27.Are you seriuos? That someone has to be either a complete "angel" or "devil" is not roleplaying. What you mean is something different anyway,called reputation,and is way more complex then just that.
Yes, I'm very seriously. But not the way you understand it.
Mostly because you look situation like two path. I don't even look it in that ways. What I mean, if you did not get those options to be solved, that's GOOD thing. Meaning it fits you characters actions in past. Playing role means making decissions based characters role, not based some numbers to get positive end result. It's not about creating positive outcome for player, but what you characters choises has cause to happen.
If you remove the way it's done you get exactly what ME1 and DAO had. You have higher enough points put to something, you get 100% positive result. It doesn't count what you have done past, it only count how many points you have put to something to get that postive result. That's not roleplaying, that's player geting what player wants as end result.
Real roleplayer can handle bad outcome too, as long it's part of the role.
In the end, system differences are: ME1: "Persuation" skill to get positive outcome from npcs. ME2: Past choises affecting you future outcome with npcs.
Which one is better? Hard to say. We players has allways asked that developers would give us choises in game what would matter. When we get those choises and it cause situation what we don't like, we blame system, because we can't handle our own choises.
No Bioware game has handled that all too well. I think the presuation skill has had some purpose in games in the past but I never thought Bioware really managed to really get it. In all their recent games the renegade/paragon/persuation is nothing but a instant win button. I think it would be better myself if they removed it all together. Keep the renegade/paragon bar but only make it affect Shepards reputation and what people have heard about her in advance and make all dialog choices normal ones. It makes no sense to have a yes or no choice when there is also a "both" option available if the person has enough renegade or paragon points.
Practicality comes into play as well as power. One ship gets things achieved a lot slower than fifty. Fifty slower than one hundred. [/quote]
The Collectors do not have a single ship. They have multiple. When on the Collector Ship, EDI comments on how she identified this particular vessel as the one that attacked Shepard by comparing it to known Collector profiles. Shepard: "The same ship dogging me for 2 years? This can't be a coincedence."[/quote]
We never see another Collector ship. The same one that destroyed the Normandy, tried to harvest Horizon, set as a trap for Shepard, and attacks Shepard at the Collectors' base are all the same one. it "can't be a coincidence" that the same ship keeps going after Shepard because there is no other ship the Collectors can use.
[quote] [quote] Why don't they have one ship per plant in the galaxy? They swarm in, nick the people, and never come back. The next you hear is a new Reaper. THAT is a back up plan - one worthy of a sentient race. [/quote]
I'm not certain what you mean here. [/quote] [/quote]
I think the question is why don't the Collectors use dozens of ships, simultaneously attack a bunch of human colonies en masse (one ship per colony) and be done with it? They get the humans they need much faster.
[quote] [quote] Additionally, the Reapers must have thought; "If members of a race vanish, others remaining might have something to say about it". No matter the inane reasons supplied for the reasoning behind the Alliance not stepping in, the Reapers surely could not have banked on such disgraceful apathy? [/quote]
What is the alternative? Travel all the way through dark space? They had no other forces to rely on, to our knowledge. We have seen multiple times why the Council does not become involved with matters in the Terminus Systems. When humanity comes to power, whether as an ally to the current Council or in place of, it's too busy rebuilding civilization to worry about fringe threats. [/quote] [/quote]
Emphasis on "To our knowledge" Anyone laying odds on yet another slave race to the Reapers appearing in ME 3? Get, Collectors, ...?
The question is How could the Collectors/Reapers count on CItadel or Alliance apathy? Hitting a bunch of colonies so fast that the Alliance doesen't have time to react is one thing. But slowly, one colony at a time? It's almost like they were waiting for Shepard to come along and foil them.
For all we know they might not have had much choice. Just speculation on my part now but I would imagine what the Collectors where doing in ME2 was not what they where created for. They where probably only planned to ever be used once the citadel Relay was open and the Reapers invasion was under way. Virgil said it took them a long time to clean out the galaxy so the collector base where probably there to be used under that time. The Reapers might just have thought it worth while to try to use them for something when Sovereign was destroyed.
I can't explain how Harvester knew Sovereign was destroyed and their grand plan failed this time around however and somehow I doubt Bioware put this much thought into it but it would at least make some sense if this is how it was done. :happy:
We never see another Collector ship. The same one that destroyed the Normandy, tried to harvest Horizon, set as a trap for Shepard, and attacks Shepard at the Collectors' base are all the same one. it "can't be a coincidence" that the same ship keeps going after Shepard because there is no other ship the Collectors can use.
If we are meant to think it is the same one, then there is absolutely no reason why Shepard would need to point it out. Watch the clip.
1) EDI compares the Collector Ship you board against known Collector profiles. This indicates that there must be multiple ships currently in operation if EDI is able to compare it to the vessel on Horizon and conclude that they are the same.
2) After the Prothean revelation, Shepard comments on how they should 'find what they need' before the Collectors arrive to salvage the vessel. If they have only a single ship, then there would be no way to salvage the vessel.
3) Joker asks EDI to compare this Collector Vessel to the original which blew up the Normandy. Once more, if we are to assume that the Collectors have a single vessel, then why does Shepard find it coincedental that he continues to encounter them? I would say the indication is that there is one specific ship that is assigned to deal with Commander Shepard.
I think the question is why don't the Collectors use dozens of ships, simultaneously attack a bunch of human colonies en masse (one ship per colony) and be done with it? They get the humans they need much faster.
Well, it's clear the Collectors don't exactly have a 'fleet' of ships waiting in the wings. Sure, they've got vessels on hand, but enough to clear out the entire Terminus Systems in one shot? Sure, they'd also get the humans they need that much faster, but they also draw unwanted attention to themselves which is contrary to their motives. Remember, up until this point no one even knew the Collectors were responsible.
Emphasis on "To our knowledge" Anyone laying odds on yet another slave race to the Reapers appearing in ME 3? Get, Collectors, ...?
Always possible. At this point, I wouldn't be surprised. Between the Geth, Collectors, Saren, and Rachni the Reapers clearly love their proxy threats. I'm more curious to find out the story behind Klendagon.
The question is How could the Collectors/Reapers count on CItadel or Alliance apathy? Hitting a bunch of colonies so fast that the Alliance doesen't have time to react is one thing. But slowly, one colony at a time? It's almost like they were waiting for Shepard to come along and foil them.
Considering the Council let an attack on Eden Prime by the Geth go almost entirely unchallenged, this is a clear indication that politics are filled with apathy. At this point, the human or alien council is dealing with far more than you might think. The aftermath of Sovereign's attack left quite alot to rebuild. As Anderson tells us, they care far more about rebuilding the Citadel than a few human colonies. Plus, hitting them all at once is more likely to arouse suspicion. This is why Illusive Man remarks that the attacks are random and happen without notice. The Collectors do not want to draw attention to themselves at this point.
And Iakus, to be fair I'm going to throw this link as well so it is possible I could be wrong as well. There apparently is alot of discussion on how many vessels the Collectors maintain.
For me its clear.The system that give some freedom.Not that one that restrict me to much.
But some would of course argue that freedom is bad, and only streamlining and railroading is the way to go. Which is too funny, because for many years, the games always strived to provide more freedom, but always had to deal with technical limitations. And now that we have ever more technical possibilities, people want developers to artificially limit their freedom and put them into narrow level tubes again, because everything else is confusing or boring or keeps them from shooting stuff constantly or whatever. It's bizarre.
But some would of course argue that freedom is bad, and only streamlining and railroading is the way to go. Which is too funny, because for many years, the games always strived to provide more freedom, but always had to deal with technical limitations. And now that we have ever more technical possibilities, people want developers to artificially limit their freedom and put them into narrow level tubes again, because everything else is confusing or boring or keeps them from shooting stuff constantly or whatever. It's bizarre.
Yeah, youd think critics would hail complexity and originality. Not being deritive and "dumbing down" under the guise of streamlining.
It makes me sick how many critics speak about ME2s gutting of RPG elements and focus on a tired and stagnant gameplay mode that happens to sell extremely well as some beautiful piece of innovation, as opposed to mediocre mass market pandering.
Mind you, they dont get paid to speak their minds truthfully so much as they get paid to say mostly nice things about games that have had a lot of money spend into making them, and that publishers get angry when people dont say things they like, and stop people reviewing the game.
Mind you, they dont get paid to speak their minds truthfully so much as they get paid to say mostly nice things about games that have had a lot of money spend into making them, and that publishers get angry when people dont say things they like, and stop people reviewing the game.
Oh, but that's just conspiracty theories, didn't you know. Each and every journalist is a highly professional individual, and all magazines and web sites are striving for is to bring us the truth, and nothing but the truth. Whatever they say can be taken at face value, because mammon is of no concern to them.
[But some would of course argue that freedom is bad, and only streamlining and railroading is the way to go. Which is too funny, because for many years, the games always strived to provide more freedom, but always had to deal with technical limitations. And now that we have ever more technical possibilities, people want developers to artificially limit their freedom and put them into narrow level tubes again, because everything else is confusing or boring or keeps them from shooting stuff constantly or whatever. It's bizarre.
Streamlining doesn't have to mean a total lack of complexity, it simply means making complexity seamless, non-intrusive and intuitive to allow the genre to deliver a more powerful experience. The old, clunky RPG mechanics, which have always been very visible and intrusive, just have to go. They were too mechanical and contrived to ever give a real impression of freedom, and only gave a very fake one.
Personally I just want the genre to start delivering absorbing and dramatic plotlines, all set in immersive open worlds that are expansive enough to offer real variety of plot progression, and which are given impetus by emotive character interaction. To hell with all the inventory and skill fiddling garbage.
Does that really sound so bad? If so, then I'd have a had time figuring out why, and could only put it down to certain audiences being conservative with their tastes and resistant to change due to entrenched personal preference. Now that's dumbing down.
Streamlining doesn't have to mean a total lack of complexity, it simply means making complexity seamless, non-intrusive and intuitive to allow the genre to deliver a more powerful experience. The old, clunky RPG mechanics, which have always been very visible and intrusive, just have to go. They were too mechanical and contrived to ever give a real impression of freedom, and only gave a very fake one.
Personally I just want the genre to start delivering absorbing and dramatic plotlines, all set in immersive open worlds that are expansive enough to offer real variety of plot progression, and which are given impetus by emotive character interaction. To hell with all the inventory and skill fiddling garbage.
Does that really sound so bad? If so, then I'd have a had time figuring out why, and could only put it down to certain audiences being conservative with their tastes and resistant to change due to entrenched personal preference. Now that's dumbing down.
This is a very good point. In fact, with games like Planescape and Baldur's Gate it's my number one criticism. Did I hate the numerical based gameplay? No, but ultimately I was playing these games to experience an epic storyline, encounter interesting characters, and impact the game world. Combat felt (as you said) more obtrusive and was not what I hoped to achieve from the experience. With games like Mass Effect, Jade Empire, etc, this became less the case and I could focus far more on what I was interested in.
That's one reason why I hold Deus Ex in such high regard. It's certainly old school, but it avoids holding on to archaic dice-rolling, which I never thought translated well over to the video game genre. It's not 'mechanical' as you said (which is an excellent word to describe).
I don't get it. You want a 20 hour long movie? You want gameplay that's nothing more than a virtual shooting range? That's supposed to be the evolution of video gaming?
It's funny you'd mention Deux Ex in that regard, because oh yes, that fantastic game (the first, non-streamlined part) did have an inventory and a combat system that combined "boring numbers" and FPS action. ME 2 can't hold water to it.
shootist70 wrote... The old, clunky RPG mechanics, which have always been very visible and intrusive, just have to go. They were too mechanical and contrived to ever give a real impression of freedom, and only gave a very fake one.
Replaced with what? Iakus suggested mods that improves abilities,but i wrote some arguments why this wouldnt work well.Or isnt a real improvement over the old system. Building up a character,his abilities,set priorities(because not all talents could be maxxed) is also something that i always liked in rpgs. There is nothing "clunky" about it.
I don't get it. You want a 20 hour long movie? You want gameplay that's nothing more than a virtual shooting range? That's supposed to be the evolution of video gaming?
I play video games, specifically Bioware games, to experience a story from a certain point of view. I do it because I like the feeling of involvement. I do it because I love the feeling that people are talking to me instead of to some protagonist I have no control over. That is why I play rpgs and its why I hate most Jrpgs. The day rpgs stop offering me a unique role in a story is the day I go back to reading novels and philosophy. I play rpgs almost entirely because of their unique method of delivery. I do not play them because I want to roll dice. I can call up my dnd group if I wanted to do that.
It's funny you'd mention Deux Ex in that regard, because oh yes, that fantastic game (the first, non-streamlined part) did have an inventory and a combat system that combined serious RPG elements and FPS action. ME 2 can't hold water to it.
There's an inventory? Wait, are you serious? Oh, wow! I had absolutely no idea about the inventory.
No, really, I didn't. That's how seemless it was. I went into my inventory to equip a lockpick or a multitool, maybe a gun. It had purpose. I did not go into my inventory to break down a mountain's worth of omni-gel. And by serious rpg elements, I assume you're referring to numerical rules? If you're referring to statistics and number-crunching, there's virtually none to be had. 4 skill levels, each of which impacts your abilities. That's it. Seemless and does not distract from the story or characters.
You say Mass Effect 2 can't hold water to it? Well then, I would say neither can Mass Effect 1, mea amica.
I completely agree with Il Divo. The "dumbing down" talk is retarded. It's about preference, not aptitude. And really the tactics in ME2 are far more advanced than the tactics in ME1, so that can't be it. Not that they're insanely deep or anything, but they don't need to be; they simply need to serve a purpose, be flexible, accessible, and effective.
Micromanaging minutiae != "challenging"; similarly, the lack of a cumbersome inventory does not make a game "dumber," although I would have liked a little more in the way of an inventory in ME2.
It isn't "difficult" to pick the item with the biggest number next to it and equip it, so don't act like people who don't want to do this are stupid.
Vandrayke wrote... And really the tactics in ME2 are far more advanced than the tactics in ME1, so that can't be it.
Oh really? Why i never noticed that,even on insanity? Its not even really matter what squadmates someone take.
Well of course you can beat the game with any combination but you can use combinations of different abilities to take down different enemies easier. Pull + warp, that kind of thing. Overloads and whatnot.
Vandrayke wrote... And really the tactics in ME2 are far more advanced than the tactics in ME1, so that can't be it.
Oh really? Why i never noticed that,even on insanity? Its not even really matter what squadmates someone take.
Well of course you can beat the game with any combination but you can use combinations of different abilities to take down different enemies easier. Pull + warp, that kind of thing. Overloads and whatnot.
You mean,like in the first game? I want to add,that the first game has disabling tech abilities like damping and sabotage, that didnt exists in the second game.(overload has overheating of weapons integrated at level 3,but i never see any effect).
With the meleeing krogans in the first game it was essential to have biotics in the team on harder difficulties(at least at the start),other wise it was impossible to make it through the game without using ai-glitches.
Vandrayke wrote... And really the tactics in ME2 are far more advanced than the tactics in ME1, so that can't be it.
Oh really? Why i never noticed that,even on insanity? Its not even really matter what squadmates someone take.
Well of course you can beat the game with any combination but you can use combinations of different abilities to take down different enemies easier. Pull + warp, that kind of thing. Overloads and whatnot.
You mean,like in the first game? I want to add,that the first game has disabling tech abilities like damping and sabotage, that didnt exists in the second game.(overload has overheating of weapons integrated at level 3,but i never see any effect).
With the meleeing krogans in the first game it was essential to have biotics in the team on harder difficulties,other wise it was impossible to make it through the game without using ai-glitches.
Oh the abilities were there in the first game, for sure. And I loved the first game. But combining the abilities and being able to use them quickly and effectively is more what I'm referring to, and I could have been more clear about that. Squadmate control in ME2 is a lot more slick. So you can actually use your team more tactically to gain advantages; put one person here, one person there, use various shots and biotics as necessary.
Yes you did have similar core abilities in ME1, but squadmates' abilities work better together in ME2. Much more tactical, in my opinion.
I don't get it. You want a 20 hour long movie? You want gameplay that's nothing more than a virtual shooting range? That's supposed to be the evolution of video gaming?
It's funny you'd mention Deux Ex in that regard, because oh yes, that fantastic game (the first, non-streamlined part) did have an inventory and a combat system that combined "boring numbers" and FPS action. ME 2 can't hold water to it.
It's not about wanting shooting game. It's about wanting smooth adventure story without drowning players to huge amount of numbers, what distract player from the story. Game can be done even without combat at all. It's about keeping good impression vs numbers. Old RPG's have too many numbers distracting players from the main goal and causing some other problems. When player should just have fun with good adventure story.
I want to add,that the first game has disabling tech abilities like damping and sabotage, that didnt exists in the second game.
To be honest, even if Damping made a comeback it wouldn't be very useful in ME2. Enemies that use skills are few and far between, and the skills they use are typically not much of a problem. Damping might be useful against a certain recurring boss (THIS HURTS YOU), but Flashbang Grenade already has that covered.
It would be nice if enemies had more abilities, but I do not think they should have access to all of the powers the player has. The levels aren't built for Shepard to ragdoll around in.
If we are meant to think it is the same one, then there is absolutely no reason why Shepard would need to point it out. Watch the clip.
1) EDI compares the Collector Ship you board against known Collector profiles. This indicates that there must be multiple ships currently in operation if EDI is able to compare it to the vessel on Horizon and conclude that they are the same.[/quote]
It indicates that there are profiles of ships believed to be Collectors at some point. Given the fact that we only ever see one single Collector ship seems to indicate that if they ever had other ships in use, they don't anymore.
[quote] 2) After the Prothean revelation, Shepard comments on how they should 'find what they need' before the Collectors arrive to salvage the vessel. If they have only a single ship, then there would be no way to salvage the vessel. [/quote]
Shepard is assuming the Collectors have more than one ship. Remember, at this point they have no clue what's on the other side of the relay. The Collectors could have had an empire the size of Citadel space for all he knew.
[quote] 3) Joker asks EDI to compare this Collector Vessel to the original which blew up the Normandy. Once more, if we are to assume that the Collectors have a single vessel, then why does Shepard find it coincedental that he continues to encounter them? I would say the indication is that there is one specific ship that is assigned to deal with Commander Shepard. [/quote]
Then where were the others when the Normandy arrived on the other side of the relay? They only had one ship to defend their base? Coincidentally, the same one that's on "Shepard duty"? I could imagine the reaction to another Collector vessel arriving after Shepard & Friends blow up the base:
Collector Pilot: *chitterchitterchitter* (translation "This is why we can't have nice things!")
If it turns out there are more Collector ships out there, then keeping the base suddenly got a lot more problematic.
My take: it's way beyond coincidence that the same ship keeps turning up because the Collectors only have the one ship. It's not coincidence, it's simple logistics.
[quote] The question is How could the Collectors/Reapers count on CItadel or Alliance apathy? Hitting a bunch of colonies so fast that the Alliance doesen't have time to react is one thing. But slowly, one colony at a time? It's almost like they were waiting for Shepard to come along and foil them. [/quote]
Considering the Council let an attack on Eden Prime by the Geth go almost entirely unchallenged, this is a clear indication that politics are filled with apathy. At this point, the human or alien council is dealing with far more than you might think. The aftermath of Sovereign's attack left quite alot to rebuild. As Anderson tells us, they care far more about rebuilding the Citadel than a few human colonies. Plus, hitting them all at once is more likely to arouse suspicion. This is why Illusive Man remarks that the attacks are random and happen without notice. The Collectors do not want to draw attention to themselves at this point. [/quote]
The Council did, thinking it was an isolated incident (first time geth were seen beond the Veil in 300 years) The humans were most certainly not letting it go unchallenged. Now many human colonies were being hit, and humans were now on the Council/running the Council. To follow ME 1's pattern, the Council might drag its feet (the alien one at least), but Udina/Anderson should be jumping up and down screaming for something to be done. The reason no one's but Cerberus is paying attention to disappearing human colonies seems to be more DM Fiat than any reason that makes sense.
As to the Collectors not wanting to draw attention, It's bound to happen anyway. In a universe that makes any sense at least. I mean, entire colonies disappearing without a trace should draw attention. The mere fact that multiple colonies disappearing without a trace should ring alarm bells. Raiders, slavers, geth, thresher maws, Cerberus experiments, plagues, Reaper tech gone haywire. All would leave a trace. But absolutely nothing? This is already a sign that Something Is Not Right. The smart money would be, as soon as atention is drawn, send out as many ships as possible, as quickly as possible, and load up on humans.
Alternatively, grab one colony of humans, and start cloning. I mean, the Collectors have the technology to create a tank-bred "perfect" krogan. Why not humans?
I suppose given the fact that the Council remains blissfully ignorant of any threat that exists up to an including an attempt by a Reaper to use the Citadel to end all advanced life in the galaxy, it really doesn't matter which method they choose, no one's gonna do anything. But that seems so...contrived...
And Iakus, to be fair I'm going to throw this link as well so it is possible I could be wrong as well. There apparently is alot of discussion on how many vessels the Collectors maintain.
Yeah the only indication the game ever gives that the Collectors have ever had more than one ship was EDI comparing the Collectors ship to "other known Collector profiles" (and who knows how old some of those profiles were) If there were any others, I'd assume there would have at least been a couple at the base
Ce sujet est fermé
Retour en haut
