1002 réponses à ce sujet

[Phaedon]

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.

If GTA IV had more choices, and your character was your own, which it is not then it would be.

And you know, that's a bit funny.

The only "RPG elements" (according to you) that Total War doesn't have is inventory and loot.

Sometimes it's a bit important to notice that the only real difference between war games and the first "pop western culture RPGs" is the fact that your own character, the actions of which you choose, and the actions of which you are tasked with describing to the rest of the players.

EDIT: To further illustrate that, Niko has a very specific in character response, regardless of your actions, which means that his character has a fully pre-established personality with some glimpses of free will that are still IC.

Modifié par Phaedon, 23 août 2011 - 07:26 .

[Phaedon]

Dionkey wrote...
I single out ME2 because it focuses so much energy on a goal that is unattainable. Until you have FULL control over your choices in a videogame (which you never will), do not try to label that as an RPG element, beacuse it isn't. The reason emphasis is placed on skill is because it is something that can cover just about everything. Sure, people could make up crazy skills in real life, but they are just small alterations of the skills in the game. When this comes to dialogue, this is not the case.

Wait what?

ME2 focused too much on roleplaying, in comparison to what? And how does that make your criticism any more valid? I am confused.

"Lol, ME2 has no other real arr pee gee elements, so this gives grounds for my minor criticisms over the roleplaying system to be considered more important?"

ME2 has every single element that is defined as "RPG" by the elitists. If you want to turn "The game puts a lot of energy into roleplaying" into something comprehensible and pose it again as an argument, go ahead.

Going back to the VS scene on Horizon, it is so impractical that it makes no sense. If I were Shepard, I would had a long conversation and explained every facet. Instead (to further plot progression), Shepard does very little to prove his argument. This is why ME1 and ME2 are NOT RPG's in this department. The reason ME1 is still considered an RPG overall is because of the huge skill tree, the wide selection of weapons/armor and the huge levels of exploration. Mass Effect 2 thought that it could sub in a better cinematic experience while cutting out everything else. Was the game better in a lot of departments? Sure, I'll agree to that, but it sure as hell wasn't the videogame definition of an RPG.

Umm.

So, ME1 is considered an RPG because it has the elements that ME2 has in more quantity but far worse quanity?
The window is right next to me, if you are going to go ahead and claim that any of ME1's statistics were deep (in fact, I go ahead and claim that ME2's statistics were multiple times deeper), I'll volunteer to be the first one to jump out of it. Others are welcome to follow me. 

"If I were Shepard, I would had a long conversation and explained every facet"
Well, tough cheese, old boy. Maybe you have never got in a discussion with a very agitated person were you could not get a word in, let alone, maintain a long conversation, but others have.

Oh wait. Guess what.
KOTOR, one of the most critically acclaimed pure RPGs, forces you to not present full arguments in many situations, such as the initial confrontantion with Bastilla who turned to the Dark Side.

I guess KOTOR is a pew pew shooter.

[Phaedon]

Gatt9 wrote...
Acdtually,  what you've pretty consistently demonstrated is a major break in logic.  It's really this simple...

Assert - A game with a story and decisions is an RPG
             -Halo had a story
             -Wing Commander 3 had decisions
                  -Halo is an FPS
                  -Wing Commander 3 is a Space-Sim
              -Contradiction


Your arguements fail quickly,  because logically they don't work once you leave the Mass-Effect universe.  My arguements OTOH,  pass the test.  My definition is simple,  can it be translated to PnP.  If it cannot,  it's not an RPG.  Any example you come up with is going to be a LARPS,  not an RPG.

Lolno.

Your assertion is the one that you like to see, just like you only see what you want to see in RPGs.

What I call an RPG in my opinion is a game that allows you a great deal of control over the: a) creation of your own character and his or her personality, The development of this personality as well as the plot by allowing choices, c) Allowing the player to develop how that character thinks or fights, etc.

Let's see what YOU think of RPGs.

"Defines a character whose success/failures occur independent of the Player."

-The Sims have statistical progresson, inventory and success/failures occur independent of the Player.
-Syberia has an inventory. All items are useful.
-Call of Duty has loot.
-In backgammon, success/failures occur independent of the Player.

So clearly, you must be wrong somewhere there with your definition.

The Sims 3 allows character creation and character traits.
The Sims 3 provides more interesting plots than many RPGs.
The Sims 3 provides several NPCs.
The Sims 3 allows you to pick up objects placed in crates and trash cans and keep them to your inventory.
The Sims 3 allows statistical progression.
The Sims 3 calculates if you win or lose fights and other activities based on your stats.
Objects in TS3 have their own statistics.

This is what it doesn't provide:
-A branching storyline.
-Specific selection of what to say or do, your interactions are already pre-determined essentially. You are only allowed to do things, but are not allowed to select how  to do them, it's stats and stats alone that determine the outcome of your actions.

You also claim that RPGs were born in the late 70s, in american soil at that. That's ignorant and narrow-minded,
Hell, even Wikipedia which is known for those characteristics acknowledges:
"The assumption of roles was a central theme in some early 20th century activities such as the game Jury Box, mock trials, model legislatures, and "Theatre Games". In the 1960s, historical reenactment groups such as The Sealed Knot and the Society for Creative Anachronism began to perform "creative history" reenactments introducing fantasy elements."

Roleplaying was born only a few years ago, right.

LARPS - Does not define a character,  places the Player and his qualtiies in the "Body of an avatar".
RPG - Defines a character whose success/failures occur independent of the Player.

You'll *never* find an RPG with a character that can't be translated to PnP.  

Umm, Japan begs to differ.

Canada, partially does as well.

I disagree with some of their opinions as well. That means that my opinion isn't necessarily right. Trying to define a man-made thing that evolves as decades pass is retarded. Maybe you should accept that.

You see, there may be some communication issues when you attempt to define a weapon as:
"A f*cking sword, because that's what we had in the old days, back in my tribe."

and not as

"An object created to cause potential bodily harm when used"

Unless "tru arr pee gees" have your eye-to-hand co-ordination saved as a stat as well. Or, give you a perk if you have read the game guide before playing the game. Pretty sure that these are interactions that very relevant to your succes/failure as well. Oh well.

Maybe if they were "tru" they wouldn't have you start as an a completely incompetent character.

Also,  since you can kill everything in the game at level 1,  the leveling system and weapons customization are irrelevant.  If you don't need them,  then the systems are superficial and unnecessary to the game you designed,  and perform no real function.  I doubt highly they'll have reimplemented combat to make leveling actually necessary.

Oh, really, now? Another fact of yours? What, was that an article on gamasutra this time or what?

That's new to me, because, honestly, I did that experiment in ME1. Doesn't quite work in ME2, especially on higher difficulties, considering that for ME2 "casual" is what "normal" is in ME1.

Oh, they don't matter if they don't have a dramatic influence of the game?
That's funny.

I have seen no "RPG" that causes a dramatic change whenever I add a single point.

[RedCaesar97]

I consider the Mass Effect games to be Role Playing Games (RPGs). RPG is a broad enough label --too broad in some people's opinion -- that the Mass Effect games are easily RPGs.

Generally, RPGs typically include the following elements: a focus on story (plot, characters, setting and atmosphere), player skills that you can improve as you play (stats), exploration, combat, loot.

The Mass Effect games include these elements. How well these elements are implemented in the games is a matter of opinion.

[Lunatic LK47]

Candidate 88766 wrote...




CoD and GoW are heavily focused on the multiplayer side of gaming. CoD focuses on the competitive side of multiplayer while GoW focuses on the co-operative side with horde mode and the campaign. Just because ME3 finally has good combat doesn't mean it automatically appeals to fans of multiplayer games. You seriously need to find a new bandwagon to leap on.

And you say every trailer shows this off  - there have been, what, 4 actual trailers? Two of which are not in-game footage and focus on the story, one of which was made up of demo footage because that was all that was available and finally the most recent one which to date is the only trailer that has focused on the new and improved combat. Out of the demos they've shown the only substantial ones they've shown are Earth (story focused) and Shur-Kesh, which focuses on combat and the improved RPG mechanics.

Such a damn shame regarding Call of Duty. Last time I checked, Campaign was Infinity Ward's primary focus (i.e. COD 1 and 2.).  The Modern Warfare series while decent, just felt too short for my liking. Really hold their multiplayer in a low regard.

[Varen Spectre]

Phaedon wrote...

What I call an RPG in my opinion is a game that allows you a great deal of control over the: a) creation of your own character and his or her personality, The development of this personality as well as the plot by allowing choices, c) Allowing the player to develop how that character thinks or fights, etc.

Soo, based on this definition and based on your post about Total War / GTA,... does it mean that you wouldn't mind how the game actually plays - i.e., whether it plays more like a strategy game, racing game, sport game, FPS, TPS, etc... or would you add some kind of adjective / second part of the name to RPG, to indicate what kind of gameplay does the game (mostly) use?

So, ME1 is considered an RPG because it has the elements that ME2 has in more quantity but far worse quanity? The window is right next to me, if you are going to go ahead and claim that any of ME1's statistics were deep (in fact, I go ahead and claim that ME2's statistics were multiple times deeper)

Could you elaborate on the bolded part pls?

Modifié par Varen Spectre, 23 août 2011 - 09:41 .

[Gatt9]

Phaedon wrote...

Gatt9 wrote...
Acdtually,  what you've pretty consistently demonstrated is a major break in logic.  It's really this simple...

Assert - A game with a story and decisions is an RPG
             -Halo had a story
             -Wing Commander 3 had decisions
                  -Halo is an FPS
                  -Wing Commander 3 is a Space-Sim
              -Contradiction


Your arguements fail quickly,  because logically they don't work once you leave the Mass-Effect universe.  My arguements OTOH,  pass the test.  My definition is simple,  can it be translated to PnP.  If it cannot,  it's not an RPG.  Any example you come up with is going to be a LARPS,  not an RPG.

Lolno.

Your assertion is the one that you like to see, just like you only see what you want to see in RPGs.

What I call an RPG in my opinion is a game that allows you a great deal of control over the: a) creation of your own character and his or her personality, The development of this personality as well as the plot by allowing choices, c) Allowing the player to develop how that character thinks or fights, etc.

Let's see what YOU think of RPGs.

"Defines a character whose success/failures occur independent of the Player."

-The Sims have statistical progresson, inventory and success/failures occur independent of the Player.
-Syberia has an inventory. All items are useful.
-Call of Duty has loot.
-In backgammon, success/failures occur independent of the Player.

So clearly, you must be wrong somewhere there with your definition.

The Sims 3 allows character creation and character traits.
The Sims 3 provides more interesting plots than many RPGs.
The Sims 3 provides several NPCs.
The Sims 3 allows you to pick up objects placed in crates and trash cans and keep them to your inventory.
The Sims 3 allows statistical progression.
The Sims 3 calculates if you win or lose fights and other activities based on your stats.
Objects in TS3 have their own statistics.

This is what it doesn't provide:
-A branching storyline.
-Specific selection of what to say or do, your interactions are already pre-determined essentially. You are only allowed to do things, but are not allowed to select how  to do them, it's stats and stats alone that determine the outcome of your actions.

You also claim that RPGs were born in the late 70s, in american soil at that. That's ignorant and narrow-minded,
Hell, even Wikipedia which is known for those characteristics acknowledges:
"The assumption of roles was a central theme in some early 20th century activities such as the game Jury Box, mock trials, model legislatures, and "Theatre Games". In the 1960s, historical reenactment groups such as The Sealed Knot and the Society for Creative Anachronism began to perform "creative history" reenactments introducing fantasy elements."

Roleplaying was born only a few years ago, right.

Here we are again,  you're making things up and not understanding the topic at hand.

First...

1.  You have no control over the creation of Shepherd,  you don't get to choose anything other than class,  and that's largely irrelevant as the weapon choices don't make any difference.

2.  I kicked someone off a building in cold blood,  no one cared,  but I was the paragon of virtue.  Shepherd has no personality,  as the game fails to recognize it.

3.  How your character thinks and fight is defined by his Role.

Further,  you *might* try reading what I've posted.

My definition is simple, can it be translated to PnP. If it cannot, it's not an RPG.

Go ahead and bold the part in there where I mentioned Inventory.  You might also want to point out where in the rules in Backgammon the pieces are given independent skills.  When you fail on both counts,  you might want to quit trying to put words in people's mouths when your arguements fail.  It would also be especially good if you didn't confuse the definition of a Role with the definition of a RPG,  until you get a handle on that,  you're still going to be unable to make any kind of rational arguement on the topic.

Which we see again illustrated later in your post where you confuse Roleplaying with a Roleplaying Game,  which are two completely different things,  RPG's didn't exist until the 1970's.  Roleplaying has existed for millenia.  I'll try this one last time,  though I expect I'll continue to waste moments of my life...

An RPG is a structured set of rules that define the world and define the Roles that one can assume in that world,  as well as including mechanics to enforce the Role and seperate it from your personal abilities.

Roleplaying is a unstructured form of play acting with no defined world,  no specifically defined Roles,  and no mechanics to enforce the Role.  Basically,  it's a LARPS.

Just because RPG has the word in it,  doesn't mean it's the same thing.  Not sure how many times we have to go over this,  you keep missing that last letter in the acronym,  though given that you don't seem to be able to read what's posted I'm really not surprised you miss the fact that the acronym doesn't spell "Roleplaying" it spells "Roleplaying Game".

It's really not a hard concept.  A car is a car,  a Motorcycle is a Motorcycle,  despite the fact that they share common components and some common purposes.  But they'll never be identical...

[wizardryforever]

jreezy wrote...

"You have no control over the creation of Shepherd, you don't get to choose anything other than class…" It looks like someone hasn't played Mass Effect before, or in a long time.

Exactly.  You control Shepard's gender, appearance, personal background and service history, as well as class.  Pretty much like every other RPG, except a lot of them don't even have that degree of customization.

[Gatt9]

wizardryforever wrote...

jreezy wrote...

"You have no control over the creation of Shepherd, you don't get to choose anything other than class…" It looks like someone hasn't played Mass Effect before, or in a long time.

Exactly.  You control Shepard's gender, appearance, personal background and service history, as well as class.  Pretty much like every other RPG, except a lot of them don't even have that degree of customization.

You two aren't really trying to suggest which textures are rendered on a skeletal frame makes something an RPG are you?

You can also discount the personal background,  since it's referred to once and never used for anything.  It might as well say "Shepherd played with pink bunnies when he was little" for all the effect it has.

Then there's the classes,  which all use pretty much the same weapons and the same tactics,  the assault pistol and assault rifle were so close in function as to be identical.  So class distinctions are pretty much pointless when you fail to distinguish between classes by implementing restrictions.  Especialy since towards the end of the game you can give everyone the ammo they were "Locked out of" magically.

It's all superfulous,  none of it actually defines everything because it's either irrelevant,  or made such that there's no limitations worthy of note.

Most RPG's have an order of magnitude more customization,  to use a recent example,  go buy Fallout New Vegas and tell me how customizable ME2 is.  Or go research the potential combinations in Diablo 3.  ME2's customization is pretty much non-existant.

[Nozybidaj]

I love these threads. Calling ME and rpg is about the loosest interpretation of the term "rpg" you can have. The game really should be classified as either shooter or action/adventure game with interactive dialogue. That's not a bad thing and not meant as derogatory. It just is.

Picking a hair color or tone of conversation options isn't what makes something a rpg. I really only wonder two things. First why did they ever call it an rpg game to begin with? I guess I don't see what the point was of holding onto a label just for old times sake. Secondly why do folks get so offended at the notion that it isn't an rpg? It doesn't change the actual game at all to label it properly, what's the big deal?

[Someone With Mass]

Gatt9 wrote...

You two aren't really trying to suggest which textures are rendered on a skeletal frame makes something an RPG are you?

You can also discount the personal background,  since it's referred to once and never used for anything.  It might as well say "Shepherd played with pink bunnies when he was little" for all the effect it has.

Then there's the classes,  which all use pretty much the same weapons and the same tactics,  the assault pistol and assault rifle were so close in function as to be identical.  So class distinctions are pretty much pointless when you fail to distinguish between classes by implementing restrictions.  Especialy since towards the end of the game you can give everyone the ammo they were "Locked out of" magically.

It's all superfulous,  none of it actually defines everything because it's either irrelevant,  or made such that there's no limitations worthy of note.

Most RPG's have an order of magnitude more customization,  to use a recent example,  go buy Fallout New Vegas and tell me how customizable ME2 is.  Or go research the potential combinations in Diablo 3.  ME2's customization is pretty much non-existant.

Except it adds more role playing aspects to the player's Shepard. Not everything must have a direct impact on the game to be meaningful to some people.

By the way, class distinctions were even fewer in ME1, since they had almost no unique trait except for maybe the hacking part, which  is easily passable if you have the right companions.

And using the same tactics? Yeah, right. Tell that to the Vanguard or Infiltrator. Just because you can play the same way doesn't mean you have to. 

[Sharn01]

Savber100 wrote...

Sharn01 wrote...

I think that bioware has given up on marketing to RPG fans.  We get what, two, or if where lucky, three games a year that are worth playing?  RPG fans have a tendency to do their own homework on what games carry the RPG title and determine if they are worth playing, and often play ones that arent that good because the market is so starved. 

Profit wise I think they feel its better to advertise to an audience that will play the game for six to twelve hours and shelve it with the other games they have never finished, this backfired for them with DA2, but then DA2 wasnt a very good game.  ME3 is almost certain to bring in most of the people who played ME and ME2, whichever one you liked better it probably hooked you on the series, and neither game is seen as poorly done by almost anyone, people have preferences and complaints, but you dont often see someone calling either game terrible.

Witcher 2, Skyrim, and Deus Ex: Human Revolutions will like a word with you. 

The hype for Skyrim and DX:HR and the success of The Witcher 2 is proving otherwise. 

I never said RPG's are dead, though Skyrim is moving away from traditional RPG much like bioware is, and while I am not 100% familiar with the new Dues Ex, I was pretty sure it was a shooter with heavy RPG elements added to it.  

Bioware has not been advertising to RPG players though, look at all their advertising for ME2 and DA2, you will see references to RPG mechanics on the forums and obscure interviews, but certainly not in their actual advertising.

[littlezack]

Gatt9 wrote...
Further,  you *might* try reading what I've posted.

My definition is simple, can it be translated to PnP. If it cannot, it's not an RPG.

.

I spit on your pretentious definition.

[Massadonious1]

Or we can just give up the archaic notion of labeling it altogether.

Outside of video game publications that need to stick it in to some kind of category for review/award purposes, the only people that seem to care are those that wish to slight it for what it's not.

Modifié par Massadonious1, 24 août 2011 - 05:03 .

[Eduadinho]

littlezack wrote...

Gatt9 wrote...
Further,  you *might* try reading what I've posted.

My definition is simple, can it be translated to PnP. If it cannot, it's not an RPG.

.

I spit on your pretentious definition.

WIN!!! But I think you should have gone one up with "I fart in your general direction!"

[lolnoobs]

Someone With Mass wrote...

Except it adds more role playing aspects to the player's Shepard. Not everything must have a direct impact on the game to be meaningful to some people.

By the way, class distinctions were even fewer in ME1, since they had almost no unique trait except for maybe the hacking part, which  is easily passable if you have the right companions.

And using the same tactics? Yeah, right. Tell that to the Vanguard or Infiltrator. Just because you can play the same way doesn't mean you have to. 

You are confusing LARP with a RPG video game.

[Rockworm503]

littlezack wrote...

Gatt9 wrote...
Further,  you *might* try reading what I've posted.

My definition is simple, can it be translated to PnP. If it cannot, it's not an RPG.

.

I spit on your pretentious definition.

What I don't get is why he doesn't just say that and move on.
These long winded posts of his that pretty much repeat himself over and over does nothing but make us annoyed at him.
I've said it before and I'll say it again. I don't care what your "defenition" of an RPG is.  If Video games as a whole are to move forward these genre labels must also.  If nothing but PnP is an RPG than play PnP and leave us who have no love for PnP or desire to play it to enjoy an awesome game.
Doesn't have to be an RPG to be fun as hell.

[Someone With Mass]

lolnoobs wrote...

Someone With Mass wrote...

Except it adds more role playing aspects to the player's Shepard. Not everything must have a direct impact on the game to be meaningful to some people.

By the way, class distinctions were even fewer in ME1, since they had almost no unique trait except for maybe the hacking part, which  is easily passable if you have the right companions.

And using the same tactics? Yeah, right. Tell that to the Vanguard or Infiltrator. Just because you can play the same way doesn't mean you have to. 

You are confusing LARP with a RPG video game.

Ah, yes, "meaningful lables".

[Rockworm503]

Someone With Mass wrote...

lolnoobs wrote...

Someone With Mass wrote...

Except it adds more role playing aspects to the player's Shepard. Not everything must have a direct impact on the game to be meaningful to some people.

By the way, class distinctions were even fewer in ME1, since they had almost no unique trait except for maybe the hacking part, which  is easily passable if you have the right companions.

And using the same tactics? Yeah, right. Tell that to the Vanguard or Infiltrator. Just because you can play the same way doesn't mean you have to. 

You are confusing LARP with a RPG video game.

Ah, yes, "meaningful lables".

confusing Live Action Role Playing to an RPG video game?
LOL last I checked ME isn't Live Action.

[Someone With Mass]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LARP

I don't think Mass Effect can be a LARP by that definition.

By the way, I meant that in a way that the player might think that Shepard's background affects his/her morals and standards in certain ways, making some options more suited for them than others.

[Rockworm503]

Isn't Role Playing all about using your imagination?
The naysayers constantly going on about how Shepard has no personality and no real motivation.  He's a brick yet if Bioware had infused him/her with a load of personality then they would complain that they don't leave it to them.
Where is your imagination?  I don't think anyone complained that the rule book didn't infuse your character with a personality when you start up a DnD game.

[Someone With Mass]

Rockworm503 wrote...
Isn't Role Playing all about using your imagination?
The naysayers constantly going on about how Shepard has no personality and no real motivation.  He's a brick yet if Bioware had infused him/her with a load of personality then they would complain that they don't leave it to them.
Where is your imagination?  I don't think anyone complained that the rule book didn't infuse your character with a personality when you start up a DnD game.

I see the backgrounds and different classes as just a way of putting more personality in each Shepard. The rest is really up to the individual player, not BioWare. 

Because they can't plan for every single thing a player might want to do/be.