Orchomene wrote...
ME2 is just a mix of old games. You don't make new with old just by mixing.
FlyingWalrus wrote...
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.
FlyingWalrus wrote...
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.
Seipher05 wrote...
FlyingWalrus wrote...
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.
The problem is, you probably have. As BW has decided that ME3 will also be a standalone game, I don't see any feasible way that they can make the decision at the end of ME1 have any huge impact. How can you have an event that new players know nothing about play a pivotal role in the game? If someone who's never played an ME game before keeps hearing in ME3 about "when the Council died, this happened..." or "If the Council hadn't died, we could have...", they're going to be completely out of the loop, and since ME3 is designed to be it's own game with a story that anyone can follow, I can't see how a decision in a game BW assumes you've never played can have major ramifications.
Modifié par SkullandBonesmember, 15 juin 2010 - 01:44 .
Pocketgb wrote...
Orchomene wrote...
ME2 is just a mix of old games. You don't make new with old just by mixing.
What did ME1 do that wasn't a "mix of old games"? The thing that essentially sold the series was the setting and Shepard. Gameplay-wise nothing new was introduced unless you count the way dialog was implemented.
Orchomene wrote...
I didn't compare it to ME1...
Modifié par Pocketgb, 15 juin 2010 - 03:04 .
SkullandBonesmember wrote...
FlyingWalrus wrote...
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.
You know, whenever somebody says they appreciate story in a game and also mention how ME2 was superior to ME1, I die a little inside. It just shows where ones priorities lie.
And I appreciate story in a game. And I liked the narrative in Mass Effect 2 much better than ME1, but that's probably because I like character driven stories. Without given spoilers, let's say that the "your decisions make no effect in ME2" is a bit of nonsense when viewed from a character development point of view. Pretty much all the loyalty quests have multiple ways for them to end; it's not just a question of loyalty, but their subsequent world view. There was some of that in ME1 as well: Garrus' attitude towards justice could become more nuanced, depending on how his side quest went.
)
Orchomene wrote...
Well, Gaider can throw his non sense speech answering remarks that are easy to contradict but he doesn't solve the real issue : is removing all that gives choice to the player a good orientation to RPG ? Because if the RPG is just "telling a story and having a good gameplay", then I don't think he has played any RPG at all.
In what ME2 is new ? I mean, the gameplay is a shooter gameplay. Voice acting is not new nowadays and imposing a story to a player is not something new.
ME2 is just a mix of old games. You don't make new with old just by mixing.
SuperMedbh wrote...
Without given spoilers, let's say that the "your decisions make no effect in ME2" is a bit of nonsense when viewed from a character development point of view. Pretty much all the loyalty quests have multiple ways for them to end; it's not just a question of loyalty, but their subsequent world view.
AlanC9 wrote...
Note that traditional hero stories don't offer the protagonist a lot of freedom. Putting on my lit-crit hat for a minute, a "hero" is often someone who works to restore or preserve a pre-existing social order, which is simply presumed to be good. Any choices he's got are limited and tactical. People who think that computer games are going to radically break with three thousand years of narrative tradition are kidding themselves.
EA_BiowareAccount wrote...
I love RPG games but there's no need to dumb down and castrate character skills to a point where it doesnt make sense. level 1 characters should start at a point that makes sense to where the game is at and where the player is at more importantly. IMO, Shepard should be able to use a gun with reasonable accuracy at the start and then grow more proficent with it as he levels up (increasing firerate, lower overheat rate, etc what it did already).
Remember this is just my point of view and opinion, you don't have to agree with me.
Orchomene wrote...
SuperMedbh wrote...
Without given spoilers, let's say that the "your decisions make no effect in ME2" is a bit of nonsense when viewed from a character development point of view. Pretty much all the loyalty quests have multiple ways for them to end; it's not just a question of loyalty, but their subsequent world view.
Multiple ways, you mean failing or succeeding ? Their subsequent world view ? Do you think so ? I don't see any difference in their perspective. The characters in this game are just caricatures failing to give some feeling of realism. I'm sorry but I can't agree with the affirmation that this game is character driven.It's like saying that Pokemon is a character driven game since the npc "evolve".
Orchomene wrote...
"Chacun ses goûts" would be more appropriate, if you allow me such correction. I'm not speciffically used to action genre litterature, reading about all the different genres. That may be because I didn't enjoy the gameplay that I could have missed some elements in ME2 concerning change of personnalities in the characters. Also, I don't like the caricatural aspect of most npcs in BW games, that doesn't help. Last point and not the least, the problems of the majority of the chracters revolved too much around oedipian issues for me to matter much about them. I really think that BW tend to create a lot of immature NPCs for obscure reasons. Is it to appeal to teenagers ? Being in my thirties, I can't feel interested with considerations of teenagers.
For what it's worth, I'm a month and a half into my thirties now (something I'll admit to on an anonymous internet forum 
). But perhaps I'm not far enough in that I find that stories about father/son and mother/daughter relationships are immature.Modifié par SuperMedbh, 15 juin 2010 - 09:58 .
Modifié par HazeyPenumbra, 15 juin 2010 - 10:35 .
Guest_slimgrin_*
SuperMedbh wrote...
Well, for girls, it's actually an "Electra complex". Speaking of gender, I'm not a "sir". But I'm not real thrilled at being called "ma'am", either. I've started getting that from store clerks lately, and it's a bit of a downer.
Orchomene wrote...
That's why most of the best RPGs I have played don't have a "hero" as a main protagonist. Planescape is a good example. VTM:B is another one.
The story of the hero that saves the world becomes quickly boring. Have a look at all the books that exist that don't revolve around a hero saving the world. Yet, in video games, it's rare to find such maturity in stories.
slimgrin wrote...
SuperMedbh wrote...
Well, for girls, it's actually an "Electra complex". Speaking of gender, I'm not a "sir". But I'm not real thrilled at being called "ma'am", either. I've started getting that from store clerks lately, and it's a bit of a downer.
Happens to the best of us. Don't fret.
FlyingWalrus wrote...
lukandroll wrote...
FlyingWalrus 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.
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?
Well for starters, ALL what you do with the character is a "choice" in an RPG. The moment you choose to boost that abilitie/stat/proficiencie, you are altering the character abilties and the income of future events in your character story.
And that's where ME2 fails for two mainly reasons; one being that all character have the same preset proficience with guns, do you honestly believe that an Engineer could have the same accuracy than a Soldier with a pistol in a WELL balanced RPG game?; and the other being the LACK of alternatives in the combat.
But... ME2 lets you do that at level ups. Unless I dreamt the part where I upgraded Cloak to an Assassination Cloak up...
So you're saying that if a game doesn't let you incrementally assess ALL aspects of your character in game by hand, it's not an RPG. Or at least that's what you imply by putting such heavy emphasis on "ALL" in your post.
Your post is negligent of a few key points regarding this criticism:
1) No matter what class you choose, you are still going to be playing the role of a special forces badass in Mass Effect 2. And yes, I honestly do believe that a combat engineer can shoot as well as an infantryman. Someone better qualified to state that CAN and HAS in this thread, so it's not unrealistic or unreasonable to anticipate that Shepard can shoot well regardless of what profession he specializes in.
2) I hope you're not going to say that ME1 was well-balanced, because there are tons of Youtube videos out there laughing in the face of "Insanity." In terms of balance, ME2 is lightyears ahead of ME1 in that department. The game remains more or less difficult throughout whereas you could ****** lightning and sneeze holocaust in ME1 after doing two or three story-based missions.
3) I don't know what you mean when you say "lack of alternatives in combat." You could go pugilist on the game and try to kill everything with your fists alone, I guess.
I excised the Fallout 1 bit because I find it irrelevant to this conversation. Fallout 1 may be a good RPG, but putting it forward and saying, "This is a REAL RPG," is like someone in the table top RPG world putting D&D out against, say, World of Darkness and saying, "This is a REAL RPG." It's pointless because different systems are designed for different settings. What worked in Fallout would definitely not work in Mass Effect 2, OR 1. They are far too narrative-driven for that.
I can. They will have to, being all the build up and foreshadowing that was experienced in ME2. By standalone game, I assume they meant that the game's story will follow the "canon" Shepard story just the same as it does in ME2, that it will be something that a new player can jump into and know exactly what he or she is doing. Nothing more, nothing less.The problem is, you probably have. As BW has decided that ME3 will also be a standalone game, I don't see any feasible way that they can make the decision at the end of ME1 have any huge impact.
From a writer's perspective, it's easy. Less simple in game design. At the beginning of ME2, Shepard gets a quick refresher on major events that occurred in ME1 right after Cerberus recovers him. In ME3, it would be simple to have a cinematic or news story run recapping the most major events in the story so far. There would be the canon, and then the variations of the story therein. Don't expect the Renegade path to differ much from the canon tale that Bioware has set out, though. Perhaps they have a more clever way of implementing it, we shall see.How can you have an event that new players know nothing about play a pivotal role in the game? If someone who's never played an ME game before keeps hearing in ME3 about "when the Council died, this happened..." or "If the Council hadn't died, we could have...", they're going to be completely out of the loop, and since ME3 is designed to be it's own game with a story that anyone can follow, I can't see how a decision in a game BW assumes you've never played can have major ramifications.
It doesn't affect the main storyline much, outside of characters that have dialogue at certain junctures during missions, but like the breakfast example you named, the difference is in the nuances. The flavors from eating the egg, bacon, then toast is a different experience from eating the toast, bacon, then egg.I'm not sure I understand how choosing "whom to recruit and when" constitutes major choice? If my breakfast is toast, eggs, and bacon, does it matter what order I eat them in? If you recruit your team in order A,B,C,D, and E, and I go E,D,A,B, and C is our game experience / storyline any different?
If you don't have any attachments (or loathings, for that matter) to your team members by that point in the game, I don't think this is the game or story for you then. On top of the emotional loss, you can still accomplish the mission, but the cost for carelessness is likely allies in the next and last installment.In addition, the "grave consequences" of not following through on their concerns is that that team member dies, but really, so what? You can still accomplish the mission if the majority of your team dies, right?
Doesn't count on Casual. Interestingly, when I told you to play through the game without upgrading a single talent or performing a single bit of research on the most difficult difficulty, you never responded to that thread again. Again, I make the same challenge. You will not get to the endgame without upgrading your powers or your gear, especially not as a class that relies heavily on supplemental powers like the Engineer or the Adept.lukandroll wrote...
The skills are irrelevant, I have proven before and I can prove you right know, that you can beat the game without leveling a single skill.
Try telling that to an Adept or an Engineer. Their Talents are their bread and butter, and taking that away from either of them renders them severely hampered even if their ability to shoot is roughly on par with that of a Soldier's. If we're using ME1 as the measuring stick against which ME2 is to be compared, then ME1 wasn't a very good RPG in that regard, either. You could max out your proficiency in pistols, but you still needed to aim carefully to hit an enemy. This is your direct control and not the character's. For the character to be totally reliant on his or her own proficiency, you would have to play a game that runs on a d20-esque engine, where all control over your aim is wrested and made into a random function.Even if you level up skills, they aren't the main combat mechanic....
The main combat mechanic is based on shooting.... shooting that IT IS NOT based on your character.
You can **** up the the character build, you can choose to ignore the leveleing system altoghether, and you can beat the game; and that's because AT ITS CORE, the game is a shooter.
No. Story and setting takes precedence in any RPG. Period. Otherwise, you get something like Diablo II.Offcourse, decisions and dialog are role playing elements, but the gameplay should be the more important part of any game.
I never said that you said it. I used that as a generalistic example of how RPG purists come out. However, it is interesting that you end up saying something similar to it in the bolded. It's not that we disagree on that; it's that we disagree what constitutes that. For you, it's mechanics, but for me, it's characterization.Ohh, and the FO1 example wans't mentioned because that lame phrase "its a real RPG" I'd never said that, there no thing as a REAL RPG. But because its a game that lives to the true meaning of role playing, that is, to play the role of a character that's not you. Should you suceed or not its up to the character build and hiw own abilties and your cleverness to play his role accordingly.
FlyingWalrus wrote...
That was in response to those that think that Mass Effect would be better off with something like Fallout's system for gameplay. The KoTOR was an extreme example.Orchomene wrote...
I still don't get the point. You are talking about "something as story-driven as Mass Effect" but then you talk about "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".
If BW wants to make a shooter game with story elements, that's fine. But there is no point to say it's a RPG. I didn't enjoy ME2 but can totally understand that some people enjoy it.
I don't think the ME2 is a RPG and you can say it's a RPG. I just give you the reasons I'm saying this and you can disagree with that.
And what I don't get is that you seem to believe that if the game has real-time gameplay that you affect as the player then it isn't an RPG. At the same time, I've taken the reasons you don't think that ME2 is an RPG and given you examples of those things that are in the game. If that's not good enough for you, then I just guess that ME2 isn't your kind of RPG.
And that's fine, too.
lukandroll wrote...
FlyingWalrus wrote...
That was in response to those that think that Mass Effect would be better off with something like Fallout's system for gameplay. The KoTOR was an extreme example.Orchomene wrote...
I still don't get the point. You are talking about "something as story-driven as Mass Effect" but then you talk about "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".
If BW wants to make a shooter game with story elements, that's fine. But there is no point to say it's a RPG. I didn't enjoy ME2 but can totally understand that some people enjoy it.
I don't think the ME2 is a RPG and you can say it's a RPG. I just give you the reasons I'm saying this and you can disagree with that.
And what I don't get is that you seem to believe that if the game has real-time gameplay that you affect as the player then it isn't an RPG. At the same time, I've taken the reasons you don't think that ME2 is an RPG and given you examples of those things that are in the game. If that's not good enough for you, then I just guess that ME2 isn't your kind of RPG.
And that's fine, too.
Not necessary, Deus Ex had a FPS system attached to a skill system and worked like charm. You could especialize JC on whatever the hell you want, and you could beat the game the way your JC was more skilled in.
Retour en haut
