1002 réponses à ce sujet

[Phaedon]

lolnoobs wrote...

Guys, The ME series is a Third Person Shooter that has some very light RPG elements. I'd consider the first ME a somewhat action RPG, but ME2 is just a third person shooter. Just because you have a couple of small C&C moments doesn't make it an RPG.

RPG JUST MEANS YOU PLAY A ROLE LOLOL
Ok, that means every single game ever made is a RPG. Including Pong. So, no RPG doesn't just mean you play a role.

The Sims 3 has a party inventory.

TS3 has more stats than your common RPG.

TS3 has more character traits than your average RPG.

TS3 has a more interesting plot than your average RPG.

TS3 has stats that affect your success, even in fights yes.

TS3 has more sidemissions than your average RPG.

TS3 has statistical progression.

TS3 allows you to create a much more complex character than most RPGs do.

TS3 allows more customization than more RPGs do.

TS3 has NPCs.

TS3 has XP.

TS3 doesn't have an actual branching plot.

TS3 is a simulation game, not an RPG.

Modifié par Phaedon, 19 août 2011 - 07:32 .

[JHCRANE14]

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

I really liked these videos.  I thought it was very informational.

[SpiffySquee]

lolnoobs wrote...

Arcian wrote...

lolnoobs wrote...

THE UNIVERSE DOESN'T AGREE WITH ME

Fabulous.

So! Every game ever made is a RPG. SINCE YOU PLAY A ROLE IN EVERY SINGLE ONE.

Hey, RTS just mean Real time strategy. You have to have strategy in ME LOL SO IT R RTS LOLOL.

Hey, Racing games just mean you can drive vehicles around, LOLOL VEHICLES R IN ME SO IT R RACING LOL

Hey, Adventure games are just games with an adventure, well, you have an adventure in ME. So it's an Adventure game!

Hey, Simulation games just simulate things! LIKE ME SIMULATE SPACE COMBAT ACTION LOL SO IT R SIM GAME.

<3:wizard:

Again, watch the video or your arguments just make you look foolish. Nothing like that was ever stated. How can you even know what to argue against if you don't even know what I said?

[RyuGuitarFreak]

Dionkey wrote...

Candidate 88766 wrote...
You play the role of a soldier. RPGs are different in that you play a role that you define and customise, through abilities/power customiztion or, as in the case of ME, through your dialogue choices and behaviour towards characters. You play a role in every game, its just that in RPGs you have a lot more control over that role and the game is about how you create your role. Thats why both ME1 and ME2 are RPGs, at least partially.

I believ story and character have to exist for it to be an RPG, but playing a role in a story does not define an RPG. Technically every game with a character and a story is a RPG. But to actually define the mechanics of an RPG down to the very precise customization of a character, is what truly makes an RPG, at least in my mind.

Wait, what???

So, you're saying that roleplaying mechanics aren't the ones that define RPGs, but all of the others that are out of it, stats, loot, etc, do?

Seriously, WTF?

I'm sorry, but your definition goes completely out of what the game is supposed to be.

PS: My god, some of you are completely off of what the player should be offered in a game to make it considerably a RPG experience. The discussion is almost pointless at this level.

[Phaedon]

RyuGuitarFreak wrote...
Wait, what???

So, you're saying that roleplaying mechanics aren't the ones that define RPGs, but all of the others that are out of it, stats, loot, etc, do?

Seriously, WTF?

I'm sorry, but your definition goes completely out of what the game is supposed to be.

PS: My god, some of you are completely off of what the player should be offered in a game to make it considerably a RPG experience. The discussion is almost pointless at this level.

I actually agree. Somewhat.

RPGs without a branching plot or the ability to create a custom character, can be called RPGs from others, I don't care, and you won't see me crying about Final Fantasy or Diablo 3 on RPG Codex. But they are not my kind of RPGs.

Modifié par Phaedon, 19 août 2011 - 07:36 .

[SpiffySquee]

Lizardviking wrote...

SpiffySquee wrote...
The only thing Shepard does not do on a regular bases is talk about herself. And I explained why. Don't get me wrong, I loved LOTSB, and I look forward to more things like that, but it is very difficult to do, and is always risky.

Call it poor communication on my bad (and I would guess for alot of others but I don't speak for them). But when I mean "Don't show emotion" this is what I mean. Shepard don't react to anything happening to him on a personal level. And that is what I hate. Having a single scene like in LOTSB goes a long way to counter that. Granted it of-course needs to be handled in a good manner but I think that can be said for any form of story telling.

ah... I do understand that. I agree with you, but I hope you see why that is a difficult thing to do. Bioware has to walk very carefully when telling you what Shepard feels and they can not do it too often otherwise it is their Shepard and not yours/

[Darkelefantos1]

lolnoobs wrote...

Arcian wrote...

lolnoobs wrote...

THE UNIVERSE DOESN'T AGREE WITH ME

Fabulous.

So! Every game ever made is a RPG. SINCE YOU PLAY A ROLE IN EVERY SINGLE ONE.

Hey, RTS just mean Real time strategy. You have to have strategy in ME LOL SO IT R RTS LOLOL.

Hey, Racing games just mean you can drive vehicles around, LOLOL VEHICLES R IN ME SO IT R RACING LOL

Hey, Adventure games are just games with an adventure, well, you have an adventure in ME. So it's an Adventure game!

Hey, Simulation games just simulate things! LIKE ME SIMULATE SPACE COMBAT ACTION LOL SO IT R SIM GAME.

<3:wizard:

Hey, you shoot things in Shooters. YOU SHOOT THINGS IN ME SO IT MUST BE A SHOOTER, TROLOLOL!!!!!1

See what I did there?

[Il Divo]

littlezack wrote...

My main problem is with people who act like the RPG genre has always had some hard and fast rule that defines, when, even in its earliest days, the term was always broad. You have games like Gauntlet that are pretty much just straight action and leveling - RPG. You have games like Legend of Zelda where you can't control the characters personality and he doesn't even level up - RPG. Even in the NES days, you could find 'RPGs' that focus on certain aspects or ignore them altogether, and still go by the title 'RPG'. But some people act like the genre's blurry line is some recent thing. It really isn't.

It's especially a problem when you consider that pen and paper games, while featuring fairly complex rules systems, never designate how players must go about the game experience. I've had sessions of DnD where it's been strictly combat, and we killed bad guys for 2+ hours. And I've had game experiences which were entirely narrative/dialogue driven. There's no authority which says that you must roll a d20 "x # of times" for a game to be an RPG. That's always been left up to the players.

[Phaedon]

Also, great video Squee.

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

[Candidate 88766]

To summarise what I said on the previous page:

Normal game - you are given a role to play. You may have some customization, but largely the role is a defined one that you given to play as.

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

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

[Phaedon]

Darkelefantos1 wrote...
Hey, you shoot things in Shooters. YOU SHOOT THINGS IN ME SO IT MUST BE A SHOOTER, TROLOLOL!!!!!1

See what I did there?

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

[Il Divo]

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.

Dionkey, the problem is that you designate Mass Effect 2 as incapable of true role-playing, which is fine. But your post also implies that other accepted RPGs (Baldur's Gate, Planescape) are capable. True role-playing is only ever possible in pen and paper, where the only limation is your imagination. It's not just Mass Effect 2 that is the problem.

[Tyrannosaurus Rex]

SpiffySquee wrote...

Lizardviking wrote...

SpiffySquee wrote...
The only thing Shepard does not do on a regular bases is talk about herself. And I explained why. Don't get me wrong, I loved LOTSB, and I look forward to more things like that, but it is very difficult to do, and is always risky.

Call it poor communication on my bad (and I would guess for alot of others but I don't speak for them). But when I mean "Don't show emotion" this is what I mean. Shepard don't react to anything happening to him on a personal level. And that is what I hate. Having a single scene like in LOTSB goes a long way to counter that. Granted it of-course needs to be handled in a good manner but I think that can be said for any form of story telling.

ah... I do understand that. I agree with you, but I hope you see why that is a difficult thing to do. Bioware has to walk very carefully when telling you what Shepard feels and they can not do it too often otherwise it is their Shepard and not yours/

And it would be very stupid to do it often. One of the reasons I like these scene is that they happen very rarely. That they don't appear all the time greatly increases the impact of them. Seeing Shepard having a small moment of weakness adds alot of depth and humanity to him (for me atleast) considering that we see him most of the time being stoic, selfless and all-round heroric.

[RyuGuitarFreak]

Phaedon wrote...

I actually agree. Somewhat.

RPGs without a branching plot or the ability to create a custom character, can be called RPGs from others, I don't care, and you won't see me crying about Final Fantasy or Diablo 3 on RPG Codex. But they are not my kind of RPGs.

Exactly. I wouldn't call FF or Diablo RPGs too, but who cares about it now?

The thing is, if someone's gonna nitpick that ME isn't an RPG because there's not ENOUGH loot, customization, dialog options, choices, etc, or for whatever reason, well, they better make a good point about it. And what I've seen from the people who tries to, they just come out with nonsense or lack of knowledge of both pen and paper RPGs, CRPGs and their differences to make a descent point.

Even from experienced and somewhat intelligent people like Silvius the Mad. It's just BS, from my point of perspective.

[asindre]

SpiffySquee wrote...
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 this system would work if not for one thing, most of your paragon/renegade doesn't come from the charm/intimidate options, they come from making choices in the game. The conversation system isn't broken but the Paragon/renegade system is. They should either make charm/intimidate options be a stat we could level up like in ME, or make a new system for conversations that just takes conversations into account and not your general choices throughout the game.

[Phaedon]

RyuGuitarFreak wrote...
It's just BS, from my point of perspective.

Yes, yes it is.

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

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

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

[Varen Spectre]

JayhartRIC wrote...

I feel that rpg's have to be about character choices and their effect on the story. If stats and character customization make an rpg, then NBA 2k11 and Force Unleashed are rpg's.

Well, I think you are simplyfying it... While your 2nd premise is IMO correct, I don't think it is useful to promote / downplay the role of particular element by pointing out that other games from other genres use similar mechanics too. With such aproach we could call Mafia 1 a racing game because there was a racing section, Operation Flashpoint a strategy game because player could order units under his command (pinpoint exact location, order them to shoot at something, etc.) and after all... even Mass Effect a 3rd person shooter because, well it has a 3rd person shooters' combat mechanics...

I know,... those are very exagerated, narrow-minded and probably not even that accurate examples... My point is though, that games' genres nowadays are very broad terms because they cover thousands of games... Like Il Divo once nicely said, they can be characterized as "tresholds" of particular features and mechanics, that are usually used in games which are classified as games of particular genre.

So, you are right, "stats" and "character customization" in themselves, without other things and elements don't make RPGs. Neither does any other element IMO. Probably not even "character choices" (not sure what does it mean though so maybe you are right^_^) or "story choices" (I have played "choose your own story text adventures" with pretty complicated and branched stories with lot of choices and would not call them RPGs because they lacked other "RPG elements". That however does not mean that they are not crucial to RPGs.).

TL DR: Pointing out a single feature that is / used to be somehow related to particular game genre, demonstrating that games from other genres use the same / similar features too and thus coming to conclusion that this feature is therefore not necessarily an important element of such genre is IMO flawed process. It leads to premature and incomplete conclusions. 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
As for the OP...

I understand OP's point of view. I respect it and I LOVE the disclaimer.



As for his opinion,... well, I can't say I disagree with his logic... or approach. However, I find such rather philosophical (speculations on what "roleplaying" actually is and what "RPGs" are) attitude little bit... impractical IRL. I mean theoretically, games from every genre could do what ME does - give player a chance to create an avatar, experience a story and make meaningful choices. Look at Starcraft 2 - there is relatively deep story, strong main character, some story choices (factions, special NPCs), lot of cutscenes, etc.

Now imagine if Blizzard went a little bit further and provided us with dialogues, more choices and consequencess, maybe some customization of main character(s), etc. Woud SC 2 be an RPG than? What about Catherine? There is a plenty of dialogues (player can go aroung and pick NPCs to discuss with, he can save their lives if he convince them about story related questions (not gonna spoil it:P), player can act like a good or bad guy, he can choose from2 girls for his main love interest, etc. Yet it classified as puzzle platformer (those more punctual would add adventure). What would Catherine need to become a full fledged RPG with OP's approach?

And this can IMO be done in every game from every other genre - a footbal / ice hockey game about team which travels around the world and experiences different things and stories (original NES Nekketsu games used to approach this idea a little bit) a racing game about driver (imagine much more developed TOCA story mode), etc.

I think this "modern approach to RPGs" makes things somewhat more complicated. Many games start to have long complicated stories with choices and meaningful consequences, certain degree of non-linearity, etc. - i.e. with the option to "roleplay" withinin their settings. Not to the level that Mass Effect does, but they will undoubtedly get better - Catherine gives me hope.

So personally, I don't think that proposed approach is a proper way to classify a games' genres and would rather stick with good old non-sensical (why is something classified by position of camera - 1st/3rd person shooters, something by game mechanic - puzzle games and something by games aspiration to simulate reality - simulators, something by games aspiration to tell a story - adventure, etc.) system. It may not make much sense, it is not very accurate and absolutely not comprehensive classification. But at least it works (somehow^_^) and has been used for quite some time. And by that system, at least in my opinion, Mass Effects are more like hybrids because they do not fill completely or exceed all known "tresholds".

PS: That disclaimer applies to my post as well.
 

Modifié par Varen Spectre, 19 août 2011 - 11:37 .

[SpiffySquee]

asindre wrote...

SpiffySquee wrote...
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 this system would work if not for one thing, most of your paragon/renegade doesn't come from the charm/intimidate options, they come from making choices in the game. The conversation system isn't broken but the Paragon/renegade system is. They should either make charm/intimidate options be a stat we could level up like in ME, or make a new system for conversations that just takes conversations into account and not your general choices throughout the game.

Actually, I think ME2 is more realistic. It makes sense that if you spend your time seeking diplomatic solutions and caring about other peoples feelings that you would be more skilled at negotiations with a silver tongue, Or if you spend all of your time pushing people around, you would be better at intimidating someone. It is a more realistic system than someone doing nothing but sweet talk and finding peaceful solutions and then suddenly be able to intimidate the best simply because he leveled that option up in a stat sheet.

[Da_Lion_Man]

Judging from that channel I can see TC plays a lot of games and works hard on his let's plays.
I think that's cool and I mean that.

/offtopic.

[asindre]

SpiffySquee wrote...
Actually, I think ME2 is more realistic. It makes sense that if you spend your time seeking diplomatic solutions and caring about other peoples feelings that you would be more skilled at negotiations with a silver tongue, Or if you spend all of your time pushing people around, you would be better at intimidating someone. It is a more realistic system than someone doing nothing but sweet talk and finding peaceful solutions and then suddenly be able to intimidate the best simply because he leveled that option up in a stat sheet.

I'm not talking about how you talk to people, I mean choices in the game. For ex. kill/save the rachni queen, help/don't help the counsil, brainwash or kill the geth heretics, keep or destroy the collector ship and so on. My Shepard could have a hundred different reasons for what he chooses to do in any of those situations and the game doesn't take them into account.
What if my paragon Shepard saves the collector ship because he thinks it can save lives in the war against the reapers, or even if he has renegade reasons to do it that choice wouldn't automatically make him better at intimidating people.

[RedCaesar97]

SpiffySquee wrote...

Actually, I think ME2 is more realistic. It makes sense that if you spend your time seeking diplomatic solutions and caring about other peoples feelings that you would be more skilled at negotiations with a silver tongue, Or if you spend all of your time pushing people around, you would be better at intimidating someone. It is a more realistic system than someone doing nothing but sweet talk and finding peaceful solutions and then suddenly be able to intimidate the best simply because he leveled that option up in a stat sheet.

I would agree that is "more realistic", with a disclaimer that neither system is "realistic". It is a game after all.

Personally, I like how ME2 handled the negation system by tying it into your decisions rather than a stat, for several reasons:

1) It allows you to level up actual combat skills without having to waste points into Charm and/or Intimidate skills. Sure, in ME1 you could level up your Charm and Intimidate skills for free if you played through multiple times with the same character, but eventually that became very tedious. Not to mention all the crap you ended up looting.

2) It allowed you to re-distribute your skill points (the Retrain Powers research option). If there were a stats for Charm and Intimidate, then you would not have a retrain option. The retrain option is fantastic for testing out various builds and skills without having to create a brand-new character every time.

3) Charm and Intimidate are mostly meaningless. Most of the time, both Charm and Intimidate options (not interrupts) lead to the same result. On the top of my head, only once has a Charm or Intimidate option lead to different results, and that was in ME1 with Corporal Toombs. The Charm option persuaded Toombs to take Dr. Wayne to trial, and Intimidate persuaded Toombs to let you shoot Dr. Wayne. 

Most of time in ME2, you also have a non-persuade options that lead to the same outcome as Charm and Intimidate. 

If you play as a pure Paragon or pure Renegade, you will not notice or care how Charm/Intimidate works in ME2. It matters somewhat if you want to play as a partial Paragon and Renegade character, but that only occurs in rare cases and the outcome typically does not matter.

[SpiffySquee]

asindre wrote...

SpiffySquee wrote...
Actually, I think ME2 is more realistic. It makes sense that if you spend your time seeking diplomatic solutions and caring about other peoples feelings that you would be more skilled at negotiations with a silver tongue, Or if you spend all of your time pushing people around, you would be better at intimidating someone. It is a more realistic system than someone doing nothing but sweet talk and finding peaceful solutions and then suddenly be able to intimidate the best simply because he leveled that option up in a stat sheet.

I'm not talking about how you talk to people, I mean choices in the game. For ex. kill/save the rachni queen, help/don't help the counsil, brainwash or kill the geth heretics, keep or destroy the collector ship and so on. My Shepard could have a hundred different reasons for what he chooses to do in any of those situations and the game doesn't take them into account.
What if my paragon Shepard saves the collector ship because he thinks it can save lives in the war against the reapers, or even if he has renegade reasons to do it that choice wouldn't automatically make him better at intimidating people.

While I see your point, I believe those cases are few and far between. Most paragon points are given for making decisions that show caring for others, or compassion, or diplomatic choices, and most Renegade points are given for being a bully, or aggressive.

Da_Lion_Man wrote...

Judging from that channel I can see TC plays a lot of games and works hard on his let's plays.
I think that's cool and I mean that.

/offtopic.

Is TC me? If so, I thank you!! Yes Let's Plays are my passion. These videos are just a fun side projects to feed my love of debate. One of the biggest criticisms I get here is, "why don't you make videos talking about how you like the game instead of arguing other peoples points?

Umm.... so recording a full play though of the games where I constantly talk about how great it is doesn't count???  Well ok, I spend more time Yelling at Kasumi for rubbing up against mechs instead of punching them (that girl has some strange fetishes...) , but still...

Modifié par SpiffySquee, 19 août 2011 - 08:40 .

[CroGamer002]

Well, if anyone is interested here's full version of it: