3223 réponses à ce sujet

[Lumikki]

Bnol wrote...

Except to the RPG purists that demand that RPGs must be entirely dependent on stats and loot to be RPGs.  Anyone who attaches the RPG label, even if a hyrbid, is destroying the name and holy definition that is the RPG. 

I completely agree with Hudson on this one.  Sure stats are meaningful tools to define a role and playstyle, but I don't need every stat shown to me, or to have to deal with tons of loot.  I don't find streamlining to be a dirty word, or just a euphemism for "dumbing down".  Streamlining is getting rid trash loot and dealing with an inadequate UI for it.  Streamlining is getting rid of lockers and being able to equip your entire squad on one screen.  I think they should have streamlined more by placing your armor interface in the armory instead of the captain's cabin to avoid another elevator ride. 

I agree about RPG.

Mass Effect has TPS combat, what means it's player skill based combat. How to hell you can have good TPS combat, if it's character progression stat based. You can't, it's paradox. 

Loot how ever, is more like where player wants games focus to be. If you put meaningful loots as part of exploration then I don't see issue.  Loot has two purpose, looking something new and customation. If looking something new is part of exploration, then loot in exploration is the rewards also. If main customation has been done other ways, then there is no need for heavy loot system, some light system does it better without shifting focus of the game.

This is keeping Mass Effect serie  as Cinematic action RPG with TPS combat, rather than Diablo or PnP D&D. The focus of game is totally in different place and style of game is totally different.

In simple way saying anyone who tryies to have heavy stats or loot system in Mass Effetc serie is playig wrong game and has NO clue what Mass Effetc serie is. Because that means they see ME serie like some pure classic RPG. Mass Effect serie is NOT normal RPG, it's hybrid of cinematic action RPG and TPS shooter.

In simple way saying this thread has two issue.

1. People complaining about ME2, because they like deeper RPG. What's issues and will be fixed in ME3.
2. People who treats Mass Effect serie like it's some normal classic RPG. (I want my pure RPG attitude)

Players type 1 complain is valid and will be fixed in ME3, but player type 2 is wrong customer type for Mass Effect serie. They are RPG players who can't accept anything else than classic type of RPG. There is difference as trying to improve the game and trying to change the games to be something else.

How ever, impression is important part of Mass Effect. Meaning somehting feeling like it's living world is also important. This prevents games to feel like just game and player can get better connection in the game world lore and player character.

Modifié par Lumikki, 15 juillet 2011 - 08:24 .

[Juha81FIN]

Just my thoughts, but if we added stats in ME it would very well be turn based combat instead of realtime and at the moment ME doesn´t really offer very much for turnbased combat as an RPG.

[Xewaka]

In Exile wrote...
It's no different than not having a combat skill. It is a reflection of what the player can understand. To be able to say a thing that is diplomatic in a way that is received diplomatically, there is a need for some skill for diplomacy. I think we need coherence between combat skills and non-combat skills. Most RPGs have then function in different ways at their core, and I think that takes away from the experience.

This is one of the reasons why I favor Legend of the Five Rings setting and ruleset so much. Just as you have weapon skill and defense for attack and defense in combat situations, you have court skill (gossiping, rumormongering, and making the "lesser of two evils" choice question) and the etiquette skill (appropiate behavior, truth wrangling, and deflection of spinose questions) as the "attack" and "defense" skills in social interaction. Honor is stronger than steel, after all.

[Sarevok Synder]

InvincibleHero wrote...

The reason it is easier is because you have a shield and hit points both over two hundred and both regenerate in seconds. You could a;so effectively range fight and avoid damage by dodging and taking cover something not really possible in a melee based game like BG. If I had that on a level 1 character Sarevok would be toast as well. They are so dissimilar your argument has no meaning.

A level one Shepard could autofight (which takes no skill at all yet you had to use good shooter skills) every battle in D&D and win with 6 seconds back up to 240 or more shield and HP refresh. Shepard starts off more like a mid-level 15 or so D&D character.

I think you vastly mischaracterize it as easy. There is no way you never died to husk swarms or scions. Horizon is hard with three back to back encounters while not being able to save. You probably had to seriously exploit AI like sniper one of the scions while it can't move because you are outside the doorway and its detection range.

I could easily do that its called god mode which is present in the console. So no one just became invalid.

I know they are dissimilar, which is why I said the Mechanics are now completely shooter based. You've just repeated what I've said earlier; only with different words. I did snipe some enemies, but I mostly use assault rifles. Also your straw-manning me, as not once did I say I never died. There are very few who can go through an entire shooter and not die once. This doesn't make the shooter difficult.  Lastly, I'm using PC, no god mode. So take your baseless accusations elsewhere as I'm bored senseless with this topic.

Modifié par Sarevok Synder, 15 juillet 2011 - 10:50 .

[Sanunes]

Juha81FIN wrote...

Just my thoughts, but if we added stats in ME it would very well be turn based combat instead of realtime and at the moment ME doesn´t really offer very much for turnbased combat as an RPG.

I don't think it would, but I do believe that it would require more skills or other mechanics in the game then just combat or the same issues that I had with Dragon Age system where you only really put stats into two or three stats would be possibly there.

edit: clarity.

Modifié par Sanunes, 15 juillet 2011 - 12:14 .

[A Crusty Knight Of Colour]

Lumikki wrote...

Bnol wrote...

Except to the RPG purists that demand that RPGs must be entirely dependent on stats and loot to be RPGs.  Anyone who attaches the RPG label, even if a hyrbid, is destroying the name and holy definition that is the RPG. 

I completely agree with Hudson on this one.  Sure stats are meaningful tools to define a role and playstyle, but I don't need every stat shown to me, or to have to deal with tons of loot.  I don't find streamlining to be a dirty word, or just a euphemism for "dumbing down".  Streamlining is getting rid trash loot and dealing with an inadequate UI for it.  Streamlining is getting rid of lockers and being able to equip your entire squad on one screen.  I think they should have streamlined more by placing your armor interface in the armory instead of the captain's cabin to avoid another elevator ride. 

I agree about RPG.

Mass Effect has TPS combat, what means it's player skill based combat. How to hell you can have good TPS combat, if it's character progression stat based. You can't, it's paradox. 

Not saying Mass Effect should go in that direction, but it's easily possible to have stats dependent, tactical, turn based combat no less, while also keeping TPS Action elements too. Great and actually innovative combat system. I'd love to see it in a western RPG.

[Juha81FIN]

Sanunes wrote...

Juha81FIN wrote...

Just my thoughts, but if we added stats in ME it would very well be turn based combat instead of realtime and at the moment ME doesn´t really offer very much for turnbased combat as an RPG.

I don't think it would, but I do believe that it would require more skills or other mechanics in the game then just combat or the same issues that I had with Dragon Age system where you only really put stats into two or three stats would be possibly there.

edit: clarity.

Yes indeed, but DA rolls hits and misses which doesn´t happen in realtime shooters.

[SalsaDMA]

Reactivity needn't even be seriously complicated before it happens.

Conditional scripts based on class, on background choices, on past choices and on overall attitude displayed (mostly neutral, paragon or renegade?) all constitutes reactivity based on the character.

Some of them can be complicated, but some of them are quite simple and we already saw in ME1 the simple conditional check of having your background affect which extra sidemission became available, or wether Hacket wanted you to act as a 'diplomat' with one of his corsairs gone rogue (conditional check on your renegade score).

[Chromie]

mrcrusty wrote...




Not saying Mass Effect should go in that direction, but it's easily possible to have stats dependent, tactical, turn based combat no less, while also keeping TPS Action elements too. Great and actually innovative combat system. I'd love to see it in a western RPG.

Idk everytime I see something jrpg on BSN there is always a legion of people hating them for no reason.

[Phaedon]

Sarevok Synder wrote...
I know they are dissimilar, which is why I said the Mechanics are now completely shooter based. You've just repeated what I've said earlier; only with different words. I did snipe some enemies, but I mostly use assault rifles. Also your straw-manning me, as not once did I say I never died. There are very few who can go through an entire shooter and not die once. This doesn't make the shooter difficult.  Lastly, I'm using PC, no god mode. So take your baseless accusations elsewhere as I'm bored senseless with this topic.

It's too bad that your point has been dismissed for a dozen pages now.

You can survive as an Adept by having your squadmates use Overlord and Concussive Shot to take down the shields, and with you using biotics once the shields are down.

The classes are are spread among the RPG/shooter spectrum.

[Phaedon]

Gatt9 wrote...
You still have the problem that the genres have been well defined for nearly 30 years now,  and Bioware doesn't have the ability to reinterpret RPG = TPS now.  You can call people whatever you like,  but in the end,  Bioware does not define gaming.  

And neither do you.

You still think that the only RPGs that exist are ADnD.

There's not a single definition for RPGs. You'll get a different one in Canada, another in USA, and another in Japan. Your point is ridiculous anyway.

You claim that you can create games based on formulas and have them not be generic. Creativity is overrated, it seems.

And you are still wrong. Your formula?

Inventory? Still there.
Loot? Minerals, weapons, upgrades, research, credits, etc, still there.
Stats? Definitely there. Probably more than ME1 had.
Statistical Progression? You assign points to different skills, still there.
Powers? Yep.

No matter how you twist your definition, there will always be RPG elements in ME2, be it actual roleplaying in the terms of interactive storytelling or stat customization.

Seriously,  no one tries to claim that COD is an RTS because it's in Real Time and you need strategy to kill the other guy.  But Bioware releases a TPS,  claims it's an RPG,  and suddenly TPS's are RPG's because you talked to someone?

I'd love to see you debate on RTS/TPS hybrids, because those actually exist.

No.  The genre distinctions work perfectly,  based on the gameplay,  not what some marketing guy decides should be put on the box in order to generate more sales.  

rofl

LA Noire, Deus Ex, Half-Life series, Portal 2,TES.

And these are just the first to come into mind. I can come up with more games that don't fit into genres perfectly.

And you are talking about hybrid games here. BioWare never said that ME2 was a pure RPG.

The problem is when "Streamlining" is a euphimism for a genre shift.  Streamlining is just fine,  the aforementioned Armor class issue is more effective,  more clear,  and functions the same when streamlined to Damage Resistance (With a little math on the design side during development).  Both of them are just damage reduction strategies,  you just need the AC equation on one side,  DR on the other,  and balance them and it's the same system with less mess.  That's streamlining.

That's not what my dictionary says, so it's definitely not a fact.

Removing everything,  rather than readjusting the system to function better isn't streamlining,  it's excising.  When you excise the defining characteristics of a gameplay type,  you end up with some other type of gameplay.  In ME2,  the "Streamlining" resulted in gameplay identical to any given TPS.  Which makes it a genre shift.

Other than extensive squadmate armour customization, what RPG element was removed from ME2?

Since it's about 10 pages ago,  just to support my assertion that Suits decide what game we'll get based on what they think will sell the most units,  not what makes the best quality game,  I shall toss in this little gem by the guy in charge of X-com...

http://www.gamespot....orenews;title;1

The "Suits" have only one RPG maker studio, if you mean EA. It's called BioWare.

Now all Strategy games aren't worth making,  which leaves us with nothing but FPS according to the CEO of 2K games.

Oh,  and since people don't believe the market is slumping either,  and I'm already on the page...

http://www.gamespot....=topstory;title

Hint: Video games started outselling movies recently, not when only a niche crowd would play RPGs.

And the industry is supposed to be smaller than the one in the 90s? Get real. Video games are much more widespread nowadays.

Modifié par Phaedon, 15 juillet 2011 - 01:37 .

[Sarevok Synder]

Phaedon wrote...

It's too bad that your point has been dismissed for a dozen pages now.

You can survive as an Adept by having your squadmates use Overlord and Concussive Shot to take down the shields, and with you using biotics once the shields are down.

The classes are are spread among the RPG/shooter spectrum.

You "dismissing" my point carries no weight with me. ME2 is pure shooter in game-play mechanics, simple as that.

[Il Divo]

Phaedon wrote...

LA Noire, Deus Ex, Half-Life series, Portal 2,TES.

And these are just the first to come into mind. I can come up with more games that don't fit into genres perfectly.

And you are talking about hybrid games here. BioWare never said that ME2 was a pure RPG.

I agree. Then you run into issues like sports games relying on characters with stats, TES games taking place in the third person, etc. Or you even have to deal with features like inventory. Is inventory an 'rpg' feature? I've played pen and paper games where I don't pick up anything, but I've played games like Zelda which is reliant on its inventory.

[AlanC9]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

AlanC9 wrote...

Yes, we do. ME2 was much more fun

I completely disagree.

Of course you do. I was making fun of the_one_54321 there rather than making a substantive point.

[AlanC9]

Phaedon wrote...

Gatt9 wrote...

The problem is when "Streamlining" is a euphimism for a genre shift. 

That's not what my dictionary says, so it's definitely not a fact.

That must be a pretty big dictionary if it includes every euphemism there is.

[littlezack]

Come to think of it,isn't the Legend of Zelda typically categorized as an RPG? I'll admit to not being a huge fan or the series, but from what I remember the game's give Link no stats whatsoever (he doesn't generally level up or anything) and are actually pretty low in terms of loot. And then you have ''RPGs like Jade Empire, which allow for very little customization, too, and people still call them RPGs.

[AlanC9]

Sarevok Synder wrote...

Phaedon wrote...

It's too bad that your point has been dismissed for a dozen pages now.

You can survive as an Adept by having your squadmates use Overlord and Concussive Shot to take down the shields, and with you using biotics once the shields are down.

The classes are are spread among the RPG/shooter spectrum.

You "dismissing" my point carries no weight with me. ME2 is pure shooter in game-play mechanics, simple as that.

Biotics are part of pure shooter gameplay?

[A Crusty Knight Of Colour]

Ringo12 wrote...

Idk everytime I see something jrpg on BSN there is always a legion of people hating them for no reason.

Nuts to them. JRPGs have some of the most enjoyable and satisfying (tactical, turn based) RPG combat there is, period. It's bogged down by the inevitable grinding, filler combat and sometimes inconsistent encounter design but there are some really combat systems, such as the 3d grid systems of your Final Fantasy Tactics & Tactics Ogre type games or the more innovative Last Remnant and Valkyria Chronicles type systems.

I think of how the newer Fallout games could've used a system like VC's, it fits Fallout like a glove imo but instead we get a clunkier system that doesn't really feel like good RPG combat or good shooter combat and needs to be modded up the wazoo to have any semblance of strategy or fluidity... it makes me sad. Hoover Dam would've been such an epic battle had there been a VC-esque system to it.

Check points, destructible environments, reinforcements for both sides, maybe ambushes, flanking tactics, reconaissance and scouting, etc. Basically, a massive tug of war, or a decisive victory depending on your tactics. You have AI allies, AI enemies and you control your character, your companions (if any) and some NCR Rangers/Legion Veterans depending on who you side with. Admittedly, it becomes more of a strategy game, but if your character was still the determining factor in how successful you were, that's good enough for me.

GAH, the potential it had! It makes me RAEG!!

Though of course, that's probably not possible with the engine and all.

So, for all the stereotyping about JRPGs being stagnant, as far as combat systems go, JRPGs have far more variety and innovation. It's western RPGs that are becoming stagnant, it's either "let's be a Action/Shooter game and layer RPG elements on top" combat or "let's make an Action/H&S game, then layer RPG elements on top" combat. Though I will admit that the European games (Risen, Gothic, Witcher, Divinity) usually have solid Action RPG combat that do emphasis the character's stats in actual execution of skills.

In any case, the original point I was making was that turn based, stat driven TPS combat is not impossible.

Anyways... where was I?

Umm... yeah. Mass Effect, open ended gameplay and level design with varying impact on the outcome of your missions depending on how successful you are ala Deus Ex would be nice.

Modifié par mrcrusty, 15 juillet 2011 - 04:12 .

[Sarevok Synder]

AlanC9 wrote...

Biotics are part of pure shooter gameplay?

Oh come off it. Was quad damage part of pure shooter game-play? Just because games have a differing methods to dispatch your enemies doesn't change what the core mechanics are. Rage has many RPG features, it's still classed as a shooter.

Modifié par Sarevok Synder, 15 juillet 2011 - 04:07 .

[luzburg]

i dont understand what pepole are complaining about. they promised more rpg features in me3 then im happy. i love me1 and 2. for what it is. my only concern is that they dont pull of an epic story in me3

[this isnt my name]

I just finished metro 2033, by his definition its an rpg.

Combat was ok for a shooter, only I could get modded weapons e.g silenced kalash.
Character driven story, yep.
Exploration, yep, some places are big and have lots of corridors, and ten you have the dead city levels that are more open.
Progression, yep there was that too.

Metro 2033 is an rpg. Despite the fact that everyone says its anfps/survival game.

[littlezack]

People need to stop acting like there's some scientific definition of what an RPG is and isnt' Ten, fifteen years ago, maybe you could have put a pin on that, but the gernes changed so much over time that it's either idiot or arrogant to think you can accurately define what it is and isn't.  For every definition you make, there's always going to be a game or two that defies it. And really, who are you to say what is an RPG and isn't? And even further than that, what does it matter?

As far as I'm concerned, ME2 has enough RPG elements that if Bioware wants to call it an RPG, that's what it is. You can debate that all day long, but it'll still be what they call it, and you'll never reach 100% consensus on your definition, anyway. Just let it go.

Modifié par littlezack, 15 juillet 2011 - 04:27 .

[AlanC9]

Sarevok Synder wrote...

AlanC9 wrote...

Biotics are part of pure shooter gameplay?

Oh come off it. Was quad damage part of pure shooter game-play? Just because games have a differing methods to dispatch your enemies doesn't change what the core mechanics are. Rage has many RPG features, it's still classed as a shooter.

Hey, I don't have a dog in these genre definition fights. If you want to say that shooter gameplay can include most anything, that's fine with me.

[Sarevok Synder]

AlanC9 wrote...

Hey, I don't have a dog in these genre definition fights. If you want to say that shooter gameplay can include most anything, that's fine with me.

Well if it's based around shooter combat, yeah it can include almost any type of ranged attack or melee attack. It doesn’t matter how fancy it seems, it’s still a shooter based attack. Deus Ex was an excellent hybrid IMO. While not a perfect game (nothings perfect); it was a very good blend of RPG, shooter and stealth. Bioware could learn a thing or two from it. I came off a little strong all the same, sorry. I'm just tired of being jumped on and called an idiot for stating my opinion.

Modifié par Sarevok Synder, 15 juillet 2011 - 08:49 .

[AlanC9]

But while I don't have a dog in that fight, I do have to ask.....

Gatt9 wrote...
You still have the problem that the genres have been well defined for nearly 30 years now,  and Bioware doesn't have the ability to reinterpret RPG = TPS now.  You can call people whatever you like,  but in the end,  Bioware does not define gaming.  

Seriously,  no one tries to claim that COD is an RTS because it's in Real Time and you need strategy to kill the other guy.  But Bioware releases a TPS,  claims it's an RPG,  and suddenly TPS's are RPG's because you talked to someone?  

No.  The genre distinctions work perfectly,  based on the gameplay,  not what some marketing guy decides should be put on the box in order to generate more sales. 

Really? Well-defined? This from a guy who has tried to define the RPG genre so as to exclude several older games that have been sold as RPGs and accepted as RPGs by everone except himself and some of the Codex fanatics?

And while Bioware doesn't define gaming, neither do you. You may not accept ME2 as an RPG, but others do.

Edit: The underlying question is what it means for a genre distinction to "work." Your definition may be coherent, but I don't see how it's useful.

Modifié par AlanC9, 15 juillet 2011 - 04:44 .