181 réponses à ce sujet

[Aifell_Ellion]

Phaedon wrote...

Aifell_Ellion wrote...
PS I just wanted to say, that Riemanns hypothesis is still unprooved, smartass. I wonder if you even know what is it about.

Rubik's cubes weren't invented back in the days of the Klondike Gold Rush either, Señor Fancypants.

Which makes your "joke" even more stupid.

[Phaedon]

First off, it is true that ME1 stats on items progress as a group and not idividually. The entirety of the item 'variety' can be simplified to x is better than y.

Moreover, you consider this to be insulting.

Therefore, you consider the truth to be insulting.

[SalsaDMA]

Phaedon wrote...

Tigerman123 wrote...
ME1's combat is simple even compared to something like Pokemon

This is actually true.

There you go everyone. Your younger self from the late 90s played more intellectually demanding games than you. Therefore, you, yourself are getting dumbed down as you age.

Problemo?

You seem stuck in this perception that rpg = combat. Almost the same as the other dude that thought it was a "waste" to put skilpoints into >conversations<.

Frankly, I get a better rpg experience from LA Noire than I do from the latter episodes of ME, even though there are zero actual skills in LA Noire. Reason: Playing the character isn't dumbed down to fighting random mooks.

I'll still claim ME2 and ME3 are shooters and not rpgs.

[SalsaDMA]

Phaedon wrote...

Someone With Mass wrote...

Phaedon wrote...
It wouldn't be so hard to just open the tank's 'door' and stab stab stab, right?

If the drivers forgot to lock the hatch, sure.

IT IS A POSSIBILITY

Cowboys can kill aliens

(Yeah, just watched the movie on dvd )

[Izhalezan]

TheKillerAngel wrote...

The tank was driving up the mountains and its treads broke down. The veteran spearmen descended upon the hapless machine, miraculously overcame its armor, and proceeded to slaughter the crew.

Damn armor pen. stacking noobs.

[Aifell_Ellion]

o Ventus wrote...

Aifell_Ellion wrote...

Phaedon wrote...

eternalnightmare13 wrote...

Cause the younger generation is too stupid and impatient to play real rpgs.

Aye, laddie. Back in my Klondike days, we kids would solve four Rubik's cubes while proving the Riemann hypothesis. At the same time.


Holy heck. Just look at the advertisements from the early 90s. You think that this generation is dumb?

I wonder how many Rubik's cubes you solved, since you have started to prove Riemann hypothesis. Like i understood when u'll finish your 'prove' it will be four, so looks like you havent solved even four since your early childhood.

PS I just wanted to say, that Riemanns hypothesis is still unprooved, smartass. I wonder if you even know what is it about.

You ARE aware Phaedon was making a joke, right?

Thanks, CO.
I was making a joke too, about the fact, that saying random **** about random things should make a person look silly, and it seems that people here dont think so.

[Phaedon]

Aifell_Ellion wrote...
Which makes your "joke" even more stupid.

No, I'd say that it's more rational to assert that you don't comprehend that comedy is based on something out of the norm occuring, be it hillarious improbability or slapstick humor.

'So Hitler, Justin Bieber, and George Washigton walk into a bar--"

'NO! THAT CAN'T BE! THEY LIVED IN DIFFERENT HISTORICAL ERAS!'

[Phaedon]

SalsaDMA wrote...
You seem stuck in this perception that rpg = combat. Almost the same as the other dude that thought it was a "waste" to put skilpoints into >conversations<.

No, I rather seem to be stuck in the perception that Pokemon is more intellectually demanding that ME1 in every way. Never in that post did I narrow it down to combat.

Frankly, I get a better rpg experience from LA Noire than I do from the latter episodes of ME, even though there are zero actual skills in LA Noire. Reason: Playing the character isn't dumbed down to fighting random mooks.

Frankly, I doubt you have played LA Noire recently. The plot is poor, full of inconsistencies, and you get in fights for little logical reason. In fact, its side missions are so generic and so directed at fighting 'random mooks' that a good percentage of them is based on the format of 'Something something BANDITS'. 

Note that I am only touching on the surface here. I won't go into the problems with you considering that you roleplay in LA Noire.

I'll still claim ME2 and ME3 are shooters and not rpgs.

Of course you will.

Modifié par Phaedon, 20 mai 2012 - 02:39 .

[Aifell_Ellion]

Phaedon wrote...

First off, it is true that ME1 stats on items progress as a group and not idividually. The entirety of the item 'variety' can be simplified to x is better than y.

Moreover, you consider this to be insulting.

Therefore, you consider the truth to be insulting.

It can be only simplified to x is better than y and z in situation1, y better than z  and x in situation2, z is better than both x and y in situation 3, not simplier than that. Im ME3 and 2 this kind of difference still exists, but is is much less

[SalsaDMA]

TheKillerAngel wrote...

The tank was driving up the mountains and its treads broke down. The veteran spearmen descended upon the hapless machine, miraculously overcame its armor, and proceeded to slaughter the crew.

Depending on the tanks and terrain, tanks actually CAN get in trouble. German tanks in WW2 were ill designed to handle russian enviroments and got clogged down (not wide enough caterpillars) while even having turrets freezing in place. Russian tanks on the other hand, were designed for those enviroments and fared better.

Just because they are a big chunk of metal doesn't mean they are invincible.

[Bfler]

It is like in the movie industry. In former days the animation, CGI and other computer related techniques weren't availailable or less advanced. So the producers had to focus more on a good story, good actors than on special effects, non-stop action to attract the audience.

As general example: compare Star Trek Next Generation with Star Trek Enterprise 

Modifié par Bfler, 20 mai 2012 - 02:43 .

[SalsaDMA]

Phaedon wrote...

3% group stat improvement is quite rewarding indeed.

Especially compared to 30% idividual stat improvement.

entirely different discussion.

Now you are discussing whether people prefer slow graded progress (more realistic, but feels boring to some), or big leaps of improvement in discernable 'blocks' (not very realistic, but some people prefer seing changes in big chunks)

[Phaedon]

Aifell_Ellion wrote...
It can be only simplified to x is better than y and z in situation1, y better than z  and x in situation2, z is better than both x and y in situation 3, not simplier than that. Im ME3 and 2 this kind of difference still exists, but is is much less

No, non, nein.

Let me repeat myself:

Weapon X in ME1, is better OR worse than Weapon Y in ME1 in all occasions.

There are only 3 stats attributed to weapons in ME1, all of which progress at the same time, therefore becoming, essentially, a single stat. 

Avenger I is always worse than Avenger II. And HMWA IX is always better than Avenger IX.

This is only something that can be found in ME1, and not ME2/3. Frankly, it's difficult to find this simplified mechanic in any other AAA game post-2007.

[Phaedon]

SalsaDMA wrote...
entirely different discussion.

Now you are discussing whether people prefer slow graded progress (more realistic, but feels boring to some), or big leaps of improvement in discernable 'blocks' (not very realistic, but some people prefer seing changes in big chunks)

Of course I do.

When someone switches the topic from mental requirement to quality of reward, I won't reply with something relevant to the original topic.

(Did you read his post?)

[Aifell_Ellion]

Phaedon wrote...

Aifell_Ellion wrote...
Which makes your "joke" even more stupid.

No, I'd say that it's more rational to assert that you don't comprehend that comedy is based on something out of the norm occuring, be it hillarious improbability or slapstick humor.

'So Hitler, Justin Bieber, and George Washigton walk into a bar--"

'NO! THAT CAN'T BE! THEY LIVED IN DIFFERENT HISTORICAL ERAS!'

I consider your joke stupid not because of that, but because of... look like i saw it:
 "i am smart. i am so smart that i solved 4 rubik's cubes from tha time i was born to the time i solved riemann's hyp."
 and as for me, it meant that you were not able to solve four rubik's cubes during your lifetime.
   what have you meant when said about klondike, i didnt understand, and i still cant understand how it was supposed to be connected to rubiks cubes, riemanns hypothesis and your childhood, except my idea that it was supposed to make all what you've said bull****.
Smthn like that

[SalsaDMA]

Phaedon wrote...

Nicksta92 wrote...
As many people are saying, stupid games make things accessible to a wider audience. Most game developers have included multiplayer to provide buyers with any form of challenge, but in general a singleplayer experience that actually forces the player to think is becoming almost non-existent. Ironically enough, a great game that I would say represents a more positive side to this would be Deus Ex Human Revolution. That game can be hard as ****

Soooooo, single-player can make you think, but multi-player, in which you interact with real people instead of an AI? Hell naw.

Horde mode sure isn't intelectually challenging.

You would have a point if MP in ME3 had been along the lines of strategic modes in the BF series (hold and capture multiple points, conquest if played right) against other humans, but that's not exactly what ME3 mp is about, is it?

Heck, something along the lines of battlezone could work too, but again, a bit off from what ME3 tries to do.

[Methaluan_Sylver]

People are getting spoiled with to much easy stuff in general. In a few years shooter will have auto target and a record voice that every five second say "you are the best player of nowdays, buy the DLC to be the best of all time".

I can understand, some people have few time to play and perfer play the game than stay for almost a minute stuck in elevators across the galaxy. But shooters in general are not the most over simplified types of them all. Some puzzle type of games are just a shame because people complaim that take more than five minutes to figure out and take all the challange out of them to you feel like a genius.

Simplicity makes people happy and happy people spend more to stay happy, it the law of the 21st century.

[SalsaDMA]

Phaedon wrote...

First off, it is true that ME1 stats on items progress as a group and not idividually. The entirety of the item 'variety' can be simplified to x is better than y.

Moreover, you consider this to be insulting.

Therefore, you consider the truth to be insulting.

The insult was your condescending tone towards anyone liking ME1. But you shouldn't need me to explain what you perfectly knew when you wrote it.

I really thought you were better than this, Phae

[Kaelef]

Phaedon wrote...

Do abandonware text adventures with graphic enviroments count?

NO!  "Graphic environments" were the first step in dumbing down games!!  

[Aifell_Ellion]

Phaedon wrote...

Aifell_Ellion wrote...
It can be only simplified to x is better than y and z in situation1, y better than z  and x in situation2, z is better than both x and y in situation 3, not simplier than that. Im ME3 and 2 this kind of difference still exists, but is is much less

No, non, nein.

Let me repeat myself:

Weapon X in ME1, is better OR worse than Weapon Y in ME1 in all occasions.

There are only 3 stats attributed to weapons in ME1, all of which progress at the same time, therefore becoming, essentially, a single stat. 

Avenger I is always worse than Avenger II. And HMWA IX is always better than Avenger IX.

This is only something that can be found in ME1, and not ME2/3. Frankly, it's difficult to find this simplified mechanic in any other AAA game post-2007.

Eh, maybe.
Havent played me1 for long.
Still hard to believe after me2/3.
What about armor and omnitool? It seems to me that there were examples of armor with more shields, but lesser physical protection(or how it was called, sorry had localized copy), and vice versa.

[Phaedon]

SalsaDMA wrote...
Horde mode sure isn't intelectually challenging.

And considering that I) nowhere in his post did he talk about horde mode, II) I have yet to have the chance to touch ME3 or multiplayer, you find it rational to reply, criticising ME3's MP.

-'So, I don't really like the mechanics of Rome Total Wa-'
-'The Roman civilization is proof that democracy doesn't work!!!!!!!"

You would have a point if MP in ME3 had been along the lines of strategic modes in the BF series (hold and capture multiple points, conquest if played right) against other humans, but that's not exactly what ME3 mp is about, is it?

Heck, something along the lines of battlezone could work too, but again, a bit off from what ME3 tries to do.

Had you not missed the point of the two previous posts, your post would still be flawed.

First of ME3's MP is hardly traditional MP and has nothing with what we were previously discussing. Moreover, you apparently consider aspects of ME1  to be intellectually demanding, when in fact ME3's MP, with the exception of dialogue choice has all of them. Statistical progression, tactical use of powers, different classes/builds, etc.

[Phaedon]

SalsaDMA wrote...
The insult was your condescending tone towards anyone liking ME1. But you shouldn't need me to explain what you perfectly knew when you wrote it.

I did actually hope, that you'd bring this up.

Phaedon wrote...

 Meanwhile, some ME1 fans are not smart enough to realize that all ME1 'stats' progress as a group, essentially being a single stat. The latest CoD sequels have way more stats than that.

 

Phaedon wrote...
some ME1 fans

 

Phaedon wrote...
some

  

Jeez, I do hope that I would not put effort into insulting myself, too.

I really thought you were better than this, Phae

 
Do you feel disappointed in me?

Modifié par Phaedon, 20 mai 2012 - 02:55 .

[Stevebo]

For me, the best example I can think of is Everquest. Played Everquest for 6+ years, the risk vs reward was fairly high, death had an impact and penalty (you could actually lose your corpse)
there was no in game map, no compass markers telling you where to go, no quest journal and dungeons where you have to compete for spawns and hopefully avoid being "trained" to death.

Fast forward to modern day MMORPG's... everything is streamlined for you, instanced dungeons and such so there isn't much competition for spawns, journals/quest system is outlined and highlighted and death almost has no penalty whatsoever.

The reason why I bring up this example is the fact that gamers these days, especially the younger generation would never play old school EQ. It seems like their attention span is short and they don't like the concept of having to work for things in game. While I know this is generalizing so let me state that now, I think developers are just pandering to the masses and making games where everyone can have the "best" gear/outcome rather than just the hardcore gamers.

The way the gaming industry is these days I really don't see a developer or publisher going out on a limb when it comes to game design and mechanics. They're most likely gonna stick to what is tried and true now in order to appease the masses and sell units, otherwise they may find themselves bought out by EA.....

[LKx]

Phaedon wrote...

Of course I do.

When someone switches the topic from mental requirement to quality of reward, I won't reply with something relevant to the original topic.

(Did you read his post?)

It was never about being intellectually smart(ass) to Riemann level...

[Phaedon]

Aifell_Ellion wrote...
What about armor and omnitool? It seems to me that there were examples of armor with more shields, but lesser physical protection(or how it was called, sorry had localized copy), and vice versa.

It's the same progression system.