that rejecting the offer is "auto-dialoged" is a ridiculous choice of words.  Not every time a character asks Shepard a question does it need to be a decision you make.  Even if they let you make that decision, it'd likely just be Paragon refusal or Renegade refusal.

I wouldn't necessarily want to take the offer. Of course you might not want to be instant friends with a man you've been fighting. The point is, there is one person Shepard can possibly like (or even love) who's been Cerberus 2IC, and he's been working for them as well. Brynn Cole and her people have been working for Cerberus. So that's an idiotic reason to reject the offer. Also I'd like to be noncommittal.

I think forcing such a line is so incredibly dumb that I suspect there might be a trigger to switch it to a different one. Perhaps by Paragon/Renegade. If that damned downlowd didn't take six hours and more I would've seen it for myself by now.

I'm sorry but what? First you complained that they mat butcher his character, which they don't...Then you complaining you can't be friends with him. Why woul Shepard like him...He barely knows him. You complant became nickpicky.

[Sable Rhapsody]

RiouHotaru wrote...

Then you're going to be disappointed.  Again, it's impossible to account for every single type of Shepard.

It's less about accounting for every single type and more about providing a greater variety of types than what was shown in ME3.  I will be the first person to say that older dialogue systems could be clumsy and the conversations never flowed comfortably in a cinematic sense, but there was at least a good sense of player control over what came out of the character's mouth.  ME1, DA:O, KOTOR, and Jade Empire had all sorts of different roleplaying opportunities, from angelic to psychotic and quite a few in between.

Less so in DA2 and ME2, but at least the autodialogue was a) predicated on previous roleplaying decisions or inconsequential.  Ie; "I have to go" and things moving the conversation along.  I'm (mostly) ok with that too.  It's in ME3 specifically that the autodialogue determines things about Shepard's morals, thoughts and emotions where previously the player had a reasonable amount of control.

[nevar00]

Ieldra2 wrote...

People are telling me Shepard is autodialogued into rejecting Oleg's offer of friendship because he was working for Cerberus.

So....can anyone confirm this can't be avoided? What an idiotic thing to say, as if Shepard didn't work for Cerberus in ME2. Annnd...what about Miranda? Shepard slept with the Cerberus 2IC after all. Did someone brainwash Shepard - *my* Shepard - between games?

Well did you even play ME 3?  They're the generic go-to villians to comically jump in and fight every other level.  To the point of ridiculousness actually when you begin to wonder how they actually have so many resources to mount attacks on military outposts and whatnot after you destroyed a bunch of their bases IN THE FIRST GAME.

You know Cerberus could've been a very interesting morally-grey area organization... except for when they decided to make the Cerberus in ME2 the same group from ME 1.  That just blew any chance of believability out the window.  They never should've made the off-hand side mission fodder JOB squad group of ME 1 and try to turn their whole perception around from a bunch of comically-inept jobbers into a morally ambigious and all-powerful group.  You shoot them down way too many times to be taken seriously.

And honestly the worst offense as far as auto-dialouge is concerned is that you can't question the Illusive Man about Toombs and Akuze: ESPECIALLY if you were on Akuze in the first place and lost your entire squad, something that was supposed to have a huge impact on Shep's personality.  Another issue that would've been avoided had they changed Cerberus and named it something else to not have it be that group from the first game.   Good luck trying to play a Shep who gives a **** about anyone in his past at all after that one.

[wright1978]

Sable Rhapsody wrote...

RiouHotaru wrote...

Then you're going to be disappointed.  Again, it's impossible to account for every single type of Shepard.

It's less about accounting for every single type and more about providing a greater variety of types than what was shown in ME3.  I will be the first person to say that older dialogue systems could be clumsy and the conversations never flowed comfortably in a cinematic sense, but there was at least a good sense of player control over what came out of the character's mouth.  ME1, DA:O, KOTOR, and Jade Empire had all sorts of different roleplaying opportunities, from angelic to psychotic and quite a few in between.

Less so in DA2 and ME2, but at least the autodialogue was a) predicated on previous roleplaying decisions or inconsequential.  Ie; "I have to go" and things moving the conversation along.  I'm (mostly) ok with that too.  It's in ME3 specifically that the autodialogue determines things about Shepard's morals, thoughts and emotions where previously the player had a reasonable amount of control.

Excellently put.

[Ieldra]

Well, I don't have to kill Petrovsky, that's something.

But the autodialogue in ME3 is becoming as big an issue for me as the ending is for some others. As I'm replaying ME2, the contrast is very noticeable.

@Sable Rhapsody:
That's exactly the point, yes!

Modifié par Ieldra2, 27 novembre 2012 - 10:39 .

[MisterJB]

dreman9999 wrote...
I'm sorry but what? First you complained that they mat butcher his character, which they don't...Then you complaining you can't be friends with him. Why woul Shepard like him...He barely knows him. You complant became nickpicky.

Yes, they did. His character was butchered.
Oh sure, he says the right things now and again but that's just Bioware paying us lipservice. His actions speak differently. Disregard for the lives of civillians, of his soldiers, the begging...urgh.
And, ultimately, they just made him another gown. Shepard can't side with Petrovsky, he can't convince Petrovsky what TIM is doing is wrong, he can't even bloody sympathize with Petrovsky! No, just give the station back to the pirates
It's so simplistic, so absent of any rational tought... I'm done with Mass Effect. I used to love this universe and I'm tired of funding its destruction.

Modifié par MisterJB, 27 novembre 2012 - 10:43 .

[Steelcan]

Ieldra2 wrote...

Well, I don't have to kill Petrovsky, that's something.

But the autodialogue in ME3 is becoming as big an issue for me as the ending is for some others. As I'm replaying ME2, the contrast is very noticeable.

@Sable Rhapsody:
That's exactly the point, yes!

Do yu have to jump through hoops to save him, like our other favorite Ex-Cerberus Operative?

[GreyLycanTrope]

Ieldra2 wrote...

Well, I don't have to kill Petrovsky, that's something.

But the autodialogue in ME3 is becoming as big an issue for me as the ending is for some others. As I'm replaying ME2, the contrast is very noticeable.

@Sable Rhapsody:
That's exactly the point, yes!

The railroading really has gotten out of hand, I get that the writers have a vision, but weren't we supposed to have some say in the matter of what our Shep's viewpoint is?

[RiouHotaru]

I don't think the auto-dialog in ME3 was ever an issue. At least for me, nothing my Shepard did broke character (FemShep, btw). I can see the complaints of "But mine wouldn't do something like that!", but again, it's the fact that Bioware decided what they felt were reasonable responses to dialog where you really don't need to have the player say something (like turning down Oleg's offer).

The issue is that even the "greater" variety you want is a level of player agency that just isn't feasible.

[Xilizhra]

So you're not allowed to side with the terrorist general? Color me completely not shocked. Admittedly a tad satisfied, though.

[Steelcan]

Xilizhra wrote...

So you're not allowed to side with the terrorist general? Color me completely not shocked. Admittedly a tad satisfied, though.

Read Invasion and you would see that he is not a terrorist general.  He avoids unecessary casualties, forvbade the use of explosives because it was too risky to civilians, and even saved Aria's life.  Terrorist?

Modifié par Steelcan, 27 novembre 2012 - 10:50 .

[SNascimento]

Auto-dialogue did indeed go to far in ME3. That are moments it work fine. For example, the first conversation with TIM in Mars. When I first heard it during someone else playthought his Shepard said "Go to hell". I didn't want that, and my Shepard didn't say it, even though it was autodialogue.
.
However, there are other moments where I just can't pick a response that would match what my Shepard would have said in ME1 or ME2. Shepard in ME3 is much more clearly defined character. And that is not bad by itself, it's bad concerning what he was in ME1 and ME2.

[Steelcan]

RiouHotaru wrote...

I don't think the auto-dialog in ME3 was ever an issue. At least for me, nothing my Shepard did broke character (FemShep, btw). I can see the complaints of "But mine wouldn't do something like that!", but again, it's the fact that Bioware decided what they felt were reasonable responses to dialog where you really don't need to have the player say something (like turning down Oleg's offer).

The issue is that even the "greater" variety you want is a level of player agency that just isn't feasible.

ME1/2 did it.

[Xilizhra]

Steelcan wrote...

Xilizhra wrote...

So you're not allowed to side with the terrorist general? Color me completely not shocked. Admittedly a tad satisfied, though.

Read Invasion and you would see that he is not a terrorist general.  He avoids unecessary casualties, forvbade the use of explosives because it was too risky to civilians, and even saved Aria's life.  Terrorist?

Well, he's a general, of a terrorist organization, so yes, terrorist general. And as someone else said, playing nice on Omega just doesn't work.

[Steelcan]

Xilizhra wrote...

Steelcan wrote...

Xilizhra wrote...

So you're not allowed to side with the terrorist general? Color me completely not shocked. Admittedly a tad satisfied, though.

Read Invasion and you would see that he is not a terrorist general.  He avoids unecessary casualties, forvbade the use of explosives because it was too risky to civilians, and even saved Aria's life.  Terrorist?

Well, he's a general, of a terrorist organization, so yes, terrorist general. And as someone else said, playing nice on Omega just doesn't work.

Except the part where he doesn't employ terrorist tactics.  Is saving civilians, even alien civilans, from his own soldiers a terrorist's behaviour?  No.

[GreyLycanTrope]

RiouHotaru wrote...

I don't think the auto-dialog in ME3 was ever an issue. At least for me, nothing my Shepard did broke character (FemShep, btw). I can see the complaints of "But mine wouldn't do something like that!", but again, it's the fact that Bioware decided what they felt were reasonable responses to dialog where you really don't need to have the player say something (like turning down Oleg's offer).

The issue is that even the "greater" variety you want is a level of player agency that just isn't feasible.

It seemed feasible in the previous games. How do you think our Shepards established their unique and sparkling personalities?

[MisterJB]

Xilizhra wrote...

So you're not allowed to side with the terrorist general? Color me completely not shocked. Admittedly a tad satisfied, though.

Because siding with pirate slaver who would sacrifice the entirety of Omega's population out of selfishess and ambition is oh so much better.

Oleg Petrovsky could have introduced the grey morality that was missing from ME3. This could have been a great story of the liberties of lawlessness vs the restrictions of civilization. Instead, it's just more pew pew and "look how hot Aria is. You want to help Aria, don't you?"

He was the one making sense through this whole DLC. Every single person who died on this DLC did so for Aria's ambitions, nothing else. The galaxy would be a better place with her dead.
I miss being able to roleplay in Mass Effect.

[RiouHotaru]

Greylycantrope wrote...

It seemed feasible in the previous games. How do you think our Shepards established their unique and sparkling personalities?

ME1 had dialog options where Shepard said the same line no matter -which- choice was picked.

ME2 had "neutral" options which became pointless because they didn't do anything to advance Shepard's personality.

Honestly, ME3 Shepard to me had the most personality.

[MisterJB]

RiouHotaru wrote...

I don't think the auto-dialog in ME3 was ever an issue. At least for me, nothing my Shepard did broke character (FemShep, btw). I can see the complaints of "But mine wouldn't do something like that!", but again, it's the fact that Bioware decided what they felt were reasonable responses to dialog where you really don't need to have the player say something (like turning down Oleg's offer).

The issue is that even the "greater" variety you want is a level of player agency that just isn't feasible.

It was perfectly feasible in ME1 and 2.
In ME1, I could player an 100% racist Shepard if I wanted to. In ME2, I could decide if my Shepard was happy or unhappy about working with Cerberus.
In ME1, I could make a Renegade action and answer with a Paragon reason. All of that...gone.

[Bill Casey]

General Oleg Petrovsky

Military Strength: 30

General Oleg Petrovsky is now in Alliance custody and is being interrogated at an undisclosed location. Due to the nature of his work on Omega, the interrogation and debriefing team is being led by both military and science experts to ensure the veracity of Petrovsky's information. The location of an important Cerberus laboratory has already been provided by the prisoner and has since been destroyed. Alliance officials believe Petrovsky can still provide substantial critical information on Cerberus activities and are likely to approve the asylum procedures that have been started by the Alliance legal aid assigned to Petrovsky's case.

Looks like Oleg Petrovsky is on the way to being granted political asylum...

Modifié par Bill Casey, 27 novembre 2012 - 10:58 .

[wright1978]

MisterJB wrote...

Xilizhra wrote...

So you're not allowed to side with the terrorist general? Color me completely not shocked. Admittedly a tad satisfied, though.

Because siding with pirate slaver who would sacrifice the entirety of Omega's population out of selfishess and ambition is oh so much better.

Oleg Petrovsky could have introduced the grey morality that was missing from ME3. This could have been a great story of the liberties of lawlessness vs the restrictions of civilization. Instead, it's just more pew pew and "look how hot Aria is. You want to help Aria, don't you?"

He was the one making sense through this whole DLC. Every single person who died on this DLC did so for Aria's ambitions, nothing else. The galaxy would be a better place with her dead.
I miss being able to roleplay in Mass Effect.

Pretty much sums up my thoughts.

[Xilizhra]

Except the part where he doesn't employ terrorist tactics. Is saving civilians, even alien civilans, from his own soldiers a terrorist's behaviour? No.

It's the behavior of someone who has enough of a brain to use different tactics when different situations call for it. Which, I admit, is something that many terrorists IRL are not gifted with.

Oleg Petrovsky could have introduced the grey morality that was missing from ME3. This could have been a great story of the liberties of lawlessness vs the restrictions of civilization. Instead, it's just more pew pew and "look how hot Aria is. You want to help Aria, don't you?"

So, "siding with pirate slaver who would sacrifice the entirety of Omega's population out of selfishess and ambition," isn't gray morality, then? In any case, Cerberus is a fundamentally lawless, criminal organization itself and neither possesses nor deserves any respect within the rule of law. Not to mention the whole "destroying the galaxy" thing.

[RiouHotaru]

MisterJB wrote...

Xilizhra wrote...

So you're not allowed to side with the terrorist general? Color me completely not shocked. Admittedly a tad satisfied, though.

Because siding with pirate slaver who would sacrifice the entirety of Omega's population out of selfishess and ambition is oh so much better.

Oleg Petrovsky could have introduced the grey morality that was missing from ME3. This could have been a great story of the liberties of lawlessness vs the restrictions of civilization. Instead, it's just more pew pew and "look how hot Aria is. You want to help Aria, don't you?"

He was the one making sense through this whole DLC. Every single person who died on this DLC did so for Aria's ambitions, nothing else. The galaxy would be a better place with her dead.
I miss being able to roleplay in Mass Effect.

Because leaving Oleg is control of Omega was not an option.  He was giving support to TIM, why in the world would you leave him in power when he's helping the guy you're opposing?

[GreyLycanTrope]

RiouHotaru wrote...

Greylycantrope wrote...

It seemed feasible in the previous games. How do you think our Shepards established their unique and sparkling personalities?

ME1 had dialog options where Shepard said the same line no matter -which- choice was picked.

ME2 had "neutral" options which became pointless because they didn't do anything to advance Shepard's personality.

Honestly, ME3 Shepard to me had the most personality.

To YOU not everyone. I had four Shepards with fairly distinct personalities if you must know.

[RiouHotaru]

Greylycantrope wrote...

RiouHotaru wrote...

Greylycantrope wrote...

It seemed feasible in the previous games. How do you think our Shepards established their unique and sparkling personalities?

ME1 had dialog options where Shepard said the same line no matter -which- choice was picked.

ME2 had "neutral" options which became pointless because they didn't do anything to advance Shepard's personality.

Honestly, ME3 Shepard to me had the most personality.

To YOU not everyone. I had four Shepards with fairly distinct personalities if you must know.

And?

You're not going to find an RPG that will account for every single type of personality a player can come up with.  Mass Effect at least offers far more ability to choose the type of character you want to be than most.