Modifié par FlyingWalrus, 15 juin 2010 - 10:01 .
InvaderErl wrote...
thebuggiman wrote...
thats my personal definition of an rpgdoesn't mean its the right one
There is no right definition, anyone that tells you what is and isn't, especially in a genre as diverse as this one is being silly.
To use the Gaider quote again because its by far the most sensible thing ever written on these forums (including my nonsense gibberings),David Gaider wrote...
Personally, I find it interesting that so many RPG players claim to be fans of the genre but make their requirements for what constitutes an actual RPG so narrow that it doesn't seem to be a genre at all but simply a selection of their few favorite titles. A few titles does not make a genre, after all.
Another thing which I find interesting is the role that nostalgia plays in this. These same players will often swear up and down that there is no nostalgia, but I suspect part of what made older games so special to them is because they were new. That seems like it should be self-evident, but I see a lot of people running on the assumption that the novelty they felt playing an earlier game can be recaptured simply by replicating the features in their entirety -- and looking at those features as if they could exist independently of each other, rather than in the context of a game where there are often trade-offs.
It'salso strange that these same people will make contradictory demands: they want novelty and innovation, while simultaneously wanting nothing to actually change. If there was an RPG they liked in the past, they want a new RPG to be made that's just like it but to feel as fresh and new as when they played it back then -- ignoring the fact that they are no longer who they were.
Now that's not to say that people don't like what they like -- just that there's a lot of factors that go into the whole "what is an RPG?" question, many of them emotional. You ask that question and you often get "what should an RPG be?" back. Speaking for myself, I think there's a lot of room in the genre for exploration, and I'm uncomfortable with the entitlement of those who claim to be spokemen for the "real RPG" model -- what they like is intelligent and everything else is "dumbed down" and thus for the less intelligent hoi polloi.
Ideally there would be room for RPG's to come out that cover the spectrum of interests within the genre. If the market is there, the industry will find it. I think what you often encounter is a fear amongst RPG fans that there isn't a big enough market for what theypersonally like and yet a desire that triple-A games should still be made for them regardless.
FlyingWalrus wrote...
Actually, I'd say that games are actually trending towards the smarter these days. Gears of War 3 will probably have more customizability than previous titles, Halo Reach adds load-outs that make a HUGE difference in how you play in multiplayer, let alone the campaign, and SOCOM will probably offer a deep level of weapon customization as was offered in the last decent title in the series, SOCOM III. The Sims 3, which is basically the closest thing to a freeform RPG I've seen in electronic gaming, is HUGE with the public.
FlyingWalrus wrote...
Well, let me illustrate a bit:Orchomene wrote...
I don't understand what you mean. Aren't the stories of Fallout 1/2 great stories ? I mean, the story changes depending of what your character does (that's roleplaying) but the overall is great.FlyingWalrus wrote...
Nice to see my point was gladly ignored. Let me reiterate:
The same system will not work for every setting. While Fallout 1 was a good RPG, its system would definitely not work in something as story-driven as Mass Effect.
Also, I don't know what you're talking about. Both KoTOR2 and NWN2 were terrible, unfinished games.
Or do you mean that a story-driven game is a game that has a unique story, like a book ?
KoTOR used the d20 D&D system. That turned out to work very well for that game. It's about as classical an RPG system as you can get. On the other hand, that kind of a system wouldn't have worked well for Mass Effect because Bioware wanted to make Mass Effect a real-time shooter game with RPG elements. What I was simply saying is that what kind of RPG system you use depends on what setting you're going to use it in.
I have nothing against Fallout 1/2. Mainly, because I haven't played those games.
Because it combined gameplay that more casual gamers were comfortable with with mechanics that still allowed for a great deal of adjustment for your play style with a compelling narrative and involving characters. I probably wouldn't have been happy with ME2 at all if the mechanics were reduced to something like Halo 3's, where you just pick up your weapons, find a target and blow them to smithereens. While that's all good, it's not Mass Effect.Terror_K wrote...
And yet Mass Effect 2 decides to go in the opposite direction and is massively hyped and praised for it...
Orchomene wrote...
The tactical aspect of a turned based rpg allows more epic battles. In such games, the enemies can be more difficult to fight. In real-time where you have to few time to think and plan, you would be overwhelmed quickly. That's what I think, at least.
That was in response to those that think that Mass Effect would be better off with something like Fallout's system for gameplay. The KoTOR was an extreme example.Orchomene wrote...
I still don't get the point. You are talking about "something as story-driven as Mass Effect" but then you talk about "that kind of a system wouldn't have worked well for Mass Effect because
Bioware wanted to make Mass Effect a real-time shooter game with RPG
elements".
If BW wants to make a shooter game with story elements, that's fine. But there is no point to say it's a RPG. I didn't enjoy ME2 but can totally understand that some people enjoy it.
I don't think the ME2 is a RPG and you can say it's a RPG. I just give you the reasons I'm saying this and you can disagree with that.
FlyingWalrus wrote...
Nope. Infiltrators rely on distance, positioning and precision to defeat enemies. Fighting up close as an Infiltrator is very nerve wracking because that's not where their strength is.Orchomene wrote...
There is no character customization in ME2. You chose your class then up the powers. There is a very small customization but since all the powers are so close, it's about the same. Every soldier has the basic soldier gameplay, same is true for infiltrator or engineer.
It's even worse for Engineers, but they have the very handy Combat Drone, and so they rely on misdirection and techs to influence the battlefield. Those are two very different play styles.Being that most of the game was spent in outlaw space, I don't think we have seen the full extent of the decision at the end of ME1 yet.There is no choice in the story direction. Not a single one. There is only a choice in not doing secondary quests, which is the definition of secondary quests. The outcome of the missions are either success or failure. The only choices are just the commentaries (being renegade or paragon). In the end, the only choice is at the end and has no impact in this game, only for the next. Well, if it has the same impact than the choice to save or not the council in ME1, you can consider it a false choice.
Telling me otherwise that there is no choice in the story direction is ludicrous. In two groups, you can choose whom to recruit and when. The only restriction is that these members are split up into two groups, one on either side of a couple of main story events. Even then, by choosing to follow through with their concerns or not, your choices can have grave consequences. So this is moot.The main story is pre-determined, for the most part, but so it was in ME1. What both games give you is a handful of critical decisions to make, decisions I will not get into because A) you should already know what I'm talking about, andSo ME2 is an action/adventure game, a TPS with a story, if you want. But not a story you are creating (like in a RPG) but a story that is imposed to you.
this is the spoiler-free forum.
Terror_K wrote...
I just think that too many are too keen to launch the "Elitist!" missile at people who just want a little more intelligence in their games and are sick of the current trends gradually making all games into the same, simple brown mush because the less cerebral games are the current trend amongst the mainstream gamers. Apparently wanting games to actually become more involved and require some grey cells makes you an elitist, as does simply pointing out the current trends, even if you admit to enjoying those games yourself (Yes... I like shooters too. I have Gears of War, and most of the GTA titles).
FlyingWalrus wrote...
Because it combined gameplay that more casual gamers were comfortable with with mechanics that still allowed for a great deal of adjustment for your play style with a compelling narrative and involving characters. I probably wouldn't have been happy with ME2 at all if the mechanics were reduced to something like Halo 3's, where you just pick up your weapons, find a target and blow them to smithereens. While that's all good, it's not Mass Effect.Terror_K wrote...
And yet Mass Effect 2 decides to go in the opposite direction and is massively hyped and praised for it...
A lot of Mass Effect's initial mechanics were cumbersome and made little sense in the setting. ME2 is ME1 with all the fat cut out. Like I've said before, among the things I would like to see in ME3 is more talents, more character interactivity, more armor modules, worthwhile exploration and more side missions.
Inventory? Don't miss it. Weapon upgrades? Throwaway. A reduction in stats to keep up with? Oh, some were moved to research? Okay, that's fine.
All in all, Mass Effect 2 was made into a sleeker, more elegant game. My hope is that Bioware builds upon this foundation to give us the best Mass Effect game in the trilogy with the third game. By cutting back, Bioware has shown that they can still mint a great game without a lot of the RPG tropes.
Obviously a hyperbole, as there is still enough game to garner this game the highest rating on Metacritic for the past five months, and keep the majority of people replaying it almost half a year later. The "bare bones" would have been going from one conversation to another without any in-between.Terror_K wrote...
FlyingWalrus wrote...
Because it combined gameplay that more casual gamers were comfortable with with mechanics that still allowed for a great deal of adjustment for your play style with a compelling narrative and involving characters. I probably wouldn't have been happy with ME2 at all if the mechanics were reduced to something like Halo 3's, where you just pick up your weapons, find a target and blow them to smithereens. While that's all good, it's not Mass Effect.Terror_K wrote...
And yet Mass Effect 2 decides to go in the opposite direction and is massively hyped and praised for it...
A lot of Mass Effect's initial mechanics were cumbersome and made little sense in the setting. ME2 is ME1 with all the fat cut out. Like I've said before, among the things I would like to see in ME3 is more talents, more character interactivity, more armor modules, worthwhile exploration and more side missions.
Inventory? Don't miss it. Weapon upgrades? Throwaway. A reduction in stats to keep up with? Oh, some were moved to research? Okay, that's fine.
All in all, Mass Effect 2 was made into a sleeker, more elegant game. My hope is that Bioware builds upon this foundation to give us the best Mass Effect game in the trilogy with the third game. By cutting back, Bioware has shown that they can still mint a great game without a lot of the RPG tropes.
They didn't just cut the fat... they took away the muscle, skin and organs too and only left the bare bones.
Massadonious1 wrote...
And the average snootiness of your typical RPG "gamer" has risen every year since Baldur's Gate has come out, based on my own awesomeness and not on any empirical (OMG smrt werds!) data whatsoever.
If the shoe fits...well, perhaps you shouldn't wear it. Thinking everyone is "teh stupidz" because they don't like, don't play your specific genre or exclusively play a genre you apparently think breeds morons is about as elitist as you can get. I'm suprised that you honestly think that you're generally suprised that you have to defend yourself in that regard.
FlyingWalrus wrote...
That was in response to those that think that Mass Effect would be better off with something like Fallout's system for gameplay. The KoTOR was an extreme example.Orchomene wrote...
I still don't get the point. You are talking about "something as story-driven as Mass Effect" but then you talk about "that kind of a system wouldn't have worked well for Mass Effect because
Bioware wanted to make Mass Effect a real-time shooter game with RPG
elements".
If BW wants to make a shooter game with story elements, that's fine. But there is no point to say it's a RPG. I didn't enjoy ME2 but can totally understand that some people enjoy it.
I don't think the ME2 is a RPG and you can say it's a RPG. I just give you the reasons I'm saying this and you can disagree with that.
And what I don't get is that you seem to believe that if the game has real-time gameplay that you affect as the player then it isn't an RPG. At the same time, I've taken the reasons you don't think that ME2 is an RPG and given you examples of those things that are in the game. If that's not good enough for you, then I just guess that ME2 isn't your kind of RPG.
And that's fine, too.
Shepard is a soldier regardless of what specialization he chooses.Orchomene wrote...
FlyingWalrus wrote...
That was in response to those that think that Mass Effect would be better off with something like Fallout's system for gameplay. The KoTOR was an extreme example.Orchomene wrote...
I still don't get the point. You are talking about "something as story-driven as Mass Effect" but then you talk about "that kind of a system wouldn't have worked well for Mass Effect because
Bioware wanted to make Mass Effect a real-time shooter game with RPG
elements".
If BW wants to make a shooter game with story elements, that's fine. But there is no point to say it's a RPG. I didn't enjoy ME2 but can totally understand that some people enjoy it.
I don't think the ME2 is a RPG and you can say it's a RPG. I just give you the reasons I'm saying this and you can disagree with that.
And what I don't get is that you seem to believe that if the game has real-time gameplay that you affect as the player then it isn't an RPG. At the same time, I've taken the reasons you don't think that ME2 is an RPG and given you examples of those things that are in the game. If that's not good enough for you, then I just guess that ME2 isn't your kind of RPG.
And that's fine, too.
Problem is not with real time (even if I'd rather have a turned based) but with the concept of "PC can hit if the player have the skill for shooting" in place of "PC can hit if the PC has the skill for shooting".
SkullandBonesmember wrote...
InvaderErl wrote...
Indeed it was.
It was nice that Bioware didn't force her to be some kind of shooting expert and included gameplay elements that allowed her to enjoy herself.
That makes absolutely no sense. ME2 relied more on a shooter talent as opposed to ME1.
InvaderErl wrote...
I never said it didn't, but you said regardless of play style the game forces you up into close up combat.
Which is wrong.
Orchomene wrote...
2. That's not what I can choice. Of course, I can die in the first combat and stop playing. I don't consider this as a valid choice. You can choose to not recruit some of the NPCs and refuse to do their loyalty missions. In the result, some will die. And ? Is this really a choice that changes the story ? Do I have the choice to not go with some extremist action group called Cerberus ? Do I have the choice to not acknowledge TIM ? There is no choice in ME2, only illusions.
Orchomene wrote...
Massadonious1 wrote...
And the average snootiness of your typical RPG "gamer" has risen every year since Baldur's Gate has come out, based on my own awesomeness and not on any empirical (OMG smrt werds!) data whatsoever.
If the shoe fits...well, perhaps you shouldn't wear it. Thinking everyone is "teh stupidz" because they don't like, don't play your specific genre or exclusively play a genre you apparently think breeds morons is about as elitist as you can get. I'm suprised that you honestly think that you're generally suprised that you have to defend yourself in that regard.
Sure. I'm very proud to be an elitist. I do really enjoy mocking the dumb masses of our societies and laugh seeing people unable to think a bit farther than their shoes. Did you read Human, all too human ? I really enjoyed it. This is a good lesson that taught me to avoid trying to explain things to the uneducated masses that have access to knowledge and the ability to think by themselves but don't consider that thinking and learning are sane occupations.
Modifié par Massadonious1, 15 juin 2010 - 10:59 .
Alex_SM wrote...
You don't have this type of choices in any known game. Can you decide not to be a Grey Warden in DA or not to fight the blight? or not to leave the Vault in Fallout?
There have been really a few critical decisions in the whole video game history. It still a video game, splitting the story leads to increse the development time which increases game costs which increases the sales needed.
Terror_K wrote...
FlyingWalrus wrote...
Because it combined gameplay that more casual gamers were comfortable with with mechanics that still allowed for a great deal of adjustment for your play style with a compelling narrative and involving characters. I probably wouldn't have been happy with ME2 at all if the mechanics were reduced to something like Halo 3's, where you just pick up your weapons, find a target and blow them to smithereens. While that's all good, it's not Mass Effect.Terror_K wrote...
And yet Mass Effect 2 decides to go in the opposite direction and is massively hyped and praised for it...
A lot of Mass Effect's initial mechanics were cumbersome and made little sense in the setting. ME2 is ME1 with all the fat cut out. Like I've said before, among the things I would like to see in ME3 is more talents, more character interactivity, more armor modules, worthwhile exploration and more side missions.
Inventory? Don't miss it. Weapon upgrades? Throwaway. A reduction in stats to keep up with? Oh, some were moved to research? Okay, that's fine.
All in all, Mass Effect 2 was made into a sleeker, more elegant game. My hope is that Bioware builds upon this foundation to give us the best Mass Effect game in the trilogy with the third game. By cutting back, Bioware has shown that they can still mint a great game without a lot of the RPG tropes.
They didn't just cut the fat... they took away the muscle, skin and organs too and only left the bare bones.
InvaderErl wrote...
And you don't need to go close up. You can stick at range. So what's the problem?
SkullandBonesmember wrote...
FlyingWalrus wrote...
I did not find this to be an issue in the slightest in ME2. And get this: it was one of my most major complaints in ME1. When I was first starting my Insanity run (with a new character at level 1, no less), the bunkers on uncharted planets were virtually impossible because of how low-grade my gear was at that point and because the enemies would come charging through the door, shouting, "I will destroy you!" and "Enemies everywhere!" the whole way.
I haven't experienced that kind of frustration in ME2, at least.
I found the combat anywhere in ME1 easier and more enjoyable. ME1 never had "checkpoints" where you continue to shoot enemies for 20 straight minutes in the same spot wondering all the while why it never ends. And there's the whole ENCIRCLING YOU FROM EVERY SIDE.
Terror_K wrote...
Yes... I like shooters too. I have Gears of War, and most of the GTA titles).
Retour en haut