AlanC9 wrote...
Nozybidaj wrote...
You can call your banana an orange all you want. I can still look at it and know it is really a banana.
The thing is, banana has an accepted definition. RPG doesn't.
Also @scimal
An RPG does have an accepted definition. Any RPG system you can name has a number of identical qualities, your character is defined, your character undergoes some form of progression, the game possesses mechanics to handle your character's qualities and reacts to them.
You character is defined, through a series of stats. Wether it's SIWDCC or Sanity or something else, your character has some defining characteristics that constrain his abilities within his world. Further, your character has some form of class. Whether it's AD&D's system, or use based system, or background based system, your character has some form of basic template for skills he can do well, and those he cannot.
Your character will progress, whether it's positive path such as D&D's levels and loot, or a use based system with ever-increasing skills, or a negative path such as declining sanity due to encounters. Every system has some form of progression that facilitates the end game.
The game will recognize and react to your character's qualities, whether it's D&D's alignment/class system, or a background that limits your character's options in game such as detective/tourist.
This is the foundation upon which all RPGs are generated. Every RPG will possess these qualities in some form. To take on a Role, the Role must first be defined and the resulting constraints identified.
This is in contrast to something that is oft-mistaken for an RPG, LARPs, they are not the same. A LARPs has a minimally defined character, the character has no intrinsic qualities, he is not superhumanly strong, or incredibly fast, because those qualities are determined by the LARPser's personal abilities. There's no progression, the person is the same on day 1 as he is on day 1000. There are qualities which the character is held to, but the way the game reacts is generally undefined and ad-libed, a character who turns from good to evil could suffer or not suffer on a whim, as there's no defined rules system, just that which is basically made up by whoever is participating.
ME2 is not an RPG. Shepherd is undefined, his strength, intelligence, dexterity, and all other qualities are identical in every instance. He doesn't progress, there's nothing at the end of the game he cannot deal with at level 1, it just might take a little more ammunition. His background is completely irrelevant, there is never a single point where his background does anything at all, it's something selected and then completely forgotten. In fact, it comes up just once in the first 10 minutes of the game, does nothing, and then is never seen again.
Nor does the game react to his qualities in any way. I was a 100% paragon, kicked a guy off of a building randomly in the middle of a conversation without him even drawing a weapon, and...nothing. No one blinked an eye. I didn't lose any status, nothing. The game proceeds without any change.
ME2's not an RPG. This is the *exact* same response I would expect if I were playing any given Adventure game, any given FPS/TPS. In an RPG, I would've suffered some penalty, my comrades wouldn't have looked at me the same, nor would people I met. The world would've responded.
Contrast that to Fallout, if I had gone around killing people without reason, I eventually end up being hunted. The game reacts to my choices. If I've never developed certain skills, I can't get certain events or IIRC even certain companions.
As far as the rest of what Scimal brought up, as I said, Paragon/Renegade doesn't define your character at all, there's no consequence for any option chosen, and TBH, all it does is occasionally give you one other line of dialogue. A 100% paragon can murder someone in could blood without the world taking notice. Nor do the loyalty missions define a Shepherd, everyone did them, everyone walked out of them with the same result with one possible exception, romances aren't defining either, you can romance Tali then go talk to Jack and tell her you're going to break it off with Tali on a whim. It's completely uncommited.
As far as your Shepherd being different than mine, no he isn't. You're assigning him qualities which the game does not recognize in any way, shape, or form. It's all internalized, you could essentially do the same thing with Super Mario and get the same result, the game progresses without noticing or caring. Which is why you need to define a character, so that the game recognizes what you're doing and react to it. A RPG system would react to a 100% paragon murdering someone in cold blood, ME2 does not.
Don't misunderstand, Role-playing is perfectly fine, but there's a massive difference between Role-playing and a Role Playing Game. RPing is essentially an undefined Role you take on and hold yourself to of your own free will, a RPG defines the character and holds you to that Role.
You could decide your character's an idiot, then get to a point where the only way to get the best weapon in the game is to have a conversation about quantum physics, and just let yourself break your role
just this once, because who's going to know and it'll be so much fun!
An RPG won't let you do that. If your character's an idiot, you're going to have to play out your Role without that weapon, or come up with some alternate means of getting it, such as killing for it, which could then intrude upon your character's defined personality.
In ME2's case, I shouldn't have an option to murder someone in cold blood, or if I do, I should suffer penalties for it. If I'm 100% renegade, and I comfort someone, I should be perceived as going soft and suffer consequences. ME2 lets me just do whatever whenever.
Modifié par Gatt9, 06 mai 2011 - 09:46 .
Ce sujet est fermé
Retour en haut
the player takes on a role. Everything beyond that is really just up to personal preference. Personally, I am of the belief that any game that allows me some choice in the development of a character (specifically in terms of dialogue), is an RPG. Others may believe that combat mechanics or stats make an RPG, whereas this is of secondary importance to me. Thus in MY OPINION, Mass Effect 2 > Icewind Dale in terms of RPG-ness. But again, that's just my opinion.
