3223 réponses à ce sujet

[Lumikki]

There is gray in ME serie, it's called neutral. It's more reason and logic.
In DA2, I think you are right, it's more sarcastic.

Of course you can also ask, can you play sarcastic role in example DAO. Does every dialog support sarcastic role?
So, is this about roles attitude limits or just amount of choises without roles?

Modifié par Lumikki, 18 juillet 2011 - 01:05 .

[Mister Mida]

Lumikki wrote...

There is gray in ME serie, it's called neutral.

Apathy is death.

[Xaenn]

Luc0s wrote...

Yes that argument DOES work. All the stats of items and armor do not define who your character is as a person. It's all superficial and totally unrealistic to say the least. It's totally and super unrealistic that 'purple gloves X' give you +3 magic and 'brown gloves Y' give you +3 cunning, just to give an example.
I know that this stat-system is a classic RPG system but in terms of realism it doesn't make any sense and it doesn't define your character either.

No. It doesn't.  You under estimate the power of chioce. Even frivolous items can help define who you are.  Items even in reality really have simularities. Some shoes maybe fit  better for you, some maybe lighter help you run faster, some made for protection, are you expecting on the box for it to say +3 to protection on your toes? At the very least, it helps define the character in your eyes, like an extention of yourself. Hell you could buy purple underwear, pink t-shirt, orange pants, just buy them, and that says something about you.

Do Nike shoes give you +3 speed in real-life while Vans shoes give you +5 stamina? No, of course not. gear, clothing and items in real-life don't have stats like that. However, some people prefer Nike to Vans. Why? Well, some think Nike shoes look cooler. Others think Nike shoes fit better. Some might say that Nike shoes fit their image better. 

This right here proves my point, like I said you under estimate the power of choice.  It relfects you, your personality, unless you're a spy and purposely wearing random **** to through people off it usually is an extention of your personality, ideal's, concepts, phyicial dissertation. All which define who you are, things like this is how people can read you before they even know you.  While people often jump to conclusions about stuff people wear, that is their ignorance not lack of truth on the subject.

think Fable 2 (and 3) did a good job at this. The clothes in those
games did not give you stats, they only altered how the NPCs see your
character.


Now in Mass Effect, you're commander Shepard. You're always a commander and you're always Shepard. So a system like Fable 2 wouldn't make sense. Shepard is not defined by his armor. Well, his armor shows that he's part from the military and that's about it.

Hard to explain.  But the stats might represent things more commonly known, like comfort, moveability, technology then. Since Mass-Effect is a more futuristically built game, people may actually notice the difference in armor, from different companies that build them, knowing what they can and can't do.  People also keep in mind when I say it defines you, I'm not saying it's the only thing that does or the most important.  Just that it does defines you, it has far more purpose then people give it credit for.

Modifié par Xaenn, 18 juillet 2011 - 03:40 .

[Il Divo]

Mister Mida wrote...

Lumikki wrote...

There is gray in ME serie, it's called neutral.

Apathy is death.

Great quote.

[Bnol]

Xaenn wrote...

Luc0s wrote...

Yes that argument DOES work. All the stats of items and armor do not define who your character is as a person. It's all superficial and totally unrealistic to say the least. It's totally and super unrealistic that 'purple gloves X' give you +3 magic and 'brown gloves Y' give you +3 cunning, just to give an example.
I know that this stat-system is a classic RPG system but in terms of realism it doesn't make any sense and it doesn't define your character either.

No. It doesn't.  You under estimate the power of chioce. Even frivolous items can help define who you are.  Items even in reality really have simularities. Some shoes maybe fit  better for you, some maybe lighter help you run faster, some made for protection, are you expecting on the box for it to say +3 to protection on your toes? At the very least, it helps define the character in your eyes, like an extention of yourself.

Do Nike shoes give you +3 speed in real-life while Vans shoes give you +5 stamina? No, of course not. gear, clothing and items in real-life don't have stats like that. However, some people prefer Nike to Vans. Why? Well, some think Nike shoes look cooler. Others think Nike shoes fit better. Some might say that Nike shoes fit their image better. 

This right here proves my point, like I said you under estimate the power of choice.  It relfects you, your personality, unless you're a spy and purposely wearing random **** to through people off it usually is an extention of your personality, ideal's, concepts, phyicial dissertation. All which define who you are, things like this is how people can read you before they even know you.  While people often jump to conclusions about stuff people wear, that is their ignorance not lack of truth on the subject.

But items are just tools.  If I wear running shoes to go running, that doesn't mean it reflects my personality, nor does it indicate my level of skill at running.  I wear them because they are the tool for the job.  Sure comfort and style is important, but that doesn't define me.  What people may perceive is not the same.

The thing is in many RPGs is that there is no choice.  There is the best-in-slot for your particular playstyle (and many times just a best-in-slot item period), and again that goes to it just being a tool for you prefered playstyle. 

[Xaenn]

Ultimately it seems to be an issue of semantics and understanding how to read into things. Consider your choices in just about everything in life, have more meaning then most people credit, a pair of running shoes tell more about you then most people realize (obviously at this point).  Subconsciously you make choices, which people can read very accurately about you. On-top of that, how much it cost, what condition they are in, what materials, are they dirty or run-down (over time) all tell stories, they can even tell you where you ran, how often you do . Call it your personalities forsensic finger print, this obviously isn't limited to clothing.  Percieve in this case is a dangerous word, as I can see what you mean by it, but it isn't accurate to desribe what I'm talking about.

I think even everyone who I'm arguing with can agree choices do define you, what tool you use, why you use it, how you use it, why you bought it, what color it is, all choices you make, making the tool part of what defines you, I suppose the item itself doesn't, but the choices and reasoning why you own it, why you chose it does, which is ultimately tied to the item. 

Misconception maybe that I believe that it is the end all be all of defining characteristics of a person which I don't at all.  I just believe that choices of clothing, tools, items, whatever it maybe does as well.  People  probably dismiss the idea because their lives become mundane and the choices they make no longer seem important.  However the way you perceive your life to be, doesn't make the choices any less important.

Friendly debates always fun

Modifié par Xaenn, 18 juillet 2011 - 05:00 .

[SalsaDMA]

Sidney wrote...

SalsaDMA wrote...

Someone With Mass wrote...

Without a character, you character is...well, not a character. He/she is just an empty shell with no personal traits.

And I'd rather take that over inventory and loot any day.

At least you clarified you prefered a non-rpg. But whay are you arguing in a thread about rpg mechanics then?

No, he prefers an Role playing game. He's not standing in defense of this silly theory in this thread that "I have a +3 Sword of Flame and you have a +3 Sword of Frost....we're different!" That idea is just head shakingly bad.

People who think loot makes the character must be thrilled to be so different every day since they change clothes and thus take on a new "role". I wish I was exciting about navigating my closet in the morning as some myst be.

you can't roleplay a character without having a character. It's an oxymoron to claim you can.

[Someone With Mass]

Sidney wrote...

No, he prefers an Role playing game. He's not standing in defense of this silly theory in this thread that "I have a +3 Sword of Flame and you have a +3 Sword of Frost....we're different!" That idea is just head shakingly bad.

People who think loot makes the character must be thrilled to be so different every day since they change clothes and thus take on a new "role". I wish I was exciting about navigating my closet in the morning as some myst be.

Pretty much this. 

I have never thought that any weapon or armor defines Shepard's character. I think it's more a matter of choices and relationships with other characters.

I mean, just because Shepard picks up incendiary grenades doesn't mean his personality changes. Because that's not making much sense.

[SalsaDMA]

Luc0s wrote...

Do Nike shoes give you +3 speed in real-life while Vans shoes give you +5 stamina? No, of course not. gear, clothing and items in real-life don't have stats like that.

You can't see the stats in real life, that much is true, but don't try and argue that different items don't have different qualities in real life.

Regarding the shoe example I can clearly feel the difference by using work-distributed shoes and the ones I buy myself to work in. The ones I got from work are a result of qualities (or stats) that the workplace was most interested in (most commonly durability and costs) while the ones I use which I bought myself have qualities I personally am more interested in (like better cushioning and water resistance allowing me to work more comfortably in the long run).

Transfered to game mechanics, you could write this as the shoes I actually use giving me a bonus to stamina, while the ones the work wanted to assign to use are just dirt cheap. If I put on some dedicated running shoes instead, I would get a slight increase in speed instead, to broaden the example.

edit: and yes, before you start claiming otherwise: I CAN feel the difference after a days work on what shoes I use. If I use the cheap ones assigned by work, my feet will be sore when I get home, if I use the ones I bought myself my feet will not be sore. It doesn't get clearer than that.

2nd edit: I forgot to mention also: your claim is also blatantly disregarding the fact that profesional swimming contests have actively banned certain swimsuits because they added too much speed to the swimmers that used them. If this isn't by itself countering what you just claimed, I don't know what would convince you.

Modifié par SalsaDMA, 18 juillet 2011 - 05:05 .

[ShamieGTX]

I just want the ridiculously long Inventory back.... :/

[Xaenn]

SalsaDMA wrote...

Luc0s wrote...

Do Nike shoes give you +3 speed in real-life while Vans shoes give you +5 stamina? No, of course not. gear, clothing and items in real-life don't have stats like that.

You can't see the stats in real life, that much is true, but don't try and argue that different items don't have different qualities in real life.

Regarding the shoe example I can clearly feel the difference by using work-distributed shoes and the ones I buy myself to work in. The ones I got from work are a result of qualities (or stats) that the workplace was most interested in (most commonly durability and costs) while the ones I use which I bought myself have qualities I personally am more interested in (like better cushioning and water resistance allowing me to work more comfortably in the long run).

Transfered to game mechanics, you could write this as the shoes I actually use giving me a bonus to stamina, while the ones the work wanted to assign to use are just dirt cheap. If I put on some dedicated running shoes instead, I would get a slight increase in speed instead, to broaden the example.

edit: and yes, before you start claiming otherwise: I CAN feel the difference after a days work on what shoes I use. If I use the cheap ones assigned by work, my feet will be sore when I get home, if I use the ones I bought myself my feet will not be sore. It doesn't get clearer than that.

2nd edit: I forgot to mention also: your claim is also blatantly disregarding the fact that profesional swimming contests have actively banned certain swimsuits because they added too much speed to the swimmers that used them. If this isn't by itself countering what you just claimed, I don't know what would convince you.

You know I probably would buy Nikey shoes if they had +5 to running(or dex) on a box and on the shoes. Would be funny, nostalgic, inside joke not many people would understand, haha.

Modifié par Xaenn, 18 juillet 2011 - 05:16 .

[Sylvius the Mad]

[quote]Lumikki wrote...

If you mean ME1? Yeah, ME1 failed in TPS side baddly. It was more action RPG combat with aiming.[/quote]
That's exactly what I've been saying.  Mass Effect has RPG combat.

Therefore, claiming that the "ME series" is based on TPS combat is absurd.  Exactly half of the series so far isn't TPS at all.
[quote]Lumikki wrote...

Graphical cRPG, Dragon Warrior (Dragon Quest) in 1986[/quote]
Wait, what?  1986?

Wizardry - 1981
Akalabeth - 1979

While Dragon Quest is widely viewed as the first console RPG, there were many graphical CRPGs prior to that.  And, frankly, there's a good argument to be made that the first console RPG was Adventure, published in 1979 for the Atari 2600.

But more than that, there was an AD&D game for the Intellivision in 1982.  It was actually called Advanced Dungeons & Dragons.  It had a sequel, AD&D: Treasure of Tarmin, in 1983.

The idea that Dragon Quest was the first console RPG, or the first graphical CRPG, is laughable.
[quote]AlanC9 wrote...

But this simply assumes that the goal is to make a "better RPG" rather than a better game. You've pulled this rhetorical trick way too many times for it to have any value anymore.[/quote]
For those of us who want an RPG (particularly those of us who think the two categories don't overlap), the only way to make the product better is to make it a better RPG.
[quote]I don't think it works for movies either. Or rather, it only works negatively. If I know someone doesn't like horror movies at all, I won't try to sell him on watching Audition even though I think it's an awesome film. Same thing for trying to sell Battlestar Galactica to someone who dislikes SF.[/quote]
If they dislike science fiction, then they won't like Battlestar.  Why would you show it to them?

Now, perhaps they're wrong about their own preferences, but that's a large portion of what we discuss around here.  People support features that have appeared in games they've liked, without really considering whether those features are relevant characteristics.  You might know someon who thinks she dislikes science fiction because she has had bad experiences with science fiction, or misattributes some negative characteristic to science fiction that isn't universally true.

If people would be more introspective, these discussions would be much easier.
[quote]In Exile wrote...

Bioware made KoTOR and called in an RPG.[/quote]
KotOR is an RPG.  It's a really good RPG.  What possible justification could there be for anyone thinking KotOR isn't an RPG?
[quote]For you. And yet as you can see in this thread and have spent the last 20 (or 30, or 40?) pages arguing, there are plenty of people here who think ME1 and ME2 is an RPG.[/quote]
That an option is widely held doesn't make it any less wrong.
[quote]You could play DA:O without reading too, since 1 always advances the conversation and 1-3 always capture good-bad. [/quote]
I think that's a good feature.  Players should be allowed to skip portions of the game they don't enjoy.

My objection comes from BioWare stating explicitly that they don't agree with that position.  They say they don't want people to skip the voiced dialogue - and yet they continue to arrange the dialogue options such that doing so is easy.  They've even explained that they've done so on purpose (with the old lists - that "1 always advances" design was intentional).

Their position appears interally inconsistent.
[quote]AlanC9 wrote...

That's an understatement. A vast majority of people call the ME games RPGs.

Of course, they're all wrong because language means whatever Gatt9 says it does.[/quote]
No, the language means what the language is defined to mean.  People can't change that.
[quote]Phaedon wrote...

And where would ME1's inventory fit? It offers no choice in progression and yet is considered as most people as tiresome.[/quote]
I would argue that ME's inventory is seen as tiresome because of its horrible list interface.

That's certainy why I dislike it.
[quote]Gatt9 wrote...

The only problem is,  in games,  people keep trying to make one genre into another for some strange reason.  It's like claiming Slap Shot is a horror movie because someone wears a goalie mask,  and then demanding that all hockey movies from this day forward be made like Saw.[/quote]
I like this analogy.
[quote]slimgrin wrote...

Noveria had great level design. All the hubworlds in ME1 did.[/quote]
Too linear.  I think the Uncharted Worlds were much better.  A big open area with landmarks in it is better than a narrow corridor from which you're not able to deviate.
[quote]uv23 wrote...

I'd love to see a classic grid inventory system. I've always found them to be the most satisfying and realistic, and I give giant kudos to Eidos for implementing it in the new Deus Ex.[/quote]
I agree.  NWN and Dungeon Siege are both excellent models for future inventory systems.

These lists need to go away.
[quote]In Exile wrote...

There's no way to fix ME1 without deleting it and starting from scratch. You can't polish a turd into something else. 
[/quote]
ME's combat was already really good.  All it needed was a shallower power curve so that Shepard wasn't useless at the start of the game.  It allowed a variety of ways to deal with enemies, and it was stat-driven.  I like ME's combat.

ME2's combat is much less interesting.  Shepard can't miss.  You have to shoot things (biotics were nerfed).  The only supported tactic is cover-based.
[quote]In Exile wrote...

What people really mean when they say character stats is a visible and accesible pool that they can change over time, and a UI that is as independent from reflex as possible. [/quote]
That's well said.

I absolutely want a UI that is as independent from reflex as possible.

[Sylvius the Mad]

littlezack wrote...

 I think ME1's inventory could have been fixed by just having less stuff laying around all over the place.

Also, make us have to collect the loot from fallen enemies.  Having it automatically appear in our inventory, even if the geth we shot fell off a cliff and we can't get to it, just cluttered up our inventory.

ME2 actually learned this lesson, to some degree.  Those ammo clips weren't automatically collected - you needed to go get them - and if the situation was such that you couldn't do that, then you had to leave them behind.

That was a rationing mechanic, and it's one ME really could have used with the inventory.

Someone With Mass wrote...

Or jump out of the Mako all the goddamn time just to kill that one guy to get more XP, because you want to get to a high level in order to be effective with powers and/or weapons.

I always did thatin ME.  The XP penatly forp using the Mako was enormous, and surely Shepard knew how learning worked in her reality.  It was a sensible roleplaying decision to avoid using the Mako to kill things.

Modifié par Sylvius the Mad, 18 juillet 2011 - 05:45 .

[AlanC9]

SalsaDMA wrote...

Someone With Mass wrote...

Without a character, you character is...well, not a character. He/she is just an empty shell with no personal traits.

And I'd rather take that over inventory and loot any day.

At least you clarified you prefered a non-rpg. But whay are you arguing in a thread about rpg mechanics then?

Arguing against having them? What, you think threads are about agreeing with stuff?

[easyt3hremember]

Deeper Romance *Wink Wink Nudge Nudge*

No But really I think ME2 Characters Were a lot better than ME1 characters (I really could care less for the collector Storyline) just ME2 Didn't have the Deep RPG element, it was a major improvement Action wise but kinda dumb'd down RPG Wise

[the_one_54321]

1. The term "better" is based on genre. If you don't include the qualifier in terms of the genre you are talking about, then "better" becomes a completely meaningless term.

2. The fact that definitions should not be changed does not imply that definitions are not ever changed. In this arena in particular, the term "RPG" has become utterly meaningless due to it's meaning being changed one hundred times over. "RPG" doesn't mean anything at all anymore, and therefore it is in everyone's best interest to, instead of using the term "RPG," to start specifying the core features they want to focus on in the game every time they feel the need to go back to "RPG" as a phrase.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Someone With Mass wrote...

ME1's Citadel was just the same. The pond at the Presidium just gave you the illusion of scale with a good background. Beyond that, it was just as cramped as ME2's Citadel.

Elevators.

ME's citadel had those great elevators to add a sense of scale.  You were actually travelling from place to place, rather than just appearing in a new location.

I always used the elevators in ME - never the shuttles - because the shuttles made the place feel small.

AlanC9 wrote...

You forgot NWN, where the OC was infamous for not only having loot lying around in random containers, but for having that loot level up with the PC.

Or even be different loot depending on the PC's feats.

There was a chest at the bottom of the Prison (where the Intellect Devourer was), and in it there was a Weapon +1.  If the PC happened to have taken the Weapon Focus feat by the time he reached that level of the Prison, that's what kind of weapon it would be.

AlanC9 wrote...

But tonnactus is on to something there nevertheless. CRPGs have traditionally defined characters by loot and stats because they didn't offer meaningful choices, so at least the stuff gave the illusion that you were doing something unique.

I dispute that choices dealing with stats and equipment are not meaningful.

Someone With Mass wrote...

Without a character, you character is...well, not a character. He/she is just an empty shell with no personal traits.

If your character lacks personal traits, that is because you failed to invent some.

Sidney wrote...

No, he prefers an Role playing game. He's not standing in defense of this silly theory in this thread that "I have a +3 Sword of Flame and you have a +3 Sword of Frost....we're different!" That idea is just head shakingly bad.

I would agree that what matters is being able to make decisions for and about your character that you find meaningful.  I disagree that equipment choices cannot be meanigful choices.

But more than that, both ME games largely failed to offer the player a chance to make meaningful choices because of that abysmal dialogue system.

[SalsaDMA]

AlanC9 wrote...

SalsaDMA wrote...

Someone With Mass wrote...

Without a character, you character is...well, not a character. He/she is just an empty shell with no personal traits.

And I'd rather take that over inventory and loot any day.

At least you clarified you prefered a non-rpg. But whay are you arguing in a thread about rpg mechanics then?

Arguing against having them? What, you think threads are about agreeing with stuff?

That's hardly the issue here. If I went into a thread about 'how to use the pistol the best' with the express purpose to just tell people that 'pistols sucked and they should use a rifle instead', I would be called for what I were in that thread: A troll.

Entering a debate about what constitutes rpg mechanics with the intent of arguing that rpg mechanics shouldn't exist in the game would be the same as the pistol/rifle example above.

[AlanC9]

Xaenn wrote...

Ultimately it seems to be an issue of semantics and understanding how to read into things.

You really want to phrase it like that? Sounds like you're saying that people who don't agree with you just don't understand why you're right, and I don't think that's what you're intending

I think even everyone who I'm arguing with can agree choices do define you, what tool you use, why you use it, how you use it, why you bought it, what color it is, all choices you make, making the tool part of what defines you, I suppose the item itself doesn't, but the choices and reasoning why you own it, why you chose it does, which is ultimately tied to the item.

Misconception maybe that I believe that it is the end all be all of defining characteristics of a person which I don't at all.  I just believe that choices of clothing, tools, items, whatever it maybe does as well.  People  probably dismiss the idea because their lives become mundane and the choices they make no longer seem important.  However the way you perceive your life to be, doesn't make the choices any less important.

But sometimes those choices aren't important. My clothing today ... I honestly have no idea where the shorts come from, the shirt was a gift from some random relative, and the only reason I'm wearing them is that they were at the top of my clothes drawer.

[AlanC9]

SalsaDMA wrote...
That's hardly the issue here. If I went into a thread about 'how to use the pistol the best' with the express purpose to just tell people that 'pistols sucked and they should use a rifle instead', I would be called for what I were in that thread: A troll.

Entering a debate about what constitutes rpg mechanics with the intent of arguing that rpg mechanics shouldn't exist in the game would be the same as the pistol/rifle example above.

Is that what the thread is about? My impression is that it's a thread about whether and to what extent ME2 should have these "RPG mechanics." And on the more general side the topic is whether those "RPG mechanics" are any good in general, not what they are.

If it was just about what the phrase "RPG mechanics" means it would be a very different thread; for one thing, we wouldn't be talking about ME2 as much.

Modifié par AlanC9, 18 juillet 2011 - 06:16 .

[Bnol]

Xaenn wrote...

Ultimately it seems to be an issue of semantics and understanding how to read into things. Consider your choices in just about everything in life, have more meaning then most people credit, a pair of running shoes tell more about you then most people realize (obviously at this point).  Subconsciously you make choices, which people can read very accurately about you. On-top of that, how much it cost, what condition they are in, what materials, are they dirty or run-down (over time) all tell stories, they can even tell you where you ran, how often you do . Call it your personalities forsensic finger print, this obviously isn't limited to clothing.  Percieve in this case is a dangerous word, as I can see what you mean by it, but it isn't accurate to desribe what I'm talking about.

I think even everyone who I'm arguing with can agree choices do define you, what tool you use, why you use it, how you use it, why you bought it, what color it is, all choices you make, making the tool part of what defines you, I suppose the item itself doesn't, but the choices and reasoning why you own it, why you chose it does, which is ultimately tied to the item. 

Misconception maybe that I believe that it is the end all be all of defining characteristics of a person which I don't at all.  I just believe that choices of clothing, tools, items, whatever it maybe does as well.  People  probably dismiss the idea because their lives become mundane and the choices they make no longer seem important.  However the way you perceive your life to be, doesn't make the choices any less important.

Friendly debates always fun

Everyone has inherent characteristics, based on a multitude of factors.  You make your choices based on those characteristics.  The choices and reasons are all tied to you and the outcome of that choice leads to the utilization of the item.  People can interpret things from those choices, but the item itself does not define you.  You losing that item or using a different item doesn't mean those characteristics are changed. 

Now, if all you have is a hammer, then you tailor your skills to using that tool, and as the saying goes everything starts looking like a nail.  But then you aren't making a choice in terms of the item, because you only have that item.  That is not the case for the most part in loot systems.

The only time this is not the case is if an item is controlling/influencing you, ie a sword that must devour souls.  This is where an item can change your character/rational.

[Xaenn]

I'm pretty sure the game was marketed as an Action-RPG. I thought the Mass-Effect was a perfect hybrid of the both. I'm not saying it was perfect, but it had a equal share of both. You shot people, made stat and gear choices, dialog choices, it pretty much had everything that the hybrid genre would be defined for no?  I took equal amount of time making equipment and stat choices as partisipating in slaying my enemies with guns and powers. :S

Everyone has inherent characteristics, based on a multitude of factors. You make your choices based on those characteristics.  The choices and reasons are all tied to you and the outcome of that choice leads to the
utilization of the item.  People can interpret things from those choices, but the item itself does not define you.  You losing that item or using a different item doesn't mean those characteristics are changed. 

Now, if all you have is a hammer, then you tailor your skills to using that tool, and as the saying goes everything starts looking like a nail.  But then you aren't making a choice in terms of the item, because you only have that item.  That is not the case for the most part in loot systems.

The only time this is not the case is if an item is controlling/influencing you, ie a sword that must devour souls.  This is where an item can change your character/rational.

It's not about change, at all.  It's about your choice to use certain things that are infulenced by your personality. If you buy  a hammer does that make you a carpenter of corse not, but it does mean you have plans to use it, which in turn means you may like to fix things yourself, you maybe buying a gift, countless things. I'm not claiming to be good at what I'm trying to desribe, only that the items reflect your personally.  What gift you give someone reflects on your personality, unless explicitly told to get a specific item, even then the fact you did and didn't get him something else also ADD's (not changes) to your personality.

Sounds like people are huge fans of generalizing everything and can't see past it's simple properties.  However on the other side, a lot of people read too much into things that don't have deep meaning.

Modifié par Xaenn, 18 juillet 2011 - 06:28 .

[AlanC9]

Xaenn wrote...

I'm pretty sure the game was marketed as an Action-RPG. I thought the Mass-Effect was a perfect hybrid of the both. I'm not saying it was perfect, but it had a equal share of both. You shot people, made stat and gear choices, dialog choices, it pretty much had everything that the hybrid genre would be defined for no?

Depends on if you think that a loot system is necessary or even good in an RPG. Which is what we keep talking about when we're not talking about whether exploration is worth having.

[AlanC9]

Xaenn wrote...
. If you buy  a hammer does that make you a carpenter of corse not, but it does mean you have plans to use it, which in turn means you may like to fix things yourself, you maybe buying a gift, countless things.

So it has all kinds of different meanings. How is that different from it having no meaning?