925 réponses à ce sujet

[MortalEngines]

Mike2640 wrote...

MortalEngines wrote...

Yes I refer to post-WoW, which did indeed make the genre more accessible. But that's not my point, actually I think were getting ourselves confused here (I'm misunderstanding you and vice versa).

I'm not saying I want games to follow a trend or 'model' actually I'm saying the opposite, I'm saying games like DA and ME are trying to be Original! Sure, this has now warned down (since ME2 has been released) but before DA I can't recall to my memory any game being quite like it.

Same goes for the Witcher, it can't be compared to DA, it's a completely different games and goes down it's own route. That's originality. 

Mass Effect was original (arguably). Mass Effect 2 was a third person shooter with a tacked-on skills system with the depth of a kiddy pool. Skills didn't
matter and only made the shooty bits (Of which there were far to many)
faster. Originality was the last thing they were thinking of with ME2.

Also in regards to Woodey's FPS line, I believe he's saying what a lot of people have been saying throughout this thread. That there are a ****-ton of shooty action games out there and by tacking on a sub-par skill system onto a TPS like ME2 did and calling it an RPG simply dillutes the genre and brings nothing good to the table.

Someone on this board made the comment that all RPG elements are meant to hold up the story and characters first and foremost. If something else becomes more important gameplay-wise it ceases to be an RPG. In ME2 the combat took precedence over everything else.
ME2 was not an RPG. It was a TPS with a very good story (In comparision to other TPSs) and some skills.

Well arguably, Mass Effect 2 was the sequel to Mass Effect, how you expected it to be marginally different combat wise is beyond me (all they really did is further the story line). Why must everyone dwell and attach themselves to their definition of RPG? The main purpose of RPG is role play, giving the game a developed story and allowing the player to shape their character. That's it, that's the feature ALL rpgs have, other than that, it's all specfic to the game. Skills aren't a fundamental requirement in RPGs and only really started in BG (and the pen and paper games from which it came from).

In referance to the action part, why must a game have skills? FPS can be just as challenging without skills, I (this is my personal gaming style) find FPS to be harder than RPGs, why? Because in a game such as say, Killzone, there are points where you have 2 guys with you and are surround by atleast 30+ enemies on everyside. If that doesn't take some tactics to get out, what does?

I don't agree that ME2 was a TPS, I don't recall a third person shooter that allow you to import your character from a previous game (that was RPG), customize your character fully, give it a class, and skills. Sure, the skills weren't that developed, but neither were they in ME1, the focus on the game is story, not the skills system everyone seems to find mandatory. 

I'm going to give out my view right now, straight, because I seemed to be confusing people. I don't want a Mass Effectified Dragon Age. I want Dragon Age to be want Dragon Age should be, a new take on old DnD games (with a different class system and skills system etc). So I don't agree with the OP, but I don't agree with people completely trashing ME2 as an argument against it. If you call it a tacky shooter with skills added, then why don't you go out and make a sci-fi RPG game?

Tell me if I'm wrong but I have not seen any Sci-fi RPGs in a LOOONG time and nothing as polish as ME, sure it has it's problems and flaws, but it's done something most people don't try to do. Go away from the DnD system, add guns (because it's Sci-fi and wouldn't make sense otherwise), have fully voiced VO with dialogue choices and NOT have a fantasty story line.

[Torhagen]

Mehow_pwn wrote...

Lusitanum wrote...

Mehow_pwn wrote...

Burn the Hertic!!!!!

I refuse to
have another God of war/ Halo/CoD or any FPS with some tiny RPG and
story.. BECAUSE that's execly what you are calling an RPG

If it's got all the good elements of an RPG such as a compeling story with well-develloped characters, a fun but (fairly) deep combat system, different classes with varying playing styles... that's pretty much the basis of a good RPG, and the rest are just ramifications on the goodness.

And you have to love how basic these "true RPG fans" are: give them a boring and repetitive combat system with some swords and spells and they're happy. But just replace said swords with guns and suddenly "oh no, it's the Hal0z, burn the witch!", regardless of everything else the game has to offer.

That's not the point. Ever since they made Mass effect 2 has the forum been invaded by these console eliest want more Halo.. More Modern ware...MORE Shooting... and less any kinda of lvl/inventory system or even tactical thinking.. basically useing their brain ( not that playing RPG makes any smarter take WoW for an example )

And all Am saying is Im sick of it I already have God Of war 2...I already have Modern warfare... I ALREADY have uncharted 2... I already have Halo...and Mafia 2

I dont want another shooter.. Im getting so sick of it. All I want is simple RPG with alot of action Not more action.. Less RPG elemets...

Mike2640 wrote...


Mass Effect was original (arguably). Mass Effect 2 was a third person
shooter with a tacked-on skills system with the depth of a kiddy pool.
Skills didn't
matter and only made the shooty bits (Of which there were far to many)
faster. Originality was the last thing they were thinking of with ME2.

Also
in regards to Woodey's FPS line, I believe he's saying what a lot of
people have been saying throughout this thread. That there are a
****-ton of shooty action games out there and by tacking on a sub-par
skill system onto a TPS like ME2 did and calling it an RPG simply
dillutes the genre and brings nothing good to the table.

Someone
on this board made the comment that all RPG elements are meant to hold
up the story and characters first and foremost. If something else
becomes more important gameplay-wise it ceases to be an RPG. In ME2 the
combat took precedence over everything else.
ME2 was not an RPG. It was a TPS with a very good story (In comparision to other TPSs) and some skills

well put

Mortal Engine wrote...
In referance to the action part, why must a game have skills? FPS can be
just as challenging without skills, I (this is my personal gaming
style) find FPS to be harder than RPGs, why? Because in a game such as
say, Killzone, there are points where you have 2 guys with you and are
surround by atleast 30+ enemies on everyside. If that doesn't take some
tactics to get out, what does?

That would be called an FPS then

I don't agree that ME2 was a TPS, I don't recall a third person
shooter that allow you to import your character from a previous game
(that was RPG), customize your character fully, give it a class, and
skills. Sure, the skills weren't that developed, but neither were they
in ME1, the focus on the game is story, not the skills system everyone
seems to find mandatory. 

Have you ever seen the ME1 skills ?
Borderlands is a FPS with RPG has a inventory a genius loot system and a skill tree
and you tell me i have to expect less from bioware than from the Borderland guys ?

Modifié par Torhagen, 30 août 2010 - 10:52 .

[poisonoustea]

Why would it have plot holes? Or necessarily be cheesy?



Like looting your 89th darkspawn dagger and selling it for 2 silver really adds to the fun. Oh, wait, you packs are full! Woo, now the fun really starts! You get to go through your 8 backpacks you are somehow wearing and decide if something there is less valuable than a darkspawn dagger! And then--hold on to your hats, folks--you get to lug all your junk back to a merchant! Wowzers! Hey hey, with that extra 50 silver you just made, you can afford your Sword of Badguy Slaying, which has +2 to accuracy! That may or may not be better than your current sword which has +2 to damage! You know what that means...time to whip out the spreadsheet! OMFG I am having so much fun! Hey, look at that! You're only 37.2 experience points away from leveling up! Better start deciding now if you are going to go for a 42nd point of dexterity, or maybe walk on the wild side and throw them all into strength! Is it going to have a measurable effect no matter where you put it? Who knows?! But the excitement level is at an all-time high, that's for sure!

Well said, haha.... I love how people think this is the "role" in RPG.

[MortalEngines]

Torhagen wrote...

Mortal Engine wrote...
In referance to the action part, why must a game have skills? FPS can be
just as challenging without skills, I (this is my personal gaming
style) find FPS to be harder than RPGs, why? Because in a game such as
say, Killzone, there are points where you have 2 guys with you and are
surround by atleast 30+ enemies on everyside. If that doesn't take some
tactics to get out, what does?

That would be called an FPS then

And what's your point? I was describing how an FPS can still be difficult since people around here keep referring to them as dumb-downed pieces of trash...

Torhagen wrote...

I don't agree that ME2 was a TPS, I don't recall a third person
shooter that allow you to import your character from a previous game
(that was RPG), customize your character fully, give it a class, and
skills. Sure, the skills weren't that developed, but neither were they
in ME1, the focus on the game is story, not the skills system everyone
seems to find mandatory. 

Have you ever seen the ME1 skills ?
Borderlands is a FPS with RPG has a inventory a genius loot system and a skill tree
and you tell me i have to expect less from bioware than from the Borderland guys ?

First, I haven't yet got my hands on Borderland, but I see your point. (You could of used Fallout instead..). I don't doubt nor deny that the skills tree was lackluster, actually I specifically say 'the skills weren't that developed', but skills isn't what makes up an RPG, it's story and character.

[Torhagen]

MortalEngines wrote...

Torhagen wrote...

Mortal Engine wrote...
In referance to the action part, why must a game have skills? FPS can be
just as challenging without skills, I (this is my personal gaming
style) find FPS to be harder than RPGs, why? Because in a game such as
say, Killzone, there are points where you have 2 guys with you and are
surround by atleast 30+ enemies on everyside. If that doesn't take some
tactics to get out, what does?

That would be called an FPS then

MortalEngines wrote...
And what's your point? I was describing how an FPS can still be difficult since people around here keep referring to them as dumb-downed pieces of trash...

I dont share that opinion just wanted to point out that a FPS has nothing in common with Dragon Age

Torhagen wrote...

I don't agree that ME2 was a TPS, I don't recall a third person
shooter that allow you to import your character from a previous game
(that was RPG), customize your character fully, give it a class, and
skills. Sure, the skills weren't that developed, but neither were they
in ME1, the focus on the game is story, not the skills system everyone
seems to find mandatory. 

Have you ever seen the ME1 skills ?
Borderlands is a FPS with RPG has a inventory a genius loot system and a skill tree
and you tell me i have to expect less from bioware than from the Borderland guys ?

First, I haven't yet got my hands on Borderland, but I see your point. (You could of used Fallout instead..). I don't doubt nor deny that the skills tree was lackluster, actually I specifically say 'the skills weren't that developed', but skills isn't what makes up an RPG, it's story and character.

I agree with you there Story and Character are key and if the ME2 standard will be used for DA2 it will loose this in ME2 Story and Character are somewhat sidelined.
the world is no longer "open" but an openly linear tube.
and developing your character will be nearly none existent.

[jelf rs]

MortalEngines wrote...

First, I haven't yet got my hands on Borderland, but I see your point. (You could of used Fallout instead..). I don't doubt nor deny that the skills tree was lackluster, actually I specifically say 'the skills weren't that developed', but skills isn't what makes up an RPG, it's story and character.

If story and character are the only two elements that make up an RPG, then game likes GOW can be considered as an RPG, while Diablo can hardly considered as an RPG.

[Lusitanum]

In Exile wrote...

The fact that another forum wants to
have a thread specifically insulting a group of people while felating
each other about their supposed superiority... well, that certainly says
a lot about them as people.

Especially since half the posts are about why do, the "retard Bioware gamers" want to "turn DA2 into a a shooter"

I mean, granted the idea has some fairly humurous value, kind of like playing Warhammer 40.000 in a Team Fortress 2 kind of game, but that was never the whole point of this discussion. Bioware is not turning a game set in a fantasy-medieval setting into a cover-based shooter and I don't see how anyone could be stupid enough to think how that would ever work.

I mean, what would you shoot? Semi-automatic crossbows? What would you do with all the melee fighters? How would Rogues work now, circle around a guy and backstab him with throwing knives?

Bottom line, yeah, they're even stupider than the guys they're making fun of. Should we congratulate them on such a monumental feat?

Mehow_pwn wrote...

That's not the point. Ever since they
made Mass effect 2 has the forum been invaded by these console eliest
want more Halo.. More Modern ware...MORE Shooting... and less any kinda
of lvl/inventory system or even tactical thinking.. basically useing
their brain ( not that playing RPG makes any smarter take WoW for an
example )

And all Am saying is Im sick of it I already have God
Of war 2...I already have Modern warfare... I ALREADY have uncharted
2... I already have Halo...and Mafia 2

I dont want another
shooter.. Im getting so sick of it. All I want is simple RPG with alot
of action Not more action.. Less RPG elemets...

OK, first off, I would like to object to that claim of "game that basically makes you use your brain" while talking about Dragon Age on the grounds that my brain cells died a slow death of starvation after hours of not using them in DA's shallow and repetitive combat system. I mean, I had to re-install Civilization IV, something that was actually mentally stimulating, just to recover that little thing called "thinking" that my brain had forgotten how to do.

Secondly, you're going to get idiots anywhere, regardless of the game you're talking about. Attitude depends on personality, not on what games we play. I mean, just look around. Wouldn't you say that there are even more PC elitists that just want the same game over and over again and react to any change as being a dumbing down of society as a whole?

Or, as Hollingdale would say

Hollingdale wrote...

This is bull**** and you know it.

Yeah. Pretty much.

Torhagen wrote...

I agree with you there Story and
Character are key and if the ME2 standard will be used for DA2 it will
loose this in ME2 Story and Character are somewhat sidelined.
the
world is no longer "open" but an openly linear tube.
and developing
your character will be nearly none existent.

If that means that we actually get a character this time and not the same expressionless mute who couldn't have an emotion to save his life and always ruins my suspension of disbelief every single time I look at him, then by all means, go for it!

Modifié par Lusitanum, 30 août 2010 - 11:49 .

[MortalEngines]

Torhagen wrote...

I dont share that opinion just wanted to point out that a FPS has nothing in common with Dragon Age

I know, it was sort of an off-topic discussion because of the RPG 'purist' claiming higher intellect because they think RPGs are the most challenging games ever (let's just forget that...)

Torhagen wrote...

I agree with you there Story and Character are key and if the ME2 standard will be used for DA2 it will loose this in ME2 Story and Character are somewhat sidelined.
the world is no longer "open" but an openly linear tube.
and developing your character will be nearly none existent.

That's my point, I don't want DA2 to be ME2 standard when it's comes to story, I want it to be well...a Dragon Age game..(ala DA:O). Though I would like to point out that DA was never non-linear and that linearity can be good in a game as it tightens to story. But I think you see linear as in story-wise/actions impact wise so yeah, I agree with you. 

That's not to say ME2 wasn't a great game. It just wasn't as good as it should of being..also, to fair to Bioware, it's difficult to add character development when you've already developed your character in ME1..

jelf rs wrote...

MortalEngines wrote...

First, I haven't yet got my hands on Borderland, but I see your point. (You could of used Fallout instead..). I don't doubt nor deny that the skills tree was lackluster, actually I specifically say 'the skills weren't that developed', but skills isn't what makes up an RPG, it's story and character.

If story and character are the only two elements that make up an RPG, then game likes GOW can be considered as an RPG, while Diablo can hardly considered as an RPG.

Umm, well firstly, GOW was focused on gameplay and action. Secondly, maybe you and me have a difference on what 'story' means. A story in RPG is one where you directly are able to shape how your character reacts to situations and shaping the world in which your character is in.

Also I don't consider Diablo an RPG but a Hack and Slash.

People around here really need to learn the definition of Roleplay:

To assume or represent in a drama; act out:

To assume or act out a particular role:

Modifié par MortalEngines, 30 août 2010 - 11:55 .

[shootist70]

'Tradtional' RPG mechanics have to be left behind as the genre wisens up and sees them for what they are - rat-mazes. Decent shooters are a lot more honest in their approach than traditional RPG's because they illicit more or less the same reacton from their players as almost all fiction does - the desire to keep going to see what happens next in the narrative. Writers/film producers do pretty much the same thing - they keep the consumer hooked by use of rising dramatic tension and potential crescendo.

RPG's instead have almost always relied too heavily on instrinsic reward/rat-maze reward incentives - 'negotiate Level A to obtain Item C - proceed to Level B. Repeat behaviours B, C and D to obtain character Level 10 - proceed to Level C etc etc etc'. The player is hooked purely by compulsive, reward-oriented behaviour, not by use of compelling narrative, which has always been arbitrary.

It's a horrendously dumbed-down mechanic, and one which is constantly being blasted in the mmo industry. It's about time it was laid to rest in single-player RPG's also.

Modifié par shootist70, 30 août 2010 - 12:46 .

[Anaraky]

Lusitanum wrote...

In Exile wrote...

The fact that another forum wants to
have a thread specifically insulting a group of people while felating
each other about their supposed superiority... well, that certainly says
a lot about them as people.

Especially since half the posts are about why do, the "retard Bioware gamers" want to "turn DA2 into a a shooter"

I mean, granted the idea has some fairly humurous value, kind of like playing Warhammer 40.000 in a Team Fortress 2 kind of game, but that was never the whole point of this discussion. Bioware is not turning a game set in a fantasy-medieval setting into a cover-based shooter and I don't see how anyone could be stupid enough to think how that would ever work.

I mean, what would you shoot? Semi-automatic crossbows? What would you do with all the melee fighters? How would Rogues work now, circle around a guy and backstab him with throwing knives?

Bottom line, yeah, they're even stupider than the guys they're making fun of. Should we congratulate them on such a monumental feat?

Mehow_pwn wrote...

That's not the point. Ever since they
made Mass effect 2 has the forum been invaded by these console eliest
want more Halo.. More Modern ware...MORE Shooting... and less any kinda
of lvl/inventory system or even tactical thinking.. basically useing
their brain ( not that playing RPG makes any smarter take WoW for an
example )

And all Am saying is Im sick of it I already have God
Of war 2...I already have Modern warfare... I ALREADY have uncharted
2... I already have Halo...and Mafia 2

I dont want another
shooter.. Im getting so sick of it. All I want is simple RPG with alot
of action Not more action.. Less RPG elemets...

OK, first off, I would like to object to that claim of "game that basically makes you use your brain" while talking about Dragon Age on the grounds that my brain cells died a slow death of starvation after hours of not using them in DA's shallow and repetitive combat system. I mean, I had to re-install Civilization IV, something that was actually mentally stimulating, just to recover that little thing called "thinking" that my brain had forgotten how to do.

Secondly, you're going to get idiots anywhere, regardless of the game you're talking about. Attitude depends on personality, not on what games we play. I mean, just look around. Wouldn't you say that there are even more PC elitists that just want the same game over and over again and react to any change as being a dumbing down of society as a whole?

Or, as Hollingdale would say

Hollingdale wrote...

This is bull**** and you know it.

Yeah. Pretty much.

Torhagen wrote...

I agree with you there Story and
Character are key and if the ME2 standard will be used for DA2 it will
loose this in ME2 Story and Character are somewhat sidelined.
the
world is no longer "open" but an openly linear tube.
and developing
your character will be nearly none existent.

If that means that we actually get a character this time and not the same expressionless mute who couldn't have an emotion to save his life and always ruins my suspension of disbelief every single time I look at him, then by all means, go for it!

Agreed.

'Tradtional' RPG mechanics have to be left behind as the genre wisens up and sees them for what they are - rat-mazes. Decent shooters are a lot more honest in their approach than traditional RPG's because they illicit more or less the same reacton from their players as almost all fiction does - the desire to keep going to see what happens next in the narrative. Writers/film producers do pretty much the same thing - they keep the consumer hooked by use of rising dramatic tension and potential crescendo.

RPG's instead have almost always relied too heavily on instrinsic reward/rat-maze reward incentives - 'negotiate Level A to obtain Item C - proceed to Level B. Repeat behaviours B, C and D to obtain character Level 10 - proceed to Level C etc etc etc'. The player is hooked purely by compulsive, reward-oriented behaviour, not by use of compelling narrative, which has always been arbitrary.

It's a horrendously dumbed-down mechanic, and one which is constantly being blasted in the mmo industry. It's about time it was laid to rest in single-player RPG's also.

Agreed as well.

Good to see some decent discussion instead of a hormone filled poofest.

[Tirigon]

Merced256 wrote...

The way some douche bags on this forum define tactics makes military battles nothing more than generic front assault over and over.....

Which is a fact. It always saddens me to see war movies; I can´t help screaming "NOOOO!!! TOO MANY LOSSES THAT WAY!! FLANK THEM, FFS!!"

[Tirigon]

MickyBlimpo wrote...

They're making fun of you guys again over at the rpgcodex:  ../../../images/forum/emoticons/tongue.png

www.rpgcodex.net/phpBB/viewtopic.php

The few posts I saw suggest that on this site there are even more assclowns than here. One could believe it´s taken right out of a conservative meeting. Usually you don´t find that many idiots in one place.

[shootist70]

Sadly, RPGcodex seems to be a rampant nest of this:

www.tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/FanDumb

Modifié par shootist70, 30 août 2010 - 02:14 .

[21121313]

Giggles_Manically wrote...

fanman72 wrote...

 Let's be honest here - a lot of elements from  traditional RPGs are really unncessary and don't add to the overall experience of playing a video game.  The strengths of many RPGs - storyline, characters, etc. is something I don't think bioware will be skimping out on anytime soon.  Now don't get me wrong, the combat in DA was fun but was overall it wasn't the greatest gameplay experience in the world.  The storyline, mood/atmosphere, and memorable characters more than made up for what I perceived to be technical gameplay shortcomings.  Mass Effect 1 had similar issues, most of which were fixed in ME2.  No I dont' care about dealing with a clunky inventory as long as i can alter my character's equipment's appearance.  No I don't care about dealing with inventory weight.  No I don't care about leveling up.  No I don't care about spending half of my time travelling to different places back and forth for "fetch this" type quests (what I call filler time).  

Keep the characters, story, plot, visuals, graphics etc interesting.  Those are the only elements i really care from an RPG.  Then for all I care it can play like Dragon Effect 2.

DA is an RPG, not some cheesy turd person, plot hole filled Gears of War knock off.

This post is pure win......

[Newnation]

Anaraky wrote...

Lusitanum wrote...

In Exile wrote...

The fact that another forum wants to
have a thread specifically insulting a group of people while felating
each other about their supposed superiority... well, that certainly says
a lot about them as people.

Especially since half the posts are about why do, the "retard Bioware gamers" want to "turn DA2 into a a shooter"

I mean, granted the idea has some fairly humurous value, kind of like playing Warhammer 40.000 in a Team Fortress 2 kind of game, but that was never the whole point of this discussion. Bioware is not turning a game set in a fantasy-medieval setting into a cover-based shooter and I don't see how anyone could be stupid enough to think how that would ever work.

I mean, what would you shoot? Semi-automatic crossbows? What would you do with all the melee fighters? How would Rogues work now, circle around a guy and backstab him with throwing knives?

Bottom line, yeah, they're even stupider than the guys they're making fun of. Should we congratulate them on such a monumental feat?

Mehow_pwn wrote...

That's not the point. Ever since they
made Mass effect 2 has the forum been invaded by these console eliest
want more Halo.. More Modern ware...MORE Shooting... and less any kinda
of lvl/inventory system or even tactical thinking.. basically useing
their brain ( not that playing RPG makes any smarter take WoW for an
example )

And all Am saying is Im sick of it I already have God
Of war 2...I already have Modern warfare... I ALREADY have uncharted
2... I already have Halo...and Mafia 2

I dont want another
shooter.. Im getting so sick of it. All I want is simple RPG with alot
of action Not more action.. Less RPG elemets...

OK, first off, I would like to object to that claim of "game that basically makes you use your brain" while talking about Dragon Age on the grounds that my brain cells died a slow death of starvation after hours of not using them in DA's shallow and repetitive combat system. I mean, I had to re-install Civilization IV, something that was actually mentally stimulating, just to recover that little thing called "thinking" that my brain had forgotten how to do.

Secondly, you're going to get idiots anywhere, regardless of the game you're talking about. Attitude depends on personality, not on what games we play. I mean, just look around. Wouldn't you say that there are even more PC elitists that just want the same game over and over again and react to any change as being a dumbing down of society as a whole?

Or, as Hollingdale would say

Hollingdale wrote...

This is bull**** and you know it.

Yeah. Pretty much.

Torhagen wrote...

I agree with you there Story and
Character are key and if the ME2 standard will be used for DA2 it will
loose this in ME2 Story and Character are somewhat sidelined.
the
world is no longer "open" but an openly linear tube.
and developing
your character will be nearly none existent.

If that means that we actually get a character this time and not the same expressionless mute who couldn't have an emotion to save his life and always ruins my suspension of disbelief every single time I look at him, then by all means, go for it!

Agreed.

'Tradtional' RPG mechanics have to be left behind as the genre wisens up and sees them for what they are - rat-mazes. Decent shooters are a lot more honest in their approach than traditional RPG's because they illicit more or less the same reacton from their players as almost all fiction does - the desire to keep going to see what happens next in the narrative. Writers/film producers do pretty much the same thing - they keep the consumer hooked by use of rising dramatic tension and potential crescendo.

RPG's instead have almost always relied too heavily on instrinsic reward/rat-maze reward incentives - 'negotiate Level A to obtain Item C - proceed to Level B. Repeat behaviours B, C and D to obtain character Level 10 - proceed to Level C etc etc etc'. The player is hooked purely by compulsive, reward-oriented behaviour, not by use of compelling narrative, which has always been arbitrary.

It's a horrendously dumbed-down mechanic, and one which is constantly being blasted in the mmo industry. It's about time it was laid to rest in single-player RPG's also.

Agreed as well.

Good to see some decent discussion instead of a hormone filled poofest.

I pretty much agree with this as well.  I'm kind of finding it hard to follow people's arguments against the game for making it more streamlined and giving your character a actual voice. I don't see how that is going to take away from the rpg elements when I thought the point of a rpg was to role play and immerse yourself in a good story, not 100 hours of gameplay, pointless inventory, and random battles and sidequests. When I played Final Fantasy 7, KOTOR 1 & 2, ME 1 & 2, and DA I don't play for all that. I play for the story. Isn't that the point of a good RPG?

From what I've read, isn't the gameplay for DA 2 for the pc going to be exactly the same as the last game anyway?

[Addai]

shootist70 wrote...

'Tradtional' RPG mechanics have to be left behind as the genre wisens up and sees them for what they are - rat-mazes. Decent shooters are a lot more honest in their approach than traditional RPG's because they illicit more or less the same reacton from their players as almost all fiction does - the desire to keep going to see what happens next in the narrative. Writers/film producers do pretty much the same thing - they keep the consumer hooked by use of rising dramatic tension and potential crescendo.

Plot tension is not the only consideration.  There is also character development, a reward in its own right.  The trend in modern media towards always having a "kerplowie" moment around the next corner is not good storytelling, and it burns out on itself.  The Hollywoodization of RPGs might be a good thing in your book, but I can't call it that.

[Sergius64]

Newnation wrote...

I pretty much agree with this as well.  I'm kind of finding it hard to follow people's arguments against the game for making it more streamlined and giving your character a actual voice. I don't see how that is going to take away from the rpg elements when I thought the point of a rpg was to role play and immerse yourself in a good story, not 100 hours of gameplay, pointless inventory, and random battles and sidequests. When I played Final Fantasy 7, KOTOR 1 & 2, ME 1 & 2, and DA I don't play for all that. I play for the story. Isn't that the point of a good RPG?

From what I've read, isn't the gameplay for DA 2 for the pc going to be exactly the same as the last game anyway?

A good story isn't the point of a good RPG, it's the point of any good game. The point of role-playing to have options available to you while playing the game. When you're playing a game that only has the main quest... well what role playing is available to you? Couple choices during dialogues? That's not enough in my book, especially considering all the choices end up giving you the same result in the end, the conversation is resolved and the game is moved forward on its rails.

[Sylvius the Mad]

shootist70 wrote...

'Tradtional' RPG mechanics have to be left behind as the genre wisens up and sees them for what they are - rat-mazes. Decent shooters are a lot more honest in their approach than traditional RPG's because they illicit more or less the same reacton from their players as almost all fiction does - the desire to keep going to see what happens next in the narrative.

In a good RPG, seeing the next part of the story isn't the interesting part of gameplay.

As mentioned, character development is the goal.  It's not a means to an end.  It's the end.  And it occurs throughout the game.  If the rat maze gives the player more opportunities to make meaningful decisions on behalf of his character, then they serve an essenatial role within the RPG.

[Addai]

Newnation wrote...
I pretty much agree with this as well.  I'm kind of finding it hard to follow people's arguments against the game for making it more streamlined and giving your character a actual voice. I don't see how that is going to take away from the rpg elements when I thought the point of a rpg was to role play and immerse yourself in a good story, not 100 hours of gameplay, pointless inventory, and random battles and sidequests. When I played Final Fantasy 7, KOTOR 1 & 2, ME 1 & 2, and DA I don't play for all that. I play for the story. Isn't that the point of a good RPG?

Speaking for myself, the voiced PC is one of the big killers of immersion and in this game so is the restriction of background to human only.  I come for the good story, yes, but also to build my own story in the game world.  "Streamlined" is another way of saying fewer choices.

From what I've read, isn't the gameplay for DA 2 for the pc going to be exactly the same as the last game anyway?

We haven't seen PC gameplay, so it's impossible to say.

[the_one_54321]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

shootist70 wrote...
'Tradtional' RPG mechanics have to be left behind as the genre wisens up and sees them for what they are - rat-mazes. Decent shooters are a lot more honest in their approach than traditional RPG's because they illicit more or less the same reacton from their players as almost all fiction does - the desire to keep going to see what happens next in the narrative.

In a good RPG, seeing the next part of the story isn't the interesting part of gameplay.

As mentioned, character development is the goal.  It's not a means to an end.  It's the end.  And it occurs throughout the game.  If the rat maze gives the player more opportunities to make meaningful decisions on behalf of his character, then they serve an essenatial role within the RPG.

People need to learn to stop extrapolating their own perceptions of enjoyment and interest onto others. Or to stop being such good trolls. I'm inclined to believe shootist is being serious, but I'm suspicious I just got trolled.

[the_one_54321]

I also find it incredibly ironic that a fan of shooters would compare other games to rat mazes as though it were a bad thing. Pot, kettle, black and so on.

[21121313]

I don't mind how they are making the main character more lifelike, but i'd prefer they polish and perfect what is already there. A true sequel should be more of the same with as much of an attempt to make it as much better as it can posibly be.

I like to think of it as a cooking recipe. Change too many of the ingredients, and it's no longer the same product.





@Rive Caedo: thanks to you, i am now a Lucky Star fan. The whole video is just plain adorable.

[Sylvius the Mad]

In shootist's defense, his opinion is being echoed by BioWare to some extent.

I happen to think BioWare's wrong on this one.

[shootist70]

Addai67 wrote...

Plot tension is not the only consideration.  There is also character development, a reward in its own right.  The trend in modern media towards always having a "kerplowie" moment around the next corner is not good storytelling, and it burns out on itself.  The Hollywoodization of RPGs might be a good thing in your book, but I can't call it that.

I havn't mentioned characterisation in particular because that, in fact, is part of any overall narrative and so is automatically inclusive within my argument. So my points still stand.

Modifié par shootist70, 30 août 2010 - 05:19 .

[Sylvius the Mad]

shootist70 wrote...

I havn't mentioned characterisation in particular because that, in fact, is part of any overall narrative and so is automatically inclusive within my argument. So my points still stand.

Here you're actually deviating from BioWare's position, and in a good way, I think.

However, the emergent narrative of character development occurs at a rate unknown to the designers, so those rat mazes you describe serve an essential role of giving the player's character time to develop.