530 réponses à ce sujet

[someguy1231]

David7204 wrote...

Hoo boy. Look at you, shilling the Witcher like a 12 year old girl on Facebook trying to make a boy jealous. Yet again, you use these childish tactics.

Yes, I'm sure you'd be very familiar with  "childish tactics"...<_<

[ApuLunas]

me3 didn't contain enough amount of mordin solus, i wish we could see more of the professor.

[Kabraxal]

Heretic_Hanar wrote...

Kabraxal wrote...

Both Star Trek and BSG are sci fi, they just both take different ideological stances on the importance of the technology in that... setting v purpose.

And both discuss philosophical ideas such as identity, desire, morality and social structure etc. Which is what makes BOTH of them sci-fi series.

Mass Effect does not have any of that, or far too less.

I can see Mac Walters tried to drag Mass Effect more towards the sci-fi genre in ME3, with the discussions with EDI, the geth and the question whether we could and should control reaper tech, but it's still far too late and far too less in my opinion. Not to mention that the main plot in ME3 is absolutely silly, with the Crucible nonsense, the Deus-Ex-Machina plot-device known as the Catalyst and all the plot-holes that he introduces. There is not much sci-fi to be found there, only a lot of fantasy and space-magic.

You're original post put technology as the driving force.  It is not in Star Trek.  It is the setting and a prop that sometimes might take a central role for one episode.  BSG the driving force of the show was technology and how it can screw humanity over.

Mass Effect tackles just as many philosophical questions over the course of three games as many sci fi works.  It also has the science fiction setting.  So it is clearly science fiction.  The only truly bad aspect of ME3 is shoehorning in a BSG type ending onto a Star Trek based narrative.  Tecnhology was never the driving force to the saga... it's effects were never THE REASON.  And suddenly that was forefront in the ending.  It was ALL about technology and how the galaxy had to cope.  That is where ME failed... and that is the only aspect in which it really did.  the other 98 percent of the saga was some of the best science fiction out there.  That is why so many are pissed... they took awesome, tried to shift into a different genre of science fiction, and destroyed that awesome in five minutes.

[David7204]

It makes perfect sense. The point was that you have to resort to mocking to get your point across.

[Caprea]

Heretic_Hanar wrote...
Mass Effect doesn't have choices with serious repercussions in the current and next installments. The Witcher does though.

*shrugs* I haven't played The Witcher (yet), so honestly, I can't compare the two. But I did just give you some examples concerning the "serious repercussions" argument. If you don't think characters dying, for instance, doesn't count as "serious repercussions", that's cool. It depends on what you define as "serious repercussions", though. I mean, sure, it doesn't influence the main plot because the dead characters are then replaced by others, but imo, the deaths of certain characters, for example do dome within the term "serious repercussions", considering the player's emotional attachment (or, maybe in your case: lack thereof? I don't know) to them and how others react to it.

At least in Deus Ex: HR  your choices actually have actual consequences. So I guess Deus Ex HR is better engineerd than Mass Effect is.

But just like in ME, the choices you make in Deus Ex HR don't directly affect the plot. And just like in ME, no matter what you do leads up to the final choice of a) Don't release the statement Release the statement c) Commit suicide and escape from the transhuman discussion altogether... and a fourth option, which I can't remember - been too long since I played it. All that changes is the epilog, but again, there's not much room left for "actual consequences". So, what exactly does Deus Ex HR do better or different than Mass Effect in this respect? (Don't get me wrong, I love Deus Ex HR, I'm just curious.)

And what exactly did BioWare manage to pull of here? To make a trilogy that is inconsistent with itself in which your choices from the previous games result in nothing more but fluff and window-dressing in the later games?

BioWare did a very good job at Mass Effect when it came down to considering the vast variety of options and possibilites to play the game. Like I said - e.g. you saved Maelon's data in ME2, Eve survives. If you don't, she dies. Even little things like Conrad Verner and his respective story were taken into account and you could encounter him in all three games, also influencing whether he lives or dies. Even the background you chose was mentioned and the way people talked and reacted to you changed with that. I'm not saying other games/ developers didn't do it at all and I'm not trying to discredit their work in the least (especially because I can't when it comes down to The Witcher because like I said, I haven't played it) - but as far as BioWare and Mass Effect does, it must have been a great technical challenge to take even the most insignificant details into account; and while I respect your opinion that the choices and their respective consequences in ME were nothing more than "fluff and window-dressing", as you put it (heck, I can even understand why you think so, while I do not agree with it), I still applaud BioWare for taking on the technical challenge of wanting even the tiniest little things to be imported and wanting the player to have a unique and individual experience (and in that, they succeeded, except, well, for the ending, but that's another matter).

[dreamgazer]

I liked both The Witcher 2 and ME3, and feel like both excel and slump in areas---both in storytelling and gameplay.

Do I win everything, or lose everything? I can never tell.

[The Heretic of Time]

David7204 wrote...

It makes perfect sense. The point was that you have to resort to mocking to get your point across.

How do you even dare to say that while you yourself posted this merely 12 minutes ago:

Hoo boy. Look at you, shilling the Witcher like a 12 year old girl on Facebook trying to make a boy jealous. Yet again, you use these childish tactics.

Hypocrite much? :lol:

[ApuLunas]

john_sheparrd wrote...

^ witcher 2 is ok but me 3 is much much better (in my opinion)

well mate, i believe me 3 is better than witcher 2 but withcer 2 is not ok and me 3 is the best. though story telling of withcer 2 is the best, story of me3 is better. i just wish witcher 3 surpass me3.

[The Heretic of Time]

dreamgazer wrote...

I liked both The Witcher 2 and ME3, and feel like both excel and slump in areas---both in storytelling and gameplay.

Do I win everything, or lose everything? I can never tell.

Well hey, if you played both and enjoyed both, than more power to you!

Whether you win everything or lose everything is something only you yourself can answer. 

[David7204]

That's completely different. Have you never seen Colbert or Jon Stewert or anything like that? They mock people all the time, and yet they more-or-less condemn the same behavior on news channels. Does that make them hypocrites? Of course not. You were trying to having a reasoned discussion to figure out which game was better. All I was trying to do was point out how you were goofing up.

Modifié par David7204, 14 janvier 2013 - 08:47 .

[Caprea]

Heretic_Hanar wrote...
And all that is supposed to impress me? Like I said, the "consequences" in the Mass Effect trilogy are just fluff and window-dressing. They do not seriously influence or impact the story. The "consequences" are merely glorified cameos at best.

Now lets look at The Witcher 2. THAT is a game doing choices and consequences like a boss. Your decisions in Act 1, which appear to be minor at that point. influence not only the direction of the story, but the entire second Act takes place in an entirely different location, with different characters, different quests and a different perspective on the story!

Playing The Witcher 2 twice truly is worth it, because your 2nd playthrough, if you choose the other path, truly will give you a brand new experience with a completely different perspective on the story, with different information and different details that you didn't get in the other path. 

Now THAT is how you do choices and consequences! THAT is something that gets my respect! Bravo CD Projekt RED, bravo! Good job!

Honestly? No, it's not. I'm just trying to get my point across. Whether you take it into account when replying to my posts, whether you agree with it or not, is another matter altogether. 

Maybe they are by your standards, and I can even see where you're coming from as they don't really influence the plot in and on itself because it has to keep going regardless. And considering that it's all building up towards the finale, I can understand why that is - it makes sense to me, considering the fact all the loose ends are tied together in the end (or not).
But then again, I see many parallels to Deus Ex HR and still don't really get what it does all that differently from ME, or better. Maybe it's just been too long since I've played it, but "choice and consequence" never really struck me as the most glaring feature there, you know.

And thanks for the Witcher tip, btw. I've wanted to check it out for a while, but now I think I'll do so sooner rather than later.

Modifié par dea_ex_machina, 14 janvier 2013 - 08:51 .

[Dark_Caduceus]

It's gonna suck, maybe even worse than Omega.

Edit: I'll gladly eat my words if it doesn't, but you know, the ME3 track record and all...

Modifié par Dark_Caduceus, 14 janvier 2013 - 08:57 .

[The Heretic of Time]

dea_ex_machina wrote...

*shrugs* I haven't played The Witcher (yet), so honestly, I can't compare the two. But I did just give you some examples concerning the "serious repercussions" argument. If you don't think characters dying, for instance, doesn't count as "serious repercussions", that's cool. It depends on what you define as "serious repercussions", though. I mean, sure, it doesn't influence the main plot because the dead characters are then replaced by others, but imo, the deaths of certain characters, for example do dome within the term "serious repercussions", considering the player's emotional attachment (or, maybe in your case: lack thereof? I don't know) to them and how others react to it.

The only characters that die in ME3 as a result to your choices are characters that already played their part and didn't have anything more of signifance to add after the death of the character. Eve dies after she did her part in curing the genophage. Mordin dies after he cured the genophage (or before, if you kill him). Regardless, they die at the end of their personal story arc. Whether these characters live or die, their story arc was already over anyway. It's not like any of those deaths seriously cripples Shepards war effort.

In the end, it all burns down to arbitrary numberical values called "War Assets". That's not what I'd call "serious repercussions". It does not change the story, it does not take the story into a new and interesting direction, it does not hinder of help Shepard at all, not in gameplay and not in story either.

Excuse me while I'm not impressed by that.

But just like in ME, the choices you make in Deus Ex HR don't directly affect the plot.

Sure, but your choices in Deus Ex do have consequences gameplay-wise. Your choices can open up new paths, new approaches to the mission and sometimes might even change the objective of the mission altogether.
Not to mention that your playstyle (stealth or agressive, lethal or non-lethal) influences Adam Jensen's reflection on his deeds during the ending. That's more than I can say for Mass Effect.

So, what exactly does Deus Ex HR do better or different than Mass Effect in this respect? (Don't get me wrong, I love Deus Ex HR, I'm just curious.)

Read what I said above in this comment.

BioWare did a very good job at Mass Effect when it came down to considering the vast variety of options and possibilites to play the game. Like I said - e.g. you saved Maelon's data in ME2, Eve survives. If you don't, she dies. Even little things like Conrad Verner and his respective story were taken into account and you could encounter him in all three games, also influencing whether he lives or dies. Even the background you chose was mentioned and the way people talked and reacted to you changed with that. I'm not saying other games/ developers didn't do it at all and I'm not trying to discredit their work in the least (especially because I can't when it comes down to The Witcher because like I said, I haven't played it) - but as far as BioWare and Mass Effect does, it must have been a great technical challenge to take even the most insignificant details into account; and while I respect your opinion that the choices and their respective consequences in ME were nothing more than "fluff and window-dressing", as you put it (heck, I can even understand why you think so, while I do not agree with it), I still applaud BioWare for taking on the technical challenge of wanting even the tiniest little things to be imported and wanting the player to have a unique and individual experience (and in that, they succeeded, except, well, for the ending, but that's another matter).

While I can at least respect BioWare for the technical hurdles that they managed to jump through, I find it rather dissapointing that this technical masterpiece falls flat on its face in the art direction.

I agree that what BioWare tried to do is amazing from a technical standpoint, but they completely ruined it in the writing department. 

I know you haven't played The Witcher (2), but I can say though, that allthough the technical challenge The Witcher devs faced might not be as gigantic (they admit that their save-import feature is just a little extra gimmick), they still managed create a game with ACTUAL significant choices and consequences, both story-wise and gameplay-wise.

I think what BioWare should have done (and what CD Projekt RED, the developers of The Witcher actually did), is not focus on quantity (tons of choices carried over in the save-import), but on quality instead (a few choices that actually have a significance impact on the game). That would probably have made the Mass Effect trilogy significantly better, at least story-wise.

Modifié par Heretic_Hanar, 14 janvier 2013 - 09:33 .

[GimmeDaGun]

Heretic_Hanar wrote...

dea_ex_machina wrote...

Mass Effect's choice system has consequences: E.g. leaving Ash to die results in Kaidan dying and not being available for the rest of the series. That's a consequence right there. Granted, it's trivial, but it's there. Another example: In ME3, you're requested to investigate Grissom Academy. If you do the quest within a time limit, you meet Jack trying to get her students out of the mess. If you don't do the quest later, you don't encounter her personally, but just hear some Cerberus scientists' banter which suggests that they'll do something terrible to her. And indeed, later on in the Cerberus base, you get to fight her as a Phantom, and kill her.
You have the choices and their respective consequences right there.

And all that is supposed to impress me? Like I said, the "consequences" in the Mass Effect trilogy are just fluff and window-dressing. They do not seriously influence or impact the story. The "consequences" are merely glorified cameos at best.

Now lets look at The Witcher 2. THAT is a game doing choices and consequences like a boss. Your decisions in Act 1, which appear to be minor at that point. influence not only the direction of the story, but the entire second Act takes place in an entirely different location, with different characters, different quests and a different perspective on the story!

Playing The Witcher 2 twice truly is worth it, because your 2nd playthrough, if you choose the other path, truly will give you a brand new experience with a completely different perspective on the story, with different information and different details that you didn't get in the other path. 

Now THAT is how you do choices and consequences! THAT is something that gets my respect! Bravo CD Projekt RED, bravo! Good job!

Yeah, I agree with you about The Witcher 2 being great (one of my personal favorites... actually, it was The Witcher games which led me to ME and I played them more times than ME). But it is very important to note that it's just one singular game... and not a particularly long game (much shorter than, say ME2 or ME3). It is spectacular, it is smart, has great characters and a thrilling and well thought out story (for a game... in that regard ME does it's job very well too... I know you hate it, and I know that you would like to think that it's objective what you say, but believe me... it does it's job despite what you think), it also is a game which manages to pull off the c&c very spectacularly and gives you two vastly different sides of the same story and several minor and few bigger permutations, BUT - again - it all happens in ONE singular game. So in that regard The Witcher 3 has to live up to a huge expactation... we are yet to see whether it pulls it off or not. I'm looking forward to it as hell, but it wouldn't surprise me if people like you with extra high expectations would fall flat and be disappointed by what they get. Yeah it could turn out that the events in TW2 wouldn't matter that much in TW3 (different country... or empire, different characters... I guess you get what I'm talking about ). It would not surprise me at all, but even then I would enjoy it, if it offers a great story. 

I already was a huge fan of The Witcher and Andrzej Sapkowski when most people didn't even know what or who they were, but even as a biased fan I have to say that The Witcher's save import feature was very lame and hardly gave you a personalised journey. It added or changed a few lines here and there or added some non-important characters, npc-s to the 2nd game, but I wouldn't say they had an impact on anything. I wouldn't even call it a C&C system. Even fellow Witcher fans were a bit disappointed by that. In that regard ME was way, way, way better. Yeah, not all choices had great impact on your story in ME and of course you couldn't make your own journey, you could only personalise it by bigger decisions (like letting someone live or not, or letting civlizations fall or not... that's not something I would call minor detail) and smaller permutations. Still I could feel the continuity the flow between each installment and the differences (which The Witcher 2 lacked) the previous two installments made. 

It's also ridiculous that you say that The Witcher one was a personalised story. There was one very linear story really with a few minor decisions you could make and two factions (ok 3, if you count the Witcher's path) you could side with... but even that did not make such a huge difference, only in the last chapter of the game (and even that was more of a difference of coating and colour swap) and was important only in Vizima, but had no real effect on the world. The Order of The Flaming Rose had to move to Redania for example whether you sided with them or the Soia'tael.

About foreshadowing (an overused word around here which has a slightly childish flavor to it): TW1 does not foreshadow anything about TW2... only that one last cutscene... and that was more of a cliffhanger, than foreshadowing. Also in TW2 it is never explained who that assassin was who tried to kill Foltest in that cutscene. The developers kind of forgot about him (there were only 3 assassins from the School of Snake in TW2 according to Letho and the returning memories of Geralt). If it was ME, most fans would cry pages and threads full for such a "plot hole" (another bsn "word"). Anyway, the two stories stand on their own perfectly. You can play TW2 without even knowing of TW1, while ME was already planned as a trilogy and was executed that way, so you miss a lot, if you don't play one of the installments. 

As for ME's failure: it is your very subjective opinion. You clearly are disappointed by it and expected something way-way-way bigger and wanted a truly free-choice game where you write your own story. At least that's how I read your lines... now you see, that's something we yet to see... but it's so ambicious and technically and from a writing POW so complicated and expensive that I think it's not going to happen any time soon. We clearly didn't get it, so you hate it. It's ok, but it won't make a trilogy which is loved by so many and debated to death because of its controvercial ending alone a complete failure in every regard. To you it is, to me it's not. And lets stop here. You can tell me the same thing again or over and over again, it won't change my opinion or the fact that it is just your opinion and evidently you're very passionate about it, a bit more passionate, than I am, though I enjoy the conversation.

An honest question though: if you hate the ME-trilogy so much, why the hell are you here, wasting time by writing so many posts and debate about it with it's fans? Would you like to prove something or is it just a pass time activity? If I hated it so much as you do, I wouldn't even bother thinking about the game, let alone spending time on it in any way. No offence really, just curious. I asked Seboist and Maxter about it several times, but they never answered me.

Modifié par GimmeDaGun, 14 janvier 2013 - 09:09 .

[The Heretic of Time]

David7204 wrote...

You were trying to having a reasoned discussion to figure out which game was better.

Ah, so now I was having a reasoned discussion to figure out which game was better? Make up your damn mind.

At least that sounds more postive than your previous post though. I'm glad you finally laid off the personal attacks as well.

All I was trying to do was point out how you were goofing up.

And you failed. You weren't even trying. Please try again: How and what was I mocking exactly? And how and what exactly did I goof up?

[dreamgazer]

How do you guys decide who wins these arguments?

[MrStoob]

If it's as interesting as Leviathan, good. If it's as interesting as Omega, meh. I won't be buying this one blind though, I do have to say, I can't afford it these days.

[Caprea]

dreamgazer wrote...

How do you guys decide who wins these arguments?

That... is a very good question, stargazer. Time will tell, I suppose.

Modifié par dea_ex_machina, 14 janvier 2013 - 09:07 .

[GimmeDaGun]

dreamgazer wrote...

How do you guys decide who wins these arguments?

I flip a coin while drinking some ale and listening to this:


www.youtube.com/watch

 I don't care who's right or not. I enjoy a good conversation... and it helps me practicing my English which is not my mother tongue. 

Modifié par GimmeDaGun, 14 janvier 2013 - 09:13 .

[Cutlass Jack]

dreamgazer wrote...

How do you guys decide who wins these arguments?

You can only 'win' by staying out of these arguments.

[Lawrence0294]

Taboo-XX wrote...

I bet there will be lots of explosions! Just like a Michael Bay movie!

And no plot! Just like a Michael Bay movie!

But......the explosions...........they are the plot !!!!

You just don't get him............

(yes i'm not serious)

[IC-07]

Heretic_Hanar wrote...

David7204 wrote...

Hoo boy. Look at you, shilling the Witcher like a 12 year old girl on Facebook trying to make a boy jealous. Yet again, you use these childish tactics.

Wait.... what? That doesn't even make sense. 

There is no need to be jealous of anything, since anyone can just buy The Witcher and play it. So there is no reason to be jealous of the fact that The Witcher 2 is the superior game. Just buy it. play it, enjoy it and see for yourself how much better it is than Mass Effect 2 or 3.  No "childish tactics" involved son.

And don't forget that they release free DLC! Witcher series are the best, books and games.

[Dr. Doctor]

New DLC: We finally made the poker table in the Normandy's lounge usable. Now you too can play poker with all of the squadmates from the ME series.

[The Heretic of Time]

GimmeDaGun wrote...

The Witcher 2 is spectacular, it is smart, has great characters and a thrilling and well thought out story (for a game... in that regard ME does it's job very well too... I know you hate it, and I know that you would like to think that it's objective what you say, but believe me... it does it's job despite what you think)

Oh really?

Mass Effect 2 was completely stagnant (and that's a fact, like it or not).

And in Mass Effect 3, BioWare realized they wrote themselves into a corner. They were at the final act of the trilogy and the plot was still no further ahead than it was at the end of ME1. The Reapers were still comming and we still didn't have any idea on how to defeat them, not to mention the fact that the galaxy was as unprepared for the reaper invasion as ever.  

But wait, the Crucible comes to the rescue! The Crucible... the most ridiculous plot device I've ever seen introduced at the most terrible moment in the story I've ever seen.


Now, all of this I could see through the fingers if The Crucible actually made sense and was properly introduced and explained. Instead, we get this:


(and this is actually a screenshot from near the end of the game!)

It's also ridiculous that you say that The Witcher one was a personalised story. There was one very linear story really with a few minor decisions you could make and two factions (ok 3, if you count the Witcher's path) you could side with... but even that did not make such a huge difference, only in the last chapter of the game (and even that was more of a difference of coating and colour swap) and was important only in Vizima, but had no real effect on the world. The Order of The Flaming Rose had to move to Redania whether you sided with them or the Soia'tael.

Excuse me, but have you even played The Witcher 2? That game is one of the most NON-LINEAR games I've ever played! Your choice in Act 1 made a HUGE difference. It basically completely changes the pacing of the rest of the game! Choosing Iorveth's path would make you end up in a completely different situation than choosing Roche's path! It's one of the best things I've seen in a game so far when it comes to choices-and-consequences in video-games!

As for ME's failure: it is your very subjective opinion. You clearly are disappointed by it and expected something way-way-way bigger and wanted a truly free-choice game where you write your own story. At least that's how I read your lines...

Then you need to pay more attention, because I actually said that what killed Mass Effect is that they've put quantity over quality. I actually believe the Mass Effect trilogy would have been better if it was actually smaller, like The Witcher. It would have made it easier to keep things consistent and to add actual consequences to your choices. 

Instead, as it stands right now, we get to make a huge amount of choices during the trilogy and none of them have any real meaning or consequences in any significant way. 


And please, I want to ask you to refrain from making further assumptions of what I might think, or what I might want or like. If you want to know my point of view, you can just ask instead of making baseless assumptions and then go from there (e.g. setting up strawmen).

An honest question though: if you hate the ME-trilogy so much, why the hell are you here, wasting time by writing so many posts and debate about it with it's fans? Would you like to prove something or is it just a pass time activity? If I hated it so much as you do, I wouldn't even bother thinking about the game, let alone spending time on it in any way.

Ah, the good old "why are you here?" question. I've heard that question one to many times.

I'm here because I'm a former Mass Effect fan who likes to discuss the trilogy and the direction BioWare took with it. I do not  hate Mass Effect, I merely see Mass Effect for what it is: A franchize which had a lot of potential to become something truly revolutionary, but sadly ended up in the trash bin instead (at least in my case).

Modifié par Heretic_Hanar, 14 janvier 2013 - 09:25 .

[IC-07]

Dr. Doctor wrote...

New DLC: We finally made the poker table in the Normandy's lounge usable. Now you too can play poker with all of the squadmates from the ME series.

QFT