1279 réponses à ce sujet

[Morroian]

CoS Sarah Jinstar wrote...
New Vegas doesn't have a voiced protagonist. Not sure what AP has to do with anything considering it had more design flaws than you can shake a stick at.

Well it was made by Obsidian. Wouldn't Chris Avellone have been involved in making it?

[CoS Sarah Jinstar]

Morroian wrote...

CoS Sarah Jinstar wrote...
New Vegas doesn't have a voiced protagonist. Not sure what AP has to do with anything considering it had more design flaws than you can shake a stick at.

Well it was made by Obsidian. Wouldn't Chris Avellone have been involved in making it?

Your point? Bioware also made BG and BG2 along with Mass Effect. Not every game needs to have the same components.

[upsettingshorts]

CoS Sarah Jinstar wrote...

So is it your opinion that one can't play an CRPG the way described or is it fact?

It is my opinion that the only way one can play a CRPG the way Sylvius describes is by doing it the way he described.  By imagining.  I'm not saying he can't, nor that he shouldn't, just that it isn't built in to the game itself.   The leeway offered by text speech requires a suspension of disbelief I am not capable of because the knowledge of Bioware having prewritten all outcomes is foremost in my mind.  Not saying it is so in Sylvius mind, nor that it should be - but to use it as part of an explanation of why I enjoy the dialogue wheel.

Different strokes.

Not that there's anything wrong with that. Yet you found the need to do the same thing you folks jumped on Sylvius for. Pretty hypocritical imo.

Though I understand with the phrase "you folks" you're lumping me in with others for whom I am not responsible, I never jumped on Sylvius.  I made a general post comparing how while I am on the supporters side of the recent changes to DA:2, I have been in the position of watching a gaming genre I love move away from me as well.  Furthermore, I've stated my respect for Sylvius in a thread recently.  Just because we're on opposite ends of the spectrum as far as how we play CRPGs does not mean I dislike him or feel obliged to call him out on every point I disagree with him on.

Again, my primary issue is when posters claim - in one way or another - that those who like the direction DA:2 is heading are in some way inferior.  Either explicitly or implicitly.  So, my goal in posting in the last few pages has been in direct response to this (mainly you) and not Sylvius, whose opinions I will continue to respect because I haven't felt personally insulted by his posts.

Modifié par Upsettingshorts, 05 octobre 2010 - 02:08 .

[CoS Sarah Jinstar]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

CoS Sarah Jinstar wrote...

So is it your opinion that one can't play an CRPG the way described or is it fact?

It is my opinion that the only way one can play a CRPG the way Sylvius describes is by doing it the way he described.  By imagining.  I'm not saying he can't, nor that he shouldn't, just that it isn't built in to the game itself.   The leeway offered by text speech requires a suspension of disbelief I am not capable of because the knowledge of Bioware having prewritten all outcomes is foremost in my mind.  Not saying it is so in Sylvius mind, nor that it should be - but to use it as part of an explanation of why I enjoy the dialogue wheel.

Different strokes.

Not that there's anything wrong with that. Yet you found the need to do the same thing you folks jumped on Sylvius for. Pretty hypocritical imo.

Though I understand with the phrase "you folks" you're lumping me in with others for whom I am not responsible, I never jumped on Sylvius.  I made a general post comparing how while I am on the supporters side of the recent changes to DA:2, I have been in the position of watching a gaming genre I love move away from me as well.  Furthermore, I've stated my respect for Sylvius in a thread recently.  Just because we're on opposite ends of the spectrum as far as how we play CRPGs does not mean I dislike him or feel obliged to call him out on every point I disagree with him on.

Again, my primary issue is when posters claim - in one way or another - that those who like the direction DA:2 is heading are in some way inferior.  Either explicitly or implicitly.  So, my goal in posting in the last few pages has been in direct response to this (mainly you) and not Sylvius, whose opinions I will continue to respect because I haven't felt personally insulted by his posts.

I wouldn't call them inferior, I would say Bioware is going after a different target audience the last couple of titles and unfortunately I'm not part of that target audience. That being said, I still stand by the idea that Mass Effect 2 was streamlined to the point of being dumbed down for the sake of being dumbed down, and I would really hate for DA2 to turn out the same way.

[upsettingshorts]

CoS Sarah Jinstar wrote...
I wouldn't call them inferior, I would say Bioware is going after a different target audience the last couple of titles and unfortunately I'm not part of that target audience. That being said, I still stand by the idea that Mass Effect 2 was streamlined to the point of being dumbed down for the sake of being dumbed down, and I would really hate for DA2 to turn out the same way.

See if you stuck with "streamlined" I wouldn't have been compelled to respond.  The notion that it's dumber I don't really buy for the following reasons. 

Since the inventory is often cited as one of the many things "dumbed down" in the sequel, I'll start with it"

In Mass Effect 1, sorting through ones inventory was a mindless activity given the sheer mass of useless garbage Shepard picked up in the course of his adventures.  It was so mindless that I wouldn't assign any amount of intelligence requirement to inventory management.   Ultimately you might run across an item that was objectively better than your current gear, and you'd equip that.   The lone exception was the augmentations, which I thought should not have been removed from the game and I hope return.

In Mass Effect 2, sorting through one's inventory occurred only at the start of missions and occasionally during them when a new piece of gear was picked up.  Choosing between 1-3 options is hardly an activity that demands intelligence, so I'm not going to claim that it's system was inherently smarter, but it isn't inherently dumber for a key reason:  The weapons within each category are legitimately and significantly different from one another.  As such, a Vindicator will perform much differently than a Mattock, and one may be more suited towards a particular level of squad composition than another.  So while you aren't choosing the "better" weapon as in ME1, you are choosing the "suitable" weapon in ME2.  In ME1 a sniper rifle was a sniper rifle that only improved performance as your leveled, you still used the weapons in fundamentally the same way.  In ME2, this is not the case.

I could go on an entirely different rant about the streamlining of abilities, or the removal of companion's armor (which I do view as an annoying dumbing down, but hardly worthy of the label trend, especially given how much smarter the actual shooter elements of ME2 are when compared to ME1), but I don't want to totally derail the thread with talk of ME gameplay mechanics.

I'll be content to say if we all just remembered that to remember that our opinions are just that, and other posters' views ought to be treated with respect, these forums would be a much more pleasant and far less irritating place to visit.

Modifié par Upsettingshorts, 05 octobre 2010 - 02:19 .

[CoS Sarah Jinstar]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

CoS Sarah Jinstar wrote...
I wouldn't call them inferior, I would say Bioware is going after a different target audience the last couple of titles and unfortunately I'm not part of that target audience. That being said, I still stand by the idea that Mass Effect 2 was streamlined to the point of being dumbed down for the sake of being dumbed down, and I would really hate for DA2 to turn out the same way.

See if you stuck with "streamlined" I wouldn't have been compelled to respond.  The notion that it's dumber I don't really buy for the following reasons. 

Since the inventory is often cited as one of the many things "dumbed down" in the sequel, I'll start with it"

In Mass Effect 1, sorting through ones inventory was a mindless activity given the sheer mass of useless garbage Shepard picked up in the course of his adventures.  It was so mindless that I wouldn't assign any amount of intelligence requirement to inventory management.   Ultimately you might run across an item that was objectively better than your current gear, and you'd equip that.   The lone exception was the augmentations, which I thought should not have been removed from the game and I hope return.

In Mass Effect 2, sorting through one's inventory occurred only at the start of missions and occasionally during them when a new piece of gear was picked up.  Choosing between 1-3 options is hardly an activity that demands intelligence, so I'm not going to claim that it's system was inherently smarter, but it isn't inherently dumber for a key reason:  The weapons within each category are legitimately and significantly different from one another.  As such, a Vindicator will perform much differently than a Mattock, and one may be more suited towards a particular level of squad composition than another.  So while you aren't choosing the "better" weapon as in ME1, you are choosing the "suitable" weapon in ME2.  In ME1 a sniper rifle was a sniper rifle that only improved performance as your leveled, you still used the weapons in fundamentally the same way.  In ME2, this is not the case.

I could go on an entirely different rant about the streamlining of abilities, or the removal of companion's armor (which I do view as an annoying dumbing down, but hardly worthy of the label trend, especially given how much smarter the actual shooter elements of ME2 are when compared to ME1), but I don't want to totally derail the thread with talk of ME gameplay mechanics.

I'll be content to say if we all just remembered that to remember that our opinions are just that, and other posters' views ought to be treated with respect, these forums would be a much more pleasant and far less irritating place to visit.

I agree refinements needed to be made in regards to inventory, instead of doing that they essentially removed inventory, removed companion armor altogether, removed 95% of the skills from the first game, etc etc. If thats not dumbing down, I'm not sure what is.

[upsettingshorts]

CoS Sarah Jinstar wrote...
I agree refinements needed to be made in regards to inventory, instead of doing that they essentially removed inventory, removed companion armor altogether, removed 95% of the skills from the first game, etc etc. If thats not dumbing down, I'm not sure what is.

The skills thing I actually consider more of a believability decision.  I found it hard to believe that Shepard in ME1 on Eden Prime wouldn't be a crack shot with his/her weapons, and having to put points into it bugged the heck out of me.  It wasnt a traditional rags-to-awesome CRPG story, and I don't think that particular convention needed to apply to someone who was already a highly-regarded space marine and war hero.  But that's just my opinion, I could see it being labeled as dumbing down. 

But then having to reload, making weapons perform differently in combat, a much better hacking/lockpicking option than "Simon Says" (or smearing omnigel), and adding armor customization at least to the PC were all "smarter" moves in my view - so the "dumber v. smarter" argument balances out - at least from my perspective.  At least to the point where I'm comfortable with the label "streamlining" and uncomfortable with the label "dumbing down."

That is getting into a rhetorical debate though.  Simply put I'd like to see many of the features in ME1 and ME2 either combined or a middle ground reached for ME3.  But in general I found ME2 to be a much more playable game, and going back to ME1 is relatively painful for me - with the glaring exception being I felt the dialogue with your crew while on the Normandy was better in the first game.  Now if you'll excuse me, I have to get back to my calibrations.

Modifié par Upsettingshorts, 05 octobre 2010 - 02:34 .

[Sidney]

CoS Sarah Jinstar wrote...

I agree refinements needed to be made in regards to inventory, instead of doing that they essentially removed inventory, removed companion armor altogether, removed 95% of the skills from the first game, etc etc. If thats not dumbing down, I'm not sure what is.

Streamlining isn't dumbing down. Windows isn't a dumbed down version of DOS. Building something that is awkward and clumsy isn't smart, it is bad design and almost everything about ME's inventory system was horrible design.  I don't know how much thought it takes to use the X instead of the IX weapon. I guess that strains some people because of the roman numerals.

Inventory wasn't removed. You still have weapons and armor, you still choose what to take with you - sounda a lot like inventory to me. Contrary to dumbed down you now have to think just a bit in advance as to what you might want your weapons to do because you can't truck the entire armory around with you - gasp, making choices is hard! The weapons actually have meaningful differences- the Mattock vs Vindicator, the sniper rifles offer a trade off of hitting power vs RoF, the pistols offer stopping power vs ammo capacity, the SMG's offer range vs RoF for example. They're not Mensa choices but they are a choice and a better more interesting choice than X vs IX and then mods that make any weaknesses in the weapons 100% immaterial.

[AlanC9]

We can still give her the companion armor thing, though. That just didn't make much sense.

[Sidney]

AlanC9 wrote...

We can still give her the companion armor thing, though. That just didn't make much sense.

I suspect the artistic value of making people look distinct was a higher priority than being able to have everyone look the same albeit in clothes you picked for them.

Now the zero atmosphere "masks" for Miranda and Jack....those are stupid.

[CoS Sarah Jinstar]

Sidney wrote...

CoS Sarah Jinstar wrote...

I agree refinements needed to be made in regards to inventory, instead of doing that they essentially removed inventory, removed companion armor altogether, removed 95% of the skills from the first game, etc etc. If thats not dumbing down, I'm not sure what is.

Streamlining isn't dumbing down. Windows isn't a dumbed down version of DOS. Building something that is awkward and clumsy isn't smart, it is bad design and almost everything about ME's inventory system was horrible design.  I don't know how much thought it takes to use the X instead of the IX weapon. I guess that strains some people because of the roman numerals.

Inventory wasn't removed. You still have weapons and armor, you still choose what to take with you - sounda a lot like inventory to me. Contrary to dumbed down you now have to think just a bit in advance as to what you might want your weapons to do because you can't truck the entire armory around with you - gasp, making choices is hard! The weapons actually have meaningful differences- the Mattock vs Vindicator, the sniper rifles offer a trade off of hitting power vs RoF, the pistols offer stopping power vs ammo capacity, the SMG's offer range vs RoF for example. They're not Mensa choices but they are a choice and a better more interesting choice than X vs IX and then mods that make any weaknesses in the weapons 100% immaterial.

Oh joy, I can take the one pistol with a higher rate of fire or that other pistol that does 2 more damage, so much choice there. What they did with ME2 wasn't streamlining, it was more atune to gutting entire systems to the bare minimum. What did they have 2 versions of each weapon with a 3rd depending on your class? Yeah thats so much choice. :innocent:

Lets face it, ME2 was a shooter with a story line and not much else. Oh hey look at these awesome 4-5 skills I have total for the entire game, this is soooo deep! yeah uhhuh over it. 

Modifié par CoS Sarah Jinstar, 05 octobre 2010 - 04:38 .

[upsettingshorts]

CoS Sarah Jinstar wrote...
Oh joy, I can take the one pistol with a higher rate of damage or that other pistol that does 2 more damage, so much choice there. What they did with ME2 wasn't streamlining, it was more atune to gutting entire systems to the bare minimum. What did they have 2 versions of each weapon with a 3rd depending on your class? Yeah thats so much choice.

See, here's where people who come from shooters can make an argument that if the ME2 system came first and the ME1 system replaced it, that the change was "dumbing" it down.   RPG-based gamers only think in terms of how the stats change, and anyone who has played a half decent shooter will tell you that not only is DPS not the single most important fact, but that the feel and usefulness of each weapon is unique and suited to different situations.   Why the difference?  Shooters involve the feel of the weapon.  Shooters are twitch based and depending on the environment, respond better to different situations.  You round a corner and see a hostile, it's much easier to kill them if you have a rapid fire SMG (something that you can spray-and-pray) or a shotgun (spread out shot) because your aim doesn't have to be pintpoint.  If you used a semi-automatic rifle - even if it is capable of far more DPS - (like the Mattock) you'd have to take more careful aim and in that time, a more appropriately equipped enemy will have killed you.

In RPGs, the control of the weapon is abstracted and success of failure in any given encounter is based on the attributes and skill of the player character alone.  Applying the difference to melee weapons, if you equip the Warden with a Roman-era gladius, he's going to use it like any other sword.  Then, equip him with a Persian scimitar.  He's going to use it the same way because they're both one handed edged weapons, despite the fact that these swords are fundamentally different in their use and feel.  They still kill things but in different ways (most notably stabbing vs. slashing), but reward entirely different styles and situations.  That's how the Mass Effect 2 guns work.

These are fundamental differences in style, not smart v. dumb.

I even made a cheap graphic to explain the difference between the systems for an earlier thread:

I said in that thread...
Notice how the RPG system lacks variety, and the Shooter system lacks progression. Also notice how each has one part "greyed out" while part is filled, that's supposed to show that neither system appeals to this so called "dumbed down" crowd - there's an equal amount to be understood and learned, it just goes about it differently. Would I love to see a full square-shaped system that has both progression and variety? You bet.

That's why fans of Mass Effect 2's shooter elements and item loadout will vehemently deny that this particular aspect of the sequel was dumbed down.  As a game with shooter elements - which even Mass Effect 1 is - its a much smarter system demanding a level of tactical thought that simply didn't exist in the prequel.

Modifié par Upsettingshorts, 05 octobre 2010 - 04:57 .

[MerinTB]

Sidney wrote...
Streamlining isn't dumbing down. Windows isn't a dumbed down version of DOS.

Wow.

You might want to just rethink that one.

Streamlining is removing waste, cutting off rough edges, making things run faster and smoother.

DOS to Windows was none of that.

Streamlining isn't making things easier - it's making things more efficient.

Windows takes more memory and more processing power.  It may be able to do much more, and a GUI may be much easier for people who don't understand computers to use...
but it's not streamlined.

Windows ontop of DOS, and each version of Windows ontop of the previous version of Windows (with a few jumps here and there) was the best example of "spaghetti code" you could find - and that is about as opposite of streamlining as you can get.

You either really want a different example....

OR...

you are misusing streamline to mean "easier to use / easier to learn / easier to understand." 

[CoS Sarah Jinstar]

It has little if nothing to do with "smart vs dumb" and all to do with preference. Alot of people buy and play Bioware games for the RPG aspect. Especially the ol timers. It comes down to different tastes and expectations.



When that core sees Bioware games changing to the point of no longer being titles they're going to enjoy as much, one should expect a bit of out cry about it.

[upsettingshorts]

CoS Sarah Jinstar wrote...

It has little if nothing to do with "smart vs dumb" and all to do with preference. Alot of people buy and play Bioware games for the RPG aspect. Especially the ol timers. It comes down to different tastes and expectations.

When that core sees Bioware games changing to the point of no longer being titles they're going to enjoy as much, one should expect a bit of out cry about it.

And that's perfectly acceptable and wouldn't earn a 3-paragraph long diatribe from me, hehe.

Though I do enjoy opportunities to refine my points.

That being said, there are things about Mass Effect I genuinely dislike, I'd just been leaving them out to stay on message.  An example?  I cheat to max out Paragon and Renegade so I can pick any conversation option I want at any given time.  It allows me freedom to choose the kind of Shepard whose story I want told, and I don't have to metagame for the sole purpose of accumulating said points.

Yep, that means I embrace the combination of freedom and the dialogue wheel.  I hope you don't have to accumulate Angry points to get really pissed off at something in DA:2, or I'll have to cheat again.

Just a note

Modifié par Upsettingshorts, 05 octobre 2010 - 05:05 .

[upsettingshorts]

I also just remembered. There are shooters out there incorporating the RPG elements of item progression.  The blending of RPG with other genres is not a one-way street.

Battlefield Bad Company 2 has a fairly large variety of weapons that you can unlock as you gain levels online, beginning with a fairly uninspiring assortment of mediocre weapons and branching out in both utility and effectiveness as you gain experience. In many ways the item system - apart from the fact you're awarded them via magic and not looting them - is superior to both ME1 and ME2. And it isn't even an RPG.

One of my favorite sports games ever - the now defunct College Hoops series - had a Legacy mode where you levelled up your coach based on his achievements and could customize his appearance, tactical style and coaching/recruiting attributes.

Modifié par Upsettingshorts, 05 octobre 2010 - 05:10 .

[CoS Sarah Jinstar]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

CoS Sarah Jinstar wrote...

It has little if nothing to do with "smart vs dumb" and all to do with preference. Alot of people buy and play Bioware games for the RPG aspect. Especially the ol timers. It comes down to different tastes and expectations.

When that core sees Bioware games changing to the point of no longer being titles they're going to enjoy as much, one should expect a bit of out cry about it.

And that's perfectly acceptable and wouldn't earn a 3-paragraph long diatribe from me, hehe.

Though I do enjoy opportunities to refine my points.

That being said, there are things about Mass Effect I genuinely dislike, I'd just been leaving them out to stay on message.  An example?  I cheat to max out Paragon and Renegade so I can pick any conversation option I want at any given time.  It allows me freedom to choose the kind of Shepard whose story I want told, and I don't have to metagame for the sole purpose of accumulating said points.

Yep, that means I embrace the combination of freedom and the dialogue wheel.  I hope you don't have to accumulate Angry points to get really pissed off at something in DA:2, or I'll have to cheat again.

Just a note

Who's to say you'll even get those options without maxing out coercion? Unless they go the ME2 route and strip half of the skills out of DA2 as well. Wouldn't surprise me at this point.

[upsettingshorts]

CoS Sarah Jinstar wrote...
Who's to say you'll even get those options without maxing out coercion?

Well, if there's a Coercion skill I'll level that up first, even at the expense of combat skills like I did in DAO.  If not, and there's some other form of artificial restriction in place, I'll find some way to cheat my way around it - same as I did in ME1-2.

The concept of the dialogue wheel I like.  The idea of restricting which options I can select from it based on some abstract accumulation of goodwill or anger... not so much.

I'm not above manipulating single player games to the point of near unrecognizability.

Modifié par Upsettingshorts, 05 octobre 2010 - 05:14 .

[AlanC9]

Sidney wrote...
I suspect the artistic value of making people look distinct was a higher priority than being able to have everyone look the same albeit in clothes you picked for them. 

I have no problem with that in principle, but they should have thought about this before they built a universe where armor is useful.

Modifié par AlanC9, 05 octobre 2010 - 05:33 .

[AlanC9]

MerinTB wrote...
Streamlining isn't making things easier - it's making things more efficient.

Windows takes more memory and more processing power.  It may be able to do much more, and a GUI may be much easier for people who don't understand computers to use...
but it's not streamlined

What's the measure of efficiency here? How much time time the computer is burning to accomplish something, or how much time the human is burning to accomplish something?

DOS might still win on the human measure, though I doubt it. I remember being lectured back in the day about all sorts of things that were more efficient when done from a CLI. The argument always failed to make much of an impression because none of the things that were more efficient from a CLI were things that I've ever needed to do.

[AlanC9]

Upsettingshorts wrote...
That being said, there are things about Mass Effect I genuinely dislike, I'd just been leaving them out to stay on message.  An example?  I cheat to max out Paragon and Renegade so I can pick any conversation option I want at any given time.  It allows me freedom to choose the kind of Shepard whose story I want told, and I don't have to metagame for the sole purpose of accumulating said points.

Does anyone remember any RPG constraint that someone didn't end up cheating around? Devs should just put the cheat codes in the manual.

Edit: though the ME2 Paragon/Renegade implementation is so awful I wouldn't call an effort to evade it "cheating."

Modifié par AlanC9, 05 octobre 2010 - 05:36 .

[Morroian]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

I also just remembered. There are shooters out there incorporating the RPG elements of item progression.  The blending of RPG with other genres is not a one-way street.

Oh yeah its going both ways. One of my favourite recent shooters is Borderlands, it has simple levelling with characters choosing a new skill every level; a random weapon generator loot system; weapon, shield and character upgrading items.

[Wyndham711]

I think what's happening with this supposed "genre blurring" is that the character progression aspecs most common to RPGs are getting spread out to almost every genre perceivable. However that doesn't make them any closer to being RPGs in any relevant way, in my opinion.

On the other hand, features most common to other genres (such as action games, adventure games etc.) are getting pushed into RPGs, and in some cases those diminish the tactical aspects of franchises that have previously had those as an integral element. In other cases the influences from outside are so strong that the game comes at least dangerously close to ceasing to be an RPG altogether.

In other words, the outside influences are so strongly incompatible with the tradition of roleplaying that when push comes to shove, the elements supporting actual roleplaying are the ones that tend to get thrown out.

[Sylvius the Mad]

TheMufflon wrote...

The delivery doesn't change, only our perception of it changes. Which is why as much information as possible
should be provided about it.

It's still too late.  Our perception of the line's meaning is what drove it's selection or rejection.  Once we learn how the NPcs react to that line the choice has already been made.

This is only helpful if you reload multiple times per conversation.

ErichHartmann wrote...

Gotta love people's arbitrary views of "roleplaying". /shakes head

If you have a contrary definition I'd like to hear it.

Morroian wrote...

Yeah I am, at this point it should be obvious that yours and Sylvius's is an extreme version of role playing which is not reflected in the way most people play these games.

The way "most people play these games" isn't even possible in the vast majority of CRPGs ever made.  As such, it cannot be reasonably called roleplaying.

the_one_54321 wrote...

You're reaching again. The developers have made it explicitly clear that the dialog is the dialog is the dialog.

You keep returning to this point, but it's not getting any more compelling.

That the writers claim something is true does not make it so.

TheMufflon wrote...

I only rarely had that problem in Mass Effect, and never in Mass Effect 2.

Congratulations.  You happened to be playing the character BioWare expected you to play.

You got lucky.

Now try designing a completely different character - not a marginally different character, but completely different - and see if it still works just as well.

That it doesn't (and it won't) is evidence of how broken the system is.

With the added tone icon in DA2, even you should be able to appraise the content.

That does solve a problem.

It's the wrong problem, but it will probably make the game better than just using ME's system.

TheMufflon wrote...

The player can control what the NPC reacts to.

No he can't.  He doesn't know what line is going to be uttered.

Upsettingshorts wrote...

The character never was my own.  It never has been in any Bioware CRPG.  Every possible line of dialogue the game and every single NPC response is predetermined.  I am playing Bioware's character, my roleplaying options are, as a result - choosing which version of the protagonist's story I prefer.

And you can play that way, but it's your choice to do so.

Those limitations are of your own making.  At least until Mass Effect came along and forced them on everyone.

This is why I'm complaining.  BioWare's games used to accommodate a wider range of playstyles.  But now they're eschewing one - mine - even though the other was clearly already possible (as you just demonstrated).

Modifié par Sylvius the Mad, 05 octobre 2010 - 07:08 .

[Sylvius the Mad]

AlanC9 wrote...

What's the measure of efficiency here? How much time time the computer is burning to accomplish something, or how much time the human is burning to accomplish something?

DOS might still win on the human measure, though I doubt it. I remember being lectured back in the day about all sorts of things that were more efficient when done from a CLI. The argument always failed to make much of an impression because none of the things that were more efficient from a CLI were things that I've ever needed to do.

DOS had that annoying habit of ignoring RAM beyond the first 640 kB, but otherwise I can't think of anything Windows did better.

There were even multi-tasking shells you could run in DOS if you wanted to have more than one application running at a time (I preferred DesqView, but there were others).

Windows was like the WoW of operating systems (I'm not saying that pejoratively - this will make sense).  As explained by Mike Laidlaw earlier, the thing WoW does really well is easing new players into the game by hding all the complexity from them until they need it (and are ready for it).  Windows did the same thing.  If you want to do something in DOS, you need to know both the vocabulary and the syntax of that command, and you need to know it perfectly.  A CLI isn't a forgiving tool.  But Windows will let you fiddle around the try stuff (the ubiquitous right-click menu).

Oddly, I have no idea how this works on Macs.  Macs are supposedly the pinnacle of user-friendliness, but I have no idea how to figure anything out in that interface with that single mouse button.