925 réponses à ce sujet

[Tirigon]

Aradace wrote...

So ANYONE...and yes, I mean ANYONE who thinks that side quests and missions are "pointless" needs to go and fire up Halo or some other game that's only going to take them 10-12 hours to complete. 

Stop using gamelength as a measurement of how much RPG a game is or I´ll tell you how a friend finished ME2 on insanity in less than 5 hours.
Also remember that Baldur´s Gate has supposedly been beaten in less than 1 hour, and that´s what most consider the ultimate RPG ever.

[Anaraky]

People really need to either to elaborate their arguments in a clearer way it seems. I really don't think there are anyone saying that they should remove all sidequests nor limit the choices in the game, myself (and probably a lot of other people as well) is simply expressing our wish for the sidequests to be actually meaningful and/or immersive coupled with a more emotive main character and less meaningless crap items.

None of the above will in any way hinder or decrease the quality of the game, assuming that the devs doesn't cut content due to laziness but with that kind of attitude towards the game people are bound to get pissed anyways. 

Modifié par Anaraky, 30 août 2010 - 08:54 .

[Tirigon]

zahra wrote...

(Majority of) Youtube comments make good case-examples for legalizing forced euthanasia. 

Sadly I can´t disagree, as much as I am morally forced to.....

[Russalka]

The thing with RPGcodex is always that one doesn't know whether they are taking it far too seriously, or if one is taking them far too seriously.

[Sergius64]

Tirigon wrote...

Sergius64 wrote...


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.

That´s indeed true. But for the record: You still don´t need inventory junk and horrible skill system and tedious combat etc...

Well if we take Bioware's solution to those 3 issues by removing them completely we won't have anything except the story. At that point we're just watching a movie.

I think the problem we're having is that Bioware is trying to satifsy everyone at once with these games and they're ending up with a product that isn't quite perfect for anyone. Personally I would love it if they created a third studio and just had a separate game for each part of the fanbase. One shooter with awesome story/setting ala ME2. One interactive movie with awesome story/setting. And one RPG with a good story that isn't based on a set in stone character like DE. Too bad its more cost effective to just pile everything in 1 game and roll in dollar bills while the hordes of fans are complaining on the forums.

[Tirigon]

Lusitanum wrote...

 the single most boring and emotionless piece of wasted screentime in the whole narrative. For that, we already have Keanu Reeves.

The last sentence just rendered your entire post irrelevant and disqualified you from being taken seriously.

[Tirigon]

Sergius64 wrote...

Tirigon wrote...
That´s indeed true. But for the record: You still don´t need inventory junk and horrible skill system and tedious combat etc...

Well if we take Bioware's solution to those 3 issues by removing them completely we won't have anything except the story. At that point we're just watching a movie.

I think the problem we're having is that Bioware is trying to satifsy everyone at once with these games and they're ending up with a product that isn't quite perfect for anyone. Personally I would love it if they created a third studio and just had a separate game for each part of the fanbase. One shooter with awesome story/setting ala ME2. One interactive movie with awesome story/setting. And one RPG with a good story that isn't based on a set in stone character like DE. Too bad its more cost effective to just pile everything in 1 game and roll in dollar bills while the hordes of fans are complaining on the forums.

That wouldn´t satisfy me, though. I for once want Shooter-gameplay combined with actual roleplaying. I could care less for a voiced protagonist if it limits choices and dialogue options; in fact I´d rather have no Voiceacting at all if it means I have more GOOD quests that are actually MORE than just "Gather this awesome armor, then kill this bad guy and get awesome sword!". And I totally DON´T want a stupid predefined assclown ala Shepard and (I fear) Hawke...

I don´t understand why you have to choose between 2 extremes: Either you get good gameplay like in Halo or StarCraft2, but have to accept that there is no Roleplaying - and I mean REALLY no, so nothing that ME2 seems like the best RPG ever in comparison....
Or you get rather good Roleplaying chances and dialogue, like in DAO, but have to accept the rather tedious gameplay and lots of time-waste with leveling and inventory management etc....

Why can´t I have Roleplaying in a game whose combat is done like in Halo?!

Modifié par Tirigon, 30 août 2010 - 09:04 .

[MerinTB]

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.

If we are being completely honest, okay - I think maybe RPG elements are not your elements.  You reinforce this later for me with what you list as not fun, but I'll come from the start and say if you come into a game genre and say "these elements that are unique to cRPGs annoy me and take away from gameplay, but these elements that are typical to many different genres of games are what I like from cRPGs" then the truth is more likely that you don't like most of what the cRPG genre has to offer, not that the cRPG genre has a lot of baggage to lose.

But let's continue.

The strengths of many RPGs - storyline, characters, etc. is something I don't think bioware will be skimping out on anytime soon.

Story is not a cRPG element.  I say that because story is typical in most game genres - shooters often have stories, RTS games frequently have stories, adventure games almost always have stories, and many cRPGs are very, very story-lite.  While cRPGs often have some of the better stories (outside of adventure games), it's not a defining trait of cRPGs as far as I am concerned because to define something as different from other things, those other things shouldn't share said trait.

That's like saying an apple is different from a pear, a tomato, a bananna and a head of lettuce because an apple is a fruit.  Being a fruit is part of the apple, but it is also part of the pear, tomato and bananna.  Or, even further into my comparison, it is like you are saying you like apples but think the sweetness and crunchiness need to go, but you like how you can chew it and it gives you nourishment.  While you can chew and get nourishment from an apple, the sweetness and crunchiness are kind of very typical traits of an apple and you can get other food to chew and receive nourishment.

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, choices 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.

I again say I don't think cRPGs are a genre for you.  You want adventure games, action games, and that's fine.  You'd probably love stuff like Bioshock or Uncharted - great games with good setting, mood, atmosphere, story... and you can avoid the RPG stuff you don't like.

My point is that there are a significant amount of elements among traditional RPGs which are flat out annoying and detract from the gameplay experience, rather than add to it

And, again, I think cRPGs are not for you really.  Read what you are saying.

---

Anyway - to answer your thread title, no, you are not alone at all.  People like me are actually quite likely the minority, especially here - the people unhappy with the apparent changes from DA:O to DA2.  You seriously are part of what is most likely the majority.  BioWare knows this - they knew it before they started making the design decisions.

[Tirigon]

MerinTB wrote...

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, choices 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.

I again say I don't think cRPGs are a genre for you.  You want adventure games, action games, and that's fine.  You'd probably love stuff like Bioshock or Uncharted - great games with good setting, mood, atmosphere, story... and you can avoid the RPG stuff you don't like.

Let´s ignore that BioShock sucked gameplay-wise (can´t comment on uncharted cos I don´t know it), it has no roleplaying at all. So how is it a game that you can play if you want Roleplaying?!

[EmperorSahlertz]

Inventory is not neccesary for you to be able to customize how your character looks (and not your party either for that matter), so inventory is redundant, and downright stupid if you ask me (how many people run around with 3 different suits of armor and other random stuff in their backpack?) and about filler quests: Some side quests are always fine actually the more the merrier, however the filler quests (aka the "Get me the book on that dresser" quests), are just a waste of time and a sad attempt at giving the player more xp or gold.



Story is entertaining, action is entertaining, a good side quest is entertaining. customizing your character and party is entertaining. Sorting through tons of useless junk in your inventory is NOT entertaining. Running for 10minutes for some useless side quest with no relevance to anything is NOT entertaining. Getting more action into the game and a little less of all the dull stuff will not hurt the franchise. Face it..

[MerinTB]

Tirigon wrote...

MerinTB wrote...

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, choices 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.

I again say I don't think cRPGs are a genre for you.  You want adventure games, action games, and that's fine.  You'd probably love stuff like Bioshock or Uncharted - great games with good setting, mood, atmosphere, story... and you can avoid the RPG stuff you don't like.

Let´s ignore that BioShock sucked gameplay-wise (can´t comment on uncharted cos I don´t know it), it has no roleplaying at all. So how is it a game that you can play if you want Roleplaying?!

If all he wants from RPGs are what I bolded and underlined, and he doesn't want the other stuff that is usually associated with cRPGs, then I posit he is NOT looking for RPGs.  He's not looking for role-playing - he's looking for a pretty looking game with a good story / plot that he can make choices that affect the story.  THAT'S Bioshock.

I never said Bioshock was an RPG.  My main point was I don't think he wants cRPGs.  Okay?  If you didn't like Bioshock that's neither here nor there considering whether or not its the type of game the OP seems to want.

Go back and see if you can reread what I wrote to find the context of what I say.  I promise you I was not saying that Bioshock is a cRPG.

[Sergius64]

EmperorSahlertz wrote...
Story is entertaining, action is entertaining, a good side quest is entertaining. customizing your character and party is entertaining. Sorting through tons of useless junk in your inventory is NOT entertaining. Running for 10minutes for some useless side quest with no relevance to anything is NOT entertaining. Getting more action into the game and a little less of all the dull stuff will not hurt the franchise. Face it..

The point of a side quest is that its optional... If it sounds boring to you, then don't do it. Hell many rpgs offer the dialogue option "I have more important things to do then your Crappy Quest X" when ecountering such a quest.

[Lawrence- Mage of the Grey Wardens]

Tirigon wrote...

MerinTB wrote...

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, choices 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.

I again say I don't think cRPGs are a genre for you.  You want adventure games, action games, and that's fine.  You'd probably love stuff like Bioshock or Uncharted - great games with good setting, mood, atmosphere, story... and you can avoid the RPG stuff you don't like.

Let´s ignore that BioShock sucked gameplay-wise (can´t comment on uncharted cos I don´t know it), it has no roleplaying at all. So how is it a game that you can play if you want Roleplaying?!

In short, OP, you don't make any sense and you should probably just go play a game that isn't an RPG.

Problem solved!


I'm still trying to understand the "RPGs shouldn't have stats, looting or abilities" mentality.

[Tirigon]

MerinTB wrote...

Keep the characters, story, plot, visuals, graphics, choices 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.

If all he wants from RPGs are what I bolded and underlined, and he doesn't want the other stuff that is usually associated with cRPGs, then I posit he is NOT looking for RPGs.  He's not looking for role-playing - he's looking for a pretty looking game with a good story / plot that he can make choices that affect the story.  THAT'S Bioshock.

I never said Bioshock was an RPG.  My main point was I don't think he wants cRPGs.  Okay?  If you didn't like Bioshock that's neither here nor there considering whether or not its the type of game the OP seems to want.

Go back and see if you can reread what I wrote to find the context of what I say.  I promise you I was not saying that Bioshock is a cRPG.

Choices, characters etc... are there for the roleplaying.

[shootist70]

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

Story is entertaining, action is entertaining, a good side quest is entertaining. customizing your character and party is entertaining. Sorting through tons of useless junk in your inventory is NOT entertaining. Running for 10minutes for some useless side quest with no relevance to anything is NOT entertaining. Getting more action into the game and a little less of all the dull stuff will not hurt the franchise. Face it..

I agree completely. As I said earlier, these things are horribly contrived exposition devices. They're also real suspension of disbelief breakers. They're completely at odds with fictive conventions because they're classic obstacles to narrative and plot.

classic RPG fans are going to have to accept that as the genre gets more lucrative it's also going to become more professional. The talent it attracts will want to punch at a professional weight. The chances are they will not want to be saddled with developing around parochial little devices and twee mechanics that have saddled the genre since the limitations of its early days.

Modifié par shootist70, 30 août 2010 - 09:20 .

[Sylvius the Mad]

shootist70 wrote...

classic RPG fans are going to have to accept that as the genre gets more lucrative it's also going to become more professional. The talent it attracts will want to punch at a professional weight. The chances are they will not want to be saddled with developing around parochial little devices and twee mechanics that have saddled the genre since the limitations of its early days.

They're positive features.  They're not problems that need to be fixed.

Those features are the reason we're playing RPGs at all.

Let me ask this: In your description of narrative, is there any room for roleplaying?  Is there any room for character creation?

Modifié par Sylvius the Mad, 30 août 2010 - 09:23 .

[Tirigon]

Lawrence- Mage of the Grey Wardens wrote...

I'm still trying to understand the "RPGs shouldn't have stats, looting or abilities" mentality.

You must be rather limited mentally not to manage that.

It´s really not hard: I play a game like Dragon Age because games I prefer gameplay-wise (such as halo, StarCraft2, DotA, AvP...) do not offer roleplaying opportunities. I do NOT play it for stats, looting, skill-based combat (maybe even with dice rolls to make the sh!t complete:sick:) etc... In fact I force myself to accept the Bullsh!t to be able to roleplay.

It´s like, if you walk through a pile of crap because behind it there is a treasure. You walk right in the crap because it´s the only way to get what you want, but is it really hard to understand that you would prefer if the treasure was located in a pleasing place instead?

[EmperorSahlertz]

Is inventory the reason you play RPGs? (aimed at Sylvius)

Modifié par EmperorSahlertz, 30 août 2010 - 09:25 .

[Tirigon]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Those features are the reason we're playing RPGs at all.

For you maybe. For me they lessen the fun a RPG could possibly offer.

[shootist70]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

They're positive features.  They're not problems that need to be fixed.

Those features are the reason we're playing RPGs at all.

Speak for yourself. Whenever I play RPG's I want meaningful narrative choices, rich plot, decent interaction with rich characters set within an open enough world that can provide real narrative diversity. I want dramatic and emotive content that isn't burdened by use of amateur devices. I do not want cheap shortcuts to simulate depth and realism by way of contrived and intrusive mechanics.

[the_one_54321]

shootist70 wrote...
Speak for yourself. Whenever I play RPG's I want meaningful narrative choices, rich plot, decent interaction with rich characters set within an open enough world that can provide real narrative diversity. I want dramatic and emotive content that isn't burdened by use of amateur devices. I do not want cheap shortcuts to simulate depth and realism by way of contrived and intrusive mechanics.

All things that can exist in any kind of game, with any kind of mechanics, in any kind of setting. You're not talking about RPGs, you're just talking about good qualities in games in general.

[Sylvius the Mad]

I ask again: Is there room for roleplaying?

When I start an RPG, after I've gone through the character creation screen I know everything about my character. I know what his beliefs and goals are. I know what he likes. I know what he values. I know his sense of humour. I know everything about him. And the only part of the game I've seen in the character creation screen (and perhaps an opening cinematic).

Do the games you describe accommodate this? If not, then they're not RPGs.

[shootist70]

the_one_54321 wrote...

All things that can exist in any kind of game, with any kind of mechanics, in any kind of setting. You're not talking about RPGs, you're just talking about good qualities in games in general.

Obviously an RPG would take these things to greater depths, and would offer choice - hence 'role-playing game.'

[Lawrence- Mage of the Grey Wardens]

Tirigon wrote...

Lawrence- Mage of the Grey Wardens wrote...

I'm still trying to understand the "RPGs shouldn't have stats, looting or abilities" mentality.

You must be rather limited mentally not to manage that.

It´s really not hard: I play a game like Dragon Age because games I prefer gameplay-wise (such as halo, StarCraft2, DotA, AvP...) do not offer roleplaying opportunities. I do NOT play it for stats, looting, skill-based combat (maybe even with dice rolls to make the sh!t complete:sick:) etc... In fact I force myself to accept the Bullsh!t to be able to roleplay.

It´s like, if you walk through a pile of crap because behind it there is a treasure. You walk right in the crap because it´s the only way to get what you want, but is it really hard to understand that you would prefer if the treasure was located in a pleasing place instead?

So basically, if Halo allowed you the choice of either fighting the Covenant or joining it then it would be an RPG?

*facepalms*


And you play Dragon Age because you get to make choices...you actually dislike every other gameplay element.
*Facepalms again*

Okay I'm done with this thread now. Pretty sure people are just trolling.

[MerinTB]

Tirigon wrote...

Lawrence- Mage of the Grey Wardens wrote...

I'm still trying to understand the "RPGs shouldn't have stats, looting or abilities" mentality.

You must be rather limited mentally not to manage that.

It´s really not hard: I play a game like Dragon Age because games I prefer gameplay-wise (such as halo, StarCraft2, DotA, AvP...) do not offer roleplaying opportunities. I do NOT play it for stats, looting, skill-based combat (maybe even with dice rolls to make the sh!t complete:sick:) etc... In fact I force myself to accept the Bullsh!t to be able to roleplay.

It´s like, if you walk through a pile of crap because behind it there is a treasure. You walk right in the crap because it´s the only way to get what you want, but is it really hard to understand that you would prefer if the treasure was located in a pleasing place instead?

You don't want an RPG - you want a hack n slash, maybe.  RPGs are about playing a role you create, cRPGs have traditions that define the genre (more or less) -
you want shooters and RTS's with story.  They exist.  And are not cRPGs.

Why is this such a hard concept?  It's like wanting a bacon cheeseburger, but ordering it with chicken instead of beef and asking them to hold the cheese.  You really want a chicken club sandwich.  You can tweak your own definitions all you want "after all, what does -bacon cheeseburger- REALLY mean? I like bacon cheeseburgers, because the chicken sandwiches I order never come with bacon..."

I don't think you really want RPGs - and I don't understand why you feel the need to label RPGs as "games without most of the cRPG elements (meaning without the ones I don't like!).  I think you like story and story choices.  Those exist in motion capture games, flight sims like Wing Commander, adventure games like Noctropolis or Under A Killing Moon.