The Interloper wrote...
1-And they went and looked up how to save him. I cant speak for eveyone but this seems to be very, very common, as others on this thread pointed out-they'll redo it until they have the outcome they want. RPers do care about the outcomes, or many of them at least. The fact of the matter is that between forum posts, internet guides and replaying, most people have at least some idea of how the SM works. They know what decisions get people killed and what doesn't. That brings me back to what I was saying about how the outcome is planned in advance. Making sure your LI lives and killing of characters you don't want (they only die if you choose, after all) over the course of roleplaying is very similar metagaming in the respect I'm talking about, in that you know what will happen. I already talked about why I think this has it's cons in this situation.
You are mistaken if you think that even a large or well represented portion of the game's player population have ever vistied these forums. There's what, maybe 200 active posters right now? And there have probably be less than 1,000 unique individuals on these forums since the game's release a year ago, whereas the game sold 2.5
million copies. Even if I'm totally wrong, and a jaw dropping 5,000 people have ever read/commented on this forum, this is still is less than 0.2% of the game's player population. Then consider that a forum like this specifically draws your metagaming and hardcore gaming audiance. It can't be considered a reasonable sampling, no matter how you slice it.
So even if every single member of this forum shared the same opinion on something, Bioware should still take it with a grain of salt. Even a thread in which ever user has ever registered an account posted, that had over a 1,000 pages and 100,000 thread views, that everyone shared the same opinion, it would really only warrant an investigation of the larger population by Bioware.
By definition, using a guide makes you a metagamer. If you're a metagamer who wants to RP, then you're a member of a very specific demographic, and it doesn't make sense to punish ever other type of player with a game mechanic that only appeals to a small demographic.
2-I fail to see how your description of a bad game is significantly different from the game as it is. It strongly encourages you to get upgrades and loyalties which arbitrarily save your party members. Plus that squad leader pool people have complained about. That is coercion,no? It's hardly a crime, you can't deny the game does give very strong hints on what it wants you to do (and what will happen if you don't, which is hte same thing).You have to do at least some loyalty missions unless you want lots of people dropping dead, for instance. (Keep in mind that if characters have a chance of dieing even though they shouldn't, they would also have a chance of surviving even when they shouldn't.)Maybe I'm misunderstanding you.
The difference is that recruitment and loyalty missions are overtly obvious game play features, which you are told from beginning to end of the game that you must recruit the best and be in tip top shape because you might not survive. The game is billed as being about squad recruitment. It says it no less than 3 times on the back of the box.
So if you don't want to be forced to recruit a squad, you can make a decision about that before you even buy the game. Next, you are overtly told by TIM, your squad mates, etc, that you should recruit people, and you should do loyalty missions. But note that you are not coerced into gaining loyalties. Gaining loyalties is not an unavoidable part of the game.
So: The loyalty system is overt, and explained in game. It is also optional.
What I was talking about are the hidden aspects of the game that become coercive. Hold the line is a good example. You are given no indication at all that Mordin, Tali, etc are going to start dying unless you leave Grunt, Zaeed, or Garrus behind to "Hold the Line." This is a totally stealth system, with no established explanation in game, and it operates via completely arbitrary rules. As people pointed out, Mordin "Holds the line," in his clinic quite well, or Tali seems to "Hold the Line" on halestrom. And yeah, sure, we could debate that, but the fact that one can argue it one way or the other means its arbitrary and
bad.
So it is bad, and different from loyalties/recruitments because:
1. It is secret, with no in game explanation.
2. It is arbitrary, and operates purely based on the logic of the developers which in some cases is not shared by the player base.
3. It is unavoidable by the player.
Or my other example was the hidden system behind paragon/renagade checks, where your total number of renagade/paragon points were checked against the total number of points that you could have gotten at that point in the game. This mechanic is hidden, because it has no established explanation in the game, and it is coercive, because it forces players to eat up as many paragon/renegade choices as possible in order to make those checks. The system is not overt, it is not optional, and it railroads players who understand it onto very specific paths.
The hidden % chances are very much like the paragon/renegade chances. Unless it says, specifically, somewhere, "You can reduce the % chance that someone dies, but there is always some chance," then players are going to be offended when someone dies even though they did everything right.
Many players will simply be pissed, some players will consult guides, few players will investigate the system enough to be able to make an informed evaluation of it, and the only players who will agree with it are Metagaming-Roleplayers who are in favor of limiting the ability to metagame.
Now there is the fact that a chance system would make things seem even more capracious, and I will admit that this idea is seeming less and less feasible to me as this thread progresses.
The Interloper wrote...
That said, I really would like it if there was an alternate option concerning SM mechanics available for people who want them (possibly for the replayability), and keep the original system for those to want a specific ending.
I dunno. I just think the current way things work takes something out of it.
Hey, I'm not trying to argue you out of your opinion: please keep it. There are no winners or losers in forum discussions.
I'm saying why I disagree and I wouldn't want it in the game.
Modifié par Uszi, 15 janvier 2011 - 10:42 .
Retour en haut
