308 réponses à ce sujet

[coldwetn0se]

I admit I have nothing constructive to really add, but @Mr. Mannly-man has said exactly what I tend to believe. Enjoyed the posts, and......agree.

[JoltDealer]

It's an Action RPG. It certainly is not a full-blown RPG. Thanks for working that out for everyone, champ...

[Bl0dbathNBeyond]

 O SNAP BETTER PLAY SOME 80s GOLD BOX GAMES INSTEAD.

Um, I know what I'll stick to playing. Thanks.

[S.A.K]

RPG or no RPG I still love ME3. While I don't miss the stupid ME1 inventory system and piloting the Meko with shotty controls across a barren wasteland, they shouldn't have completely removed them. They should have modified them instead just like they did with combat.

[Terror_K]

LinksOcarina wrote...

I have the bolded part up there emphasized, because thats what we need, we need simpler mechanics in table-tops or else it becomes a side-show of insanity in terms of rules and mechanics. One game I played once was Aces and Eights,  a tabletop that won an award, and the rules basically map out shooting down to each action being a roll for say, making your gun go off, if you hit the target, how far the bullet travels, if it scatters, where you hit, if its a weak hit or strong hit, does it kill you outright, etc.

Thats one person making an attack action. That is not good game design.

So we need simple, because uneccesary crunch in tabletops, and RPGS in video games, is what kills them for the most part. That said, simple needs to be good too. 4th Edition D&D was decent at it, but with each subsequent release of content it got worse and worse, because we had nagging issues left over that can gimp the game. My favorite example is dealing with monsters. Say your encounters a young white dragon. the book tells you the alignment and level you would see them in, and you can adjust accordingly of course but most DM's never do that.

But what if this white dragon was held captive by a band of crazy cultits and is being bound by a magic spell? What if you release it? Do you attack it immediately for more xp, does it ignore you and fly away? You can role-play this, but would 4th Edition, or any edition of D&D even allow such a thing because of pre-requisites on monster builds?

Yeah I know this focuses on alignments but that is kind of a broken system to begin with. But I digress. My point is that simple is good, but needs to be done well. It needs to be spelled out for you and have a nuance or two in the mechanics that allows it to be complex and fun, while being both flexible for role-playing. Basically, it has rules, of course, but the rules allow the mechanics to work, instead of breaking the mechanics when you give them too much freedom, or too little. Honestly, the only system I know that does this in a table-top setting is the cardinal system, and it is only found in the 2nd editions of the Ironclaw games by Sanguine, so it's small time and independent. d20 doesn't do it well, GURPS doesn't work as well as it should, and other systems, like the one used in Aces & Eights or say Elicpse Phase, can just **** right off for being complex for complex sake, it seems. 

Puh-lease. While there are extreme examples, most tabletop P&P RPGs aren't that complex. It's like anything, you just need to learn the systems, that's all. There's too much dumbing-down with a lot of systems lately, and I think it's hurting tabletop RPGs. Thankfully unlike with a new CRPG, you can always just get a group together and play the older, more complex rulesets and ignore the new stuff (which is what my friends do when we play AD&D: we always play 2nd edition).

Granted, I can see what you mean to a degree. One example of a system that was simplified without actually dumbing things down was the Star Wars d20 system when it moved to the Saga Edition ruleset, where, for example, prior to that tech experts had to specailise in different specific areas of mechanics or using a computer, but from the saga edition onwards it was just tied into a single "Mechanics" skill for mechanical stuff and "Use Computer" for computer-related stuff. Cutting the fat can be good, but too many systems are just dropping stuff entirely and dropping the walls that balance and restrict the games where they need to be.

Simply put, too many are moving away from AD&D and more towards ADD.

[LinksOcarina]

I completely disagree, Terror K. I used to play Advanced D&D back in the day, and now I won't even touch the damn thing because it was just simply not fun, and in most respects well made.Simplification is a good thing in a lot of respects because it keeps the industry going for new fans, and it makes set-up and playing much more involved.

If anything, that is helping table-tops more than hurting it, because now people are buying and experimenting with table-tops again.

[Terror_K]

LinksOcarina wrote...

I completely disagree, Terror K. I used to play Advanced D&D back in the day, and now I won't even touch the damn thing because it was just simply not fun, and in most respects well made.Simplification is a good thing in a lot of respects because it keeps the industry going for new fans, and it makes set-up and playing much more involved.

If anything, that is helping table-tops more than hurting it, because now people are buying and experimenting with table-tops again.

That's the same logic being used with CRPGs lately, and it's the very thing that's resulted in barely any strong RPGs any more, and all of this weaksauce stuff, just like Mass Effect 3 and Dragon Age 2, that are just story-driven action games with very light RPG elements.

Again, the only real difference is that tabletop P&P players who prefer the more complex and deep systems of yesteryear can easily just use them instead, since it's all about creating your own stuff rather than relying on others to do so. However, this can still result in a lack of interesting and deep newer systems. So far results are varied from what I've seen, but I don't like this overall trend of oversimplification and dumbing down just to appeal more to the common person. Developers of all games, computer or otherwise, need to stop lowering their standards as a whole and taking away complexity just because lazy people without patience and people who don't want to think too much or put more effort in don't get it or understand. I'm sick of not being able to find anything with any depth or that engages my brain because it seems almost everything these days is just being watered down and simplified just so that a five year old with ADD can understand it and won't get bored.

Modifié par Terror_K, 27 juillet 2012 - 11:55 .

[Tishiro88]

I dont even consier a true person......... so there.

[InvincibleHero]

simonrana wrote...

wizardryforever wrote...
And come on, there really aren't that many cases of "auto-dialogue" where I felt that a dialogue wheel would have made any difference.  I didn't really see many places where I wish I'd had the option to say something different.   What Shepard says makes sense given the situation, and I'd rather have auto-dialogue than two/three options that say essentially the same thing.  Hell, in ME1, there were several places where all three options did say the same thing.  I'd rather the devs not deceive me with illusions of choice.  If there is no choice to be made, don't try to make it look like there is one.

I respectfully but completely disagree. The auto-dialogue often conflicted with what I expected Shepard's reaction to be. And more importantly the automation took away the sense of being in control Shepard - he became a character in a story that you are just passively watching.

I used to be annoyed by the false impression of choice in the early conversations in ME1 (e.g. when all the options for describing Shepard's vision triggered the exact same dialogue) but this is not an improvement. I wouldn't say go back to that mechanism either - instead they should have stuck to giving you different dialogue choices all the time. ME2 did it spot on, so why not ME3?

I'd agree with you if Shepard were your PNP character but he is not. You don't get to decide the personality. You choose from a menu of options that always were provided by BW writers. The character only exists through their imagination and they planned any and all personality and types of actions shepard could do.

People need to listen to themselves when they say MY shepard would not say or do this. Too much egocentrism with a fictional character created by someone else. He never was yours to begin with. Ownership is BW's and they make a game which we can play.

It is fine if you don't like the options but to say Shepard should say this or do this instead of what the creators wrote is silly. He is not a tabula rasa and such a game would not be very fun because you could never put in enough options to please everyone.

[LinksOcarina]

Terror_K wrote...

LinksOcarina wrote...

I completely disagree, Terror K. I used to play Advanced D&D back in the day, and now I won't even touch the damn thing because it was just simply not fun, and in most respects well made.Simplification is a good thing in a lot of respects because it keeps the industry going for new fans, and it makes set-up and playing much more involved.

If anything, that is helping table-tops more than hurting it, because now people are buying and experimenting with table-tops again.

That's the same logic being used with CRPGs lately, and it's the very thing that's resulted in barely any strong RPGs any more, and all of this weaksauce stuff, just like Mass Effect 3 and Dragon Age 2, that are just story-driven action games with very light RPG elements.

Again, the only real difference is that tabletop P&P players who prefer the more complex and deep systems of yesteryear can easily just use them instead, since it's all about creating your own stuff rather than relying on others to do so. However, this can still result in a lack of interesting and deep newer systems. So far results are varied from what I've seen, but I don't like this overall trend of oversimplification and dumbing down just to appeal more to the common person. Developers of all games, computer or otherwise, need to stop lowering their standards as a whole and taking away complexity just because lazy people without patience and people who don't want to think too much or put more effort in don't get it or understand. I'm sick of not being able to find anything with any depth or that engages my brain because it seems almost everything these days is just being watered down and simplified just so that a five year old with ADD can understand it and won't get bored.

Define RPG Elements, and what makes them light-weight or not. That is really a sticking point though because fact of the matter is there is no true absolute aspect of an RPG that really exists, other than leveling up characters and gaining experience, which glues it all together. This is why Action RPGs, Light RPGs, Console RPGS, Computer RPGs, Dungeon Crawlers, Rogue-Likes, Hybrid RPGS and even Table-top RPGs are all the same in the end.

Look, I know Mass Effect 2 and 3 had less crunch than Mass Effect 1, I agree with that. And I also agree that Mass Effect 2 is fairly lightweight compared to other RPG's because of the mechanics that are missing in combat, customization and even, in some cases, speaking to character. But the lack of crunch does not mean there is no depth either, and this goes with table-top games as well. Some of the best games I have played as of late have simple mechanics to them that are quick to learn, but keep things fresh because of their design. The second edition of  Ironclaw and the Book of Jade, Deadlands Reloaded and even the Dragon Age Tabletop were fun to play without being rules heavy in that regard as other games out there. And they are miles better than the d20 system at times and Dungeons and Dragons, but that is personal preference. 

As for games and RPGs, we are seeing the gamut of RPG's come to the market in new forms,and no, not all of them will be hardcore or crunchy like that. We got some of them out there, A Game of Thrones is still new, the upcoming Baldurs Gate Enhanced Edition, maybe even Cyberpunk, but this does not make them good games. In the case of A Game of Thrones, the mechanics were not well implemented and actually hurt the games playability. It again comes down to implementation of both complex and simple mechanics, so to write off one way as being superior and another as a problem comes off as arrogant and attempting to be exlusive towards a specific style of gameplay, one that is, and still will, evolve as we go forward. 

Especially in a table-top culture that glorifies unecessary mechanics and complexity. Games like Mouseguard, Eclipse Phase, Aces & Eights, Burning Wheel, Book of Five Rings and Ars Magica, for example were barely playable in certain, or all, edtiions based on their mechanics and rulesets. And most of them won Origin Awards for best Table-top RPG of the year. That worries me, honestly. 

Modifié par LinksOcarina, 27 juillet 2012 - 09:33 .

[Changonauta]

I can Hackett wrote...

  I dont think im alone here but im in the middle of a Red Dead Redemption playthrough and im juist realizing thtat ME3 isnt even an RPG I mean not even close, IDK what it is maybe a hybrid between a 3rd ps and a rpg but nothing like me1, omg its just hitting me ...... what have they done?!!

please tell me more

[Yate]

RPG? RPGs died a long time ago my friends. The genre as you know it will not resurface again, and for good reason I say. It was stale for a long time, there're only so many things you can do with 10-sided dice. Dragon Age was the dying breath of an old man, and Dragon Age II was the tombstone. Let's face it, there's no room for classic RPGs in a world where every game has a movie-quality storyline. Dungeon grinders like Skyrim and decision-based shooters like Mass Effect are the future.

[Terror_K]

LinksOcarina wrote...

Define RPG Elements, and what makes them light-weight or not. That is really a sticking point though because fact of the matter is there is no true absolute aspect of an RPG that really exists, other than leveling up characters and gaining experience, which glues it all together. This is why Action RPGs, Light RPGs, Console RPGS, Computer RPGs, Dungeon Crawlers, Rogue-Likes, Hybrid RPGS and even Table-top RPGs are all the same in the end.

Look, I know Mass Effect 2 and 3 had less crunch than Mass Effect 1, I agree with that. And I also agree that Mass Effect 2 is fairly lightweight compared to other RPG's because of the mechanics that are missing in combat, customization and even, in some cases, speaking to character. But the lack of crunch does not mean there is no depth either, and this goes with table-top games as well. Some of the best games I have played as of late have simple mechanics to them that are quick to learn, but keep things fresh because of their design. The second edition of  Ironclaw and the Book of Jade, Deadlands Reloaded and even the Dragon Age Tabletop were fun to play without being rules heavy in that regard as other games out there. And they are miles better than the d20 system at times and Dungeons and Dragons, but that is personal preference. 

As for games and RPGs, we are seeing the gamut of RPG's come to the market in new forms,and no, not all of them will be hardcore or crunchy like that. We got some of them out there, A Game of Thrones is still new, the upcoming Baldurs Gate Enhanced Edition, maybe even Cyberpunk, but this does not make them good games. In the case of A Game of Thrones, the mechanics were not well implemented and actually hurt the games playability. It again comes down to implementation of both complex and simple mechanics, so to write off one way as being superior and another as a problem comes off as arrogant and attempting to be exlusive towards a specific style of gameplay, one that is, and still will, evolve as we go forward. 

Especially in a table-top culture that glorifies unecessary mechanics and complexity. Games like Mouseguard, Eclipse Phase, Aces & Eights, Burning Wheel, Book of Five Rings and Ars Magica, for example were barely playable in certain, or all, edtiions based on their mechanics and rulesets. And most of them won Origin Awards for best Table-top RPG of the year. That worries me, honestly. 

My issues with CRPGs and P&P RPGs are actually different, even if they basically come down to the same general issue: dumbing down and oversimplification for the sake of broad appeal and growing their audience. With P&P RPGs my main issues is that quite often restrictions and limitations are getting removed or scaled back to make it easier for players to be Masters of All Trades or able to be anything and everything without restrictions and boundaries, and I don't think that's a good thing. It's not so much that the mechanics are getting simpler, as the fact that a lot of games these days seem reluctant to punish players too much and tend to hold their hand. I'm all for unnecessary complexity being removed to make things more efficient so long as it achieves the same result (e.g. the old Star Wars d20 system compared to the Saga Edition d20 system) but not when it overautomates and babies the player, and not when it just allows them too much freedom to the point where game balance starts to deteriorate.

Mass Effect even suffered from these issues to a certain extent, and it's a cRPG. With ME1 Mass Effect used to have more facets to it than just combat, with Electronics, Decryption, Charm/Indimidate, etc. Then ME2 came along and pretty much focused every skill on combat and combat alone, essentially just saying "No matter what Shepard's class, he/she is automatically great at Tech stuff, automatically both persuasive and a great fighter, etc." To me that's the equivalent of saying "you don't need to be a Thief/Rogue in order to disarm traps or pick locks... any class can just do it now, without needing a skill for it" and also saying "you don't need to be Charismatic to succeed at persuading somebody through dialogue, it just happens now whenever you talk."

So we've gone from a Shepard that in the original game needed to be built in a certain manner to accomplish certain things and needed companions to fill the gaps, to a Shepard that can be a Soldier, but also a brillaint Tech with no effort and also brilliantly persuasive/charismatic, and on top of that Shepard doesn't even need to invest in anything to be good at combat and automatically is. All the character-building stuff is about now is making your Shepard more effective at killing the enemy or more effective at not dying from the enemy. That's it. That's the entire focus of the game since ME2. RPGs should be more varied than that, but instead we have a Shepard that's automatically a Master of all Trades at everything because factors that were once determined by statistical RPG skills are cut and Shepard can just do them and be great at everything.

BioWare's other problem lately beyond dumbing things down as a means of pandering their games to a wider audience seems to be that they're too obsessed with the move to more cinematic games, and that's resulting in less player customisation and choice. They've pretty much outright said that they've moved onto the voiced protagonist for all their games now and they believe the silent PC to be a thing of the past... which I find a rather swift about-face considering they were defending the silent PC when making DAO for the very same reasons players such as myself generally prefer them... factors they now have decided to ignore and instead simply follow more modern trends. The basic point is, while a voiced protagonist does provide a more cinematic experience, it also greatly limits you in the amount of dialogue a game can have, as well as the ability of a player to truly customise their character. It seems gamers these days lack imagination and want to be just told how everything goes, how everybody sounds, etc. or at least they do according to BioWare.

All in all, it's pretty damn clear from comments BioWare have made and the way they are making their games lately that they no longer want to make deep RPGs with a lot of player customisation, but they want to simply make cinematic action games. Just like most other developers, albeit with perhaps a bit more control. The dialogue was so limited and automated in ME3, even that's debatable, as we're only a stone's throw away from Shepard just being another Nathan Drake, Batman or Ezio Auditore. It seems BioWare are more intent on telling their own stories in games the way they want to rather than have the player forge the story themselves. The amount of dialogue choice and freedom within quests themselves has greatly dwindled within the Mass Effect series. ME1 often had several means of executing a quest (Noveria, Feros, Virmire, Samesh Bhatia, Hanar Preacher, etc.), while ME2 only had this rarely (Zaeed and Samara's loyalty quests are some examples) and ME3 really didn't have it at all. The only variations really came down to the choices you could make at the end of a quest in ME3, with pretty much no multiple paths to get there: it was generally a case of "do the quest like you do it every other sime you play the game, then side with A or B at conclusion via a dialogue choice." Compare this to the likes of KotOR which often had half a dozen ways of completing even minor quests, including the brillaint section on Korriban where you can constantly double and triple-cross the two Sith Academy heads in various different manners.

Overall, CRPGs seem to be getting smaller, simpler and railroading the player more, with the exception of the open world affairs like Skyrim, Fallout: NV, Kingdoms of Amalur: Reckoning, etc. which instead always end up lacking narrative strength and focus, strong characters and companions, etc. They're becoming more about the action and combat than about the mechanics, often reducing mechanics to solely combat-oriented factors (like ME2 and ME3) and too focused on being cinematic to the point where player control and roleplaying suffer because they feel things need to be like a movie and they need to tell a more linear story. It still boggles my mind why BioWare even thought to consider removing so much in the way of dialogue choices and using so much autodialogue, let alone actually did it with ME3. Even though I dislike what 4th Ed AD&D has done, I can at least see why it could logically help improve the roleplaying and storytelling itself by stopping the statistical mechanics from getting in the way. BioWare's move with ME3 does the opposite of that, and all it says to me is that my concerns over the past two to three years about BioWare simply wanting to do cinematic action games instead of RPGs was absolutely true.

[arial]

wait OP.... are you saying you think RDR is an RPG....? ...no...just..no.....

[Langeman]

 Breakin' it down, Old-school!


AMIGA for teh winz.
The game-series saved space on the floppys by adding a booklet that the game referred to. Pretty smart solution, at the time anyway. (always nice to combine some light reading with your gaming)  

[Zuzu Mumu]

HBC Dresden wrote...

davidshooter wrote...

I wouldn't even call ME3 an RPG hybrid.

ME1 - is definitely a hybrid.
ME2 - I think thoughtful people can disagree about this one - I think it has enough branching dialogue, side quests, exploration and character interaction to be called a hybrid.
ME3 - is a shooter. Questing and exploring are non existent most dialogue is auto and you can't even put your gun away  - but you can do the space summersalt.

Games like Red Dead and Skyrim are today's well executed hybrids, real RPGs are pretty rare these days.

So Red Dead Redemption is a hybrid and Mass Effect 3 is just a shooter? How do you figure? ME3 has leveling, dialogue choices (not as much as ME1 & 2, but ME1 has several dialogue choices that said the same thing and ME2 had several wheels with only two options), character interaction (there is still a lot of talking in this game), weapon customizing (better than the first two games), choice, and missions. RDR has auto diaologue, shooting, (some) choice, exploration, and missions. The only thing RDR has over ME3 RPG-wise is exploration and just because ME3 took out the exploration from the earlier games doesn't mean it is not an RPG/hybrid anymore. I mean The Witcher 2 even has auto dialogue, so every RPG doesn't fulfill all the criteria.

mass effect 3 is a shooter , has nothing to do with the witcher , which is a real RPG
NPC interractions + skill progression , customization , questing (when you want it and not when it's given to you. as it should be) Open World +++ many many more, same as Dragon Age.
While ME3 offers some interractions , and some conversation , and an unneeded weapon upgrade system does not qualify as an RPG.
And if we are talking about weapons customization , what was wrong with the old style? no upgrades , u wanted a better gun u bought a better model , u wanted a lighter model u switched to that , you wanted better focus and targetting you switched to another model as simple as that.
Do 50 upgrades in ME3 on a weapon to get an end result that is "almost" as good as a weapon from me 1 which was very easy to use with perfect focus ,ballance , and tons of damage and all you needed was to find it in a locker and equip it. Therefore the "useless" part.
Quests are automaticly given to you when passing people by or when you interract with characters as opposed to doing what quest u want when you want it
I would hardly call the inventory useful as well, why not sell / buy NPC to inventory interraction?
By skill progression i don't mean click top or bottom type of the skill such as ME3 building , but instead im speaking of a real choice , 200 things to upgrade and all matter , but you focus on what you need more not just a simple "more range" or more "damage" type of choice.
Also by open world i mean you go anywhere you want and explore what ever you feel like.ME3 doesn't even let you go explore anything if you don't ahve a quest there LOL ... i mean really , LOL. Wanna go back to Eden prime ? Sorry no can do ...no quest no planet exploration.
+++ many more. Having the ability to "sometimes speak" to people or to upgrade weapons by adding the "weight factor" to the game does not turn the ballance towards the RPG side of the game, shooter more , shoot shoot + knife + shoot again + knife + checkpoint + cutscene ,mission over.
That's why you need 200 hours to finish a moderate Dragon Age playthrough while you only need 12-15 to finish Mass Effect 3 (shoot shoot checkpoint cutscene mission over)

Modifié par Zuzu Mumu, 28 juillet 2012 - 10:24 .

[Terror_K]

Scepsis wrote...

Just as my taste in music, I refuse to restrict myself to the guidelines of meaningless genres.
I listen to what I like and hence play what I like.

Who really cares about the classification the game falls under anyway?

Whether you tie them to a genre or not, a lot of the elements I loved in ME1 and even ME2 are either not present or too sparse in ME3. ME3 exhibits barely any of the factors that got me into the series in the first place, instead focusing too much on factors I considered not overly important or was merely neutral about.

Simply put: RPG or not, or shooter or not, style wise ME3 is barely a Mass Effect game, IMO.

[PaulSX]

Zuzu Mumu wrote...

mass effect 3 is a shooter , has nothing to do with the witcher , which is a real RPG
NPC interractions + skill progression , customization , questing (when you want it and not when it's given to you. as it should be) Open World +++ many many more, same as Dragon Age.

let me get this straight. The witcher 2 and dragon age are not real RPG. one is RPG/Action hybrid, and the other is a computer RPG. The real RPG is table top game which is designed for social purpose and creative minds. Neverwinter Nights is the closest thing to the real RPG.

Modifié par suntzuxi, 29 juillet 2012 - 01:04 .

[Zuzu Mumu]

suntzuxi wrote...

Zuzu Mumu wrote...

mass effect 3 is a shooter , has nothing to do with the witcher , which is a real RPG
NPC interractions + skill progression , customization , questing (when you want it and not when it's given to you. as it should be) Open World +++ many many more, same as Dragon Age.

let me get this straight. The witcher 2 and dragon age are not real RPG. one is RPG/Action hybrid, and the other is a computer RPG. The real RPG is table top game which is designed for social purpose and creative minds. Neverwinter Nights is the closest thing to the real RPG.

we are not playing smartass games in here mister , Dragon Age and The Witcher 2 ARE RPGS.
End of story , we are in the 21'st century not in the 19'th anymore for the paper table game yeah?
Role Playing Game get it straight , wether you still wear a cape and a wizard's hat while playing
Dungeons and Dragons or play it the way it's Ment to be Played , virtually, it's still RPG.
But ME3 is 95% Shooter , have a look at all the MP DLC's , shoot shoot shoot shooter ..

And by your logic , Digimon is an RPG because it's designed for social purpose and you play it on a
board with cards.
No sir indeed NOT. DIABLO is a RPG more than any of your D&D and NWN yet you didn't see me
talking about that did you. let me know if you want me to enumerate another 20 different RPG games
which are indeed RPGs and have nothing to do with this thread.

Modifié par Zuzu Mumu, 29 juillet 2012 - 04:04 .

[LinksOcarina]

Zuzu Mumu wrote...

suntzuxi wrote...

Zuzu Mumu wrote...

mass effect 3 is a shooter , has nothing to do with the witcher , which is a real RPG
NPC interractions + skill progression , customization , questing (when you want it and not when it's given to you. as it should be) Open World +++ many many more, same as Dragon Age.

let me get this straight. The witcher 2 and dragon age are not real RPG. one is RPG/Action hybrid, and the other is a computer RPG. The real RPG is table top game which is designed for social purpose and creative minds. Neverwinter Nights is the closest thing to the real RPG.

we are not playing smartass games in here mister , Dragon Age and The Witcher 2 ARE RPGS.
End of story , we are in the 21'st century not in the 19'th anymore for the paper table game yeah?
Role Playing Game get it straight , wether you still wear a cape and a wizard's hat while playing
Dungeons and Dragons or play it the way it's Ment to be Played , virtually, it's still RPG.
But ME3 is 95% Shooter , have a look at all the MP DLC's , shoot shoot shoot shooter ..

And by your logic , Digimon is an RPG because it's designed for social purpose and you play it on a
board with cards.
No sir indeed NOT. DIABLO is a RPG more than any of your D&D and NWN yet you didn't see me
talking about that did you. let me know if you want me to enumerate another 20 different RPG games
which are indeed RPGs and have nothing to do with this thread.

Well..Diablo is a dungeon crawler styled RPG that is all about the action, not the story.

And you are completely wrong about Mass Effect 3, which is still an RPG. Mechanics of the game are irrelevent in an RPG because there are so many different styles and types of combat mechanics, social interaction, story progression and even level up systems, its impossible to say what is and what isen't an RPG.  Dead Island, Dungeon Defenders, Borderlands, and even League of Legends are all in that gray area of what an RPG can be, which include co-op games, tower defense elements, the MOBA moel or are just an FPS-styled game mechanic.

So really, the question again is not an absolute, since it is just a preference choice of the individual that is more important, then attempting to classifying everything. 

[JaegerBane]

suntzuxi wrote...
let me get this straight. The witcher 2 and dragon age are not real RPG. one is RPG/Action hybrid, and the other is a computer RPG. The real RPG is table top game which is designed for social purpose and creative minds. Neverwinter Nights is the closest thing to the real RPG.

In your opinion, of course. The need for an RPG to be a tabletop game is a pie-in-the-sky requirement that you've dreamed up yourself. If you want to consider things that way, no-one's stopping you, but trying to say your own personal 'definition' of an RPG is somehow authoritive is silly.

If you actually look at what games have fallen under the RPG umbrella - which is itself, becoming archaic as the traditional genres start to gel together - you'll find what makes an RPG is essentially based on the ability of the player to customise and build their character. Whether you play it on tabletop, computer, linear, sandbox, in sweats or in a wizards outfit are purely details and have no relevance to the genre the game occupies.

I mean, frankly, your own definition stated aboved doesn't even make sense. Using that logic, Warhammer 40k is an RPG because it too is 'table top game which is designed for social purpose and creative minds'....

Modifié par JaegerBane, 29 juillet 2012 - 04:46 .

[JaegerBane]

Terror_K wrote...

Simply put: RPG or not, or shooter or not, style wise ME3 is barely a Mass Effect game, IMO.

Sure, I mean, it only has the same characters, the same control, the continuation of the story, the same theme, the same voice actors, the same kit, the same interface....

I can at least understand your argument about whether ME3 can be considered an RPG - I don't agree with it, but I can see the coherent structure of where you're coming from. But actually trying to claim it isn't even a Mass Effect game is complete nonsense. Its a bit like saying Revenge of the Sith isn't Star Wars. The fact you dislike it doesn't somehow alter reality.

Modifié par JaegerBane, 29 juillet 2012 - 04:52 .