891 réponses à ce sujet

[UpUpAway]

And what I'm saying is that story / game structures that provide more agency / wider access to content provide me with a greater set of RP opportunities. I was able to glean much more RP value from ME1 than the sequels.

 

... and we're back to an earlier discussion.  I totally accept that you feel that you have more RP opportunities in ME1.  I don't think it's because ME1 did not "mete out" content.  It did.  I think it's got to do with more than just that some content opened up and some did not and it's more an individual thing to do with what level of "desire" one has to access the particular content that is being limited at any given point in time.  Just opening it all up though comes at the price of suspending any perception of "urgency" (as was the case in the end of ME1). 

 

Again, it's a personal thing, but I find that total suspension of "urgency" more immersion breaking than the introduction of some pacing by not opening up every quest and by closing some quests before the end of the game.  For example, I find it more immersion breaking to find out that I'm able to do side quests in ME1 between the time I steal the Normandy and get to Ilos than I find it immersion breaking to not be able to recruit Samara vs. Jack right at the beginning of ME2.  It's more rational for me to think that TIM would have given me some of the dossiers later (after he had the time to review them) than it is to think that I'm diverting off to the Styx Theta cluster to investigate a SOS from an single, remote Alliance Listening Post in order to find additional information on Saren or to potentially save more people than I could save by catching Saren and stopping his reaching the conduit.  As another example... If I stumble into the Armstrong cluster after stealing the Normandy, I find it more immersion breaking to suddenly have Hackett telling me that the Alliance thinks that taking out a few geth outposts is more important than catching Saren.

 

I think the lack of some pacing in the story can be as equally detrimental to "role playing" as too much enforced pacing.  (That is, too much player agency can be as bad as too little.)

[AlanC9]

I can't see how additional RP choices which are purchased at the cost of world coherence and consequences add value. If anything, this approach degrades all the choices.

But really, I think the only important thing to take away from this is that there are different approaches to role-playing which are not compatible, and they lead to different design solutions.

[Pasquale1234]

... and we're back to an earlier discussion.  I totally accept that you feel that you have more RP opportunities in ME1.

Excellent.
 

I don't think it's because ME1 did not "mete out" content.  It did.

But it gave you a huge chunk of content in the middle, where the sequels gave you small bits at a time. That structure - which also exists in DAO - is a large part of the reason why I found more RP value in those games than in their sequels.

And frankly, I also just generally experienced more gamer joy. Probably for the same reason that I find it more appealing to sit down to a meal with all courses present than to be served one course at a time, not knowing what the next course will bring.

But I've said about as much as I have to say about that point I initially posted several pages ago. Good chattin' atcha.

[AlanC9]

I can declare that I am the Queen of England without believing it to be true.

So, why is Shepard arguing with the Council about Saren being a threat if Shepard thinks they're right about Saren not being a threat? What's the theory here?

No, there are other leads. Some of the reports you hear in the elevator mention geth.

I suppose we should pull together a list if we really want to get into the weeds on the specifics of the sidequests. But I'm not sure it's worth doing; does it matter if it's 80% of the SQs which are unrelated to the threat to the Galaxy, or if that figure is only 70%?

Whether it's ultimately true has no bearing on whether we might have cause to believe it. Hindsight isn't available.

Yes, but you don't have cause to believe it.

Good thing point 1 isn't true.

It's not true in a metagaming sense, yes, because the game always delays Saren so he can't beat Shepard to the Conduit by enough to win. But in-universe Saren is a clear and imminent danger.

It is possible for a stupid Shepard to fail to realize that, of course. I'm not against that. I am against the universe preserving Shepard from the consequences of that stupidity.

Does the galaxy need saving? Do we know Saren is a threat to the galaxy early on?

The return of the Reapers sounds like a bad thing to my Shepards . How about yours?

[Cyonan]

There are some terminals to be hacked along the way, starting (I believe) in Udina's office. They all have leads about other things going on in the galaxy, some of which may be related to Saren's activities. Do you assume they aren't worth your time?

Is taking down a crime syndicate (Helena Blake's quest) not worth a Spectre's time?

You're also making some assumptions about the quality of the leads you were given.

 

The problem is that because of the urgency they attach to finding Saren and beating him to the conduit, there isn't any reason to go after these "may or may not be related to Saren" leads when you've got 3 "almost certainly related to Saren" leads in the main questline.

 

It's like trying to find a needle in a haystack, except you run off to search other haystacks in hopes that there might be a needle in them.

 

Taking down a crime syndicate is worth a Spectre's time, just not when that Spectre is on another time sensitive mission to save the entire galaxy.

 

The games present quite a few things that some of us find we need to try to ignore or headcanon around, and/or write off as bad writing. The "Race against time" could be one of them.

And speaking of headcanon, the game gives you some other tools / toys to play around with. That first Asari Matriarch writing you came across must have said something - and the game does not specify what that was. That invites you to headcanon them to say whatever you'd like. Perhaps they were numbered journal entries from a former indoctrinated agent of Sovereign (like Benezia) - IIRC, Vigil does mention that Saren / Benezia probably weren't the first. You could headcanon that they were written during the last cycle, when protheans were on Thessia, perhaps telling the asari about the harvest underway. Granted, that specific information requires metagame knowledge, but in this case it is the player's metagame knowledge rather than Shepard's. You can also be non-specific about exactly what they say, and instead choose to have them say something that Shepard would feel makes them worth looking for more.

 

The main thing for me is that I have to ignore the "race against time" thing because with that, there really isn't a whole lot of reason as to why Shep shouldn't just tunnel vision the main questline.

 

Sure having the writings be about the Reapers would be valuable information, but not if you fail your mission because you spend half the time looking around the galaxy trying to find them all. It's not like they're going to disappear if you go to find them after dealing with Saren.

 

Do you assume that being a Spectre means do only what the Council tells you to do, strictly following their leads? IIRC, Spectres are tasked with maintaining peace / order throughout the galaxy, and many of them act independently toward that end.

Do you suppose the Council assigned Tela Vasir to put an end to Liara's hunt for the Shadow Broker? Or is that something she took upon herself?

Shepard was given a fair bit of agency to blow them off during those comm chats. It didn't seem to me that they expected Shepard's time to be 100% devoted to chasing Saren. For all we know, they may have had a dozen other Spectres on the case. We do find out later on that they had an STG team on Virmire. Admirals Hackett and Kahoku also took some liberties in assigning other tasks to Shepard.
 

But at least you have the agency to make those decisions. Every time you choose to do a thing, you're prioritizing that over every other thing you could do at that time.

In order to rush off and follow only the leads you were given by the Council, your character has to: 1) Believe that Saren really does represent a clear and present danger, despite the flimsy evidence against him, 2) Believe that the leads you've been given truly are the most efficient way to track him down, 3) Believe that none of the other side leads are worthwhile, 4) Believe that none of the other problems in the galaxy are worth your time, 5) Believe that Shepard is the only agent following any of these leads or assigned to track down Saren, 5) Buy into the "race against time" urgency while looking past everything else the game offers. That's quite a lot to take on faith.

 

The main reason I say Shep is an idiot is because of the ignoring of the time sensitive main quest to go and do other things, not because of ignoring the Council.

 

The other half of the problem is that all of the dialogue up until this point backs up Shep believing that Saren is a bigger threat than the Council realizes and that he has to beat Saren to the conduit.

 

I suppose I could headcanon that Shep is lying to people just to get their way but then that doesn't really solve my problem: That I'm forced to change my character to fit the reasons as to why I'm doing what I'm doing, not make up the reason to fit my character.

 

Rather than leave it as ambiguous as possible to make it easier to do that, the dialogue feels like it forces you to go down one of a very few specific routes for RPing in order for it to make sense.

[AlanC9]

And frankly, I also just generally experienced more gamer joy. Probably for the same reason that I find it more appealing to sit down to a meal with all courses present than to be served one course at a time, not knowing what the next course will bring.

Yeah, this is what I was talking about a couple posts ago. At some points it's just going to be different tastes. I don't get more gamer joy from doing it that way, and the costs of the ME1 approach made the game worse for me, in pretty much the way Cyonan describes above. So, it's zero-sum; a better game for you means a worse game for me.

Except for the restricted selection of plots where it wouldn't matter what you did or when you did it. But I'm not happy with restricting CRPGs to just those situations.

[Elhanan]

ME3 had the best mechanics, but I contend that ME1 is the better story, IMO.

I prefer more RP in a RPG; not less. And I dislike extensive use of forced control over the Player to tall a story (eg; cut-scenes that make choices; not the Player. And No; interrupts do not count).

Action combat is not RP; neither is tactical. Both are mechanic choices. However, I need to have Pause or tactical features to play a game, and avoid full Action titles, even those that include RP content.

[capn233]

The problem is that because of the urgency they attach to finding Saren and beating him to the conduit, there isn't any reason to go after these "may or may not be related to Saren" leads when you've got 3 "almost certainly related to Saren" leads in the main questline.

This problem would be slightly less acute for ME1 if it allowed you to keep playing after the endgame.  In ME2 you can do pretty much all the side missions after the Collector Base if you want.  Then you only have to fabricate a reason why everyone else is still hanging out on Normandy (although that is easy since the rent is cheap and the food is free).
 

ME3 had the best mechanics, but I contend that ME1 is the better story, IMO.

 
The only thing I think ME3 really did better than the other two was player movement.  At least with respect to single player.

[Sylvius the Mad]

The return of the Reapers sounds like a bad thing to my Shepards . How about yours?

It sounds like a fairy tale. How credible are fairy tales?

[Sylvius the Mad]

I think the lack of some pacing in the story can be as equally detrimental to "role playing" as too much enforced pacing. (That is, too much player agency can be as bad as too little.)

How? Why are you making choices that break the world?

If you think a choice will break the world, don't choose it. But that's no reason to deny the choice to other players who think otherwise.

[rocklikeafool]

How? Why are you making choices that break the world?

If you think a choice will break the world, don't choose it. But that's no reason to deny the choice to other players who think otherwise.

Um, what? Do you even what the the term "break the world" means? Because it doesn't seem like it...

[AlanC9]

This problem would be slightly less acute for ME1 if it allowed you to keep playing after the endgame.  In ME2 you can do pretty much all the side missions after the Collector Base if you want.  Then you only have to fabricate a reason why everyone else is still hanging out on Normandy (although that is easy since the rent is cheap and the food is free).

And people who haven't done their LMs yet need a lift to get there. Of course, getting someone killed on the SM cancels his LM.

There's a small problem if you find out about Legion's LM but he gets killed on the SM. The heretic virus should, in theory, have rewritten all geth. This wouldn't break ME's Rannoch sequence, but but there's no alternative dialogue for this worldstate. I guess the original recipe geth stopped it some other way.

[AlanC9]

If you think a choice will break the world, don't choose it. But that's no reason to deny the choice to other players who think otherwise.

Just so I'm following, you're going full Bethesda here? A PC should be allowed to attempt anything and succeed at everything?

[Sylvius the Mad]

Um, what? Do you even what the the term "break the world" means? Because it doesn't seem like it...

He was complaining about how too much player agency can harm to consistency and coherence of the world.

If that's the case, it is because some of the choices available will reveal that lack of coherence or consistency within a goven playthrough. If that's a problem, don't make those choices.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Just so I'm following, you're going full Bethesda here? A PC should be allowed to attempt anything and succeed at everything?

Succeed at everything? Absolutely not. Even if one could succeed at anything (which I also don't think is required), some of those might be mutually exclusive. The ability to succeed at anything does not require that ine be able to succeed at everything.

And more than that, some things might actually be impossible, but that's no reason to stop us from trying.

And frankly, I'd like the game to have more story content than a typical Bethesda game. I just don't want to be forced to approach that content in a specific way (or at all).

Remember how Baldur's Gate worked - when you left Candlekeep, you didn't know what the story was, you had only very weak leads, and you could wander off in any direction. That was BioWare's best world design.

[malloc]

These topics always devolve into defining what an RPG is.

[Sylvius the Mad]

There's a small problem if you find out about Legion's LM but he gets killed on the SM. The heretic virus should, in theory, have rewritten all geth. This wouldn't break ME's Rannoch sequence, but but there's no alternative dialogue for this worldstate. I guess the original recipe geth stopped it some other way.

That's actually a design I like. Other things can happen in the universe that you don't do. Just because you don't complete some quest shouldn't guarantee that no one does.

[Hexoduen]

I hope MEA will be a good RPG, my favorite in the series has always been ME1. However, if it's more action-oriented, like ME3, I'm sure I'll still enjoy it. I count Mass Effect 1, 2 and 3 (including DLCs) among the best games I've ever played 

[Cyonan]

These topics always devolve into defining what an RPG is.

 

That's cause we can never agree on a single definition.

 

Although I do get to sit here and see how many definitions I can fit XCOM into.

[malloc]

That's cause we can never agree on a single definition.

 

Although I do get to sit here and see how many definitions I can fit XCOM into.

It's a very broad topic in my opinion. There is always the idea of "I can play any role in a game so every game is an rpg" vs "there has to be systematic elements that make an rpg"

[Sylvius the Mad]

That's cause we can never agree on a single definition.

Although I do get to sit here and see how many definitions I can fit XCOM into.

XCOM is totally an RPG.

So is Football Manager.

[malloc]

Lets do it like this. 

 

What is the Anatomy of an rpg?

[Cyonan]

It's a very broad topic in my opinion. There is always the idea of "I can play any role in a game so every game is an rpg" vs "there has to be systematic elements that make an rpg"

 

I find there's usually 3 groups of people:

 

1. People who say "A RPG is any game where you play a role"

2. People who try to attach RPG to the mechanics of things like dice rolls and stats that you typically find in RPGs

3. People who take the first one but try to extend it out a bit to talk about player choice and dialogue systems

 

The first one makes any game a RPG, the second one lets turn based strategy games like XCOM easily fit into the definition, and the third one is better but XCOM provides just enough customization of soldiers that I can usually sneak it in there unless they involve dialogue systems since it's lacking one of those.

 

XCOM is totally an RPG.

 

I would say it's not because there are no in-game systems to actively support roleplaying.

 

If XCOM is a RPG because you can headcanon stuff between soldiers, then I would like to put in my vote for Half-Life as the greatest RPG of all time because I can headcanon what Gordon Freeman is thinking.

 

At that point the definition of RPG becomes so broad that it's useless as a definition for games and we should just stop using it entirely.

[malloc]

I find there's usually 3 groups of people:

 

1. People who say "A RPG is any game where you play a role"

2. People who try to attach RPG to the mechanics of things like dice rolls and stats that you typically find in RPGs

3. People who take the first one but try to extend it out a bit to talk about player choice and dialogue systems

 

The first one makes any game a RPG, the second one lets turn based strategy games like XCOM easily fit into the definition, and the third one is better but XCOM provides just enough customization of soldiers that I can usually sneak it in there unless they involve dialogue systems since it's lacking one of those.

 

 

I would say it's not because there are no in-game systems to actively support roleplaying.

 

If XCOM is a RPG because you can headcanon stuff between soldiers, then I would like to put in my vote for Half-Life as the greatest RPG of all time because I can headcanon what Gordon Freeman is thinking.

 

At that point the definition of RPG becomes so broad that it's useless as a definition for games and we should just stop using it entirely.

Extremely well put.

[AlanC9]

That's actually a design I like. Other things can happen in the universe that you don't do. Just because you don't complete some quest shouldn't guarantee that no one does.

Sometimes, sure. The question is whether the universe should always handle the mission if the PC doesn't. I'm not happy with the "always" part of that.