457 réponses à ce sujet

[De1ta G]

SuperMegaWolf wrote...

De1ta G wrote...

SuperMegaWolf wrote...

De1ta G wrote...

MassStorm wrote...

Wow people say that they love RPGs and they at the same time state they do not like what RPGs are made from

-exploration
-loots
-level grinding
-inventory

Sounds to me that in their minds an RPG is a TPS

RPG stands for Role-Playing Game. Not Exploration, Loots, Level Grinding, Inventory. That would be ELLGIG.

I see that you understand the words in the acronym but you don't understand what their combination entails.

As long as you get to make your own character, customize that character, choose a personality and background, make choices that effect the game, and choose what you want to level up then it's an RPG. You don't need loads of exploration, you definitely don't need an inventory, and you don't have to level grind for role playing.

Ah. I see. So you get to decide what's role playing and whats not. The words themselves simply mean that you are playing a role (not stat's, exploratios, so on...). By your previous definition, just about every video game involves playing a role. Whether you make choices or not, you are still playing a role. In every FPS, Platformer, and Action game you assume the role of the character you are controlling.
 

That is not what my definition of an RPG is. You might be playing a role in every game, but what I stated is that if you are able choose your own role to play then it is an RPG.

[Sajuro]

MassStorm wrote...

Wow people say that they love RPGs and they at the same time state they do not like what RPGs are made from

-exploration
-loots
-level grinding
-inventory

Sounds to me that in their minds an RPG is a TPS

RPG stands for Role Playing Game, those four things aren't essential to what an RPG is. You couldn't grind in Mass Effect since there were a set number of enemies in the entire game and I don't think the enemies on uncharted worlds respawned, so it isn't an rpg? I'm glad they replaced the inventory with guns that feel different and I wouldn't have minded a gift loot system like Dragon Age had, but being forced to sell all of my useless weapons and mods or melt them down when  I had max omnigel and credits... roleplaying:wizard:

[Yakko77]

While I like the improved shooter game play of ME2 and 3 better but the overall story and atmosphere of ME1 was superior. It was focused and had a purpose that was motivating. I actually cared. About the goal, about the characters and about Sheps and his/her choices. I even felt a sharp pang of dismay on my first playthrough when I thought my femgineer was lost in the rubble but then felt genuine joy when she came charging over victorious (something sorely missing in ME3 with the Destroy End). Few if any games have evoked so much emotion from me. ME3 to it's credit had it's emotional moments too. I was honesty very saddened when Mordin and Thane died and felt the same for Grunt too when I thought he was sacrificed.

[Joe1962]

ME 1 was and still is my favorite game of the series.

It had the most epic moments, best interaction with your LI and squad and, yes here it comes, the best ending of any of the 3.

I'm still replaying 3 with some other classes and really enjoy the MP, but nothing in the game or in 2 came close to matching the epic times in ME 1, for me.

I'm not a hater of 2 or 3, I purchased all the DLC for 2 and will probably do so for 3 as well, before I give up on them.

I believe I will eventually only replay ME 1 and consider that Shep's story and that the Reapers were stranded in dark space for eternity.

[De1ta G]

Tealjaker94 wrote...

ME1 was the worst in my opinion. The gameplay was absolutely awful. The characters weren't anywhere near as developed as the second two games. The story was good, but all 3 games had good plots(discounting ME3's ending). The only areas I'd give ME1 an advantage over ME3 is the ending not sucking and nostalgia. ME2 was superior in every area.

Wouldn't say ME 1 was absolutely awful. Just in comparison with 2 and 3. They made huge improvements with each game, making the first one look like crap. It was amazing before Mass Effect 2 came out.

[BaladasDemnevanni]

MassStorm wrote...

Wow people say that they love RPGs and they at the same time state they do not like what RPGs are made from

-exploration
-loots
-level grinding
-inventory

Sounds to me that in their minds an RPG is a TPS

It's a damn shame that Mass Effect managed to fail spectacularly in each of these four categories.

Not liking bad game mechanics is not the same as not liking RPGs.

And if you want to go back to pen and paper, I don't remember much level grinding or excessive inventory in campaigns. Sure, it existed, but it's not shoved down your throat in the same way as the cRPG market.

Modifié par BaladasDemnevanni, 24 juillet 2012 - 03:56 .

[Pitznik]

OP, what was the point of this thread anyway? Different people have different opinions, find different things fun, and different things annoying.

[Grub Killer8016]

ME1 will always be the best

[Tealjaker94]

De1ta G wrote...

Tealjaker94 wrote...

ME1 was the worst in my opinion. The gameplay was absolutely awful. The characters weren't anywhere near as developed as the second two games. The story was good, but all 3 games had good plots(discounting ME3's ending). The only areas I'd give ME1 an advantage over ME3 is the ending not sucking and nostalgia. ME2 was superior in every area.

Wouldn't say ME 1 was absolutely awful. Just in comparison with 2 and 3. They made huge improvements with each game, making the first one look like crap. It was amazing before Mass Effect 2 came out.

I said the gameplay was awful, which it was. The shooting mechanics were terrible and the powers were just a spam fest. I still love the game itself. 

[Joe1962]

Yakko77 wrote...

While I like the improved shooter game play of ME2 and 3 better but the overall story and atmosphere of ME1 was superior. It was focused and had a purpose that was motivating. I actually cared. About the goal, about the characters and about Sheps and his/her choices. I even felt a sharp pang of dismay on my first playthrough when I thought my femgineer was lost in the rubble but then felt genuine joy when she came charging over victorious (something sorely missing in ME3 with the Destroy End). Few if any games have evoked so much emotion from me. ME3 to it's credit had it's emotional moments too. I was honesty very saddened when Mordin and Thane died and felt the same for Grunt too when I thought he was sacrificed.

Very well put. Much better than I did and I agree totally with every point. Except I only played male Shep.

[Sajuro]

SuperMegaWolf wrote...

De1ta G wrote...

SuperMegaWolf wrote...

De1ta G wrote...

MassStorm wrote...

Wow people say that they love RPGs and they at the same time state they do not like what RPGs are made from

-exploration
-loots
-level grinding
-inventory

Sounds to me that in their minds an RPG is a TPS

RPG stands for Role-Playing Game. Not Exploration, Loots, Level Grinding, Inventory. That would be ELLGIG.

I see that you understand the words in the acronym but you don't understand what their combination entails.

As long as you get to make your own character, customize that character, choose a personality and background, make choices that effect the game, and choose what you want to level up then it's an RPG. You don't need loads of exploration, you definitely don't need an inventory, and you don't have to level grind for role playing.

Ah. I see. So you get to decide what's role playing and whats not. The words themselves simply mean that you are playing a role (not stat's, exploratios, so on...). By your previous definition, just about every video game involves playing a role. Whether you make choices or not, you are still playing a role. In every FPS, Platformer, and Action game you assume the role of the character you are controlling.
 

If you have imagination and can think about why your character would do this, even if it headcanon, then yes you could say that you're roleplay

[BaladasDemnevanni]

SuperMegaWolf wrote...

So obviously the best course of action was to cut them out and make a 3rd person shooter out of it. And everyone prefers it that way.

Best course of action? No. Valid course of action? Most definitely.

If you design crappy game mechanics and are looking to improve your game, you have two options:

1) Redesign

2) Scrap

Ultimately no exploration is better than bad exploration. You can't fail at what you never try.

[SuperMegaWolf]

Tealjaker94 wrote...

ME1 was the worst in my opinion. The gameplay was absolutely awful. The characters weren't anywhere near as developed as the second two games. The story was good, but all 3 games had good plots(discounting ME3's ending). The only areas I'd give ME1 an advantage over ME3 is the ending not sucking and nostalgia. ME2 was superior in every area.

naw man. as a trilogy, the overall stories were terrible. They don't reall fit together that well. Since ME1 had the best story, in terms of beginning a trilogy, I postulate that it is the best because, as far as story goes, it did what was needed and laid an excellent foundation for the trilogy. The other installments dropped the ball in continuing/building upon the base that was laid and faild to form a complete continuous trilogy. That is why they are inferior.

[wright1978]

De1ta G wrote...

wright1978 wrote...

De1ta G wrote...

Every dialog decision in ME 3 was viable. There was less of it bc before it was a lot of dialog choices that weren't viable or said the exact same thing as another choice did. Conversations flowed a lot better in ME 3 without all the pauses.

Really couldn't care about dialogue flow if it destroys my character. I care about dialogue choice and that was butchered in ME3. There's no neutral dialogue, tonnes of characterising auto-dialogue that completely conflicts with previous dialogue choices in previous games. If Bioware doesn't dial back the auto-dialogue and return the sense of player characterisation over the protaganist that existed in ME1 and Me2 and their other games they'll lose my custom.

Yeah right, as if you used neutral dialog. You chose the paragon or renegade choice by whichever kind of character you were playing so that you could as much pargon/renegade points as possible. You didn't even read what the choices actually said once you figured out what kind of character you were going to play. You just hit up or down. That's why there is no neutral dialog. And there's alot of auto-dialog to replace the unnecessary dialog choices.

No i roleplay in a roleplay game. Therefore i choose the dialogue that best suits my chracter rather than chasing paragon or renegade points. So neutral dialogue is very important. Nope, auto-dialogue in ME3 replaced very necessary dialogue choices repeatedly. How am i supposed to maintain my ability to characterise the Shep i've defined over 2 games if they start sticking huge amounts of character defining auto-dialogue in ME3.

[Tealjaker94]

SuperMegaWolf wrote...

Tealjaker94 wrote...

ME1 was the worst in my opinion. The gameplay was absolutely awful. The characters weren't anywhere near as developed as the second two games. The story was good, but all 3 games had good plots(discounting ME3's ending). The only areas I'd give ME1 an advantage over ME3 is the ending not sucking and nostalgia. ME2 was superior in every area.

naw man. as a trilogy, the overall stories were terrible. They don't reall fit together that well. Since ME1 had the best story, in terms of beginning a trilogy, I postulate that it is the best because, as far as story goes, it did what was needed and laid an excellent foundation for the trilogy. The other installments dropped the ball in continuing/building upon the base that was laid and faild to form a complete continuous trilogy. That is why they are inferior.

As a trilogy, yes, the stories fit together terribly. But individually each is good. I don't fault individual games for not fitting into the trilogy. I fault Bioware for not having an overarching story planned out from the get go. ME1 is as much the problem as the other two.

Modifié par Tealjaker94, 24 juillet 2012 - 04:04 .

[De1ta G]

SuperMegaWolf wrote...

Tealjaker94 wrote...

ME1 was the worst in my opinion. The gameplay was absolutely awful. The characters weren't anywhere near as developed as the second two games. The story was good, but all 3 games had good plots(discounting ME3's ending). The only areas I'd give ME1 an advantage over ME3 is the ending not sucking and nostalgia. ME2 was superior in every area.

naw man. as a trilogy, the overall stories were terrible. They don't reall fit together that well. Since ME1 had the best story, in terms of beginning a trilogy, I postulate that it is the best because, as far as story goes, it did what was needed and laid an excellent foundation for the trilogy. The other installments dropped the ball in continuing/building upon the base that was laid and faild to form a complete continuous trilogy. That is why they are inferior.

The only ones that don't fit together well is ME 1 to ME2 because they killed Shepard and made it playable for those who didn't play the first one. I mean tons of new characters, Garrus and Tali are reintroduced very well and they disregarded Ashley/Kaidan, Liara, and Wrex(who would be dead). It introduced a completely new enemy to fight who was the main enemy. Mass Effect 3 fits very well because it brings in to account things from both ME 1 and ME 2 story with the main plot being that Reapers, who have been a huge part of the entire series, are finally here.  

Modifié par De1ta G, 24 juillet 2012 - 04:08 .

[De1ta G]

wright1978 wrote...

De1ta G wrote...

wright1978 wrote...

De1ta G wrote...

Every dialog decision in ME 3 was viable. There was less of it bc before it was a lot of dialog choices that weren't viable or said the exact same thing as another choice did. Conversations flowed a lot better in ME 3 without all the pauses.

Really couldn't care about dialogue flow if it destroys my character. I care about dialogue choice and that was butchered in ME3. There's no neutral dialogue, tonnes of characterising auto-dialogue that completely conflicts with previous dialogue choices in previous games. If Bioware doesn't dial back the auto-dialogue and return the sense of player characterisation over the protaganist that existed in ME1 and Me2 and their other games they'll lose my custom.

Yeah right, as if you used neutral dialog. You chose the paragon or renegade choice by whichever kind of character you were playing so that you could as much pargon/renegade points as possible. You didn't even read what the choices actually said once you figured out what kind of character you were going to play. You just hit up or down. That's why there is no neutral dialog. And there's alot of auto-dialog to replace the unnecessary dialog choices.

No i roleplay in a roleplay game. Therefore i choose the dialogue that best suits my chracter rather than chasing paragon or renegade points. So neutral dialogue is very important. Nope, auto-dialogue in ME3 replaced very necessary dialogue choices repeatedly. How am i supposed to maintain my ability to characterise the Shep i've defined over 2 games if they start sticking huge amounts of character defining auto-dialogue in ME3.

Neutral dialog was useless and when chosen, it was always vague and not very character defining. Tell me, what kind of necessary dialog choices were replaced?

[Conniving_Eagle]

Let's not forget that 'true' RPGs are riddled with complicated and spreadsheet-like statistics and that streamlining is tabboo.

[SuperMegaWolf]

Pitznik wrote...

OP, what was the point of this thread anyway? Different people have different opinions, find different things fun, and different things annoying.

The point is that when you look at the series as a trilogy (i.e. a continuous story). The first is the most well done installment. People complain about the ending and don't realize that it is built upon prevoius installments. The first point where the overarching plot began to falter was in the second game. This, in turn, laid a bad foundation for the third. It has nothing to do with which you like the most. The first is the only one that did what was needed for a cohesive trilogy. It developed a plot, revealed a threat, and raised a lot of good quistions. Most of those questions were glossed over in the second game to allow for character interactions. These are important but when dieling with a trilogy, overarching plot is generally the most important thing. Otherwise it's just a series, like a sitcom.

[legion999]

Han Shot First wrote...
Yes.

Being a Spectre with indoctrinated commandos who also have access to the Citadel, means you don't need something to teleport yourself and Geth to the Citadel. Saren also already had a Prothean beacon on Virmire.

The Keepers argument also doesn't work. The job of the Keepers was to open up the Citadel relay so the Reapers could jump through. In ME1 however Sovereign has completely abandoned the Keeper plan when they failed to respond. Saren didn't jump through the Conduit to fix the Keepers, he jumped through to open up the Citadel so that Sovereign could assume control and open the Citadel master relay manually.

The Keeper problem could have easily been resolved after the Reapers had annihilated the current cycle.

Indoctrinated commandos and Saren vs C-Sec and any Spectres on the Citadel. Yeah that would work perfectly.
And he needed another beacon to understand the vision. 

And I don't understand what point you're trying to make with the Keepers.

[eye basher]

The Angry One wrote...

I'm playing it again. Combat is actually a challenge. The story is coherent. There's neutral dialogue. The Mako is great. Exploring planets for random things is awesome. The Citadel remains the biggest and most detailed of all 3 games and that's withother hubs.
Then there's the little details. Staying on the Normandy when docking with a hub world, attempts at an almost seamless world, "XO Pressly has the deck" and so on.

Ironically Pinnacle Station (yes I bought Pinnacle Station, shut up) reminds me a LOT of ME3 multiplayer.

The combat is a challenge hahahahahaaha the dragons in skyrim are more of a challenge and i smack em around like paper planets are full of dirt and the occasional geth or maw.

[Conniving_Eagle]

De1ta G wrote...
Neutral dialog was useless and when chosen, it was always vague and not very character defining. Tell me, what kind of necessary dialog choices were replaced?

Neutral dialogue was not useless. It was often pragmatic or sensical and it offered the player another option/stance.

For example, during Miranda's Loyalty mission when Shepard gives their thoughts on Niket.

Paragon: No, he would never betray you.
Renegade: He obviously double crossed you.
Neutral: We'll see when we get there.

[Han Shot First]

legion999 wrote...

Han Shot First wrote...
Yes.

Being a Spectre with indoctrinated commandos who also have access to the Citadel, means you don't need something to teleport yourself and Geth to the Citadel. Saren also already had a Prothean beacon on Virmire.

The Keepers argument also doesn't work. The job of the Keepers was to open up the Citadel relay so the Reapers could jump through. In ME1 however Sovereign has completely abandoned the Keeper plan when they failed to respond. Saren didn't jump through the Conduit to fix the Keepers, he jumped through to open up the Citadel so that Sovereign could assume control and open the Citadel master relay manually.

The Keeper problem could have easily been resolved after the Reapers had annihilated the current cycle.

Indoctrinated commandos and Saren vs C-Sec and any Spectres on the Citadel. Yeah that would work perfectly.
And he needed another beacon to understand the vision. 

And I don't understand what point you're trying to make with the Keepers.

The point I was making about the Keepers is that your argument that Saren needed the Conduit to resolve the Keeper problem, doesn't hold water. He didn't go to the Citadel to fix the Keepers. He went to the Citadel to bypass the Keepers by giving Sovereign manual control.

Also, Saren was not battling the entirely of C-Sec in the ME1 end game sequence. He jumped through the Conduit with a small force of Geth that took control of a single building, allowing Sovereign to 'assume control' and for Geth dropships to disembark reinforcements.

That is exactly the sort of thing indoctrinted commandos could have done, particularly when said commandos have access to the presidium and no one had yet heard of indoctrination.

In short, the Eden Prime/Conduit plotline is the biggest plot hole in the series.

Modifié par Han Shot First, 24 juillet 2012 - 04:20 .

[wright1978]

De1ta G wrote...

wright1978 wrote...

No i roleplay in a roleplay game. Therefore i choose the dialogue that best suits my chracter rather than chasing paragon or renegade points. So neutral dialogue is very important. Nope, auto-dialogue in ME3 replaced very necessary dialogue choices repeatedly. How am i supposed to maintain my ability to characterise the Shep i've defined over 2 games if they start sticking huge amounts of character defining auto-dialogue in ME3.

Neutral dialog was useless and when chosen, it was always vague and not very character defining. Tell me, what kind of necessary dialog choices were replaced?

No neutral dialogue is not useless and it is equally character defining as paragon or renegade extremes. A particular example of necessary dialogue choices that were missing was Casey's Hudson's promise that the ability to roleplay anti-alliance would be present. It isn't, Shep is now railroaded into being an alliance loyalist , no matter if you spent all of ME2 choosing dialogue slagging them off. ME2 on the otherhand allowed the player the freedom to be reluctantly working for Cerberus, being anti both alliance and cerberus, be pro-cerberus etc. That's just one example of where auto-dialogue defined Shep. It's omni present in ME3 and is completely unacceptable. Player characterisation of the protaganist should be at the heart of ME3 but its been sidelined in favour of flowing cutscenes and a defined protaganist.

Modifié par wright1978, 24 juillet 2012 - 04:24 .

[De1ta G]

Conniving_Eagle wrote...

De1ta G wrote...
Neutral dialog was useless and when chosen, it was always vague and not very character defining. Tell me, what kind of necessary dialog choices were replaced?

Neutral dialogue was not useless. It was often pragmatic or sensical and it offered the player another option/stance.

For example, during Miranda's Loyalty mission when Shepard gives their thoughts on Niket.

Paragon: No, he would never betray you.
Renegade: He obviously double crossed you.
Neutral: We'll see when we get there.

Maybe neutral dialog is not useless but it isn't like it was necessary for ME 3. I don't recall any situtations like the Thane and Jacob conversation where you could tell them to both shut up ith the neutral choice. By Mass Effect 3, Shepard either regrets his/her previous choices(usually top option), or doesn't (usually bottom option).