1133 réponses à ce sujet

[Merced256]

Tarmack wrote...

Some people take the directions companies go with their games too personally. Doesn't anyone just play em for fun anymore? *chuckles*

I'm a little torn over this. Being a working college student i don't have a ton of time to actually engage in hobbies outside of something like video games. However, i am fairly particular about the forms of entertainment i choose to engage myself with. For instance i loved the Dragonlance novels by Weis & Hickman, but for the most part couldn't stand anything else. I also loved Star Wars and read quite a few of those books, but i hated most ever other science fiction setting outside of the Mechwarrior one. (PLEASE SOMEONE MAKE A GOOD MECHWARRIOR 5). I find myself not much different when it comes to video games, but i would say i'm more forgiving of them than i was of books when i was younger. To this day i won't read a Dragonlance book thats not by Weis & Hickman, and god help them if they ever write one thats bad.

I guess what i'm saying is that people take their entertainment seriously because i suppose in a way its generally more precious than it was in the past?

[AlanC9]

Merced256 wrote...

Is Starcraft 2 a RPG and not a RTS? I mean you "roleplay" as Jimmy Raynor, you can even pick which missions you take and generally what order you take them in. Sure theres no levels, inventory, skills, but i'd argue that ME2's equivalent of those things were largely worthless anyway. So how does ME2 get called a RPG and SC2 not? Lets not be biased and stuff.

Does Starcraft 2 have meaningful choices and consequences for those choices? Do the mission choices change the nature of the game world?

Is there meaningful interaction with characters in the game world?

Modifié par AlanC9, 19 août 2010 - 06:54 .

[Merced256]

AlanC9 wrote...

Merced256 wrote...

Is Starcraft 2 a RPG and not a RTS? I mean you "roleplay" as Jimmy Raynor, you can even pick which missions you take and generally what order you take them in. Sure theres no levels, inventory, skills, but i'd argue that ME2's equivalent of those things were largely worthless anyway. So how does ME2 get called a RPG and SC2 not? Lets not be biased and stuff.

Does Starcraft 2 have meaningful choices and consequences for those choices? Do the mission choices change the nature of the game world?

Well if you choose to skip particular missions you don't earn the credits you might need to upgrade aspects of your army or outright not get unit schematics so you would be unable to build them.

Define meaningful. But yes you could click on your buddy tychus and engage in some dialog, same goes with all the main character aboard your ship.

Modifié par Merced256, 19 août 2010 - 06:55 .

[Wolf Warden]

Merced256 wrote...

AlanC9 wrote...

Merced256 wrote...

Is Starcraft 2 a RPG and not a RTS? I mean you "roleplay" as Jimmy Raynor, you can even pick which missions you take and generally what order you take them in. Sure theres no levels, inventory, skills, but i'd argue that ME2's equivalent of those things were largely worthless anyway. So how does ME2 get called a RPG and SC2 not? Lets not be biased and stuff.

Does Starcraft 2 have meaningful choices and consequences for those choices? Do the mission choices change the nature of the game world?

Well if you choose to skip particular missions you don't earn the credits you might need to upgrade aspects of your army or outright not get unit schematics so you would be unable to build them.

Define meaningful. But yes you could click on your buddy tychus and engage in some dialog, same goes with all the main character aboard your ship.

I would argue that SC2 is a hybrid RPG/RTS (emphasis on RTS) and ME2 is a hybrid RPG/Shooter (emphasis on RPG)

[AlanC9]

Merced256 wrote...
Well if you choose to skip particular missions you don't earn the credits you might need to upgrade aspects of your army or outright not get unit schematics so you would be unable to build them.

At best that puts them in the meaningless sidequest category, like a ME1 UNC mission. It sounds like the game isn't presenting any serious choices and consequences.

Define meaningful. But yes you could click on your buddy tychus and engage in some dialog, same goes with all the main character aboard your ship.

Meaningful's too subjective here; I shouldn't have used it. Did you consider the SC2 interactions to be the equivalent of, say, DAO party member interactions? Or even Wing Commander 3/4 NPC interactions, if you go back that far.

Modifié par AlanC9, 19 août 2010 - 08:00 .

[BBLeone]

Seth Burns wrote...

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.

I read through a few pages of this just because I heard about how horrible the whining was over here from the SW:TOR forums, this is the most sensible post I've seen so far.

[AlanC9]

Wolf Warden wrote...
I would argue that SC2 is a hybrid RPG/RTS (emphasis on RTS) and ME2 is a hybrid RPG/Shooter (emphasis on RPG)

For that matter, one could call BG2 a kind of RTS. Though obviously it lacks some of the traditional RTS elements such as a production system,  you've got relatively few units, and individual battles are quite short and distinct.

[FedericoV]

Merced256 wrote...

Look at ToR even and everything that came out after TBC and tell me this isn't true.

That is why casual games are a very real danger to hardcore gamers.

It's not true. I've played WoW just a little bit since I'm not too much in grinding for levels MMORPGs and I don't like being called ****got by some 10 years old kid, but the game design is state of the art. Really. Blizzard is still the king of polish and gameplay. They deserve their success. The game is casual? I would say that it has a nice learning curve from what I've seen, it's not casual at all. We should not judge a game because of its player base...

TOR is not a WoW clone from what I've seen. BW is trying to achieve the same level of polish and accessibility, with the same kind of "easy to learn difficult to master" design style, wich is a good thing in my book. But if their statements are true, they are adding the story to the WoW formula. So, if that's true, it could be a completely different game from WoW and for the first time we could have a story driven MMO, something I could be interested about. I still do not know if I will subscribe to TOR or not since I do not like a lot to pay each month and I prefer single player game. But if there's a MMO that I could try, that's TOR.

[shootist70]

Lawrence- Mage of the Grey Wardens wrote...

Dude, you're typing your responses as if you are speaking down to me, but if you hadn't noticed, you're coming off as an idiot. No one is arguing against the idea that players want to become immersed in the game's story. Are you reading what I'm writing?....

Bioware is simplifying the role-playing aspects to appeal to the greater market of gamers as opposed to focusing on the base of RPG gamers it has built over the years.

Maybe you don't agree that the reason they are going this direction is because these other gamers are shooter-happy retards and that's fine, but the reality is that the developers will simplify the game in order to reach more people.

After reading this post I can completely agree with 'dumbing down' being a problem, but the problem isn't where you think it is. The problem is 'fan dumb' becoming an obstacle to artists who know far, far more about creative appeal and universal entertainment than a minority of blinkered RPG hobbyists. 

The real dumbing down is when consumers are conservative with their tastes due to personal preference, and try to halt creative evolution because of it. These 'purists' are no different from the consumers that corporate suits  feed the same stuff to over and over, because that's what they asked for. And that's when we end up with the constantly derivative, and with a pigeonholed genre definition that won't allow creative expansion. If you want to see clearly where the dumbing down is - Get a mirror.

Modifié par shootist70, 19 août 2010 - 09:16 .

[Perles75]

It's impossible to find a common ground on this topic because people have different ideas on what a RPG is.
Stricly speaking, no computer "RPG" is really a RPG, because role-playing implies real-time interaction, full freedom of choice and character interpretation, that no computer program (however refined) can grant.

Thus, at the end it depends on what one is looking for. For what I'm concerned, a good RPG should have:
- a good and engaging main storyline (possibly original) with plenty of possibilities of fooling around if you want; related to this, an interesting and deep setting (world, characters with whom you interact) is mandatory;
- possibilty of creating a character as close as you would like him to be (high customization level), and a vast choice array when dealing with the rest of the world during the game (this is the "role-playing" part, which I consider very important);
- consistent behavior of the main characters and of the people around him, that should react properly to the actions the character does; this implies a degree of nonlinearity in the game itself (and of course in its ending);
- a good balance between action and dialogue/thought;
- the "golden mean" concerning game mechanics: it must be complex enough to allow good action choices in the right moments, but without too much detail and micromanaging that makes the game cumbersome and too focused on the minutiae of mechanics (the equivalent of "playing by the manual" risk of several paper rpgs);
- the same of course is valid for the character characteristics/skills; a good experience system is also important, because you must have the feeling of the progress of your character.
(I'm sure I forgot something)

There are of course exceptions: for example, I completely love Planescape Torment even if your character is not customizable, because the story, the atmosphere and the possibility of interacting with people through dialogues is so great. As another example, I liked the old Ultima VII because you had really the feeling to plunge into a different and fantastic world, not to mention the extent of interacting with it and again the wonderful storyline and side quests, even if the game was quite linear and your possibility to "act" was limited.

Considering the new games, IMO you cannot call Starcraft or similar games rpgs, because the role-playing is almost non-existant and you almost don't have freedom (I do NOT consider choosing to make this mission before this other "freedom of choice" in the rpg sense!). On the other side, the Oblivion series gives you a great freedom of movement, but I always had the feeling that your interaction with the world and especially with people is limited and quite passive (I can become supreme head of the mage guild, but the rest of the world doesn't seem to care, or to react to it).
All in all, I would say that Dragon Age is doing quite well.The story is not fully engaging and not really too original, the mechanical system can be improved and the world could definitely benefit of a greater depth (I think they didn't exploit the full potential of the setting), but your array of choices in the interaction with the world is quite wide, as your chance to "customize" the ending and the events of the story, and I appreciate the effort they put in making your companions not just weapons in fights but believable persons.

So I'm not really sure Bioware is the "death of RPGs" as some people here say. Of course it doesn't mean it's the ONLY way of doing RPGs.
Regarding DA2, I really think it's too early to say something clear. I however do not agree with those who say your character is not customizable. From what I understood, the blocked only the choice of the race, a bit annoying but no big deal at the end. One thing that is interesting is that the story will span several years; I'm curious to see how they will deal with it. Indeed, I miss a rpg that allows you to live a lifetime, from a rookie adventurer to old and respected general/lord of a realm/king advisor/head archmage/etc., as in the good ol'D&D campaigns

Modifié par Perles75, 19 août 2010 - 09:12 .

[In Exile]

Bryy_Miller wrote...

Oh please. Casual games will never be a threat to "harcore" gamers.

Ah, the sarcasm failed to carry. I obviously do not think this will happen. I was just trying to point out hardcore is relative. To some RPG fanatic, Halo is apparently hardcore. Well, the the mother of 3 playing wii sports, Halo is hardcore and indistinguishable from DA, and wii sports is casual.

[Sylvius the Mad]

AlanC9 wrote...

For that matter, one could call BG2 a kind of RTS. Though obviously it lacks some of the traditional RTS elements such as a production system,  you've got relatively few units, and individual battles are quite short and distinct.

Very few RTS games allow pausing and giving orders while paused (though both Homeworld games did).

[Mydalis]

Wolf Warden wrote...

I would argue that SC2 is a hybrid RPG/RTS (emphasis on RTS) and ME2 is a hybrid RPG/Shooter (emphasis on RPG)

Basically this. It doesn't have to be an either/or thing. 

[Haexpane]

wowpwnslol wrote...

Massadonious1 wrote...

If Origins was complex, then tying my shoes is complex.

And yet many people still complained about its complexity.

The complexity of DAO is hidden, so we can't even really say how complex it is or isn't since there are no combat logs.  IMO this makes it seem less complex than it is, since even if you could be more effective w/ swapping out combat, you'd never know it unless you track the floating numbers and make a manual spreadsheet?

Since you can beat the game w/ the  best gear or random non magic gear, much of the complexity is optional.  Some will just Cone of Cold through the whole game.  Others just spank and tank etc...

[filetemo]

oh, and I'll add another thing that surely will cause flammable posts: Since we pnp rpg players know what an rpg is, I could say when playing certain games, I can determine if it "feels" like an rpg or not, thus making the line even more blurry for those who do not know what an rpg is. Hence, even knowing it's general gameplay beforehand, I have to determine it when playing it. If the feel is right, it's an rpg, if not, it is not.



Let the hate start rainin' on me

[Lomopingseph]

filetemo wrote...

oh, and I'll add another thing that surely will cause flammable posts: Since we pnp rpg players know what an rpg is, I could say when playing certain games, I can determine if it "feels" like an rpg or not, thus making the line even more blurry for those who do not know what an rpg is. Hence, even knowing it's general gameplay beforehand, I have to determine it when playing it. If the feel is right, it's an rpg, if not, it is not.

Let the hate start rainin' on me

Yeah, that's downright idiotic.

[Saibh]

filetemo wrote...

oh, and I'll add another thing that surely will cause flammable posts: Since we pnp rpg players know what an rpg is, I could say when playing certain games, I can determine if it "feels" like an rpg or not, thus making the line even more blurry for those who do not know what an rpg is. Hence, even knowing it's general gameplay beforehand, I have to determine it when playing it. If the feel is right, it's an rpg, if not, it is not.

Let the hate start rainin' on me

So, you're essentially saying you're an omnipotent RPG god?

[filetemo]

come on, just let my little thread get 40 more pages

[Saibh]

filetemo wrote...

come on, just let my little thread get 40 more pages

What does the number of pages have to do with...anything?

I don't see the correlation.

[filetemo]

Saibh wrote...

filetemo wrote...

come on, just let my little thread get 40 more pages

What does the number of pages have to do with...anything?

I don't see the correlation.

your avatar looks sooo pretty when you get confused, my dear:wub:

[Heimdall]

filetemo wrote...

oh, and I'll add another thing that surely will cause flammable posts: Since we pnp rpg players know what an rpg is, I could say when playing certain games, I can determine if it "feels" like an rpg or not, thus making the line even more blurry for those who do not know what an rpg is. Hence, even knowing it's general gameplay beforehand, I have to determine it when playing it. If the feel is right, it's an rpg, if not, it is not.

Let the hate start rainin' on me

So being a pnp RPG player automatically makes you into an unaproachable expert on video game RPGs?

<_<

[javierabegazo]

I'm very tempted to lock this, as Woo generally holds great disdain for "What is or is not an RPG" threads, which generally steer away from any one game, but rather ends up in bashing people's preferences, and stinking of entitlement and elitism.



I'll give this thread a day to get back on decent, civil discussion.

[Miobako]

javierabegazo wrote...

I'm very tempted to lock this, as Woo generally holds great disdain for "What is or is not an RPG" threads, which generally steer away from any one game, but rather ends up in bashing people's preferences, and stinking of entitlement and elitism.

I'll give this thread a day to get back on decent, civil discussion.

I think you already used the LOCKDOWN spell already in the other thread, you should get some rest to memorize it again. Since Bioware label itself as an RPG maker, we have the right to discuss about if the gamesthey make are RPG's or not. Woo can tell his opinion too.

[NKKKK]

Exactly and not be tyrannizing the gamers for their opinion when they feel uncomfortable with the truth.

[Torhagen]

AlanC9 wrote...

Merced256 wrote...

Is Starcraft 2 a RPG and not a RTS? I mean you "roleplay" as Jimmy Raynor, you can even pick which missions you take and generally what order you take them in. Sure theres no levels, inventory, skills, but i'd argue that ME2's equivalent of those things were largely worthless anyway. So how does ME2 get called a RPG and SC2 not? Lets not be biased and stuff.

SCII is a RTS with a feel of RPG but not really a RPG mechanic(and actually there are levels infight and "skills" you can research for money you earn on missions)
ME2 is a shooter with RPG elements(you know no iventory,no loot,small skill tree)

Does Starcraft 2 have meaningful choices and consequences for those choices?

Yes it does at some point in the game you have to decide what course of acting you take
The consequences are Units available to you and shifting alliances

 Do the mission choices change the nature of the game world?

not really

Is there meaningful interaction with characters in the game world?

Yes all Characters have a believable Persona and meaningful interaction

sorry for being a bit vague but i dont want to spoiler anything here

 

Modifié par Torhagen, 20 août 2010 - 01:30 .