469 réponses à ce sujet

[Cainne Chapel]

Wow I didnt realize that to generalize an RPG it means that you as the player have no control over the characters skill...hmm news to me.

Fact of the matter is in ANY RPG its going to be somewhat based on the player self inserting what he or she wants into the character, be it, items, skills, etc etc. So the player can essentially play the character he/she wants to play. Otherwise we'd all be watching graphical movies.

also Bioware never called Mass Effect an RPG... it is and always has been a Hybrid game. Thus why they have more definitions than just RPG. Its an Action RPG.

Frankly by RPGs general definition ANY game can be an RPG to an extent.

[Bluko]

Good WRPGs (in my humble opinion) are about freedom and customization. Which are more how shall I say western ideas. JRPGs are more about grand stories and lots of "number" games, leveling, etc. 

Of course RPGs as I understand them all have their roots in D&D or table top games. Basically what nerds of old did before computers. Computers are nice because you no longer need to rely on dice or have big manuals or sheets of paper in order to play.

The word "Roleplay" is very ambiguous since essentially all actors themselves are Roleplayers. The key thing about RPG is the G. You are roleplaying in a game. You are the actor, the hero, the protagonist. Essentially any game can be considered RPG by the fact you take control of character. But if you're just playing something like Pac-Man are you really "roleplaying"? I'd say no.

RPGs then are about choices.

This can be choosing which sword to use, what item to level, or what dialogue option to speak. Older games had a tendency to rely on items and levels (due to limitations of sound and that most programmers are not writers.) Of course there were certainly text based adventures. And a lot of RPGs gradually came to have culmination of all those elements.


Mass Effect 1 was very much an action RPG. You had levels, random loot, stats, and spiffy spoken dialogue. While the game determined how much damage you could do and accuracy; you were the one shooting. You had the action of shooting, but the classic RPG stuff was still there.

Mass Effect 2 however dangerously skirts the border of being able to call itself an RPG anymore. It's only real remaining RPGs elements are the skill tree and dialogue. I think it's far more fair to say Mass Effect 2 is a shooter with RPG Elements. And really most shooters, especially nowadays, have some RPG elements. I can for example think of a number of shooters that have "powers" that you can level up. Jedi Knight: Outcast being one of my favorites.

However the biggest offense to me about Mass Effect 2 is the general lack of freedom and customization. The hallmarks of good WRPGs. Something Bioware really seems to be struggling with lately. There isn't much freedom to explore other then the breif N7 Missions and Loyatly Missions, niether of which are really exploration. Also Mass Effect 2 basically limits you to armor customization and to a small degree skills. Mass Effect 2 has just a bit too much "railroading" for my liking. Essentially the ony thing Mass Effect 2 really had left to stand on was its dialogue and characters, which are fortunately Bioware's greatest strength.

I really don't think ME3 so far tops ME1's RPG Elements, and that's fine it doesn't need to. As long as there is a good amount of exploration (that means some non-linear levels and story progression) and more customization options I'll be pretty happy. The addition of such I feel will allow ME3 to be a great game and more then just a shooter with a dialogue choices.

Modifié par Bluko, 14 juin 2011 - 05:02 .

[onelifecrisis]

Bluko wrote...

<snip>

Good post. I agree that the ME games are shooters with RPG elements, but that's semantics. More importantly, I disagree with your opinion of ME1's "choice".

I felt that the choices in ME1 were fake. Fake dialogue choices abound, for example, but what really irked me was the inventory. Reams and reams of equipment, and never a choice. There was always one item that was better than all the rest in every way; never something that had pros and cons to weigh.

Suppose I offer you a choice: have $10 for free, or $5 for free. Is that really a choice? Not in my book. There's only really one option: take the $10. The ME1 inventory was full of these sorts of choices, except that you had to trawl through dozens of $5 offers to find the $10 one. The ME1 skill system, to extend the analogy, was full of choices like this: take $9.56, or $9.57.

ME2 had fewer skill choices, but at least they made a noticable difference and didn't involve trawling through pages of rubbish. ME3 looks like it will expand to include even more meaningful choices, which is great.

[AlanC9]

Bluko wrote...
However the biggest offense to me about Mass Effect 2 is the general lack of freedom and customization. The hallmarks of good WRPGs. Something Bioware really seems to be struggling with lately. 

I'm not sure I'd go with "struggling with" there. How about "uninterested in"?

[Cainne Chapel]

Well Mass Effect one in terms of Freedom and Customization was severely lacking as well.

I dont call driving around the same square planets (with next to no hidden treasures or what not) Freedom or even the "illusion" there of. Just because something is bigger doesnt necessarily mean its better if its just empty space.

Same goes with customization (to an extent). Now ME1 did have GREAT sidekick armor customization (to the extent that you could change the colors/patterns, which ME2 unfortunately did away with) but outside of that the Main character in ME2 has the same if not more customization options when it comes to clothing/armor and arguably more when it comes to Weaponry int he fact that at least each gun looks and behaves differently rather than being a different colored model there of.

That said, any attempt to increase customization and add more options is ALWAYS a good thing in my book. and I look forward to seeing what ME3 brings to the table.

[InvaderErl]

onelifecrisis wrote...

Bluko wrote...

<snip>

Good post. I agree that the ME games are shooters with RPG elements, but that's semantics. More importantly, I disagree with your opinion of ME1's "choice".

I felt that the choices in ME1 were fake. Fake dialogue choices abound, for example, but what really irked me was the inventory. Reams and reams of equipment, and never a choice. There was always one item that was better than all the rest in every way; never something that had pros and cons to weigh.

Suppose I offer you a choice: have $10 for free, or $5 for free. Is that really a choice? Not in my book. There's only really one option: take the $10. The ME1 inventory was full of these sorts of choices, except that you had to trawl through dozens of $5 offers to find the $10 one. The ME1 skill system, to extend the analogy, was full of choices like this: take $9.56, or $9.57.

ME2 had fewer skill choices, but at least they made a noticable difference and didn't involve trawling through pages of rubbish. ME3 looks like it will expand to include even more meaningful choices, which is great.

[Mister Mida]

I find this statement way too premature. I for one haven't seen enough to agree with you, OP.

[Sanunes]

I just want to be able to recruit all my squad member near the beginning of the game like ME1, for having to wait until after half way to get some was a little frustrating for I would have liked to have them when I wanted, not when the game unlocked them and Legion was the absolute worst for after completing that mission you were put on an invisible timer.

[RoninOmega]

Mesina2 wrote...

clerkenwell wrote...

DCopeland wrote...

It seems to set up better, but Mass Effect 1 had far superior amounts of RPG elements.
Butter luck next time buddy.

Mass Effect 1 had: Several powers you could improve in a linear fashion, customizable weapons, customizable armor, and loot.

Mass Effect 3 has: Several powers you can improve in a freeform fashion, customizable weapons, customizable armor, and loot.

What Mass Effect 1 elements am I missing?

To make full story for you.


Well for starters it's now freeform to upgrade your powers.

Customizable weapons in ME1 are failure. No audio nor visual changes and I-X mods.

You can't customize your armor at all in ME1. And adding mods to it can hardly be called customization.

Loot. Was never gone in ME2 to begin with.

Correction, Loot was gone in ME2.  If you hardly call adding the kind of mods me1 had on your armor customization, then how can you call barely picking up any weapons each 2-3 missions, with no variety in where you find them at all loot?  Sure, if you want to be cheap about it, oh and the ammo's do not count at all...

There was no variety behind it, there was no other types of loot besides upgrades/minerals which seemed that they would always be in the exact same spots...  And last, there's not even any economy behind it...

Nice logic... 

Modifié par RoninOmega, 14 juin 2011 - 08:16 .

[AlanC9]

Someone who likes traditional RPG loot probably shouldn't even think the word "economy," let alone post it.

What's wrong with things being in the same spots every playthrough, anyway? Many of the best traditional RPGs have done loot that way.

Modifié par AlanC9, 14 juin 2011 - 08:30 .

[Shirosaki17]

I don't know why everyone is pointing to customizable weapons as more RPG elements. You can customize your weapons in just about every shooter. It's just a mechanic for shooting games like COD, to appeal to the shooter crowd. You're being taken for a ride.

[clerkenwell]

The more I think about it, and go back to really examine the systems of ME1 and ME2, the more it becomes clear that RPG Elements of ME1 are not only shaping up to be inferior to those in ME3, but they're really quite inferior to the RPG elements in ME2. When it comes down to gameplay, the ME games ultimately have two systems: character progression, and gear progression. I think it's pretty clear that that choices you make in both character and gear progression in ME2 have a greater impact on gameplay than the choices you make in ME1. In fact, I'm going to go ahead and make a controversial statement right now: Vanilla ME2 (meaning no DLC) has roughly the same number of items as were in ME1. The only difference is that you only loot the items in ME2 once.

[FlyingWalrus]

Gatt9 wrote...

ME1 was KotOR + Deus Ex.  They knew how to put them together,  it's been done a few dozen times before.

Further,  you're referencing "Old school RPG",  there's only one school,  it's RPG.  The fundamental mechanics that created the genre 30 years ago are still absolutely necessary today.

...

That's as far as I'll quote that post for brevity's sake.

Gatt, I think you are looking for RPGCodex. There are many other grognards that you can associate with over there if you wish.

RPG does not mean that everything has to be statted out to the walls. Hell, D&D (the FIRST ONE, the grand-daddy of RPGs) had only a few stats to resolve things. The rest? Roleplayed or determined with house rules, at times a coin flip at other times rolling a die high or low.

It is a wide and diverse genre where the rules of what determines what are fluid, so it is more of a collection of conventions rather than any hard and fast law that determines what an RPG is and what it isn't. You can't say that even ME2 isn't an RPG because not only do you have some character progression, minor as it is, but you still have the role of Commander Shepard to assume and determine according to your vision. That, my friend, is roleplaying and it is the heart and soul of what the genre is about.

Not stats.

Not loot.

Not endless spreadsheets of gear and aspects.

Roleplaying.

[Well]

Well the OP has a right to his opinion but that is all it is.Once the game comes out and if it proves the Op was correct then the Op can run a "I Told You So" thread.Until then I think I'll just wait for more info.

[Icinix]

Told you so.


Wait...too soon?

[Well]

Icinix wrote...

Told you so.


Wait...too soon?

Practice is encouraged.

[CroGamer002]

ME2 might have less RPG elements but it has better RPG elements.

[CroGamer002]

RoninOmega wrote...

Correction, Loot was gone in ME2.  If you hardly call adding the kind of mods me1 had on your armor customization, then how can you call barely picking up any weapons each 2-3 missions, with no variety in where you find them at all loot?  Sure, if you want to be cheap about it, oh and the ammo's do not count at all...

There was no variety behind it, there was no other types of loot besides upgrades/minerals which seemed that they would always be in the exact same spots...  And last, there's not even any economy behind it...

Nice logic... 

That's not a definition of loot.

[FlyingWalrus]

Mesina2 wrote...

ME2 might have less RPG elements but it has better RPG elements.

While I agree with you, I was trying not to say this because now the ****storm is inevitable.

You my friend have some stones for saying that here.

[FluffyScarf]

On the fly weapon mods and armor mods with more abilities/powers and variations for squad customization and no obvious load screens > ME2. Time to see the light and convert.

Modifié par FluffyScarf, 14 juin 2011 - 12:08 .

[clerkenwell]

FluffyScarf wrote...

On the fly weapon mods and armor mods with more abilities/powers and variations for squad customization and no obvious load screens > ME2. Time to see the light and convert.

Sure ME1 had weapon mods, but it only had four weapons. ME 2 has 18, before DLC.
ME2 has fewer powers per squad member but more powers overall. There may be fewer variations for how to spec your squadmates, but those variations have a larger impact on gameplay. I'll give you the loading screens, but that's not enough to convert me. :innocent:

[RoninOmega]

Mesina2 wrote...

RoninOmega wrote...

Correction, Loot was gone in ME2.  If you hardly call adding the kind of mods me1 had on your armor customization, then how can you call barely picking up any weapons each 2-3 missions, with no variety in where you find them at all loot?  Sure, if you want to be cheap about it, oh and the ammo's do not count at all...

There was no variety behind it, there was no other types of loot besides upgrades/minerals which seemed that they would always be in the exact same spots...  And last, there's not even any economy behind it...

Nice logic... 

That's not a definition of loot.

You can't deny that there was much more of a presence of loot in Me1 than Me2, if you had absolutely nothing to pick up but 2 guns in the whole game, that are going to be placed in the exact same missions, would you still defend it based on definition alone? You would not like it either...  Don't argue for the sole reason of just arguing, honestly the amount of loot in Me2 could've been done much better, hence the reason why some do not even acknowledge there is even any in the first place.

In my opinion(take note I said my opinion, not fact), there was absolutely no loot in Me2, they can do better than that, and so far im happy to say that it seems they are probably going that direction.

Don't troll.

Modifié par RoninOmega, 14 juin 2011 - 01:08 .

[AlanC9]

RoninOmega wrote...
You can't deny that there was much more of a presence of loot in Me1 than Me2, if you had absolutely nothing to pick up but 2 guns in the whole game, that are going to be placed in the exact same missions, would you still defend it based on definition alone?

Again , what does where things are placed have to do with whether there's loot or not?

Oh, dear.... are you looking for something like Diablo where the entertainment comes from the random rewards of the loot drops?

[sp0ck 06]

Who cares about loot? Mass Effect isn't WoW. I would much rather have customizable armor/weapons (like what it seems like will be in ME3) than a bunch of random crap you just vendor.