1127 réponses à ce sujet

[Lotion Soronarr]

Killjoy Cutter wrote...
Irony, thy name is internet. 

Actually I think it's name is Killjoy

.

I've posted until my fingers are numb as to what makes TIM anything but a hero, and what makes Cerberus anything but trustworthy, and (unsurprisingly) you show up and post some variation on the same tired old Cerbo-militant line about anyone daring to criticize Cerberus being "an illogical, ignorant, naive, idealistic idiot with no argument". 

Too bad your arguments are all as solid as wet paper..

[Lotion Soronarr]

Killjoy Cutter wrote...

The only problem here is that you think he's harmless and funny, and like to join in.

Making jokes IS harmless.
You don't have to laugh or find them funny. Jokes are hit-or-miss things a lot of the time anyway.

But seriously - if you cannot even lighten up when a person takes a stab at himself, then what are you doing on the internets?

Troll.

Calling everoyone names and spammig "troll" posts (IIRC, you got 3 of them on this page alone) doesn't exactly show you off in your best light.

[AlexXIV]

Ah well on the good side, this thread has dropped so low in quality that it can't go lower. Or can it?

[AlexXIV]

Luc0s wrote...

AlexXIV wrote...

Ah well on the good side, this thread has dropped so low in quality that it can't go lower. Or can it?

Yes, the quality of this thread really went down-hill from the moment you started posting here.


But seriously, shut up. I was actually trying to get back on topic with my previous comment (the long one above yours).

If you look at the post times I was posting same time as you. Other then that telling people to shut up doesn't help the quality of this thread. Also let me say that repeating the same thing again and again is not progress. Also when you entered the thread you noticed you came late to the party which didn't keep you picking on corpses like a vulture. Also, Witcher2 was the worst RPG of the year but I can see in your signature why you'd still like it. People like you make me throw up.

Haha, edited your post now? Still got ya.

Modifié par AlexXIV, 22 décembre 2011 - 07:53 .

[AlexXIV]

Luc0s wrote...

AlexXIV wrote...

Luc0s wrote...

AlexXIV wrote...

Ah well on the good side, this thread has dropped so low in quality that it can't go lower. Or can it?

Yes, the quality of this thread really went down-hill from the moment you started posting here.


But seriously, shut up. I was actually trying to get back on topic with my previous comment (the long one above yours).

If you look at the post times I was posting same time as you. Other then that telling people to shut up doesn't help the quality of this thread. Also let me say that repeating the same thing again and again is not progress. Also when you entered the thread you noticed you came late to the party which didn't keep you picking on corpses like a vulture. Also, Witcher2 was the worst RPG of the year but I can see in your signature why you'd still like it. People like you make me throw up.

Haha, edited your post now? Still got ya.

Ow please, grow up. ;

Yes I edited my post because I thought you were Killjoy, since you and Killjoy have the same avatar. Didn't realize it was you Alex. I had no quarrel with you, Alex. Well, not until your last post that is. You probably understand I'll have to make your life a living hell now, since you insulted the holy Witcher 2. 

Insult is the least I can do to Witcher2. I bought it at full price and only played once because it is so crappy.

Also I can't grow up anymore, we all will have to deal with it.

[Lotion Soronarr]

Luc0s wrote...

Mass Effect is a video-game and in video-games I want to be rewarded, regardless of what path I choose (be it Paragon, Renegade or mixed). Most video-games with a morality mechanic (good v.s evil, paragon v.s renegade, etc.) reward their players in a different way depending on their path.

You know, there was a time where games didn't hand-hold you and make sure you can't fail.
There was a time when game let you make redicolous or stupid things and hten punished you for it.

I dont' want to be rewarded regardless of what I choose.I want to feel the full consequences of every action.
Regardless of how a choice is claffifed (renegade or paragon).

Yes, I want the game to rub my nose into my faliure. I want the game to tell me I suck when I do something stupid.
Games today do nothing but inflate the players ego.

Infamous (2) is a good example. Both the good-side and the evil-side in Infamous have their own rewards, their own characters, their own missions and their own unique powers. And what's even more amazing about Infamous 2, is (spoiler ahead) that you have to take the evil-side at the end of the game if you want the most happy ending. The good-side ends in a tragic sacrifice and a bitter-sweet ending. Now that's something I'd like to see in Mass Effect! That would be epic!

Frankly, after reading the leaks, we know that won't happen. And yet a slight re-write could completely change everything.

EDIT: Damn color!!! Can't place any spoilers as the friggin thing doesn't work.

Modifié par Lotion Soronnar, 22 décembre 2011 - 08:35 .

[AlexXIV]

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

Luc0s wrote...

Mass Effect is a video-game and in video-games I want to be rewarded, regardless of what path I choose (be it Paragon, Renegade or mixed). Most video-games with a morality mechanic (good v.s evil, paragon v.s renegade, etc.) reward their players in a different way depending on their path.

You know, there was a time where games didn't hand-hold you and make sure you can't fail.
There was a time when game let you make redicolous or stupid things and hten punished you for it.

I dont' want to be rewarded regardless of what I choose.I want to feel the full consequences of every action.
Regardless of how a choice is claffifed (renegade or paragon).

Yes, I want the game to rub my nose into my faliure. I want the game to tell me I suck when I do something stupid.
Games today do nothing but inflate the players ego.

Infamous (2) is a good example. Both the good-side and the evil-side in Infamous have their own rewards, their own characters, their own missions and their own unique powers. And what's even more amazing about Infamous 2, is (spoiler ahead) that you have to take the evil-side at the end of the game if you want the most happy ending. The good-side ends in a tragic sacrifice and a bitter-sweet ending. Now that's something I'd like to see in Mass Effect! That would be epic!

Frankly, after reading the leaks, we know that won't happen. And yet a slight re-write could completely change everything.

EDIT: Damn color!!! Can't place any spoilers as the friggin thing doesn't work.

Games have always been failsave. There have always been walkthroughs, savegames, etc. If you want a challenge of choices I suggest real life really. That's not meant to be some sort of insult. I mean it. There is no game you can't beat in some optimized fashion. Never was, never will be.

Of course I would also prefer 'tougher' choices. Like Virmire. For me it was the worst so far because I didn't like to sacrifice either and it stings everytime I let Ashley or Kaiden die. But this is as hard as it can get, because if you get a 'right' and 'wrong' choice people will always go with the right choice. That's also a reason why they didn't let you save Hawke's mom in DA2. If there was a way, any way, no matter how complicated, people would have found it eventually. If only by searching the internet.

Also, about TIM. Not going to happen. Shepard will save the galaxy without TIM, or not at all.

[Lotion Soronarr]

AlexXIV wrote...

Lotion Soronnar wrote...
You know, there was a time where games didn't hand-hold you and make sure you can't fail.
There was a time when game let you make redicolous or stupid things and hten punished you for it.

I dont' want to be rewarded regardless of what I choose.I want to feel the full consequences of every action.
Regardless of how a choice is claffifed (renegade or paragon).

Yes, I want the game to rub my nose into my faliure. I want the game to tell me I suck when I do something stupid.
Games today do nothing but inflate the players ego.

Games have always been failsave. There have always been walkthroughs, savegames, etc. If you want a challenge of choices I suggest real life really. That's not meant to be some sort of insult. I mean it. There is no game you can't beat in some optimized fashion. Never was, never will be.

So?
How's that different from failing in combat? Or using a wrong spell on an enemy?
You reload and try again.

What is so different here?
You die in combat, you re-load and change your tactics.
Your choice ends up biting you in the ass, you re-load and change it. IF you want. Becaue with choices, consequences are rarely game-over affairs, while failing in comabt always is.

So please, enlighten me whats the big difference and why it would be bad..

That's also a reason why they didn't let you save Hawke's mom in DA2. If there was a way, any way, no matter how complicated, people would have found it eventually. If only by searching the internet.

that might be true for power-gamers, but not for role-players. And if oy add a small element of randomization ,there isn't a one true-path.

For example - Dragon Age and the Redcliffe choice. How many poeple went to the Circle the first time? Some didn't evne know the option existed. Now, what if it wasn't certain what would happen, but only probable. Let's say there's a 80% chance things will go wrong and 20% chance they will go right if you take the Circle option. Then you have a bit of a variablity. You dont 'know ahead of time.

Of course, nothing is stoping a player from re-loading ,but nothing is stopping him for accpeting the consequences and continue playing.

Also, about TIM. Not going to happen. Shepard will save the galaxy without TIM, or not at all.

Why not?
Do you hate the man so much you're rather not save the galaxy than accept his aid?

Modifié par Lotion Soronnar, 22 décembre 2011 - 09:49 .

[goofyomnivore]

Shepard didn't save the galaxy in Mass Effect 2.

Arrival?

[Kaiser Arian XVII]

jreezy wrote...

Luc0s wrote...

Shepard does not save the galaxy without TIM. When Shepard saved the galaxy, it will all be thanks to TIM. TIM made it all possible with the Lazerus Project. Without TIM, there would be no Shepard to save the day.

Shepard didn't save the galaxy in Mass Effect 2.

Yes, he stopped the abduction of colonies. If not entirely, mostly.
Isn't it obvious that Shepard is going to save the galaxy in ME3? Maybe not for you and you need walls of texts and then you will say "what?"

[AlexXIV]

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

AlexXIV wrote...

Lotion Soronnar wrote...
You know, there was a time where games didn't hand-hold you and make sure you can't fail.
There was a time when game let you make redicolous or stupid things and hten punished you for it.

I dont' want to be rewarded regardless of what I choose.I want to feel the full consequences of every action.
Regardless of how a choice is claffifed (renegade or paragon).

Yes, I want the game to rub my nose into my faliure. I want the game to tell me I suck when I do something stupid.
Games today do nothing but inflate the players ego.

Games have always been failsave. There have always been walkthroughs, savegames, etc. If you want a challenge of choices I suggest real life really. That's not meant to be some sort of insult. I mean it. There is no game you can't beat in some optimized fashion. Never was, never will be.

So?
How's that different from failing in combat? Or using a wrong spell on an enemy?
You reload and try again.

What is so different here?
You die in combat, you re-load and change your tactics.
Your choice ends up biting you in the ass, you re-load and change it. IF you want. Becaue with choices, consequences are rarely game-over affairs, while failing in comabt always is.

So please, enlighten me whats the big difference and why it would be bad..

That's also a reason why they didn't let you save Hawke's mom in DA2. If there was a way, any way, no matter how complicated, people would have found it eventually. If only by searching the internet.

that might be true for power-gamers, but not for role-players. And if oy add a small element of randomization ,there isn't a one true-path.

For example - Dragon Age and the Redcliffe choice. How many poeple went to the Circle the first time? Some didn't evne know the option existed. Now, what if it wasn't certain what would happen, but only probable. Let's say there's a 80% chance things will go wrong and 20% chance they will go right if you take the Circle option. Then you have a bit of a variablity. You dont 'know ahead of time.

Of course, nothing is stoping a player from re-loading ,but nothing is stopping him for accpeting the consequences and continue playing.

Also, about TIM. Not going to happen. Shepard will save the galaxy without TIM, or not at all.

Why not?
Do you hate the man so much you're rather not save the galaxy than accept his aid?

About TIM, I don't hate the man as much as what he stands for. Human superiority. Actually I partly blame Bioware for their human-superiority writing. Humans just reached the level of tech other races had for 1000 years and they manage to surpass everyone. And up to ME2 with next to no consequences. I don't like this humans patting each other on the shoulder thing just to feel good. We are humans, Bioware are humans, humans are the best, I get it. Though I don't need that in a sci-fi game tbh. I can be human any day, I don't need a game to play a human character and the writers pat me on the shoulder how proud I can be of being human. I realize that some people like that but for me personally it feels like an insult to my intelligence and to my self confidence. I don't need to be smarter or stronger or better than everyone to feel self confident.

As for choices. There is no problem with hard choices, I actually appreciate them. I just think people are fooling themselves if they say that it is a challenge. I don't remember one RPG when it was a challenge to pick the right choices. Choices often don't even make enough sense to be the right or wrong one, so I am not going into deep thought processes to try to make sense. I only need to find out how the game reacts to different choices and then pick the one that leads to the reaction I want. Games simply are not that smart. One of my teachers said video games are performance killers. And that's pretty much it. You spend alot of time with something and don't really gain anything for your life. It is a waste of time and the sooner one realizes it the sooner he/she can lean back and take things less serious.

So yeah, Bioware should make choices harder, but it won't make a difference. After 2nd, 3rd playthrough everyone knows which button to press to get the desired result. That's why I think thinking too much about games and logic of the plot is mostly a waste of time. I know people see it as a sort of hobby to rip apart games and plots and game mechanics. But in the end it is only a game, and not supposed to be perfect. It is supposed to waste some time and have fun. And thinking too much about things just ruins the fun. Something I learned here because, honestly, participating in discussions here in the BSN almost always results in me being disappointed about stuff that I enjoyed sooner. Ignorance is bliss.

Modifié par AlexXIV, 22 décembre 2011 - 10:49 .

[Shepard the Leper]

AlexXIV wrote...

Of course I would also prefer 'tougher' choices. Like Virmire. For me it was the worst so far because I didn't like to sacrifice either and it stings everytime I let Ashley or Kaiden die. But this is as hard as it can get, because if you get a 'right' and 'wrong' choice people will always go with the right choice. That's also a reason why they didn't let you save Hawke's mom in DA2. If there was a way, any way, no matter how complicated, people would have found it eventually. If only by searching the internet.

Nonsense. Apparently you only 'enjoy' a game when everybody lives happily ever after and the only "choice" (if you even call it a choice that is) is whether or not you start an optional mission to safe someones ass. That's terrible imho. I actually enjoy games in which things go (or at least can go) terribly wrong. To succeed despite a lot of setbacks makes things much more rewarding in the end.

I'm currently playing Medieval Total War (Stainless Steel mod) and I'm having a blast. Not because everything went smoothly, but because my masterplan to suprise my mortal enemy had failed, my armies defeated and all the neighbouring states invaded my undefended provinces. Everything I build up for hours lays in ruins, my faction is close to destruction. I suppose you would rage-quit or reload to correct your mistakes, I curse myself but smile at the mess I'm in and continue fighting a seemingly hopeless war. This are the games I will remember; conquering the world without any setback or backstab isn't fun at all. It provides no challenge and you never have to make decisions that matter.

[AlexXIV]

Shepard the Leper wrote...

AlexXIV wrote...

Of course I would also prefer 'tougher' choices. Like Virmire. For me it was the worst so far because I didn't like to sacrifice either and it stings everytime I let Ashley or Kaiden die. But this is as hard as it can get, because if you get a 'right' and 'wrong' choice people will always go with the right choice. That's also a reason why they didn't let you save Hawke's mom in DA2. If there was a way, any way, no matter how complicated, people would have found it eventually. If only by searching the internet.

Nonsense. Apparently you only 'enjoy' a game when everybody lives happily ever after and the only "choice" (if you even call it a choice that is) is whether or not you start an optional mission to safe someones ass. That's terrible imho. I actually enjoy games in which things go (or at least can go) terribly wrong. To succeed despite a lot of setbacks makes things much more rewarding in the end.

I'm currently playing Medieval Total War (Stainless Steel mod) and I'm having a blast. Not because everything went smoothly, but because my masterplan to suprise my mortal enemy had failed, my armies defeated and all the neighbouring states invaded my undefended provinces. Everything I build up for hours lays in ruins, my faction is close to destruction. I suppose you would rage-quit or reload to correct your mistakes, I curse myself but smile at the mess I'm in and continue fighting a seemingly hopeless war. This are the games I will remember; conquering the world without any setback or backstab isn't fun at all. It provides no challenge and you never have to make decisions that matter.

Challenge only makes sense as long as you can still win. I don't mind setbacks as long as they don't ruin my chances to win. If you play games and keep playing even though you have lost already, good for you. Luckily people are different and play for different reasons. In RPGs though there is virtually no challenge. It is just a story that you can shape, and you shape it in the way you want it to be.

I can enjoy a game in which not everyone lives happily ever after. But only if it is not my choice. If my choice is that people die, how can I mourn the loss? If you complete the suicide mission with everyone aside from Shepard dead, do you then tell yourself 'many died but it was a necessary sacrifice?' Maybe you're just better lying to yourself than I am. But if I think of Virmire I am sad because it was necessary to sacrifice one of the two.

Modifié par AlexXIV, 22 décembre 2011 - 10:55 .

[mitthrawuodo]

I thought part of being a renegade was intimidation so you can as it were scare everyone to your side. Think about how in past quests you could get a good result with intimidate where the non-intimidate renegade action had bad effects. e.g. Wrex on Virmire, Tali: Treason, Jack and Miranda's catfight, etc. Bioware might know what they are doing

[Shepard the Leper]

AlexXIV wrote...

I can enjoy a game in which not everyone lives happily ever after. But only if it is not my choice. If my choice is that people die, how can I mourn the loss? If you complete the suicide mission with everyone aside from Shepard dead, do you then tell yourself 'many died but it was a necessary sacrifice?' Maybe you're just better lying to yourself than I am. But if I think of Virmire I am sad because it was necessary to sacrifice one of the two.

Are you playing all your games after you've checked all possible outcomes on the net first?

Well, I don't. I seriously doubt anyone would have safed the entire crew the first time around and they had to make the (hard) decision to go after the abducted crew or continue recruiting / gaining loyalty. Obviously when you know how the triggers work you can safe everyone, but that's not how anyone should play their games (the first time) - that's like reading the last chapter of a book so you already know how it ends. That ruins everything.

[Someone With Mass]

AlexXIV wrote...

About TIM, I don't hate the man as much as what he stands for. Human superiority. Actually I partly blame Bioware for their human-superiority writing. Humans just reached the level of tech other races had for 1000 years and they manage to surpass everyone. And up to ME2 with next to no consequences. I don't like this humans patting each other on the shoulder thing just to feel good. We are humans, Bioware are humans, humans are the best, I get it. Though I don't need that in a sci-fi game tbh. I can be human any day, I don't need a game to play a human character and the writers pat me on the shoulder how proud I can be of being human. I realize that some people like that but for me personally it feels like an insult to my intelligence and to my self confidence. I don't need to be smarter or stronger or better than everyone to feel self confident.

It's because Mac Walters has a hard-on the size of the Normandy SR2 for TIM.

[AlexXIV]

Shepard the Leper wrote...

AlexXIV wrote...

I can enjoy a game in which not everyone lives happily ever after. But only if it is not my choice. If my choice is that people die, how can I mourn the loss? If you complete the suicide mission with everyone aside from Shepard dead, do you then tell yourself 'many died but it was a necessary sacrifice?' Maybe you're just better lying to yourself than I am. But if I think of Virmire I am sad because it was necessary to sacrifice one of the two.

Are you playing all your games after you've checked all possible outcomes on the net first?

Well, I don't. I seriously doubt anyone would have safed the entire crew the first time around and they had to make the (hard) decision to go after the abducted crew or continue recruiting / gaining loyalty. Obviously when you know how the triggers work you can safe everyone, but that's not how anyone should play their games (the first time) - that's like reading the last chapter of a book so you already know how it ends. That ruins everything.

No of course not. It takes trial and fail. But I replay RPGs many times. Even bad ones at least 2 or 3 times and good ones like ME 6+ times. I don't even remember my first playthrough, only my 'canon' playthrough, which is optimized.

The point is the base for drama is always the inevitable. If you can avoid drama there is no drama. The Virmire decision is inevitable. It is pure drama. Unless you hate one of the two, then it is an easy choice. That's why I support scripted deaths and scripted fails in RPGs.

[Exia001]

Those things are fine, if they are kept to a minimum, the fact there was only one Virmire means the drama was hightened, In the same way, I hope there are scripted deaths in 3 but not many, like... two because otherwise you are seeing the same thing every playthough which is bad, another Virmire would be awesome thats my favourite mission across the two games.

Modifié par Exia001, 22 décembre 2011 - 11:37 .