394 réponses à ce sujet

[crimzontearz]

it does but the conundrum is "is it enough" as Chris himself pointed out in his post. to me? no...not even close to enough. ME3 is another story tho

[Sir Ryuu]

Action rpg but make sure u play 1 and 2 first. If you just play 3 you r missing out on a lot of background story.

[don-mika]

Chris Priestly wrote...

I think it depends on what you call an RPG, because you can argue about what the title represents. Not the game's title, but the title "RPG".

If we took a more broad title, like "Is Mass Effect 3 a video game" people would all say yes. Same if you said "Is Gone with the Wind a movie?" People would all say yes. Now, if you said "Is Gone with the Wind a Historical movie?" NOW you would get some discussion. Sure, GWtW takes place in the American Civil War, there is the burning of Atlanta, slavery, many historical elements, etc. However, it is not 100% historically accurate (not that it claims to be). So I think most people would say "Yes, Gone with the Wind is a Historical movie." Still, there would be those that would argue the point. They would say that the Scarlett character was not an accurate representation of women of the time, that there were inaccuracies and such. This however, depends on what these "hardcore" people call a Historical movie. Maybe they are basing their opinion on a documentary film instead of a fictional story, whatever it may be. To them, this hardcore group, they may not call it a Historical movie no matter how many other people say that it is.

Now, take the same principal to Mass Effect. Again, all would agree it is a video game. I think (or hope) most would say it is a pretty good series. Is it an RPG? That is where you'll get the discussion and disagreement. I can say that BioWare feels Mass Effect is an action RPG series. There are RPG elements in each game that RPG fans come to expect. The discussion is usually "Is there enough RPG in the games to be called an RPG". For me, as an RPG gamer, I think there are enough customization and dialog choices in teh games for me to call ithem RPGs. I can also see where some people who expect otehr features to be present to call a game an RPG would not call Mass Effect RPG. For me, the customization, the dialog, the choice, etc coupled with all the otehr elements and features in teh game, is enough for me to enjoy Mass Effect as a series as an action packed RPG.

In the end, it comes down to what YOU think of as an RPG. There isn't much point in arguing this, because it is subjective to the person experiencing it.

or like Scary Movies...
theres "Aliens, Resident Evil, Scream, Let the Right One In ,Friday 13, Shining, Jaws, Paranormal Activity, Saw" and more- more- more and they are different movies, but genre still Scary Movies



:innocent:

[AlanC9]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

I see only one meaningful difference between ME and ME2 in terms of their RPG-ness. ME includes a sort of tack-on free travel system with the uncharted worlds, and ME2 does not. As such, ME allows more player control over Shepard's day-to-day motives by akllowing him a greater number of optional objectives.

ME2 does not.

I actually thought that this made ME1 a worse RPG. There's no motivation for doing any of the exploration content unless you're metagaming rather than role-playing. "Race Against Time"? Yeah, right.

ME2 at least gives Shepard a reason to scan planets and maybe blunder into an N7 mission. Regrettably, it's an irrational reason sinch the Normandy shoudn't be doing its own mining, but if you buy the world you can buy the decision.

[Il Divo]

AlanC9 wrote...

I actually thought that this made ME1 a worse RPG. There's no motivation for doing any of the exploration content unless you're metagaming rather than role-playing. "Race Against Time"? Yeah, right.

ME2 at least gives Shepard a reason to scan planets and maybe blunder into an N7 mission. Regrettably, it's an irrational reason sinch the Normandy shoudn't be doing its own mining, but if you buy the world you can buy the decision.

Pretty much this. Any character I'm interested in role-playing is likely to be invested in the central narrative. But any character concerned with the central narrative is not going to be wandering planets. It forces the player into choosing one or the other, even more so than the typical main quest-side quest separation.

[Sylvius the Mad]

AlanC9 wrote...

I actually thought that this made ME1 a worse RPG. There's no motivation for doing any of the exploration content unless you're metagaming rather than role-playing. "Race Against Time"? Yeah, right.

I disagree.  Shepard could have an in-character reason to go searching for Saren in other places if he sees connections between Saren's activity and the side-quests (even if there are no connections, Shepard might perceive some).  Shepard might also not accept that the pursuit of Saren is a race-against-time, or he might believe that the obvious trail to Feros and Noveria is a trap and try to find some other source of the information he needs.

What's important is that the game offers you a world in which these sorts of choices are possible.  Whether the game spoon-feeds you justification for making those choices is immaterial.

[Abraham_uk]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

AlanC9 wrote...

I actually thought that this made ME1 a worse RPG. There's no motivation for doing any of the exploration content unless you're metagaming rather than role-playing. "Race Against Time"? Yeah, right.

I disagree.  Shepard could have an in-character reason to go searching for Saren in other places if he sees connections between Saren's activity and the side-quests (even if there are no connections, Shepard might perceive some).  Shepard might also not accept that the pursuit of Saren is a race-against-time, or he might believe that the obvious trail to Feros and Noveria is a trap and try to find some other source of the information he needs.

What's important is that the game offers you a world in which these sorts of choices are possible.  Whether the game spoon-feeds you justification for making those choices is immaterial.

What you're suggesting is clever but hard to do. Really hard to do. With good writing it could be pulled off, but there are many different decision trees based on what sidequests you've done and what you've chosen to do in side quests and main missions. Plain difficult. But go for it.

[1136342t54_]

In Exile wrote...
Sole Survivor is just messed up in ME2. You can't call out Cerberus for Akuze at all. Makes the background unplayable for me.

I believe you can or at least with Miranda.

No, the problem is so much them making you a Warden as not allowing you to hate them. Like in Wynne's conversation. You can either say people should respect you for being a Warden, you love it, or it's none of her business, but you can't say something like "they're all kidnapping liars and should be evicted from Ferelden again." That's what I was getting at. 

Saying that is basically persecuting yourself in essence. At that point you are a warden so there is no point in hating yourself. Even saying Wardens are liars are a stretch since they never lie they just flat out tell you that there is turning back and it is a commitment you cannot leave. Especially when the Wardens essentially saved the PC's life. There is being douchebag then there is just being a idiot. The PC never have to like the Wardens in the game. I think there is a convo some of the NPCs that you can express the unfairness of the situation though.

[AlanC9]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...
I disagree.  Shepard could have an in-character reason to go searching for Saren in other places if he sees connections between Saren's activity and the side-quests (even if there are no connections, Shepard might perceive some).  Shepard might also not accept that the pursuit of Saren is a race-against-time, or he might believe that the obvious trail to Feros and Noveria is a trap and try to find some other source of the information he needs.

What's important is that the game offers you a world in which these sorts of choices are possible.  Whether the game spoon-feeds you justification for making those choices is immaterial.

The problem isn't that the game offers you the choices, it's that there are no consequences for making those choices. If doing too many sidequests let Saren get to the Conduit first, I'd be just fine with the sidequests.

(An awful lot of those sidequests can't possibly be related to Saren or anything else, of course, but I guess any  delay can be rationalized if Shepard's foolish enough to believe that he isn't actually in a race with Saren)

Modifié par AlanC9, 04 janvier 2012 - 10:45 .

[1136342t54_]

Il Divo wrote...

In Exile wrote...

No, the problem is so much them making you a Warden as not allowing you to hate them. Like in Wynne's conversation. You can either say people should respect you for being a Warden, you love it, or it's none of her business, but you can't say something like "they're all kidnapping liars and should be evicted from Ferelden again." That's what I was getting at.

Basically, you can't play an Anders-style Warden: bitter remorseful.

Its a valid complaint but then again even without Justice Anders was always bordering on leaving the Wardens. Justice gave him a big enough reason for it and it forced him to do it.

Modifié par 1136342t54 , 04 janvier 2012 - 10:34 .

[Sylvius the Mad]

AlanC9 wrote...

The problem isn't that the game offers you the choices, it's that there are no consequences for making those choices. If doing too many sidequests let Saren get to the Conduit first, I'd be just fine with the sidequests.

No, see, now you're metagaming.  You're looking at different in-game realities and comparing them to see if they inhabit the same reality.  That's not necessary.

Within each playthrough, Saren takes a certain amount of time to reach the Conduit.  There's no reason why that needs to be the same amount of time in every playthrough.  Just as you can encounter difficulty in different parts of the game with each playthrough, so can Saren.  Perhaps in one playthrough Saren makes a tactical error and loses a bunch of his Geth to a Thresher Maw - that sets him back quite a bit, and delays him getting to the Conduit.

That you don't see these things happen does not mean that they don't happen.  Within any given playthrough, Shepard doesn't know why Saren happens to take just long enough to reach the Conduit.  He's probably really thankful that Saren does, but Shepard doesn't have perfect knowledge of the universe.

Just because you now have knowledge of in-game events is no reason to pollute each subsequent playthrough with what, for Shepard, is foreknowledge.

One reason, I think, that players do this is in ME is because ME explicitly tells the player (through a cutscene) that Saren killed Nihlus.  But Shepard doesn't know this.

[chunkyman]

Gah! Too... Many... Spoilers...

[Elvis_Shepard]

An RPG is a game where you mould a character through making decisions and reacting with people in different ways. So yes, it is an RPG.

[squee365]

Sci-Fi space opera adventure shooter game with RPG elements and dialogue choices.


^ Thats what it is, but thats quite the mouthful wouldn't you say?. Lets just call it Mass Effect, because there's nothing like Mass Effect.

[In Exile]

1136342t54 wrote...
I believe you can or at least with Miranda.

You can't directly call out TIM, though.

Saying that is basically persecuting yourself in essence. At that point you are a warden so there is no point in hating yourself. Even saying Wardens are liars are a stretch since they never lie they just flat out tell you that there is turning back and it is a commitment you cannot leave. Especially when the Wardens essentially saved the PC's life. There is being douchebag then there is just being a idiot. The PC never have to like the Wardens in the game. I think there is a convo some of the NPCs that you can express the unfairness of the situation though.

The PC, after having murdered two dragons, can pretty well not give a **** what the Wardens as an order have to say. If they have problem, they can try to get a super archedemon, because the lot of them aren't intimidating.

And drinking darkspawn blood doesn't make you a Grey Warden, any more than having a talent for magic makes you a Circle Mage. Not to mention that there are a few outright kidnapping origins where Duncan doesn't do anything at all. The Cousland Origin and the Mage origin are great examples.

[Gatt9]

Chris Priestly wrote...

I think it depends on what you call an RPG, because you can argue about what the title represents. Not the game's title, but the title "RPG".

If we took a more broad title, like "Is Mass Effect 3 a video game" people would all say yes. Same if you said "Is Gone with the Wind a movie?" People would all say yes. Now, if you said "Is Gone with the Wind a Historical movie?" NOW you would get some discussion. Sure, GWtW takes place in the American Civil War, there is the burning of Atlanta, slavery, many historical elements, etc. However, it is not 100% historically accurate (not that it claims to be). So I think most people would say "Yes, Gone with the Wind is a Historical movie." Still, there would be those that would argue the point. They would say that the Scarlett character was not an accurate representation of women of the time, that there were inaccuracies and such. This however, depends on what these "hardcore" people call a Historical movie. Maybe they are basing their opinion on a documentary film instead of a fictional story, whatever it may be. To them, this hardcore group, they may not call it a Historical movie no matter how many other people say that it is.

Now, take the same principal to Mass Effect. Again, all would agree it is a video game. I think (or hope) most would say it is a pretty good series. Is it an RPG? That is where you'll get the discussion and disagreement. I can say that BioWare feels Mass Effect is an action RPG series. There are RPG elements in each game that RPG fans come to expect. The discussion is usually "Is there enough RPG in the games to be called an RPG". For me, as an RPG gamer, I think there are enough customization and dialog choices in teh games for me to call ithem RPGs. I can also see where some people who expect otehr features to be present to call a game an RPG would not call Mass Effect RPG. For me, the customization, the dialog, the choice, etc coupled with all the otehr elements and features in teh game, is enough for me to enjoy Mass Effect as a series as an action packed RPG.

In the end, it comes down to what YOU think of as an RPG. There isn't much point in arguing this, because it is subjective to the person experiencing it.

I disagree that it's subjective.  An RPG,  or more specifically,  a CRPG is a emulation of the Pen and Paper experience.  It has a tangible,  easily identifiable,  set of essential components.

You yourself approximate what I mean,  We couldn't take Lord of the Rings and have an arguement about whether or not it's historical simply because it has aniquated dialogue.

The issue at heart is with the misuse of the acronym RPG to describe games that do not conform to RPG.  Such as "Action RPG" to describe some game where you control some avatar who lacks any inherent qualities or personality and can switch personality and morality on a whim without consequence.

Much the same as when my 100% paragon booted someone off a building in cold blood,  in front of Samara and Tali who are both "good",  and no one blinked.

So the Dialogue,  and choices,  are essentially pointless as they don't do anything.  That doesn't make it an RPG,  that makes it an Adventure game.

Same with customization.  In ME2 you kill a YMIR at level 2 with a starter pistol,  and that's about as hard as it gets.  So can you "Customize"?  Sure.  Do you need to?  Nope.  You can already kill everything in the game from the moment you start it.  This makes any customization illusionary.

This is the problem,  the word RPG attached to games that pretend to have RPG elements,  but in fact,  due to their design they have none.  Pretending to give choice,  or giving "Customization" that doesn't actually do anything,  that's not RPG. 

I really don't understand why companies keep attaching the label to games and going to such great lengths to avoid actually putting RPG elements in the games.

[Dean_the_Young]

Possibly because you have a different working definition of an RPG than most people who make games called RPGs.

[Sylvius the Mad]

chunkyman wrote...

Gah! Too... Many... Spoilers...

While what I wrote does sound quite spoilery, there's only one actual plot-related detail in there of any import, and it's from very early in the game.

[Epic777]

@Gatt9: I disagree, most of most beloved RPGs do not conform 100% to all the RPG tropes. Planescape, the game is very linear especially in the narrative. TNO will go to a different area only when you hae progressed to that point in the main story. You couldn't back to an area. Planescape was not high on customization. Only a few companions actually changed weapons and or armor, it was far removed from finding loot in dungeons.

Deus Ex, like Planescape had very linear narrative. If an RPG is defined by how the player affects the story, then Deus Ex is no RPG. Character deaths don't have a direct impact on the game. The only time JC makes a meaningful choice is at the end.

KOTOR, nothing stops a lightide jedi from doing 'evil'. Untill your final choice no one in your party will leave.

[JonathonPR]

Marketing....

and a weak understanding of what elements common to a genre are actually required for that genre. Its like chemistry. There are molecules that can be classified as organic because of their element composition but are not produced by or necessary for organic life.

Much of the conflict over definition of genre can be explained by misidentification of genre elements that attracted them to a title. Cross genre identification allows for further misidentification of genre elements and incorrect genre classification. (People don't know what goes where so everything goes everywhere.)

When confronted with this possibility humans respond negatively. It is interpreted as an attack on their self worth by presenting a group outside their perceived in group that conflicts their groups strength. The idea is that because their assumptions were wrong their decisions were wrong and less successful. This implies a decrease in social dominance. The survival instinct influences behavior and views become entrenched with little chance for successful discussion.

As to the OP's question of determining if they should invest in any game.

1. Find a hand full of individual game reviewers. You want individuals rather than colections often found in gaming magazines because you need their opinions on several games in several genres to gain useful information.

2. Watch or read their reviews for games you did and did not enjoy.

3. Compare their conclusions to your own.

4. Use the reviewers that match your conclusions the closest to decide if the game is worth your interest.

5. If possible rent, demo, or go to a friend with a game system you don't own that the game runs on to test your conclusions before purchase.