3223 réponses à ce sujet

[Il Divo]

slimgrin wrote...

The mangos, grapes, and pears are likely introductory fruit for the uninitiated.

But let's be honest with ourselves: would any sane individual take pears over grapes? 

[wizardryforever]

I think what this all boils down to is that Bioware has its own definition for what an RPG is.  If that definition is different from yours, then tough toenails.  Bioware is not going to change their view on the subject just because some vocal "fans" decide to bombard the rest of us (and Bioware) with their completely arbitrary definition of what an RPG is.  Bioware is sticking with their definition since it is, you know, their game.  They'll do what they think is best, while taking fan criticism with a huge block of salt.

[A Crusty Knight Of Colour]

Il Divo wrote...

slimgrin wrote...

The mangos, grapes, and pears are likely introductory fruit for the uninitiated.

But let's be honest with ourselves: would any sane individual take pears over grapes? 

This.

Modifié par mrcrusty, 01 juillet 2011 - 03:12 .

[mesmerizedish]

mrcrusty wrote...

ishmaeltheforsaken wrote...

I don't understand the OP. Deep gear progression is... bad?

I think it comes down the apparent notion that gameplay = combat. Which is what the OP and what many others in this thread, don't like to see.

As for the customisation elements, I'm pretty sure just about everyone is happy about those.

First, I've only read the OP... I realize there's been a lot of talk since then, so maybe my impression of things isn't as relevant. But Mr. Hudson said that "the RPG experience" was about a strong character-driven narrative with exploration. And then went on to discuss the specific issue of ME2 featuring negligible progression in weapons and armor. Him citing one example that is, you know, unquestionably legitimiate doesn't invalidate his larger comment that the narrative is the core of the game.

[A Crusty Knight Of Colour]

Saphra Deden wrote...

I agree with the devs on this one. Anyone who thinks "RPG" means "stats" doesn't really know what theyr'e talking about. The core of an RPG is interaction and character development. Stats are just one way to develop a character. I find them somewhat uninteresting since I think the important part of character development is that person's outlook, temperment, morals, and over all relation to the game world.

But how does this differ from any other genre then? Is Bioshock an RPG? Is RDR?

Saphra Deden wrote...
I still don't want ME3 to be 100% combat because one way to shape a character is to give them the option to use subterfuge, intimidation, social charm, stealth, or even to retreat from a potential fight. This is why I liked Noveria so much in ME1. In that mission Bioware simply gave you a goal and then set you loose in a playground with many different options available to achieve that goal. Each one said something about your character. This isnt' as strong in ME2 since no matter what you wind up having a firefight.

This on the other hand, I wholly agree with.

ishmaeltheforsaken wrote...

First, I've only read the
OP... I realize there's been a lot of talk since then, so maybe my impression of things isn't as relevant. But Mr. Hudson said that "the RPG experience" was about a strong character-driven narrative with exploration. And then went on to discuss the specific issue of ME2 featuring negligible progression in weapons and armor. Him citing one
example that is, you know, unquestionably legitimiate doesn't invalidate his larger comment that the narrative is the core of the game.

I did the opposite, read (and participated) in the thread, did not read the linked article.



Anyways, I'm not really miffed about making Mass Effect more RPG or anything. I'm more concerned about more varied and open gameplay. To be fair though, character driven narrative with exploration is not what makes an RPG. Otherwise Rockstar would be the best RPG developers with studios like 2K and Ubisoft hot on their trails.

Modifié par mrcrusty, 01 juillet 2011 - 03:22 .

[slimgrin]

wizardryforever wrote...

I think what this all boils down to is that Bioware has its own definition for what an RPG is.  If that definition is different from yours, then tough toenails.  Bioware is not going to change their view on the subject just because some vocal "fans" decide to bombard the rest of us (and Bioware) with their completely arbitrary definition of what an RPG is.  Bioware is sticking with their definition since it is, you know, their game.  They'll do what they think is best, while taking fan criticism with a huge block of salt.

Oh, the impudence of us plebs.

[Dangerfoot]

Terror_K wrote...
You do realise that this is exactly what the problem was with the original statements that were the genesis of this topic, right? That the reason this even came up was because Casey Hudson and the others were basically "speaking for other RPG fans" and getting the wrong end of the stick.

They've essentially said, "one of the main things people want for ME3 is more RPG elements, so we're making sure to focus on the RPG elements they weren't even referring to and what we consider to be the important RPG elements." The fans who "wanted more RPG elements" largely wanted more of elements A, B and C, but BioWare are basically saying, "what they wanted was elements D, E and F, because that what we feel matters with RPG gameplay"

We said, "We want more fruit! Specifically oranges, apples and bananas" and BioWare have basically said, "Gotcha, you want more fruit. More mangoes, grapes and pears it is."

What bothers me is that both "RPG fans" and Bioware don't seem to care at all about character progression, otherwise known as the whole freaking point of Roleplaying. They are going to continue to make games where you choose vague personality A or vague personality B. That's not roleplaying, no matter how much loot and talent allocation you slap over it.

[Il Divo]

mrcrusty wrote...

But how does this differ from any other genre then? Is Bioshock an RPG? Is RDR?

Keep in mind that point about 'interaction'. It does not mean interaction in the sense that you are playing the character, but you also have a role in deciding who that character is.

Shepard does have a predefined end game, but there are a great number of choices along the way which allow differences in the character you create. In Bioshock, we all play the same protagonist (Little Sisters are treated as only a gameplay mechanic). In RDR, we all take the same character through the storyline. There are elements of role-playing there, but I (as a player) never get the option to change who that protagonist is. From a narrative perspective, you and I play the same John Marston.

Modifié par Il Divo, 01 juillet 2011 - 03:22 .

[A Crusty Knight Of Colour]

Il Divo wrote...

mrcrusty wrote...

But how does this differ from any other genre then? Is Bioshock an RPG? Is RDR?

Keep in mind that point about 'interaction'. It does not mean interaction in the sense that you are playing the character, but you also have a role in deciding who that character is.

Shepard does have a predefined end game, but there are a great number of choices along the way which allow differences in the character you create. In Bioshock, we all play the same protagonist (Little Sisters are treated as only a gameplay mechanic). In RDR, we all take the same character through the storyline. There are elements of role-playing there, but I (as a player) never get the option to change who that protagonist is. From a narrative perspective, you and I play the same John Marston.

Then how about RPGs that don't have these elements? Basically, half of the RPGs before the 90s.

Modifié par mrcrusty, 01 juillet 2011 - 03:25 .

[TexasToast712]

 I like Bioware's take on "teh RPG ElementZ"

[Terror_K]

Let's also not forget a certain other recent BioWare RPG where during the development fans were constantly on at the devs about them not liking the way it went RPG-wise when it came to hardcore, statistical RPG elements, only for the devs to constantly go, "this is better for the game, your concerns are unfounded, this is still going to be a strong RPG and waaaay better than the original" and then when the game finally released fans went, "we were right the first time! This sucks!" and BioWare had to admit after a couple of months that they done fudged up.

You all know the game I mean.

[wizardryforever]

slimgrin wrote...

wizardryforever wrote...

I think what this all boils down to is that Bioware has its own definition for what an RPG is.  If that definition is different from yours, then tough toenails.  Bioware is not going to change their view on the subject just because some vocal "fans" decide to bombard the rest of us (and Bioware) with their completely arbitrary definition of what an RPG is.  Bioware is sticking with their definition since it is, you know, their game.  They'll do what they think is best, while taking fan criticism with a huge block of salt.

Oh, the impudence of us plebs.

I know right?

But seriously though, do you think Bioware would honestly pay much attention to people who constantly spout nonsense like "you dumbed it down," or "things were better in the past?"  Then these people act hurt when Bioware ignores their incoherent babble that is not constructive in any way or even based in reality.  Maybe my original post was a bit vitriolic, but I still think it's a valid point to be made.

Modifié par wizardryforever, 01 juillet 2011 - 03:27 .

[Gatt9]

wizardryforever wrote...

I think what this all boils down to is that Bioware has its own definition for what an RPG is.  If that definition is different from yours, then tough toenails.  Bioware is not going to change their view on the subject just because some vocal "fans" decide to bombard the rest of us (and Bioware) with their completely arbitrary definition of what an RPG is.  Bioware is sticking with their definition since it is, you know, their game.  They'll do what they think is best, while taking fan criticism with a huge block of salt.

The problem is that it isn't arbitrary.

Look,  if I code a computer chess game tonight,  then what I'm doing is implementing a computer equivalent of the real chess game.  If I use as my model Candyland,  because more people play Candyland,  and I call it Chess,  it still isn't Chess.  Because Chess is a defined real world object,  I can't redefine it at my leisure.  If I win a billion dollars tomorrow,  I still can't redefine it just because I have money,  it's still a defined real world object.

RPGs are defined real world objects.  They've existed for nearly 40 years,  and share a common fundamental basis.  That basis isn't story,  or just dialogue,  but fundamental character related mechanics.  So no matter what company chooses to make a computer rendition,  they cannot redefine it at their leisure.  It is a real world object,  with a basis established for decades.  Bioware cannot define RPG to now mean TPS,  Bethseda cannot define RPG to now mean Adventure game.  That's not what it is,  and no matter how many times they use the acronym,  it still won't be an RPG.

Bioware can do what they want.  They did with Dragon Age 2,  and it did incredibly well.  Err,  wait,  it barely sold 1 million units and they had to give away another game just to get people to buy it,  after slashing the price heavily.

It went really well for Bethseda too.  Wait...uhoh...no,  Bethseda shipped 4.6 million units of Fallout 3 and generous math on the NPD numbers showed they managed to sell less than half of them by the time they dropped off the NPD chart...4 weeks after release...

So maybe disregarding RPG fans isn't such a bright idea.  Looks like the last few times just ended up with a fraction of the expected sales.

But then,  that's what happens when you try to redefine an established genre.

[Dangerfoot]

Gatt9 wrote...

wizardryforever wrote...

I think what this all boils down to is that Bioware has its own definition for what an RPG is.  If that definition is different from yours, then tough toenails.  Bioware is not going to change their view on the subject just because some vocal "fans" decide to bombard the rest of us (and Bioware) with their completely arbitrary definition of what an RPG is.  Bioware is sticking with their definition since it is, you know, their game.  They'll do what they think is best, while taking fan criticism with a huge block of salt.

The problem is that it isn't arbitrary.

Look,  if I code a computer chess game tonight,  then what I'm doing is implementing a computer equivalent of the real chess game.  If I use as my model Candyland,  because more people play Candyland,  and I call it Chess,  it still isn't Chess.  Because Chess is a defined real world object,  I can't redefine it at my leisure.  If I win a billion dollars tomorrow,  I still can't redefine it just because I have money,  it's still a defined real world object.

RPGs are defined real world objects.  They've existed for nearly 40 years,  and share a common fundamental basis.  That basis isn't story,  or just dialogue,  but fundamental character related mechanics.  So no matter what company chooses to make a computer rendition,  they cannot redefine it at their leisure.  It is a real world object,  with a basis established for decades.  Bioware cannot define RPG to now mean TPS,  Bethseda cannot define RPG to now mean Adventure game.  That's not what it is,  and no matter how many times they use the acronym,  it still won't be an RPG.

Bioware can do what they want.  They did with Dragon Age 2,  and it did incredibly well.  Err,  wait,  it barely sold 1 million units and they had to give away another game just to get people to buy it,  after slashing the price heavily.

It went really well for Bethseda too.  Wait...uhoh...no,  Bethseda shipped 4.6 million units of Fallout 3 and generous math on the NPD numbers showed they managed to sell less than half of them by the time they dropped off the NPD chart...4 weeks after release...

So maybe disregarding RPG fans isn't such a bright idea.  Looks like the last few times just ended up with a fraction of the expected sales.

But then,  that's what happens when you try to redefine an established genre.

I like you can we be friends?

[Il Divo]

mrcrusty wrote...

Then how about RPGs that don't have these elements? Basically, half of the RPGs before the 90s.

Those are RPGs as well. I consider stats-focused games and character-interactions to both be 'role-playing games'. I simply prefer the latter. I was just pointing out what that poster was referring to by 'rpg'.

The problem with Bioshock is that it does not feature either:

a) heavy emphasis on character stats/customization 

or

the ability to significantly impact that character's role in the world.

The game has a very small amount of both, but not enough that I would label the game an RPG. For me, an RPG is more like a threshhold.

[Il Divo]

Terror_K wrote...

Let's also not forget a certain other recent BioWare RPG where during the development fans were constantly on at the devs about them not liking the way it went RPG-wise when it came to hardcore, statistical RPG elements, only for the devs to constantly go, "this is better for the game, your concerns are unfounded, this is still going to be a strong RPG and waaaay better than the original" and then when the game finally released fans went, "we were right the first time! This sucks!" and BioWare had to admit after a couple of months that they done fudged up.

You all know the game I mean.

We would also do well to consider the overall reception that Mass Effect 2 received, in comparison.

[sbvera13]

Gatt9 wrote...

But then,  that's what happens when you try to redefine an established genre.

I've been in gaming long enough to see this cycle repeat itself a couple times.  RPG's are by far the most vulnerable, because they are by nature a niche market.

1. Upstart company makes runaway hit with underappreciated genre by marketing a good rendition of said genre in a market that has few competitors.
2. Upstart Company becomes Big Name Company by capitalizing on this success, and repeating their initial formula.
3. Big Name Company gets greedy, and diversifies their formula to appeal to a broader market.
4. Big Name Company slowly but voluntarily transmogrifies itself into Evil Corporate Overlord.  Genre market depletes and dries up.
5. Upstart Company 2 makes runaway hit....

[Gatt9]

wizardryforever wrote...

slimgrin wrote...

wizardryforever wrote...

I think what this all boils down to is that Bioware has its own definition for what an RPG is.  If that definition is different from yours, then tough toenails.  Bioware is not going to change their view on the subject just because some vocal "fans" decide to bombard the rest of us (and Bioware) with their completely arbitrary definition of what an RPG is.  Bioware is sticking with their definition since it is, you know, their game.  They'll do what they think is best, while taking fan criticism with a huge block of salt.

Oh, the impudence of us plebs.

I know right?

But seriously though, do you think Bioware would honestly pay much attention to people who constantly spout nonsense like "you dumbed it down," or "things were better in the past."  Then these people act hurt when Bioware ignores their incoherent babble that is not constructive in any way or even based in reality.  Maybe my original post was a bit vitriolic, but I still think it's a valid point to be made.

Here's the thing.

You can only say the same thing so many times.  We've said it 1000 times.  To Bioware.  To Bethseda.  They ignored us,  and both of them have flat out insulted us.

My patience is longer than most,  but there's alot of reason why RPG fans have given up trying to be "Constructive" and just point out the dumbing down.

Go read the Gamespy article that wished for Fallout fans to die,  or Bethseda's Todd claiming we're wrong for liking RPG mechanics,  or Bioware's Gaider and Laidlaw insinuating the same thing when DA2 failed.  Penny Arcad,e  1up,  Gamespot,  PCG,  etc,  etc.

It gets old having to reiterate why making RPGs into TPS and Adventure games isn't good,  especially when the companies and the Press beat you down in order to make their Previews and Interviews sound better,  because to do otherwise means less traffic.  No one reads previews and interviews that say "Yeah,  bad idea."

Then we're going to have to get into the message board myths like "It's outdated,  archaic,  it was technological limitations,  you don't count!".  People stick their fingers in their ears when they don't have a counter-arguement and instead claim that you're somehow an outlier because they can't come up with any defense for putting RPG on a TPS's box.

People want a game with a story,  I get that.  Some people want shooters with stories,  nothing wrong with that.  It becomes wrong when people demand RPGs become shooters so they can have stories,  rather than demanding shooters include stories.

Which is the major problem.  People keep iterating they want a story,  they want to affect the game,  and RPGs do that.  Rather than demand it of the games they like,  they go to RPGs and demand they become the type of game they prefer.

[slimgrin]

sbvera13 wrote...

I've been in gaming long enough to see this cycle repeat itself a couple times.  RPG's are by far the most vulnerable, because they are by nature a niche market.

1. Upstart company makes runaway hit with underappreciated genre by marketing a good rendition of said genre in a market that has few competitors.
2. Upstart Company becomes Big Name Company by capitalizing on this success, and repeating their initial formula.
3. Big Name Company gets greedy must sustain itself, and diversifies their formula to appeal to a broader market.
4. Big Name Company slowly but voluntarily transmogrifies itself into Evil Corporate Overlord.  Genre market depletes and dries up.
5. Upstart Company 2 makes runaway hit....

Only one fix was necessary.

[wizardryforever]

Gatt9 wrote...

wizardryforever wrote...

I think what this all boils down to is that Bioware has its own definition for what an RPG is.  If that definition is different from yours, then tough toenails.  Bioware is not going to change their view on the subject just because some vocal "fans" decide to bombard the rest of us (and Bioware) with their completely arbitrary definition of what an RPG is.  Bioware is sticking with their definition since it is, you know, their game.  They'll do what they think is best, while taking fan criticism with a huge block of salt.

The problem is that it isn't arbitrary.

Then why does everyone and their brother have a different definition then?  That seems to spell arbitrary to me.

Look,  if I code a computer chess game tonight,  then what I'm doing is implementing a computer equivalent of the real chess game.  If I use as my model Candyland,  because more people play Candyland,  and I call it Chess,  it still isn't Chess.  Because Chess is a defined real world object,  I can't redefine it at my leisure.  If I win a billion dollars tomorrow,  I still can't redefine it just because I have money,  it's still a defined real world object.

A Candyland themed Chess set would be pretty sweet (no pun intended).  A genre is something that has conventions associated with it yes.  But those conventions can and do change over time.  Take movie genres for instance.  Do you think horror movies haven't changed at all over time or that people don't have different definitions for what constitutes horror?  Or comedy for that matter?  Game genres are no different.  Change happens.  You don't have to like it, but it does happen.  Genres are not immutable.

RPGs are defined real world objects.  They've existed for nearly 40 years,  and share a common fundamental basis.  That basis isn't story,  or just dialogue,  but fundamental character related mechanics.  So no matter what company chooses to make a computer rendition,  they cannot redefine it at their leisure.  It is a real world object,  with a basis established for decades.  Bioware cannot define RPG to now mean TPS,  Bethseda cannot define RPG to now mean Adventure game.  That's not what it is,  and no matter how many times they use the acronym,  it still won't be an RPG.

The games themselves are real world objects.  What category we choose to put them in is a made-up arbitrary construct.  It has no substance, and can be changed to fit our personal definitions. 

Bioware can do what they want.  They did with Dragon Age 2,  and it did incredibly well.  Err,  wait,  it barely sold 1 million units and they had to give away another game just to get people to buy it,  after slashing the price heavily.

Well that was an entirely separate division of Bioware you know.  Besides that, I haven't played Dragon Age 2, though I probably will and quite likely enjoy it the way it was intended.  It may not live up to my arbitrary expectations of what it should have been, but it fit the developers idea.  Why is my definition better than the developers?  It's like I'm saying, "I hate Michelangelo's art."  That may be true, but still fit the artist's vision.  The main difference is that a developer is trying to sell their hard work.

It went really well for Bethseda too.  Wait...uhoh...no,  Bethseda shipped 4.6 million units of Fallout 3 and generous math on the NPD numbers showed they managed to sell less than half of them by the time they dropped off the NPD chart...4 weeks after release...

So maybe disregarding RPG fans isn't such a bright idea.  Looks like the last few times just ended up with a fraction of the expected sales.

But then,  that's what happens when you try to redefine an established genre.

Yeah, and I bet none of those sales (or lack thereof) had anything to do with other factors, like the crappy economy, or personal lack of funds.  The sole motivating factor for those games' failure was their mechanics.  Uh-huh.  It's quite likely that certain easily influenced people read some scathing review and decided that this raging online personality can be trusted over their own instincts and the developer's word.  Meh, I'm starting to ramble.  I'll shut up now.

[sbvera13]

slimgrin wrote...

Only one fix was necessary.

Debatable.  Growth is not required to sustain a business.  Marketing to finite group of niche fans can limit a business' scope, but I believe with the right business acumen it could be done and maintained.  Frustrating to any enterpeneur, and against the capitalist philosophy of life, so very rare to see.  I will admit that the entertainment market is very fickle though, and very hard to navigate.

[Terror_K]

Il Divo wrote...

Terror_K wrote...

Let's also not forget a certain other recent BioWare RPG where during the development fans were constantly on at the devs about them not liking the way it went RPG-wise when it came to hardcore, statistical RPG elements, only for the devs to constantly go, "this is better for the game, your concerns are unfounded, this is still going to be a strong RPG and waaaay better than the original" and then when the game finally released fans went, "we were right the first time! This sucks!" and BioWare had to admit after a couple of months that they done fudged up.

You all know the game I mean.

We would also do well to consider the overall reception that Mass Effect 2 received, in comparison.

It was still mixed reception, even if it was largely loved. ME2 wasn't as big a leap as DA2 was because it was already an action-RPG with TPS elements and sort of a hyrbid, while DA went from "pure, hardcore PC-centric RPG" to "hack'n'slash console-driven action-RPG" with its sequel. ME2 was also a better game, labels aside, than DA2. ME2 can almost stand on its own as just being a story-driven TPS that can appeal to non-RPG fans, but DA2 can't stand against its action-based cousins and is still "too RPG" to do so, while not being RPG enough to stand with the original and others like it.

Personally, I don't see much difference, but I'm in the minority there I realise. Aside from DA2 being more deliberately sabotaged by its devs, being rushed, and damn-near completely retooled, the problems are largely the same for the same reasons. DA2 is simply a more extreme change between games. As soon as I first saw what they were doing with it ME2 was the first comparison I made, and then DA2 turned out to be even worse than that. Its essentially the same issue, and yet ME2 got praised for it while DA2 got lambasted. A more apt example I always thought was Deus Ex: Invisible War. That got rightly slammed for what it did, and I felt ME2 did essentially the same thing, yet got praised for it. That never made sense to me. I just thought it was changing times, and was half-expecting DA2 to be hailed as a triumph too. I was pleasantly surprised that the RPG fans' voice was still loud enough to prove me wrong there.

Despite me admitting that ME2 is just a "better game" than DA2 as a whole, genres aside, I still think there were some awful design decisions made in ME2 that just made me go, "WTF?!!" not all of which are RPG-specific ones. I honestly never got why ME2 was as praised as it was, but... there we go.

In either case, ME2 has at least been criticised enough for the devs to take notice and change several RPG mechanics for ME3. We can already see powers, progression, customisation, weapon modding, etc. are improved, and that's as a result of concrit and not adulation.

Modifié par Terror_K, 01 juillet 2011 - 03:47 .