477 réponses à ce sujet

[Gatt9]

DxWill10 wrote...

This part from the article made me laugh: "We’re not saying one is better than the other, but..."

You didn't just spend the entire article explaining why you thought the cumbersome inventroy system in ME1 was superior to the smooth compelling flawless gameplay of ME2?

I loved ME1. I loved ME2 better.

ME2 was absolutely better received as a whole than ME1 was. ME2 was rated higher than ME1 by every major video game rating corporation. Regardless of what anyone think, the facts speak for themselves.
ME2 was without a doubt amazingly well received, more so than ME1. Personally, I hope ME3 is the exact same as ME2, with some customization elements from ME1. Regardless, ME3 will be the best of the series.

Also, RPGs are evolving obviously, by definition. Just because you don't like the evolution doesn't mean it isn't evolution

DA2 got several perfect scores,  and a number of good reviews,  that didn't make it a great game.  It made it obvious that the gaming press is reviewing advertiser's dollars,  not games.  Which pretty much describes what happened with ME2 considering it's AI was surpassed over 10 years ago.

Genre shifting isn't evolution.  Making a TPS and putting "RPG" on the box doesn't change RPG's,  it's just mislabelling the TPS.  Evolution would be progressing the genre more fully to the thing it attempts to emulate,  a PnP RPG. 

Ah, so the ability to alter the games story based on what you do is what makes an RPG for you? Then Bioshock Infininte fits your bill. The last 15 minute game play teaser showed two branching spots. In one you could choose to scavenge for more resources, or continue straight to your objective, the other involved saving a man from a lynch mob or letting him die. Not only that, but the way you treat your female companion (Elizabeth I think) and her Guardian/Jealous Ex-boyfriend, Songbird, dictates how the story goes.

The same is true of Dishonored where the story changes depending on how much chaos you leave in your wake, and Prey 2 in which your moral choices dictate how the world reacts to you. X-men destiny also has a branching story dependant on you decisions, same with Kingdoms of Amular, Skyrim, Deus Ex, and X-com.

That's narrative technique.  Mechanics define genres,  not stories,  not narrative techniques.  No genre is defined by narrative technique.  Not in movies,  not in TV,  not in books.  None of them are Comedy just because someone told a joke,  they're comedy because the entire focus of the presentation is meant to garner laughs.  A game is not an RPG just because it had a story with branches,  it's an RPG because it has RPG mechanics.

What is so hard about RPG's requiring RPG mechanics?  As I said before,  we can't demand a Third-person FPS,  we can't demand a Real-time-turn-based Strategy,  why do people keep insisting a Shooter is an RPG?

It's blindingly obvious that the problem is that people want a Shooter or an Adventure game with a narrative and interaction,  so why don't people go demand the makers of those games put them in,  instead of demanding that RPG makers start making Shooters and Adventure games?

[habitat 67]

  How a game that embraces futurism manages to attract the attention of such an aggressive group of Amish gamers is baffling to me.  I mean, the advent of electricity was surely upsetting to you too but it's time to buck up and move forward now that the public at large is used to using it.

[Slayer299]

Nohvarr wrote...

Sice you had a moral choice, and were given a limited amout of resources and the ability to build your character in a fashion you the player choose.

No, Bioshock is not a RPG, it's a shooter, as stated by Ken Levine the lead dev.

Diablo 3 is hack n' slash/dungeon crawl

So the ability to build ones character with loot and skill upgrades is no longer considered 'RPG enough'?

LOL, seriously? You're saying that D3 or any of the D's are RPG's? That is rich. It's a dungeon crawl with skill upgrades and looting. So by that logic then that makes Torchlight or any other crawl an RPG as well. There is nothing RPG-ish outside of that for D3. See lots of enemies, kill lots of enemies, pick up magic loot and choose between either Leap Attack or Whirlwind. But change the world, affect the world any? Make any actual decisions, no.

[Nohvarr]

Gatt9 wrote...

Ah, so the ability to alter the games story based on what you do is what makes an RPG for you? Then Bioshock Infininte fits your bill. The last 15 minute game play teaser showed two branching spots. In one you could choose to scavenge for more resources, or continue straight to your objective, the other involved saving a man from a lynch mob or letting him die. Not only that, but the way you treat your female companion (Elizabeth I think) and her Guardian/Jealous Ex-boyfriend, Songbird, dictates how the story goes.

The same is true of Dishonored where the story changes depending on how much chaos you leave in your wake, and Prey 2 in which your moral choices dictate how the world reacts to you. X-men destiny also has a branching story dependant on you decisions, same with Kingdoms of Amular, Skyrim, Deus Ex, and X-com.

That's narrative technique.  Mechanics define genres,  not stories,  not narrative techniques.  No genre is defined by narrative technique.  Not in movies,  not in TV,  not in books.  None of them are Comedy just because someone told a joke,  they're comedy because the entire focus of the presentation is meant to garner laughs.  A game is not an RPG just because it had a story with branches,  it's an RPG because it has RPG mechanics.

Ah so now we know where you and Marshalleck disagree, good to note.

So, the following games I listed have significant RPG mechanics

Dishonored
Skyrim
X-men Destiny
X-com
Diablo 3
The Old Republic
Mass Effect 3 (We've seen character upgrades/brancing, and weapon upgrades/branching)
Deus Ex: HR (check out the vids on the four pillars)
Kingdoms of Amalur
Borderlands 2

It's blindingly obvious that the problem is that people want a Shooter or an Adventure game with a narrative and interaction,  so why don't people go demand the makers of those games put them in,  instead of demanding that RPG makers start making Shooters and Adventure games?

Here's the problem, this is the game Bioware wanted to make. No one twisted their arm, and told them to make a third person action/rpg hybrid. They took that step on their own when they made Mass Effect. The sequel is just another step in refining how to make a good hybrid. They've been moving towards a more natural Action/RPG blend since Jade Empire. If you recall the control scheme they eventually used was not what they originally designed. I still recall seeing that Jade Empire gameplay vid with more fluid looking fight sequence than what we eventually recieved in game.

LOL, seriously? You're saying that D3 or any of the D's are RPG's? That is rich. It's a dungeon crawl with skill upgrades and looting. So by that logic then that makes Torchlight or any other crawl an RPG as well. There is nothing RPG-ish outside of that for D3. See lots of enemies, kill lots of enemies, pick up magic loot and choose between either Leap Attack or Whirlwind. But change the world, affect the world any? Make any actual decisions, no.

But Gatt just said mechanics matter more than narration/story. Which one of you is right?

Modifié par Nohvarr, 09 août 2011 - 02:32 .

[Fhaileas]

RPGs are dodoing.

[Il Divo]

Gatt9 wrote...


It's blindingly obvious that the problem is that people want a Shooter or an Adventure game with a narrative and interaction,  so why don't people go demand the makers of those games put them in,  instead of demanding that RPG makers start making Shooters and Adventure games?

Because it's a time-honored tradition which has been done since the existence of pen and paper, that's why. Bioware has a reputation for interactive stories. Other game makers don't. Petitioning Bungie to implement an interactive narrative is as likely to succeed as asking them to make sports games. On the other hand, Bioware has demonstrated from the beginning that they care about the interactive narrative, more than "RPG mechanics", as KotOR, Jade Empire, and the Mass Effect series demonstrate.

If this were not the case, they would have kept the stat-mechanics and removed the player choice.

Modifié par Il Divo, 09 août 2011 - 02:44 .

[ThanesSniper]

 If RPG mechanics make a game an RPG, then I guess Halo's multiplayer is an RPG.

• You can customize your armor color and look, as well as the voice you use
• There is a loot system
• There is an experience and level up system

Obviously though, we all know Halo's multiplayer is not an RPG and that I'm simplifying things to make a point, but it still stands that mechanics are not the only thing that makes a game an RPG.

 

[Wusword77]

Gatt9 wrote...

You're right,  this is the crux of the problem,  but it's not that "Everyone has a different idea",  it's that there's people who hate RPG mechanics but for some strange reason want to pretend they like RPG's.  Remove the RPG mechanics,  you get an Adventure Game or a Shooter with a story,  the mechanics are what defines the genre.

What are the defining mechanics of a RPG then?  You talk about these mechanics like everyone knows what they are yet you don't list them.

Just like an FPS is defined by FPP and Shooting,  you cannot have a Third-person FPS.  You cannot have a Real-time-turn-based strategy.  You cannot have an RPG without a defined character whose Role you assume.

In Duke Nukem you assume the role of Duke, in God of War you assume the role of Kratos, In Uncharted you assume the role of Nathen Drake.  All of those Characters are defined.  That doesn't make those games RPGs. Your argument is falling apart.

People want to pretend Oblivion and Skyrim are RPG's,  despite the fact that they lack pretty much all RPG elements (Thanks to level scaling making them redundant or outright removal).  They're not,  and they never will be.  They remain Adventure games,  no different from Tomb Raider in form and function.

So for a game to be an RPG one of the main aspects isn't that it has levels (and thus character progression) but level scaling ruins it, however if you called the enemies different names and give them a different color at those higher levels it'd be ok.  Your view on this seems to be really narrow.

The genres are what they are,  and everything falls into them.  Just like movies,  just like TV,  just like Books.

True, genres are defined but there are many genres based upon how much you define them.  You can say there is only Action, Comedy, Drama, and Childrens movies but that does a disservice to films like The Dark Knight (as much Drama as Action if not more), Hot Fuzz (Action Comedy), and Saving Private Ryan (Action Drama).  If films/books/TV can pull across genre why can't games?  Why must game genre be so defined but other mediums can't?

I'm always amazed that people demand RPG's be something they're not,  and never have been,  just to wear the "RPG Player" badge.  I often wonder if they go on flight sim boards and demand they be made like Wing Commander?  Because it makes about as much sense to demand RPG's play like Tomb Raider or Gears of War.

Then what should a RPG play like?  Should it play like Dragon Quest?  Final Fantasy? Star Ocean? Balders Gate? Ultima?  KotOR?  Neverwinter?  DA:O?  Tactics Orge? Witcher 2?  DA2?  Or are none of those RPGs?

[Il Divo]

Wusword77 wrote...

So for a game to be an RPG one of the main aspects isn't that it has levels (and thus character progression) but level scaling ruins it, however if you called the enemies different names and give them a different color at those higher levels it'd be ok.  Your view on this seems to be really narrow.

Agreed. A game implementing bad mechanics means that it implemented bad mechanics. It should not have any effect on a game's genre. It's like saying Mass Effect isn't an RPG for having a bad inventory system. Oblivion's craptastic level scaling means that it's a bad RPG, nothing more.

[Savber100]

Il Divo wrote...

Gatt9 wrote...


It's blindingly obvious that the problem is that people want a Shooter or an Adventure game with a narrative and interaction,  so why don't people go demand the makers of those games put them in,  instead of demanding that RPG makers start making Shooters and Adventure games?

Because it's a time-honored tradition which has been done since the existence of pen and paper, that's why. Bioware has a reputation for interactive stories. Other game makers don't. Petitioning Bungie to implement an interactive narrative is as likely to succeed as asking them to make sports games. On the other hand, Bioware has demonstrated from the beginning that they care about the interactive narrative, more than "RPG mechanics", as KotOR, Jade Empire, and the Mass Effect series demonstrates.

If this were not the case, they would have kept the stat-mechanics and removed the player choice.

This dude gets it. 

I think I have argued more than several times that Bioware have always wanted to make interactive stories with choices over making a pure role-playing game akin to Baldur's Gate 2 and Planescape. Hence why Bioware games have gone more linear and more cinematic. If Bioware had the option to either totally removing character role-playing (stats, skills, inventory etc) or an interactive story akin to Heavy Rain, they would choose the latter in every case. 

Bioware doesn't suck at making RPGs, they just don't want to make RPGs and would prefer to more action/adventure with RPG elements hybrids. 

Bioware have always sought out the perfect mechanics in telling the best story over the preferred mechanics in making a RPG.  Simply put, they want to be known as the best storyteller than best RPG developer in the gaming business. 

Modifié par Savber100, 09 août 2011 - 02:52 .

[Someone With Mass]

Oh boy. The thread has turned into a "this is an RPG" thread.

Again. They always do.

[marshalleck]

Fhaileas wrote...

RPGs are dodoing.

It's for the best. That which isn't strong or capable of adapting dies and makes room for those who are. 

Modifié par marshalleck, 09 août 2011 - 02:52 .

[sedrikhcain]

Gatt9 wrote...

DxWill10 wrote...

This part from the article made me laugh: "We’re not saying one is better than the other, but..."

You didn't just spend the entire article explaining why you thought the cumbersome inventroy system in ME1 was superior to the smooth compelling flawless gameplay of ME2?

I loved ME1. I loved ME2 better.

ME2 was absolutely better received as a whole than ME1 was. ME2 was rated higher than ME1 by every major video game rating corporation. Regardless of what anyone think, the facts speak for themselves.
ME2 was without a doubt amazingly well received, more so than ME1. Personally, I hope ME3 is the exact same as ME2, with some customization elements from ME1. Regardless, ME3 will be the best of the series.

Also, RPGs are evolving obviously, by definition. Just because you don't like the evolution doesn't mean it isn't evolution

DA2 got several perfect scores,  and a number of good reviews,  that didn't make it a great game.  It made it obvious that the gaming press is reviewing advertiser's dollars,  not games.  Which pretty much describes what happened with ME2 considering it's AI was surpassed over 10 years ago.

Genre shifting isn't evolution.  Making a TPS and putting "RPG" on the box doesn't change RPG's,  it's just mislabelling the TPS.  Evolution would be progressing the genre more fully to the thing it attempts to emulate,  a PnP RPG. 

Ah, so the ability to alter the games story based on what you do is what makes an RPG for you? Then Bioshock Infininte fits your bill. The last 15 minute game play teaser showed two branching spots. In one you could choose to scavenge for more resources, or continue straight to your objective, the other involved saving a man from a lynch mob or letting him die. Not only that, but the way you treat your female companion (Elizabeth I think) and her Guardian/Jealous Ex-boyfriend, Songbird, dictates how the story goes.

The same is true of Dishonored where the story changes depending on how much chaos you leave in your wake, and Prey 2 in which your moral choices dictate how the world reacts to you. X-men destiny also has a branching story dependant on you decisions, same with Kingdoms of Amular, Skyrim, Deus Ex, and X-com.

That's narrative technique.  Mechanics define genres,  not stories,  not narrative techniques.  No genre is defined by narrative technique.  Not in movies,  not in TV,  not in books.  None of them are Comedy just because someone told a joke,  they're comedy because the entire focus of the presentation is meant to garner laughs.  A game is not an RPG just because it had a story with branches,  it's an RPG because it has RPG mechanics.

What is so hard about RPG's requiring RPG mechanics?  As I said before,  we can't demand a Third-person FPS,  we can't demand a Real-time-turn-based Strategy,  why do people keep insisting a Shooter is an RPG?

It's blindingly obvious that the problem is that people want a Shooter or an Adventure game with a narrative and interaction,  so why don't people go demand the makers of those games put them in,  instead of demanding that RPG makers start making Shooters and Adventure games?

Who is demanding that rpg makers start making shooters and adventure games? Even if you embrace such limiting labels, I don't see anyone demanding such.

[Savber100]

Someone With Mass wrote...

Oh boy. The thread has turned into a "this is an RPG" thread.

Again. They always do.

It's a time-honored tradition on the BSN. 

[Il Divo]

Someone With Mass wrote...

Oh boy. The thread has turned into a "this is an RPG" thread.

Again. They always do.

Because of the nature of the question. How can we answer whether RPGs are dying if we don't have an accepted definition of RPG? I'm actually surprised it's managed to go this long, since any question is bound to fall back to "What is an RPG?" Of course, the diverse # of available playstyles in pen and paper itself makes finding a single definition very difficult.

[sedrikhcain]

Savber100 wrote...

Il Divo wrote...

Gatt9 wrote...


It's blindingly obvious that the problem is that people want a Shooter or an Adventure game with a narrative and interaction,  so why don't people go demand the makers of those games put them in,  instead of demanding that RPG makers start making Shooters and Adventure games?

Because it's a time-honored tradition which has been done since the existence of pen and paper, that's why. Bioware has a reputation for interactive stories. Other game makers don't. Petitioning Bungie to implement an interactive narrative is as likely to succeed as asking them to make sports games. On the other hand, Bioware has demonstrated from the beginning that they care about the interactive narrative, more than "RPG mechanics", as KotOR, Jade Empire, and the Mass Effect series demonstrates.

If this were not the case, they would have kept the stat-mechanics and removed the player choice.

This dude gets it. 

I think I have argued more than several times that Bioware have always wanted to make interactive stories with choices over making a pure role-playing game akin to Baldur's Gate 2 and Planescape. Hence why Bioware games have gone more linear and more cinematic. If Bioware had the option to either totally removing character role-playing (stats, skills, inventory etc) or an interactive story akin to Heavy Rain, they would choose the latter in every case. 

Bioware doesn't suck at making RPGs, they just don't want to make RPGs and would prefer to more action/adventure with RPG elements hybrids. 

Bioware have always sought out the perfect mechanics in telling the best story over the preferred mechanics in making a RPG.  Simply put, they want to be known as the best storyteller than best RPG developer in the gaming business. 

Right, which is why it's unfortunate that they have to label their games in order to sell them. It results in "rpg purists" getting up in arms and the rest of us calling them snobs.

[Nightdragon8]

so it comes back to what defines a RPG. I think if anything that is the real arugment that needs to be talked about. Because it seems one person's RPG is not another person's RPG.

I agree with Wusword77 why can't games be multiple things. I like Mass effect, Dragon Age, Diablo 1&2 (not going to get 3) I also like shooters, but I also like Table-top RPG. Its not the same its just different kind of game.

So you have Action shooter inside your RPG. And now "Movie/Game" as it is now.

[Someone With Mass]

Il Divo wrote...

Because of the nature of the question. How can we answer whether RPGs are dying if we don't have an accepted definition of RPG? I'm actually surprised it's managed to go this long, since any question is bound to fall back to "What is an RPG?" Of course, the diverse # of available playstyles in pen and paper itself makes finding a single definition very difficult.

In that case, people should formulate their questions better, so it doesn't turn into the same thing over and over again.

Then again, that's all these threads have been. Whining about how Mass Effect is less of an RPG because of some decisions BioWare made that some people didn't like.

[Jaron Oberyn]

Dycerrrr wrote...

gamerant.com/mass-effect-3-fans-accessible-dyce-99145/

BioWare's marketing boss gave an interview that scared the crap out of me. Apparently all the decisions I made over the past two games are going to result in 'subtle nods' for me in my story. And according to him, it's not even that likely that I remember all the choices I made in my first and second playthroughs (?!?!?!?!)

Haha, he obviously didn't hit the awesome button on a calculator.  How does he figure that Mass Effect 1 came out 8 years ago? It was released in '07, which makes it 4 years ago. Personally I think they should stick this guy back to the Da franchise, because all he's done with Mass Effect is ****** off a bunch of people who supported and bought the previous 2 games. 

-Polite

[Nohvarr]

Honestly, I'm starting to think people just need an excuse to argue about something. A chance to prove their way is better than yours, or a soap box from which to rant about what bugs them. It's one of the reasons I rarely come around any more. When I leave for a few weeks then come back and see the same argument being started again, I start to wonder what's the point. I'm not going to change Gatt, Marshellck, Terror K or any of their minds, and when it comes right down to it, I don't care if they like the game.

All of them can voice how much they hate the game after it comes out and I really won't care. They can tell me that it's not an RPG, dosen't have enough depth, or isn't as good as they think it could've been and it won't affect how much I enjoy the game one bit. They can tell me RPG's are dying, and then I can look at 10 games coming out before 2013 that look like fun RPG's and come to a vastly different conclusion.

I just start to realize that continuing these arguments accomplishes nothing except giving them a chance to vent and I no longer see a reason to enable them to do so on these forums.

Modifié par Nohvarr, 09 août 2011 - 03:05 .

[Jaron Oberyn]

sedrikhcain wrote...

PoliteAssasin wrote...

DxWill10 wrote...

This part from the article made me laugh: "We’re not saying one is better than the other, but..."

You didn't just spend the entire article explaining why you thought the cumbersome inventroy system in ME1 was superior to the smooth compelling flawless gameplay of ME2?

I loved ME1. I loved ME2 better.

ME2 was absolutely better received as a whole than ME1 was. ME2 was rated higher than ME1 by every major video game rating corporation. Regardless of what anyone think, the facts speak for themselves.
ME2 was without a doubt amazingly well received, more so than ME1. Personally, I hope ME3 is the exact same as ME2, with some customization elements from ME1. Regardless, ME3 will be the best of the series.

Also, RPGs are evolving obviously, by definition. Just because you don't like the evolution doesn't mean it isn't evolution

Just because a bunch of CoD saturated casual gaming review sites gave it high scores doesn't make it a better game. The Mass Effect franchise, thanks to ME2, is struggling to find out what genre it is. Is it an RPG, or is it a Shooter? Bioware's leaning towards the shooting side, although they leave a few role playing elements. However, some of these roleplaying elements are starting to disappear, and it looks like ME3 will be full GoW clone. That's what they're aiming for unfortunately. As the article pointed out, instead of showing how an RPG can have good RPG elements, story, and combat, they opted out for the cheap way and made it a third person shooter. I enjoy the game, don't get me wrong, but I don't enjoy ME2 as an RPG because it simply isn't. If you consider ME2 an RPG, then you'll have to include AC:2, because it's pretty much the same minus the dialogue system, although AC:2 has better exploration.


-Polite

just out of curiosity, can you name a game out in the last, say, 4 years that you consider an RPG?

Sure, Mass Effect 1, and Dragon Age Origins. 


-Polite

[Wusword77]

Golden Owl wrote...

So long as Silverman is just talking out of his *ss and is wrong, I will be happy...I will be VERY unhappy if those of us who have played the series and want to see real repercussions to our decisions are tossed aside in favor of new comers...HEY SILVERMAN...I remember all the choices I made, what I saw, where I went in ME1 and I expect it to MATTER!!

In What way do you want the decisions from ME1 and ME2 to "matter?"

If your a Paragon Shepard is Conrad supposed to show up at your Last Stand against the Reaper Armada with everyone you saved/helped and do a Care Bear Stare to kill all the Reapers?  Is your Renegade given control over the council because everyone is scared of Shepard?

The number of decisions that Shepard has made that would have a Galaxy wide impact in the short term can be counted on 1 hand.  How much impact do people think saving the Patriarch or helping Conrad will have on the game?

[Bryy_Miller]

Guys. The Fox News of video game journalism is Kotaku. Come on now.

[Chanegade]

You know I really hate the word "Roll-Playing Game" What exactly is an RPG anyway?
If you ask people, they will all give you different answers.
For example, some people will say that the Witcher 2 is a had core RPG because you can change the story line while others will say it's just an action adventure game because you only have one style of play.

EDIT: I just found the other topic "How do you difine an RPG?" so I'll just read that.

Modifié par Chanegade, 09 août 2011 - 03:32 .

[gamer_girl]

It all comes down to one factor - money. If they were to ignore what the mass wants to focus on a small group of fans (meaning not every fan wants the same things), they'd likely lose money or simply make back the money they spent to make the game in the first place. In a perfect world where money wasn't the first priority of businesses, then of course they'd focus on the existing fans. To say this in simple terms: if people don't like the RPGs big game companies are making now, don't play 'em. That simple. You're more likely to find what you want with an indie company. Unless you're payin' for the production and don't want to make your money back, it's not exactly fair to expect something to be catered to one small group of people. People aim to have their products appeal to the masses. That simple.

Edit:
So in essence what I'm trying to say is no, RPGs aren't dying. What is I guess "dying" is appreciation for games that may not be perfect, but still have many amazing qualities as well. A common trend now is overanalytical people going straight to the negatives. While profit is the number one objective, the second thing on devs' minds is their fans.

Modifié par gamer_girl, 09 août 2011 - 03:38 .