150 réponses à ce sujet

[Captain Crash]

As said totally opinion. This is already turning into another what makes an RPG thread.

My perspective is that ME was the better rpg experience. I loved the epic adventure thing as Cheez just stated. It resonated with me but not with him (or someone else). Thats fine and I understand why. Everyone has their own preference, thus why I dislike these types of threads trying to justify an opinion.

Modifié par Captain Crash, 13 mars 2011 - 07:08 .

[Phaedon]

Hunter-Wolf wrote...

[Thank you sir .. QFT .. if more gamers realize this the world will be a better place ... it boggels my mind that people still keep old conventions created only due to inability to factor player skill and consider it part of what makes an RPG an RPG .. forgetting that an RPG is all about roleplaying, characters and immersive worlds/lore ... sooner or later all old/outdated RPG conventions are going to get replaced by mechanics that represent the actual real skill of the player (augmented by some stats in case player skill can't really express that specific quality/ability) ... that's the future of RPGs .. and hardcore old-school RPG fans either have to accpet it or stick to old RPGs and table top games.

Take Deus Ex 3 as an example of a good RPG in the making .. after reading numerous interviews and Q&A it was very clear they are taking this approach to revolutanize RPGs .. back in the day Deus Ex 1 was known as an FPS with brains ... but it had its share of unreasltic, sluggish RPG tropes ...  in Deus Ex your shooting was dependant on stats mostly  .. so stick a gun in a guy's face and fire .. ooops you missed .. missed a freaking point blank shot .. WTH ... now that gets fixed in Deus Ex 3 ... your shooting is based on your actual aim and i see no reason not to make it that way .. RPG or not .. the RPG elements are focused on cybernetic skills and other ascpets of the game (social interaction, exploration, .. etc etc) .. dare to say that's not much different from what happened to DA2 combat .. it turned from a 100% point and click dice-based sluggish unresponsive combat to an actual combat experiance where placement, distance, reactions speed, tactics and strategy all factor .. one of th main reasons i despised MMORPGs is that their combat was like DA:O to a great degree .. sluggish .. unrealstic and unresponsive .. but even that is going to totally change with impressive upcoming MMORPGs like Guild Wars 2, Blade & Soul and Vindictus.

Embrace the future

To me, Deus Ex was an RPG with a few shooter elements.
That's not what I want for Mass Effect 3.

[Hunter-Wolf]

Phaedon wrote...

To me, Deus Ex was an RPG with a few shooter elements.
That's not what I want for Mass Effect 3.

Then you should check DE3 info and vids .. judging from what you said here in your post i'm sure you will be pleased ..

[Slayer299]

Hunter-Wolf wrote...
What !!! .. zero ability to RP without choosing Paragon or Renegade .. i think not .. there is always a choice on the right side of the dialog wheel the stands for "Neutral" Shepard .. many times the Paragon/Renegade options are grayed out becasue the character i'm roleplaying is nuetral so i pick the choice on the right and it resolves the situation (a little bit less impressive than the other paths but it work).

I can't comment on DA2 having only played the demo and found that to be abyssmal at best. However, to the Para/Ren, yes you are indeed punished for not choosing one of the other, the option is greyed out because you do not have enough of either Para/Ren points, not because you choose to be neutral, that is a significant difference. With ME the two sklls of Charm/Intimidate allowed me to use either Para or Ren and only after a preference for one or the other was established was one greyed out.
But to force a char to choose one or the other at the loss of either Para/Ren dialogues solely based on the scores is not RP'g. ex - If I'm playing a "neutral" char as you mentioned, but I decided I want to get Morinth as a teammember at the expense of Samara I cannot and such is the reverse as the game automatically makes that decision for you. This does not make ME2 flawed, but it does take away some of the luster for me when playing.

[Slayer299]

Whatever666343431431654324 wrote...
I'm not going to defend the paragon/renegade mini-game but try completely ignoring it and just RP. Yes, you miss out on the magic blue/red text but that actually results in a far better, far more realisitic, far more dramatic game.

A renegade that can make everyone back down with a threat is great but nothing is more renegade than actually beating until they tell you what you want (or don't in that case).

Understood, but as the saying goes, "the iron fist inside the velvet glove" I find much more interesting then something you must have to ignore inorder to RP your char where it has already been established.

Modifié par Slayer299, 13 mars 2011 - 07:42 .

[Vaenier]

better and worse are such qualitative remarks. I think I would rather use quantitative analysis of the two games. Simply: ME1 has more skills than ME2. The difference between skill 1 and max was larger in ME1 than ME2. There were more items in ME1 than ME2. ME1 level 1 items had a larger difference in stats than their max level counterparts than ME2 weapons had. ME1 had more abilities than ME2.
An RPG has nothing to do with a 'good' story or having 'choices.' These things are present in almost every game. Would you call Halo an RPG because you are "playing the role" of Master Chief and you have choices on how to approach a battle?

[Undertone]

InvincibleHero wrote...

Blabla.

Can I have the time it took me to read your **** back please?

[Hunter-Wolf]

Vaenier wrote...
An RPG has nothing to do with a 'good' story or having 'choices.' These things are present in almost every game. Would you call Halo an RPG because you are "playing the role" of Master Chief and you have choices on how to approach a battle?

Dynasty Warriors series has stats, abilities, weapons and a ton of custmozation options for your hero .. does that make it an RPG ... NO .. it is a hack and slash action game with some custimiozation options .. there are tons of games of all genres that have customization .. doesn't have anything to do with them being RPGs or not.

ROLE PLAYING benefits from customization and it was lackluster in ME1 .. it isn't a matter of quantity .. rather quality .. most if not all weapons were redundant, most skills were very situational .. almost all shotguns in ME1 are identical .. in ME2 each one functions completely differently than the next .. add ammo types skills and ME2 shotguns outdo ME1 shotguns by a mile .. apply on all other weapons .. heck .. ME2 heavy weapons alone triumph any weapon in ME1.

Aside from the customization .. an RPG at its core is about "role-playing" a persona ... with that and a good story is at its core .. then orbiting it the choices you make regarding that character's story (i.e the Halo example is very faulty .. making choices in combat is called tactics not role-playing) and the consequnces of said choices on the character, the world and the other characters around ... which requires an interesting world/lore and interesting chracters to accompany it ... that's an RPG in a nutshell.

Modifié par Hunter-Wolf, 13 mars 2011 - 09:22 .

[Zulu_DFA]

All right, ME2 is more of an RPG, than ME1. But it also sucks, while ME1 shines (still, even through the pile of crap that was put on top of it in the form of ME2).

Also...

2. In ME1 you had no choice but to become a spectre. In ME2 you can be reinstated or choose not to. That is a choice.

LoL @ this one.

[xSTONEYx187x]

Zulu_DFA wrote...

All right, ME2 is more of an RPG, than ME1. But it also sucks, while ME1 shines (still, even through the pile of crap that was put on top of it in the form of ME2).

Also...

2. In ME1 you had no choice but to become a spectre. In ME2 you can be reinstated or choose not to. That is a choice.

LoL @ this one.

Mass Effect 2 "sucks"? 

Why do you post on these forums again? I can understand if you were disappointed, but to say it "sucks" doesn't make sense from one of the top (contribution wise) posters on the forums. 

[Zulu_DFA]

xSTONEYx187x wrote...

Zulu_DFA wrote...

All right, ME2 is more of an RPG, than ME1. But it also sucks, while ME1 shines (still, even through the pile of crap that was put on top of it in the form of ME2).

Also...

2. In ME1 you had no choice but to become a spectre. In ME2 you can be reinstated or choose not to. That is a choice.

LoL @ this one.

Mass Effect 2 "sucks"?

Affirmative.

xSTONEYx187x wrote...

Why do you post on these forums again?

Because I want to?

xSTONEYx187x wrote...

I can understand if you were disappointed, but to say it "sucks" doesn't make sense from one of the top (contribution wise) posters on the forums.

If a sequel is even a tad worse than its predecessor, it automatically "sucks". No way around that. But ME2 isn't only "a tad worse".

Modifié par Zulu_DFA, 13 mars 2011 - 11:17 .

[xSTONEYx187x]

Witty response, very nice.

[Sajuro]

AdmiralCheez wrote...

@Phaedon: Bingo.

Either way, which game is ultimately "better" is up to personal taste. When I take aim and shoot at something, I want the results to rely on my skill as a player, not some arbitrary number. Stats are good, sure, but I can play Pokémon for that.

And, to me at least, ME2 was a much more personal experience. Getting to know people better, facing tougher decisions, a squad that counts on me to see them through... ME1 had the epic adventure thing going, sure, but it didn't resonate with me on the same level. (DISCLAIMER: Personal taste.)

^This
In western rpgs where you control the swinging or shooting, I don't want to keep missing the mudcrab I am looking directly at because my sword skill is too low, and I think that it is silly that trained soldiers have to train so their assault rifles actually feel like doing damage.
I play Final Fantasy games if I want my stats to determine if I hit.

[Vaenier]

Sajuro wrote...

AdmiralCheez wrote...

@Phaedon: Bingo.

Either way, which game is ultimately "better" is up to personal taste. When I take aim and shoot at something, I want the results to rely on my skill as a player, not some arbitrary number. Stats are good, sure, but I can play Pokémon for that.

And, to me at least, ME2 was a much more personal experience. Getting to know people better, facing tougher decisions, a squad that counts on me to see them through... ME1 had the epic adventure thing going, sure, but it didn't resonate with me on the same level. (DISCLAIMER: Personal taste.)

^This
In western rpgs where you control the swinging or shooting, I don't want to keep missing the mudcrab I am looking directly at because my sword skill is too low, and I think that it is silly that trained soldiers have to train so their assault rifles actually feel like doing damage.
I play Final Fantasy games if I want my stats to determine if I hit.

I dont like missing either when my characters skill is not high enough. But just because we dont like it doesnt mean we should change what a grene means. Action Adventure exists for a reason, why do people want to turn RPG into action adventure instead of just saying they like Action Adventure instead?

[Moiaussi]

InvincibleHero wrote...


It basically comes down to decisions you can make in the game and their impact on the people and places in it. These are role-playing opportunities. ME2 has far better execution and more decisions left to the player overall. I have been roleplaying and playing computer RPGs since the early 80s, but that doesn't make my opinions better than anyone else's. I love more stats and inventory as much as anyone.


1. Equipment and inventory are not role-playing. I can equip Bishop in Rainbow 6 Vegas and even order his squaddies around, but it is still a shooter not RPG. You can mod the weapons with silencers, scopes, and more and the answer is ditto. You can equip Mario in platform games and it doesn't make it RPG. It only impacts gameplay. Both have inventories, armor, and weapons. Sure ME1 has more choice in that regard and I did like that, but it does not make it a better RPG.

Immersion is part of roleplaying. If the role doesn't seem believable, or is too simple, it is much harder to identify with.

2. In ME1 you had no choice but to become a spectre. In ME2 you can be reinstated or choose not to. That is a choice.

And the choice is completely meaningless. It is barely mentioned at all. You are also sent, as a Spectre, into the region that the Council insisted you stay out of in ME1 lest you start a war. Appearantly now war with the Terminus systems would be preferable to your hanging around Citadel space?

3. In ME1 you got to decide who dies Ashely or Kaiden but not a role-playing choice really. It was similar to the misison in ME2 where you had to choose whether the spaceport or residential area gets hit by a missile. Which is more meaningful "choice" in either game is opinion. In ME2, you can kill several team members or choose not to activate Grunt, and even sell Legion. This is far more choice.

Why are you using the VS decision as an example rather than Wrex? Or the Rachni queen? Or the couple trying to decide whether to give gene therapy to their child? Or whether you execute Shiala? You can also kill of a team member by tossing them down a garbage chute (the vents in the suicide mission) without it meaning anything at all with respect to the actual mission in ME2.

4. Far more optional squaddies in ME2. You can pick and choose which to me is role-playing. Pretty much Wrex or Garrus or recruit both was your only choice in ME1. Yeah I recruit everyone since it makes it easier netting more people and XP and credits etc. However, the fact remains more is left to the player in ME2.

That doesn't make it less of a role. Again, immersion. In ME1, everyone you recruit is tied to the mission in some believable way. In ME2, they are there because TIM told you they would be a good idea. Other than Morden and 'a biotic,' the crew in ME2 seem pretty interchangable. Again, if choices are irrelevant, how much of a choice is there, really? The VS survivor even has all their personality stripped away. Both Kaiden and Ashley have identical dialogue regardless of having very different personalities. 

5. Missions have much more plot and roleplaying points than in ME1. Wrex loyalty for instance you could do it or not and the mission was a linear one with no choices. In ME2 the Thane loyalty mission will be used as an example. First you had to acquire info and you could actually torture a suspect if you wanted to or you could persuede him to tell it. This defines Shepard and is great roleplay. You could knock out a security guard or talk your way in and at the end you could kill the target, talk down Thane's son, or choose another way to end it. These all impact the game world differently. it is like this throughout ME2. The missions if you are honest in ME1 were just linear shootouts with some objectives on the way and maybe one choice at the end. They all played out the same and offered little in the way of choice and role-playing.

 
At least you piced a good example with Thane. There are some strong RP elements in the loyalty missions but they are all unrelated short stories. Most of the side missions in ME1 were tied a lot better into the plot. You were in the middle of a war and it felt like it, rather than being up against a single cruiser that you should have been able to take down at Horizon, as it was taking off under fire from the shore battery.

6. You could impact a whole species that of the Geth in ME2. You could even dictate Quarian militarism or peace making attempts with the Geth. However, the huge choice to overwrite or destroy the Geth is huge. Also the genophage data save it or destroy it will have much impact on Krogans. The only parallel in ME1 is kill Rachni queen or not. AFAIK the racni will still exist in ME2 regardless of you killing her in ME1. Don't call that fact though unless it really is. What you should come away with is more meaningful roleplaying choices in ME2.

The Tali missions (recruitment and loyalty) were high points of ME2, and actually related to ME1. Legion's loyalty mission was more 'How can we wrap up the heretics as a loose thread? I know, an all or nothing arbitrary flip of the switch!' You have to choose one way or the other on next to no information and no ability to gain more. I think they were trying to repeat or 'up' the Rachni question from ME1, but since Legion has so little advice and you don't get to find out he Heretic side from any independant sources, it just seemed a little flat. It seemed closer to the Ashley/Kaiden question instead.

7. Less skills/stats does not mean less roleplaying. Roleplaying is choices and which powers you have or not determines gameplay. Yes it defines your character, but the same classes were to be had in both games. I do prefer the ME1 more rich options. None of the powers could be used in a meta way to change outcomes in actaul roleplay opportunities. If you could use barrier or pull to yank someone from falling off a roof to save someone that would otherwise die then that would be roleplaying with the powers. Neither game does this. At best a wash for RPG opportunity.

Again, the more complex the character, the more interesting the role.

8. The ending. In ME1 save council or not and you could save for paragon or let them die for a neutral and renegade reason. Now the result pretty much ended the game the same. In ME2 collector base BOOM or not. This ends the game differently and has much roleplaying choices in dialogue whichever way you choose.

Not quite the same impact, although it is debated a lot. It didn't have the same feel for me, partly because blowing it up was the primary mission, whereas the Ascension was a secondary objective that you had to weigh against the primary.

I could add more and more points, but why belabor the obvious. Well and enjoy and be civil to on another. I know some ME1 purists won't be very accepting of this. However, if they searched their feelings then they'd know ME2 is a great RPG with more choice than ME1.

One man's obvious is another's 'What the blazes?' You do have some good points. For my part, I respectfully disagree with a lot of them, but you have at least thought about this a little.

[Moiaussi]

Sajuro wrote...

^This
In western rpgs where you control the swinging or shooting, I don't want to keep missing the mudcrab I am looking directly at because my sword skill is too low, and I think that it is silly that trained soldiers have to train so their assault rifles actually feel like doing damage.
I play Final Fantasy games if I want my stats to determine if I hit.

For ME, I agree with you, but for Morrowwind/Oblivion (with mudcrabs), you start out as a prisoner in both cases, not as a trained soldier, so missing the mudcrab isn't entirely unreasonable

[Zulu_DFA]

Vaenier wrote...

I dont like missing either when my characters skill is not high enough. But just because we dont like it doesnt mean we should change what a grene means. Action Adventure exists for a reason, why do people want to turn RPG into action adventure instead of just saying they like Action Adventure instead?

When I first played ME1, I didn't even think it was an RPG. I thought it to be an Adventure game. I was sure, that to be an RPG, a game needed to be a Diablo clone, and I was totally oblivious to the existence of such a thing as BioWare.

Yet, ME1 stroke me with near-perfect blending of simplified elements from many genres: RPG, shooter, tank simulator, all of which supported the way the universe worked and the story unfolded.

ME2? A 3rd person (means: sh*tty by default) shooter with "powers" and that's it. The story, while trying to be a continution of the epic one started in ME1, is ultimately rendered down to a poor excuse to keep out-scampering ever more crowds of husks and mercs. Gameplay/story segregation helps a bit, but it's so vast that I would really like to be able to just skip all the fillers (and plot holes) with the help of some kind of uber-dickish renegade interrupts, give TIM his Base, save the frikking Galaxy, and forget about this series.

Modifié par Zulu_DFA, 14 mars 2011 - 01:21 .

[AdmiralCheez]

Vaenier wrote...

I dont like missing either when my characters skill is not high enough. But just because we dont like it doesnt mean we should change what a grene means. Action Adventure exists for a reason, why do people want to turn RPG into action adventure instead of just saying they like Action Adventure instead?

Because, in ME2, you still roleplay.  You still customize who Shepard is and what (s)he does.  You change yourself and the universe around you.

So it happens to be more actiony, so what?  The above makes it an RPG in the most fundamental sense.  Pure action games (God of War, etc) lack that ability.  Kratos is always the same Kratos, but Shepard can be a man or a woman, a jerk or a saint, a merciless war-tank or a spellcasting nerd.

The combat also makes it a shooter.  So yeah, it's a hybrid.  But I like hybirds.  Games that stick to the pure genre formula tend to bore me.

[The_Wonder_of_Thedas]

No matter what ME2 is certainly a better RPG experience and definitely a better game than that piece of crap known as Dragon Age 2.

[Sajuro]

Vaenier wrote...

Sajuro wrote...

AdmiralCheez wrote...

@Phaedon: Bingo.

Either way, which game is ultimately "better" is up to personal taste. When I take aim and shoot at something, I want the results to rely on my skill as a player, not some arbitrary number. Stats are good, sure, but I can play Pokémon for that.

And, to me at least, ME2 was a much more personal experience. Getting to know people better, facing tougher decisions, a squad that counts on me to see them through... ME1 had the epic adventure thing going, sure, but it didn't resonate with me on the same level. (DISCLAIMER: Personal taste.)

^This
In western rpgs where you control the swinging or shooting, I don't want to keep missing the mudcrab I am looking directly at because my sword skill is too low, and I think that it is silly that trained soldiers have to train so their assault rifles actually feel like doing damage.
I play Final Fantasy games if I want my stats to determine if I hit.

I dont like missing either when my characters skill is not high enough. But just because we dont like it doesnt mean we should change what a grene means. Action Adventure exists for a reason, why do people want to turn RPG into action adventure instead of just saying they like Action Adventure instead?

Why shouldn't we? If we want an RPG to be more action, why don't we factor in some skill on part of the player? Think about Fallout 3, you could go through it as a shooter not using V.A.T.S (Hard since vats is a big advantage) and when you use vats your character will derp derp if too close to the enemy (resting the shotgun on the enemy's head)
I don't want all rpgs to be like that, like I don't want all fps's to be like Halo. Why can't Mass Effect be an Action Adventure RPG, if we want a more immersive experience then why don't we factor in the gamer's ability to move the reticle until it turns red (or green if you want to kill friendlies) instead of saying "oh, your shot missed the enemy right in front of you because the dice gods did not favor you."
Also set of skills I will never miss are the ones to determine what level of simon says shepard is capable of playing with or without his squadmate's help.

[Vaenier]

Sajuro wrote...

Why can't Mass Effect be an Action Adventure RPG

This. ME2 is becoming more Action adventure while trying to maintain RPG elements. They did not remove all the RPG out of ME2, only some of it that was getting in the way of the TPS experience. For better or for worse, who cares. I just want people to get their terms straight. When RPG means anything, it loses all meaning.

[Zulu_DFA]

AdmiralCheez wrote...

Games that stick to the pure genre formula tend to bore me.

Excuse me, did Half-Life 2 tend to bore you?

Modifié par Zulu_DFA, 14 mars 2011 - 02:10 .

[AdmiralCheez]

Zulu_DFA wrote...

AdmiralCheez wrote...

Games that stick to the pure genre formula tend to bore me.

Excuse me, did Half-Life 2 tend to bore you?

Why, no.  It was part shooter, part logic puzzle.  You won with brains, not pew-pew.

Modifié par AdmiralCheez, 14 mars 2011 - 02:21 .