Rawgrim wrote...
LinksOcarina wrote...
Rawgrim wrote...
LinksOcarina wrote...
Rawgrim wrote...
LinksOcarina wrote...
Rawgrim wrote...
Terrorize69 wrote...
In DAO, out of nearly 80+ hours gameplay with all DLC.. only about 1hour was race specific, if that.. and that was mostly the first 40mins of the game, the other 20mins was the total collection of "omg your a elf"
It hardly added that much re-playability, sure the choice is nice, but really your only choice is a aesthetic avatar.
Has to do with actual roleplaying, not what the game tells you. How would your dwarf noble solve this and that, or react to this and that etc. You create a character and put yourself in hisher shoes.
Ironically the backgrounds mattered more than the races in that regard, considering that backgrounds tend to shape how your character can act or what they can do in typical RPG parlance, over racial traits and what not.
You notice with the Mass Effect multiplayer the emphasis is on classes over race. The races have different base stat traits but the classes have different powers and stat distribution, making them all wholly unique in most regards to how they can be built, how they can be used, and so forth. So a Volus Engineer will always have different functions over a Human one, while a Vorcha soldier may be a close-quarters fighter instead of the Turian soldier, who deals death at a distance.
That, to me, is a better role-playing experience because you have a background that determines more about your character than their race. So being a human noble vs a human fisherman might give you a different perspective, over being a human noble and an elven fisherman. The elf part is irrelevent because the fisherman aspect takes precedence.
In Thedas, though, your race determines your background. So i am 50-50 with you on that argument. I see your point, and all that.
Well...the ME multiplayer doesn`t have anything to do with roleplaying, to be honest. You can pick "classes" while playing multiplayer on CoD too, but that doesn`t make it roleplaying. Roleplaying isn`t about functions in battle. That bit ties to the tactics bit. But yes, having different races have different variations of the classes is not a bad thing. Elven warriors don`t fight the way human warriors might do (in general). Still. All that should be up to the player to decide. Its the players character.
Actually, Id argue that Mass Effect 3's multiplayer is more Role-Playing than meets the eye.
Got to remember, role-playing for some people is just about utility in combat. Tons of power gamers and min-maxers would tell you otherwise how useful combative skills are and how they look to get that extra 5% bonus damage out of their characters vs social interaction. And the CoD classes are not fluid at all, they are basicaly excuses to call something a class by giving you starting equipment. And you got to remember, the equipment is what people use in CoD, not the character.
Mass Effect differentiates by giving you specific powers for a job/class. The N7 Paladin is the only guy with the Omni-shield, for example. The Turian Ghost has a Tech Charge with the jetpack, and the Vorcha have blood lust. That allows you to play a role. It is in combat yes, but it still functions as the same way. It makes the characters unique outside of their use of weapons and extra equipment bonuses. That is something you don't see in Call of Duty, which basically makes the classes in that game pointless because they transform into a mash of everything in the end.
And i'm not sure race determines your standing in Thedas. The only case you have is how elves are treated, but Dwarves and even Kossith kind of get the respect they deserve in the end, so I don't know if thats a major issue outside of Elven rights.
The MP is still just about doing damage to waves of enemies. No rp involved at all. No dialogue either. If this is roleplaying to you, then Super Mario, Gears of War, Halo, and Unreal Tournament are also roleplaying. The "role" in roleplaying isn`t about the role you have in combat. Its about the role you as a person has, more or less. Wich is why loads of rp fans don`t consider Diablo to be an rpg. Its an action game with a tiny bit of rpg features in it.
As for players just doing minmaxing - they arn`t roleplaying, they are playing an rts. Simple as that.
Play some table-tops, a lot of people I used to game with would tell you otherwise, much to my chagrin since I liked talking my way out of situations or using illusion magic.
The "role" part is so subjective there is no definition, hence why the answer to this question is both right and wrong; it is both your role in a combat situation, and the role your character has through their persona.
Those RP fans who don't consider Diablo and RPG are basically incorrect, because by that definition than most RPG's out there, including a majority of BioWare's catalgoue, are not RPG games by such a narrow margin.
And that is a poor definition of things to begin with, kind of like how the "JRPG" term tells us nothing about an RPG, except the perception of what a JRPG is. It's a terrible term that catalogues games for us, and makes no sense in the process.
Played table-top rpgs since the late 80s, mate.
Adding the "role" into combat started with WoW, where it was all about having some certain duty to the group during a fight.
Seriously? A majority of Bioware`s rpgs are like Diablo? Can you solve a quest in Diablo in more than one way? Will your actions change the story in any way? or is the story utterly set in stone in Diablo? You don`t even have dialogue options in Diablo. Diablo is as far from a bioware game as you can possibly get. Its like comparing Tetris to Skyrim.
JRPG is a term for rpgs made in Japan. Simple as that.
1. even if that was the case, most gamers in the 80s and 90's focused on combat mechanics and crunchy rule-set systems to they can power-level through games. Shadowrun, Book of Five Rings, White Wolf games, Warhammer Fantasy, etc. Its why I hated some of the old-school games, like the second edition of DnD, because it was designed to be specific combat-role heavy and over-used crunch to make the mechanics work. 3rd fixed some those issues but added more problems, and 4th edition fixed a lot of that, but most people hate 4th because its not like 3rd or 2nd.
2.And I never said BioWare RPG's are like Diablo, I said BioWare RPG's wouldn't be considered "RPG" enough for these phantom hardcore fans. Mass Effect and Jade Empire come to mind as primary examples, and Baldur's Gate I maintain to this day has the same issues as Dragon Age does in a narrative sense.
I would read more carefully next time, and if I was unclear, sorry.
3. Lastly, JRPG is an abused term, because people associate it with mechanics, not country of origin. Is Dragon's Dogma a JRPG because it was Japanese made? Many would argue it is emulating what the West has been doing, so it's a Western RPG, which is a worse title out there than JRPG because it again, focuses on a schema that exists. In the end, the terms are arbitrary and incorrect in how they categorize something that doesn't need catagorization. .
Modifié par LinksOcarina, 27 octobre 2012 - 11:50 .
then your good to go, head canon fire away.
Retour en haut
