Boiled down, for me, the biggest flaw was DAII being rushed (game-breaking bugs and recycling). As long as ME3 isn't rushed (due to DAII's fan blacklash or otherwise), we're fine.
Will ME3 take DA2 direction?
Débuté par
ZenBaller
, mars 23 2011 12:38
Retour en haut
#77
Posté 23 mars 2011 - 12:02
Darth Death
-
- Members
- 2 396 messages
The worse apparently happened between the transition of ME1 to ME2, so with that ME3 should be strikingly similar to ME2, which in no way was a bad game.
#78
Posté 23 mars 2011 - 12:24
The Shadow Broker
-
- Members
- 636 messages
I HOPE NOT, mass effect should take his own direction.. this is (at least we suppose)the last chapter and the way to end all the previous done decisions and acts. While dragon age wasnt even a direct continuation for the previous DA, more like a spin off story in the same world story whise.
After ME3, they should continue the story expanding the universe, but kind of spin-off new games , not being titled ME
After ME3, they should continue the story expanding the universe, but kind of spin-off new games , not being titled ME
#79
Posté 23 mars 2011 - 02:31
BounceDK
-
- Members
- 607 messages
I'm sure they'll find some way to ruin Mass Effect 3 - After all, they make games for CoD crowd now.
#80
Posté 23 mars 2011 - 05:28
Tasker
-
- Members
- 1 320 messages
Idealy ( and this is just my opinion of the direction that I would like ME3 to go ), I would like...
ME1's epic story, ME1's UCW exploration system ( but done similar to Bring down the Sky in style )
A tweaked ME1's skill system
A tweaked ME1 style inventory/armour/weapons/mod system
ME1 style level transitions ( Elevators and airlocks )
ME2's Graphics engine
Me2's Shooting Mechanics ( minus the Thermal/ammo clip system )
ME1's epic story, ME1's UCW exploration system ( but done similar to Bring down the Sky in style )
A tweaked ME1's skill system
A tweaked ME1 style inventory/armour/weapons/mod system
ME1 style level transitions ( Elevators and airlocks )
ME2's Graphics engine
Me2's Shooting Mechanics ( minus the Thermal/ammo clip system )
Modifié par Orkboy, 23 mars 2011 - 05:29 .
#81
Posté 23 mars 2011 - 06:33
ShadyKat
-
- Members
- 1 851 messages
All ME2 needs to do to be perfect is
Add more skill and powers
have more squad interaction
write a well thought out story, and conclusion to the trilogy
get rid of planet scanning
add more weapons
add more armor types
Mass Effect 2 was a pretty damn good game, just trim the crap that sucked, and add some of the rpg element from the first game back in.
Add more skill and powers
have more squad interaction
write a well thought out story, and conclusion to the trilogy
get rid of planet scanning
add more weapons
add more armor types
Mass Effect 2 was a pretty damn good game, just trim the crap that sucked, and add some of the rpg element from the first game back in.
#82
Posté 23 mars 2011 - 06:53
UKStory135
-
- Members
- 3 954 messages
I have an idea! We can split ME3 into three elements. Menus, Talking, and Wandering around aimlessly looking for random crap. We will take all of the combat out of it and replace it with 3 different menu systems. One for weapons which has over 9000 weapons and you have to choose you weapon each time you want to fire. One for Powers and leveling up (you can level up to 1000), and the other to tell you and your squad mates every single move. When not in missions, you spend your time on the Normandy talking where you have another menu to pick out each work individually, you have to talk to your squad mates at least two hours each to get them to be able to level up. Lastly, to defeat the reapers, you must explore, IE wander around aimlessly for over 3 hours on 12 different planets to find the magical prothean ruins.
As soon as we take away all combat and fun from Mass Effect 3, we can finally make it good enough for the RPG elitists.
/sarcasm
I disagree with the premise that ME2 was dumbed down. The inventory system wasn't eliminated. It was just spread out in a way that was smoother. All of the Passive traits were combined, thus there only needed to be 30 levels. The only thing that was lost is that you couldn't change armor on your squad mates (And the Mako), but most of the Armor options were ugly anyway.
As soon as we take away all combat and fun from Mass Effect 3, we can finally make it good enough for the RPG elitists.
/sarcasm
I disagree with the premise that ME2 was dumbed down. The inventory system wasn't eliminated. It was just spread out in a way that was smoother. All of the Passive traits were combined, thus there only needed to be 30 levels. The only thing that was lost is that you couldn't change armor on your squad mates (And the Mako), but most of the Armor options were ugly anyway.
#83
Posté 23 mars 2011 - 06:56
Sleepicub09
-
- Members
- 3 928 messages
Wait a minute...Didn't DA2 try to follow the success of ME2?
#84
Posté 24 mars 2011 - 03:09
Newtype Taichou
-
- Members
- 65 messages
Scimal
I think you're complicating the definition of RPG and definitions in general.
Definitions are OBJECTIVE, genres exists so there is a basis for comparison when discussing certain topics. Trying to make a definition subjective is just ironic and adverse to what the concept of a definition is. Everyone generally agrees on what an RPG is on this forum.
Why? Because they recognize the objectivity of "RPG" and therefore know what it means. So when someone says it they know what they're talking about.
You can use your "subjective" definition of RPG. But just know it discredits you and creates a miscommunication because most people will discuss with the objective definition in mind.
I think you're complicating the definition of RPG and definitions in general.
Definitions are OBJECTIVE, genres exists so there is a basis for comparison when discussing certain topics. Trying to make a definition subjective is just ironic and adverse to what the concept of a definition is. Everyone generally agrees on what an RPG is on this forum.
Why? Because they recognize the objectivity of "RPG" and therefore know what it means. So when someone says it they know what they're talking about.
You can use your "subjective" definition of RPG. But just know it discredits you and creates a miscommunication because most people will discuss with the objective definition in mind.
#85
Posté 24 mars 2011 - 03:16
ADelusiveMan
-
- Members
- 1 172 messages
ShadyKat wrote...
All ME2 needs to do to be perfect is
Add more skill and powers
have more squad interaction
write a well thought out story, and conclusion to the trilogy
get rid of planet scanning
add more weapons
add more armor types
Mass Effect 2 was a pretty damn good game, just trim the crap that sucked, and add some of the rpg element from the first game back in.
This.
And Dragon Age in general is just a Mass Effect wannabe. ME is, as I have previously said, far superior to DA.
#86
Posté 24 mars 2011 - 03:23
StowyMcStowstow
-
- Members
- 648 messages
Not really. Mass Effect and Dragon Age are different styles of fantasy. one is sci-fi, the other is high fantasy. Comparingone to the other is like comparing apples to oranges.ADelusiveMan wrote...
ShadyKat wrote...
All ME2 needs to do to be perfect is
Add more skill and powers
have more squad interaction
write a well thought out story, and conclusion to the trilogy
get rid of planet scanning
add more weapons
add more armor types
Mass Effect 2 was a pretty damn good game, just trim the crap that sucked, and add some of the rpg element from the first game back in.
This.
And Dragon Age in general is just a Mass Effect wannabe. ME is, as I have previously said, far superior to DA.
ME2 had plenty of flaws. I don't think mining needs to be taken out, but mining needs to be... different. Maybe similar to DA2s crafting? I would simplify the mining, at least. Then again, in LotSB, you could get resources from that one node-thingy on the SB ship. The one next to Liara. You know.
#87
Posté 24 mars 2011 - 03:28
CerberusRelay
-
- Members
- 4 messages
I have yet to play DA2. But, What I did notice about the 2nd ME is that they took away the ability to equip what ever equpiment you wanted on the go. With the first one you really felt a sense of accomplishment when you fillied the skill tree up. With the second one, they took out most of the RP element out and put more 3rdPS element. The skiil tree only buffs up your already limited skills any how. With the 3rd installment, I hope to see less action paced skill trees. Put the skill tree of ME with the pace of ME2.
#88
Posté 24 mars 2011 - 04:19
olp33
-
- Members
- 32 messages
Scimal wrote...
[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.
Haha I can see where this argument is going. Genres are not subjective they are identified through their core gameplay. You are either identifying RPing or nit picking at the word RPG. The genre RPG contains a difinitive set of core mechanics and even though the genre may evolve those features are mostly unchanged.
...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).
That's pretty cool that you studied English but still....Even though there is a small difference there is a core set of features that both genres contain and are identified through. That's why almost every bookstore has different sections for Fantasy and Sci-Fi.
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.
Ah, my bad. That was an unfair assumption
...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."
Well by that logic we should just consider all games as just games. Games are a product and need to be identified for marketing purposes. If someone was advertising food for $15 and someone whos hungry shows up to buy it expecting something the like but find out that its sushi (we're asuming they don't like sushi) they will be disapointed. You have to identify games since an Action RPG is more simple compared to an RPG fathers may want to look for Action RPGs so they can simply have fun and not worry about things such as inventory. But this is all has nothing to do with my original point and I don't really want to comment any further on this.
... 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!
That's nice to hear you played all of those games and it's nice to hear you're not a new Bioware fan trying to promote the simplication of their games. Especially since you've been here awhile even you need to admit the forums are different these days. It used to be about the fans trying to expand the universe and not their old fans begging them to keep some of their old style of making games. Geeze even very recently I remember when Blasto was first talked about that was awsome! And Bioware decided to add it into their game! My point is that now you can tell Bioware doesn't nuture their hardcore fan base. But you never know maybe they will for ME3.
You're right I haven't heard of Gibberlings Three. What's your point?
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...
Well first of all I will admit that ME2 hit the hammer on the nail with some features ME1 failed. I also admit when certain gaming systems are better than other (ie. WHFB 7th ed. is not as good as. 8th). I know Bioware is tryiing to make money but believe it or not mort BW fans are hardcore and loyal. They are trying to attract simple non loyal fans and expense of the older ones. To me this seems like another Lionhead situation and hopefully BW knows that most of their profit comes from the players who get the DLC buy the books and recommend it to their firends.
That's good that you will be satisfied with the game being simplified mainly due to the fact its still Mass Effect. Still I'm bothered by the fact that you don't have a problem with BW changing ME1 rather than expanding on it. Even though you clearly stated you enjoy ME1 more than ME2. Still I don't really care what you think I'm encouraging BW to go back and rejuvinate most of the old features that are in ME1 and that's that.
Overall most of this conversation seems like pointless nit picking and doesn't take away the fact that you are wrong with your definition of what's considered an RPG.
Modifié par olp33, 24 mars 2011 - 04:21 .
#89
Posté 24 mars 2011 - 04:31
dminto29
-
- Members
- 30 messages
I feel like ME2 was the inspiration for DA2 in a lot of ways. Streamlined combat, limited party member equipment customization, basically linear play etc. The difference is it worked fantastically in ME2 in my opinion and not so well in DA2.
Its been mentioned before but I felt it bears repeating.
Its been mentioned before but I felt it bears repeating.
#90
Posté 24 mars 2011 - 04:42
Scimal
-
- Members
- 601 messages
Newtype Taichou wrote...
Scimal
I think you're complicating the definition of RPG and definitions in general.
Complicating? No, quite the opposite. Simplifying.
Role-play: to act out the role of.
Game: activity engaged in for diversion or amusement.
Role-Playing Game (abbr. RPG).
That's straight from Marriam-Webster. Everything else you think an RPG (or cRPGs as the discussion centers around them) is "supposed" to be is completely your own construction.
Definitions are OBJECTIVE...
Strictly speaking, they're not. Definitions change, have always changed, and objectivity is incredibly difficult (if nigh impossible) to achieve for language. Objectivity remains the realm of mathematics, not the spoken word.
However, to satiate the common understanding of "objective," I provided definitions straight out of the dictionary.
...genres exists so there is a basis for comparison when discussing certain topics.
If you want to say so. Genres are little more than the subjective interpretation of the seller and buyer of whatever product is being bartered. Sometimes the creator purposefully intends a genre for their work, so they work-in well-known tropes which are familiar to customers because they've seen them before in other bodies of work.
Trying to make a definition subjective is just ironic and adverse to what the concept of a definition is.
If you want to believe so, then I won't contest too much. I have already provided you with the definition - per the dictionary - of what a Role-Playing Game should be.
Everyone generally agrees on what an RPG is on this forum.
Why would "everyone" "generally" agree on what an RPG is when it has an objective, easily found definition in the dictionary, which I have provided?
/Socratic irony
Why? Because they recognize the objectivity of "RPG" and therefore know what it means. So when someone says it they know what they're talking about.
Read up on Deconstructionism by Derridae. The quote here is almost patently ridiculous.
RPG = a computer programming language
RPG = Rocket Propelled Grenade
RPG = Role-Playing Game
"RPG" is not objective. It depends on your subjective interpretation and the context.
You can use your "subjective" definition of RPG. But just know it discredits you and creates a miscommunication because most people will discuss with the objective definition in mind.
I don't think you know what objective and subjective mean. You've, for all intents and purposes, reversed them.
Just as "tree" isn't objective because you and I don't picture the same tree, and barring visual representations won't arrive at the same definition (unless you, too, have taken courses in Evolutionary Biology)... "RPG" in the context of this forum also isn't objective. Both are entirely subjective - it's just that you and I have been exposed to many of the same trees throughout our lives, so the discordance between my picture and yours is slimmer than it is with other things.
Do you want to know how I know this? Because for all your talk, you couldn't give me a defintion of what an "RPG" is.
I gave you one. An RPG (Role-Playing Game) is an entertaining activity during which you play out a role.
My definition from my first post, if I remember correctly, was a story that you interact with.
Your definition (I can only assume) is probably, "A complex, spanning storyline in which the character interacts - both socially and physically - and contains NPCs, an inventory system, and a stats system for which to customize the character to the tastes of the player."
If that is your defnition of what an RPG is, then the only way that ME3 could be a threat would be to completely eliminate one aspect of that definition. Since I'm fairly sure there will be a story, a world, NPCs, an inventory system, and leveling up - there isn't any reason for the OP to fear ME3.
The only reason the OP might not look forward to ME3 is because their definition is dramatically more specific and complex than mine. Maybe an inventory system is supposed to be one screen to the OP instead of two. Maybe "stats" is supposed to include multiple redundant and/or frivalous choices to waste points on except for the handful of instances which require that single skill alone. Maybe they just didn't like the way DA2 told its story and the way the world was presented, and all the "nitty-gritty" of what a "true RPG" is supposed to contain was in DA2 but implemented poorly.
I honestly have no idea. I don't have an idea because the OP is not psychic, so they cannot imlant my mind with what their definition of an "RPG" is. If they were to say, "I'm afraid ME3 will be less complex in its customization than ME2 as DA2 is less complex in its storyline and character customization than DA: O..." then we'd be working on a much better base to address the concerns.
#91
Posté 24 mars 2011 - 05:32
Scimal
-
- Members
- 601 messages
[quote]olp33 wrote...
Haha I can see where this argument is going.[/quote]
You mean "where it's been." I've had the same argument for a while now: What defines an RPG is different to each person, and in its most basic incarnation is a story that you interact with for entertainment.
[quote]Genres are not subjective they are identified through their core gameplay.[/quote]
So is SC2 an RTS or an RPG? You play a character, make vital choices to the storyline, and interact with NPCs... You even have a stats system which upgrades your units and something resembling an inventory.
However, there is that whole pesky "strategically eliminating the opponent in real-time" thing.
Maybe it's a hybrid? No, that can't be. Genres are objective, which means they're as well-defined as the laws of space and time.
[quote]You are either identifying RPing or nit picking at the word RPG. The genre RPG contains a difinitive set of core mechanics and even though the genre may evolve those features are mostly unchanged.[/quote]
I'll just take a brief moment that out of the three or four people who have lectured me on how my definition of what an RPG "is" - exactly 0 have provided a "definitive" list of mechanics or elements vital to RPGs.
Not only that, but how can a genre - which is defined by its core mechanics - evolve without changing its core mechanics? Is there some ur-metabolic process inherent to every RPG ever made, like a digital mitochondria?
[quote]
That's pretty cool that you studied English but still....Even though there is a small difference there is a core set of features that both genres contain and are identified through. That's why almost every bookstore has different sections for Fantasy and Sci-Fi.[/quote]
Yeah, the small difference is smaller than you think it is. Also, my local Barnes and Noble no longer has a Sci-Fi section. It's been absorbed by the Fantasy section.
[quote]
Well by that logic we should just consider all games as just games.[/quote]
... Why.. would... we not consider games... as... games?
Are games something else? Like... elephants or chairs?
I have no idea what you mean by this, unless you're implying that games have other purposes outside of providing entertainment. Kind of like how anything blunt and heavy could be considered a hammer, but isn't necessarily the claw hammer we generally think of.
[quote]Games are a product and need to be identified for marketing purposes. If someone was advertising food for $15 and someone whos hungry shows up to buy it expecting something the like but find out that its sushi (we're asuming they don't like sushi) they will be disapointed.[/quote]
Actually, I really enjoy this metaphor because you're equating finding out that the local restaurant doesn't serve food you enjoy to finding out that the company you enjoy isn't serving up your favorite flavor of RPG anymore.
In both cases the result is mild disappointment followed by finding a new place. I also love this metaphor because it implies that the pickier the eater (and thus, pickier the player) the more searching they'll do before finding another place that caters to their wants.
This gets a total thumbs up from me, even though I don't think you meant it to support my argument.
[quote]You have to identify games since an Action RPG is more simple compared to an RPG...[/quote]
Yeah, you've yet to explain what either an Action RPG or an RPG actually are, so if you want to believe this is true, I can't argue that.
[quote]...fathers may want to look for Action RPGs so they can simply have fun and not worry about things such as inventory. But this is all has nothing to do with my original point and I don't really want to comment any further on this.[/quote]
DA2, DA: O, ME1, and ME2 all have inventories, so I'm glad you won't comment on it as well.
[quote]
That's nice to hear you played all of those games and it's nice to hear you're not a new Bioware fan trying to promote the simplication of their games. Especially since you've been here awhile even you need to admit the forums are different these days. It used to be about the fans trying to expand the universe and not their old fans begging them to keep some of their old style of making games.[/quote]
Bull-sheezy. The fans haven't shut the %$#! up since Baldur's Gate about returning to the level of interactivity offered by the series. Every single BW game is inevitably going to be compared to the "Golden Age" of RPGs where text flowed freely and you cold get 150 hours of game for $50.
It's been going on so long it was part of the marketing for DA:O, remember? The "spiritual successor to BGII" and all that load of horse manure? That was about as targeted as advertising gets.
The problem here is that we're generalizing. The forums have always had a mix of people who really enjoy the IPs, the people who are indifferent, the people who thought the last game was the best game ever, and the people who thought that the last 5 games were utter junk compared to the one they've idealized.
[quote]Geeze even very recently I remember when Blasto was first talked about that was awsome! And Bioware decided to add it into their game! My point is that now you can tell Bioware doesn't nuture their hardcore fan base. But you never know maybe they will for ME3. [/quote]
Because, in general, hardcore fanbases are much, much pickier and harder to please than any other fanbase.
BW does an astounding job in actually communicating with its audience and changing aspects of gameplay to suit the majority of the players. As the playerbase changes, so will the games. BioWare cannot afford to make games for picky hardcore players. That's what smaller studios are for.
[quote]You're right I haven't heard of Gibberlings Three. What's your point?[/quote]
My point was is that I've been part of the community long enough to know the name of the group/website that made some of the best BGII mods ever off the top of my head.
I was basically invalidating your whole "I remember when the community was this..." argument because I've been around longer and it hasn't really changed that much.
[quote]I know Bioware is tryiing to make money but believe it or not mort BW fans are hardcore and loyal.[/quote]
Sure. As much as one can be loyal to a company that creates an enjoyable product. Certainly not loyal like I am to actual people.
If BioWare suddenly started making drastically different games, or suddenly turned to junk, you'd be surprised how quickly the loyal fanbase would erode.
[quote]They are trying to attract simple non loyal fans and expense of the older ones.[/quote]
Non-loyal fans become new loyal fans to replace the older ones which didn't find the new games appealing, as long as BioWare has done their job well.
[quote]To me this seems like another Lionhead situation and hopefully BW knows that most of their profit comes from the players who get the DLC buy the books and recommend it to their firends.[/quote]
Most of their profit comes from game sales, with DLC probably a distant second. That's what their marketing department is for. While word of mouth can make or break a game, BW has always had fairly high quality standards which means they'd have to do something atrocious to earn bad word of mouth (sort of like re-using the same 4 areas in DA2).
[quote]
Still I'm bothered by the fact that you don't have a problem with BW changing ME1 rather than expanding on it. Even though you clearly stated you enjoy ME1 more than ME2. [/quote]
Why? A lot of things about ME1 sucked. The Mako controls were horrible, the voice acting was spotty for the protagonist, the auto-save was clunky, the loading methods (and I don't mean the elevators) were practically archaic, and sometimes the dialog was almost directly opposed to the text option it corresponded to.
ME1, though, did have some interesting characters, a pretty good story, and at the end of the day had a nice blend of social interaction and bullets. At least, for me.
[quote]Still I don't really care what you think I'm encouraging BW to go back and rejuvinate most of the old features that are in ME1 and that's that.[/quote]
Good.
[quote]Overall most of this conversation seems like pointless nit picking and doesn't take away the fact that you are wrong with your definition of what's considered an RPG.
[/quote]
Seeing as you've yet to define what an RPG is, I don't see how my definition is invalid.
Haha I can see where this argument is going.[/quote]
You mean "where it's been." I've had the same argument for a while now: What defines an RPG is different to each person, and in its most basic incarnation is a story that you interact with for entertainment.
[quote]Genres are not subjective they are identified through their core gameplay.[/quote]
So is SC2 an RTS or an RPG? You play a character, make vital choices to the storyline, and interact with NPCs... You even have a stats system which upgrades your units and something resembling an inventory.
However, there is that whole pesky "strategically eliminating the opponent in real-time" thing.
Maybe it's a hybrid? No, that can't be. Genres are objective, which means they're as well-defined as the laws of space and time.
[quote]You are either identifying RPing or nit picking at the word RPG. The genre RPG contains a difinitive set of core mechanics and even though the genre may evolve those features are mostly unchanged.[/quote]
I'll just take a brief moment that out of the three or four people who have lectured me on how my definition of what an RPG "is" - exactly 0 have provided a "definitive" list of mechanics or elements vital to RPGs.
Not only that, but how can a genre - which is defined by its core mechanics - evolve without changing its core mechanics? Is there some ur-metabolic process inherent to every RPG ever made, like a digital mitochondria?
[quote]
That's pretty cool that you studied English but still....Even though there is a small difference there is a core set of features that both genres contain and are identified through. That's why almost every bookstore has different sections for Fantasy and Sci-Fi.[/quote]
Yeah, the small difference is smaller than you think it is. Also, my local Barnes and Noble no longer has a Sci-Fi section. It's been absorbed by the Fantasy section.
[quote]
Well by that logic we should just consider all games as just games.[/quote]
... Why.. would... we not consider games... as... games?
Are games something else? Like... elephants or chairs?
I have no idea what you mean by this, unless you're implying that games have other purposes outside of providing entertainment. Kind of like how anything blunt and heavy could be considered a hammer, but isn't necessarily the claw hammer we generally think of.
[quote]Games are a product and need to be identified for marketing purposes. If someone was advertising food for $15 and someone whos hungry shows up to buy it expecting something the like but find out that its sushi (we're asuming they don't like sushi) they will be disapointed.[/quote]
Actually, I really enjoy this metaphor because you're equating finding out that the local restaurant doesn't serve food you enjoy to finding out that the company you enjoy isn't serving up your favorite flavor of RPG anymore.
In both cases the result is mild disappointment followed by finding a new place. I also love this metaphor because it implies that the pickier the eater (and thus, pickier the player) the more searching they'll do before finding another place that caters to their wants.
This gets a total thumbs up from me, even though I don't think you meant it to support my argument.
[quote]You have to identify games since an Action RPG is more simple compared to an RPG...[/quote]
Yeah, you've yet to explain what either an Action RPG or an RPG actually are, so if you want to believe this is true, I can't argue that.
[quote]...fathers may want to look for Action RPGs so they can simply have fun and not worry about things such as inventory. But this is all has nothing to do with my original point and I don't really want to comment any further on this.[/quote]
DA2, DA: O, ME1, and ME2 all have inventories, so I'm glad you won't comment on it as well.
[quote]
That's nice to hear you played all of those games and it's nice to hear you're not a new Bioware fan trying to promote the simplication of their games. Especially since you've been here awhile even you need to admit the forums are different these days. It used to be about the fans trying to expand the universe and not their old fans begging them to keep some of their old style of making games.[/quote]
Bull-sheezy. The fans haven't shut the %$#! up since Baldur's Gate about returning to the level of interactivity offered by the series. Every single BW game is inevitably going to be compared to the "Golden Age" of RPGs where text flowed freely and you cold get 150 hours of game for $50.
It's been going on so long it was part of the marketing for DA:O, remember? The "spiritual successor to BGII" and all that load of horse manure? That was about as targeted as advertising gets.
The problem here is that we're generalizing. The forums have always had a mix of people who really enjoy the IPs, the people who are indifferent, the people who thought the last game was the best game ever, and the people who thought that the last 5 games were utter junk compared to the one they've idealized.
[quote]Geeze even very recently I remember when Blasto was first talked about that was awsome! And Bioware decided to add it into their game! My point is that now you can tell Bioware doesn't nuture their hardcore fan base. But you never know maybe they will for ME3. [/quote]
Because, in general, hardcore fanbases are much, much pickier and harder to please than any other fanbase.
BW does an astounding job in actually communicating with its audience and changing aspects of gameplay to suit the majority of the players. As the playerbase changes, so will the games. BioWare cannot afford to make games for picky hardcore players. That's what smaller studios are for.
[quote]You're right I haven't heard of Gibberlings Three. What's your point?[/quote]
My point was is that I've been part of the community long enough to know the name of the group/website that made some of the best BGII mods ever off the top of my head.
I was basically invalidating your whole "I remember when the community was this..." argument because I've been around longer and it hasn't really changed that much.
[quote]I know Bioware is tryiing to make money but believe it or not mort BW fans are hardcore and loyal.[/quote]
Sure. As much as one can be loyal to a company that creates an enjoyable product. Certainly not loyal like I am to actual people.
If BioWare suddenly started making drastically different games, or suddenly turned to junk, you'd be surprised how quickly the loyal fanbase would erode.
[quote]They are trying to attract simple non loyal fans and expense of the older ones.[/quote]
Non-loyal fans become new loyal fans to replace the older ones which didn't find the new games appealing, as long as BioWare has done their job well.
[quote]To me this seems like another Lionhead situation and hopefully BW knows that most of their profit comes from the players who get the DLC buy the books and recommend it to their firends.[/quote]
Most of their profit comes from game sales, with DLC probably a distant second. That's what their marketing department is for. While word of mouth can make or break a game, BW has always had fairly high quality standards which means they'd have to do something atrocious to earn bad word of mouth (sort of like re-using the same 4 areas in DA2).
[quote]
Still I'm bothered by the fact that you don't have a problem with BW changing ME1 rather than expanding on it. Even though you clearly stated you enjoy ME1 more than ME2. [/quote]
Why? A lot of things about ME1 sucked. The Mako controls were horrible, the voice acting was spotty for the protagonist, the auto-save was clunky, the loading methods (and I don't mean the elevators) were practically archaic, and sometimes the dialog was almost directly opposed to the text option it corresponded to.
ME1, though, did have some interesting characters, a pretty good story, and at the end of the day had a nice blend of social interaction and bullets. At least, for me.
[quote]Still I don't really care what you think I'm encouraging BW to go back and rejuvinate most of the old features that are in ME1 and that's that.[/quote]
Good.
[quote]Overall most of this conversation seems like pointless nit picking and doesn't take away the fact that you are wrong with your definition of what's considered an RPG.
[/quote]
Seeing as you've yet to define what an RPG is, I don't see how my definition is invalid.
#92
Posté 24 mars 2011 - 05:44
Kane-Corr
-
- Members
- 888 messages
If people are playing these games for the inventory/skill tree...then you are completely missing the point. Bioware is known for their stories-plot, characters, etc.
#93
Posté 24 mars 2011 - 05:49
Newtype Taichou
-
- Members
- 65 messages
I really wanna play ME1 again now lmao
Modifié par Newtype Taichou, 24 mars 2011 - 07:20 .
#94
Posté 24 mars 2011 - 05:55
Newtype Taichou
-
- Members
- 65 messages
[quote]Newtype Taichou wrote...
[quote]Scimal wrote...
[quote]Newtype Taichou wrote...
Scimal
I think you're complicating the definition of RPG and definitions in general.[/quote]
Complicating? No, quite the opposite. Simplifying.
Role-play: to act out the role of.
Game: activity engaged in for diversion or amusement.
Role-Playing Game (abbr. RPG).
That's straight from Marriam-Webster. Everything else you think an RPG (or cRPGs as the discussion centers around them) is "supposed" to be is completely your own construction.
[quote]Definitions are OBJECTIVE...[/quote]
Strictly speaking, they're not. Definitions change, have always changed, and objectivity is incredibly difficult (if nigh impossible) to achieve for language. Objectivity remains the realm of mathematics, not the spoken word.
However, to satiate the common understanding of "objective," I provided definitions straight out of the dictionary.
[quote]...genres exists so there is a basis for comparison when discussing certain topics.[/quote]
If you want to say so. Genres are little more than the subjective interpretation of the seller and buyer of whatever product is being bartered. Sometimes the creator purposefully intends a genre for their work, so they work-in well-known tropes which are familiar to customers because they've seen them before in other bodies of work.
[quote]Trying to make a definition subjective is just ironic and adverse to what the concept of a definition is.[/quote]
If you want to believe so, then I won't contest too much. I have already provided you with the definition - per the dictionary - of what a Role-Playing Game should be.
[quote]Everyone generally agrees on what an RPG is on this forum.[/quote]
Why would "everyone" "generally" agree on what an RPG is when it has an objective, easily found definition in the dictionary, which I have provided?
/Socratic irony
[quote]Why? Because they recognize the objectivity of "RPG" and therefore know what it means. So when someone says it they know what they're talking about.[/quote]
Read up on Deconstructionism by Derridae. The quote here is almost patently ridiculous.
RPG = a computer programming language
RPG = Rocket Propelled Grenade
RPG = Role-Playing Game
"RPG" is not objective. It depends on your subjective interpretation and the context.
[quote]You can use your "subjective" definition of RPG. But just know it discredits you and creates a miscommunication because most people will discuss with the objective definition in mind. [/quote]
I don't think you know what objective and subjective mean. You've, for all intents and purposes, reversed them.
Just as "tree" isn't objective because you and I don't picture the same tree, and barring visual representations won't arrive at the same definition (unless you, too, have taken courses in Evolutionary Biology)... "RPG" in the context of this forum also isn't objective. Both are entirely subjective - it's just that you and I have been exposed to many of the same trees throughout our lives, so the discordance between my picture and yours is slimmer than it is with other things.
Do you want to know how I know this? Because for all your talk, you couldn't give me a defintion of what an "RPG" is.
I gave you one. An RPG (Role-Playing Game) is an entertaining activity during which you play out a role.
My definition from my first post, if I remember correctly, was a story that you interact with.
Your definition (I can only assume) is probably, "A complex, spanning storyline in which the character interacts - both socially and physically - and contains NPCs, an inventory system, and a stats system for which to customize the character to the tastes of the player."
If that is your defnition of what an RPG is, then the only way that ME3 could be a threat would be to completely eliminate one aspect of that definition. Since I'm fairly sure there will be a story, a world, NPCs, an inventory system, and leveling up - there isn't any reason for the OP to fear ME3.
The only reason the OP might not look forward to ME3 is because their definition is dramatically more specific and complex than mine. Maybe an inventory system is supposed to be one screen to the OP instead of two. Maybe "stats" is supposed to include multiple redundant and/or frivalous choices to waste points on except for the handful of instances which require that single skill alone. Maybe they just didn't like the way DA2 told its story and the way the world was presented, and all the "nitty-gritty" of what a "true RPG" is supposed to contain was in DA2 but implemented poorly.
I honestly have no idea. I don't have an idea because the OP is not psychic, so they cannot imlant my mind with what their definition of an "RPG" is. If they were to say, "I'm afraid ME3 will be less complex in its customization than ME2 as DA2 is less complex in its storyline and character customization than DA: O..." then we'd be working on a much better base to address the concerns.[/quote]
Try being more concise and condense your point, here I'm good at it
Is MW2 an RPG for you? You know why everyone generally agrees on what an RPG is? Because it has a definition, objective, meaning it has a reality separate from the mind. One we all agree on. And that is:
Role: Assuming someone's position and controlling their actions more than just physically.
Play: Self-Explanatory
Game: Also Self-explanatory
A role entails assuming control of someone's decisions, to choose or determine and perclude or guarantee a certain outcome. Outcomes that are a result of different variables you've decided should be selected. Most people here have a similar understanding of RPGs, this is why all these other members can have discussions. We know what the other means when they say "RPG".
We'd both be imagining a tree, no matter what (branches, bark etc.), because we have an objective defintion of a tree. The details of the tree are subjective yes.
Oh and regarding what you said about the OP, ME2 IS an RPG calling it otherwise would be incorrect. The issue is just that it's not the RPG ME1 was. In terms of depth, I fully consider ME2 an RPG.
Please stop plugging your "achievements" gaining an incomplete undergrad and taking a course in Bio means little aha.
[quote]Scimal wrote...
[quote]Newtype Taichou wrote...
Scimal
I think you're complicating the definition of RPG and definitions in general.[/quote]
Complicating? No, quite the opposite. Simplifying.
Role-play: to act out the role of.
Game: activity engaged in for diversion or amusement.
Role-Playing Game (abbr. RPG).
That's straight from Marriam-Webster. Everything else you think an RPG (or cRPGs as the discussion centers around them) is "supposed" to be is completely your own construction.
[quote]Definitions are OBJECTIVE...[/quote]
Strictly speaking, they're not. Definitions change, have always changed, and objectivity is incredibly difficult (if nigh impossible) to achieve for language. Objectivity remains the realm of mathematics, not the spoken word.
However, to satiate the common understanding of "objective," I provided definitions straight out of the dictionary.
[quote]...genres exists so there is a basis for comparison when discussing certain topics.[/quote]
If you want to say so. Genres are little more than the subjective interpretation of the seller and buyer of whatever product is being bartered. Sometimes the creator purposefully intends a genre for their work, so they work-in well-known tropes which are familiar to customers because they've seen them before in other bodies of work.
[quote]Trying to make a definition subjective is just ironic and adverse to what the concept of a definition is.[/quote]
If you want to believe so, then I won't contest too much. I have already provided you with the definition - per the dictionary - of what a Role-Playing Game should be.
[quote]Everyone generally agrees on what an RPG is on this forum.[/quote]
Why would "everyone" "generally" agree on what an RPG is when it has an objective, easily found definition in the dictionary, which I have provided?
/Socratic irony
[quote]Why? Because they recognize the objectivity of "RPG" and therefore know what it means. So when someone says it they know what they're talking about.[/quote]
Read up on Deconstructionism by Derridae. The quote here is almost patently ridiculous.
RPG = a computer programming language
RPG = Rocket Propelled Grenade
RPG = Role-Playing Game
"RPG" is not objective. It depends on your subjective interpretation and the context.
[quote]You can use your "subjective" definition of RPG. But just know it discredits you and creates a miscommunication because most people will discuss with the objective definition in mind. [/quote]
I don't think you know what objective and subjective mean. You've, for all intents and purposes, reversed them.
Just as "tree" isn't objective because you and I don't picture the same tree, and barring visual representations won't arrive at the same definition (unless you, too, have taken courses in Evolutionary Biology)... "RPG" in the context of this forum also isn't objective. Both are entirely subjective - it's just that you and I have been exposed to many of the same trees throughout our lives, so the discordance between my picture and yours is slimmer than it is with other things.
Do you want to know how I know this? Because for all your talk, you couldn't give me a defintion of what an "RPG" is.
I gave you one. An RPG (Role-Playing Game) is an entertaining activity during which you play out a role.
My definition from my first post, if I remember correctly, was a story that you interact with.
Your definition (I can only assume) is probably, "A complex, spanning storyline in which the character interacts - both socially and physically - and contains NPCs, an inventory system, and a stats system for which to customize the character to the tastes of the player."
If that is your defnition of what an RPG is, then the only way that ME3 could be a threat would be to completely eliminate one aspect of that definition. Since I'm fairly sure there will be a story, a world, NPCs, an inventory system, and leveling up - there isn't any reason for the OP to fear ME3.
The only reason the OP might not look forward to ME3 is because their definition is dramatically more specific and complex than mine. Maybe an inventory system is supposed to be one screen to the OP instead of two. Maybe "stats" is supposed to include multiple redundant and/or frivalous choices to waste points on except for the handful of instances which require that single skill alone. Maybe they just didn't like the way DA2 told its story and the way the world was presented, and all the "nitty-gritty" of what a "true RPG" is supposed to contain was in DA2 but implemented poorly.
I honestly have no idea. I don't have an idea because the OP is not psychic, so they cannot imlant my mind with what their definition of an "RPG" is. If they were to say, "I'm afraid ME3 will be less complex in its customization than ME2 as DA2 is less complex in its storyline and character customization than DA: O..." then we'd be working on a much better base to address the concerns.[/quote]
Try being more concise and condense your point, here I'm good at it
Is MW2 an RPG for you? You know why everyone generally agrees on what an RPG is? Because it has a definition, objective, meaning it has a reality separate from the mind. One we all agree on. And that is:
Role: Assuming someone's position and controlling their actions more than just physically.
Play: Self-Explanatory
Game: Also Self-explanatory
A role entails assuming control of someone's decisions, to choose or determine and perclude or guarantee a certain outcome. Outcomes that are a result of different variables you've decided should be selected. Most people here have a similar understanding of RPGs, this is why all these other members can have discussions. We know what the other means when they say "RPG".
We'd both be imagining a tree, no matter what (branches, bark etc.), because we have an objective defintion of a tree. The details of the tree are subjective yes.
Oh and regarding what you said about the OP, ME2 IS an RPG calling it otherwise would be incorrect. The issue is just that it's not the RPG ME1 was. In terms of depth, I fully consider ME2 an RPG.
Please stop plugging your "achievements" gaining an incomplete undergrad and taking a course in Bio means little aha.
Modifié par Newtype Taichou, 24 mars 2011 - 06:43 .
#95
Posté 24 mars 2011 - 06:07
PHub88
-
- Members
- 555 messages
Kane-Corr wrote...
If people are playing these games for the inventory/skill tree...then you are completely missing the point. Bioware is known for their stories-plot, characters, etc.
Thats besides the point, everthing is getting dubbed down to the point where its closer and closer to not even being an RPG. DA2 was so awful I had to force myself to beat it...and I have NEVER seen such a large number of people agree on a single game sucking as did with that one. There is absolutely no reason to not expect ME3 to have the same fate as DA2...Just hope to god ME3 isnt one giant "homosexual encounters every 10 seconds"...story so dull you cant believe it was written piece of crap like DA2 is. Im tired of this crap....
Its funny too b ecause I only recently in the past 2 years played my first RPG...I hated RPGs at first...because i was FPS fan who didnt realize anything else could be fun...I first played ME1 and HATED it...I tried out Fallout 3 thinking it was a FPS (part of it is)...it grew on me...and I realized how much I had been missing by not playing RPG games...I retried ME1 and totally fell in love with it...and just now that I fall in love with this crap everyone wants to go and get rid of that genre all together by simplifing everything to the point where its noteven an RPG...and I am the FURTHEST thing from an RPG purist and even I get so POed and annoyed with the changes they put in games...when your a fan of RPG games its not very hard to look at ME2 as major step BACKWARDS in a lot of aspects...and DA2 is ABSOLUTELY a step backwards.
#96
Posté 24 mars 2011 - 06:10
vdeity
-
- Members
- 363 messages
Witness Shepard's triumphant 10-year rise to power on the surface of Earth as s/he eliminates the the Reaper threat and declares him/herself Champion of the space-peoples.
Modifié par vdeity, 24 mars 2011 - 06:10 .
#97
Posté 24 mars 2011 - 06:35
ADelusiveMan
-
- Members
- 1 172 messages
StowyMcStowstow wrote...
Not really. Mass Effect and Dragon Age are different styles of fantasy. one is sci-fi, the other is high fantasy. Comparingone to the other is like comparing apples to oranges.ADelusiveMan wrote...
ShadyKat wrote...
All ME2 needs to do to be perfect is
Add more skill and powers
have more squad interaction
write a well thought out story, and conclusion to the trilogy
get rid of planet scanning
add more weapons
add more armor types
Mass Effect 2 was a pretty damn good game, just trim the crap that sucked, and add some of the rpg element from the first game back in.
This.
And Dragon Age in general is just a Mass Effect wannabe. ME is, as I have previously said, far superior to DA.
ME2 had plenty of flaws. I don't think mining needs to be taken out, but mining needs to be... different. Maybe similar to DA2s crafting? I would simplify the mining, at least. Then again, in LotSB, you could get resources from that one node-thingy on the SB ship. The one next to Liara. You know.
You assumed that I was comparing in terms of story. I was talking about overall playability, which I think Dragon Age lacks. I have never liked Dragon Age. It's probably because it's in the fantasy genre, which I have never liked outside of the Lord of the Rings movies. And it is not like comparing apples to oranges. Science fiction and fantasy are two distinct genres. In the end, it's all just a matter of opinion. I think Mass Effect is ten times better. You think otherwise. So let's leave it at that.
I will agree that mining in ME2 is terrible. That said, ME1's element gathering was terrible. But I have no idea what DA2's crafting is. If it makes the mining easier, then great.
#98
Posté 24 mars 2011 - 07:01
AlanC9
-
- Members
- 35 772 messages
Newtype Taichou wrote...
Is MW2 an RPG for you? You know why everyone generally agrees on what an RPG is? Because it has a definition, objective, meaning it has a reality separate from the mind. One we all agree on. And that is:
Role: Assuming someone's position and controlling their actions more than just physically.
Play: Self-Explanatory
Game: Also Self-explanatory
A role entails assuming control of someone's decisions, to choose or determine and perclude or guarantee a certain outcome. Outcomes that are a result of different variables you've decided should be selected. Most people here have a similar understanding of RPGs, this is why all these other members can have discussions. We know what the other means when they say "RPG".
Umm.... if this is all there is to the definition of RPG then an awful lot of games that no one usually calls RPGs are actually RPGs. Are you sure you want to use this definition?
The idea that categories exist in reality is kind of silly, but not particularly important.
#99
Posté 24 mars 2011 - 07:12
Newtype Taichou
-
- Members
- 65 messages
AlanC9 wrote...
Newtype Taichou wrote...
Is MW2 an RPG for you? You know why everyone generally agrees on what an RPG is? Because it has a definition, objective, meaning it has a reality separate from the mind. One we all agree on. And that is:
Role: Assuming someone's position and controlling their actions more than just physically.
Play: Self-Explanatory
Game: Also Self-explanatory
A role entails assuming control of someone's decisions, to choose or determine and perclude or guarantee a certain outcome. Outcomes that are a result of different variables you've decided should be selected. Most people here have a similar understanding of RPGs, this is why all these other members can have discussions. We know what the other means when they say "RPG".
Umm.... if this is all there is to the definition of RPG then an awful lot of games that no one usually calls RPGs are actually RPGs. Are you sure you want to use this definition?
The idea that categories exist in reality is kind of silly, but not particularly important.
What are you talking about? Choosing different variables that change the outcome:
Making decisions
resource management
Talking to certain people
upgrading your character
Going different paths
Managing other characters
Story interaction/depth
etc...
Those are all variables, those aren't rpg to you? Add more if you want, but I was being as concise as possible. Having variables means that things can vary, or change. A key element of rpgs, what didn't you like about it?
Modifié par Newtype Taichou, 24 mars 2011 - 07:15 .
#100
Posté 24 mars 2011 - 07:40
AlanC9
-
- Members
- 35 772 messages
Newtype Taichou wrote...
What are you talking about? Choosing different variables that change the outcome:
Making decisions
resource management
Talking to certain people
upgrading your character
Going different paths
Managing other characters
Story interaction/depth
etc...
Those are all variables, those aren't rpg to you? Add more if you want, but I was being as concise as possible. Having variables means that things can vary, or change. A key element of rpgs, what didn't you like about it?
Adding more criteria would make things worse unless you've got a way to determine when meeting these criteria doesn't make something an RPG. If resource management, making decisions, and going different paths are valid criteria then HoI3 is an RPG. Wing Commander 3 and 4 would be RPGs since they have making decisions, talking to people, managing characters, different paths, and story interaction.
Unless you want your definition of RPG to include a lot of games that aren't usually considered RPGs, you need to come up with a way to exclude those games.
