I love this topic, I was so bored until I came
across it. This is fun! I'm deleting the parts where you agree with
me for post simplicity.
[quote][quote]
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.
[/quote]
Yes they do. But... As you see I made a definition of what roleplaying is
contra what a roleplaying-game is.
I never said ME doesn't include roleplaying.
Heck, many rpg games include less roleplaying than ME does (strange as that may
sound). BioWare is a company emphesizes roleplaying in their games.[/quote]
So alright, we've established that all role playing games are games where you
play a role, but you argue that not every game where you play a role is a role
playing game. I find this distinction a little bit strange to be
honest but maybe it'll make more sense to me later in the post.
[quote][quote]
Both ME1 and ME2 had numerical rule sets, they just shifted away from the
passive weapon skills towards the active abilities and our technology.[/quote]
Here you actually lost me. Please explain what you mean. [/quote]
Another poster put it really well earlier. First of all I
will say that reducing the skill based accuracy modifiers is indeed a reduction
in stat complexity. However, it is the only such reduction that
I can find, and it was the most necessary for both gameplay and lore
reasons.
If it makes you uncomfortable to be without it, imagine this: Lets say
there actually is a weapon skill. There's 10 points to put into it to
make your guns aim straight. Lets say you start with 10 extra squad
points at the start of the game. 99% of people would just dump all their
points into the shooting power first because it's the biggest increase in
effectiveness you can get. (There was never any reason not to put
those points in anywhere else first, because it was really painful to be
without them.)
If you have a feature where there is a choice that smart players are going to
all make the same way and be very effective, and new/unexperienced players are
going to make different ways that make them markedly less effective, you have
what is known as a "noob trap." Noob traps are bad for
gameplay and should be eliminated whenever possible, especially in a game where
you cannot "respec" your character.
They should be replaced with abilities that smart players will choose
differently based on playstyle and that once chosen will change the way those
players play once they have them. This is exactly what
happened. Some soldiers will focus on one ability first, like say
adrenaline rush, so they can pretend they're in the matrix with their constant
bullet time. Or maybe they'll focus on picking a little of
everything and not be a specialist, picking the ability that is the most useful
for the job. Or maybe they will dump all their points into an ammo
power and never use abilities at all, playing as if it were a
shooter. There are many choices in this system, and suspect
that players builds will differ from each other a lot as time goes by.
So now that we've taken the passive increases from the weapon skill away and
replaced them with active skills that bring more choice and complexity, we can
take it a step further. In order for combat to scale properly
with higher level enemies, we do need some kind of passive damage increase.
This increase was implimented in researching weapon customization.
We make mods for our guns that make them do more damage or fire
more accurately or increase ammo capacity. (I'm speculating on the last part
there) Those improvements have the same effect on our gameplay as
if we had put in skills in a "make my guns better" talent, but they
make for more interesting gameplay decisions while also making more sense in the
lore.
Also, putting points into ammo powers is technically a way to put skill points
into your ability to use guns and make yourself do damage, so technically the
weapon skills are still there in a sense in these. It seems
like we have a cake that we can eat, as it were.
[quote][quote]
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.
[/quote]
You're right there. Strangely enough most rpg games seem to allow for the
strangeness of surviving being hacked 100 times with a sword, or shot with 100
arrows. So while being shot 45 times by a shot-gun is odd, it's not
strange compared to rpgs. (Personly I once tried a ninja fighting game on PS2
where you died after being hit once with a katana). Shooters tend to do this as
well.
I also agree on the part with Shepard shooting badly, which was also on par
with most RPGs, where you pretty much only can fight rats with your 1st lvl
fighting skills. Removing this does not make a better RPG, though. It could as
well have been changed to having really good skills with the weapon, and ending
with mad-skills a-la gun-fu or something (also rather silly, but showy as heck
www.youtube.com/watch).[/quote]
To be fair, in a lot of RPGs where you start out really innacurate and weak
with your weapons, your character really is someone who has never picked up a
sword or bow before, so it makes sense when they miss. There are two
things that should decide whether you impliment a feature in a game.
Gameplay and internal consistency with the universe. (Lore, I
guess.)
If you impliment a mechanic because it improves gameplay even though it
contradicts lore, you're likely to still sell copies of your game.
The mass effect universe has always had several of these, such as the fact that
you can get shot in the head by anything with your shields down and not
instantly die.
If you impliment a mechanic because it improves lore even though it weakens the
gameplay, you are in danger of selling less copies, while also punishing the
players loyal enough to the lore to keep playing. Of course, this depends
on the extent of the change. A small thing will likely have little
effect, however we could take this to the hypothetical conclusion and imagine a
game where if you get shot once you die, and if you die your game is over
permanently. It would likely not sell very well at all.
If you can remove a mechanic that detracts from gameplay, while simultaneously
adding mechanics that enhance gameplay, while also having them make more
lore-sense at the same time, you have the perfect gameplay change.
We're in agreement that it didn't make any sense for shepard not to be able to
hold a pistol steadily lore-wise, so removing it actually enhances the amount
of interesting gameplay decisions available to the player then it makes perfect
sense to remove it.
As far as starting as a deadeye and then improving further, I'm having trouble
figuring out how that would work. You go from hitting what you aim
at to extra-hitting what you aim at? Maybe at max rank
you could fire your shotgun as if it were a sniper and hit someone 300 yards
away? If we start with perfect accuracy, improving accuracy
doesn't do much except unbalance the guns that are balanced around being
innacurate. All we have left is passive damage increases and
some new made up aspects we could add. (Matrix cover rolling slow
motion pistol action?) In that case, since we have our passive
damage increase base already covered with weapon research, why not just make
the new ability you added into an active ability that relies on gunplay?
Perhaps some sort of weapon imbue that makes enemies catch on fire or freeze?
Or maybe a special shot you can fire that knocks people down...
I also can name several RPGs that are unarguably rpgs that don't have a weapon
miss mechanic. For instance, there's no such thing as a
miss (other than one caused by player error) in jade empire. If
you hit someone, you hit them. Sometimes you might not do damage,
but it's because of immunities and not an arbitrary diceroll saying that your
weapon didn't hit the thing you were aiming at. Are we
going to argue that jade empire is less of an rpg than mass effect 1?
Off the top of my head, I also think star ocean 2 had no miss system, but I
don't actually remember. I know I didn't miss much, but I'm not
sure if you could or couldn't.
[quote][quote]
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. [/quote]
Sure, if you want to. That would be interesting [/quote]
Well, I was actually kind of hoping you'd name a feature so that I could I
could address it, but I'll give an example anyway.
One of the most contentious changes (if not the most) is the move to an ammo
like system. I feel that it both makes sense in the lore and as a
gameplay feature. I saved an argument for cut and pasting if the
issue came up again.
rhue.blogspot.com/2010/01/ammo-part-1.html<- This part addresses the lore aspect.
rhue.blogspot.com/2010/01/ammo-part-2.html<- While this one addresses gameplay.
[quote]
[quote]
How do we not have a formal system anymore? [/quote]
A missunderstanding. I didn't say ME2 doesn't have a formal system.
I was making a point that roleplay without a formal system is not a roleplaying
game. Thus logically a game with less rpg elements (that makes a replacement of
them with something else) is less of an RPG.[/quote]
I don't follow your logic at all here. As far as I can gather, the
wiki article you posted said that an RPG is a game where you play a role
through an avatar in a formal system with rules. A system where
making X change to a gun while using Y type of ammo makes your shots do Z
damage and proc Q attribute on a V% chance sounds very much like a formal rpg
system to me. In fact, a system where you fire a shot and it
uses complex math behind the scenes to measure the angles and judge whether you
headshotted one (IE: every shooter ever) sounds formal to me too.
Perhaps you could clarify what you mean by a "formal
system" such that ME1 has more of one than ME2 and both have more
than something like gears of war? I'm not exactly seeing it
because it's very vague terminology.
[quote][quote]
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.)
[/quote]
Interesting take on it.
But I truly doubt that you are arguing that Halo is an cRPG, but trying to poke
holes in the definition.
I hope that, as well as I, you know that it's oversimplified. Wall of text and
so on.[/quote]
cRPG? No, but I don't believe that we've been using that term so
far. I do think that it's an RPG by the wiki definition
however.
In psychology we have two terms that have to do with how we catagorize things.
Exemplars and prototypes.(Sorry if this gets too lectury, but I think it
will help me explain what's going on here in this thread.)
An exemplar is an example of a specific thing. For instance, a
hairless siamese cat is an exemplar of catness. It might not be the first
thing we picture when we think of a cat, but we can identify it as one pretty
quickly.
A protoype is an amalgamation of every aspect of that thing into a single
perfect example, which may or may not actually exist. In our cat
example, it would be the most catlike cat you could possibly imagine.
(For me it would be a short hair black/white/brown tabby, since they are
fairly common and several of the cats I've owned have looked like that.)
The more any particular animal you see resembles your prototypical cat, the
more easily and quickly you would be able to identify that thing as a cat.
How does this relate to the RPG issue? Well, most of the arguments
I've seen so far hinge on "these changes make this game seem less like an
rpg to me and more like a shooter." and the reason we're having so much
trouble is that we have very vague definitions for what an RPG or a shooter
are, and are instead comparing aspects of the game to aspects of our personal
prototypes for what an RPG and a shooter are.
(And, I think there has also been some comparison of
people to prototypical shooter or rpg fans, with very negative effect.
This is exactly how prejudice works, in psychological terms.)
For most people, I think the prototypical shooter is a mix
between halo 3, gears 2, and call of duty 4/5. Some of the changes to ME2 resemble things that exist
in our prototypical shooter.
(Especially reloading, which is one of the things that is being argued
about the most.)
The prototypical rpg is something that I think differs based
on your backround, but I would assume it would be something final fantasy, wild
arms, or possibly fallout1/2 like.
(I’d be curious if people could tell me what they think of when they
picture the ‘perfect’ rpg.)
The problem of course is that the mass effect series is by
design straddling the line between the two genres. Any change that makes the game look at all more like
the prototypical shooter (even if it’s only during combat!) sets off warning
bells and has people making slippery slope arguments that the game is going to
simply become those games and no longer be something they enjoy.
However, shooters have existed for a long time, and for
people to spend as much time with them as they have, there must be things about
the gameplay that work really well.
If there’s something stilted and wrong with your gameplay in a game with
shooter elements, and implementing something other shooters have that works for
them would also fix the problem here, then why not use if it doesn’t contradict
the lore?
If we were talking about running out of arrows, I would
guarantee you nobody would have an issue with it the way they do with the ammo
system in this game, because there’s no such thing as an archery shooter. (Well, there is a bow in gears of
war, but that’s neither here nor there.) However, there are rpgs where you could run out of
resources and ammunition.
(Fallout1/2 for example have both reloading, ammunition, and carryable
health kits, and nobody would argue those aren’t rpgs.)
So, because people are deciding whether the game is an rpg
or not by comparing it to prototypes, we will never be able to come to a
consensus without very carefully defining our boxes so that we can objectively
determine whether the game is or isn’t an rpg or shooter or both. Is a shooter a
game where you shoot people? (Then fallout1/2 are shooters) I an rpg a game where you play a role?
(Then every video game is one)
Is a shooter a game where you shoot people and never gain experience and
level up? (Then call of duty 4/5 aren’t shooters!) Is an rpg a game where you never have to deal with
running out of ammunition? (Then
none of the fallout games and ME2 aren’t.)
Oh and on a random aside, game designers have been adding
rpg elements to shooters for awhile now, and shooter players don’t seem to mind
at all. In fact, they’re loving
every minute of it. You gain
experience from kills in the modern warfare games and level up, and you gain
access to new guns and equipment that make you do more damage and become harder
to kill. Both games have sold incredibly well. Interesting that this sort of blending bothers us more
than it bothers them. :3
[quote]
You are right, in itself this post doesn't. But, this was not my first post on
this thread. I was basing this conclusion not solely on my post. Frankly, I was
using this post for explaining what an RPG is. The debate has been going back
and forth on wether certain removed game elements make this game a less of an
RPG. There seemed to be a lack of concencus on what RPG elements are and what
is an RPG game.
Simplified example.
Person 1 says that because elements ABC are removed it's less of an RPG.
Person 2 says that it's not true, because it's DE and F that make an RPG and
they are not dumbed down at all. And elements ABC do not matter anyway. So the
game is a better RPG than it was before.
My post is simply an argument for what makes an RPG, and through ignoring ABC I
go towards the "less of RPG" conclusion. [/quote]
I would argue that the defintion you linked supports my
position that ME2 is very much still an RPG, and that none of the changes
actually make it less of one.
There was nothing in there about how complex the customization of the
player character had to be, simply that the system of rules their avatar lived
within while interacting with the game world is “formal.”
[quote]
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.
[/quote]
This is where I agree with you the most out of anything you’ve said so
far. Indeed, the game mechanics
have changed, and any time you change something you risk ruining it for people
who were used to the way things were before, even if those changes are
improvements.
Change is scary, and adapting to change is difficult for
some people. But not changing a
broken mechanic or a “noob trap” just because people are used to it is a good
way to make your game series stagnate and become quickly outdated. But I challenge everyone in this
topic to look at every game change on their own merits, objectively, rather
than simply stating “I hate them all because they’re different and it doesn’t
look rpgish enough for me anymore!”
[quote]
No other comments that I agree to a lot of things you said
there.
But.... hmm... some things that has been said by you and me got me thinking
about the roleplaying games contra roleplaying and contra rpg systems.
[/quote]
Great, that’s exactly what a good discussion should do. It definitely got me thinking about
stuff more
You’re by far
the most civilized person I’ve disagreed with on this forum so far.
-edit- Fixed weird formatting issues.
Modifié par Soruyao, 21 janvier 2010 - 11:21 .
Ce sujet est fermé
Retour en haut
