440 réponses à ce sujet

[Vena_86]

Zeus_Deus wrote...

spernus wrote...

Ramirez Wolfen wrote...

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.

In that case,don't mention any Bethesda game. They can't write and they are easily the sloppiest AAA developer out there.I would say that: Morrowind,Oblivion and Fallout 3 are the best bad games ever made.Incoherent worlds,stories,lifeless npcs and some of the dumbest ideas make it into their games (level scaling in Oblivion,leveling system of the Elder scroll might be the silliest I have seen).

Mass effect 3 will easily block The elder's scroll 5 from both the game of the year or best rpg award (as will dark soul and the Witcher 2 imo).

By the way,you should try out Dark soul when it's released.It's an jrpg inspired by the west and it will have plenty of exploration,great implementation of online and a high level of difficulty.It's also an action rpg that will be better than what Bethesda might ever be able to come out with (just based on Demon's soul which should be played as well).

Bethesda sloppy? - Hardly.

Sure the stories are shallow, but the game worlds of Oblivion and Fallout 3 are some of the largest, detailed, beautiful and most atmospheric of any game period!

Ironic that you should mention lifeless NPCs. Most developers (including Bioware) just put in characters as part of the background - you can't even interact with them. At least in Fallout 3 and Oblivion the NPC's have daily routines and you can interact with them.

These aren't the mark of a "sloppy" developer.

Bethesda does a good job indeed, but they fail at atmosphere. Compared to the first two Gothic games Oblivion and even Fallout3 feel sort of...lifeless, less immersive. It has to do with large but repetative worlds made of asset blocks and also with a bad sound engine. I hope atleast the later issue will be fixed with the new engine in Skyrim.

Anyways...my vote goes to The Witcher.

[marshalleck]

Best RPG of the decade? Don't make me laugh, the community here can't even decide if it's actually an RPG or not. Demon's Souls for PS3 has more RPG mechanics than ME2.

My vote goes to Deus Ex, which could be counted as part of the last decade by just a hair's breadth.

Modifié par marshalleck, 16 février 2011 - 04:46 .

[1483749283]

All of Bioware's games are awesome. Different ones are better at different things.



Baldur's Gate had a great story line and the most evolved spellcasting system ever. No game to this date matches its highly satisfying tactical combat, especially with magic. The whole secondary arms race of ever more powerful spell strike / spell shield etc. plus the dizzying possibilities of project image etc... still vastly intriguing. Where it was weaker was in the depth of characterization. You got a peek at the characters' personalities but not much depth. It was however the groundbreaking game that made BioWare's specialty, NPC interaction, world-famous. It was also the apogee of beautiful handpainted 2D isometric environments. No better ones were ever made.



NWN was great for its multiplayer and toolkit revolution. Story and characters were the most disappointing made by Bioware, but understandable given the growing pains happening at the time.



KOTOR made Bioware famous to the non-hardcore RPG crowd. It was strong on story line but again weak on the characters. The first 3D game that actually felt playable.



Jade Empire was extremely strong on story and characters, but weaker on combat mechanics.



Mass Effect 1 was strong on combat mechanics and storyline. Character development was on par with KOTOR. The big innovation here was the introduction of highly realistic facial expressions, thereby greatly increasing immersion level when interacting with NPCs, even without depth of characterization.



Finally, DAO and ME2 are twin games with many structural similarities. They both have weaker overarching story lines than many of their predecessors. DAO has combat dynamics that are the most satisfying since BG2 (though BG2 still beats it handily in this area). ME2 and DAO both have exceptionally strong characterization. DAO did this through copious dialogue. ME2 did it through sparse, but often tighter dialogue and the best facial expressions and gestures of all preceding games. ME2 showed that a good facial expression is worth 1000 words and can best any amount of written dialogue.

[Gatt9]

Capeo wrote...

Zeus_Deus wrote...

Bethesda sloppy? - Hardly.

Sure the stories are shallow, but the game worlds of Oblivion and Fallout 3 are some of the largest, detailed, beautiful and most atmospheric of any game period!

Ironic that you should mention lifeless NPCs. Most developers (including Bioware) just put in characters as part of the background - you can't even interact with them. At least in Fallout 3 and Oblivion the NPC's have daily routines and you can interact with them.

These aren't the mark of a "sloppy" developer.

THIS.  You people decrying Bethesda are crazy.  There are no other RPGs out there that actually let you craft a character as completely as the Bethesda RPGs.  No other games that allow as much freedom in how to deal with situations and no other worlds that feel as big or alive.  I'm not real sure what folks want out of RPGs if freedom isn't at the top of the list.  In the last decade no games have sucked more of my life away than Oblivion and Fallout 3.  I'm quite sure Skyrim is going to do the same.

Actually,  Bethseda's latest works aren't RPGs at all.  You can't craft a character,  because no matter what at level 1 you can beat the end boss.  Which is literally identical to any given shooter (Half-life,  Doom,  GoW,  etc,  etc) and any given Action-adventure(Tomb Raider,  Uncharted).  All of those little levels and skills are completely illusionary,  no matter what you do,  the game makes sure you're a winner by making sure you can beat everything.  Further,  it's worth noting,  each successive Bethseda game cuts your number of options for no real reason. 

You don't have any freedom of choice,  unless "Do the quest or don't do it" is freedom of choice.  There's no alternative paths. 

Nor does it matter what you do.  The NPC's will call you their hero in one breath,  then suddenly they've never seen you before in the next.

The world doesn't feel Alive,  it doesn't react to what actions you take,  you cannot affect it's development.  Fable 2 came worlds closer to doing this than anything Bethseda's ever done.

Bethseda's *horrible* at making RPG's.  They have a one-track mind,  everything should play like a shooter,  and they do their level best to make the game into a shooter.  They aren't sloppy,  but they're not quality.  TBH,  Bethseda got *really* lucky.  If GTA hadn't popularized the open world theory they'd been trying to get right for 15 years,  they'd have gone under.

Sad part is,  after 15 years,  they still can't even manage open world right,  much less make an RPG.  Not only does the world not develop around you,  nor can you affect anything in it,  but even their main story comes off as ridiculous...

"OMG!  You have to help us!  There are portals opening everywhere and the demon armies are going to conquer us all!...Sometime...in the future...you know what,  never mind them,  nothing will happen,  you can wander around for a century and they'll just stand there unchanged...no hurry on the demon invasion thing...they'll wait for you..."

Seriously,  the best solution to Bethseda's idea of a story line is...just ignore the portals and the quest and nothing ever happens.  Problem solved,  game won.

[1483749283]

Bethesda games = no depth whatsoever to the NPCs = /me uninstall right away. Doesn't matter how pretty the world is, after Bioware I cannot take a wooden NPC

[Homebound]

I think the best rpg will be da2 actually..ive been a mass effect fan long before i tried da, but after playing it, i must say, dragon age is better than mass effect.

[Phategod1]

AdmiralCheez wrote...

You know, all the other "AWESOME" RPGs you mentioned still made the list. Maybe ME2 won because the author liked it the most?

Or maybe a genre shouldn't be defined by mechanics alone.

Please all hater pay attention to the Bold and underlined text. This is what I have been saying all along thank you for understanding Cheez

[Jock Boo]

RinpocheSchnozberry wrote...

ME2 is greater than any other RPG in the last ten years because it changed RPGs. Dull combat? Gone. Boring looting? Gone. Complex inventory? Gone.

What's left? Pure role playing. You interact with character, make choices with them, roll through fun action sequences, customize your characters, and unfold a story. You can't beat ME2 as an RPG. It moves outside of the genre... It's a hybrid of a game and a movie.

Get used to it. All successful RPGs are going to look like ME2 from here out. There will be a couple throwbacks and they'll break even, but even then they'll bomb. Games taking a nod from ME2 will draw fans from RPGs, shooters, action games, curious girlfriends.... all sorts of crowds. That's more money and that's why corporations are founded. Nostalgia RPGs will draw from one, small crowd: aging RPG fanatics. Not much money = out of business. Darwin, baby!

Yep! What he just said! True!

[Jock Boo]

RinpocheSchnozberry wrote...

Gleym wrote...

So in your eyes, what makes something an RPG is 3-4 dialogue options, limited choices and character interactions, a skeletal husk of a main story and a midget of a skill-tree.

..Right, well, I always did say that when Black Isle went belly-up the Golden Age of RPGs had ended.

By the same token, what make a game an RPG to you is slow, clunky combat, looting 6 copper, and arcane inventory.

:kissing:

oooh.. i like this guy!!

[Jock Boo]

RinpocheSchnozberry wrote...

Somebody wrote...

          1. get fully automatic gun

          2. get burst fire gun

          3. purchase dlc for moar guns


Is so much better?

YES over 9000 times.  You know why?  Because this leaves more time to play the =game= rather be played =by= the game.  ME2's great achievement was cutting out the dull, tedious poop and making a game I could enjoy without having to spend a ton of time getting my characters ready to play the game.  It was pop-pop-click-click PLAY.  No fiddling around with boring junk.  That is why ME2 is the best RPG of the last ten years.  The crap-to-fun ratio was strongly swung toward fun!

:)

Yep! This is why ME2 is the only game i played twice and I played it on insanity and enjoyed every fric kin second of it!!!!

[Lunatic LK47]

Pausanias wrote...

Bethesda games = no depth whatsoever to the NPCs = /me uninstall right away. Doesn't matter how pretty the world is, after Bioware I cannot take a wooden NPC

Ding ding ding. Main reason why I gave it to a local Gamestop after a month of ownership.

[CroGamer002]

^Bethesda does good job with Fallout 3 and New Vegas and characters.

[GodWood]

Lol @ Jock Boo

[SomeBug]

Jock Boo wrote...

RinpocheSchnozberry wrote...

Somebody wrote...

          1. get fully automatic gun

          2. get burst fire gun

          3. purchase dlc for moar guns


Is so much better?

YES over 9000 times.  You know why?  Because this leaves more time to play the =game= rather be played =by= the game.  ME2's great achievement was cutting out the dull, tedious poop and making a game I could enjoy without having to spend a ton of time getting my characters ready to play the game.  It was pop-pop-click-click PLAY.  No fiddling around with boring junk.  That is why ME2 is the best RPG of the last ten years.  The crap-to-fun ratio was strongly swung toward fun!

:)

Yep! This is why ME2 is the only game i played twice and I played it on insanity and enjoyed every fric kin second of it!!!!

One man's boring is another man's interesting. Some people do enjoy the micromanagement of items, of inventories and min/maxing your weapons. There is a tactical satisfaction in spending twenty minutes carefully arranging your armour and trinkets and runes and buffs and crafting potions and upgrading those shiny boots you just found in the gullet of that Crocosaur that took ten minutes to kill.

Just because you find one thing interesting and another tedious, does not mean the latter has no worth, especially to other people. Saying Mass Effect 2 has a higher crap-to-fun ratio is only relevant if I, or anyone else, share your opinions and tastes in games.

Personally, I found that the stripped down core of ME2 to have been a step too far. I did find the overwrought and bloated itemization of ME1 to be overwhelming and annoying. But conversely I found ME2 to be lacking some of that flavour, a tenet of RPGs that has traditionally been central.

In that sense, ME2 is a better game but a worse RPG. In some aspects. Role playing can be just story, characters and development. Nowhere does it say that pauldrons and rings of fire +2 are crucial. But they are a flavour, one that I am partial to. And one that ME2 lacked. It's different. Not better. Not worse.

I hope people like yourself can appreciate that different means just that - and that some people have legitimate reason to complain when the sequel to a game is so mechanically unlike the original, even if in your opinion that makes it better.

[Gleym]

Mesina2 wrote...

^Bethesda does good job with Fallout 3 and New Vegas and characters.

New Vegas wasn't made by Bethesda. It ran under their label, used their engine, but Obsidian (which is mostly comprised of Black Isle's former employees who worked on the old Fallout games) were the ones who put New Vegas together - which explains why it was far better than FO3.

[Evil Johnny 666]

Really?! I'd only say ME2 to be the RPG of the year because of lack of competition. Even if Oblivion was greatly flawed, with almost game breaking flaws - no, game breaking flaws - it's better than ME2 on most aspects. But Morrowind was released this decade, so it ****s all over ME2. And that's forgetting ME1 which is several times better than ME2. And the KOTOR games... And plenty others I forgot. How can a game be the best RPG of the past 10 years if the most thing RPG about it is dialogues? Obviously conversation sims wouldn't call themselves RPGs.

[1483749283]

Bioware has found the sweet spot between tactical RPGs and adventure games. Whatever you think of this new genre---"story-driven RPG" is what I would call it---it's selling millions. There is clearly a huge demand for it. I concur. I love it. When I was little I thought choose-your-own adventure books would be great if they were more immersive. Well boom. Here they are.

[SomeBug]

Evil Johnny 666 wrote...

Really?! I'd only say ME2 to be the RPG of the year because of lack of competition. Even if Oblivion was greatly flawed, with almost game breaking flaws - no, game breaking flaws - it's better than ME2 on most aspects. But Morrowind was released this decade, so it ****s all over ME2. And that's forgetting ME1 which is several times better than ME2. And the KOTOR games... And plenty others I forgot. How can a game be the best RPG of the past 10 years if the most thing RPG about it is dialogues? Obviously conversation sims wouldn't call themselves RPGs.

The best RPG of the decade was Baldur's Gate 2. Everyone knows this. It would also compete for overall game of the decade too, but I'd have to give Tribes 2 the edge.

[cihimi]

Opinions...boring as hell.

[hosch]

Gatt9 wrote...
Actually,  Bethseda's latest works aren't RPGs at all.  You can't craft a character,  because no matter what at level 1 you can beat the end boss.  Which is literally identical to any given shooter (Half-life,  Doom,  GoW,  etc,  etc) and any given Action-adventure(Tomb Raider,  Uncharted).  All of those little levels and skills are completely illusionary,  no matter what you do,  the game makes sure you're a winner by making sure you can beat everything.  Further,  it's worth noting,  each successive Bethseda game cuts your number of options for no real reason.

In ME1 and ME2 i can explore the Galaxy, do Assignments or shop dr. Michel to bankrupcy. And still i make it in time to rescure the Citadel. Yeah, very different to Oblivion. *cough*
The world in ME is as static as in Oblivion, everyone around is at the same level as Shepard. A lvl60 Shepard can beat Saren as successful as a lvl30 or a lvl20.
Every decision shepard does makes him a winner. Either the renegade option or the paragon choice do a difference at how the people around him talk to him. If you play as a jerk everyone is talking to you like you were the master of the universe. Even though you kicked some asses, insulted everyone you met.

You don't have any freedom of choice,  unless "Do the quest or don't do it" is freedom of choice.  There's no alternative paths.
Nor does it matter what you do.  The NPC's will call you their hero in one breath,  then suddenly they've never seen you before in the next.

Same for ME/ME2. Whats your point?

The world doesn't feel Alive,  it doesn't react to what actions you take,  you cannot affect it's development.  Fable 2 came worlds closer to doing this than anything Bethseda's ever done.

Yeah, Cerberus killed Gen. Kohaku and i asked Anderson about him and he said, he was seen in the Citadel Tower. Just one example of many.

Bethseda's *horrible* at making RPG's.  They have a one-track mind, 
everything should play like a shooter,  and they do their level best to
make the game into a shooter.  They aren't sloppy,  but they're not
quality.  TBH,  Bethseda got *really* lucky.  If GTA hadn't popularized
the open world theory they'd been trying to get right for 15 years, 
they'd have gone under.
Sad part is,  after 15 years,  they still can't even manage open world right,  much less make an RPG.  Not only does the world not develop around you,  nor can you affect anything in it,  but even their main story comes off as ridiculous...

"OMG!  You have to help us!  There are portals opening everywhere and the demon armies are going to conquer us all!...Sometime...in the future...you know what,  never mind them,  nothing will happen,  you can wander around for a century and they'll just stand there unchanged...no hurry on the demon invasion thing...they'll wait for you..."

Seriously,  the best solution to Bethseda's idea of a story line is...just ignore the portals and the quest and nothing ever happens.  Problem solved,  game won.

ME2 doesn't play like a shooter at all? Everything around you changes, when you make a decision? You can decide which loyalty is more important to you than the other? Which faction is more important to you than another?
Even if you dont do the Collectormissions the world still be the same as it was 5 minutes ago.
Come on, be serious.

Modifié par hosch, 17 février 2011 - 03:05 .

[spernus]

Evil Johnny 666 wrote...

Really?! I'd only say ME2 to be the RPG of the year because of lack of competition. Even if Oblivion was greatly flawed, with almost game breaking flaws - no, game breaking flaws - it's better than ME2 on most aspects. But Morrowind was released this decade, so it ****s all over ME2. And that's forgetting ME1 which is several times better than ME2. And the KOTOR games... And plenty others I forgot. How can a game be the best RPG of the past 10 years if the most thing RPG about it is dialogues? Obviously conversation sims wouldn't call themselves RPGs.

ME2 didn't just won the rpg of the year,it also won plenty of game of the year award above numerous game from different genre.

I think I can make some sense out of the massive success and metacritic rating toward the game: most mainstream critics/gamers weren't and still aren't fans of the rpg genre.Mass effect 2 being more shooter than rpg and winning so many awards kinda prove that point.In fact,I think it's the only rpg which won so many game of the year award which are usually reserved to gameplay focused titles (shooters,action games,adventure,platformers,etc).Also explain why Planescape:Torment was ignored back then or why no classic rpg ever won anything outside of the rpg of the year award (kinda like a science-fiction movie chance of winning picture of the year at the academy awards is close to 0%).  

[Therefore_I_Am]

marshalleck wrote...

Best RPG of the decade? Don't make me laugh, the community here can't even decide if it's actually an RPG or not. Demon's Souls for PS3 has more RPG mechanics than ME2.

My vote goes to Deus Ex, which could be counted as part of the last decade by just a hair's breadth.

You're in the minority there pal. For every miserable naysayer here, there are 100,000 happy spirits out there.

Plus ME is a hybrid shooter/rpg.

Modifié par Therefore_I_Am, 17 février 2011 - 07:03 .

[Therefore_I_Am]

spernus wrote...

Evil Johnny 666 wrote...

Really?! I'd only say ME2 to be the RPG of the year because of lack of competition. Even if Oblivion was greatly flawed, with almost game breaking flaws - no, game breaking flaws - it's better than ME2 on most aspects. But Morrowind was released this decade, so it ****s all over ME2. And that's forgetting ME1 which is several times better than ME2. And the KOTOR games... And plenty others I forgot. How can a game be the best RPG of the past 10 years if the most thing RPG about it is dialogues? Obviously conversation sims wouldn't call themselves RPGs.

ME2 didn't just won the rpg of the year,it also won plenty of game of the year award above numerous game from different genre.

I think I can make some sense out of the massive success and metacritic rating toward the game: most mainstream critics/gamers weren't and still aren't fans of the rpg genre.Mass effect 2 being more shooter than rpg and winning so many awards kinda prove that point.In fact,I think it's the only rpg which won so many game of the year award which are usually reserved to gameplay focused titles (shooters,action games,adventure,platformers,etc).Also explain why Planescape:Torment was ignored back then or why no classic rpg ever won anything outside of the rpg of the year award (kinda like a science-fiction movie chance of winning picture of the year at the academy awards is close to 0%).  

Planescape: Torment was a classic niche of a game. But it was just that: a niche. Many people didn't want to stare at walls of text, and instead wanted the combat and graphics.
That's the reality of it... Take it for what it's worth. ME combines alot of these elements with other elements to make the game outstanding. Opinions may be flung around here and there, but the truth of the majority still stands.

Modifié par Therefore_I_Am, 17 février 2011 - 07:11 .

[Epic777]

spernus wrote...

Evil Johnny 666 wrote...

Really?! I'd only say ME2 to be the RPG of the year because of lack of competition. Even if Oblivion was greatly flawed, with almost game breaking flaws - no, game breaking flaws - it's better than ME2 on most aspects. But Morrowind was released this decade, so it ****s all over ME2. And that's forgetting ME1 which is several times better than ME2. And the KOTOR games... And plenty others I forgot. How can a game be the best RPG of the past 10 years if the most thing RPG about it is dialogues? Obviously conversation sims wouldn't call themselves RPGs.

ME2 didn't just won the rpg of the year,it also won plenty of game of the year award above numerous game from different genre.

I think I can make some sense out of the massive success and metacritic rating toward the game: most mainstream critics/gamers weren't and still aren't fans of the rpg genre.Mass effect 2 being more shooter than rpg and winning so many awards kinda prove that point.In fact,I think it's the only rpg which won so many game of the year award which are usually reserved to gameplay focused titles (shooters,action games,adventure,platformers,etc).Also explain why Planescape:Torment was ignored back then or why no classic rpg ever won anything outside of the rpg of the year award (kinda like a science-fiction movie chance of winning picture of the year at the academy awards is close to 0%).  

This has got to stop. <_

[Gatt9]

Epic777 wrote...

spernus wrote...

Evil Johnny 666 wrote...

Really?! I'd only say ME2 to be the RPG of the year because of lack of competition. Even if Oblivion was greatly flawed, with almost game breaking flaws - no, game breaking flaws - it's better than ME2 on most aspects. But Morrowind was released this decade, so it ****s all over ME2. And that's forgetting ME1 which is several times better than ME2. And the KOTOR games... And plenty others I forgot. How can a game be the best RPG of the past 10 years if the most thing RPG about it is dialogues? Obviously conversation sims wouldn't call themselves RPGs.

ME2 didn't just won the rpg of the year,it also won plenty of game of the year award above numerous game from different genre.

I think I can make some sense out of the massive success and metacritic rating toward the game: most mainstream critics/gamers weren't and still aren't fans of the rpg genre.Mass effect 2 being more shooter than rpg and winning so many awards kinda prove that point.In fact,I think it's the only rpg which won so many game of the year award which are usually reserved to gameplay focused titles (shooters,action games,adventure,platformers,etc).Also explain why Planescape:Torment was ignored back then or why no classic rpg ever won anything outside of the rpg of the year award (kinda like a science-fiction movie chance of winning picture of the year at the academy awards is close to 0%).  

This has got to stop. <_

Actually,  if you research JE Sawyer commentary,  he went on record as saying Planescape sold very well over time,  it just wasn't a barnburner on release day.