416 réponses à ce sujet

[Soruyao]

Kalfear wrote...

By Biowares own admission, its not a choice, you (as a soldier ) will have to use all your weapons at specific times due to situation and/or ammo levels (for lack of better term) as you can only have so many coolants for each weapon at one time (IE: Limited ammo).

"So I go back to, what if my design of my soldier doesnt use shotguns and sniper rifles (and yes, Ive meet many gun people that dont know how to shoot every type of gun out there properly). What if I only want to use Assult rifle as thats the STYLE MY CHARACTER chooses.

By bioware's own admission, it's not a choice, you (as a vanguard) will have to use your guns at specific times due to situation and/or enemy defenses, as sometimes we will fight indoors and not be able to throw things off of things.

So I go back to, what if my design of my vanguard doesn't use guns?  (And yes I've met many vanguards who don't know how to use their guns properly.)  What if I only want to use my powers and that's the STYLE MY CHARACTER chooses?"

Do you see what I did there?   Sometimes you are going to choose a character idea that won't work well with the gameplay mechanics on harder difficulties.   That happens in every RPG.  If you choose to gimp yourself somehow and make your playthrough harder then go ahead, but don't be suprised when it's less effective than adding some variety into your gameplay.

So again, your just playing a character someone else designed and being forced to use weapons when someone else wants you to, or you die. It amazes me that shooter fanatics (sorry but terror got it right after the back and forth with the two same avatar kiddies) ok with this as this is really a step backwards to hard and fast linear level design. Your choices are gone and eliminated as a soldier.

I've been playing mass effect since it came out.  I've logged over 150 hours into going on seven playthroughs as every class in the game.  Are you going to tell me I'm less of an rpg fan, or less of a mass effect fan than you guys just because I disagree with you about these changes?   Ad hominem attacks are not condusive to healthy debate and if you continue to employ them people won't discuss things with you civily and nothing will be accomplished.

You have choices as a soldier.  You have a choice of what gun to use in any situation, which guns to upgrade and how, which guns to bring with you on a mission, which powers to put points into and evolve, and so forth.  

You had less choices in ME1.   Every soldier build was the same  (10 points in AR, 10 points in immunity, 10 points in fitness, 10 points in assault training, etc.)  Every situation warranted the same response.   Pop immunity, pop overkill, shoot everything, repeat.   There were never any choices besides the initial one of which weapon you wanted to use.

See, Terror (and many many many others) said this but it bares repeating. YOU ARE NOT SHEPARD. SHEPARD IS YOUR CHARACTER. So Shepard doesnt fight from your skill base. hes suppose to fight from the skill base you design for him. IE: ROLE PLAYING. Your playing the role of commander Shepard, Commander Sheppard IS NOT playing the role of you.

Then why even have us aim for shepard at all?  We had to do it in ME1, and it was very possible to miss.  We were directly controlling shepard and fighting using our skill base, we just had an easier time of it because the game had no fair way of challenging you.

Why not just go for the rpg route of fallout 3 vats?   That way, shepard fights from their own skill base entirely, without any amount of your skill getting involved in the equation to mess it up.    Would you prefer that?

To answer your question, I always assumed when my Sheppard tranfered over he would do so with his skills from ME1 intact so you wouldnt be starting from scratch as you suggest. Bioware didnt go that direction sadly as it made the most sense. Honestly, im really not sure what good transfering over is now that couldnt be acheived by a few well placed questions when you start. I really thought when they said your character and world would transfer over, they meant that and I would be starting with maxed out sheppards fully outfitted from ME1.

That wouldn't have worked because many of the abilities we finished with were completely broken.   Immunity made it possible for us to have fistfights with geth collosuses.  There's no way in the world it would have been able to balance it with the other classes powers.   Be that as it may, we aren't starting from scratch.  We will have a full set of powers (as far as I can tell) right off the bat, and maxed out weapon skills (in effect, even if we can't see them.)   Just because we don't have the option of making our shepard worse than he starts out as doesn't mean that we're starting completely from scratch.

Terror_K wrote...

No. If I was saying that I'd have been
against mods in ME1 and against runed weapons in DAO and Diablo 2. What
I'm saying is that the progression of your items shouldn't overshadow
the progression of your character to the point where they barely
progress at all and attributes that should be their's are instead
slapped onto the items rather than having attributes that fit and
compliment those of the items. The system here is all one-sided, and
not in favour of the character.

Except your character does progress through improving in his/her active skills and evolving them.  Your
skills will very likely have a much larger effect on your gameplay
power than on your weapon upgrades, which will just give you a passive
damage increase.  (but if you want a passive
damage increase you can put squad points into ammo powers, so you can
effectively improve your damage through both your weapons AND your
skills!)

Nohvarr wrote...

Six talent to upgrade, all of which have
branching final levels, and you only have enough points to max out
three. Then there’s the bonus talent and the ability to upgrade your
weapons with various mods. Plus the fact that bringing in your ME 1
save will provide bonuses to your characters starting stats and credits.

It's actually seven.  You get a bonus talent.  You
will be able to max out three on an average playthrough, but if you max
out at level 30 you can max out 4-5 of them if you ignore all your
other skills or around 3 and have decent numbers in the rest.   You
get an extra squadpoint for free when you get your bonus talent, so you
end up with 51 points to use on a max level character.   Importing your
shepard will give you some extra squadpoints if you were above level
40, more if you were above 50, and even more if you were at 60, so
import characters will effectively start at level 2 or 3ish if I
understand that correctly.

Other than that I agree with you, just wanted to make sure there wasn't any misinformation going around here.

Modifié par Soruyao, 21 janvier 2010 - 12:31 .

[SurfaceBeneath]

Terror_K wrote...

No, what it's like is if you were playing Dragon Age Origins and you didn't have any Strength, Dexterity, Cunning, etc. that determined your character's makeup and instead you had a class with no real attributes and were simply limited to a set of particular weapons, and the only progression you had was putting a bunch of runes in said weapons that determined what their strength, dexterity and cunning were instead of yours. Add to that a hack'n'slash mechanic where you physically slash at the enemies with mouse clicks to determine whether you hit and do damage or not, and that's basically what ME2 has become except in the mould of a fantasy RPG akin to Dragon Age.

Except your character -does- do more damage when you level up their skills, you just do more -ability- damage. You're railing against the exclusion of passive benefits to your character. That is it. It's an dumb argument because it assumes that passive benefits are fundamental to progression of your character, when they're just an arbitrary way for you to fight higher and higher level enemies while still utilizing with your basic attacks. Why would you ask for skill dumps when instead of forgetting to level up after I had 8 skill points saved up (happened numerously in ME1 because leveling up was absolutely forgetable. Did it stop me from beating insanity starting out a level 1 character? Hell no it didn't) you can actually make every single level count by having every level allow you to put a point in an ability that will noticibly effect the way combat plays out? Instead, those passive skill dumps are treated in a much more interesting manner by using a seperate resource system completely independant of experience which you can use to increase a variety of attributes.

EDIT: And the more I think about it, the new resource system also served in letting them disregard the completely awful ME1 inventory system too since improvements will happen depending on what you research rather than happening to pick up that Striker IV pistol among the 14 billion other pistols you were carrying around. And then getting enough cash to buy a specter weapon and then ignoring inventory till it got to full and then omni-gelling all of it except a few weapon and armor mods.

Modifié par SurfaceBeneath, 21 janvier 2010 - 12:34 .

[Terror_K]

Thus eliminating choice and variation. There's no sacrifice or deviation when one is only investing their skill points in a single tier of talents, in this case class skills. People don't have to worry about covering their weapons or armour or decryption or healing aspects any more, it's all about the class skills. And you know what this is going to result in? A bunch of Shepards that are all the same. Oh, sure... their weapons will all be very different and unique, with all these neat mods and stuff that define what their gun is. But not them. Nope... pretty much everybody will create the same Soldier or the same Vanguard, with the one variation being whichever of the two branch-off skills they chose to go with in the forth tier.

[SurfaceBeneath]

Terror_K wrote...

Thus eliminating choice and variation. There's no sacrifice or deviation when one is only investing their skill points in a single tier of talents, in this case class skills. People don't have to worry about covering their weapons or armour or decryption or healing aspects any more, it's all about the class skills. And you know what this is going to result in? A bunch of Shepards that are all the same. Oh, sure... their weapons will all be very different and unique, with all these neat mods and stuff that define what their gun is. But not them. Nope... pretty much everybody will create the same Soldier or the same Vanguard, with the one variation being whichever of the two branch-off skills they chose to go with in the forth tier.

That is so utterly ignorant. It's like you're ignoring every point I and others have made in this thread. There was almost no customization to speak of in ME1. Once you chose your class, that was it. Besides what weapon it used you had so many skill points you could max everything else by 60, and before then you were an idiot if you didn't max out your chosen weapon skill and then stuff points in to the rest of your skills all willy nilly because it didn't really matter. The ME2 system offers GREATLY more flexible customization and options because not only do you have to choose where you want to put your research in to (Ship, Armor, or individual Weapons), not only do you have to choose what skills you want because you will now NOT be able to max all of them, not only will you get a bonus skill depending on your loyalty with your crew to suppliment your skills, you will ALSO get to choose a specialization of each skill upon putting 4 in to it which greatly changes how your class plays.

Stop thinking like Research is akin to upgrading your equipment. It's not. If you wanted better equipment in ME1, you went to a shop or killed things until something better dropped. The research is akin to character progression because you have to make choices on how your equipment improves and which equipement improves.

Modifié par SurfaceBeneath, 21 janvier 2010 - 12:49 .

[vhatever]

todahouse21 wrote...

Why is it that there is seemingly a crowd out there that feel that the game is somehow lessened because it doesn't specifically meet the specifications to make it a pure RPG?

 Call me crazy but as long as its fun, the can call the genre Bob and I wouldn't care.

It obviously doesn't have anything to do with challenge, since its been stated that this game was specifically made to be harder than the original. It's not the actual role playing as Shepard is pretty much define by your decisions. It's not the exploration. 

Is it the lack of grind? Of random encounters? Of prepubescent teens and effeminate heroes saving the world?

What is it?

With your idiotic last comment, I can only guess you are a console lamer, er, i mean console gamer. Cause you sure the hell haven't played many RPGs if you think  "prepubescent teens and effeminate heroes saving the world" is intrinsic to them, or even a common theme.

People who like RPG's and also like the ME series are not going to be happy if they reduce the RPG portion of the game. It's really not complicated. Well, for you,  it's probably all Greek.

[Soruyao]

Terror_K wrote...

Thus eliminating choice and variation. There's no sacrifice or deviation when one is only investing their skill points in a single tier of talents, in this case class skills. People don't have to worry about covering their weapons or armour or decryption or healing aspects any more, it's all about the class skills. And you know what this is going to result in? A bunch of Shepards that are all the same. Oh, sure... their weapons will all be very different and unique, with all these neat mods and stuff that define what their gun is. But not them. Nope... pretty much everybody will create the same Soldier or the same Vanguard, with the one variation being whichever of the two branch-off skills they chose to go with in the forth tier.

Except for the fact that they'll be focusing on using different skills?    They will also evolve skills differently.  Keep in mind that every skill evolves in 2 ways in the second tier, and you're going to evolve an average of three of them in a normal run through.

Choice 1:  Which 3 skills out of 7 should I evolve/max?     Already there's a lot of choice there.
Choice 2: Which way should I evolve the skills that I improved?   2 choices each for three skills = six different options even for people who reacted to choice 1 in exactly the same range.   If you put all that together you have different shepards of each class being different from each other in how they play and what their skills do.

Nope... pretty much everybody will create the same Soldier or the same Vanguard

You can't honestly tell me this wasnt the case for mass effect 1.   The only difference between 1 soldier and another is what bonus talent they took, what weapon they used, and what class skill they picked.

We don't have the arbitrary weakness in every weapon but 1 anymore (but this gives us more choice in how we want to react to things.), but we do still have the bonus skill and the class skill.  We also have power evolution and weapon modification on top of that for a net gain in choices.

[Memengwa]

Since people are still missing what an RPG is, here is what I posted few hours ago on page 6 (everyone seems to have missed it because of the bickering that goes on.

Memengwa wrote...

I can see in a lot of comments here, that most people confuse concepts of "Roleplaying" with "Roleplaying Games". It's like squares and rectangle - all squares are rectangles, but a rectangle isn't necessarily a square.

Which means - all Roleplaying Games inclue Roleplaying. But Roleplaying doesn't necessarily make a Roleplaying Game.

Does Monkey Island, Halo and what not make you play a role? Yes, but that doesn't make them a Roleplaying Game.

These are taken from Wikipedia:

Role-playing refers to the changing of one's behavior to assume a role, either unconsciously to fill a social role, or consciously to act out an adopted role. While the Oxford English Dictionary defines roleplaying as "the changing of one's behavior to fulfill a social role",[1] the term is used more loosely in three senses:

• To refer to the playing of roles generally such as in a theater, or educational setting;
• To refer to a wide range of games including computer role-playing games, play-by-mail games and more;
• To refer specifically to role-playing games.[2]

A Role-playing game (RPG; often roleplaying game) is a broad family of games in which players assume the roles of characters, or take control of one or more avatars, in a fictional setting. Actions taken within the game succeed or fail according to a formal system of rules and guidelines.[1]

.....

While simple forms of role-playing exist in traditional children's games such as "cops and robbers" and "cowboys and Indians",
role-playing games add a level of sophistication and persistence to
this basic idea with the addition of numeric rule sets and the
participation of a referee. Participants in a role-playing game will
generate specific characters and an ongoing plot. A consistent system of rules and a more or less realistic campaign setting in games aids suspension of disbelief. The level of realism in games ranges from just enough internal consistency to set up a believable story or credible challenge up to full-blown simulations of real-world processes.

As you see, the important part here is roleplaying and formal system. So what is that "formal system"?

A role-playing game system is a set of game mechanics used in a role-playing game (RPG) to determine the outcome of a character's
in-game actions. While early role-playing games relied heavily on
either group consensus or the judgement of a single player (the
"Dungeon Master" or Game Master) or on randomizers such as dice, later generations of narrativist
games allow role-playing to influence the creative input and output of
the players, so both acting out roles and employing rules take part in
shaping the outcome of the game.

This means, that without a system, you only have roleplaying, but you're without a roleplaying-game (as with my square and rectangle - if you remove the effect of all the sides being equally long, you no longer have a square)

I hope this explains a lot to you?

So, is ME 2 less of an RPG?

YES!!
And note, by that statement I don't mean it's less of a game - just a different game that might not be enjoyable for the fans of ME1. And note as well, that most people who enjoyed ME1 were NOT rpg purists, since ME1 was not a pure rpg.

I wish some of you would get what is being said, instead of just trolling and throwing around insults.

Modifié par Memengwa, 21 janvier 2010 - 12:57 .

[SurfaceBeneath]

Memengwa wrote...

Since people are still missing what an RPG is, here is what I posted few hours ago on page 6 (everyone seems to have missed it because of the bickering that goes on.

Memengwa wrote...

I can see in a lot of comments here, that most people confuse concepts of "Roleplaying" with "Roleplaying Games". It's like squares and rectangle - all squares are rectangles, but a rectangle isn't necessarily a square.

Which means - all Roleplaying Games inclue Roleplaying. But Roleplaying doesn't necessarily make a Roleplaying Game.

Does Monkey Island, Halo and what not make you play a role? Yes, but that doesn't make them a Roleplaying Game.

These are taken from Wikipedia:

Role-playing refers to the changing of one's behavior to assume a role, either unconsciously to fill a social role, or consciously to act out an adopted role. While the Oxford English Dictionary defines roleplaying as "the changing of one's behavior to fulfill a social role",[1] the term is used more loosely in three senses:

• To refer to the playing of roles generally such as in a theater, or educational setting;
• To refer to a wide range of games including computer role-playing games, play-by-mail games and more;
• To refer specifically to role-playing games.[2]

A Role-playing game (RPG; often roleplaying game) is a broad family of games in which players assume the roles of characters, or take control of one or more avatars, in a fictional setting. Actions taken within the game succeed or fail according to a formal system of rules and guidelines.[1]

.....

While simple forms of role-playing exist in traditional children's games such as "cops and robbers" and "cowboys and Indians",
role-playing games add a level of sophistication and persistence to
this basic idea with the addition of numeric rule sets and the
participation of a referee. Participants in a role-playing game will
generate specific characters and an ongoing plot. A consistent system of rules and a more or less realistic campaign setting in games aids suspension of disbelief. The level of realism in games ranges from just enough internal consistency to set up a believable story or credible challenge up to full-blown simulations of real-world processes.

As you see, the important part here is roleplaying and formal system. So what is that "formal system"?

A role-playing game system is a set of game mechanics used in a role-playing game (RPG) to determine the outcome of a character's
in-game actions. While early role-playing games relied heavily on
either group consensus or the judgement of a single player (the
"Dungeon Master" or Game Master) or on randomizers such as dice, later generations of narrativist
games allow role-playing to influence the creative input and output of
the players, so both acting out roles and employing rules take part in
shaping the outcome of the game.

This means, that without a system, you only have roleplaying, but you're without a roleplaying-game (as with my square and rectangle - if you remove the effect of all the sides being equally long, you no longer have a square)

I hope this explains a lot to you?

So, is ME 2 less of an RPG?

YES!!
And note, by that statement I don't mean it's less of a game - just a different game that might not be enjoyable for the fans of ME1. And note as well, that most people who enjoyed ME1 were NOT rpg purists, since ME1 was not a pure rpg.

I wish some of you would get what is being said, instead of just trolling and throwing around insults.

Don't criticize other people's handling of this discussion and then just stroll on in and say your word is God on the matter.

You can't just link wikipedia's (or wherever you pulled that from) definition and say that the definition itself proves your point. ME2 is more of an RPG than ME1 because it provides more customizable and individualized progression, more interaction and connection with party members, more ways to participate in dialogue (interupt system) and finally a resolution that takes in to account your actions during the story in a meaningful way.

The game is a better shooter than before. That doesn't correspondingly mean that it is less of an RPG. It has more of both.

Modifié par SurfaceBeneath, 21 janvier 2010 - 01:01 .

[Terror_K]

It's still progression your equipment and not your character. And whose to say one can't have their cake and eat it too when it comes to these upgrades? Has there been anything that's stated that you can't simply upgrade your ship, your armour and your weapons fully by end game?

[todahouse21]

vhatever wrote...

todahouse21 wrote...

Why is it that there is seemingly a crowd out there that feel that the game is somehow lessened because it doesn't specifically meet the specifications to make it a pure RPG?

 Call me crazy but as long as its fun, the can call the genre Bob and I wouldn't care.

It obviously doesn't have anything to do with challenge, since its been stated that this game was specifically made to be harder than the original. It's not the actual role playing as Shepard is pretty much define by your decisions. It's not the exploration. 

Is it the lack of grind? Of random encounters? Of prepubescent teens and effeminate heroes saving the world?

What is it?

With your idiotic last comment, I can only guess you are a console lamer, er, i mean console gamer. Cause you sure the hell haven't played many RPGs if you think  "prepubescent teens and effeminate heroes saving the world" is intrinsic to them, or even a common theme.

People who like RPG's and also like the ME series are not going to be happy if they reduce the RPG portion of the game. It's really not complicated. Well, for you,  it's probably all Greek.

I know, snarky sarcasm is a sign of idiocy blah, blah, blah. My original question was why do people suggest that Mass Effect is no longer an rpg AT ALL simply because they reduced certain rpg elements. Is it more of a hybrid now? Sure. But it's still an rpg.

And my PC gaming days ended when I realized how intelligent it is to constantly spend hundreds upon hundreds of dollars a year to upgrade my PC in order to play a game for 6 months and then realize I had to do it again. Turns out I like paying for things once and having them function for a good long time. I know. I'm a dumb ass. 

[Terror_K]

I, personally, think Mass Effect 2 is still and RPG. I just don't think it's going to be as good and appears to be dumbed down.

[SurfaceBeneath]

Terror_K wrote...

It's still progression your equipment and not your character. And whose to say one can't have their cake and eat it too when it comes to these upgrades? Has there been anything that's stated that you can't simply upgrade your ship, your armour and your weapons fully by end game?

I'm not upgrading my ability to damage the enemy, I'm upgrading my muscles to swing my axe harder.

I'm not upgrading my ability to cast spells at my opponent, I'm upgrading how cold my Frost spells are.

I'm not upgrading my ability to sneak, I'm upgrading how carefully I place my feet on the ground.

I'm not upgrading my ability to damage, I'm upgrading my gun with a Mark IV accelerator.

Progression is a all encompassing element. You takes in to account all the ways your character has improved and bundle it together to say, "My character has improved in -such and such- ways on my journey from point A (beginning of game) to point B (the end of the game)". Your research is a part of that progression, the same as your choices upon each level and which skill you raise are. You're needlessly trying to dissect a core element of the system when there's nothing to dissect. The upgrades you make to your equipment are fundamentally core to your character progression, because you have to manage a resource to improve your character in "X" way. Just because that resource is not experience, doesn't mean it is any less meaningful to your progression.

And yes, it was said that research was something you would need to manage carefully as you progressed through the game. Engineers get a bonus to their rate of research (through their Engineering skill, which they have to level up to get increased effect out of) so that they can upgrade their squad a little more efficiently, making them a great utility/support class.

[Memengwa]

SurfaceBeneath wrote...

Don't criticize other people's handling of this discussion and then just stroll on in and say your word is God on the matter.

OMG I stand corrected. I'm sorry to offend... *rolls eyes*

Some people might actually want to know and learn something. If you don't want to, you don't have to read this.
The post is still on par with the OPs first post.

So the next time someone claims that a strawberry milkshake is a strawberry shortcake just because it has strawberries in it, I'll leave it be.

You can't just link wikipedia's (or wherever you pulled that from) definition and say that the definition itself proves your point. ME2 is more of an RPG than ME1 because it provides more customizable and individualized progression, more interaction and connection with party members, more ways to participate in dialogue (interupt system) and finally a resolution that takes in to account your actions during the story in a meaningful way.

Of course I can. That's what makes sound arguments.
And you are free to do the same to undermine my arguments.
that is what civilised argument and conversation is.

The game is a better shooter than before. That doesn't correspondingly mean that it is less of an RPG. It has more of both.

Logically you are correct. Better shooter doesn't have to mean less of an RPG.

But you still haven't proved that ME2 is more of an RPG than ME1.


Besides, a discussion on weather it's more or less RPG in the game is moot, when people don't know/don't agree on what an RPG is.

It's like arguing weather the fruit you're about to eat is more red or orange colored, when one of you is eating an orange and the other an apple.

[SurfaceBeneath]

Terror_K wrote...

I, personally, think Mass Effect 2 is still and RPG. I just don't think it's going to be as good and appears to be dumbed down.

Yes, dumbed down = more options, ways to customize your character, and (yes) requiring the use of more strategy and skill in combat.

And even if you buy that retarded argument, you know what game was actually dumbed down from its core rules? Planescale M'Fin Torment. AKA: The best RPG ever released to an electronic platform.

[SurfaceBeneath]

Memengwa wrote...

But you still haven't proved that ME2 is more of an RPG than ME1.

Yes I have. Read the post. ME2 offers more customization, methods of progression, ways to interact with dialgue, meaningful connections with your squad, and a finale that takes the choices you have made during the game in to account to determine your ending.

Now you tell me how ME1 was more of an RPG than that. This is how a discussion works.

[Soruyao]

Memengwa wrote...

Since people are still missing what an RPG is, here is what I posted few hours ago on page 6 (everyone seems to have missed it because of the bickering that goes on.

Oh really? Lets go through your definition piece by piece and see where it fits ME1 and not ME2.

Role-playing refers to the changing of one's behavior to assume a role, either unconsciously to fill a social role, or consciously to act out an adopted role. While the Oxford English Dictionary defines roleplaying as "the changing of one's behavior to fulfill a social role",[1] the term is used more loosely in three senses:

• To refer to the playing of roles generally such as in a theater, or educational setting;
• To refer to a wide range of games including computer role-playing games, play-by-mail games and more;
• To refer specifically to role-playing games.[2]

We fill and act out the role of commander shepard, the savior of humanity and the universe.  So far both ME1 and ME2 both qualify.

A Role-playing game (RPG; often roleplaying game) is a broad family of games in which players assume the roles of characters, or take control of one or more avatars, in a fictional setting. Actions taken within the game succeed or fail according to a formal system of rules and guidelines.[1]

In both games we take control of shepard, who is an avatar and a character.   We play in a fictional setting in both games.   Actions succeed or fail according to a formal system of rules and guidelines.  (I ran out into a battlefield without using any abilities and I got sniped, I would die.   If I wanted to suddenly grow 50 feet tall and smash my enemies, I could not do that because it would not fit the guidelines set forth by the game.  

Both ME1 and ME2 still are rpgs at this point.

While simple forms of role-playing exist in traditional children's games such as "cops and robbers" and "cowboys and Indians",
role-playing games add a level of sophistication and persistence to
this basic idea with the addition of numeric rule sets and the
participation of a referee.

This is where I think you're seeing a difference, but I'm not at all convinced.  There are still numeric rule sets, they are just shifted from passive abilities to active ones.   When we use a level 3 warp on a krogan battlemaster, the amount of armor we take down is decided by numbers and the game mechanics.   The GM as it were, calculates how much effect our skill would have vs how much armor the krogan had and the game reacts accordingly.

Both ME1 and ME2 had numerical rule sets, they just shifted away from the passive weapon skills towards the active abilities and our technology.

Participants in a role-playing game will
generate specific characters and an ongoing plot.

This goes without saying for both.

A consistent system of rules and a more or less realistic campaign setting in games aids suspension of disbelief. The level of realism in games ranges from just enough internal consistency to set up a believable story or credible challenge up to full-blown simulations of real-world processes.

I think both games have things that work well and that don't work incredibly well in the internal consistency department.    A charging krogan surviving 45 shotgun shells to the back because of immunity was really difficult to hold suspension of disbelief over.   Also, shepard not being able to hold a gun straight after being in the military so long also strained credibility.

I've argued long and hard in other threads to get the point off that every change so far in ME2 is more believable in the game universe than immunity spam ever was.   I can clarify further if you'd like to name specific game mechanics that strain credibility for you.

As you see, the important part here is roleplaying and formal system. So what is that "formal system"?

A role-playing game system is a set of game mechanics used in a role-playing game (RPG) to determine the outcome of a character's
in-game actions. While early role-playing games relied heavily on
either group consensus or the judgement of a single player (the
"Dungeon Master" or Game Master) or on randomizers such as dice, later generations of narrativist
games allow role-playing to influence the creative input and output of
the players, so both acting out roles and employing rules take part in
shaping the outcome of the game.

This means, that without a system, you only have roleplaying, but you're without a roleplaying-game (as with my square and rectangle - if you remove the effect of all the sides being equally long, you no longer have a square)

I hope this explains a lot to you?

How do we not have a formal system anymore?  The game is still calculating what happens in combat using numbers that are based on our skills and reacting accordingly.  I can't just tell the game "I want to grow wings and fly up and use my magic angel laser" because it's outside of the formal system.    I would argue that indeed both mass effects are rpgs by this category as well.   I would even hazard to say that the halo series fits the description you put forth, since it also has a formal system decided on by an internal GM of sorts.   ("Okay, he tried to snipe that guy.   Calculating trajectory of his shot based on where he was aiming.  Calculating position.   Does head line up with that shot?  Yes?   Headshot successful."  That's a GM at work, using a formal system and numbers.)

So, is ME 2 less of an RPG?

YES!!

I beg to differ.  None of your points affect one mass effect more than the other.   Every video game that exists has a formal system that uses numbers to calculate things that happen in it.  If that's the only difference, then every video game is an RPG.

And note, by that statement I don't mean it's less of a game - just a different game that might not be enjoyable for the fans of ME1. And note as well, that most people who enjoyed ME1 were NOT rpg purists, since ME1 was not a pure rpg.

I wish some of you would get what is being said, instead of just trolling and throwing around insults.

I greatly enjoyed ME1, even though I was able to step back and see it's faults.  I've been playing rpgs since I was a youngun.  I was raised on super mario RPG and the early final fantasy series and I've been a fan of them ever since.  I've played numerous pen and paper games based on everything from sci-fi to dungeons and dragons to pokemon.  (That's right, I played a pokemon PnP, and it was glorious.)   I played the fallout games before they were a fps and I put 150+ hours into ME1 over what's going to be 7 playthroughs by the time ME2 comes out.

I think that ME2 looks like it's going to be incredible, both as a shooter and as an RPG.   I think it's going to be both a better rpg and a better shooter than the first game was.   Not everyone who this game is going to appeal to is a 12 year old xbox live ADD riddled stereotype.  That idea is both blatantly wrong and rather insulting and I'd suggest you (not just the person I quoted, everyone in this thread) stop trying to lump together your entire opposition with that tired cliche'd ad'hominem attack and address the facts of the matter instead.

[todahouse21]

'Kay, seriously, as the OP I gotta ask people to calm down. This thread was created to be a distraction from work (I know, shows how important my job is) not get people pissed at each other.

Relax, post your points and fun jabs are always welcome, but don't get all worked up. Remember, end of the day, we're ALL Mass Effect mega fanatics.

And before anyone quotes my chocobo and prepubescent teen line again, they are meant to be playful pokes at people, like among friends.

Except the chocobo line. I hate chocobos. <_<

Modifié par todahouse21, 21 janvier 2010 - 01:32 .

[SurfaceBeneath]

todahouse21 wrote...

'Kay, seriously, as the OP I gotta ask people to calm down. This thread was created to be a distraction from work (I know, shows how important my job is) not get people pissed at each other.

Relax, post your points and fun jabs are always welcome, but don't get all worked up. Remember, end of the day, we're ALL Mass Effect mega fanatics.

And before anyone quotes my chocobo and prepubescent teen line again, they are meant to be playful pokes at people, like among friends.

Except the chocobo line. I hate chocobos. <_<

Nobody is worked up here. We're discussing our points like adults and if anyone has a problem with it, they can go drive a Mako off a suspended bridge 20 miles above the surface of a planet. Or drive it in to waist high deep water too I guess. Same effect in game.

[Terror_K]

SurfaceBeneath wrote...

Nobody is worked up here. We're discussing our points like adults and if anyone has a problem with it, they can go drive a Mako off a suspended bridge 20 miles above the surface of a planet. Or drive it in to waist high deep water too I guess. Same effect in game.

The front right wheel gets damaged? 

[Jerryk72]

I've been a console RPG player for around 25 years. I've also played pen and paper and also PC RPG's. I'm not going to call myself an expert though. Everyone is going to have their own opinion and not be swayed no matter what.



Someone quoted wikipedia before I had a chance to edit it to be more in line with my perspective. Darn it..



To me, Mass Effect 1 is an RPG with shooter elements and Mass Effect 2 is an RPG with improved RPG and shooter elements.



Is it a "true RPG"? Who cares? I think from this moment on we should coin the term BRPG and end the discussion. Is it a true RPG? No. It's a Bioware Role Playing Game and it's much much better than that..

[hrotsurz]

Soruyao .... you speak wisdom ..... and for god sakes ..... lets play the game for what it is and judge it for what the game is ..... not for what our opinions thinks what it is supposed to be .... errr that makes sense no ?

Modifié par hrotsurz, 21 janvier 2010 - 01:54 .

[Abuseyourdna]

I think it depends what brand of RPG purist your talking about.



JRPG type- These type of people like a particular brand of rpg and refuse to move outside the box, if its not turn based its already out the window with these guys ( not that theirs anything wrong with it, I enjoy JRPGs as well) Also these games have a heavy grindy aspect and a certain flavor to them.



Standard Turn based RPG fan - These people more than likely hate "Dragon Quest" but enjoy other turn based RPGs and stand behind them just as firm, but are more open to explore things like kingdom hearts. The problem here is when they see something sooo different to the norm, they auto attack it with things like dumbed down because its a shooter and things like that...however these people should certainly enjoy dragon age.



Also both of these groups are used to games where you don't actually make moral decisions alot, which perhaps from a outside view seems strange and maybe they see it as something thats too "easy" o.0.



Then there's the people that don't really fall into any category but will hate on the game purely because someone from one of the above group is there friend or because they just happened to see someone insult the game.



Another point would be alot of people that are fans of one type of game, do-not like the merging of things... to the shooter fans Mass Effect seems like a dumed down shooter and too the RPG fan it seems like a RPG stripped of what they love, Obviously everyone should form there own thoughts about the game, and I hope more people will move out of these camps once more games like this start to come out.

[SurfaceBeneath]

Terror_K wrote...

The front right wheel gets damaged? 

"Crap guys! The back tire is halfway submerged in water and the surface of the water is only two feet away from the bottom of the hull!"

*screen slowly fades to black*

WAA WA WA WA WAA WA WA WAA.... WAA WA WA WAA WAAA....

[Terror_K]

I'll guess I'll see for myself in a week's time. As it stands, whether it's less RPG or more RPG, it just seems to be that BioWare have got their priorities in the wrong place or didn't quite go about this the right way. While I am adamant that several major RPG factors have been either stripped, lessened or altered, I will also fully admit others have been added as well, and that certain aspects of the game do have more depth and/or complexity to them. I just feel that some of these changes have been misguided or the wrong areas have been altered or that bits and pieces are in the wrong places... like BioWare had a Mr. Potato head and disassembled it, then when they put it back together some parts were missing, there were some extra ones, and he had arms sticking out of his eye sockets.

Modifié par Terror_K, 21 janvier 2010 - 02:12 .

[SurfaceBeneath]

Terror_K wrote...

I'll guess I'll see for myself in a week's time. As it stands, whether it's less RPG or more RPG, it just seems to be that BioWare have got their priorities in the wrong place or didn't quite go about this the right way. While I am adamant that several major RPG factors have been either stripped, lessened or altered, I will also fully admit others have been added as well, and that certain aspects of the game do have more depth and/or complexity to them. I just feel that some of these changes have been misguided or the wrong areas have been altered or that bits and pieces are in the wrong places... like BioWare had a Mr. Potato head and disassembled it, then when they put it back together some parts were missing, there were some extra ones, and he had arms sticking out of his eye sockets.

Dude, I used to love making monster potato heads. 

Then one day when I'm 15 I'm going through my closet cleaning out my old toys and a Mr Potato Demon with teeth for eyes flies out at me and causes me to have painfully vivid nightmares where I'm being disassembled by a Mr. PotatoFrankenstein and rearranged in to terrifying new combinations, each more unnatural and dehumanizing than the last. I HAVE NO MOUTH, BUT I MUST SCREAM

Frankly, I haven't slept in years.

...what were we talking about?

Modifié par SurfaceBeneath, 21 janvier 2010 - 02:18 .