469 réponses à ce sujet

[CroGamer002]

Can someone point me RPG elements in this video and this one too?

Thank you.

[Cainne Chapel]

Well I dont doubt that mislabeling products is anything new Salsa, but the sheer fact that they've been calling them RPGs for....as long as I've been playing them so..close to 20 some odd years...well... kinda goes against your say so.

and as knowledgeable as you are, if the industry still calls final fantasy and its ilk RPGs...well.... There ya go.

and no I dont consider Dawn of War 2 an RPG (sadly I've never played it) unless of course the developer calls it such. Dawn of war 1 was an RTS if I recall... *shrug*

In any case, it would seem you're just arguing for arguments sake which is all well and fine, but dont treat me like i'm stupid friend.

Just because YOU feel the need to go against the grain doesn't automatically make you right.

[Nashiktal]

Dawn of war 2 is a weird mixture of RTS and RPG. It has a smaller scope than DoW1 and its expansions.

The single player campaign in DoW2 focused on only four squads, each led by a squad leader who could be leveled up within multiple categories to gain abilities and tailer them toward a specific build. The force commander could be leveled up within melee weapons and health for tanking, (both melee and health trees having abilities within them to support this) or you could go down energy and ranged, or perhaps yet another build.

They opened it up more in the second expansion for DoW 2, but they did indeed add RPG elements.

[SalsaDMA]

Cainne Chapel wrote...

and no I dont consider Dawn of War 2 an RPG (sadly I've never played it) unless of course the developer calls it such. Dawn of war 1 was an RTS if I recall... *shrug*

You should try it. It sounds like it would be just down your alley. I got both DoW1 and 2, and despite them being totally different games aiming for different target groups, both were good games.

The point I was making with DoW2, though, is that you got character customization of skills, you got loot to handle, you got experience levels, you got a main protagonist that experiences the story, and you got minor choices like "what objectives do I want to secure in this map", "which map do I want to go to as I trudge along in the story" and inthe chaos expansion you even get choices of how "evil" you want to be while playing the missions, which effect the ending you get.

I'd consider that game to be just as much a rpg as a game like "Grotesque Tactics: Evil heros" (in retrospect, DoW2 even have more choices available as far as the story goes), a game that by its very description claims to be rpg yet in my book is nothing more than a fantasy squadbased tactical game.(The actual comment they make is: "Grotesque Tactics combines the features and clichés of Western and Asian console RPGs like Fire Emblem or Final Fantasy Tactics and provides an highly addicting and entertaining change to the current, more serious role playing games.")

Just because companies have mislabeled these kind of games as "rpgs", doesn't mean that they actually are.

[Gatt9]

Cainne Chapel wrote...

Such a compelling one word response Marshalleck.

Well I'm speaking from mainly as a JRPG player. There's a reason why I didn't list games like oblivion etc.

But by and large most of the RPGs i've played the main character is rather static.

So I still stand by my comment that, not all of em, are you allowed to custom tailor the main characters looks, etc. At least not in the ones i've played lately.

But then of course as Salsa put it... JRPGs aren't RPGs...despite their classification as such for years...

You're not wrong.

An RPG requires Character Based skill,  not a custom character.  Many RPG's,  both PnP and cRPG's over the years have features pregenerated characters.  In fact,  early PnP modules used to ship with pregenerated characters people could pick up and play quickly.  Dragonlance,  which spawned a ridiculously huge number of product lines over nearly 30 years,  started out with pregenerated characters in what is widely regarded as one of TSR's best module lines.

The issue is that JRPGs haven't actually added more features over the years,  they're pretty much indentical to the implementations used in the 1980's,  while Western RPG's have started including storyline divergence and deep dialogue.

But they're still RPGs,  I'd argue that Final Fantasy 13 was more of an RPG than Mass Effect 2 was,  primarily because FF13 features Character Based skill,  while ME2 is devoid of any,  completely about Player Skill.

That whole "Choice and Consequence is what makes an RPG" thing is just so much noise,  when you actually go back and look at the RPG products from the 1970's forward,  you'll find that the vast majority of them featured very little "Choice and Consequence" and the majority of them were really more Diablo-esque dungeon crawls or predetermined stories than there were divergent stories with any choice in them.  Even if you go through the list of generally affirmed classic CRPGs,  you'll find that to be true.  You won't find it present until Fallout and Planescape in 1998,  and then it'll dissappear again until you get to KotOR and Mass Effect.  So really,  in the grand scheme,  truth is there's been less than 10 games in over 30 years of gaming that would be defined as RPG's by the "Choice and Consequence" crowd.

[KainrycKarr]

I could never go back to classic RPG's after fallout and ME. I care far more about the rpg element of ME and Fallout than I ever could or did of any of the classics.

The ones we've seen in ME 1 and 3(not 2, that was definately lite-rpg) are enough that I'm interested, but aren't so complex that I get bored or overwhelmed.

I feel ME3, Fallout(3 and NV), and Skyrim represent the modern RPG best.

[In Exile]

Gatt9 wrote...
That whole "Choice and Consequence is what makes an RPG" thing is just so much noise,  when you actually go back and look at the RPG products from the 1970's forward,  you'll find that the vast majority of them featured very little "Choice and Consequence" and the majority of them were really more Diablo-esque dungeon crawls or predetermined stories than there were divergent stories with any choice in them.  Even if you go through the list of generally affirmed classic CRPGs,  you'll find that to be true.  You won't find it present until Fallout and Planescape in 1998,  and then it'll dissappear again until you get to KotOR and Mass Effect.  So really,  in the grand scheme,  truth is there's been less than 10 games in over 30 years of gaming that would be defined as RPG's by the "Choice and Consequence" crowd.

You're absolutely right. How could I have not realized that since RPGs were played a certain way in the 1970s, that means there's only one way to construe the genre and any deviation over the past 40 years is a heresy that needs to be forgotten.

As for choice & consequence, you can count both BGs as prototypical of that (in contrast to IWD) and look at BG, Fallout and Torment in 1998 as a major shift in the consideration of the genre. Though Daggerfall in 1996 (NPCs view you differently based on your guild!) was already starting to push the trend with choice & consequence, with 6 different endings.

You can even say that Ultima 7 in 1992 introduced a variant of choice & consequence with the extent to which the game was made interactive (relative to the technology of the day).

And that's ignoring the fact that P&P modules themselves weren't about the statistical number crunching, but creating your own dynamic adventure with your friends pretending to be other characters.

[Dexi]

Mesina2 wrote...

Can someone point me RPG elements in this video and this one too?

Thank you.

. 

[point]

/thread.[point]

[savaged49]

Dexi wrote...

Mesina2 wrote...

Can someone point me RPG elements in this video and this one too?

Thank you.

. 

[point]

/thread.[point]

Things that were almost all cut out from the final game? I look at this and I feel well why wasnt my mass effect 1 more like that?

Modifié par savaged49, 18 juin 2011 - 05:22 .

[Wintermist]

RolePlaying features I consider essential:
Choices that matter.
Proper Character Development.
Open Ended instead of linearity.
Ability to design your own character.

I think, lacking these, you're playing a hybrid or simply an adventure game. That's all fine, but to be declared a RPG you need more elements.

[Wintermist]

Did I kill this thread? lol

[McAwesum]

Hey guys, new member.

Anyways, was anyone else annoyed in ME2 when they reach lvl 30 and have one stupid point that they can't put into anything?

Also I hope they have more levels than 30 in ME3. It would be nice to be able to go back up to 60. ME2 got stingy with Exp, there was no point in killing stuff other than to get to the next area. ME1 rewarded you with Exp for doing everything. That felt nice; like I was encouraged to look at every interactive object and do everything in the game.

Also, was it confirmed that loot was returning in ME3? I mean; when you kill enemies do you get items again? And not like; they drop their weapons and you can pick them up temporarily and use them. I don't think that counts. If it did then Call of Duty would've been the best RPG ever! Jk.

[Bluko]

In Exile wrote...
What are you talking about? You made it about the story: you said that Mass Effect was 'about' exploration. I'm pointing out that Mass Effect is about stopping the reapers. I'd like for you to point out where I said that Bioware should only care about the story.

The game is about exploration though. Maybe not directly in that in order to beat the Reapers you have to wander to the edge of the map and find the magic Super-Gun by sheer chance. I understand perfectly fine that a story itself progresses by mostly linear means. (And I'm not suggesting that you should have to explore planets aimlessly.) However Mass Effect is sort of "choose-you-own-adventure" game where you can decide ultimately which endings occur, so it's not exactly meant to be a purely linear experience. You do different things, go to different places, get different outcomes. I'd say that involves a little bit of exploration.

The thing I think you're missing here is that all the gameplay can be potentially be irrelevant to the plot. But whether you like it or not, exploration is a part of the gameplay just like the weapons. Casey Hudson more or less came up with Mass Effect. He says the game is about exploration. So the guy who basically started the whole game series is wrong about his own game?

Also...

"In the year 2148, explorers on Mars discovered the remains of an ancient spacefaring civilization. In the decades that followed, these mysterious artifacts revealed startling new technologies, enabling travel to the furthest stars. The basis for this incredible technology was a force that controlled the very fabric of space and time. They called it the greatest discovery in human history.

The civilizations of the galaxy call it... MASS EFFECT."

Gee I guess humanity didn't need to explore Mars or anything.

In Exile wrote...
Why are you obsessed with the story? I like branching quests. 

You made it sound like exploration compromises the story, when it does no such thing. Also you like non-linear quest arcs, but you don't like non-linear missions? Isn't the principle essentially the same?

I will admit few games pull off non-linear missions well. Mass Effect is hardly a great example in that regard. But the potential was there, even though many apparently choose not to see it. With refinement it could have been great. Though yes it does take some effort. I'm fine with having only a few open-environment places if it means there done well, rather then have 10+ bleak ME1 environments.

In Exile wrote...
I don't think exploration is fun, that's why. If exploration adds value (as in, you have to explore to get the quests) that would be one thing. I'd be okay with that. But that's nothing more than what ME2 did. I don't like wandering and actually exploring for the same of exploring.

Who's saying you should be forced to explore environments? I'm saying the option should be present in some missions for those who do enjoy it. Don't want to explore, then don't. You may miss out on a few additional things, but that's the consequence of things. That's exactly how dialogue works as well. Why should the game be structured to be a linear experience of follow the "yellow-brick road"? That goes against everything that Mass Effect is trying to be.

In Exile wrote...
It's absolutely selfish. And I don't care. Are you going to give me $10 to make up for the fact I like the game less and you like the game more? No.

So rather then attempt to make any sort of compromise, you're just going to blantantly argue that the game should be made to please only yourself. Look I won't pretend to "know" what other people want. But I won't dismiss additional features simply because I won't enjoy them. If I feel they may compromise the game then I will let that be known and more importantly why.

Do I enjoy playing as a Sentinel? No, not really. So should it be cut from the game? Why not get rid of all the other classes besides Soldier? (You know so I can have more Soldier content.)

I think the answer here should be obvious.

Look I undertsand the Devs have limited time to make the game. But that doesn't mean they should exclude certain things just to solely appease some more then others. That's incredibly foolish and greatly limits who the game can appeal to. It's in their best interest to make this game fun for as many as possible, not just you.

Honestly if you can't still enjoy the game because there's a few optional exploration based missions, I dunno what to tell you.

[Bluko]

McAwesum wrote...
Anyways, was anyone else annoyed in ME2 when they reach lvl 30 and have one stupid point that they can't put into anything?

Somewhat. Sort of minor thing, though I would prefer each skill cost 1 point.

McAwesum wrote...
Also I hope they have more levels than 30 in ME3. It would be nice to be able to go back up to 60. ME2 got stingy with Exp, there was no point in killing stuff other than to get to the next area. ME1 rewarded you with Exp for doing everything. That felt nice; like I was encouraged to look at every interactive object and do everything in the game.

But I don't want to have to do everything to max level! Why are you making me get XP man! I don't want to have to do stuff to get XP!

Oh right, these games are sort-of an RPG, my bad. My character gains XP by doing stuff, not by not doing stuff. I forgot.

McAwesum wrote...
Also, was it confirmed that loot was returning in ME3? I mean; when you kill enemies do you get items again? And not like; they drop their weapons and you can pick them up temporarily and use them. I don't think that counts.

No that "loot" isn't returning.

Congratulations! Expect everyone here to call you an RPG Elitist now. 

(Such as myself, apparently since of the games I own that could be considered RPGs I have: Baldur's Gate, Icewind Dale, KOTOR, Oblivion, Mass Effect, Legend of Zelda: Ocarina of Time. Yep I'm a serious hardcore RPG Elitist owning those games...)

Modifié par Bluko, 18 juin 2011 - 08:01 .

[Il Divo]

Bluko wrote...

"In the year 2148, explorers on Mars discovered the remains of an ancient spacefaring civilization. In the decades that followed, these mysterious artifacts revealed startling new technologies, enabling travel to the furthest stars. The basis for this incredible technology was a force that controlled the very fabric of space and time. They called it the greatest discovery in human history.

The civilizations of the galaxy call it... MASS EFFECT."

Gee I guess humanity didn't need to explore Mars or anything.

Good for humanity. Except that Shepard is not an explorer. He's a highly trained special forces soldier representing the Alliance as a potential Spectre agent. This has nothing to do with the explorers on Mars. 

Mass Effect's 'exploration' was also not given the focus it needed to be a key aspect. The game is not a sandbox in the way that Morrowind was designed; ME has a very focused main quest, with exploration thrown on as an extra.

So rather then attempt to make any sort of compromise, you're just going to blantantly argue that the game should be made to please only yourself. Look I won't pretend to "know" what other people want. But I won't dismiss additional features simply because I won't enjoy them. If I feel they may compromise the game then I will let that be known and more importantly why.

Do I enjoy playing as a Sentinel? No, not really. So should it be cut from the game? Why not get rid of all the other classes besides Soldier? (You know so I can have more Soldier content.)

I think the answer here should be obvious.

Look I undertsand the Devs have limited time to make the game. But that doesn't mean they should exclude certain things just to solely appease some more then others. That's incredibly foolish and greatly limits who the game can appeal to. It's in their best interest to make this game fun for as many as possible, not just you.

Honestly if you can't still enjoy the game because there's a few optional exploration based missions, I dunno what to tell you.

Which is for the developers to decide. It's not the responsibility of individual fans to take into account the wants/needs of the many. If someone wants to argue for Mass Effect 3 to be a racing game, that is their right, regardless of whether others will enjoy it. Let the developers decide what's in the best interest of the many and let me decide what I want in my game.

[In Exile]

[quote]Bluko wrote...
The game is about exploration though. Maybe not directly in that in order to beat the Reapers you have to wander to the edge of the map and find the magic Super-Gun by sheer chance. [/quote]

So, the game is about exploration, except the plot and design of the game has nothing to do with exploration?

[quote]I understand perfectly fine that a story itself progresses by mostly linear means. (And I'm not suggesting that you should have to explore planets aimlessly.) However Mass Effect is sort of "choose-you-own-adventure" game where you can decide ultimately which endings occur, so it's not exactly meant to be a purely linear experience. You do different things, go to different places, get different outcomes. I'd say that involves a little bit of exploration. [/quote]

If you do want to say all of that is exploration, then Mass Effect 2 had all of the exploration it could possibly have. Except you don't meant that by exploration at all. You've already implied you don't consider picking the order of several linear modules as exploration.

I didn't say anything about how linear the story is. I just said exploration has nothing to do with the structure of the game, and is a design element that is as important as reloading or squad powers and is one of those in/out elements done on how well you think you can execute it (as a developer) vis a vis making a good game.

[quote]The thing I think you're missing here is that all the gameplay can be potentially be irrelevant to the plot. But whether you like it or not, exploration is a part of the gameplay just like the weapons. Casey Hudson more or less came up with Mass Effect. He says the game is about exploration. So the guy who basically started the whole game series is wrong about his own game?[/quote]

I'm not missing it at all. I said as much. Can you quote Casey directly?

[quote]Also...

"In the year 2148, explorers on Mars discovered the remains of an ancient spacefaring civilization. In the decades that followed, these mysterious artifacts revealed startling new technologies, enabling travel to the furthest stars. The basis for this incredible technology was a force that controlled the very fabric of space and time. They called it the greatest discovery in human history.

The civilizations of the galaxy call it... MASS EFFECT."

Gee I guess humanity didn't need to explore Mars or anything.[/quote]

... Are you serious? Wait, you are being serious.

Your point that Mass Effect is about exploration is... the intro to a game including the word explorers on something unrelated to the plot  of the game?
[quote]You made it sound like exploration compromises the story, when it does no such thing. Also you like non-linear quest arcs, but you don't like non-linear missions? Isn't the principle essentially the same?[/quote]

No. A non-linear quest is just a plot branch. A non-linear level is environmental design.

I don't like expansive environments. You can have a very linear quest and a very expansive open-world environment. Just look at GTA4. It's not an RPG, but it's open world and has missions. All of these missions are entirely linear - you can only initiate them from one place and solve them one way.

But you have lots of 'exploring' to do, in the literal sense of the word.

[quote]I will admit few games pull off non-linear missions well. Mass Effect is hardly a great example in that regard. But the potential was there, even though many apparently choose not to see it. With refinement it could have been great. Though yes it does take some effort. I'm fine with having only a few open-environment places if it means there done well, rather then have 10+ bleak ME1 environments.[/quote]

Mass Effect had as much potential as a non-linear exploration game as it did a turn-based RTS.


[quote]Who's saying you should be forced to explore environments? I'm saying the option should be present in some missions for those who do enjoy it. Don't want to explore, then don't. You may miss out on a few additional things, but that's the consequence of things. That's exactly how dialogue works as well. Why should the game be structured to be a linear experience of follow the "yellow-brick road"? That goes against everything that Mass Effect is trying to be.[/quote]

You're saying my game should have less of something I like, so that you can have more of something you like. I'm saying: the option being present in the game introduces something I dislike. Why should I have to tolerate it at all? If it's in the game, I can make due, but at the end of the day it's my $$ and I'm going to advocate for the game that gets me the most bang-for-my-buck.

And as I said above: non-linear design plot-wise and quest-wise does not mean non-linear level design, which is what you're arguing for.

[quote]So rather then attempt to make any sort of compromise, you're just going to blantantly argue that the game should be made to please only yourself. Look I won't pretend to "know" what other people want. But I won't dismiss additional features simply because I won't enjoy them. If I feel they may compromise the game then I will let that be known and more importantly why.[/quote]

When Bioware pays me to design their games, I'm going to start looking for compromises. If you and I are ever hired as designers on a product, I'm going to look to compromise with you on.

But right now, I'm spending time on a pre-release forum for a game I'm excited about and going to spend my hard-earned salary on, and I'm advocating the features I like.

[quote]Do I enjoy playing as a Sentinel? No, not really. So should it be cut from the game? Why not get rid of all the other classes besides Soldier? (You know so I can have more Soldier content.)[/quote]

If you want to advocate against your interest, go for it.

[quote]I think the answer here should be obvious. [/quote]

You like paying for things you never use?

[quote]Look I undertsand the Devs have limited time to make the game. But that doesn't mean they should exclude certain things just to solely appease some more then others. That's incredibly foolish and greatly limits who the game can appeal to. It's in their best interest to make this game fun for as many as possible, not just you.[/quote]

The developers should include any and all features that they think will satisfy whatever design goal they have. Since part of their goals probably include maximizing sales, I'm putting foward an argument for my taste. Ideally, many people share them. If no one shares them, Bioware designs a very different game compared to what I like and I either decide to buy it or not.

[quote]Honestly if you can't still enjoy the game because there's a few optional exploration based missions, I dunno what to tell you.[/quote]

Enjoy less != not enjoy at all.

I'd enjoy ME3 a lot more if they had no optional exploration based missions and instead had branching plot.

Modifié par In Exile, 19 juin 2011 - 06:29 .

[Minty-Fresh]

Pimpus93 wrote...

I'm just wondering how the armor sysem will work, if it will be closer to ME or ME2.

I hope ME2.....with customizable colors for dlc armor

[RoninOmega]

In Exile wrote...

AlanC9 wrote...
Sure. So fraking what? Unless someone has a Bioware tag, he's not under any obligation to care about anyone else's tastes but his own.

But yeah, theres nothing wrong with exploration that I'm not paying for. So I've got a different compromise for you. All exploration should be DLC. Like it? Buy it.

That's a great line. I'm using this in any future compromise-so-we-can-all-enjoy-the-game debates.

I really hope Alan's being sarcastic...  Otherwise that's just horrible, that would be really stupid.