164 réponses à ce sujet

[Walker White]

tetrisblock4x1 

Look at Fallout. Then look back at Mass Effect. Then look at Fallout 2. Then look back at Mass Effect. Then look at System shock 2. Then Mass Effect. Then Deus Ex 1. And back again. I've played enough RPGs to know what Mass Effect is missing, have you?

It never fails toamaze me that the people who start these "what are an RPG" threads have barely played RPGs.  All of those example are from similar games made in a six year window.  And surprise, surprise many of them are from the 90s - the dark age of table top RPGs.

Look at Toon.  Look at Fate.  Those are actually RPGs.  Why cannot we have computer RPGs like that?  Because to do it, we have to break this crippling mold of the cRPG genre. And that is what BioWare is doing.  If you want to play one of those 90s throwbacks, there are plenty of companies doing that.  But those of us who still remember the promise of computer games from the 70s and 80s would prefer not to be constrained by the technical and design limitations of the 90s.

[TwistedComplex]

tetrisblock4x1 wrote...

Look at Fallout. Then look back at Mass Effect. Then look at Fallout 2. Then look back at Mass Effect. Then look at System shock 2. Then Mass Effect. Then Deus Ex 1. And back again. I've played enough RPGs to know what Mass Effect is missing, have you?

THE MAKO!! Wait no, no, no... ugh... Krogan romance option! WAIT, no thats not right... Let me think....

I got it!


MULTIPLAYER!!! 

[Walker White]

As has been pointed out by several people in this thread, many of these BioWare haters want narrative-light (narrative is distinct from story and mean authorial voice, not player voice), open world experiences. This is the type of game that BioWare has never really been known for; that is Bethesda's realm. Since Bethesda already makes games for that market, why is there this desire to hold BioWare back as well?

[AlexXIV]

Walker White wrote...

As has been pointed out by several people in this thread, many of these BioWare haters want narrative-light (narrative is distinct from story and mean authorial voice, not player voice), open world experiences. This is the type of game that BioWare has never really been known for; that is Bethesda's realm. Since Bethesda already makes games for that market, why is there this desire to hold BioWare back as well?

Because Bethesda is not making them fast enough.

[Walker White]

jreezy 
I agree with everything before the snipping but this caught my attention since I'm studying game design now. Like you said, when designing a game, genre should never come into play as you go about developing a game. It causes unnecessary hindrances to a designer's creative process. Make a game how you want to make it without worrying about, as you said, arbitrary titles. BioWare's design philosophy seems like Game Design 101 to me.

Part of the reason you see less of it is that game development is so damn expensive these days.  Studios cannot afford to take risks.  Not fitting in these clear buckets makes the game a harder sell, and that is scary.  As it is, BioWare games do not sell as well as Bethesda games.  Go to GDCand you will hear talks about how innovation is not financially viable.

This is different in the indie space and mobile space, where the costs to develop are cheaper.  There is a reason you see far more innovation on Kongregate than in the console space these days.  Because you can afford the smaller audience to innovate and try new things while you build an audience.

[bleetman]

Alex_SM wrote...

Some times making a different choice doesn't even change the answer you get from the npc.

I feel everything is exactly the same playing full paragon, full renegade or something in between.

Uhm, right.

They're not, but ok.

[TomY90]

Walker White wrote...

jreezy 
I agree with everything before the snipping but this caught my attention since I'm studying game design now. Like you said, when designing a game, genre should never come into play as you go about developing a game. It causes unnecessary hindrances to a designer's creative process. Make a game how you want to make it without worrying about, as you said, arbitrary titles. BioWare's design philosophy seems like Game Design 101 to me.

Part of the reason you see less of it is that game development is so damn expensive these days.  Studios cannot afford to take risks.  Not fitting in these clear buckets makes the game a harder sell, and that is scary.  As it is, BioWare games do not sell as well as Bethesda games.  Go to GDCand you will hear talks about how innovation is not financially viable.

This is different in the indie space and mobile space, where the costs to develop are cheaper.  There is a reason you see far more innovation on Kongregate than in the console space these days.  Because you can afford the smaller audience to innovate and try new things while you build an audience.

and you got to remember in the end it is a business and no point spending a fortune on a game that won't sell (look at Alan Wake that took years to develop and they only managed to shift half a million copies of it even though it took like 5 years to produce)

But i do agree that no game developer should try to match the criteria of such categories because no game can fit a category exactly (maybe except games like COD and BF3)

[SomeKindaEnigma]

jreezy wrote...

When will you admit that BioWare doesn't adhere to "your" definition of RPG?

That's pretty much all that needs to be said

[AlexXIV]

bleetman wrote...

Alex_SM wrote...

Some times making a different choice doesn't even change the answer you get from the npc.

I feel everything is exactly the same playing full paragon, full renegade or something in between.

Uhm, right.

They're not, but ok.

I give you an example.

Paragon Shep saves the Council, remains Spectre in ME2.

Renegade Shep lets the Council die, loses Spectre status in ME2.

See? Same result.

Or wait a minute ...

[Feanor_II]

Of course ME isn't a pure RPG, never pretended it. The game always has been recognized as an hybrid of shooter and RPG, so it's natural to be a bit lited on RPG features.

There is nothing wrong with it.

Modifié par Feanor_II, 03 décembre 2011 - 04:31 .

[Sebbe1337o]

tetrisblock4x1 deserves the Darwin Prize for being the biggest idiot in the entire galaxy. Wow, it will be hard to find a bigger idiot. He has less IQ than he's got teeth. He's got less IQ than good definitions of RPGs...

Modifié par Sebbe1337o, 03 décembre 2011 - 04:32 .

[Kaiser Shepard]

jreezy wrote...

There's a role that's being played in a game. Sounds like a RPG to me.

I play the role of Marcus Fenix* in the Gears of War series, sounds like another RPG to me.

*And Cole Train for about two-third of a level. Woo!

CptBomBom00 wrote...

DeathDragon185 wrote...

Ok i am going to say it... I felt more immersed in call of duty modern warfare 3 than i did in fallout new vegas*activating aqua shield*

I love FO3, but FONV is a pure spinoff an dnothing more, also why did Bethseda even allowed Obsidian to do FONV, i will never know.

You do realise that New Vegas, unlike its predecessor, was actually designed by a large part of the team that's originally responsible for the series, right? And that it was more of an rpg than the "original" Fallout 3 ever was?

AlexXIV wrote...

bleetman wrote...

Alex_SM wrote...

Some times making a different choice doesn't even change the answer you get from the npc. 

I feel everything is exactly the same playing full paragon, full renegade or something in between.

Uhm, right.

They're not, but ok.

I give you an example.

Paragon Shep saves the Council, remains Spectre in ME2.

Renegade Shep lets the Council die, loses Spectre status in ME2.

See? Same result.

Or wait a minute ...

Said Spectre status has no effect on the game whatsoever. Aside from that, a Renegade Shepard can still get it, and a Paragon Shepard can also deny it.

CHOICE AND CONSEQUENCE!

Modifié par Kaiser Shepard, 03 décembre 2011 - 04:36 .

[Mr.House]

Kaiser Shepard wrote...

jreezy wrote...

There's a role that's being played in a game. Sounds like a RPG to me.

I play the role of Marcus Fenix* in the Gears of War series, sounds like another RPG to me.

*And Cole Train for about two-third of a level. Woo!

Do you make choices? Do you determine your character? Do you really get into the seat of that character?

No. Nice try though.

[slimgrin]

I thought Dr. Greg has been saying this for quite a while now.

[Kaiser Shepard]

Mr.House wrote...

Kaiser Shepard wrote...

jreezy wrote...

There's a role that's being played in a game. Sounds like a RPG to me.

I play the role of Marcus Fenix* in the Gears of War series, sounds like another RPG to me.

*And Cole Train for about two-third of a level. Woo!

Do you make choices? Do you determine your character? Do you really get into the seat of that character?

No. Nice try though.

Yes. About as much as in ME. Ditto.

All ME has over GoW in the choice department is what is essentially a level select system of sorts. The latter series, however, has choices that actually affect the gameplay.

Modifié par Kaiser Shepard, 03 décembre 2011 - 04:52 .

[Zanallen]

Is this a poorly disguised "What is an RPG" thread?

[Someone With Mass]

Kaiser Shepard wrote...
Said Spectre status has no effect on the game whatsoever. Aside from that, a Renegade Shepard can still get it, and a Paragon Shepard can also deny it.

CHOICE AND CONSEQUENCE!

Yes. We know. You've said it a dozen times with different words. You don't think there are any consequences. More than likely because you don't like them so you deny their existence.

Because a choice and a consequence doesn't need to hold the fate of the whole story to actually be a choice and a consequence. Not to mention that it's clear that you expected too much and you have no-one to blame but yourself for setting unrealistic expectations on a video game.

It's getting boring.

If you dislike the game so much, then do us all a favor and don't buy it and stop visiting this forum once the game is out.

Trust me. We can get by without your constant whining.

[PsychoWARD23]

\\_/

I play games because I like them, not because of their supposed genre.

[Dave Exclamation Mark Yognaut]

Someone With Mass wrote...

Kaiser Shepard wrote...
Said Spectre status has no effect on the game whatsoever. Aside from that, a Renegade Shepard can still get it, and a Paragon Shepard can also deny it.

CHOICE AND CONSEQUENCE!

Yes. We know. You've said it a dozen times with different words. You don't think there are any consequences. More than likely because you don't like them so you deny their existence.

Because a choice and a consequence doesn't need to hold the fate of the whole story to actually be a choice and a consequence. Not to mention that it's clear that you expected too much and you have no-one to blame but yourself for setting unrealistic expectations on a video game.

It's getting boring.

If you dislike the game so much, then do us all a favor and don't buy it and stop visiting this forum once the game is out.

Trust me. We can get by without your constant whining.

Yeah, how dare he want RPG in his RPGs? Anyone who expects the narrative in an RPG to behave like an RPG narrative should just gb2codex.

[Jog0907]

PsychoWARD23 wrote...

_/

I play games because I like them, not because of their supposed genre.

+1 beacuse its whats most important in a game, that you like them if you dont then just dont play it. This whole mass effect doesnt conform to my traditional definition of rpg and thus is a bad game is stupid, if anything im happy that bw decided not to go that way and instead experimented and managed to combine shooter and rpg mechanics into what is IMO a succesful game.

[Someone With Mass]

Arcian wrote...
Narrative has nothing to do with RPGs. RPGs are all about stats, massive inventories, pen'n'paper-based statistical combat and looting. Haven't you figured that out by now?

Some people are actually believing that Mass Effect is trying to be everything that defines an RPG.

Which is...pretty dumb, considering that they have said over and over that they want to make their own game. Not something that's set by silly standards.

[DarkPsylocke26]

this is what RPG means

Purpose

Main article: Role-playing game theory

Both authors and major publishers of tabletop role-playing games consider them to be a form of interactive and collaborative storytelling.[8][9][10] Events, characters and narrative structure give a sense of a narrative experience, and the game need not have a strongly-defined storyline.[11] Interactivity is the crucial difference between role-playing games and traditional fiction. Whereas a viewer of a television show is a passive observer, a player at a role-playing game makes choices that affect the story.[12] Such role-playing games extend an older tradition of storytelling games where a small party of friends collaborate to create a story.

While simple forms of role-playing exist in traditional children's games of make believe, role-playing games add a level of sophistication and persistence to this basic idea with additions such as game facilitators and rules of interaction. Participants in a role-playing game will generate specific characters and an ongoing plot. A consistent system of rules and a more or less realistic campaign setting in games aids suspension of disbelief. The level of realism in games ranges from just enough internal consistency to set up a believable story or credible challenge up to full-blown simulations of real-world processes.

[edit] Varieties

Role-playing games are played in a wide variety of media ranging from the spoken tabletop form, to physically acting out characters in LARP or playing characters virtually in digital media.[13] There is also a great variety of systems of rules and game settings. Games that emphasize plot and character interaction over game mechanics and combat sometimes prefer the name storytelling game. These types of games tend to minimize or altogether eliminate the use of dice or other randomizing elements. Some games are played with characters created before the game by the GM, rather than those created by the players. This type of game is typically played at gaming conventions, or in standalone games that do not form part of a campaign.

[Dave Exclamation Mark Yognaut]

DarkPsylocke26 wrote...

this is what RPG means

Purpose

Main article: Role-playing game theory

Both authors and major publishers of tabletop role-playing games consider them to be a form of interactive and collaborative storytelling.[8][9][10] Events, characters and narrative structure give a sense of a narrative experience, and the game need not have a strongly-defined storyline.[11] Interactivity is the crucial difference between role-playing games and traditional fiction. Whereas a viewer of a television show is a passive observer, a player at a role-playing game makes choices that affect the story.[12] Such role-playing games extend an older tradition of storytelling games where a small party of friends collaborate to create a story.

While simple forms of role-playing exist in traditional children's games of make believe, role-playing games add a level of sophistication and persistence to this basic idea with additions such as game facilitators and rules of interaction. Participants in a role-playing game will generate specific characters and an ongoing plot. A consistent system of rules and a more or less realistic campaign setting in games aids suspension of disbelief. The level of realism in games ranges from just enough internal consistency to set up a believable story or credible challenge up to full-blown simulations of real-world processes.

[edit] Varieties

Role-playing games are played in a wide variety of media ranging from the spoken tabletop form, to physically acting out characters in LARP or playing characters virtually in digital media.[13] There is also a great variety of systems of rules and game settings. Games that emphasize plot and character interaction over game mechanics and combat sometimes prefer the name storytelling game. These types of games tend to minimize or altogether eliminate the use of dice or other randomizing elements. Some games are played with characters created before the game by the GM, rather than those created by the players. This type of game is typically played at gaming conventions, or in standalone games that do not form part of a campaign.

I thought an RPG was one of these:



And now you're telling me it has something to do with storytelling? Madness!

Modifié par Dave Exclamation Mark Yognaut, 03 décembre 2011 - 05:27 .

[DarkPsylocke26]

Of course Bioware doesn't make RPG, those things are very dangerous.