Hulk Hsieh wrote...
Why is there a problem when ME is defined as an Act-RPG and marketed as such?
Primarily because ME2 was also defined as an Act-RPG and marketed as such, but what was in the box was a full-on TPS. Everything focused on combat, and keeping the TPS status-quo by minimizing any threat of RPG elements creating character progression.
Dave666 wrote...
However with stats your character is only as intelligent as the stats allow. A character with 3 intelligence won't be debating physics, but one with an intelligence of 20 would be able to.
But a character with 3 intelligence can swing a sword, speak, and beat the entire game solo on the max difficulty using seriously advanced tactics that a character with 20 intelligence cannot because of the difference in player skill.
Stats force you to stay in character. You can only do what your character can do, no more, no less.
Do you intentionally play the combat portion of the game badly if your character is bad at combat (I know Sylvius does this, so Sylvius, no need to respond - I know you make in-character decisions at all times).
Ummm....
An RPG will affect the flow of the game based upon your stats. Look at Fallout 2, a character with an intelligence of 3 will miss content because he lacks the capacity to understand it.
Nor would you need to intentionally play badly, the stats would enforce your character's inability to fight effectively, through reduced accuracy and reduced ability to dodge.
Good point, which is why the 'character skill' argument doesn't work when defining an rpg. Playing a stupid character is completely based on me, not the character. Instead, I think no player reflexes is what they really mean, which specifically excludes the player's physical abilities, but not their mental attributes.
It's worked for nearly 40 years. Playing a stupid character is not based upon you, play Fallout 2 with an intelligence of 2, the game enforces the lack of intelligence. You won't get companions, or items, because you're too stupid to comprehend the stuff necessary to unlock them.
The system is designed to seperate your qualities from your characters as much as possible, and it's pretty effective at doing so.
Further, any given pack of animals can coordinate attacks, and effectively assess weak points. There's a reason why Dog/Wolf packs will spread out, and why they'll quite often go for the hamstring on a larger animal. Intelligence does not preclude tactics or combat effectiveness.
Gatt9 is denying totally direct acting through UI in computer games
If the game does not recognize it, it isn't a Role. Once again, Paragon booting someone off a building in cold blood. Violates the Role, game doesn't take any notice. Which means that all that's left is you sitting in a chair pretending that the game is something more than what it is, you're inserting a Role into a game where the game doesn't recognize one.
So how exactly do you have a Role when the game itself pays no attention to it? You don't, the game permits any arbitrary actions without consequence no matter how much they violate the "Role" you claim to be playing. Which means the Role exists only in your head, and the game itself has no capacity for Roleplaying.
Which is exactly what happens when you remove the Stats, because the only way for the game to recognize a Role is by defining the Role, and the only way that can be done is by defining the Character, with stats.
But what about the players, who have different opinion.
Who thinks Mass Effect was better game than both of those other games?
So, combinating smaller aspect of both games, made new better game as total result.
That's a completely different topic, but that's just fine.
The problem is, the game claims to be an RPG, but ME2 possessed none of the qualities. It appears ME3 will be much more in line with an RPG, still lacking in the noncombat dept though.
Pen and Paper never featured real time combat. Video games do, hence why this becomes a bigger issue, especially when developers push beyond a tactical system (DA:O, Baldur's Gate).
Thing is though, there's making the RT/TB choice because the game is improved by it, and there's making it just because someone thinks "It'll sell more units!".
ME series functions better in RT, given. But there's many instances where it's not such a clear cut choice. The problem is, the decision is being made just because a Suit thinks it'll sell more units if it's RT, because "Turn based games don't sell!".
You can datamine Gamasutra and find a number of developers saying Publishers won't listen to a proposal that includes the word Turn-based, as well as countless interviews on other sites.
Often, it's not done for a gamplay reason, but rather a Suit with little understanding. Honestly, Pokemon is turn based and has outsold pretty much every other series ever other than maybe Final Fantasy (Also almost all TB).
It's why the Industry is starting to collapse, with a projected 20% drop in revenues for 2011, no decisions are being made for gameplay reasons, just Suits who think they know more than they do.
In closing, RT/TB is a decision that should be made because the option enhances the game, not as an arbitrary "One-size fits all" design paradigm. In ME, RT is really the only option.
Ce sujet est fermé
Retour en haut
