1067 réponses à ce sujet

[Sylvius the Mad]

Then I don't want to play action RPGs. The closest I've come to enjoying one was Dungeon Siege, which everyone called an action RPG at the time (it was routinely called a Diablo-clone), but there was no twitch-based aspect to combat at all.

That was a good game. Diablo, no. The Witcher, no.

Mass Effect does, however, allow aiming while paused, so it isn't really a twitch-based game for me. There's no mandatory twitch aspect to gameplay. But the lack of stat-driven aiming in ME2 means that the game got quite a bit easier.

[J HG T]

Onyx Jaguar wrote...


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.

True. I've played Disgaea 1 and 2 pretty much in recent years. This game pretty much defines leveling.
LEVEL UP!

[Skalman91]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Then I don't want to play action RPGs. The closest I've come to enjoying one was Dungeon Siege, which everyone called an action RPG at the time (it was routinely called a Diablo-clone), but there was no twitch-based aspect to combat at all.
That was a good game. Diablo, no. The Witcher, no.
Mass Effect does, however, allow aiming while paused, so it isn't really a twitch-based game for me. There's no mandatory twitch aspect to gameplay. But the lack of stat-driven aiming in ME2 means that the game got quite a bit easier.

A role playing game to me has nothing to do with the mechanics of the game AT ALL.
For me, a role playing game role playing game is defined by its deep story, well written characters and superb dialogue with lots of story arcs and open endings.

Personally, I couldn't care less about stats and ****.
Gameplay mechanics, inventory, loot, stats, all of that are pretty meaningless for a role playing game to be good. The important thing is that the characters, the voice acting and the dialogue/choices are solid, everything else is just a bonus.
So i don't even consider diablo or dungeon siege to be in the genre.

Diablo is still pretty fun to play on occasion though.

Modifié par Skalman91, 25 mars 2010 - 07:33 .

[Fluffeh Kitteh]

Skalman91 wrote...
For me, a role playing game role playing game is defined by its deep story, well written characters and superb dialogue with lots of story arcs and open endings.

But how does that define a "RPG"? you coudl make a game in some other genre that has traits like that too, and they'd fit right in with your definitions, since you say eschew the mechanics, it wouldn't matter if you weren't in direct control of a single guy in the game world anyway.

[Mordaedil]

I'd like everyone to note that RPG is not a synonym for "good game" or "slow game", but an archetype of game. You know the difference between chess and dodge-ball right? A combination of the two can take on different forms. You can lean towards the board game where it becomes something like "Black & White" or you can move the dodge ball into a more strategic motion and it becomes "handball".



Mass Effect takes inspiration from DOOM and thus is an FPS. Elements that are tied to RPG's are no longer present in it. They were barely there in ME1. Story can come in ANY format. They are not unique to RPG's, remember the good old adventure games. It all depends on the developer who creates the game, and just because Bioware wrote it, doesn't automatically mean it is an RPG.

[Onyx Jaguar]

No no no no it is not an FPS it is not an FPS

FIRST PERSON SHOOTER

completely different play mechanics.


Example Doom/Red Baron/Wolfenstein 3D: first person shooter

Space Harrier/Star Fox: Third person shooter

Super Mario 64: 3D platformer

Tomb Raider: 3D platformer/Shooter Hybrid

Winback: Third Person Shooter with 3D Movement

Mass Effect is more like Winback than Doom

Also RPG games Wizardry/Rogue/Ultima

Evovled into Nethack/Dragon Quest/Gold Box games

Evolved into Elder Scrolls/Fallout/Baldur's Gate/Final Fantasy


Half-LIfe does not play like Army of Two, Halo does not play like Gears of War.  Call of Duty does not play like Max Payne.  FUNDAMENTAL DESIGN ISSUES, mostly due to animation.

ME 2 has more RPG elements than you would find in Shiren the Wanderer, a definite game in the Lineage of Rogue.  ME 2 = RPG because it is splintered off so, it is also a Hybrid like Half-Life is because Half-LIfe has puzzle elements but is still a FPS.

Mass Effect is more like Summoner with guns as an RPG.

Also older examples of FPS/TPS or overhead shooter if you will.  Marathon does not play like Postal and Wolfenstein does not play like Ikari Warriors.  COMPLETE DIVERGANCE from said games.



EDIT: More examples

Mid 80's overhead shooters like Commando then slower paced like Metal Gear.  Metal Gear transformed into Metal Gear Solid in the late nineties similar to Ocarina of Time 3D viewpoint third person (MEtal Gear still overhead) then later Metal Gear Solid 3: Subsistance moves camera angle behind character effectively a third person shooter which carried on into MGS4.  DESIGN PHILOSPHY is different from First Person Shooters.


EDIT:  Design philosphy differences

Third Person Shooters are more of an Eastern gameplay concept while First Person Shooters are more Western (specifically American).  However You see the third person viewpoint of Mass Effect as a lineage from their overhead RPG's like Baldur's Gate which went into a third person perespective in KOTOR/Jade Empire and NWN and has carried on somewhat in DA.  The current craze in Cover based shooters (Third person that is) can be traced back to Winback/Kill.Switch, Japanese games.  Then later on Resident Evil 4 implemented some of hte control mechanics then the American Developer Epic combined both the Cover element and some of RE4's control and vibe into Gears of War which Mass Effect 2 plays similarly.  Although Mass Effect 2 also takes some influence from the Rainbow Six: Vegas games which employ both FPS and TPS although they do TPS only in the cover sections so Rainbow Six: Vegas is definately a First Person Shooter, but Mass Effect isn't simply becuase of design philosophy.

Modifié par Onyx Jaguar, 25 mars 2010 - 08:24 .

[Skalman91]

Fluffeh Kitteh wrote...

Skalman91 wrote...
For me, a role playing game role playing game is defined by its deep story, well written characters and superb dialogue with lots of story arcs and open endings.

But how does that define a "RPG"? you coudl make a game in some other genre that has traits like that too, and they'd fit right in with your definitions, since you say eschew the mechanics, it wouldn't matter if you weren't in direct control of a single guy in the game world anyway.

I'm convinced that it's fully possible to make a good role playing game in which you control several characters during the course of the game.

Note that I really don't like to use the words "RPG" as in todays gaming industry, literally any game with stats can be called an RPG, which to me is not synonymous with a Role Playing Game. And as such, many of the games today that are labeled as RPGs, I do not consider to be even remotely close to being a role playing game.

This is my opinion of course, I do not care what other people think or what the gaming market of today says. It's my opinion and I'm entitled to it.

[Murmillos]

Skalman91 wrote...

A role playing game to me has nothing to do with the mechanics of the game AT ALL.
For me, a role playing game role playing game is defined by its deep story, well written characters and superb dialogue with lots of story arcs and open endings.

Personally, I couldn't care less about stats and ****.
Gameplay mechanics, inventory, loot, stats, all of that are pretty meaningless for a role playing game to be good. The important thing is that the characters, the voice acting and the dialogue/choices are solid, everything else is just a bonus.
So i don't even consider diablo or dungeon siege to be in the genre.

Diablo is still pretty fun to play on occasion though.

So you just described that you like Adventure Game and dislike RPG's.

RPG's typical include the "stats and ****.", as the "stats and ****." allows you define your characters role and allow to give you a measure of character progress and growth.

[Murmillos]

Onyx Jaguar wrote...
rant...
rant...
rant...

We don't need this ****ing because somebody used FPS instead of TPS..  Regardless if you are in F or T person view.. its still ends with the same word.. SHOOOOOOOOTER.

Modifié par Murmillos, 25 mars 2010 - 12:59 .

[Lusitanum]

[quote]Sylvius the Mad wrote...

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]

But wouldn't it make a lot more sense to just make a select few go through the Proving? I know you always need some Grey Wardens to be "infected", to sense the Darkspawn and act as a kamikaze against the Archdemon, but you don't need every single member for it. They could just make an elite "honor guard" or something, give them a fancy title (like "Oracles") and a cookie so you don't have to cripple the whole order unecessarily. That way you get more Grey Wardens who don't die before they even join up, more hardened veterans to share their experience and knowledge with the younger generation and you reduce the risk of having the ones who go to the Calling end up captured by the Darkspawn and help them with the knowledge gained through years of service.

[quote]Sylvius the Mad wrote...

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]

The biggest problem here isn't that they have nothing to gain, it's that they have nothing to lose, and that's the most dangerous kind of people there is.

[quote]Sylvius the Mad wrote...


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]

The only explanation I liked was the one they give you when you're a Dalish. You're already dying and the Joining is going to buy you some time in exchange for your service. All the characters others I've played would have all the reasons to question the logic of going through the Joining in exchange for nothing. Even if I do end up having to fight the Archdemon, I could go through the Joining then and even if I died, at least I helped in the fight before that. You could probably say the same about Daveth and Ser Jory if you had given them the chance.

[quote]Sylvius the Mad wrote...


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]

Well, that's beyond improbable, but I see you're warmed up. So now I ask: if you like making stuff up all that much, why is it so hard for you to think of a half-decent reason as to why a Commander of the Alliance would dedicate himself to fighting a threat against humanity?

[quote]Sylvius the Mad wrote...


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.

[...]

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]

The moment that there's an inconsistency, some basic ass-pull isn't
going to make it any more believable and it will keep sticking out for
as long as it's there. And that ruins the enjoyment of the game because it ruins how much you can lose yourself in it.

[quote]Sylvius the Mad wrote...


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]

Well, as far as gameplay goes, you get the specialization and the very first ability on that skill tree is a sustained ability that lets you that gives you increased attack and the ability to use your Magic to determine your weapon damage and you get the completely broken passive skill of using everything under the sun as long as your Magic allows it.

[quote]Sylvius the Mad wrote...


The game doesn't exist.  The setting exists (from the point of view of the characters, which is all that matters).[/quote]

WHAT?! So the game is built around these fictional characters who are nothing more than an assortment of 0's and 1's and the players are the ones who have to work around them because the point of view of these inexistent entities is all that matters?

Good God, that goes beyond not making any sense.

[quote]Sylvius the Mad wrote...


Avatar is an extremely poorly constructed film.  I have no idea why it's so popular.[/quote]

Marketing. And lots of it.

[quote]Sylvius the Mad wrote...


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]

And you need to work on your probablilities, because the possibility that such an advanced alien civilization would have flying cars, interspatial travel and flying drones, among many other things, but no flying recon units, is just laughable.

[quote]Sylvius the Mad wrote...


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]

Ammo was an advancement brought by the examining Geth weaponry that evolved over their 200 years of abssence, and even then it's hard to believe that it was possible to retrofit every - single - firearm in the galaxy in just two years (but it's a gameplay change, so we'll can overlook that) and biotics stayed pretty much the same, the only exception being that the implants have been upgraded to L5 (but that's like saying that there's a much more advanced graphics card after two years).

Oh, and apparently lightbulbs were also invented, because the Normandy is actually properly lite this time around (you'd think Dr. Chakwas would have trouble providing medical assistance in the first Normandy's medical bay).

[quote]Sylvius the Mad wrote...


Apparently a far more reasonable one.[/quote]

Where persuasion doesn't exist, the characters of a videogame are all that matters and the definitions of the world revolve around your opinions.

Yeah, I'm going to avoid that particular brand of "reasonable".

[quote]Sylvius the Mad wrote...


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]

Hemm... weren't we mentioning specific, real-life persuasion here in this particular part of the discussion? 

[quote]Sylvius the Mad wrote...


That is entirely unlike how I come to like or dislike characters.[/quote]

So is pretty much everything else between you and the rest of the world, buddy.

[quote]Sylvius the Mad wrote...


You're not ever getting anywhere.  It's a computer game.[/quote]

Oh, so now it's a computer game. Wasn't it supposed to be a world that revolves around the character's point of view? And the reason why you say that is exactly why you want your games to be the same damned thing over and over again.

If a videogame doesn't get you anywhere, why do we play them? And this time, don't just give us your usual "me, me, me" response, tell me why do millions upon millions of people play videogames everyday? Here's a hint: it's because they are more than what you give them credit for.

[quote]Sylvius the Mad wrote...


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]

You're an idiot, you know that? How many more times am I going to repeat the same YES I KNEW THAT SHEPARD WAS GOING TO GO THE WAY I WANTED HIM TO thing?

Goddamn, a doornail would have gotten it by now.

[quote]Sylvius the Mad wrote...


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]

If he had decided not ot hit his squadmates then he wouldn't have did it in the game, now would he? You wouldn't even be given the option!

So much for your "reasonable" world if it can't graps even that...

[quote]Sylvius the Mad wrote...


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]

There are 16 of us when I play Team Fortress 2, and even with all those eyes and everyone communicating with each other, we're going to eventually get stabbed in the back by some Spy. Especially since, as I mentioned before, communication takes time and even just saying "Watch out, Spy." is even enough time for him to stab 2 or 3 people. let alone when you have to be specific in order to pinpoin exactly where he is, where he's coming from and what he's going to do, as BG characters would have to if all they used was verbal communication instead of magical shared 360º fields of vision.

[quote]Sylvius the Mad wrote...


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]

That's just a way to work around the fact that AI squad mates are going to get stuck, so the game just magically transports them to avoid that. It's not the ideal situation (which would involve not having your squad getting stuck on geometry), but it's better than in some games where you have to keep trying to lure them out by a wide variety of very annoying means.

[quote]Sylvius the Mad wrote...


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]

But when I set their AI to do something specific, they're supposed to do it, not just when they feel like it, regardless of whether they are a character I designed or not.

[quote]Sylvius the Mad wrote...


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]

You mean, besides Shepard saying that everything's ready and they should get out of there? Or your "bomb" squad mate telling you that he'll start arming the nuke? Not to mention that having a countdown timer when you have a boss fight and a dramatic cutscene isn't exactly the same as trying to grasp a small window of opportunity on a closing relay.

[quote]Sylvius the Mad wrote...


Yes, ME isn't the only game to do that badly.  What exactly is your point?[/quote]

That if you didn't like that in ME, why are you briging it up here like it's the reason why it sucks?

[quote]Sylvius the Mad wrote...


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]

And someone with the most basic knowledge of how music is percieved would disagree with you. Or in other words, someone with common sense.

[quote]Sylvius the Mad wrote...


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]

Oh, so you're fine with being lucky or not and feeling like your perfectly laid plan went down the crapper because the die hate you, as long as you get a report on it.

Well, sorry to tell you, but when someone plays a game like ME (or any other game with tactical elements) and get their asses kicked, they tend to prefer to think "OK, I screwed up in this and that aspect, let's try again without sucking this time" and not "right, my spell rolled a 2, but the opponent rolled a 15, that's great. And why won't my Fighter just hit that guy before he -- oh, and of course the enemy landed a crit and killed my character, what a surprise. Well, time to load the game and pray harder this time, I guess."

[quote]Sylvius the Mad wrote...


And that's a great feature, though as you know, I don't count JRPGs as RPGs (because they lack opportunities for roleplaying).[/quote]

And what you don't count as RPGs form the barebones of the genre, so...

[quote]Sylvius the Mad wrote...

[quote]Abram730 wrote...

At
what point does the toughest solder in the galaxy learn to hit a target
20 feet in front of him? [/quote]
If the player's a lousy shot, then
never.  That's the problem.

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.[/quote]

Then that's the player's fault. If you start shooting the floor on a shooter, order your party to just stand in the same place and do nothing while they get cut to pieces or completely botch a given mission by breaking the mission parameters in any game, that's your fault as the player who screwed up.

What's next? Falling in a pit in Super Mario Bros. is breaking the character because you died and didn't save the princess?

[quote]Sylvius the Mad wrote...

But that was optional.  Since you
could aim while paused, player input was (optionally) reduced to target
selection.

That's stat-driven aiming.  And everything in an RPG
should be stat-driven.
[/quote]

No it shouldn't, unless you want to see RPGs dying of stagnation like the JRPG sub-genre is now.

[quote]Skalman91 wrote...

I'm convinced that it's fully possible
to make a good role playing game in which you control several characters
during the course of the game.

Note that I really don't like to
use the words "RPG" as in todays gaming industry, literally any game
with stats can be called an RPG, which to me is not synonymous with a
Role Playing Game. And as such, many of the games today that are labeled
as RPGs, I do not consider to be even remotely close to being a role
playing game.

This is my opinion of course, I do not care what
other people think or what the gaming market of today says. It's my
opinion and I'm entitled to it.[/quote]

Ah, a definition of an RPG that I might not agree 100% with, but at least it's open-minded, respectful of other people's views and aware of the current state of genre as a whole. What a nice change of pace. :happy:

Well, back to the usual now...

[quote]Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Then I don't want to play action
RPGs. The closest I've come to enjoying one was Dungeon Siege, which
everyone called an action RPG at the time (it was routinely called a
Diablo-clone), but there was no twitch-based aspect to combat at all.
That
was a good game. Diablo, no. The Witcher, no.
Mass Effect does,
however, allow aiming while paused, so it isn't really a twitch-based
game for me. There's no mandatory twitch aspect to gameplay. But the
lack of stat-driven aiming in ME2 means that the game got quite a bit
easier.[/quote]

I usually play ME1 in Hardcore difficulty and ME2 on Normal was a real nice challenge, so you really should try to stop making baseless assumptions of things you don't know.

Oh, and also, ME2 still has a paused mode that allows you to aim, so I don't know what you're complaining about.

[Skalman91]

Murmillos wrote...

Skalman91 wrote...

A role playing game to me has nothing to do with the mechanics of the game AT ALL.
For me, a role playing game role playing game is defined by its deep story, well written characters and superb dialogue with lots of story arcs and open endings.

Personally, I couldn't care less about stats and ****.
Gameplay mechanics, inventory, loot, stats, all of that are pretty meaningless for a role playing game to be good. The important thing is that the characters, the voice acting and the dialogue/choices are solid, everything else is just a bonus.
So i don't even consider diablo or dungeon siege to be in the genre.

Diablo is still pretty fun to play on occasion though.

So you just described that you like Adventure Game and dislike RPG's.

RPG's typical include the "stats and ****.", as the "stats and ****." allows you define your characters role and allow to give you a measure of character progress and growth.

No, stats are not what defines a role playing game, stats are not needed for a game to be a role playing game, although most of them do have stats of some kind, because it's an easy way to make the game.

We will not have a perfect role playing game until the stats are not the main focus of the gameplay mechanics or gone entirely. A stat based game is in itself very immersion breaking, for several reasons I do not have the time nor will to go into detail about at the moment.

But this is merely my opinion and I will not force it on anyone, but as this is a forum for sharing ones opinion on different matters, I thought I'd post mine.

[zippie151]

very true, stats are not what make or break an RPG but they do symbolise what does make what is seen as an RPG, that is depth. ME2 lacks depth like a 2d shape, there is not much to it other than the missions and combat. No real armour customisation, no stat/level customisation. No real ability or weapon choice.

It's almost like ME2 is confused as to what it is. it wants to be an rpg at the same time it wants to be a 3rd person shooter. There is and can be a holy middle ground but Bioware need to decide soon what type of game they want to make ME into before they ruin ME3 totally.

Here's hoping they lean back towards ME1 style and story for number 3.

[Gorn Kregore]

i mean srsly since when was mass effect ever an RPG!??!

[Sylvius the Mad]

[quote]Lusitanum wrote...

But wouldn't it make a lot more sense to just make a select few go through the Proving?[/quote]
The Blight is dangerous.  not all the Grey Wardens will survive to face the archdemon.  Having more of them improves the odds of success (and since the cost of failure is the destruction of civilization, maximizing the chances of success seems like a pretty good idea).

[quote]They could just make an elite "honor guard" or something, give them a fancy title (like "Oracles") and a cookie so you don't have to cripple the whole order unecessarily. That way you get more Grey Wardens who don't die before they even join up, more hardened veterans to share their experience and knowledge with the younger generation and you reduce the risk of having the ones who go to the Calling end up captured by the Darkspawn and help them with the knowledge gained through years of service.[/quote]
Remember that darkspawn blood is also poisonous to non-Grey Wardens.  The game glosses this over quite a bit (your party members never fall to the blight the way the characters in the Dalish origin do), but it's clearly written out in the lore.

Being a Grey Warden significantly increases your chances of surviving the darkspawn.  It's a lot like being the only guy in the American Civil War with access to antibiotics.  Sure, you can still get shot, but you're the only one who isn't likely to die three days later from an otherwise minor wound.


[quote]The only explanation I liked was the one they give you when you're a Dalish. You're already dying and the Joining is going to buy you some time in exchange for your service.[/quote]
The city elf was facing execution.  The mage might have been facing imprisonment (depending on your choices during the origin).  The dwarf commoner was facing imprisonment (at best).  The two noble origins did not have a credible reason to join, though, you are correct (arguably the dwarf noble might feel compelled to join after being rescued from the Deep Roads by Duncan, but that's far weaker a motivation than the others I listed).


[quote]Even if I do end up having to fight the Archdemon, I could go through the Joining then [/quote]
Do you not recall how the joining knocked you unconscious?  there was no mention of how long that took, either.


[quote]Well, that's beyond improbable, but I see you're warmed up. So now I ask: if you like making stuff up all that much, why is it so hard for you to think of a half-decent reason as to why a Commander of the Alliance would dedicate himself to fighting a threat against humanity?[/quote]
Because any reason I come up with could later be contradicted by Shepard's own utterances.  Since I can't avoid specific lines just because they contradict Shepard's personality, that means I can't decide what Shepard's motives for anything are.

Earlier, you seemed to think that was a good thing.


[quote]The moment that there's an inconsistency, some basic ass-pull isn't going to make it any more believable and it will keep sticking out for as long as it's there. And that ruins the enjoyment of the game because it ruins how much you can lose yourself in it.[/quote]
And there's the difference.  You want to lose yourself in the game.  I want to lose myself in the character.


[quote]So the game is built around these fictional characters who are nothing more than an assortment of 0's and 1's and the players are the ones who have to work around them because the point of view of these inexistent entities is all that matters?[/quote]
Yes.  If the setting isn't coherent from their point of view, won't they notice?


[quote]Ammo was an advancement brought by the examining Geth weaponry that evolved over their 200 years of abssence, and even then it's hard to believe that it was possible to retrofit every - single - firearm in the galaxy in just two years (but it's a gameplay change, so we'll can overlook that) and biotics stayed pretty much the same, the only exception being that the implants have been upgraded to L5 (but that's like saying that there's a much more advanced graphics card after two years).[/quote]
But don't the new biotics fail to function against shielded or armoured characters they way the old biotics did?  Or have I misunderstood something?


[quote]Yeah, I'm going to avoid that particular brand of "reasonable".[/quote]
It's based in eymology.  Able to be reasoned.


[quote]If a videogame doesn't get you anywhere, why do we play them? And this time, don't just give us your usual "me, me, me" response, tell me why do millions upon millions of people play videogames everyday?[/quote]
Because they enjoy them.

Why each person enjoys them is unknowable.


[quote]You're an idiot, you know that? How many more times am I going to repeat the same YES I KNEW THAT SHEPARD WAS GOING TO GO THE WAY I WANTED HIM TO thing?[/quote]
Except you've already admitted this wasn't the case.  You can't keep contradicting yourself and expecting me to accept it.  Need I remind you?
[quote]Lusitanum wrote...

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.[/quote]
If you don't know exactly what Shepard is going to do or say, then you can't be certain that he won't contradict some aspect of his personality previously established by you.


[quote]If he had decided not ot hit his squadmates then he wouldn't have did it in the game, now would he?[/quote]
That's only true if you have no control at all over his personality.  Which is fine, but that drives a nail in the roleplaying coffin.  You can't possibly offer meaningful input into Shepard's behaviour if you don't know anything about him, and you don't know anything about him unless you decide those aspects yourself.  And if you've decided them yourself, the game isn't aware of them and might contradict you later if it acts without first letting you make an informed choice.

You're presupposing that everything about Shepard is pre-determined, but then why does the game even need you?
[quote]You wouldn't even be given the option![/quote]
But you were given the option.  What if you'd decided earlier that Shepard wouldn't do such a thing?  How do you avoid having Shepard act contrary to his own personality if you don't know what it is you're choosing until after you've chosen it?


[quote]There are 16 of us when I play Team Fortress 2, and even with all those eyes and everyone communicating with each other, we're going to eventually get stabbed in the back by some Spy. Especially since, as I mentioned before, communication takes time and even just saying "Watch out, Spy." is even enough time for him to stab 2 or 3 people. let alone when you have to be specific in order to pinpoin exactly where he is, where he's coming from and what he's going to do, as BG characters would have to if all they used was verbal communication instead of magical shared 360º fields of vision.[/quote]
How would you have it work?  Imagine if you were playing all 16 of those Team Fortress characters at once (and were able to do so, either by stopping time to make decisions or by acting at superhuman speed).  Should the game hide information from you for fear that you'll misuse it?


[quote]That's just a way to work around the fact that AI squad mates are going to get stuck, so the game just magically transports them to avoid that. It's not the ideal situation (which would involve not having your squad getting stuck on geometry), but it's better than in some games where you have to keep trying to lure them out by a wide variety of very annoying means.[/quote]
As I said, I don't mind the teleportation.  I minded that the teleportation was contingent on whether I was watching.  That just made longer teleports more likely (since I could suppress them simply by walking backward)


[quote]You mean, besides Shepard saying that everything's ready and they should get out of there?[/quote]
He's my character.  I get to decide what he means by that.


[quote]Or your "bomb" squad mate telling you that he'll start arming the nuke?[/quote]
We don't know how long that takes, or whether there's some sort of subsequent countdown.


[quote]That if you didn't like that in ME, why are you briging it up here like it's the reason why it sucks?[/quote]
That there are many things wrong with Mass Effect is the whole point of this discussion.


[quote]And someone with the most basic knowledge of how music is percieved would disagree with you. Or in other words, someone with common sense.[/quote]
So no one, then, as there's no such thing as common sense.

Really, what distinction are you trying to draw?  Obviously you think you understand it.  So explain it to me.


[quote]Oh, so you're fine with being lucky or not and feeling like your perfectly laid plan went down the crapper because the die hate you, as long as you get a report on it.[/quote]
The dice don't hate me.  The dice are random.  But that report tells me whether I failed because my plan was lousy or because I was unlucky.  If I was unlucky, I should still be able to determine whether I was likely to succeed.  If so, I can try again with the game approach, and assuming I haven't made any statistical errors I will succeed as a predictable rate.


[quote]Well, sorry to tell you, but when someone plays a game like ME (or any other game with tactical elements) and get their asses kicked, they tend to prefer to think "OK, I screwed up in this and that aspect, let's try again without sucking this time" and not "right, my spell rolled a 2, but the opponent rolled a 15, that's great. And why won't my Fighter just hit that guy before he -- oh, and of course the enemy landed a crit and killed my character, what a surprise. Well, time to load the game and pray harder this time, I guess."[/quote]
There's no prayer involved.  Do you have no idea how statistical probability works?  The dice allow me to fail some of the time even when my plan is good and succeed some of the time even when my plan is bad (just like the shooters you enjoy) but they do so based on my character's skills, which actually exist in the gameworld, as opposed to my physical inputs, which don't exist in the gameworld and cannot then reasonably affect anything.

If I know the math, I can demonstrate even before the battle that a certain event will occur in x% of instances.  My tolerance for reloading determines what my minimum value for x is.


[quote]Then that's the player's fault. If you start shooting the floor on a shooter, order your party to just stand in the same place and do nothing while they get cut to pieces or completely botch a given mission by breaking the mission parameters in any game, that's your fault as the player who screwed up.[/quote]
But what's the in-game explanation for why Shepard, an experienced marine, can't shoot straight?


[quote]No it shouldn't, unless you want to see RPGs dying of stagnation like the JRPG sub-genre is now.[/quote]
How then can I play a character who has skills I do not?


[quote]Oh, and also, ME2 still has a paused mode that allows you to aim, so I don't know what you're complaining about.[/quote]
Yes, but now I can't miss.  I'll always hit that at which I aim, and I aim while paused.

How does that not make the game easier?

Modifié par Sylvius the Mad, 26 mars 2010 - 05:32 .

[Mordaedil]

With that, I'd like to note to anyone that points out that Sylvius should suck less, has missed the point and has automatically lost the discussion.

[TJSolo]

You can't lose a discussion.

I however have bowed out of any further discussion with that bloke.

[Darth Drago]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

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?

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.

M.AlphaShadow wrote...
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.

Masticetobbacco wrote...

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

-The two above are from just that page my comment was on in this topic and I’ve seen a lot of similar references forum wide. I went back in this one to see if anyone else had made another such comment but I only got as far back as page 10 before my eyes started to hurt from the lack of sleep and the mega sized replies lol![

M.AlphaShadow wrote...

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.

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

-Can you name 3 real big choices you made in ME2 other than the final one about the Base at the end? Many choices that don’t affect the cameo appearances that came from ME1? Mass Effect 2 is devoid of any significant decisions, BioWare removed that freedom to make a shooter game.

Some would and probably argue that doing the loyalty missions is giving you a choice. I would say they are wrong. Throughout the game you are reminded to make sure your team is at peak proficiency so they can do their job. Doing the loyalty missions are also directly linked to into *Spoiler Territory* so I cant say it in this forum, other than doing them are not actual choices if your want the best outcome of the mission and those who you didn’t do the loyalty mission for.

Modifié par Darth Drago, 25 mars 2010 - 10:21 .

[Sylvius the Mad]

Mordaedil wrote...

With that, I'd like to note to anyone that points out that Sylvius should suck less, has missed the point and has automatically lost the discussion.

Especially since I don't suck.  I'm pretty handy with a mouse (I admit I suck with analog sticks - I'm terrible at console shooters); I just don't want to break the setting by having my skills affect the game world.

[Mordaedil]

TJSolo wrote...

You can't lose a discussion.
I however have bowed out of any further discussion with that bloke.

Can't lose a discussion? What, did your mother tell you that to make you feel better? Yes, it's possible to lose a discussion, but often two people should be smart enough to have valid arguments and similar enough viewpoints to NOT be able to lose a discussion. Some parts of Sylvius arguments are attackable without becoming a matter of win/lose, I'm not saying he's always right, because some things fall into matter of taste and two people can declare their tastes against eachother. It's when facts or disputes about validty of tastes come into the picture that one can lose any validity or weight for a conversation or discussion.

Not that it'll stop people, but it makes it very obvious who the idiots are.

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Mordaedil wrote...

With that, I'd like to note to anyone that points out that Sylvius should suck less, has missed the point and has automatically lost the discussion.

Especially since I don't suck.  I'm pretty handy with a mouse (I admit I suck with analog sticks - I'm terrible at console shooters); I just don't want to break the setting by having my skills affect the game world.

Pretty much. I'm extremely good at any game, but I have my preferences as well and usually they don't go with the fastest paced games. I kinda find them about as entertaining as working with assembling items. Drull business.

[TJSolo]

"Can't lose a discussion? What, did your mother tell you that to make you feel better? Yes, it's possible to lose a discussion, but often two people should be smart enough to have valid arguments and similar enough viewpoints to NOT be able to lose a discussion. Some parts of Sylvius arguments are attackable without becoming a matter of win/lose, I'm not saying he's always right, because some things fall into matter of taste and two people can declare their tastes against eachother. It's when facts or disputes about validty of tastes come into the picture that one can lose any validity or weight for a conversation or discussion.



Not that it'll stop people, but it makes it very obvious who the idiots are."



Nothing about my mother, thanks for the nightmares.

A discussion is just an exchange of ideas; matching points maybe doing some counters.

Sylvis has been civil matching points and creating food for thought.

There is no winning against him, because he isn't doing it to win.

If you want to argue or debate; the latter has a winner the former has two losers.

[Grilled Trout]

I get it.... fine... so some of you think Mass Effect 2 isn't an RPG anymore. I say it is more than a competent RPG... perhaps one of the best I have played. So no amount of arguing about it will change anyone's mind. Now, can we accept the fact that everyone will have different opinions and just move on now?



If you hate the game so much or think it is rubbish, then do yourself a favor and stop playing the game. No offense, but the continuous insistence of people posting about how this game sucks or how this game is not an RPG is getting very tiresome. It's been rinsed and repeated dozens and dozens of time... in the end, nobody cares but you, and no amount of anyone's complaints will change a mind of someone who likes and appreciates this game for being a good RPG.

[TJSolo]

Grilled Trout wrote...

If you hate the game so much or think it is rubbish, then do yourself a favor and stop playing the game.

Talking about the game is not about hate, boss. It is about wanting improvements for the next installment.

[Onyx Jaguar]

Murmillos wrote...

Onyx Jaguar wrote...
rant...
rant...
rant...

We don't need this ****ing because somebody used FPS instead of TPS..  Regardless if you are in F or T person view.. its still ends with the same word.. SHOOOOOOOOTER.

Yes, but I've seen it being called an FPS so many times on this forum that it is maddening.  

Plus I would contribute to the IS ME AN RPG ZOMG debate with similar results but it would be pointless because RPG is not a definite term.  FPS and TPS/Shooter are definite terms.

[Mordaedil]

TJSolo wrote...

A discussion is just an exchange of ideas; matching points maybe doing some counters.

This assumes people in this thread can discern the difference. Seeing as these are the ME boards, I have sincere doubts. I don't think this pertains to you however.

TJSolo wrote...
Sylvis has been civil matching points and creating food for thought.
There is no winning against him, because he isn't doing it to win.

Indeed. But some people in this thread do not demonstrate the capability of being lenient towards difference in opinion or in admitting faults. Again, this, apparently wasn't aimed towards you. I apologize for my rashness earlier, your point didn't come through clearly.

TJSolo wrote...
If you want to argue or debate; the latter has a winner the former has two losers.

Some people in this thread do argue and debate Sylvius' points not quite understanding why.

I mostly made my post to dissuade them from posting, but it never really works. But at least I could try.

[Lusitanum]

[quote]Sylvius the Mad wrote...

The Blight is dangerous.  not all the Grey Wardens will survive to face the archdemon.  Having more of them improves the odds of success (and since the cost of failure is the destruction of civilization, maximizing the chances of success seems like a pretty good idea).[/quote]

Maybe, I can see your point there, but then why poison them when there's no certainty of a Blight and the Archdemon. Because the Grey Wardens don't just retire at the end of a Blight, they keep their vigil (and recruitment) until the next one.

[quote]Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Remember that darkspawn blood is also poisonous to non-Grey Wardens.  The game glosses this over quite a bit (your party members never fall to the blight the way the characters in the Dalish origin do), but it's clearly written out in the lore.

Being a Grey Warden significantly increases your chances of surviving the darkspawn.  It's a lot like being the only guy in the American Civil War with access to antibiotics.  Sure, you can still get shot, but you're the only one who isn't likely to die three days later from an otherwise minor wound.[/quote]

There are special antidotes to prevent poisoning by Darkspawn blood. The Mages gave Maric some of those that he had to drink once every day that he was on the Deep Roads searching for a captured Grey Warden. Who later ended up turning into a Darkspawn and joining them, giving them all the information they needed, by the way.

[quote]Sylvius the Mad wrote...

The city elf was facing execution.  The mage might have been facing imprisonment (depending on your choices during the origin).  The dwarf commoner was facing imprisonment (at best).  The two noble origins did not have a credible reason to join, though, you are correct (arguably the dwarf noble might feel compelled to join after being rescued from the Deep Roads by Duncan, but that's far weaker a motivation than the others I listed).[/quote]

Yes, those are good reasons to join the Grey Wardens, I know that, but what I'm saying is that, as far as Origins go, the Dalish Elf is the only one who has a real reason to go through the Proving.

[quote]Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Do you not recall how the joining knocked you unconscious?  there was no mention of how long that took, either.[/quote]

Given that everyone was getting ready for the battle of Ostagar and when you woke up there were (apparently) still a few hours of waiting, it shouldn't have taken too long.

[quote]Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Because any reason I come up with could later be contradicted by Shepard's own utterances.  Since I can't avoid specific lines just because they contradict Shepard's personality, that means I can't decide what Shepard's motives for anything are.

Earlier, you seemed to think that was a good thing.[/quote]

I still do. I'm just wondering why you had such ease on shaping reality to the rules of the Arcane Warrior and yet have so much trouble on doing the same with Shepard.

[quote]Sylvius the Mad wrote...

And there's the difference.  You want to lose yourself in the game.  I want to lose myself in the character.[/quote]

Yes, and the characters are one of the main reasons why people lose themselves in a game. Just a few hours ago I was talking with a friend of mine about ME2 and Dragon Age and the point we've spent the most time on were the characters.

"My favorite was Ogren, he was so funny and always came up with something unexpected. Did you had that converstation where he told Morrigan he could resist magic? And then she asked him if he was immune to a punch in the balls?"

"That's why I went for Miranda and Morrigan in both games: they both look like they're though as nails and won't break under any circunstances, but underneath they seem to uncertain of themselves and socially awkward."

"Oh, and Thane was so cool! Legion was great too, I didn't expect some of the things he said! And Grunt was a nice surprise too. / By the way, do you know who voiced Grunt? Steve Blum, the same guy who voiced Ogren / Really? I never noticed that. / Yeah. Well, when he and Wrex were talking to each other, I felt like I was having an eargasm."

Incidentally, I remembered this discussion we're having and since he liked his Shepard so much (a character he never had any trouble leading wherever he wante him to, either), I asked him what he thought of his character in Dragon Age. His answer was something like this:

"Oh, I really liked the way I built him, a Warrior wielding two swords. By the end of the game, he looked quite cool. / Yeah, but what about his personality, what did you think of that? / Well... he was a Human Noble... / And you pretty much just played him as yourself, didn't you? / Yeah, I know it's a bit narcissitic... / Nah, not really, that's just how people play a role-playing game, they see a situation and act in kind as to what they would do if they were actually faced with that problem. There's nothing wrong with that."

And he loved the damned game, claiming that it was the best fantasy RPG he'd ever played. But the thing that will remain in his heart the most are the characters, the setting and the story that he was so excited with, and surely not the main character who was just his way into the game.

[quote]Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Yes.  If the setting isn't coherent from their point of view, won't they notice?[/quote]

Unless they start breaking the 4th wall, no. You've never seen a Dragon Age character raising the quesiton as to why some bodies decompose in less than 5 seconds while others apparently endure for all eternity.

[quote]Sylvius the Mad wrote...

But don't the new biotics fail to function against shielded or armoured characters they way the old biotics did?  Or have I misunderstood something?[/quote]

Well, some biotics have been tweaked out to balance the game so, even though they have the same names and basic abilities, they work in slightly different ways. For instance, now and enemy can have one, two or all three degrees of protection before you can damage their Health: Armor, Biotic Barrier and Kinetic Shields. Lift won't work on an enemy who has Armor or Warp won't work on an enemy who has Shields but it can damage his Biotic Barrier or his Health.

It's also a bit inconsistent since these powers didn't have those properties in the first game, but since it adds to the tactical element of the game and encourages you to bring different party members with you depending on what kind of opposition you're expecting to find, it's easier to overlook.

And that is supporting an inconsistency because it adds to the enjoyment of the game.

[quote]Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Because they enjoy them.

Why each person enjoys them is unknowable.[/quote]

Right, but people enjoy them because they're set out to achieve a goal. Be it just playing as given character, enjoying the story, finishing the game, unlocking achievements, playing with friends or whatever, there's always something to attain.

That's what I meant with "not getting anywhere" when I mentioned the whole "playing chess with yourself" thing because, like I said, it's a good mental exercise, but you're not going anywhere if you're playing a tactical game where your opponent knows your ever intentions and you know his too.

[quote]Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Except you've already admitted this wasn't the case.  You can't keep contradicting yourself and expecting me to accept it.  Need I remind you?
[quote]Lusitanum wrote...

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.[/quote]
If you don't know exactly what Shepard is going to do or say, then you can't be certain that he won't contradict some aspect of his personality previously established by you.[/quote]

Because I don't establish something when I'm playing a defined character in a defined storyline? Don't know, maybe? Because that would be like reading/watching a given story and declaring "now this guy will never do *this*, because I said so" and then getting dissapointed if he contraditcted my will.

[quote]Sylvius the Mad wrote...

That's only true if you have no control at all over his personality.  Which is fine, but that drives a nail in the roleplaying coffin.  You can't possibly offer meaningful input into Shepard's behaviour if you don't know anything about him, and you don't know anything about him unless you decide those aspects yourself.  And if you've decided them yourself, the game isn't aware of them and might contradict you later if it acts without first letting you make an informed choice.

You're presupposing that everything about Shepard is pre-determined, but then why does the game even need you?[/quote]

Haven't we been thought this already? Haven't we already established that ME leaves you less room for making up your own character when you're given a pre-established character? Although I noticed that you never actually answered to my "less role-playing doesn't mean that it ceases to be a role-playing game" statment that I've made a few pages back.

[quote]Sylvius the Mad wrote...

How would you have it work?  Imagine if you were playing all 16 of those Team Fortress characters at once (and were able to do so, either by stopping time to make decisions or by acting at superhuman speed).  Should the game hide information from you for fear that you'll misuse it?[/quote]

Again, haven't we been though this? I've already said I have nothing against the way Baldur's Gate handles the way your party can see and share that knowledge with each other. This is one of the game mechanics where I think a lack of realism only benefits the game. All I'm asking is that you don't try to justify that with by calling it realistic with things like "they're all communicating with each other on what they perceive", because that's just not possible.

[quote]Sylvius the Mad wrote...

As I said, I don't mind the teleportation.  I minded that the teleportation was contingent on whether I was watching.  That just made longer teleports more likely (since I could suppress them simply by walking backward)[/quote]

Funny how Dragon Age not only has magical teleportation, but it also gives your party members super speed when they need to catch up with you. I always found the way they would suddenly break into a full sprint in your direction quite humurous.

[quote]Sylvius the Mad wrote...

He's my character.  I get to decide what he means by that.[/quote]

No he isn't and no you don't.

[quote]Sylvius the Mad wrote...

We don't know how long that takes, or whether there's some sort of subsequent countdown.[/quote]

Given that it's a nuke and you don't want to give your enemy an opportunity to get it disarmed, I'd expect it to be as short as possible.

[quote]Sylvius the Mad wrote...

So no one, then, as there's no such thing as common sense.[/quote]

You want a definition then? Fine: 

Common SenseNoun1.
Sound practical judgment; "I can't see the sense in doing it now"; "he
hasn't got the sense God gave little green apples"; "fortunately shw had
the sense to run away".
And also a few quotes, in case you also want to question some of the most reputed thinkers in history:

Euripides: The best prophet is common sense, our native wit.

Henry Ward Beecher: The philosophy of one century is the common sense of the next.

Terence: What a grand thing it is to be clever and have common sense.

Thomas H. Huxley: Science is nothing, but trained and organized common sense.

Lusitanum: The notion of common sense is common sense in itself.

(OK, so that last one could use some work... )

[quote]Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Really, what distinction are you trying to draw?  Obviously you think you understand it.  So explain it to me.[/quote]

Didn't I already? You can't understand something if you're missing valuable data on how its most basic aspects work. It would be like learning a language without ever knowing how it sounds like or how it's used.

[quote]Sylvius the Mad wrote...

The dice don't hate me.  The dice are random.  But that report tells me whether I failed because my plan was lousy or because I was unlucky.  If I was unlucky, I should still be able to determine whether I was likely to succeed.  If so, I can try again with the game approach, and assuming I haven't made any statistical errors I will succeed as a predictable rate.[/quote]

That's the difference from when you play something where your planning isn't subject to chance: you don't have to waste your time with trying to same thing, hoping that at least this time your great plan will work. If it's good, it works, if it's not, it won't. It means that you can technically beat a game based solely on how good you are, not on how many times you happen to get screwed up when you shouldn't have.

[quote]Sylvius the Mad wrote...

There's no prayer involved.  Do you have no idea how statistical probability works?  The dice allow me to fail some of the time even when my plan is good and succeed some of the time even when my plan is bad (just like the shooters you enjoy) but they do so based on my character's skills, which actually exist in the gameworld, as opposed to my physical inputs, which don't exist in the gameworld and cannot then reasonably affect anything.

If I know the math, I can demonstrate even before the battle that a certain event will occur in x% of instances.  My tolerance for reloading determines what my minimum value for x is.[/quote]

Here's my highly mathmatical tolerance for reloading: if it was caused by my actions, I'm pumped for another game, I'm all set to try again and this time do better than last time and learn from my mistakes. If it was caused by the game deciding I should lose this time just because it said so, then I'm going to get frustrated because it's basically telling me to do the same thing while I pray for it to be in a better mood next time.

And this applies to any genre. That's why I prefer Street Fighter over Dead or Alive, Civilization over King's Bounty and Grand Theft Auto over Driver.

[quote]Sylvius the Mad wrote...

But what's the in-game explanation for why Shepard, an experienced marine, can't shoot straight?[/quote]

Dunno, maybe it's the same explanation as to why the characters in DA let themselves get killed while being attacked, why Napoleon can be a complete and utter moron in Total War/Civilization, why the famed Lara Croft keeps falling from cliffs or why a strong sports team suddenly plummets to the bottom of the scoreboard in a sports game:

They're videogames, which means that some of the things will fall under the responsibility of the one who's playing them. Weren't you the one complaining about the lack of imput and how ME might as well be a movie and now you want it to play itself?

[quote]Sylvius the Mad wrote...

How then can I play a character who has skills I do not?[/quote]

Isnt' the vast majority of games based on playing with someone that has the skills your don't? Seriously...

[quote]Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Yes, but now I can't miss.  I'll always hit that at which I aim, and I aim while paused.

How does that not make the game easier?[/quote]

Because that's basically how ME already was after a couple of levels?

[quote]Mordaedil wrote...

Indeed. But some people in this thread
do not demonstrate the capability of being lenient towards difference in
opinion or in admitting faults. Again, this, apparently wasn't aimed
towards you. I apologize for my rashness earlier, your point didn't come
through clearly.[/quote]

If he didn't understood fully what you were saying, then that could have been because some people in this thread really like to beat around the bush and make indirect remarks instead of just saying what they really think. Personally, I blame the fact that they like a given game.