119 réponses à ce sujet

[RoboticWater]

I don't get why this discussion ends up derailing every single thread related to mechanics. "What is an RPG?" has little to do with the OP, and Pen and Paper games or whatever in particular have practically nothing to do with Mass Effect. It's far closer to Gears or a Micheal Bay flick with a CC and some limited interactivity and reactivity, rather than Sci Fi D&D.

I'd definitely say yes to more moments like the Omega DLC reactor interrupt for the Engineer, and different types for other classes as well. I don't have any inherent problem with the Interrupt system that wasn't far more contingent upon how it interacted with the P/R ideological system (which just needs to die off anyway IMO).

Because the discussion about these sorts of mechanics isn't should BioWare do X–that's a simple yes or no. The discussion is why BioWare should do X (or not). Generally (especially with Sylvius), that's going to come down to which philosophy you believe BioWare should follow: either purist RPG or shooter/cinematic experience (depending on the context). So many of the hot-button topics come down to this divide:

 

Should combat be stat-bound or skill-bound, and should BioWare bother making more non-combat skills?

Should BioWare spend more resources making multiple playable races or refining the reactivity of only humans?

Should levels be more open-ended and loose or should they be more linear and crafted?

Should BioWare make the story or should the player?

 

Quite simply, it seems that people like Sylvius do not believe that Mass Effect is (or at least, should be) "far closer to Gears or a Micheal Bay flick with a CC and some limited interactivity and reactivity." As long as people have a disagreement on these fundamental aspects of Mass Effect, we're always going to get into this argument.

 

Maybe I'm wrong, but I tend to notice that issues like "we should remove the P/R system," are largely accepted without much debate because they aren't split across the purist/nuanced RPG divide. 

 

I'd also be perfectly willing to discuss the how, but very few people tend to care about the nitty gritty bits of game development.

[Cyonan]

You're ignoring the mechanical choices, like abilities and equipment.

 

Due to the game putting stat requirements on everything while also putting highly restrictive stat caps on things, there is very little in the way of choice other than which class you pick which is going to determine most of what you'll be doing.

 

Want to play a strong warrior who uses melee? Sorry, 45 strength cap prevents that. A mage knight type warrior? Sorry, 50 magic cap means you can't learn most spells.

 

The equipment itself also offers no real mechanical choice beyond "ranged or melee". There is no mechanical difference between a great sword and a dagger, only a numerical one in that the great sword will do more damage.

 

Doom's setting is really shallow; it doesn't give us a lot to work with. Half-Life does a lot better, but again the lack of a meaningful mechanical system denies us a lot of decision-making opportunities.

 

Actually both Doom and Half-Life offer us plenty of choice of equipment because they both have a pretty solid number of guns to pick up and use.

 

Once you get into modern FPS games like say, Crysis, you can modify your guns further with attachments and that game even has active abilities like invisibility, super strength, super speed, or increased armour. Is Crysis a RPG now? Is Call of Duty a RPG because I can choose various guns and use abilities on getting killstreaks?

 

The point is that your description of what a RPG is was so incredibly broad that I can start making arguments for games which no sane person should be calling a RPG.

 

You claim that their setting is shallow, but so is the original Diablo's setting. The world was only really fleshed out in the sequel, which also did a very good job of offering choices in your character setup unlike the first game.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Due to the game putting stat requirements on everything while also putting highly restrictive stat caps on things, there is very little in the way of choice other than which class you pick which is going to determine most of what you'll be doing.

Want to play a strong warrior who uses melee? Sorry, 45 strength cap prevents that. A mage knight type warrior? Sorry, 50 magic cap means you can't learn most spells.

The equipment itself also offers no real mechanical choice beyond "ranged or melee". There is no mechanical difference between a great sword and a dagger, only a numerical one in that the great sword will do more damage.


Actually both Doom and Half-Life offer us plenty of choice of equipment because they both have a pretty solid number of guns to pick up and use.

Once you get into modern FPS games like say, Crysis, you can modify your guns further with attachments and that game even has active abilities like invisibility, super strength, super speed, or increased armour. Is Crysis a RPG now? Is Call of Duty a RPG because I can choose various guns and use abilities on getting killstreaks?

The mandatory action elements are a problem. They do much the same thing as the dialogue wheel, in that they put a barrier between the player's chosen behaviour for his character and that character's actual behaviour.

I've been known to argue that a proper RPG should be playable by a quadriplegic. Playable slowly, but playable.

Just like a tabletop game.

Because my definition for RPGs covers all RPGs of any medium.

The point is that your description of what a RPG is was so incredibly broad that I can start making arguments for games which no sane person should be calling a RPG.

Most grand strategy games meet my standard (Crusader Kings II is a brilliant example). So does Football Manager.

But not Mass Effect.

You claim that their setting is shallow, but so is the original Diablo's setting. The world was only really fleshed out in the sequel, which also did a very good job of offering choices in your character setup unlike the first game.

It's possible I only played Diablo II. I expected that Diablo was similar.

[Cyonan]

The mandatory action elements are a problem. They do much the same thing as the dialogue wheel, in that they put a barrier between the player's chosen behaviour for his character and that character's actual behaviour.

I've been known to argue that a proper RPG should be playable by a quadriplegic. Playable slowly, but playable.

Just like a tabletop game.

Because my definition for RPGs covers all RPGs of any medium.

 

Well, all 3 Diablo games have mandatory action elements because it has action combat.

 

Back on the ME3 MP boards there was a guy who was a quadriplegic that not only played the game but was able to solo up to gold, the second hardest difficulty which many players can't solo even with use of their arms. Given that, I'm hesitant to say that a quadriplegic couldn't play almost any game.

 

Most grand strategy games meet my standard (Crusader Kings II is a brilliant example). So does Football Manager.

But not Mass Effect.
It's possible I only played Diablo II. I expected that Diablo was similar.

 

I've been amused in discussions of the definition of RPG myself by seeing how many I can fit XCOM into, because mechanically any turn based strategy is going to play very similar to a turn based combat system of a RPG, only with you controlling the entire party rather than 1 person. Grand strategy games work on the same principle, only with civilization management elements added in.

 

However if we look at other games, Crysis 1 has:

 

> A choice of various equipment and modifications for that equipment

> A choice of various abilities to use in combat

> A protagonist which allows you to headcanon their thoughts

 

Going by what you're telling me, it seems as though you should be calling Crysis a RPG when it's blatantly a FPS.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Well, all 3 Diablo games have mandatory action elements because it has action combat.

Back on the ME3 MP boards there was a guy who was a quadriplegic that not only played the game but was able to solo up to gold, the second hardest difficulty which many players can't solo even with use of their arms. Given that, I'm hesitant to say that a quadriplegic couldn't play almost any game.


I've been amused in discussions of the definition of RPG myself by seeing how many I can fit XCOM into, because mechanically any turn based strategy is going to play very similar to a turn based combat system of a RPG, only with you controlling the entire party rather than 1 person. Grand strategy games work on the same principle, only with civilization management elements added in.

However if we look at other games, Crysis 1 has:

> A choice of various equipment and modifications for that equipment
> A choice of various abilities to use in combat
> A protagonist which allows you to headcanon their thoughts

Going by what you're telling me, it seems as though you should be calling Crysis a RPG when it's blatantly a FPS.

Action combat. The player's physical skill is necessarily relevant in a way that breaks the game's setting.

But give Crysis a VATS-like system (or Splinter Cell's Mark & Execute feature), and it's totally an RPG.

How much freedom does Crysis give over what objective to pursue?

Roleplaying is a mental exercise, not a physical one.

BioWare, by comparison, hasn't made a game with mandatory action combat since Jade Empire.

[Cyonan]

Action combat. The player's physical skill is necessarily relevant in a way that breaks the game's setting.

But give Crysis a VATS-like system (or Splinter Cell's Mark & Execute feature), and it's totally an RPG.

How much freedom does Crysis give over what objective to pursue?

Roleplaying is a mental exercise, not a physical one.

BioWare, by comparison, hasn't made a game with mandatory action combat since Jade Empire.

 

but you called Diablo 2 a RPG when it also has mandatory action combat.

 

The original Crysis was linear in its objectives, but gave you various ways to approach actually completing them.

 

I agree that RPing is a mental exercise, but you're being inconsistent on what makes a game a RPG or not. You're saying one game with mandatory action combat is a RPG while another is not a RPG because it has mandatory action combat.

[Sylvius the Mad]

but you called Diablo 2 a RPG when it also has mandatory action combat.

But there was no skill involved. You couldn't really be bad at it.

It was just repetitive and tedious, but it wasn't like the action combat interfered with your ability to make decisions for your character.

The original Crysis was linear in its objectives, but gave you various ways to approach actually completing them.

That linearity is a problem.

It's a problem for a lot of games, including many RPGs.

I agree that RPing is a mental exercise, but you're being inconsistent on what makes a game a RPG or not. You're saying one game with mandatory action combat is a RPG while another is not a RPG because it has mandatory action combat.

Because sometimes the mandatory action combat is relevant.

My standard is this: the game needs to permit roleplaying and not include mandatory systems that interfere with that roleplaying such that character coherence cannot be maintained. Action combat usually does that. Paraphrases usually do that. Excessive linearity also contributes to that, as does a pre-written character background, auto-dialogue, and asymmetrical combat mechanics.

[Cyonan]

But there was no skill involved. You couldn't really be bad at it.

It was just repetitive and tedious, but it wasn't like the action combat interfered with your ability to make decisions for your character.

 

There actually was skill involved as you got later into the game. Sure it was less important on the easiest difficulty, but the same argument can be made of every game that uses difficulties.

 

Because sometimes the mandatory action combat is relevant.

My standard is this: the game needs to permit roleplaying and not include mandatory systems that interfere with that roleplaying such that character coherence cannot be maintained. Action combat usually does that. Paraphrases usually do that. Excessive linearity also contributes to that, as does a pre-written character background, auto-dialogue, and asymmetrical combat mechanics.

 

There's a whole host of games which are not RPGs that could fall under the definition, but what is or isn't too disruptive to RPing seems to be arbitrarily decided by you because you still insist Diablo 2 is a RPG despite: Action combat, pre-written character backgrounds, auto-dialogue, and asymmetrical combat mechanics.

 

In either case the original point is that people should be aware that the industry doesn't use the same definition of the terms RPG elements, RPG, and ARPG that individuals might, and any misinterpretations or issues of games not fitting a personal definition is on the individual.

[UpUpAway]

I think you make some very good points. Instead of adding more text to the wheel, I think the summaries should simply be more accurate.

If I click "I don't know what to say" that is what my character should say, or something along those lines. "I don't know what to say" is not an accurate paraphrase of "Well... ****."

 

However, the degree to which different people think that the paraphrases don't say what they expect will always be an individual thing.  Heck, IRL people don't even always say what they think they meant to say.  I do agree that there are places in the ME Trilogy where I felt that what the character said did not match the text, but I suspect you would pick different spots than I. 

 

On many fronts, I found the simple P/R split of the interrupts combined with how the cinematic led up to that interrupt point to be far easier for me to "read" than the dialogue wheel.  Still, the variance between the indicator text on the dialogue wheel and what was actually said was not a problem for me.  I don't play Bioware's games and other similar ones seeking total control over my PC... I just want to engage with their story.

 

If I want total control over a character, I sit down and write and illustrate my own story from scratch.  I can enjoy both activities as different activities.  IMO, genre titles like RPG are just stereotypes... subject to the same difficulties that arise when people shove other people into stereotypes.  I liked the ME Trilogy.  I haven't played a game by any company since that I've like quite as well... so for all the criticism people level on BioWare here... I think they must have done a lot right... and I'm still looking forward to ME:A (however, BioWare decides to make it).

[Lady Luminous]

However, the degree to which different people think that the paraphrases don't say what they expect will always be an individual thing. Heck, IRL people don't even always say what they think they meant to say. I do agree that there are places in the ME Trilogy where I felt that what the character said did not match the text, but I suspect you would pick different spots than I.

On many fronts, I found the simple P/R split of the interrupts combined with how the cinematic led up to that interrupt point to be far easier for me to "read" than the dialogue wheel. Still, the variance between the indicator text on the dialogue wheel and what was actually said was not a problem for me. I don't play Bioware's games and other similar ones seeking total control over my PC... I just want to engage with their story.

If I want total control over a character, I sit down and write and illustrate my own story from scratch. I can enjoy both activities as different activities. IMO, genre titles like RPG are just stereotypes... subject to the same difficulties that arise when people shove other people into stereotypes. I liked the ME Trilogy. I haven't played a game by any company since that I've like quite as well... so for all the criticism people level on BioWare here... I think they must have done a lot right... and I'm still looking forward to ME:A (however, BioWare decides to make it).

I would certainly agree that I play games to interact with their story, and that people would disagree on what certain summaries mean or are meant to mean, but I don't think it's okay to be as surprised as we sometomes are by what our characters say.

I think the summary should give us accurate foreshadowing of our character's intent, and I don't think they're currently as accurate as they could be.

[mikeymoonshine]

I remember being really pleased when shepard used biotic abilities in a cut scene once in the citadel dlc. Being a biotic should be more meaningful anyway though, it's supposed to be like a big deal for like every race apart from the Asari isn't it? 

 

I also vaguely remember the engineer having a class specific interrupt in the omega dlc. 

[UpUpAway]

I would certainly agree that I play games to interact with their story, and that people would disagree on what certain summaries mean or are meant to mean, but I don't think it's okay to be as surprised as we sometomes are by what our characters say.

I think the summary should give us accurate foreshadowing of our character's intent, and I don't think they're currently as accurate as they could be.

 

Yes, I never said that the descriptions in the dialogue wheel couldn't be improved upon.  I'm sure they can.  I'm saying that adding a whole bunch of detailed text to the dialogue wheel (to exactly state what is about to be said) is going to slow down game play and probably irritate a lot of people.  Foreshadowing accurately is a difficult thing though because people interpret and predict based on interpretations in so many varied ways.  The perception of the accuracy of the foreshadowing, in part, depends on the individual interpreting that foreshadowing.  What you see as being something that would foreshadow an event more accurately, I might as easily view as foreshadowing it less accurately. 

 

I also think it is far more likely to be a bigger problem with more and more text when one considers that the text has to be translated into several languages (and nuances are always lost in translation) and also that not every player who plays the game in any given language is necessarily perfectly literate in that language.

 

Therefore, I think the expectation that people would never be surprised by what their character might say is, basically, an unrealistic one... and because it IS a game, it doesn't bother me to be surprised every now and then... even by what my own character says.  If I really don't like it, I can always replay that part of the game or I can replay the entire game to strive to build my character differently the next time around.

[Sylvius the Mad]

There actually was skill involved as you got later into the game. Sure it was less important on the easiest difficulty, but the same argument can be made of every game that uses difficulties.


There's a whole host of games which are not RPGs that could fall under the definition, but what is or isn't too disruptive to RPing seems to be arbitrarily decided by you because you still insist Diablo 2 is a RPG despite: Action combat, pre-written character backgrounds, auto-dialogue, and asymmetrical combat mechanics.

Fine, you've convinced me; Diablo 2 isn't a roleplaying game.

In either case the original point is that people should be aware that the industry doesn't use the same definition of the terms RPG elements, RPG, and ARPG that individuals might, and any misinterpretations or issues of games not fitting a personal definition is on the individual.

I'm not convinced they use a coherent definition at all, let alone one with which I might agree.

And they won't until the market demands that they do.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Therefore, I think the expectation that people would never be surprised by what their character might say is, basically, an unrealistic one... and because it IS a game, it doesn't bother me to be surprised every now and then... even by what my own character says. If I really don't like it, I can always replay that part of the game or I can replay the entire game to strive to build my character differently the next time around.

It's not unrealistic at all. BioWare's silent protagonist games never did it.

So clearly it's possible to build a CRPG that doesn't.

[UpUpAway]

It's not unrealistic at all. BioWare's silent protagonist games never did it.

So clearly it's possible to build a CRPG that doesn't.

 

NVM.

[Sylvius the Mad]

NVM.

People sometimes say they were surprised by their characters in the silent games, but they clearly weren't, since they had perfect foreknowledge of what the character would do.

The thing that surprised them was the NPC reaction, which is as it should be. NPCs should be unpredictable; we can't read their minds.

[UpUpAway]

People sometimes say they were surprised by their characters in the silent games, but they clearly weren't, since they had perfect foreknowledge of what the character would do.

The thing that surprised them was the NPC reaction, which is as it should be. NPCs should be unpredictable; we can't read their minds.

 

I still think the only thing that's going to even come close to satisfying you is for you to just write your own games from the ground up.

[Lady Luminous]

Yes, I never said that the descriptions in the dialogue wheel couldn't be improved upon. I'm sure they can. I'm saying that adding a whole bunch of detailed text to the dialogue wheel (to exactly state what is about to be said) is going to slow down game play and probably irritate a lot of people. Foreshadowing accurately is a difficult thing though because people interpret and predict based on interpretations in so many varied ways. The perception of the accuracy of the foreshadowing, in part, depends on the individual interpreting that foreshadowing. What you see as being something that would foreshadow an event more accurately, I might as easily view as foreshadowing it less accurately.

I also think it is far more likely to be a bigger problem with more and more text when one considers that the text has to be translated into several languages (and nuances are always lost in translation) and also that not every player who plays the game in any given language is necessarily perfectly literate in that language.

Therefore, I think the expectation that people would never be surprised by what their character might say is, basically, an unrealistic one... and because it IS a game, it doesn't bother me to be surprised every now and then... even by what my own character says. If I really don't like it, I can always replay that part of the game or I can replay the entire game to strive to build my character differently the next time around.

Oh gods, no I certainly don't want more text.
That won't fix anything, it'll just make dialogue something to slog through.

But with my previous example of "Well ****", that would be better portrayed by "Damn" or even just having the dialogue option actually say "Well... ****". It's way more accurate and at least I'm expecting profanity.

Choosing "I don't know what to say" portrays something more gentle and apologetic, to me.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Oh gods, no I certainly don't want more text.
That won't fix anything, it'll just make dialogue something to slog through.

But with my previous example of "Well ****", that would be better portrayed by "Damn" or even just having the dialogue option actually say "Well... ****". It's way more accurate and at least I'm expecting profanity.

Choosing "I don't know what to say" portrays something more gentle and apologetic, to me.

If the full line is short enough to use as a paraphrase, then the line should just be listed as an option.

I've never understood the objection to having the line you've just read be spoken back to you.

[UpUpAway]

If the full line is short enough to use as a paraphrase, then the line should just be listed as an option.

I've never understood the objection to having the line you've just read be spoken back to you.

 

On this much we can agree.