461 réponses à ce sujet

[Gleym]

So, Jebel.. just outta curiosity here.. if I made a game that had zero mechanics to do with RPGs outside of dialog options, then slapped on 'Action-RPG' as the tag, would that mean that I'm justified in my definition because I am an 'RPG-maker'?

[Jebel Krong]

Gleym wrote...

So, Jebel.. just outta curiosity here.. if I made a game that had zero mechanics to do with RPGs outside of dialog options, then slapped on 'Action-RPG' as the tag, would that mean that I'm justified in my definition because I am an 'RPG-maker'?

mass effect 2 has rpg mechanics. just because some people prefer not to acknowledge progress or development in any genre, doesn't mean there isn't any. if *your* game had some rpg mechanics and was an action title, then yes you could, it's your game, you get to define it, just like BW does with their. it's not for someone else to come along with their textbook and home-made rule-set to do anything, especially when they're wrong.

[Terror_K]

Jebel Krong wrote...

no, he's right terror-K you throw around "industry standard definitions" as a term that classifies all rpgs, yet when ME2, for example, doesn't conform to this, it's derided. you don't get to define rpgs, rpg-makers do.

No, you can't just decide that your game is an RPG "because you say" just like that. That's for the gaming industry to decide and you have to at least adhere to the definition, just like anybody making anything does. Just like you can't just create a game with no shooting in it whatsoever and call it a "shooter" or call something a "puzzle game" that has no puzzles, you can't call something an RPG and dub it as such when it doesn't have the necessary elements to be classified as such. It doesn't work that way.

Beyond that, I'm not just "throwing around" "industry standard definitions" as a term that classifies RPGs; I'm pointing out that that's the way it is. That's why it's an industry standard definition, because it does classify all RPGs. Every single one of them. Why is this so hard for people like you and Lumikki to understand? I'm not spouting out an opinion here, I'm pointing at an irrefutable fact that's right there in black and white. Again, I'm just literally saying that "1+1=2" and you and Lumikki are outright saying "no it's not!" just because you don't agree with the way it is.

Finally, Mass Effect 2 is an RPG. I'm not disputing that, and only fanatics who exaggerate or people deliberately using hyperbole would. But adhering to the definition doesn't automatically mean doing a great job of it or being strong or satisfactory at it. A Reliant Robin is a car, but that doesn't mean it's a good one. Twilight is a book and a movie, but that doesn't mean it's good at being either. Mass Effect 2 is an RPG, but that doesn't mean it's a good one. But like anything, it can come down to taste, and it can depend what one is looking for in a particular genre.

just because some people prefer not to acknowledge
progress or development in any genre, doesn't mean there isn't any.

That can also be a point of view. I personally don't really see how simply gutting the game of any complexity and replacing it with a combination of the most shallowly simple systems and half-assed done-to-death TPS elements is really "progress" in the case of ME2. I especially find it ironic when those who praise ME2 for removing "archaic RPG elements" also praise it for adopting even more archaic and common shooter ones.

Modifié par Terror_K, 21 février 2011 - 12:06 .

[Gatt9]

Lumikki wrote...

Terror_K wrote...

But I'm not using "my definition" I'm using the industry standard definition. It doesn't only apply to me, because it's the rule that applies to the entire industry and is universally recognised as such. I'm not saying what I prefer in RPGs and what I personally think is the best and most important aspects in this case when defining an RPG and RPG elements; I'm referring to exactly what the professional gaming industry as a whole refers to as an RPG and RPG elements, and has been for almost 30 years.

I'm sorry, but you use defination as what defines RPG, is more how you want it to be defined. Meaning while you defination is fine, it's too narrow and doesn't allow other kind of RPG's even exist. Example how I defined, you defination will fit inside my defination, nothing prevents it. How ever, what I consider still as RPG doesn't fit in under you defination. Meaning you defination will leave out other possibilities for RPG.

What you consider RPG defination, is not industry standard defination, it's too narrow for it.

I played ones mmorpg what role-players made, it was called  "Seed". It doesn't exist anymore, but it had no level system, no combat, no experience and so on.. It was made for role-playing.  I could say it had very light progression and skill system.

You're confusing the action of Role-playing with a Role-playing game.  They're two completely different events.  Roleplaying is play-acting in a ruleless system.  A Role-playing game is a game in which you act out a character based on pre-established rules that define the character.

...I'll adress the rest momentarily...

mass effect 2 has rpg mechanics. just because some people prefer not to acknowledge progress or development in any genre, doesn't mean there isn't any. if *your* game had some rpg mechanics and was an action title, then yes you could, it's your game, you get to define it, just like BW does with their. it's not for someone else to come along with their textbook and home-made rule-set to do anything, especially when they're wrong.

No it doesn't.  It's completely berefet of RPG mechanics.  Dialogue is not an RPG mechanic,  having choices isn't an RPG mechanic.  I'm not sure how many times I have to cover the same ground.  Wing Commander 3,  Dialogue,  Choices,  not an RPG.  No one would define it as an RPG.  Because it takes a great deal more than that to make an RPG.

Yet here's a really bad ripoff of Gears of War and people keep claiming that it's an RPG because it has dialogue and choices.

That doesn't make it an RPG.  That's a method of narrating a story.  Nothing else. 

I've also got some very bad news for you.  I didn't bring a home-made-rule-set.  I brought a system that's been established for nearly 40 years as an RPG.  I'm afraid it gets worse.  The rule set I brought is what created the entire genre in the first place.  It's what every single RPG in existance is based upon,  either as a point of mimcry or a point of avoidance. 

You know what you've brought?  A home-made-rule-set that says any game that lets you pick an answer must be an RPG,  that apparently says you can slap the letters on any box and whatever's inside must be an RPG because the box said so.

I'm pretty sure that the thing that created the entire genre in the first place is what actually defines what an RPG is.  I'm pretty confident that neither you nor Bioware get to claim it's something else.  Just like I can't go outside and tell everyone that my car is an aircraft carrier because I've decided that from now on,  aircraft  carriers should look like my car.

Modifié par Gatt9, 21 février 2011 - 10:40 .

[Ulzeraj]

Terror_K wrote...
Beyond that, I'm not just "throwing around" "industry standard definitions" as a term that classifies RPGs; I'm pointing out that that's the way it is. That's why it's an industry standard definition, because it does classify all RPGs. 

Sources. Now.

[Il Divo]

Some interesting posts. I'll have responses by tomorrow evening hopefully, if I have time.

[The Spamming Troll]

i think the first place bioware should start is with the inventory. id think any RPG is almost defined by whats in my inventory, and ME2 is severely lacking in that RPG element. another thing that i always thought RPGs had were stories, so i hope ME3 reverts back to ME1s story element.



its almost impossible to think ME3 cant be a great game. if i only gave ME1 and ME2 to a group of mokeys to create ME3, itd be a great game.

[Terror_K]

Ulzeraj wrote...

Terror_K wrote...
Beyond that, I'm not just "throwing around" "industry standard definitions" as a term that classifies RPGs; I'm pointing out that that's the way it is. That's why it's an industry standard definition, because it does classify all RPGs. 

Sources. Now.

How about every single video and computer game magazine and official website that's existed for the past 30+ years. Read any video/computer game magazine, or visit any site like IGN, Gamespot, Kotaku, CVG, etc. The evidence is right there. It's not there in plain, written concrete where they all say "this is how a cRPG is defined" but it's how cRPGs have been defined and labeled consistently between all these independent sources for three decades.

In fact, the only place I've seen that seems to have issues with defining RPGs are these forums over the past few years. I personally think it's all these hybrid games lately that are messing with people's minds. You'd never see people confusing what an RPG is back when Baldur's Gate came out, or even NWN and KotOR. This is a new thing likely caused by more games adopting features that are common to modern RPGs (more cinematic, more story and character driven, adding more choices, etc.)

[Ulzeraj]

Terror_K wrote...

Ulzeraj wrote...

Terror_K wrote...
Beyond that, I'm not just "throwing around" "industry standard definitions" as a term that classifies RPGs; I'm pointing out that that's the way it is. That's why it's an industry standard definition, because it does classify all RPGs. 

Sources. Now.

How about every single video and computer game magazine and official website that's existed for the past 30+ years. Read any video/computer game magazine, or visit any site like IGN, Gamespot, Kotaku, CVG, etc. The evidence is right there. It's not there in plain, written concrete where they all say "this is how a cRPG is defined" but it's how cRPGs have been defined and labeled consistently between all these independent sources for three decades.

In fact, the only place I've seen that seems to have issues with defining RPGs are these forums over the past few years. I personally think it's all these hybrid games lately that are messing with people's minds. You'd never see people confusing what an RPG is back when Baldur's Gate came out, or even NWN and KotOR. This is a new thing likely caused by more games adopting features that are common to modern RPGs (more cinematic, more story and character driven, adding more choices, etc.)

Ultima Online didnt had classes or levels. There could be other examples but I can't think of them now.

Now, as I said the industry calls games like Borderlands and Diablo as "RPG". As someone who is found of the Bioware Infinity DnD-based games (IWD, BG, Torment) like you and also a DnD player (read there on your post about 3.5e), we both probably agree that Diablo-like games don't have anything to do with the R in "RPG" therefore the "industry standard" is also arbitrary and doesn't mean ****.

Sure you name a character, you have your damn bloody inventory, class and skills but you have no power over the story, no decisions nothing at all. If you use those RPG games to make a comparison, Mass Effect 2 is still a Greater God among RPGs.

Also, the way you speak seems to be some kind official document that regularizes the specs and requirements for a game to be called RPG. I am not a game expert but you don't need to be one to perceive that labeling doesn't really work here.

Modifié par Ulzeraj, 22 février 2011 - 09:40 .

[Gatt9]

Ulzeraj wrote...

Terror_K wrote...

Ulzeraj wrote...

Terror_K wrote...
Beyond that, I'm not just "throwing around" "industry standard definitions" as a term that classifies RPGs; I'm pointing out that that's the way it is. That's why it's an industry standard definition, because it does classify all RPGs. 

Sources. Now.

How about every single video and computer game magazine and official website that's existed for the past 30+ years. Read any video/computer game magazine, or visit any site like IGN, Gamespot, Kotaku, CVG, etc. The evidence is right there. It's not there in plain, written concrete where they all say "this is how a cRPG is defined" but it's how cRPGs have been defined and labeled consistently between all these independent sources for three decades.

In fact, the only place I've seen that seems to have issues with defining RPGs are these forums over the past few years. I personally think it's all these hybrid games lately that are messing with people's minds. You'd never see people confusing what an RPG is back when Baldur's Gate came out, or even NWN and KotOR. This is a new thing likely caused by more games adopting features that are common to modern RPGs (more cinematic, more story and character driven, adding more choices, etc.)

Ultima Online didnt had classes or levels. There could be other examples but I can't think of them now.

Now, as I said the industry calls games like Borderlands and Diablo as "RPG". As someone who is found of the Bioware Infinity DnD-based games (IWD, BG, Torment) like you and also a DnD player (read there on your post about 3.5e), we both probably agree that Diablo-like games don't have anything to do with the R in "RPG" therefore the "industry standard" is also arbitrary and doesn't mean ****.

Sure you name a character, you have your damn bloody inventory, class and skills but you have no power over the story, no decisions nothing at all. If you use those RPG games to make a comparison, Mass Effect 2 is still a Greater God among RPGs.

Also, the way you speak seems to be some kind official document that regularizes the specs and requirements for a game to be called RPG. I am not a game expert but you don't need to be one to perceive that labeling doesn't really work here.

Labelling does work.  My post about this subject is buried a few pages back,  so I'll just paraphrase it here.

An RPG requires that you take on the Role of a character.  To do so,  you require the character to be defined.  To define the character,  you outline statistically what his qualities are.  This establishes the bounds of the character you are going to play.  Thus forming the basis of an RPG. 

Diablo,  and JRPGs,  meet this requirement.  You establish bounds on the charcter,  permitting him to do some things,  denying him others,  based upon your character's bounds. 

Dialogue,  and Choices,  OTOH do not do this.  Without established bounds,  without the statistics,  your character's Role is completely undefined.  Let's take Fallout as our example:  In Fallout a character of low intelligence could not have certain discussions,  because of his bounds,  he could not make certain choices.  If we remove those bounds,  the greatest idiot in the world can discuss Quantum Physics.  If we remove those bounds,  you can decide today to play a arrogant d**k,  tomorrow you can play him as a humble hero.  Because there's no consequence,  no bounds.

Further,  if we take it another step further,  we can examine the framework itself.  I can conceivably enter a PnP RPG where I hold no dialogue,  make no choices,  just move from one area to the next.  The entire framework of D&D holds true,  and nothing breaks or need be ignored.  Everything functions as intended.

But if I try to play D&D completely by dialogue and choices,  with no statistics,  no bounds,  I cannot play. 

Player:  I'm going to steal the diamond!
DM:  Ok,  lets see if you succeed.
Group: sits silently for 15 seconds.
Player:  I've decided I succeeded!
DM: Ok!

It doesn't work.  It's just group storytelling.  Not an RPG.  A case could be made that it's Roleplaying,  but we're in LARPs land now,  not RPG territory.  There's actually an enourmous difference between Roleplaying and a Roleplaying Game.  What a man and a woman might do with a police costume is Roleplaying,  but it's not an RPG.

Dialogue and choice are a method of narrating a story,  and allowing a Player to realize the bounds of his Character by not limiting him to the "Good guy" or "Bad guy" path.  They're not what constitutes an RPG though,  an RPG is completely possible without them (Diablo,  JRPGs) without ever forcing some key rules to be discarded.  Dialogue and choices most certainly make for a more rich RPG experience,  inargueably,  but they do not define it.

Many games have dialogue and choices,  Wing Commander 3,  countless Adventure games,  strategy titles to some extent or another (Galactic Civilizations comes to mind most immediately).  It's the method of storytelling.

So it is possible to establish a label,  and the label does derive completely from statistics.  You have to take on the Role of the character,  so the character must be defined,  and have bounds with consequences (Whether it's an inability to use things because of his qualities,  or a predisposition to a certain personality). 

Dialogue and choice without bounds doesn't make it an RPG.  To be perfectly honest,  it makes it an Adventure game.

The irony is,  for a decade people claimed that Adventure games were dead,  and RPGs weren't,  and here we are today,  with Adventure games(Action type) labelled as RPGs,  and the RPGs are the genre that's actually dead.

Modifié par Gatt9, 22 février 2011 - 10:03 .

[Terror_K]

Ulzeraj wrote...

Ultima Online didnt had classes or levels. There could be other examples but I can't think of them now.

It still had skill-based character progression though. TESV is doing away with classes entirely too as I understand it, but it'll still be an RPG and have skill-based progression that statistically progresses. Levels and classes are just the most common form of RPG progression, but not the only one.

Now, as I said the industry calls games like Borderlands and Diablo as "RPG". As someone who is found of the Bioware Infinity DnD-based games (IWD, BG, Torment) like you and also a DnD player (read there on your post about 3.5e), we both probably agree that Diablo-like games don't have anything to do with the R in "RPG" therefore the "industry standard" is also arbitrary and doesn't mean ****.

Borderlands and Diablo are RPGs, most definitely. According to the definition as it is commonly used they are. Yes, I'll admit that there isn't much (if any) "roleplaying" in them, and as such one can question the method to them being considered as such, but as I've been saying, I'm not talking about what I personally feel RPGs should consist of; I'm talking about what the gaming industry as a whole considers them. And I'm saying that if people are going to start arguing what defines an RPG they need to at least acknowledge the common definition, even if they don't personally agree with it. It's all well and good to say, "I feel an RPG should have A" and "I don't feel an RPG needs B" but how you (or anybody) feels and how the industry is judging the genre are two different kettles of fish. The problem isn't that people feel a certain way about what constitutes an RPG or not for them; the problem is that they speak as if the definition they've decided to take on for themselves applies to everybody across the board. Simply put: you have to respect the industry standard definition, even if you don't agree with it. When you just vaguely speak of "RPG elements" you can't just expect everybody discussing things here to jump on your personal definition bandwagon if you're contradicting the commonly accepted industry standard definition. It's all well and good to consider things like dialogue choices and dynamic narrative as personal favourite aspects you like to see in an RPG, but it's another thing entirely to just expect everybody else to just accept these as RPG-defining elements when the industry as a whole doesn't. The same goes for saying outright "RPGs don't need statistical progression" as if it's a fact just because you personally don't feel that they do, despite the industry saying that they really do.

Should it probably be something that changes because the times have changed? That's a hard call. After all, if one did that, then we'd have a whole bunch of titles that have been considered as being RPGs for years suddenly unclassified because they don't fit the more modern definition, including some AD&D-based ones. As it stands, despite the old-school statistical RPG elements dwindling to a degree over the years, they are still currently the factor that is determining whether a game is an RPG or not by the industry, whether you like it or not. So until that changes, whatever your personal preferences, that's the way it is.

Sure you name a character, you have your damn bloody inventory, class and skills but you have no power over the story, no decisions nothing at all. If you use those RPG games to make a comparison, Mass Effect 2 is still a Greater God among RPGs.

ME2 (and ME1 for that matter) are kind of a middle-ground in this area, much like The Witcher and Alpha Protocol are, because they are more of a "Semi-Roleplaying" RPG, if you follow me. You don't have as much control over your character in definining them as you would in, say, Baldur's Gate, NWN, Icewind Dale, DAO or even KotOR. You kind of push a semi-defined character one way or another rather than have total control of them and total customisation. This looks to be the same for DA2, which is one of the main reasons it's disappointing me thus far compared to the first. So when you combine the fact that ME2 is statistically not a very good (or strong) RPG with the fact that it only offers semi-control, it still kind of fails overall as an RPG, at least compared to the likes of DAO which is not only strong statistically, but lets you fully craft your character.

Also, the way you speak seems to be some kind official document that regularizes the specs and requirements for a game to be called RPG. I am not a game expert but you don't need to be one to perceive that labeling doesn't really work here.

You have to classify games in some manner. RPGs as they are today are pretty hard, as are a lot of games when there are more and more hybrids around mixing and matching things from all sorts of genres. It still stands though that it's statistical progression that defines an RPG for the industry at the moment.

[Lumikki]

LARP may not be CRPG, but it is part of RPG.

Terror_K, you evidence as how RPG is defined, is how you see about every single video and computer game magazine and official website that's existed for the past 30+ years. Why to hell you think we are aguing here? Because we don't see the same RPG evidence same way you see it. Also this isn't first time this same issue is talked. It has come up few times at least in some mmorpg forums.

It's like the argument 1+1=2. I don't argue that 1+1=2 is not that. I argue that you don't see anything else than 1+1=2, when there is also 1+2=3 and 0+1=1. You vision is very narrow. I do understand why you see that way, but it's just too narrow to define HOLE RPG genre.

Actually I do have one question. When you talk statical stuff related defining RPG, what you really mean by that? I ask, because you know that sometimes I get the english meaning wrong.

Modifié par Lumikki, 22 février 2011 - 11:53 .

[Terror_K]

Lumikki wrote...

LARP may not be CRPG, but it is part of RPG.

Yes, but we're discussing CRPGs here, and RPGs as they are definied as video games, not RPGs as a whole. You don't apply the exact same definition when shooting a real gun compared to shooting in a shooter game, or driving a real car compared to driving one in a game. Similarly, RPGs in the real world are a little different than they are in the world of video games. Again, this isn't about the RPG genre as a whole, just when applied to the video game world. LARP and the likes of theatre sports have no application to CRPGs.

Terror_K, you evidence as how RPG is defined, is how you see about every single video and computer game magazine and official website that's existed for the past 30+ years. Why to hell you think we are aguing here? Because we don't see the same RPG evidence same way you see it. Also this isn't first time this same issue is talked. It has come up few times at least in some mmorpg forums.

It's like the argument 1+1=2. I don't argue that 1+1=2 is not that. I argue that you don't see anything else than 1+1=2, when there is also 1+2=3 and 0+1=1. You vision is very narrow. I do understand why you see that way, but it's just too narrow to define HOLE RPG genre.

One has to be narrow when defining something or one ends up either incorporating too much or not enough. The whole point of a definition is to define something at its simplest. Just because an RPG doesn't need some of the factors you enjoy, like and prefer in an RPG, doesn't meant it can't have them or that having them makes it cease to be an RPG. They just aren't elements that define it. When you define something everything that comes under the definition must adhere to it. If what you call RPGs adhered to your definition, then you'd essentially be saying the gaming industry as a whole is wrong and be declassifying a whole bunch of RPG titles while adding a whole bunch that "aren't" to the list. What you're essentially doing is the equivalent arguing with a dictionary on spelling and telling them that they're wrong when they and every other dictionary has been spelling the word how they've got it for decades or even centuries.

Actually I do have one question. When you talk statical stuff related defining RPG, what you really mean by that? I ask, because you know that sometimes I get the english meaning wrong.

Wait... we've been going back and forth all this time, and only now you're asking this?!!

*sigh*

Simply put, statistical stuff is things like skills, levels, XP, classes, etc. The mechanics of the gameplay that relate to character progression and definition from a statistical standpoint. The stuff that lets you shape and build your characters abilities and skills. The stuff that's completely mechanical and mathematical and doesn't relate to story, character, narrative, dialogue choices, etc.

[Lumikki]

Terror_K wrote...

Lumikki wrote...

Actually I do have one question. When you talk statical stuff related defining RPG, what you really mean by that? I ask, because you know that sometimes I get the english meaning wrong.

Wait... we've been going back and forth all this time, and only now you're asking this?!!

*sigh*

Simply put, statistical stuff is things like skills, levels, XP, classes, etc. The mechanics of the gameplay that relate to character progression and definition from a statistical standpoint. The stuff that lets you shape and build your characters abilities and skills. The stuff that's completely mechanical and mathematical and doesn't relate to story, character, narrative, dialogue choices, etc.

Okey, I don't disagree you here, but why do you count XP and levels in defination of CRPG. When you know there is CRPG's where those stuff doesn't even exist? Or do you just mean statical stuff as general term as what ever is included inside it as mechanical number design? Meaning more that there is some kind of statical design, but what ever it is still open?

Because it seem like when you talk statical, I talk ability have different kind of characters. It seems that we talk pretty much same thing, but use different terms and little different meaning. I don't connect "words" meanings to numbers, because there could be other possibilities for visual presentation, if any.

So, our difference is need of the visual presentation style, that cause choosing different words.

Modifié par Lumikki, 22 février 2011 - 03:46 .

[ZLurps]

Gatt9 wrote...
Labelling does work.  My post about this subject is buried a few pages back,  so I'll just paraphrase it here.

An RPG requires that you take on the Role of a character.  To do so,  you require the character to be defined.  To define the character,  you outline statistically what his qualities are.  This establishes the bounds of the character you are going to play.  Thus forming the basis of an RPG. 

Diablo,  and JRPGs,  meet this requirement.  You establish bounds on the charcter,  permitting him to do some things,  denying him others,  based upon your character's bounds. 

Dialogue,  and Choices,  OTOH do not do this.  Without established bounds,  without the statistics,  your character's Role is completely undefined.  Let's take Fallout as our example:  In Fallout a character of low intelligence could not have certain discussions,  because of his bounds,  he could not make certain choices.  If we remove those bounds,  the greatest idiot in the world can discuss Quantum Physics.  If we remove those bounds,  you can decide today to play a arrogant d**k,  tomorrow you can play him as a humble hero.  Because there's no consequence,  no bounds.

Further,  if we take it another step further,  we can examine the framework itself.  I can conceivably enter a PnP RPG where I hold no dialogue,  make no choices,  just move from one area to the next.  The entire framework of D&D holds true,  and nothing breaks or need be ignored.  Everything functions as intended.

But if I try to play D&D completely by dialogue and choices,  with no statistics,  no bounds,  I cannot play. 

Player:  I'm going to steal the diamond!
DM:  Ok,  lets see if you succeed.
Group: sits silently for 15 seconds.
Player:  I've decided I succeeded!
DM: Ok!

It doesn't work.  It's just group storytelling.  Not an RPG.  A case could be made that it's Roleplaying,  but we're in LARPs land now,  not RPG territory.  There's actually an enourmous difference between Roleplaying and a Roleplaying Game.  What a man and a woman might do with a police costume is Roleplaying,  but it's not an RPG.

Dialogue and choice are a method of narrating a story,  and allowing a Player to realize the bounds of his Character by not limiting him to the "Good guy" or "Bad guy" path.  They're not what constitutes an RPG though,  an RPG is completely possible without them (Diablo,  JRPGs) without ever forcing some key rules to be discarded.  Dialogue and choices most certainly make for a more rich RPG experience,  inargueably,  but they do not define it.

Many games have dialogue and choices,  Wing Commander 3,  countless Adventure games,  strategy titles to some extent or another (Galactic Civilizations comes to mind most immediately).  It's the method of storytelling.

So it is possible to establish a label,  and the label does derive completely from statistics.  You have to take on the Role of the character,  so the character must be defined,  and have bounds with consequences (Whether it's an inability to use things because of his qualities,  or a predisposition to a certain personality). 

Dialogue and choice without bounds doesn't make it an RPG.  To be perfectly honest,  it makes it an Adventure game.

The irony is,  for a decade people claimed that Adventure games were dead,  and RPGs weren't,  and here we are today,  with Adventure games(Action type) labelled as RPGs,  and the RPGs are the genre that's actually dead.

You say very well what I have tried to explain few times in topics like this. Very good points and very well put!


"There's actually an enourmous difference between Role playing and a Role playing Game.  What a man and a woman might do with a police costume is Role playing, but it's not an RPG."
Somebody, sig that!

Modifié par ZLurps, 22 février 2011 - 08:09 .

[Terror_K]

Lumikki wrote...

Okey, I don't disagree you here, but why do you count XP and levels in defination of CRPG. When you know there is CRPG's where those stuff doesn't even exist? Or do you just mean statical stuff as general term as what ever is included inside it as mechanical number design? Meaning more that there is some kind of statical design, but what ever it is still open?

I count XP and levels as an example of statistical mechanics and progression, because it's the most common one, but it's not the only way it can be done. Some RPGs merely use skills or abilities that improve and define their characters. XP and levels is a form of statistical mechanics and progression, and that's how I'm using it. I'm not saying "an RPG must have XP and levels to be definied as an RPG"; I'm saying "an RPG must have statistical mechanics and progression to be defined as an RPG and a common example of this is XP and levels."

Because it seem like when you talk statical, I talk ability have different kind of characters. It seems that we talk pretty much same thing, but use different terms and little different meaning. I don't connect "words" meanings to numbers, because there could be other possibilities for visual presentation, if any.

So, our difference is need of the visual presentation style, that cause choosing different words.

I'm not talking about visual presentation, because that's not a necessary factor in defining an RPG. ADOM for example has pretty muxh no real visual presentation and has you moving around an @ symbol around other ASCII, never really letting you define your personality to have dialogue choices, which from your posts I gather you feel is necessary in defining an RPG, when history and example has told us it's not. Character defining and building from a statistical aspect is what counts when defining an RPG, and without it a game ceases to be one.

As it stands with ME2, I'm somewhat divided because of how the XP is done. Because the earning of XP lacks context and is the same no matter how a mission is approached, I can't help but wonder if the progression is actually being faked by ME2 and what we really have is merely an action game in RPG clothing. The XP could be real, but as it stands it just seems like an arbritrary number BioWare made up that conveniently levels you up at the end of each mission rather than an actual calculation of earned experience based on the actions of your character. In this sense a non-RPG action game like Batman Arkham Asylum actually seems to almost be a stronger RPG candidate, because at least there because I earn XP as I go and I can see where it's coming from and why I can tell that it's real and accurate and based on my actions.

[Schurge]

All I care about is the story. I can take or leave any 'RPG' aspect (stats, etc.) from Mass Effect 1 as long as they end this trilogy right, tie off all the loose ends, bring back the ME1 crew or at least give them prominent visible roles - oh, and make Liara recruitable, and add the words 'I love you' to Shepard's vocabulary.

I've never been as invested in a video game's story as much as I am in Mass Effect's.

Modifié par Schurge, 23 février 2011 - 12:15 .

[Il Divo]

Evil Johnny 666 wrote...

Haven't played the original Deus Ex yet, so I can't really talk about it. And I did say cRPGs didn't necessarily need level ups and such thing, only that it needs progression, which most certainly need stats to be processed in some way or another. Plus, I never said tabletops all had character progression, in fact, I actually said that to reinforce the point that computers make it so much easier, which is probably one of the reasons it transited to computers in the first place, to put a new twist on the genre and explore different possibilities the original tabletop can't cover.

 
Games like Deus Ex and Jade Empire are great examples of RPGs which put stats (and progression) in the background. Deus Ex is lauded as one of the greatest RPGs ever made, yet most people tend to ignore its lack of focus on rolling dice or numbers in general.
 
It’s also not clear why progression requires stats from your post. Games like Bioshock, Zelda, and Ninja Gaiden all feature progression. Indeed, Bioshock is said to contain some ‘RPG elements’, yet neither feature numbers.
 
Don’t get me wrong, I love character progression in general. It’s why I especially enjoy playing casters where you constantly gain access to new abilities. I’m not even saying your suggestion isn’t important to the RPG. But is it really the only necessary aspect? Call of Cthulhu is a perfect example of a pen and paper game where there is very little progression.

I don't agree with that at all. In traditional RPGs, people who play other characters roleplay as much as you, NPCs certainly don't roleplay.

 
You’re missing the point; the role of the player is retained even if they are not there. In DnD, I play a single PC interacting with other PCs, controlled by other players. We are all ‘role-playing’. However, for purposes of the game universe, what exists is not myself and my friend role-playing, but our characters interacting with each other. That is the relevant feature here.
 
In cRPGs (Ex: Kotor), when I am speaking with Carth, the role that someone might fill is still there, even there is no one sitting across from me pretending to be Carth. What matters is our two characters interacting, which both remain. That was the function another player might fill in DnD: a party member and that is what has been retained in Bioware RPGs.

Except defining RPGs with progression doesn't make them unlike anything of the original genre. As soon as you have real character progression, some things are bound to follow or at least much easily than any other type of game. I never played any game with real character progression that doesn't feature quests or customization in a certain way. Yes, cRPGs should relate to traditional RPGs in a way, but the genre certainly can - and did - use the advantages of the medium to evolve in different tangents, that's only normal and expected, that doesn't make them less RPGs.

 
It depends on how we interpret ‘evolution’. Yes, I agree definitions change and evolve over time. Look at how the Western Style RPG has evolved in recent years. I for example feel that the focus of the CRPG has become less on rolling dice and more on actual ‘role-playing’ which is a good thing. It’s actually why I feel your example with Jrpgs is still problematic.
 

Well, you can always compare if you want, but that doesn't mean you'll come up with anything relevant. The fact that JRPGs are not as similar to DnD than Baldur's Gate is doesn't say much. There's always a bit of room for trying. If you want me to try to do something similar, compare Baldur's Gate to Jade Empire and JRPGs, notice how they all have character progression, quests, customization, a deep story that directly involves the character - I don't mean by interaction here - and heavy character development. But then compare those games to any of another genre, and you'll notice how they won't share so many similarities.

Well, for starters, Jade Empire is not a JRPG and does involve character interaction and dialogue. But I’d actually point out that there is quite a bit similar between Jade Empire and Baldur’s Gate if I were to make comparisons.
Can we call JRPGs ‘role-playing games’? I don’t really mind if people do so, particularly if numbers/statistics are what they enjoyed most about the game. But then I’d also point out that it deviates quite a bit from pen and paper style even more than games like the Mass Effect series. In pen and papers, I must have a character. That has always held true. And it’s something the JRPG has violated.


 

JRPGs focus on a deeper story involving your character instead. Since you can't choose between shallow pre-determined characters to barely change anything about the game - in ME games, it's pretty much only your character who is interactive, the story itself has only 2 or 3 key moments which you can actually do something about it, but otherwise it's solely defining your character between two very typical archetypes.

Bolded: Not so. The very nature of Mass Effect is interactive, whether you realize it or not. There is dialogue practically every step of the way, the ability to determine how an encounter plays out (within reason), romance options, etc. These are all things which fall under the ‘interactive story’. And they’re also things you find in DnD, as your characters are involved in how outcomes play out.
Try imagining Kotor, Jade Empire, etc without dialogue, morality, etc. Would the story have meant as much? You say that JRPGs provide a deeper story because of ‘your character’. I’m inclined to disagree because I have no impact in who that character is, ergo I am watching entirely as an outsider the whole way through. Bioware RPGs typically increase the value of the story because you are personally invested in how things turn out. Hence my previous example that we can both have multiple types of Shepard. There is only one Sora, Yuna, Tidus, etc, for every playthrough of every JRPG.
The problem is also that you assume that because Mass Effect breaks the system into paragon and renegade, a player must restrict himself to ‘all paragon’ or ‘all renegade’. You are free to do this, but then you have restricted yourself to the archetype, not the game. It’s actually why games like Mass Effect and Dragon Age are an improvement on previous titles such as Kotor which really did seem to restrict you to archetypes.

 Instead, JRPGs focus on a much richer story that involves the protagonist, since you don't need to particularly define him (you can still do in combat and some JRPGs do have choices regarding your character, they're just more underground) the developpers can make him as interesting as possible. The only thing about Shepard (at least in ME1, since he's not interesting at all to me in ME2 because of given reasons) that makes him interesting is that I have control over who he is, and not who he is in itself. WRPGs focus on giving you choice to define your character, and JRPGs focus on making an as interesting as possible character for you to feel engaged in the story - in a different way since the same goal isn't achieved in the same way.

 
But how precisely are they richer? Bioware stories typically feel more personal and involved (imho) because they encourage the idea that you=your character, therefore all interactions feel more personal. JRPGs, in my experience, do not do this. I am not saying that they cannot be deep. I have played deep JRPGs before. But they do not have any more special advantages in story-telling than an FPS, a platformer, or any other genre. What these all have in common is that they treat the protagonist as being a separate individual, all the way through. In this sense, a WRPG possesses a huge advantage.   

Huh? I could be using invincibility cheats in Halo and run through every level that way. In fact, you can still do that without cheats. Does that make the game less a shooter because I don't need to shoot? No. It's not because I'm playing a game not as it was intended, and that it happens to not be in accordance to what type of game it should be that it's not of that type of game anymore. Seriously, this particular argument is particularly silly.

Haha, well I admit I didn’t see this coming. I actually feel caught off-guard. Regardless, well played. I concede this particular point to you. If you don’t mind, I’m actually going to borrow something like this as an example.

[Il Divo]

 

Gatt wrote...
Call of Cthulhu is a wonderfull example,  it's completely dependent upon your Sanity stat.  Which you trade for character progression IIRC.

You missed my point. Call of Cthulhu is a game world where character progression (as Evil sees it) is practically a non-existent aspect of the universe. It even violates what you have offered in your definition. Yes, character skills can ‘increase’ in Call of Cthulhu, but it is practically impossible to play the game without role-playing. Combat is minimal (practically non-existent) precisely because your PCs can die so easily and so other aspects of the game world are promoted, such as creating an immersive experience. Try playing Call of Cthulhu in the way you suggest playing AD&D and I guarantee your players will not have a fun time.
 
That’s why your ‘wonderful example’ doesn’t amount to much. The game places numbers in the background, preferring to create a specific type of experience.   
 

This is kind of misleading.  An NPC in D&D is a Character the DM controls,  the PC's are the characters the DM does not control.  They're all played by an actual person.  D&D also permits one person to play more than one PC at one time,  assuming the person keeps each PC seperate.  In fact,  it's quite common in smaller groups, so that the DM doesn't have to take on the additional load of tracking another in-depth task.

 
Different groups try different tactics, this is true. Some DMs (for example) simple try to account for what their group may be lacking, but even the multiple PC route is discouraged because it becomes much more difficult to keep track of who is who. The game experience also tends to feel ‘less immersive’ when you have one player simultaneously as the Neutral Evil Wizard and Lawful Good Paladin.  
 
But that also wasn’t my point. All those roles you just listed are still retained in RPGs, like Kotor and Mass Effect. In DnD, I am interacting with other players, but the in-game interaction is the relevant aspect for purposes of video games. From the point of view of my PC, every other character is essentially a non-player character. See my example with Evil. When speaking with Carth, he is not being played by another person, but the dynamic of our conversation is still retained. He is one person, I am another, and we are having a conversation.

The JRPG is actually more of an RPG than ME2.  The JRPG retains character based skill,  character progression,  and places you in a Role.  One of the most defining RPG module series was the original Dragonlance modules.  They placed you in predefined roles with predefined outcomes.  The entire design was to tell you a story of your party becoming heroes.  You could wing it,  and have the DM improvise some other resolution, but the modules did not offer that outcome.

 
Sure, if all you want from an RPG is 'numbers'. Yet, I'm inclined to say that most pen and paper fans are not sitting in their basements imagining combat encounters over and over. Even the most shallow of fps titles will attempt to provide a pretext for why precisely you are killing things.

And playing a pre-made character also does not negate the fact that you are role-playing. I can role-play Elminster in his life, if I so choose.
 
The difference between that and a JRPG is that I still am involved in how these events come about. I am Elminster interacting with a guard, I am Elminster deciding the fate of the bandit leader, talking as Elminster, etc. If I recall, Dragonlance also provided so that you could choose to diverge from the preset story. Regardless, I could easily offer you counter pre-made adventures which all incorporate actual role-playing into them.

This is no different from FF7,  placing you in a predefined role with a predefined outcome.  Sure,  you've no freedom.  But that doesn't invalidate it,  unless you're willing to take the stance that one of the RPG genres defining works wasn't an RPG.

 
Deus Ex and Jade Empire are perfectly adequate counters. Neither introduces more complicated stats than you will find in ME2, yet both are considered RPGs.

Are JRPG's freedomless one-dimensional experinces?  Yes,  certainly.  But they're still RPGs as they meet Character based skills,  character progression,  and give you a Role you are filling.

 
You are not ‘filling the role’ as it is treated independent on you. Ironically, this was how you said a ‘role-playing game’ was ‘not’ defined earlier. Every video game involves you filling a role. If you have no opportunity in expressing that role, then you are not role-playing. That was my point earlier in saying that Halo is not an RPG, because Master Chief exists 100% independent of me. So does Sora. So does Tidus. Shepard does not. Even pre-defined Elminster does not, as I had the opportunity to play out that role and offer some input.  

As above,  it's not requisite.  Diablo has no dialogue or morality,  but it is an RPG,  monty haul,  but still an RPG.  Neither dialogue nor morality are necessary for an RPG.  The system exists without either.  None of the framework of an RPG is dependent on dialogue or morality.  You can excise them completely,  and still have all of the rules that constitute an RPG,  you can have an entire AD&D session without the players saying a word.  OTOH,  you cannot have one that consists only of dialogue without the rules that constitute AD&D.  At that point,  you're LARPing and not RPGing.

Sure, you technically can. But to use an example inspired by Evil, it’s the equivalent of jumping in Halo and claiming that I am now playing a platformer. Or deciding that Gordon Freeman is a masochist because I happen to let myself be hit in combat.
You certainly have that option, now does that option in any way reflect how the developers intended DnD, especially considering that they implemented certain aspects, such as a morality system, in the first place? If not, I’d say what you’ve offered is a hollow distinction at best. Call of Cthulhu (again) is an example of an RPG where there is no combat, and less emphasis on dice rolls.

I'm explaining this badly,  please bear with me.  What I mean is,  you can play an entire game of AD&D from the start of a module to the end without the players engaging in dialogue so long as the DM's part consists of "You must go do this" ala Diablo,  and everything in AD&D still functions.

But you cannot have the entire game consist of Players never doing anything else than talking and still be playing AD&D...

PC:  I'm going to steal the diamond
DM: Ok,  lets see if you succeed
Everyone sits silently for 15 seconds
PC: I've decided I succeeded.
DM: Ok,  good.

But you just demonstrated exactly why it can succeed. You can have what you just listed. The focus of the game simply shifts. Events still happen, but their focus is reduced. Instead of playing out a fight with orcs, a DM might say “Ok, you traveled through the woods and happened to fight a group of orcs. You reached the town and the guard greets you…Enter roleplaying”.
Story-telling, character interactions, etc are the focus in these types of settings. Are there stats? Sure, but they are given an extremely limited role, and other RPGs (Deus Ex, Jade Empire, etc) demonstrate how a game can get by with very little actual statistics to deal with.

Without the rules framework based on character based skill,  the system degenerates into LARPs at very best.  It ceases to be playing an RPG and becomes some form of group-based storytelling.

 
Which is what the action of role-playing is about. Let me demonstrate for you one reason why your definition is rather unconventional in saying that it is the “Absolute, 100%, only possible definition of RPG”.

Imagine an action film without any action.
Imagine a romance novel without any romance.
Now imagine classical music that is not really classical.
Finally, imagine a role-playing game without any role-playing.


That is the equivalent of what you are (in essence) saying. You say that all that matters to an RPG is numbers. If so, then there never would have been rules set in place for actual role-playing. What were these developers thinking when they crafted alignments, paladin limitations, etc? What was Bioware doing when they implemented dialogue, morality, and romances in games like BGII? How do you think role-playing games across the world are played? Are they really played with ‘just statistics’ as you describe?

Clearly, these elements have a basis in pen and paper role-playing games, otherwise they would not have been implemented in the first place. Did Bioware simply say “Hey, we feel like dialogue would be fun in our statistically based tactics game?”.  Or was there some prior basis for role-playing in these ‘role-playing games’? I’m inclined to say the latter. I’m also inclined to say that games like Deus Ex, and more recent RPGs demonstrated why as they’ve involved increasingly less focus on stats and increasingly more focus on interactive story.  

But honestly,  none of this changes the fact that ME2 failed to be an RPG.  In fact,  it just further shows it isn't.  It has no character progression,  it's story is just as one-sided as a JRPG (I can't tell Cerebus I won't work for them),  the morality options are a function of my ability to press a button really fast without warning,  it is much closer to playing Gears of War and Uncharted combined than it is either Mass Effect or any other RPG. 

It’s interesting that you think Mass Effect 2 failed as an RPG when games like ME exists.
I for example wouldn’t equate ‘working for Cerberus’ to saying I have no impact in how things play out. Mass Effect forces me to work for the Council, you know. However, even in DnD, your DM does not offer absolute freedom. Rather, there is a broad adventure, in which you are given opportunities to express what your character is like, which both Mass Effect 1 and 2 demonstrated. I do not understand the necessity of statistics, when games like Deus Ex barely incorporated them, yet it’s regarded as one of the greatest cRPGs of our day.

Modifié par Il Divo, 23 février 2011 - 02:48 .

[Il Divo]

Terror_K wrote...
But I'm not using "my definition" I'm using the industry standard definition. It doesn't only apply to me, because it's the rule that applies to the entire industry and is universally recognised as such. I'm not saying what I prefer in RPGs and what I personally think is the best and most important aspects in this case when defining an RPG and RPG elements; I'm referring to exactly what the professional gaming industry as a whole refers to as an RPG and RPG elements, and has been for almost 30 years.

That is the difference here. Every single magazine and website and anything else related to the gaming industry, when they label the game as being an "RPG" the game has a statistical character progression system. Every time. Stats, skills, XP, levels, etc. and stuff like that is how the industry always defines an RPG. Not playing a character, not whether the player has varied choices and not whether the game has a good story. That's not an opinion, that's a cold, hard fact. I may look for different things than you in an RPG, and enjoy different factors more than others, but that's the way it simply is. I merely choose to adopt the industry standard definition when referring to RPGs, while you decide to adopt your own version, even if it contradicts them.

Taken from p. 8 of the 3.5 Dungeon Master’s Guide:

“Styles of Play
Deep-Immersion Story-telling

The Free City of Greyhawk is threatened by political turmoil. The PCs must convince the members of the ruling council to resolve their differences, but can only do so after they have come to terms with their own differing outlooks and agendas. This style of gaming is deep, complex, and challenging. The focus isn’t on combat but on talking, developing in-depth persons, and character interaction. A whole game may pass without a single die roll.

In this style of game, the NPCs should be as complex and richly detailed as the PCs-although the focus should be on motivation and personality, not game statistics. Expect long digressions from each player about what his or her character will do, and why. Going to a store to buy iron rations and rope can be as important an encounter as fighting orcs. (And don’t expect the PCs to fight the orcs at all unless their characters are motivated to do so.)

A character will sometimes take actions against his player’s better judgment, because “that’s what the character would do.” Adventures in this style of play deal mostly with negotiations, political maneuverings, and character interaction. Players talk about the “story” that they are collectively creating.

Rules become less important in this style. Since combat isn’t the focus, game mechanics take a back seat to character development. Skill modifiers take precedence over combat bonuses, and even then the actual numbers often don’t mean much. Feel free to change the rules to fight the player’s roleplaying needs. You may even want to streamline the combat system so that it takes less time away from the story. “

I underlined the really important points, but I think the ‘industry’ has validated my definition of RPG.

Modifié par Il Divo, 23 février 2011 - 02:48 .

[Lumikki]

Terror_K wrote...

I'm not talking about visual presentation, because that's not a necessary factor in defining an RPG.

Sorry, I wasn't talking games visual presentation, I was talking stats visual presentation, do you see the numbers or not.

Good example, you seem to criticize ME2 because you can't count XP separately. WTF?

That is the example, you don't just say RPG must have statical numbers, you also seem to say you want to see them. That's the difference, I don't say player has to see them, also I don't say they can't seem them. I use word what say same thing without defining how something is done, as long it's done some way.  Word statical is connected to numbers.

Also while many CRPG have character progression, it's not requirement for CRPG. You can have CRPG even without them. Like you self sayed, define the RPG as it's simplest form. Don't try to define how you personally want CRPG to be or understand it. Do, you think I'm here to say CRPG's should not have progression? That's not what I say, I say CRPG doesn't need one to be CRPG.

Think about what RPG really means. It's role-playing game. It's all about player role-playing. So, basicly we could just say RPG genre is about role-playing. How ever, we don't say that, because CRPG as genre would not be seperated by ability role-play from some other genres. So, we need more than role-playing and that's the ability play different kind of characters. There isn't anything more needed. Because say any other game genre what allows player to role-play and have ability play different kind of characters.

Why you think this forum RPG people are so split in opinions what RPG is?
(Look two post above me)

Modifié par Lumikki, 23 février 2011 - 03:29 .

[Sidney]

Lumikki wrote...

That is the example, you don't just say RPG must have statical numbers, you also seem to say you want to see them. That's the difference, I don't say player has to see them, also I don't say they can't seem them. I use word what say same thing without defining how something is done, as long it's done some way.  Word statical is connected to numbers.

Also while many CRPG have character progression, it's not requirement for CRPG. You can have CRPG even without them. Like you self sayed, define the RPG as it's simplest form. Don't try to define how you personally want CRPG to be or understand it. Do, you think I'm here to say CRPG's should not have progression? That's not what I say, I say CRPG doesn't need one to be CRPG.

Agree on both points.

RPG's have XP but why must you have XP per kill? ME2 has a quest based XP system, DAO has a combo system. So what? Both give you XP and level you up. I happen to like the ME2 method because I hate trying to hunt down every last spare cannon fodder guy trying to milk XP out of a level. TIM doesn't care if you kill 5 or 500 collectors he wants the flipping O4R codes so why reward you for each individual kill - and don't tell me you are "learning" from each kill since slaughtering 50 darkspawn with your sword in DAO will let you level up your longbow  or lockpick skills.

I also think you could do a role playing game that has no leveling up. You roll a character, set the skills and abilities and then the gamne takes place (in game time) over a weekend where leveling up makes no sense (not that leveling generally makes much sense). You could still have your avatar be your proxy in the game, make important decisions and all the things that make RPG's really cool.

I think the limits people toss on the genre are really hard to fathom. I love BG2, not everything but on the whole, it is brilliant. I love FO, not the new ones the old ones. That is great but why does every RPG have to play out the same way and use the same mechanisms. Preserve the core of the experience and everything else is just window dressing.

[Terror_K]

@Il Divo



Aside from the fact that AD&D 3.5 and beyond is made of fail, you're using a P&P guide to define how cRPGs are determined. As has been stated before, these are two different kettles of fish. What applies to P&P RPGs and what applies to cRPGs and what defines them are different.

[Il Divo]

Terror_K wrote...

@Il Divo

Aside from the fact that AD&D 3.5 and beyond is made of fail, you're using a P&P guide to define how cRPGs are determined. As has been stated before, these are two different kettles of fish. What applies to P&P RPGs and what applies to cRPGs and what defines them are different.

Amazing the tactics you resort to when confronted with source material. I'd say that ADnD 2.0 incorporated as much, if not more, 'fail' than anything found in 3.5. But let me guess, you do not agree with the source, therefore it is illegitimate? Is Mass Effect 2 'not' an RPG by that same token?

But hell, by that same logic I'm guessing you'd refused to even touch 3.0 Neverwinter Nights or Kotor, am I right?

Pen and papers inspired CRPGs. If a CRPG has only passing relations to its roots, how is it an RPG? Consider that. Also consider then that what you might consider the definition of "CRPG" has changed in recent years, as games have made increasing use of actual role-playing (hence the name) and less on dice rolls. By your definition, I could include any RTS style as an RPG, yet those are typically classified as separate, yet both often make heavy use of statistics.

Modifié par Il Divo, 23 février 2011 - 03:57 .

[AlanC9]

Il Divo wrote...
Amazing the tactics you resort to when confronted with source material. I'd say that ADnD 2.0 incorporated as much, if not more, 'fail' than anything found in 3.5. But let me guess, you do not agree with the source, therefore it is illegitimate? Is Mass Effect 2 'not' an RPG by that same token?

Umm... Terror_K's been consistent about calling ME2 an RPG.

Edit: I agree that asserting D&D 3.5 is "made of fail" is silly without a supporting argument, but that was a throwaway, and not worth talking about.

Modifié par AlanC9, 23 février 2011 - 06:18 .