3223 réponses à ce sujet

[this isnt my name]

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.....

What annoys me is they will make a tps/action adventure game then be hailed as one of the best rpg developers.
Its a joke, but it seems they want to lower the genre even more, so now anything can be an rpg.

Exploration
Story
Combat

So why didnt farcry 2 win rpg of the year ? Assassins creed 2 ? Red dead redemption ? GTA IV? 

You know whats funny, lots of people love BW, they strip rpg elements out, making it more action/shooter yet so many shooters are ading rpg elements. Well im glad, I still have Bethesda, Obsidian and other devs to rely on. I jsut hope BW eventually admits "hey guys we like making shooters/action games now" so other rpg games can get praise they deserve, not ssome action adventure game.

[tobynator89]

I'm all in favor of the streamlining and improvements that bioware has done on the gameplay in the ME series. All the equipment changes, the minute improvements to abilities, the nonsensical levelgrinding was a damn hindrance to enjoying the parts that I loved about it and as a result I ended up enjoying ME2 a hell of a lot more.

[Epic777]

I swear we have been here before, same posters...

[Mann42]

The armor in ME2 was modular, and there were about 10 to 11 unique stats. You could mix and match about 5 or 6 armor sets worth of stuff. 

There were around 20 to 26 weapons in ME2 (depending on how much DLC you own). It included 6 sub-classes and they were somewhat restricted by character class. They all had a lot of stats, but they didn't show them to you. Damage, RoF, Max Ammo, Clip Size, +vs. Shields, +vs. Barrier, +vs. Armor, Accuracy (spread), and Recoil. 

There were 6 character classes, each with 1 unique power and 5 extra powers, plus 1 bonus power you could personally 'equip' once you earned it. There were between 20 and 25 normal powers (depending on whether you count the different versions of Mastery powers), and 14 more powers you could earn in the game to equip and customize your Shepard. Within powers were dozens of additional bonuses, effects, and synergistic combos. 

The stats are there. There is numerical depth and theorycrafting there. Is it just that you needed to see all the stats? Do you want an RPG toggle that shows you all the numbers? You can mod your weapons now in ME3, so you'll not only be able to see those numbers but mess with them. What more do you want to do with your weapons? How many more stats do you want on them?

Is it that you want more of all that stuff? Just more of everything? They're promising us more. Or is it just that you want piles and piles of crap with different numbers to look through? Is it that you enjoy item management 'mini-games' that require you to sort, delete, and sell useless crap that you will never actually use?

Is it just the random number generator? Please tell me it's not just the random number generator. When the first table top games adopted using dice from even older, non-RPG games like Craps and Backgammon, it was because it was the cheapest and most effective method of simulating chances of success and failure while playing an imaginary role at the dinner table. Now that technology has advanced to the point where computers can simulate and render my ability to point a gun at a Collector's head through a joystick, why would we want to introduce randomness to it? Why would anyone spend millions of dollars and develop all this technology to simulate what it feels like to fill the role of a space marine saving the galaxy just to build the core mechanic around playing dice?

What's the threshold that makes it an RPG again?

Modifié par nexworks, 01 juillet 2011 - 01:04 .

[Lumikki]

Gatt9 wrote...

Without a defined character,  there is no Role.  Only an Avatar.  At that point,  it cannot be an RPG.

Yes, but player doesn't have to manually define character with numbers to be able to define character.

[A Crusty Knight Of Colour]

nexworks wrote...

The armor in ME2 was modular, and there were about 10 to 11 unique stats. You could mix and match about 5 or 6 armor sets worth of stuff. 

There were around 20 to 26 weapons in ME2 (depending on how much DLC you own). It included 6 sub-classes and they were somewhat restricted by character class. They all had a lot of stats, but they didn't show them to you. Damage, RoF, Max Ammo, Clip Size, +vs. Shields, +vs. Barrier, +vs. Armor, Accuracy (spread), and Recoil. 

There were 6 character classes, each with 1 unique power and 5 extra powers, plus 1 bonus power you could personally 'equip' once you earned it. There were between 20 and 25 normal powers (depending on whether you count the different versions of Mastery powers), and 14 more powers you could earn in the game to equip and customize your Shepard. Within powers were dozens of additional bonuses, effects, and synergistic combos. 

The stats are there. There is numerical depth and theorycrafting there. Is it just that you needed to see all the stats? Do you want an RPG toggle that shows you all the numbers? You can mod your weapons now in ME3, so you'll not only be able to see those numbers but mess with them. What more do you want to do with your weapons? How many more stats do you want on them?

Is it that you want more of all that stuff? Just more of everything? They're promising us more. Or is it just that you want piles and piles of crap with different numbers to look through? Is it that you enjoy item management 'mini-games' that require you to sort, delete, and sell useless crap that you will never actually use?

Is it just the random number generator? Please tell me it's not just the random number generator. When the first table top games adopted using dice from even older, non-RPG games like Craps and Backgammon, it was because it was the cheapest and most effective method of simulating chances of success and failure while playing an imaginary role at the dinner table (just like in older, non-RPG games like Craps and Backgammon). Now that technology has advanced to the point where computers can simulate and render my ability to point a gun at a Collector's head through a joystick, why would we want to introduce randomness to it? Why would anyone spend millions of dollars and develop all this technology to simulate what it feels like to fill the role of a space marine saving the galaxy just to build the core mechanic around playing dice?

What's the threshold that makes it an RPG again?

Character > Player.

[CannonO]

Lumikki wrote...

Gatt9 wrote...

Without a defined character,  there is no Role.  Only an Avatar.  At that point,  it cannot be an RPG.

Yes, but player doesn't have to manually define character with numbers to be able to define character.

So I should make believe with Shepard and pretend I am finding things to put in a no longer present backpack and seeing armors that the game no longer shows, and that is how I am supposed to feel that I have more control over the total character and extra aspects? By mental definition? Not by game definition and manipulation? I think that messes with what games are.


The problem is, more games that don't go deeper with the loot and stats are also not RPGs. Shooters don't use all that customization and management because the role is more set up and simplified, so it seems like a similarity that is being pulled into Mass Effect, the lack of the customizations and items that you choose to make your own.

Just because you say it doesn't make the RPG, doesn't mean it isn't part of the traditional RPGs that come to mind and embody the term.

Modifié par CannonLars, 01 juillet 2011 - 01:07 .

[Savber100]

I love Planescape Torment because of the story and choices presented not because of some stats. I love the Witcher 2 for the vast depth in choices and plot not because of... wait did The Witcher 2 even have stats? I recall an ability tree but nothing with stats that added to strength or intelligence per se like Fallout etc.

Either way, C&C in a non-linear story within a vast world is what makes a RPG for me. While it's cool to play a FURTHER role in being able to choose what weapon type to specialize it's not what defines a RPG for me.

Hell... even if ME2 isn't a RPG, it's still one of the top games on my lists.

So who cares? ;P

Modifié par Savber100, 01 juillet 2011 - 01:06 .

[Bnol]

this isnt my name wrote...
What annoys me is they will make a tps/action adventure game then be hailed as one of the best rpg developers.
Its a joke, but it seems they want to lower the genre even more, so now anything can be an rpg.

Exploration
Story
Combat

So why didnt farcry 2 win rpg of the year ? Assassins creed 2 ? Red dead redemption ? GTA IV? 

You know whats funny, lots of people love BW, they strip rpg elements out, making it more action/shooter yet so many shooters are ading rpg elements. Well im glad, I still have Bethesda, Obsidian and other devs to rely on. I jsut hope BW eventually admits "hey guys we like making shooters/action games now" so other rpg games can get praise they deserve, not ssome action adventure game.

You talk as if ME3 won't have leveling, skill points, weapon modifications, armor choices, party based combat.  The only thing it won't have is "traditional" loot.  But it is likely that we will loot/scan weapons and mods.  We will still have shops to purchase mods/armor/squad upgrades.  RPG has always been a nebulous term in video game development, the genre is not tied to just one concept.

[RinpocheSchnozberry]

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.

YES.  Correct.  **** loot.  **** endless stats.  Throw them away.  Tell me a great story, give me plenty of control over my character's story path choices, plenty of say in what the character can do in action sections, and plenty of action sections.  Add in fun and interesting compansions and it's all win.  It's all pure win.

[Aimi]

Gatt9 wrote...

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.

I fail to see how making the choice to level Charm/Int instead of something else is any more "independent of you [the player]" than making Paragon/Renegade dialog choices is.  Pardon me if I'm wrong, but those both sound like the results of conscious decisions by the players, not independent of their actions.

[Malanek]

Savber100 wrote...

I love Planescape Torment because of the story and choices presented not because of some stats. I love the Witcher 2 for the vast depth in choices and plot not because of... wait did The Witcher 2 even have stats? I recall an ability tree but nothing with stats per se.

Yes, the Witcher 2 did have stats, things like health, damage, vigour, adrenaline, resistances etc just didn't shove them all in your face. You could actually see them though if you ug into it.

[slimgrin]

I'd like someone to explain to me how stripping gameplay complexity somehow makes characters and story better. Because it sure as hell didn't work in ME2. The plot was one of the weaker aspects of the game.

Edit: and stats play a huge role in TW2.

Modifié par slimgrin, 01 juillet 2011 - 01:10 .

[Mann42]

mrcrusty wrote...

Character > Player.

Well then Mass Effect 2 was certainly a better RPG than Mass Effect 1, since there's no way that Shepard, as a character, would have gone dumpster diving for gear and spent his afternoons sorting through inventory playing dress up with his crew. 

Creating an immerseive narrative experience that puts you into the role of a character has to be centered around the character and the truest simulation of what those character's experiences are. Mass Effect accomplishes this. 

Loot and visible stats are almost exclusively about the player, and dropping tons of loot with stats to sort through is a Skinner Box designed to make the player happy by giving them a cheese button and overloading them with lots of stuff. Even if you suck, if you get enough cheese from the Skinner Box, you will eventually win.

Modifié par nexworks, 01 juillet 2011 - 01:11 .

[Il Divo]

this isnt my name wrote...

Exploration
Story
Combat

The exploration and combat are throw-aways. As you rightly point out, games like this are a dime a dozen. But what separates Bioware games/other RPGs from this is an emphasis on interactive story-telling. You'll find this in pen and paper as well and it still manages to separate Bioware/Bethesda/Obsidian from games like Assassin's Creed/GTA.

[Malanek]

slimgrin wrote...

I'd like someone to explain to me how stripping gameplay complexity somehow makes characters and story better. Because it sure as hell didn't work in ME2. The plot was one of the weaker aspects of the game.

Edit: and stats play a huge role in TW2

IMO the plot was one of the weaker elements because the story of the Reapers could almost certainly be quite easily told in two games. There wasn't enough main plot in the game. The actual writing on the individual characters and missions was fine, in fact much better than ME1. Just the lack of main focus held it back.

Edit:Added your edit in. Stats play just as big a role in ME2 as they did in TW2. Once again, they just weren't shoved in your face. If I did have one criticism of this in ME2 though, many of them were completely invisible. You would have to go to the wiki or the ini files to see them.

Modifié par Malanek999, 01 juillet 2011 - 01:19 .

[ME-ParaShep]

Gatt9 wrote...

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.

Mass Effect is a mix of shooter, RPG, action, and adventure. Like I said, the qualities mesh together to form what it is. The genre's implemented into the game itself aren't pure anymore. That is to say that the game from a shooter perspective isn't purely shooter. It has RPG elements in it. The elements that you're talking about are actually features that are different from the sterotypical RPG and Shooter genres where most games present the side that's majorly common in the game itself. Take for example CoD: Black Ops. Its multiplayer has some customization in Role-Playing, but what most people stereotypicalize it is a new way to build your character through a shooting game. Black Ops technically is a hybrid RPG/Shooter in its multiplayer section.

Mass Effect is similar, yet the genres incorporated in the game occasionally present themselves when players see it. In combat you clearly see the TPS/Action side. In the dialogue scenes and exploration side of the game you clearly see Adventure. Throughout your character customization progresses you clearly see the Role-Playing-Game side of Mass Effect. Subtly for the TPS/Action portions of the game, some players can see the RPG side. How do you see that? You can see that through the upgrades you have chosen to augment the role your created character makes.

From the start of Mass Effect 1 and 2 you can build how your character looks. You can choose what moral standpoint your *insert first name here* Shepard follows. You choose your class. You choose your abilities. You choose which abilities and aspects of those abilities you can evolve or bolster. It's the responsibility of the player to better play the role of the character he or she makes. To go through the adventure, shooting, dialogue, and action is all apart of a role-playing-game; not your typical RPG, but a unique one. That is what defines Mass Effects RPG. It's very different than the usual RPG. Some people can't see what makes Mass Effect a true RPG because some features that are stereotypicalized to be of different genres are shown more often than the seemingly subtle, yet common RPG elements, but the RPG elements are there throughout all of the game whereever and whenever you play it.

Mass Effect 3 is titled as a TPS/RPG because of it's clearly shown features. TPS because it occurs very often and RPG because RPG is the foundation of the game evolved from the engine of it's predecessors.

That's why I believe it's simple to define Mass Effect as an RPG.

[Il Divo]

slimgrin wrote...

I'd like someone to explain to me how stripping gameplay complexity somehow makes characters and story better. Because it sure as hell didn't work in ME2. The plot was one of the weaker aspects of the game.

Edit: and stats play a huge role in TW2.

And the characters were one of my favorite elements. Trade-offs. ME2 was an overall much more fluid experience than Mass Effect, mainly because there was less stopping and going, stopping and going. That's what ruined Mass Effect's Virmire, which otherwise would have been a phenomenal gameplay segment for me.

I also wouldn't call anything removed in Mass Effect (especially the inventory) complex. ME featured 12 ranks to each skill, with 3 ranks for upgraded abilities. Mass Effect 2 features 4 ranks, with each rank being a substantial upgrade. Admittedly, I was disappointed by the number of skills however.

[A Crusty Knight Of Colour]

+1 for diversity of gameplay though, MrFob back there made a great post. RPGs (ought) to be about playing a character that goes through a narrative, doing all sorts of cool crap along the way. Planescape: Torment is a particularly good example of this. While stats are a necessary abstraction for establishing the character over player, that doesn't necessarily mean that stats = good, in the context of the third person shooter + RPG elements we call Mass Effect.

Despite my opinion that Mass Effect can barely be called an RPG as it is, I don't really care. It was BioWare's attempt to move past RPGs and into Action Adventure games. Gears of War with a good story. By that standard, it's done very well. What I would like on the other hand, is better gameplay. More creative gameplay outside of killing killing killing in a corridor.

I get that Shepard is badass killing machine, that this is Mass Effect and this is BioWare. But some variance of quests where you do more than fluff dialog and killing would be nice. Logical puzzles (of the Murdered Settler in KotOR kind, not the crappy Hanoi Tower kind), stealth and infiltration missions (though it requires open levels), diplomatic missions that require you to talk your way out of problems, things that either require the player to do more than kill, or missions where the player is given free reign on how they resolve it with differing consequences as a result.

I am personally a fan of giving the player/character a situation, then letting them free to solve it in a variety of ways based on their character's skillset.

Modifié par mrcrusty, 01 juillet 2011 - 01:17 .

[Il Divo]

mrcrusty wrote...

I get that Shepard is badass killing machine, that this is Mass Effect and this is BioWare. But some variance of quests where you do more than fluff dialog and killing would be nice. Logical puzzles (of the Murdered Settler in KotOR kind, not the crappy Hanoi Tower kind), stealth and infiltration missions (though it requires open levels), diplomatic missions that require you to talk your way out of problems, things that either require the player to do more than think, or missions where the player is given free reign on how they resolve it with differing consequences as a result.

This. I loved KotOR's Sunry murder Trial, Jade Empire's debate in the Scholar's Garden. I've been saying for a while that in-depth side quests died after Jade Empire.

[Lumikki]

slimgrin wrote...

I'd like someone to explain to me how stripping gameplay complexity somehow makes characters and story better. Because it sure as hell didn't work in ME2. The plot was one of the weaker aspects of the game.

ME2 story weakness has nothing to do with striping complexity. So, don't mix them as they are seperated issues.

Because it's not about how much complexity game has, it's about where the focus of the game is. This is depending how the game is design. If game base design is done badly, then adding complexity doesn't make game better. Also sometimes complexity change the focus from roleplaying to statical gameplay, because there is too much complexity in it.

So, sometimes less complexity allows games focus to shift to something else, than statical gameplay. Example ME1 had too much "useless" complexity in inventory, what did hurt the game as hole. It turned too much focus from gameplay into management of inventory and looting. Not everyone likes that kind of gameplay in other ways very cinematic action roleplaying game.

ME2's issues comes from lack of complexity, not from base design. Also cut of sertain other than RPG elements like mako driving caused focus to be too much in combat.

Modifié par Lumikki, 01 juillet 2011 - 01:28 .

[Savber100]

Malanek999 wrote...

IMO the plot was one of the weaker elements because the story of the Reapers could almost certainly be quite easily told in two games. There wasn't enough main plot in the game. The actual writing on the individual characters and missions was fine, in fact much better than ME1. Just the lack of main focus held it back.

They said the same for Two Towers when it came out. No big conflict with the main baddie (Sauron). It could have just ended within two books. The characters just kinda meandered around and defeated a traitor within a single major battle.

So why did it exist? Character development and setting the final chapter.

slimgrin wrote...

I'd like someone to explain to me how
stripping gameplay complexity somehow makes characters and story better.
Because it sure as hell didn't work in ME2. The plot was one of the
weaker aspects of the game.

Motomu Toriyama, one of the devs of Final Fantasy, one said that
it "becomes very difficult to tell a compelling story when you're given
that much freedom".

Modifié par Savber100, 01 juillet 2011 - 01:20 .

[A Crusty Knight Of Colour]

Il Divo wrote...

This. I loved KotOR's Sunry murder Trial, Jade Empire's debate in the Scholar's Garden. I've been saying for a while that in-depth side quests died after Jade Empire.

Lol, I was talking about the Investigation Quest on Tatooine. But now that you mention it, the quests you posted were pretty awesome too. More of that in ME 3 plx.

[Il Divo]

mrcrusty wrote...

Il Divo wrote...

This. I loved KotOR's Sunry murder Trial, Jade Empire's debate in the Scholar's Garden. I've been saying for a while that in-depth side quests died after Jade Empire.

Lol, I was talking about the Investigation Quest on Tatooine. But now that you mention it, the quests you posted were pretty awesome too. More of that in ME 3 plx.

Apologies, I should have been a bit more more clear. I knew which quest you were talking about, just meant to add a few more which had a similar style to them. Sorry about that. But yeah, I push for more side quest complexity in ME3!

Modifié par Il Divo, 01 juillet 2011 - 01:21 .

[KnightofPhoenix]

mrcrusty wrote...

Il Divo wrote...

This. I loved KotOR's Sunry murder Trial, Jade Empire's debate in the Scholar's Garden. I've been saying for a while that in-depth side quests died after Jade Empire.

Lol, I was talking about the Investigation Quest on Tatooine. But now that you mention it, the quests you posted were pretty awesome too. More of that in ME 3 plx.

Investigation on Tatooine, you mean with the Tusken Raiders and how you can avoid fighting them (minus a few raiders at the beginning)?
I don't seem to recall.

But yea, Kotor had great sidequests that went beyond just killing. I want more of those.