416 réponses à ce sujet

[RogueAI]

It will be a good game, but it won't be a RPG. Not even close...

[Medhia Nox]

Didn't read everything on here - but are we talking about "Roleplaying" or "Video Game RPGs".

I consider myself a RPG Veteran (blah, blah, credentials - blah, D&D, blah) and theoretically I am a "purist". Why? Because I prefere a great RPG over every form of gaming (tabletop - or video).

Mass Effect is MORE of a "Role-playing" game to me because of its action elements.

- Table-top games are forced to be turned based simply because there really is no other way to do them. I finish my "action", then the next person, then the next.

A computer game does all the math for me leaving me to do the action. I don't want to see behind the curtain in a computer RPG. The illusion is all. I want to see Shepard running down the hallway, flip over some boxes, fire a few shots, dive for cover - dart over to an enemy, uppercut them, and heck - take a pose for the cameras afterwards.

D&D spawned a lot of "Character builder" personas. This isn't RPing (opinion) - this is no more different than a numbers puzzle game like Sudoku. "Let me min/max my numbers to beat the enemies numbers."

These people need complexity of rules to keep thier interest - and it is likely the people you'll find hating "dumbed down" games.

Don't get me wrong - I want more RPing complexity. I want complexity of NPCs, dynamic environments, consequences, etc.

I do enjoy a little character building - but mostly to pick abilities, outfit, or otherwise customize.

In short: I don't believe any real purist should have an issue with ME 1 or 2.

Modifié par Medhia Nox, 20 janvier 2010 - 06:26 .

[todahouse21]

Kalfear 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?

Oh spare me on the stupidity (lack of grind). I played Halo and that was nothing but grind, infact every single shooter Ive ever tried been 99% grind. Bioware added ALOT of needless shooter aspects to this game so if anything they have INCREASED the grind, not lessened it.

Course I dont concider story and character development grind, you probably do.

You dont know (and neither do I) If this game better or worse, so I REALLY wish you pinheaded shooter fans would stop making broad claim this game better. You dont know that, none of us do and we cant take Bioware on their word about this. Bioware hinted and suggested DA:O would have nudity in its love sceens in DA:O. Now we see that was to create a stir and add sales, nudity was never in the plans. Bioware will make any claim to sell more games so their sweeping statements that more shooter/less brains = better is suspect at best right now.

Random encounters? more rocket scientist nonsence from the idiot gallery. Tell me, what random encounters were in ME1? I consider ME1 to be the BEST RPG of all time. Floors all yours, going to back up your nonsence with fact? Didnt think so!

Here ill make it really simple as I dont think you can understand anything else (which is part of the reason programing a game for you and yours not a great or challenging process).

The true worth of any RPG is variety. In ME1 we both could make soldiers but because of how you build that soldier, my soldier would be vastly different then your soldier, and thats a good thing. In ME2, with the removal of all weapon skills and decryption skills, we are left with a cookie cutter soldier that EXACTLY the same as everyone elses cookie cutter soldier. Master Cheif fromHalo all over again.

I DONT WANT TO PLAY YOUR IDEA OF A SOLDIER, I want to play my own idea of a soldier with MY OWN choice of what weapons (and other skills) im skilled in!

Cant make it any clearler (or dumbed down) for you! Thats why much (not all) of the changes sound bad and ruin game!

This is suppose to be a RPG/Shooter, not a Shooter/RPG

With the proposed changes, the game is simply lesser then it was in its original format! 

Dude, breathe...

Now. I do like shooters, I also like rpgs. I also like sports games, some puzzle games and a lot of strategy games. Point is, I like games. Why? because they're fun. Mass Effect 1 was incredible. But it wasn't perfect. It seems Bioware streamlined some of the clunkier aspects of the game (i.e. combat, inventory, etc.)

Also, story and developement are my favorite aspects of games. It's why I love Mass Effect.

My original question is why the reduction of CERTAIN aspects of the game was enough to say that the game is not an rpg. It still has rpg elements, even if they were somewhat reduced. I believe it should still be classified as an rpg. That's all I'm saying.

By the way, the anger in your post coupled with your portrait ( Loghain: angriest character in the history of videogames) kind of makes it seem like you're roleplaying right know.

[Kalfear]

Loghain and I share a trait that we dont like the obvious to be constantly questioned and we lose patience when it is!



Whats best for game is all that concerns me (like whats best for land with him) and we both know whats best and we both have no time for insane discussions that question what is already known fact in our minds

[Mister Mage]

Medhia Nox wrote...

Didn't read everything on here - but are we talking about "Roleplaying" or "Video Game RPGs".

I consider myself a RPG Veteran (blah, blah, credentials - blah, D&D, blah) and theoretically I am a "purist". Why? Because I prefere a great RPG over every form of gaming (tabletop - or video).

Mass Effect is MORE of a "Role-playing" game to me because of its action elements.

- Table-top games are forced to be turned based simply because there really is no other way to do them. I finish my "action", then the next person, then the next.

A computer game does all the math for me leaving me to do the action. I don't want to see behind the curtain in a computer RPG. The illusion is all. I want to see Shepard running down the hallway, flip over some boxes, fire a few shots, dive for cover - dart over to an enemy, uppercut them, and heck - take a pose for the cameras afterwards.

D&D spawned a lot of "Character builder" personas. This isn't RPing (opinion) - this is no more different than a numbers puzzle game like Sudoku. "Let me min/max my numbers to beat the enemies numbers."

These people need complexity of rules to keep thier interest - and it is likely the people you'll find hating "dumbed down" games.

Don't get me wrong - I want more RPing complexity. I want complexity of NPCs, dynamic environments, consequences, etc.

I do enjoy a little character building - but mostly to pick abilities, outfit, or otherwise customize.

In short: I don't believe any real purist should have an issue with ME 1 or 2.

I think we're all talking about different forms of fun, here, that actually fairly well converge in Mass Effect.  I love strategy board games and turn-based strategy games.  Risk, Civilization, Carcassonne, Settlers of Catan, Bokkus, etc.  So I prefer my RPG combat to involve a lot of strategy.  In Mass Effect, this was satisfied to me by my ability to stop, think, and tell my squad where to go and what powers to use(Active power use?!  Nuh uh.  You won't use them right).  Things I like about Mass Effect 2 are that I can, if I wish, perform a lot of my strategic actions on-the-fly, in the action, without having to stop.  Being able to place my soldiers separately is the #1 best thing I see in the videos.

I like being able to have my loss generally be because I made a dumb move.  I don't see turn-based combat as being purely due to limitations of the medium, and even if it is I think the form can still produce something wonderful, and that perhaps we create great things out of adversity(notice how as tech advances, Hollywood movies generally get worse).

So I'm more "tactics-minded", with a love of a deep story.  I think a lot of people are "numbers-minded", though, they prefer their difficulty from moving around numbers.  I don't get it.  But a lot of people don't understand how I can enjoy Risk, I guess.  The thing that they need to realize, though, is that Mass Effect was never advertised as anything but a shooter RPG, and if they pick it up, they may have to adjust to a different form of play.

I like that I don't need to do things in a menu.  That means I can spend more time playing the game, and do the same things I could with the menu in live action.  Is it dumber?  I don't know.  Maybe.  There are half as many levels, squadmates upgrade armor automatically.  I thought it was a pain cycling through and managing items, I thought this was ancillary to actually PLAYING, but apparently there are people who enjoy looking through lists and being rewarding for being both able to realize one number is bigger than another.

...if the Mass Effect armor system was complex, I may agree with the assessment.  But it was just looking at numbers, saying "That one is better", and equipping it.  The upgrades for armor were knuckle-draggingly simple.  I thought of it as padding, myself.

[todahouse21]

So what's best for the game? Last I checked pre-orders were doing fine, the game is receiving good reviews and bioware is going to make a ton of money.



What is the "obvious fact" you're talking about?

[Skurrow]

I might be wrong...I probably am...I normally am



But it seems to me this is more about Twitch vs Micro-management than anything else.



Mass Effect 2 is heading towards twitch based combat and the players that love the mechanical depth of micro-management systems found in RPGs are worried that the game will not be as fun for them as it should be, because it will feel shallow.



RPGs are my favourite games, but not because of the mechanics. I love to make dialogue based decisions which affect my character, his relationship with his companions, the lives of the NPCs around him and, ultimately, the path of the story.

[Mister Mage]

SkullandBonesmember wrote...

Skurrow wrote...

RPGs are my favourite games, but not because of the mechanics. I love to make dialogue based decisions which affect my character, his relationship with his companions, the lives of the NPCs around him and, ultimately, the path of the story.

QFT.

Certainly, you mean Quoted For Mutual Personal Preference.  I personally see RPGs as a bit more than Chooose Your Own Adventure storybooks, but whatever.

[Medhia Nox]

Years back, when "Turn-Based" games gave way to simulations of "Real-Time" battles in RPGs - the same arguments were heard. People attacked "Real-Time" as untrue to the hobby.



Now - the vast majority despise Turn-based. (At least, that is my understanding)



---



The same will happen with "Real-Time" vs "Hyper-Real Time" (Okay, lame name - but you know what I mean.)



As computers can calculate more and more behind the scenes we will get RPGs that seem to be doing nothing more than any FPS - yet, behind the scenes we're building characters - deciding on powers, stats, equipment. This is largely happening already - but the transition will become even more pronounced as time goes on I believe.



Of course - "Pause" will always be essential I think. To actually play the role of the character you need to act is if you were the character - that means you need to be able to act is if you're not somebody looking at a computer screen. You need to simulate the idea that you can literally look around the environment.. make decisions - give orders, etc. Space Bar - Pause is essential.

[Cactot]

I would consider myself a RPG "purist" but when it comes to games that involve firearms, there are only two ways accuracy "works" IMHO:



1. You select a target, then your character fires upon that target for you, hitting and missing as their skill allows. This is great and caters to the turn based RPG crowd. (More like KOTOR)



2. You handle the aiming aspect like a traditional FPS, while the characters skill affects other attributes, like extra skills/abilities and additional weapon damage, and perhaps decrease the grouping size for the weapon spread (increase accuracy). This is also a great way to handle it, and caters to the faster paced action RPG crowd. (Similar to Bioshock or Borderlands or Deus Ex)



The way ME1 did it, is IMO one of the worst ways possible. If you focus on anything but your weapon, you really cannot hit the broad side of a barn, and you might as well not even be able to equip a weapon you are not proficient in, as the bullets go EVERYWHERE. As much as I like RPG stats affecting combat, its kind of strange when I am IRL (relatively untrained) a far better shot than an uber vetran space marine with any gun he does not specialize in, as would just about anyone with decent hand eye coordination.



For example: my infiltrator will miss the majority of time with his assault rifle or shotgun at point blank range, which I think is a little excessive. It is frustrating to be relatively harmless with your weapon of choice unless you drop a large amount of skill points into the specialization for that weapon, but once you do, you become a death dealing machine with it. IRL i would imagine that an average person with just a slight amount of training should be able to hit a 15-20" round target at 20m with consistency, where a highly trained sharpshooter could hit a 2-3" round target at that distance with some ease. (Or a far smaller target with a highly accurate weapon with or w/o a scope, like a remington 700 for example)



All in all, I have to say that ME2 looks fantastic, better than ME1 in many ways, but only time will tell. I think that time has erased the memory some of the irritating issues that ME1 had for many people, I know it did for me until i replayed it in order to get a new save game to import (i had accidentally erased all my old ones previously, not knowing i would be able to import it to ME2).

[todahouse21]

Wow , info overload lol.



Thanks Skull, you seemingly understood the original intention of this post (to find out why purists were labeling ME 2 a non-rpg) and weren't disgusted by my smart ass personality.

[javierabegazo]

these threads are so cute

[todahouse21]

Dude I love your website

[simo2003]

On the subject of stat allocation in ME1, as Cactot says, it was rather odd that my highly trained N7 combat specialist soldier couldn't hit the broadside of a Geth dropship if he didn't put lots of points into the Assault Rifle skill. RPGs should also be about immersion in the story and the setting. That was a massive immersion breaker for me...

So, streamlining the skills is good for me. So is getting rid of that stupid inventory. Where did I put 150 items including SPACE SUITS AND SNIPER RIFLES?!

[Aisynia]

Vaeliorin wrote...

Eragondragonrider wrote...
I a person that has designed and played rpgs for 25 years, I think why most purest are saying ME2 is not a real rpg is because it doesn't have the wait command menu. FFIII set the bar for purest out there and most people want RPGs to be like it because it was such a great for its time.

RPG Purists don't think JRPGs are RPGs.

A lot of purest can not get past the idea that RPGs are evolving constantly to get more people into them. I think having a game that it more live action then waiting to chose what you want to do draws you more into the game and story.

When you remove the role-playing, you no longer have an RPG.  ME has removed the role-playing, therefore it's not an RPG.  That doesn't mean it's a bad game.  I rather enjoyed ME1, but I would put it in the genre of shooter with RPG elements, not into the RPG genre (there are very, very few games that make it into that genre anymore.  Pretty sure DA was the only mainstream game that fit the genre in 2009.)

.. What?

They allowed you to import your character from ME1 so that the choices you make affect the second game. They increased the number of options you have in terms of interacting with other characters, such as the interrupt system. Your actions in ME1 and probably to a greater extent, ME2, have a "butterfly effect", whereby one small decision can have huge ramifications. They've improved character interaction to the point that doing a favor for one person can anger another if you do it wrong, or you will run into situations where you may be forced to take sides in a disagreement. The ending of Mass Effect 2 will be dependent largely on the relationships you build, how well you have managed to balance the feelings of everyone around, and how extensive you have researched weapons, your ship, etcetera.

Now if you want to say that by removing stat dependent accuracy and other such things, they have removed some genre conventions, fine. But to me, as a native dice-roller, the stats, numbers, character sheets, and dice and all that have always been a form of enabler. They do not define the RPG itself.

You are saying that by removing some of the math, or by streamlining some of the systems, they are removing the roleplaying itself.. and that is frankly just incredible to me. The roleplaying is everything I described above.. the playing of a role, the interaction, storytelling, etc. That has always been the point of RPGs, the stats and numbers are just things that enable the ability to better tell that story. Removing, replacing, or streamlining those does not stop it from being an RPG, it just removes some elements you associate with RPGs. All the roleplaying is firmly in tact, and has in fact, been made more robust.

If you just miss some of the numbers and genre conventions, that's great, that's fine, but to say this isn't an RPG is just.. well it's just.. wow...

[todahouse21]

You are saying that by removing some of the math, or by streamlining some of the systems, they are removing the roleplaying itself.. and that is frankly just incredible to me. The roleplaying is everything I described above.. the playing of a role, the interaction, storytelling, etc. That has always been the point of RPGs, the stats and numbers are just things that enable the ability to better tell that story. Removing, replacing, or streamlining those does not stop it from being an RPG, it just removes some elements you associate with RPGs. All the roleplaying is firmly in tact, and has in fact, been made more robust.

If you just miss some of the numbers and genre conventions, that's great, that's fine, but to say this isn't an RPG is just.. well it's just.. wow...

[/quote]

THIS IS WHAT I'M SAYING!

[SnowHeart1]

simo2003 wrote...

Where did I put 150 items including SPACE SUITS AND SNIPER RIFLES?!

In your Bag of Trans-Dimensional Holding. 

I actually read through Skull's wall of text and would suggest folks do the same (fortunately, nobody has said TLDR yet).  You may disagree with the arguments in it, but I thought it pretty well summed up, as well as anything else I've read, why the differences exist.  Personally, if people are reasonable, I don't think the two are mutually exclusive.  I'm honestly getting quite tired of this (I think) false dichotomy.  But, some people won't be reasonable and/or look to create conflict, so it becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy.

The game will completely rock, whether you're an RPG-fan (or "purist", as the OP said) or a shooter-fan.  It may not have all the elements you individually want in your "Perfect Game", but it will almost certainly still be a great game.

[Daeion]

todahouse21 wrote...

But it has to be more than that. In the old forum I read comments that basically said "I can't play this game. It's too dumbed down."

What?

Is it the lack of chocobos? I bet it's the lack of chocobos.

Could you be more of an ass?

Lets take a look at the inventory system.  Gone is having to make a decision of what would be best for a certain squad mate becuase the game does that for you.  Gone is going oh wow, I just found this great upgrade, should I give it to Rex or Garrus, the game just duplicates it and everyone gets a copy.  Gone is having to make the choice of who to bring because you need certain skills.  Everything now is just run and gun FPS style with no decision making needing to be made except for do I want to kill this guy with my pistol or me sniper rifle.

[hawat333]

What a pure RPG is?

Basically anything that gives you a free choice over situations, and makes those decisions affect the story itself.

Well, once in college (in galaxy, a loooong time a go) I was seriously ill, and my roommate came in to the hospital, and we played an RPG story. We didn't even have a system to base on, we just played. What I mean is, that you don't necessarily need points to spend, rules to follow as long as you can shape your character and by that, your role.

Of course it's just my opinion.

[SmilingMirror]

Combat as far as shooting goes is more of a shooter, and powers&gear have been condensed to hot key/manage easier. Otherwise this game retains its RPG elements and even expands on them.

[todahouse21]

Daeion wrote...

todahouse21 wrote...

But it has to be more than that. In the old forum I read comments that basically said "I can't play this game. It's too dumbed down."

What?

Is it the lack of chocobos? I bet it's the lack of chocobos.

Could you be more of an ass?

Lets take a look at the inventory system.  Gone is having to make a decision of what would be best for a certain squad mate becuase the game does that for you.  Gone is going oh wow, I just found this great upgrade, should I give it to Rex or Garrus, the game just duplicates it and everyone gets a copy.  Gone is having to make the choice of who to bring because you need certain skills.  Everything now is just run and gun FPS style with no decision making needing to be made except for do I want to kill this guy with my pistol or me sniper rifle.

You sir. have no idea how much of an ass I can be.

[DocLasty]

gone is having to make the choice of who to bring because you need certain skills. Everything now is just run and gun FPS style with no decision making needing to be made except for do I want to kill this guy with my pistol or me sniper rifle.



If I have an adept, it behooves me to bring along characters that can back me up take the heavy damage, and can use things like Cryo Ammo or Overload and effect certain enemies in different ways. A soldier would benefit from having someone like Tali with him, to hack enemies and deploy the drone, making a good setup for me to come from behind and smash them. If I'm a vanguard, I could sniper help from Garrus or Thane, to help me deal damage at long-range where I'm at a disadvantage. It matters who you bring along.



On top of that, I have to make decisions about what Shepard wears. If I want to focus on a biotic user, I should equip armor parts that increased power damage. If I want to focus on shooting, I can equip armor that gives me increased damage. If I want to focus on defense, I can equip armor that raises health and defense. As opposed to ME1, where armor was just progressively stronger versions of the same thing.



On top of that, the skill you develop evolve in one of two ways, so the way you play a certain clas or the way you developed a certain character might be very different from the way someone else does. In ME1, ultimately, every class wound up developing along the same lines.