847 réponses à ce sujet

[straykat]

Dude, I would just drop this insanity right here but that' s me.

 

It's not insanity though. Games can be described and defined. They're not a mysterious thing like "art".

 

Someone who says something isn't really a game is just promoting crappy games.

[Master Warder Z_]

It's not insanity though. Games can be described and defined. They're not a mysterious thing like "art".

 

Someone who says something isn't really a game is just promoting crappy games.

 

Its a bunch of semantical arguing with a dude who is trapped in a time warp, its utterly pointless.

 

I keep saying he should just go back to table top paper RPGs but noooooooooooooo, he thinks his nonsense is actually valid to some degree.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Of course, they're games. Games are basically two things. Pattern reading and choice making. Which RPGs have in droves. Strictly speaking combat mechanics, I mean. It doesn't matter if it's pnp or digital. A game is a game.

At least the good ones do this. If the "game" doesn't offer interesting patterns or and just rewards rote action (rather than making tactical decisions), then it's just a piece of crap. Which is why I hate MMOs. And critical of parts of DAI. Only then I'll say the RPG is not really a "game".

Games have winning conditions. RPGs do not.

Within an RPG, the player's character might succeed or fail, but there's no way for the player to do that except perhaps by his own judgment.

A game is marked by the player competing against an adversary, whether it be an opponent or the game's designers. That feature is missing from an RPG, where the relationship among players and designers is collaborative rather than adversarial.

[Elhanan]

And yet said Time Warped Gamer really likes both BG and DAI; an opinion that is quite valid. It is also one shared by many. And based upon all those GOTY awards for DAI, several within the industry itself seem to agree.

[AlanC9]

Games have winning conditions.

Don't most dictionaries also include definitions of "game" which do not require winning conditions?

[RoboticWater]

Don't most dictionaries also include definitions of "game" which do not require winning conditions?

Game theorists are also unsure about the exact definition of winning condition, or failure state for that matter.

[Master Warder Z_]

And based upon all those GOTY awards for DAI

 

Mean absolutely nothing to me.

 

Also DAI was released in a very weak year for gaming in general, I think the highlight was either Dark Souls II a niche game or Fry Cry 4 (which in my opinion was just the most awesome entry into the series ever) Maybe Wolfenstein but that's sort of in a odd era at the moment, I mean I played a bunch of the old games but...I don't know, it seems sort of weird for it still be active franchise. I know for a fact though, that it wouldn't even be in my top five for 2014.

 

 

 

It might be in the top thirty though...

[Gothfather]

/snip

 

My problem with it is that it leaves no place for two different ways of going about it as seen in Dragon Age Origins and Mass Effect. Shepard is more defined and leaves less room for RP than the Warden in Origins. Sylvius doesn't like this and that's fine. However, as you said, it would be going to far to say that ME did it wrong. It's just a different style. Maybe that makes it "less RPG" than Origins, but so be it.

 

 

/snip

 

True. But I would argue that the idea that a predefined character limits RP is false. I think it limits agency but that isn't roleplaying. Roleplaying to about taking a different role than your own and  making choices based on that role. Actors roleplay all the time and they have the least agency of any form of roleplaying. Yet roleplaying it is none the less it is why actors are almost always asked, "What did you bring to the ROLE?"

 

Gamers think agency is what makes Roleplaying but that isn't it at all and we can infer this by looking at various forms of roleplaying that have less agency, like acting as the actor must give up agency to service the job. When two lovers do sexy roleplay they also must give up agency. The whole point of their Roleplay is to turn on themselves and their partner so they must give up agency to service that goal otherwise things end in 'tears' vs fading to black. Yet is still is roleplaying. Agency isn't the be all and end all to roleplaying. If you can't roleplay without lots of agency then you can't actually roleplay.

 

This all said people may prefer more agency or less with their roleplaying, there is no right or wrong way to prefer your roleplaying but just because a game chooses to provide more or less agency doesn't in fact limit roleplaying. It should also be noted that limits on agency is a key component to games and thus vital to RPGs as an all knowing all powerful character has perfect agency because they can do anything but there isn't much of a game with that character. Pen and paper rpgs all limit agency in what is acceptable within the rules and what isn't. cRPG do the same thing but to greater degree.

 

We as players can intuit this to be honest in that if I went on the forums and complained that Shepard couldn't be a Sith warrior who crashed landed on earth and plans to have all of space bend the knee to my will, to bring order to the chaos so this means Mass Effect limits roleplaying. This would be a ridiculous expectation on my part and people would say so. Why? EA holds the rights for both franchises so no legal problems. Why is it ridiculous? Because we can intuit that limits on agency at least in the case of extreme desires for agency isn't a hindrance to roleplaying. We get that part of the responsibility of the player in a rpg is to build a character within the confines of the game. Yet this is often not intellectually understood so people go off on how a voiced protagonist limits their roleplaying. It doesn't at all. that voice only means you not have to give up agency on what you imagined the characters voice to be, still lets you make all the choices you would have made with or without the voice.

 

Speaking generally...

 

For those players who want more agency by all means ask for it but stop caging the narrative of the discussion that rpgs with less agency and not real rpgs they are just a different flavour of rpg. 

[SlottsMachine]

Mean absolutely nothing to me.

 

Also DAI was released in a very weak year for gaming in general, I think the highlight was either Dark Souls II a niche game or Fry Cry 4 (which in my opinion was just the most awesome entry into the series ever) Maybe Wolfenstein but that's sort of in a odd era at the moment, I mean I played a bunch of the old games but...I don't know, it seems sort of weird for it still be active franchise. I know for a fact though, that it wouldn't even be in my top five for 2014.

 

 

It might be in the top thirty though...

 

Shadow of Mordor was pretty good. Though I was a bit disappointed that there wasn't a Nemesis mode separate from the main game, that let you create your own enemies. 

[Gothfather]

I always went solo in Skyrim because companion AI was as dumb as a brick. Only I would prefer the brick because then I could hit people with it.

 

The main thing with DA:I is that the random encounters aren't actually random. Enemies have precise spawn locations and will simply respawn over a period of time. It's basically like the bandits in the forts of Skyrim, except everywhere. Wandering around in DA:I just feels more "scripted" for lack of a better word.

 

If you don't subscribe to the self created stories thing then any side quests they introduce are likely to have cut scenes. Especially after all the complaints over DA:I not using the cinematic cut scene view in more conversations.

 

They work the exact same way in skyrim. Once you find a spawn point in skyrim you can trigger it any time. One of the easiest to find is going from Riverwood (the first town you arrive at after helgan) to whiterun via the road. Going down hill just past the switch back you will find a "random encounter" spawn point and this will always spawn something when you approach. They also have a timer cooldown like DAI. They also have set spawns that will always spawn x in a location again you can find an easy one in skyrim. The wolves that attack you on the way from helgan to Riverwood just past the standing stones always respawn even when you are incredibly high level.

 

Bethesda is better at their open world spawn points than Bioware because they have been doing it for more years than Bioware but the principle is the same. It helps that skyrim is larger and the outside is mostly borderless zones vs DAI and there is more accessible terrain within the zone before you encounter the WALL. I look at it like this DAI was the first attempt at open world by bioware and it wasn't as good as what bethesda can produce but it was their first attempt players are being unreasonable if they expect someone to be the best or as good as the best on their first try. Bethesda just added a voice protagonist which wasn't as good as what Bioware could do, but it was Bethesdas first crack at it. I expect both companies to get better at it with their next game. If they don't then it is a problem.

[Natureguy85]

That's your opinion but personally I'm fine with it.

 

It's actually fact but it obviously doesn't ruin the game. It's still a good game but it objectively did not advance the Reaper plot one bit.

 

 

It's not insanity though. Games can be described and defined. They're not a mysterious thing like "art".

 

Someone who says something isn't really a game is just promoting crappy games.

 

He's just advising against arguing with Sylvius.

 

 

Games have winning conditions. RPGs do not.

Within an RPG, the player's character might succeed or fail, but there's no way for the player to do that except perhaps by his own judgment.

A game is marked by the player competing against an adversary, whether it be an opponent or the game's designers. That feature is missing from an RPG, where the relationship among players and designers is collaborative rather than adversarial.

 

I haven't played table-top RPGs except two sessions of D&D (I like the idea of the game but the group was full of annoying weirdos) but from what I hear about DM's, that's often not the case. So would you say that no video games are RPGs? Baldur's Gate, KotOR, Dragon Age, and Mass Effect all have win conditions and failure states.

[vbibbi]

I haven't played table-top RPGs except two sessions of D&D (I like the idea of the game but the group was full of annoying weirdos)

 

And yet you come here...

[RoboticWater]

It's actually fact but it obviously doesn't ruin the game. It's still a good game but it objectively did not advance the Reaper plot one bit.

I think the argument here is not whether or not ME2 advanced the Reaper plot (which it easily could have if Harbinger played a significant role in ME3's plot), but whether ME2 needed to advance the Reaper plot to be considered "connected" to the series. My view is that technically, Mass Effect's plot is to stop the Reapers from destroying the galaxy. That second part is necessary because I think that ME2 is about answering the question "what galaxy?" Obviously ours, but who's in it? Why do I care about them? Why won't this fight be as simple as getting a big gun and telling everyone to work together?

 

Mass Effect isn't simply "the quest to find that thing that'll kill the Reapers," it's a story about unifying the galaxy against the Reaper threat, and ME2 adds complications to achieving that unity. In my opinion, that's pretty vital thing to establish. I still think ME2 could have done a better job expanding on (or even resolving) the political corruption in the Citadel and Terminus systems and conflict with the mercenary groups, but it has enough important additions to justify its existence within the overarching plot.

[sjsharp2011]

It's actually fact but it obviously doesn't ruin the game. It's still a good game but it objectively did not advance the Reaper plot one bit.

 

 

 

He's just advising against arguing with Sylvius.

 

 

 

I haven't played table-top RPGs except two sessions of D&D (I like the idea of the game but the group was full of annoying weirdos) but from what I hear about DM's, that's often not the case. So would you say that no video games are RPGs? Baldur's Gate, KotOR, Dragon Age, and Mass Effect all have win conditions and failure states.

Well in my opinoin it did so again I think your confusing what facts and opinions are

[MrFob]

I think the argument here is not whether or not ME2 advanced the Reaper plot (which it easily could have if Harbinger played a significant role in ME3's plot), but whether ME2 needed to advance the Reaper plot to be considered "connected" to the series. My view is that technically, Mass Effect's plot is to stop the Reapers from destroying the galaxy. That second part is necessary because I think that ME2 is about answering the question "what galaxy?" Obviously ours, but who's in it? Why do I care about them? Why won't this fight be as simple as getting a big gun and telling everyone to work together?

 

Mass Effect isn't simply "the quest to find that thing that'll kill the Reapers," it's a story about unifying the galaxy against the Reaper threat, and ME2 adds complications to achieving that unity. In my opinion, that's pretty vital thing to establish. I still think ME2 could have done a better job expanding on (or even resolving) the political corruption in the Citadel and Terminus systems and conflict with the mercenary groups, but it has enough important additions to justify its existence within the overarching plot.

 

I'd say ME2 doesn't really do a very good job there either. We are only in the Terminus systems in ME2, it hardly gives us a good overview of the galaxy as a whole, ME1 did better with that. It's only in ME3 when we actually experience the dominant cultures (asari, turian, salarian, etc.) in more depth (yet another thing ME3 has to catch up on).

 

IMO, it isn't even ME2's biggest issue that it doesn't advance the plot. As you said, some threads could have been picked up on more in ME3. No, it's big issue is that it throws out a lot of the ground work that was already established in ME1.

- Shepard was a spectre and had council support - gone (may be re-established to some degree but still the authority that came with it is irrelevant)

- Shepard had a ship and crew - blown up (partially re-established)

- Shepard had a prothean expert - gone and changed carrer

- Shepard had convinced the council of the reaper threat (retconned, claims dismissed)

- Shepard had a mandate to find out how to stop the reapers - gone, s/he is hunting geth now and then gets blown up

 

I could go on but the point is, in its first 10 minutes ME2 manages to rip this series' initial setup to shreds. That is the real crime IMO. It doesn't try to build on the first part but instead actually seems to try and annihilate every accomplishment from ME1 as much as it can.

[Battlebloodmage]

DAI is trying too much to be like Skyrim, but DAI lacks the strength and mod power Beth has, which make DAI a weird third rate game that succeed at neither. Their quests are uninteresting and fetching quests are just pretty unbelivable. There are a bunch of able bodies and they're hungry, so instead of hunting for food themselves, they have to rely on the Inquisitor being an errand boy and hunt food for them? There are many quests that are intended to inflate game time for the sake of inflate game time like finding the shards. One of the worst Bioware games I have ever play. I hope ME4 doesn't go DAI route. 

[KaiserShep]

And yet you come here...

Yeah but weirdos online are easier to deal with.

[sjsharp2011]

I think the argument here is not whether or not ME2 advanced the Reaper plot (which it easily could have if Harbinger played a significant role in ME3's plot), but whether ME2 needed to advance the Reaper plot to be considered "connected" to the series. My view is that technically, Mass Effect's plot is to stop the Reapers from destroying the galaxy. That second part is necessary because I think that ME2 is about answering the question "what galaxy?" Obviously ours, but who's in it? Why do I care about them? Why won't this fight be as simple as getting a big gun and telling everyone to work together?

 

Mass Effect isn't simply "the quest to find that thing that'll kill the Reapers," it's a story about unifying the galaxy against the Reaper threat, and ME2 adds complications to achieving that unity. In my opinion, that's pretty vital thing to establish. I still think ME2 could have done a better job expanding on (or even resolving) the political corruption in the Citadel and Terminus systems and conflict with the mercenary groups, but it has enough important additions to justify its existence within the overarching plot

Exactly as in my opinion the reaper plot is advanced as in terms of the story is they changed tactics as they realised that using the geth was no longer going to work so instead they activated the Collectors and got them to start working on attacking the smaller colonies and start building a reaper ready for their arrival

[Shechinah]

DAI is trying too much to be like Skyrim, but DAI lacks the strength and mod power Beth has, which make DAI a weird third rate game that succeed at neither. Their quests are uninteresting and fetching quests are just pretty unbelivable. There are a bunch of able bodies and they're hungry, so instead of hunting for food themselves, they have to rely on the Inquisitor being an errand boy and hunt food for them?

 

Considering there are demons, dragons, outlaws, rebel mages, rebel templars, red templars, smugglers and mercenaries about the place, I think it is quite fair for the peasent people to consider themselves outmatched and requesting the aid of the armed, armored and experience group of fighters.
 

[Grieving Natashina]

Considering there are demons, dragons, outlaws, rebel mages, rebel templars, red templars, smugglers and mercenaries about the place, I think it is quite fair for the peasent people to consider themselves outmatched and requesting the aid of the armed, armored and experience group of fighters.

Isn't that what the advisors are for though? Cullen's army seems pretty solid, and Leliana's group is great at hiding. So I also share the opinion that the Inquistor didn't need to go resource gathering. I think Leliana and/or Cullen could have done it without the player. The armor and weapons are great, but gathering the materials ourselves just doesn't seem like something that the top head of the Inquisition would do.

What's done is done, and I applaud the DA team for their efforts. However, if they (or the ME team) decide to make the PC a leader as big as the Inquisitor, the majority of the flower picking/resource gahering should be done by those advisors. It seems odd to me that the IQ is out gathering materials while the elven PC's clan could be killed offscreen, or that the fate of the remaining local Wardens is left to NPCs with very minor player imput. Via text, no less.

I think that's what some players are talking about when they express this issue with the game. Not only are the NPCs handling these things, the player has to carefully pick and choose. One false step and poof, the Wardens are gone from Orlais. Misread a quest and poof, there goes the elven PC's clan. These are things that could possibly effect future world states for the series. I would have preferred that the player decide for themselves and actually take a direct part in the quests. I didn't like how much of the War Table during that game became a "Guide Dang It" situation. I think it was poorly handled and rather badly executed.

That's my biggest complaint anyway. I'm not trying to be right or wrong, just offering my opinion.

[AlanC9]

I think that's what some players are talking about when they express this issue with the game. Not only are the NPCs handling these things, the player has to carefully pick and choose. One false step and poof, the Wardens are gone from Orlais. Misread a quest and poof, there goes the elven PC's clan. These are things that could possibly effect future world states for the series.

I don't see the actual problem there. The player should be allowed to make bad decisions, right?

[Grieving Natashina]

I don't see the actual problem there. The player should be allowed to make bad decisions, right?

Well of course. However, I would have much preferred to do some of those screw ups directly. As in, let the IQ decide whether or not to keep the Wardens alive in a full blown quest on screen. Not as a text-only quest that's pretty unintutive. It's also quite long and it irks me to no end that one minor misstep turns into something that can possibly effect world states.

To me, that's like sending out someone like Aveline to the confront the Arishok and making that text only. While Hawke gets assignments to gather materials for potions and the like. I feel like this was a chance to give some direct closure for the player regarding the Wardens of Orlais. Instead, it fell flat as a text-only quest. I felt like, after Weisshaupt, it was a huge let down. If they invested that much into the story of the Wardens, let the player decide in a real quest. In my opinon, text-only quests should be left to more minor stuff, such as protecting Red Jenny or escorting the surviors of some no-name village that lived through an apostate/blood mage battle.

I'll be the first to admit the PC's clan probably won't mean anything, but the local Wardens being killed or being rebuilt seems like it would be a big deal. Unless they decide to ignore it completely, but I hope they don't. So why end that story as text-only without the character being there in person? That's the part that makes zero sense to me.

I am still a big fan of the game and I think that the DA teams did a lot of things right. Still, I would have traded the Oasis at the very least in exchange for more interaction with the bigger quests.

Edit: I know we don't see eye to eye on this, but I genuinely appreciate the questions. You've made me stop and really think about the way I feel. We might never agree, but I like chatting with posters that challenge my point of view.

[sjsharp2011]

I don't see the actual problem there. The player should be allowed to make bad decisions, right?

Indeed I actually lost my Lavellan clan in my playthrough because I assigned the wrong advisor to it by mistake. I have kept them alive befoer though I just at the time forgot which advisor was best suited to the task I needed  doing. Also as is said at that early point in the game you don't have that many numbers that can help that's for me kind of why I think people are justified in asking you to do it in order to help improve morale and influence and encourage more people to sign up which as the game progresses they do. Because they realise that your not a monster and that you genuinely are trying to help.

[Grieving Natashina]

Indeed I actually lost my Lavellan clan in my playthrough because I assigned the wrong advisor to it by mistake. I have kept them alive befoer though I just at the time forgot which advisor was best suited to the task I needed  doing. Also as is said at that early point in the game you don't have that many numbers that can help that's for me kind of why I think people are justified in asking you to do it in order to help improve morale and influence and encourage more people to sign up which as the game progresses they do. Because they realise that your not a monster and that you genuinely are trying to help.

That doesn't strike me as a good thing at all. Pick the wrong advisor and lose your clan? Shouldn't the Inquisitor be more directly involved with something like that? If s/he's capable if picking flowers and taking down dragons, shouldn't they help out with their clan? Perhaps it's just me, but I wouldn't completely trust some shems that I recently met after being their prisoner. It'll never make sense to me that the player wasn't directly involved with that.

That's what I don't want them to do in ME:A. If it could possibly effect the world states in a big way, don't leave it as text-only for the advisors/ship crew/whatever to do. I want to be more involved with story elements like that.

<shrug> If there is one thing I've learned about the BSN is that we're a smart and stubborn bunch. I'm honestly glad that it didn't bother some players. That's why I say I'm not trying to be right about this. Who am I to say that someone must dislike a game element that I don't care for? I'd much rather keep an open mind and at least listen to a different point of view.

[sjsharp2011]

That doesn't strike me as a good thing at all. Pick the wrong advisor and lose your clan? Shouldn't the Inquisitor be more directly involved with something like that? If s/he's capable if picking flowers and taking down dragons, shouldn't they help out with their clan? Perhaps it's just me, but I wouldn't completely trust some shems that I recently met after being their prisoner. It'll never make sense to me that the player wasn't directly involved with that.

That's what I don't want them to do in ME:A. If it could possibly effect the world states in a big way, don't leave it as text-only for the advisors/ship crew/whatever to do. I want to be more involved with story elements like that.

<shrug> If there is one thing I've learned about the BSN is that we're a smart and stubborn bunch. I'm honestly glad that it didn't bother some players. That's why I say I'm not trying to be right about this. Who am I to say that someone must dislike a game element that I don't care for? I'd much rather keep an open mind and at least listen to a different point of view.

tbh I see it as for the most part you play the general of the army and have to look at the bigger picture in your planning and I think this was what the whole point of the war table thing  not just what happens to your clan but the world as a whole.I do agree that some of the missions could have been done differently but I can also understand why they were approached the way they were as well. I agree that it seems strange that a prisoner is all of a sudden given such a lofty position but I guess strange things can happen when the world is falling apart and people are desperately looking for answers and I guess that by giving you this chance they might save themselves.