891 réponses à ce sujet

[fizzypop]

Don't care. I only want MEA to give me a good story with decent gameplay elements. My preference is for replayability as well. RPG or not doesn't really matter much because what is an RPG depends largely on the kinds of games you like. RPGs in the west are VASTLY different from the east. Table tops have a vastly different idea of what an RPG is than those who play video games. To me the most important thing in a game is the story and gameplay is second to that. If there is a decent story I won't care if the game is on rails or not. I love all kinds of games skyrim, DA/ME series, final fantasy (numerous ones), point and click adventures, text based games, open worlds, closed worlds, direct questlines, loose questlines, etc etc.

I feel like I am an easy person to please so long as the writing isn't ****.

[UpUpAway95]

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.

 

They didn't prevent the player in ME3 from ignoring the urgency of Turian Bomb... If the player didn't do it, the bomb just went off... and that's logical.  Allowing a player work their way through a bunch of unfinished side missions after stealing the Normandy from the Citadel without any repercussion at all is not good role play writing... doesn't matter what the player thinks his/her Shepard would do... no Shepard could logically do it without some sort of consequence (i.e. high probability Saren would make it to the Citadel and let the Reapers in while, say, Shepard is on Chasca chasing husks around or on Eletania collecting a data disk from a space monkey).

[Cyonan]

As far as quest structure goes the problem with ME1 and DA:O is that it feels like all the quests are kept in a statis bubble, frozen in time until you get there to solve everybody's problems. It doesn't feel like a natural world when that happens when it's supposed to be a race against time with either Saren or the Blight.

 

In that case, there's no consequence for inaction which is itself an action of the player.

 

Mass Effect 2 did a decent job as it only actually forces you into doing 2 missions once it sets you loose after the opening mission. It's only Horizon and the Collector ship that you absolutely have to go do. You can also postpone the suicide mission at the cost of losing more crew members if you get your crew abducted too early.

 

It doesn't give you every recruitment mission all at once but then that can be explained away by TIM needing more information on the squadmates you recruit later on. He even notes if you ask about Tali at the start "I need more information on that".

 

The best thing ME:A can probably do since it wants to bring back exploration to the series is avoid having a main questline that is time sensitive from the word go. You can do what ME2 does and have a forced timer at the very end, but don't do what ME1 did and have NPCs telling us about how we need to hurry at the same time they set us loose on the galaxy.

[In Exile]

They didn't prevent the player in ME3 from ignoring the urgency of Turian Bomb... If the player didn't do it, the bomb just went off... and that's logical. Allowing a player work their way through a bunch of unfinished side missions after stealing the Normandy from the Citadel without any repercussion at all is not good role play writing... doesn't matter what the player thinks his/her Shepard would do... no Shepard could logically do it without some sort of consequence (i.e. high probability Saren would make it to the Citadel and let the Reapers in while, say, Shepard is on Chasca chasing husks around or on Eletania collecting a data disk from a space monkey).

You get a quest called race against time in ME1 and you can literally so the most inane things while the plot stands still for you. That's awful. Even DAO was awful with things like the Circle tower trip. That's the biggest problem from an RPG point of view with Bioware's open design - it undermines the very idea of RP by removing any weight from your decision. All you're left with is headcanon.

[Addictress]

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.

What consequence?

 

Do you not understand what the action is? The action isn't simply going to Ilos, or going somewhere. The action - the decision being made by the player - is to literally postpone saving crew mates who are imprisoned in juicers on the collector ship. 

[In Exile]

As far as quest structure goes the problem with ME1 and DA:O is that it feels like all the quests are kept in a statis bubble, frozen in time until you get there to solve everybody's problems. It doesn't feel like a natural world when that happens when it's supposed to be a race against time with either Saren or the Blight.

In that case, there's no consequence for inaction which is itself an action of the player.

Mass Effect 2 did a decent job as it only actually forces you into doing 2 missions once it sets you loose after the opening mission. It's only Horizon and the Collector ship that you absolutely have to go do. You can also postpone the suicide mission at the cost of losing more crew members if you get your crew abducted too early.

It doesn't give you every recruitment mission all at once but then that can be explained away by TIM needing more information on the squadmates you recruit later on. He even notes if you ask about Tali at the start "I need more information on that".

The best thing ME:A can probably do since it wants to bring back exploration to the series is avoid having a main questline that is time sensitive from the word go. You can do what ME2 does and have a forced timer at the very end, but don't do what ME1 did and have NPCs telling us about how we need to hurry at the same time they set us loose on the galaxy.

ME2 had a disk issue. They had a set order because of how they loaded out the content as I recall.

[In Exile]

What consequence?

Do you not understand what the action is? The action isn't simply going to Ilos, or going somewhere. The action - the decision being made by the player - is to literally postpone saving crew mates who are imprisoned in juicers on the collector ship.

No. The action is to postpone a suicide mission to save a small number of people you have a personal relationship with at the expense of being as prepared as you can be to save them all, basically risking the galaxy for your conscience.

[Addictress]

No. The action is to postpone a suicide mission to save a small number of people you have a personal relationship with at the expense of being as prepared as you can be to save them all, basically risking the galaxy for your conscience.

Okay that's another way to put it, but that still agrees with my point. There is an expense there.

[UpUpAway95]

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).
Wait. Why not?
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).

 

I disagree - I like cinematics.  Also, having less games with cinematics does not solve your issue.  You need to find a way to write your own style of RPG games... and then see if sells.  If it does, great.  I don't like your style of RPG as much as I do cinematics, so I don't like you continually suggesting that cinematic games with RPG elements need to disappear to satisfy you.

[Addictress]

Sorry, I just see more and more weaknesses in these games and I'm ready to admit to most of them, but a few precious bastions of defensible fan pride can be found in some undisputed high points which I will be mustered to defend should they be attacked - the awesome count-down and sacrifice of crew in ME2 is one of those few precious good points in the game.

[In Exile]

Okay that's another way to put it, but that still agrees with my point. There is an expense there.

Sorry, I didn't mean to suggested I didn't agree. Sylvius didn't mention the SM to my knowledge, just Ilos. I only wanted to point out that I really liked the variety of ways to view the SM.

[UpUpAway95]

I've never noticed that.
 

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

That's part of the ending sequence I referenced.
 

That's part of the startup sequence I referenced.
 

A lot of RPGs have conditional side content.
 

Not to the degree that ME2&3 do it.
 

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.
 

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.

 

Well, trust me - you'll notice it now if you play ME1 again.  As for Feros and Noveria... not precisely so... Neither one is accessible until after you're through becoming a Spectre on the Citadel.  The "squishy center" however has almost no bearing on the main story line and almost no consequences regardless of whether or not it is completed or not completed.  It's just filler.  One concern about ME:A that has been expressed is that, being such a large open 100-planet universe, the game might just be 150 hours of unrelated filler.

[Pasquale1234]

The reality is that you cannot tell much of a story without enforced pacing, by way of an Act structure.

Pacing... or some sort of orderly presentation of plot / story components?

To me, pacing includes timing. Moving things along at a certain rate. It can also involve multiple transitions through rising action - resolution - falling action. Dramatic, emotional highs and lows - all of that sort of thing. Not hard to do in a shorter work, but next to impossible in a game that lasts 50+ hours.

When you're trying to mix dramatic cinematic content with open exploration / side content, consistent pacing becomes... problematic.

So, although I recognize that certain plot points need to unfold in an ordered fashion, I also prefer self-pacing of the overall content. What this might mean for DAI, is that simply allowing access to all of the zones from Haven would greatly enhance my ability to manage the game's pacing in a way that would please me.
 

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.

Eh? Sounds like you're saying that recruiting Elves, Dwarves, Mages, etc. isn't part of DAO's plot.
 

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.

Yes. I hope they'll quit doing that - but until they do, I'll continue to headcanon some things away so I can enjoy the other content that delights me.
 

That said I'm surprised you find ME1 to be good on roleplay.

The mako and exploration helped me a great deal with that. I didn't find ME1 to be a great role-playing experience, only that it was possible for me to do some role-playing within it.
 

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.

Yes, it was very clear to me from the beginning that Shepard was BioWare's character. Still, with the big gooey center ME1 offered, I was able to get some role-play value out of it.

[Pasquale1234]

Well, trust me - you'll notice it now if you play ME1 again.  As for Feros and Noveria... not precisely so... Neither one is accessible until after you're through becoming a Spectre on the Citadel.  The "squishy center" however has almost no bearing on the main story line and almost no consequences regardless of whether or not it is completed or not completed.  It's just filler.  One concern about ME:A that has been expressed is that, being such a large open 100-planet universe, the game might just be 150 hours of unrelated filler.

I think we're still not clear on what I'm referring to as the squishy center. It includes Therum, Feros, Noveria, and Virmire. It includes everything except the startup sequence (which ends when Shepard becomes a Spectre) and the ending sequence (which starts when the Normandy is locked down).

[Addictress]

Is The Sims the greatest role-play of all time?

 

edit: nevermind, RP requires a fixed protagonist to take on roles, where as The Sims observes multiple controlled characters.

[Pasquale1234]

Is The Sims the greatest role-play of all time?

I think The Sims supports role-play.

It's a great tool for story creation. I've read a lot of very entertaining stories that people have written with The Sims.

[AlanC9]

So, although I recognize that certain plot points need to unfold in an ordered fashion, I also prefer self-pacing of the overall content.

But, again, isn't this the opposite of role-playing? The "self" there obviously isn't the PC.

[Pasquale1234]

But, again, isn't this the opposite of role-playing? The "self" there obviously isn't the PC.

Except when it is.

[AlanC9]

I don't get your meaning there. Unless it's just that sometimes a PC will be able to do stuff at his leisure, so there's no distance between your personal tastes and his situation?

I get the feeling that I have no idea what you mean by "role-playing."

[EpicNewb]

Make combat 3rd person shooter.

 

The remaining gameplay RPG.  But remove elements that disrupt the flow of the story.  I have no desire to run around for 15 minutes to solve a puzzle or search for something.

[Luigitornado]

A good game with RPG elements. ME1's skill blocks seemed rather much like fluff. I think there is room for improvement from ME3 but not by making it more like ME1.

[Dabrikishaw]

I can roleplay with pretty much anything, so give me a game I'll find good.

[nfi42]

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.'

 

 

Quite simply it's a topic that interests me. As someone who enjoys a wide category of games,  I'm interested in  why someone want's to just play strict RPG games.

 

imo Bioware has been under performing of late,  it was not meant to be an anti EA rant.

[Blooddrunk1004]

I basically want it to be like ME3 with TW3-style open-world design spread across many planets - is that too much to ask?

Based on how DA:I handled the open world, i fear we won't get that treatment, same for side quests.

[Gothfather]

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.

There is NO such thing as a "true" RPG. That is player elitist bullsh!t designed to enshrine their SUBJECTIVE opinion as objective fact.

 

Any game that gives the player the ability to make different choices based on their own idea of what their character would do is an RPG. It is nonsense to cage this discussion in terms of X is a "true" RPG and Y isn't a "real" rpg. The only fraking difference between an action rpg and a non action rpg is combat. If the combat is character 'skill' driven only then it is a non action rpg if it is player skill driven then it is an action rpg. Both a 100% rpgs they just have a divergent way of dealing with combat just as traditional western rpg where about you being the character and Jrpgs where about you controlling the narrative of the game's character. Both require role playing both take very different approaches to agency and both are 100% correct ways to make an RPG because there isn't a universally accepted definition of what an RPG is.

 

Gamers are a really perverse group of people they go out of their fraking way to attack anyone that plays the game differently and they think you must play the game in X manner otherwise you are not a true gamer. Again this bollocks idea of what "true" is.

 

All of Mass effects games are 100% RPGs they just have different approaches to game design.