3223 réponses à ce sujet

[Sylvius the Mad]

olymind1 wrote...

so each or some decisions would have "..."-s at the end of the line, with an expanding paragon/renegade options added, like:

I don't think that would be necessary.  Just let us choose to save Legion's fellows without having to tell the game why we did it.

The game can't react to our unspoken motives, because the NPCs can't know what they are.

[wrdnshprd]

SpiffySquee wrote...

wrdnshprd wrote...

SpiffySquee wrote...

wrdnshprd wrote...

lastly.. so i guess games like FF1 or any FF game for that matter arent RPGs.. neither is chrono trigger, or any classic 16 or 32-bit rpg..

if you think the above statement is false (obviously it is), then how can you call COD with a choose your own adventure game mechanic an rpg? imo, you cant..

Actually (and I'm about to get sniped from a window) but I think that statement is very much true. They are great games, but you have no control what so ever over character development (aside from skills in battle), or choices, or personality. They do not let you assume the role of the main character, but are simply playing an interactive movie.

You never pretend you are Chrono. You never influence his personality or reactions. These are what makes Role playing role playing.

wow.. have to disagree with you completely there.. then i guess most D&D campaigns arent RPGs either.. since most of them are talk to DM.. go to dungeon.. spend 3 hours killing mobs.. then a boss.. and return back to town.. there may be some NPC interaction in between, but not much more than what is in an FF game.

what DnD have you been playing? You control your character's personality, actions, reactions, alignment, fears, loves etc etc

You decide you your character loves to fight or tries to talk his way out of everything. you decide if they charge right into battle or like to set clever traps. You choose if they love to steal, or uphold the law, you choose whither they are religious or not. You create everything about that character, back story, looks, gender, race.

Name one jrpg that lets you do even a third of that.

most JRPGs do have a linear storyline yes.. but there are games out there that have choice and character development (star ocean comes to mind right off the bat)..

as for customization, most JRPGs prefer to focus on gear and weapon customization over asethetics, so you really wont see a lot of character creaters.. most of the customization comes in the way of the crafting and gear system.

and as for combat choice.. there are tons of different combat systems out there for JRPGs, and a lot of them have tons of variety to them. not all of them are the traditional turn based systems you may be used to seeing.  star ocean, for example is very hack and slash.

[SpiffySquee]

wrdnshprd wrote...

SpiffySquee wrote...

wrdnshprd wrote...

SpiffySquee wrote...

wrdnshprd wrote...

lastly.. so i guess games like FF1 or any FF game for that matter arent RPGs.. neither is chrono trigger, or any classic 16 or 32-bit rpg..

if you think the above statement is false (obviously it is), then how can you call COD with a choose your own adventure game mechanic an rpg? imo, you cant..

Actually (and I'm about to get sniped from a window) but I think that statement is very much true. They are great games, but you have no control what so ever over character development (aside from skills in battle), or choices, or personality. They do not let you assume the role of the main character, but are simply playing an interactive movie.

You never pretend you are Chrono. You never influence his personality or reactions. These are what makes Role playing role playing.

wow.. have to disagree with you completely there.. then i guess most D&D campaigns arent RPGs either.. since most of them are talk to DM.. go to dungeon.. spend 3 hours killing mobs.. then a boss.. and return back to town.. there may be some NPC interaction in between, but not much more than what is in an FF game.

what DnD have you been playing? You control your character's personality, actions, reactions, alignment, fears, loves etc etc

You decide you your character loves to fight or tries to talk his way out of everything. you decide if they charge right into battle or like to set clever traps. You choose if they love to steal, or uphold the law, you choose whither they are religious or not. You create everything about that character, back story, looks, gender, race.

Name one jrpg that lets you do even a third of that.

most JRPGs do have a linear storyline yes.. but there are games out there that have choice and character development (star ocean comes to mind right off the bat)..

as for customization, most JRPGs prefer to focus on gear and weapon customization over asethetics, so you really wont see a lot of character creaters.. most of the customization comes in the way of the crafting and gear system.

and as for combat choice.. there are tons of different combat systems out there for JRPGs, and a lot of them have tons of variety to them. not all of them are the traditional turn based systems you may be used to seeing.  star ocean, for example is very hack and slash.

exactly, they all concentrate on game play not role play. Don't get me wrong, I love those games to death but they are not role play games. They do not let you influence the personality and character of the people you control (not sure about star ocean, it's been a while) therefore they do not allow you to role play.


As for the gear over the character builder, being able to make your character is a huge part of role play. I agree that what they use and carry can be considered role play but only if they use and carry it because it fits their character. In games like final fantasy, most equipment changes nothing but the stats so the only reason to use it is for game play purposes not role play purposes. Very few people stick with the brass bangle the whole game because they feel it matches Cloud's eyes.

When I said that in a PnP game you can choose if your character charges head first of tries to avoid combat, I was referring to their personality, no the actual combat mechanics. In a game like final fantasy, you might control how they fight, but you can not change their motivations or views on fighting.

[Il Divo]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...


I disagree.  I think ME put the two together very well.  The only reason there was a problem was because shooter fans saw a shooter interface and expected shooter mechanics.

But shooter fans also saw Bioware present the game as a shooter. I just went back and watched their preview videos. I've yet to find a one where Bioware actively showcases aiming from the pause screen, which is a clear indication that they intended it to be played in real time, regardless of what work around others managed to find.
 
It's like arguing when fans discover exploits for a game that the developers purposely intended it all along.

http://masseffect.bi....html#dl-movies

[Il Divo]

wrdnshprd wrote...

wow.. have to disagree with you completely there.. then i guess most D&D campaigns arent RPGs either.. since most of them are talk to DM.. go to dungeon.. spend 3 hours killing mobs.. then a boss.. and return back to town.. there may be some NPC interaction in between, but not much more than what is in an FF game.

Having played DnD for 6 years, I've yet to have a single adventure with this structure. I would hope that some DMs are comfortable enough with their storytelling to move beyond this stereotype. The only limit to a pen & paper campaign is the imagination.

Modifié par Il Divo, 09 juillet 2011 - 12:52 .

[JayhartRIC]

If stat progression is an RPG San Andreas and Madden 11 are RPG's.

[konfeta]

In an RPG, you're not playing a game; you're playing a character. And that's a very different animal.

Very peculiar. By that definition, any game where you are playing an insert-style player character is an RPG (half life = best RPG EVER - so many possible motivations for Dr. Freeman!). Any game that defines what your character is for you is then less of an RPG because of it. What's your view on game developer provided character dialogue choices? On one hand, they allow you to choose how your character acts. On the other hand, they railroad your character into a set of predetermined responses. A very blurry line, don't you think?

See, I am asking these questions because I am suddenly very interested as to why you elected to adopt an inherently restrictive medium as your past time. You want "RPGs", not "games." Yet, Bioware, and many others are in the business of making games. While Bioware does more than most in terms of allowing you to define the character you are playing as, they are still essentially about forcing the player into a set of their own plot lines. In Mass Effect you are playing as Commander Sheppard - a mostly determined character. There are 2-3 types of responses beyond expeditionary investigation options, there are some choices you make to influence/direct the story of the game, but by far and large you are adopting a certain predefined role as opposed to making your own, you are following a predefined story as opposed to making your own.

That should be a complete anathema to you. If anything, you should be more interested in sandbox games ala Just Cause or Prototype or Elder Scrolls. (player vs. role played character skills question aside).

Except you couldn't. ME's encounters were not designed to provide good shooter gameplay, and the cone of death meant that player accuracy was significantly impeded.

Not exactly true. Yes, ME1 was a crappy shooter, but it was a shooter never the less. "Cone of Death" is exists in every modern shooter to simulate recoil/accuracy. ME1 just exaggerated to the point of making Sheppard look like an imbecile early game. But as you rapidly upgraded your guns and upped your weapon skill, guns became hyper accurate and only limited by the range at which bullets got deleted by the game - I had no problem landing landing a barrage off shots time exactly where I wanted them to go. Existence of the aim-while-pause function was effectively a shoddy auto-aim aid, the use of which slowed you down instead of helping once you had higher level accuracy boosts.

Bioware obviously agrees with this point, as ME2 focused the combat mechanics into making a stronger shooter.

If that is not enough to classify something as a shooter in your eyes, I have to ask as to what a "shooter" actually is in your mind.

Modifié par konfeta, 09 juillet 2011 - 12:59 .

[SpiffySquee]

Il Divo wrote...

wrdnshprd wrote...

wow.. have to disagree with you completely there.. then i guess most D&D campaigns arent RPGs either.. since most of them are talk to DM.. go to dungeon.. spend 3 hours killing mobs.. then a boss.. and return back to town.. there may be some NPC interaction in between, but not much more than what is in an FF game.

Having played DnD for 6 years, I've yet to have a single adventure with this structure. I would hope that some DMs are comfortable enough with their storytelling to move beyond this stereotype. The only limit to a pen & paper campaign is the imagination.

Well an angry Red Dragon can be a pretty rock solid limit

[konfeta]

Not if you packed a metamagicked Shivering Touch that morning.

[Il Divo]

SpiffySquee wrote...

Il Divo wrote...

wrdnshprd wrote...

wow.. have to disagree with you completely there.. then i guess most D&D campaigns arent RPGs either.. since most of them are talk to DM.. go to dungeon.. spend 3 hours killing mobs.. then a boss.. and return back to town.. there may be some NPC interaction in between, but not much more than what is in an FF game.

Having played DnD for 6 years, I've yet to have a single adventure with this structure. I would hope that some DMs are comfortable enough with their storytelling to move beyond this stereotype. The only limit to a pen & paper campaign is the imagination.

Well an angry Red Dragon can be a pretty rock solid limit

True, but death is a limit none of us can escape. At least, until we can afford Raise Dead spells.

[In Exile]

Ace of Dawn wrote...
I figured element zero was a catchy name for it, not an actual neutron or anything. As for some other things, willing suspension of belief? Not everything can be bound by reality. Though obviously they can't just pick and choose... or can they?

No, element zero is actually element zero in the period table. Not that I actually care. I'm not playing ME for realistic science fiction. I just find it funny when people praise it as such.

element eater wrote...

Candidate 88766 wrote...
So
actually the approach Bioware took with ME1 and ME2 really isn't that
much of a departure from their previous games, more of an enhancement of
it? .....

well it might follow a similar idea but the
extent of the change is more striking than most bioware follow ups imo.
Wether or not its an enhancement is simply a reflection of what game
play elements you feel are needed and which you think arent.

IMO is the critical part. Some people thought KoTOR was too cinematic compared to BG II. It all comes down to preference. What Bioware does is favour storytelling above other mechanics, and this is the feature they refined in each of their releases. 

Sylvius the Mad wrote...
The first Mass Effect scored pretty
well on Moh's Scale of Sci-Fi Hardness.  As such, it attracted fans of
hard science fiction, and those fans care about the science.

That relates only to physics, and ME is soft (it allows for FTL 2 ways). That ignores all the other ways is breaks with computer science (for AI) and biology (for, well, everything).

One thing I hate about science fiction is the degree to which physics is glorified over all other sciences.

the_one_54321 wrote...
Straw that broke the camel's back, man.
So-to-speak, anyway.

Chemistry is your background, I take it?

the_one_54321 wrote...
Some things can be preempted, based on
previous experience. It's not a matter of fixing problems before they're
found. It's a matter of identifying potential problem areas before they
are able to be a problem because you know what you want it to look like
when it's finished.

But Bioware did try to do that. The way guns worked in ME1 was just BS invented to justify the mechanism used. The problem is that the mechanism wasn't as well received as the thought; so now they had BS lore to justify a mechanism they thought was great but they needed to scrap it in the sequel.

What do you do then?

Sylvius the Mad wrote...
Games have winning conditions.  They
have a fixed end point.

RPGs do not.

Bioware games always have had winning conditions. Thus, they were never RPGs.

Edit:

I'm assuming you are thinking of a neccesary and sufficient condition here.

Modifié par In Exile, 09 juillet 2011 - 01:08 .

[SpiffySquee]

konfeta wrote...

Not if you packed a metamagicked Shivering Touch that morning.

I had a long sword... of um... metal.... does that count??

[Whatever42]

Il Divo wrote...

wrdnshprd wrote...

wow.. have to disagree with you completely there.. then i guess most D&D campaigns arent RPGs either.. since most of them are talk to DM.. go to dungeon.. spend 3 hours killing mobs.. then a boss.. and return back to town.. there may be some NPC interaction in between, but not much more than what is in an FF game.

Having played DnD for 6 years, I've yet to have a single adventure with this structure. I would hope that some DMs are comfortable enough with their storytelling to move beyond this stereotype. The only limit to a pen & paper campaign is the imagination.

Exactly. If my players had too easily guessed what would happen next, I'd change the whole story on them. On the other hand, sometimes they'd think something else was happening, which I thought was brilliant, and again I'd change the whole night's plan. 

For me, stats merely identified playstyle. The big brusk fighter with an 18 strength would be throwing his opponents about the room while the bard with the high charisma would be screaming like a girl and swinging from the chandalier. 

Even loot was more about trophies than stats. That sword may be powerful but the character treasured it because he pried it from the cold dead fingers of King whathisname. The reaction it got from the NPCs was far more valuable to him than the fact that it was a vorpal blade or what have you.

[Praetor Knight]

Bnol wrote...

So do you know whether the lore for weapons or the gameplay came first in their decision making process?

Well for ME2, if you are interested, this article goes into how ME2 was made, and touches on how Thermal Clips came to be: The Making of Mass Effect 2: How BioWare built a better space opera

With all of the hours they lost, Bioware still made a great game, IMHO.

[Dangerfoot]

I don't get how people could confuse most JRPGs with role playing games, despite their misleading genre title. You don't roleplay, you play as Cloud. All you get to do is change Cloud's name if you want, not his motives, his choices, his appearance, his morality, nothing. Borrowing statistical combat from old pen and paper RPGs doesn't make your game a role playing game.

[konfeta]

*sigh*

Why does this have to be repeated? The phrase "RPG" means different things to different people. "Role playing game" is an incredibly loosely defined concept. In practical terms, it came to be associated with certain gameplay/story mechanics. Some, such as Silvius, have a very strict, yet open to a variety of mechanics definition. Other have general thresholds as to the amount of choice you have in a game before it is considered an RPG. There is also the oft-expressed viewpoint that a game needs to have a certain set of features (inventory, dialogue, story decision points, character leveling) to be considered an RPG. Etc, etc, etc. Mix of all the above.

[Gatt9]

SpiffySquee wrote...

wrdnshprd wrote...

SpiffySquee wrote...

wrdnshprd wrote...

lastly.. so i guess games like FF1 or any FF game for that matter arent RPGs.. neither is chrono trigger, or any classic 16 or 32-bit rpg..

if you think the above statement is false (obviously it is), then how can you call COD with a choose your own adventure game mechanic an rpg? imo, you cant..

Actually (and I'm about to get sniped from a window) but I think that statement is very much true. They are great games, but you have no control what so ever over character development (aside from skills in battle), or choices, or personality. They do not let you assume the role of the main character, but are simply playing an interactive movie.

You never pretend you are Chrono. You never influence his personality or reactions. These are what makes Role playing role playing.

wow.. have to disagree with you completely there.. then i guess most D&D campaigns arent RPGs either.. since most of them are talk to DM.. go to dungeon.. spend 3 hours killing mobs.. then a boss.. and return back to town.. there may be some NPC interaction in between, but not much more than what is in an FF game.

what DnD have you been playing? You control your character's personality, actions, reactions, alignment, fears, loves etc etc

You decide you your character loves to fight or tries to talk his way out of everything. you decide if they charge right into battle or like to set clever traps. You choose if they love to steal, or uphold the law, you choose whither they are religious or not. You create everything about that character, back story, looks, gender, race.

Name one jrpg that lets you do even a third of that.

Actually,  what D&D have you been playing?

You determine your character's personality and then should be staying within that Role.  You pick actions based upon his personality,  skills,  and alignment.  You are restricted in alignment by the class you play,  as it's impossible to be a "good evil priest" or an "Atheist Cleric/Paladin".  You define your character,  through stats,  and are expected to stay within the Role of that character.  Essentially,  your character controls you.  Much the same as a predefined one does.

As far as the JRPG thing.  D&D used predesigned PC's starting around 30 years ago.  The Dragonlance modules were designed around it,  and generally recognized as some of the best developed.  It's entirely possible to have a predefined Role to take on,  since there's really no difference between a predefined role and a player defined role,  other than it may not be the exact Role you wanted to play.

You cannot take the high road of claiming D&D,  Dragonlance and more than a few other modules makes the claim false.

[Dangerfoot]

Gatt9 wrote...

SpiffySquee wrote...

what DnD have you been playing? You control your character's personality, actions, reactions, alignment, fears, loves etc etc

You decide you your character loves to fight or tries to talk his way out of everything. you decide if they charge right into battle or like to set clever traps. You choose if they love to steal, or uphold the law, you choose whither they are religious or not. You create everything about that character, back story, looks, gender, race.

Name one jrpg that lets you do even a third of that.

Actually,  what D&D have you been playing?

You determine your character's personality and then should be staying within that Role.  You pick actions based upon his personality,  skills,  and alignment.  You are restricted in alignment by the class you play,  as it's impossible to be a "good evil priest" or an "Atheist Cleric/Paladin".  You define your character,  through stats,  and are expected to stay within the Role of that character.  Essentially,  your character controls you.  Much the same as a predefined one does.

As far as the JRPG thing.  D&D used predesigned PC's starting around 30 years ago.  The Dragonlance modules were designed around it,  and generally recognized as some of the best developed.  It's entirely possible to have a predefined Role to take on,  since there's really no difference between a predefined role and a player defined role,  other than it may not be the exact Role you wanted to play.

You cannot take the high road of claiming D&D,  Dragonlance and more than a few other modules makes the claim false.

That really depends who you're playing with. Regardless of the fact that your character is (mostly, not totally) determined by you up front, before the adventure, YOU are still the one creating. You're not being forced to play as a generic anime character.

Making a character in an RPG doesn't bind you tightly into a linear path with no possible deviation, it simply gives you a guideline to follow. Any good character has inner conflicts based on two or more character traits, so choices should not be totally "predetermined".

[Sylvius the Mad]

Il Divo wrote...

But shooter fans also saw Bioware present the game as a shooter. I just went back and watched their preview videos. I've yet to find a one where Bioware actively showcases aiming from the pause screen, which is a clear indication that they intended it to be played in real time, regardless of what work around others managed to find.
 
It's like arguing when fans discover exploits for a game that the developers purposely intended it all along.

http://masseffect.bi....html#dl-movies

The marketing doesn't tell us what the game is like.  That marketing is an attemt to get people to buy it.  It's cynical and manipulative and unreliable.  Recall DAO's marketing.

What the designers intended is immaterial.  What features the game actually contains is what matters.

I broadly deny that exploits exist.  They're like loopholes; there's no such thing.

[Sylvius the Mad]

konfeta wrote...

Very peculiar. By that definition, any game where you are playing an insert-style player character is an RPG (half life = best RPG EVER - so many possible motivations for Dr. Freeman!).

That conclusion is not supported by my statement.

Any game that defines what your character is for you is then less of an RPG because of it. What's your view on game developer provided character dialogue choices? On one hand, they allow you to choose how your character acts. On the other hand, they railroad your character into a set of predetermined responses. A very blurry line, don't you think?

Not at all.  Until we started to see cinematic presentation comined with a voiced protagonist, the delivery and content of the selected lines was implicit, and thus mutable as the player saw fit.

See, I am asking these questions because I am suddenly very interested as to why you elected to adopt an inherently restrictive medium as your past time. You want "RPGs", not "games." Yet, Bioware, and many others are in the business of making games. While Bioware does more than most in terms of allowing you to define the character you are playing as, they are still essentially about forcing the player into a set of their own plot lines. In Mass Effect you are playing as Commander Sheppard - a mostly determined character. There are 2-3 types of responses beyond expeditionary investigation options, there are some choices you make to influence/direct the story of the game, but by far and large you are adopting a certain predefined role as opposed to making your own, you are following a predefined story as opposed to making your own.

That can't possibly be true.  The player can only play a role if he has perfect knowledge of what that role is.  Otherwise, how do you choose one option over another?

If Shepard's role is predetermined, then the player would need to be provided with an incredibly detailed personality profiile to follow (or a set of the supported personalities).  And he isn't.

As such, the player is choosing blind, and could - at any moment - have all of his previously selected actions and motivations contradicted by the game.  If this supposedly predetermined character can act effectively randomly, then he's not much of a character.  He's not even a caricature.  He's just nonsensical.

That should be a complete anathema to you. If anything, you should be more interested in sandbox games ala Just Cause or Prototype or Elder Scrolls. (player vs. role played character skills question aside).

I think role-playing is also incompatible with twitch-based action combat.

Luckily, ME doesn't have twitch-based action combat either.

Not exactly true. Yes, ME1 was a crappy shooter, but it was a shooter never the less. "Cone of Death" is exists in every modern shooter to simulate recoil/accuracy. ME1 just exaggerated to the point of making Sheppard look like an imbecile early game. But as you rapidly upgraded your guns and upped your weapon skill, guns became hyper accurate and only limited by the range at which bullets got deleted by the game

I wondered about that.  The sniper rifle had exactly the same maximum effective range as the Mako's main cannon.  That always struck me as weird.

Existence of the aim-while-pause function was effectively a shoddy auto-aim aid, the use of which slowed you down instead of helping once you had higher level accuracy boosts.

Slowing the game down is helping me.  Frantic action is the opposite of fun.

Bioware obviously agrees with this point, as ME2 focused the combat mechanics into making a stronger shooter.

If that is not enough to classify something as a shooter in your eyes, I have to ask as to what a "shooter" actually is in your mind.

A shooter rewards player skill (all "games" do this) and penalises the lack thereof.  Mass Effect didn't do this, unless we expand "skill" to include competent operation of the interface.  But that's more a barrier to entry than a measure of gameplay success.

[AlanC9]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

I broadly deny that exploits exist.  They're like loopholes; there's no such thing.

Because design intent is irrelevant?

[Sylvius the Mad]

In Exile wrote...

One thing I hate about science fiction is the degree to which physics is glorified over all other sciences.

Because everything is physics.  All other sciences are just physics on a larger scale.

Chemistry is your background, I take it?

I think the_one is an engineer, but he works mostly on environmental projects.

Bioware games always have had winning conditions. Thus, they were never RPGs.

Edit:

I'm assuming you are thinking of a neccesary and sufficient condition here.

I dispute that BioWare RPGs did have winning conditions.  They had ending conditions.  Calling those endings wins is supposition on your part.

[Sylvius the Mad]

AlanC9 wrote...

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

I broadly deny that exploits exist.  They're like loopholes; there's no such thing.

Because design intent is irrelevant?

Yes.  Rules mean what they say.  If there's a gap in the rule, then then rue simpy doesn't apply in those cases.

Residing in that gap is not the exploitation of a loophole.  It's just a fair application of the rule.

[Lumikki]

konfeta wrote...

*sigh*

Why does this have to be repeated? The phrase "RPG" means different things to different people. "Role playing game" is an incredibly loosely defined concept. In practical terms, it came to be associated with certain gameplay/story mechanics. Some, such as Silvius, have a very strict, yet open to a variety of mechanics definition. Other have general thresholds as to the amount of choice you have in a game before it is considered an RPG. There is also the oft-expressed viewpoint that a game needs to have a certain set of features (inventory, dialogue, story decision points, character leveling) to be considered an RPG. Etc, etc, etc. Mix of all the above.

Why?

Because meaning of those words is different for different people and that creates conflicts. How can we talk about role-playing or RPG when we can't even agree what those words means. That's the issue. Because we are still in this forum forced to talk about it.

Example some people consider that role-playing can't be done without having stat defined character, while some others think that stat aren't neccassary for person to role-play character, even if they can also be used for it. It's narrow defination agaist wider defination. But there is conflict related stats and when talked about stats, it cause conflicts between these two different view points.

Point been just because you and i understand this, some others don't, because they still think the narrow view is only one that exists.

Modifié par Lumikki, 09 juillet 2011 - 11:06 .

[Il Divo]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

The marketing doesn't tell us what the game is like.  That marketing is an attemt to get people to buy it.  It's cynical and manipulative and unreliable. 

Your claim:

"I disagree.  I think ME put the two together very well.  The only reason there was a problem was because shooter fans saw a shooter interface and expected shooter mechanics.

I can't blame BioWare for that.  Maybe they didn't document the game well enough, but frankly anyone likely to jump to that sort of conclusion isn't likely to read the manual anyway (despite the RTFM joke right in the game).  It's not BioWare's fault that the players expected the game to be something it wasn't. "

Then a gameplay demo or even the manual would have mentioned aiming from the pause screen. Much like how KotOR mentions the ability to do so (which you used for comparison). If you are unable to see why others consider the game to be a tps, that is not anyone else's failing. These players reached a conclusion based on information the devs released (through videos and the manual) and also based on what felt most natural to the experience, which is built on shooting in real time.

Out of curiosity, did Mass Effect even feature a pause toggle, compared to other Bioware games?

Recall DAO's marketing.

Point me to all the gameplay videos where Bioware portrayed DA:O as having anything other than a party-based, tactical system. I very well might agree with you.

Launch/CGI trailers rarely capture the gameplay of a system. Gameplay videos/demos do. Ex: Laidlaw's Dragon Age 2 demo where he showcased the game being played in real-time or using tactics.

What the designers intended is immaterial.  What features the game actually contains is what matters.

I broadly deny that exploits exist.  They're like loopholes; there's no such thing.

Of course if we ignore intent, then we can say loopholes don't exist.

But if we apply your logic of the pause screen, if I am able to solo Dragon Age: Origins as a Mage, I suppose I can claim that the game was not intended nor designed for squad-based gameplay. Even if both the manual and gameplay vids show otherwise.

Modifié par Il Divo, 09 juillet 2011 - 04:19 .