Ce sujet est fermé
Sylvius the Mad wrote...
The problem is that that's the wrong way to design a game.slimgrin wrote...
I just think its silly to overanalyze when gameplay changes came first and lore came afterward in ME2.
The lore should come first. Everything else should be subservient to the lore.
A more appropriate response to a universe built on "lolmagic effect powered by phlebotium" with psychic powers and "omnimagic gel" is to accept that it is not striving to be hard science fiction, but its striving to be a space fantasy opera ala Star Wars. Science fiction writers' forte, in general, has never been actual scientific accuracy. Getting offended when they get something wrong is an exercise futility, writers aren't actual scientists, they don't actually do science, they don't actually have a thorough understanding of the body of knowledge produced by scientists.Straw that broke the camel's back, man. So-to-speak, anyway.
Is this the definition of RPG/roleplaying "debate" again? Well, I see your point, but I specifically asked to see if you had a logical argument that didn't involve what boils down to preference and a subjective rigid definition.That's why it's silly to talk about including RPG elements in a game. Either a game allows roleplaying or it doesn't. it's a binary state.
AlanC9 wrote...
What happens if the lore produces bad gameplay?
Modifié par Il Divo, 08 juillet 2011 - 09:43 .
Modifié par AlanC9, 08 juillet 2011 - 09:41 .
AlanC9 wrote...
Preemptively write lore that will make good gameplay? Sure, if you can.
Yes.Lumikki wrote...
Some opinion starts to be here really silly.
You can't roleplay in Mass Effect, because lore isn't consistency enough.
Termal clips can't exist because air cap between termal clip and something in weapon.
Are you people serious?
Some things can be preempted, based on previous experience. It's not a matter of fixing problems before they're found. It's a matter of identifying potential problem areas before they are able to be a problem because you know what you want it to look like when it's finished.AlanC9 wrote...
Preemptively write lore that will make good gameplay? Sure, if you can.
Like that Dilbert gag: we'll fix the problems before we find them.
They are making a bloody video game, not an engineering project. Everything they do is a potential problem area, largely because making games is a nebulous art where problems are largely identified by playtesting, not theoretical mind exercises. And, really, what shooter design experience did Bioware have before ME?Some things can be preempted, based on previous experience. It's not a
matter of fixing problems before they're found. It's a matter of
identifying potential problem areas before they are able to be a problem
because you know what you want it to look like when it's finished.
Modifié par konfeta, 08 juillet 2011 - 09:55 .
konfeta wrote...
A more appropriate response to a universe built on "lolmagic effect powered by phlebotium" with psychic powers and "omnimagic gel" is to accept that it is not striving to be hard science fiction, but its striving to be a space fantasy opera ala Star Wars. Science fiction writers' forte, in general, has never been actual scientific accuracy. Getting offended when they get something wrong is an exercise futility, writers aren't actual scientists, they don't actually do science, they don't actually have a thorough understanding of the body of knowledge produced by scientists.Straw that broke the camel's back, man. So-to-speak, anyway.
By assaulting any single violation of current scientific understanding in a work of fiction you invariably open yourself up to the question - Why aren't as so offended against every other violation? Are they somehow less stupid? What is the basis for the threshold of your patience with scientific inaccuracy? Why do you care? The writers certainty don't - to them it's magic built on broad strokes of speculation. They can try to make it seem consistent, but they never will be able to make it anywhere near fully consistent - for every concept they can reconcile with modern physics, they will miserably fail to reconcile a number of concepts in physics, chemistry, psychology, sociology, mathematics, economy, biology, etc. The more knowledgeable you become, the more readily it becomes apparent.
You cannot expect writers to meet some random above average knowledgeable person's standard for accuracy. The only thing you can do is not worry about it in the first place and enjoy the game. If such errors noticeably lower your enjoyment of the game, well, you should reevaluate why are you emotionally investing yourself in the fantasies of laymen authors. Ideally you convince yourself to not be bothered by it. If it doesn't work out, you should stop paying attention to fiction of any sort in general. These sorts of errors/handwaves exist everywhere in it. No way around it.Is this the definition of RPG/roleplaying "debate" again? Well, I see your point, but I specifically asked to see if you had a logical argument that didn't involve what boils down to preference and a subjective rigid definition.That's why it's silly to talk about including RPG elements in a game. Either a game allows roleplaying or it doesn't. it's a binary state.
Though, in your defense, I should have inferred that when you said "game" you meant "RPG game." Wouldn't have bothered asking if I have done so.
the_one_54321 wrote...
Some things can be preempted, based on previous experience. It's not a matter of fixing problems before they're found. It's a matter of identifying potential problem areas before they are able to be a problem because you know what you want it to look like when it's finished.
Wow, that was a really expertly executed passive-aggressive insult there. I'm almost too impressed to be irritated by it. Almost.EternalPink wrote...
I would suggest the main reason for finding one issue and throwing a tantrum over it while letting all the others go is a lack of a broad scientific foundation coupled with a lack of imagination, so when there one particular area that they do know about is infringed they go mental.
However, once you've established the rules of existence in a world, it's very hard to change those rules without pissing off a hell of a lot of players.
konfeta wrote...
Careful. "Hell of a lot of players" is very debatable. I suspect that the number of people who got offended at ME2 lore changes is a very, very extreme minority. No hard proof, but the number of people I've met among those who play video games who get "pissed off" at retcons can be is remarkably small.
This is purely conjecture vs conjecture, but I'd feel safe in saying a lot of people were upset by the changes, both mechanical and lore based. But it's also a lot of contradicting view points. They made ME2 a better shooter which conversely made it a worse RPG and at the same time they tried to change the rules of their world and so there was a lot of room for people to be upset at things. But I still think it was a fun game either way, just that I think they could have done much better.konfeta wrote...
Careful. "Hell of a lot of players" is very debatable. I suspect that the number of people who got offended at ME2 lore changes is a very, very extreme minority. No hard proof, but the number of people I've met among those who play video games who get "pissed off" at retcons can be is remarkably small.However, once you've established the rules of existence in a world, it's very hard to change those rules without pissing off a hell of a lot of players.
the_one_54321 wrote...
Wow, that was a really expertly executed passive-aggressive insult there. I'm almost too impressed to be irritated by it. Almost.EternalPink wrote...
I would suggest the main reason for finding one issue and throwing a tantrum over it while letting all the others go is a lack of a broad scientific foundation coupled with a lack of imagination, so when there one particular area that they do know about is infringed they go mental.
the_one_54321 wrote...
Yes.Lumikki wrote...
Some opinion starts to be here really silly.
You can't roleplay in Mass Effect, because lore isn't consistency enough.
Termal clips can't exist because air cap between termal clip and something in weapon.
Are you people serious?Some things can be preempted, based on previous experience. It's not a matter of fixing problems before they're found. It's a matter of identifying potential problem areas before they are able to be a problem because you know what you want it to look like when it's finished.AlanC9 wrote...
Preemptively write lore that will make good gameplay? Sure, if you can.
Like that Dilbert gag: we'll fix the problems before we find them.
Actually, I've griped about a whole laundry list of things that don't make sense in ME. Just look up to the list presented by In Exile.EternalPink wrote...
Sorry mate but if the cap fits, and while you have demonstrated this remarkably well in this thread sadly i'm not basing it just off you its my experience of gaming, on the plus side atleast you didn't start trying to state the third law of thermodynamics (not actually relevant but its usually the one that pops up on the net the most)the_one_54321 wrote...
Wow, that was a really expertly executed passive-aggressive insult there. I'm almost too impressed to be irritated by it. Almost.EternalPink wrote...
I would suggest the main reason for finding one issue and throwing a tantrum over it while letting all the others go is a lack of a broad scientific foundation coupled with a lack of imagination, so when there one particular area that they do know about is infringed they go mental.
sbvera13 wrote...
I liked the heat method better. Dunno why they thought it was an improvement, or that people were confused by it (an argument I've sometimes heard. Dunno if it was BW's reason). Even Halo used an overheat system, you'd think people would be fine with it.
the_one_54321 wrote...
This is purely conjecture vs conjecture, but I'd feel safe in saying a lot of people were upset by the changes, both mechanical and lore based. But it's also a lot of contradicting view points. They made ME2 a better shooter which conversely made it a worse RPG and at the same time they tried to change the rules of their world and so there was a lot of room for people to be upset at things. But I still think it was a fun game either way, just that I think they could have done much better.konfeta wrote...
Careful. "Hell of a lot of players" is very debatable. I suspect that the number of people who got offended at ME2 lore changes is a very, very extreme minority. No hard proof, but the number of people I've met among those who play video games who get "pissed off" at retcons can be is remarkably small.However, once you've established the rules of existence in a world, it's very hard to change those rules without pissing off a hell of a lot of players.
Il Divo wrote...
It also had an ammo system.
Modifié par Someone With Mass, 08 juillet 2011 - 10:17 .
I deserved one. He was making his own "nebulous numbers" argument!While I agree regarding ammo powers, it's always good to be careful with arguments from experience, which are statistically insignificant.
. But I must hush before I suffer the wrath of Silvius the Mad.
sbvera13 wrote...
I liked the heat method better. Dunno why they thought it was an improvement, or that people were confused by it (an argument I've sometimes heard. Dunno if it was BW's reason). Even Halo used an overheat system, you'd think people would be fine with it.
Retour en haut