10273 réponses à ce sujet

[Murmillos]

lol.. this thread. There are so much better things to do then hate this game. I hated it so much, I stopped playing long ago.

[KalosCast]

iakus wrote...

KalosCast wrote...

Gotta agree with Lusitanum on that opening Citadel bit. I remember just being horrendously confused the first time I played it... and then trying to just power through it as fast as possible, barely paying attention to what I was even doing.

That's Peragus Mining Facility levels of horrible opening sequence.

I'm a bit confused here.  What part of the Citadel are we talking about here?  I recall Shepard's first trip there as being one of the highlights of the game.

Really? You mean when you first got there and has this huge, sprawling area that's not terribly organized or streamlined, requires constant backtracking, and is absolutely saddled with loading screens (hidden and otherwise), and were introduced to a gigantic police force who you had to do their job for finally culminating in a bit of easily dismissible evidence that's one of the most commonly pointed out plot-holes in the first game, especially considering how everyone hypes up how hard Saren is going to be to nail? That was one of the highlights of the game?

If only all our standards were so low.

Modifié par KalosCast, 25 juin 2010 - 02:03 .

[sirandar]

Pocketgb wrote...

iakus wrote...

sirandar wrote...

I am in the midst of playing ME2 for the 3rd time. I have never played a game 3 times ..... I rarely even play twice. If it were not for the fact that I was kissing TIM's ass throughout the game, I would probably play again.

Sure there is a hell of a lot of room for improvement, but considering the current software development landscape, ME2 is a gem .... perhaps a miracle.


The only other game of the slightest interst to me is the new Witcher game.

Alpha Protocol is keeping me occupied right now.  Graphically inferior to either ME game, but it is fun watching how your choices end up shaping the game.  It's gonna keep me happy way longer than ME 2

I liked the Witcher as an rpg, but the language was so needlessly  foul and the "one night stand ccg"  really threw me, It's like they were milking the M rating fro all it was worth.  I dunno if i'm gonna bother with the sequel.  Which is a shame.

Other rpg I'm looking forward to more than ME 2 right now:  Fallout:  New Vegas (I really think Obsidian can pull it off) and  Deus Ex: Human Revolution (as long as it's more like  like 1 than 2!)

Witcher felt a bit 'forced' for me. "Hey what's up how are you? Feeling okay? Well let's make love!" "WHOA LASSIE"

Right now I'm playing the crap out of Morrowind, love me some Vvardenfell.

You are right about the Witcher milking the M rating   ....... I am hoping they mature as a developer and achieve balance.  I loved the atmosphere, characters and background of the Witcher and the freedom of the mature theme ...... but they didn't use the M rating very well and the gameplay wasn't great either.

I share your views on Fallout New Vegas. ........  Mask of the Betrayer had the potential to be the best game I ever played, but they never really developed the fantastic premise they made.

[Lumikki]

bjdbwea wrote...

I never claimed that to be the case. Even a rocket scientist might play a shooter now and then, just to have some fun. Might even enjoy that he doesn't need to think for a while. However, the fact remains, good RPGs most certainly are more intelligent games.

And good strategy games is more intelligent games than good RPG's. You point to be is?

Modifié par Lumikki, 25 juin 2010 - 02:46 .

[Iakus]

KalosCast wrote...

iakus wrote...

KalosCast wrote...

Gotta agree with Lusitanum on that opening Citadel bit. I remember just being horrendously confused the first time I played it... and then trying to just power through it as fast as possible, barely paying attention to what I was even doing.

That's Peragus Mining Facility levels of horrible opening sequence.

I'm a bit confused here.  What part of the Citadel are we talking about here?  I recall Shepard's first trip there as being one of the highlights of the game.

Really? You mean when you first got there and has this huge, sprawling area that's not terribly organized or streamlined, requires constant backtracking, and is absolutely saddled with loading screens (hidden and otherwise), and were introduced to a gigantic police force who you had to do their job for finally culminating in a bit of easily dismissible evidence that's one of the most commonly pointed out plot-holes in the first game, especially considering how everyone hypes up how hard Saren is going to be to nail? That was one of the highlights of the game?

you see a "... huge, sprawling area that's not terribly organized or streamlined"
 
I see: a frakking city in space!  Where humans are the new kids on the block.  Loading screens are a chore, but hey, I could deal.

You see " ...a gigantic police force who you had to do their job for finally culminating in a bit of easily dismissible evidence that's one of the most commonly pointed out plot-holes in the first game"

I see: a police force that's made up mainly of an alien species that was at war with humans little more than a generation ago, that still doesn't fully trust humans. And was under the authority of the Council which frankly doesn't believe you anyway.

You see "...culminating in a bit of easily dismissible evidence that's one of the most commonly pointed out plot-holes in the first game"

I see: a piece of futuristic recording technology which I'm assuming is either difficult to fake or easy to verify as authentic by futuristic alien technology.  I've watched and read enough sf to roll with it

KalosCast wrote...

That was one of the highlights of the game?

If only all our standards were so low

::paragon option::  Yes, for me, it is one of the highlights of the game.   I enjoyed meeting the Council, even if they don't believe your story.  I enjoyed tracking down the rogue AI.  I enjoyed talking to the Hanar preacher.  I enjoyed tracking down "the quarian".  I enjoyed meeting Conrad Verner (all three times)  I even enjoyed tracking down all those Keepers.   I especially liked being inducted as a Spectre.  In general, I like exploring new places and finding out what trouble I can get into. 

I'm sorry you can't appreciate it, but I do not consider it a sign of "low standards" given that I believe that ME 2 did not rise high enough to meet my standards

[Lumikki]

That's the point, your standard, my standard. It's all about players own perspective how they want to see it.

If you are let say X player, you like X games. If there is XY game, you only like X side of it. Then there is players who only like Y side. How ever, there is also players who like X and Y side. There is player who dislike X and Y.

Point here is that it's all about what you like. If you don't like something, then why bash it, why not just say I liked that and did not like that. Without starting to war between X is better than Y. Because that's just players prefered taste. Without comparing that A is better than B, because it has more X. Because thats totally realtive based what you like, as what's better for you, but not for others.

Then both A and B can have Z, but some say Z is better in A, while other says it's better in B. it's also up to players emotion to as hole, what's affecting the opinion and variations in Z.

There is no right or wrong side. Only opinions as what someone did like or not. And all that is based players own taste of games. When game has real problems, then most of players actually often agree with same stuff. If people argue about something, it's usually mark of disagreement and based players own liking, not as real problem.

Also A is what it is and B is what it is. Only the unknow C can be, I would want it to have more Q, Z and X and less Y.

Was that clear enough or confusing enough.

Modifié par Lumikki, 25 juin 2010 - 07:18 .

[bjdbwea]

Lumikki wrote...

And good strategy games is more intelligent games than good RPG's. You point to be is?

Someone claimed that shooters are equally "intelligent" games as RPGs. I proved that this is not the case. And yes, good strategy games are probably even more "intelligent". Your point is?

[Lumikki]

bjdbwea wrote...

Lumikki wrote...

And good strategy games is more intelligent games than good RPG's. You point to be is?

Someone claimed that shooters are equally "intelligent" games as RPGs. I proved that this is not the case. And yes, good strategy games are probably even more "intelligent". Your point is?

My point is my post above your post. You as rpg player should easyly see the point there.

Modifié par Lumikki, 25 juin 2010 - 07:16 .

[Orchomene]

Lusitanum wrote...

Right, because it was so much fun in games KotOR to get to a quest, and halfway through it realize that you're supposed to have 18 in Repair to fix HK-47 and get to know his story and unluck his special abilities. Only problem is that you can't because you're a Soldier and can't train your Repair that high up without completely screwing up your whole build <_<.

Of course it was fun to not be able to see all the small details of a game in one playthrough. That's not if unlocking special abilities for HK-47 was necessary to complete the game. A game that don't allow you to do all the side quests because you have choices that will eliminate one of the potential side quests is a good game. This kind of game gives an environment where your character can influence part of but not the whole. In ME2, you can do all the side quests in one playthrough with almost the same outcome whatever the par/ren choice is done. Only thing different is the amount of NPC that are loyal to you and even this aspect that is meant to be central in the game doesn't change many things in the end (outside of the case your PC dies). So, what's the point to do a second playthrough ? No point at all, besides the enjoyment that some have in the fights. But if you find the gameplay boring, there is nothing at all. That's what I call a broken game : a game whose only interest is the gameplay after the first playthrough.
I recently replayed Kotor 2 (with the restored content mod) and am still amazed by the amount of lements that are different from one playthrough to the other. I'm amazed by the writings, by the richness of the NPCs, by the originality of the story and the subtlety of the dialogues. Yet, a lot of people complain about the game and consider it broken and worse than Kotor 1 which lack originality besides a single plot twist.

[Pocketgb]

bjdbwea wrote...

Someone claimed that shooters are equally "intelligent" games as RPGs. I proved that this is not the case. And yes, good strategy games are probably even more "intelligent". Your point is?

What I stated was that a shooter can be just as 'intelligent' as an RPG (Bad Company 2), and that an RPG can be just as dumb as a shooter (Torchlight, Diablo-clones in general, and sadly most of Bioware's stuff).

This isn't to say that most shooters are just as 'intelligent' as most RPGs, of course.

[Orchomene]

nelly21 wrote...
It wasn't cleverness. I remember building my team up around two tanks and mages in BG 2. The only strategy was: send tanks to keep the mages and healer safe, buff up with the healer and spam every AoE ability my mages had. It wasn't strategy, it was reaction, and the fights were hardly dificult since you could pause.

In all fights ? Even in fights like :

• Kangaxx
• Twisted rune
• Drizzt

In many mage encounters, the enemy would have contengency with spell and melee protections. You could go and spam AoE spells, you would be killed in few rounds.

nelly21 wrote...
Furthermore, Mass Effect never claimed to be anything other that a shooter-rpg hybrid. So, comparing it to BG 2 is not applicable. When you compare it to similar games like Deus Ex or Alpha Protocol, you see that ME 2 is a quality product and the pinnacle of the genre. It isn't fanboyism, its fact. Alpha Protocol you can discard because it was atrocious, but lest we forget, Deus Ex was absolutely amazing. I adored it as did anyone who played it. But I defy you to make a comparison with even that masterpiece and claim that Deus Ex was better.

It is fanboyism. There is no fact behind that and I can find a lot of people thinking that ME2 is worse than AP. It's not because you say this is a fact that it is. It just shows that you can't even see how you are subjective.

[Jebel Krong]

Pocketgb wrote...

bjdbwea wrote...

Someone claimed that shooters are equally "intelligent" games as RPGs. I proved that this is not the case. And yes, good strategy games are probably even more "intelligent". Your point is?

What I stated was that a shooter can be just as 'intelligent' as an RPG (Bad Company 2), and that an RPG can be just as dumb as a shooter (Torchlight, Diablo-clones in general, and sadly most of Bioware's stuff).

This isn't to say that most shooters are just as 'intelligent' as most RPGs, of course.

i think that when anyone starts blathering about the relative 'intelligence' involved in pressing buttons in a sequence - which all games boil down to - they are on a loser. the intelligence is in the story/storytelling, and in that respect it depends on the game, not the genre. mass effect 1/2 are pretty good in that regard.

[Pocketgb]

I'm just saying that all genres can be catered to the stupid, and all genres can be catered to include depth.

[Vena_86]

Talking about intelligence might be a bit insulting. But the core of the idea is that there are games where you have to make choices, based on thought. If you make the right choices, it feels rewarding, if you make the wrong choices and can`t bother with exploring the problem, then its frustrating.
Since several years it has become a standard to water down every game in a matter, so that everything becomes extremely obvious and easy, to remove all potential frustration. However, at the same time a crucial part of games (digital or otherwise) is that the player has to overcome some kind of challenge and thus gets a feeling of reward and accomplishement. This is removed just as much as the frustrating moments, leading to a bland, replaceable experience. When a game is so easy that it plays it self (like Assassins Creed 2) then what is even the point of playing it?
Since most games these days are produced for casual gamers who are not familier with possible challanges and ideas how to over come them, it also changes all the other players who invest more time and interest into games. At some point you as a player prefer comfort over challenge, simply because you forgot how much more rewarding it can be to successfully use your brain.
For ME2 this for instance means, that your team member choice is not based on any thought, other than combat efficiency. You play commander Shepard, you are commanding the ship and the crew, yet you barely make any strategic or tactical choices that would define such a commander. You play more of another soldier then a commander. Instead of choosing the right specialist for the right job on your team, you just choose who you can better fight with and who fits your visual taste (Mirandas ass), leaving out a whole lot what scifi is all about at the same time.

Modifié par Vena_86, 25 juin 2010 - 09:52 .

[Pocketgb]

Vena_86 wrote...

*snippet*

When a game is so easy that it plays it self (like Assassins Creed 2) then what is even the point of playing it?

I thought about that same question years ago when I was playing Neverwinter Nights. It was probably the first game to show me that there's more to a game than its combat.

[Massadonious1]

Vena_86 wrote
At some point you as a player prefer comfort over challenge, simply because you forgot how much more rewarding it can be to successfully use your brain.

Perhaps because it's fun? I used my brain often while in college and continue to use it in my chosen profession. There are times when I don't particularly wish to keep it engaged, and that includes my leisure time.

you just choose who you can better fight with and who fits your visual taste (Mirandas ass), leaving out a whole lot what scifi is all about at the same time.

Kirk took Spock everywhere because he clearly had the most knowledge about other races, first contact situations, and whatnot. The only reason you took anyone that didn't fit your "visual taste" or had a combat proficiency that you liked in ME1 was because they could open doors or chests. I would hardly consider that to be "what sci-fi is all about"

Modifié par Massadonious1, 25 juin 2010 - 10:16 .

[bjdbwea]

Pocketgb wrote...

What I stated was that a shooter can be just as 'intelligent' as an RPG (Bad Company 2), and that an RPG can be just as dumb as a shooter (Torchlight, Diablo-clones in general, and sadly most of Bioware's stuff).

Okay, fair enough. OFP was an "intelligent" shooter, but actually I wouldn't call it a shooter, but a combat simulation. That a (bad) RPG can be just as dumb as a shooter, is true. You claim most of BioWare's stuff as prove, but that's not true. The BG games and NWN were certainly not. All games since then weren't dumb either, although they obviously became simpler through the years. But only ME 2 is truly dumbed down.

As I keep saying, not only as far as the gameplay is concerned. That could still be overlooked. But the story was dumbed down too. First, by splitting it into a dozen or more easily consumable short stories. Play them, forget them, next please. No need to remember anything throughout the course of the story. Nothing is really connected. That is all obvious catering to the casual gamer and the shooter market. Second, there's very little depth, very few things that could even lead you to thinking. Mordin's loyalty quest is a rare exception, and it should make clear what I mean. And third, the story itself is just very simple. Of course the ME 1 story wasn't the most complicated either, but it's way ahead of ME 2.

[Pocketgb]

bjdbwea wrote...

Pocketgb wrote...

What I stated was that a shooter can be just as 'intelligent' as an RPG (Bad Company 2), and that an RPG can be just as dumb as a shooter (Torchlight, Diablo-clones in general, and sadly most of Bioware's stuff).

Okay, fair enough. OFP was an "intelligent" shooter, but actually I wouldn't call it a shooter, but a combat simulation. That a (bad) RPG can be just as dumb as a shooter, is true. You claim most of BioWare's stuff as prove, but that's not true...

ME1: Defensive Power go
ME2: Indestructible cover mixed with horrendous enemy aim (even if your head is exposed the enemy will still hit the cover)
DA:O: Magin' Age: Borigins (plus potion duty (i.e. winning through games via a huge stock of heal potions))
KotOR: Straight up easy
JE: Dodgedodgedodgehitrepeat
BG2 is definitely an exception (even though soloing was quite easily possible). I can't comment too much on NWN since I just played a Fighter and stocked up on Heal potions.

All of Bioware's games since BG2 have fallen massively short on one end of the spectrum: they're either too imbalanced and broken, or they're way too easy.

Fortunately, combat is not what Bioware's known for.

Modifié par Pocketgb, 25 juin 2010 - 12:41 .

[Orchomene]

I tend to agree with Pocketgb. BG2 (only Shadow of Amn, Tales is too easy) and IWD require tactics in some fights.

From NWN up to ME2, the difficulty is hardly there if the PC is thoughtfully developed. Comparing with the Gothic series, even DAO is a fight fest. In Gothic you need to be careful and avoid rushing on the enemies, even small ones. There is only one fight that is very difficult to win if you are not careful and this fight is designed to be lost by default. And I have not even played a mage, only rogues and warriors.

[nelly21]

Orchomene wrote...

It is fanboyism. There is no fact behind that and I can find a lot of people thinking that ME2 is worse than AP. It's not because you say this is a fact that it is. It just shows that you can't even see how you are subjective.

So reviews are irrelevant? Sales numbers are irrelevant? Fan polls are irrelevant? It is easy to deny an argument when you deny the evidence. Also, you try to prove that my facts are not facts by saying you can find "lots of people" that think AP is better. Really? Where are they? They're certainly not contributing to sales numbers. You might have made it more believable by citing Deus Ex fans.

Look. As I've argued before, ME was never supposed to be anything like BG. Citing BG as being what ME should strive to be is ignoring Bioware's intent with this game. Dragon Age is BG's successor. Mass Effect is not.

[Iakus]

Lumikki wrote...

That's the point, your standard, my standard. It's all about players own perspective how they want to see it.

If you are let say X player, you like X games. If there is XY game, you only like X side of it. Then there is players who only like Y side. How ever, there is also players who like X and Y side. There is player who dislike X and Y.

Point here is that it's all about what you like. If you don't like something, then why bash it, why not just say I liked that and did not like that. Without starting to war between X is better than Y. Because that's just players prefered taste. Without comparing that A is better than B, because it has more X. Because thats totally realtive based what you like, as what's better for you, but not for others.

Then both A and B can have Z, but some say Z is better in A, while other says it's better in B. it's also up to players emotion to as hole, what's affecting the opinion and variations in Z.

There is no right or wrong side. Only opinions as what someone did like or not. And all that is based players own taste of games. When game has real problems, then most of players actually often agree with same stuff. If people argue about something, it's usually mark of disagreement and based players own liking, not as real problem.

Also A is what it is and B is what it is. Only the unknow C can be, I would want it to have more Q, Z and X and less Y.

Was that clear enough or confusing enough.

Um, I think so.  But to continue that analogy:

I really like X.  i don't espcially care for Y, but don't dislike it either.  In fact, sometimes I can even enjoy sitting down and venting frustrations playing Y.

Now, there's a company that in the past has been very very good at making X.  To the point where I would buy any X that had tehir name on it, it was tha good at making them.  Even their previous attept to fuse together XY turned out pretty good (imo)

Now their latest game was more like xY, but was supposed to be XY and was even a supposed continuation of the original XY.  I don't mind Y, if you can improve on it great.    But why the sudden dropoff from X  to x?  Bioware is good at X, why skimp on it? 

[nelly21]

Who said it was supposed to be XY? Did Bioware ever make the claim that ME 2 was going to be the rpgest rpg of all rpgs? YOU expected it to be that way. I can understand YOUR disappointment. But to take the leap and say ME sucks and they should change it because YOU don't like it is a bit ridiculous.

[Orchomene]

nelly21 wrote...

Orchomene wrote...

It is fanboyism. There is no fact behind that and I can find a lot of people thinking that ME2 is worse than AP. It's not because you say this is a fact that it is. It just shows that you can't even see how you are subjective.

So reviews are irrelevant? Sales numbers are irrelevant? Fan polls are irrelevant? It is easy to deny an argument when you deny the evidence. Also, you try to prove that my facts are not facts by saying you can find "lots of people" that think AP is better. Really? Where are they? They're certainly not contributing to sales numbers. You might have made it more believable by citing Deus Ex fans.

Look. As I've argued before, ME was never supposed to be anything like BG. Citing BG as being what ME should strive to be is ignoring Bioware's intent with this game. Dragon Age is BG's successor. Mass Effect is not.

Reviews are irrelevant, sales numbers are irrelevant and fan polls are irrelevant, of course. All are opinions and not facts. Saying the majority, even a very large majority, prefer one game over the other just says that the opinion of one game being better than the other is shared by a lot of people. It's hardly a fact. In Middle Ages, a very large majority thought that the Earth was flat. Yet, it was not a fact. Just opinions. You know, it happens very frequently that the majority is wrong. I don't say it's the case with ME2, I just say that there is no evidence whatsowever to say that ME2 is factualy better than AP. Opinions are not facts.
About BG2, I was not the one introducing the game in the discussion and was just commenting about your point. If you don't think that BG2 doesn't belong to the discussion, then don't write about it. That's simple.

[Orchomene]

nelly21 wrote...

Who said it was supposed to be XY? Did Bioware ever make the claim that ME 2 was going to be the rpgest rpg of all rpgs? YOU expected it to be that way. I can understand YOUR disappointment. But to take the leap and say ME sucks and they should change it because YOU don't like it is a bit ridiculous.

ME is part a RPG but ME2 is not at all an RPG, not to the slightest element. There is no RPG gameplay, no choice involved. Having cool cinematics and dialogues do not make a game a RPG. Putting skills neither. Otherwise, Borderlands would be a RPG, or Bioshock. Or Diablo. But besides sometimes the name, those are not RPG.

[Lusitanum]

tonnactus wrote...

I dont know what you mean.

This player played alone and krogans still went down as fast as in the second game.

Good for him. And my point still stands.

tonnactus wrote...

Too bad that this is all they had to offer instead of a challenge. They not even use singularity,only warp and are hard to kill.

Because getting yourself killed because you gravitated somewhere that killed you instantly or getting stuck on a piece of scenery is so much better and not at all cheap. It was already annoying when Matriarch Benezia was able to kill you by stunning your character who limped a bit off the rails and... died because he went out of bounds or something.

tonnactus wrote...

And that means they are all the same? How are the biotics in the second game different from eachother? You have to explain me that. The differences biotics have in the first game: Singularity dont work on geth armatures and colossi.

Advanced and master lift did. Stasis was the only biotic that affected drones.
Warp was the only power that affected damage protection
So when i compare this with the biotics in the second game, the ones of the first are far more different and have specific uses.

Yes, the ones in the second game even have different abilities like lifting really heavy enemies or a group of them or greatly weaken the defenses of an enemy and yet somehow they're still less varied than the ones in the first that had one use and one use only (mostly converging on the same thing half of the time).

tonnactus wrote...

First: Miranda is a sentinel so it makes a lot more sense to compare with kaidan. You were also wrong that biotics in the first game are all the same.
Both have overload,kaidans is just better and not a crapped version of it with just a 3 m radius at best.
And slam...
A version of lift/pull,that then throws only one enemy to the ground and only when the enemy dont have any "protection".

Who cares if Miranda is a Sentinel or not, the point still stands if you apply the same thought process to characters like Jack or Samara: each power has a different use.

And yeah, Slam is a version of Lift/Pull because it moves people. That's brilliant, thanks for the insight. Have you ever tried combining a Slam with a Pull? The results may surprise you.

tonnactus wrote...

Lol. Infiltrator with warp ammo has all
defenses covered just as an adept with energy drain.

If you need
an proof, watch this:




And
this a low level character compared to the solo video of
Mass Effect.

OK, seriously? Never start a comment with a "lol" again. It hurts just to look.

And can a Infiltrator with Warp Ammo Pull people? Use Singularities? Knock out Shields? Shrugh off damage like a Soldier?

The Infiltrator is a Jack of All Trades, he can do pretty much everything but there are still things that other classes can do better than him. Versatility is not  invicibility.

sirandar wrote...

Pocketgb wrote...

iakus
wrote...

I liked the Witcher as an rpg, but the language was so
needlessly  foul and the "one night stand ccg"  really threw me, It's
like they were milking the M rating fro all it was worth.  I dunno if
i'm gonna bother with the sequel.  Which is a shame.

Witcher
felt a bit 'forced' for me. "Hey what's up how are you? Feeling okay?
Well let's make love!" "WHOA LASSIE"

You are right
about the Witcher milking the M rating   ....... I am hoping they mature
as a developer and achieve balance.  I loved the atmosphere, characters
and background of the Witcher and the freedom of the mature theme
...... but they didn't use the M rating very well and the gameplay
wasn't great either.

Have to agree with all of you. Sometimes it looks like when a game tries to be "mature" it might do a few things that are really unique, but then ends up falling into juvenile territory all over again. Some choices and themes of The Witcher were definitely thought-provoking and intended for mature audiences, but then you had the forced foul language, like that Dwarf Smith that responded with your question about racism with a stupid "Why do ****** go into *****. It's the natural order of things."

That just made me roll my eyes . Foul language has its place (and I think games like ME2 and Fallout 3 actually did a pretty good job with it), but using it just for its sake only makes you look like a kid who just found a couple of new swear words and just has to try them to make himself look big.