1002 réponses à ce sujet

[Gatt9]

In Exile 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.

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. 

So basically what you're saying is some random person can just assert that any given thing participates in a catagory,  and that we cannot use logic to oppose that theory?

So I can say that all men are female,  and logic cannot be used to deny that theory because it's a catagory?

It works,  just fine.  It just doesn't give the answer people want to hear.

As far as neccessary condition goes,  "If a game has a story and decisions then it's an RPG" is a statement of neccessary condition.  It's defining by the presence of two components,  which implies the presence of both of those components yields the catagory. 

[InvincibleHero]

Gatt9 wrote...

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

The problem is,  it is a hard definition.

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

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

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

The same with RPG's. 

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

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

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

Want a fun experiment?

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

It's really very consistent.

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

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

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

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

@Phaedon

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

You have a problem with saying based on PnP RPGs because they are all not the same. You have to take what makes them the same. Hint it is not the stats which can be completely absent, or economy ditto, or even inventory or anything called an RPG element. These are just the things to simulate and codify to give a framework to do the RP.  The only constant is you make characters and decide what they say and do. Someone else controls everything else in the case of CRPG the computer. A DM or whatever title has to roleplay many characters instead of just 1. All RPGs are not the same except for what I mentioned. That is RPG defined by LCD.

Otherwise all games you take on a role. Playing Super Mario Brothers is then an RPG experience. I am neither a plumber or Italian and I never kicked a turtle once. All shooters are RPGs. Your definition is meaningless because all you need to do is have a strength score and hitpoints and earn XP to qualify by 2nd part adding in RPG elements. Nope. Paper Mario is not an RPG even though called one by Nintendo.

[sympathy4saren]

Even if every role playing element/mechanic is in any game whatsoever, not just Mass Effect, why can't fans state that they think that the elements/mechanics aren't deep enough? Isn't it about constant improvement and expansion? It sure as heck has been for combat.

Right after the release of Mass Effect, feedback was received about the shooting combat. SUGGESTIONS ON HOW TO MAKE SHOOTING COMBAT MORE RICH AND INTENSE WERE GIVEN AND SHARED. In Mass Effect 2, there were drastic imorovements made to the shooting presentation and gameplay, and it looks like it will be even more so in Mass Effect 3. Which is good. There needs to be full scale improvements in every category. We can all agree there.

But Mass Effect is a hybrid, correct?

Now, we so-called "elitists" have given feedback on how we feel that role playing mechanics have been lessened... to a great extent... and even if they existed previously or are coming back (skills indeed look much better so far, btw), we want them to be rich and in-depth and the best they can be. Not just added to here and there. Not just existing in skin form. But THICK AND ROBUST.

You know how improved shooting combat is in Mass Effect 3? It gets a lot of focus, and it looks great. But the role playing elements/mechanics better be there, too, and just as improved and good. I honestly believe there are many who don't want to see this, and this baffles me.

How can there be good rpg mechanics without some form of Inventory? Answer...."well, I don't want to carry a thousand of the same weapon around!! Lame!!! It just doesn't work...deal with it. Plus, Mass Effect's system was a mess. Needed to go. Hey, how about that new awesome omni-blade? Shepard tore that husk up!!"

Response..."Not wanting to deal with multiple items looted? This occurs in basically every rpg in existence and is a fundamental expectation. Why can't you collect multiple things of one item? Because its too hard? Confusing? That signifies three possibilities 1. User Interface is sloppy and needs cleaned up, 2. The economy is flawed or broken and needs to be altered, or 3. It is too hard, which frustrates experienced gamers and veterans who have a certain expectation on the complexity of basic functions of their favorite genre.

If Mass Effect is a hybrid, both sides of the coin need the same level of attention and focus, or inevitably one lags behind the other and one side is more prominent. Prominence infers impression on what something is.

Kingdoms of Amalur: Reckoning is a great example of a true hybrid, based on what is known sofar. It is a fantasy action rpg with apparently rich looting and crafting systems, class structure and story. Upgrades and exploration included.

Combat-wise, the fluidity, presentation and style is very strong classic action, with combos, animations and finishing moves in pure action games. It is pure, traditional action combat.

That is a hybrid. Richness in everything on both sides of the fence.

I truly believe some fans don't want that. They are fine with the combat and want improved combat. More improvement. New features. New shooting elements.

A so-called "elitist" says they want improved and robust skills, inventory and loot, and they get a barrage of reasons why it doesn't "work" in Mass Effect. Same with open exploration. What about the 'elitists' saying don't want it, don't do it? I remember hearing that a lot about the omni-blade edition..."don't like it, don't use it. Deal with it."

We 'elitists' could then be able to say that about open exploration. Don't want to explore? Don't.

Just like people want improved combat with new features, some people want rich and organic rpg mechanics and new features. Improved features. Inventory. Open world, vehicle based exploration. Encounters with odd creatures in exploration where you go...."what the **** was that???" Finding creative, random items with meaningful purpose to loot and use for your character.

You might say..."that won't work for Mass Effect."

But it can. And it would be spectacular.

It is all about individual preferences and competing visions. I personally would enjoy combat much, much more. It gives it overall more authentic balance, imo.

A true hybrid it would be. Rich in both areas, sacrificial in none.

Modifié par sympathy4saren, 25 août 2011 - 11:04 .

[Lunatic LK47]

sympathy4saren wrote...


How can there be good rpg mechanics without some form of Inventory? Answer...."well, I don't want to carry a thousand of the same weapon around!! Lame!!! It just doesn't work...deal with it. Plus, Mass Effect's system was a mess. Needed to go. Hey, how about that new awesome omni-blade? Shepard tore that husk up!!"

Response..."Not wanting to deal with multiple items looted? This occurs in basically every rpg in existence and is a fundamental expectation. Why can't you collect multiple things of one item? Because its too hard? Confusing? That signifies three possibilities 1. User Interface is sloppy and needs cleaned up, 2. The economy is flawed or broken and needs to be altered, or 3. It is too hard, which frustrates experienced gamers and veterans who have a certain expectation on the complexity of basic functions of their favorite genre.

Forgot #4. It's ****ing tedious and has already been done for 30+ years? Mass Effect is set in the far future, and buying 12 copies of the same ****ing gun is outright non-sensical, time consuming, and ME1's case, relied more on LUCK than anything if I wanted to outfit my ENTIRE SQUAD. I had to resort to Pinnacle Station just to give everyone the best Spectre weapons. Not really good design there. I know for damn sure I wouldn't want to do that for ME2. Scan and forget= Everyone has access to the same gun. No having to do "Twelve trips to a vendor just in case he/she restocks."

If ME were set in present day, I probably wouldn't have minded as much, but even then, I'd find it TEDIOUS. I want to focus on the main gameplay, not waste 30 minutes to an hour of my gametime on ****ing menus.

Modifié par Lunatic LK47, 25 août 2011 - 11:10 .

[Kusy]

Greg Zeschuck said...

[...] Mass Effect, which is not so much an RPG as it is a conversational shooter.

Whatcha gonna do about this, thread?

Modifié par Mr.Kusy, 25 août 2011 - 11:14 .

[sympathy4saren]

Lunatic LK47 wrote...

sympathy4saren wrote...


How can there be good rpg mechanics without some form of Inventory? Answer...."well, I don't want to carry a thousand of the same weapon around!! Lame!!! It just doesn't work...deal with it. Plus, Mass Effect's system was a mess. Needed to go. Hey, how about that new awesome omni-blade? Shepard tore that husk up!!"

Response..."Not wanting to deal with multiple items looted? This occurs in basically every rpg in existence and is a fundamental expectation. Why can't you collect multiple things of one item? Because its too hard? Confusing? That signifies three possibilities 1. User Interface is sloppy and needs cleaned up, 2. The economy is flawed or broken and needs to be altered, or 3. It is too hard, which frustrates experienced gamers and veterans who have a certain expectation on the complexity of basic functions of their favorite genre.

Forgot #4. It's ****ing tedious and has already been done for 30+ years? Mass Effect is set in the far future, and buying 12 copies of the same ****ing gun is outright non-sensical, time consuming, and ME1's case, relied more on LUCK than anything if I wanted to outfit my ENTIRE SQUAD. I had to resort to Pinnacle Station just to give everyone the best Spectre weapons. Not really good design there. I know for damn sure I wouldn't want to do that for ME2. Scan and forget= Everyone has access to the same gun. No having to do "Twelve trips to a vendor just in case he/she restocks."

If ME were set in present day, I probably wouldn't have minded as much, but even then, I'd find it TEDIOUS. I want to focus on the main gameplay, not waste 30 minutes to an hour of my gametime on ****ing menus.

You know what I find tedious? And I'm going to just straight up tell you directly: shooting at baddies non-stop in narrow corridors. Pew pew pew pew pew. Nonstop. Boring. As. Hell. And easy. Which is why I don't play pure shooters.

However...and this directly addresses your perspective...multiple items do two things.

1. It forces you to earn money by selling and trading, not getting credits handed to you for completing a mission. This creates an underlying gameplay mechanic that rewards effort with wealth. Done by me. In role.

2. If full modification is involved, then it enables the player to modify the same weapon with distinctly different mods. One gun your favorite? Why switch to another gun you don't like as much when you can use your favorite ones decked out in varying modifications? Basically this...same weapon, different mods.
I shouldn't be forced to carry anything I don't want. If I want two assault rifles, one modded specifically for organics and one modded specifically for synthetics...and there is a certain particular assault rifle I love...why am I still forced to carry a weapon around I don't want? It's very restrictive. If there is a weapon I don't like, i shouldn't even have to own it.

As far as menus go...that's your perspective. I'm making the assumption then that the journal and codex, being menus, need to go then, too, eh?

Modifié par sympathy4saren, 25 août 2011 - 11:36 .

[Lunatic LK47]

sympathy4saren wrote...


1. It forces you to earn money by selling and trading, not getting credits handed to you for completing a mission. This creates and underlying gameplay mechanic that rewards effort with wealth. Done by me. In role.

Uh, already maxed out on ME1 easily because 99% of the items are utter crap. How does this exactly help with pacing? I'd rather have a straight to the point 30 hour-long game rather than an 80 hour game filled with pointless padding like having to eat every five seconds, or to put it this way, every single side-activity from GTA: San Andreas and GTA IV (i.e. Micromanaging my friendship/girlfriend meter).

2. If full modification is involved, then it enables the player to modify the same weapon with distinctly different mods. One gun your favorite? Why switch to another gun you don't like as much when you can use your favorite ones decked out in varying modifications? Basically this...same weapon, different mods.

Uh, Last time I checked, I already modded my pistol, sniper rifle, assault rifle, and shotgun IN THE SAME ****ING MANNER. Why should I go through a cumbersome menu just to switch ammo mods? Why am I forced to carry junk loot with me and sell to a nearby vendor or turn it into hair gel just to clean house? ME2 at least spared me from having to do all of the clutter again. I shouldn't be forced to carry a ****ing warehouse. I'd rather have options that are there whenever I want it instead of being stuck with one rifle every ****ing time. I know for damn sure I didn't pick anything other than a Spectre weapon in ME1 first chance I got.

I shouldn't be forced to carry anything I don't want. If I want two assault rifles, one modded specifically for organics and one modded specifically for synthetics...and there is a certain particular assault rifle I love...why am I still forced to carry a weapon around I don't want? It's very restrictive. If there is a weapon I don't like, i shouldn't even have to own it.

Flaw in logic there. Both assault rifles functioned exactly the same, regardless of Shredder or Tungsten Ammo. I know for sure there wasn't a difference there, and as a result, ended up using either Polonium or Incendiary Rounds. All the effects it go for are either turning enemies into green dust or bright luminiscent dust while preventing regeneration. In ME2, If I'm tired of the Mattock, I can use the Avenger, Vindicator, or Revenant.

As far as menus go...that's your perspective. I'm making the assumption then that the journal and codex, being menus-, need to go then, too, eh?

ME1 inventory is outright ****, and I'm glad that went. I'm more than happy with a locker that I can go to instead of automatically vaccumming items in the game. Any main story mission already had the immersion factor ruined when I kept getting the notifications "Your inventory's getting full!" and I already maxed out on everything known to mankind, making Batman look like Kindergarten.

Modifié par Lunatic LK47, 25 août 2011 - 11:46 .

[Guldhun2]

jreezy wrote...

Uh No. The personalities of the characters are already defined and can't be changed in Heavy Rain like Shepard's can.

Maybe you should play Heavy Rain and see for yourself, because it does just that.



And all the character personality "defining" of Shepard is Paragorn, Renegade, or neutral. Wow, nice defining. Blows my mind.

Modifié par Guldhun2, 25 août 2011 - 11:39 .

[Pockles]

I don't care if they're RPGs or not. I never did.

[sympathy4saren]

Lunatic LK47 wrote...

sympathy4saren wrote...


1. It forces you to earn money by selling and trading, not getting credits handed to you for completing a mission. This creates and underlying gameplay mechanic that rewards effort with wealth. Done by me. In role.

Uh, already maxed out on ME1 easily because 99% of the items are utter crap. How does this exactly help with pacing? I'd rather have a straight to the point 30 hour-long game rather than an 80 hour game filled with pointless padding like having to eat every five seconds, or to put it this way, every single side-activity from GTA: San Andreas and GTA IV (i.e. Micromanaging my friendship/girlfriend meter).

2. If full modification is involved, then it enables the player to modify the same weapon with distinctly different mods. One gun your favorite? Why switch to another gun you don't like as much when you can use your favorite ones decked out in varying modifications? Basically this...same weapon, different mods.

Uh, Last time I checked, I already modded my pistol, sniper rifle, assault rifle, and shotgun IN THE SAME ****ING MANNER. Why should I go through a cumbersome menu just to switch ammo mods? Why am I forced to carry junk loot with me and sell to a nearby vendor or turn it into hair gel just to clean house? ME2 at least spared me from having to do all of the clutter again. I shouldn't be forced to carry a ****ing warehouse. I'd rather have options that are there whenever I want it instead of being stuck with one rifle every ****ing time. I know for damn sure I didn't pick anything other than a Spectre weapon in ME1 first chance I got.
I shouldn't be forced to carry anything I don't want. If I want two assault rifles, one modded specifically for organics and one modded specifically for synthetics...and there is a certain particular assault rifle I love...why am I still forced to carry a weapon around I don't want? It's very restrictive. If there is a weapon I don't like, i shouldn't even have to own it.

As far as menus go...that's your perspective. I'm making the assumption then that the journal and codex, being menus-, need to go then, too, eh?

ME1 inventory is outright ****, and I'm glad that went. I'm more than happy with a locker that I can go to instead of automatically vaccumming items in the game. Any main story mission already had the immersion factor ruined when I kept getting the notifications "Your inventory's getting full!" and I already maxed out on everything known to mankind, making Batman look like Kindergarten.

Much of your argument is based upon the mechanics that previously existed, inferring that its implementation is perceived to be the end all be all. In reality, its a shell. The upgrade options, the modification options....its a shell compared to other rpgs. Which is a big problem. And when you say it was upgraded easily because 99% of items were "utter crap", you reaffirm my argument. It was easy, and there needed and NEEDS to be be much more VALUABLE loot. There should be 10-20 times more items...some expanded and brand new. A small amount of options like in ME2...at that point, why the hell even bother? I could say hit the auto loadout and DEAL WITH IT, but I won't go that low like some do.

Your opinion differs from mine. No sense in engaging in argumentation. I respect your opinion. It won't, however, stop me from attempting to influence what I want the rpg mechanics to evolve into. Or the many others that agree with me.

Modifié par sympathy4saren, 25 août 2011 - 11:56 .

[Lunatic LK47]

sympathy4saren wrote...


Much of your argument is based upon the mechanics that previously existed, inferring that its implementation is perceived to be the end all be all. In reality, its a shell. The upgrade options, the modification options....its a shell compared to other rpgs. Which is a big problem. There should be 10-20 times more items. A small amount of options like in ME2...at that point, why the hell even bother? I could say hit the auto loadout and DEAL WITH IT, but I won't go that low like some do.

Your opinion differs from mine. No sense in engaging in argumentation. I respect your opinion. It won't, however, stop me from attempting to influence what I want the rpg mechanics to evolve into. Or the many others that agree with me.

Let me put it this way. Are you ever going to bother picking up a sniper rifle that is 20% accurate? Wrap your head around it...

[sympathy4saren]

Lunatic LK47 wrote...

sympathy4saren wrote...


Much of your argument is based upon the mechanics that previously existed, inferring that its implementation is perceived to be the end all be all. In reality, its a shell. The upgrade options, the modification options....its a shell compared to other rpgs. Which is a big problem. There should be 10-20 times more items. A small amount of options like in ME2...at that point, why the hell even bother? I could say hit the auto loadout and DEAL WITH IT, but I won't go that low like some do.

Your opinion differs from mine. No sense in engaging in argumentation. I respect your opinion. It won't, however, stop me from attempting to influence what I want the rpg mechanics to evolve into. Or the many others that agree with me.

Let me put it this way. Are you ever going to bother picking up a sniper rifle that is 20% accurate? Wrap your head around it...

Wrap your head around this...that was ME1. This is now. Do you remember how combat overall was in ME1??

Now, here's the kicker. Pay close attention. Very close. Ok, here we go:

What happened to overall combat from ME1 to ME2? In combat gameplay, overall, what happened? Was it taken out, or was it..........improved? Wait....did I just say IMPROVED?

[SpiffySquee]

sympathy4saren wrote...

Even if every role playing element/mechanic is in any game whatsoever, not just Mass Effect, why can't fans state that they think that the elements/mechanics aren't deep enough? Isn't it about constant improvement and expansion? It sure as heck has been for combat.

Right after the release of Mass Effect, feedback was received about the shooting combat. SUGGESTIONS ON HOW TO MAKE SHOOTING COMBAT MORE RICH AND INTENSE WERE GIVEN AND SHARED. In Mass Effect 2, there were drastic imorovements made to the shooting presentation and gameplay, and it looks like it will be even more so in Mass Effect 3. Which is good. There needs to be full scale improvements in every category. We can all agree there.

But Mass Effect is a hybrid, correct?

Now, we so-called "elitists" have given feedback on how we feel that role playing mechanics have been lessened... to a great extent... and even if they existed previously or are coming back (skills indeed look much better so far, btw), we want them to be rich and in-depth and the best they can be. Not just added to here and there. Not just existing in skin form. But THICK AND ROBUST.

You know how improved shooting combat is in Mass Effect 3? It gets a lot of focus, and it looks great. But the role playing elements/mechanics better be there, too, and just as improved and good. I honestly believe there are many who don't want to see this, and this baffles me.

How can there be good rpg mechanics without some form of Inventory? Answer...."well, I don't want to carry a thousand of the same weapon around!! Lame!!! It just doesn't work...deal with it. Plus, Mass Effect's system was a mess. Needed to go. Hey, how about that new awesome omni-blade? Shepard tore that husk up!!"

Response..."Not wanting to deal with multiple items looted? This occurs in basically every rpg in existence and is a fundamental expectation. Why can't you collect multiple things of one item? Because its too hard? Confusing? That signifies three possibilities 1. User Interface is sloppy and needs cleaned up, 2. The economy is flawed or broken and needs to be altered, or 3. It is too hard, which frustrates experienced gamers and veterans who have a certain expectation on the complexity of basic functions of their favorite genre.

If Mass Effect is a hybrid, both sides of the coin need the same level of attention and focus, or inevitably one lags behind the other and one side is more prominent. Prominence infers impression on what something is.

Kingdoms of Amalur: Reckoning is a great example of a true hybrid, based on what is known sofar. It is a fantasy action rpg with apparently rich looting and crafting systems, class structure and story. Upgrades and exploration included.

Combat-wise, the fluidity, presentation and style is very strong classic action, with combos, animations and finishing moves in pure action games. It is pure, traditional action combat.

That is a hybrid. Richness in everything on both sides of the fence.

I truly believe some fans don't want that. They are fine with the combat and want improved combat. More improvement. New features. New shooting elements.

A so-called "elitist" says they want improved and robust skills, inventory and loot, and they get a barrage of reasons why it doesn't "work" in Mass Effect. Same with open exploration. What about the 'elitists' saying don't want it, don't do it? I remember hearing that a lot about the omni-blade edition..."don't like it, don't use it. Deal with it."

We 'elitists' could then be able to say that about open exploration. Don't want to explore? Don't.

Just like people want improved combat with new features, some people want rich and organic rpg mechanics and new features. Improved features. Inventory. Open world, vehicle based exploration. Encounters with odd creatures in exploration where you go...."what the **** was that???" Finding creative, random items with meaningful purpose to loot and use for your character.

You might say..."that won't work for Mass Effect."

But it can. And it would be spectacular.

It is all about individual preferences and competing visions. I personally would enjoy combat much, much more. It gives it overall more authentic balance, imo.

A true hybrid it would be. Rich in both areas, sacrificial in none.

Yay! Another person who did not even watch the video I posted in the OP. If you had, you would have seen that his post (while brings up some valid points) has absolutely nothing to do with this thread. Or, to be more precise, you make assumptions about what makes an RPG (stats/inventory/etc) and argue that they should be improved. This thread is arguing if those are even required for a game to be an RPG. 
Again, it's not that I don't agree with you on some points. I would also like to see the mechanics you talk about improved, but that is not the point of this thread. 

[Cyberstrike nTo]

Lunatic LK47 wrote...

sympathy4saren wrote...


How can there be good rpg mechanics without some form of Inventory? Answer...."well, I don't want to carry a thousand of the same weapon around!! Lame!!! It just doesn't work...deal with it. Plus, Mass Effect's system was a mess. Needed to go. Hey, how about that new awesome omni-blade? Shepard tore that husk up!!"

Response..."Not wanting to deal with multiple items looted? This occurs in basically every rpg in existence and is a fundamental expectation. Why can't you collect multiple things of one item? Because its too hard? Confusing? That signifies three possibilities 1. User Interface is sloppy and needs cleaned up, 2. The economy is flawed or broken and needs to be altered, or 3. It is too hard, which frustrates experienced gamers and veterans who have a certain expectation on the complexity of basic functions of their favorite genre.

Forgot #4. It's ****ing tedious and has already been done for 30+ years? Mass Effect is set in the far future, and buying 12 copies of the same ****ing gun is outright non-sensical, time consuming, and ME1's case, relied more on LUCK than anything if I wanted to outfit my ENTIRE SQUAD. I had to resort to Pinnacle Station just to give everyone the best Spectre weapons. Not really good design there. I know for damn sure I wouldn't want to do that for ME2. Scan and forget= Everyone has access to the same gun. No having to do "Twelve trips to a vendor just in case he/she restocks."

If ME were set in present day, I probably wouldn't have minded as much, but even then, I'd find it TEDIOUS. I want to focus on the main gameplay, not waste 30 minutes to an hour of my gametime on ****ing menus.

I agree with that one, in Mass Effect 1 I wanted to give everybody the best weapons and armor but it was a major pain in the butt to get the best weapons and armor because of the random nature and after a while I get sick and tied of getting the same mods, weapons, and armor and have to sell or melt them down and the problem was when you got the max limit on credits and omni-gel.  

[CaptainSpandex]

I'm in agreement with the few people contending that ME1 and 2 are different enough that while the original Mass Effect is more of an RPG with shooting elements, ME2 is a shooter with light RPG elements.

Can't judge ME3 until it's dropped, but based on what I'm seeing, it looks like an even further jaunt down the same road Mass Effect 2 traveled.

[Rockworm503]

SpEcIaLRyAn wrote...

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....

So pointless we got tons of pages of people arguing to each other when neither side will never move an inch.  When both sides are hell bent on being right now matter what the defintion of RPG seems less and less important with each post.

[SpiffySquee]

Rockworm503 wrote...

SpEcIaLRyAn wrote...

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....

So pointless we got tons of pages of people arguing to each other when neither side will never move an inch.  When both sides are hell bent on being right now matter what the defintion of RPG seems less and less important with each post.

Well the original purpose was to get people to explain why they felt Inv/stats/etc were needed for something to be an RPG. Sadly, all that has happened is people taking part of my argument (or just assuming they know what my argument is without watching the videos) and telling me I'm wrong. 
oh... and apparently telling us over and over that ME is a LARP.... funny... I did not know playing a computer game could be considered "live action" nowadays... <_<

[Lunatic LK47]

Cyberstrike nTo wrote...

I agree with that one, in Mass Effect 1 I wanted to give everybody the best weapons and armor but it was a major pain in the butt to get the best weapons and armor because of the random nature and after a while I get sick and tied of getting the same mods, weapons, and armor and have to sell or melt them down and the problem was when you got the max limit on credits and omni-gel.  

Congrats. You win a supply of free beer! I'm actually glad I'm done with ME1 in this department.

[Nozybidaj]

Mr.Kusy wrote...

Greg Zeschuck said...

[...] Mass Effect, which is not so much an RPG as it is a conversational shooter.

Whatcha gonna do about this, thread?

Hah, I was close "conversational shooter" / "shooter with interactive dialgoue", close enough to be the same thing.

[deimosmasque]

Okay... I posted on the first page, lost track in a day and have now decided to get back into this.

I'm 31 this year. I've been playing both video game RPGs, and table-top RPGs since I was eight-years-old. Final Fantasy/Dragon Warrior for the NES and Dungeons and Dragons/TSR Marvel Super Heroes for table-top.

Table-Top RPGs have evolved. Even D&D 4e puts less emphasis on loot and inventory and even gives experience points for "social challenges" and "skill challenges." The PDQ system has no inventory system and adds any sort of equipment bonuses you may have as XP expenditures or character creation moments. The World of Darkness games only give XP at the end of a game session and then only give you up to 4 or 5 depending.

All those games (yes even D&D) rewards you for being "in character" and making actions that may even hurt your character as long as you were "in character."

As a video gamer, I've played everything. I beta-tested Fallout 1. I played and still own Final Fantasy 1. I am one of the few who remember Star Control 2. Played Knights of the Old Republic and Jade Empire. Neverwhere Nights? Screw that, I remember Pool of Radiance and Eye of the Beholder.

And well... Video Game RPGs have rarely evolved. Pool of Radiance? Kill Monsters, collected XP and loot. Star Control 2? Yeah, mine for resources and make everyone like you. Sound familiar on either side of this conversation?

Video Game RPGs need to evolve. Inventory Systems... only looking for loot. In the Table-top world that isn't even the goal anymore, except in the most backwards of groups. When ME2 gave us the weapons we were issued or had uploaded and made, I was elated. A military based RPG where you are issued you're weapons? Well that fits perfectly.

When my military minded Shepard (s/he's a marine remember) wasn't looting every body in the world and selling the surplus to vendors. I felt more immersed. I was Commander Shepard, Specter to the Council, a member of the Elite of the Alliance Military. We don't loot bodies and the mission matters, not the individual kills. It seemed the perfect immersion for an RPG. Or at least a sci-fi military RPG where I played a commander.

Not ALL RPGs are based of the old 2nd edition of D&D. Even Gary Gygax didn't think that's all RPGs were. He took turn-based war games and turned them into much more. And they evolved, as all genres do.

So why does table-top RPGs get to evolve but video game RPGs do not? I've played horror RPGs, sci-fi RPGs, fantasy RPGs, modern spy RPGs, ancient Japan RPGs, Cyber-Punk RPGs, Super-Hero RPGs, etc. etc. etc. And every one of them played differently. Some had loot, some worried about inventory, some your words mattered and in some they didn't

Why are video game RPGs stuck in the D&D model? Why can't the Mass Effect series be an evolution of RPGs. Showing how a game can come from the "Quest, Loot, Sell" model of RPG to a more immersive version of video game RPGs. One where you play the role of a military person who takes the equipment given to them, doesn't strip the bodies of everything and progresses on.

As a Role-Player I will say this, Abigail Shepard (My Spacer/Ruthless/Infiltrator) is more real to me than any of my Fallout characters, my Final Fantasy characters or my Oblivion characters.

She fears her mother's reprisals and is racist to Batarians. She is a character I made, and I play her beyond what her three starting choices are. That's roleplaying, and make no mistake, Mass Effect lets you roleplay... better than any game I found before. Not just ME1, ME2 allows it as well.

TLDR: Video Game RPGs need to evolve or become extinct.

[littlezack]

Nozybidaj wrote...

Mr.Kusy wrote...

Greg Zeschuck said...

[...] Mass Effect, which is not so much an RPG as it is a conversational shooter.

Whatcha gonna do about this, thread?

Hah, I was close "conversational shooter" / "shooter with interactive dialgoue", close enough to be the same thing.

Here's the funny thing - Greg didn't say that. The guy  writing the article about what Greg said was the one who said that quote.

http://www.escapistm...g-Less-Relevant

Proper Context: Making people seem to say things they didn't reallly say since...forever.

[deimosmasque]

I've noticed it... jreezy. Not sure if you were saying you were including yourself in that post or not though.

When I was in my late-teens, I fought against it. Against change, against evolution. I hated D&D 3e when it came out.

I never played it but, hell I played D&D 2nd Edition all my life. I played it a few times and it left a bad taste in my mouth. Where were the things I loved in D&D 2nd. Then I tried with another character and suddenly I loved it.

I played Shadowrun 2nd edition. 3rd edition... okay just some rule fixes. 4th edition. Updated world with things that Cyber-Punk never predicted like wi-fi. It fit like a glove to me.

World of Darkness died... a new unrelated World of Darkness grew in it's place. I couldn't even wrap my head around it until I played it. Then I loved it more than any other RPG I played.

This is not to say that all evolution, that all change, is good. I did not, for example, like the changes from Star Control 2 to Star Contol 3. And there are still things I didn't like in ME2, that is not to say that it was not an evolution of ME1.

It took everything in the right direction. It wasn't perfect, nothing ever is. But do not fear evolution. Do not fear change. Let the video game RPG genre evolve. Honestly it needs to. Badly.

Geez me and TLDR today. Well everyday. I try to make my posts count.

TLDR: So I ask this, of those who are saying ME2 is not an RPG, those who wish it was more like ME1, those who even wish it's like the older Bioware games: Why do you define a RPG so tightly?