616 réponses à ce sujet

[AlanC9]

FlyingWalrus wrote...

Orchomene seems to be one who prefers anti-heroes and morally ambiguous misanthropy to enduring themes of heroism that have existed since the earliest dawn of literature. At least that's as much as I can glean from his comments that describe the notion of a "hero saving the world" as "immature," not to mention his praise of Nietzschean principles and self-interested ideals.

Suddenly I'm reminded of Unforgiven. Supposed to be such a revisionist kind of Western.... but in the end, he still goes and has the big shootout and kills the bad guy because, well, what else is there to do? 

[CatatonicMan]

InvaderErl wrote...

thebuggiman wrote...

 thats my personal definition of an rpg doesn'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.

I've argued this before, but what the hell:

David Gaider's arguments are correct in general - the RPG genre is a wide ocean of possibilities that encompasses many things, including things that most people wouldn't consider RPGs at all. Nostalgia drives expectations, and with such a wide range of possibilities swimming at various depths in the RPG sea there really is no way to make a game that could possibly meet everyone's expectations for what an RPG should be.

Diverse experiences create diverse expectations for any game that is purported to be an RPG, and the end result is that there are an equal (or greater, or lesser sometimes) number of dissatisfied gamers to those who felt the game was an accurate portrayal of the 'true' RPG experience.

HOWEVER...

There is a fundamental flaw with Gaider's argument when you try to apply it to ME2 - the fact that ME2 is a sequel, and a direct sequel at that.

Everything about varying expectations is correct when you apply the RPG template to a new game, including ME2, when considered by itself - but it can't really be considered on it's lonesome, since it's a trilogy. The ultimate problem with this is that ME2 has a large amount of baggage in the form of previously fulfilled expectations.

This severely limits the ability to use the wide RPG sea as a defense; you cannot throw up a credible argument about expectations being to narrow for the range of things that can be RPGs when you already have those same expectations anchored with a previous game. It just doesn't fly.

Even with a sequel, there is some wiggle room for innovations, improvements, changes, etc - but not much. That's where ME2 went wrong; they moved the game out of the acceptable expectation range set by the original, and into the expectation range allowed for entirely new games. For a sequel, that is a really bad idea.

The could have kept ME2 closer to the core elements of ME1, but they focused too hard on the combat (which was their sacred cow for ME2) and neglected the other areas that could have kept the game close enough to the original not to cause many of their RPG-oriented fans to recoil.

To summarize, the 'what defines an RPG' defense isn't effective when you've already established a baseline that previously defined the series as a whole. You don't change horses in the middle of a stream, and all that.

Is ME2 an RPG? Sure. Is ME2 an RPG like ME1 was? Not so much. That's really the biggest issue with the game as it is.

I don't think I was as clear as I wanted to be, but I am really tired right now.

Modifié par CatatonicMan, 16 juin 2010 - 05:41 .

[AlanC9]

SuperMedbh wrote...

It's interesting to me that many point to the shooter elements of ME2 as its hallmark, yet I don't like shooters. Seriously, I liked ME2's combat so much I thought "Gosh, maybe shooters are better now". So I bought Bioshock and Crysis, and played the demos for a bunch more such as Left 4 Dead and Half Life. I'll say Bioshock was brilliant, but the others left me absolutely cold. And even Bioshock felt as if I had very little control over the story (sort of the point, actually, but I won't spoil it).

Clearly, as much fun as shooting is, many of us need to care about the characters. I think combat *matters* in a hybrid RPG/shooter because we have more of an investment in the well being of these fictional people than one does in a typical FPS.

Not sure, really. Any thoughts?

How'd you feel about Alyx in Half-Life?  Or Dog? I presume you were playing HL2. 

[AlanC9]

CatatonicMan wrote...
To summarize, the 'what defines an RPG' defense isn't effective when you've already established a baseline that previously defined the series as a whole. You don't change horses in the middle of a stream, and all that.

You think Gaider's playing defense? Maybe about "is ME2 an RPG," but not about ME2 itself, which he doesn't need to defend. Critical and commercial success, you know, and apparently popular with the majority of ME fans too. 

[CatatonicMan]

AlanC9 wrote...

You think Gaider's playing defense? Maybe about "is ME2 an RPG," but not about ME2 itself, which he doesn't need to defend. Critical and commercial success, you know, and apparently popular with the majority of ME fans too. 

I thought the whole point of this thread was to discuss the RPG aspect of the game (or lack thereof). For the purposes of this discussion, it doesn't really matter how well ME2 was received.

As an example, Gears of War was a critical success - but if I had to grade it as an RPG, I'd have to give it an F. The fact that it was popular has little to do with how much RPG it contains.

Modifié par CatatonicMan, 16 juin 2010 - 05:45 .

[Massadonious1]

Terror_K wrote...
Yes... I like shooters too. I have Gears of War, and most of the GTA titles).

"Uh, well, I've eaten and do like eggs, but ham is clearly the superior breakfast food. In fact, I have proof that eating eggs lowers your IQ. Not when I was eating them, of course."

Modifié par Massadonious1, 16 juin 2010 - 06:17 .

[AlanC9]

CatatonicMan wrote...
I thought the whole point of this thread was to discuss the RPG aspect of the game (or lack thereof). For the purposes of this discussion, it doesn't really matter how well ME2 was received.

Indeed. But your post was about how ME2 might have disappointed self-styled RPG fans because of their expectations derived from ME1. That has nothing to do with whether ME2 is or isn't an RPG, only about whether a certain group of players think it is. Is "RPG" is an essentially meaningless term that only refers to the desires of a particular group of players at a particular instant in time? I don't have a problem with that, but if that's the case then this whole thread is vacuous.

I see you've got an actual opinion about Me2 not being an RPG. Why don't you post that instead?

Modifié par AlanC9, 16 juin 2010 - 07:43 .

[hawat333]

There's no such thing as "too much RPG".

[Onyx Jaguar]

Very true, however there are better rocket launchers out there

[CaptainSpandex]

Not enough.

I love that the shooting felt more responsive, and that's all well and good... but the radial menu options had been sliced in half, character upgrades felt very linear, the game was just... surprisingly... lacking 'options'.

Heck... there were only two handguns in the entire galaxy! And you couldn't buy them at the gun store, despite the big sign that says 'Gun Store' on the front... and despite the fact that the man at the counter specifically mentions selling guns to people.

Modifié par CaptainSpandex, 16 juin 2010 - 10:46 .

[Terror_K]

Massadonious1 wrote...

Terror_K wrote...
Yes... I like shooters too. I have Gears of War, and most of the GTA titles).

"Uh, well, I've eaten and do like eggs, but ham is clearly the superior breakfast food. In fact, I have proof that eating eggs lowers your IQ. Not when I was eating them, of course."

As usual the entire point is missed, and with a veiled insult thrown in. And one wonders why those of us who are dissatisfied with ME2 treat the majority of those who are supportive of it with such disdain. <_<

Not exactly helping your side of things... just saying. 

[Pocketgb]

hawat333 wrote...

There's no such thing as "too much RPG".

Spreadsheet: The Game

Terror_K wrote...

...And one wonders why those of us who are dissatisfied with ME2 treat the majority of those who are supportive of it with such disdain. [smilie]../../../images/forum/emoticons/angry.png[/smilie]

"He did it first!" is not a good excuse.

Modifié par Pocketgb, 16 juin 2010 - 11:49 .

[CatatonicMan]

AlanC9 wrote...

CatatonicMan wrote...
I thought the whole point of this thread was to discuss the RPG aspect of the game (or lack thereof). For the purposes of this discussion, it doesn't really matter how well ME2 was received.

Indeed. But your post was about how ME2 might have disappointed self-styled RPG fans because of their expectations derived from ME1. That has nothing to do with whether ME2 is or isn't an RPG, only about whether a certain group of players think it is. Is "RPG" is an essentially meaningless term that only refers to the desires of a particular group of players at a particular instant in time? I don't have a problem with that, but if that's the case then this whole thread is vacuous.

I see you've got an actual opinion about Me2 not being an RPG. Why don't you post that instead?

The term 'RPG' is generally so broad that it is almost meaningless, at least when attempting to classify games into a category - and that is basically what Gaider was using as a rebuttal against those who claimed that ME2 was not really an RPG.

As you've pointed out, however, the term is so loose and arbitrary that applying it to a game doesn't actually reveal that much about the game. Under this model, anyone with any expectations about a game that arise simply from it being an RPG are just asking for disappointment. If there had been no ME1, then any arguments about whether or not ME2 had too much or not enough RPG would be vacuous under the definitions we've established.

Since the 'RPG' category is so broad as to be a useless descriptor, it can't really be used to qualify a game; since ME1 is a known quantity, however, it can and should be used as a baseline for whether ME2 is too much or not enough of an RPG. It set expectations of the game far more than any vague opinions any given person may hold about the 'true' nature of the RPG.

I'd say that arguing whether ME2 is an RPG or not is meaningless. A far better and more useful question would be, "Does ME2 lack too much in the RPG department when compared to ME1?" Gaiders argument - the thing I originally attempted to refute with this - is correct for the first question (which, as I've attempted to show, is basically meaningless), but is far less useful if applied to the second.

[Massadonious1]

Terror_K wrote...

Massadonious1 wrote...

Terror_K wrote...
Yes... I like shooters too. I have Gears of War, and most of the GTA titles).

"Uh, well, I've eaten and do like eggs, but ham is clearly the superior breakfast food. In fact, I have proof that eating eggs lowers your IQ. Not when I was eating them, of course."

As usual the entire point is missed, and with a veiled insult thrown in. And one wonders why those of us who are dissatisfied with ME2 treat the majority of those who are supportive of it with such disdain. <_<

Not exactly helping your side of things... just saying. 

What exactly was missed? You play/own these particular games, yet treat them with such distain as to claim that the "the IQ of the average "gamer" these days is dropping every year, and yet
its not okay to point to the cancer that infects a once more dignified
hobby." Which is it? Are you with them, or against them? Did you lose IQ points playing Gears and Unreal, or is that phenomenon taking place a little more recently, and wasn't within your timeframe?

And nowhere did I claim I was pro-anything. If I am something, I am pro-not being an insufferable douchebag. I've been referred to either directly or indirecly as a "gamer" (by you) "dumb and uneducated" (by someone else) and otherwise have had my intelligence insulted by all of you who think playing the occasional shooter or TPS makes you some kind of troglodyte that apparently can't rub two brain cells together, simply for taking a little bit of the high ground and thinking these assumptions and comparisons are just a bit elitist and ridiculous.

But, by all means, I should obviously feel bad for insulting you instead.

[Terror_K]

Pocketgb wrote...

Terror_K wrote...

...And one wonders why those of us who are dissatisfied with ME2 treat the majority of those who are supportive of it with such disdain. [smilie]../../../images/forum/emoticons/angry.png[/smilie]

"He did it first!" is not a good excuse.

Look, there are some people who I disagree with a lot on these forums and yet I still have a lot of time for and am willing to debate and discuss things with because they have some interesting and well thought out points and arguments, some of which I'll even concede to now and then. But there are a lot more out there who, to put this simply, need to stop coming up with the same inane and inaccurate "if then else" statements repeatedly that only seem to indicate that they aren't really paying attention to what's actually being said, and probably don't want to.

[Pocketgb]

Terror_K wrote...

Pocketgb wrote...

Terror_K wrote...

...And one wonders why those of us who are dissatisfied with ME2 treat the majority of those who are supportive of it with such disdain. [smilie]../../../images/forum/emoticons/angry.png[/smilie]

"He did it first!" is not a good excuse.

Look, there are some people who I disagree with a lot on these forums and yet I still have a lot of time for and am willing to debate and discuss things with because they have some interesting and well thought out points and arguments, some of which I'll even concede to now and then. But there are a lot more out there who, to put this simply, need to stop coming up with the same inane and inaccurate "if then else" statements repeatedly that only seem to indicate that they aren't really paying attention to what's actually being said, and probably don't want to.

If they really do have nothing to offer then the best case scenario is to ignore them. If you do want to reply to them then sinking to their level won't help.

[Terror_K]

Massadonious1 wrote...

What exactly was missed? You play/own these particular games, yet treat them with such distain as to claim that the "the IQ of the average "gamer" these days is dropping every year, and yet
its not okay to point to the cancer that infects a once more dignified
hobby." Which is it? Are you with them, or against them? Did you lose IQ points playing Gears and Unreal, or is that phenomenon taking place a little more recently, and wasn't within your timeframe?

And nowhere did I claim I was pro-anything. If I am something, I am pro-not being an insufferable douchebag. I've been referred to either directly or indirecly as a "gamer" (by you) "dumb and uneducated" (by someone else) and otherwise have had my intelligence insulted by all of you who think playing the occasional shooter or TPS makes you some kind of troglodyte that apparently can't rub two brain cells together, simply for taking a little bit of the high ground and thinking these assumptions and comparisons are just a bit elitist and ridiculous.

But, by all means, I should obviously feel bad for insulting you instead.

That there is a difference between those who play shooters and shooter fanboys. That there is a difference between gamers who enjoy a wide range of genres from the simplest shooter to the most complex RPG and those who pretty much only player action games and keep going on about how "Hal0z iz teh b3st game EVoRZZ!!!1" That there's a difference between proper gamers who have broad tastes and casual gamers who have limited ones. That just because one likes to play a shooter game doesn't mean that they're morons, but that a lot of shooter fans out there are. That just because somebody enjoys a game that is dumbed-down for the masses that they aren't dumb themselves. That just because a developer makes a game for the mainstream that they aren't part of it.

These are all things I believe. But I also believe that because gaming is becoming a more casual hobby and less of a niche nerd one, games in general are being developed and designed to appeal more to the general public than they once were. The average gamer has changed now, and gaming has changed too. If I'm an elitist for believing these things, then I guess I am, but I make no apologies for it, because this is how I perceive things being, just as I perceive it that BioWare dumbed-down Mass Effect 2 to reflect said change. That doesn't mean that anybody who enjoys it or prefers it fits into that target audience, but it doesn't change the fact that its the target audience exists. The only reason you, or anybody else, should be insulted is if the shoe fits. If not, then don't be. Only you know what type of gamer you are.

That's pretty much the point missed here.

[SkullandBonesmember]

Terror_K wrote...

That there is a difference between those who play shooters and shooter fanboys. That there is a difference between gamers who enjoy a wide range of genres from the simplest shooter to the most complex RPG and those who pretty much only player action games and keep going on about how "Hal0z iz teh b3st game EVoRZZ!!!1" That there's a difference between proper gamers who have broad tastes and casual gamers who have limited ones. That just because one likes to play a shooter game doesn't mean that they're morons, but that a lot of shooter fans out there are. That just because somebody enjoys a game that is dumbed-down for the masses that they aren't dumb themselves. That just because a developer makes a game for the mainstream that they aren't part of it.

These are all things I believe. But I also believe that because gaming is becoming a more casual hobby and less of a niche nerd one, games in general are being developed and designed to appeal more to the general public than they once were. The average gamer has changed now, and gaming has changed too. If I'm an elitist for believing these things, then I guess I am, but I make no apologies for it, because this is how I perceive things being, just as I perceive it that BioWare dumbed-down Mass Effect 2 to reflect said change. That doesn't mean that anybody who enjoys it or prefers it fits into that target audience, but it doesn't change the fact that its the target audience exists. The only reason you, or anybody else, should be insulted is if the shoe fits. If not, then don't be. Only you know what type of gamer you are.

That's pretty much the point missed here.

Pfft. That's your elitism talking. ME2 is a wonderful sequel to a mediocre first game.

[Orchomene]

FlyingWalrus wrote...

Orchomene seems to be one who prefers anti-heroes and morally ambiguous misanthropy to enduring themes of heroism that have existed since the earliest dawn of literature. At least that's as much as I can glean from his comments that describe the notion of a "hero saving the world" as "immature," not to mention his praise of Nietzschean principles and self-interested ideals.

I think it would be more respectful to avoid puting words in my mouth. There is no specific correlation between maturity and anti heroism or immaturity and heroism. The points were seperated. I feel the NPC characters in ME2 are essentially immature (not childish, just puting emotions above rational and adult attitudes). But it may be a matter of taste. I do feel that a lot of mechanism in our society exploit a lot of the immaturity that can be found. This is notable in communication technics using Parent/Child relations as seen too often in companies. But this is not related to the heroism.
I really think that an heroic character in a RPG is less interesting than a non heroic (not specifically anti-heroic, just not qualified a priori as heroic). That's just to add a lot of freedom in roleplaying. At first playthrough of a cRPG, I tend to generally play a character I feel safe with, generally heroic but with a small dose of pragmatism (i.e., not extremist in heroism, but overall a good guy). Then, I enjoy playing some character I don't appreciate at all. This is where there are a lot of issues in games that are tailored to a character that will "save the world". Because some reactions seem a bit unnatural.
In the Planescape example (or even in Kotor2 if you want), playing a good guy or bad guy is equallty logical since the main quest is a personnal quest. No world will be saved. Thus, a RPG that has not as a focus to "save the world" or any heroic attribute given a priori offers more freedom in roleplay. For books, it's different. The character is defined by the author and only marginaly by the reader, the story is fixed. It's thus logical to see more good guys than bad guys, people tend to more identify with an heroic character than an anti-hero.
About Nietzsche, you may want to read more closely this great humanist that had very high expectations from humanity. Overall, Nietzsche has been overused by people in some ideologies of which he condemned the emergency. Like he has strongly condemned antisemitism. But that's not the debate here.

Edit : I didn't answer you, Massadonious1. If you felt insulted by my preceeding remarks, I'm sorry. It was intended to people that are either too lazy or too dumb to play games that require a minimum of thinking. I didn't intent to put you in either category and it's your entire choice to put you in one category or the other. You can then put me in the "elitist" category, I don't mind.

Modifié par Orchomene, 16 juin 2010 - 02:21 .

[kalle90]

Seipher05 wrote...

FlyingWalrus wrote...
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.

The problem is, you probably have. As BW has decided that ME3 will also be a standalone game, I don't see any feasible way that they can make the decision at the end of ME1 have any huge impact. How can you have an event that new players know nothing about play a pivotal role in the game? If someone who's never played an ME game before keeps hearing in ME3 about "when the Council died, this happened..." or "If the Council hadn't died, we could have...", they're going to be completely out of the loop, and since ME3 is designed to be it's own game with a story that anyone can follow, I can't see how a decision in a game BW assumes you've never played can have major ramifications.

That would make ME3 a rental for me. IMO the entire point of this series were your choices and actions. Game could have done with poor graphics and clunky controls as long as the game has dozens of ways to go and end. By making ME3 into Mass Effect: The end of Shepard makes this entire trip meaningless.

Good business though. Got me in ME1, lured me into getting ME2 and just now I'm starting to wonder whether it was worth it.

[ATynam]

Mass Effect relies on twitch based gaming so just in that i'd say it removes itself from the traditional class of role playing computer games where you can rely on the skills you have given the character. However what ME has in spades is the ability to guide your own path through the story and this appeals to me far more as a role playing element. Choosing to be a paragon or a renegade is far more about roleplaying than where to place the next couple of squad points. To be honest character levelling is a horribly artificial mechanic, i'd rather see a character develop based upon the skills and equipment they choose.

[SuperMedbh]

Orchomene wrote...

I really think that an heroic character in a RPG is less interesting than a non heroic (not specifically anti-heroic, just not qualified a priori as heroic). That's just to add a lot of freedom in roleplaying.

Hrm, perhaps, although we're back to personal tastes again.  Still, I'll submit that the RPG genre (PnP and Computer both) is already filled with examples of games in which your character starts out as a poor farmboy neglected step-daughter pigeon herder 1st level character who inexplicably becomes superhuman through the typical mechanic of mass slaughter of large bugs orc babies lower level monsters and stealing from their corpses and bedrooms.

I found the notion of starting out playing "the best humanity had to offer"  a refreshing change of pace.  Tres Campbellian and all that.  But if you prefer your Horatio Alger style epics, throw a brick at the local Gamestop and I'm sure you'll find four or five titles that will satisfy you.

[Orchomene]

I'm not that much into american writers, sorry. The only one I read are Bukowski, Miller and Hemingway. Besides, there are no Gamestop in France.

On topic, there are many PnP RPG that don't involve that much the "first level character evolving into superhuman". World of darkness rpgs, Call of Chtulhu, In nomine satanis/Magna veritas, Paranoïa, Stormbringer, Amber, to cite some that don't have a concept of level. I've nothing against the concept of begining playing some veteran soldier, I'm just a bit exhausted by the omnipresence of the hero theme as main character in cRPG. That's why I think that lots of Bethesda games have the big advantage to let you decide what is the nature of your character.

To the above poster, paragon/renegade choice or good/evil choices or light/dark choices are pretty common in RPGs. Sometimes it's even better implemented than in BW games where the concepts are generally of little originality.

[SuperMedbh]

Fair enough-- my French limits me to Asterix and maybe Saint-Exupury on a good day. Your country's fondness for Proust escapes me Campbell is worth a read, though. He's the one who came up with the concept of the Hero's Journey, and traces various mythologies back to their common roots. Skip the Alger unless you have some perverse need to understand the American mythos regarding wealth and success.



Regarding level, perhaps not all use the term. But I am hard pressed to think of any game that doesn't have some method of improving your character. Even side scrolling shooters get power ups.