bjdbwea wrote...
Indeed. Too bad it was so easy to gain his loyalty. Just a switch, like in ME 2. Do this one favor, and suddenly he does everything for you.
SSV Enterprise wrote...
I don't remember that. Are you making stuff up?
Someone want to drink somthing.But is only allowed to do to that by using biotic abilities.But isnt strong enough to do that this way and decide to do it the ordninary way. The "tough teacher"(a trained turian officer) beat him/her with his fists in the face. Did you have such "tough teachers" in the school?Yeah, he had a tough teacher. Big deal.
No, he was a teenager.
Terror_K wrote...
Now, I'm not saying that I'm right and you're wrong here exactly... just that I think this is why we tend to clash a little on this subject. How different people view depth is entirely personal after all.
bjdbwea wrote...
I have to disagree on the "biting off way more than they can chew" part. I have no doubt that BioWare would be able to develop a proper RPG system. As sceptical as I am about BioWare/EA now, I am still sure their developers (the people who actually make the games) could do better if they were allowed to.
tonnactus wrote...
Someone want to drink somthing.But is only allowed to do to that by using biotic abilities.But isnt strong enough to do that this way and decide to do it the ordninary way. The "tough teacher"(a trained turian officer) beat him/her with his fists in the face. Did you have such "tough teachers" in the school?No, he was a teenager.
Teenager--> thirteen to nineteen. This could mean that he and others start a jump zero when they are kids.
Modifié par Pocketgb, 24 juillet 2010 - 11:27 .
tonnactus wrote...
Biotic Acclimation and Temperance Training[/b], or BAaT (pronounced 'baht') was a programme set up in 2160 to train potential human biotics. Children who had been exposed to element zero and showed signs of biotic potential worth augmenting were sent to Gagarin Station (Jump Zero) by a company called Conatix Industries for training, with support from the Alliance.
Most of the children sent to Jump Zero were teenagers, who
nicknamed the programme 'Brain Camp'. Anxious for non-interference, the
authorities made a concerted effort to separate the teenagers from their
families, by convincing them that biotic abilities—and therefore their
own children—were dangerous
Someone want to drink somthing.But is only allowed to do to that by using biotic abilities.But isnt strong enough to do that this way and decide to do it the ordninary way. The "tough teacher"(a trained turian officer) beat him/her with his fists in the face. Did you have such "tough teachers" in the school?
Teenager--> thirteen to nineteen. This could mean that he and others start a jump zero when they are kids.
SSV Enterprise wrote...
No, Vyrnus broke the girl's arm with a single hit. He didn't continuously beat the students. Not like what Jack went through as a little girl.
Kaidan was born in 2151. BAaT hired turian mercenaries in 2166. At a minimum Kaidan went to Jump Zero at the age of 15. Not a little kid like Jack.
iakus wrote...
I don't know if this debate is over "whose childhood was worse" but i think we can say that Kaiden's was definitely "not ideal" while Jack's was "Completely over-the-top lousy" Much about ME 2 is over the top.
Pocketgb wrote...
Probably in response to people considering ME1 'tame'. Win some, lose some.
Modifié par bjdbwea, 25 juillet 2010 - 10:19 .
Terror_K wrote...
Il Divo wrote...
Terror_K wrote...
The evidence I've shown are games that are classed as RPGs despite the fact they don't fit your definition, as well as the fact that you've yet to come up with the name of a single CRPG that has what you claim RPGs have to have while not having a ruleset and statistically based form of character progression governed by numbers. You claim that in order for a game to be an RPG you have to be able to craft and define your character beyond building their stats (i.e. their personality), and yet games like ADOM, The Witcher and many of the SSI AD&D titles and other RPGs from that era don't have this. It's like you're saying almost every CRPG that was made prior to Baldur's Gate isn't an RPG at all.
You have not shown that they are actually role-playing games besides being marked under the title. So please, stop telling me classification is relevant. Let us, you and I, use logic. And as beings of logic, explain to me what the relationship is between numbers/mechanics and actual role-play. If you can do so, I withdraw all claims against your classification.
For starters, they're "marked under the title" for a reason. All computer/video games that are classified as RPGs and ever have been consist of a statistical ruleset governing them and a character progression system. They don't always have character roleplaying beyond gaining experience and leveling up, but this is the common factor they all share. This is what defines them. Now, I suppose you could say that it shouldn't be this way, and that they shouldn't be dubbed as RPGs unless they involve some form of roleplaying, but nonetheless this is the way it is. Maybe one day that will change... after all, for the longest time Pluto was a planet, despite not quite adhering to the definition. But if you read old game magazines they will still be classified as RPGs in them, just like Pluto will still be called a planet in old encyclopaedias. Whether you agree or not that is the aspect which the gaming industy has used to define an RPG.
Now, that said, there is a certain degree of stats and numbers and rule-based RPG mechanics that link to roleplaying. Usually in a P&P RPG you try and define what kind of character you'd like to play, and then you look to the classes, species, skills, talents, etc. to help form that character. If you want to make a dashing rogue, then you go with a thief/rogue-based class, giving them a high dexterity and cunning/charm/whatever dictates personality and specialise them in using a sword. You want a tough-as-nails burly drawf you make a fighter/warrior who uses a two-handed battle axe, has a high strength and constitution (and probably a low intelligence and wisdom), and build him so that he can wear the best armour and yet not be too hindered by it. In other words, the statistical build and design of your character helps you roleplay them by complimenting their personality.
The rules supporting it all determine what you can and can't do in the universe you're set in, shaping your environment, and determining how successful you are based on your other characters' attributes. If you need to go for a swim it is the rules and your character's build combined that determine how well your dwarven fighter will do. They're needed to properly roleplay to give your character strengths, weaknesses, boundaries, limitations and structure.
On top of it all, character progression through gaining experience and/or leveling up helps your character grow and improve, rather than remain static. If your character wants to reach certain goals he/she is going to need to be ready to face that which stands between him/her and that goal, and at the start they're probably not going to be able to do that. While some people will simply try and build the best character for the job, others will roleplay their character. They'll have a picture in their mind of what their character is like, then look ahead at how to build their character further as they progress, not always picking "the best" skills/talents/feats, etc. but the one that best suits their envisioned character. Without this form of growth and progression, a character is static and never really improves or has anywhere to grow or expand.
Are these aspects absolutely needed to roleplay a character? Not necessarily I suppose, but that depends on how exactly you plan to go about it. Like creating a character for a story you don't need these aspects to design them, shape them and give them personality. But when you're taking them into a world where you don't have full control of what happens and there are rules and regulations that determine all that goes on there, you need aspects that govern your ability to function within that world. To a certain degree, the stats transfer the identity of your character into a form that can inhabit this world, and give them meaning and purpose in it. What they say and do and feel is defined by you, but how they succeed, fail, function and progress is determined by the stats.
tonnactus wrote...
Thats right,the effort for that could be better.But the results of doing him this favour is real loyality in the sense of world, in a situation where it was really tested. But the stupid high school girl catfight between miranda and subject zero...
Just horrible. I thought shepardt work with the best, professionals who are adults...
Terror_K wrote...
For starters, they're "marked under the title" for a reason. All computer/video games that are classified as RPGs and ever have been consist of a statistical ruleset governing them and a character progression system. They don't always have character roleplaying beyond gaining experience and leveling up, but this is the common factor they all share. This is what defines them. Now, I suppose you could say that it shouldn't be this way, and that they shouldn't be dubbed as RPGs unless they involve some form of roleplaying, but nonetheless this is the way it is. Maybe one day that will change... after all, for the longest time Pluto was a planet, despite not quite adhering to the definition. But if you read old game magazines they will still be classified as RPGs in them, just like Pluto will still be called a planet in old encyclopaedias. Whether you agree or not that is the aspect which the gaming industy has used to define an RPG.
Now, that said, there is a certain degree of stats and numbers and rule-based RPG mechanics that link to roleplaying. Usually in a P&P RPG you try and define what kind of character you'd like to play, and then you look to the classes, species, skills, talents, etc. to help form that character. If you want to make a dashing rogue, then you go with a thief/rogue-based class, giving them a high dexterity and cunning/charm/whatever dictates personality and specialise them in using a sword. You want a tough-as-nails burly drawf you make a fighter/warrior who uses a two-handed battle axe, has a high strength and constitution (and probably a low intelligence and wisdom), and build him so that he can wear the best armour and yet not be too hindered by it. In other words, the statistical build and design of your character helps you roleplay them by complimenting their personality.
The rules supporting it all determine what you can and can't do in the universe you're set in, shaping your environment, and determining how successful you are based on your other characters' attributes. If you need to go for a swim it is the rules and your character's build combined that determine how well your dwarven fighter will do. They're needed to properly roleplay to give your character strengths, weaknesses, boundaries, limitations and structure.
On top of it all, character progression through gaining experience and/or leveling up helps your character grow and improve, rather than remain static. If your character wants to reach certain goals he/she is going to need to be ready to face that which stands between him/her and that goal, and at the start they're probably not going to be able to do that. While some people will simply try and build the best character for the job, others will roleplay their character. They'll have a picture in their mind of what their character is like, then look ahead at how to build their character further as they progress, not always picking "the best" skills/talents/feats, etc. but the one that best suits their envisioned character. Without this form of growth and progression, a character is static and never really improves or has anywhere to grow or expand.
Are these aspects absolutely needed to roleplay a character? Not necessarily I suppose, but that depends on how exactly you plan to go about it. Like creating a character for a story you don't need these aspects to design them, shape them and give them personality. But when you're taking them into a world where you don't have full control of what happens and there are rules and regulations that determine all that goes on there, you need aspects that govern your ability to function within that world. To a certain degree, the stats transfer the identity of your character into a form that can inhabit this world, and give them meaning and purpose in it. What they say and do and feel is defined by you, but how they succeed, fail, function and progress is determined by the stats.
Modifié par Il Divo, 25 juillet 2010 - 11:49 .
-The fact that it didn’t happen until you finished their loyalty missions is what bugs me. Same thing with Tali and Legion. These so called conflicts only happen when you finish both of the pairs loyalty mission. Yet you need to have a high paragon or renegade level to resolve these issues to keep them both loyal?JaegerBane wrote...
tonnactus wrote...
Thats right,the effort for that could be better.But the results of doing him this favour is real loyality in the sense of world, in a situation where it was really tested. But the stupid high school girl catfight between miranda and subject zero...
Just horrible. I thought shepardt work with the best, professionals who are adults...
I'm not really sure what was so horrible about the sequence. I thought it was done quite well - both women are so strong in their opinions of what happened that neither are willing to bend, and the fact that they're total opposites heightened the tension.
Frankly, I would have found it somewhat suspicious if nothing actually occured with them two on the ship. It's be the character equivalent of throwing a petrol on a fire without anything happening.
Il Divo wrote...
Ah, now this is much better. Thank you. Your point is well-made. I disagree with pretty much everything you said, but it is well made regardless. Good thing we have the next hundred pages or so to argue it.
Now I won't ever dispute you on what the gaming market calls an RPG.
I will however always dispute the logic in such a choice. Your underlined comment presents the exact problem. There is absolutely nothing wrong with enjoying statistical based combat. But how can we call it a "Role-playing game"? It defies its own definition. If the gaming industry started marketing the FPS genre as "Racing Games", are shooters really now racing games? I would say no. RPG's are no different. I will refer back to my Warcraft III example: how can Warcraft III be a role-playing game with no role-playing? It's baffling to me.
Another well-made point. I will even help you by citing skills such as intimidate, diplomacy, etc to show that the rules do have some effect on our role-playing opportunities. But as before, I still disagree. Can statistics help us "define" our characters? Yes. Are they necessary? Absolutely not. Remember, pen and paper games require imagination. It's not much different to do away completely with statistics and tell your group "I'm a dashing rogue, or a fighter/warrior". You'll find that personalities ultimately go farther in defining our characters than what we have written on our paper (not to imply I don't enjoy d20 combat). The decisions I make with my dashing rogue ultimately are more important than watching him stealth in combat (which I know can be done regardless).
True, true. But then, keep in mind we also have a Dungeon Master who is there to guide us. Often times my DM may buff/nerf my character based on how his performance is within the group. Let's imagine a scenario in which we never rolled a d20. Instead, the DM cycles through combat assuming we "kill" everything and relies on the interactive story. The DM ultimately controls the world. If I decide to make a Wizard who is good at swimming, my DM may say 'yes' or 'no' based on his background, traits, etc. Statistics are helpful, but not necessary to define our characters' strengths and weaknesses.
But do you not see what I'm saying with the bold? Let us consider our scenarios and see what they mean for role-playing.
If we take your scenario for what a role-playing game is (strictly numbers), then role-playing becomes an impossibility. Role-playing amounts to nothing more than choosing a class and skills, etc at which point we might almost qualify Modern Warfare 2. The truth is we can't role-play with just numbers. Role-playing is essentially an interactive story, which is why most JRPG's don't qualify. Even if it's the best story in the world, if I am simply watching the events as they happen with absolutely no input, how can we call it role-playing? Above all, I need to have choice.
Now, let's consider my scenario: a game relying on character personality and imagination but with no combat. Yes, I will concede that the statistics and some skills (diplomacy, bluff, etc) can be useful in developing our characters' appearance, equipment, etc. But ultimately they are not necessary. With few hurdles, I can still role-play almost any scenario imaginable without a single number to consider. In your scenario, role-playing is absolutely impossible. In my scenario, albeit with a little more difficulty role-playing is almost unaffected. That is the difference, I think, in citing Mass Effect 1 as an RPG than Mass Effect 2 based on combat mechanics.
Pocketgb wrote...
But you are right: RPGs weren't known for actual role-playing. That's when Bioware came and gave us Baldur's Gate. That's where things changed, that's where standards were set, that's why so many other developers are basing their games off of the concepts Bioware have pioneered.
Orchomene wrote...
Roleplaying is about assuming entirely the role of a character. This character has specific abilities and may have better talents than you or worse. When you remove the rules and characteristic you then replace all that by the arbitrariness of the GM and your character will be essentially only you with some cosmetic differences and put inside another environment. An adept in ME2 is a better shooter than a soldier if the player of the adapt is a better shooter player than the layer of the soldier. This is not what you should expect from a RPG.
Darth Drago wrote...
-The fact that it didn’t happen until you finished their loyalty missions is what bugs me. Same thing with Tali and Legion. These so called conflicts only happen when you finish both of the pairs loyalty mission. Yet you need to have a high paragon or renegade level to resolve these issues to keep them both loyal?
Miranda and Jack have been at each others throats since they met and yet they have this fight because you do their loyalty missions? Why not have it after Jack has learned about the location for hers and read more about Cerberus and what they have been doing? That makes a lot more sense than the sudden fight after their loyalty missions are done.
With Tali and Legion again their fight just happens after you finish the loyalty missions for them. In this pair for their fight its even worse since neither of them even acknowledge each others presence throughout the game up to this poorly written fight. Not like there is much of the game left after you get Legion which is another problem on its own. “Hey lets give the player one last companion just before the final mission.”
Jacob has an issue with Thane being an assassin but nothing ever comes up on this between them despite a potential conflict between them. Other potential conflicts or interactions at least, between your team members on the ship could and should have been added. Instead we get a group of individuals instead of an actual team.
For a game that centers about the recruiting and these individuals working as a team it sure doesn’t feel like it. It feels more like a game where Shepard is the host of a tv show. “Hello, welcome to the Shepard show. Today we’ll be solving father son issues with our guests Jacob and Thane.”
Modifié par Il Divo, 27 juillet 2010 - 02:16 .
Modifié par bjdbwea, 26 juillet 2010 - 09:03 .
bjdbwea wrote...
At least the background of your Shepard was mentioned repeatedly by NPCs in ME 1. That was great, exactly the kind of thing that creates atmosphere and immersion. It was not mentioned once by NPCs in ME 2, only in emails and one distinct news for each background.
JaegerBane wrote...
I'm not really sure what was so horrible about the sequence. I thought it was done quite well - both women
bjdbwea wrote...
Right, I forgot that. My mistake, and I take that criticism back. I maintain that it's too little in comparison to ME 1, and even there I would have liked for it to play a larger role.
Modifié par Il Divo, 26 juillet 2010 - 10:04 .
bjdbwea wrote...
At least the background of your Shepard was mentioned repeatedly by NPCs in ME 1. That was great, exactly the kind of thing that creates atmosphere and immersion. It was not mentioned once by NPCs in ME 2, only in emails and one distinct news for each background.
Il Divo wrote...
Keep in mind that by Mass Effect 2, Shepard's reputation has encompassed far more than the "butcher of Torfan" or whichever background you chose. .
Ce sujet est fermé
Retour en haut
