1002 réponses à ce sujet

[Bostur]

littlezack wrote...
Calling it an RPG doesn't help that language, though. If I told my friend he should buy Mass Effect because it's an RPG, he'd probably ask for some clarification on that, because calling it an RPG doesn't tell him really anything about what the game offers. So you'd be better of just, from the start, telling him what's good about the game.

Exactly, thats why I think we need better labels. RPG has started to become the 'everything' label. Every game is an RPG now, just like a decade ago every game was an action-adventure. RPG simply means 'Awesome' and is being put on every game box by the marketing people.

[SpEcIaLRyAn]

Bostur wrote...

SpEcIaLRyAn wrote...
I have no problem with people not enjoying a game I like. But what's the point in b*tching about why the game is an RPG or not. I say if you enjoyed Mass Effect 1 and 2 then buying 3 is a no brainer as it shouldn't matter what the developers say. Unless they all the sudden they tried to make the game on rails than thats a reason to be concerned. Why label the game? You don't like the game then you don't like it. Oh yeah, maybe I should debate about why I don't like it and pick every little word apart. At the end of the day its all about fun. If your not having fun playing these games then maybe it's time to find either a new game to play or find a new hobby alltogether.

In short lables don't mean sh*t!

I enjoyed ME1 and ME2, but that doesn't mean ME3 will be just as good. There is a very recent example of a Bioware game that I thought was a no-brainer to buy, but ended up being deeply dissappointing. ;-)

I don't understand why it is so wrong to talk about things we like. Why can't we discuss these topics and share it? If I want to reccommend a game to a friend, having a language to describe the good and bad parts is pretty important.

When did I say that you can't talk about things you like? Its all about your perspective on things. If you see Mass Effect as an RPG than thats fine. Terms like 'RPG' don't have a hard definition. All we know is that it means Role Playing Game. That term could mean different things to different people. If your discussing a book and refer to it as a 'Mystery Book' then thats fine because it has a hard definition for it. Like I said its all your perspective. What may be cool to you may not be to someone else. Using labels to describe things is fine as long as you don't dwell on it. In the grand scheme of things though labels shouldn't matter when playing a game you like. Mass Effect is an RPG to me and thats all that matters.

Also I understand if your skeptical about ME3 because of DA2 but remember DA team and ME team are seperate. I'll be damned if Mike Laidlaw touches Mass Effect in any way, shape, or form.

Modifié par SpEcIaLRyAn, 20 août 2011 - 05:19 .

[Red Son Rising]

Bostur wrote...
Exactly, thats why I think we need better labels. RPG has started to become the 'everything' label. Every game is an RPG now, just like a decade ago every game was an action-adventure. RPG simply means 'Awesome' and is being put on every game box by the marketing people.

the better plan would be to eliminate as many labels as possible. its very difficult to categorize mass effect games exclusively as rpgs or shooters, it would be easier to describe them if they didnt have to fit in such small boxes

RPG describes a lot of different games now, some ppl just have to get used to the idea before their heads explode. finding better ways to describe games without using 3 letter acronyms is a better plan than redefining "RPG'' every 6months

[Phaedon]

[quote]Gatt9 wrote...
I suspect I already know the answer,  but you are aware that PnP RPG's origins were from Wargames right? And that strategy's origins are from Wargames as well?[/quote]
I suspect I already know the answer, but how the hell did you miss my post earlier in this thread mentioning how the rulesets basically carried from wargames and that the new feature of RPGs was that you described and controlled your character's actions?


[quote]Of course it works,  they're two different means to achieving a similiar goal,  you just don't happen to like that I'm right.

Which is ironic,  because you also just proved my point.[/quote]
So, other than claiming that you are right will you explain your point? In both LARPs and PnPs you control your character. One is by actions, because it is live action, and one is by words, because it is PnP. It is kind of hard to find an axe, you know.

Saying "And I, throw a giant fireball at the enemy orc" and throwing a red piece of paper at a friend of yours dressed as an orc have two common elements. 1) Control over your character's actions, 2) Requires imagination.
[quote]To be even more specific,  in a LARPS,  you are your character,  there's no division between bob the barbarian and you. [/quote]
Either USA is filled with mages and warriors or you are wrong.

[quote]In ME2 you are your character,  there's no division between Shepherd and you.[/quote]
Can I throw singularities?

And if so, how come my singularities aren't improved when I concentrated harder when I click my mouse?
[/quote]

[quote]So as previously stated,  what you keep claiming is Roleplaying is LARPS.[/quote]
Lol no.

You claim that PnP games are the only true RPGs, in which you in fact ARE your character.
It's not the GM that tells you what your character is doing, UNLIKE, older CRPGs. Blame the technolodgy and game design.

[quote]
[/quote]

Modifié par Phaedon, 20 août 2011 - 07:41 .

[Varen Spectre]

SpEcIaLRyAn wrote...

I have no problem with people not enjoying a game I like. But what's the point in b*tching about why the game is an RPG or not. I say if you enjoyed Mass Effect 1 and 2 then buying 3 is a no brainer as it shouldn't matter what the developers say. Unless they all the sudden they tried to make the game on rails than thats a reason to be concerned.Why label the game? You don't like the game then you don't like it. Oh yeah, maybe I should debate about why I don't like it and pick every little word apart. At the end of the day its all about fun. If your not having fun playing these games then maybe it's time to find either a new game to play or find a new hobby alltogether. 

In short lables don't mean sh*t!

Labels, genres, categories, classifications, etc. they have been with our society for quite some time and there is a good reason for it.

And that is... that they make work with all kinds of information much easier. They help us to distinguish and filter what is important for us at particular moment and what is not. There is nothing wrong with the concept of classification. To the contrary, the work and communication without it would be slow, inefficient or sometimes downright impossible.

When it comes to videogames, the role of classification is not that crucial. However, it is hard to dispute, that it may be very helpful. Example: If somebody says that he recently played 2 good FP shooters, one platformer and one strategy game, I can easily imagine what kind of games he played and lead our discussion accordingly. If I am curious about the strategy game, I do not need to listen about all 4 games or hope that he will start with it, but I can simply ask him to tell me more about that "strategy" game. Same goes for videogame shops, catalogues, magazines, databases, etc.

I can't fathom how one can be so bitter about game's classification. Even if it is not accurate and is cumbersome at the moment, even if somebody might try to abuse the system to criticize games that do not have all the features that are / used to be related to one of the genres - challenge them, not the classification itself.

I agree, whether the games are good or bad does not depend on what features they have, but how well they use them.

But, that does not mean that now we should try to completely ignore any differences between them and work with just one big blunt and opaque bunch of games without any clue what they are without having to try them or read thourough articles about them. It's just wrong. 

Modifié par Varen Spectre, 20 août 2011 - 10:31 .

[didymos1120]

Phaedon wrote...

Either USA is filled with mages and warriors or you are wrong.

This is completely true.  It's a major social issue.

[Get Magna Carter]

I consider Mass Effect 2 to not be a RPG but a shooter with RPG elements

reason 1 - success in actions depend on player's skill in manipulating controls rather than character's skill as developed through player's strategy

reason 2- Shepard's responses to player's input is in some places surprising to the player..so the player is not in direct control of Shepard but merely prodding Shepard in a direction and seeing how Shepard responds...this is not "playing a role"

[didymos1120]

Get Magna Carter wrote...

I consider Mass Effect 2 to not be a RPG but a shooter with RPG elements

reason 1 - success in actions depend on player's skill in manipulating controls rather than character's skill as developed through player's strategy

Once past the first few levels where your weapon skills kinda suck, this is true of ME1 as well: point, shoot/activate power, kill/disable.  Hell, if you know the tricks to compensate (like timing your shots w/ the sniper sway, exploiting crouching, etc.), it's true of the early game too. Also, the probabalistic aspects of ME1's gunplay is very much overexaggerated. The vast majority of shots with class-appropriate weapons would hit what you aimed at. That and I'd hardly point to ME1 as any sort of exemplar of strategic combat.

reason 2- Shepard's responses to player's input is in some places surprising to the player..so the player is not in direct control of Shepard but merely prodding Shepard in a direction and seeing how Shepard responds...this is not "playing a role"

Also happened in ME1.  And don't forget all the times when "different" responses turned out to be the exact same line of dialogue.

Modifié par didymos1120, 20 août 2011 - 10:53 .

[Iakus]

 My thoughts on RPGs can be broken down thus:

If you just run down a corridor killing everything that moves, it's not an rpg.

If you run down a corridor killing everything that moves, but can decide to spare or execute certain enemies, it has rpg components.

If you run down a corridor killing everything that moves, but can decide to spare or execute certain enemies, and that choice affects later gameplay in a tangible way, then it's an rpg.

So far Mass Effect has rpg components, but we have yet to see any choices have more than a cosmetic effect.  Perhaps the Council choice has slightly more than a cosmetic effect, given it can alter certain conversations on the Citadel and one shopkeeper might or might not sell to you.

ME3 is basically playing fro all the marbles on whether the trilogy as a whole will be an "rpg" in my book.  But keep in mind, it's just my book.  I'm just worried because in he past Bioware has written such lovely novels and the last couple fell kinda flat for me...

[SpiffySquee]

Why does everyone think that something is only an RPG if your actions have a major affect on the world around you? I'm not really saying you are wrong, but simply trying to understand the reasoning. I always figured Role playing was for me. I made the choice I did to define my Shepard to me. I saved that plague victim because I felt that is how my Shepard should act, not because I wanted to see how that changed something in the next game. I pistol whipped Archer because I figured my Shepard would be enraged at what he saw, not because I wanted to see if that changed anything down the road.

Is it gratifying to see the world change by my actions? Sure. If it important to RPG? I don't think so. Does the world change all that much in PnP RPGs? I suppose for some people, but not in any of my sessions. Me saving someone from goblins never really changed anything, but it defined my character. My character never had a major impact on the world or events around him. the world would have still moved on if he had died.

A lot of you would say that Comforting Tali on her loyalty mission is not an important choice because it has no affect on the world later on. I say it is just as important as saving the council (in terms of role playing) because it say a lot about who your Shepard is, and how they react to the world around them. I don't care if someone brings it up later, because I know it happened. I know it meant something to Tali, even if she never talks about it again.

Showing trust to EDI, is no less important than saving Wrex. Turning Shales in, is just as important as saving the collector base. Every choice helps define who my Shepard is. I do not need the world to constantly remind me of what I did. Why does everyone else?

[Iakus]

SpiffySquee wrote...

Why does everyone think that something is only an RPG if your actions have a major affect on the world around you? I'm not really saying you are wrong, but simply trying to understand the reasoning. I always figured Role playing was for me. I made the choice I did to define my Shepard to me. I saved that plague victim because I felt that is how my Shepard should act, not because I wanted to see how that changed something in the next game. I pistol whipped Archer because I figured my Shepard would be enraged at what he saw, not because I wanted to see if that changed anything down the road.

Is it gratifying to see the world change by my actions? Sure. If it important to RPG? I don't think so. Does the world change all that much in PnP RPGs? I suppose for some people, but not in any of my sessions. Me saving someone from goblins never really changed anything, but it defined my character. My character never had a major impact on the world or events around him. the world would have still moved on if he had died.

A lot of you would say that Comforting Tali on her loyalty mission is not an important choice because it has no affect on the world later on. I say it is just as important as saving the council (in terms of role playing) because it say a lot about who your Shepard is, and how they react to the world around them. I don't care if someone brings it up later, because I know it happened. I know it meant something to Tali, even if she never talks about it again.

Showing trust to EDI, is no less important than saving Wrex. Turning Shales in, is just as important as saving the collector base. Every choice helps define who my Shepard is. I do not need the world to constantly remind me of what I did. Why does everyone else?

The reason why is because if you do all these things and nothing changes, you are in a static, unchanging world. In which case, what's the point of doing anything?  Heck that's one of the main complaints about DA2; seemingly big choices that lead to nothing.

This is not to say that all actions should have major consequences.  Many choices are simply "What would this character do in this situation?"  The fate of the galaxy should not hinge on saving one plague victim, or whether you comforted Tali or not.  But if your characters' choices should have an effect, if you "role play" a choice that should have repercussions, then the game should react as such.  Otherwise, what's the point in making the choices to begin with?  Might as well read the novelization, or watch the movie.  And as the "hero" (or maybe "protagonist") of the story, the decisions you play out should have some sort of substantive effect.

In PnP games that I play, saving prisoners of the goblins leads to repercussions.  The goblins respond.  You have to broker a deal with them, or go to war with them, or hit them preemptively.  Events do not happen in a vacuum.

Part of roleplaying is defining what kind of character you are, and how you react to and interact with the world around you.  But a second, no less (and no more) important a part is defining how the world reacts to and interacts with you.

Modifié par iakus, 21 août 2011 - 01:35 .

[eternalnightmare13]

SpiffySquee wrote...

Yup! Another video because they are much more fun than a wall of text! 

You had me up to here, and then I heard you.  Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz....

[SpEcIaLRyAn]

Varen Spectre wrote...
Labels, genres, categories, classifications, etc. they have been with our society for quite some time and there is a good reason for it.

And that is... that they make work with all kinds of information much easier. They help us to distinguish and filter what is important for us at particular moment and what is not. There is nothing wrong with the concept of classification. To the contrary, the work and communication without it would be slow, inefficient or sometimes downright impossible.

When it comes to videogames, the role of classification is not that crucial. However, it is hard to dispute, that it may be very helpful. Example: If somebody says that he recently played 2 good FP shooters, one platformer and one strategy game, I can easily imagine what kind of games he played and lead our discussion accordingly. If I am curious about the strategy game, I do not need to listen about all 4 games or hope that he will start with it, but I can simply ask him to tell me more about that "strategy" game. Same goes for videogame shops, catalogues, magazines, databases, etc.

I can't fathom how one can be so bitter about game's classification. Even if it is not accurate and is cumbersome at the moment, even if somebody might try to abuse the system to criticize games that do not have all the features that are / used to be related to one of the genres - challenge them, not the classification itself.

I agree, whether the games are good or bad does not depend on what features they have, but how well they use them.

But, that does not mean that now we should try to completely ignore any differences between them and work with just one big blunt and opaque bunch of games without any clue what they are without having to try them or read thourough articles about them. It's just wrong. 

If I gave the impression that I was bitter about it then I clearly did not come across as clearly as I thought. I was simply stating that RPG is not a term with a hard definition. RPG can mean different things to many different people. I was commenting on how pointless a debate on whether Mass Effect is an RPG or not is. RPG may have had a clear definition in the past but now its such a broad term it could mean hundreds of things.

Take your metahpor for example when talking with a friend about a game he might enjoy. Its okay to say "oh yeah its a strategy game" What I mean by saying lables don't mean sh*t is that in the grand scheme of things it shouldn't matter whether a game is an RPG or a shooter. As long as I enjoyed it then why should I care what kind of game its classified as.  To further clarify lets say Bioware decided to market ME3 as an RPG as they are doing. If the game is great and I enjoy it then if someone says its just a TPS. I shouldn't get worked up over it for no reason.

Mostly what I am trying to say is that some of the people on this thread seem like they are over analyzing what Mass Effect is. To me Mass Effect will always be an RPG at heart. Regardless of how its marketed. To sum it up I agree with what you said about Marketing products and how labels help us determine what we might be interested in. At the end of the day though all that matters is how you used the product and if you liked it.

[Rockworm503]

eternalnightmare13 wrote...

SpiffySquee wrote...

Yup! Another video because they are much more fun than a wall of text! 

You had me up to here, and then I heard you.  Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz....

His Lets plays are funny.  Well so far I've only watched a bit of his Assassin's Creed Brotherhood LP but he puts humor into it and makes it fun to watch.

[SpEcIaLRyAn]

SpiffySquee wrote...
A lot of you would say that Comforting Tali on her loyalty mission is not an important choice because it has no affect on the world later on. I say it is just as important as saving the council (in terms of role playing) because it say a lot about who your Shepard is, and how they react to the world around them. I don't care if someone brings it up later, because I know it happened. I know it meant something to Tali, even if she never talks about it again.

Showing trust to EDI, is no less important than saving Wrex. Turning Shales in, is just as important as saving the collector base. Every choice helps define who my Shepard is. I do not need the world to constantly remind me of what I did. Why does everyone else?

I wholeheartedly agree. I am currently playing a Shepard in ME1. He is an Earthborn, Sole Survivor. How I Roleplay him is completely neutral. Because of his difficult childhood and the many crimes he comitted in the gang he was in he was somewhat traumitized by that and went on to join the Alliance to find a better life. Being the only survivor on Akuze he is emotionally broken and has trouble making decisions and froming relationships with other people. How his story goes from there I will have to see. I know I want him to grow as character as time goes on but we will have to see hwta happens as I am making decisions based on how I feel at that exact moment in time.

To me Mass Effect will always be an RPG. Anyone who thinks otherwise is welcome to their opinion.

[SpiffySquee]

iakus wrote...

SpiffySquee wrote...

Why does everyone think that something is only an RPG if your actions have a major affect on the world around you? I'm not really saying you are wrong, but simply trying to understand the reasoning. I always figured Role playing was for me. I made the choice I did to define my Shepard to me. I saved that plague victim because I felt that is how my Shepard should act, not because I wanted to see how that changed something in the next game. I pistol whipped Archer because I figured my Shepard would be enraged at what he saw, not because I wanted to see if that changed anything down the road.

Is it gratifying to see the world change by my actions? Sure. If it important to RPG? I don't think so. Does the world change all that much in PnP RPGs? I suppose for some people, but not in any of my sessions. Me saving someone from goblins never really changed anything, but it defined my character. My character never had a major impact on the world or events around him. the world would have still moved on if he had died.

A lot of you would say that Comforting Tali on her loyalty mission is not an important choice because it has no affect on the world later on. I say it is just as important as saving the council (in terms of role playing) because it say a lot about who your Shepard is, and how they react to the world around them. I don't care if someone brings it up later, because I know it happened. I know it meant something to Tali, even if she never talks about it again.

Showing trust to EDI, is no less important than saving Wrex. Turning Shales in, is just as important as saving the collector base. Every choice helps define who my Shepard is. I do not need the world to constantly remind me of what I did. Why does everyone else?

The reason why is because if you do all these things and nothing changes, you are in a static, unchanging world. In which case, what's the point of doing anything?  Heck that's one of the main complaints about DA2; seemingly big choices that lead to nothing.

This is not to say that all actions should have major consequences.  Many choices are simply "What would this character do in this situation?"  The fate of the galaxy should not hinge on saving one plague victim.  But if your characters' choices should have an effect, if you "role play" a choice that should have repercussions, then the game should react as such.  Otherwise, what's the point in making the choices to begin with?  Might as well read the novelization, or watch the movie.  And as the "hero" (or maybe "protagonist") of the story, the decisions you play out should have some sort of substantive effect.

In PnP games that I play, saving prisoners of the goblins leads to repercussions.  The goblins respond.  You have to broker a deal with them, or go to war with them, or hit them preemptively.  Events do not happen in a vacuum.

Why do anything if the world is static? If I made a choice and the person I was talking to said the same thing the same way every time no matter what, I would see your point, but that does not happen. With very few exceptions, the choices I make cause different responses from the people around me, big or small. It helps me define my character and see how others react to that character. I don't need it to remind me about what I did 8 hours down the road. Again, it is always great to see, but not necessary.

Like with PnP. You save a kid from goblins, The Goblins attack, and you wipe out their band. You are thanked by the family (maybe) and then you move on. You made no real impact on anyone but that family, and if you never see them again, you never notice any change in the world around you. The city still runs the same way, other goblins still kidnap other children. etc etc. This is not always the case, but most PnP characters do not have a large impact on the world at large.

[Rockworm503]

SpiffySquee wrote...


To me Mass Effect will always be an RPG. Anyone who thinks otherwise is welcome to their opinion.

There's the crux of it.  you present your opinion as just that.
The naysayers (especially people like Gatt9)  have decided that you are wrong and they and only they are allowed to call a game an RPG.

[SpEcIaLRyAn]

Rockworm503 wrote...

SpEcIaLRyAn wrote...


To me Mass Effect will always be an RPG. Anyone who thinks otherwise is welcome to their opinion.

There's the crux of it.  you present your opinion as just that.
The naysayers (especially people like Gatt9)  have decided that you are wrong and they and only they are allowed to call a game an RPG.

Fixed.

[Rockworm503]

fixed what? they look exactly the same.

[SpEcIaLRyAn]

Rockworm503 wrote...

fixed what? they look exactly the same.

Sorry I meant to clarify. You quoted SpiffySquee for "To me Mass Effect will Always be an RPG..." When actually I said it.

[Rockworm503]

ah you guys have the same avi it threw me off.

[asindre]

SpiffySquee wrote...

Why does everyone think that something is only an RPG if your actions have a major affect on the world around you? I'm not really saying you are wrong, but simply trying to understand the reasoning. I always figured Role playing was for me. I made the choice I did to define my Shepard to me. I saved that plague victim because I felt that is how my Shepard should act, not because I wanted to see how that changed something in the next game. I pistol whipped Archer because I figured my Shepard would be enraged at what he saw, not because I wanted to see if that changed anything down the road.

Is it gratifying to see the world change by my actions? Sure. If it important to RPG? I don't think so. Does the world change all that much in PnP RPGs? I suppose for some people, but not in any of my sessions. Me saving someone from goblins never really changed anything, but it defined my character. My character never had a major impact on the world or events around him. the world would have still moved on if he had died.

A lot of you would say that Comforting Tali on her loyalty mission is not an important choice because it has no affect on the world later on. I say it is just as important as saving the council (in terms of role playing) because it say a lot about who your Shepard is, and how they react to the world around them. I don't care if someone brings it up later, because I know it happened. I know it meant something to Tali, even if she never talks about it again.

Showing trust to EDI, is no less important than saving Wrex. Turning Shales in, is just as important as saving the collector base. Every choice helps define who my Shepard is. I do not need the world to constantly remind me of what I did. Why does everyone else?

I approve 

[CERBERUSDEMAN]

Rockworm503 wrote...

eternalnightmare13 wrote...

SpiffySquee wrote...

Yup! Another video because they are much more fun than a wall of text! 

You had me up to here, and then I heard you.  Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz....

His Lets plays are funny.  Well so far I've only watched a bit of his Assassin's Creed Brotherhood LP but he puts humor into it and makes it fun to watch.

I suggest watching his Lets Play Mass Effect 2 with friends Squee and his co-hosts bring a lot of humor to it though I haven't seen a majority of it and some bits he dies alot but that is to be expected on insanity.

P.S. Squee are those safes still laughing at Shepard and are you still prescribing fire?

[SpiffySquee]

CERBERUSDEMAN wrote...

Rockworm503 wrote...

eternalnightmare13 wrote...

SpiffySquee wrote...

Yup! Another video because they are much more fun than a wall of text! 

You had me up to here, and then I heard you.  Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz....

His Lets plays are funny.  Well so far I've only watched a bit of his Assassin's Creed Brotherhood LP but he puts humor into it and makes it fun to watch.

I suggest watching his Lets Play Mass Effect 2 with friends Squee and his co-hosts bring a lot of humor to it though I haven't seen a majority of it and some bits he dies alot but that is to be expected on insanity.

P.S. Squee are those safes still laughing at Shepard and are you still prescribing fire?

Shepard therapist sock puppet said that he needs to learn to forget such things.... he is trying... 

[CERBERUSDEMAN]

SpiffySquee wrote...

CERBERUSDEMAN wrote...

Rockworm503 wrote...

eternalnightmare13 wrote...

SpiffySquee wrote...

Yup! Another video because they are much more fun than a wall of text! 

You had me up to here, and then I heard you.  Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz....

His Lets plays are funny.  Well so far I've only watched a bit of his Assassin's Creed Brotherhood LP but he puts humor into it and makes it fun to watch.

I suggest watching his Lets Play Mass Effect 2 with friends Squee and his co-hosts bring a lot of humor to it though I haven't seen a majority of it and some bits he dies alot but that is to be expected on insanity.

P.S. Squee are those safes still laughing at Shepard and are you still prescribing fire?

Shepard therapist sock puppet said that he needs to learn to forget such things.... he is trying... 

So Tali introduced Kelly to the sock puppets huh... anyways on topic I agree with you on your views that is how I always saw it and about JRPGs for awhile I didn't even know they were called that before I only really played Final Fantasy and just classified it as Final Fantasy when I played games like KOTOR I thought of them as RPGs because I could have influence over who my character was so I never really ever saw JRPGs as RPGs at all.