1002 réponses à ce sujet

[SpiffySquee]

Mr.Kusy wrote...

Mass Effect is a RPG because it's not! PARADOX! Infinite loop divided by zero!
WTFBOOOOOOOM!

I'm sorry... was that an attempt at wit? honestly, I think your time would be better served on a thread you care about...

[Ranadiel Marius]

Ranadiel Marius wrote...

 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 Had the people who originally made games using the mechanics called the video game genre they created, then this whole issue would never exist but we must live with the reality we live in and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.

Ugh I hate quoting myself, but I was hoping to get at least one response to my post and it seems to have been completely ignored.

[SpiffySquee]

Ranadiel Marius wrote...

Ranadiel Marius wrote...

 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.

Ugh I hate quoting myself, but I was hoping to get at least one response to my post and it seems to have been completely ignored.

Sorry... must have missed the post. It is hard to disagree with any of this simply because it is, as you said, different perspective. I would agree that the game is a hybrid of action and RPG. I really enjoyed the post, but I have a question.

In your mind, do you think the stripping down of the skill trees and inventory hurt it's ability to be an RPG? In other words, do you see that stuff as a means to an end, but not the end itself? Or, do you feel a game needs those elements to be called an RPG (or RPG hybrid)

Sorry if you answered it in the post, but it was a little hard to get a clear view of your stance :happy:

[cachx]

http://www.nerfnow.com/comic/567
http://www.nerfnow.com/comic/image/567

I laughed, especially the first panel

[Ranadiel Marius]

SpiffySquee wrote...


Sorry... must have missed the post. It is hard to disagree with any of this simply because it is, as you said, different perspective. I would agree that the game is a hybrid of action and RPG. I really enjoyed the post, but I have a question.

In your mind, do you think the stripping down of the skill trees and inventory hurt it's ability to be an RPG? In other words, do you see that stuff as a means to an end, but not the end itself? Or, do you feel a game needs those elements to be called an RPG (or RPG hybrid)

Sorry if you answered it in the post, but it was a little hard to get a clear view of your stance :happy:

If you mean RPG in terms of how it tells the story, no I don't think the loss of those really had a large impact on the abilty to "role play Shepard." However the loss of the RPG mechanics are the primary reason why I prefer ME1 to ME2. ME2 just did not have enough RPG gameplay mechanics for my tastes. After I beat it, I went on a rant to one of my friends of what I disliked, but I can't recall all of it. I think my big things were the lack of impact of levling due to the lack of stats and the lack of experience for killing enemies(which made fighting enemies feel pointless and a chore to me). I guess on some level I play RPGs for the mechanics, although that isn't the only reason I play them since I dislike games with vaguely defined main characters(liked DA2 more than DAO for this reason).

I feel that a leveling system of some kind is neccessary for a game to be classified as belonging to the RPG-genre becasue the various genres of games are mostly defined by mechanics. FPS, TPS, MMO, etc. all describe the game mechanics and as a genre I feel that RPG should likewise be used to tell you what kind of game systems are in the game. I know that a leveling system isn't required for a game to engage in role-play, but as a genre I don't feel that whether you engage in role-play is neccessary for the classification.

As for my stance, I would probably boil it down to this: You are right, but so are the people you are arguing against(well I'm not going to say all of them are right since I haven't read all the posts). In terms of what RPG means you are right in your definition. In terms of what RPG has come to mean as a genre your opponents are right. The only reason there is an argument is because game creators resuse terms more than they should.So in a nutshell, both sides are arguing past each other.

[Kusy]

SpiffySquee wrote...

Mr.Kusy wrote...

Mass Effect is a RPG because it's not! PARADOX! Infinite loop divided by zero!
WTFBOOOOOOOM!

I'm sorry... was that an attempt at wit? honestly, I think your time would be better served on a thread you care about...

[Phaedon]

For starters, I'll repost my post because Gatt decided to ignore it for the most part.

[quote]Phaedon wrote...
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.

---
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.

[quote]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.[/quote]
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.

[/quote]
[quote]Gatt9 wrote...
Here we are again,  you're making things up and not understanding the topic at hand.[/quote]
Nope, it's you who is posting made up "assertions" and defines anything that is not PnP as a non-RPG.

[quote]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.[/quote]
That's actually nice, thanks for posting it. You manage to show your true colors twice.

1. You only control a single statistical element = No control over the creation of Shepard.
Argument credibility right here, I see. The weapon choices don't make any difference? Factually, they do. They have wildly different stats. Unless you finally post your grand factbook here, at last, I suggest going over to the Strategy forum and saying that with a straight face.

2. Anything other than stats is not character creation.
I am actually confused as to how you managed to play any RPG when you treat them as if they are simulation games. You obviously have no imagination, or actually create or develop a character.

Visual characterisitcs lead to personalization of the character, and background actually gives you a basis to start developing your character. Zomg.

Character development. Without stats.

[quote]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.[/quote]

Yup, just like I said.
For you, Shepard has 2 or 3, at best, personalities.

The Paragon, Renegade, or more neutral one.

For you, a more developed character with more facets = no personality. Awesome.
Jacob for example, who is otherwise a paragon, has a grudge against mercenaries. But if Jacob was to be your Shepard, and he had a different reaction to different subjects, he would have no personality.

Your decisions from an earlier point of the game must fully determine your actions from then on. Lol, okay. I am sure that it is "true roleplaying", because it can involve stats.

[quote]3.  How your character thinks and fight is defined by his Role.[/quote]
...

A role that is not simply picked at the beginning of the game, but instead is constantly being developed. That's the point of BOTH choices AND statistical progression.

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

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

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.[/quote]
What rational argument? What are you saying? 

That sentence is wildly irrational as I have already mentioned in my previous posts.

"RPGs weren't born until the late 70s, and they only exist as PnPs. No, actually the only true RPGs are ADnD ones."
I don't care if this is just ignorance or a ridiculous sense of entitlement, but it's stupid. End of story. People have been assuming and developing roles for centuries. PnPs didn't start out of nowhere, and they weren't the only ones to be created either.

I still find it hillarious how you maintain that a game with no input can possibly be an RPG.

When in fact the only definining element of RPGs, which wasn't taken from other genres, is the creation of a character, and the development thereof. Few games, computer or not, have no "input". They tend to be simulation games, although most of those tend to allow for a lot of interaction for the player.

Your skill at shooting matters in ME2, as much as it matters to develop strategies in Baulder's Gate, or how fast you can move and click your mouse in Planescape Torment.

Clearly all RPGs have a lot of "player input", no matter how much you try to convince yourself that everything is calculated by the DM or the computer.


[quote]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...[/quote]
This is the most retarded statement I have read throughout the month.

An RPG is a game that involves roleplaying. They existed, WAY back before DnD. Unless older roleplaying games were actually...roleplaying...I don't know, movies? Comics? RPM or RPC sounds good.

PnP games, although most likely not as old as RPGs, they are very old as well.

PnP Roleplaying games was a trend that started around the late seventies yes. But it was only PnP RPGs. NOT RPGs, or PnP games.

Since then, there are a lot of different PnP RPGs, and many different types of CRPGs. Just because some people agree with your definition (I think it's safe to say that population-wise, most people disagree completely with you), or because you think that you were first, when you clearly were late. For some centuries, at that.


[quote]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.[/quote]
And again, you should think more before you post.

Player skill has a lot to do with your success in RPGs. Post a single RPG where no player skill is required. Yes, that's a challenge.

[quote]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.[/quote]
I have never LARPed in my entire life, but I can safely that you are absolutely wrong about LARPs:

"(Tychsen et al. 2005:216) "Rules in RPGs ... focus on 1) How the fictional world operates; 2) How the players interact with the fictional world and its inhabitants and; 3) How the players interact with each other and the GM."

"^ Hitchens, Michael; Drachen, Anders (2009). "The many faces of role-playing games"(PDF). International Journal of Role-Playing (1): pp. 11. Retrieved 2009-09-12. "While player enaction is emphasised, formal rule systems are commonly used for determination of the outcome of many character actions"

"^ (Tychsen et al. 2005:218) "In PnP RPGs and LARPs, the GMs can be responsible for creating the rules, if an existing RPG rules system is not used."

...did you also just say that RPGs don't have roleplaying?


[quote]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".[/quote]
"Just because it has "roleplaying" in it, it doesn't mean that you have to roleplay!"

"A game where you roleplay is not a roleplaying game"

Denial is mighty nice, I guess.
Especially since the first so called, by you, "RPGs" went ahead and used the same ruleset used in wargames, but added the creation and development of a character.

And once again, I am waiting for a supposed that non-roleplaying RPG element that the Sims 2/3 or Sims 1+expansion packs don't have.

In fact, I am still anxiously waiting for a supposed RPG Element that ME2 doesn't have. So far you have only said "OK, it may have that, but it is unimportant by itself (unlike every other RPG), so it doesn't count lol"

[quote]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...[/quote]
And this is where you dig yourself even more deeply.


Cars in 1885.


Cars in 2007.

Attempt to describe automobiles as anything but wheeled vehicles with motors, and your definition is simply wrong.

Attempt to describe literally any man-made concept very specifically, and once again, you are wrong because you will either not consider previous components of that concept as part of the concept, or their natural evolution.

All concepts need to evolve, or they stagnate and die.

Modifié par Phaedon, 26 août 2011 - 08:54 .

[Phaedon]

@VarenSpectre

Why I believe that the stats of ME2 are deeper?

They aren't deep by themselves, but in comparison to ME1.

For two reasons basically:
1) Items aren't better or worse, they are different, most of the times.

2) The stat changes are very significant in numbers, at least.

[Guldhun2]

Phaedon wrote...

@VarenSpectre

Why I believe that the stats of ME2 are deeper?

They aren't deep by themselves, but in comparison to ME1.

For two reasons basically:
1) Items aren't better or worse, they are different, most of the times.

2) The stat changes are very significant in numbers, at least.

You can easily finish ME2 without taking any skills. Never tried it in ME1 though, but that isn't "deep" at all.

Modifié par Guldhun2, 26 août 2011 - 09:03 .

[littlezack]

Guldhun2 wrote...

Phaedon wrote...

@VarenSpectre

Why I believe that the stats of ME2 are deeper?

They aren't deep by themselves, but in comparison to ME1.

For two reasons basically:
1) Items aren't better or worse, they are different, most of the times.

2) The stat changes are very significant in numbers, at least.

You can easily finish ME2 without taking any skills. Never tried it in ME1 though, but that isn't "deep" at all.

Couldn't one say the same for just about any game where enemies level up with you?

[Phaedon]

Guldhun2 wrote...
You can easily finish ME2 without taking any skills. Never tried it in ME1 though, but that isn't "deep" at all.

Deep? Yes, in comparison to ME1 always. It's not deep by itself.

I have went ahead and completed a playthrough without stat. progression in ME1. It's pretty easy, due to the very low difficulty of the game, mostly.

However:
-Items in ME1 have very few statistical variables attached to them. And they are always better or worse. There is no depth. There would be no difference if the game improved the stats, of let's say, your weapon per mission. That is of course not the case in ME2, if you actually look at the stats and the way each weapon plays in-game.

-All stat changes in ME1have an incredibly minor effect on their own. On the other hand, there are items in ME2 that can give you up to +2/30% bonuses in items.

[Someone With Mass]

littlezack wrote...
Couldn't one say the same for just about any game where enemies level up with you?

Yeah, I can do that in a game like Fallout 3 too. I just don't want to, since it's a huge waste of time.

I mean, I can put stupid restrictions on my gameplay in ME2 all the time, like...no ammo powers or no assault rifles or no power evolutions or no Paragon/Renegade bonuses.

I just don't see the point, that's all.

Modifié par Someone With Mass, 26 août 2011 - 09:16 .

[Phaedon]

Someone With Mass wrote...

littlezack wrote...
Couldn't one say the same for just about any game where enemies level up with you?

Yeah, I can do that in a game like Fallout 3 too. I just don't want to, since it's a huge waste of time.

Inb4 rose tinted glasses rage and exclamations of NV being better.

[Someone With Mass]

Phaedon wrote...
Inb4 rose tinted glasses rage and exclamations of NV being better.

Meh.

They can be hipster and nostalgic as much as they want. I don't care.

[string3r]

They have the bare minimum requirements to qualify as being an RPG. So yes, but again just barely.

[SpiffySquee]

Guldhun2 wrote...

Phaedon wrote...

@VarenSpectre

Why I believe that the stats of ME2 are deeper?

They aren't deep by themselves, but in comparison to ME1.

For two reasons basically:
1) Items aren't better or worse, they are different, most of the times.

2) The stat changes are very significant in numbers, at least.

You can easily finish ME2 without taking any skills. Never tried it in ME1 though, but that isn't "deep" at all.

Maybe on casual, but anyone who claims they can easily beat ME2 on insanity with no upgrades or leveling what so ever are either a gaming savant, or playing solider class (the one class designed for people who just wanted to shoot things).

I know a lot of people say it, but I'm still waiting for someone to prove it. I would love to see someone easily beat the game on insanity with no upgrades. Is it possible? Of Course. Is it easy? I think not. 

Modifié par SpiffySquee, 27 août 2011 - 11:26 .

[In Exile]

Gatt9 wrote...
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?

What the hell? No. That is nothing like what I am saying. 

What I am saying is that you cannot define an criteria by trying to mention an exhaustive list of criteria any instance of the category has to satisfy.

Here are examples: bird, games, chair.

You cannot create exhaustive definitions of any of these categories that cover all of the instances we consider as part of the category because categories are "fuzzy".

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

Again, what the hell are you on about?

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

No, it doesn't. It's so widely discredited it's comical in academic circles.

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. 

No, it doesn't. You don't even understand how formal logic works, it seems. Two neccesary conditions do not make a sufficient condition. 

You've changed the relationship between the terms. The "If" in an if/then statement is the sufficient condition. 

Formally, "P implies Q" means "P is sufficient for Q" which means "If you have P, you know you have Q" which is different from a neccesary condition, that is just a precondition for something to be true.

[Balek-Vriege]

It can also be argued that even PnP games weren't supposed to be all about game mechanics, statistics and cool loot. They're supposed to be about gathering with friends and playing through an interactive story which changes with player decisions. Your DM sets up a game/story with his trusty dungeon book (or one he made himself) and the players go through that journey. The game mechanics are intended to give a base ruleset so there isn't "MY fireball hit" "NO it didn't" arguments and the loot was part of that and the adventure as a whole. Most PnP games aren't as heavy on loot as some CRPGs have been in recent times.


For example, The Baldur's Gate series and Fallout 1 and 2 are probably the most loyal RPGs towards PnP games. Baldur's Gate never gave you a whole bunch of different loot save the stuff those characters would in realistically have on them in a high fantasy setting. Fallout had even less loot, where you had to save up money and play the story to get the best/fairly good items. So in regards to those games, loot didn't define them as RPGs.

The character statistics in Baldur's Gates were complicated 2nd edition DnD rules and were changed/simplified/streamlined with 3rd edition and further changed with 4th edition. Does that mean PnP DnD games and any CRPGs based on the new rules automatically have less RPG elements? Not Really. They're just simplified rulesets. Fallout was pretty easy, you had your Stats, Traits, Perks and skill points (working much like 3rd edition DnD). If those were the RPG elements than Fallout 3 and NV have to be hardcore RPGs as well.

What seems to define both is the depth of the story, writing and the choices the player can make through it. That's what people remember about those games the most when they think of legendary RPGs like BG and Fallout. JRPGs also focus on telling a story, but don't have any choice save for if/when you do a main/sub quest. The loot and game mechanics come second (example FF games changed mechanics and loot systems almost every game, we bought them for the story telling and boss killing).


The Mass Effect series is a combination of PnP CRPGs, JRPGs and action game elements trying to bring the best of all worlds in one Action RPG. We follow a certain personality (Shepard) through a cinematic storyline like we would in any JRPG game, with the added choice and western influence of CRPG games (which Bioware is famous for helping develop), combined with action/shooter aspects and a streamlined ruleset.

Is Mass Effect an Action RPG? Yes, we play it mostly to find out what happens next in our playthroughs (much like PnP games). It has good combat and other action-like influences which make it fun to play as well.
Is it an "old school" CRPG? No, Dragon Age: Origins was.
Is it a JRPG? Definitely not (Used to be my idea of an RPG until they became voiced and noticed how corny the storylines could get with all the fluff.)

Mass Effect so far leads the pack in action RPGs and might be overtaken by Skyrim (at least for a couple months).

Modifié par Balek-Vriege, 27 août 2011 - 02:32 .

[Gatt9]

Balek-Vriege wrote...

It can also be argued that even PnP games weren't supposed to be all about game mechanics, statistics and cool loot. They're supposed to be about gathering with friends and playing through an interactive story which changes with player decisions. Your DM sets up a game/story with his trusty dungeon book (or one he made himself) and the players go through that journey. The game mechanics are intended to give a base ruleset so there isn't "MY fireball hit" "NO it didn't" arguments and the loot was part of that and the adventure as a whole. Most PnP games aren't as heavy on loot as some CRPGs have been in recent times.

I would strongly disagree.  Most of the rulebooks,  probably north of 95% of the material,  is to define the Character and establish the mechanics by which the whole game will operate.  In any and every RPG,  the actual content dedicated to story telling and the mechanics of the actual roleplaying is extremely minimal,  if it exists at all.  RPG's don't define the or story constraints,  that's left entirely up to the DM.

If the intent was just to be about story,  the whole system could've been implemented completely differently,  with very minimal rules and a heavy focus on narrative,  rather than a heavy focus on rules and rewards.

For example, The Baldur's Gate series and Fallout 1 and 2 are probably the most loyal RPGs towards PnP games. Baldur's Gate never gave you a whole bunch of different loot save the stuff those characters would in realistically have on them in a high fantasy setting. Fallout had even less loot, where you had to save up money and play the story to get the best/fairly good items. So in regards to those games, loot didn't define them as RPGs.

The character statistics in Baldur's Gates were complicated 2nd edition DnD rules and were changed/simplified/streamlined with 3rd edition and further changed with 4th edition. Does that mean PnP DnD games and any CRPGs based on the new rules automatically have less RPG elements? Not Really. They're just simplified rulesets. Fallout was pretty easy, you had your Stats, Traits, Perks and skill points (working much like 3rd edition DnD). If those were the RPG elements than Fallout 3 and NV have to be hardcore RPGs as well.

You're treading dangerous ground there my friend,  D&D 4th edition has had enourmous reception problems,  alot of people would argue that D&D 4.0 does have less RPG elements.

What seems to define both is the depth of the story, writing and the choices the player can make through it. That's what people remember about those games the most when they think of legendary RPGs like BG and Fallout. JRPGs also focus on telling a story, but don't have any choice save for if/when you do a main/sub quest. The loot and game mechanics come second (example FF games changed mechanics and loot systems almost every game, we bought them for the story telling and boss killing).

While you're right that those are major components,  especially with Baldur's Gate,  the story is pretty iffy.  BG's story was weak,  only rarely did you even come into contact with it,  and there weren't any choices to be made.  Much like Mass Effect,  either you did X nicely,  or you were mean about X,  but you did X no matter what the same way.

The Mass Effect series is a combination of PnP CRPGs, JRPGs and action game elements trying to bring the best of all worlds in one Action RPG. We follow a certain personality (Shepard) through a cinematic storyline like we would in any JRPG game, with the added choice and western influence of CRPG games (which Bioware is famous for helping develop), combined with action/shooter aspects and a streamlined ruleset.

Is Mass Effect an Action RPG? Yes, we play it mostly to find out what happens next in our playthroughs (much like PnP games). It has good combat and other action-like influences which make it fun to play as well.
Is it an "old school" CRPG? No, Dragon Age: Origins was.
Is it a JRPG? Definitely not (Used to be my idea of an RPG until they became voiced and noticed how corny the storylines could get with all the fluff.)

Mass Effect so far leads the pack in action RPGs and might be overtaken by Skyrim (at least for a couple months).

I would argue that it didn't bring the best parts together.

-It broungt a JRPG's linear corridors without deviation or exploration
-The only thing it brought from PnP were the concepts of experience and levels,  which it promptly made certain that they didn't actually perform their intended function.
-It tossed out the CRPG's budding decision based story telling and went back to Baldur's Gate's "Do X nicely,  or do X meanly,  but you'll do it the same way and all that will change is a line of dialgoue"
-And capped it off with AI from the early 90's.

@Phaedon,  you're making less sense with every post. 

@In Exile,  I'll get back to that discussion in a bit when I've more time.

Modifié par Gatt9, 27 août 2011 - 03:04 .

[Balek-Vriege]

Gatt9 wrote...

I would strongly disagree.  Most of the rulebooks,  probably north of 95% of the material,  is to define the Character and establish the mechanics by which the whole game will operate.  In any and every RPG,  the actual content dedicated to story telling and the mechanics of the actual roleplaying is extremely minimal,  if it exists at all.  RPG's don't define the or story constraints,  that's left entirely up to the DM.

If the intent was just to be about story,  the whole system could've been implemented completely differently,  with very minimal rules and a heavy focus on narrative,  rather than a heavy focus on rules and rewards.

Fair Point.  My opinion would be that there are so many rulebooks and items, because PnP is only restricted by the imagination and not programming.  So its mechanics and items are naturally "out of control" because people are still ever thinking up new cool things which need to be governed somehow or presented in a "canon," universal way.  What doesn't need to be governed to such a heavy extent is the actual storyline, since the DM can easily control that.  In the end what all PnP games have in common is they have a DM, players and they play through a storyline in which they have choices (go down this corridor, trust the orc, follow the thief down the sewer, betray the King etc.)

If you're going to combine an imagination game with a story/roleplaying, you need to have very detailed rules or you get the grade 2 arguments we all remember when playing imaginary characters in the school yard.  Computer games naturally don't need this as much because the programming is the DM and imagination is limited to the Devs.

You're treading dangerous ground there my friend,  D&D 4th edition has had enourmous reception problems,  alot of people would argue that D&D 4.0 does have less RPG elements.

Very dangerous


After doing some research on 4th edition FR for a NWN2 character I was making, I came across a lot of 4th edition/New FR debates hehehe.

While you're right that those are major components,  especially with Baldur's Gate,  the story is pretty iffy.  BG's story was weak,  only rarely did you even come into contact with it,  and there weren't any choices to be made.  Much like Mass Effect,  either you did X nicely,  or you were mean about X,  but you did X no matter what the same way.

True, Fallout 1 (and 2) was a different beast in that regard, but it's arguably a smaller game than BG.  I wouldn't say the BG story was weak, since BGs are widely regarded as one of the best RPGs of all time (including by me).  Linear in the way it treats its main plot is probably more accurate.  The same goes for Mass Effect since we can't rush to kill Saren or blow up the Reapers in dark space in 15 minutes.

I would argue that it didn't bring the best parts together.

-It broungt a JRPG's linear corridors without deviation or exploration
-The only thing it brought from PnP were the concepts of experience and levels,  which it promptly made certain that they didn't actually perform their intended function.
-It tossed out the CRPG's budding decision based story telling and went back to Baldur's Gate's "Do X nicely,  or do X meanly,  but you'll do it the same way and all that will change is a line of dialgoue"
-And capped it off with AI from the early 90's.

Just going to list off some added points in order:

-The main plot does have JRPG-like linearity (for example, only having the option to go to x, y or z world first but you have to visit them all regardless).  Mass Effect 2 was a lot better than Mass Effect 1 in the linear department.  The nice thing about linearity is that it allows for a much more epic and detailed story imo.  JRPGs are better than Mass Effect (at least FFs from back in the day) in the major world exploration area.  That's something Bioware hasn't achieved or tried to achieve just yet.  Mass Effect 1 exploration, combined with important side stories and a resource system similar to old school JRPG map exploration would definitely be cool.  I wouldn't say this defines an RPG though.

-Yep for those who really like old school PnP mechanics the Mass Effect series is lackluster and may not seem too much like an RPG.  I find much of the RPG community is moving away from PnP-like rules in general, since they probably take a lot of time and are redundant with computer programming.  Also unlike Dragon Age, Mass Effect was never marketed or portrayed as being PnP based.  It's more of it's own roleplaying beast many would argue.

-I would argue that this point remains to be seen with Mass Effect 3.  ME is pretty much the first RPG to carry decisions and situations from one game to another (which is a big deal).  The story is set up to lead to one final confrontation in ME3 where all our choices will be put on the table.  How Bioware executes this may very well decide how much "choice cred" the Mass Effects series actually have.  I would have liked to have seen more ME1 decisions played out in ME2, but beggars can't be choosers.

-AI problems are just that, AI problems.  RPGs have historically had bad/boring combat and bad/buggy AI.  It's getting better with time though.


Mass Effect is definitely not a PnP CRPG.  However, we do dictate how our Shepard acts and deals with situations ingame.  Those decisions do have an impact on the story and available NPCs (although the situations  may not drastically change... so far).  We do have choices about character profession, background and "skillsets."  We do have sidequests and exploration missions.  There is a lot of loot in Mass Effect 1, obviously not so much in ME2 (although I would argue this is realistic for the setting) and will be more in ME3 (hopefully the best of both worlds).

If you can call a JRPG and non PnP based RPGs (new or old school) roleplaying games, than I think Mass Effect deserves to be counted among RPGs as well.  At least what it's been marketed all along as:  An Action RPG.  Question is:

"Is Mass Effect an Action game with heavy RPG elements and minor Adventure elements?"
or
"Is Mass Effect an RPG with heavy Action elements and minor Adventure elements?"

I would argue the latter, but it's all perspective.  Is there really any difference between the two questions and why we enjoyed the game (or didn't)?



Edit:  Typos/touch ups

Modifié par Balek-Vriege, 27 août 2011 - 04:21 .

[CroGamer002]

Mr.Kusy wrote...

*snip*

Squee913 mad?


You'll have easier time to find Holy Grail then get him go mad.

[Phaedon]

Gatt9 wrote...

@Phaedon,  you're making less sense with every post.  

Argument extraordinariness.

Balek-Vriege wrote...

It can also be argued that even PnP games weren't supposed to be all about game mechanics, statistics and cool loot. They're supposed to be about gathering with friends and playing through an interactive story which changes with player decisions. Your DM sets up a game/story with his trusty dungeon book (or one he made himself) and the players go through that journey. The game mechanics are intended to give a base ruleset so there isn't "MY fireball hit" "NO it didn't" arguments and the loot was part of that and the adventure as a whole. Most PnP games aren't as heavy on loot as some CRPGs have been in recent times.

Of course they are not. I can't see how one can claim that, when the only new thing that tabletop RPGs brought to the table was the creation AND development, of a character.

The rulesets had existed way before DnD was released. How can an element of another genre define a new one?

To further prove the "LARP argument" wrong:

"As suggested by the name, TRPGs are played face-to-face (around a table, most likely), and involve players 'acting out' a role. This acting is not always literal. Players do not arrive in costume or speak exclusively in-character — something that differentiates TRPGs from live-action role-playing games (LARPs). Instead, players develop characters based on certain rules and are responsible for deciding what those characters do over the course of the game."

Jennifer Grouling (2010). The Creation of Narrative in Tabletop Role-Playing Games. 

This is exactly where the entire argument falls apart. The rules exist only as boundaries to the players' imagination, which as Squee explained, can lead to god-modding. Yes, it is theoretically possible to gather around the table and play a PnP RPG without any rules, but you are risking it.

Your imagination is always the most important tool in RPGs. It's you who describes what your character does.

I for one consider that concept-wise, ME2 did well as an RPG/shooter hybrid. Why? It merges the natural RPG need for player input (decisions, and actions, as I said, there is not a single CRPG which doesn't require some player skill, therefore, absolute character/player distinction, theoretical or practical is a bad joke) and inserts shooter mechanics. In BG, you quickly aim and click on an enemy to attack them. You do the same in ME2, but from a different perspective and new mechanics.

Modifié par Phaedon, 27 août 2011 - 06:17 .

[sorentoft]

SpiffySquee wrote...

Yup! Another video because they are much more fun than a wall of text! Here I clearly explain why they are still RPGs and will always be RPGs. I also go why the game shows Shep's actions, but does not explore Shep's motivations...

Part 1


Part 2


A big Thanks to Mesina2 for helping me put the video together

Good vids. I agree.