131 réponses à ce sujet

[Newtype Taichou]

AlanC9 wrote...

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.

So maybe you should try giving your own definition or adding to mine, don't just criticize. The criteria I listed are features usually found in rpgs. But don't make them necessarily.

The best way I could think to exclude those games is if they didn't affect the outcome of the game or character. Or exclude them if that's not the focus. If that's the case then I guess you can use the scapegoat "it has rpg elements" like flashpoint maybe. The elements I listed should be the focus and center of the game.

What do you think?

Modifié par Newtype Taichou, 24 mars 2011 - 08:01 .

[Franzius]

@OP....

Hey man... it is DA2 that has taken the ME2 direction!!!
Why people cannot realize this! The false hype make you blind?

So yes ME3 will take the same approach of DA2 & ME2:
-) Simpliefied RPG mecanics (who said shoot em up Power-Up?)
-) Linearity (short linear corridor level, small Hub world, no exploration, no looting)
-) Mostly useless dialogue cut-scenes
-) No party&inventory management
-) Low repleyability & low deepness (monotone action scheme & no looting & no managment elements , no real use for money, less care in build real sense world/galaxy etc...)
-) Silly or bad developed game design choices (8bit era galaxy maps, research, scanning, ...)
-) Bland&thin& weak plot and bad story decisions.. (Drew Karpyshyn where are you?!?!!?)

Maybe to mix you could add space fight & multiplayer and you have your ME3 reday!!!
Enjoy!

Modifié par Franzius, 24 mars 2011 - 12:07 .

[Scimal]

Newtype Taichou wrote...


Try being more concise and condense your point, here I'm good at it  

The problem is that if I condense my reasoning, people make wild assumptions because they're not trained in critical thinking.

If you want me to, though, here it is: Every single person has their own idea of what an RPG is, even if it's very similar to others, and if you're one of the people who has a laundry list of what constitutes an RPG, then you should look for other studios to provide you entertainment if you believe ME3 will be "dumbed down."

Is MW2 an RPG for you?

 
I've never played it, so I don't know.

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

Stop using objective. You're not using it correctly. Seriously, objective is a universal truth that's practically impossible to disprove - generally math is the only objective way to describe something. Sort of like F = m*a.

Other than that, great - we have a fairly similar idea of what an RPG is. According to you and me, Half-Life 2 and Starcraft 2, and Diablo 2 are all RPGs. We're making headway.

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".

Well, you just added more complexity to your definition of what an RPG is, so I guess you're just getting pickier. Starcraft 2 is still an RPG, though. I guess that's something.

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.

 
My definition of a tree depends on many things, not just branches and bark. Palm trees, for instance, don't have branches.

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.

Good, so you're just here because even though you agree with me on the OP's post, you felt the urge to tell me my definition of an RPG is "wrong" because it doesn't conform to your definition (which definitely isn't objective since you already changed once throughout this response).

Fancy that.

Please stop plugging your "achievements" gaining an incomplete undergrad and taking a course in Bio means little aha.

I give my "achievements" because they build credibility. I'm a Biology Major with a Chemistry Minor and English Literature Minor, so it's not just a single course, and I'm proud of most of my work even in very difficult courses at the research institution that I attend.

So while the Biology degree means little in my ability to analyze your argument (but if you ever need to know why Riboflavin turns your pee yellow, I can tell you), it does allow me to access an incredibly profound bank of skills and knowledge to use in my debates.

It saves time to say, "I've taken a course in Evolution and Diversity, so when you share your definition of a tree, it probably doesn't include the differences in reproductive stages that mine does." It could. You could be a Grad student for all I know, and if it turns out your knowledge and experience outstrip my own, your definition of a tree may be even more specific - but my point remains: They wouldn't be the same.

[Newtype Taichou]

Scimal wrote...

Newtype Taichou wrote...


Try being more concise and condense your point, here I'm good at it  

The problem is that if I condense my reasoning, people make wild assumptions because they're not trained in critical thinking.

If you want me to, though, here it is: Every single person has their own idea of what an RPG is, even if it's very similar to others, and if you're one of the people who has a laundry list of what constitutes an RPG, then you should look for other studios to provide you entertainment if you believe ME3 will be "dumbed down."

Is MW2 an RPG for you?

 
I've never played it, so I don't know.

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

Stop using objective. You're not using it correctly. Seriously, objective is a universal truth that's practically impossible to disprove - generally math is the only objective way to describe something. Sort of like F = m*a.

Other than that, great - we have a fairly similar idea of what an RPG is. According to you and me, Half-Life 2 and Starcraft 2, and Diablo 2 are all RPGs. We're making headway.

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".

Well, you just added more complexity to your definition of what an RPG is, so I guess you're just getting pickier. Starcraft 2 is still an RPG, though. I guess that's something.

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.

 
My definition of a tree depends on many things, not just branches and bark. Palm trees, for instance, don't have branches.

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.

Good, so you're just here because even though you agree with me on the OP's post, you felt the urge to tell me my definition of an RPG is "wrong" because it doesn't conform to your definition (which definitely isn't objective since you already changed once throughout this response).

Fancy that.

Please stop plugging your "achievements" gaining an incomplete undergrad and taking a course in Bio means little aha.

I give my "achievements" because they build credibility. I'm a Biology Major with a Chemistry Minor and English Literature Minor, so it's not just a single course, and I'm proud of most of my work even in very difficult courses at the research institution that I attend.

So while the Biology degree means little in my ability to analyze your argument (but if you ever need to know why Riboflavin turns your pee yellow, I can tell you), it does allow me to access an incredibly profound bank of skills and knowledge to use in my debates.

It saves time to say, "I've taken a course in Evolution and Diversity, so when you share your definition of a tree, it probably doesn't include the differences in reproductive stages that mine does." It could. You could be a Grad student for all I know, and if it turns out your knowledge and experience outstrip my own, your definition of a tree may be even more specific - but my point remains: They wouldn't be the same.

No I am using is correctly, objective means to be expressed using facts. The criteria I listed are all characteristics of an RPG, that is a fact. You thought that was a complex definition? Those three lines of definition. I mentioned the post about the OP because I didn't want you to think that I didn't think ME2 wasn't an RPG just because it was more streamlined. You said something about the OP maybe having a complex definition. I just added that.

We still think "a woody perennial plant having a single usually elongate main stem generally with few or no branches on its lower part" - That's a fact, objective friend.
(But yes the difference is that I'd be thinking about a trees place in the CO2 process. How they can exist because of the process of outgassing. But I'm not going plug my "knowledge" and ironically look less intelligent). So no amount of half-degrees can change that

Modifié par Newtype Taichou, 24 mars 2011 - 04:15 .

[ODST 5723]

I have an MBA and I know that busting out that credential where it's not necessary builds a smokescreen rather than credibility to imply credibility through logical fallacy.

To cite a degree and "diverse" education and then use that as evidence of a "diverse" skill set is based on the assumption that the skill sets are not only relevant, but that holding the degree imparts those skills and can be incorrectly used to forecast performance with those skills in lieu of actual evidence.

What this argument boils down to is that perception is reality and as perception varies, popular subjective interpretations of objective factors/standards become norms. This is why sub-classifications exist.

If an RPG simply requires playing a role in a game, and there are various ways and levels of complexity to how this works, then there are a lot of X = RPG but RPG /= X scenarios.

[Newtype Taichou]

ODST 5723 wrote...

I have an MBA and I know that busting out that credential where it's not necessary builds a smokescreen rather than credibility to imply credibility through logical fallacy.

To cite a degree and "diverse" education and then use that as evidence of a "diverse" skill set is based on the assumption that the skill sets are not only relevant, but that holding the degree imparts those skills and can be incorrectly used to forecast performance with those skills in lieu of actual evidence.

What this argument boils down to is that perception is reality and as perception varies, popular subjective interpretations of objective factors/standards become norms. This is why sub-classifications exist.

If an RPG simply requires playing a role in a game, and there are various ways and levels of complexity to how this works, then there are a lot of X = RPG but RPG /= X scenarios.

That's how you do it, concise, condensed and says everything that I mean.

I tip my hat to you.

[Scimal]

Woops.

Modifié par Scimal, 24 mars 2011 - 06:43 .

[Scimal]

ODST 5723 wrote...

What this argument boils down to is that perception is reality and as perception varies, popular subjective interpretations of objective factors/standards become norms. This is why sub-classifications exist.

If an RPG simply requires playing a role in a game, and there are various ways and levels of complexity to how this works, then there are a lot of X = RPG but RPG /= X scenarios.

I may have been saying all of this for the last several pages, but thanks for putting it in this format.

It looks like it got through to the other poster.

Modifié par Scimal, 24 mars 2011 - 06:43 .

[Newtype Taichou]

Scimal wrote...

ODST 5723 wrote...

What this argument boils down to is that perception is reality and as perception varies, popular subjective interpretations of objective factors/standards become norms. This is why sub-classifications exist.

If an RPG simply requires playing a role in a game, and there are various ways and levels of complexity to how this works, then there are a lot of X = RPG but RPG /= X scenarios.

I may have been saying all of this for the last several pages, but thanks for putting it in this format.

It looks like it got through to the other poster.

Nah sorry you weren't, rpgs still don't just require playing a role. "RPG" is still objective, only the sub-classes aren't.

[tedescooo]

If ME3 stay like DA2 I hang myself, really...

[AlanC9]

Newtype Taichou wrote...
So maybe you should try giving your own definition or adding to mine, don't just criticize. The criteria I listed are features usually found in rpgs. But don't make them necessarily.

You're the one saying there's an objective definition of RPG. I'm not.  I'm not trying to provide a definition that I don't believe exists.

The best way I could think to exclude those games is if they didn't affect the outcome of the game or character. Or exclude them if that's not the focus. If that's the case then I guess you can use the scapegoat "it has rpg elements" like flashpoint maybe. The elements I listed should be the focus and center of the game.

What do you think?

"Didn't affect the outcome of the game" can't work. The Wing Commander games have as many or more distinct endings as BG2 or KotOR. A wargame like Hoi3 privides a much larger space of possible outcomes than any "RPG."

As for "focus," what's your objective measure for determining the focus of a game? 

Modifié par AlanC9, 24 mars 2011 - 09:32 .

[Newtype Taichou]

AlanC9 wrote...

Newtype Taichou wrote...
So maybe you should try giving your own definition or adding to mine, don't just criticize. The criteria I listed are features usually found in rpgs. But don't make them necessarily.

You're the one saying there's an objective definition of RPG. I'm not.  I'm not trying to provide a definition that I don't believe exists.

The best way I could think to exclude those games is if they didn't affect the outcome of the game or character. Or exclude them if that's not the focus. If that's the case then I guess you can use the scapegoat "it has rpg elements" like flashpoint maybe. The elements I listed should be the focus and center of the game.

What do you think?

"Didn't affect the outcome of the game" can't work. The Wing Commander games have as many or more distinct endings as BG2 or KotOR. A wargame like Hoi3 privides a much larger space of possible outcomes than any "RPG."

As for "focus," what's your objective measure for determining the focus of a game? 

Lmao are we talking about love or rpgs here? So you're saying there's no definition for rpg? We just know it when we play it?

And the way you describe this game it seems like an RPG or the sub-class action-rpg to me. Everything has a definition, if not then the term is meaningless.

[AlanC9]

Newtype Taichou wrote...
Lmao are we talking about love or rpgs here? So you're saying there's no definition for rpg? We just know it when we play it?

Nope. We can't even get that far. People can play a game and disagree over whether it should be considered an RPG. If more people agree it should be called an RPG, then it will end up being called one, but it's not determined by logic.

And the way you describe this game it seems like an RPG or the sub-class action-rpg to me. Everything has a definition, if not then the term is meaningless.

Bingo. The term "RPG", like many other terms, is meaningless -- or rather, it encompasses multiple meanings.

[Newtype Taichou]

Oopsie

Modifié par Newtype Taichou, 24 mars 2011 - 10:17 .

[Newtype Taichou]

AlanC9 wrote...
Nope. We can't even get that far. People can play a game and disagree over whether it should be considered an RPG. If more people agree it should be called an RPG, then it will end up being called one, but it's not determined by logic.

So wait, we weren't talking about love? Damn it, I think there's a logical method but if you don't that's fine. Not gonna argue.

Bingo. The term "RPG", like many other terms, is meaningless -- or rather, it encompasses multiple meanings.

Okay well that's your opinion and stance I guess.

Modifié par Newtype Taichou, 24 mars 2011 - 10:17 .

[AlanC9]

Newtype Taichou wrote...

Okay well that's your opinion and stance I guess.

Well, without wanting to get involved in another spat of dueling credentials, I've done hard time in related academic subjects -- linguistics, philosophy of language, law -- and words just don't get their meanings the way you've been talking about "RPG" getting its meaning.

So, yeah, that's my stance.

I'm not saying that it's impossible for you to come up with a useful definition of RPG, mind. that kind of truth is available to us.

[Scimal]

Newtype Taichou wrote...

Nah sorry you weren't, rpgs still don't just require playing a role. "RPG" is still objective, only the sub-classes aren't.

*sighs*

ODST 5723 wrote...
What this argument boils down to is that perception is reality and as perception varies, popular subjective interpretations of objective factors/standards become norms. This is why sub-classifications exist.

Versus:

Scimal wrote...

Definitions change, have always changed, and objectivity is incredibly difficult (if nigh impossible) to
achieve for language...

...Genres are little more than the subjective interpretation of the seller and buyer of whatever product is being bartered.

and

ODST 5723 wrote...

If an RPG simply requires playing a role in a game, and there are various ways and levels of complexity to how this works, then there are a lot of X = RPG but RPG /= X scenarios.

vs.

Scimal wrote...

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...

I may not be as succinct as ODST was, but the arguments are there. Admittedly, my skills are rusty since I haven't had to do much writing beyond lab reports. Retrospectively if I had put in some more effort to focus my thoughts I wouldn't need several long pages to explain myself, so for that I apologize.

However, I'm very certain ODST and I were making very similar (if not practically the same) points. Kudos to ODST for finding a way to simplify the debate.

Barring any further headaches over semantics, I'll simply agree to disagree.

Modifié par Scimal, 24 mars 2011 - 10:39 .

[Newtype Taichou]

Scimal wrote...

Newtype Taichou wrote...

Nah sorry you weren't, rpgs still don't just require playing a role. "RPG" is still objective, only the sub-classes aren't.

*sighs*

ODST 5723 wrote...
What this argument boils down to is that perception is reality and as
perception varies, popular subjective interpretations of objective
factors/standards become norms. This is why sub-classifications exist.

Versus:

Scimal wrote...

Definitions change, have always
changed, and objectivity is incredibly difficult (if nigh impossible) to
achieve for language...

...Genres are little more than the subjective interpretation of the seller and buyer of whatever product is being bartered.

and

ODST 5723 wrote...
If an RPG simply requires playing a role in a game, and there are
various ways and levels of complexity to how this works, then there are a
lot of X = RPG but RPG /= X scenarios.

vs.

Scimal wrote...

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...

I may not be as succinct as ODST was, but the arguments are there. Admittedly, my skills are rusty since I haven't had to do much writing beyond lab reports. Retrospectively if I had put in some more effort to focus my thoughts I wouldn't need several long pages to explain myself, so for that I apologize.

However, I'm very certain ODST and I were making very similar (if not practically the same) points. Kudos to ODST for finding a way to simplify the debate.

"...popular subjective interpretations of objective
factors/standards become norms. This is why sub-classifications exist"

The objective factors/standards are general characteristics (which is what i've said countless times). The sub-classes are the subjective result.

I've had my fill of this, I have CALCULUS to study for. Did everyone get that? CALCULUS, irrelevant credentials ftw? Good day to you Half-Degree, I love your pic. Liara ftw.

Modifié par Newtype Taichou, 24 mars 2011 - 11:18 .

[Daydreamer_91]

I'd die in rage

[Xaenn]

Going to be honest, besides lack of organization of inventory and boring planet textures (reused textures in buildings) ME1 had a lot more fun elements then ME2.

Main point for me is I didn't have to hide behind a wall because of the machine gun sharp shooters. Having to remove shields, barriers and armor before using abilities just to use other abilities also killed the action, at which point there was no real point is using them. (beat it on insanity several times). Although this is obviously opinion don't expect anyone to agree or trying to sway others.

I

I loved Mass-Effect 2! Just didn't have the fun with the game as I did in the first one.

Modifié par Xaenn, 24 mars 2011 - 10:59 .

[Newtype Taichou]

Xaenn wrote...

Going to be honest, besides lack of organization of inventory and boring planet textures (reused textures in buildings) ME1 had a lot more fun elements then ME2.

Main point for me is I didn't have to hide behind a wall because of the machine gun sharp shooters. Having to remove shields, barriers and armor before using abilities just to use other abilities also killed the action, at which point there was no real point is using them. (beat it on insanity several times). Although this is obviously opinion don't expect anyone to agree or trying to sway others.

I loved Mass-Effect 2! Just didn't have the fun with the game as I did in the first one.

It became a routine! If they had shields you'd get whoever to use overload, armour? You'd get Mordin to use incinerate.

[Xaenn]

Newtype Taichou wrote...

Xaenn wrote...

Going to be honest, besides lack of organization of inventory and boring planet textures (reused textures in buildings) ME1 had a lot more fun elements then ME2.

Main point for me is I didn't have to hide behind a wall because of the machine gun sharp shooters. Having to remove shields, barriers and armor before using abilities just to use other abilities also killed the action, at which point there was no real point is using them. (beat it on insanity several times). Although this is obviously opinion don't expect anyone to agree or trying to sway others.

I loved Mass-Effect 2! Just didn't have the fun with the game as I did in the first one.

It became a routine! If they had shields you'd get whoever to use overload, armour? You'd get Mordin to use incinerate.

Yes it did, it was a very low point for me.  Lack of abilties in general didn't help. Just mechanical issues I had in ME2.

• Most abilties I would like to use as a form of crowd control, having reduced damage maybe while having the full effect of the ability such as lifting you in the air but doing less damage when you land.  This would mop up the boring hide-shoot-hide-shoot incredibly tedious play.  I imagine even action oriented fans had to get bored with this eventually.
• Removing weapon locker concept or just adding/putting back in weapon mods and ammunition as a
  item instead of an ability, that killed any desire playing a Solider,  Vanguard ectra. Not saying a whole inventory, but perhaps a screen where you could modify your weapons (with mods like the one from the first one) to
  better fit the situation you're in.

Modifié par Xaenn, 24 mars 2011 - 11:09 .

[Newtype Taichou]

Xaenn wrote...

Newtype Taichou wrote...

Xaenn wrote...

Going to be honest, besides lack of organization of inventory and boring planet textures (reused textures in buildings) ME1 had a lot more fun elements then ME2.

Main point for me is I didn't have to hide behind a wall because of the machine gun sharp shooters. Having to remove shields, barriers and armor before using abilities just to use other abilities also killed the action, at which point there was no real point is using them. (beat it on insanity several times). Although this is obviously opinion don't expect anyone to agree or trying to sway others.

I loved Mass-Effect 2! Just didn't have the fun with the game as I did in the first one.

It became a routine! If they had shields you'd get whoever to use overload, armour? You'd get Mordin to use incinerate.

• Yes it did, it was a very low point for me.  Lack of abilties in general didn't help, most abilties I would like to use as a form of crowd control, having reduced damage maybe while having the full effect of the ability (such as lifting you in the air, but doing less damage when you land.  This would mop up the boring hide-shoot-hide-shoot incredibly tedious play.  I imagine even action oriented fans had to get bored with this eventually.
• Removing weapon locker concept or just adding/putting back in weapon mods and ammunition as a
  item instead of an ability, that killed any desire playing a Solider,  Vanguard ectra. Not saying a whole inventory, but perhaps a screen where you could modify your weapons (with mods like the one from the first one) to
  better fit the situation you're in.

Just mechanical issues I had in ME2.

[*]Man I miss the inventory, remember all the upgrades you could use to give you an advantage against certain enemies? Shredding round for organics, armour peircing arounds for those damned Geth!
[*]Did anyone else try the explosvie rounds on the shotgun? Just to see how it'd work? It overheated at one shot and was pretty useless but it knocked people back and looked cool as hell

[Xaenn]

Overall I didn't mind the 'overhaul' they did, just thought they were quick to remove a lot of things that actually made the game good to try new idea's.

They have those abilities in Mass-Effect 2 they are just actual class abilities now instead of a weapon mod anyone can use. "Disruptor Ammo(Geth/robots)," "Inferno Ammo(Organic/Armor), "Cryo Ammo(*)" You also have ammunition types from Subject-Zero and someone else, I forget now been a while. Just would be nice if it was simply a weapon choice on the fly, instead of co-operated in the abilities giving classes maybe more dynamic abilities.

Modifié par Xaenn, 24 mars 2011 - 11:16 .

[Newtype Taichou]

Yeah I know what you mean, rather than improving those awesome qualities trhey just removed them

I think they did that because its simpler, you always know who has what ability so you can just bring them with you. Rathe than trying to balance your team out because you're weak in biotics for example, you just end up taking a particular member so you can spam one ability when you meet an enemy.

Modifié par Newtype Taichou, 24 mars 2011 - 11:23 .