10273 réponses à ce sujet

[Pocketgb]

Ecael wrote...

...That wasn't even a straw man or an argument. That was a question asking you to further elaborate on your analogy.

And people wonder why I say this thread goes in circles

[Lumikki]

bjdbwea wrote...

Yeah, right. Whatever you say.

You could just answer the question and not trying to avoid the question or think that it wasn't seriously asked.
I mean is it so hard to answer the question made?

Pocketgb wrote...

And people wonder why I say this thread goes in circles [smilie]../../../images/forum/emoticons/pouty.png[/smilie]

Hehe, You are right.

Modifié par Lumikki, 15 juin 2010 - 12:13 .

[AlanC9]

bjdbwea wrote...

Yeah, right. Whatever you say.

Look, if you can't answer the question, just say so. It's OK to have feelings that you can't rationally justify as long as you're honest about it.

[AlanC9]

Terror_K wrote...

Lizardviking wrote...

Maybe I don't get it. But I can't understand why people are upset over the lack of stats determing whether or not you can aim.

Because it defeats the purpose of character building and progression when a Level 1 character is just as adept at taking down an enemy with his weapon as a Level 30 one. Your character isn't getting better in Mass Effect 2 ala other RPG's, he/she is merely unlocking additional combat abilities and that's pretty much it. For an RPG that's pretty shallow and narrow.

But doesn't this amount to an argument that ME shouldn't be an RPG in the first place? Shepard starts as someone who's able to aim well, not a raw recruit.

[Xeranx]

Lumikki wrote...

tonnactus wrote...

Lumikki wrote...

Yeah, the best military person what human race has offer and Shepard can hardly even hold sniper rifle and would not hit in lower levels to anything.

Why shepard has still to learn biotic and tech attacks?

Why shepardt is to dumb to use different ammo types without points in them?


How is this better now??

I have no clue what you talk here.

Ahh.. I think I got it. You mean why in ME2 there is biotic and teck skills, but not weapon skills. Actually those ammo skills are the "weapon" skills.

I think different is that if you have the skill, it's still usefull without putting alot of points. In ME1 sniper skill isn't usefull untill alot later with alot of points in it.


Don't worry, I did not like ME2 skill system.

What I believe he's asking is why is Shepard such a proficient combatant with ranged weapons from the very start of the game, but he/she has to build up tech and biotic proficiencies.  In ME1 you had to build up weapon, tech, and biotic proficiencies.  They all started at square one, but in ME2 this isn't so.  Your ability to wield a weapon is advanced moreso than your tech or biotic abilities.

[Lumikki]

Xeranx wrote...

What I believe he's asking is why is Shepard such a proficient combatant with ranged weapons from the very start of the game, but he/she has to build up tech and biotic proficiencies.  In ME1 you had to build up weapon, tech, and biotic proficiencies.  They all started at square one, but in ME2 this isn't so.  Your ability to wield a weapon is advanced moreso than your tech or biotic abilities.

Damm can't really answer, because haven't played bionic in ME2, just on ME1. How ever, I do assume that bionic skills in ME does work fine even with 1 point on them? Other ways You could also ask, why characters doesn't have weapon skills at all? Nothing to improve if you don't even have the skill.

Modifié par Lumikki, 15 juin 2010 - 02:13 .

[Iakus]

Lumikki wrote...

I don't think there was anything wrong on ME2 main story it self, but there was way too many plot holes in it. So, storytelling wasn't the best in ME2, even if the story it self was fine. There is two problems what people here seem to have with ME2 story. If we don't count those plot holes, what was problem, I think for most of players.

1. Some players expected ME2 story continue ME1 story, so they got disapointed.
2. Some players did not understand the story, what story was all about and why Shepard did something.

So, those who did not understand the ME2 story main points, here it is.

ME2 story was all about Shepards army get stronger enough to deal Collectors threat,  who where superior by technology standards. So, while TIM was looking way to get Collectors base. Shepards JOB was recruit, train and equiment Shepards army to be as strong as possible. So, when TIM would found way to Collectors, Shepards army could be stronger enough to handle collector army. This stronger enough did incuded recruiting, loyalty, technologic advancements and Normandy upgrades.

1) Was me.  Yeah big-time disappointed.  This was definitely a case of "if it ain't broke, dont fix it"

2) I love having all this written down, it saves so much time:

   The problem is, the game really isn't about teambuilding. Yes there's recruitment missions, loyalty missions, even some chats with each squadmate.   But where is the interaction between the squaddies? There are two personality conflicts between squadmates (Miranda and Jack, Legion and Tali) after their loyalty missions are done. That's the extent of it. With a squad this diverse, with different motivations and personality types, you would think that this would factor into making an effective team. If, that is, building a team was the main purpose of the game. The way the game plays now, you rarely see any interaction between the squad members and anyone but Shepard.

       Think about it; What would a conversation be like between Garrus, who had his own vigilante gang who hunted down wrongdoers on Omega, and Samara, who spent 600 years as a justicar being a law unto herself? How would either of them react to Thane, an assassin who sees himself as nothing more than an extension of the will of his employers?  How would anyone relate to Jack, a powerful biotic who is also a hardened criminal and likely mentally unstable?  Navigating these personalities, with all the quirks, likes, and dislikes would have added a whole new dimension to the game.

[Iakus]

tonnactus wrote...

Lumikki wrote...

ME2 story was all about Shepards army get stronger enough to deal Collectors threat,  who where superior by technology standards.

So explain: How garrus, a former c-sec und then just a merc group leader has acess to the plans of the thannix cannon? Does this make sense? And why in the hell the turians would allow a cerberus ship to use that technology if he have some connections?

The problem with the whole teambuilding is that they all are interchangeable. Miranda,Garrus and Jacob could lead a team. Samara and Jack could do the biotic bubble.Even Miranda and Thane if the player dont care if someone of his/her team dies.(its a suicide mission,o wait...)
There are also 3 techs that could go in the vents and survive.
So what is the point to recruit so much people?
The motivation why people join and stay with shepardt is also nonsensical. Jack needs some data and would really risk her life for it?? I would just take the information and leave the ship then...

The story is just a horrible piece of crap. Even barely meet uwe boll standards.

Speaking of interchangable.  Why is this even a job worth resurrecting Shepard for?  I may have to write something more in-depth about this...

The Uwe Boll line may have been...a bit extreme...

[Iakus]

Ecael wrote...

bjdbwea wrote...

AlanC9 wrote...

bjdbwea wrote...

Like everything else, the story was conveniently simplified to better appeal to a new audience. If ME 1 was a carefully prepared menu, ME 2 is fast food as far as the story is concerned.

The ME1 story was complicated? How so?

Ah, straw man arguments.

...That wasn't even a straw man or an argument. That was a question asking you to further elaborate on your analogy.

Straw man or not, it's at least a very selective arguement
The actual, full post:

bjdbwea wrote...

 you really think so? What's there to understand? Like everything else, the story was conveniently simplified to better appeal to a new audience. If ME 1 was a carefully prepared menu, ME 2 is fast food as far as the story is concerned.

Of course you could do something interesting with the general idea of death and resurrection, the abduction of human colonies, gathering a crew of skilled individuals for an almost impossible mission, etc. So yeah, it's not the story per se that's bad. Rather the execution is terrible, the writing and presentation. There's no proper flow, virtually no highlights, almost no emotional impact, no coherence or connections between different plot elements. Plus the plot holes, as you mentioned.

Or to put it differently: ME 2 certainly had the ingredients to make a nice menu too. Unfortunately, they were wasted by a cook who either had not the time or the will to do so

No one said that ME 1 was a particularly complicated story.  But ME 2 is definitely "simplified", .  These two statements together combine to show just how bad the storyline is, imo.  Bjdbwea was absolutely correct that there was so much more that could have been done with the material we were given.  Shepard's death and resurrection, disappearing colonies, the Collectors, even the teambuilding.   There was good stuff to be found there.  ME 2's storyline is a collection of wasted opportunities that boiled down to "which mercs do we get to kill this time?"

So yeah, it's not the story per se that's bad. Rather the execution is terrible, the writing and presentation. There's no proper flow, virtually no highlights, almost no emotional impact, no coherence or connections between different plot elements

QFT

Modifié par iakus, 15 juin 2010 - 03:18 .

[Pocketgb]

iakus wrote...


My personal ME 2 story criticism:  social.bioware.com/718939/blog/5734/

Hopefully that'll be a big helping hand in getting Drew back to the lead for ME3!

Modifié par Pocketgb, 15 juin 2010 - 04:39 .

[AlanC9]

iakus wrote...
Think about it; What would a conversation be like between Garrus, who had his own vigilante gang who hunted down wrongdoers on Omega, and Samara, who spent 600 years as a justicar being a law unto herself? How would either of them react to Thane, an assassin who sees himself as nothing more than an extension of the will of his employers?  How would anyone relate to Jack, a powerful biotic who is also a hardened criminal and likely mentally unstable?  Navigating these personalities, with all the quirks, likes, and dislikes would have added a whole new dimension to the game.

Or it would have been unworkable. Getting into that aspect could have absorbed enormous amounts of development time. I get the feeling that any feasible approach to this would have ended up feeling dumbed-down anyway.

Edit: Sure, they could have stuck in a whole bunch of interactions about this stuff. but making those interactions meaningful would be just asking for trouble.

Modifié par AlanC9, 15 juin 2010 - 04:51 .

[Terror_K]

Pocketgb wrote...

Terror_K wrote...

I hope you're being sarcastic, because that was terrible. You could just be everything with a single character... it was awful. Didn't encourage multiple playthroughs at all... why bother when one character can do it all. They needed restrictions on them.

People appreciated Bethesda's systems because of one question: Why couldn't I master everything? Why couldn't I learn a bit of lock-picking on the side of my weapon and armor training? What's stopping me from learning how to use a sword while also studying how to cast fire magic? It was all a refreshing take on the genre, and that's why Bethesda's been one of the most influential and successful RPG developers.

And do you know what encouraged multiple playthroughs of every single TES game? Role-playing!

It's bad RPG design. The whole point of having different classes is to have different specialists that play differently. If you're a Master of All Trades with no trade-offs and no restrictions, there's no point in even having classes in the first place. Its pathetic and broken.

And how exactly can one role-play in Oblivion when every single character is pretty much exactly the same: an unstoppable badass who is perfect at everything? At least in AD&D being a Fighter-Mage-Thief takes at least three times as much work as just being a single class.

I can't see how a proper RPG fan could be a fan of a system that just allows you to master everything so easily. It goes against the very heart of RPG design philosophy.

Modifié par Terror_K, 15 juin 2010 - 05:00 .

[AlanC9]

He's got a point, though. Bethesda has been awfully successful with their "bad RPG design." I don't like their games at all myself, but obviously there are plenty of RPG fans who don't judge games the way I do, or the way you do.



Of course, you can claim that they're not "proper" RPG fans. Good luck with that.

[Terror_K]

AlanC9 wrote...

Terror_K wrote...

Lizardviking wrote...

Maybe I don't get it. But I can't understand why people are upset over the lack of stats determing whether or not you can aim.

Because it defeats the purpose of character building and progression when a Level 1 character is just as adept at taking down an enemy with his weapon as a Level 30 one. Your character isn't getting better in Mass Effect 2 ala other RPG's, he/she is merely unlocking additional combat abilities and that's pretty much it. For an RPG that's pretty shallow and narrow.

But doesn't this amount to an argument that ME shouldn't be an RPG in the first place? Shepard starts as someone who's able to aim well, not a raw recruit.

No. All that amounts to is the fact that some people can't separate gameplay mechanics from narrative. Or, at least they can when it suits them, but when its something they don't like they can't. People don't seem to have a problem with Shepard suddenly learning a new ability for no real in-universe reason, but they have a problem with him/her only being as good as their weapons skill stat? They have no problem with Shepard not being able to shoot if the player's skill sucks, but because their stat is low it sucks? They have no problem with Shepard somehow being able to see the enemies on the battlefield even when he/she isn't looking at them because the player controlling Shepard can because it advantages them, but they have a problem with Shepard missing because the stat is low because it disadvantages them? They have a problem with a Level 1 Shepard sucking, but no issue with their Level 60 one being a God who could take on the Reaper fleet alone with no issues?

This is an RPG, and its supposed to be about character building and progression. If Shepard was as apparently badass as is made out, there'd be next to no character building and progression. Gameplay elements are gameplay elements, and story and narrative is story and narrative. They don't always completely gel, and this is true for any game. People need to stop complaining about this and using it as an excuse, because the same applies all over the place in almost every game ever made, but when its good and players like it its never an issue.

[Iakus]

AlanC9 wrote...

iakus wrote...
Think about it; What would a conversation be like between Garrus, who had his own vigilante gang who hunted down wrongdoers on Omega, and Samara, who spent 600 years as a justicar being a law unto herself? How would either of them react to Thane, an assassin who sees himself as nothing more than an extension of the will of his employers?  How would anyone relate to Jack, a powerful biotic who is also a hardened criminal and likely mentally unstable?  Navigating these personalities, with all the quirks, likes, and dislikes would have added a whole new dimension to the game.

Or it would have been unworkable. Getting into that aspect could have absorbed enormous amounts of development time. I get the feeling that any feasible approach to this would have ended up feeling dumbed-down anyway.

Edit: Sure, they could have stuck in a whole bunch of interactions about this stuff. but making those interactions meaningful would be just asking for trouble.

If the options are "relationship with Shepard that exists totally in a vacuum" and "dumbed down group relationships" then I guess the question becomes what's the point? of making a game about building a team?  Just for the on/off loyalty flag?  What kind of rpg element is that?

[Terror_K]

AlanC9 wrote...

He's got a point, though. Bethesda has been awfully successful with their "bad RPG design." I don't like their games at all myself, but obviously there are plenty of RPG fans who don't judge games the way I do, or the way you do.

Of course, you can claim that they're not "proper" RPG fans. Good luck with that.

To be fair, Fallout 3 didn't suffer this issue. And I wouldn't be surprised if Oblivion got props because it was so simplified and so many of today's so-called "gamers" love a complete lack of restrictions and rules and love complete freedom that doesn't make sense. Oblivion was probably a big success for the same reason ME2 was: it dumbed things down for the masses who don't like things restrictive and complicated. There are many Morrowind, Daggerfall, etc. players out there who feel Oblivion was oversimplified after all.

I personally enjoyed Oblivion too and played hundreds of hours of it, but I did what I do whenever I play anything based on AD&D v4: ignore the stuff I don't like. That's why I purposefully created differing characters in Oblivion, and didn't branch out into things that I felt didn't suit the character I was going for, with the exception of some minor spells such as healing ones for my fighter and assassin characters.

[Pocketgb]

Terror_K wrote...

People don't seem to have a problem with Shepard suddenly learning a new ability for no real in-universe reason,
but they have a problem with him/her only being as good as their weapons skill stat? They have no problem with Shepard not being able to shoot if the player's skill sucks, but because their stat is low it sucks? They have no problem with Shepard somehow being able to see the enemies on the battlefield even when he/she isn't looking at them because the player controlling Shepard can because it advantages them, but they have a problem with Shepard missing because the stat is low because it disadvantages them?

I said it in the Too much/Not enough RPG thread and I'll repeat it here:

"I always compared ME1's combat to a first person shooter that controlled like a racing game: Out of place".

I felt that that was the biggest incentive as to why alot of people were let down with ME1.

Terror_K wrote...

To be fair, Fallout 3 didn't suffer this issue. And I wouldn't be surprised if Oblivion got props because it was so simplified and so many of today's so-called "gamers" love a complete lack of restrictions and rules and love complete freedom that doesn't make sense.

"Doesn't make sense"?

Terror_K wrote...

Oblivion was probably a big success for the same reason ME2 was: it dumbed things down for the masses who don't like things restrictive and complicated. There are many Morrowind, Daggerfall, etc. players out there who feel Oblivion was oversimplified after all.

It's interesting that you bring that up since many complained about Morrowind being a dumbed-down and oversimplified version of Morrowind. On many accounts they are absolutely right.
But there was still a lot that Morrowind brought to the table, regardless of the "streamlining", and it still turned out to be a great game.
While Oblivion took more things to different levels the same can be said for it too.
Each game is great for different reasons.

Modifié par Pocketgb, 15 juin 2010 - 05:34 .

[Massadonious1]

bjdbwea wrote...

Do you really believe ME 2 is only 4/100 away from being THE absolutely perfect game? Does anyone actually believe that?

You mean the same reviewers/sites that believed the orginal ME was anywhere from 5-15 points away from being the absolutely perfect game?

I guess they must have been more enlightened and/or less paid off back then.

[ShakeZoohla]

Massadonious1 wrote...

bjdbwea wrote...

Do you really believe ME 2 is only 4/100 away from being THE absolutely perfect game? Does anyone actually believe that?

You mean the same reviewers/sites that believed the orginal ME was anywhere from 5-15 points away from being the absolutely perfect game?

I guess they must have been more enlightened and/or less paid off back then.

I think the point he is making is that all review scores are pretty much irrelevant.  

[Iakus]

Pocketgb wrote...

iakus wrote...


My personal ME 2 story criticism:  social.bioware.com/718939/blog/5734/

Hopefully that'll be a big helping hand in getting Drew back to the lead for ME3!

Thanks, but assuming anyone with any authority actually reads it, I'd settle for a good long pause to reflect on the story and where it's going.

And, if it isn't too much trouble, a written apology for ME 2 and a fruit basket would be nice...

[Massadonious1]

ShakeZoohla wrote...

Massadonious1 wrote...

bjdbwea wrote...

Do you really believe ME 2 is only 4/100 away from being THE absolutely perfect game? Does anyone actually believe that?

You mean the same reviewers/sites that believed the orginal ME was anywhere from 5-15 points away from being the absolutely perfect game?

I guess they must have been more enlightened and/or less paid off back then.

I think the point he is making is that all review scores are pretty much irrelevant.  

Perhaps, but he never suggested as such. Maybe his insight on if he feels ME1 reviews were justified or not will provide some clairty.

Modifié par Massadonious1, 15 juin 2010 - 05:57 .

[Terror_K]

Pocketgb wrote...

Terror_K wrote...

People don't seem to have a problem with Shepard suddenly learning a new ability for no real in-universe reason,
but they have a problem with him/her only being as good as their weapons skill stat? They have no problem with Shepard not being able to shoot if the player's skill sucks, but because their stat is low it sucks? They have no problem with Shepard somehow being able to see the enemies on the battlefield even when he/she isn't looking at them because the player controlling Shepard can because it advantages them, but they have a problem with Shepard missing because the stat is low because it disadvantages them?

I said it in the Too much/Not enough RPG thread and I'll repeat it here:

"I always compared ME1's combat to a first person shooter that controlled like a racing game: Out of place".

I felt that that was the biggest incentive as to why alot of people were let down with ME1.

If combat changing from stat-based to player skill-based was the only change that happened from ME1 to ME2 then I wouldn't have had such a problem with the game. This is, however, not the case. I have in fact fully admitted that this aspect alone is more intuitive than the ME1 method, though at the same time other games have managed to have stat-based combat without such a handicap on the player. Too many think that because the ME1 method didn't work that the entire concept is fail and should be thrown out and replaced with a simple shooter mechanic instead... including BioWare. This is not the case, as there are other alternatives that favour the RPG method without being broken or too annoying to the player. As it stands the system is very shallow and inadequate for an RPG. The combat is technically better in ME2, but not suitably better.

"Doesn't make sense"?

Yes, in the context of being an RPG. Having classes and skills is next to meaningless when one can be absolutely everything. Its like having a racing game with dozens of cars but the one you start with is already the best at everything (speed, handling, grip, torque, etc.) or a beat-em up where your character has the moves of every other character out you fight and 10 times as large a health bar, or a shooter where the base weapon is a one-hit kill on everything. Its a mechanic that completely craps on the very concept of an RPG.

[Lumikki]

Terror_K wrote...

No. All that amounts to is the fact that some people can't separate gameplay mechanics from narrative. Or, at least they can when it suits them, but when its something they don't like they can't. People don't seem to have a problem with Shepard suddenly learning a new ability for no real in-universe reason, but they have a problem with him/her only being as good as their weapons skill stat? They have no problem with Shepard not being able to shoot if the player's skill sucks, but because their stat is low it sucks? They have no problem with Shepard somehow being able to see the enemies on the battlefield even when he/she isn't looking at them because the player controlling Shepard can because it advantages them, but they have a problem with Shepard missing because the stat is low because it disadvantages them? They have a problem with a Level 1 Shepard sucking, but no issue with their Level 60 one being a God who could take on the Reaper fleet alone with no issues?

This is an RPG, and its supposed to be about character building and progression. If Shepard was as apparently badass as is made out, there'd be next to no character building and progression. Gameplay elements are gameplay elements, and story and narrative is story and narrative. They don't always completely gel, and this is true for any game. People need to stop complaining about this and using it as an excuse, because the same applies all over the place in almost every game ever made, but when its good and players like it its never an issue.

Next is little agressive general response. Mass Effect is not just RPG, it's action RPG with 3rd person shooter (hybrid). Meaning it doesn't have ALL traditional RPG elements or even can have, because it doesn't go well with the 3rd person shooter combat part. Example to make character skill affect to player skills, can have negative affect to player skill part. My point is don't just push idea to improve RPG side, while doing it expense of the shooter side. If you only care one side, then what I can say, Mass Effects aren't just one type of game only.

People have complaining here about Shepard to be too strong in ME1 too. Remember those god like armors and weapons, running gun blazing through enemies. That it complain about Shepards to be too strong.

ME1 combat did work and did what was needed, but it wasn't good. They fixed what was the problem and that was character skills and progression affecting the player skill side combat. What meaned RPG side had negative affect to shooter side. Problem of cause is that when you take character skills advances from combat side off, it will also remove big part of traditional RPG.

ME1 inventory system wasn't good. So, they fixed that too. Now the system is good, but how much they simplified the customation and modification was way way too much. How ever, they seem to allready know that and want to bring more customation back into ME3.

They also simplifyed skills and I did not like that at all. Removing RPG skills effect from shooter side combat was fine and needed, but simplifying skills so much wasn't. So, yes, ME2 did some stuff right and some stuff wrong. Point here is that what was fixed right was badly done in ME1. They just did go too far with other stuff too and simplifyed everyting else too, what wasn't even badly done in ME1.

Modifié par Lumikki, 15 juin 2010 - 07:19 .

[Orchomene]

Lumikki wrote...
1. Some players expected ME2 story continue ME1 story, so they got disapointed.
2. Some players did not understand the story, what story was all about and why Shepard did something.

So, those who did not understand the ME2 story main points, here it is.

ME2 story was all about Shepards army get stronger enough to deal Collectors threat,  who where superior by technology standards. So, while TIM was looking way to get Collectors base. Shepards JOB was recruit, train and equiment Shepards army to be as strong as possible. So, when TIM would found way to Collectors, Shepards army could be stronger enough to handle collector army. This stronger enough did incuded recruiting, loyalty, technologic advancements and Normandy upgrades.

1. No specific issue. A sequel can also be played with another character as long as there is some thems that do go on.
2. Thanks to have explained this to me. I was certainly too dumb to understand the story of ME2.

ME2 story was all about Shepards army get stronger enough to deal
Collectors threat,  who where superior by technology standards. So, while TIM was looking way to get Collectors base. Shepards JOB was
recruit, train and equiment Shepards army to be as strong as possible.
So, when TIM would found way to Collectors, Shepards army could be
stronger enough to handle collector army. This stronger enough did
incuded recruiting, loyalty, technologic advancements and Normandy
upgrades.

Yeah ! It's the same story as X-Com ! I think I've understood ! No, wait, there is no story in X-Com. The only difference being the "loyalty" concept. Concept which reveals being flat.
I'm sorry, but this is not a story. There is nothing behind this. Storytelling could have improved the quality, but the dialogues were not original (with the notable exception of Mordin), the problematics were simplified to the extrem from a psychological perspective (well, oedipian complex one time, ok; but almost everytime, it's a bit too much) and overall the lack of links between the small stories inside the game give the feeling of an accumulation and not of a cohesion. A movie or a book with this "story" would have been desastrous.
Of course, one can enjoy the game for the gameplay, there is nothing wrong with that. But enjoying a so void story and saying aftert that those that don't appreciate such empty story are just too dumb to understand it goes beyond the acceptable limit of pretensiousness and subjectivity.

[tonnactus]

Lumikki wrote...

What specialist? Did You read what I wrote about what ME2 story is about. It's not about finding specialist.

Wrong.It was about finding the best specialists in the galaxy.Watch the trailer on you tube where casey etc. stated this.
So a player would expect that they all are unique.What isnt the case.