477 réponses à ce sujet

[Someone With Mass]

If BioWare wants to go down that road, who am I to judge?

[LTiberious]

I like where this is going, simpliicity, accesibility... Never undderstood the whole trend of old rpgs are awesome. Yeah, they were good for theyre time, but it is simmilar to the situation when girls start complaining about knights on white horses not being present in current spacetime. Or that men want physical beauty from a lady, not moral. And that men dont declarate lyrics to their women... etc


Times change and the reality changes with it.

[marshalleck]

Oh, and to answer the question posed in the title: both.

The old have to die to make room for the new.

[darknoon5]

To quote my post from the other thread:

darknoon5 wrote...

Terror_K wrote...

Just
found this article recently, looking at RPGs and where they're going,
particularly Mass Effect, Dragon Age and The Elder Scrolls:-

gamerant.com/skyrim-dragon-age-2-mass-effect-3-rpgs-dying-dyce-68478/

Some
interesting points in there, especially about Mass Effect 3. Also
interesting is the voting at the end of the article. After voting myself
the following seems to show that many RPG fans aren't happy with the
way things are going either...

How do you feel about the recent trend in RPG games?[*]I want details, depth and customization in my RPGs. (50%, 1,894 Votes)[*]The genre is becoming so "dumbed down" it's going to be ruined! (27%, 1,032 Votes)[*]I love that they're more accessible and easier to play! (12%, 440 Votes)[*]I'm not really sure. (5%, 174 Votes)[*]I prefer action over RPG elements. (4%, 171 Votes)What's an RPG? (2%, 107 Votes)[/list]Total Voters: 3,819

The
thing is, Mass Effect 3, a hybrid has been lumped with what shoudl be
pure RPG's. I was dissapointed by the lack of SOME RPG features in DA2,
and I'm dissaapointed that from what I hear, classes, attributes, and
some skills are gone from Skyrim. That means I'd probably vote option 1.
Also, depth, details and customization seem to fit with much of what
we've seen of ME3 so far, eg. weapon benches, improved power branching
when leveling. I was dissapointed with DA2 and Skyrim (well, in some
ways) because I've always viewed them as RPG'S. Mass Effect IS NOT AN
RPG. It has RPG elements, but it is a hybrid. Mule isn't a donkey or a
horse and all that. You and the author of that article have both made a
mistake classifying it as such. They do make some points that I agree
with, such as exploration, but their whining about inventory is
something I disagree with. As is their classification of the ME games.

We’re not saying one is better than the other, but feel that BioWare
missed a major opportunity. 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.

It was never an RPG with shooting elements, it was a HYBRID. So this part makes no sense.

Also:

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.

[smilie]../../../images/forum/emoticons/w00t.png[/smilie]

Phaedon wrote...

Gamerant? Really?

I mean sure, what I am posting is not exactly constructive, but all of my problems with that article are summed up and described by a single word: GAMERANT.

This.

Saphra Deden wrote...

I like modern RPG's, but I also miss
classic ones. I want more diversity. I want some RPG's that aren't
cinematic or action focused.

Also this. I love Baldurs gate and Kotor, but I also love Mass Effect. Is there anything wrong with diversity? Terror_K seems to think so, and seems to think everybody who doesn't prefer ME1's breed of RPG to ME2 isn't a true Bioware/RPG fan or whatever nonsense.

Modifié par darknoon5, 08 août 2011 - 10:07 .

[Clonedzero]

also, i will say that its not just RPGs that are evolving and adopting mechanics from other genres to improve the formula. just about every genre is doing that.

games in general are going in a pretty good direction, developers dont feel as constrained to stick to one genre for a game.

for example, just about every modern online shooter has some RPG elements in it now. a majority of them have some form of leveling and perk systems. alot of them have cosmetic character customization. is that bad? absolutely not. the lines between genres are becoming more and more blurred and i think thats a great thing.

i think the biggest problem is people dont like change and they wear a whole ton of rose colored glasses.

[Domdeegrpgc]

Terror_K wrote...

Someone With Mass wrote...

As a company grows bigger, it needs to look at what sells more.

You may not like it, but that's the way it is.

It doesn't need to at all. That's a fallacy. There are always choices, and BioWare isn't going to go bankrupt if it decides to stick with its roots. Newsflash: those roots are what got it where it is today.

Ironic, given your fallacious thinking. You'd be right of course if every game produced by Bioware if every game they produced required as much time, effort and money as 'those roots that got them where they are today'. 

Now, you might (and I suspect, will) paint this as merely the monstrous hunger of their EA overlords for ever more mountains of money, authenticity to their origins be damned! But that's a rather ludicrous and simplistic analysis. The games Bioware have been producing have been of an exponentially higher quality (features, cinematics, graphics etc) and that comes with a very literal price. Bioware needs to expand to a larger market, because it would be fiscally irresponsible NOT to do so. 

If they were simply churning out Baldur's Gate clones I'm sure they could afford to ignore the majority of gamers, their production costs would be so low. They're not. Despite some trepidation at the word blockbuster (a fear I share, by the way) that also comes with some expectations and standards. Mass Effect 3, as we know, is going to be the largest game in the series in terms of scale. Logically this suggests it's going to be one of Bioware's most expensive games.

[Bogsnot1]

Terror_K wrote...

No, because they don't seem to be able to do it without taking away the factors that I enjoy about RPGs and introducing elements from modern action games I dislike. I've said it before and I'll say it again, this want of them to have their cake and eat it too won't work. These hyrbid affairs aren't RPG enough to satisfy many of their core, existing RPG fans, but are also too RPG to really bring in the numbers they want. They're hovering in the middle and just creating generic titles like everybody else in the process. Ironically other developers are making their action games with more cinematic and RPG elements, and yet BioWare is doing the opposite: actioning up their RPGs and reducing their RPG elements. They're both heading in the same direction, just from different angles, to both try and make these perfect hyrbid action games with cinematic and narrative driven style and light RPG elements.

So its bad for them to have their cake and eat it, but its ok for you to have your cake and eat it?

Tell me, how many variations of rulebooks do you have for your PnP RPG's?
AD&D, AD&D 2nd Edition, 3rd edition, 3.5 edition?
Tell me honestly, and with a straight face, how that is any different to what Bioware did with ME2 as comapred to ME1?
What were the elements you felt that were removed from ME2 that stopped it from being an RPG?

Edit: And please tell me what this game had to do with RPG, seeing as you want to talk about "core fans"?

Modifié par Bogsnot1, 08 août 2011 - 10:13 .

[Someone With Mass]

By the way, ME1's inventory system and the words "incredible" and "robust" should never be in the same sentence.

[Clonedzero]

not to mention video games production costs are getting into the millions, many being a couple hundred million. only going after a small niche market is a horrible way for a company to stay afloat, especially when that niche market is full of super whiney people that will write 5 page articles about how "RPGs are dying!!!!!!" cus you tried to make the inventory system easier to manage.

[Icinix]

I don't know where I stand on the whole evolution of games, of any genre.

What I would wish though is a few more of the larger companies would every now and then be prepared to aim at a game at a niche market. I've got nothing against blockbuster titles, but why can't we have both? Why does it need to be mutually exclusive?

[Terror_K]

Clonedzero wrote...

also, i will say that its not just RPGs that are evolving and adopting mechanics from other genres to improve the formula. just about every genre is doing that.

games in general are going in a pretty good direction, developers dont feel as constrained to stick to one genre for a game.

for example, just about every modern online shooter has some RPG elements in it now. a majority of them have some form of leveling and perk systems. alot of them have cosmetic character customization. is that bad? absolutely not. the lines between genres are becoming more and more blurred and i think thats a great thing.

i think the biggest problem is people dont like change and they wear a whole ton of rose colored glasses.

I agree and disagree. I agree with your basic assessment, but disagree that it's a good thing. All that this is leading to is a lack of originality, diversity and identity with AAA games today. We're just getting a bunch of semi-cinematic story-driven action games with light RPG elements. That's most of today's AAA titles and big hitters right there. If the trend continues, pretty much every game will be exactly the same, just with a differently named stubbled, brown-haired male protagonist in a different situation that involves shooting/hacking, quick-time events and overly scripted scripted sequences sandwiched between the odd cutscenes and bossfights. That's not progress: it's stagnation and genericism. There are too many hybrids all using the same mechanics and not enough original, clearly defined games any more. I'm actually admiring the indie scene more these days because they're where most of today's actual creative stuff is coming from.

[marshalleck]

Honestly Terror_K, if you want "originality, diversity, and identity" you're looking for it in the wrong place with AAA games. Or any mainstream mass-appeal product of any kind.

If those are the qualities you want in a game, you need to be looking at indies, not industry megaliths like EA brands.

Why set expectations that can never be fulfilled? Do you enjoy angst?

Modifié par marshalleck, 08 août 2011 - 10:18 .

[Lady Olivia]

Have to say I didn't read the article, but I'm pretty sure I can guess what the essence of the rant is. And I generally agree - the RPG genre, if by that one means all the nuances usually connected to the p&p variety - is indeed dying. It has always been a niche, and it will remain so; only nowadays big companies like Bioware and Bethesda can no longer afford to cater to niche markets.

The bitter, one-syllable posts that boil down to "ME is the best RPG evah" and "if you don't like it, go play something else" make me sad. Why should we not be allowed to lament the passing of a genre we loved? And why do people associate the statement that ME games are not [even comparable to hard core] RPGs with stating that they're lousy games? RPG isn't synonymous with quality. It's synonymous with presenting challenge that has little to do with the faculties of the player, and relies on abstract character descriptions; there are only traces of this in ME.

This is coming from someone who completely lost themselves in both ME games and can't breathe in anticipation of the third, so don't take me wrong; I simply don't care how it's labeled and enjoy it for what it is. But it's far away from what I'd label an RPG.

Terror_K wrote...

That's a whopping 77% of voters who aren't happy with the direction RPGs are taking lately. Pay attention, BioWare.

 
Sigh. Even if all the RPG fans who are not happy with the direction mainstream developers are taking were to leave and never buy their games again - it would hardly even be noticed. Niche market, niche loss.

[Terror_K]

Bogsnot1 wrote...

So its bad for them to have their cake and eat it, but its ok for you to have your cake and eat it?

I just want some consistency and cohesion with their games and IPs, instead of them trying to reivent the wheel with every sequel. Especially in the case of Dragon Age when it wasn't even that broken in the first place and was apparently a massive success, and yet they had to go and design the sequel more for potential fans that are non-fans than for the people that loved the original. Which, I guess, is my overall complaint with BioWare lately: they seem more concerned about branching out and getting new fans than keeping their old ones, at the expense of seriously frelling up their IPs in the process. Dragon Age is essentially a dead IP as far as I'm concerned, not so much for how DA2 turned out, but because of the mentality and willing sabotage of it from the developers.

Tell me, how many variations of rulebooks do you have for your PnP RPG's?
AD&D, AD&D 2nd Edition, 3rd edition, 3.5 edition?
Tell me honestly, and with a straight face, how that is any different to what Bioware did with ME2 as comapred to ME1?

Not much. After 2nd Ed. each version got overstreamlined and dumbed-down for the masses, just like ME2 did. I won't touch anything after 3rd Edition. 4th is absolutely horrid.

What were the elements you felt that were removed from ME2 that stopped it from being an RPG?

ME2 didn't stop being an RPG technically, though it came damn close. There's next to no true character progression and the XP system is seemingly meaningless and arbitrary. Beyond that it didn't cease being an RPG, but just cut too much back and took away any real semblance of true depth, progression or customisation. It's still an RPG, but it's a bare-minimal, awful one. And it almost seems embarrassed to be one too, trying to hide, automate and push back so much of what remains away from the player.

Icinix wrote...

What I would wish though is a few more of the larger companies would every now and then be prepared to aim at a game at a niche market. I've got nothing against blockbuster titles, but why can't we have both? Why does it need to be mutually exclusive?

Thank you! Finally... somebody who gets it!

Modifié par Terror_K, 08 août 2011 - 10:28 .

[legion999]

Someone With Mass wrote...

By the way, ME1's inventory system and the words "incredible" and "robust" should never be in the same sentence.

Yeah I stopped reading after that. Their idea of incredible must be sitting for hours going through the inventory deleting useless items.

[Terror_K]

marshalleck wrote...

Honestly Terror_K, if you want "originality, diversity, and identity" you're looking for it in the wrong place with AAA games. Or any mainstream mass-appeal product of any kind.

If those are the qualities you want in a game, you need to be looking at indies, not industry megaliths like EA brands.

Why set expectations that can never be fulfilled? Do you enjoy angst?

Funny... I felt pretty damn fulfilled by Baldur's Gate, Baldur's Gate 2, NWN, KotOR, Jade Empire, ME1 and Dragon Age: Origins.

I also felt fulfilled by several shooters, such as Unreal Tournament, Half-Life 2, Team Fortress 2, Gears of War, the early CoD titles, etc. I love all sorts of AAA titles and genres, including the Elder Scrolls and Fallout series, the Hitman and Thief games, Portal 1 & 2, the GTA titles, Red Dead Redemption, The Sims, etc.

[marshalleck]

Terror_K wrote...

Funny... I felt pretty damn fulfilled by Baldur's Gate, Baldur's Gate 2, NWN, KotOR, Jade Empire, ME1 and Dragon Age: Origins.

All made when Bioware was still an independent studio...or, at least, not a subsidiary of their publisher. How about that. 

Modifié par marshalleck, 08 août 2011 - 10:31 .

[xXljoshlXx]

ME2 didn't stop being an RPG technically, though it came damn close. There's next to no true character progression and the XP system is seemingly meaningless and arbitrary. Beyond that it didn't cease being an RPG, but just cut too much back and took away any real semblance of true depth, progression or customisation. It's still an RPG, but it's a bare-minimal, awful one. And it almost seems embarrassed to be one too, trying to hide, automate and push back so much of what remains away from the player.

[/qoute]

XP isn't required for a rpg

Icinix wrote...

What I would wish though is a few more of the larger companies would every now and then be prepared to aim at a game at a niche market. I've got nothing against blockbuster titles, but why can't we have both? Why does it need to be mutually exclusive?

Thank you! Finally... somebody who gets it!

Why would a large company aim at a niche market?

[Bogsnot1]

Terror_K wrote...
ME2 didn't stop being an RPG technically, though it came damn close. There's next to no true character progression and the XP system is seemingly meaningless and arbitrary.

So you're another one who labours under themisaprehension that XP-per-kill is an RPG requirement?
I invite you to play Warhammer FRP, where monsters and enemies are not assigned XP values, and instead XP is rewarded at the end of the scenario/campaign, with various bonuses for RP an input.

You and REAPERS_r_CTHULHU should get together, make your own CRPG according to your very limited definitions, and see how well it sells. Good luck breaking even.

[Clonedzero]

Terror_K wrote...

Clonedzero wrote...

also, i will say that its not just RPGs that are evolving and adopting mechanics from other genres to improve the formula. just about every genre is doing that.

games in general are going in a pretty good direction, developers dont feel as constrained to stick to one genre for a game.

for example, just about every modern online shooter has some RPG elements in it now. a majority of them have some form of leveling and perk systems. alot of them have cosmetic character customization. is that bad? absolutely not. the lines between genres are becoming more and more blurred and i think thats a great thing.

i think the biggest problem is people dont like change and they wear a whole ton of rose colored glasses.

I agree and disagree. I agree with your basic assessment, but disagree that it's a good thing. All that this is leading to is a lack of originality, diversity and identity with AAA games today. We're just getting a bunch of semi-cinematic story-driven action games with light RPG elements. That's most of today's AAA titles and big hitters right there. If the trend continues, pretty much every game will be exactly the same, just with a differently named stubbled, brown-haired male protagonist in a different situation that involves shooting/hacking, quick-time events and overly scripted scripted sequences sandwiched between the odd cutscenes and bossfights. That's not progress: it's stagnation and genericism. There are too many hybrids all using the same mechanics and not enough original, clearly defined games any more. I'm actually admiring the indie scene more these days because they're where most of today's actual creative stuff is coming from.

no you're actually really wrong on this.

video games, just like most other things, have times of innovation and origionallity and then times where its on a streak of the same. the "stubbled, brown-haired male protagonist" isnt a new thing. thats been around since the damn 80's, and not just in video games, in everything, and not since just the 80's since well, for as long as widespread entertainment media really. (duke nukem, max pain, john mcclaim, the terminitor, conan, just about every single cowboy from every single cowboy movie, malcom reynolds, tom cruise, james bond, solid snake, chris redfield, the little sprite dude from pitfall, han solo, indiana jones, luke skywalker, rick deckard, paul muabded, the vault dweller, aragorn, rocky, rambo, rick blaine, agent mulder, dexter, dart (legend of the dragoon), superman, batman, spiderman, most of the human greenlanterns.........i think i made my point with that one lol. (short browned haired male protagonists are used so commonly because they're so damn common in real life lol)

go back 10 years, and you'll see the same thing. lots of similar games with a couple stand outs. go back another ten years. you'll see the same thing, lots of similair games with a couple stand outs. you can do the same exact thing for movies as well.

this is what you could call the nostalgia effect. because the past is the past, you fondly remember the more origional and interesting games, and all the simliiar by the book stuff gets forgotten. its not a new trend, not at all. it reminds me of a discussion i had with a friend who said the 80's was the best decade for movies, then he listed off the usual list of 80's greats. then i jumped on the internet and started listing off movies that came out around the same time as each of those greats ending up in dozens and dozens of absolute 80's trash lol.

take off the blinders, gaming isnt getting worse, its getting better. the technology allows people to do more creative and interesting things. developers dont feel constrained to a single genre anymore. just because the video game market is so huge that it sustains alot of run of the mill stuff doesnt mean it isnt the best time in gaming.

and just liek you said, theres a damn indie game market allowing for more experimentation on a smaller scale. (thats exactly why they can be more creative cus its easier to risk making something completely different on an indie scale then dumping 300 million into a failure, thats the ONLY reason for that lol)

[Terror_K]

Bogsnot1 wrote...

Terror_K wrote...
ME2 didn't stop being an RPG technically, though it came damn close. There's next to no true character progression and the XP system is seemingly meaningless and arbitrary.

So you're another one who labours under themisaprehension that XP-per-kill is an RPG requirement?

Okaaaaaay... and where exactly did I say that? What is it with this forum and putting words in peoples mouths along the "logic" of, "Aha! You said 'banana' therefore you must believe all fruit is long and bendy!"

No... I don't believe "XP per-kill is an RPG requirement" at all. Not sure where you got that from. I am of the belief that a good RPG should have good statistical progression system that logically fits into a pre-defined and consistent ruleset and helps determine and define the player character. ME2 doesn't really do this at all... it's essentially a progression system lacking any real context or grounding revolving around a character who isn't really defined by his/her abilities/stats at all beyond a bunch of combat powers.

[don-mika]

I think Dragon Age: Origins, was last classic RPG in the standard sense

modern games are designed to be simple and accessible games for all.

RPG genre difficult for the average user. So that the game sold large volumes they need to be as easy as possible .. Just like ... Shooters ...

future of the RPG www.mofunzone.com/online_games/super_press_space_to_win_adventure_rpg_2009.shtml 
 

[Savber100]

Terror_K wrote...

Funny... I felt pretty damn fulfilled by Baldur's Gate, Baldur's Gate 2, NWN, KotOR, Jade Empire, ME1 and Dragon Age: Origins.

I also felt fulfilled by several shooters, such as Unreal Tournament, Half-Life 2, Team Fortress 2, Gears of War, the early CoD titles, etc. I love all sorts of AAA titles and genres, including the Elder Scrolls and Fallout series, the Hitman and Thief games, Portal 1 & 2, the GTA titles, Red Dead Redemption, The Sims, etc.

God damn it, Terror... You just had to name all of my favorite games in one go.

Now I have to erase my previous preconception of you as an old coot that hates anything new or mainstream. 

But honestly are you displeased with the recent screenshots that showed more emphasis on character progression and branching powers? What about the weapon mods? 

I can't speak for the story and C&C but shouldn't you hold back those criticisms  under ME3 is released? I feel it's a little too soon to start cry wolf until Bioware shows itself as incompetent in the choices and consequences you made in Mass Effect. 

Modifié par Savber100, 08 août 2011 - 10:48 .

[Lumikki]

In my opinion it's both.

Old traditional RPG is dying, because it's based old technology ideas. New technology allows a different way to implement the of same base consept what is role-plaing in games. Meaning gameplay in RPG's are comming more visual impression based, than manipulating numbers.

Point been role-playing it self isn't dying at all, it's mechanical structure around of RPG's what is changing, because worlds technology has change allready. The game industry just follow technology progression, what can't be stoped anyway by anyone. Everyting change in time.

Issue isn't game companies, because they have no choise in the matter, if they want to stay in business. Issue is people who are stuck in old consepts ideas what RPG really is. Because they don't like direction where changes go, they blame everyone else, but them self.

Point been, complaining change what can not EVER been stoped, is useless. You can't just say, lets change hole world and go back to good old days. World doesn't work that way..

Modifié par Lumikki, 08 août 2011 - 10:57 .

[sedrikhcain]

Spanky Magoo wrote...

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

This pretty much sums up the key factor for me. I want story and character interactions to give robust context to my game play, thus making it feel epic. ME 1 and 2 give me that and I have no doubt ME3 will as well.
 
What RPG "purists" really seem to mean, when they talk about games being dumbed down and such, is "there isn't enough loot and I can't take the story in any direction I want". Story is just a matter of taste. I like the storytelling in video games and like to participate within that context, rather than always needing to feel like it's all about me and my choices. Some people are different, no biggie. However, as for weapon and costume customization, they're nice but, having just played through ME1 again, I can safely say that if they can't be done in an efficient way, they're just not worth it for me. Much as I loved that game, I got very tired of that inventory system, which was pointless about halfway through the game.

So, if BioWare wants to add "deep, complex" customization, I hope they put it in a format that's not so cluttered and time consuming. I don't want to have to stop active gameplay every 30 minutes to endlessly sift through a bunch of worthless crap just so I can get .005% more damage and have armor that matches my high school football team's colors. If that makes me shallow, so be it.