83 réponses à ce sujet

[KalosCast]

AlanC9 wrote...

KalosCast wrote...

Look for any shooter vs rpg thread on this forum, "It'll turn into Final Fantasy!" is pretty much the standard go-to argument.

Isn't that usually found right next to the  "Bio turned ME into Gears of War!" post?

Yes.

[Pho Kadat]

This might be helpful:

From wiki: Role-playing video games (RPGs) form a loosely defined genre of computer and video games with origins in pen-and-paper role-playing games[1] such as Dungeons & Dragons, borrowing much of their terminology, settings and game mechanics. The player in RPGs controls one or several adventuring party members fulfilling one or many quests. The major similarities with pen-and-paper games involve developed story-telling and narrative elements, player character development, complexity, as well as replayability and immersion.

Granted, everyone has their idea of what RPGs are, but this most closely represents what I believe them to be. Until recently, most RPGs have item collection as a major element, but I don't think item collection makes a game an RPG. In fact, several games that pass themselves off as RPGs base themselves around this element; often overshadowing the story in the process (see Diablo, Borderlands). I'm not saying these are bad games, yet item collection does not an RPG make.

[KalosCast]

Part of the problem is that much like "open-world" or "non-linear", "RPG elements" has just become a buzzword to slam onto your game concept in order to sell more copies. So therefore, if you make a game with a mix between the two, if it has a higher RPG side, the shooters are gonna be like "bawww, I have to actually pay attention to what the hell I'm doing" and the RPGamers are gonna be like "bawww, I have to actually aim and play the game instead of min-maxing my stats" if there's more of a shooter focus.



Mixing genres, even if the overwhelming majority of your fans simply enjoy the game for what it is, is the prefect way to get yourself a completely unpleasable fanbase.

[cachx]

Rendar666 wrote...
Umm... the combat in ME 1 is (to me) SOOOO much better than in ME 2. ME 2's combat feels like Bioware tried too hard to make it fun TPS combat instead of just making it like they did in the first one.

make it fun- as Bioware and every other developer out there should try to do.

Can you really say in all honesty you if you had to choose one or the
other you like story over combat?

In a videogame gameplay should be the most important thing. But gameplay is not solely combat. Things like the inventory, leveling system, the Mako, the dialogue choices system, the interrupt system, etc, also factor in that.

The only 'action' game I have played this year is Megaman 10 (and that was on a friend's PS3, I don't have current gen consoles), so I'm hardly a fan of shooters, I still enjoyed ME2 greatly.

[SuperMedbh]

SkullandBonesmember wrote...
Just a handful of posts of mine from another thread.

Yes. For none-shooter fans, the missions in ME2 were a helluva lot longer compared to ME1. I once played on veteran in ME1 and it was a breeze at level 60. The missions were STILL not as long as those in ME2 despite me being level 30. Give me a freaking break to let me get to know my crew. There wasn't an even ratio of combat/story.

I freely admit to not reading all your posts on this forum.  No doubt you've put so much energy into them, that you're convinced that "if only that airhead would read everything I write, why then, she'd see reason".  Sorry about that!

Not having the spare time to do that, I went with the other method of developing an opinion on a game.  I played them.  And to my no doubt gormless eyes, they both have a fair mix of combat and story.  Unless you're claiming I played some other SF games called Mass Effect, the "you didn't read all my posts" argument really doesn't hold water. 

Guess what?  I'm a huge wonking fan of narrative in games.  Until discovering Bioware games, I sneered--  openly even!-- at "serious" video games as narrative.  But these games are different.  ME1 still had a lot of the trappings of old RPG inventory grabs, but ME2 is moving in a different direction, one that is escaping a few paradigms of computer RPGs.  It's moving in a more theatrical direction.  If you don't like that, that's fine (although, again, why not find a forum about a game you like?).  But please, stop trying to pretend it's about the improved combat system. 

Modifié par SuperMedbh, 01 mai 2010 - 04:24 .

[SkullandBonesmember]

cachx wrote...

In a videogame gameplay should be the most important thing. But gameplay is not solely combat. Things like the inventory, leveling system, the Mako, the dialogue choices system, the interrupt system, etc, also factor in that.

The only 'action' game I have played this year is Megaman 10 (and that was on a friend's PS3, I don't have current gen consoles), so I'm hardly a fan of shooters, I still enjoyed ME2 greatly.

Anything that doesn't further the story is gameplay. Up to and including combat and customization. Dialogue and character interaction is integral to the story.

SuperMedbh wrote...

I freely admit to not reading all your posts on this forum.  No doubt you've put so much energy into them, that you're convinced that "if only that airhead would read everything I write, why then, she'd see reason".  Sorry about that!

Not having the spare time to do that, I went with the other method of developing an opinion on a game.  I played them.  And to my no doubt gormless eyes, they both have a fair mix of combat and story.  Unless you're claiming I played some other SF games called Mass Effect, the "you didn't read all my posts" argument really doesn't hold water. 

Guess what?  I'm a huge wonking fan of narrative in games.  Until discovering Bioware games, I sneered--  openly even!-- at "serious" video games as narrative.  But these games are different.  ME1 still had a lot of the trappings of old RPG inventory grabs, but ME2 is moving in a different direction, one that is escaping a few paradigms of computer RPGs.  It's moving in a more theatrical direction.  If you don't like that, that's fine (although, again, why not find a forum about a game you like?).  But please, stop trying to pretend it's about the improved combat system.

I never implied you should/did read all of my posts. All I did was instead of typing those points of mine out again, simply quoted myself.

There is no "pretending" when the combat is at the expense of immersion and story.

And I DO like Mass Effect. Both games. Though the only enjoyment I got out of ME2 was various humorous dialogue, Miranda's conclusion to her loyalty mission, getting to know Jack/loyalty mission, Tali's loyalty mission and romance, and to an extent using the Collector particle beam. But ME1 was far superior and if ME3 is closer to ME2 and not the original, going the route of combat over story, I'll be pissed and probably never pay for another Bioware game again.

Allow me to quote myself once more-

SkullandBonesmember wrote...

Story driven fans aren't just going to lie down and say "Screw it. Do whatever you want Bioware." They say they listen to the fans and are willing to change the direction of the games based on feedback.

[SuperMedbh]

FWIW, I hope I'm not coming off as if I'm making fun of you.  Clearly,
you do care a lot about the direction of the industry, and I'm intrigued
by the feelings of people like you who care deeply about CRPGs.  In the interest of letting you know where I'm coming from, I'm currently studying to be a character designer--  so my (hopefully) future career depends a lot on the "rabid fan base".

SkullandBonesmember wrote...

Story driven fans aren't just going
to lie down and say "Screw it. Do whatever you want Bioware." They say
they listen to the fans and are willing to change the direction of the
games based on feedback.

See, that's where you and I part ways, and I suspect will continue to.  I think that ME2 reflects an increasing focus on narrative.  In fact, I'm hard pressed to think of another game that does it so well.  Bioware has lifted a fair number of techniques from movies in their presentation, and to a certain extent television serials (in terms of the episodic nature of the various character quests).  Until recently, "serious" games have been dominated by either a shooter dynamic (think of the fountainhead game, Doom), wargaming (with its ancestor in minatures), or RPGs (Dungeons and Dragons).  The problem with all of these except shooters is that they were designed in a non-computer format.  Much has been lost with translation, little gained.  So, yes, you can have great graphics of that orc, but you won't have the unlimited decision tree concommitant with a paper version of D & D.

ME1 grafted the native to computers concept of shooters onto cRPGs, with all their attendant problems.  The result was Mass Effect 1, which you love.  But where to go from here?  Bioware could have played safe and kept with "more of the same".  But instead they chose to think outside the box and look at entertainment forms more akin to the video presentation of cRPGs--  to wit, movies and television.

No doubt, you hate much of that.  I suspect what you've identified as " 'sposhions" is really just the slicker, more controlled approach necessary for a tighter narrative.  But I wouldn't worry too much--  as long as there is a dedicated group of people who prefer the older style cRPGs, there will probably be indie game companies that will fulfil your needs.  But expect that mainstream games will follow the sales and critical acclaim of pioneers like Bioware.

WOW.  Now I'm the one guilty of tl;dr.  Blame it on my deterioting reflexes at this late hour--  were I sharper, I'd be trying to finish my Vanguard NG+ insanity run (I mean, what's with my companions dying before I can even set the ammo powers?)

[SkullandBonesmember]

SuperMedbh wrote...

See, that's where you and I part ways, and I suspect will continue to.  I think that ME2 reflects an increasing focus on narrative.  In fact, I'm hard pressed to think of another game that does it so well.  Bioware has lifted a fair number of techniques from movies in their presentation, and to a certain extent television serials (in terms of the episodic nature of the various character quests).  Until recently, "serious" games have been dominated by either a shooter dynamic (think of the fountainhead game, Doom), wargaming (with its ancestor in minatures), or RPGs (Dungeons and Dragons).  The problem with all of these except shooters is that they were designed in a non-computer format.  Much has been lost with translation, little gained.  So, yes, you can have great graphics of that orc, but you won't have the unlimited decision tree concommitant with a paper version of D & D.

ME1 grafted the native to computers concept of shooters onto cRPGs, with all their attendant problems.  The result was Mass Effect 1, which you love.  But where to go from here?  Bioware could have played safe and kept with "more of the same".  But instead they chose to think outside the box and look at entertainment forms more akin to the video presentation of cRPGs--  to wit, movies and television.

No doubt, you hate much of that.  I suspect what you've identified as " 'sposhions" is really just the slicker, more controlled approach necessary for a tighter narrative.  But I wouldn't worry too much--  as long as there is a dedicated group of people who prefer the older style cRPGs, there will probably be indie game companies that will fulfil your needs.  But expect that mainstream games will follow the sales and critical acclaim of pioneers like Bioware.

WOW.  Now I'm the one guilty of tl;dr.  Blame it on my deterioting reflexes at this late hour--  were I sharper, I'd be trying to finish my Vanguard NG+ insanity run (I mean, what's with my companions dying before I can even set the ammo powers?)

Like I said in my last post I just made, you think any amount of combat can add to the story telling, and I think it kills the immersion. And why should shooter fans get mainstream games but story fans get the independent sh**? That's like saying only action films will get big budgets and drama films won't. All genres have huge fanbases, so it's not like if done right a story driven game would "make little to no profit".

[SuperMedbh]

Look, S&B, you're talking to a huge Jane Austen fan. I firmly believe that you can have a story without combat (well, there was that bit in the BBC serial with a sweaty Colin Firth fencing. Not quite up there with the lake scene....but I digress).



Where I'll just put the "agree to disagree" gauntlet down is this notion that the newer theatrically driven games such as ME2 lack in story. I believe-- and we've established you don't see this the way I do-- that narrative is easier to establish using the techniques of video mediums (movies, etc). Now, clearly, you have a fondness for the older style games. I would argue that fondness has blinded you to the ability to see narrative in a different storytelling format.



I don't expect to convince you, certainly not this evening. But I do hope that in time, you appreciate the newer style games. It's my sincere hope that videogames will break out of the various stereotypes that they've been bound into for the last two decades. The next ten years ought to be exciting in this field. You'd be doing yourself a favour if you lose some of your reactionary mindset.

[KitsuneRommel]

cachx wrote...
As far as Resident Evil goes, the only good one was 4. The early ones had horible control, and RE5 was just a copy&paste job that got boring really quick.

Don't forget stupid camera angles.

Anyway, sci-fi RPGs have gone downhill since

[Terror_K]

The trouble is ME2 doesn't even use the combat in any real form beyond combat regarding the narrative. Gears of War is a terrible shallow game with cringeworthy characters and a god-awful story, but even it managed to keep things interesting during combat by creating some unique situations and puzzles that were part of the combat gameplay itself. ME2 fails this entirely, with the intense sun on Haelstrom about as close as the game gets. Compare this to Gears of War's challenge where you are in a series of dark corridors with a blind juggernaut of an enemy and you have to sneak around carefully to avoid death, then make noise at particular moments so the enemy charges at you and smashes through the wall or door that leads you to the next area. If Mass Effect is going to go down this route with its gameplay it needs to do things like this to change it up a bit. Some of the N7 missions did this a bit, but not to the degree they should have. We also need more ME1 style moments where there's a point to things beyond just shooting your way to the next cutscene (using the drill to free Liara, getting the tram going on Noveria, making the medicine for Dr. Cohen, dislodging the geth ship on Feros, gassing the colonists on Feros with grenades, helping Kirrahe's team on Virmire, tracking the Rogue AI on The Citadel, etc.)

[Vicious]

I see where you're going with this.



But the most common complaint I hear about Resident Evil is that it is getting 'westernized.'

Which is merely used as an insult, in place of "action-oriented" which is not insulting.



Mass Effect was always meant to be this way IMO. They just took a game to get where they wanted to be. As for creepiness, The Derelict Reaper mission had it.





Mass Effect is, basically, the true western RPG. Fast-paced gun/cover based combat, a hero who earned his place and is actually in his mid 30's instead of a 16 year old swordsman who is called upon to save the world, and plenty of obviously western pop-culture references.





So, like I said, I think it was always meant to be the way it is now. And as for Resident Evil... Let's face it, the developers felt that the RE series was becoming too predictable. That's all.

[Rendar666]

cachx wrote...

Rendar666 wrote...
Umm... the combat in ME 1 is (to me) SOOOO much better than in ME 2. ME 2's combat feels like Bioware tried too hard to make it fun TPS combat instead of just making it like they did in the first one.

make it fun- as Bioware and every other developer out there should try to do.

Well, it wasn't fun at all. To me. In fact, it was terrible. Boring, unrewarding and it happened all the time. Every battle could take upwards of 5-9 minutes, especially in insain. All you did was shoot, duck and wait for your health to recharge -- the main reason that I felt the combat system was bad. No way to make your health go up. Sometimes when you tried to get against a low wall you'd just jump over it and get nailed by the collectors or the what'cha'macall'ems that are everywhere....

I Did MEAN to say that they tried to make it too much like every other TPS out there. ME 1's battle system was fairly unique. Nothing had been done Quite like it. ME 2's system was so bland.... Eh, whatever. It's all down what one prefers.

[nikki191]

KalosCast wrote...

Blk_Mage_Ctype wrote...

The shooter elements in ME2 and removal of the convoluted Inventory System made the game infinitely better.

As horrifying as it may sound, there are people who genuinely enjoyed the "murderous travelling pants saleman" aspect of ME1. Apparently merchants are totally willing to buy up bullet-riddled, overload-fried and blood-stained enviro-suits.

disinfectant, hose, and a bucket for bits and all fixed

[TJSolo]

Rendar666 wrote...

I Did MEAN to say that they tried to make it too much like every other TPS out there. ME 1's battle system was fairly unique. Nothing had been done Quite like it. ME 2's system was so bland.... Eh, whatever. It's all down what one prefers.

Unique, slightly. Overheating instead of ammo, grenades that go in a straight line as if on a frictionless surface instead of arcing, and biotics instead of airstrikes or bulletime.
ME1s combat falls flush into the category of being a sci-fi shooter not a military psuedo-realism shooter.
It played like Halo, COD, and FO3; yes I am saying it played like those mostly FPS games but the camera used was over the shoulder.

[Onyx Jaguar]

The first Gears of War was a better TPS than ME 2. The second Gears of War was not. However Gears of War is much more simple than Mass Effect 2.



Mass Effect 2 had elements of Mega Man (Heavy Weapons), and the core gameplay was a combination of Gears of War (third person, cover mechanics) and the R6 Vegas games (Loadouts, squad control).



Also the use of biotics and tech powers is something different. All of these elements were in the first game, they were just rebalanced in the second.



Also regarding "rpg" systems. The inventory was replaced but you still upgrade your weapons and various stats, the main thing that was missing was the ability to customize ammo types which have now been relegated as a power.



With regards to the Resident Evil series. Resident Evil 4 was a gigantic leap forward over the previous games. Capcom had rode that series into staleness. Code Veronica threw out many of the gameplay improvements of Resident Evil 3, only to go with "graphical" improvements. The remake of Resident Evil did a good job of bringing the series back into relevancy but the Outbreak games and Resident Evil 0 put it right back into the gutter. Resident Evil 4 showed unparalleled intensity in the series and set a good foundation. Unfortunately Resident Evil 5 did not improve the controls and it just improved the grahpics while implementing a Co-OP mode. It also sacrificed many of the animations that were in RE 4 in an effort to tone down the violence and it also had less level content because of the focus to Co-op which was a more obvious ploy to the Gears of War fans than what Mass Effect has done. Gears of War more or less borrowed a ton from Resident Evil 4, Resident Evil 5 instead of building on RE 4 decided to imitate one of its clones instead.

[Rendar666]

TJSolo wrote...

Rendar666 wrote...

I Did MEAN to say that they tried to make it too much like every other TPS out there. ME 1's battle system was fairly unique. Nothing had been done Quite like it. ME 2's system was so bland.... Eh, whatever. It's all down what one prefers.

Unique, slightly. Overheating instead of ammo, grenades that go in a straight line as if on a frictionless surface instead of arcing, and biotics instead of airstrikes or bulletime.
ME1s combat falls flush into the category of being a sci-fi shooter not a military psuedo-realism shooter.
It played like Halo, COD, and FO3; yes I am saying it played like those mostly FPS games but the camera used was over the shoulder.

True... But... I can't explain it. Something about the gameplay from the first game was just... better to me that ME 2. It's really hard to explain. It wasn't so much the rechargable ammo and grenades and all that. It just FELT different. You know?

[Hadark]

Pho Kadat wrote...

This might be helpful:

From wiki: Role-playing video games (RPGs) form a loosely defined genre of computer and video games with origins in pen-and-paper role-playing games[1] such as Dungeons & Dragons, borrowing much of their terminology, settings and game mechanics. The player in RPGs controls one or several adventuring party members fulfilling one or many quests. The major similarities with pen-and-paper games involve developed story-telling and narrative elements, player character development, complexity, as well as replayability and immersion.

Granted, everyone has their idea of what RPGs are, but this most closely represents what I believe them to be. Until recently, most RPGs have item collection as a major element, but I don't think item collection makes a game an RPG. In fact, several games that pass themselves off as RPGs base themselves around this element; often overshadowing the story in the process (see Diablo, Borderlands). I'm not saying these are bad games, yet item collection does not an RPG make.

something else that may be helpful:
Quote:
    "Shooter combat must be fun without being propped
 up by RPG mechanics."--Christina Norman, on crafting
 the gunplay in Mass Effect 2.
Takeaway:
     The gameplay difference between the original
Mass Effect and its sequel is marked, and that wasn't
accidental. Norman's team specifically set out to craft
a sharper shooter experience that could stand up against
the gunplay found in competitors' offerings, while maintaining
BioWare's strong tradition of narrative-driven, RPG-heavy gameplay.
  
 
Genres are almost a vestige of the past,” said Muzyka. “In a way,
 a lot of the best shooters are RPGs as well, because they allow you
to have progression, exploration, combat or conflict, and a story.”
Those key attributes of RPGs, he said, are valuable for “any kind of game.”
 
Read More http://www.wired.com.../#ixzz0m4uyR6GJ

In my opinion the only thing left for an RPG to stand out is the player character development,  even that is not holey true any more.  But what drew me into being an RPG fan was the creating of the character,  wearing whatever clothing or armor i wanted, using whatever weapon i wanted, and customizing the hero's appearance.
LOL ,  That's not really RPGish anymore either.

Modifié par Hadark, 01 mai 2010 - 06:30 .

[SuperMedbh]

Thanks for the link. Muzyka and Norman do a far better job of articulating what I was trying to say yesterday-- videogames have reached the point in which they will be crafting their own way. cRPGs have stood on the back of pencil and paper RPGs up until now. Even a great game like Dragon Age is essentially a D&D variant. Sure, the combat is illustrated in loving 3D detail, and instead of your local gaming group, characters are voiced by the likes of Tim Curry and Claudia Black. But the mechanics are solid genre.



DA proves that sort of thing can be done well. But videogames have their own strengths and weaknesses. In the future "genre" will become fuzzier and fuzzier as the game and story take precedence over preconceived notions of what an RPG, shooter, or what have you ought be.

[Vicious]

In the future "genre" will become fuzzier and fuzzier as the game and story take precedence over preconceived notions of what an RPG, shooter, or what have you ought be.

Agreed.

[Gravbh]

Blk_Mage_Ctype wrote...

I still don't understand how taking 15 minutes out of the action to convert the 50 Kessler IV Pistols, and 200 outdated ammo types you picked up into Omnigel is something people want back...

It wasn't fun, it wasn't enjoyable, it was just disruptive and annoying.

Why do people love tedium so much?
What did that horrid Inventory System add to the gameplay?

And as for it being an RPG Aspect, NO IT WASN'T!!! That was a Dungeon Crawler Aspect, and even if it was an RPG Aspect, it still sucked! I hope to God that Bioware ignores the masochists who want that hideous Inventory System back.

Because this is a video game forum. The first game in a series, no matter what it's actual characteristics, is always better than the sequel. That's one of the rules of video game forums.

[Blk_Mage_Ctype]

All I can say is this, I'm a huge RPG Fan, RPGs are my favorite genre, shooters are my least favorite genre, yet I enjoyed playing ME2 several times more than I did ME1, and felt that it was an overall improvement.



While I miss the planet exploration, the ability to equip my squad with different armor, helmet toggle, and the elevator rides in place of annoying loading screens, I HATED ME1's Loot/Inventory System and the redundant micromanaging that came with it...

Picking up several duplicates of the same useless weapon out of lockers/safes and eventually having to take 10-15 minutes out of the game to convert all of the excess items I picked up into Omni-Gel was nothing but annoying & disruptive, and I favor ME2's system far more.



Furthermore, ME1's Loot/Inventory System just didn't feel right in Mass Effect... In a game like Dragon Age, The Elder Scrolls, or Fallout it works fine, but in a futuristic game like Mass Effect it just feels out of place...

I don't want them to tweek it and put it back in ME3 either, just leave it out.



I want Mass Effect 3 to take ME2's Weapon/Armor System, and make it a bit more accessable... Put more Weapons Lockers in levels so that we can switch out weapons more often, and add Armor Lockers as well so that we don't have to go back to the Normandy to add a new part we just bought or change out armor, give us a deeper weapons customization system, and allow us to change our squad's armor once again and I'll be happy.



As for the rest of the game? Bring back planet exploration instead of scanning, and replace the clunky Mako with the smoother controlled Hammerhead.

Bring back Elevator Rides with ammusing conversations rather than annoying Load Screens.

Allow me to Toggle off Shep's Helmet or at least make it come off automatically in conversation ala Dragon Age, and for the love of God take it easy on the one piece armors.



Otherwise, Mass Effect 2 was absolutely excellent and you can leave everything else exactly as it was when you make ME3.

[Gorn Kregore]

haha this thread is pointless since mass effect isn't an rpg and never was

[SkullandBonesmember]

SuperMedbh wrote...

I don't expect to convince you, certainly not this evening. But I do hope that in time, you appreciate the newer style games.

You're still under the impression it's about stats/leveling/loot? I'm fine with a shooter that's implemented like ME1. Prince Of Persia's combat actually made me WANT to play it. I'm not against recent combat by default. With that said, you'll never convince me combat over story and characters will ever be a good thing.

Gorn Kregore wrote...

haha this thread is pointless since mass effect isn't an rpg and never was

ME1 was dubbed a shooter-RPG by everybody and anybody including Bioware. And that shooter-RPG was almost perfect. ME2, not so much.

[Pursuit3]

[quote]KotOREffecT wrote...

 assume direct control

Modifié par Pursuit3, 02 mai 2010 - 10:11 .