454 réponses à ce sujet

[dekarserverbot]

but but but.......skyrim had mod support

but but but... it was only good because of THAT

[Birdy]

But that isn't a tangible advantage, as they could have simply did the same thing they did in ME 1, only with a Reaper fleet. And the Reapers are supposedly extremely intelligent. Sure, he couldn't have known he would lose, but he had to know that he could lose. There was obviously a very finite chance of him failing. So a basic risk calculation would've resulted in him realizing that waiting four years - which costs him absolutely nothing - is better than risking failure.

 

The only explanation is that the Reapers really are complete morons. Anyone who is incapable of calculating chances of failure clearly is.

That's the thing, There were no calculations for losing, the Reapers dont' lose.  They are a super advanced, super powerful race of computers, far above everyone else in the galaxy.  There is not plausible reason to wait, that would be the same as admitting they could and would lose.

[Itkovian]

Spoiler

But there's absolutely no reason why the Reaper invasion would be any slower. Sovereign managed to get an entire Geth fleet to attack the Citadel in a surprise attack. What exactly is stopping the Reapers from 1. assembling in Geth space 2. attack as a fleet in precisely the same way the Geth fleet attacked? It plays out exactly the same way as it did in ME 1, the only difference being that there would be no reasonable chance of the Reaper fleet being defeated.

 

Spoiler

The whole point of the Geth fleet weas to protect Sovereign while it made its way to the Citadel to interface with it. And the only reason he did that was because Saren used the Conduit to take control and open the arms of the Citadel.

 

In short, the finale of ME1 was never to attack the Citadel. It was to _get in_ and activate it. This is precisely why the Reapers don't rush the Citadel in ME3 despite having the element of surprise. They know the Citadel would just close up, so there's no point.

 

Basically, the Citadel is an impregnable fortress when its closed up. The only way to activate it and gain control of the network was by having someone take over the Citadel to keep it open long enough for a Reaper to interface with it directly. Hence Mass Effect 1.

[Lennard Testarossa]

That's the thing, There were no calculations for losing, the Reapers dont' lose.  They are a super advanced, super powerful race of computers, far above everyone else in the galaxy.  There is not plausible reason to wait, that would be the same as admitting they could and would lose.

 

Even if the Reapers don't think there's a chance of them losing overall, surely Sovereign must've known that he could fail in his attack.

 

Spoiler

The whole point of the Geth fleet weas to protect Sovereign while it made its way to the Citadel to interface with it. And the only reason he did that was because Saren used the Conduit to take control and open the arms of the Citadel.

 

In short, the finale of ME1 was never to attack the Citadel. It was to _get in_ and activate it. This is precisely why the Reapers don't rush the Citadel in ME3 despite having the element of surprise. They know the Citadel would just close up, so there's no point.

 

Basically, the Citadel is an impregnable fortress when its closed up. The only way to activate it and gain control of the network was by having someone take over the Citadel to keep it open long enough for a Reaper to interface with it directly. Hence Mass Effect 1.

 

Spoiler

So here's the thing: Sovereign has the Conduit, right? Now he can a) attack right now with a Geth fleet and risk failure attack in precisely the same way, also using the Conduit, only four years later with a Reaper fleet and with no chance of failure. Why do a) rather than ?

[Itkovian]

...but they wouldn't have kept the relay network if they had simply waited four years and sent all of their forces to the Citadel from the very beginning.

 

And that would not have helped. The Citadel would just have closed up, and they wouldn't have been able to take over the network.

 

Seriously, let's think about this a little. If taking the Citadel was still an option once the Conduit was removed, WHY didn't they send all of their forces to the Citadel in ME3? They COULD have EASILY done it, and no doubt destroyed the defenses there... but then they'd just be stuck with a closed up Citadel.

 

Seriously, if taking over the Citadel through direct assault was EVER an option, they'd have done it in ME3. Regardless of whether or not the Citadel forces knew about the Reapers, they would have been able to do it.

 

This is not a plot hole, it's the very foundation of the ME1 story: Reapers can't take control of the Citadel by force, and needed someone to sneak in an army to keep it opened up. Sovereign saw the best chance to accomplish that and took it. Just because he failed doesn't make the plan stupid, because the rewards for succeeding would have been far greater.

[Heimdall]

Guys, Off Topic

[ghostzodd]

but but but... it was only good because of THAT

 

Well duh,Skyrim is pretty bland without mods

[Birdy]

Even if the Reapers don't think there's a chance of them losing overall, surely Sovereign must've known that he could fail in his attack.

 

 

Spoiler

So here's the thing: Sovereign has the Conduit, right? Now he can a) attack right now with a Geth fleet and risk failure attack in precisely the same way, also using the Conduit, only four years later with a Reaper fleet and with no chance of failure. Why do a) rather than ?

The reapers are a system of computer that directive were to "preserve" the galaxy and civilizations, even IF there was a thought he could lose it wouldn't have mattered. Calculations would have said he will win because that's what has always happened. And even with failure the reapers would still make it to the galaxy. which they did).  You're thinking of them like people, they're computer programs with a directive towards the galaxy not themselves.  They don't have self-preservation, so failure or not wouldn't matter.

[Morroian]

Please take ME discussion to the ME board.

[Birdy]

Please take ME discussion to the ME board.

Lol. I'm done, no point in going in circles.

What was this thread about? Rpgs. I think they're alive and thriving.

[wcholcombe]

Since this got passed up in the ME idiocy, Lady Insanity mentioned some good news in her preview video.

 

According to Lady Insanity, story driven RPGs are alive and well in DAI. But that is just her opinion afterall.

[Kuse]

I think it takes a certain development team to make a fully featured RPG and that's why you don't see a lot of them on the market, it takes time to develop a fluid story and fill the world with activities and events that take place that mirrors the said story...

[Vindicare175]

And I've played both.The stale dialogue, the forgettable characters, the game breaking glitches. The storylines could have been better .
the reused areas time and time again (which went unnoticed by most until DA2) .Best RPG ? I don't think so..

 

And I've played both , extensively. and i'm going to disagree again and again. Skyrim (and the rest of TES) are some of the best RPGs.  I'm not saying Dragon Age isn't  , it is 100% one of the best rpg's as well considering I've played it.. far too much. 

 

Both games are fantastic and different in there own ways.

 

Also those glitches you speak of? There's a Mod for that , to Fix nearly any problem.

[Birdy]

Just what exactly are we classifying as rpgs?  Why can't all be classified as such that have a story?

[lastpawn]

Bethesda creates truly massive environments with atrocious combat, wooden characters, and mediocre plots.

 

In contrast, Bioware creates small to moderately sized worlds with hit-or-miss combat (ME3 vs DA2), fascinating characters, and solid plots.

 

I bought Skyrim for sale for $9, and thought that's about what it's worth. On the other hand, I'd happily pay $60-70 for a collector's edition quality Bioware game (like, say, ME3 if it wasn't rushed).

 

My sense is that OP is right. Bioware's games will never sell as well as COD or TES, but they have a very loyal audience who's willing to pay for quality. There's money and security there, I'd think.

[Corto81]

 

My sense is that OP is right. Bioware's games will never sell as well as COD or TES, but they have a very loyal audience who's willing to pay for quality. There's money and security there, I'd think.

 

Well...

 

Skyrim was fantastic. Voted GOTY by almost every site and magazine, had massive sales etc.

Again, it's about freedom and eploration and an open world (and mods).

And even Skyrim side-quest lines, like the Brotherhood or TG made for much better stories and characters than anything in DA2, for example.

 

I'll gladly pay for quality, yes. And Skyrim is quality. And actually DA:Origins is the only BW game to ever come close to it for me.

[Sidney]

The topic is asking about story driven and Skyrim isn't driven by the story anyway. I doubt a tiny fraction of players can even tell you what the story was other than shouting at Dragons for some reason or another.

Skyrim isn't about role playing, it is about character progression. Your character can be a total cipher in that game. I might be able to tell you how my warden or Shep would feel about some current events or political issues....I can't even tell you the name of my character in Skyrim.

[LordParbr]

No, you're engagin in a logical fallacy. It doesn't have to be one OR the other. It can be both, and seems to be doing both well

[AlanC9]

The only explanation is that the Reapers really are complete morons. Anyone who is incapable of calculating chances of failure clearly is.

Well, yeah, but we knew that anyway. If the Reapers really had locked themselves out of the galaxy for good, that wouldn't be any smarter.

[dlux]

Skyrim isn't about role playing, it is about character progression.

If you level up in Skyrim, then the entire world levels up you, because the game is level scaled. Truly awesome character progression. 
 

Skyrim was fantastic. Voted GOTY by almost every site and magazine, had massive sales etc.

I'll gladly pay for quality, yes. And Skyrim is quality.

Skyrim is overrated trash. The content is just atrocious. I bet even Bethesda is surprised that somebody could actually enjoy their drivel so much.

[Itkovian]

But that isn't a tangible advantage, as they could have simply did the same thing they did in ME 1, only with a Reaper fleet. And the Reapers are supposedly extremely intelligent. Sure, he couldn't have known he would lose, but he had to know that he could lose. There was obviously a very finite chance of him failing. So a basic risk calculation would've resulted in him realizing that waiting four years - which costs him absolutely nothing - is better than risking failure.

 

The only explanation is that the Reapers really are complete morons. Anyone who is incapable of calculating chances of failure clearly is.

 

Aah, I see what you mean. That's a good point.

 

Granted, you can rationalize it relatively easily. Here's two, for good measure:

 

1- Sovereign did not believe there was a chance of failure, so decided to go ahead with the forces he had. And he'd have been right, of course, if it weren't for Commander Shepard (silly Sovereign, didn't he know he was in an action hero movie? *grin*).

 

2- The alternative is that Sovereign/Saren were just then learning about the Conduit, and because Shepard was able to use the Beacon (and Tali got the geth data on the conduit), it suddenly turned into a race. So Sovereign/Saren just couldn't wait 4 years, because now Shepard (and potentially others) knew about the conduit and might discover/block it beforehand.

 

I personally like #2. But, of course, this is terribly off topic.

[Itkovian]

If you level up in Skyrim, then the entire world levels up you, because the game is level scaled. Truly awesome character progression. 
 

Skyrim is overrated trash. The content is just atrocious. I bet even Bethesda is surprised that somebody could actually enjoy their drivel so much.

 

Actually, Skyrim's scaling was a LOT better than it was in Oblivion. Sure, by leveling up you gained the chance to encounter higher level creatures, but you could still run into lower levels (no more bandits in Daedric armor, thank you). So there definitely is a good feeling of progression in Skyrim, while still getting some decent challenge. Good scaling also maintains a sense of progression, generally making things relatively easier when you are higher level (while still maintaining some challenge, throwing in enemies you can't one-shot).

 

Also, don't forget that DAO had scaling too (and KOTOR, and BG, and on and on). It's a _very_ common mechanic in RPGs, particularly in games that allow the player to choose which quest to tackle at a given moment. The goal is to ensure you're always being challenged at the appropriate moments without punishing you for choosing to do the wrong quest at the wrong moment. Imagine if in DAO you were unable to do the Orzammar quest because you actually needed to do Paragon of Her Kind LAST, and that the moment it becomes clear that it's impossible is at a point where you can't backtrack (say, once you run into Branka), that's be a really bad design.

 

I would be very surprised if DAI did not have SOME form of scaling, in fact. Clearly there's zones with fixed levels, but I imagine some of the plot-critical areas will scale.

 

As for Skyrim being trash, I'm afraid that's a very subjective opinion that a great many people don't share. I for one would love something like Skyrim, coupled with Bioware storytelling expertise. Because while Skyrim is an excellent immersive RPG, its storytelling is quite meh (for example, I _hate_ how you often have no choice about getting involved in quests that you find wholly unpalatable... Bethesda badly needs to add more player agency to their quest design).

[Heimdall]

And even Skyrim side-quest lines, like the Brotherhood or TG made for much better stories and characters than anything in DA2, for example.

Gonna have to disagree with you there...

[Sylvius the Mad]

Nah, it just shows that they're willing to experiment to improve their brand.

Let's face it, they did it with Mass Effect, and it paid off BIG TIME. ME2 was a MASSIVE departure from ME1, and they intentionally did so. They looked at ME1's criticism, and made radical changes based on them. The end result was ME2, a tremendous success.

And vastly worse game, in my opinion.

[Rane7685]

Since this got passed up in the ME idiocy, Lady Insanity mentioned some good news in her preview video.

 

According to Lady Insanity, story driven RPGs are alive and well in DAI. But that is just her opinion afterall.

I wouldnt really consider Lady Insanity impartial... At least not anymore