416 réponses à ce sujet

[brunomalta]

Archie591 wrote...

I'm quite curious as to who patented the word RPG and where can I find the absolute definition for it. If I'm not mistaken it stands for Role Playing Game. In that sense nearly every game where you control a singular character is a rpg.

Most people classify role playing games, as games where your character evolves and becomes stronger over time. In that case ME still delivers.

Is there a law somewhere that a rpg must have a fixed leveling system, or a certain number of available skills or talents or whatevers to qualify?

This is all so ridiculous if you think about it. RPG purists... what does that even mean. Have a bunch of people come together and agreed that some game out there is the absolute pinnacle of rpg-s and are now comparing every game against that?

Personally I think that Deus Ex was, is and probably will be one of the best, if not the best Rpg/shooters ever made. And I'm not the only one.
And Mass Effect is a lot more complicated then Deus Ex in a lot of ways.

So here we have a game that is actually more complicated then one of the few games we can actually compare it against and people are still unhappy because there's too much shooting?

Please... the majority of the human race baffles me.

Sure you must be jesting? Deus Ex is leaps and bounds better than ME. The only things really that ME does better is in the character interaction and choices. 

[DPSSOC]

Vaeliorin wrote...

When you remove the role-playing, you no longer have an RPG.  ME has removed the role-playing, therefore it's not an RPG.

How has the game removed the role-playing?  You  still create a character, customize that characters appearance and abilities, choose what the character says, how they behave, their interactions with other characters, their equipment the list goes on and on.  The only difference from this and say NWN2 for me (aside from point of view and guns) is that combat isn't turn-based.  KotOR didn't give me as much character freedom as ME does.  Roleplaying games (IMO) are defined by the player's ability to craft and play a role, not the mechanics of combat or being able to wander aimlessly.

[Nimander]

"Dumbed Down" is one of the keywords of the RPG Elitist. For tabletop games, add stuff like 'It's like World of Warcraft!' nowadays (for 3E D&D it was 'Like Diablo!')



You saw it when the oWoD went to the nWoD. When D&D went to 3E and then again to 4E. When SR went to 4E.



It basically translates to 'They changed it, now it sucks! *BAWWW*' and so on. Ignore the 'dumbed down' statements and just have fun, is my advice.

[brunomalta]

Nimander wrote...

"Dumbed Down" is one of the keywords of the RPG Elitist. For tabletop games, add stuff like 'It's like World of Warcraft!' nowadays (for 3E D&D it was 'Like Diablo!')

You saw it when the oWoD went to the nWoD. When D&D went to 3E and then again to 4E. When SR went to 4E.

It basically translates to 'They changed it, now it sucks! *BAWWW*' and so on. Ignore the 'dumbed down' statements and just have fun, is my advice.

But...but....D&D 4E is an abomination 

[bjdbwea]

That's not true. "Dumbed down" translates to "made easier and in effect less challenging". You may like it better that way (apparently the majority=mainstream does), but it's still a fact.

Modifié par bjdbwea, 20 janvier 2010 - 04:35 .

[Akinra]

DPSSOC wrote...

Vaeliorin wrote...

When you remove the role-playing, you no longer have an RPG.  ME has removed the role-playing, therefore it's not an RPG.

How has the game removed the role-playing?  You  still create a character, customize that characters appearance and abilities, choose what the character says, how they behave, their interactions with other characters, their equipment the list goes on and on.  The only difference from this and say NWN2 for me (aside from point of view and guns) is that combat isn't turn-based.  KotOR didn't give me as much character freedom as ME does.  Roleplaying games (IMO) are defined by the player's ability to craft and play a role, not the mechanics of combat or being able to wander aimlessly.

This would be my definition of a role playing game. But as Nimander says above, if it's good just play it and enjoy it.

[Lightice_av]

I've always considered myself an RPG purist, but I've never perceived number grinding as "good role-playing". In a good role playing game you are able to have maximum freedom over who and what your character is, and how they react to the world around them, allowing them to grow into their own person. Mass Effect is not a 100% pure example, since you are limited to the role of Commander Shepard, even though you can customize him/her quite a bit, but I still don't see this as a downside for Mass Effect, since it allows for a more cinematic, immersive experience than for example Dragon Age, a more "pure" RPG ever could.



With current technology it's impossible to fulfill every aspect of role playing perfectly - you have to choose your priorities. I appreciate that there are games with different priorities even from the same company, as is the case with Dragon Age and Mass Effect, and enjoy both equally for different reasons.

[Vaeliorin]

[quote]DPSSOC wrote...
[quote]Vaeliorin wrote...
When you remove the role-playing, you no longer have an RPG.  ME has removed the role-playing, therefore it's not an RPG.[/quote]
How has the game removed the role-playing?  You  still create a character[/quote]
Sure, but that's not a requirement for an RPG (see Planescape:Torment).
[quote]customize that characters appearance[/quote]
Again, not required.
[quote]abilities[/quote]
Sure.
[quote]choose what the character says[/quote]
There's a sticking point.  You don't choose what Shepard says, or how he says it.  You choose a phrase that's supposed to give the gist of what Shepard is going to say, but Shepard still on occasion says things that are unexpected or says things as if they were facts that your character doesn't necessarily believe are facts.
[quote]how they behave[/quote]
Another sticking point.  You have almost no control over Shepard's attitude.  Shepard's attitude was basically defined by the voice actor and the voice director when the voiceover for the character was recorded.  MaleShep is always kind of a jerk, and FemShep is always a girl trying to sound like she's tough (and not pulling it off, imo.)
[quote]their interactions with other characters[/quote]
Again, this is often predefined, and totally out of the realm of player control.  If I'd never seen the videos before playing ME1, I'd have never put "Goodnight, Manuel." and punching a guy out together.
[quote]their equipment the list goes on and on.[/quote]
Sure, there are a lot of the superficial elements of a role-playing game in ME.  But the heart is missing.
[quote]The only difference from this and say NWN2 for me (aside from point of view and guns) is that combat isn't turn-based.  KotOR didn't give me as much character freedom as ME does.  Roleplaying games (IMO) are defined by the player's ability to craft and play a role[/quote]
This is where ME falls short, as I've explained above.
[quote]not the mechanics of combat[/quote]
I would argue that combat mechanics are important in that it should be character skill, not player skill that determines the character's physical performance in combat.  Beyond that, the mechanics are largely irrelevant.
[quote]or being able to wander aimlessly.[/quote]
Again, something that's not required (and that I personally tend to find detrimental...but I hate sandbox games.)

[todahouse21]

bjdbwea wrote...

That's not true. "Dumbed down" translates to "made easier and in effect less challenging". You may like it better that way (apparently the majority=mainstream does), but it's still a fact.

But it's not less challenging is my point. 

The fights are more challenging. The decisions are supposedly tougher. Is it the decryption thing? I saw it as a drawback in ME 1.  It forced you to pick between opening doors and computers and not having to babysit useless squad members. (I'm talking about you Kaiden you bastard)

Honestly, if you are shaping a story in a way you see fit, it's entertaining and challenging, how is it less than a "pure rpg"?

I maintain it's the lack of chocobos.

[Exyle19]

I believe the RPG 'purists' out there are mostly offended by the lack of customization, to sum all the gripes up in one sentence. To list a few examples: simplified inventory, less areas to put 'points' into upon level up, less upgrades on weapons/armour.



I personally feel you're right in your views, OP, in that the most integral part of any RPG, the characters and plot, have been preserved. I think all the concerns stem from the fact that some players feel they won't be able to truly make Sheppar 'theirs'. To provide an example, I'll cite Halo (which I freaking hate). At the end of Halo 3, no character growth has occured, and the Master Chief in your game is the -exact- same as the MC in every other Halo 3 game played.



I feel this is the root of the issue. Personaly, I am a little nervous for ME2. It appears, as so many have said, that ME2 has gone from being an RPG with heavy shooter influences, to about a 50-50 hybrid of the two genres, and I personally have played enough shooters to tide me over for a while. It's not what I'm looking for in ME2. I'm nervous not because I'm afraid I won't like ME2, because like I've said, the plot and characters have been preserved. I'm nervous that when ME3 comes out, BioWare will continue the slide they've now begun towards a more heavily action-oriented game in the name of giving it more mass-appeal.



I don't want ME to become a mainstream action-RPG. We have enough of those, and I look forward to the few games that come out that encourage me to put thought into my actions, so that I pause and consider the situation in order to find the best solution. This is why ME1 holds such a dear place in my heart. I paused in dialogue, debating with myself what I would -really- do in such a situation, and not go with my gut instinct sitting several hundred years and untold light-years away at my house. In combat I was able to stop, think for a moment, examine the situation and decide how to proceed.



As ME becomes more and more streamlined in the interest of preserving the 'pace' and feelings of 'tension', I fear much of this will too will be cut from the game. I'm sure it won't, and I hope it isn't, and truth be told I hold no great issue with the changes. I'm confident it will make a better game.



Anyone who says they didn't get bored during those unchartered worlds assignments in the Mako, and didn't do them solely out of some completionist drive, or to shrug it off as the 'grind' is almost certainly lying.



I just fear this may be the beginning of a trend that will result in the ruin of a trilogy/franchise that I asolutely adore.

[Arrtis]

starting a thread targeting people who like a certain type of game....

People have different tastes so...if a game is less like how they like it then they will voice themselves here.......as you would with a game that seems less then what you thought...also i doubt any purists are here as masseffect was never a pure RPG.

[todahouse21]

I'm not targeting anyone.



What I am doing is trying to understand the purists who target this game specifically because it's "not an rpg". I want to figure out what ME 2 should do differently to satisfy them. So far the biggest complaints are the combat and the diminishing of individual class specializations.



Not attacking anyone so please don't diembowel me with a gunsword. The snarky remarks are to keep the thread humorous. And yes the gunsword comment was yet another snarky remark.

[Sbri]

I will admit that I fell in to the "concerned" category for a while. The reason was the marketing. All we heard about for the longest time was, "Better combat, more combat, tougher enemies." and so forth. Now I am NOT saying that the combat is not important, but I am a very story focused player. Where are my squad mates? How have the conversation mechanics changed? What other enemies will we be facing? This information has been released, but slowly or (in the case of Jacob or Garrus), not at all. My guess is that it is the lack of focus on these aspects that have many "purists" concerned.

Modifié par Sbri, 20 janvier 2010 - 05:08 .

[Darth_Shizz]

Arrtis wrote...

starting a thread targeting people who like a certain type of game....
People have different tastes so...if a game is less like how they like it then they will voice themselves here.......as you would with a game that seems less then what you thought...also i doubt any purists are here as masseffect was never a pure RPG.

I don't know. When I see phrases such as "shooter 20 mentality", "twitch" and "dumbed down shooter" being thrown about, it's hard not to think there are people around that verge on that.

Besides, it's only a thread created out of different tastes. The mentality of certain people is less than how the OP likes it, therefore he is voicing himself here....as you would with any mentality that seems less than what you hold ideal ;p

Modifié par Darth_Shizz, 20 janvier 2010 - 05:08 .

[Memengwa]

I'm not rpg purist (though I mostly play rpg games). I'm going to tell you about rpg.

In RPG you play a role, yes. But in that, choosing what you do and what you say does not make an rpg game (or lots of adventure games - like Monkey Island would be rpg games).

RPG isn't all about math either (sometimes loveingly called roll-playing). But it's one very important part of it.

When you play a role in RPG it also includes that you play someone that is good at some things and bad at others. This is often presented with the help of classes, skills, abilities and so on and so forth. When you create your character (and leveling up throughout the game) you make choices and trade-offs in what your character will be good at and bad at. Everyone wants to be a hero who can do anything and everything - but you can't in a true rpg. The rules govern this - you can be really good at some things and really bad at other things, or mediocre in everything.

This is where the customisation everyone talks about comes in. This is where the party comes in (your party members have skills in things your character doesn't have and so on). This is why, when your character sucks at opening locks, if you want to open that container you bring with you someone who can open it. If you dont' want to - get that skill with your character, unless you don't want to miss on something. (And yes, that is also what adds to replayability - you're not ment to see and do everything the first playthrough - and yes, you are ment to be then penalized by not getting the stuff that was there). Then we also have the strategy - that changes with the character built and party built you have chosen.

One important part of RPG is that the person you are playing is not you. So, your skills, your intelligence should in concept not affect the gameplay. It's your character that is aiming the gun, not you. It's your character that is opening the lock - not you.

When you see things this way, you understand what the puritists mean with ME2 being dumbed down. When you open a lock through a minigame instead of using your character's or your party-member skills. It's no longer rpg-ish style. If your finger twitchiness and aiming abilities affect if you hit and miss, and not your character's skills - it's not an rpg element.

If these things (or lack there-of) make good/bad game is something that can't be decided here. To each his own. I'd never say shooters are games for idiots - they're just different.

So, in conclusion. Changes made to ME2

- do they make it less of a traditional RPG? - Yes.
- do they make the game worse? - We can't say unless we've played it. And even then it's only going to be based on taste.

Heck, even what kind of rpg and what kind of rulesets people like is based on taste...

I hope this explains things to some of you?

Modifié par Memengwa, 20 janvier 2010 - 05:14 .

[Console Cowboy]

i have more than a few reservations about this game, but the one that really seems relevant here is that combat is no longer associated with my character's skill at whatever weapon i'm using, but with my own skill at aiming in a Third Person Shooter. i had the same complaint with Fallout 3's mini games. i want to play the role of a sharpshooter/cat burglar/whatever...not prove that i can time my button presses to the game's mechanics.

[Arrtis]

youve lost me i just responded to the title...and guessed.

[Kelanil]

most likely the rpg "purists" are the same people who like playing jrpgs that haven't evolved story wise since the snes years.

[Memengwa]

Kelanil wrote...

most likely the rpg "purists" are the same people who like playing jrpgs that haven't evolved story wise since the snes years.

Doubt it, since JRPGs are very different from the Western-style RPGs..

[todahouse21]

Memengwa wrote...

I'm not rpg purist (though I mostly play rpg games). I'm going to tell you about rpg.

In RPG you play a role, yes. But in that, choosing what you do and what you say does not make an rpg game (or lots of adventure games - like Monkey Island would be rpg games).

RPG isn't all about math either (sometimes loveingly called roll-playing). But it's one very important part of it.

When you play a role in RPG it also includes that you play someone that is good at some things and bad at others. This is often presented with the help of classes, skills, abilities and so on and so forth. When you create your character (and leveling up throughout the game) you make choices and trade-offs in what your character will be good at and bad at. Everyone wants to be a hero who can do anything and everything - but you can't in a true rpg. The rules govern this - you can be really good at some things and really bad at other things, or mediocre in everything.

This is where the customisation everyone talks about comes in. This is where the party comes in (your party members have skills in things your character doesn't have and so on). This is why, when your character sucks at opening locks, if you want to open that container you bring with you someone who can open it. If you dont' want to - get that skill with your character, unless you don't want to miss on something. (And yes, that is also what adds to replayability - you're not ment to see and do everything the first playthrough). Then we also have the strategy - that changes with the character built and party built you have chosen.

One important part of RPG is that the person you are playing is not you. So, your skills, your intelligence should in concept not affect the gameplay. It's your character that is aiming the gun, not you. It's your character that is opening the lock - not you.

When you see things this way, you understand what the puritists mean with ME2 being dumbed down. When you open a lock through a minigame instead of using your character's or your party-member skills. It's no longer rpg-ish style. If your finger twitchiness and aiming abilities affect if you hit and miss, and not your character's skills - it's not an rpg element.

If these things (or lack there-of) make good/bad game is something that can't be decided here. To each his own. I'd never say shooters are games for idiots - they're just different.

So, in conclusion. Changes made to ME2

- do they make it less of a traditional RPG? - Yes.
- do they make the game worse? - We can't say unless we've played it. And even then it's only going to be based on taste.

Heck, even what kind of rpg and what kind of rulesets people like is based on taste...

I hope this explains things to some of you?

God bless you!

Finally someone gives me REASONS.  I started this thread to figure out what was so wrong about the changes in ME 2. It really sounded like the purists were pissed off about ANY change to the rpg "formula" whatever that is. You are the first rpg semi-purist to give me good reasons. I thank you.

Still, the abilities are still individualistic. My adept Shep will be able to do things my soldier Shep can't. Likewise soldier SHep will do things sentinel Shep can't. Is it the focus on combat that angers some people?

[Ahglock]

brunomalta wrote...

Nimander wrote...

"Dumbed Down" is one of the keywords of the RPG Elitist. For tabletop games, add stuff like 'It's like World of Warcraft!' nowadays (for 3E D&D it was 'Like Diablo!')

You saw it when the oWoD went to the nWoD. When D&D went to 3E and then again to 4E. When SR went to 4E.

It basically translates to 'They changed it, now it sucks! *BAWWW*' and so on. Ignore the 'dumbed down' statements and just have fun, is my advice.

But...but....D&D 4E is an abomination 

Truth.  4E D&D sucks.

As for the main point of the thread, other than where the OP is trying to insult  a gorup I really don't what is hard to understand.

Lets say RPG purists like A,B,C,and D.  They are not fans of W,X,Y,Z.

If ME2 developer says we reduced A to get more W, and you know we totally took out B, so we could fit in X, and we had a mix of C,d, and Y, Z elements.  Why should the RPG purists be happy.  Its like if someone doesn't like Horror movies and you keep saying why don't you like Let the Right one in, its still a good movie.  Not to them it isn't they don't like horror movies.

I like almost all games so hybrid games can be fun.

Still I'd say for me what makes a pure RPG is primarily creating a character and the characters abilities determine the level of success.  When your remove the characters abilities controlling the effect and change it to the players controller/mouse-keypad skills it is not really an RPG.  It might be a shooter with a good story, but it isn't really a RPG.  Mass effect 1 was going for a hybrid game so it didn't really hit that, ME2 is more solidly going hybrid instead of being an RPG with shooter elements.  I just don't consider hybrids RPGs they are a hybrid.

[Ahglock]

Memengwa wrote...

Kelanil wrote...

most likely the rpg "purists" are the same people who like playing jrpgs that haven't evolved story wise since the snes years.

Doubt it, since JRPGs are very different from the Western-style RPGs..

Though they are closer to a true RPG than ME2 is. 

And for the person you quoted.
And quite frankly the story of JRPG has evolved just as much as the western RPG stories have.  We are all gamers, why hate on people for enjoying a different style of game. 

[Ghurshog]

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?

The fact of the matter individuals like what they like and want what they like. If they dont like a FPS for whatever reason then it would diminish what they would otherwise like. 

It isn't a matter of whining, its a matter of choice. 

Just because you or I dont mind it doesn't mean the person sitting next to you feels the same way.

People vote with their pocket books in the end.

[Darth_Shizz]

Memengwa wrote...

I'm not rpg purist (though I mostly play rpg games). I'm going to tell you about rpg.

In RPG you play a role, yes. But in that, choosing what you do and what you say does not make an rpg game (or lots of adventure games - like Monkey Island would be rpg games).

RPG isn't all about math either (sometimes loveingly called roll-playing). But it's one very important part of it.

When you play a role in RPG it also includes that you play someone that is good at some things and bad at others. This is often presented with the help of classes, skills, abilities and so on and so forth. When you create your character (and leveling up throughout the game) you make choices and trade-offs in what your character will be good at and bad at. Everyone wants to be a hero who can do anything and everything - but you can't in a true rpg. The rules govern this - you can be really good at some things and really bad at other things, or mediocre in everything.

This is where the customisation everyone talks about comes in. This is where the party comes in (your party members have skills in things your character doesn't have and so on). This is why, when your character sucks at opening locks, if you want to open that container you bring with you someone who can open it. If you dont' want to - get that skill with your character, unless you don't want to miss on something. (And yes, that is also what adds to replayability - you're not ment to see and do everything the first playthrough - and yes, you are ment to be then penalized by not getting the stuff that was there). Then we also have the strategy - that changes with the character built and party built you have chosen.

One important part of RPG is that the person you are playing is not you. So, your skills, your intelligence should in concept not affect the gameplay. It's your character that is aiming the gun, not you. It's your character that is opening the lock - not you.

When you see things this way, you understand what the puritists mean with ME2 being dumbed down. When you open a lock through a minigame instead of using your character's or your party-member skills. It's no longer rpg-ish style. If your finger twitchiness and aiming abilities affect if you hit and miss, and not your character's skills - it's not an rpg element.

If these things (or lack there-of) make good/bad game is something that can't be decided here. To each his own. I'd never say shooters are games for idiots - they're just different.

So, in conclusion. Changes made to ME2

- do they make it less of a traditional RPG? - Yes.
- do they make the game worse? - We can't say unless we've played it. And even then it's only going to be based on taste.

Heck, even what kind of rpg and what kind of rulesets people like is based on taste...

I hope this explains things to some of you?

All very good points (it's nice to see someone that's actually taken time to type up a well-weighed response).

I believe this is always going to be the problem with hybrid games, or more specifically, RPG/Shooter hybrids (or action RPGs if you prefer); altering individual elements of the game to bring it more in line with what the original aim was, may at some point, mean the necessary exclusion of game mechanics which appeal to one side of the coin.

All BW can really hope to do is make sure that the changes aren't so vast, that they effectively make the game GoW, in turn, alienating every colour of RPG fan. From what I've seen so far, it still seems to be a minority of RPG fans that already dislike ME2.

Modifié par Darth_Shizz, 20 janvier 2010 - 05:29 .

[Arrtis]

my biggest beef is with the ammo system...it shows that i can not use the same gun i wanna use as much as i want.the Assault rifle should have enough bullets to always be used by the soldier since its their weapon...but seeing the ammo says i cant.Its not a big huge deal il probably not be able to beat the game on its hardest mode because of it and lose some replay ability.I imagine that having my ammo reset to a certain amount would be an easy fix and if i was really horrible at shooting i would accept its more my skill that prevents this...but from what i can tell its probably not gonna play the biggest factor.

still buying the game but no promises for the 3rd...i have my story ending with the 2nd.