1002 réponses à ce sujet

[Phaedon]

Dionkey wrote...
Actually, simulation and RPG's are not far apart. The Sims is just about playing the role of another person.

Not sure if argument.

All games but Strategy games and RPGs have you play as another 100% different protagonist.

It's some strategy games and some RPGs that are not too far apart, because you are your own character. Except that there is one problem, RTSs don't tend to have a real branching plot and a protagonist who makes direct decisions on how to change the plot.

EDIT:

Lol, Gatt, stop using the LARP argument again.

It never worked. In PnP you describe the actions of your character, in LARPs, you do them. 
It's not in LARP where you gain control of your own character, obviously.

Modifié par Phaedon, 20 août 2011 - 11:18 .

[Siven80]

I'm suprised this "what is an RPG" thread isnt locked yet tbh.

[Tamahome560]

As always great videos squee! Thanks for sharing them. I really like the points you've brought up. I would write a longer reply but I'm outta this thread, BSN is generally an evil and stupid place and this thread is like shining a beacon in a dark room filled with evil and hateful people who will destroy you if you have a view that does not match theirs. So the risk of getting skinned alive in this thread is quite heavy ...

[Candidate 88766]

Tamahome560 wrote...

As always great videos squee! Thanks for sharing them. I really like the points you've brought up. I would write a longer reply but I'm outta this thread, BSN is generally an evil and stupid place and this thread is like shining a beacon in a dark room filled with evil and hateful people who will destroy you if you have a view that does not match theirs. So the risk of getting skinned alive in this thread is quite heavy ...

But the priiize...

[Phaedon]

I can not comprehend how the RPG argument lasted so long even on BSN anyway.



Controlling a pre-defined character and engaging in combat heavy on statistics? All games do that, they just hide the stats. Some RPGs don't.

Even if not all games did that, but only RPGs, the point of roleplaying games is to create and play a role, like an actor does.

Even if it was not, but instead it was to statistically progress your character, Mass Effect 2 does have that.

Even if it didn't, Mass Effect 2 has loot and inventory. Supposed RPG elements. Loot is the items that you pick up from various locations and get to keep, and inventory is a list of items which you can customise. Define it any other way, and you are bound to act as if a great part of RPGs don't in fact have an inventory, because of the great variety that exists. So, even with a pre-defined character and no statistical progression, ME2 would still have RPG Elements.

Even if it didn't have some of those "RPG Elements", it doesn't need too many to be an RPG/Shooter hybrid, as it contains elements of both.

Even if that is not true, and ME2 has no RPG Elements and is a plain shooter, then what is the problem with that?

Even if there was a problem with that, you would have to explain what kind of problem you have with it. The fact that it is marketed as an RPG? No, it is rarely done so. Otherwise, why do people complain about ME2 being described as a "cinematic action experience" and ME3 a "high octane galactic war"?

Even if it weren't so, BioWare doesn't control marketing. It's the docs from BioWare who never classified ME2 or 3 in their marketing, Casey Hudson who does not consider himself, exclusively, an RPG developer, and Christina Norman who said in their 'Goals for ME3' Presentation, which promised "richer RPG elements" that the dev team doesn't and shouldn't care about genres, but instead make a fun space adventure experience.

But even if it weren't so, what's your problem with ME2 being a shooter? Does being a shooter restrict a game from being an awesome experience? No, it doesn't. I can safely say that COD 1-4+UO were a much more interesting experience than the generic "You are great hero, now kill these orcs, invade castle of evil dark lord, rescue princess, profit" plot of many RPGs at that time.

But even if it weren't so, and shooters were in fact, an inferior genre to RPGs, then...do explain to me, why the hell have you been following a series with shooter elements being the main medium in which combat is explored and presented, with very lite "RPG" elements from the start?

But even if you have been following it because "BioWare makes good RPGs". Oh wait, no they don't. Rarely have their games been praised for their mechanics, but instead for their story. And story is not an RPG element. No, I am not the one saying it, weren't you the one to argue about it not a moment ago? Oh, well. And wait a minute, didn't every single BioWare-made RPG other DA:O be quite rule-lite and streamlined for it's time and compared to its predecessors?

What, that was it?

Chk, chk, chk.

Modifié par Phaedon, 20 août 2011 - 11:44 .

[JayhartRIC]

Phaedon wrote...

I can not comprehend how the RPG argument lasted so long even on BSN anyway.



Controlling a pre-defined character and engaging in combat heavy on statistics? All games do that, they just hide the stats. Some RPGs don't.

Even if not all games did that, but only RPGs, the point of roleplaying games is to create and play a role, like an actor does.

Even if it was not, but instead it was to statistically progress your character, Mass Effect 2 does have that.

Even if it didn't, Mass Effect 2 has loot and inventory. Supposed RPG elements. Loot is the items that you pick up from various locations and get to keep, and inventory is a list of items which you can customise. Define it any other way, and you are bound to act as if a great part of RPGs don't in fact have an inventory, because of the great variety that exists. So, even with a pre-defined character and no statistical progression, ME2 would still have RPG Elements.

Even if it didn't have some of those "RPG Elements", it doesn't need too many to be an RPG/Shooter hybrid, as it contains elements of both.

Even if that is not true, and ME2 has no RPG Elements and is a plain shooter, then what is the problem with that?

Even if there was a problem with that, you would have to explain what kind of problem you have with it. The fact that it is marketed as an RPG? No, it is rarely done so. Otherwise, why do people complain about ME2 being described as a "cinematic action experience" and ME3 a "high octane galactic war"?

Even if it weren't so, BioWare doesn't control marketing. It's the docs from BioWare who never classified ME2 or 3 in their marketing, Casey Hudson who does not consider himself, exclusively, an RPG developer, and Christina Norman who said in their 'Goals for ME3' Presentation, which promised "richer RPG elements" that the dev team doesn't and shouldn't care about genres, but instead make a fun space adventure experience.

But even if it weren't so, what's your problem with ME2 being a shooter? Does being a shooter restrict a game from being an awesome experience? No, it doesn't. I can safely say that COD 1-4+UO were a much more interesting experience than the generic "You are great hero, now kill these orcs, invade castle of evil dark lord, rescue princess, profit" plot of many RPGs at that time.

But even if it weren't so, and shooters were in fact, an inferior genre to RPGs, then...do explain to me, why the hell have you been following a series with shooter elements being the main medium in which combat is explored and presented, with very lite "RPG" elements from the start?

But even if you have been following it because "BioWare makes good RPGs". Oh wait, no they don't. Rarely have their games been praised for their mechanics, but instead for their story. And story is not an RPG element. No, I am not the one saying it, weren't you the one to argue about it not a moment ago? Oh, well. And wait a minute, didn't every single BioWare-made RPG other DA:O be quite rule-lite and streamlined for it's time and compared to its predecessors?

What, that was it?

Chk, chk, chk.

Couldn't have said it better myself.

[Whatever42]

The argument can never be resolved. We are not arguing whether a game meets the definition of an RPG. We are arguing over the definition of an RPG.

Since no side is willing to move off their own definition, no agreement is possible. Since there is no arbiter to decide on a definition, arguing the specific qualities of the games is also impossible.

So we are all talking past each other. The only thing that confuses me is why we continue to do so. Who are we trying to convince and for what purpose? The games are not going to be re-categorised. Despite my belief that Star Wars is fantasy or space opera, not real science fiction, I still find Star Wars in the science fiction section.

Personally, I don't think you can really role play in a computer game yet. So everyone is wrong. However, I know I really enjoy the writing, characters, and game play of the mass effect games. You may disagree. However, it really doesn't matter to anyone.

P.S. That dot dot dot video was awesome. 

Modifié par Whatever666343431431654324, 20 août 2011 - 12:28 .

[Il Divo]

Whatever666343431431654324 wrote...

The argument can never be resolved. We are not arguing whether a game meets the definition of an RPG. We are arguing over the definition of an RPG.

Since no side is willing to move off their own definition, no agreement is possible. Since there is no arbiter to decide on a definition, arguing the specific qualities of the games is also impossible.

So we are all talking past each other. The only thing that confuses me is why we continue to do so. Who are we trying to convince and for what purpose? The games are not going to be re-categorised. Despite my belief that Star Wars is fantasy or space opera, not real science fiction, I still find Star Wars in the science fiction section.

Personally, I don't think you can really role play in a computer game yet. So everyone is wrong. However, I know I really enjoy the writing, characters, and game play of the mass effect games. You may disagree. However, it really doesn't matter to anyone.

P.S. That dot dot dot video was awesome. 

The funny thing is that by taking a step back, you realize that all we are arguing over is who gets to own the word "RPG". Some people claim RPGs are all about numbers and stats. We could simplify this issue by calling these games "stat-based gameplay". Some people like dialogue. We could simplify this issue by calling these games "dialogue-driven games". Or perhaps something more catchy. But you get my point.

[Candidate 88766]

Whatever666343431431654324 wrote...

The argument can never be resolved. We are not arguing whether a game meets the definition of an RPG. We are arguing over the definition of an RPG.

Since no side is willing to move off their own definition, no agreement is possible. Since there is no arbiter to decide on a definition, arguing the specific qualities of the games is also impossible.

So we are all talking past each other. The only thing that confuses me is why we continue to do so. Who are we trying to convince and for what purpose? The games are not going to be re-categorised. Despite my belief that Star Wars is fantasy or space opera, not real science fiction, I still find Star Wars in the science fiction section.

Personally, I don't think you can really role play in a computer game yet. So everyone is wrong. However, I know I really enjoy the writing, characters, and game play of the mass effect games. You may disagree. However, it really doesn't matter to anyone.

P.S. That dot dot dot video was awesome. 

Very well put. We're essentially arguing that Bioware's definition of what an RPG should be doesn't match up with everyone's idea of what an RPG should be, and some people seem to get annoyed that Bioware isn't making a game the way they would. Its kind of silly actually. Particularly as a good game is a good game regardless of genre.

I've always said that it is the story and the characters that people liked about Mass Effect, not the RPG stuff like stats or loot. That was the stuff that was generally slated. ME2 still had great characters and a good story (in my opinion) and as long as ME3 keeps the trend going, and has proper consequences, then it'll be a fantastic game, RPG or not.

Also, just because someone is a fan of RPGs doesn't mean they can't enjoy games outside of that genre. Most people on BSN have shown they like games that aren't true RPGs because most of us enjoyed ME1, and that was not a true RPG - an action-RPG hybrid, but not an RPG.

[Gatt9]

Phaedon wrote...

Dionkey wrote...
Actually, simulation and RPG's are not far apart. The Sims is just about playing the role of another person.

Not sure if argument.

All games but Strategy games and RPGs have you play as another 100% different protagonist.

It's some strategy games and some RPGs that are not too far apart, because you are your own character. Except that there is one problem, RTSs don't tend to have a real branching plot and a protagonist who makes direct decisions on how to change the plot.

I suspect I already know the answer,  but you are aware that PnP RPG's origins were from Wargames right? And that strategy's origins are from Wargames as well?

EDIT:

Lol, Gatt, stop using the LARP argument again.

It never worked. In PnP you describe the actions of your character, in LARPs, you do them. 
It's not in LARP where you gain control of your own character, obviously.

Of course it works,  they're two different means to achieving a similiar goal,  you just don't happen to like that I'm right.

Which is ironic,  because you also just proved my point.

It never worked. In PnP you describe the actions of your character, in Mass Effect 2, you do them.

To be even more specific,  in a LARPS,  you are your character,  there's no division between bob the barbarian and you.  In ME2 you are your character,  there's no division between Shepherd and you.

So as previously stated,  what you keep claiming is Roleplaying is LARPS.

The funny thing is that by taking a step back, you realize that all we are arguing over is who gets to own the word "RPG". Some people claim RPGs are all about numbers and stats. We could simplify this issue by calling these games "stat-based gameplay". Some people like dialogue. We could simplify this issue by calling these games "dialogue-driven games". Or perhaps something more catchy. But you get my point

That's never been what's at issue.  Planescape Torment isn't really challenged as an RPG,  even though the game is mostly dialogue.  Fallout 1 and 2 were both completeable without entering combat even once,  they aren't challenged either.

The problem is,  and Mass Effect is a good example,  when other types of games are being defined as RPG's because there's dialogue in it.  The majority of ME2's gameplay is shooting things,  from a standard TPS interface.  The dialogue portions are pretty much throw-away.

As I've said before,  no matter how you approach the dialogue,  it doesn't matter.  Everyone likes you the same,  you get the same results,  all you get is a differenet dialogue soudbyte.  The world itself takes no notice,  you'll never follow a different path or have a different relationship with an NPC.  You can be reinstated as a Specter or not,  and it makes no difference at all in the game which you choose,  to the point where you'll even keep introducing yourself as a former Specter,  the decision was so meaningless.

So there aren't any real decisions to be made,  unlike the earlier mentioned games,  no paths open or close,  no relationships change.  It makes about as much difference in the direction of the game as pressing a button repeatedly during a Final Fantasy cutscene,  you're going to get the same result no matter how you approach things.

So even by virtue of the dialogue defintion,  Mass Effect still isn't an RPG because it still doesn't actually do anything.

[littlezack]

Gatt9 wrote...


As I've said before,  no matter how you approach the dialogue,  it doesn't matter.  Everyone likes you the same,  you get the same results,  all you get is a differenet dialogue soudbyte.  The world itself takes no notice,  you'll never follow a different path or have a different relationship with an NPC.  You can be reinstated as a Specter or not,  and it makes no difference at all in the game which you choose,  to the point where you'll even keep introducing yourself as a former Specter,  the decision was so meaningless.

While I think you're exaggerating, even if you're not - aren't most, or at least a big chunk of RPGs, like that anyway? RPGs like Final Fantasy, Wild Arms, Lost Odyssey, so forth and so on. There are plenty of RPGs that don't allow for any variation in character whatsoever, that don't allow for any choices in dialogue. There are dungeon crawlers like Evolution and Grandia Xtreme that spend 95% of their time in combat and have barebones story to surround it. And they're RPGs.

[Bostur]

Roleplaying game, a game where you play a role.

cRPG a game where success is based on the character abilities instead of player abilities.

Often a cRPG is not a roleplaying game at all, and thats where a lot of the confusion stems from. Early cRPGs were tactical games with progression, but they were not roleplaying games. The stats defined that genre not roleplaying.

I wouldn't call any of the ME games RPGs by any of the definitions. As in all video games it doesn't have any roleplaying. It has storyline yes, but storyline is not enough for roleplaying, and its probably impossible to make software to take on the role of a gamemaster.


An adventure game is not a game where you have an adventure. An adventure game is a game with very specific gameplay mechanics. A computer RPG is not a roleplaying game, its a game with very specific gameplay mechanics. A definition is not always in the words.
At this age of time we probably need better terms for these genres.

[SpEcIaLRyAn]

Why do you all insist games be labeled with a genre and analyzed to death? You all spend more time debating over "whats an RPG" and "what isn't an RPG" than actually enjoying the games for what they are. Since the basis of this topic is is Mass Effect is an RPG or not.You all remind me of the Citadel council. Held back by debate.

"What do you expect from a politician" ~Commander Shepard.

[Bostur]

SpEcIaLRyAn wrote...

Why do you all insist games be labeled with a genre and analyzed to death? You all spend more time debating over "whats an RPG" and "what isn't an RPG" than actually enjoying the games for what they are. Since the basis of this topic is is Mass Effect is an RPG or not.You all remind me of the Citadel council. Held back by debate.

"What do you expect from a politician" ~Commander Shepard.

Sometimes when looking at the cover of a game box, or reading an interview with a games developer, marketing terms are all we have.

Someone who doesn't like shooters but love RPGs probably wouldn't enjoy ME2 for instance.

When ME3 developers say that the game will have more RPG elements, what exactly does that mean? It's hardly turn based tactical combat. Is it more exploration? More stats? Less player agency? Or is it simply more weapon mods?

[littlezack]

Bostur wrote...

At this age of time we probably need better terms for these genres.

...why?

Why do we need to rigidly define...everything? Nobody, except the most obsessive of people, really cares what games or movies or anything is classified as. People don't go see AC/DC because it's Rock, they go see AC/DC because they like how AC/DC sounds. People don't play COD because it's a shooter, they play it because they like playing COD. It's like this friend I used to have, who listened to metal all the time, and divided each and every genre - like fifty of 'em - into a separate folder. It's METAL. Goregrind, Factory, whatever - it's METAL.

It's the most inane thing you can imagine. People like Gatt act like God descended from on high one day and said 'THIS IS AN RPG', like it's written in stone somewhere, like it's a fact. But in reality, for every hard, fast rule you can make up about it has some exception to the rule. Probably a lot of exceptions. You can spend the rest of your natural born days arguing this, and you'll never reach a definition, because there is no hard defintion. Nor does their need to be.

There are only two categories of games - ones you like, and ones you don't like. That's it.

[Varen Spectre]

Whatever666343431431654324 wrote...

So we are all talking past each other. The only thing that confuses me is why we continue to do so. Who are we trying to convince and for what purpose? The games are not going to be re-categorised.

Mmm, I can only speak for myself...  

All I am saying is that I am not very keen on accepting this... desire (?) to redefine or point out that RPG as game genre is not about "stats" and all those other "traditional" game mechanics and elements that are or at least used to be heavily applied in games classified as RPGs... but (only?) about strong and branching story, choices and consequences, conversations, etc... 

I mean I understand this point of view. The supporters of this approach (OP may not necessarily be one of them) are to large degree right. The bulk of "roleplaying" is indeed accomplished by giving player options to interact in a way he wants to. And yes, the story, the characters, emotions, freedom of choice, etc. are by far the most important elements that make or break the game... At least for me.

My problem is though... that if I go by the definition that, indeed, only the story, choices and consequences, characters, conversations, etc. matter (I am not sure about the combat though - I don't see many posters talking about the role of combat in RPGs despite the fact that it plays big role in Mass Effect and Casey mentions it very often as one of his "pillars of Bioware game" as well) and only these elements make RPGs...

... than I am affraid that I will end up with genre that tells me too little about the games that are supposed to be a part of it. I mean, do you, guys, really want a genre like that?

By this proposed definition of RPGs there could virtually be games that play like platformers, strategies, sport games, action games, racing games, etc. and providing that they will have the abovementioned features (and combat, if people insist on combat as well), they all will be RPGs. There could be a game that will have lot of "traditional RPG elements" and a game that will have none and they both will be classified as RPGs. Do we really want a "classification" like this? Do we need a system like this?

Also, I am aware of the fact that even "traditional system" is not perfect. To the contrary, very few "RPGs" actually have all elements that are present in the genre. Moreover, many games from other genres have them too (though, depending on the perspective, it could be said about all genres). That's why I perceive them as "tresholds" which must be met in sufficient degree. And... that's also why I am open to "hybrids", because there might be a situation that a game will meet all the "RPG" criteria but due to strong presence of other elements it will be too different from anything that was classified as "RPGs" in the past. 

But IMO none of that prevented the RPG genre from serving as a decent indicator of what games labeled with such name were supposed to be about. Could the proposed system do the same?

One last point I would like to adress is the fact that games are evolving ... I understand it and I am aware that the old criteria might not be that useful anymore. However, before making any changes, I would recommend to observe whether the games indeed has changed that much that "redefinitions" of genres are needed and whether the use of sub-genres would not be sufficient. Or... alternatively, whether the creation of new genre would not be the best solution.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Also as for the answer who will decide this "dispute"... I think it's pretty obvious. It will be industry itself - the publishers, big gaming magazines, reviewers, the marketing departments and most importantly, the millions of players who will get used to whatever the "RPG" will mean in their era. ¯\\__/¯  

Modifié par Varen Spectre, 20 août 2011 - 05:35 .

[Bostur]

littlezack wrote...

Bostur wrote...

At this age of time we probably need better terms for these genres.

...why?

Why do we need to rigidly define...everything? Nobody, except the most obsessive of people, really cares what games or movies or anything is classified as. People don't go see AC/DC because it's Rock, they go see AC/DC because they like how AC/DC sounds. People don't play COD because it's a shooter, they play it because they like playing COD. It's like this friend I used to have, who listened to metal all the time, and divided each and every genre - like fifty of 'em - into a separate folder. It's METAL. Goregrind, Factory, whatever - it's METAL.

It's the most inane thing you can imagine. People like Gatt act like God descended from on high one day and said 'THIS IS AN RPG', like it's written in stone somewhere, like it's a fact. But in reality, for every hard, fast rule you can make up about it has some exception to the rule. Probably a lot of exceptions. You can spend the rest of your natural born days arguing this, and you'll never reach a definition, because there is no hard defintion. Nor does their need to be.

There are only two categories of games - ones you like, and ones you don't like. That's it.

Well, personally I can't afford to buy every game that gets released. That means I can't try them all and see if I enjoy them. Talking about games, music, books or any kind of art is fun in itself, but it also helps us decide what we might enjoy. It's not possible to read every book ever made, or listen to every piece of music ever made so sharing experiences can help. We can not share our experiences however unless we have a language that describes it. The language can't be accurate but it can relate some concepts.

There are thousands of categories of art. How about the stuff that I don't like but may like if I get used to it. Or the stuff that I kind of like occasionally. Or the stuff that makes me exhilerated. Or the stuff that I like if I am in a certain mood. Our personal experiences add into these aproximations of genres that can help us decide what to buy or consume. It may also limit us and make us less inclined to get new experiences.

[SpEcIaLRyAn]

Bostur wrote...

SpEcIaLRyAn wrote...

Why do you all insist games be labeled with a genre and analyzed to death? You all spend more time debating over "whats an RPG" and "what isn't an RPG" than actually enjoying the games for what they are. Since the basis of this topic is is Mass Effect is an RPG or not.You all remind me of the Citadel council. Held back by debate.

"What do you expect from a politician" ~Commander Shepard.

Sometimes when looking at the cover of a game box, or reading an interview with a games developer, marketing terms are all we have.

Someone who doesn't like shooters but love RPGs probably wouldn't enjoy ME2 for instance.

When ME3 developers say that the game will have more RPG elements, what exactly does that mean? It's hardly turn based tactical combat. Is it more exploration? More stats? Less player agency? Or is it simply more weapon mods?

I have no problem with people not enjoying a game I like. But what's the point in b*tching about why the game is an RPG or not. I say if you enjoyed Mass Effect 1 and 2 then buying 3 is a no brainer as it shouldn't matter what the developers say. Unless they all the sudden they tried to make the game on rails than thats a reason to be concerned. Why label the game? You don't like the game then you don't like it. Oh yeah, maybe I should debate about why I don't like it and pick every little word apart. At the end of the day its all about fun. If your not having fun playing these games then maybe it's time to find either a new game to play or find a new hobby alltogether.

In short lables don't mean sh*t!

[littlezack]

Bostur wrote...

littlezack wrote...

Bostur wrote...

At this age of time we probably need better terms for these genres.

...why?

Why do we need to rigidly define...everything? Nobody, except the most obsessive of people, really cares what games or movies or anything is classified as. People don't go see AC/DC because it's Rock, they go see AC/DC because they like how AC/DC sounds. People don't play COD because it's a shooter, they play it because they like playing COD. It's like this friend I used to have, who listened to metal all the time, and divided each and every genre - like fifty of 'em - into a separate folder. It's METAL. Goregrind, Factory, whatever - it's METAL.

It's the most inane thing you can imagine. People like Gatt act like God descended from on high one day and said 'THIS IS AN RPG', like it's written in stone somewhere, like it's a fact. But in reality, for every hard, fast rule you can make up about it has some exception to the rule. Probably a lot of exceptions. You can spend the rest of your natural born days arguing this, and you'll never reach a definition, because there is no hard defintion. Nor does their need to be.

There are only two categories of games - ones you like, and ones you don't like. That's it.

Well, personally I can't afford to buy every game that gets released. That means I can't try them all and see if I enjoy them. Talking about games, music, books or any kind of art is fun in itself, but it also helps us decide what we might enjoy. It's not possible to read every book ever made, or listen to every piece of music ever made so sharing experiences can help. We can not share our experiences however unless we have a language that describes it. The language can't be accurate but it can relate some concepts.

There are thousands of categories of art. How about the stuff that I don't like but may like if I get used to it. Or the stuff that I kind of like occasionally. Or the stuff that makes me exhilerated. Or the stuff that I like if I am in a certain mood. Our personal experiences add into these aproximations of genres that can help us decide what to buy or consume. It may also limit us and make us less inclined to get new experiences.

I don't see how excessive labeling helps with any of that, though.

It's not even like Mass Effect proclaims 'RPG' in big letters on the front of the box. I've yet to see any store that has a dedicated RPG section for videogames. I can only speak for myself, but I wasn't drawn to Mass Effect because it claimed to be an RPG, but because, from the scenes and videos I saw, it looked like my cup of tea. If they'd never called it RPG, I'd still dig it.

[Il Divo]

Gatt9 wrote...

That's never been what's at issue.  Planescape Torment isn't really challenged as an RPG,  even though the game is mostly dialogue.  Fallout 1 and 2 were both completeable without entering combat even once,  they aren't challenged either.


As I've said before,  no matter how you approach the dialogue,  it doesn't matter.  Everyone likes you the same,  you get the same results,  all you get is a differenet dialogue soudbyte.  The world itself takes no notice,  you'll never follow a different path or have a different relationship with an NPC.  You can be reinstated as a Specter or not,  and it makes no difference at all in the game which you choose,  to the point where you'll even keep introducing yourself as a former Specter,  the decision was so meaningless.

So there aren't any real decisions to be made,  unlike the earlier mentioned games,  no paths open or close,  no relationships change.  It makes about as much difference in the direction of the game as pressing a button repeatedly during a Final Fantasy cutscene,  you're going to get the same result no matter how you approach things.

So even by virtue of the dialogue defintion,  Mass Effect still isn't an RPG because it still doesn't actually do anything.

Kill or spare Malon? Romance or ignore Jack? Blow up the Collector Base or keep it? These are decisions.

Yes, it fits in with the RPG definition, by virtue of dialogue. Unfortunately, you make the mistake of assuming that this is an absolutel "It is or it isn't", when it's really a scale. No game either features real decisions or does not feature real decisions. Even in Planescape, I can point out examples.

I also find your attempt at comparing Mass Effect's level interaction to that of Final Fantasy to be non-sensical. The comparison does not work. You are not a passive observer in Mass Effect.

Modifié par Il Divo, 20 août 2011 - 05:00 .

[Bostur]

SpEcIaLRyAn wrote...
I have no problem with people not enjoying a game I like. But what's the point in b*tching about why the game is an RPG or not. I say if you enjoyed Mass Effect 1 and 2 then buying 3 is a no brainer as it shouldn't matter what the developers say. Unless they all the sudden they tried to make the game on rails than thats a reason to be concerned. Why label the game? You don't like the game then you don't like it. Oh yeah, maybe I should debate about why I don't like it and pick every little word apart. At the end of the day its all about fun. If your not having fun playing these games then maybe it's time to find either a new game to play or find a new hobby alltogether.

In short lables don't mean sh*t!

I enjoyed ME1 and ME2, but that doesn't mean ME3 will be just as good. There is a very recent example of a Bioware game that I thought was a no-brainer to buy, but ended up being deeply dissappointing. ;-)

I don't understand why it is so wrong to talk about things we like. Why can't we discuss these topics and share it? If I want to reccommend a game to a friend, having a language to describe the good and bad parts is pretty important.

[Il Divo]

littlezack wrote...

Gatt9 wrote...


As I've said before,  no matter how you approach the dialogue,  it doesn't matter.  Everyone likes you the same,  you get the same results,  all you get is a differenet dialogue soudbyte.  The world itself takes no notice,  you'll never follow a different path or have a different relationship with an NPC.  You can be reinstated as a Specter or not,  and it makes no difference at all in the game which you choose,  to the point where you'll even keep introducing yourself as a former Specter,  the decision was so meaningless.

While I think you're exaggerating, even if you're not - aren't most, or at least a big chunk of RPGs, like that anyway? RPGs like Final Fantasy, Wild Arms, Lost Odyssey, so forth and so on. There are plenty of RPGs that don't allow for any variation in character whatsoever, that don't allow for any choices in dialogue. There are dungeon crawlers like Evolution and Grandia Xtreme that spend 95% of their time in combat and have barebones story to surround it. And they're RPGs.

They're entirely like that. He's assuming that the narrative must change at the fundamental level to be a "real" decision, and that's not the case. Killing Kaidan or Ashley is intended to be an emotional moment, and that's it. Leaving Morte on the Pillar of Skulls or sparing him is a similar scenario. Planescape doesn't feature 3+ different narratives to account for the player's decisions. You're able to perform minor alterations along the way.

[littlezack]

Bostur wrote...

SpEcIaLRyAn wrote...
I have no problem with people not enjoying a game I like. But what's the point in b*tching about why the game is an RPG or not. I say if you enjoyed Mass Effect 1 and 2 then buying 3 is a no brainer as it shouldn't matter what the developers say. Unless they all the sudden they tried to make the game on rails than thats a reason to be concerned. Why label the game? You don't like the game then you don't like it. Oh yeah, maybe I should debate about why I don't like it and pick every little word apart. At the end of the day its all about fun. If your not having fun playing these games then maybe it's time to find either a new game to play or find a new hobby alltogether.

In short lables don't mean sh*t!

I enjoyed ME1 and ME2, but that doesn't mean ME3 will be just as good. There is a very recent example of a Bioware game that I thought was a no-brainer to buy, but ended up being deeply dissappointing. ;-)

I don't understand why it is so wrong to talk about things we like. Why can't we discuss these topics and share it? If I want to reccommend a game to a friend, having a language to describe the good and bad parts is pretty important.

Calling it an RPG doesn't help that language, though. If I told my friend he should buy Mass Effect because it's an RPG, he'd probably ask for some clarification on that, because calling it an RPG doesn't tell him really anything about what the game offers. So you'd be better of just, from the start, telling him what's good about the game.