142 réponses à ce sujet

[Sebbe1337o]

tetrisblock4x1 wrote...

Yes, and I'll bet you've spent many hours considering your character builds and what tactics to use against everyone. Because after all that is what the subject of the OP is about. You did read it, didn't you?

Maybe you needed hours to consider your statement, I just needed 5 seconds to know your statement is invalid. And yes, I read OP. I just think you're wrong.

[Someone With Mass]

Too bad that ME3 has plenty of options, then.

[Genshie]

hhh89 wrote...

Genshie wrote...

Shepard the Leper wrote...



 I'd rather have a system in which you have to make though decisions. Who are you going to help, which quest are you going to complete, which powerful items do you collect, and so on - before the endgame. This makes it highly interesting to play the game multiple times, to make different decisions and see how they affect the end. But I doubt that will be the case.

You just described ME2 and even ME1. You have the choice to do the side quest or not, this is even more heavy in ME1. You even have the choice to recruit peeps or not. (Which I have in some playthroughs, like I never recruit Samara or Thane as an example) You also gather upgrades for your ship before the SM. And offering replayablitly is something that ME2 and ME1 does better than most games out there.

I think that he wants that the game forces you to do only a set numbers of quests, and not everyone, so that you have to replay the game to see the quests you missed in the first playtrough. In ME and ME2 you can skip some missions, but you can do every missions if you want.

In other words he doesn't want choice. Okay...

Modifié par Genshie, 07 janvier 2012 - 02:42 .

[Shepard the Leper]

Genshie wrote...

You just described ME2 and even ME1. You have the choice to do the side quest or not, this is even more heavy in ME1. You even have the choice to recruit peeps or not. (Which I have in some playthroughs, like I never recruit Samara or Thane as an example) You also gather upgrades for your ship before the SM. And offering replayablitly is something that ME2 and ME1 does better than most games out there.

No, in ME2 you only have the "choice" to recruit someone or not. You NEVER have to chose who you will recruit or which upgrades you're going to buy because you can have them ALL. The only "choice" you have is whom to recruit when and which upgrade to buy first. I am talking about a system in which you DO have to chose. Do you recruit those 3 or another 3, you CANNOT have them all so you have to make a choice.

ME2 does offers some replayability, and the SM does has some different outcomes. But everything leading up to that point does not include any real and tough choices - they do not exist in ME2. The Virmire decision in ME1 is something I'd like to see more often. One person is going to die, you chose who lives - you cannot save them both.

[The Elder King]

Genshie wrote...

hhh89 wrote...





I think that he wants that the game forces you to do only a set numbers of quests, and not everyone, so that you have to replay the game to see the quests you missed in the first playtrough. In ME and ME2 you can skip some missions, but you can do every missions if you want.

In other words he doesn't want choice. Okay...

Not completely true. In the case he explained, you have to choose what quests you want to do, and you can change the outcomes in the other playtroughs by choosing different quests.
The system in ME2 has the problem that not doing certain quests the only different outcomes is that some of your squadmates dies in the SM.. I replay ME2 to roleplay a different Shepard, with different dialogue choices, and when it's possible, with different outcomes in the quests, but if in my first playtrough I did every quests, what I'm going to see, in term of quests.
I'm not saying that the system he presented is better, but that he's different, and that add a different type of replayability to a game.

[The Elder King]

Shepard the Leper wrote...


No, in ME2 you only have the "choice" to recruit someone or not. You NEVER have to chose who you will recruit or which upgrades you're going to buy because you can have them ALL. The only "choice" you have is whom to recruit when and which upgrade to buy first. I am talking about a system in which you DO have to chose. Do you recruit those 3 or another 3, you CANNOT have them all so you have to make a choice.

ME2 does offers some replayability, and the SM does has some different outcomes. But everything leading up to that point does not include any real and tough choices - they do not exist in ME2. The Virmire decision in ME1 is something I'd like to see more often. One person is going to die, you chose who lives - you cannot save them both.

It was surely better than the deaths system in the SM, and if they've implemented it instead of the one is present in ME2, in ME3 we could have seen some other ME2 squadmates in the team, and everyone will have the possibility to have a complete squad.

[Shepard the Leper]

hhh89 wrote...

I'm not saying that the system he presented is better, but that he's different, and that add a different type of replayability to a game.

I'll argue that the system I favor is a better system in terms of Role-Playing. Role-Playing is about choices and choices only matter if they have consequences. There are too few meaningful choices in both ME games (and in most other games for that matter). I hope that this will improve in ME3 but I doubt it will. Apperantly there are people who like to have no choice beyond "do I help everyone or only a few people". I like games to have more "you can help only a few people and it's up to the player to decide who is lucky and who isn't". That would greatly improve replayability for me simply to find out what will happen if you change your decisions. In both ME2 games you can see and do 95% of everything in a single playthrough. I would prefer only seeing fraction (maybe 30%) in a playthrough and to see the other 70% you need to start over and play differently.

[AgitatedLemon]

In both ME2 games you can see and do 95% of everything in a single playthrough. I would prefer only seeing fraction (maybe 30%) in a playthrough and to see the other 70% you need to start over and play differently.

So you want it to be like Final Fantasy where every single optional, hidden boss is x1000 as hard as the final story boss, and you need to farm XP and items?

That's isn't role-playing, that's artificial gating.

[Shepard the Leper]

AgitatedLemon wrote...

In both ME2 games you can see and do 95% of everything in a single playthrough. I would prefer only seeing fraction (maybe 30%) in a playthrough and to see the other 70% you need to start over and play differently.

So you want it to be like Final Fantasy where every single optional, hidden boss is x1000 as hard as the final story boss, and you need to farm XP and items?

That's isn't role-playing, that's artificial gating.

Can you explain WTF this has got to do with anything I've said so far because it doesn't make the slightest sense.

[AgitatedLemon]

Shepard the Leper wrote...

AgitatedLemon wrote...

In both ME2 games you can see and do 95% of everything in a single playthrough. I would prefer only seeing fraction (maybe 30%) in a playthrough and to see the other 70% you need to start over and play differently.

So you want it to be like Final Fantasy where every single optional, hidden boss is x1000 as hard as the final story boss, and you need to farm XP and items?

That's isn't role-playing, that's artificial gating.

Can you explain WTF this has got to do with anything I've said so far because it doesn't make the slightest sense.

You want the game to gate the content, thus allowing you to only experience a small percentage of it (Optional boss analogy), until you start the game over (XP farm analogy)?

That IS what you said.

(Never thought I'd have to explain an analogy that was that obvious)

Modifié par AgitatedLemon, 07 janvier 2012 - 03:20 .

[Shepard the Leper]

AgitatedLemon wrote...

Shepard the Leper wrote...

AgitatedLemon wrote...

In both ME2 games you can see and do 95% of everything in a single playthrough. I would prefer only seeing fraction (maybe 30%) in a playthrough and to see the other 70% you need to start over and play differently.

So you want it to be like Final Fantasy where every single optional, hidden boss is x1000 as hard as the final story boss, and you need to farm XP and items?

That's isn't role-playing, that's artificial gating.

Can you explain WTF this has got to do with anything I've said so far because it doesn't make the slightest sense.

You want the game to gate the content, thus allowing you to only experience a small percentage of it (Optional boss analogy), until you start the game over (XP farm analogy)?

That IS what you said.

(Never thought I'd have to explain an analogy that was that obvious)

I guess you should try to read before posting such nonsense coz I've said nothing of the sorts.

[AgitatedLemon]

Shepard the Leper wrote...

AgitatedLemon wrote...

Shepard the Leper wrote...

AgitatedLemon wrote...

In both ME2 games you can see and do 95% of everything in a single playthrough. I would prefer only seeing fraction (maybe 30%) in a playthrough and to see the other 70% you need to start over and play differently.

So you want it to be like Final Fantasy where every single optional, hidden boss is x1000 as hard as the final story boss, and you need to farm XP and items?

That's isn't role-playing, that's artificial gating.

Can you explain WTF this has got to do with anything I've said so far because it doesn't make the slightest sense.

You want the game to gate the content, thus allowing you to only experience a small percentage of it (Optional boss analogy), until you start the game over (XP farm analogy)?

That IS what you said.

(Never thought I'd have to explain an analogy that was that obvious)

I guess you should try to read before posting such nonsense coz I've said nothing of the sorts.

Yes, you did.

[AlanC9]

Gatt9 wrote...

AlanC9 wrote...
In a party-based game I don't see how it's worthwhile to implement a special option for, say, stealth. What percentage of players are going to run a DAO quest with a PC rogue, Zevran, and Leliana? A few will try it, sure. Enough to warrant making special content just for them?

So then why even bother making an RPG at all?  If you're just going to railroad people into "Walk the path the Developer wants you to walk",  then why even bother making an RPG?  Why not just make a Shooter or a Adventure game and not bother with the pretenses?

So because Bio doesn't make what you consider to be ideal RPGs, they should therefore not bother to make RPGs at all? DAO would have been better if they turned it into an adventure game? You can't be serious.

Your logic is inherently flawed.

-Most people play elves and humans,  why bother letting people be dwarves?
-More people play humans than elves now,  why bother letting people be elves?
-More people play human men than human women,  why bother letting people be women?
Everyone's a Human Male.

Cutting something just because "it isn't the majority" approach is a slippery slope that ultimately leads to only one option.

You really shouldn't talk about flawed logic right before making a "slippery slope" argument. That's rhetoric, not logic.

Edit: But good rhetoric. It's a nice move to go from my actual view -- that special stealth options weren't worth implementing in DAO -- to a caricature that therefore no options are worth implementing. Well played, sir.

As for the logic of your position, it simply isn't true that the choices are infinite options or no options whatsoever. Different developers working on different projects will select different numbers of options for those projects. The only way your slippery slope argument would work is if options in the middle middle of the choice spectrum produce no value until you reach your ideal level of choice; this would mean that such games are inherently less profitable compared to games at the extremes of the spectrum. Again, is it really your position that DAO would have been more profitable for Bioware with less choices?

The really sad part is,  it would've cost less to implement than Multiplayer and I'd bet it'd be used by a much larger number of people than Multiplayer in Mass Effect would be.  But Stealth skills and other combat-alternatives/non-combat skills don't sell Online Passes to used game buyers.

But if MP really does bring in more revenue through selling those passes., then it's not necessarily true to say that it's cheaper to implement stealth than MP. That would depend on how much revenue the MP brings in. It could cost less than stealth or even be outright profitable to include.

Modifié par AlanC9, 07 janvier 2012 - 03:37 .

[didymos1120]

AgitatedLemon wrote...


(Never thought I'd have to explain an analogy that was that obvious)

It's actually a terrible and strained analogy, so you ought not be too surprised.

[AlanC9]

In Exile wrote...

Lumikki wrote...

Computer games are linears (story based) or they are pre-define playgrounds (sandbox). In all computer games you can do only what is programmed there by game development. Stronger the story is in computer game, more linear it will be.

The thing is, if sandox elements ever get to the point that they're actually good, then I think that RPGs will be able to start having both a story and a decent sanbox to play in.

I'm not sure this is conceptually possible. Many elements of "story" seem to be in conflict with the nature of the sandbox. Of course, future generations may think of story differently than we do.

(Pretty much what Biotic Sage was getting at, I see)

Modifié par AlanC9, 07 janvier 2012 - 03:35 .

[AlanC9]

Shepard the Leper wrote...

Genshie wrote...

You just described ME2 and even ME1. You have the choice to do the side quest or not, this is even more heavy in ME1. You even have the choice to recruit peeps or not. (Which I have in some playthroughs, like I never recruit Samara or Thane as an example) You also gather upgrades for your ship before the SM. And offering replayablitly is something that ME2 and ME1 does better than most games out there.

No, in ME2 you only have the "choice" to recruit someone or not. You NEVER have to chose who you will recruit or which upgrades you're going to buy because you can have them ALL. The only "choice" you have is whom to recruit when and which upgrade to buy first. I am talking about a system in which you DO have to chose. Do you recruit those 3 or another 3, you CANNOT have them all so you have to make a choice.

ME2 does offers some replayability, and the SM does has some different outcomes. But everything leading up to that point does not include any real and tough choices - they do not exist in ME2. The Virmire decision in ME1 is something I'd like to see more often. One person is going to die, you chose who lives - you cannot save them both.

Someone once reported a Bio dev stating that the Reaper IFF mission should have been forced the same way that Horizon and the Collector Ship mission are forced. While this wouldn't quite have been what you want, since the SM itself could still be delayed, delaying the SM has consequences while delaying the Reaper IFF mission does not. Regrettably, I didn't get a link to that statement.

Anyway, I prefer to do the IFF mission the moment it's available.

[abaris]

AlanC9 wrote...

I'm not sure this is conceptually possible. Many elements of "story" seem to be in conflict with the nature of the sandbox. Of course, future generations may think of story differently than we do.

(Pretty much what Biotic Sage was getting at, I see)

It is possible to an extent. Fallout New Vegas pulled that trick. Open exploration with a decent main quest.

You have to make a difference between sandbox games. There's always the conflict between open world and open ended. Open ended isn't such a thrill, but open world certainly is. To have a story, you need some culmination point where everything is tied up in a neat bundle. Otherwise it gets boring sooner rather than later.

[AlanC9]

Oh, sure. I didn't mean to say that you couldn't get something pretty good along story lines while still having a sandbox. I'm only saying that you can't maximize both; there's always going to be some kind of a tradeoff.

Edit: or rather, some kinds of story will work in a sandbox while others won't. The Book of the New Sun would work fine in a sandbox -- given the way that world operates, Severian would still back into the throne no matter where he goes. OTOH, LotR isn't all that well-suited to the approach.

Modifié par AlanC9, 07 janvier 2012 - 04:15 .