[quote]bald man in a boat wrote...
[quote]Scimal wrote...
[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.
[/quote]
*Stands and applaudes Scimal*
[/quote]
This is a pretty good roundup.
Ce sujet est fermé
Retour en haut
