250 réponses à ce sujet

[The Masked Rog]

the_one_54321 wrote...

The Masked Rog wrote...
and can't really be judged objectively. 

Of course you can. You're just choosing not to because you already have "you're own opinion" and so on and so forth. Why can't you define "play a role" through the mechanics that enable it?

Because those mechanics can be so varied? Because the mechanics which allow me to play a role fail to allow others to play a role? Because most things in this world can't be measured objectively and their labelling is made just to fit the conception of the majority or most powerful, rich or otherwise influential party?

Modifié par The Masked Rog, 06 octobre 2010 - 08:12 .

[the_one_54321]

AlanC9 wrote...
I'm not quite clear what good basing the definition on the mechanics would do the average gamer, actually. Care to elaborate? Which game shouldn't have been called an RPG, what should it have been called instead, and why would that have been better?

As I mentioned above, what mechanics create the situation whereby you "play a role?" What gameplay features to RPGs have that other genres of games do not have? To think more clearly on it, consider much older RPGs and much older games in other genres. They tended to be easier to distinguish.

[the_one_54321]

The Masked Rog wrote...
Because those mechanics can be so varied?

That doesn't really make a difference.

The Masked Rog wrote...Because the mechanics which allow me to play o role fail to allow others to play a role?

That's just not true. You're talking about the way people "feel" about it. How they "feel" about it doesn't matter. Define what "playing a role" is mechanically and be done with it. No more confusion.

The Masked Rog wrote...
Because most things in this world can't be measured objectively..

Yes they can, but...

The Masked Rog wrote...
...their labelling is made just to fit the conception of the majority or most powerful, rich or otherwise influential party?

That right there is constantly getting in the way. Clear, easily understood definitions hurt marketing. They want us to think that the game is whatever we want it to be, no matter what it actually is.

[Ortaya Alevli]

WilliamShatner wrote...

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

There were things I think ME2 did quite a lot better than ME. One in particular ME2 did better than, I think, all previous BioWare games:
There was no XP given for combat. That was a tremendous advancement, and I want to see more of it.

Er no.  The more you fight the more experience you get the better you become.  This is part of real ife.  Not progressing as a fighter after killing 100 enemies is not logical AT ALL.

No XP for kills in ME2 made combat shallow and hollow.  Why am I doing this if I'm not progressing?  Just get me back to the story then.

Skills for kills agent.  Skills for kill.

There is merit to Sylvius' argument when you consider the fact that the experience you gain by killing enemies manifests itself in the game as an upgrade to your Warp biotic power.

[Sable Rhapsody]

the_one_54321 wrote...
You base the definition of a genre on something completely objective: the mechanics. You say that certain gameplay mechanics belong to certain genres. Then there is no confusion in genre labeling. You are given, through the genre label, a specific description of the kind of game you are going to play.

But again, no one will do it, because the Devs profit from us not having a real definition so that they can label their games however they choose and make all kinds of outlandish claims like "action RPG" "shoter RPG hybrid" and other such nonsense.

OK.  Let's take apart a relatively simple game like God of War III.  Let's say that mechanics like level-up, gear customization, and XP are mechanics under "RPG."

God of War III's mechanics involve real-time combat, real-time puzzle solving, cinematic quick-time events, real-time platforming, XP-based level up of abilities and gear, loot, etc.  Is it a puzzle-platformer?  Kind of.  Is it an RPG?  Well, kind of, based on the mechanics.  Hack and slash?  Yes, but is that all it is?

Video games nowadays freely mix and match between what used to be fairly rigid categories of mechanics.  I'm not saying there isn't truth to your idea of mechanics "families," so to speak, but the borders are far fuzzier nowadays.  Suppose your mechanical definitions of games existed before RTS's came out, and there was just turn-based strategy and real-time combat.  How would you have defined an RTS?  .

Modifié par Sable Rhapsody, 06 octobre 2010 - 08:16 .

[AlanC9]

WilliamShatner wrote...
Er no.  The more you fight the more experience you get the better you become.  This is part of real ife.  Not progressing as a fighter after killing 100 enemies is not logical AT ALL.

Presumably they have realistic training regimens in the ME2 universe. How much more should people actually be learning by being shot at with real bullets?

No XP for kills in ME2 made combat shallow and hollow.  Why am I doing this if I'm not progressing? 

You need more rat chow to keep running the maze?

[JrayM16]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

JrayM16 wrote...

While it is a bit of a copout, I define RPGs like I define obscenity, can't define it but I know it when I see it.  RPGs can't be exactly quantified as to how much of an RPG they are. 

I don't think you need me to tell you how awful I think that definition is.

Of RPGs and obsenity.

I think the question many have to ask isn't whether or nor ME2 and DA2 are RPGs, but rather are they the kind of RPGs they want to play.

This is perhaps a more reasonable question, though the RPG question is still relevant to help players determine whether any given game is one they want to play.

There was a time when I would enjoy any game produced that was called an RPG, because they all contained the features I wanted, and all avoided the features I disliked.  The label has ceased to be useful in this way.

I would love some sort of replacement tool.

To the first point, really?  I think you've been pretty constructive in you speech overall, and then you go and stick a paradoxical statement as a critique for my post.

But on to the other part, I beleive that my point is completely valid.  I kinda like my RPGs with a little bit more action and cinematic story.  Others don't.  Is one version not an RPG? 

Back to whatever time you are referring to, (I'm assuming the late 90s) all PC RPGs did have all the features you wanted.  But even these were an evolution off of an older kind of RPG, ones that often had no story or little story to speak of.  Are these not RPGs? 

While there probably is some kind of be all end all definition of an RPG, no one has found it yet.  And even if they did, it wouldn't matter, because RPGs would still encompasse a huge slew of games and other mediums. 

So instead of looking at what is different(becuase there is so much variation between RPGs) we must look at what is similar to determine what an RPG is. 

Dialogue choices and morality?  Probably not essential to the definition because of early tabletop RPGs and JRPGs, not to mention LARPing, which is an RPG, though I will speak no more of it here. 

Edit: Though, ofcourse, things like dialogue choice may be essential to what YOU define as an RPG.  And there's nothing wrong with that, we all have our own standards, it's just that they're all different.

Modifié par JrayM16, 06 octobre 2010 - 08:16 .

[the_one_54321]

Sable Rhapsody wrote...
Let's say that mechanics like level-up, gear customization, and XP are mechanics under "RPG."

God of War III's mechanics involve real-time combat, real-time puzzle solving, cinematic quick-time events, real-time platforming, XP-based level up of abilities and gear, loot, etc.  Is it a puzzle-platformer?  Kind of.  Is it an RPG?  Well, kind of, based on the mechanics.  Hack and slash?  Yes, but is that all it is?

Well then maybe level-up, gear customization and XP are not what seperate RPGs from other games? Look at older games. It's easier ot see the distinctions there. God of War III is practically brand new.

[David Gaider]

Right-- I didn't mean to spark a "what is an RPG?" discussion. Maybe it wasn't me, but either way if that's the kind of discussion you want to have please go do it in Off Topic. If you can't discuss this topic without getting into a throwdown over semantics, then I'll shut it down.

[Pauravi]

BrotherWarth wrote...

So can't people be on the fence or even against DA2 without being called whiners, fanboys, misinformed, or any other insults?

You certainly wouldn't be called a "fanboy".  That seems to be what people who defend Bioware's ideas get called.  Also -- I'd say no.  Mostly because we have very little information about what DA2 is going to be like to play.  If you're making assumptions at this point about DA2 being a bad game, or "not an RPG", then I'd say that you couldn't possibly be anything other than misinformed, or else just making wild, uninformed accusations based on some propensity towards whining about the fact that they aren't going to put out a carbon-copy of DAO.

The simple fact of the matter is that people disagree on what "RPG elements" are, and which ones are important to the game.  People complained that ME2 isn't an RPG anymore because they removed the "RPG element" of the inventory.  My response to that is that an inventory isn't necessary for something to be an RPG, and that the design decision felt RIGHT in the context of the ME universe and playstyle.  I could care less whether it violates someone elses arbitrary feelings on what little genre box the game needs to fit into, and what elements it must have to do it.

In short, I disagree that ME2 removed RPG elements, I disagree that it was "dumbed down", and I'm not going to worry about what Bioware may or may not be doing with DA2 until I get a real chance to see what the game is ACTUALLY going to be like.

[The Masked Rog]

the_one_54321 wrote...

That's just not true. You're talking about the way people "feel" about it. How they "feel" about it doesn't matter. Define what "playing a role" is mechanically and be done with it. No more confusion.

How they feel about it makes all the difference. Any definition that doesn't encompass the feel is borderline useless. People expect to feel like they play a role in an RPG as much as they expect to be intellectually challenged in a puzzle game. How the intellectually challenging part is achieved doesn't matter. It could be a Portal like system or a more conventional pressure plates system or something else entirely. What matters is the feel.

Anyway I'm not about to enter a genre defining debate, first because I think that what a genre is is up to every single person and then because they tend to end with a moderator warning me via PM.

[Brockololly]

David Gaider wrote...

Meltemph wrote...
His main disagreement was that it was going with a lack of customization of his character, and also seemed to imply(at least back then) that they were discussing simplifying(relative to meaning I suppose) the tactical aspect of it.

He seems to infer that the main complaints where more because they were taking on a more cinematic/story telling approach, then one of the CRPG approach.  

I'll just point out that you might want to be careful about reading a lot into that. Brent was already gone before we got much into DA2's overall design, which has changed several times (in some big ways, even) since then. Could be that Brent might have thought those changes were worse/better, but people citing his post as "proof" of anything really shouldn't read more into it than what's there.

Either way, I miss Brent.

Yeah, I've read that blog post from Brent and sure, like you said, you guys have no doubt done lots of things with DA2 since he left. Still, if you're like me and other people on here that are worried about the direction DA2 seems to be heading with the voiced PC, more action focused, shorter length- a generally more ME style- then Brent's post at least seems like a pretty damn big red flag. Thats the guy that was in a large part responsible for Origins being Origins and his worries about the direction of DA are pretty much mine as well.

Now maybe things have changed since then, for better or worse. But still, Brent's post is certainly another little data point in what seems to be growing amount of signs that makes me question whether DA2 is actually simply keeping what worked and improving or if the baby is getting thrown out with the bath water to make Mass Effect with Swords and Dragons.

I guess, for me its just tiresome to read all this stuff back and forth with ME style marketing buzzwords strewn about and grainy shakycam sewing massive seeds of doubt. I  really enjoyed Origins and I want to like DA2. Hell, I enjoyed ME1 and ME2, but the point is that I enjoyed both ME and DAO because they were RPGs on different ends of the spectrum. And in my view it just sucks to see all BioWare games now miming ME's dialogue wheel with VO everything, in DA2 and TOR. Certainly DA2's system won't be exactly the same as ME, but it seems right now like DA2 has more in common stylistically and design wise with ME's more action based RPG slant than DAO's more BG style RPG.  Maybe I'll wind up loving DA2 or maybe I'll hate it- I'm willing to give it a chance. But the more stuff I read and see, the less excited I am for it. 

Apologies for the rant- basically this article from one of the audio designers at Media Molecule sums up my thoughts on ME vs. DAO player VO. (This is the abominable youtube video mentioned in the blog post).

[JrayM16]

Pauravi wrote...

BrotherWarth wrote...

So can't people be on the fence or even against DA2 without being called whiners, fanboys, misinformed, or any other insults?

You certainly wouldn't be called a "fanboy".  That seems to be what people who defend Bioware's ideas get called.  Also -- I'd say no.  Mostly because we have very little information about what DA2 is going to be like to play.  If you're making assumptions at this point about DA2 being a bad game, or "not an RPG", then I'd say that you couldn't possibly be anything other than misinformed, or else just making wild, uninformed accusations based on some propensity towards whining about the fact that they aren't going to put out a carbon-copy of DAO.

The simple fact of the matter is that people disagree on what "RPG elements" are, and which ones are important to the game.  People complained that ME2 isn't an RPG anymore because they removed the "RPG element" of the inventory.  My response to that is that an inventory isn't necessary for something to be an RPG, and that the design decision felt RIGHT in the context of the ME universe and playstyle.  I could care less whether it violates someone elses arbitrary feelings on what little genre box the game needs to fit into, and what elements it must have to do it.

In short, I disagree that ME2 removed RPG elements, I disagree that it was "dumbed down", and I'm not going to worry about what Bioware may or may not be doing with DA2 until I get a real chance to see what the game is ACTUALLY going to be like.

The wars on this forum are very similar to political ones.  In the US right now, hardcore conservatives will lable liberals as communists, while hardcore liberals lable conservatives as evil dictators trying to drive the country into the ground.  It's all the same really.

[WilliamShatner]

AlanC9 wrote...

WilliamShatner wrote...
Er no.  The more you fight the more experience you get the better you become.  This is part of real ife.  Not progressing as a fighter after killing 100 enemies is not logical AT ALL.

Presumably they have realistic training regimens in the ME2 universe. How much more should people actually be learning by being shot at with real bullets?

No XP for kills in ME2 made combat shallow and hollow.  Why am I doing this if I'm not progressing? 

You need more rat chow to keep running the maze?

A professional footballer will hit millions of passes or hundreds of thousands or tackles or shots before reaching their peak in their late 20s.  By doing you learn, get more experience and get better. 

[Gabey5]

me 2 was a much better game, they just got rid of the tedious crap

[AlanC9]

the_one_54321 wrote...

As I mentioned above, what mechanics create the situation whereby you "play a role?" What gameplay features to RPGs have that other genres of games do not have? To think more clearly on it, consider much older RPGs and much older games in other genres. They tended to be easier to distinguish.

Meaning that older games didn't tend to overlap mechanics as much? Maybe, but hybrids like X-COM have an awfully long history. Or is X-Com just an RPG, full stop?

I'm still confused by what problem you're trying to solve. Were people really confused by ME1 because it was a hybrid? (Folks were confused by ME2 because they mistakenly assumed it would be more like ME1 than it turned out to be, but  that's a different case)

And if the "situation whereby you 'play a role' '"  is what we're interested in, does discussion of the mechanics actually clarify that, or does it just insert another layer of debate? The "traditional RPG elements" in ME1 made the role-playing worse, not better.

[Sable Rhapsody]

the_one_54321 wrote...

Sable Rhapsody wrote...
Let's say that mechanics like level-up, gear customization, and XP are mechanics under "RPG."

God of War III's mechanics involve real-time combat, real-time puzzle solving, cinematic quick-time events, real-time platforming, XP-based level up of abilities and gear, loot, etc.  Is it a puzzle-platformer?  Kind of.  Is it an RPG?  Well, kind of, based on the mechanics.  Hack and slash?  Yes, but is that all it is?

Well then maybe level-up, gear customization and XP are not what seperate RPGs from other games? Look at older games. It's easier ot see the distinctions there. God of War III is practically brand new.

OK, let's go for an older game.  Let's go for...Baldur's Gate II.  Mechanics characterized by story, dialogue, level-up, character customization, gear customization, XP, party-based combat, isometric tactical view...hey, are any of these starting to sound familiar?  

My point is that using "older games" to try and define newer games is an ultimately futile task given how freely newer games draw increasingly from mechanics that were previously considered part of distinct families.  Look at games like Valkyria Chronicles, Puzzle Quest, Heavy Rain.  A veritable hodgepodge of different mechanics that, in older games, belong to different genres.  A more precise way to define a game would be to simply dispense with genre and just list the core mechanics.  ME2 is a story and dialogue driven game with shooter-based pause-and-play combat, moderately customizable PC, a parsed-down inventory system, party-building, mission-based XP, etc.  Obviously it's not a good marketing catchphrase, but you sacrifice ease for precision.

[AlanC9]

WilliamShatner wrote...

AlanC9 wrote...

WilliamShatner wrote...
Er no.  The more you fight the more experience you get the better you become.  This is part of real ife.  Not progressing as a fighter after killing 100 enemies is not logical AT ALL.

Presumably they have realistic training regimens in the ME2 universe. How much more should people actually be learning by being shot at with real bullets?

No XP for kills in ME2 made combat shallow and hollow.  Why am I doing this if I'm not progressing? 

You need more rat chow to keep running the maze?

A professional footballer will hit millions of passes or hundreds of thousands or tackles or shots before reaching their peak in their late 20s.  By doing you learn, get more experience and get better. 

So you're making a pure realism argument, and the "shallow and hollow" thing's just a distraction?

[The Hardest Thing In The World]

And so the confrontational stance begins...



Oh, what did you get after DA:O was completed? Jackets?

[WilliamShatner]

AlanC9 wrote...

WilliamShatner wrote...

AlanC9 wrote...

WilliamShatner wrote...
Er no.  The more you fight the more experience you get the better you become.  This is part of real ife.  Not progressing as a fighter after killing 100 enemies is not logical AT ALL.

Presumably they have realistic training regimens in the ME2 universe. How much more should people actually be learning by being shot at with real bullets?

No XP for kills in ME2 made combat shallow and hollow.  Why am I doing this if I'm not progressing? 

You need more rat chow to keep running the maze?

A professional footballer will hit millions of passes or hundreds of thousands or tackles or shots before reaching their peak in their late 20s.  By doing you learn, get more experience and get better. 

So you're making a pure realism argument, and the "shallow and hollow" thing's just a distraction?

I'm saying getting XP for combat is logical, adds more weight to combat section and, for me at least, makes it more fun.

[AlanC9]

David Gaider wrote...

Right-- I didn't mean to spark a "what is an RPG?" discussion. Maybe it wasn't me, but either way if that's the kind of discussion you want to have please go do it in Off Topic. If you can't discuss this topic without getting into a throwdown over semantics, then I'll shut it down.

It's kind of implicit in the topic, isn't it? The OP's issue was that he feels Bio marketing has been misleading in the case of ME, and might be misleading again with DA. But that puts what you expect from DA2 in play.

We can avoid talking about RPGs in general by talking specifically about what DAO is and what DA2 will be, I guess. And even about what ME1 and ME2 were, since the question of whether Bio's communications about those games were accurate is relevant.

[Pauravi]

BrotherWarth wrote...

The "inventory system" in ME2 was just a list of weapons, only the newest of which you ever used since each one was just a better version of the last. There was no point in using any weapon other than the newest one.

Actually, I find this to be a MUCH more apt description of the ME1 inventory.  Every single Assault Rifle in ME1 was identical with the exception that the newer one had better stats in every way.  Once you had a rifle, pistol, shotgun, or sniper rifle with bigger numbers, there was ZERO reason to use a older one.  Once I got the Spectre X weapons, I never ever switched for any reason.

In ME2 the weapons all handle much, much differently from one another.  There is a rifle that has a very high rate of fire, but low accuracy.  There is an assault rifle that is semi-automatic.  Some SMGs are very difficult to aim but powerful, some are more accurate at range.  There is a pistol with a laser sight, and another that has a much larger clip.  Sniper rifles come in semi-auto, burst fire, and "bolt action".  They all use heat sink clips in very different ways.  You could conceivably prefer an older weapon to one that you just picked up (in fact I preferred the Mantis sniper rifle most of the time), or prefer one weapon for a particular mission but not others (for instance I used higher ROF weapons for missions with Geth).

The inventory system in ME2 made MUCH more sense because it was only generally accessible before missions.  As a soldier you are going to take what you need for a mission and that's it.  You aren't going to collect guns and armor off the battlefield to hock at the swap-meet while you're in the middle of a firefight.

[AlanC9]

Sable Rhapsody wrote...
My point is that using "older games" to try and define newer games is an ultimately futile task given how freely newer games draw increasingly from mechanics that were previously considered part of distinct families.  Look at games like Valkyria Chronicles, Puzzle Quest, Heavy Rain.  A veritable hodgepodge of different mechanics that, in older games, belong to different genres.  A more precise way to define a game would be to simply dispense with genre and just list the core mechanics.  ME2 is a story and dialogue driven game with shooter-based pause-and-play combat, moderately customizable PC, a parsed-down inventory system, party-building, mission-based XP, etc.  Obviously it's not a good marketing catchphrase, but you sacrifice ease for precision.

Which actually seems to be in agreement with the_one.

So relating this to the actual topic, DAO's mechanics are much more traditional RPG than ME's are. DA2s will be slightly less traditional because of the voiced protagonist. But Bio's been perfectly clear about this; a voiced protagonists is a selling point for them.

What should Bio have said differently about ME2?

Modifié par AlanC9, 06 octobre 2010 - 08:37 .

[Pauravi]

the_one_54321 wrote...

People make up their own definition for RPG. And worse, the developers encourage it so that they can tag their games however they wish for marketing. It's a bunch of giberish. You can exactly quantify RPG, but no one is willing to do it, thus the subjective pointless mess that we're all left in which only the marketing department profits from.

That's silly.  Of course you can't quantify an RPG.  You can have a set of things that you believe makes a game an RPG, but how relevant or essential any of those things are is totally up for debate.

I think too many people are stuck on the "is it an RPG?" debate.  Frankly, I don't give a damn what genre it fits in, I just want a game that is fun to play, with an good storyline, and with compelling and enjoyable characters.  If they change the style of combat such that somebody argues that it isn't an RPG anymore, then fine, maybe it isn't.  But who gives a damn?  Slapping the RPG label on something doesn't make it inherently good.  I don't play a game because it is an RPG, I play it because it is fun.

[Skellimancer]

"What is a roleplaying game?"



"a miserable pile of secrets."