303 réponses à ce sujet

[Walker White]

For a while, the extension of the BioWare brand made sense. MMORPGs are a natural extension (BioWare Austin), and moving that into social gaming (BioWare San Fran, BioWare Social) made sense in this day and age.

The RTS jump seemed a little strange, until I saw the studio lead. I wonder how much the presence of Jon Van Caneghem (Might and Magic, Heroes of Might and Magic, Kings Bounty) at Victory studios had to do with the rebranding.

[Il Divo]

Damn it. All this RTS talk is making me want to start up Warcraft III again. I do miss Arthas.

[Arcadian Legend]

What is an RPG?

A miserable little pile of arguments apparently.

[Ghost Lightning]

As long as they have at least as much RPG in there as ME2 I'll be happy. But if the "story" is akin to that of a third person shooter like a Vanquish or GoW where it's not what we've seen (choices altering the story in significant ways and just generally having the game having the plot be the priority) I will honestly be disappointed with Bioware for the first time.

[Shammybaby]

To anyone who said Mass Effect wasn't an RPG:

f­uck you. It was always a Galactic Action RPG. However, it's now a (not so) Galactic Action game. That's not what I paid for when I got into the series. Anyone who says it was never an RPG are ridiculously out of touch with reality.

[tetrisblock4x1]

Look people, it's really quite simple. What is the one thing that the RPG genre emphasizes more than any other genre? Choice. RPG = choosing your profession. It could be single player, multiplayer, MMO, facebook, whatever, all that is relevant is that you can choose between a minimum of two distinctly different types of play which significantly alter your methods and your train of thought as you experience the game.

Team Fortress 2 has strong RPG elements to it. You won't get the same MP experience if you choose to play scout instead of sniper. The scout engages everyone at close range, he uses his speed, mobility and high damage potential to ambush his enemies when they aren't looking. His weaknesses are that he is bad at medium range, terrible at long range and he can't take a lot of damage before dying. The sniper engages everyone at long range, long range is the only thing that the sniper is good at, his health is bad, is close range damage is bad, his mobility is bad.

Engineers focus on building defenses to help the team, demomen focus on removing defenses.

So yeah, that is an example of RPG gaming mechanics in action and an example of how they can make the RPG genre stand out from other genres.

Modifié par tetrisblock4x1, 13 décembre 2011 - 12:59 .

[Michale_Jackson]

Mass Effect was a fresh sci-fi RPG in the same category as Too Human as far as Western RPGs concerned.

Mass Effect 2 was a crippled Third Person shooter.

Mass Effect 3 hopefully is a new improved sci-fi RPG again.

Really it's the 3rd game that really got to bring the game play back to what made the game play great to begin with.

I like to follow the Super Mario Bros model in this explanation. Mario 3 returned the series to the original game play that made the game a initial hit. If you go back and compare the Mario Bros, you'll find that SMB2 was the odd ball of the series, bringing gameplay that was completely different from the original just like ME2. Hopefully Bioware has heard our complaints and have went back to the ME1 formula and worked on a way on how they can make that game play even better. Just as Nintendo done with SMB3 in 1990.

[Savber100]

Michale_Jackson wrote...

Mass Effect was a fresh sci-fi RPG in the same category as Too Human as far as Western RPGs concerned.

Mass Effect 2 was a crippled Third Person shooter.

Mass Effect 3 hopefully is a new improved sci-fi RPG again.

Really it's the 3rd game that really got to bring the game play back to what made the game play great to begin with.

I like to follow the Super Mario Bros model in this explanation. Mario 3 returned the series to the original game play that made the game a initial hit. If you go back and compare the Mario Bros, you'll find that SMB2 was the odd ball of the series, bringing gameplay that was completely different from the original just like ME2. Hopefully Bioware has heard our complaints and have went back to the ME1 formula and worked on a way on how they can make that game play even better. Just as Nintendo done with SMB3 in 1990.

I like you... You hold on to hope despite your peers who are already passing judgement on ME3. While I don't think any ME1 fan will get exactly what they want from ME3, I'm certain it will still have a LOT of stuff that one would enjoy in a RPG (despite the series going for a more shooter route).  

[Gatt9]

Arcadian Legend wrote...

What is an RPG?

A miserable little pile of arguments apparently.

Not really.

You've got 4 groups on any modern RPG board.

1.  RPG Players.

2.  People who hate RPGs but want to claim they like them for the geek cred.

3.  People who don't know what RPG's are,  but assume anything said by anyone wearing a name tag from a studio is 100% incontrovertably right.  So therefore,  when they mislabel games,  they believe that's what RPG's must be.

4.  A small undercurrent of LARPsers who want the digital implementation of running around with a plastic sword and shield pretending they are a knight.

Largely,  the whole arguement is due to the fact that studios today mislabel their games,  in order to squeeze out a few more sales.  RPG's are the exact same thing they were 30 years ago,  digital implementations of a PnP Roleplaying experience.  Which system is used is irrelevant.

The first litmus test which ME2,  presumably ME3,  and anything from Bethseda consistently fail is simple.  Is the majority of the skill Character based?  Because if it's Player based,  you're not playing an RPG.  You cannot assume a Role if there's no Character,  just an Avatar for your own abilities.*

RPG is the most abused acronym in gaming,  slapped on anything to get a few extra sales out of people who don't know what RPG's are,  or who hate RPG's but for some strange reason claim they like them.

Go through this thread,  I've money that says you can put 99% of the responses in it in one of those 4 catagories.

I'm also pretty confident this post will be followed with 5 people telling me I'm "Elitist" because they can't come up with a logical counter-arguement.  Again.

*Role does not mean what most people seem to think it means in an RPG.  It means you assume the Role of the Character,  not that the Character is you pretending to be a knight.  It's an important distinction,  but one most people seem to not realize is present.

RPG - You assume the Role of the Character. (Fallout 1 and 2,  Planescape Torment)
LARPs - You are the Character. (ME2,  Oblivion,  Skyrim)

Modifié par Gatt9, 13 décembre 2011 - 02:43 .

[spirosz]

Arcadian Legend wrote...

What is an RPG?

A miserable little pile of arguments apparently.

Truth. 

[spirosz]

Gatt9 wrote...

RPG - You assume the Role of the Character. (Fallout 1 and 2,  Planescape Torment)
LARPs - You are the Character. (ME2,  Oblivion,  Skyrim)

Right... you really nailed that one.  So both our Shepard's picked the exact same lines, developed in the exact same way, etc.  Thank you for playing my Shepard. 

These arguments become way too subjective and usually go nowhere.  Why can't it be as simple as "You either like the game or you don't" 

Modifié par spiros9110, 13 décembre 2011 - 02:53 .

[Thompson family]

Gatt9 wrote...


The first litmus test which ME2,  presumably ME3,  and anything from Bethseda consistently fail is simple.  Is the majority of the skill Character based?  Because if it's Player based,  you're not playing an RPG.  You cannot assume a Role if there's no Character,  just an Avatar for your own abilities.*

...

*Role does not mean what most people seem to think it means in an RPG.  It means you assume the Role of the Character,  not that the Character is you pretending to be a knight.  It's an important distinction,  but one most people seem to not realize is present.

RPG - You assume the Role of the Character. (Fallout 1 and 2,  Planescape Torment)
LARPs - You are the Character. (ME2,  Oblivion,  Skyrim)

That's a fascinating argument, Gatt9, but I'm not sure any game can be so purely divorced from player skill as you describe.

Even in the most "pure" RPG, choices are made. Do I go down this path or that one? Do I touch the glass or break it? Do I ride the enchanted white horse or not? These are choices that require some intuition or skill.

I understand the distinction you're arguing here, that there's a difference between choosing a course of action and having "motor skllls" to implement that course of action, but I don't think the difference is as clear-cut as you make it out to be.

Modifié par Thompson family, 13 décembre 2011 - 02:57 .

[spirosz]

Thompson family wrote...

That's a fascinating argument, Gatt9, but I'm not sure any game can be so purely divorced from player skill as you describe.

Even in the most "pure" RPG, choices are made. Do I go down this path or that one? Do I touch the glass or break it? Do I ride the enchanted white horse or not? These are choices that require some intuition or skill.

I understand the distinction you're arguing here, that there's a difference between choosing a course of action and having "motor skllls" to implement that course of action, but I don't think the difference is as clear-cut as you make it out to be.

That's how I feel.  

Modifié par spiros9110, 13 décembre 2011 - 03:02 .

[tetrisblock4x1]

Gatt9 wrote...

Arcadian Legend wrote...

What is an RPG?

A miserable little pile of arguments apparently.

Not really.

You've got 4 groups on any modern RPG board.

1.  RPG Players.

2.  People who hate RPGs but want to claim they like them for the geek cred.

3.  People who don't know what RPG's are,  but assume anything said by anyone wearing a name tag from a studio is 100% incontrovertably right.  So therefore,  when they mislabel games,  they believe that's what RPG's must be.

4.  A small undercurrent of LARPsers who want the digital implementation of running around with a plastic sword and shield pretending they are a knight.

Largely,  the whole arguement is due to the fact that studios today mislabel their games,  in order to squeeze out a few more sales.  RPG's are the exact same thing they were 30 years ago,  digital implementations of a PnP Roleplaying experience.  Which system is used is irrelevant.

The first litmus test which ME2,  presumably ME3,  and anything from Bethseda consistently fail is simple.  Is the majority of the skill Character based?  Because if it's Player based,  you're not playing an RPG.  You cannot assume a Role if there's no Character,  just an Avatar for your own abilities.*

RPG is the most abused acronym in gaming,  slapped on anything to get a few extra sales out of people who don't know what RPG's are,  or who hate RPG's but for some strange reason claim they like them.

Go through this thread,  I've money that says you can put 99% of the responses in it in one of those 4 catagories.

I'm also pretty confident this post will be followed with 5 people telling me I'm "Elitist" because they can't come up with a logical counter-arguement.  Again.

*Role does not mean what most people seem to think it means in an RPG.  It means you assume the Role of the Character,  not that the Character is you pretending to be a knight.  It's an important distinction,  but one most people seem to not realize is present.

RPG - You assume the Role of the Character. (Fallout 1 and 2,  Planescape Torment)
LARPs - You are the Character. (ME2,  Oblivion,  Skyrim)

It seems you're disqualifying games as RPGs for the simple fact that they require player skills such as aim and coordination. According to you a game like TF2, or Mass Effect, or any game based around unique classes which have their own unique set of abilities, strenghts and weaknesses doesn't count. You seriously put games with elements of player skill on an RPG exclusion list? I can agree that Mass Effect 2 is pathetically weak as an RPG, so much so that it barely even qualifies, but what if the classes were much more distinctive? What if Mass Effect had the equal of the Team Fortress 2 classes of Scout and the Sniper, or the Engineer and the demoman? Both of these class pairings are extremely different gameplay expereinces compared to their other half.

[Andorfiend]

Gatt9 wrote...

RPG - You assume the Role of the Character. (Fallout 1 and 2,  Planescape Torment)
LARPs - You are the Character. (ME2,  Oblivion,  Skyrim)

You do realize that the RP in LARP stands for Role-playing? Yes?

Role playing does not mean that the characters abilities are completely divorced from your own, no matter what system. Even in a pen and paper game you cannot play a suave and articulate character if you yourself cannot communicate clearly enough to get across what the character is trying to achieve.

Role playing, whether PnP, LARP, MMORPG or playing cops and robbers on the playground is about taking on the role of another person. A specific other person. An RTS is not an RPG because you are controling multiple characters, and except for possibly a few hero units, they are indistinguishable.

A pure shooter, without a story, is also not an RPG because a person is not a package of abilities in a skin, they have a history, family, connections to their world. Without that there is no role-playing.

Even a well written story in a game does not make it an RPG, if it's on rails and your own actions never influence the story, because you never assumed the role, you just watched an interactive movie.

By those standards is ME 1 an RPG? Yes. ME 2? Yes. ME 3? We'll find out soon enough.

[Ramus Quaritch]

Regardless of how you feel about the presence of RPG elements in ME3, there is one area that I can say Bioware has changed in both ME2 and (presumably) ME3. ME2 and ME3 have changed the "feel" and "spirit" of the Mass Effect universe. Mass Effect 1 felt like a 1980's science fiction movie (with better graphics). Everything from the music, to the art and architecture styles, the exploration, and some of the campy-ness (while still being serious where necessary) screamed 80s sci fi to me. And that was a huge part of ME1's appeal to me. It had that unique charm that I just don't find in most games today.

ME2 and (from what I've seen) ME3 have gone away from that. They are more like modern science fiction blockbusters in music, aesthetics, and style. Personally, I would have liked the sequels to have retained at least some of that classic 80s feel. That whole new VGA trailer seemed like a Michael Bay movie to me. Before you all jump on me, I know that ME3 is more intelligent than a Michael Bay movie (I certainly hope so). And I think it will be a satisfying conclusion to an epic trilogy. But it is indicative of the shift in style that, in my personal opinion, takes away from the charm that the first game gave the series. I know ME3 is the Reaper invasion, so it's going to be a different style. But I still do miss the first game's style and would have liked at least some of it to carry through in the sequels.

[Terror_K]

Ramus Quaritch wrote...

Regardless of how you feel about the presence of RPG elements in ME3, there is one area that I can say Bioware has changed in both ME2 and (presumably) ME3. ME2 and ME3 have changed the "feel" and "spirit" of the Mass Effect universe. Mass Effect 1 felt like a 1980's science fiction movie (with better graphics). Everything from the music, to the art and architecture styles, the exploration, and some of the campy-ness (while still being serious where necessary) screamed 80s sci fi to me. And that was a huge part of ME1's appeal to me. It had that unique charm that I just don't find in most games today.

ME2 and (from what I've seen) ME3 have gone away from that. They are more like modern science fiction blockbusters in music, aesthetics, and style. Personally, I would have liked the sequels to have retained at least some of that classic 80s feel. That whole new VGA trailer seemed like a Michael Bay movie to me. Before you all jump on me, I know that ME3 is more intelligent than a Michael Bay movie (I certainly hope so). And I think it will be a satisfying conclusion to an epic trilogy. But it is indicative of the shift in style that, in my personal opinion, takes away from the charm that the first game gave the series. I know ME3 is the Reaper invasion, so it's going to be a different style. But I still do miss the first game's style and would have liked at least some of it to carry through in the sequels.

I feel largely the same way, though I would say ME2 and what I've seen from ME3 still retain a certain degree of that classic sci-fi vibe, but merely that it's been twisted style with to be more "modern Hollywood action blockbuster" in some respects. The visual style still seems consistent with what ME1 set, and the direction overall seems more Ridley Scott than Michael Bay. But overall the tone and feel of it has shifted to a less mature, more bombastic style, and sometimes it just feels like they want things to be "badass!!1" too often at the expense of logic and consistency. Style seems to rule over substance with ME2 onwards.

I suppose a good analogy would be that it doesn't feel like the Michael Bay reboot that DA2 did compared to DAO, but more like a different, younger director has come onto the project after a veteran sci-fi director was in charge of the first one. As if they're somewhat trying to carry on in the same style and not reboot the thing, but want to introduce their own new ideas and more modern, action-oriented direction techniques at the same time. ME1 was like the Star Trek movies featuring the original TOS cast, while ME2 and ME3 is come across more like Star Trek: Nemesis.

[Ghost-621]

Shammybaby wrote...

To anyone who said Mass Effect wasn't an RPG:

f­uck you. It was always a Galactic Action RPG. However, it's now a (not so) Galactic Action game. That's not what I paid for when I got into the series. Anyone who says it was never an RPG are ridiculously out of touch with reality.

I like you

I wish every idiot who says Mass Effect isn't an RPG could see this.

People, stop trying to rationalize the idea that ME was never an RPG. To say that the game was at the start simply a shooter, is not only incorrect, it insults the intelligence of every single Mass Effect fan who reads it.

Modifié par Ghost-621, 13 décembre 2011 - 05:31 .

[DeusBaratheon]

Terror_K wrote...

Ramus Quaritch wrote...

Regardless of how you feel about the presence of RPG elements in ME3, there is one area that I can say Bioware has changed in both ME2 and (presumably) ME3. ME2 and ME3 have changed the "feel" and "spirit" of the Mass Effect universe. Mass Effect 1 felt like a 1980's science fiction movie (with better graphics). Everything from the music, to the art and architecture styles, the exploration, and some of the campy-ness (while still being serious where necessary) screamed 80s sci fi to me. And that was a huge part of ME1's appeal to me. It had that unique charm that I just don't find in most games today.

ME2 and (from what I've seen) ME3 have gone away from that. They are more like modern science fiction blockbusters in music, aesthetics, and style. Personally, I would have liked the sequels to have retained at least some of that classic 80s feel. That whole new VGA trailer seemed like a Michael Bay movie to me. Before you all jump on me, I know that ME3 is more intelligent than a Michael Bay movie (I certainly hope so). And I think it will be a satisfying conclusion to an epic trilogy. But it is indicative of the shift in style that, in my personal opinion, takes away from the charm that the first game gave the series. I know ME3 is the Reaper invasion, so it's going to be a different style. But I still do miss the first game's style and would have liked at least some of it to carry through in the sequels.

I feel largely the same way, though I would say ME2 and what I've seen from ME3 still retain a certain degree of that classic sci-fi vibe, but merely that it's been twisted style with to be more "modern Hollywood action blockbuster" in some respects. The visual style still seems consistent with what ME1 set, and the direction overall seems more Ridley Scott than Michael Bay. But overall the tone and feel of it has shifted to a less mature, more bombastic style, and sometimes it just feels like they want things to be "badass!!1" too often at the expense of logic and consistency. Style seems to rule over substance with ME2 onwards.

I suppose a good analogy would be that it doesn't feel like the Michael Bay reboot that DA2 did compared to DAO, but more like a different, younger director has come onto the project after a veteran sci-fi director was in charge of the first one. As if they're somewhat trying to carry on in the same style and not reboot the thing, but want to introduce their own new ideas and more modern, action-oriented direction techniques at the same time. ME1 was like the Star Trek movies featuring the original TOS cast, while ME2 and ME3 is come across more like Star Trek: Nemesis.

I really do miss that 1980's sci-fi feel from Mass Effect 1... Maybe a few years down the line some gents and I can mod ME2 and ME3 to give that same style and design.

I have come to understand, with the changes to so many of my favored game series and studios, what time truly does to the things we love and cherish. 

[Ghost-621]

DeusBaratheon wrote...

Terror_K wrote...

Ramus Quaritch wrote...

Regardless of how you feel about the presence of RPG elements in ME3, there is one area that I can say Bioware has changed in both ME2 and (presumably) ME3. ME2 and ME3 have changed the "feel" and "spirit" of the Mass Effect universe. Mass Effect 1 felt like a 1980's science fiction movie (with better graphics). Everything from the music, to the art and architecture styles, the exploration, and some of the campy-ness (while still being serious where necessary) screamed 80s sci fi to me. And that was a huge part of ME1's appeal to me. It had that unique charm that I just don't find in most games today.

ME2 and (from what I've seen) ME3 have gone away from that. They are more like modern science fiction blockbusters in music, aesthetics, and style. Personally, I would have liked the sequels to have retained at least some of that classic 80s feel. That whole new VGA trailer seemed like a Michael Bay movie to me. Before you all jump on me, I know that ME3 is more intelligent than a Michael Bay movie (I certainly hope so). And I think it will be a satisfying conclusion to an epic trilogy. But it is indicative of the shift in style that, in my personal opinion, takes away from the charm that the first game gave the series. I know ME3 is the Reaper invasion, so it's going to be a different style. But I still do miss the first game's style and would have liked at least some of it to carry through in the sequels.

I feel largely the same way, though I would say ME2 and what I've seen from ME3 still retain a certain degree of that classic sci-fi vibe, but merely that it's been twisted style with to be more "modern Hollywood action blockbuster" in some respects. The visual style still seems consistent with what ME1 set, and the direction overall seems more Ridley Scott than Michael Bay. But overall the tone and feel of it has shifted to a less mature, more bombastic style, and sometimes it just feels like they want things to be "badass!!1" too often at the expense of logic and consistency. Style seems to rule over substance with ME2 onwards.

I suppose a good analogy would be that it doesn't feel like the Michael Bay reboot that DA2 did compared to DAO, but more like a different, younger director has come onto the project after a veteran sci-fi director was in charge of the first one. As if they're somewhat trying to carry on in the same style and not reboot the thing, but want to introduce their own new ideas and more modern, action-oriented direction techniques at the same time. ME1 was like the Star Trek movies featuring the original TOS cast, while ME2 and ME3 is come across more like Star Trek: Nemesis.

I really do miss that 1980's sci-fi feel from Mass Effect 1... Maybe a few years down the line some gents and I can mod ME2 and ME3 to give that same style and design.

I have come to understand, with the changes to so many of my favored game series and studios, what time truly does to the things we love and cherish. 

This series was my favorite video game series, I mean the best in my brief time on this earth, and to see something so epic in every sense of scale and wording turned into a mundane piece garbage for a quick cash grab....I'll never forgive Bioware. I will never buy another game with the EA brandmark deficated onto it. I may do the same with Bioware.

[Lumikki]

These same arguments has been taked here for years now.

People here don't even agree what RPG is, then how to hell they can ever agree about RPG elements.

People here don't even agree what Mass Effect serie is, because for everyone here it's exactly what they want it to be, not neccassary what it really is. Too many says I want it to be this and that, when they should accept all games as they are. You can't really change game to be something what it isn't. Wishing game to be something else what it will be, just leads disapointments and complains. Why even go in that road, why not just try to accept games as they are or move on.

There is under 3 months to release of ME3 and does anyone here think they can change anything related game at this late of games development. Wait for ME3 release and give feedback after playing it. Don't pre-judge it, by building self made "fantasy" expetations of perfect game. No game is ever perfect to anyone.

Modifié par Lumikki, 13 décembre 2011 - 06:32 .

[Drone223]

Lumikki wrote...

These same arguments has been taked here for years now.

People here don't even agree what RPG is, then how to hell they can ever agree about RPG elements.

People here don't even agree what Mass Effect serie is, because for everyone here it's exactly what they want it to be, not neccassary what it really is. Too many says I want it to be this and that, when they should accept all games as they are. You can't really change game to be something what it isn't. Wishing game to be something else what it will be, just leads disapointments and complains. Why even go in that road, why not just try to accept games as they are or move on.

There is under 3 months to release of ME3 and does anyone here think they can change anything related game at this late of games development. Wait for ME3 release and give feedback after playing it.

People should play the demo, and if people don't like the demo then they shouldn't by the game simple as that, which is what a demo is ment to do

Modifié par Drone223, 13 décembre 2011 - 06:33 .

[DeusBaratheon]

Lumikki wrote...

These same arguments has been taked here for years now.

People here don't even agree what RPG is, then how to hell they can ever agree about RPG elements.

People here don't even agree what Mass Effect serie is, because for everyone here it's exactly what they want it to be, not neccassary what it really is. Too many says I want it to be this and that, when they should accept all games as they are. You can't really change game to be something what it isn't. Wishing game to be something else what it will be, just leads disapointments and complains. Why even go in that road, why not just try to accept games as they are or move on.

Defining an RPG is so very easily done. RPG stands for roleplaying game. I won't go about defining "game" because that is a completely different can of worms. Playing a role in Mass Effect consists of creating a personality and attempting to exert this personality upon the world around the player in whatever manner is possible, in spite of limitations and restrictions imposed upon the player in hardware and software.

It can be argued that wishing a game to be different DOES in fact change it, for better or for worse. Such was done in the transition of Mass Effect 1 to Mass Effect 2. Allow me to posit this situation upon you: all games on the market run only on linux software and consist of the presentation quality of the 1990's; not only this, but the games are glitchy and overly expensive. Meeting with any complaints towards the game, the series, the studio, I could simply rely on your own retort, and I quote:

Wishing game to be something else what it will be, just leads disapointments and complains. Why even go in that road, why not just try to accept games as they are or move on. 

[tetrisblock4x1]

DeusBaratheon wrote...

Lumikki wrote...

These same arguments has been taked here for years now.

People here don't even agree what RPG is, then how to hell they can ever agree about RPG elements.

People here don't even agree what Mass Effect serie is, because for everyone here it's exactly what they want it to be, not neccassary what it really is. Too many says I want it to be this and that, when they should accept all games as they are. You can't really change game to be something what it isn't. Wishing game to be something else what it will be, just leads disapointments and complains. Why even go in that road, why not just try to accept games as they are or move on.

Defining an RPG is so very easily done. RPG stands for roleplaying game. I won't go about defining "game" because that is a completely different can of worms. Playing a role in Mass Effect consists of creating a personality and attempting to exert this personality upon the world around the player in whatever manner is possible, in spite of limitations and restrictions imposed upon the player in hardware and software.

Those limitations can veryeasily be removed if you just step away from your screen, go out into the big, wide, real world, and forming a group with like minded individuals who are into the same type of LARPing action as you are?

It's healthy, it's sociable, fun, limitless and last but not least, it's an activity which is not specific to electronic gaming and playing make believe isn't really a gameplay thing. I first started playing RPGs when I was like 4 or 5 years old. I think that me and a pair of friends were playing Robin Hood, and fighting over someones love or something. We had lots of fun, and we didn't require a computer game to make it happen. I just find the whole notion of playing make believe over a computer game with a game designed around a tight narrative such as Mass Effect in such a limited fashion to be pretty dumb to be honest and I believe it's missing the point of electronic computer gaming.

I've already explained the "game" part of RPG, but to quickly recap RPG is about choosing between a minimum of two professions. If you start a game and you have a choice between playing a wizard and playing a warrior, and each of these classes have their own set of rules and unique ability paths which progressively improve throughout the game, then that is the definition of RPG

Modifié par tetrisblock4x1, 13 décembre 2011 - 06:54 .