411 réponses à ce sujet

[Terror_K]

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.

Except --as I've said a hundred times now it seems-- the problem isn't that the option isn't available at all, but that it's only available to Renegades who have already done so much red bar of Renegade actions in the past.

We're not talking about not having access to options that aren't there at all, we're talking about not having access to actions that are there IN. THE. GAME. but simply aren't available to a more Paragon character (or in other cases, a Renegade one).

Now before you respond to this post, Lumikki (if you do), I encourage you to read what I wrote at least 5 times and then think on it for at least a couple of minutes.

[DJBare]

Terror_K wrote...


Except --as I've said a hundred times now it seems-- the problem isn't that the option isn't available at all, but that it's only available to Renegades who have already done so much red bar of Renegade actions in the past.

We're not talking about not having access to options that aren't there at all, we're talking about not having access to actions that are there IN. THE. GAME. but simply aren't available to a more Paragon character (or in other cases, a Renegade one).

Now before you respond to this post, Lumikki (if you do), I encourage you to read what I wrote at least 5 times and then think on it for at least a couple of minutes.

Yes it's already in the game and could quite easily be given to a paragon, accept your forgetting that leads to more branching of character traits, thats where the time and cost come in, it's not just a case of allowing it, but also creating the various outcomes for a paragon character.

[Terror_K]

DJBare wrote...

Yes it's already in the game and could quite easily be given to a paragon, accept your forgetting that leads to more branching of character traits, thats where the time and cost come in, it's not just a case of allowing it, but also creating the various outcomes for a paragon character.

Huh? The outcome would be the same as it would be for a Renegade one: an increase in Renegade points and whatever result the option lead to story wise. You can already do it if you purposefully saboutage your character's reputation anyway by maxing out both bars. The game doesn't look at what you mostly are (except in very rare, major cases, such as the end of ME1) and go "he's mostly Paragon, so the result will be different for this Renegade action than it would be if he were more pure Renegade."

Modifié par Terror_K, 07 décembre 2010 - 11:57 .

[droid105]

Cool ideas for ME3

[Phaelducan]

The problem, Johnny and Google.... is this.



I'm not a reviewer. I played ME2 probably more than most people (not all people, just an average, in that I've completed in fully three times, and I know a lot of people who beat a game once and call it good), and I was thoroughly satisfied with the depth, complexity, advancement and all things RPG with ME2.



I have read your opinions, and I disagree with them. I've played RPG's for 25 years, both console and PC, as well as PnP RPG as well, from Shadowrun to DnD, all four editions of each, plus everything from Earthdawn to Battletech. There isn't a system I'm unfamiliar with, there isn't a type of advancement I haven't played.



I AM your dedicated RPG fan, and I still like ME2 and it's system. Is it Xenogears? No, but that's fine. Variety is good in the genre, and just because it's different does not mean it's junk.



All of your generalizations about "people who like ME2" are bogus. You guys ought to expand your mind about this, it really is a lot of people who have a different point of view about what an RPG is or isn't than you.



It's a pointless disagreement, that is pretty clear at this point, but whether or not you like the way someone else posts or not, the truth is it does sound arrogant to tell other people they don't know what an RPG is or what depth is. We do... and we do. You just have a different point of view, and that's fine.

[RideUrLightning]

Great ideas, especially for the weapons, but still a little but too streamlined for my tastes. Needs to be a little bit more complex like Dragon Age.

[RideUrLightning]

Phaelducan wrote...

The problem, Johnny and Google.... is this.

I'm not a reviewer. I played ME2 probably more than most people (not all people, just an average, in that I've completed in fully three times, and I know a lot of people who beat a game once and call it good), and I was thoroughly satisfied with the depth, complexity, advancement and all things RPG with ME2.

I have read your opinions, and I disagree with them. I've played RPG's for 25 years, both console and PC, as well as PnP RPG as well, from Shadowrun to DnD, all four editions of each, plus everything from Earthdawn to Battletech. There isn't a system I'm unfamiliar with, there isn't a type of advancement I haven't played.

I AM your dedicated RPG fan, and I still like ME2 and it's system. Is it Xenogears? No, but that's fine. Variety is good in the genre, and just because it's different does not mean it's junk.

All of your generalizations about "people who like ME2" are bogus. You guys ought to expand your mind about this, it really is a lot of people who have a different point of view about what an RPG is or isn't than you.

It's a pointless disagreement, that is pretty clear at this point, but whether or not you like the way someone else posts or not, the truth is it does sound arrogant to tell other people they don't know what an RPG is or what depth is. We do... and we do. You just have a different point of view, and that's fine.

I honestly don't see how you could argue for simpler progression; it's almost as if you want Bioware to dumb the game down. I simply don't get it.

[Phaelducan]

I'm not arguing for simpler progression. I'm not arguing at all. I just think this thread is a pretty negative commentary on a really good game, and under false assumptions.

[Googlesaurus]

Phaelducan wrote...

I'm not a reviewer. I played ME2 probably more than most people (not all people, just an average, in that I've completed in fully three times, and I know a lot of people who beat a game once and call it good), and I was thoroughly satisfied with the depth, complexity, advancement and all things RPG with ME2.

Mmmkay. We agree that the character advancement/power tree in ME2 in functional and provides platable results, and disagree on whether that is sufficient.

Phaelducan wrote...

I have read your opinions, and I disagree with them. I've played RPG's for 25 years, both console and PC, as well as PnP RPG as well, from Shadowrun to DnD, all four editions of each, plus everything from Earthdawn to Battletech. There isn't a system I'm unfamiliar with, there isn't a type of advancement I haven't played.

 

Mmmkay. 

Phaelducan wrote...

I AM your dedicated RPG fan, and I still like ME2 and it's system. Is it Xenogears? No, but that's fine. Variety is good in the genre, and just because it's different does not mean it's junk.

Mmmkay. 

To be clear, I do like ME2 a lot. That's why I'm here, and why I'm participating in this discussion. 

Phaelducan wrote...

All of your generalizations about "people who like ME2" are bogus. You guys ought to expand your mind about this, it really is a lot of people who have a different point of view about what an RPG is or isn't than you.

My generalizations on ME2 reviews concerning character advancement are pretty spot-on. So is my reasoning on why ME2 was so successful. I didn't relate the quality of the game with the success of the game. 

Phaelducan wrote...

It's a pointless disagreement, that is pretty clear at this point, but whether or not you like the way someone else posts or not, the truth is it does sound arrogant to tell other people they don't know what an RPG is or what depth is. We do... and we do. You just have a different point of view, and that's fine.

The problem with your assumption is that I don't care about how character advancement/ power system relate to the term "RPG', whether they qualify as a "RPG feature", and whether the "RPG features" of ME2 are sufficient enough to satisfy fans who think otherwise. I abstractly separate the mechanisms of the game and judge them on their own merits. ME2's character advancement is ME2's character advancement in my mind, not an RPG feature in comparison against similar systems in the past.

In short I thought ME2's system was good but could have been so much better while maintaining what made it good. 

Modifié par Googlesaurus, 08 décembre 2010 - 01:29 .

[Phaelducan]

Believe what you want Google. Your generalizations aren't any more "spot-on" than anyone else's. If you really believe that ME2 selling millions of copies is due to hype and the success of ME1, no offense you are delusional. Hype and momentum don't mean squat in gaming if the product sucks, unless you have a rabid multiplayer fanbase. This isn't Hollywood, and you can't make 200 million bucks with a crappy X-men sequel in gaming.



ME2 wasn't Black Ops. ME1 didn't generate nearly what ME2 would have needed to sell as well as it did without it's killer reviews and it actually being a great game. There's just no way.

[Terror_K]

Yeah, but one can argue whether ME2 is a good sequel and a good RPG still, because just because something is a "good game" doesn't mean that it's good at those other things. As I've said before, most of my issues with ME2 would be gone if it were a stand alone title with the same basic gameplay, but this was supposed to be a sequel to Mass Effect 1. The same goes for the way Dragon Age 2 is looking: most of my issues with the direction it's taken would be gone if it were a spin-off game, but it's Dragon Age 2: the sequel to Dragon Age: Origins.



As I've said before, look at the really big sellers: The Call of Duty's, The Halos, the Gears of Wars, etc. They aren't deep or involved games. Heck, in some cases they aren't particularly great either. Modern Warfare 2 was a pretty average game, but a massive seller, for instance. The Halo series aren't particularly special or unique, but they appeal to today's modern gamer, and Mass Effect 2 did the same by going more for that audience and becoming more like these titles and less like the more niche RPG category.



Simply put, it all depends how one looks at ME2 and what one expects from it. If you simply look at it as a game without any labels, it's pretty damn good. But if you're looking at it as a sequel to the original and as an RPG, it's disappointing as hell in both departments.

[Googlesaurus]

Phaelducan wrote...

Believe what you want Google. Your generalizations aren't any more "spot-on" than anyone else's. If you really believe that ME2 selling millions of copies is due to hype and the success of ME1, no offense you are delusional. Hype and momentum don't mean squat in gaming if the product sucks, unless you have a rabid multiplayer fanbase. This isn't Hollywood, and you can't make 200 million bucks with a crappy X-men sequel in gaming.

Let's see:

- I said ME2 sold well because it was a sequel of a game that was immensely popular.
- I said the majority of ME2 reviewers did not cover character advancement (which I see as the power system) but emphasized the revamped combat, the new characters, character interaction, and features that were changed from ME2. 
- I said nothing about whether the actual quality of the game was related to sales. 

All these non-value statements sound pretty accurate. 

Phaelducan wrote...

ME2 wasn't Black Ops. ME1 didn't generate nearly what ME2 would have needed to sell as well as it did without it's killer reviews and it actually being a great game. There's just no way.

While ignoring the fact that ME1 was the first game of a trilogy and therefore had no antecedent to encourage people to buy it. It had Bioware's rep for making great games, and that was it. 

Mass Effect 2 (360) has a logarithmic score of 96 on Metacritic, while Black Ops has a score of ...88 (360). So what's the point of bringing up Black Ops?

Oh wait, this isn't Hollywood. You can't sell bad games because of hype. 

Terror_K wrote...

The Halo series aren't special or unique

"excluding the perfect storm of accidental features that created Halo:CE". 

Modifié par Googlesaurus, 08 décembre 2010 - 03:26 .

[Lumikki]

Evil Johnny 666 wrote...


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.

Yes, but there is different do you increase roleplaying depth or metagaming depth. Also it's question how it's done and is it wanted in first place. Meaning not everyone here is this forum wants same from ME3. I my self is fine if actual roleplaying gets improved and think some new powers could be nice if they fit ME classes. I just did not agree everyting in OP suggestion. Like I sayed it's nice, but I don't like what persuation skill does for dialog system. I also explained this many times as why it's so.

[SithLordExarKun]

Gleym wrote...


And yet ME2 fanatics are just as bad. Only difference is that ME1 fanatics bring up examples of what made ME1 so good, while ME2 fanatics just point at the ratings and reviews and declare that all points are moot on account of its financial success, in spite of the fact that a vast majority of those sales came from the pre-established fanbase of ME1 fanatics.

Oh right like ME2 "fanatics" don't actually bring up any reason why they think ME2 is good. Really, the majority of people that enjoyed ME2 aren't fanatics save for the extreme few that are that stupid. But the sad part is most of the ME1 fanatics, insult anybody that enjoys ME2 or shooters, has an elitist attitude, thinks their claims are universal words of law and worst of all derail every single thread into i "I hatez ME2, it ruined me life" and at the same time spend 24 hours a day nearly 7 days a week kicking a dead horse.

Gleym wrote...
But I digress. The point is relatively simple, really. ME1 was a strong RPG with weak and flawed Shooter mechanics, while ME2 was a stronger Shooter with the equatable RPG mechanics of God of War and Halo Reach.

I would agree that ME1 does have "stronger" RPG mechanics than ME2, but overall it was a horrible RPG with Horrible shooter mechanics. This of course is my personal opinion. If you think that ME1 is a "strong" RPG, then you're right, it is, but in your opinion.

[Googlesaurus]

Lumikki wrote...

Evil Johnny 666 wrote...


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.

Yes, but there is different do you increase roleplaying depth or metagaming depth. Also it's question how it's done and is it wanted in first place. Meaning not everyone here is this forum wants same from ME3. I my self is fine if actual roleplaying gets improved and think some new powers could be nice if they fit ME classes. I just did not agree everyting in OP suggestion. Like I sayed it's nice, but I don't like what persuation skill does for dialog system. I also explained this many times as why it's so.

I don't want a persuasion skill either, but the Paragon/Renegade tie-ins to the dialogue trees have to go.

[Lumikki]

Terror_K wrote...


Except --as I've said a hundred times now it seems-- the problem isn't that the option isn't available at all, but that it's only available to Renegades who have already done so much red bar of Renegade actions in the past.

We're not talking about not having access to options that aren't there at all, we're talking about not having access to actions that are there IN. THE. GAME. but simply aren't available to a more Paragon character (or in other cases, a Renegade one).

Now before you respond to this post, Lumikki (if you do), I encourage you to read what I wrote at least 5 times and then think on it for at least a couple of minutes.

Please don't make assumption that I don't understand you meaning.

Option of action is there in game code , but does the action fits the role of you character is the question what developers maybe did. Meaning what's the different between allow you to do action what is there, but it does not have wanted end result. I ques it could be sometimes better allow to do it, if there is action code allready, but it also means more content for developers, because even if action is same, the result isn't allways same based moral reputation.  This means npcs doesn't act same ways for same action, based character moral reputation.

For some reason developers in ME serie don't allow actions what arent in sertain role. Like player going out of character roles. It's the different between what player wants and what fits in character role as action. I don't fully agree with developers, because it's limiting, but I do understand that it also cost more. Example making diffrent end results after action, requires new voice acting.

So, ask from you self , is it real life player wanting to do the action or would you character in the role really do the action. I think this is like behavior patern is different based how player character does stuff and developers did not allow behavior what doesn't fit sertain roles. But it's interesting question, because it's different between developers guiding the role of character in right direction or leave all to player, even if player goes beyond role of character. So, developers desided that they allow three actions and all of them belong to different behavior model. So, you can't do actions what belong to wrong behavior model.

This is like three actions possibility for player.

1. Kiss the npc (paragon)
2. Shake hands with the npc (neutral)
3. Hit the npc face (renegade)

This is like the action is counter to sertain type, because it's behavior model. It doesn't restric player to choose the action, but it does limit what behavior model the action fits. So, the question is why paragon character can't hit the npcs face? Because it's not paragon action. This is not about are you paragon or neutral or renegade, it's about what kind of action player choose to do. Those choises cause sertain moral reputation.

Modifié par Lumikki, 08 décembre 2010 - 04:03 .

[SithLordExarKun]

[quote]Evil Johnny 666 wrote...


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?[/quote] You can, its what all people do when they don't like a particular game, they bash the hell out of it  without even playing it.



[quote]Evil Johnny 666 wrote...
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...

I already highlighted to you why its obvious  you  never played
any of those games, but of course since you're trying to save face, you
ignore that.
[quote]Evil Johnny 666 wrote...
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.
[/quote] Firstly, this whole thread has already derailed thanks to a particular ME1 fanatic that doesn't have a life outside these forums, it was a suggestion threads for ME3's deeper RPG mechanics and now it derailed into a "I hate ME2 thread, an RPG is so and so".

Secondly, WaW(COD5) was exactly like COD4, just as immersive and better yet, far more believable. You dismissed that, you obviously didn't play that. The same goes for Black Ops.

By the way, you do a good job of ignoring explanations when i already explained how Black Ops is even more immersive than the previous games in contrast to your statement.

[Epic777]

Googlesaurus wrote...
- I said ME2 sold well because it was a sequel of a game that was immensely popular.

I would disagree that me2 sold well because of me1. If that was so KOTOR 2 should have sold extremely well and the PS3 should have been the biggest console to date and should have retired the wii a long time, it came off two immensily popular consoles. The fable of Deus ex:IW shows you cannot rely on big brother's popularity. Me2 sold well because it was a good game in its own right, maybe not the sequel that the RPG fans of me1 wanted but a worthy game in itself.

Modifié par Epic777, 08 décembre 2010 - 04:13 .

[Googlesaurus]

Epic777 wrote...

Googlesaurus wrote...
- I said ME2 sold well because it was a sequel of a game that was immensely popular.

I would disagree that me2 sold well because of me1. If that was so KOTOR 2 should have sold extremely well and the PS3 should have been the biggest console to date and should have retired the wii a long time, it came off two immensily popular consoles. The fable of Deus ex:IW shows you cannot rely on big brother popularity. Me2 sold well because it was a good game in its own right, maybe not the sequel that the RPG fans of me1 wanted but a worthy game in itself.

I never said ME1's popularity was the only reason ME2 sold well. 

[Terror_K]

@Lumikki



So you're basically admitting now that the game does pretty much force you to play one of three roles, and that as such that's really all the players have, and that it's not really good roleplaying at all.

[Lumikki]

Terror_K wrote...

@Lumikki

So you're basically admitting now that the game does pretty much force you to play one of three roles, and that as such that's really all the players have, and that it's not really good roleplaying at all.

Yes, having three different way to do action is more limiting than have 4 different way to do actions, but it's more than have just 2. As for roleplaying, more choises in dialog would be better as allow large variety of actions, but it would also cost more money for company to make it. Sure I support more choises in dialogs.

Modifié par Lumikki, 08 décembre 2010 - 04:10 .

[Terror_K]

Lumikki wrote...
Yes, having three different way to do action is more limiting than have 4 different way to do actions, but it's more than have just 2. As for roleplaying, more choises in dialog would be better as allow large variety actions, but it would also cost more money for company to make it. Sure I support more choises in dialogs.

Why would it cost more money? The dialogue choices are already there, as are the outcomes: you just need to allow access to it via some kind of skill system rather than the paragon/renegade meter backfeeding into it determining your ability to use the option or not. It worked in ME1, so I don't see why people are suddenly saying "it'll cost more" and "you'd have to do more work" etc.

[Lumikki]

Terror_K wrote...

Lumikki wrote...
Yes, having three different way to do action is more limiting than have 4 different way to do actions, but it's more than have just 2. As for roleplaying, more choises in dialog would be better as allow large variety actions, but it would also cost more money for company to make it. Sure I support more choises in dialogs.

Why would it cost more money? The dialogue choices are already there, as are the outcomes: you just need to allow access to it via some kind of skill system rather than the paragon/renegade meter backfeeding into it determining your ability to use the option or not. It worked in ME1, so I don't see why people are suddenly saying "it'll cost more" and "you'd have to do more work" etc.

Because left side "special" choise isn't the same as the choises in right side. They aren't general choise of action, they are succesful action based you characters role model. Meaning game should not allow player go beyond behavior model. You can't just do action what isn't you characters behavior model, it's metagaming, not roleplaying.

Example: You have reputation as been ruthless person. You interact with npcs and that npcs doesn't trust you at all, npcs fears you. Now you as player should be allowed try to do "paragon" action (right side dialog), but game should not allow you automaticly do successful paragon action (left side dialog), because you do not have paragon reputation. If you would be allowed, then npcs would do action what is out of it's behavior role.

This is exactly what's problem with persuation skill. Force npcs do actions what they would not do in situation where they are, just because player wants it.

Meaning it doesn't cost more money open left side option, but it would break hole roleplaying consept. How ever, it would cost more money to really create more roleplaying choises (in dialog).

Modifié par Lumikki, 08 décembre 2010 - 04:28 .

[Googlesaurus]

Lumikki wrote...

Example: You have reputation as been ruthless person. You interact with npcs and that npcs doesn't trust you at all, npcs fears you. Now you as player should be allowed try to do "paragon" action (right side dialog), but game should not allow you automaticly do successful paragon action (left side dialog), because you do not have paragon reputation. If you would be allowed, then npcs would do action what is out of it's behavior role.

This is exactly what's problem with persuation skill. Force npcs do actions what they would not do in situation where they are, just because player wants it.

...ME2 doesn't even go that far. Your Paragon/Renegade score has literally no effect on how anyone initially reacts to you.

Again you run into the problem between forcing players into archetypal roles and actually allowing them to make full fleshed-out characters. Why can't the dialogue system allow me to become Henry Morrison from The Stepfather, a psychotic killer who is also a nice cheerful neighbor? 

Modifié par Googlesaurus, 08 décembre 2010 - 04:30 .

[Terror_K]

Lumikki wrote...

Because left side "special" choise isn't the same as the choises in right side. They aren't general choise of action, they are succesful action based you characters role model. Meaning game should not allow player go beyond behavior model. You can't just do action what isn't you characters behavior model, it's metagaming, not roleplaying.

Example: You have reputation as been ruthless person. You interact with npcs and that npcs doesn't trust you at all, npcs fears you. Now you as player should be allowed try to do "paragon" action (right side dialog), but game should not allow you automaticly do successful paragon action (left side dialog), because you do not have paragon reputation. If you would be allowed, then npcs would do action what is out of it's behavior role.

This is exactly what's problem with persuation skill. Force npcs do actions what they would not do in situation where they are, just because player wants it.

Why it cost more money, because left side isn't  trying different role, it's succesful allready existing role. Meaning it doesn't cost more money open left side option, but it would break hole roleplaying consept. How ever, it would cost more money to really create more roleplaying choises options.

Oh, for the love of... *slaps forehead*

I thought I might have actually been getting through finally, but I I can see now for absolute certainty that this is a waste of time talking with you as you simply don't get it. At all. You clearly just don't, or you wouldn't have responded that way. This isn't about a difference of opinion on things at all, this is about me saying something equivalent to "1 + 1 = 2" and you disputing it because you don't believe that's the way it should be.

But then, you yourself admit to not being a roleplaying and being a metagamer yourself, so I shouldn't be surprised I guess.

Modifié par Terror_K, 08 décembre 2010 - 04:31 .