616 réponses à ce sujet

[MoonChildTheUnholy]

Alex_SM wrote...

UseTheForks wrote...


ME2 just did not feel "EPIC", the exact reasons for which I am not sure.

Well, the whole ME2 ending (from Omega Rele to the end) is the most epic thing i've ever played. And the opening is awesome as well. 

I hope the Final Boss is not in the "Epic" list or i will use my powers on all of you!

Not going into spoilers, but that thing was bad lol.

Modifié par MoonChildTheUnholy, 12 juin 2010 - 05:24 .

[UseTheForks]

The beginning, for me, was a good start. The ending didn't really do it for me. Most of the stuff in between felt more like short stories than a concentrated effort. I guess I'd rather focus on really developing a smaller number of characters and environments, than just jump from place to place without building any attachment.



Of course that's all my opinion. I have no doubt that trying to figure out storytelling elements that can "move" a person is a daunting task. Maybe I felt that it was easier to get immersed in the world of ME1 than ME2.



I've not lost faith however, as BioWare has too good a track record to let me down a second time. And all that being said, I plan to play 1 and 2 again with a brand new character to have a couple of gameplay options for ME3.

[Bryy_Miller]

MoonChildTheUnholy wrote...

Alex_SM wrote...

UseTheForks wrote...


ME2 just did not feel "EPIC", the exact reasons for which I am not sure.

Well, the whole ME2 ending (from Omega Rele to the end) is the most epic thing i've ever played. And the opening is awesome as well. 

I hope the Final Boss is not in the "Epic" list or i will use my powers on all of you!

Not going into spoilers, but that thing was bad lol.

Well, to be fair, the final boss battle was not the point. The point was getting you to that plot point in order to set up ME3. 

[UseTheForks]

And just to be fair, there things I did like about ME2: Mordin, Thane, sharper graphics, heavy weapons, dealing with the Illusive Man, Joker vs the Ship AI. I think there's a middle ground, immersion-wise, somewhere between 1 and 2 when developing 3.

Modifié par UseTheForks, 12 juin 2010 - 10:38 .

[lukandroll]

Alex_SM wrote...

lukandroll wrote...

No, you're playing the Shepard YOU created with whatever proficiencies YOUR Shepard  has

When a game doesn't offer this level of character progresion and diversity anymore, it can't really be called a role playing game, as you are playing the same set character that we all were playing, with an universal set of proficiencies on all classes, on all playthroughts on all games....

Is not the same character. Building a character is not abour numbers or skills, it's abour character's personality. As long as it makes sense with the character conception the rest is accesory. 

No, you're wrong, the conception of creating a character in a role playing game, it is NOT only about character personality... an RPG IS NOT a choose your own adventure book.
When you create a character on any role playing game, you create his battle abilities as well, as it is a role playing GAME. And gameplay is the most important thing on a game.

[Ashton808]

lukandroll wrote...

Alex_SM wrote...

lukandroll wrote...

No, you're playing the Shepard YOU created with whatever proficiencies YOUR Shepard  has

When a game doesn't offer this level of character progresion and diversity anymore, it can't really be called a role playing game, as you are playing the same set character that we all were playing, with an universal set of proficiencies on all classes, on all playthroughts on all games....

Is not the same character. Building a character is not abour numbers or skills, it's abour character's personality. As long as it makes sense with the character conception the rest is accesory. 

No, you're wrong, the conception of creating a character in a role playing game, it is NOT only about character personality... an RPG IS NOT a choose your own adventure book.
When you create a character on any role playing game, you create his battle abilities as well, as it is a role playing GAME. And gameplay is the most important thing on a game.

Ah yes, Smart People, we haven't dismiss that claim. Continue.

[Lumikki]

People should remember that many early age computer roleplaying games was build in foundation of board roleplaying games. That is why so many roleplaying games had so many numbers, because they where aid to control character actions and abilities in board games. So, it's based that player has numbers and after sertain amount of actions player can get addional improvents for those numbers. It's about keeping track of player character progress by using numbers as tool for it.

In modern computer games there isn't really reason to show anymore those numbers for players, because computer games can keep track of the situation alot better, than human can. Computers can analyse every action what player does and affect players character development based players actions and choises made by player. So, player can conserate fully just playing the role of his/her character. So, real roleplaying isn't really about numbers, but player playing a role on story.

Then why don't we pre-define our character abilities in Mass Effect as character creation? We do, that's the class selection is alll about. We all play same human Shepard, so there isn't really need to define attributes or skills. Game just doesn't need so many details from starts, because start situation is so simple and pre-define allready. So, what defines our character is our actions and choise inside the story.

[Bryy_Miller]

Ashton808 wrote...

lukandroll wrote...

Alex_SM wrote...

lukandroll wrote...

No, you're playing the Shepard YOU created with whatever proficiencies YOUR Shepard  has

When a game doesn't offer this level of character progresion and diversity anymore, it can't really be called a role playing game, as you are playing the same set character that we all were playing, with an universal set of proficiencies on all classes, on all playthroughts on all games....

Is not the same character. Building a character is not abour numbers or skills, it's abour character's personality. As long as it makes sense with the character conception the rest is accesory. 

No, you're wrong, the conception of creating a character in a role playing game, it is NOT only about character personality... an RPG IS NOT a choose your own adventure book.
When you create a character on any role playing game, you create his battle abilities as well, as it is a role playing GAME. And gameplay is the most important thing on a game.

Ah yes, Smart People, we haven't dismiss that claim. Continue.

Let's not turn this into a "ban 'stupid people' from playing RPGs" thread.

[FlyingWalrus]

lukandroll wrote...

Alex_SM wrote...

lukandroll wrote...

No, you're playing the Shepard YOU created with whatever proficiencies YOUR Shepard  has

When a game doesn't offer this level of character progresion and diversity anymore, it can't really be called a role playing game, as you are playing the same set character that we all were playing, with an universal set of proficiencies on all classes, on all playthroughts on all games....

Is not the same character. Building a character is not abour numbers or skills, it's abour character's personality. As long as it makes sense with the character conception the rest is accesory. 

No, you're wrong, the conception of creating a character in a role playing game, it is NOT only about character personality... an RPG IS NOT a choose your own adventure book.
When you create a character on any role playing game, you create his battle abilities as well, as it is a role playing GAME. And gameplay is the most important thing on a game.

And yet that's what all console (a PC is a console, too) RPGs are, a kind of "choose your own adventure" book. All the story threads have to have a beginning, a middle, and an end, somehow. Because of the limitations in software, you're going to have a set number of choices to make. Once you make those choices, the game then shows you the proper outcome. To get upset about it, you'd have to get upset at the medium for being limited the way it is. No matter what game you play, it's going to have a finite number of outcomes.

As for rolling characters, my Infiltrator Shepard and Vanguard Shepard and Engineer Shepard differ enormously
from one another in terms of battle abilities. On top of looking different from each other and having completely different relationships with the other characters in the game.

Honestly, what ARE you complaining about?

Modifié par FlyingWalrus, 13 juin 2010 - 01:02 .

[Tooneyman]

UseTheForks wrote...

The beginning, for me, was a good start. The ending didn't really do it for me. Most of the stuff in between felt more like short stories than a concentrated effort. I guess I'd rather focus on really developing a smaller number of characters and environments, than just jump from place to place without building any attachment.

Of course that's all my opinion. I have no doubt that trying to figure out storytelling elements that can "move" a person is a daunting task. Maybe I felt that it was easier to get immersed in the world of ME1 than ME2.

I've not lost faith however, as BioWare has too good a track record to let me down a second time. And all that being said, I plan to play 1 and 2 again with a brand new character to have a couple of gameplay options for ME3.

This is a great Bioware learning experience for sure. The beginning was flawed as well. Revamping a game to recalibrate an engine isn't a good idea. I just waisted time and resources. Now saying the second game isn't great mechanic wise, but starting from scratch is never a good idea especially when you play a new game. Look at Devil May Cry 2. It was a revamp as well and it was horrible. Capcom let me down.
The engine definitely looks better in the ME 2, but revamping something just wasn't the way to go. They could have just upgrade without have to fuss with the mechanics. I use dark basic and I've revamped the engine a few times. Its no easy task and it takes up to much time.
I haven't used the unreal, but for what its worth. Doing a revamp for ME 2 could have gone smoother if they had kept some of the original elements say inventory from ME 1 intact. I think Bioware took some of the complains about the first game to the extreme. I didn't know about the forums when the first game came out so I wasn't involved, but if I had been the people who made the revamp happy. I would slap them with a back end of my words to make them realize what they did.

[AlanC9]

FlyingWalrus wrote...
And yet that's what all console (a PC is a console, too) RPGs are, a kind of "choose your own adventure" book.

Isn't it a little more accurate to say that a console is a kind of PC?

[Alex_SM]

lukandroll wrote...


No, you're wrong, the conception of creating a character in a role playing game, it is NOT only about character personality... an RPG IS NOT a choose your own adventure book.
When you create a character on any role playing game, you create his battle abilities as well, as it is a role playing GAME. And gameplay is the most important thing on a game.

Who told about a book? In the "chose your own adventure" books you don't change the character personality; you just chose the path, and there is always a right (story goes on) and wrong (story ends) decision. The correct analogy would be with point and click adventures. 

Maybe is because I have played more pnp role games than computer role games, but I've always felt that the only thing that matters is the psychologically building and interpretation. I've used lots of combat and skills systems, some with lots of skills and tables, some with a few or even no one, and at the end it doesn't matter. 

The example I always use: Diablo for me is 0% RPG. WoW in most server (except in those set for interpretation) is 0% RPG.

It's really impossible to translate the whole pnp role playing experience to a computer game, but for me ME2 is one of the few games which gets close.

[AlanC9]

Alex_SM wrote...
 and there is always a right (story goes on) and wrong (story ends) decision. The correct analogy would be with point and click adventures.

Well, even the "right" answer ends the book eventually. Some books are actually better than adventure games since they have more than one satisfactory ending, which I can't recall seeing in adventure games.

I strongly support the substance of your post. While ME2 doesn't adhere to CRPG conventions, those conventions aren't any good in the first place.

Modifié par AlanC9, 13 juin 2010 - 03:52 .

[SuperMedbh]

Lumikki wrote...

People should remember that many early age computer roleplaying games was build in foundation of board roleplaying games. That is why so many roleplaying games had so many numbers, because they where aid to control character actions and abilities in board games. So, it's based that player has numbers and after sertain amount of actions player can get addional improvents for those numbers. It's about keeping track of player character progress by using numbers as tool for it.
In modern computer games there isn't really reason to show anymore those numbers for players, because computer games can keep track of the situation alot better, than human can.

Bingo.  Sooner or later (and I would argue that ME2 is close), cRPGs will transcend their origins.  Just a movie is a different medium than a book, a computer is a different medium than a paper based game.  Both have their strong points, but slavishly adhering to the boundries of the other medium simply creates a game/story which has dual limitations:  the real ones, and the ones native to the other format.

A computer game has the ability to do all that number crunching instantly, and away from the direct sight of the player.  I see no more need to see all the stats than I have the need to see the wire frame backing on a stage setting in a traditional play.

[Shotokanguy]

So, is this just going to be a "talk about Mass Effect in general" topic from now on?

[SSV Enterprise]

Apparently!

[SuperMedbh]

Hum? We're talking about which RPG conventions transfer successfully to cRPGs, and therefore are needed (as opposed to those that aren't). By internet standards for a thread on its 14th page, that's adhering slavishly to the OP

[Onyx Jaguar]

AlanC9 wrote...

FlyingWalrus wrote...
And yet that's what all console (a PC is a console, too) RPGs are, a kind of "choose your own adventure" book.

Isn't it a little more accurate to say that a console is a kind of PC?

Back in the day they were considered a form of home computer.

[KitsuneRommel]

AlanC9 wrote...

Alex_SM wrote...
 and there is always a right (story goes on) and wrong (story ends) decision. The correct analogy would be with point and click adventures.

Well, even the "right" answer ends the book eventually. Some books are actually better than adventure games since they have more than one satisfactory ending, which I can't recall seeing in adventure games.

I strongly support the substance of your post. While ME2 doesn't adhere to CRPG conventions, those conventions aren't any good in the first place.

Blade Runner had 13 possible endings and most of them were what you'd call satisfactory.

[AlanC9]

KitsuneRommel wrote...

Blade Runner had 13 possible endings and most of them were what you'd call satisfactory.

Always meant to play that one.  Any idea if it's available anywhere?

Modifié par AlanC9, 13 juin 2010 - 03:42 .

[AlanC9]

SuperMedbh wrote...
A computer game has the ability to do all that number crunching instantly, and away from the direct sight of the player.  I see no more need to see all the stats than I have the need to see the wire frame backing on a stage setting in a traditional play.

But without seeing the numbers, do you really know what your character is capable of? In a single-character game it's irrelevant, but in a party-based game you want to know who's better at what.

[SuperMedbh]

AlanC9 wrote...

SuperMedbh wrote...
A computer game has the ability to do all that number crunching instantly, and away from the direct sight of the player.  I see no more need to see all the stats than I have the need to see the wire frame backing on a stage setting in a traditional play.

But without seeing the numbers, do you really know what your character is capable of? In a single-character game it's irrelevant, but in a party-based game you want to know who's better at what.

How do you know if someone is any good in real life?  We're told Jack is "the strongest biotic known", Grunt is "pure krogan" and clearly built like a brick, Garrus is a good shot with a sniper rifle, etc.  We know that upgraded powers/tech will work better than the old version.  And if nothing else, we have experience--  taking Grunt out and watching him running over husks tells us that he's "what it says on the label". 

In paper based RPGs, players need to know all those numbers because it gets unwieldly and slow for the gamemaster to do everything (although some try).  That's not an issue for cRPGs, obviously.  Would you want to have to roll dice everytime you shoot or use a power?

[KitsuneRommel]

AlanC9 wrote...

KitsuneRommel wrote...

Blade Runner had 13 possible endings and most of them were what you'd call satisfactory.

Always meant to play that one.  Any idea if it's available anywhere?

Tried to find mine but I have no idea where it is. You could always try Amazon (or similar shops) or internet auction sites. Found one for 4€.