477 réponses à ce sujet

[littlezack]

If it changes at all, it's evolving, really.

[SalsaDMA]

littlezack wrote...

SalsaDMA wrote...

littlezack wrote...

You're not forced to take his cousin bowling. Just don't be surprised when the people in the game responds to your choice of NOT spending time with them, then. Take Kate, for example. I never really romanced her or anything, aside taking her out for a single date cause Packie told me to. Even so, she ended up being in the place plotwise where she did. The game didn't force me into behaving a certain way for the plot to unfold. Could the game have been more responding towards the choices you did while playing Niko in regards to the actual plot? Sure, but then again the game never claimed it was a rpg. ME2, however, DID claim that label, and still felt like it was playing secondviolin in as far as actually making the player feel he/she was playing the role of Shepard compared to
how GTA IV made the player feel he/she was playing the role of Niko.

But yes, it does at its very basic level 'develop' the character you are playing. either the character is a jerk that doesn't really care about his friends, or his friends are close to him and he spends time caring for and developing those friendships.

First off, while the game doesn't make you do anything, it bugs the hell out of you. Imagine if, in Mass Effect 2, Grunt constantly called you about doing his Loyalty Mission. Like, every ten minutes, just nagging you. And if you don't do it, he ****es on every mission you take him on. Realistic? Sure. Annoying as hell? Oh yeah.

And the reason I hate the dates isn't because of the people, it's because the minigames are boring. And then, when you don't want to do it, the game shames you and throws it in your face. How is that even realistic? When I tell my friend that I don't feel like doing something, he doesn't act like I've betrayed him, he just goes without me. Are there lives so shallow that they can't exist without Niko Bellic? Do they have no other friends, nobody else they could take to the strip club for 50th time?

Hmm... I don't recall them ****ing about it if I didn't hang out with them. Dwayne whined a bit cause I didn't hang out with him much, but Dwayne was also Dwayne, you know? technically he was having this shallow existence. Heck, he was even considering putting a bullet to his own head so full of selfpity he was.
I never went out with Packie, and he just accepted it. Little Jacob I sometimes went out with, sometimes not, and it only affected wether or not I could buy guns from him. He wasn't too hooked up on it, unless I stood him up (but that went for any of them, which is understandable). Brucie was Brucie. In a way, I guess you could tie him up as being somewhat like Dwayne in his need for constantly needing to feel accepted, and again it was part of his character.

Long story short, I felt any comments they made in regards to how I treated them was within their character.

As for how 'exciting' the minigames were.... I would still consider them slightly more interesting than the minigames of ME1 and ME2
Edit: At leat you played 'against' someone in the GTA minigames, whereas ME series were just doing the chore.

And now that I really stop and think about, most RPGs aren't like that at all. And they really shouldn't be.

I might be wrong, but I think every RPG ever made has had, bare minimum, one thing - a quest. Something that needs to be done above all else. Somewhere the characters have to go, somebody they have kill, something they need to get, whatever. You might get the occasional subplot or character development scene, but you don't see an RPG hero stopping to go bowling or do something that's completely superflouos to the main story. Quite frankly, they got **** to do.

Niko can get away with this somewhat, because he doesn't really have a goal, per se; he's just trying to get from day to day (and failing miserably) Shepard, on the other hand, is trying to stop the galaxy from being destroyed by giant, evil cuttlefish. I don't mind the occasional scene of him enjoying a drink or learning more about the crew - even soldiers in war talk to each other from time to time, it's to be expected. But he shouldn't be stopping by the Citadel for a go on the slot machines or anything like that.

I actually think a Normandy where you could spend time in the messhall with the crew, fling back some drinks in the bar while joking with your squadmates or just kick back in your bed while watching holovid news would be a richer experience overall. Anything to feel the world come more alive to be honest.

I don't think it was that long ago when alot of people commented how much they would love for the crew and squad to actually move around on the normandy and appear as if they were having a life of their own, rather than feel the ship was a static 3d still picture.

Rpgs are, at the very heart, about simulating situations and events in a believable simulated world. Rpg systems are formulas to come about this simulation. Pen and paper rpg systems is not only about combat. Lots of stuff gets written formulating how characters move about in the worlds, how various stuff interacts with each other and so on. Hell, my AD&D 2nd edition monster manuals got details about what time of the day stuff is awake, what kind of eating habbits they have and what their usual routines are when adventurers are not about, so the gamemaster can present more consistent believable settings with them when the players meet them.

[RyuGuitarFreak]

Someone With Mass wrote...

To expect the games to always stay the same is just silly.

End of thread. End of discussion.

[Radwar]

Spanky Magoo wrote...

I personally love what bioware is doing with the genre, putting story above the archaic rpg staples of the past.

So what you're saying is that RPG's like the Baldur's Gate series & KotOR which are cosidered among the best RPG's ever made didn't have a good story? Please, making a more detailed interface mechanics doesn't mean the story part will suffer for it.

Modifié par Radwar, 08 août 2011 - 06:54 .

[SalsaDMA]

RyuGuitarFreak wrote...

Someone With Mass wrote...

To expect the games to always stay the same is just silly.

End of thread. End of discussion.

But any change is not necesarily a good change.

Something some people seem to forget.

[littlezack]

I don't think it was that long ago when alot of people commented how much they would love for the crew and squad to actually move around on the normandy and appear as if they were having a life of their own, rather than feel the ship was a static 3d still picture.

I think ME1 and ME2 - especially ME2 - did this about right. Everyone on the Normandy is doing...something when you come to them. Granted, it's always the same thing, but at least it gives the impression that they're busy.

Well, okay, Jack and Grunt aren't doing anything, but that's probably because there's nothing really for them to do. Jack's favorite hobby is having sex and Grunt likes to kill people. We could probably give Grunt arcade machine and Jack...another type of machine. >_>

Modifié par littlezack, 08 août 2011 - 06:54 .

[SalsaDMA]

littlezack wrote...

I don't think it was that long ago when alot of people commented how much they would love for the crew and squad to actually move around on the normandy and appear as if they were having a life of their own, rather than feel the ship was a static 3d still picture.

I think ME1 and ME2 - especially ME2 - did this about right. Everyone on the Normandy is doing...something when you come to them. Granted, it's always the same thing, but at least it gives the impression that they're busy.

Well, okay, Jack and Grunt aren't doing anything, but that's probably because there's nothing really for them to do.

sorry, I missed what you were saying.. I were calibrating these guns...

[Wusword77]

This rant should have started by explaining what an RPG is, before asking if the genre is evolving or dying.

Considering when you ask 10 people what an RPG is and you get 10 different answers this rant is kind of pointless.

[RyuGuitarFreak]

SalsaDMA wrote...

RyuGuitarFreak wrote...

Someone With Mass wrote...

To expect the games to always stay the same is just silly.

End of thread. End of discussion.

But any change is not necesarily a good change.

Something some people seem to forget.

Whatever. That's not the point. And that's YOUR OPINION.

Don't like it, don't buy it, don't playt it, sell it.

Edit: Oh, and just one thing I forgot: DEAL WITH IT.

Modifié par RyuGuitarFreak, 08 août 2011 - 07:08 .

[Dionkey]

Making something "easier and more accessible" is like taking all of the plays out of a sport and just letting them run around trying to score points. The idea that we need to make the games less complex (What game in reality is so complex that it's a chore? Aside from EVE and X3) to create a market for a generation that is unwilling to adapt is RIDICULOUS and downright insulting to the people who have been here the whole time.

[sg1fan75]

DA2 sucked not because of RPG elements. It sucked for a crappy story, excessively reused environments, and followers that made me hate all of them, I will never play any new DA again I still feel cheated and abused. MA2 was so good I can hardly find reason to complain, if it had a little more RPG elements it would be cool, as long as the action is still as good or better in ME3 it works for me.

[Dionkey]

sg1fan75 wrote...

DA2 sucked not because of RPG elements. It sucked for a crappy story, excessively reused environments, and followers that made me hate all of them, I will never play any new DA again I still feel cheated and abused. MA2 was so good I can hardly find reason to complain, if it had a little more RPG elements it would be cool, as long as the action is still as good or better in ME3 it works for me.

I consider ME2 to be a side story and not a sequel to ME1, it helps me sleep.

[Ultai]

Wusword77 wrote...

This rant should have started by explaining what an RPG is, before asking if the genre is evolving or dying.

Considering when you ask 10 people what an RPG is and you get 10 different answers this rant is kind of pointless.

This.  When the hardcore rpg players can finally come to an agreement about wtf constitutes an rpg, I'll start to care about their complaining, this coming from somene who's played D&D to final fantasy and the like.

Things change.

Well except war.....

[sg1fan75]

I loved ME1 for the story and the team but combat was not very good in ME2 I still loved the story and the shooting and powers felt tight it was a vast improvement I would like a little more RPG but I am still having fun ME3 will be good just keep the DA2 people away from ME3 far away.

[TheKillerAngel]

[In Mass Effect] An incredibly robust inventory, weapon and armor system allowed different ammo types to be equipped for dealing with different enemies, and armor could be upgraded, adapted, bought and sold from different vendors across the universe.

LOL

When you describe it like that, a shit sandwich sounds appetizing. Mass Effect had far from a "robust inventory, weapon and armor system." Hell, Battlefield Bad Company 2 has a FAR better weapon loadout, because the weapons you can select from are actually different in meaningful ways. Mass Effect's armor and weapon upgrades were a good concept marred by their repetitive nature. And vendoring/omnigelling trash hardly counts as a robust internal economy.

[GunMoth]

As I'm sure plenty of people pointed out: This article is biased.


Secondly, a lot of the companies that were pretty well known for making good rpgs are doing one of two things:

1) Expanding to a larger market in order to get a larger production budget to make their game more cinematic in terms of narrative and visuals.

2) Staying independent and making more small/niche games while working with what they're given.

There are tons of great niche RPGs out there that have a lot to offer in terms of stats and combat. Demon's Souls, etc. A lot of RPG devs have been switching over to handhelds because of production costs. Shin Megami Tensei: Strange Journey was a fantastic JRPG/dungeon crawler with an extremely original narrative.

Its because they don't have the budget to market their games that causes them to go under the radar.

As far as western RPGs go, I kind of think its a good thing they're "dumbing" down the content in order to experiment with graphics/cinematic presentation. Not because I like those kinds of games, but because video games / technology is evolving and they're paving the way for the industry in terms of utilizing that new technology in an extremely innovative way.

I like to view them as the test subjects.

Modifié par GunMoth, 08 août 2011 - 08:14 .

[jamskinner]

I think if people don't like the direction then they should make their own game. Put their money where there mouth is.

[GunMoth]

Also, by the end of ME1 on insanity I was able to literally blast my way through the game. Biotics were over powered, and playing as a medic so you could spam healing tech was crazy.

Insanity in ME2 is an entirely different story.

[spirosz]

Wusword77 wrote...

This rant should have started by explaining what an RPG is, before asking if the genre is evolving or dying.

Considering when you ask 10 people what an RPG is and you get 10 different answers this rant is kind of pointless.

Exactly.

[Dycerrrr]

I don't really think it's "biased" to ask a legitimate question

[GunMoth]

Dionkey wrote...

sg1fan75 wrote...

DA2 sucked not because of RPG elements. It sucked for a crappy story, excessively reused environments, and followers that made me hate all of them, I will never play any new DA again I still feel cheated and abused. MA2 was so good I can hardly find reason to complain, if it had a little more RPG elements it would be cool, as long as the action is still as good or better in ME3 it works for me.

I consider ME2 to be a side story and not a sequel to ME1, it helps me sleep.

ME2's main goal was to introduce important characters and factions that will ultimately be a huge part of ME3 - imo I think a lot of the comics and books should have been a part of ME2, but I understand that Shepard doesn't have to be a part of every important story that occurs in the Mass Effect universe. Having other characters who are just as important/powerful as Shepard out there making a difference on their own agenda really fleshes the world out a bit more. :3

DA2's narrative was just disjointed all over the goddamned place. :c Who introduces the antagonist of one of the center conflicts of the game during the FINAL ACT?! That would be like if they introduced Saren right when Shep arrived on Ilos. ffuuuhh

[Dycerrrr]

Dionkey wrote...

Making something "easier and more accessible" is like taking all of the plays out of a sport and just letting them run around trying to score points. The idea that we need to make the games less complex (What game in reality is so complex that it's a chore? Aside from EVE and X3) to create a market for a generation that is unwilling to adapt is RIDICULOUS and downright insulting to the people who have been here the whole time.

...clap...clap...clap. Thank you.

[GunMoth]

Dycerrrr wrote...

I don't really think it's "biased" to ask a legitimate question

It is when majority of the poll options are just reflecting the opinion of the creator - there is only one "I like that RPGs are accessable" option - but it doesn't even begin to explain the way the industry is evolving right now. 

There is FAR more to the gaming industry than just "devs don't love us and they are hungry for money". 

Spending millions of dollars to produce something that wouldn't be accessable to a large audience is just bad business - people who can't see that need to wake up. 

Modifié par GunMoth, 08 août 2011 - 08:48 .

[Dycerrrr]

GunMoth wrote...

Dycerrrr wrote...

I don't really think it's "biased" to ask a legitimate question

It is when majority of the poll options are just reflecting the opinion of the creator - there is only one "I like that RPGs are accessable" option - but it doesn't even begin to explain the way the industry is evolving right now. 

There is FAR more to the gaming industry than just "devs don't love us and they are hungry for money". 

Spending millions of dollars to produce something that wouldn't be accessable to a large audience is just bad business - people who can't see that need to wake up. 

I don't know how you think "I prefer action over RPG elements." is supporting the opinion of the writer that RPGs are being watered down in favor of action

And if you seriously are saying that RPGS are being turned into simplistic action games because they can make more money, and you consider that "Evolving," I'm pretty sure you missed the entire point of the article.

"Instead of proving that an RPG could be made into a cinematic,
story-driven adventure game with competent shooting, the developers
simply avoided the task by changing the very nature of the game."

That says it all. Rather than trying to make a role-playing experience into one that lots of people couold enjoy, they took out all the things that made it actually fit into the 'RPG' genre, thereby CHANGING it into something that their fans don't care about: a third-person-shooter.

[GunMoth]

Dycerrrr wrote...

GunMoth wrote...

Dycerrrr wrote...

I don't really think it's "biased" to ask a legitimate question

It is when majority of the poll options are just reflecting the opinion of the creator - there is only one "I like that RPGs are accessable" option - but it doesn't even begin to explain the way the industry is evolving right now. 

There is FAR more to the gaming industry than just "devs don't love us and they are hungry for money". 

Spending millions of dollars to produce something that wouldn't be accessable to a large audience is just bad business - people who can't see that need to wake up. 

I don't know how you think "I prefer action over RPG elements." is supporting the opinion of the writer that RPGs are being watered down in favor of action

And if you seriously are saying that RPGS are being turned into simplistic action games because they can make more money, and you consider that "Evolving," I'm pretty sure you missed the entire point of the article.

"Instead of proving that an RPG could be made into a cinematic,
story-driven adventure game with competent shooting, the developers
simply avoided the task by changing the very nature of the game."

That says it all. Rather than trying to make a role-playing experience into one that lots of people couold enjoy, they took out all the things that made it actually fit into the 'RPG' genre, thereby CHANGING it into something that their fans don't care about: a third-person-shooter.

I didn't take that out of the article or the quotes you just posted. :/ My assumption was that the author was pointing out that devs are avoiding making RPGs in the basic western stat-distributing format in order to appeal to a mass market and how that is a BAD thing. 

I'll reread it I guess.