411 réponses à ce sujet

[Evil Johnny 666]

Lumikki wrote...
This includes both games.

So what?

I can't prove you to be wrong, because you opinion is just opinon, there is no right or wrong here, just opinions. You want depate something, then write one subject here and we depate that if you want. Or do you just want to complain how I avoid depating with you?

Huh? Well if you have an opinion you surely can defend it. You defend a broad opinion with a mix of more specific ones and facts. Either you can't defend your opinion and get proved false, either the subject is too relative and no one can be proven wrong or right and either you prove me false. It's about trying. An opinion is compromised of a mix of opinions and facts, and if someone can mix those opinions and facts into a very well written discourse, maybe the person reading it can see some of his opinions changed because his opinions and facts were so well made in his head. Again, you can't make internet forums and try debating if every time someone brings a point someone points out loud "that's your opinion and I don't agree with it" You surely have reasons. I may not agree with these reasons, I may say why I don't agree with them or I may not because I think it's too subjective and can't come up with something without turning in cirlces. Obviously we never went there.

It's like with Terror_K, he made a very good post pretty about your inability to play some roles, and the only thing you can do is solely answering a question pointed towars you which was just a fraction of what he just wrote. How can we have a decent conversation when you ignore almost everything we say and just point out specific things which are just single points in our argumentation, often making us to argument for paragraphs again for the same thing to happen.


What's the deal of people on the internet always bringing the opinion thing? Are our opinions so well formed in our heads, so sure to be true to not be able to defend them? Seems like too many people have lot the ability to debate on the internet. When we had debates for 10 minutes in my French class in school, we didn't keep telling the other it's their opinion for 10 minutes. We brought our opinions and supported them with facts or general thoughts, in the end no one may be really proven victor, but we still defended our points. There were also groups like mine who got owned, because of poor argumentation, even if I may have still believed in my opinion, almost everyone agreed with the other group. That is debating and what threads like these are for.

Modifié par Evil Johnny 666, 07 décembre 2010 - 03:17 .

[Evil Johnny 666]

SithLordExarKun wrote...

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.

What if I played them? Tell me how can I make an opinion on a game I haven't played? Aren't you the "you're wrong I'm the word of law" here?

I never claimed to be the "word of law", but please try to prove me otherwise at least instead of just saying you don't agree or I'm claiming everything I say to be true...

Even then, my argumentation was limited since I did not want to derail the thread too much, I don't see what's the point of "proing me wrong" by saying the exact opposite of what I just said. Like, in that particular post I haven't exactly explained why I thought CoD games since 4 are not immersive, but you just point it out and say "yes it is immersive", I wasn't debating about CoD, I was merely stating my opinion on this in relation with the subject so I of course did not went through proper extensive argumentation.

Modifié par Evil Johnny 666, 07 décembre 2010 - 03:20 .

[Lumikki]

Sure, I agree most of what you say about depating and opinions.

How ever, there is few things what sometimes happen. One is people often think what they say is the truth, when in reality it's just the truth as they see it. Truth is depending every peoples own perspective and view points they have cumulated in life. This cause sometimes problems in talking, because people defend very strongly what they think is the truth, but in the end it's just one perspective to see the truth. Now the problem starts, because sometimes same absolute truth is viewed by different person very different perspective. This means they talks about same thing, but they viewpoints are totally different.

So, I can't say that someone is wrong, because they perpective opinions aren't. Because in they perspective what they talk is the truth, even if it's not in my truth. I could try to explain my perspective, but without ability accept others existing perpective it never leads anything more than big argument and disagreements.

So, if you see that someones perspective is totally different, but you understand why it is so, why start arguments, what doesn't lead anywhere. If you see that only thing what the other is trying to do is just prove that they own perspective is right one or that opponents perspective is wrong one.

Example me and Terror_K often does this. Trying to argue about our very different perspectives. We try to prove other perspective to be wrong while our own right. In the end it most the time it just end disagreement and fustration as unable to get our self understanded. What's the point of depate, if it ends allways same ways, unsolved disagreement what we both did know to happen from start of depate. Because in the end depate only did shows, how others see things. But after learning the opponets viewpoint of looking, what there is to learn. Only thing what can be done is accept the disagrement. You can't change others opinion without changing that persons perspective to look situation and that's often allmost impossible. I was talking, how people see stuff, like liking, not lack of information stuff.

So when different people perpective are too far, it looks in depate like they don't understand others. That's not allways true, because they can even understand others perpective, but they just can't acccept it. Like they think it's wrong way to look situation. This cause long depate what doesn' lead anywhere. Like I sayed, you can't change other perspective look situation. So, sometimes I wonder, why even start to argument, if you can see the perspective what other is using. Depade is good, when there is something to gain, but sometimes it's just waste of time.

Example even how much I like and respect Terror_K, I often disagree. Not that I disagree more than agree, but agreement doesn't cause long depate. I just know one thing, I can't change Terror_K's perspective what is different than mine. I can understand it, but I don't like it.

Modifié par Lumikki, 07 décembre 2010 - 03:44 .

[Evil Johnny 666]

I feel like you missed my whole point. Anyway I'm done with you. Like I said, I can understand it ends in disagreement, but you didn't even try to attack most of my arguments when you stated some things, thus defending yourself. That's my problem, not that we end in disagreement. Plus, not EVERYTHING is opinion, realism isn't much debatable. Being consistent to your views shouldn't make you feel like not being consistent with what happens, FACT.

Try sincerely to prove me wrong on this. Why can't I point my gun on someone's face while I want to, while it's according to my character's morals? The game tells me "look, there's two morals, we won't tell you what being either means, only that paragon is the top choice and renegade the bottom one", but you can't have a moral, so you can do some actions like pulling a gun on someone's face if the game does not deem you renegade enough, even if you're roleplaying a certain type of character. And by the way, you can make someone faint by punching him for answers no matter what, as well as punch a reporter, but you can't pull a gun on someone's face and threaten a dangerous thug even if it's according to your characters view. If that's not limiting roleplaying and non-sensical, that's not roleplaying at all and still non-sensical. The game chooses to make very similar things both not doable by different characters, but one doable for everyone, how does it makes sense? It doesn't. Roleplaying is about having options (no options = no roleplaying), not about being limited because the game doesn't want your character what you want him to be.

Modifié par Evil Johnny 666, 07 décembre 2010 - 03:46 .

[Lumikki]

Evil Johnny 666 wrote...

Try sincerely to prove me wrong on this. Why can't I point my gun on someone's face while I want to, while it's according to my character's morals?

Because game developers did not program you to have that possibility when you wanted to point the gun. It's not part of "proven" story options as much you want. Call it lack of possiblities. Possible because it cost more money to make more possibilities. I ques it's business, cost efficient. Or maybe developers did not think someone wanted to do what you wanted.

The game tells me "look, there's two morals, we won't tell you what being either means, only that paragon is the top choice and renegade the bottom one", but you can't have a moral, so you can do some actions like pulling a gun on someone's face if the game does not deem you renegade enough, even if you're roleplaying a certain type of character. And by the way, you can make someone faint by punching him for answers no matter what, as well as punch a reporter, but you can't pull a gun on someone's face and threaten a dangerous thug even if it's according to your characters view. If that's not limiting roleplaying, that's not roleplaying at all. Roleplaying is about having options (no options = no roleplaying), not about being limited because the game doesn't want your character what you want him to be.

Yes, it's limiting roleplaying, but look above.

Modifié par Lumikki, 07 décembre 2010 - 03:57 .

[Gleym]

And yet that option is there in many shapes and forms during ME1, but not in ME2 (excluding Renegade-only scenarios). But like Terror_K and Johnny have both surmised; even attempting to address these matters with someone like you is less efficient and serves less promise than debating with a brick wall suffering from metaphysical mental handicapping, because at least the brick wall would be more likely opt to hear someone out and debate their stance on a matter, rather than making a sweeping gesture at some vague, blase field of opinion with a few factoids of little consequence, then declare 'I'm right, so there', with an additional Strawman Argument of 'the only reason this is futile is because we disagree, so I don't have to explain myself'.

Modifié par Gleym, 07 décembre 2010 - 04:26 .

[Lumikki]

Ahh, and here comes more of insulting and you thinking that you behave any differently.

[Gleym]

Ahh, and here comes more of you dismissing what I'm saying as an intentional insult, just because you're offended by the implications that what I say might actually be right - that your supposed 'reason' is fundamentally flawed.

And the fact of the matter is that I DO act differently. As do Johnny and Terror_K. Unlike you, at the very least we can go into detail as to what our opinions are and why we think the things we do. You, however, consistently evade and sidestep the matter entirely, thus warranting you the decision that not just I, but two others who gave you FAR more benefit of the doubt (of course, you'd have noticed that they had said so if you ever bothered to read their posts and didn't just dismiss them right off the bat after what seems like a bare glance, furthering the conception that you've already decided 'they are wrong, I am right' before even finishing the read), have come to: That you have no intention whatsoever of coming to the table on even footing, instead choosing to dismiss whatever is said that compromises your stance and simply repeat the same thing, over, and over, and over, and over again without ever actually going into details as to your opinions or stance on the issue being discussed.

In order for this to be even considered a legitimate debate, both sides need to engage in a debate of questioning and answering: You only question, intending to poke holes in everyone else's side of the argument without ever bothering to present anything yourself, thus rendering your side in this completely biased and voided of being taken with less than the smallest grain of salt.

But don't worry. I won't bother you any more with the horrors of somebody just speaking straight and outright about your hypocritical bias (as I am well aware of my speaking without the eloquence of Johnny and Terror_K, who both said the exact same thing as I, just in a more refined and polite way). Seeing as talking to you is such an evident waste of time, to spare myself the need to punch a hole in my screen each time I see you dismiss someone's valid opinion and rationale with your repetitious vagueness, I'm blocking you, thus resulting in one less unrefined, unyielding incompetent to worry about - because, as has already been stated, your inability to meet those whom you deem to be 'wrong' on equal footing, has already rendered whatever you have to say as tainted with a lack of weight.

Perhaps when you are ready to actually detail your stance and open yourself up to have as many holes pokes in YOUR views as you are so keen to do to others, those better than I, like Terror_K and Johnny, will do you the benefit of meeting you at a table of legitimate debate.

Modifié par Gleym, 07 décembre 2010 - 06:34 .

[Evil Johnny 666]

Lumikki wrote...

Evil Johnny 666 wrote...

Try sincerely to prove me wrong on this. Why can't I point my gun on someone's face while I want to, while it's according to my character's morals?

Because game developers did not program you to have that possibility when you wanted to point the gun. It's not part of "proven" story options as much you want. Call it lack of possiblities. Possible because it cost more money to make more possibilities. I ques it's business, cost efficient. Or maybe developers did not think someone wanted to do what you wanted.

The game tells me "look, there's two morals, we won't tell you what being either means, only that paragon is the top choice and renegade the bottom one", but you can't have a moral, so you can do some actions like pulling a gun on someone's face if the game does not deem you renegade enough, even if you're roleplaying a certain type of character. And by the way, you can make someone faint by punching him for answers no matter what, as well as punch a reporter, but you can't pull a gun on someone's face and threaten a dangerous thug even if it's according to your characters view. If that's not limiting roleplaying, that's not roleplaying at all. Roleplaying is about having options (no options = no roleplaying), not about being limited because the game doesn't want your character what you want him to be.

Yes, it's limiting roleplaying, but look above.

Isn't this the whole point of this thread? Speaking of roleplaying limitations and how ME3 should be deeper?  Everything in video game development costs money, but that's besides the point, it's still lacking in depth and incredibly limitating, that's what we're talking about.


Thanks Gleym.

Modifié par Evil Johnny 666, 07 décembre 2010 - 07:02 .

[Warlock Angel22]

I like where you're going with the character traits. I like many of the powers for ME2. I can do without the ammo powers though. Those should only belong to biotics imo. Otherwise, just provide weapon mods or specific types of ammo. I think you can add more traits like for sheilds, leadership/tactics, etc. I definitely don't mind a deeper rpg experience as long as they don't bring back the clutter from ME1.

[haberman13]

Warlock Angel22 wrote...

I like where you're going with the character traits. I like many of the powers for ME2. I can do without the ammo powers though. Those should only belong to biotics imo. Otherwise, just provide weapon mods or specific types of ammo. I think you can add more traits like for sheilds, leadership/tactics, etc. I definitely don't mind a deeper rpg experience as long as they don't bring back the clutter from ME1.

Heresy!

There should be less RPG, ME2 was on the right track, now Bioware is going to backpeddle and add boring stuff that doesn't involve headshots.

Seriously, if blood isn't exploding around me at all times I fall asleep.

Down with RPG!!!!  Up with Mass Gears of Duty!!!!

[Luigitornado]

Yeah I can support a trait system.

I also think it would be worth while in updating the looting system. I liked how we could scan some fallen enemies for tech...I think that should be worked in more and expanded on.

If we were able to customize weapons, similar how we could customize armor, there could easily be more looting in ME3.

[Phaelducan]

Gleym 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.

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.

Are you serious? Gleym, you need to take a serious step back from the forums. No one put you down, and if you perceive it that way you are WAY too wrapped up in an internet argument. 

If someone saying that ME2 is a proper RPG causes you insecurity, I strongly recommend some perspective.

[taher jlali]

love

[Phaelducan]

Total love. People's feathers should never get this ruffled on a video game forum. If you disagree with something, that's totally cool. Problem is a lot of people present opinion as fact, then jump on someone else for disagreeing with their "fact."



Seriously, it's just a game, and if you don't like ME2, you probably won't like ME3. Life will go on, and Elder Scrolls V will be out soon enough. This really is a silly argument, either you think it's an RPG or you don't, and it is quite clear that people's minds aren't going to get changed.



For what it's worth, to the OP, I still think it's always a good idea to explore ideas of depth and further customization. Even if I don't think the game needs it, there is almost never something wrong with adding an extra mechanic or two. As such, IF something like that made it into the game (which I seriously doubt) I would be totally fine with it. However, I don't think the game needs anything like that, as I enjoyed and appreciated the system in ME2 just fine.



Peace.

[haberman13]

Phaelducan wrote...

Total love. People's feathers should never get this ruffled on a video game forum. If you disagree with something, that's totally cool. Problem is a lot of people present opinion as fact, then jump on someone else for disagreeing with their "fact."

Seriously, it's just a game, and if you don't like ME2, you probably won't like ME3. Life will go on, and Elder Scrolls V will be out soon enough. This really is a silly argument, either you think it's an RPG or you don't, and it is quite clear that people's minds aren't going to get changed.

For what it's worth, to the OP, I still think it's always a good idea to explore ideas of depth and further customization. Even if I don't think the game needs it, there is almost never something wrong with adding an extra mechanic or two. As such, IF something like that made it into the game (which I seriously doubt) I would be totally fine with it. However, I don't think the game needs anything like that, as I enjoyed and appreciated the system in ME2 just fine.

Peace.

Fact: Depth and choice is for nerds

[Warlock Angel22]

I think some of you guys really need to find another game to play because you just can't be having fun with these games based on the conversation here. I think the tough for Bioware is going to be trying to please everyone. You have a faction who want a "deeper" pencil and paper rpg experience, those who like the hybrid (rpg/shooter elements) and those who want something inbetween. At the end of the day, they aren't going to make everyone happy.

[Evil Johnny 666]

[quote]LogosDiablo wrote...

[quote]Because you can't be particularly invested from the get go? [/quote]
You can. Shepard begins ME2 with a significant chunk of Paragon or Renegade points, depending on ME1 Shepard.
[/quote]

Depending on ME1 Shepard. Plus why does it have to be linked with a morality which is not yours? If you're invested in your morality - which again, is a thing you are invested in from a relatively young age unless life-chaning events happen - why can't you do some actions which fits with your morality?

[quote]
[quote]
...Paragon/Renegade are just synonyms or metaphors for good/evil...Worse, is that it's so, so streamlined that things that can't possibly be considered paragon or renegade are.
[/quote]
Please explain to me then, how kneeing a well-meaning but misguided man in the balls for trying to help people is good act. It is not. Many of the Paragon acts involve death threats. You say that many things can't possibly be considered paragon/renegade, but that is because of a fundamental misunderstanding of what those words mean, in this context.
[/quote]

Do you want me to come up AGAIN, with the TIM/Jacob thing in the beginning of the game? Another example from the beginning of the game when you are asked about leaving someone to die in ME1, both responses are very similar, only small things changed it. One of those small things is saying he/she knew it was a dangerous mission and he had no choice. How is this not true and renegade? There's PLENTY of things which is very small.

In context, tell me how telling Jacob you don't trust him is renegade? How is telling him you don't know what to think of it is neither? How is telling him you trust him (with no other choice than say you don't trust who he works for) paragon? Maybe the last part is true, but you have no choice to say it nor do you know you're going to say it.

And what about punching the reporter? You can do it no matter your alignement, same as beating someone out of consciousness. Why then can't you threaten someone with a gun?

[quote]
[quote]Wikipedia wrote...[/quote]
Irrelevant. Bioware co-opted these words to mean something different within the context of the game.
[/quote]

Obviously, Shepard can't be a diamond or change sides constantly as far as I know. Tell me what else they mean other than good/bad, good/evil, saint/as-long-as-you-get-the-job-done or any other synonyms? What is the other meaning?

[quote]
[quote]The thing is, someone with good rhethoric skills can think logically from both sides of the coin as well as bluff. [/quote]
Rhetorical skills are unrelated to an ability to lie.
[/quote]

Ability to lie is unrelated to ability to threaten someone. You just proved how the system is weak. The ability to lie has nothing to do with morality, you can lie to save lives as well as you can lie to get advantages. The ability to lie is a skill, as persuasion. I was talking about rhetorical skills as the "one" skill regarding paragon/renegade options, but it's because I don't want to go in details. If you want to keep it simple, you should have everything under one belt, one that makes at least a bit of sense. Tying skill-related elements with a pre-determined morality which isn't yours makes no sense. It's not because your character isn't invested in either two views forced upon the player, but invested in his own views that you shouldn't be able to do something according to your morality. 

[quote]Wikipedia wrote...
Morality has two principal meanings:

• In its "descriptive" sense, morality refers to personal or cultural values, codes of conduct or social mores that distinguish between right and wrong in the human society.
  Describing morality in this way is not making a claim about what is
  objectively right or wrong, but only referring to what is considered
  right or wrong by people.
  For the most part right and wrong acts are classified as such because
  they are thought to cause benefit or harm, but it is possible that many
  moral beliefs are based on prejudice, ignorance or even hatred.[clarification needed] This sense of the term is addressed by descriptive ethics.
• In its "normative" sense, morality
  refers directly to what is right and wrong, regardless of what specific
  individuals think. It could be defined as the conduct of the ideal
  "moral" person in a certain situation. This usage of the term is
  characterized by "definitive" statements such as "That act is immoral"
  rather than descriptive ones such as "Many believe that act is immoral."
  It is often challenged by moral nihilism, which rejects the existence of an any moral truths,[6] and supported by moral realism, which supports the existence of moral truths. The normative usage of the term "morality" is addressed by normative ethics.

[/quote]

Okay so Bioware sees morality in a normative sense for your ability to do actions which is wrong. Yes killing someone is wrong, etc. but Bioware go beyond the fundementals, assuming you know what is their moral code. Ah, the top or down choices... So telling TIM you feel good after being ressucitated is renegade? So MY Shepard can't do some actions because I didn't follow the paragon or renegade moral code? As long as my Shepard is okay with doing something in particular, why should he care about wether or not he follows one of the extreme ends of the universal moral code? Even if we accept a certain moral code as being the ultimate one, nothing disables you from having your own and doing things according to your own. If I don't lie, it's not because society views this as a bad thing, but because I think lying is a bad thing. So if I'm usually a good guy, I can't lie from time to time? I'd have to do everything wrong in order to be able to lie? I have my own moral code and sometimes going against the society's code doesn't disable me from doing certain actions, so why Shepard can do it and not me? But even if I'd want to lie I may not do so, because even for my life I can't lie without looking awkward. But this has nothing to do with me not following society's moral code to one of the extremes.


[quote][quote]
-...Shepard is a pre-determined character mostly...
-...if Shepard isn't already invested in his beliefs, I surely wouldn't want to work with him.
-Any good commander shouldn't have such problems and always be sure of what he's doing.
-Shepard having an increasingly investment in his beliefs is as non-sensical as him changing his moral stance or it being graded...
-...And trust me, you get fully invested in your beliefs pretty young...
[/quote]
-Not really. Shepard has a vague background at Mindoir. You decide how Shepard handled that situation, and you play the rest. Not nearly as defined as you claim.
-I didn't say Shepard wasn't invested in his beliefs. I said he grows more strongly invested. Big difference.
-Your ideal commander doesn't exist. It's a fairy tale. Everyone in a position of authority questions their decisions. It's a part of the job.
-People change. It is fact. They grow more assured as they meet with success, and change tactics and ideas with failure. It is naive to claim otherwise.
-Why should I trust you? Do you have a degree that would give you a keen insight into the human condition?[/quote]
-You're telling me a 30+ y-o dude has no defined character and can't be fully invested in his beliefs?
-Thing is it doesn't just grow in the game, it can change drastically. If he grows more strongly invested, he shouldn't be limited in his actions. Plus, after doing something as big as saving the galaxy, I doubt you can be more invested or change your beliefs or not be able to do something you want to do.
-Hahaha. So a commander knowing what he's doing and being invested in his beliefs doesn't exist? You mean it's a commander who isn't invested in his beliefs that doesn't exist. It has nothing to do with questioning decisions. Anyway, if you question decisions, it's because the commander is invested enough in his beliefs to actually have an opinion on how to do something(order), if you have poor beliefs, you'll never know what to do. It's not a fairy tale, it's reality. Your beliefs can be challenged by very controversial things, but you should still be able to draw a line and do something, otherwise you wouldn't be commander.
-How growing more assured as anything to do with morality? How is adapting to failure has anything to do with morality? At 30+ y-o, after saving the galaxy, you bet you have a rock solid way to view things that can't be changed by telling your crew you trust them.
-Well, that was actually not particularly good to say as it all depends from people to people. I'd just expect Shepard to be someone with assurance and already established beliefs, rather than someone moving up the ladder or something, Shepard is already on top.

[quote][quote]
-You're telling me Shepards gets more intense as the game unfolds when he consistently talks along a pre-determined moral stance...[but less intense as you deviate from that prescribed path? *My paraphrase for clarity]
-Again, you have a stance or not...
-well I don't see how anyone's character can't get more invested because the game doesn't think he should.
-This is just stupid, bad writing, poor concept. At least ME1 tied this to persuasion skills even if it was still tied to your character's moral stance.
[/quote]
-You confine yourself by insisting on selecting only red or blue option - it is not the game's doing. I absolutely do not claim that Shepard loses intensity when a mostly Renegade Shepard makes a Paragon decision. The two are not mutually exclusive. Mechanically, they exist on separate continua. Gaining points in one does not cause you to slide away from the other. Shepard simply becomes more well-rounded.
-People are not black and white. They are shades of gray.
-Clearly, the game does think you should, as there are mechanics in place to track said progression - Paragon and Renegade points.
-Perhaps this is small point of fanboyism on my part, but Bioware is a master at storytelling through the video game medium. They have been doing it for quite a while, and have a long history of great works. To me, you just accused Cirque du Soleil of poor acrobatics, or the Trans-Siberian Orchestra of being tone-deaf. All this does is show that you are ignorant of what makes quality art.[/quote]
-I don't confine myself into selecting only red or blue options, I want to be able to choose one if that's what I want to do. The only red/blue option I may choose may be threatening a batarian with a gun.
-Of course. Do you know what having a stance means? Bioware tells us to use certain options we HAVE to be black and white. You defend this and then tell me we are shades of gray.
-Again, after getting across the galaxy and saving it, and then dying because of the Collectors, I'd sure well think Shepard can't get more invested than he already is. That's not because the game thinks something that it's necessarily okay, otherwise we wouldn't have this discussion.
-If you're telling me ME2's main story (forget your squad mates, but the MAIN story, the collectors), it's POOR storytelling. It's not because you think they were masters and still are without giving me arguments that it's fact. Plus art is HIGHLY subjective. If you want to know why I think ME2 has a very poor story (I think some characters have a very well written story - others not - as well as most of what is related to the universe) read one of the last posts (mine) in the "What you don't want in ME3" thread. People can say there's no artistic value in Suspiria because it only resolves around murders and witches, but I think it is brilliant due to an unparalleled nightmarish/dreamy atmosphere among other elements.

[quote][quote]
-...At least in Kotor it kind of makes sense since you feel like an new person since you don't remember a thing. Then I can understand someone's beliefs changing and you getting more invested in them.
-Plus, the Force is known to be kind of like a drug, someone falling in temptation may turn out pretty bad (evil).
-...Shepard is a well defined characters with ton of history.
[/quote]
-Assuming I were to accept your logic up to this point, you don't thinking dying and being brought back to life - not to mention being awakened prematurely twice during the procedure - would be enough to cause a person to question their world view? I do not accept your logic, but if I did, it defeats itself here.
-The force has no such intoxicating power. Fallen Jedi are that way because they allowed themselves to be. A middle path is possible, regardless of what Jedi Masters claim. Case in point - Jolee Bindo.
-Shepard is very well defined...in ME1 and ME2. His backstory, however, is nebulous, as mentioned above.
[/quote]

-Well, for having lost consciousness several times and having had several operations, you don't even know what happened, you awake as you were. I'd guess being brought back to life is like being hit by a car (which happened to me), you loose consciousness or "die" and then you awaken. Except when you get hit by a car, you awaken in the streets rather than on a bed like after an operation. Even if Shepard was awakened prematurely, it didn't happen long enough to matter. When I awakened in the streets, it took me some minutes to realize what happened, at first I didn't think about anything, wondering what happened, then when I realized I got hit by a car I wondered if I was dreaming or not. I felt like awakening from my bed, from my when I went to bed to night before (it hapenned in the morning), and if I had awaken in the hospital, I would never have known I got hit by a car and would've probably lost my only memory about what happened before. Maybe I would've got memories later, but considering how I felt when waking up, it would've taken some time. When I first awakened from my operation, it took me 1-2 minutes before knowing what was happening and then I thought I was still on the operation table. So the only thing that could have changed Shepard is learning about his death, and personally, being hit by a car didn't change much to me. Except that I may have been wondering what is the meaning of life a bit more. I really can't see how someone like Shepard dealing with death so often can be changed by such thing. Enough for him to not be able to do something according to his beliefs? My accident didn't changed the way I talked to people or my interactions AT ALL.

-I guess. KOTOR wasn't perfect either anyway.
-Shepard's backstory being nebulous as no revelance to him having a defined moral. He's a 30+ y-o veteran solider who got hand picked for a dangerous mission, saved the galaxy and all, you'd think he's someone with convictions and self-esteem.

Modifié par Evil Johnny 666, 07 décembre 2010 - 09:38 .

[Vena_86]

Warlock Angel22 wrote...

I think some of you guys really need to find another game to play because you just can't be having fun with these games based on the conversation here. I think the tough for Bioware is going to be trying to please everyone. You have a faction who want a "deeper" pencil and paper rpg experience, those who like the hybrid (rpg/shooter elements) and those who want something inbetween. At the end of the day, they aren't going to make everyone happy.

True, but with the inbetween you please most people and that is exactly what I was going for. It is also true that having a hybrid game does not mean that either genre is underrepresented. It can have good combat and a good feeling of progression and the ability to customize. Many other games do that already with success. And there are always ways to have features for some people that others can ignore. Noone has to think about these traits for example. They can just press auto upgrade and get the same balanced progress as before, without any more button pressing. A win win situation. It is irritating that many of the shooter-only crowd can not see this. They often try to interpret their own personal nightmare rpg visions into the suggestions that where never intended like this.

Like someone said before, this is the least that ME3 should have. And it is really an extremely streamlined, compressed concept with essentials only, because I am willing to compromise and take a step towards a middle ground of agreement. But some people are so stubborn, that they don't move at all, or even further back with arguments like "I disagree, this is terrible, this is stupid, this is not necessary" without further explanation.

Btw, I am currently working on a more modern alternative for the Traits. Let's see how that goes...

[Evil Johnny 666]

Phaelducan wrote...

Total love. People's feathers should never get this ruffled on a video game forum. If you disagree with something, that's totally cool. Problem is a lot of people present opinion as fact, then jump on someone else for disagreeing with their "fact."

The problem is when people keep reiterating the same thing you're writing arguments against for the whole time, instead of defending their arguments by writing arguments against those arguments you just wrote. That's why we get so pissed off about Lumikki, I kept writing big pragraphs and most of the time he's just quote me, replace almost everything with snip, and talk about something either irrelevant or saying the same **** again. I can't speak for the others, but it's not about talking on a video game forum and disagreeing with someone that gets my feathers ruffled, but that he basically insults me with his inability to talk, to debate like an adult on a certain topic. I'm tired of these childish accusation of wanting a "traditional rpg" experience when he doesn't even tell me why he thinks I think such way when I wrote paragraphs about why I think it's not what I want. Can't you see this is frustrating? "I can't prove your opinion wrong". Then you can't take words out of my mouth about what I want, or an opinion.

Warlock Angel22 wrote...

I think some of you guys really
need to find another game to play because you just can't be having fun
with these games based on the conversation here. I think the tough for
Bioware is going to be trying to please everyone. You have a faction who
want a "deeper" pencil and paper rpg experience, those who like the
hybrid (rpg/shooter elements) and those who want something inbetween. At
the end of the day, they aren't going to make everyone happy.

I don't solely enjoy perfection. It's not the lack of RPG elements that really irritate me, it's ME2's lack of depth period. Either get a competent full-blown shooter, or a real hybrid with strong elements of each genre. I don't want to bother with poor RPG mechanics if it would be better if they'd be removed entirely. Personally, I'd enjoy ME2 a lot more if all the RPG was taken out (or most) so I wouldn't have to deal with anything that are more time sinks than anything else. Bypassing/hacking is a time sink, research is a time sink, levelling up is a time sink (on the contrary of ME1, alloting skill points actually makes your experience change a bit, in ME2, after having a point of each, it's just keeping up with the difficulty. Scanning is a time sink. Even if ME1 has a bad inventory, at least it lets you mod your weapons and such, instead you have a research system which is more "go use the terminal every 2 hours to do a couple of clicks" rather than anything else. Why should I do that if there's no depth behind its purpose? What's the purpose of having to research things if it's basically one huge win button that costs you money and such? You know, when you research in Age of Empires, there's strategy involved after the credits, if there was no strategy AoE wouldn't use it. If something can be automated without any real consequences, just remove the damn thing instead of making me loose my time. How is that not shallower than a weak inventory/seller system?

Modifié par Evil Johnny 666, 07 décembre 2010 - 10:26 .

[uzivatel]

Evil Johnny 666 wrote...

tl;dr

You really love to write, dont you?

Modifié par uzivatel, 07 décembre 2010 - 09:41 .

[DJBare]

Much deeper RPG please!, I don't care if they strip out the uber weapons for it, I'm a nerd, give me the depth!

[Phaelducan]

Vena... the "least" ME3 should have would be to use the ME2 engine, not really tweak anything, and sell another 5 millions games or whatever.



Again, it's fine to want some things to be different with the game, but it's unrealistic and to be honest slightly arrogant to propose that your system would somehow "fix" a best-selling and critically acclaimed product.



Again, I think traits would be cool, no issue with them. However, if ME3 does absolutely NOTHING different with it's advancement system, it will still please a ton of gamers and the game will be a smash hit.



You are setting yourself up for disappointment if you cling to the idea that ME3 has to have big changes to it's progression system.

[Evil Johnny 666]

Phaelducan wrote...

Again, it's fine to want some things to be different with the game, but it's unrealistic and to be honest slightly arrogant to propose that your system would somehow "fix" a best-selling and critically acclaimed product.

I find these comments always funny. No opinion about ME2's quality here, but most of the sales is due to pre-game hype (and indirectly to ME1's quality). Plus, I don't know many people paying for games after playing them. The reason Black Ops broke sales records is certainly not because everyone already played it and thought it was good. "Professional" critics play a game, write a review, play a game, write a review, etc. They have to be productive. It's not about playing a game, getting some quality time with it, take a back a seat and think about everything from different perspectives and then writing a real critique like it should be. I bet most reviewers didn't even complete all loyalty quests. And it's impossible to have a real thought-out opinion on ME1 or ME2 without at least playing it two times. Instead, reviewers have no choice but to write according to first impressions, something which is rarely entirely accurate. Then for each reviewing website, only one dude actually expressed his opinion. And unless it's everyone's favourite game from the site and everyone played the game a bit and went through all the thought process any good, professional critic should do (something the average game doesn't need to), yearly best-ofs are more often than not still based on first impressions.

So please people, don't tell anyone he shouldn't say this or that because most people don't agree with his opinion. There's nothing arrogant at all.

Modifié par Evil Johnny 666, 07 décembre 2010 - 11:19 .

[Googlesaurus]

Phaelducan wrote...

Vena... the "least" ME3 should have would be to use the ME2 engine, not really tweak anything, and sell another 5 millions games or whatever.

Again, it's fine to want some things to be different with the game, but it's unrealistic and to be honest slightly arrogant to propose that your system would somehow "fix" a best-selling and critically acclaimed product.

Again, I think traits would be cool, no issue with them. However, if ME3 does absolutely NOTHING different with it's advancement system, it will still please a ton of gamers and the game will be a smash hit.

You are setting yourself up for disappointment if you cling to the idea that ME3 has to have big changes to it's progression system.

No matter what Bioware does with it, ME3 will be a smash hit. But unlike most reviewers I don't mistake competence for quality.