461 réponses à ce sujet

[Evil Johnny 666]

Lumikki wrote...

Evil Johnny 666 wrote...

Lumikki wrote...

Items and cloths are not characters, they are items.

But they can define the character. A sniper won't be sporting an M16, will he?

Hard to say, but tools and gear doesn't really define induvidual characters "abilities", it only defines they tools of actions. Meaning just because I have M16 in my hand, that doesn't define me as character to be soldier. I could be repair main who's just fixing the M16. So, items doesn't define character, it's "ability" use that items what define character.

Except I never played any video game as a guy who repairs M16, I only used it to shoot people. But then, your repair dude, do you think he'll be wearing camo clothes? Get his face with camo marks? Do you think the soldier will have the tools to repair his weapon? It's the ensemble of what the person wears/hold that help define him, not a single item. Look at the first Ghost Recon, you have a squad of soldiers of different classes (if you play co-op, everyone plays a different guy with a different role), and obviously you're using the sniper dude who can only use a sniper to pick enemies afar. And the support dude in close combat as not even one bullet would hit anyone otherwise.

[MoonChildTheUnholy]

Lumikki wrote...

Evil Johnny 666 wrote...

Lumikki wrote...

Items and cloths are not characters, they are items.

But they can define the character. A sniper won't be sporting an M16, will he?

Hard to say, but tools and gear doesn't really define induvidual characters "abilities", it only defines they tools of actions. Meaning just because I have M16 in my hand, that doesn't define me as character to be soldier. I could be repair main who's just fixing the M16. So, items doesn't define character.

ME2 new class, the repairman, seriously man what are you talking about, even in ME2 weapons are class based, an infiltrator uses a sniper while a vanguard a shotgun, that defines them too.

What do you want to see? different faces on shooters? that way its a different character? each player plays itself, he plays the role of the soldier, the medic, the gunner whatever.

In short roles alone don´t make up for an RPG.

Modifié par MoonChildTheUnholy, 17 février 2011 - 02:27 .

[Evil Johnny 666]

MoonChildTheUnholy wrote...

ME2 new class, the repairman, seriously man what are you talking about, even in ME2 weapons are class based, an infiltrator uses a sniper while a vanguard a shotgun, that defines them too.

What do you want to see different faces on shooters, that way its a different character? each player plays itself, he plays the role of the soldier, the medic, the gunner whatever.

In short roles alone don´t make up for an RPG.

Hey, you can have different faces in Far Cry 2, as you can chose different characters with different backgrounds. And then, you have a ****load of weapon choice, which of course dictates how you're going to play. Add in multiplayer with totally customizable characters and even more obvious role playing, and according to Lumikki it is an RPG.

[Lunatic LK47]

Evil Johnny 666 wrote...


Then why try to make an RPG if you are discarding its single most important element out of the game? I still think ME2 is an RPG, but a very barebones one because of this being lacking. Right now, I think the dialogue system is the only thing that saves ME2 from being a shooter with RPG elements like Far Cry 2.

Hello: Shepard is *SPECIAL FORCES!* (i.e. BEST OF THE BEST SOLDIER). ME1's design had more holes than swiss cheese when it came to "LOLZ, level up weapons just to shoot accurately." There's something called EXTENSIVE TRAINING for a reason.

[MoonChildTheUnholy]

Evil Johnny 666 wrote...

MoonChildTheUnholy wrote...

ME2 new class, the repairman, seriously man what are you talking about, even in ME2 weapons are class based, an infiltrator uses a sniper while a vanguard a shotgun, that defines them too.

What do you want to see different faces on shooters, that way its a different character? each player plays itself, he plays the role of the soldier, the medic, the gunner whatever.

In short roles alone don´t make up for an RPG.

Hey, you can have different faces in Far Cry 2, as you can chose different characters with different backgrounds. And then, you have a ****load of weapon choice, which of course dictates how you're going to play. Add in multiplayer with totally customizable characters and even more obvious role playing, and according to Lumikki it is an RPG.

Nuff said.

[Evil Johnny 666]

Lunatic LK47 wrote...

Evil Johnny 666 wrote...


Then why try to make an RPG if you are discarding its single most important element out of the game? I still think ME2 is an RPG, but a very barebones one because of this being lacking. Right now, I think the dialogue system is the only thing that saves ME2 from being a shooter with RPG elements like Far Cry 2.

Hello: Shepard is *SPECIAL FORCES!* (i.e. BEST OF THE BEST SOLDIER). ME1's design had more holes than swiss cheese when it came to "LOLZ, level up weapons just to shoot accurately." There's something called EXTENSIVE TRAINING for a reason.

Huh? did you read my post? It was an answer to something similar to what you answered me... Maybe I could rephrase it, why didn't they make Mass Effect a shooter if they didn't seem to want to make an RPG?

[MoonChildTheUnholy]

Lunatic LK47 wrote...

Evil Johnny 666 wrote...


Then why try to make an RPG if you are discarding its single most important element out of the game? I still think ME2 is an RPG, but a very barebones one because of this being lacking. Right now, I think the dialogue system is the only thing that saves ME2 from being a shooter with RPG elements like Far Cry 2.

Hello: Shepard is *SPECIAL FORCES!* (i.e. BEST OF THE BEST SOLDIER). ME1's design had more holes than swiss cheese when it came to "LOLZ, level up weapons just to shoot accurately." There's something called EXTENSIVE TRAINING for a reason.

Well then by your logic the game should play itself.

[Gatt9]

Apparently this is going to take awhile since there's so many fallacies being dropped here,  so I'll just start early this time...

Lunatic LK47 wrote...
Uh, Specialilzed Warfare meant extra training up to the point combat is instinctive, and if you didn't fit certain parameters (i.e. Not having enough control of your weapon and accidentally shooting hostage paper targets), you're more or less booted from the program. There's no such thing as "I'll just spend skill points to shoot accurately if I have enough live experience."

You don't have any idea what a skill point represents do you?  It represents becoming more skilled with a weapon.  You also have a pretty interesting idea of how the military works,  shooting isn't the only skill that gets you into special ops,  Medical,  Computers,  Engineering,  Navigation,  Disguise,  just because someone's special ops doesn't mean they can shoot.

Apparently, I'll hold you to the same standard of having a loopy mindset, since apparently *YOUR* definition of an RPG should have the same old formula for what is at least 30+ years, the same reason why JRPG has been stigmatized. The only thing separating WRPGs and JRPGs is WRPGs attempt to try out new things and has a more coherent story. What you want is a genre where it's only good for "The 1337 club and **** you noobs" or "Don't ever bother playing video games." Don't act like you're innocent here. I have you on my block list because you love to be condescending to someone who actually likes ME2's gameplay. You belittle someone, someone else belittles you. That's called karma, and live with it, ******.

1.  The formula you keep whining about is what defines an RPG.  Live with it.  Without it,  you cannot have an RPG.  You get a shooter or action-adventure,  neither or which are RPGs,  as you seem to be a bit confused about that.

2.  You've been reading way too many forums and way too few actual postmortems.  JRPGs aren't "Stigmatized",  as FF 13 clearly showed (It sold more copies than ME2 did).  Valyria chronicles has done quite well,  and the gorilla Pokemon has sold more units than any other RPG of all time.  Maybe you should try learning instead of assuming that what you read on some random forum was actually true.

3.  WRPGs haven't evolved in 20 years.  ME2 is nothing new,  it's a substandard shooter.  ME1 was a take on Deus Ex and NOLF's mechanics.  Oblivion is GTA in a fantasy land.  Once again,  you'd do well to learn what you're trying to talk about,  your "Facts" are so misguided I'm begining to wonder if you're a troll-bot.

I don't get it, how can some people be so stuck in old days and think that evolution of game development just stops.Thinking like RPG will stay forever as same design, like it never change. It takes over 2 year to make every game, so of course every time they make game, design has changed. Companies learns from they previous games and new technology allows different stuff than before.

If you people expect that every Bioware game in future will be some stat based RPG, then you gonna be complaining rest of your life. Bioware has to fit to game market like every other game company, I don't mean making games for mainstream of people, I mean that RPG it self will change by time too.

What do you people think comes after Mass Effect 3? Back to Baldus Gate 2 design?

What you're missing is that once you remove the stat-based gameplay,  what you get is either a shooter or Tomb Raider.  Without the stats,  that's all that's left.  Dialogue does not make something an RPG,  any game can have dialogue.  Story doesn't make it an RPG either.

The stats are what defines an RPG from the other genres.  Story + Dialogue = Action Adventure not RPG.

RPGs have changed over time,  significantly.  The difference between AD&D & AD&D 3.x is night and day.  But it still retains it's fundamental and necessary basis in stats.

Excellent points.  Also, more and more so, developers (that were once primarilt PC based) are cross platforming their games to cater to console owners.  This will also change the nature of a role playing game, as 'traditionally', thye have never fared well on the consoles.  This is now starting to change.

Actually,  the truth is,  not only have the fared well on consoles previously,  they've done incredibly well.

Ultima 3, 4,  and 5(IIRC) were released on consoles,  as was Diablo,  Might & Magic 2,  Bard's Tale,  Dungeon Master,  Gold Box series,  and many many many others.

This phenomenae is only recent,  and all because of Sony.  Short version:  With the PS2 Sony decided it wanted the PC market,  to make massive money from offering up internet access,  subscription based Office software,  etc.  In order to do so they intentionally created a divide,  claiming console gamers hate PC games,  and forcing those companies doing buisness with them to avoid the PC platform.  Over the years,  Sony's managed to create a mythical seperation in the markets by convincing people something is true when it isn't.

You can google it and find Sony's stated intentions to kill the PC,  and look into the phenomenae of "Self fullfilling prophecy" which Lunatic clearly displays.  Tell enough people something,  they'll believe it's true despite the evidence.

Just out of curiosity, what good RPGs are you referring to which do not feature dialogue/conversation? The closest I can think of is Deus Ex, which still featured it to a degree.

Devil's advocate,  Diablo.  Much closer to being an RPG than ME2 is.

Yet, in order for this to be true, a definition is still needed. And not just a definition, but one which we all accept. I'm inclined to say looking at the various opinions in this thread that my definition of RPG is nothing like most others. It actually reminds me of when people argue on the definition of 'philosophy' which is hardly set in stone.

Most people seem to have some conception on what good examples of philosophy are, but no one can agree on a set definition. RPGs seem much the same way.

Not really,  the problem is that people keep equating Dialogue and Story to mean some game is an RPG.  When,  in truth,  Character Based Skill defines it.  To take on a Role your character's skills must be dominant. 

It's actually a sad testimony that people think dialogue and story make something an RPG,  means our game makers are not only failing to make compelling games,  but also failing to educate people to what a type of game is.

Ah, but see this already is an issue of a game's label vs. a game's nature. Are JRPGs really 'role-playing games' as many conceive of it? I will be the first to say that even with turn-based combat and stats to play with, I don't consider JRPGs to be 'role-playing games' by any stretch

Strictly speaking they are,  they pass the character based skill test and they pass the test of giving you a role.  They just tend to be very one-dimensional,  not really big on the "Choices" part.

[Lunatic LK47]

Gatt9 wrote...


You don't have any idea what a skill point represents do you?  It represents becoming more skilled with a weapon.  You also have a pretty interesting idea of how the military works,  shooting isn't the only skill that gets you into special ops,  Medical,  Computers,  Engineering,  Navigation,  Disguise,  just because someone's special ops doesn't mean they can shoot.

Uh, *EXTENSIVE TRAINING*. What the hell do you think Special Forces personel spend HUNDREDS OF HOURS in the firing range for? Just the LULZ? SEALs have to go through multiple schools of training just to be where they are (i.e. Paratrooper school for all of those aerial insertions, S.E.R.E. for stealth and escape from captivity), etc.

[Lunatic LK47]

MoonChildTheUnholy wrote...

Well then by my logic, the game should have nonsensical design just because the Are-Pee-Gee says so.

Fixed.

[Evil Johnny 666]

Lunatic LK47 wrote...

Gatt9 wrote...


You don't have any idea what a skill point represents do you?  It represents becoming more skilled with a weapon.  You also have a pretty interesting idea of how the military works,  shooting isn't the only skill that gets you into special ops,  Medical,  Computers,  Engineering,  Navigation,  Disguise,  just because someone's special ops doesn't mean they can shoot.

Uh, *EXTENSIVE TRAINING*. What the hell do you think Special Forces personel spend HUNDREDS OF HOURS in the firing range for? Just the LULZ? SEALs have to go through multiple schools of training just to be where they are (i.e. Paratrooper school for all of those aerial insertions, S.E.R.E. for stealth and escape from captivity), etc.

Congrats! You just failed at reading the post! Again.

Modifié par Evil Johnny 666, 17 février 2011 - 02:59 .

[Lunatic LK47]

Evil Johnny 666 wrote...


Congrats! I just failed at reading at your post!

[Evil Johnny 666]

anyway.

Modifié par Evil Johnny 666, 17 février 2011 - 03:02 .

[xxSgt_Reed_24xx]

I wouldn't mind having most of the stuff from ME1 back... like inventory, more skills/powers, etc All of those RPG elements, but after playing ME2... I do NOT want to go back to the crappy action gameplay of ME1, the combat is terrible in that game.



I'm all for weapon mods that up damage stats and change how your gun shoots/looks etc... that's the fun part of RPGs to me.... customization and leveling up my character. HOWEVER, when I aim at something's head and fire... I expect it to hit the target, not miss based on some accuracy stat. If I've got the reticule over them, that's accurate imo.



So, basically, the gameplay was improved in ME2 and it should stay that way in ME3. Everything else, however, can and should be more on the RPG side of things.

[Il Divo]

Gatt9 wrote...

Devil's advocate,  Diablo.  Much closer to being an RPG than ME2 is.

It's funny because Diablo is a game that I rank closer to the 'not an RPG' department, along with Jrpgs.
 

Not really,  the problem is that people keep equating Dialogue and Story to mean some game is an RPG.  When,  in truth,  Character Based Skill defines it.  To take on a Role your character's skills must be dominant. 

What is the basis for this definition? To take on a role, I must simply play someone other than myself. Where does it say that character skill is the definition of RPG? 

It's actually a sad testimony that people think dialogue and story make something an RPG,  means our game makers are not only failing to make compelling games,  but also failing to educate people to what a type of game is.

Perhaps it's not the people who need to be educated.

Strictly speaking they are,  they pass the character based skill test and they pass the test of giving you a role.  They just tend to be very one-dimensional,  not really big on the "Choices" part.

Which presupposes that your character based skill test has some value. I for example do not hold to it, hence why I do not regard JRPGs as role-playing games.

[Evil Johnny 666]

Il Divo wrote...
 

Not really,  the problem is that people keep equating Dialogue and Story to mean some game is an RPG.  When,  in truth,  Character Based Skill defines it.  To take on a Role your character's skills must be dominant. 

What is the basis for this definition? To take on a role, I must simply play someone other than myself. Where does it say that character skill is the definition of RPG?

Which is something JRPGs offer. As well as any video game. You don't need dialogue to play another role, all you need to do, is to be someone you are not.

And take Fable for example, it is a game where you can customize your character even more than ME2, you can change your looks heavily and really define your character through skills (which are reflected in your looks) which enables you do to other things (like using normally very heavy weapons. You can approach quests differently, sometimes taking the other side, playing the bad guys side instead of the good one. You can also make the game end in different ways in Fable II. There's a relatively big emphasis in the story which is centered around your character. You can marry someone and have kids, buy houses, sell them, be a shop owner and put prices/taxes and all. Yet, there's no dialogue. How is Fable not an RPG? You can make the character more your own than Shepard.

Even JRPGs enable you to have much more freedom in combat than ME2. In JRPGs, you're main character doesn't need to fight. He can be the healer, the one killing everyone with his weapon, the one using all the mana potions for the big spells. And just look at FFVII, there's very deep materia customization, enabling you to define your character much more in combat, setting deep combinations of materias that help define how you use him. There's plenty of side quests too. Saying dialogue is all there is to RPGs doesn't really make any sense. As I said, you play a role in every game, that's why RPGs were adapted to the video game medium with character progression. We already went in lengths as how you can play different roles in non-RPG games.

[Lumikki]

Evil Johnny 666 wrote...

Hey, you can have different faces in Far Cry 2, as you can chose different characters with different backgrounds. And then, you have a ****load of weapon choice, which of course dictates how you're going to play. Add in multiplayer with totally customizable characters and even more obvious role playing, and according to Lumikki it is an RPG.

Is there some word what you don't understand when talking player ability choose different kind of characters to play when I was talking about characters abilities. What the hell faces, multiplaying and items has to do with characters abilities?

[Il Divo]

Evil Johnny 666 wrote...

Well, take Crono Trigger, Cross or Earthbound, all silent protagonists. And all those which offer you much more customization than the other characters. And the Fable games aren't JRPGs. The Elder Scrolls game have really minimal player interaction too. In Morrowind, you're pretty much only accepting quests or asking for details, that's not what I call deep player interaction. And since you can already accept side quests in JRPGs... Oh, and I forgot Demon's Souls. And what about MMORPGs?

True, but remember that your point was in reference to Mass Effect 2 representing the 'evolution' of RPGs. For example, you mention MMOs. While I know many enjoy them (and have played WoW myself), I don't see it as demonstrating an evolution in how character interactions work, which have always been a huge part of dnd (and RPGs for me). Fable too is not a series I consider to have aided in the RPG department.

I would however like to broaden my previous statement for what makes a good RPG. Dialogue is a factor, but freedom and choice are also key components, which have also played a central role in DnD.   

It's just that RPGs are a broad genre, there's different styles catering to different influences. And as far as I know, most early RPGs don't have a whole lot of dialogue.

It's true. However, I also feel that this is indicative of why the style has died out. Early RPGs are important, otherwise these new incarnations would never have appeared, but I still feel that they represent a primitive form of what the genre has evolved from.

It does say loosely defined. But I really agree on that definition, like it says, RPG video games were first created as a way to put those D&D things on computer. Basically, JRPGs and western RPGs tend to focus more on different things, western ones using more narrative elements with the player (player interaction). But as a D&D inspired genre, I really don't see how JRPGs wouldn't be true RPGs.

Fair enough, but as someone who has always favored the interactive aspects of DnD and being able to influence my character's creation, actions, and personality (to a degree), the exclusion of this seems to violate one of the most enjoyable aspects of the genre. I couldn't imagine playing DnD for example if my only role was to serve as a general in combat and I simply had to watch while events took place with no opportunity for input.

So even in a technical sense, even if I were to regard JRPGs as role-playing games, I don't think it does full justice to DnD as an experience. If someone were to ask me what crpg is closest to 'the spirit' of dnd, I'm not likely to point him to Final Fantasy or Kingdom Hearts, despite how good they actually are.

And you say the player influencing events, I see no Elder Scrolls game allowing you this.

And personally, even with all the choices you can do, I still view Shepard as a defined character. Maybe it's the voice or the dialogue lines which I can never get something I like, but I never feel being able to turn him into a character I dig. In ME2, basically your choosing between 3 already defined characters.

Actually, TES is a core example of what an RPG represents. In crafting RPGs, there are two things that will always be in conflict: focus and freedom. It is almost impossible to have one without sacrificing the other, at least in this modern day incarnation of RPGs. The more focus a game's story has, the less freedom and vice versa. This is the typical dichtomy you find in Bethesda vs. Bioware games.

TES actually does have dialogue (though not in the form most people expect) and it does involve the player influencing events. Daggerfall for example had 7 different endings depending on how your character went about things. All throughout Morrowind, main quest or side, there are plenty of opportunities to alter the story. However, this often involves altering the journey rather than the outcome (which Bioware games do). Morrowind for example involves 1 set ending, where your character has a good variety in how he/she goes about it. Take becoming the Hortator for House Telvaani: I can be diplomatic and help them all out....or I can slaughter the entire council and name myself Hortator.

[Il Divo]

Evil Johnny 666 wrote...

Which is something JRPGs offer. As well as any video game. You don't need dialogue to play another role, all you need to do, is to be someone you are not. 

Ah, but that's the thing. When I say 'play another role', I do not mean a single role. When I play Halo, I am not playing an rpg because Master Chief 'offers another role'. Neither would I say it's an RPG because I have a choice in how to approach combat. For example, I could choose never to use Covenant weapons or choose to only throw grenades, but Halo does not become an RPG. What that comes down to is that the game chose your character to have an extremely defined role. Master Chief is a spartan super soldier who kills Covenant and that is all. My role as Master Chief ends when combat ends, much like any Jrpg.

 

And take Fable for example, it is a game where you can customize your character even more than ME2, you can change your looks heavily and really define your character through skills (which are reflected in your looks) which enables you do to other things (like using normally very heavy weapons. You can approach quests differently, sometimes taking the other side, playing the bad guys side instead of the good one. You can also make the game end in different ways in Fable II. There's a relatively big emphasis in the story which is centered around your character. You can marry someone and have kids, buy houses, sell them, be a shop owner and put prices/taxes and all. Yet, there's no dialogue. How is Fable not an RPG? You can make the character more your own than Shepard.

Well, I actually broadened my definition to include freedom, choice, and consequences above. I admit my definition was too narrow. But Fable is actually still regarded by many as a rather weak example of what a Western RPG is about, for a few reasons. But I did see your point in why Fable is an RPG and agree. I simply see it as a weak example, not something I hold as exemplary to the genre. I thought the style was a little too 'out there'.  

Even JRPGs enable you to have much more freedom in combat than ME2. In JRPGs, you're main character doesn't need to fight. He can be the healer, the one killing everyone with his weapon, the one using all the mana potions for the big spells. And just look at FFVII, there's very deep materia customization, enabling you to define your character much more in combat, setting deep combinations of materias that help define how you use him. There's plenty of side quests too. Saying dialogue is all there is to RPGs doesn't really make any sense. As I said, you play a role in every game, that's why RPGs were adapted to the video game medium with character progression. We already went in lengths as how you can play different roles in non-RPG games.

Certainly, there is more freedom in combat, but that's all. In JRPGs, like shooters, like racing games, like any other style game, when gameplay ends, the player's job ends. Mass Effect 2, Kotor, Morrowind, etc, still attempt to drive home the idea that you (the player) still have some role to play in how events come about.

Yes, they cannot take into account every choice a player might make, but they often offer enough variety that this can be forgiven. In Morrowind, I am the Nerevarine and I never stop being the Nerevarine. In Mass Effect, I am Shepard. There is not a point in these games where I simply set my controller down and watch a cut-scene because I am involved almost every step of the way. That (imo) is a key factor in my enjoyment of these games. Yes, there is character customization, but I'm also given choice, limited freedom, and dialogue options.

Modifié par Il Divo, 17 février 2011 - 04:01 .

[Evil Johnny 666]

Lumikki wrote...

Evil Johnny 666 wrote...

Hey, you can have different faces in Far Cry 2, as you can chose different characters with different backgrounds. And then, you have a ****load of weapon choice, which of course dictates how you're going to play. Add in multiplayer with totally customizable characters and even more obvious role playing, and according to Lumikki it is an RPG.

Is there some word what you don't understand when talking player ability choose different kind of characters to play when I was talking about characters abilities. What the hell faces, multiplaying and items has to do with characters abilities?

First of all, you'd have to rephrase this as I'm not even sure what you're telling me. Second, you were telling me only abilities defines different types of character, to which I said this. I don't see how I misread/misunderstood you. I was just explaining that you don't need abilities to be a defined character. Shepard doesn't have any real abilities anyway. Hey, Master Chief has abilities... but Master Chief doesn't progress. Take fighing games like Tekken, you can chose various types of characters who all have different abilities which define them. Is Tekken an RPG?



@Il Divo, I relatively agree with what you said. I wouldn't call any RPG without dialogue primitive, but I agree a dialogue system helps things become richer. But I think focusing all the RPG on the dialogue to be at least as barebones as not using that element but using others.

Modifié par Evil Johnny 666, 17 février 2011 - 04:02 .

[Terror_K]

It's simple. What is the one factor that every single game that's come out that's considered to officially be an RPG has? The answer: statistical character progression with multiple ways to build your character statistically with an overall form of progression and a ruleset that determines these things. It's as simple as that. Despite being called an "RPG" the "roleplaying" aspect isn't even necessary, and can be pushed well into the background. Games like ADOM have pretty much no roleplaying and no choices and sometimes even no real storyline beyond a bunch of quests and things to kill. This may not be the definition some people like and it may not be what most people like about RPGs, and it may even be misrepresentation to a degree, but that's the way it is.

[Jebel Krong]

Terror_K wrote...

It's simple. What is the one factor that every single game that's come out that's considered to officially be an RPG has? The answer: statistical character progression with multiple ways to build your character statistically with an overall form of progression and a ruleset that determines these things. It's as simple as that. Despite being called an "RPG" the "roleplaying" aspect isn't even necessary, and can be pushed well into the background. Games like ADOM have pretty much no roleplaying and no choices and sometimes even no real storyline beyond a bunch of quests and things to kill. This may not be the definition some people like and it may not be what most people like about RPGs, and it may even be misrepresentation to a degree, but that's the way it is.

judging from that criteria, ME2 is well into rpg territory, which i don't even agree either ME game is supposed to be solely. frankly this thread has veered wildly into subjective hell, as you can twist most games to fit one kind of rpg definition... and everyone seems to ignore that every type of rpg experience has been changing since inception.

[Gatt9]

Lunatic LK47 wrote...

Gatt9 wrote...


You don't have any idea what a skill point represents do you?  It represents becoming more skilled with a weapon.  You also have a pretty interesting idea of how the military works,  shooting isn't the only skill that gets you into special ops,  Medical,  Computers,  Engineering,  Navigation,  Disguise,  just because someone's special ops doesn't mean they can shoot.

Uh, *EXTENSIVE TRAINING*. What the hell do you think Special Forces personel spend HUNDREDS OF HOURS in the firing range for? Just the LULZ? SEALs have to go through multiple schools of training just to be where they are (i.e. Paratrooper school for all of those aerial insertions, S.E.R.E. for stealth and escape from captivity), etc.

You've either gotta be trolling,  or intentionally not reading.  Once again,  learn what you're talking about.  Shooting isn't the only thing that gets you into Special Ops,  there are many highly valued skills other than shooting.  Mainly because the military has hundreds of thousands of people who can shoot,  they don't need a special team just to shoot.  In fact,  Special Ops isn't as accurate as Sniper in many cases.  Having some skill such as Medical,  Computers,  etc,  is more than sufficient to get into Special Ops.  Mainly because the whole point of Special Ops is to handle situations in which shooting isn't the best idea,  because if it were,  they'd send in the hundred thousand people they have that can shoot.

It's funny because Diablo is a game that I rank closer to the 'not an RPG' department, along with Jrpgs.

Many people do,  there used to be enourmous flame wars on the subject when Diablo hit the market.  Not specifcally that it wasn't an RPG,  but that it was a Monty Haul and just barely an RPG.

What is the basis for this definition? To take on a role, I must simply play someone other than myself. Where does it say that character skill is the definition of RPG?

Perhaps it's not the people who need to be educated.

Which presupposes that your character based skill test has some value. I for example do not hold to it, hence why I do not regard JRPGs as role-playing games.

Here's your problem.

Define taking on a Role.  In Super Mario Bros I play the "Role" of a plumber by your definition,  therefore it's a RPG.  In Saint's Row,  I play the "Role" of a gangster,  and therefore it's an RPG.  In Doom,  I'm a Space Marine,  so Doom's an RPG too.

It's not sufficient to say "I'm taking on a Role".  You have to define the Role you are taking on.  It's also insufficient to say "Because I'm having conversations and making choices,  I'm taking on a Role",  because by token of that arguement,  Wing Commander 3 is an RPG.  You had conversations and made choices that affected the outcome. 

But the game was clearly not an RPG by any stretch.

So you have to define what encompasses taking on the Role.  To do so,  you have to establish the bounds of your character,  and what he can and cannot do.  To establish those bounds,  the game requires a basis of defining this character.  The *only* means to do so is through stat based character bounds.  Pretending in your head that this is your character doesn't make it an RPG,  pretending your character is allergic to pistols doesn't make it so,  because tomorrow your character can pick up a pistol without issue.  Only through stat based established bounds can your character be a Role,  it is the only way for those bounds to hold true.

To put it another way,  you cannot Roleplay someone who excels at Decryption and Conversation but sucks at shooting in ME2,  because the game does not permit you to establish those bounds.  All that exists is your skill,  your aim,  not your Role.

For a game to be an RPG it absolutely must have established bounds that define the character,  that hold true at all points,  not changing on a whim. 

That is how you define a Role,  and why stat based characters are the fundamental basis for an RPG.  Because other than that,  it's just pretending,  and suddenly every game is an RPG by virtue of pretending.  Suddenly,  Super Mario Bros is an RPG because I'm pretending I'm a plumber.

...And yes,  I'm pretty sure it's people who need educating. 

Modifié par Gatt9, 17 février 2011 - 10:04 .

[Lunatic LK47]

Gatt9 wrote...


You've either gotta be trolling,  or intentionally not reading. Once again,  learn what you're talking about.  Shooting isn't the only
thing that gets you into Special Ops,  there are many highly valued
skills other than shooting.  Mainly because the military has hundreds of
thousands of people who can shoot,  they don't need a special team just
to shoot.  In fact,  Special Ops isn't as accurate as Sniper in many
cases.  Having some skill such as Medical,  Computers,  etc,  is more
than sufficient to get into Special Ops.  Mainly because the whole point
of Special Ops is to handle situations in which shooting isn't the best
idea,  because if it were,  they'd send in the hundred thousand people
they have that can shoot.

Did I say anywhere in my post that I'm dismissing your points? Apparently, you also are intentionally not reading as well. I did mention something about "multiple schools attended" for the high-valued skills you're talking about. However, weapons handling is just as highly important for the world of covert operations, counter-terrorism, and guerilla warfare (i.e. Fire-control, target discrimination, pin-point accuracy is mandatory especially since they're not going to be as heavily armed as conventional armies working in entire battalions. Even the military Special Forces consultants for last year's Medal of Honor said, "You can't afford to miss a shot when the **** hits the fan.") Look at any training documentaries for SEAL training.

Modifié par Lunatic LK47, 17 février 2011 - 10:17 .

[Terror_K]

Jebel Krong wrote...

judging from that criteria, ME2 is well into rpg territory, which i don't even agree either ME game is supposed to be solely. frankly this thread has veered wildly into subjective hell, as you can twist most games to fit one kind of rpg definition... and everyone seems to ignore that every type of rpg experience has been changing since inception.

Yes, ME2 is an RPG by definition. Just not a very deep or satisfactory one. Succeeding to be an RPG doesn't automatically also mean succeeding at being an RPG. The likes of Gothic 3 & 4, the Two Worlds games and half the Final Fantasy titles prove that.