3223 réponses à ce sujet

[Varen Spectre]

Hmmm, a very tricky topic since there is neither definition nor general consensus on what "RPGs" or even
"stats" actually are.

I haven't played that much "RPGs" but I have allways associated this term with "leveling" (improving) of my character (e.g. the enemies which seemed to be very tough at the beginning of the game were much easier in the middle and laughable at the end. All that usually without the necessity of my own improvement.) I know that continuous advancement is present in other genres as well, but it is often described as RPG elements. 

As for this "leveling", I like it. It gives me the feeling of accomplishment and makes my gameplay more interesting and tactical (e.g. I can't attack everyone at the beginning). And I like all systems I've tried so far - the system solely based on character's skill (Fallout 1,2), the system combining my own and character's skill (Deus Ex, Alpha Protocol) or the system based on my own skill which just adds special features and perks as I progress (Mass Effect 2, Witcher 2).

As for the “stats” themselves, I understand them as information on the stuff that is actualy in the game, be it the skills, armors, weapons, powers, items, etc. I like them because they allow me to orientate quickly when it comes to management of these parameters. But I guess I could live without them as long as the actual stuff, i.e. the things which they were supposed to track down, is present in the game.

As for the “loot”, I like loot too. It’s not that important but it can add more realism (e.g. if I have killed somebody, most probably I would be able to take his equipment). But like I said, in comparison with other aspects of the game, it’s not a big deal.

So, TL DR, I am not very happy with negligence of stats and loot but as long as Bioware keeps the quality of everything else, I will be fine with that.  ¯\\_(ツ)_/¯

Modifié par Varen Spectre, 01 juillet 2011 - 03:49 .

[Garrison2009]

I still honestly don't understand when role playing went from actually playing as a character in a fictional world (pretending you were in someone else shoes) to, for all intended purposes, statistics management (rearranging stats and sorting through hundreds of useless items in your inventory to find one that has a better Dexterity bonus or something)...

[squee365]

I don't understand what the point of this topic is!

[sbvera13]

Honestly, Borderlands was more of an RPG then ME2. I'm not refering to loot either, but character progression. Different talent builds differentiate characters quite a lot, and let you specialize your character's strengths to match your gameplay style. ME2 is merely a scavenger hunt for upgrades, and deciding which 4 out of 5 powers you want. If it didn't have such great voice acting and visual art, I would hardly play it.

[sbvera13]

Garrison2009 wrote...

I still honestly don't understand when role playing went from actually playing as a character in a fictional world (pretending you were in someone else shoes) to, for all intended purposes, statistics management (rearranging stats and sorting through hundreds of useless items in your inventory to find one that has a better Dexterity bonus or something)...

Blame D&D.  It happened many years ago.   It only became a true problem to serious RPGers (ie, ones that want ot immerse themselves in a character) when the genre migrated to CRPG's, because without a human dungeonmaster/storyteller, the rules and mechanics are all that is left.

[Dangerfoot]

Garrison2009 wrote...

I still honestly don't understand when role playing went from actually playing as a character in a fictional world (pretending you were in someone else shoes) to, for all intended purposes, statistics management (rearranging stats and sorting through hundreds of useless items in your inventory to find one that has a better Dexterity bonus or something)...

This. It's like half of the people who saw Dungeons & Dragons just completely missed the point.

[A Crusty Knight Of Colour]

Varen Spectre wrote...

Hmmm, a very tricky topic since there is neither definition nor general consensus on what "RPGs" or even"stats" actually are.

I haven't played that much "RPGs" but I have allways associated this term with "leveling" (improving) of my character (e.g. the enemies which seemed to be very tough at the beginning of the game were much easier in the middle and laughable at the end. All that usually without the necessity of my own improvement.) I know that continuous advancement is present in other genres as well, but it is often described as RPG elements. 

As for this "leveling", I like it. It gives me the feeling of accomplishment and makes my gameplay more interesting
and tactical (e.g. I can't attack everyone at the beginning). And I like all systems I've tried so far - the system solely based on character's skill (Fallout 1,2), the system combining my own and character's skill (Deus Ex, Alpha Protocol) or the system based on my own skill which just adds special features and perks as I progress (Mass Effect 2, Witcher 2).

As for the “stats” themselves, I understand them as information on the stuff that is actualy in the game, be it the skills, armors, weapons, powers, items, etc. I like them because they allow me to orientate quickly when it comes to management of these parameters. But I guess I could live without them as long as the actual stuff, i.e. the things which they were supposed to track down, is present in the game.

As for the “loot”, I like loot too. It’s not that important but it can add more realism (e.g. if I have killed somebody, most probably I would be able to take his equipment). But like I said, in comparison with other aspects of the game, it’s not a big deal.

So, TL DR, I am not very happy with negligence of stats and loot but as long as Bioware keeps the quality of everything else, I will be fine with that.  ¯_(ツ)_/¯

You're basically describing how a baseline physical/mental concept (stats) along with areas of expertise (skills) and with physical actions (abilities), combines with enemy design and level ups to form character progression. Important aspect of RPGs and one that's probably misunderstood a lot nowadays.

But good post.

Modifié par mrcrusty, 01 juillet 2011 - 03:53 .

[Il Divo]

sbvera13 wrote...

Honestly, Borderlands was more of an RPG then ME2. I'm not refering to loot either, but character progression. Different talent builds differentiate characters quite a lot, and let you specialize your character's strengths to match your gameplay style. ME2 is merely a scavenger hunt for upgrades, and deciding which 4 out of 5 powers you want. If it didn't have such great voice acting and visual art, I would hardly play it.

While this is true in terms of stats, this is one of those cases where genre labels becomes problematic. Regardless of its genre, I do consider grinding-oriented gaming to be my least favorite kind, often because it doesn't even attempt to mask what the player is doing (Diablo, WoW, Borderlands, etc).

[Grand Admiral Cheesecake]

squee365 wrote...

I don't understand what the point of this topic is!

Group A: WE WANT LOOT AND STATS AND DICE ROLLS!
Group B: WE WANT ACTION AND EXPLOSIONS!
Group C: WE WANT STORY AND CHARACTER PROGRESSION!
Group D:...SOME OF EACH OF THE ABOVE IDEAS WOULD BE LOVELY!

Group E:...What is this I don't even....

[Garrison2009]

sbvera13 wrote...

Garrison2009 wrote...

I still honestly don't understand when role playing went from actually playing as a character in a fictional world (pretending you were in someone else shoes) to, for all intended purposes, statistics management (rearranging stats and sorting through hundreds of useless items in your inventory to find one that has a better Dexterity bonus or something)...

Blame D&D.  It happened many years ago.   It only became a true problem to serious RPGers (ie, ones that want ot immerse themselves in a character) when the genre migrated to CRPG's, because without a human dungeonmaster/storyteller, the rules and mechanics are all that is left.

I guess so... Kind of a shame still. I honestly greatly enjoyed ME2 exactly because it focused less on the stats and loot and more on the people and the characters and your choices in that world. Made it feel more like the kind of Role Playing games my friends and I used to play in the old days...

[Jaron Oberyn]

MrFob wrote...

To be fair, the diversity in the dialogue wheel in ME1 was a fake quite often.
If you replay the game (which I think you have Polite ) you'll notice that often, although you chose another option, Shep will say the exact same thing or he will change it up to a minuscule amount and will still get the exact same answer from the NPC.
I reckon the instances where your choice really does make a difference is roughly the same in ME1 and 2.
Besides, BW has always made it clear that ME goes more into a cnematic direction than, say, DA:O and the like.

I am aware of those instances from the first game. However those were somewhat rare and during sequences where there's nothing else to say except that line. In ME2, you have a huge amount of automatic dialogue, and then you have one option dialogue progression, which pretty much renders the dialogue wheel useless unless you're a fan of the investigate selection. I realize that the game is supposed to be a cinematic experience, yet look at the first game and the promises the developers made when marketing ME1. ME1 had great cinematics, and also great choice/roleplay features. ME2 is all cinematics/action, little role play and little choice. At the rate they're going they might as well make a movie, because that's what it's starting to become.

Many people invested into this series because it was supposed to be an RPG/Shooter hybrid. It ended up being a shooter. A GoW clone at that. They could have had both strong RPG and Shooter mechanics, yet they chose to favor the shooter crowd. There's no denying that ME2 is an Action/Shooter game. If you consider it an RPG you really need to look at other RPG's and compare. ME2's gameplay structure is the exact same as Assassins Creed, minus the dialogue wheel. Both had armor customization, both had sidequests, although AC had better SQ's. ME2 had little to no exploration, AC has a ton of exploration.

Before I go off onto another subject all together, let me summarize my point - Mass Effect is starting to become nothing more than an interactive movie, with a predefined character. I'm still going to get the third game, but just for the sake of finishing the trilogy. If Bioware's interpretation of RPG's is nothing but michael bay explosions and camera angles + shooter combat, then I've got no further interest in them. I'm pretty sure I can speak for a lot of people when I say that we came to Bioware long ago because of the RPG's they made, and the stories they told. Both of those aspects have fallen drastically in the last two games. Unfortunately for them, there are people who can pull off shooter/action games better than them. They might as well stick to their guns rather than try to become just another shooter/action develpoper. The world already has enough of those, and we're coming to a point where people are going to get tired of all of that pew pew and CoD craze. There's only so much people can take.


-Polite

[Garrison2009]

Dangerfoot wrote...

Garrison2009 wrote...

I still honestly don't understand when role playing went from actually playing as a character in a fictional world (pretending you were in someone else shoes) to, for all intended purposes, statistics management (rearranging stats and sorting through hundreds of useless items in your inventory to find one that has a better Dexterity bonus or something)...

This. It's like half of the people who saw Dungeons & Dragons just completely missed the point.

Exactly my point Dangerfoot. Seriously dont know what happened to the true RPG...

[Terror_K]

Garrison2009 wrote...

I still honestly don't understand when role playing went from actually playing as a character in a fictional world (pretending you were in someone else shoes) to, for all intended purposes, statistics management (rearranging stats and sorting through hundreds of useless items in your inventory to find one that has a better Dexterity bonus or something)...

It's actually more the other way around when it comes to cRPGs. 10 years ago there would have been no real argument as to what an RPG was on gaming forums, as games knew what they were. It's only because of the increased focus on actual roleplaying as well as story, narrative, characters and choices & consequences with more recent titles from about the KotOR-era onwards that the issue has become confused, because overall the focus of a cRPG has shifted away from stats and more towards the actual roleplaying itself and the narrative. Many of the early cRPGs barely had a story, or at least nothing great that you could truly shape: it was all fairly linear and mostly a bunch of generic quests. It was the statistical stuff that was the focus and what mattered, because that's what was dynamic about the gameplay and determined success.

It's not really a bad shift in focus, but I do feel it's gone a bit far, and we're starting to leave behind too much of the old elements and are really just becoming a stone's throw away from merely being left with games that aren't truly RPGs any more but things like interactive movies or a story-driven action games (ala Heavy Rain and the Assassin's Creed titles respectively). I think the likes of KotOR and DAO pretty much nailed the right balance personally: both were good blends of classic RPG and modern RPG (KotOR was in many ways one of the major bridges in fact).

[sbvera13]

Dangerfoot wrote...
This. It's like half of the people who saw Dungeons & Dragons just completely missed the point.

Many did 30 years ago. Many still do.  Many others focused on characters and stories, and many still do.  But with human GM's, you can tailor the play to match your groups desires.  Take that away (as in CRPGs) and the progression type gameplay is all that's left.  Take THAT away and you have ME2

[Dangerfoot]

Il Divo wrote...

sbvera13 wrote...

Honestly, Borderlands was more of an RPG then ME2. I'm not refering to loot either, but character progression. Different talent builds differentiate characters quite a lot, and let you specialize your character's strengths to match your gameplay style. ME2 is merely a scavenger hunt for upgrades, and deciding which 4 out of 5 powers you want. If it didn't have such great voice acting and visual art, I would hardly play it.

While this is true in terms of stats, this is one of those cases where genre labels becomes problematic. Regardless of its genre, I do consider grinding-oriented gaming to be my least favorite kind, often because it doesn't even attempt to mask what the player is doing (Diablo, WoW, Borderlands, etc).

Agreed, I also prefer managable equipment upgrades to "Billions of randomized enchanted weapons!" Grinding and "gear progression" (ie making your character better primarily by keeping your gear up-to-date) are my least favorite bastardized RPG elements.

[Slothful Koala]

Did we just read the same comment? He clearly said they're still improving from ME2, either way I don't like sitting and putting points into stupid bars that display skills. That's not what makes a role playing game a role playing game.

[shepskisaac]

For me RPG was always about having the choice in the story and molding your own character. The specific gameplay mechanics do no bother me much. And I don't need games to fit any labels. If they're good, challenging and with rich gameplay, I'm good. Deus Ex and AssCreed are games you can hardly stamp any specific label on, but their gameplay is amazing. Do I wish they didn't remove many loot/skills/upgrades options in ME2? Yep. If it was already part of the franchise, then removing it is simply a regress. But I won't scream my lungs over it. The story, the choice, the characters, creating my Shepard are more important aspects to me in this franchise.

Modifié par IsaacShep, 01 juillet 2011 - 04:00 .

[Massadonious1]

Well, I'm fine with "traditional" RPG systems, when they work and/or make sense. Loot and stats made sense in the BG series because it was, well, an AD&D system. The weight tolerance for the inventory worked because that's pretty much how it always worked in that type of system. The weapons/armor contained significant upgrades in the context of the system. Lowering your THACO, acquiring new spell slots or some of the passive buffs you received always seemed more important than flat + <stat> upgrades and you could always offset that by chugging potions that provided similar effects.

In something like ME, however, the stats were completely arbitrary, and the inventory was an exercise in futility. I honestly couldn't notice any change in any of my weapons until I got to the higher tiers. The difference between something with 140 damage and 145 damage was so negligible it was ridiculous. I honestly couldn't notice any noticable change in my armor, either, unless the upgrade provided me with a extra little white sliver next to my squadmates names.

If you happen to enjoy inventory for the sake of an inventory, and arbitrary statistical upgrades just for the sake of BIGGAR NUMBARZ!!! then more power to you. However, I don't think the rest of us should suffer through bloated inventory screens and searching through weapons with no significant differences just so you can be comfortable with classifying it as an "RPG"

If Shepard has to stare at an inventory screen, it should be because he's collecting or buying parts and equipment to craft his own upgrades or weapons to use in the field, not because he has to sell 10x [Used Eezo Cores] and other useless junk he has no intention of using.

[sbvera13]

Dangerfoot wrote...

Il Divo wrote...

While this is true in terms of stats, this is one of those cases where genre labels becomes problematic. Regardless of its genre, I do consider grinding-oriented gaming to be my least favorite kind, often because it doesn't even attempt to mask what the player is doing (Diablo, WoW, Borderlands, etc).

Agreed, I also prefer managable equipment upgrades to "Billions of randomized enchanted weapons!" Grinding and "gear progression" (ie making your character better primarily by keeping your gear up-to-date) are my least favorite bastardized RPG elements.

Agreed with both.  I like RPG elements for the customization aspect, not the grind.  Deus Ex, I believe, is the Greatest Game Ever Made.  ME1 is a very close second, but that's mostly due to the creative aspects of it and not the grind/stat elements.  As such, I agree with Casey's original comment, but my faith in Bioware's ability to judge the distinctions between RPG and Action gameplay has been seriously wounded and I won't take the OP comment without a large grain of salt.

[Garrison2009]

Massadonious1 wrote...

Well, I'm fine with "traditional" RPG systems, when they work and/or make sense. Loot and stats made sense in the BG series because it was, well, an AD&D system. The weight tolerance for the inventory worked because that's pretty much how it always worked in that type of system. The weapons/armor contained significant upgrades in the context of the system. Lowering your THACO, acquiring new spell slots or some of the passive buffs you received always seemed more important than flat + <stat> upgrades and you could always offset that by chugging potions that provided similar effects.

In something like ME, however, the stats were completely arbitrary, and the inventory was an exercise in futility. I honestly couldn't notice any change in any of my weapons until I got to the higher tiers. The difference between something with 140 damage and 145 damage was so negligible it was ridiculous. I honestly couldn't notice any noticable change in my armor, either, unless the upgrade provided me with a extra little white sliver next to my squadmates names.

If you happen to enjoy inventory for the sake of an inventory, and arbitrary statistical upgrades just for the sake of BIGGAR NUMBARZ!!! then more power to you. However, I don't think the rest of us should suffer through bloated inventory screens and searching through weapons with no significant differences just so you can be comfortable with classifying it as an "RPG"

If Shepard has to stare at an inventory screen, it should be because he's collecting or buying parts and equipment to craft his own upgrades or weapons to use in the field, not because he has to sell 10x [Used Eezo Cores] and other useless junk he has no intention of using.

Excellent Massadonius. this is exactly what I'm trying to say. I for one honestly did not miss the inventory in Mass Effect 2 and it looks as though the way they're going in Mass Effect 3 is pretty good, allowing you to customize your weapons (With an actuall visual change.. FINALLY) without having the cumbersome inventory were you have to sort through a bunch of items that are completely worthless to you in order to find the one that you're looking for.

[Terror_K]

Massadonious1 wrote...

In something like ME, however, the stats were completely arbitrary, and the inventory was an exercise in futility. I honestly couldn't notice any change in any of my weapons until I got to the higher tiers. The difference between something with 140 damage and 145 damage was so negligible it was ridiculous. I honestly couldn't notice any noticable change in my armor, either, unless the upgrade provided me with a extra little white sliver next to my squadmates names.

If you happen to enjoy inventory for the sake of an inventory, and arbitrary statistical upgrades just for the sake of BIGGAR NUMBARZ!!! then more power to you. However, I don't think the rest of us should suffer through bloated inventory screens and searching through weapons with no significant differences just so you can be comfortable with classifying it as an "RPG"

If Shepard has to stare at an inventory screen, it should be because he's collecting or buying parts and equipment to craft his own upgrades or weapons to use in the field, not because he has to sell 10x [Used Eezo Cores] and other useless junk he has no intention of using.

What you say is all very well and has a good deal of logic to it, but aside from the often ignored fact that the ME1 way of doing things is not the only way of doing things, I honestly can't see how anybody can find a system whereby you have such a small amount of items that are in the same place every playthrough and can't be tweaked or upgraded beyond a linear, on-the-rails, autopilot research/upgrade system to be satisfying, let alone good or even acceptable.

To me a system that doesn't really allow any customisation whatsoever and is the same every time is even more tedious than one that's overcomplicated, cumbersome and filled with too much junk. I'd rather get to play with something properly even if it can get annoying than not get to really play at all. One is tedious because it's unnecessarily complicated while the other is tedious because it's unnecessarily oversimplified.

Modifié par Terror_K, 01 juillet 2011 - 04:09 .

[AlanC9]

Saphra Deden wrote...
Bioshock is not an RPG because there is no main character, there is just hands holding a weapon. You don't ever really see his thoughts or get introduced to him. It is an RPG in the sense that you do developed that character, but purely in a spread-sheet way as you assign points to increase stats. I never said that wasn't RPG, just that it wasn't the core.

I don't see my Morrowind PC unless I hit TAB. Is that an RPG even if I don't hit TAB?

[sbvera13]

Terror_K wrote...

To me a system that doesn't really allow any customisation whatsoever and is the same every time is even more tedious than one that's overcomplication, cumbersome and filled with too much junk. I'd rather get to play with something properly even if it can get annoying than not get to really play at all.

Agreed 10x.  Boredom kills a game for me far more quickly then inconvenience.

[rapscallioness]

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 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

This.

[TheMakoMaster]

i've always thought of the mass effect series as an awkward hybrid that is struggling to figure itself out.  While the conversation system of ME1 was pretty new (at least to me in its movie-like quality), the game was both a rather lackluster shooter and rpg.  ME2 tried to improve on the shooter aspect with some success (albeit with bullets that flew like nerf darts), but really "streamlined"  and "awesome-ized"  the character building options to a flaw....so i believe.  It seems like ME3 is sticking to the shooter side of things while attempting to add more depth to the power trees (well, straight lines).  If they can make it so my vanguard turns out to be a good deal different for someone else's, i'll consider it an improvement and be happy.   Right now, however, the only difference seems to be "do i max out shockwave or pull?"  Most def pull btw.

Edit:  I never found the ME1 loot system all that rewarding, but to totally do away with it in ME2 was even worse!

Modifié par TheMakoMaster, 01 juillet 2011 - 04:28 .