477 réponses à ce sujet

[Seeker Sparrow]

There is a lot of genre-blurring in games today for sure, which I don't think is too much of a bad thing.

I mean take the 'Action' genre, which seems almost a little vague considering different games of that distinction can either be a shooter/platformer/multiplayer/action-adventure (Uncharted) or a hack n slash/puzzle/platformer game (God of War).

And to be fair this applies to even RPG games. So when some people talk about how ME2 or the recent Fallout games have really diluted the 'role playing aspects' of the title I have to say was that game ever calling itself the RPG of the year or something?

Accept games for what they are and understand that all genres of any kind of medium - not just games are all splintering off into other sub-genres to accommodate the current market.

Modifié par Sparrow Hawke, 08 août 2011 - 03:31 .

[Nozybidaj]

Terror_K wrote...

 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/

Well, still at work so I won't be reading the article till I get home, but how do you compare a game like DA2 or ME3 to Skyrim?   As far as the RPG spectrum goes those games are at as opposite ends of it as you can get.

As for evolving the genre?  No, BW isn't "evolving the RPG genre", they are just making games that move ever closer to falling outside that genre.  The genre itself isn't changing, and it certainly isn't dying as games like Skyrim and Witcher 2 are showing quite clearly.

[Pulletlamer]

A website that's called gamerant shouldn't have much credibility. That's all I'm going to say.

[Babli]

The majority of new RPGs have less customization, less depth, less details and are shorter.

Thats not what I would call an evolution.

[Zulu_DFA]

Babli wrote...

The majority of new RPGs have less customization, less depth, less details and are shorter.

Thats not what I would call an evolution.

Yet evolution it is. You know how it goes: the more parasitic the organism, the less organs it needs.

Modifié par Zulu_DFA, 08 août 2011 - 04:39 .

[AlanC9]

Nozybidaj wrote...
As for evolving the genre?  No, BW isn't "evolving the RPG genre", they are just making games that move ever closer to falling outside that genre.  The genre itself isn't changing, and it certainly isn't dying as games like Skyrim and Witcher 2 are showing quite clearly.

You're sure the genre isn't changing? Bio's games are accepted as RPGs in the marketplace, aren't they?

Why wouldn't a genre change?

As for games getting less complex, this stuff always goes in waves. I'm older than most of you, so I remember when the complexity of PnP games went down. The first time. In the early 80s. Then it crept back up. Then it went down again.

My impression from wargaming is that the first complexity peak is never actually reached again; the pattern seems to be that each wave deviates somewhat less from the mean. (Even the messier editions of WiF don't match late-70s SPI product, for instance). However, I have not done enough research in historical RPG system designs to actually make that case.

Modifié par AlanC9, 08 août 2011 - 04:01 .

[littlezack]

Babli wrote...

The majority of new RPGs have less customization, less depth, less details and are shorter.

Thats not what I would call an evolution.

There is such a thing as being TOO complex. For instance, one of the things that annoyed me about the first Mass Effect's leveling was that I'd only really notice significant advantages in leveling up abilities after I'd added four or so points to a certain power. I'm fine with customization when it actually means something.

[Anakronist]

I have played just about every single bioware game out there, from baldurs gate to buying the original xbox JUST for Jade Empire (got it cheaply lal ), to buying the xbox 360 for ME1 (originally xbox only title) and for some recent awesome titles. I have played BG 1 and 2, tales of the sword coast and throne of bhaal. I have played Icewind Dale 2 (have numero uno sitting here somewhere untouched, its age is showing and I dont think I would appreciate the game as much today, as i would have done 10 years ago). I have spent 90 hours on ME2, completed DA 2 and DA:O once each. I am planning on buying ME3 when it comes out, and I might even give SW: TOR a look.

On top of that I have enjoyed Elder Scrolls since Morrowind (I did try Daggerfall but it crashed about 3 sec into the game everytime and I was way too young to bother trying to fix it, I just wanted to kill stuff).

I have The Witcher 1 enhanced edition in my steam folder (played some, but again, the age of the game shows), and I am playing The Witcher 2.

What I mean to say is that RPG's are >>MY THING<<.

What I disliked about DA 2 was: rehashing the caves and other such areas over and over and over AND OVER again. Sorry but I just really really REALLY hated that, it made me quit half way through act 2 or so, and not play the game again for like a month. I got back into it and decided to play it till it was done. I enjoyed the story, I enjoyed the way it was told, I enjoyed the characters, I enjoyed playing my hawke mage (although, seriously, bioware, lets have some proper devastating magics please, I thought my mage, or at least the special trees to be quite weak or bland/boring).

I did not really, at least to what I recall, have anything to put on DA:O, to me, other than the graphics, that game was simply awesome 8 or 9/10 in my book (getting a negative for the gfx, they're just not good).

I hate inventory management in general, but I like to be able to outfit my companions with new weapons/armor once a while. To me the problem has always been that games either give you TOO MANY items or none at all. I don't care about going from a staff that gives plus 2 to fire, to a plus 2 to every spell damage. Make the items interesting, and far between, make them a proper reward for a proper quest completed or from the loot of a boss or the like.

ME 2 is probably the bioware game, other than baldurs gate 2, that I have spent the most time on. I can't see it as more of a corridor shooter than ME 1, they are about equal in gallery/corridor shooting if you ask me (having just finished ME1 for the 2nd time not so long ago). If you don't like that kind of game play, then the series is just not for you. ME 2 improved on alot of things, and, to me, is a much better game than ME1.

- cant wait for skyrim and ME3.

[Heather Cline]

The thing about most rpg's in the past was you had to grind for hours to gain levels before you could even think of taking on the next boss or going into that cavern filled with high level monsters.

Today level grinding is mainly for japanese rpg's. western rpg's don't have that feature, making the game less taxing as many people don't have the attention span to just sit down and grind for hours on end to beat the game.

That said, though I enjoyed ME2, I was still upset that it had taken out most of the RPG elements that made ME1 such a success. ME3 is supposed to have the rpg elements return which I am looking forward to. DA2 was rushed yes, but if it had more time to be polished the game would have been an excellent edition to the rpg genre.

I'm not a fan of bethesda or the elder scroll series myself so no comment there. Lots of rpg as stated are becoming shorter due to less attention span of today's gamers. As for less details I don't think so just no one is actually looking at the details of the game itself. As for less depth, that would depend on the game and the story behind it. DA2 had less depth than DA:O because of it being rushed but it wasn't as bad as some games out there.

Less customization... DA and ME both are highly customizable, not sure about other games.

I am neutral about many things and can't take one side or the other right now. I tend to be the devils advocate. I do hope that Bioware will make the games longer, but level grinding I do not want. If I want to level grind I'll go play Final Fantasy or Lost Odyssey or Blue Dragon. I wouldn't mind more story and less grinding.

That's all I have to say.

[spirosz]

For me, all I need in an RPG is a great story, characters I can relate and care about, and some form of customization(being able to decide how my player looks, changing armor, what I can use, etc). I'm really stoked about the route ME3 is taking with their weapon customization because it feels like a good balance of ME1 and ME2. Personally, I don't care about stats and loot, but that's just me.

The thing with the Mass Effect series is, it never tried to be strictly a RPG or an Action Adventure game, it wanted to be a Hybrid from the start. So if we're going from the perspective of an RPG, some people are going to be disappointing because for them, an RPG consists of stat's, loot, etc and that's what makes an RPG for those players. For me, it fulfilled what I want out of an RPG, which I stated above - Story, Characters, some form of customization.

It really all comes down to what the individual wants and what they define as a certain Genre.

[lsmoke]

It depends on what portion of the RPG market you want to look at before answering your question. There is no doubt in my mind that "mass market" RPGs from huge studio developers are indeed being stripped down and if you want to take that as a method of "dumbing down" their RPGs, then go ahead. I don't think this is necessarily a bad thing. A lot of "stripped" games can be fun to play and avoid the tediousness of more hardcore RPGs, of which plenty still exist though they tend to lack the production value of mass market pseudo-RPGs for obvious reasons.

ME2 is a perfect example of a stripped down RPG. It contains RPG elements alongside shooter elements and it doesn't make any pretenses about being a hardcore or true to those ancient and esoteric text-based RPGs where you had to drink water, move rocks around, cut wood for fire, etc (I bet you remember that dialogue from the Citadel gamer sales-salarian). It's a streamlined RPG experience that incorporates only the most basic of RPG functions: character development and morality choices but this shouldn't prevent it from being called a true RPG but, like I said, a stripped down one. It doesn't make it dumb at all because it's so well made and how shooter elements mesh just fine with the RPG elements, limited as they are.

I'm sure it's not beyond Bioware to make a classically great RPG but the truth of the matter is they're developing for the mass market where easy accessibility goes a long way to making a lot of money. People for the most part don't want to sit their staring at a screen wondering where to put their hard-earned skillpoint among the billion attributes presented them. They want to get back to the game and back to saving the galaxy or princess or kingdom, etc.

It's like wondering if comic-book summer blockbuster movies are dumbed down films because they attract pretty much everyone from every social level. They're entertaining, they're fun, and they're for the most part well-made making no pretenses about what they are. RPGs aren't dying but evolving to fill a mass market consumer wants. There are still some epicly hardcore RPGs coming out from small and usually european developers but they're there if you want them.

[Veex]

mrcrusty wrote...

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".

That wasn't really what I was trying to convey, and I'm not even sure it applies. RPGs still revovle around combat even though the system they present that combat with may vary. Removing "weapons and guns' from an FPS may not be an accurate parallel. The general trend is that mechanics are only borrowed in a supplemental fashion. Call of Duty adopting character progression and upgrades, for example.

Terror_K is asserting that, with this cross polination of mechanics, games are basically becoming a single genre. I dispute that, because I'm not sure mechanics are the sole defining factor of a game, but I digress. My assertion was that, even if genre segregation were present, all RPGs would feel like all other RPGs. You'd still have 'samey brown mush" but it would now be in a few separate piles. I just don't prescribe to the thought that sub genres or cross genre games are bad.

[Halo Quea]

Well the arguments that some of you are making about lesser customization brings us into the micro transactions realm.

Things like swords, guns and armor are all things that we used to be able to manage on our own. But with the arrival of DLC, the developers realize that instead of allowing the gamer to craft and customize their own weapons and items, they'll just sell them to us.

I know the popular argument against customization has been, "Gamers don't want to dress their squadmates" But then they turn right around and provide DLC appearance packs, knowing that it's something gamers really WANT to do. DLC isn't the only issue, but it certainly has had an negative effect on customization in RPGS.

That and feeling like you are no longer purchasing FULL games anymore.

Modifié par Halo Quea, 08 août 2011 - 04:07 .

[Naltair]

Table Top RPGs versus Video/Computer Game RPGs

The evolution of the RPG for the most part is both in the table top arena and the electronic arena. Table Top games do not rely on the crux of getting more loot to become more powerful, well the vast majority of modern games. They also rely on simplified and streamlined mechanics that allow people to play the game and focus less on mechanics and more on the story/adventure. This isn’t because people are lazy it is because such mechanics for can be a barrier to the actual fun to be had. That isn’t to say all games in table top are mechanics light, games such as Exalted, D&D in the more modern incarnations, and GURPS all rely on some considerable crunch. But the general trend is faster game play with fewer bars to fun.

The same can be said for games like Dragon Age 2 or Mass Effect series. RPGs are an anomalous genre as is in this era. Stat progression, advancement, and customization are all things that have filtered to other game genres because they allow for more a “personal” investment in the character and aid in player agency. Loot systems, as an example, are a hold over of classic design where getting cool items was the story/reward. But they are for the most part clunky and usually require just finding the best item and selling the rest. I am not saying it should be dumped but it might be time to find a better way to do loot/inventory systems that matter.

There is some consensus on what makes an RPG an RPG but there is more division of what is essential and what isn’t. Games like Oblivion or Fallout 3 are fun to me but I always feel more invested in games like Mass Effect and Dragon Age where I have multiple characters to interact with and a narrative to enjoy.

I think the genre should evolve it needs to change. It needs to take chances. Not about making niche games it is about making better games period. About removing or evolving sub-systems and pushing the idea of what is or isn’t an RPG. Ultimately the gopal should be to remove the barriers to fun and making the experience more immersive and entertaining. BioWare is going one direction, other companies are going another. These directions will not always be things that we fans agree with but if changes are not made we will end up in the same state as JRPGs, which I enjoy, but are hardly innovative. They may have some weird combat system or other sub system but usually rely on level advancement, get better gear, and super formulaic story/narrative path.

I like mixing and matching. It keeps things fresh. Essentially not every sacred cow is a good cow.

[Naltair]

littlezack wrote...
There is such a thing as being TOO complex. For instance, one of the things that annoyed me about the first Mass Effect's leveling was that I'd only really notice significant advantages in leveling up abilities after I'd added four or so points to a certain power. I'm fine with customization when it actually means something.

Again the general trend is that an advancement in character power should be noticeable and even perhaps change/expand how the character plays.  I too hate micro advancement, because you don't really feel like you are advancing until you hit a major milestone.

[SalsaDMA]

Bogsnot1 wrote...

Terror_K wrote...
That's as of my vote. That's a minor 27% of voters who aren't happy with the direction RPGs are taking lately. Pay attention, BioWare.

Fixed.
Stop making up "facts", you're about as accurate as Fox News.

He was actually pretty acurate in his first post. You just chose to ignore that the 2 options he added together as one polling percentage were of the same bias.

If you really wanted to, you could even lump together the percentages of 'what are rpg', 'i prefer action' and 'I love...' as a total of 18% actually being somewhere in the positive bias about the designdirection of the games.

'I want details, depth and customization in my RPGs.' is certainly NOT what you get when you 'streamline' games and actively remove said details, depth and customization... Therefore it is natural to count it in as a bias opposed the direction of design along with the more agressively sounding 'The genre is becoming so "dumbed down" it's going to be ruined!'

I think you are just arguing for the sake of arguing this time, bog, if you really try and claim he is making up facts in regards to the poll...

[AlanC9]

Veex wrote...
Terror_K is asserting that, with this cross polination of mechanics, games are basically becoming a single genre. I dispute that, because I'm not sure mechanics are the sole defining factor of a game, but I digress. My assertion was that, even if genre segregation were present, all RPGs would feel like all other RPGs. You'd still have 'samey brown mush" but it would now be in a few separate piles. I just don't prescribe to the thought that sub genres or cross genre games are bad.

I think you mean subscribe there.

Cross-genre games are bad for someone who likes the pure genre, even if that pure genre is just an accidental collection of disparate features; he gets less games made the way he personally likes them made. We often see people trying to defend the genre as a way to defend their own personal tastes.

[SalsaDMA]

Babli wrote...

The majority of new RPGs have less customization, less depth, less details and are shorter.

Thats not what I would call an evolution.

Ironically, I just completed GTA IV. Afterwards I felt that game, despite not being an RPG, was actually a gameseries that had evolved closer to being an rpg while ME2 was feeling like it was moving away from being an rpg...

I'd even go so far as claim that despite the lack of choices in conversations, GTA IV felt closer to an RPG than ME2 did, simply because of how the game focused.

In ME2 you are 'snapping' between shooting galleries, in GTA IV you controlled Niko while he was trying to figure out what to do with himselves and spent as much time just being Niko (if not more) as you were actually shooting stuff or speeding away from/after cars/helicopters/boats. You don't really spend time in ME2 just being Shepard, making the character a whole lot more hollow (and thus the roleplaying experience itself) in my opinion.

Modifié par SalsaDMA, 08 août 2011 - 04:37 .

[ThanesSniper]

SalsaDMA wrote...

Babli wrote...

The majority of new RPGs have less customization, less depth, less details and are shorter.

Thats not what I would call an evolution.

Ironically, I just completed GTA IV. Afterwards I felt that game, despite not being an RPG, was actually a gameseries that had evolved closer to being an rpg while ME2 was feeling like it was moving away from being an rpg...

I'd even go so far as claim that despite the lack of choices in conversations, GTA IV felt closer to an RPG than ME2 did, simply because of how the game focused.

In ME2 you are 'snapping' between shooting galleries, in GTA IV you controlled Niko while he was trying to figure out what to do with himselves and spent as much time just being Niko (if not more) as you were actually shooting stuff or speeding away from/after cars/helicopters/boats. You don't really spend time in ME2 just being Shepard, making the character a whole lot more hollow (and thus the roleplaying experience itself) in my opinion.

Well, since Shepard's personality and actions are almost 100% controlled by the player, I'd say it's your fault he's hollow, and not the game's.

[AlanC9]

SalsaDMA wrote...

Bogsnot1 wrote...

Terror_K wrote...
That's as of my vote. That's a minor 27% of voters who aren't happy with the direction RPGs are taking lately. Pay attention, BioWare.

Fixed.
Stop making up "facts", you're about as accurate as Fox News.

He was actually pretty acurate in his first post. You just chose to ignore that the 2 options he added together as one polling percentage were of the same bias.

It doesn't matter. Given the huge selection bias in a poll like this, there's absolutely no worthwhile information that can be extracted from it.

Hell, the way that poll's worded I can't even vote in it and have my preferences accurately recorded. "I want details, depth and customization in my RPGs"?? What kind of details?  What kind of customization? If I check this am I voting for ME1's loot over ME2's loot? Am I voting for loot in general? What if I want customization and action combat? What if I think many "RPG elements" make the role-playing worse?

Edit: if I voted I'd still have to pick  "I want details, depth and customization in my RPGs,"  and then Terror_K would assume that's one more vote for his position.-

Modifié par AlanC9, 08 août 2011 - 05:07 .

[littlezack]

SalsaDMA wrote...

Babli wrote...

The majority of new RPGs have less customization, less depth, less details and are shorter.

Thats not what I would call an evolution.

Ironically, I just completed GTA IV. Afterwards I felt that game, despite not being an RPG, was actually a gameseries that had evolved closer to being an rpg while ME2 was feeling like it was moving away from being an rpg...

I'd even go so far as claim that despite the lack of choices in conversations, GTA IV felt closer to an RPG than ME2 did, simply because of how the game focused.

In ME2 you are 'snapping' between shooting galleries, in GTA IV you controlled Niko while he was trying to figure out what to do with himselves and spent as much time just being Niko (if not more) as you were actually shooting stuff or speeding away from/after cars/helicopters/boats. You don't really spend time in ME2 just being Shepard, making the character a whole lot more hollow (and thus the roleplaying experience itself) in my opinion.

GTA4 is what I'd call an example of being too damn complex.

I hated the 'Just Being Niko' parts. The way you have to pick out clothes by walking around the store instead of a menu. The 'realistic' car physics that made them a pain to control. The lack of interesting vehicles. Being called every ten minutes to take somebody on a date, then getting treated like a jerk because I don't want to shoot darts with imaginary people. >_<

It's why I loved SR2 so much more - it's not the least bit realistic, but it's so much more fun. There's rarely a moment when you're doing something that's not fun. It's not trying to be some artsy-fartsy experience, it's not trying to hammer in some overwrought cliche about American life, it's just about blowing **** up and shooting things.

I'll be honest -  I don't care what Shepard does when he's not saving the world. I don't need a scene with him sitting down and watching TV, or checking out the listings to see what the movie times are. I don't want to take Liara out on a date. Call me crazy, but I think videogames should be first and foremost about escapism, not the same boring crap I do in everyday life.

Modifié par littlezack, 08 août 2011 - 04:56 .

[Thompson family]

Terror_K wrote...

Might as well actually make a topic about this... even if it results in people lambasting me for "attacking BioWare" or some such similar claim.

Honestly, you are one of dozens who claim you want an open discussion about something important yet start every thread by saying "I know everybody who disagrees with me is a BW fanboy and I'm casting pearls before swine, but look at this."

Do you not even have the vaguest concept of how insulting and counter-productive that is?

[AlanC9]

Hey, if Terror_K needs to do a little cri de coeur, let him. It's better if the biases are on the table.

[Shepard the Leper]

mrcrusty wrote...

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

I think you missed my point too

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?

Stats are used primarily to give some sort of artificial sense of progress. That's not very meaningful to me. Almost all (so called) rpgs use leveling systems that make the player and all enemies stronger which results in none, or hardly any change in your character's performance. When my rank 2 Warp @ level 5 can remove the armor of a LOKI in one go; and I need to have rank 4 to do the same thing @ level 21, then all time spend in leveling screens is mostly wasted.

I'm not interested whether Warp does 120 damage or 235, I want to know what it can do in actual combat.

I'm also looking forward to ME3 in this regard. Powers can be evolved / customized a lot which should be good. There is a difference between Pull Field and Heavy Pull, there isn't any between Pull rank one and two (except the stats). That's my point. Stats are nothing important. They are a tool only and should neither be feared nor celebrated, and they are at their best when you won't notice they're there, doing their things.

[Nozybidaj]

AlanC9 wrote...
You're sure the genre isn't changing? Bio's games are accepted as RPGs in the marketplace, aren't they?

BW games being accepted as rpg's doesn't mean the genre has changed.  I'd argue that calling ME2 an rpg is the correct label (haven't playted DA2, sorry).  I'd call it more an action/shooter game.  I'd barely label ME1 an rpg.

The industry has made the label so meaningless that you could really classify just about anything an rpg now a days.  But that's beside the point.

So no, I really don't think the genre has changed much at all since the first computer rpg's were made, and likely won't till we see either new technologies that allow games to be presented differently or a developer out there somewhere comes up with something really revolutionary from a gameplay perspective.