233 réponses à ce sujet

[newcomplex]

the_one_54321 wrote...

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.

What the **** are you talking about?   No, Roleplaying games were created as a venue to roleplay, usually with friends.    Going back further then that, they're based on actually roleplaying (LARPING...lol) and proffesional roleplay (kids playing house, educational roleplaying).    That statement is just an outright lie.    If you think you can back it up, please cite a SINGLE source.

This is what Mass Effect 2 is.  

http://en.wikipedia....le-playing_game

Modifié par newcomplex, 25 janvier 2010 - 11:19 .

[JaegerBane]

newcomplex wrote...

the_one_54321 wrote...

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.

What the **** are you talking about?   No, Roleplaying games were created as a venue to roleplay, usually with friends.    That statement is just an outright lie.    If you think you can back it up, please cite a SINGLE source.   

Agreed. I've never honestly understood why there are people out there who think that cRPGs have to play like PnP RPGs because that;s where they started. There are rarely good reasons for restricting progress, but claiming they need to stay stuck in the past just for kicks is particularly silly.

[newcomplex]

JaegerBane wrote...

newcomplex wrote...

the_one_54321 wrote...

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.

What the **** are you talking about?   No, Roleplaying games were created as a venue to roleplay, usually with friends.    That statement is just an outright lie.    If you think you can back it up, please cite a SINGLE source.   

Agreed. I've never honestly understood why there are people out there who think that cRPGs have to play like PnP RPGs because that;s where they started. There are rarely good reasons for restricting progress, but claiming they need to stay stuck in the past just for kicks is particularly silly.

lol.  They're not even right about that.    Even if they're based on PNP roleplaying games, Mass Effect 2 is STILL a roleplaying game.   Back before a formal standard PNP roleplaying game was created (DND), people played PNP roleplaying games that had absolutely no statistical backbone, instead using paper as a way to record history, dialogue, and terrain layout.    

The concept of "replacing skill with stats" is so irrelevent because the concept of either did not exist in RPG in their modern conception (because their overall conception is as old as Man itself).    Saying "Its not RPG if its not based on stats" is literally revisionist because the concept  of both did not exist until the idea was a million years old, and the word was a couple decades old.    

RPG=Role Playing Game.   End of ****ing story.   CRPG=Computer game (or just digitial game in general) that is primarly designed in a way that promotes RPing.    Or because role playing has such negative wizardhat basement connotations now, "Putting yourself in characters shoes" and "Empathy" are better words.     Mass Effect=RPG.    Halo=Not RPG, its clear that almost nobody put themselves in masterchiefs shoes from a personal standpoint.   Their might have been a few that did, but due to this number, its clear that Bungie did not design it as a important design goal.     Or they were really bad game developers who failed massively but accidentily made a good FPS action/competitive game.

Modifié par newcomplex, 25 janvier 2010 - 11:29 .

[Grumpy Old Wizard]

Massadonious wrote...

If you mean taking out bad and bland RPG elements, then yes.

By bad rpg elements you mean gun and armor skills? Character skills should not determine how well the character shoots in a role playing game?

Aside from ME:1, most inventory systems I've encountered have been relatively straightforward, but still, if you have to spend as much time micromanaging such things as you do actually participating in the actual content, then good ridddance.

I don't understand how anyone could have possibly spent as much time in the inventory screen as out of the inventory screen. When I knew my inventory was getting full I headed back to the Citadel to sell my stuff. You can sell stuff pretty fast unless your fingers are broken. In that case you would have trouble playing the game anyways.

As far as your second point, (too lazy to quote again) "streamlining" things like the Rogue archetype gives people more options, not less. What's the point in having 12 squadmates if you always feel compelled to take Tali and/or Garrus just because they can open up stuff. And who's to say that locks in the futuristic age needed to have someone to personally be skilled in specifically being able to open them?

Uh I hate to be the one to break it to you, but Bioware's blog mentions armor/shields/barriers. Multiple character types are necessary to bring down those. For example, the adept only has Wap that works against armor and barriers but no power that works against sheilds as I understand it.

Oh, and you really think locks in the future will be less complex than they are today?  If speicific skills were not neeeded to defeat them then there would be no use for locks. It really makes no sense that a soldier would be as good as bypassing security measures as an infiltrator.

Like I said before, I preordered the game and I'll enjoy it. But ME2 is a shooter with RPG elements, not a RPG with shooter elements. Bioware made the deliberate choice to toss some rpg elements to make the combat more appealing to shooter fans.  So depending on whether you are more of a shooter fan or more of a rpg fan you'll like the changes or not like the changes.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Mass Effect 2 is unequivocally not a roleplaying game.

Noble_House wrote...

The definition of "role playing game" being a game in which you role play.

I agree entirely.  As such, Mass Effect 2 does not qualify.

Jerryk72 wrote...

What makes Mass Effect 2 more RPG than both of those is the Dialog system, the story and the simple fact that we can equip armor.

In fact, it's the dialogue system that separates Mass Effect (and ME2) from other BioWare games and prevents it from being an RPG.  If Mass Effect had a dialogue system like DAO or KotOR, then it would possibly be an RPG.  But ME's dialogue system is entirely incompatible with roleplaying.

Raanz wrote...

Are there truly any real RPG computer games? Dialogue tree games, and story driven games, but do people actually RP in computer games?

That seems to be the crux of the argument.  Those people who think ME and ME2 are RPGs are those who think that roleplaying in computer games is impossible (or simply not done).  Those of us who think roleplaying is inherent to the genre do roleplay in computer games, and we recognise that Mass Effect does not allow it.

As such, it is not an RPG.

fairandbalancedfan wrote...

MajesticMoose wrote...

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

No, he doesn't.

And he's right about that.

[fairandbalancedfan]

Good work guys, now you've brought Sylvius to the argument. Be prepared for a 8000 word essay on why Mass Effect is not an RPG. *brings pop corn and sits in front of computer with anticipation*

[newcomplex]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...
That seems to be the crux of the argument.  Those people who think ME and ME2 are RPGs are those who think that roleplaying in computer games is impossible (or simply not done).  Those of us who think roleplaying is inherent to the genre do roleplay in computer games, and we recognise that Mass Effect does not allow it.
.

wow.   Your a pretentious ****.    I hope your aware of that.    I roleplay ME.   Their was a poll (response poll), and 30% of the responders said yes.  

Do you realize how much of an pretentious **** your being?   Saying me and 30% of the ME playing posters don't exist?   Stop posting.   

Modifié par newcomplex, 25 janvier 2010 - 11:34 .

[Junebug88]

[quote]
In fact, it's the dialogue system that separates Mass Effect (and ME2) from other BioWare games and prevents it from being an RPG.  If Mass Effect had a dialogue system like DAO or KotOR, then it would possibly be an RPG.  But ME's dialogue system is entirely incompatible with roleplaying.
[quote]


Thats not a fact, thats you're opinion. ME's dialogue system to me just seems like a more advanced version of the KotOR or DAO system. I just dont see how its "incompatible".

Modifié par Junebug88, 25 janvier 2010 - 11:36 .

[newcomplex]

Thats not a fact, thats you're opinion. ME's dialogue system to me just seems like a more advanced version of the KotOR or DAO system. I just dont see how its "incompatible".

Thats the second time someones said that without providing any reason.   How?   

Heres a thread I found.    Its not THE poll I was looking for, but hey, close enough.   http://meforums.biow...&forum=144&sp=0

I already know what your going to respond.    "Those people aren't reaaaaally roleplaying".

Just goes to show how much of a pretentious **** you are.    Sorry, wasn't aware you were apointed toe judge of that.    

Modifié par newcomplex, 25 janvier 2010 - 11:39 .

[fairandbalancedfan]

newcomplex wrote...

wow.   Your a pretentious ****.    I hope your aware of that.    I roleplay ME.   Their was a poll (response poll), and 30% of the responders said yes.  

Do you realize how much of an pretentious **** your being?   Saying me and 30% of the ME playing posters don't exist?   Stop posting.   

Well you are not making a good case yourself. RPG elitists, well being elitists shouldn't surprise anyone. RPG purists will stick to their arcane definitions no matter what. Just play ME 2 and enjoy it. Fro what I hear, it's hell of a game.

Modifié par fairandbalancedfan, 25 janvier 2010 - 11:41 .

[MajesticMoose]

newcomplex wrote...

Thats not a fact, thats you're opinion. ME's dialogue system to me just seems like a more advanced version of the KotOR or DAO system. I just dont see how its "incompatible".

Thats the second time someones said that without providing any reason.   How?   

Heres a thread I found.    Its not THE poll I was looking for, but hey, close enough.   http://meforums.biow...&forum=144&sp=0

I already know what your going to respond.    "Those people aren't reaaaaally roleplaying".

Just goes to show how much of a pretentious **** you are.    Sorry, wasn't aware you were apointed toe judge of that.    

In both cases, there is a predetermined set of responses that get a predetermined reaction. DAO just has more that arent in a wheel.

[Junebug88]

newcomplex wrote...

Thats not a fact, thats you're opinion. ME's dialogue system to me just seems like a more advanced version of the KotOR or DAO system. I just dont see how its "incompatible".

Thats the second time someones said that without providing any reason.   How?   

Heres a thread I found.    Its not THE poll I was looking for, but hey, close enough.   http://meforums.biow...&forum=144&sp=0

I already know what your going to respond.    "Those people aren't reaaaaally roleplaying".

Just goes to show how much of a pretentious **** you are.    

How is it NOT a more advanced system?

and you really need to relax dude.

Modifié par Junebug88, 25 janvier 2010 - 11:42 .

[newcomplex]

Junebug88 wrote...

How is it NOT a more advanced system?

Um...yea...its not a more advanced system.   But it covers a wide array of choices relfecting many different opinions, not just your standard fallout yes/no/killitwithfire fare.    

Fail to see your point lol.    

If you were to do a average, Dragon Age gets like .5 more choices on average per conversation.   Though I agree its a big step backwords from reaallly old RPGs like Baldurs Gate.    Which had at least 1 more conversation on average, and sometimes up to 10-12.     But I don't imagine your assuming that RPGS are determined by average conversation options, 3 is insufficient, 3.5 is?   


Also, ******************* make it seem like I much more angry then i already am.    I'm really not that angry, I just can't find a good noun that you can put after "pretentious".    Idiot isn't quite what I'm looking for either :/.   Stupid censors :/

Modifié par newcomplex, 25 janvier 2010 - 11:50 .

[AngryFrozenWater]

Christina Norman wrote...

adam_grif wrote...

OP acts as though TPS and RPG are mutually exclusive. They aren't. It's both.

I endorse adam_griff's explanation!

Going math nerd for a moment, the answer is true, as in A || B == true if A is true, B is true, or both A & B are true (in this case A & B are both true)

Both values may be non-zero, but one of them is obviously much smaller than the other one.

Modifié par AngryFrozenWater, 25 janvier 2010 - 11:52 .

[wrexingcrew]

@newcomplex: There's nothing pretentious about the position Sylvius is taking. It's a coherent and reasonable argument; even if most don't share it, the popularity of the position has no bearing on its validity. I happen to agree with him about what constitutes an RPG* - I just disagree wildly about what constitutes 'fun' in the context of a
game. That's ok. We can all disagree about that without resorting to yelling at each other.

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Those people who think ME and ME2 are RPGs are those who think that roleplaying in computer games is impossible (or simply not done). Those of us who think roleplaying is inherent to the genre do roleplay in computer games, and we recognise that Mass Effect does not allow it.

Interestingly, your sufficient condition is notably different than the_one's. I find yours more compelling for several reasons: yours is focused on the broad category of roleplaying; it is not exclusively tied to combat. I can conceptualize an RPG without combat that closely resembles an RPG in both your sense of the term and the popular sense. the_one's focus on combat mechanics precludes that. Your construct also says something meaningful about Mass Effect as a series and why in your view neither game qualifies - a voiced protagonist - despite the changes in combat (from significantly stat-based to skill-based).

*I suspect I make greater allowances for the idea of hybrid genres - but I don't know where you stand on that question, Sylvius.

Modifié par wrexingcrew, 25 janvier 2010 - 11:53 .

[Junebug88]

newcomplex wrote...

Junebug88 wrote...

How is it NOT a more advanced system?

Um...yea...its not a more advanced system.   But it covers a wide array of choices relfecting many different opinions, not just your standard fallout yes/no/killitwithfire fare.    

Fail to see your point lol.    

If you were to do a average, Dragon Age gets like .5 more choices on average per conversation.   Though I agree its a big step backwords from reaallly old RPGs like Baldurs Gate.    Which had at least 1 more conversation on average, and sometimes up to 10-12.     But I don't imagine your assuming that RPGS are determined by average conversation options, 3 is insufficient, 3.5 is?   


Also, ******************* make it seem like I much more angry then i already am.    I'm really not that angry, I just can't find a good noun that you can put after "pretentious".    Idiot isn't quite what I'm looking for either :/

When i say more advanced im most certainly not talking about the amount of options i am given. Im talking about what the consequences of my descisions are. I am able to make a descision and see my character respond in a way i have not seen in any other BioWare game.

[Awesome Helmet]

who gives a ****? no ones going to win this argument and no ones going to lose. its a videogame. the BEST videogame.



im glad i dont care about what genre a video game falls into in order for me to appreciate it for what it is....a VIDEOGAME.

[Elvhen Veluthil]

newcomplex wrote...

Sylvius the Mad wrote...
That seems to be the crux of the argument.  Those people who think ME and ME2 are RPGs are those who think that roleplaying in computer games is impossible (or simply not done).  Those of us who think roleplaying is inherent to the genre do roleplay in computer games, and we recognise that Mass Effect does not allow it.
.

wow.   Your a pretentious ****.    I hope your aware of that.    I roleplay ME.   Their was a poll (response poll), and 30% of the responders said yes.  

I haven't play ME1, but from what I have seen and read about it, it's not much of an RPG (voiced PC = no RPG for me, without a saving throw). Yes you can "roleplay" it, as you can roleplay "Super Mario Bros", or "Doom", or any other game with a well defined avatar. In those forums hang around a lot of old school RPG players, and when they say RPG they mean games like Baldur''s Gate, PS:T, Fallout (1 & 2) and such. Someone can define what they mean, but they know so no need to, and if you don't know, it's alright, just don't go about saying things like those in these kind of threads, we old RPG geezers are strange people, go shoot some aliens instead as a good boy

[The55PercentCrew]

Christina Norman wrote...

adam_grif wrote...

OP acts as though TPS and RPG are mutually exclusive. They aren't. It's both.

I endorse adam_griff's explanation!

Going math nerd for a moment, the answer is true, as in A || B == true if A is true, B is true, or both A & B are true (in this case A & B are both true)

Whats with all the logic today? It is a game the has created its own genre. I call it a 3rd person roll playing shooter, or a rollplashooper.

Modifié par The55PercentCrew, 26 janvier 2010 - 12:36 .

[jkruse05]

I think you all need to stop trying to decide for yourselves what encompasses an RPG and look at the defining characteristics of any game the industry has labeled as an RPG. You'd be surprised how careful they are to distinguish between an RPG and 'RPG Elements.'

An RPG is NOT about making story choices, it's not about having an inventory to manage, it's not about having a good story, it's not about turn based or active combat, it's not about exploration, nor is it about being able to visually customize your character. The core dynamic that EVERY RPG shares is the advancement and/or customization of a character (not their equipment) through some sort of experience (not monetary) system.

All those other aspects can be present in a non-RPG game, in fact they can be present all at once. For example, STALKER: Shadow of Chernobyl would never be considered an RPG, but it has all the aspects I mentioned before I defined the genre (except character customization).

Ergo, Mass Effect 2 IS an RPG, albeit perhaps not as deep an RPG as a D20 or GURPS game.

Modifié par jkruse05, 26 janvier 2010 - 12:55 .

[FusedSlayer]

Christina Norman wrote...

adam_grif wrote...

OP acts as though TPS and RPG are mutually exclusive. They aren't. It's both.

I endorse adam_griff's explanation!

Going math nerd for a moment, the answer is true, as in A || B == true if A is true, B is true, or both A & B are true (in this case A & B are both true)

In this case, A && B == true is technically more accurate , assuming your applying RPG to one and TPS to the other.

*nitpicks*

Modifié par FusedSlayer, 26 janvier 2010 - 01:00 .

[Houkka]

This thread failed on the third page:

the_one_54321 wrote...

genres are separated by mechanic definitions. there is no such thing as a game that is simultaneously two genres. it has one kind of mechanic or the other.

I don't get it. Why would you make up a lie like that? What if a game has a mechanic that isn't one kind or the other, but a bit of both? The universe disappears?

I do think semantics are interesting, but if there's one thing I've learned about genres, it's that they're intuitive and don't necessarily make any sense. Let's think about the concept of role-playing for a second. How does 'playing a role' imply in any way that you can interact with the world by making choices and customizing your character as you go? Is that what Clint Eastwood does in Dirty Harry? No! The character, the role already exists, the actor (or the player) just plays the role according to his own interpretation of Harry Callahan, whose personality and choices are ALREADY WRITTEN. 

Think about it this way and you'll find out that the games closest to the definition of RPG are actually shooters. Of course, nobody thinks of it this way. Genre names tend to not make sense.
Real-time strategy: what exactly is it that differentiates the RTS genre from any other real-time game, where you are presented with a strategy and you have to execute it?
Shooter: Is it necessary to shoot in a shooter? What if someone made a mod of Doom that only had you using melee weapons? is it still a shooter? Or a slasher?
Adventure: This is really stupid. How many games out there do NOT feature adventuring?

This doesn't just apply to games, but music as well
Heavy metal: Has what to do with any kinds of minerals?
Pop: Short for 'popular music'. We still don't call popular metal songs pop music. Why is that?
Jazz: In addition to a music style it means "empty rhetoric or insincere or exaggerated talk".

Getting back to my point, defining a genre through the etymology of its name doesn't work. The whole genre-thing is unimaginably intuitive. I doubt most people have checklists for determining genres or anything of the sort. Genres generally have no strict definitions, because they're just terms people start using, not something an expert develops in a laboratory and confines within a strict definition. 

As to whether Mass Effect 2 is an RPG with TPS elements or a TPS with RPG elements or whatever else, it's mostly up to the people playing it. In cases like these it's up to the player to determine what elements he feels are the most important and accentuated in the game. I would think most people will say this is a TPS, an RPG or both. My point is, it's not carved in stone (nor is a stone a reliable source of information anyway) and people should just accept that maybe, JUST MAYBE, this game isn't an archetypal example of any major game genre, nor should it be treated as one.

[cheeseslayersmu]

@OP: [sarcasm] Yes - spending hours calculating how to make THE BEST stat combination is role-playing.[/sarcasm]

Modifié par cheeseslayersmu, 26 janvier 2010 - 01:00 .

[Scharfschutzen]

Shooters and rpgs aren't dichotomized.

[FoxyGrandpa]

X2-Elijah wrote...

 All right. I'll start up by saying that I never really considered Mass Effect 1 an rpg in the first place. Sure, it did make you play a role, and there was a somewhat decent level-up mechanic, as well as item customization. Despite that, going by the pure gameplay experience, ME1 felt (to me) as a common third-person shooter with basic rpg mechanics tacked on to it for the sake of better publicity.

Now, after reading through the threads and reviews, I see that in ME2, most of the rpg mechanics have been taken out or reworked to be even less notable (like the levelling system, the equipment/customization side, the combat, which now has no pretensis on anything but your twich reflex counting).

And, for the lack of a better term, I am concerned. It seems to me that ME2 is not an RPG in any way imaginable anymore - it is just a third-person shooter with a good plot. 
And this is a problem for me, because I can't stand shooters as such. The things that kept me on to ME1 was the plot and the rpg elements that compensated for a lack of aiming/mouse-killing skills and total lack of fps expertise. Now, I feel like I won't like ME2 at all.
For all this talk of 'improved combat', 'streamlined experience' - it's not what I had wanted. I wanted ME2 to be more of an rpg that the first one with a fixed (and not removed) vehicle part and equipment drops.. But Bioware chose to go the other way - because that's where the money is these days.

Or am I completely wrong, and ME2 is still a good, down-to-Earth RPG, and not a shooter with a plot?

No

Modifié par FoxyGrandpa, 26 janvier 2010 - 01:15 .