168 réponses à ce sujet

[Grand Admiral Cheesecake]

Ieldra2 wrote...

Xilizhra wrote...

Ieldra2 wrote...

Megaton_Hope wrote...
Illusive Man doesn't see the board several moves ahead of his current move, though. He doesn't even seem to see his current move, most of the time. The Collector ship mission is particularly bone-headed; there's nothing to gain from that little excursion, but he stands to lose Shepard, in whom he has invested a significant amount of time, money and manpower, as well as two of his other most valuable operatives, and potentially a very expensive ship and unique AI. Like Shepard says, if they were after an IFF, it would have been better to tell Shepard that so that he can look for one.

The CB is a Reaper factory. Which means it has complete information about the physical makeup of the Reapers. That knowledge should've been invaluable in the war. Instead, we get.....+10 TMS. This is insulting.

All information on it was held by an enemy faction until immediately before the final battle, when there wasn't nearly enough time to apply any of it.

Reasonably Cerberus shouldn't have been an enemy faction. A rational attitude would've been: we try it our way, you try it your way, but we all want to end the Reaper threat so we exchange all information about the Reapers we get. Cerberus as an enemy was a dumb idea. 

I don't usually agree with Ieldra on much but he's got a good point.

[David7204]

The game needs some sort of human enemy to fight, and fight often. And it very preferably needs to be a step-up from the professional soldiers and mercs fought in ME 2. It also needs to be an enemy with a purpose, to justify spending time attacking them instead of Reapers.

I don't see a whole lot of canidates aside from Cerberus.

Here we see a weakness of video games as a storytelling medium. Whereas a TV show can have literally one man be an effective antagonist for an entire season or longer, video games need mooks. Lots of mooks.

Modifié par David7204, 06 mai 2013 - 07:54 .

[Grand Admiral Cheesecake]

Hordes of indoctrinated Hegemony soldiers.

[David7204]

I don't really see that working too well.

[Grand Admiral Cheesecake]

David7204 wrote...

I don't really see that working too well.

Your reasons for thinking that?

Modifié par Grand Admiral Cheesecake, 06 mai 2013 - 08:00 .

[Fixers0]

David7204 wrote...
Here we see a weakness of video games as a storytelling medium. Whereas a TV show can have literally one man be an effective antagonist for an entire season or longer, video games need mooks. Lots of mooks.

Indeed, It's no inherent to video games as a whole though, but rather the failure of the current system, that dicates the inclusion of long combat segments just for the sake of being there, it's exist in may variations and the combat in one game can be entierly different then that in any other game, but it always comes down to this basic principle, it's a big disease on the video game industry.

[David7204]

Because it very heavily limits the motives you can give them. If they're just Reaper slaves, you can't have them doing anything much more complex then just shooting people because they're Reapers.

Also, as I said, because I'd very much prefer them to be a step-up. Shepard's squad is supposed to be stronger then ever. It doesn't feel 100% plausible to have them slowed down by generic batarians.

[David7204]

Fixers0 wrote...

David7204 wrote...
Here we see a weakness of video games as a storytelling medium. Whereas a TV show can have literally one man be an effective antagonist for an entire season or longer, video games need mooks. Lots of mooks.

Indeed, It's no inherent to video games as a whole though, but rather the failure of the current system, that dicates the inclusion of long combat segments just for the sake of being there, it's exist in may variations and the combat in one game can be entierly different then that in any other game, but it always comes down to this basic principle, it's a big disease on the video game industry.

No. Video games focus on combat because it's a very effective and fun way to integrate the player into the story. There's a reason why games like Heavy Rain and LA Noire haven't taken off, and even those two feature combat.

We're limited more than you think. There's a lot of developers out there. If it could be done, someone would have done it already.

Why don't you consider some television shows or books that don't have much combat. Consider them being turned into a video game. What would the player actually be doing?

There's a lot of very clever and interesting mechanics I've seen that work very well for a 5 or 10 minute flash game, but would simply never work for a AAA 50 hour game.

Modifié par David7204, 06 mai 2013 - 08:24 .

[Fixers0]

David7204 wrote...
No. Video games focus on combat because it's a very effective and fun way to integrate the player into the story. There's a reason why games like Heavy Rain and LA Noire haven't taken off, and even those two feature combat.

Which in regarnd to LA Noire, is perhaps one of the best examples of contrived and unfiting combat sections forced in a game that did not need them, and by adding them, they weakend the overall game experiance.

David7204 wrote...
We're limited more than you think. There's a lot of developers out there. If it could be done, someone would have done it already.

That's an appeal to a probability. but as i said it's a disease to games. Long, elborate combat sequences are forced into pretty much every game now because it's standard to the indstry, pretty much every game is expected to have those nowadays which is exactly why games that involve no or limited combat are rather hard to bring on the market.

David7204 wrote...
Why don't you consider some television shows or books that don't have much combat. Consider them being turned into a video game. What would the player actually be doing?

Almost everything the protanganist in the books does, games have an increassing tendacy to wrestle control from the player and force alsmost everything not related to combat into cinematics.

Modifié par Fixers0, 06 mai 2013 - 08:27 .

[Megaton_Hope]

Ieldra2 wrote...
The CB is a Reaper factory. Which means it has complete information about the physical makeup of the Reapers. That knowledge should've been invaluable in the war. Instead, we get.....+10 TMS. This is insulting.

Collector ship, Collector base, two different things.

Anyways, I do think that the Illusive Man's plan to override the Reaper signal that controls husks and such is a good plan, assuming that one can pull it off. (And that there is such a signal, which wasn't actually shown anywhere; the creatures in question seem to be operating on "kill everything that's not you" orders, which wouldn't need much updating.) Overriding it with your own face seems unnecessary and rather fatally risky, though.

[Morlath]

ME1 - Shepard sees a Rear Admiral killed for asking the wrong questions after a squad of marines were killed by Cerberus.

ME2 - At least twice (Horizon/Collector Ship) TIM puts you in the direct firing line to test a theory. The thing about most "ends justify the means" warriors is that they are also pretty annoyed if someone sets them up as bait.

At no point does Cerberus do anything that has even a renegade Commander be willing to join them. Maybe share intel and certainly they may share many of the same beliefs but that's not the same as willing to trust Cerberus.

[David7204]

Okay...so...let's consider a popular book like Harry Potter. Most of the books' content is focused on him in class...doing homework...eating lunch...talking to his friends about this or that...having dreams...how do you propose those things be turned into a challenge for the player?

Modifié par David7204, 06 mai 2013 - 08:40 .

[Fixers0]

David7204 wrote...

Okay...so...let's consider a popular book like Harry Potter. Most of the books' content is focused on him in class...doing homework...eating lunch...talking to his friends about this or that...having dreams...how do you propose those things be turned into a challenge for the player?

Since when is "challenge" the criteria? If were's follwing the example od Harry Potter then i'd rather recommend that simulation to be take as primary goal. 

[Ieldra]

Regarding combat in video games: my most intense video game experience was in the "Thief" games - stealth games where the point was trying to avoid combat. When you got into a fight, you could still get through but basically it was a fail condition. In the highest difficulty you usually had "don't kill anyone" as an added goal, and many fans played in variations of a "ghost" style, which means adding self-imposed conditions like "Don't knock anyone out", "Never get seen" and "Leave everything as it was before except for the loot".

So no, fighting lots of mooks is definitely not a necessary ingredient for a good game.The developers left it in as an option just to be on the safe side, but the games' appeal was somewhere else.

Modifié par Ieldra2, 06 mai 2013 - 08:50 .

[David7204]

The point is that the primary tension and drama of video games is derived from...let's call it 'physical challenges.' Combat, stealth, car chases, racing, sports, construction, war, earning money. It doesn't have to involve shooting people, but it's very...explicit. Very direct, very obvious. Always a clear goal.

In contrast, a story on television or in a book can derive it's primary tension and drama from much more subtle sources. Character conflicts, emotional trauma, identity, that sort of thing. And it's simply not possible to have a player control that sort of thing in a satisfying and meaningful way.

So being a stealth game...it's still pretty much the same mold. People keep thinking that some whole new level of character driven games is just around the corner, and they're wrong. You can't change the fundamentals.

Modifié par David7204, 06 mai 2013 - 08:59 .

[Astartes Marine]

David7204 wrote...
Also, as I said, because I'd very much prefer them to be a step-up. Shepard's squad is supposed to be stronger then ever. It doesn't feel 100% plausible to have them slowed down by generic batarians.

I think you underestimate the capabilities of a numerically superior force, even if they're poorly equipped and undertrained. 

Mass Effect's Husks and Rachni
Warhammer has Orks and Guardsmen Infantry/Concsripts and Tyranid Gaunts
Starcraft has the Zerglings
Practically any faction in Supreme Commander

No matter how strong you are, you can still be utterly swamped by mooks if the number is great enough. 

[Bleachrude]

I'd like to point out that there have been multiple Harry Potter videogames.

They SUCK

[David7204]

Fighting hordes of weak enemies is simply not very fun. Hence the Reapers having troops much stronger than husks.

Here we see another fundamental weakness of video games as a video game. They have to be fun. You can't tell a completely miserable story like you can in other mediums.

I still have Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets for the PS2. Yeah, that game sucks.

Modifié par David7204, 06 mai 2013 - 09:11 .

[TheRealJayDee]

David7204 wrote...

Okay...so...let's consider a popular book like Harry Potter. Most of the books' content is focused on him in class...doing homework...eating lunch...talking to his friends about this or that...having dreams...how do you propose those things be turned into a challenge for the player?

You might want to take a look at the popular Persona series.

[Astartes Marine]

David7204 wrote...
Fighting hordes of weak enemies is simply not very fun. Hence the Reapers having troops much stronger than husks.

Really?  I didn't see anything I would call "strong" among the Reaper ranks as opposed to "slightly better".  Maybe I've been spoiled by other games.

Regardless those factions I listed are still fun to fight or even play as despite usually being based around armies with very large numbers and many fodder units. 
Sometimes that IS also part of the fun, to be completely outnumbered and outgunned and coming out on top regardless.

David7204 wrote...
Here we see another fundamental weakness of video games as a video game. They have to be fun. You can't tell a completely miserable story like you can in other mediums.

Spec Ops: The Line completely disagrees with you and it was a damn fine game and story.

Modifié par Astartes Marine, 06 mai 2013 - 10:54 .

[Ridwan]

I'm also sympathetic to the Illusive man, that's why I gunned him and his goons down.

[David7204]

Astartes Marine wrote...

Really?  I didn't see anything I would call "strong" among the Reaper ranks as opposed to "slightly better".  Maybe I've been spoiled by other games.

Regardless those factions I listed are still fun to fight or even play as despite usually being based around armies with very large numbers and many fodder units. 
Sometimes that IS also part of the fun, to be completely outnumbered and outgunned and coming out on top regardless.

Does that make you feel powerful? To 'come out on top?'

It's a video game. You can delude yourself into thinking you're a badass all day long if you want to. But please don't expect me to join in.

Astartes Marine wrote...
Spec Ops: The Line completely disagrees with you and it was a damn fine game and story.

If it wasn't fun, people wouldn't have played it. Simple as that. Unless you're suggesting they deliberately made the gunplay as boring and cumbersome as possible because they thought it would improve the experience? Unless you're suggesting any successful game has gameplay deliberately made 'unfun' to improve the experience?

Modifié par David7204, 06 mai 2013 - 11:16 .

[Tyrannosaurus Rex]

David7204 wrote...

Astartes Marine wrote...
Spec Ops: The Line completely disagrees with you and it was a damn fine game and story.

If it wasn't fun, people wouldn't have played it. Simple as that. Unless you're suggesting they deliberately made the gunplay as boring and cumbersome as possible because they thought it would improve the experience?

The gunplay in Spec Ops was mediocre and somewhat monotone to the point you almost phase out when going through the combat sections (which I would guess was either deliberate or something the developers took advantage of). The story was anything but fun, but it was enganging and you made you feel more and more like **** for the things you did, and that was kept me hooked.

[Astartes Marine]

David7204 wrote...
It's a video game. You can delude yourself into thinking you're a badass all day long if you want to. But please don't expect me to join in.

No I pretty much expect you to continue on your trend of ****ing about everything.

David7204 wrote...
If it wasn't fun, people wouldn't have
played it. Simple as that. Unless you're suggesting they deliberately
made the gunplay as boring and cumbersome as possible because they
thought it would improve the experience?

Just watch the Extra Credits videos I linked, all will be explained.

[TheProtheans]

"Does that make you feel powerful? To come out on top?"

No, it makes players feel satisfied with the experience.
If you do something amazing that is hard to achieve players generally feel the game was worth the experience, if more games did situations that would make players feel like that then they would probably be selling them better and getting more praise.

David7204, I understand you're somewhat of a noob to entertainment in general, so if you have any questions just direct them to me in a pm.