3223 réponses à ce sujet

[Xaenn]

AlanC9 wrote...

Xaenn wrote...

I'm pretty sure the game was marketed as an Action-RPG. I thought the Mass-Effect was a perfect hybrid of the both. I'm not saying it was perfect, but it had a equal share of both. You shot people, made stat and gear choices, dialog choices, it pretty much had everything that the hybrid genre would be defined for no?

Depends on if you think that a loot system is necessary or even good in an RPG. Which is what we keep talking about when we're not talking about whether exploration is worth having.

Honestly with what you and others desribe as an RPG, we would have an interactive movie.  Which at that point I might as well just watch a movie. Interactive movie where I can influence choices in!  Could be fun to some I suppose, not I.

So it has all kinds of different meanings. How is that different from it having no meaning?

A lot. You made a choice to pick up that item over hundreds of different ones perhaps, if you wan't to believe it had no purpose then other to simply pick one up that is your prerogative. I was merely giving out examples, not that the actual choice had multiple meanings, you can draw your own conclusions.

Modifié par Xaenn, 18 juillet 2011 - 06:34 .

[Veex]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Elevators.

ME's citadel had those great elevators to add a sense of scale.  You were actually travelling from place to place, rather than just appearing in a new location.

I always used the elevators in ME - never the shuttles - because the shuttles made the place feel small.

The place WAS small, is the point. All the elevators did was offer an alternative to a loading screen. It is odd to me that people, not necessarily you, refer to "choices not mattering" and things just being "illusions of choice" with regards to dialogue systems and other mechanics and then praise elevators and planet exploration as enhancing the RPG feel.

Is there a specific discrepancy that exists here that I'm missing? Is riding an elevator more significant than receiving correspondence from a previous character you interacted with?

Modifié par Veex, 18 juillet 2011 - 06:31 .

[SalsaDMA]

AlanC9 wrote...

SalsaDMA wrote...
That's hardly the issue here. If I went into a thread about 'how to use the pistol the best' with the express purpose to just tell people that 'pistols sucked and they should use a rifle instead', I would be called for what I were in that thread: A troll.

Entering a debate about what constitutes rpg mechanics with the intent of arguing that rpg mechanics shouldn't exist in the game would be the same as the pistol/rifle example above.

Is that what the thread is about? My impression is that it's a thread about whether and to what extent ME2 should have these "RPG mechanics." And on the more general side the topic is whether those "RPG mechanics" are any good in general, not what they are.

If it was just about what the phrase "RPG mechanics" means it would be a very different thread; for one thing, we wouldn't be talking about ME2 as much.

Now you're just trolling. Bored much recently?

[AlanC9]

Xaenn wrote...

AlanC9 wrote...

Xaenn wrote...

I'm pretty sure the game was marketed as an Action-RPG. I thought the Mass-Effect was a perfect hybrid of the both. I'm not saying it was perfect, but it had a equal share of both. You shot people, made stat and gear choices, dialog choices, it pretty much had everything that the hybrid genre would be defined for no?

Depends on if you think that a loot system is necessary or even good in an RPG. Which is what we keep talking about when we're not talking about whether exploration is worth having.

Honestly with what you and others desribe as an RPG, we would have an interactive movie.  Which at that point I might as well just watch a movie. Interactive movie where I can influence choices in!  Could be fun to some I suppose, not I.

But fiddling with gear would make such a game fun for you?

[AlanC9]

SalsaDMA wrote...

AlanC9 wrote...

SalsaDMA wrote...
That's hardly the issue here. If I went into a thread about 'how to use the pistol the best' with the express purpose to just tell people that 'pistols sucked and they should use a rifle instead', I would be called for what I were in that thread: A troll.

Entering a debate about what constitutes rpg mechanics with the intent of arguing that rpg mechanics shouldn't exist in the game would be the same as the pistol/rifle example above.

Is that what the thread is about? My impression is that it's a thread about whether and to what extent ME2 should have these "RPG mechanics." And on the more general side the topic is whether those "RPG mechanics" are any good in general, not what they are.

If it was just about what the phrase "RPG mechanics" means it would be a very different thread; for one thing, we wouldn't be talking about ME2 as much.

Now you're just trolling. Bored much recently?

Anyone who disagrees with you is a troll?

Dude, if you're going to disagree with what I'm saying at least attempt to give a reason why. Am I simply wtrong about the subject of this thread? If so, then why are so many of the posts more on-topic for my concept of the thread than they are for your concept?

Modifié par AlanC9, 18 juillet 2011 - 06:39 .

[the_one_54321]

AlanC9 wrote...
But fiddling with gear would make such a game fun for you?

But making character choices would make such a game fun for you?

[Veex]

SalsaDMA wrote...

Now you're just trolling. Bored much recently?

The thread started about whether "stats and loot" qualified as deeper RPG mechanics. AlanC9 continuing to discuss that topic makes him a troll?

[SalsaDMA]

[quote]Veex wrote...

[quote]Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Is there a specific discrepancy that exists here that I'm missing? Is riding an elevator more significant than receiving correspondence from a previous character you interacted with? [/quote]


if you are comparing the effect that elevators had on immersion with the emails you could get in ME2 from ME1 choices, then yes, there is a vast difference on the impact as far as 'signifance' goes.

The elevator was an attempt to keep the game experience as fluid as possible, and used to add tidbits of team bantering or info about the world or choices you did in a way that wasn't breaking immersion or flow. The emails were just a lazy mans copout of feeling "We need to supply some form of reaction to choices in ME1 or there will be an outrage. Let's just flick some text together in the course of half an hour total programming, tops..."

[AlanC9]

the_one_54321 wrote...

AlanC9 wrote...
But fiddling with gear would make such a game fun for you?

But making character choices would make such a game fun for you?

More fun; I might very well have fun without choices depending on the rest of the game. I liked Grim Fandango a hell of a lot, but I would have liked it even more if Manny had had some real choices.

[SalsaDMA]

Veex wrote...

SalsaDMA wrote...

Now you're just trolling. Bored much recently?

The thread started about whether "stats and loot" qualified as deeper RPG mechanics. AlanC9 continuing to discuss that topic makes him a troll?

Read the posts I were responding to before replying.

But sure, feel free to go off on a tangetn without reading if that is what you want.

[Xaenn]

AlanC9 wrote...

Xaenn wrote...

AlanC9 wrote...

Xaenn wrote...

I'm pretty sure the game was marketed as an Action-RPG. I thought the Mass-Effect was a perfect hybrid of the both. I'm not saying it was perfect, but it had a equal share of both. You shot people, made stat and gear choices, dialog choices, it pretty much had everything that the hybrid genre would be defined for no?

Depends on if you think that a loot system is necessary or even good in an RPG. Which is what we keep talking about when we're not talking about whether exploration is worth having.

Honestly with what you and others desribe as an RPG, we would have an interactive movie.  Which at that point I might as well just watch a movie. Interactive movie where I can influence choices in!  Could be fun to some I suppose, not I.

But fiddling with gear would make such a game fun for you?

Yes. Infact it is, I love mix-maxing. I love customizing my characters, I love the story, I love the choices, I love it all.  Having a great story with meaningful choices is probably the medium an RPG should have.  I can tell you honestly though, taking time even hours deciding on what path to choose, where to put my talent points, what gear I should use with what modification, only increases my enjoyment by several fold. I believe, I want to say, I believe that it adds more personality, character, to my character, complexity, choice, I can think of nothing negative to say about inventory or equipment, stats, talents.  I would say if anything its how they are implemented that is the issue.

Taking lets say 8 hours to do all that during a playthrough doesn't hinder my progression through the story as its single player and doesn't matter, even if it did, I can play through the story just as well.  Then again I'm not in a rush to complete the game, I don't have sevre case of ADD where if I have to take time out of the story I feel like I'm being robbed.

Modifié par Xaenn, 18 juillet 2011 - 06:47 .

[Il Divo]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Lumikki wrote...

If you mean ME1? Yeah, ME1 failed in TPS side baddly. It was more action RPG combat with aiming.

That's exactly what I've been saying.  Mass Effect has RPG combat.

Therefore, claiming that the "ME series" is based on TPS combat is absurd.  Exactly half of the series so far isn't TPS at all.

When I'm the one shooting, dodging, sprinting, throwing grenades, and aiming, I would consider that game a hybrid at the very least. Mass Effect has rpg and tps combat.

The Dragon Age example comes up again. If I'm able to solo almost the entire game without relying on companions, that does not negate Dragon Age's ability to be effectively played using party-based tactical combat.

Modifié par Il Divo, 18 juillet 2011 - 06:46 .

[the_one_54321]

AlanC9 wrote...

the_one_54321 wrote...

AlanC9 wrote...
But fiddling with gear would make such a game fun for you?

But making character choices would make such a game fun for you?

More fun; I might very well have fun without choices depending on the rest of the game. I liked Grim Fandango a hell of a lot, but I would have liked it even more if Manny had had some real choices.

It was a rhetorical question. That s/he would find loot and stats fun is irrelevant to fact that s/he wants them in the game. Presumably, asking for them implies enjoyment.

[Bnol]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...
That's exactly what I've been saying.  Mass Effect has RPG combat.

Therefore, claiming that the "ME series" is based on TPS combat is absurd.  Exactly half of the series so far isn't TPS at all.

Except that at this point we know that the ME series gameplay mechanics are TPS because 2/3 games will be TPS.  Further, ME1 had shooter mechanics.  Even if you throw out aiming in terms of twitch based (which only worked with constant pausing) you still have cover, dodging slower moving projectiles, tactical positioning in real time.  You also had the Mako, the Mako was pure shooter mechanics, there was no aiming stat on the Mako just move/point/shoot.  Sure, you didn't have to fight with the Mako, just like you didn't have to pause to aim, doesn't mean the mechanics and gameplay wasn't there.

The thing is that all the ME games have had RPG and Shooter mechanics.  The prodominence is different, where you might classify ME1 as a RPG/TPS and ME2&3 as a TPS/RPG.  The story mechanics have been the same throughout in terms of choices and consequences.

No, the language means what the language is defined to mean.  People can't change that.

People most certainly change language.  Language changes based on what the majority of people use it to mean.  Take a word like gay.  50 years ago it was a word for happy, now it is generally a word for a homosexual.  Take something like tea bag.  The connotation of that phrase has definitely changed, especially in the gaming world.


In terms of what is better or worse for ME gameplay is all personal taste, which can't really be debated.

[Veex]

SalsaDMA wrote...

Read the posts I were responding to before replying.

But sure, feel free to go off on a tangetn without reading if that is what you want.

I did, and responded accordingly. Someone with Mass made the statement that you have to have choices to develop an actual character, and that stats and loot are irrelevant in that respect (not a direct quote). You then made a remark about him somehow not wanting an RPG because he'd prefer those mechanics over inventory and stats.

You can try and dismiss a post as tangential if you like, but it doesn't alter the fact that AlanC9 and SWM are in fact on topic in discussing the original post as far as what BioWare considers deeper RPG mechanics. You can maintain your dismissive attitude, but it certainly won't deter me from expressing my views on the subject.

[the_one_54321]

Bnol wrote...
People most certainly change language.  Language changes based on what the majority of people use it to mean.  Take a word like gay.  50 years ago it was a word for happy, now it is generally a word for a homosexual.  Take something like tea bag.  The connotation of that phrase has definitely changed, especially in the gaming world.


In terms of what is better or worse for ME gameplay is all personal taste, which can't really be debated.

Evidence that some people need to have the stupid slapped out of them.

[Xaenn]

the_one_54321 wrote...

Bnol wrote...
People most certainly change language.  Language changes based on what the majority of people use it to mean.  Take a word like gay.  50 years ago it was a word for happy, now it is generally a word for a homosexual.  Take something like tea bag.  The connotation of that phrase has definitely changed, especially in the gaming world.


In terms of what is better or worse for ME gameplay is all personal taste, which can't really be debated.

Evidence that some people need to have the stupid slapped out of them.

I can't really argue this myself.  Very good point. I'll be line to slap the stupid out of me

[HTTP 404]

we still need to go deeper

[the_one_54321]

Xaenn wrote...
I can't really argue this myself.  Very good point. I'll be line to slap the stupid out of me

Talking about arbitrarily changing the meanings of words there, btw.

[SalsaDMA]

Veex wrote...

SalsaDMA wrote...

Read the posts I were responding to before replying.

But sure, feel free to go off on a tangetn without reading if that is what you want.

I did, and responded accordingly. Someone with Mass made the statement that you have to have choices to develop an actual character, and that stats and loot are irrelevant in that respect (not a direct quote). You then made a remark about him somehow not wanting an RPG because he'd prefer those mechanics over inventory and stats.

You can try and dismiss a post as tangential if you like, but it doesn't alter the fact that AlanC9 and SWM are in fact on topic in discussing the original post as far as what BioWare considers deeper RPG mechanics. You can maintain your dismissive attitude, but it certainly won't deter me from expressing my views on the subject.

This is the post I responded to:

Without a character, you character is...well, not a character. He/she is just an empty shell with no personal traits.

And I'd rather take that over inventory and loot any day.

Your interpretation seems liberal at the least.

What he is saying is that he prefers playing a game without a character as the protagonist. You cannot roleplay without having a character to roleplay. Thus he is saying he prefers a game that is not a rpg.

So yes, my remark was perfectly valid. And it illustrates the pointlessness of debating rpg mechanics with a guy that outright states he prefers not to have rpg tagged on his game. That you and AC9 then tries to argue for his defence by making liberal out of the blue claims doesn't change what he stated nor the implications of it. And yes, then making random out of the blue remarks with no tying to the topic just for the sake of doing so is what trolling constitutes to. If AC9 is in doubt what the thread is about, he can always look at the title for a hint. It's shown above on every page in the thread as well as above the textbox when you make quoted replies.

[Xaenn]

the_one_54321 wrote...

Xaenn wrote...
I can't really argue this myself.  Very good point. I'll be line to slap the stupid out of me

Talking about arbitrarily changing the meanings of words there, btw.

Haha. I know. I believe I sometimes get cought up in what is more philosophical then fact. Bnol was right though, s/he makes a lot of good points and I agree.

[Veex]

SalsaDMA wrote...

Without a character, you character is...well, not a character. He/she is just an empty shell with no personal traits.

And I'd rather take that over inventory and loot any day.

Your interpretation seems liberal at the least.

What he is saying is that he prefers playing a game without a character as the protagonist. You cannot roleplay without having a character to roleplay. Thus he is saying he prefers a game that is not a rpg.

Ah, so its a matter of your interpretation being correct and mine being wrong, gotcha. It appears to me you've completely ignored the last sentence of his. He is saying an empty shell that you define via choices, or some other character defining mechanic is preferable to stats and loot. How you've turned that into playing a game without a character at all, which I'm not sure is even possible, is perplexing, but you're entitled to your interpretation and opinion.

I'll simply echo what I believe Someone with Mass' sentiment was; in that having a character, whether they've got predefined history or are a blank slate, and developing that character through choice and dialogue is more important than developing that character through stats and loot.

[the_one_54321]

Veex wrote...
having a character, whether they've got predefined history or are a blank slate, and developing that character through choice and dialogue is more important than developing that character through stats and loot.

Equally important because stats and loot are a large part of what separates you playing the character from you playing yourself via your own abilities.

[Sylvius the Mad]

If the goal here is, as In Exile puts it, to minimise the UI's reliance upon the player's reflexes, then stats and equipment are the means left to the player to modify his character's performance.

It's one thing to be able to choose among different means of solving a problem, but it's yet another to build those preferences into you character such that his increased competence at one of them is a persistent characteristic.

A stealth-based character has a different experience when faced with mandatory combat than does a character who can simply choose either stealth or combat from moment to moment based on whichever is more expedient.

[AlanC9]

the_one_54321 wrote...

AlanC9 wrote...

the_one_54321 wrote...

AlanC9 wrote...
But fiddling with gear would make such a game fun for you?

But making character choices would make such a game fun for you?

More fun; I might very well have fun without choices depending on the rest of the game. I liked Grim Fandango a hell of a lot, but I would have liked it even more if Manny had had some real choices.

It was a rhetorical question. That s/he would find loot and stats fun is irrelevant to fact that s/he wants them in the game. Presumably, asking for them implies enjoyment.

My question was rhetorical too. Is having loot a necessary condition to convert an unfun "interactive movie" into a fun "RPG"?

Modifié par AlanC9, 18 juillet 2011 - 07:28 .