141 réponses à ce sujet

[Cloaking_Thane]

Its a very streamlined RPG, and a hybrid type (which is what they were aiming for and they do it amazingly)



Morrowind, Oblivion, Dragon Age, etc, are much better examples of pure RPG games

[the_one_54321]

Oblivion....

that game was literally in first person with spells and attacks fired off using mouse clicks. in no way shape or form was Oblivion an RPG. Oblivion was an FPS with swords and spells instead of guns and gernades.

Modifié par the_one_54321, 28 janvier 2010 - 05:07 .

[Sylvius the Mad]

Free Gobbie wrote...

Where are the little pretty numbers when you hit a bad guy?

I hate those, by the way.  I'd much rather all the combat feedback be limited to a text box somewhere.

[Archilochos]

JaegerBane wrote...

Well said. I think there is a general confusion in the minds of some forum dwellers as to what is actually bad game design and what is their own preferences.

I can agree that ME2 is not a pure RPG. It's certainly not an old school one like DA:O. I don't really see why this is such an issue for people however. Fallout 3 was a fairly radical departure from the previous episodes in the series, so I can understand why long time fans were a bit miffed.

But ME1 was never a 'pure' RPG. I don't understand why there are some whinging about the fact that ME2 isn't, either.

I'm probably biased, as I personally think RPG shooters strike a great balance between action and role playing, I loved Fallout 3 and ME1. There's still room for DA:O, it's my fave fantasy game. I just don't get why people are so against the rise of the RPG shooter.

I don't think people are against the rise of the RPG shooter at all.  I think the issue is that they fear losing existing IPs and developers to the RPG shooter, and from there possibly shooter-with-"RPG elements".  As greiferbastard has mentioned in a couple of threads now, part of the problem people have with ME2 is that they were expecting something more like ME1, which is not unreasonable because ME2 is the sequal to ME1.  In the case of Fallout 3, this problem was magnified because Fallout 3 is worlds away from 1+2 - no isometric view, no turn based combat, simpler dialogue trees, etc.  The fear of the RPG shooter is tied into a bigger fear for RPG fans - the fear that if enough mainstream (ie, non-RPG) gamers take an interest in existing developers or IPs, those developers will then have a financial reason to move away from RPGs, eventually abandoning them altogether, leaving RPG players with nothing to play.

I totally get that fear - it comes with being a minority in the single player market.  As for the "definition" of an RPG, it really comes down to story - not just the presence of a story, but a story that IS part of the gameplay.  Dialogue IS gameplay in an RPG, not between mission plot advancement you have to "sit through" to get to the action.  Inventories, stats all just exist in RPGs to provide additional layers of strategy or to increase immersion by reminding the player that his/her character's skills are not the same as player skills.  Based on that assessment, I'd still consider ME2 and RPG, and I'm definitely an old school RPGer, having cut my teeth on 2nd edition AD&D and the first 7 Ultima games.  Dialogue and story-as-gameplay seem reduced a bit, although I'm only 5 hours in, and I really don't like not being able to talk to party members during missions (just like ME1), nor do I like the mission format with Doom style end of mission screens (not like ME1).

Still, overall I like the game a lot, even the combat - and I usually hate TPS combat.

[kznlol]

Christina Norman wrote...

    - Play on casual, you can always up the difficulty if you're finding the game not challenging enough

The game does not become more challenging when difficulty increases. It simply becomes less fun. There is nothing challenging about enemies who are almost entirely predictable in their movement, no matter how bad your aim, because this is a game dominated by cover gameplay, so you have aeons of time to set up a shot, and wait for the mob to pop right into your crosshairs.

The only thing that changes when you go from Casual to Insanity is how long it takes to get through any given wave of mobs - and the only reason you see people die more on Insanity is that the amount of patience you would need to guarantee a non-fatal attempt is beyond even a fictional AI.

ME2 is a good, perhaps even great game. But the difficulty settings are by far one of the worst features it has, and one of the worst set of difficulties I have seen implemented in a game, anywhere.

[edit] Make no mistake - you did not even come close to capturing the MW2 audience with ME2's gunplay. Significant strides were made from ME1, certainly, but you have a long way to go to make a RPG/Shooter hybrid that doesn't suffer tremendously on one end of the spectrum.

Modifié par kznlol, 29 janvier 2010 - 12:01 .

[Veex]

Kalfear wrote...



Quit being dence, you understand fully how this has lost many traditional RPG elements

Quoted for an excellent display of... density?

[RetrOldSchool]

I dont think there's any reason to believe the classic RPG is going away, not with games like DA:O (which is really doing well, sales wise) which as far as we know will have sequels.

If you're into WRPG's we also have seen Risen and Divinity II (I can't comment on the standards of those, since I haven't played them) and in terms of JRPG's there has been games like Tales of Vesperia, Star Ocean 4 and now FFXIII, so RPG's aren't going anywhere.



However, change (even when for the better) is often met with criticism, especially if the thing that has changed are classic RPG elements, like loot, inventory, equipment and level up mechanics.



Truth be told though, I loved ME1, but even though I think ME1 is one of the best RPG's ever (on par with KOTOR; BG1&2, DA:O), I can admit that those mechanics weren't very well implemented in ME1. In fact most of those RPG's elements were clunky and tiring in ME1.



But what defines a RPG? That's really hard. To me ME1&2 are def RPG's, great story, great characters, great atmosphere, leveling, choices...

[twaninator]

Archilochos wrote...

JaegerBane wrote...

Well said. I think there is a general confusion in the minds of some forum dwellers as to what is actually bad game design and what is their own preferences.

I can agree that ME2 is not a pure RPG. It's certainly not an old school one like DA:O. I don't really see why this is such an issue for people however. Fallout 3 was a fairly radical departure from the previous episodes in the series, so I can understand why long time fans were a bit miffed.

But ME1 was never a 'pure' RPG. I don't understand why there are some whinging about the fact that ME2 isn't, either.

I'm probably biased, as I personally think RPG shooters strike a great balance between action and role playing, I loved Fallout 3 and ME1. There's still room for DA:O, it's my fave fantasy game. I just don't get why people are so against the rise of the RPG shooter.

I don't think people are against the rise of the RPG shooter at all.  I think the issue is that they fear losing existing IPs and developers to the RPG shooter, and from there possibly shooter-with-"RPG elements".  As greiferbastard has mentioned in a couple of threads now, part of the problem people have with ME2 is that they were expecting something more like ME1, which is not unreasonable because ME2 is the sequal to ME1.  In the case of Fallout 3, this problem was magnified because Fallout 3 is worlds away from 1+2 - no isometric view, no turn based combat, simpler dialogue trees, etc.  The fear of the RPG shooter is tied into a bigger fear for RPG fans - the fear that if enough mainstream (ie, non-RPG) gamers take an interest in existing developers or IPs, those developers will then have a financial reason to move away from RPGs, eventually abandoning them altogether, leaving RPG players with nothing to play.

I totally get that fear - it comes with being a minority in the single player market.  As for the "definition" of an RPG, it really comes down to story - not just the presence of a story, but a story that IS part of the gameplay.  Dialogue IS gameplay in an RPG, not between mission plot advancement you have to "sit through" to get to the action.  Inventories, stats all just exist in RPGs to provide additional layers of strategy or to increase immersion by reminding the player that his/her character's skills are not the same as player skills.  Based on that assessment, I'd still consider ME2 and RPG, and I'm definitely an old school RPGer, having cut my teeth on 2nd edition AD&D and the first 7 Ultima games.  Dialogue and story-as-gameplay seem reduced a bit, although I'm only 5 hours in, and I really don't like not being able to talk to party members during missions (just like ME1), nor do I like the mission format with Doom style end of mission screens (not like ME1).

Still, overall I like the game a lot, even the combat - and I usually hate TPS combat.

That was a perfect explanation.

In Mass Effect 1 the shooting aspect was very much a means to an end and, unfortunately, that hampered the experience for a lot of people. However, the "rpg" aspects (exploration, itemization, story, character progression) were all very deep which is why it appealed to rpg fans.
Now, I'm all for Bioware improving the shooting aspect of the game because, on paper, it makes for an overall better experience (and the changes they've made in this regard are definately an improvement). However, the aforementioned "rpg" aspects have all been watered down, there's no two ways about it ("streamlined" is just a nice way of saying diluted). The ability to outfit you and your squad mates with a boatloat of aquired gear with varying stats and attributes made for a very involved but very rewarding experience. The problem is for some gamers the depth and scope of the inventory system was overwhelming and offputting. Now if Bioware would have simply combined the improved combat sytem with the depth of ME1's personalization, I truly believe it would have made for a stronger overall experience.

Thus, my problem is this:

The changes made to the "rpg elements" were intended to make the game more accessible. That, in my mind, is a compromise and that's unfortunate. A game like Mass Effect 1 is never going to sell like Gears of War or Halo and Bioware knows that. But the reason Bioware games appeal to me in the first place is because they encourage the player to dig deeper into the more detailed areas of the game in order to reap an even bigger reward. I feel that in many ways, in it's attempt to make itself more approachable Mass Effect 2 lost just a bit of what made the original so satisfying. I hope Bioware can realize this and find some sort of middle ground for ME3.

That being said, I still love this game. Nearly all my free time has been devoted to playing it lately and Bioware deserves credit for creating such an immersive experience. The point I'm trying to make is not whether or not ME2 is an RPG or what that term even means. My point is about depth in videogames and the fact that it seems to be becoming less acceptable. Luckily for Mass Effect 2, it boasts so much depth in other areas that it doesn't need an inventory system to be a great game.

[AlexWBoyd]

Personally I feel like ME2 is as much as an RPG as any other game, it's just a new kind of RPG.



The streamlined nature of the game is the main complaint from most people saying it's not a true RPG, and while it does eliminate some of the staples of what we've always been told made an RPG, these things aren't needed to make a good RPG. Think about every RPG you've played, sure there are hundreds of armors/weapons but you use what, maybe 6 of them? There's tons of random loot to be had, but you use so few of it and end up selling a bunch of it to a shop for money. There might be a skill tree of 15 skills available, but everyone knows to use 7 of them to have the best character. I played through Dragon Age 4 times, and found myself using the same rotation of 4-5 armor/weapon sets each time, because they were the best to have in the game. I just sold the rest to shops for gold.



ME2 eliminates these excesses by giving you fewer options, but they all are more worth while. The different weapons all offer good and bad things to them, and you can choose different options for your play style/preference. There are way fewer armors but they all can be of use depending on the bonuses you want to have. The skill tree is simplified but offers all great options for power-ups and more opportunity to use them. Instead of lugging around a ton of useless inventory, you pretty much just find money and the occasional nice new weapon/part.



Yes, it's streamlined or "dumbed down" but what it does is eliminate a lot of wasted time in the game and lets you concentrate on the game itself. If you want to think about it from a role playing perspective, you're supposed to be the most elite outfit in the galaxy, why would you be finding new, better armors in some shop? Researching upgrades to weapons and armor makes much more sense as you'd be getting things that no one else has access to. Instead of spending time in shops selling your useless junk you find a few useful items in a shop and that's it.



This game is far from a traditional RPG, there's no mistaking that, but it is a solid entry in the genre and provides many innovations that offer new ways to make an RPG game, which isn't a bad thing.

[TheTWF]

RPGs are about character play and stories, not number crunching and turn-taking and killing everything that moves.

[obie191970]

the_one_54321 wrote...

Oblivion....

that game was literally in first person with spells and attacks fired off using mouse clicks. in no way shape or form was Oblivion an RPG. Oblivion was an FPS with swords and spells instead of guns and gernades.

BwuhHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!  People are so narrow-minded and pigeonhole their definitions of what is and isn't a specific genre, it's hilarious.

You need to go back to pad and pencil.  Seriously.

[kiyyto]

Shannara13 wrote...

Matt VT Schlo wrote...

The Squad options have been 'toned down' frankly, the only thing I can see that does annoy me too - i loved the complexity of the first. When I saw if for the first time, I was like 'HOLY COW' and in this one I am ' really?'

Best line in Gameinformer review, ' The loss of RPG elements may hit some people hard'

Could you please explain what you mean because I honestly have no idea.

How is each ability having 6 levels with a branching path at lvl 4 less complex than each abiltiy having 12 levels with no branching path and with each level not really giving you a noticable increase in power?

You'll find that with most of the abilities and research, there are few choices to be made because although it appears as 6 different abilities, 3 are greyed out and 2 require too many skill points to activate. It is not like in ME where you had 12 different abilities and could apply your points to whatever you wanted to bring up.

Mass Effect 2 takes you by the hand and leads you through the new story, step by step. The research is the same way. You have little control over what to research, besides the fact that the research is pretty limited.

If Mass Effect ever was an RPG on any level, ME2 has completely lost whatever RPG elements where there. This game has about as much customizability as Ninja Gaiden.

[twaninator]

kiyyto wrote...

Shannara13 wrote...

Matt VT Schlo wrote...

The Squad options have been 'toned down' frankly, the only thing I can see that does annoy me too - i loved the complexity of the first. When I saw if for the first time, I was like 'HOLY COW' and in this one I am ' really?'

Best line in Gameinformer review, ' The loss of RPG elements may hit some people hard'

Could you please explain what you mean because I honestly have no idea.

How is each ability having 6 levels with a branching path at lvl 4 less complex than each abiltiy having 12 levels with no branching path and with each level not really giving you a noticable increase in power?

You'll find that with most of the abilities and research, there are few choices to be made because although it appears as 6 different abilities, 3 are greyed out and 2 require too many skill points to activate. It is not like in ME where you had 12 different abilities and could apply your points to whatever you wanted to bring up.

Mass Effect 2 takes you by the hand and leads you through the new story, step by step. The research is the same way. You have little control over what to research, besides the fact that the research is pretty limited.

If Mass Effect ever was an RPG on any level, ME2 has completely lost whatever RPG elements where there. This game has about as much customizability as Ninja Gaiden.

^ exactly

I think people are misunderstanding the criticisms. People aren't necessarily upset over the fact that the rpg elements are less "traditional" or that the game isn't numbers based. Rather, many people (myself included) are underwhelmed because the game takes a very minimalistic approach to customization. For example, armor in the game functions more like a costume than actual equipment. Whether this matters to you or not doesn't change the fact that a layer of the game has been removed. The weapon system is equally limiting. Yes, I realize that there are plenty of people who this doen't concern. They want to turn it on, go through the story, and shoot at some **** along the way. And that's fine, but having played the first game I fail to see how it is unreasonable to expect that a certain level of customization would have been retained.

[xWARWICKx]

Here is the thing, ME2 is a great game - but to me it does not feel like a sequel to ME1 in any way exept for the story - and that is why I think people were kinda disapointed.

I mean think about this - you play KOTOR right - then you hear a sequel is coming out - now imagine that the sequel is not the Sith Lords - which was like the original game but improved (imo anyways) - but instead it is The Force Unleashed - exept this version may have the ability for you to choose where you go and have party members....come on its an RPG right? Story - ability to choose your skill points - ability to change your outfit and your lightsaber.....

Come on now though - see that is why people are kinda upset - making a game that plays a certain way, and then COMPLETLEY changing it is going to upset people that really liked the first one - thats just how it is - now if ME2 was not ME2 but a first rendition of another game, or even ME1 then I do not think it would be that big of a deal.

Here is the thing for me - I loved ME1 because it was a really good mix of RPG and shooter - did it need its RPG elements improved? Yes. - Instead though they were pretty much removed. -

Why are people upset? Because the original game was a RPG with a little TPS mixed in - ME2 is a TPS, with a little bit of RPG mixed in.

IMO they should not have changed the game like they did - making a game and then making a sequel that is not like the original (gameplay wise) is stupid - You and I both would have been pissed if they made the second KOTOR an real time action game (think TFU) instead of being an RPG like the first - All these people who are like "get over it" need to try and step into the shoes of people that like the amount of RPG in the first one....then come to the second one and discover its nothing like the first.

Once I was able to let go of being bummed about what was missing and just take the game for what it was - I liked it - yet it does not feel like ME2 to me in any way exept for the story - I am not as immersed in the game - it is way more linear - I do not care as much about any of the characters - way less side quests - really it just feels like a really fun TPS with a good story - quite honestly I wish they would have just done away some other of the RPG elements at this point - I mean having to fuel up and buy probes...stupid...having to scan planets...stupid....none of these make my enjoyment or immersion greater - they just annoy me - I wonder at some point if someone thought " Wait we didnt add in something that everyone hates doing and is really tedous!" - Then someone says " I got it! Well make them use a scanner that is slow as hell to scan planets for resouces! And they will have to do it cause without it you cant get the best upgrades and abilitys!!! Ha Ha! "

Modifié par xWARWICKx, 04 février 2010 - 11:43 .

[Justin2k]

I don't really see any Bioware game I have played (KOTOR, DA:O or ME) as an RPG to be honest. Its more of a story driven choose your own adventure book kinda thing.

I see RPGs more like Elder scrolls, Sacred etc. Bioware games are more like interactive stories. Very linear with a beginning, middle and end.

Bioware have this fantastic way of making you feel that you are in a massive world where you can do anything, when really you are quite limited.

Fantastic, addictive games though.

Modifié par Justin2k, 04 février 2010 - 11:43 .

[RSevo09]

GrapeJelli wrote...

ME2 changed a lot of things.  Anyone who has nothing but negative things to say about those changes is just a troll.  In general, the combat changes were incredibly positive.  The actual doing of the fight feels more fluid, challenging and fun.  Combat is much more chaotic - at times it's hard to even tell where shots are coming from. 

I think what has people upset (and to be honest, I found myself a little dissapointed in the RPG-liter tweaks), is the gimping of traditional RPG intensive elements.  There are two major changes that I think caught original ME1 fans (who traditionally were RPG, not TPS people) by surprise.

I imagine the biggest one is loot.  There are no longer any randomly dropped guns, mods or equipment.  The "gotta collect 'em all" mentality plus the constant lure of new treasure is hugely fun for a lot of people.  Honestly, walking around a mission stage feels pretty static now.  It's mostly thermal clips you don't need, raw materials from stuff you can't use and on very, very rare occassion a new technology or gun (all of which seem to be static - no random drops).   

The second is customization.  I appreciate a lot of people didn't like the inventory system in ME1 (personally, I didn't mind it) but it offered really deep levels of micromanagement - you could swap out so many weapons, armors and tools, each with a series of mods you can install.  That level of tweakability is a major part of the fun for RPG fans. 

These two things combined remove a lot of what RPG fans find addicting.  There might be something just around the corner that will make my guy 1% better!!  It's the constant treadmill of optimization, skill progression and micromanagement that RPGers like. 

ME2 very much prioritized the TPS streamlining of gameplay.  I appreciate that's probably a better mainstream appeal decision - and not necessarily a bad one - but I think they overdid it.  It makes the game feel too static - in the first 10 hours of play I more or less found nothing new to do!  I'm pumping points into my two key biotic skills, shooting the same two pistols over and over and generally waiting for an opportunity to use my heavy guns.  I definetly enjoy the combat MUCH more - it's a lot more fun to play - but I don't care about the outcome as much.  It's not like they're going to drop a new gun I can use and taking the time to explore every nook and cranny will probablly only result in a medi-kit I can't pick up and 500 units of ore.  
 

To be extremely clear: I think ME2 is a phenomenal game.  The dialogue system is groundbreaking, the storytelling is hollywood-worthy and the characters feel real.  I think Bioware is the most forward thinking development house in the world and foremost masters at pushing video games into the category of 'art.'   But, unless I'm missing something, they appeared to remove huge swaths of the RPG elements which for a lot of people, make the actual PLAYING of the game a lot of fun. 

This. Like people have said, this post hits the nail square on the head. I'm hoping they re-insert some of these RPG elements in the 3rd game. And as quoted ME2 is a phenomenal game.