1279 réponses à ce sujet

[Kiely]

MindYerBeak wrote...
Any game is only as good as the graphics card you weild.

Uhm??? Is that supposed to be sarcasm?

[Sylvius the Mad]

SirOccam wrote...

Of course Mass Effect is an RPG.

And of course I disagree.

But as you say, there's really no point discussing it (but I couldn't let that assertion stand without a dissenting view being visible nearby).

[SirOccam]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

SirOccam wrote...

Of course Mass Effect is an RPG.

And of course I disagree.

Of course you do.

I just find it odd when people say "It's not an RPG, it's an Action RPG!" I mean...isn't the second a subset of the first? As I've said elsewhere, that's like saying "that's not a car, it's a red car!"

Anyway, a game's RPG-ness isn't a binary choice, in my opinion. There's a gradient. ME certainly isn't as deep or intricate in its RPG ingredients, but they're still there. Choices affecting the storyline, customization of the character, leveling, inventory (even ME2 had the purchasing of upgrades and such), choices made in dialogue with other characters, the ability to build certain relationships with others, etc.

[nightcobra]

SirOccam wrote...

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

SirOccam wrote...

Of course Mass Effect is an RPG.

And of course I disagree.

Of course you do.

I just find it odd when people say "It's not an RPG, it's an Action RPG!" I mean...isn't the second a subset of the first? As I've said elsewhere, that's like saying "that's not a car, it's a red car!"

Anyway, a game's RPG-ness isn't a binary choice, in my opinion. There's a gradient. ME certainly isn't as deep or intricate in its RPG ingredients, but they're still there. Choices affecting the storyline, customization of the character, leveling, inventory (even ME2 had the purchasing of upgrades and such), choices made in dialogue with other characters, the ability to build certain relationships with others, etc.

in other words....to roleplay

[GodWood]

SirOccam wrote...

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

SirOccam wrote...
Of course Mass Effect is an RPG.

And of course I disagree.

Of course you do.
I just find it odd when people say "It's not an RPG, it's an Action RPG!" I mean...isn't the second a subset of the first? As I've said elsewhere, that's like saying "that's not a car, it's a red car!"

A white horse is not a true horse.

[CoS Sarah Jinstar]

AlanC9 wrote...

Dave of Canada wrote...


There's a thing as an opinion and there's another about insulting people behind their backs.

Isn't behind their backs better than the alternative?

Better than getting a thread locked for saying whats really on your mind? Yes I think so.

[CoS Sarah Jinstar]

SirOccam wrote...

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

SirOccam wrote...

Of course Mass Effect is an RPG.

And of course I disagree.

Of course you do.

I just find it odd when people say "It's not an RPG, it's an Action RPG!" I mean...isn't the second a subset of the first? As I've said elsewhere, that's like saying "that's not a car, it's a red car!"

Anyway, a game's RPG-ness isn't a binary choice, in my opinion. There's a gradient. ME certainly isn't as deep or intricate in its RPG ingredients, but they're still there. Choices affecting the storyline, customization of the character, leveling, inventory (even ME2 had the purchasing of upgrades and such), choices made in dialogue with other characters, the ability to build certain relationships with others, etc.

The problem with ME2 was the RPG elements it has were streamlined to the point of barely making any sort of difference to begin with.

[dama666]

I saw a Gameplay, and I have to said: What the hell its that?? Thats no Dragon Age! its Dinasty Warriors in the Dragon Age universe. Really Sad to se the fall of he Rol games

[Tsuga C]

SirOccam wrote...
 As I've said elsewhere, that's like saying "that's not a car, it's a red car!"

A more accurate analogy regarding Action-RPGs would be saying, "That's not a car, it's a go-kart!"  And go-karts being sold as automobiles are what Sarah, Sylvius, and I are opposed to. 

Edit: We don't know that BioWare is going to do this, but many disturbing signs and portents have been noted and spoken of at length.  We're remaining vigilant and steadfastly opposed to the actionification of the DA series, but also hopeful that our misgivings prove unfounded. 

Modifié par Tsuga C, 30 septembre 2010 - 08:30 .

[DMC12]

CoS Sarah Jinstar wrote...

SirOccam wrote...

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

SirOccam wrote...

Of course Mass Effect is an RPG.

And of course I disagree.

Of course you do.

I just find it odd when people say "It's not an RPG, it's an Action RPG!" I mean...isn't the second a subset of the first? As I've said elsewhere, that's like saying "that's not a car, it's a red car!"

Anyway, a game's RPG-ness isn't a binary choice, in my opinion. There's a gradient. ME certainly isn't as deep or intricate in its RPG ingredients, but they're still there. Choices affecting the storyline, customization of the character, leveling, inventory (even ME2 had the purchasing of upgrades and such), choices made in dialogue with other characters, the ability to build certain relationships with others, etc.

The problem with ME2 was the RPG elements it has were streamlined to the point of barely making any sort of difference to begin with.

Still, that doesn't matter. In an RPG you're entering the role of a character and directing their responses and actions towards situations in a story driven game. That's all it is. Basic gameplay mechanics usually include leveling up, experience, and allocating those points to certain skills. Those mechanics have found their way over to other genres like FPS, hack-and-slash, and even sports games like the new NHLs.

[CoS Sarah Jinstar]

Tsuga C wrote...

SirOccam wrote...
 As I've said elsewhere, that's like saying "that's not a car, it's a red car!"

A more accurate analogy regarding Action-RPGs would be saying, "That's not a car, it's a go-kart!"  And go-karts being sold as automobiles are what Sarah, Sylvius, and I are opposed to.  

Spot on, and lets just be honest here, Bioware wants to go after that part of the market that isn't interested in deep hardcore RPG's. They know in order to sell 3 million copies or whatever EA sets as their target sales point that the game needs to not only have high production values with the full voice overs and the more "actiony" approach but they also need to be easier so the more casuals will enjoy it.

They also know that most of their older fanbase will prolly buy it regardless so I'd imagine theres far less a focus on making sure that portion of the fan base having much of a say, because at the end of the day Mass Effect 2 sold pretty well even though I would say the majority of the hardcore folks didn't find it to be a particularly deep RPG to begin with.

Thats just the reality of the industry at this point, out of control budgets, mean you need to sell ridiculous numbers to even break even, hense the fewer complex games and the shift in direction when it comes to a majority of developers who make RPG's.

[AlanC9]

That'd be a lot more convincing if there was any evidence that Bio ever wanted to make anything other than bestsellers.

Edit: what I mean is that EA profit targets don't have anything much to do with this. Bio started dumbing stuff down with KotOR. Or was it NWN1? I don't think anything quite says "casual" like the Stone of Recall.

Modifié par AlanC9, 30 septembre 2010 - 08:48 .

[SirOccam]

CoS Sarah Jinstar wrote...

SirOccam wrote...

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

SirOccam wrote...

Of course Mass Effect is an RPG.

And of course I disagree.

Of course you do.

I just find it odd when people say "It's not an RPG, it's an Action RPG!" I mean...isn't the second a subset of the first? As I've said elsewhere, that's like saying "that's not a car, it's a red car!"

Anyway, a game's RPG-ness isn't a binary choice, in my opinion. There's a gradient. ME certainly isn't as deep or intricate in its RPG ingredients, but they're still there. Choices affecting the storyline, customization of the character, leveling, inventory (even ME2 had the purchasing of upgrades and such), choices made in dialogue with other characters, the ability to build certain relationships with others, etc.

The problem with ME2 was the RPG elements it has were streamlined to the point of barely making any sort of difference to begin with.

Well obviously tastes will vary, but I didn't have a problem with ME2 at all in that regard. RPGs don't all have to be the same. I appreciate it for its cinematic quality, and I appreciate DAO for its depth. They're very different games, and they're both great for what they are. I guess I just don't have some invisible threshhold that all RPGs must pass in order to be considered "good," or even "RPGs" period.

As an example, look at the series A Song of Ice and Fire and His Dark Materials. The first is very adult, very detailed and intricate, with a very large cast, and it's possibly my favorite Fantasy series of all time. The latter (which I'm reading now) is made for ages 10 and up according to the back of the audiobook. It has relatively few characters, and it reads almost like a fairy tale at times. And I am loving it. I wouldn't say "its themes aren't adult enough" and therefore it's not good. They are doing two different things, these series, and it's the same with ME2 and DAO.

If you like the really deep and intricate RPG elements that DAO provides but ME2 doesn't, that's fine, but that doesn't mean it's not a "real" RPG. It's just a different flavor, a different style.

[Sylvius the Mad]

AlanC9 wrote...

That'd be a lot more convincing if there was any evidence that Bio ever wanted to make anything other than bestsellers.

True.

BioWare wanted top make deep RPGs when deep RPGs was an underserved market that could provide them with big profits.  Some might even say they chose the safe route there by going with an established and popular, IP, but that wasn't actually their first choice.  Baldur's Gate was developed initially as an original IP called Battleground Infinity (hence the Infinity Engine), but when they tried to sell the idea to Interplay Interplay suggested they adapt the game to AD&D to take advantage of Interplay's TSR license.

[Sylvius the Mad]

SirOccam wrote...

I just find it odd when people say "It's not an RPG, it's an Action RPG!" I mean...isn't the second a subset of the first? As I've said elsewhere, that's like saying "that's not a car, it's a red car!"

And yet, I would argue that "ice cream cake" is more a type of ice cream than it is a type of cake.

choices made in dialogue with other characters, the ability to build certain relationships with others, etc.

And I don't think ME qualifies precisely because it doesn't contain these two features.

You can watch Shepard develop relationships, but since you have no control over what Shepard says and does you don't really have input.

[SirOccam]

Tsuga C wrote...

SirOccam wrote...
 As I've said elsewhere, that's like saying "that's not a car, it's a red car!"

A more accurate analogy regarding Action-RPGs would be saying, "That's not a car, it's a go-kart!"  And go-karts being sold as automobiles are what Sarah, Sylvius, and I are opposed to. 

Edit: We don't know that BioWare is going to do this, but many disturbing signs and portents have been noted and spoken of at length.  We're remaining vigilant and steadfastly opposed to the actionification of the DA series, but also hopeful that our misgivings prove unfounded.

But that exactly illustrates the issue I have with that thinking. A go-kart is clearly "lesser" than a car. It doesn't go as fast, as far, or as comfortably. It's pretty much worse in every way. But Action RPGs aren't "worse" than "regular" RPGs, just different. They both have the same use, to provide entertainment, and they can both do these things equally well. It just depends on taste.

But you can't use a go-kart to drive to work on the freeway, nor carry passengers or luggage, or whatever else. That's why I used color as the defining characteristic: because it's just a matter of taste. If someone doesn't like the color red, they might not think a red car is a "true" car, but it doesn't make them right. A red car and a blue car can perform the exact same functions. All that separates them is a matter of personal taste.

[CoS Sarah Jinstar]

AlanC9 wrote...

That'd be a lot more convincing if there was any evidence that Bio ever wanted to make anything other than bestsellers.

Its pretty obvious to those not of the BDF. I seem to recall BG2 selling pretty well despite being a more hardcore RPG, but that was before the industry wide shift of catering to the lowest common denominator. There's absolutely no logic behind saying a game needs to be streamlined and stripped down to the levels ME2 was to sell well.

[SirOccam]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

SirOccam wrote...

I just find it odd when people say "It's not an RPG, it's an Action RPG!" I mean...isn't the second a subset of the first? As I've said elsewhere, that's like saying "that's not a car, it's a red car!"

And yet, I would argue that "ice cream cake" is more a type of ice cream than it is a type of cake.

choices made in dialogue with other characters, the ability to build certain relationships with others, etc.

And I don't think ME qualifies precisely because it doesn't contain these two features.

You can watch Shepard develop relationships, but since you have no control over what Shepard says and does you don't really have input.

Of course you have control. Maybe not to the extent that you would prefer, but it's still there. That's my whole point.

The whole point of the oft-maligned dialogue wheel is to provide you the ability to make choices. You are not forced to choose anything, nor to develop relationships with people you may not want to.

Inaccurate paraphrasis or design oversights don't change the fact that you do have choices in those areas.

[Sylvius the Mad]

SirOccam wrote...

Of course you have control.

No, you don't.  This has been my primary complaint about ME from the beginning.

The whole point of the oft-maligned dialogue wheel is to provide you the ability to make choices.

If that wer ethe case it would let you do that.

But it doesn't.  You don't know what's going to happen as a result of your selection, thereforey ou cannot reasonably be said to have chosen it.

You are not forced to choose anything, nor to develop relationships with people you may not want to.

Yes you are.  You're forced to do whatever the consequences of the wheel selection is.

Again, if we were allowed to choose those consequences (Shepard's lines and actions) then we'd be roleplaying.  But we're not.  The obfuscatory nature of the wheel prevents it.

Inaccurate paraphrasis or design oversights don't change the fact that you do have choices in those areas.

That is exactly what they do.

An uninformed choice isn't a choice.

[AlanC9]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...
And yet, I would argue that "ice cream cake" is more a type of ice cream than it is a type of cake.

That's actually an interesting example. An ice cream cake has got cake-like qualities besides the layers of crumbs (assuming those are present). You typically eat it from a plate with a fork, rather than from a bowl with a spoon. It's used in situations where you'd typically use cakes  -- my nephew typically has an ice cream cake for a birthday cake, and I don't think he'd accept either regular ice cream or a pie as substitutes for a cake.

So I guess I'd say that socially it's a cake, but in terms of eating and preparing it it's ice cream.

[MerinTB]

Here's the problem with a lot of this -

someone (Person A) uses an analogy: let's say, bananas are like cucumbers in the sense that they are both cylinders and both are food.
someone (usually a person who already disagrees with Person A's POV, let's say Person Z) attacks the analogy: "that's horrible - banana's are yellow, cucumbers are green!  And bananas have peels!  Cucumbers aren't fruit, they're a vegetable!"

Person Z is being fallacious - they are trying to say the analogy is false by going out of context of the analogy.

Analogies are not meant to be setting up equivalences.  The things being compared only need to be similar for the points that are being compared about them.

Straight from wikipedia for you:
Incorrectly classifying an analogy false

Very often people try to refute a correct analogy as a false analogy, often saying "Well, but that's different because", and refer to an existing property that the two things in the analogy indeed do not share. In cases like this, such a refutation is merely a "false charge of fallacy". But as analogies are comparing two different things there are always some properties that A and B do not share, so it is tempting to pull up one such difference to try to disqualify the analogy. For the purposes of the analogy, however, it is important to check if that difference is relevant for the analogy or not.

Long story short - you are wasting everyone's time if you start nitpicking analogies outside of their intended context.  An analogy is only wrong, false, if the intended points of comparison are not the same.

EXAMPLE:
Person A: Boats are like planes because they both are vehicles that carry people and cargo, and both fly!
Person Z: Uhm, no, boats don't fly.  A better analogy of what could carry people, cargo and fly like a plane would be a hot air balloon or a helicopter.
Person A: Oh, yeah.  Right.  Sorry.

See how that works?

Modifié par MerinTB, 30 septembre 2010 - 09:02 .

[Sylvius the Mad]

AlanC9 wrote...

That's actually an interesting example. An ice cream cake has got cake-like qualities besides the layers of crumbs (assuming those are present). You typically eat it from a plate with a fork, rather than from a bowl with a spoon. It's used in situations where you'd typically use cakes  -- my nephew typically has an ice cream cake for a birthday cake, and I don't think he'd accept either regular ice cream or a pie as substitutes for a cake.

So I guess I'd say that socially it's a cake, but in terms of eating and preparing it it's ice cream.

And I would say that how something is used doesn't change what it is.

[Saibh]

SirOccam wrote...

Tsuga C wrote...

SirOccam wrote...
 As I've said elsewhere, that's like saying "that's not a car, it's a red car!"

A more accurate analogy regarding Action-RPGs would be saying, "That's not a car, it's a go-kart!"  And go-karts being sold as automobiles are what Sarah, Sylvius, and I are opposed to. 

Edit: We don't know that BioWare is going to do this, but many disturbing signs and portents have been noted and spoken of at length.  We're remaining vigilant and steadfastly opposed to the actionification of the DA series, but also hopeful that our misgivings prove unfounded.

But that exactly illustrates the issue I have with that thinking. A go-kart is clearly "lesser" than a car. It doesn't go as fast, as far, or as comfortably. It's pretty much worse in every way. But Action RPGs aren't "worse" than "regular" RPGs, just different. They both have the same use, to provide entertainment, and they can both do these things equally well. It just depends on taste.

But you can't use a go-kart to drive to work on the freeway, nor carry passengers or luggage, or whatever else. That's why I used color as the defining characteristic: because it's just a matter of taste. If someone doesn't like the color red, they might not think a red car is a "true" car, but it doesn't make them right. A red car and a blue car can perform the exact same functions. All that separates them is a matter of personal taste.

Actually, my preferred analogy is "that's not a vehicle, that's a motorcycle!". They're both vehicles, one is just a specific kind. Besides that, yeah, I agree.

Modifié par Saibh, 30 septembre 2010 - 09:10 .

[MerinTB]

That's not a car - it's a Volkswagen!



Heh.

[Saibh]

MerinTB wrote...

That's not a car - it's a Volkswagen!

Heh.

Also known as a **** car!

I'm pretty sure that word will get censored. Let's check.

EDIT: Hell, yeah, it did.

Okay. A-hem.

Also known as a Hitler car! There. You see, that's me taking your analogy into my own perfect Godwin's Law context.

Modifié par Saibh, 30 septembre 2010 - 09:15 .