177 réponses à ce sujet

[Mike2640]

FlyingWalrus wrote...

Mike2640 wrote...

FlyingWalrus wrote...

For an always flowing medium, RPGs are rather rigidly defined by their "fans," aren't they?
And yet here you are, dogmatically adhering to these so-called "RPG elements" which are more like "RPG tropes" as a foundation for criticism of what was done differently.

Why is it that when it comes to RPGs it's  dogmatic, but not for shooters? Shooters have been more or less doing the same thing since Wolfenstien, but no one is saying they're stuck in the past?

Because, for such a simply-named genre as "role playing games," the fans sure are hard to please. All it takes is one glance at one of the most bile-filled corners of the Internet, RPGFan, to realize this.

Everyone is stuck on "systems" and "mechanics" rather than what makes an RPG an RPG at its core, and that is assuming the persona of a character and then dictating the decisions that drive the narrative. As long as this goal is accomplished, it matters little what other mechanics come into play. This is the same reason that many WRPG fans will quickly write off JRPGs in the same breath.

"Shooters" as a genre tend to be more straightforward, but you see even they branch out. That's why you have your Unreal Tournament fans, your Halo fans, and now your Modern Warfare fans; none of whom can agree on anything except, "Explosions rule, dude."

I dont know about that man. Outside looking in, the differences between Unreal, Halo, and CoD seem pretty cosmetic. The core gameplay is still the same. And while for the most part I agree with you on your definition of an RPG, how that is executed is a big factor as well. You determine the way the story plays out in Heavy Rain and Indigo Prophecy, but you wouldn't call those RPGs, would you?

It certainly doesn't help that what makes an RPG is so damned etherial, but determining where the story goes and character development are only part of it. A very big part, but still not the whole thing.

[LenaMarie]

FlyingWalrus wrote...

Mike2640 wrote...

FlyingWalrus wrote...

For an always flowing medium, RPGs are rather rigidly defined by their "fans," aren't they?
And yet here you are, dogmatically adhering to these so-called "RPG elements" which are more like "RPG tropes" as a foundation for criticism of what was done differently.

Why is it that when it comes to RPGs it's  dogmatic, but not for shooters? Shooters have been more or less doing the same thing since Wolfenstien, but no one is saying they're stuck in the past?

Because, for such a simply-named genre as "role playing games," the fans sure are hard to please. All it takes is one glance at one of the most bile-filled corners of the Internet, RPGFan, to realize this.

Everyone is stuck on "systems" and "mechanics" rather than what makes an RPG an RPG at its core, and that is assuming the persona of a character and then dictating the decisions that drive the narrative. As long as this goal is accomplished, it matters little what other mechanics come into play. This is the same reason that many WRPG fans will quickly write off JRPGs in the same breath.

"Shooters" as a genre tend to be more straightforward, but you see even they branch out. That's why you have your Unreal Tournament fans, your Halo fans, and now your Modern Warfare fans; none of whom can agree on anything except, "Explosions rule, dude."

LenaMarie wrote...

And Bioware said being bought out by EA wouldn't change them like
everyone else. I call BS, Bioware is selling out more and more.

Yes. Dragon Age: Origins was such a sellout. Goddamn you, EA, for changing BioWare's development ethos!

Obviously you havent been keeping up there pal, DA: O is being thrown out the window and DA 2 is becoming a action game. Thats selling out right there.

[Water Dumple]

FlyingWalrus wrote...

Mike2640 wrote...

FlyingWalrus wrote...

For an always flowing medium, RPGs are rather rigidly defined by their "fans," aren't they?
And yet here you are, dogmatically adhering to these so-called "RPG elements" which are more like "RPG tropes" as a foundation for criticism of what was done differently.

Why is it that when it comes to RPGs it's  dogmatic, but not for shooters? Shooters have been more or less doing the same thing since Wolfenstien, but no one is saying they're stuck in the past?

Because, for such a simply-named genre as "role playing games," the fans sure are hard to please. All it takes is one glance at one of the most bile-filled corners of the Internet, RPGFan, to realize this.

Everyone is stuck on "systems" and "mechanics" rather than what makes an RPG an RPG at its core, and that is assuming the persona of a character and then dictating the decisions that drive the narrative. As long as this goal is accomplished, it matters little what other mechanics come into play. This is the same reason that many WRPG fans will quickly write off JRPGs in the same breath.

"Shooters" as a genre tend to be more straightforward, but you see even they branch out. That's why you have your Unreal Tournament fans, your Halo fans, and now your Modern Warfare fans; none of whom can agree on anything except, "Explosions rule, dude."

As far as shooters go, those examples are all quite similar (as a whole, they're team-based competitive multiplayer FPSs). There's actually quite a large variety once you get into the genre; atmosphere-based singleplayer adventures such as Metroid Prime or S.T.A.L.K.E.R., tactical story-driven games like Deus Ex or Tom Clancy's Rainbow Six, the standard team-based multiplayer shooters like Call of Duty or Halo, and still others. I don't think you can stereotype either the RPG or shooter as an entire genre like that; certainly classes of them can be grouped, such as JRPGs or competitive shooters, but on the whole there's a great deal of variety as you said.

I don't like the initial sound of this dialogue quote, but at the moment it's far too early to make judgments. Wait two or three years until ME3 is actually out, and then we'll see.

[FlyingWalrus]

Mike2640 wrote...

FlyingWalrus wrote...

Mike2640 wrote...

FlyingWalrus wrote...

For an always flowing medium, RPGs are rather rigidly defined by their "fans," aren't they?
And yet here you are, dogmatically adhering to these so-called "RPG elements" which are more like "RPG tropes" as a foundation for criticism of what was done differently.

Why is it that when it comes to RPGs it's  dogmatic, but not for shooters? Shooters have been more or less doing the same thing since Wolfenstien, but no one is saying they're stuck in the past?

Because, for such a simply-named genre as "role playing games," the fans sure are hard to please. All it takes is one glance at one of the most bile-filled corners of the Internet, RPGFan, to realize this.

Everyone is stuck on "systems" and "mechanics" rather than what makes an RPG an RPG at its core, and that is assuming the persona of a character and then dictating the decisions that drive the narrative. As long as this goal is accomplished, it matters little what other mechanics come into play. This is the same reason that many WRPG fans will quickly write off JRPGs in the same breath.

"Shooters" as a genre tend to be more straightforward, but you see even they branch out. That's why you have your Unreal Tournament fans, your Halo fans, and now your Modern Warfare fans; none of whom can agree on anything except, "Explosions rule, dude."

I dont know about that man. Outside looking in, the differences between Unreal, Halo, and CoD seem pretty cosmetic. The core gameplay is still the same. And while for the most part I agree with you on your definition of an RPG, how that is executed is a big factor as well. You determine the way the story plays out in Heavy Rain and Indigo Prophecy, but you wouldn't call those RPGs, would you?

It certainly doesn't help that what makes an RPG is so damned etherial, but determining where the story goes and character development are only part of it. A very big part, but still not the whole thing.

Unreal Tournament plays at a significantly higher, twitchier pace than either of the two games following. In fact, this is the primary complaint from most UT gamers that I know in regards to "inferior console shooters." Core elements remain the same, true, but that's because it wouldn't be a shooter if the object wasn't to shoot someone in the face, would it?

I wouldn't call Heavy Rain and Indigo Prophecy RPGs, per se, no. They are akin in many ways, but one key aspect of RPGs is to determine your character, primarily derived from tabletop RPGs, as I'm sure you already know. (You seem well-versed.) One of the grievances lodged against ME2 was the simplification by removal of many stats. This is traditionally done by tweaking numbers and stats, but in some settings (like Mass Effect's), I think it's safe to "presume" some of these "stats" because the character you're playing is already partially defined. You are Shepard. You are a decorated veteran and a soldier. That doesn't make the game any less of an RPG. It does wrest some control from the player, yes, but that is because of the approach being taken. It's not easy to have a game with fully voiced dialogue if there is no character foundation of any sort for the main character. Otherwise, we'll get a "silent" protagonist like in DA's. Whereas I don't mind that much, personally, it doesn't accomplish the cinematic flair they are going for in ME2.

Approaches are what distinguish games from one another, I suppose is what I'm trying to say. But I digress, for the discussion is already quite derailed.

I simply wanted to say that Casey Hudson's words are not what you think they are and that there is no need to panic. BioWare's games have always been heavy on the dialogue and exposition and I doubt that is going to change anytime soon. If ME2 is any indicator, rather, they are actually getting heavier on the dialogue. The way it's presented is what they want to change, so as to avoid that staticness which a lot of people now notice, going back to ME from ME2.

LenaMarie says...

Obviously you havent been keeping up there pal, DA: O is being thrown
out the window and DA 2 is becoming a action game. Thats selling out
right there.

Oh but I have. And in the same breath as that "sellout," they've also said, "it's not going to be God of War 3, it'll still be Dragon Age."

They're even pandering to the RPG tropes by further separating the classes, making it so that Warriors are restricted from dual wielding and archery both.

And if I recall correctly, they are keeping most of the pause and play elements intact as well. It's still too early to know for sure, but that sure doesn't sound like an action game to me.

Modifié par FlyingWalrus, 08 septembre 2010 - 03:38 .

[LenaMarie]

Lets just say I have a friend who went to PAX the other day, and while they hated DA: O they loved the DA 2 demo they got to play. That doesnt bode well in my opinion.

[Mike2640]

FlyingWalrus wrote...

Mike2640 wrote...

FlyingWalrus wrote...

Mike2640 wrote...

FlyingWalrus wrote...

For an always flowing medium, RPGs are rather rigidly defined by their "fans," aren't they?
And yet here you are, dogmatically adhering to these so-called "RPG elements" which are more like "RPG tropes" as a foundation for criticism of what was done differently.

Why is it that when it comes to RPGs it's  dogmatic, but not for shooters? Shooters have been more or less doing the same thing since Wolfenstien, but no one is saying they're stuck in the past?

Because, for such a simply-named genre as "role playing games," the fans sure are hard to please. All it takes is one glance at one of the most bile-filled corners of the Internet, RPGFan, to realize this.

Everyone is stuck on "systems" and "mechanics" rather than what makes an RPG an RPG at its core, and that is assuming the persona of a character and then dictating the decisions that drive the narrative. As long as this goal is accomplished, it matters little what other mechanics come into play. This is the same reason that many WRPG fans will quickly write off JRPGs in the same breath.

"Shooters" as a genre tend to be more straightforward, but you see even they branch out. That's why you have your Unreal Tournament fans, your Halo fans, and now your Modern Warfare fans; none of whom can agree on anything except, "Explosions rule, dude."

I dont know about that man. Outside looking in, the differences between Unreal, Halo, and CoD seem pretty cosmetic. The core gameplay is still the same. And while for the most part I agree with you on your definition of an RPG, how that is executed is a big factor as well. You determine the way the story plays out in Heavy Rain and Indigo Prophecy, but you wouldn't call those RPGs, would you?

It certainly doesn't help that what makes an RPG is so damned etherial, but determining where the story goes and character development are only part of it. A very big part, but still not the whole thing.

Unreal Tournament plays at a significantly higher, twitchier pace than either of the two games following. In fact, this is the primary complaint from most UT gamers that I know in regards to "inferior console shooters." Core elements remain the same, true, but that's because it wouldn't be a shooter if the object wasn't to shoot someone in the face, would it?

I wouldn't call Heavy Rain and Indigo Prophecy RPGs, per se, no. They are akin in many ways, but one key aspect of RPGs is to determine your character, primarily derived from tabletop RPGs, as I'm sure you already know. (You seem well-versed.) One of the grievances lodged against ME2 was the simplification by removal of many stats. This is traditionally done by tweaking numbers and stats, but in some settings (like Mass Effect's), I think it's safe to "presume" some of these "stats" because the character you're playing is already partially defined. You are Shepard. You are a decorated veteran and a soldier. That doesn't make the game any less of an RPG. It does wrest some control from the player, yes, but that is because of the approach being taken. It's not easy to have a game with fully voiced dialogue if there is no character foundation of any sort for the main character. Otherwise, we'll get a "silent" protagonist like in DA's. Whereas I don't mind that much, personally, it doesn't accomplish the cinematic flair they are going for in ME2.

Approaches are what distinguish games from one another, I suppose is what I'm trying to say. But I digress, for the discussion is already quite derailed.

I simply wanted to say that Casey Hudson's words are not what you think they are and that there is no need to panic. BioWare's games have always been heavy on the dialogue and exposition and I doubt that is going to change anytime soon. If ME2 is any indicator, rather, they are actually getting heavier on the dialogue. The way it's presented is what they want to change, so as to avoid that staticness which a lot of people now notice, going back to ME from ME2.

But at what point in the removal of stats is acceptable? One could say that they're making an RPG where you play Aries, or Chuck Norris. Because these are already gods of death and destruction stats and weapon mods are removed, and the game is very combat focused with about 60% of it being heavy, realtime combat. At what point does it stop being an RPG and start being an action game with a dialogue system?

[FlyingWalrus]

Mike2640 wrote...

FlyingWalrus wrote...

Mike2640 wrote...

FlyingWalrus wrote...

Mike2640 wrote...

FlyingWalrus wrote...

For an always flowing medium, RPGs are rather rigidly defined by their "fans," aren't they?
And yet here you are, dogmatically adhering to these so-called "RPG elements" which are more like "RPG tropes" as a foundation for criticism of what was done differently.

Why is it that when it comes to RPGs it's  dogmatic, but not for shooters? Shooters have been more or less doing the same thing since Wolfenstien, but no one is saying they're stuck in the past?

Because, for such a simply-named genre as "role playing games," the fans sure are hard to please. All it takes is one glance at one of the most bile-filled corners of the Internet, RPGFan, to realize this.

Everyone is stuck on "systems" and "mechanics" rather than what makes an RPG an RPG at its core, and that is assuming the persona of a character and then dictating the decisions that drive the narrative. As long as this goal is accomplished, it matters little what other mechanics come into play. This is the same reason that many WRPG fans will quickly write off JRPGs in the same breath.

"Shooters" as a genre tend to be more straightforward, but you see even they branch out. That's why you have your Unreal Tournament fans, your Halo fans, and now your Modern Warfare fans; none of whom can agree on anything except, "Explosions rule, dude."

I dont know about that man. Outside looking in, the differences between Unreal, Halo, and CoD seem pretty cosmetic. The core gameplay is still the same. And while for the most part I agree with you on your definition of an RPG, how that is executed is a big factor as well. You determine the way the story plays out in Heavy Rain and Indigo Prophecy, but you wouldn't call those RPGs, would you?

It certainly doesn't help that what makes an RPG is so damned etherial, but determining where the story goes and character development are only part of it. A very big part, but still not the whole thing.

Unreal Tournament plays at a significantly higher, twitchier pace than either of the two games following. In fact, this is the primary complaint from most UT gamers that I know in regards to "inferior console shooters." Core elements remain the same, true, but that's because it wouldn't be a shooter if the object wasn't to shoot someone in the face, would it?

I wouldn't call Heavy Rain and Indigo Prophecy RPGs, per se, no. They are akin in many ways, but one key aspect of RPGs is to determine your character, primarily derived from tabletop RPGs, as I'm sure you already know. (You seem well-versed.) One of the grievances lodged against ME2 was the simplification by removal of many stats. This is traditionally done by tweaking numbers and stats, but in some settings (like Mass Effect's), I think it's safe to "presume" some of these "stats" because the character you're playing is already partially defined. You are Shepard. You are a decorated veteran and a soldier. That doesn't make the game any less of an RPG. It does wrest some control from the player, yes, but that is because of the approach being taken. It's not easy to have a game with fully voiced dialogue if there is no character foundation of any sort for the main character. Otherwise, we'll get a "silent" protagonist like in DA's. Whereas I don't mind that much, personally, it doesn't accomplish the cinematic flair they are going for in ME2.

Approaches are what distinguish games from one another, I suppose is what I'm trying to say. But I digress, for the discussion is already quite derailed.

I simply wanted to say that Casey Hudson's words are not what you think they are and that there is no need to panic. BioWare's games have always been heavy on the dialogue and exposition and I doubt that is going to change anytime soon. If ME2 is any indicator, rather, they are actually getting heavier on the dialogue. The way it's presented is what they want to change, so as to avoid that staticness which a lot of people now notice, going back to ME from ME2.

But at what point in the removal of stats is acceptable? One could say that they're making an RPG where you play Aries, or Chuck Norris. Because these are already gods of death and destruction stats and weapon mods are removed, and the game is very combat focused with about 60% of it being heavy, realtime combat. At what point does it stop being an RPG and start being an action game with a dialogue system?

Then the folly is with the game developer for making Chuck Norris converse with anything other than his fists.

It doesn't help when you realize that there are quite a few tabletop systems out there that also eschew stats. This makes the concept of an RPG even harder to grasp from a mechanical standpoint.

[ExtremeOne]

I think some on here just want Bioware to keep making same type of games.

[ExtremeOne]

here is the full thing from the article





Obviously with a game like Mass Effect we're trying to capture the sense of continuity and the cinematic experience. More and more we're trying to create something dynamic and exciting like a really great movie and we're trying to get away from dialogue, though even a movie has conversations. This set of decisions we make for how you would experience that and the fact that we have a dialogue system and things like that, we're kind of assuming and hoping that we're right in that people are interested in this kind of experience."

[Mr. MannlyMan]

Going by the reception that the new DLC has received, I'd say dialogue and character-driven moments in a game (underscoring a much grander plot with serious ideas and issues), is exactly what a lot of people want. It won't really cater to the drones who expect nothing more out of gaming than to be able to blow up other players and teabag their corpses, but then, I thought Bioware was more interested in bridging the gap between games and movies? There's a pretty huge audience right there; and most gamers like movies, right?

[Mr.BlazenGlazen]

ExtremeOne wrote...

here is the full thing from the article


Obviously with a game like Mass Effect we're trying to capture the sense of continuity and the cinematic experience. More and more we're trying to create something dynamic and exciting like a really great movie and we're trying to get away from dialogue, though even a movie has conversations. This set of decisions we make for how you would experience that and the fact that we have a dialogue system and things like that, we're kind of assuming and hoping that we're right in that people are interested in this kind of experience."

Is that like a oxymoron or something? They want to get away from dialouge....yet they want to have "conversations."

[AdamNW]

tmelange wrote...

javierabegazo wrote...

You're just taking it out of context. What BioWare seemed most proud of, was moments when you could SEE just how hurt Ashley was when Shepard berated her after Eden Prime.

They want to achieve a level of cinematic quality that you could see the person's emotions, just as in real life, rather than have a flat face, and big words.

.

I'm not taking anything out of context, thank you. The entire context is provided, read it for yourself. If there is confusion with regard to what he meant, it's not because I'm taking him out of context; it's because he didn't make his context clear. Which is why we're discussing this.

Thus: You took it out of context.

Anyway, I think this is a great way to get more people into the RPG genre

Modifié par AdamNW, 08 septembre 2010 - 05:20 .

[FlyingWalrus]

He could've worded it better, yes. Admittedly, I only knew what he was talking about because I've learned to read into intents behind why someone may have written something, and past interviews have said as much.

Plus, BioWare evicting actual dialogue is just plain not going to happen.

Sety, is that you?

[MrnDvlDg161]

Lets not get too ahead of our selves about the shadowbroker, the dialogue wasn't that good --- in fact --- what Shepard said at some parts were... just so.. bad its not even funny.

[FuturePasTimeCE]

 :whistle:the dialogue should be like the average's movies length... if you compile the whole cutscenes of mass effect 1 and 2 it'd be under a hour... might need even more scripting and or dialogue for a movie and all.

dude, casey should hook a brother up with free xbox DLC stuff... 

[tmelange]

AdamNW wrote...

Thus: You took it out of context.

Anyway, I think this is a great way to get more people into the RPG genre

Uh...no. The entire context of the quote was provided. There is a link for you to read exactly what he said in the context of his entire interview. Taking a quote out of context means that you provide the quote WITHOUT the context necessary to show original meaning. It implies a sly presentation of a stand-alone quote as the entirety of what was said. At no time was Hudson's quote presented without the associated context.

This is a forum; we don't cut and paste an entire article. We highlight what we want to discuss and link to the source material...

[Bourne Endeavor]

AngryFrozenWater wrote...

Pure economic reasons. Voice acting is expensive, so BW cuts that. It doesn't matter what that will do to the genre, because there are not enough RPG gamers to get those 10 million copies anyway. So the new message is: Action.

I would love to know where you found this evidence because it is doubtful have any basis for your claim. The approximation from what I researched was 70k as at maximum unless you are recording for an astronomical successful franchise such as The Simpsons. I would be hard pressed to imagine anyone is being played that high a salary excluding the rare few with celebrity status. Nonetheless, Bioware was a profitable company prior to being bought out by EA and EA is the largest and most profitable gaming organization in the world or just about. You actually believe the economy is effecting them in any remotely strong negative capacity?

If this statement is indeed true and Bioware is intending to limit dialogue in ME3 and perhaps DAO2, we RPG fans will be experience a grim reality as we have to endure mindless and pointless dribble because the shooter fans cry about too much talking. I am hopeful this is merely meant to insinuate pointless chatter is replaced - key word there - with more interaction dialogue and/or character driven/plot driven scenes. If ME3 played out like one large Loyalty Mission in terms of characters having a centralized role and meaningful development, than I may be supportive of this venture. If it is to mean less dialogue to provide room for more shooting, I have my doubts about this series, especially since this information makes it less likely they will do anything worthwhile with the squadmates from ME2, rendering the SM pointless alongside the game itself.

Prove me wrong Bioware, please prove me wrong.

[Vena_86]

Hey BioWare, here is a tip:
Don't try making movies, they already exist and they are called MOVIES. Howabout making games? When using the word dynamic, then it is certainly a feature that movies don`t have (as they are static) but somthing that makes games a valid alternative.
Furthermore, the dialogues/dialogue systems have always been the best BioWare has to offer.
Stop doing something other than you are good at and stop making the average gamer even more passive and brain dead.

Modifié par Vena_86, 08 septembre 2010 - 07:53 .

[Christmas Ape]

Maybe the problem is we're not jumping to enough conclusions.
I say this spells the death of the video game industry as a whole, replaced entirely by going outside and actually shooting at each other. Who's with me!?



<_< Sweet Christ on a bicycle...

[cachx]

Take a look at Shadow Broker. More cinematic oriented storytelling, less static talking heads.

Christmas Ape wrote...


Maybe the problem is we're not jumping to enough conclusions.
I say this spells the death of the video game industry as a whole, replaced entirely by going outside and actually shooting at each other. Who's with me!?

<_< Sweet Christ on a bicycle...

I like this human, he understands...

[Solaris Paradox]

Visual mediums should be about showing moreso than telling, this is true. There are times when dialogue is the lazy way out.

[Burdokva]

Here goes the round again, a BioWare rep says something that only confirms the fears of some people of Mass Effect being dumbed down on the finishing lines, other jump in to defend said BioWare person, people start flaming each other...



Wouldn't it be far simpler if they didn't explain things out of context and at least try to make it clear what they intend to do with Mass Effect 3? Honestly, it's their right to do whatever, even if it becomes the most moronic, mindless shooter without a single dialogue. Simple.



But just be straight about it - are you going for more RPG or more shooter experience? More action or more dialogue? More import-heavy or a standalone experience? Each successive interview contradicts the previous and I'm tired of all this guesswork.



Cheers to all, don't flaming on me now, please. Thanks.

[Kronner]

I hope they ADD dialogue. ME2 could really use it. If they did not cut audio files (for example Citadel groundkeeper - why cut that out?), ME2 would be even better game.