1002 réponses à ce sujet

[Candidate 88766]

Dionkey wrote...

Bluko wrote...
*snip*

This has to be the most logical post I have ever read on BSN. 10/10.

I'll second that. Great post.

[SpiffySquee]

lolnoobs wrote...

Sigh, if al rpg's are about, are choices. Then why isn't Total War considered a rpg? Both strategy and rpgs evolved from wargames, so why isn't Total War a rpg? Or GTA4. The main plot for GTA4 was about revenge and you can CHOOSE to take revenge, or not. So GTA4 is a rpg now?

You know why "ME2 is a rpg"? Because the marketing department from Bioware and EA told you so.

Not sure who that was directed to, but if they said that I agree with you. It is not just that you have choice (at least to me) You need to have control of your avatar's personality. You have to be able to control, at least as much as a game will allow, how he/she reacts to the world, how they look at the world, and how they grow as a person. GTA4 is not really an RPG because you don't have control of any of this. Nikko is always the same. He always says the same things in all the conversations. The only choice is whether or not to kill someone, and that only happens three or four times in the entire game. You can't develop his personality, or personalize him in anyway other than what clothes he wears. My Nikko is just like your Nikko, is just like his Nikko. 

The total war argument is ridiculous because you are not playing as anyone. You are simply controlling a country as some invisible guiding hand. There is no personality to develop. The is no role to take up. 

[Rockworm503]

lolnoobs wrote...

Sigh, if al rpg's are about, are choices. Then why isn't Total War considered a rpg? Both strategy and rpgs evolved from wargames, so why isn't Total War a rpg? Or GTA4. The main plot for GTA4 was about revenge and you can CHOOSE to take revenge, or not. So GTA4 is a rpg now?

You know why "ME2 is a rpg"? Because the marketing department from Bioware and EA told you so.

This is so important to you that you won't budge an inch no matter what anyone says.
It can't possibly be an RPG in anyway because calling it an RPG will emply something good is there.  NO NO we can't have that.
F that no GTA4 is not an RPG.. YOu know why?  Because it doesn't care.  Its a game inteded to be fun and thats what games are about.  You can denounce ME as an RPG all you want.  At the end of the day it doesn't need to be to be fun.  In fact the RPG fanbases has given me such a bad taste on the whole thing that at this point calling it an RPG is nothing more than an insult.

Modifié par Rockworm503, 22 août 2011 - 11:40 .

[Il Divo]

iakus wrote...

Oh I dunno, dream sequences where Shepard's chatting with a ghostly Saren about his mission, or telepathic conversatons with Harbringer or the Collector General would have been cool.  

Actually, that fits perfectly with my point. "Realistic is not always a good thing". You're not watching Shepard sleep- you're experiencing a potential plot significant event.

It's not just the enviroment, it's what's done with it.  What takes place there.  How it's used.  It doesn't matter how barren or colorful it is if it's made into an interesting character in its own right.  Neither game got it exactly right, but I like ME 1's style better if for no other reason than it made the galaxy feel bigger

However, artificially extending the galaxy's does not make it better. With KotOR, I did not need planet exploration to receive a sense of scale to the universe. Environments were used to great effect (as Mass Effect's main quest did).

I often bring up the point that good side quests died with Jade Empire, and I don't say that lightly. Mass  Effect designed whole planets around single side quests, which is problematic.

"Hey, every star cluster has exactly one planet I can land on. Hey, every planet has one important location. Hey, the merc base where Wrex's family armor is hidden is the exact same room as where Helena Blake's men were hiding".  Instead, KotOR/Jade Empire increase that sense of a coherent universe, often by tying in the goal/location of side quests to that of the main quest's goal.

This is true.  The loyalty missions all felt like side missions (not much different from Wrex's armor and Doctor Saleon) That provided filler for an otherwise terribly short second Act.  And the side missions were as useless as turian insignias, serving no purpose other than bonus xp or cash.

Agreed, however I'd argue that comparing any loyalty mission to Doctor Saleon is a disservice to the amount of effort which went into their creation, comparatively speaking.

I don't find generic enviroment to be a problem, it's lack of a purpose.  I don't mind rooms looking the same (prefabs structures make sense, after all) if there's a different story behind it.  If I go into one and find Corporal Toombs tearing apart a Cerberus base, then go to another to deal with a band of pirates I think is holding an asari diplomat's sister, and go to a third to find Wrex's armor, those are three different stories each with its own dialogue and choices to make.

I disagree. The game expects me to accept this as a reality. I go to find Wrex's family armor, and it required all the same effort which disposing of Helena Blake's rivals required. The game is trying to tell me that each side quest is different and important, however it refuses to treat the environments with the same consideration.

Again, the KotOR example comes up. I can help the woman outside Fozza's Lodge by walking inside and speaking with Fozza regarding the wraid plate. Then I might run into Tanis and his wife in the desert, where I'm going to reach the Sand People's enclave. And then I encounter Mission's Brother in the enclave itself. Side quests take place in dramatically different environments, can be completed over the course of the main quest line (typically), and still manage to create diversity.

I'd consider this smart quest design, as all quests are integrated into the world created by the narrative. Outside of the Genoharadan/Mystery Box, I don't believe there is a single KotOR side quests which requires travel across multiple planets. Mass Effect's side quest problem is compounded once I've begun performing side quests back to back. Every planet exploration requires that I search a system, travel in the mako, then (typically) clear out a room of enemies. By the time I'm finished, I can no longer focus on what Admiral Hackett, Nassana Dantius, or any character sent me for, because it all felt remarkably generic.

Modifié par Il Divo, 22 août 2011 - 01:10 .

[Iakus]

Il Divo wrote...

Actually, that fits perfectly with my point. "Realistic is not always a good thing". You're not watching Shepard sleep- you're experiencing a potential plot significant event.

And like I said, realistic has little to do with it.  It's a matter of making the terrain, event, or whatever interesting. Driving across a barren rock can be made fun, just as watching someone sleep can be made interesting..  ME1 just didn't do it quite right for some people. ME 2 seemed to depend entirely on the background distracting from the boring side missions.

However, artificially extending the galaxy's does not make it better. With KotOR, I did not need planet exploration to receive a sense of scale to the universe. Environments were used to great effect (as Mass Effect's main quest did).

It's likely because I actually had no problems with the Mako, but I never found the area for ME1 artificially extended. I actually enjoyed driving around investigating what these "anomalies" were.  Yeah navigating a hill might be tricky from time to time, but the landscapes gave me a sense of age and scope that said "You humans are the noobs of the galaxy"  ME2's terrains all felt slick, new, and artificial.

Agreed, however I'd argue that comparing any loyalty mission to Doctor Saleon is a disservice to the amount of effort which went into their creation, comparatively speaking.

Never said the ME2 loyalty missions were bad.  Several are actually quite well done.  However what they did not feel was important to the task at hand.  As such, they were sidequests, like Dr Saleon and Wrex's armor.  The only difference being the ME2 missions granted the Magic Plot Armor that makes you immune to falling debris.  As opposed to, say the DA2 personal missions where even Isabela, whom you can go through the game without ever recruiting, has personal missions that tie in to the game's storyline.

I disagree. The game expects me to accept this as a reality. I go to find Wrex's family armor, and it required all the same effort which disposing of Helena Blake's rivals required. The game is trying to tell me that each side quest is different and important, however it refuses to treat the environments with the same consideration.

Again, the KotOR example comes up. I can help the woman outside Fozza's Lodge by walking inside and speaking with Fozza regarding the wraid plate. Then I might run into Tanis and his wife in the desert, where I'm going to reach the Sand People's enclave. And then I encounter Mission's Brother in the enclave itself. Side quests take place in dramatically different environments, can be completed over the course of the main quest line (typically), and still manage to create diversity. 

I'd consider this smart quest design, as all quests are integrated into the world created by the narrative. Outside of the Genoharadan/Mystery Box, I don't believe there is a single KotOR side quests which requires travel across multiple planets. Mass Effect's side quest problem is compounded once I've begun performing side quests back to back. Every planet exploration requires that I search a system, travel in the mako, then (typically) clear out a room of enemies. By the time I'm finished, I can no longer focus on what Admiral Hackett, Nassana Dantius, or any character sent me for, because it all felt remarkably generic.

And the quests you cited all involve different dialogue options, different choices.  I'll bet the companions even have different things to say in some of them.  

Same with many of ME1's side quests.  Many involve talking to people (not just Hackett), making personal or moral choices, As opposed to ME2's N7missions (most of which are only uncovered by flying around firing probes at planets) and nver seem to involve dialogue, few choices, and are largely variations of "Land on planet.  Kill everything in the area.  Fly away"  I find that every bit as boring as you find the terrain in ME1.

[Slayer299]

Mr. MannlyMan wrote...
I also hope you know that classifying the Mass Effect series as "RPG" makes it vulnerable to comparisons with other RPGs that offer players more choice and more rewards. So games like Skyrim and Fallout are inherently better at being RPGs than Mass Effect 1/2/3 are. So, by trying to prove it's an RPG, you actually open the games up to criticism.

I do agree that Mass Effect is an RPG series at its core; it just has very underdeveloped and very "streamlined" (ie. trivialized) mechanics outside of story choices and dialogue.

This pretty much says it all.

[SpiffySquee]

The Big Bad Wolf wrote...

SpiffySquee wrote...

lolnoobs wrote...

Sigh, if al rpg's are about, are choices. Then why isn't Total War considered a rpg? Both strategy and rpgs evolved from wargames, so why isn't Total War a rpg? Or GTA4. The main plot for GTA4 was about revenge and you can CHOOSE to take revenge, or not. So GTA4 is a rpg now?

You know why "ME2 is a rpg"? Because the marketing department from Bioware and EA told you so.

Not sure who that was directed to, but if they said that I agree with you. It is not just that you have choice (at least to me) You need to have control of your avatar's personality. You have to be able to control, at least as much as a game will allow, how he/she reacts to the world, how they look at the world, and how they grow as a person. GTA4 is not really an RPG because you don't have control of any of this. Nikko is always the same. He always says the same things in all the conversations. The only choice is whether or not to kill someone, and that only happens three or four times in the entire game. You can't develop his personality, or personalize him in anyway other than what clothes he wears. My Nikko is just like your Nikko, is just like his Nikko. 

The total war argument is ridiculous because you are not playing as anyone. You are simply controlling a country as some invisible guiding hand. There is no personality to develop. The is no role to take up. 

Are you saying that in order for a game to be a rpg, you have to control the character's personality? And develop it?

You need to have the option to do so. If you want you could make Shepard an unchanging rock, or you could completely change his personality over the course of the game though his actions and reactions.

[SpiffySquee]

The Big Bad Wolf wrote...

SpiffySquee wrote...

You need to have the option to do so. If you want you could make Shepard an unchanging rock, or you could completely change his personality over the course of the game though his actions and reactions.

Going by that, Call of Duty Modern Warfare 1 and 2 and pretty much every modern NBA game is an rpg.

Care to be more specific? I can't even fathom how you came to that conclusion, so I don't know how to respond...

[Quething]

SpiffySquee wrote...

The Big Bad Wolf wrote...

SpiffySquee wrote...

lolnoobs wrote...

Sigh, if al rpg's are about, are choices. Then why isn't Total War considered a rpg? Both strategy and rpgs evolved from wargames, so why isn't Total War a rpg? Or GTA4. The main plot for GTA4 was about revenge and you can CHOOSE to take revenge, or not. So GTA4 is a rpg now?

You know why "ME2 is a rpg"? Because the marketing department from Bioware and EA told you so.

Not sure who that was directed to, but if they said that I agree with you. It is not just that you have choice (at least to me) You need to have control of your avatar's personality. You have to be able to control, at least as much as a game will allow, how he/she reacts to the world, how they look at the world, and how they grow as a person. GTA4 is not really an RPG because you don't have control of any of this. Nikko is always the same. He always says the same things in all the conversations. The only choice is whether or not to kill someone, and that only happens three or four times in the entire game. You can't develop his personality, or personalize him in anyway other than what clothes he wears. My Nikko is just like your Nikko, is just like his Nikko. 

The total war argument is ridiculous because you are not playing as anyone. You are simply controlling a country as some invisible guiding hand. There is no personality to develop. The is no role to take up.

Are you saying that in order for a game to be a rpg, you have to control the character's personality? And develop it?

You need to have the option to do so. If you want you could make Shepard an unchanging rock, or you could completely change his personality over the course of the game though his actions and reactions.

So where do JRPGs fit in this? Is the Final Fantasy series part of a fundamentally different genre than Fallout 3?

I mean, you can certainly argue that yes, it is, and I wouldn't necessarily disagree, but in that case, which is the RPG, and what do you call the other one? Or is "JRPG" one genre and "WRPG" the other? And what thread do they share that lets them both claim "RPG" as a component? And is that thread actually important to either of them?

(That aside, the ME series did lose a lot of what I'd consider important RPG elements in the transition to ME2, to its detriment, as did DA2. IMO ofc.)

[SpiffySquee]

Quething wrote...


So where do JRPGs fit in this? Is the Final Fantasy series part of a fundamentally different genre than Fallout 3?

I mean, you can certainly argue that yes, it is, and I wouldn't necessarily disagree, but in that case, which is the RPG, and what do you call the other one? Or is "JRPG" one genre and "WRPG" the other? And what thread do they share that lets them both claim "RPG" as a component? And is that thread actually important to either of them?

(That aside, the ME series did lose a lot of what I'd consider important RPG elements in the transition to ME2, to its detriment, as did DA2. IMO ofc.)

You should watch the video I put in the original post as it deals extensively with your question.

Modifié par SpiffySquee, 22 août 2011 - 02:33 .

[CroGamer002]

^Since when character creator makes some a game a specific genre?

[SpiffySquee]

The Big Bad Wolf wrote...

Mesina2 wrote...

^Since when character creator makes some a game a specific genre?

I wasn't saying that.

I was saying that I could role play a character I created through the character creator.

No you can't. You cannot make any decisions past what their stats and appearance are. You cannot influence their personality in any way that is reflected by the game. You have no moral decision to make within the game to shape the character by. You have no choices to make that would reveal how your character feels about anything and (more importantly) the game does not react to any such decisions. I suppose you could create a personality for them in your head, but there is no way to implement this personality in the game.

Example: I want my Shepard to be compassionate to humans, but not to Aliens. Thus, i can be kind to humans, and see their responses, and mean to Aliens and see their reaction. Explain how you can do anything like this in a NBA game?

[Chewin]

SpiffySquee wrote...
Example: I want my Shepard to be compassionate to humans, but not to Aliens. Thus, i can be kind to humans, and see their responses, and mean to Aliens and see their reaction. Explain how you can do anything like this in a NBA game?

You can do an own goal and see your team's and the audience's reactions?

jk.

Modifié par Chewin3, 22 août 2011 - 02:57 .

[Someone With Mass]

The Big Bad Wolf wrote...

I came to that conclusion because I can do the same thing in those games. I can change the personality of the characters I'm playing as or not.

The NBA game, I'm only talking about if you create a character.

You're only modifying their looks in games like Halo Reach, though. They'll still say the exact same thing and do the exact same thing.

[SpiffySquee]

Chewin3 wrote...

SpiffySquee wrote...
Example: I want my Shepard to be compassionate to humans, but not to Aliens. Thus, i can be kind to humans, and see their responses, and mean to Aliens and see their reaction. Explain how you can do anything like this in a NBA game?

You can do an own goal and see your team's and the audience's reactions?

jk.

*Gasp* By George, they've found my arguments flaw!! Quick Chim Chim!! Pack my socks! We must make our escape!!

*WOOOOOOOSH*   (that's me escaping real good) 

[Il Divo]

Iakus wrote...

And like I said, realistic has little to do with it. It's a matter of making the terrain, event, or whatever interesting. Driving across a barren rock can be made fun, just as watching someone sleep can be made interesting.. ME1 just didn't do it quite right for some people. ME 2 seemed to depend entirely on the background distracting from the boring side missions.

But we're debating semantics. Regardless of whether was Shepard was sleeping, you were not watching him for 8 hours, which would be another example of ‘realism’. You were watching something else entirely, in the context of Shepard sleeping. My point is that realism and interesting are not synonymous, even if they can occur together. I doubt players want to watch Shepard sleep because it's realistic.

It's likely because I actually had no problems with the Mako, but I never found the area for ME1 artificially extended. I actually enjoyed driving around investigating what these "anomalies" were. Yeah navigating a hill might be tricky from time to time, but the landscapes gave me a sense of age and scope that said "You humans are the noobs of the galaxy" ME2's terrains all felt slick, new, and artificial.

Nihlus (and many other characters) at the start of Mass Effect already explained this to Shepard and the player. Generic planets were not needed to do the same. The landscape said to me “Hey, we didn’t have time to fill these environments with interesting activities, so we placed crashed probes everywhere”.

Yes, the Mako was rather annoying to navigate with. However, I would have put up with it in exchange for interesting exploration elements, which are typically fueled by having something substantial for the player to explore. Resources, turian insignias, randomly generated weapons/items don’t fit the bill. For myself, it occupies the same level of entertainment as grinding in an RPG. It's an overused gimmick in games.

Never said the ME2 loyalty missions were bad. Several are actually quite well done. However what they did not feel was important to the task at hand. As such, they were sidequests, like Dr Saleon and Wrex's armor. The only difference being the ME2 missions granted the Magic Plot Armor that makes you immune to falling debris. As opposed to, say the DA2 personal missions where even Isabela, whom you can go through the game without ever recruiting, has personal missions that tie in to the game's storyline.

But that’s their purpose. That’s why they’re called “side quests”. However, comparing side quests like Geth Incursions to Miranda’s loyalty mission doesn’t have the same effect.
 
Yes, loyalty missions were “side quests”, but they were given a substantial level of detail which was missing from Mass Effect. All the cinematic presentation of the main quest goes out the window with Mass Effect’s side quests, excluding Bringing Down the Sky which presented a more focused narrative. I only wish when killing Dr. Saleon that the game had given us a cinematic perspective, instead of treating it as another opportunity for Shepard to murder something.  

And the quests you cited all involve different dialogue options, different choices. I'll bet the companions even have different things to say in some of them.

And they also did not involve generic environments. When I went to rescue Dustil on Korriban, I did not have to play an extended game of hide and seek to locate him. He was not hiding in a one-room bunker, where I also happened to stop a group of biotic terrorists. Likewise with most quests on Korriban. Each Sith Tomb featured unique puzzles/scenarios.
Mass Effect presents the same small-scale side quests, while avoiding the more in-depth quest lines such as the Jedi Murder Trial, Scholar’s Garden Debate, Imperial Arena, etc.

Same with many of ME1's side quests. Many involve talking to people (not just Hackett), making personal or moral choices,

Mass Effect’s side quests also required substantially more effort to reach than KotOR’s side quests. As a player, I expect substantially more from the game than the opportunity to simply kill or spare Helena Blake. Essentially, I get the same “interaction”, with more hurdles thrown in the way, in both travel time and generic presentation.

I had the option of whether to steal Sharina’s wraid plate, lie to her and sell it, or give her above asking price. However, the game did not expect me to track her across the galaxy in order to do so. I consider Mass Effect's approach a downgrade.

As opposed to ME2's N7missions (most of which are only uncovered by flying around firing probes at planets) and nver seem to involve dialogue, few choices, and are largely variations of "Land on planet. Kill everything in the area. Fly away" I find that every bit as boring as you find the terrain in ME1.

That is why I often point out that “Mass Effect 2’s side quests sucked”. Because I enjoy unique environments does not mean I dislike plot, choices, and dialogue. I simply think both are needed.    

Modifié par Il Divo, 22 août 2011 - 03:45 .

[Il Divo]

Edit: Nevermind.

Modifié par Il Divo, 22 août 2011 - 03:18 .

[Someone With Mass]

The Big Bad Wolf wrote...

You are also modifying their stats and abilities as well.

That's just armor abilities, and they're not affecting the personality of the character in any way.

People are going different routes in Mass Effect, and then they're expanding on why their Shepard made this and that decision by giving them a imaginative personality.