There is no balance if there is variety! One option will always be .0(assume 50 billion zeros)1% better and all the L337 kids WILL use it. The only way have balance is to remove choice and make everyone the exact same. Not defending Immunity spam just pointing out a fact.
Making a more balanced game does not = making it harder. Difficulty is fine(would like to see a 360 player beat the save the crates mission on insanity) where it is at now. In fact make cover more safe was a goal of the combat revamp according to the slides.
D&D: To hit is based on character stats? Fail. Damage is based on character stats? Fail. Can see hard numbers on weapons? Fail. Take loot off of enemies? Fail. Sell loot to make money? Fail. We could play this game all day but no one wins.
What happened to this being a rpg?
Débuté par
Guest_Shavon_*
, mars 09 2010 03:25
Retour en haut
#652
Posté 22 mars 2010 - 06:29
MarloMarlo
-
- Members
- 199 messages
The world would be a better place without RPG as a category of video games. The Internet would be, anyway.
ME1 is a third person shooter with role playing, just like it's a third person shooter with vehicle driving. Dragon Age is a, um, third person squad game? Third person tactical? Something that sounds better than that but is just as descriptive of how it's played. And it, too, has role playing, just like it has leveling and things that are not role playing. No One Lives Forever 2 would be an FPS with stat progression. See how beautifully that works? None of that silly "this specific rule is a role playing element" stuff that would make No One Lives Forever 2, which doesn't have role playing, an FPS/RPG hybrid according to some people's wrong definitions of RPG.
Babies would giggle; kittens would mew. That's how great it would be. Don't you all want to live in a world of giggling babies and mewing kittens? I know I do.
ME1 is a third person shooter with role playing, just like it's a third person shooter with vehicle driving. Dragon Age is a, um, third person squad game? Third person tactical? Something that sounds better than that but is just as descriptive of how it's played. And it, too, has role playing, just like it has leveling and things that are not role playing. No One Lives Forever 2 would be an FPS with stat progression. See how beautifully that works? None of that silly "this specific rule is a role playing element" stuff that would make No One Lives Forever 2, which doesn't have role playing, an FPS/RPG hybrid according to some people's wrong definitions of RPG.
Babies would giggle; kittens would mew. That's how great it would be. Don't you all want to live in a world of giggling babies and mewing kittens? I know I do.
#653
Posté 22 mars 2010 - 06:33
Kalfear
-
- Members
- 1 475 messages
MarloMarlo wrote...
The world would be a better place without RPG as a category of video games. The Internet would be, anyway.
ME1 is a third person shooter with role playing, just like it's a third person shooter with vehicle driving. Dragon Age is a, um, third person squad game? Third person tactical? Something that sounds better than that but is just as descriptive of how it's played. And it, too, has role playing, just like it has leveling and things that are not role playing. No One Lives Forever 2 would be an FPS with stat progression. See how beautifully that works? None of that silly "this specific rule is a role playing element" stuff that would make No One Lives Forever 2, which doesn't have role playing, an FPS/RPG hybrid according to some people's wrong definitions of RPG.
Babies would giggle; kittens would mew. That's how great it would be. Don't you all want to live in a world of giggling babies and mewing kittens? I know I do.
Troll much?
#654
Posté 22 mars 2010 - 06:39
MarloMarlo
-
- Members
- 199 messages
Is asking stupid questions what you do while waiting for your thread to reach its 4th page?
#655
Posté 22 mars 2010 - 06:55
Sylvius the Mad
-
- Members
- 24 112 messages
[quote]Lusitanum wrote...
They're the same thing: RPGs. However, those were at the genesis of the genre which has since now branched out into new, unexplored territory.[/quote]
But many of the features from those early games are missing.
If something is an RPG, then it exhibits some characteristics that make it an RPG. There are necessary and suffiencient conditions any game must meet to warant the label RPG.
So if those early games were RPGs, and ME2 is an RPG, what are those relevant characteristics?
[quote]Following your logic, what is Pong nowadays?[/quote]
It's a videogame. Specifically, it's an action game.
[quote]Of course not, Pong is as much a videogame as is Civilization, Super Mario, Final Fantasy, Grand Theft Auto, etc.[/quote]
That doesn't make any sense at all. Whether Pong is a videogame is binary. There's no such thing as "as much a videogame". Once something meets the necessary and sufficient conditions, it is a videogame. There are no degrees of qualification. Either it passes teh threshold or it doesn't.
[quote]Well, then the character didn't revolve around your preferences, sorry about that.[/quote]
And that's what makes it not an RPG. I can't play the character if I don't know him. I can't know him if I don't create him (or he's exceptionally well documented, but almost nothing is games is well documented anymore).
[quote]And I'm the one being obtuse? Alistair is supposed to be purposefuly making your life harder just for kicks[/quote]
There you go again. You're assuming he's doing it just for kicks, even though that doesn't make any sense. You're complaining that you broke the game by making bad assumptions.
It could be part of the test. You don't know, because Duncan never tells you. Why would you jump to conclusions like that, especially when then conclusion ou chose diminishes your enjoyment of the game?
[quote]They did jump at me, but by the time I was that far into the game I had had so few opportunities to actually role-play that kind of character that I had already given up several hours before and just said "screw it, I'm just going to play as "me" again, see what options are offered throughout the game, and then try to create a character that the game will allow me to RP".[/quote]
So the game was too long for you and you lost interest?
No, I don't even buy that. You had the chance to tell the King that you didn't care who he was because he was human. You could tell the soldiers at Ostagar that they mistreated their elven servants and that you hated them for it. Did you just not talk to people who weren't quest givers? I wonder if you were poorly served by the plot helpers; I don't really know what they did because I turned them off as soon as I installed the game, but I wonder if some played just followered the arrows (or whatever they are) and missed a lot of the roleplaying content.
[quote]And the Final Fantasy series.[/quote]
JRPGs aren't RPGs. They never really have been.
[quote]Now, a game that has one lead character that goes through a plot like the ones like Mass Effect or The Witcher? That's a huge improvement over the mutes.[/quote]
Only because you don't like roleplaying, something you've already admitted (and asserted that no one does it).
[quote]Dragon Age, on the other hand, is a game of easy,detachable combat. In most of the fights I just select everyone, order them to attack someone, wait until they've killed it, click on someone else, wait, click again with only the odd use of an ability of spell to speed things up. So I can't fold my arms, but I do end up with my left hand holding my head or my cup of tea while I keep my right hand tapping on the mouse waitting for the next click. And the fact that you can pretty much beat any fight using the same tactic from start to finish doesn't help.
I get the feeling that if I could just queue a few orders (like you can in pretty much any strategy game in existence) I could just lean back and watch the combat unfold. Or do something else entirely. Like making another cup of tea.[/quote]
Easy and detached are unreleated, though. They need not occur together.
I dislike how how much every battle in Dragon Age accommodates a similar tactical approach (and thus makes the combat both easy and repetitive), but that's a problem entirely separate from the combat being detached. DAO combat done perfectly would involve a lot more time spent thinking while paused.
[quote]It wasn't, I was just pointing out that we had enough dead time as is.[/quote]
Planning and preparation is not dead time. Thinking is not dead time. Atmosphere (I wish DAO had made us walk the whole distance through the Deep Roads, rather than letting us jump ahead to the next thaig) is not dead time.
That last point is also why I enjoyed the Mako in ME. Time spent driving across an uncharted world made the world feel bigger, and made it feel less like a game environment. Some of thse mountains were just there - they weren't there just to serve as a game environment for me. I didn't have to drive them, but that I could improved the game's atmosphere tremendously.
[quote]Did you miss the point of the whole scene? People aren't making a decision based on those speeches alone, they have their own ideas, their own beliefs on what should be done, their own fears and motivs on what they should do, and each speech tries to convince them to adopt a given decision.[/quote]
But neither speech was sufficient (especially in the presence of the other speech) to sway a reasoned observer from any of the three available positions (liquidation, anti-liquidation, or uncertainty).
Only people who already agreed wtih Peck's position would find Peck's argument compelling. Only people who already agreed with DeVito's position (as I likely would have) would find DeVito's argument compelling.
[quote]You don't always need to see both sides to reach a decision. It might help, but it's not always imperative. At first, Garrus believes that you can't do any good if you always follow procedure, but you can convince him by both words and actions that he might be wrong.[/quote]
Oh, so he's not reaching a position. He's abandoning a decision. Well, yes, it should always be possible to sow enough doubt to cause someone to return to the rational default position uncertainty.
[quote]and the third is making a persuade check by literally saying "It's for the best."[/quote]
Figuratively, not literally. Again, the actual line uttered by the PC is left as implicit content (the real beauty of the lack of cinematic presentation). The PC only says exactly what's written down if you say so.
[quote]Yes, I try to make a character interssting and I forget to add that.
Are you serious?[/quote]
Yes. You clearly don't know what you find interesting in a character because you're unable to add those characteristics to one even when given carte blanche to do whatever you'd like.
The only other explanation is that there is no possible character you would find interesting on his merits, and it's the surprise and discovery of getting to know a pre-written character you enjoy. But then you're never playing your character, and you're simply unable to enjoy an RPG.
[quote]No, you showed nothing at all. I said that I managed to drive Shepard wherever I meant him to go, regardless of wheter or not I knew exactly what he was going to do, and I still stand by that.[/quote]
Then you don't understand what I'm saying.
That you managed to drive Shepard where you intended is not evidence that you knew where he was going. that's only evidence that you guessed right.
If you bet 500 on red and win, that doesn't mean you can predict the roulette wheel. That just means you got lucky.
You can't control a coherent character without knowledge of exactly what he's going to do because then there's a risk he might break character. Regardless of whether he ever does break character, you can't (reasonably) act with any confidence for fear that he might.
[quote]I'm not "dodging" the issue, I'm just telling you how things are.[/quote]
No, you're telling me how things were, which wasn't what I was asking.
[quote]Or what about having to keep feeding the ammo slots of your character with the arrows they already had in their inventory[/quote]
Because rummaging through your pack takes time, and time isn't something you have during combat. It's called realism.
I like realism in my games. Apparently you don't.
[quote]because apparently they were too stupid to use do it themselves, meaning that if you forgot to check every 5 minutes, you'd have Imoen charging her opponents with her sword and getting killed in an instant, because she was apparently too stupid to just get another arrow from the dozens she had in her inventory.[/quote]
Are you entirely unfamilar with party-based games? Clearly not, since you played BG, but what are you talking about? Imoen didn't act on her own because you're the one playing the game, not her. In a party-based game, you play the whole party. If you want Imoen to adjust her inventory, or learn a skill, or attack someone, or start a conversation (and she coud do all of those things - the PC wasn't at all special in this respect), then you have to do that.
The game isn't going to play itself. Weren't you just complaining about combat doing that? Or is combat the only part of the game you want to play?
[quote]Rachni Queen. Kill or let go.
The Keeper Scanner. Keep scanning or stop after your learn the truth?
The garage pass on Noveria. Several choices on what your options are and how to go about it.
Virmire. Ashley or Kaidan?
How in the hell is this hard to figure out?[/quote]
You've listed a handful of action-based decisions where it was Shepard's actions that mattered, and the player did have some measure of control over them.
But the game asks for the player's input on decisions like these literally hundreds of times during the game. Every line of every conversation, and yet there's no way to know what it is you're choosing.
Incidentally, it's not clear on Virmire that you can't save both until after you've saved one, or that you're locked in to choosing one based on a single radio communication; can't Shepard change his mind?. And the Rachni Queen choice actually describes the actions Shepard will take in the wheel, which is extremely rare in ME. My complaint is that the game almost never does that.
[quote]Or since we're talking about music, what about music genres. Do you really think you could ever teach a deaf person what Punk Rock is just by giving them a book?[/quote]
Relative to other musical genres, absolutely. That deaf person could probably then describe punk rock well enough that a hearing person could correctly identify it.
[quote]I've had more tactical though in ME2 than I ever did on Baldur's Gate, Neverwinter Nights, Dragon Age.[/quote]
How about strategic thought?
[quote]And when you do succeed and everything goes the way you planned it, it gives you a sense that you won't get anywhere else.[/quote]
The sense that I was lucky, and I can't ever know if I succeeded as a result of good decision-making? Maybe, but why would I want that?
I find defeating an obstacle far more rewarding if I can quatify exactly how difficult an obstacle it was.
[quote]Turn-based RPGs, on the other hand, is mostly a matter of memorizing the rules and acting on that knowledge.[/quote]
You over-simplify. Yes, you've described all the steps, but that last one might require a lot of creativity in a well-designed game.
They're the same thing: RPGs. However, those were at the genesis of the genre which has since now branched out into new, unexplored territory.[/quote]
But many of the features from those early games are missing.
If something is an RPG, then it exhibits some characteristics that make it an RPG. There are necessary and suffiencient conditions any game must meet to warant the label RPG.
So if those early games were RPGs, and ME2 is an RPG, what are those relevant characteristics?
[quote]Following your logic, what is Pong nowadays?[/quote]
It's a videogame. Specifically, it's an action game.
[quote]Of course not, Pong is as much a videogame as is Civilization, Super Mario, Final Fantasy, Grand Theft Auto, etc.[/quote]
That doesn't make any sense at all. Whether Pong is a videogame is binary. There's no such thing as "as much a videogame". Once something meets the necessary and sufficient conditions, it is a videogame. There are no degrees of qualification. Either it passes teh threshold or it doesn't.
[quote]Well, then the character didn't revolve around your preferences, sorry about that.[/quote]
And that's what makes it not an RPG. I can't play the character if I don't know him. I can't know him if I don't create him (or he's exceptionally well documented, but almost nothing is games is well documented anymore).
[quote]And I'm the one being obtuse? Alistair is supposed to be purposefuly making your life harder just for kicks[/quote]
There you go again. You're assuming he's doing it just for kicks, even though that doesn't make any sense. You're complaining that you broke the game by making bad assumptions.
It could be part of the test. You don't know, because Duncan never tells you. Why would you jump to conclusions like that, especially when then conclusion ou chose diminishes your enjoyment of the game?
[quote]They did jump at me, but by the time I was that far into the game I had had so few opportunities to actually role-play that kind of character that I had already given up several hours before and just said "screw it, I'm just going to play as "me" again, see what options are offered throughout the game, and then try to create a character that the game will allow me to RP".[/quote]
So the game was too long for you and you lost interest?
No, I don't even buy that. You had the chance to tell the King that you didn't care who he was because he was human. You could tell the soldiers at Ostagar that they mistreated their elven servants and that you hated them for it. Did you just not talk to people who weren't quest givers? I wonder if you were poorly served by the plot helpers; I don't really know what they did because I turned them off as soon as I installed the game, but I wonder if some played just followered the arrows (or whatever they are) and missed a lot of the roleplaying content.
[quote]And the Final Fantasy series.[/quote]
JRPGs aren't RPGs. They never really have been.
[quote]Now, a game that has one lead character that goes through a plot like the ones like Mass Effect or The Witcher? That's a huge improvement over the mutes.[/quote]
Only because you don't like roleplaying, something you've already admitted (and asserted that no one does it).
[quote]Dragon Age, on the other hand, is a game of easy,detachable combat. In most of the fights I just select everyone, order them to attack someone, wait until they've killed it, click on someone else, wait, click again with only the odd use of an ability of spell to speed things up. So I can't fold my arms, but I do end up with my left hand holding my head or my cup of tea while I keep my right hand tapping on the mouse waitting for the next click. And the fact that you can pretty much beat any fight using the same tactic from start to finish doesn't help.
I get the feeling that if I could just queue a few orders (like you can in pretty much any strategy game in existence) I could just lean back and watch the combat unfold. Or do something else entirely. Like making another cup of tea.[/quote]
Easy and detached are unreleated, though. They need not occur together.
I dislike how how much every battle in Dragon Age accommodates a similar tactical approach (and thus makes the combat both easy and repetitive), but that's a problem entirely separate from the combat being detached. DAO combat done perfectly would involve a lot more time spent thinking while paused.
[quote]It wasn't, I was just pointing out that we had enough dead time as is.[/quote]
Planning and preparation is not dead time. Thinking is not dead time. Atmosphere (I wish DAO had made us walk the whole distance through the Deep Roads, rather than letting us jump ahead to the next thaig) is not dead time.
That last point is also why I enjoyed the Mako in ME. Time spent driving across an uncharted world made the world feel bigger, and made it feel less like a game environment. Some of thse mountains were just there - they weren't there just to serve as a game environment for me. I didn't have to drive them, but that I could improved the game's atmosphere tremendously.
[quote]Did you miss the point of the whole scene? People aren't making a decision based on those speeches alone, they have their own ideas, their own beliefs on what should be done, their own fears and motivs on what they should do, and each speech tries to convince them to adopt a given decision.[/quote]
But neither speech was sufficient (especially in the presence of the other speech) to sway a reasoned observer from any of the three available positions (liquidation, anti-liquidation, or uncertainty).
Only people who already agreed wtih Peck's position would find Peck's argument compelling. Only people who already agreed with DeVito's position (as I likely would have) would find DeVito's argument compelling.
[quote]You don't always need to see both sides to reach a decision. It might help, but it's not always imperative. At first, Garrus believes that you can't do any good if you always follow procedure, but you can convince him by both words and actions that he might be wrong.[/quote]
Oh, so he's not reaching a position. He's abandoning a decision. Well, yes, it should always be possible to sow enough doubt to cause someone to return to the rational default position uncertainty.
[quote]and the third is making a persuade check by literally saying "It's for the best."[/quote]
Figuratively, not literally. Again, the actual line uttered by the PC is left as implicit content (the real beauty of the lack of cinematic presentation). The PC only says exactly what's written down if you say so.
[quote]Yes, I try to make a character interssting and I forget to add that.
Are you serious?[/quote]
Yes. You clearly don't know what you find interesting in a character because you're unable to add those characteristics to one even when given carte blanche to do whatever you'd like.
The only other explanation is that there is no possible character you would find interesting on his merits, and it's the surprise and discovery of getting to know a pre-written character you enjoy. But then you're never playing your character, and you're simply unable to enjoy an RPG.
[quote]No, you showed nothing at all. I said that I managed to drive Shepard wherever I meant him to go, regardless of wheter or not I knew exactly what he was going to do, and I still stand by that.[/quote]
Then you don't understand what I'm saying.
That you managed to drive Shepard where you intended is not evidence that you knew where he was going. that's only evidence that you guessed right.
If you bet 500 on red and win, that doesn't mean you can predict the roulette wheel. That just means you got lucky.
You can't control a coherent character without knowledge of exactly what he's going to do because then there's a risk he might break character. Regardless of whether he ever does break character, you can't (reasonably) act with any confidence for fear that he might.
[quote]I'm not "dodging" the issue, I'm just telling you how things are.[/quote]
No, you're telling me how things were, which wasn't what I was asking.
[quote]Or what about having to keep feeding the ammo slots of your character with the arrows they already had in their inventory[/quote]
Because rummaging through your pack takes time, and time isn't something you have during combat. It's called realism.
I like realism in my games. Apparently you don't.
[quote]because apparently they were too stupid to use do it themselves, meaning that if you forgot to check every 5 minutes, you'd have Imoen charging her opponents with her sword and getting killed in an instant, because she was apparently too stupid to just get another arrow from the dozens she had in her inventory.[/quote]
Are you entirely unfamilar with party-based games? Clearly not, since you played BG, but what are you talking about? Imoen didn't act on her own because you're the one playing the game, not her. In a party-based game, you play the whole party. If you want Imoen to adjust her inventory, or learn a skill, or attack someone, or start a conversation (and she coud do all of those things - the PC wasn't at all special in this respect), then you have to do that.
The game isn't going to play itself. Weren't you just complaining about combat doing that? Or is combat the only part of the game you want to play?
[quote]Rachni Queen. Kill or let go.
The Keeper Scanner. Keep scanning or stop after your learn the truth?
The garage pass on Noveria. Several choices on what your options are and how to go about it.
Virmire. Ashley or Kaidan?
How in the hell is this hard to figure out?[/quote]
You've listed a handful of action-based decisions where it was Shepard's actions that mattered, and the player did have some measure of control over them.
But the game asks for the player's input on decisions like these literally hundreds of times during the game. Every line of every conversation, and yet there's no way to know what it is you're choosing.
Incidentally, it's not clear on Virmire that you can't save both until after you've saved one, or that you're locked in to choosing one based on a single radio communication; can't Shepard change his mind?. And the Rachni Queen choice actually describes the actions Shepard will take in the wheel, which is extremely rare in ME. My complaint is that the game almost never does that.
[quote]Or since we're talking about music, what about music genres. Do you really think you could ever teach a deaf person what Punk Rock is just by giving them a book?[/quote]
Relative to other musical genres, absolutely. That deaf person could probably then describe punk rock well enough that a hearing person could correctly identify it.
[quote]I've had more tactical though in ME2 than I ever did on Baldur's Gate, Neverwinter Nights, Dragon Age.[/quote]
How about strategic thought?
[quote]And when you do succeed and everything goes the way you planned it, it gives you a sense that you won't get anywhere else.[/quote]
The sense that I was lucky, and I can't ever know if I succeeded as a result of good decision-making? Maybe, but why would I want that?
I find defeating an obstacle far more rewarding if I can quatify exactly how difficult an obstacle it was.
[quote]Turn-based RPGs, on the other hand, is mostly a matter of memorizing the rules and acting on that knowledge.[/quote]
You over-simplify. Yes, you've described all the steps, but that last one might require a lot of creativity in a well-designed game.
Modifié par Sylvius the Mad, 22 mars 2010 - 06:56 .
#656
Posté 22 mars 2010 - 07:20
Pocketgb
-
- Members
- 1 466 messages
Dudeman315 wrote...
There is no balance if there is variety! One option will always be .0(assume 50 billion zeros)1% better and all the L337 kids WILL use it. The only way have balance is to remove choice and make everyone the exact same. Not defending Immunity spam just pointing out a fact.
Play Starcraft. Heck, or even Dawn of War 2.
Now, can Bioware make decent balance? Meh, not feeling too faithful, but Immunity wasn't even really "trying".
#657
Posté 22 mars 2010 - 07:38
zazei
-
- Members
- 130 messages
Pocketgb wrote...
Dudeman315 wrote...
There is no balance if there is variety! One option will always be .0(assume 50 billion zeros)1% better and all the L337 kids WILL use it. The only way have balance is to remove choice and make everyone the exact same. Not defending Immunity spam just pointing out a fact.
Play Starcraft. Heck, or even Dawn of War 2.
Now, can Bioware make decent balance? Meh, not feeling too faithful, but Immunity wasn't even really "trying".
Those games are RTS and made for multiplayer, that is hardly the same thing as balancing a game like Mass effect. Besides have you even tried to play a class that doesn't have it? One class being broken out of six is not so bad, just don't pick it.
If anything Mass effect 2 has worse balance problems if in another direction. While the game is playable with all classes on all levels the classes based around guns have far more options then those that are not. Biotics/tech experts are limited by barriers/shields/protection while soldiers and infiltrators can always use all of their abilities no matter what. I wouldn't call that balanced either.
Modifié par zazei, 22 mars 2010 - 07:41 .
#658
Posté 22 mars 2010 - 07:56
Pocketgb
-
- Members
- 1 466 messages
Infiltrators are indeed god tier in this game, and quite a few of the other classes are definitely not as straight forward.
The only reason I mentioned Starcraft was because the person I quoted claimed there could be no balance multiple choices and paths, but there are indeed plenty of games that *do* have a plethora of balance *and* variety.
Not only that but I wasn't advocating that ME2 was more balanced than ME1. This whole "balance" discussion kicked in when discussion about Immunity was kicking in.
The only reason I mentioned Starcraft was because the person I quoted claimed there could be no balance multiple choices and paths, but there are indeed plenty of games that *do* have a plethora of balance *and* variety.
Not only that but I wasn't advocating that ME2 was more balanced than ME1. This whole "balance" discussion kicked in when discussion about Immunity was kicking in.
Modifié par Pocketgb, 22 mars 2010 - 07:57 .
#659
Posté 22 mars 2010 - 08:12
exxxed
-
- Members
- 274 messages
Pocketgb wrote...
Infiltrators are indeed god tier in this game, and quite a few of the other classes are definitely not as straight forward.
The only reason I mentioned Starcraft was because the person I quoted claimed there could be no balance multiple choices and paths, but there are indeed plenty of games that *do* have a plethora of balance *and* variety.
Not only that but I wasn't advocating that ME2 was more balanced than ME1. This whole "balance" discussion kicked in when discussion about Immunity was kicking in.
RTS' are based on the rock-paper-scissors principal in general, you can't have an action/RPG game based on that ... can you?
I really haven't thought about it that much, but i pretty much believe it can't.
#660
Posté 22 mars 2010 - 08:17
Pocketgb
-
- Members
- 1 466 messages
exxxed wrote...
Pocketgb wrote...
Infiltrators are indeed god tier in this game, and quite a few of the other classes are definitely not as straight forward.
The only reason I mentioned Starcraft was because the person I quoted claimed there could be no balance multiple choices and paths, but there are indeed plenty of games that *do* have a plethora of balance *and* variety.
Not only that but I wasn't advocating that ME2 was more balanced than ME1. This whole "balance" discussion kicked in when discussion about Immunity was kicking in.
RTS' are based on the rock-paper-scissors principal in general, you can't have an action/RPG game based on that ... can you?
I really haven't thought about it that much, but i pretty much believe it can't.
What do you believe that I'm implying, that we should look at games like Starcraft for balance suggestions?
Look at the post I quoted. The user believes that balance is impossible to achieve - which is, in a sense, true: true balance would mean that everyone's the same.
But I highlighted Starcraft - possibly one of the most balanced games in gaming - as an example that even when providing a lot of choices, a lot of paths, and a lot of variety (that's all spread across three races) that the game is still fair.
It was just one example, possibly one of the best, for those who think striving for balance is hopeless. That might not be what Dudeman fully believe, of course, so this could all be based off of silliness caused by me ; p
#661
Posté 22 mars 2010 - 08:28
exxxed
-
- Members
- 274 messages
Pocketgb wrote...
exxxed wrote...
Pocketgb wrote...
Infiltrators are indeed god tier in this game, and quite a few of the other classes are definitely not as straight forward.
The only reason I mentioned Starcraft was because the person I quoted claimed there could be no balance multiple choices and paths, but there are indeed plenty of games that *do* have a plethora of balance *and* variety.
Not only that but I wasn't advocating that ME2 was more balanced than ME1. This whole "balance" discussion kicked in when discussion about Immunity was kicking in.
RTS' are based on the rock-paper-scissors principal in general, you can't have an action/RPG game based on that ... can you?
I really haven't thought about it that much, but i pretty much believe it can't.
What do you believe that I'm implying, that we should look at games like Starcraft for balance suggestions?
Look at the post I quoted. The user believes that balance is impossible to achieve - which is, in a sense, true: true balance would mean that everyone's the same.
But I highlighted Starcraft - possibly one of the most balanced games in gaming - as an example that even when providing a lot of choices, a lot of paths, and a lot of variety (that's all spread across three races) that the game is still fair.
It was just one example, possibly one of the best, for those who think striving for balance is hopeless. That might not be what Dudeman fully believe, of course, so this could all be based off of silliness caused by me ; p
Not that i don't agree with you my friend, we all know Blizzard's devotion to their games is unmatched, probably RTS is not the best example of balance on this forum, but i actually agree that it's achievable.
But the core feature of role playing is ... well... role playing even if the player is a spammer or minimaxer that's his choice, i actually chose not to be either of them.
I love playing as an infiltrator, which was done pretty good in the first game (accuracy based on stance and skills etc.) but i still loved to use the shotgun while fighting melee opponents like husks and thorian creepers, even geth troopers after punching them in the face with an exoskeleton VII-X, but here if i chose the shotgun as an infiltrator i bretty much miss the only worth while sniper rifle (Widow?)...
So yea, less options doesn't always mean balance nor does it help the role playing perspective of a certain game.
Remember in the first game how many different kind of characters you could create in the same class based on your game style?
I had about three infiltrators and each and every one was unique. That's pretty much gone now.
Take care man!
#662
Posté 22 mars 2010 - 10:37
Pocketgb
-
- Members
- 1 466 messages
exxxed wrote...
I love playing as an infiltrator, which was done pretty good in the first game (accuracy based on stance and skills etc.) but i still loved to use the shotgun while fighting melee opponents like husks and thorian creepers, even geth troopers after punching them in the face with an exoskeleton VII-X, but here if i chose the shotgun as an infiltrator i bretty much miss the only worth while sniper rifle (Widow?)...
Yes. What's worth more to you, though: getting access to the Widow, or getting access to another type of gun? It's a pretty tough call, and it was very interesting to see that they made you actually *stick* with that decision, even though it doesn't make much sense.
exxxed wrote...
So yea, less options doesn't always mean balance nor does it help the role playing perspective of a certain game.
Remember in the first game how many different kind of characters you could create in the same class based on your game style?
Depending on the class you still can, although it is a bit agreeable that this flexibility was decreased on varying levels. In regards to why we see this change, it could be because Bioware wants each class to have much more of a define role, something especially lacking in ME1. Not to mention that there are still a lot of options when customizing your character.
#663
Posté 22 mars 2010 - 10:57
exxxed
-
- Members
- 274 messages
Pocketgb wrote...
1) Yes. What's worth more to you, though: getting access to the Widow, or getting access to another type of gun? It's a pretty tough call, and it was very interesting to see that they made you actually *stick* with that decision, even though it doesn't make much sense.
2) Not to mention that there are still a lot of options when customizing your character.
1) I surely wasn't saying that i hated being limited to one of those options, but i was pointing out the fatc that even if i wasn't trained in any way using shotguns, i still could, plus there were a bunch of achievements which let you customize your character based on the weapons you used, so in the end i pretty much stuck with being a classic infiltrator, but i still had the option of using the shotgun (without losing anything since i wasn't trained in that style of combat) just for the kicks
!2) Not so much, explain to me how different can two characters from the same class can be compared to Mass Effect 1?
P.S. Almost every significant upgrade/weapon scan is basically thrown in your face in those linear levels, so i can't imagine that someone missed them...
#664
Posté 22 mars 2010 - 12:45
Dudeman315
-
- Members
- 240 messages
The Zerg rush was an example of balance? Never played Dawn of War 2 so I comment on it. Infiltrator and Vanguard both seem overpowered compared to the other classes but I believe the other classes need brought up to their level, not those 2 brought down.
#665
Posté 22 mars 2010 - 01:11
Daeion
-
- Members
- 1 896 messages
finnithe wrote...
Dudeman315 wrote...
Using the Best of the Best in most RPGs destroys the challenge. And most RPGers don't care cause they can RP not using the the best of the best. This is the only RPG I've heard people complain about not being HARD enough. I also didn't play ME1 right apparently, cause no immunity at all let alone spamming it and no double frictionless is playing it wrong according to all the FPS kiddies.
Reminds me of the people who want the easiest song on Guitar Hero to be Through the Fire and the Flames on expert. Seriously people not every game has to have an "impossible" challenge mode.
Don't tell me that in Dragon Age using the best equipment meant that you never died. Even abusing Blood Magic doesn't always work. People are also complaining that Awakening is too easy and there are Nightmare+ mods for DA:O.
I would say that there's a difference between the way a game was designed, i.e. DA not being hard, and doing something the devs probably didn't intend for people to do, i.e. immunity and barrier spam with double frictionless,
#666
Posté 22 mars 2010 - 05:56
Lusitanum
-
- Members
- 334 messages
[quote]Sylvius the Mad wrote...
But many of the features from those early games are missing.
If something is an RPG, then it exhibits some characteristics that make it an RPG. There are necessary and suffiencient conditions any game must meet to warant the label RPG.
So if those early games were RPGs, and ME2 is an RPG, what are those relevant characteristics?[/quote]
Given the way videogames evolve and adapt in all kinds of ways, it's hard to say, but if you twisted my arm, I'd say that the relevant characteristics would be the ones that are the most common in a given genre.
And guess what? Role-playing isn't one of them. Not by a long shot.
[quote]Sylvius the Mad wrote...
It's a videogame. Specifically, it's an action game.[/quote]
I thought it was a sports game. Then again, it's hard to tell since the game is so basic...
[quote]Sylvius the Mad wrote...
That doesn't make any sense at all. Whether Pong is a videogame is binary. There's no such thing as "as much a videogame". Once something meets the necessary and sufficient conditions, it is a videogame. There are no degrees of qualification. Either it passes teh threshold or it doesn't.[/quote]
Exactly. They're all videogames just like any game that passes a certain threshold of the most common RPG mechanics becomes an RPG, regardless of wheter or not how much role-playing it has.
[quote]Sylvius the Mad wrote...
And that's what makes it not an RPG. I can't play the character if I don't know him. I can't know him if I don't create him (or he's exceptionally well documented, but almost nothing is games is well documented anymore).[/quote]
That's not what makes an RPG. We've been through this. Do I really need to go over the basics again?
[quote]Sylvius the Mad wrote...
There you go again. You're assuming he's doing it just for kicks, even though that doesn't make any sense. You're complaining that you broke the game by making bad assumptions.
It could be part of the test. You don't know, because Duncan never tells you. Why would you jump to conclusions like that, especially when then conclusion ou chose diminishes your enjoyment of the game?[/quote]
Right, so besides the whole "get the blood from the Darkspawn" part (which Duncan admits is part of the test) and getting the treaties (which are not part of the test, but since we need them... ), Duncan might be trying to test your abilities to sense an enemy you've never faced in your entire life! I mean, you might be a major asset to the Grey Wardens due to... whatever fenomenal skills Duncan sees in you, but if you can't sense Darkspawn without Grey Warden senses, and especially since you have a Grey Warden with you for that very purpose, then you suck and deserve to die.
Oh, and it was also nice to become a Grey Warden, sign your own death warrant, have nightmares about the Archdemon and still not have a single skill that you wouldn't have if you had never gone through the Joining. Remind me again why the hell Grey Wardens decide to commit suicide in exchange for nothing?
Oh, and by the way, since I don't have the ability to sense Darkspawn, why isn't Alistair helping me detect them after Ostagar? Is it still part of Duncan's test or something?
[quote]Sylvius the Mad wrote...
So the game was too long for you and you lost interest?[/quote]
Kinda. After about 50-60 hours of doing the same thing over and over again, I felt like I earned my ending, but I wasn't even done with the treaties by then. So there is such a thing as a game that's too long for its own good.
[quote]Sylvius the Mad wrote...
No, I don't even buy that. You had the chance to tell the King that you didn't care who he was because he was human. You could tell the soldiers at Ostagar that they mistreated their elven servants and that you hated them for it. Did you just not talk to people who weren't quest givers? I wonder if you were poorly served by the plot helpers; I don't really know what they did because I turned them off as soon as I installed the game, but I wonder if some played just followered the arrows (or whatever they are) and missed a lot of the roleplaying content.[/quote]
I talk with everyone in games. I search every nook and cranny for things to find, stuff to do and people to talk to. I even read the goddamned codex, although I gave up near the end of the game when I realized that even picking up a freaking sword would dump its life story into my journal.
So I'll keep repeating myself: there weren't nearly enough opportunities to role-play the kind of character I was aiming for, so I just had to give up.
[quote]Sylvius the Mad wrote...
JRPGs aren't RPGs. They never really have been.[/quote]
They are. It's right there in the name and everything. They're not my favorite kind of RPG either, but they belong to the genre.
[quote]Sylvius the Mad wrote...
Only because you don't like roleplaying, something you've already admitted (and asserted that no one does it).[/quote]
When did I ever said I don't like roleplaying? All I said was that 1) a defined character is a lot more likable than something that's just in my head and 2) games keep limiting my ability to roleplay.
And that's pretty much why role-playing is dying a slow, painful death.
[quote]Sylvius the Mad wrote...
Easy and detached are unreleated, though. They need not occur together.
I dislike how how much every battle in Dragon Age accommodates a similar tactical approach (and thus makes the combat both easy and repetitive), but that's a problem entirely separate from the combat being detached. DAO combat done perfectly would involve a lot more time spent thinking while paused.[/quote]
And they would have to remove that stupid Arcane Warrior class. Seriously Bioware, a character class that can use any armor and weapon in the game with its Magic attribute instead of its Strength (I don't even know how that even begins to make sense) and still use its spells with no penalties whatsoever? When did that ever seem like a good idea?[/rant]
[quote]Sylvius the Mad wrote...
Planning and preparation is not dead time. Thinking is not dead time. Atmosphere (I wish DAO had made us walk the whole distance through the Deep Roads, rather than letting us jump ahead to the next thaig) is not dead time.[/quote]
What planning, preparation and thinking is there in walking? Especially in a game that requires none of those?
[quote]Sylvius the Mad wrote...
That last point is also why I enjoyed the Mako in ME. Time spent driving across an uncharted world made the world feel bigger, and made it feel less like a game environment. Some of thse mountains were just there - they weren't there just to serve as a game environment for me. I didn't have to drive them, but that I could improved the game's atmosphere tremendously.[/quote]
To me, that was just another moment where my suspension of disbelief just went down the crapper again. It's the future, there's all this amazing technology, we actually have flying cars and the all-purpose vehicle used in planet exploration can't even climb a moutain and has a suspension that would make the Monster Trucks of our days seem conservative. Good God, that was needlessly frustrating.
[quote]Sylvius the Mad wrote...
But neither speech was sufficient (especially in the presence of the other speech) to sway a reasoned observer from any of the three available positions (liquidation, anti-liquidation, or uncertainty).
Only people who already agreed wtih Peck's position would find Peck's argument compelling. Only people who already agreed with DeVito's position (as I likely would have) would find DeVito's argument compelling.[/quote]
That the whole point of the speeches: they're trying to sway the opinions of other's. Just because their even strength cancel each other out doesn't eliminate the fact of what they're trying to do: convince someone to adopt an attittude that might be contrary to what they originally believed in.
That's what we were talking about: people's skills aren't just saying "amen" to your party members just so they like you more for licking their boots.
[quote]Sylvius the Mad wrote...
Oh, so he's not reaching a position. He's abandoning a decision. Well, yes, it should always be possible to sow enough doubt to cause someone to return to the rational default position uncertainty.[/quote]
Given that Garrus seems pretty sure of himself, that's not uncertainty. That happens to people, you know? They think they want something and after speaking with someone about them, they return to where they were but with increased determination.
[quote]Sylvius the Mad wrote...
Figuratively, not literally. Again, the actual line uttered by the PC is left as implicit content (the real beauty of the lack of cinematic presentation). The PC only says exactly what's written down if you say so.[/quote]
Then what about those longer, verbose, and often very sensible arguments that your character can make? Are they just that good when they succeed or do they revert to something more basic when you fail?
[quote]Sylvius the Mad wrote...
Yes. You clearly don't know what you find interesting in a character because you're unable to add those characteristics to one even when given carte blanche to do whatever you'd like.
The only other explanation is that there is no possible character you would find interesting on his merits, and it's the surprise and discovery of getting to know a pre-written character you enjoy. But then you're never playing your character, and you're simply unable to enjoy an RPG.[/quote]
If it's the surprise and discovery that I find interessting, how could I like Shepard in the sequel? I already know him and have a pretty good idea of what I can expect of him and I still liked him even better in the sequel. He seemed improved, more determined and aware of his role as leader.
So again, stop with your stupid "you clearly this and that". You hardly know anything about the things you've dealt with all your life, don't presume to know anything about someone you've never met or knew in any way.
[quote]Sylvius the Mad wrote...
Then you don't understand what I'm saying.
That you managed to drive Shepard where you intended is not evidence that you knew where he was going. that's only evidence that you guessed right.
If you bet 500 on red and win, that doesn't mean you can predict the roulette wheel. That just means you got lucky.
You can't control a coherent character without knowledge of exactly what he's going to do because then there's a risk he might break character. Regardless of whether he ever does break character, you can't (reasonably) act with any confidence for fear that he might.[/quote]
So what if I bet 500 hundred times on red (or blue, I'm more of a Paragon kind of guy) and always win? And what if every time I decide to "bet" on something different (like punching Manuel, giving the information to the Shadow Broker, keep scanning the Keepers, let Helena go...) I also get those just the way I wanted them to go? Is that luck or just simple pattern recognition?
[quote]Sylvius the Mad wrote...
Because rummaging through your pack takes time, and time isn't something you have during combat. It's called realism.
I like realism in my games. Apparently you don't.[/quote]
Sylvius, we've been through this. Stupid, baseless assumptions on me. Kindly cut it out.
And you're going to bring realism in freaking Baldur's Gate? OK, let's get started then.
A complete set of armour takes as much space in your inventory as a ring or a simple scroll.
You can change said armor in the middle of fight with no problems whatsoever.
Characters will miss an enemy just as much when they are attacking him from the front as when they are trying to stab him in the back.
Incidentally, ranged characters never have to worry about friendly fire, even if they have a wall of allies between them and their target.
All characters can have their death or petrefication cured, except for the main character. It doesn't matter how many Scrolls of Stone to Flesh you have, if that Basilisk loos at the PC the wrong way, get ready to load your last save.
Everyone can see what the other party members see. Oh, and they can see anything around them just as well as what's right in front of them.
Endlessly spawning enemies. Especially annoying in Firewine with those stupid kobolds with fire arrows who insisted on spawning right behind you. Meaning that your mage on the rear was their first victim. And given that the corridors were unreasonably small, this meant that the mage was dead before your Fighters could stop bumping into each other, just trying to get past.
Cats could rat you out (no pun intended) to the Flaming FIst if you stole something in front of them.
Three words: magical fantasy setting!
Realism has its place, just like everything else. But when it gets in the way of the fun, it needs to go, just like everything else. So please don't bring the realism card again, much less with the idiotic inventory system.
[quote]Sylvius the Mad wrote...
Are you entirely unfamilar with party-based games? Clearly not, since you played BG, but what are you talking about? Imoen didn't act on her own because you're the one playing the game, not her. In a party-based game, you play the whole party. If you want Imoen to adjust her inventory, or learn a skill, or attack someone, or start a conversation (and she coud do all of those things - the PC wasn't at all special in this respect), then you have to do that.[/quote]
Yes, except when she decided to start attacking people on her own when she ran out of ammo, at which point she did something I did not order her to do it. So I would have to get her away from combat, go to the inventory screen, point out that she still has arrows in her inventory and when I got back to the game, she was trying to go toe-to-toe against her enemies again. On the other hand, I had to constantly order my Fighters to keep attacking their enemies because they just kept forgetting what they were doing and stand there while their allies were being attacked.
[quote]Sylvius the Mad wrote...
The game isn't going to play itself. Weren't you just complaining about combat doing that? Or is combat the only part of the game you want to play?[/quote]
There's a difference between the game playing itself and needless micromanagement. Deciding what tactics and abilities to use is what I'm supposed to do as a player, not keep fighting against my characters just to get them to do what I want (I've played enough NWN2 to last me a life time of frustrating party control, thank you very much).
[quote]Sylvius the Mad wrote...
You've listed a handful of action-based decisions where it was Shepard's actions that mattered, and the player did have some measure of control over them.
But the game asks for the player's input on decisions like these literally hundreds of times during the game. Every line of every conversation, and yet there's no way to know what it is you're choosing.
Incidentally, it's not clear on Virmire that you can't save both until after you've saved one, or that you're locked in to choosing one based on a single radio communication; can't Shepard change his mind?. And the Rachni Queen choice actually describes the actions Shepard will take in the wheel, which is extremely rare in ME. My complaint is that the game almost never does that.[/quote]
So you thought the game was offering you the choice between Ashley and Kaidan just as a matter of who you wanted to give a ride first? You didn't caught on the moment, or the idea that there was a freaking nuclear bomb that was going to go up very soon, nor the fact that Shepard apologized to the squad member he left behind or told him to fight with honor to death ("Fight hard, Chief. Die proud."). Nah, just passed you by.
[quote]Sylvius the Mad wrote...
Relative to other musical genres, absolutely. That deaf person could probably then describe punk rock well enough that a hearing person could correctly identify it.[/quote]
And another swing and a miss. If the deaf person could learn to describe something so someone else could understand it, then why not cut out the middle man and just teach the hearing person directly?
What we're talking about here could the dead person understand a musical genre without ever having listened to it? And the answer is no, it couldn't. It might be able to memorize its definition, characteristics and history, but it will never fully grasp it.
[quote]Sylvius the Mad wrote...
How about strategic thought?[/quote]
Even less.
[quote]Sylvius the Mad wrote...
The sense that I was lucky, and I can't ever know if I succeeded as a result of good decision-making? Maybe, but why would I want that?
I find defeating an obstacle far more rewarding if I can quatify exactly how difficult an obstacle it was.[/quote]
Don't know if you missed the point (again) but we're talking about combat here.
[quote]Sylvius the Mad wrote...
You over-simplify. Yes, you've described all the steps, but that last one might require a lot of creativity in a well-designed game.[/quote]
Which I have yet to play, outside of the strategy genre.
[quote]Jaysonie wrote...
[quote]Kalfear wrote...
[quote]xDarkicex
wrote...
Lusitanum that was a mouth full[/quote]
And yet
nothing at all was said worth replying to[/quote]
You should
know........./../../images/forum/emoticons/angry.png[/quote]
Couldn't have said it better myself, that one was right on the money.
But many of the features from those early games are missing.
If something is an RPG, then it exhibits some characteristics that make it an RPG. There are necessary and suffiencient conditions any game must meet to warant the label RPG.
So if those early games were RPGs, and ME2 is an RPG, what are those relevant characteristics?[/quote]
Given the way videogames evolve and adapt in all kinds of ways, it's hard to say, but if you twisted my arm, I'd say that the relevant characteristics would be the ones that are the most common in a given genre.
And guess what? Role-playing isn't one of them. Not by a long shot.
[quote]Sylvius the Mad wrote...
It's a videogame. Specifically, it's an action game.[/quote]
I thought it was a sports game. Then again, it's hard to tell since the game is so basic...
[quote]Sylvius the Mad wrote...
That doesn't make any sense at all. Whether Pong is a videogame is binary. There's no such thing as "as much a videogame". Once something meets the necessary and sufficient conditions, it is a videogame. There are no degrees of qualification. Either it passes teh threshold or it doesn't.[/quote]
Exactly. They're all videogames just like any game that passes a certain threshold of the most common RPG mechanics becomes an RPG, regardless of wheter or not how much role-playing it has.
[quote]Sylvius the Mad wrote...
And that's what makes it not an RPG. I can't play the character if I don't know him. I can't know him if I don't create him (or he's exceptionally well documented, but almost nothing is games is well documented anymore).[/quote]
That's not what makes an RPG. We've been through this. Do I really need to go over the basics again?
[quote]Sylvius the Mad wrote...
There you go again. You're assuming he's doing it just for kicks, even though that doesn't make any sense. You're complaining that you broke the game by making bad assumptions.
It could be part of the test. You don't know, because Duncan never tells you. Why would you jump to conclusions like that, especially when then conclusion ou chose diminishes your enjoyment of the game?[/quote]
Right, so besides the whole "get the blood from the Darkspawn" part (which Duncan admits is part of the test) and getting the treaties (which are not part of the test, but since we need them... ), Duncan might be trying to test your abilities to sense an enemy you've never faced in your entire life! I mean, you might be a major asset to the Grey Wardens due to... whatever fenomenal skills Duncan sees in you, but if you can't sense Darkspawn without Grey Warden senses, and especially since you have a Grey Warden with you for that very purpose, then you suck and deserve to die.
Oh, and it was also nice to become a Grey Warden, sign your own death warrant, have nightmares about the Archdemon and still not have a single skill that you wouldn't have if you had never gone through the Joining. Remind me again why the hell Grey Wardens decide to commit suicide in exchange for nothing?
Oh, and by the way, since I don't have the ability to sense Darkspawn, why isn't Alistair helping me detect them after Ostagar? Is it still part of Duncan's test or something?
[quote]Sylvius the Mad wrote...
So the game was too long for you and you lost interest?[/quote]
Kinda. After about 50-60 hours of doing the same thing over and over again, I felt like I earned my ending, but I wasn't even done with the treaties by then. So there is such a thing as a game that's too long for its own good.
[quote]Sylvius the Mad wrote...
No, I don't even buy that. You had the chance to tell the King that you didn't care who he was because he was human. You could tell the soldiers at Ostagar that they mistreated their elven servants and that you hated them for it. Did you just not talk to people who weren't quest givers? I wonder if you were poorly served by the plot helpers; I don't really know what they did because I turned them off as soon as I installed the game, but I wonder if some played just followered the arrows (or whatever they are) and missed a lot of the roleplaying content.[/quote]
I talk with everyone in games. I search every nook and cranny for things to find, stuff to do and people to talk to. I even read the goddamned codex, although I gave up near the end of the game when I realized that even picking up a freaking sword would dump its life story into my journal.
So I'll keep repeating myself: there weren't nearly enough opportunities to role-play the kind of character I was aiming for, so I just had to give up.
[quote]Sylvius the Mad wrote...
JRPGs aren't RPGs. They never really have been.[/quote]
They are. It's right there in the name and everything. They're not my favorite kind of RPG either, but they belong to the genre.
[quote]Sylvius the Mad wrote...
Only because you don't like roleplaying, something you've already admitted (and asserted that no one does it).[/quote]
When did I ever said I don't like roleplaying? All I said was that 1) a defined character is a lot more likable than something that's just in my head and 2) games keep limiting my ability to roleplay.
And that's pretty much why role-playing is dying a slow, painful death.
[quote]Sylvius the Mad wrote...
Easy and detached are unreleated, though. They need not occur together.
I dislike how how much every battle in Dragon Age accommodates a similar tactical approach (and thus makes the combat both easy and repetitive), but that's a problem entirely separate from the combat being detached. DAO combat done perfectly would involve a lot more time spent thinking while paused.[/quote]
And they would have to remove that stupid Arcane Warrior class. Seriously Bioware, a character class that can use any armor and weapon in the game with its Magic attribute instead of its Strength (I don't even know how that even begins to make sense) and still use its spells with no penalties whatsoever? When did that ever seem like a good idea?[/rant]
[quote]Sylvius the Mad wrote...
Planning and preparation is not dead time. Thinking is not dead time. Atmosphere (I wish DAO had made us walk the whole distance through the Deep Roads, rather than letting us jump ahead to the next thaig) is not dead time.[/quote]
What planning, preparation and thinking is there in walking? Especially in a game that requires none of those?
[quote]Sylvius the Mad wrote...
That last point is also why I enjoyed the Mako in ME. Time spent driving across an uncharted world made the world feel bigger, and made it feel less like a game environment. Some of thse mountains were just there - they weren't there just to serve as a game environment for me. I didn't have to drive them, but that I could improved the game's atmosphere tremendously.[/quote]
To me, that was just another moment where my suspension of disbelief just went down the crapper again. It's the future, there's all this amazing technology, we actually have flying cars and the all-purpose vehicle used in planet exploration can't even climb a moutain and has a suspension that would make the Monster Trucks of our days seem conservative. Good God, that was needlessly frustrating.
[quote]Sylvius the Mad wrote...
But neither speech was sufficient (especially in the presence of the other speech) to sway a reasoned observer from any of the three available positions (liquidation, anti-liquidation, or uncertainty).
Only people who already agreed wtih Peck's position would find Peck's argument compelling. Only people who already agreed with DeVito's position (as I likely would have) would find DeVito's argument compelling.[/quote]
That the whole point of the speeches: they're trying to sway the opinions of other's. Just because their even strength cancel each other out doesn't eliminate the fact of what they're trying to do: convince someone to adopt an attittude that might be contrary to what they originally believed in.
That's what we were talking about: people's skills aren't just saying "amen" to your party members just so they like you more for licking their boots.
[quote]Sylvius the Mad wrote...
Oh, so he's not reaching a position. He's abandoning a decision. Well, yes, it should always be possible to sow enough doubt to cause someone to return to the rational default position uncertainty.[/quote]
Given that Garrus seems pretty sure of himself, that's not uncertainty. That happens to people, you know? They think they want something and after speaking with someone about them, they return to where they were but with increased determination.
[quote]Sylvius the Mad wrote...
Figuratively, not literally. Again, the actual line uttered by the PC is left as implicit content (the real beauty of the lack of cinematic presentation). The PC only says exactly what's written down if you say so.[/quote]
Then what about those longer, verbose, and often very sensible arguments that your character can make? Are they just that good when they succeed or do they revert to something more basic when you fail?
[quote]Sylvius the Mad wrote...
Yes. You clearly don't know what you find interesting in a character because you're unable to add those characteristics to one even when given carte blanche to do whatever you'd like.
The only other explanation is that there is no possible character you would find interesting on his merits, and it's the surprise and discovery of getting to know a pre-written character you enjoy. But then you're never playing your character, and you're simply unable to enjoy an RPG.[/quote]
If it's the surprise and discovery that I find interessting, how could I like Shepard in the sequel? I already know him and have a pretty good idea of what I can expect of him and I still liked him even better in the sequel. He seemed improved, more determined and aware of his role as leader.
So again, stop with your stupid "you clearly this and that". You hardly know anything about the things you've dealt with all your life, don't presume to know anything about someone you've never met or knew in any way.
[quote]Sylvius the Mad wrote...
Then you don't understand what I'm saying.
That you managed to drive Shepard where you intended is not evidence that you knew where he was going. that's only evidence that you guessed right.
If you bet 500 on red and win, that doesn't mean you can predict the roulette wheel. That just means you got lucky.
You can't control a coherent character without knowledge of exactly what he's going to do because then there's a risk he might break character. Regardless of whether he ever does break character, you can't (reasonably) act with any confidence for fear that he might.[/quote]
So what if I bet 500 hundred times on red (or blue, I'm more of a Paragon kind of guy) and always win? And what if every time I decide to "bet" on something different (like punching Manuel, giving the information to the Shadow Broker, keep scanning the Keepers, let Helena go...) I also get those just the way I wanted them to go? Is that luck or just simple pattern recognition?
[quote]Sylvius the Mad wrote...
Because rummaging through your pack takes time, and time isn't something you have during combat. It's called realism.
I like realism in my games. Apparently you don't.[/quote]
Sylvius, we've been through this. Stupid, baseless assumptions on me. Kindly cut it out.
And you're going to bring realism in freaking Baldur's Gate? OK, let's get started then.
A complete set of armour takes as much space in your inventory as a ring or a simple scroll.
You can change said armor in the middle of fight with no problems whatsoever.
Characters will miss an enemy just as much when they are attacking him from the front as when they are trying to stab him in the back.
Incidentally, ranged characters never have to worry about friendly fire, even if they have a wall of allies between them and their target.
All characters can have their death or petrefication cured, except for the main character. It doesn't matter how many Scrolls of Stone to Flesh you have, if that Basilisk loos at the PC the wrong way, get ready to load your last save.
Everyone can see what the other party members see. Oh, and they can see anything around them just as well as what's right in front of them.
Endlessly spawning enemies. Especially annoying in Firewine with those stupid kobolds with fire arrows who insisted on spawning right behind you. Meaning that your mage on the rear was their first victim. And given that the corridors were unreasonably small, this meant that the mage was dead before your Fighters could stop bumping into each other, just trying to get past.
Cats could rat you out (no pun intended) to the Flaming FIst if you stole something in front of them.
Three words: magical fantasy setting!
Realism has its place, just like everything else. But when it gets in the way of the fun, it needs to go, just like everything else. So please don't bring the realism card again, much less with the idiotic inventory system.
[quote]Sylvius the Mad wrote...
Are you entirely unfamilar with party-based games? Clearly not, since you played BG, but what are you talking about? Imoen didn't act on her own because you're the one playing the game, not her. In a party-based game, you play the whole party. If you want Imoen to adjust her inventory, or learn a skill, or attack someone, or start a conversation (and she coud do all of those things - the PC wasn't at all special in this respect), then you have to do that.[/quote]
Yes, except when she decided to start attacking people on her own when she ran out of ammo, at which point she did something I did not order her to do it. So I would have to get her away from combat, go to the inventory screen, point out that she still has arrows in her inventory and when I got back to the game, she was trying to go toe-to-toe against her enemies again. On the other hand, I had to constantly order my Fighters to keep attacking their enemies because they just kept forgetting what they were doing and stand there while their allies were being attacked.
[quote]Sylvius the Mad wrote...
The game isn't going to play itself. Weren't you just complaining about combat doing that? Or is combat the only part of the game you want to play?[/quote]
There's a difference between the game playing itself and needless micromanagement. Deciding what tactics and abilities to use is what I'm supposed to do as a player, not keep fighting against my characters just to get them to do what I want (I've played enough NWN2 to last me a life time of frustrating party control, thank you very much).
[quote]Sylvius the Mad wrote...
You've listed a handful of action-based decisions where it was Shepard's actions that mattered, and the player did have some measure of control over them.
But the game asks for the player's input on decisions like these literally hundreds of times during the game. Every line of every conversation, and yet there's no way to know what it is you're choosing.
Incidentally, it's not clear on Virmire that you can't save both until after you've saved one, or that you're locked in to choosing one based on a single radio communication; can't Shepard change his mind?. And the Rachni Queen choice actually describes the actions Shepard will take in the wheel, which is extremely rare in ME. My complaint is that the game almost never does that.[/quote]
So you thought the game was offering you the choice between Ashley and Kaidan just as a matter of who you wanted to give a ride first? You didn't caught on the moment, or the idea that there was a freaking nuclear bomb that was going to go up very soon, nor the fact that Shepard apologized to the squad member he left behind or told him to fight with honor to death ("Fight hard, Chief. Die proud."). Nah, just passed you by.
[quote]Sylvius the Mad wrote...
Relative to other musical genres, absolutely. That deaf person could probably then describe punk rock well enough that a hearing person could correctly identify it.[/quote]
And another swing and a miss. If the deaf person could learn to describe something so someone else could understand it, then why not cut out the middle man and just teach the hearing person directly?
What we're talking about here could the dead person understand a musical genre without ever having listened to it? And the answer is no, it couldn't. It might be able to memorize its definition, characteristics and history, but it will never fully grasp it.
[quote]Sylvius the Mad wrote...
How about strategic thought?[/quote]
Even less.
[quote]Sylvius the Mad wrote...
The sense that I was lucky, and I can't ever know if I succeeded as a result of good decision-making? Maybe, but why would I want that?
I find defeating an obstacle far more rewarding if I can quatify exactly how difficult an obstacle it was.[/quote]
Don't know if you missed the point (again) but we're talking about combat here.
[quote]Sylvius the Mad wrote...
You over-simplify. Yes, you've described all the steps, but that last one might require a lot of creativity in a well-designed game.[/quote]
Which I have yet to play, outside of the strategy genre.
[quote]Jaysonie wrote...
[quote]Kalfear wrote...
[quote]xDarkicex
wrote...
Lusitanum that was a mouth full[/quote]
And yet
nothing at all was said worth replying to[/quote]
You should
know........./../../images/forum/emoticons/angry.png[/quote]
Couldn't have said it better myself, that one was right on the money.
#667
Posté 22 mars 2010 - 06:54
Elvhen Veluthil
-
- Members
- 353 messages
When did I ever said I don't like roleplaying? All I said was that 1) a defined character is a lot more likable than something that's just in my head and 2) games keep limiting my ability to roleplay.
1) is the reason why 2) is happening. The more we are forced to play pre-defined by someone else characters, the less role-playing is done.
#668
Posté 22 mars 2010 - 07:51
trickfred
-
- Members
- 583 messages
This is reply #667. I am only posting this so the thread no longer has 666 replies.
#669
Posté 22 mars 2010 - 10:19
Pocketgb
-
- Members
- 1 466 messages
exxxed wrote...
1) I surely wasn't saying that i hated being limited to one of those options, but i was pointing out the fatc that even if i wasn't trained in any way using shotguns, i still could, plus there were a bunch of achievements which let you customize your character based on the weapons you used, so in the end i pretty much stuck with being a classic infiltrator, but i still had the option of using the shotgun (without losing anything since i wasn't trained in that style of combat) just for the kicks
It wasn't just weapon trees you gained access to, it was every power you used frequently. This still happens in ME2 but not in the same method as earning weapons. The difference with guns, though, is that when you can use a new kind of weapon you're awesome with it from the get-go.
I find it interesting you bring up shotties, though. I'm not sure if Bioware intended to do that with ME1 in the first place.
exxxed wrote...
2) Not so much, explain to me how different can two characters from the same class can be compared to Mass Effect 1?
If as a Sentinal, you pick up Shotgun's as your new proficinency, that really gives a huge boost to you going close-range "IN YO FACE!" Senti. Get in there, deal some damage, have your armor go boom, it's foon!
Soldier is still pretty much as flexible as they were in both of the games, funnily enough.
Vanguard I can't say too much about, although a lot can change depending on your weapon and bonus power. Tanky Vanguard is pretty interesting, especially when you put the Revenant on him.
#670
Posté 23 mars 2010 - 12:48
Lusitanum
-
- Members
- 334 messages
Elvhen Veluthil wrote...
When did I ever said I don't like roleplaying? All I said was that 1) a defined character is a lot more likable than something that's just in my head and 2) games keep limiting my ability to roleplay.
1) is the reason why 2) is happening. The more we are forced to play pre-defined by someone else characters, the less role-playing is done.
Maybe, but we're also finally getting some memorable characters who become memorable for more being more than just icons, like Mario, Link, Sonic. And in an industry that is still reputed of having the most basic storytelling besides porn, this is an improvement.
Also, it's not like this will kill role-playing, there will always be games made for pretty much everyone, but this media needs to evolve beyond the same old things if it wants to grow.
#671
Posté 23 mars 2010 - 12:57
SurfaceBeneath
-
- Members
- 1 434 messages
Actually, there are a much wider variety of builds that actually play differently from one another in ME2 than there was in ME1. For instance, an Assault Sentinal (one who takes assault armor, picks up a shotgun, and plays like a tanky vanguard) plays entirely differently from a Power Sentinal (one that focuses on overload/warp and sticks to the backlines taking out defenses playing more defensively). In ME1, there was remarkably little difference in how a class functioned within itself, not to mention that the classes themselves did not really even play that differently from one another.exxxed wrote...
2) Not so much, explain to me how different can two characters from the same class can be compared to Mass Effect 1?
#672
Posté 23 mars 2010 - 01:27
FlintlockJazz
-
- Members
- 2 710 messages
Christ, is this topic still going? Well, just one point from me for once...
He actually raises a good point, and I don't see any trolling in his post at all. No more than in most of the posts on the internet anyway.
Kalfear wrote...
MarloMarlo wrote...
The world would be a better place without RPG as a category of video games. The Internet would be, anyway.
ME1 is a third person shooter with role playing, just like it's a third person shooter with vehicle driving. Dragon Age is a, um, third person squad game? Third person tactical? Something that sounds better than that but is just as descriptive of how it's played. And it, too, has role playing, just like it has leveling and things that are not role playing. No One Lives Forever 2 would be an FPS with stat progression. See how beautifully that works? None of that silly "this specific rule is a role playing element" stuff that would make No One Lives Forever 2, which doesn't have role playing, an FPS/RPG hybrid according to some people's wrong definitions of RPG.
Babies would giggle; kittens would mew. That's how great it would be. Don't you all want to live in a world of giggling babies and mewing kittens? I know I do.
Troll much?
He actually raises a good point, and I don't see any trolling in his post at all. No more than in most of the posts on the internet anyway.
#673
Posté 23 mars 2010 - 01:31
Pocketgb
-
- Members
- 1 466 messages
Damn Flint, you made me go into the kitchen to start up the kettle!
#674
Posté 23 mars 2010 - 01:36
FlintlockJazz
-
- Members
- 2 710 messages
Elvhen Veluthil wrote...
When did I ever said I don't like roleplaying? All I said was that 1) a defined character is a lot more likable than something that's just in my head and 2) games keep limiting my ability to roleplay.
1) is the reason why 2) is happening. The more we are forced to play pre-defined by someone else characters, the less role-playing is done.
Actually playing predefined characters is done often in tabletop rp, and are called pregens. In many ways they can encourage the player to roleplay more by forcing them to play a character they wouldn't normally create and therefore play outside their comfort zones, whereas allowing players to gen their own will often result in the player creating merely a variation on a character type they normally play (or just as often create themselves).
In a computer game you could this then gives the possibility of the player being given options that the character could take based on who they are, plotlines based around their history, and even have characters react to actions the player makes that th character wouldn't normally make ("Why are you stabbing that peasant? You've always been pro-peasant before!").
Modifié par FlintlockJazz, 23 mars 2010 - 01:37 .
#675
Posté 23 mars 2010 - 01:40
FlintlockJazz
-
- Members
- 2 710 messages
Pocketgb wrote...
Damn Flint, you made me go into the kitchen to start up the kettle!
While you're there, milk no sugar thanks!
