440 réponses à ce sujet

[Terror_K]

Epic777 wrote...
This has got to stop. <_

But gaming itself has only been mainstream for about a decade now, if that. It was more of a niche hobby back when BG and Torment came out, and most hardcore gamers were dedicated nerds and geeks, and beyond that casual gaming was mostly just kids playing simple games. Now those kids have grown up more and the gaming world has changed, and gaming itself has become more common and mainstream. The casual gamer and the more simple, visceral games now dominate thanks to the XBox generation, and now developers are narrowing their focus more on this growing audience rather than providing a good range of diverse titles for different tastes.

[Evil Johnny 666]

Terror_K wrote...

Epic777 wrote...
This has got to stop. <_

But gaming itself has only been mainstream for about a decade now, if that. It was more of a niche hobby back when BG and Torment came out, and most hardcore gamers were dedicated nerds and geeks, and beyond that casual gaming was mostly just kids playing simple games. Now those kids have grown up more and the gaming world has changed, and gaming itself has become more common and mainstream. The casual gamer and the more simple, visceral games now dominate thanks to the XBox generation, and now developers are narrowing their focus more on this growing audience rather than providing a good range of diverse titles for different tastes.

Exactly. That's why Activision are offering us the same damn game over and over again since 2002 (Call of Duty) and every other shooter out there are nearly identical to it. And shooters aren't the exception. Truth is, the industry nowadays is gearing towards the same crowd Hollywood does with its summer blockbuster titles. They aim to make consummable movies that everyone will forget as soon as another one comes out.

[uberdowzen]

Uh, small point. The article linked by the OP is an article that is from a university journal (as far as I can make out) and also has Kingdom Hearts on it. How on earth has that started a 17 page debate.



ME1 = Great Game ME2 = Great Game

Group A says ME1 > ME2

Group B says ME2 > ME1



This is how wars start, people.

[uberdowzen]

Also, from Wikipedia:

Role-playing video games form a loosely defined genre of computer and video games with origins in pen-and-paper role-playing games such as Dungeons & Dragons, using much of the same terminology, settings and game mechanics. The player in RPGs controls one character, or several adventuring party members, fulfilling one or many quests. The major similarities with pen-and-paper games involve developed story-telling and narrative elements, player character development, complexity, as well as replayability and immersion. Electronic medium removes the necessity for a gamemaster and increases combat resolution speed. RPGs have evolved from simple text-based console-window games into visually rich 3D experiences.

[Gatt9]

Terror_K wrote...

Epic777 wrote...
This has got to stop. <_

But gaming itself has only been mainstream for about a decade now, if that. It was more of a niche hobby back when BG and Torment came out, and most hardcore gamers were dedicated nerds and geeks, and beyond that casual gaming was mostly just kids playing simple games. Now those kids have grown up more and the gaming world has changed, and gaming itself has become more common and mainstream. The casual gamer and the more simple, visceral games now dominate thanks to the XBox generation, and now developers are narrowing their focus more on this growing audience rather than providing a good range of diverse titles for different tastes.

I'm a big fan of your posts,  but I have to comment on this one.

Gaming has been mainstream for at least 15 years if not much more.  In the days of the C64 people used to pass around the disks like candy.  They were everywhere,  and not at all limited to just nerds and geeks.  Heck,  they were so popular department stores carried racks of them next to their clothing and furniture displays.  The bookstore chain BDalton shifted things so half of it's space was dedicated to it's in-store software department Software Etc,  which later became EBGames,  and today is known as Gamestop.  Toys'Rus had ailes dedicated to it.

Then came the Nintendo Enterainment System, SNES, and the Sega Genesis,  which were so popular they started the used games industry,  and spawned big-budget movies.  (Mortal Kombat,  Street Fighter,  Super Mario,  which also had arcade presences as well).

Dragon's Lair,  Pac-Man,  Super Mario,  Sonic the Hedgehog,  Mega-man were so popular they spawned cartoons.  As did Dungeons and Dragons.

The PS1 sold extremely well,  and the PS2 would become the dominant system in the near-timeframe you mention,  selling obscene numbers of units.  More movies would be spawned during this timeframe based on games,  like Resident Evil.

Gaming has been mainsteam for a very long time.

As far as Developers narrowing their focus goes,  that's because the entire industry is unhealthy.  It's a blockbuster driven industry,  either it sells 10,000,000 units or it sucked.  Further,  there's a very serious lack of people with good buisness sense in the industry.  Most of the people running the industry have little real buisness knowledge,  they just got lucky at some point.

Bioware personifies this.  The creators were medical doctors,  with no training in buisness whatsoever.  They just happened to have developed a really good game,  Baldur's Gate,  and followed up on it with another.  Bioware isn't where it is today because someone showed buisness genius,  they're where they are because they had good ideas at one point.

A healthy game industry would mirror the Movie industry.  The average Horror movie makes X profits,  so budget only Y.   It's unlikely to be a blockbuster,  so instead of trying to make it one,  spend money appropriately to historical levels.  Then,  maybe you'll get lucky and release Blair Witch, Saw,  or Paranormal Activity and make a ton of loot instead of just a healthy profit.

It's obvious the lack of buisness sense and the constant barrage of FPS/TPS/RTS has taken it's toll on the game industry.  The *only* reason 2010 wasn't a complete disaster in sales was because Starcraft 2,  Grand Turismo 5,  and WoW: Cataclysm released last year.  Almost the whole year was losses.  Take those 3 out,  and I'll guarantee you 2010 is down significantly in sales.  Nor is this new,  if you take the music games out of 2009 and 2008,  I'll bet my next paycheck those years are down too.

The lack of buisness sense is what's driven this industry,  and it's what'll create the next big crash.  A healthy industry diversifies and budgets appropriately.  This "Everything's gotta be a blockbuster!" mentality leads to doom,  through excessive spending and oversaturation.

Modifié par Gatt9, 17 février 2011 - 11:29 .

[King Gigglez]

Evil Johnny 666 wrote...

Terror_K wrote...

Epic777 wrote...
This has got to stop. <_

But gaming itself has only been mainstream for about a decade now, if that. It was more of a niche hobby back when BG and Torment came out, and most hardcore gamers were dedicated nerds and geeks, and beyond that casual gaming was mostly just kids playing simple games. Now those kids have grown up more and the gaming world has changed, and gaming itself has become more common and mainstream. The casual gamer and the more simple, visceral games now dominate thanks to the XBox generation, and now developers are narrowing their focus more on this growing audience rather than providing a good range of diverse titles for different tastes.

Exactly. That's why Activision are offering us the same damn game over and over again since 2002 (Call of Duty) and every other shooter out there are nearly identical to it. And shooters aren't the exception. Truth is, the industry nowadays is gearing towards the same crowd Hollywood does with its summer blockbuster titles. They aim to make consummable movies that everyone will forget as soon as another one comes out.

I think that currently this is the case, way to many games that flood out now that are just the same old shooting game with a different storyline, I prefer the unique games, the type that you wont forget, that will be etched into your brain for ever. Not to many games like that... Mass Effect and Dead Space are a series like that, Halo could be considered that to many people as well. I have a feeling that the amount of games will start to decrease withen the next years and only the "top guns" will remain... well I hope that is the case... Plus I hate Activision...

[Mikey_205]

I think it is incredibly unhealthy that games need to sell so well to turn a profit.



I'm sad to say this but its partly our faults as consumers. For some reason games are cheaper than they have ever been yet kids still whine and buy them second hand (N64 games were £50 Playstation £40 when I was young so if you factor in inflation the price is massively deflated). If a game was tailored perfectly to my taste and offered a decent number of hours I would pay 50% more to fund the development. You can chase more customers spending tons on marketting or you can increase your mark-up or do a bit of both. Premium DLC is probably a sneaky way to achieve this but I suspect it doesnt sell as well as the new game priced higher would but they dont take the PR hit from goons saying games are too expensive.



Secondly developers are probably becoming too large and losing perspective in the rush for HD blockbusters. There needs to be a middleground between indie, arcade and facebook games and HD games (handhelds are going the way of HD consoles in terms of dev costs next gen).

[Ahglock]

Gatt9 wrote...

[
I'm a big fan of your posts,  but I have to comment on this one.

Gaming has been mainstream for at least 15 years if not much more.  In the days of the C64 people used to pass around the disks like candy.  They were everywhere,  and not at all limited to just nerds and geeks.  Heck,  they were so popular department stores carried racks of them next to their clothing and furniture displays.  The bookstore chain BDalton shifted things so half of it's space was dedicated to it's in-store software department Software Etc,  which later became EBGames,  and today is known as Gamestop.  Toys'Rus had ailes dedicated to it.
.

The big difference is in the last 10ish years it has become mainstream/accepted adult activity as in the people with mney activirty.  Sure plenty of adults have played games for longer than this, I'm too old for a 10 year plan to pan out for me.  But me playing games and the industry really acknowleging that the adults haven't given up their toys has been on a different time frame.  Once they(investors mainly) accepted that the 25+ crowd is still gaming it changed things to a more blockbuster mentality.  It is kind of similar time frame to lets say when comic con bcame a media con instead of a comic con.  i mean as much as I like the television show Psych, it has virtually nothing to do with comics and yet they were still there. 

[Gatt9]

Mikey_205 wrote...

I think it is incredibly unhealthy that games need to sell so well to turn a profit.

I'm sad to say this but its partly our faults as consumers. For some reason games are cheaper than they have ever been yet kids still whine and buy them second hand (N64 games were £50 Playstation £40 when I was young so if you factor in inflation the price is massively deflated). If a game was tailored perfectly to my taste and offered a decent number of hours I would pay 50% more to fund the development. You can chase more customers spending tons on marketting or you can increase your mark-up or do a bit of both. Premium DLC is probably a sneaky way to achieve this but I suspect it doesnt sell as well as the new game priced higher would but they dont take the PR hit from goons saying games are too expensive.

Secondly developers are probably becoming too large and losing perspective in the rush for HD blockbusters. There needs to be a middleground between indie, arcade and facebook games and HD games (handhelds are going the way of HD consoles in terms of dev costs next gen).

There's a reason for that.  Publishers (EA, Activision, Atari, Acclaim),  they control the purse strings.  A developer gets roughly 10-15% of the profits if they're a well known studio,  only the very biggest houses can command more (Firaxis, ID previously, Blizzard previously,  Bioware previously).  What a Developer gets is pittance.  So they literally live by virtue of the publishers. 

The Publishers aren't interested in quality products,  or quirky innovative products,  or products with a less than mass market appeal.  The Publishers goal is to make a ton of money,  generally because they're a public company (EA, Activision, Acclaim,  Atari).  So all the Publishers want to see is the "Next big thing!",  they're not interested in anything that isn't going to roll in a ton of money.  As far as a Publisher goes,  what sells is Doom,  Tomb Raider,  and Warcraft/Starcraft.  Because those games once sold a ton of units.  What doesn't sell according to them are TB Strategy, real RPGs,  Simulations,  Empire strategy (Tropico, Evil Genius).

Since the publishers hold the purse strings,  either you make the game they want you to make,  or your studio dies.  It's really that simple,  because the Devs get pittances,  they don't have the money to move on with their vision.  In most cases,  the reality is,  they stay alive *only* because of the milestone payments during the development of a game.

There've been a number of high-profile deaths due to this issue.  Looking Glass (System Shock,  Thief),  New World Computing (Might & Magic,  Heroes of Might & Magic),  Troika (Arcanum, Return to the Temple of Elemental Evil),  because the Publishers either couldn't pay them,  or because they demanded inclusions that outright sucked.  Heck,  EA forbade Maxis to make The Sims,  because they didn't think it'd sell well enough.

That's why the industry is Blockbuster driven though.  Because Developers have to make the games Publishers tell them to make,  not the games they want to make.  Publishers run them like slaves,  and cast them off when they're finished moving onto the next one.  Solely because the Publisher's interest is only to inflate the quarterly report,  and hence put out endless iterations of FPS/TPS/RTS to do it.

That's also why Digital Distribution is so very critical,  it eliminates the Publishers and puts the power back into Developers. 

(Source: Gamedev,net resources,  and Gamasutra articles and commentaries)

The big difference is in the last 10ish years it has become mainstream/accepted adult activity as in the people with mney activirty.  Sure plenty of adults have played games for longer than this, I'm too old for a 10 year plan to pan out for me.  But me playing games and the industry really acknowleging that the adults haven't given up their toys has been on a different time frame.  Once they(investors mainly) accepted that the 25+ crowd is still gaming it changed things to a more blockbuster mentality.  It is kind of similar time frame to lets say when comic con bcame a media con instead of a comic con.  i mean as much as I like the television show Psych, it has virtually nothing to do with comics and yet they were still there

I understand where you're coming from,  but I disagree.

For the reasons I listed above.  It's really got very little to do with demographics and a whole lot to do with Publishers and Wall Street.  As I said before,  they aren't buisness people,  they don't know how to sustain revenues,  they just plug away hoping for the Blockbuster so the end of year report shows some growth and Wall Street dumps some more money into the stock.

The Hollywood Model is directly applicable to gaming,  since it's essentially the same type of product.  Yet the Game Industry keeps chasing after "Pirates of the Caribean" and doesn't bother considering the possibility of "Paranormal Activity".

The Sims was forbidden,  Will Wright did it quiely,  because EA didn't think it'd sell enough.  GTA was almost cancelled,  because it wouldn't sell enough.  So how many great games died a untimely silent death because all the publishers are interested in is Blockbusters to boost Wall Street.

[AlanC9]

Gatt9 wrote...
The Publishers aren't interested in quality products,  or quirky innovative products,  or products with a less than mass market appeal.  The Publishers goal is to make a ton of money,  generally because they're a public company (EA, Activision, Acclaim,  Atari).  So all the Publishers want to see is the "Next big thing!",  they're not interested in anything that isn't going to roll in a ton of money.  As far as a Publisher goes,  what sells is Doom,  Tomb Raider,  and Warcraft/Starcraft.  Because those games once sold a ton of units.  What doesn't sell according to them are TB Strategy, real RPGs,  Simulations,  Empire strategy (Tropico, Evil Genius).

Interesting to see Tropico on the list. That was from Gathering of Developers , IIRC. I've never been quite sure if G.O.D. failed because they were too much like a traditional publisher, or not enough like one.

[Terror_K]

@Gatt9



That certainly explains the direction ME2 and DA2 seem to have taken "coincidentally" after EA took over the strings. Sure, EA also released DAO, but it was 95% done by the time they got their claws into it, so they probably just agreed to simply let them do incredibly awful advertising ("This is the new $h1t!" etc.) and hoped that that was enough.



That is the thing about BioWare's titles these days now: they feel like they're trying too hard to be all "Modern Hollywood" and these big, shallow, blockbusters rather than being the games they should be. Sure... BIoWare will claim they're still making the games they want in every way, but it would be pretty silly to say otherwise. I wouldn't be surprised if the reason Dan Tudge left as lead developer of DAO just after the PC one was basically done wasn't coincidental. I also note that the guy who did most of my favourite stuff from ME1 left early in ME2's production: Chris L'Etoile.

[Jebel Krong]

Terror_K wrote...

Epic777 wrote...
This has got to stop. <_

But gaming itself has only been mainstream for about a decade now, if that. It was more of a niche hobby back when BG and Torment came out, and most hardcore gamers were dedicated nerds and geeks, and beyond that casual gaming was mostly just kids playing simple games. Now those kids have grown up more and the gaming world has changed, and gaming itself has become more common and mainstream. The casual gamer and the more simple, visceral games now dominate thanks to the XBox generation, and now developers are narrowing their focus more on this growing audience rather than providing a good range of diverse titles for different tastes.

if there's a market for it, then a game will be made for it. however this does not mean any type of game (nlcuding rpg) will stagnate - which is half the problem - not only do you want niche games, you want them to conform rigidly to some arcane and contrived rule-set thatonyl a handful of people share - and that's why *you* won't get what you want, not because of the genre itself, but your own perverse definitions of what it should conform to.

[Fiery Phoenix]

Terror_K wrote...

@Gatt9

That certainly explains the direction ME2 and DA2 seem to have taken "coincidentally" after EA took over the strings. Sure, EA also released DAO, but it was 95% done by the time they got their claws into it, so they probably just agreed to simply let them do incredibly awful advertising ("This is the new $h1t!" etc.) and hoped that that was enough.

That is the thing about BioWare's titles these days now: they feel like they're trying too hard to be all "Modern Hollywood" and these big, shallow, blockbusters rather than being the games they should be. Sure... BIoWare will claim they're still making the games they want in every way, but it would be pretty silly to say otherwise. I wouldn't be surprised if the reason Dan Tudge left as lead developer of DAO just after the PC one was basically done wasn't coincidental. I also note that the guy who did most of my favourite stuff from ME1 left early in ME2's production: Chris L'Etoile.

This.

[Terror_K]

Jebel Krong wrote...

if there's a market for it, then a game will be made for it. however this does not mean any type of game (nlcuding rpg) will stagnate - which is half the problem - not only do you want niche games, you want them to conform rigidly to some arcane and contrived rule-set thatonyl a handful of people share - and that's why *you* won't get what you want, not because of the genre itself, but your own perverse definitions of what it should conform to.

There was plenty of a market for DAO. BioWare's most successful IP apparently, that sold more copies than both Mass Effect games. And yet with the sequel they've decided for some reason to make it less like DAO and more like Mass Effect 2.

I'm getting what I want from Bethesda and Obsidian incidentally. And CD Projekt too. It's only BioWare who seems to be letting me down RPG-wise lately, because they would rather have a big blockbuster these days than a game. I just want their games to be strong, satisfactory RPGs and not just action games with a story. I don't want their games to become more and more like the same brown mush that almost all the AAA titles these days are becoming: the same action-oriented, story-driven, semi-cinematic short'n'shallow same-fests.

It's ironic that you say I want the game to adhere to rigid rulesets when that's exactly what BioWare are doing themselves with their own games. Not with regards to being an RPG, but with regards to being a modern gaming blockbuster. They're not crafting pieces of art any more and naturally choosing what's best for the genre and game, they're merely carefully constructing a cold, scientific formula in an attempt to garner the most fans and most awards and get that perfect metacritic score while not alienating too many of their old fans. It's like genetically engineering the perfect fruit rather than growing it naturally with love and care and attention.

Developers don't need to try and formulate this "perfect game for everybody" and make things shallow to make a profit, they just feel they need to. But then again, maybe BioWare may know this. Maybe it's EA who are the issue.

Modifié par Terror_K, 18 février 2011 - 12:03 .

[Jebel Krong]

Terror_K wrote...

Jebel Krong wrote...

if there's a market for it, then a game will be made for it. however this does not mean any type of game (nlcuding rpg) will stagnate - which is half the problem - not only do you want niche games, you want them to conform rigidly to some arcane and contrived rule-set thatonyl a handful of people share - and that's why *you* won't get what you want, not because of the genre itself, but your own perverse definitions of what it should conform to.

There was plenty of a market for DAO. BioWare's most successful IP apparently, that sold more copies than both Mass Effect games. And yet with the sequel they've decided for some reason to make it less like DAO and more like Mass Effect 2.

I'm getting what I want from Bethesda and Obsidian incidentally. And CD Projekt too. It's only BioWare who seems to be letting me down RPG-wise lately, because they would rather have a big blockbuster these days than a game. I just want their games to be strong, satisfactory RPGs and not just action games with a story. I don't want their games to become more and more like the same brown mush that almost all the AAA titles these days are becoming: the same action-oriented, story-driven, semi-cinematic short'n'shallow same-fests.

It's ironic that you say I want the game to adhere to rigid rulesets when that's exactly what BioWare are doing themselves with their own games. Not with regards to being an RPG, but with regards to being a modern gaming blockbuster. They're not crafting pieces of art any more and naturally choosing what's best for the genre and game, they're merely carefully constructing a cold, scientific formula in an attempt to garner the most fans and most awards and get that perfect metacritic score while not alienating too many of their old fans. It's like genetically engineering the perfect fruit rather than growing it naturally with love and care and attention.

Developers don't need to try and formulate this "perfect game for everybody" and make things shallow to make a profit, they just feel they need to. But then again, maybe BioWare may know this. Maybe it's EA who are the issue.

haha i'd love to see your data - i've never seen anything official that said DAO sold as much as ME1, let alone ME2...

people like you compained about the set character in the witcher, and please enjoy your buggy messes that are alpha protocol - have obsidian ever actually finished a game they started? - (and to a less extent) from bethesda. i'm sure skyrim will spectacularly fail to live up to your expectations, thankfully as a fantasy game i won't ever see your complaints about it, though. most importantly - just because those games tick your special boxes, certainly doesn't mean mass effect has to.

Modifié par Jebel Krong, 18 février 2011 - 12:15 .

[Terror_K]

ME1 did "tick my boxes" though. I would thus expect ME2 to as well, given that it's a direct sequel. Even moreso since it's part two of a trilogy.. As I've said before, it's about consistency; one shouldn't change their game so much part the way through a series. I enjoy games that aren't RPGs as well. Had "ME2" come along as a fresh new IP and fresh new game or even started things of, 90% of my issues with it would be gone, and the rest I wouldn't care enough to comment on. The only reason more than a year later I still vocally let it know that I'm disappointed with ME2 is because I liked the first so much, and mostly for reasons that aren't there in its sequel for some reason or another. ME2 doesn't fail so much for what it is, but for what it isn't: a consistent follow-up to the original. Jade Empire has even less RPG elements (or as you so inaccurately put it "tick boxes") than ME2, yet I enjoy that game immensely with almost no issues with it. If it came down to "tick boxes" wouldn't I rate it lower than Mass Effect 2? Wouldn't I also rate my favourite game of all time --Unreal Tournament-- below ME2? It's a pure shooter after all.



Besides, ME2 fails more for it's overall shift in style than it does for it's lack of RPG elements. If ME3 could simply bring back that feeling I had when playing ME3, immerse me again and once more feel like being part of a classic sci-fi movie from my favourite era of sci-fi instead of an over-the-top Modern Hollywood blockbuster for teenage morons, then more than half of the credibility of the series that was lost in ME2 would return, whether the RPG elements were brought back and strengthened or not. If the game didn't feel insulting to my intelligence and felt mature and deep rather than immature and shallow, then I wouldn't mind if most of the gameplay stuff remained mostly the same. Of course, I believe the overall degradation of its overall presentation and the degradation of its RPG gameplay are pretty linked, so I don't think one will be coming back without the other.

[Jock Boo]

GodWood wrote...

Lol @ Jock Boo

Hihi! thx

[Jock Boo]

SomeBug wrote...

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.

oh man I fully appreciate all the different and peculiar stuff that ppl love in games.... once I was the fiddler of the inventory myself... once I was the alchemist and inventor... from the days of BG, Arcanum and Vampire games... and I loved it.....

then I upgraded my PC and finally get to play so much wanted and awaited Mass Effect..... 2 years after it was out and loved every second of it....then I played ME2 and thought this is it....
 
I love fiddling and tinkering and whatnot (matter of fact I'm just in the middle of potion brewing business in Witcher) but what ME2 brought was RPG in a flash.....a good story (good not excellent).... and characters ... THE Characters.... some games only have one or two memorable ... this game has them all ( from Mouse to Tali... from Kasumi to David the brother) and of course the means to get to them fast... without micromanaging... without an hour of preparation to get into the game and story.....

oh and one more thing.... now I have a kid and don't have too much time to tinker and fiddle in ther inventory for two hours just so I could start playing..... hehe

whatever .... everyone likes something different ... it doesn't matter as long as we all have fun doing it (playing it)...is it RPG or not, it doesn't matter in the end....

[KenKenpachi]

Meh just be happy Bio still has some control, look what EA did to CnC. Everyone hates that, and as some have pointed out its became a blockbuster type of thing, which has all the flaws in consumerisim. Loss of population, changing demographs, population decline, unforseen circumstances, Mr Freemen, can all litterally bury the game industry or litterally the whole of gaming. I like JRPGs mainly as well they stick to the RPG formula, to which western press often say that its because of this they don't like Japanese games. Though in Fairness has our money grab policy resulting in Fable 3 being an RPG.

At this and ME:2 and various modern "RPG's" I'm torn. Is an RPG its story and layout or its game mechanics, or both. Are levels, abilities, DMG stats and all stats in general that have been with RPGs and remain with table top gaming just filler, or a part of the soul of RPG's? I think in the end better or worse though games like Fable 3 and ME2 maybe the future of the RPG, with the future always being in motion this remains to be seen, those fad gamers I doubt will remain for good, just like the 90's they didn't, but if so, I feel we'll lose something in the translation with all games being crossbreed bastard copies of each other in the name of profit.

Modifié par KenKenpachi, 18 février 2011 - 02:03 .

[Jebel Krong]

Terror_K wrote...

ME1 did "tick my boxes" though. I would thus expect ME2 to as well, given that it's a direct sequel. Even moreso since it's part two of a trilogy.. As I've said before, it's about consistency; one shouldn't change their game so much part the way through a series. I enjoy games that aren't RPGs as well. Had "ME2" come along as a fresh new IP and fresh new game or even started things of, 90% of my issues with it would be gone, and the rest I wouldn't care enough to comment on. The only reason more than a year later I still vocally let it know that I'm disappointed with ME2 is because I liked the first so much, and mostly for reasons that aren't there in its sequel for some reason or another. ME2 doesn't fail so much for what it is, but for what it isn't: a consistent follow-up to the original. Jade Empire has even less RPG elements (or as you so inaccurately put it "tick boxes") than ME2, yet I enjoy that game immensely with almost no issues with it. If it came down to "tick boxes" wouldn't I rate it lower than Mass Effect 2? Wouldn't I also rate my favourite game of all time --Unreal Tournament-- below ME2? It's a pure shooter after all.

Besides, ME2 fails more for it's overall shift in style than it does for it's lack of RPG elements. If ME3 could simply bring back that feeling I had when playing ME3, immerse me again and once more feel like being part of a classic sci-fi movie from my favourite era of sci-fi instead of an over-the-top Modern Hollywood blockbuster for teenage morons, then more than half of the credibility of the series that was lost in ME2 would return, whether the RPG elements were brought back and strengthened or not. If the game didn't feel insulting to my intelligence and felt mature and deep rather than immature and shallow, then I wouldn't mind if most of the gameplay stuff remained mostly the same. Of course, I believe the overall degradation of its overall presentation and the degradation of its RPG gameplay are pretty linked, so I don't think one will be coming back without the other.

again: me2 is a direct sequel - the majority of the game is identical, and there was no "major shift" in anything - that's all in your head - ME1 aimed at being an rpg-TPS-action hybrid, ME2 was a refinment on that concept, ME3 will be more of one - will it add-in some of the things ME2 dropped? i don't know, quite possibly, and i'm sure it'll drop other things and add-in new ones, too. will you decry it then, as you have #2 for being different again?

[1483749283]

Terror_K, do you think the PC and NPC characterization was deeper in ME1 than ME2? I don't.

Forgetting about combat mechanics for a moment, it seems that the views of characterization in ME2 (and upcoming DA2) fall into two categories. Category 1 people perceive less detail in the characterization as increased depth, because their imagination is free to fill the rest in. Category 2 are people who perceive less detail in the characterization as huge gaping holes in the storytelling which need to be filled.

Category 1 sees the mute expressionless Warden as a good thing; Category 2 sees the mute expressionless Warden as a bad thing.

Now for the rest of your arguments, I'll hand it to you that ME2 felt more cramped than ME1 without open-ended planet exploration. Furthermore, the art direction was less Alien and more Star Trek, and I'll also hand it to you that the Alien style worked better. Finally, too much variety was taken away from combat, especially for adepts. Singularity-Warp-Singularity-Warp just is waaay too repetitive.

However, what ME2 did do is fill in all those gaping holes in characterization... and this carried the day for a lot of people. Your evaluation of this move as a "Hollywood blockbuster for teenage morons," well that is hugely subjective. Bioware made choices about characterization, rather than leaving the characters blank slates for you to fill in... and in doing so they were sure to disappoint Category 1 types, plus anyone who doesn't agree with the choices that they made.

I think ME2 was a step in the right direction in characterization, and a step backward in combat mechanics. I'm not asking for much---just that they give us more skills and end that stupid global cooldown rule. Regarding inventory, I feel neutral. I neither liked nor disliked fiddling with inventory. I don't miss it, but wouldn't mind if it showed up again.

[Brohammed]

ME2 being one of the best GAMES of the last ten years? For sure. The best RPG hands down of the last ten? naw, its not exactly a strict RPG. More of an action RPG.



Note that this does not take away from its greatness.

[Sjaddix]

No definetly not the best RPG of the decade. Action RPG yes, but the best RPG no. Its more like a shooter with an epic story and a few special moves.

[Whatever42]

So if its an action RPG, is it still not an RPG? Or should I expect to see categories for Action-RPGs on all the gaming sites?

[Brohammed]

Whatever666343431431654324 wrote...

So if its an action RPG, is it still not an RPG? Or should I expect to see categories for Action-RPGs on all the gaming sites?

The way I look at it, if you are going to create a genre specific award, the winner should epitomise all the aspects of the genre, in the traditional sense.