1002 réponses à ce sujet

[VaultingFrog]

Gatt9 wrote...

Pulletlamer 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.

That's the biggest fallacy I have ever seen on my entire life. Congratulations. Nothing more to add.

Which means you cannot refute it?  Go ahead,  it's a simple proof,  by all means break it.

Except you can't,  all I had to do was find one incident that disproves it,  now the burden is upon you to provide a counterproof showing that for all games,  if it has a story and decisions they are RPG's,  which is impossible.

As such,  logically,  "A game with a story and decisions is an RPG" (As has been asserted numerous times in this thread) is clearly false.

True story telling doesnt make an RPG. However Mass Effect has more than just that. The class system, attribute allocation mechanics as well as equipment mechanics all function in the manor of an RPG.

If you were just basing the title of RPG off of storylines then every game would be an RPG. You play a roll in the game. That however is not all of what an RPG equates to.

A vast item system in which modifications and upgrades are available to the player has been introduced. Each weapon having unique properties such as rapid fire being useful against shields/barriers and crappy against armor. Ammo mods in ME and ME2 enhanced those properties even further. Plus in ME you had a host of other upgrades to choose from to custom tailor weapons to suit your desired play style.

The class system ensured that no player could have every ability on the market. It forces players to have partners with various skills to balance their own weaknesses. Soldiers dont have biotics and so to fill that gap you place in a biotic using character.

Each character has unique attributes in which you are able to increase their skill in. Some allow more powers/abilities to be accessed, others enhance your classes strong suits.

All of those elements mark Mass Effect as an RPG not just a standard TPG.

Thank you for playing.

[Varen Spectre]

Rockworm503 wrote...

and you know what? their going to do the exact same thing so goodbye.

Nah, don't scare us!

As for the current ones, I think that at least picking between Ashley and Kaiden or Samara and Morinth should meet even the strictest criteria for choices and meaningful consequences.

But I admit, games like Alpha Protocol or Witcher 2 handled c & c little bit better...  

[SpEcIaLRyAn]

I still like Mass Effect. Just saying, no matter what you call it I still like Mass Effect. Which proves how pointless this discussion is....

Modifié par SpEcIaLRyAn, 25 août 2011 - 01:52 .

[sympathy4saren]

VaultingFrog wrote...

Gatt9 wrote...

Pulletlamer 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.

That's the biggest fallacy I have ever seen on my entire life. Congratulations. Nothing more to add.

Which means you cannot refute it?  Go ahead,  it's a simple proof,  by all means break it.

Except you can't,  all I had to do was find one incident that disproves it,  now the burden is upon you to provide a counterproof showing that for all games,  if it has a story and decisions they are RPG's,  which is impossible.

As such,  logically,  "A game with a story and decisions is an RPG" (As has been asserted numerous times in this thread) is clearly false.

True story telling doesnt make an RPG. However Mass Effect has more than just that. The class system, attribute allocation mechanics as well as equipment mechanics all function in the manor of an RPG.

If you were just basing the title of RPG off of storylines then every game would be an RPG. You play a roll in the game. That however is not all of what an RPG equates to.

A vast item system in which modifications and upgrades are available to the player has been introduced. Each weapon having unique properties such as rapid fire being useful against shields/barriers and crappy against armor. Ammo mods in ME and ME2 enhanced those properties even further. Plus in ME you had a host of other upgrades to choose from to custom tailor weapons to suit your desired play style.

The class system ensured that no player could have every ability on the market. It forces players to have partners with various skills to balance their own weaknesses. Soldiers dont have biotics and so to fill that gap you place in a biotic using character.

Each character has unique attributes in which you are able to increase their skill in. Some allow more powers/abilities to be accessed, others enhance your classes strong suits.

All of those elements mark Mass Effect as an RPG not just a standard TPG.

Thank you for playing.

You went into depth with upgrades on weapons...is that confirmed or are you a dev? I didn't see anywhere yet the rapid fire ability having strengths and weskness, for example. Is it statistics based, so we know the precise amount of effectiveness?

It's more than just upgrading weapons, though. What about armor? What about exploration? I see vehicle exploration is confirmed not to be in...does this mean that "exploration" will be linear again and basically be a mini shooting gallery on a planet?

I do like what I see from skills, though. Skills are a vital component. It looks much more extensive and the UI looks much more clean.

[VaultingFrog]

sympathy4saren wrote...
You went into depth with upgrades on weapons...is that confirmed or are you a dev? I didn't see anywhere yet the rapid fire ability having strengths and weskness, for example. Is it statistics based, so we know the precise amount of effectiveness?

It's more than just upgrading weapons, though. What about armor? What about exploration? I see vehicle exploration is confirmed not to be in...does this mean that "exploration" will be linear again and basically be a mini shooting gallery on a planet?

I do like what I see from skills, though. Skills are a vital component. It looks much more extensive and the UI looks much more clean.

Sigh, if you were paying attention everything I layed out deals with ME and ME2. No where did I mention ME3.

No I am not a developer, nor do I have confermation on anything dealing with ME3. However you can look at trends and make a reasonable assumption that ME3 will have similar features encompassing both ME and ME2. I do not see the development team throwing away such matters and turning it purely into a shooter. It just wouldnt fit the mold so to speak.

Please dont make assumptions about me and please take my posts with a grain of salt. If I want to say these things are in ME3 then I will say it, clearly though I did not.

I was only outlining particular attributes that ME and ME2 have that more than qualify them as RPG games. That was all. Since there is little to be known about ME3 everything including the speculation that it will be just another TPS is hersay. Nobody has the data to put it in one catagory or the other and talk about it is fruitless as different opinions will always clash and people have internet fights about it trying to claim superiority (which is moronic in itself).

Please do not degrade this into one of those as I will not play along.

Edit:

To be fair I should have made it absolutely clear that I was refering to ME and ME2. That was a fault on my part though I would hope that people would realize that we know almost nothing about ME3 to draw conclusions as to it not being an RPG or any other genre.

Modifié par VaultingFrog, 25 août 2011 - 02:29 .

[Pulletlamer]

Gatt9 wrote...

Pulletlamer 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.

That's the biggest fallacy I have ever seen on my entire life. Congratulations. Nothing more to add.

Which means you cannot refute it?  Go ahead,  it's a simple proof,  by all means break it.

Except you can't,  all I had to do was find one incident that disproves it,  now the burden is upon you to provide a counterproof showing that for all games,  if it has a story and decisions they are RPG's,  which is impossible.

As such,  logically,  "A game with a story and decisions is an RPG" (As has been asserted numerous times in this thread) is clearly false.

Because what you're saying is really stupid. If we considered games that had story and/or another RPG elements automatically RPG, everything would be RPG.

Some example of games that have RPG elements but are not RPG's:

Everyone says that inventories and stats are what makes an RPG. Well, Dead Space has an inventory. Is it an RPG? No.

Assasins Creed has good story-telling. Is it an RPG? No.

Army of Two:The 40th Day had a morality system. Is it an RPG? No.

Tom Clancy's Splinter Cell:Double Agent had a morality system too. Is it an RPG? No.

LA Noire has a lot of decisions and choices. Is it an RPG? No.

Conclusion: What makes an RPG is the combination of a story with decisions/choices or some form of freedom in your actions that make your character develop differently along the game based on what you do.

And no - games that allow you to evolve your powers or weapons, with no other elements, are not RPG (even with "good" story). See Crysis for example.

When you take one of these elements alone and put it into another game, it doesn't work.

You're basically saying:

Game A is an RPG and has a good story with decisions.

Game B has good story with decisions.

Game B is an RPG.

See what I did there? Fallacy. Seriously go look up the definition, you might learn something.

So saying that games with good story (or that they should be, as presented in your example) are RPG is the biggest fallacy I have ever seen. No one here is saying story alone is what makes an RPG (that I have seen). You said that yourself, (or well you are challenging someone to prove that games with good story are RPG's, which I won't do because that's not what I believe (in fact I believe the opposite), you so may have misunderstood).

Games with good story and decisions are not necessarily RPG's. RPG's generally include -but are not limited to- those elements.

On a side note, to people who say inventories and stats are RPG's key elements- are worng, that's false. I won't provide an argument for it, SpiffySquee said it pretty clear (and better than I would have explained, probably) on his video(s).

EDIT: Just to be clear, I agree on the "A game with a story and decisions is an RPG is clearly false" part. But not that by that I mean RPG can't have those elements. It's just good story/decisions is not mutually exclusive to RPG games.

Modifié par Pulletlamer, 25 août 2011 - 02:01 .

[lolnoobs]

When you push a button something awesome has to happen.

[Pulletlamer]

^
I'm not a fan of awesome buttons but how is that relevant to the discussion? No offense intended.

[SpiffySquee]

lolnoobs wrote...

When you push a button something awesome has to happen.

Have you broken down to just sputtering nonsense now? How does this have anything to do with anything said in this thread?

Modifié par SpiffySquee, 25 août 2011 - 02:09 .

[Pulletlamer]

SpiffySquee wrote...

lolnoobs wrote...

When you push a button something awesome has to happen.

Have you broken down to just sputtering nonsense now? How does this have anything to do with anything said in this thread?

But I though (s)he told nonsense from the beginning?

[lolnoobs]

[SpiffySquee]

lolnoobs wrote...

Ah yes... I see this a lot when people don't have an actual argument. This simple idea that I would take the time to make these videos and post on this forum just to blindly sing Bioware's praises is beyond ridiculous.

It's sad really, You post this because you just can't comprehend that anyone might actually view things differently than you. Since what you say MUST be fact, you just can't fathom that someone could disagree with your "facts". So you tell yourself that they must be blindly defending something instead of actually thinking for themselves. It is so much easier than having to face the idea that you way of viewing the world is not the only way.

I made these video with the idea that my ideas are not always the best ideas. I explained my case and asked others to explain why they feel different. That is how a debate should work. You should assume everyone is as smart as you and no less entitled than you.

 Instead all you have done on this thread is take one small fraction of my argument, pretend that is all I ever said, tell me that I am wrong, completely ignore every time I have told you that it is simply one small part of the entire argument, and then act like I am a clueless imbecile for not seeing your fantastic logic.

And yet you wonder why no one takes you seriously. I refuse to believe that you are not an intelligent person, but I would appreciate actual debate and arguments to this sad attempt at insults.

[lolnoobs]

I don't care if no one takes me seriously. And no arguments will change your mind. So why bother with well thought out arguments?

SpiffySquee wrote...
Mass Effect 2 and Mass Effect 1 are role playing games not because of their inventory, not because of their skill set, not because of their exploration. All of those are great things, but it is a role playing game because the game tries to allow you to pretend you are Shepard, to put yourself in Shepards shoes. And make decisions for Shepard, make descisions about Shepards personality...that is what it makes it a role playing game.

According to that Heavy Rain is an RPG. But wait...it isn't.

[In Exile]

Gatt9 wrote...

Pulletlamer 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.

That's the biggest fallacy I have ever seen on my entire life. Congratulations. Nothing more to add.

Which means you cannot refute it?  Go ahead,  it's a simple proof,  by all means break it.

Except you can't,  all I had to do was find one incident that disproves it,  now the burden is upon you to provide a counterproof showing that for all games,  if it has a story and decisions they are RPG's,  which is impossible.

As such,  logically,  "A game with a story and decisions is an RPG" (As has been asserted numerous times in this thread) is clearly false.

I am burned out on this waste of time "What is an RPG?" debate. 

But this is too much.

Neccesary condition. Google it.

Saying "A game with story and decisions is an RPG" does not mean: it is sufficient for a game to have story and decisions to be an RPG. It means, "a story" and "decisions" are neccesary conditions for an RPG, such that any game that lacks them isn't an RPG, but it doesn't mean a game has to have them to be an RPG.

In the same way that having lungs is a neccesary condition for breathing, but simply grabing some lungs and glueing them on a desk doesn't mean the desk can breathe. 

In general, formal logic can't define categories. Read Wittgenstein, and save everyone the trouble. 

Modifié par In Exile, 25 août 2011 - 05:22 .

[VaultingFrog]

SpiffySquee wrote...
Mass Effect 2 and Mass Effect 1 are role playing games not because of their inventory, not because of their skill set, not because of their exploration. All of those are great things, but it is a role playing game because the game tries to allow you to pretend you are Shepard, to put yourself in Shepards shoes. And make decisions for Shepard, make descisions about Shepards personality...that is what it makes it a role playing game.

How can you discount all of those features for an RPG? Each one of those features allows the player to imerse themselves into the game further. The more control they have the more imersive the experience. It provides the character with depth as well as giving the mechanics depth allowing players to nigh become the character they are playing.

You can not toss those out as they are fundimental tools in order to create the feeling of becoming the character.

[Pulletlamer]

lolnoobs wrote...

I don't care if no one takes me seriously. And no arguments will change your mind. So why bother with well thought out arguments?

Why bother? Idk, but posting images isn't the best way of debating. That only means you either don't have arguments, or don't care at all about the thread and the discussion in general and you just want to troll.

lolnoobs wrote...

SpiffySquee wrote...
Mass Effect 2 and Mass Effect 1 are role playing games not because of their inventory, not because of their skill set, not because of their exploration. All of those are great things, but it is a role playing game because the game tries to allow you to pretend you are Shepard, to put yourself in Shepards shoes. And make decisions for Shepard, make descisions about Shepards personality...that is what it makes it a role playing game.

According to that Heavy Rain is an RPG. But wait...it isn't.

You're missing the point of what SpiffySquee was trying to say completely. Maybe if you didn't answer to a specific part or a quote and instead you got the general picture, you would understand. Oh, and watching the video is a must for any validity of your arguments, just in case you haven't done it yet. Otherwise they can be ignored.

I won't bother to repeat it AGAIN, since you don't bother to contribute positively to the thread. As you said: Why bother? Right?

In Exile wrote...

Saying "A game with story and decisions is an RPG" does not mean: it is sufficient for a game to have story and decisions to be an RPG. It means, "a story" and "decisions" are neccesary conditions for an RPG, such that any game that lacks them isn't an RPG, but it doesn't mean a game has to have them to be an RPG.

In the same way that having lungs is a neccesary condition for breathing, but simply grabing some lungs and glueing them on a desk doesn't mean the desk can breathe. 

In general, formal logic can't define categories. Read Wittgenstein, and save everyone the trouble. 

Exactly. RPG's generally include -but are not restricted to- story and decisions. That's what I -and from what I understood, many other people- are trying to say.

When people start saying "This game has X element, it should be an RPG, but it's not!", they're generally providing straw man arguments.

Modifié par Pulletlamer, 25 août 2011 - 05:59 .

[Varen Spectre]

SpEcIaLRyAn wrote...

I still like Mass Effect. Just saying, no matter what you call it I still like Mass Effect. Which proves how pointlessthis discussion is....

I have the very same feelings towards both Mass Effects. In fact, the fun, the emotion, the awe and the drive I sometimes felt was far superior to anything I have felt while playing most of traditional RPGs. I haven't played that many though (6-7), but still, my point is that Mass Effects did not even need to use all RPG elements to completely immerse in their universe like very few games did before... or after...
 
That however, does not prevent me from appreciating that there are game genres which help us - players to filter information and focus on games that we think we may like and discussing on what criteria are these genres based.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
As for the topic itself, I am glad to see some evolution... It seems that more and more members are posting that story and choices in themselves, regardless of their depth and nonlinearity, would most likely not suffice to work as demarking criteria for a game genre...

Not that they are bad or... are not important - to thecontrary, they are the most significant, but it would be a little bit too little to make a game genre out of them. At least, I think so.

Of course, same goes for the "traditional RPG" elements most of which are not even main game mechanics (movement, combat, setting and acomplishing game's goals) but rather supporting features which helps to determine how the main ones work. One could hardly identify a game solely on them.

Therefore as of now, nothing has convinced me to abandon my (or Il Divo's) "treshold" theory (though, I am pretty sure that we would have different opinions on what actually belongs to that treshold:P), that a game needs both, story, choices, characters, etc. (+ combat / some kind of confrontation, which everyone neglects:pinched:) and some distinguishing game mechanics (and here is the room for some of those "traditional RPG elements" such as leveling up, skill trees, exploration, experience points, loot, etc.) to be considered a fullfledged RPG.

If the game does not have some of them (the "treshold" is not met) or has some features which are too different or distinct from other RPGs (out of the "treshold"), well, then people will start to speculate whether it's still an RPG or another type of game with RPG elements (hybrid?).

And that's O.K. IMO, because, we love to classify, categorize and simply to have order in things, even in games. And more importantly, as SpEcIaLRyAn said, it no way means that game is good or bad.

Modifié par Varen Spectre, 25 août 2011 - 07:05 .

[Ranadiel Marius]

 I watched the videos, and I think you did a good job of explaining your side. I have not read the entire thread so if I am necroing some argument from 10 pages back, I apologize.

You covered the background of where this problem comes from quite well. The problem being we have two categories of things that are completely independent which people refer to by the exact same name(a game mechanic and a story telling approach). Because these two independent ideas share a name, RPG, it leads to confusion and disagreement of whether things can be classified as an RPG when they have one but not the other.

I personally view the mechanic version being the one that properly gets the name because the game genre is so tied to the mechanics and using the term as a genre loses a lot of meaning otherwise since game genres are defined primarily by mechanics. I will however concede that calling the story telling approach role playing makes more sense than the name being applied to the mechanics since the mechanics can be completely divorced from actual role playing. Altholugh I do disagree with you about whether traditional JRPGS have role playing as I view a restrictive role as still being a role). Had the people who originally made games using the mechanics called the video game genre they created, then this whole issue would never exist but we must live with the reality we live in and not the one we wish for.

As for whether ME2 has RPG mechanics, I'd say very lightly. There is a level up system, so based on my preferred definition it qualifies as fitting in the RPG genre. However those mechanics don't matter too much unlike in ME1. I really don't care about the exploration or inventory as those are just common dressing for the RPG mechanic based games. The decreased importance of leveling if you are good at TPS games really just makes me feel the RPG mechanics aren't strong enough to qualify it as a full RPG, from a strictly mechanic based definition. Although you could call what I am saying here stat or level based mechanics to avoid the confusion that the dual use of the RPG term creates.

So to cut to the chase I personally consider ME2 to be a third person shooter with light RPG mechanics and a choice based narrative. However as we have different preferences, I suppose that would translate to your preferred use of the term to a third person shooter with light stat/level based gameplay and a role-playing based narrative. Would you disagree with my assesment of ME2 if I were to solely use the terminology that I assume you would prefer?

And I feel like this post jumps around a little bit, so my apologies if it isn't the easiest thing to read.

[SpEcIaLRyAn]

Varen Spectre wrote...

SpEcIaLRyAn wrote...

I still like Mass Effect. Just saying, no matter what you call it I still like Mass Effect. Which proves how pointlessthis discussion is....

I have the very same feelings towards both Mass Effects. In fact, the fun, the emotion, the awe and the drive I sometimes felt was far superior to anything I have felt while playing most of traditional RPGs. I haven't played that many though (6-7), but still, my point is that Mass Effects did not even need to use all RPG elements to completely immerse in their universe like very few games did before... or after...
 
That however, does not prevent me from appreciating that there are game genres which help us - players to filter information and focus on games that we think we may like and discussing on what criteria are these genres based.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
As for the topic itself, I am glad to see some evolution... It seems that more and more members are posting that story and choices in themselves, regardless of their depth and nonlinearity, would most likely not suffice to work as demarking criteria for a game genre...

Not that they are bad or... are not important - to thecontrary, they are the most significant, but it would be a little bit too little to make a game genre out of them. At least, I think so.

Of course, same goes for the "traditional RPG" elements most of which are not even main game mechanics (movement, combat, setting and acomplishing game's goals) but rather supporting features which helps to determine how the main ones work. One could hardly identify a game solely on them.

Therefore as of now, nothing has convinced me to abandon my (or Il Divo's) "treshold" theory (though, I am pretty sure that we would have different opinions on what actually belongs to that treshold:P), that a game needs both, story, choices, characters, etc. (+ combat / some kind of confrontation, which everyone neglects:pinched:) and some distinguishing game mechanics (and here is the room for some of those "traditional RPG elements" such as leveling up, skill trees, exploration, experience points, loot, etc.) to be considered a fullfledged RPG.

If the game does not have some of them (the "treshold" is not met) or has some features which are too different or distinct from other RPGs (out of the "treshold"), well, then people will start to speculate whether it's still an RPG or another type of game with RPG elements (hybrid?).

And that's O.K. IMO, because, we love to classify, categorize and simply to have order in things, even in games. And more importantly, as SpEcIaLRyAn said, it no way means that game is good or bad.

I agree completely. Nothing is set in stone. No other game before Mass Effect has invoked such emotion in me. If thats not the mark of a great game I don't know what is...

Modifié par SpEcIaLRyAn, 25 août 2011 - 08:54 .

[Guldhun2]

A quote from someone on another forum.

1) At least one player defined character whereby one player's character
can be different from another's. Characters can be defined through
numerical statistics and skills, or even through a collection of flags
such as "overweight", "unfunny", "intelligent", "cheerful",
"economical", "punctual" with no numbers attached to those values.
Anything that can allow the game itself (the software) to differentiate
one character from another (racial quests, class specific quests, extra
dialogue options, low intelligence dialogue, different damage taken when
walking through hot environments, different chance to slip when
climbing over a mountain, different chance to intimidate enemies into
retreat, different damage on a sword swing, different potency of potions
created through alchemy).



2) The removal of all player skill from simple actions that can be
neatly abstracted (an attack, a spell casting, climbing a wall). Not the
removal of all input. There needs to be a game after all. Aiming a shot
in real-time adds nothing to the role-playing aspect, while earlier
turn-based games allowed you to aim shots without any player skill
requirement at all. The skill involved in the game should be the skill
at role-playing a character. Making sure a mage stands behind a fighter,
aiming and attacking the most vulnerable/powerful opponent, casting a
fireball at a densely packed area etc. This basically means that
real-time games aren't as pure a CRPG because they lean towards action
games. A game like The Witcher and Oblivion are action RPG hybrids after
all. They incorporate elements of both genres, and not just the
advantages of both.



3) The game to acknowledge the player's character by changing the
gameplay according to the player's character. There are two main ways of
doing this. One of them is through scripting lots of encounters, both
combat and non-combat encounters, with each one testing the player's
character in some way. The other way is to simulate a DM/GM using the
game engine rather than relying on developer created, inflexible and
expensive to produce scripted set pieces. Reputation systems for
different in game factions, reputation systems for different in game
regions, economics, political influence, day/night cycles, days of the
year with special events, NPCs that have their own schedule etc. This
way means that role-playing comes from performing scripted goals
(reaching end game) through emergent ways. You might have a quest to
assassinate an enemy leader (like you do in many CRPGs), but instead of
doing so through a couple of scripted ways you can do so through ways
unexpected from the developers.



Failing number 2, you have an action/RPG hybrid game.

[InvincibleHero]

Gatt9 wrote...

Candidate 88766 wrote...

RPGs - the focus is on player choice over the role. Every game allows you to play a role, RPGs are defined by allowing players to customize the role they play. There are two ways to do this: allow the player to customise abilities, attributes and equipment; or, allow the player to choose how they interact with characters and the story as a whole. Mass Effect takes the second approach - you customize your role by choosing how you interact with characters, and by making choices that will (hopefully) affect the plot.

RPGs - heavy emphasis on customizing/personalising your role in the game. Other genres - typically just give players a role to play. Some games that aren't RPGs allow the player's role to be customized, but they don't place as much emphasis on it as RPGs do.

There's alot of problems with the Mass Effect approach and it's relation to RPG's,  it's pretty much the digital implementation of the video I linked to on page 1.

In Mass Effect 2,  the Character's not defined.  You are Shepherd.  But who Shepherd is,  is never defined.  He's not a sharpshooter,  he's not a diplomat,  he's not good,  he's not bad,  he's just amorphous.  It's like me saying to any one of you...

"You are now Bob,  assume his Role,  do what he does".

None of you can do it,  because I didn't define Bob,  the Role is empty.  This is ME2.  "You are Shepherd",  except you know nothing about him,  because he is undefined.  What everyone keeps claiming is Roleplaying,  is self-insertion,  it's LARPSing,  you're pretending you are Shepherd,  not that you've assumed the Role of Shepherd.

As such,  it's not an RPG,  it's closest approximation would be a LARPS,  which while it is a form of Roleplaying,  it's not an RPG,  and I'll stand by my statement that almost none of the people posting here would join a LARPS.

Further,  the assertion that ME series,  most especially ME2 is an RPG because you make decisions is the height of hypocrisy.  You don't make decisions in ME2,  nothing you do makes any difference.  Be nice,  be mean,  be good,  be bad,  in almost every situation you get the exact same outcome.  No matter how good you are Jack will never be offended,  Grunt won't mind if you talk your way out of fights or be humble.  No matter how bad you are Tali and Samara will never conflict.  No one will ever refuse you anything because of the choices you made,  such as Tali will be just as loyal if you support Cerberus as if you opposed them.

So even if you try and use the "Choices" defense for defining ME series as an RPG,  it's still not an RPG because nothing changes.  Even the choices you made in ME1 are irrelevant,  because it's just emails with no real impact.  Nothing you do matters,  so nothing you do defines a Role.

Just like when I was the paragon of virtue,  and kicked a unarmed man off a building in cold blood,  it didn't matter,  because the game didn't recognize me as having a Role.

Also, great video Squee.

While you are correct about CRPGs using stats to disable godmodding, I wouldn't say that that is true with how western RPGs were born. If you look into it, essentially the first RPGs seemed to be nothing but copy/pastes of other types of games (yes, that includes rulesets!), but now with the ability to describe your character's actions

You really should avoid talking about things you don't know about...

Bard's Tale - leveling gave ability point increases,  magic classes could switch between classes,  mana based system with real time regeneration (The first of it's kind),  damage based on character levels and not weapons.

Might & Magic - Magic system based upon gems,  multiple ways to change attributes post creation,  the first open world RPG ever,  Character classes not present in PnP RPG's at the time,  almost completely non-linear.

Gateway to Apshai - Real Time RPG complete with time restrictions,  no classes,  no real magic.

Ultima series - Attributes were essentially meaningless,  narrative driven gameplay,  weapons had little differentiation,  almost completely non-linear in some games.

Telengard - One class that used both weapons and magic equally well.

The first RPG's were very different from each other,  and from PnP systems in singificant ways. 

It's funny because it's true. The supposed most important element of RPGs, statistical progression is definitely not gone from ME2.

Once again...You kill a YMIR at level 2 and that's about as hard as it gets.  Those statistics are completely pointless if you can kill everything in the game at level 2 with starter weapons.

Even if the arguments were actually good, all of those debates start from people supporting the stereotype that if a game is a shooter and not an RPG, then that's a bad thing. That it makes a bad game.

You can have them explain it as eloquently as they want, about how "mainstream" shooters are, and how shooters are like checkers to chess when compared to RPG.

Well...
I will have yet to see one of them complain about Mass Effect not being an adventure game, because you know, that's after all definitely not a mainstream genre, and one that requires much more thinking than the rest.

It would also be good if you'd avoid telling lies...

1.  People didn't say that Shooters are bad,  they said that claiming Shooter gameplay is now what RPG's are is bad.

2.  It's not "Shooters are like checkers to chess",  it's...

"I could write computer-checkers,  I could call it Chess,  but it still wouldn't be Chess.  Similiarly,  calling a TPS an RPG doesn't make it an RPG."

3.  Now would be a *really* good time for you to realize that Tomb Raider and Uncharted are classified as Adventure games...

Once again the same false slef created defintion of RPG. D&D is about you creating the character you want and roleplaying them how you want. The game mechanics just give you a framework to do it. It is why you can change settings, races, classes, genres, and anything present in D&D and still get an RPG system. Role-playing is active. The fact is it is the choices we get to make that define Shepard and the game world in some ways. It is not that we are an infiltrator and play that role or play the role of a cleric. Games have advanced beyond the point where they were simple numbers crunchers. Truly divergent gameplay like BW offers is more true to RPG roots.

The only thing that lessens ME as an RPG is pre-defining characteristics like naming Shepard or even giving them a rank you did not earn in the game. Yet you would say the opposite. I am not pedantic about it since it gives plenty of meat that is RPG. We can choose thousands of dialog and plot points in the game and that is the role playing. There are plenty of "traditional RPG elements" ie game mechanics and choices thereupon yet people still gripe because other games offer more choices. It's like saying a 50% milk chocolate bar is not chocolate because someone else made a bar with more chocolate. I guess you consumed no chocolate then Gatt. 

Game makers  cannot address all issues like a DM would adjudicate. It would not be fun if we had to be forced to do things just to please one character which obviously would lose you another who is not Grunt. It in fact would limit role playing. It would lessen the fun. For someone against the p/r system as you are saying it forces you to take all of one that is backtracking. it is the same thing. NPCs/party members are never going to be fully organic and in the interests of keeping games fun that is necessary. Or they could be like me notice a slight and let it go with no repercusions because there are bigger fish to fry. More bean counting doesn't make a game more fun.

[Nozybidaj]

Rockworm503 wrote...

Nozybidaj wrote...

That actually would have been better than just rebooting the series and sending my stupid emails to pretend they still care about that fact that this was part 2 instead of a new part 1.

and you know what? their going to do the exact same thing

On that point I think you are undoubtedly correct.  Well, except it would be "they are" not "their" but I knew what you meant.