3223 réponses à ce sujet

[littlezack]

InvincibleHero wrote...

Grand Admiral Cheesecake wrote...

I know I wouldn't.
I demand my games be 83% cutscenes and 17% gameplay.

So I take it you are a big Kojima fan then.

Sounds more like a Xenosaga fan.

[Il Divo]

SalsaDMA wrote...

Ahh....

But here we can disagree on the detail that while ME1 certainly was cinematic, ME2 was a game through and through.

That's good, because ME2 is a game. It should feel like one. If Mass Effect 1 did not feel like a video game, then the developers failed in some manner. Mass Effect 2 was also infinitely more cinematic. Compare most conversations on the Normandy between ME1 and ME2. With the former, most conversations are carried out as Bioware has always handled it.

Ironically, some of the things that made ME1 cinematic was cut out precisely because random people felt it was 'boring' just talking with people without having stuff to blow up every few seconds. I , on the other hand, welcomed the fact that the first time I came to the citadel I actually felt immersed because I was walking around, talking, exploring, and experiencing the world in a cinematic way, without being forced into random action sequences all the time just for the sake of them being there.

The Citadel was incredibly boring to walk through. It was overly large, with not enough detail given its size. Compared to Jade Empire's Imperial City, which is also a main hub, the Citadel was lifeless. But I don't see how walking through the Citadel = cinematic. You do all the same stuff you've done in past games, and I wouldn't describe KotOR as 'cinematic'. Whatever you think may have been lost in the transition from ME1 to ME2, I doubt it was the cinematic experience.

Modifié par Il Divo, 17 juillet 2011 - 12:26 .

[Fixers0]

Il Divo wrote...


That's good, because ME2 is a game. It should feel like one. If Mass Effect 1 did not feel like a video game, then the developers failed in some manner. Mass Effect 2 was also infinitely more cinematic. Compare most conversations on the Normandy between ME1 and ME2. With the former, most conversations are carried out as Bioware has always handled it.

Really, or they just did a better job on the suspension of diseblief, making the univere look and feel real and touchable and you were there, the second game emphasized on being a game so that mainstream gamers would understand what's going on, i highly doubt these gamers would have found a way off Novaria.

[Someone With Mass]

Fixers0 wrote...

Really, or they just did a better job on the suspension of diseblief, making the univere look and feel real and touchable and you were there, the second game emphasized on being a game so that mainstream gamers would understand what's going on, i highly doubt these gamers would have found a way off Novaria.

Yeah, so let's use the same generic hallway after generic hallway, and have the same generic buildings to walk into, and use the same dead and deserted planets to drive on for fifteen minutes over and over again. That will make surely the whole thing feel real.

In order for something to be "touchable" and "immersive", it should be active, like most world hubs were in ME2.

Modifié par Someone With Mass, 17 juillet 2011 - 01:02 .

[kinedave]

Fixers0 wrote...

Really, or they just did a better job on the suspension of diseblief, making the univere look and feel real and touchable and you were there, the second game emphasized on being a game so that mainstream gamers would understand what's going on, i highly doubt these gamers would have found a way off Novaria.

Seriously? You honestly, seriously, think that Noveria (note the correct spelling there, one that even "these gamers" could probably get right) is so difficult to understand? The place where you participate in one easy a > b quest to get to permissions to leave, a straight corridor drive through dull scenary and then a couple more a > b quests is really that difficult? 

Because it's not. It's really, really not. It's simplistic. 

[JayhartRIC]

kinedave wrote...

Fixers0 wrote...

Really, or they just did a better job on the suspension of diseblief, making the univere look and feel real and touchable and you were there, the second game emphasized on being a game so that mainstream gamers would understand what's going on, i highly doubt these gamers would have found a way off Novaria.

Seriously? You honestly, seriously, think that Noveria (note the correct spelling there, one that even "these gamers" could probably get right) is so difficult to understand? The place where you participate in one easy a > b quest to get to permissions to leave, a straight corridor drive through dull scenary and then a couple more a > b quests is really that difficult? 

Because it's not. It's really, really not. It's simplistic. 

If you couldn't find a way off Noveria, you probably aren't smart enough to put the disc  in the tray.

[Someone With Mass]

The only way you couldn't find you way off Noveria would be if you've lost your sense of direction, (which happened to me a couple of times, because the place had little to no distinct features or landmarks) not because there's a difficult task you must complete.

[Xewaka]

InvincibleHero wrote...
RPG doesn't need a single stat to allow you to become someone else.
[...]
Stats and classes are to define what your character cannot do not what they can. That is the only reason for their existence. It is to place limits on the character you created.

So.... Stats are needed to define the character as well.

[Fixers0]

Someone With Mass wrote...

Fixers0 wrote...

Really, or they just did a better job on the suspension of diseblief, making the univere look and feel real and touchable and you were there, the second game emphasized on being a game so that mainstream gamers would understand what's going on, i highly doubt these gamers would have found a way off Novaria.

Yeah, so let's use the same generic hallway after generic hallway, and have the same generic buildings to walk into, and use the same dead and deserted planets to drive on for fifteen minutes over and over again. That will make surely the whole thing feel real.

In order for something to be "touchable" and "immersive", it should be active, like most world hubs were in ME2.

Generic, like a quarian safe on an ancient planet look the same as the ones used by Donovan Hock and contain the same type of money ? or a batarian prison with the exact same technological as a Eldfell-Ashland  facility at the other side of the galaxy?

And what do you know? most planets are deserted rocks, driving on them is just as boring and time consuming as breaking through three exacly the same type of barricades on Miranda's loyalty mission, you know the ones with the cargo lines with containers and merc spawning out of prefab building. 

 Besides The hub worlds in Mass Effect 2 really were no more active the the ones in the first game, in both games every one kept standing in the same places for the whole game at least in that game people walked around,

And if something has to be immersive then it also needs to be believable, Illium is a prime example of what not to do, it has a very akward layout, one docking bay leads to  the outdoor trading floor with has cafetaria table's that leads to a bar,  People that you could have met are located very close to each other in one building of gigantic , and the Asari seemingly seem to use the same type fiancial systems that the humand use.  

I just know with illium that someone created this enviroment on his computer, the overemphasized lighting, the constant star wars speeder soundm, blurrly renderd unrealstic looking models at the background, people standing absolutly still and CGI background.

[Il Divo]

Fixers0 wrote...

Really, or they just did a better job on the suspension of diseblief, making the univere look and feel real and touchable and you were there,

I thought the sequel did all of these things as well, if not better, then the original, yet I still consider it a video game.

And thank you for missing the point. The Godfather is a movie. A Game of Thrones is a novel. And Mass Effect is supposed to be a game. I don't say that the Godfather felt like anything besides a movie. I also don't say that A Game of Thrones was anything but a novel. If Mass Effect did not feel like a video game to you, which it is, then the developers messed up. Instead, you're attempting to protect Mass Effect through hyperbole.
 
"Hey, it wasn't a video game!". Except it was. It's a game, played on a gaming console, created by a gaming developer, which we are arguing about on a video game forum. All you're really trying to say (and you would do better to say it outright) is that Mass Effect is a good video game.

the second game emphasized on being a game so that mainstream gamers would understand what's going on, i highly doubt these gamers would have found a way off Novaria.

If you had trouble finding a way off Noveria, that speaks more to your intelligence level, not other gamers. Contrary to what you may think, Noveria is not complicated.  

Modifié par Il Divo, 17 juillet 2011 - 01:37 .

[slimgrin]

Someone With Mass wrote...

The only way you couldn't find you way off Noveria would be if you've lost your sense of direction, (which happened to me a couple of times, because the place had little to no distinct features or landmarks) not because there's a difficult task you must complete.

Noveria had great level design. All the hubworlds in ME1 did.

[Il Divo]

JayhartRIC wrote...

If you couldn't find a way off Noveria, you probably aren't smart enough to put the disc  in the tray.

Probably not.

[EternalPink]

I got stuck on noveria once, character bugged in the elevator and i had to reload, wasn't cool

Do actually agree that in ME1 places like the citadel did feel more like a giant space station where people actually lived since we could navigate about as we wish, look out a window, listen to some peeps talking go to a shop and so on and it was all very spread out so it gave the impression of the citadel being huge.

ME2 however you were confined to the area's where you actually had something to do, the 3 levels in zakera ward and then the presidum (before we could wonder all over that area, in ME2 we go straight to andersons/uldina's office) and once the quests have popped the factory etc

The thing is i don't think ME1 made the best use of some of the area's like the citadel, okay we had a few side quests that involved running around the citadel looking for stuff but with all that space they could have populated it with interesting things/missions/people to talk to.

If we go back to BG2 the main city had lots of different sub-sectors and each one of them had a purpose but ME1 felt like they'd made this grand area for the sake of making a grand area not so that they have places to advance/add to the plot/gameplay.

So cutting something they under-used in one game from the other doesn't seem so bad, perhaps it would have made ME2 better to keep the citadel style from ME1 but then again there might have been lots of complaints about running around doing nothing.

[vanslyke85]

Malanek999 wrote...

Personally I agree completely with Casey Hudsons first statement. I want a great charater driven story with great combat which can be approached in different ways by the different classes and even within the same class. Character progression is part of that to keep the gameplay from getting stale. I have no idea why people consider managing an inventory ME1 style or pointless roaming in the Mako to be RPing aspects.

+1

Agree 100%.  The main reason I've only done 2 playthroughs of ME1 is because of the stupid Mako and the inventory list style with such a low limit on how many items you can have.  such a pain to constantly go through it and convert to omni gel.  concentrate more on characters and story and leave pointless crap on the design floor.

[Fixers0]

Il Divo wrote...

Fixers0 wrote...

Really, or they just did a better job on the suspension of diseblief, making the univere look and feel real and touchable and you were there,

I thought the sequel did all of these things as well, if not better, then the original, yet I still consider it a video game.

And thank you for missing the point. The Godfather is a movie. A Game of Thrones is a novel. And Mass Effect is supposed to be a game. I don't say that the Godfather felt like anything besides a movie. I also don't say that A Game of Thrones was anything but a novel. If Mass Effect did not feel like a video game to you, which it is, then the developers messed up. Instead, you're attempting to protect Mass Effect through hyperbole.
 
"Hey, it wasn't a video game!". Except it was. It's a game, played on a gaming console, created by a gaming developer, which we are arguing about on a video game forum. All you're really trying to say (and you would do better to say it outright) is that Mass Effect is a good video game.

the second game emphasized on being a game so that mainstream gamers would understand what's going on, i highly doubt these gamers would have found a way off Novaria.

If you had trouble finding a way off Noveria, that speaks more to your intelligence level, rather than other gamers. Contrary to what you may think, Noveria is not complicated.  

The second game never botherd making a suspension of diseblief, it's just throws 'awesome' right in our face let me give you a thing that really botherd  me and which is a prime example of the overall style of this new direction.

Liara's stupid university doctorate, why the hell is it writen in english and looks its design came straight from earth?

It's because the desginers coul't come up with anything better and were afraid that if the tried something different people would not immediately recgonize for what it is, same as with the rest of the interior.

Or what about the stupid N7 armor, that appearantly is only used by one person but that is selled by shops all over the galaxy, what's even more annyong is that these parts are made by different companies, really did they made like a deal that they would create armor parts for an armor systems that would only be used one person, what a profit.

 I never denied Mass Effect 1 is a video game or that it doesn't play like one, but it was like playing a vidoe game for the first time, it was a wondefull  experiance even with all it's flaws, were as Mass effect 2 is like eating a bukket of popcorn for the how-many-was-it time, and while that game used it's resourses more effecticly then it's predecessor, for me it ended up much less inspiring then the first game.

[JKoopman]

vanslyke85 wrote...

Malanek999 wrote...

Personally I agree completely with Casey Hudsons first statement. I want a great charater driven story with great combat which can be approached in different ways by the different classes and even within the same class. Character progression is part of that to keep the gameplay from getting stale. I have no idea why people consider managing an inventory ME1 style or pointless roaming in the Mako to be RPing aspects.

+1

Agree 100%.  The main reason I've only done 2 playthroughs of ME1 is because of the stupid Mako and the inventory list style with such a low limit on how many items you can have.  such a pain to constantly go through it and convert to omni gel.  concentrate more on characters and story and leave pointless crap on the design floor.

ME1's inventory and Mako sequences may have been done poorly, but that hardly makes inventory, loot and exploration "pointless crap" in an RPG.

Most people arguing in favor of ME1's systems aren't advocating for a return to them axactly as they were. We want (and wanted) them fixed. Instead, BioWare just gutted them and left us feeling like we were playing a generic action game with a Choose Your Own Adventure slant.

[Lumikki]

Xewaka wrote...

InvincibleHero wrote...
RPG doesn't need a single stat to allow you to become someone else.
[...]
Stats and classes are to define what your character cannot do not what they can. That is the only reason for their existence. It is to place limits on the character you created.

So.... Stats are needed to define the character as well.

Yes in computer games.

If computer game doesn't allow player directly do something what is related characters action, then stats are needed. Because that stat would define what you can do. How ever, when player can act directly (through UI in computer games), then stats aren't needed. it's not about should there be stat or not, but how game developers wants it to be done. Using stats or direct acting.

Example TPS combat is direct acting, so no need for characters stats, because it's players own skill related. Little like some movie actor is acting role. It's still role-playing, because role-playing is taking role of character as be in character. Some people say, if you do it your self, it's not role-playing, but it requires character stats to do it. They are wrong. It's like when movie actor is him self or acting the role. It's still same person, but the difference is playing the role.

Issue isn't does game have stats. Issue is when stats it self becomes gameplay for player and not tool for actual gameplay what is playing role of character. Players character exist in computer games in two places, players mind and games stats. They aren't just one way or other, but ALLWAYS both. You can't role-playing anything , if you characters role isn't in players mind as defined what you are, you would be just controlling puppet or be you self. You can't role-play anything if game system doesn't allow you to simulate characters actions and choises through UI. Both are required.

In simple terms as sad it is, some RPG players doesn't understand what role-playing is. For them they have become role-players, because they play RPG's and that has define for them what role-playing is for them. That's not how it should be. Because role-playing did create RPG's as tool for role-playing. Role-playing was allways the main point. How the tool is done doesn't really matter as long player can role-play. That's why we have this mechanical and abstract  fight here.

Modifié par Lumikki, 17 juillet 2011 - 02:38 .

[slimgrin]

Nyoka wrote...

Right, because role playing isn't about choosing your own adventure; role playing is all about killing people and searching corpses for rings and other junk.

Ideally, it can be about both. If there was no killing in ME3 I probably wouldn't be interested in it. Sick bastard that I am.

[EternalPink]

Lumikki wrote...

Xewaka wrote...

InvincibleHero wrote...
RPG doesn't need a single stat to allow you to become someone else.
[...]
Stats and classes are to define what your character cannot do not what they can. That is the only reason for their existence. It is to place limits on the character you created.

So.... Stats are needed to define the character as well.

Yes in computer games.

If computer game doesn't allow player directly do something what is related characters action, then stats are needed. How ever, when player can act directly (through UI in computer games), then stats aren't needed. it's not about should there be stat or not, but how game developers wants it to be done. Using stats or direct acting.

Example TPS combat is direct acting, so no need for characters stats, because it's players own skill related. Little like some movie actor is acting role. It's still role-playing, because role-playing is taking role of character as be in character. Some people say, if you do it your self, it's not role-playing, but it requires character stats to do it. They are wrong. it's like when movie actor is him self or actign the role. It's still same person, but the difference is playing the role.

Issue isn't does game have stats. Issue is when stats it self becomes gameplay for player and not tool for actual gameplay what is playing role of character. Players character exist in computer games in two places, players mind and games stats. They aren't just one way or other, but ALLWAYS both. You can't role-playing anything , if you characters role isn't in players mind as defined what you are, you would be just controlling puppet. You can't role-play anything if game system doesn't allow you to simulate characters actions and choises through UI. Both are required.

In simple terms as sad it is, some RPG players doesn't understand what role-playing is. For them they have become role-players, because they play RPG and that has define for them what role-playing is for them. That's not how it should be. Because role-playing did create RPG's as tool for role-playing. Role-playing was allways the main point.

Sorry other than the last paragraph i had trouble understanding you, but the last paragraph to me doesn't make sense.

The point of playing a game whether its table top, computer or even out in a field somewhere is to have fun and enjoy it, if role playing helps you to have fun and enjoy then yay you but saying that people that play an RPG game and have fun doing it (the point of a entertainment product) can't/don't know how to role play?

And even if what you said was true (which i don't think it is) they got there fun and entertainment out the product so while they may not have played the game exactly as you did what right do you or even I have to say how a game/prodcut should be played/used?

Once a long time ago i use to work in a shop, someone came in and asked to buy a space hopper and i asked whether it was for there kids and they told me no they kept horses and horses happen to like playing with space hoppers (bit odd which is why it stuck in my mind), space hoppers aren't designed for horses but i still made my sale and something somewhere got some fun out playing with it so what right would i have to have said no you can't buy this for a horse its for kids only.

I dont think role playing was ever the main point of RPG's or table top etc, having fun was the main point and role play was the medium they used to have fun.

[Lumikki]

You mean can RPG's also played without role-playing, just to have fun?

Yes you can, but that's not really why RPG's was created in first place. It's like all game are created for fun, but what was the type of fun they tryed to simulate, what makes different type of games different. Like some Car game tryes to give player for driving car fun. RPG's are really for role-playing fun.

Modifié par Lumikki, 17 juillet 2011 - 02:44 .

[EternalPink]

Lumikki wrote...

You mean can RPG's also played without role-playing, just to have fun?

Yes you can, but that's not really why RPG's was created in first place. It's like all game are created for fun, but what was the type of fun they tryed to simulate, what makes different type of games different. Like some Car game tryes to give player for driving car fun. RPG's are really for role-playing fun.

Perhaps its a miscommunication but the sense i get is that you feel players should be taught "how to role play" to enjoy the game which is the reverse of my understanding of making entertainment products.

If i have to rely on my customer having pre-knowledge (how to role play) to be able to make a sale i'm cutting my potential customer basis by a lot and thats if we pretend how to role play is a learnable skill which I don't think it is, small children do a very basic sense of this when they play cowboys and indians and i've never seen somebody going about educating them in "how to role play" .

In a broad sense if the game immersion makes you feel and act like you are the protagonist then to my mind you are role playing whether you've been role playing in games for years or whether its your first go on a computer game.

Modifié par EternalPink, 17 juillet 2011 - 02:54 .

[Lumikki]

It's not about taught how to role-play, but game is design to be role-played. If player doesn't know how to role-play then it's fine, it doesn't matter. But should we design game just based fun and not role-playing, then hole genre as Role-Playing Game (RPG) is lost. It's like someone can't drive car so we should design car game where is no car driving, because some people can't drive cars?

Modifié par Lumikki, 17 juillet 2011 - 03:04 .

[olymind1]

in ME2 the citadell felt like an office building instead of a giantic space station, even omega felt larger.

when finished me2 i went back to anderson, maybe now he has something to say about the reapers or the council, if i got proof about them, but nothing.

after ME1 there was a huge expectation about the sequel: the reapers are real, and they are coming, we have to prepare, and in ME2 there was nothing about that, like a side story or ME1.5 or an expansion. like an anime with fillers, which almost have nothing in common with the main storyline.

at least nothing we could make sense of it right now.