297 réponses à ce sujet

[Cigne]

Twisted Path wrote...

AbsolutGrndZer0 wrote...

Everyone talks about all the "auto-dialogue" all the time but I dont' understand this... Did all you people play in "Action" mode and think that was the way it was for it all? ME3 had an OPTION for auto-dialogue if you just wanted to play it as an action game without making all the choices yourself... but if you played in RPG mode (or as I did, manually set up the various options) I did not see where the game had much less choices than other games... so seriously... can someone explain to me where this "auto-dialogue" comes into play, and please give multiple examples of where ME1/2 did NOT have auto-dialogue and ME3 does.  Help me understand this, because to this day having played all three games mulitple playthroughs I just don't see it.

The game frequently made choices for you when it came to characterization, which is something that didn't happen in the first two games. You tell Vega that his "stunt on Mars was reckless," even if you thought it was awesome, which is a big change from how you could chide Garrus or praise him for doing a cowboy cop move the first time you meet him in ME1. You're also never given the choice to not whine and mope about Kai Leng "beating" you, unlike points in previous games where you hit a setback and soldier on through.

If you sacrifice the Council in Mass Effect 1 you can justify it by saying that all firepower needs to be focused on Sovereign, or you can say that you let them die because they were holding humanity back. Then in ME3 early on they'll mention that you "Sacrificed the previous council for humanity's interests" and you aren't allowed to contradict them.

"Uh no, I didn't do that for space-racist reasons."

And of course like someone else pointed out you can play an incredibly xenophobic character in Mass Effect 1 and to some extent 2. Then all that gets dropped in ME3 where you're automatically best buddies with aliens and robots.

Point is: in the first two ME games Commander Shepard felt like a fairly blank character that you could define in a lot of crucial ways. Not so much in ME3.

DarkKnightHolmes wrote...
<snip>

Pretty simple.
Renegade Shepard who is a crazy killing maniac who goes around insulting
and being a d-bag to all his companions and everyone he meets in ME1/2
shouldn't suddenly care about earth, some random kid and magically
become best friends with Liara/Garrus/Tali despite being an extreme
xenophobe in ME1. Also Shepard is allowed to hate all geth and
synthetics in ME1/2 but has to suddenly accept EDI jumping into a robo
suit and letting Legion run around the Normandy.

For a paragon Shepard, ME3 seems fine but when you play a renegade Shepard everthing feels wrong.

Thank you. I usually favor paragon (I have a couple of xenophobic Shepards from ME1&2 but haven't got around to importing them yet) so I hadn't seen these problems.

[Fast Jimmy]

^

The ME series was a little backhanded to the Renegade decisions, truth be told.

EDIT: Not to mention that, despite the discussion about Cerberus being framed as equal parts good and bad in ME2, prior to ME3 coming out, the developers responded to the question of "can we side with Cerberus" with "What? No... they're the bad guys!"

Cue the Cerbero-bots you fight the entire time during ME3. You'd think they were the ones threatening all galactic life in ME3, not the Reapers.

Modifié par Fast Jimmy, 05 août 2013 - 04:44 .

[Cigne]

Heh, I avoided the hype/advertising runup and ME forums prior to ME3's launch, so I missed the 'no abc endings' and such.

Good for me.

[In Exile]

Twisted Path wrote...
The game frequently made choices for you when it came to characterization, which is something that didn't happen in the first two games. You tell Vega that his "stunt on Mars was reckless," even if you thought it was awesome, which is a big change from how you could chide Garrus or praise him for doing a cowboy cop move the first time you meet him in ME1.  

ME1 also did that. For example, your insane belligerence when it comes to meeting with the Council. What ME3 does is that do it more frequently than ME1 and without the trolling dialogue wheel popping up with 3 fake choices. 

Point is: in the first two ME games Commander Shepard felt like a fairly blank character that you could define in a lot of crucial ways. Not so much in ME3.

Bioware was just never consistent in which parts of Shepard they kept fixed. ME2 is like that all the time with the renegade options, from pragmatist to space racist in the span of a world. 

[Fast Jimmy]

Cigne wrote...

Heh, I avoided the hype/advertising runup and ME forums prior to ME3's launch, so I missed the 'no abc endings' and such.

Good for me.

I imagine if I had heard none of the promises beforehand and then only negative responses about the ending (not to mention also had teh EC and possibly other DLC to start out with), it would not have seemed so terrible.

For those who did go on that journey, however, it felt like just one twist of the knife after another.

[In Exile]

Fast Jimmy wrote...

^

The ME series was a little backhanded to the Renegade decisions, truth be told.

EDIT: Not to mention that, despite the discussion about Cerberus being framed as equal parts good and bad in ME2, prior to ME3 coming out, the developers responded to the question of "can we side with Cerberus" with "What? No... they're the bad guys!"

Cue the Cerbero-bots you fight the entire time during ME3. You'd think they were the ones threatening all galactic life in ME3, not the Reapers.

I think it's very contestable that ME2 actually portrayed Cerberus as being anywhere close to equal parts good and bad. The game tried to play it like that, but what it actually showed was almost unilaterally bad, with a few exceptions (specifically, Shepard-related). 

Edit:

Kind of like how DA2 tried to portray the mage/templar issue as being gray, but came out with abusive, rapist templars and 900 bloodmages. 

Modifié par In Exile, 05 août 2013 - 05:58 .

[Fast Jimmy]

In Exile wrote...

Fast Jimmy wrote...

^

The ME series was a little backhanded to the Renegade decisions, truth be told.

EDIT: Not to mention that, despite the discussion about Cerberus being framed as equal parts good and bad in ME2, prior to ME3 coming out, the developers responded to the question of "can we side with Cerberus" with "What? No... they're the bad guys!"

Cue the Cerbero-bots you fight the entire time during ME3. You'd think they were the ones threatening all galactic life in ME3, not the Reapers.

I think it's very contestable that ME2 actually portrayed Cerberus as being anywhere close to equal parts good and bad. The game tried to play it like that, but what it actually showed was almost unilaterally bad, with a few exceptions (specifically, Shepard-related). 

Edit:

Kind of like how DA2 tried to portray the mage/templar issue as being gray, but came out with abusive, rapist templars and 900 bloodmages. 

Well, ME2 ended with the option of saying to the Illusive Man that you look forward to working with him again after giving him the Collector Base. So for ME3, right from the get go, to assume Shepherd distrusts Cereberus seems a little... odd. I mean, it would be like giving you the option to side with the Templars in DA2 and then in DA:I, have them be the absolute bad guys, right from the get go.

You'd have no choice but to say "Hmmm... I guess they are telling me that I chose wrong in the previous game."

Modifié par Fast Jimmy, 05 août 2013 - 06:22 .

[In Exile]

Fast Jimmy wrote...
Well, ME2 ended with the option of saying to the Illusive Man that you look forward to working with him again after giving him the Collector Base. So for ME3, right from the get go, to assume Shepherd distrusts Cereberus seems a little... odd. I mean, it would be like giving you the option to side with the Templars in DA2 and then in DA:I, have them be the absolute bad guys, right from the get go.

Oh, I totally agree with how that Bioware's handled of Cerberus in ME3 was terrible in light of their involvement in ME2, and the ability to openly side them (for the most part).

You'd have no choice but to say "Hmmm... I guess they are telling me that I chose wrong in the previous game." 

They technically do that with the companion reactions to keeping the base. 

[Fast Jimmy]

In Exile wrote...

They technically do that with the companion reactions to keeping the base. 

And the Rachni Queen... and destroying the Genophage Cure... and re-writing the Geth...


Really, most of the "big" Renegade choices turn out to be sub-optimal in terms of the game addressing them.

[In Exile]

Fast Jimmy wrote...
And the Rachni Queen... and destroying the Genophage Cure... and re-writing the Geth...

Really, most of the "big" Renegade choices turn out to be sub-optimal in terms of the game addressing them.

Re-writing the geth is actually the paragon option. 

[LinksOcarina]

In Exile wrote...

Fast Jimmy wrote...
And the Rachni Queen... and destroying the Genophage Cure... and re-writing the Geth...

Really, most of the "big" Renegade choices turn out to be sub-optimal in terms of the game addressing them.

Re-writing the geth is actually the paragon option. 

And the wrong option, because destroying the geth nets you an easier time to convince them all to stand down. 

What  I recall is the genophage cure is neutral in how its handled.  There is no way of discerning paragon/renegade in that one unless if you go by placement on the wheel...

Modifié par LinksOcarina, 05 août 2013 - 06:57 .

[Fast Jimmy]

In Exile wrote...

Fast Jimmy wrote...
And the Rachni Queen... and destroying the Genophage Cure... and re-writing the Geth...

Really, most of the "big" Renegade choices turn out to be sub-optimal in terms of the game addressing them.

Re-writing the geth is actually the paragon option. 

Ah, that is correct. And, actually, it has the best outcome now that I think about it. Rewriting them causes more of them to be alive in ME3, which means a higher EMS score if you side with the Geth or broker a peace. The Renegade option of killing them is worse, unless you side with the Quarians (in which case, all Geth are destroyed anyway.

Personally, I attribute much kf this to the entire problem with the Save Import system as it exists today. There are too many choices that wind up resulting in no difference at all, which can make the choices feel hollow and trite. 

[Bekkael]

I've only played 1 BioWare game that disappointed me, and it wasn't even a part of the Dragon Age franchise. Based on past experience, why would I expect anything other than wonderful from another DA game? 

[In Exile]

Fast Jimmy wrote...
Personally, I attribute much kf this to the entire problem with the Save Import system as it exists today. There are too many choices that wind up resulting in no difference at all, which can make the choices feel hollow and trite. 

If Bioware wants to keep the save import, they have to abandon giving players all of these mega-scale choices about the fate of races and nations, etc. TW2 and AP get away with more reactivity because, in part, they're not altering the world with every choice. 

[Das Tentakel]

In Exile wrote...

Fast Jimmy wrote...
Personally, I attribute much kf this to the entire problem with the Save Import system as it exists today. There are too many choices that wind up resulting in no difference at all, which can make the choices feel hollow and trite. 

If Bioware wants to keep the save import, they have to abandon giving players all of these mega-scale choices about the fate of races and nations, etc. TW2 and AP get away with more reactivity because, in part, they're not altering the world with every choice. 

But...but...but...but...not EPIC! 

[frostajulie]

EvilChani wrote...

The chance that DA:I will be the same type of game as ME3 is precisely why I'm not pre-ordering it. Until the game has been out long enough for me to find out how it progresses and ends, I'm not buying it. If it is anything at all like ME3 (requiring MP to get the 'best' ending, using cutscenes to force my character to make choices she would never even consider, killing off a love interest because the devs "forgot about him until it was all done and didn't figure anyone would care anyway because they like another LI choice best", making some stupid god child to solve all the problems and have some retarded 'artsy' ending like ME3 had, and, finally, kill my damned character no matter what choices I make) then they can keep the damned game and I'll keep playing the first two and use headcanon for what follows.

They flat out ruined the ME series for me, to the point where I can't stomach even thinking about playing ME1 or ME2 because it's utterly pointless given how things turn out, and I will not let that happen with the DA series. If need be, I'll just pretend there were only two games rather than three. Wish I had done that with ME instead of giving them the benefit of the doubt and buying ME3. Never did finish that piece of crap. Got to the part right before the endgame and quit, and I never will finish it. I'd just as soon watch a bowl of ice cream melt. There's enough misery in real life...I don't need it or want it in my entertainment.

+1

[Nefla]

If DA:I is like DA2 and ME3 then it will be my last BW game. Plenty of people liked those games and that's fine, but I didn't. I hope they're happy and successful with all the new fans such as the CoD crowd, the JRPG crowd, etc...me not buying their games will not be felt. Female gamers who prefer story, characters, dialogue, role playing, puzzles, challenges, and emotional connection over combat, graphics, and cinematics are a tiny group and people like me are not the target audience.

[In Exile]

But...but...but...but...not EPIC! 

I thought TW2 had a pretty epic storyline, just without having epic choices. 

Female gamers who prefer story, characters, dialogue, role playing, puzzles, challenges, and emotional connection over combat, graphics, and cinematics are a tiny group and people like me are not the target audience.

Why is your comment gendered?

Modifié par In Exile, 05 août 2013 - 09:45 .

[Fast Jimmy]

^

TW2 managed to not have many epic choices, while still creating tons of entire divergent content for the few choices you do have.

I dislike playing a set protagonist, really dislike a voiced protagonist in an RPG and the paraphrases are nearly as bad as DA2 in many instances... but in terms of divergent content, TW2 takes the cake. And even makes it so that what is "imported" into TW3 matter all that much (nothing certainly mattered going from TW1 to TW2, for example).

I'd be much more happy with an experience that resulted in divergent content and branching narrative/endings than one where the series constantly seems to be putting choice and consequence out further and further into the series, when the level of reactivity to the choices they've acknowledged to date has been exceptionally nominal.

[Cheylus]

Meanwhile, in CDPR forums, nobody is ever talking about Dragon Age.

[In Exile]

Fast Jimmy wrote...
I'd be much more happy with an experience that resulted in divergent content and branching narrative/endings than one where the series constantly seems to be putting choice and consequence out further and further into the series, when the level of reactivity to the choices they've acknowledged to date has been exceptionally nominal.

I'm with you here. I'm pretty sure the only things we disagree on are where RNGs should be used and VO. 

Modifié par In Exile, 05 août 2013 - 10:59 .

[Fast Jimmy]

In Exile wrote...

Fast Jimmy wrote...
I'd be much more happy with an experience that resulted in divergent content and branching narrative/endings than one where the series constantly seems to be putting choice and consequence out further and further into the series, when the level of reactivity to the choices they've acknowledged to date has been exceptionally nominal.

I'm with you here. I'm pretty sure the only things we disagree on are where RNGs should be used and VO. 

Ah. Well. 

Would you like to flip a coin about who is right, then? Roll a dice?

[AlanC9]

In Exile wrote...

If Bioware wants to keep the save import, they have to abandon giving players all of these mega-scale choices about the fate of races and nations, etc. TW2 and AP get away with more reactivity because, in part, they're not altering the world with every choice. 

It's not like Bio actually does all that much of that, historically. ME1 only had the Council choice, which was a bit silly in the first place. ME2 didn't have much beyond the geth heretics (hey, what happens if Legion gets killed or is never activated? The heretics don't bring all geth onto their side, do they?) DA:O had the two kings; anything else that really matters? Besides the DR, which looks like it's gonna fizzle.

[In Exile]

AlanC9 wrote...
It's not like Bio actually does all that much of that, historically. ME1 only had the Council choice, which was a bit silly in the first place. ME2 didn't have much beyond the geth heretics (hey, what happens if Legion gets killed or is never activated? The heretics don't bring all geth onto their side, do they?) DA:O had the two kings; anything else that really matters? Besides the DR, which looks like it's gonna fizzle.

ME1 had the rachni as well. Saving a pregnant queen that tells you she can restart a race leads to unrealistic expectations, and ME2 is worse about it via foreshadowing. I think ME2 had lots of stuff - geth/quarian war, genophage ... but Bioware just let Shepard have flavour dialogue choices for the most part whereas players thought they were influencing the outcome. 

ME3 followed up on everything in ME2 very well, it just only had one outcome for it whereas fans were expecting a TW2 branch for all of the choices. And real branches for that (e.g. quarians/geth at war or not) is just not feasible. 

For DA:O, I'd say saving the Anvil and finding the sacred ashes could be pretty world-changing events. With the two kings that puts you at 4.

Even DA2 is bad on this point, if you create super-mega-abomination Feynriel.  

[mmarksp]

If DA: I is just half as amazing as 95% of ME3, then I'm sold. Even great companies make mistakes, and as consumers we can at least be grateful for the rest of the stuff BioWare has given us.
"What if DA: I is going to be a ME3?" - Give me a break. I can understand being upset over the ending, but expecting BioWare to be such a bad company, not learning of their mistakes, is frankly just pissing me off.