Interesting article
http://www.gamezenith.com/?p=132
What happened to this being a rpg?
Débuté par
Guest_Shavon_*
, mars 09 2010 03:25
Retour en haut
#702
Posté 24 mars 2010 - 04:08
FlintlockJazz
-
- Members
- 2 710 messages
Dudeman315 wrote...
Interesting article
http://www.gamezenith.com/?p=132
I think the first and only comment on that article is more interesting imho, and gets their point across in fewer words (no waffles please) and without all the ranting than the actual article itself.
EDIT: Oh, and I have made your link clickable, no need to thank me.
Modifié par FlintlockJazz, 24 mars 2010 - 04:09 .
#703
Posté 24 mars 2010 - 04:25
sean_nufc
-
- Members
- 9 messages
i thought mass effect 1 was fantastic game, but wasn't really an RPG either, the stupid over complicated inventory was OTP, too many different weapons and upgrades with slightly different powers that had little noticeable difference to the gameplay. The interface was bad aswell, it could take 10 minutes manually swapping each characters several guns inferno VIII for inferno X ammo once you had it, and seemed pointless
#704
Posté 24 mars 2010 - 05:06
M.AlphaShadow
-
- Members
- 11 messages
Dudeman315 wrote...
Fixed that last paragraph for you. Added commentary to the others.M.AlphaShadow wrote...
TJSolo wrote...
Diversification is fine then again sticking to what you do best is also fine.
Pulling a switcharoo mid-product line is not good. Totally agree
Switcharoo? you make it sound like BW made ME2 a sports game or something. I think it's more that they went from story driven to combat driven gameplay.
The first ME was a shooter/RPG with a heavy emphasis on RPG which lead to some hiccups since shooter games can't have heavy RPG elements mixed with it without problems (yeah fallout 3 sold horribly)(i.e investing exp into a weapon category to improve accuracy on top of a weapon having it's own accuracy stats when the main character is meant to be a the space version of a navy seal, does that make sense to you?) Much more sense than switching from infinite ammo to finite ammo.
So in order to fix some of the problems with ME1 they focused on the shooter side of things, GUTTING the RPG elements to a level for poeple who hate rpgs; you are handed a level after each mission, you still invest points into certain categories to improve your character's powers. The only thing they took out of the game was some of the more tactical abilities (stasis anyone?) and cleaned up the interface as well as streamlined some UI so that instead of seeing an exp number pop up while you're in the middle of a gunfight, they just put it in a "congrats you finished stage x here's your leve"l at the end of that part of the game.
Stasis was an amazing ability. Even more so when you could still damage enemies in it by maxing out the adapt path(can't tremember which one.
1.)Fallout 3 was an RPG that slapped on the shooter aspect.
The Fallout 3 argument is a horrible one since the first game wasn't that heavy with RPG elements as Fallout 3 was, you had to calculate weight with your inventory which led into another system and another, ME1 didn't have that.
2.) Wasting exp on a stat that shouldn't be in the game in first place makes no sense whatsoever.
Stasis was a useless ability, a forcefield that freezes your enemy in place and doesn't allow them to take damage? WTF?!? Investing a stat that only really enhances your gun accuracy just a little bit isn't worth the points when buying or looting a high end version of the weapon along with the right mods makes the gun stats irrelevant
3.) Gutting? really, they gutted the RPG elements so there are no powers to invest your points in, nor any stats to increase
You did gain levels in between missions, sometimes you gained levels while walking around a hub world so that argument isn't so hot either.
Listen I'm not saying the game is perfect, it's just that the people who say ME2 isn't an RPG are being real stiff on what defines an RPG. Did ME2 take out some things to define a classic RPG? Yes, yes they did, I miss the inventory but at the same time what they did instead of that was great too. I loved ME1 which is why I can say ME1 had some problems and it wasn't just the frame rate and vehicle parts, and I love ME2 even if they took out some things that I liked about ME1 on top of fixing certain elements but that doesn't warrant people saying it's not an rpg and is just a shooter.
#705
Posté 24 mars 2010 - 05:25
TurbanSoviet
-
- Members
- 32 messages
I have no doubt that bioware will send out story driven dlc but i really don't think that ME2 could have been extremely story driven like Zaeed it would not have fit his character at all. i mean everyone thinks your dead until tIM leaked some info and you show up at the citadel or another area otherwise you are dead to the world
and you are under cover it would have made no sense at all
and you are under cover it would have made no sense at all
#706
Posté 24 mars 2010 - 06:02
Darth Drago
-
- Members
- 1 136 messages
The lack of choice in ME2 is a lack of an RPG element and one that ME2 slams in your face with.
There was no real big decisions for Shepard to make in ME2 like there was in ME1. Basically it came down to: (minor spoilers listed)
-You got to choose what to do with the base at the end.
-Love interest choice.
-Did you cheat on your ME1 love interest.
-Tali’s loyalty mission outcome.
-Did you wake Grunt.
-Did you activate Legion.
-Legions loyalty mission outcome.
-Patriarch mission outcome.
Other than those (and admit it most of those are minor ones) I really don’t recall anything where Shepard was given the opportunity to make any real choice. Or one of any substantial impact in ME2.
In ME2, how many missions did you go on that were only combat? Out of those how many had some sort of sub-boss or leader? Were you ever given any chance to convince them that what they were doing was wrong or for that matter to fight you would end badly for them? In ME1 there were a bunch of mission that gave you the opportunity to choose something other than “shoot them up into hamburger”. All the main quest missions gave you multiple choices on the outcome as well. Do you save the Racni Queen? Should I save the colonists on Feros or kill everyone that gets in my way? Who dies on Virmire? Even secondary encounters with NPC’s like Shiala, Gianna Parasini, Rana Thanoptis, Conrad Verner or Helena Blake have some impact on their future when you choose their fates. Khalisah Bint Sinan Al-Jilani the reporter, is even dumbed down to asking you one question in ME2.
A role playing game centers around making choices that impact your character or those that your character interacts with. With the exception of the loyalty missions and some very minor side quests, there is nothing like that in ME2. When you plastered with a pop up the tells you to “Press B to end mission” when you just got done choosing Tali’s fate on her loyalty mission instead of letting you talk to those people around you that’s like a slap in the face by the developers saying “let go moron, we’ve got lots more things to kill, no time to chat.”.
-Yet again, it bothers me that people cant compare a sci-fi RPG with out bringing up “it’s a shooter/RPG” comments. Seriously do you people consider a fantasy RPG is a “hack n’ slash/RPG”? The weapons you use in a game has absolutely no bearing on whether or not it’s a RPG.
There was no real big decisions for Shepard to make in ME2 like there was in ME1. Basically it came down to: (minor spoilers listed)
-You got to choose what to do with the base at the end.
-Love interest choice.
-Did you cheat on your ME1 love interest.
-Tali’s loyalty mission outcome.
-Did you wake Grunt.
-Did you activate Legion.
-Legions loyalty mission outcome.
-Patriarch mission outcome.
Other than those (and admit it most of those are minor ones) I really don’t recall anything where Shepard was given the opportunity to make any real choice. Or one of any substantial impact in ME2.
In ME2, how many missions did you go on that were only combat? Out of those how many had some sort of sub-boss or leader? Were you ever given any chance to convince them that what they were doing was wrong or for that matter to fight you would end badly for them? In ME1 there were a bunch of mission that gave you the opportunity to choose something other than “shoot them up into hamburger”. All the main quest missions gave you multiple choices on the outcome as well. Do you save the Racni Queen? Should I save the colonists on Feros or kill everyone that gets in my way? Who dies on Virmire? Even secondary encounters with NPC’s like Shiala, Gianna Parasini, Rana Thanoptis, Conrad Verner or Helena Blake have some impact on their future when you choose their fates. Khalisah Bint Sinan Al-Jilani the reporter, is even dumbed down to asking you one question in ME2.
A role playing game centers around making choices that impact your character or those that your character interacts with. With the exception of the loyalty missions and some very minor side quests, there is nothing like that in ME2. When you plastered with a pop up the tells you to “Press B to end mission” when you just got done choosing Tali’s fate on her loyalty mission instead of letting you talk to those people around you that’s like a slap in the face by the developers saying “let go moron, we’ve got lots more things to kill, no time to chat.”.
-Yet again, it bothers me that people cant compare a sci-fi RPG with out bringing up “it’s a shooter/RPG” comments. Seriously do you people consider a fantasy RPG is a “hack n’ slash/RPG”? The weapons you use in a game has absolutely no bearing on whether or not it’s a RPG.
Modifié par Darth Drago, 24 mars 2010 - 06:03 .
#707
Posté 24 mars 2010 - 06:23
Sylvius the Mad
-
- Members
- 24 112 messages
The big loss of RPG features between the two was the loss of stat-driven aiming. ME1 had the cone of death determined by your character's weapon skills. Now it's all player skill, and that doesn't make any sense in an RPG.M.AlphaShadow wrote...
Listen I'm not saying the game is perfect, it's just that the people who say ME2 isn't an RPG are being real stiff on what defines an RPG. Did ME2 take out some things to define a classic RPG? Yes, yes they did, I miss the inventory but at the same time what they did instead of that was great too. I loved ME1 which is why I can say ME1 had some problems and it wasn't just the frame rate and vehicle parts, and I love ME2 even if they took out some things that I liked about ME1 on top of fixing certain elements but that doesn't warrant people saying it's not an rpg and is just a shooter.
I don't think ME1 was an RPG anyway (PC VO and dialogue wheel), but ME2 certainly stepped even farther away from the genre.
#708
Posté 24 mars 2010 - 06:46
M.AlphaShadow
-
- Members
- 11 messages
Darth Drago wrote...
The lack of choice in ME2 is a lack of an RPG element and one that ME2 slams in your face with.
There was no real big decisions for Shepard to make in ME2 like there was in ME1. Basically it came down to: (minor spoilers listed)
-You got to choose what to do with the base at the end.
-Love interest choice.
-Did you cheat on your ME1 love interest.
-Tali’s loyalty mission outcome.
-Did you wake Grunt.
-Did you activate Legion.
-Legions loyalty mission outcome.
-Patriarch mission outcome.
Other than those (and admit it most of those are minor ones) I really don’t recall anything where Shepard was given the opportunity to make any real choice. Or one of any substantial impact in ME2.
In ME2, how many missions did you go on that were only combat? Out of those how many had some sort of sub-boss or leader? Were you ever given any chance to convince them that what they were doing was wrong or for that matter to fight you would end badly for them? In ME1 there were a bunch of mission that gave you the opportunity to choose something other than “shoot them up into hamburger”. All the main quest missions gave you multiple choices on the outcome as well. Do you save the Racni Queen? Should I save the colonists on Feros or kill everyone that gets in my way? Who dies on Virmire? Even secondary encounters with NPC’s like Shiala, Gianna Parasini, Rana Thanoptis, Conrad Verner or Helena Blake have some impact on their future when you choose their fates. Khalisah Bint Sinan Al-Jilani the reporter, is even dumbed down to asking you one question in ME2.
A role playing game centers around making choices that impact your character or those that your character interacts with. With the exception of the loyalty missions and some very minor side quests, there is nothing like that in ME2. When you plastered with a pop up the tells you to “Press B to end mission” when you just got done choosing Tali’s fate on her loyalty mission instead of letting you talk to those people around you that’s like a slap in the face by the developers saying “let go moron, we’ve got lots more things to kill, no time to chat.”.
-Yet again, it bothers me that people cant compare a sci-fi RPG with out bringing up “it’s a shooter/RPG” comments. Seriously do you people consider a fantasy RPG is a “hack n’ slash/RPG”? The weapons you use in a game has absolutely no bearing on whether or not it’s a RPG.
People call the ME games a shooter/RPG cause your main method of battle in the game is shooting, in real time, it's not turn based.
You do make choices in the game it's just the choices don't have an immediate effect on the universe, and there are a lot of new characters you interact with in ME2 that I'm sure you'll see in ME3 besides shouldn't you be worried about the big stuff like who was messing with the Rachni to get them to fight in the Rachni wars? and the effect on whether or not you chose to tell the Quarians to fight the geth or not fight them is gonna have on the universe.
I would say just wait for ME3 so that you can see how the choices you made from ME1 and 2, from the small stuff to the big stuff and pop up thing, that's just being nit-picky
#709
Posté 24 mars 2010 - 07:21
Lusitanum
-
- Members
- 334 messages
[quote]Sylvius the Mad wrote...
They don't. Not one Grey Warden ever does that. Stop complaining about aspects of the game that don't exist.
The Grey Wardens don't choose that because they're never told the terms of the deal in advance. And if that bothers you, well that's exactly how the ME dialogue wheel works, so why don't you mind that?[/quote]
I'm not talking about the Grey Wardens that go through the Joining, I'm talking about the Grey Wardens that still carry on with the Joining process for no adequate reason. I mean, not only becoming a Grey Warden means commiting yourself to a life of servitude in exchange for nothing besides a warm fuzzy feeling, you also have to go through the Joining which gives you no special abilities to fight the Darkspawn whatsoever and infuses you with a poison that won't even kill you, but instead slowly turn you into an intelligent Darkspawn with all the knowledge of a Grey Warden, so you have to kill yourself first. And all that assuming you actually survived the Joining. And in exchange for all that, what do you get? The ability to sense the Darkspawn and have creepy nightmares about the Archdemon. Oh, and the Darkspawn can sense you back, which is just great.
It just makes no sense. Wouldn't it be a lot more sensible to not have the Joining killing your recruits, both before and after they join you? There's a reason the Grey Wardens are so few in number, but the blame lies more on themselves than the Darkspawn.
And you'd think that there would have already been a few uprisings from (understandibly) pissed Grey Wardens who wouldn't have taken too kindly to the fact that, besides having lost the ability to live a normal life again, had also lost the ability to live at all in two or three decades time, without having a say on the matter.
There's a reason why Duncan had to join the Grey Wardens as a punishment for killing a member of the order who, incidentally, thanked him for taking his life. And the guy was about to get married. It really does suck to be a Grey Warden, doesn't it?
[quote]Sylvius the Mad wrote...
And I've shown that to be your failing, rather than the game's failing. You know what you like. That you don't make a character like that is your fault.[/quote]
If I have to make up for what lacks in a game, then no, the fault does not lie on me, but in the game itself.
[quote]Sylvius the Mad wrote...
I agree the Arcane Warrior was a bad idea, but it's easy to come up with an explanation of how the Magic for Strength requirement works. Perhaps the class skill allows you to imbue your limbs with magical strength, so it's your magic that moves your body rather than your muscles. It took me 10 seconds to come up with that. Again, this is evidence of your inability to fill in the implicit content yourself without the game spoonfeeding you.[/quote]
Actually, this is just more evidence of how you're able to make **** up about the things you like (never seen you being so creative with ME). Because any idiot can come up with some half-assed "A Wizard did it" excuse, but that doesn't mean it becomes believable in the slightest wihtout some sort of explanation.
First off, are you honestly telling me that every single character in the game needs to sacrifice some of their stamina/mana in order to keep using sustained abilities but Mr. Arcane Warrior is so incredibly awesome that he can move every single muscle in his body with his magical powers without even thinking about it?
Want to raise your sheild in order to increase your defense? Sorry, that will cost you. Want to carry your attacks from one to the next while while two weapons? Well, you'll have to sacrifice some of that stamina. Need to raise a magical shield to protect yourself? Nothing in life comes without a cost, so pay up. Want to use every single armor and weapon in the game which, besides raw physical strength, should also require intensive training in order to use appropriately without giving anything in return? Yeah, go right ahead, no problem.
It's not only illogical in every sense, it also breaks the rules that of the game itself.
And secondly, you can't just use magic and the unknown to answer everything without some kind of explanation, even if you are talking about magic. That's the reason why I could never accept those stupid Flying Mountains of Hallellujah from the movie Avatar, you can't just force me to accept that just because you've told me to. I could look past the fact that the Na'vi can literally connect themselves to the animals and the earth itself through their USB hair (even though that goes against every single notion of evolution I can think of) because at least that was established, there was a reason, but the flying mountains which can apprently keep chuging out water as if they were cornucopias, that's where I draw the line. Even if I can come up with some stupid justification involving a punishment from the gods and a very messed up gravity center. And in less than 10 seconds.
[quote]Sylvius the Mad wrote...
None. My reference to walking came entirely within a sentence referring to atmosphere. Sentence structure matters (though I can see why someone who enjoys ME's dialogue wheel wouldn't think so).[/quote]
And using logic helps too, though I can see why someone who can't see beyond his self-imposed limitations wouldn't like to.
[quote]Sylvius the Mad wrote...
How do those flying cars work? Is there some extra infrastructure necessary for them to function? If so, that infrastructure would certainly be lacking on uncharted worlds. Not to mention that operating a small craft might simply be too resource intensive for these sorts of missions.
We don't know that, because the game doesn't tell us. Again, you've just assumed something doesn't exist because the game didn't tell you it did. It's like you're trying not to have an imagination.[/quote]
And again, you are completely and utterly wrong! I know, it's a shocker. Everyone, feel free to sit down in order to collect yourselves.
For starters, are your actually trying to tell me that a galactic civilization, with alien races much more advanced than our own, which has mastered faster-than-light space travel and comunication, created kinetic barriers, has guns that can fire hundreds (if not thousands of bullets) from a single clip, is able to create highly sophisticaded artificial intelligence, among many, many, many more technological achievements isn't able to create a small reconaisance aircraft that won't eat up too many resources? Well, then I don't know how the Alliance can afford all the back and forth we do in the game with a ship like the Normandy. Or the flying, EXPENDABLE drones that they use for both combat and reconaisance.
Also, did you ever wonder how do we land on uncharted planets in ME2? With a freaking shuttle! Which flies, in case I need to clear that up for you. Oh, and now we also have the Hammerhead which hovers above the ground.
Sylvius' foot, meet Sylvius' mouth. Have fun with each other.
[quote]Sylvius the Mad wrote...
But they can't work on reasonable people. That's my point. Persuasion is an illusion.[/quote]
Yep, you really do live in another world.
[quote]Sylvius the Mad wrote...
In my experience, that's far more likely to work.[/quote]
Your experience must revolve around the NPC interactions on DA, because real people will have more than just you to talk to, and will inevitably see you as a complete liar as soon as they realize that you've been saying to other people people the opposite of what you told them. The thing is that, unlike DA, they won't usually confront you with it and will just carry on pretending they don't know anything until they can really screw you hard.
[quote]Sylvius the Mad wrote...
That's right - I hadn't thought of that. So then why can't you design a character you like when you're the one who best knows what you like in a character?[/quote]
Mainly for a few reasons:
1) I'm aware of my limitations and I know that I'm no writer. It would be like trying to draw of Shepard on a piece of paper. I can try my best and actually come up with something that isn't all that bad, but it will pale in comparisson to what a professional could do. Creating an interessting character requires more than just "filling it up" with characteristics I like to see, it requires that the character is actually well-developed. When I look at all the memorable characters I love the most, I notice that they all have completely different personalities from each other and that's because the only thing they have in common with each other is that they were all well-develloped by someone more capable than me.
2) When I do manage to create a character that I fell is actually pretty good, the game will block my ability to "express" it in the game half of the time. I know it's hard to make a game that is able to encompass every single sutlety that a player might think of, but it can be frustrating none the less.
3) Playing with a character that I know all the inns and outs can be a bit boring because sometimes it feels like you're playing chess with yourself: it might be a good mental exercise, but after awhile, you'll realize you're not really going anywhere.
[quote]Sylvius the Mad wrote...
That I would call prediction. Then you're able to use the wheel adequately. But you've already admitted you couldn't do that. You couldn't predict every action. You couldn't predict every line word for word. You said so.
Do you want me to dig up the quote (of course, on this forum, you could edit it out so you didn't say that)?[/quote]
Yeah, I could edit out and there there would be a nice "Edited XX hours ago" on a post created days ago, that would work.
And it's not like you need to do that, I can just repeat myself for the hundreth time. Only this time I will use even simpler words and sentences, so maybe I won't have to do it again:
I don't know exactly what Shepard is going to do or say.
I can't predict every action or every line word for word.
AND I
DON'T
NEED TO
IN ORDER TO USE THE DIALOG WHEEL WITH 100% CERTAINTY OF WHAT I WANTED TO DO!
Was that slow enough for you? Or do you need me to make it even clearer? Oh wait, of course you do.
OK, the best example I can think of is on ME2 and it doesn't even involve the dialog wheel, but I guess it's good enough. In Zaeed's loyalty mission, you have to attack a base full of mercenaries so he can have his revenge. However, right at the start, Zaeed starts going berserk, blowing stuff up and caring nothing about the innocents he might kill in the process. So you get a Paragon Interrupt opportunity. When I first saw it I thought "oh, an opportunity to calm Zaeed down in order to make him stop behaving like a loose canon". So then Shepard punched the guy in the face and told him to stop endangering lives and the mission for his goddamned revenge.
Did I knew that Shepard was going to punch him? Well, kind of, the camera will often focus on a given object while the Interrupt opportunity is on the screen, to give the player an idea of what will happen (in this case, Shepard's fist clenching). But even if I didn't, the point still stands: I didn't know what Shepard was going to say or do, but I did know that he was going to make a Paragon choice, cutting Zaeed from his berserker rage and calming him down.
That's all I need to guide my Shepard just the way I want him to. And I can guarantee you, it works. I mean, it's not like it's even remotely hard to understand.
[quote]Sylvius the Mad wrote...
All true, and all problems with realism, yes. But none of them address the issue of whether it's realistic for time to pass while you dig through your pack.[/quote]
Use another system then! Neverwinter Nights and KotOR also let you pause the game for inventory management but it will block certain actions during combat (namely changing your armor) for purposes of staying true to the fact that you can't change your clothes in the middle of a fight.
[quote]Sylvius the Mad wrote...
Because they can hear, and they can turn their heads, and they can communicate with each other.[/quote]
Oh, so it becomes even less realistic. Because let me tell you something about working as a team: even if everyone is aware of their surroundings and communicating with each other, that still doesn't come close to the perfect sharing of information in BG. Hearing doesn't work the same way as seeing, so it shouldn't cover your back in the same way that your eyes do and turning your head means that you'll always have blind spots, not a perfectly circular 360º view.
Also, communication will always take some time, and even something short like "Watch out, monster" can take too long and it doesn't tell you anything about said monster's exact location.
This doesn't mean that I'm bashing on Baldur's Gate take on their characters field of vision, it's a perfectly functional system and it works just fine. But just don't try to explain it with realism.
[quote]Sylvius the Mad wrote...
Endless spawning? Enemies in BG only respawned on reload. It was entirely possible to clear out Firewine.[/quote]
Say that to Dynaeir who kept getting killed by the Kobold coming from the corridor my Fighter had just checked, so either they kept running and hiding from my characters until my Mage was in the back, or they kept spawning. Either way, it shouldn't happen.
And with or without reload, endless spawning still isn't realistic. When you save a game, it should keep the data just as it was when you were playing the last time. It should not repopulate that chamber full of enemies that you just cleared through the skin of your teeth with the twin brothers of the monsters you already killed. Especially in a place where you can't rest.
[quote]Sylvius the Mad wrote...
There you go again, treating fun like it's a characteristic that exists on its own. That doesn't make any sense at all.
Some features are fun, and we all have different preferences on that front. I like realism. That you contrast realism with fun tells us that you don't. If you dispute that again then we'll know that you're crazy.[/quote]
I might go crazy if you keep forcing me to repeat the same things over and over again, trying to get them through your skull. I don't contrast realism, role-playing or anything else with fun, I just say that as soon as it gets in the way of the fun, then it should go.
For instance, Hitman is a pretty realistic game about how an Assassin works. Not absolutely realistic of course, just more than most. And the developers have often cut down on the realism because too much of it could annoy the players. The fact that you can shoot someone and then take their clothes without them having a drop of blood on it to give you away isn't a flaw in the game, it's a conscious choice on the part of the developers who pondered this situation and just said "no, we won't have blood on the clothes. It just forces the player to always use the wire to kill people, which can be frustrating for some, and then they wouldn't even use any of the guns we've given them."
Now on the other hand, Assassin's Creed and it's incredibly easy ways to hide from the guards (like sitting on a bench between two other people) and the way how the whole town forgot about you if you just hid for a few seconds was an example where a bit more realism would have really helped the game a lot, and maybe then I wouldn't have shaken my head in disbelief so many times.
It all depends on the situation, every single aspect of gaming has the potential to be incredibly valuable or a complete joy-killer. It all depends on how it's handled.
[quote]Sylvius the Mad wrote...
Realism matters. I hate that in newer games (with group inventories) that one character can unequip something and then another can immediately equip it even though they're nowhere near each other. Even ME did this.[/quote]
Well, given the fact that your party members never really were away from you all that much, it wasn't much of an issue, but I can understand your frustration.
[quote]Sylvius the Mad wrote...
You must have had her AI turned on.[/quote]
As I did with my Fighters. And they still forgot to defend their allies like I told them to.<_<
[quote]Sylvius the Mad wrote...
That's how it's supposed to work. Again, you are the player. You have to play the game.[/quote]
Maybe, but since the graphics are so poor, I'll often fail to realize that Minsc decided to just stand there looking around while there's a pack of wolves munching on my party. And if the enemy AI is smart enough to never do the same, why the hell can't my team do the same (a complaint that I can extend to pretty much any game where you have AI teammates).
[quote]Sylvius the Mad wrote...
That happens after the decision is made. But even more than that, why can't Shepard say that and then still save that person just to be dramatic?[/quote]
Oh, I don't know, maybe because there's a freaking nuke that's about to go off and you don't have time to save them both. You barely had time to save whoever you left with Kirahe, let alone someone else, so you have to choose.
[quote]Sylvius the Mad wrote...
Being locked into actions by dialogue is bad enough when I know what it is my character is going to say. Having it happen when the dialogue is hidden from me is even worse.[/quote]
Oh, you mean like in the Dalish Elf Origin, where you get that stupid mirror room and then you're forced to watch that damned cutscene if you simply try to leave the room? "No, wait, I just want to explore a bit more. Why are you forcing me to check the mirror, if I wanted to do that I would have checked the freaking mirror! No don't take that guy away, he still has my Feral Wolf Charm equipped on him, no, wait, stop, STOP!"
And that's just to mention the most recent moment I've witnessed.
[quote]Sylvius the Mad wrote...
How is that not understanding?[/quote]
Because you don't know what that musical genre is like?! Maybe?
You can know all the characteristics of a given genre back to back, but if you don't even know what the instruments sound like, how are you going to know anything about how that genre is like? It would be like saying that you've played a given game because you know all you needed from the game manual.
[quote]Sylvius the Mad wrote...
Yes, I know. And stat-driven combat offers quantifiable obstacles.[/quote]
Then... what was that about guessing and getting lucky during combat?
[quote]Sylvius the Mad wrote...
RPGs could learn a lot from turn-based strategy games.[/quote]
Western RPGs maybe, because JRPGs have had quite a few tactical combat systems over the years. Final Fantasy Tactics, for instance, made me lean back on my chair because I was pondering my options like in Civilization, not because I'm waiting for my party to mop up a given amount of enemies, like in DA.
[quote]Sylvius the Mad wrote...
[quote]ThePatriot101 wrote...
Also
they have been foraying into turn-based gameplay for decades.[/quote]
But
less and less.[/quote]
And for a reason. See my previous reply.
They don't. Not one Grey Warden ever does that. Stop complaining about aspects of the game that don't exist.
The Grey Wardens don't choose that because they're never told the terms of the deal in advance. And if that bothers you, well that's exactly how the ME dialogue wheel works, so why don't you mind that?[/quote]
I'm not talking about the Grey Wardens that go through the Joining, I'm talking about the Grey Wardens that still carry on with the Joining process for no adequate reason. I mean, not only becoming a Grey Warden means commiting yourself to a life of servitude in exchange for nothing besides a warm fuzzy feeling, you also have to go through the Joining which gives you no special abilities to fight the Darkspawn whatsoever and infuses you with a poison that won't even kill you, but instead slowly turn you into an intelligent Darkspawn with all the knowledge of a Grey Warden, so you have to kill yourself first. And all that assuming you actually survived the Joining. And in exchange for all that, what do you get? The ability to sense the Darkspawn and have creepy nightmares about the Archdemon. Oh, and the Darkspawn can sense you back, which is just great.
It just makes no sense. Wouldn't it be a lot more sensible to not have the Joining killing your recruits, both before and after they join you? There's a reason the Grey Wardens are so few in number, but the blame lies more on themselves than the Darkspawn.
And you'd think that there would have already been a few uprisings from (understandibly) pissed Grey Wardens who wouldn't have taken too kindly to the fact that, besides having lost the ability to live a normal life again, had also lost the ability to live at all in two or three decades time, without having a say on the matter.
There's a reason why Duncan had to join the Grey Wardens as a punishment for killing a member of the order who, incidentally, thanked him for taking his life. And the guy was about to get married. It really does suck to be a Grey Warden, doesn't it?
[quote]Sylvius the Mad wrote...
And I've shown that to be your failing, rather than the game's failing. You know what you like. That you don't make a character like that is your fault.[/quote]
If I have to make up for what lacks in a game, then no, the fault does not lie on me, but in the game itself.
[quote]Sylvius the Mad wrote...
I agree the Arcane Warrior was a bad idea, but it's easy to come up with an explanation of how the Magic for Strength requirement works. Perhaps the class skill allows you to imbue your limbs with magical strength, so it's your magic that moves your body rather than your muscles. It took me 10 seconds to come up with that. Again, this is evidence of your inability to fill in the implicit content yourself without the game spoonfeeding you.[/quote]
Actually, this is just more evidence of how you're able to make **** up about the things you like (never seen you being so creative with ME). Because any idiot can come up with some half-assed "A Wizard did it" excuse, but that doesn't mean it becomes believable in the slightest wihtout some sort of explanation.
First off, are you honestly telling me that every single character in the game needs to sacrifice some of their stamina/mana in order to keep using sustained abilities but Mr. Arcane Warrior is so incredibly awesome that he can move every single muscle in his body with his magical powers without even thinking about it?
Want to raise your sheild in order to increase your defense? Sorry, that will cost you. Want to carry your attacks from one to the next while while two weapons? Well, you'll have to sacrifice some of that stamina. Need to raise a magical shield to protect yourself? Nothing in life comes without a cost, so pay up. Want to use every single armor and weapon in the game which, besides raw physical strength, should also require intensive training in order to use appropriately without giving anything in return? Yeah, go right ahead, no problem.
It's not only illogical in every sense, it also breaks the rules that of the game itself.
And secondly, you can't just use magic and the unknown to answer everything without some kind of explanation, even if you are talking about magic. That's the reason why I could never accept those stupid Flying Mountains of Hallellujah from the movie Avatar, you can't just force me to accept that just because you've told me to. I could look past the fact that the Na'vi can literally connect themselves to the animals and the earth itself through their USB hair (even though that goes against every single notion of evolution I can think of) because at least that was established, there was a reason, but the flying mountains which can apprently keep chuging out water as if they were cornucopias, that's where I draw the line. Even if I can come up with some stupid justification involving a punishment from the gods and a very messed up gravity center. And in less than 10 seconds.
[quote]Sylvius the Mad wrote...
None. My reference to walking came entirely within a sentence referring to atmosphere. Sentence structure matters (though I can see why someone who enjoys ME's dialogue wheel wouldn't think so).[/quote]
And using logic helps too, though I can see why someone who can't see beyond his self-imposed limitations wouldn't like to.
[quote]Sylvius the Mad wrote...
How do those flying cars work? Is there some extra infrastructure necessary for them to function? If so, that infrastructure would certainly be lacking on uncharted worlds. Not to mention that operating a small craft might simply be too resource intensive for these sorts of missions.
We don't know that, because the game doesn't tell us. Again, you've just assumed something doesn't exist because the game didn't tell you it did. It's like you're trying not to have an imagination.[/quote]
And again, you are completely and utterly wrong! I know, it's a shocker. Everyone, feel free to sit down in order to collect yourselves.
For starters, are your actually trying to tell me that a galactic civilization, with alien races much more advanced than our own, which has mastered faster-than-light space travel and comunication, created kinetic barriers, has guns that can fire hundreds (if not thousands of bullets) from a single clip, is able to create highly sophisticaded artificial intelligence, among many, many, many more technological achievements isn't able to create a small reconaisance aircraft that won't eat up too many resources? Well, then I don't know how the Alliance can afford all the back and forth we do in the game with a ship like the Normandy. Or the flying, EXPENDABLE drones that they use for both combat and reconaisance.
Also, did you ever wonder how do we land on uncharted planets in ME2? With a freaking shuttle! Which flies, in case I need to clear that up for you. Oh, and now we also have the Hammerhead which hovers above the ground.
Sylvius' foot, meet Sylvius' mouth. Have fun with each other.
[quote]Sylvius the Mad wrote...
But they can't work on reasonable people. That's my point. Persuasion is an illusion.[/quote]
Yep, you really do live in another world.
[quote]Sylvius the Mad wrote...
In my experience, that's far more likely to work.[/quote]
Your experience must revolve around the NPC interactions on DA, because real people will have more than just you to talk to, and will inevitably see you as a complete liar as soon as they realize that you've been saying to other people people the opposite of what you told them. The thing is that, unlike DA, they won't usually confront you with it and will just carry on pretending they don't know anything until they can really screw you hard.
[quote]Sylvius the Mad wrote...
That's right - I hadn't thought of that. So then why can't you design a character you like when you're the one who best knows what you like in a character?[/quote]
Mainly for a few reasons:
1) I'm aware of my limitations and I know that I'm no writer. It would be like trying to draw of Shepard on a piece of paper. I can try my best and actually come up with something that isn't all that bad, but it will pale in comparisson to what a professional could do. Creating an interessting character requires more than just "filling it up" with characteristics I like to see, it requires that the character is actually well-developed. When I look at all the memorable characters I love the most, I notice that they all have completely different personalities from each other and that's because the only thing they have in common with each other is that they were all well-develloped by someone more capable than me.
2) When I do manage to create a character that I fell is actually pretty good, the game will block my ability to "express" it in the game half of the time. I know it's hard to make a game that is able to encompass every single sutlety that a player might think of, but it can be frustrating none the less.
3) Playing with a character that I know all the inns and outs can be a bit boring because sometimes it feels like you're playing chess with yourself: it might be a good mental exercise, but after awhile, you'll realize you're not really going anywhere.
[quote]Sylvius the Mad wrote...
That I would call prediction. Then you're able to use the wheel adequately. But you've already admitted you couldn't do that. You couldn't predict every action. You couldn't predict every line word for word. You said so.
Do you want me to dig up the quote (of course, on this forum, you could edit it out so you didn't say that)?[/quote]
Yeah, I could edit out and there there would be a nice "Edited XX hours ago" on a post created days ago, that would work.
And it's not like you need to do that, I can just repeat myself for the hundreth time. Only this time I will use even simpler words and sentences, so maybe I won't have to do it again:
I don't know exactly what Shepard is going to do or say.
I can't predict every action or every line word for word.
AND I
DON'T
NEED TO
IN ORDER TO USE THE DIALOG WHEEL WITH 100% CERTAINTY OF WHAT I WANTED TO DO!
Was that slow enough for you? Or do you need me to make it even clearer? Oh wait, of course you do.
OK, the best example I can think of is on ME2 and it doesn't even involve the dialog wheel, but I guess it's good enough. In Zaeed's loyalty mission, you have to attack a base full of mercenaries so he can have his revenge. However, right at the start, Zaeed starts going berserk, blowing stuff up and caring nothing about the innocents he might kill in the process. So you get a Paragon Interrupt opportunity. When I first saw it I thought "oh, an opportunity to calm Zaeed down in order to make him stop behaving like a loose canon". So then Shepard punched the guy in the face and told him to stop endangering lives and the mission for his goddamned revenge.
Did I knew that Shepard was going to punch him? Well, kind of, the camera will often focus on a given object while the Interrupt opportunity is on the screen, to give the player an idea of what will happen (in this case, Shepard's fist clenching). But even if I didn't, the point still stands: I didn't know what Shepard was going to say or do, but I did know that he was going to make a Paragon choice, cutting Zaeed from his berserker rage and calming him down.
That's all I need to guide my Shepard just the way I want him to. And I can guarantee you, it works. I mean, it's not like it's even remotely hard to understand.
[quote]Sylvius the Mad wrote...
All true, and all problems with realism, yes. But none of them address the issue of whether it's realistic for time to pass while you dig through your pack.[/quote]
Use another system then! Neverwinter Nights and KotOR also let you pause the game for inventory management but it will block certain actions during combat (namely changing your armor) for purposes of staying true to the fact that you can't change your clothes in the middle of a fight.
[quote]Sylvius the Mad wrote...
Because they can hear, and they can turn their heads, and they can communicate with each other.[/quote]
Oh, so it becomes even less realistic. Because let me tell you something about working as a team: even if everyone is aware of their surroundings and communicating with each other, that still doesn't come close to the perfect sharing of information in BG. Hearing doesn't work the same way as seeing, so it shouldn't cover your back in the same way that your eyes do and turning your head means that you'll always have blind spots, not a perfectly circular 360º view.
Also, communication will always take some time, and even something short like "Watch out, monster" can take too long and it doesn't tell you anything about said monster's exact location.
This doesn't mean that I'm bashing on Baldur's Gate take on their characters field of vision, it's a perfectly functional system and it works just fine. But just don't try to explain it with realism.
[quote]Sylvius the Mad wrote...
Endless spawning? Enemies in BG only respawned on reload. It was entirely possible to clear out Firewine.[/quote]
Say that to Dynaeir who kept getting killed by the Kobold coming from the corridor my Fighter had just checked, so either they kept running and hiding from my characters until my Mage was in the back, or they kept spawning. Either way, it shouldn't happen.
And with or without reload, endless spawning still isn't realistic. When you save a game, it should keep the data just as it was when you were playing the last time. It should not repopulate that chamber full of enemies that you just cleared through the skin of your teeth with the twin brothers of the monsters you already killed. Especially in a place where you can't rest.
[quote]Sylvius the Mad wrote...
There you go again, treating fun like it's a characteristic that exists on its own. That doesn't make any sense at all.
Some features are fun, and we all have different preferences on that front. I like realism. That you contrast realism with fun tells us that you don't. If you dispute that again then we'll know that you're crazy.[/quote]
I might go crazy if you keep forcing me to repeat the same things over and over again, trying to get them through your skull. I don't contrast realism, role-playing or anything else with fun, I just say that as soon as it gets in the way of the fun, then it should go.
For instance, Hitman is a pretty realistic game about how an Assassin works. Not absolutely realistic of course, just more than most. And the developers have often cut down on the realism because too much of it could annoy the players. The fact that you can shoot someone and then take their clothes without them having a drop of blood on it to give you away isn't a flaw in the game, it's a conscious choice on the part of the developers who pondered this situation and just said "no, we won't have blood on the clothes. It just forces the player to always use the wire to kill people, which can be frustrating for some, and then they wouldn't even use any of the guns we've given them."
Now on the other hand, Assassin's Creed and it's incredibly easy ways to hide from the guards (like sitting on a bench between two other people) and the way how the whole town forgot about you if you just hid for a few seconds was an example where a bit more realism would have really helped the game a lot, and maybe then I wouldn't have shaken my head in disbelief so many times.
It all depends on the situation, every single aspect of gaming has the potential to be incredibly valuable or a complete joy-killer. It all depends on how it's handled.
[quote]Sylvius the Mad wrote...
Realism matters. I hate that in newer games (with group inventories) that one character can unequip something and then another can immediately equip it even though they're nowhere near each other. Even ME did this.[/quote]
Well, given the fact that your party members never really were away from you all that much, it wasn't much of an issue, but I can understand your frustration.
[quote]Sylvius the Mad wrote...
You must have had her AI turned on.[/quote]
As I did with my Fighters. And they still forgot to defend their allies like I told them to.<_<
[quote]Sylvius the Mad wrote...
That's how it's supposed to work. Again, you are the player. You have to play the game.[/quote]
Maybe, but since the graphics are so poor, I'll often fail to realize that Minsc decided to just stand there looking around while there's a pack of wolves munching on my party. And if the enemy AI is smart enough to never do the same, why the hell can't my team do the same (a complaint that I can extend to pretty much any game where you have AI teammates).
[quote]Sylvius the Mad wrote...
That happens after the decision is made. But even more than that, why can't Shepard say that and then still save that person just to be dramatic?[/quote]
Oh, I don't know, maybe because there's a freaking nuke that's about to go off and you don't have time to save them both. You barely had time to save whoever you left with Kirahe, let alone someone else, so you have to choose.
[quote]Sylvius the Mad wrote...
Being locked into actions by dialogue is bad enough when I know what it is my character is going to say. Having it happen when the dialogue is hidden from me is even worse.[/quote]
Oh, you mean like in the Dalish Elf Origin, where you get that stupid mirror room and then you're forced to watch that damned cutscene if you simply try to leave the room? "No, wait, I just want to explore a bit more. Why are you forcing me to check the mirror, if I wanted to do that I would have checked the freaking mirror! No don't take that guy away, he still has my Feral Wolf Charm equipped on him, no, wait, stop, STOP!"
And that's just to mention the most recent moment I've witnessed.
[quote]Sylvius the Mad wrote...
How is that not understanding?[/quote]
Because you don't know what that musical genre is like?! Maybe?
You can know all the characteristics of a given genre back to back, but if you don't even know what the instruments sound like, how are you going to know anything about how that genre is like? It would be like saying that you've played a given game because you know all you needed from the game manual.
[quote]Sylvius the Mad wrote...
Yes, I know. And stat-driven combat offers quantifiable obstacles.[/quote]
Then... what was that about guessing and getting lucky during combat?
[quote]Sylvius the Mad wrote...
RPGs could learn a lot from turn-based strategy games.[/quote]
Western RPGs maybe, because JRPGs have had quite a few tactical combat systems over the years. Final Fantasy Tactics, for instance, made me lean back on my chair because I was pondering my options like in Civilization, not because I'm waiting for my party to mop up a given amount of enemies, like in DA.
[quote]Sylvius the Mad wrote...
[quote]ThePatriot101 wrote...
Also
they have been foraying into turn-based gameplay for decades.[/quote]
But
less and less.[/quote]
And for a reason. See my previous reply.
#710
Posté 24 mars 2010 - 07:53
Andorfiend
-
- Members
- 648 messages
Dudeman315 wrote...
Interesting article
http://www.gamezenith.com/?p=132
Meh. That did not read like a professional article. It read like a fan rant. And I've seen better written ones that said everything he said and more right here on this board.
#711
Posté 24 mars 2010 - 09:14
Abram730
-
- Members
- 374 messages
Sylvius the Mad wrote...
The big loss of RPG features between the two was the loss of stat-driven aiming. ME1 had the cone of death determined by your character's weapon skills. Now it's all player skill, and that doesn't make any sense in an RPG.M.AlphaShadow wrote...
Listen I'm not saying the game is perfect, it's just that the people who say ME2 isn't an RPG are being real stiff on what defines an RPG. Did ME2 take out some things to define a classic RPG? Yes, yes they did, I miss the inventory but at the same time what they did instead of that was great too. I loved ME1 which is why I can say ME1 had some problems and it wasn't just the frame rate and vehicle parts, and I love ME2 even if they took out some things that I liked about ME1 on top of fixing certain elements but that doesn't warrant people saying it's not an rpg and is just a shooter.
I don't think ME1 was an RPG anyway (PC VO and dialogue wheel), but ME2 certainly stepped even farther away from the genre.
At what point does the toughest solder in the galaxy learn to hit a target 20 feet in front of him? He's already saved the galaxy and all.. Did he misplace his aim, or get cross eyed?
I'm glad they dropped aim stats for part 2... I liked it for part one, but it needed to be dropped... The issue was that nothing really took its place.
The ammo as a skills boggle the mind though. I guess it's magic.
#712
Posté 24 mars 2010 - 09:24
Pocketgb
-
- Members
- 1 466 messages
Andorfiend wrote...
Re: Immunity.
Bioware was making it's first twitch game. They did not know how well their RPG customer base was going to do with a twitch game. So they put in an 'easy button'. It's a deliberate design decision. And it's not a poor one.
If your spinal reflexes forbid you to not use the easy button and you don't like the easy button go play a Sentinal, or an Engineer in ME 1, neither one has an easy button.
An "easy button" should be one thing and one thing only: changing the difficulty sliders. There's nothing wrong with easier classes as long as you make the harder to use ones just as if not more rewarding (playing Vanguard right in ME2 would clear rooms insanely quickly).
Not to mention that the "pause" menu (when you're selecting a power) could be nicely used to adjust your aim. That's how I always killed those jumping Geth without missing.
FlintlockJazz wrote...
I
think the first and only comment on that article is more interesting
imho, and gets their point across in fewer words (no waffles please) and
without all the ranting than the actual article itself.
lol, why thank ye!
#713
Posté 24 mars 2010 - 09:38
DrFifer
-
- Members
- 5 messages
This ridiculous 30 page thread just goes to show that it's tried and true: you can't please everybody.
#714
Posté 24 mars 2010 - 09:51
Gorn Kregore
-
- Members
- 636 messages
DrFifer wrote...
This ridiculous 30 page thread just goes to show that it's tried and true: you can't please everybody.
And this is why I never want to be involve in politics.
#715
Posté 24 mars 2010 - 09:55
Bigdoser
-
- Members
- 2 575 messages
DrFifer wrote...
This ridiculous 30 page thread just goes to show that it's tried and true: you can't please everybody.
So true shame some people can't realise this.
#716
Posté 24 mars 2010 - 10:32
Sylvius the Mad
-
- Members
- 24 112 messages
If the player's a lousy shot, then never. That's the problem.Abram730 wrote...
At what point does the toughest solder in the galaxy learn to hit a target 20 feet in front of him?
Why isn't Shepard always a good shot? As you say, he's the toughest soldier in the galaxy. Having him be a total spaz just because the player is one doesn't make any sense. It breaks the setting.
#717
Posté 24 mars 2010 - 11:35
Sylvius the Mad
-
- Members
- 24 112 messages
[quote]Lusitanum wrote...
I'm not talking about the Grey Wardens that go through the Joining, I'm talking about the Grey Wardens that still carry on with the Joining process for no adequate reason. I mean, not only becoming a Grey Warden means commiting yourself to a life of servitude in exchange for nothing besides a warm fuzzy feeling, you also have to go through the Joining which gives you no special abilities to fight the Darkspawn whatsoever and infuses you with a poison that won't even kill you, but instead slowly turn you into an intelligent Darkspawn with all the knowledge of a Grey Warden, so you have to kill yourself first. And all that assuming you actually survived the Joining. And in exchange for all that, what do you get? The ability to sense the Darkspawn and have creepy nightmares about the Archdemon. Oh, and the Darkspawn can sense you back, which is just great.
It just makes no sense. Wouldn't it be a lot more sensible to not have the Joining killing your recruits, both before and after they join you? There's a reason the Grey Wardens are so few in number, but the blame lies more on themselves than the Darkspawn.[/quote]
Everything you say is true, but you're ignoring the need to kill the archdemon, something only Grey Wardens can do. The Grey Wardens exist as a unit so that if there happens to be a Blight there will be a Grey Warden still standing at the end who can stop the damn thing.
That's the only reason the Grey Wardens exist, and they know it, and the game even tells you this.
[quote]And you'd think that there would have already been a few uprisings from (understandibly) pissed Grey Wardens who wouldn't have taken too kindly to the fact that, besides having lost the ability to live a normal life again, had also lost the ability to live at all in two or three decades time, without having a say on the matter.[/quote]
I can understand why they'd be upset, but once they're through the joining they have nothing to gain by revolting. The taint is going to kill them regardless.
[quote]There's a reason why Duncan had to join the Grey Wardens as a punishment for killing a member of the order who, incidentally, thanked him for taking his life. And the guy was about to get married. It really does suck to be a Grey Warden, doesn't it?[/quote]
Yes it does. My first character in DAO was very upset about that.
My second character saw it as an honour.
My third character would have died without the joining (Dalish).
My fourth character was smart enough not to worry about things he couldn't avoid.
[quote]Actually, this is just more evidence of how you're able to make **** up about the things you like (never seen you being so creative with ME).[/quote]
Because ME doesn't leave me those gaps. That's why I complain about the cinematic dialogue.
Would you like me to invent some explanation for how Geth go flying backward when I shoot them but I don't go flying backward when I fire the same weapon (even though conservation of momentum would require it)? Okay, sure. The weapon has an unseen jack that connects to my armour and generates an Element Zero field around me every time I pull the trigger. How's that?
[quote]Because any idiot can come up with some half-assed "A Wizard did it" excuse, but that doesn't mean it becomes believable in the slightest wihtout some sort of explanation.[/quote]
You don't need to believe the explanation. You just need to accept that it's a possible explanation and then the problem ceases to be an inconsistency within the game.
[quote]First off, are you honestly telling me that every single character in the game needs to sacrifice some of their stamina/mana in order to keep using sustained abilities but Mr. Arcane Warrior is so incredibly awesome that he can move every single muscle in his body with his magical powers without even thinking about it? [/quote]
I'm not telling you how anything works. I'm just showing you how easy it is to fill in these gaps yourself, thus increasing your enjoyment of the game.
[quote]Want to raise your sheild in order to increase your defense? Sorry, that will cost you. Want to carry your attacks from one to the next while while two weapons? Well, you'll have to sacrifice some of that stamina. Need to raise a magical shield to protect yourself? Nothing in life comes without a cost, so pay up. Want to use every single armor and weapon in the game which, besides raw physical strength, should also require intensive training in order to use appropriately without giving anything in return? Yeah, go right ahead, no problem.[/quote]
I haven't played an Arcane Warrior (I don't really like the concept), so I have limited direct experience of explaning that particular class within the game's setting.
[quote]It's not only illogical in every sense, it also breaks the rules that of the game itself. [/quote]
The game doesn't exist. The setting exists (from the point of view of the characters, which is all that matters).
[quote]And secondly, you can't just use magic and the unknown to answer everything without some kind of explanation, even if you are talking about magic. That's the reason why I could never accept those stupid Flying Mountains of Hallellujah from the movie Avatar, you can't just force me to accept that just because you've told me to. I could look past the fact that the Na'vi can literally connect themselves to the animals and the earth itself through their USB hair (even though that goes against every single notion of evolution I can think of) because at least that was established, there was a reason, but the flying mountains which can apprently keep chuging out water as if they were cornucopias, that's where I draw the line. Even if I can come up with some stupid justification involving a punishment from the gods and a very messed up gravity center. And in less than 10 seconds.[/quote]
Avatar is an extremely poorly constructed film. I have no idea why it's so popular.
[quote]For starters, are your actually trying to tell me that a galactic civilization, with alien races much more advanced than our own, which has mastered faster-than-light space travel and comunication, created kinetic barriers, has guns that can fire hundreds (if not thousands of bullets) from a single clip, is able to create highly sophisticaded artificial intelligence, among many, many, many more technological achievements isn't able to create a small reconaisance aircraft that won't eat up too many resources?[/quote]
I'm saying nothing of the sort. I' not claiming that anything is true. I'm claiming that it's possibly true.
You need to work on your modal logic.
[quote]Also, did you ever wonder how do we land on uncharted planets in ME2? With a freaking shuttle! Which flies, in case I need to clear that up for you. Oh, and now we also have the Hammerhead which hovers above the ground.[/quote]
Having not played ME2, I was unaware of that.
Though, there clearly have been techonological "advancements" between the two games. Note the changes to ammo and biotics from ME1 to ME2, so the tech in ME2 can't really be used to discredit the tech in ME1.
[quote]Yep, you really do live in another world.[/quote]
Apparently a far more reasonable one.
[quote]Your experience must revolve around the NPC interactions on DA, because real people will have more than just you to talk to, and will inevitably see you as a complete liar as soon as they realize that you've been saying to other people people the opposite of what you told them. The thing is that, unlike DA, they won't usually confront you with it and will just carry on pretending they don't know anything until they can really screw you hard.[/quote]
What if you're just circumspect in what you say? Oh, that's right, you don't seem to think that's possible because you think ME is a credible representation of how dialogue works.
I'm playing a character in DAO right now who's overly cautious with regard to pretty much everything. As such, he doesn't like to convey much information at all during a conversation. That way he never has to worry about having lied to someone, or given something away unduly.
So he asks questions. Since questions don't convey information, they're perfectly safe.
But in ME, such a character would be impossible to play, because the type of sentence uttered by Shepard isn't always discernable from the wheel options. I could choose a reponse like "Why?" only to see Shepard make a factual assertion as part of his response. Specifically the thing I wanted to avoid doing, and yet he went and did it.
You don't think there's a difference between a sentence which makes a factual claim and a sentence that doesn't - else you'd have noticed this discrepancy while playing ME.
[quote]1) I'm aware of my limitations and I know that I'm no writer. It would be like trying to draw of Shepard on a piece of paper. I can try my best and actually come up with something that isn't all that bad, but it will pale in comparisson to what a professional could do. Creating an interessting character requires more than just "filling it up" with characteristics I like to see, it requires that the character is actually well-developed. When I look at all the memorable characters I love the most, I notice that they all have completely different personalities from each other and that's because the only thing they have in common with each other is that they were all well-develloped by someone more capable than me.[/quote]
That is entirely unlike how I come to like or dislike characters.
[quote]3) Playing with a character that I know all the inns and outs can be a bit boring because sometimes it feels like you're playing chess with yourself: it might be a good mental exercise, but after awhile, you'll realize you're not really going anywhere.[/quote]
You're not ever getting anywhere. It's a computer game.
[quote]I don't know exactly what Shepard is going to do or say.
I can't predict every action or every line word for word.
AND I
DON'T
NEED TO
IN ORDER TO USE THE DIALOG WHEEL WITH 100% CERTAINTY OF WHAT I WANTED TO DO![/quote]
What you wanted to do? Of course you knew what you wanted to do. But you couldn't know that Shepard was actually going to do that.
[quote]OK, the best example I can think of is on ME2 and it doesn't even involve the dialog wheel, but I guess it's good enough. In Zaeed's loyalty mission, you have to attack a base full of mercenaries so he can have his revenge. However, right at the start, Zaeed starts going berserk, blowing stuff up and caring nothing about the innocents he might kill in the process. So you get a Paragon Interrupt opportunity. When I first saw it I thought "oh, an opportunity to calm Zaeed down in order to make him stop behaving like a loose canon". So then Shepard punched the guy in the face and told him to stop endangering lives and the mission for his goddamned revenge.
Did I knew that Shepard was going to punch him? Well, kind of, the camera will often focus on a given object while the Interrupt opportunity is on the screen, to give the player an idea of what will happen (in this case, Shepard's fist clenching). But even if I didn't, the point still stands: I didn't know what Shepard was going to say or do, but I did know that he was going to make a Paragon choice, cutting Zaeed from his berserker rage and calming him down. [/quote]
But what if it being a paragon choice wasn't enough detail? Then what?
You can't know there's always going to be enough information every time unless you know all of the information every time. And, as you admit, you don't. What if Shpeard had previously decided (either within the game or in your head) not to hit his squadmates under any circumstances, and only to reason with them? Then you'd have just broken your character.
[quote]Oh, so it becomes even less realistic. Because let me tell you something about working as a team: even if everyone is aware of their surroundings and communicating with each other, that still doesn't come close to the perfect sharing of information in BG. Hearing doesn't work the same way as seeing, so it shouldn't cover your back in the same way that your eyes do and turning your head means that you'll always have blind spots, not a perfectly circular 360º view.[/quote]
But there are six of you, so sneaking up on all of you at once seems pretty unlikely.
And what sharing? you're playing all the characters, so when the game shows you the area near Imoen it's because you're playing Imoen, not because she's telling your PC anything. You can't base decisions if the game won't tell yuo what your characters can see.
[quote]And with or without reload, endless spawning still isn't realistic. When you save a game, it should keep the data just as it was when you were playing the last time. It should not repopulate that chamber full of enemies that you just cleared through the skin of your teeth with the twin brothers of the monsters you already killed.[/quote]
I agree entirely. But that one feature isn't realistic is not reason to believe that other features are not, or that the realism elsewhere in the game isn't a good thing.
[quote]I might go crazy if you keep forcing me to repeat the same things over and over again, trying to get them through your skull. I don't contrast realism, role-playing or anything else with fun, I just say that as soon as it gets in the way of the fun, then it should go.[/quote]
But then it's conflicting with some other feature that is fun. Talking about the fun itself isn't informative.
You do a much better job of this in the assassination game section of your post.
[quote][quote]Realism matters. I hate that in newer games (with group inventories) that one character can unequip something and then another can immediately equip it even though they're nowhere near each other. Even ME did this.[/quote]
Well, given the fact that your party members never really were away from you all that much, it wasn't much of an issue, but I can understand your frustration.[/quote]
They could be. If one character got caught on the terrain he could end up being quite a long way from Shepard.
That's another aspect of realism that ME missed. Like NWN, ME would just have your companions appear next to you if they got to far away. But in ME, this would never happen if they were in your field of view. So, you could see Kaiden standing way down a hall, turn your head for a second, and then have him instantly appear at your side. I really didn't like how the mechanics of the world changed based on whether I was looking at them.
[quote]Maybe, but since the graphics are so poor, I'll often fail to realize that Minsc decided to just stand there looking around while there's a pack of wolves munching on my party. And if the enemy AI is smart enough to never do the same, why the hell can't my team do the same (a complaint that I can extend to pretty much any game where you have AI teammates).[/quote]
In a proper party-based game, they're not AI teammates. They're party members. You have as much control over each of them as you do over the character you designed. This was easier for people to understand in turn-based RPGs, but they're not really supposed to do anything unless you tell them to.
[quote]Oh, I don't know, maybe because there's a freaking nuke that's about to go off and you don't have time to save them both. You barely had time to save whoever you left with Kirahe, let alone someone else, so you have to choose.[/quote]
There's no indication of when that nuke is going to go off. It's not like Ilos where they put a clock on your screen and tell you to run (or drive - if you're running on Ilos you're screwed, but that's a different complaint).
[quote]Oh, you mean like in the Dalish Elf Origin, where you get that stupid mirror room and then you're forced to watch that damned cutscene if you simply try to leave the room? "No, wait, I just want to explore a bit more. Why are you forcing me to check the mirror, if I wanted to do that I would have checked the freaking mirror! No don't take that guy away, he still has my Feral Wolf Charm equipped on him, no, wait, stop, STOP!"[/quote]
Yes, ME isn't the only game to do that badly. What exactly is your point?
[quote]Because you don't know what that musical genre is like?! Maybe?
You can know all the characteristics of a given genre back to back, but if you don't even know what the instruments sound like, how are you going to know anything about how that genre is like?[/quote]
What distinction are you trying to draw? I would call "knowing what the musical genre is like" and "knowing the characteristics of a given musical genre" synonymous.
[quote]Sylvius the Mad wrote...
Then... what was that about guessing and getting lucky during combat?[/quote]
You were describing the joy of succeeding as the result of a plan in combat, but I responded that if that combat relied heavily on your direct inputs (as shooters do) then you couldn't know whether it was your great plan that caused you to succeed or you just being a good shot (or worse, an unexpectedly good shot with some lucky hits).
There is oppotunity for the same thing to occur in stat-driven combat, but any decent stat-driven game will provide a detailed combat log so you can know exactly how lucky you were.
DAO's lack of a combat log vexes me greatly.
[quote]Western RPGs maybe, because JRPGs have had quite a few tactical combat systems over the years. Final Fantasy Tactics, for instance, made me lean back on my chair because I was pondering my options like in Civilization, not because I'm waiting for my party to mop up a given amount of enemies, like in DA.[/quote]
And that's a great feature, though as you know, I don't count JRPGs as RPGs (because they lack opportunities for roleplaying).
I'm not talking about the Grey Wardens that go through the Joining, I'm talking about the Grey Wardens that still carry on with the Joining process for no adequate reason. I mean, not only becoming a Grey Warden means commiting yourself to a life of servitude in exchange for nothing besides a warm fuzzy feeling, you also have to go through the Joining which gives you no special abilities to fight the Darkspawn whatsoever and infuses you with a poison that won't even kill you, but instead slowly turn you into an intelligent Darkspawn with all the knowledge of a Grey Warden, so you have to kill yourself first. And all that assuming you actually survived the Joining. And in exchange for all that, what do you get? The ability to sense the Darkspawn and have creepy nightmares about the Archdemon. Oh, and the Darkspawn can sense you back, which is just great.
It just makes no sense. Wouldn't it be a lot more sensible to not have the Joining killing your recruits, both before and after they join you? There's a reason the Grey Wardens are so few in number, but the blame lies more on themselves than the Darkspawn.[/quote]
Everything you say is true, but you're ignoring the need to kill the archdemon, something only Grey Wardens can do. The Grey Wardens exist as a unit so that if there happens to be a Blight there will be a Grey Warden still standing at the end who can stop the damn thing.
That's the only reason the Grey Wardens exist, and they know it, and the game even tells you this.
[quote]And you'd think that there would have already been a few uprisings from (understandibly) pissed Grey Wardens who wouldn't have taken too kindly to the fact that, besides having lost the ability to live a normal life again, had also lost the ability to live at all in two or three decades time, without having a say on the matter.[/quote]
I can understand why they'd be upset, but once they're through the joining they have nothing to gain by revolting. The taint is going to kill them regardless.
[quote]There's a reason why Duncan had to join the Grey Wardens as a punishment for killing a member of the order who, incidentally, thanked him for taking his life. And the guy was about to get married. It really does suck to be a Grey Warden, doesn't it?[/quote]
Yes it does. My first character in DAO was very upset about that.
My second character saw it as an honour.
My third character would have died without the joining (Dalish).
My fourth character was smart enough not to worry about things he couldn't avoid.
[quote]Actually, this is just more evidence of how you're able to make **** up about the things you like (never seen you being so creative with ME).[/quote]
Because ME doesn't leave me those gaps. That's why I complain about the cinematic dialogue.
Would you like me to invent some explanation for how Geth go flying backward when I shoot them but I don't go flying backward when I fire the same weapon (even though conservation of momentum would require it)? Okay, sure. The weapon has an unseen jack that connects to my armour and generates an Element Zero field around me every time I pull the trigger. How's that?
[quote]Because any idiot can come up with some half-assed "A Wizard did it" excuse, but that doesn't mean it becomes believable in the slightest wihtout some sort of explanation.[/quote]
You don't need to believe the explanation. You just need to accept that it's a possible explanation and then the problem ceases to be an inconsistency within the game.
[quote]First off, are you honestly telling me that every single character in the game needs to sacrifice some of their stamina/mana in order to keep using sustained abilities but Mr. Arcane Warrior is so incredibly awesome that he can move every single muscle in his body with his magical powers without even thinking about it? [/quote]
I'm not telling you how anything works. I'm just showing you how easy it is to fill in these gaps yourself, thus increasing your enjoyment of the game.
[quote]Want to raise your sheild in order to increase your defense? Sorry, that will cost you. Want to carry your attacks from one to the next while while two weapons? Well, you'll have to sacrifice some of that stamina. Need to raise a magical shield to protect yourself? Nothing in life comes without a cost, so pay up. Want to use every single armor and weapon in the game which, besides raw physical strength, should also require intensive training in order to use appropriately without giving anything in return? Yeah, go right ahead, no problem.[/quote]
I haven't played an Arcane Warrior (I don't really like the concept), so I have limited direct experience of explaning that particular class within the game's setting.
[quote]It's not only illogical in every sense, it also breaks the rules that of the game itself. [/quote]
The game doesn't exist. The setting exists (from the point of view of the characters, which is all that matters).
[quote]And secondly, you can't just use magic and the unknown to answer everything without some kind of explanation, even if you are talking about magic. That's the reason why I could never accept those stupid Flying Mountains of Hallellujah from the movie Avatar, you can't just force me to accept that just because you've told me to. I could look past the fact that the Na'vi can literally connect themselves to the animals and the earth itself through their USB hair (even though that goes against every single notion of evolution I can think of) because at least that was established, there was a reason, but the flying mountains which can apprently keep chuging out water as if they were cornucopias, that's where I draw the line. Even if I can come up with some stupid justification involving a punishment from the gods and a very messed up gravity center. And in less than 10 seconds.[/quote]
Avatar is an extremely poorly constructed film. I have no idea why it's so popular.
[quote]For starters, are your actually trying to tell me that a galactic civilization, with alien races much more advanced than our own, which has mastered faster-than-light space travel and comunication, created kinetic barriers, has guns that can fire hundreds (if not thousands of bullets) from a single clip, is able to create highly sophisticaded artificial intelligence, among many, many, many more technological achievements isn't able to create a small reconaisance aircraft that won't eat up too many resources?[/quote]
I'm saying nothing of the sort. I' not claiming that anything is true. I'm claiming that it's possibly true.
You need to work on your modal logic.
[quote]Also, did you ever wonder how do we land on uncharted planets in ME2? With a freaking shuttle! Which flies, in case I need to clear that up for you. Oh, and now we also have the Hammerhead which hovers above the ground.[/quote]
Having not played ME2, I was unaware of that.
Though, there clearly have been techonological "advancements" between the two games. Note the changes to ammo and biotics from ME1 to ME2, so the tech in ME2 can't really be used to discredit the tech in ME1.
[quote]Yep, you really do live in another world.[/quote]
Apparently a far more reasonable one.
[quote]Your experience must revolve around the NPC interactions on DA, because real people will have more than just you to talk to, and will inevitably see you as a complete liar as soon as they realize that you've been saying to other people people the opposite of what you told them. The thing is that, unlike DA, they won't usually confront you with it and will just carry on pretending they don't know anything until they can really screw you hard.[/quote]
What if you're just circumspect in what you say? Oh, that's right, you don't seem to think that's possible because you think ME is a credible representation of how dialogue works.
I'm playing a character in DAO right now who's overly cautious with regard to pretty much everything. As such, he doesn't like to convey much information at all during a conversation. That way he never has to worry about having lied to someone, or given something away unduly.
So he asks questions. Since questions don't convey information, they're perfectly safe.
But in ME, such a character would be impossible to play, because the type of sentence uttered by Shepard isn't always discernable from the wheel options. I could choose a reponse like "Why?" only to see Shepard make a factual assertion as part of his response. Specifically the thing I wanted to avoid doing, and yet he went and did it.
You don't think there's a difference between a sentence which makes a factual claim and a sentence that doesn't - else you'd have noticed this discrepancy while playing ME.
[quote]1) I'm aware of my limitations and I know that I'm no writer. It would be like trying to draw of Shepard on a piece of paper. I can try my best and actually come up with something that isn't all that bad, but it will pale in comparisson to what a professional could do. Creating an interessting character requires more than just "filling it up" with characteristics I like to see, it requires that the character is actually well-developed. When I look at all the memorable characters I love the most, I notice that they all have completely different personalities from each other and that's because the only thing they have in common with each other is that they were all well-develloped by someone more capable than me.[/quote]
That is entirely unlike how I come to like or dislike characters.
[quote]3) Playing with a character that I know all the inns and outs can be a bit boring because sometimes it feels like you're playing chess with yourself: it might be a good mental exercise, but after awhile, you'll realize you're not really going anywhere.[/quote]
You're not ever getting anywhere. It's a computer game.
[quote]I don't know exactly what Shepard is going to do or say.
I can't predict every action or every line word for word.
AND I
DON'T
NEED TO
IN ORDER TO USE THE DIALOG WHEEL WITH 100% CERTAINTY OF WHAT I WANTED TO DO![/quote]
What you wanted to do? Of course you knew what you wanted to do. But you couldn't know that Shepard was actually going to do that.
[quote]OK, the best example I can think of is on ME2 and it doesn't even involve the dialog wheel, but I guess it's good enough. In Zaeed's loyalty mission, you have to attack a base full of mercenaries so he can have his revenge. However, right at the start, Zaeed starts going berserk, blowing stuff up and caring nothing about the innocents he might kill in the process. So you get a Paragon Interrupt opportunity. When I first saw it I thought "oh, an opportunity to calm Zaeed down in order to make him stop behaving like a loose canon". So then Shepard punched the guy in the face and told him to stop endangering lives and the mission for his goddamned revenge.
Did I knew that Shepard was going to punch him? Well, kind of, the camera will often focus on a given object while the Interrupt opportunity is on the screen, to give the player an idea of what will happen (in this case, Shepard's fist clenching). But even if I didn't, the point still stands: I didn't know what Shepard was going to say or do, but I did know that he was going to make a Paragon choice, cutting Zaeed from his berserker rage and calming him down. [/quote]
But what if it being a paragon choice wasn't enough detail? Then what?
You can't know there's always going to be enough information every time unless you know all of the information every time. And, as you admit, you don't. What if Shpeard had previously decided (either within the game or in your head) not to hit his squadmates under any circumstances, and only to reason with them? Then you'd have just broken your character.
[quote]Oh, so it becomes even less realistic. Because let me tell you something about working as a team: even if everyone is aware of their surroundings and communicating with each other, that still doesn't come close to the perfect sharing of information in BG. Hearing doesn't work the same way as seeing, so it shouldn't cover your back in the same way that your eyes do and turning your head means that you'll always have blind spots, not a perfectly circular 360º view.[/quote]
But there are six of you, so sneaking up on all of you at once seems pretty unlikely.
And what sharing? you're playing all the characters, so when the game shows you the area near Imoen it's because you're playing Imoen, not because she's telling your PC anything. You can't base decisions if the game won't tell yuo what your characters can see.
[quote]And with or without reload, endless spawning still isn't realistic. When you save a game, it should keep the data just as it was when you were playing the last time. It should not repopulate that chamber full of enemies that you just cleared through the skin of your teeth with the twin brothers of the monsters you already killed.[/quote]
I agree entirely. But that one feature isn't realistic is not reason to believe that other features are not, or that the realism elsewhere in the game isn't a good thing.
[quote]I might go crazy if you keep forcing me to repeat the same things over and over again, trying to get them through your skull. I don't contrast realism, role-playing or anything else with fun, I just say that as soon as it gets in the way of the fun, then it should go.[/quote]
But then it's conflicting with some other feature that is fun. Talking about the fun itself isn't informative.
You do a much better job of this in the assassination game section of your post.
[quote][quote]Realism matters. I hate that in newer games (with group inventories) that one character can unequip something and then another can immediately equip it even though they're nowhere near each other. Even ME did this.[/quote]
Well, given the fact that your party members never really were away from you all that much, it wasn't much of an issue, but I can understand your frustration.[/quote]
They could be. If one character got caught on the terrain he could end up being quite a long way from Shepard.
That's another aspect of realism that ME missed. Like NWN, ME would just have your companions appear next to you if they got to far away. But in ME, this would never happen if they were in your field of view. So, you could see Kaiden standing way down a hall, turn your head for a second, and then have him instantly appear at your side. I really didn't like how the mechanics of the world changed based on whether I was looking at them.
[quote]Maybe, but since the graphics are so poor, I'll often fail to realize that Minsc decided to just stand there looking around while there's a pack of wolves munching on my party. And if the enemy AI is smart enough to never do the same, why the hell can't my team do the same (a complaint that I can extend to pretty much any game where you have AI teammates).[/quote]
In a proper party-based game, they're not AI teammates. They're party members. You have as much control over each of them as you do over the character you designed. This was easier for people to understand in turn-based RPGs, but they're not really supposed to do anything unless you tell them to.
[quote]Oh, I don't know, maybe because there's a freaking nuke that's about to go off and you don't have time to save them both. You barely had time to save whoever you left with Kirahe, let alone someone else, so you have to choose.[/quote]
There's no indication of when that nuke is going to go off. It's not like Ilos where they put a clock on your screen and tell you to run (or drive - if you're running on Ilos you're screwed, but that's a different complaint).
[quote]Oh, you mean like in the Dalish Elf Origin, where you get that stupid mirror room and then you're forced to watch that damned cutscene if you simply try to leave the room? "No, wait, I just want to explore a bit more. Why are you forcing me to check the mirror, if I wanted to do that I would have checked the freaking mirror! No don't take that guy away, he still has my Feral Wolf Charm equipped on him, no, wait, stop, STOP!"[/quote]
Yes, ME isn't the only game to do that badly. What exactly is your point?
[quote]Because you don't know what that musical genre is like?! Maybe?
You can know all the characteristics of a given genre back to back, but if you don't even know what the instruments sound like, how are you going to know anything about how that genre is like?[/quote]
What distinction are you trying to draw? I would call "knowing what the musical genre is like" and "knowing the characteristics of a given musical genre" synonymous.
[quote]Sylvius the Mad wrote...
Then... what was that about guessing and getting lucky during combat?[/quote]
You were describing the joy of succeeding as the result of a plan in combat, but I responded that if that combat relied heavily on your direct inputs (as shooters do) then you couldn't know whether it was your great plan that caused you to succeed or you just being a good shot (or worse, an unexpectedly good shot with some lucky hits).
There is oppotunity for the same thing to occur in stat-driven combat, but any decent stat-driven game will provide a detailed combat log so you can know exactly how lucky you were.
DAO's lack of a combat log vexes me greatly.
[quote]Western RPGs maybe, because JRPGs have had quite a few tactical combat systems over the years. Final Fantasy Tactics, for instance, made me lean back on my chair because I was pondering my options like in Civilization, not because I'm waiting for my party to mop up a given amount of enemies, like in DA.[/quote]
And that's a great feature, though as you know, I don't count JRPGs as RPGs (because they lack opportunities for roleplaying).
#718
Posté 25 mars 2010 - 01:32
Murmillos
-
- Members
- 706 messages
Sylvius the Mad wrote...
The big loss of RPG features between the two was the loss of stat-driven aiming. ME1 had the cone of death determined by your character's weapon skills. Now it's all player skill, and that doesn't make any sense in an RPG.M.AlphaShadow wrote...
Listen I'm not saying the game is perfect, it's just that the people who say ME2 isn't an RPG are being real stiff on what defines an RPG. Did ME2 take out some things to define a classic RPG? Yes, yes they did, I miss the inventory but at the same time what they did instead of that was great too. I loved ME1 which is why I can say ME1 had some problems and it wasn't just the frame rate and vehicle parts, and I love ME2 even if they took out some things that I liked about ME1 on top of fixing certain elements but that doesn't warrant people saying it's not an rpg and is just a shooter.
I don't think ME1 was an RPG anyway (PC VO and dialogue wheel), but ME2 certainly stepped even farther away from the genre.
ME1 NEVER EVER had stat based aiming, it had stat based hit % penalty . Once you put at least 8 or 9 points into your weapon, you then basically removed that stat penalty, 11 fully removed that hit % penalty. And the weapons of course, also had their own negative hit % when they had 0 in the accuracy stat. So then we had a DOUBLE hit-chance penalty at level 1. Beyond frustrating. And it made zero, absoluty zero sense that you, as Commander Shepard, N7, the best trained marine of the Systems Alliance, shoots worst then a 11 year old gang member in the streets of New York until he "levels up."
Thus, it was always up to the player to aim his weapon properly and then "grind" thru the penalty while shooting at his targets.
ME2 removes this leveling up out of a penalty, and basically gives all starting Shepard's 11 full points in weapons. All weapons appear to have their cone of fire still; meaning that rounds will still miss occasionally even if you aim at center mass (torso) if at medium or greater distance (except for the sniper).
The only way - to of course to make guns acceptable to your "100% character" stat skill, is to go back to a round turned based system, such as KoTOR with Fallout 3 V.A.T.S.
But this still means you have no concept of grasping the nature of what an ACTION PRG means. ACTION RPG's mean that player skill/input will be required to play the game. Like Diablo. Yes its not a classic PnP RPG - and you can still add in the limited role which you can play as Shepard, but ME2 is still an RPG, if not weak and simplified and streamlined the hell out of RPG.
Modifié par Murmillos, 25 mars 2010 - 01:34 .
#719
Posté 25 mars 2010 - 01:35
Masticetobbacco
-
- Members
- 1 192 messages
Mass effect is an action RPG. It is geared toward casual players, not hardcore nerds
you want a full, tactical, turned based, desicion making RPG, go play final fantasy XVXV!IVXIVXIIXI
you want a full, tactical, turned based, desicion making RPG, go play final fantasy XVXV!IVXIVXIIXI
#720
Posté 25 mars 2010 - 01:38
Eshaye
-
- Members
- 2 286 messages
Masticetobbacco wrote...
you want a full, tactical, turned based, desicion making RPG, go play final fantasy XVXV!IVXIVXIIXI
Lies! You make no decisions in FFinsertnumberhere !!
Not anymore then you do in ME games, the decisions are just about combat where in ME it's about conversation... 
#721
Posté 25 mars 2010 - 01:49
Darth Drago
-
- Members
- 1 136 messages
Could someone please explain to me why so many very narrow minded people seem to believe that all role playing games are limited to only turn based games? Must be ancestors of all the people who thought the world is flat and cant possibly be round…
#722
Posté 25 mars 2010 - 04:14
Sylvius the Mad
-
- Members
- 24 112 messages
But that was optional. Since you could aim while paused, player input was (optionally) reduced to target selection.Murmillos wrote...
Thus, it was always up to the player to aim his weapon properly and then "grind" thru the penalty while shooting at his targets.
That's stat-driven aiming. And everything in an RPG should be stat-driven.
I don't think anyone thinks that. I haven't played a proper turn-based RPG since Temple of Elemental Evil. BioWare has never made a turn-based RPG. They've all (including ME) been real-time with pause.Darth Drago wrote...
Could someone please explain to me why so many very narrow minded people seem to believe that all role playing games are limited to only turn based games?
#723
Posté 25 mars 2010 - 04:17
Onyx Jaguar
-
- Members
- 13 003 messages
Eshaye wrote...
Masticetobbacco wrote...
you want a full, tactical, turned based, desicion making RPG, go play final fantasy XVXV!IVXIVXIIXI
Lies! You make no decisions in FFinsertnumberhere !!
Lies, Disgaea owns all of you in RPG gameplay.
There you can level up yourself. Level up your attacks. Level up your persuasion in court. Level up your class. LEVEL UP YOUR ITEMS.
Unlock new worlds based on persuasion. LEVEL UP YOUR ITEMS.
#724
Posté 25 mars 2010 - 05:02
Mordaedil
-
- Members
- 1 626 messages
I think he means to include "round-based" games in his analysis, which NWN and BG fall under. Things happen in turns, but all decisions are made real time. I think DAO still falls under this mechanic, except that the rounds are more fluid and fall more under a mechanic that places your "initiative" when you enter combat to give it a smoother edge than BG's where you roll and "wait" for your turn.Sylvius the Mad wrote...
I don't think anyone thinks that. I haven't played a proper turn-based RPG since Temple of Elemental Evil. BioWare has never made a turn-based RPG. They've all (including ME) been real-time with pause.Darth Drago wrote...
Could someone please explain to me why so many very narrow minded people seem to believe that all role playing games are limited to only turn based games?
Honestly though, I think it breeds better RPG's than other systems.
#725
Posté 25 mars 2010 - 05:05
Murmillos
-
- Members
- 706 messages
Sylvius the Mad wrote...
But that was optional. Since you could aim while paused, player input was (optionally) reduced to target selection.Murmillos wrote...
Thus, it was always up to the player to aim his weapon properly and then "grind" thru the penalty while shooting at his targets.
That's stat-driven aiming. And everything in an RPG should be stat-driven.
In a classic cRPG emulating a PnP RPG - Yes.
In a "Action-cRPG" - its basically a free get out of jail card. ME1 bridged the two elements while allowing for aiming while paused (while Bioware admits that this was more wholly designed for tech/biotic power aiming more then anything else -shooting just got lucky to be able to do it too.)
You are absolutely correct that ME1 is not your standard "classic" PnP-cRPG.. but you continue to fail or don't want to admit/realize that the ME(1&2) is a Action/TPS-RPG game - which means player skill is expected (and in some Action RPG games) required; so some PRG elements are removed and given to the player direct control/input.
Thats the whole point of the ACTION tag. To let you know that its going to be a bit more player interactive and "actiony" then a non action PRG.
