10273 réponses à ce sujet

[haberman13]

Kai Hohiro wrote...

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.

OK, but you are arguing that a common and accepted (even loved) method for creating games is rubbish, and that your ideas are better.

[haberman13]

Kai Hohiro wrote...

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.

Loving the punch friend in the face comment!

Modifié par haberman13, 13 août 2010 - 07:35 .

[Il Divo]

haberman13 wrote...

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?

A million and one different P&P systems exist, each with different emphasis. Gurps is commonly used by power gamers for example. Do I enjoy dice rolling? Yes, to break up the story and give my character a sense of progression. But it is still secondary in every way to experiencing a good story. It's to the point where a game could feature any sort of combat system and it wouldn't have any relevance to my enjoyment as an rpg. Kotor could have featured Gears of War combat and it would make the tiniest different in my enjoyment as an rpg.

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

But I'm curious. Which do you consider to be 'essential' to the RPG? A numbers game without story or role-play (World of Warcraft, Diablo) or role-play/story without numbers?

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.

And yet, you are still using subjectivity to make a very odd claim. If we 'understand' you, then we will come to the conclusion that Mass Effect 2 is not an rpg while Mass Effect is. Well, friend, I understand you and I have come to a different conclusion. Mass Effect did not give me this 'vibe' which you speak of. I thoroughly enjoyed it, but was unimpressed in comparison to all previous Bioware games. I found the characters (which are also important to any rpg imo) to be very bland and lifeless. I consider Mass Effect to include Bioware's worst cast by far. I find the story to be better written, but far less interesting than Mass Effect 2 up until Virmire, at which point Mass Effect's tale does sky rocket.

My claim is just as subjective as yours. If I'm given the same facts/experience, but come to a different conclusion then clearly understanding you does not require I conclude that Mass Effect 2 is not an rpg.

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

What, shall we discuss the inventory of Mass Effect? Shall we compared this to the p&p system? I don't recall my Dungeon Master handing out fifty slightly different variations of a long sword and forcing me to carry them around/break it down into iron. I would say Mass Effect 2's slow acquisition of few items was closer to traditional dnd in this regard. Again, we can use the same facts but come to different conclusions.

[bjdbwea]

haberman13 wrote...

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.

This. And the developers even admitted to what they "had" to do. Of course they wouldn't use the term "dumbing down", but it's obvious what's meant by that. It doesn't say that anyone who played or liked the game is dumb.

This is a different thing from calling people "haters" or "elitists" just because they like RPGs or because they happen to be disappointed with a game and voice their complaints in a constructive manner.

Modifié par bjdbwea, 13 août 2010 - 07:45 .

[haberman13]

Ok, fair enough. Basically you can live without gear/stats/inventory as long as the story is good, and honestly so can I; but my like turns to love when the whole package contains good story AND a good ruleset that includes gear/stats/inventory (customization really).

In my mind the total package is better than a well done single piece.

So ME1 is better than WoW because it contains story.  (hmm, not necessarily true, WoW's story is cool; nobody reads it though - but for the sake of my point ...)

And ME1 is better than ME2 because it contains gear/inventory/stats (albeit a little weak and bland for my taste).

Modifié par haberman13, 13 août 2010 - 07:48 .

[Kai Hohiro]

haberman13 wrote...

OK, but you are arguing that a common and accepted (even loved) method for creating games is rubbish, and that your ideas are better.

Just because it's a commly accepted method doesn't mean it's right. Bioware and other companies constantly try to evolve. 
But they are realizing that doesn't work. CRPGs are something entirely different. Porting P&P over to a computer game is comparable to addapting video games as a movie. It's an entirely different medium.
And the content should specifically be designed for a medium, it's rarely a good idea to port something over.


You do know that Bioware licensed the D&D ruleset for Baldurs Gate just to get a broad audience? Baldurs Gate was originally called Battleground Infinity and had an entire ruleset of its own.
And to be honest I think the game would've been much better if they had used their own ruleset, rather than trying to adapt P&P rules.
But it was easier for them to get more cash from P&P players that way, since they would instantly flock to any game that featured their particular favourite P&P ruleset or setting.

haberman13 wrote...

Ok, fair enough. Basically you can live without gear/stats/inventory as long as the story is good, and honestly so can I; but my like turns to love when the whole package contains good story AND a good ruleset that includes gear/stats/inventory (customization really).

In my mind the total package is better than a well done single piece..

Again we don't agree with you that that is the total package. It's just that in your opinion.
In *my* total package I don't want excessive equipment and stats, they don't add to my enjoyment of the game, they are a distraction and a pointless timesink. I'd rather have only a few but well designed choices that really enrich and affect my playstyle.

To be honest why don't you play Alpha Protocol. That game sounds a lot more to your liking than any of the ME games. It features fun invisible dice rolls, skills that when maxed out make you completely superior to everyone without any actual need for player skill. That sounds much more like your cup of tea.

Modifié par Kai Hohiro, 13 août 2010 - 07:56 .

[haberman13]

Kai Hohiro wrote...

haberman13 wrote...

OK, but you are arguing that a common and accepted (even loved) method for creating games is rubbish, and that your ideas are better.

Just because it's a commly accepted method doesn't mean it's right. Bioware and other companies constantly try to evolve. 
But they are realizing that doesn't work. CRPGs are something entirely different. Porting P&P over to a computer game is comparable to addapting video games as a movie. It's an entirely different medium.
And the content should specifically be designed for a medium, it's rarely a good idea to port something over.


You do know that Bioware licensed the D&D ruleset for Baldurs Gate just to get a broad audience? The Baldurs Gate was originally called Battleground Infinity and had an entire ruleset of it's own.
And to be honest I think the game would'Ve been much better if they had used their own ruleset, rather than trying to addapt P&P rules.
But it was easier for them to get more cash from P&P players that way, since they would instantly flock to any game that featured their particular favourite P&P ruleset or setting.

Call me trapped by past experience then, but the reality is games were developed like this, and people love them.

Maybe you are a pioneer on the forefront of game design philosophy, but as someone who loves BG2/KOTOR/ME1/DA:O I would have much preferred Bioware stuck to their proven method; rather than graft Gears of War design philosophy into ME2.

I could well be a dinosaur trapped by what I know, I'm open to that possibliy.  Every generation sees the "new hotness" as a threat, and a "dumbing down".  Of course, the opposite may be true, that a dumbing-down is actually happening.

I'll check out Alpha Protocol, if its like Morrowind (which it sounds like) then I'm sure I'll love it.

Modifié par haberman13, 13 août 2010 - 07:55 .

[Il Divo]

haberman13 wrote...

Ok, fair enough. Basically you can live without gear/stats/inventory as long as the story is good, and honestly so can I; but my like turns to love when the whole package contains good story AND a good ruleset that includes gear/stats/inventory (customization really).

Which is my point. I don't consider 'gameplay' (outside of dialogue) to be entirely relevant to how I define rpg, ergo Mass Effect 2's less emphasis on stats/gear doesn't influence me in the slightest. It's fine that you consider them important, but even if so I found Mass Effect's attempt to be a far cry from how most pen and paper games handle inventory. My friends and I about two years ago began an Iron Heroes campaign, set in a setting with little to no magic. Here is the caption:

You are not your magic weapon and armor. You are not your spell buffs. You are not how much gold you have, or how many times you've been raised from the dead. When a Big Bad Demon snaps your sword in two, you do not cry because that was your holy avenger. You leap onto its back, climb up to its head, and punch it in the eye, then get a new damn sword off of the next humanoid you headbutt to death."

In this campaign, there is very little emphasis on inventory besides what you start with. And I've found I prefer it on the whole. Different strokes. But I don't feel that it makes for 'more' or 'less' an rpg.

So ME1 is better than WoW because it contains story.  (hmm, not necessarily true, WoW's story is cool; nobody reads it though - but for the sake of my point ...)

It depends. Wow has a 'story' which is difficult if not impossible to role-play through. Even then, I find WoW's story to be far weaker in comparison to the tale of Arthas Menethil. Elements like resurrecting Mal'ganis, the handling of the Lich King, etc, did not quite do it for me.

And ME1 is better than ME2 because it contains gear/inventory/stats (albeit a little weak and bland for my taste).

And here, I would say is a perfect reason why I prefer Mass Effect 2. Mass Effect's inventory imo was pointless. When I play p&p, if I choose a new item, I'm actually forced to think about it and consider how it may impact my stats/playstyle. Mass Effect does not do this. It's almost always 100% clear what the best item will be at a given time. I spend more time breaking down omni-gel than I do thinking about the stats, which is far weaker than the equivalent experience in dnd. Mass Effect 2 may not have much of an inventory, but it did at least save me time breaking down omni-gel.

[Kai Hohiro]

haberman13 wrote...

Call me trapped by past experience then, but the reality is games were developed like this, and people love them.

Maybe you are a pioneer on the forefront of game design philosophy, but as someone who loves BG2/KOTOR/ME1/DA:O I would have much preferred Bioware stuck to their proven method; rather than graft Gears of War design philosophy into ME2.

I'll check out Alpha Protocol, if its like Morrowind (which it sounds like) then I'm sure I'll love it.

Games are constantly evolving and changing. Bioware can't sit on the sideline and let everyone overtake them.
Of course they could sit there constantly churning out the same game with updated grafics like Square-Enix does with Final Fantasy, but I honestly wouldn't want that.

And of course It's understandable when a company and it's games evolve in a way you don't like. But at some point you have to realize "okay they're not making the type of games that are my taste" and simply move on.
And that's what I often don't get. If you sit down and are honest with yourself, do you really think ME3 will be more like ME1 than ME2? I guess not.

So instead of wasting all that energy in a battle that you simply aren't gonna win, open your eyes and look outside of BiowareBethesda. There's a whole world of RPGs out there.
Like Alpha Protocol, it's actually a pretty fun game in my opinion overall, eventhough I prefer something like ME2 a lot more.
And no goddamn american gamer seems to have played Drakensang (which has a 8.8 player rating  on metacritic and is a fan favourite in europe), which is essentially Baldurs Gate with 3D grafics and also uses a Pen&Paper ruleset.

And this is my main gripe about the "hardcore" RPG players, they really think Bioware/Bethesda are the only RPG developers and that they need to make those hardcore Pen&Paper style RPGs that you want.
That's simply not true, there are a ton of other developers who DO make those kind of games, but they don't get enough support since all the people around here only look at BiowareBethesda to deliver their games.

Modifié par Kai Hohiro, 13 août 2010 - 08:15 .

[Il Divo]

haberman13 wrote...

I could well be a dinosaur trapped by what I know, I'm open to that possibliy.  Every generation sees the "new hotness" as a threat, and a "dumbing down".  Of course, the opposite may be true, that a dumbing-down is actually happening.

And to be honest, this happens alot. I'm a victim of it as well. There are 2.0 Advanced dnd purists who insist that 3.0 (my preferred system) is a bastardization. I disagree. 4.0 dnd came out and I consider it a bastardization of everything I love. But I consider myself simply another in a long chain of malcontents. It does not make me better nor worse, simply a cog.

[Pocketgb]

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

You struggle between deciding to use either an Avenger or Banshee. Then you pick up a Tsunami and you're good to go.

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?

Obviously when you're at longer ranges and when you're not bad.

[haberman13]

Il Divo wrote...

haberman13 wrote...

I could well be a dinosaur trapped by what I know, I'm open to that possibliy.  Every generation sees the "new hotness" as a threat, and a "dumbing down".  Of course, the opposite may be true, that a dumbing-down is actually happening.

And to be honest, this happens alot. I'm a victim of it as well. There are 2.0 Advanced dnd purists who insist that 3.0 (my preferred system) is a bastardization. I disagree. 4.0 dnd came out and I consider it a bastardization of everything I love. But I consider myself simply another in a long chain of malcontents. It does not make me better nor worse, simply a cog.

Haha, well, we may well be in the same position here my friend.

I hear your arguments, at this point it comes down to taste and opinion.

[bjdbwea]

Kai Hohiro wrote...

And this is my main gripe about the "hardcore" RPGs, they really think Bioware/Bethesda are the only RPG developers and that they need to make those hardcore Pen&Paper style RPGs that you want.
That's simply not true, there are a ton of other developers who DO make those kind of games, but they don't get enough support since all the people around here only look at BiowareBethesda to deliver their games.

A straw man. Because we prefer ME 1 over ME 2, we need to look elsewhere? ME 1 was no "hardcore Pen&Paper style RPG" at all, and still we were able to enjoy it a lot.

The funny thing is: Even though they unfortunately concentrated on it for ME 2, BioWare never really excelled in the combat aspects. You are right, there are other RPGs that do combat, P&P or otherwise, some even better than BioWare. But what many of those games lack is a great story, likeable companions, choices, depth. BG 2 isn't a fantastic game until today because it has DnD, but because of these things I mentioned. There are very few companies who are able to deliver them, and BioWare used to be one of them. Maybe they still are, hopefully they'll prove it with ME 3.

[Kai Hohiro]

bjdbwea wrote...
A straw man. Because we prefer ME 1 over ME 2, we need to look elsewhere? ME 1 was no "hardcore Pen&Paper style RPG" at all, and still we were able to enjoy it a lot.

The funny thing is: Even though they unfortunately concentrated on it for ME 2, BioWare never really excelled in the combat aspects. You are right, there are other RPGs that do combat, P&P or otherwise, some even better than BioWare. But what many of those games lack is a great story, likeable companions, choices, depth. BG 2 isn't a fantastic game until today because it has DnD, but because of these things I mentioned. There are very few companies who are able to deliver them, and BioWare used to be one of them. Maybe they still are, hopefully they'll prove it with ME 3.

I love how you contradict yourself constantly.
Just a few posts ago you complain the entire time about how dumbed down the game is. Now you say combat and rulesets don't matter much to you in the first place.
Why do you then devote hours to ****ing about them?

And if I don't enjoy a game I move on and play something else, I don't have a sworn oath of allegiance to any developer. I play whatever game suits my taste. I didn't like NWN, but I didn't spend hours ****ing on the forums about it.

And honestly BG2 story and characters have long since been blown out of the water. Every NPC in Kotor has more personality in his pinky than BG2s NPCs.

Like I said, people like you don't even bother to look somewhere else. There are numerous great RPGs out there which you probably haven't even bothered to try.

And like I pointed out in an earlier post, I love the story and characters in ME2. And I agree with Ill Divo that ME1 was good but it didn't blow my mind, especially not the NPCs.

Again the problem here is you insist ME2 is dumbed down and the story is worse, etc. Not everyone will agree with you, I certainly dont, but then you insult those people by calling them Gears of Wars fans or that they only like ME2 because it is dumbed down and you can't get it into your head that there are people who enjoy the story.

I don't agree with you that ME1's NPCs were interesting, but I'm not going to call you stupid just because you liked them.

Modifié par Kai Hohiro, 13 août 2010 - 08:39 .

[Darth Drago]

Kai Hohiro wrote...

Like I said, people like you don't even bother to look somewhere else. There are numerous great RPGs out there which you probably haven't even bothered to try.

How many of those are sci-fi RPG’s?

[Halo Quea]

haberman13 wrote...

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?

I have to agree with this.  They are both claiming to be "classic" RPG gamers, and yet they have both stated that they hated or disliked the old P&P forumla.   That indeed WOULD make them either anomalies or posers.

Since we can't prove either we should just take them at their word in order to move the discussion past these "I was an RPG gamer before you were born" assertions.  lol!  But again I do agree with you.  Given what they have claimed does make them oddities of a sort.

[Kai Hohiro]

Halo Quea wrote...

I have to agree with this.  They are both claiming to be "classic" RPG gamers, and yet they have both stated that they hated or disliked the old P&P forumla.   That indeed WOULD make them either anomalies or posers.

Since we can't prove either we should just take them at their word in order to move the discussion past these "I was an RPG gamer before you were born" assertions.  lol!  But again I do agree with you.  Given what they have claimed does make them oddities of a sort.

I have my AD&D 2nd Edition players handbook right here next to me in the shelf, ask me anything you like, any page, any sentence any rule whatever(though the rules I would know of the top of my head anyhows). 3rd Edition is also fine. D&D 1st edition I would have to look for in the basement

Again just because someone doesn't agree with you doesn't make him an anomaly. I know a ton of P&P "hardcore" RPGers on and offline that love ME2.
Actually only on this board have I encountered people that seem to despise ME2. Seems more like you are the anomaly.

Modifié par Kai Hohiro, 13 août 2010 - 08:47 .

[Il Divo]

Halo Quea wrote...

I have to agree with this.  They are both claiming to be "classic" RPG gamers, and yet they have both stated that they hated or disliked the old P&P forumla.   That indeed WOULD make them either anomalies or posers.

Since we can't prove either we should just take them at their word in order to move the discussion past these "I was an RPG gamer before you were born" assertions.  lol!  But again I do agree with you.  Given what they have claimed does make them oddities of a sort.

So it's an oddity that I and Kai Hohiro play and love pen and paper games, but realize the value of an RPG transcends its statistics? I don't engage in rpg games because I just want to play with numbers. If that's the case, then I'll do calculus instead. I play rpgs so I can develop a character, give him/her motivations, desires, fears, expressions, habits, and play that character in a different world. I can decide what he says, how he acts, etc. I cannot get this same experience by reading a novel or watching a movie.

Do I hate dice rolling? No, but I view it as being secondary to actual role-play in a 'role-playing' game. If someone gave me the choice between a game featuring a deep, interactive story and World of Warcraft game mechanics, I will choose the story every time. Different games demonstrate different aspects of what it means to be an RPG. The one I most often identify with are story and characters. Mass Effect demonstrates story. Mass Effect 2 demonstrates characters. I think Mass Effect 2 demonstrated characters to a higher degree than Mass Effect demonstrated story.

Modifié par Il Divo, 13 août 2010 - 08:50 .

[Whatever42]

haberman13 wrote...

Ok, fair enough. Basically you can live without gear/stats/inventory as long as the story is good, and honestly so can I; but my like turns to love when the whole package contains good story AND a good ruleset that includes gear/stats/inventory (customization really).

In my mind the total package is better than a well done single piece.

So ME1 is better than WoW because it contains story.  (hmm, not necessarily true, WoW's story is cool; nobody reads it though - but for the sake of my point ...)

And ME1 is better than ME2 because it contains gear/inventory/stats (albeit a little weak and bland for my taste).

I read WoW's story.  That's why I prefer questing solo, you can actually take the time and immerse yourself a little bit.

And I like to geek out about gear too - I just despise too much trash. Collecting and selling bloody eyeballs and rusty swords and wands with +strength is tedious. Just drop gold already. And in ME1, all the trash was frustrating as well.

My problem with ME2 wasn't the mechanics of the new inventory but simply lack of personalization, customization. They did resolve it somewhat with DLC, though. But having pieces for melee and pieces for biotics and pieces that gave you more health, with interesting designs and variation was great for me. I would like even more options, of course, and it sucked that they made you pay for some of it but I think that the mechanics can handle it, if they choose to exploit it more.

The same thing with guns. I was ok missing the "stats" on the guns, although I could glean them from people's testing, but more variation would be great. A choice between the Tempest (more damage, less accuracy over distance) and Locust (incredible accuracy over any distance,  less damage) were real choices that made me happy. You can get the same choices with other weapons. I again agree that I want more and I don't want to pay for it but I'm fine with the mechanics.

Of course, I would be fine if Grixlaz the Krogan Warlord dropped a cool gun, which I could add to my loadout - like the locust.

So, to repeat myself one more time, I think the mechanics are great in ME2, I immensely prefer picking up options and upgrading seperately. But more choice!

[bjdbwea]

Kai Hohiro wrote...

I love how you contradict yourself constantly.
Just a few posts ago you complain the entire time about how dumbed down the game is. Now you say combat and rulesets don't matter much to you in the first place.
Why do you then devote hours to ****ing about them?

I was talking about combat because this was the topic at the time. Yes, it was dumbed down. But no, I don't really care about combat. That's not what I love ME 1 for, and that's not what I played ME 2 for. I mentioned in my previous post what I really care about, and unfortunately these things were dumbed down too in ME 2. See, no contradiction there, you just have to read other's posts more carefully.

Kai Hohiro wrote...

And if I don't enjoy a game I move on and play something else, I don't have a sworn oath of allegiance to any developer. I play whatever game suits my taste. I didn't like NWN, but I didn't spend hours ****ing on the forums about it.

Then you certainly didn't purchase the add-ons. But what if you had liked the original NWN, and then there would have been an add-on promising to continue the story of your hero, but instead you'd have gotten a completely different game with a lot of changes you didn't like? Would you just have moved on? Maybe, but you certainly would have been disappointed still.

Kai Hohiro wrote...

And honestly BG2 story and characters have long since been blown out of the water. Every NPC in Kotor has more personality in his pinky than BG2s NPCs.

Well... no. KotoR is great, but the characters and interaction and romances were still better in BG 2.

Kai Hohiro wrote...

Like I said, people like you don't even bother to look somewhere else. There are numerous great RPGs out there which you probably haven't even bothered to try.

Wrong again.

Kai Hohiro wrote...

And like I pointed out in an earlier post, I love the story and characters in ME2. And I agree with Ill Divo that ME1 was good but it didn't blow my mind, especially not the NPCs.

I disagree. ME 1 and BG 2 are my favorite games. ME 2 itself wouldn't even make it into the top ten.

Kai Hohiro wrote...

Again the problem here is you insist ME2 is dumbed down and the story is worse, etc. Not everyone will agree with you, I certainly dont, but then you insult those people by calling them Gears of Wars fans or that they only like ME2 because it is dumbed down and you can't get it into your head that there are people who enjoy the story.

I never called anyone a GoW fan. I don't even know anything about that particular game. And just a few posts above I said that yes, ME 2 was dumbed down, but that doesn't mean everyone who likes it is dumb. Please, stop with the straw mans.

Kai Hohiro wrote...

I don't agree with you that ME1's NPCs were interesting, but I'm not going to call you stupid just because you liked them.

Like I don't call you stupid. If you prefer ME 2, that could mean you prefer simpler games, but it doesn't say anything about your intelligence.

Modifié par bjdbwea, 13 août 2010 - 08:54 .

[Kai Hohiro]

bjdbwea wrote...

I never called anyone a GoW fan. I don't even know anything about that particular game. And just a few posts above I said that yes, ME 2 was dumbed down, but that doesn't mean everyone who likes it is dumb. Please, stop with the straw mans.


Like I don't call you stupid. If you prefer ME 2, that could mean you prefer simpler games, but it doesn't say anything about your intelligence.

Actually yes, by saying someone only prefers a game because it is dumbed down and simple, you are making back handed assumptions about their intelligence or game preferemce.

The point is, where is ME2 simpler when ME1 isn't even complex in the first place?
At no point does ME1 make you sit down and think about something(unless you really have to think about what bar is longer when evaluating your weapons).
Both games are emotionally engaging. 
I find ME2 more emotionally engaging  and find that it challenges my player skill in a more fun way. That's why I enjoy it more. Again of course you can find ME1 more emotionally enganging, that's fine, but how can you say ME1 is a "smarter" game(which you imply if you say ME2 is dumbed down)

Neither game is intellectually challenging in any particular way. There are intellectually challenging games out there, but they really aren't Bioware's particular fortè. I'm intellectually challenged when I'm programming and scripting, not really when playing games.

People always make the wrong assumption that less numbers means less complex. That isn't true. If you're a programmer you know that the less code you need for a given task, the better. And often it takes a lot of thought to remove something, rather than adding more bloat.

Modifié par Kai Hohiro, 13 août 2010 - 09:13 .

[Pocketgb]

bjdbwea wrote...

Like I don't call you stupid. If you prefer ME 2, that could mean you prefer simpler games, but it doesn't say anything about your intelligence.

Liking ME2 could imply that you prefer simplier RPGs.
So could ME1.
That was the entire premise of the series: Being "RPG-lite".

[bjdbwea]

Pocketgb wrote...

That was the entire premise of the series: Being "RPG-lite".

That was the premise? You sure about that?

[shootist70]

haberman13 wrote...

Ok, fair enough. Basically you can live without gear/stats/inventory as long as the story is good, and honestly so can I; but my like turns to love when the whole package contains good story AND a good ruleset that includes gear/stats/inventory (customization really).

In my mind the total package is better than a well done single piece.

So ME1 is better than WoW because it contains story.  (hmm, not necessarily true, WoW's story is cool; nobody reads it though - but for the sake of my point ...)

And ME1 is better than ME2 because it contains gear/inventory/stats (albeit a little weak and bland for my taste).

Not sure I agree here, haberman. Stats/gear/inventory are the equivalent of a hack writer using cheap and artificial attempts to add depth to a badly written novel. Depth should be written into the gameworld, into the characters, and into the impact the player has upon those things. As such all legacy RPG mechanics should be ruthlessly weeded out of the genre because, just like with bad writers, they're a lazy shortcut, and ripping them out would force RPG devs to build depth into the gameworld, rather than tacking on external devices to simulate depth.

Gaming platforms have the technology to do that now, unlike the platforms of the past that had to rely on shortcuts to achieve depth. Time to move on.

Modifié par shootist70, 13 août 2010 - 09:17 .

[bjdbwea]

What are you even talking about? Depth in writing and depth in gameplay are two completely different issues. The games of old didn't need depth in gameplay to make up for anything, they just had it because back then that's where the money was. Now gaming has developed into a mass phenomenon, and the mass market demands - or rather: is satisfied with - less depth in gameplay. And apparently in writing, if ME 2 is any indication.