214 réponses à ce sujet

[MassivelyEffective0730]

TsaiMeLemoni wrote...

I wonder how much shorter all of these threads would be if people stopped replying to David.

Why on Earth would we do that?

Some of us actually think it's entertaining when he gets on his soapbox. And I like to just sit back and manually deconstruct his arguments.

Modifié par MassivelyEffective0730, 31 juillet 2013 - 05:33 .

[Jorji Costava]

David7204 wrote...

No. My point is just what I said. The player doesn't 'earn' competence.
Yes, there are challenges in games, but they're exactly that - game challenges - designed to be fun and accessible, and ultimately, easy. Not a chore. Not a headache. Not work. A game.

Well this is drifting further and further off-topic, so I'll just limit myself to some brief remarks. I see no reason why we can't forge a middle path that will satisfy casual gamers and also satisfy completionists with freakish reaction times, hand-eye coordination, etc. A game can be beatable by casual gamers, although some of the best outcomes are available to only highly skilled gamers. One can go all the way back to the original Metroid for an example of this sort of thing; if you take six hours and get only 30% of the items, you can still win, but to get the best results, you have to do a little better than that.

I also see no reason why games aren't allowed to be difficult. I think that there's more than enough room for easy games, incredibly difficult games, or anything in between. There's no reason why people who prefer one kind of game should be threatened by the mere existence of games which aren't like the ones they prefer. Let a thousand flowers bloom, I say.

EDIT: Fixed quotation

Modifié par osbornep, 31 juillet 2013 - 05:33 .

[Jorji Costava]

EDIT: Double post, sorry

Modifié par osbornep, 31 juillet 2013 - 05:34 .

[AlanC9]

Figure I ought to just go back to the beginning.

osbornep wrote...
1. Selling Legion and/or Grunt to Cerberus. .......That way, you have fewer permutations to deal with in later installments, at the cost of removing a pretty uninteresting choice.

Are there actually any fewer permutations? Both characters could die on the SM and leave their LMs unfinished.

Similarly, while I agree that recruiting Morinth was ridiculous, it was almost free since there wasn't much unique dialogue.

 If the representatives of every country in the UN security council except the US all died, how likely do you think it is that all the replacement representatives would end up being from the US?

Indeed. I always thought this was a bit silly, and I'm glad it got retconned.

Not sure about the SM. Maybe it should have been held for the last game, when it wouldn't have mattered who came back.

Modifié par AlanC9, 31 juillet 2013 - 05:35 .

[David7204]

osbornep wrote...

Well this is drifting further and further off-topic, so I'll just limit myself to some brief remarks. I see no reason why we can't forge a middle path that will satisfy casual gamers and also satisfy completionists with freakish reaction times, hand-eye coordination, etc. A game can be beatable by casual gamers, although some of the best outcomes are available to only highly skilled gamers. One can go all the way back to the original Metroid for an example of this sort of thing; if you take six hours and get only 30% of the items, you can still win, but to get the best results, you have to do a little better than that.

I also see no reason why games aren't allowed to be difficult. I think that there's more than enough room for easy games, incredibly difficult games, or anything in between. There's no reason why people who prefer one kind of game should be threatened by the mere existence of games which aren't like the ones they prefer. Let a thousand flowers bloom, I say.

Could a developer end the story with a ridiculously difficult and frustrating combat encounter and only award a 'perfect' ending to players who beat it? Absolutely.

Could a developer ask players to solve complex calculus equations and give better outcomes for right
answers, on the grounds that smart players (and thus protagonists) deserve better results? Sure they could.

Could a developer give the player an incredibly tedious puzzle or task to complete and reward them for slogging through it? Easily.

And look what's happened.

The core of the experience has collapsed. What was supposed to be a game is now a chore. What was supposed to be entertainment is now a headache. What was meant to be fun is now just work. Are you going to walk away from that experience with a dropped jaw and a rush of excitement, eager for more? No. You'll walk away glad to have it over and done with. And indeed many games have done such things, and been worse for it.

Modifié par David7204, 31 juillet 2013 - 05:36 .

[Steelcan]

David7204 wrote...

You 'make' him. But you don't earn it. Shepard is not the savior of the galaxy, because, you, personally, are such a skilled and smart and awesome person that you defied impossible odds and played the game so super-well that Shepard is Shepard instead of nobody.

.  Now you have changed your argument.  It used to be competent, now it is skilled?

[MassivelyEffective0730]

David7204 wrote...

Could a developer end the story with a ridiculously difficult and frustrating combat encounter and only award a 'perfect' ending to players who beat it? Absolutely.

This provides a much better challenge for players. It actually works as an incentive for a reward for players to achieve their perfect ending.

Could a developer ask players to solve complex calculus equations and give better outcomes for right
answers, on the grounds that smart players (and thus protagonists) deserve better results? Sure they could.

And you just trivialized your argument with something that is obviously an attempt to make a pathetic generalization fallacy. PGF's are used (like slippery slopes) to misrepresent an argument on the grounds of making the original argument sound like it's asking for something ridiculous when it is not.

Could a developer give the player an incredibly tedious puzzle or task to complete and reward them for slogging through it? Easily.

See my first point.

And look what's happened.

The core of the experience has collapsed. What was supposed to be a game is now a chore. What was supposed to be entertainment is now a headache. What was meant to be fun is now just work. Are you going to walk away from that experience with a dropped jaw and a rush of excitement, eager for more? No. You'll walk away glad to have it over and done with. And indeed many games have done such things, and been worse for it.

You're using the "Video games are supposed to be fun" argument? Seriously? Damn, we must have beat you back preeeetttyy gooooood if we're making you resort to that.

[David7204]

You can choose to have Shepard be incompetent. But you don't earn it.

All you're doing is flipping the switch. The light was invented and tested and installed by someone else. You can turn it on. But you didn't earn it.

Modifié par David7204, 31 juillet 2013 - 05:43 .

[Cainhurst Crow]

David7204 wrote...

You can choose to have Shepard be incompetent. But you don't earn it.

All you're doing is flipping the switch. The light was invented and tested and installed by someone else. You can turn it on. But you didn't earn it.

What?

[David7204]

The player can 'make' Shepard competent or incompetent. That doesn't mean they 'earn' it. That doesn't mean Shepard's success is a result of the player's qualities. It's simply the result of the player pressing one button instead of another.

Modifié par David7204, 31 juillet 2013 - 05:49 .

[wolfhowwl]

Steelcan wrote...

David7204 wrote...

I 'changed my argument' because I used the word 'skilled' instead of 'competent'? Are you really this stupid?

.  We proved you can make Shepard incompetent, now you have switched gears.  

reported for personal attack

Did that make you feel powerful, Steelcan?

Steelcan, do you feel like more of a man for reporting me?

Do you think you're strong, Steelcan? Smart, Steelcan? Brave, Steelcan?

-------------

Have I captured the essence of David?

[Cainhurst Crow]

David7204 wrote...

The player can 'make' Shepard competent or incompetent. That doesn't mean they 'earn' it. That doesn't mean Shepard's success is a result of the player's qualities.

What??

[Fixers0]

They practically did remove most of the choices you've mentioned, simply by having them lead to a superfically different, but fundamentally similar scenarios usally resulting into the most laugably contrived stories or sometimes just using good old retcons to clear the game of unwanted consquence. We wouldn't the game to have actual divergent scenerios, That would lock players out of content and whatnot.

[David7204]

Darth Brotarian wrote...

David7204 wrote...

The player can 'make' Shepard competent or incompetent. That doesn't mean they 'earn' it. That doesn't mean Shepard's success is a result of the player's qualities.

What??

Do you understand the issue here?

The player does not 'earn' competence. Shepard is not a galactic savior because you, personally, are the best video game player of all time. Because you, personally, are strong and smart and brave enough to guide Shepard through the challenges s/he faces.

Shepard is powerful because s/he's powerful. That's the end of it. The same for all characters in any fiction.

Modifié par David7204, 31 juillet 2013 - 05:52 .

[Cainhurst Crow]

David7204 wrote...

Darth Brotarian wrote...

David7204 wrote...

The player can 'make' Shepard competent or incompetent. That doesn't mean they 'earn' it. That doesn't mean Shepard's success is a result of the player's qualities.

What??

Do you understand the issue here?

The player does not 'earn' competence. Shepard is not a galactic savior because you, personally, are the best video game player of all time. Because you, personally, are strong and smart and brave enough to guide Shepard through the challenges s/he faces.

What???

[David7204]

It was maybe very slightly funny the first time. I assure you it had worn off by the second.

Modifié par David7204, 31 juillet 2013 - 05:53 .

[Jorji Costava]

AlanC9 wrote...

Figure I ought to just go back to the beginning.

This was an excellent idea. This thread is really starting to get derailed.

As far as selling Grunt/Legion goes, I don't know if there are any actual differences between selling them and letting them die on the suicide mission. I would have thought that from an in-universe perspective, selling Legion ought to have had a different effect from getting him killed in the suicide mission, since if he spent any time with Shepard's crew, he presumably would have been able to communicate data about his dealings with organics back to the consensus, whereas he could not have done this had he been sold to Cerberus (or if he did, his findings would have been far different). That might be a bit much to handle, which is why I suggested dropping the choice altogether.

Delaying the SM, or an SM-like mission for ME3 seems like a good idea to me, since that's when the stakes are highest and when there aren't worries about respecting the various permutations in future games. One mechanic for such a mission I've suggested before is to set things up so that there are benefits to getting squadmates killed; instead of disloyal squadmates dying, what you'd have is a choice between expediency and loyalty to friends. For instance, sending a certain squadmate on an insanely risky mission might make certain other objectives much easier to accomplish, but at the cost of that squadmate's life. There's that ruthless calculus in action for you.

/night

EDIT: Changed some wording.

Modifié par osbornep, 31 juillet 2013 - 05:55 .

[AresKeith]

David7204 wrote...

It was maybe very slightly funny the first time. I assure you it had worn off by the second.

What???

[Cainhurst Crow]

AresKeith wrote...

David7204 wrote...

It was maybe very slightly funny the first time. I assure you it had worn off by the second.

What???

Whatt????

[wolfhowwl]

Darth Brotarian wrote...

AresKeith wrote...

David7204 wrote...

It was maybe very slightly funny the first time. I assure you it had worn off by the second.

What???

Whatt????

What??????

Modifié par wolfhowwl, 31 juillet 2013 - 05:56 .

[MassivelyEffective0730]

David7204 wrote...

Tell me, MassivelyEffective, do you think you're a man for playing video games? Do you think you're strong? Smart? Brave? Talented? Are the ladies impressed when you regale them your achievements?

No.

Your argument is discredited via ad hominem (which I already blew yout argument apart already). Poisoning the Well. I might as well throw the entire index of fallacies at you. You've practically made all of them at some point. 

Here anyway you're also throwing at me a Pathetic Generalization Fallacy and a Genetic Fallacy. I'm wrong because I'm me, and not you. Mind projection fallacy much too?

Granted, there are some puzzle games you have to be clever to solve. But developers are certainly not obligated to go down that route. BioWare decided that it's more important that everyone be able to enjoy their story and experience than for it to be too difficult. As do nearly all AAA developers.

Changing the point. You're changing your point to "difficulty of games".

That said, I thought the most important thing to BW was making money as a business?

You don't 'earn' Shepard's achievements. You sit. And you press buttons. Shepard is not Shepard because of you. Shepard is Shepard because of Shepard. All you can do is flip the switch on and off.

Shepard is Shepard because I, as the player, determine that he is indeed Shepard. Shepard's achievements are the players. I'm going to use one of your own fallacies here:

If the achievements aren't mine, how come I have all the achievements for Mass Effect 1, 2, and 3 all on my Gamertag? Those look like my achievements. I earned them. They say I'm a legend. They say I'm the best of the best. They say I'm Insane. 

Where did your argument go now?

Modifié par MassivelyEffective0730, 31 juillet 2013 - 05:57 .

[David7204]

I'm having a hard time telling if you're serious or not.

So you're saying that you, personally, accomplished the feat of saving the galaxy because you received achievements for the Xbox 360 games Mass Effect 1, 2, and 3 on your 'Gamertag'? That you did it? That Shepard wouldn't have been able to do any of that without you personally sitting in front of the screen pressing buttons?

Modifié par David7204, 31 juillet 2013 - 06:01 .

[Steelcan]

David7204 wrote...

I'm having a hard time telling if you're serious or not.

So you're saying that you, personally, accomplished the feat of saving the galaxy because you received achievements for the Xbox 360 games Mass Effect 1, 2, and 3 on your 'Gamertag'? That you did it? That Shepard wouldn't have been able to do any of that without you personally sitting in front of the screen pressing buttons?

If he wasnt there pressing buttons Shepard never would have done anything

[Cainhurst Crow]

David7204 wrote...

I'm having a hard time telling if you're serious or not.

So you're saying that you, personally, accomplished the feat of saving the galaxy because you received achievements for the Xbox 360 games Mass Effect 1, 2, and 3 on your 'Gamertag'? That you did it? That Shepard wouldn't have been able to do any of that without you personally sitting in front of the screen pressing buttons?