1002 réponses à ce sujet

[SpiffySquee]

Fenris_13 wrote...

Ever since BW said that they wanted COD players, I just can't consider ME3 a RPG anymore.

So... wanting to make more money = a game not being an RPG?

As the video clearly shows, you can add elements to attract a greater fan base without taking away someone's ability to role play. If a news shows says it wants to use more humor to draw in a younger viewer, does this automatically make it not a news show?

Arcian wrote...
Squee, I respect you and your effort, but ME isn't, never was and never
will be RPGs in the sense of the term. They are, always have been and
always will be hybrids.

No real argument there. The video was to refute the claim that they are not RPGs at all, not to claim they are pure RPG. And I do believe your avatar is the coolest thing I have ever seen.... No wait... There was that one time Optimus Prime beat the crap out of Chuck Norris... but other than that...

Jorina Leto wrote...

Objection: Most peole do not roleplay Shepard. They're metagaming.

True... but that is not Biowares fault

lolnoobs wrote...

So if Activision adds a conversation system to COD it becomes an RPG? Really? REALLY?? DUDE NO DUDE JUST NO ... DUDE!

Not sure if you just did not watch the video, or did not understand it, otherwise you would see how  far off the mark your statement is. If COD added a system where you can control the development of your characters personality, traits, and reactions to the story, as well as allow you to make decisions on how your character feels about events in the story or choose the people he/she cares about... then yes, it would be part RPG.

A conversation system does not = this at all.


And thanks to everyone who liked the video. I am more of an LPer than a critic, but these videos are fun to make 

Modifié par SpiffySquee, 19 août 2011 - 01:48 .

[Fenris_13]

My opinion of this may look stupid to you, but I still stand for it.

[Red Son Rising]

genre is an exclusive term. it exists to define the boundaries of a particular style, delivery method or category. genres make it more difficult to describe content by reinforcing stereotypes and enable ppl to make generalizations and assumptions without experience

its a double edged sword for hardcore fans too. a lot of content will be too mainstream or watered down but niches always run the risk of being so narrowly focused they can be completely over looked by larger audiences. subgenres of niche categories get it even worse

content that fits nicely into a genre has to work extremely hard to be creative and is more likely to be derivative do little to advance the medium: iteration isnt necessarily bad but innovation is an absolute necessity

bioware broke some [trite] rpg rules with the mass effect series and hasnt "paid" for it yet. in fact the pay off for many gamers has been a franchise that has steadily evolved a unique brand of storytelling that combines some of the best elements of competing genres

its an rpg, its a shooter: is it good? yes. thats all i care about

[all that said i agree w/ the op. mass effect still qualifies as an rpg even if some ppl cant let go of their menu screens and inventories, those are not defining qualities of rpgs imo]

[sp0ck 06]

I wish they still made RPGs like they used to. These days its all "big choices" and "visceral combat." I miss the old games where you had to remember to drink water, and it took five hours real time to travel somewhere.

[SpiffySquee]

Fenris_13 wrote...

My opinion of this may look stupid to you, but I still stand for it.

I never said I felt it was stupid, only that I don't understand your thought process. And to be fair, you have not bothered explaining your opinion. It is fine to say what ever you want, but without backing it up, it is hard to take it as a credible argument.

[Tyrannosaurus Rex]

Watched the two videos. First part where you talk about about RPG gameplay elements is okay. Don't really care enough to comment futher since frankly. The whole debate does not hold my interest.

It is the second part where I really disagree with you.

First off. Why did you bring the persusasion system up? People complained it about because it punishes paragade/renagon Shepard's. It is simply a flawed persusasion system that restricts the player (and not in a good way).

As for the second part. I agree that it is impossible for Shepard to grow as a character (a limitation of the medium). But justifying the whole Brick-Shepard with "It's up to the player" is simply bs. Thankfully Bioware seems to understand that people want a protagonist that can show emotions and will fix this in ME3.

Thumps up for your part 1. Thumps down for your part 2.

[SpiffySquee]

Lizardviking wrote...

Watched the two videos. First part where you talk about about RPG gameplay elements is okay. Don't really care enough to comment futher since frankly. The whole debate does not hold my interest.

It is the second part where I really disagree with you.

First off. Why did you bring the persusasion system up? People complained it about because it punishes paragade/renagon Shepard's. It is simply a flawed persusasion system that restricts the player (and not in a good way).

As for the second part. I agree that it is impossible for Shepard to grow as a character (a limitation of the medium). But justifying the whole Brick-Shepard with "It's up to the player" is simply bs. Thankfully Bioware seems to understand that people want a protagonist that can show emotions and will fix this in ME3.

Thumps up for your part 1. Thumps down for your part 2.

The persuasion system does not punish anyone. That is like saying skill systems punish me because if I wanted to getting my shooting up, I had to spend points in shooting instead of something else. If you want to be good at persuading people a certain way, you have to do it on a regular bases. I love how people think they should be able to renegade their way through everything and magically be able to sweet talk jack and Miranda into loyalty...

And How is what I said BS? I explained how Shepard grows and changes as a character, if you want him to. Explain how he can't, or why it is Bioware's job to do it. I explained why it is difficult to explore his motivations and still have you be able to pretend you are him. Explain how I am wrong.

[Tyrannosaurus Rex]

First off I apologise for calling your arguement BS. Somewhat low and immature for me.

Anyway.

The persuasion system does not punish anyone. That is like saying
skill systems punish me because if I wanted to getting my shooting up, I
had to spend points in shooting instead of something else. If you want
to be good at persuading people a certain way, you have to do it on a
regular bases.

Your shooter example is gameplay. The reason I state the persusaion restricts people is because what powers it (P/R points) is achieved through story-related stuff. So if you want a good charm score. You better start doing paragon stuff constantly. If you do a mixture you will most liekly not be able to do anything.

I love how people think they should be able to renegade
their way through everything and magically be able to sweet talk jack
and Miranda into loyalty...

Maybe some people want to play a silver-tounged renegade that preferes to sweet talk people into doing his bidding instead of pulling a gun on them?

And How is what I said BS? I
explained how Shepard grows and changes as a character, if you want him
to. Explain how he can't, or why it is Bioware's job to do it. I
explained why it is difficult to explore his motivations and still have
you be able to pretend you are him. Explain how I am wrong.

I found it to be somewhat hypocritical that you state the necessary of joining Cerberus because you sometimes have to rail-road people if you wish to tell a story. But state that if Bioware forced people into having Shepard state one of three feelings it would be "Not the player's journey" and simply be them watching Shepard's story instead. You could just as easily state that Bioware forcing the player to have Shepard state on of three things is simply what is necessary in order to have a protagonist that is not a brick (and therefor help tell a better story).

I have silghtly more to add but I gotta eat.

[azerSheppard]

A role-playing game (RPG) is a game in which players assume the roles of characters in a fictional setting. Players take responsibility for acting out these roles within a narrative, either through literalacting, or through a process of structured decision-making or character development.[1] Actions taken within the game succeed or fail according to a formal system of rules and guidelines.

[azerSheppard]

Fenris_13 wrote...

Ever since BW said that they wanted COD players, I just can't consider ME3 a RPG anymore.

Plenty of cod players play other games, infact i'm a diehard rpg gamer, have done any and all forms aside from larpg, and i still enjoy fps games.

I'm pretty sure that Bioshock infinite, which is an fps, will rival, if not overcome any and all games in 2012. Stop dismissing fps games, it makes you look like a ****** hipster.

[Clonedzero]

people get way too caught up in meaningless genre labels. i mean does it matter if its an "RPG" or and "action-RPG" if its a good game?

people wanting it to be a pure RPG must not like the series at all. because becoming a pure RPG would disavow the first two games completely.

[adrewan]

tmass effect  are not rpg they action rpg.
Action role-playing games (abbreviated action RPG, action/RPG, or ARPG) form a loosely-defined sub-genre of role-playing video games that incorporate elements of action or action-adventure games, emphasizing real-time action where the player has direct control over characters, instead of turn-based or menu-based combat. These games often use combat systems similar to hack and slash or shooter games.

Modifié par adrewan, 19 août 2011 - 04:33 .

[azerSheppard]

adrewan wrote...

tmass effect  are not rpg they action rpg.
Action role-playing games (abbreviated action RPG, action/RPG, or ARPG) form a loosely-defined sub-genre of role-playing video games that incorporate elements of action or action-adventure games, emphasizing real-time action where the player has direct control over characters, instead of turn-based or menu-based combat. These games often use combat systems similar to hack and slash or shooter games.

Zelda 2 is an action role playing game, your succes at platform jumps are completely defines by your skills. Not by what your stats are. Your combat effectiveness lies in how good you are at fighting, not how much accuracy you have.
ACTIONRPG =/= Traditional RPG

[SpiffySquee]

Lizardviking wrote...

First off I apologise for calling your arguement BS. Somewhat low and immature for me.

meh, don't worry about it. none of us always say what we mean to

Anyway.

The persuasion system does not punish anyone. That is like saying
skill systems punish me because if I wanted to getting my shooting up, I
had to spend points in shooting instead of something else. If you want
to be good at persuading people a certain way, you have to do it on a
regular bases.

Your shooter example is gameplay. The reason I state the persusaion restricts people is because what powers it (P/R points) is achieved through story-related stuff. So if you want a good charm score. You better start doing paragon stuff constantly. If you do a mixture you will most liekly not be able to do anything.

I love how people think they should be able to renegade
their way through everything and magically be able to sweet talk jack
and Miranda into loyalty...

Maybe some people want to play a silver-tounged renegade that preferes to sweet talk people into doing his bidding instead of pulling a gun on them?

Just like any game, either you are a great sweet talker, or a great intimidator, or a mix that is not as good at both. If you want to do both, then you will not be as good at any one. High level checks are high level because not everyone can do them. If you want to sweet talk Jack into loyalty, you had better have had a lot of practice at sweet talking and understanding how people feel. You can't have that expertise if you spend half your time bullying and intimidating people.

And How is what I said BS? I
explained how Shepard grows and changes as a character, if you want him
to. Explain how he can't, or why it is Bioware's job to do it. I
explained why it is difficult to explore his motivations and still have
you be able to pretend you are him. Explain how I am wrong.

I found it to be somewhat hypocritical that you state the necessary of joining Cerberus because you sometimes have to rail-road people if you wish to tell a story. But state that if Bioware forced people into having Shepard state one of three feelings it would be "Not the player's journey" and simply be them watching Shepard's story instead. You could just as easily state that Bioware forcing the player to have Shepard state on of three things is simply what is necessary in order to have a protagonist that is not a brick (and therefor help tell a better story).

I have silghtly more to add but I gotta eat.

hypocritical? I think you just don't understand their is a big difference. One involves a story. The other involves how your character behaves and reacts in said story. One you have control of. One you don't. In order to tell a good story, you must force characters to follow the story. This does not mean the game cannot give you options in how you behave or feel about the people around you.

The point you are missing is that the game has to railroad you to a point to tell a good story. It does not have to make Shepard explore his motivations in order to have character growth. I already stated several times how to give your Shepard character growth over the course of the games.

If you sat there waiting for Shepard to change or explore his feelings and got upset when the game did not automatically do this, you completely miss the point of role playing.

[littlezack]

The example I always come back to is Jade Empire. In many ways, it's more 'dumbed down' Mass Effect 2 - limited looting system, barebones leveling, you can't control the growth or customize your teammates AT ALL, and I've never heard anyone accuse it of not being an RPG. And this was years before EA even gave Bioware two thoughts.

Modifié par littlezack, 19 août 2011 - 04:49 .

[sp0ck 06]

littlezack wrote...

The example I always come back to is Jade Empire. In many ways, it's more 'dumbed down' Mass Effect 2 - limited looting system, barebones leveling, you can't control the growth or customize your teammates AT ALL, and I've never heard anyone accuse it of not being an RPG. And this was years before EA even gave Bioware two thoughts.

This.  The "purists" just **** about ME because its new and popular and not exclusively marketed to a niche crowd of grognards.

[Travie]

sp0ck 06 wrote...

littlezack wrote...

The example I always come back to is Jade Empire. In many ways, it's more 'dumbed down' Mass Effect 2 - limited looting system, barebones leveling, you can't control the growth or customize your teammates AT ALL, and I've never heard anyone accuse it of not being an RPG. And this was years before EA even gave Bioware two thoughts.

This.  The "purists" just **** about ME because its new and popular and not exclusively marketed to a niche crowd of grognards.

RPG enthusiasts care about gameplay more then marketing. I'm sure it would make everyone happy to see an RPG do well (like Risen did). 

[sp0ck 06]

Travie wrote...

sp0ck 06 wrote...

littlezack wrote...

The example I always come back to is Jade Empire. In many ways, it's more 'dumbed down' Mass Effect 2 - limited looting system, barebones leveling, you can't control the growth or customize your teammates AT ALL, and I've never heard anyone accuse it of not being an RPG. And this was years before EA even gave Bioware two thoughts.

This.  The "purists" just **** about ME because its new and popular and not exclusively marketed to a niche crowd of grognards.

RPG enthusiasts care about gameplay more then marketing. I'm sure it would make everyone happy to see an RPG do well (like Risen did). 

Sure, but you gotta admit the purists tend to look down on any game or rule system that doesn't conform to the RPG checklist.  Mass Effect series are somewhat genre defying games in that they take elements from shooters, RPG, and adventures to create a certain experience.  Yet I rarely see shooter fans complaining that the game doesn't have enough shooter elements, it's always RPG enthusiasts bashing the game for being "dumbed down" "streamlined" "CoD in space lol" "for the masses" and so forth.  Usually their reasons for such criticism is that the games don't fulfill one or more of the sacred pillars of RPGs, like an inventory, or stat based combat.

To me, that's not a valid criticism.  Not being a traditional RPG does not = a bad game, or a game for the less intelligent.  Thats like saying The Matrix was a bad action movie because it didn't have a car chase scene.

The purists make the same arguments over and over, usually while advocating the elitist position that if a game doesn't have stat based combat and aiming, it must be "for idiots who play CoD on Xbox."

This position is clearly seen on this site and places like rpgcodex; blatant, nerd raging elitist egomaniac losers who don't even seem to enjoy playing games as much as criticizing whatever "the masses" are enjoying.

Don't get me wrong, I love old school RPGs.  ME series are not great RPGs.  But they are great games, which ultimately is all I care about, and its why I get frustrated seeing them criticized on the grounds of not fitting into a certain genre.

Jade Empire is more "streamlined" than Mass Effect, but no one ever brings that up because it wasn't a big, popular game, so it somehow is more of an RPG?

[Dionkey]

Great video Squee, very fair and provides both sides of the argument. However, I do not agree. The difference between table-top RPG's and games is that the rules and mechanics of a table-top RPG can be edited with the power of imagination, this does not apply to video games. True role-playing is not displayed in Mass Effect 2 because you can not choose whatever you want. In fact, many times, the choices given to you are not what you had in mind.

To keep you in the character and to stop you from clinging to these few choices so much, they allow you to customize your character to the brim. Are you an Infiltrator that values life, capable of sneaking around and taking enemies out from a distance? Or are you a soldier, that has a trigger finger and is just there to get the job done by any means necessary? The lack of a skill tree and inventory takes you away from this experience and makes you feel like you are simply choosing a fork in the road rather than shaping your own quest. People want to forge every part of their character, not just the story-driven choices they make. Couple this with the vast exploration from ME1 and ME2 feels quite empty, thus pulling you out of the role-playing experience. 

Modifié par Dionkey, 19 août 2011 - 05:25 .

[littlezack]

Dionkey wrote...

Great video Squee, very fair and provides both sides of the argument. However, I do not agree. The difference between table-top RPG's and games is that the rules and mechanics of a table-top RPG can be edited with the power of imagination, this does not apply to video games. True role-playing is not displayed in Mass Effect 2 because you can not choose whatever you want. In fact, many times, the choices given to you are not what you had in mind.

To keep you in the character and to stop you from clinging to these few choices so much, they allow you to customize your character to the brim. Are you an Infiltrator that values life, capable of sneaking around and taking enemies out from a distance? Or are you a soldier, that has a trigger finger and is just there to get the job done by any means necessary? The lack of a skill tree and inventory takes you away from this experience and makes you feel like you are simply choosing a fork in the road rather than shaping your own quest. People want to forge every part of their character, not just the story-driven choices they make. Couple this with the vast exploration from ME1 and ME2 feels quite empty, thus pulling you out of the role-playing experience. 

First off, how does a Infiltrator who takes out people from a distance 'value life'?

And by that definition, most RPGs aren't RPGs at all. Games like Final Fantasy, Lost Odyssey, Wild Arms; games that give you no choice over your character's personality and offer only linear progression - by that definition, they're not RPGs.

Mass Effect 1 didn't have a skill tree, either, and if we're talking abot 'emptiness' I'd say the 99% empty planets you 'explored' in ME1 have the market cornered.

Modifié par littlezack, 19 août 2011 - 05:33 .

[Dionkey]

littlezack wrote...

Dionkey wrote...

Great video Squee, very fair and provides both sides of the argument. However, I do not agree. The difference between table-top RPG's and games is that the rules and mechanics of a table-top RPG can be edited with the power of imagination, this does not apply to video games. True role-playing is not displayed in Mass Effect 2 because you can not choose whatever you want. In fact, many times, the choices given to you are not what you had in mind.

To keep you in the character and to stop you from clinging to these few choices so much, they allow you to customize your character to the brim. Are you an Infiltrator that values life, capable of sneaking around and taking enemies out from a distance? Or are you a soldier, that has a trigger finger and is just there to get the job done by any means necessary? The lack of a skill tree and inventory takes you away from this experience and makes you feel like you are simply choosing a fork in the road rather than shaping your own quest. People want to forge every part of their character, not just the story-driven choices they make. Couple this with the vast exploration from ME1 and ME2 feels quite empty, thus pulling you out of the role-playing experience. 

First off, how does a Infiltrator who takes out people from a distance 'value life'?

And by that definition, most RPGs aren't RPGs at all. Games like Final Fantasy, Lost Odyssey, Wild Arms; games that give you no choice over your character's personality and offer only linear progression - by that definition, they're not RPGs.

Well someone who values like would be idealistic, so they would be a Paragon Infiltrator. An RPG does not need you to make story-based choices for it to be a role-playing-game, you just need it to be immersive enough to take you into the role of that character. In that sense, ME2 took out a lot of the player choices and customization; which is why many do not consider it a role-playing-game.

Modifié par Dionkey, 19 août 2011 - 05:33 .

[littlezack]

Dionkey wrote...

littlezack wrote...

Dionkey wrote...

Great video Squee, very fair and provides both sides of the argument. However, I do not agree. The difference between table-top RPG's and games is that the rules and mechanics of a table-top RPG can be edited with the power of imagination, this does not apply to video games. True role-playing is not displayed in Mass Effect 2 because you can not choose whatever you want. In fact, many times, the choices given to you are not what you had in mind.

To keep you in the character and to stop you from clinging to these few choices so much, they allow you to customize your character to the brim. Are you an Infiltrator that values life, capable of sneaking around and taking enemies out from a distance? Or are you a soldier, that has a trigger finger and is just there to get the job done by any means necessary? The lack of a skill tree and inventory takes you away from this experience and makes you feel like you are simply choosing a fork in the road rather than shaping your own quest. People want to forge every part of their character, not just the story-driven choices they make. Couple this with the vast exploration from ME1 and ME2 feels quite empty, thus pulling you out of the role-playing experience. 

First off, how does a Infiltrator who takes out people from a distance 'value life'?

And by that definition, most RPGs aren't RPGs at all. Games like Final Fantasy, Lost Odyssey, Wild Arms; games that give you no choice over your character's personality and offer only linear progression - by that definition, they're not RPGs.

Well someone who values like would be idealistic, so they would be a Paragon Infiltrator. An RPG does not need you to make story-based choices for it to be a role-playing-game, you just need it to be immersive enough to take you into the role of that character. In that sense, ME2 took out a lot of the player choices and customization; which is why many do not consider it a role-playing-game.

If he valued life, I don't think he'd go around killing people at all, which isn't an option in either game, but whatever.

You can't measure immersion, and it shouldn't be part of some rubric to define an RPG. I can get ;immersed' in Saint's Row 2, sure as hell doesn't make it an RPG.

[wizardryforever]

littlezack wrote...

Dionkey wrote...

Great video Squee, very fair and provides both sides of the argument. However, I do not agree. The difference between table-top RPG's and games is that the rules and mechanics of a table-top RPG can be edited with the power of imagination, this does not apply to video games. True role-playing is not displayed in Mass Effect 2 because you can not choose whatever you want. In fact, many times, the choices given to you are not what you had in mind.

To keep you in the character and to stop you from clinging to these few choices so much, they allow you to customize your character to the brim. Are you an Infiltrator that values life, capable of sneaking around and taking enemies out from a distance? Or are you a soldier, that has a trigger finger and is just there to get the job done by any means necessary? The lack of a skill tree and inventory takes you away from this experience and makes you feel like you are simply choosing a fork in the road rather than shaping your own quest. People want to forge every part of their character, not just the story-driven choices they make. Couple this with the vast exploration from ME1 and ME2 feels quite empty, thus pulling you out of the role-playing experience. 

First off, how does a Infiltrator who takes out people from a distance 'value life'?

And by that definition, most RPGs aren't RPGs at all. Games like Final Fantasy, Lost Odyssey, Wild Arms; games that give you no choice over your character's personality and offer only linear progression - by that definition, they're not RPGs.

Mass Effect 1 didn't have a skill tree, either, and if we're talking abot 'emptiness' I'd say the 99% empty planets you 'explored' in ME1 have the market cornered.

That's exactly what Squee said in his video, and I agree.  If you can't role-play in the game, then it isn't an RPG.  If you can't shape and change your character based around your vision of that character within the context of the story, then it isn't an RPG.  Call me crazy, but I kinda think you need role-playing to make a role-playing game.