617 réponses à ce sujet

[cachx]

http://twitter.com/t...325265936171008

I'll just leave this here...

Modifié par cachx, 06 mai 2011 - 02:23 .

[kalwren]

Let me make this simple: we are improving both the RPG and Shooter aspects of ME3 - Christina Norman

She said the same thing about ME2.

From my perspective as a stat, levelling, loot and inventory RPG lover, only one of them ended up being true.

[Walker White]

kalwren wrote...

Let me make this simple: we are improving both the RPG and Shooter aspects of ME3 - Christina Norman

She said the same thing about ME2.

From my perspective as a stat, levelling, loot and inventory RPG lover, only one of them ended up being true.

And from my perspective as a 30+ year RPG player, that is a very narrow definition of RPGs.  I understand that is what you want, but there are a lot of other games out there that have those features.  Why should we limit ME with that stuff, instead of allowing it to explore new ground?

[Insom]

Yes because combat is totally the most important feature of RPGs, everything else is meaningless right?

[cachx]

kalwren wrote...

Let me make this simple: we are improving both the RPG and Shooter aspects of ME3 - Christina Norman

She said the same thing about ME2.
From my perspective as a stat, levelling, loot and inventory RPG lover, only one of them ended up being true.

source?
Her presentation on ME2 development says nothing of the sort. It even reinforces her ideas to strenghten the "rpg elements" in ME3.

[kalwren]

Walker White wrote...

And from my perspective as a 30+ year RPG player, that is a very narrow definition of RPGs.  I understand that is what you want, but there are a lot of other games out there that have those features.  Why should we limit ME with that stuff, instead of allowing it to explore new ground?

I'm still not arguing the definition of what is an RPG, its irrelevant to the opinions of what certain people in this thread are asking to see in ME3.

Modifié par kalwren, 06 mai 2011 - 02:55 .

[Walker White]

Gatt9 wrote...

In an RPG,  a character is defined by a series of attributes,  and depending on the system,  a series of skills that may or may not have their own stats.  These attributes and stats define the character,  has abilities within the world,  and how he interacts with the world.

This is debatable.  For example, how does the diceless game Amber fit in this picture?  While there are four attributes, they do not define abilities in the world, but are really only designed for contested actions between players; they rarely come into play outside of a throne war campaign. Really, what defines players is the collection of abilities and powers that they have -- just as we have in ME2.

I find this pre-occupation with stats (as opposed to the more natural powers and abilities) in cRPGs bizarre, because exactly what makes them useful in the PnP setting is what makes them so useless in cRPGs.  The reason why you have attributes like strength, dexterity, etc. is to support open-ended play.  The player wants to do something that there is no rule for in the game, and the GM is forced to adjudicate something on the spot.  Attributes serve as fudge factor that allow you to make that new rule.  "Sounds like a strength-type action to me; make a strength check."  Skills are similar in nature.

But cRPGs are not that open-ended.  The ways in which you can interact with the environment are so prescribed.  In Dragon Age, I cannot say that my character pulls out a rope and tries to trip the Ogre.  I can only do what the game allows me to do.  And that is what powers and abilities are: clearly proscribed actions that define how I interact with the environment.  Which is why it makes sense that a cRPG should focus on these and ignore the stats.

I love PnP RPGs too, but it is time to cut the cord.  The design decisions there do not make sense in a computer.

[kalwren]

cachx wrote...
source?
Her presentation on ME2 development says nothing of the sort. It even reinforces her ideas to strenghten the "rpg elements" in ME3.

There's a lot of articles like this. 

"CN: Our primary RPG audience is Mass Effect 1 players. I don’t think improving our shooter gameplay is going to alienate those players any more than improving our art, sound design, and writing will. Improving one aspect of a game doesn’t have to detract from another. Many RPG players also appreciate good shooter combat (I’m one of them). Those players will enjoy the improvements we’ve made to our shooter combat, and to our RPG systems. Will our improved combat attract new players? I certainly hope so!"

[Terror_K]

Gatt9 wrote...

Mr. Priestly,  I'm going to do my best to describe the problem,  and why Bioware's *really* on the wrong track.

In an RPG,  a character is defined by a series of attributes,  and depending on the system,  a series of skills that may or may not have their own stats.  These attributes and stats define the character,  has abilities within the world,  and how he interacts with the world.

Now I'm not going to bother with a PnP example,  I'll use a CRPG,  one you are likely pretty intimately familiar with.  Fallout.  In Fallout your character is defined by a series of visible attributes,  visible skills with stats,  and invisible stats(Reputation).  Your character's attributes directly impact the way the game plays,  if you have a low intelligence,  you speak like the village idiot,  and you cannot have conversations regarding complex topics.  If you have a high intelligence,  you can.

Further,  if you have a high Science skill,  you open more conversational paths,  high repair skill opens other paths.  Etc.  Your attributes and skills have a direct impact on combat and non-combat situations in myriad ways.

Bioware has removed Attributes,  so an idiot can talk quantum physics.  Bioware has condenced the attributes into minor skills,  like Charm,  removing many of them in favor of player skill instead of the Character the player is supposed to be playing.

So it's no small wonder that you suddenly discovered that Charm really doesn't serve any purpose,  you've removed everything that is supposed to be directly connected to it and distilled it into a "Can you pick this one line of dialogue",  which is the exact same function "Paragon" performs.  Had Charm remained a mechanic that affected people's "Liking" you,  the conflict and redundancy never would have arisen.  You've removed most of the purpose from the attributes,  and then you discovered the little bits you left have no purpose.

In looking at it from a narrow perspective,  it might appear to be a positive path,  but once you look at the system as a whole,  and look at everything that was possible and now is not,  it becomes apparent that the system Bioware is using is actually fundamentally flawed. 

In 1998(99?),  Fallout offered more features,  more customization,  more player driven interaction than Bioware offers in 2011 were their latest works.  Why is that?  It's because you've distilled out all of the RPG systems in favor of Player based ones.

Why is this a problem?  You've ceased making RPGs.  The players no longer take on a Role,  the person on screen is an Avatar for the player,  with it's success or failures wholely dependent on the Player's personal abilities.  That's not an RPG,  in the case of Mass Effect,  it's a Shooter with a story.  Now there's nothing wrong with that,  and it's something the Shooter genre desperately needs,  but there's a massive conflict with what you're claiming.

I understand Bioware wants to create a Player driven narrative,  and that systems such as Charm serve no function as they currently exist.  The problem is,  in an RPG,  the narrative is supposed to relate directly to the Character you've created,  and by pushing the game to become a full-on Shooter,  there's no Character.  Look at ME2,  what about any given character in ME2 defines who Shepherd is?

Nothing,  it's a handfull of combat related powers.  I cannot create an incredibly persuasive but combat-inept Character,  I can't create a combat-powerhouse that can't talk his way out of anything,  I can't create a thieving madman,  or an egghead.  All I can do is get combat-related bonuses with my own personal skill being far more important than anything in the character sheet.  I'm just as persuasive,  just as good at hacking and lockpicking as the next guy,  no matter what kind of character he "Created".

That's what the problem is Chris,  you're offering us far less than way we had over a decade ago,  and in the end,  my Character is really no different than every other person on this thread's character.  Which is exactly what I'm taking that quote to mean,  with no non-combat skills,  when ME3 releases,  all that will matter is my personal skill,  and my Shepherd will be no different from everyone elses.

I know what's coming,  the market hasn't changed.  ME2 is Gears of War with a slightly more interactive story,  RPGs haven't changed,  they're still what they were,  RPGs.  Labelling a Shooter an RPG doesn't mean RPGs have changed,  it just means that someone thinks Shooters will sell.

Seriously,  Bioware needs to be honest,  if you want to be a Shooter studio now,  just say it,  just label the games Shooters.  Don't continue to claim to be an RPG studio,  put Shooters in the box,  claim Shooters are now RPGs.  You won't get nearly the fuss about making the game combat oriented if you just drop the pretenses that you're making RPGs.

Excellent post. Very true. In ME2 Shepard really is not only a jack of all trades, but a master of them. In a good RPG with some depth, limitations and choice you have to build your character in a certain way and can't usually be great at everything. In ME2 you don't even really build your character much where you should be at all, you're just automatically great at it. In ME1 where you'd have to spend points and invest in making a character persuasive, a good techie or a good fighter, in ME2 the first two aren't determined at all by anything really and Shepard is just great at it, no matter how he/she is built and no matter what class he/she is. Shepard can know nothing about electronics, mechanics, etc. and still masterfully hack, decrypt, etc. without limitations. Shepard doesn't need to be made charismatic any more... he/she just is.

Walker White wrote...

And from my perspective as a 30+
year RPG player, that is a very narrow definition of RPGs.  I understand that is what you want, but there are a lot of other games out there that have those features.  Why should we limit ME with that stuff, instead of allowing it to explore new ground?

How is abandoning semi-complex mechanics in favour of old, simple, done to death shooter ones "exploring new ground" exactly?

Modifié par Terror_K, 06 mai 2011 - 03:12 .

[Praetor Knight]

I called it an article eariler, but the link in the OP is more of a blurb, now that I think more about.

And I thought I'd re-post the blurb here:

BioWare: No "meaningless stats" in Mass Effect 3

BioWare aims to "enrich" Mass Effect 3's role-playing mechanics without burdening players with heaps of trivial statistics that barely impinge on the action, according to senior designer Christina Norman.

"We want to enrich the role-playing aspects of the game, while making sure that they're always meaningful in combat," Norman told OXM when asked whether the threequel's fleet-footed tactical gunplay might clash with its RPG elements.

"We don't want to have any meaningless behind-the-scenes stat games, where the output is very minor in combat. Every single thing you do has a real impact in the battle."

Advertisement:
Fans of Mass Effect 2 might not notice many of the alterations to the combat system at first, Norman went on.

"We got combat the way we wanted it for ME2, so you're going to feel right at home straight away. But there are so many subtle improvements that you'll miss them if you go back."

If you've yet to play Mass Effect 2, rejoice - there's plenty of time to catch up. BioWare pushed Mass Effect 3's release back to 2012 today.

Look out for more from Norman - and much, much more on Mass Effect 3 - in the next issue of OXM, out 10th May. Would it kill you to set up a subscription, guys?

So we know that ME2 will be the template and that ME3 will be improved from ME2.

And with those improvements, I'm eager to learn more when Bioware is ready to share more of them with us.

[Aumata]

On that note will some skills serve a purpose in both combat and outside of combat or what? Because that sounds like ME1 in the charm and intimidate though it was small. Charm did cooldown reduction. Intimidate did damage increase if memory serves me correctly. Does this mean that we might have skills that increases other attributes?

[Cancermeat]

Watch your step I think there is some troll poo in here.

[snakeboy86]

*sigh* at this point....Rpg fans have plenty of ammo against ME3....

do you guys really care that much about spending half your time waiting to hit an enemy or do it in real time?

[AlanC9]

kalwren wrote...

Walker White wrote...

And from my perspective as a 30+ year RPG player, that is a very narrow definition of RPGs.  I understand that is what you want, but there are a lot of other games out there that have those features.  Why should we limit ME with that stuff, instead of allowing it to explore new ground?

I'm still not arguing the definition of what is an RPG, its irrelevant to the opinions of what certain people in this thread are asking to see in ME3.

Right. You said you were a fan of a particular kind of RPGs.... or maybe that you were a particular kind of RPG fan. ME3 doesn't have to be a not-RPG to be a not-kalwren's-kind-of-RPG. We get into that debate far too often around here.

I think it's because we forum regulars like talking about this stuff, and if the issue really is just personal taste there isn't that much to talk about. For instance, you like loot and inventory in RPGs, and I never have (well, maybe back in 1980 or so I thought loot was cool). Once we know each other's positions, what do we have left to say to each other? We can lay out our reasons for liking what we do, but what would that accomplish?

[atheelogos]

cachx wrote...

http://twitter.com/t...325265936171008

I'll just leave this here...

Good post

[Ajosraa]

cachx wrote...

http://twitter.com/t...325265936171008

I'll just leave this here...

Additional supporting Tweet:

http://twitter.com/#...009880066129920

Also....






@truffle Christina Norman

I've been asked if we increased our dev time for ME3 to dumb it down, if we were dumbing it down wouldn't we need less time?



5 hours ago via web

Modifié par Ajosraa, 06 mai 2011 - 05:01 .

[kalwren]

AlanC9 wrote...

kalwren wrote...

Walker White wrote...

And from my perspective as a 30+ year RPG player, that is a very narrow definition of RPGs.  I understand that is what you want, but there are a lot of other games out there that have those features.  Why should we limit ME with that stuff, instead of allowing it to explore new ground?

I'm still not arguing the definition of what is an RPG, its irrelevant to the opinions of what certain people in this thread are asking to see in ME3.

Right. You said you were a fan of a particular kind of RPGs.... or maybe that you were a particular kind of RPG fan. ME3 doesn't have to be a not-RPG to be a not-kalwren's-kind-of-RPG. We get into that debate far too often around here.

I think it's because we forum regulars like talking about this stuff, and if the issue really is just personal taste there isn't that much to talk about. For instance, you like loot and inventory in RPGs, and I never have (well, maybe back in 1980 or so I thought loot was cool). Once we know each other's positions, what do we have left to say to each other? We can lay out our reasons for liking what we do, but what would that accomplish?

TBH, some of us aren’t here to discus our opinions, or the pro's / cons of trivial game-play mechanics of which we know we have little influence over. We're just here to provide an overall feedback to BioWare / EA about their games, this time specifically ME3.

And the more folks that post of a similar opinion, the less "personal taste" that opinion becomes, and therefore more likely that it could have an impact on game design. And since I’m seeing quite a few comments from around the web, along with BioWare themselves addressing these fan points that are being brought up regarding ME3's RPG aspects, then I can only assume there are enough gamers out there that share the same opinion as mine, and that its not just personal taste thing, but a demographic of gamers thing.

Modifié par kalwren, 06 mai 2011 - 04:44 .

[Hero_Shep]

Hmmmm how odd that people are defending stats/Attributes here and in the Skyrim Forums.

First off, I would like to say to all the "Hardcore RPG players" (I am trying to dismiss that claim at the moment),
With all this whining and complaining about statisics in video game and that devolpers "are doing it wrong". Why not try and develop a video game yourself, seeing that you know better about roleplaying games? There are many different free engines out there from RPG Maker, to GameMaker, to Unity, to Source, hell go make a paper and pen RPG. I encourage you to do so. 

Also Stats = / = Great Gameplay, games are ment to be fun, that is the core belief behind any aspiring Game Designer, the moment you stop making a game to be fun you are not doing your job. Example, alot of people hail Nintendo's The Legend of Zelda: The Ocarina of Time to be the greatest game ever, that may be so. The title itself did alot of things right in the gameplay department; the controls were tight, simple, and very responsive at the time, the game didn't challenge you with "statisitic optimization" puzzles, it made you use your wit, aka your intelligence stat in real life. Bottom line, Gameplay is the core to any good game, and you dont need to have redundant stats, or an "singular awesome button" to have a good game.

Note: I do have a whole collection of books on the Theory of Game Design, plus thats what Im studying in college before I get my Bachelors degree in Buisness, so if you want to expand on the topic I can get some excerpts from them.

PS: Hi, Im a Mass Effect fan and I trust bioware not to screw things up like somebody didd with Superman 64.

      

[Chala]

Ajosraa wrote...

cachx wrote...

http://twitter.com/t...325265936171008

I'll just leave this here...

Additional supporting Tweet:

http://twitter.com/#...009880066129920

Also....






@truffle Christina Norman

I've been asked if we increased our dev time for ME3 to dumb it down, if we were dumbing it down wouldn't we need less time?



5 hours ago via web

Thank guys, really...
Now I can rest pacefully

[Gabey5]

good news

[ZellEpidemic]

kalwren wrote...

I dont think it helps circumventing peoples opinions with the "Yeah but what actually makes an RPG an RPG?" argument. It doesnt matter what features gamers deem RPG or not, what matters is that other readers understand what they are really asking for.

Personally I love all the detail of Fallout: NV hardcore mode. That level of depth is why I love most games that call themselves RPG's. Its why I was initially interested in Mass Effect to begin with, and all of BioWare's past games.

I honestly had a love  / hate relationship with ME2. While I still enjoyed the universe, and they improved a ton of things, especially the A.I. it did lack in the department that I was most looking forward to, and that is the classic CRPG stats, loot and inventory systems. Thats what I like from my CRPG's, along with the actual "role playing".

I dunno what to make of all the recent ME3 news, including this dev comment, but I do know this, I wont blindly go into a ME3 purchase this time, if it doesn’t provide the sort of RPG experience that has drawn me towards CRPG's in the past. 

Don’t get me wrong, I do love action games as well, but FPS's like Crysis 2, Halo and Borderlands do the shooting a lot better if that is the experience I want.

QFT^ That's from the heart, seriously. I've loved Mass Effect before it was released. I knew it was going to be a phenominal RPG from Bioware. But honestly, ME2 was amazing but somehow it fell into Gears of War development plans. I'm not going to lie, I hated chest-high cover to cover combat and I missed looting, customizing/tailoring, exploration, and not having a "mission complete" screen. Do what you will to the numbers (cause I'm a numbers kinda guy) but Bioware please, for the love of a fan who has bought pretty much your entire catalog before its even released please don't turn this into Gears of War in Space. I know ME is an RPG/FPS. I play all types of RPG's. I play all types of FPS's.... just don't let Mass Effect fall into the generic category.

Modifié par ZellEpidemic, 06 mai 2011 - 05:31 .

[Savber100]

Please don't break my trust like the way Laidlaw did. Please Bioware.

But I agree wit the rest: "No meaningless non-combat stats" does not equate no non-combat stats. <_<

Modifié par Savber100, 06 mai 2011 - 05:45 .

[Epic777]

Mr.Kusy wrote...

If were at it, honestly... both ME were medicore if I would have to judge them as shooters. I want to play a shooter, I play Bad Company 2. Mass Effect is story.

This is not directed at you personally, but why? Why do we accept crappy to medicore shooting mechanics in a Shooter-RPG? Why must everything be saracficed in the name of RPG? Why can't we demand the same quality of shooter mechanics as we do RPG mechanics. ~agent smith tone~ WHY! WHY!? WHY?

[jakal66]

I just don't want to sit down in front of my pc,give it a playthrough and feel I just went through a GOW kinda game,you know?And I feel that that won't happen...I love how even ME2 feels like it has lots of RPG elements although it's also shooter.I love customizing my charachter's attributes and using the stat points to my advantage...I also loved the shooting experience as well, and of course the RPG elements who all know here.I just don't want changes that are going to hurt the thigs I cameto love of this game because the company wants to grab more casual gamers...belive me that might very well not be the case...
Some dev comes and tries to pacify us by saying don't worry....and it's good but I really think they should give us more details into WHAT and WHY they are changing or adding so that then we can choose to buy or not their product...I mean is that too crazy?

[Scimal]

[quote]Gatt9 wrote...

Mr. Priestly,  I'm going to do my best to describe the problem,  and why Bioware's *really* on the wrong track.

In an RPG,  a character is defined by a series of attributes,  and depending on the system,  a series of skills that may or may not have their own stats.  These attributes and stats define the character,  has abilities within the world,  and how he interacts with the world.[/quote]

The problem is, in ye olden days those stats described basic movement and capabilities. How fast you could run, how many things you could do at once, how many items you could carry, how quickly you could solve puzzles, and the list goes on.

Stats were implemented so each person could customize their character to play a particular role they had in their head. You could be the frail wizard, the dextrous rogue, the horrendous - yet intelligent - orc cleric, etc.

There is a single role to play in ME. That of Shepard. Yes, Shepards vary, invariably so. However, Shepard has set physical limits - and the mental limits are those of the player him/herself. There's no need to quantify Shepard's strength or dexterity in a game like ME, because a weak or clumsy Shepard is a dead Shepard. There's no need to quantify how good Shepard is at solving puzzles and then immediately present the puzzle to the player - who may not be as smart as Shepard.

If you want Shepard to be capable and also let the player solve the puzzles (since that's the goal here - the player is Shepard), then out of your standard Str, Con, Dex, Wis, Int, Char stat set... You have all the physical characteristics pre-defined and mental characteristics unable to be defined in game terms. That leaves all of Charisma, the only one that deals with personality.

Personality is (at least partially) defined by the Paragon/Renegade system, and by your personal choices in-game. The player makes choices which affect how Shepard interacts with the world, and through those actions "levels up" stats in either Renegade or Paragon.

[quote]Now I'm not going to bother with a PnP example,  I'll use a CRPG,  one you are likely pretty intimately familiar with.  Fallout.  In Fallout your character is defined by a series of visible attributes,  visible skills with stats,  and invisible stats(Reputation).  Your character's attributes directly impact the way the game plays,  if you have a low intelligence,  you speak like the village idiot,  and you cannot have conversations regarding complex topics.  If you have a high intelligence,  you can.[/quote]

How would Shepard work with a low Str, low Int, or low Con score? Do you doom some players to simply having half the HP of others because of luck or the unwillingness to deal with other RPG systems? For that matter, how would a low Wis score affect Shepard? Is that stat even necessary when there aren't unidentified items to pick up?

[quote]Further,  if you have a high Science skill,  you open more conversational paths,  high repair skill opens other paths.  Etc.  Your attributes and skills have a direct impact on combat and non-combat situations in myriad ways.[/quote]

While it's fun to think of that in theory, the very nature of stats is to limit possibilities. Think of ME1; I didn't put many points into repair. So, instead of spending more time experiencing the story and the world around me, I spent countless hours repairing the Mako after stumbling into an occupied area for the first time. That's not fun.

It's only fun in your head where you can go, "Man, I should really ask Tali how to use this Omnigel better!" followed by leveling it up. That follows a sort of logic. However, the actualy experience - as opposed to the hypothetical situation - is mind numbingly boring.

It's also limiting in that if you start assigning major elements to stats, you dip into the party system and the holy trinity. Again, in ME1 - if you didn't have many points into hacking, you pretty much had to bring someone who knew how to hack. That limited your choice of squad mates right off the bat.

[quote]Bioware has removed Attributes,  so an idiot can talk quantum physics.  Bioware has condenced the attributes into minor skills,  like Charm,  removing many of them in favor of player skill instead of the Character the player is supposed to be playing.[/quote]

The "Character" the player is supposed to be playing is the player-as-Shepard. That's always been ME's goal. You can create other characters (like Ugly Shep), but ultimately the system fits best when you apply yourself in Shepard's shoes. The attributes have been removed because they're either not necessary, like the physical characteristics of Shepard, or rely on the player's input.

[quote]So it's no small wonder that you suddenly discovered that Charm really doesn't serve any purpose,  you've removed everything that is supposed to be directly connected to it and distilled it into a "Can you pick this one line of dialogue",  which is the exact same function "Paragon" performs.  Had Charm remained a mechanic that affected people's "Liking" you,  the conflict and redundancy never would have arisen.  You've removed most of the purpose from the attributes,  and then you discovered the little bits you left have no purpose.[/quote]

What benefit would they serve, though? Why does forcing a play-style (let's say, by your Int-based dialogue system earlier) feel better for the ME setting than letting the player decide how Shepard acts?

What good does it do to the game if you suddenly have an Int of 3 and keep forgetting your credit chit, or can't understand EDI? It's momentary entertainment and a possible challenge to complete the game with such an enormous handicap which (maybe) 5% of the gamer population will undertake.

[quote]In 1998(99?),  Fallout offered more features,  more customization,  more player driven interaction than Bioware offers in 2011 were their latest works.  Why is that?  It's because you've distilled out all of the RPG systems in favor of Player based ones.

Why is this a problem?  You've ceased making RPGs.[/quote]

Seeing as there isn't a firm definition for "RPG" (at least the type you're talking about), I can't help but find this claim unfounded.

[quote]The players no longer take on a Role,  the person on screen is an Avatar for the player,  with it's success or failures wholely dependent on the Player's personal abilities.  That's not an RPG,  in the case of Mass Effect,  it's a Shooter with a story.  Now there's nothing wrong with that,  and it's something the Shooter genre desperately needs,  but there's a massive conflict with what you're claiming.[/quote]

Why is the defining character of an RPG a set of stats describing the physical and mental capabilities of the character to you?

ME has stats. Even ME2 has stats. HP, Paragon, Renegade. They describe Shepard physically and psychologically. They are not "traditional" RPG stats, but not every RPG has to tread Gygax's water.

[quote]I understand Bioware wants to create a Player driven narrative,  and that systems such as Charm serve no function as they currently exist.  The problem is,  in an RPG,  the narrative is supposed to relate directly to the Character you've created,  and by pushing the game to become a full-on Shooter,  there's no Character.  Look at ME2,  what about any given character in ME2 defines who Shepherd is?[/quote]

Paragon/Renegade? Loyalty missions? Romances? class chosen? They all describe who Shepard is and what Shepard does. Just because most are not transparent numbers doesn't mean they don't exist.

If you want Shepard to be an oaf, have Shepard screw up loyalty missions, forget upgrades, take the Neutral path when it fits. If you want Shepard to be sexy and suave, you romance half the crew, have a fun night with Kelly, and then re-gain loyalty.

Why must numbers be a crutch?

[quote]Nothing,  it's a handfull of combat related powers.  I cannot create an incredibly persuasive but combat-inept Character...[/quote]

Every single background possible has Shepard as a highly-trained military operative, and the game focuses around Shepard's military (or mercenary) actions.

It doesn't matter how silvery Shepard's tongue was, if Shepard can't handle a gun they die.

However, if you want to play a combat-inept Shepard, why not just not hit anything with the reticle? Have Shepard hide behind boxes while the squaddies take care of things. It won't be fun, but you certainly can.

[quote]I can't create a combat-powerhouse that can't talk his way out of anything...[/quote]

Quite a lot of the confrontations have Renegade choices, Renegade interrupts, or Neutral choices which result in battle instead of the peaceful Paragon choices. Shepard is, by default, a combat-powerhouse.

A very real option that's defined by the player, not by stats.

[quote]I can't create a thieving madman,  or an egghead.[/quote]

Now that you mention it, I could never play a muppet who had a kink for buttered toast in Fallout. Hrm. Obviously not as much of an RPG as you thought.

[quote]All I can do is get combat-related bonuses with my own personal skill being far more important than anything in the character sheet.  I'm just as persuasive,  just as good at hacking and lockpicking as the next guy,  no matter what kind of character he "Created".[/quote]

Why is this bad? Is there a competition going on? Did you bet money on having a higher hacking stat than your roomie or something? Do you want a handicap? Do you want him to have a handicap? Why would you want either of those things? Do you want to be forced to bring Tali everywhere just so you can afford the upgrades?

Why are you so bothered by Shepard's ability to be defined by actions instead of numbers? Is it not just definition of a different sort?

[quote]That's what the problem is Chris,  you're offering us far less than way we had over a decade ago,  and in the end,  my Character is really no different than every other person on this thread's character.[/quote]

Maybe in capability, but I guarantee you my Shepard is vastly different from yours. My Shepard's reasons for doing things, my Shepard's pre-Akuze past, my Shepard's desires...

You dismiss these things because I can't assign a value to them, but they make the character. It is not necessarily a better or worse RPG system, merely a different one.

[quote]I know what's coming,  the market hasn't changed.  ME2 is Gears of War with a slightly more interactive story,  RPGs haven't changed,  they're still what they were,  RPGs.[/quote]

Oh, but my fellow forumite... That's where you're wrong. RPGs have changed to fit the medium, and will always change to fit the medium they're presented in. Just because they're not what you're used to doesn't invalidate the title.

Plus, maybe it's time for some change. I just finished playing BG2 after playing DA:O, and to be honest, the gameplay isn't that exciting (aside from summoning an army to drop on my opponents' heads in BG2). Sure, it was tactical, but after the orders have been issued it's wait and hope your PC doesn't get Imprisoned! I'm not saying it's a bad system, per say, but it's been the same system for over 10 years. It's a rut that the genre desperately needs to get out of.

[quote]Labelling a Shooter an RPG doesn't mean RPGs have changed,  it just means that someone thinks Shooters will sell.[/quote]

Or that there's more than one definition of "RPG". ;-)

I love HL2. I adore it. Ep1 and Ep2 are in my top 5 games of all time (in no small part to Alyx Vance). I would consider them RPGs because I have a role to play, and my actions cause the game to progress. Yes, it's linear. Yes, there aren't many major plot-defining decisions, but I have never been so casually suckered into believing in the HL2 world before or since.

You would not list it as an RPG. There aren't any stats outside of Ammo/Shields/HP, and there isn't a giant box full of dialogue choices for the mute protagonist.

However, my definition is not invalidated. It's merely referring to a different experience. Sure, while playing BG2 I watched my character take part in the story, but in HL2 I took part in the story. I would say the experience is about as close to becoming another person as there can reasonably be, and if that's one more way to define "RPG" - is it also wrong?

[quote]Seriously,  Bioware needs to be honest,  if you want to be a Shooter studio now,  just say it,  just label the games Shooters.  Don't continue to claim to be an RPG studio,  put Shooters in the box,  claim Shooters are now RPGs.  You won't get nearly the fuss about making the game combat oriented if you just drop the pretenses that you're making RPGs.[/quote]

This is definitely one stance to take. I'd wager to guess a stance on shaky ground that only follows a road to disappointment as the specific types of RPGs you're talking about become rarer and rarer for the forseeable future, but a stance nonetheless.

I'm not even saying it's the wrong stance. However, given the bleak future of your current stance, maybe it's time to consider a new one?

Maybe ME1 and ME2 are RPGs - which would mean that the genre has suddenly seen an influx of new customers waiting to experience similar venues. Maybe ME1 and ME2 are RPGs and BioWare is experimenting with the genre, not destroying it. Maybe there's a flip side which leads to less dissapointment and more appreciation for games as games and not as shining examples of an idealized definition.

Kudos.