107 réponses à ce sujet

[tonnactus]

manyfistss wrote...



Most the talent points were weapon skills, armor, and class mod.

Clearly wrong.Just take tali. Ai-hacking, damping, decryption, overload, shield boost(a defensive ability like jacobs barrier,so it counts)
5 talents compared to three.Also,carnage could be compared to concussive shot, just a special weapon attack.Now 6.
Compared to 3 now.

Wish another examples?
Should we really discuss that or agree??

Modifié par tonnactus, 30 janvier 2010 - 09:06 .

[Zenon]

I didn't buy it yet. I loved ME1. Actually I'm a RPG enthusiast. I played RoleMaster for many years, which makes (A)D&D look simple. So actually NWN(2) is probably the most complex RPG ruleset ever implemented in a computer RPG. So from this point of view, ME1 is a RPG light at it's best.

So, why did I like ME actually more than NWN 1 and 2? Actually even more than KotOR (especially if you subtract the Jedi bonus).

a) The superb storytelling with an awesome setting, interesting characters, immersive gameplay, wonderful dialogues, great atmosphere, and emotionally moving moments and decisions are a core of a storytelling kind of RPG, which puts the focus on the story instead of the accurate world simulation.

Combat in Pen&Paper RPGs is generally round-based. Why? Because the DM usually needs to ask all players what they want to do. That can't be organized in real-time by a group of human players describing their actions. Sure, this also makes combat more tactical like in DA:O. But in ME there is one player. The computer can manage many simultaneous actions. Also action TPS combat suits the ME series even better than traditional turn based combat. Still there is a pause/interrupt system, so the player can give tactical orders without hassle.

c) The cinematic presentation is unparalleled by other games so far. The game feels like an interactive movie while providing an active straight-forward gameplay.

Actually I hoped ME2 would also take the RPG part to a higher level. Currently it seems Bioware maybe streamlined the technical aspect of the RPG part too much. But then again it seems the storytelling aspect has been even improved, even with the story of the middle part facing the challenges similar to the Empire strikes Back.

Why didn't I buy it yet? I am unsure if I will like ME2 as much as ME. Reading, that some major decisions of ME seem to have had a rather insignificant impact on ME2 made me stall. I know, you can't design two completely different story-lines e.g. depending on what happened to the council. Well, I'll have to see how the game turned out to be by myself.

The other reason was time. I will have more time in February... Just debating, if I finish my second playthrough in DAO before... Was a long post, but I felt like sharing my thoughts.

[Zenon]

P.S.: One thing I have a hard time understanding though is, why Bioware created this strict weapon limits on character classes. I know this is common in shooters like Battlefield. But I still don't have to like it. I did military service as a radio transmission evaluation specialist. And I (still) got at least a basic training with pistol, SMG, assault-rifle, heavy (portable) MG, bazooka (RPG), and hand grenades. Most training was with assault-rifle by the way. Only thing missing was melee hand to hand combat.

But what I really don't get, what I completely don't understand is, why certain classes get a skill like incendiary or cryo ammunition. WTF? Other classes can't use e.g. cryo ammo? Does raising a skill magically improve the quality of the ammo used? How does a skill relate or limit to what type of ammo clip I put into the gun?

My definition of a skill is, that it is something the character can do (only) if trained and can be improved by practice and training. So, if I use special ammo at the army. And I train my Full Metal Jacket Ammo skill. Then the bullets do more damage? I don't get it.

Ok, perhaps I don't understand the system or reasons. But so far this doesn't seem to make any logical sense at all. Especially if such strange skills replace other skills, which can actually be raised by training.

[Phaize30]

Bottom line ME1= RPG/shooter ME2 SHOOTER/rpg... simple as that.. they made the shooter side majorly more important than the rpg side simply to bring in MW2 people... Personally i LOVED both games BUT ME1 i cared what happened to my people.. In ME2 with the exception of 1 or 2 of them i could have cared less whether they died or not.. They really need to step up the RPG side of ME3.. MORE guns, MORE squad interaction, and MORE armor/customization.. Quite simply MORE RPG!! the SHOOTER part is perfect now as far as gameplay goes but we NEED the RPG aspects to be vastly expanded.. you hooked us with RPG in 1 and then slight of handed us a SHOOTER/rpg light with 2 we deserve our RPG back...

[Ashton808]

Bump, Some people still aren't understanding.

[Gorn Kregore]

tonnactus wrote...

manyfistss wrote...



Most the talent points were weapon skills, armor, and class mod.

Clearly wrong.Just take tali. Ai-hacking, damping, decryption, overload, shield boost(a defensive ability like jacobs barrier,so it counts)
5 talents compared to three.Also,carnage could be compared to concussive shot, just a special weapon attack.Now 6.
Compared to 3 now.

Wish another examples?
Should we really discuss that or agree??

i r disapoint

[Spire7]

Who cares what genre its in? Do we really need to slap on some generalized label to describe it as if its some kind of standard to compare it against - as if games HAVE to fit into the mold of a specific category and aren't allowed to bend the rules or go outside of the box. Or can't we all just accept that it's a game that some people are going to like and some are going to dislike, just like any other video game out there?

Mass Effect isn't half-this genre or half-that genre. People keep comparing it to other shooters, or to other RPGs, and forgetting to actually care about how good the game's experience is in and of itself. It is simply a game that's trying to be a bit different, take the game's design in a new direction that stands out from the rest. Is that really such a crime?

Modifié par Spire7, 30 janvier 2010 - 10:31 .

[Zenon]

Ashton808 wrote...

Bump, Some people still aren't understanding.

If you refer to my posts: I need to tell you, that there are excellent RPG systems entirely without levels. RuneQuest has no levels and exp, but character development is completely based skill/talent raise through using them. Actually levels are a simplification, because it doesn't make sense, that a character "suddenly" can do something better after a mission. Levels and exp are not must-have for RPGs.

The items. Since Diablo a vast array of various items with increasing (magic) effects got viewed as an integral part of an RPG. Treasure hunting was always a motivation in RPGs, but Blizzard took this to a higher level by making treasures one of the major aspects and focus of the game. In fact to me this is at the brink of game-breaking when the items tend to matter more than the character's skills and talents. So, the number of items is not really something to put the strongest focus on when defining a RPG.

Just decisions isn't enough. I'm sure ME2 offers more than that. If it is about the decision on who you consider a traitor, you could also consider Battlefield2 an RPG. Which character do I choose? Medic or Specialist, or, or etc. Which point do I attack first? Do I play on the defense or offense? The difference is the personalities of the story figures, the dialogues, the moral decisions, the interaction with the game world, the impact and consequences of decisions on the storyline.

Still, the individual development of the character with a variety of options distinguishes the RPG from the adventure, where there is just a static protagonist solving riddles. If you take all the skills and individual talents away, you'd turn ME2 into an action-adventure rather than an action-RPG.

[Zenon]

Spire7 wrote...

Who cares what genre its in? Do we really need to slap on some generalized label to describe it as if its some kind of standard to compare it against - as if games HAVE to fit into the mold of a specific category and aren't allowed to bend the rules or go outside of the box. Or can't we all just accept that it's a game that some people are going to like and some are going to dislike, just like any other video game out there?

Mass Effect isn't half-this genre or half-that genre. People keep comparing it to other shooters, or to other RPGs, and forgetting to actually care about how good the game's experience is in and of itself. It is simply a game that's trying to be a bit different, take the game's design in a new direction that stands out from the rest. Is that really such a crime?

To me this is not a matter which label fits the game, but what kind of gameplay I enjoy. The quite unique mix of RPG with TPS in ME was great. In ME2 Bioware moves away from this unique mix changing the gameplay much more towards the typical genre of shooters. That's the one part, that disappoints quite a few fans of ME.

[Keadil]

This game is not an rpg.  The first Mass Effect downplayed the action and put all of the focus on story and character development.  They have downplayed the character development and importance of the story enough so that it no longer fits into that genre very well.  The correct genre for this game would be adventure, like Zelda or Assassin's Creed.  It has a decent mix of story and action with very little in the way of character development.  This game is no more an rpg than Assassin's Creed 2.  In almost every game ever developed there has been some character to control.  Does this mean they were all roleplaying games? 

[Mehow_pwn]

Acutally I rather call mass effect 2 RPS role-play-shooter



The first mass effect had far more RPG elements than the Mass effect 2 in my opinon

[Johnson45]

Keadil wrote...

This game is not an rpg.  The first Mass Effect downplayed the action and put all of the focus on story and character development.  They have downplayed the character development and importance of the story enough so that it no longer fits into that genre very well.  The correct genre for this game would be adventure, like Zelda or Assassin's Creed.  It has a decent mix of story and action with very little in the way of character development.  This game is no more an rpg than Assassin's Creed 2.  In almost every game ever developed there has been some character to control.  Does this mean they were all roleplaying games? 

No. read the definition in the Original Post.  And the first mass effect didn't downplay the action, the combat was just awful.

But of course, I forgot that this game isn't an RPG because the combat is great and a lot of fun.

[Riot Ring]

Ashton come on. Really?



RPG and the genre title has evolved from the literal definition. Call of Duty 4 would be an RPG with your leveling up logic. Super Mario World would be an RPG too. Dont hinder the definition of RPG so that ME2 can slide into the category unnoticed. If ME2 is indeed an RPG on any standpoint, then it has the weakest RPG elements in the history of RPGs. There is nothing wrong with calling this game an action/3rd Person Shooter. Bio made changes, and one of which was some of its most prominent RPG elements. It happens as games evolve. A good example is Resident Evil 4. People try to classify it as survival horror, when it is nothing more than an action game.



Enjoy the game and get over the fact that you spent $60 on an action sci-fi adventure.

[Serogon]

People who say that RPG's are about inventories, character skills, etc confuse me. A lot. I've always considered an RPG to be about a good story, character interaction, and the player being able to interact with what's currently happening in the story and change what happens. ME2 does that.

Oh, and something that's been bothering me that crops up in this sort of discussion a lot: people say that ME2 has less options in the conversations... no. Just no. In ME1 half the options all said the same thing regardless of which one you picked. ME2 doesn't do that any more and has more options...

[RogueAI]

By your logic, Gears of War, Halo, Call of Duty, Killzone, etc... are role playing games. By your logic, most games are role-playing games. By your logic, labeling this game as an RPG means nothing. So, what is left? The third person shooter element.

Case and point. Fanboys get owned.

[newcomplex]

"roll play game"

k

k bro.

Riot Ring wrote...

Ashton come on. Really?

RPG and
the genre title has evolved from the literal definition. Call of Duty 4
would be an RPG with your leveling up logic. Super Mario World would be
an RPG too. Dont hinder the definition of RPG so that ME2 can slide into
the category unnoticed. If ME2 is indeed an RPG on any standpoint, then
it has the weakest RPG elements in the history of RPGs. There is
nothing wrong with calling this game an action/3rd Person Shooter. Bio
made changes, and one of which was some of its most prominent RPG
elements. It happens as games evolve. A good example is Resident Evil 4.
People try to classify it as survival horror, when it is nothing more
than an action game.

Enjoy the game and get over the fact that
you spent $60 on an action sci-fi adventure.

The primary focus of an RPG is to create a world that encourages role playing.    Call of Duty misses the world part, and mario misses both.  


Deus Ex had 11 guns and no "abilities", in the conventional sense.    Guess Deus Ex wasn't an RPG.   The witcher had 6 swords.   Guess the witcher wasn't a RPG.   O

Keadil wrote...

This game is not an rpg.  The first Mass
Effect downplayed the action and put all of the focus on story and
character development.  They have downplayed the character development
and importance of the story enough so that it no longer fits into that
genre very well.  The correct genre for this game would be adventure,
like Zelda or Assassin's Creed.  It has a decent mix of story and action
with very little in the way of character development.  This game is no
more an rpg than Assassin's Creed 2.  In almost every game ever
developed there has been some character to control.  Does this mean they
were all roleplaying games? 

What the **** are you smoking?   Tali had literally TWO dialogues in the first game.    Garrus had TWO.    In a game where their were only SIX characters.     The other members of your ship except joker had NO dialogues.   

Modifié par newcomplex, 30 janvier 2010 - 10:52 .

[Mehow_pwn]

Johnson45 wrote...

Keadil wrote...

This game is not an rpg.  The first Mass Effect downplayed the action and put all of the focus on story and character development.  They have downplayed the character development and importance of the story enough so that it no longer fits into that genre very well.  The correct genre for this game would be adventure, like Zelda or Assassin's Creed.  It has a decent mix of story and action with very little in the way of character development.  This game is no more an rpg than Assassin's Creed 2.  In almost every game ever developed there has been some character to control.  Does this mean they were all roleplaying games? 

No. read the definition in the Original Post.  And the first mass effect didn't downplay the action, the combat was just awful.

But of course, I forgot that this game isn't an RPG because the combat is great and a lot of fun.

The combat has nothing to do with it stop bull****ing I love the combat much more myself

The problem is the exp and the lvl system and ofc the items I mean look at how many more items there are in the first one and how much more stuff you could do..when you lvl up

Modifié par Mehow_pwn, 30 janvier 2010 - 10:48 .

[Skemte]

.. I will say this, dialogue and choices overall seem far more diverse over the first, you also seem to have far more meaningful choices in where to go.. Instead of going from each desert planet to the next for useless and boring scavenger hunts.. The item system I am ok with but it could have been much better, but I see it as no way as a downgrade from the first.. The first was a drop system with generic items, of Banshee III, or Onyx V etc etc.. Nothing unique about it but a linear progression of boredom.. I think this is a improvement, but its not a imrpovement I would have sought.. For one I would have like to see weapons have actual stats on them, and to be at least a dozen of each type of weapon not neccesarly always being powerful one after the other.. But having a unique characteristic to it that gives you choices to how you want your playstyle..

Character development though I wish had alittle bit more choice, I really can't fault them on it when Mass effect 1's wasn't very good either.. In the first there were abilities you had to get, and ones you just flat out ignored.

[Riot Ring]

Serogon wrote...

People who say that RPG's are about inventories, character skills, etc confuse me. A lot. I've always considered an RPG to be about a good story, character interaction, and the player being able to interact with what's currently happening in the story and change what happens. ME2 does that.
Oh, and something that's been bothering me that crops up in this sort of discussion a lot: people say that ME2 has less options in the conversations... no. Just no. In ME1 half the options all said the same thing regardless of which one you picked. ME2 doesn't do that any more and has more options...

You are dense. I really didnt want to resort to going there, but you brought me to it.

RPGs are about good stories, yes. RPGs are about inventories and skills too, yes. But you are doing exactly what the OP did. You both are trying to bulls%it everyone and yourself by pretending a role playing game means you are playing a game as the role of someone in a really great plot. So you must be dense, or a bad bullsh&tter.

[Serogon]

RogueAI wrote...

By your logic, Gears of War, Halo, Call of Duty, Killzone, etc... are role playing games. By your logic, most games are role-playing games. By your logic, labeling this game as an RPG means nothing. So, what is left? The third person shooter element.

Case and point. Fanboys get owned.

I'm assuming someone said the old "RPG's are about taking the role of the character" thing, and you're taking it horribly out of context. You don't take the character's role in those games. You follow along and watch as they do their role (excluding actual combat, that is). You define the character in ME2. You decide his/her actions.

[Ashton808]

You guys are taking this thread the wrong way.



I am not calling Mass Effect 2 an RPG only.



It is a mix of things including RPG. I created this thread because people are saying it doesn't have any of the elements of an RPG game when it does!

[Riot Ring]

newcomplex wrote...

"roll play game"

k

k bro.

Riot Ring wrote...

Ashton come on. Really?

RPG and
the genre title has evolved from the literal definition. Call of Duty 4
would be an RPG with your leveling up logic. Super Mario World would be
an RPG too. Dont hinder the definition of RPG so that ME2 can slide into
the category unnoticed. If ME2 is indeed an RPG on any standpoint, then
it has the weakest RPG elements in the history of RPGs. There is
nothing wrong with calling this game an action/3rd Person Shooter. Bio
made changes, and one of which was some of its most prominent RPG
elements. It happens as games evolve. A good example is Resident Evil 4.
People try to classify it as survival horror, when it is nothing more
than an action game.

Enjoy the game and get over the fact that
you spent $60 on an action sci-fi adventure.

The primary focus of an RPG is to create a world that encourages role playing.    Call of Duty misses the world part, and mario misses both.  


Deus Ex had 11 guns and no "abilities", in the conventional sense.    Guess Deus Ex wasn't an RPG.   The witcher had 6 swords.   Guess the witcher wasn't a RPG.   O



"Keadil wrote...

This game
is not an rpg.  The first Mass Effect downplayed the action and put all
of the focus on story and character development.  They have downplayed
the character development and importance of the story enough so that it
no longer fits into that genre very well.  The correct genre for this
game would be adventure, like Zelda or Assassin's Creed.  It has a
decent mix of story and action with very little in the way of character
development.  This game is no more an rpg than Assassin's Creed 2.  In
almost every game ever developed there has been some character to
control.  Does this mean they were all roleplaying games?  "

What the **** are you smoking?   Tali had literally TWO dialogues in the first game.    Garrus had TWO.    In a game where their were only SIX characters.     The other members of your ship except joker had NO dialogues.   

I didn't call those two RPGs as a fact, I was using his logic against him. 

[Skemte]

Mehow_pwn wrote...

Johnson45 wrote...

Keadil wrote...

This game is not an rpg.  The first Mass Effect downplayed the action and put all of the focus on story and character development.  They have downplayed the character development and importance of the story enough so that it no longer fits into that genre very well.  The correct genre for this game would be adventure, like Zelda or Assassin's Creed.  It has a decent mix of story and action with very little in the way of character development.  This game is no more an rpg than Assassin's Creed 2.  In almost every game ever developed there has been some character to control.  Does this mean they were all roleplaying games? 

No. read the definition in the Original Post.  And the first mass effect didn't downplay the action, the combat was just awful.

But of course, I forgot that this game isn't an RPG because the combat is great and a lot of fun.

The combat has nothing to do with it stop bull****ing I love the combat much more myself

The problem is the exp and the lvl system and ofc the items I mean look at how many more items there are in the first one and how much more stuff you could do..when you lvl up

.. Yes clearly because using the item system in the first one would be a improvement? Not really it was the same items witha  new coat of paint, and maybe alittle better or worse stats in 3 generic areas..  This isn't suggesting ME2's is better, but it certainly isn't worse when ME1 had a very poor loot system that could be completely axed out if need be..
   Level wise, I am not so sure..  More choices.. yes, meaningful choices though?  I mean alot of the choices improved yoru character by 1 or 2 %, they seemed to cut that down into 4 major leaps..  Furthermore classes feel far more unique from one another then they did in the first one for sure..

[RequiemValorum]

Can we end all this? Mass Effect 2 is a VGG, which stands for Very Good Game.

[newcomplex]

Riot Ring wrote...

Serogon wrote...

People who say that RPG's are about inventories, character skills, etc confuse me. A lot. I've always considered an RPG to be about a good story, character interaction, and the player being able to interact with what's currently happening in the story and change what happens. ME2 does that.
Oh, and something that's been bothering me that crops up in this sort of discussion a lot: people say that ME2 has less options in the conversations... no. Just no. In ME1 half the options all said the same thing regardless of which one you picked. ME2 doesn't do that any more and has more options...

You are dense. I really didnt want to resort to going there, but you brought me to it.

RPGs are about good stories, yes. RPGs are about inventories and skills too, yes. But you are doing exactly what the OP did. You both are trying to bulls%it everyone and yourself by pretending a role playing game means you are playing a game as the role of someone in a really great plot. So you must be dense, or a bad bullsh&tter.

You definition of role playing games goes against every mainstream opinion, whether the game industry, wikipedia, past great RPGs, and public opnion outside of this forum.

DEUS EX HAD FIVE SKILLS.    k?

RogueAI wrote...

By your logic, Gears of War, Halo, Call
of Duty, Killzone, etc... are role playing games. By your logic, most
games are role-playing games. By your logic, labeling this game as an
RPG means nothing. So, what is left? The third person shooter element.

Case
and point. Fanboys get owned.

The central focus of Gears of War, Call of Duty, Killzone are not to provide a in game world that is through design provide a natural RP enviroment.  

Modifié par newcomplex, 30 janvier 2010 - 10:58 .