891 réponses à ce sujet

[Sylvius the Mad]

In ME1, Shepard could take "forever" after Hackett told him about a mission without a consequence. Heck, Shepard could even do a slug of side missions between leaving the Citadel the last time and Ilos without losing the opportunity to catch Saren. True RPGers are espousing how much better that sort of freedom is by saying ME1 is way more like a true RPG than ME2 or 3. I say that's crap... ME2 and ME3 handled "consequences" from a realistic role-playing POV much bettter than ME1.

ME2 and ME3 forced a specific playstyle onto the players.

If a roleplayer doesn't think it's credible that Shepard would take his time before heading to Ilos, that roleplayer won't have Shepard take his time.

But if a roleplayer thinks it totally makes sense for his character to do that, preventing it breaks that character.

An RPG empowers the player. It does not force the player to consume content as the developers see fit.

[Il Divo]

This isn't actually the case for the automatic weapons. Most real-time shooting systems like ME2/3 and Battlefield have things like gun recoil and spray built into their gunplay. They just do a much better job of making it feel natural. Missing because of RNG doesn't feel natural, and any system that incorporates manual aiming would do well to avoid it. If, on the other hand, you want to make a turn-based gun RPG, like Wild Arms, feel free to stat-base the hell out of it.

 

The stat-based missing mixed with real-time aiming experiment has come and gone. It sucks. It sucked in ME1, it sucked in Alpha Protocol, and it sucked in Fallout: New Vegas. There's a reason why VATS is the core of Fallout's shooting: it nixes real-time aiming and focuses solely on stats. And it works well! It's the mixing that's the problem.

 

That about sums it up for me. I can deal with turn-based gun mechanics. Or I can deal with real-time shooting. Just do not combine the two of them. 

[Sylvius the Mad]

This isn't actually the case for the automatic weapons. Most real-time shooting systems like ME2/3 and Battlefield have things like gun recoil and spray built into their gunplay.

By choosing to use automatic weapons you're choosing that inaccuracy.

They just do a much better job of making it feel natural. Missing because of RNG doesn't feel natural, and any system that incorporates manual aiming would do well to avoid it. If, on the other hand, you want to make a turn-based gun RPG, like Wild Arms, feel free to stat-base the hell out of it.

That's how I play Mass Effect. I pause to aim.

I loathe real time combat gameplay. If ever I'm forced to aim in real time, I'll stop playing.

And Mass Effect has always supported pause-and-play.

The stat-based missing mixed with real-time aiming experiment has come and gone. It sucks. It sucked in ME1, it sucked in Alpha Protocol, and it sucked in Fallout: New Vegas. There's a reason why VATS is the core of Fallout's shooting: it nixes real-time aiming and focuses solely on stats. And it works well! It's the mixing that's the problem.

That mixing is vital. ME1 has my favourite shooter combat in any game ever.

[Fiery Phoenix]

 ME1 has my favourite shooter combat in any game ever.

That's... unusual to hear. ME1's combat was perhaps the single most commonly cited weakness of the game.

[Pasquale1234]

I said "direct" both... not "control" - so you're misquoting me now... and there is a real difference between the meaning of those two words (especially when it is put in context of what a "director" does.  From posts here, some people seem to feel that a "true RPG" doesn't provide any order in which missions are to be done.

Since you appear to be referencing my post, I'll respond here. And speaking of misquoting - I think you're the only person who has used the terminology "true RPG" in this thread. Since my post was so clearly misinterpreted, I'll try to clarify.

The structure of both ME1 & DAO went *roughly* - not precisely - like this:

-- Some opening content up until the point where the PC becomes a Warden / Spectre

-- Assignment of the major quests that, along with side quests, comprise the bulk of the game's content.

-- Once those are completed, you're funneled back into some quest / event that kicks off the end sequences. In ME1, it may have been the lockdown of the Normandy; in DAO it may have been the landsmeet.
 

My post basically said that ME1 DID also direct an order of missions... just did not "direct" a consequence for mixing up the order of the more side missions.

Are you suggesting that ME1 cared whether you went to Feros, Noveria, or Therum first?

Or that DAO cared whether you recruited the Mages, Elves, or Dwarves first?
 

It was implied in an earlier post that ME2 and ME3 basically "meted out" the order of mission.  They do not do that to an any greater extent than ME1 did... Bioware just inserted logical consequences for not responding to "urgency."

I said that they meted out content piecemeal, which they absolutely do. Perhaps I should have said in batches rather than piecemeal.

Once you complete the opening sequences of ME2, you're given the first batch of dossiers. You need to recruit some number of those followers before you're given another batch. The game also makes loyalty quests available per its own formula, and forces collector missions. I don't remember when I was given access to Illium, but I don't think it's available until... some particular point in the game.

You cannot, for example, choose to recruit all followers and do their loyalty missions before you take on the collector quests. Nor can you recruit follower F before recruiting follower A. You must complete some amount of content before the game will make more available.

ME3 is very similar in that quests are assigned in batches, and they are time sensitive. It also restricts access to parts of the galaxy map, opening it up as the game progresses. Each Priority: mission is usually accompanied by some other side content, but the Priority: missions are available one at a time, in a very specific order. You can't solve the quarian / geth problems until after you've worked out the krogan - turian stuff.

I feel a much greater sense of freedom with DAO & ME1's structure. Comparatively, I feel like I'm being led by the nose through the content of ME2&3.

[Gothfather]

We all want it to be good,  no discussion there.

 

Some consider ME1 the better of the ME trilogy as its most RPG.  Others swing the other way, including myself because I'll play just about any game as long as it's good.  imo ME2 and 3 (bar the ending) were better.

 

Bioware has it's roots in RPG,  but is there room in customers hearts to accept a good game with RPG elements. I would think there is a broader market for bioware making games which aren't just RPG.  If this keeps Bioware afloat, isn't that a good thing.

 

I just want a good game and I want Bioware to not be swallowed up by EA,  what do you think?

 

This is a pointless discussion.

 

1) gamers can't even come to a unified definition of what is an RPG and what isn't so without this critical term defined how can we even go forward?

 

2) What some gamers call good is mutually exclusive with what other gamers call good. Gamers are not a unified demographic so how can we even agree on what is good?

 

3) What is the point of trying to cage this discussion with your childish anti-EA comment? Time and time again developers from MULTIPLE studios have said EA doesn't micromanage them that they as a studio are given "enough rope to hang themselves." Bioware teams have been under EA for YEARS now it has almost been a decade there was no mass jumping ship when ea took over there as been the same influx and outflux of talent from the company that is indicative of a 'project' based industry. This is typical uninformed gamers speak, I heard EA is bad and they did bad things in the past  I heard, so EA must be bad in all things.'

[dreamgazer]

That's... unusual to hear. ME1's combat was perhaps the single most commonly cited weakness of the game.

Yeah, but based on Sylvius' preferences, I can totally understand why it would fit better with his play-style.

I don't agree, but I get it.

[Aimi]

I don't.

You should. That's where taxonomy becomes useful.

I know what I like and what I don't like about games. Neither of those things has much to do with whether the game in question is an RPG - either by your idiosyncratic definition, or by any other popular definition of the term of which I am aware. I don't have any interest in genre purism or in defining what an RPG is or in whether a given game is an RPG, because I think that all of those things are largely pointless; none of the commonly used definitions of RPG is predictive (they do not indicate whether I will enjoy a game).

I thought you used to restrict yourself to convincing people to argue with you about your definitions of things and why they matter. I didn't realize you'd started trying to spark arguments with others about theirs.

[Gothfather]

Yes, I agree... "true" RPG players seem to want to be able to direct both their own actions AND the consequences of those actions.  Personally, I like having the author direct the consequences... and if they are going to that in an interesting and cinematic way, they are probably going to have to offer me limited options to being with.  I'm OK with that... the other "true RPGers" can stay frustrated with it if they want... their choice.   (IRL, we don't get to "direct" all the consequences of our actions.)

Personally I think this is a result of the MMO rpgers that "role play" by text in game and posts and they control EVERYTHING about the character, You can't do anything to them without approval when they 'role play' together. With no DM/GM/storyteller these cRPG players grew out of the MMO subculture to impact single RPG games. Because they associate agency with RPG they have zero clue what RPG are outside their narrow definition. Which is why you get terms like "true" or "real" RPG used all the time.

 

Agency =/= role playing. Role playing is accepting a role and basing choices, actions and decision on what you believe a person in that role would do. This is the foundational block of acting which is what role playing is, it is acting. And traditionally acting has very little agency yet actors can still bring something to their 'role' that is unique to themselves. Agency in games is mostly illusion, agency is storytelling isn't and because most mmo rpg isn't actually gaming but storytelling people have conflated the two. If you can't role play in any game with a "character' then you can't role play. Hell I can role play a strategy game, making choices based on the "character" of the country vs the 'best' game strategy. I can take a call of duty character and role play him. It boggles the mind how people can't role play in bioware games because they lose some agency.

[CrimsonN7]

I highly doubt Andromeda will do much more than ME1 in the RPG department. It wouldn't matter to me anyway. Give me a modern shooter with good enough RPG elements and a well-written story and characters and I will be happy.

This post reflects my thoughts exactly.

[Sylvius the Mad]

I know what I like and what I don't like about games. Neither of those things has much to do with whether the game in question is an RPG - either by your idiosyncratic definition, or by any other popular definition of the term of which I am aware. I don't have any interest in genre purism or in defining what an RPG is or in whether a given game is an RPG, because I think that all of those things are largely pointless; none of the commonly used definitions of RPG is predictive (they do not indicate whether I will enjoy a game).

I thought you used to restrict yourself to convincing people to argue with you about your definitions of things and why they matter. I didn't realize you'd started trying to spark arguments with others about theirs.

You said "I want a game that I'll enjoy playing." That tells us nothing about what sort of game that is. It adds nothing to the discussion.

I was trying to elicit more information.

[UpUpAway95]

Since you appear to be referencing my post, I'll respond here. And speaking of misquoting - I think you're the only person who has used the terminology "true RPG" in this thread. Since my post was so clearly misinterpreted, I'll try to clarify.

The structure of both ME1 & DAO went *roughly* - not precisely - like this:

-- Some opening content up until the point where the PC becomes a Warden / Spectre

-- Assignment of the major quests that, along with side quests, comprise the bulk of the game's content.

-- Once those are completed, you're funneled back into some quest / event that kicks off the end sequences. In ME1, it may have been the lockdown of the Normandy; in DAO it may have been the landsmeet.
 

Are you suggesting that ME1 cared whether you went to Feros, Noveria, or Therum first?

Or that DAO cared whether you recruited the Mages, Elves, or Dwarves first?
 

I said that they meted out content piecemeal, which they absolutely do. Perhaps I should have said in batches rather than piecemeal.

Once you complete the opening sequences of ME2, you're given the first batch of dossiers. You need to recruit some number of those followers before you're given another batch. The game also makes loyalty quests available per its own formula, and forces collector missions. I don't remember when I was given access to Illium, but I don't think it's available until... some particular point in the game.

You cannot, for example, choose to recruit all followers and do their loyalty missions before you take on the collector quests. Nor can you recruit follower F before recruiting follower A. You must complete some amount of content before the game will make more available.

ME3 is very similar in that quests are assigned in batches, and they are time sensitive. It also restricts access to parts of the galaxy map, opening it up as the game progresses. Each Priority: mission is usually accompanied by some other side content, but the Priority: missions are available one at a time, in a very specific order. You can't solve the quarian / geth problems until after you've worked out the krogan - turian stuff.

I feel a much greater sense of freedom with DAO & ME1's structure. Comparatively, I feel like I'm being led by the nose through the content of ME2&3.

 

You're implying that ME1 did not "mete out" content... and I'm saying that it did mete out content as well.  Some of the clusters for side missions would open up only after you did Feros and others (different ones) would open up after you did Noveria.  ME1 absolutely did care that you did Virmire after at least two of Feros, Noveria, or Therum (you were not told about Virmire until you had done two of those missions).  It absolutely made you do Therum before Ilos (you had no option to not recruit Liara).  In addition, you could not avoid recruiting Tali (you had to become a Spectre before leaving the Citadel) and had to recruit either Wrex or Garrus.  Garrus and Wrex's "loyalty" missions in ME1 were only available IF you talked to them and the allignment missions only opened up IF you have sufficient paragon and renegade choices made.  I think this fits the definition of "meting out" content.  I don't know where you're feeling comes from that you can role play better in ME1 than in ME2 or ME3 (and I fully accept that is your feeling) - but I don't think it is because the content in ME1 is not meted out... it is.

 

BTW, the term "true RPG or RPGers" is one that I've taken from other threads... it's in quotes because I don't fully "agree" with the term... somewhat sarcastic quotes not indicating a direct quote.  My honest opinion is that there can be no such thing as a "true RPG" in a cinematic context because cinematics require "direction." and that is not a role that the player can really assume.  Also, I think there is some confusion about what "role play" is (in an acting sense) and basically "writing one's own story."  What roles you could make Shepard play were limited in ME1 as well.  For example, since you had to recruit at least 3 aliens... you could not play Shepard as a human prejudiced against aliens to the point where he/she would not have an alien on his/her ship.

[Sylvius the Mad]

That's... unusual to hear. ME1's combat was perhaps the single most commonly cited weakness of the game.

It is the best example I have ever seen of RPG combat with a shooter interface.

VATS is good, but the analogue aiming of ME1 is better.

ME2 and ME3 are both pretty poor.

[Sylvius the Mad]

My honest opinion is that there can be no such thing as a "true RPG" in a cinematic context because cinematics require "direction."

This is why I think cinematics are a problem that needs to go away.

At the very least, we need to be able to disable the more obtrusive aspects of cinematic direction such as depth of field effects (DAI did allow this, so I expect it in MEA).

and that is not a role that the player can really assume.

Wait. Why not?

Also, I think there is some confusion about what "role play" is (in an acting sense) and basically "writing one's own story."

I would argue they're the same thing, just with a different scope.

If an actor adds something to the role, he made it up himself. He wrote that aspect of the story. That is exactly what roleplayers do. But for that to work, the actor needs to know exactly what his limits are. He needs to know what the character will or won't do, based on the previously authored content, and he can fill in the gaps himself.

Roleplaying in a CRPG works just the same way, but it breaks if the player isn't allowed to know what those limits are. If the player sees a gap and fills it (a motivation for some early game action, for example), but then the game later comes along and fills that gap itself, not only is the player's choice invalidated, but every other choice that stemmed from it is tainted.

Without laying out all the limitations in advance, a CRPG breaks the type of roleplaying you describe.

Also, I would prefer a CRPG to operate not as a story, but as a simulation. Give us a world and a set of rules and set us loose to see what happens. The story then gets written by our actions (which is always does anyway, but this just makes that more obvious).

[Sylvius the Mad]

Are you suggesting that ME1 cared whether you went to Feros, Noveria, or Therum first?

Not to mention the Uncharted Worlds.

[Addictress]

ME2 and ME3 forced a specific playstyle onto the players.

If a roleplayer doesn't think it's credible that Shepard would take his time before heading to Ilos, that roleplayer won't have Shepard take his time.

But if a roleplayer thinks it totally makes sense for his character to do that, preventing it breaks that character.

An RPG empowers the player. It does not force the player to consume content as the developers see fit.

Are you saying you didn't like the consequences to delaying the suicide mission in ME2 by fitting in more missions between the collector abduction of the crew and going through the relay???

 

You don't want consequences to actions????

[Pasquale1234]

You're implying that ME1 did not "mete out" content... and I'm saying that it did meet out content as well.  Some of the clusters for side missions would open up only after you did Feros and others (different ones) would open up after you did Noveria.

I've never noticed that.
 

ME1 absolutely did care that you did Virmire after at least two of Feros, Noveria, or Therum.

Virmire is the only one of the "main center portion" quests that isn't accessible until you've completed some other content.
 

It absolutely made you do Therum before Ilos (you had no option to not recruit Liara).

That's part of the ending sequence I referenced.
 

In addition, you could not avoid recruiting Tali and had to recruit either Wrex or Garrus.

That's part of the startup sequence I referenced.
 

Garrus and Wrex's "loyalty" missions in ME1 were only available IF you talked to them and the allignment missions only opened up IF you have sufficient paragon and renegade choices made.

A lot of RPGs have conditional side content.
 

I think this fits the definition of "meting out" content.

Not to the degree that ME2&3 do it.
 

I don't know where you're feeling comes from that you can role play better in ME1 than in ME2 or ME3 - but I don't think is because the content in ME1 is not meted out... it is.

ME1 has this big beautiful, gooey, squishy center that contains pretty much everything outside of the startup and ending stuff.

ME1's Shepard doesn't need an assistant to tell her when new content is available.
 

BTW, the term "true RPG or RPGers" is one that I've taken from other threads... it's in quotes because I don't fully "agree" with the term... somewhat sarcastic quotes not indicating a direct quote.

People usually only pull that when someone is trying to make a no true scotsman argument. I'm not sure why you think sarcasm is warranted.

[Gothfather]

Are you saying you didn't like the consequences to delaying the suicide mission in ME2 by fitting in more missions between the collector abduction of the crew and going through the relay???

 

You don't want consequences to actions????

 

It is the loss of agency to avoid the consequences that is (I believe) the sticky point. The player feels they have 'no choice' but to act in X manner to avoid Y consequences and because so many gamers feel agency = role playing anytime they lose agency they feel they can't role play how they want.

 

I think it all bollocks, agency isn't roll playing. Agency is its own device/feature independent from RPGs. Western RPGs have traditionally given the player far more agency than JRPGs but really it was just a different take on development. Bioware I believe merge the Character identity of western RPGs with the strong narrative story telling of JRPGs to create the Bioware story based RPG experience they are known for.  (Very simplistic comparisons and delineations in a the aforementioned genres above.)

 

The thing to keep in mind is that there is no 'right' way to make an RPG or any game for that matter, so people are correct in their subjective opinions about subjective matters but so is the exact opposite position. We really need to simply judge the game for ourselves. Do i like X? Yes or No? If you like it support it by buying the game, if you don't don't buy the game. There is little point to this thread because it is meaningless. No one can be wrong or right in the conversation and because people hold mutually exclusive positions Bioware can't win by listening to their fans as some group will hate it regardless of their choice. So bioware should make the game they want to make as this will be the most rewarding to them during development.

[Pasquale1234]

Are you saying you didn't like the consequences to delaying the suicide mission in ME2 by fitting in more missions between the collector abduction of the crew and going through the relay???
 
You don't want consequences to actions????

I don't believe he's saying that at all.

[Cheviot]

I don't believe he's saying that at all.

He pretty much is, though, since the consequences of a delay would fit in with his idea of a developer forcing a specific playstyle on a roleplayer.

[Addictress]

I don't believe he's saying that at all.

I love ME1 just as much as ME2, but ME1 didn't have a count-down like ME2 did, and that's fine. I don't see why a consequence to taking your time robs someone of role-play.

[Addictress]

Mass Effect is definitely not a true RPG and doesn't give you a lot of room for role play. Just by nature it isn't. But honestly, this is such a foundation of the Mass Effect trilogy, you're trying to change the DNA of a beast...when it might be a better route to just play another game. Some people, like myself, enjoyed the limited role play and defined characters in Mass Effect...based on its own terms. It is what it is. 

 

It's not pure role play. Got it. Doesn't mean that providing more role play is going to necessarily improve the experience for everyone. Some people like the writers establishing some basic lore, and character.

 

Even so, consequences like timing should still fit into the ideal role-play model. Consequences should exist in any game, role play or not.

[In Exile]

I'd like to be able to role-play effectively, though I'm open to different interpretations of exactly what constitutes an RPG or RPG elements.

ME1 is still my favorite of the lot, because it is the only ME game produced thus far in which I felt I had some room to role-play.

I think the structure has a lot to do with that - a structure that also exists in DAO (my favorite DA game). Both games (ME1 & DAO) started with some opening scenarios that took the PC to a point where s/he became a Warden / Spectre, and then left you with 3-4 main quests which you could pursue - along with other side content - at your leisure. Doing the side content / exploration does require one to find a way to ignore any urgency implied in the main quests, but I've been able to deal with that.

This structure is in direct contrast with that of ME2&3, both of which mete out their content piecemeal and enforce pacing.

I suspect one of the major sources of discontent with DAI has to do with its pacing. The pacing feels screwy because its major quest piece followed by a bunch of free-form exploration to gain power and stuff and do minor side quests, then another major quest piece. IOW, it's really uneven. I think I would like the game better if I could fully explore all of the zones from Haven before starting on the main questlines - but access to the zones is restricted until the game lets me in.

I'm not a big fan of games attempting to enforce pacing overall. Individual quests / missions / levels, yes - a well-paced mission is a beautiful thing. Enforced pacing works well for activities that take a relatively small amount of time, not so much for something that takes 50-100+ hours to complete.

Given the focus on exploration MEA promises, I'm hoping for a more free-form structure that will allow me to discover the game's content at my own pace.

The reality is that you cannot tell much of a story without enforced pacing, by way of an Act structure. DAO doesn't actually have much of a main plot - like ME2, it has brilliant filler - but effectively you've wrapped up your main story at Ostagar and there's one development that happens in between. KoTOR has a similar issue, where the main plot amounts to filler. I think the story works when the main plot isn't an existential threat - and the problem is that Bioware loves their existential threats. So you end up with a plot that tells you that you are a lunatic for exploring the very rich world and experiencing the great vignette quests.

That said I'm surprised you find ME1 to be good on roleplay. I agree that it allowed Shepard in a lot of ways to be a bit less defined than ME2 - but it often railroaded you into hotheaded insanity. Like frothing at the mouth like a loon at the Council. I felt the railroad was equally strong in ME2 in a lot of ways but it was a lot clearer where Shepard was going here.

ME3 obviously had the rails on strong so no issue there.

[Pasquale1234]

He pretty much is, though, since the consequences of a delay would fit in with his idea of a developer forcing a specific playstyle on a roleplayer.

No, I think he's quite willing to accept the consequences.

I think he just doesn't want to feel pushed to do something that doesn't fit his character.

[Uhh.. Jonah]

He pretty much is, though, since the consequences of a delay would fit in with his idea of a developer forcing a specific playstyle on a roleplayer.

It's completely different. The player can choose whether to go ahead with the mission or wait. The player still has control, there's just more pressure. My shep can still go mine Uranus as many times as they'd like before starting the mission. There will be consequences, yes, but it was my CHOICE to do so.