Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Wow, lots to read since I last posted here.

First: Melissa, the Istari are not some "elite defense force." That glosses over -- well, totally misses -- the essential point. Don't worry, however, Saruman made a similar mistake.

Second: ME1 was a pretty great game. It wasn't great because the graphics or gameplay were good -- those were both recycled from previous iterations of BioWare titles. ME1 was great because of its visual design, narrative setting, and plot. ME2 did not improve on any of these qualities and often didn't even meet the (admittedly high) bar set by its predecessor. Nearly every "level" was visually boring. The main plot lacked both imagination and coherence. Most disappointingly, I felt short-changed by the companion quests. It's not to say that ME2 was crap. We can set the internet hyperbole aside. It's still head's and shoulders above most of what's out there. But it's no ME1 and it's certainly nowhere near as good as a Bethesda game, IMO.

@MDS: Try Kim Stanley Robinson's Red Mars for interesting hard scifi.

While I would agree that it's not as good as Daggerfall (and yes, you can go backwards in that game), that's a high bar to set. But at least ME and ME2 managed to keep me interested long enough to finish them, something which both Morrowind and Oblivion have problems doing (I still haven't finished either of them, it feels like a slog to get through their main storylines). DA:O was also more interesting than either of those two as far as story goes as well, though I think I preferred Oblivions' gameplay and Morrowind's moddability (Oblivion's too if I hadn't bought the Steam version...).

Morrowind was a hard game to get into. I bought it, played it for an hour, then put it down for three months. And then I played it for something like 300 hours over the next two years. So, yeah, YMMV. I also played Oblivion for about that long across PS3 and PC. By contrast, I played ME1 through twice for a grand total of something like 30 hours and ME2 once. ME2 with all the side quests is what, 10 hours long? Maybe less. I know which series I got my money's worth out of.

Noen of them are as good as the original Neverwinter Nights, though. Mmm, Underdark.

DA:O is simply no good, IMO. I've given that game so many chances and it has always disappointed me.

Manchu wrote:DA:O is simply no good, IMO. I've given that game so many chances and it has always disappointed me.

Got to agree with this, given it a few chances and disappointed.

Manchu wrote:DA:O is simply no good, IMO. I've given that game so many chances and it has always disappointed me.

I completed it within two weeks of its release, while I had class gong on at the time... then I completed it two more times as well later on, once as a dwarf noble and the last time as a human mage (my first game being elven commoner). It kept my attention far better than Morrowind or Oblivion.

All I see is hate for Mass Effect and Dragon Age. That's fine you are all entitled to your opinion. I realize that it isn't everyone's cup of tea. I will not try and prove you wrong just don't argue with me when I say that Demon's Souls and Final Fantasy XIII are horrid. I played all four games and love ME and DA:O I absolutely hated the other two.

Now I am not sure really why some of you hate ME and DA:O. You say the story is a ripoff and the characters are bland. They could be even though I don't see it. Perhaps I am suffering from a lack of real RPGs that have have been lost to time. As I said before, I am a major fan of games like Final Fantasy VI and Chrono Trigger. DA: O and ME are the closest games out now to the old ones that I love. Maybe I am desperate and I am forcing myself to love these new game even though they do not compare to the games that got me hooked in the first place.

I really do not have a choice. If I want a good RPG I have to like games like ME and DA:O. There isn't much left. There is only so many times I can play Morrowwind and Lost Odyssey. My only other choice is to give up on RPGs and play games like World of Warcraft. If left with only a multiplayer choice then I am going to take up golf.

So like it or hate it, games like Mass Effect are appealing to a lot of people. If it isn't your cup of tea then perhaps you should move on and discuss something you prefer. I really do not like sports games, but I never post in a thread about them and discuss why I hate them. Sports games are just not for me and I feel it is the same way with some games like Mass Effect for you.

We get it, you don't like games like Mass Effect. You don't like them but you are never going to convince someone that does like them that it is a bad game. Just not happening folks. We RPG enthusiasts do not have much coming are way. The genre has changed for a newer generation or for people that never liked the old style games. So if you would stop trying to convince us that these games that we love are bad. I am already ready to sell off my Xbox 360 and PS3 because less and less games are coming out that I do not like. I am clinging on to anything that remotely interests me.

You just need to man up and face the fact that there are millions of people who disagree with you about the games you hate. I did it with the MMOGs and sports games.

Dude, ME isn't a genre. This is a thread about RPGs. There are more RPGs than ME and DA. Some people don't like them and others (like you) claim to not understand why -- so we explain it and then you say "I don't want to hear any more about it." Bottom line, people are free to discuss why they don't like things just as much as people are free to discuss why they do. I'm not going to change you're mind nor you mine but that's okay. Discussion doesn't have to result in one person accepting the other's position.

Dude, I think you didn't quite understand what I was trying to say. More than likely I didn't explain it good enough so my mistake. I admit I got on a Mass Effect rant towards the end, but I never presented ME as a Genre.

To sum up what I tried to say previously:

Yes I think RPGs are a dying breed. I can understand why a lot of you hate games like ME and DA:O, (the two picked apart the most in this thread). There really isn't too many more decent RPGs to choose from though. There are a lot more than these two but nothing is on par with the older generation of RPGs. I am going to stick with and enjoy these games that a lot of people dislike because I don't have much of a choice. If you hate them then that is fine.

TBH, most of my RPG fun comes from GBA and DS ports of SNES games -- esp. Chrono Trigger, the FF games, and the DragonQuest series. I think they strike a good balance between presenting you with enough graphical and mechanical prompts and still requiring enough suspension of disbelief so that you have to engage your imagination. I don't know exactly how to achieve it in this gen of consoles but I think Bethesda is going the right way whereas BioWare's games are too literal, too transparently commercial, and too short.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Oh and I guess we should talk about Red Dead Redemption, too.

I think you kind of summed up the problem there. Bethesda is probably doing to best job of them all right now. There is just something about playing a gmae for 300 hours for more than maxing out stats. I guess I can't really say RPGs are dying completely because of them. I honestly thought the next Elder Scrolls game was going to be a MMOG. I guess they haven't set us out to pasture just yet.

Red Dead Redemption, I really like this game. If they added a Dialog option like what is in Dragon Age, I would probably say it is a perfect RPG.

Manchu wrote:TBH, most of my RPG fun comes from GBA and DS ports of SNES games -- esp. Chrono Trigger, the FF games, and the DragonQuest series. I think they strike a good balance between presenting you with enough graphical and mechanical prompts and still requiring enough suspension of disbelief so that you have to engage your imagination. I don't know exactly how to achieve it in this gen of consoles but I think Bethesda is going the right way whereas BioWare's games are too literal, too transparently commercial, and too short.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Oh and I guess we should talk about Red Dead Redemption, too.

Hmm you have a point there Manchu, think about it this way, how many current gen games require you to follow the story easily?? i mean look at Oblivion and ME, they tell you where to go and put a cursor on the map to show you where to go, now with the likes of FF4(remake) on the DS it tells you where to go but doesnt point it on a map, there for it leaves you wandering to you goal, which you slowly forget. Best part is when you turn the console off for w/e reason then go back and completly forgot what your meant to do forcing you to wander around until you remember what it is you need to do, maybe that why the old RPGs were so good compared to new gen RPGs.

So Red Dead is the railroad of the future? I'm okay with that as long as the storyline is quality. And as long as Bethesda offers a new sandbox every so many years.

johnscott10 wrote:
Hmm you have a point there Manchu, think about it this way, how many current gen games require you to follow the story easily?? i mean look at Oblivion and ME, they tell you where to go and put a cursor on the map to show you where to go, now with the likes of FF4(remake) on the DS it tells you where to go but doesnt point it on a map, there for it leaves you wandering to you goal, which you slowly forget. Best part is when you turn the console off for w/e reason then go back and completly forgot what your meant to do forcing you to wander around until you remember what it is you need to do, maybe that why the old RPGs were so good compared to new gen RPGs.

In ME2 (i know... i know... but im making a point sheesh ) they show the main missions on the map (trying to find a planet without the system/region would suck) but where you pick up the quests is random except for the recruitment and main storyline missions. You can actually complete the game by rushing through without upgrading your ship or gaining loyalty, never done it but it doesent go very well....

How long is it if you just rush? Two hours? I did full upgrades and loyalty and I belive it was still very, very short.

Manchu wrote:How long is it if you just rush? Two hours? I did full upgrades and loyalty and I belive it was still very, very short.

I really doubt 2 hours what is it 8 recruitment missions + loyalty missions + however many other missions

If you know what you're doing you can probably rush through any game in a remarkable time...

I only played ME2 once.

Manchu wrote:I only played ME2 once.

Now go back and just use every renegade option there is (expecially combat ones )

Gibbsey wrote:

Manchu wrote:I only played ME2 once.

Now go back and just use every renegade option there is (expecially combat ones )

Being a tough guy mary sue instead of a normal mary sue? totally worth those 2 hours.

corpsesarefun wrote:

Gibbsey wrote:

Manchu wrote:I only played ME2 once.

Now go back and just use every renegade option there is (expecially combat ones )

Being a tough guy mary sue instead of a normal mary sue? totally worth those 2 hours.

Fastest i've heard is 2 hours 14 minutes and thats bare minimum missions (you need to do 4 additional missions because the IFF mission because you need to do a certain number of missions to unlock it). Only way to get faster would be to find shortest conversation paths and mission runthroughs.

Also whats wrong with a mary sue? everyone loves kirk. Point out to me a game where the main character isnt a mary sue.

Gibbsey wrote:

corpsesarefun wrote:

Gibbsey wrote:

Manchu wrote:I only played ME2 once.

Now go back and just use every renegade option there is (expecially combat ones )

Being a tough guy mary sue instead of a normal mary sue? totally worth those 2 hours.

Fastest i've heard is 2 hours 14 minutes and thats bare minimum missions (you need to do 4 additional missions because the IFF mission because you need to do a certain number of missions to unlock it). Only way to get faster would be to find shortest conversation paths and mission runthroughs.

Also whats wrong with a mary sue? everyone loves kirk. Point out to me a game where the main character isnt a mary sue.

This is why I prefer games where the main character is you or is silent.

Amaya wrote:You don't understand the differences between hard and soft scifi.

Elemen Zero does not exist as far as we know. Using it to explain away the way things work in ME automatically moves ME into the realm of soft scifi despite how well the 'science' behind it is developed and explained.

Hard scifi avoids elements that do not exist (as far as we know). The tech in hard scifi is based on science as we currently understand it.

If you want a more detailed look at the differences, here you go:

http://www.kheper.net/topics/scifi/grading.html

This one is much better. My point was that the previous one you posted was complete garbage and pooorly written. On this new one ME would be considered "Plausibly Hard" which is fine by me.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Manchu wrote:DA:O is simply no good, IMO. I've given that game so many chances and it has always disappointed me.

johnscott10 wrote:

Manchu wrote:DA:O is simply no good, IMO. I've given that game so many chances and it has always disappointed me.

Got to agree with this, given it a few chances and disappointed.

I also did not enjoy the Dragon Age: Origins which I unfortunately bought without renting first. Lot of boringness and using the combat system from KOTOR which while great for its time needs a big update now. Also the setting is more than a little familiar: again with the dwarves and elves I thought Jade Empire was a much more interesting IP. Would much, much rather see them flesh out that world. Guess it had too many Asian people in it to do well commercially - sigh.

If hard sci-fi only uses science as we know it today, then to me there is no such thing as hard sci-fi.

Melissia wrote:If hard sci-fi only uses science as we know it today, then to me there is no such thing as hard sci-fi.

I know right, theres a clue in the name Fiction - deals with what isnt real! OMG!

corpsesarefun wrote:This is why I prefer games where the main character is you or is silent.

Still doesent mean your character isnt a mary sue (gordon freeman and his crowbar of ultimate destruction), normally your character in games just sweaps aside thousands of enemy's (not necissarily at once) and is overpowed compared to others

Melissia wrote:If hard sci-fi only uses science as we know it today, then to me there is no such thing as hard sci-fi.

exactly, I shouldn't be able to get a grade 12 science textbook go to the teacher and say "this is an 8 on the science fiction Moh scale".


Automatically Appended Next Post:
And both the most overused and missused term on the interent of all time award goes to "Mary Sue".

BTW Mary Sue works for video games and one could argue cannot be avoided in this entertainment form.
Fortunately Mary Sue has now come to mean: "Thing I don't like".

KamikazeCanuck wrote:

Melissia wrote:If hard sci-fi only uses science as we know it today, then to me there is no such thing as hard sci-fi.

exactly, I shouldn't be able to get a grade 12 science textbook go to the teacher and say "this is an 8 on the science fiction Moh scale".

I remember recently a textbook was found to be inaccurate, so they started putting stickers to block out the inaccurate parts until they realized that would be impractical because there were so many.

The authors excuse? she isnt a historian these were "facts" she had found on the internet and because she can lay a page out and make it look pretty they bought the book

There are certain science textbooks in America that use Genesis but lets not go down that path.