305 réponses à ce sujet

[Tazzmission]

aLucidMind wrote...

Honestly, I would get a few laughs if Action Mode lead to the Reapers winning (as mean as that may be lol)

kidding aside id love for them to win

[littlezack]

I don't have to assume anything, dingus; the Achievements are out.

There's an achievement for beating the game on Insanity, which I generally don't try to do until I've played the game a few times. One requires you to beat the game twice unless you have a previous save; doesn't apply to me, but it pretty solidly proves you wrong. There's also one for killing 5,000 enemies, which seems a bit high to expect out of a single playthrough. I could go on.

[ncknck]

Bleachrude wrote...

Again, why would having an action mode dictate the dialogue that the writers create.

I'm seriously trying to understand this since in ME1 and ME2, all you would need to do to make an Action mode would be to set difficulty to Insanity and tape the X button down during dialogue sections.

What am I missing here that makes people think Action mode would have any effect on how the writers handle the story?

Usually I can understand a OP's complaint but this time i'm actually not sure how people are getting this notion....
And again, I personally would've loved an Action mode in previous ME games...

ME1/ME2 the writers didnt have the knowledge of user choices and had to divide writing equally for all outcomes. Only guessing user choices. Morinth was clearly a wrong guess, and got no "screen time" although she is quite a remarkable character. ME3 has an "optimal" path. And thats what the writers will write for because they are time limited and 1. cant write for everything 2. have to impress action mode users. Logically, other choices get less priority.


Edit: These writers also thought noone would like Tali.

Modifié par ncknck, 11 février 2012 - 06:08 .

[Tazzmission]

littlezack wrote...

I don't have to assume anything, dingus; the Achievements are out.

There's an achievement for beating the game on Insanity, which I generally don't try to do until I've played the game a few times. One requires you to beat the game twice unless you have a previous save; doesn't apply to me, but it pretty solidly proves you wrong. There's also one for killing 5,000 enemies, which seems a bit high to expect out of a single playthrough. I could go on.

yea i saw the list also and wasnt there one for killing like 10,000 enemies also?

[littlezack]

ncknck wrote...

Bleachrude wrote...

Again, why would having an action mode dictate the dialogue that the writers create.

I'm seriously trying to understand this since in ME1 and ME2, all you would need to do to make an Action mode would be to set difficulty to Insanity and tape the X button down during dialogue sections.

What am I missing here that makes people think Action mode would have any effect on how the writers handle the story?

Usually I can understand a OP's complaint but this time i'm actually not sure how people are getting this notion....
And again, I personally would've loved an Action mode in previous ME games...

ME1/ME2 the writers didnt have the knowledge of user choices and had to divide writing equally for all outcomes. Only guessing user choices. Morinth was clearly a wrong guess, and got no "screen time" although she is quite a remarkable character. ME3 has an "optimal" path. And thats what the writers will write for because they are time limited and 1. cant write for everything 2. have to impress action mode users. Logically, other choices get less priority.

That's silly. If you're playing action mode, you don't care about the story, so why would the writers go out of their way to impress you?

[Tony_Knightcrawler]

I for one think this was a good move on BioWare's part. Minimal effort, larger audience.

[littlezack]

Tazzmission wrote...

littlezack wrote...

I don't have to assume anything, dingus; the Achievements are out.

There's an achievement for beating the game on Insanity, which I generally don't try to do until I've played the game a few times. One requires you to beat the game twice unless you have a previous save; doesn't apply to me, but it pretty solidly proves you wrong. There's also one for killing 5,000 enemies, which seems a bit high to expect out of a single playthrough. I could go on.

yea i saw the list also and wasnt there one for killing like 10,000 enemies also?

No, just 5,000. I'm trying to think - how many enemies were in Mass Effect 1 and 2? Maybe, like...I don't want to say more than a thousand, but it's really hard to pinpoint. At any rate, there are achievements for lifting, overloading and setting on fire enemies 100 times, and I think that's impossible to do in a single playthrough with any class (unless we're counting NPCs, which I doubt) So yeah, you need to play the game two or three times to get every achievement.

[littlezack]

aLucidMind wrote...

littlezack wrote...

That's silly. If you're playing action mode, you don't care about the story, so why would the writers go out of their way to impress you?

Not necessarily; Action Mode is for people who don't want to make choices. They just want an action-oriented adventure; if the story sucked, they would likely play it once. Even people just wanting to shoot **** don't want a game where the only thing good about it is shooting ****.

I'm no expert, but I'd bet the success of Modern Warfare isn't due to it's gripping story and intriguing characters.

[Gatt9]

AlanC9 wrote...

Dean_the_Young wrote...

Gatt9 wrote...
The issue is that by including 3 modes,  the game has to be designed such that the mode with the straightest path is the optimal solution.

No it doesn't.

In fact, there's no guarantee that any minimalist story-mission-only path will give you an optimal solution. 'Best' victory in any context could require the player to gather war assets by doing side quests regardless of story choices.
lone sequels. This far predates ME2.

QFT.

Even assuming that "optimal solution" is a meaningful statement -- my favorite DAO ending was the US, which was optimal for me, but not my Warden -- there's no particular reason why Action mode would go to that optimal solution. Bio loves them some drama, so I'll bet that modes without choices will lead to a victory with bad consequences that will be avoidable in RPG mode.

You're taking two dissimiliar types of games and trying to force your game to fit both models.  You're taking a straight path Shooter,  and a RPG that's supposed to feature choice & consequence,  and trying to combine the two.  It does not work.

The Shooter path must lead to the Optimal ending,  because you cannot slight the Shooter fans you're attempting to cater to by giving them something less than the Optimal ending.  Which makes that the solution to the game,  any "Choice" is going to simply be the sub-optimal path,  if Bioware even bothers to include it.  Given that ME2 didn't actually feature any real choice,  just "Hear dialogue A or dialogue B to get same result",  it's highly likely that is what ME3 will consist of.

I will absolutely guarantee that the mode without choice will lead to the Optimal ending.  Bioware didn't put all of the time and energy into shoehorning a Shooter-mode into an RPG just to end the game by flipping off the Shooter fans.

It's a self-limiting design choice.  By implementing a mode where one group of players doesn't make choices,  you lock yourself into a path where all of the positive outcomes of the game must be a mirror image of that mode.  The alternative is to make that whole group second-class citizens,  which will rapidly be reflected in user reviews and word-of-mouth,  because in this instance,  we're talking about a group that already hates choice.  So telling them that the only way they can get positive outcomes is to play a game mode they hate,  in a game that promised them a game mode they'd like,  is effectively market suicide.

There's a reason why no one ever bothered to try this before,  and it's not because it's a good idea. 

[littlezack]

Gatt9 wrote...

The Shooter path must lead to the Optimal ending,  because you cannot slight the Shooter fans you're attempting to cater to by giving them something less than the Optimal ending.  Which makes that the solution to the game,  any "Choice" is going to simply be the sub-optimal path,  if Bioware even bothers to include it.  Given that ME2 didn't actually feature any real choice,  just "Hear dialogue A or dialogue B to get same result",  it's highly likely that is what ME3 will consist of.

I will absolutely guarantee that the mode without choice will lead to the Optimal ending.  Bioware didn't put all of the time and energy into shoehorning a Shooter-mode into an RPG just to end the game by flipping off the Shooter fans.
 

First off, I doubt it took them much 'time and energy'. It's a mode that skips cutscenes...which is actually something you could do in the previous games, you just had to do it manually. It's not like it's some intricate mode that took months of time to put into the game - it basically just does something you always had to do yourself before.

Second off, I have to bring up a point again - that line of logic makes no sense. You're basically saying that Bioware made a mode that caters to people who don't care for the story, then fixed it so it gave them the best possible ending for the story...a story that they don't care about because they're playing Action Mode.

What's more likely is that playing Action Mode gives you a middle of the road sort of ending - you clearly win and save the day in a satisfying fashion, but not without some caveats. Not the best ending.

[AtreiyaN7]

Dear God - who cares what options other people pick when they play the game. It does not affect your experience.

[Carnage752]

Gatt9 wrote...

You're taking two dissimiliar types of games and trying to force your game to fit both models.  You're taking a straight path Shooter,  and a RPG that's supposed to feature choice & consequence,  and trying to combine the two.  It does not work.

The Shooter path must lead to the Optimal ending,  because you cannot slight the Shooter fans you're attempting to cater to by giving them something less than the Optimal ending.  Which makes that the solution to the game,  any "Choice" is going to simply be the sub-optimal path,  if Bioware even bothers to include it.  Given that ME2 didn't actually feature any real choice,  just "Hear dialogue A or dialogue B to get same result",  it's highly likely that is what ME3 will consist of.

I will absolutely guarantee that the mode without choice will lead to the Optimal ending.  Bioware didn't put all of the time and energy into shoehorning a Shooter-mode into an RPG just to end the game by flipping off the Shooter fans.

It's a self-limiting design choice.  By implementing a mode where one group of players doesn't make choices,  you lock yourself into a path where all of the positive outcomes of the game must be a mirror image of that mode.  The alternative is to make that whole group second-class citizens,  which will rapidly be reflected in user reviews and word-of-mouth,  because in this instance,  we're talking about a group that already hates choice.  So telling them that the only way they can get positive outcomes is to play a game mode they hate,  in a game that promised them a game mode they'd like,  is effectively market suicide.

There's a reason why no one ever bothered to try this before,  and it's not because it's a good idea. 

Son may I ask you to take your whining ass home. If you hate Mass Effect so much, don't ****ing talk about it. Either your a troll that just wants attention by spewing enough big words to convince a few dumasses you actually know ****, or... Actually thats it. Compared to you, Saphra is like a fanboy.

[AlanC9]

Gatt9 wrote...
You're taking two dissimiliar types of games and trying to force your game to fit both models.  You're taking a straight path Shooter,  and a RPG that's supposed to feature choice & consequence,  and trying to combine the two.  It does not work.

The Shooter path must lead to the Optimal ending,  because you cannot slight the Shooter fans you're attempting to cater to by giving them something less than the Optimal ending. 

Oh, dear God...... now you're doing the Odd Capitalization Thing? Is it some sort of virus on this board?

How would an Action player be penalized by getting a sub-optimal ending? Let's say ME2 had implemented the system, Bio sets up the choices so the player doesn't do all of the loyalty missions, instead rushing off to do the SM the moment it's available. As a result, several characters are killed during the SM. Would this be a bad gaming experience? If so, why?

Or perhaps the question should be what "optimal" means in this context. In my experience the outcomes where the whole crew and all squadmates survive are less interesting than other outcomes. Last time through I saved the whole crew but lost Samara, Mordin, Miranda, and Thane, thanks to RP-based decisions which I won't get into here. I liked this outcome better than the previous outcome, where I saved everybody. What is optimal for AlanC9 is not optimal for Shepard.

You seem to be taking the position that Bio has to give the Action players a Shepard-optimal solution, rather than a solution optimized for, say, drama. Is that your position, or am I misinterpreting you?

Modifié par AlanC9, 11 février 2012 - 07:27 .

[vader da slayer]

Chris Priestly wrote...

We make options available for all players, even the ignorant ones who call other players ignorant. Play with teh eperience you prefer and you don't have to worry.

 +9001 internets

[Brownfinger]

I want that picture of Liara from the menu there for my desktop. That is crazy hot.

[littlezack]

aLucidMind wrote...

littlezack wrote...

aLucidMind wrote...

littlezack wrote...

That's silly. If you're playing action mode, you don't care about the story, so why would the writers go out of their way to impress you?

Not necessarily; Action Mode is for people who don't want to make choices. They just want an action-oriented adventure; if the story sucked, they would likely play it once. Even people just wanting to shoot **** don't want a game where the only thing good about it is shooting ****.

I'm no expert, but I'd bet the success of Modern Warfare isn't due to it's gripping story and intriguing characters.

Call of Duty used to be good a long time ago, story-wise especially. Now it sucks.
Metal Gear Solid has a great story; a bit on the crazy side, but really good. You don't get dialog choices and the hardest difficulties actually are challenging. This is basically the audience Action Mode is for; it won't suit the sociopaths that like to just shoot everything, which is what Modern Warfare caters to.

I'd debate MGS having a great story, but it's way too late to be opening that can of worms.

There's nothing wrong with enjoying 'shooting everything'. For instance, I like fighting games, and quite a few people do, too, but it's hardly a genre known for gripping storytelling. People play fighting games because they enjoy combat. Nothing wrong with that. Some people enjoy combat in videogames; it hardly makes them 'sociapaths', at least not anymore than people focusing on story are overly elitist snubbing prigs.

Ahem.

At any rate, Mass Effect 3 is an action RPG, and, invariably, there are going to be people who enjoy the action aspect more than the RPG aspect. That's fine. And this isn't even a new feature - you have always been able to skip cutscenes and just breeze through choices. The only real difference now is that you can set the game to do it for you. At best, the complaints stem around a belief that Bioware specifically tailored the game around this mode and made a story to appeal to people who don't care about the story. At worst, you're complaining about nothing.

...and while I'm on my soapbox, when did we get to the point as gamers where its wrong to enjoy wanton violence? Like people who play Modern Warfare are some inferior breed of gamer because they like different things and want different things out of their games.

Modifié par littlezack, 11 février 2012 - 07:56 .

[Grand Admiral Cheesecake]

Chris Priestly wrote...

We make options available for all players, even the ignorant ones who call other players ignorant. Play with teh eperience you prefer and you don't have to worry.

teh eperience?

For shame Priestly.

[Inquisitor Recon]

I'm not going to lie, I'm going to use it as an excuse to look down at the serfs from my role-playing mode master race throne.

[frylock23]

Here's my question: How many of the action people will begin to wonder why they aren't getting all the story options and then proceed to whine when they find out why?

I'm assuming of course that the rest of us will still have the recourse to increase our difficulty the traditional way.

[shumworld]

that's kind of an interesting setting. im kind of curious to play it different ways. i assume the role playing option is both the "action" and "story" settings.

[Killjoy Cutter]

littlezack wrote...

At any rate, Mass Effect 3 is an action RPG, and, invariably, there are going to be people who enjoy the action aspect more than the RPG aspect. That's fine. And this isn't even a new feature - you have always been able to skip cutscenes and just breeze through choices. The only real difference now is that you can set the game to do it for you. At best, the complaints stem around a belief that Bioware specifically tailored the game around this mode and made a story to appeal to people who don't care about the story. At worst, you're complaining about nothing.

...and while I'm on my soapbox, when did we get to the point as gamers where its wrong to enjoy wanton violence? Like people who play Modern Warfare are some inferior breed of gamer because they like different things and want different things out of their games.

There's nothing wrong with them wanting what they want, and getting it out of their games. 

What's wrong is every other sort of game making a pathetic attempt to be what they want too because they happen to be the largest market, thus ensuring that other sorts of gamers cannot get what they want out of games. 

Goofy combat moves (flopping around on the ground, aka "combat" rolling), generic shooter mechanics (same-old-ammo-system instead of heat capacity), online multiplayer, etc -- no need for that crap in every single game made. 

They have their CoD and ModWar, leave other sorts of games alone.

[BjorntjuNL]

They should put a huge [RECOMMENDED] quote next to RPG mode.