194 réponses à ce sujet

[Soahfreako]

Xeranx wrote...

Oh, I also forgot to mention something.

You literally speak to a Reaper for no more than 3 minutes, and you only actually see him on screen twice.

Self-contradiction much?

Not a contradiction at all.  As I said earlier, in the first game your job was to stop Saren.  When Sovereign revealed himself you had two people to worry about, but seeing as Saren was the gateway to Sovereign he was the greater threat.  So your goal developed another dimension, but it never changed.

I'd like to point out that as soon as You found out what Sovereign was the mission became stop Saren to stop the Reapers. Saren was always a pawn and that wasn't obvious until the conversation with Sovereign. Since stopping a pawn never really changes anything (ME2 proves this statement), Saren was no longer the greater threat at that point. No more than an annoyance really.

[candidate88766]

Soahfreako wrote...

I'd like to point out that as soon as You found out what Sovereign was the mission became stop Saren to stop the Reapers. Saren was always a pawn and that wasn't obvious until the conversation with Sovereign. Since stopping a pawn never really changes anything (ME2 proves this statement), Saren was no longer the greater threat at that point. No more than an annoyance really.

The mission changed from 'stop Saren and investigate the Reapers', to 'stop the Reapers' which is clearly far more important. Saren was acting as an agent of the Reapers, so he is essentially a manifestation of this greater threat meaning he is now far more important to take out then he was before. Stopping Saren means stopping the Reapers getting access to the galaxy, so I'm not sure how you classify that as a simple 'annoyance'.

I haven't been following this thread since the morning though so I'm not sure what you're debating here.

Modifié par candidate88766, 20 mai 2011 - 10:14 .

[Soahfreako]

candidate88766 wrote...

Soahfreako wrote...

I'd like to point out that as soon as You found out what Sovereign was the mission became stop Saren to stop the Reapers. Saren was always a pawn and that wasn't obvious until the conversation with Sovereign. Since stopping a pawn never really changes anything (ME2 proves this statement), Saren was no longer the greater threat at that point. No more than an annoyance really.

The mission changed from 'stop Saren and investigate the Reapers', to 'stop the Reapers' which is clearly far more important. Saren was acting as an agent of the Reapers, so he is essentially a manifestation of this greater threat meaning he is now far more important to take out then he was before. Stopping Saren means stopping the Reapers getting access to the galaxy, so I'm not sure how you classify that as a simple 'annoyance'.

I haven't been following this thread since the morning though so I'm not sure what you're debating here.

Because when I played ME1, that's how I felt. I thought, "Ok lets get rid of this guy so I can deal with the Reapers." When I learned about the Reapers my full attention went to them and how they can be stopped. Of course Saren became a bigger threat and needed to be taken out but I thought of him as an annoying pawn more than great dangerous villain.

[AlanC9]

Gatt9 wrote...
Second,  use-based systems fail.  The TES series has been the poster-child for why they fail for over 10 years.  When I can be a master of fire spells in combat because I spent 4 real world hours shooting flame arrow at a tree,  your system is broken.

What's the standard for "fail" here? Obviously more than "Gatt9 doesn't like it" or even "it sucks.' Or "AlanC9 doesn't like it," for that matter.

Third,  honestly,  if you hate RPGs,  why would you play them?

Fourth,  Roleplaying isn't equivalent to a Roleplaying Game.  I believe I've covered this with you before,  and I believe you completely ignored it last time as well.  Roleplaying is what someone does when they dress up like a cop and play with their spouse.  A RPG is where you create a character and play his Role,  limiting your direct effect through the use of Stats to represent your character's abilities and not yours.

Or to put it another way,  in Roleplaying your ability to hit the dragon is determined by if you can punch your DM in the nose.  In an RPG,  it's determined by your character's ability to hit the Dragon.

But given point four, haven't you answered point 3? There are a lot of things that are in RPGs -- Bio RPGs, anyway -- that have nothing to do with that definition of RPGs. If a player liked ME1 despite its stat-driven combat, rather than because of it, why shouldn't he want the combat changed? Even if that means it's less of an RPG or no longer an RPG at all, why should he care?

[Xeranx]

AlanC9 wrote...

But given point four, haven't you answered point 3? There are a lot of things that are in RPGs -- Bio RPGs, anyway -- that have nothing to do with that definition of RPGs. If a player liked ME1 despite its stat-driven combat, rather than because of it, why shouldn't he want the combat changed? Even if that means it's less of an RPG or no longer an RPG at all, why should he care?

If I may, no one hated the combat outright.  The people who didn't like ME2 didn't like that combat was the focus.  It's been repeated ad inifitum.  When you remove something from anything you only have the remainder to work with and judge.  

If I look at an attractive woman and all she is to me is an attractive woman, meaning I didn't find anything else to hold my interest but her looks, then all I have to work with is how she looks.  If I find what I consider flaws in her look then I'm going to judge her by that criteria.  On the other hand I can come across a woman who isn't conventionally attractive, but (for lack of a better word) stimulates other senses I will judge her accordingly to everything she has to offer beyond her looks.

In ME2 all that there was for many to judge was combat.  As a result they became very critical about their value of the combat which is why you would have seen comments about linearty of levels, chest (or waist) high walls that remind someone of Gears of War, and so on.  On the other side, you had many of the same forgive combat in the original game because there was more than combat available.  Point being that if there's more to judge - and if what's there is of substantial quality - you're more likely to look on it favorably.  That's just the way things are in life, nevermind just on the boards here.

Modifié par Xeranx, 20 mai 2011 - 11:05 .

[candidate88766]

Soahfreako wrote...

Because when I played ME1, that's how I felt. I thought, "Ok lets get rid of this guy so I can deal with the Reapers." When I learned about the Reapers my full attention went to them and how they can be stopped. Of course Saren became a bigger threat and needed to be taken out but I thought of him as an annoying pawn more than great dangerous villain.

Oh ok, I get what you're saying now - after you knew what the real threat was, Saren seemed so much less than he was. I see where you're coming from, but I think the encounter on Virmire and the revelation of the Reapers made Saren far more interesting. He was a simple villain beforehand, but afterwards you realise that he genuinely believes he is still fighting for the greater good - that his way was the only way anyone would live, and he kinda had a point. 

This is more to do with me as a person, but after this encounter I began to view Saren as an equal or a counter to my (main) Shepard. Despite being indoctrinated, Saren believed that the end (being at least some organics living) justified the means (working with an aincent, genocidal race of machines) while I, and through me my Shepard, believe the morality of an action is decided by the means and not the end.

Before Virmire, Saren was just a standard villain seemingly vying for galactic domination. After the encounter he became, to me anyway, the opposite side of the coin so to speak - a counter to my character. Saren still believed he was fighting for the greater good (whether that is true or not depends on the Reapers' motives), and so essentially was fighting for the same thing as Shepard, but was doing so in a consequentialist manner as opposed to a deontological manner. He became both an equal and an opposite to my Shepard, making him a fascinating villain.

While it is only my opinion, I think the Virmire encounter turned Saren from a cardboard villain into a great, and tragic, villain. 

(Incidentally, the reasons I find the Illusive Man to be an interesting character are very similar. He is again the opposite side of the coin to my Shepard - ends justify the means as opposed to my views that the means define an actions morality - but instead of working against each other they are forced to work together. To bring it a little more back on-topic, I think characters such as TIM are why ME2 has received so much praise and I think it is thoroughly deserved.)

Modifié par candidate88766, 20 mai 2011 - 11:26 .

[Computer_God91]

candidate88766 wrote...

Soahfreako wrote...

Because when I played ME1, that's how I felt. I thought, "Ok lets get rid of this guy so I can deal with the Reapers." When I learned about the Reapers my full attention went to them and how they can be stopped. Of course Saren became a bigger threat and needed to be taken out but I thought of him as an annoying pawn more than great dangerous villain.

Oh ok, I get what you're saying now - after you knew what the real threat was, Saren seemed so much less than he was. I see where you're coming from, but I think the encounter on Virmire and the revelation of the Reapers made Saren far more interesting. He was a simple villain beforehand, but afterwards you realise that he genuinely believes he is still fighting for the greater good - that his way was the only way anyone would live, and he kinda had a point. 

This is more to do with me as a person, but after this encounter I began to view Saren as an equal or a counter to my (main) Shepard. Despite being indoctrinated, Saren believed that the end (being at least some organics living) justified the means (working with an aincent, genocidal race of machines) while I, and through me my Shepard, believe the morality of an action is decided by the means and not the end.

Before Virmire, Saren was just a standard villain seemingly vying for galactic domination. After the encounter he became, to me anyway, the opposite side of the coin so to speak - a counter to my character. Saren still believed he was fighting for the greater good (whether that is true or not depends on the Reapers' motives), and so essentially was fighting for the same thing as Shepard, but was doing so in a consequentialist manner as opposed to a deontological manner. He became both an equal and an opposite to my Shepard, making him a fascinating villain.

While it is only my opinion, I think the Virmire encounter turned Saren from a cardboard villain into a great, and tragic, villain. 

(Incidentally, the reasons I find the Illusive Man to be an interesting character are very similar. He is again the opposite side of the coin to my Shepard - ends justify the means as opposed to my views that the means define an actions morality - but instead of working against each other they are forced to work together. To bring it a little more back on-topic, I think characters such as TIM are why ME2 has received so much praise and I think it is thoroughly deserved.)

He also doesn't share our appreciation of Saren because he hated the first ME prior to playing ME2 where he backtracked.

I thought Saren was an amazing villain as was Sovereign. The collectors and Harbinger can never live up to them. If characters like the Illusive man is what got ME2 its praise then ME1 should've had  more cause ME1's characters where alot better done.

and that is my subjective opinion.

[GuardianAngel470]

Mesina2 wrote...

Gatt9 wrote...

But Mass Effect 2, a game that tries to be Gears of War but ends up just being a linear walk from one waist-high wall to the next, that lacks the RPG the box claimed was inside, and has huge consistency problems with it's story is the greatest game of the year?

I challenge you to play Mass Effect 2 for 30 minutes and then Gears of War for 30 minutes and say to me same thing again.

Seconded.

[AlanC9]

Xeranx wrote...

AlanC9 wrote...

But given point four, haven't you answered point 3? There are a lot of things that are in RPGs -- Bio RPGs, anyway -- that have nothing to do with that definition of RPGs. If a player liked ME1 despite its stat-driven combat, rather than because of it, why shouldn't he want the combat changed? Even if that means it's less of an RPG or no longer an RPG at all, why should he care?

If I may, no one hated the combat outright.  The people who didn't like ME2 didn't like that combat was the focus.  It's been repeated ad inifitum.  When you remove something from anything you only have the remainder to work with and judge.  

If I look at an attractive woman and all she is to me is an attractive woman, meaning I didn't find anything else to hold my interest but her looks, then all I have to work with is how she looks.  If I find what I consider flaws in her look then I'm going to judge her by that criteria.  On the other hand I can come across a woman who isn't conventionally attractive, but (for lack of a better word) stimulates other senses I will judge her accordingly to everything she has to offer beyond her looks.

In ME2 all that there was for many to judge was combat.  As a result they became very critical about their value of the combat which is why you would have seen comments about linearty of levels, chest (or waist) high walls that remind someone of Gears of War, and so on.  On the other side, you had many of the same forgive combat in the original game because there was more than combat available.  Point being that if there's more to judge - and if what's there is of substantial quality - you're more likely to look on it favorably.  That's just the way things are in life, nevermind just on the boards here.

I'm not sure how this is a response to my post at all.. I'm talking about players who didn't forgive ME1's bad combat and preferred ME2's combat.

[Gatt9]

AlanC9 wrote...

Gatt9 wrote...
Second,  use-based systems fail.  The TES series has been the poster-child for why they fail for over 10 years.  When I can be a master of fire spells in combat because I spent 4 real world hours shooting flame arrow at a tree,  your system is broken.

What's the standard for "fail" here? Obviously more than "Gatt9 doesn't like it" or even "it sucks.' Or "AlanC9 doesn't like it," for that matter.

They fail in that they make far less sense than a "Standard" Xp based progression,  are very highly exploitable (To the detriment of some MMOs even),  and are generally so poorly done that extreme care must be taken not to accidently gimp yourself.

-If I were to go out,  buy a sword,  and swing away at a tree all day,  I'd still suck horribly at Swordfighting if you put me in a Swordfight.  In a use-based system,  that tree just made me the greatest swordsman ever,  despite having learned absolutely nothing about fighting an opponent.

-They're very easily exploited such that you can attain the highest levels of skill with virtually no risk.  Every TES has displayed this tendency.  In MMOs,  they've been consistently exploited by macros that do nothing but level you by repeating some action for days on end.  Asheron's Call used to have people standing in a circle casting level 1 spells for weeks in order to level without playing.

-Most of the systems have secondary skills that contribute to your levels,  such as the TES series,  where simply running everywhere or bunny hopping would level you.  Do that one too many times,  and the level-scaling will kill you.

The system doesn't work in a cRPG,  it requires a human referee that can approve or disapprove use contributing experience.  Switching to a system where only certain uses levels skills just made it a non-interactive standard leveling progression.  It ceases to be use-based,  and becomes a system where the Xp for the critter was just spent for you on your kill method.  It also still leaves you the problems caused by non-combat skills.

So,  it fails.  In 30 years I haven't seen an implementation that didn't have all 3 of those problems in spades.

It's not that I don't like it,  in concept it's great,  in PnP it works.  In a cRPG,  it's just a huge mess.

Mesina2 wrote...

Gatt9 wrote...

But Mass Effect 2, a game that tries to be Gears of War but ends up just being a linear walk from one waist-high wall to the next, that lacks the RPG the box claimed was inside, and has huge consistency problems with it's story is the greatest game of the year?

I challenge you to play Mass Effect 2 for 30 minutes and then Gears of War for 30 minutes and say to me same thing again.

Seconded.

I played GoW,  GoW 2,  ME,  and ME2. 

I hold my original position.  ME2 is a really bad attempt at mimicing Gears of War's gameplay.  ME2's gameplay consists entirely of...

Enter hub,  talk to a couple people and do a fedex quest or two,  for about 10-15 minutes.  Then enter a perfectly linear Gears of War style corridor run,  fighting one of the same 3 types of enemies,  usually culminating in either a big robot or a flying ship,  or one of the aforementioned types of enemies with a name over his head that acts the exact same as the rest.  That's pretty much the majority of the game right there,  you've got a very few loyalty missions that follow some other path,  like Samara's,  but for the most part pretty much everything in the game fits that pattern exactly.

There's no exploration,  no real sidequests (Just Fedex),  no surprises,  no loot,  nothing worth buying other than damage upgrades so you can kill the same thing a second faster. 

Enter hub,  go play Gears of War clone for awhile,  rinse,  repeat.

[Xeranx]

My apologies Alan.

[SSV Enterprise]

Congrats BioWare! IMHO, it definitely deserves this. I mean...what other EA published games could contend with Mass Effect? Just curious for opinions.

But why does Every. Single. Thread. That talks about any awards or success Mass Effect 2 has had always -- ALWAYS! -- have to devolve into trolls waltzing in to badmouth the game, and why do the proponents of ME2 always have to fall to that bait?

I might as well pitch in on the pro ME2 side.

Gatt9 said...
I played GoW, GoW 2, ME, and ME2.

I hold my original position. ME2 is a really bad attempt at mimicing Gears of War's gameplay. ME2's gameplay consists entirely of...

Enter hub, talk to a couple people and do a fedex quest or two, for about 10-15 minutes. Then enter a perfectly linear Gears of War style corridor run, fighting one of the same 3 types of enemies, usually culminating in either a big robot or a flying ship, or one of the aforementioned types of enemies with a name over his head that acts the exact same as the rest. That's pretty much the majority of the game right there, you've got a very few loyalty missions that follow some other path, like Samara's, but for the most part pretty much everything in the game fits that pattern exactly.

There's no exploration, no real sidequests (Just Fedex), no surprises, no loot, nothing worth buying other than damage upgrades so you can kill the same thing a second faster.

Enter hub, go play Gears of War clone for awhile, rinse, repeat.

Liar. You're doing exactly what javierabegazo accused you of back on the first page. You're leaving out the character interactions back on the Normandy, the choices put into each major mission resulting in alternate endings, the variety in combat between various class-specific abilities, etc...I mean, come on, at least mentioning planet scanning might help your case against ME2's gameplay in general!

Modifié par SSV Enterprise, 21 mai 2011 - 06:17 .

[Yew Suck]

Congrats to Bioware and EA.

Ugh to the "I know what makes the best RPG flavour" of the rest of the thread. If ME1 was the superior game some claim it to be, then wouldn't reviews/awards/sales reflect that?

Anyways, I have two games I really like. I'm sorry some others don't.

[candidate88766]

Computer_God91 wrote...

I thought Saren was an amazing villain as was Sovereign. The collectors and Harbinger can never live up to them. If characters like the Illusive man is what got ME2 its praise then ME1 should've had  more cause ME1's characters where alot better done.

and that is my subjective opinion.

Although Sovereign was interesting as it was this vast evil looming on the horizon, I don't think it was anywhere near as interesting as Saren. Sovereign had none of the complexity, just mystery - and while I found that interesting I didn't think it was even close to being as good a villain as Saren. Saren is, I think, one of the main reasons why the ME1 is so good.

The Collectors and Harbinger were a bit like Sovereign in this respect - mysterious and evil, but not particularly interesting. At first I thought ME2 lacked a Saren-like character until I realised how similar TIM is to him - and the reason I appreciated ME2's story after realising that was because I felt like I was working with the main 'villain' rather than against him. 

For renegade Shepards I suppose the story was less interesting because you're working with a very similar character in ME2, but I'd argue ME2 is better if you play as a paragon Shepard because then you're working with your opposite - you're fighting for the same thing but the methods are on opposite ends of the spectrum. For paragon Shepards, TIM becomes a kind of villain while at the same time being a protagonist. His goals are good, but his methods can be downright evil - much like Saren.

I'd also argue ME1 is more interesting for renegade players - the game introduces all the good aspects of the ME universe like the Council, the Citadel (while ME2 introduces all the darker elements of the universe). Playing a renegade is sort of a counter to all this 'good', and it means that when tracking Saren you're not tracking an opposite, but in essence an equal - someone who will do whatever it takes to suceed in saving the galaxy.

Thats why I feel Saren and TIM are great characters: they change depending on your Shepard's morality. At the extremes of paragon/renegade they becomes either an opposite or an equal of Shepard, but all three of them (Saren, TIM and Shepard) are fighting to save the galaxy.

I struggle to decide whether I prefer Saren or TIM as a character, but I think ME2 has a much larger range of great characters then ME1 had. ME1 is still a fantastic game - probably my 2nd/3rd favourite of all time - but I think ME2 is better and fully deserving of all the praise its got.

[candidate88766]

Yew Suck wrote...

Congrats to Bioware and EA.

Ugh to the "I know what makes the best RPG flavour" of the rest of the thread. If ME1 was the superior game some claim it to be, then wouldn't reviews/awards/sales reflect that?

Anyways, I have two games I really like. I'm sorry some others don't.

I think the reviews where generally lower for ME1 because Bioware was still finding their feet in the new console generation. It had a great story, atmosphere and sountrack but there were graphical glitches, recycled 'dungeons', very long load times and the gaemplay wasn't great. While I found that ME1 rose above these problems, reviewers have to take these into account to review it as a game and that is why reviews were lower.

Like you I think they're both great games. Heres hoping the third one can live up to and exceed the trend.

[Phaedon]

[quote]Computer_God91 wrote...
Actually I've never been a fan of the Call of Duty as a series. FPS's aren't my thing really, I play some but I don't spend alot of time with them. The first Call of Duty I bought was Call of Duty 4, I'll admit I loved it and played it quite often. That was my first experince into the series and I refused to buy CoD: World at War and bought Modern Warfare 2, because naturally if you like a game and want more of it then you buy the sequel and I'll tell you I wasn't very happy with it. I only played it for a few weeks before selling it. Since then I have never enjoyed another CoD as much as 4 and have only bought both Modern Warfare's. I was furious at its over price maps and since those I refursed to ever buy another CoD game.

No, I will not buy Modern Warfare 3, I refuse to even read anything of it. The only reason I touched CoD4 was for the simple fact that it didn't feel like a CoD game. I remember praising it and saying "I love this game it doesn't even feel like I'm playing CoD."

So maybe you shouldn't be so certain that I'm this big CoD fan who has turned to hate the series only recently because in fact I have never liked it, CoD4 was the exception. So don't lump me into the group of people here who are on the ME2 hate bandwagon or any hate bandwagon for that matter. I am not a weak minded foul who goes with the group think because it's the popular opinion or for recognition. My feelings are my own. If I was the only one who hated ME2 I wouldn't say I loved it because its the "cool" thing to do.
[/quote]
If the first COD that you played was 4, then there isn't much else to say.

[quote]Gatt9 wrote...
First,  RPGs use the experience point system to abstract overall character growth.[/quote]
You mean overall statistical progression, which is a completely unrealistic system. Character growth is achieved through your choices.

[quote]Second,  use-based systems fail.  The TES series has been the poster-child for why they fail for over 10 years.  When I can be a master of fire spells in combat because I spent 4 real world hours shooting flame arrow at a tree,  your system is broken.[/quote]
Except that it's ridiculous to claim that they are the same.

Are you seriously claiming that you do not become more experienced with a weapon the more you use it? There is no need for stats, because you have direct control over your character.

I don't think that there's much room for argument here; You claim that an existing learning curve is anything like a non-existant, fictional character learning curve. This is an outright incorrect statement.

[quote]hird,  honestly,  if you hate RPGs,  why would you play them?

Fourth,  Roleplaying isn't equivalent to a Roleplaying Game.  I believe I've covered this with you before,  and I believe you completely ignored it last time as well.  Roleplaying is what someone does when they dress up like a cop and play with their spouse.  A RPG is where you create a character and play his Role,  limiting your direct effect through the use of Stats to represent your character's abilities and not yours.[/quote]
And you are wrong in the most important part.

As the initial DnD rulesets show, creativity is supposed to be encouranged.
You don't establish a character in the beginning of the game and limit yourself to the initial role. You create your character establishing some very basic character origins, the rest of the game is about facing the situations that the game provides you with and develop your character along the way. You can play as yourself as much as you can play any other role, but if any role is limited to the simple shallowness of "Loyal good mage", then the whole point of role-playing breaks. Each choice is a different facet to your character that you create and discover at that moment.


[quote]Or to put it another way,  in Roleplaying your ability to hit the dragon is determined by if you can punch your DM in the nose.  In an RPG,  it's determined by your character's ability to hit the Dragon.[/quote]
LARP=/=RPG


[quote]You're pretty much wrong on all counts there.  We definitely have been over this before.

1.  Stats are there to represent your character's abilities,  and minimize your personal impact upon his efforts.  It has absolutely nothing to do with "God modding".[/quote]

Limiting player impact upon the character?

Well, thank you for proving my point. You did it better than I could.

[quote]2.  RPGs AREN'T BOARD GAMES.  This is the third time we've been over this.[/quote]
What. There are board game RPGs and CRPGs that originated from them. And yes, pen and paper are board games since: [quote]A board game is a game in which counters or pieces are placed, removed, or moved on a premarked surface or "board" according to a set of rules. Games may be based on pure strategy, chance or a mixture of the two and usually have a goal which a player aims to achieve. Early board games represented a battle between two armies and most current board games are still based on beating opposing players in terms of counters, winning position or accrual of points (often expressed as in-game currency).[/quote]

[quote]3.  In an RPG,  lack of control is actually the intent,  it's the whole goal of the system.  You're playing a Character,  not self-inserting you into the world.  [/quote]
The point of RPGs is to create a character and to roleplay him/her. In reality, you are inserting an alterted version of yourself into the game, since for the roleplaying to be succesful, you need to adapt to a specific mindset. Lack of control over the PC (at least when it comes to choices and character growth) = any other genre. Simulated in-game responses of the PC with no player control = simulation game.

[quote]A game is still defined by it's gameplay.  You spend almost the entire game playing a reasonably bad copy of Gears of War,  interspersed with an occasional few minutes of talking,  and the occasional fed-ex quest that has been widely regarded as crappy design since somwhere around the mid-90's.[/quote]You have still yet to prove how it is even similar to GoW. At this point you are yelling "It's a bad copy of GoW" for 5 times without actually providing a reason, makes that statement true only to you, and that's basically because if you manage to repeat anything enough times, you convince yourself.
[quote]Not really,  you were deep into (And still are) derailing the thread,  and then you started with the "Mods should ban you people!" thing.  "Appeal to the Gods" is a very bad debating tactic to take,  as is making someone restate the same thing 8 times because you don't seem to read it.  Disagreeing is one thing,  but when you consistently mistake RPGs as board games,  despite being told otherwise several times,  it becomes very obvious you do not read the responses to your posts.[/quote]
Are you actually suggesting that it's fine for posters to find any thread slightly positive to ME2 and derail it? I have every right to defend the game when someone attacks it, you however have no right to spam each thread about how bad the game is, when the topic is irrelevant. [/quote][quote]Yes,  actually.  There's a fair bit of research being done at this point,  and a good bit of what's really happening coming out,  in general not ME specific.

A good example would be DA2's reception.  Day 1 a bunch of 10/10 reviews,  and some other even more iffy stuff that people got caught doing.

At this point,  it's pretty much a certainty that nothing on a gaming related site is done objectively.  Heck,  Someone even did a statistical analysis around DA2's launch that showed compelling evidence that big-name studio's games only fall into the top half of the scale.
[/quote]
Yes, because if a reviewer thinks that DA2 is good, then they are morons/bribed, right, right?


No, they are not. ME2 is the most critically acclaimed and the fan favourite among the two. Get over it, and stop wasting bandwidth. 

Your entire argument is made up from the idea that RPGs are about creating a very basic character in the beginning of the game (and that doesn't even exist in most "RPGs"), and then combining elements of simulation and strategy game during the combat.

I'll reply to the rest later.

Modifié par Phaedon, 21 mai 2011 - 11:39 .

[DarthCaine]

Don't you people get tired of writing such long texts?

[Vez04]

DarthCaine wrote...

Don't you people get tired of writing such long texts?

Don't think so. Through thats the only thing i don't like about these forums:mellow:

Still as longest there is multiple ''Spaces'' used im fine with it.

Modifié par Vez04, 21 mai 2011 - 12:29 .

[AlanC9]

SSV Enterprise wrote...
But why does Every. Single. Thread. That talks about any awards or success Mass Effect 2 has had always -- ALWAYS! -- have to devolve into trolls waltzing in to badmouth the game, and why do the proponents of ME2 always have to fall to that bait?

Until ME3 ships, what else is there to do?

[AlanC9]

Phaedon wrote...
As the initial DnD rulesets show, creativity is supposed to be encouranged.

Well, AD&D is kind of incoherent here. The DMG flat-out tells the DM to punish any player who doesn't role-play his character according to the class stereotype.

[Phaedon]

[quote]Xeranx wrote...
I know Shepard isn't perfect, but behaving like a weapon should be more of an extension of self than a power that emanates from your own body is silly to me.  If I should be able to get kill shots, like many expect, just because I can point and shoot I should be able to do more with biotics because that is a true extension of self.  I'm going to retract what I said about tech because that can always be tweaked much like any weapon.[/quote]
Please tell me that you are just exaggerating and that you don't genuinely think that's all the skill that shooters require.

[quote]You stated that roleplayers believe using a shotgun means they should get better at using a pistol or something to effect.  I said that doesn't apply to everyone.[/quote]I didn't say it does, and I consider myself as a "roleplayer" as well, to an extent. I am just pointing out a flaw of the game.

[quote]My response to this wasn't an insult in any way, shape, or form.  An example of an insult would be if I said: "You must be stupid not to see how hypocritical you're being."[/quote]
Okay, I appear as an ****hat there, I apologize.
 
[quote]As to whether or not my response is to you I'm quoting this: Gatt offered a post that disagreed with the rating of the game, but you wanted to hand wave it away.  One of the first things people compared it to was Gears of War because of the veiny oncoming death screen change and waist high walls.  It comes very close to being a Gears of War clone and that doesn't mean that Gears of War is bad.  It's a statement to the lack of originality the Mass Effect 2 team had in terms of dealing with the combat experience.[/quote]
Actually, that specific poster had implied multiple times that reviewers are paid, or at least that's what it seems like to me. The waist high walls don't mean anything other than poor level design, I can think of other games that have them, and others that don't have them but use the same mechanics as ME2 does. As for the veiny death screen, not really, that's a very common feature.

[quote]ME2 is linear.  You can't start and leave and then come back later and resume if you want.  As soon as you enter an area for a quest you have to finish it even if you're at the beginning of said quest.[/quote]
While ME2 is linear to an extent, I could think of better examples. I admit I have never tried to abandon an uncharted world during a sidemission in ME1, but I am under the impression that you can only leave if it is an exploration type of map.

[quote] It has consistency issues.  There is no flow to what goes on in the narrative.  It's disjointed.  I mean people are giving DA2 grief over that right now, but you're saying that in ME2 it's fine.  Great even.[/quote]
How so?

[quote]The thing is people will defend Bioware when they decide they want a new market with a current IP, but will try and shut someone up about how ratings on review sites and in magazines can be fixed.  If good business sense for a game developer involves trying to attract new people why is it unthinkable that a review site or magazine would prefer to have everything in their reviews be rosy considering their business is reviewing games?  The ratings don't have to be bought, but when you function like a newspaper and need to be part of the elite covering the hottest story, you're going to cut corners.  That's what Gatt said, and you said he's wrong.
[quote]
Bioware never changed it's market, although the target crowd did get rather bigger with ME2, both the RPG and shooter fans were supposed to be the ones to sell this game to, no matter the flaws of both games.
[quote]Player stats can be woven into the narrative.  They don't have to be visible on screen, but so long as they add to the world and help the player experience more of it it works.  That's what I meant.[/quote]I am sure that you have some sort of valid point there, but I still do not understand what you mean. By stats do you mean powers, such as biotics for example?

[quote]I guess so is hand-waving.[/quote]I actually think that hand waving is an important means of communication. 
Okay, I am kidding, I am kidding.

[quote]Are you saying bad storytelling doesn't mean that a story is bad?  If that's the case then no, bad storytelling doesn't mean the story is bad or that there's no story, but it is in the execution of the storytelling that allows someone to state whether the story is good or not.  In order to tell if the storytelling is bad you'd have to disect the story to see where things were going.  This is one of those cases where bad storytelling can ruin a good story or good storytelling can only minimally salvage a bad story and it'll use whatever it has at its disposal to get the job done.  Even then you can still see a bad story for what it is.  If the plot is to stop the Collectors, then the story needs to revolve around that.  If it doesn't do that or doesn't do it seamlessly enough then it doesn't do it's job.  So yes, the characters are an aspect of the story, but because they don't have any stake that we can see it falls apart.  [/quote]Actually, I think that you are mistaking plot concept with story and storytelling.
Storytelling has to do with how the story is presented to the players and has both to do with the aesthetics/cinematical direction of a scene, and the means of transfering the story (plot devices [those aren't necessarily bad], characters, etc.)


[quote]Phaedon wrote...
Our task wasn't to stop the Reapers.  It was to stop Saren and only when doing the UNC missions did you get the feeling that you weren't trying to stop him.  If you didn't do any UNC missions (apart from the Geth preparing for their assault) you felt like you were always at his heels just missing him. [/quote]
And? In ME1 you hunted down geth and Saren's allies most of the time, and that is indeed an integral part of the story. The story is also about the geth and Benezia.

ME2 isn't just about the Collectors. It's also about recruiting and maintaining a team, and CH was the first to confirm that ME2 is a "character based plot"


[quote]Not a contradiction at all.  As I said earlier, in the first game your job was to stop Saren.  When Sovereign revealed himself you had two people to worry about, but seeing as Saren was the gateway to Sovereign he was the greater threat.  So your goal developed another dimension, but it never changed.
[/quote]
See above.

[Spaghetti_Ninja]

That's cool. And it's a deserved title - it's superior to the first game in every way. I just hope they won't change the formula too much for the last game.

[Gatt9]

@Phaedon (The post is just too big to quote at this point and remain readable)

-Statistical progression is meant to be an abstract method of showing your character's improvement in his skills.  Choices have no effect on this.

-Refer to my response to Alan on why Use-based fails.

-The original D&D rules had very little detail regarding actual roleplaying.  I own them all.  It wasn't until 2nd edition that the idea of rewarding xps for Roleplaying the Character gained any real recognition.

-I'm glad we've established that LARP != RPG,  LARP is self insertion,  RPG is stat based Character Representation.  Which precludes ME2.

-If your point that I proved was that you have no idea why Stats exist in RPGs,  then you're welcome.

-RPGs aren't board games.  None of them shipped with a board,  or any game pieces other than dice.  None of them required a minatures.  Although I've gotta give you credit for attempting to define the table as a board game,  would be easier if you'd just admit that you thought RPGs were board games,  because this is really stretching believability now.

-Do I really have to sit here and type out a 5 paragraph essay describing how one shooter is similiar to another?  Seriously?  Let's see...

In ME2 you use the left stick to take aim at an enemy in real time,  while trying to prevent the enemy from shooting you by "Ducking behind objects",  while using the right trigger in order to generate a "Gun shot"...

In GoW you use the left stick to take aim at an enemy in real time,  while trying to prevent the enemy from shooting you by "Ducking behind objects",  while using the right trigger in order to generate a "Gun shot"...

Honestly,  if you think there's any difference between the two games in terms of gameplay you're hellbent on trying to imagine ME2 as something other than what it is. 

-Once again,  we get to the "Phaedon doesn't like it so ban them!".  The topic was the awards ME2 won,  I iterated that there were more worthy canididates,  and why.  You don't like the fact that I maligned ME2,  and derailed the thread,  rather than trying to present any kind of counterarguement about why ME2 is worthy.  While handwaving away the criticism. 

You're still doing it.  Despite the fact that there's a significant amount of mounting evidence that the gaming press is pretty biased,  you completely disregard it and instead put words in my mouth,  lots of words.  If you go reread my post,  I don't think you'll find the words "Bought,  paid,  paid off,  idiot,  or moron" anywhere.  I think you'll find I iterated that the gaming press isn't objective.

I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt,  because you seem like an intelligent guy and I suspect we may be able to come to some sort of mutual respect position as Alan and I have.  So I'll iterate exactly why I maintain the gaming press is worthless and the awards equally so.

-Several years ago,  a Gamespot reviewer gave an advertiser's game a poor review.  Gamespot demanded he "Rereview" it at the company's request.  He refused,  and Gamespot fired him.  Essentially,  the advertiser demanded a better number,  and Gamespot fired the guy who refused to "Play ball".

-I can't find the link right now,  and I'm running out of time,  but one game journalist wrote an article a few years back about how Previews came with a set of rules that include "Don't say anything negative",  and other restrictions that essentially amount to "Say it's the greatest thing ever".

-Ignore the thread title and just read the translated article in the first post here...

http://social.biowar...index/7145086/1

So basically Review Embargoes are use to hold the Press hostage because they need the traffic to make money,  but can't get the traffic unless their review is "Sufficiently positive".

-Then there's the evidence that some EA employees failed to disclose their bias and posted 10/10 reviews for DA2 as regular users on Metacritic.  Which is actually quite similiar to what Sony received heavy fines for a few years back.

-Here are some links to the statistical analysis

http://www.joystiq.c...ation-revealed/

http://www.gamecriti...read.php?t=7767

And a good article on how the gaming press works.

http://www.insertcre...lism/index.html

So yes,  I maintain that the industries second biggest company with one of the largest advertising budgets is likely to obtain reviews and awards due to it's advertising expenses and not on the basis of the quality of it's games.

Or in short,  EA spends alot of advertising dollars,  people want it,  so they give EA glowing reviews for just about anything and GOTY awards just to sell the banner ads and keep getting preview/reviews.

It's pretty obvious at this point,  Game Sites need advertisers to pay them,  and traffic to generate the advertisers interest in their sites.  The Advertisers hold all of the power,  the game sites have no leverage,  there's nothing they can hold over the advertisers.  The users give no income,  without the advertisers,  the game sites can't pay the bills.  So the all the cards are in the hands of the advertisers.

[Cainne Chapel]

Well Gatt, in your opinion there MAY be more worthy titles... but the fact is, that is your opinion and unfortunately your opinion does not dictate the climate of the gaming industry.

As it is, the fact of the matter is, the gaming industry as whole awared ME2 and Bioware all that praise and I, and a lot of other people feel they deserved it.

Now were there other great games out there? Of course, there always will be. But you cant change history or the facts that ME2 is the highest rated and award winning game in EA's long and varied history and thats QUITE an accomplishment given the titles EA has put out over the years.

and while you may not like ME2 at all, I hardly think thats a matter to most people. You're not required to like everything bioware puts out ya know.

[Walker White]

Gatt9 wrote...

They're very easily exploited such that you can attain the highest levels of skill with virtually no risk.  Every TES has displayed this tendency.  In MMOs,  they've been consistently exploited by macros that do nothing but level you by repeating some action for days on end.  Asheron's Call used to have people standing in a circle casting level 1 spells for weeks in order to level without playing.

This.  My friends and I were exploiting these things on use-based MUDs when we started DartMUD in 1991.  I think Dav had the server up for about 24 hours before we started destroying the player economy.

I don't agree with Gatt9 in general, but he is spot on about use-based system. His observation about discretionary XP required to make them work is absolutely correct.

Modifié par Walker White, 21 mai 2011 - 08:57 .