616 réponses à ce sujet

[InvaderErl]

thebuggiman wrote...

 thats my personal definition of an rpg doesn't mean its the right one

There is no right definition, anyone that tells you what is and isn't, especially in a genre as diverse as this one is being silly.

To use the Gaider quote again because its by far the most sensible thing ever written on these forums (including my nonsense gibberings),

David Gaider wrote...

Personally, I find it interesting that so many RPG players claim to be fans of the genre but make their requirements for what constitutes an actual RPG so narrow that it doesn't seem to be a genre at all but simply a selection of their few favorite titles. A few titles does not make a genre, after all.

Another thing which I find interesting is the role that nostalgia plays in this. These same players will often swear up and down that there is no nostalgia, but I suspect part of what made older games so special to them is because they were new. That seems like it should be self-evident, but I see a lot of people running on the assumption that the novelty they felt playing an earlier game can be recaptured simply by replicating the features in their entirety -- and looking at those features as if they could exist independently of each other, rather than in the context of a game where there are often trade-offs.

It'salso strange that these same people will make contradictory demands: they want novelty and innovation, while simultaneously wanting nothing to actually change. If there was an RPG they liked in the past, they want a new RPG to be made that's just like it but to feel as fresh and new as when they played it back then -- ignoring the fact that they are no longer who they were.

Now that's not to say that people don't like what they like -- just that there's a lot of factors that go into  the whole "what is an RPG?" question, many of them emotional. You ask that question and you often get "what should an RPG be?" back. Speaking for myself, I think there's a lot of room in the genre for exploration, and I'm uncomfortable with the entitlement of those who claim to be spokemen for the "real RPG" model -- what they like is intelligent and everything else is "dumbed down" and thus for the less intelligent hoi polloi.

Ideally there would be room for RPG's to come out that cover the spectrum of interests within the genre. If the market is there, the industry will find it. I think what you often encounter is a fear amongst RPG fans that there isn't a big enough market for what theypersonally like and yet a desire that triple-A games should still be made for them regardless.

Modifié par InvaderErl, 15 juin 2010 - 08:51 .

[SkullandBonesmember]

thebuggiman wrote...

** SkullandBonesmember ** as i wrote: thats my personal definition of an rpg doesn't mean its the right one, and yes i know that everyone got their own opinion on how an rpg should be.
but in the way i look at it Mass Effect 2 is an Rpg, and not a shooter/adventure as many have written.. but yet again that is just my opinion

I wasn't serious, and we do agree, choices in a modern RPG is very important.

[Pocketgb]

HTTP 404 wrote...

I think you and Terror K have good points but on a thread about talking about dissappointments with ME2 is almost like preaching to the choir. people who are not disappointed with the game like me are not going to that thread much less going to be persuaded to no longer like the game anymore.

This will always happen with any and every game. There are indeed a lot of valid, solid, and good complaints. But there are also a lot of baseless complaints from overzealous posters, and there are just is just as much of that kind of junk from people who are defending the title.

When there's actually something meaningful to be read or seen, it's always going to be piled under a whole lot of static and filler. The devs do really want to hear what people have to say, it's just tough finding a shovel big enough to dig out all of the bullcrap : (

Modifié par Pocketgb, 15 juin 2010 - 08:47 .

[FlyingWalrus]

SkullandBonesmember wrote...

Not everybody likes face to face combat. Something that was forced on everybody whether that was their style or not.

That's not what I meant. I was saying that frontline-type combat was going to be common in Mass Effect by its very nature, so it's best to use a system that's suited to that kind of gameplay than to try to force a different kind of gameplay into fitting that kind of setting.

And that besides, as an Infiltrator, you always have the privilege of firing from very far away.

First of all, I wasn't talking about the Normandy DLC but the Estevanico mission.

Why would you bring up the Estevanico assignment? Oh well, my mistake.

SkullandBonesmember wrote...

Let me spell it out for you. To get from the beginning of a main world to the end took about 35-45 minutes on average with my ME1 Shepard. After every main plot world we can see how everybody in our squad is with the exception of Tali, we could chat it up with Conrad again at the Citadel, we could check in with Anderson and Udina, and we could give the post mission report to the council. There was also the scenic view. When all is said and done, dialogue was even with the length of missions, sometimes even more. In addition there was a lot of dialogue and character interaction DURING the missions. Now let's look at ME2. We could get maybe 10 minutes of dialogue on average with SOME characters if milked dry. After those 10 minutes, we're thrown in with an hour long plus mission stopping for the occasional renegade/paragon interrupt. We can talk to Garrus only TWICE. Your entire squad is almost always too busy to speak with you. We have more squad members, but not more dialogue to reflect that. And there's hardly any discussion with anybody post main mission. Instead we get text to read from emails. The only time Anderson talks again is after meeting Ashley.

Face it. There's a reason groups like this were started-
http://social.bioware.com/group/1763/

We get more emotional satisfaction from chatting with the crew as opposed to headshots.

There is just too much combat in ME2. Give me a BREATHER for crying out loud. Let me get to know my crew in a relaxed, personal setting. After every main mission.

I suppose, then, that this is a matter of taste. The only character whose dialogue I was dissatisfied with was Archangel's. It seemed like he was out of things to say way too soon.

[Orchomene]

SuperMedbh wrote...

Orchomene wrote...
It's true that no cRPG is like a PnP RPG. That's not the point. The point is having a game close to what is a RPG. When playing a flight simulator, it's of course not like piloting a plane.

So long as we think of cCRPGs as paper based RPG "simulators", cRPGs will not reach their full potential.  Instead, we'll be annoyed at the limitations of gameplay--  it's almost impossible to think of a computer game that could ever provide all the choices that a skilled gamester can.  In Pnp, a character can be invented instantly, if needed.  In a computer game, modeling a character (let alone voicing him or her!) takes weeks. 

But what a computer game can provide is a different sort of game play.  I'm not just talking about real time action sequences, although fluidity is a benefit.  But let's face it, who here has played in a group with professional actors? (actually, I did once--  nobody famous, but made her living that way.  God, she was hilarious)  Or even if Claudia Black routinely sits in on your D&D sessions, the ability to literally visualize environments in detail is huge.  But resources are limited.  The more detailed an environment is, the fewer of those environments will exist.  And that will limit your choices.

That's why I think the cinematic nature of ME2 is a step in a right direction.  Not the only direction future cRPGs can take, but an intriguing one.  It is essentially a scripted movie, and choices are reduced to a few key points, as well as character development subtleties.  But no matter what, you're going to hit the main plot points and end up at that final battle.  To use an analogy, you're the director, not the screenwriter. 

Is it RPG?  It depends utterly upon whether your definition encompasses that sort of game.  I've enjoyed ME, DA:O and paper D&D.  But I wouldn't call those three types of RPGs equivalent.

That's a debate since Kotor. Voice acting and cinematics : is it better or worse for roleplaying games ?
It's not clear to say and some games found good compromises between visual/audio aspect and freedom offered (personnaly, I think AP gives a good compromise, but each one has his/her opinion about this balance).
The question is to know if the introduction of voice acting and cinematics is implying that choices in dialogues and actions need more restriction. Generally, yes. I've heard many people here say that the lack of freedom in dialogues (like saying two different sentences and receiving the same answer to both) is linked to the whole voice acting. That voice acting has a cost.
I'm not sure it's something that pushes the limits of roleplaying. I think that the freedom introduced in Fallout1/2 and in Daggerfall, the depth of dialogues, interactions, story in Planescape:Torment, the nietzschean (as opposed to manichean) perspective of Light/dark side introduced in Kotor2 are pushing the limits of cRPGs. Because all those games go further in at least one aspect to their predecessor in giving the feeling to play a role, to play another character.
When my Shepard say things I don't imagine him saying, when he does things I don't imagine him doing, when I don't have the choice to solve a problem in a peacefull manner or in a brutal manner (I would maybe be interested in killing the son of Thane, that's not the case, but could have been), then this is, for me, a step backward.
The direction ME2 is going is a mix between a movie and an action game. Or an action game and an adventure game.

[SkullandBonesmember]

[quote]FlyingWalrus wrote...

That's not what Imeant. I was saying that frontline-type combat was going to be common in Mass Effect by its very nature, so it's best to use a system that's suited to that kind of gameplay than to try to force a different kind of gameplay into fitting that kind of setting.

And that besides, as an Infiltrator, you always have the privilege of firing from very far away.

Why would you bring up the Estevanico assignment? Oh well, my mistake.

There is just too much combat in ME2. Give me a BREATHER for crying out loud. Let me get to know my crew in a relaxed, personal setting. After every main mission.[/quote]
I suppose, then, that this is a matter of taste. The only character whose dialogue I was dissatisfied with was Archangel's. It seemed like he was out of things to say way too soon.[/quote]

Well, the angel is just really good at calibrations and when he's on a role he can't stop for anybody.

On a more serious note:

[quote]InvaderErl wrote...

Blatantly untrue.

A caster sentinel, an Infiltrator Sniper just off the top of my head.[/quote]

To both Walrus an Erl, there is WAY too much charging of enemies in ME2 a don't you dare go out of your way to tell me to "change the difficulty settings" because that doesn't make a damn bit of difference. I was perfectly fine with veteran on ME1 but despite Bioware's claim of the lowest setting being "for those who wish to enjoy the story", that is something that's blatantly untrue. Missions take longer compared to ME1, not seemingly longer.

Walrus, is it safe to say you identify with what I said a few pages back?

[quote]SkullandBonesmember wrote...

The story "evolves through the combat". And that's a GOOD thing, right? How dare story progress via character interaction and cutscenes. Screw that. Massadonious himself implies in his sig there's no such thing as too much 'SPLOSHUNS but there is such a thing as too much character interaction/plot.[/quote]

[InvaderErl]

I just had a friend who could not shoot for the life of her run through the game with a caster sentinel on Veteran and she did fine.

[SkullandBonesmember]

SuperMedbh wrote...

So long as we think of cCRPGs as paper based RPG "simulators", cRPGs will not reach their full potential. Instead, we'll be annoyed at the limitations of gameplay- it's almost impossible to think of a computer game that could ever provide all the choices that a skilled gamester can.

No it's not. Here's something to sink your teeth into:

Dan Ryckert from GameInformer talking about Heavy Rain-
Heavy Rain probably won't be a game for everyone. ADD-riddled gamers who only play constant-action experiences like Halo multiplayer or Grand Theft Auto probably won't get into the slow pacing of this new title. For those who love the idea of interacting with a well written and intriguing murder mystery, Heavy Rain looks to be in a league of its own in terms of presentation and atmosphere.

He hit the nail right on the head.

Ties into my quote from my last post.

Modifié par SkullandBonesmember, 15 juin 2010 - 09:13 .

[SkullandBonesmember]

InvaderErl wrote...

I just had a friend who could not shoot for the life of her run through the game with a caster sentinel on Veteran and she did fine.

Good for her.

[Orchomene]

Alex_SM wrote...
I don't agree with the strategy point, in a game about playing a character I don't get the point of having combat without feeling the stress the character could be feeling. So the combat should be played the closer possible to real-time (in PC the closer is real time itself). As long as I love the fallout saga I hated the long combats who involved many npcs (in Fallout 1/2), I ended up just avoiding every combat I could until I found the alien gun which kills everyone in a single shot. There was no emotion or stress playing that combats. 

But I agree in your point about decisions. I have always felt that we need a game where the main story have different paths depending on what you chose to do with different characters, scenarios, endings, etc... So two main stories would be completely different just changing the first or the second chose you make. I don't know how it's said in english, somehow like a tree chart.  

For now there is no game at all which offers this (at least I don't know any). I hope someone tries that soon.

The feeling is a matter of taste. Roleplaying is not linked for me in the corporal aspect of the character (i.e. feeling the body of the character) but the mental and emotional aspect of the character. But it's certainly linked to the fact that I've been playing for ten years PnP before playing a cRPG. Thus, my focus remained close to the one around a table. But I can understand that some people feel it's important.
The tactical aspect of a turned based rpg allows more epic battles. In such games, the enemies can be more difficult to fight. In real-time where you have to few time to think and plan, you would be overwhelmed quickly. That's what I think, at least.

For decisions and changes of story, AP tries to do that and it is a good step. Not perfect, but promising.

Modifié par Orchomene, 15 juin 2010 - 09:15 .

[Terror_K]

FlyingWalrus wrote...

Terror_K wrote...

Just a general response to everything you pointed to "Research" at here:-

No, research is not the same as modding. Why? Because research is completely linear and you can easily just get everything and make everything the best it can be, with no-trade offs or need to pick and choose. With proper modding you need to pick and choose between the various choices because of limited options (i.e. you can only put so many mods in a gun or armour, and only so many of any particular type). ME2 doesn't limit you at all, and everybody just ends up with the same gear all maxed out. This isn't customisation, its inevitable and linear gear progression. There's no way to make a weapon your own in ME2 whatsoever. The same goes with Omni-Tools or Biotic Amps, there's no trade-off and varied choices there, you just boosting everything with no downside. These aren't good RPG mechanics at all.

Here's what everyone in ME1 probably ended up with:

L/M/H Colossus Armor
Spectre Pistol VII
Spectre AR VII
Spectre Shotgun VII
Spectre SR VII

With one or more combinations of the following: Medical Exoskeleton, Scram Rail, Recoil Damper, Shredder/Tungsten Ammo, HE Ammo

And for Omni-Tools, Ariake's were obviously the best. No trade-offs there. And if you found a Prodigy Biotic Amp by chance, you'd probably never use another Amp again... at least not until you found another Prodigy Amp of a higher grade.

What you're saying is that ME2's linear progression with its research upgrades isn't customization. Based on your conclusion of 'inevitability,' neither is modding or gear in ME1. There's even less customization there, in fact, because everyone ends up stomping around in red and black armor carrying gray flak-launchers of death. You can choose at any point to limit yourself, but would you?

In ME2, there's no clear-cut "best gear." Whether or not I give Grunt the Avenger or the Vindicator depends entirely on what kind of a situation I'm anticipating entering.

Let me add a bit and say what I think: 

The research upgrades are actually there to compensate for the loss of upgrades to damage and accuracy that you would've gotten through level ups. This approach, I think, makes more sense, because the power and accuracy of a firearm is largely dependent on the firearm itself and not its operator. So you upgrade the gun instead. If ME2 doesn't limit you, then ME1 limits you even less. May I point out my example with the One Point in AR + Overkill + Spectre VII AR again?

God I'm getting sick of repeating myself here... *sigh*

You miss the point. Again, just because the items in ME1 were overly broken doesn't mean the system itself is. Sure... you and every other pro-ME2 person can say "but the choices were obvious" until the cows come home, but the point is that there was choice and there were trade-offs and you couldn't just fill the guns and armour with every mod there was, which is basically what ME2's system is.

If the items themselves had been better in ME1 and been varied, balanced and had no clear overall winner items it wouldn't be an issue, but unfortunately they were. ME2 doesn't even have trade-offs or anything, because the system allows you to just upgrade everything to the max without hinderance. There's no way to customise your weapons at all, just linear, inevitable upgrades. ME1's options may have been obvious, but they were still options.

Mass Effect 3 needs a proper modding system... other games have done it. Alpha Protocol just came out and has it. Why do you people constantly argue against progress and depth... against giving us more options and customisations with our weapons in favour of a shallow, linear and above all bland weapons system?
God... why is this so hard for people to see?! 

[FlyingWalrus]

SkullandBonesmember wrote...

Well, the angel is just really good at calibrations and when he's on a role he can't stop for anybody.

And Miranda never tells me what's more important than chatting to me, either, that ungrateful hussy. <_<

To both Walrus an Erl, there is WAY too much charging of enemies in ME2 a don't you dare go out of your way to tell me to "change the difficulty settings" because that doesn't make a damn bit of difference. I was perfectly fine with veteran on ME1 but despite Bioware's claim of the lowest setting being "for those who wish to enjoy the story", that is something that's blatantly untrue. Missions take longer compared to ME1, not seemingly longer.

I did not find this to be an issue in the slightest in ME2. And get this: it was one of my most major complaints in ME1. When I was first starting my Insanity run (with a new character at level 1, no less), the bunkers on uncharted planets were virtually impossible because of how low-grade my gear was at that point and because the enemies would come charging through the door, shouting, "I will destroy you!" and "Enemies everywhere!" the whole way.

I haven't experienced that kind of frustration in ME2, at least.

Walrus, is it safe to say you identify with what I said a few pages back?

SkullandBonesmember wrote...

The story "evolves through the combat". And that's a GOOD thing, right? How dare story progress via character interaction and cutscenes. Screw that. Massadonious himself implies in his sig there's no such thing as too much 'SPLOSHUNS but there is such a thing as too much character interaction/plot.

Absolutely not. As an author and hobby role-player, story and character development (REAL character development, not stat-farming) is very important to me. I love my 'SPLOSHUNS, but I like a good story and three-dimensional characters to go with that as well. If a game manages to blend a lot of combat with a lot of story and character development, it's almost a sure thing that I'll enjoy it.

[InvaderErl]

SkullandBonesmember wrote...

InvaderErl wrote...

I just had a friend who could not shoot for the life of her run through the game with a caster sentinel on Veteran and she did fine.

Good for her.

Indeed it was.

It was nice that Bioware didn't force her to be some kind of shooting expert and included gameplay elements that allowed her to enjoy herself.

Modifié par InvaderErl, 15 juin 2010 - 09:20 .

[Orchomene]

FlyingWalrus wrote...

Nice to see my point was gladly ignored. Let me reiterate:

The same system will not work for every setting. While Fallout 1 was a good RPG, its system would definitely not work in something as story-driven as Mass Effect.

Also, I don't know what you're talking about. Both KoTOR2 and NWN2 were terrible, unfinished games.

I don't understand what you mean. Aren't the stories of Fallout 1/2 great stories ? I mean, the story changes depending of what your character does (that's roleplaying) but the overall is great.
Or do you mean that a story-driven game is a game that has a unique story, like a book ?

[Massadonious1]

SkullandBonesmember wrote...

SuperMedbh wrote...

So long as we think of cCRPGs as paper based RPG "simulators", cRPGs will not reach their full potential. Instead, we'll be annoyed at the limitations of gameplay- it's almost impossible to think of a computer game that could ever provide all the choices that a skilled gamester can.

No it's not. Here's something to sink your teeth into:

Dan Ryckert from GameInformer talking about Heavy Rain-
Heavy Rain probably won't be a game for everyone. ADD-riddled gamers who only play constant-action experiences like Halo multiplayer or Grand Theft Auto probably won't get into the slow pacing of this new title. For those who love the idea of interacting with a well written and intriguing murder mystery, Heavy Rain looks to be in a league of its own in terms of presentation and atmosphere.

He hit the nail right on the head.

Ties into my quote from my last post.

If the hammer he used to hit that nail is "being a douchebag" instead of being an objective reviewer, then yeah, he hit the nail pretty hard.

[InvaderErl]

FlyingWalrus wrote...

I did not find this to be an issue in the slightest in ME2. And get this: it was one of my most major complaints in ME1. When I was first starting my Insanity run (with a new character at level 1, no less), the bunkers on uncharted planets were virtually impossible because of how low-grade my gear was at that point and because the enemies would come charging through the door, shouting, "I will destroy you!" and "Enemies everywhere!" the whole way.

You have no idea how many FITS I got into over that.

Especially on the harder settings when immunity makes things really unpleasant.

[FlyingWalrus]

Orchomene wrote...

FlyingWalrus wrote...

Nice to see my point was gladly ignored. Let me reiterate:

The same system will not work for every setting. While Fallout 1 was a good RPG, its system would definitely not work in something as story-driven as Mass Effect.

Also, I don't know what you're talking about. Both KoTOR2 and NWN2 were terrible, unfinished games.

I don't understand what you mean. Aren't the stories of Fallout 1/2 great stories ? I mean, the story changes depending of what your character does (that's roleplaying) but the overall is great.
Or do you mean that a story-driven game is a game that has a unique story, like a book ?

Well, let me illustrate a bit:

KoTOR used the d20 D&D system. That turned out to work very well for that game. It's about as classical an RPG system as you can get. On the other hand, that kind of a system wouldn't have worked well for Mass Effect because Bioware wanted to make Mass Effect a real-time shooter game with RPG elements. What I was simply saying is that what kind of RPG system you use depends on what setting you're going to use it in.

I have nothing against Fallout 1/2. Mainly, because I haven't played those games.

[Terror_K]

Massadonious1 wrote...

SkullandBonesmember wrote...

SuperMedbh wrote...

So long as we think of cCRPGs as paper based RPG "simulators", cRPGs will not reach their full potential. Instead, we'll be annoyed at the limitations of gameplay- it's almost impossible to think of a computer game that could ever provide all the choices that a skilled gamester can.

No it's not. Here's something to sink your teeth into:

Dan Ryckert from GameInformer talking about Heavy Rain-
Heavy Rain probably won't be a game for everyone. ADD-riddled gamers who only play constant-action experiences like Halo multiplayer or Grand Theft Auto probably won't get into the slow pacing of this new title. For those who love the idea of interacting with a well written and intriguing murder mystery, Heavy Rain looks to be in a league of its own in terms of presentation and atmosphere.

He hit the nail right on the head.

Ties into my quote from my last post.

If the hammer he used to hit that nail is "being a douchebag" instead of being an objective reviewer, then yeah, he hit the nail pretty hard.

Oh please...

The IQ of the average "gamer" these days is dropping every year, and yet its not okay to point to the cancer that infects a once more dignified hobby and say "Do Not Want!" <_<

Now to go and put on my "Ur aN elisitsttt!!1" armour.

Modifié par Terror_K, 15 juin 2010 - 09:28 .

[Orchomene]

FlyingWalrus wrote...

I just don't understand why you guys get so caught up in so many specifics when it comes to designating what an RPG is and what it's not. It's ridiculous to claim that ME2 isn't an RPG in some way. You can't call it an action/adventure title, because action/adventure games don't let you determine the outcome for anything beyond winning or game over. You can't call it a generic third-person shooter, because those games don't offer the least bit of story direction or character customization. You can't call it a first-person shooter, because it's obviously not in first-person.
So that leaves us with what? RPG Shooter.
It's not that hard.

There is no character customization in ME2. You chose your class then up the powers. There is a very small customization but since all the powers are so close, it's about the same. Every soldier has the basic soldier gameplay, same is true for infiltrator or engineer.
There is no choice in the story direction. Not a single one. There is only a choice in not doing secondary quests, which is the definition of secondary quests. The outcome of the missions are either success or failure. The only choices are just the commentaries (being renegade or paragon). In the end, the only choice is at the end and has no impact in this game, only for the next. Well, if it has the same impact than the choice to save or not the council in ME1, you can consider it a false choice.
So ME2 is an action/adventure game, a TPS with a story, if you want. But not a story you are creating (like in a RPG) but a story that is imposed to you.

[FlyingWalrus]

> Implying GameInformer is a legitimate gaming publication.

Honestly, GameInformer is only juuuust above IGN in terms of my tolerance for ignorant statements like the one bolded above.

The REAL cancer in gaming is the us vs. them mentality. So what if people enjoy Halo multiplayer? Or a little crime-drama mayhem with Grand Theft Auto? If any of you have actually played GTAIV (or any Grand Theft Auto game from recent generations) and paid attention to the things like the advertisements, the commercials in the games, and (in GTAIV) the web pages at the Internet cafes, you'd find that the game actually has a lot of scathing and hilarious satire as well.

[SithLordExarKun]

Terror_K wrote...



No. It's more like being the scientist who keeps showing evidence of evolution to evangelical christians and them still refusing to acknowledge its existence and keep calling you a "spawn of satan!" for saying as much. 

Only problem is what the scientists say happens to be fact while 90% of the things you say are attributed to personal opinion.

[Massadonious1]

And the average snootiness of your typical RPG "gamer" has risen every year since Baldur's Gate has come out, based on my own awesomeness and not on any empirical (OMG smrt werds!) data whatsoever.

If the shoe fits...well, perhaps you shouldn't wear it. Thinking everyone is "teh stupidz" because they don't like, don't play your specific genre or exclusively play a genre you apparently think breeds morons is about as elitist as you can get. I'm suprised that you honestly think that you're generally suprised that you have to defend yourself in that regard.

Modifié par Massadonious1, 15 juin 2010 - 09:45 .

[FlyingWalrus]

Orchomene wrote...

There is no character customization in ME2. You chose your class then up the powers. There is a very small customization but since all the powers are so close, it's about the same. Every soldier has the basic soldier gameplay, same is true for infiltrator or engineer.

Nope. Infiltrators rely on distance, positioning and precision to defeat enemies. Fighting up close as an Infiltrator is very nerve wracking because that's not where their strength is.

It's even worse for Engineers, but they have the very handy Combat Drone, and so they rely on misdirection and techs to influence the battlefield. Those are two very different play styles.

There is no choice in the story direction. Not a single one. There is only a choice in not doing secondary quests, which is the definition of secondary quests. The outcome of the missions are either success or failure. The only choices are just the commentaries (being renegade or paragon). In the end, the only choice is at the end and has no impact in this game, only for the next. Well, if it has the same impact than the choice to save or not the council in ME1, you can consider it a false choice.

Being that most of the game was spent in outlaw space, I don't think we have seen the full extent of the decision at the end of ME1 yet.

Telling me otherwise that there is no choice in the story direction is ludicrous. In two groups, you can choose whom to recruit and when. The only restriction is that these members are split up into two groups, one on either side of a couple of main story events. Even then, by choosing to follow through with their concerns or not, your choices can have grave consequences. So this is moot.

So ME2 is an action/adventure game, a TPS with a story, if you want. But not a story you are creating (like in a RPG) but a story that is imposed to you.

The main story is pre-determined, for the most part, but so it was in ME1. What both games give you is a handful of critical decisions to make, decisions I will not get into because A) you should already know what I'm talking about, and this is the spoiler-free forum.

[Terror_K]

I just think that too many are too keen to launch the "Elitist!" missile at people who just want a little more intelligence in their games and are sick of the current trends gradually making all games into the same, simple brown mush because the less cerebral games are the current trend amongst the mainstream gamers. Apparently wanting games to actually become more involved and require some grey cells makes you an elitist, as does simply pointing out the current trends, even if you admit to enjoying those games yourself (Yes... I like shooters too. I have Gears of War, and most of the GTA titles).

[SithLordExarKun]

Massadonious1 wrote...

And the average snootiness of your typical RPG "gamer" has risen every year since Baldur's Gate has come out, based on my own awesomeness and not on any empirical (OMG smrt werds!) data whatsoever.

If the shoe fits...well, perhaps you shouldn't wear it. Thinking everyone is "teh stupidz" because they don't like, don't play your specific genre or exclusively play a genre you apparently think breeds morons is about as elitist as you can get. I'm suprised that you honestly think that you're generally suprised that you have to defend yourself in that regard.

Very honestly, i am sick and tired of these RPG elitist snobs, if you don't like what they like, you are either
1, A troll
2, a very very stupid individual
3, a shooter fan with no brains and tiny balls
4, you are inferior to them omfgwtfbbqkittenmuthafugger.

Not even the hardcore shooter fans are as elitist and pigheaded as some of these RPG elitists, if they don't like RPG's or RTS they don't bother with them nor do they bother other people.

Wanting more RPG elements and complexity is fine, but bashing people just because they happen to enjoy shooters or anything unrelated to RPG's is another thing.

Modifié par SithLordExarKun, 15 juin 2010 - 09:54 .