230 réponses à ce sujet

[Thompson family]

You know, Evil Johnny. You win. Congratulations.



And goodbye

[Whatever42]

Gleym wrote...

Whatever666343431431654324 wrote...

I think Gleym had his feelings hurt.

Not really. Just really find it hilarious how people like you get so butthurt over the game being called 'dumbed down' because it implies you're stupid, so you resort to namecalling yourself. It's just a funny case of hypocrisy from people who can't handle the idea that their favourite game doesn't hold water.

Like me? pfft... I've played every old school RPG into the ground. I know the ME games are not robust in traditional tactical RPG mechanics. I only argue against people who think ME1 wasn't already dumbed down. I just thought it was amusing that you were so upset about people insulting people who insulted people that you had to let loose a torrent of insults. Obviously you were deep upset by the whole experience.

99% of the "debates" on these forums are people arguing definitions which have no standard defintiion so no one can ever win. It's pretty nuts really.

[SalsaDMA]

Gatt9 wrote...
As far as it being whatever it's going to be goes,  you're probably right.  Which is very sad,  because at this point I fully expect the one-two punch of DAO2 and ME3 to kill Bioware.  I fully expect DAO2 to sell fewer units this time around,  and I fully expect ME3 to flop horribly. 

I can't back this up,  but I believe ME2 sold worse than ME.  The only hard number I can find is 1.6 million units for ME in 6 weeks,  and I'm finding a hard number of 1.6 million for ME2 total.  Given the fact that I and probably many more bought the game expecting a sequel to ME and not Gears of War,  I fully expect ME3 to have light initial sales as people wait for more information this time.  I also fully expect it to not do well.  Mainly because ME2 couldn't even outsell Fable 2.

So yeah,  I agree that it likely is what it'll be.  But personally,  I think we're witnessing the death of one of the RPG genres previously best studios.  Which is exactly why I'm here bothering to post.

One thing you forgot. The continued profilation of DLCs in their games are making mroe and more people wary of buying the product at release, and instead wait till they can receive 'the full package' at a later date. I know I personally did this for DA:O, waiting for the ultimate edition, and with the excessiveness that the publishers are trying to rack in on DLCs, I'm becomming more and more wary of purchasing 'new' products, because I know the final price if Idid so would be up to twice the price.

Incidently this means that DLCs and the way they are marketed by the publishers are in fact hurting the sales they rely on for number balancing. So in some ways they are steadily shooting themselves repeatedly in the foot with stuff like day1 DLC, DLC included in the original software but needing a code to unlock, and so on. When the publishers try and play a game of 'hide the cost of the real product', consumers eventually just go: "Oh frag you, I'll just wait till it gets on sale with the full product instead of this nuisance of getting my game bit by bit at several times the normal price"

[NirvanaRain]

RPG stands for Role Playing Game as you all know, this does not mean that we have to have swords. It means that we play a role (Shepard) and that we have an open world environment which is true in both DAO and ME, imo ME world is much better and more varied



I am a massive fan of both games and I admit that DAO has some of the more raditional RPG elements like swords bringing it back to the DAD times but ME is a futuristic RPG and as such will obviously have things like ships and guns that DAO does not.



They are both brilliant games each with their own different types of gameplay but they are both RPGs and as such should be compared on an RPG level and not be compared or influenced by FPS. This is just my own opinion, I'm not saying anyone else is wrong.

[Goofy McCoy]

Somebody get the lube, butt hurt levels hit the roof while I was away!



The broad, empty insults being applied to vaguely defined groups of people really betrays a strong trend towards juvenile behavior, rather than genuine discourse.



To address a large number of topics in the simplest way possible, the sentiment that "ME1 had "x" problems too, why should ME2 (and extrapolating from there, number 3) be held to higher expectations?", confuses me, as it comes across as complacency where there is an acknowledged amount of room for improvement.



Further, the sentiment that "these arguements have been made before" implies a resignation that the topic is no longer up for valid discussion, and that remaining hotly debated will not change whatever foregone conclusion about said topic we assume has/will be made.



That is all, return to your flame wars.

[Elite Midget]

Simple.



ME3 isn't out yet thus we only have ME2 to compare with ME1. The main differences in the game are gameplay, meaningful Squaddies(ME1 had better Squaddies while only Miranda and Mordin seemed important to the plot. Hell, only Garrus and/or Wrex seemed like fillier compared to the whole ME2 cast outside the two I mentioned), and changing the rules when it comes to the RPG genre. ME2 had less RPG choice in favor of a more streamlined feel, get me?

[Gleym]

Elite Midget wrote...

Simple.

ME3 isn't out yet thus we only have ME2 to compare with ME1. The main differences in the game are gameplay, meaningful Squaddies(ME1 had better Squaddies while only Miranda and Mordin seemed important to the plot. Hell, only Garrus and/or Wrex seemed like fillier compared to the whole ME2 cast outside the two I mentioned), and changing the rules when it comes to the RPG genre. ME2 had less RPG choice in favor of a more streamlined feel, get me?

Miranda isn't relevant to the plot at all. Maybe if Shepard dying and coming back from the dead was relevant to plot, certainly, but seeing as that was just shrugged aside and never addressed again, Shepard's death and resurrection, and consequentially Miranda's involvement in it, is entirely irrelevant to the plot.

[miracleofsound]

I'm hoping ME3 has a mix between 1 and 2. No clunky inventory system but far more choice of weapons, skills and armour.

[N53 Nick]

this thread = flamebait

[Capeo]

NirvanaRain wrote...

RPG stands for Role Playing Game as you all know, this does not mean that we have to have swords. It means that we play a role (Shepard) and that we have an open world environment which is true in both DAO and ME, imo ME world is much better and more varied

I am a massive fan of both games and I admit that DAO has some of the more raditional RPG elements like swords bringing it back to the DAD times but ME is a futuristic RPG and as such will obviously have things like ships and guns that DAO does not.

They are both brilliant games each with their own different types of gameplay but they are both RPGs and as such should be compared on an RPG level and not be compared or influenced by FPS. This is just my own opinion, I'm not saying anyone else is wrong.

If an RPG is defined by just playing a role then every video game is an RPG because you are taking the role of the main character.  That's not what makes an RPG.  Video games RPGs are born of old table top RPGs and the more they share in common with them the closer to an RPG they are.  Main points being freedom, progression and being able to craft any character you want.  I don't see ME2 being anywhere near a true RPG.  I don't mind that though, it is what it is.  DA certainly is though and it's not because it's sword and sorcery.  There's plenty of brilliant sci-fi RPGs going back to the beginning of the genre.  It's because of the level of customization in your progression.  Something that leads to much more tactical combat due to sheer number of abilities and items you can choose to use.  The world is much larger than ME2 and you can return to almost everywhere you've been. 

ME2 is not open world at all.  I'm not sure how you could even posit that.  There's no exploration (scanning planets is not exploration) and the only places you can return to is hub areas which are just big rooms that never change.  Your armor customizations are useless even on the hardest difficulty and you don't customize your weapons you just upgrade them like any other shooter.  Hell, MGS4 had a far, far more indepth weapon customization mechanic.  There's only three types of resistances to overcome and two types of enemies: ranged and the ones that run towards you.  None have special attacks or things you have to figure out on the fly.  The Shadow Broker was great though.  I'd love to see more layered fights like that.  Also, the control over your squadmates is extremely limited in comparison to DA:O, to the point where the only decision on your party make up is whoever has a resistance stripping power you don't.  

All that said, I love ME2.  I've played through 4 times now since it came out on the PS3 (though I'm spent on it now).  I just don't consider it and RPG.  It's a cover based shooter with greatly drawn characters and a good conversation mechanic.  I'm eagerly awaiting ME3.  And DA2 for that matter.  

[Evil Johnny 666]

Thompson family wrote...

You know, Evil Johnny. You win. Congratulations.

And goodbye

[/sarcasm]

I know you think I'm pretentious or whatnot, but I can't argue with someone who doesn't go by the same rigor as me. I can't pretend that some non-legits arguments are, and attack them, when then I'll just be shooting myself on the foot by attacking something I shouldn't. I'm not going to follow you into talking about anything and everything, miles away from our original discussion, and I'm not going to remind you every step in the way what we're talking about either.

Hurt feelings? Maybe not writing anything - or at lest, not in the way you did - wouldn't make you look like someone who doesn't value modesty. It's not like I couldn't back up my claims about that.

Maybe I just expected too much from a video game forum.

Modifié par Evil Johnny 666, 20 février 2011 - 06:27 .

[tonnactus]

AlanC9 wrote...


So skills that work with only one weapon are good, and skills that workwith all weapons are not?

When they are different,then yes.Better then retarded ammo powers and andrenaline rush anyway.

[Evil Johnny 666]

Whatever666343431431654324 wrote...

Like me? pfft... I've played every old school RPG into the ground. I know the ME games are not robust in traditional tactical RPG mechanics. I only argue against people who think ME1 wasn't already dumbed down. I just thought it was amusing that you were so upset about people insulting people who insulted people that you had to let loose a torrent of insults. Obviously you were deep upset by the whole experience.

99% of the "debates" on these forums are people arguing definitions which have no standard defintiion so no one can ever win. It's pretty nuts really.

Except, no one ever talks about if ME1 wasn't "dumbed down" in the first place. Which is irrelevant, as we're talking about ME2 being dumbed down COMPARED to ME1, which is another ME game. We're not going anywhere by proving ME1 was dumbed down compared to KOTOR or whatnot (which is true) when it's not even the subject. It was, but before ME2 was released. Since then, we don't care if ME1 was dumbed down anymore, we only care that ME2 doesn't dumb down things even more instead of at least keeping them up at the same level - which implies that stronger RPG elements would be better.

[Gleym]

Expectations are bad, m'kay? You shouldn't expect people to be consistently good about releasing a product, because that's just wrong, m'kay, of you, m'kay? Same goes for standards, m'kay? You should always have the lowest standards when asking for something, mhm'kay? Because standards are like expectations. That's to say they're bad. M'kay? Instead of being bad, m'kay, you should be good. And bein' good means accepting everything you're given, m'kay? If you went to a restaurant, and you were used to getting a gourmet meal, m'kay, you shouldn't complain if they give you a plate with feces on it, m'kay? Because that would be bad. Of you, m'kay? You shouldn't expect them to give you good food, just because you're used to it, and you paid for it, m'kay? 'Cause that'd be bad. And expectations are bad, m'kay?

[Walker White]

I am so tired of being told what RPGs are by people who have obviously only played a very narrow category of RPGs (both computer and pen-and-paper).

[Gleym]

Walker White wrote...

I am so tired of being told what RPGs are by people who have obviously only played a very narrow category of RPGs (both computer and pen-and-paper).

Please tell me you're not suggesting that the 'narrow category' you're referring to is.. every RPG ever made in the history of RPGs, is it?

Modifié par Gleym, 20 février 2011 - 06:58 .

[RedShft]

Gatt9 wrote...

That one isn't opinion,  it's fact.  They stripped pretty much every RPG component out of ME2 and replaced it with Gears of War. 

Hahaha, that is the stupidest idea I have heard today. Congratulations! 

[Gatt9]

RedShft wrote...

Gatt9 wrote...

That one isn't opinion,  it's fact.  They stripped pretty much every RPG component out of ME2 and replaced it with Gears of War. 

Hahaha, that is the stupidest idea I have heard today. Congratulations! 

You're right,  Gears of War had well designed environments,  with well thought out levels that clearly display the developers put time and thought into locations of enemies and potential cover spots,  as well as making sure their storylines made sense.  They even spent time making sure their AI did it's best to react to player's tactics in a manner consistent with what you'd expect a person to do.

ME2 just threw a bunch of random crates and low walls in random places,  along their endless corridors that served no real purpose.  Their storyline was dodgy at best,  non-sensical at times.  Their AI was absolutely horrible,  consistently letting the player just shoot them in the head while they walked their linear A to B path without any reaction whatsoever.

I really didn't do Gears of War any favors with the comparison.  i probably should've used something like Area 51 as an example.

Modifié par Gatt9, 20 février 2011 - 08:29 .

[Evil Johnny 666]

Walker White wrote...

I am so tired of being told what RPGs are by people who have obviously only played a very narrow category of RPGs (both computer and pen-and-paper).

Name me one RPG with no character progression (obviously video games). Hardly "very narrow category". And in case you didn't know, you can't straight out compare table tops and cRPGs, as they are not on the same medium. It's like you can't straight out compare table tops and LARPs for obvious reasons. It's what the medium allows that defines the genre. Character progression has been the most important element in cRPGs ever since they were created, it's something that the medium could do better than table tops and LARPs ever hoped. That's also the ONE thing that binds every cRPG the most together. What defines movies, books, video games are what the media not only allows, but does best.

Modifié par Evil Johnny 666, 20 février 2011 - 08:55 .

[AlanC9]

Gleym wrote...

Walker White wrote...

I am so tired of being told what RPGs are by people who have obviously only played a very narrow category of RPGs (both computer and pen-and-paper).

Please tell me you're not suggesting that the 'narrow category' you're referring to is.. every RPG ever made in the history of RPGs, is it?

Considering that's the opposite of what he actually wrote, my bet is that he isn't suggesting any such thing.

[AlanC9]

Evil Johnny 666 wrote...

Name me one RPG with no character progression (obviously video games). Hardly "very narrow category". And in case you didn't know, you can't straight out compare table tops and cRPGs, as they are not on the same medium. It's like you can't straight out compare table tops and LARPs for obvious reasons. It's what the medium allows that defines the genre. Character progression has been the most important element in cRPGs ever since they were created, it's something that the medium could do better than table tops and LARPs ever hoped. That's also the ONE thing that binds every cRPG the most together. What defines movies, books, video games are what the media not only allows, but does best.

All CRPGs ever made have had progression, therefore this defines the category today? A pure descriptive definition, eh? Sure, at least until someone releases a game without progression and has it accepted as an RPG. Such a game could work, judging from the fair number of ME and DA fans who are indifferent or even hostile to progression. But we've talked about that before.

I don't know if you really want to use "does best" there, though. "Does best" could just as easily apply to the cinematic experience that post-KotOR Bioware RPGs have been delivering. It's certainly something that I can't get in PnP, whereas I can get as much progression as I care for in a PnP game.

Anyway, let's say we accept that definition. Does it actually do anything usefu?

[Evil Johnny 666]

AlanC9 wrote...

Evil Johnny 666 wrote...

Name me one RPG with no character progression (obviously video games). Hardly "very narrow category". And in case you didn't know, you can't straight out compare table tops and cRPGs, as they are not on the same medium. It's like you can't straight out compare table tops and LARPs for obvious reasons. It's what the medium allows that defines the genre. Character progression has been the most important element in cRPGs ever since they were created, it's something that the medium could do better than table tops and LARPs ever hoped. That's also the ONE thing that binds every cRPG the most together. What defines movies, books, video games are what the media not only allows, but does best.

All CRPGs ever made have had progression, therefore this defines the category today? A pure descriptive definition, eh? Sure, at least until someone releases a game without progression and has it accepted as an RPG. Such a game could work, judging from the fair number of ME and DA fans who are indifferent or even hostile to progression. But we've talked about that before.

I don't know if you really want to use "does best" there, though. "Does best" could just as easily apply to the cinematic experience that post-KotOR Bioware RPGs have been delivering. It's certainly something that I can't get in PnP, whereas I can get as much progression as I care for in a PnP game.

Anyway, let's say we accept that definition. Does it actually do anything usefu?

Well, people here have been arguing the definition of RPGs, the usefulness of a definition is being a definition. I don't know what you're trying to ask. And except that cinematic experiences can be done in ANY type of game. Something being cinematic is something qualitative, which offering progression is not. And except, I never saw a shooter removing shooting, or a driving game removing driving and still claim to be a shooter or driving game. If progression didn't exist in cRPGs, probably the biggest advantage of the medium to RPGs would be taken out. Bringing RPGs to the PC most probably had something to do with the ability of making a character who can progress - as well as playing alone, but that's something pretty much any game type can offer - as well as being able to make a more defined (can't really find the right word) story - but that's also something other game types can offer. Real character progression is only offered in RPGs - yes, I know some other games offer progression, but either have nothing to do with the character abilities or it's extremely basic, making things more complex would unsurprisingly enough turn the game into a cRPG - and it's the one thing that every cRPGs share the most.

[ianmcdonald]

I didn't read the whole thread but I read the article, so I'm just going to chime in and say this:



This is the reason I don't like game "journalism." Most articles come with so much condescension that they're hard to even get through.

[Gleym]

ianmcdonald wrote...

I didn't read the whole thread but I read the article, so I'm just going to chime in and say this:

This is the reason I don't like game "journalism." Most articles come with so much condescension that they're hard to even get through.

I'd be inclined to take your remark seriously if it weren't for the fact that you'd probably be applauding the article had it been reversed, lauding the Mass Effect series for its decisions and being condescending towards fans of RPGs who were unhappy with ME2.

[Mr. Sniper Rifle]

Gleym wrote...

ianmcdonald wrote...

I didn't read the whole thread but I read the article, so I'm just going to chime in and say this:

This is the reason I don't like game "journalism." Most articles come with so much condescension that they're hard to even get through.

I'd be inclined to take your remark seriously if it weren't for the fact that you'd probably be applauding the article had it been reversed, lauding the Mass Effect series for its decisions and being condescending towards fans of RPGs who were unhappy with ME2.

That's an unfair take on his comment. This is ,after all, a discussion of points of view; your proposed scenario doesn't actually adress his comment.

As for me, I like the Mass Effect series so far; I think they are some of the better games out right now, both gameplay and storywise. I enjoy Dragon Age Origins for its story, but find its gameplay to be fraught with unnceessary frustration.