Ummm...ya it does...at least if you destroyed the base. It was in the first convo with TIM on Mars.
http://youtu.be/Y33Z7GYXSkY?t=1m19s
If you destroyed base, he will say this. If you not, he will not say it. This is one of many cases, where your choices are directly implemented in dialogues.
But to made it more specific - there is no mention about destroyed/saved Collector base which went against your previous choice.
They matter just as much here as in the past games.
And the collector base decision does make a difference in the Low Ems endings. Keeping the base means you have low ems control. Destroying the base means you have low ems destroy
It's just too bad that low EMS is the only instance where it can realistically make a difference, because you basically have to metagame your way to get this.
They matter just as much here as in the past games.
And the collector base decision does make a difference in the Low Ems endings. Keeping the base means you have low ems control. Destroying the base means you have low ems destroy
The problem that I have with the Collector Base decision is that it is a purely metagame one. Nothing in the story leads to any conclusion, much less a logical one, about why the "Heart" and "Brain" would do any thing specific like that. If a player never looks into the save files or comes online for the information, they would never know about it. Generally, when people mean 'choice' they mean their actions have a followable set of consequences, not just randomly assigned stuff to different save states. As far as anyone just playing the game is concerned the only difference is a few lines of dialogue from TIM that ultimately doesn't mean anything.
They matter just as much here as in the past games.
And the collector base decision does make a difference in the Low Ems endings. Keeping the base means you have low ems control. Destroying the base means you have low ems destroy
ems below 1750
The problem that I have with the Collector Base decision is that it is a purely metagame one. Nothing in the story leads to any conclusion, much less a logical one, about why the "Heart" and "Brain" would do any thing specific like that. If a player never looks into the save files or comes online for the information, they would never know about it. Generally, when people mean 'choice' they mean their actions have a followable set of consequences, not just randomly assigned stuff to different save states. As far as anyone just playing the game is concerned the only difference is a few lines of dialogue from TIM that ultimately doesn't mean anything.
Mass effect 3 has those differences just like the other games as well though. Choices are present just like in games past, the only difference being the removal of completely useless ones (ie your dialogue decison post-eden prime in Mass Effect 1)
I'm so glad you're in a position to decide which dialogue choices are "completed useless'. Because quite frankly, I though that the Eden Prime debriefing was quite essential to the narrative, and that the accompanying dialogue choices where part of the role-playing aspect of the game.
So let's jus say I'd take your definition of useless with a grain of salt. Then again I'll everybody who praises ME3 dialogue system's opion with a grain of salt.
I'm so glad you're in a position to decide which dialogue choices are "completed useless'. Because quite frankly, I though that the Eden Prime debriefing was quite essential to the narrative, and that the accompanying dialogue choices where part of the role-playing aspect of the game.
So let's jus say I'd take your definition of useless with a grain of salt. Then again I'll everybody who praises ME3 dialogue system's opion with a grain of salt.
Perhaps you don't realize this, but your dialogue choices after Eden Prime don't matter because all three choices repeatedly say the same thing. It might has well have been the dreaded "auto-dialogue" since no matter what you pick Shepard ends up saying the same thing.
I'm so glad you're in a position to decide which dialogue choices are "completed useless'. Because quite frankly, I though that the Eden Prime debriefing was quite essential to the narrative, and that the accompanying dialogue choices where part of the role-playing aspect of the game.
So let's jus say I'd take your definition of useless with a grain of salt. Then again I'll everybody who praises ME3 dialogue system's opion with a grain of salt.
. Did I praise 3's dialogue system? Nope, I simply said it isn't as bad as haters make it out to be because the fact remains that the other games are just as guilty as 3 in terms of issues like autodialogue and choices mattering. So let's just say I'll take your butthurt as misreading what I said.
Go play mass effect 1 again. The dialogue is EXACTLY THE SAME no matter if you choose the paragon, neutral, or renegade option. That makes the decision itself useless. I never once said the scene wasn't important.
Nice try insulting me, but you only made yourself look like a jerk
Me I'd rather avoid both removal of choice and useless dialogue options and have a useful choice. Not let my character be a sock puppet for someone else.
I agree that any "choice" that winds up with identical results regardless of the choice made isn't really a choice and should be streamlined. I would say that there should be different levels of choices. Some choices may only impact one mission, others may impact a game, others SHOULD impact the flow of an entire series IF you can find a way to implement it as such.
Me I'd rather avoid both removal of choice and useless dialogue options and have a useful choice. Not let my character be a sock puppet for someone else.
And I agree, but I think there should not be a dialogue wheel when you aren't given a decision to make. Which is my original point. That is still autodialogue, wheel or no wheel.
@SilJeff: I believe everyone would agree that a choice that results in EXACTLY the same outcome isn't really a choice and it needs to be CHANGED in some manner. Whether the change is that the choices do result in different outcomes ; there is autodialog ; or something else the change should be made.
A failed "illusion of choice" is actually worse than not presenting us with a choice to start with.
And I agree, but I think there should not be a dialogue wheel when you aren't given a decision to make. Which is my original point. That is still autodialogue, wheel or no wheel.
But you forget that the player is supposed to create Shepard and the dialogue wheel is what builds your character.
I would say that if you want your doorway to be extra wide and you select that option you SHOULD be disappointed to find out your doorway is of standard proportions. The same applies if you want a narrow doorway or one that is extra tall.
And I agree, but I think there should not be a dialogue wheel when you aren't given a decision to make. Which is my original point. That is still autodialogue, wheel or no wheel.
But by the same token having entire conversations with little to no direction on the players' part removes the feeling of agency and ownership.
Going through the opening of ME3 makes me wonder if it's even my Shepard who's on the screen.
But you forget that the player is supposed to create Shepard and the dialogue wheel is what builds your character.
Yeah, when you're allowed to input anything.
One of the things that I really, really love about ME3 is the way our choices in previous games finally meant something more than just a cameo. They actually determined our latitude in making choices in ME3. And it wasn't simply "Paragon wins" either, particularly with the Geth-Quarian dispute where the renegade "kill the heretics" choice was the more optimal choice for achieving peace. So I say: more power to ME3. From my experience with both the ME series and the DA series, it is the only game in the entire BW oeuvre where our choices actually did matter.
I agree with what you say, but there is still way too much pro-Paragon bias present in the game (and the trilogy for that matter). The problem is that for 95% of the game, it's basically ''Pick Paragon to win and max out your reputation meter!''
Being consistently renegade is much worse in the long run it terms of repercussions, EMS, who lives, etc. While Renegades might have been intended as jerks, they should give us a reason not to be Mr. Goody two shoes all the time. And this is coming from someone who plays Paragon all the time.
I want to be burned more often for making a seemingly good decision. One example I can remember is Rana Thanotopis (can't remember exact name). By letting her live, she ends up being indoctrinated and hurting your EMS. The problem is that this situation where being Paragon ends up with negative repercussions is very, very rare through the trilogy, and in that case it had a very minor impact. And the example you gave is actually debatable in terms of Paragon and Renegade, they could easily have been switched. Is it better to have your personality and identity rewritten than to be destroyed? Should Shepard view a rewrite as a positive choice because it may help their fight against the Reapers, or as a negative because it leaves the door open for more Geth to become hostile?
I actually mentioned this to one of the devs when I was at the Montreal Comic Con last September. They said that since the next game was being made on a new engine, they were going to take the opportunity to re-examine all of their existing systems, like leveling, dialogue, etc. I hope they take advantage of this occasion to make a better dialogue system. No need to dump the dialogue wheel, but add more weight and meaning to each choice.
Overall I think the dialog wheel is a good move and shouldn't be scrapped [unless you can do better]. The dev's job is to strike a good balance with it's meaningful use vs. the other goals they are going for. IMHO that's really hard but it's seriously worthwhile in an RPG.
As for balancing "jerk" vs. "boyscout" I think that's the wrong way to break things down. I won't argue that this is what renegade vs. paragon devolved into but if the devs stuck to their guns a "pragmatic" vs. "idealistic" would be a good way to approach things while keeping the protagonist as relatable.
I think the dialogue wheel needs an large overall:
The options I think should play out more like the dialogue options in DE:HR do where the options the player chooses are tones (Argumentative, Sympathetic, Indifferent, etc) with a toggle option in the Options menu to show a pop-up box with the full spoken message; versus a few word summary who's tone is based on the Paragon/Renegade paradigm.
To shoot and punch people to interrupt or further the conversation would involve hitting the melee/shoot triggers instead of selecting the option on the dialogue wheel.
For some of the bigger decisions instead of implementing them through the dialogue wheel implement them using another method. The Rachni queen decision in ME1 could be handled by displaying the control panel with a large glowing lever to let her go and a big button to douse her.
Plus, add the option for some conversations where the main character can just walk away to exit the conversation (this does a lot for player agency and it's relatively easy to implement, just add a "Hey, that's rude!" line with a reaction line if you try to talk to them again and you're good to go).
Add some options where the player still has control over the main character. Maybe, let players have the option to lean against walls or sit down during conversations while some yappy NPC drones on. In fire fight situations instead of having both sides stand staring at each other you can still shoot.
I'm not even sure just having two possible responses even qualifies as a "wheel"
I'm not even sure just having two possible responses even qualifies as a "wheel"
More like a bad fork...
I'm not even sure just having two possible responses even qualifies as a "wheel"
How about three dialogue "choices" that all lead to the same response?
I'd say four responses (or at least three with an option to ask questions) is rock-bottom minimum for a "wheel".
I don't know why you're throwing out the "all leads to the same response" like you believe I think that's acceptable, unless you're just trying to start an argument.
I'd say four responses (or at least three with an option to ask questions) is rock-bottom minimum for a "wheel".
I don't know why you're throwing out the "all leads to the same response" like you believe I think that's acceptable, unless you're just trying to start an argument.
Not trying to start an argument, but I certainly believe the choice between two distinct points of view more constitutes a dialogue wheel than three that all lead to the same response.
That said, Inquisition made me once again miss the neutral dialogue option. Here's hoping it makes a return in MEWhatever.
Heck DAI at times gave me as many as six responses
Retour en haut