94 réponses à ce sujet

[Orchomene]

@Ecael



1. I'm not changing the definition of RPG, I'm sorry. I played RPG before there even exists CRPG or just few with text lines.

What you describe as definition is just cosmetic definition.

In the old days of text lines RPGs, none but a few of the above elements were present.

That's just to point out that there is no such thing as an explicit and exhaustive definition of RPG.

And about rooms. In ME2, it's not only rooms, it's the way the path is straightforward from the beginning of a mission to the end. This is a direct path, without short cuts or different options to enter a room : entering it in front of the enemies, behind, from bellow or from above. That may give strategic elements.



2. Fallout is a good example of freedom without scaling. Where you see a lack of freedom, I only see a challenge of going in a place where you can be one shot killed. It doesn't at all limit you to the part of the world that is scaled to your level, it's just a matter of choice between going to "easy" areas or "difficult" areas. More than that, you may have areas mixed with some easy content and some difficult content. That gives some depth to the world.

And Bioware has not always used that way, look at Baldur's gate as an example.

MMOs are a bad example since there is some design involved into inducing the limitation with the levelled area. With a mixed design (that is, an area with some easy monsters but a subquest with more difficulties) you can have some variety in the way you chose the path you want to follow.



3. Well, I think that removing the unnecessary is not always a step forward quality.

Because visual effects are for me really unnecessary.

Voiced characters are unnecessary. 3D graphic are unnecessary...

I can go on with the list.



So, every one has his/her opinion. I just say that games like ME are more and more often. I only see that on the game market : FPS, TPS, Command and Conquer 125th edition.

And now, the only one that remained creating RPG are orienting their games to the same market. What I can see is a standardization of the computer game market, which like in any media is a bad sign of evolution quality wise. Just have a look at movies and TV.

[Orchomene]

AntiChri5 wrote...

You choose the class desinged to make shooter fans feel welcome and complain it is too much shooter.not enough rpg?

Well, I only chose the class that is the most logical to the idea I have of a commandant in an army. But I can not understand how the choice of a class may transform a RPG into a TPS.

[Ecael]

Orchomene wrote...

@Ecael

1. I'm not changing the definition of RPG, I'm sorry. I played RPG before there even exists CRPG or just few with text lines.
What you describe as definition is just cosmetic definition.
In the old days of text lines RPGs, none but a few of the above elements were present.
That's just to point out that there is no such thing as an explicit and exhaustive definition of RPG.
And about rooms. In ME2, it's not only rooms, it's the way the path is straightforward from the beginning of a mission to the end. This is a direct path, without short cuts or different options to enter a room : entering it in front of the enemies, behind, from bellow or from above. That may give strategic elements.

If buildings with enemies in Mass Effect 1 had more than one entrance or more than one way of approaching it, then it would set itself apart from Mass Effect 2. Since they do not, they're both straightforward from beginning to end.

The definition of RPG changes to adopt new ideas as time goes on. The definition of a vehicle changes depending on which time period you lived in - living in ancient Egypt or ancient Mesopotamia limited the things you could call vehicles, as did with the time periods before railroads, cars and airplanes.

We wouldn't criticize an airplane for not being a true vehicle like a boat, nor should we criticize a game based on the Unreal Engine with shooting, progression and dialogue to be a true RPG like the text-based games of the past.

2. Fallout is a good example of freedom without scaling. Where you see a lack of freedom, I only see a challenge of going in a place where you can be one shot killed. It doesn't at all limit you to the part of the world that is scaled to your level, it's just a matter of choice between going to "easy" areas or "difficult" areas. More than that, you may have areas mixed with some easy content and some difficult content. That gives some depth to the world. And Bioware has not always used that way, look at Baldur's gate as an example. MMOs are a bad example since there is some design involved into inducing the limitation with the levelled area. With a mixed design (that is, an area with some easy monsters but a subquest with more difficulties) you can have some variety in the way you chose the path you want to follow.

MMOs are still called RPGs, however. They have unlimited progression and open-endedness as well, as long as the developer continues to patch it and release expansions.

Scaling in ME1/ME2 was implemented so that enemies could keep up with your weapon/armor mods and upgrades. If you don't upgrade or change weapons/mods, then the game will become difficult in certain areas, and progressively harder over time. I'm not saying that it's a solution - but it's an option nonetheless if you want variable difficulty.

3. Well, I think that removing the unnecessary is not always a step forward quality.
Because visual effects are for me really unnecessary.
Voiced characters are unnecessary. 3D graphic are unnecessary...
I can go on with the list.

Well, in that case, we get into the topic of immersion. Graphics and voices are unnecessary to make a good game, but they do help.

So, every one has his/her opinion. I just say that games like ME are more and more often. I only see that on the game market : FPS, TPS, Command and Conquer 125th edition.
And now, the only one that remained creating RPG are orienting their games to the same market. What I can see is a standardization of the computer game market, which like in any media is a bad sign of evolution quality wise. Just have a look at movies and TV.

Every now and then a game developer will come up with a brilliant idea for a new genre or subgenre, but most will stick to the ones that are successful. I applaud BioWare for deviating from the norm by combining two genres.

One of the first computer games I ever played was The Incredible Machine. It was addictive and really couldn't be defined in its own category (Rube Goldberg puzzle genre, maybe?). However, I don't see this genre becoming extremely popular now or in the future, unless we all turn into Salarians.

Modifié par Ecael, 19 mai 2010 - 02:32 .

[Aradace]

*gets out his beating stick and drags out the poor, dead, decomposing horse and begins beating it some more*

[spacehamsterZH]

I'm not sure why I'm choosing this particular thread to beat this poor dead pony even further into the ground (I think it's probably in China by now), but here goes...

Maybe the reason the supposed "lack of choices" in ME2 doesn't bother me is precisely because I originally came from P&P RPGs. I've never felt CRPGs were really "true" RPGs with real freedom of choice - at best, they have the illusion of choice through a tree-like narrative structure, but that still means there's a set number of possible actions with predetermined outcomes decided by the developers. Why can't I compliment Matriarch Benezia on her nice rack to see if I can charm my way out of the fight with her? If I played ME1 as a P&P RPG, that would be what I'd try. A CRPG just can't have that kind of freedom of choice, it's technologically impossible, at least at this point. So I've always seen them as a separate entity anyway, as videogames that try to approximate what a true RPG does and substitute visuals and voice acting to make up for the break in immersion caused by the fact that every "choice" is ultimately a programmed gameplay mechanic.

And ME2 does have choices, no matter how many times the "boo hoo, I want my Liara back" crowd tries to argue that it doesn't. You can tell every one of your squadmates to shove it when they ask for your help and flat-out not do a single one of the loyalty quests, and the loyalty quests themselves have diverging paths that change post-mission dialogue, the availability of romance options or the outcome in terms of gaining the character's loyalty which then in turn changes the outcome of the suicide mission as characters will live or die based on the choices you have made. These aren't big, sweeping changes leading down completely separate story paths, but they are choices, and they do affect the outcome. Whether they're big enough for you is a matter of personal preference.

Now the "it's a shooter" BS, I really wish this board had a "foe" function like the most recent iterations of phpBB so I could ignore anything and everything posted by the chodes who say this is a shooter. Incidentially, the next game I played after ME2, albeit briefly, was Gears of War, which it's often compared to. Aside from "press A to take cover", the two games have almost nothing in common. Squad commands are limited to three nearly meaningless options, reviving is not tied to item availability, there is no possibility to pause combat to assign actions to yourself or anyone else, the game always dictates who is with you, dialogue plays out entirely in cutscenes with no interaction, and that's just the first bunch of things I can think of, I could go on. The comparison is retarded. Shut up about it. ME2 isn't a shooter. It has some shooter elements in its combat system. You aim and pull the trigger. That's about it.

As for being able to leave a world in the middle of the quest and go somewhere else, someone else already explained how this doesn't really make the game more "immersive", it's just unrealistic. I did this during the fight with Benezia in ME1 - after I'd died a few times, I gave up, walked away, left Noveria, completed a few sidequests to level up a bit, then came back and did the fight again. Magically enough, Benezia was still there, spouting the exact same lines of dialogue as before. It does help create the feeling of a more cohesive world where I can move around any way I want, but the way the world and the people in it react to my doing so is completely unrealistic. When you can go anywhere you want in ME2, it's for a reason, and when something is announced to you as "urgent" that means you have to do it right away.

I do think the shops in ME2 feel a bit bare-bones, but then again, in ME1 you were a Spectre, a member of one of the most elite military organizations in the galaxy, and... you still had to buy your own guns. One of the vendors was actually on your own ship and still made you pay for your gear. That's inserting a traditional RPG element at the cost of logic - it doesn't make a lick of sense.

Ultimately the best a CRPG really can do is give you an objective to accomplish, a story with an ending where you get to decide along the way exactly how you're going to get there, and those decisions change some things about how the characters react to you and maybe the ending doesn't play out exactly the same depending on what you did. Mass Effect 2 accomplishes exactly this. And to me, immersion comes from unity of gameplay mechanics and story. When things I do to play the game clash with the logic of the story (like having to buy my equipment from a guy on my own ship even though I'm a Spectre, or being able to walk away from a fight and come back hours later to find everything exactly as I've left it), it throws me out of the illusion of reality. Mass Effect 2, by providing a story built around its mission structure, does a great job at avoiding this - the game plays out the way it does because that's the way the story plays out. When you have time to do sidequests, it's because the story says you do. That's as close as a CRPG is going to get. If you want real choices, real freedom, real character creation, turn off your computer/console and play a real RPG.

Modifié par spacehamsterZH, 19 mai 2010 - 02:46 .

[rastakore]

Ecael wrote...
Neither ME1 or ME2 have choices that will affect the storyline. You'll get the same ending either way. Dragon Age didn't have choices that made any difference in the storyline either - it only affected which armies were shown in the cutscenes and what text is shown in the epilogue.

While the end goal in ME2 is acomplished no matter what, I see that there are 4 possible outcomes to the ending and altough 2 of those endings have no future, I got curious to see what would Joker and Cerberus would do against the reaper threath without Shep. Let's see if in ME3 those decisions have any major impact on the storyline, I hope it isn't like the council decision in ME1 <_<

[cruc1al]

Ecael wrote...
Neither ME1 or ME2 have choices that will affect the storyline. You'll get the same ending either way.

The story line is more than the ending. The story line involves who you get on with, who does what during the suicide mission, who gets killed, in what order you recruit members and whether or not you do their loyalty missions. And blowing up the base or keeping the base isn't the same thing, even if it's possible the consequences in ME3 have little effect on story progression.

Modifié par cruc1al, 19 mai 2010 - 03:08 .

[mopotter]

I think it depends on your definition of RPG. I googled it and came up with over 7 web sites with their own definition.



For me the main and most important aspect is the ability to create my own character. If I can't chose to be male or female and have choices on my abilities, it's not a rpg, so for me, ME and all of the bioware games I've played are rpgs. This is what I found attractive in the DD games, though I only played a couple of times because none of my friends would support me in my fantasy world - Read a book they would say - NO I want to Be the elf who waves her hand in magic wonder and hits people over the head with her staff not just read about her.



So when I found the video games that let me make all of the choices I can make in games by bioware and games like fall out, morrowind I play them. Mass Effect meets my definition of a rpg.



There are a lot of fun games that I don't see as rpgs. As to who cares? probably not many but it's something to write about during break and something to do while waiting for ME3.

[MonkeyChief117]

OMG this again?



Its half shooter, half RPG. A shooter-RPG if you will.

[mosor]

Mass Effect 2 isn't an RPG. It's a choose your own adventure movie/action game.

[Elvis_Mazur]

Is ME2 still a RPG ?





Short answer: yes

[Ecael]

cruc1al wrote...

Ecael wrote...
Neither ME1 or ME2 have choices that will affect the storyline. You'll get the same ending either way.

The story line is more than the ending. The story line involves who you get on with, who does what during the suicide mission, who gets killed, in what order you recruit members and whether or not you do their loyalty missions. And blowing up the base or keeping the base isn't the same thing, even if it's possible the consequences in ME3 have little effect on story progression.

True, but you're never really in control of what happens next or 5 missions from now. That would require a lot of randomly generated content to do so.

[Vena_86]

Orchomene wrote...

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.

This needs to be emphasized. Too little people actually understand this or the concept of "Immersion" and a living game world in general.
Personally my biggest dissappointment with ME2 is not that it is less of a RPG but that it is such a big step back in regards to atmosphear and immersion. It makes no attempt of hiding that it is "just" a game. The reasons for that only happen to be connected to the (removed/reduced) RPG mechanics in many situations.

Modifié par Vena_86, 19 mai 2010 - 03:24 .

[DarthCaine]

Gorn Kregore wrote...

Orchomene wrote...

DarthCaine wrote...

Gorn Kregore wrote...

atleast its more of an rpg than mass effect :~)

Dude, what happened to you? I thought you loved Mass Effect. Now, you're just trolling all the time

I don't understand the logic here : How the fact that ME may not be a rpg imply that someone wouldn't like it ?

u say one thing which doesn't suit the other individual's opinion and its apparently being a h8ter

No, I just remembered your previous trolling thread

[spacehamsterZH]

Vena_86 wrote...
Personally my biggest dissappointment with ME2 is not that it is less of a RPG but that it is such a big step back in regards to atmosphear and immersion. It makes no attempt of hiding that it is "just" a game.

Personal preference. I feel the exact opposite way about it because of the mission structure, like I said above. I'm not saying you're not allowed to feel that drastically reduced inventory management or "mission completed" screens break your immersion, but it doesn't feel that way to everyone.

[DarthCaine]

Vena_86 wrote...

Personally my biggest dissappointment with ME2 is not that it is less of a RPG but that it is such a big step back in regards to atmosphear and immersion

Funny, I thought it took a huge step forward in atmosphere and immersion
For one all the hub planets were much better than the ones in ME1 (Afterlife is awesome)
And the N7 missions had some really scenic moments (unlike the Mako landing scene repeating itself over and over and those copy paste bases)

[spacehamsterZH]

DarthCaine wrote...
For one all the hub planets were much better than the ones in ME1 (Afterlife is awesome)

Let's be honest, though - the ME2 Citadel is a disaster.

[DarthCaine]

spacehamsterZH wrote...

DarthCaine wrote...
For one all the hub planets were much better than the ones in ME1 (Afterlife is awesome)

Let's be honest, though - the ME2 Citadel is a disaster.

Actually I really prefered the atmoshere in the ME2 Citadel. It really felt scifi-ish with lots of colors. Though the problem was it wasn't very big

[Ecael]

Vena_86 wrote...

Orchomene wrote...

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.

This needs to be emphasized. Too little people actually understand this or the concept of "Immersion" and a living game world in general.
Personally my biggest dissappointment with ME2 is not that it is less of a RPG but that it is such a big step back in regards to atmosphear and immersion. It makes no attempt of hiding that it is "just" a game. The reasons for that only happen to be connected to the (removed/reduced) RPG mechanics in many situations.

The lack of menu management does not detract from the overall immersion.

In fact, inventory screens (ME1) and loadout screens (ME2) make the game less immersive. Switching items and weapons should be something done on the fly - and we should be able to click on Shepard in real-time and watch them actually change it instead of pausing or switching to a menu.

Also, the planets from ME1 are the exact definition of bare worlds. The only things there are buildings with enemies to shoot and crates. It's no more or less immersive than ME2.

[MassEffectMMO]

No.

[spacehamsterZH]

DarthCaine wrote...

spacehamsterZH wrote...

DarthCaine wrote...
For one all the hub planets were much better than the ones in ME1 (Afterlife is awesome)

Let's be honest, though - the ME2 Citadel is a disaster.

Actually I really prefered the atmoshere in the ME2 Citadel. It really felt scifi-ish with lots of colors. Though the problem was it wasn't very big

It looks pretty cool, it just doesn't feel like it's the Citadel. I realize that the idea is that you're on a different part of it, but going back to the Citadel for the first time in ME2 was basically the only time I felt a bit like some of the nostalgic people here who utterly despise ME2 feel about the whole game. It should've felt like coming home, instead I was just confused because nothing except for the mass transit system (which is mostly pointless in ME2) seemed at all familiar, and the Presidium is reduced to a backdrop for the Anderson dialogue scene. The devs probably thought it would be cooler to give us something new than just include the same environment from ME1 again, but it ends up feeling restrictive because not only do you know that there is more (you know that on the other hub worlds too), you've actually been there.

I generally agree that the hub worlds are done better, though, especially because they each have a much more distinctive feel, and the game plays off of that fact like when one of the characters, I forget who, says that Illium is just as bad as Omega - the comment would be meaningless if the two places didn't look so different.

[KitsuneRommel]

I just can't understand why people think that having stats adds to immersion. If anything you are constantly reminded that you are playing a game. Ok, you might enjoy that (I love stats... on some games) but for the love of god stop using that word!