Aller au contenu

Photo

My criticism of ME3's dialogue


  • Veuillez vous connecter pour répondre
79 réponses à ce sujet

#51
txgoldrush

txgoldrush
  • Members
  • 4 249 messages

SNascimento wrote...

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.


You have to be kidding.

ME3 (with the extended cut) is by far the best. Why? Because they have managed to have both a well paced plot (that's why the DLC breaks the pacing), and character development, especially for the newer characters and EDI.

What did ME1 have? A plot that lacked pacing until Virmire and very little character development. So much so that they had to develop Liara and Garrus in between games. ME2 not only had the worst plot in the series, but one of the worst plots in a Bioware game, all sacrificed for character development with a crew that interacts little with eachother.

Nevermind the fact that ME2 allows Shepard to become a complete sociopath and sadist, really doing things For The Evulz, taking away any moral justification to the action that may have moral justification. The interrupts highlight this problem. It was ****** poor writing and ME3 got rid of it. Hell renegade Shepard isn't even a consistent character in ME2, much less in between games.

Interrupts in ME3 are far better used.

Modifié par txgoldrush, 02 février 2014 - 08:36 .


#52
spirosz

spirosz
  • Members
  • 16 356 messages

txgoldrush wrote...
ME3 (with the extended cut) is by far the best. Why? Because they have managed to have both a well paced plot (that's why the DLC breaks the pacing), and character development, especially for the newer characters and EDI.


lol. 

#53
txgoldrush

txgoldrush
  • Members
  • 4 249 messages

wright1978 wrote...

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.


And what if this player interaction element is actually a weakness that leads to poor writing and plot hole by character situations?

Hell, the first KOTOR suffers from this problem as does the first two Mass Effect games. Allowing the player to take a role that doesn't fit the story or the character. Jade Empire as well.

If you want a game where player interaction enhances the story, play Planescape Torment. It does it well.

#54
AlexMBrennan

AlexMBrennan
  • Members
  • 7 002 messages
New characters? That would be Vega, Steeeeeeeve and Traynor, right? Yeah, I can see the DLC really screwing that up

#55
txgoldrush

txgoldrush
  • Members
  • 4 249 messages

spirosz wrote...

txgoldrush wrote...
ME3 (with the extended cut) is by far the best. Why? Because they have managed to have both a well paced plot (that's why the DLC breaks the pacing), and character development, especially for the newer characters and EDI.


lol. 




So James doesn't learn what it means to be N7? Javik doesn't grow to accept that the values of this cycle led them closer to victory than his? EDI doesn't grow as a character and determines her role in the galaxy? Traynor? Cortez? Even Liara?

Wow..

Modifié par txgoldrush, 02 février 2014 - 08:44 .


#56
spirosz

spirosz
  • Members
  • 16 356 messages
So Jack doesn't develop, So Thane doesn't develop, so Jacob doesn't develop, so etc.

Wow..

#57
Guest_StreetMagic_*

Guest_StreetMagic_*
  • Guests
I think it all depends on the characters. Ash wasn't particularly handled well (just my opinion). Tali, Garrus, and Liara didn't go anywhere different (not to say it's bad though. It's just hardly what I'd call "character development"). Out of all the me2 squadmates, only Jack had what I'd call "character development".

#58
txgoldrush

txgoldrush
  • Members
  • 4 249 messages

spirosz wrote...

So Jack doesn't develop, So Thane doesn't develop, so Jacob doesn't develop, so etc.

Wow..


did you even read my post...ME2 had character development at the expensive of the plot. ME3 didn't.

#59
SwobyJ

SwobyJ
  • Members
  • 7 376 messages
ME2 squadmates' role is more in their relation of loyalty towards Shepard, and Shepard being reminded by lessons that come from their relationship, or just how much these relationships mean to him. As such, it is more limited. They're not here to develop as much, as much as even I dislike that at times.

Their development is more exclusive (though certainly not entirely) to ME2.

Modifié par SwobyJ, 02 février 2014 - 08:47 .


#60
wright1978

wright1978
  • Members
  • 8 116 messages

txgoldrush wrote...

And what if this player interaction element is actually a weakness that leads to poor writing and plot hole by character situations?

Hell, the first KOTOR suffers from this problem as does the first two Mass Effect games. Allowing the player to take a role that doesn't fit the story or the character. Jade Empire as well.

If you want a game where player interaction enhances the story, play Planescape Torment. It does it well.


Disagree first two games handled interaction fine and the story was just great. It was the third iteration that threw out the previous installments out the window and went with a mix mash forced nonsense in some desperate attempt to be a movie rather than complete the game experience set out upon.

#61
spirosz

spirosz
  • Members
  • 16 356 messages

txgoldrush wrote...
ME3 didn't.


lol.

#62
JamieCOTC

JamieCOTC
  • Members
  • 6 355 messages
Illusion of choice. It is an illusion, but an important one for those who like playing RPGs. Otherwise it might as well be a standup action story w/ no choices. The dialogue does flow better in ME3 in some cases, but it sacrifices that illusion of choice. The benchmark should have come from two scenes in Lair of the Shadow Broker, after the Tela Vasir fight (where romanced Shep and Liara can have a brief argument) and when Liara asks Shepard how she is doing. The dialogue didn't lead to any decisions or change the game in any way, but it did give an illusion of character development for Shepard what didn't sacrifice player control. Say what you want to about the car chase and the "see you soon" bit, but those two scene nailed it. Honestly, I think this was another example of the ME team underestimating the fan's attachment to the characters, which they have admitted. I never played ME strictly for the combat. I'm sure some people do, but I do not believe for a second the combat is why the game is so popular.

#63
SwobyJ

SwobyJ
  • Members
  • 7 376 messages
It's funny that by sacrificing the illusion of choice in ME3, they might have intentionally revealed the illusion of the story.

/tinfoilhat

#64
Karlone123

Karlone123
  • Members
  • 2 029 messages

txgoldrush wrote...

SNascimento wrote...

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.


You have to be kidding.

ME3 (with the extended cut) is by far the best. Why? Because they have managed to have both a well paced plot (that's why the DLC breaks the pacing), and character development, especially for the newer characters and EDI.

What did ME1 have? A plot that lacked pacing until Virmire and very little character development. So much so that they had to develop Liara and Garrus in between games. ME2 not only had the worst plot in the series, but one of the worst plots in a Bioware game, all sacrificed for character development with a crew that interacts little with eachother.

Nevermind the fact that ME2 allows Shepard to become a complete sociopath and sadist, really doing things For The Evulz, taking away any moral justification to the action that may have moral justification. The interrupts highlight this problem. It was ****** poor writing and ME3 got rid of it. Hell renegade Shepard isn't even a consistent character in ME2, much less in between games.

Interrupts in ME3 are far better used.


Bioware even knows storywriting is not their strong suit, but writing characters and choice is where they are best at work. If a player wants to play a sociopathic Shepard and the option to do so is given, then that it is purely the player's choice. I can understand if you do not enjoy interactive games that you feel that undermines the quality of the story to give a player a choice.

If all Bioware games were homegeneous like other action games with combat being the only interactive feature, I would have only played their games once and once only cause the story and characters being non-interactive to the player loses value for me. Bioware's storywriting can only get better with each installment, I just criticise the toned down player agency in ME3 as that has lost value for me. Everyone has their own preferences on a game and how developers make their games.

You criticise ME1 story pacing as it doesn't have one, which in fact leaves it up to the player. The player should be in control more than just combat on how the story paces forward and how the character evolves on their terms. I prefer to craft my own story with my own character and make it my journey, but ME3 doesn't feel like my journey as I feel I have little control on how the story foes forward and how Shepard advances as a character. The direction Bioware is taking Mass Effect is not one I prefer as I prefer the direction of ME1 and 2 of player choice. Bioware stood out more among other game developers for giving players a choice. ME3 lessened that, and so will ME4 if they do the same stuff they did with ME3. It may work in your favour but it is bound to repel me.

#65
Vapaa

Vapaa
  • Members
  • 5 028 messages
ME1's so-called "interactivity" is a smoke screen, I'm playing it now and I still wonder how it fooled so many people. The first dialogue with the council for exemple is a huge joke: three choice instances, with three options each, influence on the discussion: ZERO, and it's the same during the whole game; casual discussions always gets a truck load of options that have no consequences at all except filling a bar that decides if you get the auto-win button, You only get to (really) choose on crucial instances, but it's just the same in ME3; you always get to choose on crucial moments.

#66
wright1978

wright1978
  • Members
  • 8 116 messages
I consider characterising choices crucial. So no I don't get choice at crucial moments in me3 unlike previous games.

#67
Obadiah

Obadiah
  • Members
  • 5 772 messages
The way I look at the trilogy, the way the missions play out in ME3 is the payoff for all the decisions made in the first 2 games, and the results aren't always what people want.

#68
Dr_Extrem

Dr_Extrem
  • Members
  • 4 092 messages

Vapaä wrote...

ME1's so-called "interactivity" is a smoke screen, I'm playing it now and I still wonder how it fooled so many people. The first dialogue with the council for exemple is a huge joke: three choice instances, with three options each, influence on the discussion: ZERO, and it's the same during the whole game; casual discussions always gets a truck load of options that have no consequences at all except filling a bar that decides if you get the auto-win button, You only get to (really) choose on crucial instances, but it's just the same in ME3; you always get to choose on crucial moments.


sure it is ... the first discussion with the council is also a very good example, how the pöayer was able to shape their shepards character. that was the only reason to have multiple choices at all.

the dialogue wheel was not there to change the outcome of the plot (at certain points it does) but to define your shepards personality.

the dialogue choices have only little impact on the games outcome (except the council-choice and some others) but they made us shape our pc.

#69
Vapaa

Vapaa
  • Members
  • 5 028 messages

Dr_Extrem wrote...

the dialogue choices have only little impact on the games outcome (except the council-choice and some others) but they made us shape our pc.


To really "shape my pc" I need more than 3 choices falsely different that do the same thing.

#70
txgoldrush

txgoldrush
  • Members
  • 4 249 messages

Karlone123 wrote...

txgoldrush wrote...

SNascimento wrote...

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.


You have to be kidding.

ME3 (with the extended cut) is by far the best. Why? Because they have managed to have both a well paced plot (that's why the DLC breaks the pacing), and character development, especially for the newer characters and EDI.

What did ME1 have? A plot that lacked pacing until Virmire and very little character development. So much so that they had to develop Liara and Garrus in between games. ME2 not only had the worst plot in the series, but one of the worst plots in a Bioware game, all sacrificed for character development with a crew that interacts little with eachother.

Nevermind the fact that ME2 allows Shepard to become a complete sociopath and sadist, really doing things For The Evulz, taking away any moral justification to the action that may have moral justification. The interrupts highlight this problem. It was ****** poor writing and ME3 got rid of it. Hell renegade Shepard isn't even a consistent character in ME2, much less in between games.

Interrupts in ME3 are far better used.


Bioware even knows storywriting is not their strong suit, but writing characters and choice is where they are best at work. If a player wants to play a sociopathic Shepard and the option to do so is given, then that it is purely the player's choice. I can understand if you do not enjoy interactive games that you feel that undermines the quality of the story to give a player a choice.

If all Bioware games were homegeneous like other action games with combat being the only interactive feature, I would have only played their games once and once only cause the story and characters being non-interactive to the player loses value for me. Bioware's storywriting can only get better with each installment, I just criticise the toned down player agency in ME3 as that has lost value for me. Everyone has their own preferences on a game and how developers make their games.

You criticise ME1 story pacing as it doesn't have one, which in fact leaves it up to the player. The player should be in control more than just combat on how the story paces forward and how the character evolves on their terms. I prefer to craft my own story with my own character and make it my journey, but ME3 doesn't feel like my journey as I feel I have little control on how the story foes forward and how Shepard advances as a character. The direction Bioware is taking Mass Effect is not one I prefer as I prefer the direction of ME1 and 2 of player choice. Bioware stood out more among other game developers for giving players a choice. ME3 lessened that, and so will ME4 if they do the same stuff they did with ME3. It may work in your favour but it is bound to repel me.


If players should be free to play a sociopathic Shepard, why not let him be able to just shoot random civilians on the Citadel or Illium? Why not let the player do what the wants with him? Maybe because it isn't part of the character. Even interactive stories should be well written as to make every choice fit the narrative. This is why sociopath Shepard DOES NOT WORK. Hell, fully naïve idealistic Paragon Shepard would not work, so in ME3 even a Paragon is realistic about the cost of victory

And really, you forget one aspect when it comes to choice that ME3 far exceeds ME1 and ME2: consequence. Of all those dialogue options, there was very little consequence. It did not matter who you pissed off, nothing happens. The tone wheel was completely useless, Bioware finally figured this out and cut it, and made far more dialogue options in ME3 about viewpoints, not when I am going to be nice, nasty, or neutral to someone. The ONLY game where routine tone wheel dialogue actually has an impact is Alpha Protocol, where consequences do arise in how you treat someone in the game. ME1 and ME2, not so much.

And for a game with less dialogue options, boy does your choices have more consequences and impact in ME3. I mean the delayed kind where the impact is not felt until hours after the choice. Not only in ME3, but choices from ME1 and ME2 as well. ME3 has almost every Bioware game beat when it comes to consequence.

#71
txgoldrush

txgoldrush
  • Members
  • 4 249 messages

Vapaä wrote...

Dr_Extrem wrote...

the dialogue choices have only little impact on the games outcome (except the council-choice and some others) but they made us shape our pc.


To really "shape my pc" I need more than 3 choices falsely different that do the same thing.


Also, you should  not be allowed to shape your PC into a plot hole.

#72
Lord Watson

Lord Watson
  • Members
  • 60 messages

txgoldrush wrote...

The ONLY game where routine tone wheel dialogue actually has an impact is Alpha Protocol, where consequences do arise in how you treat someone in the game.


I liked that responses were timed.  You couldn't hear the line and step out for a cigarette/whatever and contemplate your response and weigh the potential consequences.  Just wish there were the professional/suave/aggressive options for both affirmative or negative responses.

Modifié par Lord Watson, 03 février 2014 - 10:28 .


#73
txgoldrush

txgoldrush
  • Members
  • 4 249 messages

Lord Watson wrote...

txgoldrush wrote...

The ONLY game where routine tone wheel dialogue actually has an impact is Alpha Protocol, where consequences do arise in how you treat someone in the game.


I liked that responses were timed.  You couldn't hear the line and step out for a cigarette/whatever and contemplate your response and weigh the potential consequences.  Just wish there were the professional/suave/aggressive options for both affirmative or negative responses.


Just wish that AP was a much better game than it was. And I did not like the story, it lacked heart the characterization was pretty poor. It was one of obsidian's weaker efforts. And the gameplay made all of ME1's mistakes and made them worse.

Modifié par txgoldrush, 03 février 2014 - 10:33 .


#74
Lord Watson

Lord Watson
  • Members
  • 60 messages
True, it had a lot of issues. I still enjoyed it, just not as much as I thought I would.  A well made spy rpg is up there on my list of games I want.  Still waiting...

Modifié par Lord Watson, 03 février 2014 - 10:43 .


#75
txgoldrush

txgoldrush
  • Members
  • 4 249 messages

Lord Watson wrote...

True, it had a lot of issues. I still enjoyed it, just not as much as I thought I would.  A well made spy rpg is up there on my list of games I want.  Still waiting...


Try imperial agent in The Old Republic.

TOR is actually an example on when the ME1 style tone wheel does work, because the character actually allows the freedom for the most part. And there is an approval system with companions.

Modifié par txgoldrush, 03 février 2014 - 10:48 .