353 réponses à ce sujet

[AlanC9]

A strange game.  The only way to avoid any chance of losing is not to play...

FTFY, though your original formulation sounds better.

[Iakus]

RPGs aren't games. Games have winning conditions.

Role-Playing Games aren't games?  

[Sylvius the Mad]

Role-Playing Games aren't games?

Yes.

They're toys.

Chess is a game. A chessboard is a toy. Roleplaying games are more like a chessboard.

[Sylvius the Mad]

A strange game. The only way to avoid any chance of losing is not to play...

I don't think they have losing conditions either. There's no victory or defeat. There is only play.

[78stonewobble]

The way the player succeeds in a roleplaying game is by making in-character decisions. Granting access to metagame knowledge interferes with that.

Unlike other types of games where the player is represented within the game by an avatar, in RPGs the character under the player's control is distinct from the player. The player can succeed even when the character does not.
 

 

Uhm.. You should still fail for making bad in-character decisions? Even if you had no way of knowing it's bad, a bad decision is still bad. 

 

Unless offcourse you roleplay as yourself, in a different setting. 

[WillieStyle]

Yes.

They're toys.

Chess is a game. A chessboard is a toy. Roleplaying games are more like a chessboard.

 

Sylvius's Ontological ruminations are fascinating.  I suggest he make a game based on this premise.  But all the RPGs I've ever seen, including every RPG from Bioware, have had optimal character builds, proper ways to play characters both in and out of combat, and win conditions.  I suspect that the market for a fantasy/scifi version of The Sims with talent points would be minuscule, but I invite him to prove me wrong.

[AlanC9]

Doesn't The Sims already have talent points?

[LinksOcarina]

Yes.

They're toys.

Chess is a game. A chessboard is a toy. Roleplaying games are more like a chessboard.

 

Except you have objectives in a role-playing game.

 

A winning condition that is set for you in video games easily, and by your GM on a tabletop, you just don't know what that objective is (or you might not care for it.) How you play between that is completely up to the player of course, what you do and how you improvise with the GM, but there are winning conditions, hence the end game of the story or area you are in.

 

So no, it's not like a chessboard, you are playing chess. Especially with RPG video games. The chessboard is your character, and how you use that character in the game. 

[TMA LIVE]

ME was about hope and success against all odds.  Not sacrifice.

 

That statement is very wrong. ME1 forced you to sacrifice Ash or Kaiden, and then forced you to sacrifice again with the Council or the Alliance fleet for the end choice.

[AlanC9]

Uhm.. You should still fail for making bad in-character decisions? Even if you had no way of knowing it's bad, a bad decision is still bad.

Unless offcourse you roleplay as yourself, in a different setting.

Who's the"you" there? The PC can fail for making a decision that doesn't actually lead to accomplishing his goals, sure.

Is that a fail for the player? Sometimes. A player who picks Refuse because he thinks that the allied forces have a chance of winning has failed to comprehend the situation; if anything, we need more opportunities to fail that way. A player who understands the situation and picks Refuse anyway, because his Shepard would rather lose than win that way, has not failed; his Shepard may or may not have failed, depending on the character.

[LinksOcarina]

Because I see great potential in the Mass Effect setting.  And I hate seeing that potential being wasted on "Art"

 

Is that potential being wasted? Or is it just simply not your ideal in those moments where you felt like you were "lied" to?

 

I mean we can debate a ton of things, and have already of course, but I think it's clear that the potential of Mass Effect is already here. People are interested in the series, are excited about it. I still maintain its one of the most important game series in a long time because of its impact and what it added to the gaming world, and I know I am not alone in that front, although we may disagree how popular it is compared to the impact of other recent games.

 

I guess the thing I am always puzzled by is that idea of "wasted potential" though. This entire series would be a footnote to history instead of growing into a franchise if it was wasted potential.

[AlanC9]

That statement is very wrong. ME1 forced you to sacrifice Ash or Kaiden, and then forced you to sacrifice again with the Council or the Alliance fleet for the end choice.

True, and the original ME1 design was going to go even further that way, as was ME3's. Still, a lot of players ended up thinking that ME was about rewriting the Kobayashi Maru scenario, rather than actually playing it. The SM and Rannoch both have optimal outcomes, for instance.

[JoltDealer]

ME was about hope and success against all odds.  Not sacrifice.  ME 2 gave us the option to live or die based on our choices.  ME3 took that away.  "You Have to die.  But you get to pick the squishy color you leave behind.  RED!  BLUE!  or GREEN!" 

 

Now if i had to choose between which of those endings was best for the universe (this is me being unbias) I'd say blue was the best "World" state to leave the universe in.

 

It's extremely arrogant to say what a creative work is or isn't about with such certainty, especially when you had no hand in the creative process.  You are a consumer and a fan -- you don't get to decide what somebody else's work should be.  Regardless, this same complaint has been a near constant on any Mass Effect online community for the last three years and at least one topic like yours pops up every week.  Do you really think that Bioware hasn't gotten the message?  After all of the fan feedback that was incorporated into Dragon Age Inquisition, do you really think that they're just going to ignore one of the most common grievances?  Get real, man.

 

That being said, I do hope that choices in Andromeda matter more than ever.  With an uncharted galaxy at our fingertips, our actions will have countless ramifications on the new community that is slowly developing.  Choices like which native races to ally with could have big consequences.  Making the wrong move with the wrong aliens could put a target on your back very early on.  Any unknown land with unknown people had many inherent risks, and I hope ME:A reflects this.  Things can go very wrong or very right.

[TheChris92]

This is how the brainstormning went down at BioWare HQ.

 

BioWare: Alright "Don't repeat Mass Effect 3's ending" where do we go from there?

[Mcfly616]

A player who understands the situation and picks Refuse anyway, because his Shepard would rather lose than win that way, has not failed; his Shepard may or may not have failed, depending on the character.

 Yeah, they succeed at being a complete moron.

[ImperialAuthority]

I hope Bioware has learned something from the end of the Shepard Trilogy.  In a game of choice.  Don't take the choice away.  Looking forward to seeing how the new game goes.

 

I wish they'd explain their choice for derailing the ending of ME3 as they did.  (It's like the ending wasn't a ME game.  It was more like a Deus Ex game).  Two word excuses don't explain anything

 

1.   crying about a video game ending that is 4 years old

2.   you people sent death threats to devs, because ME3's ending "sucks"

3.   you people did almost everything against BioWare's games since Mass Effect 1

4.   you people are desperate enough to compare Witcher 3 with DAI,ME3. meanwhile both games are different genres

5.   In a interview, BioWare already said they only looking forward

 

Seriously, leave the developers alone. Starting countless threads like this wont change anything and you know it.

[Mcfly616]

4.   you people are desperate enough to compare Witcher 3 with DAI,ME3. meanwhile both games are different genres

 

No, they're not. They're both narrative/story-driven game series. TW3 just so happens to take place in an open world.

[Iakus]

That statement is very wrong. ME1 forced you to sacrifice Ash or Kaiden, and then forced you to sacrifice again with the Council or the Alliance fleet for the end choice.

Sacrifice was certainly part of Mass Effect's story.  But I would argue that by the end it was a disproportionately large amount, based on what had come before.

 

After all, while you can't get to the end game with no losses, you can potentially get there with comparatively light ones.  Then BAM! You're hit with rewriting the galaxy, potential genocide, eugenics, etc, and Shepard getting him/herself disintegrated (or turned into a faceless torso) because some ghost-child says so.

[Iakus]

1.   crying about a video game ending that is 4 years old

2.   you people sent death threats to devs, because ME3's ending "sucks"

3.   you people did almost everything against BioWare's games since Mass Effect 1

4.   you people are desperate enough to compare Witcher 3 with DAI,ME3. meanwhile both games are different genres

5.   In a interview, BioWare already said they only looking forward

 

Seriously, leave the developers alone. Starting countless threads like this wont change anything and you know it.

1) 3 years old

2) "you people"?  I did no such thing.  I didn't even send cupcakes!

3) I have no idea what you're saying here.  But I'm gonna assume it's not complimentary

4) They're both RPGs which tout choice and consequences.  In theory, anyway (this is coming from someone who doesn't even like the Witcher series, btw)

5) Then Bioware is doomed to repeat their mistakes.

 

And you contributed to this thread!  Don't you feel proud!

[Iakus]

Is that potential being wasted? Or is it just simply not your ideal in those moments where you felt like you were "lied" to?

 

I mean we can debate a ton of things, and have already of course, but I think it's clear that the potential of Mass Effect is already here. People are interested in the series, are excited about it. I still maintain its one of the most important game series in a long time because of its impact and what it added to the gaming world, and I know I am not alone in that front, although we may disagree how popular it is compared to the impact of other recent games.

 

I guess the thing I am always puzzled by is that idea of "wasted potential" though. This entire series would be a footnote to history instead of growing into a franchise if it was wasted potential.

Yes, I think that potential is being wasted.  There are darn few scifi RPGs.  I mean, Fallout and Deus Ex are pretty much it.  So being able to fly around in a starship in a Bioware-style narrative story on paper at least, sounds incredible. 

 

Then to see it all...urinated...away on that ending.  It's downright painful to watch.

 

And the fact that apprehensive threads like this are cropping up shows that others are worried about what Bioware thinks it learned from that debacle.

[Fixers0]

That statement is very wrong. ME1 forced you to sacrifice Ash or Kaiden, and then forced you to sacrifice again with the Council or the Alliance fleet for the end choice.

 

No argument against Ash\Kaidan, but for a particulary belligerent pro-human nationalistic Shepard letting the Council die and Citadel fleet be destroyed is more of an opportunity than a sacrifice. Although by the time we got to ME3 this point has all but vanished.

[Linkenski]

I think a couple of other guys hit the nail on the head. Nobody wants a ME3 ending repeat including Bioware but that doesn't mean anyone should go into this game with the mindset of "avoid doing ME3 ending repeat, avoid doing ME3 ending repeat". If that's how a writer thinks when he's trying to create it's not helping him/her thinking constructively at all.

 

ME3's ending was the result of some ideas that were fine and some that were completly misguided and then there's the fact that it was rushed to **** (and a non-writer put on a writer's hat for some reason). ME3's ending won't likely happen again, but it shouldn't mean BIoware should stop taking risks, only that they should be aware that if they don't think twice about their ideas they might make too many people unhappy, and ultimately regret it themselves.

 

Remember, just because there was no definitive fix at any point for the bigger and more conceptual flaws of the ending to ME3, doesn't mean Bioware is proud of the end product (including EC).

[Iakus]

I think a couple of other guys hit the nail on the head. Nobody wants a ME3 ending repeat including Bioware but that doesn't mean anyone should go into this game with the mindset of "avoid doing ME3 ending repeat, avoid doing ME3 ending repeat". If that's how a writer thinks when he's trying to create it's not helping him/her thinking constructively at all.

 

ME3's ending was the result of some ideas that were fine and some that were completly misguided and then there's the fact that it was rushed to **** (and a non-writer put on a writer's hat for some reason). ME3's ending won't likely happen again, but it shouldn't mean BIoware should stop taking risks, only that they should be aware that if they don't think twice about their ideas they might make too many people unhappy, and ultimately regret it themselves.

 

Remember, just because there was no definitive fix at any point for the bigger and more conceptual flaws of the ending to ME3, doesn't mean Bioware is proud of the end product (including EC).

Bioware may not want a repeat of ME3, but I haven't really seen any indication that they understand what went wrong in the first place.  Their talks (before they decided to "look forward") all seemed to revolve around players being "confused" and "sad" like we were the ones at fault for not appreciating what they graciously gifted us with.  Like we were too dumb to appreciate their craftsmanship.

 

So yeah, they should keep in mind "Avoid ME3 ending.  Repeat as needed"  Funny thing is, though, it looks like they're "avoiding" it using the same methods that brought it about:  Inexplicable space magic to rewrite the setting.

[themikefest]

That statement is very wrong. ME1 forced you to sacrifice Ash or Kaiden, and then forced you to sacrifice again with the Council or the Alliance fleet for the end choice.

I agree with the sacrifice thing, but I would never of had Shepard decide the fate of the council. I would put that on Hackett since he can see the battle and he knows if he has enough ships to save the council and deal with Sovereign.

[dreamgazer]

I suspect that the market for a fantasy/scifi version of The Sims with talent points would be minuscule, but I invite him to prove me wrong.

 

Sounds kinda like running an AD&D group without following any modules.