233 réponses à ce sujet

[Mako9000]

*Sigh*



I didn't read the whole thread, and you probably won't read this post either, but here's my take:



Why does it matter if ME2 is a third-person shooter instead of an RPG?



Hell, why does it matter if ME2 is an RPG instead of a third-person shooter?

[the_one_54321]

MajesticMoose wrote...
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.

can you, concievably, conduct yourself as anything other than a child who's been told he cant have desert? please?

[MajesticMoose]

the_one_54321 wrote...

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.

I have one question. Do you beleive that ME1 was an RPG?

[TheBestClass]

Holy Shifty Looking Cow! Why is this debate still going on? Why does it have to be either an RPG or a Shooter. It's both. The end.

[JaegerBane]

the_one_54321 wrote...
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.

I really do love this absurd idea that RPGs are games that require no actual player skill to play, beyond an ability to manipulate stats. Just how long have we had RPGs that require some level of player capability to play?

Modifié par JaegerBane, 25 janvier 2010 - 10:40 .

[Jim0101]

I think they've achieved a better shooter/rpg combo then some other games have, i.e. Borderlands was heavy on the shooter and light on the story. I hardly noticed there was actually a storyline with it at times!

[newcomplex]

the_one_54321 wrote...

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.

LOL.

So your saying RPG have to be based PURELY on the statistics of your character without any strategic or skill based input on the players behalf?

Then Baldurs gate wasn't and RPG.   Because that game was damn hard and you needed good positioning to beat it, and tactile use of your skills.   

Sorry, Dragon Age wasn't an RPG.   Neither was Oblivion (ok, oblivion was because you could faceroll, and if you built your character right you would win).    Nope, Demon Souls wasn't either.   Or KOTOR (that may be too cuz it was so damn easy too).    And NWN wasn't an RPG.    Neither is Gothic, or The witcher, or Risen, or divinity.     None of them are RPGs.   No game ever over the last decade and a half are RPG.

Oh yeah, and Deus Ex?   Not even close.  

K bro.    

I'm not saying that Grand Turismo is any RPG.   But not because of the lulzy reasons you provided.    RPG means that the central design focus of the game is to create a immersive world that you can interact with.    That is probably the best definition of a RPG.   It includes damn near every RPG we can think of, a few that aren't (like Assassin's Creed 2), and doesn't include stuff that are obviously not rpgs (like Halo, due to the limited interactions with the world, the limited world presented to you through the game, and the obvious lack of focus on the world itself over the way the player "plays" with the world)

Modifié par newcomplex, 25 janvier 2010 - 10:44 .

[MajesticMoose]

the_one_54321 wrote...

MajesticMoose wrote...
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.

can you, concievably, conduct yourself as anything other than a child who's been told he cant have desert? please?

:lol:You give me my desert every time you respond.

[Willie_on_Wheels]

the_one_54321 wrote...

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.

I see. In that case, ME2 is obviously light on the RPG elements. Still looks to be a great game, though.

[OasisForever1991]

Mass Effect 1 and 2 = RPG WITH SHOOTER ELEMENTS

That's all it was, will and always be.

The Devs have said in interviews that Mass Effect 1 was an RPG with shooter elements. And they were right, in the way Mass Effect is a shooter and RPG.

Mass Effect 2 is an RPG with EVEN MORE Shooter elements. In the way they just made better. And from what I have seen and WILL play tommorow it will be better than Mass 1 in every way, unless you want to get picky. About hair or some stupid character that you don't like or a love interest.

Stop posting these threads, c'mon guys. The only thing that will be bad for me atleast. Is having Mass Effect 2 not feel like a Mass Effect game. And that is all. but it will and is. It's Bioware we're talking here.

Mass Effect 1 and 2 is an RPG with Shooter elements. Mass 2 just has more and it's better

Mass Effect 2 didn't take anything out of each. They imporoved the Shooter elements for a better combat exp. and the Dev team have improved the RPG side with Dialouge and much more. They just improved what they made. And it's Mass Effect in and out.

It isn't ONE WAY. It is not the Fallout 3 RPG and it isn't a Gears Of War Third Person Shooter.

IT'S MASS EFFECT

Now it's a RPG with BETTER Shooter elements. Thank you Bioware!

And I am proud and very excited to go pick it up tomorow.

I don't need to know your theories and such about what Mass 2 has become. 

IT'S MASS EFFECT.........(but better)

[the_one_54321]

JaegerBane wrote...
I really do love this absurd idea that RPGs are games that require no actual player skill to play, beyond an ability to manipulate stats. Just how long have we had RPGs that require some level of player capability to play?

since Gary Gygax and Dave Arneson invented Role Playing Games.

[fairandbalancedfan]

MajesticMoose wrote...

I have one question. Do you beleive that ME1 was an RPG?

No, he doesn't.

[JaegerBane]

the_one_54321 wrote...

JaegerBane wrote...
I really do love this absurd idea that RPGs are games that require no actual player skill to play, beyond an ability to manipulate stats. Just how long have we had RPGs that require some level of player capability to play?

since Gary Gygax and Dave Arneson invented Role Playing Games.

Unless you're trying to argue that cRPGs are no different than PnP RPGs, I'm not sure what point you're trying to make.

And you didn't answer the second question.

[the_one_54321]

newcomplex wrote...

LOL.



So your saying RPG have to be based PURELY on the statistics of your character without any strategic or skill based input on the players behalf?



Then Baldurs gate wasn't and RPG. Because that game was damn hard and you needed good positioning to beat it, and tactile use of your skills.



Sorry, Dragon Age wasn't an RPG. Neither was Oblivion (ok, oblivion was because you could faceroll, and if you built your character right you would win). Nope, Demon Souls wasn't either. Or KOTOR (that may be too cuz it was so damn easy too). And NWN wasn't an RPG. Neither is Gothic, or The witcher, or Risen, or divinity. None of them are RPGs. No game ever over the last decade and a half are RPG.



Oh yeah, and Deus Ex? Not even close.



K bro.



I'm not saying that Grand Turismo is any RPG. But not because of the lulzy reasons you provided. RPG means that the central design focus of the game is to create a immersive world that you can interact with. That is probably the best definition of a RPG. It includes damn near every RPG we can think of, a few that aren't (like Assassin's Creed 2), and doesn't include stuff that are obviously not rpgs (like Halo, due to the limited interactions with the world, the limited world presented to you through the game, and the obvious lack of focus on the world itself over the way the player "plays" with the world)

you're putting your foot in your mouth here. i'll omit the laughing and derision that you included in your own post and just say that the games you've listed (mostly) replace all of your abilities with the characters statistics. BGII in particular comes to mind. it's completely based on D&D and all you do is level up and equip the characters and give theme instructions. they do everything else on their own.

[the_one_54321]

JaegerBane wrote...

the_one_54321 wrote...

JaegerBane wrote...
I really do love this absurd idea that RPGs are games that require no actual player skill to play, beyond an ability to manipulate stats. Just how long have we had RPGs that require some level of player capability to play?

since Gary Gygax and Dave Arneson invented Role Playing Games.

Unless you're trying to argue that cRPGs are no different than PnP RPGs, I'm not sure what point you're trying to make.

And you didn't answer the second question.

are they no different? no, but what made their games RPGs is the same thing that makes CRPGs RPGs. and the answer applies to both questions, because the answer to both questions is "since Gary Gygax and Dave Arneson invented Role Playing Games."

[the_one_54321]

OasisForever1991 wrote...
Mass Effect 2 is an RPG with EVEN MORE Shooter elements.

just to point this out, BioWare has not been labeling ME2 as an RPG.

[MajesticMoose]

@ the_one_54321

Look, by your definition of an RPG, there hasn't been one SINCE Gygax and Arneson (of course I dont know much about them so maybe even theirs doesnt fit your definition). Is this this true? I hope your answer is no, because otherwise, you are a fool.

[the_one_54321]

Willie_on_Wheels wrote...
Still looks to be a great game, though.

absolutely.

[the_one_54321]

MajesticMoose wrote...
@ the_one_54321

Look, by your definition of an RPG, there hasn't been one SINCE Gygax and Arneson (of course I dont know much about them so maybe even theirs doesnt fit your definition). Is this this true? I hope your answer is no, because otherwise, you are a fool.

Baldurs Gate and Neverwinter Nights (both BioWare games) fit that definition quite nicely. as do a lot of Square games.

[newcomplex]

the_one_54321 wrote...

newcomplex wrote...
LOL.

So your saying RPG have to be based PURELY on the statistics of your character without any strategic or skill based input on the players behalf?

Then Baldurs gate wasn't and RPG. Because that game was damn hard and you needed good positioning to beat it, and tactile use of your skills.

Sorry, Dragon Age wasn't an RPG. Neither was Oblivion (ok, oblivion was because you could faceroll, and if you built your character right you would win). Nope, Demon Souls wasn't either. Or KOTOR (that may be too cuz it was so damn easy too). And NWN wasn't an RPG. Neither is Gothic, or The witcher, or Risen, or divinity. None of them are RPGs. No game ever over the last decade and a half are RPG.

Oh yeah, and Deus Ex? Not even close.

K bro.

I'm not saying that Grand Turismo is any RPG. But not because of the lulzy reasons you provided. RPG means that the central design focus of the game is to create a immersive world that you can interact with. That is probably the best definition of a RPG. It includes damn near every RPG we can think of, a few that aren't (like Assassin's Creed 2), and doesn't include stuff that are obviously not rpgs (like Halo, due to the limited interactions with the world, the limited world presented to you through the game, and the obvious lack of focus on the world itself over the way the player "plays" with the world)

you're putting your foot in your mouth here. i'll omit the laughing and derision that you included in your own post and just say that the games you've listed (mostly) replace all of your abilities with the characters statistics. BGII in particular comes to mind. it's completely based on D&D and all you do is level up and equip the characters and give theme instructions. they do everything else on their own.

You clearly have no idea how Grand Turismo works.    You can't just custom build a car and win a race because your good at racing.   (well you could, but it would be harder.   Mass Effect is also easy enough to beat without spending a single skillpoint or upgrading past your basic weapons) You need either initimate knowledge of the mechanics of the game, a guide, or picking a preset.    

And of course, actually racing takes a fair bit of skill (AND KNOWLEDGE) to win.

Your saying its an RPG only if you "tell your characters what to do".   That in itself requires skill.    But its ok if your "telling" your characters what to do.   The skill required to excel at traditional bioware team based RPG (except the ones that a ****** easy) are almost identical to those required to excel at Team based Relic design RTS company of heros.   But their are no stats in that, so fair enough.

What about Command And Conquer 4?   You have to collect upgrades (their are a LOT of them) as you play matches online or through the campaign, and the core gameplay is "give theme[sic] instructions.".   What about starcraft 2?   Their are damn near a hundred different upgrades you can make on your ship, the Hyperion between missions, that carry on, and many unlockable units.    Then, all you do is "give theme instructions.".

Saying BG combat requires no skill is a stupid statement to make.

Then, your discounting games like The Witcher (ever played that on Hard?   And in it, you have like 9 weapons throughout the entire game), and games like Deus Ex (oft regarded as "the greatest rpg of the last decade"), as well as cult classics like Gothic.   And oblivion, thought that is a bit "light".     (And if you haven't played the last two, don't use oblivion to judge them, their 5x better as RPG and as Games)


"Baldurs Gate and Neverwinter Nights (both BioWare games) fit
that definition quite nicely. as do a lot of Square games. "

Neverwinter nights combat takes a lot of personal input.   Their are tons of tactile decisions to make, and Baldurs gate has plenty as well.    And Square games a ****, but not getting me started on that, while the main FF series requires minimal skill in combat, what about FF tactics?    That not an RPG either?

(edit: yeah my first sentence made no sense.   Made a single typo and wrote "cart" instead of "car")

Modifié par newcomplex, 25 janvier 2010 - 11:02 .

[JaegerBane]

the_one_54321 wrote...
are they no different? no, but what made their games RPGs is the same thing that makes CRPGs RPGs. and the answer applies to both questions, because the answer to both questions is "since Gary Gygax and Dave Arneson invented Role Playing Games."

So.... your argument is that because they share the idea of stats, they must play in the same way?

I didn't honestly expect a good reason for trying to claim a genre of computer games must function like an older genre of Pen and Paper games, but I was kinda hoping that it was a little more insightful than this.

RTS games can trace their origins back to games like Risk. I'm assuming you also demand that, since some board game had some hand in their development, it must play like it?

This is exactly the kind of zero-sense thinking that I thank my lucky stars has long since died out in the minds of most developers. Deus Ex and System Shock 2 would never have come along if we all frantically hung on to this idea that since Gygax made a Pen and Paper RPG system that all computer RPGs must play like them...

[Gorionsson]

madskillet wrote...

shooter first, rpg second.

it's an above average shooter with  a storyline and amazing characters. most everything is predetermined for you other than you being neutral good or chaotic good(and who you decide to bed).

HaHaHa          Spot on.

[muse108]

Whats wrong with it being both?

[newcomplex]

"madskillet wrote...

most everything is predetermined for you other than you being neutral good or chaotic good(and who you decide to bed)."

No more then any RPG created on computers or consoles. I don't get your point. Most RPG don't even give you the choice to do anything. Like every JRPG, and almost every euro rpg save a few like Gothic and Risen.


The reasoning you guys have on why ME2 isn't an RPG is so retarded.   "The Shooter gameplay doesn't suck, thus, its a Shooter, not a RPG".   Why would you intentionally make any part of your game suck?   Its like argueing that Demon Souls is a Fighting game, or that The witcher is a Platformer akin to God of War.    

Modifié par newcomplex, 25 janvier 2010 - 11:09 .

[MajesticMoose]

the_one_54321 wrote...

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.

This is the post where you say that for something to be an RPG the player cannot control the character. If this is not your definition, then now is your chance to clear that up.