1133 réponses à ce sujet

[DarkSpiral]

It occurs to me that this thread in the DA2 forum, but we're re-hashing ME2 arguments. I think I'll just bow out.

[Huwmin race]

if they don't turn it to this or this i'm happy

[EpicBoot2daFace]

Sir JK wrote...

EpicBoot2daFace wrote...

It's Gears of War w/ dialogue. How is that a progression for the RPG genre? Many people say it's dumbed down because it is. It's obvious Bioware wants to appeal to the FPS (or TPS) crowd, and the only way to do that is by removing RPG stuff from the game and filling it to the brim with action generics.

If that's what you enjoy, more power to you. But ME2 is not an RPG, it is a more interactive Gears of War clone. People try to say the RPG is just 'buried benath the surface' and all this other nonsense, making excuses for Bioware and such. Criticism is something that is needed, and I think Bioware really screwed up by pandering to the people who either don't play RPG's or play something like Fable and consider themselves RPG gamers.

He's right though... it's not the actual roleplaying elements which vanished, but the classic DnD-based tactical combat elements. The actual roleplaying is still there and hasn't been touched.

Allocating stat points is as much roleplaying as buying a unit upgrade in a RTS and managing your inventory is about as much roleplaying as keeping check on your ammo in a shooter. Both have no impact on the story whatsoever beyong clearing the next combat encounter so the story can progress and you can get to the roleplaying bit (making a choice in the story and have it react to that).

classical rpg-games have been a combination of a roleplaying game (the interactive story) and a tactical combat game (using limited resources and strategically spent bonuses to defeat enemies). The mass effect games have preserved the former, but changed the latter into something more akin to a shooter.

Both are still roleplaying games since they are all about allowing you to interact with the story and direct which way it takes to the end.

Now, you might prefer the classical tactical combat game with it's allocated bonuses (stats and skill points) and it's resource management (the inventory) and that's fair. But to say that the removal of it means it's not a rpg ignores completely what rpg actually means.

But we have not been shown any indication that anything similar will be done in Dragon Age 2.

Stat points and leveling up one's character is a primary ingreident to an RPG. Sure, you can level up in ME2, but it's a joke. It's so simplified and there is no joy in leveling up at all.

I agree that they have preserved the interactive story, but in ME2, everything seemed like it was on rails. I felt like I had no control over the story, that it was just pushing me forward and I would make a few choices every now and then. The first ME did not feel like that, I felt like I was in control, I was the spectre and the decisions are mine to make. Working with Cerberus shouldn't change that, since I was working with the Alliance/Council in the first game.

I was very disappointed that the inventory system was deleted from ME2. It was quite flawed in the first game, and people did complain about it, but Bioware seems to think that if people are complaining about something, that means it should be deleted. Not the case. It just needed to be fixed. An RPG without an inventory system? I don't think so.

Almost everything in ME2 was dumbed down to appeal to a wider audience, but it was at the expense of the folks who played the first game and were expecting a sequel to that game. Instead, we got a totally different game.

Should I expect the same with DA2? From what I've been hearing and reading, it sure seems like it's going to be like ME2: dumbed down for a wider audience and a totally different experience. Like I said, I really hope I'm wrong, but the GI magazine didn't do anything positive for me.

[Tantum Dic Verbo]

Merced256 wrote...

Really? So table top games are going in to interactive narratives where the DM is dictacting the whole thing and the 4 or so dudes with you are just like.. uhh yea i want dialog option 2? Man, that crowd really has changed hasn't it? So by your assertion table top gaming will evolve in to LARPing and RPG video games evolve in to movies.

For some reason i'm not exactly thrilled.

Role-playing games have always been about interactive narrative.  In fact, interactive narrative is one of the few things that is actually a consensus element of the RPG.  In this sense, computers are incapable of running a role-playing game at all, since they cannot adapt their stories and NPC reactions.

As you have been doing throughout the thread, you're attacking premises and conclusions that other posters aren't actually making.  My post was about game mechanics themselves.  I pointed out that the numbers have to stay balanced, regardless of what we attribute the numbers to, whether it's gear, attributes, or abilities. 

The bottom line is that the traditional, needless complexity of RPG rules has created the illusion that they're much more complicated than they actually are.  People know what they've been fed.  When games start streamlining or throwing out redundant systems, they start using phrases like "dumbed-down" without evaluating whether the new system accomplishes its goals any better.

If players want a golf bag full of weapons, or a "realistic" inventory system that allows them to carry 23 suits of heavy armor around, that's fine.  Not my cup of tea, but I won't demonize or insult a company that makes that game.  If players want "200XP" floating over the heads of vanquished enemies, that's fine, too.  Again--not necessary, but if people think it's fun for some reason, it's worth putting it into a game design.  But the same effect can be achieved by other means.  "Role-playing game" does not mean "2nd Edition AD&D Rules".  That's what I'm saying.

[AlanC9]

EpicBoot2daFace wrote...

Stat points and leveling up one's character is a primary ingreident to an RPG.

This is not an argument for those things being good. You don't actually need one, since you can say you simply like stat points and leveling up, and we're done here. But it doesn't give anyone a reason to agree with you.

The first ME did not feel like that, I felt like I was in control, I was the spectre and the decisions are mine to make. Working with Cerberus shouldn't change that, since I was working with the Alliance/Council in the first game.

Well, sometimes a hero doesn't actually have that many choices. Anyway, could you articulate why you felt less control in ME2? As you say, the actual situations aren't that different.

 An RPG without an inventory system? I don't think so.

Again, not an argument.

[AlanC9]

Tantum Dic Verbo wrote...
Role-playing games have always been about interactive narrative.  In fact, interactive narrative is one of the few things that is actually a consensus element of the RPG. 

Note that this requires an extremely low threshold for narrative if we go back as far as, say, Wizardry or Might and Magic 1.

[Merced256]

Given this thread's history over the course of its 39 pages, i still find it hilarious you're trying to dictate to anyone what a RPG is all about.



I mean at least half of the posts are debating what constitutes and defines a RPG. The consensus was pretty much that its different for everyone. Also i'll make mention of the numerous websites that are made almost exclusively for the discussion of D&D character builds. Certainly a clear indication that those classes, the ability to multi-class, leveling, stat allocation and feat selection are worthless fluff that detract from what you hope becomes LARPing. None of those things are needless btw, unless your entire goal as the DM is to spend 4 hours talking while the party is bored. Feats, stats, levels, are all means to an end yes. But i'm sure you've heard the phrase about it being about the journey and not the destination. Those aforementioned things are integral parts of enriching that journey for many players. Yet you will likely still maintain that its about some douche bag dictating a story and nothing more.

[Tantum Dic Verbo]

EpicBoot2daFace wrote...

Stat points and leveling up one's character is a primary ingreident to an RPG. Sure, you can level up in ME2, but it's a joke. It's so simplified and there is no joy in leveling up at all.

Partially true.  Customization of a character and the ability to define the character's role in a group (or how it resolves conflicts if it's not in a group) is primary to an RPG.  Levelling and stat points are one way to do it, but certainly not essential.  You can just as easily design a game where the story starts with characters who are already expert in their fields.  In a way, DA:O does this with level scaling.  Duncan thinks you're a badass the first time he meets you, after all.

Complex levelling systems (and this usually means granular rather than sophisticated) are usually more about what you're character can't do than what he can.  When I look back at Baldur's Gate, which many of the computer grognards are holding up as an example of near-perfection in the RPG, I'm trying to find the complexity.  If you were a spellcaster, you might get a new spell or two.  If you were a thief, you'd get to put some skill points into something.  If you were a fighter type, you got passive bonuses and went on your way.

ME2 was much more complex than that.  It also didn't give you a lot of false options.  A game can give you all kinds of character building options, but many of them will gimp your character.  Character progression in ME2 was about as old-school as it gets.  Every character had a clearly-defined combat role, with the ability to emphasize certain elements of its fighting style.  That's more that 2nd Edition AD&D ever gave me.

I agree that they have preserved the interactive story, but in ME2, everything seemed like it was on rails. I felt like I had no control over the story, that it was just pushing me forward and I would make a few choices every now and then. The first ME did not feel like that, I felt like I was in control, I was the spectre and the decisions are mine to make. Working with Cerberus shouldn't change that, since I was working with the Alliance/Council in the first game.

Agreed.  As much as the gameplay improved in ME2 (to my tastes), the storytelling wasn't so hot.  CRPG's always railroad the plot, because they have to.  I didn't care, however, to see most of the story being about assembling a team and then doing one mission per team member to exorcise personal demons.  Clunky and artificial, even within the genre.

I was very disappointed that the inventory system was deleted from ME2. It was quite flawed in the first game, and people did complain about it, but Bioware seems to think that if people are complaining about something, that means it should be deleted. Not the case. It just needed to be fixed. An RPG without an inventory system? I don't think so.

Then think longer.

There is nothing essential about an inventory system in an RPG.  It certainly isn't realistic or immersive.  It's a fiddly bit that adds nothing (and actually subtracts) from the story-telling aspect of a RPG.  If it's entertaining enough for a sufficient number of people, it may be worth a design decision.  Personally, I like the idea of one special weapon, rather than trading my weapons in every couple levels for something with a bigger "+X".  Of course, I much prefer my character's power to be attributable to his abilities than his gear.

Almost everything in ME2 was dumbed down to appeal to a wider audience, but it was at the expense of the folks who played the first game and were expecting a sequel to that game. Instead, we got a totally different game.

Should I expect the same with DA2? From what I've been hearing and reading, it sure seems like it's going to be like ME2: dumbed down for a wider audience and a totally different experience. Like I said, I really hope I'm wrong, but the GI magazine didn't do anything positive for me.

If it makes you feel better to call those of us with different gaming preferences "dumb", I can't stop you.  But I would like you to consider the possibility that disagreeing with your tastes is not a hallmark of stupidity.  You might also consider designing a RPG from the ground up and see how many of these essential characteristics of an RPG turn out to be completely optional.

[Tantum Dic Verbo]

AlanC9 wrote...

Tantum Dic Verbo wrote...
Role-playing games have always been about interactive narrative.  In fact, interactive narrative is one of the few things that is actually a consensus element of the RPG. 

Note that this requires an extremely low threshold for narrative if we go back as far as, say, Wizardry or Might and Magic 1.

In computer games, the threshold is necessarily low.  It can argued that a computer game can't really be considered a role-playing game for this reason. 

Which makes the insistence on the purity of the CRPG experience all the more laughable.

[Tantum Dic Verbo]

Merced256 wrote...

Given this thread's history over the course of its 39 pages, i still find it hilarious you're trying to dictate to anyone what a RPG is all about.

I mean at least half of the posts are debating what constitutes and defines a RPG. The consensus was pretty much that its different for everyone. Also i'll make mention of the numerous websites that are made almost exclusively for the discussion of D&D character builds. Certainly a clear indication that those classes, the ability to multi-class, leveling, stat allocation and feat selection are worthless fluff that detract from what you hope becomes LARPing. None of those things are needless btw, unless your entire goal as the DM is to spend 4 hours talking while the party is bored. Feats, stats, levels, are all means to an end yes. But i'm sure you've heard the phrase about it being about the journey and not the destination. Those aforementioned things are integral parts of enriching that journey for many players. Yet you will likely still maintain that its about some douche bag dictating a story and nothing more.

You're still just echoing your own prejudices and bashing straw-man arguments.  Either you don't understand my points, or you're unwilling to engage them. 

I disagree with you, so I'm all about a douchebag dictating a story (something which describes a CRPG much more than it does anything played on a tabletop).  I don't think anyone reading what I post can reasonably reach that conclusion, whether or not they agree.  I actually gave specific arguments for my points, though.  I'm still waiting for something better than "are too!"

[Merced256]

At this point i'm forced to believe you're just that dense. You're speaking to my prejudices while making statements such as:

Role-playing games have always been about interactive narrative.In fact, interactive narrative is one of the few things that is actually a consensus element of the RPG.

As i said before, people identify best with different aspects of the genre. That doesn't mean your rigid definition is any more correct than mine or Bioware's. Why are you so insistent thats not the case? You are not jesus of RPGs, your word is certainly not law. Yet somehow i'm the one that refuses to debate when your points are based solely on what you believe to be true and you will brook no alternative interpretation of what constitutes a RPG. Or at the very least what many people have come to love about computer based RPGs.

I pointed out that the numbers have to stay balanced, regardless of what we attribute the numbers to, whether it's gear, attributes, or abilities.

Ok? What does that have to do with abilities unlocking new avenues of approach to individual encounters? Abilities don't have to be overpowered to change what a character is capable of in certain scenarios.

Statistics are also a means to change tactical approach to both combat and RPing. Intellect or Cunning Checks, Charisma checks, Intimidates getting bonuses from stats like Strength. When appropriately done the statistics should reflect the kind of character you chose to RP. They essentially define what you find important with in your character. So it necessitates that if you want to be a persuasive character that you invest in charisma. How is this a bad thing? If anything that maintains balance and moderates the possibility individual characters are capable of by forcing the player to decide what he values.

Gear, especially on a computer game is an essential component of making a character your own. A tank character will use different gear than a mage, or a rogue, etc etc. Not to mention it gives players the ability to make their character look how they envision them. While the statistics on that gear need to be balanced, it also opens an avenue for the player to be rewarded for their participation in addition to the reward the RP experience offers.

Levels are function of all of the above.

Basically my whole point boils down to my original statements though. Your definition of what constitutes a RPG isn't law, isn't any more valid than anyone elses and as such should never be represented as though it were. I contend that all of the systems listed above add to the enjoyment of a RPG whereas you contend a RPG is nothing more than a DM telling a story, akin to a movie but with some, though very little, interaction. You contend that all of those systems add nothing but needless complexity to what is essentially story time. For me, that complexity is something that adds to the enjoyment of story time. Undoubtedly though, you'll tell me i'm wrong for thinking that, no matter how many share that view of mine.

Modifié par Merced256, 16 août 2010 - 06:51 .

[Kalfear]

Listen, there is no LAW or written discription of what a RPG is or isnt!



For decades (and possibly more) RPG fans have know what a RPG is and that was good enough.



Now all of a sudden a couple gaming companies and some newer fans not old enough to probably buy the games themselves want to say RPG is something different.



Doesnt work that folks.



So you can troll and argue all you want, ME2, FO3, COD, MW2, Diablo, these will never be RPGs as they simply dont fit the mold of RPGs that has stood the test of time for many decades or longer.

[AlanC9]

Merced256 wrote...

Given this thread's history over the course of its 39 pages, i still find it hilarious you're trying to dictate to anyone what a RPG is all about.

Who's the "you're" directed at, anyway? Yeah, I know who you're talking to, but at least give his initials.

Modifié par AlanC9, 16 août 2010 - 07:08 .

[Majin Paul]

When did they say this?

[AlanC9]

Kalfear wrote...
Now all of a sudden a couple gaming companies and some newer fans not old enough to probably buy the games themselves want to say RPG is something different.

Doesnt work that folks.

Actually, that's exactly how language works. You can argue against it, but if the game companies and game buyers don't want to use "RPG" the way you do, the meaning will change.

Since the majority of the community has accepted ME2 and FO3 as RPGs, your position has already lost.

[Sable Rhapsody]

Someone on the Escapist forums once made a very apt comment that "Having an inventory/level up system doesn't make a game an RPG any more than standing in a garage makes me a car." It was directed toward Final Fantasy XIII and JRPGs, but I think the point's a valid one. For me, at least, inventory and leveling are the trappings of an RPG, not its essential heart. I play RPGs for character roleplaying first, closely followed by plot.



Though at the end of the day, arguing over what is/isn't an RPG is like arguing over what is/isn't art. It belongs in high school term papers XD

[filetemo]

AlanC9 wrote...

Kalfear wrote...
Now all of a sudden a couple gaming companies and some newer fans not old enough to probably buy the games themselves want to say RPG is something different.

Doesnt work that folks.

Actually, that's exactly how language works. You can argue against it, but if the game companies and game buyers don't want to use "RPG" the way you do, the meaning will change.

Since the majority of the community has accepted ME2 and FO3 as RPGs, your position has already lost.

Millions of people consider McDonalds "the best restaurants in the world", even when McDonalds are not restaurants. That doesn't change the definition of what a restaurant is, mostly since many of those have never gone to a real restaurant.

[CoS Sarah Jinstar]

AlanC9 wrote...

Kalfear wrote...
Now all of a sudden a couple gaming companies and some newer fans not old enough to probably buy the games themselves want to say RPG is something different.

Doesnt work that folks.

Actually, that's exactly how language works. You can argue against it, but if the game companies and game buyers don't want to use "RPG" the way you do, the meaning will change.

Since the majority of the community has accepted ME2 and FO3 as RPGs, your position has already lost.

Sure they're rpg's. stripped down action rpg's but hey theres still an element of RPG somewhere in there I suppose what with the leveling and fighting monsters or what have you.

[Sylvius the Mad]

AlanC9 wrote...

Actually, that's exactly how language works. You can argue against it, but if the game companies and game buyers don't want to use "RPG" the way you do, the meaning will change.

Since the majority of the community has accepted ME2 and FO3 as RPGs, your position has already lost.

Perhaps (though I would argue that the change was the result of people misapplying the standards of the definition), but then we need some way to describe the RPGs the came before ME so we can have a coherent discussion about them.

The definition of RPGs pre-ME wouldn't have included ME.  That pre-ME definition is what I use.  Let me know what I should call it.

[Haexpane]

AmstradHero wrote...
 
[*]
ME2 is a Third Person Shooter.
[*]
[*]
[*]

[*]
[*]Indeed it is
[*]

AmstradHero wrote...[*]
 
[*]
This does not mean the ME2 is not an RPG.
[*]

[*]Correct, just being a 3rdPS does not make it "not an RPG"  but ME2 is not an RPG for many other reasons
[*]

AmstradHero wrote...[*]
Since people love talking about Baldur's Gate, let's go back to the first one. What choices did you have in the game? Really? You always kill Mulahey, Ender Sai, Davaeorn and Sarevok... ultimately you have very little say on how events play out except for minor side quests that never amount to much.
[*]
[*]
[*][*]

[*][*]This idea that "it's only an RPG if I can play "Choose Your Own Adventure" like those horrible novels from the 1980s, is a fringe element.  I am not in the camp that "OMG story +pretty graphics = best RPG eveAR!"
[*][*]
[*][*]

AmstradHero wrote...
[*]How is Baldur's Gate more meaningful and more of an RPG than a game where your events can directly result in the death of not just random NPCs, but your allies or party members?

[*]
[*]Because BG2 actually has RPG gameplay.  ME2 does not.  It's not "more meaningful of an RPG" it's simply an classic high fantasy RPG vs. a modern story driven space shooter

 
[*]Don't confuse the "STORY >>> everything" people w/ "ME2 is a good game, but not an RPG" .  2 completely different camps of thought

[Haexpane]

EpicBoot2daFace wrote...


Sure, you can level up in ME2, but it's a joke. It's so simplified and there is no joy in leveling up at all.

This is a key point, "levling up" in ME2 is almost meaningless.  The gameplay never changes, except you get some fancy Biotics graphic effects.  In addition your character at level 1 = your character at level 25.  As long as you bought the DLC you have the best gear.

Your "party" has no gear.   But that's another phailure for another day

EpicBoot2daFace wrote..., but in ME2, everything seemed like it was on rails.

EpicBoot is talking story, but IMO this applies to gameplay just as much.  ME2 is basically, hurry up and collect your party, get the loyalty powers, and then finish the game

 

EpicBoot2daFace wrote...,
 but Bioware seems to think that if people are complaining about something, that means it should be deleted. 

Sadly, Bioware the business is correct here why fix ME2 RPG elements when most ME2 players don't care about RPGs?  The an$wer was of course, don't fix it.  Delete it.

EpicBoot2daFace wrote...,
Almost everything in ME2 was dumbed down to appeal to a wider audience, but it was at the expense of the folks who played the first game and were expecting a sequel to that game. Instead, we got a totally different game.
 

Unfortunately, those of us wanting ME2 as an RPG are the minority, even worse, WE STILL BOUGHT ME2 even tho we liked ME1 better.  So in Bioware's eyes, EVERYONE loved ME2 more.  Even tho many of us thought ME2 was a prettier, dumbed down version of ME1.

 





 

[Haexpane]

Tantum Dic Verbo wrote...
  When I look back at Baldur's Gate, which many of the computer grognards are holding up as an example of near-perfection in the RPG, I'm trying to find the complexity.  If you were a spellcaster, you might get a new spell or two.  If you were a thief, you'd get to put some skill points into something.  If you were a fighter type, you got passive bonuses and went on your way.

ME2 was much more complex than that.

  Every character had a clearly-defined combat role, with the ability to emphasize certain elements of its fighting style.  That's more that 2nd Edition AD&D ever gave me.

On paper, according to your post ME2 has a more complex character leveling system than BG2.  Now, if you actually *play* both games, you realize that ME2 is completely straightforward and easy, and BG2 is the much deeper and more complex game.  

Also I'm not sure what "clearly defined combat" role you speak of  in ME2?  Everyone had the same role, poitn and shoot.  Spam abilities.  Every character shares the same gun selection (by class) and there are very few choices.  IN fact the DLC wipes out all choice, as the DLC is simply "best gear"

Your arguments about ME2 being "more complex" than BG2 is simply something you are doing to play with logic and debate.  

ANyone who has played both games can attest to ME2 being the much more simple game, in terms of gameplay, leveling, learning curve,  levels, secrets, the list goes on and on.

So yes, on paper ME2 gives you more "complex choices after you start"  BG2 offers something better.  More complex GAMEPLAY , a full 6 character party, strategic combat etc...

ME2 = hide behind conveniently located chest high box, point, and shoot. 

 

 

Then think longer.

pointless snarky remark

 

If it makes you feel better to call those of us with different gaming preferences "dumb", I can't stop you.  But I would like you to consider the possibility that disagreeing with your tastes is not a hallmark of stupidity.  You might also consider designing a RPG from the ground up and see how many of these essential characteristics of an RPG turn out to be completely optional.

We already have a million "RPGs" that decided to ignore the "optional" gameplay systems of RPGs. 

Take your pick, DAO was one of the very few, party based WRPGs on the market.  Pretty much the ONLY ONE the year it was released.

You and others are applauding the decision to make DA2 less like DAO and more like ME2 and then proceed to list how much you liked ME2's  'streamlined visceral BaddAssery'

ME2 is a very good game, but it's not an RPG and Bioware doesn't care if it's not an RPG.  They don't care about game genres.

They have gone on record themselves saying they "removed RPG elements" for the sole purpose of making a high selling Shooter action game.

Now if people want to list everything about RPGs they think is "optional" that's fine.  But that won't make ME2 a party based RPG, it's a shooter w/ ghosts of RPG lite.

[Haexpane]

Merced256 wrote...

 

Statistics are also a means to change tactical approach to both combat and RPing. Intellect or Cunning Checks, Charisma checks, Intimidates getting bonuses from stats like Strength. When appropriately done the statistics should reflect the kind of character you chose to RP. They essentially define what you find important with in your character. So it necessitates that if you want to be a persuasive character that you invest in charisma. How is this a bad thing? If anything that maintains balance and moderates the possibility individual characters are capable of by forcing the player to decide what he values.

Gear, especially on a computer game is an essential component of making a character your own. A tank character will use different gear than a mage, or a rogue, etc etc. Not to mention it gives players the ability to make their character look how they envision them. While the statistics on that gear need to be balanced, it also opens an avenue for the player to be rewarded for their participation in addition to the reward the RP experience offers.

Levels are function of all of the above.

Basically my whole point boils down to my original statements though. Your definition of what constitutes a RPG isn't law, isn't any more valid than anyone elses and as such should never be represented as though it were. I contend that all of the systems listed above add to the enjoyment of a RPG whereas you contend a RPG is nothing more than a DM telling a story, akin to a movie but with some, though very little, interaction.

You contend that all of those systems add nothing but needless complexity to what is essentially story time.

For me, that complexity is something that adds to the enjoyment of story time. Undoubtedly though, you'll tell me i'm wrong for thinking that, no matter how many share that view of mine.

Great post!

[Haexpane]

AlanC9 wrote...
 

Since the majority of the community has accepted ME2 and FO3 as RPGs, your position has already lost.

FO3 yes, ME2 no.  The majority has not ruled that way at all.   FO3 is 10x the RPG that ME2 is in terms of "RPG DNA"  

RPG is not "playing a role" it's a genre of videogame, as defined by developers and players over time, by grouping games together by shared parameter values.

As time goes on, the genres get more and more convoluted and niche, and then combine and merge, and then branch out again.  

Genres of games = always in flux.

Right now we are in the "melting pot" era, where every Nintendo Fandork says "Zelda is an RPG!" and every grafix **** says "ME2 is just as much an RPG as BG2!"

The real issue w/ DA2 isn't that it's a hybrid action/rpg or something.

It's about the name.  Dragon Age Origins = "Spiritual successor to Baldur's Gate 2"  This tells people - look over here folks, the 3D evolved BG2 everyone has been asking for since BG2!

We came, we saw, we purchased.  Now DA2 is saying "DAO was cute, but the real money is on EPIC BAD ASS button!" and people are cringing.

Except ME2 hardcore fans, who welcome less gameplay and more BaddAss

[KingNu11]

Haexpane wrote...

AlanC9 wrote...
 

Since the majority of the community has accepted ME2 and FO3 as RPGs, your position has already lost.

FO3 yes, ME2 no.  The majority has not ruled that way at all.   FO3 is 10x the RPG that ME2 is in terms of "RPG DNA"  

RPG is not "playing a role" it's a genre of videogame, as defined by developers and players over time, by grouping games together by shared parameter values.

As time goes on, the genres get more and more convoluted and niche, and then combine and merge, and then branch out again.  

Genres of games = always in flux.

Right now we are in the "melting pot" era, where every Nintendo Fandork says "Zelda is an RPG!" and every grafix **** says "ME2 is just as much an RPG as BG2!"

The real issue w/ DA2 isn't that it's a hybrid action/rpg or something.

It's about the name.  Dragon Age Origins = "Spiritual successor to Baldur's Gate 2"  This tells people - look over here folks, the 3D evolved BG2 everyone has been asking for since BG2!

We came, we saw, we purchased.  Now DA2 is saying "DAO was cute, but the real money is on EPIC BAD ASS button!" and people are cringing.

Except ME2 hardcore fans, who welcome less gameplay and more BaddAss

Yeah let's just rant on an entirely different game here......