528 réponses à ce sujet

[Dionkey]

Someone With Mass wrote...

Oh, no. The co-founder of BioWare doesn't think they're making RPGs. That makes every game they'll make from here on bad, right?

No one said that, it's the people on these forums who keep defending that these games are RPG's when they're clearly not. Pretty much everyone who complains here likes the games, they just don't think they're RPG's. If we didn't like the games, why would be on this forum, actively participating?

[Mr.House]

Dionkey wrote...

Someone With Mass wrote...

Oh, no. The co-founder of BioWare doesn't think they're making RPGs. That makes every game they'll make from here on bad, right?

No one said that, it's the people on these forums who keep defending that these games are RPG's when they're clearly not. Pretty much everyone who complains here likes the games, they just don't think they're RPG's. If we didn't like the games, why would be on this forum, actively participating?

DA games are rpgs, ME a very light rpg but it's a rpg.

[Marionetten]

Someone With Mass wrote...

Oh, no. The co-founder of BioWare doesn't think they're making RPGs. That makes every game they'll make from here on bad, right?

It's not about that as much as it's about their new focus. How they want to tone down the whole RPG schtick as that's clearly just for nerds ( LOL NUMBERS, AM I RIGHT!? ) and focus on things going boom as that's more marketable. I honestly find the whole ordeal utterly embarrassing. It's almost as if BioWare is afraid to cater to their RPG audience as that will make the mythical Call of Duty audience view them as less hip or something.

[Dionkey]

Mr.House wrote...

Dionkey wrote...

Someone With Mass wrote...

Oh, no. The co-founder of BioWare doesn't think they're making RPGs. That makes every game they'll make from here on bad, right?

No one said that, it's the people on these forums who keep defending that these games are RPG's when they're clearly not. Pretty much everyone who complains here likes the games, they just don't think they're RPG's. If we didn't like the games, why would be on this forum, actively participating?

DA games are rpgs, ME a very light rpg but it's a rpg.

As this has been argued a million times before, this is totally subjective. 

[Il Divo]

Siansonea II wrote...

Bickering again, I see.

I really don't care whether a game is called an "RPG" or not. I don't play labels, I play games. I want games with compelling characters, engaging stories, lots of replay value and combat that I can get though quickly and with minimal effort (SO don't care about combat). I do like being able to customize my player character to as large an extent as possible, and I don't mind a return to some degree of complexity in customizing the proficiencies of a character, especially non-combat proficiencies. I also like being able to customize equipment and things of that sort. But those things are never the point of a game for me, it's always about the characters and the story. But if I can have it all, I want it all. If I have to choose, I'll take characters and story.

This. And it pretty much sums up why Jade Empire is one of my top 3 Bioware games. Quick and easy combat, with a quality setting/narrative/characters to back it up. Minimalistic where it needs to be, and goes all out in the right places.

[Rovay]

Dionkey wrote...

 If we didn't like the games, why would be on this forum, actively participating?

Because we love to b*tch, moan, whine and generaly argue with anyone who doesn't share the same views as we do?

At least that's the mentality I've been getting ever since joining.

[Mister Mida]

Yadda yadda yadda. Nothing new. And if Bioware really wants to move away from (story-driven) RPG's, there is or will be a replacement.

[Marionetten]

Rojahar wrote...

What does it really matter if a game is an RPG or not? There are people who would say BG2 wasn't an RPG because it doesn't work like Final Fantasy. Everyone seems to have their own definition of what an RPG is, and really, what does the label matter? Do you really like all RPGs, and hate all non-RPGs, like the strict label will magically tell you the quality of the game?

It doesn't. But if a game has exceedingly shallow gameplay I'm obviously not going to enjoy it as much as older and deeper games. And before someone even tries to pull the nostalgia card I'd suggest checking out the amount of classes, races, spells and items found in say Baldur's Gate II: Shadows of Amn and compare that to Dragon Age II. Go right ahead.

Me, I want a proper RPG. Not another RPG-lite.

[Dionkey]

Rovay wrote...

Dionkey wrote...

 If we didn't like the games, why would be on this forum, actively participating?

Because we love to b*tch, moan, whine and generaly argue with anyone who doesn't share the same views as we do?

At least that's the mentality I've been getting ever since joining.

B*tching and moaning is not the same as criticizing. It's the fact that any criticism gets shot down here and then is just labelled as b*tching and moaning, it's annoying frankly. I loved ME1 with the passion of 1 million suns, so I am simply giving my opinion on how to make it better.

[EternalPink]

darklordpocky-san wrote...

Other than that, RPGs require a certain level of time consumption not present in most games. You can't just, pick-up-and-play your average RPG (unless maybe a handheld one. oh, the irony); and casual gamers tend to go for that game they want to play once or twice in the afternoon, after work to blow off some steam.

So either the hardcore market is shrinking, or we're all walking around with our heads up are arses. . . both outlooks are grim indeed.

Hopefully we see more risk takers in the next generation. I definitely want to see more gems like Valkyria Chronicles, Demon's Souls, Lost Odyssey, Witcher 2, Dragon Age: Origins, etc. etc.

I would disagree with this, its not that the casual gamers are no longer interested in RPG's but that the casual gamer has a huge variety of MMO's to choose from (a lot of which are free to play) which all to greater or lesser extent tick all the RPG boxes for them.

We've seen the same with FPS games as well, now they come with a single player campaign but the majority of the gaming time is done on the net in multiplayer mode which RPG's struggle to compete with since they are single player and while some have attempted multiplayer (never winter nights for instance) you already have to be quite into the game to venture online in it and if your going to do that why not go straight to a MMO?

When a RPG game manages to do multiplayer while being sufficently different to the current MMO formula we will most likely see the genre make a come back.

[Il Divo]

Rojahar wrote...

What does it really matter if a game is an RPG or not? There are people who would say BG2 wasn't an RPG because it doesn't work like Final Fantasy. Everyone seems to have their own definition of what an RPG is, and really, what does the label matter? Do you really like all RPGs, and hate all non-RPGs, like the strict label will magically tell you the quality of the game?

This. The way I see it, genre-labels are a convenient way to describe gameplay if you don't want/are unable to do further research into a purchase. That's really the only purpose in genre labels, as they aren't likely to tell you what you'll love/hate about a game, unless you really dislike a single genre of games.

[nitefyre410]

Yeah so in he conclusion why most are going to arguing over whether Mass Effect is an RPG or not- I'm going to be enjoying finale because at the end of the all I want to to play a damn good game with a good story. Genre Labels are rather pointless

[Il Divo]

Marionetten wrote...

Me, I want a proper RPG. Not another RPG-lite.

Origins aside, that's really all they've made since Jade Empire, unfortunately. If you remove Origins from the entire equation, all Bioware games have steadily been moving away from large stat-focused gameplay to more hybridized approaches.

We had Baldur's Gate, a substantially stat-focused game. Then came Neverwinter Nights, which reduces the party from six to 1-2 (companions) and switched to the 3.0 rule-set. KotOR increased party size, but also drastically limited the number of classes/spells/feats. Jade Empire didn't rely on a focused class system, but provided style points and basic attributes. Mass Effect was an action-RPG, with an extremely basic inventory attached. Then ME2 condensed the stat tree and removed stat-based aiming. And DA2 gave companions fixed appearances and gave each class 1-2 weapon sets.

Modifié par Il Divo, 22 août 2011 - 10:45 .

[KenKenpachi]

Dionkey wrote...

Someone With Mass wrote...

Oh, no. The co-founder of BioWare doesn't think they're making RPGs. That makes every game they'll make from here on bad, right?

No one said that, it's the people on these forums who keep defending that these games are RPG's when they're clearly not. Pretty much everyone who complains here likes the games, they just don't think they're RPG's. If we didn't like the games, why would be on this forum, actively participating?

Well some people do like to ****.

As to some comments on Bioware is turning on the fans.

Not its not, just those of you from the BG era. I mean Bioware has been pretty much saying take a hike in a nice round about way. Look at the way they answer questions and complaints from that group. You have to be dense not to see it. Course they can't just say it openly. As to RPGs...I've seen so many topics on "What is an RPG" and minus a few sub sects or a handful of people we never do agree. Ever. Now if a game type can't come up with a common meaning...is it really a game type anymore, or a story/game play mechanic?

Back when the Term RPG was coined, we had limited interfaces, and it was an act of god if a game was made up of more than some blocks. So some may have a problem with what he's saying, but is it false?

Even among bioware gamers we have sub groups that say such and such is an RPG. DA:2 gets both love and flak on here. BG the CRPGers love, and short of DA:O and for a small few KOTOR, don't see the others as RPG's the console players love Mass Effect, but hate BG, Scifi fans love KOTOR and **** about ME:2 but don't touch the rest.

I mean do you see these issues in the RTS or shooter Community? Even after all the updates, changes, and features to that gaming group? Hardly. RPGers are a huge dysfunctional group. If you asked a CRPG a JRPG, a Shooter RPGer, an Action Adventure RPGer, what an RPG was, you'll find little more than "story" as a common answer, and as this forum has shown endlessly, they would all kill each other, or shove the others game type out of a window.

With that can you say they are relevant? Its like some saying stat heavy gameplay is a must, I started out with the Final Fantasy games, and I dissagree 100%, the less complex in that region the better, so long as you have them.

Modifié par KenKenpachi, 22 août 2011 - 10:46 .

[Medhia Nox]

@Rojahar: it actually doesn't matter - but I bet if I look on my ME box it'll say "RPG" somewhere on it. When I play an RPG I have certain expectations - the same for when I play an RTS or FPS or simulation, etc, etc.

If I went to the bookstore wanting to read a great fantasy novel - I would not go to the romance section (despite them being fantasies of a different sort). And - if I went to the fantasy section and picked out a book called "The Lord of the Rings" I would probably expect some fantasy races - some magic - some morality - typically fantasy topics.

Now - if I read this "Lord of the Rings" book - and it turns out to be a woman deciding between two available bachelors looking to marry her and put a "ring" on her finger - and her father was overbearing and was the "Lord" trying to force her to decide... and there were no fantasy races... or magic of any sort... then I would feel very unhappy. I would hope you would too.

====

Now, I don't hold any real expectations for CRPGs... because I play tabletop and CRPGs are a cheap imitation. I simply go through them to get a cheap junk food fix when I can't get the gang together for my tabletop campaign.

So - I really don't have these betrayal issues some people have. But I do respect where they're coming from - and I feel that their opinions are valid.

Modifié par Medhia Nox, 22 août 2011 - 10:37 .

[Marionetten]

Il Divo wrote...

Origins aside, that's really all they've made since Jade Empire, unfortunately. If you remove Origins from the entire equation, all Bioware games have steadily been moving away from large stat-focused gameplay to more hybridized approaches.

You're absolutely right and even Origins was a bit of a mess in that department. Regenerating health, horrible character development system and mediocre encounter design all plagued that game. But it was a try and I genuinely applaud BioWare for it. I just wish they would have kept trying instead of... well, Dragon Age II. They had a decent enough foundation and they should have kept working on it for something truly great. I know they have talent and that's exactly why I'm so disappointed.

[Gatt9]

Bioware says RPG's are less relevant,  Ubisoft says Strategy games aren't worth making anymore.  The only thing left is Shooters,  they cut all the other genres out years ago.

This is why we're in a headlong rush into a market collapse,  you'd think they'd get a clue when the industry is posting double-digit shrinkage.  July was > 25% year over year.

You can't make every game a Shooter and think that the market will continue to sell units.  People get really bored of the same game over and over really fast.

As far as RPG's being "Less relevant",  not even remotely close.  Just because some shooter added an inventory doesn't mean RPG's are now dead,  it means the shooter added an inventory because it made that shooter a better game with the direction it was taken in.  Ironically,  the less relevant DAO outsold Mass Effect,  and from what I've seen outsold ME2 as well,  which makes me wonder how they got "Less relevant" out of that.  I'm guessing it's because EA's board of directors doesn't feel that anything except Shooters are relevant,  no matter what gamers enjoy.

So anyone else still wondering why I keep saying the Industry is headed for a crash,  why I keep saying the ME series isn't an RPG anymore, and why I keep saying Bioware has no interest in making RPG's?  This is why.

You can have any game you like,  so long as the only game you like is a Shooter.

[Il Divo]

Marionetten wrote...

You're absolutely right and even Origins was a bit of a mess in that department. Regenerating health, horrible character development system and mediocre encounter design all plagued that game. But it was a try and I genuinely applaud BioWare for it. I just wish they would have kept trying instead of... well, Dragon Age II. They had a decent enough foundation and they should have kept working on it for something truly great. I know they have talent and that's exactly why I'm so disappointed.

Agreed. In ME2's case, I was actually more pleased (mostly because the predecessor felt like it possessed awkward gameplay). However, with Dragon Age:Origins, it appealed to my "old school, nerd-out RPG side". DA2 really was a step down from a gameplay perspective. And many changes (art style, voiced protagonist) didn't feel necessary.
 
Imo, if they wanted the game to feel more brutal/gritty, they should have increased the emphasis on execution blows instead of speeding up combat. Something similar to the Assassin's Creed style counter-kills, which are quite well done.

Modifié par Il Divo, 22 août 2011 - 10:45 .

[Gatt9]

littlezack wrote...

sbvera13 wrote...

Arppis wrote...

Yeah. Why use the dices when we can do everything in "real time"? We only use dices in PnP games because that is the only way to do things in those games.

Perhaps because modern fans actually enjoy doing that way? Perhaps because we enjoy NOT doing things in real-time because we havea chance to sit and think it over, and then be gratified when a  well formed plan comes to fruition?

Most traditional RPGs aren't like that, though. Nine times out of ten, defeating the enemy is simply a matter of being at the right level and having the right weaponry for the job. Occasionally you'll come across an enemy that requires a certain tactic, but these are usually fairly obvious and easy to exploit. It's rare that you'll find an enemy so complex and difficult that you actually need to come up with a real strategy to win.

On the other hand, just because a game is in real-time doesn't automatically make it stupid or button-mashing. Being able to formulate plans and adapt to situations on the fly takes some skill, too. Any idiot can go into, say, Halo and start shooting crap, but knowing the battlefield, understanding the strengths and weaknesses of each weapon, anticipating the movements of other people...these require some tactics.

Several points to make...

1.  Dice are used because the Character's ability to succeed and fail is independent of your ability,  this is why the word Role is in Roleplaying game,  because it's *not* about your abilities,  it's about your character's.

2.  If your DM has crafted a game where you don't need tactics,  then the problem is your DM.  Nearly every critter is designed such that it requires tactics to approach,  the majority of them aren't meant to be a face-to-face fight.  In fact,  Dragon magazine used to run full articles on how ultra-high level PC's could easily be wiped out with the proper use of Kobolds if the PC's weren't able to strategize.

3.  Most RTS's can be quickly and easily completed by throwing a large bundle of units at the opponent and watching.  It's very,  very,  rare that tactics exist in an RTS.  Total War is a good example of an exception,  I've had many battles where tactics yielded victory where brute force would fail.

[Da_Lion_Man]

That statement annoys me. I like old-school RPGs more. =(

[Bluko]

Ah an article created specifically for hoopla. I didn't actually read a direct quote from Greg saying "RPGs are becoming less relevant" in the main article so yeah...

What he said was "It's becoming less relevant in and of itself." And I'd be inclined agree.

Pure RPGs which basically involve you solely managing stats and items have very much so become a thing of the past. However that does mean RPGs are dying. If anything it's the opposite. The thing is most people enjoy RPG elements in their games. However this needs to coupled with gameplay that is exciting and fun to play. What's been happening is that RPGs have merged with other games to create new and better experiences. Instead of just having Vanilla or Chocolate you can now have both at the same time. Which is fine by me. 

Although this is a bit unfortunate as the purists are likely finding it harder enjoy their respective genres. But I think it's reasonable to assume purists are usually a very small group and that catering to them specifically is no longer feasible.

So to be clear here I don't have a problem with Bioware making more action-oriented games. I just have a problem when they start cutting out RPG elements because they don't have the knowledge or experience to incorporate such in other genres of games. Which is basically what happened with both ME2 and DA2. The thing is when they do this they end up creating games that are too shallow for their own good.

I don't think anyone has a problem with the fact that the shooting is better in ME2 in that headshots do more damage. What many folks have a problem with is the depth added by things like inventory and such are missing when there really is no excusable reason other then BW doesn't know how to incorporate an inventory system with a more conventional shooter.

Bioware does not have the experience of making action oriented games to really know how yet to make gameplay that is both action packed but has lots of depth through things like skill trees. While ME3 is definitely taking steps in the right direction I'm not sure it's enough. Frankly I believe Bioware is taking the wrong approach and in the process is damaging the quality of their games in the process of learning. What Bioware should be doing is slowly making their games more action based, but retain and refine the traditional RPG elements so that they can work together.

Look I think most can admit ME1 was a bit heavy handed in trying to remain an RPG. However the solution was not to scrap the game. What needed to happen was things like the inventory needed to be fixed and updated, but not removed. Look it's okay to remove small things and I doubt many people would complain had Frictionless Materials been removed as an mof. But when your solution is to remove the inventory entirely that's just shoddy workmanship. I'm sorry but it is. You do not cut off someone's leg because it is infected. You treat it with medicine. You only cut off a limb if it is beyond treatment and as a last resort.


One final comment. I'm glad at least Bioware recognizes that story is not exclusive to RPGs. Story and RPGs have nothing to do with one another. Any game can have a good story and it's reassuring Bioware knows this at least.

However I do wish to warn Bioware that while generally your games have good stories you can't rely on story to sell a game. You have to have solid gameplay first and foremost. Reality is while most people appreciate good storytelling... that's not why most people play video games. And also the big selling point for Bioware games has been less the stories (which are usually pretty simple) and more-so the memorable characters.

So what I wish to impress here is don't go making different games with the expectation that just because you have a solid story and interesting characters that people will buy it. If you don't have solid gameplay it will not matter how much dialogue you have. Of course I'm not suggesting that you forget about the story. I'm just saying that if you rely solely on stories and characters to keep selling games your probably going to end up a creek without a paddle.

Modifié par Bluko, 22 août 2011 - 10:52 .

[sevach]

A great story is not enough, it needs to be an (highly) interactive story where you can choose how you play.

I feel that, instead of improving this interactiveness area, making it even more interactive, Bioware has been taking steps back and making things more linear with extra emphasis on action.

[Urazz]

I pretty much play games for their story and/or their gameplay. I rather enjoy the fact that bioware is trying to cut out the more tiring aspects of RPGs.