94 réponses à ce sujet

[Orchomene]

The question may seem a bit offensive, but I feel really strange playing this game.
This is not a rant, this is not some unconstructive criticism. And don't get me wrong, I'm not saying I don't like the game. I'm not at all saying that ME2 is a bad game or that I'm very disapointed. It's just that this game is not what I was expecting, especially from Bioware.

I've been a roleplayer for more than 20 years. First pen & paper, then CRPG after having moved so many times that I don't see often roleplayers I used to play with. With few exceptions, I've played with all RPGs from Interplay's RPG division Black Isle (mostly developped by Bioware) and followed the split of BI studios and creation of Troika Games and then the creation of Obsidian Ent. All in all, I think I've been playing three quarters of the "western" RPGs and a few japanese RPGs.

I don't play frequently shooting games. Well, I don't play at all shooting games but play sometimes RPG with some FPS elements from time to time since CRPG are now rarer than before. I neither play MMORPG since I don't feel at ease with those kind of games where RPG is only in the name and not really in the essence.

ME2 is thus very strange for me. I thought at first hand that this was an action oriented RPG, like Jade Empire is or DAO (or Fallout 3 from Bethesda). But ME2 is not even that. It's like playing Red Alert at a person level : you do missions with some small objectives, a lot of fighting, some cash and small bonuses to take, moments of breathing between tactical fights. I 'm sure a lot of gamers, specifically casual RPG gamers, like a lot this format : objectives pretty clear, this is sufficiently directive so that you are not lost and you shoot a lot. But for me, it's not an RPG for the reasons I will develop below.

Continuity :
Dynamic aspect may be good to keep players into the action. But in ME2, there are so many discontinuities (with even summary screens after missions) that immersivity disappears. At least for me. Of course, it's natural to cut the stories into pieces (modules) to allow choices on the order of playing the modules, to allow also some breaks. But in may RPGs, the "quest" aspect is sufficient for this and a lot more flexible than the "mission" aspect found in ME2 for the simple reason that you can stop following a quest line, begin another one and complete at the same time a third one that began hours before. So far, the "mission" point of view is very rigid for a RPG gamer like me.

Tree like story :
Without going into details and only for the parts of the game I've played, there are not a lot of ways to do missions.
Even in dialogues, the choices between paragon and renegade do not differ a lot in the goal, only in the means.
This is of course expensive to give many choices to complete a "quest" or "mission" and I can understand that you can't give that much freedom to players. But it is essential to give the impression to the player that he has many ways to solve an issue. I'm not sure this is done successfully in ME2 whereas in many former games from Bioware, this was the case even if the games are a lot less open than some other games.

Sense of evolution/accomplishment :
Ok, the character gains levels. But that's all. I know this is now pretty common in RPGs, but having scaling level enemies cuts the feel of evolution of the character since no matter how he/she is evolving, the world around evolves at the same speed : a tough enemy remains a tough enemy. Now, with ME2, it goes a step further.
Having combat being so dynamic and tactic from the begining is a good achievement done by the developers of this game. Alas, this specific good point has the disadvantage to keep the intensitivity of combat at the same level from begining to end of game because it begins already high. Thus, you are not more impressed in a later fight than in the first fights. I remember Torment where the difference between a combat in the first levels and in the last part of the game is huge.

Directivity :
Both later points lead us to the interchangeability of the missions : it doesn't matter at all in which order missions are taken since you have to do all the missions (at least for the first half of the game) and doing some mission before another will only change the availability of a NPC follower or a new weapon/upgrade. Inside missions, you do more or less the same thing (at least in first part of the game) : some discussions, a lot of fight following the unique path and the end. Only changes are tactical with a few exceptions.

Other immersivity breakers :
Those are details but the amount of such details adds it to the lost of immersivity.

• There is no inventory,
• almost nothing is sold in shops,
• you find new weapons only on the battlefields
• dialogues are a lot too oriented and give the feeling that the player has no control over what his/her character has to say.
• changing weapons in some racks. I mean, changing weapons you do have with other that are on the ship.

Well, for all those reasons, and certainly other reasons that I just have felt without having given a name to it, this game is more a shooter game with RPG elements than an action oriented RPG.
This is some strange shift from Bioware and I fear that the necessity to open more and more roleplaying games to "casual" gamers (read : gamers that don't want to take the effort to play a game with some investment in it) so that games are more sold (just look at all the shooter games that are sold a year) will make the CRPG genre totally disappear and be replaced by some "easy to follow, no investment" shooter games with some RPG elements.

So, in the end, I do appreciate playing this game, but I'd rather have a true RPG to play. But shall I hope to see again a true RPG ?

Modifié par Orchomene, 19 mai 2010 - 09:35 .

[Onyx Jaguar]

Well if you go by the hard origins of Pen and Paper I would ultimately say no. I like the comparison to Red Alert in a way because it kind of captures some of the tactical feel of the game that is missing from most shooter comparisons (I usually compare it to GRAW or R6).



The story can be influenced in some major ways but yes the dialogue for the most part only changes in the way of "mood" or stability of a character. You aren't given complete free reign like you are in Dragon Age or Planescape:Torment for instance.



(Quick question, what about an inventory creates immersion?)



___________________________________________________________



Part 2: However if you go by the definitions of RPG as in relation to videogame origins this question becomes impossible to answer as the lineage from Wizardry/Rogue and Ultima is quite far reaching.





Part 3: I would expect Bioware to continue this route with ME 3 as in regards to action games this isn't the first one, after all they started out with Shattered Steel and then MDK 2. What you are more likely going to see is a bit more customizations options. Much of what you have said is hardwired into the presentation of Mass Effect. Which is in essence they are going for a Cinematic presentation that you can only influence and not really control. You will have control over the combat sections and character interactions but you won't have as much control over interactions and story elements as you would Dragon Age as it is very much tied to its presentation.

[hexaligned]

I don't consider ME1 to be an RPG either, nor any Bioware game really. Hell, GTA is more of a role playing game in the literal sense than any bioware game. Ultima, now there was an RPG, (at least 7 and UO, which are the only ones I played)

[Onyx Jaguar]

Hell the only Ultima games I've played are 3/4, Underworld 1 & 2 and one of the Game Boy games. Damn EA and their discontinuations of print...



Those older games (Ultima) give you some freedom (KILL EVERYONE) but were restrained by technology. Then you had developers look more to them as influence rather than Pen and Paper games (JRPGs!) and then you get a massive divergence.

[Shotokanguy]

ugh



How do you even define an RPG?



If you think you need math, just read this topic: http://social.biowar...8/index/1143264



It's an RPG.

[Lumikki]

Both ME1 and ME2 are action RPG's. Meaning they are both RPG's with 3rd person shooter combat. Some people here think ME1 is different because it has more customation, but that doesn't define it any different category, just differently balanced content and design wise.

Modifié par Lumikki, 19 mai 2010 - 09:52 .

[FuturePasTimeCE]

relhart wrote...

I don't consider ME1 to be an RPG either, nor any Bioware game really. Hell, GTA is more of a role playing game in the literal sense than any bioware game. Ultima, now there was an RPG, (at least 7 and UO, which are the only ones I played)

I think the mass effect series are more of action sci fi adventure type of games, that have extensive storylines. Its more of a Dialog RPG in terms of how the player use specific dialog options as to having different outcome and reactions, vs. unrestraint exploration and or do what you completely want actions.
Elder Scrolls = total RPG game. Opened dialogs, main quest plot, side quests, different outcomes, unrestricted actions, massive exploration, interacting with every NPC (each have their own set of dialogs and possible sub-quest), time, weather, etc. It's practically the sims with a story line minus the residential customization.

Modifié par FuturePasTimeCE, 19 mai 2010 - 09:54 .

[AntiChri5]

Mass Effect was never intended to be a "pure" RPG.



ME 1 was always advertised as an rpg shooter hybrid. Just because it took them to the second game to iron out the shooter part doesnt change that.



In what way does carrying around ten suits of plate armour create immersion?

[Orchomene]

1. Inventory and immersion. This is not really that inventory creates immersion but more that the lack of of management of what you can take/manipulate gives the impression of a bare world where the exists nothing at all but enemies to shoot and ammo clips.

Having things you can take, even if you don't want to take those things, it feels like you are not in some desert world.

And if people don't want to manage such inventory, they just have to skip taking objects. It's not as if it's necessary.



2. I don't think there is something like a good definition of a computer roleplaying game. There are attempts to transpose roleplaying games ( I mean, P&P RPG) into computer games. Some are pretty close to the feeling you can have in a P&P game, some are far from this feeling. So, I think it's more of a matter of feelings than a matter of "mandatory elements" that need to be present in the game.

That's why I've more focused on subjective aspects (continuity, directivity, tree like story for the freedom feeling, sense of evolution).



That's why also I can enclose in the RPG genre games that give not so much freedom as Ultima or Daggerfalf but succeed on giving the feeling that the freedom is there.

All in all, for me, the important part is how you feel playing the game : do you feel that you are incarnating a character that follows a story and has choices to do and issues to solve ?

But I'm sure other people would have different opinions.

That's why this remains for me a question more than an affirmation.

[DarthCaine]

Action RPG

Modifié par DarthCaine, 19 mai 2010 - 10:01 .

[Onyx Jaguar]

Orchomene wrote...



All in all, for me, the important part is how you feel playing the game : do you feel that you are incarnating a character that follows a story and has choices to do and issues to solve ?
.

I do.  They may be relatively minor but in the arc there are some major lets say detail progression that you alter.  Without going into much detail (no spoilers section) how it handles some things in narrative (perhaps not execution) does have quite a bit divergance both in the end result and how the choices are presented in order to solve.

[biomag]

Continuity: I don't think I hated something more than that when it came to stories in other games. In most other games you could ignore "urgent quests" as there was no continuity at all. Nobody cared what you did. ME 2 lets you finish a quest before you go to another one. I think it fits better into the story. You did the same at ME 1, I am pretty sure nobody was willing to see more loading screens than absolutely necessary so they finished each planet at once and never returned there. You just had the option to leave the planet, but no one used it. Also I remember those "quest harvest" I did in other games... first you check those that give you the task, than you check those places where you could finish most of them at once and TATAA: A group of quest finished with no immersion at all, no urgency or anything like that... remember BG 2 saving the castle of Natalia or helping the landlord to defend his land against the invaders? Wow... that was great, each attacker waited for you AND you could even stop in the middle of the battle and go to another map to finish some delivery tasks or other side quests - the best part about it: Those attackers sat back and waited for you to continue. How nice of them...



Treelike story: Its simply wrong to state that ME 2 has no such element. It has even a better developed system as your tree like story are those "side quest" that recruit your team and upgrade at the same time you get urgent missions - and guess what? They are urgent, as you can't ignore them. While other BW games had just a fixed first and final mission, ME 2 has a fix start, then you get to recruit your first teammates, then the next crucial mission comes, once more followed by a free part that ends with an urgent mission followed by an open end... you can choose when you do the crucial mission and after that you can choose to do the urgent part of just keep going doing side quest.



I think that is far more mature from a gameplay point of view than any other RPG I played. It combined free actions with story DRIVEN elements. Something no other really accomplished so far, at least for sure not Bioware.



Evolution: I rather have a challenging game and BW accomplished that. Additional talents change what I can do in a fight, so I am interested in developing my character, but it shouldn't make the game an easy win. Its a matter of taste and I am happy with the way BW is going in their games.



Directivity: Show me a single game where it matters or where things are different. ME 2 had a lot of important side mission that could be dealt (or at least big parts of it) by talking. Also its just a lie that other games offered different endings, it was just a different animation in the end, but no big difference... remember KOTOR? It doesn't matter which one, it just changed who is alive and the last animation, but the whole game went the same way. Even at DAO you just change who is alive and supporting you. Oblivion and Morrowind had no difference at all, as anything you did made no difference at all and I loved Morrowind as a game.

Accusing ME 2 of failing where any PC game has to fail, has no sense.



Other things:

-Inventory: see other threads... you say its lacking, I say it was BS at ME 1 and added nothing to the game that ME 2 has not already.

-Shops: I am working for the Cerberus, a top secret organization with own development and equipment... what do you think could be bought at the local store, that a shadow organization hasn't already developed or stolen or just improved?

-Weapons on the battlefield: I would guess you get the most modern weapons even nowdays just from the military (or illegal ways). I just doubt that a ranger/marine/seal/... would give you his just because you asked? You salvage foreign technologies from battlefield and mass produce them on you ship. Makes sense to me.

-I can't say that I always felt better represented by dialogoptions in other games. Often you couldn't be sure about what the written text would achieve, as you couldn't be sure if its sarcastic or not. Sure, ME 2 has also its shortcomings, but at least you can control which way he is going to say it and how its perceived and not just the words.





I my opinion ME 2 concentrated on character interaction and story and less on meaningless stats. I enjoyed it more than any other RPG I played because it had the right focus for an RPG and not just the look of one.

[KitsuneRommel]

Orchomene wrote...

That's why also I can enclose in the RPG genre games that give not so much freedom as Ultima or Daggerfalf but succeed on giving the feeling that the freedom is there.

That's why I would say that ME2 is much more an RPG than e.g.

[Kangasniemi]

ME and ME2 are RPG.



OP has some ok points but some are just wrong.



For example the tree like gameplay, OK, ME2 doesn't really have that. Have you thought why not? All the older games didn't have voice acted dialogue so making a quest with 1000 different endings wasn't that hard. And now some one will cry out "What about oblivion? It has voice acting." In Oblivion (or FO3) player character has no voice and there are maybe 10 or something unique voice actor and then there are 5 guys/girls who make the voices for the rest 900ish NPCs, and during the coversation animation is at minimum. In ME every character has unique voice actor and they use motion capture in all of the dialogues of the game. So making quests that will span like a tree is hugely expensive in a game like ME, and in this world money is God.



Sense of evolution, err what? You really didn't notice any difference between a lvl 1 and lvl 30 character? Because the difference is quite huge. Yes you don't become death incarnated and you can't one shot every enemy you see. This is only a good thing. Because in old school RPG you start by killing rats. Then after some furious rat grinding you move on to goblins, then squirles and rabbits. Then after hours of fluffy massacre you can start attacking the real enemies of the game. And after a few levels they need to introduce some new higher class enemy so you have some challenge. In ME you start by killing real enemies and you end the game killing real enemies. There is no reason to magically replace the badguys because they are too easy to kill.



And by the way, inventory doesn't make a RPG game. It was a great choice to ditch conventional inventory from ME2.

[Mister Mida]

I agree with Adriano87.



I think it also comes down to the question wether YOU think YOU played the role of Commander Shepard. If YOU answer that question with 'Yes', then YOU played an RPG... I think...

[Terror_K]

ME2 is an RPG. It's just a shallow, unsatisfying one.

[kraze07]

Lumikki wrote...

Both ME1 and ME2 are action RPG's. Meaning they are both RPG's with 3rd person shooter combat. Some people here think ME1 is different because it has more customation, but that doesn't define it any different category, just differently balanced content and design wise.

Actually an action RPG is an action game with RPG elements which is exactly what ME2 is. ME1 would be considered a Role Playing Shooter, RPS for short. The only true RPGs released this gen are games like TES4: Oblivion and Fallout 3.

[kraze07]

Kangasniemi wrote...

ME and ME2 are RPG.

OP has some ok points but some are just wrong.

For example the tree like gameplay, OK, ME2 doesn't really have that. Have you thought why not? All the older games didn't have voice acted dialogue so making a quest with 1000 different endings wasn't that hard. And now some one will cry out "What about oblivion? It has voice acting." In Oblivion (or FO3) player character has no voice and there are maybe 10 or something unique voice actor and then there are 5 guys/girls who make the voices for the rest 900ish NPCs, and during the coversation animation is at minimum. In ME every character has unique voice actor and they use motion capture in all of the dialogues of the game. So making quests that will span like a tree is hugely expensive in a game like ME, and in this world money is God.

Sense of evolution, err what? You really didn't notice any difference between a lvl 1 and lvl 30 character? Because the difference is quite huge. Yes you don't become death incarnated and you can't one shot every enemy you see. This is only a good thing. Because in old school RPG you start by killing rats. Then after some furious rat grinding you move on to goblins, then squirles and rabbits. Then after hours of fluffy massacre you can start attacking the real enemies of the game. And after a few levels they need to introduce some new higher class enemy so you have some challenge. In ME you start by killing real enemies and you end the game killing real enemies. There is no reason to magically replace the badguys because they are too easy to kill.

And by the way, inventory doesn't make a RPG game. It was a great choice to ditch conventional inventory from ME2.

I hardly noticed a difference between a lvl 1 and lvl 30 Shep in ME2, while there's a huge apparent difference between a lvl 1 and lvl 60 Shep in ME1. And it was a terrible choice to *completely* ditch the conventional inventory from ME1.

[Lumikki]

kraze07 wrote...

Lumikki wrote...

Both ME1 and ME2 are action RPG's. Meaning they are both RPG's with 3rd person shooter combat. Some people here think ME1 is different because it has more customation, but that doesn't define it any different category, just differently balanced content and design wise.

Actually an action RPG is an action game with RPG elements which is exactly what ME2 is. ME1 would be considered a Role Playing Shooter, RPS for short. The only true RPGs released this gen are games like TES4: Oblivion and Fallout 3.

Can You define some game design what ME's has what's missing or have in other ME what makes it in different category?

PS: Remember what you like or not in game or feel has no meaning when you category games. Example someone can tell good story while someone else bad, but they both are still telling story. You have to be able quality the features, make the differences.

Modifié par Lumikki, 19 mai 2010 - 11:27 .

[DarthCaine]

kraze07 wrote...

The only true RPGs released this gen are games like TES4: Oblivion

You lost all credibility there

I'm gonna quote myself from a review I once made about Oblivion:

Oblivion is a hack 'n' slash, free-roaming action-adventure game with some RPG elements.

All the dungeons look the same and the main story quests are almost all "hack through Oblivion and close an Oblivion gate", which gets tiresome very quickly. Fighters and mages guild quests, as well as the vast majority of the side quests, are just "raid a dungeon, kill a boss creature and/or acquire a particular item". The above are all made all the less interesting by extremely generic storylines. I kept hoping or expecting some twist to come up, but no luck.

There are no choices. Beyond creating your character, choosing a race and picking what weapons you use, armor you wear and quests you do, there are no choices that actually affect you or the world around you. You can be leader of all four guilds, champion of the arena, and complete the main quest and you are still treated in the same way by most characters. You can choose to be good or evil, but no quests reflect this, and every option still remains open. One who rises in the ranks of the Fighter's Guild, can also be the Listener of the Dark Brotherhood, yet no one will treat you differently. The character can do every quest; can become a fighter using only magic, a mage who uses only a sword, and a thief who never sneaks.You might even say that S.T.A.L.K.E.R. or GTA is an RPG.

Though it's a fun and a long game, it is not a ROLE PLAYING game. It's something like a virtual world game

Modifié par DarthCaine, 19 mai 2010 - 11:31 .

[Nolenthar]

I do have a strange feeling about this game too. I love this game, for sure, but I can't really explain why.



- I regret the inventory clitching. I do not regret they removed ME1 inventory (far too many craps) but I do regret not being able to find a few pieces of armor, weapon mods, tools, in lockers (not everytime, but sometimes). It would change me from finding money everywhere !

- I like the way they handle companions, but it's too linear for me. There is nothing I have no chance to discover about my companions. And I obviously regret the choice on their appearance. Finding armor parts for them, helmets ...

- I regret protection sacrificed on the design altar. I love the design in this game, but why the hell Zaeed, Grunt, Garrus or any one can't wear an helmet during combat ? Why can't I put/remove mine ?

- I regret the mission completed screen, it breaks immersion and it kills quests.



But I love a lot of other things in this game. You feel like your mission is important, you feel like you have a world to save. Ennemies don't wait for you.

This game is a great game, and I'm quite sure it can be called RPG as a lot of other games can. Removing its RPG label would mean there is no RPG left on computers nowadays or at least not a lot. I would just like some more evolution possibilities for every characters. As it is right now, it's impossible to make two completely different soldiers in the game, where I can create two completely different warriors in DAO. I guess it's missing customisations.

I'm sure ME3 will carry what ME2 is missing. I hope so.

[PSUHammer]

Why does this keep getting posted? Hasn't this discussion been beaten to death yet? Really, who cares as long as the game is fun?

[DarthCaine]

Hammer6767 wrote...

Really, who cares as long as the game is fun?

This