440 réponses à ce sujet

[Schneidend]

Terror_K wrote...

That may be, but ME2 is extremely popular for the reason that it's actually less RPG than most other previous BioWare titles and because it's more of a shooter, because shooters are the "in thing" these days. It's more popular because it's becoming more mainstream and appeals more to the massive CoD and Halo audiences of today.

ME1 already was a hybrid RPG-shooter. All Bioware did was decide that maybe, if they're going to have shooting people be the main thrust of the combat, maybe the shooting component should be something that is actually worth playing.

I just don't think that it's RPG elements are strong enough, which is why it getting called "the best RPG of the past decade" is actually insulting to proper RPGs, IMO. As far as I'm concerned ME2 just barely qualifies, and is too much of a hybrid to really be worthy of the top prize. I also find its RPG elements highly unsatisfactory and oversimplified, and on top of that (for the third time) it's an RPG that only lets you guide a pre-defined character and nudge them a little rather than fully roleplay them.

As you've been kind enough to illustrate, these are your opinions. The author of that article is also giving their opinion. Nothing in that article was meant to be taken as being based on objective facts, as what makes a good RPG or even a good game in general is entirely subjective.

And yes, as much as I'm a big fan of ME1, I don't think it deserves the title either, though I would say it does slightly more than ME2 does. I'd even say Alpha Protocol deserves it better, and it was probably a weaker "game" than ME2 was, but a superior RPG from a technical standpoint. I'd probably personall give it to either KotOR or Dragon Age Origins. I'd have added NWN but I think it's not quite cinematic enough and relies just a tad too much on old tropes. NWN2 was a bit better, but too buggy and flawed. Fallout New Vegas is also pretty up there. Oblivion is fun, but doesn't really offer enough proper roleplaying and defining of your character's personality.

You should write an article wherein you state these things. Then, a whole bunch of people can argue how stupid you and your choices are. That's basically all this thread is and ever will be.

To me giving ME2 that title would be like giving Portal the "best FPS Shooter" title just because you have a portal "gun" that you shoot from a first-person perspective.

That's a poor analogy. FPS is a pretty self-explanatory genre. There's nothing ambiguous about any of the term's component parts. Roleplaying Game, on the other hand, is incredibly vague even just going by etymology. To some, it's the stats, and to others it's stepping into the role of a character and making decisions for them, and to yet more people it is a delicate balance of both.

You and others have decided that you don't think ME2 is an RPG (even though it contains both of the above things), and that's fine. That does not, however, mean that ME2 is in fact not an RPG.

[Terror_K]

AlanC9 wrote...

Terror_K wrote...
I just don't think that it's RPG elements are strong enough, which is why it getting called "the best RPG of the past decade" is actually insulting to proper RPGs, IMO.

Insulting? Hmm... you mean that if the "best RPG" doesn't have a lot of the things that most RPGs have, then the implication is that those typical RPG attributes aren't any good in the first place?

Kind of. I just think it's a bit of a travesty that a game that can barely even be classified as an RPG can be seen as a better one than all the deep, pure-class RPGs that have come out over the past ten years. I'm sure a lot of it is simply because ME2 is so fresh in everybody's mind that the rose-tinting hasn't worn off yet.

To me Mass Effect 2 recieving accolades like this are just going to send the wrong message and result in RPGs getting more and more watered down in the near future. If somebody wants to go ahead and say they feel that Mass Effect 2 is one of the best games to come out in the past 10 years then fine... I've no problem with that, even if I don't actually agree. But best RPG? Sorry, but there's just too many RPGs that do RPG better in every respect to give that crown to ME2. Dragon Age Origins alone is one of them. I wouldn't even call Mass Effect 2 the best RPG of last year, let alone the last ten years.

When Mass Effect originally came out I wanted it to be a big success and really take off because I felt it had potential and deserved it. But now since ME2 came along I no longer think it deserves it and that it's become overrated.

[Terror_K]

Schneidend wrote...

ME1 already was a hybrid RPG-shooter. All Bioware did was decide that maybe, if they're going to have shooting people be the main thrust of the combat, maybe the shooting component should be something that is actually worth playing.

First of all, that's wrong. ME1 was not a hybrid RPG-shooter. It was an Action RPG with TPS elements. It wasn't until ME2 came along that the series became a full-on hybrid.

Secondly, and I've said this before, if BioWare had simply improved the combat and left it at that then many of my issues with ME2 would be gone and I wouldn't look down on it and where it went so much. But that's not all they did: the stripped out more RPG elements than they needed to, watered it down and oversimplfied and overcompensated of ME1's flaws and issues. They shifted the overall style and presentation of the game as well and stripped out other non-RPG factors like exploration, and made took away choice and freedom in favour of linearity and putting too much on auto-pilot, all the while treating the player like a baby in need of help at every turn.

You and others have decided that you don't think ME2 is an RPG (even though it contains both of the above things), and that's fine. That does not, however, mean that ME2 is in fact not an RPG.

Incorrect. I've never said that I don't think ME2 is an RPG. I do. What I've said --and still believe-- is that Mass Effect 2 is not a very good RPG. A good game, yes. A good interactive, cinematic experience, absolutely. But not a good RPG. It's just far too watered down, simplified and dumbed down. Too much is either gone, automated or simply overly linear to be a really satisfactory RPG. Not to mention that I feel aspects like the research/upgrade system are utterly broken to the point of not even serving their purpose properly and the progression system is a foolproof joke focused too much on combat.

[Arcturus Shepard]

Is it the best inventory-management game? No. Best stat-crunching game? No way. Best role-playing game (as in playing a role)...yes. I agree 100%. A game doesn't need to be a port of a table-top RPG to be an RPG.

[Kakistos_]

Think about what an RPG actually is, what defines it, what qualities it possesses, and ask yourself if these are found in ME2. ME2 is a great game to be sure and technically an RPG but when it comes to the question of best RPG in the past 10 years, it is not. It is simply the most popular RPG in the past 10 years.


Edit: Touché Spernus.

Modifié par Kakistos_, 14 février 2011 - 09:04 .

[Icinix]

I no longer really hold to genre classifications such as RPG, FPS, RTS, SBS, CBS etc etc..



Those classifications are an antiquated and 'almost' irrelevant tag to apply to games that are increasingly mashing up the old fashioned genres and creating new hybrids. The broad division between gameplay in different types has definitely been blurred and continues to be so.



Was ME2 the best game I played last year...indeed I do believe so, and quite frankly, that's the only award that matters to me :-p

[Schneidend]

Terror_K wrote...

First of all, that's wrong. ME1 was not a hybrid RPG-shooter. It was an Action RPG with TPS elements. It wasn't until ME2 came along that the series became a full-on hybrid.

So, in other words, ME1 was a hybrid. It just didn't do a very good job of it.

Secondly, and I've said this before, if BioWare had simply improved the combat and left it at that then many of my issues with ME2 would be gone and I wouldn't look down on it and where it went so much. But that's not all they did: the stripped out more RPG elements than they needed to, watered it down and oversimplfied and overcompensated of ME1's flaws and issues. They shifted the overall style and presentation of the game as well and stripped out other non-RPG factors like exploration, and made took away choice and freedom in favour of linearity and putting too much on auto-pilot, all the while treating the player like a baby in need of help at every turn.

Choice and Freedom?
ME1: Here are some important planets where the main quest occurs. You can go to them in any order, but will ultimately arrive at the same final destination.
ME2: Here are some important planets where the main quest occurs. You can go
to them in any order, but will ultimately arrive at the same final
destination.

Exploration?
ME1: Cruise around and find planets you can land on. Run around hub worlds and missions to find quests, talk to aliens, and loot containers.
ME2: Cruise around and find planets you can land on. Run around hub worlds and missions to find quests, talk to aliens, and loot containers.

Incorrect. I've never said that I don't think ME2 is an RPG. I do. What I've said --and still believe-- is that Mass Effect 2 is not a very good RPG. A good game, yes. A good interactive, cinematic experience, absolutely. But not a good RPG. It's just far too watered down, simplified and dumbed down. Too much is either gone, automated or simply overly linear to be a really satisfactory RPG. Not to mention that I feel aspects like the research/upgrade system are utterly broken to the point of not even serving their purpose properly and the progression system is a foolproof joke focused too much on combat.

Other than the Charm/Intimidate skills, the progression in ME1 was also combat focused. Those two non-combat skills are still present in ME2, just built into your passive. Having extra, needless skills doesn't make a system any deeper or more fulfilling, just more convoluted.

I really don't understand this "linearity" and "automation" you're referring to in regards to the RPG elements. I mean, you put points into skills which affect your performance in the game. How do ME1 and ME2 differ in this regard, exactly?

Could the upgrade/research system have been better? Should it have been more like KotOR or ME1's item customization than what it was? Absolutely. I don't think anybody is claiming they were astounded by the complexities of ME2's research system.

[Terror_K]

Arcturus Shepard wrote...

Is it the best inventory-management game? No. Best stat-crunching game? No way. Best role-playing game (as in playing a role)...yes. I agree 100%. A game doesn't need to be a port of a table-top RPG to be an RPG.

Yes, but again, statistical RPG aspects aside, Mass Effect forces you into the role of a semi-predefined character and only really lets you nudge them here and there a little. How is that better than an RPG along the lines of Dragon Age: Origins that lets you fully develop your character and gives you far more choice and freedom as to not only how to build them, but in how to actually roleplay them? Both Mass Effect games also restrict your roleplaying compared to many of the RPGs from the past decade, so how does it best them at it?

I think what this is coming down to is that Mass Effect 2 just happens to be a favourite game of many peoples that also just happens to be classified as an RPG.

[spernus]

Kakistos_ wrote...

Think about what an RPG actually is, what defines it, what qualities it possesses, and ask yourself if these are found in ME2. ME2 is a great game to be sure and technically an RPG but when it comes to the question of best RPG in the past 10 years, it is not. It is simply the most popular RPG in the past 10 years.

How do you define it's popularity?

Dragon age sold better than both Mass effect title combined,not to mention Final fantasy X was a big seller back in 2001.Fallout 3,Morrowind and Oblivion also sold better than Mass effect 2.    No way is Mass effect 2 the most popular rpg of the last 10 years.On the other hand,it's the most diluted rpg and the combat is first and foremost a shooter.

[Terror_K]

[quote]Schneidend wrote...

[quote]Terror_K wrote...

First of all, that's wrong. ME1 was not a hybrid RPG-shooter. It was an Action RPG with TPS elements. It wasn't until ME2 came along that the series became a full-on hybrid.[/quote]

So, in other words, ME1 was a hybrid. It just didn't do a very good job of it.[/quote]

No, it just had semi-TPS combat elements, as I said. GTA: San Andreas has some RPG elements but that doesn't make it a hybrid RPG. Gears of War 3 is apparently going to have some RPG elements but it'll still be a TPS game. The CoD series has RPG elements and they aren't hybrids either, but considered pure shooters.

[quote]
Choice and Freedom?
ME1: Here are some important planets where the main quest occurs. You can go to them in any order, but will ultimately arrive at the same final destination.
ME2: Here are some important planets where the main quest occurs. You can go to them in any order, but will ultimately arrive at the same final destination.[/quote]

I was actually referring more to gameplay elements than narrative ones. Beyond that there was at least a few ways of approaching and doing quests now and then in ME1, which ME2 almost completely lacked beyond "the Paragon way and the Renegade way" and that's about it. It took Zaeed's DLC before we got a proper alternate path in ME2, as opposed to ME1 which had several different ways of tackling the situations on Noveria, Feros and Virmire. Getting the garage pass to allow you to travel to Peak 15 alone had half a dozen variations, and there was nothing even close to that in ME2.

[quote]
Exploration?
ME1: Cruise around and find planets you can land on. Run around hub worlds and missions to find quests, talk to aliens, and loot containers.
ME2: Cruise around and find planets you can land on. Run around hub worlds and missions to find quests, talk to aliens, and loot containers.[/quote]

More like...

ME1: Cruise around on large, open worlds or vast places with mutiple paths, forks and branches. The universe feels vast and open, and mostly unexplored.
ME2: Wander around tiny, linear A to B areas that feel manufactured and overly alive, where you can't miss anything because you're pretty much tripping over anything of significance in your tiny, linear area that never deviates. The universe feels small and artificial, and like everybody has already explored everywhere fully before.

[quote]
Other than the Charm/Intimidate skills, the progression in ME1 was also combat focused. Those two non-combat skills are still present in ME2, just built into your passive. Having extra, needless skills doesn't make a system any deeper or more fulfilling, just more convoluted.[/quote]

Funny, I seem to remember having different armour classes, first aid and skills that determined how well I could open a container or hack a terminal in ME1.

[quote]
I really don't understand this "linearity" and "automation" you're referring to in regards to the RPG elements. I mean, you put points into skills which affect your performance in the game. How do ME1 and ME2 differ in this regard, exactly?[/quote]

In ME1 you had varied equipment randomly located, various mods you could choose to equip or not equip for weapons and armour, omni-tools and biotic amps, etc. In ME2 you trip over items in the same order as you do every other time you play, you can't modify your weapons at all, and all upgrades of any kind come in the form of a linear research/upgrade system that doesn't really give player choice at all and allow you to just upgrade absolutely everything to the max with no real trade-off, customisation or variation at all, including your weapons and armour, and that completely reduces omni-tools and biotic amps to a few small upgrades and that's it. It takes away customisation and choice from the player like an older brother wrestling the controller from you and reduces player interaction to the bare minimum, completely defeating the point of it and negating any possible satisfaction one could get from upgrading and improving their gear. There's nothing to make it personal and allow you to really choose how you want to do things, it just all happens. It's more broken than the all-powerful Spectre Gear that often gets the finger pointed at it for being too damn good and breaking ME1's item progression, and basically God-mods everything without a downside at all.
[/quote]

[Vena_86]

Well if you reduce the world to North America and define an RPG as a game which tries not to be an RPG then yeah...maybe...

If they said best science fantasy shooter, then I might agree.

Modifié par Vena_86, 14 février 2011 - 06:55 .

[habitat 67]

Terror_K wrote...

Kind of. I just think it's a bit of a travesty that a game that can barely even be classified as an RPG can be seen as a better one than all the deep, pure-class RPGs that have come out over the past ten years. I'm sure a lot of it is simply because ME2 is so fresh in everybody's mind that the rose-tinting hasn't worn off yet.

The only travesty Terror is that you can't go 3 threads without darklord posting about your distaste for the direction of RPGs.  It'll all be ok.

So what is that you have? Brown tinting?

"Pure" RPGs, shooters, strategies, or whatever are oh so passe anyways. Hybrids are the new "****" , and will be for the next little while into the future. Them's the breaks, kids.

Modifié par habitat 67, 14 février 2011 - 07:17 .

[Epic777]

so me1 vs me2 round XXXIV?

[AlanC9]

Epic777 wrote...

so me1 vs me2 round XXXIV?

Of course. What else could we do with a topic like this?

[Vena_86]

AlanC9 wrote...

Epic777 wrote...

so me1 vs me2 round XXXIV?

Of course. What else could we do with a topic like this?

Bring in other RPGs from the last ten years for example? Something like uhhhhmm...Dragon Age, The Witcher, Knights of the Old Republic, Gothic 2+NotR, even Fallout 3 or Oblivion.

[Shockwave81]

Icinix wrote...

I no longer really hold to genre classifications such as RPG, FPS, RTS, SBS, CBS etc etc..

Those classifications are an antiquated and 'almost' irrelevant tag to apply to games that are increasingly mashing up the old fashioned genres and creating new hybrids. The broad division between gameplay in different types has definitely been blurred and continues to be so.

Was ME2 the best game I played last year...indeed I do believe so, and quite frankly, that's the only award that matters to me :-p

I have to agree with this.  The fact that I'm still playing Mass Effect 2 a year after release says a lot - same for Mass Effect more than 3 years after release.  Call them whatever you want, the only acronyms that spring to mind when I think about these games are ME, ME2, and (eventually) ME3. Skill point allocation does not encourage numerous play-throughs on my part. 

I'm not being a fanboy, I just have a low tolerance for this kind of argument. 

[Ramirez Wolfen]

Ever heard of KOTOR, ES: Oblivion, Morrowind (I'm not sure exactly when that came out), and FALLOUT 3????? Those are the best.

Modifié par Ramirez Wolfen, 14 février 2011 - 08:23 .

[AlanC9]

Terror_K wrote...
ME1: Cruise around on large, open worlds or vast places with mutiple paths, forks and branches. The universe feels vast and open, and mostly unexplored.
ME2: Wander around tiny, linear A to B areas that feel manufactured and overly alive, where you can't miss anything because you're pretty much tripping over anything of significance in your tiny, linear area that never deviates. The universe feels small and artificial, and like everybody has already explored everywhere fully before.

I don't want to get in the way of you and Schneidend here, but this is muddling up two different issues. Level design is one thing, exploring the vastness of the universe is quite another. Sure, it's a big universe, but Shepard's got a job to do, and that job doesn't involve exploring wilderness areas or scouting for mineral deposits. Sure, Shepard's not landing where no man has gone before in ME2. Why should he? Because RPGs traditionally have exploration?

And  the ME1 procedurally-generated planets with cookie-cutter bases and one crashed probe and one anomaly each felt just as artificial as the ME2 individually-designed areas, if not more so. But that's subjective.

[Lunatic LK47]

Ramirez Wolfen wrote...

Ever heard of KOTOR, ES: Oblivion, Morrowind (I'm not sure exactly when that came out), and FALLOUT 3????? Those are the best.

Out of that list, only KOTOR 1 is the best. Oblivion and Morrowind are borefests filled with Z-list actors (barring the celebrity voice-overs), while Fallout 3 was a glitchfest that ended up being nothing more than a waste of our time and money (i.e. "No matter what you do, you will *ALWAYS* lose.")

[AlanC9]

Ramirez Wolfen wrote...

Ever heard of KOTOR, ES: Oblivion, Morrowind (I'm not sure exactly when that came out), and FALLOUT 3????? Those are the best.

Well, KotOR was pretty good. I don't have any use for Bethesda's games; they do what they're trying to do just fine, but what they're trying to do is kind of dull. Though while Morrowind isn't much of an RPG, it is a damn good hiking simulator.

(If everybody else gets to use personal defniitions of RPG, I might as well too.)

[habitat 67]

Ramirez Wolfen wrote...

Ever heard of KOTOR, ES: Oblivion, Morrowind (I'm not sure exactly when that came out), and FALLOUT 3????? Those are the best.

Yawn. We've all played these 47 million times.  
Sadly, I discovered this weekend that Morrowind is not as exciting as I remember it. It's so dark and clunky and so....clunky.  Oblivion had all those damn gates to close and KOTOR had the fishman suit where you had to stab the shark and it was just so annoying. Fallout 3... well it wasn't very loyal to the other Fallouts and the ending was terrible.
(I love all these games though, easily among my favorites)

So where is this perfect A+++ game? Does one exist at all? It seems everything has a flaw if you look hard enough.

[Ramirez Wolfen]

Lunatic LK47 wrote...

Ramirez Wolfen wrote...

Ever heard of KOTOR, ES: Oblivion, Morrowind (I'm not sure exactly when that came out), and FALLOUT 3????? Those are the best.

Out of that list, only KOTOR 1 is the best. Oblivion and Morrowind are borefests filled with Z-list actors (barring the celebrity voice-overs), while Fallout 3 was a glitchfest that ended up being nothing more than a waste of our time and money (i.e. "No matter what you do, you will *ALWAYS* lose.")

Fallout 3 has so much stuff to do. In ME, there's not enough variation, until ME2, and even then it could have been  more interesting). But that is your opinion and I will respect it.

[Ramirez Wolfen]

I'd say for me, a good RPG has to have a good amount of good content (like side quests, varying enemies, weapons, etc.), a story that doesn't suck TOO much (and has a bit of originality), likeable characters, characters you hate to love but love to hate, good gameplay (I hate turn-based RPGs), A decent amount of exploration, and above all, NOT A JRPG.



JRPGs are all the same nowadays with cookie cutter characters and story.

[Lumikki]

Kotor had excelent story and characters what did make it great game, but gameplay wasn't really that good. I ques it was good enough when it was new game. Even DAO has better gameplay..

Modifié par Lumikki, 14 février 2011 - 08:54 .

[Ramirez Wolfen]

DAO wasn't that good in terms of gameplay, in my opinion, what made it good was all the dialogue and the party members. The graphics were a bit disappointing for a 2009 game. Honestly I found it to be quite boring. This isn't to say that DAO is bad by any means, it's just that I couldn't connect with it. Also, I played ME before that so maybe I was expecting something like that.