10273 réponses à ce sujet

[Lumikki]

Pocketgb wrote...

iakus wrote...
What I don't understand is why it's bad voice-acting when the scenes that I mentioned aren't in the script at all.  How can one act out a scene if there is nothing written to say?

It's not that I believe the voice-acting is bad, it's more that I believe voice-acting in and of itself is bad for an RPG.

Why?

I mean this is only true if the voice doesn't mach players design role.

iakus wrote...
Hmm, I must have just listened to that owl once and got it the first time.

I can never understand why someone would get a game from a company known for Baldur's Gate, Neverwinter Nights, and KOTOR and want to skip all the "talky parts".

Right, which is why I question the stance that Bioware did all these changes strictly to appease the 'shooter crowd'. As mentioned previously they'll have to chop off an overwhelmingly large amount of dialog to get them to come near it.

I bring up the Zelda Owl example because people like to claim that it easily becomes a 'shoota game' when you skip all of it. While somewhat true it also completely bewilders the player, which sucks.

I'm trying to explain some of this.

Most the time I want to skip talking parts. Why? Because many inside game talking parts are irrelevant for story. It's about npcs whining about something or talking weather or something 100% stupid stuff. It's the small talk without any reason to talk to exist. If you say something, say something worth of saying. Not just fill the void with noise comming from you mouth.

Okey, my point is that some of you people say I don't understand why someone would want something what you self don't want. What I don't understand why it is so difficult to understant that not all people are same than your self. We enjoy different stuff.

I have met in mmorpgs people who thinks mmorpgs are virtual chat rooms. They don't understand what roleplaying or playing is. They are there to chat real people behind characters and nothing else. I have met in mmorpg people who call them self as roleplayers and what they do most the time is just sit somewhere inside game and tell stories. I have met people who powerlevel allday long in games. Point is that some people likes to listen and talk alot, while some people likes more the action part or exploration or puzzles or what ever. We people are different and "you" aren't better than anyone else because you like sertain stuff.

Modifié par Lumikki, 23 août 2010 - 08:26 .

[Pocketgb]

Lumikki wrote...
Why?

I don't feel it's needed.

[Lumikki]

Pocketgb wrote...

Lumikki wrote...
Why?

I don't feel it's needed.

Okey, I other hand like to hear my character voice, if I hear other npcs voice in game. It feels to me odd when everyone else has voice except my character.

[bjdbwea]

Lumikki wrote...

I have met in mmorpgs people who thinks mmorpgs are virtual chat rooms. They don't understand what roleplaying or playing is. They are there to chat real people behind characters and nothing else. I have met in mmorpg people who call them self as roleplayers and what they do most the time is just sit somewhere inside game and tell stories. I have met people who powerlevel allday long in games. Point is that some people likes to listen and talk alot, while some people likes more the action part or exploration or puzzles or what ever. We people are different and "you" aren't better than anyone else because you like sertain stuff.

That's true, but there are still certain features that define a genre. What would shooter fans say if someone made a game and called it an FPS, in which they can't shoot a single enemy? Mind you, a game that offered the choice to avoid combat would probably be great. But if it doesn't allow for combat at all even though being called a first-person shooter? Would they not complain? Or what if a game, instead of providing a lot of weapons for them to blast away the cannon fooder in many different ways, would only offer a single weapon?

And an RPG also has features that define it. But actually I really don't care what shooter fans think an RPG must or must not contain. It's unfortunate that they continue to say wrong things about it and try to redefine the genre, but hey, this is the internet after all.

In the end, the question that matters is: Did the game entertain me? As much as any good RPG can? And regardless of what you call the games, ME 1 totally did. ME 2 not nearly as much.

Modifié par bjdbwea, 23 août 2010 - 09:47 .

[tonnactus]

Lumikki wrote...

Most the time I want to skip talking parts. Why? Because many inside game talking parts are irrelevant for story. It's about npcs whining about something or talking weather or something 100% stupid stuff.

Like in real life,right? Those little things make the game feel alive and not artificial. As long as your companion isnt a robot,there is
nothing wrong with it.

[Lumikki]

Sure, there are games what is defined to some player group only, because that is what they like. How ever, that doesn't mean EVERY game has to allways be design by some company for same player group. Also it's not allways have to be so black and white. Like this has to be pure shooter or pure traditional RPG. If there is game with alot of adventure, little shooter and some rpg, that doesn't make game less good. It's not the players who design what kind of games should be, it's players who buy games based what they like. There is different between trying to change game to what you like and choosing games to play what you like.

Sorry, but you seem to want to complain games what doens't fit you liking, rater than choose games what you like. If there isn't enough games what you don't like to play, then maybe you taste of games is too narrow or rare.

I have playing games about 20 years now. I have done alot of complaining in my time in game forums. Mostly in mmorpgs forums. How ever, in all time I have learn one thing. There is no point to complain or wanting changes. Only really good thing player can do is give constructive feedback. How ever, complain is hardly ever constructive, because it's often based personas anger or heavy disapoinments. Too much feelings and personal taste.

I have seen few times game developers listen players, but most the time when it happens there is major support for those changes and it's usually done constructive matter. Ranting person's own disapoinments never leads anything good.

As you say ME1 was good FOR YOU and ME 2 was not. That's not same for everyone else. I think you understand it, but I think you miss one thing. How you think others who did enjoy ME2 feels when you keep bashing game what they liked in this forum. Does it make you or they feel better?

[Dinkamus_Littlelog]

Sidney wrote...

Ammo isn't an RPG element? I must have missed that trucking around those arrows in BG2 and all that lovely ammo in FO1-3.

No, ammo is not an RPG element. It may be an optional feature in archery weapons in RPGs, but its not a RPG feature.

I dont see RPGs forcing a bow into your hands and scattering arrows throughout the gameworld. Thats the key here: choice. RPGs allow you to choose if you want an archery player or skill. ME2 forces weapons into your hand and forces you to constantly reload them and pick up ammunition scattered throughout the world. Your first comparison failed.

Sidney wrote...

Cover can't exist in an RPG? I know it typically hasn't because RPG's have terrible combat mechanics but, seriously, you don't want cover? You want the KoTOR world where people with guns stand around like they are in a Napoleonic Army and blast away standing bolt upright?

Of course cover can exist in an RPG. A whack-a-mole cover system designed to make the player pop and shoot enemies? No, that cant, because thats a shooter cover system, and implementing it into games and FORCING the player to use it makes the game into a shooter.

Keep it optional, and it doesnt transform the game as much - like in ME1. Its a shooter aspect of the game, not a core element. Your second comparison failed.

Sidney wrote...

They force you to use weapons? Huh? Really? First, how stupid is it that a Biotic can't use a certain type of gun. That's never made anymore sense than wizards not being able to use swords. You accept that but alas it doesn't make sense. Guys in the army who don't use guns still learn to shoot guns. Second, you can play the entire game with only one gun. I know, I did using only an SMG for my Adept. Don't tell me about the value of classes or some silly sense of game balance in a single-player game.

Its part of that important aspect of RPGs again: choice. I choose to play a sentinel and an adept, and Bioware were gracious enough to ruin the power system in ME2 and force an assault rifle/shotgun/sinper onto what was supposed to be a power based class.

Why not, I dont know, not be lazy and instead give the player a choice of additional higher powers instead? Lord knows the games ****** weak RPG system could use a little boost in the power department.

Either way, you most likely purposefully ignored this part of the "shooterification" of ME2 because you have no retort, but your other attempts have been useless so far, so that doesnt surprise me.

Sidney wrote...
Not sure why Health Regen is a problem, health makes no sense anyways so almost anything they do it ok and frankly the sort of recovery makes more sense than the perma-loss in AD&D. Assuming hit points are some sort of measure of luck, skill that means you don't get hit and not just that your body is so tough it can take a bazillion bullets/arrows/sword hits.

Thats just nonsense.

Listen, clearly youve taken offence to people calling out ME2 for being a dumbed down mass appeal shooter designed for idiots. My advice is, dont be offended. Just because we can see that ME2 was designed for a certain type of idiot doesnt mean "if you like ME2 youre obviously someone with a low intelligence".

Christ, its no different to most TV. Thats all designed for idiots too.

Regardless, youve completely failed to contest the claim that ME2 is 90% about being a bog standard shooter.

Im not surprised really, since like I said, its not opinion but fact. Playing the game and listening to what was involved in the development of it makes it clear as day.

Plug your ears and try and defend idiotic shooter games all you like. It doesnt change how dumbed down and shooter oriented ME2 actually is.

I honestly thought they were pushing it with ME1, but I had enough freedom to play around it and love the game in spite of it. ME2 just tries to cram it down my throat, and as such I think its one of the worst games Ive ever played, alongside Gears of War (the game it clearly clones itself from).

Modifié par Dinkamus_Littlelog, 23 août 2010 - 10:50 .

[bjdbwea]

Lumikki wrote...

Sorry, but you seem to want to complain games what doens't fit you liking, rater than choose games what you like. If there isn't enough games what you don't like to play, then maybe you taste of games is too narrow or rare.

That might be even true. But it was BioWare themselves who set the standard so high, and I'm only measuring them by that very standard.

Lumikki wrote...

As you say ME1 was good FOR YOU and ME 2 was not. That's not same for everyone else. I think you understand it, but I think you miss one thing. How you think others who did enjoy ME2 feels when you keep bashing game what they liked in this forum. Does it make you or they feel better?

This is not about feelings, it's about a discussion. Most players who enjoyed ME 2 couldn't care less about this thread and if they are unhappy that some don't like the game, they can always post their own opinion.

[Lumikki]

tonnactus wrote...

Lumikki wrote...

Most the time I want to skip talking parts. Why? Because many inside game talking parts are irrelevant for story. It's about npcs whining about something or talking weather or something 100% stupid stuff.

Like in real life,right? Those little things make the game feel alive and not artificial. As long as your companion isnt a robot,there is nothing wrong with it.

Yes, talking can make game feel more alive, but it can be over done. Then it's not anymore natural. In movies it's called over acting. Actor put too much emotions to acting and it becomes something what isn't natural anymore. Also player can get feeling that story doesn't go forward, because so much not story related situations.

What you like isn't necassary same what "I" like. Like I sayed, I get annoyed non story related longer talks with team members. Example I play DAO at the moment. I don't like how Morrigan talks and make decission, so I just leave her to camp and never play with her. That's because her talking. Talking doesn't allways make gameplay better, it can also have negative affect to player. There is different to have personality and annoy player with it.

Now some other player could like the way Morrigan acts, but that doens't mean talking is allways good. When it's done right and it can improve games atmosphere, it's good thing. How ever, when it's over done and it starts to annoy player, it's not anymore improving games atmosphere.

Modifié par Lumikki, 23 août 2010 - 11:01 .

[shootist70]

Dialogue is fine in an RPG. In fact the more there is the better. We want more, we want the characters brought to life so that there's actually some RP in RPG.

The reason why you guys dislike it is not because there's so much of it but because of the usual dialogue traps. Well written dialogue should be constantly active and reactive, and not be packed full of backstory, infodump and expostion. The whole point of dialogue is that it's an effective way for a character to 'show' you her personality, and yet writers still make the mistake of using it so a character can 'tell' you about it. Big mistake, and that's what causes players to skip through it.

Modifié par shootist70, 23 août 2010 - 11:20 .

[Lumikki]

bjdbwea wrote...

That might be even true. But it was BioWare themselves who set the standard so high, and I'm only measuring them by that very standard.

Is Bioware making those stardars or you assuming what standards Bioware have?

[MotoSkunkX]

I know I've posted in this thread before, but that was over a hundred pages ago and I feel it needs to be said again: I loved Mass Effect 2, way better story, though I felt the party members needed more dialogue.



If your idea of a good rpg consists of leveling and item management, you should probably be playing this game instead: http://ps3.ign.com/o...957/957207.html

[Kriztaen]

On the talking part...I disagree, ME started off first and foremost as an RPG with shooter elements, complaining about talking too much is to a degree...stupid to say the least.



HOWEVER. ME2 was a shooter with RPG elements. Also if you don't like the talking, press X/Spacebar or don't pick that chat option which diverges from the fastest "get to the point" choices.



On the subject of the shooting mechanics, Mass Effect 2 felt smoother when I was in combat in terms of shooting, moving, ducking, etc. But at the same time I felt that shared cooldowns was freaking annoying, taking down defenses before I can use 90% of my abilites also ruined some of the fun since I could not screw around and get creative quite as much as I wanted like when I chained powers on a single enemy in ME1 just to feel (sadistically) like I was owning them.



Don't even get me started on thermal clips. Anyone that says they are an improvement over ME1 because guns don't overheat....if your gun kept overheating, you were playing the game wrong (yes that includes sniper rifles and shotguns, there were at least 2 ways not including basic use of pausing for a second in between shots to cut back on heating).

[tonnactus]

Dinkamus_Littlelog wrote...

Its part of that important aspect of RPGs again: choice. I choose to play a sentinel and an adept, and Bioware were gracious enough to ruin the power system in ME2 and force an assault rifle/shotgun/sinper onto what was supposed to be a power based class.

The game shows clearly how much priority the development of the power system had that on the collector ship. Adepts,engineers and sentinels get absolutly nothing that improve their core abilities like it happen with the soldier,vanguard and infiltrator.Just some additional not needed weapon training that dont even allowed it to get the best weapons of the type the player choose("learn" how to use an assault rilfe but not getting the revenant even in new game plus?).

[Lumikki]

I ques people don't seem to understand what long talking means. Okey let put you in this extreme situation.

You start to play ME1 and are going to first mission. Now two squad members starts to talk planets weather for next one hour and you can't do anything about it. You would want to move on, but they just keep talking somethign what you lost interest after first 2 minutes. But they just keep talking about it.

My point is that talking isn't bad, if it's story related and interesting. How ever, not all talking is good or needed. Sometimes saying short comment of plantes weather can be great. How ever, making assumption that player is interestign every possible long talk is just stupid.

Now do every player has same patience listen talks what aren't related what they do?

Modifié par Lumikki, 23 août 2010 - 11:29 .

[shootist70]

Lumikki wrote...

You start to play ME1 and are going to first mission. Now two squad members starts to talk planets weather for next one hour and you can't do anything about it.

Correct me if I'm wrong but I honestly don't remember that in the game at all.

[Solaris Paradox]

I'd rather lose a little of the irrelevant banter and divert those resources and hours of VO recording to giving the game more depth as far as the how-choices-change-things aspect goes, personally.

[bjdbwea]

Lumikki wrote...

You start to play ME1 and are going to first mission. Now two squad members starts to talk planets weather for next one hour and you can't do anything about it. You would want to move on, but they just keep talking somethign what you lost interest after first 2 minutes. But they just keep talking about it.

Bad example, because it has never happened and never will. However, if the companions would spend 2 minutes talking about an interesting weather on one of the planets, I would like that a lot. Adds exactly the kind of atmosphere and immersion an RPG needs and ME 2 lacks so much.

Modifié par bjdbwea, 23 août 2010 - 11:34 .

[Lumikki]

shootist70 wrote...

Lumikki wrote...

You start to play ME1 and are going to first mission. Now two squad members starts to talk planets weather for next one hour and you can't do anything about it.

Correct me if I'm wrong but I honestly don't remember that in the game at all.

That was invented extreme example to make point so that it's easyer to understand what's the point.

[Lumikki]

bjdbwea wrote...

Lumikki wrote...

You start to play ME1 and are going to first mission. Now two squad members starts to talk planets weather for next one hour and you can't do anything about it. You would want to move on, but they just keep talking somethign what you lost interest after first 2 minutes. But they just keep talking about it.

Bad example, because it has never happened and never will. However, if the companions would spend 2 minutes talking about an interesting weather on one of the planets, I would like that a lot. Adds exactly the kind of atmosphere and immersion an RPG needs.

Oh my god does everyone miss the point.

Yes, you could be interesting, but don't assume everyone else would, I could be bored with the talk in first 2 second, while you would love to hear for 2 minutes.

Modifié par Lumikki, 23 août 2010 - 11:35 .

[bjdbwea]

Well, if you're bored with dialogue so quickly, and if you can't be bothered to skip it, maybe you should go find a different game, or better yet a different genre?

Modifié par bjdbwea, 23 août 2010 - 11:37 .

[shootist70]

Lumikki wrote...


Yes, you could be interesting, but don't assume everyone else would, I could be bored with the talk in first 2 second, while you would love to hear for 2 minutes.

Fair enough, although people will miss the point if it's unclear. Like I said earlier, it should be about having more effective dialogue, not less dialogue overall

[Lumikki]

bjdbwea wrote...

Well, if you're bored with dialogue so quickly, and if you can't be bothered to skip it, maybe you should go find a different game, or better yet a different genre?

I ques there is no point to even try if you people don't listen. Story related dialogs or back ground related dialogs are two different thing. I can listen story related dialogs for next 30 minutes and like it. That doesn't mean I want to listen 5 minutes some weather talk what has nothing to do anything.

Point is don't assume everyone likes same than you do.

[tonnactus]

Lumikki wrote...

Yes, talking can make game feel more alive, but it can be over done.

Examples where it was overdone in the first game?

What you like isn't necassary same what "I" like. Like I sayed, I get annoyed non story related longer talks with team members.

Most of the dialogs in MAss Effect 2 were not story related.(stopping reapers/collectors not daddy issues)

[LOLgarrusLOL]

The person who voices femshep is bad at doing it. She sounds bored all the way through the game.



Lack of airlocks.



The squad don't seem to be aware of each others existance.