1002 réponses à ce sujet

[Gatt9]

nelly21 wrote...

It's not that hard.

Rpgs allow you customize your character. Not just your gear, not just your stats, but everything about your character.

If I play Gears of War, Marcus Fenix is not customizable. I can't decide to change his personality. Marcus is who he is. Same thing in God of War. I can customize Kratos' powers somewhat, but overall, Kratos is who he is.

In Mass Effect Shep is a blank slate without me. He could be a diplomatic Infiltrator or rengade adept. It's my choice. Rpgs are about customizing characters. Making them act as you want them to. Making them fight how you want them to. Is Mass Effect a pure rpg like The Elder Scrolls? No. It's not trying to be. It's trying to be an rpg/tps hybrid. But is it still an rpg? Of course.

Mmmmm....You're right on most of it,  but you're just a little bit off on some of it....

You're right in that RPG's let you customize your character.  But on the topic of pre-defined characters,  you're a little off.

In the early 80's,  TSR released a number of modules that featured pre-defined character(s) whose stories you would experience,  including Dragonlance.  These were embraced as some of the finest modules ever devised,  and Dragonlance spawned nearly 30 years of material,  no small amount of which inspired many at Bioware (Knights of Solamnia are present in Baldur's Gate 2). 

These are pre-defined characters,  whose Roles you assume,  no different than if you'd defined the Roles.  It's perfectly valid,  because all of the customization and genre-defining Character components are present and function 100%,  you're just not rolling your own.

But,  Fenix isn't a Role,  because there's no Character.  He has no intrinsic qualities,  he's not a diplomat,  not a melee character,  he's whatever you arbitrarily chose at any given moment.

Which is exactly what ME2 Shepherd is.  There's no Character,  no consequences for choosing any good or bad action,  he's not a diplomat,  not a tank,  he's whatever you arbitrarily choose.

There's really no difference between Fenix and ME2 Shepherd,  you don't really make any decisions,  because the outcome's the same no matter what you do.  A 100% paragon can murder in cold blood without consequence,  it just doesn't matter,  and as such,  it's not Roleplaying.  If the game takes no notice of anything you do,  gives the same results no matter what you do,  then nothing you do matters,  leaving you with no difference between Fenix and Shepherd.

Fenix is a pacifist and runs past all the monsters,  Shepherd kills in cold blood,  game doesn't care,  gives you the same outcome. 

[InvincibleHero]

Gatt9 wrote...


These are pre-defined characters,  whose Roles you assume,  no different than if you'd defined the Roles.  It's perfectly valid,  because all of the customization and genre-defining Character components are present and function 100%,  you're just not rolling your own.

But,  Fenix isn't a Role,  because there's no Character.  He has no intrinsic qualities,  he's not a diplomat,  not a melee character,  he's whatever you arbitrarily chose at any given moment.

Which is exactly what ME2 Shepherd is.  There's no Character,  no consequences for choosing any good or bad action,  he's not a diplomat,  not a tank,  he's whatever you arbitrarily choose.

There's really no difference between Fenix and ME2 Shepherd,  you don't really make any decisions,  because the outcome's the same no matter what you do.  A 100% paragon can murder in cold blood without consequence,  it just doesn't matter,  and as such,  it's not Roleplaying.  If the game takes no notice of anything you do,  gives the same results no matter what you do,  then nothing you do matters,  leaving you with no difference between Fenix and Shepherd.

Fenix is a pacifist and runs past all the monsters,  Shepherd kills in cold blood,  game doesn't care,  gives you the same outcome. 

Gatt not this flawed argument again. The only roles defined in D&D are DM and PC. That's it.

I can take any predefined character and multiclass or dual class when it existed within the rules. Oh no the warrior becomes healer. So I can change Sturm Brightblade into a cleric over time and once he has more cleric levels than knight boom he changes. He goes from tank to supporting role/spell caster.

My character in D&D is whatever I choose. You are incorrect in even asserting that BS about diplomat. I can have a 20 diplomacy and decide to kill whomever I want. I still have a 20 diplomacy and can use it to that effect the next time I decide to use it. Arbitrary skill with an arbitrary number. The idea is I use my ability however and whenever I choose. Not all RPGs have diplomacy so it is irrelevant as a role.

Would you assert that if you used D&D and only had mages it would stop being RPG because the only defined role is spell caster? Your argument carries no water.

Oh and your wrong about consequences too. Much to the chagrin of most RPG elitistys on this board they whine about the consequences of the P/R system. I cannot convince both Jack and Miranda because I do not play pure enough P or R. This is not a consequence? 

Besides my DM determines any and all consequences. I can try 100 things, but only one correct solution is of consequence in most cases. If presented with a door that is unbreakable and locked and my character is a warrior with no skill in lock picking then my choices are limited. I can bash the door, attack it with my sword, try to light it on fire, etc etc but those are impossible (which I do not know). The only solution is find the key. That is the only route of consequence. Doesn't negate the fact I tried a dozen things that were possibkle and had the same result no effect.

In most RPGs you can open chests and loot right in front of the people without consequence. Or it is something silly that an item gets marked stolen and unsaleable. The only consequence in most RPGs is you slide on the scale of good/evil or some axis they define. Only paladins or clerics (offend their deity that grants spells) face any real consequence of their actions. You can kill with impunity in DA:O right in front of witnesses with no consequence is DA: O not an RPG? You have to say no and you'd be the only one or admit your argument is a fail.

Here's to another post you will ignore.

[moneycashgeorge]

I find it ridiculous that people argue endlessly over the "definition" of a Role Playing Game. The funniest and most absurd part of the argument is that people just take what they personally like about games traditionally considered to be RPG's and declare that to be their defining attribute.

"I like stories so thats what an RPG is hurr durr i'm so smart" "No stupid I like numbers and lists and things blah blah no RPG is complete without them"

RPG's are just games based on Dungeons and Dragons, the original RPG. There is no other definition. There is no international council of the allmighty RPG to dictate the terms of what is an RPG. D&D said "we are a role playing game" and everything else followed.

If you really want to get serious, having a set story that you follow and isn't made up as you go along in an un-RPG quality. Having no dice rolls is un-RPG.

Mass Effect is just a video game. Bioware, like Bethesda and Square and everyone else that makes "RPGs" took inspiration from D&D, but then they left it behind and did what they wanted. The modern usage of "RPG" is just an arbitrary moniker applied to games with a whole range of mechanics derived from D&D that are used in various ways. It is ultimately meaningless.

If you want to give the Mass Effect series an accurate description, it is a "Non-Linear Narrative Driven Conversation Simulator/Squad Based 3rd Person Shooter with Character Progression". Anything else is just a generalization.

[endi74]

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

Когда выйдет,новая версия МЕ-3???

[Kakita Tatsumaru]

Guldhun2 wrote...

nelly21 wrote...
It's not that hard.

Rpgs allow you customize your character. Not just your gear, not just your stats, but everything about your character.

If I play Gears of War, Marcus Fenix is not customizable. I can't decide to change his personality. Marcus is who he is. Same thing in God of War. I can customize Kratos' powers somewhat, but overall, Kratos is who he is.

In Mass Effect Shep is a blank slate without me. He could be a diplomatic Infiltrator or rengade adept. It's my choice. Rpgs are about customizing characters. Making them act as you want them to. Making them fight how you want them to. Is Mass Effect a pure rpg like The Elder Scrolls? No. It's not trying to be. It's trying to be an rpg/tps hybrid. But is it still an rpg? Of course.

That post makes baby Jesus cry. Yes, really.

So RPGs with no dialogue choices are not RPGs? Because i can name a hundred or more RPGs with no character creation and no "customizable" character.

And secondly, THE ELDER SCROLLS A PURE RPG?????? Whatever you are on, use less of it. Or a lot more.

RPG without roleplaying? Then it's named "donjon-crawling" in my book, it's actually the ancestor of D&D, just before Gary Gigax said "but what can my character does outside of battle, outside of donjons, etcs..."
J-RPG are actually mostly based on that, that doesn't make them bad games (I actually prefered them over western RPG for most of my life and FFVI and xenogears are still my two favorite games) but makes them J-RPG (which is a genre of its own) and not simply RPG.

Guldhun2 wrote...

Kakita Tatsumaru wrote...
+1
RPG is all about that: deciding what your character does, the more the better.

I can decide to play a good Duke Nukem in DukeNukem3D by bypassing enemies. Or i can play a "bad" duke by killing all my enemies. LOOK MA, I R RPGING.

You seems to missed "the more the better" part. Choices in gameplay is good, choices for everything else is what makes RPG what they are. And as I feel you're still about to nitpick, remember than true RPG cannot be attained on PC unless it can become an IA GM, but that's why RPG are so heavily scripted (and bugged ^^), to try being a descent RPG.
And even if a PC game will never be a good GM when it comes to liberty, it compensate by being far better at storytelling than most GM.^^

Gatt9 wrote...

Which is exactly what ME2 Shepherd is.  There's no Character,  no consequences for choosing any good or bad action,  he's not a diplomat,  not a tank,  he's whatever you arbitrarily choose.

There's really no difference between Fenix and ME2 Shepherd,  you don't really make any decisions,  because the outcome's the same no matter what you do.  A 100% paragon can murder in cold blood without consequence,  it just doesn't matter,  and as such,  it's not Roleplaying.  If the game takes no notice of anything you do,  gives the same results no matter what you do,  then nothing you do matters,  leaving you with no difference between Fenix and Shepherd.

Fenix is a pacifist and runs past all the monsters,  Shepherd kills in cold blood,  game doesn't care,  gives you the same outcome. 

Actually, it's because the PC is not a good DM when it comes to change it's story, but it's not that discalifying as an RPG, as that's what beginner/bad/D&D (yes, I'm trolling ^^) GM does too on tabletop RPG.

[SpiffySquee]

moneycashgeorge wrote...

I find it ridiculous that people argue endlessly over the "definition" of a Role Playing Game. The funniest and most absurd part of the argument is that people just take what they personally like about games traditionally considered to be RPG's and declare that to be their defining attribute.

"I like stories so thats what an RPG is hurr durr i'm so smart" "No stupid I like numbers and lists and things blah blah no RPG is complete without them"

RPG's are just games based on Dungeons and Dragons, the original RPG. There is no other definition. There is no international council of the allmighty RPG to dictate the terms of what is an RPG. D&D said "we are a role playing game" and everything else followed.

If you really want to get serious, having a set story that you follow and isn't made up as you go along in an un-RPG quality. Having no dice rolls is un-RPG.

Mass Effect is just a video game. Bioware, like Bethesda and Square and everyone else that makes "RPGs" took inspiration from D&D, but then they left it behind and did what they wanted. The modern usage of "RPG" is just an arbitrary moniker applied to games with a whole range of mechanics derived from D&D that are used in various ways. It is ultimately meaningless.

If you want to give the Mass Effect series an accurate description, it is a "Non-Linear Narrative Driven Conversation Simulator/Squad Based 3rd Person Shooter with Character Progression". Anything else is just a generalization.

You do realize you just said people are ridiculous for trying to define RPGs with what they feel it should be... and then just tried to define an RPG with what you feel it should be...

[moneycashgeorge]

SpiffySquee wrote...

moneycashgeorge wrote...

I find it ridiculous that people argue endlessly over the "definition" of a Role Playing Game. The funniest and most absurd part of the argument is that people just take what they personally like about games traditionally considered to be RPG's and declare that to be their defining attribute.

"I like stories so thats what an RPG is hurr durr i'm so smart" "No stupid I like numbers and lists and things blah blah no RPG is complete without them"

RPG's are just games based on Dungeons and Dragons, the original RPG. There is no other definition. There is no international council of the allmighty RPG to dictate the terms of what is an RPG. D&D said "we are a role playing game" and everything else followed.

If you really want to get serious, having a set story that you follow and isn't made up as you go along in an un-RPG quality. Having no dice rolls is un-RPG.

Mass Effect is just a video game. Bioware, like Bethesda and Square and everyone else that makes "RPGs" took inspiration from D&D, but then they left it behind and did what they wanted. The modern usage of "RPG" is just an arbitrary moniker applied to games with a whole range of mechanics derived from D&D that are used in various ways. It is ultimately meaningless.

If you want to give the Mass Effect series an accurate description, it is a "Non-Linear Narrative Driven Conversation Simulator/Squad Based 3rd Person Shooter with Character Progression". Anything else is just a generalization.

You do realize you just said people are ridiculous for trying to define RPGs with what they feel it should be... and then just tried to define an RPG with what you feel it should be...

No I didnt.

[Sir Ulrich Von Lichenstien]

jreezy wrote...

moneycashgeorge wrote...

SpiffySquee wrote...

moneycashgeorge wrote...

I find it ridiculous that people argue endlessly over the "definition" of a Role Playing Game. The funniest and most absurd part of the argument is that people just take what they personally like about games traditionally considered to be RPG's and declare that to be their defining attribute.

"I like stories so thats what an RPG is hurr durr i'm so smart" "No stupid I like numbers and lists and things blah blah no RPG is complete without them"

RPG's are just games based on Dungeons and Dragons, the original RPG. There is no other definition. There is no international council of the allmighty RPG to dictate the terms of what is an RPG. D&D said "we are a role playing game" and everything else followed.

If you really want to get serious, having a set story that you follow and isn't made up as you go along in an un-RPG quality. Having no dice rolls is un-RPG.

Mass Effect is just a video game. Bioware, like Bethesda and Square and everyone else that makes "RPGs" took inspiration from D&D, but then they left it behind and did what they wanted. The modern usage of "RPG" is just an arbitrary moniker applied to games with a whole range of mechanics derived from D&D that are used in various ways. It is ultimately meaningless.

If you want to give the Mass Effect series an accurate description, it is a "Non-Linear Narrative Driven Conversation Simulator/Squad Based 3rd Person Shooter with Character Progression". Anything else is just a generalization.

You do realize you just said people are ridiculous for trying to define RPGs with what they feel it should be... and then just tried to define an RPG with what you feel it should be...

No I didnt.

Of course you didn't...*Looks at post*

Indeed... I can't for the life of me see where they did such a thing...
*stares at the bolded part of the post*

Basically put, you are stating that the ONLY RPG is D&D, anything else that follows similar ideals isn't... thus you DID make a definition of what it is to you.

Not everyone follows that principle.

[Goldrock]

People need to relize mass effect was really never a RPG game it was just a Ruch storydriven cinimatic game they give you a story you get to make choices. Never reallyw as a rpg the biggest thing about mass effect series were the conversation scenes hell most of bioware game were based around the conversations.

[Chewin]

Goldrock wrote...

People need to relize mass effect was really never a RPG game it was just a Ruch storydriven cinimatic game they give you a story you get to make choices. Never reallyw as a rpg the biggest thing about mass effect series were the conversation scenes hell most of bioware game were based around the conversations.

And here we go again.

[kalle90]

RAF1940 wrote...

Um... because you roleplay?

I can roleplay in FPSs, sports games, GTA... IMO Mass Effect doesn't offer much more than that, the simple character progression is now in most games (Arkham Asylum) and there are often some story choices in other games too.

Dragon Age I can actually call RPG because there really are dozens of distincs characters you can make and build through skills and items and background. Plus dialogue offers subtle yet dramatic changes unlike ME which is more like YES/NO, GOOD/BAD without any sort of complex consequences and even many of the simple consequenses are broken or subpar (Virmire survivor)

But the most troubling thing is that the worlds seem to get smaller and tighter which really kills the immersion of doing what I feel like.

[SpiffySquee]

kalle90 wrote...

RAF1940 wrote...

Um... because you roleplay?

I can roleplay in FPSs, sports games, GTA... IMO Mass Effect doesn't offer much more than that, the simple character progression is now in most games (Arkham Asylum) and there are often some story choices in other games too.

Dragon Age I can actually call RPG because there really are dozens of distincs characters you can make and build through skills and items and background. Plus dialogue offers subtle yet dramatic changes unlike ME which is more like YES/NO, GOOD/BAD without any sort of complex consequences and even many of the simple consequenses are broken or subpar (Virmire survivor)

But the most troubling thing is that the worlds seem to get smaller and tighter which really kills the immersion of doing what I feel like.

I suppose you could role play in a sports game if you really wanted to, but the game would never reflect your role playing in any way. Mass effect reflects your choices. You choose to save the Batarian? You get to see him change his point of view about you. You decide that the truth is more important than Tali's fathers image? You get to see Tali hate you for it. Where is this interaction in a football game? (and please don't say something silly like, "I can make a foul and the ref will call it") Name even one story choice you get to make in Arkham Asylum. The only options you get are how to approach game play. That is it. And character progression? Batman is Batman! He never changes one bit. He is the same arrogant nut all the way through the game.

If you honestly think the conversation choices and game decisions are simple YES/NO GOOD/BAD options, than I can't help you. Every choices helps to define who Shepard is, and how the react to things. They are much deeper than those four options, but you have to put the effort in to understand WHY Shepard chose what he/she did.

[SpiffySquee]

moneycashgeorge wrote...

I find it ridiculous that people argue endlessly over the "definition" of a Role Playing Game. The funniest and most absurd part of the argument is that people just take what they personally like about games traditionally considered to be RPG's and declare that to be their defining attribute.

Ok, so you think it is ridiculous to try and define what you personally think makes something an RPG? Then please explain this statement you made not 2 paragraphs later.

If you really want to get serious, having a set story that you follow and isn't made up as you go along in an un-RPG quality. Having no dice rolls is un-RPG.

You just stated that there is no hard definition to RPG by saying there is no committee for it. By your own words, that makes the above sentence nothing more than your subjective opinion. You are trying to tell us what you think does or does not count as an RPG-like quality.

[Phaedon]

Guldhun2 wrote...

Hey, want to know a secret? The people calling ME2 a RPG are only naming it an RPG because it makes them feel better, and more intelligent. Admitting it's a TPS with some dialogue choices behind it places them in the same categorie of gamers as Gears of War and they don't want that.

It's always good to realize that one issue posters are after all two or three issue posters who are rebutted to hell, come back and post a reply to a post 10+ pages later and think anyone takes them seriously.

Modifié par Phaedon, 21 septembre 2011 - 08:17 .

[Phaedon]

[quote]Varen Spectre wrote...
Mmm, I see. Allright then,  I guess that for better or for worse, means that the end of this long but interesting discussion is near. Only few more details such as what we should measure (see the part about diversity of weapons and powers) and maybe what was the intention of developers (just out of curiosity) and we (or at least I) can leave room to other guys and maybe focus on threads that would be more beneficial for developers (I love "brainstorm" threads:wizard:).

Anyway, thank you for patience and composure despite the fact that we were/are, kind of moving in circles…[/quote]
Well, I appreciate your stance, too, but I honestly don't see this coming to an end.

We have yet to agree on a single definition of "depth".

[quote]I agree. Debating whether Mass Effects are or aren’t RPGs is not useful. It, in itself, doesn’t say anything about whether somebody likes the game or not, it isn’t useful for developers because they themselves do not insist on calling Mass Effects RPGs and it doesn’t say what features players actually liked, didn’t like or missed.
But sometimes,… sometimess people do useless things:lol:… and as long as it would be discussed politely, no harm would be done and people would be willing to spend their time on comparing their opinions about it… Why not? ¯_  _/¯[/quote]Why not?

Well, I think that you have answered that question by yourself.

People put labels on genres and call them "good" while something else is "bad". If you ask Gatt9 for example, here, he'll still try to justify himself by saying "BUT THE DEVELOPERS CALL THEM RPGs".

Gameplay genres are a joke. That's what I'd like to think. And by that I mean, that I certainly hope that we have less generic titles than the 90s, which means that new games not only innovate, but get features from several different games. 

I have my definition of what I consider a "roleplaying game", which I have defended multiple times in the past, but I haven't actually mentioned the term "RPG" to someone for...months. I mean, when someone calls "Diablo 2", "Baulder's Gate" and "FF X" as RPGs at the same time there is obviously a problem.

Coming to think of it, I have yet to be interested in a game for its genre for a while now.

However, when one claims that ME1 was an RPG, and ME2 was not, then that's a flawed statement.
And when one claims that KOTOR is an RPG, but ME1 or 2 are not, that's a flawed statement too.


[quote]IMO, the opinions whether it worked somewhere or didn’t (and how well) would again be very subjective and could vary from player to player. I for example think that Fallout 3 (where I think that certain type of enemies were replaced by another type every time player reached particular level) and even Mass Effect 1 on lower difficulties (because the enemies did not level up as fast as Shepard, well at least according to Wikia, many threads on various forums and my experience with normal difficulty) combined level scaling and option to “grow“ (providing that by grow you mean being able to improve a lot of abilities without feeling the results of not investing all skillpoints into one or few key abilities) quite well… But there might be a lot of people who would say otherwise.[/quote]
Yeah, let's not bring what is subjective and what is not into this. At this point, we might as well call the debate off and say that every single thing in the world is subjective.

The thing is, I have yet to see a single person who claimed that ME1 was a balanced game. And I have yet to see one person who denied that specific items broke the game. The thing is, what they don't game is that that is not the fault of the items.

That's the fault of BioWare's progression system 100%. 

You start with specialization having a minimal statistical effect, and end with specialization having NO effect at all. Why? Because when you are blasting through everything at ease, you won't even think about using your powers.

And growth? I didn't feel that my Shepard was becoming more powerful, because everything I invested to, no matter it's little initial significance, just started becoming even less significant. What I felt was that the game was providing less of a challenge, continously. 

Comparing that to the sense I had in ME2?
Other than of course specializing into a build, the new weapons and armour parts were spot on. It gave you the illusion of power (and specialization), when you picked up the weapon of your choice in the Collector Ship, and yet the game was extremelly balanced.

And yet, what you are saying here is:
That objectively, BioWare planned to have both systems at once, but just failed in the balance a bit, and that the latter is actually subjective.

Suppose that that is true, though the burden of proof is on you on this one.
The fact that they actually had scaled enemies and still failed to balance the game means the problem obviously lies far deeper than the execution.

[quote]Of course, the discussion about specialization, level scaling, “overpowered” items, etc. would have a meaning only if I agree with you that “depth“ is something more than just size (scale) of changes between two marginal states of particular ability, item, weapon, etc...

… and I am not sure if I want to do that... because that would be another situation in which words “deep” and “depth“ would start to have somewhat subjective (especially since you said that you use term deep as compliment which kind of implies that somebody else might find the thing you consider deep even “deeper” or to the contrary much more “shallow”) meanings instead of objective and measurable ones (e.g. if one game allows to upgrade damage up to 50% and another up to 80%, there’s no room for arguing which game allows to upgrade damage to larger degree). [/quote]
Um...sorry but...how?

The overall imbalance is actually testimony to an entire system being broken from the concept. Definitely NOT the +5% additions that each new item or attribute point gave you. Those didn't break the level system by themselves, they just made it insignificant. 

The imbalance and where the entire concept of "levelling up" in ME1 breaks is the fact that you can take on multiple enemies without putting emphasis on tactics or specialization.

[quote]And in general, I am trying to avoid bringing my subjective perceptions (in this case it would mean stating what I consider deep) on public forums as much as possible.[/quote]
Yeah, well, you will have to make up your mind.

It's a bit difficult to argue on a concept when one of the two parties involved in the debate doesn't want to suggest a definition for the concept.

[quote]Well, I just imagined what kind of implications your approach (measuring the depth of stats by measuring solely the differences between individual levels and not also difference between minimum and maximum level) could potentially have in general (regardless of how it would work with Mass Effects’ systems). [/quote]And that is far from the actual issue, since

1) pragmatically, your concepts explicitly state features that are not found in the Mass Effect games. Therefore, they can't be relevant.

2) you politely refuse to contribute to nailing a definition of depth, so that we can actually debate on something meaningful and not just beat around an invisible bush.


[quote]And that is, that we could call a statistical system in the game that could have, let’s say only two (2) and only slightly larger levels than the levels in statistical system of the other game, which could have literally thousands of them and their total (combined) effect could thousand times exceed the effects of difference between the two (individually) slightly larger levels in the 1st game, deeper. I just have problem to accept it as method of determining “depth”. [/quote]
Maybe it is, maybe it isn't.

The fact is, I don't have the slightest idea on what you consider as depth.

I'll go ahead and say that something deep is something with meaning. I don't think that there is any argument over that.

A deep choice is something with meaning.

A choice that leads to effective immediate changes, is meaningful because it serves an immediate purpose.

A choice that at best will copy the first system and proceed to downplay specialization is self-contradictive, therefore, it has no purpose and no meaning.


[quote]Of course, if I agreed that depth means something more than just size of differences between two marginal states, that it also (or better said, mostly) means how practical and meaningful the differences between those two states are and how many and how useful levels between them are, I could come to different conclusion... [/quote]
Reinventing the wheel won't help, unless we want to invent a square wheel to avoid the real reason behind the wheel.

Depth is a word with a rather straightforward consensus on its definition. 

Since you have chosen to actually ignore the specific origins of the debate and still want to debate over depth when at the same time you say that depth is not necessarily a good thing (which tbh, is beyond me), you will have to apply the metaphorical definition of "deep" on "stat" or "choice".


[quote]Probably not to the same as yours, because I like smaller levels little bit more:blush: (though those in ME1 were too small for me too), but similar. [/quote]
And you are directly contradicting about what you said multiple times earlier about depth.

So, is "deep" to be used as a compliment or a characteristic?

[quote]And if somebody else came here, he (she) could have another opinion on what is better and as a result, his (her) perception of depth would be different from both of us… And if there was 4th, 5th, etc. guy, all of them could have different perceptions of what is good, bad, practical and what deserves a compliment for its depth…

… And that for change, is a type of discussion I don't want to participate in.  [/quote]
Not at all. Unless you are using "deep" solely as a compliment, a position which I attacked from the start, and that you denied several times in the past.

[quote]And that’s why I have always promoted the detailed and thorough calculations or measurements. I do not trust my own, or anyone else’s, subjective perceptions. [/quote]Ehm, okay. In which case, why do you still maintain that the supposed (objective?) powerful Shepard by the end of ME1 was an actual thing, and not an illusion brought to you by other factors?

[quote]As for whether hypothetically “stronger” Shepard at the end of ME1 (in comparison to enemies) than at the end
ME2 would be a result of ME1’s statistical progression or result of exception that is with respect to other game elements out of place (“overpowered“ weapon, item, upgrade) and whether it should be taken into account by us...[/quote]
You are either going to use deep as a compliment or not. 
I am still waiting for a definite answer, but you don't actually seem to have decided by yourself.

You say that Shepard is stronger. And the game is imbalanced.
You prefer a game that requires less challenge? You think that it is more deep?

Look, there are a lot  of people who survived ME1 without dying once.


[quote]... I guess it would again come down to how we interpret the word “deep/er”. If I wanted to see in “deep” something more than just measurable size of something as you do, when you say that “deep” is a compliment then yes I could speculate if the “overpowered” items were intention or mistake and whether I should take them into account or not.[/quote]
A broken balance is....intended? No offence, but there's a lot of beating around the bush, and we are far from getting to the actual point. ME1 has several flaws, I think that you can start by admitting some. I don't think that claiming that the devs intentionally designed a backwards learning curve as a valid possibility is indicative of anything like that.

[quote]Very interesting approach... I have to admit, but IMO it implies at least three things:

- that developers wanted to promote purely “specialization” and not to give player a chance to choose between “specialization” and developing more skills, which given that not all enemies leveled up at the same pace as Shepard on majority of difficulties and therefore there was a room for investing skillpoints in other than “specialized” abilities, may IMO not be completely true (but you are here longer and probably have more information so if you know more about their intentions and ideas from interviews, tweets, posts, etc. I would gladly learn more about the mindset of one of my favorite studios:wizard:).[/quote]Yeah, I expected this, and honestly, I don't really like repeating myself.

On one hand, you can just spread the points in the skills around, and your Shepard will be the same as before. It's just that the game will be getting progressively easier. A backwards learning curve was intended? Considering that there are dozens of games with "growth" as progression that don't do that... Well...no.

On the other, you have a Shepard who is weak on some elements and powerful in others, which encourages "team play" and tactical decisions.

Even if the devs supposedly, somehow, encouraged the first system, thus rendering player and squad skills are irrelevant, and making the sniper shotgun more relevant, that system is obviously broken, as it did not work out. Therefore, using "deep" as a compliment is fundamentall wrong. Using "deep" as "meaningful" is also wrong, since the skill and tactical component of the gameplay is getting progressively irrelevant.

I'll be replying to the rest tomorrow, my schedule's a bit busy.








[quote]- that what developers wanted to accomplish should be a main indicator for our methods of measuring “depth”. But that could make comparisons of stats of two games completely impossible if their developers had different intentions in mind, so I am not big fan of this idea.

- that a person who does the comparison has the similar interpretation of depth as you.  While I understand it and
respect it… I guess I’ll stick with something less subjective for now.

[quote]Not necessarily. You may be entering into a different subject altogether. This has more to do with game design rather than player choice. It doesn't really matter how many variables you are customizing (since as I said, that's just an illusion), but it's about quantity and diversity of powers. Yeah, sure, you can use tactical armor and barrier. There are some differences, but does the developer believe that the choice you are being given actually matters? Of course this is just a matter of design philosophy, not genre distinctions, and probably not "depth".[/quote]

Well, I looked at how many variables are influenced by using and leveling up particular power, weapon, item, etc. If for example charge affects how fast Shepard moves, how much damage he (she) does with that impact, how much shield he (she) has after the attack and how slow the ingame time goes… than why not give credit Mass Effect 2 for being able to have such unique power which is completely different from others. Also the changes of all those variables can dramatically affect gameplay, their activation is at players disposal and some of them are
modifiable by player… so I thought it would be a good idea to take that into account.

If there were 2 games and one had only several types of fireballs, while the other had options to fly, teleport, move faster, become invisible, regenerate health, become indestructible, slow down time, etc. in addition to one or two
types of fireballs, I would definitely want to take that into account in assessing the depth of their stat systems.

[quote]That would probably not work, since if ME1 weapons have such variables, all but three of them do not matter in-game, because no matter which weapon you choose, they will be identical. Not just better or worse, literally identical.

So, what you are saying is that diversity=depth?[/quote]

If I wanted to measure the depth of stats (variables) and one game allowed me to do so only with few variables (e.g. damage and accuracy) and the other allowed me to do that with much more (+ rate of fire, size of ammo clip / shots before overheating, weapon’s stability, etc.) shouldn’t I give an extra credit to the 2nd one for that?

But, I don’t insist on taking the diversity of weapons or powers (number and diversity of variables) into account. I just thought it would be fairer to consider even this aspect. After all, they are in the game, they are taken
into account by game (they have stats), they change gameplay and they are at players disposal to be activated. Maybe I could disregard those that can not be upgraded / leveled up at all (speed of charge, invisibility of cloak, etc.) however like I said, I don’t mind disregarding this aspect completely if you or anyone else would insist / object too much.

[quote]Considering that "levelling-up" weapons is a byproduct and done 100% "passively", I don't see much point into comparing them between ME1and 2. In ME2 every weapon has different stats, there is choice, even with the Collector Ship weapon acquired. In ME1, you will choose the weapon with the higher value, that's just it. There are no (ATK):Better, (ACC):Worse, (COO): Better settings (I should know, I had to convert every statistic into a per cent value for Mass Effect Chronicles), the settings are just those: (ATK):Better, (ACC):Better, (COO):Better.[/quote]

Well comparing or measuring the depth of “stats” would be very tricky… if not downright impossible sometimes. And of course, I am open other peoples’ ideas …

I am not sure if I would do it correctly but, if I really wanted to see how influential on gameplay weapons’ stat system can be, I would look at how many variables are related to weapons and how much they can be changed (by changed I mean the difference between the best and worst weapon with respect to that variable, or alternatively the difference between the best fully upgraded weapon and worst un-upgraded one). Then,
I would compare the differences between the best and worst weapon in ME1 with differences between the best and worst weapon in ME2 individually with respect to all variables (such as accuracy, damage, rate of fire, shots before reload / cooldown, etc.) and all weapons. This way, I would know the size of thresholds for all variables in both games.

I presume that Mass Effect 2 would win in most of those comparisons. Maybe not in damage or accuracy.

However, this would not be enough because weapons, unlike talents / powers, are not fully customizable and games do not allow the player to achieve all states within those thresholds. The variables for weapons are set. So I would have to compare the weapons individually as well.

After this thorough comparison I would know, the variables of which game can be leveled up to larger degree (e.g.
in which game is the difference between the most and the least accurate rifle larger) and in which game the differences between weapons vary more. With such knowledge, I would be able to answer which game has “deeper” stats when it comes to weapons according to whatever the one who is asking would mean by “deeper”.

[quote]There are two different kinds of progression as I can tell.

You either go higher, which is a feature JRPGs are well known for, or you go deeper, which is generally what you will see in WRPGs.

Now, let me stop you there. Yes, you can grow in "WRPGs", but only if the enemies and items don't scale. Which they do, in ME1, so there isn't much point.[/quote]

IMO, it depends on whether they scale at the same pace as player’s character. When it comes to Mass Effect 1, only on insanity all enemies have the same level as Shepard or higher. That means on other difficulties, there is some room (the size of which depends on difficulty level) for picking skills other than the ones that are related to Shepard’s specialization.

I would not be surprised if on casual it was possible to “grow” (improve, majority or at least a lot of abilities at
faster rate than enemies do) and “specialize” (improve some abilities faster than others) at the same time.

Of course, the ratio between Shepard’s abilities and enemies’ strength on casual is most likely not representative, but neither is insanity’s 1 : 1 ratio.   

[quote]And if our coach had planned us to have relative capabilities, this would have been very bad.

But should one of us specialize in Skill B, instead of Skill A, then our capabilities would have been different, but that would be okay, because they were intended to not be relative or the same.[/quote]

I am not sure how to interpret this with respect to my example of “fast” progression vs “far” progression.

[quote]And yet, the very existance of player input renders some definitions of RPG I have seen here wrong. Not arguing, just thought it was rather interesting.[/quote]

Honestly, I don’t think that my own “definition” of RPGs makes much sense from logical or semantic perspective...
But, even guys at Gamespot have somewhat similar opinion so I am fine with it that way. 

[quote]I am not sure it complicates the calculations, I'd say it does the exact opposite.[/quote] 

It makes it much harder to calculate the real effect of stats on gameplay because their effect (the effect of increased level of powers, items, weapons, etc. of main character) is diminshed by the effect of level-scaling of enemies (the effect of their increased health, damage, etc.) and if we did not know its exact mechanism (percenatage of level of main character or some kind of function [the level of main character +/- something]) , we would have to measure it in the game and calculate retrospectively.

Not to mention that if enemies leveled up at faster rate than the main character, there could potentially be a situation in which the real effect of leveling up would be negative. In that case the only thing we would know is the effect of main character's improved ability at particular moment (the difference between investing and not investing skillpoints into particular ability at particular moment) and not throughout the whole game (because as the character would level up, he [she] would become weaker and weaker with respect to enemies [I am not sure but that might be the case of bosses on insanity in ME1]).

So I think that it definitely makes calculations harder. Of course, gameplay-wise it might not be a bad thing if somebody wants a challenge.

[quote]Probably not, seeing as I pointed out that ME2 makes "huge leaps" rather than ME1's "baby steps" when it comes to progression.[/quote]

Well, than… maybe one day we can do that… but, it’s probably not worth the effort. Like you said, all that matters in the end is how enjoyable the game is...[/quote]

[Gatt9]

InvincibleHero wrote...

Gatt9 wrote...


These are pre-defined characters,  whose Roles you assume,  no different than if you'd defined the Roles.  It's perfectly valid,  because all of the customization and genre-defining Character components are present and function 100%,  you're just not rolling your own.

But,  Fenix isn't a Role,  because there's no Character.  He has no intrinsic qualities,  he's not a diplomat,  not a melee character,  he's whatever you arbitrarily chose at any given moment.

Which is exactly what ME2 Shepherd is.  There's no Character,  no consequences for choosing any good or bad action,  he's not a diplomat,  not a tank,  he's whatever you arbitrarily choose.

There's really no difference between Fenix and ME2 Shepherd,  you don't really make any decisions,  because the outcome's the same no matter what you do.  A 100% paragon can murder in cold blood without consequence,  it just doesn't matter,  and as such,  it's not Roleplaying.  If the game takes no notice of anything you do,  gives the same results no matter what you do,  then nothing you do matters,  leaving you with no difference between Fenix and Shepherd.

Fenix is a pacifist and runs past all the monsters,  Shepherd kills in cold blood,  game doesn't care,  gives you the same outcome. 

Gatt not this flawed argument again. The only roles defined in D&D are DM and PC. That's it.

I can take any predefined character and multiclass or dual class when it existed within the rules. Oh no the warrior becomes healer. So I can change Sturm Brightblade into a cleric over time and once he has more cleric levels than knight boom he changes. He goes from tank to supporting role/spell caster.

I'm not really sure where you're going with this.  If what you're aiming for is discussing the Role versus what ME2 provides you then...

You're being a little deceptive here.  You're neglecting to acknowledge that you're assuming the additional Role in your D&D scenarios,  with all the rules and restrictions the Role comes with,  in contrast to ME2,  where you just do whatever you want,  whenever you want,  without reprocussion. 

The difference is,  in your D&D examples,  your character has definition by the Roles you've assumed.  While Shepherd has no definition,  his actions can be completely arbitrary.  Today he can be mean,  tomorrow he can be nice,  doesn't matter.  He can never be a diplomat,  he can never be a tank,  there's no infrastructure to support it,  so again you have to arbitrarily make the decision and intentionally miss your shots,  or intentionally die,  to fullfill the Role,  because the game does not care.

My character in D&D is whatever I choose. You are incorrect in even asserting that BS about diplomat. I can have a 20 diplomacy and decide to kill whomever I want. I still have a 20 diplomacy and can use it to that effect the next time I decide to use it. Arbitrary skill with an arbitrary number. The idea is I use my ability however and whenever I choose. Not all RPGs have diplomacy so it is irrelevant as a role.

I'm not at all incorrect.

You're still being deceptive.  You neglect to mention that to get that 20 in diplomacy,  you had to trade off combat effectiveness,  and likely would die easily.  Ala Fallout.  You defined a Role,  assumed the Role,  and the game maintained the reprocussions.

Something that does not exist in ME2.

Would you assert that if you used D&D and only had mages it would stop being RPG because the only defined role is spell caster? Your argument carries no water.

No,  nor did I assert that originally.  I've asserted time and again that the requirement for an RPG to be an RPG is a defined character,  with the assumption that the mechanics of the game enforce that Role the character defines.

Something that is not present in ME2,  you don't define your character,  and so he can arbitrarily be good at anything or everything pertinent to the Role.

Oh and your wrong about consequences too. Much to the chagrin of most RPG elitistys on this board they whine about the consequences of the P/R system. I cannot convince both Jack and Miranda because I do not play pure enough P or R. This is not a consequence? 

Sure you can,  I'm guessing you haven't tried?

As a 100% paragon I was able to romance Jack.

OTOH,  as a 100% paragon I kicked someone off a building in cold blood,  right in front of Samara,  the paragon of Justice.  Not a single consequence.  She was still my bestest buddy.

Besides my DM determines any and all consequences. I can try 100 things, but only one correct solution is of consequence in most cases. If presented with a door that is unbreakable and locked and my character is a warrior with no skill in lock picking then my choices are limited. I can bash the door, attack it with my sword, try to light it on fire, etc etc but those are impossible (which I do not know). The only solution is find the key. That is the only route of consequence. Doesn't negate the fact I tried a dozen things that were possibkle and had the same result no effect.

Your DM sucks.  One of the primary components of a good DM is his ability to handle valid actions from PC's to solve problems.

This does not invalidate anything I said,  you require a new DM.

In most RPGs you can open chests and loot right in front of the people without consequence. Or it is something silly that an item gets marked stolen and unsaleable. The only consequence in most RPGs is you slide on the scale of good/evil or some axis they define. Only paladins or clerics (offend their deity that grants spells) face any real consequence of their actions. You can kill with impunity in DA:O right in front of witnesses with no consequence is DA: O not an RPG? You have to say no and you'd be the only one or admit your argument is a fail.

Here's to another post you will ignore.

Actually,  that's been phased out over the past 10 years.  Bioware's behind the times.

Nor do I ignore posts from anyone but Phaedon and Someone with Mass,  I even read Lunatik's.  If I've missed yours previously,  apologies.

[Arokel]

I personally don't understand this debate over whether they are rpgs or not.  Of course they are.  If  Pokemon is considered an rpg than there is no question about whether or not ME is still an RPG.  I will admit that the rpg element was lessened in ME2 but it looks like alot of it is coming back in ME3

[Il Divo]

Arokel wrote...

I personally don't understand this debate over whether they are rpgs or not.  Of course they are.  If  Pokemon is considered an rpg than there is no question about whether or not ME is still an RPG.  I will admit that the rpg element was lessened in ME2 but it looks like alot of it is coming back in ME3

Honestly, it's just an issue of semantics. RPG is a label. What that label represents is far more important than what we call it, which makes all this bickering rather moot.

[Phaedon]

[quote]- that what developers wanted to accomplish should be a main indicator for our methods of measuring “depth”. But that could make comparisons of stats of two games completely impossible if their developers had different intentions in mind, so I am not big fan of this idea.[/quote]
How exactly. It is quite obvious to me that the developers planned the same style of progression in both games, specialization. To suggest otherwise is what would complicate things.

[quote]- that a person who does the comparison has the similar interpretation of depth as you.  While I understand it and
respect it… I guess I’ll stick with something less subjective for now.[/quote]
By all due respect, I have not once pointed out to anything subjective and suggested to use it for measurement.

Whether we end up finding a middle ground about "depth" is depentant on you, now.

[quote]Well, I looked at how many variables are influenced by using and leveling up particular power, weapon, item, etc. If for example charge affects how fast Shepard moves, how much damage he (she) does with that impact, how much shield he (she) has after the attack and how slow the ingame time goes… than why not give credit Mass Effect 2 for being able to have such unique power which is completely different from others. Also the changes of all those variables can dramatically affect gameplay, their activation is at players disposal and some of them are modifiable by player… so I thought it would be a good idea to take that into account.[/quote]You said it yourself, this is something subjective, that can't be measured.

ME2's unique abilities are a compliment to the game design itself, not its progression system. As I said, I don't see much wrong with ME1's type of abilities. It's just a different design philosophy that has little to do with progression, rather than gameplay.


[quote]If there were 2 games and one had only several types of fireballs, while the other had options to fly, teleport, move faster, become invisible, regenerate health, become indestructible, slow down time, etc. in addition to one or two
types of fireballs, I would definitely want to take that into account in assessing the depth of their stat systems. [/quote]
And I can think of a lot of old-school and more modern RPGs that do that kind of stuff. And they generally put a LOT of emphasis on their stats. So I doubt that that is relevant, in defence of ME1.

[quote]If I wanted to measure the depth of stats (variables) and one game allowed me to do so only with few variables (e.g. damage and accuracy) and the other allowed me to do that with much more (+ rate of fire, size of ammo clip / shots before overheating, weapon’s stability, etc.) shouldn’t I give an extra credit to the 2nd one for that? [/quote]
Yes, though that is different than what I thought you were suggesting initially.

[quote]But, I don’t insist on taking the diversity of weapons or powers (number and diversity of variables) into account. I just thought it would be fairer to consider even this aspect. After all, they are in the game, they are taken
into account by game (they have stats), they change gameplay and they are at players disposal to be activated. Maybe I could disregard those that can not be upgraded / leveled up at all (speed of charge, invisibility of cloak, etc.) however like I said, I don’t mind disregarding this aspect completely if you or anyone else would insist / object too much.[/quote]
I didn't think that we were debating on depth of stats in general and not just the level up system.

I'd say that when it comes to diversity of stats and how meaningful they are in these aspects, ME2 is on the right direction, and they seem to be continuing that in ME3.

[quote]Well comparing or measuring the depth of “stats” would be very tricky… if not downright impossible sometimes. And of course, I am open other peoples’ ideas … 

I am not sure if I would do it correctly but, if I really wanted to see how influential on gameplay weapons’ stat system can be, I would look at how many variables are related to weapons and how much they can be changed (by changed I mean the difference between the best and worst weapon with respect to that variable, or alternatively the difference between the best fully upgraded weapon and worst un-upgraded one). Then.

I would compare the differences between the best and worst weapon in ME1 with differences between the best and worst weapon in ME2 individually with respect to all variables (such as accuracy, damage, rate of fire, shots before reload / cooldown, etc.) and all weapons. This way, I would know the size of thresholds for all variables in both games.

I presume that Mass Effect 2 would win in most of those comparisons. Maybe not in damage or accuracy.[/quote]Yeah, this method is really the only one to make ME1 even comparable to ME2 in that aspect. And it is flawed.

There is no depth in stats whatsoever. All three statistics in ME1 improve at the same time, which results in the best and worst weapons, whereas in ME2 there is no such thing to begin with. Maybe with some DLC items. But that's why they were designed in the first place.

The only choice when it comes to item selection in ME1 is: a) Select the one with the best stats, Ignore item selection and keep your old item.


[quote]
However, this would not be enough because weapons, unlike talents / powers, are not fully customizable and games do not allow the player to achieve all states within those thresholds. The variables for weapons are set. So I would have to compare the weapons individually as well.

After this thorough comparison I would know, the variables of which game can be leveled up to larger degree (e.g.
in which game is the difference between the most and the least accurate rifle larger) and in which game the differences between weapons vary more. With such knowledge, I would be able to answer which game has “deeper” stats when it comes to weapons according to whatever the one who is asking would mean by “deeper”.
[/quote]
Yeah...because depth obviously has to do with putting large numbers in varaibles, which cause the imbalance. By that logic, ME2 becomes instantly better when you mod the value of the last level of each attribute and add a couple of zeroes. 

Really, I am sorry to say this, but this takes the already extreme idea of meaningless finetuning as "deep", and gets rid even of the actual control of the finetuning, and doesn't question if such a thing even exists in most aspects of ME1.


[quote]
IMO, it depends on whether they scale at the same pace as player’s character. When it comes to Mass Effect 1, only on insanity all enemies have the same level as Shepard or higher. That means on other difficulties, there is some room (the size of which depends on difficulty level) for picking skills other than the ones that are related to Shepard’s specialization. [/quote]
Do post an example of a single attribute that has nothing do with specialization. The level scaling variation obviously exists there for balancing, and seeing how that turned out...um, yeah.

[quote]I would not be surprised if on casual it was possible to “grow” (improve, majority or at least a lot of abilities at
faster rate than enemies do) and “specialize” (improve some abilities faster than others) at the same time.

Of course, the ratio between Shepard’s abilities and enemies’ strength on casual is most likely not representative, but neither is insanity’s 1 : 1 ratio. [/quote]
You actually just mentioned that Insanity had more than a 1:1 ratio in the previous paragraph. Anyway... even though that hypothesis is untrue for everything up to Hard for me, it's flawed by itself.

Growth lessens the challenge that is the sole motive for continuous specialization. Therefore, both types of progression conflict each other and break the game even from a concept level.

And again, you using a misproduct of attempts at balance as an intented progression method...

[quote]I am not sure how to interpret this with respect to my example of “fast” progression vs “far” progression.[/quote]
It's mostly because the first system is not "fast". It's rather focusing on specific builds and actually changing your character along these lines, rather than just eliminating challenge or maintaining the same abilities as before and just making them more effective.

[quote]Honestly, I don’t think that my own “definition” of RPGs makes much sense from logical or semantic perspective...

But, even guys at Gamespot have somewhat similar opinion so I am fine with it that way. [/quote]I was refering to definitions posted in this thread. And rather funnily, still defended. (Somehow).
[quote]It makes it much harder to calculate the real effect of stats on gameplay because their effect (the effect of increased level of powers, items, weapons, etc. of main character) is diminshed by the effect of level-scaling of enemies (the effect of their increased health, damage, etc.) and if we did not know its exact mechanism (percenatage of level of main character or some kind of function [the level of main character +/- something]) , we would have to measure it in the game and calculate retrospectively.[/quote]Didn't you say that that was subjective and that the only way to determine the depth of stats would be to look at them idividually?

[quote]Not to mention that if enemies leveled up at faster rate than the main character, there could potentially be a situation in which the real effect of leveling up would be negative. In that case the only thing we would know is the effect of main character's improved ability at particular moment (the difference between investing and not investing skillpoints into particular ability at particular moment) and not throughout the whole game (because as the character would level up, he [she] would become weaker and weaker with respect to enemies [I am not sure but that might be the case of bosses on insanity in ME1]).
[/quote]
Except that levelling up is not tied with assigning points.

[quote]
So I think that it definitely makes calculations harder. Of course, gameplay-wise it might not be a bad thing if somebody wants a challenge.[/quote]
It's not just that. The existance of a consistent learning curve is a MUST to everything from Minesweeper to World of Warcraft.


[quote]Well, than… maybe one day we can do that… but, it’s probably not worth the effort. Like you said, all that matters in the end is how enjoyable the game is...[/quote]I'll be honest with you and go ahead and say that I don't find ME1 an enjoyable "game" at all. I do find it an awesome experience, but that is actually in spite of it's gameplay.

[Gatt9]

Arokel wrote...

I personally don't understand this debate over whether they are rpgs or not.  Of course they are.  If  Pokemon is considered an rpg than there is no question about whether or not ME is still an RPG.  I will admit that the rpg element was lessened in ME2 but it looks like alot of it is coming back in ME3

It's not actually a debate over whether or not they're RPG's,  The arguements that they aren't RPG's are pretty much insurmountable,  An RPG is a computer translation of a Pen and Paper experience,  and for it to fullfill this criteria,  it must be translatable back to PnP.  From there the counter-responses are all "But I want them to be like this!",  pure attempts to divide RPG offline and RPG online into two completely different catagories.

What the debate is actually about is something completely different.

The vast majority of games today are identical to each other,  they all play the same way,  there's almost no variety in gaming today.  So what little variety there is tends to bring out strong arguements,  as various sides vie for the possibility of being able to play the type of game they actually want to play,  that the market doesn't currently provide.

RPG's are basically the poster-boy for this behavior,  an easy focal point to be honest.  Unlike the other genres,  RPG is flexible in implementation,  you can have top-down (Fallout),  Third-person action (ME,  Fallout 3 New Vegas),  dialogue focused (Planescape),  Monty Haul (Diablo),  Narrative driven (Final Fantasy),  Object driven (Pokemon),  FPP (Eye of the Beholder),  Real time,  Turn based,  Real time with paused. 

Constrast this to RTS,  Turn-based strategy,  Simulation,  etc.  There's little flexibility in the implementation.  So people find something close to what they'd like to play,  that the market doesn't offer.  They then try to stake ownership over the implementation of RPG's while ignoring what the term RPG actually represents,  a computer implementation of a PnP experience.

It's all about the Industry's huge problems,  and their steadily increasing coalescence into one type of game only.  People want more,  and they're fighting for it,  and due to it's flexibility,  people are making RPG's their battleground.

What an RPG "is" isn't,  never has been,  and never will be a debate.  It's an emulation of a defined thing,  and until someone can definitively prove that translating Monopoly from board game to computer can result in Operation,  it's a dead end arguement.

Modifié par Gatt9, 22 septembre 2011 - 10:20 .

[FlyingWalrus]

I don't think you've played many games outside of RPGs if you honestly believe that there is a lack of flexibility and variety in other genres. You are reaching. That besides, RPG is an umbrella term, not an exacting genre definition. Is there an surprise that there is such a variety under the RPG genre as far as electronic games are concerned? For an ethos that seems to believe that RPGs are static "or they're not RPG," you sure did name a lot of examples that differ greatly from each other. I'm surprised you even consider Final Fantasy ANYTHING an RPG considering that Mass Effect 2 of all games has more role-playing than Final Fantasy ever will.

So, PnP wise, what do you think about classless RPGs? What do you think about diceless RPGs? There are other systems besides class-based, stat-based RPGs. Are they "not RPG" because they don't fit your determination of what an RPG is supposed to be?

Mass Effect has too much RPG in it to not be an RPG. As you said, there is a great variety in RPGs. *Smile* Mass Effect and its sequels certainly fit in somewhere there. Declaring yourself and your opinion to be absolute and the matter "undebateable" is how elementary school kids debate.