212 réponses à ce sujet

[Sigil_Beguiler123]

I think there can be appropriate items for some, and for some well Bioware is placing these enemies. As such if they feel there should be a certain amount of loot in a area it need not come from the monsters. Hurlock I can see stones be common, given them coming up from underground. For ghosts well a haunted area could certainly have treasure hidden within it.

I would actually love to see Bioware have things like hidden loot, be it behind secret doors, puzzles, etc. be more common.

[Dorian the Monk of Sune]

My issue with the loot coincides with my issue with the entire game. It was just too controlled. DA felt like a game that the developers went so nutty trying to balance that they missed the forest through the trees and ended up with a game that was robbed of unpredictability, and personality yet still managed to produce a game that was just as, or more unbalanced than most RPGs anyway.

[AlanC9]

Aermas wrote...

Sillier than getting a pile of gold coins from a bear, or a ghost, or a hurlock?

Hardly sillier. If you're advocating no loot at all from ghosts and bears I'm with you. But didn't you say over in the companion equipment thread that we should fight one battle at a time?

[AlanC9]

asaiasai wrote...
SHOCKING!  IT pretty much told me to prepare to be mocked yet when mocked in kind IT wants to whine like a little **** with a skinned knee.  IT does not like to be teased does IT? I also pretty much informed IT in advance that IT was wasting IT'S time. Now IT wants to pout because IT was informed in advance that IT'S attempts to mock would be considered irrelevant by the object of IT'S derision yet still insists on geting  IT'S feeling hurt, sorry i can not help myself FEELINGS NOTHING MORE THAN HURT FEELINGS.  This is not about a difference of opinion, this is about IT'S desire to be taken seriously yet IT wants to act like punk, so i say again, mock away if IT has the stones but be prerared to be mocked in return fair is fair after all.

Are you imitating Shale for some reason? If so, you're not getting the tone right. Shale's got a detached quality, and you're coming across kind of frantic there. I think it's the run-on sentences, which are a habit you should break anyway.

I said that I reserved the right to mock you mercilessly; I didn't actually start mocking you. You must actually like that kind of discourse if you jump at the chance so eagerly, so I don't mind giving you a shot. I'm partial to it at times myself, though you're not as much fun as, say, Sarah or Kalfear.  

As i said before i can see both sides of the argument i do not like the streamlined attempt at inventory that was ME2.

No, you don't see both sides. If you did you'd know why I prefer the ME2 inventory -- or rather, why I think it didn't go far enough. Your earlier post proves that you didn't. It has nothing to do with "dumbed down;" my preferences are generally for more complex games.  Of course, that could have been just empty rhetoric on your part.

I like the ability as i said that i had in ME where i could hunt down the armor of choice, where the choice centered more on what look for my team i was gong for as opposed to the stats on the armor.

Your Shepard really makes equipment decisions for his team based on the look of the armor? What's his thought process there?

because it is one of the ever shrinking points in games where the player can actually participate in the world they will be spending hours of thier time in rather than just be limited to pushing someone's elses idea of what thier character should/could be around in a static, never changing soon to be boring world.

Ever shrinking? How so? The amount of things you can do that make differences in the gameworld is higher in ME2 and DAO than in ME1, which is a bit better than BG2. I may not understand what you mean by "participate" in this context.

It is not about "dolly dress up" it is about the player having the ability to personalize the mass produced experience to the purest point, where it is the developer, the game (product) and the player, where my experience has the potemntial to be different from your experience.

Why does it matter that our experiences are different? I can understand arguing that customization makes the game into something you like more, but this seems to be saying that the customization itself is valuable, not the result of the customization. Or is your rhetoric getting away from you again?

[Dorian the Monk of Sune]

AlanC9 wrote...
Ever shrinking? How so? The amount of things you can do that make differences in the gameworld is higher in ME2 and DAO than in ME1, which is a bit better than BG2. I may not understand what you mean by "participate" in this context.

If anything its the other way around. At least on a technical level you could do a lot more in BG2 than any Bio's games. Full stealth, six NPC parties, open any door, attack citizens without provocation, flee combat with your entire party, attack an enemy first.

[AlanC9]

Dorian the Monk of Sune wrote...

AlanC9 wrote...
Ever shrinking? How so? The amount of things you can do that make differences in the gameworld is higher in ME2 and DAO than in ME1, which is a bit better than BG2. I may not understand what you mean by "participate" in this context.

If anything its the other way around. At least on a technical level you could do a lot more in BG2 than any Bio's games. Full stealth, six NPC parties, open any door, attack citizens without provocation, flee combat with your entire party, attack an enemy first.

I should have been more explicit with "make differences in the gameworld" there. While BG2 and other RPGs of that era let you do lots of things, their methods for handling the consequences of those actions are weak-to-nonexistent. I'll take strong consequence mechanisms any time if the tradeoff is between those mechanisms and freedom of action. Obviously, YMMV.

 I suppose you may have clarified asai's point for me. Thanks.

[Dorian the Monk of Sune]

AlanC9 wrote...

I should have been more explicit with "make differences in the gameworld" there. While BG2 and other RPGs of that era let you do lots of things, their methods for handling the consequences of those actions are weak-to-nonexistent. I'll take strong consequence mechanisms any time if the tradeoff is between those mechanisms and freedom of action. Obviously, YMMV.

 I suppose you may have clarified asai's point for me. Thanks.

That is true. I however am a greedy man and would like to have both. I do not miss the inventory in ME 2 though. ME 2 is so mission based that it makes more sense to uplaod schematics and mine material to create items than it does to carry them around. The game didnt need an inventory at all. A Pie menu for your belt pickets and holsters would have done the trick.

[asaiasai]

AlanC9 wrote...

asaiasai wrote...
SHOCKING!  IT pretty much told me to prepare to be mocked yet when mocked in kind IT wants to whine like a little **** with a skinned knee.  IT does not like to be teased does IT? I also pretty much informed IT in advance that IT was wasting IT'S time. Now IT wants to pout because IT was informed in advance that IT'S attempts to mock would be considered irrelevant by the object of IT'S derision yet still insists on geting  IT'S feeling hurt, sorry i can not help myself FEELINGS NOTHING MORE THAN HURT FEELINGS.  This is not about a difference of opinion, this is about IT'S desire to be taken seriously yet IT wants to act like punk, so i say again, mock away if IT has the stones but be prerared to be mocked in return fair is fair after all.

Are you imitating Shale for some reason? If so, you're not getting the tone right. Shale's got a detached quality, and you're coming across kind of frantic there. I think it's the run-on sentences, which are a habit you should break anyway.

I said that I reserved the right to mock you mercilessly; I didn't actually start mocking you. You must actually like that kind of discourse if you jump at the chance so eagerly, so I don't mind giving you a shot. I'm partial to it at times myself, though you're not as much fun as, say, Sarah or Kalfear.  
It is probably because i bite.

As i said before i can see both sides of the argument i do not like the streamlined attempt at inventory that was ME2.

No, you don't see both sides. If you did you'd know why I prefer the ME2 inventory -- or rather, why I think it didn't go far enough. Your earlier post proves that you didn't. It has nothing to do with "dumbed down;" my preferences are generally for more complex games.  Of course, that could have been just empty rhetoric on your part.
Sure i can you just have not explained how ME2 is a deeper and more complex game than ME, why because one has to hunt clips after each fight? Because the limited tech trees, the nonsensical morality system? Maybe it is the complete lack of removable helmets with the bonus armors. Maybe it is gimped control system in ME2 where multiple functions were bound to a single key, where one had to cover behind a box before one could jump it, under fire or not.  Maybe you are just a conformist lost with out the ever present mini developer perched on your shoulder having already decided in advance what your route, build, gear, and the choices you get make, will be in some linear side scroller fashion.  You sound like the type of person who may walk onto a car lot,  just tell the salesman you want to buy a car, let him pick one out for you, not negotiate the price, drive off with no clue as to why or how the Pinto wound up in your drive way and could care less.

I like the ability as i said that i had in ME where i could hunt down the armor of choice, where the choice centered more on what look for my team i was gong for as opposed to the stats on the armor.

Your Shepard really makes equipment decisions for his team based on the look of the armor? What's his thought process there? Sure why not, the thought process is having a military background uniformity has a the side effect of allowing people in charge to make life and death decisions based entirely on "who is up" as opposed to i do not like that person's tie so i will send them to attack the machine gun nest.  It also makes the capabilities of one soldier essentially the same as the soldier on either side in formation. It also can have a demoralizing effect like the Immortals or Hussars where the enemy wonders did i not just shoot that guy? The bonus is that it is what i wanted it was a choice i could excercise it was how i stamped Asai's seal of approval on MY team. 

because it is one of the ever shrinking points in games where the player can actually participate in the world they will be spending hours of thier time in rather than just be limited to pushing someone's elses idea of what thier character should/could be around in a static, never changing soon to be boring world.

Ever shrinking? How so? The amount of things you can do that make differences in the gameworld is higher in ME2 and DAO than in ME1, which is a bit better than BG2. I may not understand what you mean by "participate" in this context. No way your dreaming pal just in the gimped morality system in ME2 that required the player to stick to a particular path paragon or renegade alone make ME2 a shallower experience. The fact that this limited the players ability to play the game as they chose because once you chose the first paragon or renegade response you were locked in, essentially forced to pick the same response regardless of how you would have prefered or risk not accumulating enough points to resolve any later game situations. At least in ME with the more detailed talent trees the player could decide to put points into their charm or intimidation talents and then play the game resolving the choices in any way they wanted. The player chose in advance to gimp themselves in combat or tech to have the charm or intimidation levels necessary to control the outcome of game situations (Wrex on Virmire for example) as they wanted.  

It is not about "dolly dress up" it is about the player having the ability to personalize the mass produced experience to the purest point, where it is the developer, the game (product) and the player, where my experience has the potemntial to be different from your experience.

Why does it matter that our experiences are different? I can understand arguing that customization makes the game into something you like more, but this seems to be saying that the customization itself is valuable, not the result of the customization. Or is your rhetoric getting away from you again?
Do i really need to explain why a game that can create a different experience for each player, regardless of choice will make a better game. Customization has value just in that with a deep talent tree one play can be one build, the next something completely different. With each character type warrior, rogue and mages there are several different builds at minimum 3 pure builds for the warrior and rogue with at least 4 pure builds for the mage class. This is not even considering the specializations, the most important thing is that each build has a different role in the combat and a different feel to that combat role. Now factor in the difference the gear on one character can have on thier usefulness so you have different classes, builds and then the ability to further influence the builds by the gear the player chose to equip on the character.
 
All of this adds up to replay value sure the choices as far as story go maybe limited to 2 to 4 possible outcomes that is necessary as the developers would never be able to cover every choice just like dialog options one must settle. In character design and build though Bioware allowed the player a free hand which had the nice side effect of creating a point where character A could diverge from character B creating a spot where the player could point to and categorize the difference of the characters.  If i wanted to play the same character as you i could just pick from literally any of the hundreds of games on the market where the difference is limited to team red or blue. Where my character is no different than any one else in the game, but where that diffeerence can tip the multiplayer balance in favor of the player who has the flexibility to be different. In alot of games especially in FPS type games it is necessary because that is integral to the maintaining the balance necessary to have a game like Halo be a test of skill as opposed to can collect the most stuff. If DAO were this type of game i would agree but this streamlining feels more to keep people from getting confused(?) More likely to crank out a substandard product that relies on brand recognition more so than quality to convince people to buy it, (raises hand) it is how i would up with my copy of ME2. If i could send my copy of ME2 back to Bioware or my retailer i would have but my consience will not allow me to as i have played it several times trying to find any redeeming quality in it, unfortunately ME2 has been played,  discussed and found wanting. 

Asai

[Ziggeh]

asaiasai wrote...

You sound like the type of person who may walk onto a car lot,  just tell the salesman you want to buy a car, let him pick one out for you, not negotiate the price, drive off with no clue as to why or how the Pinto wound up in your drive way and could care less.

That's a fairly flawed analogy. His point is that the choices removed between ME 1 and 2 where the ones that lacked real consequence. All that time spent replacing mods in your companions weapons, was that really an engaging process that enhanced the combat gameplay? No, I'd say that the analogy is more like not demanding what material the cars windows are made from, the specific animal used for the leather on the seats, the type of wood in the dash. I can see a case for wanting to entirely define the experience, but at the end of the process it's still the same car.

asaiasai wrote...
  It also makes the capabilities of one soldier essentially the same as the soldier on either side in formation. It also can have a demoralizing effect like the Immortals or Hussars
where the enemy wonders did i not just shoot that guy? The bonus is that
it is what i wanted it was a choice i could excercise it was how i
stamped Asai's seal of approval on MY team.

Your companions in ME2 are decidedly not essentially the same as the next soldier in the line. You hire them because they're good at what they do. Asking them to essentially do something different because you weren't keen on what they were wearing is really rather counter to the dirty dozen thing they've got going on.

[Aermas]

AlanC9 wrote...

Aermas wrote...

Sillier than getting a pile of gold coins from a bear, or a ghost, or a hurlock?

Hardly sillier. If you're advocating no loot at all from ghosts and bears I'm with you. But didn't you say over in the companion equipment thread that we should fight one battle at a time?

No, I'm suggesting getting something like "ectoplasm" or something from the ghost, & a bear pelt, tooth or meat from the bear.

[Ziggeh]

Aermas wrote...

No, I'm suggesting getting something like "ectoplasm" or something from the ghost, & a bear pelt, tooth or meat from the bear.

The point was more that those grey vendor worthy goods result in gold anyhow, replacing them with further abstraction and just giving you the gold removes tedium at the cost of "realism" (which you possibly know my position on).

The bears wouldn't be carrying loose change, they would be carrying the equivelant in teeth and fur, it's just assumed that either you've traded it at the first opportunity or there is a barter system in place and the fur is synonymous with cold hard cash (in the same way lumps of metal are with time associated value).

Modifié par ziggehunderslash, 20 décembre 2010 - 05:23 .

[Aermas]

 Ah yes, the it's a game deal with it defense.<_<

I think you know my feelings towards that

[Ziggeh]

Aermas wrote...

 Ah yes, the it's a game deal with it defense.<_<

Oh no, games all but deal in the currency of replacing tedium with abstraction. There aren't many (I can name three) games that see you travel between far flung locations in real time, because it would be enormously tedious (as well as graphically expensive), the far more probable fluctuating, multiple currency, barter based trade systems are replaced with a single static, decimal currency for ease of use.