106 réponses à ce sujet

[Nomen Mendax]

You misunderstand though, both are the same thing.

 

Mechanics for video games influence our behavior in role-playing games. Part of those mechanics include what people see as the "role-playing aspect" the social aspect of the game.

 

To me, that is part of the definition of what an RPG is. I know you don't want to get into it, but to dismiss half of what makes a role-playing game due to personal preference is disingenuous to what a RPG is, both in terms of design philosophy and game mechanics.

Actually I don't misunderstand. The mechanics are not the same thing as the role playing at all, though I agree they encourage one sort of play over another (e.g. narrative RPGs tend to have minimal mechanics whereas crunchy RPGs like Hackmaster tend to emphasize combat and tactics). I'm also not dismissing the mechanics, but they are they to make the "game" part of an RPG, rather than the role playing part. You've mostly been refeferring to mechanics when you've discussed things like MEMP. I'd say that there is a limited opportunity for RP in MEMP, but its almost entirely outside the rules - I can play like a Krogan by charging in to battle, but I can do this regardless of my character build.

 

But I promise, for the sake of the thread if nothing else, that I'm done with this subject.

[dragonflight288]

To me, an RPG is a game where you take the role of a character, and through your choices as that character, influence the world around you, even if it is minutely. It may be a personal story, but you are playing the role of a character. 

 

For example, Harvest Moon, to me, is a slice-of-life RPG, with barely any story or long-term connection to characters. But it is a game where you take on the role of a farmer, and what you choose to do as that farmer, like the crops you grow, how you expand your farm, change the world around you, even though it's limited to just your farm and the relationships your character forms with the townsfolk. 

 

A simple, less-is-more approach. And one that's not for everyone. And also one that most people don't consider an RPG. I barely do myself, but I qualify it as one on the caveat that it's not a action/adventure RPG as we've become accustomed to, with Baldur's Gate, Elder Scrolls, and even Dragon Age. 

 

Jade Empire is a game I'd consider an action/adventure RPG, despite the fact that you can't create a character and you don't really manage new skills so much as decide if you want to invest xp in making some of your favorites more effective in a fight but otherwise the skill remains unchanged, and you only choose a pre-made character model. But you play the Role as the last Spirit Monk, and your choices change the world around you, from condemning Tien's Landing by keeping the river low and force them to survive without trade from the river, or by closing the Great Dam and allowing trade with the Empire to flow again, to the more radical choices that affect the course of the empire, even the option to decide that main bad guy is right and let him win.

 

The Mass Effect Trilogy is also an RPG, with classic RPG elements from a lot of great games, like a leveling system, loot, how to expand your skill set, as well as decisions that change the world/galaxy around you in a very real, direct way. 

 

So to me, when I play the multiplayer, I'm not playing an RPG, I'm playing a multiplayer shooter with RPG elements in creating a character and managing how you level up and skills you choose, but that's about it. While SP to me is where the meat of the RPG is, playing the role of a character, and your decisions alter the world around you, and it's done with literal galactic consequences. 

 

And I'm perfectly fine with that. When I'm playing SP, I want to role-play, and allow my character to become who I want them to be, or in the case of my Inquisitor, who's personality just evolved on my first playthrough and I ended up making choices I didn't think I would make if it were actually me because my Inquisitor seemed to develop a life of his own based on responses he made in prior conversations, but if I'm in MP, I'm perfectly fine simply doing my best to kill the enemy and bolster my allies, no need for story at all. It's about the competition. 

[LinksOcarina]

Actually I don't misunderstand. The mechanics are not the same thing as the role playing at all, though I agree they encourage one sort of play over another (e.g. narrative RPGs tend to have minimal mechanics whereas crunchy RPGs like Hackmaster tend to emphasize combat and tactics). I'm also not dismissing the mechanics, but they are they to make the "game" part of an RPG, rather than the role playing part. You've mostly been refeferring to mechanics when you've discussed things like MEMP. I'd say that there is a limited opportunity for RP in MEMP, but its almost entirely outside the rules - I can play like a Krogan by charging in to battle, but I can do this regardless of my character build.

 

But I promise, for the sake of the thread if nothing else, that I'm done with this subject.

 

I guess...to each their own in the end regarding play style.

 

I don't know. I just don't see it like that.

[Mcfly616]

Borderlands is very Linear in design, and that is mostly due to it being a co-op dungeon crawl/loot port at heart.

 

Witcher  and Witcher 2 were more or less linear, it had the same bottlenecks in their design to get through the stories. I havent played Witcher 3 yet, but it might be an exception in terms of the open world design. 

 

As for action focused...a lot of these games are always action-focused. The shooting/chest high walls-design is the mechanics of the game in terms of its surface value, but choices of weapon loadout, powers/level ups, effectiveness against characters, and so forth add that complexity; do you take a shotgun to battle or use your biotic powers in tandem with Liara?

 

I guess what I am saying is, each of your choices during those action phases are part of the role-playing, you make those choices when you go into combat, and through combat.

 I never said there weren't linear bits to each and every game design. I said that the Mass Effect sequels were "much more linear" and " much more action-oriented". Setting it apart from each and every game you named.

 

Borderlands, more open. Witcher, more narratively focused. I could go on. But it's common knowledge that pretty much each and every mission in the sequels had some hallways and some gunfire. 

[LinksOcarina]

 I never said there weren't linear bits to each and every game design. I said that the Mass Effect sequels were "much more linear" and " much more action-oriented". Setting it apart from each and every game you named.

 

Borderlands, more open. Witcher, more narratively focused. I could go on. But it's common knowledge that pretty much each and every mission in the sequels had some hallways and some gunfire. 

 

And that is bad?

 

It's focused gameplay, much like a dungeon crawler is focused on getting from level one to level ten as you solve puzzles.

[Mcfly616]

And that is bad?

 If the first game is what made you fall in love with Mass Effect? Yeah, it's bad. If I want another linear third-person shooter, I'll play Gears of War. I'm hoping they revisit the original vision of this great series. Fully realized. Bring back the charm and atmosphere.

[RoboticWater]

Actually I don't misunderstand. The mechanics are not the same thing as the role playing at all, though I agree they encourage one sort of play over another (e.g. narrative RPGs tend to have minimal mechanics whereas crunchy RPGs like Hackmaster tend to emphasize combat and tactics). I'm also not dismissing the mechanics, but they are they to make the "game" part of an RPG, rather than the role playing part. You've mostly been refeferring to mechanics when you've discussed things like MEMP. I'd say that there is a limited opportunity for RP in MEMP, but its almost entirely outside the rules - I can play like a Krogan by charging in to battle, but I can do this regardless of my character build.

 

But I promise, for the sake of the thread if nothing else, that I'm done with this subject.

I think you're seeing a false dichotomy between mechanics and roleplaying/narrative. For example: a narrative RPG has you define your character with dialog tree mechanics or QTE/interrupt mechanics (much like Telltale games) while less narratively focused games have you define your character through leveling decisions.

 

I think it's important to define exactly what an RPG is because otherwise it leads to endless bickering about whether something is or isn't one (as if being or not being an RPG makes the game less fun). For me (and hopefully most game designers), the thing that separates an RPG from any other kind of game is the timing, scale, and permanence of decicions. Master Chief may decide to pick up a shotgun and play a level CQC style, but that doesn't make Halo an RPG; however, were his choice of weapons a permanent loadout, then Halo would begin to dip into RPG territory.

 

I honestly don't care if Mass Effect 1-3 are RPGs or not (I think the game got more fun as the series progressed), but I do think that all of them are still very much RPGs including the multiplayer bit. If you don't want to talk about it, I'll leave you be (I don't really care as long as you don't sling around not RPG as an insult).

[RoboticWater]

 If the first game is what made you fall in love with Mass Effect? Yeah, it's bad. If I want another linear third-person shooter, I'll play Gears of War. I'm hoping they revisit the original vision of this great series. Fully realized. Bring back the charm and atmosphere.

Calling ME2-3 Gears clones is a gross exaggeration; Mass Effect is far more than somewhat open level design. The vision was never lost, just slightly modified.

 

Anyways, I don't really get it. ME1 was very linear as well once you entered the vast majority of combat zones.

[LinksOcarina]

 If the first game is what made you fall in love with Mass Effect? Yeah, it's bad. If I want another linear third-person shooter, I'll play Gears of War. I'm hoping they revisit the original vision of this great series. Fully realized. Bring back the charm and atmosphere.

 

If Mass Effect is like Gears of War...then I don't know **** about RPGs or games in general.

 

And I like to think I know what i'm talking about sometimes when it comes to that subject. Show Mass Effect to a GoW fan, id bet they would say its nothing like GoW.

 

Such a broad interpretation of the games....its a bit scary, really. 

[pdusen]

There are as many "factions" as there are Mass Effect fans.

[EmissaryofLies]

Why the **** can't it just be Mass Effect?

[Mcfly616]

If Mass Effect is like Gears of War...then I don't know **** about RPGs or games in general.

 

And I like to think I know what i'm talking about sometimes when it comes to that subject. Show Mass Effect to a GoW fan, id bet they would say its nothing like GoW.

 

Such a broad interpretation of the games....its a bit scary, really. 

 And once again, you're putting words in people's mouths. I never said it was like Gears. I said Mass Effect sequels were linear shooters. Gears is at the top of the list for third person, cover-based, linear shooters (besides the extremely underrated GR:FS). Mass Effect's shooting mechanics are clunky at best. Which is why I'd be much happier if they stopped focusing so much on it, and started getting back to non-linear storytelling.

[Mcfly616]

Calling ME2-3 Gears clones is a gross exaggeration; Mass Effect is far more than somewhat open level design. The vision was never lost, just slightly modified.

 

Anyways, I don't really get it. ME1 was very linear as well once you entered the vast majority of combat zones.

 I never said they were Gears clones. So have fun with that thought. Mass Effect 2-3 is the epitome of linear level design. Sure, they modified into running down hallways from point A to point B, placing each and every piece of loot at your feet, each confrontation and conversation and doorway in front of your face. Basically, they absolutely lost their way.

 

And we're not solely talking about "combat zones". You can tackle the Feros and Noveria missions in any order you like. Unlike the sequels which held your hand and told you what to do and where to go during each mission. The side quests actually had a back-story and  narrative instead of some glorified horde arena to scoop up some credits. The sequels had zero sense of discovery or exploration whatsoever.

[LinksOcarina]

 And once again, you're putting words in people's mouths. I never said it was like Gears. I said Mass Effect sequels were linear shooters. Gears is at the top of the list for third person, cover-based, linear shooters (besides the extremely underrated GR:FS). Mass Effect's shooting mechanics are clunky at best. Which is why I'd be much happier if they stopped focusing so much on it, and started getting back to non-linear storytelling.

 

Funny, I could have sworn you compared Mass Effect to a linear, cover-based shooter named Gears of War.

 

Also, what do you mean by once again putting words into peoples mouths? I am literally just calling it as I see it. If I misspoke i'm sorry, but the comparison is a misinterpretation at best regarding Mass Effect 2 and 3, or at worst, a direct comparison to a specific gameplay type which Mass Effect does borrow elements from yes, but adheres to something else entirely.

 

ETA:

 

Regarding order of events in a game...that really doesn't matter too much. Non-linear gameplay design is something like Skyrim, you elect what you can do as your story, instead of following a specific story if you wish.

 

 

I know folks who never played the main quest in Skyrim still...that to me is non-linear. the choice of Feros or Noveria is illusionary of non-linearity, much like the choice of Roche or Iorveth in Witcher 2.

 

Also...is this exploration?

[Mcfly616]

Funny, I could have sworn you compared Mass Effect to a linear, cover-based shooter named Gears of War.

 

 Funny, I literally said: " if I want another 'linear third person shooter' I'll play Gears..."

 

You saw wrong and you certainly misspoke.

 

Too bad the choice between Roche and Iorveth literally gives you an entirely different second act and a noticeably varied third act. Not illusionary at all.

 

Nope, ME2 side quests weren't exploration at all imo. Well, unless being dropped into a small horde arena or group of hallways in order to get a 'Mission Complete' screen summarizing the credits I earned and what exactly I even discovered on the surface (since it never happened in-game), is considered 'Exploration'....then sure, maybe in the slightest.

[Hiemoth]

 And once again, you're putting words in people's mouths. I never said it was like Gears. I said Mass Effect sequels were linear shooters. Gears is at the top of the list for third person, cover-based, linear shooters (besides the extremely underrated GR:FS). Mass Effect's shooting mechanics are clunky at best. Which is why I'd be much happier if they stopped focusing so much on it, and started getting back to non-linear storytelling.

 

But the issue here is that by what logic was ME1 not a linear shooter? The spaces where the action took place was a lot more confined than in ME2 or ME3, especially in ME3. It still forced you to rely on the same mechanics, except here the combat mechanics were pretty much the same no matter which class you took with the exception of what was the thing you threw, whereas ME2/3 introduced a lot of variance in the classes having them play very differently from each other.

 

Is it the order of events? ME2 gives you a lot more choice in which order to do the missions since the recruitment/loyalty missions are independent of each other. ME3 is linear in pacing, but also provides the player with much more expanded side content and how to deal with that side content. For example, give one side quest in ME1 which has the range that the Asari monastary has either in content or meaningful choice?

[LinksOcarina]

 Funny, I literally said: " if I want another 'linear third person shooter' I'll play Gears..."

 

You saw wrong and you certainly misspoke.

 

Too bad the choice between Roche and Iorveth literally gives you an entirely different second act and a noticeably varied third act. Not illusionary at all.

 

Nope, ME2 side quests weren't exploration at all imo. Well, unless being dropped into a small horde arena or group of hallways in order to get a 'Mission Complete' screen summarizing the credits I earned and what exactly I even discovered on the surface (since it never happened in-game), is considered 'Exploration'....then sure, maybe in the slightest.

 

Oh it is completely illusionary be the games design in Witcher 2, not to mention those choices also don't matter outside of Witcher 2 from what I understand when it comes to Witcher 3. The third act in Witcher 2 is not as varied as people make it out to be, since all 16 endings end in a way that is relatively the same.

 

And as for exploration of Mass Effect 2 sidequests, the exploration part is finding them and choosing to do them, really...so yeah...might be your opinion but you are wrong on that.

 

Like I said though, I apologize if I mis-read the original point. But I do disagree with your assertions in the end. 

[Mcfly616]

But the issue here is that by what logic was ME1 not a linear shooter? The spaces where the action took place was a lot more confined than in ME2 or ME3, especially in ME3. It still forced you to rely on the same mechanics, except here the combat mechanics were pretty much the same no matter which class you took with the exception of what was the thing you threw, whereas ME2/3 introduced a lot of variance in the classes having them play very differently from each other.

 

Is it the order of events? ME2 gives you a lot more choice in which order to do the missions since the recruitment/loyalty missions are independent of each other. ME3 is linear in pacing, but also provides the player with much more expanded side content and how to deal with that side content. For example, give one side quest in ME1 which has the range that the Asari monastary has either in content or meaningful choice?

 The logic that each and every mission doesn't involve shooting in claustrophobic areas. You're the only ones specifically speaking of combat areas. I'm talking about the game as a whole. 

 

 

When I refer to side quests. I refer to those quests that stand on there own and aren't tied to or integral to the main narrative. Which excludes ME2 loyalty missions and quests such as the Monastery.

[Nomen Mendax]

I think you're seeing a false dichotomy between mechanics and roleplaying/narrative. For example: a narrative RPG has you define your character with dialog tree mechanics or QTE/interrupt mechanics (much like Telltale games) while less narratively focused games have you define your character through leveling decisions.

 

I think it's important to define exactly what an RPG is because otherwise it leads to endless bickering about whether something is or isn't one (as if being or not being an RPG makes the game less fun). For me (and hopefully most game designers), the thing that separates an RPG from any other kind of game is the timing, scale, and permanence of decicions. Master Chief may decide to pick up a shotgun and play a level CQC style, but that doesn't make Halo an RPG; however, were his choice of weapons a permanent loadout, then Halo would begin to dip into RPG territory.

 

I honestly don't care if Mass Effect 1-3 are RPGs or not (I think the game got more fun as the series progressed), but I do think that all of them are still very much RPGs including the multiplayer bit. If you don't want to talk about it, I'll leave you be (I don't really care as long as you don't sling around not RPG as an insult).

No, you don't want to define what an RPG is because you won't ever get people to agree - this was a common discussion on the DA forums which invariably ended with the thread being closed, which is why I'm trying to avoid the conversation. I will say I wouldn't use not RPG as an insult and find the whole FPS player vs. RPG player argument as irritating as the console vs. PC one.

 

However, since you asked ...

 

First off, I'm coming from a Pen and Paper background so when I say a narrative RPG I mean one that is very open ended and where the play is focused on the players actions and decisions - lots of talking, very little dice rolling and a minimal set of rules (there are diceless RPGs but I haven't played one). For me what makes something an RPG is the ability to play a role in a meaningful way. For many people who talk and write about CRPGs it's having some sort of level structure and ability system. I don't agree with that definition, but that's just my opinion. I don't think leveling decisions alone make a game an RPG because you can have a game with that kind of rule set which doesn't involve your character(s) making meaningful choices about how they are going to interact with the characters in the game world (and I don't count killing them in different ways as a meaningful choice).

 

So when I say I want ME to have more RPG elements I want it to have more interesting things for the PC to do. I don't particularly care about things like inventory systems which seem to be a bizarre sacred cow for some CRPG players.

 

P.S. I apologise if this is incoherent but I'm in the middle of cooking dinner.

[LinksOcarina]

 The logic that each and every mission doesn't involve shooting in claustrophobic areas. You're the only ones specifically speaking of combat areas. I'm talking about the game as a whole. 

 

 

When I refer to side quests. I refer to those quests that stand on there own and aren't tied to or integral to the main narrative. Which excludes ME2 loyalty missions and quests such as the Monastery.

 

The monastery in Mass effect 3 has nothing to do with the narrative...

 

And regarding that logic...I think the problem here is you have yet to showcase an example beyond that idea. 

 

Regarding the game as a whole, can you name a mission or two that don't end in combat or some sort of mini-game in the Original Mass Effect. Only one I can think of is the Biotic enclave cult and the I Remember Me Quest.

 

The rest have combat in some form in it, and almost all of it is side-missions. As for exploration...the open spaces of the original Mass Effect is different than 2 or 3 by level design, but the design in 2 and 3 are not only much tighter, but also more varied and with character than the original Mass Effect.

 

If were lucky, Andromeda will combine the best of both worlds in that regard.

[Hiemoth]

The monastery in Mass effect 3 has nothing to do with the narrative...

 

And regarding that logic...I think the problem here is you have yet to showcase an example beyond that idea. 

 

Regarding the game as a whole, can you name a mission or two that don't end in combat or some sort of mini-game in the Original Mass Effect. Only one I can think of is the Biotic enclave cult and the I Remember Me Quest.

 

The rest have combat in some form in it, and almost all of it is side-missions. As for exploration...the open spaces of the original Mass Effect is different than 2 or 3 by level design, but the design in 2 and 3 are not only much tighter, but also more varied and with character than the original Mass Effect.

 

If were lucky, Andromeda will combine the best of both worlds in that regard.

 

Even the Cult can end in a massacre. There are some discussion sidequests in ME1 on the Citadel, but you have at least the same amount in ME3 which don't require violence. The Batarian fleet, the Drell sabotour, etc. And all of those were much more extensive than the talk missions in ME1.

 

Although the mental athletics in the primary argument were quite astonishing. ME3 is about a galaxy at war, hence all the side missions are related to that. Yet because they are not completely independent, even if they are still utterly optional side content, they don't count as sidequests. Thus ME1 has better sidequests. I am honest when I say applaud the effort that argument takes to pull off.

[Mcfly616]

Oh it is completely illusionary be the games design in Witcher 2, not to mention those choices also don't matter outside of Witcher 2 from what I understand when it comes to Witcher 3. The third act in Witcher 2 is not as varied as people make it out to be, since all 16 endings end in a way that is relatively the same.

 

And as for exploration of Mass Effect 2 sidequests, the exploration part is finding them and choosing to do them, really...so yeah...might be your opinion but you are wrong on that.

 

Like I said though, I apologize if I mis-read the original point. But I do disagree with your assertions in the end. 

  Considering you are in a completely different setting, meeting completely different people and doing completely different missions you would otherwise never experience, no, it's not illusionary in any sense of the word. Your fault for assuming they would matter outside of the Witcher 2. One of the differences between Mass Effect and the Witcher series is that the Witcher is a trilogy of self-contained installments. The only thing that bridges the games are the individual characters and their relationships. The Witcher 3 narrative is standalone, just as 2 was and the first one was. Maybe Bioware should take notice since they failed miserably at carrying over decisions outside of a cosmetic capacity throughout the trilogy. 

 

 

Oh, so you consider clicking on different systems throughout the galaxy map to be "exploration". I guess we'll agree to disagree 

[StealthGamer92]

Mass Effect stoped being an RPG for me after ME1, but I love the story so I've stayed so far. I consider an RPG as a game that let's me improve my character the way ME1 did, alot of thought can be put into slight percentage boost's just like Borderlands. Invested in AI Hacking? Well not only will you be able to Hack an enemy below this level but each point invested make's all Tech attack's cool down X% faster.

 

Now the leveling system has been geared toward instant gratification so point's spent cause an immediately noticeable boost to your skill. On top of that the power's all are geared toward's giving the player a sense of empowerment as there is no abillity that wont have a large flashy effect especially on lower difficulties.

 

Like I remember in ME1 useing Overload and barely denting that Collosus on Therum, causing me to strategize and focus on the peon's which I could take out more effeciently with my Nexus X Omni-Tool and maxed AI Hack skill, this had 2 benefit's as I was borowing there soldier's to fight for me and I was haveing fodder taking damge instead of me and after they were dead between my Tech attack's and my Sniper Rifle I had to whitle down the collosus. Now at a lower level? That battle was a pain and something only a real RPG fan would appreciate, and you'd spend the rest of your game building up so in round 2(NG+) all those percentage's you stacked up would show by makig the fight alot more bearable and with the righ build much much easier.

[LinksOcarina]

  Considering you are in a completely different setting, meeting completely different people and doing completely different missions you would otherwise never experience, no, it's not illusionary in any sense of the word. Your fault for assuming they would matter outside of the Witcher 2. One of the differences between Mass Effect and the Witcher series is that the Witcher is a trilogy of self-contained installments. The only thing that bridges the games are the individual characters and their relationships. The Witcher 3 narrative is standalone, just as 2 was and the first one was. Maybe Bioware should take notice since they failed miserably at carrying over decisions outside of a cosmetic capacity throughout the trilogy. 

 

 

Oh, so you consider clicking on different systems throughout the galaxy map to be "exploration". I guess we'll agree to disagree 

 

I guess. I expect better from CD Projekt Red when they make their games though. Frankly, I find their self-contained narratives to be very passe at times...like were carrying over a protagonist without connection. I guess i'm spoiled like that. Then again, the only one I liked was Witcher 2 in the end...original Witcher is crap in terms of design like that.

 

And by mechanical design its illusionary regardless of what you see, much like what mission you do in the mage/templar conflict in Inquisition. Thats kind of concrete, it's an illusion of choice like that.

 

Also, what is exploration then? Dropping in on planets with very little on them to find stuff? Or clicking on a random planet to find an anomaly?

 

Seems like the same to me by design really. Difference is you don't get to look around in one over the other I guess. 

[Mcfly616]

The monastery in Mass effect 3 has nothing to do with the narrative...

 

 

   This statement alone just shows we're not going to agree on anything.  

 

 

 

I've showcased plenty of examples. The UNC missions in ME1 have actual back stories and characters unlike any of the crap we find in ME2. Barren firing ranges with a few mooks to shoot.