283 réponses à ce sujet

[LiarasShield]

Just the final mission in me2 beats me3 by a mile everyone can live or die or anywhere inbetween depending on what you do and what you decide and how hard are you willing to go to have everybody make it and the song made it so much better ^^

[Blueprotoss]

JyrikGauldy wrote...

me2 actually had roleplaying in it, instead of this autoshep crap

That sounds like a contradiction based on how ME2 took out most of the RPG elements in ME1 while ME3 brought back half of the RPG elements with some twists.

DrwEddy wrote...

Doesn't have a sucky ending.

Even though I loved telling the Illussive Man to f off, but ME2 didn't have that much of an ending just like ME1 had. 

LiarasShield wrote...

Just the final mission in me2 beats me3 by a mile everyone can live or die or anywhere inbetween depending on what you do and what you decide and how hard are you willing to go to have everybody make it and the song made it so much better ^^

It seems like you would have preferred a boos fight at the end of ME3, which thats okay, but I feel like no "final boss" would be appropiate for ME3.  Either way its interesting to hear the opinion of others.

Modifié par Blueprotoss, 21 juin 2012 - 03:20 .

[The Sarendoctrinator]

AlanC9 wrote...

I just couldn't believe it.  My bad -- it never occurred to me that Sheps indivudual fate matters that much , but I should have read what you were saying.

It's all right, I did leave it kind of vague. Hard to work around the spoilers sometimes.

Shepard's fate has always mattered most to me because, throughout the whole trilogy, it's the thing that players have had the most control over, and taking away such an important part of that at the very end just feels wrong. Plus, even now that their world isn't ending, everyone's still going to need heroes after the war as they try to rebuild and move towards a brighter future. Shepard's always given people hope. In my mind, the two are directly related.

[Blueprotoss]

The Sarendoctrinator wrote...

Shepard's fate has always mattered most to me because, throughout the whole trilogy, it's the thing that players have had the most control over, and taking away such an important part of that at the very end just feels wrong. Plus, even now that their world isn't ending, everyone's still going to need heroes after the war as they try to rebuild and move towards a brighter future. Shepard's always given people hope. In my mind, the two are directly related.

At least Shepard has appeared in all ME1, ME2, and ME3 while we can't say the same for the Dragon Age and etc.

[The Sarendoctrinator]

Blueprotoss wrote...

At least Shepard has appeared in all ME1, ME2, and ME3 while we can't say the same for the Dragon Age and etc.

I didn't mind switching protagonists in Dragon Age. My opinion on their fates is kind of left up in the air until we find out what happened with them after the games ended though.

[woodym89]

One reason for me why I think ME2 is better, is that it has more replay value.in it.

[Hevilath]

Suicide Mission in ME2 was a blast. Character interactions was more interesting. etc, etc

[Kakita Tatsumaru]

Blueprotoss wrote...

JyrikGauldy wrote...
me2 actually had roleplaying in it, instead of this autoshep crap

That sounds like a contradiction based on how ME2 took out most of the RPG elements in ME1 while ME3 brought back half of the RPG elements with some twists

Perhaps because there's a huge difference between "RPG elements" and the core of Role Playing Games: Roleplay.

[Blueprotoss]

 

woodym89 wrote...

One reason for me why I think ME2 is better, is that it has more replay value.in it.

Thats okay to have an opinion like that even when ME3 will last a lot longer based on its MP. 

Kakita Tatsumaru wrote...

Perhaps because there's a huge difference between "RPG elements" and the core of Role Playing Games: Roleplay.

By technicality the majority of games would be labeled as a RPG based on playing role with that thinking.  Btw its not that hard to notice the differences based on how ME2 mainly focused on the Shooter part while ME3 focused on brining back most of the lost RPG elements that were lost in ME2.

Modifié par Blueprotoss, 21 juin 2012 - 02:17 .

[Kakita Tatsumaru]

Blueprotoss wrote...

Kakita Tatsumaru wrote...
Perhaps because there's a huge difference between "RPG elements" and the core of Role Playing Games: Roleplay.

By technicality the majority of games would be labeled as a RPG based on playing role with that thinking.  Btw its not that hard to notice the differences based on how ME2 mainly focused on the Shooter part while ME3 focused on brining back most of the lost RPG elements that were lost in ME2.

No:
-Don't think "playing role" and "roleplay" are quite the same thing.
-For a game to be an RPG, it have to let you make choices and to acknowledge those choices. Most game lack in one way or the other. ME3 is actually quite bad in those two categories, making it a lot more combat focused that ME2.

Remember, only two things have to be there to make a game a Role Playing Game: Choices and Consequences.
Those "RPG elements" are just a common misconception about why RPG are RPG, and can be found in numerous games those days without making them Role Playing Games. In the other way other games which aren't considered RPG because of their gameplay are actually closer to RPG than some games who calls themselves RPG.

[Blueprotoss]

Kakita Tatsumaru wrote...

No:
-Don't think "playing role" and "roleplay" are quite the same thing.
-For a game to be an RPG, it have to let you make choices and to acknowledge those choices. Most game lack in one way or the other. ME3 is actually quite bad in those two categories, making it a lot more combat focused that ME2.

You do play a role in most games like a soldier in CoD/Battlefield/Halo, an athelete in Fifa/NHL/Madden, a professional killer in Assassin's Creed/Dishonored/Splinter Cell, or a simple hero in Final Fantasy/Fallout/Skyrim as a few examples.  RPGs really aren't the same as back in the old days of gaming especially when the old games were mainly based off of the "pen and paper" play like in Warhammer and DnD.   The irony here is that ME3 is has a lot more RPG gameplay and elements then compared to the streamlined Shooter that ME2 is.

 

Kakita Tatsumaru wrote... 

Remember, only two things have to be there to make a game a Role Playing Game: Choices and Consequences.
Those "RPG elements" are just a common misconception about why RPG are RPG, and can be found in numerous games those days without making them Role Playing Games. In the other way other games which aren't considered RPG because of their gameplay are actually closer to RPG than some games who calls themselves RPG.

RPG don't need to have choices or consequences without your decisions especially when you look at most of the scripted events like Aeris dieing in FF7, the King being assassinated in Oblivion/Witcher 2,  Shepard dying at the beginning in ME2, Sora becoming a heartless in Kingdom Hearts, and you're sister being killed with you being shoot in Fable 2 while those are just a few easy examples.  RPGs have evolved a lot over the years and it sounds like you're just making excuses at this point.

[Alistair Theirin]

I know I will get hated on the BSN for this, but I liked ME3 better than ME2. Sure, I disliked the ending to 3 quite a bit, but as a whole I had more fun playing the third one (not to mention ME2's ending isn't that much better anyways. I found the human reaper kind of ridiculous). I thought the story in ME2 was very light, and is actually pretty throw away in the grand scheme of things, except for character interaction. Almost the entire game is recruiting and loyalty missions. Which don't get me wrong, was still fun, but I don't feel as accomplished.

[AlanC9]

Kakita Tatsumaru wrote...

Blueprotoss wrote...

JyrikGauldy wrote...
me2 actually had roleplaying in it, instead of this autoshep crap

That sounds like a contradiction based on how ME2 took out most of the RPG elements in ME1 while ME3 brought back half of the RPG elements with some twists

Perhaps because there's a huge difference between "RPG elements" and the core of Role Playing Games: Roleplay.

True. Most of the elements of traditional CRPGs haven't got much to do with role-playing, and a few are downright bad for role-playing.

Anyway, there's no reason why a game couldn't do some "RP" things better while simultaneously doing other things worse.

[Kakita Tatsumaru]

Blueprotoss wrote...

Kakita Tatsumaru wrote...
No:
-Don't think "playing role" and "roleplay" are quite the same thing.
-For a game to be an RPG, it have to let you make choices and to acknowledge those choices. Most game lack in one way or the other. ME3 is actually quite bad in those two categories, making it a lot more combat focused that ME2.

You do play a role in most games like a soldier in CoD/Battlefield/Halo, an athelete in Fifa/NHL/Madden, a professional killer in Assassin's Creed/Dishonored/Splinter Cell, or a simple hero in Final Fantasy/Fallout/Skyrim as a few examples.  RPGs really aren't the same as back in the old days of gaming especially when the old games were mainly based off of the "pen and paper" play like in Warhammer and DnD.   The irony here is that ME3 is has a lot more RPG gameplay and elements then compared to the streamlined Shooter that ME2 is.

Once again, you don't get the difference  between "playing role" and "roleplay".
What you consider core RPG elements are just a remnants of the board games which existed and were used as a base for the first role playing game without defining the genre.

Kakita Tatsumaru wrote... 
Remember, only two things have to be there to make a game a Role Playing Game: Choices and Consequences.
Those "RPG elements" are just a common misconception about why RPG are RPG, and can be found in numerous games those days without making them Role Playing Games. In the other way other games which aren't considered RPG because of their gameplay are actually closer to RPG than some games who calls themselves RPG.

RPG don't need to have choices or consequences without your decisions especially when you look at most of the scripted events like Aeris dieing in FF7, the King being assassinated in Oblivion/Witcher 2,  Shepard dying at the beginning in ME2, Sora becoming a heartless in Kingdom Hearts, and you're sister being killed with you being shoot in Fable 2 while those are just a few easy examples.  RPGs have evolved a lot over the years and it sounds like you're just making excuses at this point.

You are just narrow minded (no offence, I don't know which other word to use, english is not my native language) and look too much to the extreme. The only role where you could manage to do everything you want is playing God. In a RPG, you're supposed to be able to try to do what you want. See the difference?
Besides, you just made my point by talking about FFVII when speaking about RPG: it's the perfect example of a game called an RPG when it is not (it doesn't change the fact it's a great game which is probably in my top ten. And FFVI>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>FFVII ) when other game which have dozen reasons to be called RPG are not.

Modifié par Kakita Tatsumaru, 21 juin 2012 - 10:29 .

[Blueprotoss]

Kakita Tatsumaru wrote...

Once again, you don't get the difference  between "playing role" and "roleplay".
What you consider core RPG elements are just a remnants of the board games which existed and were used as a base for the first role playing game without defining the genre.

I llove the irony here since you really don't know the difference between "playing role" and "roleplay" since you can be "playing a role" or "roleplay" in Battlefield even when it isn't a RPG.  It seems like you don't know what RPG elements are based on your questioning because the simpliest RPGs are "pen and paper" games like Warhammer and DnD.

Kakita Tatsumaru wrote... 

You are just narrow minded (no offence, I don't know which other word to use, english is not my native language) and look too much to the extreme. The only role where you could manage to do everything you want is playing God. In a RPG, you're supposed to be able to try to do what you want. See the difference?
Besides, you just made my point by talking about FFVII when speaking about RPG: it's the perfect example of a game called and RPG when it is not (it doesn't change the fact it's a great game which is probably in my top ten. And FFVI>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>FFVII ) when other game which have dozen reasons to be called RPG are not.

If I wanted to be narrow minded then I would be denying the facts just like you have been doing.  The irony about FF7 is that there are people that don't like it, but it seems you don't know the difference between a turn based RPG and an Action RPG.  Btw you should expand your horizons especially when talking about RPGs because of its subgenres.

Modifié par Blueprotoss, 21 juin 2012 - 10:30 .

[Kakita Tatsumaru]

Blueprotoss wrote...
I llove the irony here since you really don't know the difference between "playing role" and "roleplay" since you can be "playing a role" or "roleplay" in Battlefield even when it isn't a RPG.  It seems like you don't know what RPG elements are based on your questioning because the simpliest RPGs are "pen and paper" games like Warhammer and DnD.

Battlefield doesn't gives you the tools needed to make choices and acknowledge them, thus is not a Role Playing Game.
And D&D gameplay mechanics comes from board games. They're not the innovative touch which made RPG what they are. Actually RPG was invented by G.G when he though about what his character was doing when not on the board. And back then, there was no "gameplay mechanics" needed for that (and there is now in PnP RPG, which created a whole recurent debate about "Roleplay VS Roll-play").

One last word: never say that PnP RPG are the simpliest, because unlike video games they're not limited by the hardware/money limit, and their possibility are almost infinite.

If I wanted to be narrow minded then I would be denying the facts just like you have been doing.  The irony about FF7 is that there are people that don't like it, but it seems you don't know the difference between a turn based RPG and an Action RPG.  Btw you should expand your horizons especially when talking about RPGs because of its subgenres.

You're talking about a video game (common) misconception of what an RPG is, I'm concentrating on what RPGs are.
In that case gameplay is not taken into account unless it help your roleplay by letting you make choices and ackowledging it.
You're saying that "Made in France" products are made in France because smart people which likes money wrote it on products, I'm saying that most "Made in France" products actually aren't made in France because...they're not made in France!

[Pockydon]

Umm...Everything?

[eye basher]

Wow couple of months back every one was on the USS we hate ME2 with a passion now ME2 is the greatest game ever made see this is one of the many things that keep me from taking BSN seriously.

[Kakita Tatsumaru]

eye basher wrote...
Wow couple of months back every one was on the USS we hate ME2 with a passion now ME2 is the greatest game ever made see this is one of the many things that keep me from taking BSN seriously.

Saying ME2>ME3 isn't saying ME2>ME1 (especially for the scenario and for some people like me the gameplay).

[-Skorpious-]

eye basher wrote...

Wow couple of months back every one was on the USS we hate ME2 with a passion now ME2 is the greatest game ever made see this is one of the many things that keep me from taking BSN seriously.

The original Mass Effect was the only great Mass Effect game in my opinion. ME2 was mediocre overall (having a trenchcoat wearing assassin and a friendly Geth onboard doesn't excuse the lack of plot), while ME3, despite its occasional moments of brilliance, was plagued with atrocious design/story decisions that hinderered my ability to enjoy the game as much as I should have. 

[Blueprotoss]

Kakita Tatsumaru wrote...

Battlefield doesn't gives you the tools needed to make choices and acknowledge them, thus is not a Role Playing Game.
And D&D gameplay mechanics comes from board games. They're not the innovative touch which made RPG what they are. Actually RPG was invented by G.G when he though about what his character was doing when not on the board. And back then, there was no "gameplay mechanics" needed for that (and there is now in PnP RPG, which created a whole recurent debate about "Roleplay VS Roll-play").

 Yet you have a lot of choices in Battlefield based on your class and loadout, which actually happpens in a lot of RPGs while I'm not saying that Battlefield is a RPG but it is role playing.  DnD isn't really a board game and it sounds like you haven't played it.

Kakita Tatsumaru wrote... 

One last word: never say that PnP RPG are the simpliest, because unlike video games they're not limited by the hardware/money limit, and their possibility are almost infinite.

"Pen and paper" is the simpliest RPG and it isn't that had to break those games.

Kakita Tatsumaru wrote... 

You're talking about a video game (common) misconception of what an RPG is, I'm concentrating on what RPGs are.
In that case gameplay is not taken into account unless it help your roleplay by letting you make choices and ackowledging it.
You're saying that "Made in France" products are made in France because smart people which likes money wrote it on products, I'm saying that most "Made in France" products actually aren't made in France because...they're not made in France!

Yet it seems you're the one using misconceptions based on how many different RPGs there are and technically most games are RPGs based on "role playing".  Btw insulting people is still useless.

Modifié par Blueprotoss, 22 juin 2012 - 12:27 .

[Nefla]

eye basher wrote...

Wow couple of months back every one was on the USS we hate ME2 with a passion now ME2 is the greatest game ever made see this is one of the many things that keep me from taking BSN seriously.

I was never hating ME2. I played ME1 several times and loved it, then ME2 came out and I was not disappointed at all, I loved it and beat it even more times than ME1. I thought it had even more replay value. Then ME3 comes around and I do my first and only pre-order ever and go to the midnight release to pick it up and was so disappointed. It wasn't anywhere near the same level as the first two. They took out or severely shaved down everything I loved about the previous games.

[Blueprotoss]

Nefla wrote...

I was never hating ME2. I played ME1 several times and loved it, then ME2 came out and I was not disappointed at all, I loved it and beat it even more times than ME1. I thought it had even more replay value. Then ME3 comes around and I do my first and only pre-order ever and go to the midnight release to pick it up and was so disappointed. It wasn't anywhere near the same level as the first two. They took out or severely shaved down everything I loved about the previous games.

It sounds like the conclusion didn't please you, which thats perfectly fine while that sounds were most of the small uproar seems to stem from.  Conclusions are usually hard to do in trilogies especially when you have a choice system in a game like ME that affects everything in the series with one game, which is what happened with ME3.

[Nefla]

Blueprotoss wrote...

Nefla wrote...

I was never hating ME2. I played ME1 several times and loved it, then ME2 came out and I was not disappointed at all, I loved it and beat it even more times than ME1. I thought it had even more replay value. Then ME3 comes around and I do my first and only pre-order ever and go to the midnight release to pick it up and was so disappointed. It wasn't anywhere near the same level as the first two. They took out or severely shaved down everything I loved about the previous games.

It sounds like the conclusion didn't please you, which thats perfectly fine while that sounds were most of the small uproar seems to stem from.  Conclusions are usually hard to do in trilogies especially when you have a choice system in a game like ME that affects everything in the series with one game, which is what happened with ME3.

"Small uproar" lol. Let me put it this way: If ME3 had been the first in the series I would not have purchased further installments. I gave my reasons in my previous novel of a post that you tried to refute. The ending sucked yes, but it was FAR from the only problem with ME3.

[Blueprotoss]

Nefla wrote...

"Small uproar" lol. Let me put it this way: If ME3 had been the first in the series I would not have purchased further installments. I gave my reasons in my previous novel of a post that you tried to refute. The ending sucked yes, but it was FAR from the only problem with ME3.

It seems like you haven't followed Bioware that much just like what happened with ME2.   It also seems likeyou wouldn't be here based on how much anger you have.  Btw its best not to railroad a topic.

Modifié par Blueprotoss, 22 juin 2012 - 02:12 .