3223 réponses à ce sujet

[Lumikki]

slimgrin wrote...

Daiyus wrote...

Honestly, I think what Mass Effect needs in terms of "RPG" is OPTIONS. More types of armour, more modifications, more weapons, more evolutions of powers, more choice in the loadout, more choice in your skills.

More options so that everyone has their own ways and means, own styles, own preferences.

Exactly. This was my biggest complaint of ME2. There's no need to even bring up the 'what makes an RPG' argument in this thread. I do know what makes for deep and satisfying gameplay mechanics though. Why would anyone not want that?

Because deep gameplay mechanics can also be agaist impression based gameplay. It not ever just easy add something more and it's better. Because stuff allways affect something else too. It's about where the games focus is.

Modifié par Lumikki, 01 juillet 2011 - 12:14 .

[Mann42]

Casey Hudson said...
People really want us to deepen the RPG aspect of the experience. We interpret that as being about the kind of intelligent decision making around how you progress. To us, the RPG experience isn't necessarily about stats and loot. It's about exploration and combat and making a good character-driven story and good progression.

We had progression in Mass Effect 2 in armour and weapon choices but that activity chain was too simple. That whole activity chain I think was a button we weren't really pushing in ME2 and specifically were trying to hit for ME3.

I agree with everything that Casey said and I'm glad he's Executive Producer of this game series. He took the random number generator that ruins so many games and blew it up, gave it a wedgie, and dropped a Reaper on it. 

Casey, wherever you are, do what you know is best. You haven't let me down yet. Haters gonna hate.

Modifié par nexworks, 01 juillet 2011 - 12:18 .

[Darji]

Gibb_Shepard wrote...

So everyone is truly dead set on getting rid of stats and loot from RPG games now? They're "pointless"?

Oh well, they were fun while they lasted. Bring on the Action-Adventure genre.

Yeah its really sad that especially Bioware tries to kill the RPG genre how it was known and loved for.....

[MrFob]

Am I the only one who thinks video game RPGs are too much about combat these days?
And I am not talking about stats vs. action either.
his occurred to me yesterday when I played DA2 (still have to finish it after quite the break). The structure is sooooo repetitive. It's a dialogue, you go to the next area, there is combat, you go on, another battle, you go on, next dialogue, and then combat. Rinse and repeat.
It is especially bad with DA2 because of the waves of enemies and the bad combat but in the end, it is true for most other RPGs these days as well. DA:O, Mass Effect, Witcher2, Two Worlds 2, etc., etc.
When we used to play pen and paper RPGs, combat would only be a minute part of the "gameplay". A lot more would consist of social interactions and - and that is what I am missing most - puzzles. Why is it that today, inventory is made up of weapons, armor and potions (and jumk ) and that is it? Why not take a page out of the adventure book and give us some items for puzzles or give us more puzzles that require us to interact with the environment (e.g. how come, physics puzzles are more relevant to shooters than RPGs?). Why not add that into some more social quests (none of the best social quests in recent years that com to mind is the detective story in chapter 2 of witcher 1).
I don't miss stats and loot in RPGs, what I miss is more diverse gameplay. I mean I get that combat is more important for video game RPGs than say PnP and that especially the social component is difficult due to voice over costs, etc. but it is getting ridiculously emphasized IMO.

I remember when Might & Magic VI came out in the 90s, it was a great RPG with lot's of exploration etc., but it was criticized for it's focus on rather extensive combat against armies of enemies. If you play it today, apart from graphics and some mechanics that were not possible at the time it plays pretty much like any of today's RPGs but there is no criticism, anymore because that is what we got used to. IMO that lack of diversity needs to be addressed.

Sorry for wall of text.

[xSTONEYx187x]

Terror_K wrote...

*snip*

ME: I want more RPG elements.
DEV: So richer story, characters and narrative, with real choices and consequences.
ME: Well, yeah. But what I meant was more statistical stuff and better customisation. I mean the actual mechanics and ruleset of the roleplaying system, etc.
DEV: So richer story, characters and narrative, with real choices and consequences.
ME: No. Statistical, mechanical stuff.
DEV: Story, choices and consequences.
ME: Stats.
DEV: Narrative.
ME: S. T...
DEV: N. A...

The unsnipped part made me laugh, although I'm not crazy on stats and what not I thought that was hilarious. 

[slimgrin]

Lol. Well put by Terror K. Casey is just saying the same thing he did before ME2 released. And that's worrying.

[88mphSlayer]

MrFob wrote...

Am I the only one who thinks video game RPGs are too much about combat these days?
And I am not talking about stats vs. action either.
his occurred to me yesterday when I played DA2 (still have to finish it after quite the break). The structure is sooooo repetitive. It's a dialogue, you go to the next area, there is combat, you go on, another battle, you go on, next dialogue, and then combat. Rinse and repeat.
It is especially bad with DA2 because of the waves of enemies and the bad combat but in the end, it is true for most other RPGs these days as well. DA:O, Mass Effect, Witcher2, Two Worlds 2, etc., etc.
When we used to play pen and paper RPGs, combat would only be a minute part of the "gameplay". A lot more would consist of social interactions and - and that is what I am missing most - puzzles. Why is it that today, inventory is made up of weapons, armor and potions (and jumk ) and that is it? Why not take a page out of the adventure book and give us some items for puzzles or give us more puzzles that require us to interact with the environment (e.g. how come, physics puzzles are more relevant to shooters than RPGs?). Why not add that into some more social quests (none of the best social quests in recent years that com to mind is the detective story in chapter 2 of witcher 1).
I don't miss stats and loot in RPGs, what I miss is more diverse gameplay. I mean I get that combat is more important for video game RPGs than say PnP and that especially the social component is difficult due to voice over costs, etc. but it is getting ridiculously emphasized IMO.

I remember when Might & Magic VI came out in the 90s, it was a great RPG with lot's of exploration etc., but it was criticized for it's focus on rather extensive combat against armies of enemies. If you play it today, apart from graphics and some mechanics that were not possible at the time it plays pretty much like any of today's RPGs but there is no criticism, anymore because that is what we got used to. IMO that lack of diversity needs to be addressed.

Sorry for wall of text.

removing stats/loot really hasn't slowed the greater emphasis on combat nowadays, in some ways removing the need to deal with an inventory or having places to sell off loot has actually increased the amount of combat in games <_<

removing stats is the same because now you need to make every choice have "gratifying impact" which basically means more 'splosions

Modifié par 88mphSlayer, 01 juillet 2011 - 12:26 .

[LuPoM]

Darji wrote...

Ok here is Biowares take on deeper RPG mechanics for ME3.

Casey Hudson: People really want us to deepen the RPG aspect of the
experience. We interpret that as being about the kind of intelligent
decision making around how you progress. To us, the RPG experience isn't
necessarily about stats and loot. It's about exploration and combat and
making a good character-driven story and good progression.



We had progression in Mass Effect 2 in armour and weapon choices but
that activity chain was too simple. That whole activity chain I think
was a button we weren't really pushing in ME2 and specifically were
trying to hit for ME3.

www.computerandvideogames.com/309188/mass-effect-3-bioware-on-surprises-inspiration-and-tough-decisions/

Guess they havent learned anthing from the feedback they recieved with Dragon Age 2.

You are completely misunderstanding the second statement. English is not my mother language but in the second statement it clearly tells that in ME3 they're enchancing all the stuff around armors and weapons progression, that in ME2 were too simple.
Weapon mods are a clear example of deeper weapon progression, back to how it was in ME1, but better.

I really can't see where and why you are complaining.

[MrFob]

88mphSlayer wrote...
removing stats/loot really hasn't slowed the greater emphasis on combat nowadays, in some ways removing the need to deal with an inventory or having places to sell off loot has actually increased the amount of combat in games <_<

removing stats is the same because now you need to make every choice have "gratifying impact" which basically means more 'splosions

But I do not want to reduce the percentage of time spent in combat by selling junk in a shop. What I would like to see is that my character should be allowed to do other stuff in the world (not menus) aside from hitting/shppting people ... at least sometimes.

[Lumikki]

LuPoM wrote...


I really can't see where and why you are complaining.

Basicly this hole issue is between, is RPG statical gameplay or impression based roleplaying. While most RPG's allways have both, issue is, what is more dominant part for player.

Modifié par Lumikki, 01 juillet 2011 - 12:33 .

[slimgrin]

Impression based role playing? Do you mean adventure game?

Modifié par slimgrin, 01 juillet 2011 - 12:32 .

[DaveExclamationMarkYognaut]

MrFob wrote...

Am I the only one who thinks video game RPGs are too much about combat these days?
And I am not talking about stats vs. action either.
his occurred to me yesterday when I played DA2 (still have to finish it after quite the break). The structure is sooooo repetitive. It's a dialogue, you go to the next area, there is combat, you go on, another battle, you go on, next dialogue, and then combat. Rinse and repeat.
It is especially bad with DA2 because of the waves of enemies and the bad combat but in the end, it is true for most other RPGs these days as well. DA:O, Mass Effect, Witcher2, Two Worlds 2, etc., etc.
When we used to play pen and paper RPGs, combat would only be a minute part of the "gameplay". A lot more would consist of social interactions and - and that is what I am missing most - puzzles. Why is it that today, inventory is made up of weapons, armor and potions (and jumk ) and that is it? Why not take a page out of the adventure book and give us some items for puzzles or give us more puzzles that require us to interact with the environment (e.g. how come, physics puzzles are more relevant to shooters than RPGs?). Why not add that into some more social quests (none of the best social quests in recent years that com to mind is the detective story in chapter 2 of witcher 1).
I don't miss stats and loot in RPGs, what I miss is more diverse gameplay. I mean I get that combat is more important for video game RPGs than say PnP and that especially the social component is difficult due to voice over costs, etc. but it is getting ridiculously emphasized IMO.

I remember when Might & Magic VI came out in the 90s, it was a great RPG with lot's of exploration etc., but it was criticized for it's focus on rather extensive combat against armies of enemies. If you play it today, apart from graphics and some mechanics that were not possible at the time it plays pretty much like any of today's RPGs but there is no criticism, anymore because that is what we got used to. IMO that lack of diversity needs to be addressed.

Sorry for wall of text.

That's an interesting argument. I have to say that one of the many, many things the RPG genre failed to learn from Planescape: Torment is that combat is not always the most interesting way to resolve a situation. Witcher 2 and Mass Effect 1, and FO:NV, despite as you said suffering from the "lots of combat" syndrome, get a lot of credit from me for allowing you to talk your way out of the final boss fight. Sh*t, the final boss in [name redacted for spoilers] doesn't even want to fight you at all!

Although in the case of those games, all is forgiven for the implausible number of fights because the fights are really fun But I see why you'd want a game that tries something different.

[JayhartRIC]

It seems weird to me that so many people are making this complaint about Bioware. Bioware's RPG gameplay has never been the best of the genre. KotoR just ripped off D&D. Jade Empire was realtime hack-and-slash. Bioware's strength has always been the storytelling, which is as good as ever. It's seems like going to a Chinese restaurant looking for pizza.

[Lumikki]

slimgrin wrote...

Impression based role playing? Do you mean adventure game?

Nope, but you can also think it that ways too , if you add customized character types and story with choises.

Modifié par Lumikki, 01 juillet 2011 - 12:37 .

[VirtualStranger]

ME1's RPG mechanics were never that good to begin with. It is not the "deep RPG" that everyone likes to pretend it is.

[Il Divo]

VirtualStranger wrote...

ME1's RPG mechanics were never that good to begin with. It is not the "deep RPG" that everyone likes to pretend it is.

Bingo.

[maxernst]

DaveExclamationMarkYognaut wrote...

MrFob wrote...

Am I the only one who thinks video game RPGs are too much about combat these days?
And I am not talking about stats vs. action either.
his occurred to me yesterday when I played DA2 (still have to finish it after quite the break). The structure is sooooo repetitive. It's a dialogue, you go to the next area, there is combat, you go on, another battle, you go on, next dialogue, and then combat. Rinse and repeat.
It is especially bad with DA2 because of the waves of enemies and the bad combat but in the end, it is true for most other RPGs these days as well. DA:O, Mass Effect, Witcher2, Two Worlds 2, etc., etc.
When we used to play pen and paper RPGs, combat would only be a minute part of the "gameplay". A lot more would consist of social interactions and - and that is what I am missing most - puzzles. Why is it that today, inventory is made up of weapons, armor and potions (and jumk ) and that is it? Why not take a page out of the adventure book and give us some items for puzzles or give us more puzzles that require us to interact with the environment (e.g. how come, physics puzzles are more relevant to shooters than RPGs?). Why not add that into some more social quests (none of the best social quests in recent years that com to mind is the detective story in chapter 2 of witcher 1).
I don't miss stats and loot in RPGs, what I miss is more diverse gameplay. I mean I get that combat is more important for video game RPGs than say PnP and that especially the social component is difficult due to voice over costs, etc. but it is getting ridiculously emphasized IMO.

I remember when Might & Magic VI came out in the 90s, it was a great RPG with lot's of exploration etc., but it was criticized for it's focus on rather extensive combat against armies of enemies. If you play it today, apart from graphics and some mechanics that were not possible at the time it plays pretty much like any of today's RPGs but there is no criticism, anymore because that is what we got used to. IMO that lack of diversity needs to be addressed.

Sorry for wall of text.

That's an interesting argument. I have to say that one of the many, many things the RPG genre failed to learn from Planescape: Torment is that combat is not always the most interesting way to resolve a situation. Witcher 2 and Mass Effect 1, and FO:NV, despite as you said suffering from the "lots of combat" syndrome, get a lot of credit from me for allowing you to talk your way out of the final boss fight. Sh*t, the final boss in [name redacted for spoilers] doesn't even want to fight you at all!

Although in the case of those games, all is forgiven for the implausible number of fights because the fights are really fun But I see why you'd want a game that tries something different.

Count me among those who think that RPG's are too combat heavy or at least too rarely have alternatives to combat.  It's interesting you should bring up M&M6 because i remember arguing at the time that while Baldur's Gate obviously had much more story and dialogue than M&M6, when it came to actually accomplishing anything significant in the game, there were still rarely any alternatives to combat in BG.  In contrast, the Fallout games allowed many more quests to be resolved using stealth and/or conversational skills, as did PS:T.  But it's never been Bioware's style.  DA2 was just an exaggeration of the combat-heavy style Bioware's games have always had, to the point that there really isn't any non-combat gameplay.

One trope I'm getting particularly irritated with (and NWN2 and DA:O were two of the most obvious offenders) are when games force you to do a bunch of quests (to amass evidence for a trial in the case of those games), but it makes absolutely no difference whether you argue your case successfully or not.

[slimgrin]

Il Divo wrote...

VirtualStranger wrote...

ME1's RPG mechanics were never that good to begin with. It is not the "deep RPG" that everyone likes to pretend it is.

Bingo.

Then they need to make them better. ME1 isn't the only point of comparison here.

[ME-ParaShep]

88mphSlayer wrote...

Darji wrote...

Ok first of all. If they want to make a game with deeper RPG mechanics. The combat needs to be stats based. Otherwise its only a shooter. Secondly as far as the characterdriven story goes. Yes it would be great but the story in ME2 was not characterdriven, or complex, or even good. IT basicly was guy saves world but before that he recruits some guys with almost no personalty or deep character developement. Another thing is the features that bioware tries to hype alot with their games. And this is that your choices matter and that there will be consequences.

And this is the point where they really fail. Not one of your choices really mattered. Especially in ME2. The only thing that mattered was that you have to do their companion quest in order to let them survive. All the other stuff doesnt matter and it wont matter in ME3 either. Besides some Cameos. Which is really really sad. Why cant they do it like Alpha protocol. In this game the whole plot and also the settings will chance according to your choices.

Its great to say that a deep "RPG" needs a good character driven story but if you cant even do that and still try to convince people. Then something terrible went wrong in the developement.

right well Heavy Rain is far more non-linear than any of the mass effect games, InFAMOUS had a morality bar as well with character driven story progression, etc. i'm not sure i'd call either of those an rpg, call of duty's multiplayer allows heavy customization but i'm not sure i'd call customizing a loadout an rpg, even MGS4 had customized loadouts but that game is still firmly in the "stealth" genre, i guess it just begs the question of if anybody knows what an rpg is and what is Mass Effect? is it a just a shooter? is it a shooter trying to be an action/adventure game? what's the point of trying to call it an rpg?

To be called an RPG is to be a game where as the player creates a character that takes on a ROLE. (aka a class) With that character who is supposedly a journeyman in his or her class will progress through a story driven universe to solve problems, forge relationships, do missions, things of the like. When the story progresses, the character in that ROLE that you PLAY in that specific GAME will evolve. The way you evolve that character, is up to you.

That's what an RPG truly is in a definitive nutshell. It's just that there are numerous ways to go about that. In a 3rd person shooter/action/adventure/RPG, all of those qualities that are defined mush altogether to form a well crafted game (sometimes) that allows immersion on multiple levels (if done right). People see things differently in such a game. Some see action. Some see adventure. Some see shooters. Some see roleplaying. Mass Effect is all of those combined.

Simple.

[Gatt9]

Darji wrote...

Gibb_Shepard wrote...

So everyone is truly dead set on getting rid of stats and loot from RPG games now? They're "pointless"?

Oh well, they were fun while they lasted. Bring on the Action-Adventure genre.

Yeah its really sad that especially Bioware tries to kill the RPG genre how it was known and loved for.....

Well,  the problem is, You've got a ton of people who hate RPGs,  or who've never played one,  thinking that games like Oblivion and ME2 are RPGs because you talked to someone and the game had a story that took up more than the back of the game's case.  They've no idea what RPG mechanics are,  or why they're used.  Throw in a bit of Bethseda who's interviews and posts show they've no idea what an RPG is,  and you end up with people who think "Stats are pointless" because these games are about you,  not the Role you're supposed to assume.

RPG's haven't changed.  Bioware and Bethseda will end up dieing off.  Bioware because Star Wars and EA failing is going to pull them down,  especially since it looks like a lock for EA to lose the NFL license.  Bethseda's going to collapse because they only make one game,  and people will get bored of it,  likely with Skyrim.  Toss in Zenimax being overextended,  and it's a lock Bethseda's out.

So RPG's will arise again,  likely Double Bear leading the pack.  Then Obsidian will most likely pick up the torch of the ARPG,  since I'd venture Digital Distribution is going to make them publisher-independent,  and Obsidian seems to do quite well with the genre,  if only studios would quit forcing them to ship early.

Impression based role playing? Do you mean adventure game?

Pretty much,  that's the genre alot of people actually like,  publishers are just afraid to put the word on the box because they think people won't buy it.  They've bought into the whole "Adventure games are dead!!!" and wont put it onto the box because a bunch of suits and marketing people can't think outside of internet myths.

[Il Divo]

slimgrin wrote...

Then they need to make them better. ME1 isn't the only point of comparison here.

Stripping weak elements is a perfectly viable option. I've seen arguments that Bioware did not need to remove the loot/inventory, stat-based shooting, the Mako, or exploration. They could have "made them better".

Well, if I do not obtain any enjoyment from a particular feature, then I'd argue that their removal makes the game better. If Mass Effect was a pure rpg (as DA:O/BG), there would be no problem. As it is, I can't compare Mass Effect 2 as released against some imaginary Mass Effect 2 which has a harmony of rpg and tps gameplay. I can only compare what's been released (Mass Effect and its sequel). And as released, Mass Effect's blend of rpg/tps did not meet my standards of a good video game.
 

Modifié par Il Divo, 01 juillet 2011 - 12:51 .

[nitrog100]

The ME1 system was clunky, but that doesn't mean that we need to eliminate the loot system. Personally, I want to put a laser on the Carnifex.

[slimgrin]

nitrog100 wrote...

The ME1 system was clunky, but that doesn't mean that we need to eliminate the loot system. Personally, I want to put a laser on the Carnifex.

Bioware's MO of late is to remove, not improve.

[Lumikki]

Gatt9 wrote...

Impression based role playing? Do you mean adventure game?

Pretty much,  that's the genre alot of people actually like,  publishers are just afraid to put the word on the box because they think people won't buy it.  They've bought into the whole "Adventure games are dead!!!" and wont put it onto the box because a bunch of suits and marketing people can't think outside of internet myths.

It's close, but adventurre game isn't roleplaying game, because it's missing the different kind of characters and ability play them in story. I know you know that I mean by this.

It's when playing role is main point of the game or when statical gameplay comes so important for player that it's becomes the main point. You can see this easyly when player can't play RPG without numeric gameplay. That's where the difference is coming. Player adjusting manually numbers isn't only way to design and define something.

Modifié par Lumikki, 01 juillet 2011 - 01:09 .

[Gatt9]

ME-ParaShep wrote...

88mphSlayer wrote...

Darji wrote...

Ok first of all. If they want to make a game with deeper RPG mechanics. The combat needs to be stats based. Otherwise its only a shooter. Secondly as far as the characterdriven story goes. Yes it would be great but the story in ME2 was not characterdriven, or complex, or even good. IT basicly was guy saves world but before that he recruits some guys with almost no personalty or deep character developement. Another thing is the features that bioware tries to hype alot with their games. And this is that your choices matter and that there will be consequences.

And this is the point where they really fail. Not one of your choices really mattered. Especially in ME2. The only thing that mattered was that you have to do their companion quest in order to let them survive. All the other stuff doesnt matter and it wont matter in ME3 either. Besides some Cameos. Which is really really sad. Why cant they do it like Alpha protocol. In this game the whole plot and also the settings will chance according to your choices.

Its great to say that a deep "RPG" needs a good character driven story but if you cant even do that and still try to convince people. Then something terrible went wrong in the developement.

right well Heavy Rain is far more non-linear than any of the mass effect games, InFAMOUS had a morality bar as well with character driven story progression, etc. i'm not sure i'd call either of those an rpg, call of duty's multiplayer allows heavy customization but i'm not sure i'd call customizing a loadout an rpg, even MGS4 had customized loadouts but that game is still firmly in the "stealth" genre, i guess it just begs the question of if anybody knows what an rpg is and what is Mass Effect? is it a just a shooter? is it a shooter trying to be an action/adventure game? what's the point of trying to call it an rpg?

To be called an RPG is to be a game where as the player creates a character that takes on a ROLE. (aka a class) With that character who is supposedly a journeyman in his or her class will progress through a story driven universe to solve problems, forge relationships, do missions, things of the like. When the story progresses, the character in that ROLE that you PLAY in that specific GAME will evolve. The way you evolve that character, is up to you.

That's what an RPG truly is in a definitive nutshell. It's just that there are numerous ways to go about that. In a 3rd person shooter/action/adventure/RPG, all of those qualities that are defined mush altogether to form a well crafted game (sometimes) that allows immersion on multiple levels (if done right). People see things differently in such a game. Some see action. Some see adventure. Some see shooters. Some see roleplaying. Mass Effect is all of those combined.

Simple.

Not all that simple.

To take on a Role,  you have to have a defined Character,  as an undefined character isn't a Role.  To define a Character,  he has to have intrinisic qualities that affect outcomes independent of You.

ME provides a modicum of that through the Charm/Intimidate skill.

ME2,  Oblivion,  Skyrim,  they do not.  The thing on the screen can't succeed or fail independent of you succeeding or failing.  The thing on the screen has no intrinsic qualities,  it's undefined.  Therefore it's not a Character,  and not a Role.  It's an Avatar for your abilities and qualities.

Assigning arbitrary qualties that the game doesn't recognize,  support,  or enforce isn't Roleplaying.  You're pretending,  the game takes no notice.  Kind of like when my 100% paragon pushed someone off a roof in cold blood,  and no one blinked when the paragon of virtue commited a cold-blooded murder.  Not only does the game not take note,  but even Shepherd's established Morality is disregarded so it is not an intrinsic quality.

Without a defined character,  there is no Role.  Only an Avatar.  At that point,  it cannot be an RPG.  Which is why ME2's a Shooter,  why Oblivion's an Adventure game,  and why ME3 will very likely be a Shooter.