131 réponses à ce sujet

[MJRick]

Tigerblood and MilkShakes wrote...

ZenBaller wrote...

Hello everyone,

I'm a ME series fanatic as most of you I assume. Even though in heart I'm still a hardcore RPgamer, I embraced Bioware's innovations with KOTOR, ME and Dragon Age 1. I'm talking about the gradual de-RPG-ation, the gradual decrease of the classic RPG characteristics and the turn to a more cinematic-action gameplay.

I'm sorry in advance if this has been talked about before. What I'd like to discuss is that  this process has become too much for me after Dragon Age 2. It's a good game but also an oversimplified RPG which well.. is not an RPG anymore. The label doesn't matter anyway, since there are still many people who liked it although most of my friends and internet communities around here are realtively negative towards the direction that DA2 took.

What do you think of ME3 taking that direction? Would you like to see it becoming less RP and more click n slash action fast food game like DA2? 

Thanks

Yeah alot of RPGs have gone down the Casual road..Mass Effect 1 has alot more RPG then Mass effect 2.i love me2 but its an action adventure and not an RPG game.im hoping ME3 gos back to the roots of me1 play style,crouching,gernades and the actual sense of RPG,but keep the improved combat that me2 has..i miss upgrading weapons,training in weapons/powers/abilites thats what made Me1 such an awesome consol RPG.

Im   for Mass Effect 3.

How does crouching and grenades make ME1 anymore of an RPG than ME2?

[Ozzyfan223]

what makes an rpg an rpg is still present in all bioware games, its just "hardcore" rpg players won't be satisfied if they can't sort through 500 guns and 200 pieces of armor.

[ladyvader]

Ozzyfan223 wrote...

what makes an rpg an rpg is still present in all bioware games, its just "hardcore" rpg players won't be satisfied if they can't sort through 500 guns and 200 pieces of armor.

So true.  After you have all the weapons and armor you want, do I need 30 more of the same thing?  Which will happen in ME if you play the same character enough. 

[royceclemens]

Korusus wrote...

royceclemens wrote...

Korusus wrote...

Mass Effect 1 limited its recycled areas to side quest planets (and they still took plenty of criticism for it).  Not so for Dragon Age 2 wherein nearly every interior and many exterior cells of the game, not just dungeons, are recycled.  There are no unique areas for main plot quests either, which ME1 did have.  Not to mention ME2 already corrected that problem.  The question is, if BioWare felt they could get away with it in DA2 (which they didn't, I think it's well established that it's the most glaring flaw in the game), do they feel they can get away with it in ME3?  Again it's only my concern.  Reusing maps would not be such a big deal if it were limited only to side quests as in ME1.

Well, to be fair, DA2 did take place in a very small space (and I guess there can be some agree-to-disagree to that, as I liked Kirkwall's intimacy), and again, I'm not excusing DA2's recycling, but could someone answer the question as to whether the reused environments in ME1 were reacted to as much like a slap to the face back in '07 when it came out?  Because as much love that's lavished on ME1 on this board, I'm finding it hard to believe.

No the reaction wasn't as bad as what DA2 is getting...but then the recycling wasn't as bad either.  And I can safely inform you that there were plenty of people that felt let down by the galaxy exploration aspect of Mass Effect 1 (good lord, remember the Mako?), the rest of the game just made up for it.  I won't get into excuses for DA2 since that's beyond the scope of my original point. 

Well, I was going to explain why the recycling bothered me more in ME1 than it did in DA2, but you're right it is beyond the point.

If I were a betting man, I'd say that if there were any recycling to happen within the confines of ME3, it'd be recycled environments from ME1, like the council chamber or the Presidium.  Completely forgivable and dare I say expected?

[Korusus]

royceclemens wrote...

Korusus wrote...

royceclemens wrote...

Korusus wrote...

Mass Effect 1 limited its recycled areas to side quest planets (and they still took plenty of criticism for it).  Not so for Dragon Age 2 wherein nearly every interior and many exterior cells of the game, not just dungeons, are recycled.  There are no unique areas for main plot quests either, which ME1 did have.  Not to mention ME2 already corrected that problem.  The question is, if BioWare felt they could get away with it in DA2 (which they didn't, I think it's well established that it's the most glaring flaw in the game), do they feel they can get away with it in ME3?  Again it's only my concern.  Reusing maps would not be such a big deal if it were limited only to side quests as in ME1.

Well, to be fair, DA2 did take place in a very small space (and I guess there can be some agree-to-disagree to that, as I liked Kirkwall's intimacy), and again, I'm not excusing DA2's recycling, but could someone answer the question as to whether the reused environments in ME1 were reacted to as much like a slap to the face back in '07 when it came out?  Because as much love that's lavished on ME1 on this board, I'm finding it hard to believe.

No the reaction wasn't as bad as what DA2 is getting...but then the recycling wasn't as bad either.  And I can safely inform you that there were plenty of people that felt let down by the galaxy exploration aspect of Mass Effect 1 (good lord, remember the Mako?), the rest of the game just made up for it.  I won't get into excuses for DA2 since that's beyond the scope of my original point. 

Well, I was going to explain why the recycling bothered me more in ME1 than it did in DA2, but you're right it is beyond the point.

If I were a betting man, I'd say that if there were any recycling to happen within the confines of ME3, it'd be recycled environments from ME1, like the council chamber or the Presidium.  Completely forgivable and dare I say expected?

Certainly expected.  In fact, recycling something like that would only contribute to the feel of continuity in the gameworld and setting like the reuse of the alliance embassy in ME2.  (something which Dragon Age now lacks due to the artistic changes, but I digress).

The problem we would run into would be if the council chamber of the presidium area map was used over and over and over again for other areas.  That's an extreme example but not too far off.

Modifié par Korusus, 23 mars 2011 - 03:16 .

[Scimal]

Il Divo wrote...

Then try this on instead. Most of your analysis is brilliant. This paragraph is terrible. If all an RPG means is to play a set role, every video game is an RPG by that definition. Half-Life is not considered (or marketed) as an RPG. Halo is not. Sports games are not. In every video game, I am playing a role. If that's all an rpg is, then the definition gets us nowhere. You basically just told us that RPGs are video games.

Yup. You figured out the secret.

Once you realize this, you'll see that all which really differs between games is the story and the way you interact with the story. Some games allow you to interact with the story on a greater level than others, some have a much better story than others.
 
"RPGs" is commonly used to describe a high level of both, but it's a purely subjective title (which I tried to imply in my initial post). What makes something an "RPG" to one person is completely different to another. Ergo, subjective.

This is why HL2 is a great RPG to me. It has a great story, and a pretty good way for me to interact with the great story. Does it allow me to interact with the story by choosing which responses I can give to Alyx, who should be sacrificed to save a city, or what the color of Freeman's HEV suit is?

No. It lets me interact with the story through a series of increasing tactical challenges and physics puzzles.

By the way, from HL2's website, which describes HL2 as a "...combination of pounding action and continuous, immersive storytelling."

And from DA:O's website, which describes DA:O as giving the player the ability to "...make complex moral choices, and engage in bone-crushing visceral combat against massive and terrifying creatures."

So, while you say that HL2 isn't marketed as an RPG, it's simply because it doesn't use the term "RPG" in its marketing.

The difference (stories aside, of course) is that DA:O lets me interact with the story differently. I choose which responses I give, the "complex moral choices" are mine to determine and are not chosen for me as-in HL2, there's larger inventory system that includes different types of armors, trinkets, gifts, and junk that needs to be sold. The engine is a top-down view instead of first-person. There are more keys to bind, more screens to flip through, and a journal which records important information.

Both have a story (and between the two, I'd choose HL2's story over DA:O's mostly stereotype-filled 60 hours anyday). Both have a way of interacting with the world the story is set in and the story itself.

We know that a story you can't interact with is either a movie or a book. We know games which exist that don't have stories, because entertainment defines a game - not the existence of a plot. We can play as someone else outside of games; that's called theater. So what's the difference between one game (a game being something we interact with that gives us entertainment) with a story and one another?

Does all that stuff, though - the journal, the character screen, the elaborate inventory, the ability to affect the game world through a dialog option instead of a more missile-launcher related option, the useless junk to sell to a vendor...

Does that make something an RPG?

Not anymore than THAC0 did - and that's simple fact.

So, yes. RPGs are pretty much video games. If you think of it that way, it's much easier to avoid thoughts like, "ME3 is just going to be a dumbed down RPG" because it's already an RPG. What the OP is afraid of is something to do with how they interact with ME2 or how they were disappointed by ME2's story. Maybe they didn't like the pacing, maybe they wanted more of those moral decisions, maybe they enjoyed being given more (but ambiguous) options for skill points instead of the fewer (but more impactful) present in ME2.

I don't know what they really fear, though I made my guess. I can simply assure you, though, that "Being less of an RPG" isn't it. If ME3 is any "less of an RPG" than ME1, it's either going to be a movie or a giant game of checkers.

[Thepeak12]

^ Very well said. *applause*

[Elite Midget]

This is Bioware.

What worked for DA2 may be applied to ME3 while what didn't work will be scrapped on paper.

[Knightsire]

Scimal,

The way you define RPG is too broad and loses all meaning for me. Labels build familiarity or brand recognition with audiences. I think you see it as limiting and restrictive, but they help encourage a comparative understanding of what the game offers and reinforces the likes or dislikes of the intended audiences.

Bioware games seem like a hybrid of genres blended together, which is fine. However, I would support retaining RPG genre's identity and referring to Bioware games as a mix or separate category altogether.

[Iakus]

As far as ME 3 moving in DA2 direction:

If ME 3 party members are as involved in the (main) storyline and participate as much through dialogue, banter, observations, arguements, and chiming in during conversations with NPCs, as DA2 companions, it will already be a superior game to ME 2.

If mercs explode when I melee them with a pistol, though, I'll know Boiware's done.

If ME 3 recycles enviroments, but puts interesting missions in them, I won't care. I'll take a diamond in a scuffed box over a pile of...something foul... in a shiny container any day.

[Fiery Phoenix]

Knightsire wrote...

If Mass Effect 3 is finished, then why do they need 9 months more to release it?

Why not release it this summer? Does debugging or finishing voice-over really take that long?

VO, polishing, tweaking, QA, etc.-- a multitude of reasons. Just because a game can be fully played doesn't mean it's ready to go to the market just yet.

Modifié par Fiery Phoenix, 23 mars 2011 - 04:50 .

[Gatt9]

Scimal wrote...

Yup. You figured out the secret.

Once you realize this, you'll see that all which really differs between games is the story and the way you interact with the story. Some games allow you to interact with the story on a greater level than others, some have a much better story than others.
 
"RPGs" is commonly used to describe a high level of both, but it's a purely subjective title (which I tried to imply in my initial post). What makes something an "RPG" to one person is completely different to another. Ergo, subjective.

Well written piece,  but I'm afraid you're off target here.

You're confusing Roleplaying with a Roleplaying-Game.  They are two completely different things.  Roleplaying is what you describe,  an RPG is an attempt to translate an established game framework to a computer medium.  Sort of like translating Monopoly or Axis & Allies to a computerized format.  Monopoly isn't a concept,  it's a specific type of game and gameplay.  An RPG isn't a concept,  it's a specific type of game and gameplay.

Alot of people confuse the difference between Roleplaying and a Roleplaying Game.  It's important to note,  RPG denotes a very specific type of gameplay,  whereas Roleplaying is very undefined.

Edit:

It's also important to note,  RPG has several subdefinitions.  Hack & Slash,  Munchkin,  Hardcore,  debatably Hybridized.  AD&D can be the framework,  GURPS can be the framework,  Pathfinder,  Hackmaster,  LotR,  Star Wars,  there's alot of frameworks,  but they all share commanality.  Character based skill,  with the character being fully defined via statistics,  and a number of other features.

Modifié par Gatt9, 23 mars 2011 - 05:06 .

[vimpel]

I want me3 look like a me1 (in rpg style) , but have some action like a shoter.

[Scimal]

Knightsire wrote...

Scimal,

The way you define RPG is too broad and loses all meaning for me.

Certainly a possibility. What "RPG" means is subjective to each person. Mine happens to be closer to the literal definition than many.
 

Labels build familiarity or brand recognition with audiences.

RPG could (and does) carry with it certain implications to those who have previously experienced games labeled as such and made by the same company. This is what you're getting at. Because previous BW RPGs have had feature X, Y, and Z presented in a certain fashion, BW games which lack XYZ feel "incomplete." 

That's an assumption and conclusion based entirely with the player, though, and not the game itself.
 

I think you see it as limiting and restrictive, but they help encourage a comparative understanding of what the game offers and reinforces the likes or dislikes of the intended audiences.

The labels are limiting and restrictive because of the likes and dislikes of the intended audience. They are intimately related. The labels only offer any understanding because of previous experiences with the company. Take away the company, and you'll find it very difficult to define what an "RPG" is.

Blizzard's Diablo games are an RPG franchise. Many on these forums would bawk at that remark because not only do you NOT play the protagonist (you play the person who cleans up after him), but your character never interacts socially beyond getting lectured and yelled at by monsters you're about to slaughter. Yet, an RPG it is...

Final Fantasy has pretty much "devolved" into QTE and cut-scenes connected by brief instances of battle (all but movies in name), but people still consider them RPGs with the "caveat" that they are "J"-RPGs (whatever that really means).

The point of these examples being... Of course expectations are limiting and restrictive. Of course the labels will confer some extent of understanding because the expectations are that any game made by a company will follow in the footsteps of its predecessors. However, it's the company which eventually comes to define what "type" of RPG it makes because "RPG" has a very simple meaning which is adapted to whoever wants to use it.

You must have a role to play, and it must be a game.

Just like "FPS." You must be in the first-person view, and you must shoot something at something else.

Bioware games seem like a hybrid of genres blended together, which is fine.

Not really. Up until ME, all of BioWare's games I'm aware of are 3rd Person RPGs. ME1 and ME2 are FPS (using a slightly less literal version here) RPGs.

You'll notice that the only difference between ME and the entire rest of BW's library is that they moved the camera. All BW games have been RPGs.

The major differences are the stories the game is trying to tell, and which role you're playing. The art style, UI, and dialog is then adjusted accordingly to what they want and what their fans expect of BioWare (not the RPG genre).
 

However, I would support retaining RPG genre's identity and referring to Bioware games as a mix or separate category altogether.

The genre will persist, but it doesn't mean anything. Like my previous post pointed out, HL2 was never marketed as an "RPG," but its description sounds like any other game marketed as one. Thus, if the difference between "RPG" and "not-RPG" is whether or not a game has the three letters in its marketing... Well, I bet that's even more broad and meaningless to you than my literal definition.

So, I would say, feel free to support the RPG genre - just realize your expectations mean nothing to game developers and marketers. Instead, I would say to support companies which make the flavor of RPGs you like, and play games that you find fun.

[Thompson family]

I was about to complain to ZenBaller for opening what must be at least the 50th thread on this forum on this topic since DA2 came out.

But then, what's the point? The same disappointed DA fans will rush out and say the same thing they've said on 50 other threads. Don't believe me? Do a search for "DA2" in the topic.

Until and unless the moderators lift a finger to do something about these utterly, numbingly redundant threads, this thread will -- like all the others -- get hundreds of replies and go on for pages. The OP will beam at the debate he's "started," blissfully and willfully blind to the fact that these arguments are all canned by now, on both sides. The three or four dozen people who actually care about this will feel validated by the "new" thread too.

Everybody involved gets exactly what they want.

These threads, like prostitution, are victimless crimes.

Enjoy.

Modifié par Thompson family, 23 mars 2011 - 05:14 .

[Fiery Phoenix]

Thompson family wrote...

(...)

These threads, like prostitution, are victimless crimes.

Enjoy.

[olp33]

Scimal wrote...

Yup. You figured out the secret.

Once you realize this, you'll see that all which really differs between games is the story and the way you interact with the story. Some games allow you to interact with the story on a greater level than others, some have a much better story than others.
 
"RPGs" is commonly used to describe a high level of both, but it's a purely subjective title (which I tried to imply in my initial post). What makes something an "RPG" to one person is completely different to another. Ergo, subjective.

This is why HL2 is a great RPG to me. It has a great story, and a pretty good way for me to interact with the great story. Does it allow me to interact with the story by choosing which responses I can give to Alyx, who should be sacrificed to save a city, or what the color of Freeman's HEV suit is?

No. It lets me interact with the story through a series of increasing tactical challenges and physics puzzles.

By the way, from HL2's website, which describes HL2 as a "...combination of pounding action and continuous, immersive storytelling."

And from DA:O's website, which describes DA:O as giving the player the ability to "...make complex moral choices, and engage in bone-crushing visceral combat against massive and terrifying creatures."

So, while you say that HL2 isn't marketed as an RPG, it's simply because it doesn't use the term "RPG" in its marketing.

The difference (stories aside, of course) is that DA:O lets me interact with the story differently. I choose which responses I give, the "complex moral choices" are mine to determine and are not chosen for me as-in HL2, there's larger inventory system that includes different types of armors, trinkets, gifts, and junk that needs to be sold. The engine is a top-down view instead of first-person. There are more keys to bind, more screens to flip through, and a journal which records important information.

Both have a story (and between the two, I'd choose HL2's story over DA:O's mostly stereotype-filled 60 hours anyday). Both have a way of interacting with the world the story is set in and the story itself.

We know that a story you can't interact with is either a movie or a book. We know games which exist that don't have stories, because entertainment defines a game - not the existence of a plot. We can play as someone else outside of games; that's called theater. So what's the difference between one game (a game being something we interact with that gives us entertainment) with a story and one another?

Does all that stuff, though - the journal, the character screen, the elaborate inventory, the ability to affect the game world through a dialog option instead of a more missile-launcher related option, the useless junk to sell to a vendor...

Does that make something an RPG?

Not anymore than THAC0 did - and that's simple fact.

So, yes. RPGs are pretty much video games. If you think of it that way, it's much easier to avoid thoughts like, "ME3 is just going to be a dumbed down RPG" because it's already an RPG. What the OP is afraid of is something to do with how they interact with ME2 or how they were disappointed by ME2's story. Maybe they didn't like the pacing, maybe they wanted more of those moral decisions, maybe they enjoyed being given more (but ambiguous) options for skill points instead of the fewer (but more impactful) present in ME2.

I don't know what they really fear, though I made my guess. I can simply assure you, though, that "Being less of an RPG" isn't it. If ME3 is any "less of an RPG" than ME1, it's either going to be a movie or a giant game of checkers.

OMG I usually don't interfere with these forums much anymore since the topics on ME are always about the same thing these days but (and I mean this in the most polite way possible) your definition of an RPG is brutal. You are saying anything with a story is an RPG, which is horribly wrong. Genres in games are identified by their core gameplay and mechanics (just like the difference between a Sci-Fi and Fantasy novel). Generally what an RPG consists of is choices, customization, inventory, and last but not least LOOTING! The most classic feature an RPG can have lol! Anyway, back to my statement.

I don't mind, and I'm sure many people on these forums don't either, if you admit you like ME2 better but please don't call it an RPG. It's an Action RPG at best. Man I remember about 5 years ago these forums were full of people who loved RPG games and Bioware accomodated them first. If you don't believe that Bioware is trying de-RPG or streamline their games nowadays try to find a really old thread, I recomend a DA one where TheDAS was first being coined.  They are most likely all taken down but still if you can find one you'll be able to tell the difference of today's and the old community members. 

Anyway just to be contributing to the OPs original question, I don't think Bioware will streamline the game any furthersince it would just become a TPS at that point. I think ME3 will be alot similar to ME2 honestly with maybe adding and improving the gun customization from ME1, but the ME3 features won't be as rich as ME1. So no I don't think ME3 will be taking DA2's direction.

[Scimal]

Gatt9 wrote...
Well written piece,  but I'm afraid you're off target here.

You're confusing Roleplaying with a Roleplaying-Game.

I doubt it. Mostly because it's implicit in my post that I'm talking about computer games (cRPGs if you want to get all "subgenre"-y), but also because Roleplaying taken literally is known as Acting. It also has some fun slang meanings.

Ask someone who never played D&D to Roleplay, and if you're lucky you'll get a piercing rendition of Shakespeare. If you're unlucky you'll get a slap across the face.

Roleplaying is what you describe,  an RPG is an attempt to translate an established game framework to a computer medium.

No, it's not. Otherwise the D&D starter set would not be described as an RPG. It is not a digital game in any way. You're talking about cRPGs, and even then - only to a small subset of them. However, I'm also talking about them... So I don't know why we're here right now.

An RPG isn't a concept,  it's a specific type of game and gameplay.

The more specific you get, the more exceptions arise. I know of RPGs which don't have an inventory, others which don't have stats, yet more which don't have choices which affect gameplay, and as I've already mentioned - HL2, where you are a mute scientist and never talk.

Believe you me, it's you setting your personal definition. The only requirements to being a roleplaying game are that:

1) There's a role to play.
2) It's a game.
3) There's a story (which is actually implied by 1, but a lot of people miss this).

Alot of people confuse the difference between Roleplaying and a Roleplaying Game.  It's important to note,  RPG denotes a very specific type of gameplay,  whereas Roleplaying is very undefined.

Like I said, if you want to believe that, I certainly cannot force you to think otherwise. However, be aware that your version may be mostly filled with marketing mumbo-jumbo which purposefully plays up "elements" that adhere to previous experiences.

Edit:

It's also important to note,  RPG has several subdefinitions.  Hack & Slash,  Munchkin,  Hardcore,  debatably Hybridized.  AD&D can be the framework,  GURPS can be the framework,  Pathfinder,  Hackmaster,  LotR,  Star Wars,  there's alot of frameworks,  but they all share commanality.  Character based skill,  with the character being fully defined via statistics,  and a number of other features.

Well, except that "statistics" can mean anything from "here's your DPS and your HP" to "I'm a level 23 War-meister who can haul 218lbs. on my 6'3" shoulders as I fight looking out of my one good eye (-8 to hit) that has 17 in Knitting Scarves from my 13 years being taken care of by my Grandmother (kinship background, +1 to Charisma)."

I can design dungeons using any of those systems which eliminates the need for HP, DPS, and any skill you can conjure up, come to think of it.

That's sort of the heart of RPGs... You don't need to use the rules, because at the core of everything, it's people being entertained by participating in a story.

The rules are there in case you want to add more complexity, but rules do not define what an RPG is... as you made so poignantly clear. There are hundreds of different "frameworks" - some compatible, some not - and a dozen different playstyles (you forgot Monty Haul). If "RPG" had a set, firm definition, there wouldn't be such a plethora of products out there because otherwse TSR would've patented it in 1978 and I'd be watching a digital d20 determine whether or not Shepard can shoot someone in the head with a sniper rifle.

[Bluko]

LOL

ME2 already did this OP. Thing is most people thought it was great when they did it for Mass Effect 2. They added ammo because apparently managing a heat gauge is too complicated so now you can just hold that trigger button in combat with no worries! (As long as you're using an SMG/AR.) They also removed inventory cause apparently that's too difficult to manage as well. (I'll admit you got way too much stuff, but that could have been easily solved with the second gamel.) Which also makes it plainly easier for the Devs since they only have to create one set of armor/clothes for each character. It's kind of sad really. I was amazed at how many different suits of armor Mass Effect had for Humanoids, Turians, Krogan, and Quarians. You literally had dozens of suits to choose from. Then in Mass Effect 2 you literally have no choice at all and only thing you can do is customize Shepard's armor. Sound a bit like Dragon Age 2 yet?

Also like Dragon Age 2, Mass Effect 2 suffers from a less engaging plot with numerous inconsistencies. From what I understand this is also somewhat of a problem with DA2. Both games are basically just a bunch of side missions. Although from what I understand Dragon Age 2 is worse since they are very repetitive in design and uninteresting.

Frankly I find it amusing. You have everyone lauding ME2 as one of the best games out there, but then Dragon Age 2 comes along and basically applies the same concepts and everyone boos it. I don't get it.

If I was a Bioware Dev I'd be hella confused. It's like they gave everyone pie for Mass Effect and Dragon Age: Origins and most people liked it. Then for Mass Effect 2 they give everyone chocolate cake and people can't get enough of it! So what do they do for Dragon Age 2? They give us vanilla cake! Apparently people just don't like vanilla cake as much.

Don't get me wrong niether ME2 or DA2 is a bad game, they're both good. Both games make numerous improvements, namely visually. But in comparison to their originals they also take a lot of steps backwards in terms of design.

So to answer your question: No ME3 will not take the direction of DA2 since they already did that with ME2. And as far as we know ME3 is basically going to play more or less just like ME2.

[Scimal]

olp33 wrote...


OMG I usually don't interfere with these forums much anymore since the topics on ME are always about the same thing these days but (and I mean this in the most polite way possible) your definition of an RPG is brutal. You are saying anything with a story is an RPG, which is horribly wrong.

Actually, I'm saying that all a game needs to be an RPG is a way to interact with a story.

I'm also saying that we each apply our own expectations and subjective interpretations to the monicker because we've each grown up with different experiences that evoke different reactions.

However, the irony is that you say my definition is wrong because it is different from yours.
 

Genres in games are identified by their core gameplay and mechanics (just like the difference between a Sci-Fi and Fantasy novel).

...Well, actually, both are sub-genres of Fiction. Plus, Science Fiction didn't exist (as a known genre) until Latin-American authors started producing significant work which started using Science to explain the fiction instead of magic and people agreed that it needed a new section.

There's actually very, very little difference between Fantasy and Sci-Fi when you get down to it (and as a former English Undergrad, I have - for many, many hours).
 

I don't mind, and I'm sure many people on these forums don't either, if you admit you like ME2 better...

Well, actually, I don't. I prefer ME1, save for LotSB, which I think is on-par with any ME1 mission. I don't know how you got to this assumption, though.
 

...but please don't call it an RPG. It's an Action RPG at best.

...I must wonder whether or not you apply the same logic to other portions of your life.

"Don't call it alcohol. It's wine at best."
"Don't call it food. It's sushi at best."
"Don't call it a job. It's programming at best."

Man I remember about 5 years ago these forums were full of people who loved RPG games and Bioware accomodated them first.

... I just hope you don't look the fool when you come to find out I was playing around on NWN persistent worlds some 8 years ago after being part of a few BGII forums and following the variations iterations of BG remakes with each new tool program.

It might be really emberrassing if I brought up the Gibberlings Three and you wouldn't know what I was talking about without Googling it.

Good thing those people from 5 years ago all moved on, though. Phew!
 

If you don't believe that Bioware is trying de-RPG or streamline their games nowadays try to find a really old thread, I recomend a DA one where TheDAS was first being coined.  They are most likely all taken down but still if you can find one you'll be able to tell the difference of today's and the old community members.

I know this one. The difference is I'm older! No, wait, you wanted that to be poignant and meaningful.

I know! The difference is that instead of crotchety grognards complaining about how their beloved ideal of a gaming system was perfected in AD&D 2nd Edition and that 3rd Edition is an abomination upon the swathes of tabletop fans, we have crotchety grognards complaining about how their beloved idea of a gaming system was perfected in (insert whatever game they like most here) and that ME2/DA2 is an abomination upon the swathes of cRPG fans!

I believe BioWare is trying to sell games. I believe the best method for which they've found to do so is to use relatively complex storylines and lots of NPC interactions via dialog choices. The rest changed depending on what made them the most money.

If you believe BioWare was doing something else before, you're nuts. The only reason BGII was so bloody complicated was because it had the AD&D 2E brand on it. The only reason NWN was so familiarly complex is because it was based off of D&D 3E. The minute BioWare has the opportunity to work on their own IPs, the complex systems (which were always intended to be tabletop systems) get thrown out the door and they're trying new ones.

The OP can not purchase ME3 based on their fears that the "vital and necessary" elements of what an RPG "is" are going to be "dumbed down" or missing or whatever. I'll buy it, have lots of little blue children, feel satisfied if the story turns out to my liking, and keep BioWare on my "good studios to buy from" list until they make something I don't really enjoy. If they totally botch ME3, I simply purchase games from other studios (like Valve if Ep. 3 ever sees the light of day) while people like the OP will be wriggling around wondering who makes "them good ol' RPGs like BioWare used to."

I suppose I could also just re-play BGII now that it's up on GoG.com...

Modifié par Scimal, 23 mars 2011 - 06:34 .

[marshalleck]

royceclemens wrote...

Korusus wrote...

royceclemens wrote...

Korusus wrote...

Mass Effect 1 limited its recycled areas to side quest planets (and they still took plenty of criticism for it).  Not so for Dragon Age 2 wherein nearly every interior and many exterior cells of the game, not just dungeons, are recycled.  There are no unique areas for main plot quests either, which ME1 did have.  Not to mention ME2 already corrected that problem.  The question is, if BioWare felt they could get away with it in DA2 (which they didn't, I think it's well established that it's the most glaring flaw in the game), do they feel they can get away with it in ME3?  Again it's only my concern.  Reusing maps would not be such a big deal if it were limited only to side quests as in ME1.

Well, to be fair, DA2 did take place in a very small space (and I guess there can be some agree-to-disagree to that, as I liked Kirkwall's intimacy), and again, I'm not excusing DA2's recycling, but could someone answer the question as to whether the reused environments in ME1 were reacted to as much like a slap to the face back in '07 when it came out?  Because as much love that's lavished on ME1 on this board, I'm finding it hard to believe.

No the reaction wasn't as bad as what DA2 is getting...but then the recycling wasn't as bad either.  And I can safely inform you that there were plenty of people that felt let down by the galaxy exploration aspect of Mass Effect 1 (good lord, remember the Mako?), the rest of the game just made up for it.  I won't get into excuses for DA2 since that's beyond the scope of my original point. 

Well, I was going to explain why the recycling bothered me more in ME1 than it did in DA2, but you're right it is beyond the point.

If I were a betting man, I'd say that if there were any recycling to happen within the confines of ME3, it'd be recycled environments from ME1, like the council chamber or the Presidium.  Completely forgivable and dare I say expected?

That's not really recycling though, is it? I mean, it's the same damned place. Recycling as a bad thing is when you use one asset to represent two unique and supposedly distinct locations. If they used the Citadel maps but populated them with different NPCs and called it Omega, that would be the bad sort of recycling we saw in DA2.

[Zulu_DFA]

Thompson family wrote...

These threads, like prostitution, are victimless crimes.

Off-topic, but how is prostitution a victimless crime?

[ShadowGhost317]

(Ignore This Post)

Modifié par ShadowGhost317, 25 mars 2011 - 07:58 .

[matt-bassist]

What everyone fails to understand is that ME3 isn't a sequel... ME2 was the sequel. And Bioware have acknowledged fans concerns and have promised to address them and refine the game to please the RPG crowd more. One of Christina Norman's goals for ME3 was a richer RPG experience, which can only be a good thing.

With DA2, THAT was the sequel to DA:O and, as such, expect DA3 (If they even bother to make it, I'm sure EA is pretty skeptical after such an enormous backlash from fans) to almost return entirely to how DA:O was. I mean, that's the type of game everyone loved. Virtually no one complained, everyone loved it.

Sure, Bioware tried something new, they tried to streamline it, tried to make it more CoD-friendly, but ultimately Dragon Age ISN'T Mass Effect. It's a swords and shields and sorcery game, and that my friends, is the province of the RPG. DA2 was a failed experiment at making Dragon Age into something it isn't. So if they do make DA3, then I would expect it to be DA:O 2.

On a side note, I really enjoyed DA2. I'm one of those people who can sort of put aside my differences/preferences and just play a game for enjoyment value. That being said, I nowhere like it as much as I LOVE Origins.

[Pr3ying M4nt15 360]

DA2 ^ was awsome. They better not return it to dated mechanics of DAO.