430 réponses à ce sujet

[Dean_the_Young]

StreetMagic wrote...

Br3ad wrote...

Lulz, the ending isn't about Destryoing Synthetics anymore than taking an antibiotic is about killing the healthy bacteria in your body. That's not the point at all. 

I wish that were true.. I wish it was only about Destroying the Reapers.. but this is Bioware's game, not mine. They tacked on a whole tech singularity issue and forced us to reckon with it. Destroying the Reapers is about being OK with chaos in general. There's a disorderliness inherent in the choice. "Something" will come back. And you won't control it.

And, uh, that applies with all of them. All the Crucible have unpredictable futures: Destroy will have Synthetics return, Control will see the Reapers become obsolete and promises nothing about the viability of the new galactic order, and Synthesis is a big ? that only implies to level the playing field on innate capabilities, nothing more.

You know more have to base your decision for the Crucible on the Catalyst's reasoning than you have to base your decision to destroy the Collector base on the idea of tainted technology. You could, as the game brings that argument up, but there's no reason you have to limit yourself in such a way.

[Dean_the_Young]

StreetMagic wrote...

EntropicAngel wrote...

I don't believe that it will result in the chaos he thinks it will, otherwise I might have a problem with doing it. if he were actually right, I probably would not pick Destroy. But I disagree with him, thus pick it.

I dislike choas. Entropy. Though I accept its inevitability.

"Oblivion is the fate of all things."

Fair enough. So we pick the same solution, but for entirely different reasons. Funny how that works out.

On a sidenote, I doubt I'd even be playing these games if I didn't like chaos. That's partly what attracts me to space and sci-fi worlds like this. A vast ocean of lawlessness, unpredictability, and the unknown. The real world has too much paperwork and fussing about. There's a lot of "controllers" down here.

The antithesis of chaos is order, not control, you know. Control can take a number of forms, but it can be a pretty chaotic and random thing at it's more thuggish levels.

[Mcfly616]

StreetMagic wrote...

I don't know. Synthesis can't be compared to Harbinger imo. Suicide is just stupid, period.

suicide or sacrifice? It's a fine line....

[Mcfly616]

Dean_the_Young wrote...

Control can take a number of forms, but it can be a pretty chaotic and random thing at it's more thuggish levels.

Like the Prothean Empire's domination and subjugation of the other races of it's cycle.

[shodiswe]

From the FOB turret and forward there was a lot of things that could have been better and which I seriously think were unfinished and in an alpha state at best.

[DesioPL]

I miss old husks from ME1, where they do electrical nova to disable our shields.

Yeah i mean shield discharge. That was cool.

[CronoDragoon]

Mcfly616 wrote...

They really just need to bring back the freedom and revamp the exploration seen in ME1. We need a land vehicle (mako>hammerhead imo). Add actual settlements and ecosystems to these "uncharted worlds". Differentiate between desolate wastelands, rainforests, pirate hide-outs, and backwater colonies complete with shops and cantina's.

No thanks. It's possible to have varied gameplay without resorting to exploration. I'd prefer they simply reexamine some of ME2's loyalty missions to see how you can make interesting non-shooting missions that don't rely on exploration.

[Dean_the_Young]

StreetMagic wrote...

I'm not talking about "big brother". I'm just saying Control leans to trying to have a lot of oversight or need to organize their environment. That's orderly still, even if not "Big Brother".

You can still be a bit hands off too, yet Controlling, like Aria is. She seems to be introverted or paranoid, but she's still Queen of Omega. And in Patriarch's words, "She doesn't destroy what she can use." Same goes for TIM.

Aria really isn't Controling by your definition in the above, though. She's the antithesis of oversight and organizing the environment: she's a manipulator who makes it in everyone's interest to let her be on top, and destroys rivals who threaten her, but she does so through managing and exploiting the chaos of independent actors rather than imposing order on her suroundings and supervising . Chaos is her ladder, to steal a quote from A Game of Thrones.

[CronoDragoon]

EntropicAngel wrote...

I'd love more exploration. It's almost necessary for a game that purports to be galaxy-spanning.

Well my affection for ME2 and ME3 disagree. Unless you mean the level of exploration found in those games, then sure go for it.

[javeart]

CronoDragoon wrote...

EntropicAngel wrote...

I'd love more exploration. It's almost necessary for a game that purports to be galaxy-spanning.

Well my affection for ME2 and ME3 disagree. Unless you mean the level of exploration found in those games, then sure go for it.

I agree. I love exploration in other games, but not in ME, in which I find story and characters much, much, more important and interesting... IMO, in most games, anyway, gigantic maps are just a just huge waste of resources... very few make them fun 

Modifié par javeart, 28 janvier 2014 - 09:47 .

[LinksOcarina]

EntropicAngel wrote...

CronoDragoon wrote...

EntropicAngel wrote...

I'd love more exploration. It's almost necessary for a game that purports to be galaxy-spanning.

Well my affection for ME2 and ME3 disagree. Unless you mean the level of exploration found in those games, then sure go for it.

That doesn't mean you can't love a game. ME2 is my favorite (and I'm a staunch ME3 defender). But in a game that spans the galaxy, it feels uncomfortably linear to not be able to explore at least SOME of that.

You can't have it both ways though.

One of the biggest problems with Mass Effect was the fact that it was a short game. You were told your major destinations, and they had built in worlds to explore, because the primary storyline was supposed to be the focus of things. The main questlines took maybe 20 hours tops to finish, and ive done it in 18 on a speedrun. 

The rest is filler, sidequests with no real bearing on things outside of adding flavor to the game. The problem was the game was deceptively linear anyway, so it made the side-missions suffer immensely because of it.

I think the approach with Mass Effect 2 is a better one, its still linear but you can tackle events in any order, plus the events were more closely tied to the main plotline of the game. You had some side missions on planets with distress signals, but very few to contend with unlike exploring 20 planets in Mass Effect, half of them yielding very little outside of resources to mine or a random mission to find.

It really needs to depend on the approach, but even then the trade-off is simple; what is the focus in the end, the plot and characters, or the exploration?

[AlanC9]

EntropicAngel wrote...

CronoDragoon wrote...

EntropicAngel wrote...
I'd love more exploration. It's almost necessary for a game that purports to be galaxy-spanning.

Well my affection for ME2 and ME3 disagree. Unless you mean the level of exploration found in those games, then sure go for it.

That doesn't mean you can't love a game. ME2 is my favorite (and I'm a staunch ME3 defender). But in a game that spans the galaxy, it feels uncomfortably linear to not be able to explore at least SOME of that.

What does the game being set in space have to do with this? In a game set on Earth do you expect to explore Earth?

[AlanC9]

LinksOcarina wrote...

One of the biggest problems with Mass Effect was the fact that it was a short game. You were told your major destinations, and they had built in worlds to explore, because the primary storyline was supposed to be the focus of things. The main questlines took maybe 20 hours tops to finish, and ive done it in 18 on a speedrun. 

The rest is filler, sidequests with no real bearing on things outside of adding flavor to the game. The problem was the game was deceptively linear anyway, so it made the side-missions suffer immensely because of it.

In retrospect it's amazing that Bio dumped the two elements that had the highest ration of gameplay hours to zots. Ypu could waste hours fiddling around with inventory and running around to shops, or driving around picking up downed probes and mineral deposits, and yet these features were cheap.

[chemiclord]

It's an odd quirky thing about a lot of "old(er) school" RPGs as a whole really.

One on hand, they want the player immersed in this story where we HAVE to do [x]! If we don't do [x], the bad guy will do [y]!

Then in that same breath, they have you playing minigames for 20 hours to find all these little trinkets that really don't do anything other than make the rubble that is your enemies bounce. It's one of those things that RPG players have embraced that if you really stop and think about it doesn't make one whit of sense narratively.

[AlanC9]

EntropicAngel wrote...

It isn't "set in space," it's set across the entire galaxy. In all three games throughout the course of the plot you're travelling to hugely, hugely spread apart areas. The Citadel, Virmire, Illium. All spread across a tremendous area.

OK, I'll correct my question.

"What does the game being set in the galaxy have to do with this? In a game set on Earth do you expect to explore Earth?"

Earth's a "tremendous area" too. Seven continents, hundreds of nations, thousands of cities, mountains, jungles, deserts, etc. and so forth. All over a larger area than any human can cover without technological assistance.

Do Earth-set RPGs have to cover the whole planet , or are SF games somehow special and therefore they need more exploration? If SF games are special, what's special about them?

Modifié par AlanC9, 29 janvier 2014 - 08:47 .

[AlanC9]

chemiclord wrote...

It's an odd quirky thing about a lot of "old(er) school" RPGs as a whole really.

One on hand, they want the player immersed in this story where we HAVE to do [x]! If we don't do [x], the bad guy will do [y]!

Then in that same breath, they have you playing minigames for 20 hours to find all these little trinkets that really don't do anything other than make the rubble that is your enemies bounce. It's one of those things that RPG players have embraced that if you really stop and think about it doesn't make one whit of sense narratively.

Probably just a historical quirk; exploring maps and giving out loot was farily feasible to implement in a CRPG. Recreating the elements of PnP RPGs that are actually any good require more stuff than you could cram onto those old systems, even if the economics of making such a game back in the 80s would have worked.

Modifié par AlanC9, 29 janvier 2014 - 06:41 .