262 réponses à ce sujet

[thatbwoyblu]

Noooooooooooo!!!!!I want Gears of War type game play.How else will Mass Effect 3 Compete against Gears of War 3?

[Wildfire Darkstar]

Balek-Vriege wrote...


I think a lot of people are confusing roleplaying elements with inventory and customization systems which normally come with traditional RPGs. Personally I like to see this type of stuff, but I know full well that RPGs are about story, choice, dialogue and character development, not loot aquisition and management (MMORPGs are for that).

No, they're not. At least, not exclusively. Ever play the early Wizardry games? The barest sliver of a story, no dialogue, no character development, and the only choices were battle-related (is this character going to be a front-line fighter or is he going to be in a primarily support role?). You can excuse that, perhaps, by arguing that it's so old, but there are still a number of dungeon crawler games out there that emphasis gameplay mechanics over presentational aspects like story: Torchlight, the Diablo games, etc.

That's the fundamental problem, here: you have two groups who aren't communication with each other. Person X feels that the important, essential quality of an RPG is that it have a vibrant and well-realized story, and, since Mass Effect 2 has this, they reason, it's obviously an RPG. Person Y, on the other hand, feels that the genre is defined by its gameplay mechanics, and that Mass Effect 2 deviates so far from the established mechanics of the genre that it clearly can't be considered an RPG.

I make no bones about the fact that I'm in the latter group, if only because I've seen plenty of games with effective, immersive stories and equivalent levels of customization that no one considers an RPG. But I acknowledge the alternative viewpoint, certainly.

[tonnactus]

sinosleep wrote...

tonnactus wrote...

So the geth shotgun is overpowered then...

Duh? For crying out loud even devs have said as much.

So whats the point at all? Its not the only "overpowered"/untypical weapon then anyway.The viper is also basicly an assault rifle with a scope and lot of ammo to never switch to another weapon.

[tonnactus]

PoliteAssasin wrote...
 Replay LoTSB and pay attention to the dialogue.
-Polite

Thats right.Its one thing i absolutly disliked about Lair of Shadowbroker.The parts where shepardt and liara spoke with eachother without players intervention/choice.Like in a shooter.

Modifié par tonnactus, 27 décembre 2010 - 10:22 .

[sinosleep]

The viper gets 4 - 9 rounds per pick up, It is not remotely close to the assault rifles as far as ammo is
concerned. The viper like EVERY OTHER SNIPER RIFLE in the game can't be used as a one gun for my playthrough type weapon, you have to switch it up at least a few times per mission.

Compare that to the 11 - 26 rounds the mattock, it's closest assault rifle equivalent gets. You're just making **** up at this point.

Modifié par sinosleep, 27 décembre 2010 - 10:27 .

[Jaron Oberyn]

tonnactus wrote...

PoliteAssasin wrote...
 Replay LoTSB and pay attention to the dialogue.
-Polite

Thats right.Its one thing i absolutly disliked about Lair of Shadowbroker.The parts where shepardt and liara spoke with eachother without players intervention/choice.Like in a shooter.

That's what pisses me off about ME2. Because its not just in LoTSB, it's more than half of the game where dialogue is automatic like that. Exactly like shooter games. It's starting to look like a GoW reskin to me. Hopefully there won't be any of that auto dialogue in upcoming DLC's or ME3. 

-Polite

[Jaron Oberyn]

sympathy4saren wrote...

Like I said before...it would be irony if Halo or CoD put a slew of rpg elements into mandatory gameplay. When their fans are upset, we can tell them...."its still a first person shooter. Stop complaining."

http://xbox360.ign.c.../1001499p1.html

@Bioware - Read the article. Make Christina Norman read the article. 

@Sympathy - Haha look at the comments below. That's exactly what they're saying. 

-Polite

[AlanC9]

Wildfire Darkstar wrote...
No, they're not. At least, not exclusively. Ever play the early Wizardry games? The barest sliver of a story, no dialogue, no character development, and the only choices were battle-related (is this character going to be a front-line fighter or is he going to be in a primarily support role?). You can excuse that, perhaps, by arguing that it's so old, but there are still a number of dungeon crawler games out there that emphasis gameplay mechanics over presentational aspects like story: Torchlight, the Diablo games, etc.

That's the fundamental problem, here: you have two groups who aren't communication with each other. Person X feels that the important, essential quality of an RPG is that it have a vibrant and well-realized story, and, since Mass Effect 2 has this, they reason, it's obviously an RPG. Person Y, on the other hand, feels that the genre is defined by its gameplay mechanics, and that Mass Effect 2 deviates so far from the established mechanics of the genre that it clearly can't be considered an RPG.

I make no bones about the fact that I'm in the latter group, if only because I've seen plenty of games with effective, immersive stories and equivalent levels of customization that no one considers an RPG. But I acknowledge the alternative viewpoint, certainly.

Excellent post.

Concerning the bit I italicized -- which games, and how are they categorized now?

[AlanC9]

PoliteAssasin wrote...

That's what pisses me off about ME2. Because its not just in LoTSB, it's more than half of the game where dialogue is automatic like that.

Really? Could you give a few examples? I haven't noticed that many places where Shepard's dialog is out of my control for long.

[Lvl20DM]

The attacks on Christina Norman & co. are ridiculous. They were trying to make combat better in ME2, I believe they succeeded. Add more rpg elements (read: more customization) and exploration, and you've got a great game.

[Praetor Knight]

Lvl20DM wrote...

The attacks on Christina Norman & co. are ridiculous. They were trying to make combat better in ME2, I believe they succeeded.

Agreed. If one has an opinion, share it.

Any attacks are ridiculous.

[Jacen987]

The RPGs defining feature was always the ability to role play,to facilitate an immerse,believable,rich world ,which the player would want to inhabit and change,as they gain experience and their character evolves.As such there a reason while long time RPG staples,like gaining loot,managing an inventory,a level progression system have found their place in this particular genre.

Its no "pure" coincidence.And while they dont necessary identify the genre,they help it complete its goal.The ability to find various items,scattered around the environment,or on enemy courses,suddenly transform them from hostile obsticals to actual people,that inhabit a particular location.Like if a specific merc group drops a very specific gun model,biotic amp,omni tool,or weapon mod,it enriches the whole location and its inhabitants at the same time.

Furthermore,the ability to search through the environment to find useful equipment also bridges the gap between reality and game.It give u another goal after each firefight and encourages exploration.It all adds another layer of depth and immersion,outside of dialog and story.

The ability to watch your character grow and evolve,witch Bioware truly realized on a new level with Kotor,is also essential to presenting an living and evolving world,precisely through a level and skill progression.Its serves double purpose:The more options,the better the re-playability as well.

Mass Effect's shooter mechanics are fine and dandy,so-long as they don't hinder the world itself,so-long as they dont turn a living breathing world into a corridor chest high wall,shooting range.ME2 's art direction and design is so fresh and inspiring,but its wasted.The actual game space has tripped from ME1,but areas are to segmented and are labeled"From here to here you shoot,from there to there you talk"

The quests and combat must be spread out across all the areas on the particular planet and those areas must be open and connnected at all times,specifically on hub worlds.It creates the impression of a huge interconnected world,where anything can happen.You could be talking to someone,next thing you know a shootout breaks loose,so that way you have to watch what you say.The more organic and less mechanical the environment is the more realistic it feels.

My point is,ME2 is still an mainly RPG,dialog and choice still being a the core experience.But more then just shooter mechanic seem to be infiltrating the its design.The whole linearity and "one way street" design of the generic shooter has no place in a game like this.Inventory and loot aren't necessary but they can only enrich the experience.

Modifié par Jacen987, 27 décembre 2010 - 10:45 .

[sinosleep]

The amount of revisionist history when it comes to ME 1 is absurd.

Is this not a corridor filled with waist high boxes and walls with conveniently placed square shaped holes in the middle from which you can shoot while taking cover?

Yeah, that guy has an entire playthrough, with tons, and tons, and tons, of corridor's filled with waist high boxes and walls seemingly designed with cover in mind as opposed to any type of real world functionality. 

Modifié par sinosleep, 27 décembre 2010 - 10:52 .

[Praetor Knight]

Jacen987 wrote...

*snip*

Meaning a Sandbox RPG?

That's what comes to mind, when I think about what you are describing.

[Jacen987]

AlanC9 wrote...

Wildfire Darkstar wrote...
No, they're not. At least, not exclusively. Ever play the early Wizardry games? The barest sliver of a story, no dialogue, no character development, and the only choices were battle-related (is this character going to be a front-line fighter or is he going to be in a primarily support role?). You can excuse that, perhaps, by arguing that it's so old, but there are still a number of dungeon crawler games out there that emphasis gameplay mechanics over presentational aspects like story: Torchlight, the Diablo games, etc.

That's the fundamental problem, here: you have two groups who aren't communication with each other. Person X feels that the important, essential quality of an RPG is that it have a vibrant and well-realized story, and, since Mass Effect 2 has this, they reason, it's obviously an RPG. Person Y, on the other hand, feels that the genre is defined by its gameplay mechanics, and that Mass Effect 2 deviates so far from the established mechanics of the genre that it clearly can't be considered an RPG.

I make no bones about the fact that I'm in the latter group, if only because I've seen plenty of games with effective, immersive stories and equivalent levels of customization that no one considers an RPG. But I acknowledge the alternative viewpoint, certainly.

Excellent post.

Concerning the bit I italicized -- which games, and how are they categorized now?

A well realized vibrant story,is not nessassery an RPG staple.Sandbox games have well realized stories,so do some RTSs,First Person Adventures and  even some Shooters.Identifiing RPGs with story,or gameplay alone,instead of with vibrand and persistent worlds is wrong,at least how i see it.

The main citeria should be immersion,choice and progression.Three staples witch a PRG must nail,regardless of setting,gameplay mechanics,real time or turn based,or story.Thats why i see Invetories,Loot and Leveling as beneficiary to 2 of two of those staples.Namely immersian abd progression.

[JrayM16]

Jacen987 wrote...

AlanC9 wrote...

Wildfire Darkstar wrote...
No, they're not. At least, not exclusively. Ever play the early Wizardry games? The barest sliver of a story, no dialogue, no character development, and the only choices were battle-related (is this character going to be a front-line fighter or is he going to be in a primarily support role?). You can excuse that, perhaps, by arguing that it's so old, but there are still a number of dungeon crawler games out there that emphasis gameplay mechanics over presentational aspects like story: Torchlight, the Diablo games, etc.

That's the fundamental problem, here: you have two groups who aren't communication with each other. Person X feels that the important, essential quality of an RPG is that it have a vibrant and well-realized story, and, since Mass Effect 2 has this, they reason, it's obviously an RPG. Person Y, on the other hand, feels that the genre is defined by its gameplay mechanics, and that Mass Effect 2 deviates so far from the established mechanics of the genre that it clearly can't be considered an RPG.

I make no bones about the fact that I'm in the latter group, if only because I've seen plenty of games with effective, immersive stories and equivalent levels of customization that no one considers an RPG. But I acknowledge the alternative viewpoint, certainly.

Excellent post.

Concerning the bit I italicized -- which games, and how are they categorized now?

A well realized vibrant story,is not nessassery an RPG staple.Sandbox games have well realized stories,so do some RTSs,First Person Adventures and  even some Shooters.Identifiing RPGs with story,or gameplay alone,instead of with vibrand and persistent worlds is wrong,at least how i see it.

The main citeria should be immersion,choice and progression.Three staples witch a PRG must nail,regardless of setting,gameplay mechanics,real time or turn based,or story.Thats why i see Invetories,Loot and Leveling as beneficiary to 2 of two of those staples.Namely immersian abd progression.

Your three staples are good ones, but even those fall short of truly defining the genre as the second one totally leaves out JRPGs, which are RPGs despite what some people say.  RPGs are mostly undefinable in my opinion.

[Kronner]

sinosleep wrote...

The amount of revisionist history when it comes to ME 1 is absurd.

Is this not a corridor filled with waist high boxes and walls with conveniently placed square shaped holes in the middle from which you can shoot while taking cover?

Yeah, that guy has an entire playthrough, with tons, and tons, and tons, of corridor's filled with waist high boxes and walls seemingly designed with cover in mind as opposed to any type of real world functionality. 

Pretty much. ME2 has much better combat system.
ME1 is put on the pedestal and ME2 called a dumbed down TPS that happens to have RPG elements by the haters, when in fact ME1 had really boring combat, ****** poor gear system (one top line for armor/weapons etc. in ME; in ME2 gear is balanced and comes down to personal choice - excluding some DLC items that just do not belong), infinite credits - it is all nice that merchant had 300 items when 299 were junk items by level 60. Is it good to have 500 mods when by the end game people use maybe 10. ME2 has its flaws as well, but this ME2 bashing that the holy group in this thread displays is just ridiculous.

Modifié par Kronner, 27 décembre 2010 - 11:12 .

[Wildfire Darkstar]

AlanC9 wrote...
Concerning the bit I italicized -- which games, and how are they categorized now?

Obviously it's a bit of a standard in the strategy genre (real-time or turn-based): developing skills and abilities, either individually or as part of a group/army, is a staple of the genre from Starcraft to Heroes of Might and Magic. But, particularly over the past decade, you get much of the same thing from from various FPS/TPS games: System Shock 2, BioShock, Dead Space, the Half-Life series, Resident Evil 4 and 5, and so forth. Some of these games ocassionally get classified as RPGs (particularly System Shock 2), but I think most reviewers and players don't consider them RPGs, or at least don't consider them primarily RPGs.

My biggest issue with defining the genre as broadly as "any game that allows some level of customization" is that it renders the term basically meaningless. My annoyance factor enters in the picture when, as an old-school RPG player (if my continual name-dropping of games from the 1980s hasn't clued you in ), I can't rely on the genre description to provide any sort of useful information about the game itself. Obviously, no game has ever been defined solely and exclusively by whatever genre its developers and publisher decided to advertise it as: the Ultima games were different from the Wizardry games were different from the Might and Magic games were different from the Elder Scrolls games were different from the Baldur's Gate games. But they were all called RPGs because they had certain characteristics that seperated them from the non-RPGs on the market, on the same way that Doom was distinguished from, say, Sim City. The less discerning the label, the less useful it is to me, as a consumer/player: if I'm primarily interested in, say, simulation games and RPGs, then while I'm still going to do a certain amount of research before plunking down $60 for a new game, I can at least narrow my search to those games that are broadly recognized as belonging to one of those two genres. If RPG is defined as broadly as "a game with a story" or "a game where you make choices", and particularly if the entire games industry has been moving towards those concepts steadily since 1979, then you might as well not bother calling a game an RPG at all for all the descriptive power that label has.

[Pwner1323]

I love it when threads like this pop up and (noobs) people start treating RPG multi like it was taboo taken from the book of Evil Dead. Relax, ME3 won't likely have it. Some guy starts a rumor and it instantly becomes facts. So is the way of the internet.

[Wildfire Darkstar]

JrayM16 wrote...

Your three staples are good ones, but even those fall short of truly defining the genre as the second one totally leaves out JRPGs, which are RPGs despite what some people say.  RPGs are mostly undefinable in my opinion.

I'm still going to stick with my "checklist" hypothesis. There are a ton of elements that are usually associated with the RPG genre (or, the FPS genre, the TPS genre, the 4X strategy genre, the adventure genre, etc.). No one game has all of these elements, but almost everyone would agree that you need at least some of them to be recognized as an RPG, and most people would argue that you need more than one: simply having a story doesn't make a game an RPG, just like simply having projectile weapons doesn't make a game a shooter.

The limitation, and where there's still a huge amount of room for disagreement and debate, is which (if any) elements are nonnegotiable (a game without them can't be considered an RPG), and how many elements you need in order to call your game an RPG. And there will never be complete agreement on that, no matter how long we argue the point.

[darknoon5]

Kronner wrote...

sinosleep wrote...

The amount of revisionist history when it comes to ME 1 is absurd.

Is this not a corridor filled with waist high boxes and walls with conveniently placed square shaped holes in the middle from which you can shoot while taking cover?

Yeah, that guy has an entire playthrough, with tons, and tons, and tons, of corridor's filled with waist high boxes and walls seemingly designed with cover in mind as opposed to any type of real world functionality. 

Pretty much. ME2 has much better combat system.
ME1 is put on the pedestal and ME2 called a dumbed down TPS that happens to have RPG elements by the haters, when in fact ME1 had really boring combat, ****** poor gear system (one top line for armor/weapons etc. in ME; in ME2 gear is balanced and comes down to personal choice - excluding some DLC items that just do not belong), infinite credits - it is all nice that merchant had 300 items when 299 were junk items by level 60. Is it good to have 500 mods when by the end game people use maybe 10. ME2 has its flaws as well, but this ME2 bashing that the holy group in this thread displays is just ridiculous.

I agree. In my current ME1 playthrough, I omni-gel everything.

[TekFanX]

In my oppinion ME2 was stripped too much, I agree.



Otherwise I agree on many aspects regarding the criticism against ME1.

Endlessly shooting weapons and an inventory-system that kept me leaving a mass of omni-gel behind me, like a nanobot-based space-slug.



In my oppinion ME needs the following things in terms of RPG-gameplay:



-Reasonable loot from enemies. It was awesome to find an epic gun on a geth, but it was annoying to be flooded with useless items every time I shot something.



-An inventory(Omni-gel allows us to digitally scan everything and dissolve/manufacture it on the field). It shouldn't be like the one from ME1.



-Markets with selling. You shouldn't be forced to sell the stuff yourself, maybe give the guys who don't want to do it a NPC on the Normandy who will sell it for you, but keeps a percentage of the sellings for himself.



-Item-modification. Building mods into your weapons and armors to adjust them to you play-style. If someone doesn't want to, he/she might use the standard-fitting.



As for the skills, I'm all for making weapons precise from the start, but then again, I'd like to say the same for powers.

Starting the +game in ME2 gave you an easy start for the weapons, but left the powers kinda crippled without the fancy upgrades.

[Jaron Oberyn]

Lvl20DM wrote...

The attacks on Christina Norman & co. are ridiculous. They were trying to make combat better in ME2, I believe they succeeded. Add more rpg elements (read: more customization) and exploration, and you've got a great game.

Have you not read "Where did my inventory go"? Or the article I posted earlier? She was responsible for the lack of RPG elements, most notably the inventory which she hated. I don't care about the inventory or weapons, but the automatic dialogue - seriously? How much more before it's a full fledged shooter without any roleplaying elements in it?

AlanC9 wrote...

PoliteAssasin wrote...

That's what pisses me off about ME2. Because its not just in LoTSB, it's more than half of the game where dialogue is automatic like that.

Really? Could you give a few examples? I haven't noticed that many places where Shepard's dialog is out of my control for long.

All throughout LoTSB. 
All throughout the game. Pay attention.
When you're talking to Miranda or Garrus for example, there's only one option to progress the conversation AT ALL resulting in a completely linear dialogue exchange.

Example Miranda: 

Dialogue choice: I want to know more about you
Miranda: Ok. I'm genetically modified. Blah blah blah. 
Dialogue choices:

[Dialogue Tree 1]
A-You're cocky
B-You're genetically modified?
C-Goodbye

Choosing B: What type of genetic modification are we talking about?
Miranda: I'm superior in biotics, looks, age, whatever.

After she's finished it brings you to Dialogue Tree 1 with a slight modification.

[Dialogue Tree 1.2]
A-You're cocky
B-So you're perfect?
C-Goodbye

Lets choose B again: Sounds like you were designed to be perfect.
Miranda: I'm not. I'm human too. Blah Blah Blah.

After she's finished it brings you to Dialogue Tree 1 with another modification. 

[Dialogue Tree 1.3]
A-You're cocky
B-Goodbye

Choosing A: You certainly don't lack for confidence
Miranda: It's just a fact. It's why I'm assigned to everything Cerberus undertakes.

After she's finished, it brings you to Dialogue Tree 1 with yet another modification. The return of option B.

[Dialogue Tree 1.4]
A-You're genetically modified?
B-Goodbye.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This is just one of the many dialogue sequences which is extremely linear. In addition to Garrus and Jack I believe. Jacob isn't like that from what I remember. I haven't recruited any other squaddies yet so I don't remember their dialogue sequences, but throughout the game you will either get an entirely linear dialogue sequence, automatic dialogue, or a group of responses all leading to the same exact line. Pay attention the next time you play.

-Polite

[Jacen987]

Praetor Shepard wrote...

Jacen987 wrote...

*snip*

Meaning a Sandbox RPG?

That's what comes to mind, when I think about what you are describing.

Hardly im descibing KOTOR.Its turn based combat had nothing to do with the way the game was structured.I could see Kotor becoming Real Time and still keeping the same level structure.In comparison ME2 shooter disign has influenced the actual enviroment,sometimes creatiung cover where inapproprate,forming chains of small uninspiring rooms,with "Shootout incoming" signs on their doors.Making ares "One way streets",never to be visited agian.

Just imagine Omega,the same areas and the same Major Quests.You got Afterlife and the Surrouding Streets,Mordins district,The VIP club where Samara daughter was,Archangels hideout and The Gnag Turf.Now imagine those areas are all open from the beginning and you can travel back and forth.Shoot outs are more spread out and are between all of them.Their can errupt in Afterlife,anywhere as part of converstion outcomes,or random encounters on the streets.

But all of them are also filled with small quests.Rooms,desk and offices are filled with more people,with their own troubles.Perhaps some  have problems with Area or with some Gang Leader,currently drinking  in the VIP club.Then on top of that imagine Kills drop items,that have individual strenghts and weakness,witch you can switch depending on the circamstance.Of course with the difference beeing,more pronounced than in ME1.Means no numerious copies of the same item with minor difference.Those items obtained through kills,or just spread out through the enviroment.In clubs,locked rooms,in appartments,or on tougher enemies.

There just to much space now that isnt worth exploring,and is just use as a one way corridor.Instead every beautifully designed nick and cranny,could have had a quest,and NPC or an item worth exploring and comng back for.


This is a way an RPG should be struture without Gameplay mechanics influencing the Level design.

[Jacen987]

Kronner wrote...

sinosleep wrote...

The amount of revisionist history when it comes to ME 1 is absurd.

Is this not a corridor filled with waist high boxes and walls with conveniently placed square shaped holes in the middle from which you can shoot while taking cover?

Yeah, that guy has an entire playthrough, with tons, and tons, and tons, of corridor's filled with waist high boxes and walls seemingly designed with cover in mind as opposed to any type of real world functionality. 

Pretty much. ME2 has much better combat system.
ME1 is put on the pedestal and ME2 called a dumbed down TPS that happens to have RPG elements by the haters, when in fact ME1 had really boring combat, ****** poor gear system (one top line for armor/weapons etc. in ME; in ME2 gear is balanced and comes down to personal choice - excluding some DLC items that just do not belong), infinite credits - it is all nice that merchant had 300 items when 299 were junk items by level 60. Is it good to have 500 mods when by the end game people use maybe 10. ME2 has its flaws as well, but this ME2 bashing that the holy group in this thread displays is just ridiculous.

The whole "ME1 was perfect example of  RPG evolution and had all staples of the |RPG" is equivalent to "ME2 didnt need any RPG elements and the games structure was perfect".Both games seem to have their apologists,but their both flawed,in some way or another.

The Main difference is,after having followed ME1 developent progress,i consider it to be a work in progress title.The game was so initially so umbitious.What we had in the end was a ton of ideas,that were half realized and some that just never made the cut.ME2 didnt finish the work ME1 started,didnt rebalance or evolve those mechanics.Instead they just cut them right off to persue a different genre expierience.

So generally ME1 atleast tried.It wasnt perfect,but atleast it was a true Hybrid.Just look at ME2 general Level structure and mechanics ,and tell me it isnt taylored to something like Gears or Uncharted.

Theiy simply needed to continue along the same line of developent.But its obvious the whole COD craze got to them.Its still an RPG where it counts,but its missing so much.Its wasted potential,trying to be something its not.

Modifié par Jacen987, 28 décembre 2010 - 12:07 .