79 réponses à ce sujet

[utdan]

txgoldrush wrote...

Karlone123 wrote...

I prefer there to be more options in dialogue, and for it to be memorable as ME3 was not so memorable. It came down to characters trying too hard or not at all. And it is one of the reasons I rate ME3 poor. It didn't do a lot of things right at all.

No, it does it better than the first two games because the dialogue flows much better because not only do characters act like characters and not talking codex entries, but the protagonist actually has character development and personality that usual WRPG protagonists do not have.

Nevermind that in ME3, I no longer have Shepard do Renegade actions For The Evulz when I want him to do them for the greater good.

I'd say the characters acting more like characters has more to do with them moving around the ship and interacting with one another than the lack of a dialogue wheel. IMO the only characters that act like 'talking codex entries' at times are Tali, Wrex and Liara from the first game and Legion from the second but even then all of them express their own personalities, Wrex especially.

Shepard had plenty of personality in the first 2 games and the reason WRPG protagonists don't usually have character growth is because it takes away player agency- it's your job to give them that growth if you want it. Start with a ruthless anti-Batarian Shep who through the course of the first 2 games learns their side of the story and softens to the point where he/she tries to warn the colony in 'arrival' and expresses genuine regret that it was destroyed, or a pro-human shep that learns the importance of galactic unity, or a pro-unity shep that realises the only way for the galaxy to survive is for humanity to take charge. Theres plenty of room for self driven character growth so long as your character doesn't start the trilogy with their beliefs and morality set in stone.

Admittedly there are more 'stupid renegade' choices in the first game than the third, but you don't have to pick them. You can still be a renegade character in the first game without killing Wrex on Virmire or executing Shiala just like in ME3 you can be a renegade without letting Samara kill herself before executing her daughter. Having said that most of the renegade choices in all 3 games have a purpose in either promoting the 'greater good' or improving the odds of completing the mission at hand.    

 

Modifié par whoISthatgirl, 30 janvier 2014 - 11:34 .

[congokong]

I think you're preaching to the choir here. ME3's dialogue pales in comparison to ME1/ME2 in regards to humorous 1-liners. Can anyone name one funny renegade 1-liner in ME3? ME1/ME2 constantly gave you opportunities to be a jerk but ME3's paragon/renegade dialogue often were very similar. There were far few paragon/renegade persuasions/interrupts and they weren't near as unique. Ex: In the Leviathan DLC when Dr. Bryson's assistant points a gun at you. The paragon interrupt determines if you throw a data pad at him or not before you subdue him. Whoopie.

ME3 had a lot going for it but fun dialogue wasn't one of them. I didn't enjoy renegade near as much in ME3 as it made me feel a little dirty.

[Daemul]

Renegade in ME3 is how it should have been the entire series, Bioware did good with that one.

[congokong]

Lhawke wrote...

Unfortunately Shepard expressed a lot of opinions which did not match her personality that I played on the two previous games. She cared about things that should have been a choice to or not.
Throwing guns in a temper, being upset, looking like she was going to burst into tears. I would have preferred to have had control over this and Shepard's opinions/emotions.
I prefer slightly stilted dialogue than cinematic custscenes where the character I am supposed to control just does what it likes.

Exactly. The game forced Shepard into behaviors that often felt out of character. An example is when Miranda apologizes for trying to turn you into a Cerberus slave. You're forced to forgive her. Both paragon and renegade options mean the same damn thing. Where's the "get stuffed" option? I would never forgive that and renegade Shepard certainly wouldn't. Or why does Shepard have to blame herself for the Asari hiding a prothean artifact and failing to retrieve it in time? Or why can't you tell Adams he let you down when Chakwas assures him it's alright? Or why can't you tell Kaidan you're not good for what happened on Horizon? Or why do you have to care so much about the boy who died at the beginning? One I wish happened in ME2 was a renegade interrupt where you punch Joker in the face when you first meet him for getting you killed.

Modifié par congokong, 30 janvier 2014 - 06:28 .

[AlanC9]

congokong wrote...

Exactly. The game forced Shepard into behaviors that often felt out of character. An example is when Miranda apologizes for trying to turn you into a Cerberus slave. You're forced to forgive her. Both paragon and renegade options mean the same damn thing. Where's the "get stuffed" option? 

Probably in the same place where they put the option to tell TIM to get stuffed in ME2.

[congokong]

AlanC9 wrote...

congokong wrote...

Exactly. The game forced Shepard into behaviors that often felt out of character. An example is when Miranda apologizes for trying to turn you into a Cerberus slave. You're forced to forgive her. Both paragon and renegade options mean the same damn thing. Where's the "get stuffed" option? 

Probably in the same place where they put the option to tell TIM to get stuffed in ME2.

That's like complaining that there's no option to leave Joker to die in ME2. It was necessary for ME2's story. Forgiving Miranda wasn't necessary for ME3's. And you could at least give TIM a hard time unlike Miranda.

[Karlone123]

txgoldrush wrote...

Karlone123 wrote...

I prefer there to be more options in dialogue, and for it to be memorable as ME3 was not so memorable. It came down to characters trying too hard or not at all. And it is one of the reasons I rate ME3 poor. It didn't do a lot of things right at all.

No, it does it better than the first two games because the dialogue flows much better because not only do characters act like characters and not talking codex entries, but the protagonist actually has character development and personality that usual WRPG protagonists do not have.

Nevermind that in ME3, I no longer have Shepard do Renegade actions For The Evulz when I want him to do them for the greater good.

You can say no all you please, it does not make it a fact that ME3 did these things better cause I feel like it did things worse. I do not care much if the dialogue flows like water, I prefer the dialogue to go at my pace like it did in the previous two games. The "cinematic experience" makes ME3 less appealing as I have less input the game, I'm ok with cinematic experiences taking place during action cutscenes, but not so much in dialogue as I feel like I am being hurried along to finish the dialogue and the protagonist has an automatic opinion rather than giving me an opinion to choose.

I would be more inclined to agree with you if the dialogue did not feel too simplistic and poorly delivered in certain situations, as well as offering narrow-minded dialogue that shoehorns my Shepard into one character, All of my Shepards felt vastly different from each other in ME1 and 2. But in ME3, all of my Shepards I imported now feel more of the same as each other with there not being much difference as they progress all the same as one character.

[von uber]

I thought the increased use of interrupts helped shape the scenes more.

[Linkenski]

My problem with ME3's dialogue is how it too often got too platitude-y from Shepard's side. I don't actually mind the rule of coolness but in ME3 it jumped out of proportion at the worst parts, and especially in the intro where I'm still baffled over what the hell Mac was thinking when writing just about every speaking character. Shepard is a douchebag, anderson is a moron, the council is helpless and don't even have anything worthy of their title to present and other than that the dialogue itself just flows so poorly. just the meeting with Kaidan/Ashley goes something like this.

Ashley: "Anderson. *looks behind Anderson, sees Shepard*"
"Shepard!"
Shepard: "Ashley!?"
Anderson: "Lieutenant Commander. . ."

And two of Anderson's lines end on "...and so does the commitee".

You might argue this could be real as dialogue sometimes get repetitive in real life or it's a bit awkward sometimes but for an intro that looks like it wants to be stylish about it, it sure as heck didn't deliver on that.

[CronoDragoon]

Linkenski wrote...
Shepard is a douchebag, anderson is a moron, the council is helpless and don't even have anything worthy of their title to present.

In other words, true to the previous games' characterization?

[knightnblu]

The problem with the game's dialog was that the choices were made for you. Instead of three or four choices, there were two. Also, the character interaction was pathed, meaning that if they didn't want a specific reaction from you, they denied you that choice. For example, if you had an issue with Ash regarding her behavior on Horizon, you just let it go. No explanation, just move on. Once or twice you can let that slide, but BioWare made a habit of doing that with the tracking.

That is one of the reasons that there is actually more dialogue in ME3 than the other games, but if feels like much less. Further, by ME3 you have really gotten to know your squad and want to interact with them more. While there were moments with your squad members, they were too few and far between. The growth of PC technology may also have had an impact on the dialogue.

As PC's have grown more powerful, consoles for which the Mass Effect universe were intended, can not keep pace with current technology because of manufacturing. I would be interested to know how many of the people who are critical of the dialogue in ME3 are also console players and how many play the game on PC. The strengths of the PC for gaming can make for a profound gaming experience. However, most people select the dedicated console because it is right there, doesn't change, and already connected to a large screen.

While the PC is declining as a gaming platform, it is never the less superior to the console because it can be upgraded. That said, the PC is way more expensive despite it being a superior platform technologically, in my opinion. Therefore, the console limits the scope of the programs that run on that technology and dialogue is included in the design consideration.

That's my .02

[von uber]

The pc isn't declining though. But yes, having to restrict to console hardware probably hurt me3.

[txgoldrush]

whoISthatgirl wrote...

txgoldrush wrote...

Karlone123 wrote...

I prefer there to be more options in dialogue, and for it to be memorable as ME3 was not so memorable. It came down to characters trying too hard or not at all. And it is one of the reasons I rate ME3 poor. It didn't do a lot of things right at all.

No, it does it better than the first two games because the dialogue flows much better because not only do characters act like characters and not talking codex entries, but the protagonist actually has character development and personality that usual WRPG protagonists do not have.

Nevermind that in ME3, I no longer have Shepard do Renegade actions For The Evulz when I want him to do them for the greater good.

I'd say the characters acting more like characters has more to do with them moving around the ship and interacting with one another than the lack of a dialogue wheel. IMO the only characters that act like 'talking codex entries' at times are Tali, Wrex and Liara from the first game and Legion from the second but even then all of them express their own personalities, Wrex especially.

Shepard had plenty of personality in the first 2 games and the reason WRPG protagonists don't usually have character growth is because it takes away player agency- it's your job to give them that growth if you want it. Start with a ruthless anti-Batarian Shep who through the course of the first 2 games learns their side of the story and softens to the point where he/she tries to warn the colony in 'arrival' and expresses genuine regret that it was destroyed, or a pro-human shep that learns the importance of galactic unity, or a pro-unity shep that realises the only way for the galaxy to survive is for humanity to take charge. Theres plenty of room for self driven character growth so long as your character doesn't start the trilogy with their beliefs and morality set in stone.

Admittedly there are more 'stupid renegade' choices in the first game than the third, but you don't have to pick them. You can still be a renegade character in the first game without killing Wrex on Virmire or executing Shiala just like in ME3 you can be a renegade without letting Samara kill herself before executing her daughter. Having said that most of the renegade choices in all 3 games have a purpose in either promoting the 'greater good' or improving the odds of completing the mission at hand.    

 

The fact of the matter is that Shepard is a more set character by nature, but is forced to be a player agent far too much in the first two games, leading to moments where he steps out of character by nature. hell, its the same with Hawke in many moments of Dragon Age II.

Renegade Shepard in ME1 and ME2 and sarcastic Hawke in DAII are HUGE examples. Many moments lead to situations where the character would not practically say or do such a thing. Shepard would not be a giant racist and be a XO of a ship made with alien assistance and be a spectre candidate. Being distrustful is one thing, complete xenophobia and even endorsing a humans first political party in front of alien team members and even a dissenting Ashley is another. He would not be a sociopath with complete and utter disregard for others as well. While he may think that sacrifice is for the greater good, or that mercy isn't the right thing in a given situation, he would not enjoy it. Like Hawke would never crack a joke after the death of the viscount's son in DAII.

And really, being plain mean to teammates all the time is just plain stupid, ME1 allows this in spades and so does much of ME2.

That is the difference between the first two games and ME3. Shepard is a far more consistent character in ME3 and it shows. And yes, Shepard can allow Samara to kill herself and then shot her daughter, but does he feel good about it? No. But if Shepard kills the Rachni queen in ME1? He will always have a power trip and sadistically do it. He takes something that could have moral justification, and wipes it away due to sadism and sociopathy, stupid writing.

Player agency should not compromise the writing of the protagonist.

[txgoldrush]

Daemul wrote...

Renegade in ME3 is how it should have been the entire series, Bioware did good with that one.

This.

Until ME3 and parts of The Old Republic, Bioware, like most RPG developers, sucked at writing evil or dark player characters.

Why would the Jedi help a dark sided Revan in KOTOR? (KOTOR 2 is one of those games that does dark side RIGHT) Why would the Water dragon trust a clearly treacherous spirit monk? Why would a racist become spectre of the galaxy or even be an XO on a ship co built by turians? Bioware's plots become illogical with dark or evil characters.

At least ME3 finally took most of the tone and personality out of paragon and renegade. That had to be done. Because paragon and renegade is about idealism vs practical thinking, not how nice or mean you are.

[Han Shot First]

Renegade should have been Jack Bauer in space. Instead in ME1 you sometimes got Pol Pot.

[Fixers0]

I've found the idealogical angle of the orginal Mass Effect's dialogue system to be more strengthening then damaging to the roleplay experiance, as well as being in support of a major theme present in the game: Interstellar politics.

A good example is Shepard's stance on the Terra Firma party, were the player is presented with an ideological choice. Had it been Mass Effect the options would most likely have been limited to a tone based choice.

Modifié par Fixers0, 01 février 2014 - 12:08 .

[Wulfram]

Play the ME1 intro up until landing on Eden Prime, you get IIRC 2 non-optional lines.  (I did this a little which ago so I can't remember precise figures)

Play the ME3 intro up until the commitee gets blown up, you get about 2 optional lines. Maybe 3 if you're importing.

Modifié par Wulfram, 01 février 2014 - 01:14 .

[Linkenski]

CronoDragoon wrote...

Linkenski wrote...
Shepard is a douchebag, anderson is a moron, the council [/Earth defence comittee] is helpless and don't even have anything worthy of their title to present.

In other words, true to the previous games' characterization?

Read the bolded text again... oh excuse me, this time Shepard is a douchebag NO MATTER WHAT, because Autodialogue.

[CronoDragoon]

Linkenski wrote...

Read the bolded text again... oh excuse me, this time Shepard is a douchebag NO MATTER WHAT, because Autodialogue.

Shepard is always a douchebag and Anderson IS a moron. I've read the books aight, I've been inside his head. There's not much going on there. He's a lovable moron, though.

Modifié par CronoDragoon, 01 février 2014 - 08:47 .

[Silvershroud]

txgoldrush wrote...
Like Hawke would never crack a joke after the death of the viscount's son in DAII.

I'll agree with a lot of your post about ME3, but not DAII.  WHY would Hawke never crack a joke in that instance?  We know absolutely nothing about Hawke, other than that he is some random person who happens to be good at fighting.  His entire personality us up to the player.  He has no particular reason to give a crap about anything, except making enough money to survive, which he can do however he wants, as he has no real responsibiltiies.

Shepherd on the other hand, is much more of a predefined character.  He is a veteran alliance soldier, with one of three specific backgrounds.  He became a SPECTRE through his military and combat skill, dies, is resurrected, and regains his SPECTRE status.  By early in ME1, his one biggest goal is to stop the reapers in order to save the galaxy.  In order to do that, he NEEDS to work together with both the alliance, and other military groups, as there is no way he can succeed on his own.  There is no appropriate reason for him to act all murderous or racist like he can in ME1, and to a lesser extent in ME2.  He needs those people to help him.  Acting like that would only make sense if he was stupid, and if he was, he likely never would have become N7, let alone a SPECTRE.

Yes, there are some instances where I would have liked to have more control over his emotions, but overall, I was fairly happy with how ME3s dialogue was.  Though I really wish Kaiden/Ashley would have had a few more conversations, that was sadly lacking.

[txgoldrush]

Count Silvershroud wrote...

txgoldrush wrote...
Like Hawke would never crack a joke after the death of the viscount's son in DAII.

I'll agree with a lot of your post about ME3, but not DAII.  WHY would Hawke never crack a joke in that instance?  We know absolutely nothing about Hawke, other than that he is some random person who happens to be good at fighting.  His entire personality us up to the player.  He has no particular reason to give a crap about anything, except making enough money to survive, which he can do however he wants, as he has no real responsibiltiies.

Shepherd on the other hand, is much more of a predefined character.  He is a veteran alliance soldier, with one of three specific backgrounds.  He became a SPECTRE through his military and combat skill, dies, is resurrected, and regains his SPECTRE status.  By early in ME1, his one biggest goal is to stop the reapers in order to save the galaxy.  In order to do that, he NEEDS to work together with both the alliance, and other military groups, as there is no way he can succeed on his own.  There is no appropriate reason for him to act all murderous or racist like he can in ME1, and to a lesser extent in ME2.  He needs those people to help him.  Acting like that would only make sense if he was stupid, and if he was, he likely never would have become N7, let alone a SPECTRE.

Yes, there are some instances where I would have liked to have more control over his emotions, but overall, I was fairly happy with how ME3s dialogue was.  Though I really wish Kaiden/Ashley would have had a few more conversations, that was sadly lacking.

Big time agree for ME3.

But for Hawke, she has seen he mother cradle Carver after he is slain by an ogre, could have her sister Bethany die, and then her mom dies in her arms, with the purple option being far more muted, or even a option of comfort....and than Hawke makes a rude joke when the viscount is suffering the same thing with his son.

That's the problem. The action does not fit the character.

Another example (however maybe the only example in the game) is when in The Witcher 2 (that other game that had its poor ending fixed in 2012), Geralt could extort people after saving them from the Temerian soliders during the prologue at LaVellette Castle. This really is a break in character because Geralt never does such a thing unless there is a contract for payment.

Player agency MUST fit the character you are playing.

Modifié par txgoldrush, 02 février 2014 - 11:58 .

[SNascimento]

I agree ME3 had the worst narrative of the three.

ME2 on the other hand had the best narrative system ever created. Not only because the dialogue (including some good use of autodialogue) and the dwheel were amazing but because the interrupts were cleverly used throughout the game.

[wright1978]

Karlone123 wrote...


You can say no all you please, it does not make it a fact that ME3 did these things better cause I feel like it did things worse. I do not care much if the dialogue flows like water, I prefer the dialogue to go at my pace like it did in the previous two games. The "cinematic experience" makes ME3 less appealing as I have less input the game, I'm ok with cinematic experiences taking place during action cutscenes, but not so much in dialogue as I feel like I am being hurried along to finish the dialogue and the protagonist has an automatic opinion rather than giving me an opinion to choose.

Agree completely with all the bolded. Desperately trying to change an RPG into a movie completely negates the interactive element which is a primary strength. Hoping the positive words coming out of the DAI camp indicates them stepping back from the abyss of abandoning player characterisation completely.

[AlanC9]

Even if most of the interaction ME3 removed was fake?

[Fixers0]

AlanC9 wrote...
Even if most of the interaction ME3 removed was fake?

Define "fake".