297 réponses à ce sujet

[Nomen Mendax]

Xandurpein wrote...

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Xandurpein wrote...

There is basically two different views of what constitutes a roleplaying game, and everyone who discuss this ought to recognize it.

To some people a roleplaying game is in the game mechanics. You have a character that gains levels and distributes talents, skills and attributes to 'build' your character. To them the degree a game can be called roleplaying is the degree you are able to customize your own character.

To some people, the essence of a roleplaying game is that you are playing a role. The protagonist is an empty vessel into which you pour your thoughts and decisions. The degree a game can be called roleplaying, with this definition, is the degree it lets you express yourself in the game, through conversations, choices and so on with your Avatar.

I'd like to point out that by both these standards, ME fails.

And I think that by the first definition Mass Effect is clearly an RPG, although maybe not a particularily outstanding one, but I contend that by the second definition ME is a very fine example indeed at least in mind.

I disagree, I don't think ME does give you much leeway to play a role.  The range of choices that Shepard has is really quite limited.  One of my reservations with ME2 is that Shepard seems more predetermined than ME1.  I'd rather play a RPG than watch an interactive movie.

None of this is necessarily to say that I think ME2 is a bad game, I'm just not sure its a very good role-playing game.

[Xandurpein]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

The dialogue wheel, as implemented, too often gave options that did not match the resulting uttered lines or performed actions, and as soon as that happens once then I need to save every conversation to ensure that what Shepard says is consistent with the Shepard I've designed.  "Keep them away from the ship" should mean exactly that.  Instead, when I chose that, Shepard said, "Keep them away from the ship.  Gun them down if you have to."  II wanted to prioritise keeping the Normandy safe, so I chose the option that did that, but then Shepard turned into a lunatic and explicitly advocated the killing of innocents.

I can see your point, but only to a certain degree. Sometimes Shepard will say things that maybe surprizes me, but the dialogue wheel still gives you roughly the same amount of options as you have in say Dragon Age, and Dragon Age managed to leave me unable to say what I really wanted to say at key points in the story. 

On the whole I think that the times Shepard actually manage to say something that felt totally wrong given what I had choosen was easily counted for me. And they do help you out a lot, too much in fact sometimes, by always sorting the responses with good/paragon on top and evil/renegade at the bottom.

Certainly Shepard is a bit less an empty vessel than the protagonist in Dragon Age, but to say that ME by that definition 'fails' is an overstatement in my mind. Certainly there isn't many games left that don't fail if you adhere to as strict a definition as that. Certainly all CRPG will be constrained by what is programmed.

[Xandurpein]

Nomen Mendax wrote...

I disagree, I don't think ME does give you much leeway to play a role.  The range of choices that Shepard has is really quite limited.  One of my reservations with ME2 is that Shepard seems more predetermined than ME1.  I'd rather play a RPG than watch an interactive movie.

None of this is necessarily to say that I think ME2 is a bad game, I'm just not sure its a very good role-playing game.

I can understand if you think that the Mass Effect wheel where you don't see the whole response from Shepard in advance makes it less easy to 'be' Shepard, but I am curious how you can see this being different in ME2 from ME1, as I can't really see any difference.

[A Fhaol Bhig]

Nomen Mendax wrote...

A Fhaol Bhig wrote...

Okay?
Most people don't mind, in fact most love the conversation wheel as it is.

I'm sorry to say your in a minority.

Probably, but its not just Sylvius.  There have been quite a few times when Shepard has said things I wasn't expecting, and that I didn't want to say.  I also have the feeling that this has happened more in ME2 than ME1.  Some of the summary lines (or hints, or whatever you call the things on the wheel) are just too vague and I sometimes feel that they have been aiming more for brevity than information.

As I stated in my other post, I don't deny that it doesn't exist, or that it irks people, what I'm saying is that it isn't game breaking, and the majority of people are able to just ignore it, or like me, not even notice it until someone pointed it out.

[A Fhaol Bhig]

CatatonicMan wrote...

A Fhaol Bhig wrote...

Mhmm, again now that you mention it, I do have to state again that it comes down simply to preference.

Many people here critique the game more forcefully than elsewhere because this is devoted to the game. Elsewhere it's hard to not see adoration, so we have the people who love the game, those who don't, and the people who see lots of both.

I didn't really see any major changes to anything besides the combat, leveling, and amount of items (weapons, armour) while I'd have like to have seen more, it didn't break the game for me, but for some it did.

And I agree their is a gap between the two games, but how would the series advance if it didn't have those changes? How do you refine something if you don't try it? I suppose Mass Effect 2 was something of a Full game obviously, but also as a testing ground to refine ME3.

People hated the mako in the first game, and invetory also. its gone in the second. Now people complain about the lack of vehicles, and weapons.

The listened to the feedback and because of all the negativity, they removed it from the game, and made weapons more unique if not various.

With ME3 they will of course see what was hated the most and refine that.

So the problem is nostalgia as mentioned, but also because what the fans wanted, they got. Now they miss what they had because it went to far, or whatever reason.

See what I'm saying?

You just pointed out part of the problem (though it is certainly a matter of perspective and magnitude).

It's good for a series to advance, and trying new and different things can produce excellent results (not always, but often you won't know until you try). Refining what came before is as expected as it is necessary.

The main problem with ME2, though, is that Bioware did not try to refine the mechanics that people complained about - they removed them completely.

Mako too long and boring? Burn it for its insolence!

Inventory too cluttered? Decapitate it!

Squad inventory take too much effort? Send in the clearcutters!

Guns too spammy? Screw the canon, add in (illogical and badly done) thermal clips!

Helmets too removable? Weld them in place! (Yeah, I'm being a bit vindictive with this one.)

Combat awkward? Import Gears of War!

You see? Instead of taking what they had before and making it better, they leveled everything negative and started from scratch. In the process, they managed to take one step forward and two back (and then maybe several to the left, and one up) - something that generally doesn't happen when refining tested mechanics.

Still, even clearcutting isn't necessarily bad. ME2 is a good game in its own right - not necessarily any better than the original, but probably no worse it its own way. But even though it maintains a level of quality, too much was changed; it is a sequel to ME in name/story only.

Anyone who bought ME2 thinking it would be ME1 += 1 (as I did) was bound to be disappointed on these grounds. Some may like ME2 more, of course; but that will be because of the differences between the two rather than the similarities.

Well I pretty much disagree with the combat, guns, and the like. I love the changes, and so do most people. I can say that with authority because outside of this forum, I've literally only seen love for the changes like that. And I agree, you say they took two back, one forward. I say two forward, one back.

It all comes down to opinion, and as I respect yours, hopefully you respect mine.

[A Fhaol Bhig]

MassEffect762 wrote...

CatatonicMan wrote...

A Fhaol Bhig wrote...

Mhmm, again now that you mention it, I do have to state again that it comes down simply to preference.

Many people here critique the game more forcefully than elsewhere because this is devoted to the game. Elsewhere it's hard to not see adoration, so we have the people who love the game, those who don't, and the people who see lots of both.

I didn't really see any major changes to anything besides the combat, leveling, and amount of items (weapons, armour) while I'd have like to have seen more, it didn't break the game for me, but for some it did.

And I agree their is a gap between the two games, but how would the series advance if it didn't have those changes? How do you refine something if you don't try it? I suppose Mass Effect 2 was something of a Full game obviously, but also as a testing ground to refine ME3.

People hated the mako in the first game, and invetory also. its gone in the second. Now people complain about the lack of vehicles, and weapons.

The listened to the feedback and because of all the negativity, they removed it from the game, and made weapons more unique if not various.

With ME3 they will of course see what was hated the most and refine that.

So the problem is nostalgia as mentioned, but also because what the fans wanted, they got. Now they miss what they had because it went to far, or whatever reason.

See what I'm saying?

You just pointed out part of the problem (though it is certainly a matter of perspective and magnitude).

It's good for a series to advance, and trying new and different things can produce excellent results (not always, but often you won't know until you try). Refining what came before is as expected as it is necessary.

The main problem with ME2, though, is that Bioware did not try to refine the mechanics that people complained about - they removed them completely.

Mako too long and boring? Burn it for its insolence!

Inventory too cluttered? Decapitate it!

Squad inventory take too much effort? Send in the clearcutters!

Guns too spammy? Screw the canon, add in (illogical and badly done) thermal clips!

Helmets too removable? Weld them in place! (Yeah, I'm being a bit vindictive with this one.)

Combat awkward? Import Gears of War!

You see? Instead of taking what they had before and making it better, they leveled everything negative and started from scratch. In the process, they managed to take one step forward and two back (and then maybe several to the left, and one up) - something that generally doesn't happen when refining tested mechanics.

Still, even clearcutting isn't necessarily bad. ME2 is a good game in its own right - not necessarily any better than the original, but probably no worse it its own way. But even though it maintains a level of quality, too much was changed; it is a sequel to ME in name/story only.

Anyone who bought ME2 thinking it would be ME1 += 1 (as I did) was bound to be disappointed on these grounds. Some may like ME2 more, of course; but that will be because of the differences between the two rather than the similarities.

Shao kahn: OUTSTANDING!! MUAWHAHAHA

I'm loving this debate, wish I had more popcorn.

*tears in eyes*
I don't get applause?

[Nomen Mendax]

Xandurpein wrote...

Nomen Mendax wrote...

I disagree, I don't think ME does give you much leeway to play a role.  The range of choices that Shepard has is really quite limited.  One of my reservations with ME2 is that Shepard seems more predetermined than ME1.  I'd rather play a RPG than watch an interactive movie.

None of this is necessarily to say that I think ME2 is a bad game, I'm just not sure its a very good role-playing game.

I can understand if you think that the Mass Effect wheel where you don't see the whole response from Shepard in advance makes it less easy to 'be' Shepard, but I am curious how you can see this being different in ME2 from ME1, as I can't really see any difference.

That's a good question and I've been wondering if I'm right about it or not.  I suspect the answer is that in ME1 I was happy playing the role of an upright naval officer in the style of Weber's Honor Harrington.  In ME2 that role changes and you, the player, is given very little choice over it.  There were quite a few occasions where I didn't like who I was working for and wanted to behave differently but couldn't (left vague to avoid spoilers).

So maybe it would be more accurate to say that one of the pre-determined roles in ME1 was a better fit with the character I wanted to play.

[A Fhaol Bhig]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

ian528 wrote...

In conversations, you have several choices. 

If you don't know what the alternatives are, you're not really choosing.  You're guessing.

You are given a wheel by which basic options are laid out.  The actual dialog is not to make it easier and faster for the player.  In fact, Bioware has also with the wheel conversation architecture kept a basic routine within the wheel that positionally you can tell the tone the conversation will take.

But the tone might not be the most relevant aspect of that conversation or that choice.

There was at least one conversation in ME where Shepard made a factual claim that I disagreed with.  I didn't think it was true, and I never would have had Shepard say it.

Not to mention all the times the wrong sort of sentence was used.  If I select a question on the wheel, I want Shepard to ask a question.  I do not want Shepard to make an assertion, because those contain information.  Questions don't contain information, so I'm not telling anyone anything.

In ME2 they actually expanded on the choices you had by adding QTEs that are affiliated either with making a decision in that moment or not.  I don't know the alternatives or if there will be alternatives.  I make a choice because that is how I want the character to act.  Pure role playing.

Moment to moment choices with no coherent framework behind them.  You were roleplaying a crazy person.

and you keep disregarding everyone's opinion to further your own. I don't care if you think ME isn't an RPG, I do care if you want to be a jerk about it. State your opinion, but tone it down please.

[A Fhaol Bhig]

Nomen Mendax wrote...

Xandurpein wrote...

Nomen Mendax wrote...

I disagree, I don't think ME does give you much leeway to play a role.  The range of choices that Shepard has is really quite limited.  One of my reservations with ME2 is that Shepard seems more predetermined than ME1.  I'd rather play a RPG than watch an interactive movie.

None of this is necessarily to say that I think ME2 is a bad game, I'm just not sure its a very good role-playing game.

I can understand if you think that the Mass Effect wheel where you don't see the whole response from Shepard in advance makes it less easy to 'be' Shepard, but I am curious how you can see this being different in ME2 from ME1, as I can't really see any difference.

That's a good question and I've been wondering if I'm right about it or not.  I suspect the answer is that in ME1 I was happy playing the role of an upright naval officer in the style of Weber's Honor Harrington.  In ME2 that role changes and you, the player, is given very little choice over it.  There were quite a few occasions where I didn't like who I was working for and wanted to behave differently but couldn't (left vague to avoid spoilers).

So maybe it would be more accurate to say that one of the pre-determined roles in ME1 was a better fit with the character I wanted to play.

I find it interesting that people complain about being forced to work with him.

Characters like Garrus and Tali constantenly reinforced my thought that I was only with Cerberus because I had to, not because I wanted to. I took every moment possible to diss the illusive man and anyone who thought cerberus was "good" I never felt forced.

[Daeion]

Gazrion wrote...

why is it people keep saying ME is halo or gears with conversation trees? Im not a fps gamer (only played a lvl on halo and a bit of deadspace) so what i want to know is weather you can gain experiance and lvl your character, have interaction with most npc to some degree, find a team and gain loyalty, upgrade weapons/ship make chocies that affect the games outcome to some degree ect. I could go on listing other rpg elements that i came across playing mass effect. If these things are in halo and gears then yes i would agree that it is a fps.

Before people start saying i dont know what an rpg is ive played stuff like pool of radiance, baldurs gate 1+2, NWN, morrowind.

The thing is i like my rpgs to vairy in play styles to keep me intrested so i see mass effect as a nice change from the norm.

Here's why I would say ME2 feels like Gears with dialogue trees.

I feel that in ME the focus of the game was the story, I feel that in ME2 they still have a good story but the focus of the game seems to have shifted to the combat and the RPG elements that I consider to be core to a RPG have been gutted.  So to me, ME plays like Gears with a dialogue trees.  Combat wise Gears is probably the closest comparison since it's a 3rd person cover based shooter, experience wise I'd say Bioshock is probabyl the better comparison.  LIke I said in my previous point, arguing this is pointless because what makes a RPG and what are the core building blocks of a RPG differ from person to person, ME2 is still a RPG, but to me just barely.

[A Fhaol Bhig]

I see no real lack of RPG elements.

But thats just me.

[Nomen Mendax]

A Fhaol Bhig wrote...
I find it interesting that people complain about being forced to work with him.

Characters like Garrus and Tali constantenly reinforced my thought that I was only with Cerberus because I had to, not because I wanted to. I took every moment possible to diss the illusive man and anyone who thought cerberus was "good" I never felt forced.

I liked those parts.  But there have been enough other occasions when I haven't been able to say what I wanted to, Anderson and Ashley for example, or most conversations with the man himself that I find it frustrating.  I have to admit I haven't finished the game yet (about half to two-thirds of the way) so maybe my opinion will change.

[Gazrion]

@Daeion im not arguing a point at all i was just wondering why people say it is a halo/gears clone type thing. I agree with you that everybody has a diffrent opinion of what an rpg should be. Just wanted to see why they felt this way. Like I said i havnt played many shooter games so had nothing to compair ME to but other rpgs and felt that i liked the diffrences for a change of pace.

Modifié par Gazrion, 09 mars 2010 - 10:11 .

[Daeion]

A Fhaol Bhig wrote...

I see no real lack of RPG elements.
But thats just me.

It's not that there is a lack of them, this game certainly isn't as restrictive as say Gears, it's just that when compard to ME, it seems to fall short.  Like I and others have said, RPGs mean different things to different people, so to each their own.

[Daeion]

Gazrion wrote...

@Daeion im not arguing a point at all i was just wondering why people say it is a halo/gears clone type thing. I agree with you that everybody has a diffrent opion of what an rpg should be. Just wanted to see why they felt this way. Like I said i havnt played many shooter games so had nothing to compair ME to but other rpgs and felt that i liked the diffrences for a change of pace.

Oh I understand you're not argueing, I was just letting you know why I feel that way.  I think Gears gets used so much because the combat styles are so close however Bioshock is probably the closest shooter experience wise.

[A Fhaol Bhig]

Daeion wrote...

A Fhaol Bhig wrote...

I see no real lack of RPG elements.
But thats just me.

It's not that there is a lack of them, this game certainly isn't as restrictive as say Gears, it's just that when compard to ME, it seems to fall short.  Like I and others have said, RPGs mean different things to different people, so to each their own.

Agreed to the "each their own"
but I shall agree to disagree also, because I like ME2 more.

(wait, or are you talking about the amount of traditional RPG things like loot from ME being absent?)

[Ryzaki]

I might as well advertise my poll here too. ME disappointment poll: http://social.biowar...294/polls/3137/

[A Fhaol Bhig]

*gasps*

Shameless advertising!

[Sylvius the Mad]

Xandurpein wrote...

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

The dialogue wheel, as implemented, too often gave options that did not match the resulting uttered lines or performed actions, and as soon as that happens once then I need to save every conversation to ensure that what Shepard says is consistent with the Shepard I've designed.  "Keep them away from the ship" should mean exactly that.  Instead, when I chose that, Shepard said, "Keep them away from the ship.  Gun them down if you have to."  II wanted to prioritise keeping the Normandy safe, so I chose the option that did that, but then Shepard turned into a lunatic and explicitly advocated the killing of innocents.

I can see your point, but only to a certain degree. Sometimes Shepard will say things that maybe surprizes me, but the dialogue wheel still gives you roughly the same amount of options as you have in say Dragon Age, and Dragon Age managed to leave me unable to say what I really wanted to say at key points in the story. 

CRPGs never let you say exactly what you want all the time.  But the difference between ME and every prior BioWare RPG is that Mass Effect will sometimes have your PC say things you specifically wanted to avoid saying.

As a result, Shepard wasn't nearly as circumspect as I thought she should be, so Shepard came across (to me) as an idiot.  I don't particularly want to play an idiot, so I didn't enjoy that at all.

The combat was fun, and I really enjoyed driving the Mako, but then BioWare went and changed the combat and took away the Mako.  Really, the only part of ME that BioWare didn't change for ME2 was the part I most disliked.

[Ryzaki]

A Fhaol Bhig wrote...

*gasps*
Shameless advertising!

I know...I'm a horrible person. :innocent:

[Daeion]

A Fhaol Bhig wrote...

Daeion wrote...

A Fhaol Bhig wrote...

I see no real lack of RPG elements.
But thats just me.

It's not that there is a lack of them, this game certainly isn't as restrictive as say Gears, it's just that when compard to ME, it seems to fall short.  Like I and others have said, RPGs mean different things to different people, so to each their own.

Agreed to the "each their own"
but I shall agree to disagree also, because I like ME2 more.

(wait, or are you talking about the amount of traditional RPG things like loot from ME being absent?)

Yes, I'm talking about traditional RPG items such as loot or being able to customize your squads gear.  Sure loot isn't exactly absent, but when you compare it to games like KOTOR or ME, ME2 falls short.

[Cornelian]

ian528 wrote...
The fact that I can pick a simple direct choice for dialog and then have the character speak is a real win for me.  It pulls me further into the game and makes me realize how much I missed hearing a voice for my character and how odd it was that rpgs really did not include a PC voice.

Absolutely!  I cannot agree more.

ian528 wrote...
Restricted role-playing has been the Bioware style for a while. It is
actually why I prefer them to Bethesda. In Fallout and Elder Scrolls,
you can do anything you want in any order you want. It is very, very
open. It has an overarching story but it is not as tightly woven
together as even Baldurs Gate. Bioware has a very definitive narrative
voice reflected in the gameplay and it makes the single player game
much more approachable to me.

But all that being said
that is the same thing you face with any gaming group. You have a
tightly plotted game that is a railroad, one that is still tightly
plotted but allows for deviations, and then a wide open everything is
possible place. I tend to go for the second. I did find that ME 2 is a
little to tightly woven to that path per each mission but I think the
possibility exists to have more possible deviations. They are not going
to become a completely open world kind of place.

For those two points (caracter speaking & restricted RPG), I say ME trilogy is a new kind of RPG game : a movie-like game in which you are the hero.
It is the first, and i hope it is not the last.

Xandurpein wrote...
There is basically two different views of what constitutes a
roleplaying game, and everyone who discuss this ought to recognize it.

To
some people a roleplaying game is in the game mechanics. You have a
character that gains levels and distributes talents, skills and
attributes to 'build' your character. To them the degree a game can be
called roleplaying is the degree you are able to customize your own
character.

To some people, the essence of a roleplaying game
is that you are playing a role. The protagonist is an empty vessel into
which you pour your thoughts and decisions. The degree a game can be
called roleplaying, with this definition, is the degree it lets you
express yourself in the game, through conversations, choices and so on
with your Avatar.

Neither view is necessarily wrong and I
don't think there is any point in spending a lot of time arguing over
what is the 'true' definition of an RPG. But it is important that we
recognize from which of the two standpoints we argue to understand each
other.

There are many roleplaying games out there by the first
definition, but Bioware so far seems to be almost alone in how far they
have taken roleplaying games, as defined by the second definition.
Personally I tend to go by the second definition, so I guess that for
me it would be an roleplaying experience if they slapped as much
conversations as there is in ME on a shooter with no character building
at all. But others feel the differently, and I don't begrudge them that
opinion if they justify this by saying that roleplaying to them is
character building.

I agree, mostly with last part.

At this time, I think Open RPG (Bethesda style) with magnificent
realization as ME is impossible to make without unlimited work and
unlimited money, and i'm not talking about technical stuff like memory
storage and so.... 

We have to do a choice.

Modifié par Cornelian, 10 mars 2010 - 12:10 .

[Sylvius the Mad]

Cornelian wrote...

For those two points (caracter speaking & restricted RPG), I say ME trilogy is a new kind of RPG game : a movie-like game in which you are the hero.
It is the first, and i hope it is not the last.

That's not a new kind of RPG.  That's an adventure game.  That's Sam & Max, or 7th Guest.

I don't mind BioWare making adventure games; I just want people to realise what they are.

[A Fhaol Bhig]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Cornelian wrote...

For those two points (caracter speaking & restricted RPG), I say ME trilogy is a new kind of RPG game : a movie-like game in which you are the hero.
It is the first, and i hope it is not the last.

That's not a new kind of RPG.  That's an adventure game.  That's Sam & Max, or 7th Guest.

I don't mind BioWare making adventure games; I just want people to realise what they are.

And while you believe one thing, you believe another. You won't convince us to believe you, just as we won't convince you.

Lets just agree to disagree shall we?

[SurfaceBeneath]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...
I don't mind BioWare making adventure games; I just want people to realise what they are.

You mean that you want people to perceive the game as you see it?