Gameinformer's GOTY

texasgoldrush

Follow

14893

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 12

User Lists: 0

#201 texasgoldrush

Member since 2003 • 14893 Posts

[QUOTE="DarkLink77"][QUOTE="texasgoldrush"][QUOTE="DarkLink77"] Mr. Scratch is pretty great. As is every character in Max Payne, which is what they're known for. I'd say the Marshall from RDR is good, too. I'd say the characters in KoTOR II are just as good as any character in Mass Effect. Especially Kreia.

Kreia is the only character other than Bioware created HK47 that sticks out of the game. But the overall cast of ME2 and ME3 crushes KOTOR II. Don't forget the flawed influence system that screws up the character development in KOTOR II.

Um... no. Sion sticks out. So does Mira. Bao-Dur. Atton. The Handmaiden. Atris. Nihilus, but more as a force of nature than a character. Obsidian just doesn't write characters that are as over-the-top in terms of personality as BioWare does. Their characterization is more subtle. I disagree. That's more the fault of the game being rushed and stuff being cut than an issue with the actual system itself.

Then explain Alpha Protocol's cast....that was so over the top and not so subtle as you can get. SIE and Heck are horrible characters. And I am not going to pretend KOTOR II's cast has the fame of Bastila or Carth...and I like KOTOR II's cast better. Nevermind HK47 was a Bioware creation Obsidan further developed. No, its fataly flawed...so you want a character to go to the dark side, but to gain their influence, if they are light side, you have to agree with their light side opinions so you have high influence, so they can go dark side. This is a very botched system that makes absolutely no sense. It would make far more sense if you can PERSUADE them to your views for infleunce gain. And really idiotic is I turned Visas Marr from dark to light in ONE conversation, while she still blurts out dark side opinions. The system seems to be a knee jerk reaction of Bastila's completely contrived turn to the dark side (for light sided characters) and not a real well thought out system. In fact, DAII had a good system in friendship/rivalry, and it showed its head in Omega DLC, and DAIII will bring it back. Its far more natural.

11 years ago

DarkLink77

Follow

32731

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 3

User Lists: 0

#202 DarkLink77

Member since 2004 • 32731 Posts

[QUOTE="texasgoldrush"][QUOTE="DarkLink77"][QUOTE="texasgoldrush"] Kreia is the only character other than Bioware created HK47 that sticks out of the game. But the overall cast of ME2 and ME3 crushes KOTOR II. Don't forget the flawed influence system that screws up the character development in KOTOR II.

Um... no. Sion sticks out. So does Mira. Bao-Dur. Atton. The Handmaiden. Atris. Nihilus, but more as a force of nature than a character. Obsidian just doesn't write characters that are as over-the-top in terms of personality as BioWare does. Their characterization is more subtle. I disagree. That's more the fault of the game being rushed and stuff being cut than an issue with the actual system itself.

Then explain Alpha Protocol's cast....that was so over the top and not so subtle as you can get. SIE and Heck are horrible characters. And I am not going to pretend KOTOR II's cast has the fame of Bastila or Carth...and I like KOTOR II's cast better. Nevermind HK47 was a Bioware creation Obsidan further developed. No, its fataly flawed...so you want a character to go to the dark side, but to gain their influence, if they are light side, you have to agree with their light side opinions so you have high influence, so they can go dark side. This is a very botched system that makes absolutely no sense. It would make far more sense if you can PERSUADE them to your views for infleunce gain. And really idiotic is I turned Visas Marr from dark to light in ONE conversation, while she still blurts out dark side opinions. The system seems to be a knee jerk reaction of Bastila's completely contrived turn to the dark side (for light sided characters) and not a real well thought out system. In fact, DAII had a good system in friendship/rivalry, and it showed its head in Omega DLC, and DAIII will bring it back. Its far more natural.

I've never played Alpha Protocol so I can't comment. Well, fame aside, Bastilla and Carth are probably the weakest characters in KoTOR. true on HK-47 (which is why I didn't bring him up), but I feel Obsidian wrote the character better. Unless I'm remembering incorrectly, I believe you can lose influence and still persuade characters to talk about stuff. Low influence also drives them to your side of the Force, if I recall correctly. Regardless, you can have extremely low influence with a character and convince them to do whatever they want. It's very similar to DAII's system. I'd wager DAII's system is kind of based on it, it just doesn't suffer the things KoTOR II does because there's no morality meter in Dragon Age.

11 years ago

skrat_01

Follow

33767

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#203 skrat_01

Member since 2007 • 33767 Posts

In fact, DAII had a good system in friendship/rivalrytexasgoldrush

Nah it didn't, it was a hodge podge system indicative of all the games faults. What it had was a good idea behind it. The only way that is 'natural' is how it was conceptualised as part of structurally rigid, more didactic story in Bioware vein.

11 years ago

texasgoldrush

Follow

14893

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 12

User Lists: 0

#204 texasgoldrush

Member since 2003 • 14893 Posts

[QUOTE="DarkLink77"][QUOTE="texasgoldrush"][QUOTE="DarkLink77"] Um... no. Sion sticks out. So does Mira. Bao-Dur. Atton. The Handmaiden. Atris. Nihilus, but more as a force of nature than a character. Obsidian just doesn't write characters that are as over-the-top in terms of personality as BioWare does. Their characterization is more subtle. I disagree. That's more the fault of the game being rushed and stuff being cut than an issue with the actual system itself.

Then explain Alpha Protocol's cast....that was so over the top and not so subtle as you can get. SIE and Heck are horrible characters. And I am not going to pretend KOTOR II's cast has the fame of Bastila or Carth...and I like KOTOR II's cast better. Nevermind HK47 was a Bioware creation Obsidan further developed. No, its fataly flawed...so you want a character to go to the dark side, but to gain their influence, if they are light side, you have to agree with their light side opinions so you have high influence, so they can go dark side. This is a very botched system that makes absolutely no sense. It would make far more sense if you can PERSUADE them to your views for infleunce gain. And really idiotic is I turned Visas Marr from dark to light in ONE conversation, while she still blurts out dark side opinions. The system seems to be a knee jerk reaction of Bastila's completely contrived turn to the dark side (for light sided characters) and not a real well thought out system. In fact, DAII had a good system in friendship/rivalry, and it showed its head in Omega DLC, and DAIII will bring it back. Its far more natural.

I've never played Alpha Protocol so I can't comment. Well, fame aside, Bastilla and Carth are probably the weakest characters in KoTOR. true on HK-47 (which is why I didn't bring him up), but I feel Obsidian wrote the character better. Unless I'm remembering incorrectly, I believe you can lose influence and still persuade characters to talk about stuff. Low influence also drives them to your side of the Force, if I recall correctly. Regardless, you can have extremely low influence with a character and convince them to do whatever they want. It's very similar to DAII's system. I'd wager DAII's system is kind of based on it, it just doesn't suffer the things KoTOR II does because there's no morality meter in Dragon Age.

Yes, Bastila and Carth are the the weakest characters in KOTOR, however, they are more popular. This cannot be denied. The first game is simply far more popular. Wrong If they have low influence, they turn to the opposite side of the force your character is. Yes, you can persuade them to talk about stuff, but you can't persuade them to accept you views, hence the flaws. DAII has a system where you can develop a character in two ways...as a friend who continously accepts their views and actions, or as one that challanges their views and actions, while still helping them (however there are still red lines which a character can leave the party or turn against you). Its not flawlessly executed and needs to be tweeked, but it is powerful in a way that you can change someone. Its one of the things DAII got right and its one thing they are keeping.

11 years ago

silversix_

Follow

26347

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#205 silversix_

Member since 2010 • 26347 Posts

this shows how of a sh*tty year we had. ME3 is a joke of a game and calling it a role playing game as they do is just lolz

11 years ago

texasgoldrush

Follow

14893

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 12

User Lists: 0

#206 texasgoldrush

Member since 2003 • 14893 Posts

[QUOTE="texasgoldrush"]In fact, DAII had a good system in friendship/rivalryskrat_01

Nah it didn't, it was a hodge podge system indicative of all the games faults. What it had was a good idea behind it. The only way that is 'natural' is how it was conceptualised as part of structurally rigid, more didactic story in Bioware vein.

No it wasn't...was it flawlessly executed?....no (and the ME3 Omega DLC did it a tad better where Aria final actions are dependant on whether you go Paragon or Renegade with her)...but it works. The DAO system was far more rigid.

11 years ago

DarkLink77

Follow

32731

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 3

User Lists: 0

#207 DarkLink77

Member since 2004 • 32731 Posts

[QUOTE="texasgoldrush"][QUOTE="DarkLink77"][QUOTE="texasgoldrush"] Then explain Alpha Protocol's cast....that was so over the top and not so subtle as you can get. SIE and Heck are horrible characters. And I am not going to pretend KOTOR II's cast has the fame of Bastila or Carth...and I like KOTOR II's cast better. Nevermind HK47 was a Bioware creation Obsidan further developed. No, its fataly flawed...so you want a character to go to the dark side, but to gain their influence, if they are light side, you have to agree with their light side opinions so you have high influence, so they can go dark side. This is a very botched system that makes absolutely no sense. It would make far more sense if you can PERSUADE them to your views for infleunce gain. And really idiotic is I turned Visas Marr from dark to light in ONE conversation, while she still blurts out dark side opinions. The system seems to be a knee jerk reaction of Bastila's completely contrived turn to the dark side (for light sided characters) and not a real well thought out system. In fact, DAII had a good system in friendship/rivalry, and it showed its head in Omega DLC, and DAIII will bring it back. Its far more natural.

I've never played Alpha Protocol so I can't comment. Well, fame aside, Bastilla and Carth are probably the weakest characters in KoTOR. true on HK-47 (which is why I didn't bring him up), but I feel Obsidian wrote the character better. Unless I'm remembering incorrectly, I believe you can lose influence and still persuade characters to talk about stuff. Low influence also drives them to your side of the Force, if I recall correctly. Regardless, you can have extremely low influence with a character and convince them to do whatever they want. It's very similar to DAII's system. I'd wager DAII's system is kind of based on it, it just doesn't suffer the things KoTOR II does because there's no morality meter in Dragon Age.

Yes, Bastila and Carth are the the weakest characters in KOTOR, however, they are more popular. This cannot be denied. The first game is simply far more popular. Wrong If they have low influence, they turn to the opposite side of the force your character is. Yes, you can persuade them to talk about stuff, but you can't persuade them to accept you views, hence the flaws. DAII has a system where you can develop a character in two ways...as a friend who continously accepts their views and actions, or as one that challanges their views and actions, while still helping them (however there are still red lines which a character can leave the party or turn against you). Its not flawlessly executed and needs to be tweeked, but it is powerful in a way that you can change someone. Its one of the things DAII got right and its one thing they are keeping.

Oh course. Just saying they're weak as characters. I'm confused on the "wrong" bit. Are you referring to my HK-47 comment or the influence system comment? Ah. My mistake. Yes, Dragon Age II's system was interesting. Not perfect, but it had potential.

11 years ago

lamprey263

Follow

44558

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 10

User Lists: 0

#208 lamprey263

Member since 2006 • 44558 Posts

as being one of the best games this year I'm not surprised, despite a disappointing ending, but other than that the rest of the game is solid

11 years ago

Ballroompirate

Follow

26695

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 10

User Lists: 0

#209 Ballroompirate

Member since 2005 • 26695 Posts

this shows how of a sh*tty year we had. ME3 is a joke of a game and calling it a role playing game as they do is just lolzsilversix_

Go back under the bridge no one cares about your crummy opinion.

*goes back watching DarkLink and TGR go at it*

11 years ago

texasgoldrush

Follow

14893

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 12

User Lists: 0

#210 texasgoldrush

Member since 2003 • 14893 Posts

[QUOTE="DarkLink77"][QUOTE="texasgoldrush"][QUOTE="DarkLink77"] I've never played Alpha Protocol so I can't comment. Well, fame aside, Bastilla and Carth are probably the weakest characters in KoTOR. true on HK-47 (which is why I didn't bring him up), but I feel Obsidian wrote the character better. Unless I'm remembering incorrectly, I believe you can lose influence and still persuade characters to talk about stuff. Low influence also drives them to your side of the Force, if I recall correctly. Regardless, you can have extremely low influence with a character and convince them to do whatever they want. It's very similar to DAII's system. I'd wager DAII's system is kind of based on it, it just doesn't suffer the things KoTOR II does because there's no morality meter in Dragon Age.

Yes, Bastila and Carth are the the weakest characters in KOTOR, however, they are more popular. This cannot be denied. The first game is simply far more popular. Wrong If they have low influence, they turn to the opposite side of the force your character is. Yes, you can persuade them to talk about stuff, but you can't persuade them to accept you views, hence the flaws. DAII has a system where you can develop a character in two ways...as a friend who continously accepts their views and actions, or as one that challanges their views and actions, while still helping them (however there are still red lines which a character can leave the party or turn against you). Its not flawlessly executed and needs to be tweeked, but it is powerful in a way that you can change someone. Its one of the things DAII got right and its one thing they are keeping.

Oh course. Just saying they're weak as characters. I'm confused on the "wrong" bit. Are you referring to my HK-47 comment or the influence system comment? Ah. My mistake. Yes, Dragon Age II's system was interesting. Not perfect, but it had potential.

One easy victory for KOTOR II over the first game, and you will agree, the cast of KOTOR II participates in the plot FAR more than the first game, even giving them playable roles like Atton (although the bar fight sequence was a bad difficlulty spike), Mira against Hanharr, and HK47 (who can decide the ending), nevermind that a certain points characters are forced into roles such as Canderous and Visas being with you against Nihilis. And thats what the problem with old Bioware was...their characters sat on the sidelines (except for the two main party members) and did not participate much in the plot. DAO is another huge example. However, with DA2 and ME3, Bioware has its cast members play major roles in the plot with one character in DAII completely changing the series forever (although it showed one of the flaws with the influence system, you cannot stop him regardless, but his motives as a friend or rival are different). In ME3, there are basically non combat party members that play big roles in the plot as well. This is a huge improvement. And yes, Bastila's turn to the dark side with a light sided Revan automatically makes her a poor written character...it was so contrived and forceful.

11 years ago

skrat_01

Follow

33767

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#211 skrat_01

Member since 2007 • 33767 Posts

texasgoldrush

That word, flawlessly and any Dragon Age 2 element, system to writing don't coincide. And it's a slightly different take on approval scales we've seen done to death, that ticks away at the trigger spreadsheet working in the background. It also was't done well.

11 years ago

DarkLink77

Follow

32731

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 3

User Lists: 0

#212 DarkLink77

Member since 2004 • 32731 Posts

[QUOTE="texasgoldrush"][QUOTE="DarkLink77"][QUOTE="texasgoldrush"] Yes, Bastila and Carth are the the weakest characters in KOTOR, however, they are more popular. This cannot be denied. The first game is simply far more popular. Wrong If they have low influence, they turn to the opposite side of the force your character is. Yes, you can persuade them to talk about stuff, but you can't persuade them to accept you views, hence the flaws. DAII has a system where you can develop a character in two ways...as a friend who continously accepts their views and actions, or as one that challanges their views and actions, while still helping them (however there are still red lines which a character can leave the party or turn against you). Its not flawlessly executed and needs to be tweeked, but it is powerful in a way that you can change someone. Its one of the things DAII got right and its one thing they are keeping.

Oh course. Just saying they're weak as characters. I'm confused on the "wrong" bit. Are you referring to my HK-47 comment or the influence system comment? Ah. My mistake. Yes, Dragon Age II's system was interesting. Not perfect, but it had potential.

One easy victory for KOTOR II over the first game, and you will agree, the cast of KOTOR II participates in the plot FAR more than the first game, even giving them playable roles like Atton (although the bar fight sequence was a bad difficlulty spike), Mira against Hanharr, and HK47 (who can decide the ending), nevermind that a certain points characters are forced into roles such as Canderous and Visas being with you against Nihilis. And thats what the problem with old Bioware was...their characters sat on the sidelines (except for the two main party members) and did not participate much in the plot. DAO is another huge example. However, with DA2 and ME3, Bioware has its cast members play major roles in the plot with one character in DAII completely changing the series forever (although it showed one of the flaws with the influence system, you cannot stop him regardless, but his motives as a friend or rival are different). In ME3, there are basically non combat party members that play big roles in the plot as well. This is a huge improvement. And yes, Bastila's turn to the dark side with a light sided Revan automatically makes her a poor written character...it was so contrived and forceful.

Totally agreed there. It's even more apparent in Obsidian's original vision for the game (which you can play now, thanks to the RCM). There, pretty much every major character gets a stand-alone vignette, a la Mira's little mission on Malachor V, that has a pretty big impact. Atton fights Sion (and dies if you lose, the game just keeps going), HK-47 takes out the droid factory, you actually get to do more stuff as Bao-Dur's remote and learn what happens to him, the Handmaiden/Disciple get a really great scene with Atris, and of course, your party tries to ambush and kill Kreia, which fails spectacularly and you have the option of saving them all from the cages they get thrown into or bypassing it completely. BioWare didn't do that until very, very recently. I've played bits and pieces of ME3, which does it the best out of all the BioWare games, but I still feel like KoTOR II did it better because it made every single one of your characters matter in some way, which was a great way to end the game. Your party actually felt important. And agreed on Bastilla. That could have been handled so much better.

11 years ago

texasgoldrush

Follow

14893

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 12

User Lists: 0

#213 texasgoldrush

Member since 2003 • 14893 Posts

[QUOTE="texasgoldrush"]skrat_01

That word, flawlessly and any Dragon Age 2 element, system to writing don't coincide. And it's a slightly different take on approval scales we've seen done to death, that ticks away at the trigger spreadsheet working in the background. It also was't done well.

No its not....its a character development system...not an approval system. A full rival doesn't leave the party, a full disapproval companion does. The red lines exist independantly of the friendship and rivalry system and by not maxing either, they can turn against you or leave you at the end of the game. The flaw comes in when either friendship or rivalry is locked too early (where it reaches 100%)....so basically in the final companion quest, you can make the opposite decision, but still develop them fully as a friend or rival. For example, being a rival to Merill is about telling her the path she is leading is wrong and that everything that happens is her fault...so at the end of her Act 3 questline...bad things happen. Even in fully rival path, you can tell her that its all the keepers fault (which yes, the keeper can be legitimately blamed for the bad thing)...the friendship path, but then get the final scene where she admits that its all her fault. It can be a jarring break and plot hole in the character development. A easy fix is that if the character is locked or far on the path on either side...to take the final decision of that characters questline out of the player's hands and into the characters hands. In a way the Omega ME3 DLC does this with Aria T'Loak in regards to how she handles Petrofsky.

11 years ago

texasgoldrush

Follow

14893

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 12

User Lists: 0

#214 texasgoldrush

Member since 2003 • 14893 Posts

[QUOTE="DarkLink77"][QUOTE="texasgoldrush"][QUOTE="DarkLink77"] Oh course. Just saying they're weak as characters. I'm confused on the "wrong" bit. Are you referring to my HK-47 comment or the influence system comment? Ah. My mistake. Yes, Dragon Age II's system was interesting. Not perfect, but it had potential.

One easy victory for KOTOR II over the first game, and you will agree, the cast of KOTOR II participates in the plot FAR more than the first game, even giving them playable roles like Atton (although the bar fight sequence was a bad difficlulty spike), Mira against Hanharr, and HK47 (who can decide the ending), nevermind that a certain points characters are forced into roles such as Canderous and Visas being with you against Nihilis. And thats what the problem with old Bioware was...their characters sat on the sidelines (except for the two main party members) and did not participate much in the plot. DAO is another huge example. However, with DA2 and ME3, Bioware has its cast members play major roles in the plot with one character in DAII completely changing the series forever (although it showed one of the flaws with the influence system, you cannot stop him regardless, but his motives as a friend or rival are different). In ME3, there are basically non combat party members that play big roles in the plot as well. This is a huge improvement. And yes, Bastila's turn to the dark side with a light sided Revan automatically makes her a poor written character...it was so contrived and forceful.

Totally agreed there. It's even more apparent in Obsidian's original vision for the game (which you can play now, thanks to the RCM). There, pretty much every major character gets a stand-alone vignette, a la Mira's little mission on Malachor V, that has a pretty big impact. Atton fights Sion (and dies if you lose, the game just keeps going), HK-47 takes out the droid factory, you actually get to do more stuff as Bao-Dur's remote and learn what happens to him, the Handmaiden/Disciple get a really great scene with Atris, and of course, your party tries to ambush and kill Kreia, which fails spectacularly and you have the option of saving them all from the cages they get thrown into or bypassing it completely. BioWare didn't do that until very, very recently. I've played bits and pieces of ME3, which does it the best out of all the BioWare games, but I still feel like KoTOR II did it better because it made every single one of your characters matter in some way, which was a great way to end the game. Your party actually felt important. And agreed on Bastilla. That could have been handled so much better.

The problem with what KOTOR II did, with it being rushed, is that the gameplay is so much more difficult without the protagonist. My party members are simply not as strong as the Exile. And really DAII fell under the same conditions as KOTOR II was...it was rushed and unfinished. It actually reminds me of KOTOR II...the cast is more subtle, more involved in the plot, the plot is more ambitious and less cliched...but its left full of holes and inconsistancies because it was so rushed out the door. If DAII was developed properly and with care, it would have easily surpassed DAO. But at least KOTOR II was restored by the fans, I don't think DAII can. But here is where I start bashing old school Bioware fans...they simply want the same game over and over again and are resistant to change or experiementation. Its extremely ironic that under EA, the storytelling in Bioware has gotten far more risky and far more ambitious...while the fanbase accuses them of dumbing down their games. Simply put, the fanbase will destroy Bioware. If only fans realized what a flawed writer Drew Karpyshyn was and that his style is clearly flawed. His parting gift to Bioware is the character assassination of both Revan and the Exile in TOR...wow. The only two problems with Bioware under EA is A) the horrendous marketing (DAO's Marilyn Manson advertising...yuck) and B) the more likely they rush the games. But by the looks of it, the DA team is taking their time with DAIII.

11 years ago

skrat_01

Follow

33767

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#215 skrat_01

Member since 2007 • 33767 Posts

[QUOTE="skrat_01"][QUOTE="texasgoldrush"]texasgoldrush

That word, flawlessly and any Dragon Age 2 element, system to writing don't coincide. And it's a slightly different take on approval scales we've seen done to death, that ticks away at the trigger spreadsheet working in the background. It also was't done well.

No its not....its a character development system...not an approval system. A full rival doesn't leave the party, a full disapproval companion does. The red lines exist independantly of the friendship and rivalry system and by not maxing either, they can turn against you or leave you at the end of the game. The flaw comes in when either friendship or rivalry is locked too early (where it reaches 100%)....so basically in the final companion quest, you can make the opposite decision, but still develop them fully as a friend or rival. For example, being a rival to Merill is about telling her the path she is leading is wrong and that everything that happens is her fault...so at the end of her Act 3 questline...bad things happen. Even in fully rival path, you can tell her that its all the keepers fault (which yes, the keeper can be legitimately blamed for the bad thing)...the friendship path, but then get the final scene where she admits that its all her fault. It can be a jarring break and plot hole in the character development. A easy fix is that if the character is locked or far on the path on either side...to take the final decision of that characters questline out of the player's hands and into the characters hands. In a way the Omega ME3 DLC does this with Aria T'Loak in regards to how she handles Petrofsky.

It's an approval system, with a different visualisation (to fit with how the plot is structured); go check the how the thing functions, even alongside DAO's. Otherwise I don't give a damn about what you're saying.

11 years ago

texasgoldrush

Follow

14893

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 12

User Lists: 0

#216 texasgoldrush

Member since 2003 • 14893 Posts

[QUOTE="skrat_01"][QUOTE="texasgoldrush"][QUOTE="skrat_01"] That word, flawlessly and any Dragon Age 2 element, system to writing don't coincide. And it's a slightly different take on approval scales we've seen done to death, that ticks away at the trigger spreadsheet working in the background. It also was't done well.

No its not....its a character development system...not an approval system. A full rival doesn't leave the party, a full disapproval companion does. The red lines exist independantly of the friendship and rivalry system and by not maxing either, they can turn against you or leave you at the end of the game. The flaw comes in when either friendship or rivalry is locked too early (where it reaches 100%)....so basically in the final companion quest, you can make the opposite decision, but still develop them fully as a friend or rival. For example, being a rival to Merill is about telling her the path she is leading is wrong and that everything that happens is her fault...so at the end of her Act 3 questline...bad things happen. Even in fully rival path, you can tell her that its all the keepers fault (which yes, the keeper can be legitimately blamed for the bad thing)...the friendship path, but then get the final scene where she admits that its all her fault. It can be a jarring break and plot hole in the character development. A easy fix is that if the character is locked or far on the path on either side...to take the final decision of that characters questline out of the player's hands and into the characters hands. In a way the Omega ME3 DLC does this with Aria T'Loak in regards to how she handles Petrofsky.

It's an approval system, with a different visualisation (to fit with how the plot is structured); go check the how the thing functions, even alongside DAO's. Otherwise I don't give a damn about what you're saying.

However, it also leads to how they develop as characters. Why are you denying this? A 100% rival stays on your team and actually respects you...hell, you can even ROMANCE THEM......a 100% disapproval in DAO and the member leaves your ass. The only characters you can really develop are Alistair, Morrigan, and Leliana...and its nowhere near the scope you can in with the DAII crew.

11 years ago

WTA2k5

Follow

3999

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 120

User Lists: 0

#217 WTA2k5

Member since 2005 • 3999 Posts

However, it also leads to how they develop as characters. Why are you denying this? A 100% rival stays on your team and actually respects you...hell, you can even ROMANCE THEM......a 100% disapproval in DAO and the member leaves your ass. The only characters you can really develop are Alistair, Morrigan, and Leliana...and its nowhere near the scope you can in with the DAII crew.texasgoldrush

Shouldn't the fact that your party members can be deemed "rivals" yet still stay with you no matter what and even become potential love interests point out how ill-conceived the system is?

11 years ago

funsohng

Follow

29976

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#218 funsohng

Member since 2005 • 29976 Posts

[QUOTE="IAmNot_fun"][QUOTE="Ballroompirate"]
Space opera = a form of science fiction (aka Sci-Fi with drama). Star Wars, Dune, Battlestar Galactica, Babylon 5, Star Trek, The Last Starfighter and that's just the tip of the iceberg naming Space Operas.
Ballroompirate

Space opera is fantasy in space. Sci fi is fiction that thematicallyrevolves around dilemmas, issues, and uses of science.

AHAHA omg you have no idea wtf you're talking about do you?. Just stop posting like you know a damn about sci-fi. Space operas and science fiction are labled as "fantasy", space operas is a subgenre of science fiction.

Battlestar Galactica = science fiction/space opra

Star Wars = science fiction/space opera

Aliens=science fiction/horror (threw this in for a curve ball)

Definition of Space Opera

Space opera is a subgenre of science fiction that emphasizes romantic, often melodramatic adventure, set mainly or entirely in outer space, generally involving conflict between opponents possessing advanced technologies and abilities. The term has no relation to music and it is analogous to "soap opera". Perhaps the most significant trait of space opera is that settings, characters, battles, powers, and themes tend to be very large-scale.

Sometimes the term space opera is used pejoratively to science fiction often combined with mythological themes, but its meaning can differ, often describing a particular science fiction genre without any value judgement.

Another source for the definition of Space Opera

images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQ4q9xjOgL5k0qAmjjC9yv

And I oppose that meaning, I think it's quite stupid. That's what I'm saying. It's actually hottly debated topic in the actual sci-fi fanbase as to what actually is sci-fi, and I'm a strong believer that space operas aren't sci-fi. If you think about it, Space Operas are rarely about "science" which seems to be (or should be) the very heart of a "science fiction". So if you will excuse me and actually have my own idea about something and not resort to some dumb **** that anyone can abuse, namely Wikipedia and Urban Dictionary. seriously? Urban Dictionary? Are you f*cking serious? Good Lord....

11 years ago

DarkLink77

Follow

32731

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 3

User Lists: 0

#219 DarkLink77

Member since 2004 • 32731 Posts

[QUOTE="Ballroompirate"]
[QUOTE="IAmNot_fun"] Space opera is fantasy in space. Sci fi is fiction that thematicallyrevolves around dilemmas, issues, and uses of science.funsohng

AHAHA omg you have no idea wtf you're talking about do you?. Just stop posting like you know a damn about sci-fi. Space operas and science fiction are labled as "fantasy", space operas is a subgenre of science fiction.

Battlestar Galactica = science fiction/space opra

Star Wars = science fiction/space opera

Aliens=science fiction/horror (threw this in for a curve ball)

Definition of Space Opera

Space opera is a subgenre of science fiction that emphasizes romantic, often melodramatic adventure, set mainly or entirely in outer space, generally involving conflict between opponents possessing advanced technologies and abilities. The term has no relation to music and it is analogous to "soap opera". Perhaps the most significant trait of space opera is that settings, characters, battles, powers, and themes tend to be very large-scale.

Sometimes the term space opera is used pejoratively to science fiction often combined with mythological themes, but its meaning can differ, often describing a particular science fiction genre without any value judgement.

Another source for the definition of Space Opera

images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQ4q9xjOgL5k0qAmjjC9yv

And I oppose that meaning, I think it's quite stupid. That's what I'm saying. It's actually hottly debated topic in the actual sci-fi fanbase as to what actually is sci-fi, and I'm a strong believer that space operas aren't sci-fi. If you think about it, Space Operas are rarely about "science" which seems to be (or should be) the very heart of a "science fiction". So if you will excuse me and actually have my own idea about something and not resort to some dumb **** that anyone can abuse, namely Wikipedia and Urban Dictionary. seriously? Urban Dictionary? Are you f*cking serious? Good Lord....

Well, I'd consider Battlestar Galactica a space opera and that is most definitely sci-fi.

Soft sci-fi, sure, but sci-fi none the less.

11 years ago

skrat_01

Follow

33767

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#220 skrat_01

Member since 2007 • 33767 Posts

texasgoldrush

And so does the multiple variations of approval systems in RPGs. Dragon Age Origins system is almost identical in function, the difference is in how it abstracts its meter, and the change in written, structured outcomes (e.g. the romancing point). Which is my point; it's a neat idea that was an absolute mess in coherent writing, due to the translation being lazy and rushed, like many other aspects. I don't care about what you have to say about characters.

11 years ago

Ballroompirate

Follow

26695

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 10

User Lists: 0

#221 Ballroompirate

Member since 2005 • 26695 Posts

[QUOTE="Ballroompirate"]
[QUOTE="IAmNot_fun"] Space opera is fantasy in space. Sci fi is fiction that thematicallyrevolves around dilemmas, issues, and uses of science.funsohng

AHAHA omg you have no idea wtf you're talking about do you?. Just stop posting like you know a damn about sci-fi. Space operas and science fiction are labled as "fantasy", space operas is a subgenre of science fiction.

Battlestar Galactica = science fiction/space opra

Star Wars = science fiction/space opera

Aliens=science fiction/horror (threw this in for a curve ball)

Definition of Space Opera

Space opera is a subgenre of science fiction that emphasizes romantic, often melodramatic adventure, set mainly or entirely in outer space, generally involving conflict between opponents possessing advanced technologies and abilities. The term has no relation to music and it is analogous to "soap opera". Perhaps the most significant trait of space opera is that settings, characters, battles, powers, and themes tend to be very large-scale.

Sometimes the term space opera is used pejoratively to science fiction often combined with mythological themes, but its meaning can differ, often describing a particular science fiction genre without any value judgement.

Another source for the definition of Space Opera

images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQ4q9xjOgL5k0qAmjjC9yv

And I oppose that meaning, I think it's quite stupid. That's what I'm saying. It's actually hottly debated topic in the actual sci-fi fanbase as to what actually is sci-fi, and I'm a strong believer that space operas aren't sci-fi. If you think about it, Space Operas are rarely about "science" which seems to be (or should be) the very heart of a "science fiction". So if you will excuse me and actually have my own idea about something and not resort to some dumb **** that anyone can abuse, namely Wikipedia and Urban Dictionary. seriously? Urban Dictionary? Are you f*cking serious? Good Lord....

I gave you two sources, hell I can give you more if you like. All it further proves is

images?q=tbn:ANd9GcR8-4f-1JOmKlLFu3EfqTQ

11 years ago

jg4xchamp

Follow

64037

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 14

User Lists: 0

#222 jg4xchamp

Member since 2006 • 64037 Posts

[QUOTE="funsohng"][QUOTE="Ballroompirate"]
AHAHA omg you have no idea wtf you're talking about do you?. Just stop posting like you know a damn about sci-fi. Space operas and science fiction are labled as "fantasy", space operas is a subgenre of science fiction.
Battlestar Galactica = science fiction/space opra
Star Wars = science fiction/space opera
Aliens=science fiction/horror (threw this in for a curve ball)
Definition of Space Opera
Space opera is a subgenre of science fiction that emphasizes romantic, often melodramatic adventure, set mainly or entirely in outer space, generally involving conflict between opponents possessing advanced technologies and abilities. The term has no relation to music and it is analogous to "soap opera". Perhaps the most significant trait of space opera is that settings, characters, battles, powers, and themes tend to be very large-scale.
Sometimes the term space opera is used pejoratively to science fiction often combined with mythological themes, but its meaning can differ, often describing a particular science fiction genre without any value judgement.
Another source for the definition of Space Opera
DarkLink77

And I oppose that meaning, I think it's quite stupid. That's what I'm saying. It's actually hottly debated topic in the actual sci-fi fanbase as to what actually is sci-fi, and I'm a strong believer that space operas aren't sci-fi. If you think about it, Space Operas are rarely about "science" which seems to be (or should be) the very heart of a "science fiction". So if you will excuse me and actually have my own idea about something and not resort to some dumb **** that anyone can abuse, namely Wikipedia and Urban Dictionary. seriously? Urban Dictionary? Are you f*cking serious? Good Lord....

Well, I'd consider Battlestar Galactica a space opera and that is most definitely sci-fi.

Soft sci-fi, sure, but sci-fi none the less.

We're going really soft here. It's more just fiction and fantasy stuff with Battlestar, and more metaphysical with where that show went.

11 years ago

DarkLink77

Follow

32731

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 3

User Lists: 0

#223 DarkLink77

Member since 2004 • 32731 Posts

[QUOTE="DarkLink77"]
[QUOTE="funsohng"] And I oppose that meaning, I think it's quite stupid. That's what I'm saying. It's actually hottly debated topic in the actual sci-fi fanbase as to what actually is sci-fi, and I'm a strong believer that space operas aren't sci-fi. If you think about it, Space Operas are rarely about "science" which seems to be (or should be) the very heart of a "science fiction". So if you will excuse me and actually have my own idea about something and not resort to some dumb **** that anyone can abuse, namely Wikipedia and Urban Dictionary. seriously? Urban Dictionary? Are you f*cking serious? Good Lord....jg4xchamp

Well, I'd consider Battlestar Galactica a space opera and that is most definitely sci-fi.

Soft sci-fi, sure, but sci-fi none the less.

We're going really soft here. It's more just fiction and fantasy stuff with Battlestar, and more metaphysical with where that show went.

I'd agree that it's more fantasy if it wasn't so concerned with typical sci-fi themes, but it is. It's really, really soft sci-fi (I've always been of the belief that soft sci-fi is the best kind), but it's totally sci-fi

11 years ago

jg4xchamp

Follow

64037

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 14

User Lists: 0

#224 jg4xchamp

Member since 2006 • 64037 Posts

[QUOTE="jg4xchamp"][QUOTE="DarkLink77"]
Well, I'd consider Battlestar Galactica a space opera and that is most definitely sci-fi.
Soft sci-fi, sure, but sci-fi none the less.
DarkLink77

We're going really soft here. It's more just fiction and fantasy stuff with Battlestar, and more metaphysical with where that show went.

I'd agree that it's more fantasy if it wasn't so concerned with typical sci-fi themes, but it is. It's really, really soft sci-fi (I've always been of the belief that soft sci-fi is the best kind), but it's totally sci-fi

Except the science part of the show is. We made ships, there are robots, and the cylons found a way to look like humans. None of it is actually about the science behind the show, and more importantly defined the show. The way the science actually defines something like Star Trek(as gross as I think Star Trek is). Either way this is a weird conversation.

Personally as far as gaming lores/universes go Mass Effect is very well executed, and if Bioware didn't pass it off as something completely new it would be easier to accept all the cherry picking it does. Because as it stands it's actually a pretty good work of fiction. Very interesting, and stuff I would like them to explore. I kind of wish they did a lot of side content/expansion stuff for the game that had NOTHING to do with Reapers and shephards main mission.

11 years ago

DarkLink77

Follow

32731

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 3

User Lists: 0

#225 DarkLink77

Member since 2004 • 32731 Posts

[QUOTE="DarkLink77"][QUOTE="jg4xchamp"] We're going really soft here. It's more just fiction and fantasy stuff with Battlestar, and more metaphysical with where that show went. jg4xchamp

I'd agree that it's more fantasy if it wasn't so concerned with typical sci-fi themes, but it is. It's really, really soft sci-fi (I've always been of the belief that soft sci-fi is the best kind), but it's totally sci-fi

Except the science part of the show is. We made ships, there are robots, and the cylons found a way to look like humans. None of it is actually about the science behind the show, and more importantly defined the show. The way the science actually defines something like Star Trek(as gross as I think Star Trek is). Either way this is a weird conversation.

Personally as far as gaming lores/universes go Mass Effect is very well executed, and if Bioware didn't pass it off as something completely new it would be easier to accept all the cherry picking it does. Because as it stands it's actually a pretty good work of fiction. Very interesting, and stuff I would like them to explore. I kind of wish they did a lot of side content/expansion stuff for the game that had NOTHING to do with Reapers and shephards main mission.

Like I said, soft sci-fi. But it's totally within the realm of sci-fi from a thematic perspective, because it tries to explore things like what it means to be human, man's role in the universe, religion, plus a lot of modern ideas like interrogation techniques, terrorism, etc. And sci-fi has always examined those kinds of themes. I don't like it. I'm not going to make objective claims about its quality, but I do not like it.

11 years ago

jg4xchamp

Follow

64037

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 14

User Lists: 0

#226 jg4xchamp

Member since 2006 • 64037 Posts

thematic perspective, because it tries to explore things like what it means to be human, man's role in the universe, religion, plus a lot of modern ideas like interrogation techniques, terrorism, etc..DarkLink77

I'm not arguing from a theme standpoint. I mean lets get real those themes are explored in drama in general.

Just saying that part of my personal appeal with Battlestar was that it was scifi minus the sci part.

11 years ago

DarkLink77

Follow

32731

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 3

User Lists: 0

#227 DarkLink77

Member since 2004 • 32731 Posts

[QUOTE="DarkLink77"] thematic perspective, because it tries to explore things like what it means to be human, man's role in the universe, religion, plus a lot of modern ideas like interrogation techniques, terrorism, etc..jg4xchamp

I'm not arguing from a theme standpoint. I mean lets get real those themes are explored in drama in general.

Just saying that part of my personal appeal with Battlestar was that it was scifi minus the sci part.

Eh. To an extent. The what is means to be human vs. what it means to be a machine thing is almost solely a sci-fi thing. That's why I liked it, too. Like I said, the best sci-fi is generally soft sci-fi. Because hard sci-fi turns into Star Trek before the J.J. Abrams movie. So utter sh!t.

11 years ago

FrozenLiquid

Follow

13555

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 22

User Lists: 0

#228 FrozenLiquid

Member since 2007 • 13555 Posts

[QUOTE="jg4xchamp"]
[QUOTE="DarkLink77"] thematic perspective, because it tries to explore things like what it means to be human, man's role in the universe, religion, plus a lot of modern ideas like interrogation techniques, terrorism, etc..DarkLink77

I'm not arguing from a theme standpoint. I mean lets get real those themes are explored in drama in general.

Just saying that part of my personal appeal with Battlestar was that it was scifi minus the sci part.

Eh. To an extent. The what is means to be human vs. what it means to be a machine thing is almost solely a sci-fi thing. That's why I liked it, too. Like I said, the best sci-fi is generally soft sci-fi. Because hard sci-fi turns into Star Trek before the J.J. Abrams movie. So utter sh!t.

Speaking of JJ Abrams and Star Trek, the only thing I didn't like about that new teaser was that it had another Hollywood metropolitan shake down. I swear ever since 2004 we've got several of those every year.

11 years ago

Kandlegoat

Follow

3147

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#229 Kandlegoat

Member since 2009 • 3147 Posts

[QUOTE="DarkLink77"] thematic perspective, because it tries to explore things like what it means to be human, man's role in the universe, religion, plus a lot of modern ideas like interrogation techniques, terrorism, etc..jg4xchamp

Just saying that part of my personal appeal with Battlestar was that it was scifi minus the sci part.

Well Caprica had more of an emphasis on "science" than BSG.

Shame it got cancelled after only one season.

11 years ago

mccoyca112

Follow

5434

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 3

User Lists: 0

#230 mccoyca112

Member since 2007 • 5434 Posts

I've kept to a rule of thumb on gs. Look who made the topic if you want an idea of what to expect. Why I didn't do it this tine? As much of a mystery as the Kennedy assassination. In regards to it winning, I'm not shocked. I'm sure it'll sweep up most sites, for better or worse.

11 years ago

SPYDER0416

Follow

16736

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 24

User Lists: 0

#231 SPYDER0416

Member since 2008 • 16736 Posts

Not my personal GOTY (I actually liked Max Payne 3, Far Cry 3 and Spec Ops: The Line more), but I can see why it would be. ME3 is the most talked about game this year, it's the highest rated game this year, it's one of the highest selling games this year, and all told the ME series in general did a really great thing with the decisions you make carrying over and giving videogames a great sci-fi trilogy.

Personally I loved my time with it and I didn't even hate the ending. I think the story while effective and well conveyed, didn't blow my mind like Spec Ops: The Line, while the shooting gameplay and mechanics weren't all that amazing (they could take a cue from other shooters on how you should do cover, gunplay and squad mechanics), and both of those keep me from making it my own personal GOTY, but it is up there.

11 years ago

Peredith

Follow

2289

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#232 Peredith

Member since 2011 • 2289 Posts

[QUOTE="Peredith"]
[QUOTE="texasgoldrush"] They have an idea...remember the Prothean VI thought it was the Citadel. Its really not that contrived.....a power blast through the technology the Reapers created, using tech against them. The Prothean VI Vigil knew that the Reapers created the Citadel.texasgoldrush

What? :? I just want know who created the Crucible, why there were options to control and synthesize, and how they knew how to interfere and manipulate a several million year old Universe ruling AI.

It may have Control because factions in the past tried to use the Crucible to control the Reapers instead of destroy them....this is one reason why the Protheans failed...they had their own Cerberus. The trigger for synthesis is Shepard herself. This is the Catalyst's ideal solution, the solution it tried to control evolution through the relay network for. Levithan dropped a huge revelation in that it is still looking for the ideal solution, and sets up the relay network to find this solution. It turns out to be Shepard......this is when the final ending actually becomes very good.

You didn't answer my question. How did the original creators know the Catalyst existed, and how did they manage to "change" a million to billion year old Universe ruling AI. Lets not forget that this was a prototype, and the odds of a prototype of this magnitude working on it's first try is very slim, but whatever. And the Leviathians only make the story even more ridiculous. How did the Catalyst manage to overpower the Leviathans? :? Why did the Leviathans decide to create an AI with absolutely no contraints, despite witnessing time and time again that the AIs always turn on their creators. The story is ridiculous, dude. You don't solve a problem by using the problem as a solution.

But I forgot, I'm talking to Texas, who thinks jumping into a beam of light has the ability modify all life in the galaxy at the atomic level. :lol:

11 years ago

texasgoldrush

Follow

14893

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 12

User Lists: 0

#233 texasgoldrush

Member since 2003 • 14893 Posts

[QUOTE="texasgoldrush"]
What? :? I just want know who created the Crucible, why there were options to control and synthesize, and how they knew how to interfere and manipulate a several million year old Universe ruling AI.
WTA2k5

It may have Control because factions in the past tried to use the Crucible to control the Reapers instead of destroy them....this is one reason why the Protheans failed...they had their own Cerberus. The trigger for synthesis is Shepard herself. This is the Catalyst's ideal solution, the solution it tried to control evolution through the relay network for. Levithan dropped a huge revelation in that it is still looking for the ideal solution, and sets up the relay network to find this solution. It turns out to be Shepard......this is when the final ending actually becomes very good.

You didn't answer my question. How did the original creators know the Catalyst existed, and how did they manage to "change" a million to billion year old Universe ruling AI. Lets not forget that this was a prototype, and the odds of a prototype of this magnitude working on it's first try is very slim, but whatever. And the Leviathians only make the story even more ridiculous. How did the Catalyst manage to overpower the Leviathans? :? Why did the Leviathans decide to create an AI with absolutely no contraints, despite witnessing time and time again that the AIs always turn on their creators. The story is ridiculous, dude. You don't solve a problem by using the problem as a solution.

But I forgot, I'm talking to Texas, who thinks jumping into a beam of light has the ability modify all life in the galaxy at the atomic level. :lol:

-How did the Catalyst manage to overpower the Leviathans? The Leviathans tell you exactly how the Catalyst overpowered them in the DLC, its in the narrative. -Why did the Leviathans decide to create an AI with absolutely no contraints, despite witnessing time and time again that the AIs always turn on their creators. Arrogance. They thought its mission was its constraints....which they were wrong. The entire series is about the created turning on their creators because of the arrogance of the creators. Its far from ridicoulous. Nevermind the Catalyst states in the ending that it was only fufilling the Leviathan's request, and that the Leviathan never thought that they were part of the problem. All in the narrative. - You didn't answer my question. How did the original creators know the Catalyst existed, and how did they manage to "change" a million to billion year old Universe ruling AI. Lets not forget that this was a prototype, and the odds of a prototype of this magnitude working on it's first try is very slim, but whatever. They may not have because the Protheans incorrectly refer to it as the Citadel. None of the creators of the Crucible may have known what the true Catalyst was. But once again, they did know the Reapers build the Citadel and the Relay system.

11 years ago

The Best-Reviewed Games Of 2023

Best VR Headsets In 2023

Move topic to another board