477 réponses à ce sujet

[CuseGirl]

Whatever666343431431654324 wrote...

I want "details, depth and customization" but loved ME2. I admit that the game needed a bit more customization for my taste but I think that was simply a logistical problem with time and budget, not one of design philosophy. Games are definitely not getting dumbed down. The tactical, table-top war-gaming is not more intelligent or sophisticated than modern RPGs.

Mass Effect 2 appeared to use every bit of resource available on my console (most noticeably with graphics involving BLUE lightning or purple warps). Each squadmember having a 2nd (even third) outfit combined with the myriad of colors and armor pieces are more than enough, considering the other things that needed to be added.

[didymos1120]

Davie McG wrote...

 I've heard people blame the people who moderate the site but if people would just take a little time to search before they post threads these forums would be better for everyone.

Actually, I'd reallly rather the mods just create a "ME3 Multiplayer Rumors and Discussion" thread and a "ME3 RPG Elements and Systems" thread, sticky the both of them, and just be done with it.  Any other thread on those subjects gets locked.  Persistent thread creators are then treated like any other habitual thread-spammer. 

[Drone696]

Luigitornado wrote...

rapunzel696 wrote...

Terror_K, how do you get to "77% of voters who aren't happy with the direction RPGs are taking lately"?
The people who want "details, depth and customization" aren't necessarily unhappy with the direction RPGs are taking, and I'm one of them. Why can't I like both DAO and DA2?
And "willing sabotage from the developers", come on.

Hmmmm...but wait these "voters" were not selected from a radomized selected group.

There's that, of course. The whole "empirical data" in the OP is pretty much useless.

Modifié par rapunzel696, 08 août 2011 - 01:24 .

[Davie McG]

didymos1120 wrote...

Davie McG wrote...

 I've heard people blame the people who moderate the site but if people would just take a little time to search before they post threads these forums would be better for everyone.

Actually, I'd reallly rather the mods just create a "ME3 Multiplayer Rumors and Discussion" thread and a "ME3 RPG Elements and Systems" thread, sticky the both of them, and just be done with it.  Any other thread on those subjects gets locked.  Persistent thread creators are then treated like any other habitual thread-spammer. 

That would be an elegant solution so long as people kept it on those threads, which I would like to think they would if it is stickied.

Let's hope a moderator sees this suggestion.

[heretica]

I don't need complicated or very realistic games... I just want them to make some sense :'(

[A Crusty Knight Of Colour]

Shepard the Leper wrote...

Terror_K wrote...

The only rule I have that defines what an RPG is to me is a meaningful statistical progression system for the player character and a statistical ruleset of pre-defined guidelines and boundaries.

How the heck are stats important? It always baffles me to hear people talk about small percentages like they're hugely important. They can be, but usually they're pointless. There is no difference between having to attack an enemy 3.01 times or 3.99 times - it always requires 4 attacks to kill, making all statistical progression (in between) worthless. Games need solid gameplay, not dozens of stat screens which have no impact on what you can and cannot do.

Indeed.

Though, the idea of RPGs is to create a character that uses such stats and numbers to quantify each and every aspect of the character.

A powerful, universal ruleset (either complex or simple) that dictates what your character can/cannot do is at the heart of RPGs. I honestly think that Mass Effect 3 is moving in the right direction as far as this goes, though.

Also, although it's broken in how it handles progression, the Elder Scrolls are a pretty good example of a modern day character system that embodies this concept. SPECIAL too. I'll be interested how they handle things in Skyrim.

Modifié par mrcrusty, 08 août 2011 - 01:44 .

[JBONE27]

Personally I think they're evolving. I think that RPGs, shooters, RTS, etc. will all have elements of each other. For me this is a good thing. I hate purity, it makes everything more dull. I recognize that there are purists out there, but I am not one of them. If you feel abandoned, why don't you try just making your own RPG. There are programs you can use to help you out.

[Zulu_DFA]

I'll just say that ME2 and its shooterey mechanics miserably failed to fit the purpose of the story.

Commander Shepard, who was supposed to be "The Leader" and boss "The Professor", "The Assassin", "The Convict", etc. ended up being bossed around himself by all those kinds of galactic lowlifes. Even Shepard-TIM dynamic could use more exposition (you know I like TIM over even my own Shepard, right?), but that was apparently considered detrimental to the "fluent shooter experience".

Obviously, same is going to happen in ME3. I just hope it won't be Jim Vega who suggests that Commander Shepard should be the one to get his sorry ass behind that .50 cal and take down that Reaper, move!!!

Oh, and BTW, it terms of shooter mechanics, the "health regen / respawn at checkpoint" system does not fit singleplayer mode anyway. Of course, in multiplayer regen is preferable because the "healthpoints+medkits" system negatively affects the mayham by prompting players to conserve health. But unless we're talking a simulator of the WW2 (when people sometimes died in combat by hundreds in a span of minutes), it makes no sense whatsoever for the singleplayer mode. So yeah, the "health regen / checkpoint" system was great in early CoDs' singleplayer too - because it fitted the setting (for the lack of a story as such). But not so much both the Modern Warfares already.

[Davie McG]

JBONE27 wrote...

Personally I think they're evolving. I think that RPGs, shooters, RTS, etc. will all have elements of each other. For me this is a good thing. I hate purity, it makes everything more dull. I recognize that there are purists out there, but I am not one of them. If you feel abandoned, why don't you try just making your own RPG. There are programs you can use to help you out.

Lol, if you don't like it f*ck off and make your own game. Nice, that comment won't be a troll magnet what so ever.

But I agree with the rest of what your saying, I've been waiting for an RPG that handles combat like a decent shooter for years. Why not have the best of both worlds?

Mass Effect is the type of game I've been waiting for for over a decade.

I felt similarly towards the vampire masquerade: bloodlines but mass effect is something that's been a long time coming.

[Shepard the Leper]

mrcrusty wrote...

Shepard the Leper wrote...

Terror_K wrote...

The only rule I have that defines what an RPG is to me is a meaningful statistical progression system for the player character and a statistical ruleset of pre-defined guidelines and boundaries.

How the heck are stats important? It always baffles me to hear people talk about small percentages like they're hugely important. They can be, but usually they're pointless. There is no difference between having to attack an enemy 3.01 times or 3.99 times - it always requires 4 attacks to kill, making all statistical progression (in between) worthless. Games need solid gameplay, not dozens of stat screens which have no impact on what you can and cannot do.

Indeed.

Though, the idea of RPGs is to create a character that uses such stats and numbers to quantify each and every aspect of the character.

A powerful, universal ruleset (either complex or simple) that dictates what your character can/cannot do is at the heart of RPGs. I honestly think that Mass Effect 3 is moving in the right direction as far as this goes, though.

Also, although it's broken in how it handles progression, the Elder Scrolls are a pretty good example of a modern day character system that embodies this concept. SPECIAL too. I'll be interested how they handle things in Skyrim.

Stats and numbers are not important. The number of options available to play the game is. Those things are not really related. I rather have a game with two completely different ways to play than one that has lots of stats and options but result in nearly identical experiences.

ME2 has less powers and weapons than ME1, but there are more (and completely different) ways to play. Doing more with less so to say. Bioware handled some aspects a little too drastically, but stuff like weapon mods are going to make a return in ME3. Those had an impact on gameplay in ME1, so assuming they'll have a similar impact in ME3 makes the addition a good thing. Anything that increases gameplay options are great - stats for the sake of stats are not (unless you prefer reading the phonebook before going to bed

[CuseGirl]

Zulu_DFA wrote...

I'll just say that ME2 and its shooterey mechanics miserably failed to fit the purpose of the story.

Commander Shepard, who was supposed to be "The Leader" and boss "The Professor", "The Assassin", "The Convict", etc. ended up being bossed around himself by all those kinds of galactic lowlifes. Even Shepard-TIM dynamic could use more exposition (you know I like TIM over even my own Shepard, right?), but that was apparently considered detrimental to the "fluent shooter experience".

you weren't being bossed around, it was compromise: "Hey, Mordin, I know you're running a clinic with your own staff and protective mechs, but can you drop everything you're doing and come with me into the Omega 4 Relay that NO ONE has ever survived?"

And the loyalty missions are not at all mandatory. 

The purpose of the story was to forge a strong team and beat the Reapers even tho your former allies don't believe the real threat. And in the middle of that, shoot stuff and throw warpbombs.

Modifié par CuseGirl, 08 août 2011 - 02:19 .

[RPGamer13]

Skyrim out of the three sounds like the best chance for the kind of RPG I am looking for.

They also leave out Kingdoms of Amalur: Reckoning releasing early next year. It looks like a cross between Skyrim's classless system and classes of the past. Changing equipment also changes the abilities available and other things. So changing "classes" can be done just by changing one piece of equipment.

It also seems like my favorite kind is dying, if not dead already: Turn-Based RPGs. Lost Odyssey, Blue Dragon, and Dragon Quest IX are the last ones I've played.

[nikki191]

people seem to be forgetting where crpg's came from.. a way to convert ye olde table top game to a video medium. from purely text based dungeon crawl games to the old gold box games which used hard copy journals for the player to read ala choose your own adventure style through to games like daggerfall, baldurs gate, final fantasy and the modern games..

each is an evolution and an experiment in what makes a game a rpg, each defines it in its own way, each has things that others can learn from and each player has their own preferences.

id like to see a game that offers both. a simple hidden stats version and a more advanced show everything.

[stysiaq]

Well, I stopped reading this thread after page 3 or so, because it's pretty damn boring and repeating the same song again.

Before I'll give my opinion on the subject, I'd like to name my favorite RPGs, just to let you know what kind of player I am:
- BG1, BG2, P:T, Fallout 1 & 2, Deus Ex, IWD 1 & 2 (not that much, cause it's more of an action game)

+ of course ME series. DA:O was cool, DA2 was not.

And the Witcher games. They are a little bit old-school.

I suppose many people here have similar preferences.

@Terror - you would help a lot by writing exactly WHAT is your definition of an RPG for you. Now I can only guess, and I'll be wrong.

Well, my guess is, that you long to see an RPG, where you have a big bunch of lvl-up options (like perks in Fallouts; I didn't see F3, and I'm about to play NV, so I can speak only about the first two) which allows you to customize your character not only by his/her actions but also abilities; to have a wide choice of equipment, weapons, armor and lil' nothings just to customize your appearance (like all that stuff in BGs or even DA:O) to feel progress with your eyes as well;

I agree, that these elements are not present in most recent BioWare games, starting with ME1, where the whole idea of 'attributes' was withdrawn - and while it could look like streamlining character developement, it was, in fact, evolution. I must say, that I always enjoyed having an extra table for attributes, but in the end, was it really necessary, or was i just USED TO have a number next to the word 'strength' or 'agility'? (this is just an example; of course, the attributes are present in DA games, but they are streamlined in other ways). After all, what's the difference between those situations:

1) a sword requires 50 STR, you gain 5 attribute points per level
2) a sword requires 10th level.

None, but the second one is simpler and avoids unnecessary quasi-complications.

My point is; today's RPGs may seem to require less intelligence or patience, or may look a lot simpler, but in my opinion, they are just getting rid off all those annoying habits we assimilated while playing the 'classics' which were based on PnP RPGs, but which are not really necessary in a video game.

Another example: We all enjoy tons of equipement, f.e. in BG2. But at the same time we create a great-sword oriented paladin, and think 'I'll get to level 9, get Edwin & whoever else, go kill Firkaag and get Carsomir". There are plenty greatswords in the game, but overall, unless you're playing a hack & slash, only a few matter.
Why all the redundant items, when you could just leave those which are usable?

ME2 has only a few pieces of equipment. Do you think, that multiplying this low number by, lets say, 20, would make ME2 a better RPG? Or maybe multiplication of skills & powers would help, knowing that no one would really use 75% of them?

Today's games are the games that everyone can play; That's why they are simple. After all, when you finished Baldurs Gate a few times it is also simple; the difference is, that at first BG playthrough, when you don't know the useful spells and skills, items and their locations and so on - it can be difficult. On the first ME playthrough, you'll almost always get the best equipement and you can't really choose bad skills because they don't exist. And I kind of support this trend - because I think the story is always the main RPG feature. And I'm not supposed to be an expert on ANY kind of games to be able to sit down, turn my computer/console on and just enjoy my time.

Regards
Filip

Edit: bolded the important

Modifié par stysiaq, 08 août 2011 - 02:27 .

[A Crusty Knight Of Colour]

Shepard the Leper wrote...

mrcrusty wrote...

Shepard the Leper wrote...

Terror_K wrote...

The only rule I have that defines what an RPG is to me is a meaningful statistical progression system for the player character and a statistical ruleset of pre-defined guidelines and boundaries.

How the heck are stats important? It always baffles me to hear people talk about small percentages like they're hugely important. They can be, but usually they're pointless. There is no difference between having to attack an enemy 3.01 times or 3.99 times - it always requires 4 attacks to kill, making all statistical progression (in between) worthless. Games need solid gameplay, not dozens of stat screens which have no impact on what you can and cannot do.

Indeed.

Though, the idea of RPGs is to create a character that uses such stats and numbers to quantify each and every aspect of the character.

A powerful, universal ruleset (either complex or simple) that dictates what your character can/cannot do is at the heart of RPGs. I honestly think that Mass Effect 3 is moving in the right direction as far as this goes, though.

Also, although it's broken in how it handles progression, the Elder Scrolls are a pretty good example of a modern day character system that embodies this concept. SPECIAL too. I'll be interested how they handle things in Skyrim.

Stats and numbers are not important. The number of options available to play the game is. Those things are not really related. I rather have a game with two completely different ways to play than one that has lots of stats and options but result in nearly identical experiences.

ME2 has less powers and weapons than ME1, but there are more (and completely different) ways to play. Doing more with less so to say. Bioware handled some aspects a little too drastically, but stuff like weapon mods are going to make a return in ME3. Those had an impact on gameplay in ME1, so assuming they'll have a similar impact in ME3 makes the addition a good thing. Anything that increases gameplay options are great - stats for the sake of stats are not (unless you prefer reading the phonebook before going to bed

Not only did you fail to comprehend my post, you also got in a cheap shot at the end. Nice.



But to spell it out, I agree. Stats should only be there when meaningful. A good RPG will have it's entire character system based on stats and numbers or a framework which provides the same function. Stats are merely a level of abstraction because they best convey the intracies of character creation in (get this) simple and easier to manage terms.

I also want better gameplay. If you read my previous posts in this thread, you'd see that what I want from Mass Effect 3 first and foremost is more open levels and more varied gameplay. More important stats or character customisation and better gameplay are not mutually exclusive. See: Fallout: New Vegas from Fallout 3. In terms of gameplay, more enemies, more weapons, iron sights and more meaningful stats.

I think Mass Effect 3 is moving in the right direction here.

But stats or numbers in general aren't some scary thing to be feared. I personally find the idea of a statless, or a numberless video game quite impossible. All RPGs do is bring that to the forefront and make it apart of the gameplay. Which is fun if presented well. Because I can understand if Daggerfall's character creation is daunting, or Darkland's. But Fallout 3 and KotOR? Spreadsheets, "phonebooks" for those games? Really?

Modifié par mrcrusty, 08 août 2011 - 02:44 .

[LadyJaneGrey]

Dyce has a few fair points,but does anyone else get the impression
that he was simply trying to come up with things to fret over because he had to fill space in the Skyrim page?

How does giving the players more character customization and freedom of progression negatively impact the “RPG genre” (whatever that's supposed to be)?  For the players who like the predefined classes or roles, what's to stop those players from creating that type of character? 

Modifié par LadyJaneGrey, 08 août 2011 - 02:40 .

[MonkeyLungs]

RPG's are evolving ... into action games.

[Dean_the_Young]

Or rather, action games are growing into RPGs.

Nothing about role playing requires or demands stat-based leveling. Even the JRPGs of Final Fantasy are famous for (sometimes) great stories and stat-based leveling and customization... but the crux of RPG is Role Playing.

Level-up systems are a game mechanic. Mass-inventory is a game mechanic. All an RPG needs to be in order to be an RPG is the ability for the player to shape and define their role in the story: all other mechanics are supplementary, not requisites.

[A Crusty Knight Of Colour]

Bleh... nevermind.

Modifié par mrcrusty, 08 août 2011 - 03:01 .

[Lumikki]

MonkeyLungs wrote...

RPG's are evolving ... into action games.

That's incorrect.

RPG = Role-playing game
Action game = Action game
Action RPG = Action Role-playing Game
RPS = Role-Playing Shooter = Action RPG + shooter combat

Just because genre's are mixing in games, doesn't mean the base defination of genre is changing.

Point been, RPG evolution is change inside the RPG it self. Same way that computers allowed role-playing games after table top RPG. Now computer RPG's starts to create they own way to reflect role-plaing in computer games. Not just mimic table top RPG's. This is because computers abilities has change, computers has evolving.

Modifié par Lumikki, 08 août 2011 - 03:13 .

[Veex]

Things that confuse me. Posters who insist reverting back to old-school RPG systems is somehow less "samey mush" than infusing systems from multiple genres.

All I know is that for me personally BioWare games still feel distinct from every other game on the market, save maybe Alpha Protocol. They absolutely borrow from and share mechanics of other games, however, they still feel like a BioWare title in their totality. The sum of the parts is important to me, not whether it has an "incredible and robust" inventory or specific standards for statistical progression.

[A Crusty Knight Of Colour]

Lumikki wrote...

MonkeyLungs wrote...

RPG's are evolving ... into action games.

That's incorrect.

RPG = Role-playing game
Action game = Action game
Action RPG = Action Role-playing Game
RPS = Role-Playing Shooter = Action RPG + shooter combat

Just because genre's are mixing in games, doesn't mean the base defination of genre is changing.

You know, that'd be pretty cool. If we started using those terms to accurately describe the elements or a genre the game is in rather than just getting on the "it's evolved!" bandwagon. Which is I think what MonkeyLungs was pointing out, or at least I think.

RPS is pretty accurate for a series like Mass Effect.

Veex wrote...

Things that confuse me. Posters who insist
reverting back to old-school RPG systems is somehow less "samey mush"
than infusing systems from multiple genres.

Because to some people, certain systems and design principles are at the core of the genre. People are free to disagree of course, I doubt consensus as to what an RPG is will ever be found but what you're describing to them is like saying "let's take the guns and weapons out of FPS games".

Modifié par mrcrusty, 08 août 2011 - 03:10 .

[Epic777]

How can RPGs be considered to evolving? The most radical depatures from the traditional RPG forumla are not considered RPGs.

[ThanesSniper]

That article was just a 3 page long rant about why modern RPGs suck. The author tried to make some concessions but just came off sounding condescending, and over-simplified many of the aspects that changed from ME1 to ME2 (ammo abilities, personalized armor, teammate's armor, weapon upgrades).

I, for one, like the direction the series took after ME1. I didn't decide to play ME1 because it was an RPG. I played it for the story and setting. The choices you can make, and how you can import those choices into the sequels, are what define the series for me. The story and side quests can branch off in so many different ways that it really distinguishes Mass Effect from other RPGs who do give you side quests, but don't show the results of those side quests beyond the game they're in. When those choices showed up in ME2, it made for a more memorable experience than ME1.

So, I see Mass Effect 2 as a step forward for RPGs, even though it got rid of classic RPG mechanics that a lot of people love. It's the story that really drives the games, not the inventories or loot or dungeon crawling. The gameplay may be far similar to a third person shooter than an RPG, but the story mechanics are like nothing you would ever find in a shooter, and somewhat different from story mechanics in many RPGs.

In summary... RPGs aren't dying, the article was bad, and I prefer story-driven RPGs over gameplay driven RPGs.

Modifié par ThanesSniper, 08 août 2011 - 03:18 .