333 réponses à ce sujet

[Tommy6860]

Bcuz wrote...

Tommy6860 wrote...

How did ME2 have better RP than ME?

Well I'm glad you asked.

Now i'm not speaking of "RPG elements" here, I firmly believe that a good ROLE PLAYING game can be made without inventory, having to learn how to use your weapons even though your military training should have come with that etc.

I'm speaking in terms of PLAYING the ROLE of your charicter, in this case Commander Shepard.

While ME1 had more to do, the biotic terrorists, choosing to let the council live or die etc. and I openly admit ME1's high points were quite good, ME2 was simply better overall. In ME2, you never had pointless dialouge wheel where ALL THREE OPTIONS made Shepard say the exact same thing. Not even dialouge wheels where two choices resulted in the same soundfile being played. Renegade/Paragon interupts. Tell me it wasn't more streamlined to punch Al-Jilani in the middle of her speach. Renegade/Paragon choices that could actually make you think if you aren't just systematicly hit the Paragon or Renegade Options; To brainwash the geth, or to destroy them? That was actually a hard hitting choice of MORALS, as well as being able to decide how you felt about the genophage, and of course the war or no war with the geth.

This of course is all opinion and you are entitled to yours.

Firstly, I really dislike the Bioware buggy network, where it deletes my text and I have to start over, anyway:

RP isn't just about inventory.

What is exactly different between playing the role and role playing, I don't know what that means to you, but I see them as the same thing. I can do more with my ME Shep than I can with my ME2 Shep. Also, the dialogue choices in ME do not result in the exact same answer every time, I really don't know how you are getting that experience.

Interrupts really don't add anything other than that you couldn't add your own emotion to what you already could in ME, it is a mechanical function, not one out of consideration of the dialogue I would choose. That isn't role playing. The text I read, where I would decide the appropriate answer is the choice I would want, not some predetermined interrupt created by another that emoted for me. Punching Al-Jilani because of a mechanical function doesn't seem like I am wanting to do that, only that the game offers that opportunity. When I did that in ME, it was because I became annoyed at her questions and then could make a choice. I could also go along father with her and still get nasty. Streamlining isn't always good.

Yes, choosing a path for the geth, etc is role playing, I like that alot, but there were far more opportunities in ME to make those kinds of choices than there were in ME2. I want those back and more in ME3. Also, ME2 forces the PC down the main quest missions not of their choice. The only real ones they had a choice in, were the LMs. In ME, I could choose any of the main quest I wanted, excpet for Ilos, but that was part of the story, not simply that the dev made me go do the other parts first.

[lazuli]

Guldhun2 wrote...

At what point while playing ME1 and ME2 did you think "gee, a hologram blade would be nice to have"? Even though you could already melee.

I'll answer that for you. Never.

True.  I never had that exact thought.  But I found myself wishing we had a better melee system in the Mass Effect series repeatedly, especially after playing Resident Evil 5.

[Ghar Thurion]

If people feel the need to compare games, thats fine with me. If i don't like it, i just ignore it, and it works perfectly for me. Perhaps people should ignore when they don't like what people say or write. Instead of attempting to control what others say and write.

[Bcuz]

Tommy6860 wrote...

Bcuz wrote...

Tommy6860 wrote...

How did ME2 have better RP than ME?

Well I'm glad you asked.

Now i'm not speaking of "RPG elements" here, I firmly believe that a good ROLE PLAYING game can be made without inventory, having to learn how to use your weapons even though your military training should have come with that etc.

I'm speaking in terms of PLAYING the ROLE of your charicter, in this case Commander Shepard.

While ME1 had more to do, the biotic terrorists, choosing to let the council live or die etc. and I openly admit ME1's high points were quite good, ME2 was simply better overall. In ME2, you never had pointless dialouge wheel where ALL THREE OPTIONS made Shepard say the exact same thing. Not even dialouge wheels where two choices resulted in the same soundfile being played. Renegade/Paragon interupts. Tell me it wasn't more streamlined to punch Al-Jilani in the middle of her speach. Renegade/Paragon choices that could actually make you think if you aren't just systematicly hit the Paragon or Renegade Options; To brainwash the geth, or to destroy them? That was actually a hard hitting choice of MORALS, as well as being able to decide how you felt about the genophage, and of course the war or no war with the geth.

This of course is all opinion and you are entitled to yours.

Firstly, I really dislike the Bioware buggy network, where it deletes my text and I have to start over, anyway:

1 RP isn't just about inventory.

What is exactly different between playing the role and role playing, I don't know what that means to you, but I see them as the same thing. I can do more with my ME Shep than I can with my ME2 Shep. 2 Also, the dialogue choices in ME do not result in the exact same answer every time, I really don't know how you are getting that experience.

Interrupts really don't add anything other than that you couldn't add your own emotion to what you already could in ME, it is a mechanical function, not one out of consideration of the dialogue I would choose. That isn't role playing. The text I read, where I would decide the appropriate answer is the choice I would want, not some predetermined interrupt created by another that emoted for me. 3 Punching Al-Jilani because of a mechanical function doesn't seem like I am wanting to do that, only that the game offers that opportunity. When I did that in ME, it was because I became annoyed at her questions and then could make a choice. I could also go along father with her and still get nasty. 4 Streamlining isn't always good.

Yes, choosing a path for the geth, etc is role playing, I like that alot, but there were far more opportunities in 5 ME to make those kinds of choices than there were in ME2. I want those back and more in ME3. Also, 6 ME2 forces the PC down the main quest missions not of their choice. The only real ones they had a choice in, were the LMs. In ME, I could choose any of the main quest I wanted, excpet for Ilos, but that was part of the story, not simply that the dev made me go do the other parts first.

1 Which was what I was saying just in case you were one of those people who think that is what an RPG is who I keep running into for some reason...
2 It doesn't happen every time, however it happens enough in the game to warrent a facepalm.
3. The fact that it offers that option is far better than *listen to entire speach, use STFU after they have finished* it is assumed here that you have played ME1 and know of Al-Jilani and her antics for this interupt in question.
4. I don't see how it was bad in this case, and this was only one example.
5. Yes but many of them just weren't as compeling, at least in my mind.
6. Not sure if serious. You could do legion before Tali or Thane before Samara, the only reason you couldn't do Legion before Garrus was for the purpose of story.

Modifié par Bcuz, 05 septembre 2011 - 09:07 .

[Tommy6860]

Bcuz wrote...

Tommy6860 wrote...

Bcuz wrote...

Tommy6860 wrote...

How did ME2 have better RP than ME?

Well I'm glad you asked.

Now i'm not speaking of "RPG elements" here, I firmly believe that a good ROLE PLAYING game can be made without inventory, having to learn how to use your weapons even though your military training should have come with that etc.

I'm speaking in terms of PLAYING the ROLE of your charicter, in this case Commander Shepard.

While ME1 had more to do, the biotic terrorists, choosing to let the council live or die etc. and I openly admit ME1's high points were quite good, ME2 was simply better overall. In ME2, you never had pointless dialouge wheel where ALL THREE OPTIONS made Shepard say the exact same thing. Not even dialouge wheels where two choices resulted in the same soundfile being played. Renegade/Paragon interupts. Tell me it wasn't more streamlined to punch Al-Jilani in the middle of her speach. Renegade/Paragon choices that could actually make you think if you aren't just systematicly hit the Paragon or Renegade Options; To brainwash the geth, or to destroy them? That was actually a hard hitting choice of MORALS, as well as being able to decide how you felt about the genophage, and of course the war or no war with the geth.

This of course is all opinion and you are entitled to yours.

Firstly, I really dislike the Bioware buggy network, where it deletes my text and I have to start over, anyway:

1 RP isn't just about inventory.

What is exactly different between playing the role and role playing, I don't know what that means to you, but I see them as the same thing. I can do more with my ME Shep than I can with my ME2 Shep. 2 Also, the dialogue choices in ME do not result in the exact same answer every time, I really don't know how you are getting that experience.

Interrupts really don't add anything other than that you couldn't add your own emotion to what you already could in ME, it is a mechanical function, not one out of consideration of the dialogue I would choose. That isn't role playing. The text I read, where I would decide the appropriate answer is the choice I would want, not some predetermined interrupt created by another that emoted for me. 3 Punching Al-Jilani because of a mechanical function doesn't seem like I am wanting to do that, only that the game offers that opportunity. When I did that in ME, it was because I became annoyed at her questions and then could make a choice. I could also go along father with her and still get nasty. 4 Streamlining isn't always good.

Yes, choosing a path for the geth, etc is role playing, I like that alot, but there were far more opportunities in 5 ME to make those kinds of choices than there were in ME2. I want those back and more in ME3. Also, 6 ME2 forces the PC down the main quest missions not of their choice. The only real ones they had a choice in, were the LMs. In ME, I could choose any of the main quest I wanted, excpet for Ilos, but that was part of the story, not simply that the dev made me go do the other parts first.

1 Which was what I was saying just in case you were one of those people who think that is what an RPG is who I keep running into for some reason...

So, learning how to oeprate weapons is RPing? I guess learning the weapon variants in COD is RPing as well

2 It doesn't happen every time, however it happens enough in the game to warrent a facepalm.

You certainly generalized it like that, and even then it wasn't as you still allude to it being. Facepalm experiences are subjective. For me, I found far more in ME2

3. The fact that it offers that option is far better than *listen to entire speach, use STFU after they have finished* it is assumed here that you have played ME1 and know of Al-Jilani and her antics for this interupt in question.

But, it is still a mechanical function, you either use it to hit her and get some rise out of it. Or, you make a concerted choice to hit her because her dialogue annoyed you, and then that is an option you have, out of other dialogue option you can still choose. In the ME system, I still have a choice based on the dialogue..

5. Yes but many of them just weren't as compeling, at least in my mind.

That's totally subjective on your part. But what is compelling to you or me isn't what covers #5 from the context of what I initially stated. I cannot tell someone what is compelling or not. I was only pointing out that the choices in ME are more abundant and took different paths in ME than they did in ME2. You saying it was more compelling doesn't mean it was better role playing fore everyone else, only that it was more compelling for you.

6. Not sure if serious. You could do legion before Tali or Thane before Samara, the only reason you couldn't do Legion before Garrus was for the purpose of story.

I am serious, you could not do ALL missions as you wanted to.  Did I not exclude the LMs in my previous post and stated the main quests were at issue? Read (again) what I said in #6 and also what I added considering the LM missions. The main story essentially is played out as the game wants it played, not by your choice of main missions.

Modifié par Tommy6860, 05 septembre 2011 - 09:26 .

[Icinix]

OP is right.

Women in GOW wear armour. Difference right there.

Well...kind of armour.

[Moonshadow_Dark]

Luc0s wrote...

Colintastic wrote...

ME3's plot is to prevent your species from effectively being used as semen to grow the population of a race of sentient machines who treat the galaxy as a sperm bank. To do this, one must settle a handful of complex galactic political issues in order to acquire an army/fleet, then discover the a viable means to use that army/fleet to achieve survival for the galaxy and mke sure some machines don't turn you into sperm. During this adventure you have a plethora of different cultures to explore and can create and build upon relationships with those around you.

You make ME3's plot sound better than it really is. The galactic political issues in ME are far from complex and I doubt the solution to the reapers will be anything intelligent. Also, I doubt we'll have much time to explore cultures in ME3. We're probably too busy with kicking reaper ass.

Gears of War also has political issues (Pendulum Wars and the controversy about emulsion).

Gears of War also shows us a bit of the history of the locust. The locust really have character in some way. The locust are enemies we can relate to. They seem to be much more than just killing-machines. They have morals and goals. They don't just fight to kill humanity. They fight for complex goals that we partly understand but there is still a lot to learn about the locust's motivations.

The locust are far more interesting than the reapers will ever be.

Borrowing your post because I'm too lazy to look for it myself.

The underlined, bolded and italizied bit?

Yeah, that's just gross.

[AmstradHero]

Luc0s wrote...

Colintastic wrote...

ME3's plot is to prevent your species from effectively being used as semen to grow the population of a race of sentient machines who treat the galaxy as a sperm bank. To do this, one must settle a handful of complex galactic political issues in order to acquire an army/fleet, then discover the a viable means to use that army/fleet to achieve survival for the galaxy and mke sure some machines don't turn you into sperm. During this adventure you have a plethora of different cultures to explore and can create and build upon relationships with those around you.

You make ME3's plot sound better than it really is. The galactic political issues in ME are far from complex and I doubt the solution to the reapers will be anything intelligent. Also, I doubt we'll have much time to explore cultures in ME3. We're probably too busy with kicking reaper ass.

Gears of War also has political issues (Pendulum Wars and the controversy about emulsion).

Gears of War also shows us a bit of the history of the locust. The locust really have character in some way. The locust are enemies we can relate to. They seem to be much more than just killing-machines. They have morals and goals. They don't just fight to kill humanity. They fight for complex goals that we partly understand but there is still a lot to learn about the locust's motivations.

The locust are far more interesting than the reapers will ever be.

Seriously? You're seriously arguing that Gears of War has better writing than Mass Effect? Are you sure we're talking about the same games here? Gears of War has nowhere near the depth of Mass Effect, and any argument to the contrary demonstrates a gross lack of knowledge of story concepts and the craft of writing.

As I've stated previously, look at the characterisation.  Characters from Gears of War are stereotypes - effectively cardboard cutouts rather than people with complex personalities.  They're manly manly men being manly and killing locust.  99% of the conflict in the game is external - enemies trying to kill them.

Characters from Mass Effect go through internal, interpersonal and external conflict.  They struggle with their own conflicting emotions and morals, they have arguments with others (including the player) about issues that matter to them, and they shoot the bad guys.  They undergo change and experience character growth as a result of their actions and the player's.

Add to this the complexities and moral choices that the player has to make as a result of may of the quests within the two games, and any argument suggesting Gears of War has better writing is shown for the ludicruous comment that it is. Do you save a species that threatened all life, or do you spare it under the belief that they were indoctrinated by the reapers?  Do you doom a warring species to extinction at their own hands, or do you give them the means to survive and potentially threaten the galaxy? Do you brainwash a population into be potentially peaceful, or do you you exterminate them entirely? Will you resort to potentially dangerous and morally repugnant measures in order to serve the "greater good" of saving the galaxy? There are numerous other situations that pose choices that force a player to analyse their actions.

Those choices don't exist in Gears of War, and as such the associated charactersation, story-telling and the ability to provide the player with insight into their own personal beliefs are simply not present. This isn't to say the writing is "bad", but it lacks depth.  Sure, if you're focussing entirely on "shoot to kill, shoot to kill", then you're going to analyse the writing of both games at a superficial level and potentially believe they have similar depth. But that's not a failing of the writing, that's a failure of the player to pay attention to the writing. It's like fast-forwarding through a movie and going "the action was good, but the dialogue and plot were poor".

Gears of War has many things going for it, and I've found the series quite enjoyable. But any suggestion that its writing is superior to Mass Effect is utterly laughable.

Modifié par AmstradHero, 05 septembre 2011 - 11:53 .

[Balek-Vriege]

Luc0s wrote...

Colintastic wrote...

Also makes more sense. the big twist in GoW2 is that you actually want to carry out the diabolical plan your enemy has plotted... which is downright silly. How diabolical was it in the first place was it then?

Clearly you didn't understand anything about GoW2's plot.

Humanity was clearly lost and the would lose the war against the locust if not for some sort of deus ex machina. Jacinto turned out to be that deus ex machina.

When Marcus Fenix found out the secret plans of the locust to sink Jacinto, the capital city of humanity, into a big underground pool, he believed they needed to stop the locust plans at all cost. The plottwist was when Marcus Fenix realized that the sinking of Jacinto was inevitable, but that it could turn into a positive thing if they managed to let Jacinto sink before the locust did. By doing that, the locust wouldn't have evacuated their underground city, which lies underground near Jacinto. The locust city and all their tunnels will be flooded as soon as Jacinto sinks underground.

So, Marcus Fenix informed Jacinto to evacuate everyone ASAP and prepare a bomb that is big enough to sink Jacinto before the locust managed to escape from their city and their tunnels. Marcus' plan succeeds and lots of locust get drowned as soon as Jacinto sinks in the ground. In the end, the sinking of Jacinto turned out to be a victory for humanity, not a victory for the locust and all because of Marcus' plan to sink Jacinto earlier.


Meanwhile, Marcus finds out his long lost father is still alive and possibly working for the locust. His father might have found the truth about these aliens called locust, where they come from. We already know that locust reproduce by turning humans into locust (kinda like the reapers from Mass Effect), but we don't know what the locust want and if there possibly is a peaceful solution to the war against the locust.

It seems that Marcus will continue his search for his father in Gears of War 3 and see if there is perhaps a peaceful solution to the war.

Although your use of Deus Ex Machina is wrong in this regard (the flooding isn't some divine force from up above stopping the Locust out of nowhere), your point is correct in my opinion.  From what I read of the story Jacinto was a lost cause anyway in GoW2.  The original plan by the Locust had more to do with killing the Locust's main enemy/problem, the mutant locust guys who have been wiping them out.  It was only a matter of time until the City was destroyed by sinking it or by pure force.  Better to sink the City when its evacuated and the Locusts and the mysterious other guys are still underground.


I think the survivors live on Supercarriers in GoW3.  Why didn't anyone think of floating on water before?  The plateau idea didn't work out so well...


A good survival at any cost plot anyways.  I'm hoping ME3 will have moments or even decisions like this.  Especially since ME3 will be the final installment and we can actually make a decision on hot button issues like blowing up a solar system.  Arrival was close.

AmstradHero wrote...

/snip

Gears of War has many things going for it, and I've found the series quite enjoyable. But any suggestion that its writing is superior to Mass Effect is utterly laughable.

Also true.  From an out of game, storyline for storyline perpective not taking into account writing etc., I think it can be arguably said that GoW may have a better storyline/plot.  When you take into account that ME is an RPG with a lot more writing and roleplay immersiveness, ME series main plot wins out in my opinion.

Modifié par Balek-Vriege, 05 septembre 2011 - 03:32 .

[Tommy6860]

Balek-Vriege wrote...

Also true.  From an out of game, storyline for storyline perpective not taking into account writing etc., I think it can be arguably said that GoW may have a better storyline/plot.  When you take into account that ME is an RPG with a lot more writing and roleplay immersiveness, ME series main plot wins out in my opinion.

That hurt my brain trying to decypher what this means. In any case, GoW has so little depth to its storyline that one could understand what is going in 15 minutes by reading the wiki on it. Thre first game had no story and there was nothing revealing about why the war started in the first place. It was one of the biggest complaints from fans regarding the game.  I wouldn't hold the Gears story in the same breath as the ME story, there's no comparison for depth and lore.

[111987]

Tommy6860 wrote...

Balek-Vriege wrote...

Also true.  From an out of game, storyline for storyline perpective not taking into account writing etc., I think it can be arguably said that GoW may have a better storyline/plot.  When you take into account that ME is an RPG with a lot more writing and roleplay immersiveness, ME series main plot wins out in my opinion.

That hurt my brain trying to decypher what this means. In any case, GoW has so little depth to its storyline that one could understand what is going in 15 minutes by reading the wiki on it. Thre first game had no story and there was nothing revealing about why the war started in the first place. It was one of the biggest complaints from fans regarding the game.  I wouldn't hold the Gears story in the same breath as the ME story, there's no comparison for depth and lore.

Is a story that is easily understood worse than a long, convuluted one?

And no, you couldn't possibly understand the entire plot of the series in 15 minutes, beyond the bare bones of the story. That's ridiculous. You could say the same thing about Mass Effect.

I'm not saying Gears has better writing; the writing for the characters in Mass Effect are in my opinion far superior to the writing for the characters in Gears. But the main plot? I dunno...

[TuringPoint]

Luc0s wrote...


Yes, Mass Effect's plot is more fleshed-out and it has way more depth, but in the end the core plot of Mass Effect is just plain f*cking boring. The core plot of Gears of War is much more interesting.

Thanks for clarifying.  (not sarcasm)  This statement makes more sense than.. so many other things that have been said here.  I respect that, even if it's not an opinion I share precisely.

Modifié par Alocormin, 05 septembre 2011 - 10:33 .

[azerSheppard]

simfamSP wrote...

PrinceLionheart wrote...

A Gears of War/Mass Effect comparison is relevant since, you know, the Bioware devs admitted to using Gears' gameplay as a base for their own.

And? Does Gears of War let you choose between two companions you've come to love through out the game? Does Gears of War let you choose between genocide or the salvation of a spieces? Does Gears of War have a Commander John Shepard as your main protagonist (okay maybe... it's a pretty generic name.) Does gears of War take place in Council space...

Do you know how shallow that is? I remember my friend comparing The Elder Scrolls III Morrowind, one of the greatest RPGs to have been ever made. To World of Warcraft, because... because... or the BREATH METER when going underwater. I was so pissed of I kicked him out of my house.

First of all it says that the Devs admitted this themselves, are you "dismissing" their claims? Where you the creative drive behind the gameplay of the series? No? I don't think so either.

Second of all, GAMEPLAY, do you understand what this word means? Because all you mention is plot. 

Modifié par azerSheppard, 05 septembre 2011 - 11:56 .

[Someone With Mass]

Here's one thing Gears of War is doing infinitely better than Mass Effect:

The squadmates can revive you.

[JHCRANE14]

Il Divo wrote...

Well, I know they both rely on the same engine system, which is definitely part of it. But that's really it. Taking into account all the things you listed, I don't think it's easy to make the claim that Mass Effect is GoW. The full "Mass Effect experience" is very different from the full "GoW experience".

I  agree with this completly.  I love both of the series ME and GOW.  There both different but both are great. (In my opinion.)

[ashwind]

Someone With Mass wrote...

Here's one thing Gears of War is doing infinitely better than Mass Effect:

The squadmates can revive you.

No. If I (Shepard) die, the universe goes down with me.  That just makes me feel superior.

Modifié par ashwind, 08 septembre 2011 - 04:16 .

[ashwind]

Luc0s wrote...

Also, The Locust Queen has MUCH BETTER speeches than Harbiger will ever have.

Locust Queen > Harbirger

"We could have cooperated with the groundwalkers for our mutual salvation, but they are humans and they only understand dominance and ownership. All that we have left is a war to the death. For all their so-called intelligence, humans are blind to the threat right before their eyes. We never stood a chance of enlisting their aid, so now we fight alone. And we will stand on their corpses to do so." - Locust Queen


Tell me, isn't her short speech much more awesome than any dull speech Harbinger ever gave?

I actually like the short speeches, short and powerful. They are Reapers afterall.

Well... the Reapers consider themselves to be infinitely greater "You have attracted the attention of those infinitely greater than you." So, Harbinger wont give a speech... he really has nothing to say to the insignificant.

And there is Soverign "You exists because we allow it, and you will end because we demand it." - After hearing that when I 1st played Mass Effect 1, I have been looking foward to kick seafood bottom. <_<

[sp0ck 06]

Bros..i like Gears a lot, one of my favorite shooters, and the campaigns are certainly fun and exciting...but are you SERIOUSLY claiming the plot of Gears is "better" than Mass Effect?

Gears plot: On a planet where humans live that isn't Earth and doesn't seem to have much history (have the humans always been there) some monsters one day tunnel out of the ground and attack humanity. Convientently, the monsters have somehow developed equivalent military technology, and means of mass production. The monsters start winning the war, although it never made sense to me since the humans should have overwhelming air support. An ex con and three badasses win a major victory using a sort of WMD. But apparently that didn't do much, and the humans are pushed back to one last city, which the monsters can't get to. The same ex con and his four pals single handedly invade the monster city and kill their super weapon, a giant worm that eats rock. Then they sink their last city anyway in the worst boss battle of all time.

It is not that great of a plot. Its serviceable for shooter fare, but essentially the plot is an excuse for badass combat and giant monster battles.

Mass Effect presents a very well thought out vision of the future, a myraid of compelling races and political undertones, a ton of history which directly relates to the game, and a terrifying enemy who's threat is justified within the game universe. It has great writing, characters, plot twists, reveals, and drama. Gears does not have any of these things. It has great action. Thats it.

[Humanoid_Typhoon]

The Big Bad Wolf wrote...

I was going to make a thread comparing things in Mass Effect and Gears of War, and how Mass Effect can learn from Gears.

Until I saw this complaint thread.

I still want to see what you have to say...


There is a few things I didn't like about GoW2, namely I had no idea how to do anything after 2 weeks of playing it.

Modifié par Humanoid_Typhoon, 08 septembre 2011 - 05:08 .