233 réponses à ce sujet

[Willie_on_Wheels]

Daeion wrote...

Massadonious wrote...

All I hear in threads like these is that it isn't an RPG if there isin't some kind of massive stat allocation and other ridiculous criteria for games that are 5 to 10 years old. You should only need a Rogue type for lockpicking and nonsense like that.

Who cares if FPS combat replaces outdated DnD type systems. The underlying game is still an RPG, whether you purists care to believe it or not.

And what does it matter what BioWare labels it? Does it affect your "immersion" if shooter comes before RPG on the back of the box?

Just play the damn game.

Well it shifts the focus of the game really.  While the removing of having to have a rogue type char as part of your group may be streamlining to you, to others it is dumbing down of the system because instead of saying here's your options and now balance the group, it says here's your objective, your options don't really matter. 

Many people define RPG's by their dialogue, interaction and story. Turn-based combat mechanics usually go hand-in-hand, but I see that more as a matter of tradition than anything else.

[Daeion]

bobito64 wrote...

Daeion wrote...

It goes to the profficency of a char with a weapon and goes back to pen and paper RPGs.  It basically says that just like realife anyone can fire a gun, but that doesn't mean you have the proper training wo actually hit things consistantly, that's why skill points into it improve your skill and you're saying that the char you are playing has gotten better at this.  In the current system no everyone can use the same guns which doesn't make sense, and there's no getting better, you either suck or you're great.

Actually, given Shepard is Spectre and a Commander in the military, it makes perfect sense. What makes absolutely no sense is that, at the start of Mass Effect, the very best that the Alliance Special Forces had to offer couldn't hit a barn door with a blunderbuss.
 
Nor does it make any sense that Shepard should pick up every gun or suit of body armour she finds and lug it around with her for the rest of the mission.

You are correct that traditional, turn based RPG combat goes back to pen, paper and 20 sided dice. But, in a medium of rapidly advacing technology, it is inevitable that combat mechanics will evolve. Mass Effect 2 is not purely a shooter, even in terms of combat. Shooters don't have biotic or tech powers. When did you ever see Marcus Fenix use biotics to pull a enemy out from behind cover or create a mini singularity? When did you ever see Master Chief overload his enenies weapons or hack into an enemy turret to turn against them? If you play as a soldier, then perhaps ME2 may seem much like a shooter.  But that is only one of six classes.   

Biotics and tech powers are just different variations of weapons.  Instead of having a gravity gun you have a person who can creates a gravity well.

[the_one_54321]

Willie_on_Wheels wrote...
Many people define RPG's by their dialogue, interaction and story.

absolutely any game can have these elements. you could have this in a racing game. just have dialog during/between races, and the insertion of and interaction with chracters. if the game revolves around racing a car on a track, do these things also make it an RPG?

[Noble_House]

Daeion wrote...

Noble_House wrote...

It is an RPG that is also a third-person shooter.

The definition of "role playing game" being a game in which you role play (which you certainly do in ME2), not "here are pages of stats and specializations and dice rolls and Longswords +2".

So are Halo and GoW RPGs then?

You have taken my post entirely out of context and asked a rhetorical question to which we both know the answer, which is 'no.'

In Halo you do not make choices.  You do not interact with characters in a meaningful way or build relationships.  Your choices (or lack thereof) do not matter.  The game is built around gameplay, of which dialogue and narrative are not central or even a priority.

I cannot speak for Gears of War, having never played it, but I anticipate it is not very much dissimilar.

Role playing does not simply mean controlling a character and preforming actions they would preform, as you suggest - if that is the case than roughly every game with a defined protagonist ever is an RPG.

Role playing in a gaming context is playing a role - one which the player chooses.  It is interacting with characters on a deeper level than pre-scripted dialogue.  It is making decisions.  And meaningful decisions, before you quote the names of more FPS games at me.  Sure, stats and skill trees have their part - I'm not saying that without those a game can be a full RPG.  What I am saying is that a game which is built entirely on those principles to the exclusion of narrative and story is no more an RPG than one with all story and no Stat-based elements - which it is worth noting, ME2 is empirically not.

In short, yes, Mass Effect 2 is an RPG while at the same time being an RPG.


Edit:

Daeion wrote...

DarthCaine wrote...

It's a Third-Person RPG shooter

Which tells people that it's a shooter first and RPG second instead of an RPG first and shooter second like ME was.

This has more to do with word order in the English language than a meaningful representation of Bioware's prioritization of ideas.

Cheers,
Noble

Modifié par Noble_House, 25 janvier 2010 - 10:21 .

[MajesticMoose]

Willie_on_Wheels wrote...

Well it shifts the focus of the game really.  While the removing of having to have a rogue type char as part of your group may be streamlining to you, to others it is dumbing down of the system because instead of saying here's your options and now balance the group, it says here's your objective, your options don't really matter. 

Many people define RPG's by their dialogue, interaction and story. Turn-based combat mechanics usually go hand-in-hand, but I see that more as a matter of tradition than anything else.

And BTW... This so much!

Modifié par MajesticMoose, 25 janvier 2010 - 10:17 .

[Daeion]

DarthCaine wrote...

It's a Third-Person RPG shooter

Which tells people that it's a shooter first and RPG second instead of an RPG first and shooter second like ME was.

[newcomplex]

Ugh.

Mass Effect is identical to the Mass Effect 2 in all ways except

a)Combat is more difficult, instead of a joke. No mechanics have changed, only thing that changed was that you couldn't rambo in with a pistol on hard. Its more balanced. Combat is like mass effect combat in the first mission extended throughout the entire game with more abilities.

b)The inventory system is changed.

c)It sucks less, especially in regards to level design.    

If tweaking those elements would make you play a different game, I don't understand why you liked mass effect 1 anyway.

The ONLY thing that has changed in anway way shape or form was that the combat has been made to be more balanced (not even changed) and the inventory system has been reworked.  

The worst part is they removed frogger .   

Your definition of RPG is also retarded.      You defined "roguelike", not RPG.   Their are tons of text based RPG that are probably older then you that do not follow them.    

Mass Effect 1 was in no way shape or form stat based.   It was just so unbalanced you couldn't tell the difference, as enemies did not scale properly, and your health scaled too much.    

Modifié par newcomplex, 25 janvier 2010 - 10:24 .

[Kimarous]

@ the_one_54321



Since you are so engrossed in your absolutes, here's one for you...



If you can't use proper grammar and punctuation, then your argument isn't worth a damn!

[psychodude310]

Since when do all role playing games have to have slow, clunky or lame gameplay to be a role playing game. You said yourself that it lets you take a role thats what the name means. Quit whining just because it has good gameplay it is still a roleplaying game.

[MajesticMoose]

Daeion wrote...

DarthCaine wrote...

It's a Third-Person RPG shooter

Which tells people that it's a shooter first and RPG second instead of an RPG first and shooter second like ME was.

Does it really matter? It has good elements from both genres. Thats what Bioware wanted to focus on doing, and so far, it looks like they have. RPG purists arent happy, and say that it must have every single element of what they call an RPG to be called that, unless it be demoted from greatness somehow. Not saying thats you, but it happens. It has enough good RPG elements to be called an RPG and enough shooter elements to be called a shooter. Ive been waiting for something like this to come out for years. Me2 seems to have struck a great blance.

[the_one_54321]

Kimarous wrote...
@ the_one_54321

Since you are so engrossed in your absolutes, here's one for you...

If you can't use proper grammar and punctuation, then your argument isn't worth a damn!

that's an incredibly well reasoned and original argument you've made there. i've never heard that one before. do you have any more gems you'd like to post?

read the sig.

Modifié par the_one_54321, 25 janvier 2010 - 10:27 .

[Willie_on_Wheels]

the_one_54321 wrote...

Willie_on_Wheels wrote...
Many people define RPG's by their dialogue, interaction and story.

absolutely any game can have these elements. you could have this in a racing game. just have dialog during/between races, and the insertion of and interaction with chracters. if the game revolves around racing a car on a track, do these things also make it an RPG?

If these elements took up a significant amount of time, and was the most appealing part of the gameplay (which it is for Mass Effect), then yes, definitely. Roleplaying games are games where you roleplay. That's how I define it.

[the_one_54321]

Willie_on_Wheels wrote...

the_one_54321 wrote...

Willie_on_Wheels wrote...
Many people define RPG's by their dialogue, interaction and story.

absolutely any game can have these elements. you could have this in a racing game. just have dialog during/between races, and the insertion of and interaction with chracters. if the game revolves around racing a car on a track, do these things also make it an RPG?

If these elements took up a significant amount of time, and was the most appealing part of the gameplay (which it is for Mass Effect), then yes, definitely. Roleplaying games are games where you roleplay. That's how I define it.

why is how you define it more important than how it was originally defined?

Modifié par the_one_54321, 25 janvier 2010 - 10:28 .

[packardbell]

I've played ME2 fully and can confirm they've striked a very nice balance, but obviously that's just my opinion.

[newcomplex]

the_one_54321 wrote...

Willie_on_Wheels wrote...
Many people define RPG's by their dialogue, interaction and story.

absolutely any game can have these elements. you could have this in a racing game. just have dialog during/between races, and the insertion of and interaction with chracters. if the game revolves around racing a car on a track, do these things also make it an RPG?

If their was enough of it, and it became the main focus of the game, sure.   That would be ****ing awesome actually.     Race Car RPG?   Zomg yes.   

And most realistic racing games have rediculous amounts of modifications you can make to your cars that alter everything about them.   The development and customization you can put into it exceeds all modern DND games, and the "combat' (racing) is completely and directly based on said modifications, on a mathematical level.    But it features no plot.   Under your definition, Grand Turismo is an RPG, but Mass Effect is not.    

Daeion wrote...

Biotics and tech powers are just different variations of weapons.  Instead of having a gravity gun you have a person who can creates a gravity well.

What?    You can dynamically choose which ones you want to invest in, and at rank 4, you can significantly alter its use.   How is that different from any other RPG?

Modifié par newcomplex, 25 janvier 2010 - 10:35 .

[JaegerBane]

Daeion wrote...
Biotics and tech powers are just different variations of weapons.  Instead of having a gravity gun you have a person who can creates a gravity well.

If by 'different variations' you mean things that work so completely differently to the point where you end up dealing with enemies differently depending on your class, than I can see your point.

I mean, let's face it, Throw is not a Shotgun. Combat Drones are not Shockwaves. Sniper Rifles are not Overloads. RPGs have always defined themselves by how different classes handle enemies.

[the_one_54321]

MajesticMoose wrote...
RPG purists arent happy, and say that it must have every single element of what they call an RPG to be called that, unless it be demoted from greatness somehow.

the only ones saying RPG=Great and NotRPG=NotGreat is those arguing that it's an RPG.

i say Mass Effect = Not RPG = Great.

[MajesticMoose]

the_one_54321 wrote...

Willie_on_Wheels wrote...

the_one_54321 wrote...

Willie_on_Wheels wrote...
Many people define RPG's by their dialogue, interaction and story.

absolutely any game can have these elements. you could have this in a racing game. just have dialog during/between races, and the insertion of and interaction with chracters. if the game revolves around racing a car on a track, do these things also make it an RPG?

If these elements took up a significant amount of time, and was the most appealing part of the gameplay (which it is for Mass Effect), then yes, definitely. Roleplaying games are games where you roleplay. That's how I define it.

why is how you define it more important than how it was originally defined?

Maybe because its his own definition, which is what weve been talking about this whole time. This whole arguement has been about the definition of a three-letter acronym which has a double meaning that you cannot find in the dictionary or anywhere else that I can think of. The definition is definately up for debate. You have been asserting that your definition is correct, and he has been asserting his own definition as correct. Youve just made yourself look like an **** while doing it.

[Willie_on_Wheels]

the_one_54321 wrote...

Willie_on_Wheels wrote...

the_one_54321 wrote...

Willie_on_Wheels wrote...
Many people define RPG's by their dialogue, interaction and story.

absolutely any game can have these elements. you could have this in a racing game. just have dialog during/between races, and the insertion of and interaction with chracters. if the game revolves around racing a car on a track, do these things also make it an RPG?

If these elements took up a significant amount of time, and was the most appealing part of the gameplay (which it is for Mass Effect), then yes, definitely. Roleplaying games are games where you roleplay. That's how I define it.

why is how you define it more important than how it was originally defined?

I thought it was originally defined as this. Anyways, I know I'm not the only one who thinks this. ME2 is a consummate RPG, and the lack of a cruddy inventory system doesn't change that.

[MajesticMoose]

the_one_54321 wrote...

MajesticMoose wrote...
RPG purists arent happy, and say that it must have every single element of what they call an RPG to be called that, unless it be demoted from greatness somehow.

the only ones saying RPG=Great and NotRPG=NotGreat is those arguing that it's an RPG.

i say Mass Effect = Not RPG = Great.

That statement wasnt really directed at you then was it?

[the_one_54321]

newcomplex wrote...

the_one_54321 wrote...

Willie_on_Wheels wrote...

Many people define RPG's by their dialogue, interaction and story.

absolutely any game can have these elements. you could have this in a racing game. just have dialog during/between races, and the insertion of and interaction with chracters. if the game revolves around racing a car on a track, do these things also make it an RPG?

If their was enough of it, and it became the main focus of the game, sure. That would be ****ing awesome actually. Race Car RPG? Zomg yes.



And most realistic racing games have rediculous amounts of modifications you can make to your cars that alter everything about them. The development and customization you can put into it exceeds all modern DND games, and the "combat' (racing) is completely and directly based on said modifications, on a mathematical level. But it features no plot. Under your definition, Grand Turismo is an RPG, but Mass Effect is not.

no, not even close. Grand Turismo would be an RPG if you had no control over steering the car. if you instead upgraded the car and the drivers skill level at driving, and then he did everything else on the track by himself, and his performance on the race track was based on his numerical skill level, then it would be an RPG.

[Willie_on_Wheels]

MajesticMoose wrote...

the_one_54321 wrote...

Willie_on_Wheels wrote...

the_one_54321 wrote...

Willie_on_Wheels wrote...
Many people define RPG's by their dialogue, interaction and story.

absolutely any game can have these elements. you could have this in a racing game. just have dialog during/between races, and the insertion of and interaction with chracters. if the game revolves around racing a car on a track, do these things also make it an RPG?

If these elements took up a significant amount of time, and was the most appealing part of the gameplay (which it is for Mass Effect), then yes, definitely. Roleplaying games are games where you roleplay. That's how I define it.

why is how you define it more important than how it was originally defined?

Maybe because its his own definition, which is what weve been talking about this whole time. This whole arguement has been about the definition of a three-letter acronym which has a double meaning that you cannot find in the dictionary or anywhere else that I can think of. The definition is definately up for debate. You have been asserting that your definition is correct, and he has been asserting his own definition as correct. Youve just made yourself look like an **** while doing it.

If you'll read what I said, you'll notice it was a "many people define rpg's as..." type comment, so as to be less offensive. I never asserted my opinion was anything more than subjective. People are arguing about whether or not ME2 is an RPG while having different interpretations of what an RPG is. It's all semantics.

[Willie_on_Wheels]

Sorry, double post.

Modifié par Willie_on_Wheels, 25 janvier 2010 - 10:38 .

[the_one_54321]

Willie_on_Wheels wrote...

the_one_54321 wrote...

Willie_on_Wheels wrote...

the_one_54321 wrote...

Willie_on_Wheels wrote...
Many people define RPG's by their dialogue, interaction and story.

absolutely any game can have these elements. you could have this in a racing game. just have dialog during/between races, and the insertion of and interaction with chracters. if the game revolves around racing a car on a track, do these things also make it an RPG?

If these elements took up a significant amount of time, and was the most appealing part of the gameplay (which it is for Mass Effect), then yes, definitely. Roleplaying games are games where you roleplay. That's how I define it.

why is how you define it more important than how it was originally defined?

I thought it was originally defined as this. Anyways, I know I'm not the only one who thinks this. ME2 is a consummate RPG, and the lack of a cruddy inventory system doesn't change that.

if you look back on the original creation of RPGs, no, that is not what makes a game an RPG. nor is it the inventory system. it is the replacement of your ability/relexes, with the chracters. you control the character through decision making, choices, and interaction, but it is the characters abilities that define how good s/he is at stealth/shooting/what-have-you.