I actually like getting rid of of intellect and charisma as a stat, and would like to have no Renegade/Paragon tracking. I don't think it is interesting or immersive that just because I don't have stat X that I can't utilize certain options in dialogue. I mean in a role-playing game I think you should just be restricted by your former choices instead of some point system, especially if those points take away from combat advancement.
I disagree. Since you are essentially playing a role, you should also be limited/enhanced by what the character you are playing as would be able to do or knows.
Sometimes this means that you as a player knows or thinks of things that your character wouldn't do/know, and sometimes it means that your character knows or thinks of things that you wouldn't do/know.
I'm pretty sure none of us knew about ME genetics to the degree that Shepard did when he/she were discussing them with a sales representative while aloowing an asari to hack into a system, for example. The distinction goes both ways in what a character can do/knows versus what a player would do/know.
I still think "Planescape: torment", which was built on Biowares infinity engine, was one of the best games produced so far to embrace actually trying for a roleplaying game.
Onyx Armour-Light IV (3) Frictionless Materials IX (3) Frictionless Materials X (5)
Now you just get the items when they drop and if you find that you need Omnigel to hack that terminal you simply go to your inventory and convert those Armours and you're in business. Its purely up to the player whether they want to do it now or in ten minutes or an hour.
Great point. This gets into the bigger issue I had with the inventory; it became extremely difficult to simply check through my items when out on a mission. With so many different types and ranks of armor being thrown around, it became very easy to forget what I had collected over the course of the game. This meant that I had to start scrolling through the inventory screen more and more frequently, which as designed was not any way efficient. Weapon mods became more of a chore than a fun game mechanic.
There is no denying that the interface itself, which they used for that detail of the game, sucked. I'll certainly agree with that.
Good interfaces have always been a petpeeve of mine, ever since I took a course in such several years back.
you guys are arguing opinions and forgetting theres one simple fact here that needs to be adressed, ME3 needs more RPG elements, whatever they may be.
Whatever they may be? That's ridiculous. If I don't like an RPG element at all, I certainly don't want it in ME3. And even if I'm OK with a particular RPG element in other games, that doesn't necessarily mean I'd like ME3 better with it.
I actually like getting rid of of intellect and charisma as a stat, and would like to have no Renegade/Paragon tracking. I don't think it is interesting or immersive that just because I don't have stat X that I can't utilize certain options in dialogue. I mean in a role-playing game I think you should just be restricted by your former choices instead of some point system, especially if those points take away from combat advancement.
I disagree. Since you are essentially playing a role, you should also be limited/enhanced by what the character you are playing as would be able to do or knows.
Sometimes this means that you as a player knows or thinks of things that your character wouldn't do/know, and sometimes it means that your character knows or thinks of things that you wouldn't do/know.
I'm pretty sure none of us knew about ME genetics to the degree that Shepard did when he/she were discussing them with a sales representative while aloowing an asari to hack into a system, for example. The distinction goes both ways in what a character can do/knows versus what a player would do/know.
I still think "Planescape: torment", which was built on Biowares infinity engine, was one of the best games produced so far to embrace actually trying for a roleplaying game.
Coudn't agree more. There does seem to be more of an emphasis in recent games on what can the player do, rather than what can the character that the player is using can do. ME:2 is a perfect example of that. Shepards abilities with guns are wholly dependant on the players skills and not on any inherant ability that the character might have. Some like this, some don't.
(That and you mentioned PST so you're already winning in my books).
THe ME2 system, while much cleaner and more streamlined than ME1's system was, to me a lot more boring. Not so much in the lack of choice in weapons as the lack of ability to mod them to suit the individual player. KOTOR and DA both allowed it to some degree, KOTOR with mods and workbenches, DA with Sandal's "Enchantment!". And yes, ME1 had mods too, though I think the ability to swap them out so easily was not a great choice to go with. ME2, in comparison, simply had good-better-best linear upgrades.
You sure you mean "boring" there? You spend so little time interacting with the inventory in ME2 I don't see how it's possible to be bored with it --mining aside, obviously. Or do you mean that the rest of the game is boring because of it?
There is no denying that the interface itself, which they used for that detail of the game, sucked. I'll certainly agree with that.
Good interfaces have always been a petpeeve of mine, ever since I took a course in such several years back.
There's definitely potential for such. Everyone appreciates a good interface. I also think that's the first step in creating diverse weapon customization.
I'm a huge fan of the film, The Good, The Bad, and the Ugly. One of my favorite scenes is where we watch Tuco walk into a gun shop, takes 3 different guns apart, and rebuilds his own "personal' revolver from his favorite pieces. Everytime I watch that scene I want to say "That, Bioware! Let us do that!". It would be brilliant, in my opinion. Hopefully, Bioware makes our firearms feel personal in their implementation.
I actually like getting rid of of intellect and charisma as a stat, and would like to have no Renegade/Paragon tracking. I don't think it is interesting or immersive that just because I don't have stat X that I can't utilize certain options in dialogue. I mean in a role-playing game I think you should just be restricted by your former choices instead of some point system, especially if those points take away from combat advancement.
I disagree. Since you are essentially playing a role, you should also be limited/enhanced by what the character you are playing as would be able to do or knows.
Sometimes this means that you as a player knows or thinks of things that your character wouldn't do/know, and sometimes it means that your character knows or thinks of things that you wouldn't do/know.
I'm pretty sure none of us knew about ME genetics to the degree that Shepard did when he/she were discussing them with a sales representative while aloowing an asari to hack into a system, for example. The distinction goes both ways in what a character can do/knows versus what a player would do/know.
I still think "Planescape: torment", which was built on Biowares infinity engine, was one of the best games produced so far to embrace actually trying for a roleplaying game.
Certainly your character should be limited to what it knows. I would much rather have what that character knows be based on choices made/information gathered and not some stat. For example origin choices like Earthborn versus Spacer could give exclusive knowledge that could have play down the road. Intelligence is also something that is difficult to have a generic stat as there are many forms of intelligence. A magic user or engineer might know a lot about their particular fields, but might not have the same social skills. Which means tying intelligence dialogue options to a specific combat skill is not accurate nor particularly compelling. I would much rather actually role-play the interactions, than have artificial stat-based restrictions.
you guys are arguing opinions and forgetting theres one simple fact here that needs to be adressed, ME3 needs more RPG elements, whatever they may be.
Whatever they may be? That's ridiculous. If I don't like an RPG element at all, I certainly don't want it in ME3. And even if I'm OK with a particular RPG element in other games, that doesn't necessarily mean I'd like ME3 better with it.
you guys are arguing opinions and forgetting theres one simple fact here that needs to be adressed, ME3 needs more RPG elements, whatever they may be.
Whatever they may be? That's ridiculous. If I don't like an RPG element at all, I certainly don't want it in ME3. And even if I'm OK with a particular RPG element in other games, that doesn't necessarily mean I'd like ME3 better with it.
Interesting. I agree both. Meaning in my opionion ME3 do need more RPG elements, but that doesn't mean it's fact. There can also be people who doesn't like more RPG elements in ME3.
There is no denying that the interface itself, which they used for that detail of the game, sucked. I'll certainly agree with that.
Good interfaces have always been a petpeeve of mine, ever since I took a course in such several years back.
There's definitely potential for such. Everyone appreciates a good interface. I also think that's the first step in creating diverse weapon customization.
While interface can have huge impact players experience as how well it's design. Interface can't allways fix issues what basic design of some feature it self creates.
You sure you mean "boring" there? You spend so little time interacting with the inventory in ME2 I don't see how it's possible to be bored with it --mining aside, obviously. Or do you mean that the rest of the game is boring because of it?
[/quote]
By boring I mean uninteresting. You don't spend much time with it, but there's really nothing to interact with. It's just sorta...there...I like a certain degree of customiziation for my weapons. I like deciding is I want to risk more kick to a weapon if it means hitting harder, or play around with a weapon's rate of fire, or scope magnification. Whenever possible, I want to trick out a weapon so that it's uniquely mine.
In ME2, it was simply +10%, +10%, +10%... etc. That was boring. No choices to make, No tradeoffs. No experimenting. Just feed platinum (or whatever) into the fabber.
There's definitely potential for such. Everyone appreciates a good interface. I also think that's the first step in creating diverse weapon customization.
I'm a huge fan of the film, The Good, The Bad, and the Ugly. One of my favorite scenes is where we watch Tuco walk into a gun shop, takes 3 different guns apart, and rebuilds his own "personal' revolver from his favorite pieces. Everytime I watch that scene I want to say "That, Bioware! Let us do that!". It would be brilliant, in my opinion. Hopefully, Bioware makes our firearms feel personal in their implementation.
Indeed.
And that's exactly what I hope we can do with workbenches, mods, and enemy weapons.
1) Lacked any sort of stacking capability. 2) Gave no option to decline to pick up objects you didn't want 3) Loot fell like rain from enemies.
So I don't know if inventory as such is "bad" for the Mass Effect universe. But I can say I think it was handled badly. Both KOTOR and DA had stackable inventory and the ability to select what you wanted to loot and what to leave behind.
All true. But I think another issue here is that Mass Effect was a hybrid. KotOR/DA:O could get away with a much more 'slow' pace because they were turn-based RPGs. Stopping every few seconds to delete loot or check to make sure that your character is always using the highest rank armor became bothersome. And is also anathema to the faster pace typically employed in a tps.
In a way, it's actually what ruined the Virmire sequence for me, which otherwise remained one of Bioware's best moments. Music, plot, action, etc, these were all fine....but the excessive number of items managed to ruin any proper pacing.
Overall, I just think the 'less is more' approach is better for the Mass Effect universe.
I definitely agree with you about Virmire. That was, almost certainly in my eyes, the best paced, best written, had the best music, most exciting and generally most important section of the first game, if not the series as a whole - if it were not for the fact that you had to spend about half of the mission sifting through the crate fulls worth of unneeded crap, it did very much ruin the pacing. You got to points where it had given you pages and pages of the same armour upgrade which popped up in the middle of the screen, and you had to spend the time sifting through junk in the inventory stacking up metric tonnes of omni-gel otherwise the inventory would hit the 150 item limit. Meanwhile, say, the Suicide Mission, was paced absolutely perfectly, a large part of which was due to the fact that there was no loot to be found, inventory management to be done or ammo scrounging to do.
Sure, it's always nice being able to customize your weapons, armour, squadmates, etc., I just oppose it when it gets in the way of otherwise fantastic pacing, something which ME2 did a whole lot better than ME1.
Gatt9 wrote... Because other studios manage perfectly fine showing and telling alot earlier than this.
Someone should tell Skyrim that, then.
All I see is some conversation/travel options and some dude casting magic.
From what I hear, Skyrim isn't exactly the best example to pull out when talking roleplaying games, as they seem to be headed the same disastrous direction as every other business suit corporation is going these days. I believe they dumbed down character stats to the level of DA2 or worse in Skyrim, so.. please... don't start using that game when talking about rpg...
Well, then what about previous E3s? In past years did RPG presentations actually show off the RPG elements of the game?
Yes, for many many years RPGs and their elements were shown off, it wasn't until the past 4 years that RPGs were morphed into Action games (TPS, Adventure), and the studios pushing them stopped actually showing off RPG elements. Google old RPG's and E3, and the wayback machine will likely pull up all kinds of articles about how the RPGs were shown.
Bethseda would be a really bad example. There's actually an E3 interview out there were Todd was asked about RPG elements during a Fallout 3 presentation, and he hemmed and hawed for a moment, and then started yelling "Look at this explosion! Watch this gun fire!", completely ignoring the question. Bethseda is not at all interested in making RPGs.
I'm more trying to figure out what "true" RPGs really means anymore. You'll have individuals like Salsa using this point repeatedly when if we look at the RPG genre, there's so many permutations and takes on "RPG" I don't really think it's a valid gripe anymore. I mean even the term Role Playing Game is ambiguous enough that I wish we as gamers wouldn't try to shoe-horn our games into these points. I won't touch the subject of DA2 because that's just a whole can of worms, but focusing on upcoming games like Skyrim or ME3. When did we stop playing roles in these games and exploring worlds where the STORY is the focus - our integration into the story, whether it gives us choices or guides us along a linear path. We are still playing these individuals, customizing them and able to shape the world around us. Whether or not said game has a huge deep skill tree or customizable weapons or carries the choices from game to game, is this not the genuine overall definition of an RPG? The stats, the inventory, the loot - they are all throwaway elements that can hinder or help the core concept but I genuinely wish we would get away from trying to label what makes a real RPG or not by all the extras that have emerged over the years.
The problem is that some Adventure games, like Oblivion, are being slapped with the acronym when they are actually Adventure games. The dividing line between Adventure and RPG is if you have a Character where his skills determine outcomes. The definition hasn't changed at all, it cannot change, it's an attempt to emulate a defined system from the real world. What's changed is alot of companies mismarketing their products.
The reason for that is, certain genres are believed to be "Poor sellers" and even though games that fit in those genres sell quite well (Oblivion is again an example), marketers don't want that label on the box because they fear it'll be automatically dismissed. "Adventure games don't sell, put RPG on the box".
I think the problem is really due to game developers having (and have had in large amounts) a wrong idea about what to do with the thing. I'm asuming it's because of games being driven by profitmaximizing now a days, instead of being driven by the desire to create "just that game".
Instead of embracing character stats as a means for the computer to take over the gamemasters responsibility of telling the player what he can do and cannot do, and creating scenarios that allow creative use of these, game designing seems more and more about pushing out stuff fast that focuses purely on a "tight" (or rather, as tight as the writers have time to make do) story. Throwing away anything that doesn't relate directly to the story that "should" be told, irregardless of the story that "could" be told.
I think one of the most clear signs of such, is when a game designer said that a stat like intelligence really didn't do anything in their game aside just mean "how many magic points do you got", so they decided to cut away the stat and just give a stat instead that was called "magic" because it was clearer and did the same thing in their game. A clear example of the stat loosing its purpose through neglect of care and attention, and rather than giving it the attention and care it requires to have a meaningfull implication on the game, it just gets cut and replaced with something that can flow easy along the "fast track" they need to keep on
You're quite right. That was Bethseda. They removed all of the systems that certain stats were meant to facilitate, and then suddenly discovered it didn't do anything anymore.
Since Bethseda hates RPGs, they of course determined that the problem was that "The stat only makes magic go up!", never occurred to them that the stat actually did other things and that they removed it. What Bethseda doesn't understand must be bad, and they make no effort to understand it's purpose. Then they ban you if you don't agree with them.
Not Being an Rpg is not bad for instance despite ME2 not being an rpg it is still a far far better game than Me1 gameplay wise.
TPS>Rpg in my opinion rpgs are usually slow and boring that is why the same rpg features are dying in the market becaus ea select few actually wan't them customization is one of the good features of rpgs mechanics because it is not your character choosing it is you that s why it is so popular among gamers.
people wan't to play games not let game mechanics play for them like int he ways of the old turn base titles like fallout or KoToR
to answer it my favorite real rpg is fallout 2 one of the best games I have ever played and KoToR which is always cool so I don't have Rpg Biased.
I curious on what is the real meaning of Rpg And I got a few definitions.
"A role-playing game is one in which the player controls one or more characters, typically designed by the player, and guides them though a series of quests managed by the computer. Victory consists of completing these quests. Character growth in power and abilities is a key feature of the genre. Typical challenges include tactical combat, logistics, economic growth, exploration, and puzzle-solving. Physical coordination challenges are rare except in RPG-action hybrids."
- Ernest Adams & Andrew Rollings, Fundamentals of Game Design, ISBN: 0-13-168747
A role-playing game (RPG) is a game in which players assume the roles of characters in a fictional setting. Players take responsibility for acting out these roles within a narrative, either through literal acting, or through a process of structured decision-making or character development. Actions taken within the game succeed or fail according to a formal system of rules and guidelines.
-en.Wikipedia.org
What is a Role Playing Game? Personally, I like to define a Role Playing Game as a game that MUST, ABSOLUTELY have three elements. One is a statistical setup for characters that describe certain skills/aspects of that character. Two, it must have some method of increasing and strengthening those statistics (usually but not necessarily by way of the experience/level system). Three, it must have a menu-driven combat system that utilizes the skills/aspects of the characters. Given there are other elements of RPGs that I'll leave out because of their obvious nature, these are the elements that are required for a game to be labeled RPG.
-Rpgfan Forums
Three different view points change my mind mass effect is Definitely an Rpg according to these meanings
Gatt9 wrote... The dividing line between Adventure and RPG is if you have a Character where his skills determine outcomes. The definition hasn't changed at all, it cannot change, it's an attempt to emulate a defined system from the real world. What's changed is alot of companies mismarketing their products.
So I guess this game was mis-marketed as an action game as well.
"RPG elements" is called by that label because things like inventory, skills, exp, stats and attributes have been used by role-playing games for the longest time, but other genres have used -- and are still using -- "RPG elements" before they were labeled as such. They are just game mechanics, like shooting is a mechanic, driving is a mechanic, customization is a mechanic. Any games can incorporate whatever gameplay mechanics to achieve the real goal of a game.
Your definition of RPG is based on superficial features, and it's also an outlook that isn't very conducive to innovation, experimentation, discovery, progress, etc. Just look at the history of film, music, TV, art, and other media, it's constantly changing and borrowing ideas from one another, sometimes challenging conventions. That's just how the world works. Mass Effect and other games are incorporating other game mechanics into their core because that's how you start making innovation and challenging oneself to make new stuff. If you accept that, then judge the product based on its intent. If you don't accept that, then find other products that suit your preferences, and let the market dictate what works and what doesn't.
Modifié par Tony Gunslinger, 16 juin 2011 - 11:35 .
lol not even going to bother reading this thread. Why not just enjoy Mass Effect for the awesome experience it is instead of getting caught up over genres?
Actually this thread has been very calm and had great back and forth for the last few pages Worth the read - I've enjoyed the counter points made as well as getting to make my own.
And that tends to be the point I like to stress too Kotor - if the game IS enjoyable, what does it matter if it doesn't fall into the usual RPG model we've become used to over the years? Evolution and change are not bad things, especially when they improve the experience. No one is arguing that ME2 did everything perfectly in terms of evolving, but the overall sum of it's parts exceeded ME1's initial foray - this also doesn't mean ME1 was a terrible game since it was amazing for it's time.
I've enjoyed playing both again recently and can't wait to sink my teeth into ME3
lol not even going to bother reading this thread. Why not just enjoy Mass Effect for the awesome experience it is instead of getting caught up over genres?
Please think before posting next time, not everyone shares the same opinion/tastes.
I love Dr. Pepper.(Mass Effect)
I don't much care for Diet Dr. Pepper(ME2)
I'm sure you have your own preferrences, we all do.
Retour en haut
Worth the read - I've enjoyed the counter points made as well as getting to make my own.
