First off, I love RPGs. It is the only game genre that I even bother to follow closely. Sadly, they seem to be getting worse. Innovation is lacking. The same tried and true formulas and cliched storylines are being reused over and over. Gameplay is not improving.
I'll tackle Bioware first. Their early games were great. I'm not a fan of BG and BG2 simply because the I dislike the camera angles in the game. I like their stories and I thought they did justice to the excellent Forgotten Realms setting. I absolutely loved KotOR despite the fact that the gameplay wasn't very good. NWN was a good game despite the poor graphics, camera issues, and annoying abilities wheel. The expansions and premium modules for it were great and had intriguing storylines. It's been a while since I've played it, but two of the modules for it were so good, so immersive, that I ended up playing through each one in a single setting. Also, Jade Empire was a decent game and sadly the only Martial Arts RPG on the market.
KotOR 2, while not a Bioware game, was an improvement over KotOR and had the best storyline and cast of characters in any game I've ever played. Heck, I think it was the best Star Wars story, period. The gameplay was much improved, but more importantly, the story was innovative and went in a direction never before seen in the Star Wars universe.
My worries with Bioware began with Dragon Age: Origins. On it's own, it is a good game, but was overhyped and defintely not as groundbreaking or good as it was claimed to be. The DA:O universe while new, didn't really strike me as fresh and exciting. Now, I measure all RPG settings up against Morrowind and The Elder Scrolls series, which is probably unfair to other RPGs because Bethesda sets the bar so damn high, but I'll get to that later. Suffice to say, DA:O is not a game I would play through twice (however, I did play all the origins). It is too much like other Bioware games. Once again, you're out to save the world against a horrible evil and you're the only one who has a chance in hell to do so. Once again you're a member of an elite orginization. Once again you have essentially the same cast of characters. It is the same damn Bioware formula.
Same problem with often praised Mass Effect. I like the Mass Effect universe and I'm glad to see a non-Star Wars scifi RPG. Not to mention that it's nice to see a scifi game where humans aren't the underdog of the universe. The actual game however, is a bit lacking. If you've played a Bioware game in the past, you can pretty much predict what's going to happen in the game. I'm sure its great for the newcomers to Bioware, but can't the old hands see a new story?
Now, the issues with Bioware games are rampant in pretty much every RPG out there. You're always the hero. You're always the best of the best of the best, SIR! The combat in these games is always lacking. Now, I think that WoW actually has the best combat system of any RPG and I don't understand why some of these games don't adopt it. In the NWN/KotOR series you're always just queuing up attacks. Games such as The Elder Scrolls series, the Witcher, the Fable series, Dragon Age, etc are just hack and slash/auto attack with the occasional special ability. Where's the precision attacking? Where are the good specials for melee characters? I want my damn warrior to charge into combat and start cleaving enemies in two, not sit around standing their while I spam X ability in the queue or smash my mouse button faster than a 13 year old trying to close porn.
More distressing is, where is the innovation? Where are the games so far out of the box that they might as well be from a different planet? Where's the RPG where I'm not saving the world? A lot of people bash Bethesda for having buggy games, but at least in their games I don't have to trod down the hero's journey for the umpteenth time and can actually go explore the world and do whatever the hell I want.
Yes, you are limited in what you can do on a video game. Yes, we are far away from coming remotely close to matching the open ended gameplay of a table top RPG. But why does every RPG out there have to be the classic hero saves the world and gets the guy/girl/mono gender alien? Where's the rpg where can you just be an assassin, a thief, a simple adventurer, a rogue mage, etc?
If you played a game where you were nothing special, the game would be boring, especially for an RPG. That is what makes the game fun.
I really enjoyed dragon age, I got it free to try it out, and I was instantly hooked. Now, I have purchased all of the DLC and the expansion, yet I still have not finished the game! The story is extremely interesting at least for the first couple times you play it, and your choices make enormous changes in the game, how it ends, the stories of your companions etc etc. Do you realize how many endings there are to that game?! And the absolute monstrous amount of play time is mind blowing. You look at TES and you could beat them in all of two hours, or 20 hours depending on how much stuff you want to do. In dragon age, I could easily put in over 60 hours of game time on a single play through, and that is without any DLC all of which are mini expansions.
The main problem with the game is that there is so much customization with your character as you play the game, I keep wanting to make a new character, just so I can see what happens when a fighter/templar makes a different decision at a certain point than my combat mage. Or how an event would pan out if I had a rogue with better coercion than my reaver.
Another thing I like about it is that you control a party of 4, thus allowing for MUCH more customization. Also, the game has tactics that allow you a certain amount of control over your party's actions while you focus on controlling a single character.
Bioware also did an excellent job at making the encounters challenging, unlike many other RPGs. I can build a very well rounded group, with great gear and etc etc, yet I still have to focus to get through many of the battles. I agree that it is very similar in style to mass effect and NWN, but those games are all hugely popular, so many people must enjoy that style of play, I know I do.
Automatically Appended Next Post: The reason a tabletop RPG is so interesting is because the entire game experience is basically developed on the spot by the combined efforts of the GM and players. A computer game cannot achieve this. However, if the developer adds in enough content with enough choices for the player that hold game altering consequences, then they can create a sort of limited shadow of that on-the-spot development that you get from tabletop gaming.
Bioware is typical of the big game companies like blizzard that see a method of making a game good and just use it and polish every concept until the game is a good at possible.
Unfortunately this means its pretty much impossible to make a game great by using a minimal risk strategy.
By your explanation of the limitations of a computer RPG game, all computer games in which you play a role are Role Playing Games. Not all PnP RPGs involve levels and experience points. Perhaps you should look into other 'genres' if you want the free-roaming experience you're talking about.
Personally, RPGs died back when people stopped making Classic Turn Based RPGs, like the older Final Fantasies, Legend of Dragoon, Super Mario RPG, Fallout, and the like.
Now a day's, everyone has to have it be MOVING! FAST! THINK FAST!
Have I just become blind to any good old fashioned RPGs that have come out? Old fashioned, as in like Chess with Pixels?
thedarksaint wrote:The hero's journey does not always have to be epic. At times, grity, street level adventure that doesn't have cosmic balance issues would fun.
I have no doubt, and when that game sells 16 copies and recoups $50 of the 60 million dollar budget they will have a Pyrrhic victory on their hands. Wii Ware and Live arcade can get away with something like that but the budget of a Bioware game needs to be grander and can't really afford to be avante guard game as it needs to have a wide appeal. While it may be an interesting exercise to create a RPG where you are a hobo looking to find lunch it isn't going to move a lot of units, and boys and girls, at the end of the day, that is what the point of this whole exercise is.
Hey whats wrong with being an "average joe" in an interesting universe? Cmon your saying you wouldent enjoy a 40krpg where you played as a guardsman or commissioner?
If there is enough to do being an average person in the universe isnt that bad
Being a Guardsman or Commisar doesn't mean someone is average or that their adventures will be mundane. In fact most RPG protagonists start out as normal people. Luke Skywalker was just a kid working on a farm and eventually brought down an empire as well as rebuilding an ancient order.
In Dark Heresy you can play as a Guardsman and you get into all sorts of exciting adventures. You could play a Chapter Master but if all one does is paperwork (correspondence to Terra, requisition forms, training reports, ect ect) than that isn't very interesting.
The question isn't whether one plays as an average joe or not, and that isn't the issue at hand. The issue is what happens with these characters. If you want a simulation of a Cadian's life in the IG (or some other equivalant) where you go through basic, fill out paperwork, ride a transport, wait around for assignment, than go to a battlefield and die, well that is great, but you aren't going to get a large audience.
So, to sum up, the reason you don't get large companies with large budgets making small independent, personal projects is becuase when you drop a house sized block of cash developing something you need to make a house size block of cash back, and really at least two houses worth.
Bob from HYDRA is a great comic but doesn't move numbers like Spidey or Batman. This isn't about whether we should have small, quirkier projects, but whether large publishers should be making big budget versions of them, not whether they should exist at all. Bioware couldn't make a Bob from HYDRA game with he budget of a Mass Effect.
Bioware has been horribly formulaic since their formation. The rule is as follows:
Bioware is to formulaic and cliched plot complete with binary morality system as Bethesda is to beautiful and expansive world that they forgot to actually populate.
I thought that, given the amount of experience that Bethesda had with creating sprawling wastelands devoid of content, surely they'd do a good job on Fallout. Sadly, I keep finding myself turning away and going back to the old Interplay ones. At least those had character. Grit too. Fallout 3 is the proverbial "post apocolyptic wasteland as dictated by Tim Burton". That is, it's seems quirky and dark at first, until you realize just how much further it could have gone, and you have to wonder if they're even trying anymore.
Fallout 1 and 2 though. Those were more "post apocalyptic wasteland brought to you in the form of the deranged chalk writings by the crazy guy who lives under the interstate who has no teeth and offers you half cooked roadkill simmered over a garbage can fire". It felt more sandboxed than Fallout 3 did. There was sex, violence, depravity, all the things I would expect to see in a largely lawless wasteland. All I have to say is "Childkiller". Now that's grim. And there were consequences too. That's important.
Anyone ever play Planescape: Torment? Best damn CRPG I've ever played. I'd say even better than Ultima 7. "Oh noes, it's the end game. Guess what, big bad guy? I can end this game about 4 different ways. Hell, I can KILL you through this conversation if I really want to!"
And in response to the OP: There are innovative things being done. Look to your Indie game designers. I can't think of any real indie RPGs, but there are some other really awesome things they've been doing. Try to find some of the old games where innovation already occurred. Grab the Ultima collection off ebay or something. Look for Planescape: Torment. The games of tomorrow were written yesterday, and that's how it will continue as long as people keep buying the crap.
OP... or is that TC?... heck... the folks posting on this topic...
Have you tried the Gothic series of games? I heard they were supposed to be pretty good as far as RPGs go. I've bought part 2 and 3 as part of a steam sale a while back and have yet to play them. I'm hoping they will be a little refreshing... lately I've been trying to go through the Bioware catalog (some of the newer stuff... not BG/BG2) and its starting to get sort of stale... I think I'm hitting a wall right now with Dragon Age.
Regardless, I think a lot of stuff is just being mainstreamed' to appeal to a bigger audience. Also different generations are going to see the games a little different... example: Mass Effect can be the current gen's Kotor; DA:O can be the current gen's Baldur's Gate. At least thats how I see it... they are just recycling to appeal to newer players.
As far as not being the hero goes, look at The Elder Scrolls series. You're free to be a villian, a mercenary, a pick pocket, pretty much anything you could possibly want to be. You only become the hero when you do the Main Quest which is less than 10% of the game. Sadly, that's pretty much the only series where you're not forced down the Hero's Journey into uber awesomeness.
Amaya wrote:As far as not being the hero goes, look at The Elder Scrolls series. You're free to be a villian, a mercenary, a pick pocket, pretty much anything you could possibly want to be. You only become the hero when you do the Main Quest which is less than 10% of the game. Sadly, that's pretty much the only series where you're not forced down the Hero's Journey into uber awesomeness.
But on a whole, oblivion was more action than role playing compared to morrrowind
djphranq wrote:Have you tried the Gothic series of games? I heard they were supposed to be pretty good as far as RPGs go. I've bought part 2 and 3 as part of a steam sale a while back and have yet to play them. I'm hoping they will be a little refreshing...
I had the misfortune of buying Gothic 3 - the most buggy game I have ever, ever played. Literally unplayable, even with patches.
djphranq wrote:Have you tried the Gothic series of games? I heard they were supposed to be pretty good as far as RPGs go. I've bought part 2 and 3 as part of a steam sale a while back and have yet to play them. I'm hoping they will be a little refreshing...
I had the misfortune of buying Gothic 3 - the most buggy game I have ever, ever played. Literally unplayable, even with patches.
I never touched Gothic because I had heard similar things. I'm pretty leary of spending money on anything not made by Troika, Interplay, Bioware, Bethesda, Obsidian, Blizzard, or Black Isle.
Amaya wrote:As far as not being the hero goes, look at The Elder Scrolls series. You're free to be a villian, a mercenary, a pick pocket, pretty much anything you could possibly want to be. You only become the hero when you do the Main Quest which is less than 10% of the game. Sadly, that's pretty much the only series where you're not forced down the Hero's Journey into uber awesomeness.
That was what I actually loved about Planescape. You took whatever path you wanted. You were just a guy. A guy who can't die. The awesome thing is, no matter how good, evil, or just plain neutral you were, there were always consequences. You never even HAD to become a hero at the end. You were yourself; the entire quest is about just things YOU want to do for yourself. This does not make it less epic. My big problem with the Elder Scrolls was that it had this veneer of RPG slapped on top of an action game. Sure, you could go around, talking to people, taking quests and whatnot, but at the end of the day, you still had to fight your way out of situations. It's been years since I've played either, but I can't think of a single situation in Oblivion/Morrowind where I felt like I could talk my way out of a situation, or like I even felt that there was more than one way for me to solve a particular problem outside of "Yes I will deal with this quest" or "No, I'm walking away from it."
I think that for them it's more of a technical restrain than a gameplay option that they're completely happy with. There are ways to do quests without killing anyone, but there is so much material in their games that it is nigh inpossible to make it so you can have multiple options for every scenarion.
My worries with Bioware began with Dragon Age: Origins. On it's own, it is a good game, but was overhyped and defintely not as groundbreaking or good as it was claimed to be.
?
Dragon Age was never hyped to be "groundbreaking". It was designed as advertised for the people that liked Baldur's Gate and wanted a game in that style.
Meh modern RPGs are too focused on tits and graphics. Older ones had feeling, decent music and something called a plot and character development.
Also modern games seem clunky and slow to progress though, almost as if they want to stretch out how long it takes you to play them. (looking at you NWN radial menu!)
Phototoxin wrote:Meh modern RPGs are too focused on tits and graphics. Older ones had feeling, decent music and something called a plot and character development.
Also modern games seem clunky and slow to progress though, almost as if they want to stretch out how long it takes you to play them. (looking at you NWN radial menu!)
Exactly. I thought TSL's graphics were fine, why exactly do we need to ramp them up? Focus on developing the AI, focus on coming up with better ideas, stop jacking around with the damn graphics!
And DA:O was a pretty crappy spiritual sucessor to BG. That game pretty much went through the generic fantasy checklist and made sure to fit everything in. Along with forcing you to group up with your own enemies...
Phototoxin wrote:Meh modern RPGs are too focused on tits
This can never be true of any genre or medium.
What is actually lacking are co-opRPG's, especially non online. Baldur's Gate (PC and Console), Icewind Dale, Champions of Norrath, hell, even Diablo are great games made better by being able to play with friends. The only current gen game is Ultimate Marvel Alliance. The guys who made Champions and Baldur's Gate on the consoles have a 3 player LotR game coming out but is only online multiplayer. It is like the idea that people visit each other is a thing of the past.
That and the fact everybody is obsessed with making online games now. KotOR 3 got scrapped for an TOR. WoW killed any chance of getting a Warcraft RPG and it probably hindered the development of Ghost.
Amaya wrote:That and the fact everybody is obsessed with making online games now. KotOR 3 got scrapped for an TOR. WoW killed any chance of getting a Warcraft RPG and it probably hindered the development of Ghost.
I don't know what Ghost is, but the scrapping of KOTOR 3 really got to me, that would of been amazing on this generation of consoles/PCs. I was really exited for TOR when I saw that first trailer, where the ship crashes into the jedi temple, but then I found out it was to be an MMORPG and my heart sank.
@Ahtman,
They don't want you to go round to other peoples houses because SHOCK! you might only buy one game between you, then they can't squeeze as much money out of you
Well, I finished Mass Effect and despite having already read the story, I have to say that the in game conclusion and second was very good. There's really only two major issues that I see with the game, 1) too much time is spent in the mako and 2) the MQ is very short, I completed the game in under 10 hours. KotOR runs at least 20 hours for me if I remember correctly and KotOR runs about 20-25. Of course both of those games had very tedious parts, which I can't say Mass Effect had after achieving Spectre status. I think the characters are the strongest part of the game.
I didn't like the ending too much for Mass Effect... It reminds me of Heroes Season 1... big buildup but the end is kind of a dud... great game though. I might give it another play through to try to bring Shepard to one of the extremes (paragon/renegade)... my first game of mass effect had me pretty much finishing up with half on either.
First there are only Seven plots in literature, so a strong degree of repetition is inevitable.
Secondly, a lot of the comparison strength is based on nostalgia. People compare with the games they were introduced to, myself included.
Third we are name-dropping the same games for the most part whereas there are other perhapsd better benchmarks. There is more than Dragon Age vs Elder Scrolls, with a nod to Planescape Torment and old Fallout. You can experience quality RPG with titles such as Baldur's Gate, Gothic and Darklands. Baldurs Gate deserves independent look because it was broadly non linear and concealed its main plot line very well. While the Gothic series does a very good job of making an immersive world different to yet contemporary with Bethesda's work.
Darklands originated the isometric RPG genre, partly evolved from the yet older text adventures, its a half evolved ancestor that still holds up a a quality benchmark.
Fourth as technology increases and has neared a plateau of what is feasible for gaming games become similar. I the past developers had to choose between isometric 3D sprites 3d with flat overlay etc, now only 3d high definition graohics will do, so no matter how you sculpt pixel your orc its essentially the same as everyone elses and moves in a 3d plane with a similar game AI. The smaller games of yesteryear had no choice but to use more widly different presentation techniques to account for the limitations of the technology. For example compare Betrayal at Krondor, Elder Scrolls Arena and Stonekeep which all used a 3d 'first person' viewpoint but handled completely differently.
Yeah RPGs are just about dead. I know this is the truth when I see games like Final Fantasy XIII and Demon's Souls being referred to as RPGs.
Also the ending of Mass Effect 1, how could you think that was a dud djphranq? I thought it was Epic. I actually felt like a hero making those calls regarding the fleet.
Whatever the definition of RPG is or whatever now-obscure games came out ten years ago, I am only excited about Bethesda games looking forward. IMO, BioWare crashed on DA:O and burned on ME2. Similarly, the Gothic franchise faltered with Risen and then . . . ugh . . . Arcania. Also, keep in mind that Japan is making rpgs and some can be quite good. If you want a steep challenge leaning more toward action, there's always Demon's Souls -- which can be really rewarding, unless you're looking for storyline. If you want storyline, head's up on the Square Enix press conference coming up next week regarding FF.
Haha, you win in the end, either way -- you get BioTrash games far quicker than I get the beautiful, thoughtful, and amazingly fun Bethesda ones -- plus you actually like them! Good luck dealing with EA if you ever have a problem running them, however. I spent three weeks on the phone/online complaint channel trying to get DA:O DLC to work (hoping that the DLC might make it fun) to no avail. Not only could they not help me (and spent most of their effort trying to dodge me) but they only compensated me with EA online store credit in three non-stackable $20 gift cards -- i.e., an invitation to buy three $60 games for $40 each. Great: since I wasted fifty bucks on their crappy products so far, they'll make it up by inviting me to spend $120 more on their other crappy products.
IIRC, you couldn't even move backwards in Daggerfall. Still, good for it's time. But, as I said, looking ahead I am not expecting much out of ME3 (or "ME2: The Rest of the Game") and the next Dragon Age.
Manchu wrote:Haha, you win in the end, either way -- you get BioTrash games far quicker than I get the beautiful, thoughtful, and amazingly fun Bethesda ones -- plus you actually like them! Good luck dealing with EA if you ever have a problem running them, however. I spent three weeks on the phone/online complaint channel trying to get DA:O DLC to work (hoping that the DLC might make it fun) to no avail. Not only could they not help me (and spent most of their effort trying to dodge me) but they only compensated me with EA online store credit in three non-stackable $20 gift cards -- i.e., an invitation to buy three $60 games for $40 each. Great: since I wasted fifty bucks on their crappy products so far, they'll make it up by inviting me to spend $120 more on their other crappy products.
Dragon Age: Origins - Metacritic rating: 91%
Mass Effect 2 - Metacritic rating 94%
So they compensated your $60 in 3 seperate gift cards... seriously? complain! get back to them with that exact sentance and get your money back thats way out of line, get them to credit it back to your card, at the very least it should of been one gift card.
Manchu wrote:Haha, you win in the end, either way -- you get BioTrash games far quicker than I get the beautiful, thoughtful, and amazingly fun Bethesda ones -- plus you actually like them! Good luck dealing with EA if you ever have a problem running them, however. I spent three weeks on the phone/online complaint channel trying to get DA:O DLC to work (hoping that the DLC might make it fun) to no avail. Not only could they not help me (and spent most of their effort trying to dodge me) but they only compensated me with EA online store credit in three non-stackable $20 gift cards -- i.e., an invitation to buy three $60 games for $40 each. Great: since I wasted fifty bucks on their crappy products so far, they'll make it up by inviting me to spend $120 more on their other crappy products.
What's bad is I do not consider games like ME2 or DA:O to signify the decline in RPGs. I consider games like Demon's Souls and Final Fantasy XIII the games that have made rpgs a dying breed.
Lord Scythican wrote:What's bad is I do not consider games like ME2 or DA:O to signify the decline in RPGs. I consider games like Demon's Souls and Final Fantasy XIII the games that have made rpgs a dying breed.
Final fantasy to me has always been where you waste a day's worth of play time and get absolutely nowhere
Gibbsey wrote:So they compensated your $60 in 3 seperate gift cards... seriously? complain! get back to them with that exact sentance and get your money back thats way out of line, get them to credit it back to your card, at the very least it should of been one gift card.
I did. They stonewalled me at that point and I couldn't get any further up the chain. In any case, I didn't enjoy those games but YMMV.
Gibbsey wrote:So they compensated your $60 in 3 seperate gift cards... seriously? complain! get back to them with that exact sentance and get your money back thats way out of line, get them to credit it back to your card, at the very least it should of been one gift card.
I did. They stonewalled me at that point and I couldn't get any further up the chain. In any case, I didn't enjoy those games but YMMV.
just mention legal action next time, honestly i dont consider a gift card to be a refund
I've heard rumors and whisperings that Sony and EA company policy is they can't refund the credit card purchases(or purchases made using the PS Store cards) outside of giving more credit via company gift cards.
Sounds like damned near every store at the mall these days.
Melissia wrote:I thought Dragon Age was fine, and didn't focus on tits despite the marketing division practically drooling over Morrigan...
Likewise, I thought Dragon Age was good. And that was while drooling over Morrigan.
What I want to see is a good old fashioned Turn Based RPG. None of this moving about crap, give me potions, turns, and special powers. You know, Old School.
Slarg232 wrote:What I want to see is a good old fashioned Turn Based RPG. None of this moving about crap, give me potions, turns, and special powers. You know, Old School.
Sorry going to have to disagree here, turn based just isnt fluid enough for me
Slarg232 wrote:What I want to see is a good old fashioned Turn Based RPG. None of this moving about crap, give me potions, turns, and special powers. You know, Old School.
Sorry going to have to disagree here, turn based just isnt fluid enough for me
Bah. Humbug. ARGH PEE GEE's isn't about fluid, it's about characters and Turns!
Gah, I've been going through withdrawels of good Turn Based RPG ever since Legend of Dragoon broke, and don't even get me started on that crapfest that was Megaman RPG for the PS2.
Sometimes, simpler really is better. For example, I don't think the gameplay of Super Mario Galaxy is any better than that of the SNES classics, and in many ways is worse.
Wii games don't get ping's on my sonar. Wii is for casual gamers, therefore I stay as far away as possible. Besides, it doesn't have a single game or feature that interests me.
KamikazeCanuck wrote:a case can be made for storylines but (excluding motion controls for current times) what gameplay was better "back in the day"?
It's not that they were inherantly "better", it's just that there are No turn based games out there anymore. As in, a lack of the option. If they had Turn Based and Real Time games, I would be fine with it, but nobody makes them anymore.... I blame ADD kids who can't sit still without flashy lights
I still go back to play my old Final Fantasy titles (especially 7 and 8) and some of the old games I grew up playing. I find them much more original than any of the trash thats been put out in the past few years. I feel most games seem to be riding on the success of previous releases. Rather than innovating and giving us something new, they are just rehashing the same basic gameplay elements and stories over and over again, basically making us pay for the same game multiple times, with only a few minor cosmetic changes. That is one of the few things I can't fault the Final Fantasy series for. The battle system and plot changes pretty considerably from game to game.
KamikazeCanuck wrote:a case can be made for storylines but (excluding motion controls for current times) what gameplay was better "back in the day"?
It's not that they were inherantly "better", it's just that there are No turn based games out there anymore. As in, a lack of the option. If they had Turn Based and Real Time games, I would be fine with it, but nobody makes them anymore.... I blame ADD kids who can't sit still without flashy lights [/quot
KamikazeCanuck wrote:a case can be made for storylines but (excluding motion controls for current times) what gameplay was better "back in the day"?
It's not that they were inherantly "better", it's just that there are No turn based games out there anymore. As in, a lack of the option. If they had Turn Based and Real Time games, I would be fine with it, but nobody makes them anymore.... I blame ADD kids who can't sit still without flashy lights [/quot
Golden Age of RPGs was Final Fantasy VI, Chrono Trigger, Secret of Mana. I would pay $60.00 for a game made to those standards. Anyways if anyone wants a good RPG now and prefer an old school approach, you really should play Lost Odyssey on the 360. If they put something like that out every few years then I will be ok with the other newer generation RPGs like final Fantasy XIII and Demon's Souls.
Secret of Mana, and especially the sequel, Secret of Mana 2 (Or Seiken Densetsu 3 if you prefer), were quite fun. I've lost track of the amount of times I've played through those two....although with number two, I found it was always more fun to avoid the spellcasters, meant more time doing stuff and less time watching a pretty light fly around the screen.
I suppose I am also of the mind that RPGs have degraded in quality over the years, but I don't think they've degraded to the point they are a dying breed, but instead have become the MMO genre.
Storyline-wise, I am certainly of the mind that they've degraded over the last decade. They aren't getting the same emphasis they once did, with the game designers catering to the younger gamers, who want 'pretty graphics' and fast action. (A generalisation to be sure. But, as I've watched younger players play through games for the first time and skip dialogue, not caring for the story at all, just wanting to get to the action, one I feel reasonably justified in.) I am yet to come across a RPG that has engaged me on the same level as the Baldur's Gate series, and to a slightly lesser extent, Neverwinter Nights and it's expansions (Not the second one. That was ok, but in no way comparable to the first in my opinion). The storyline was excellent, and, while not as free-form as the Elder Scrolls, you still had a wide world to explore and destroy , but with more interesting character development and NPC interaction. (I was never a big fan of the Elder Scrolls, although I didn't mind Morrowind.)
Single-player games are a dying breed. It's been quoted from EA, and is visable in the releases from other companies, that the Games Developers believe the multi-player industry, especially the MMO and online FPS industries, are where the consumer buys best....their conclusions are fairly solid too, alot of the bigger and more popular games of recent years (Halo, Modern Warfare, World of Warcraft, Starcraft 2), they all had/have a thriving multi-player community. Most have a single-player component, one that virtually everyone plays through, but most spend more time in the multi-player than they do in the single-player....especially for games like Modern Warfare and Starcraft, it's generally alot more. I wonder if because those on these boards have their wargaming for their social gaming activity, they crave the multi-player less than others?
VenerableBrotherPelinore wrote: I wonder if because those on these boards have their wargaming for their social gaming activity, they crave the multi-player less than others?
I would have to agree to that point as when I spend time at GW, I come home and yes i play MMORPGs, but not to socialise but just to kill and escape reality and socialise if i want to.
OT: I dont think RPGs are dead yet, some serieses are however, imoDA:O(the combat was so boring that i wanted to sleep while playing it so much so any "sex appeal" from Morrigan was gone, imo great sounding story cancelled out by bad combat system) was the crash of Bioware, while ME2 didnt burn them it didnt save them either, too much changed from ME1 for my liking, wheres the megalong boss fight dammit!? (Saren = great boss fight, Human robot thing = boring boss fight) As far as other RPGs go, Oblivion will never die for me i love the game to bits and its the xbox 360 version, i just drool when i think of the PC mods for it *wipes chin*. Fable however is on a sliding scale and not in a good way, 1st was epic imo 2nd = decent but not great, 3rd was eh different but bit more enjoyable. If your looking at JRPGs then the strongest (in Japan anyway) is probly Monster Hunter, i have no idea why but a storyless game where you kill and farm so many different beasts is a hit(and i enjoy it very much aswell). As for TBC that is pretty much dead last i seen was Lost Oddessy and FFXIII, not even 4 disks kept me playing.
IMO i dont think its the games which have changed much but more the players, think about it this way you wouldnt eat somethin as a kid but now you crave it, taking from that example you could be more drawn to FPS than RPGs quite simply because you want more action. This is of course personal opinion and it may not be the case. For those complaining MMORPGs are too "cookie cutter" and not innovative then you have big old World of Warcraft for that as it is the "Big Daddy" of MMORPGs and anything made after it will be compared to it.
Saying you love Oblivion and hate ME2 isn't the best way to establish your knowledge of RPGs.
ME2 is easily the best Bioware game released in years, I think it's the best game they've ever made, they think it's the best game ever made, and aside from some elitist RPG holdouts/Halo fanboys it's universally regarded as a great game, if not the pinnacle of PC gaming.
Amaya wrote:Saying you love Oblivion and hate ME2 isn't the best way to establish your knowledge of RPGs.
ME2 is easily the best Bioware game released in years, I think it's the best game they've ever made, they think it's the best game ever made, and aside from some elitist RPG holdouts/Halo fanboys it's universally regarded as a great game, if not the pinnacle of PC gaming.
Im not sure if that comment was directed at me or not but will reply regardless, it may seem as my post did suggest I didnt like ME2 thats not true however its a great game but far too easy and basic compared to ME1.
the ME series and ES series are both great in their own right, but from what I consider the basic RPG element then the ES is probly the best in that sence. Still want ME3 and ES:Skyrim, cant wait to see what the reavers will do next haha, and also that Skyrim will be a new world to explore away from the events in Oblivion, i just hope they dont include guns like the Fable series did, that was a very bad move imo.
Amaya wrote:Saying you love Oblivion and hate ME2 isn't the best way to establish your knowledge of RPGs.
ME2 is easily the best Bioware game released in years, I think it's the best game they've ever made, they think it's the best game ever made, and aside from some elitist RPG holdouts/Halo fanboys it's universally regarded as a great game, if not the pinnacle of PC gaming.
I'm sorry but what the feth?
ME2 is the blandest sack of gak since bread sauce, at least TES has character.
Amaya wrote:Saying you love Oblivion and hate ME2 isn't the best way to establish your knowledge of RPGs.
ME2 is easily the best Bioware game released in years, I think it's the best game they've ever made, they think it's the best game ever made, and aside from some elitist RPG holdouts/Halo fanboys it's universally regarded as a great game, if not the pinnacle of PC gaming.
I'm sorry but what the feth?
ME2 is the blandest sack of gak since bread sauce, at least TES has character.
TES has characters? "guffaw" Everyones from uncanny valley.
Amaya wrote:Saying you love Oblivion and hate ME2 isn't the best way to establish your knowledge of RPGs.
ME2 is easily the best Bioware game released in years, I think it's the best game they've ever made, they think it's the best game ever made, and aside from some elitist RPG holdouts/Halo fanboys it's universally regarded as a great game, if not the pinnacle of PC gaming.
I'm sorry but what the feth?
ME2 is the blandest sack of gak since bread sauce, at least TES has character.
TES has characters? "guffaw" Everyones from uncanny valley.
I would rather talk to inbreds from the uncanny valley than generic characters.
After playing Mass Effect the past few weeks, I picked up Dragon Age Origins for a tenner. After my intial go, I have to assume it was made by a different sub studio.
It's really poor in comparrison to Mass Effect, the blood thing is way over the top, and like a glaring 'how cool are we for putting this in' card to cover up the holes in the rest of the gameplay as the controls are very fudgy compared to Mass Effect.
The loss of an actual voice was huge, Mass Effect is fast becoming one of my fave games for the voice work. So how disapointed was I when after hearing the Dwarf speak to my character, I selected her first response and he just replies.
Part of the fun of Mass effect is seeing what the character would actually say in comparrison to the choice you made.
Maybe it improves as I go on, and to be fair I've only done one starting story, but so far Mass Effect is miles better than Dragon Age, and I've not even started ME2 yet.
Morathi's Darkest Sin wrote:After playing Mass Effect the past few weeks, I picked up Dragon Age Origins for a tenner. After my intial go, I have to assume it was made by a different sub studio.
It's really poor in comparrison to Mass Effect, the blood thing is way over the top, and like a glaring 'how cool are we for putting this in' card to cover up the holes in the rest of the gameplay as the controls are very fudgy compared to Mass Effect.
The loss of an actual voice was huge, Mass Effect is fast becoming one of my fave games for the voice work. So how disapointed was I when after hearing the Dwarf speak to my character, I selected her first response and he just replies.
Part of the fun of Mass effect is seeing what the character would actually say in comparrison to the choice you made.
Maybe it improves as I go on, and to be fair I've only done one starting story, but so far Mass Effect is miles better than Dragon Age, and I've not even started ME2 yet.
I'm one of the few rare ones who was able to get into Dragon Age more than Mass Effect, even if I'll concede that Mass Effect was the better game. The loss of voice is a big one, and I do hope they'll change that for the sequel.
However, the addition of Tim Curry as part of the voice talent is sheer awesomeness.
What I liked more about ME over DA:O was more the visual effects than anything else. See, ME, being a science fiction game, has lots of very beautiful, colorful visuals, visuals that a standard brown, green, and grey monotony that most fantasy games end up being just can't manage to match.
Still, I greatly enjoyed DA:O, and am waiting to be able to afford its expansion pack and then later on its sequel when it comes out. But Homefront and Retribution are before it right now.
Also to be fair to Dragon Age as I noted, I've only done one starting story, the Dwarf Noble, and I did feel the story part of that was quite well done.
I just found the actual combat a odd, might be the shift over from ranged to close mind. Will continue it this week and see if I adjust to it. The blood is totally over the top though.
Eitherway the loss of voice is a great shame, especially after you pick one in create mod. Although that only seems there to make almost 'MMO' like responses when you press the attack button too many times.
As to the visuals, I'd imagine Dragon Age will struggle there, some of the effects in Mass Effect have been awesome, and I suspect ME2 will only get better.
I guess for me it can be the little things that completely draw me in. What does Mass Effect do right? The opening theme and introductory text.
When you get that first intro title card giving you a quick recap of history so far, you get to the point where they state "They called it the greatest discovery in human history. The civilizations of the galaxy call it... MASS EFFECT."
Amaya wrote:Saying you love Oblivion and hate ME2 isn't the best way to establish your knowledge of RPGs.
ME2 is easily the best Bioware game released in years, I think it's the best game they've ever made, they think it's the best game ever made, and aside from some elitist RPG holdouts/Halo fanboys it's universally regarded as a great game, if not the pinnacle of PC gaming.
I'm sorry but what the feth?
ME2 is the blandest sack of gak since bread sauce, at least TES has character.
You obviously never played ME2. Anyone who actually completed the game and dismisses all the characters in it as 'bland' either never played it or is a troll.
TES was great and then they released Oblivion. Oblivion is the epitome of bland. TES is not known for having strong character development.
I am another who greatly enjoys dragon age. I have the expansion and all of the DLCs. I havent beaten it yet, but I imagine that I am close to the end, just have to hit up denerim... I will admit that melee combat is somewhat boring. You really need to fight for the best positioning on harder difficulties, or you will not make it far. Not to mention the melee attacks (and bow attacks for that matter) are not flashy, most of your special abilities just look like you are swinging your weapon with a little more force = / OFC, I play a combat mage which is very fun and effective. It combines melee action and tactics with the big flashy effects of spell casting. The game does get more exiting as you play through and aquire more party members, as each of them come with more skills to use, more tactics to think about, and their own quest lines. You also need to think about how they interact with each other, which can be difficult.
I do wish they had the same speech as mass effect though.
A hero recently inducted into a super elite special police force is guided by visions of an ancient civilization in his quest to discover and destroy a powerful evil weapon that controls the minds of its followers.
Both games feature:
"super elite special police force" Jedi and Spectres.
Ancient civilization that holds the key to defeating the evil enemy. Rakata and Protheans.
Both games feature heavy emphasis on visions.
A fallen defender now seeks to conquer the people he once protected. Darth Malak and Saren.
A powerful construction that twists the minds of those aboard it. Star Forge and Sovereign.
A search for an ancient construction hidden on or around a lost world. The Star Forge and the Conduit.
Amaya wrote:You obviously never played ME2. Anyone who actually completed the game and dismisses all the characters in it as 'bland' either never played it or is a troll.
Amaya wrote:You obviously never played ME2. Anyone who actually completed the game and dismisses all the characters in it as 'bland' either never played it or is a troll.
Amaya wrote:A hero recently inducted into a super elite special police force is guided by visions of an ancient civilization in his quest to discover and destroy a powerful evil weapon that controls the minds of its followers.
Both games feature:
"super elite special police force" Jedi and Spectres.
Ancient civilization that holds the key to defeating the evil enemy. Rakata and Protheans.
Both games feature heavy emphasis on visions.
A fallen defender now seeks to conquer the people he once protected. Darth Malak and Saren.
A powerful construction that twists the minds of those aboard it. Star Forge and Sovereign.
A search for an ancient construction hidden on or around a lost world. The Star Forge and the Conduit.
IE, standard epic plot points. I could twist all of these to fit Lord of the Rings, too.
Amaya wrote:You obviously never played ME2. Anyone who actually completed the game and dismisses all the characters in it as 'bland' either never played it or is a troll.
Learn to speak for yourself and not others boy.
He's right though. I never played ME2...
because the first one was boring enough
*duck and covers*
HERETIC!
Only kidding, tbh i can tell why people wouldnt like it. I was put off it for ages quite simply for the fact that it was Sci-fi themed, the only reason i got ME1 was due to it being pre-owned for £5 so i wasnt losing much if i didnt like it. that being said that £5 was worth it
Imo if you didnt like the 1st 1 then dont bother with the second, as the second is a watered down version of the 1st with a rather dull story. Only the loyalty quests make it a bit more interesting.
Think Biowar focused more on the graphics than story in ME2, just hopeing ME3 is the best of both combined!
Amaya wrote:A hero recently inducted into a super elite special police force is guided by visions of an ancient civilization in his quest to discover and destroy a powerful evil weapon that controls the minds of its followers.
Both games feature:
"super elite special police force" Jedi and Spectres.
Ancient civilization that holds the key to defeating the evil enemy. Rakata and Protheans.
Both games feature heavy emphasis on visions.
A fallen defender now seeks to conquer the people he once protected. Darth Malak and Saren.
A powerful construction that twists the minds of those aboard it. Star Forge and Sovereign.
A search for an ancient construction hidden on or around a lost world. The Star Forge and the Conduit.
IE, standard epic plot points. I could twist all of these to fit Lord of the Rings, too.
You can, but the similarities don't fit nearly as well.
@Johnscot10: A lot of people who disliked ME, loved ME2, including me. ME1 is a above average RPG with a generic plot and weak TPS elements. Entirely too much of the game is spent in the Mako. I know some posters here loved the Mako, but I don't think anyone picks up an RPG so that they can drive a vehicle around. Calling a game 'watered down' is the catch all insult that RPG elitists throw out at every game they happen to dislike. Mass Effect 2 isn't even watered down. The MQ in both games lacks originality, but the focus in ME2 is on character development and the MQ is secondary.
Amaya wrote:
@Johnscot10: A lot of people who disliked ME, loved ME2, including me. ME1 is a above average RPG with a generic plot and weak TPS elements. Entirely too much of the game is spent in the Mako. I know some posters here loved the Mako, but I don't think anyone picks up an RPG so that they can drive a vehicle around. Calling a game 'watered down' is the catch all insult that RPG elitists throw out at every game they happen to dislike. Mass Effect 2 isn't even watered down. The MQ in both games lacks originality, but the focus in ME2 is on character development and the MQ is secondary.
Hmm thats a first iv been called an "elitest", as for disliking the game thats not true. While the plot for both games does need work, i feel ME2 needs it more though, it seemed to me that Bioware was more interested in getting flashy graphics at the expense of other parts but some parts are still good like the character development i cant fault that, wish game companies would learn its not about what graphics they use but more the gameplay(lookin at minecraft here lol). As for the Mako i cant even remember driving that thing in ME1 but do remember it in ME2, maybe it was just more enjoyable or the fact the quest it was connected to was good.
Just remember this is all personal opinion and ME1 was batter in mine.
Amaya wrote:
@Johnscot10: A lot of people who disliked ME, loved ME2, including me. ME1 is a above average RPG with a generic plot and weak TPS elements. Entirely too much of the game is spent in the Mako. I know some posters here loved the Mako, but I don't think anyone picks up an RPG so that they can drive a vehicle around. Calling a game 'watered down' is the catch all insult that RPG elitists throw out at every game they happen to dislike. Mass Effect 2 isn't even watered down. The MQ in both games lacks originality, but the focus in ME2 is on character development and the MQ is secondary.
Hmm thats a first iv been called an "elitest", as for disliking the game thats not true. While the plot for both games does need work, i feel ME2 needs it more though, it seemed to me that Bioware was more interested in getting flashy graphics at the expense of other parts but some parts are still good like the character development i cant fault that, wish game companies would learn its not about what graphics they use but more the gameplay(lookin at minecraft here lol). As for the Mako i cant even remember driving that thing in ME1 but do remember it in ME2, maybe it was just more enjoyable or the fact the quest it was connected to was good.
Just remember this is all personal opinion and ME1 was batter in mine.
There is no Mako in ME2 and you use the Mako in ME1 at Therum, Feros, Noveria, Ilos, and Virmire at the very least.
Amaya wrote:
There is no Mako in ME2 and you use the Mako in ME1 at Therum, Feros, Noveria, Ilos, and Virmire at the very least.
Ok maybe it wasnt the Mako but there is still the mission where you drive around, in the Krogan world iirc that and the mission in the DLC, pretty much the same concept.
Amaya wrote:A hero recently inducted into a super elite special police force is guided by visions of an ancient civilization in his quest to discover and destroy a powerful evil weapon that controls the minds of its followers.
Both games feature:
"super elite special police force" Jedi and Spectres.
Ancient civilization that holds the key to defeating the evil enemy. Rakata and Protheans.
Both games feature heavy emphasis on visions.
A fallen defender now seeks to conquer the people he once protected. Darth Malak and Saren.
A powerful construction that twists the minds of those aboard it. Star Forge and Sovereign.
A search for an ancient construction hidden on or around a lost world. The Star Forge and the Conduit.
IE, standard epic plot points. I could twist all of these to fit Lord of the Rings, too.
You can, but the similarities don't fit nearly as well.
Oh yeah they do.
Super elite special police force = Rangers
Ancient civilization that holds the key to defeating the evil enemy: the civilization buried at the barrow downs, where the Halflings got their swords which killed the lead nazgul (and Frodo had other artefacts from that period which proved to be important plot points.
Using visions was part of several key plot points.
Sarumon is the fallen defender endangering the people he once protected.
The One Ring is a powerful construction which corrupts the minds that use it. It's used differently than in Mass Effect, but it's still there, in fact, its corrupting influence is far more important to the plot of LotR than the corruption of the Reaver ships are until ME2's ending. (blacked out for the sake of hiding spoilers).
They found plenty of ancient and lost locations, too.
Ancient civilization that holds the key to defeating the evil enemy: the civilization buried at the barrow downs, where the Halflings got their swords which killed the lead nazgul (and Frodo had other artefacts from that period which proved to be important plot points.
Using visions was part of several key plot points.
Sarumon is the fallen defender endangering the people he once protected.
The One Ring is a powerful construction which corrupts the minds that use it. It's used differently than in Mass Effect, but it's still there, in fact, its corrupting influence is far more important to the plot of LotR than the corruption of the Reaver ships are until ME2's ending. (blacked out for the sake of hiding spoilers).
They found plenty of ancient and lost locations, too.
Well if you put the spoiler warning after the text then that doesent really help... but not much of a spoiler anyway
Also "super elite special police force" could include the fellowship "Ancient civilization that holds the key to defeating the evil enemy" well sauron and gandalf are originaly from the same place (Valar?)
"fallen defender" could also be sauron
The LotR similarities are stretched. Rangers aren't allowed and accepted as defenders like the Spectres and Jedi. Saruman never served in the 'elite defense force' like Saren and Malak did. A space station and spaceship have a lot more in common than a little ring.
@Soladrin are you talking about scifi video games or just scifi in general? And do you prefer hard scifi?
Sarumon served in the circle of wizards, another elite defense force sent by the Valar to Middle Earth to help the denizens against the servants of Melkor.
Amaya wrote:The LotR similarities are stretched. Rangers aren't allowed and accepted as defenders like the Spectres and Jedi. Saruman never served in the 'elite defense force' like Saren and Malak did. A space station and spaceship have a lot more in common than a little ring.
@Soladrin are you talking about scifi video games or just scifi in general? And do you prefer hard scifi?
Then yes, I prefer that. My fav parts of scifi is usually when they (try to) explain the technology en stuff like that, though all the scifi I like is in books anyway.
Spectres and Jedi are much more similar than the Circle of Wizards. If you can't agree with that than there is no reason to keep discussing it with you.
Uh, not really? The element zero which creates the titular mass effect is the only "soft" aspect, everything else is pretty hard science.
For example, unlike most sci-fi, they make it explicitly clear that once a weapon is fired in space, it keeps going until it hits something. Thats a freakishly rare occurrence in sci-fi.
The codex entries in Mass Effect I are the most comprehensive and well thought out stuff as your going to see in any sci-fi. Just think of anything about how "I wonder how this works" and they'll be a well written entry in it. Definately not "soft". ME is my second favorite sci-fi universe and who knows maybe it'll be my first when its all said and done.
Yeah that was great but I think some people didn't read ME's codex. It's great and comprehensive too. Entries on heat accumulation changed the way I think about ship combat. Often you're in more danger of cooking your crew than getting blown up. Whether or not you fight in a star system can make a big difference. Don't even get me started on GARDIAN laser defense systems: that is truly the only accurate depiction of laser combat (sorry, star wars you can't jump out of the way of lasers). There's even an article on what a ship looks like travelling at light speed (red or blue depending on if its coming or going).
Melissia wrote:Uh, not really? The element zero which creates the titular mass effect is the only "soft" aspect, everything else is pretty hard science.
For example, unlike most sci-fi, they make it explicitly clear that once a weapon is fired in space, it keeps going until it hits something. Thats a freakishly rare occurrence in sci-fi.
2. Minovsky Particle: The laws of physics are broken in a specifically declared way. Expect hundred-page dissertations on fictional physics and consistent internal rules.
What a terrible and lame article. It's holy Grail of sci-fi is current real life. No speculation or looking to the future. In other words not sci-fi. Any attempts to use real science no matter how thought out or researched can only achieve a 2. Honestly dumbest piece of crap I've read in a while.
KamikazeCanuck wrote:What a terrible and lame article. It's holy Grail of sci-fi is current real life. No speculation or looking to the future. In other words not sci-fi. Any attempts to use real science no matter how thought out or researched can only achieve a 2. Honestly dumbest piece of crap I've read in a while.
Mass Relays are real science? Biotics are real science? They have a basis in real science, but they break all accepted laws.
Hard scifi does not break accepted scientific laws. Soft scifi does not. Neither is superior to the other. It's simply a way of classifying the vast world of scifi.
A 100 page dissertation ranks as a 2 on that guys scale. So if we are to take him seriously some writers 100 page science based thesis (which can be difficult to write) is merely dismissed in Internet cynic guys 1 sentence throwaway line. That seems fair.
If we are not to take him seriously (which btw we are not) then don't take him seriously because that page was just a joke. Do not use it as actual literary criticism and then add a
KamikazeCanuck wrote:A 100 page dissertation ranks as a 2 on that guys scale. So if we are to take him seriously some writers 100 page science based thesis (which can be difficult to write) is merely dismissed in Internet cynic guys 1 sentence throwaway line. That seems fair.
If we are not to take him seriously (which btw we are not) then don't take him seriously because that page was just a joke. Do not use it as actual literary criticism and then add a
Since when does a 100 page disseration make biotics and mass relays work? Not to mention all the other propulsion, laser weapons, hovercraft, etc, in Mass Effect?
You act like this an insult to Mass Effect. It is not. Mass Effect is simply not hard scifi. There is nothing wrong with that. If anything, it's a good thing because hard scifi has a tendency to be boring (imo).
Soladrin wrote:Sorry, but I'm not gonna play a game if it requires me to read 5 books worth of boring codex entries to get some background info :\
That's fine different strokes for different folks. I can accept a criticism that ME is too sci-fi-y or to talky. Most people find Modern Warfare 2 has just the right amount of sci-fi and character development. That's why COD is the most popular series and not ME.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Amaya wrote:
KamikazeCanuck wrote:A 100 page dissertation ranks as a 2 on that guys scale. So if we are to take him seriously some writers 100 page science based thesis (which can be difficult to write) is merely dismissed in Internet cynic guys 1 sentence throwaway line. That seems fair.
If we are not to take him seriously (which btw we are not) then don't take him seriously because that page was just a joke. Do not use it as actual literary criticism and then add a
Since when does a 100 page disseration make biotics and mass relays work? Not to mention all the other propulsion, laser weapons, hovercraft, etc, in Mass Effect?
You act like this an insult to Mass Effect. It is not. Mass Effect is simply not hard scifi. There is nothing wrong with that. If anything, it's a good thing because hard scifi has a tendency to be boring (imo).
The argument isn't that the the 100 page dissertation makes so-and-so real it's that it makes it good science fiction. That's what sci-fi stands for.
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:
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:
In fact, the boundaries between "hard" and "soft" are neither definite nor universally agreed-upon, so there is no single standard of scientific "hardness" or "softness." Some readers might consider any deviation from the possible or probable (for example, including faster-than-light travel or paranormal powers) to be a mark of "softness." Others might see an emphasis on character or the social implications of technological change (however possible or probable) as a departure from the science-engineering-technology issues that in their view ought to be the focus of hard SF.
Well since noone can agree on a definition anyway, who cares?
Many of the hardest sci-fi novels also have "handwavium"
Mass effect does have more of a basis in reality than star wars, and hey you may not like the game but calling it bland when you have never played it?
See I get all of what that site is saying, but I still come away from it thinking, dude's got too much time on his hands.
Plus I do find it amusing that Star Trek is seen as wishy washy, but so many current scientist's note it as a inspiration of why they got into the field.
To me thats what matters, I don't really care how realistic it is, all I care about is if the setting is interesting.
To me most of the series, books etc listed as Hard, or upper medium are some of the most boring Sci-fi settings out there.
I do wonder if that site was some kind of fanboy thing, trying to justify their like of the more dull aspects of Sci-fi media.
Melissia wrote:Uh, not really? The element zero which creates the titular mass effect is the only "soft" aspect, everything else is pretty hard science.
For example, unlike most sci-fi, they make it explicitly clear that once a weapon is fired in space, it keeps going until it hits something. Thats a freakishly rare occurrence in sci-fi.
You're seriously using tvtropes as a source? Tvtropes is by its own admission a place to have fun and look up pop culture icons. Not an encyclopedia. That's not how tvtropes is intended to be used.
Read your own cited source:
Bear in mind, of course, that no simple single-dimensional scale can encompass the full nuances of the idea of "hardness" in Science Fiction.
I think I'm going to laugh at you and go to some other thread.
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.
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 genRPGs.
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 genRPGs.
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....
Spoiler:
Your entire team and then you die the only one left is the pilot, your sucess at the end depends on your decisions/upgrades/crew loyalty
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.
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:
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.
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".
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
KamikazeCanuck wrote: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".
Exactly, originally i thought it was just a useless character that constantly required being saved, mainly from people misusing the term. Having a non mary sue character would be weirds, you would be a regular soldier out of thousands in a battle for instance with no advantage over the enemy (enemy's in a shooter for example would outflank you/snipe you/ use cover effectivley, also if you got shot you would die instead of just "getting better")
@KC: Don't feel bad about buying DA. I bought it twice thanks to people very articulately defending it on this forum and others. I figured maybe I just hadn't given it enough of a chance, something like when I played Morrowind for the first time. As it turns out, the game just isn't for me. And EA are a bunch of dicks.
KamikazeCanuck wrote: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".
Exactly, originally i thought it was just a useless character that constantly required being saved, mainly from people misusing the term. Having a non mary sue character would be weirds, you would be a regular soldier out of thousands in a battle for instance with no advantage over the enemy (enemy's in a shooter for example would outflank you/snipe you/ use cover effectivley, also if you got shot you would die instead of just "getting better")
No a mary sue is a character who is seemingly perfect and doesn't afraid of anything.
I really recommend The Internet go out and actually read the story "Mary Sue". It's only like 4 sentences long and I'm sure it can be found somewhere on the interwebs.
Manchu wrote:@KC: Don't feel bad about buying DA. I bought it twice thanks to people very articulately defending it on this forum and others. I figured maybe I just hadn't given it enough of a chance, something like when I played Morrowind for the first time. As it turns out, the game just isn't for me. And EA are a bunch of dicks.
It's y'know, it's ok I guess. It has some pretty boring combat and dungeon crawling but there's no doubt that it was made by Bioware B-Team.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Manchu wrote:I'd say Shepherd is a good example of a Mary Sue. I don't think that's what's wrong with ME2.
KamikazeCanuck wrote: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".
Exactly, originally i thought it was just a useless character that constantly required being saved, mainly from people misusing the term. Having a non mary sue character would be weirds, you would be a regular soldier out of thousands in a battle for instance with no advantage over the enemy (enemy's in a shooter for example would outflank you/snipe you/ use cover effectivley, also if you got shot you would die instead of just "getting better")
No a mary sue is a character who is seemingly perfect and doesn't afraid of anything.
wikipedia, infallible guardian of all knowledge wrote:Typically, this refers to a character accused of being overly idealized or having other traits traditionally associated with fan fiction "Mary Sues", such as being "special" by having a gratuitously tragic past, unrealistic skills, or a seeming inability for the character to do wrong
also I doesn't afraid of anything (isnt that a meme or something? i've heard that before somewhere...)
As bad as FF X-2 and XIII was I have low expectations for this one.
Of course Sqaure Enix delayed Deus Ex: Human Revolution after the outrage caused by Final Fantasy XIII. Maybe they learned their lesson. If XIII-2 is a great game, I may go back and try XIII again.
Off topic:
Also the biggest Mary Sue characters are Anita Blake, Bella Swan, and the Master Chief. They are perfect and nothing bad can happen to them directly. Usually the author or character designer lives through the character to fill their own inadequacies. I wouldn't say the main character from Dragons Age is quite a Mary Sue, but pretty damn close. Especially if you take the human Noble path. The whole family and kingdom thinh kind of discounts Mary Sue characteristics. However if you do not count the opening story, then yeah the main character is a Mary Sue.
Anti-Mary Sue characters: Pretty much anyone from Heavy Rain.
As bad as FF X-2 and XIII was I have low expectations for this one.
Of course Sqaure Enix delayed Deus Ex: Human Revolution after the outrage caused by Final Fantasy XIII. Maybe they learned their lesson. If XIII-2 is a great game, I may go back and try XIII again.
Off topic:
Also the biggest Mary Sue characters are Anita Blake, Bella Swan, and the Master Chief. They are perfect and nothing bad can happen to them directly. Usually the author or character designer lives through the character to fill their own inadequacies. I wouldn't say the main character from Dragons Age is quite a Mary Sue, but pretty damn close. Especially if you take the human Noble path. The whole family and kingdom thinh kind of discounts Mary Sue characteristics. However if you do not count the opening story, then yeah the main character is a Mary Sue.
Anti-Mary Sue characters: Pretty much anyone from Heavy Rain.
Yeah, to bad that game was boring as hell, thus making mary sues more interesting for me ^^
As bad as FF X-2 and XIII was I have low expectations for this one.
Of course Sqaure Enix delayed Deus Ex: Human Revolution after the outrage caused by Final Fantasy XIII. Maybe they learned their lesson. If XIII-2 is a great game, I may go back and try XIII again.
Off topic:
Also the biggest Mary Sue characters are Anita Blake, Bella Swan, and the Master Chief. They are perfect and nothing bad can happen to them directly. Usually the author or character designer lives through the character to fill their own inadequacies. I wouldn't say the main character from Dragons Age is quite a Mary Sue, but pretty damn close. Especially if you take the human Noble path. The whole family and kingdom thinh kind of discounts Mary Sue characteristics. However if you do not count the opening story, then yeah the main character is a Mary Sue.
Anti-Mary Sue characters: Pretty much anyone from Heavy Rain.
Yeah, to bad that game was boring as hell, thus making mary sues more interesting for me ^^
Never thought we'd actually agree on something Soladrin.
Manchu wrote: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.
Where was the great visual design in ME1? How was the narrative good? It was the same Bioware storyline that they've been using since BG. You can predict the ending an hour into the game.
Spoiler:
ME1 is evil rogue Spectre attacks a human colony and you're tasked to track him down. You discover that he has become the pawn of an ancient and evil machine race and must find the mysterious conduit before he does in order to defeat him. In ME2 Shepard is rebuilt by Cerberus in order to fight the Collectors. You discover a way through the Omega 4 Relay and launch a suicide mission in order to destroy their base. Neither storyline brings anything new or exciting to the table.
Manchu wrote:Wow, lots to read since I last posted here.
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.
I have some mixed feelings about ME2 too. I will say right now that the ME2 is one of my favorite games of all time however I'll copy and paste a review I did from elsewhere here:
"Mass Effect 2 (Collector's Edition)
April 8, 2010 - Well no one can ever accuse Bioware of not listening to its fans. The Canadian company has literally responded to every single criticism ever levelled at Mass Effect 1. They’ve made a ton of changes and quite frankly: I'm not sure I like any of them. Yes, ME1 was very "RPGey" but if the fans of ME1 didn't like RPGs they wouldn't have played it in the first place let alone declared one of their favourite games of all time. Not to mention come back and buy the sequel.
Apparently people didn't like the Mako, which I thought was the coolest vehicle ever. Well are you happy now? Now you can scan planets from orbit in what feels like a tedious task assigned to you at work. When it's all said and done you'll feel like you've spent more time doing that than everything else in the game combined! I don't know if it’s true or not but it certainly feels like it. Can anyone say that was more fun than driving around in an incredibly robust APC than can be dropped from orbit, is armed with both a cannon and anti-personal guns, shields and even thrusters for righting itself and jumping!?
I'll admit that the massive amount of items that you could accumulate in ME1 could be a bit confusing. Seemed like you were acquiring a new gun every 5 minutes but they've taken it the other way too far. Now you have almost no inventory. You don't buy new armour and guns a la an RPG but find them lying on the ground. Or even worse download them. Don't get me wrong: I think the free DLC that comes with "The Cerberus Network" is the greatest thing ever and hope that all the other Developers out there take notice and adopt a similar system to curb the reselling/rebuying/used game market but it makes it so that you can get all the best weapons right off the bat. Not very RPG like. I think you should have to make your DLC weapons (which are cool) with all those damn resources I’ve been scanning for!
Although there was a lot of “stuff” to accrue back in the day at least it was all done automatically. Much like an old fashioned turn-based JRPG like Final Fantasy you just did some fighting and at the end you got some money and stuff. Now you have to run around looking for money on the wall and hacking people’s computers. I kept thinking “why am I literally breaking into someone’s apartment, hacking their PC, and stealing like $1000 from them?” Does this seem like something a SPECTRE busy trying to save the galaxy would do to you?
Speaking of which, and this one is more story related than gameplay, what happened to being a SPECTRE? I really enjoyed the universe created in ME1 and the balance between being a Human patriot and a good Citadel soldier. I don’t care much for working for Cerberus: a known terrorist organization and Private military company. Although the Illusive Man is a great character I just didn’t find it as interesting as reporting directly to The Citadel Council the actual ruling government of the Galaxy.
Anyways, there’s a dozen other little things that I could go on about that bugged me like the fact I now have to run around gathering clips off the ground as if I where playing Doom but I don’t want it to seem as if I don’t actually like the game. This is still one of the best games out there. The combat is much improved and very intense (if you play on some of the harder difficulties) and there’s really no comparison between the new side quests and the old. All the side quests in ME2 feel fresh and different as opposed to ME1 where it was unbearable boilerplate.
But what makes Mass Effect Mass Effect is Characters, Story and Dialogue. The story in this middle chapter is ok but the characters are some of the best you’re going to find anywhere. TV and big screen motion pictures wish they could have character development half this good. Even the so called “extras” have more personality than most of the crap you see on TV these days. I remember feeling genuinely sad for a Krogan while eavesdropping on a conversation he was having with a friend about how he thinks he’s sired a son but will never know him because his world has been turned into a culturally devastated dystopia by a bioweapon. That brought the Genophage home for me more than any full text back story. At that’s just one of many conversations that take place throughout the game.
The word ‘revolutionary” gets thrown around a lot in the video game industry but what Bioware is attempting here: letting you create a character and have every decision you make have profound consequences for the length of an entire trilogy really is revolutionary. And quite frankly they don’t get enough credit for it. "
So in summary I liked it equally as much as ME1. They fixed some stuff they broke some stuff, but they're both great games.
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.
Excellent point. Someone also brought up the wishy washy science of Star Trek. While I agree it's a show that defines techno-babble it also has its props that have actually become real life inventions. Not the whole warp engine part of course but stuff like communicators (cellphones) or datapads (Ipad et al).
Just imagine a SF writer explaining the functioning of an Ipad with it's touch screen in the 60's. That would be laughed of as soft sf immediately. Or think of an LCD screen. "Wait, you're telling me this screen thingy would use some kind of 'liquid' crystal matrix that can be realigned by electrical current? Son, have you been smoking crack?"
Sci Fi inspires imagination and the drive to strive for things that haven't been invented. Yet.
Back to RPG's. I'd love a Secret of Mana-esque kind of game again. Playable solo or with others through the net or sitting beside you on the couch. I have 2 younger brothers, SoM was a godsend for us.
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.
Excellent point. Someone also brought up the wishy washy science of Star Trek. While I agree it's a show that defines techno-babble it also has its props that have actually become real life inventions. Not the whole warp engine part of course but stuff like communicators (cellphones) or datapads (Ipad et al).
Just imagine a SF writer explaining the functioning of an Ipad with it's touch screen in the 60's. That would be laughed of as soft sf immediately. Or think of an LCD screen. "Wait, you're telling me this screen thingy would use some kind of 'liquid' crystal matrix that can be realigned by electrical current? Son, have you been smoking crack?"
Sci Fi inspires imagination and the drive to strive for things that haven't been invented. Yet.
Back to RPG's. I'd love a Secret of Mana-esque kind of game again. Playable solo or with others through the net or sitting beside you on the couch. I have 2 younger brothers, SoM was a godsend for us.
Melissia misunderstands me. Hard scifi doesn't break the laws of physics as we understand them. IE, no FTL, no telepaths (or biotics), things of that nature. It explores potential future discoveries within the realm of plausability. If I knew that the definition of hard scifi was unknown here I wouldn't have brought it up.
It's not simply the mass effect fields and eezo that make Mass Effect soft scifi. It's the relatively one dimensional alien species. Krogans really, really, REALLY like fighting. Turians are all disciplined soldiers who fail economics forever. Volus are only good at trade. Assari mate with everyone to somehow expand their gene pool and mating with each other is frowned upon for some odd reason, even thoug there are only a dozen or so other races even worth mating with.... Salarians are intelligent and live much shorter lives than humans, but for some reason a short lifespan is only considered to be a human advantage...
Humans are the only race clever enough to use carriers, use VI to support their military, and in just 3 decades they've become a galactic power. All the other council races have been on the galactic stage for 500+ years and yet they haven't developed their forces much more than the Alliance has...
I like Mass Effect, I think Mass Effect 2 is the best game ever made, but putting it up some sort of pedestal of scientific brilliance is laughable.
Amaya wrote:Hard scifi doesn't break the laws of physics as we understand them. IE, no FTL, no telepaths (or biotics), things of that nature. It explores potential future discoveries within the realm of plausability.
40k is hard Sci-Fi?
Railguns... are now real and just as nasty. Bolters... are just fully automatic grenade launchers.
EDIT - I'm personally disappointed with computer/electronic RPGs. It is my favorite type of game. However, tabletop-RPGs certainly aren't dying...
@The Bringer: I thought table-top rpgs were dying until I got as copy of Pathfinder. I really like that game, I just need to find a group willing to play it.
Lord Scythican wrote:@The Bringer: I thought table-top rpgs were dying until I got as copy of Pathfinder. I really like that game, I just need to find a group willing to play it.
Savage Worlds is a good and simple system. There are a couple home-made systems I enjoy, and I also like D&D and the Star Wars version of it.
But either way, those RPGs never decline, unless you lose a good GM.
Amaya wrote:Hard scifi doesn't break the laws of physics as we understand them. IE, no FTL, no telepaths (or biotics), things of that nature. It explores potential future discoveries within the realm of plausability.
I disagree. Telepaths, Biotics, Psychics, they may actually be in the cards farther down the line. Just a gut feeling I have.
Amaya wrote:If I knew that the definition of hard scifi was unknown here I wouldn't have brought it up.
I know the definition of hard science fiction, I just don't agree that it's that strict.
Hard sci-fi is merely a story which prefers to have a stronger basis in reality-- it doesn't have to have a total basis in reality, but anything that breaks current science needs to be plausible in doing so. Soft sci-fi prefers to go with rule of cool and suspension of disbelief, and can hand-wave things based off of these two, or have weird outcomes that vary depending on plot more than science.
It's really all that simple. There's no black or white in the subject.
I don't recall them enough to categorize them. But I would consider, for example, Battletech to be mostly hard hard sci-fi. There's only one true break from current science in the Kearny-Fuschida drive system that allows for interstellar travel and communication. The rest is within the realm of plausibility, with most of the fantastic items simply being advanced materials (the "muscles" of the mechs, for example, are bundles electro-reactive cables mimicking human muscles, and we have already found some electro-reactive materials in our time).
Meanwhile, 40k is soft science, because it works on rule of cool, and entirely rule of cool. If something is cool, they'll make it work somehow.
Amaya wrote:If I knew that the definition of hard scifi was unknown here I wouldn't have brought it up.
I know the definition of hard science fiction, I just don't agree that it's that strict.
Hard sci-fi is merely a story which prefers to have a stronger basis in reality-- it doesn't have to have a total basis in reality, but anything that breaks current science needs to be plausible in doing so. Soft sci-fi prefers to go with rule of cool and suspension of disbelief, and can hand-wave things based off of these two, or have weird outcomes that vary depending on plot more than science.
It's really all that simple. There's no black or white in the subject.
And having a magical element to explain away artificial gravity, FTL, Biotics, is not plausible science.
Neither is any space travel in any sci-fi book ever
So aside from the silly monoliths and giant space fetus, 2001 isn't plausible?
@Melissia, you continue to ignore examples and descriptions of hard SciFi. You ignore the 'planet of hat' species and inconsistent logic in Mass Effect. Apparently anything that isn't a sweeping galactic drama with dozens of alien species and super psionic freaks isn't science fiction to you.
Neither is any space travel in any sci-fi book ever
So aside from the silly monoliths and giant space fetus, 2001 isn't plausible?
@Melissia, you continue to ignore examples and descriptions of hard SciFi. You ignore the 'planet of hat' species and inconsistent logic in Mass Effect. Apparently anything that isn't a sweeping galactic drama with dozens of alien species and super psionic freaks isn't science fiction to you.
... which is funny, considering I mentioned sci-fi with neither of those things in this very thread as one of my examples of hard science fiction.
Amaya wrote:And yet you try to refer to Mass Effect as hard scifi.
And your point is?
I believe it is. It explains itself using real-world science, generally obeys the laws of physics, and so on. It has some fantastical effects that are enough within the realm of plausibility to be categorized as such for me.
It's not as much hard sci-fi as, say, Battletech (which I mentioned earlier), but it's still certainly not "soft sci-fi", which doesn't even bother to try and explain it because it knows that its fiction is cool enough on its own. 40k falls into soft sci-fi more frequently than not for example, with oftentimes the effects of its weapons either barely explained, or inconsistently so, because it runs on rule of cool. Mass Effect is far more hard sci-fi than 40k.
Amaya wrote:So aside from the silly monoliths and giant space fetus, 2001 isn't plausible?
Yes apart from all the implausible parts 2001 is plausible
Also i was talking about any movie with reasonable extra solar space travel
If it's done via FTL than it isn't plausible. There are plenty of examples of interstellar travel done without the benefit of FTL.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Melissia wrote:
Amaya wrote:And yet you try to refer to Mass Effect as hard scifi.
And your point is?
I believe it is. It explains itself using real-world science, generally obeys the laws of physics, and so on. It has some fantastical effects that are enough within the realm of plausibility to be categorized as such for me.
It's not as much hard sci-fi as, say, Battletech (which I mentioned earlier), but it's still certainly not "soft sci-fi", which doesn't even bother to try and explain it because it knows that its fiction is cool enough on its own. 40k falls into soft sci-fi more frequently than not for example, with oftentimes the effects of its weapons either barely explained, or inconsistently so, because it runs on rule of cool. Mass Effect is far more hard sci-fi than 40k.
'
Simply trying to explaining something doesn't make it good science. We simply do not know enough about dark matter and dark energy at this moment to say what they could be useful for. It's a big leap to go and assume that dark energy will grant us telekinesis and all sorts of other goodies. Yes, Mass Effect is much harder than 40k. In terms of scientific plausibility, 40k is a complete joke.
From softer to harder
40k Star Wars
Star Trek
Babylon 5
Mass Effect
2001
Ender's Game (the first book, the rest of the series gets weird)
Alien (the movie, not the series)
Gattaca
Amaya wrote:So aside from the silly monoliths and giant space fetus, 2001 isn't plausible?
Yes apart from all the implausible parts 2001 is plausible
Also i was talking about any movie with reasonable extra solar space travel
If it's done via FTL than it isn't plausible. There are plenty of examples of interstellar travel done without the benefit of FTL.
But impracticle, expecially for a game (hey you want to wait 10 years to get to the next system?)
The point is the definitaion of "hard sci-fi" is not completely agreed upon, you seem to be thinking that nothing that cant happen in real life can be included when in many people's definition this is not the case
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Amaya wrote:Ender's Game
Yes little doctor (was that what it was called) and all that (ftl communication, crazy technology that effects physics)
Amaya wrote:It was considered 'far out' when the novel was written.
Fair enough.
An example of hard-ish scifi would be blade runner in that dispite its soft elements (flying cars anyone?) it doesn't outright ignore laws of physics by including psychics or laws of common sense by having planet of hats races whereas a classic example of soft scifi would be avatar with its generic hippy race that sometimes slips into proud warrior race guy and "unobtainium".
Mass effect 1 was harder than mass effect 2 but was still on the soft end of the scale.
Amaya wrote:It was considered 'far out' when the novel was written.
Fair enough.
An example of hard-ish scifi would be blade runner in that dispite its soft elements (flying cars anyone?) it doesn't outright ignore laws of physics by including psychics or laws of common sense by having planet of hats races whereas a classic example of soft scifi would be avatar with its generic hippy race that sometimes slips into proud warrior race guy and "unobtainium".
Mass effect 1 was harder than mass effect 2 but was still on the soft end of the scale.
Manchu wrote:@KC: Don't feel bad about buying DA. I bought it twice thanks to people very articulately defending it on this forum and others. I figured maybe I just hadn't given it enough of a chance, something like when I played Morrowind for the first time. As it turns out, the game just isn't for me. And EA are a bunch of dicks.
It's y'know, it's ok I guess. It has some pretty boring combat and dungeon crawling but there's no doubt that it was made by Bioware B-Team.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Manchu wrote:I'd say Shepherd is a good example of a Mary Sue. I don't think that's what's wrong with ME2.
What protangonist in a video game is not!?
Maybe Isaac from Dead space? I dunno. I don't care if that was a rhetorical question, btw.
GalacticDefender wrote:
Maybe Isaac from Dead space? I dunno. I don't care if that was a rhetorical question, btw.
I can't wait for that game, Isaac is supposed to be messed up to the point where there will be times where you don't know if your shooting civilians or Necromorphs
'A Scanner Darkly' by Philip K. Dick would be a perfect example of hard science fiction, even if the book does not revolve around it's science fiction elements. In fact, most of his sci-fi is fairly grounded in reality.
Anything that takes place outside the bounds of planet earth requires a fair amount of suspension of disbelief.
OP, if you are going to continue like this, at least change the subject to "Sci-Fi: do you like it hard, or soft?" and ask for a mod to move it to the right subforum.
So do we have any other rpgs to look forward to, besides TES: V? Is there going to be a Lost Odyssey 2? Has anyone played Chaos Rings either? I heard that one was good. I don't want to give up on RPGs, but I am about ready to break out my SNES.
Soladrin wrote:erm how about.. ME 3? It's been announced you know. (I'm not looking forward to it, but thought i'd share)
Oh that's a given. You know I wonder if there is a way I can convince you to like Mass Effect. If I play ODST will you give it another chance? Of course if you did actually play through it an didn't like it, then there isn't much I can do for you...
Lord Scythican wrote:So do we have any other rpgs to look forward to, besides TES: V? Is there going to be a Lost Odyssey 2? Has anyone played Chaos Rings either? I heard that one was good. I don't want to give up on RPGs, but I am about ready to break out my SNES.
Has anyone played Chaos Rings? I got itunes gift card and I'm thinking I might as well use it on this very expensive (for IOS) game.
TES V, Mass Effect 3, and Dragon Age 2 are the big ones coming out in 2011. Hopefully, TES V can bring back the Morrowind feel and Dragon Age 2 is a big improvement over DA: Origins.
Soladrin wrote:Doubt I ever will TBH, I just completely lost interest in it after finishing 1.
And all I've read on here hasn't changed anything, the thing that bored me in the game wasn't the gameplay, it's the setting itself.
It just felt like Star Wars with a different skin. (this is a bad thing for me)
You know I think this is probably the reason why I like it so much to be honest. I grew up with Star Wars and I loathe what it has become. I feel like they totally abandoned the old fans with all these clone wars crap. I collected the action figures into my 20's and only recently stopped collecting them once I realized that hasbro was only making a few that I wanted and I had to get them off ebay for 10 times the store price. I used to play the Star Wars D6 game religiously.
So I kind of have a void in the space science fiction area. Mass Effect filled that perfectly for me.
Btw, if anyone hates what Star Wars has become, read the recent novels. They are about the only thing worth looking into anymore.
Amaya wrote:The FTL communication is the only extremely far out element in Ender's Game. What crazy technology that effects physics?
I was mainly pointing it out as an example of a novel with interstellar travel without FTL.
The battle room the kids even mention at one point that because its still attached to the rest of the station that wouldn't just mean there would immediately be no gravity in the room. There's a paragraph where the kids basically figure out they must be using some crazy tech
I was, as people have seen, very surprised and pleased with Mass Effect 2 and eagerly await Mass Effect 3.
So other than, Dragon Age 2 (which can't get any worse), Skyrim (which can't get any worse), and Mass Effect 3 (which has a good chance of sucking), what other RPGs do we have to look forward to in the future?
I was, as people have seen, very surprised and pleased with Mass Effect 2 and eagerly await Mass Effect 3.
So other than, Dragon Age 2 (which can't get any worse), Skyrim (which can't get any worse), and Mass Effect 3 (which has a good chance of sucking), what other RPGs do we have to look forward to in the future?
Amaya wrote:That's not an RPG Slarg and for some reason DoW2 runs like crap on my computer that can run ME2 fine.
/sadface
Actually, DoWII's Campaign mode plays out like an RPG with RTS elements, while at the same time playing out as a RTS with RPG elements
It has all the RPG elements required though, intense level up system, lots of lootin', and some pretty good characters.
Even if I do want to slap Cyrus upside the head everytime he says something.
I want an RPG/RTS/FPS, where you level up a character and can switch from an RTS mode to an FPS mode. Sort of like going from an overview of the battle to being in the thick of it. God, that would be epic.
Amaya wrote:That's not an RPG Slarg and for some reason DoW2 runs like crap on my computer that can run ME2 fine.
/sadface
Actually, DoWII's Campaign mode plays out like an RPG with RTS elements, while at the same time playing out as a RTS with RPG elements
It has all the RPG elements required though, intense level up system, lots of lootin', and some pretty good characters.
Even if I do want to slap Cyrus upside the head everytime he says something.
I want an RPG/RTS/FPS, where you level up a character and can switch from an RTS mode to an FPS mode. Sort of like going from an overview of the battle to being in the thick of it. God, that would be epic.
That...... would be FETHING AWESOME! As long as it felt "right" in both modes, that is.
I am looking forward to FFXIII-2. I am a big fan of Lightning and am psyched to hear she'll be the main protagonist again. I am still wondering what the deal is with Versus, however . . .
Yeah. I thought it was very refreshing that Sony would create such a blatant railroad as compared to so many choose-your-own-whatever-gimmick "hidden railroads" released here in the States. The story was basically interesting, the characters were engaging, and the graphics and sound were superb. The gameplay was utterly excellent, IMO. It all added up to my favorite FF since VII (my favorite overall is either IV or VI). I know this game is the polar opposite of the Bethesda sandboxes I never get tired of praising but I really enjoyed it.
You know what, I will give the Japanese props for using female characters as leads. Western RPGs are constantly canon male (but you can play as female) or you can only play a bad ass guy with permament stubble.
Amaya wrote:You know what, I will give the Japanese props for using female characters as leads. Western RPGs are constantly canon male (but you can play as female) or you can only play a bad ass guy with permament stubble.
It is pretty much all western games, but I can forgive FPSs set in WW2/Nam/Modern because woman were actually restricted from combat MOSs in those settings.
Amaya wrote:This further cements my opinion that you and I can never agree on video games.
The game does get points for Lightning and Vanille though, hottest FF characters ever.
Vanille should be hot, but they messed up on her "scale". She looks like a 10 year old with 25 year old boobs.
As for Final Fantasy XIII, I am thinking I might have liked it better if it wasn't a Final Fantasy game at all. If it was something totally new I would have probably enjoyed it like you Manchu.
As is, I would say the changes to the series are bad. It would have been like making Gears of War 3 a railroad shooter. It could be fun but not as a Gears of War game.
Lord Scythican wrote:Vanille should be hot, but they messed up on her "scale". She looks like a 10 year old with 25 year old boobs.
Adjust for Japanese aesthetics.
As to your point regarding FXIII: I think the game would have been better loved by a smaller following without the burden of following the SNES-genFF games, too. So would all of the post-FFVI games, honestly. But plastering "Final Fantasy" on game covers sells games.
Amaya wrote:This further cements my opinion that you and I can never agree on video games.
The game does get points for Lightning and Vanille though, hottest FF characters ever.
Vanille should be hot, but they messed up on her "scale". She looks like a 10 year old with 25 year old boobs.
As for Final Fantasy XIII, I am thinking I might have liked it better if it wasn't a Final Fantasy game at all. If it was something totally new I would have probably enjoyed it like you Manchu.
As is, I would say the changes to the series are bad. It would have been like making Gears of War 3 a railroad shooter. It could be fun but not as a Gears of War game.
She doesn't look that young. More in the 15-16 year old range at the youngest.
(seriously people leaping 10 
I have DoW2 Retribution and Homefront as my next two purchases, whenever I get the money.
