1133 réponses à ce sujet

[filetemo]

SirOccam wrote...

Faz432 wrote...

To be fair people can go on what's happened before in recent history to get an idea of what will happen in the future, and when you look at the direction Bioware went with ME1 to ME2 then the assumption that they are pushing their games away from RPG to action/adventure is valid.

Only if you have a really rigid, strict, immutable definition of what makes an RPG.

If you don't, then you may not even agree that ME2 was less of an RPG than ME1 was. And in that case, the point doesn't even apply.

I love RPGs, but that doesn't mean they can never be modernized or updated. Not everything that is traditionally part of an RPG has to be in an RPG in order for it to be considered an RPG. Just gotta keep an open mind.

soccer is soccer, rules have been adapting and changing for over 100 years, but if one day you make players play the ball with their hands, it's not soccer anymore. You can (and must) improve rules but the pillars must remain untouchable

[Seth Burns]

Hey kiddo, do you know what RPG stands for? "Role-playing Game." That's the only definition BW needs. You make the choices and you make the decisions. Therefore it falls into the genre of RPG. When did the community ever make it a rule where you can only call RPGs if you have to sift through worthless crap in your inventory, spam fire spells at skeletons, and walk around in a mid-evil setting in a giant environment? Never. That's the exception and the common game, but not the rule. You don't like these types of games, I suggest you pack your bags and leave and stop trolling because people don't care of your opinion.

[Bryy_Miller]

filetemo wrote...

SirOccam wrote...

Faz432 wrote...

To be fair people can go on what's happened before in recent history to get an idea of what will happen in the future, and when you look at the direction Bioware went with ME1 to ME2 then the assumption that they are pushing their games away from RPG to action/adventure is valid.

Only if you have a really rigid, strict, immutable definition of what makes an RPG.

If you don't, then you may not even agree that ME2 was less of an RPG than ME1 was. And in that case, the point doesn't even apply.

I love RPGs, but that doesn't mean they can never be modernized or updated. Not everything that is traditionally part of an RPG has to be in an RPG in order for it to be considered an RPG. Just gotta keep an open mind.

soccer is soccer, rules have been adapting and changing for over 100 years, but if one day you make players play the ball with their hands, it's not soccer anymore. You can (and must) improve rules but the pillars must remain untouchable

So, you have to improve the rules, yet they never change?

That's great. Are you currently taking high school psychology?

[Monica83]

I can afford Changes

But i really hope they continue to make an Rpg with dialogues deep storyline and a deep world...

How many times peoples called The elder scroll IV oblivion an RPG game?

Oblivion have a weak story weak dialogues.. The only good things they have is interaction with object and graphic...

I really hope Bioware don't follows that way

[IrishSpectre257]

Bioware will do whatever they want, and they should. They're the ones making the game they want to make, not the game you want them to make. If you don't happen to like the game in question, suck it up and move on.

While I enjoy deep customization options that many of you say a game needs to have in order to be an RPG, that's not the reason play Bioware games. I play them for the strong writing (compared to other games), and as long as they deliver on that front, I'm satisified.

[Rubbish Hero]

IrishSpectre257 wrote...Bioware will do whatever they want

No, they are being dictated by the audience numbers and sales.

Modifié par Rubbish Hero, 12 août 2010 - 01:31 .

[Bryy_Miller]

IrishSpectre257 wrote...

Bioware will do whatever they want, and they should. They're the ones making the game they want to make, not the game you want them to make.

I've been on forums where this is a foreign concept, and people think you're lying if you say as such. People seem to think that they control the direction of the product. I've seen people **** about Clark Kent killing Davis Bloome because "he belongs with Chloe Sullivan".

[SirOccam]

filetemo wrote...

SirOccam wrote...

Faz432 wrote...

To be fair people can go on what's happened before in recent history to get an idea of what will happen in the future, and when you look at the direction Bioware went with ME1 to ME2 then the assumption that they are pushing their games away from RPG to action/adventure is valid.

Only if you have a really rigid, strict, immutable definition of what makes an RPG.

If you don't, then you may not even agree that ME2 was less of an RPG than ME1 was. And in that case, the point doesn't even apply.

I love RPGs, but that doesn't mean they can never be modernized or updated. Not everything that is traditionally part of an RPG has to be in an RPG in order for it to be considered an RPG. Just gotta keep an open mind.

soccer is soccer, rules have been adapting and changing for over 100 years, but if one day you make players play the ball with their hands, it's not soccer anymore. You can (and must) improve rules but the pillars must remain untouchable

So who decides what the pillars are? If you agree that a complicated inventory system is a pillar, for example, then you and I disagree. Which of us is wrong, and why? I don't think as many things are pillars as many others do, I guess (that was a weird sentence).

[Angel of Nessus]

You just have preconcieved notions of what an RPG is- all it is is a game in which you can roleplay (a) character(s). If you don't like where the next installment is headed, you are perfectly free to NOT buy it- but complaining about a game that's not going to be out for half a year based on hairtrigger assumptions of vague statements by the developers is foolish.

[Bryy_Miller]

SirOccam wrote...

filetemo wrote...

SirOccam wrote...

Faz432 wrote...

To be fair people can go on what's happened before in recent history to get an idea of what will happen in the future, and when you look at the direction Bioware went with ME1 to ME2 then the assumption that they are pushing their games away from RPG to action/adventure is valid.

Only if you have a really rigid, strict, immutable definition of what makes an RPG.

If you don't, then you may not even agree that ME2 was less of an RPG than ME1 was. And in that case, the point doesn't even apply.

I love RPGs, but that doesn't mean they can never be modernized or updated. Not everything that is traditionally part of an RPG has to be in an RPG in order for it to be considered an RPG. Just gotta keep an open mind.

soccer is soccer, rules have been adapting and changing for over 100 years, but if one day you make players play the ball with their hands, it's not soccer anymore. You can (and must) improve rules but the pillars must remain untouchable

So who decides what the pillars are? If you agree that a complicated inventory system is a pillar, for example, then you and I disagree. Which of us is wrong, and why? I don't think as many things are pillars as many others do, I guess (that was a weird sentence).

Making what is a fun concept horribly complex is the staple of any true RPG.

[filetemo]

Bryy_Miller wrote...

IrishSpectre257 wrote...

Bioware will do whatever they want, and they should. They're the ones making the game they want to make, not the game you want them to make.

I've been on forums where this is a foreign concept, and people think you're lying if you say as such. People seem to think that they control the direction of the product. I've seen people **** about Clark Kent killing Davis Bloome because "he belongs with Chloe Sullivan".

because one newbie writer has no rights to change decades of tradition.

if they made mass effect 4 and a new contracted writer made shepard a transexual cocaine addict, you'fd have all the right to criticise him. After a few years, a character is equally property of the fans and the creators.

[condiments1]

Bryy_Miller wrote...

IrishSpectre257 wrote...

Bioware will do whatever they want, and they should. They're the ones making the game they want to make, not the game you want them to make.

I've been on forums where this is a foreign concept, and people think you're lying if you say as such. People seem to think that they control the direction of the product. I've seen people **** about Clark Kent killing Davis Bloome because "he belongs with Chloe Sullivan".

You're grasping at straws. Bioware even admited an interview, "they are going the way of the audience" rather than developing what they want.

Bioware not making RPGs does not make them less of a company, but I just don't like being lied to. Mass Effect 2 is an awesome game, but guess what? Its a third person shooter action game that has an emphasis on story.

[filetemo]

if gears of war had choices, a morality meter, different endings, and love interests, it wouldn't be an rpg

[joriandrake]

condiments1 wrote...

Bioware not making RPGs does not make them less of a company, but I just don't like being lied to. Mass Effect 2 is an awesome game, but guess what? Its a third person shooter action game that has an emphasis on story.

this

[Bryy_Miller]

filetemo wrote...

Bryy_Miller wrote...

IrishSpectre257 wrote...

Bioware will do whatever they want, and they should. They're the ones making the game they want to make, not the game you want them to make.

I've been on forums where this is a foreign concept, and people think you're lying if you say as such. People seem to think that they control the direction of the product. I've seen people **** about Clark Kent killing Davis Bloome because "he belongs with Chloe Sullivan".

because one newbie writer has no rights to change decades of tradition.

Are you referring to my Smallville comment? If you are, Chloe Sullivan was created for the show. So was Davis Bloome. It was not a retcon of anything in the comics.

After a few years, a character is equally property of the fans and the creators.

Nope. The fans never own a character created by someone else. 

[filetemo]

Bryy_Miller wrote...
Nope. The fans never own a character created by someone else. 

oh yes we do. If you make me believe a character is like this, and make me love him for it, do not present it to me in a radically new form or you'll make me rage, and not only will I not buy your comic/movie/game/novel, but I will also flame you in your blog/forum/deeepest corner of the internet you hide in.

That's why we are fans "if you don't like it don't buy it", right?

wrong

"I won't buy it and I will flame you to death till the end of the days"

[IrishSpectre257]

condiments1 wrote...

Bryy_Miller wrote...

IrishSpectre257 wrote...

Bioware will do whatever they want, and they should. They're the ones making the game they want to make, not the game you want them to make.

I've been on forums where this is a foreign concept, and people think you're lying if you say as such. People seem to think that they control the direction of the product. I've seen people **** about Clark Kent killing Davis Bloome because "he belongs with Chloe Sullivan".

You're grasping at straws. Bioware even admited an interview, "they are going the way of the audience" rather than developing what they want.

Bioware not making RPGs does not make them less of a company, but I just don't like being lied to. Mass Effect 2 is an awesome game, but guess what? Its a third person shooter action game that has an emphasis on story.

I consider ME2 a TPS with RPG elements and an emphasis on story as well. But when Bioware markets it as an RPG, I don't consider it them lying to me, I just remember that the developers obviously have their own idea of what defines an RPG.

[joriandrake]

filetemo wrote...

Bryy_Miller wrote...
Nope. The fans never own a character created by someone else. 

oh yes we do. If you make me believe a character is like this, and make me love him for it, do not present it to me in a radically new form or you'll make me rage, and not only will I not buy your comic/movie/game/novel, but I will also flame you in your blog/forum/deeepest corner of the internet you hide in.

That's why we are fans "if you don't like it don't buy it", right?

wrong

"I won't buy it and I will flame you to death till the end of the days"

this

[Bobad]

filetemo wrote...

Bryy_Miller wrote...
Nope. The fans never own a character created by someone else. 

oh yes we do. If you make me believe a character is like this, and make me love him for it, do not present it to me in a radically new form or you'll make me rage, and not only will I not buy your comic/movie/game/novel, but I will also flame you in your blog/forum/deeepest corner of the internet you hide in.

That's why we are fans "if you don't like it don't buy it", right?

wrong

"I won't buy it and I will flame you to death till the end of the days"

Eberyone needs a hobby

[mydisplaynameisawsome]

This entire argument seems pointless. people ****ing about something they know very little about. Why not wait a few months until legitimate details are released then make a decision of wheather it is terrible or not. Or an rpg or not.

[Bryy_Miller]

filetemo wrote...

wrong

"I won't buy it and I will flame you to death till the end of the days"

You can't honestly be serious. That's not being a fan. Thank you for deleting any doubt I had that you're anything more than a sh*t-starter.

[filetemo]

Bryy_Miller wrote...

Thank you for deleting any doubt I had that you're anything more than a sh*t-starter.

that's not very convincing coming from Mr. "For every copy of Dragon Age 2 that you don't buy, I'm going to buy seven."
Everything I say here, is because I believe it. And I'm here because I care for DA2. I'm not here to spill hate, if I wanted to spill something I would be on Xvideos or Bangbros

[SirOccam]

condiments1 wrote...

Bioware not making RPGs does not make them less of a company, but I just don't like being lied to. Mass Effect 2 is an awesome game, but guess what? Its a third person shooter action game that has an emphasis on story.

Halo is a third-person shooter action game that has an emphasis on story. I really liked Halo's storyline. It was a fun game, though I haven't played it in years.

Mass Effect 2 is an RPG. Your actions affect the outcome of the game. You make your own version of Shepard. You have the freedom to build relationships with other characters (although I will admit it wasn't done very well compared to DAO). You decide where Shepard's strengths are.

The difference to me is that a shooter just moves you from combat level to combat level with a couple cutscenes in between. Others may disagree with me, but I think what makes an RPG an RPG is that you have a level of freedom that games like Halo lack. It has nothing to do with inventory, or statistics, or min/maxing, or math.

[TSamee]

Whatever they "want" is irrelevant, I just wish they'd get up and be clear about it. That statement about DA selling better on consoles, for example, was a great example of PR BS. "It sold more on consoles, so let's head in 'that direction'"? People (including me) bought DA:O on consoles because it was a hardcore RPG. The only difference between the console and PC versions of Origins was crappier combat on consoles, how does this makes simplifying things the logical course of action?

They're streamlining (sometimes to the point of over-simplification) mechanics to appeal to a more casual audience, fine. I don't like it when they do it so much that they alienate us, but I understand why. The money these days isn't in PC, it's in consoles, appealing to the more "casual" console gamer (or at least changing mechanics to fit a gamepad) makes sense. I don't like it, but again, it makes sense. But please, BioWare, just tell us when you're heading in that direction.

[condiments1]

IrishSpectre257 wrote...

condiments1 wrote...

Bryy_Miller wrote...

IrishSpectre257 wrote...

Bioware will do whatever they want, and they should. They're the ones making the game they want to make, not the game you want them to make.

I've been on forums where this is a foreign concept, and people think you're lying if you say as such. People seem to think that they control the direction of the product. I've seen people **** about Clark Kent killing Davis Bloome because "he belongs with Chloe Sullivan".

You're grasping at straws. Bioware even admited an interview, "they are going the way of the audience" rather than developing what they want.

Bioware not making RPGs does not make them less of a company, but I just don't like being lied to. Mass Effect 2 is an awesome game, but guess what? Its a third person shooter action game that has an emphasis on story.

I consider ME2 a TPS with RPG elements and an emphasis on story as well. But when Bioware markets it as an RPG, I don't consider it them lying to me, I just remember that the developers obviously have their own idea of what defines an RPG.

Well I consider them lying to me, because they are trying to rope in their old fans while appealing to a wider shooter audience.