587 réponses à ce sujet

[Obitim]

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?

Apologies, went to bed!  Not a bad thing, just means that you don;t have to invest as much to see a difference.  I feel that it makes levelling less of an investment in your character and more of a 'oh look at the next level of coolness that I'm at' whereas in ME1 you had to put a few more points into the skill to get that extra perk.

[tonnactus]

Actually Mass Effect 3 was a big improvement over 2 regarding these things. 2 not even displayed weapon stats like even shooters like Call of Duty do, lol. But 3 also had a far better reputation system.

Modifié par tonnactus, 15 janvier 2013 - 08:41 .

[Obitim]

Faust1979 wrote...

Dragoonlordz wrote...

Mdoggy1214 wrote...

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.

A first person shooter with couple RPG element is still a first person shooter with RPG elements just like a first person shooter with one million RPG elements is still a first person shooter with RPG elements. There simply is no "RPG" as a genre to me. Therefore ME3, BG or BOp's will never be an "RPG" in which case you cannot be more or less of an RPG because RPG as a genre does not exist as far as I am concerned these days. You can only have more or less RPG elements.

ME3 is no less an RPG than ME2, BOps is no more an RPG than ME3. They just have variation on quantity of elements to which you can filter between which elements you want in a game and which you do not. The quality of those elements is a separate issue and I don't think can use quality to define whether or not something is or is not an RPG in the first place (imho). It either has something or it does not, the quality of it when present still means it is present and exists within the game.

ME3 is as much an RPG as Baldur's Gate was. What was the gameplay of Baldur's Gate 2? talking to people, choosing your response, upgrading your equipment and stats, going through dungeons and killing mobs of stuff. The only difference is Baldur's Gate is from an over head position and less cinematics

However, in BG2 you got a team of 6 characters you could take round with you, you could change class midgame if you so chose and also you had a lot more 'hubs' you could go to, and your own stronghold, with it's own questline based on your initial class!

[xsdob]

Why is it that rpg's standards are measured by how much superfluous things it has, rather than on whether or not you are allowed to make decisions in the game that affect the rest of the game?

I feel that there being a simple, standard list of rpg elements would help this discussion greatly. And on that list should be probably something like,

1. Ability to make decisions in game
2. Ability for decisions made to affect other parts of the game
3. Ability for things in game to change in different ways based on what you choose

There, three very simple, easy, and not too specific criteria that can be used to gauge whether a game is truley an rpg or not. And based on this, ME3 is still an rpg.

But the thread title at least may have some ground in truth, since it states the declining rpg's, and not the extinction of rpg's.

Modifié par xsdob, 15 janvier 2013 - 08:46 .

[Faust1979]

xsdob wrote...

Why is it that rpg's standards are measured by how much superfluous things it has, rather than on whether or not you are allowed to make decisions in the game that affect the rest of the game?

There have been plenty of RPGs in the past that don't have any branching paths or decisions to make especially in the 80s early 90s.

[Obitim]

JamesFaith wrote...



Romances aren't main RPG feature, in fact they were just BW experiment which became they trademark.

But there were romances in BG2, KOTOR and DA:O...

[xsdob]

Faust1979 wrote...

xsdob wrote...

Why is it that rpg's standards are measured by how much superfluous things it has, rather than on whether or not you are allowed to make decisions in the game that affect the rest of the game?

There have been plenty of RPGs in the past that don't have any branching paths or decisions to make especially in the 80s early 90s.

So what makes an rpg are hub worlds, exploration, and dialouge? What makes them different from adventure games than?

[CynicalShep]

Argolas wrote...

CynicalShep wrote...

Well, it says it all when I enjoy the ancient minecraft-graphics Kotor games more than ME3

No, that only says something about your preferences.

Also, minecraft can look pretty good with "256*256" textures.

Well, yes?

[xsdob]

In fact, here's a better idea.

How about we all post what we feel are rpg elements. Not long post either, just simple expressions on what makes you as a person feel like you are playing an rpg as opposed to another type of game?

[Ninja Stan]

If this becomes merely a "what is an RPG?" thread, it will no longer be ME3 story related and will be locked.

[tonnactus]

SimonTheFrog wrote...

Sorry to bring this up, but there is a possibility that BioWare must adapt to a different market situation.

Games were much cheaper to create back in ye olden days. So, catering to a niche audience created a valid business case.

If you create a visually and play-length wise comparable title nowadays, the costs exploded. You can't compare producing games back then to producing games to nowadays.

The costs are in no way the same.

There are several options here:
1.) BioWare could create games with the same visual quality like DA:O (or earlier) to a small niche audience but it would have to use crowdfunding and get redundant of about 95% of their staff.
2.) BioWare could produce much smaller games with 5-10 hours of gameplay. This would likely cause in very bad reviews and could potentially kill the company.
3.) BioWare could try to broaden their audience and deliver high visual and gameplay value which contains both the RPG vibe and a more casual, easy digestable coolness. This is a compromise which has a tendency to make everybody unhappy but keeps the ship from sinking.
4) BioWare could make high visual long gameplay games for a niche audience and charge 200$ per unit. Probably not a good idea.

There is no other option.
.

Explain how Cd Project Red, a small(compared with Bioware) developer, managed to create a game with better visuals any Bioware game has and still has meaningfull consequences?

[10K]

I just have to disagree about when you mentioned ME1 having twice as many skills than ME2. This may be true, but ME2 made each class unique by having only those 6 skills. In ME1 every biotic class was basically the same, having the same exact powers. I have to say BW had the right plan taking some of those skills away, and classes now have improved because of that decision. I'll take the uniqueness of shockwave, biotic charge, and nova any day then those same biotic moves incorporated into every single biotic class in ME1.

Modifié par mosesarose, 15 janvier 2013 - 09:05 .

[xsdob]

tonnactus wrote...

SimonTheFrog wrote...

Sorry to bring this up, but there is a possibility that BioWare must adapt to a different market situation.

Games were much cheaper to create back in ye olden days. So, catering to a niche audience created a valid business case.

If you create a visually and play-length wise comparable title nowadays, the costs exploded. You can't compare producing games back then to producing games to nowadays.

The costs are in no way the same.

There are several options here:
1.) BioWare could create games with the same visual quality like DA:O (or earlier) to a small niche audience but it would have to use crowdfunding and get redundant of about 95% of their staff.
2.) BioWare could produce much smaller games with 5-10 hours of gameplay. This would likely cause in very bad reviews and could potentially kill the company.
3.) BioWare could try to broaden their audience and deliver high visual and gameplay value which contains both the RPG vibe and a more casual, easy digestable coolness. This is a compromise which has a tendency to make everybody unhappy but keeps the ship from sinking.
4) BioWare could make high visual long gameplay games for a niche audience and charge 200$ per unit. Probably not a good idea.

There is no other option.
.

Explain how Cd Project Red, a small(compared with Bioware) developer, managed to create a game with better visuals any Bioware game has and still has meaningfull consequences?

Goverment subsidied cash and donations? /joking.

Modifié par xsdob, 15 janvier 2013 - 09:04 .

[zyntifox]

xsdob wrote...

In fact, here's a better idea.

How about we all post what we feel are rpg elements. Not long post either, just simple expressions on what makes you as a person feel like you are playing an rpg as opposed to another type of game?

I've said this before but for me it comes down to control of the protagonist.

1. Full control of the protagonist's mouth. That is, no auto-dialogue and no paraphrasing of the dialogue choices.
2. No decision making by the protagonist without my input.

So in my opinion The Sims are closer to an RPG than Mass effect but that does not make Mass effect a bad game. Just a bad RPG. Like i wrote before, Mass effect is in my top 5 games but i can't roleplay in it unfortunately. If the world of The Sims was more interesting i would get my roleplaying fix from it.

[Obitim]

xsdob wrote...

1. Ability to make decisions in game - Can do this in Call of Duty Black OPs 2
2. Ability for decisions made to affect other parts of the game - Can do this in Call of Duty Black OPs 2
3. Ability for things in game to change in different ways based on what you choose - Can do this in Call of Duty Black OPs 2

Call of Duty Black ops 2 not an RPG

[Obitim]

mosesarose wrote...

I just have to disagree about when you mentioned ME1 having twice as many skills than ME2. This may be true, but ME2 made each class unique by having only those 6 skills. In ME1 every biotic class was basically the same, having the same exact powers. I have to say BW had the right plan taking some of those skills away, and classes now have improved because of that decision. I'll take the uniqueness of shockwave, biotic charge, and nova any day then those same biotic moves incorporated into every single biotic class in ME1.

However, they gave you the option of hybrid classes, so the infiltrator was a soldier mixed with an engineer, a Vanguard was a soldier mixed with a biotic...

I like the idea of a hybrid, not pigeon holinga character, in fact, it would be cool to have taken this a step further and pick the skills you want for your character rather than have predefined ones.

[Femlob]

xsdob wrote...

Femlob wrote...

xsdob wrote...

@femlob, that last part better not be directed at me. >:{

Only if you want it to be. He who fits the shoe should try it on, and all that.

Leonardo the Magnificent wrote...

Can you even see the ground from atop that horse of yours? Or is it so covered in the "filth of the masses" that there's no ground left to see?

I guess you fit the shoe, then.

Would that elitism came with ear muffs.

Your kinda a dick, and this is coming from someone who is dickish in the way he post.

I play many different types of games and don't just shoehorn myself into a single genre though, so no matter which way the gaming industries winds blow, I can adapt and find pleasure easily.

Though after you claimed that I was a incompetant person who throws his excrement, I find myself being much less sympathetic towards you and wishing you much less well wishes in finding another game series or company you would enjoy.

You were sympathetic before?

Please don't. I have a reputation to consider.

[JamesFaith]

Obitim wrote...

JamesFaith wrote...



Romances aren't main RPG feature, in fact they were just BW experiment which became they trademark.

But there were romances in BG2, KOTOR and DA:O...

You probably didn't read whole sentence, because I wrote that romances were Bioware experiment and became Bioware's trademark. And this experiment started with BG2 and continue in other Bioware games KOTOR and DA.

Romances are just optional feature used by BW and some other companies which copy it from them. Their popularity don't make them objectively critical feature.

[Jassu1979]

For me, the defining core mechanic of the "Mass Effect" games has always been the dialogue wheel.

Its shooter aspects were hardly original, and - if we're honest here - not all that good to begin with.

So - how do I feel when the dialogue is suddenly trimmed down to two options? When many scenes involve pivotal dialogue that I have NO way of influencing, railroading my Shepard in a direction I may not have wished to take at all? When conversations with my crewmates and friends have all the point-and-click excitement of making the cows in Diablo moo? Now, mind you, some of those pre-written conversations were hilarious, but it was NOT immersive at all. As a player, I did not feel like I was talking to my friends. I felt like clicking a button on a talking doll and watching it repeat a pre-programmed catchphrase. Any sense of immersion was gone.

Accordingly, I feel that ME3 sabotaged its own core mechanic, allowing or a considerably LESS immersive experience and paring down the roleplaying aspect to a minimum.

[Obitim]

JamesFaith wrote...

Obitim wrote...

JamesFaith wrote...



Romances aren't main RPG feature, in fact they were just BW experiment which became they trademark.

But there were romances in BG2, KOTOR and DA:O...

You probably didn't read whole sentence, because I wrote that romances were Bioware experiment and became Bioware's trademark. And this experiment started with BG2 and continue in other Bioware games KOTOR and DA.

Romances are just optional feature used by BW and some other companies which copy it from them. Their popularity don't make them objectively critical feature.

You know what, I did read it but only took in half tyhe sentance (As you can see in my quote!)!  Apologies for that!

I agree with you in terms of the romances though, they're not the be all and end all for me, I like them occasionally as they add depth, but they;re not a reason to buy or not buy a game!

[Obitim]

Jassu1979 wrote...

For me, the defining core mechanic of the "Mass Effect" games has always been the dialogue wheel.

Its shooter aspects were hardly original, and - if we're honest here - not all that good to begin with.

So - how do I feel when the dialogue is suddenly trimmed down to two options? When many scenes involve pivotal dialogue that I have NO way of influencing, railroading my Shepard in a direction I may not have wished to take at all? When conversations with my crewmates and friends have all the point-and-click excitement of making the cows in Diablo moo? Now, mind you, some of those pre-written conversations were hilarious, but it was NOT immersive at all. As a player, I did not feel like I was talking to my friends. I felt like clicking a button on a talking doll and watching it repeat a pre-programmed catchphrase. Any sense of immersion was gone.

Accordingly, I feel that ME3 sabotaged its own core mechanic, allowing or a considerably LESS immersive experience and paring down the roleplaying aspect to a minimum.

I agree with this, the dialogue whell was the series trademark, which was carried over into DA2 and the removal in ME3 with autodialoge removed my own player agency and felt more like I was watching a cutscene over which I had no control.

[10K]

Obitim wrote...

mosesarose wrote...

I just have to disagree about when you mentioned ME1 having twice as many skills than ME2. This may be true, but ME2 made each class unique by having only those 6 skills. In ME1 every biotic class was basically the same, having the same exact powers. I have to say BW had the right plan taking some of those skills away, and classes now have improved because of that decision. I'll take the uniqueness of shockwave, biotic charge, and nova any day then those same biotic moves incorporated into every single biotic class in ME1.

However, they gave you the option of hybrid classes, so the infiltrator was a soldier mixed with an engineer, a Vanguard was a soldier mixed with a biotic...

I like the idea of a hybrid, not pigeon holinga character, in fact, it would be cool to have taken this a step further and pick the skills you want for your character rather than have predefined ones.

If that's the case, BW might as well just taken out all the pure biotic and tech classes since they were exactly the same, and just left the hybrid classes. What's the use of having the vangaurd class or the adept class if they all have pretty much the same skills. Plus, even to some extent the ME1 hybrid classes were mostly alike.  

ME2 made these differ more so. Making each class its own. There was now a big difference between the pure biotic and tech classes, they didn't feel like a copy of one another. I could actually see the difference between a vangaurd and an adept.  

Modifié par mosesarose, 15 janvier 2013 - 09:39 .

[JamesFaith]

Obitim wrote...

JamesFaith wrote...

Obitim wrote...

JamesFaith wrote...



Romances aren't main RPG feature, in fact they were just BW experiment which became they trademark.

But there were romances in BG2, KOTOR and DA:O...

You probably didn't read whole sentence, because I wrote that romances were Bioware experiment and became Bioware's trademark. And this experiment started with BG2 and continue in other Bioware games KOTOR and DA.

Romances are just optional feature used by BW and some other companies which copy it from them. Their popularity don't make them objectively critical feature.

You know what, I did read it but only took in half tyhe sentance (As you can see in my quote!)!  Apologies for that!

I agree with you in terms of the romances though, they're not the be all and end all for me, I like them occasionally as they add depth, but they;re not a reason to buy or not buy a game!

I didn't react on snipping of original post, I react on fact that I wrote about BW experiment and you seemingly counterarguments were all BW games.

[Abraham_uk]

It always annoys me when Mass Effect is described as a shooter.

A huge part of the combat is the power usage.
This is one of the elements that sets Mass Effect series from most shooters.




I do however agree, that the relation between actions and consequences needs to be a priority in future games though.

[Obitim]

mosesarose wrote...

Obitim wrote...

mosesarose wrote...

I just have to disagree about when you mentioned ME1 having twice as many skills than ME2. This may be true, but ME2 made each class unique by having only those 6 skills. In ME1 every biotic class was basically the same, having the same exact powers. I have to say BW had the right plan taking some of those skills away, and classes now have improved because of that decision. I'll take the uniqueness of shockwave, biotic charge, and nova any day then those same biotic moves incorporated into every single biotic class in ME1.

However, they gave you the option of hybrid classes, so the infiltrator was a soldier mixed with an engineer, a Vanguard was a soldier mixed with a biotic...

I like the idea of a hybrid, not pigeon holinga character, in fact, it would be cool to have taken this a step further and pick the skills you want for your character rather than have predefined ones.

If that's the case, BW might as well just taken out all the pure biotic and tech classes since they were exactly the same, and just left the hybrid classes. What's the use of having the vangaurd class or the adept class if they all have pretty much the same skills. Plus, even to some extent the ME1 hybrid classes were mostly alike.  

ME2 made these differ more so. Making each class its own. There was now a big difference between the pure biotic and tech classes, they didn't feel like a copy of one another. I could actually see the difference between a vangaurd and an adept.  

Well, not really, if that;s the case you could say that about Dragon Age as well, why not just have a warrior class?

And there are soem cross over skills, but not all the skills are the same, you have different levels for the armour skill, you can access first aid and medic, but beyond that most of the classes have different skills.  The infiltrator doesn;t have all the same skills as the engineer or sentinel, the vanguard has different skills to the adept and sentinel as well, just as the soldier has different skills to the other classes.