1067 réponses à ce sujet

[Sylvius the Mad]

Tawg wrote...

Communication is a noun, thus a person, place, or.. thing.  And I believe definition 2.a. discribes our current volly of 'One person speaks - the other interprets.' 

I'm aware that "communication" is a noun, so it is a label for a thing.  My point here is that the thing is describes doesn't exist.

The classic example from analytical philosophy would be "The King of France is bald".  That statement is false, because there is no King of France.  Since things that don't exist cannot exhibit characteristics, any statement that assigns characteristics to a non-existent thing is therefore necessarily false.

"Communication" gets used like that a lot.  Rather than refering to the constituent parts of the conversation (one person speaking, the other interpreting), people will ascribe characteristics to the communication overall, and that's just not meaningful.

[Tawg]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Tawg wrote...

Communication is a noun, thus a person, place, or.. thing.  And I believe definition 2.a. discribes our current volly of 'One person speaks - the other interprets.' 

I'm aware that "communication" is a noun, so it is a label for a thing.  My point here is that the thing is describes doesn't exist.

The classic example from analytical philosophy would be "The King of France is bald".  That statement is false, because there is no King of France.  Since things that don't exist cannot exhibit characteristics, any statement that assigns characteristics to a non-existent thing is therefore necessarily false.

"Communication" gets used like that a lot.  Rather than refering to the constituent parts of the conversation (one person speaking, the other interpreting), people will ascribe characteristics to the communication overall, and that's just not meaningful.

I suppose I could see that point, but I don't see the argument as to how 'Communication' isn't the interaction between us as apose to the seperate parts of me saying one thing, and you interpreting it.
Since when was it ever divided into such parts?
Or am I simply just so un-informed as to believe this 'fasle' existance?

This sound like it's getting almost as deep as to delve into different schools of thinking on what constitutes existance of something that rather amouts to an idea (A thing with no phisical substance, as with 'Communications')

And at my current standing, I don't think I could ever take what you say for the truth, if only out of mis-understanding; So I will simply have to disagree whole heartedly, which I assume you can respect.
Unless you know a clear way off hand to demonstrate why something like communication can not have meaningful things atributed to it, but instead only it's 'constitute parts.'

[Noble 1]

The player choosing everything Shepard says, shaping his character to the players wishes. That's the definition of Role Playing.

[Brako Shepard]

I would consider both the first and second Mass Effect games more a Action Adventure, than a strict RPG.



Whilst the enviroments in Mass Effect are very beautiful. There are set on a strict path with no much to do but shoot the bad guys.



The thing that makes a great RPG is how you can go around the story path and explore the whole enviroments, with tonnes of fun mini-games to get involved with.



There is a serious lack of groovy mini-game goodness lacking in todays RPG's, not to mention how much Mass Effect could do with more o them.



In Mass Effect 2 I would have much rather have played gambling and arcade games in the nightclubs, than just have the same getting drunk scenes.

[Dick Delaware]

^^^ Totally agree. The RPG elements, even in the original game are either shallow (character system) or poorly implemented.



The strange thing is, in terms of choices and consequences, the second game is significantly better. Your choices matter more than in the first game, which was almost entirely linear.

[CatatonicMan]

Dick Delaware wrote...

^^^ Totally agree. The RPG elements, even in the original game are either shallow (character system) or poorly implemented.

The strange thing is, in terms of choices and consequences, the second game is significantly better. Your choices matter more than in the first game, which was almost entirely linear.

ME2 does have more choices, but they are all so disconnected from each other and the main story that they actually feel weaker overall - at least to me.

ME1 was certainly more linear with respect to the actual story line, yet it used all its other assets as a means of masking the rails.  The vast expanse of the explorable worlds, the wide array of weapons and armor (annoying as they sometimes were), the less-choppy story, the wider range of customizations, the more story-involved squadmates, etc. all helped obscure the fact that you were still sliding along the one available path.

ME2 was actually cursed by the greater choices it provided. You could do or not do a large number of different, potentially story-altering things - more than in ME1 - but at a cost: none of the individual pieces/levels/areas were able to interact, since they couldn't easily account for any and all possible combinations. Without this interconnection, the story was shattered into a dozen or so little chunks rather than a smooth surface. 

Add to this the fact that each instance/quest/level was generally more linear (or at least more obviously so) than in ME1 (partly due to the horrible 'MISSION COMPLETE' screens, I'm sure), and you lose any advantage the extra choice might have gained.

If I were to use a (really) bad analogy: 

If ME1 was a train, it would be on one track the entire trip - but it has many nice windows or televisions or whatever that distract you from the fact that you are generally along for the ride.

If ME2 was a train, it would be one similar to the ME1 train (more luxurious, even) - only on this train you are required to periodically go up to the front and choose which track your train will follow. You get the choice of the direction (to some extent), but you are constantly reminded that you are, in fact, on a train following a linear track.

[Timberley]

Firstly, Terror_K and Wolfe, I think between you, you've managed to hash out a great alternative to the non-existant stats we've got in ME2, and the cumbersome upgrading system we had in ME1. Nice pic as well Terror!  I'd love to have that as the stats screen in ME3!

illerianna (sp?): I think we're nearly there, though to be fair, I thought we were there nearly 5 pages ago, but it quietened down and different folk started posting.

Anyway, personally, I think Bioware did a fairly good job in the first game of trying to move away from the more traditional RPG-style of game.  It was a new IP, they could experiment a bit more, create an Action-RPG.  They did, to an extent, though possibly got cold feet as it might have taken them too far away from established RPG games to appeal to RPG fans, as wasn't as shooter-based as a traditional shooter game.  But, that's supposition on my part.  However, they did produce an interesting game nonetheless.  However, when they decided to make the sequel, they obviously decided that the shooter side was lacking, and decided to restructure the game.  But, they made it too much like a shooter, and cut back on the RPG elements.  The RPG-side's sorta still there, but not as in-depth as some people would like (including me).

(Note I've not defined what an RPG is.  That's deliberate.  Why?  Because I don't think that my definition will sit well with most folk.)

So, what to do for ME3?  How could this be an action-RPG as opposed to a shooter with RPG elements?  Note that the phrase is "Action-RPG", not just "RPG".  The action is evidently there, but has the swingometer flown too far the other way?  Yes.  I did enjoy some of the number-crunching I had to do in my head during ME, particularly when it came to the upgrades for weapons, but the inventory management was just unwieldy.  That's why I'm championing Terror_K & Wolfe's system!  This takes care of the weapon side of things, pretty much, and possibly the armour.  (And just to throw a spanner into the works when it comes to praise - I did like the Thermal Clip system.  As someone who's had to duck behind cover whilst rounds are coming downrange, I can say that given the choice between waiting for a variable period of time whilst my weapon cools down and I'm vulnerable and ejecting a spent magazine and loading up a fresh one swapping thermal clips, I'll swap a clip any day!)

However, I disliked that whilst you may have been wearing armour, it did sod all really, compared to the enemy troops, whose armour appeared as a separate 'bar' to their health and shields.  So, it'd be nice to have the armour actually represent something tangible, particularly if you swap out armour sections which adds bonuses to the overall 'bar'. 

As for skills & biotics and such... I'd love to have some non-combat orientated skills back.  Not a massive selection, but a couple of ones that mean you can do things without very specific party members,  For example, allow us to loot safes/lockers/whatever, but the level of loot you get depends on the combined tech capability of your current team.  So, if you've got a non-combat GP hacking ability, you can throw some points at it, and play the mini-game to unlock the safe.  The time you've got to do it is dependent on the difficulty of the safe (low/med/high), but the level of loot you receive is dependent on the party (you with low tech skill - basic/common loot, you with high tech skill - intermediate/uncommon loot, you with low tech skill but high tech party - intermediate/uncommon loot, you with high tech skill and high tech party - advanced/rare loot).  Note that loot is an arbitrary placeholder.  You can get plans for upgrades, the upgrades themselves, new weapons, new armour pieces, whatever.  Either way, your skills and the skills of the team define the level of the reward.  But, you're not massively penalised for not being a tech genius (e.g. you're an Adept or Vanguard).  However, if you are very tech heavy, then you get some pretty Gucci kit for your team.

I'm not sure if is the sort of thread for a big list of what could be done, but I hope the above example illustrates what I mean about putting the RPG back into Action-RPG, without making it pure RPG (which, in my opinion, is not what Bioware were aiming for when they made the first game).

As an aside, I was somewhat irked in the first game that although Shepard, no matter what class he chose to play as, was meant to have come from the Alliance's elite N7 SF unit and (unless he was a soldier) could not use an assault rifle.  Even the non-elite, non-Infantry troops in the UK still have to pass the APWT (which requires you to still be a fairly accurate shot out to 300m)...

And to complete destroy any good feeling I might get from the above example, I also play shooters (TFPS, TPS, and FPS), RTS, and other RPGs...  The idea oft posted in this thread that shooter fan == mong is something I find offensive to say the least and does nothing to dispell any preconceptions that RPG player == elitist scum.

Anyway, it's past 4am and I've just read this thread from start to finish in 8 hours...  Time for bed methinks!

Thanks for reading,

Tim

Modifié par Timberley, 15 avril 2010 - 03:26 .

[StowyMcStowstow]

In response to the thread title: because Bioware said "screw this lets make a slightly-better-than-mediocre generic shooter and take out most of the RPG elements because EA wants their money and we are their new cash cow."



Not verbatim, but I wouldn't be surprised if it was something along these lines.

[Dick Delaware]

CatatonicMan wrote...

ME2 does have more choices, but they are all so disconnected from each other and the main story that they actually feel weaker overall - at least to me.

ME1 was certainly more linear with respect to the actual story line, yet it used all its other assets as a means of masking the rails.  The vast expanse of the explorable worlds, the wide array of weapons and armor (annoying as they sometimes were), the less-choppy story, the wider range of customizations, the more story-involved squadmates, etc. all helped obscure the fact that you were still sliding along the one available path.

ME2 was actually cursed by the greater choices it provided. You could do or not do a large number of different, potentially story-altering things - more than in ME1 - but at a cost: none of the individual pieces/levels/areas were able to interact, since they couldn't easily account for any and all possible combinations. Without this interconnection, the story was shattered into a dozen or so little chunks rather than a smooth surface. 

Add to this the fact that each instance/quest/level was generally more linear (or at least more obviously so) than in ME1 (partly due to the horrible 'MISSION COMPLETE' screens, I'm sure), and you lose any advantage the extra choice might have gained.

If I were to use a (really) bad analogy: 

If ME1 was a train, it would be on one track the entire trip - but it has many nice windows or televisions or whatever that distract you from the fact that you are generally along for the ride.

If ME2 was a train, it would be one similar to the ME1 train (more luxurious, even) - only on this train you are required to periodically go up to the front and choose which track your train will follow. You get the choice of the direction (to some extent), but you are constantly reminded that you are, in fact, on a train following a linear track.

Mass Effect 2 is a strange beast in that even though the overarching plot is weaker, the dialogue and writing are significantly better. It's wittier and the exposition is weaved in a lot more subtly. Compare the depth of squadmates like Thane, Mordin, Samara and Legion to the folks in ME1. They had more thought-provoking dialogue, interesting motivations, and were developed more thoroughly. The two returning squad members were also given more depth to their personalities (i.e. poor Tali was just stuck as a quarian encyclopedia in ME1). Point is, I didn't really care about ME1's characters very much - when I had to pick who got to die and who got to live in Virmire, I felt kinda numb, and thought "Uh... I guess I'll take Ashley".

I disagree that ME1 did a better job at masking the rails. It was the exact same formula BioWare's always done. You start off, some sort of crisis happens where you are accompanied by two characters (both of whom are potential LI's depending on your gender), you get inducted into a super-l33t organization, collect four star maps, encounter a plot twist, and head over to the Star Forge/Emperor's Palace/Denerim for an epic confrontation where you save America from the forces of Communism. Hmmm, I might be off on that last part, though. Within this framework, your choices matter little apart from maybe a big choice at the end.

The explorable worlds looked identical, the interiors WERE identical, and offered nothing apart from shooting various mercenaries. That's a poor job of masking linearity if I ever saw one, considering these side quests were all completed in a nearly identical manner. I didn't like the side quests on a deeper level as well - I'm a Spectre hunting a rogue agent who poses a threat to the galaxy, why am I clearing out competition for a mob boss, or killing an unscrupulous asari's sister? Everywhere around me, I'm hearing that I should stop Saren ASAP, yet I can goof off on random planets to my heart's content without any consequence.

Fortunately, ME2 rectifies this by providing a pretty nasty consequence if you've tarried too long before going to the suicide mission. Yes, I'm aware that it can be gamed, but it's present at least. I rarely see something like that in games now (in fact, the last time I remember seeing it was Fallout 1). Dragon Age would have really benefitted from consequences due to inaction as well, as just like in Mass Effect, NPC's like Sten are constantly hounding you on how you'll stop the Blight, yet the game world doesn't react to you ignoring a looming threat.

In ME2 however, what you do on the suicide mission and whether you complete loyalty missions has a tangible effect on success. Now, we'll have to wait until the finale to see how much our choices branch out the story in terms of additional quest hubs / potential NPC companions / alliances with various factions / dialoge, but ME2 without a doubt had a far better grasp of making your decisions feel like they mattered than the first game did. I think if they go all-out guns blazing in the finale with providing deep repercussions for the decisions you've made, we'll get something really special.

[Terror_K]

Dick Delaware wrote...

Dragon Age would have really benefitted from consequences due to inaction as well, as just like in Mass Effect, NPC's like Sten are constantly hounding you on how you'll stop the Blight, yet the game world doesn't react to you ignoring a looming threat.

Not exactly true. For example, try leaving Redcliffe without helping them stop the ghosts coming out of the castle. That certainly had some consequences.

In ME2 however, what you do on the suicide mission and whether you complete loyalty missions has a tangible effect on success. Now, we'll have to wait until the finale to see how much our choices branch out the story in terms of additional quest hubs / potential NPC companions / alliances with various factions / dialoge, but ME2 without a doubt had a far better grasp of making your decisions feel like they mattered than the first game did. I think if they go all-out guns blazing in the finale with providing deep repercussions for the decisions you've made, we'll get something really special.

I've seen a lot of people say this, and I really don't see it personally. Sure, there's a lot of main stuff on the main plot that could have some consequences, but ME1 definitely had far more side-quest stuff that felt like it was going to pay off and be seen in the future (90% of them turned out to just be emails or Citadel news reports, but that's another matter). ME2 on the other hand has barely any sidequests as it is, and most of them don't feel like they'll have much influence beyond what's already been resolved in the game, particularly the N7 missions which feel very self-contained compared to ME1's sidequests which all felt like there could be more to them. Again, there's some main questline stuff that feels like it could pay off and have different outcomes, but then let's not forget how crucial some things in ME1 felt only for them to result in next to nothing in ME2 beyond some weak substitutions that didn't really change anything in the universe that were covered up by weak lines of dialogue that worked about as well as a sticking plaster on a cracking hydro electric dam (I'm looking at you Council decision!).

[Dick Delaware]

Terror_K wrote...
Not exactly true. For example, try leaving Redcliffe without helping them stop the ghosts coming out of the castle. That certainly had some consequences.

That's true. I think Dragon Age and Mass Effect 2 are a lot more consequence filled than the vast amount of their past games.

I know I'm going on a tangent here, but I wish there were a consequence for going to The Circle, since it was implied that the demon might return. A missed opportunity there, but that whole Redcliffe + Sacred Ashes questline was really excellent. A lot of variety, many different approaches, different consequences, overall very nicely done.

Terror_K wrote...
I've seen a lot of people say this, and I really don't see it personally. Sure, there's a lot of main stuff on the main plot that could have some consequences, but ME1 definitely had far more side-quest stuff that felt like it was going to pay off and be seen in the future (90% of them turned out to just be emails or Citadel news reports, but that's another matter). ME2 on the other hand has barely any sidequests as it is, and most of them don't feel like they'll have much influence beyond what's already been resolved in the game, particularly the N7 missions which feel very self-contained compared to ME1's sidequests which all felt like there could be more to them. Again, there's some main questline stuff that feels like it could pay off and have different outcomes, but then let's not forget how crucial some things in ME1 felt only for them to result in next to nothing in ME2 beyond some weak substitutions that didn't really change anything in the universe that were covered up by weak lines of dialogue that worked about as well as a sticking plaster on a cracking hydro electric dam (I'm looking at you Council decision!).

I'm with you on the Council in ME2. Poorly, poorly done. Reversing positions like that stretches way past believability. I played as a Renegade, so I initiated Operation: Human Shield, with the Council taking the front lines while our boys swooped in to save the day. From that point of view, The Council not supporting Shepard seems like brilliant political commentary. But I was really disappointed when I found out that it was the same even if you were a Paragon and the Council had just survived a Reaper attack.

As for the N7 missions, they were "meh". But I still felt that they were better than ME1's sidequests for the sole reason that you didn't have to drive around for twenty minutes to get to where you were supposed to be. And then getting stuck in mountains and hills constantly. I felt like Sideshow Bob getting hit in the face with a rake whenever that happened. In the N7  missions, at least you were right in front of the action. And they weren't all bad - I liked the one with the Prothean pyramid.

I'm totally fine with the side quests not having much influence when it comes to importing choices for the third game. I can't imagine the side quests of ME1 affecting ME3 much at all, either. But that's to be expected, because the major choices in the first two games affect whole species (rachni, geth/quarian war, krogan genophage) or change the power structure of the whole galaxy. I really hope the consequences of the third game do justice, otherwise I think it'll taint the whole series.

Modifié par Dick Delaware, 15 avril 2010 - 05:06 .

[EternalWolfe]

Timberley wrote...

However, I disliked that whilst you may have been wearing armour, it did sod all really, compared to the enemy troops, whose armour appeared as a separate 'bar' to their health and shields.  So, it'd be nice to have the armour actually represent something tangible, particularly if you swap out armour sections which adds bonuses to the overall 'bar'. 

Something recently mentioned in Scarecrow's thread, many(most?) of the human enemies you see with armor are equipped with Tech Armor(well, their version).  This doesn't really explain varren, husk, Krogan(Fortification maybe?), Vorcha, Mechs, or Harbringer(could still be though, just specific activated from the cybernetics) armor.  I suppose I could come up with an excuse for most of them(actually, I'm not sure which ones are armored at Normal Difficulty - I don't think husks, varren, or LOKIs come with armor on Normal, but I'm not sure).

Timberley wrote...

As for skills & biotics and such... I'd love to have some non-combat orientated skills back.  Not a massive selection, but a couple of ones that mean you can do things without very specific party members,  For example, allow us to loot safes/lockers/whatever, but the level of loot you get depends on the combined tech capability of your current team.  So, if you've got a non-combat GP hacking ability, you can throw some points at it, and play the mini-game to unlock the safe.  The time you've got to do it is dependent on the difficulty of the safe (low/med/high), but the level of loot you receive is dependent on the party (you with low tech skill - basic/common loot, you with high tech skill - intermediate/uncommon loot, you with low tech skill but high tech party - intermediate/uncommon loot, you with high tech skill and high tech party - advanced/rare loot).  Note that loot is an arbitrary placeholder.  You can get plans for upgrades, the upgrades themselves, new weapons, new armour pieces, whatever.  Either way, your skills and the skills of the team define the level of the reward.  But, you're not massively penalised for not being a tech genius (e.g. you're an Adept or Vanguard).  However, if you are very tech heavy, then you get some pretty Gucci kit for your team.

What about Biotics?  Don't they get any special treats?  Why do the techies get all the love?
Which is a moot point(to me), since my main is an Infiltrator and I prefer my techie partners.

Anyways, first of all, it makes little sense(damn, I sound like a broken record, don't I?) that the tech skill of your party would effect what's inside a safe or box.  I could understand it on things like the PDA and computers, where your tech skill means your able to decrypt or unlock better files.  Focusing things on information rather the hacking peoples safes and boxes and stealing their stuff would be preferable to me - I got tired of the old cliche of just stealing everyones belongings a long time ago.  For some games(like Elder Scrolls) it works out well due the inherent features of the system, but otherwise it tends to remind me of JRPGs and the fact no one seemed to care I just stole all their valuable belongings - or looting from dead(and some not so dead) civilians . . .

Second of all, I'm not so sure about setting it up so bringing along techies gives you better loot(I know, I know, I just said it could make sense).  I would, personally, set it up so that having more tech or higher hacking skill(also a wonderful idea - lose a bit of combat prowess in exchange for better looting) in your party gave you a higher chance of finding something good inside computers/ect.  Another way to do it might be to increase the chance of getting a higher level item when hacking, rather then a direct 'here you go, best we have' reward for bringing all techs.  Actually, I think I like the last one better.  Another addition that might bring a little bit of flavor(and prolonged usefulness once you've got all your items) is a chance to gain additional funds/whatever else you normally get from it(unless they're going to try the 'tight budget' thing again).

Also, Terror, a thought occurs to me - to help with the randomness of items, it might be prudent to give varying 'drop' chances to different enemies, as well as varying 'loot level' chances.  From normal, low-ranking enemies, you'd have a fairly low chance to find loot, and it would likly be low level stuff.  As you get higher, it gets better, until you face bosses, who(imo) should always drop a piece of loot(and have a good chance for higher level stuff).  It makes good sense and also gives you rewards for boss fights.  Just a thought though.

Timberley wrote...

And to complete destroy any good feeling I might get from the above example, I also play shooters (TFPS, TPS, and FPS), RTS, and other RPGs...  The idea oft posted in this thread that shooter fan == mong is something I find offensive to say the least and does nothing to dispell any preconceptions that RPG player == elitist scum.

Some of them aren't all that bad about it - they just seem to be looking for someone to blame the new state of ME2 on.  Others . . . well, like I said, some of them aren't bad about it.

[Timberley]

EternalWolfe wrote...


Something recently mentioned in Scarecrow's thread, many(most?) of the human enemies you see with armor are equipped with Tech Armor(well, their version).  This doesn't really explain varren, husk, Krogan(Fortification maybe?), Vorcha, Mechs, or Harbringer(could still be though, just specific activated from the cybernetics) armor.  I suppose I could come up with an excuse for most of them(actually, I'm not sure which ones are armored at Normal Difficulty - I don't think husks, varren, or LOKIs come with armor on Normal, but I'm not sure).

Ah yes.  I just read that.  It's really quite sensible.  I like Scarecrow's thread, just not read it enough recently. 
As for husks & Loki, you could say they've been 'empowered'...  As for Varren... Well, if I wave my hand over *here*, you don't notice the slighty sketchy mechanics over *there*...

EternalWolfe wrote...

What about Biotics?  Don't they get any special treats?  Why do the techies get all the love?
Which is a moot point(to me), since my main is an Infiltrator and I prefer my techie partners.

Anyways, first of all, it makes little sense(damn, I sound like a broken record, don't I?) that the tech skill of your party would effect what's inside a safe or box.  I could understand it on things like the PDA and computers, where your tech skill means your able to decrypt or unlock better files.  Focusing things on information rather the hacking peoples safes and boxes and stealing their stuff would be preferable to me - I got tired of the old cliche of just stealing everyones belongings a long time ago.  For some games(like Elder Scrolls) it works out well due the inherent features of the system, but otherwise it tends to remind me of JRPGs and the fact no one seemed to care I just stole all their valuable belongings - or looting from dead(and some not so dead) civilians . . .

Heh heh.  It's all about the love mate...    Biotics do get some love (I play as an Adept, so liked the fact that the stuff you got in ME2 wasn't linked to some big tech score for your party, unlike ME1, where some lockers required 2 techs on the party, which could limit your combat/biotic skill).  That was the main point of my example.  Playing as a Biotic and having, say, a combat heavy party shouldn't affect your ability to get rewards for hacking stuff, just the size of the reward.
And yeah, speaking to someone, getting them onside and then just cleaning out their house or whatever without complaint did kind of jar in other RPGs.  That's one thing I liked about Fallout 3; you could nick it, but your karma level suffered.

EternalWolfe wrote...
Second of all, I'm not so sure about setting it up so bringing along techies gives you better loot(I know, I know, I just said it could make sense).  I would, personally, set it up so that having more tech or higher hacking skill(also a wonderful idea - lose a bit of combat prowess in exchange for better looting) in your party gave you a higher chance of finding something good inside computers/ect.  Another way to do it might be to increase the chance of getting a higher level item when hacking, rather then a direct 'here you go, best we have' reward for bringing all techs.  Actually, I think I like the last one better.  Another addition that might bring a little bit of flavor(and prolonged usefulness once you've got all your items) is a chance to gain additional funds/whatever else you normally get from it(unless they're going to try the 'tight budget' thing again).

Yeah, that makes a lot more sense than my version.  Hopefully they won't do the tight budget thing again, as I made a couple of bad choices on my first playthrough and ended up being unable to afford the weapon upgrade I wanted.

EternalWolfe wrote...

Also, Terror, a thought occurs to me - to help with the randomness of items, it might be prudent to give varying 'drop' chances to different enemies, as well as varying 'loot level' chances.  From normal, low-ranking enemies, you'd have a fairly low chance to find loot, and it would likly be low level stuff.  As you get higher, it gets better, until you face bosses, who(imo) should always drop a piece of loot(and have a good chance for higher level stuff).  It makes good sense and also gives you rewards for boss fights.  Just a thought though.

Ja, that's a really good idea.  That's one thing that irked me about ME2, was that having battled my way through the boss's bodyguards, then the boss himself, losing medigel/heat sinks, I wasn't given something fairly unique for it.  As for low level enemies possibly dropping low level items, I like that, as it brings back the random element that was missing for many from ME2. 

EternalWolfe wrote...
Some of them aren't all that bad about it - they just seem to be looking for someone to blame the new state of ME2 on.  Others . . . well, like I said, some of them aren't bad about it.

Heh heh.  Thanks Wolfe.  In many ways, I think the swingometer went too far the other way for ME2 (the swingometer between RPG & TPS), so if they can find a good middle-ground between ME1 and ME2 then I'd be happy.

Another controversial statement: Someone (I forget who, sorry), mentioned that if Bioware wanted to do an Shooter/RPG mash-up they should use a new IP.  Mass Effect is that IP.  Mass Effect isn't meant to be a pure RPG, not in the traditional sense anyway.

But, I like ME1 too.  If they'd overhauled the combat a bit, cleaned up the inventory, then I'd have been happy with that as ME2.  But we got what we got.  Now, it's up to the community to constructively gather our thoughts and see what decent suggestions we can put forward on these boards to give Bioware ideas as to where we (the community) want to go with ME3.  That's why I've got my ME3 Wishlist thread post in my sig, along with my Story speculations.  Hopefully people will read them, and either support them, or tell me why they think I'm wrong.

Thanks for reading,

Tim

[Sylvius the Mad]

Tawg wrote...

And at my current standing, I don't think I could ever take what you say for the truth, if only out of mis-understanding; So I will simply have to disagree whole heartedly, which I assume you can respect.
Unless you know a clear way off hand to demonstrate why something like communication can not have meaningful things atributed to it, but instead only it's 'constitute parts.'

I hope you realise why I can't demonstrate a negative like that.

However, I do wonder why you believe that communication exists.  I think belief in communication is nonsensical, as there's no reason to posit this extra layer of substance.  You speaking and me interpreting - we can observe those things happening.  But the two combining to form something else is an unnecessary leap.

How did you (or anyone) reach the conclusion that communication exists?

[TJSolo]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Tawg wrote...

And at my current standing, I don't think I could ever take what you say for the truth, if only out of mis-understanding; So I will simply have to disagree whole heartedly, which I assume you can respect.
Unless you know a clear way off hand to demonstrate why something like communication can not have meaningful things atributed to it, but instead only it's 'constitute parts.'

I hope you realise why I can't demonstrate a negative like that.

However, I do wonder why you believe that communication exists.  I think belief in communication is nonsensical, as there's no reason to posit this extra layer of substance.  You speaking and me interpreting - we can observe those things happening.  But the two combining to form something else is an unnecessary leap.

How did you (or anyone) reach the conclusion that communication exists?

Old philosopher jokes.
Comminication exists. Without it there would be no way to ask that question and expect to recieve an answer in accordance.

[Lusitanum]

Sorry, been away for more than a month. Busy with my life. Anyway, where were we? Ah yes, in the same spot we've been since the beggining. Anyway...

[quote]Sylvius the Mad wrote...

But our desires as roleplayers can't do that, because that's what roleplaying is.  We adopt the persona of our characters.

This is why I keep saying that RPGs are different from other games in the same way that all other videogames are the same as each other.  The vast majority of videogames (I'm also one of those people who feels that the distinction between videogames and computer games is important) cater to gamers.  These are people who want the game to entertain them directly, and that the point of playing the game is for the gamer to have fun.

RPGs are not like that.  RPGs are supposed to offer an environment in which the player can engage in satisfying roleplaying.  That they're roleplaying is the fun part, though I usually think it's more accurate to describe the experience as satisfying rather than fun.  Sort of like finishing a big work project - it might not have been fun to do, but it was satisfying experience.  Roleplaying is very much like that.[/quote]

Again: that's not what RPGs are about! And they never really were. At their core, at the most basic of it all, it's meant to entertain and have fun.

Say "RPGs are not like other videogames" all you want, you're just deluding yourself but the genre is both developped and consumed for those two main reasons and the rest are just branches that sprout out like "escapism", "enjoy a good story", "challenge", "feeling of progression" and all those things that people enjoy when they play a RPG.

The industry grew beyond what you allowed yourself to see, I'm afraid. A shame that you're not enjoying it.

[quote]Sylvius the Mad wrote...

And that's where we disagree.  I don't think CRPGs fall within the videogame category.[/quote]

Only if your notion of "videogame" is the same as those who still can only think of Pac-Man when they hear the term.

[quote]Sylvius the Mad wrote...

But that can't happen.

Hospitals treat the sick.  That's what they do.  That's what they've done as long as there have been hospitals.  They haven't always been called hospitals, and whatever has been called a hospital might not actually be one, but what makes something a hospital - using the modern definition - has been firmly established.  It can't change.[/quote]

It could, if it gradually started adopting other functions and dropping others. Which is just what RPGs have done over the past decades. Hell, now we're even discussing how much storytelling, choices, character creation, the ammount of combat affect the definition of a game as an RPG. But now your whole role-playing thingy? Completely and utterly irrelevant because it's an extra and not an essential aspect of the game.

[quote]Sylvius the Mad wrote...

The features that make any game an RPG are immutable.  Why don't you get this?

I recognise that you're just going to tell me I'm wrong, but your decscriptions of things changing over time (like hospitals) are entirely consistent with my point, so why don't you understand?[/quote]

Because the features that make any game an RPG are not immutable. Why don't you get this? 

Seriously, when a guy that works in making the best RPGs around, some of which you have played and liked just basically says "if these aspects are lacking, then it's not an RPG" and role-playing isn't even mentioned... I honestly don't know what else to tell you.

[quote]Sylvius the Mad wrote...

[/i]What if I think the modern conventions of the genre are a mistake?

Let's just ignore the conventions of the genre.  Let's start from the ground up and discuss what the features are and what they do.

If you keep presupposing things like the conventions of the genre when those are exactly what we're discussing (so presupposing them can only lead to question begging), we'll never get anywhere.[/quote]

IF you think the modern conventions are a mistake then... it's a mistake that's being working pretty well so far, since Western RPGs with their changes and innovations have evolved and while leaving the previously uncontested rulers of the RPG genre grovelling in the dust while they avoid extinction due to a lack of "drastically innovative ideas to equal or exceed the Western games industry"

[quote]Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Is the world broken because you don't know how gravity works?[/quote]

If you're telling me a story about the world where gravity plays a big part on it but you can't keep it straight... yes, the world is broken.

[quote]Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Yes, that would be inconsistency.

I've just drawn a distinction that you clearly haven't understood, because in this one response you've managed to describe an actual contradiction (something we both agree is bad) and a simple gap I would call implicit content, and you don't seem to see the difference.[/quote]

"Implicit content" is not the same as "**** I can make up to justify something just because the setting doesn't explicitly tells me otherwise". I don't have to be the one to draw the distinction for you on this one, do I?

[quote]Sylvius the Mad wrote...

No, that's what you're doing now.  You're not actually attempting to maintain a coherent position.  You're just baiting me.[/quote]

I don't need to bait you, you can go on your own with just a little push. Why would I waste my energy then?

[quote]Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Show me an assumption I've made and I'll justify it.

Ideally, show me three.  You say there are many.  Show me three.[/quote]

Anything related to my personality or, more specifically, the people I care about. You're usually quite active on those, but I'm not searching over 40 pages for that. We grown-ups have a little thing you might have heard of that we like to call "a life" and I have to get back to it as soon as I am done with this. I probably shouldn't be here anyway, but what the hell, it's fun.

[quote]Sylvius the Mad wrote...

But, having actually played Mass Effect, I'm aware that enemies were often clustered.  The occasions where you can guarantee that you'll only hit one of them were pretty limited.[/quote]

Yeah, that was too bad. Now if only the Mako had a more precise and less damaging weapon that was more contained and controlable. Something that would allow you to soften your enemies gradually. I don't know, a maybe something like machine gun built into the turret perhaps...

Man, I just wish the Mako had one of those. At least then I would have made you look really stupid right about now.

[quote]Sylvius the Mad wrote...

And contrived.  And it ignores the other benefits of moving on foot.

DId you ever notice that the game explicitly accommodates moving on foot in some Mako content.  On Virmire, when you arrive at the Salarian base, you'll get a different cutscene depending whether you arrived on foot or in the Mako.

I learned that one because I had been using your approach (bring the Mako - jump out to fight - jump back in to drive), but then the Mako at some point fell through the world so I couldn't get back into it (it was still on the minimap, but miles below the tidepool in which I stood).  It was then that I decided to leave the Mako behind in the future, because bringing it along was too much hassle.  And then the game went and recognised my choice by giving me a different cutscene.

So fault me for learning the game's lesson, if you must.[/quote]

Ah, so in your first playthrough you noticed that the in-game sequence that you only saw ONCE changed depending on wheter your brought the Mako or not? That seems... really unlikely. Or maybe you noticed that on another playthrough, so on Ilos you decided to dump the Mako, knowing full well that there was a timed event later on and are now complaining about it because it gives you an excuse to complain about the game.

Not to mention the valuable "lesson" that you've learned from the game: if it gives me a cutscene that looks slightly different, then the game should is telling me that whatever I'm doing is right. Now if only games would stop beating me to the ground just because my naked characters don't like to wear armor when they go into combat...

What? The game is is recognizing my choices in nakedness by giving me a different cutscene. Clearly I'm learning from it, so why should it punish me for it?

[quote]Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Try maintaining your position when vaulting over enemy fire if you weren't parked on level ground.

On foot, Shepard and his team can run up hills at the same speed at which they cross level ground.  The Mako doesn't do that.  The Mako is far less effective at dodging fire on uneven terrain.[/quote]

1) The Mako can go up hills that your squad can't;

2) If you're going to fight mainly on a flat horizontal surface, then maybe you should stick to whatever is most effective on that kind of ground. Namely, the Mako.

3) Mako's firepower and durability > squad mobility. That's all there is to say.

[quote]Sylvius the Mad wrote...

How precise does a measurement have to be to be a measurement, then?  Draw the line for me.

You clearly think that there is some necessary standard of precision that needs to be met.  What is it?  And why do you draw the line there, and not an extra decimal place further?

I guarantee you don't have an answer to this.[/quote]

No, I don't have an answer because I have a question that's more pertinent: if your stupid motto is "if it matters, measure it"... why wouldn't you try to be as accurate as possible? I mean, if you actually try to measure it appropriately, then does that mean that it no longer matters?

Paradoxes. Gotta love them :happy:.

[quote]Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Make me an offer.[/quote]

How much should a criminal pay to a father after he killed his son? And other "things" that are beyond pricing?

[quote]Sylvius the Mad wrote...

You limit yourself unduly.[/quote]

Yeah, who needs dignity, values, principles... they're all overrated, right?

Seriously, how can anyone take you seriously after that one?

[quote]Sylvius the Mad wrote...

No.  As I've said, Pazaak was a winnable game.  That you don't see how the strategy can work is not evidence that it doesn't work.[/quote]

If a strategy is relies on luck, then it's innadequate. And it's not really a strategy, it's just a way of minimizing the risks, which just doesn't cut it.

[quote]Sylvius the Mad wrote...

No, we've seen that sometimes the machine has knowledge of the future that is denied you.  That isn't evidence of anything at all to do with the randomness.

Semantics matter.[/quote]

Hello? Randomness not present here. We're talking about how you often can't know wheter you lost due to chance or cheating on the AI's part. And then I was just giving you a few examples of "cheating" that you can actually see in the game. Hello? Anyone there?

Context matters.

[quote]Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Then we're done.  I'll feed this troll no longer.[/quote]

Hey, what can I say, you're a lot like Dragon Age: you're fun to play around with for a while, but later you realize that you're just doing the same thing over and over, you're not really going anywhere and the whole thing has beeng going for much longer than it should have, and if you play too much with it, you'll just get incredibly bored and never be able to stand it again. So you have to dose it up and when you feel you're reaching your limit, let it fallow a bit and come back later or you risk ruining the whole thing beyond repair

Não há fome que não dé em fartura, right? 

[CodeMyster]