841 réponses à ce sujet

[themikefest]

The one thing that would've made things better on Thessia is having Kai Leng and Shepard not fight since the fight added up to a whole lot of nothing. I would just have Leng order the gunship to fire on the supports right after TIM and Shepard finish talking

[Natureguy85]

One of the best posts in this thread. I agree 100%.

 

@Natureguy85: You quoted me in your huge post but didn't respond to the quote. Did you want to say anything? ^^

 

Oops, yes I did. I edited that post but the beginning of this video shows what you were saying:

 

 

Ambiguous endings are terrible.  And are more often than not, total cop outs.  And are a sign of bad writing. 

 

Just like the inverse, that's hardly universal. The ending to Inception was ambiguous but it fit the movie perfectly.

 

Alternatives that don't involve Leng bringing in dozens of troops, gunships, or other support? And don't involve any sort of 'stun' or 'knockout' gimmicks or traps or anything like that?

 

In other words, alternatives that have Leng beating Shepard in a fair fight, alone, because he's better and that's all there is to it?

 

Leng isn't better. There is nothing to show that he's better. He did have to call in a gunship to beat Shepard and still only won because the floor under Shepard broke but not the central walkway. And Shepard didn't just jump onto that stable walkway.

 

 

 

In an ideal world Kai Leng's role would have been taken by a reaper enhanced Miranda.

 

This would have been a great idea for Jack if you didn't save her on Grissom rather than just running into a mook named Jack.

[DaemionMoadrin]

The one thing that would've made things better on Thessia is having Kai Leng and Shepard not fight since the fight added up to a whole lot of nothing. I would just have Leng order the gunship to fire on the supports right after TIM and Shepard finish talking

 

Exactly!

 

That's what I was saying the entire time.

[prosthetic soul]

If you were just trying to tell a static story, maybe, but these are roleplaying games. The stories they tell don't have any necessary characteristics because the player is the one who's ultimately assembling the narrative.

I like ambiguous endings because they're less like endings, and I don't think that roleplaying games really need endings at all. The fun in a roleplaying game is in playing it, rather than stopping playing it.

The Witcher 3 says hello.

[BabyPuncher]

Leng isn't better. There is nothing to show that he's better. He did have to call in a gunship to beat Shepard and still only won because the floor under Shepard broke but not the central walkway. And Shepard didn't just jump onto that stable walkway.

 

That's precisely what doing this is attempting to fix...

 

That's the whole reason for doing this. To show that Leng is better than Shepard.

[Natureguy85]

That's precisely what doing this is attempting to fix...

 

That's the whole reason for doing this. To show that Leng is better than Shepard.

 

How does needing help show that he's better? That he thought ahead? On that note, why doesn't the Normandy shoot the damn thing down?

[themikefest]

That's precisely what doing this is attempting to fix...

 

That's the whole reason for doing this. To show that Leng is better than Shepard.

Better than Shepard?  No.

 

The guy cries like a baby because he needs to recharge. 

 

You ran on the Citadel. You ran on Thessia. SHUTUP. 

 

No gunship this time you SOB

[Sylvius the Mad]

The Witcher 3 says hello.

I can't speak to The Witcher games, because I find their combat systems unplayably awful.

[DaemionMoadrin]

I can't speak to The Witcher games, because I find their combat systems unplayably awful.

 

Well, you are applying outdated standards to modern gaming.

[BabyPuncher]

How does needing help show that he's better? That he thought ahead? On that note, why doesn't the Normandy shoot the damn thing down?

 

FFS...

 

I am suggesting the possibility of Leng beating Shepard in a fair fight to probe whether people are unhappy about the fight because it was badly done or because they're opposed of the idea of 'their' protagonist losing to a human opponent, period. It did not happen in ME 3. That is why I'm suggesting it. Is that clear enough?

[KaiserShep]

The one thing that would've made things better on Thessia is having Kai Leng and Shepard not fight since the fight added up to a whole lot of nothing. I would just have Leng order the gunship to fire on the supports right after TIM and Shepard finish talking

 

Yeah, seems a simple enough solution. If Kai Leng just turned around and just had the gunship start bombing the hell out of the temple, the loss would've been more believable. But he just stands there and throws his sword down and tosses your squad around even though you can pretty much have him dead to rights in the middle of that place. 

[Lady Artifice]

FFS...
 
I am suggesting the possibility of Leng beating Shepard in a fair fight to probe whether people are unhappy about the fight because it was badly done or because they're opposed of the idea of 'their' protagonist losing to a human opponent, period. It did not happen in ME 3. That is why I'm suggesting it. Is that clear enough?

I don't remember a lot of people complaining about Saren generally being tougher than Shep in ME1.

I think it's because Kai Leng was an insufferably obnoxious ass.

[KaiserShep]

I suspect that some didn't really complain about Saren either because that encounter didn't really affect the outcome of the mission. I do think though that Saren is viewed through some rose-colored glasses, because he has that same inconsistent invulnerability thing as Kai Leng. The only difference is that Leng does it more often, spamming that stupid forcefield whenever Shepard fires on him. This is problematic when you're dealing with a character we ultimately get to fight head-on in the end, because if they're so invulnerable to our attacks, we shouldn't be able to pummel the crap out of them once the final showdown commences. 

[Lady Artifice]

I suspect that some didn't really complain about Saren either because that encounter didn't really affect the outcome of the mission. I do think though that Saren is viewed through some rose-colored glasses, because he has that same inconsistent invulnerability thing as Kai Leng. The only difference is that Leng does it more often, spamming that stupid forcefield whenever Shepard fires on him. This is problematic when you're dealing with a character we ultimately get to fight head-on in the end, because if they're so invulnerable to our attacks, we shouldn't be able to pummel the crap out of them once the final showdown commences.

Narrative drama > realism

I'm a little drunk right now, so that's about as loquacious as I'm going to get.

[Valkyrja]

The one thing that would've made things better on Thessia is having Kai Leng and Shepard not fight since the fight added up to a whole lot of nothing. I would just have Leng order the gunship to fire on the supports right after TIM and Shepard finish talking

 

Pretty much.

 

The fight itself is pretty **** mechanically and wouldn't be any loss if it was cut. I wonder if it was something they had to hack together after they couldn't get something else to work.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Well, you are applying outdated standards to modern gaming.

I don't enjoy real-time combat.  I doubt I ever will.  real-time combat is a challenge for the player.  The player is the one doing the fighting, and that's not ever what I want from a game.

 

I want the characters to be doing the fighting.  My objective in a fight is never to win the fight.  My objective to to roleplay my characters' approach to combat authentically.  If they win, they win.  If they lose, they lose.  But I never lose, because I'm not the one fighting.

 

Real-time action combat is incompatible with my gameplay objectives.  If I mishit a button during action combat, I've broken my character, because now he's not doing what he wants to do.  He's being impeded by an event that didn't even take place within his reality, and that makes no sense at all.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Narrative drama > realism

I'm a little drunk right now, so that's about as loquacious as I'm going to get.

A lack of realism damages narrative drama.

[Fortlowe]

I don't enjoy real-time combat.  I doubt I ever will.  real-time combat is a challenge for the player.  The player is the one doing the fighting, and that's not ever what I want from a game.
 
I want the characters to be doing the fighting.  My objective in a fight is never to win the fight.  My objective to to roleplay my characters' approach to combat authentically.  If they win, they win.  If they lose, they lose.  But I never lose, because I'm not the one fighting.
 
Real-time action combat is incompatible with my gameplay objectives.  If I mishit a button during action combat, I've broken my character, because now he's not doing what he wants to do.  He's being impeded by an event that didn't even take place within his reality, and that makes no sense at all.

Unless it's a self insert. Long time Sylvius.

[Lady Artifice]

A lack of realism damages narrative drama.

Not implicitly. Balance.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Sylvius, I don't mind games like you're talking about, but you want a real RPG. This is more shooter. That ship has sailed.

There will be other ships.  My continued presence here moves the margins of public opinion.

 

Also, the ME series has typically done a good job of offering a game lacking in twitch or action elements.  The only real action content is the interrupts.

 

My only real objection the to ME series has been the dialogue system, and DAI showed that BioWare can actually use that system well.  I watched that dialogue system fail in 4 straight games - ME, ME2, DA2, ME3 - but it finally works in the fifth.

[Sylvius the Mad]

I don't see the difference with DAI. What am I missing?

The paraphrases were far more informative in DAI.  Throughout ME, ME2, and DA2, I found that my character would say things I wasn't expecting, and they were often character-breaking.  This happened far less often in DAI; the paraphrases did a better job of conveying the literal content of the resulting dialogue.

Either way, the story sucks. It doesn't really matter how good the dialogue is implemented.

The only story that matters to me is the emergent narrative, and that's driven in large part by the roleplaying I do during conversations.  If I don't know what I'm choosing, then I can't roleplay.

 

So by my reckoning, the story wasn't just bad in DA2 and ME2 - it didn't really exist, because I never got to make one.  I legitimately think that those were both terrible games.

 

The story BioWare writes is just flavour-text for the setting.  It's important flavour-text, but experiencing it is not why I'm playing the game.  And that's why I'm able to enjoy DAI.  I'm on record declaring it BioWare's second-greatest game (after only BG1).  BioWare had, in my opinion, been heading largely in the wrong direction for over a decade - only DAO deviates from that trend - and then DAI comes along and sets everything right again.

[Sylvius the Mad]

I don't even know why my Circle mage would ever recruit Bull, for example. That's the sloppiest recruitment scenario I can think of.

That's why it's optional.  You recruit the companions you think are appropriate for your character.  Personally, I think recruiting Blackwall is a stretch.  But again, optional.

 

Unlike, say, ME, where you get Ashley whether you want her or not.