3223 réponses à ce sujet

[Bnol]

SalsaDMA wrote...

Candidate 88766 wrote...

Tali's loyalty was a great mission. I always wanted to visit the Migrant Fleet in Mass Effect, and I finally got the chance. it was also interesting to the internal conflict within the Quarian people.

You mean aside that it broke the lore? Yeah, sure, it was an interesting mission, just a shame they couldn't stick to their lore regarding the migrant.

I dunno why they didn't put Shep and crew in hazard suits during their entire visit, if it was because they were lazy our someone decided that it would be prettier to look at our 'unique character models'. Whatever the reason, it broke their lore which ranks it as yet a hole in the corpse called consistency in the ME universe...

Uh, they were in their environmental suits the whole time, which for many characters means full armor and a helmet.  Tali also calls for a decontamination team, meaning they probably provided a heightened decontamination and inspection of the enviro-suits.  Not sure how it is breaking with the lore.  I mean for a couple characters you want them to create an entirely new armor for just Tali's recruitment mission?  I would rather just suspend disbelief instead of having them waste art resources like that for one mission.

Modifié par Bnol, 07 juillet 2011 - 07:23 .

[sp0ck 06]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

sp0ck 06 wrote...

Who honestly gives a crap about omg the lore consistency?

Anyone who wants to roleplay his character consistently.

If you make an in-character decision based on established lore, and then the game contradicts that lore, then the game is broken.

I'd much rather have broken lore and a fun game than rigid lore and a boring game.  You wouldn't?  Of course, I'd rather have both, and I think ME generally does a pretty good job of reconciling the two.  But ultimately, they created the lore, they can bend it however they want.  I support bending or even *gasp* breaking the lore if it means a better game experience.

Modifié par sp0ck 06, 07 juillet 2011 - 07:21 .

[the_one_54321]

sp0ck 06 wrote...

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

sp0ck 06 wrote...
Who honestly gives a crap about omg the lore consistency?

Anyone who wants to roleplay his character consistently.

If you make an in-character decision based on established lore, and then the game contradicts that lore, then the game is broken.

I'd much rather have broken lore and a fun game than rigid lore and a boring game.  You wouldn't?  Of course, I'd rather have both, and I think ME generally does a pretty good job of reconciling the two.  But ultimately, they created the lore, they can bend it however they want.  I support bending or even *gasp* breaking the lore if it means a better game experience.

No. Inconsistency = broken game. Broken game = less enjoyment. If it's broken enough, it becomes outright unplayable.

[Travie]

I don't think the choice is necessarily between broken and rigid lore.

You can always write more lore and explain new changes away. Remember that line in Shadow Broker where Shepard reminisces with Liara about how you once could just slap Omni-gel on everything?

Was funny and worked perfectly, its not that hard to do.

[sp0ck 06]

An example to prove my point:

We've seen multiple instances of powerful biotics able to fly and hover. An Adept Shepard is an extremely powerful biotic. Why are we not able to fly also? Because it creates all sorts of problems from a game design standpoint. So, while in the "lore" and Adept Shepard would be capable of buzzing all over the place, the reality of game development prevents this from happening, overriding whatever the "lore" might imply.

[Candidate 88766]

SalsaDMA wrote...

Candidate 88766 wrote...

Tali's loyalty was a great mission. I always wanted to visit the Migrant Fleet in Mass Effect, and I finally got the chance. it was also interesting to the internal conflict within the Quarian people.

You mean aside that it broke the lore? Yeah, sure, it was an interesting mission, just a shame they couldn't stick to their lore regarding the migrant.

I dunno why they didn't put Shep and crew in hazard suits during their entire visit, if it was because they were lazy our someone decided that it would be prettier to look at our 'unique character models'. Whatever the reason, it broke their lore which ranks it as yet a hole in the corpse called consistency in the ME universe...

I assume you mean the whole characters not wearing sealed suits? Yeah, that irked me too. Thats one of the reasons I only ever take Garrus on that mission.

It wasn't that mission in particular that broke the lore, it was the outfits of some of the characters. The mission itself talks about quarantine and the Normandy 'not being clean', its the outfits that let the lore down there. Play it with Garrus and you can just glaze over it and enjoy the mission.

The consistency is actually really good in Mass Effect. The only things that aren't are heat sinks, some character outfits, and thats pretty much it. A major hole in consistency would be something like finding out that Mass Relays actually teleoport ships instead of using the mass effect. The heat sinks are excusable for gameplay. The character outfits were annoying. But consistency is hardly a 'corpse'. If you think it is then perhaps you should point out where these devasting holes in lore are that you can't possibly look past.

[sp0ck 06]

the_one_54321 wrote...

sp0ck 06 wrote...

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

sp0ck 06 wrote...
Who honestly gives a crap about omg the lore consistency?

Anyone who wants to roleplay his character consistently.

If you make an in-character decision based on established lore, and then the game contradicts that lore, then the game is broken.

I'd much rather have broken lore and a fun game than rigid lore and a boring game.  You wouldn't?  Of course, I'd rather have both, and I think ME generally does a pretty good job of reconciling the two.  But ultimately, they created the lore, they can bend it however they want.  I support bending or even *gasp* breaking the lore if it means a better game experience.

No. Inconsistency = broken game. Broken game = less enjoyment. If it's broken enough, it becomes outright unplayable.

I disagree.  Lore is important but it doesn't have much to do with actual gameplay.  A broken game is one in which the game mechanics are clunky or contradict each other to the point where the game is not fun to play.

[Candidate 88766]

sp0ck 06 wrote...

An example to prove my point:

We've seen multiple instances of powerful biotics able to fly and hover. An Adept Shepard is an extremely powerful biotic. Why are we not able to fly also? Because it creates all sorts of problems from a game design standpoint. So, while in the "lore" and Adept Shepard would be capable of buzzing all over the place, the reality of game development prevents this from happening, overriding whatever the "lore" might imply.

Firstly, gameplay has to take priority. Secondly, its never said that Shepard is an immensly powerful biotic. The only characters being able to do something even close to flying were Samara and Tela Vasir, and all they did was break their fall a bit with biotic power. I don't remeber seeing anyone actually fly in Mass Effect. 

[the_one_54321]

Travie wrote...
I don't think the choice is necessarily between broken and rigid lore.

You can always write more lore and explain new changes away. Remember that line in Shadow Broker where Shepard reminisces with Liara about how you once could just slap Omni-gel on everything?

Was funny and worked perfectly, its not that hard to do.

Says you. I've read about two instances like this. The comment on omni-gel, and Isabella and Alistair comenting on how everyone looks different. I thought both instances were stupid and brought direct attention to specific drastic changes made in their respective games.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Lampshade hanging isn't a remedy for bad design.

[Candidate 88766]

Bnol wrote...

SalsaDMA wrote...

Candidate 88766 wrote...

Tali's loyalty was a great mission. I always wanted to visit the Migrant Fleet in Mass Effect, and I finally got the chance. it was also interesting to the internal conflict within the Quarian people.

You mean aside that it broke the lore? Yeah, sure, it was an interesting mission, just a shame they couldn't stick to their lore regarding the migrant.

I dunno why they didn't put Shep and crew in hazard suits during their entire visit, if it was because they were lazy our someone decided that it would be prettier to look at our 'unique character models'. Whatever the reason, it broke their lore which ranks it as yet a hole in the corpse called consistency in the ME universe...

Uh, they were in their environmental suits the whole time, which for many characters means full armor and a helmet.  Tali also calls for a decontamination team, meaning they probably provided a heightened decontamination and inspection of the enviro-suits.  Not sure how it is breaking with the lore.  I mean for a couple characters you want them to create an entirely new armor for just Tali's recruitment mission?  I would rather just suspend disbelief instead of having them waste art resources like that for one mission.

Yeah I agree with this. I can suspend my disbelief for a short time. If it causes so much of a problem just use your imagination for a bit. For example, maybe the Normandy SR2 has an improved version of the detcontamination system seen in the SR1. Just because we aren't told about doesn't mean it isn't there.

[the_one_54321]

sp0ck 06 wrote...

the_one_54321 wrote...

sp0ck 06 wrote...

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

sp0ck 06 wrote...
Who honestly gives a crap about omg the lore consistency?

Anyone who wants to roleplay his character consistently.

If you make an in-character decision based on established lore, and then the game contradicts that lore, then the game is broken.

I'd much rather have broken lore and a fun game than rigid lore and a boring game.  You wouldn't?  Of course, I'd rather have both, and I think ME generally does a pretty good job of reconciling the two.  But ultimately, they created the lore, they can bend it however they want.  I support bending or even *gasp* breaking the lore if it means a better game experience.

No. Inconsistency = broken game. Broken game = less enjoyment. If it's broken enough, it becomes outright unplayable.

I disagree.  Lore is important but it doesn't have much to do with actual gameplay.  A broken game is one in which the game mechanics are clunky or contradict each other to the point where the game is not fun to play.

I can play any vapid action fest any other day of the week from a million other developers. Those are the instances where all I really care about is that the mechanics of the game work well. For one, the mechanics in the ME franchise have never worked really well to begin with, but that's not the main reason I play it. I expect quality writing. That is non-negotiable.

[The Spamming Troll]

you think bioware just bent the lore a little?

its more like removed it, and created something entirely different. were talking about changing the basic fundamentals of how a weapon funtions, how abilities are used, and how the story flows.

removed, destroyed, illogical, unlorical,,,,,those would be a better choice of words. atleast to me.

[Candidate 88766]

The Spamming Troll wrote...

you think bioware just bent the lore a little?

its more like removed it, and created something entirely different. were talking about changing the basic fundamentals of how a weapon funtions, how abilities are used, and how the story flows.

removed, destroyed, illogical, unlorical,,,,,those would be a better choice of words. atleast to me.

So you think that the addition of heat sinks changed the entire lore on which ME1 was founded?

[The Spamming Troll]

Candidate 88766 wrote...

sp0ck 06 wrote...

An example to prove my point:

We've seen multiple instances of powerful biotics able to fly and hover. An Adept Shepard is an extremely powerful biotic. Why are we not able to fly also? Because it creates all sorts of problems from a game design standpoint. So, while in the "lore" and Adept Shepard would be capable of buzzing all over the place, the reality of game development prevents this from happening, overriding whatever the "lore" might imply.

Firstly, gameplay has to take priority. Secondly, its never said that Shepard is an immensly powerful biotic. The only characters being able to do something even close to flying were Samara and Tela Vasir, and all they did was break their fall a bit with biotic power. I don't remeber seeing anyone actually fly in Mass Effect. 

maybe they should be makign a game where the only class is an adept.

[Sylvius the Mad]

the_one_54321 wrote...

Well no, the thing with ME is that ME isn't and has never been an RPG.

ME's combat was exactly an RPG.  You could aim while paused, player skill didn't matter, and the resolution of the player's inputs was stat-driven.

I don't see how ME was a shooter at all.  It looked like a shooter, which is what was interesting about it, but the TPS presentation doesn't change that ME's combat was stat-driven RPG combat.

All they did was give target selection an analog shooter-like interface.

People call ME a hybrid of RPG and shooter, but I honestly don't see any shooter in it.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Candidate 88766 wrote...

The Spamming Troll wrote...

you think bioware just bent the lore a little?

its more like removed it, and created something entirely different. were talking about changing the basic fundamentals of how a weapon funtions, how abilities are used, and how the story flows.

removed, destroyed, illogical, unlorical,,,,,those would be a better choice of words. atleast to me.

So you think that the addition of heat sinks changed the entire lore on which ME1 was founded?

The heat sinks didn't make any sense in the lore, though I think they could have with beter exposition.

My complaint with the heat sinks is that they made combat less fun.

[sp0ck 06]

Candidate 88766 wrote...

The Spamming Troll wrote...

you think bioware just bent the lore a little?

its more like removed it, and created something entirely different. were talking about changing the basic fundamentals of how a weapon funtions, how abilities are used, and how the story flows.

removed, destroyed, illogical, unlorical,,,,,those would be a better choice of words. atleast to me.

So you think that the addition of heat sinks changed the entire lore on which ME1 was founded?

Or going from ICD to GCD?  This ruins the lore of the game?  Give me a break.  Look at the advances in cellphones over the past 5 years.  Why couldn't similiarly drastic changes occur regarding weapon systems in a fictional sci fi universe.

Another point on "lore":  You guys got your feathers ruffled cause of heat sinks and Tali's LM.  It doesn't bother you that every alien race speaks English, including the immortal machines from dark space?

[Candidate 88766]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Candidate 88766 wrote...

The Spamming Troll wrote...

you think bioware just bent the lore a little?

its more like removed it, and created something entirely different. were talking about changing the basic fundamentals of how a weapon funtions, how abilities are used, and how the story flows.

removed, destroyed, illogical, unlorical,,,,,those would be a better choice of words. atleast to me.

So you think that the addition of heat sinks changed the entire lore on which ME1 was founded?

The heat sinks didn't make any sense in the lore, though I think they could have with beter exposition.

My complaint with the heat sinks is that they made combat less fun.

I thought having guns with unlimted ammo that didn't generate heat in ME1 were less consistent with the lore than heat sinks were. Also, which is more fun: holding the trigger until everything in front of you is dead, or actually having to take care where you shot in case you ran out of ammo? At least the last one added a vague element of tactics to it other than holding the trigger until nothing is left in front of you.

[Candidate 88766]

sp0ck 06 wrote...

Candidate 88766 wrote...

The Spamming Troll wrote...

you think bioware just bent the lore a little?

its more like removed it, and created something entirely different. were talking about changing the basic fundamentals of how a weapon funtions, how abilities are used, and how the story flows.

removed, destroyed, illogical, unlorical,,,,,those would be a better choice of words. atleast to me.

So you think that the addition of heat sinks changed the entire lore on which ME1 was founded?

Or going from ICD to GCD?  This ruins the lore of the game?  Give me a break.  Look at the advances in cellphones over the past 5 years.  Why couldn't similiarly drastic changes occur regarding weapon systems in a fictional sci fi universe.

Another point on "lore":  You guys got your feathers ruffled cause of heat sinks and Tali's LM.  It doesn't bother you that every alien race speaks English, including the immortal machines from dark space?

People wave that away under acceptable breaks from reality, but only extend that argument to things that they see fit. I think heat sinks are acceptible as Bioware had a legitimate reason to want them, but 'acceptable breaks from reality' doesn't go that far apparently.

Modifié par Candidate 88766, 07 juillet 2011 - 07:44 .

[the_one_54321]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...
All they did was give target selection an analog shooter-like interface.

They gave you a square peg and a round hole. Then they gave you a round peg. So it's round.
Stats=square peg
Analog reticule based aiming=round hole
Point-and-shoot=round peg
Round=shooter

[Sylvius the Mad]

Candidate 88766 wrote...

I thought having guns with unlimted ammo that didn't generate heat in ME1 were less consistent with the lore than heat sinks were. Also, which is more fun: holding the trigger until everything in front of you is dead, or actually having to take care where you shot in case you ran out of ammo? At least the last one added a vague element of tactics to it other than holding the trigger until nothing is left in front of you.

Since both ME and ME2 allow the player to aim while paused, that supposed "care" you take while aiming is entirely optional.

All the heat sinks did was force me to use less-preferred weapons.  In ME I basically never used anything that wasn't a sniper rifle, because I like sniper rifles (if someone would make a shooter like the original Delta Force again, I'd probably play it), but in ME2 I was constantly having to pull out other weapons because I'd run out of heat sinks.

[Candidate 88766]

the_one_54321 wrote...

Sylvius the Mad wrote...
All they did was give target selection an analog shooter-like interface.

They gave you a square peg and a round hole. Then they gave you a round peg. So it's round.
Stats=square peg
Analog reticule based aiming=round hole
Point-and-shoot=round peg
Round=shooter

A surprisingly good analogy.

[Sylvius the Mad]

the_one_54321 wrote...

Sylvius the Mad wrote...
All they did was give target selection an analog shooter-like interface.

They gave you a square peg and a round hole. Then they gave you a round peg. So it's round.
Stats=square peg
Analog reticule based aiming=round hole

But you're wrong.  It wasn't aiming.  It was just target selection.

ME had RPG combat.  ME2 is the weird broken hybrid.

[the_one_54321]

Then replace the word aiming with the words target selection in that.