411 réponses à ce sujet

[Gleym]

Lumikki wrote...

Metagamers looks rewards what they can get while roleplaying and think if they don't get rewards by playing role they like, then they think it cuts of they roleplaying. In reality the metagamers often change they role temporary because rewards. REAL roleplayer doesn't care rewards, they just play role what they have choosen no matter what. If you don't understand this, then you don't understand what roleplaying REALLY is.

What a hilarious twist in that now you're declaring knowledge of what 'roleplaying really is', when you and Phael were repeatedly putting me and others down because of our conception of what a 'proper RPG is'. Well done, you are officially a hypocrite.

[Lumikki]

No we try to teach you people that traditional RPG and roleplaying isn't same. Mostly because you people use word "roleplaying" as you excuse to support your needs of traditional RPG.

Modifié par Lumikki, 07 décembre 2010 - 06:52 .

[Terror_K]

Lumikki wrote...

Metagamers looks rewards what they can get while roleplaying and think if they don't get rewards by playing role they like, then they think it cuts of they roleplaying. In reality the metagamers often change they role temporary because rewards. REAL roleplayer doesn't care rewards, they just play role what they have choosen no matter what. If you don't understand this, then you don't understand what roleplaying REALLY is.

I already went over this, Lumikki. You're beyond frustrating sometimes...

I know the difference between metagaming and roleplaying. I'm not talking about rewards, I'm talking about basic roleplaying of my character. I'm not talking about wanting to have every choice so that I can get all of the best ones, I'm talking about the ability to craft a personality and role for my character beyond either just paragon or renegade. How can I properly role play my character when the options aren't available that suit their playstyle and personality and I am thus railroaded into choosing an option my crafted character wouldn't in order to progress?

Now yes... I understand that metagamers could abuse things if more freedom was given, but we're in territory that's overrestrictive here and is curbing the ability to truly roleplay a character in the process of it. It's fine if you want to be Jesus or Satan, but you can't go in with something along the lines of Mal Reynolds, Michael Garibaldi or even Captain Kirk or Picard. If you played a Picard style character you wouldn't be allowed to kill a Borg even after they'd basically raped you because you haven't killed enough Klingons, Romulans or Ferengi in the past.

And if you don't understand this, then you are the one who doesnt know what roleplaying really is.

[Lumikki]

Yes, Terro_K, but limits is not in paragon/renegade system. It's dialog system what is too one way or other and doesn't allow enough choises to play different role. Dialog system is where you make choises.

Modifié par Lumikki, 07 décembre 2010 - 07:00 .

[Terror_K]

Lumikki wrote...

Yes, Terro_K, but limits is not in paragon/renegade system. It's dialog system what is too one way or other and doesn't allow enough choises to play different role. Dialog system is where you make choises.

Yes, but most of those choices are tied into the charm/intimidate and paragon/renegade system. In ME1 it wasn't so much of an issue because your paragon/renegade points were only a result of your actions and didn't determine your ability to make said choices, but because ME2's results also self-feed into the ability to make said choices then it becomes an issue.

The thing is, it's also wasted and misdirected, since it's supposed to be representative of your reputation. The problem is one's reputation doesn't really determine one's ability to do something. After all, one also has to start somewhere. Just because I haven't killed a man doesn't mean I'm incapable of it. Secondly, they never really take full advantage of this by having people really react to your reputation. It doesn't matter if your a saint or a spawn of the devil, how people react when you speak to them is the same no matter what, and they rarely mention your past deeds unless making a direct callback to events that relate to them. Even ME1 had Hackett giving you a mission depending on your alignment/style but ME2 is pretty much the same no matter how you've approached things in the past. It may have reflected better if the options were always available to pick but could fail if you weren't good enough, but that's not the case with them simply being locked out.

Of course, more tradional RPGs have always had a bit more options here. Beyond base stats such as Charisma and Strength often affecting the equivalents of Charm and Intimidate as well, and the fact that you generally do have the ability to make the attempt and fail rather than having it greyed out or not there, they often present you with various alternatives related to these persuade attempts rather than just the one. For example, in a D&D based game or something like KotOR or Dragon Age a charming rogue-ish character can often be presented with several "Charm" dialogue options, some of which are more good aligned, some of which are more selfish and in between. With Mass Effect it's a bit more static: Charm always equals an extreme Paragon option, and Intimidate always a Renegade one. Which is fine in a sense, but doesn't always give one the alternatives that better suit their character.

[Lumikki]

Players choises aren't tied at all into paragon/renegade system, it's consequences of choise what are tried to paragon/renegade system. Like I sayed before it's counting moral choises, not limiting them. Actual choise is in dialog system and only in it. The choise is limiting the roleplaying freedom same way it did in ME1. Paragon/renegade system is more like consequences of sertain moral choises get rewarded or addional possiblities.

You assume that it's the paragon/renegade system what defines stuff, when it's opposite, it's dialog system. It was even in ME1 same way limiting roleplaying. You people just did not feel it, because you used metagaming to solve issues, by using persuation and intimidation system in ME1. That's not better roleplaying, that's better metagaming.

How ever, you may be right in one thing, that choises in dialogs are too extreme or limited. Why it's that way, I don't speculate, because I don't want to assume developers design reasons. In my opinion you maybe right in you assumption why it's so, but that's just my opinion, I don't know the real reasons.

Modifié par Lumikki, 07 décembre 2010 - 08:43 .

[SithLordExarKun]

Evil Johnny 666 wrote...

When I play a shooter, any type of game where it puts you in the shoes of a character, I want to feel immersed, I want good gameplay, good story, good pacing, good atmosphere, etc... Every CoD game since 4 are plagued with the American action movie syndrome; movie-like pacing, cinematics, atmosphere, gameplay, everything. When I play a mission, I want to feel there, to feel a sense of scale and environment/purpose,

Ah yes and this alone proves that you didn't play Black Ops, let alone any other call of duties and pulled the assumption of your ass that it is simply another mindless shooter along a corridor with absolutely no story, no character development(when this game had more compelling characters than the majority of the cast in ME1) etc etc.

The very fact that you think that any of the COD(with the exception of Black ops) had cinematics to begin with simply proves you didn't touch any of the games let alone played them. Hell, i felt like i was really fighting in vietnam, i felt like i was preventing the soviet sleeper agents starting a third world war, i felt the characters motives were realistic and believable yet compelling at the same time.

To put it simply, in Black Ops, World at war and COD4, i really felt like fighting a real war and not the mindless shooter than you claim it to be despite the fact you didn't even touch the game


I don't care if you agree with me but this is my last post to you because you can waste your entire life responding to everybody about how "i hate this game, i dont like this, that, you're wrong im the word of law" and thus end up wasting time.

Modifié par SithLordExarKun, 07 décembre 2010 - 08:19 .

[Terror_K]

Lumikki wrote...

Players choises aren't tied at all into paragon/renegade system, it's consequences of choise what are tried to paragon/renegade system. Like I sayed before it's counting moral choises, not limiting them. Actual choise is in dialog system and only in it. The choise is limiting the roleplaying freedom same way it did in ME1. Paragon/renegade system is more like consequences of moral and system rewards sertain moral choises.

You assume that it's the paragon/renegade system what defines stuff, when it's opposite, it's dialog system. It was even in ME1 same way limiting roleplaying. You people just did not feel it, because you used metagaming to solve issues, by using persuation and intimidation system in ME1. That's not better roleplaying, that's better metagaming.

You're clearly missing the point or being deliberately obtuse, so I'm not going to bother trying to convince you any further. I pretty much never metagame because I like roleplaying roles and that's pretty much always how I play my RPGs, and I'm insulted that you'd accuse me of doing so simply because I disagree with your opinion on how ME2 handles things, despite all evidence to the contrary that you constantly ignore.

For one thing, you keep talking as if your level of paragon and/or renegade isn't self-feeding when it is. If it wasn't, then there wouldn't be as much of an issue. You keep saying over and over that it's the dialogue system that defines stuff and yet ignore the fact that the result is also back feeding into the dialogue system. You say that it's only counting choices and not limiting them, but it does both.

With ME1 you didn't need to metagame to solve the issue at all, you simply just had to put points into the appropriate skill, which just meant sacrificing other class skills to built up your persuasive ability. The only ones who really metagamed were those who constantly went through New Game+ in order to get the Charm and Intimidate points without having to spend anything on them, which is something I never did. I'm sure others invested points in both then just tried to work out the best outcome out of the ones available, but again... that's not something I did, and not something everybody else did either. Just because one has the tools at their disposal for metagame doesn't mean they use them. One could also bring up the console pretty damn easily on the PC version, but that doesn't mean everybody used it to give themselves extra points just because some did.

To summarise, you're simply wrong because you're acting like the paragon/renegade meter is the same as it was in ME1 and completely ignoring the fact that it backfeeds into the dialogue options. You're saying that the problem is with the tap and completely ignoring the fact that there's a hose connected to the drain that loops back up into the back of the tap.

[kalle90]

Borderlands is a better RPG than Mass Effect 2 is



It doesn't have any dialogue choices but so far they have been very redutant anyways.

[Lumikki]

I'm pretty much most the time metagamer, because I'm not good roleplayer. How ever, I do know the difference. Terro_K you are metagamer too. Because if you would be good roleplayer, you issue with paragon/renegade system would not even exist. You would have issues with dialog choise limitations as unablity choose what you like, not with addional reward system as consequences of past choises.

Modifié par Lumikki, 07 décembre 2010 - 08:53 .

[Gleym]

Lumikki wrote...

No we try to teach you people that traditional RPG and roleplaying isn't same. Mostly because you people use word "roleplaying" as you excuse to support your needs of traditional RPG.

Except that your "teaching" isn't teaching at all. It's just you trying to bully your views onto someone else's views, under the excuse of 'we know better and the game was popular so that makes us right'.

[Terror_K]

Lumikki wrote...

I'm pretty much most the time metagamer, because I'm not good roleplayer. How ever, I do know the difference. Terro_K you are metagamer too. Because if you would be good roleplayer, you issue with paragon/renegade system would not even exist. You would have issues with dialog choise limitations as unablity choose what you like, not with addional reward system as consequences of past choises.

But I do have issues with the dialogue choices being limited and not allowing me to choose what I like. That's what I've been fragging complaining about constantly over the past half a dozen posts in response to you! You're the one who keeps bringing up this supposed "additional reward system" constantly despite the fact that I've said in pretty much every response to you that I don't give a frag about getting the "best" outcome and only care about the dialogue and situation that suits the character I want to play.

How many times do I have to say "I want the dialogue options that would SUIT. MY. CHARACTER. before it gets into your skull? Read what I'm actually fragging typing rather than just rattling off the same nonsense repeatedly.

Geez!

[uzivatel]

Terror_K wrote...

The thing is, it's also wasted and misdirected, since it's supposed to be representative of your reputation.

Then dont consider it only a reputation, consider it the way your Shepard is thinking as a result of your previous choices.

Just because I haven't killed a man doesn't mean I'm incapable of it.

Your nice guy Shepard probably does not consider it an option.

he problem is one's reputation doesn't really determine one's ability to do something. After all, one also has to start somewhere.

It determines the result ... BioWare did not inculde a failure, you either automatically succeed or you are not allowed to try.


I believe we can agree Alpha Protocol has the ultimate dialogue system and move along 

Modifié par uzivatel, 07 décembre 2010 - 09:52 .

[Terror_K]

uzivatel wrote...

Terror_K wrote...

The thing is, it's also wasted and misdirected, since it's supposed to be representative of your reputation.

Then dont consider it only a reputation, consider it the way your Shepard is thinking as a result of your previous choices.

That doesn't stop the fact that it limits my roleplaying though, whether I think of it like that or not. There's still going to be dialogue options ahead that suit my character that will be greyed out, forcing me to stop roleplaying them now and then to go with the only other options at my disposal.

Your nice guy Shepard probably does not consider it an option.

Ah, yes... that's all very well for a full-on, nice-guy Paragon Shepard. But what if the one in question is a batarian and I purposefully decided to create a Shepard who is being roleplayed as mostly paragon, but one who hates batarians due to past experiences and things like Bring Down the Sky, etc.? Then we end up running into the very issue I'm talking about: my Shepard would kill the batarian, but can't because he's been too much of a paragon in the past.

It determines the result ... BioWare did not inculde a failure, you either automatically succeed or you are not allowed to try.

Yes, that's true. It also however determines --thanks to the backfeeding nature of it in ME2-- whether you can even attempt things later on.

For example, if ME1 had Winston Churchill instead of Shepard we'd have something like this:-

English Man: Mister Churchill! Please give us a good, inspiring speech to improve moral and fire up the men.
Wiston: Well, as an accomplished speaker, I'd be more than happy to. I may be drunk, but we shall fight them on the beaches, etc.

If ME2 had him however, we'd have something like this:-

English Man: Mister Churchill! Please give us a good, inspiring speech to improve moral and fire up the men.
Wiston: Well, as an accomplished speaker, I'd be more than happy to. However I haven't given quite enough good speeches in the past yet, so I'm afraid the option isn't open to be at this point. So you'll just have to settle with a little thumbs up.

I believe we can agree Alpha Protocol has the ultimate dialogue system and move along 

As far as I'm concerned, Alpha Protocol was a better RPG than ME2 was in almost every respect. But that's another matter.

[Jebel Krong]

Terror_K wrote...

Lumikki wrote...

Metagamers looks rewards what they can get while roleplaying and think if they don't get rewards by playing role they like, then they think it cuts of they roleplaying. In reality the metagamers often change they role temporary because rewards. REAL roleplayer doesn't care rewards, they just play role what they have choosen no matter what. If you don't understand this, then you don't understand what roleplaying REALLY is.

I already went over this, Lumikki. You're beyond frustrating sometimes...

I know the difference between metagaming and roleplaying. I'm not talking about rewards, I'm talking about basic roleplaying of my character. I'm not talking about wanting to have every choice so that I can get all of the best ones, I'm talking about the ability to craft a personality and role for my character beyond either just paragon or renegade. How can I properly role play my character when the options aren't available that suit their playstyle and personality and I am thus railroaded into choosing an option my crafted character wouldn't in order to progress?

Now yes... I understand that metagamers could abuse things if more freedom was given, but we're in territory that's overrestrictive here and is curbing the ability to truly roleplay a character in the process of it. It's fine if you want to be Jesus or Satan, but you can't go in with something along the lines of Mal Reynolds, Michael Garibaldi or even Captain Kirk or Picard. If you played a Picard style character you wouldn't be allowed to kill a Borg even after they'd basically raped you because you haven't killed enough Klingons, Romulans or Ferengi in the past.

And if you don't understand this, then you are the one who doesnt know what roleplaying really is.

really? because you are the one constantly wanting to be rewarded like a baby with xp for every little action you take in-game, otherwise the whole xp system becomes redundant for you...

[Lumikki]

Terror_K wrote...

That doesn't stop the fact that it limits my roleplaying though, whether I think of it like that or not. There's still going to be dialogue options ahead that suit my character that will be greyed out, forcing me to stop roleplaying them now and then to go with the only other options at my disposal.

I have never seen any of those three main choises to be greyed out?

If you mean paragon/renegade choises, then of course they can be greyed out, because you ROLE has no access to them. If you would have, then you would play out of your role. Those paragon and renegade options are succesful action based moral reputation affecting npcs, based actions from your past and game rewards player with sertain morality. If you character how ever doesn't have that moral reputation, then you aren't allowed to make those succesful action what doesn't fit in you characters role. Now there is only two different morality that gets these rewards, but they aren't only roles player can play. Just only ones what get rewarded with special actions.

Modifié par Lumikki, 07 décembre 2010 - 10:46 .

[Terror_K]

Jebel Krong wrote...

really?
because you are the one constantly wanting to be rewarded like a baby
with xp for every little action you take in-game, otherwise the whole xp
system becomes redundant for you...

I don't expect to be rewarded for everything action I take in-game. I just expect for there to be some indication as to where the experience came from beyond a meaningless, seemingly arbritrary number thrown at me at the end of each mission without clarification or context. If the experience you earn has no meaning, why even have it at all? As it stands there's not even any real indication at all that the XP you get at the end of each mission is based on anything and for all we know it could just be a random number BioWare came up with.

The whole point of XP is that they are "experience points" that you earn through your actions. When I have to idea why I earned what I did and how I did it, then it's completely pointless. Simply saying "you got them for completing the mission" is meaningless, especially when I get the same no matter how I went about it. It's like doing an exam made up of fifty questions and everybody who did it getting an A+ with no ticks or crosses or even comments beside which questions were right and wrong.

If you mean paragon/renegade choises, then of course they can be greyed out, because you ROLE has no access to them. If you would have, then you would play out of your role. Those paragon and renegade options are succesful action based moral reputation affecting npcs, based actions from your past and game rewards player with sertain morality. If you character how ever doesn't have that moral reputation, then you aren't allowed to make those succesful action what doesn't fit in you characters role. Now there is only two different morality that gets these rewards, but they aren't only roles player can play. Just only ones what get rewarded with special actions.

What do you even mean by these "special rewards" you keep bringing up all the time? The really tough, hard to get dialogue options or something?

The thing is, you're basically confirming what I said before now in that there are only really two roles you can play: paragon or renegade.  How can you say "of course they can be greyed out, because you ROLE has no access to them" without basically admitting that the role I want to play can't be played because the game doesn't allow it. Who are you to determine what my character is and what they are capable of? Who are you to say I can't play a 90% Paragon character who hates batarians? If the only role that can truly succeed and not be railroaded is the pure Paragon or pure Renegade or some metaplayed Shepard who has been broken to succeed, then I'm not really playing my role at all. The whole point of playing a role is to create a character who has a certain personality and style and to play with that in mind. If the game doesn't let me and only really lets me play a few, small pre-defined options because of a stupid, backwards, self-feeding limitation then it's not really letting me roleplay at all, is it? If I can't play a character who is mostly good, but gets angry with certain specific situations, or a bad character who has a soft spot for something or can't stand a certain kind of injustice, then it greatly limits my roleplaying, doesn't it?

What's the point in being so able to try and craft a unique character who is supposedly designed to be unique to the player and make diverse decisions when every person who plays the game is going to end up with 90% the two same outcomes because the game forces them to play one way or the other? The game is supposed to be about choices and consequences and different players being able to craft their own unique Shepards, but all it's doing is resulting in a whole bunch of full on Paragon and full on Renegade Shepards with the same damn decisions throughout.

If you really wanted to properly illustrate reputation, past actions and morality in the game by giving special or limited dialogue you'd actually do it more akin to one of the dialogue choices related to Tali early in ME2: If you did an import from an ME1 game where you helped out Tali with her personal quest and gave her the Geth data, you got an additional dialogue option when you first met her again on Freedom's Progress. If you didn't help her out or didn't give her the data, the dialogue option wasn't there.

That is how you give players additional or special dialogue options as rewards for past actions, for reputation and for morality: you actually link the option to the events themselves or events related to it. You don't simply cut players out from having proper dialogue choices because their little red or blue bar isn't high enough.

Modifié par Terror_K, 07 décembre 2010 - 11:20 .

[Vena_86]

Terror_K wrote...

Lumikki wrote...

I'm pretty much most the time metagamer, because I'm not good roleplayer. How ever, I do know the difference. Terro_K you are metagamer too. Because if you would be good roleplayer, you issue with paragon/renegade system would not even exist. You would have issues with dialog choise limitations as unablity choose what you like, not with addional reward system as consequences of past choises.

But I do have issues with the dialogue choices being limited and not allowing me to choose what I like. That's what I've been fragging complaining about constantly over the past half a dozen posts in response to you! You're the one who keeps bringing up this supposed "additional reward system" constantly despite the fact that I've said in pretty much every response to you that I don't give a frag about getting the "best" outcome and only care about the dialogue and situation that suits the character I want to play.

How many times do I have to say "I want the dialogue options that would SUIT. MY. CHARACTER. before it gets into your skull? Read what I'm actually fragging typing rather than just rattling off the same nonsense repeatedly.

Geez!

Don't let them toasters get to you Starbuck!  

[uzivatel]

Terror_K wrote...

Yes, that's true. It also however determines --thanks to the backfeeding nature of it in ME2-- whether you can even attempt things later on.

Same as ME1 for that matter.

As far as I'm concerned, Alpha Protocol was a better RPG than ME2 was in almost every respect. But that's another matter.

... but those much more detailed mission complete screens.

[Vena_86]

uzivatel wrote...

Terror_K wrote...

Yes, that's true. It also however determines --thanks to the backfeeding nature of it in ME2-- whether you can even attempt things later on.

Same as ME1 for that matter.

As far as I'm concerned, Alpha Protocol was a better RPG than ME2 was in almost every respect. But that's another matter.

... but those much more detailed mission complete screens.

The question is how to improve the game experience for as many gamers as possible. The question is not who is the winner in a imaginary ME1 vs ME2 battle. Mission complete screens are not even part of this topic (there is another one for that) and because ME1 isn't much better at something, that doesn't mean ME2 or ME1 hit the apex of perfection.

[SithLordExarKun]

Terror_K wrote...



As far as I'm concerned, Alpha Protocol was a better RPG than ME2 was in almost every respect. But that's another matter.

And a vastly inferior game.....

[SithLordExarKun]

Vena_86 wrote...

The question is how to improve the game experience for as many gamers as possible. The question is not who is the winner in a imaginary ME1 vs ME2 battle. Mission complete screens are not even part of this topic (there is another one for that) and because ME1 isn't much better at something, that doesn't mean ME2 or ME1 hit the apex of perfection.

Tell that to the ME1 fanatics seeing as how ME1 isn't the holy grail of video game nor is it a life changing revolutionary game that they lie to themselves about.

[Terror_K]

uzivatel wrote...

Terror_K wrote...

Yes, that's true. It also however determines --thanks to the backfeeding nature of it in ME2-- whether you can even attempt things later on.

Same as ME1 for that matter.

Not really, since ME1's method doesn't backfeed your Paragon/Renegade bars into your dialogue choices like ME2 does, and is instead based only on your two pesuasion skills. Since you can choose yourself how much to invest in those without it impacting your reputation until you actually make the choices.

[uzivatel]

Vena_86 wrote...

The question is how to improve the game experience for as many gamers as possible. The question is not who is the winner in a imaginary ME1 vs ME2 battle.

I dont see BioWare throwing away the Paragon / Renegade system in ME3 ... or doing some major changes to the dialogue system.
As such the only question seems to be whether to add another layer the same way ME1 did.

Terror_K wrote...

Not really, since ME1's method doesn't backfeed your Paragon/Renegade bars into your dialogue choices like ME2 does, and is instead based only on your two pesuasion skills. Since you can choose yourself how much to invest in those without it impacting your reputation until you actually make the choices.

Except you have to fill your Paragon / Renegade bars first to actually unlock Charm / Intimidate ranks to invest your skill points.

Modifié par uzivatel, 07 décembre 2010 - 11:49 .

[Siegdrifa]

Terror_K wrote...

uzivatel wrote...

Terror_K wrote...

Yes, that's true. It also however determines --thanks to the backfeeding nature of it in ME2-- whether you can even attempt things later on.

Same as ME1 for that matter.

Not really, since ME1's method doesn't backfeed your Paragon/Renegade bars into your dialogue choices like ME2 does, and is instead based only on your two pesuasion skills. Since you can choose yourself how much to invest in those without it impacting your reputation until you actually make the choices.

Hum, i'm doing a paragade walthrough, i hope i won't have problem in ME2
For now in ME1 it was perfectly fine, i reached the renegade max at the end of the game and around 80% of paragon (i  was surprise i could go so high in paragon, didn't invest any point though, just choice).

I started ME2 with both renegade and paragon starting bonus (second surprise), now i have finish the collector mission with 4 loyalty (zaeed (paragon ending), kasumi, jack (paragon ending), mordin), my renegade is more than 75% and pagaron near 50%.
I'm playing a vanguard champion, so 100% bonus.

For now everything is fine, but i hope i won't have bad surprise at the end of the game.

Anothe surprise, when imported my ME1 save  (100% renegade 80% paragon), it says my Shep followed the paragon path ... huh? but my starting bonus was a lil more important in renegade than paragon, so it's okay.

Modifié par Siegdrifa, 07 décembre 2010 - 11:59 .