1132 réponses à ce sujet

[David7204]

Hazegurl wrote...

It was contrived. I wouldn't call it stupid but contrived it was. Shepard could have easily worked as a Spectre in the Terminus systems. As for LotSB. That was contrived as well. They had to reboot the Liara character just to make it work.

You're very clearly in the minority. LotSB is overwhelmingly considered the best or second best DLC, particularly by fans of "the Liara character." Are you sure you know what 'contrived' means at all? Because I would think someone who does would think twice before condeming Lazarus and then going right on to say Shepard dissappering for no reason to be a Spectre for two years is a good idea.

Modifié par David7204, 18 août 2013 - 08:42 .

[AresKeith]

David7204 wrote...

It's nobody's fault. It's not a fault at all. Video games are just that. Games. Not chores. Not headaches. Not exams. Not work. Games.

So what your saying is that games shouldn't make you think or anything?

[GreyLycanTrope]

David7204 wrote...
I'm curious, do you think the general public is going to nod and smile when their taxes are tripled to build fleets because the government says there's an armageddon coming?

Saying things were done in the name of fighting communism or terrorism has historically been used to push through a great many things that would not be looked on by the public under normal circumstances as good. I doubt anyone is going to nod and smile if the end times are coming but when you can show them footage of what one Reaper can do to the Citadel fleet and saythey have good reasons to belive more are coming, I'm fairly certain they'd grin and bear it.

Modifié par Greylycantrope, 18 août 2013 - 08:46 .

[David7204]

Heretic_Hanar wrote...

Please explain to me the Insanity difficulty in Mass Effect and tell me why it's there.

I tell you why. Let me school yo ass on basic game design principles 101:

Almost all games are designed to offer the player a reasonable challenge that is enough to entertain th player, but isn't too much, or else it becomes frustrating.

For someone who spends any amount of time playing video games, casual offers a negligable challenge.

And look. The story for playing on casual is the exact same story you get for playing on insanity. Clearly, you don't 'earn' anything within the story by playing on a higher difficulty.

Modifié par David7204, 18 août 2013 - 08:47 .

[Cainhurst Crow]

Darth Brotarian wrote...

David7204 wrote...

That's just not true at all. Plenty of meaningful content came from Lazarus in the collapse and reunion of the old squad. When people talk about Lazarus being dropped, it seem to me they're not talking about themes in general, only the one theme they supposedly expected. Which is Shepard whining to himself or herself whether she's 'real' or not.

Not only would that be character derailment, it would very likely be clumsy and boring. Why? Because it's overwhelmingly clear to the audience that Shepard is exactly the way s/he was. So all this talk when the answer is front of everyone's face is not going to be anywhere near as clever as people seem to think.

Tell me what meaningful content came from the lazarus project that couldn't have come from shepard just being in a coma for 2 years, and his body having been protected from collecter procurement by cerberus and the alliance declaring him dead?

I really want to hear this, david. Tell me what oh so great impact shepard being spaced and crashed into a planet and brought back with this project had, that a simple coma couldn't have just as easily accomplished?

I just realized you never answered my question, david.

Modifié par Darth Brotarian, 18 août 2013 - 08:47 .

[The Heretic of Time]

David7204 wrote...

Clearly, you don't 'earn' anything within the story by playing on a higher difficulty.

That's not even the point of playing on a higher difficulty setting. Did you even read the rest of my post?

Again, let me school your ass on basic game design principles 101:

Almost all games are designed to offer the player a reasonable challenge that is enough to entertain th player, but isn't too much, or else it becomes frustrating.

Video-games are all about "the flow".



A challenge that is just dificult enough will get the player into "the flow", which is the most fun state of mind to be in. All games are designed to get the player into this "flow", and a decent challenge is necessary to get into that flow.

Too much of a challenge, and the player will feel anxiety. Too little of a challenge, and the player will feel boredom. Just the right amount of challenge, and the player will be in "the flow channel".

The reason why games often have multiple difficulty settings is because it allows different players with different level of skills to enjoy the game. A casual player might get into "the flow" with the difficulty on Easy, while a hardcore gamer might get into "the flow" with the difficulty on Insanity.

Modifié par Heretic_Hanar, 18 août 2013 - 08:51 .

[dreamgazer]

Games aren't work? Bah. Someone's never grinded in an RPG before.

[GreyLycanTrope]

David7204 wrote...

Clearly, you don't 'earn' anything within the story by playing on a higher difficulty.

Depends on the game. Halo offers extend cutscenes on the higher difficulty. The highest setting of Halo 3 provided a teaser of Halo 4 which was unattainable otherwise.

[Cainhurst Crow]

Does david not understand the concept or working hard at something, or doing challenging things for fun?

Modifié par Darth Brotarian, 18 août 2013 - 08:53 .

[David7204]

Cthulhu42 wrote...

David7204 wrote...

Hazegurl wrote...

It was contrived. I wouldn't call it stupid but contrived it was. Shepard could have easily worked as a Spectre in the Terminus systems. As for LotSB. That was contrived as well. They had to reboot the Liara character just to make it work.

You're very clearly in the minority. LotSB is overwhelmingly considered the best or second best DLC, particularly by fans of "the Liara character."

For someone who so frequently finds himself holding minority opinions here on the BSN, you sure seem to have a fondness for argumentum ad populum.

Popularity isn't everything. But it isn't nothing, either. It's always wise to consider why something is popular or unpopular instead of dismissing it as 'people are stupid and wrong.'

[The Heretic of Time]

Darth Brotarian wrote...

Does david not understand the concept or working hard at something, or doing challenging things for fun?

David thinks that games should be like a movie on DVD, with the exception that in order to play a movie on a DVD, you only have to press a button once, while in video-games you have to press buttons multiple times.

That's his (limited and factually wrong) view on video-games, or how they should be according to him.

Modifié par Heretic_Hanar, 18 août 2013 - 08:55 .

[David7204]

dreamgazer wrote...

Games aren't work? Bah. Someone's never grinded in an RPG before.

Darth Brotarian wrote...

Does david not understand the concept or working hard at something, or doing challenging things for fun?

Do you 'work hard' to beat Mass Effect? Do you 'grind'?

No. You don't.

There are some games that doubtless require 'grinding' to enjoy the story. Mass Effect is not one of them, and shouldn't be obligated to be.

Modifié par David7204, 18 août 2013 - 08:57 .

[Cainhurst Crow]

Heretic_Hanar wrote...

Darth Brotarian wrote...

Does david not understand the concept or working hard at something, or doing challenging things for fun?

David thinks that games should be like a movie on DVD, with the exception that in order to play a movie on a DVD, you only have to press a button once, while in video-games you have to press buttons multiple times.

That's his (limited and factually wrong) view on video-games, or how they should be according to him.

That's so very, very, sad.

Modifié par Darth Brotarian, 18 août 2013 - 08:56 .

[The Heretic of Time]

David7204 wrote...

Do you 'work hard' to beat Mass Effect? Do you 'grind'?

No. You don't.

Yes, you do work hard ot beat Mass Effect, on Insanity that is. Unless you're a real newbie, then you'll probably have to wek hard to beat Mass Effect on normal, or even hard.

Case in point: Whether you have to "work hard" to beat Mass Effect entirely depends on the skills of the player, and the dfficulty setting the player plays on.

And that brings us back to my previous post about basic game design principles 101, and about "the flow channel", my post where I correct your faulty view on video-games, which you  conveniently keep ignoring.



As on grinding: Yes, you do have to grind in ME3's multiplayer in order to get enough credits for rare items.

Modifié par Heretic_Hanar, 18 août 2013 - 09:00 .

[David7204]

Shepard does not succeed because of you. You sat on a couch or chair and pressed buttons. That's what you did. You sat on the couch, you watched a screen, and you pressed buttons.

You did not 'earn' anything. That makes utterly no sense. Because if you 'earned' a good story, then logically a good player would never play a game with a downer ending. Shouldn't he have 'earned' a good ending with his 'determination and skill'?

The most skilled player in the world can play Kane and Lynch. And guess what? Your 'determination and skill' counts for squat. Absolutely everything and anything still goes wrong for the protagonists.

Someone with very little 'determination and skill' can play Mass Effect on Casual. And look at that. They get the exact same story as someone who plays on insanity. How could anything have gone right for Shepard if they didn't 'earn' it?

Modifié par David7204, 18 août 2013 - 09:03 .

[Cainhurst Crow]

David7204 wrote...

dreamgazer wrote...

Games aren't work? Bah. Someone's never grinded in an RPG before.

Darth Brotarian wrote...

Does david not understand the concept or working hard at something, or doing challenging things for fun?

Do you 'work hard' to beat Mass Effect? Do you 'grind'?

No. You don't.

Overcoming challenges is a good way games help people. When a person plays a game, they don't usually want to be a god, not right off the bat or not for long. They want to be someone powerful but not invulnerable, and feel like they are wining the game by beating it, not by the game throwing the fight essentially and giving them unfair advantages. It's a challange of going up against a strong opponent, using your wits, muscle, and timing, to decimate your foe, the thrill of seeing your opponents health bar go down more and more with each strike, the terror of a powerful enemy managing to get the upper hand, the desperate struggle to turn the tides and get back into dominating.

There is a place for god tier characters, you can usually find them in the final levels of fallout or skyrim, games like saints row, most casual settings for the games, but people do love feeling like they are fighting an even matched fight to the death against a worthy opponent. It's finding that balance of not making the fight like going up against a wild tiger with nothing but a spoon and no legs, and not making it a battle against a drunken midget when you have steel toed boots, IE the easiest match in the world.

[GreyLycanTrope]

David7204 wrote...
Do you 'work hard' to beat Mass Effect? Do you 'grind'?

No. You don't.

There are some games that doubtless require 'grinding' to enjoy the story. Mass Effect is not one of them, and shouldn't be obligated to be.

It was actually, you just work towards war assets instead of XP.

[AlanC9]

David7204 wrote...


Do you 'work hard' to beat Mass Effect? Do you 'grind'?

The ME2 and ME3 scanning games function the same way grinding does. And I'm not sure what the conceptual difference is between grinding and the sort of filler combat Bio always throws at us..

Modifié par AlanC9, 18 août 2013 - 09:03 .

[AresKeith]

David7204 wrote...

Shepard does not succeed because of you. You sat on a couch or chair and pressed buttons. That's what you did. You sat on the couch, you watched a screen, and you pressed buttons.

You did not 'earn' anything. That makes utterly no sense. Because if you 'earned' a good story, then logically a good player would never play a game with a downer ending. Shouldn't he have 'earned' a good ending with his 'determination and skill'?

The most skilled player in the world can play Kane and Lynch. And guess what? Your 'determination and skill' counts for squat. Absolutely everything and anything still goes wrong for the protagonists.

The point








Your head David

[Cainhurst Crow]

StreetMagic wrote...

Grinding is not working hard or the challenge of typical games. Grinding is repeating the same patterns until you start dozing off. If anything, it's like a lot of people's real jobs, like clerical or cooking are full of repetitive tasks. Hard games usually involve switching up patterns or not being able to predict the sequence right.

Grinding is the training montage in all those sports movies, like rocky running up the stairs. It's training in preparation for the big challenging fight, at least that's how I see it.

[The Heretic of Time]

David7204 wrote...

Shepard does not succeed because of you.

Yes he does succeed because of me.

If I fail, I get a big fat CRITICAL MISSION FAILURE on my screen.

Luckily, because this is a video-game and not real-life, I can simply press "try again", though in some really hardcore games, dying means perma-death, in which case, if the player fails, the character dies, permanently.

You did not 'earn' anything. That makes utterly no sense. Because if you 'earned' a good story, then logically a good player would never play a game with a downer ending. Shouldn't he have 'earned' a good ending with his 'determination and skill'?

In Mass Effect, you have to make the right decisions and do enough missions in order to get enough War Assets in order to UNLOCK the best ending.

So yes, you actually DO have to EARN a happy ending in Mass Effect.


And you're still ignoring my post about basic game design principles 101, where I already explained how games are designed in a very simple and understandable matter. Why do you keep ignoring this post?:

Almost all games are designed to offer the player a reasonable challenge that is enough to entertain th player, but isn't too much, or else it becomes frustrating.

Video-games are all about "the flow".



A challenge that is just dificult enough will get the player into "the flow", which is the most fun state of mind to be in. All games are designed to get the player into this "flow", and a decent challenge is necessary to get into that flow.

Too much of a challenge, and the player will feel anxiety. Too little of a challenge, and the player will feel boredom. Just the right amount of challenge, and the player will be in "the flow channel".

The reason why games often have multiple difficulty settings is because it allows different players with different level of skills to enjoy the game. A casual player might get into "the flow" with the difficulty on Easy, while a hardcore gamer might get into "the flow" with the difficulty on Insanity.

Modifié par Heretic_Hanar, 18 août 2013 - 09:06 .

[Cainhurst Crow]

David7204 wrote...

Shepard does not succeed because of you. You sat on a couch or chair and pressed buttons. That's what you did. You sat on the couch, you watched a screen, and you pressed buttons.

You did not 'earn' anything. That makes utterly no sense. Because if you 'earned' a good story, then logically a good player would never play a game with a downer ending. Shouldn't he have 'earned' a good ending with his 'determination and skill'?

The most skilled player in the world can play Kane and Lynch. And guess what? Your 'determination and skill' counts for squat. Absolutely everything and anything still goes wrong for the protagonists.

Someone with very little 'determination and skill' can play Mass Effect on Casual. And look at that. They get the exact same story as someone who plays on insanity. How could anything have gone right for Shepard if they didn't 'earn' it?

You think being meta is going to save your point david? Please.

What meaningful heroism have you done in your life?