891 réponses à ce sujet

[Elhanan]

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

* No drunken aiming at game start for an experienced character.

* New environs for most if not all missions.

* Much better use of abilities than ME2, though I do miss some of the specifics of ME1.

* More weapon variety, good use of mods for weapons, good choices for N7 armors, though I would have liked to see some equal to full armor sets.

* Improvements to Adept class; maybe others.

* Banter available from start to finish from Followers; not a constant drone of refusing to speak to their Commander.

* Significant improvement over ME2 in the use of thermal clips.

Maybe I simply dislike ME2 far more than most, but I contend that if ME1 was remade using the ME3 mechanics, that would be a game worth purchasing again.

[AlanC9]

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.

And it just happens that in Freeman's situation he doesn't have any real choice; it's either win or die, and dying just takes the world down with him.

[BohemiaDrinker]

As long as combat remains real time and camera remains third person, I'll take anything.

 

That said, I like a lot of RPG's mechanics, from inventory management to skill trees and all that, but one thing I do not wanna see is "probability". If I use "biotic kaboom", the thing I used it in should go kaboom. If I shoot something, that thing better get shot. And so on.

[AlanC9]

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.

But you are asking for it to not be a mistake to refuse to pursue a task like catching Saren. Can you codify this in a way that isn't preserving the player from making mistakes?

[AlanC9]

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

Which Saren and Benezia say they believe. And visions. And the beacon, which was a thing Saren took incredible risks to get his hand on. A risk which blew up in his face, as it happens.

So, Shepard believes that Saren and Benezia are lying and the Council is right, but is arguing with the Council because reasons, and then will fly off to do nothing about Saren, and then God saves the galaxy from Shepard's incompetence by delaying Saren just enough for Shepard to stumble into the truth? If you want to say that Shepard should have been allowed to disagree with Anderson and everybody else and side with the council as a matter of RP, I can see it, but that didn't happen. And that still doesn't explain why Shepard and the Council should be preserved from their own stupidity.

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.

It's not our job to keep the game world credible. It's the designers'. If I have to worry about preserving the integrity of the game-world, I'm not playing my character anymore.

I want to be able to make mistakes, and be punished when I do make them.

[UpUpAway]

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.

 

I said "break immersion" not "break world."  You're arguing out of both sides of your mouth here.  You say you can't role play unless you can absolutely predict what comes out of your character's mouth but give no regard to the affect that role playing 90% of ME1 to "catch Saren" before reaching the conduit can be ruined by merely "stumbling into the Armstrong Cluster" on your way to Ilos because then, all of sudden, Hackett tells you that clearing a few geth outposts is more important than catching Saren... and he won't accept you just turning down that particular mission.  Another example, if you happen to unlock an allignment quest, just as you're heading to Ilos (and I DID have this happen to me without any glitching), then you have Hackett telling you that saving a few "drugged-up" scientists or negotiating terms with a merc leader is critically important.  Now, I know you can turn down the beseiged scientists quest (which I did), but I don't think you can turn down the renegade one.  You can tell Hackett that you still feel it's a bad idea, but he comes back with giving you the assignment anyways.  Irregardless, the whole situation makes Hackett look like a real fool by even asking you to do those things in a stolen ship... and hence, you might have trouble respecting him in the following two games.

 

Sure, just as I suggested to you about predicting the dialogue - I can play through once and get a good idea about what the "script" is and avoid making that same "mistake" on my second playthrough (by arranging to stumble into the Armstrong cluster earlier in the game or doing some serious metagaming to make sure I don't unlock the allignment quests at the wrong moment in the game).  The difference between you and I, it seems, is that I am quite willing to make that sort of adaptation, I still feel like I am role playing, and I still enjoy the game; and, as a result, I still am willing to call it a form of RPG.  You, on the other hand, seem to insist that the developer change what they do (including asking them to eliminate cinematics and voice acting) just to fit your very precise (i.e. narrow) definition of an RPG.

[FrietzMG]

Good RPG.

[Pasquale1234]

<snip>

All of your arguments are related to race against time, must catch Saren as he is threatening the entire galaxy. Trumping up some sense of urgency is a time-honored technique to raise drama in a lot of forms of fiction, and its especially true of games.

How many times have you gone to do some omg-hurry-hurry-oh-so-urgent mission yet had plenty of time along the way to harvest elfroot, search for thermal clips, hack loot crates, or stop and chat w/ NPCs? Or work in a few other missions first? A lot, I'd wager. Except for those rare occasions when something actually *is* on a timer, I've become pretty much impervious to the notion that any of it is particularly urgent. Of course, as players, we also know that we can turn off our rigs at any moment, come back a year later, and the game world will not have changed.

But we're not Shepard, and Shepard might believe that catching Saren must be priority 1.

I admit that I'm willing to erase those 3 leads from the journal, and play the game as if Shepard has no leads if that's what I need to do to fully explore and enjoy all of the content the game offers. I personally feel that it'd make for a much better game if Shepard was not given those leads when s/he was.

And I don't think it's especially unusual for individuals to "erase" parts of media that don't really work for them. I think there are quite a few places in the trilogy (and other media, too) where people need to handwave something or other to enjoy the work.

But I play these games for the RP, not to be told a story. When I want to be told a good story, I look to literature or film, not videogames. I think that's a key difference - some people seem to favor having the devs manage the availability of content for story pacing reasons. I'm not really in it for their story, so for me, that's just gating content I'd rather have available sooner.

[UpUpAway]

All of your arguments are related to race against time, must catch Saren as he is threatening the entire galaxy. Trumping up some sense of urgency is a time-honored technique to raise drama in a lot of forms of fiction, and its especially true of games.

How many times have you gone to do some omg-hurry-hurry-oh-so-urgent mission yet had plenty of time along the way to harvest elfroot, search for thermal clips, hack loot crates, or stop and chat w/ NPCs? Or work in a few other missions first? A lot, I'd wager. Except for those rare occasions when something actually *is* on a timer, I've become pretty much impervious to the notion that any of it is particularly urgent. Of course, as players, we also know that we can turn off our rigs at any moment, come back a year later, and the game world will not have changed.

But we're not Shepard, and Shepard might believe that catching Saren must be priority 1.

I admit that I'm willing to erase those 3 leads from the journal, and play the game as if Shepard has no leads if that's what I need to do to fully explore and enjoy all of the content the game offers. I personally feel that it'd make for a much better game if Shepard was not given those leads when s/he was.

And I don't think it's especially unusual for individuals to "erase" parts of media that don't really work for them. I think there are quite a few places in the trilogy (and other media, too) where people need to handwave something or other to enjoy the work.

But I play these games for the RP, not to be told a story. When I want to be told a good story, I look to literature or film, not videogames. I think that's a key difference - some people seem to favor having the devs manage the availability of content for story pacing reasons. I'm not really in it for their story, so for me, that's just gating content I'd rather have available sooner.

 

It's not just that Shepard believes that catching Saren is priority 1... when Anderson goes so far as to help Shepard steal the Normandy to get to Ilos, actually getting to Ilos cannot be rationally considered to be anything but Priority 1.  Shepard is no longer acting with any approved authority, including the council or the Alliance.  He's as rogue as Saren and doing little side quests with the stolen Normandy just risks Shepard getting caught (which should reasonably allow Saren to just get away).

 

Show of hands here... who thinks it would be a more interesting and engaging RPG if Bioware gave the player agency to just turn Anderson down, leave the Normandy locked down, and just head off to a party on the Citadel?  (or is it too much like the Refuse ending?).

[themikefest]

* More weapon variety, good use of mods for weapons, good choices for N7 armors, though I would have liked to see some equal to full armor sets.

I like to see something like the M203. Did you ever use one when you were in the military? Very good weapon
 

* Banter available from start to finish from Followers; not a constant drone of refusing to speak to their Commander.

Why only the followers? How about banter with crewmembers as well from start to finish?
 

Maybe I simply dislike ME2 far more than most, but I contend that if ME1 was remade using the ME3 mechanics, that would be a game worth purchasing again.

I like ME2.

My personal favorite is to remake the whole trilogy. If not, make another version of ME3 since the one that was released was for new players.

[Pasquale1234]

It's not just that Shepard believes that catching Saren is priority 1... when Anderson goes so far as to help Shepard steal the Normandy to get to Ilos, actually getting to Ilos cannot be rationally considered to be anything but Priority 1.

Oh, I dunno. Spending a couple of hours to stop an asteroid from killing millions of people on Terra Nova might be a rational sidetrip.

Regardless, you do have the ability to go directly to Ilos if that's what your character would do.

[Cyonan]

All of your arguments are related to race against time, must catch Saren as he is threatening the entire galaxy. Trumping up some sense of urgency is a time-honored technique to raise drama in a lot of forms of fiction, and its especially true of games.

How many times have you gone to do some omg-hurry-hurry-oh-so-urgent mission yet had plenty of time along the way to harvest elfroot, search for thermal clips, hack loot crates, or stop and chat w/ NPCs? Or work in a few other missions first? A lot, I'd wager. Except for those rare occasions when something actually *is* on a timer, I've become pretty much impervious to the notion that any of it is particularly urgent. Of course, as players, we also know that we can turn off our rigs at any moment, come back a year later, and the game world will not have changed.

But we're not Shepard, and Shepard might believe that catching Saren must be priority 1.

I admit that I'm willing to erase those 3 leads from the journal, and play the game as if Shepard has no leads if that's what I need to do to fully explore and enjoy all of the content the game offers. I personally feel that it'd make for a much better game if Shepard was not given those leads when s/he was.

And I don't think it's especially unusual for individuals to "erase" parts of media that don't really work for them. I think there are quite a few places in the trilogy (and other media, too) where people need to handwave something or other to enjoy the work.

But I play these games for the RP, not to be told a story. When I want to be told a good story, I look to literature or film, not videogames. I think that's a key difference - some people seem to favor having the devs manage the availability of content for story pacing reasons. I'm not really in it for their story, so for me, that's just gating content I'd rather have available sooner.

 

The race against time thing is a complaint against it in all games. It makes equally as little sense when they try to do it only for me to run off and pick flowers for a while first.

 

Off the top of my head the only time I can think of that I liked it was in Mass Effect 2. The race against time was introduced late into the game, and there was consequences for ignoring it.

 

My solution was to simply not try to play Mass Effect as a normal RPG but as a third person shooter with dialogue trees where I can have some influence over the story.

 

It worked well enough for me that it's still one of my favourite games. That also might be why I like ME3 better, because the gameplay mechanics were the best of the series and I'm more focused on that than a lot of other people here.

[AlanC9]

Trumping up some sense of urgency is a time-honored technique to raise drama in a lot of forms of fiction, and its especially true of games.How many times have you gone to do some omg-hurry-hurry-oh-so-urgent mission yet had plenty of time along the way to harvest elfroot, search for thermal clips, hack loot crates, or stop and chat w/ NPCs? Or work in a few other missions first? A lot, I'd wager. Except for those rare occasions when something actually *is* on a timer, I've become pretty much impervious to the notion that any of it is particularly urgent.

Sure, but this just means that you've been trained by the CRPG genre to role-play badly. "Badly" because you're having your characters ignore stuff because of out-of-universe knowledge, "CRPG" because this isn't a thing in PnP.

[AlanC9]

Regardless, you do have the ability to go directly to Ilos if that's what your character would do.

Sure, and somehow the asteroid just stays there.

[Pasquale1234]

Off the top of my head the only time I can think of that I liked it was in Mass Effect 2. The race against time was introduced late into the game, and there was consequences for ignoring it.

Yes, that was very well-implemented.
 

My solution was to simply not try to play Mass Effect as a normal RPG but as a third person shooter with dialogue trees where I can have some influence over the story.

That's what I ended up doing as well in ME2&3. I treated it like interactive, branching cinema with some action gameplay bits.
 

Sure, but this just means that you've been trained by the CRPG genre to role-play badly. "Badly" because you're having your characters ignore stuff because of out-of-universe knowledge, "CRPG" because this isn't a thing in PnP.

Instead of making faulty accusations, you might make note of the fact that I was talking about me, not my character.

Oh, lookee here:

But we're not Shepard, and Shepard might believe that catching Saren must be priority 1.

Would it have helped if I had put in a larger font, bolded it, underlined it, or something?

Or maybe said "But we're not Shepard, and Shepard might believe that catching Saren is the most urgent task that has ever been tasked."

[Gothfather]

Then you're saying that because I'm not a soldier but if i play a FPS game where the PC is a soldier (with or without any backround), then i'm role playing that character, but that doesn't make that FPS game a RPG game. Or the same analogy can be applied to racing games, cause i'm no professional driver, yet i play the role of a professional driver, thus racing games are RPGs... but they are not.

 

Some jrpg games seems/functions more like a TBS game than a RPG.

No I am saying that IF and i stress the word IF you take ANY character and make choices for the character based on their role/personality that isn't motivated by your own goals or what is 'best' in terms of game play you are role playing. Most FPS allow you to role play if you so choose but they are not designed mechanically to role play. MMOs are in the same boat, these games allow people to Role play but the game's mechanics are not designed to role play. In fact all the mechanics that people use to role play have primary functions not for role playing and the most important tool Chat isn't designed to facilitate role playing it is designed to facilitate communication which AGAIN is a SEPARATE feature of role playing. Yes role playing is communication but not all communication is role playing. Cats are mammals not all mammals are cats. The ability to role play isn't limited to games that are specifically designed for such a purpose. Time and time again you will hear strategy game players talk about role playing their nation. They pick a underlying 'personality' for their nation and play the game based on not what makes the best sense mechanically but rather what makes sense for the nation's player prescribed goals and outlook. They are role playing but not playing an RPG.

 

cRPGs are games that are specifically designed to give the player some agency of choice but this level of agency has ALWAYS been limited. In western RPGs the way to hide this limit on agency was to give the player LOTs of agency up front to hide the lack of it on the back end. This is why western RPGs have a firm grounding in character creation. And no this vast open ended character creation isn't tied to pen and paper rpgs the original tradition of these RPGs going back to D&D was that you had again little agency in the character especially with race and role. Every dwarf is a fighter, every elf a fighter/mage, every halfling a thief. So again we see at the very beginings of RPGs extreme limits on agency at least compared to today. The jRPG took a separate but equally valid approach to RPGs they said screw it we know agency is limited we know that if we try to open up agency in the front end we will have to sacrifice other aspects of the game in other areas so we just wont give the player lots of agency much like D&D originally approached things. This allowed them to tell better narratives than a traditional wRPG. Almost every early wRPG is nothing more than a very lose narrative to tie one encounter to the next. And to keep the player interested they used progression in the exact way an MMO does with raid gear. The 'grind' in early wRPGs is specifically designed to be a timesink because there wasn't really any narrative to tell so just grid new gear and levels so you can kill the boss. jRPGs originally weren't much of a grind and there was a bit more narrative to things. But again we are speaking in general terms not every game falls exactly into these loose categories. The irony i see is that the grind later became a stable of the jrpg as both development schools learned from each other.

 

Just because you don't like a style of RPG doesn't mean it isn't an RPG it is simply an RPG style you don't like. And don't misconstrue what i am saying either or proscribe a bias that isn't there. I pretty much hate jRPGs I think Final Fantasy is the only one I recall enjoying and I mean the First one with white mage and black mage. I didn't like being on rails for the narrative the loss of agency was problematic for me at the time. It wasn't until Kotor that I appreciate the strong narrative story telling an RPG could give. The fully voiced NPCs the star wars fantasy all worked to tell a very narrow on rails story very similar to a jRPG but with more of a western approach to character development. But again we gave up agency to tell the story our background is all the same we are a fallen knight, no bothan spy for you.

 

Agency =/= role playing many pen and paper rpgs have a introductory set with pre-made characters in them, again showing how character generation ISN'T role playing. I am not saying people's preference for their RPGs is wrong it is in fact 100% right for them but so is the exact opposite position because this is a subjective issue. I am saying stop the elitist BS your preferred style of RPG isn't the only "true" rpg. Ask for more agency all you want just stop caging the conversation is agency = role playing because that is false. Hell games by design limit agency to create conflict and risk for without these elements you really don't have a game.

[Iakus]

 
Would it have helped if I had put in a larger font, bolded it, underlined it, or something?

Or maybe said "But we're not Shepard, and Shepard might believe that catching Saren is the most urgent task that has ever been tasked."

Alan believes that once a player has meta knowledge on the "best" or "proper" course to take, it becomes impossible to role-play.

 

I actually feel kinda sorry for him in this.

[AlanC9]

Instead of making faulty accusations, you might make note of the fact that I was talking about me, not my character.

What's the fault? Your PC is doing something based on your metagame knowledge, right? Sure, you've constructed a rationale for the PC to take that action, but it's a rationale, not a reason.

[AlanC9]

Alan believes that once a player has meta knowledge on the "best" or "proper" course to take, it becomes impossible to role-play.

I actually feel kinda sorry for him in this.

Not impossible. Just annoying. I prefer it when games don't annoy me.

More precisely, my preferred RP style becomes impossible, and I'm forced to use an inferior style.

Edit: of course, I end up using that style anyway a few playthroughs in.

[Pasquale1234]

What's the fault? Your PC is doing something based on your metagame knowledge, right? Sure, you've constructed a rationale for the PC to take that action, but it's a rationale, not a reason.

No, not exactly, though it depends on exactly what you're talking about.

If I erase / handwave those 3 leads (Feros, Noveria, Therum), then Shepard has to set out to find Saren on her own with whatever other knowledge she has or can find. In that case, I'm interfering with BioWare's role as the GM, and withholding information.

(and BTW, while I was typing that whole bit about urgency in games, I knew that you'd snipe at it. You never disappoint. )

[Iakus]

Not impossible. Just annoying. I prefer it when games don't annoy me.

More precisely, my preferred RP style becomes impossible, and I'm forced to use an inferior style.

To you.

 

Me I was quite content to end A DAO game where my Aeducan noble twit who grew into a responsible Grey Warden and died slaying the archdemon.  This despite previous playthroughs where I had Loghain, Alistair and even a Dark Ritual performed.  I knew I could have taken Morrigan up on her offer.  I could have had Alistair take the blow instead.  But it was his duty, as a Warden, to kill this creature.  It wasn't the "best" ending.  But it made for a nice, if sad story (I felt really bad for Leliana)  It was right for that character.  Not for my Surana, or my Cousland, or my Mahariel.  

 

It's about options.  It's playing different characters each time you play.  It's about telling different stories, making a different choice and seeing where the story goes from there.

 

The inferior style is taking a different path only to find that it changed nothing.

[Pasquale1234]

@lakus - one of my favorite DAO characters was a dwarf commoner who never made it to the landsmeet. I'll spare you the details, but once she'd put Bhelen on Orzammar's throne (thus securing a future for her sister and mother), she bailed on the warden gig and ran off to join the Legion of the Dead.

[AlanC9]

No, not exactly, though it depends on exactly what you're talking about.If I erase / handwave those 3 leads (Feros, Noveria, Therum), then Shepard has to set out to find Saren on her own with whatever other knowledge she has or can find. In that case, I'm interfering with BioWare's role as the GM, and withholding information.

Umm... that sounds even worse, actually. Now you're erasing facts from the universe rather than just toying with the PC's mind.

[Pasquale1234]

Umm... that sounds even worse, actually. Now you're erasing facts from the universe rather than just toying with the PC's mind.

The only fact that's changed is what information is given to the PC, and/or when.

As the GM, BioWare could have just as easily chosen not to provide those leads until later in the game. They didn't give you the Virmire lead right away. Nothing else is changed.

And, really, since it's only the role-player who even knows what's going on in the PC's mind, suggesting that a player is toying with the PC's mind is a bit... odd.

[capn233]

* No drunken aiming at game start for an experienced character.

-ME2 did this

* New environs for most if not all missions.

-ME2 did this

* Much better use of abilities than ME2, though I do miss some of the specifics of ME1.

-Generally powers work as per ME2, the difference is the combo system, which is poor.

* More weapon variety, good use of mods for weapons, good choices for N7 armors, though I would have liked to see some equal to full armor sets.

-ME2 managed to have unique weapons that were relatively balanced in the base game.  Majority of ME3 weapons are filler weapons that aren't particularly unique or valuable.

 

* Improvements to Adept class; maybe others.

-Adept is essentially the same except that CC is actually less valuable in ME3 than ME2, and it is not unique in self detonating combos any longer.  Michael Bay effect for combos instead of physics combos make this class a whole lot less interesting in ME3.

* Banter available from start to finish from Followers; not a constant drone of refusing to speak to their Commander.

-Not really start to finish.  The "overhear things" is a step forward I guess, but largely the conversations with squadmates aren't any more interesting than in previous games.

* Significant improvement over ME2 in the use of thermal clips.

-Don't see how.

Maybe I simply dislike ME2 far more than most, but I contend that if ME1 was remade using the ME3 mechanics, that would be a game worth purchasing again.

 

Perhaps, but I don't care for a lot of ME3 mechanics with respect to mechanics that were actually new or changed.  ME2 mechanics only needed mild tweaks, not a lot of rule of cool additions that homogenized the classes.  Taking out range modifiers is one of the few things I can think of offhand that actually improved something (although it is unclear if simply changing some of them might have been better).  Outside of the already listed movement changes to make the game seem faster.