Mass Effect's Renegade/Paragon system

[Erik von Nein]

What, you can't play a game repeatedly without it being perfect? There can be plently wrong with a game and you still want to play it. What kind of logic is that?

[Graeme Dice]

What, you can't play a game repeatedly without it being perfect? There can be plently wrong with a game and you still want to play it. What kind of logic is that?

You might want to realize that complaining that certain systems in a game are utterly broken indicates more about you than the game if you spent two hundred or more hours playing that game to completion six times. If the systems were as bad as Stark is claiming they are, then the problems should have been obvious to him on the _first_ playthrough, and he shouldn't have even wanted to play the game five more times. This is especially true when the vast, vast majority of players will never play any game more than once.

[Ohma]

Because saying that parts of a game are poorly designed (with a little added hyperbole to spice up your criticisms) must surely mean you despise the game with a burning passion?

[Losonti Tokash]

No, Stark hates Mass Effect. He played it six times because he wanted to get all the achievements.

[Erik von Nein]

You might want to realize that complaining that certain systems in a game are utterly broken indicates more about you than the game if you spent two hundred or more hours playing that game to completion six times. If the systems were as bad as Stark is claiming they are, then the problems should have been obvious to him on the _first_ playthrough, and he shouldn't have even wanted to play the game five more times. This is especially true when the vast, vast majority of players will never play any game more than once.

And you might want to realize that saying a system is poorly designed and in no-way matches the hype from the developers doesn't mean it's game-breakingly bad. Especially if the rest of the game is entertaining enough to keep playing.

Either that or Stark's a completionist whore. Needs more achievements!

[Vendetta]

No, Stark hates Mass Effect. He played it six times because he wanted to get all the achievements.

This would be a convincing argument if it weren't for the fact that Stark has 100% achievement score on only two games (Mass Effect and Condemned).

No achievement whore he. It is not his M.O. to grind through the hate for the thrilling *plink* of the unlocked achievement. You could almost imagine that the only reason he hates Mass Effect is hearing the same bastard lines delivered six times over. (should have played more female characters. Jennifer Hale is far better than whatever spod did ManShep)

[Stark]

If you played the game six times, which must have taken hundreds of hours (180 if an average playthrough is 30 hours), then how on Earth can you complain that there was anything seriously wrong with it? It was obviously good enough for you to get enjoyment out of the game for 4.5 weeks worth of a full time job.

This makes me laugh. Not only is your argument ridiculous but my FIRST playthrough, with no foreknowledge and full completion, was 22 hours. My second playthrough was a bit more than EIGHT hours. I got all the achievements because if you streamline it (doing only what is necessary, largely just doing enough missions to get the near-useless ally bonuses) it's a ten-hour run. By the time I was doing my ultra-hard level-to-60 thing, the game was so ridiculously easy I think it only look seven hours, half an hour of which was the final boss fight.

180 hours? You're insane. Saying that playing a game for a long time = you can't say there's anything wrong with it says fucking volumes about you as a person, which I find quite amusing. I've played Dynasty Warriors in various incarnations for far longer than 180 hours - the games still suck shit. Whoops!

And I didn't hate it when I was playing; playing through so many times over a fortnight just meant I saw everything so many times the weaknesses were really apparant. I hate it now simply because people keep saying 'it's a zomg awesome game' when it's not. It isn't even very long, as 22h from start to finish in a 'poke around see everything, visit every planet' run suggests. Viewed as a slightly more cerebral Gears of War it's fine (I actually very much enjoyed the combat), but as a beacon of dynamic, well-written drama it utterly fails.

[CaptHawkeye]

It's too bad they didn't just advertise Mass Effect as an action game with dialouge options. If they had, the whole game wouldn't have come off like failed promise. Of course, it's BioWare. That studio is so high on itself you have to wonder if they pulverize their own employees and smoke their remains in pipes. I actually liked KOTOR, but the way the industry just fell over itself for that game was fucking hilarious.

[Covenant]

It's too bad they didn't just advertise Mass Effect as an action game with dialouge options. If they had, the whole game wouldn't have come off like failed promise. Of course, it's BioWare. That studio is so high on itself you have to wonder if they pulverize their own employees and smoke their remains in pipes. I actually liked KOTOR, but the way the industry just fell over itself for that game was fucking hilarious.

Agreed. If they had something like "From BioWare comes Mass Effect, a First Person Shooter that thrusts the player into a galaxy in turmoil, with the chance to actually influence the events of the game through their actions and dialogue, giving gamers a freedom of choice never dreamed of in a game like Half-Life or Halo."

Saying a game is a shooter with RPG elements doesn't automatically make it an RPG, and if you look at BioShock, even developers know that a shooter is easier for people to understand.

[Graeme Dice]

ou're insane. Saying that playing a game for a long time = you can't say there's anything wrong with it says fucking volumes about you as a person, which I find quite amusing. I've played Dynasty Warriors in various incarnations for far longer than 180 hours - the games still suck shit. Whoops!

You have a serious mental problem if you've spent 200 hours playing games that you hate. This point isn`t particularly arguable. So, since you`re clearly just spouting hyperbole about mass effect, why don`t you simply keep it to yourself, where all hyperbole belongs.

And I didn't hate it when I was playing; playing through so many times over a fortnight just meant I saw everything so many times the weaknesses were really apparant. I hate it now simply because people keep saying 'it's a zomg awesome game' when it's not.

You seem to be operating under the misconception that your multiple playthroughs make your opinion more valid than that of people with single a playthrough. That you can notice repetitiveness when playing a game five times more than it`s truly designed for is not a problem with the game.

[Graeme Dice]

And you might want to realize that saying a system is poorly designed and in no-way matches the hype from the developers doesn't mean it's game-breakingly bad.

And you might want to realize that developer hype is completely and utterly irrelevant. Complaints that something doesn`t meet your vision of what marketing hype promised only indicates that _you_ are the type of person who is easily swayed by marketing. You are, in short, extremely gullible.

[Erik von Nein]

And you might want to realize that developer hype is completely and utterly irrelevant. Complaints that something doesn`t meet your vision of what marketing hype promised only indicates that _you_ are the type of person who is easily swayed by marketing. You are, in short, extremely gullible.

Are you being deliberately obtuse? Seriously, now.

[Stark]

You have a serious mental problem if you've spent 200 hours playing games that you hate. This point isn`t particularly arguable. So, since you`re clearly just spouting hyperbole about mass effect, why don`t you simply keep it to yourself, where all hyperbole belongs.

Learn to read, shitheel; DW -sucks-. I don't -hate- it. I'm just not automatically required to -like- it, as you mendaciously suggest. I actually find it hilarious that you either deeply love Mass Effect (and my statements about it's absurd failures offends you) or you have never, ever played it (and you simply don't believe these statements due to a lack of personal experience). Both of these options are HILARIOUS.

You seem to be operating under the misconception that your multiple playthroughs make your opinion more valid than that of people with single a playthrough. That you can notice repetitiveness when playing a game five times more than it`s truly designed for is not a problem with the game.

No, I felt the need to explain my multiple playthroughs before your absolutely absurd claim that playing it more = I have LESS 'right' or 'ability' to criticise it. I played it a lot because I was bored and the achievements were easy to get; this in absolutely no way affects the quality of the game or my ability to describe it. I also finished Rumble Roses XX - this games is inarguably ALSO bad.

I love how you've changed your tack from 'zomg he played it heaps it MUST be good' to 'hey playing it a lot is irrelevant if you were smart like me you'd know it sucked after a short time'. PROTIP - Mass Effect's general flaws are obvious from the get-go, but it's utterly impossible to notice things like 'can make Saren commit suicide by badgering him' without finishing the entire game. Indeed, playing ME for an hour and crowing about the 'terrible dialog' would be recieved extremely BADLY in a place like SDN; having played the entire game and seen absolutely everything it has to offer, I *am* in a better position to describe it's strengths and weaknesses. Arguably the game is even DESIGNED to be played at least 3 times - this is required to unlock all the difficulties and get to level 60.

But nah, big old smartguy GD says it's 'designed' to be played once! That's why there's so many classes, that's why on later plays you can add skills to classes, why it requires so many runs to open up all the options, and most of all why the game has higher diffs than exist at the start. The achievement for 'got to level 60' and 'complete your second playthrough' are clearly not relevant to how it was designed, lol.

My personal GD Greatest Hit from this exchange - quoting the two bits of my post he can act like a big man about, and totally ignoring the part where everything he said about how long I 'must' have played ME for being COMPLETELY WRONG. The bonus points on this is that the explanation for how UTTERLY WRONG he was involves details (like 'it takes three runs to get to level 60' etc) that invalidate his 'designed to be played once' claim. This supports the idea he's simply never played Mass Effect and has no fucking idea what he's talking about - it's likely he simply doesn't like me. OH NOES.

[Flash]

That you can notice repetitiveness when playing a game five times more than it`s truly designed for is not a problem with the game.

Mass Effect isn't designed for multiple playthroughs? So why are there achievements you can only get after playing the game multiple times? Game modes that don't unlock until you've finished it? You can't even reach the level cap until your second or third playthrough, so you are obviously talking out of your ass here.

And you might want to realize that developer hype is completely and utterly irrelevant. Complaints that something doesn`t meet your vision of what marketing hype promised only indicates that _you_ are the type of person who is easily swayed by marketing. You are, in short, extremely gullible.

This is easily the dumbest thing i've heard today, but it's only 10AM so i'm sure you'll top that soon enough. You're gullible if you actually expect game devs to put in what they fucking say they're going to? Christ.

[Stark]

Being a slave to marketing might be 'gullible', but devs loudly talking about shit that will be in their game is ABSOLUTELY mockable when it inevitably gets dropped, cut or isn't even possible. This is very common and even explains why someone can be pretty easy on indy games and very harsh on big-budget games; big budget games have marketing based on lies, generally very obvious lies, and it's very amusing to remind fans what the devs promised once it's released. Games like Spore and Stalker are generally best for this - as Hawkeye says, any game promising 'zomg woot AI' and 'whoa huge environments' and 'man player freedom' are ALWAYS leaving themselves open to criticism.

But nah, using someone's own statements against them is 'gullible', because it obviously means you believed them, and not that you're just throwing their obvious bullshit back in their face. Right?

[Isil`Zha]

'whoa huge environments' and 'man player freedom' are ALWAYS leaving themselves open to criticism.

Worst offender: Fable

It was supposed to be this massively open world where you could change the course of your path and character's look... it turned into small, totally unexploreable areas, with little to nothing in character changes.

Fuck anything Peter Molyneux says.