440 réponses à ce sujet

[Terror_K]

Except that there are plenty of games that allow you to "roleplay" that aren't RPGs. Fahrenheit, Heavy Rain, It Came from the Desert, etc. while there are plenty of RPGs that barely let you roleplay or make any real choices at all, including most of the older cRPGs, even some of the D&D based ones that SSI made. These were all heavily stats-based, rule-based and progression-based with little to no roleplaying or choice at all beyond "do I do this quest or not?"



Beyond that, as i stated earlier, Mass Effect doesn't allow you to fully roleplay Shepard anyway: you can only really nudge him/her in a direction. He/she is mostly pre-defined, especially compared to the likes of NWN, KotOR, Icewind Dale, Dragon Age, Morrowind, etc. Mass Effect (both games) simply don't offer enough roleplaying freedom to really be worthy of the honour of "RPG of the decade" IMO. Especially ME2 with it's "force you into either full paragon or full renegade to succeed" thanks to its self-feeding Paragon/Renegade meter as opposed to a persuade skill (or skills) of any kind.

[Whatever42]

I loved Morrowind, just exploring the lore and the setting was great. And you could have great fun playing with stats. As far as roleplay, it could never really be anything more than playing with dolls. I could mod myself a house. I could mod myself a spouse. I could pretend my character had relationships with the very shallow characters in the game.

No Bioware game provides that freedom. Even in BG2, where i could have a castle or a thieves guild, I could only have the narrow range of choices provided to me. Even though I could determine the order of the quests, they all ended up at the same place, with only a couple choices to determine the flavour of the ending. Kotor was no different. So if choice is your yardstick then Bioware does not produce RPGs. And the JRPGs are definitely not RPGs.

Now as far as ME2 versus previous games, I "roleplay" my Shepard. He doesn't always get the paragon/renegade choices. That means I have to shoot the hostage. Or shoot grunt. Or beat the snot out of the criminal instead of scare him. That is far more realisitic roleplay anyway. Magic red or blue text is does not provide the best roleplay experience.

My colonist paragade Shepard generally does the right thing but he has a temper when it comes to criminals and has contempt for Batarians. When I came across the sick Batarian, I gave him the medigel but I stuck to the point and just asked about Mordin. I never said "I'm here to help" or offered to send someone out. I hated even talking to him. That's roleplaying that I could never do in Morrowind. Sure, its restrictive but its also far more immersive.

In ME1, I could do the same thing. I could be an ass to the council but in the end decide that the galaxy was better off with them and just hope they learned. Having more skills didn't affect that. Being able to turn more junk into omnigel didn't affect that. I roleplayed both games the same way. But I see you're lumping ME1 in with ME2 now as not being a real RPG. But KotoR as not really any different. DA:O does have its relationship mechanics where you can buy love and has the neat party banter but as far as roleplay opportunties, its about the same.

Definitions are funny things. Most people regard Star Wars as science fiction but hard core sci fi nerds regard it as fantasy. They even created the informal genre of space opera, just for fiction like Star Wars and Mass Effect. But to everyone else, Star Wars is science fiction.

To me, any game that provides a reasonable opportunity to roleplay is a CRPG, which rules out completely linear games like JRPGS and shooters. Bioware games provide that experience and Bethsda games provide it in a different way. I'm fine that your definition differs. I am a little confused about how you draw the line through Bioware games, though. To me the story telling in dragon age, kotor, and mass effect are all equal in their limited openness.

Modifié par Whatever666343431431654324, 12 février 2011 - 12:49 .

[bjdbwea]

Terror_K wrote...

Beyond that, as i stated earlier, Mass Effect doesn't allow you to fully roleplay Shepard anyway: you can only really nudge him/her in a direction. He/she is mostly pre-defined, especially compared to the likes of NWN, KotOR, Icewind Dale, Dragon Age, Morrowind, etc. Mass Effect (both games) simply don't offer enough roleplaying freedom to really be worthy of the honour of "RPG of the decade" IMO. Especially ME2 with it's "force you into either full paragon or full renegade to succeed" thanks to its self-feeding Paragon/Renegade meter as opposed to a persuade skill (or skills) of any kind.

Quite true. Even if we would forget everything that makes a real RPG and accepted that an RPG just needs the ingredients that ME 2 offers, it would still be a bad RPG by that definition. Because the ingredients mostly aren't of high quality in ME 2. Because the possibilities to shape our player character are very limited, and the amount of actual decisions is just as small as their meaning in the game world.

[Epic777]

This topic is so flame baiting

[Gleym]

I think it's time for the chart.

[Epic777]

The point of said chart?

[HrznKn]

Mechanics aside, the main plot (collector-reaper story) was too laughable to be anywhere near the top 5 imo.



It started out well enough, but every main storyline mission made it worse, and then ending ... lawl.

Suspension of disbelief came crashing down pretty hard.

Maybe i was naïve expecting something more than a 3rd rate comic book plotline that makes 2000 year old fantasy literature look totally believable in comparison.



Forgive me sounding so harsh, but i'm still pretty butthurt over it, especially since every other aspect of the game, minus some small details, was fantastic and the ME1 ending set the stage for a great sequel.

[AlanC9]

Terror_K wrote...
Especially ME2 with it's "force you into either full paragon or full renegade to succeed" thanks to its self-feeding Paragon/Renegade meter as opposed to a persuade skill (or skills) of any kind.

The ME2 P/R implementation sucks, sure, but it's not really much of a constraint on the player. Anyone who really RPs will just ignore the meter anyway, just as you'd ignore your alignment score in a D&D game.

[AlanC9]

bjdbwea wrote...

 Because the possibilities to shape our player character are very limited, and the amount of actual decisions is just as small as their meaning in the game world.

If those are the criteria then ME1 fails too. I'm OK with that if you are.

Planescape:Torment fails too, come to think of it.

[Rasputin]

Here are the facts:

P&P RPG will always be better than CRPG because on P&P as long as you can imagine it, you can do it. You never have to deal with set paths (unless your D/GM sucks) or coding issues, or finite amounts of space or what will make the story best - selling , yadda yadda yadda...

However, given the constraints of the "C" RPG.... BioWare and Bethesda do a really good job of letting us RP. Hopefully SW:toR will be even better and RPers around the world will get together on one server and make it even that more epic.

Kudos to BioWare.... keep the dream alive!

EDIT: Oh, and to be on topic, I forget when KOTOR 1 came out (ok according to wookiepidia it came out in 2003? buh?), but I would pick that as the best CRPG ever made.  Followed by BG (I know I know everyone loves it) and NWN! because it let you DM online in 3D for the first time.... ever. 

Why are not more people picking KOTOR1 as the best RPG?

Modifié par Rasputin, 12 février 2011 - 07:36 .

[Aedan_Cousland]

Mass Effect is better than all of the games you mentioned, especially Fallout 3.

Fallout 3 isn't even the best Fallout game. (1 & 2 were much better)

[AlanC9]

Rasputin wrote...
Why are not more people picking KOTOR1 as the best RPG?

That's a damn good question. Half the folks on the DAO board seem to have discovered Bio with that game.

[Walker White]

One of the interesting things about the BioWare forums is that the older RPG players -- those from the 70s and the 80s -- are not as put off by the innovations that BioWare has been trying to inject in the genre. We have seen the notion of the RPG change so drastically over the decades, that we do not have as many sacred cows. In fact, if you remember the Golden Age of RPGs in the 80s with its huge variety of systems, it is refreshing to see people returning to that level of experimentation instead of being stuck in a rut.



The more vocal members appear to be mostly (but not all) younger people whose notion of an RPG was defined in the later 90s and early 00s. The late 90s were the dark ages of RPGs, as systems consolidated and the market shrunk. There was very little variability, and the definition of an RPG became very narrow. While D&D 3.x injected some new life in the RPG market, the d20 system caused even more consolidation and less variability.



Interestingly enough, many of the lead designers from BioWare are among the older generation.

[Walker White]

Rasputin wrote...

Why are not more people picking KOTOR1 as the best RPG?

While I played the Baldur's Gate series, I missed this one.  I had neither a gaming PC or X-Box at the time.  I came back to play it later.  Indeed, because of all of the love for this game on the forums, I got a copy and played it for the first time this past year.

I was not impressed.  I understand the weight of the "big reveal", but that was spoiled for me long ago.  Without that, the game does not feel particularly well designed.  The worlds are empty and lifeless compared to what I came to expect in other BioWare games both before and after.  Combat is so ridiculously easy that it becomes grindy.   And the story is not strong enough to hold all the elements together.

I understand the love for BG2.  I do not understand the KOTOR love.

[spernus]

Walker White wrote...

Rasputin wrote...

Why are not more people picking KOTOR1 as the best RPG?

While I played the Baldur's Gate series, I missed this one.  I had neither a gaming PC or X-Box at the time.  I came back to play it later.  Indeed, because of all of the love for this game on the forums, I got a copy and played it for the first time this past year.

I was not impressed.  I understand the weight of the "big reveal", but that was spoiled for me long ago.  Without that, the game does not feel particularly well designed.  The worlds are empty and lifeless compared to what I came to expect in other BioWare games both before and after.  Combat is so ridiculously easy that it becomes grindy.   And the story is not strong enough to hold all the elements together.

I understand the love for BG2.  I do not understand the KOTOR love.

KOTOR is more of a landmark than anything else.The first western rpg focused on storytelling and having party members in the vein of jrpgs coming to the console market.  Nobody from the mainstream gaming press gave a crap about wrpgs or Bioware before KOTOR.Morrowind had been released earlier,but the Xbox version was mediocre and buggy and it sold mostly on PC since it needed plenty of mods ( it did help in convincing console gamers to pick up the PC version however and raise awareness toward crpg or wrpg).KOTOR came in and got insane reviews,won rpg of the year and put Bioware name on the map among the console/maintream crowd.

[Walker White]

spernus wrote...
KOTOR is more of a landmark than anything else.The first western rpg focused on storytelling and having party members in the vein of jrpgs coming to the console market.

The key word in this claim is "console market"; because BG2 was a much stronger game for storytelling.  While KOTOR may have been groundbreaking in this way, the game has aged very, very poorly.  BG2 has aged much better, particularly considering the number of indy RPGs that you can buy these days that are in the same style.

[Atmosfear3]

I hear people who hand out awards are completely unbiased.



T/F?



P.S. Apples are the greatest fruit in the world. I dare someone to prove me wrong.

[stuboy52]

i see most comments lean to hardcore rpg fans who love the old bioware games the problem is rpg is a vast genre for exam in my mind i class bethesda as masters of open world sandbox rpgs while bioware are masters of story driven rpgs. now bioware rpgs can be split into the more tactical like dragon age and more action orientated like mass effect 2 (note i cant comment on baldurs gate series as i never played them) so as far as deep character development with multiple choices and fast paced combat ME2 is my favorite rpg in that respect.

[vader da slayer]

hmmm while I agree that ME2 is deff one of the top ten (as should ME1 be). I do smell some Bioware fanboyism in that listing as 5 (at least 4) are bioware titles if Im not mistaken. either that or someone must really hate Final Fantasy (I know I do).

oh and Morrowind>>>>>>Oblivion.

Modifié par vader da slayer, 12 février 2011 - 09:05 .

[KiraTsukasa]

Whatever666343431431654324 wrote...

Just like turn-based strategy and RTS are now two completely different categories.

When were they the same thing? More importantly, HOW could they ever be the same thing? Turn-based is a type of battle system, like what's in most Final Fantasy games, while RTS is a genre of game, such as Age of Empires. Not that everything you said was wrong, just this.

But anyway, RPG, role playing game. Technically speaking, ANY game in which you assume the role of someone or something is a role playing game. Flight sim? You're playing the role of a pilot. Adventure? You're playing the role of an adventurer. Fighting? Don't make me say it again...

So there. /thread

[Michel1986]

Captain_Obvious_au wrote...

Yep...right. *looks at the calender* hmm it's not even the first of April, I'm baffled.

Yes sports fans, according to The Bottom Line, ME2 is the BEST RPG of the past decade, beating out games like KotOR, Oblivion, and Fallout 3. Don't get me wrong, I love ME2, but best RPG of the decade? You're joking, right?

EDIT: fixed title spelling

To tell the true, it is the best game for the past 10 years (really)....all other games cannot match with this game (except kotor 1)

[Sailears]

Walker White wrote...

spernus wrote...
KOTOR is more of a landmark than anything else.The first western rpg focused on storytelling and having party members in the vein of jrpgs coming to the console market.

The key word in this claim is "console market"; because BG2 was a much stronger game for storytelling.  While KOTOR may have been groundbreaking in this way, the game has aged very, very poorly.  BG2 has aged much better, particularly considering the number of indy RPGs that you can buy these days that are in the same style.

Sadly I agree. KOTOR was absolutely fantastic and still in my top 5 list, but it is quite difficult to get back into playing it again now.

[AlanC9]

KiraTsukasa wrote...

When were they the same thing? More importantly, HOW could they ever be the same thing? Turn-based is a type of battle system, like what's in most Final Fantasy games, while RTS is a genre of game, such as Age of Empires. Not that everything you said was wrong, just this.

He said "turn-based strategy," which is a genre. What, you've never even heard of Civilization?

[Sleepicub09]

El_Chala_Legalizado wrote...

Best action-rpg? YES!
Best pure rpg? I doubt it

wtf is a pure rpg?

[Fixers0]

Phaedon wrote...

Fixers0 wrote...
You're also biasing here, you were thinking when reading the text that this is another attempt to bring Mass effect 2 plot down, but it isn't a review, it's an analysis, he points out good things and says the majority of the game is awesome, but he said that he would focus more on the bad things, which is just occupies a small part of the story, he isn't biased or anything he is just making an analysis with attention to the bad things.

No, you don't do an analysis by trying very hard to break the game and failing half of the time.

I don't agree with everything he says, but 80% of his analysis sounds very reasonable to me, Such as
1.The part from'' the main plot'' to ''no good reason'' in  which he explains what happend to Mass effect.
2. The whole opening scene, and what follows doesn't make much sense from a trilogy perspective.
3.The Collectors in general and how the were almost retconned into the story.
4.The Collectors plan wasn't explained to us and thus didn't made much sense.
5. The wrapping up part.

And what you have posted is just further evidence to support my position.

So what's your actual postion ?, accuse everyone who criticize Mass effect 2's plot of being biassed and intent on bring the game down, You totally seem to miss the point of his article, your set-up is acctualy very common these days:
''When one does not want to hear the message,they will direct their attack against the messenger.

You attack him because he is making critism with your only argument being that he fails to make so, you never really pointed out out why everything he is saying is completly wrong, because in most cases it isn't.

He first brings up the facts from the game, next he starts aksing question about them, then the will try to anwser those question and lastly we makes his conclusion.
Now it's perfectly possible, that you don't agree with his awnsers or his conclusions, but first he brings up the facts and tells us of what happend the game  and that is something which you nor me can simply dismiss.