274 réponses à ce sujet

[Red Panda]

o Ventus wrote...

Argolas wrote...

It's not like Vega helps much anyway. I have first-hand experiece: I ignored Mass Effect for years because I never play shooters and didn't even take a look at it, I needed a friend of mine to tell me that it's actually a cool RPG. The first thing of Mass Effect that I played was the ME3 demo. I watched the intro and.. well...

Not to mention that there's a [BLAM] fully-voiced codex right in the pause menu.

+9001

This to relativistic speeds.

It's in the menu.

Modifié par OperatingWookie, 13 avril 2013 - 10:33 .

[MegaSovereign]

@GlassElephant

No, he doesn't.

[robertthebard]

o Ventus wrote...

robertthebard wrote...

Kaidan in ME 1:  Standing in the galley for all missions except where I didn't have enough crew to not take him.  Does he have dialog that isn't "I have a headache"?  Neither one of them have anything in game to suggest they are worthy candidates to be Spectres, except that they were on the Normandy in ME 1, and they both show up in ME 2, proclaiming their superiority.  A trend that is followed up on Mars, after demonstrating their switch to Chaotic Stupid in the shuttle bay, asking what they're doing when they are standing right beside you when Anderson reinstates you and orders you to the Citadel.  So if that's Spectre material, I'm resigning, because frankly, that seems like just barely qualified for the Special Olympics to me.

In-universe, everybody did their part when it came to the mission(s). Also, between ME1 and 3, Kaidan has leadership over a battalion of biotic soldiers.

Him and probably 10,000 different Asari, and probably at least that many humans.  They must have done something really special.  But we both know, VS getting Spectre was, for lack of a better term, a bribe from Udina to keep VS loyal for the coup.

[o Ventus]

robertthebard wrote...

Him and probably 10,000 different Asari, and probably at least that many humans.  They must have done something really special.  But we both know, VS getting Spectre was, for lack of a better term, a bribe from Udina to keep VS loyal for the coup.

And human biotics are very, very rare (in-universe). More rare are human biotics that are in the military. Literally every single asari, ever, is a biotic.

No one is denying that the actual reason for Spectre cadidacy was just a ploy by Udina, but it's not really a stretch to think that the VS (Well, Kaidan, not so much Ashley) could actually be a candidate for Spectre training.

After all, the only thing Shepard did that was at all noteworthy before becoming a Spectre was whatever you set his or her service record to.

[PwrdOff]

o Ventus wrote...
And human biotics are very, very rare (in-universe). More rare are human biotics that are in the military. Literally every single asari, ever, is a biotic.

No one is denying that the actual reason for Spectre cadidacy was just a ploy by Udina, but it's not really a stretch to think that the VS (Well, Kaidan, not so much Ashley) could actually be a candidate for Spectre training.

After all, the only thing Shepard did that was at all noteworthy before becoming a Spectre was whatever you set his or her service record to.

Shepard was basically a political appointee as well if you think about it, the entire thing was just a power play to show off humanity's newfound clout, if Shepard hadn't been there they would have just found the next best person and done the exact same thing.  I'd imagine that, in universe, gaining Spectre admission probably has more to do with connections and backroom dealings than merit.  None of the ones you meet seem to be all that competent.

Modifié par BNN999, 13 avril 2013 - 10:54 .

[Olooka]

I find the letting go of Shepard to be the easiest thing in the world. The Normandy's crew on the other hand, is a bit tougher. I like 'em bastards. They're the main reason why I still go through the trilogy once in a while. But I know as soon as the next interesting saga comes out, I'll forget about ME almost entirely. Next BioWare's IP, perhaps ?

[o Ventus]

BNN999 wrote...

Shepard was basically a political appointee as well if you think about it, the entire thing was just a power play to show off humanity's newfound clout, if Shepard hadn't been there they would have just found the next best person and done the exact same thing.  I'd imagine that, in universe, gaining Spectre admission probably has more to do with connections and backroom dealings than merit.  None of the ones you meet seem to be all that competent.

Shepard was going to be a Spectre candidate regardless of the events of the first game. Both Nihlus and the Citadel archives go into detail about it. 

If Spectre candidacy was based more on political connections, then Nihlus, Anderson, and Garrus wouldn't have been given invitations. Saren (who you'll remember is a xenophobic advocate of genocide) likely wouldn't have either.

Shepard also has the benefit of having no solid backstory. The player can headcanon other big things Shepard has done to earn Spectre candidacy before ME1.

[MassivelyEffective0730]

BNN999 wrote...

o Ventus wrote...
And human biotics are very, very rare (in-universe). More rare are human biotics that are in the military. Literally every single asari, ever, is a biotic.

No one is denying that the actual reason for Spectre cadidacy was just a ploy by Udina, but it's not really a stretch to think that the VS (Well, Kaidan, not so much Ashley) could actually be a candidate for Spectre training.

After all, the only thing Shepard did that was at all noteworthy before becoming a Spectre was whatever you set his or her service record to.

Shepard was basically a political appointee as well if you think about it, the entire thing was just a power play to show off humanity's newfound clout, if Shepard hadn't been there they would have just found the next best person and done the exact same thing.  I'd imagine that, in universe, gaining Spectre admission probably has more to do with connections and backroom dealings than merit.  None of the ones you meet seem to be all that competent.

I disagree. I believe Shepard's N7 ranking and his service history would be perfect for a Spectre. And he has the mindset for it, the grim, cynic determination to do whatever he needs to do. Were politics involved? Definitely. But Shepard really is deserving of the title, though I believe the title isn't worthy of him which is why I tell the Council to ****** off in ME2.

As for the other Spectres, there's nothing to back up your assertion that they're all from politics. Saren was called one of the best by people in the Turian military. He was one of the longest serving Spectre's by ME1. Nihlus is called one of the best. Tela Vasir is very cunning, very manipulative, and when she has out and out fight, she puts up a tough one. Jondum Bau is called a very capable Spectre. He has Kasumi's approval, and that certainly should be worth something.

The VS though, especially Ashley, is not worthy of the title of Spectre. That is pure politics. Kaidan doesn't have the results-at-all-costs attitude and I don't think he has the overall proficiency with weaponry.

Ashley is plain unqualified. She doesn't have the service history, list of assignments, awards or commendations, no special skills training, nothing that makes her standout from being an infantryman who's never had an assignment past shore duty on backwater worlds. She doesn't have the personality for it, being rather mistrustful of all aliens, and she has too much blind faith in the alliance to really be suited anywhere else.

She shouldn't even have the rank she has. Junior NCO to Staff Officer in 3 years? That doesn't happen. It's my opinion that the only distinguishing thing about her career was that she happened to serve on Commander Shepard's crew and that she once had intimate relations with the Commander. Seeing as she was with him romantically when he died, people like Anderson felt sorry for her and got her promoted.

[daigakuinsei]

Spartas Husky wrote...

arial wrote...

Spartas Husky wrote...

Shepard is my character not theirs. They can rot in hell

Legal Contract law and rights to the franchise say otherwise.

Well we been specters for 6 years I say screw the law. Plus I I'm a modder... a x2 screw to the law. Not all the law mind you, just this one

"Legal Contract Law" as opposed to what other kind of contract law?

[christrek1982]

arial wrote...

dude whats with all the blank posts?

[christrek1982]

AresKeith wrote...

I kinda knew there was gonna more Mass Effect without Shepard, but Bioware ended his/her story poorly

I agree I have no problam with a new hero for the next game I just wish that the team gave the fans a worth while ending to see Shepard off oh well at least we have Citadel and MEHEM (if that's you cup of tea). As for leting Shepard and the others go. well why should I?  I can replay all three games as meany time as I want.

[mtmercydave09]

christrek1982 wrote...

AresKeith wrote...

I kinda knew there was gonna more Mass Effect without Shepard, but Bioware ended his/her story poorly

I agree I have no problam with a new hero for the next game I just wish that the team gave the fans a worth while ending to see Shepard off oh well at least we have Citadel and MEHEM (if that's you cup of tea). As for leting Shepard and the others go. well why should I?  I can replay all three games as meany time as I want.

I agree with you.  I think Bioware has a big task on their hands though making characters and a protagonist comparable to the ones we've gotten used to.  Shepard & company are the originals and the standard bearer in which the next ME game will be judged against, fairly or not.

I think for many though it's not so much letting go of Shepard which causes sadness, because they do realize they can just load up the game and replay it (and I'm thankful for that), but it's just metagaming and knowing that there won't be any more content or adventures.  

Kind of like watching a favorite tv show that doesn't have any new shows, you watch the reruns for nostalgia, but it's not quite the same as getting something new.

[Xilizhra]

robertthebard wrote...

Xilizhra wrote...

You know, this wouldn't be nearly so painful if you didn't leap to the worst possible conclusions about two of the endings.

That said, for those who are tremendously invested in the lives of their own Shepards and don't want them to survive based only on atrocity, I can see where this would be problematic. I actually refused outright to buy ME3 until the EC came out, and was ardently against the original endings. I've just found... peace of a sort since then; there is something behind them, even if poorly expressed.

Why not though, since people that play consistently to the endings and pick Destroy are considered to be almost as bad as the Reapers.  Is this a comment aimed at all endings carry possible negative connotations, or the other two endings are vastly superior type position?  The former is definitely objective, while the latter is definitely subjective.

The negative connotations of the other endings are basically hypothetical only, with the exception of Renegade Control.

[robertthebard]

Xilizhra wrote...

robertthebard wrote...

Xilizhra wrote...

You know, this wouldn't be nearly so painful if you didn't leap to the worst possible conclusions about two of the endings.

That said, for those who are tremendously invested in the lives of their own Shepards and don't want them to survive based only on atrocity, I can see where this would be problematic. I actually refused outright to buy ME3 until the EC came out, and was ardently against the original endings. I've just found... peace of a sort since then; there is something behind them, even if poorly expressed.

Why not though, since people that play consistently to the endings and pick Destroy are considered to be almost as bad as the Reapers.  Is this a comment aimed at all endings carry possible negative connotations, or the other two endings are vastly superior type position?  The former is definitely objective, while the latter is definitely subjective.

The negative connotations of the other endings are basically hypothetical only, with the exception of Renegade Control.

...er, what?

Synthesis:  Understanding does not imply agreement.  I understand that you are saying that your preferred ending choice is flawless, but I disagree.  Understanding does not imply acceptance.  I understand why you want to feel that way, it makes you feel morally superior, but I don't accept your subjective opinion as fact.  Again, my little example:  Random Krogan:  I understand why you created the genophage, but I don't agree with your decision, and I don't accept that I just have to be happy about it.  *Boom*  Shoots Salarian in the face.  Yes, your slide show, just like every slideshow, shows happy happy joy joy.  But for how long?  I'm sure that every Reaper already understands organics, they used to be organic after all, so how long before Harbinger decides to reassert itself?  I understand that you think this is hypothetical, but I reject the notion that having something done to them that has already been done to them is going to make them remain butterflies and rainbows.  Let's not forget that since we are making everyone the same, we have killed the Natural Order.

Civilizations that are still in their relative infancy are now green glowy Reaper Variants.  Life will no longer be able to take it's natural course on planets where life is literally in it's infancy.  So we have, by deciding to genetically rape every lifeform in the galaxy, committed genocide on a galactic scale.  Because we have killed cultures that haven't even had a chance to get started yet.  Worse yet, we knew we were going to do it when we jumped in the beam.  This isn't hypothetical, this is the end result of Synthesis.  This fits exactly with the given and accepted definition of genocide.  For shame...

Control, barring the aforementioned Renegade:  So the Krogan decide it's time to get vengeance for the genophage.  How is Paragon ShepAI going to stop them?  I'm sure a show of force will make them back down, so how many are you going to kill to make your point?  Alternatively, are you going to figure they deserve some measure of revenge?  If Wreav is in charge, it's very likely to happen, and if you didn't cure the genophage, and killed Wrex, there is no reason to believe whoever takes his place isn't going to feel the same way.  How, exactly, do you intend to police them, and since the Krogan can live a thousand years, how long before you decide it would just be easier to kill them all so you can quit fussing with it?  So here we are in ShepAI's police state, because if ShepAI is truly going to keep the peace, that's what it's going to be, and I'm wondering, how long until ShepAI starts thinking "You know, it would be easier if I just harvested them, instead of being galactic babysitter".

Destroy:  The Krogan/Salarian/Turian genophage issue could become a feud here too, but at least they have free will to do what they are going to do, and the Natural Order is deciding things, instead of Catalyst 2.0.  To get here, we had to shoot the tube.  If we didn't make peace on Rannoch, and saved the Quarians, which, according to another "you people are monsters" poster means that Shepard has now committed genocide w/out ever even seeing the Crucible completed, we had to kill EDI, and may possibly die ourselves.  There is, however, no chance of the Reapers deciding, or of Catalyst 2.0 deciding that 1.0 had it right, and starting the harvests all over again.  There are no Reapers.  So, faced with these three options, and their consequences, I'm shooting the tube.  You are free to feel that I am a monster if you wish.  I, however, did not genetically rape the entire galaxy, genocide on a scale that I cannot even begin to fathom, nor turn myself into a God.  I stopped the Reapers.

[Xilizhra]

Synthesis: Understanding does not imply agreement. I understand that you are saying that your preferred ending choice is flawless, but I disagree. Understanding does not imply acceptance. I understand why you want to feel that way, it makes you feel morally superior, but I don't accept your subjective opinion as fact. Again, my little example: Random Krogan: I understand why you created the genophage, but I don't agree with your decision, and I don't accept that I just have to be happy about it. *Boom* Shoots Salarian in the face. Yes, your slide show, just like every slideshow, shows happy happy joy joy. But for how long? I'm sure that every Reaper already understands organics, they used to be organic after all, so how long before Harbinger decides to reassert itself? I understand that you think this is hypothetical, but I reject the notion that having something done to them that has already been done to them is going to make them remain butterflies and rainbows. Let's not forget that since we are making everyone the same, we have killed the Natural Order.

Civilizations that are still in their relative infancy are now green glowy Reaper Variants. Life will no longer be able to take it's natural course on planets where life is literally in it's infancy. So we have, by deciding to genetically rape every lifeform in the galaxy, committed genocide on a galactic scale. Because we have killed cultures that haven't even had a chance to get started yet. Worse yet, we knew we were going to do it when we jumped in the beam. This isn't hypothetical, this is the end result of Synthesis. This fits exactly with the given and accepted definition of genocide. For shame...

Differences of interpretation that I lack the patience to get into, as I'm not really a Synthesis advocate personally.

Control, barring the aforementioned Renegade: So the Krogan decide it's time to get vengeance for the genophage. How is Paragon ShepAI going to stop them? I'm sure a show of force will make them back down, so how many are you going to kill to make your point? Alternatively, are you going to figure they deserve some measure of revenge? If Wreav is in charge, it's very likely to happen, and if you didn't cure the genophage, and killed Wrex, there is no reason to believe whoever takes his place isn't going to feel the same way. How, exactly, do you intend to police them, and since the Krogan can live a thousand years, how long before you decide it would just be easier to kill them all so you can quit fussing with it? So here we are in ShepAI's police state, because if ShepAI is truly going to keep the peace, that's what it's going to be, and I'm wondering, how long until ShepAI starts thinking "You know, it would be easier if I just harvested them, instead of being galactic babysitter".

Being eternal, infinite and immortal, I have no idea why patience would be a limited commodity for me. No, they don't deserve revenge for the genophage. Perhaps new territory, but nothing forcibly taken. If I must enforce this by blockading their worlds, so be it; it's a potential war in the making, and that's all I'll directly interfere with. Killing them all will very likely be unnecessary, and I'll give Wrex and Eve the benefit of the doubt... initially, at any rate. I just hope they live up to it.

[robertthebard]

Xilizhra wrote...

Control, barring the aforementioned Renegade: So the Krogan decide it's time to get vengeance for the genophage. How is Paragon ShepAI going to stop them? I'm sure a show of force will make them back down, so how many are you going to kill to make your point? Alternatively, are you going to figure they deserve some measure of revenge? If Wreav is in charge, it's very likely to happen, and if you didn't cure the genophage, and killed Wrex, there is no reason to believe whoever takes his place isn't going to feel the same way. How, exactly, do you intend to police them, and since the Krogan can live a thousand years, how long before you decide it would just be easier to kill them all so you can quit fussing with it? So here we are in ShepAI's police state, because if ShepAI is truly going to keep the peace, that's what it's going to be, and I'm wondering, how long until ShepAI starts thinking "You know, it would be easier if I just harvested them, instead of being galactic babysitter".

Being eternal, infinite and immortal, I have no idea why patience would be a limited commodity for me. No, they don't deserve revenge for the genophage. Perhaps new territory, but nothing forcibly taken. If I must enforce this by blockading their worlds, so be it; it's a potential war in the making, and that's all I'll directly interfere with. Killing them all will very likely be unnecessary, and I'll give Wrex and Eve the benefit of the doubt... initially, at any rate. I just hope they live up to it.

Ask Sodom and Gomorrah, or maybe Noah.

[Xilizhra]

robertthebard wrote...

Xilizhra wrote...

Control, barring the aforementioned Renegade: So the Krogan decide it's time to get vengeance for the genophage. How is Paragon ShepAI going to stop them? I'm sure a show of force will make them back down, so how many are you going to kill to make your point? Alternatively, are you going to figure they deserve some measure of revenge? If Wreav is in charge, it's very likely to happen, and if you didn't cure the genophage, and killed Wrex, there is no reason to believe whoever takes his place isn't going to feel the same way. How, exactly, do you intend to police them, and since the Krogan can live a thousand years, how long before you decide it would just be easier to kill them all so you can quit fussing with it? So here we are in ShepAI's police state, because if ShepAI is truly going to keep the peace, that's what it's going to be, and I'm wondering, how long until ShepAI starts thinking "You know, it would be easier if I just harvested them, instead of being galactic babysitter".

Being eternal, infinite and immortal, I have no idea why patience would be a limited commodity for me. No, they don't deserve revenge for the genophage. Perhaps new territory, but nothing forcibly taken. If I must enforce this by blockading their worlds, so be it; it's a potential war in the making, and that's all I'll directly interfere with. Killing them all will very likely be unnecessary, and I'll give Wrex and Eve the benefit of the doubt... initially, at any rate. I just hope they live up to it.

Ask Sodom and Gomorrah, or maybe Noah.

I'd prefer an example from something real, or at least realistic, if possible.

Modifié par Xilizhra, 14 avril 2013 - 04:58 .

[Adoramei]

robertthebard wrote...

Xilizhra wrote...

Control, barring the aforementioned Renegade: So the Krogan decide it's time to get vengeance for the genophage. How is Paragon ShepAI going to stop them? I'm sure a show of force will make them back down, so how many are you going to kill to make your point? Alternatively, are you going to figure they deserve some measure of revenge? If Wreav is in charge, it's very likely to happen, and if you didn't cure the genophage, and killed Wrex, there is no reason to believe whoever takes his place isn't going to feel the same way. How, exactly, do you intend to police them, and since the Krogan can live a thousand years, how long before you decide it would just be easier to kill them all so you can quit fussing with it? So here we are in ShepAI's police state, because if ShepAI is truly going to keep the peace, that's what it's going to be, and I'm wondering, how long until ShepAI starts thinking "You know, it would be easier if I just harvested them, instead of being galactic babysitter".

Being eternal, infinite and immortal, I have no idea why patience would be a limited commodity for me. No, they don't deserve revenge for the genophage. Perhaps new territory, but nothing forcibly taken. If I must enforce this by blockading their worlds, so be it; it's a potential war in the making, and that's all I'll directly interfere with. Killing them all will very likely be unnecessary, and I'll give Wrex and Eve the benefit of the doubt... initially, at any rate. I just hope they live up to it.

Ask Sodom and Gomorrah, or maybe Noah.

How are we going to ask allegorical characters from an ancient book and someone that Godzilla once fought? And what will we learn from that?

Modifié par Adoramei, 14 avril 2013 - 05:14 .

[GimmeDaGun]

iakus wrote...

GimmeDaGun wrote...

Wow, finally someone who's not behaving like a crybaby and understands how fictional products work, also someone who lives outside the ME-universe and treats it as it should be treated: a product of human creativity and not one's life. 

Whether you like the final result or dislike it is up to your personal taste. Nothing else. What works for me does not necessarrily work for you. It's very subjective. 

I'm also happy to see that someone understands that there's no such thing as real rpg when it comes to computer games. ME for one is an interactive, sci-fi action-adventure game. You have no real control over the character and the story.

Your condescending remarks aside, I should also point out that every game Bioware has put out in the last 15 years has been advertised as an rpg.  Even the Mass Effect trilogy   Are you accusing them of false advertising for all that time?

Yes, I do and no I don't. RPG is a non-existent category in gaming, they only label games as rpgs which feature a few rpg elements, but it won't make them more of an rpg. So, while it is not necessarrily false advertising (since there is a genre in computer gaming which is wrongly labeled as rpg), but a false gaming genre in the first place. 


There's nothing condescending about finding some fans' behaviour silly. Some take this game way too seriously, in my opinion and they keep crying about the features or parts which they didn't like. I just don't get it. It's a game...

Modifié par GimmeDaGun, 14 avril 2013 - 08:09 .

[GimmeDaGun]

Getorex wrote...

GimmeDaGun wrote...

chemiclord wrote...

mtmercydave09 wrote...

Easier said than done after spending 100+ hours with 3 games throughout 5 years.  

You read from a script in every game, that doesn't mean the people that are playing shouldn't feel as if they are roleplaying the character.  If that's the case, why make RPG games at all then?

You really think people are thinking to themselves when they are playing Shepard, "Oh, Bioware owns this, I don't own it, so I really shouldn't care or get emotionally involved about anything that happens in this game."  No they are not, they are busy imagining themselves in the role as Shepard.

No, you really SHOULDN'T feel like you're roleplaying the character... because you AREN'T.  That is entirely the point I'm trying to get you to see.

YOU aren't speaking with Shepard as your avatar.  You don't speak to the game, and the game doesn't form around the actions of the character you're playing.  THAT stuff was already done, composed, and put together BY SOMEONE ELSE before you ever put that disc (or finished the download) in your system or console.  It simply did not involve you outside of a very tangential way as conglomerate of millions of other fans who provided input that meant just as much individually as yours did.

It's fine to imagine, I suppose, but you need to accept that your imagination means nothing to anyone not you... and that the game is under NO obligation to cater to that imagination... if for no reason than the fact the game CAN'T.  It's a fundamental flaw of computer RPG's (a term that means next to nothing at this point in regards to computer games ANYWAY).  They can emulate the RPG experience... kinda... but it's a pale facsimile even when done well.

Listen, I am not some ME3 defender here that thinks you should love the game as is.  It's perfectly all right to hate what you were given.  I certainly am not fond of how it ended either.  But my opinion?  Means next to jack ****, and I know that.  It was never mine, and I also knew that.  Stupid way to end the story (and frankly the shotgun approach they took to writing the narrative as a whole was a disaster waiting to happen), but meh... it was their story to tell.  Not mine.  Theirs.

And I'm sure at this point, that advice doesn't help.  You got sucked into the illusion, and it probably feels like I'm doing nothing other than "I told you so."  But it's something to keep in mind the next time a computer "RPG" hooks you.  

For example, I can GUARANTEE you that the Witcher 3 is going to ****** off a sizable group of people, and for much the same reason; because it will go in a direction that those fans feel it should not have gone.  I doubt it will be nearly as bad as what happened with ME3 (obviously), but you are GOING to see the same sort of phenomenon.

Wow, finally someone who's not behaving like a crybaby and understands how fictional products work, also someone who lives outside the ME-universe and treats it as it should be treated: a product of human creativity and not one's life. 

Whether you like the final result or dislike it is up to your personal taste. Nothing else. What works for me does not necessarrily work for you. It's very subjective. 

I'm also happy to see that someone understands that there's no such thing as real rpg when it comes to computer games. ME for one is an interactive, sci-fi action-adventure game. You have no real control over the character and the story.

Meh.  I don't play swords and sorcery games. I friggin' HATE them.  ALL the same.  Same characters, same silly plots, same stereotypical look and feel.    There's always a good king and an evil queen, or a good queen and an evil king.  Good wizard, bad witch, or vice versa.  Orcs, dwarves, "rogues" (who wear leather and favor knives, etc), knights in armor, etc.  They are ALL identical and are all copies of the original Dungeons and Dragons game which was created in response to Tolkien's Lord of the Rings.  They are invariant, cliche, redundant, obnoxious.  So, those of us who don't play every game that spews out the doors of game companies do not have plenty of other games to play.  When there is a limited product that we like, we do cling to it and do not merely consider it a throw-away commodity.

I have played 4 games in the last 16 months:  Deus Ex: Human Revolution, Battlefield 3, Dead Space 2, and ME3...and Battlefield kinda sucked.  Too focused on MP so has a VERY short SP element.  Wont make the future mistake of buying that series again.  That's it.  So, there are NOT a bunch of good games out there.  Good games are few and far between.  So, for those like me who are not generic gamers who have virtually no discrimination on what they play, there isn't a lot to go with.  With so few truly good games out there, yeah, we tend to cling to the few we DO have.  If you play bazillions of games, or practically every game that is made then you don't give a crap for any of them, they're just tissues to be blown into and dropped. 

Regardless of how you define "true RPG" it doesn't matter.  It is what is FELT that matters, irrespective of the objective reality.  Sure, our choices were limited in ME games out of necessity (would require a fairly strong AI to make it less strictly formatted) but they nonetheless FELT like OUR decisions and our decision impacted OUR character(s).  If you read a good book you get lost in the characters and story.  The story is set and unchanging but you still become attached or emotionally invested in the characters.  Same thing with some games. 

Eeeer... I never play table top rpgs (well, I did when I was like 11-12 years old which was 16 years ago), only I happen to know what they are. Also interpreting the meaning of "role playing game" does not take too much intellectual strain. And since it means that you can play your role with no real strings attached, while in computer games you play a prescripted story with prescripted dialogues and characters, the genre "rpg" has no real meaning in gaming. You have no freedom to play your role, or you play the different pre-scripted variations of the very same character.

ME1, ME2 and ME3 were never rpgs. They are great games, I love all three (yeah, even the infamous ending), but it's ridiculous to call them rpgs, and those people who fell for the usual marketing-PR slogens like "you create your own story" or "it's your Shepard" should grow up a bit. This is pure marketing, nothing else. They just want to sell their product. You can't even say that they are lying, since you have the chance to personalise the game to a certain level (the game is interactive), since it reacts to certain things you do (within the rules of the game), or gives you pre-scripted choices once in a while with different outcomes and effects on later "events", but still it's a story which is written by a group of people with permutations they intended (and had the resources) to show you and with the story (endig included) they wanted to tell in the way they meant to tell it. 

So it is all just an illusion, but you know it. Only difference is that while I treat it as a game and a good story, you happen to get a bit too immersed and fall for the illusion. So I guess Bioware was more successful with you, than with me, but in the end it's me who can enjoy the game a lot better without being dissappointed, hurt or feeling betrayed by it and it's developers (it's such a stupid sentiment from many people's part, since it's just a freaking game).


Well, I'm not a big gamer myself, there are only a handful of games - and type of games - I like (I don't even waste my time with games like the BF or CoD series... never played any of them, nor it's kind): Thief series (one of my greatest favorites...looking forward to the newest one), The Witcher series (can't wait for Wild Hunt), Deus-Ex series, Hitman series, Haegemonia - Legions of Iron (great, Hungarian sci-fi strategy epic... to bad they never continued it, check it out if you can), the old Fallout games (don't like the new, 3d ones), Metro, Assassins Creed series, Max Payne series and the ME series... that's about it. 

Modifié par GimmeDaGun, 14 avril 2013 - 08:06 .

[TurianRebel212]

GimmeDaGun wrote...

Getorex wrote...

GimmeDaGun wrote...

chemiclord wrote...

mtmercydave09 wrote...

Easier said than done after spending 100+ hours with 3 games throughout 5 years.  

You read from a script in every game, that doesn't mean the people that are playing shouldn't feel as if they are roleplaying the character.  If that's the case, why make RPG games at all then?

You really think people are thinking to themselves when they are playing Shepard, "Oh, Bioware owns this, I don't own it, so I really shouldn't care or get emotionally involved about anything that happens in this game."  No they are not, they are busy imagining themselves in the role as Shepard.

No, you really SHOULDN'T feel like you're roleplaying the character... because you AREN'T.  That is entirely the point I'm trying to get you to see.

YOU aren't speaking with Shepard as your avatar.  You don't speak to the game, and the game doesn't form around the actions of the character you're playing.  THAT stuff was already done, composed, and put together BY SOMEONE ELSE before you ever put that disc (or finished the download) in your system or console.  It simply did not involve you outside of a very tangential way as conglomerate of millions of other fans who provided input that meant just as much individually as yours did.

It's fine to imagine, I suppose, but you need to accept that your imagination means nothing to anyone not you... and that the game is under NO obligation to cater to that imagination... if for no reason than the fact the game CAN'T.  It's a fundamental flaw of computer RPG's (a term that means next to nothing at this point in regards to computer games ANYWAY).  They can emulate the RPG experience... kinda... but it's a pale facsimile even when done well.

Listen, I am not some ME3 defender here that thinks you should love the game as is.  It's perfectly all right to hate what you were given.  I certainly am not fond of how it ended either.  But my opinion?  Means next to jack ****, and I know that.  It was never mine, and I also knew that.  Stupid way to end the story (and frankly the shotgun approach they took to writing the narrative as a whole was a disaster waiting to happen), but meh... it was their story to tell.  Not mine.  Theirs.

And I'm sure at this point, that advice doesn't help.  You got sucked into the illusion, and it probably feels like I'm doing nothing other than "I told you so."  But it's something to keep in mind the next time a computer "RPG" hooks you.  

For example, I can GUARANTEE you that the Witcher 3 is going to ****** off a sizable group of people, and for much the same reason; because it will go in a direction that those fans feel it should not have gone.  I doubt it will be nearly as bad as what happened with ME3 (obviously), but you are GOING to see the same sort of phenomenon.

Wow, finally someone who's not behaving like a crybaby and understands how fictional products work, also someone who lives outside the ME-universe and treats it as it should be treated: a product of human creativity and not one's life. 

Whether you like the final result or dislike it is up to your personal taste. Nothing else. What works for me does not necessarrily work for you. It's very subjective. 

I'm also happy to see that someone understands that there's no such thing as real rpg when it comes to computer games. ME for one is an interactive, sci-fi action-adventure game. You have no real control over the character and the story.

Meh.  I don't play swords and sorcery games. I friggin' HATE them.  ALL the same.  Same characters, same silly plots, same stereotypical look and feel.    There's always a good king and an evil queen, or a good queen and an evil king.  Good wizard, bad witch, or vice versa.  Orcs, dwarves, "rogues" (who wear leather and favor knives, etc), knights in armor, etc.  They are ALL identical and are all copies of the original Dungeons and Dragons game which was created in response to Tolkien's Lord of the Rings.  They are invariant, cliche, redundant, obnoxious.  So, those of us who don't play every game that spews out the doors of game companies do not have plenty of other games to play.  When there is a limited product that we like, we do cling to it and do not merely consider it a throw-away commodity.

I have played 4 games in the last 16 months:  Deus Ex: Human Revolution, Battlefield 3, Dead Space 2, and ME3...and Battlefield kinda sucked.  Too focused on MP so has a VERY short SP element.  Wont make the future mistake of buying that series again.  That's it.  So, there are NOT a bunch of good games out there.  Good games are few and far between.  So, for those like me who are not generic gamers who have virtually no discrimination on what they play, there isn't a lot to go with.  With so few truly good games out there, yeah, we tend to cling to the few we DO have.  If you play bazillions of games, or practically every game that is made then you don't give a crap for any of them, they're just tissues to be blown into and dropped. 

Regardless of how you define "true RPG" it doesn't matter.  It is what is FELT that matters, irrespective of the objective reality.  Sure, our choices were limited in ME games out of necessity (would require a fairly strong AI to make it less strictly formatted) but they nonetheless FELT like OUR decisions and our decision impacted OUR character(s).  If you read a good book you get lost in the characters and story.  The story is set and unchanging but you still become attached or emotionally invested in the characters.  Same thing with some games. 

Eeeer... I never play table top rpgs (well, I did when I was like 11-12 years old which was 16 years ago), only I happen to know what they are. Also interpreting the meaning of "role playing game" does not take too much intellectual strain. And since it means that you play your role with no real strings attached, while in computer games you play a prescripted story with prescripted dialogues and characters, the genre "rpg" has no real meaning in gaming. You have no freedom to play your role, or you play the different pre-scripted variations of the very same character.

ME1, ME2 and ME3 were never rpgs. They are great games, I love all three (yeah, even the infamous ending), but it's ridiculous to call them rpgs, and those people who fell for the usual marketing-pr slogens like "you create your own story" or "it's your Shepard" should grow up a bit. This is pure marketing, othing else. You can't even say that they are lies, since you have the chance to personalise the game to a certain level (the game is interactive), since it reacts to certain things you do (within the rules of the game), or gives you pre-scripted choices once in a while with different outcomes and effects on later "events", but still it's a story which is written by a group of people with permutations they intended (and had the resources) to show you and with the story (endig included) they wanted to tell in the way they meant to tell it. 

So it is all just an illusion, but you know it. Only difference is that while I treat it as a game and a good story, you happen to get a bit too immersed and fall for the illusion. So I guess Bioware was more successful with you, than with me, but in the end it's me who can enjoy the game a lot better without being dissappointed, hurt or feeling betrayed by it and it's developers (it's such a stupid sentiment from many people's part, since it's just a freaking game).


Well, I'm not a big gamer myself, there are only a handful of games - and type of games - I like (I don't even waste my time with games like the BF or CoD series... never played any of them, nor it's kind): Thief series (one of my greatest favorites...looking forward to the newest one), The Witcher series (can't wait for Wild Hunt), Deus-Ex series, Hitman series, Haegemonia - Legions of Iron (great, Hungarian sci-fi strategy epic... to bad they never continued it, check it out if you can), the old Fallout games (don't like the new, 3d ones), Metro, Assassins Creed series, Max Payne series and the ME series... that's about it. 

ME1 is an RPG. 
ME2 is an RPG/shooter/action hybrid. 
ME3 is a Shooter/action game with some minor RPG elements. 

lol, about you thinking BF3 was to focused on MP. Is that a joke? That's just glib and silly. haha, BF being to much MP, seriously???? C'mon bro. 

[GimmeDaGun]

mtmercydave09 wrote...

Agreed.  That is the point of RPG games, to make us feel like we are in control even though we know we aren't.  We're just the leading actor in a script that's already made, but our choices did have some effect on what we experienced.

I do wonder if chemiclord & GimmeDaGun would say that pretty much every company that's ever made an RPG game should be sued for false advertising.

You can't sue them because there is an existing genre in gaming which is called "rpg"(, wrongly so imo). There's a consensus about the characteristics and features of this genre, and if a game fits them, then it can be labeled as "rpg" (just like ME). I only say, that the name of the genre is not true to its own meaning, becuse of the restraints and limits gaming in general has. 

Modifié par GimmeDaGun, 14 avril 2013 - 08:19 .

[GimmeDaGun]

TurianRebel212 wrote...


ME1 is an RPG. 
ME2 is an RPG/shooter/action hybrid. 
ME3 is a Shooter/action game with some minor RPG elements. 

lol, about you thinking BF3 was to focused on MP. Is that a joke? That's just glib and silly. haha, BF being to much MP, seriously???? C'mon bro. 

I don't remember writing that. I never even played that game, nor I ever will. 

As for the rest. Have it your way, I think that none of them are rpgs. They all looked very much like interactive action-adventure games to me. 

Modifié par GimmeDaGun, 14 avril 2013 - 08:20 .

[TurianRebel212]

GimmeDaGun wrote...

TurianRebel212 wrote...


ME1 is an RPG. 
ME2 is an RPG/shooter/action hybrid. 
ME3 is a Shooter/action game with some minor RPG elements. 

lol, about you thinking BF3 was to focused on MP. Is that a joke? That's just glib and silly. haha, BF being to much MP, seriously???? C'mon bro. 

I don't remember writing that. I never even played that game, nor I ever will. 

As for the rest. Have it your way, I think that none of them are rpgs. They all looked very much like interactive action-adventure games to me. 

haha, my bad, Derp. It was that gaterox guy or whatevs. But my point still stands, ME1 is an RPG. 

[Gkonone]

robertthebard wrote...

Gkonone wrote...

robertthebard wrote...

Gkonone wrote...

I really wonder though, would you feel the same if the ending was open and have Shepard survive and be reunited with his or her crew.
Be honest here.

Yes.  Nothing in the galaxy would make for a compelling enough story after defeating the Reapers.  It would be time to hang up the weapons, and go hang out on that beach with Garrus, and get that house, with the 2.5 kids with Traynor, so long as it's by the beach, so I don't have to do any more running and jumping to get there.  Still not sure how she intended to do that, all things considered, but it's her dream, and my Shepard wants to share it with her.  I'd say that, after saving the galaxy twice, and humanity three times, it's time to rest on my laurels and let somebody else get shot at for a while.

Ok, so if I understand you right, you don't want Shepard back cause his/her story has been told and you want to explore more stories/aspects of the ME universe with a different character?

Certainly.  All through the game, people were promising to buy me drinks when this was over.  It's over, and I want my drinks, and I want them uninterrupted.  I'm sure I've earned it, based on your posited scenario in the first quote here.

I disagree. The next game will be two years off, so Shepard will have all the time in the world to get drunk or rest. 
This is quite pointless though, you think it's done, I believe it's not.
You haven't answered some of my questions either I notice now. But lets leave it at that.