10273 réponses à ce sujet

[haberman13]

Kai Hohiro wrote...

haberman13 wrote...

Unfortunately the Gear of War fans consider immersion to be "nerdy".  Really anything that reminds them of an RPG turns them off, as evidenced by the proponents of ME2 (generalizing here).

Yes you're massively generalizing in a way that simply isn't true. A gamer that loves a well designed shooter can love a well designed RPG just as much. I love playing Gears with a friend, but I also love playing Mount&Blade by myself.
And almost all gamers I know even those "gears" people love immersion in any game. Immersion simply means being absorbed and focused in the game. Riding elevators and crashing your car down mountains don't add to that.

For me, immersion is the key to absorbing me into the world.  ME2 is terrible at suspending my disbelief by constantly reminding us that this is more/less an arcade game with "levels" and loading/warping to the next level.

ME2 was pretty much the best game of Bioware (except for Shattered Steel) immersion wise, since it had far lessgame flow breaking moment than previous games. And immersion is actually one of the reasons I massivly prefer ME2 over ME1.

For example:
At the beginning I had nothing against the elevators, but after awhile they did get tedious. Now the original intent was to mask the loading screen, which in theory is a fine idea. But due to the nature of the elevators, they *massivly* increased the load times for people with faster PCs. In ME2 the load screen last only a few seconds for me, which is far less immersion breaking than the tedious elevator rides where I would step away from the game and do something else.

And let's not even mention the thousands of tons of armor and weapons you carried around or found in random crates.

I think you and I would define "immersion" differently.

To me immersion means creating a feeling that you ARE the character, moments that break you out of phsyical control (or 3rd person perspective ala elevators) are what ruin the immersion (IMO).

So the loading screen was one huge "you are playing a game right now" immersion breaker, same with the paragraph summarzing what you did on that "level".

To me ME2 was one huge immersion breaker compared to ME1 where I felt I was seeing the world through Shepard's eyes.

Modifié par haberman13, 13 août 2010 - 04:41 .

[bjdbwea]

Kai Hohiro wrote...

ME2 was pretty much the best game of Bioware (except for Shattered Steel) immersion wise, since it had far less game flow breaking moment than previous games. And immersion is actually one of the reasons I massivly prefer ME2 over ME1.

The things you call "breaking of game flow" are exactly the things that add immersion.

What you call "game flow", I call railroading, which is exactly the opposite of being immersing.

The reason you think it's BioWare's best game, is exactly because it's so different to their previous games that RPG fans liked, and because it offers much less immersion.

Modifié par bjdbwea, 13 août 2010 - 04:45 .

[haberman13]

bjdbwea wrote...

Kai Hohiro wrote...

ME2 was pretty much the best game of Bioware (except for Shattered Steel) immersion wise, since it had far less game flow breaking moment than previous games. And immersion is actually one of the reasons I massivly prefer ME2 over ME1.

The things you call "breaking of game flow" are exactly the things that add immersion.

What you call "game flow", I call railroading, which is exactly the opposite of being immersive.

The reason you think it's BioWare's best game, is exactly because it's so different to their previous games that RPG fans liked.

Yeah, pretty much.

Different strokes ....

Gears players have different perspectives, I personally tried Gears for 10 minutes with a friend and we both uninstalled after recognizing how awful the combat/game was (again, pure IMO).

Meh, PC games are just different, Gears on PC felt like a console game (the auto-aim shooting primarily, just hold down 'shoot' until the zerg rush mobs are dead, kind of like ME2)

Modifié par haberman13, 13 août 2010 - 04:50 .

[bjdbwea]

haberman13 wrote...

Meh, PC games are just different, Gears on PC felt like a console game (the auto-aim shooting primarily, just hold down 'shoot' until the zerg rush mobs are dead).

That has to be part of it. If you have played for example the Jedi Knight series on PC, it's very hard to understand what people see in ME 2 combat. The JK games years ago offered weapons and powers, perfect controls, combat in three dimensions. What's a cover-based shooter against that? Nothing.

ME 2 has the feature that you can control your companions, but it's a) not very convenient to use and completely unnecessary because the game is easy anyway.

Modifié par bjdbwea, 13 août 2010 - 04:54 .

[Kai Hohiro]

haberman13 wrote...

bjdbwea wrote...

Kai Hohiro wrote...

ME2 was pretty much the best game of Bioware (except for Shattered Steel) immersion wise, since it had far less game flow breaking moment than previous games. And immersion is actually one of the reasons I massivly prefer ME2 over ME1.

The things you call "breaking of game flow" are exactly the things that add immersion.

What you call "game flow", I call railroading, which is exactly the opposite of being immersive.

The reason you think it's BioWare's best game, is exactly because it's so different to their previous games that RPG fans liked.

Yeah, pretty much.

Different strokes ....

Gears players have different perspectives, I personally tried Gears for 10 minutes with a friend and we both uninstalled after recognizing how awful the combat/game was (again, pure IMO).

Meh, PC games are just different, Gears on PC felt like a console game (the auto-aim shooting primarily)

Again, love these generalizations. I have played more and older RPGs than both of you combined. I played RPGs when the grafics were little more than a bunch of white lines on a black background and I had to type my combat commands.
And still you try to shoehorn me into a Gears crowd.
People have different tastes, but you people truly act as if you were some kind of "superior gamer" or smarter because you enjoy adding 1d6 of fire damage to your sword. Things like that don't make me feel smarter, they insult me for wasting my time with miniscule nonsense like that.

I own every single Bioware game, so don't tell me I only like ME2 because it's not a  "real" RPG or whatever. Also you act like you people were Bioware fans from the first hour. Now I ask, has either of you even played Shattered Steel?

You act as if you're some oldschool PC gamer, when you're not, you don't know jack****.

Modifié par Kai Hohiro, 13 août 2010 - 05:04 .

[haberman13]

Kai Hohiro wrote...

haberman13 wrote...

bjdbwea wrote...

Kai Hohiro wrote...

ME2 was pretty much the best game of Bioware (except for Shattered Steel) immersion wise, since it had far less game flow breaking moment than previous games. And immersion is actually one of the reasons I massivly prefer ME2 over ME1.

The things you call "breaking of game flow" are exactly the things that add immersion.

What you call "game flow", I call railroading, which is exactly the opposite of being immersive.

The reason you think it's BioWare's best game, is exactly because it's so different to their previous games that RPG fans liked.

Yeah, pretty much.

Different strokes ....

Gears players have different perspectives, I personally tried Gears for 10 minutes with a friend and we both uninstalled after recognizing how awful the combat/game was (again, pure IMO).

Meh, PC games are just different, Gears on PC felt like a console game (the auto-aim shooting primarily)

Again, love these generalizations. I have played more and older RPGs than both of you combined. I played RPGs when the grafics were little more than a bunch of white lines on a black background.
And still you try to shoehorn me into a Gears crowd.
People have different tastes, but you people truly act as if you were some kind of "superior gamer" or smarter because you enjoy adding 1d6 of fire damage to your sword. Things like that don't make me feel smarter, they insult me for wasting my time with miniscule nonsense like that.

I own every single Bioware game, so don't tell me I only like ME2 because it's not a  "real" RPG or whatever. Also you act like you people were Bioware fans from the first hour. Now I ask, has either of you even played Shattered Steel?

You act as if you're some oldschool PC gamer, when you're not, you don't know jack****.

Didn't mean offense, the Gears stuff wasn't directed at you necessarily; rather the argument you represent.

I would argue you aren't an RPG fan if 1d6 fire damage to a sword is a waste of your time, that is the bread and butter of what us RPG-nerds love (stat increases, upgrades, magic, powering up, etc).

If you like Gears you simply enjoy something I don't, NBD.

You owning every Bioware game is irrelevant if your favorite of them is ME2, what that says to me is you aren't really a Bioware fan but rather a shooter/gears fan.  Again, no big deal, I argue against that opinion simply because I consider it to be what has converted the ME series into Gears of War which is a game I don't like.

Ergo, ME has been ruined for me because of the tastes you represent; neither is superior to the other.

Different strokes ...

[Kai Hohiro]

haberman13 wrote...
Didn't mean offense, the Gears stuff wasn't directed at you necessarily; rather the argument you represent.

I would argue you aren't an RPG fan if 1d6 fire damage to a sword is a waste of your time, that is the bread and butter of what us RPG-nerds love (stat increases, upgrades, magic, powering up, etc).

If you like Gears you simply enjoy something I don't, NBD.

You owning every Bioware game is irrelevant if your favorite of them is ME2, what that says to me is you aren't really a Bioware fan but rather a shooter/gears fan.  Again, no big deal, I argue against that opinion simply because I consider it to be what has converted the ME series into Gears of War which is a game I don't like.

Ergo, ME has been ruined for me because of the tastes you represent; neither is superior to the other.

Different strokes ...

So again you're truly a Bioware fan because you like BG, but I'm not eventhough I loved Shattered Steel that came before BG? What kind of logic is that?

And every person who enjoys Gears or Uncharted or any kind of third person shooter has to be a frat boy that can't understand the fine nuances of a RPG or what?

And no, "1d6 of fire damage" or such things have NEVER defined RPGs to me. I'm an oldschool Pen&Paper player and me and my group made our own RPG system and you know what we got rid of? All those ****load of die rolls, enchantments and everything else which distracted from story, dialogue and action(kind of like ME2 if you think about it). The system we made reduces characters to a bare minimum of stats and skills and most happens through...roleplaying *gasp*.

So don't tell me micromanaging the enchantments on your longsword has anything to do with real RPGs, because it doesnt.

So yeah the "Real Hardcore" RPG players can also love Mass Effect 2, who would've guessed it?

And I love Baldur's Gate, but that doesnt mean I cant like Gears or Street Fighter or Super Mario Brothers. 
Just because you play nothing BUT RPGs doesnt mean other people cant play other games and still enjoy RPGs just as much.

I can get behind someone having a different taste, but not when someone thinks their taste is more superior, smarter,  better, more hardcore, immersive or whatever.

Modifié par Kai Hohiro, 13 août 2010 - 05:32 .

[Il Divo]

haberman13 wrote...

I would argue you aren't an RPG fan if 1d6 fire damage to a sword is a waste of your time, that is the bread and butter of what us RPG-nerds love (stat increases, upgrades, magic, powering up, etc).

I'm sorry, but this comment is extremely elitist and I must agree with Kai Hohiro. If all it takes for you to consider a game an RPG is statistics, then you may as well be doing Calculus. My dnd group for example enjoys combat, but we much prefer experiencing the story, making decisions, and exploring our characters' personalities. Combat is only used as a break from this.

Mass Effect 2 could have been entirely shooter mechanics (with no leveling up) and I would still consider it just as much of an RPG if it kept the same story, characters, and decision-making. I don't base my RPGs on meaningless numbers. And this goes for Baldur's Gate, or any other d20 based system. Statistics are not why I consider those games to be RPGs. In fact, I personally thought that translating the d20 system into a video game was a terrible idea.   

You owning every Bioware game is irrelevant if your favorite of them is ME2, what that says to me is you aren't really a Bioware fan but rather a shooter/gears fan.  Again, no big deal, I argue against that opinion simply because I consider it to be what has converted the ME series into Gears of War which is a game I don't like.

You liking Mass Effect and hating Mass Effect 2 is no different. In many ways, you are not a Bioware fan but a shooter fan. Shall we go down the topic of fully-voiced Shepard, tps combat, or the dialogue wheel? These were all breaks from previous Bioware style and introduced in Mass Effect. Mass Effect 2 is my favorite Bioware RPG as well, barring Kotor. I fail to see why because you did not enjoy the game that it is immediately not worthy of Bioware. When Mass Effect was released, I felt it was Bioware's worst game yet I never felt the need to call out every Mass Effect fan in such a manner.

Modifié par Il Divo, 13 août 2010 - 06:02 .

[haberman13]

Fair enough.

I didn't like ME2 because they removed key elements of the genre I like the most.  I'm not saying I'm superior or anything else, rather, they changed ME2 enough that it no longer appeals to me.

I applaud you for liking a variety of genres, but your analytical skills are too prepped for argument rather than understanding.

To grok what I'm saying you need to accept that you both are anomalies.  You played P&P RPGs and don't necessarily like the dice rolling/upgrading of equipment part. (in fact consider them a "waste of time")

A lot people in the "ME2 is amazing" camp are Gears-brahs... that doesn't mean you are.

Being so quick to offense will only lead you down the path of being wrong, instead of understanding.

Do you at least see where the ME2 criticism comes from?  Does the genre shift justify some complaint?

Modifié par haberman13, 13 août 2010 - 06:28 .

[Il Divo]

haberman13 wrote...

To grok what I'm saying you need to accept that you both are anomalies.  You played P&P RPGs and don't necessarily like the dice rolling/upgrading of equipment part. (in fact consider them a "waste of time")

Really? Tell me, statistically what is your basis for this statement? What is your sample size? What sorts of questions did you ask the subjects? What was there experience with rpg mechanics? How did they each define rpg? So many things to consider.

You have absolutely no basis under which to say that all P&P gamers prefer statistics and inventory. I personally find those elements quite shallow in comparison to developing a detailed back story and my character's motivation. This is the basis for what you know as the 'power gamers'. I enjoy combat, but personally look down on a game focusing entirely around it. I know people who play with 14 different supplemental handbooks and engage in nothing but combat scenarios. I find the notion that they are "role-playing" to be laughable at best.

Tell me, do you consider World of Warcraft to be more of an rpg than Mass Effect or Kotor? 

A lot people in the "ME2 is amazing" camp are Gears-brahs... that doesn't mean you are.

You find idiots wherever you go. I've been on the Elder Scrolls board. You would find 'idiots' defending Oblivion. And you would even find idiots defending Morrowind. I know there are idiots who defend Mass Effect 2. There's also idiots who defend Mass Effect. I don't point them out to say that the game was clearly dumbed down.

Being so quick to offense will only lead you down the path of being wrong, instead of understanding.

The path of "being wrong" meaning the one which disagrees with you, of course. But hey, if your definition of RPG is based around statistics, I would say you would have stopped enjoying Bioware games long before Mass Effect 1 which is very bare.

Do you at least see where the ME2 criticism comes from?  Does the genre shift justify some complaint?

I don't recall there being a genre shift. I don't judge my rpgs based on inventory or statistics. I judge it based on choice, characterization, and freedom to engage in meaningful activities. I don't consider Mass Effect 2 any more or less an rpg than Mass Effect.

Modifié par Il Divo, 13 août 2010 - 06:48 .

[bjdbwea]

haberman13 wrote...

I didn't like ME2 because they removed key elements of the genre I like the most. I'm not saying I'm superior or anything else, rather, they changed ME2 enough that it no longer appeals to me.

No need to explain that, I think. Almost as often as the term "hater", the accusation of being an "elitist" is being thrown at everyone who dares to criticize ME 2 on these forums. Apparently, some of the new target audience think that's an argument.

Modifié par bjdbwea, 13 août 2010 - 06:56 .

[tonnactus]

SSV Enterprise wrote...

There is progression in ME2 as well.

Right.Just a lot less then in the first game,where an adept with master lift could disable even a geth colossus and
now fenris mechs/varren are not affected by singularity,even with the "evolved" version,as long as they armored.

Modifié par tonnactus, 13 août 2010 - 07:00 .

[Kai Hohiro]

haberman13 wrote...
To grok what I'm saying you need to accept that you both are anomalies.  You played P&P RPGs and don't necessarily like the dice rolling/upgrading of equipment part. (in fact consider them a "waste of time")

Most people I know personally and have played RPGs with actually share my point of view, so no I don't consider myself an anomality.
All of them love stories and interesting characters, they also love fast paced and exciting action. But none of them enjoy having the game bogged down by a needlessly complex rule set.

A lot people in the "ME2 is amazing" camp are Gears-brahs... that doesn't mean you are.

Funny, the guy I played with through Gears of War, Halo and Army of Two is the same guy who has played every single edition of D&D, has played with me a ****ton of homebrew systems and actively runs several Shadowrun campaigns.
And I have quite a number of friends like that, but those that don't particularly enjoy Gears don't try to denounce us by calling us "Gears-brahs".

But after reading some posts here they would probably consider to just tell you to go play Diablo or World of Warcraft, since apparently those games fit your RPG description better than Mass Effect 1 and 2.

We're all gamers and we all enjoy games. However it is very clear from comments like those you and others have made(like the "Gears-brahs" comment) that you consider other people "lesser" gamers.

Funny enough, back in the hey day I knew quite a number of people who thought Baldurs Gate players were lesser RPG fans, since Baldurs Gate was Command&Conquer D&D, rather than the tried and true turn based gameplay.

Modifié par Kai Hohiro, 13 août 2010 - 07:05 .

[haberman13]

Il Divo wrote...

haberman13 wrote...

To grok what I'm saying you need to accept that you both are anomalies.  You played P&P RPGs and don't necessarily like the dice rolling/upgrading of equipment part. (in fact consider them a "waste of time")

Really? Tell me, statistically what is your basis for this statement? What is your sample size? What sorts of questions did you ask the subjects? What was there experience with rpg mechanics? How did they each define rpg? So many things to consider.

You have absolutely no basis under which to say that all P&P gamers prefer statistics and inventory. I personally find those elements quite shallow in comparison to developing a detailed back story and my character's motivation. This is the basis for what you know as the 'power gamers'. I enjoy combat, but personally look down on a game focusing entirely around it. I know people who play with 14 different supplemental handbooks and engage in nothing but combat scenarios. I find the notion that they are "role-playing" to be laughable at best.

Tell me, do you consider World of Warcraft to be more of an rpg than Mass Effect or Kotor? 

A lot people in the "ME2 is amazing" camp are Gears-brahs... that doesn't mean you are.

You find idiots wherever you go. I've been on the Elder Scrolls board. You would find 'idiots' defending Oblivion. And you would even find idiots defending Morrowind. I know there are idiots who defend Mass Effect 2. There's also idiots who defend Mass Effect. I don't point them out to say that the game was clearly dumbed down.

Being so quick to offense will only lead you down the path of being wrong, instead of understanding.

The path of "being wrong" meaning the one which disagrees with you, of course. But hey, if your definition of RPG is based around statistics, I would say you would have stopped enjoying Bioware games long before Mass Effect 1 which is very bare.

Do you at least see where the ME2 criticism comes from?  Does the genre shift justify some complaint?

I don't recall there being a genre shift. I don't judge my rpgs based on inventory or statistics. I judge it based on choice, characterization, and freedom to engage in meaningful activities. I don't consider Mass Effect 2 any more or less an rpg than Mass Effect.

Are you my wife? :innocent: 

I'm not drawing boxes around anything, merely stating what seems obvious: PNP RPGs were heavily stat focused, if you really have that big an aversion to stats/gear/dice rolling why were you playing those games?

I'm also not saying that story and actual role playing aren't key to the genre as well.  They absolutely are!

Its a total package friend, start cutting elements and I will question the game and if too heavily cut I will lose interest and move on.  ME1 gave me such a heavy Blade Runner/Star Wars for adults RPG vibe that I fell in love with it, despite itself.  ME2 steps further away from the total package and I am starting to fear that a combination of things happened, namely that consolization, Gears of War profits, and complaints about ME1 being too "complicated" or not pew pew'y enough have adversely affected the quality of the game.

Total package, not separate elements, elements are missing from ME2.  If they stripped the story that would be what I complain about.

[tonnactus]

Pocketgb wrote...


Better than ME1's, which was one weapon per category, and that weapon was always the best one you had on you. For reiteration: The piece of gear you picked up in ME1 was either better than what you were wearing - in which case you should equip it - or worse than what you were wearing - in which case you trash it. That's all there was to it.

And how to decide what was better before people got the spectre rifles who were superior in every way?

Mass Effect weapons differ from each other.Some had lower damage but higher accuracy and/or more shots before
the weapon overheat.

Mass Effect has top of the line weapons too,like the widow or the revenant.Where is a situation,where the vindicator
could be better then the revenant?

[Crespire]

My main disappointment with ME2 is the lack of replayability. I was captivated by ME1 to spend over 100 hours doing NG+ on my main toon at least 3 times, and starting another toon that I NG+'d once.



Mass Effect 2 was a great game, but I have to say I'm glad I got it on sale. For the price I got ME1 for (5$) it was really a steal for over 100 hours of play. ME2 has only gotten 50 hours of play so far, and I am not compelled to replay it.

[Kai Hohiro]

tonnactus wrote...

Mass Effect has top of the line weapons too,like the widow or the revenant.Where is a situation,where the vindicator
could be better then the revenant?

Alot of people prefer the Vindicator over the revenant. Or the scimitar over the Claymore, even Vanguards..
Or did you know that the Predator can do more damage than the Carnifex?

So yes there is much more variety in the weapons in ME2, sorry but you're incorrect.

[haberman13]

Kai Hohiro wrote...

haberman13 wrote...
To grok what I'm saying you need to accept that you both are anomalies.  You played P&P RPGs and don't necessarily like the dice rolling/upgrading of equipment part. (in fact consider them a "waste of time")

Most people I know personally and have played RPGs with actually share my point of view, so no I don't consider myself an anomality.
All of them love stories and interesting characters, they also love fast paced and exciting action. But none of them enjoy having the game bogged down by a needlessly complex rule set.

I'm not advocating a needlessly complex ruleset, how about just a ruleset?  How about just an inventory?

If you prefix "waste of time" and "needless" to core elements of what define RPG (lets be honest, stats and inventory are a staple right?) then I would say yes, you are an anomaly.  Your friends too.

Would you disagree that an RPG contains these elements traditionally:

story
gear
numbers
levels
inventory
lore

?

If the majority defined RPG the way you do, then more RPGs would be like ME2; instead they are like DA:O/BG2/Morrowind etc.

Modifié par haberman13, 13 août 2010 - 07:15 .

[tonnactus]

Epic777 wrote...
Think the swords  umbra and goldbrand in the elder scrolls, what makes the previously mentioned swords unique wasn't just stats but also special ability , goldbrand has more enchantment charge that is normally possible, umbra casts soul trap.

The only unique thing about umbra and goldbrand was the look(in oblivion,dont know about morrowind).A daedric sword,enchanted with a sigil stone,was as a good
as those swords in term of damage and charge.

[Kai Hohiro]

haberman13 wrote...

Are you my wife? :innocent:  

I'm not drawing boxes around anything, merely stating what seems obvious: PNP RPGs were heavily stat focused, if you really have that big an aversion to stats/gear/dice rolling why were you playing those games?

Again for roleplaying, not for just rolling dice and putting pretty numbers on a sheet?
Like I said above, go play Diablo, that's a real RPG apparently.

Its a total package friend, start cutting elements and I will question the game and if too heavily cut I will lose interest and move on.  ME1 gave me such a heavy Blade Runner/Star Wars for adults RPG vibe that I fell in love with it, despite itself.  ME2 steps further away from the total package and I am starting to fear that a combination of things happened, namely that consolization, Gears of War profits, and complaints about ME1 being too "complicated" or not pew pew'y enough have adversely affected the quality of the game.

Or maybe they just realized that the game was more fun this way.
And I don't recall anyone complaining that ME1 was complicated(it's definitly not). Haven't seen that pop up in any review. The ruleset was just not good, not complicated, there's a big difference there.
There are very few RPGs I would consider complicated, and I definitly wouldnt count any single Bioware RPG among them.

It doesn't take a degree in math to calculate THAC0.

haberman13 wrote...
I'm not advocating a needlessly complex ruleset, how about just a ruleset?  How about just an inventory?

If you prefix "waste of time" and "needless" to core elements of what define RPG (lets be honest, stats and inventory are a staple right?) then I would say yes, you are an anomaly.  Your friends too.

Would you disagree that an RPG contains these elements traditionally:

story
gear
numbers
levels
inventory
lore

?

Yes I disagree with you. You base your entire knowledge on D&D. D&D is not the law for what a roleplaying game is.

I have played ALOT of RPGs without levels, and also many without excessive need for gear and inventory.
Every single person who has played a White Wolf RPG would disagree with you in fact.

I'm not an anomaly you're just stuck in D&D.


It's funny how just because someone who has probably played more and older RPGs than you, is apparently an anomaly just because he doesn't agree with your point of view.

Modifié par Kai Hohiro, 13 août 2010 - 07:22 .

[haberman13]

Again you are drawing boxes around what I'm saying Kai.

"Again for roleplaying, not for just rolling dice and putting pretty numbers on a sheet?
Like I said above, go play Diablo, that's a real RPG apparently."

I'm NOT saying gear and stats are the sole components of an RPG; there is a balance to thinking you know?

How about story and role-playing WITH gear and stats? You know, like almost every single game defined as RPG in the past?  (not the almost)

Neverwinter Nights, BG, KOTOR, Morrowind, Oblivion, Fallout 3, Arx Fatalis, PS:Torment and on and on...

These were all variations on a number based ruleset (as was ME2). The problem for me is they obfuscated and hid what traditionally has been indicative of an RPG in ME2, along with stripping out pieces that created immersion. (loading screens, corridor levels, TPS cover based gameplay)

Am I taking crazy pills here?

Modifié par haberman13, 13 août 2010 - 07:22 .

[Iakus]

haberman13 wrote...

I think you and I would define "immersion" differently.

To me immersion means creating a feeling that you ARE the character, moments that break you out of phsyical control (or 3rd person perspective ala elevators) are what ruin the immersion (IMO).

So the loading screen was one huge "you are playing a game right now" immersion breaker, same with the paragraph summarzing what you did on that "level".

To me ME2 was one huge immersion breaker compared to ME1 where I felt I was seeing the world through Shepard's eyes.

Well said!  In ME 2 I could never shake the feeling that it was "just a video game"  Most other Bioware games (including ME 1) I had more of a feeling of travelling through a story. 

[Il Divo]

bjdbwea wrote...

No need to explain that, I think. Almost as often as the term "hater", the accusation of being an "elitist" is being thrown at everyone who dares to criticize ME 2 on these forums. Apparently, some of the new target audience think that's an argument.

I believe I have provided arguments everytime I have called someone elitist. If I recall, you yourself have admitted that the term 'dumbed down' is derogatory and yet continue to use it. If your arguments were so stable, then you would not need to resort the term; your post would speak for itself. I personally find Iakus to be the most constructive poster who stands against Mass Effect 2, yet I also find his the least insulting.

[Kai Hohiro]

haberman13 wrote...
How about story and role-playing WITH gear and stats? You know, like almost every single game defined as RPG in the past?

Neverwinter Nights, BG, KOTOR, Morrowind, Oblivion, Fallout 3, Arx Fatalis, PS:Torment and on and on...

These were all variations on a number based ruleset (as was ME2). The problem for me is they obfuscated and hid what traditionally has been indicative of an RPG in ME2, along with stripping out pieces that created immersion. (loading screens, corridor levels, TPS cover based gameplay)

Am I taking crazy pills here?

And that's the point I made earlier, cRPG shouldn't be like P&P RPGs.
I think it was terrible that they recreated the D20 system in many of those RPGs you mentioned, instead of making a proper system for a cRPG. Hell I'll say it: Baldurs Gate's ruleset was godawful. What made the game fun was the story and the REAL TIME STRATEGY combat (hence why people said back in the day that BG was dumbed down for Command&Conquer audiences, just like you say ME2 is dumbed down for the TPS audience).

In Pen&Paper I need those numbers, because I sure as hell can't punch my friend in the face to demonstrate my characters physical prowess. But CRPGs do NOT need that baggage. In a game like Mass Effect I don't need a skill that determines how good I aim, I can do that by myself well enough.

And like I mentioned yes I think excessive gear is a waste. I'd prefer to have a few weapons that differ from each other rather than having a long sword thats made of Iron, Steel, Mithril and whatever.
Just give me a longsword and a scimitar and make them different in a few key points and thats all I need.

And yes I love all those RPGs you mentioned above, but I also think they all could have been much better if they were more inclined to let go of their Pen&Paper roots.

Modifié par Kai Hohiro, 13 août 2010 - 07:30 .

[haberman13]

Il Divo wrote...

bjdbwea wrote...

No need to explain that, I think. Almost as often as the term "hater", the accusation of being an "elitist" is being thrown at everyone who dares to criticize ME 2 on these forums. Apparently, some of the new target audience think that's an argument.

I believe I have provided arguments everytime I have called someone elitist. If I recall, you yourself have admitted that the term 'dumbed down' is derogatory and yet continue to use it. If your arguments were so stable, then you would not need to resort the term; your post would speak for itself. I personally find Iakus to be the most constructive poster who stands against Mass Effect 2, yet I also find his the least insulting.

Dumbing-down, though I agree has a negative connotation, has become the accepted term for what you see in entertainment exemplified by reality TV, Desperate Housewives, ME2 etc.

Appealing to the masses in order to maximize profit (corporate goal right?) means homogenization in order to create new customers who may have been turned off by niche things such as: immersion, gear, stats, thinking.

Lets be honest, though you are clearly intelligent, the general population likes Transformers 2 and not Amadeus.  Right?

Watch Idiocracy, I dare anyone to argue with the implication of that metaphor.  ME2 is the product of that thinking for the reasons contained in this thread.