3223 réponses à ce sujet

[Fleetleader101]

Gatt9 wrote...

Lumikki wrote...

the_one_54321 wrote...

Bnol wrote...
Not sure what you definition of stat-driven combat is,

If it's not stat driven, you're not playing the role, you're playing you.

You are wrong. You are not playing you, even if you could do that too.

But you are acting the role, meaning you become the character, because this is role-playing.
It's difference between controlling the character by the role and acting characters role.

Actually,  he's right,  you're wrong.

In an RPG,  the Character's ability to succeed or fail is independent of your ability to succeed or fail,  because you know absolutely nothing about firing a nuclear weapon or fighting a dragon,  but he does.  This differenetiation of skill is represented by stats.

What you are proposing is actually the exact opposite of what you're intending.  You're not acting the Role,  your skill is all that matters,  your character is undefined,  and all you're doing is inserting yourself as the Marine instead of taking on the Role of the Marine.  The Marine cannot fail,  because he has no intrinsic qualities,  only your qualitites.

I've said this several times before.  My 100% paragon murdered someone in cold blood by pushing them off a building,  without consequence.  This cannot occur in an RPG,  because in an RPG that is in direct contrast to my Character's intrinsic personality,  and in violating it,  there are reprocussions. 

But for ME2,  this can occur without a hitch,  because my Character has no intrinsic personality,  no quality whatsoever.  The game ignores it,  because even those "Paragon" points are irrelevant,  all that matters is me.

Since the game ignores it,  I can't possibly be taking on a Role.  I just violated the "Role" of my character without signifcant cause,  which should create a problem.  It doesn't,  so my "Role" doesn't exist,  because the game just completely ignored the fact that I commited the single biggest violation possible of my "Role".

All that's left then is me,  which means there wasn't a Role to start out with.  I was just self-inserting my bad mood at that moment,  despite the fact that Shepherd appeared perfectly calm both before and after.

In an RPG,  volating my Role carries penalties.  My companions would've reacted,  I may have suffered further consequences.

So in short,  what you propose,  in the context of ME2,  is not Roleplaying.  I have no Role,  it's not defined,  there's no recognition of my Role,  nothing,  the game just proceeds without pause no matter what I do.

umm wow... well first and formost lets remember its a game. (albiet a cool one)

2nd you may want to switch to decaf. (and I mean all of you)

3rd choice is the point of a game. It puts you in control of what kind of role you will play. Halo, master chief for example, is just a guy in a suit who has a clearly defined role as you said, but remember that RPG's are defined by diologe and options. Not a rigid set movie style story line.

4th if that doesnt satisfy you then idk what will, but I hope you enjoy the game!

[Lumikki]

Gatt9 wrote...

Lumikki wrote...

the_one_54321 wrote...

Bnol wrote...
Not sure what you definition of stat-driven combat is,

If it's not stat driven, you're not playing the role, you're playing you.

You are wrong. You are not playing you, even if you could do that too.

But you are acting the role, meaning you become the character, because this is role-playing.
It's difference between controlling the character by the role and acting characters role.

Actually,  he's right,  you're wrong.

In an RPG,  the Character's ability to succeed or fail is independent of your ability to succeed or fail,  because you know absolutely nothing about firing a nuclear weapon or fighting a dragon,  but he does.  This differenetiation of skill is represented by stats.

What you are proposing is actually the exact opposite of what you're intending.  You're not acting the Role,  your skill is all that matters,  your character is undefined,  and all you're doing is inserting yourself as the Marine instead of taking on the Role of the Marine.  The Marine cannot fail,  because he has no intrinsic qualities,  only your qualitites.

I've said this several times before.  My 100% paragon murdered someone in cold blood by pushing them off a building,  without consequence.  This cannot occur in an RPG,  because in an RPG that is in direct contrast to my Character's intrinsic personality,  and in violating it,  there are reprocussions. 

But for ME2,  this can occur without a hitch,  because my Character has no intrinsic personality,  no quality whatsoever.  The game ignores it,  because even those "Paragon" points are irrelevant,  all that matters is me.

Since the game ignores it,  I can't possibly be taking on a Role.  I just violated the "Role" of my character without signifcant cause,  which should create a problem.  It doesn't,  so my "Role" doesn't exist,  because the game just completely ignored the fact that I commited the single biggest violation possible of my "Role".

All that's left then is me,  which means there wasn't a Role to start out with.  I was just self-inserting my bad mood at that moment,  despite the fact that Shepherd appeared perfectly calm both before and after.

In an RPG,  volating my Role carries penalties.  My companions would've reacted,  I may have suffered further consequences.

So in short,  what you propose,  in the context of ME2,  is not Roleplaying.  I have no Role,  it's not defined,  there's no recognition of my Role,  nothing,  the game just proceeds without pause no matter what I do.

Sorry, I disagree. You only make point that for you opinion only stats based character can be role-played. But what you forget is that role-playing is a lot more than just some stat based character. You are limiting ability role-play only what fits you idea what role-playing is. If you look word role-playing from dictionary, you will find that it's a lot wider consept that you think.

I could even start argue that if character is stat based it can't be even role-played, but only controlled. But I would be wrong, because in end it's about person taking role and it can be done many ways. Example actors acting in movies are role-playing. But where are they stats as controlling they actions?

Point been you just choose what fits you defination as what you think role-playing is. Try to make difference between classic RPG and players ability role-play.

[Bnol]

the_one_54321 wrote...

Bnol wrote...

the_one_54321 wrote...

Bnol wrote...
I don't understand why you played ME or ME2.

Because I also like shooters.

Incidentally, I also really don't give a crap what the industry thinks is or isn't an RPG. Marketing doesn't get to arbitrarily change definitions, at least not as far as I'm concerned.

Stop snipping one line out of my sentence without the proceeding clause because it is completely out of context. I stated if all you wanted to do was play a turn-based RPG why would you play ME, it was never marketed as such. It doesn't matter what you individually classify a "true" rpg as, as you will have to know what the industry definition or classification is in terms of what you are going to buy.

I didn't leave in only one line to remove the context. I left the line that matters. I answered above specifically regarding what you're elaborating here. I played it because Iike shooters. I've never said the ME should be like other RPGs.

This was the second time you left a clause out of a sentence or other sentences around to further explain taking them completely out of context, and then responding to something that wasn't even what was expressed.  Because what I was elaborating was that ME was never a turn-based rpg (an RPG that is all about stats and decisions with no twitch/player skill involved), and that it was never marketed as such, neither was ME2/3.  The fact is that they are placing more RPG-type elements into ME3, but it was never going to be the stat focused RPG that many posters feel is the only definition of RPG.  That definition is too limiting.  

[the_one_54321]

Bnol wrote...

the_one_54321 wrote...

Bnol wrote...

the_one_54321 wrote...

Bnol wrote...
I don't understand why you played ME or ME2.

Because I also like shooters.

Incidentally, I also really don't give a crap what the industry thinks is or isn't an RPG. Marketing doesn't get to arbitrarily change definitions, at least not as far as I'm concerned.

Stop snipping one line out of my sentence without the proceeding clause because it is completely out of context. I stated if all you wanted to do was play a turn-based RPG why would you play ME, it was never marketed as such. It doesn't matter what you individually classify a "true" rpg as, as you will have to know what the industry definition or classification is in terms of what you are going to buy.

I didn't leave in only one line to remove the context. I left the line that matters. I answered above specifically regarding what you're elaborating here. I played it because Iike shooters. I've never said the ME should be like other RPGs.

This was the second time you left a clause out of a sentence or other sentences around to further explain taking them completely out of context, and then responding to something that wasn't even what was expressed.  Because what I was elaborating was that ME was never a turn-based rpg (an RPG that is all about stats and decisions with no twitch/player skill involved), and that it was never marketed as such, neither was ME2/3.  The fact is that they are placing more RPG-type elements into ME3, but it was never going to be the stat focused RPG that many posters feel is the only definition of RPG.  That definition is too limiting.

So what? I never expected it to be. I never said I expected it to be. I started playing the ME franchise because I like shooters. None of the other stuff matters. Am I still not making it clear or are you just determined to have the last word? 

[Bnol]

Gatt9 wrote...

I've said this several times before.  My 100% paragon murdered someone in cold blood by pushing them off a building,  without consequence.  This cannot occur in an RPG,  because in an RPG that is in direct contrast to my Character's intrinsic personality,  and in violating it,  there are reprocussions. 

But for ME2,  this can occur without a hitch,  because my Character has no intrinsic personality,  no quality whatsoever.  The game ignores it,  because even those "Paragon" points are irrelevant,  all that matters is me.

Since the game ignores it,  I can't possibly be taking on a Role.  I just violated the "Role" of my character without signifcant cause,  which should create a problem.  It doesn't,  so my "Role" doesn't exist,  because the game just completely ignored the fact that I commited the single biggest violation possible of my "Role".

You cannot expect the game to track every single thing you do and then have some sort of immediate consequence or some sort of immediate companion VO for each companion and each situation.  What you are wanting is not feasible in a video game like ME with full VO.   If you want that deep of interactions you will need to do PnP.

You don't want Renegade or Paragon interrupts allowable for the other side.  Hell, I would rather get rid of the whole interrupt system to be honest, because it is never clear what you will be doing.  However, whether that fits with your character also depends on how you define Paragon.  Maybe you define it as a Justicar, in terms of doing everything to protect the innocent, but all criminals must die.  You are forcing me out of a role if that is how I play my Shepard, because you didn't like the way it played out for you.  Again, things can't be perfectly tailored as much as you would like them to be.

Modifié par Bnol, 06 juillet 2011 - 11:38 .

[olymind1]

reading the posts it reminded me in some older rpgs in conversations there were options based on the character's stats. for instance using the character's intelligence to answer the question right was an option, and using the player's own intelligence to succesfuly answer was an another, or you don't know the answer and fail.

similar in ME1: opening up containers using the player's skill to succesfully navigate, or using the in-game character's resource (omni-gel), or spoil and you get nothing. so the choice is given. but in ME2 the minigames depend only on the player's skill.

however persuasion/intimidation depend only on the character's paragon/renegade attribution (except interrupts which are again the player's skill and choice, so this results mixed game mechanism based on the character and on the player) and this sometimes affects game content also manifest in dialoges and NPC's attitudes towards you.

in ME2 the in-game character depends too much on the player's physical skills, thus the impression it is rather an action orient game with rpg elements.

regarding the story, i think it is an rpg game, there are a lot of choices, some are more meaningful than others, well, can't be all "saving or destroying the galaxy" size. and hoping in ME3 their implications will be even bigger than in ME2.

regarding the fighting, it is an action game with few customizations / rpg elements, because the player's skills are more important than the character's.

that's why i said some weapons/armors need character related requirements, because then they're a little more depend on Shepard, rather then almost ONLY on player, thus moving the slider slightly towards the rpg side.

bringing back weapon mods is also a good idea.

[the_one_54321]

olymind1 wrote...
reading the posts it reminded me in some older rpgs in conversations there were options based on the character's stats. for instance using the character's intelligence to answer the question right was an option, and using the player's own intelligence to succesfuly answer was an another, or you don't know the answer and fail.

The good old days...

[Cawl Uff Dootie]

So basically they're just trying to soften the blow for when DA3 releases... oops I mean ME3.

Who needs RPG mechanics anyway when we'll have multiplayer deathmatches!

I sure hope they sell us new skins to use in multiplayer. Everyone is going to be picking Sheppard and Tali to play capture the flag with. I'll pick Ashley in Deathmatch and just stand there and let people kill me.

[Gatt9]

Lumikki wrote...
Sorry, I disagree. You only make point that for you opinion only stats based character can be role-played. But what you forget is that role-playing is a lot more than just some stat based character. You are limiting ability role-play only what fits you idea what role-playing is. If you look word role-playing from dictionary, you will find that it's a lot wider consept that you think.

I could even start argue that if character is stat based it can't be even role-played, but only controlled. But I would be wrong, because in end it's about person taking role and it can be done many ways. Example actors acting in movies are role-playing. But where are they stats as controlling they actions?

Point been you just choose what fits you defination as what you think role-playing is. Try to make difference between classic RPG and players ability role-play.

You're mixing Roleplaying up with Roleplaying Game.  Roleplaying is what a man does with a woman when he puts on a police costume.  A RPG is different,  as it has you taking on a very specific Role,  not a general job.

What you are calling Roleplaying,  in terms of ME2,  is pretending.  The game neither notices,  nor cares,  what "Role" you chose,  and does not ever acknowledge it.  You do not have a Role,  because the Game does not permit it.  It's like dressing up in a military uniform to play C&C,  you could do it,  but the game doesn't notice or care.

The defined character,  OTOH,  can be Roleplayed.  If I know my character has a strength of 3,  I can ask my companions to carry my waterskin for me,  and if I try to push someone off a building,  the game will recognize it isn't happening.  Same thing with an Intelligence of 3,  my idiot is not going to be discussing the fine points of Quantum Mechanics.  Defining the Character defines the Role.

Which is exactly why ME2 isn't an RPG,  the Character is never defined,  and so neither is the Role.  Which is demonstrated by the fact that you can arbitrarily violate the "Role" without consequence.

I understand where you're coming from,  you are defining "Job roleplaying" (Otherwise known as LARPing) as Roleplaying,  which seriously isn't the same thing as an RPG.  Because what you are doing is inserting yourself into the Job,  with all of your qualities,  which is different from assuming a Role as defined by a Character,  which is what RPGs are.

Yes it can happen

Did anybody see your paragon shephard do this? does anybody care? is there any evidence? if there was evidence would anybody care? Did the person you killed in cold blood murder someone two minutes before you showed up and thus justify what you did?

Your squaddies depending on which ones vary from insane killers to lawful (to them) killers so would any of the ones on the insane side of the curve care? would any of the lawful ones? Its a merc in a building that's owned by someone whose's just been killing there low level grunts so being alive in the building sort of indicates they don't have a clean consciousness.

Well,  Tali and Jacob watched me do it,  I'm pretty certain both of them would be a little disturbed by the fact that I just killed someone because they looked like they might've done something.

You're not seriously trying to suggest that Tali,  Samara,  and Jacob are all in for tossing random people off a building for no reason are you?

Regardless,  the game established parameters,  I am the Paragon of Virtue...and I murdered someone randomly without cause.  It's a major violation of the "Role" the game established,  and the game takes no notice.

Because,  as I said,  the game doesn't ever hold you to a "Role",  you can make any arbitrary decision you want and no matter how conflicting it is with the "Role" you've been playing,  nothing happens in response.

Well my answer would be for a 100% paragon player not to choose a renegade interrupt since you could ignore it

Which is a massive failing in an RPG,  when the game is so uncaring about the "Roles" that it's up to the Player to police them because the game couldn't care less whether or not you follow the Role. 

It essentially establishes that as far as the game's concerned,  there's no Roles,  so then there cannot be any Roleplaying.

You cannot expect the game to track every single thing you do and then have some sort of immediate consequence or some sort of immediate companion VO for each companion and each situation. What you are wanting is not feasible in a video game like ME with full VO. If you want that deep of interactions you will need to do PnP.

You don't want Renegade or Paragon interrupts allowable for the other side. Hell, I would rather get rid of the whole interrupt system to be honest, because it is never clear what you will be doing. However, whether that fits with your character also depends on how you define Paragon. Maybe you define it as a Justicar, in terms of doing everything to protect the innocent, but all criminals must die. You are forcing me out of a role if that is how I play my Shepard, because you didn't like the way it played out for you. Again, things can't be perfectly tailored as much as you would like them to be.

Please don't take this as me being rude,  but this is not all that difficult of a handle...

It's really not a difficult thing to track.  on the action,  check the morality,  check to see if a party member is there.  It's not like it's not already doing it,  take Tali with you on the Krogan Homeworld and tell the captive krogan he's acting like a quarian with a tummyache,  game reacts then.  Doesn't react when you violate the "Role".

I suspect it's because Bioware doesn't want to bother the Shooter crowd with taking on Roles,  since it'd be a turn-off for them.  Because 13 years ago,  doing things that bothered your party members had definitive responses.

Which is something important to keep in mind.  Bioware was handling this 13 years ago on a Pentium 2 with less memory than a Smartphone on it.

As far as the interrupts go,  the point is,  in an RPG taking a Role violating action would result in consequence.

As far as definitions go,  Bioware already defined it.  The blue option is always lawful and good,  the red option is always chaotic and mean.  It's not like taking blue occasionally slaps a girl,  or picking red occasionally makes you wait for the green light before crossing the street.  It's *always*  those moralities.  So I don't have to define it,  I spent two whole games following the rules and being nice,  and then I just suddenly randomly pushed someone off a building.

So which is it,  is ME2 an RPG or not?  Because I had established a Role,  by the parameters the game used,  and then I arbitrarily violated it.  Because if you're going to define ME2 as an RPG,  then you really need to give an explanation for why it is ok to violate a Role,  and why it's ok for the game to not notice that someone absolutely good just murdered someone randomly.

[Cainne Chapel]

Cawl Uff Dootie wrote...

So basically they're just trying to soften the blow for when DA3 releases... oops I mean ME3.

Who needs RPG mechanics anyway when we'll have multiplayer deathmatches!

I sure hope they sell us new skins to use in multiplayer. Everyone is going to be picking Sheppard and Tali to play capture the flag with. I'll pick Ashley in Deathmatch and just stand there and let people kill me.

Well the DA3-ME3 reference WOULD of been funny... if ME series was at all an old school RPG... which it isn't.  Unlike DA:O.

But as for the rest the post... I dont get the barbs?  We're gonna have pretty much all the RPG elements that were in ME1, but improved upon or modified to fit (Customization, Interactions, etc).

So.... I'm not understanding your apparent hostility.

If its for Multiplayer/Co Op or whatever, as long as it doesnt effect my SP portion, Hell let em have at it.

[Cainne Chapel]

Gatt9 wrote..

Well my answer would be for a 100% paragon player not to choose a renegade interrupt since you could ignore it

Which is a massive failing in an RPG,  when the game is so uncaring about the "Roles" that it's up to the Player to police them because the game couldn't care less whether or not you follow the Role. 

It essentially establishes that as far as the game's concerned,  there's no Roles,  so then there cannot be any Roleplaying.

.

Now Gatt, I understand you have your own specific view on what an RPG is.  Thats fine.  But I still dont see what hte problem is with the interrupt system and how its a massive failing in an RPG.

Its allowing you to make whatever choice you deem necessary at the time.  For instance whether SHepard is a paragon or a renegade he is still a marine thats expected to get the job done.  Especially after wading through dozens of other mercs trying to kill you, pushing one off a ledge isn't too much of a leap of logic there.

Besides if the player makes the conciouss choice to hit the button, how does that detract at all from them playing the character their way?


That said.  Its obvious that some of us formites have disparate agreements on what does and doesn't equate to an RPG, when in reality, sad to say, an RPG is whatever a developer markets and sells it as.

Because personally I see Morrowind, every bit as much an RPG as I do the FF series, as I do The witcher as I do Persona 4.  Now do they all have the same roles, systems, and what not an RPG game is known for? Heck no.  But as different as they are they're still classified under the same wide reaching moniker.

Also I would like to point out most games that i have played if you did do something against your Role/alignment, whatever, would usually only result in a point deduction from said faction/offended party,w hich you could always regain again later.  so in essence itsl ike you never did the act int he first place most of the time.

Also, most RPGs i've played, over the years, are fairly static and really dont OFFER you the choice of a different role, as the story goes along at the pace the devs wished it, giving you very little decision in the outcome, if any at all (Mainly JRPGs in this case, but still)

Modifié par Cainne Chapel, 07 juillet 2011 - 02:31 .

[EternalPink]

Gatt9 wrote...

Lumikki wrote...
Sorry, I disagree. You only make point that for you opinion only stats based character can be role-played. But what you forget is that role-playing is a lot more than just some stat based character. You are limiting ability role-play only what fits you idea what role-playing is. If you look word role-playing from dictionary, you will find that it's a lot wider consept that you think.

I could even start argue that if character is stat based it can't be even role-played, but only controlled. But I would be wrong, because in end it's about person taking role and it can be done many ways. Example actors acting in movies are role-playing. But where are they stats as controlling they actions?

Point been you just choose what fits you defination as what you think role-playing is. Try to make difference between classic RPG and players ability role-play.

You're mixing Roleplaying up with Roleplaying Game.  Roleplaying is what a man does with a woman when he puts on a police costume.  A RPG is different,  as it has you taking on a very specific Role,  not a general job.

What you are calling Roleplaying,  in terms of ME2,  is pretending.  The game neither notices,  nor cares,  what "Role" you chose,  and does not ever acknowledge it.  You do not have a Role,  because the Game does not permit it.  It's like dressing up in a military uniform to play C&C,  you could do it,  but the game doesn't notice or care.

The defined character,  OTOH,  can be Roleplayed.  If I know my character has a strength of 3,  I can ask my companions to carry my waterskin for me,  and if I try to push someone off a building,  the game will recognize it isn't happening.  Same thing with an Intelligence of 3,  my idiot is not going to be discussing the fine points of Quantum Mechanics.  Defining the Character defines the Role.

Which is exactly why ME2 isn't an RPG,  the Character is never defined,  and so neither is the Role.  Which is demonstrated by the fact that you can arbitrarily violate the "Role" without consequence.

I understand where you're coming from,  you are defining "Job roleplaying" (Otherwise known as LARPing) as Roleplaying,  which seriously isn't the same thing as an RPG.  Because what you are doing is inserting yourself into the Job,  with all of your qualities,  which is different from assuming a Role as defined by a Character,  which is what RPGs are.

Yes it can happen

Did anybody see your paragon shephard do this? does anybody care? is there any evidence? if there was evidence would anybody care? Did the person you killed in cold blood murder someone two minutes before you showed up and thus justify what you did?

Your squaddies depending on which ones vary from insane killers to lawful (to them) killers so would any of the ones on the insane side of the curve care? would any of the lawful ones? Its a merc in a building that's owned by someone whose's just been killing there low level grunts so being alive in the building sort of indicates they don't have a clean consciousness.

Well,  Tali and Jacob watched me do it,  I'm pretty certain both of them would be a little disturbed by the fact that I just killed someone because they looked like they might've done something.

You're not seriously trying to suggest that Tali,  Samara,  and Jacob are all in for tossing random people off a building for no reason are you?

Regardless,  the game established parameters,  I am the Paragon of Virtue...and I murdered someone randomly without cause.  It's a major violation of the "Role" the game established,  and the game takes no notice.

Because,  as I said,  the game doesn't ever hold you to a "Role",  you can make any arbitrary decision you want and no matter how conflicting it is with the "Role" you've been playing,  nothing happens in response.

Well my answer would be for a 100% paragon player not to choose a renegade interrupt since you could ignore it

Which is a massive failing in an RPG,  when the game is so uncaring about the "Roles" that it's up to the Player to police them because the game couldn't care less whether or not you follow the Role. 

It essentially establishes that as far as the game's concerned,  there's no Roles,  so then there cannot be any Roleplaying.

You cannot expect the game to track every single thing you do and then have some sort of immediate consequence or some sort of immediate companion VO for each companion and each situation. What you are wanting is not feasible in a video game like ME with full VO. If you want that deep of interactions you will need to do PnP.

You don't want Renegade or Paragon interrupts allowable for the other side. Hell, I would rather get rid of the whole interrupt system to be honest, because it is never clear what you will be doing. However, whether that fits with your character also depends on how you define Paragon. Maybe you define it as a Justicar, in terms of doing everything to protect the innocent, but all criminals must die. You are forcing me out of a role if that is how I play my Shepard, because you didn't like the way it played out for you. Again, things can't be perfectly tailored as much as you would like them to be.

Please don't take this as me being rude,  but this is not all that difficult of a handle...

It's really not a difficult thing to track.  on the action,  check the morality,  check to see if a party member is there.  It's not like it's not already doing it,  take Tali with you on the Krogan Homeworld and tell the captive krogan he's acting like a quarian with a tummyache,  game reacts then.  Doesn't react when you violate the "Role".

I suspect it's because Bioware doesn't want to bother the Shooter crowd with taking on Roles,  since it'd be a turn-off for them.  Because 13 years ago,  doing things that bothered your party members had definitive responses.

Which is something important to keep in mind.  Bioware was handling this 13 years ago on a Pentium 2 with less memory than a Smartphone on it.

As far as the interrupts go,  the point is,  in an RPG taking a Role violating action would result in consequence.

As far as definitions go,  Bioware already defined it.  The blue option is always lawful and good,  the red option is always chaotic and mean.  It's not like taking blue occasionally slaps a girl,  or picking red occasionally makes you wait for the green light before crossing the street.  It's *always*  those moralities.  So I don't have to define it,  I spent two whole games following the rules and being nice,  and then I just suddenly randomly pushed someone off a building.

So which is it,  is ME2 an RPG or not?  Because I had established a Role,  by the parameters the game used,  and then I arbitrarily violated it.  Because if you're going to define ME2 as an RPG,  then you really need to give an explanation for why it is ok to violate a Role,  and why it's ok for the game to not notice that someone absolutely good just murdered someone randomly.

I'm sorry which particular games are those? from yester year the only one i can remember is the reputation in BG1 and 2 which was pathetically easy to keep neutral although thinking about it one of the most popular mods of BG2 was to remove the irritation of having party members get upset due to reputation so even though it was pathetically easy we quickly modded it out.

Maybe neither Tali or Jacob care about mercs that shoot up salarian workers, maybe they think your having a off moment, maybe they secretly thought it was cool, there are plenty of possible reasons as mentioned there was a option and dialogue for you to not push him off the building and considering we've killed hundreds if not thousands of mercs by now why is one more to many regardless of the means of there death?

The game does actually notice by giving you renegade points so if you were attempting to play pure paragon that alone would bother you and it seems your main issue is that a renegade option which you could have choosen to ignore appeared and for taking it nothing really bad happens since its one nameless merc that nobdy cares about, its not like you've just killed 300k batarians

[Sylvius the Mad]

Lumikki wrote...

Can't much say to this anything. I don't mean any harm, but I feel like talking to someone who doesn't even have clue about what TPS combat is. Pause to aim in TPS combat? Who the hell would do that?

I would.  In ME and ME2.  Every time I was targetting a fast moving opponent.

ME and ME2 allow aiming while paused.  Therefore, they allow the player to eliminate player skill as a variable.

As such, all the removal of stat-driven aiming did in ME2 was make Shepard a perfect shot in all circumstances.  She never misses the taret selected by the player.

Pause is there so you can give commands to you squad members.

How can you assign a purpose to pausing?  Pausing allows all manner of activities without the passage of time.  Including aiming.  That's what it does.

What it was intended to do is immaterial.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Sidney wrote...

The thing is I can make a great case that Oblivion's combat isn't an RPG

I agree entirely.

[Sylvius the Mad]

EternalPink wrote...

Well my answer would be for a 100% paragon player not to choose a renegade interrupt since you could ignore it.

Is "100% Paragon" a complete description of your character's personality?

If so, that's a terrible shallow character construction.  But if not, your advice isn't helpful.

[Il Divo]

Gatt9 wrote...

Please don't take this as me being rude,  but this is not all that difficult of a handle...

It's really not a difficult thing to track.  on the action,  check the morality,  check to see if a party member is there.  It's not like it's not already doing it,  take Tali with you on the Krogan Homeworld and tell the captive krogan he's acting like a quarian with a tummyache,  game reacts then.  Doesn't react when you violate the "Role".

I suspect it's because Bioware doesn't want to bother the Shooter crowd with taking on Roles,  since it'd be a turn-off for them.  Because 13 years ago,  doing things that bothered your party members had definitive responses.

Every Bioware game has moments where role-playing concepts fail. It's what happens when the developers have a million different variables to take into account, such as who is in your party, dialogue options, and past actions.

In KotOR, no matter how many dark side actions I commit, Bastila will never comment on its relation to my past alignment. If I steal the wraid plate on Tatooine, Bastila will make the same exact comment regarding my misuse of the Force. She does not tailor her comment according to whether I have been a good little Jedi or a world-devouring Sith.

The game is simply unable to take into account every possible role-playing opportunity you take. It's what we refer to as 'limitations'.  

In this case, you're basically complaining how the game does not take into account your current progress into the paragon bar (which is an abstraction at best, a gameplay mechanic at worst) because you chose to perform an action which was inconsistent with all others up until that point.

It is up to the player to define the role for himself, based on what limitations the game provides us.

Modifié par Il Divo, 07 juillet 2011 - 04:34 .

[Il Divo]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Is "100% Paragon" a complete description of your character's personality?

If so, that's a terrible shallow character construction.  But if not, your advice isn't helpful.

Probably not, but 100% paragon does give an abbreviated list of every action where the PC chose a paragon action. While it is conceivable to create a PC who is previously 100% paragon and is willing to push some anonymous henchman off a roof, the number of role-playing concepts which rely on it (given every past paragon action) are few enough that Bioware should not have to take this into account.

[Iakus]

Il Divo wrote...

Every Bioware game has moments where role-playing concepts fail. It's what happens when the developers have a million different variables to take into account, such as who is in your party, dialogue options, and past actions.

In KotOR, no matter how many dark side actions I commit, Bastila will never comment on its relation to my past alignment. If I steal the wraid plate on Tatooine, Bastila will make the same exact comment regarding my misuse of the Force. She does not tailor her comment according to whether I have been a good little Jedi or a world-devouring Sith.

The game is simply unable to take into account every possible role-playing opportunity you take. It's what we refer to as 'limitations'.  

In this case, you're basically complaining how the game does not take into account your current progress into the paragon bar (which is an abstraction at best, a gameplay mechanic at worst) because you chose to perform an action which was inconsistent with all others up until that point.

It is up to the player to define the role for himself, based on what limitations the game provides us.

In all fairness, though, one of the big selling points of the Mass Effect series is how all these choices are kept track of and will supposedly come back to haunt us.  KOTOR may not keep track of whether you use the Mind Trick to get out of paying docking fees or work for the Genoharadan, but Mass Effect keeps track of who you talked to and who you killed, even how often you punch the (if you don't in ME1 but do in ME2, Shepard says something like "I should have done that when I first met you!"

 So while games are limited, Mass Effect was supposedly going to push the limitations of rpgs with unprecedented consequences kept track of over multiple games.  That is something we are yet to see realized.

Personally I try to play a consistent character regardless of limitations.  Paragons simply don't push people out of windows:innocent:

[Massadonious1]

They like to pistol whip people, though.

[Il Divo]

iakus wrote...

In all fairness, though, one of the big selling points of the Mass Effect series is how all these choices are kept track of and will supposedly come back to haunt us.  KOTOR may not keep track of whether you use the Mind Trick to get out of paying docking fees or work for the Genoharadan, but Mass Effect keeps track of who you talked to and who you killed, even how often you punch the (if you don't in ME1 but do in ME2, Shepard says something like "I should have done that when I first met you!"

 So while games are limited, Mass Effect was supposedly going to push the limitations of rpgs with unprecedented consequences kept track of over multiple games.  That is something we are yet to see realized.

Personally I try to play a consistent character regardless of limitations.  Paragons simply don't push people out of windows:innocent:

If we're doing the fairness argument, every Bioware game attempts to keep track of our choices. This was not at all unique to Mass Effect. PR speak will always remain PR speak.

Mass Effect's 'unique' aspect was that choices from one game would carry to another. Ex: People will mention my decision to murder/eliminate the Council. This was unseen in past Bioware games.
 
Everything else was typical Bioware fare. Regardless of how much Mass Effect keeps track of our character history, you cannot expect developers to take every minor choice into account. I can break Mass Effect without even going into Mass Effect 2, because the game features an insane number of variables, which can have a near infinite number of results.

Well, add in a second game, and the total number of variables grow. Add in a third game? Well, good luck to Bioware for even trying to touch that.

Modifié par Il Divo, 07 juillet 2011 - 04:59 .

[Sylvius the Mad]

iakus wrote...

In all fairness, though, one of the big selling points of the Mass Effect series is how all these choices are kept track of and will supposedly come back to haunt us.  KOTOR may not keep track of whether you use the Mind Trick to get out of paying docking fees or work for the Genoharadan, but Mass Effect keeps track of who you talked to and who you killed, even how often you punch the (if you don't in ME1 but do in ME2, Shepard says something like "I should have done that when I first met you!"

And that would be a great feature if we were actually in control of Sheaprd's behaviour.  But since Shepard acts effectively randomly, I can't keep track of everything she has done without keeping a written log.  Nothing fits together into a neat pattern; there's no structure to her behaviour.

[littlezack]

Why can't people just shut up and play the damn game?

[Mr. Gogeta34]

I always hated RPGs where this character's supposed to be a seasoned warrior... and yet he can't shoot straight or hit hard/use advanced tactics at the start of the game.

Mass Effect 2 did an awesome job of keeping Shepard from being at the strength of a child at the beginning of the game.

As far as I'm concerned, only coming-of-age stories should start characters out as weak and undisciplined as other RPGs have them. Hurrah for Bioware.

Modifié par Mr. Gogeta34, 07 juillet 2011 - 05:29 .

[Sebby]

Mr. Gogeta34 wrote...

I always hated RPGs where this character's supposed to be a seasoned warrior... and yet he can't shoot straight or hit hard/use advanced tactics at the start of the game.

Mass Effect 2 did an awesome job of keeping Shepard from being at the strength of a child at the beginning of the game.

As far as I'm concerned, only coming-of-age stories should start characters out as weak and undisciplined as other RPGs have them. Hurrah for Bioware.

Indeed, I hated how in ME1 my Infiltrator acted like she was drunk and had broken hands while aiming the damn sniper rifle prior to maxing out that skill  and getting the best rifle and mods.

[Lunatic LK47]

Mr. Gogeta34 wrote...

I always hated RPGs where this character's supposed to be a seasoned warrior... and yet he can't shoot straight or hit hard/use advanced tactics at the start of the game.

Mass Effect 2 did an awesome job of keeping Shepard from being at the strength of a child at the beginning of the game.

As far as I'm concerned, only coming-of-age stories should start characters out as weak and undisciplined as other RPGs have them. Hurrah for Bioware.

This.