1002 réponses à ce sujet

[Gatt9]

SpEcIaLRyAn wrote...
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.

The problem is,  it is a hard definition.

Let's say I meet a person who is driving a Toyota,  he's put a full exhaust on it,  a cold air intake,  and he tells me he owns a sports car.  Does he?  Is his car now on par with a Camaro,  Charger,  Mustang,  or Vette?  Clearly not,  and no one else would consider describing it as a sports car.

So how about I instead go to a movie with a friend,  Saw,  and he laughs the whole way through it.  He tells me it was the funniest movie he's ever seen.  Does that mean we just watched a comedy?  Clearly not,  it's obviously a horror movie.

I can keep going with this.  These things have clear cut definitions,  just because one person,  or even a dozen people,  claim it is something else doesn't make it so.

The same with RPG's. 

CRPG's are attempts to recreate the experience of playing a PnP RPG,  they are therefore limited by definition to games with the qualities found in PnP RPG's.  You can't recreate something by being nothing like it. 

The problem isn't that RPG doesn't have a hard definition,  it does,  the problem is the people who hate RPG's but want to say they're RPG Players.  This board is absolutely filled with people expressing hatred of pretty much every RPG mechanic.  Attributes,  Character based skill,  loot,  experience points,  inventory,  non-combat skills,  and on and on.  Which makes it absolutely clear none of these people would play a PnP RPG,  so why do they want to be playing CRPG's if they don't like any of the mechanics?  I don't like flight sims,  so I don't demand they play like Wing Commander.

The term is no more broad today than it was 10 years ago,  it's just marketing departments using it on everything in an effort to try and grab more sales.  Strangely,  and I really can't figure out why,  there's a ton more people today who buy into whatever a marketing department cooks up than there were 10 years ago.  Cinematic!  Immersive!  Revolutionary!  Etc,  people keep throwing these words out like they have some kind of meaning,  just because some marketing guy used it.

Want a fun experiment?

Wait for the next "RPG",  read the press releases and the interviews,  then watch the ardent defenders start using the words from that press release continuously afterwards as if they had some meaning.  You can see it here,  on this board it's "Cinematic",  on the DA2 boards it's "Evolutionary",  if you go over to Bethseda it's "Immersive".

It's really very consistent.

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

I've no problem with anyone having an opinion.  I've never put anyone down for enjoying Mass Effect 2.  I've a problem with people trying to redefine a hard term because they actually hate that type of game.

If you'd bothered to read any of my posts,  you'd already know I'm alot more lenient than many on both sides of the fence with what falls under the term.  I define Diablo as an RPG,  I define Final Fantasy as an RPG,  I define Mass Effect as an RPG.  I just don't define a straight-up TPS as an RPG. 

Truth be told,  I'd get my butt flamed off of RPGCodex,  Wizards,  or Enworld in an hour for my leniency.

@Phaedon

Don't bother,  I think I'm going to take people's advice and stop reading your posts,  they were right,  it's like beating my head against a wall.

[littlezack]

Gatt9 wrote...

The problem is,  it is a hard definition.

A hard definition made by...who? Who decided what is and what isn't an RPG? When was it set it stone? What authority do you - or really anyone - have to say what people shouldn't and shouldn't think of as an RPG?

[sevach]

Mass Effect 2 is an RPG, i just don't think it's brilliant at it.

In terms of playing a role, ME2 is badly railroaded (there's lots of instances where i can't say what i actually would want) and very straightforward, it also has a slow moving plot, and it's an uninteresting main plot to boot, imo.

The game is centered mainly on the characters and while you see development on them, it does nothing to move the main plot (except when you are metagaming ahead of the SM).

Also the ratio between roleplaying/shooting has moved towards the shooting portion.
Talking (i'm refering here to dialogue during the missons, obviously there's a lot of talking to be done on the Normandy in between missions given that you a bazilion team-mates), learning about your enemies or the current situation, exploring... all this got reduced for more intense non-stop action.

In ME1 main missions, you had a chance to talk to people, figure out what happened, who's your real enemy and what to do about it.
ME2 gives me a very straightforward feeling of, "go to this planet, kill about 500 hundred mercs... mission complete", not good enough.

Plus i'm not really fond of ME2 selling point, the characters, they are onbelievably over the top that doesn't make for interesting characters or conversations.
Religious super-assassin, the Warrior monk, the Kill, maim, hurt people guy (Grunt), the super cold woman officer. And Jack just screams cliché and over the top... (she is actually interesting when you talk to her, you just have to get pat the initial impression)
And give those down to earth characters something to say, no more calibrating...


ME2 is very good game, i just don't think it's an achievement in RPG games history like some people treat it like.

Modifié par sevach, 21 août 2011 - 06:03 .

[Iakus]

@sevach Largely agree. Very well said.

Modifié par iakus, 21 août 2011 - 07:17 .

[littlezack]

sevach wrote...


In ME1 main missions, you had a chance to talk to people, figure out what happened, who's your real enemy and what to do about it.
ME2 gives me a very straightforward feeling of, "go to this planet, kill about 500 hundred mercs... mission complete", not good enough.

Not to split hairs, but you can talk to your team quite a bit in ME2, too, and they provide some interesting insights. Legion, Samara, and Thane tell you a lot about their respective cultures, for instance,and you get some deeper insights into all of their personalities.

[sevach]

The Big Bad Wolf wrote...

ME2 is a better RPG than ME1.

And why is that?

[SpiffySquee]

Gatt9 wrote...

The problem is,  it is a hard definition.

Show me a dictionary or encyclopedia (other than wiki) that has a definition for it. can't? Then it is simply your opinion. Stop treating it like it is fact. You are more than welcome to your opinion, but stop acting like you coined the term, and thus, can call everyone's definition wrong but yours.<_<

[Dionkey]

Phaedon wrote...

Dionkey wrote...
Actually, simulation and RPG's are not far apart. The Sims is just about playing the role of another person.

Not sure if argument.

All games but Strategy games and RPGs have you play as another 100% different protagonist.

It's some strategy games and some RPGs that are not too far apart, because you are your own character. Except that there is one problem, RTSs don't tend to have a real branching plot and a protagonist who makes direct decisions on how to change the plot.

EDIT:

Lol, Gatt, stop using the LARP argument again.

It never worked. In PnP you describe the actions of your character, in LARPs, you do them. 
It's not in LARP where you gain control of your own character, obviously.

Listen, you can't have it both ways. Either you are playing the role by making choices or you are not. Adding a few options for dialogue that can end in 2-3 outcomes is not Role-Playing. Role-playing is having FULL control over the personality of the character you are portraying, not limited. Whether that be 5 options, or 10,000, it's still not enough, you should control everything. This is why the criteria of RPG's are different when it comes to videogames and it's the same reason why many people do not consider Mass Effect 2 an RPG.

[littlezack]

Dionkey wrote...

Phaedon wrote...

Dionkey wrote...
Actually, simulation and RPG's are not far apart. The Sims is just about playing the role of another person.

Not sure if argument.

All games but Strategy games and RPGs have you play as another 100% different protagonist.

It's some strategy games and some RPGs that are not too far apart, because you are your own character. Except that there is one problem, RTSs don't tend to have a real branching plot and a protagonist who makes direct decisions on how to change the plot.

EDIT:

Lol, Gatt, stop using the LARP argument again.

It never worked. In PnP you describe the actions of your character, in LARPs, you do them. 
It's not in LARP where you gain control of your own character, obviously.

Listen, you can't have it both ways. Either you are playing the role by making choices or you are not. Adding a few options for dialogue that can end in 2-3 outcomes is not Role-Playing. Role-playing is having FULL control over the personality of the character you are portraying, not limited. 

As people keep pointing out, if you go by that definition, a very large majority of games that are called RPGs suddenly aren't RPGs anymore - again, Final Fantasy,Chrono Cross, Wild Arms, countless other RPGs that give you no choice whatsoever on the personality of your character, and are still considered to be RPGs.

[sevach]

littlezack wrote...

Not to split hairs, but you can talk to your team quite a bit in ME2, too, and they provide some interesting insights. Legion, Samara, and Thane tell you a lot about their respective cultures, for instance,and you get some deeper insights into all of their personalities.

This is true, you can talk a lot on the Normandy, and i said that, what i said is, there's less dialogue, less things to learn and understand on the main plot.

PS: Samara and Thane are very uninteresting to me. Legion is cool , shame he is the last we got.

[Dionkey]

littlezack wrote...

Dioney wrote... Listen, you can't have it both ways. Either you are playing the role by making choices or you are not. Adding a few options for dialogue that can end in 2-3 outcomes is not Role-Playing. Role-playing is having FULL control over the personality of the character you are portraying, not limited. 

As people keep pointing out, if you go by that definition, a very large majority of games that are called RPGs suddenly aren't RPGs anymore - again, Final Fantasy,Chrono Cross, Wild Arms, countless other RPGs that give you no choice whatsoever on the personality of your character, and are still considered to be RPGs.

Read it again. I said the definition of a video game RPG and table-top RPG are much different. Table-top RPGs focus way more on portrayal of character (something ME tries to do but is limited, thus not being a RPG) while videogame RPG's try to focus on character customization and stats. This is because you can never call the choices in a video game Role-Playing becuase you do not have total freedom. It's like reading lines off a script, and even then at least you can inject your personality into it. Stats on the other hand, can be edited and tampered with to your hearts content. Same with appearance. This gets the player into role-playing more than a story-driven paths do.

Modifié par Dionkey, 21 août 2011 - 06:23 .

[littlezack]

sevach wrote...

littlezack wrote...

Not to split hairs, but you can talk to your team quite a bit in ME2, too, and they provide some interesting insights. Legion, Samara, and Thane tell you a lot about their respective cultures, for instance,and you get some deeper insights into all of their personalities.

This is true, you can talk a lot on the Normandy, and i said that, what i said is, there's less dialogue, less things to learn and understand on the main plot.

PS: Samara and Thane are very uninteresting to me. Legion is cool , shame he is the last we got.

i don't recall learning all that much about the plot of ME1 from talking to the crewmembers, though I'll admit, it's been a while since I played it. For the most part, I just remember them telling me stories about their lives, just like ME2. Interesting stuff, but nothing that really moved the plot forward.

[didymos1120]

Dionkey wrote...

 Role-playing is having FULL control over the personality of the character you are portraying, not limited.

What videogame could ever possibly meet that criterion? 

[Dionkey]

didymos1120 wrote...

Dionkey wrote...

 Role-playing is having FULL control over the personality of the character you are portraying, not limited.

What videogame could ever possibly meet that criterion? 

None, and that's why I said that I do not consider that a role-playing element in video games. Trying to half-ass it does not make it any closer to a board game.

[CroGamer002]

Misunderstood.

Ignore.

Modifié par Mesina2, 21 août 2011 - 06:30 .

[littlezack]

Dionkey wrote...

littlezack wrote...

Dioney wrote... Listen, you can't have it both ways. Either you are playing the role by making choices or you are not. Adding a few options for dialogue that can end in 2-3 outcomes is not Role-Playing. Role-playing is having FULL control over the personality of the character you are portraying, not limited. 

As people keep pointing out, if you go by that definition, a very large majority of games that are called RPGs suddenly aren't RPGs anymore - again, Final Fantasy,Chrono Cross, Wild Arms, countless other RPGs that give you no choice whatsoever on the personality of your character, and are still considered to be RPGs.

Read it again. I said the definition of a video game RPG and table-top RPG are much different. Table-top RPGs focus way more on portrayal of character (something ME tries to do but is limited, thus not being a RPG) while videogame RPG's try to focus on character customization and stats. This is because you can never call the choices in a video game Role-Playing becuase you do not have total freedom. It's like reading lines off a script, and even then at least you can inject your personality into it. Stats on the other hand, can be edited and tampered with to your hearts content. Same with appearance. This gets the player into role-playing more than a story-driven paths do.

So, basically what you're saying is that videogame RPGs do not exist, because no videogame RPG allows complete, 100% control of a character. Hm.

i'd say that's too rigid. Even in a table-top RPG, you don't have 100% control over what your character does - the game has rule, and the character has to abide by them. Videogame RPGs have rules, too, they're just much more limiting, because, well...videogame.

[SpEcIaLRyAn]

Gatt9 wrote...
I've no problem with anyone having an opinion.  I've never put anyone down for enjoying Mass Effect 2.  I've a problem with people trying to redefine a hard term because they actually hate that type of game.

If you'd bothered to read any of my posts,  you'd already know I'm alot more lenient than many on both sides of the fence with what falls under the term.  I define Diablo as an RPG,  I define Final Fantasy as an RPG,  I define Mass Effect as an RPG.  I just don't define a straight-up TPS as an RPG. 

For me the first game that got me into RPGs was KOTOR 2. If you consider that an RPG? So I have a somewhat understanding of what should be expected in an RPG. So yes, I understand how people could see that Mass Effect 2 is not an RPG. I don't necessarily agree but I understand both sides. I don't like using hard terms to describe things. Like I said it's all about your perspective on things. If you say ME2 isn't an RPG than I respect your opinion. I still see it as an RPG but that doesn't mean you will. Mass Effect is more of a hyrbid if not anything else.

[Dionkey]

littlezack wrote...
So, basically what you're saying is that videogame RPGs do not exist, because no videogame RPG allows complete, 100% control of a character. Hm.

i'd say that's too rigid. Even in a table-top RPG, you don't have 100% control over what your character does - the game has rule, and the character has to abide by them. Videogame RPGs have rules, too, they're just much more limiting, because, well...videogame.

Videogames just fit into a different criteria of an RPG. This is why many gamers put the emphasis on stats, customization, and exploration; because it's the only thing videogames can accurately do that stays true to being an RPG.

Modifié par Dionkey, 21 août 2011 - 06:34 .

[didymos1120]

littlezack wrote...

i don't recall learning all that much about the plot of ME1 from talking to the crewmembers, though I'll admit, it's been a while since I played it.

The only one who ever has anything to do with the plot on the Normandy is Liara, and then only in the briefing scenes.  Their other dialogue does absolutely nothing to advance it.  You just get some occasional commentary on this or that event after the fact, or some vague generalities along the lines of "We'll stop 'em."  

And for the most part, none of 'em have anything much to do with the plot off the ship either:

Tali's plot-relevant role is over as soon as you've met her for the first time and she forks over the evidence. 

Ash and Kaidan only become relevant on Virmire, but let's face it: that was totally arbitrary (and no, Ash ain't relevant on Eden Prime.  It just provides a convenient excuse to introduce her and put her in the party, but she provides no real information other than "Oh, that beacon thingy was over yonder last I saw...." If Jenkins didn't die there, hardly anything would have been different as far as the central plotline.  He even had identical skills). 

With Wrex and Garrus, you only need to recruit one and the only thing they do plot-wise is say "Uh, you should go back to Chora's Den 'cause that Fist dude can probably tell you where that quarian chick is..."   So, as great as the Wrex thing on Virmire is, it's entirely optional. 

Lastly, we have Liara.....who you don't even have to recruit until after you've done all the other plot worlds, including Virmire.  Then she does the mind-meldy thing, says "Ilos" and instantly becomes irrelevant again.

Modifié par didymos1120, 21 août 2011 - 06:49 .

[sevach]

littlezack wrote...

sevach wrote...

littlezack wrote...

Not to split hairs, but you can talk to your team quite a bit in ME2, too, and they provide some interesting insights. Legion, Samara, and Thane tell you a lot about their respective cultures, for instance,and you get some deeper insights into all of their personalities.

This is true, you can talk a lot on the Normandy, and i said that, what i said is, there's less dialogue, less things to learn and understand on the main plot.

PS: Samara and Thane are very uninteresting to me. Legion is cool , shame he is the last we got.

i don't recall learning all that much about the plot of ME1 from talking to the crewmembers, though I'll admit, it's been a while since I played it. For the most part, I just remember them telling me stories about their lives, just like ME2. Interesting stuff, but nothing that really moved the plot forward.

First, i was talking about dialogue during missions, things that you learn about your enemies, what are their plans and what do i need to stop them, ME2 is painfully straightforward in this department, there's very little to discover.
Just to clarify, the dialogue during missions doesn't have to be with the squadmates (most of the time it isn't), it just has to tell you something you didn't know.

In Me1 we get to chat with, Soverign, Saren, Benezia, Rachni queen, Shiala and other people that end up helping you... Lizbeth Baynham type.
What ME2 has? Delan the mechanic...

And Liara was pretty damn important to the main plot, but that's beside the point.

PS: Legion, Tali, and Mordin missions managed to move an overarching series plot in some direction (credit where it's due), Samara and her daughter? Just moves Samara, everything else not so much.  

Modifié par sevach, 21 août 2011 - 06:53 .

[lolnoobs]

Action game is a video game genre that emphasizes physical challenges, including hand–eye coordination and reaction-time.

So, ME is a action game.

Shooter games are a subgenre of action game, which often test the player's speed and reaction time.

So, now according to some ME is a action game, and it's subgenre shooter.

Adventure game is a video game in which the player assumes the role of protagonist in an interactive story driven by exploration and puzzle-solving instead of physical challenge.

Hey! ME has that to, it's now a action shooter adventure game.

Simulation video game describes a diverse super-category of computer and video games, generally designed to closely simulate aspects of a real or fictional reality.

Wow, awesome. Me is now a action shooter adventure simulation game!

Strategy video games is a video game genre that emphasizes skillful thinking and planning to achieve victory.

Yeah! ME has that to, so apperantly it's now, to some, a action shooter adventure simulation strategy game.





Stop saying there's no clear defenition for RPG because there is. Just as there is for all the genre's above.
Would you consider ME a Sim game? No you wouldn't, even though ME fits the description for it.

Modifié par lolnoobs, 21 août 2011 - 10:57 .

[didymos1120]

sevach wrote...

In Me1 we get to chat with, Soverign, Saren, Benezia, Rachni queen, Shiala and other people that end up helping you... Lizbeth Baynham type.
What ME2 has? Delan the mechanic...

Mordin Recruit:

Quarantine guard
Sick batarian guy.
Daniel & batarian captors
Human Couple
Human Looters
Boss vorcha guy
And of course, Mordin. Multiple times.

Garrus Recruit:

Merc Recruiter
Overenthusiastic Kid
Salkie (driver)
Jaroth
Garm
Tarak & Jentha
Human Freelancer Guy
Sgt. Cathka
And of course, Garrus. Multiple times.

Jack Recruit:

Entrance Guards
Warden Kuril (twice)
Guard watching the beating
Prisoner 783
And of course, Jack

Grunt Recruit:

Wounded Merc
Tank-Bred Krogan
Rana Thanoptis if she's alive
Okeer

And so on.

[SpiffySquee]

lolnoobs wrote...

Action game is a video game genre that emphasizes physical challenges, including hand–eye coordination and reaction-time.

So, ME is a action game.

Shooter games are a subgenre of action game, which often test the player's speed and reaction time.

So, now according to some ME is a action game, and it's subgenre shooter.

Adventure game is a video game in which the player assumes the role of protagonist in an interactive story driven by exploration and puzzle-solving instead of physical challenge.

Hey! ME has that to, it's now a action shooter adventure game.

Simulation video game describes a diverse super-category of computer and video games, generally designed to closely simulate aspects of a real or fictional reality.

Wow, awesome. Me is now a action shooter adventure simulation game!

Strategy video games is a video game genre that emphasizes skillful thinking and planning to achieve victory.

Yeah! ME has that to, so apperantly it's now, to some, a action shooter adventure simulation strategy game.





Stop saying there's no clear defenition for RPG because there is. Just as there is for all the genre's above.
Would you consider ME a Sim game? No you wouldn't, even though ME fits the description for it.

the simple fact that you use wiki, a site that can be edited by anyone, makes your whole argument invalid. Who wrote those definitions? Why should I believe them over my own opinions. Hell, if I don't like those definitions, I could re-write them right now. Would that mean my definition would then become THE definition? All I have to do is write ME2 is a RPG in the RPG section and BOOM! end of debate!

 No? Ok, then there are no hard definitions, so stop pretending there are. I made a video that explained in detail, why I felt stats, inventory, and exploration were not needed for ME2 to be considered an RPG, and what I felt the name Role Play Game was originally intended to mean. I never said anyone else was wrong, but merely asked them to explain why they felt differently. I don't pretend that there is a hard definition and anyone who does not follow it is wrong. 

Modifié par SpiffySquee, 21 août 2011 - 11:24 .

[Fixers0]

didymos1120 wrote...

sevach wrote...

In Me1 we get to chat with, Soverign, Saren, Benezia, Rachni queen, Shiala and other people that end up helping you... Lizbeth Baynham type.
What ME2 has? Delan the mechanic...

Mordin Recruit:

Quarantine guard - Not in the Main plot
Sick batarian guy. - Not in the Main plot - optional
Daniel & batarian captors - Not in the Main plot - optional
Human Couple - Not in the Main plot - optional
Human Looters - Not in the Main plot - optional
Boss vorcha guy - Not in the Main plot
And of course, Mordin. Multiple times. - Not in the Main plot

Garrus Recruit:

Merc Recruiter - Not in the Main plot
Overenthusiastic Kid - Not in the Main plot
Salkie (driver) - Not in the Main plot
Jaroth - Not in the Main plot - optional
Garm - Not in the Main plot - optional
Tarak & Jentha - Not in the Main plot - optional
Human Freelancer Guy - Not in the Main plot - optional
Sgt. Cathka - Not in the Main plot
And of course, Garrus. Multiple times. - Not in the Main plot

Jack Recruit:

Entrance Guards - Not in the Main plot
Warden Kuril (twice) - Not in the Main plot
Guard watching the beating - Not in the Main plot - optional
Prisoner 783 - Not in the Main plot - optional
And of course, Jack - Not in the Main plot

Grunt Recruit:

Wounded Merc - Not in the Main plot
Tank-Bred Krogan - Not in the Main plot
Rana Thanoptis if she's alive - Not in the Main plot - optional
Okeer - Not in the Main plot

And so on.

Also let's not forget that except for Mordin, neither of these character had nothing to do with anything.