587 réponses à ce sujet

[AlanC9]

Robhuzz wrote...

This is true. However, ME3 had A LOT of focus on combat, more than anything else was it meant to look 'cool' and 'awesome'. 

And BG2 didn't?

[FlyingSquirrel]

Personally, I just look for a good story with a decent amount of choice in dialogue and in making the storyline's major decisions - to me, that's what's essential about the "role playing" part. All the customization of armor, weapons, etc. honestly doesn't interest me that much as long as I'm not being given (a) a completely useless weapon that I have no choice to replace; or ( a really stupid-looking outfit on one or more of the characters. (Miranda and Samara come close on that count, but just giving them a different, less sexualized default appearance, as opposed to a choice of 8 different outfits, would have been fine with me.)

I'd have liked to see a little more variety in the biotic and tech skills in ME2 and ME3, but the streamlined weapons/armor system didn't bother me at all - I was half-relieved at not having to deal with ME1's inventory system and the constant need to sell things or turn them into omnigel just to avoid running out of space.

[twystedspyder]

Dr_Extrem wrote...

Dragoonlordz wrote...

Dr_Extrem wrote...

when i was young, we played rpgs in our kitchen - with pencils, character sheets and a gamemaster, that encouraged us, to find creative solutions with our characters. we created cities, persons and intersting stories. we danced in teverns to make money or we traveled the land to find adventures or bandits.

rpgs are more than cold stats and loot.

If that is your counter to my reply to your comment above then it does not impress me or change my response. It does not even back up your original statement and in reality backs up my stance of RPG elements being what defines an RPG. In your example you used character sheets and pencils which recorded loot, stats, persona, equipment and skills. All these things are RPG elements. A gamemaster to set the stage, situations, managed consequencs of your actions, use of items or skills aka your attributes and abilities.

did i quote you? i bet your ego needs a second place on the bus.

I'll quote you both.  Grumpy people should go roleplay some less grumpy characters.

The way I see it is this:  

You can remove all of the paperwork from any RPG and still play an RPG.  

If you remove the ability of a player to have agency over their character, to actually play a role and if you remove a story that can potentially change with every action of the player, then all you have is a data management job.

[AlanC9]

RocketManSR2 wrote...
As much as I hate to say it, that post really shows that nobody really knows what an RPG is anymore. I've become immersed in many a game over the years. I'm talking about the kind of game where you look up and 12 hours have passed. Batman: Arkham City is one such game, and I certainly wouldn't categorize it as an RPG. However, Chris is wrong, so very wrong. If he can't see that BioWare games have done a 180 then I pity him and anybody else that can't see it. The Mass Effect series has slowly but surely moved towards generic shooter and away from what put the company on the map, great RPG gameplay like Knights of the Old Republic and Jade Empire. I shudder to think what will become of ME4 under the same devs that made Omega and the MP.

How come there's no actual argument here? You know, "Bio has moved away from "RPG" because their games lack X, Y, and Z." Rather than "this is so obvious that I don't have to actually tell you what it is I'm talking about."

[AlanC9]

Here's an actual argument, for instance..

elitecom wrote...
I really think Mass Effect 1 got it right with its non-linear story progression, something which Bioware used to be proud of. So what's so good with the setup in Mass Effect 1? Not only does it stay true to the plot and the role which you as the player inherit, but it also allows for a great deal of freedom. 
You are a Spectre and the mission is yours to go about and complete in the way you want to. If you want to rush through Therum, Feros, Noveria, and Virmire in order to have a sense of urgency, you can do that. If you want to complete the mission differently and take your time you can do that. In the end you are the Spectre and it is your mission. This is a good gameplay concept for a roleplaying game because it really allows you to roleplay.

I'm just not sure I buy this one. Freedom equals role-play?

And the italed sentence doesn't work. Pretending there are consequences isn't the same thing as actually having consequences.

Modifié par AlanC9, 14 janvier 2013 - 11:16 .

[RiouHotaru]

Obitim wrote...

That is the difference in the skills system though, you had to invest in a few trees to see an actual difference, which made you levelling choices a lot more final, as opposed to ME2 and 3 whereby you get massive differences per level up.

Wait, so the huge difference per level is a BAD thing?

Mdoggy1214 wrote...

Oh god really? You're gonna be one of those guys?

See what you're doing is giving the "technically" argument. What's a technically argument? It's when somebody catches you in a lie, so you find a loophole in your previous statement so you can avoid being called a liar. Lemme give you an example;

Player: "Hey...you said there would be no A, B and C endings. But that's exactly what happened. We had three choices at the end. A for Destroy, B for Control, C for Synthesis."

Bioware: "Well.......TECHNICALLY if you stand around and do nothing for a few minutes, you'll end up getting a game over screen, which can be interpreted as a fourth option. So you see you really had a choice between A, B, C, and D!"

Actually, we didn't get A, B, C

We got A1, A2, A3, B1, B2, C, D (Refuse, post-EC)

And yes, each variation of Destroy counts.  Doesn't matter that the cutscenes that similar, the implcation of each ending is quite different.  Especially so with Control.

You may not agree, but it's there.

[AlanC9]

Sometimes when people say "ending" they mean the actual final state of the game universe. Sometimes they mean what the cutscenes look like. Sometimes they haven't decided what they mean.

[Dr_Extrem]

Dragoonlordz wrote...

Dr_Extrem wrote...

did i quote you? i bet your ego needs a second place on the bus.

You can believe that if you wish, I posted a counter point to your stance, a challenge to your way of thinking. You were left with two choices (imho) to either respond to myself for pointing what I saw as potential inaccuracies in your stance which could further a discussion on the subject or ignore it to avoid having to answer that challenge, do not wish to defend your position or unable to counter what was said. I would of preferred you picked the first option but if you do not wish to then I shall not force you to do so and leave it at that.

 i dont think, that i would be able to clarify my stance in a way that would satisfy you or me.

if i answer to a person, i quote the original post. i learned my lessons. there are persons here, who like to quote comments out of context only to twist them.

sorry if a came along rude.

it is late here and i am not able to clarify or answer my stance in a foreign language.


lets just say that to me, an rpg is more than stats, sheets, loot and perks/skills. they help me to interact with the world - thats all.

Modifié par Dr_Extrem, 14 janvier 2013 - 11:19 .

[Mathias]

RedCaesar97 wrote...

Mdoggy1214 wrote...
People have to at least agree that ME3 was more shooter than it was an RPG.

No. All modern RPGs have some form of combat. Mass Effect 3's combat is real-time TPS (Third Person Shooter).

But the TPS elements is too heavily emphasized in the game. What makes this game an RPG? The fact that you can level up and acquire skills? Whoopdy doo. You can do that in most action adventure and fps games these days anyway.

[Cobretti ftw]

ME2 has MANY great things. Many things are better than ME1. BUT there are flaws like u popinted.

ME3 just didnt improove. It has too many flaws.


DA:O was indeed the "last great bioware game" IMO.


ME2 has 1 VERY GOOD THING though. The dialogues and loyalty missions are VERY WWELL MADE.

[FlyingSquirrel]

elitecom wrote...
What many of you who thinks that a sense of urgency is needed and that sidequests should be marginalised to their ME3 state argue for is a gameplay system which limits my freedom to complete the mission in the way I want to. In other words I have to play your version of how you would complete the mission, that is with a lot of urgency in mind. I don't like to have your way of playing the game forced upon me, just as I'm sure that you wouldn't like to be forced to play it my way. But I'm arguing for a gameplay system in which you have the freedom to choose, and that is the sign of a well designed roleplaying game.

I have to disagree with this to some extent. To me, what mandates the sense of urgency is not that I personally "want" to play it that way, but rather that I feel like the storyline demands it of my character. ME3 actually did a better job, IMO, of integrating sidequests into the main plot, since they all still related to fighting Reapers, trying to counteract Cerberus, or gathering resources and personnel for the war.

In my first ME1 playthrough, I mistakenly thought that the "Race Against Time" journal entry meant that I really might run out of time to stop Saren and skipped almost every sidequest as a result. Had I not managed to justify a slower approach to myself for subsequent playthroughs, I'd have probably never even seen at least 5 or 10 hours of game content, much of which I did in fact want to see.

[Cobretti ftw]

PS: i REALLY like ME2. But ME2 is an AWESOME game.. DA:O is even better. its spetacular.

My felling towards ME2 is that it could've been more. ='/

[Faust1979]

Mdoggy1214 wrote...

RedCaesar97 wrote...

Mdoggy1214 wrote...
People have to at least agree that ME3 was more shooter than it was an RPG.

No. All modern RPGs have some form of combat. Mass Effect 3's combat is real-time TPS (Third Person Shooter).

But the TPS elements is too heavily emphasized in the game. What makes this game an RPG? The fact that you can level up and acquire skills? Whoopdy doo. You can do that in most action adventure and fps games these days anyway.

You also make decisions, upgrade your character choose how to wrap up story lines and decide the fate of several races in the game

[RiouHotaru]

AlanC9 wrote...

Sometimes when people say "ending" they mean the actual final state of the game universe. Sometimes they mean what the cutscenes look like. Sometimes they haven't decided what they mean.

This reminds me of Star Ocean 2, a game I'm quite fond of.  One of the big advertising points was that it had over 100-150+ endings.  Those endings consist entirely of pairings on the game's enormous playable cast and whether the relationship is friendly/romantic, and who is the dominant character/personality.

What this resulted in was:

A1, A2, A3, A4, A5, etc, etc, then B1, B2, B3, so on and so forth.  Of course the endings weren't completely different.  A1 and B1 might be a reverse of each other, or a change of the dialog in a small way, even if the same pairing, with the same romantic/platonic status, and same dominant character.  There were some heavy complaints that this wasn't what was advertised.

But it WAS the 100+ endings that's on the box and even the strategy guide.  Players were expecting over 100 distinct and unique endings, not minor variations.  But they DID get what was advertised.

It's the same issue here.  There are different endings.  Three variations of Destroy, two variations of Control, Synthesis, and Refuse.  Yes, the Red, Blue, Green use cutscenes that are similar, but they are still each a different ending.  They aren't very distinct though.  And I think that's where the player vs. developer problem comes up.

We didn't get an A, B, C ending, just as we were told we wouldn't get.  But players consider what we got to be too close to that.  Player expectation not being the same as developer delivery.

[Mathias]

RiouHotaru wrote...

Obitim wrote...

That is the difference in the skills system though, you had to invest in a few trees to see an actual difference, which made you levelling choices a lot more final, as opposed to ME2 and 3 whereby you get massive differences per level up.

Wait, so the huge difference per level is a BAD thing?

Mdoggy1214 wrote...

Oh god really? You're gonna be one of those guys?

See what you're doing is giving the "technically" argument. What's a technically argument? It's when somebody catches you in a lie, so you find a loophole in your previous statement so you can avoid being called a liar. Lemme give you an example;

Player: "Hey...you said there would be no A, B and C endings. But that's exactly what happened. We had three choices at the end. A for Destroy, B for Control, C for Synthesis."

Bioware: "Well.......TECHNICALLY if you stand around and do nothing for a few minutes, you'll end up getting a game over screen, which can be interpreted as a fourth option. So you see you really had a choice between A, B, C, and D!"

Actually, we didn't get A, B, C

We got A1, A2, A3, B1, B2, C, D (Refuse, post-EC)

And yes, each variation of Destroy counts.  Doesn't matter that the cutscenes that similar, the implcation of each ending is quite different.  Especially so with Control.

You may not agree, but it's there.

Dude I rest may case.

You're really gonna count such miniscule differences in those endings? I can admit the extended cut did a better job with them, but not the original cut. We got A, B, and C.

I can't just tell a person i'm making them an AMAZING steak dinner, and when they come home, i present them with half a steak tip.

What? Oh you were expecting a whole steak? Well what gave you that idea, you're expecations were too high. It's not my fault.

Same thing happened here with ME3. The flat out lied on some things, stretched the truth on others, and weren't clear with the rest. To deny that is completely irrational.

[Mathias]

Faust1979 wrote...

Mdoggy1214 wrote...

RedCaesar97 wrote...

Mdoggy1214 wrote...
People have to at least agree that ME3 was more shooter than it was an RPG.

No. All modern RPGs have some form of combat. Mass Effect 3's combat is real-time TPS (Third Person Shooter).

But the TPS elements is too heavily emphasized in the game. What makes this game an RPG? The fact that you can level up and acquire skills? Whoopdy doo. You can do that in most action adventure and fps games these days anyway.

You also make decisions, upgrade your character choose how to wrap up story lines and decide the fate of several races in the game

I can make decisions in Black Ops 2. Is that an Rpg? And i'm pretty sure the decision making was gutted like a fish in ME3. Same goes for how linear the story was. Given how much ME3 regressed from the franchises RPG elements, ME3 was more of a TPS than an RPG.

[Dragoonlordz]

twystedspyder wrote...

The way I see it is this:  

You can remove all of the paperwork from any RPG and still play an RPG.  

If you remove the ability of a player to have agency over their character, to actually play a role and if you remove a story that can potentially change with every action of the player, then all you have is a data management job.

If you remove all the paperwork, the records of the equipment and items have, skills or abilities your character has, personal traits aka attributes of your character then what your left with is the first one of two methods of RPG I mentioned earlier the playing a role equals role playing game definition.

You are reliant on only the role of being someone not the RPG elements that enhance that role. Your example is like playing doctors and nurses only  without the selection items, tools and equipment or outfits that go with it. You are playing the role of the doctor or nurse but have no equipment or items, even dialogue systems is an RPG element just like equipment and skills or abilities, choice and consequence systems, personal attributes and traits all which allow choice in how you play that role.

My issue with that first definition is it does not allow for a filtering of genres so highlight and separate one genre title from another so I prefer the RPG elements method of defining the genre because it gives me the ability to filter or select a sub-section of genre away from another. I am not saying the first method is wrong, I am saying it is not a method I would use because it creates more chaos than the second method.

Modifié par Dragoonlordz, 14 janvier 2013 - 11:27 .

[RiouHotaru]

Mdoggy1214 wrote...

Dude I rest may case.

You're really gonna count such miniscule differences in those endings? I can admit the extended cut did a better job with them, but not the original cut. We got A, B, and C.

I can't just tell a person i'm making them an AMAZING steak dinner, and when they come home, i present them with half a steak tip.

What? Oh you were expecting a whole steak? Well what gave you that idea, you're expecations were too high. It's not my fault.

Same thing happened here with ME3. The flat out lied on some things, stretched the truth on others, and weren't clear with the rest. To deny that is completely irrational.

Yes, I am going to count it.  There was a significant thematic difference between a Destroy ending where the Earth is reduced to ash, and a Destroy ending where Shepard lives.  You can't deny that.

And there's a difference.  If you tell someone you're making a steak dinner, but only serve a half steak, you didn't lie.  It's clearly a steak dinner.  Just because it's only half a steak doesn't NOT make it a steak dinner.  Now, if you told me it was a WHOLE steak dinner and only serve me HALF?  Then we've got problems.

But your comparison is a bit funky anyway.

[Dragoonlordz]

Dr_Extrem wrote...

Dragoonlordz wrote...

Dr_Extrem wrote...

did i quote you? i bet your ego needs a second place on the bus.

You can believe that if you wish, I posted a counter point to your stance, a challenge to your way of thinking. You were left with two choices (imho) to either respond to myself for pointing what I saw as potential inaccuracies in your stance which could further a discussion on the subject or ignore it to avoid having to answer that challenge, do not wish to defend your position or unable to counter what was said. I would of preferred you picked the first option but if you do not wish to then I shall not force you to do so and leave it at that.

 i dont think, that i would be able to clarify my stance in a way that would satisfy you or me.

if i answer to a person, i quote the original post. i learned my lessons. there are persons here, who like to quote comments out of context only to twist them.

sorry if a came along rude.

it is late here and i am not able to clarify or answer my stance in a foreign language.


lets just say that to me, an rpg is more than stats, sheets, loot and perks/skills. they help me to interact with the world - thats all.

It's okay I just wished to debate with your your stance, explore it in more detail to find out whether I can consider a possible third method for definition. But I cannot do so from the initial post so I countered why I could not do so and hoped you could further clarify and explain why you felt that immersion defined an RPG. Your second post simply to me personally went further away from your first stance which is why I sought to gather why the two do not mesh with each other from first to second post (imho). Though I admit even I might have come across as bit mean which is why I tried to alter my initial comment before you could respond but failed to do so in time.

Modifié par Dragoonlordz, 14 janvier 2013 - 11:32 .

[xsdob]

Slowly, I am beginning to realize that I find rpg's annoying and unnecessarily bogged down and tedious, and that streamlined games are what I prefer playing.

Oh well, as long as there is a likeable character and a narrative to follow, and the gameplay is playable without feeling like a exercise in what not to do in gameplay mechanics, I think I'll be just fine for games.

C'est la vie I suppose, I feel sorry for all the "rpg fans" out there who now only have a single polish game developer to rely on for their games.

[Jadebaby]

Mass Effect always started out as an action-RPG, and in ME1, I'd say this was handled rather well, with about 50/50 features of what you'd normally see in each type of game.

While ME3 might still be an RPG, what the OP is talking about is the way it has become more "action" then "RPG" with the scales tipping at probably 70/30.

But this started in ME2, and you bet it's EA's influence. They have to market to the widest audience they can. And ME2 was proof of it's success because a lot of people consider ME2 the best (it was nominated for Game of the Decade).

However, they tried to push this model even further into more "actiony" in ME3, and that's a big part of why so many people were let down. Especially when they promoted the fact that "RPG is returning with ME3". When, what? You get to add bonus stats like 5% this and 5% that? Or you get to upgrade your powers one way or the other? My biggest problem with them trying to pass things off as RPG is the customization of weapons. Sure, the changing of stats through doing this might be considered RPGish, but overall that is *not* RPG. That is Call of Duty first person shooter features. Another sign of the Action > RPG decline that we saw with Mass Effect.

[clarkusdarkus]

Did anyone play ME3 through action mode as be interesting to see if they felt they role-played or felt like it was sci-fi gears....

If having 1 hub, not allowing to customise your squad, no boss's, linear gameplay are the future of bioware's so called RPG's then i think i'll give them a miss from now on......

[AresKeith]

JadeShepard wrote...

Mass Effect always started out as an action-RPG, and in ME1, I'd say this was handled rather well, with about 50/50 features of what you'd normally see in each type of game.

While ME3 might still be an RPG, what the OP is talking about is the way it has become more "action" then "RPG" with the scales tipping at probably 70/30.

But this started in ME2, and you bet it's EA's influence. They have to market to the widest audience they can. And ME2 was proof of it's success because a lot of people consider ME2 the best (it was nominated for Game of the Decade).

However, they tried to push this model even further into more "actiony" in ME3, and that's a big part of why so many people were let down. Especially when they promoted the fact that "RPG is returning with ME3". When, what? You get to add bonus stats like 5% this and 5% that? Or you get to upgrade your powers one way or the other? My biggest problem with them trying to pass things off as RPG is the customization of weapons. Sure, the changing of stats through doing this might be considered RPGish, but overall that is *not* RPG. That is Call of Duty first person shooter features. Another sign of the Action > RPG decline that we saw with Mass Effect.

QFT

[Dr_Extrem]

Dragoonlordz wrote...

Dr_Extrem wrote...

Dragoonlordz wrote...

Dr_Extrem wrote...

did i quote you? i bet your ego needs a second place on the bus.

You can believe that if you wish, I posted a counter point to your stance, a challenge to your way of thinking. You were left with two choices (imho) to either respond to myself for pointing what I saw as potential inaccuracies in your stance which could further a discussion on the subject or ignore it to avoid having to answer that challenge, do not wish to defend your position or unable to counter what was said. I would of preferred you picked the first option but if you do not wish to then I shall not force you to do so and leave it at that.

 i dont think, that i would be able to clarify my stance in a way that would satisfy you or me.

if i answer to a person, i quote the original post. i learned my lessons. there are persons here, who like to quote comments out of context only to twist them.

sorry if a came along rude.

it is late here and i am not able to clarify or answer my stance in a foreign language.


lets just say that to me, an rpg is more than stats, sheets, loot and perks/skills. they help me to interact with the world - thats all.

It's okay I just wished to debate with your your stance, explore it in more detail to find out whether I can consider a possible third method for definition. But I cannot do so from the initial post so I countered why I could not do so and hoped you could further clarify and explain why you felt that immersion defined an RPG. Your second post simply to me personally went further away from your first stance which is why I sought to gather why the two do not mesh with each other from first to second post (imho). Though I admit even I might have come across as bit mean which is why I tried to alter my initial comment before you could respond but failed to do so in time.

its ok .. but its monday and i worked overtime .. i am not able to start a real debate.


immersion is really important in an rpg. it is also important in other games but for a rpg, it is essential. if i am forced out of character because the story/drama demand it, i cant play my role anymore. i get "kicked out".

i know, that vrpgs can not match a pnp with a dungeonmaster and that the story will always proceed in certain directions but to me, the interaction with the environment and its reactions on my avatar are the most important aspects of a rpg. stats, loot, perks/skills ... they are nice and very usefull tools to interact with the environment - but the alone dont make a game a rpg.

[Jadebaby]

RiouHotaru wrote...

Mdoggy1214 wrote...

Dude I rest may case.

You're really gonna count such miniscule differences in those endings? I can admit the extended cut did a better job with them, but not the original cut. We got A, B, and C.

I can't just tell a person i'm making them an AMAZING steak dinner, and when they come home, i present them with half a steak tip.

What? Oh you were expecting a whole steak? Well what gave you that idea, you're expecations were too high. It's not my fault.

Same thing happened here with ME3. The flat out lied on some things, stretched the truth on others, and weren't clear with the rest. To deny that is completely irrational.

Yes, I am going to count it.  There was a significant thematic difference between a Destroy ending where the Earth is reduced to ash, and a Destroy ending where Shepard lives.  You can't deny that.

And there's a difference.  If you tell someone you're making a steak dinner, but only serve a half steak, you didn't lie.  It's clearly a steak dinner.  Just because it's only half a steak doesn't NOT make it a steak dinner.  Now, if you told me it was a WHOLE steak dinner and only serve me HALF?  Then we've got problems.

But your comparison is a bit funky anyway.

I think what he's trying to say is that one should not promise someone that they wont get vanilla, chocolate or strawberry. If what you are actually going to get is vanilla, chocolate, or "varying degrees of strawberry, depending on how much of a good boy you are!"