1638 réponses à ce sujet

[Iakus]

Oh I've thought about it, and concluded that voiced is the way to go. Besides the fact that the dialogue wheel (in theory, and better represented in DA2 ironically) offers the chance for more dialogue options than the DA Origins system does (which sort of underlines how your point only reflects how ME3 in particular refuses to give a lot of dialogue options, and that the whole voiced/dialogue wheel thing aren't really to blame) I also just now find it awkward talking to voiced companions as a silent protagonist. I'm constantly being made aware of the fiction of the entire situation by how unrealistically the conversations progress.

 

What I think is a more interesting question is whether voice acting in general improves the experience of video games. I'd have to say yes simply because of how advanced everything else has become technically in current-day games, however for old-school games like PSX RPGs I absolutely think the experience would be lessened by voice-acting.

Oh I don't think silent protagonists are inherently better than voiced.  Both have benefits and drawbacks.  It's just that ME3 pretty much brings out the worst qualities of voiced protagonists.

 

People keep saying that there are more spoken lines in ME3 than either of the previous games.  But it seems that while more words are spoken, less is said.  The player has fewer opportunities to provide input.  And those we do have are very binary.  The ability to shape Shepard as our own character (ie "roleplay") are minimal

[Reorte]

Oh I don't think silent protagonists are inherently better than voiced.  Both have benefits and drawbacks.  It's just that ME3 pretty much brings out the worst qualities of voiced protagonists.

 

People keep saying that there are more spoken lines in ME3 than either of the previous games.  But it seems that while more words are spoken, less is said.  The player has fewer opportunities to provide input.  And those we do have are very binary.  The ability to shape Shepard as our own character (ie "roleplay") are minimal

If you're going to voice them you have to give them decent lines. Screwing up the implementation every now and then shouldn't be any refelection on the concept.

[CronoDragoon]

DA:O loses a lot without a voiced protagonist - my Warden is pretty much a nonentity as a result. Oddly enough I don't feel quite the same in TES games.

 

There's barely any character interaction, so maybe that's why. Characters in TES often talk at you, not with you. Serana had some good convos, though.

[CronoDragoon]

Oh I don't think silent protagonists are inherently better than voiced.  Both have benefits and drawbacks.  It's just that ME3 pretty much brings out the worst qualities of voiced protagonists.

 

People keep saying that there are more spoken lines in ME3 than either of the previous games.  But it seems that while more words are spoken, less is said.  The player has fewer opportunities to provide input.  And those we do have are very binary.  The ability to shape Shepard as our own character (ie "roleplay") are minimal

 

Agreed, I suppose I just don't mind. I actually read a thread where a guy claimed to have counted all the dialogue wheels in ME2 and ME3 (I have no real reason to doubt him) and the amount of 3-choice wheels in ME3 was single-digits. In ME2? Like 50-something.

[Aolbain]

Not trying to step on anyones toes and everyone is entitled to their opinion but isn't this a bit of a weird question to ask in the ME3 forum 2 years after release?

[vallore]

Sure, so long as you have one of the few chosen personalities that work with the dialogue given. A great example of this is ME2. Destroying the Collector Base works for a lot of personalities. Shepard giving the reasoning as "I'm not going to sacrifice the soul of our species" does not.

 

But that was a problem with the writing of that particular line; a writer’s failure to provide the necessary options to meet with player expectations, at a particular moment. Expectations the authors themselves supported up until that moment with their writing.  For it to be a delusion it would need to be consistently impossible to choose any personality at all, and that is not the case.

[Prizrak232]

 Mass Effect 3 was my first Mass Effect game and I loved the third one enough to buy the other two and then fall in love with the series. I never truly hated Mass Effect 3 although I was upset at the ending not for what it wasn't but for what it was. I accepted that Shepard died and was emotional for about 3 days. But I still playthrough the whole series again and enjoy it everytime. But I just beat Mass Effect 3 again and I was like "meh." So the ending has really lost the venom it had for me 2 years ago when I beat it last.

[vallore]

OK, but then we need a better example; if Virmire really was there to do what you say it was, then it was trying to do a bad thing -- prioritizing personal drama over the reality of the situation -- in a bad way, and the fact that it failed to do that thing isn't of much significance.

Unless your point is that Virmire was trying to do a good thing?

 

No, my point is that there is a difference of perception and expectations whenever we play an RPG vs. watch a movie. As such, what may be intended for one may not work as intended for another and vice-versa. 

[CronoDragoon]

But that was a problem with the writing of that particular line; a writer’s failure to provide the necessary options to meet with player expectations, at a particular moment. Expectations the authors themselves supported up until that moment with their writing. 

 

Except they didn't. TIM convos have a lot of problematic elements too, if you're trying to incorporate a lot of "personalities." This is only the tip of the iceberg. This is also why I call it a "delusion": problems such as this exist the whole series, but it's only when the binary choices become amplified in ME3 that suddenly "it's not my Shepard."

 

 

 

For it to be a delusion it would need to be consistently impossible to choose any personality at all, and that is not the case.

 

Why would it need to be consistently impossible to be a delusion? This needs an argument.

[vallore]

Except they didn't. TIM convos have a lot of problematic elements too, if you're trying to incorporate a lot of "personalities." This is only the tip of the iceberg. This is also why I call it a "delusion": problems such as this exist the whole series, but it's only when the binary choices become amplified in ME3 that suddenly "it's not my Shepard."

 

 

Only up to a point. If I remember correctly, dialogue lines with TIM show Shepard to be consistently distrustful,(if it is this you are alluding to). But this is something that considering Shepard’s prior contacts with Cerberus is an imo justified approach, regardless of what Shepard believes about the role of Humanity.  

 

Does it limit what we can play? Yes, but in a predictable way. Being able to choose a personality does not mean I expect to have complete freedom about it, but means that, once an option is consistently offered, I expect it to be supported in that story.

 

 

 

Why would it need to be consistently impossible to be a delusion? This needs an argument.

 

If the game allows you to pick between several possible personalities, and allows you to play one of them with only the accidental hiccup, then obviously claiming it is a delusion to expect to do it is false, as you are doing it.

[Reorte]

Except they didn't. TIM convos have a lot of problematic elements too, if you're trying to incorporate a lot of "personalities." This is only the tip of the iceberg. This is also why I call it a "delusion": problems such as this exist the whole series, but it's only when the binary choices become amplified in ME3 that suddenly "it's not my Shepard."

The scale of certain choices doesn't help but there were lines all through the series that were just plain wrong. The one I dislike the most is probably in ME2, where Shepard can challenge TIM with "Human dominance - or Cerberus dominance?" as if the latter was perfectly OK.

 

 

If the game allows you to pick between several possible personalities, and allows you to play one of them with only the accidental hiccup, then obviously claiming it is a delusion to expect to do it is false, as you are doing it.

Mostly they are at the level of hiccups - no writer is completely perfect and it's quite a challenge to get the lines detailed enough to convey something but not so specific they might send out a completely different message to the one the player was after. Sometimes the problem is the choice on the dialogue wheel giving a different message from what's actually said.

[CronoDragoon]

Does it limit what we can play? Yes, but in a predictable way. Being able to choose a personality does not mean I expect to have complete freedom about it, but means that, once an option is consistently offered, I expect it to be supported in that story.

 

Right but that's not what I mean. If what you are saying is that a game should allow you to continue to RP a personality that it did before, then I agree. But then it's not really you, it's just choosing from preset personalities that the game allows. Which, to bring this back to my original preference, is why I think it  makes more sense to view Shepard as a character other than myself.

[vallore]

Right but that's not what I mean. If what you are saying is that a game should allow you to continue to RP a personality that it did before, then I agree. But then it's not really you, it's just choosing from preset personalities that the game allows.

 

Not just choosing, but developing them, building upon them, shaping them, (within the confines of the story), ultimately making the character my own. The game may impose limitations, but rarely are they so rigid that they stop me to have plenty of room to personalize the character and make it unique to a degree.

 

Which, to bring this back to my original preference, is why I think it  makes more sense to view Shepard as a character other than myself.

 

Well,  I rarely see my character as an extension of myself, but rather as a creation of mine, (within the confines imposed by the story). I still see it as my one character; or rather, a co-creation with the writer, where he adds the explicit part, and I the implicit.

 

For instance, I’m among those that felt that the Ending Shepard wasn’t my Shepard; not because I saw Shepard as an extension of myself in the game, but because it completely broke the way I would expect my Shepard would act in that circumstance; a way that was supported by the  game until that moment.

[Tython]

I loved Mass Effect 3. I hated the ending and used the Mass Effect Happy Ending Mod. There's been so much discussion about it, I won't go into it only to say that it was pathetic the ending wasn't reviewed in the first place. They ruined the franchise and then their response to the criticism was even worse. I hope ME4 crashes and burns and Bioware comes crawling back to the fans and give them what they want; Shepard and the crew of the Normandy back!

[Mole267]

I played it again recently, had been over a year since I'd last played. I got all the DLC's for it that I missed, and started a new playthrough with an old ME2 save.

 

The extended cut DLC (which I'd never seen for myself) really did make the ending better, IMO actually quite satisfactory. I really enjoyed Omega and Leviathan too. Citadel was okay, but at one point it felt way too much like I was watching Friends, instead of playing a game.

 

ME3's not perfect, but overall it's an awesome game. I think the original release was tarnished by: 1) Content that Bioware and EA forced customers to pay extra for, which could've just as easily been included otherwise. 2) Face importing broken. 3) The original ending was way too abrupt and felt incomplete.

 

But overall, I don't hate it. Especially now, all this extra DLC that has come since made it a much better game. Plus they fixed the face importing. It's still not complete 100%, but all my imports I've tried recently are very close to ME1 and 2 faces. Female faces don't import as well as male faces tho (from what I've seen).

[KaiserShep]

I hope ME4 crashes and burns and Bioware comes crawling back to the fans and give them what they want; Shepard and the crew of the Normandy back!

 

This seems like a silly thing to say, since no one here knows what the game is about, let alone what it will be like. I mean, what if you actually enjoy the new game immensely? What if BioWare did in fact take in all the criticism they've gotten all this time and actually addressed the more reasonable complaints in the new installment (frankly some that I've seen throughout the internet have been whiny a-holes about it)? Do you simply want it to fail out of spite? That seems rather petty.

[Archelle]

I've played them all.  ME1 was wonderful.  I enjoyed the complexity and character development of ME2.  ME3 took me on a journey I thoroughly enjoyed.  Just before the ending I had dreams of replaying this with all my Shepards...  Until that single devastating, punitive, "artistic", narcissistic, foul, belligerent, incomplete, rushed, fan-killing, dirty bomb of an ending left absolutely no hope of recovery.  EC didn't matter.  I won't go through that again.  How can an intelligent game company spend so much time and effort to make it "your Shepard" only to rip it all away without a care?  

 

I don't hate ME3.  I no longer trust Bioware.

[Iakus]

I loved Mass Effect 3. I hated the ending and used the Mass Effect Happy Ending Mod. There's been so much discussion about it, I won't go into it only to say that it was pathetic the ending wasn't reviewed in the first place. They ruined the franchise and then their response to the criticism was even worse. I hope ME4 crashes and burns and Bioware comes crawling back to the fans and give them what they want; Shepard and the crew of the Normandy back!

 

I don't hope ME4 fails.  I actually want it to be successful.

 

But I also want them to make a game that's actually good and a story that doesn't make me feel like I've done something wrong when I have completed it.  I don't need Shepard and the Normandy again.  But I don't want to be saddled with or reminded of how that story ended.

[Mcfly616]

I hope the protagonist dies no matter what. Have some balls and go all the way this time.

[AlanC9]

That would certainly cut down on those pesky import carryover issues.

[Killdren88]

I'm not fuming with anger like I use to. Still hate it, would change it in a heartbeat. But I've gotten over the anger.

[KaiserShep]

I hope the protagonist dies no matter what. Have some balls and go all the way this time.

 

Meh. The whole hero sacrifice thing is kinda done to death too. Heh...done to death.

[Reorte]

I hope the protagonist dies no matter what. Have some balls and go all the way this time.

If you want something that rigid to happen then watch a film instead of playing a game.

[Felya87]

I don't hate ME3. I hate how little attention was given to the endings, and how poor written are. But I reserve a good part of that hate for Allers and the death-by-mail of Kal'reegar too.

[Mcfly616]

If you want something that rigid to happen then watch a film instead of playing a game.

no, I'm all set. Plenty of movies do it. I want a game experience that does it. ME3 was close....but not enough. Hopefully they take the next step. Games can be 'rigid'.