411 réponses à ce sujet

[Phaedon]

SithLordExarKun wrote...

Why aren't you guys in any video gaming company? Since you oh so know it all.

Indeed, we all know how criticism turned out last time. At least BW were able to think for themselves for the most part and made ME2 a great game.

[Jebel Krong]

Terror_K wrote...

Gleym wrote...

No, Jebel. The fact of the matter is that as much as Lumikki might CLAIM to get it, the fact is towards the contrary: That pursuing this as a form of intellectual debate is wholly pointless. Lumikki's posts make it very clear what Lumikki wants: For everyone to eventually agree with their stance in the issue. As much as you might love to cynically put me, and others who share my views or opinions, down and declare us 'narrow-minded', the facts remain the same: That at least on our side of the fence, we are willing to concede to points in hopes of finding a middle ground whilst not compromising what we hold as our opinion. What Lumikki, and to an extent yourself, want, Jebel, is for everyone to agree with your way, and Lumikki is willing to endlessly, and ceaselessly circle around in a repetitious parroting of the same thing over and over again without giving any sort of ground, or actual detail when asked. And whenever called on it and outright asked for these details straight-out? Repeating the same thing again.

As always, Jebel, it comes down to the facts in this matter. The facts of the debate, and not the game. The facts, and not the opinions or views.

And the facts are these: Trying to engage Lumikki in a reasonable debate, or rather, in a reasonable case of dialetics, is wholly meaningless when Lumikki intentionally sidesteps anything that might compromise their views and never brings anything new to the discussion in the slightest. This is fact. After having attempted to engage Lumikki in this futility, Terror_K, and myself, and inevitably Johnny no doubt to follow also, have concluded that we would have more luck trying to solve 1st grade mathematics by bashing our heads against a wall covered in spikes than to get Lumikki to actually engage in intelligent and equal discussion, and thus rather than wasting our breath, there is no point in pursuing the matter and simply ignoring the inconsequential parroting of Lumikki is the only course of action left available.

Exactly. Despite his claims to understand the situation and claiming to even agree with certain points brought up, in the very next post he backtracks and goes back to what he said in the first place again, justifying things with his own imaginary spin on the situation and still making silly claims (such as repeatedly claiming that said system creates metagaming rather than real roleplaying) that seem to completely ignore the facts surrounding the situation. If this was purely an opinion related matter it wouldn't be an issue, but he's not only completely disregarding and ignoring the opinion-based nature of it but the cold hard facts as well.

With you, Jebel, and others that I often disagree with I can usually at least have a decent debate and conversation and discussion about these things  because for the most part  you and the others will at least raise logical and well-defined points and counterpoints, even if I don't really agree with them and --in some cases-- strongly disagree with them. The debate at least moves forward because both sides can fully grasp what's being discussed and there's a good back and forth as well as a progression of moving the debate and discussion forward. With Lumikki this is next to impossible because he's like a broken tape that constantly rewinds and despite claims to understanding and sometimes even agreeing, the whole nature of his argument rewinds again and resets as if everything said simply wasn't, no matter how valid the arguments and points brought up against him are. I can't help but know what the FBI agents felt like in The Simpsons when they were trying to set Homer up as "Homer Thompson" after participating in this thread.

perhaps it's to do with your views being so far apart, perhaps language barrier, whatever (and arguments are always recycled, especially from topic to topic on the same forum).

and gleym: when you and johnny et al. actually start using some "facts" and not just you opinions, the discussion can move forward, but when you fundamentally misidentify what type of games the mass effect series is, to start with, that's when it becomes problematic. gleym. gleym.

[Majin Paul]

I do like the traits idea since it would add more customisation. The Weapon idea isn't too bad as well, especially if it means we have a reason to consider different gun makes.

[Googlesaurus]

Lumikki wrote...

I ques you could look it that way too. Meaning other roles don't get these cool scene rewards. How ever, that's not reason to get accesses to rewards what doesn't belong to you character role, it's reason ask rewards what fits role what you play?

Example, why doesn't neural character get neutral role scenes?

I'm fine with giving "scene rewards" to players who actually choose those options. But why should certain Paragon and Renegade options only be available to extremely Paragon and Renegade players? If you don't fill up one bar by the end of the game, you don't get the option of ending the Legion/Tali confrontation without pissing one of them off. Why should those completely unrelated decisions be the determining factor instead of my Shepard being a smooth talker or a liar who knows how to manipulate people? 

Jebel Krong wrote...

because Shepard is still a semi-independent character - as in me1 - you have a certain amount of "wiggle room" in interpretation and playstyle, but not complete freedom to break the base traits of the character (hence renegades not being *evil*).

Which is an meaningless distinction since all characters in all video games are "semi-independent" due to game mechanics. 

What are these "base traits" of Shepard you speak about? The fact that he is compelled to work for the greater good of the galaxy? There are many different ways to achieve the same ends, and clearly there are many different attitudes to achieve those ends. 

LogosDiablo wrote...



You do not seem to understand, and I agree with
Lumikki. The Paragon/Renegade conversation system is the same as the dark
side/light side conversation system in KOTOR. Exceptionally high Paragon status earns you an
extra choice/action, as a reward for being strongly enough Paragon. The
difference in ME2 is that it also shows you the extra choice/action you would
have earned if you were Renegade. And so the effect is now
that since gamers such as yourself can see what that ability was, they become
incensed and feel entitled to something they didn't earn.

Which, in a stunning and completely unforeseen
twist in irony, compels players to partake in that terrible metagaming that
Lumikki despises in hopes of getting those extra choices. This is further compounded
by those extra choices giving you more points, which allow you access to
further options in a glorious snowballing effect. Comparing the two morality
systems is misleading, for leanings towards the light/dark side in the Star
Wars universe have far different implications than Paragon/Renegade leanings in
Mass Effect. 

And of course the heart of the matter: why are these rewards tied solely to the Paragon/Renegade
meter instead of more sensible in-game things such as previous choices that
appease/offend the NPC, more refined rhetoric skills, conscious manipulation of characters to
your own ends, etc.?

Modifié par Googlesaurus, 08 décembre 2010 - 05:08 .

[Phaelducan]

Vena_86 wrote...

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.

*facepalm*

I can not recall using the word "fix" anywhere in this thread! This is about improving depth while maintaining the usability. It is also about providing some brainstorming for BioWare, since Christina Norman has already confirmed that deeper RPG elements are one of the goals for the game!
For crying out loud, I started the first post with this... Did anyone actually read the text part?!!!

All you do is push me into some generic RPG-fanatic box, without further consideration. I don't even want to change the game for people who think ME2 is perfect. I want to ADD improvement for those who see it's unnecessary shortcommings. And it does have shortcommings as proven by many other games and thousands of posts in forums. If I would hate ME2 I would not bother investing any further thought in the franchise. You call me arrogant for purposing possible improvements that are already very streamlined and would not change the game for those who don want it to. But simply because of the fear that anything could be different you see this as some kind of threat.

Vena, that's not fair. I did read your post, and I would ask for the same consideration. I maintain that more depth would be fine, and I wouldn't mind in the slightest. My general point is aimed at your statement "... it's unnecessary shortcomings." 

It is always fine to add more depth, and I haven't said otherwise. What I disagree with, is having the discussion within the framework of considering ME2's mechanics flawed just for the sake of RPG elitism. A game can have good mechanics, and still have things added for the next game, without it being lamented as being overly flawed (which has definitely happened here, and I think unfairly).

[Jebel Krong]

Googlesaurus wrote...

Jebel Krong wrote...

because Shepard is still a semi-independent character - as in me1 - you have a certain amount of "wiggle room" in interpretation and playstyle, but not complete freedom to break the base traits of the character (hence renegades not being *evil*).

Which is an meaningless distinction since all characters in all video games are "semi-independent" due to game mechanics. 

What are these "base traits" of Shepard you speak about? The fact that he is compelled to work for the greater good of the galaxy? There are many different ways to achieve the same ends, and clearly there are many different attitudes to achieve those ends. 

it's not meaningless because it has far more impact on the character than other games - shepard is always a hero (one of 3 backgrounds), always has a personal history (one of 3 again), is always a highly trained soldier etc. that narrows down "freedom of interpretation for role-playing" quite a bit, so you have to play the character within that framework, something i expect some of you ignore completely, even though it is true across both games. you still see the "why can't i do this....." threads on this board and they are chock full of idiotic things that shepard would never do precisely because of the character's nature. also: in the game's terms there are only 3 attitudinal states at any given time.
characters being semi-independent due to game mechanics is a completely separate issue - as you well know - so don't be obtuse.

[Vena_86]

Phaelducan wrote...

Vena_86 wrote...

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.

*facepalm*

I can not recall using the word "fix" anywhere in this thread! This is about improving depth while maintaining the usability. It is also about providing some brainstorming for BioWare, since Christina Norman has already confirmed that deeper RPG elements are one of the goals for the game!
For crying out loud, I started the first post with this... Did anyone actually read the text part?!!!

All you do is push me into some generic RPG-fanatic box, without further consideration. I don't even want to change the game for people who think ME2 is perfect. I want to ADD improvement for those who see it's unnecessary shortcommings. And it does have shortcommings as proven by many other games and thousands of posts in forums. If I would hate ME2 I would not bother investing any further thought in the franchise. You call me arrogant for purposing possible improvements that are already very streamlined and would not change the game for those who don want it to. But simply because of the fear that anything could be different you see this as some kind of threat.

Vena, that's not fair. I did read your post, and I would ask for the same consideration. I maintain that more depth would be fine, and I wouldn't mind in the slightest. My general point is aimed at your statement "... it's unnecessary shortcomings." 

It is always fine to add more depth, and I haven't said otherwise. What I disagree with, is having the discussion within the framework of considering ME2's mechanics flawed just for the sake of RPG elitism. A game can have good mechanics, and still have things added for the next game, without it being lamented as being overly flawed (which has definitely happened here, and I think unfairly).

ME2 is not overly flawed. Me and others who are discussing the shortcommings (not flaws) would not hang out on these boards if we would think so. These discussions always end up with extremes, it is a snowball effect. Someone points at a game element saying "this could be improved", then someone else says something like "ME2 is perfect, RPGs suck", then in defence someone is trying to point out the games shortcomming, but this time more agressively to somehow push through the wall of "ME2 is perfect", even insulting at times. In the end there are two extremes with one side looking like they hate BioWare and ME2 and shooters and the other side looking like they hate RPGs, complexity, or anything that is not Gears of War. All together it hardly matters if I or anyone else suggests 4 basic traits or 10 combined character screens with thousands of stats, including "going to the bathroom".
It is funny how the discussions always turn out like the paragon/renegade system. Two extremes with little inbetween thanks to a snowball effect.

Modifié par Vena_86, 09 décembre 2010 - 09:50 .

[Googlesaurus]

Jebel Krong wrote...

it's not meaningless because it has far more impact on the character than other games - shepard is always a hero (one of 3 backgrounds), always has a personal history (one of 3 again), is always a highly trained soldier etc. that narrows down "freedom of interpretation for role-playing" quite a bit, so you have to play the character within that framework, something i expect some of you ignore completely, even though it is true across both games. you still see the "why can't i do this....." threads on this board and they are chock full of idiotic things that shepard would never do precisely because of the character's nature. also: in the game's terms there are only 3 attitudinal states at any given time.

No bad boy, bad bad boy!

On a serious note, game mechanics are the primary reason why Shepard cannot do certain things. The personalization of Shepard's past has a minor effect on which decisions the player has access to (one side-quest and a bunch of different NPC responses) as well as extra P/R points, but never major limitations on the player's actions. 

Everything you mentioned means nothing in relation to the character's nature. They are simply facts of a history, not current attitudes or values that the player must play out. Torfan may be a point of pride or regret or irrelevance to Shepard if the player chooses that specific position. The only real in-game importance they ought to have is changing NPC reactions and expectations of Shepard. That's why I question your use of "base traits". 

I don't read those threads. What do they want Shepard to be, a plumber?

Jebel Krong wrote...

characters being semi-independent due to game mechanics is a completely separate issue - as you well know - so don't be obtuse.

Character freedom is entirely determined by game mechanics. Shepard's customization just rationalizes it to the player in order to create a self-contained story, as it does in all video games.

Modifié par Googlesaurus, 09 décembre 2010 - 06:10 .

[Evil Johnny 666]

SithLordExarKun wrote...

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

Dude, seriously, the games being immersive is your ****ing opinion. Me not agreeing with your point of view doesn't mean I haven't played the game. That's why I bash it, because I played them, made a REAL opinion. Someone bashing a game without playing has no REAL opinion on the game. You can bash a game all you want without playing it, but you still have no valid opinion. Stop putting words in my mouth.

As for RPGs being so and so, all you need to do is check how the games started and look around for every obvious RPGs and compare their RPG elements. What you get is: customization (solely customization makes no RPGs obviously) and character progression. Tell me, disprove me wrong, do you know a game without REAL character progression which is an RPG? Do you know any non-RPG games with REAL character progression? Tell me. I excluded customization since you can't have customization without character progression. All other elements are important RPG elements, but not exclusive. You shoot in shooters, you drive in driving games, you roleplay (make a certain role and progress it through time). An RPG without character progression is an adventure game. Again, tell me how character progression isn't THE most important aspect EVERY RPG have and are essential to the genre.

If you guys actually TRIED to DEBATE on how I was wrong every time I stated such... All you do is whine about me having the truth, but yet you never tell me how it is not truth and what is an RPG according to you. You guys are not debating, you're ARGUING. If my opinion infuriates you so much, why don't you try to attack it instead of me?

And seriously, do we REALLY need to add IN MY OPINION every ****ing time we state an opinion?... Someone having a strong opinion should, well, strongly believe in it, why everyone's getting all pissy with this, are you kids or adults?

Modifié par Evil Johnny 666, 09 décembre 2010 - 11:28 .

[Evil Johnny 666]

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.

Well increasing roleplaying depth means increasing metagaming depth. The more something has complexity, the more you can think about these complexities and do something differently. You can metagame in shooters in a way, as you can save weapons and such for a particular occasion, but obviously since shooters are very simple nowadays, it's very limited and it always have to do with actions you're going to do in time. But take Far Cry 2 which has a lot of customization for a shooter and is a sandbox game, and metagaming expands very significantly. You can decide which missions to do in order, doing any mission may trigger the choice of making another one, so the order you choose may not be possible for your character to know some of them. You can metagame with the research thing in ME2, take it out and you can't, ME2 would be less complex. And again, that mechanic isn't very complex and it shows on how you can metagame. Increasing depth = increasing metagaming, it's just a consequence of increasing depth, it's inevitable.

[Evil Johnny 666]

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.

The problem, Phaelducan is this...

In a forum, on a topic discussing on what seems a controversial topic, this discussion is in fact a debate. What dissatisfies me most here, isn't people having different opinions than mine, but people arguing instead of debating like me and others. Don't get me wrong, I had good exchanges with a certain dude I can't remember is name right now. What appears to me, is some people shouldn't be posting here. If they can't be told the arguments against their opinion and defend them like in any good debate (check debates on youtube), then they should get out of here. People shouldn't do me the moral like this, this isn't the point. When you state opinions on such thread, you should expect to get your arguments attacked. I felt it was more a kindergarden at times rather than a real discussion forum. It may sound arrogant to tell people they don't know what an RPG is, but if they're irritated this much by this, why don't they tell me how I'm wrong? It seems people have no confidence in their opinions or something... It's these debates that help you strenghten your opinions. Getting your opinions attacked may even make them stronger if you can return someone's attact on your opinion against them.

PS: I don't really remember making any generalization on people who like ME2. In fact, I like ME2. It just seems that when people read arguments against a game they like or the majority likes, they're all like "you hate the game!". I may hate the game, but I don't. Again, I don't exclusively like perfection.

As for the reviewer thing was only to show how they can't be particularly trusted, not how their opinions were wrong and that ME2 sucks. Adding something to it, I don't see how anyone can't form a real opinion on the dialog system (good or bad) without playing the game more than once to truly see its subtilities and how it reacts differently to several situations and ways to use it. Thing is, one of the things most acclaimed about ME2 is the dialog system. That's why I got irritated by your "pretentious to pretend knowing how to fix something in a very acclaimed game with great reviews".

[Pacifien]

Debating about debating is rather off-topic, methinks.