416 réponses à ce sujet

[Schneidend]

Static Entropy wrote...

Once you get the Savant X Amp/Tool, there's no reason to switch.  Master Chief can change guns that affect your stats, as it were (plasma pistol is basically a mod that does 500% shield damage and -80% physical damage).  Moreover, the devs built Master Chief to that point, just like another player built UberShep to level 60--why does it matter if it was a dev or another player defining your character when the end result is the same to you?  And I'm not suggesting that the genre changes when you switch out players; what I'm suggesting is that your definition of an RPG leads to this logically confusing conclusion.

Those are two completely different things. Halo wasn't built around customizing Master Chief. Mass Effect is. My definition leads to absolutely no confusion if you are playing the game as intended. I am talking about the genre of a game, and what makes it fit into that genre. You are apparently talking about the individual experience of a player using the game in a way that was not intended. We are discussion (fruitlessly, it would seem) what makes an RPG, not what a player will individually experience. That is not quanitifiable or objective in the least.

Yes, but Mass Effect also offers many larger choices (even the choice to commit genocide) and it fills the spaces in between with meaningful smaller choices.   As I said before, the limited nature of your choices in Army of Two make the game seem like a very light RPG; after all, it doesn't seem like you get much of a choice between defining yourself as a pyschotic mercenary or an extremely pyschotic mercenary, thus the player is barred from the relative freedom of character creation that is typical of RPGs.

What did I say that lead you to believe your choices were limited to psychotic mercenary and extremely psychotic mercenary? No, the choice is more like being greedy and ruthless versus being a morally sound individual who is just out to make a living.

[Murmillos]

sakay wrote...
*snip*

Then your choices in ME2 may be limited to Engineer or Adept.  But you still will be able to play just fine.  Again, Bioware is TRYING to limit the amount of need for you weapon for these two classes, while improving the (not quite as good and polished as it could have been) shooter mechanics.

[Static Entropy]

Murmillos wrote...

Static Entropy wrote...

Once you get the Savant X Amp/Tool, there's no reason to switch.  Master Chief can change guns that affect your stats, as it were (plasma pistol is basically a mod that does 500% shield damage and -80% physical damage).

A) A lot of RPG's have best in slot items.... 

Weapon properties/effects are not player character stats - thus not RPG mechanics.  Unless the weapon does alter player stats. Like a "Magical golden sword of +5 STR".  If a weapon does 50% more damage to shields, its not the player charater stat that is being modified, its only that weapons special ability.

What are you going to say next.. A sniper rifle is a stat mod because it allows you see and shoot further?  Or is it because that what the weapon does?

Okay, let's say your right (and I'm a little dubious that you can't consider damage types an RPG mechanic), so Shepherd changing guns isn't a way for him to demonstrate statistical progression or change--in this case it is even easier to present an UberShep to whom any change would either be detrimental or impossible.  How does this undermine my argument?

[Murmillos]

Static Entropy wrote...

Murmillos wrote...

Your logic is flawed, as you can never play as another type of Master Chief.  Master Chief has one single roll and class.  Shepard for the other hand, can change.  He can be any of 6 different classes, and his talents choices can be different, as in not leveled up from other Shepards of the same class - also along with adding in the bonus talents.  My Shock Trooper Vanguard with Singularity is different then his Nemesis Adept with AR which is different then her Commando Inflitrator with AI Hacking.

Again, if you can't measure character progress (very broad term - and even Halo doesn't have one) then the game is not an PRG.

(slightly edited...)

Incorrect, in this instance, because in the hypothetical situation we have been playing around with, Shephard cannot change--we have already chosen a fully leveled Shephard, and we can neither change his class on the fly, nor change his attributes, nor meaningfully change his stats except through the kind of weapon selection that is also present in Halo.  The fact that other possible Shephards exist does not change the fact that we can go through a playthrough with a maxed out Shephard for whom their is no meaningful statistical progress.  However, I would argue that his progress through the story is significant, and that the development of UberShep as an imaginary individual based on the results of the player's choices is what allows us call Mass Effect an RPG, even if we were to play it without ever changing our Shephard.

But you are talking about a single play thru.  Every time I load up Halo, I get the same Master Chief every single time. Nothing can nor ever will change about him in that game.  For Halo 1 - Halo 2 and Halo 3, is is a static character.  Not once do we ever have the chance or ability to alter him in any way - ever.  Thus.. not in RPG.

For Mass Effect, When I load up the game, I have a choice whom I want Shepard to be.  Do I want to create a new Shepard, or a fully leveled Shepard (if available - if a fully leveled Shepard is not available, I must create a new one).  Do I want that Shepard to be a Solider, Adept, Engineer or a hybrid of any of the 2.  Because there is choice, there is a chance to change Shepard, the game IS a RPG, regardless if YOU play as leveled out character or not.  Because even if you don't have an active say in Shepards growth in your game, somebody else has and can and will in theirs'.

Modifié par Murmillos, 22 janvier 2010 - 06:26 .

[Soruyao]

sakay wrote...

I think the backlash against the shooter elements of the game among classic RPGers has more to do with the fact that many of us find the shooter element...trying. 

As in we are bad at it. 

As in unless I am really concentrating I am almost as likely to shoot my companions as I am the enemy and dying constantly is really frustrating.  That is not fun and relaxing.

Not that all RPGers are as pathetic as I am, but most of us want the story and exploration out of an RPG.  The whole advantage of having an alter-ego that is far more buff and coordinated than I am is that my character should be far more coordinated than I am.

The story was worth it and I love the strategy.  Believe me, when you can barely hit the broadside of a barn, strategy is important.  I don't generally play shooters for a reason, though.  I'm not whining about it.  I just turned my Shepard into more of a support/healer and travelled with tanks. 

ME1 was a great game, but I can see why it didn't appeal to many of the hardcore RPG fans.

I have strong suspicions that you just voiced the issue that the majority of the complaints against this game are coming from right now.

There's a solution to this, and it's called an easier difficulty level.   But I think it's insulting to people to have to lower their difficulty level, especially when mass effect 1 was so stupidly easy that it convinced everyone they were amazing.

[Static Entropy]

[quote]Schneidend wrote...


Those are two completely different things. Halo wasn't built around customizing Master Chief. Mass Effect is. My definition leads to absolutely no confusion if you are playing the game as intended. I am talking about the genre of a game, and what makes it fit into that genre. You are apparently talking about the individual experience of a player using the game in a way that was not intended. We are discussion (fruitlessly, it would seem) what makes an RPG, not what a player will individually experience. That is not quanitifiable or objective in the least.
[/quote]

Well, I'm slightly confused, because before you said this:
[quote]
Then you're playing somebody else's stats and are therefore still playing an RPG, because your stats, even max stats, still affect your character's performance. Just because you use a character sheet you didn't create in D&D doesn't mean you are suddenly not playing D&D.
[/quote]
Implying that even if you played the game in "a way that was not intended" it's still an RPG.  Maybe we're just miscommunicating here.



[quote]Yes, but Mass Effect also offers many larger choices (even the choice to commit genocide) and it fills the spaces in between with meaningful smaller choices.   As I said before, the limited nature of your choices in Army of Two make the game seem like a very light RPG; after all, it doesn't seem like you get much of a choice between defining yourself as a pyschotic mercenary or an extremely pyschotic mercenary, thus the player is barred from the relative freedom of character creation that is typical of RPGs.[/quote]

What did I say that lead you to believe your choices were limited to psychotic mercenary and extremely psychotic mercenary? No, the choice is more like being greedy and ruthless versus being a morally sound individual who is just out to make a living.
[/quote]

Well, this is a little off topic, but I would hardly consider killing people for money a mentally healthy profession.  But, the point still stands that the player has a rather paltry array of choice that's not going to allow many character concepts.

[SurfaceBeneath]

Soruyao wrote...
...especially when mass effect 1 was so stupidly easy that it convinced everyone they were amazing.

84% uptime on Immunity on my Infiltrator. Yea... even on insanity I could just run around and melee most encounters to death.

[sakay]

Murmillos wrote...

sakay wrote...
*snip*

Then your choices in ME2 may be limited to Engineer or Adept.  But you still will be able to play just fine.  Again, Bioware is TRYING to limit the amount of need for you weapon for these two classes, while improving the (not quite as good and polished as it could have been) shooter mechanics.

As I said, I played through and enjoyed ME1 and I will play through and I'm certain will enjoy ME2.  No matter how much we play with semantics and debate the meaning of "RPG", the game mechanics are not those of a classic RPG.  It is a paired down shooter with an RPG-style story line and a significant strategy component.  It's a great idea and a great game.  It's just not what one normally expect from an RPG.

[Darth_Shizz]

Soruyao wrote...

sakay wrote...

I think the backlash against the shooter elements of the game among classic RPGers has more to do with the fact that many of us find the shooter element...trying. 

As in we are bad at it. 

As in unless I am really concentrating I am almost as likely to shoot my companions as I am the enemy and dying constantly is really frustrating.  That is not fun and relaxing.

Not that all RPGers are as pathetic as I am, but most of us want the story and exploration out of an RPG.  The whole advantage of having an alter-ego that is far more buff and coordinated than I am is that my character should be far more coordinated than I am.

The story was worth it and I love the strategy.  Believe me, when you can barely hit the broadside of a barn, strategy is important.  I don't generally play shooters for a reason, though.  I'm not whining about it.  I just turned my Shepard into more of a support/healer and travelled with tanks. 

ME1 was a great game, but I can see why it didn't appeal to many of the hardcore RPG fans.

I have strong suspicions that you just voiced the issue that the majority of the complaints against this game are coming from right now.

There's a solution to this, and it's called an easier difficulty level.   But I think it's insulting to people to have to lower their difficulty level, especially when mass effect 1 was so stupidly easy that it convinced everyone they were amazing.

Incredibly true. To shamelessly quote one response (made by a poster in this thread infact) from another, similar topic:

The fact was the old combat system was one that RPG fans could easily tolerate and ignore for the most part. To many the combat stuff was just filler between story and dialogue and doing missions. Now it's a factor that's not as easy to ignore because it really is just a standard TPS shooter system now. BioWare devs used to be proud of the fact that the original game was one that different people could enjoy on different levels, but ME2 seems mostly catered to the shooter fan audience now.

It seems to be the underlying thought process behind many of the complaints I've seen. Not necessarily on these boards mind.

[Kalfear]

Soruyao wrote...

sakay wrote...

I think the backlash against the shooter elements of the game among classic RPGers has more to do with the fact that many of us find the shooter element...trying. 

As in we are bad at it. 

As in unless I am really concentrating I am almost as likely to shoot my companions as I am the enemy and dying constantly is really frustrating.  That is not fun and relaxing.

Not that all RPGers are as pathetic as I am, but most of us want the story and exploration out of an RPG.  The whole advantage of having an alter-ego that is far more buff and coordinated than I am is that my character should be far more coordinated than I am.

The story was worth it and I love the strategy.  Believe me, when you can barely hit the broadside of a barn, strategy is important.  I don't generally play shooters for a reason, though.  I'm not whining about it.  I just turned my Shepard into more of a support/healer and travelled with tanks. 

ME1 was a great game, but I can see why it didn't appeal to many of the hardcore RPG fans.

I have strong suspicions that you just voiced the issue that the majority of the complaints against this game are coming from right now.

There's a solution to this, and it's called an easier difficulty level.   But I think it's insulting to people to have to lower their difficulty level, especially when mass effect 1 was so stupidly easy that it convinced everyone they were amazing.

So your logical and quality responce is basically to say

YOU ALL SUCK? Play on easier mode.

WOW, I stand corrected, I see how you and yours being so helpful and dispelling concerns.

You completely missed the most important part of his post. But thats pretty par for course with you guys.

Shooters take the stratagy and thinking out of combat! IE: Combat is being dumbed down to the lowest common denominator. Thats NOT a improvement! and its NOT a RPG concept!

RPGs challenge, not stupify the players.

[Terror_K]

Tokalla wrote...

Terror_K wrote...

Fine. If you want to remain ignorant to the truth, go ahead. I'm sick of trying to educate ignorant children who refuse to see the truth despite the evidence.

Your inability to refrain from tossing about insults does not augment your capacity to debate an invalid point.  Perhaps you will next insist that when playing ping pong the athletes involved are roleplaying as their respective paddles?  Since all pong was designed to be was a virtual form of ping pong, that must be the case..right?

You should also refrain from making foolish assumptions about the age and/or maturity level of others, unless you are actively seeking to demonstrate a judgemental attitude of intolerance.  Reliance on ad hominem is not a very viable method of debate.

Sorry if I'm sick of having to say "1 + 1 = 2" all the time and a bunch of people saying "No it doesn't! 'Cause I don't think it does and times have changed!"

At no point has the RPG genre been utterly defined by stat based progression, regardless of how common and useful a tool it may be within the genre.

Except that every RPG in existence has it. It's not the sole and only thing that defines it, but it is a major and necessary factor.

As more games outside the genre incorporate elements of RPG mechanics into them, I think you will fin the necessity of redefining what is considered an RPG necessary (as some people such as myself have already watched and accepted multiple adjustments to definitions we grew up with).  The actual truth is that language is never static, it always adjusts to fit the majority of those who speak it.  That won't change what RPG has meant, but it certainly can change what is does (and will) mean.  

Which it shouldn't. If that's the case, while we're at it why don't we just cite every urban legend that a majority of people believe to be true as historical fact now. Things shouldn't change to suit the majority when the majority are wrong.

[Static Entropy]

Murmillos wrote...

Static Entropy wrote...

Murmillos wrote...

Your logic is flawed, as you can never play as another type of Master Chief.  Master Chief has one single roll and class.  Shepard for the other hand, can change.  He can be any of 6 different classes, and his talents choices can be different, as in not leveled up from other Shepards of the same class - also along with adding in the bonus talents.  My Shock Trooper Vanguard with Singularity is different then his Nemesis Adept with AR which is different then her Commando Inflitrator with AI Hacking.

Again, if you can't measure character progress (very broad term - and even Halo doesn't have one) then the game is not an PRG.

(slightly edited...)

Incorrect, in this instance, because in the hypothetical situation we have been playing around with, Shephard cannot change--we have already chosen a fully leveled Shephard, and we can neither change his class on the fly, nor change his attributes, nor meaningfully change his stats except through the kind of weapon selection that is also present in Halo.  The fact that other possible Shephards exist does not change the fact that we can go through a playthrough with a maxed out Shephard for whom their is no meaningful statistical progress.  However, I would argue that his progress through the story is significant, and that the development of UberShep as an imaginary individual based on the results of the player's choices is what allows us call Mass Effect an RPG, even if we were to play it without ever changing our Shephard.

But you are talking about a single play thru.  Every time I load up Halo, I get the same Master Chief every single time. Nothing can nor ever will change about him in that game.  For Halo 1 - Halo 2 and Halo 3, is is a static character.  Not once do we ever have the chance or ability to alter him in any way - ever.  Thus.. not in RPG.

For Mass Effect, When I load up the game, I have a choice whom I want Shepard to be.  Do I want to create a new Shepard, or a fully leveled Shepard (if available - if a fully leveled Shepard is not available, I must create a new one).  Do I want that Shepard to be a Solider, Adept, Engineer or a hybrid of any of the 2.  Because there is choice, there is a chance to change Shepard, the game IS a RPG, regardless if YOU play as leveled out character or not.  Because even if you don't have an active say in Shepards growth in your game, somebody else has and can and will in theirs'.

I'm not arguing that ME isn't an RPG--what I'm arguing is that even if your older cousin forced you to play through as a leveled up character, and forced you not to tamper with the character, the game would still be an RPG, because what makes it such is the degree of choices you have in interacting with your world.  Certainly, the stat progression of Shephard makes it a more satisfying RPG, but even when this is removed, the game is still an RPG.

[Darth_Shizz]

Kalfear wrote...

So your logical and quality responce is basically to say

YOU ALL SUCK? Play on easier mode.

WOW, I stand corrected, I see how you and yours being so helpful and dispelling concerns.

You completely missed the most important part of his post. But thats pretty par for course with you guys.

Shooters take the stratagy and thinking out of combat! IE: Combat is being dumbed down to the lowest common denominator. Thats NOT a improvement! and its NOT a RPG concept!

RPGs challenge, not stupify the players.

Did Shooters touch your naughty parts when you were a child? Is this why you're so sore??

On that note, did anyone else feel as if the combat in ME1 played just like a dumbed-down shooter? 

Modifié par Darth_Shizz, 22 janvier 2010 - 06:39 .

[Schneidend]

Static Entropy wrote...

Well, this is a little off topic, but I would hardly consider killing people for money a mentally healthy profession.  But, the point still stands that the player has a rather paltry array of choice that's not going to allow many character concepts.

Every front line soldier in the military technically "kills people for money." Private military contracting is a legitimate business.

[Kalfear]

Terror_K wrote...


Which it shouldn't. If that's the case, while we're at it why don't we just cite every urban legend that a majority of people believe to be true as historical fact now. Things shouldn't change to suit the majority when the majority are wrong.

LOL, Terror, with the invention of Wiki, its amazing how many of these ummm people are wrong on a daily basis now.

What you said sadly isnt far off from happening

[Schneidend]

Kalfear wrote...

Shooters take the stratagy and thinking out of combat! IE: Combat is being dumbed down to the lowest common denominator. Thats NOT a improvement! and its NOT a RPG concept!

RPGs challenge, not stupify the players.

Kal, you're referencing a more run and gun style of play that simply isn't that popular any more. All modern shooters have some element of strategy to them, even Halo. In most shooter games these days, a player can be killed in two to three direct hits. Taking cover, using stealth, controlling the map, and utilizing the right weapons for a situation are key to victory in these games. Try playing Metal Gear Online, Modern Warfare 2, Operation Flashpoint, Team Fortress 2, or Killzone 2 with the mindset you currently have, and then come back and tell me how well you did.

[Murmillos]

Static Entropy wrote...

Murmillos wrote...

Static Entropy wrote...

Once you get the Savant X Amp/Tool, there's no reason to switch.  Master Chief can change guns that affect your stats, as it were (plasma pistol is basically a mod that does 500% shield damage and -80% physical damage).

A) A lot of RPG's have best in slot items.... 

Weapon properties/effects are not player character stats - thus not RPG mechanics.  Unless the weapon does alter player stats. Like a "Magical golden sword of +5 STR".  If a weapon does 50% more damage to shields, its not the player charater stat that is being modified, its only that weapons special ability.

What are you going to say next.. A sniper rifle is a stat mod because it allows you see and shoot further?  Or is it because that what the weapon does?

Okay, let's say your right (and I'm a little dubious that you can't consider damage types an RPG mechanic), so Shepherd changing guns isn't a way for him to demonstrate statistical progression or change--in this case it is even easier to present an UberShep to whom any change would either be detrimental or impossible.  How does this undermine my argument?

Yes and no, let me clarify myself a tad.  If there are a set number of specific weapons - each one having a certain role or "best tool for the job" function, and these weapons can not change or be modified, then no, the weapons or damage type is not an RPG mechanic - they are set in stone, to be used for the application they are designed for. 

But on the other hand, if the weapons can be upgraded, modified, found better, generated randomly or multiple of varients of that weapon, and the mechanics of the weapon can be placed/found in any other type, then yes, that becomes an RPG mechanic.

Modifié par Murmillos, 22 janvier 2010 - 07:00 .

[sakay]

Kalfear wrote...

Soruyao wrote...

sakay wrote...

I think the backlash against the shooter elements of the game among classic RPGers has more to do with the fact that many of us find the shooter element...trying. 

As in we are bad at it. 

As in unless I am really concentrating I am almost as likely to shoot my companions as I am the enemy and dying constantly is really frustrating.  That is not fun and relaxing.

Not that all RPGers are as pathetic as I am, but most of us want the story and exploration out of an RPG.  The whole advantage of having an alter-ego that is far more buff and coordinated than I am is that my character should be far more coordinated than I am.

The story was worth it and I love the strategy.  Believe me, when you can barely hit the broadside of a barn, strategy is important.  I don't generally play shooters for a reason, though.  I'm not whining about it.  I just turned my Shepard into more of a support/healer and travelled with tanks. 

ME1 was a great game, but I can see why it didn't appeal to many of the hardcore RPG fans.

I have strong suspicions that you just voiced the issue that the majority of the complaints against this game are coming from right now.

There's a solution to this, and it's called an easier difficulty level.   But I think it's insulting to people to have to lower their difficulty level, especially when mass effect 1 was so stupidly easy that it convinced everyone they were amazing.

So your logical and quality responce is basically to say

YOU ALL SUCK? Play on easier mode.

WOW, I stand corrected, I see how you and yours being so helpful and dispelling concerns.

You completely missed the most important part of his post. But thats pretty par for course with you guys.

Shooters take the stratagy and thinking out of combat! IE: Combat is being dumbed down to the lowest common denominator. Thats NOT a improvement! and its NOT a RPG concept!

RPGs challenge, not stupify the players.

Actually, my point was that I had to play the shooter element very strategically--setting traps, monitoring my health carefully, well thought out use of abilities, etc.-- not that the strategy element had been removed.  And I will freely admit that I played through on the super-easy-training-wheels difficulty level.  I could probably have gotten through on a higher difficulty but it wouldn't have been all that enjoyable for me. 

I think the notion of an RPG shooter is a great one.  There are plenty of people who enjoy the skill of a shooter and long for the fantastic story lines that BW produces. 

If you are that opposed to playing a shooter then perhaps it isn't the game for you.  It's a new kind of game.  In the same way that classic RPGs don't appeal to everyone, there is no reason that a shooter/RPG hybrid should appeal to everyone. 

And it's she not he--which may be why I can just admit that I'm awful at the shooter element.

[Static Entropy]

Schneidend wrote...

Static Entropy wrote...

Well, this is a little off topic, but I would hardly consider killing people for money a mentally healthy profession.  But, the point still stands that the player has a rather paltry array of choice that's not going to allow many character concepts.

Every front line soldier in the military technically "kills people for money." Private military contracting is a legitimate business.

Well, I would argue that there is a significant difference between someone who is payed to protect his country with possibly lethal force and someone who is just payed to kill people.  Whether or not private military contracting is a legitimate business does not determine whether it is moral.  After all, there was a time when slavery was a legitimate business.  Umm... those last couple sentences sounded a little extreme and I'd like to point out that I'm well aware that most contractors are not hired for the kind of massacre that constitutes your average first (third)  person shooter.  I'm just saying that if they were hired out for that kind of work, then the legitimacy of their business would do nothing to support the morality of their venture.

[Genoq]

By the Balls of the Sky Spirits this thread is insane! All most many* RPGs have been attempts to adapt the Pen n' Paper system to a single-player electronic format. One of the most fundamental, if not the most fundamental mechanics of the PnP system was the selection and progression of statistics. That is what "role-playing" in this context means.

This 'Duh-bate' seems to be confusion over the definition of roleplaying, if anything. But any definition of the word roleplaying other than the one above is entirely irrelevent. Maybe they should have called them "Squad-based Statistical Narrative War-games" and then this absurd thread would have never seen the light of day.




*I say "many" because MMOs and adolescent console kiddie JPG trash like Final Fantasy and Persona are obvious exeptions.

Modifié par Genoq, 22 janvier 2010 - 06:55 .

[anon_04111]

Attention spergin' nerds

[Static Entropy]

Murmillos wrote...

Static Entropy wrote...

Murmillos wrote...

Static Entropy wrote...

Once you get the Savant X Amp/Tool, there's no reason to switch.  Master Chief can change guns that affect your stats, as it were (plasma pistol is basically a mod that does 500% shield damage and -80% physical damage).

A) A lot of RPG's have best in slot items.... 

Weapon properties/effects are not player character stats - thus not RPG mechanics.  Unless the weapon does alter player stats. Like a "Magical golden sword of +5 STR".  If a weapon does 50% more damage to shields, its not the player charater stat that is being modified, its only that weapons special ability.

What are you going to say next.. A sniper rifle is a stat mod because it allows you see and shoot further?  Or is it because that what the weapon does?

Okay, let's say your right (and I'm a little dubious that you can't consider damage types an RPG mechanic), so Shepherd changing guns isn't a way for him to demonstrate statistical progression or change--in this case it is even easier to present an UberShep to whom any change would either be detrimental or impossible.  How does this undermine my argument?

Yes and no, let me clarify myself a tad.  If there are a set number of specific weapons - each one having a certain role or "best tool for the job" function, and these weapons can not change or be motified, then no, the weapons or damage type is not an RPG mechanic - they are set in stone, to be used for the application they are designed for. 

But on the other hand, if the weapons can be upgraded, modified, found better, generated randomly or multiple of varients of that weapon, then yes, that becomes an RPG mechanic.

Well, I'd ask why an RPG requires there to be a never-ending ladder of increasingly powerful weapons (when this makes no logical sensealskdfjkl;asdf.asdf.as    but, I'm realizing that everyone would probably be happier if I went to sleep now, and it's occured to me that correctly identifying genre distinctions isn't really going to increase or decrease my happiness or enjoyment of ME 2 or any other game.  Anyway, pleasure chatting with everyone, and good night.

[Schneidend]

Genoq wrote...

*I say "many" because MMOs and adolescent console kiddie JPG trash like Final Fantasy and Persona are obvious exeptions.

Despite that those have player-chosen statistics. Way to undermine your point, there. You've really helped the cause by making a complete fool of yourself. Kudos.

Static Entropy wrote...

Well, I would argue that there is a significant difference between someone who is payed to protect his country with possibly lethal force and someone who is just payed to kill people.  Whether or not private military contracting is a legitimate business does not determine whether it is moral.  After all, there was a time when slavery was a legitimate business.  Umm... those last couple sentences sounded a little extreme and I'd like to point out that I'm well aware that most contractors are not hired for the kind of massacre that constitutes your average first (third)  person shooter.  I'm just saying that if they were hired out for that kind of work, then the legitimacy of their business would do nothing to support the morality of their venture.

You have a point in regards to legitimacy versus morality.

However, I don't really see the difference between killing people for money given by your government because you are part of its military and killing people for money by a government because your company is being contracted to supplement that governments forces. Not that I find either objectionable, it's just that I find their differences to be minute at best.

Modifié par Schneidend, 22 janvier 2010 - 07:09 .

[Murmillos]

Static Entropy wrote...

Well, I'd ask why an RPG requires there to be a never-ending ladder of increasingly powerful weapons (when this makes no logical sense

Because as the character grows, so must the weapons that he wields. If your weapons and character do not progress, then you are not playing a role - you are playing a narrated adventure story - with choices.

[SurfaceBeneath]

Terror_K wrote...

Sorry if I'm sick of having to say "1 + 1 = 2" all the time and a bunch of people saying "No it doesn't! 'Cause I don't think it does and times have changed!"

Yes. The situation is obviously as simply as 1 +1 and that's not at all why there are 15 pages devoted to it with most posters voicing a contrary opinion to your own and phrasing their responses in compelling ways.

This topic is all about interpretation and personal preferences. Don't try to pretend that it there's any sort of objective fact to either statement "ME2 is less of an RPG than ME1" or "ME2 is more of an RPG than ME1".