89 réponses à ce sujet

[pilot2fly]

steve1945 wrote...
Please understand that my definition of RPG is THE DEFINITION OF RPG

Disagree? Too bad.

Ignorance is bliss...

Modifié par pilot2fly, 31 janvier 2010 - 10:29 .

[steve1945]

It is





Be strong in your ignorance for it shall see you through the strongest of doubt

[Twitchmonkey]

I don't think I'm going to read anymore posts from anyone with a shepherd avatar, no real point.

Bollocks, one of the shepherds is parading as a salarian!

Modifié par Twitchmonkey, 31 janvier 2010 - 10:36 .

[Darth_Shizz]

steve1945 wrote...

If something BREAKS outside the ESTABLISHED MOLD OF THE GENRE.

THEN IT IS NOT OF THAT GENRE.

Let me just stir up the flames a little.

MASS EFFECT 2 SUCKS its not a RPG if its a RPG then its MYFIRSTRPGtm by fisherprice
Its still a good game. It just NOT a good RPG because its NOT a RPG.

Please understand that my definition of RPG is THE DEFINITION OF RPG

Disagree? Too bad.

Control that rage lil' lady.

[artiss68w]

steve1945 wrote...

You are fail. Your line of reasoning is retarded

If something BREAKS outside the ESTABLISHED MOLD OF THE GENRE.

THEN IT IS NOT OF THAT GENRE.

Let me just stir up the flames a little.

MASS EFFECT 2 SUCKS its not a RPG if its a RPG then its MYFIRSTRPGtm by fisherprice
Its still a good game. It just NOT a good RPG because its NOT a RPG.

Please understand that my definition of RPG is THE DEFINITION OF RPG

Disagree? Too bad.

 I know right? Why can't all rpgs be hardcore like fable?

So which rpgs do you like?

[artiss68w]

Abriael_CG wrote...

Fallout 3 was a quite enjoyable game, but was indeed immensely inferior to the "old school" fallout 1 and 2 by interplay. It's just another example of the results of dumbing down a game to increase it's mass appeal. Understandable? Yes. Liked? Not really.

 What  "enjoyable" aspects from the originals do you think were dumbed down?

[Psython]

Quite frankly I could care less what genre people put ME2 in because it is mostly irrelevant. It only serves as a basis for comparison to other similar games and not a measure of the game itself. ME2, as is dawn of war 2 a hybrid of many genres and exists on its own.

I think it is more important to analyse a game from a point of neutrality, to look at the good and bad seperate from any other game. There is a lot of good in ME2 and I am having a blast playing through. There is no doubt the game is a success from an immersion, story, interaction and action dept. However, I dont understand how people can say that the lack of an inventory is a good thing. Its not progressive, its regressive. I personally would find it more realistic to collect items in these areas. As it is now, there is little skill involved in researching. Once the research is unlocked at a set certain point in the game, you basically exhange resources for the upgrade. There is no satisfaction in discovering an item or braving a challenge to get something sweet. You dont even have to make a compromise between lets say accuracy and damage because you can farm resources and buy both. This is not true customization because everyone playing this game will have more or less the same upgrades at the end anyways. Giving people the same upgrades and same experience in each mission does not define role playing because you get the same thing every time. Also, the missions feel like 1 hour long linear levels with an end mission screen.

Long and involved missions that tie together, character customization and being able to choose how you play the game are traits of the RPG genre. ME2 is missing some of these things, most importantly character customization and such. As it is, the resource system and research unlocks are vastly inferior to a loot system from a satisfaction and customization standpoint to RPG fans.

Like I said, I love ME2 for what it is but I think some of the design choices make the game worse than it could have been. Its a flawed gem of a game. I mean seriously, replacing planetary exploration with a mass spectroscopy scanning simulator that is the same every damn time was just a crazy idea.

[steve1945]

artiss68w wrote...

steve1945 wrote...

You are fail. Your line of reasoning is retarded

If something BREAKS outside the ESTABLISHED MOLD OF THE GENRE.

THEN IT IS NOT OF THAT GENRE.

Let me just stir up the flames a little.

MASS EFFECT 2 SUCKS its not a RPG if its a RPG then its MYFIRSTRPGtm by fisherprice
Its still a good game. It just NOT a good RPG because its NOT a RPG.

Please understand that my definition of RPG is THE DEFINITION OF RPG

Disagree? Too bad.

 I know right? Why can't all rpgs be hardcore like fable?

So which rpgs do you like?

I PLAY MORROWIND WITH MODS THAT MAKE IT HARDER YEAH! IM A HARDCORE RPG ELITIST!

[Niil17]

RPG as defined by who? You? I've been playing RPG's since Dragon Warrior on Nintendo, Bards Tale on my Trash 80, and Red Box set dnd. It has always been about character stat/power progression. That's not the only part of a good RPG but it has always been there. There are (very minimal) elements of that in ME2. Some game formats do character stats/power progression in different ways. In this version of the game they removed customizing armor and weapons and their various mods (while also eliminating the clunky inventory management system), they eliminated the custom (and annoying) ammo types by converting them to powers. They almost removed progressive gear scaling by having very limited gear options that have set stats (2-3 different types of each weapon). RPG's are comprised of a lot of different parts and as someone who's been playing RPG's of various formats for over 2 decades your announcement is incorrect.



That said, I think ME2 is a great game. I think they removed one (sometimes) annoying feature of inventory management and replaced it with an equally annoying (often times worse) clip management system, but that's only one part of the game. A++ for the dialogue options, for the story, for the new health/combat system. C+ for the mechanics side of things (class balance, power effects, weapon options, etc).

[wrdnshprd]

DISCLAIMER: I had fun playing mass effect 2, i still enjoy the combat, and thought the story (overall) was strong.

That being said...

this game is a shooter that allows you to play a specific character in the game.. and your choices matter.   This game is NOT a traditional rpg.

RPG, in the traditional game sense IS stat management, talent trees, and combat that is decided with numbers. that's the way that it has been, and IMO is the way that it should stay. People can say 'well things change'..

that may be, but the people saying that are the ones that (for the most part) havent been playing games as long as some of us (ive been playing games since the early 80s), are part of the shooter crowd, or both.

games like this, are evidence supporting the theory that the RPG genre a lot of us have come to know is significantly changing, and some would argue (me included) not for the better.

how would the shooter crowd like it if devs changed COD or Unreal Tournament, and other similar games, to a stat based combat game with tons of micromanagement? theyd be all up in arms too.. lets not kid ourselves.

Modifié par wrdnshprd, 01 février 2010 - 12:22 .

[novaseeker]

wrdnshprd wrote...

how would the shooter crowd like it if devs changed COD or Unreal Tournament, and other similar games, to a stat based combat game with tons of micromanagement? theyd be all up in arms too.. lets not kid ourselves.

Precisely.

[Vegielamb]

novaseeker wrote...

So dice rolls = RPG? So the game needs to do everything for you?

Your own skills determining whether your character succeeds at doing something is most decidedly not an RPG mechanic.

Acctually, it is. Trying taking a look at some non-D&D games.

[hitorihanzo]

Schurge wrote...

This post is going to act as if MEII was not a sequel, so we can ignore disappointments about the old crew and romance thing.

I came here to make a thread because a friend was telling me of many many unfounded complaints about Mass Effect II not being a real RPG, lack of weapons, of the combat system sucking, missions being to linear, the ending not being epic etc. etc. etc. on these forums (Otherwise I'd never even bother to look here).

Mass Effect II is an RPG, not only is it called an RPG, it is a REAL RPG. An RPG is not about micromanaging stats and getting lots of new gear. An RPG is about story and choices, both in the field, and in dialogue. And Mass Effect II has it in Spades (Again, ignoring that it is a sequel).

First I said choices in story... it is self evident. Yes, responces were limited, but NO MORE LIMITED THAN ANY OTHER GAME OF ITS KIND. In fact, it added something great and new, the ability to interrupt conversations. Which while such a simple little thing, does make things more dynamic. I often paused and sat there for a few seconds deciding which option to hit. Mass Effect went a step further and got you attached to the Joe Shmoes of the crew, Chambers, Connolly, if you played the game you know how this emotionally affects you in certain events.

I also said "on the field" what does this mean? Being able to tackle problems many different ways... in Mass Effect IIs case, this was limited to fighting only, however... what a plethora of options it has. Every single spawn point has at least three ways to tackle it, and you roleplay in making those choices. Do you needlessly put your crew in harms way or you do the really risky things yourself? Do you go right down the middle or take your time positioning you and your squad in specific points on the battlefield for maximum effectiveness? This is roleplaying. And this aspect of roleplaying, Mass Effect I, KotOR, and others did not have, in fact most RPGs dont have it... especially eastern ones which many  of you think define what an RPG is supposed to be.

That is what an RPG is, and this is what an RPG is not.

An RPG is NOT micromanaging stats.
An RPG is NOT getting phat l00tz.
An RPG is NOT a large and complex spec tree.
An RPG is NOT well... you get where I am going.

A applaud Bioware for mostly not coping out on this game (They did cop out with the old crew/romance IMO),  they focused on story and choices, and did the unthinkable, carried the roleplaying into the heat of battle. Micromanaging stats, and the other things I mentioned are a cop out done by lazy RPG game developers, to hide the fact that there is no Role-Play in the game at all. And sadly many of you have been spoonfed that slop for so long you feel it is necassary for a good RPG.

Next is "the lack of weapons" complaint, I refer you back to the list of what an RPG is not.

We are going to cover the "linearity" now and the answer is simple. Its alot less linear then your precious eastern RPGs.

I am going to skip the common complaint about the combat system, because frankly, there is no need to explain why the combat system is good... because it is good - and if you say otherwise you are either blind or it falls down to personal preference (eg, you not liking shooters). Instead I will go to the ending supposedly not being epic... And I will answer that complaint with a question.

I ask you what is not epic about an final encounter with high stakes in which characters can die, in which every time someone seems to be hurt, weak, tired, or who have said they are in danger you are worried they will perma-die? What is not epic about having gotten so into the story you felt as if you actually had a personal stake in this outcome? What is not epic about a final fight and a final boss that can actually kill you? (ME I final boss was a joke) What is not epic about fighting that final boss ON FOOT!?!?

Besides the scanning thing, and the fact that old romances and friendships were ditched (except two friendships), there is really no reason to complain. And if we ignore those two things MEII was inarguabley an overall improvment... If you don't like the core of this game (Roleplay, as defined by me, and combat), why even bother to play?

Co-Sign.  Great post.

[Vegielamb]

Lmaoboat wrote...

Twitchmonkey wrote...

Lmaoboat wrote...
That isn't the sole factor of an RPG. JRPGs have none of this, but are still considered RPGs because they have lots of other RPG elements. ME1 has all the RPG elements of ME2, plus more skills and loot, and thus it's "more" of an RPG.

JRPGs are called RPGs, but that does not make them RPGs as you are not playing a role, you're going through the motions making pre-determined decisions and playing a turn-based action game. While I agree that technically ME1 had all of the RPG elements of ME2, ME2's story and acting makes you care about the role you're playing, so it is a more effective RPG, even if you can't account for a particular feature that enhances its RPG elements.

Never in any point in RPG history was that literal definition true. RPGs have always been much more than "playing a role." If you were to use that narrow definition, 90% of RPGs would be mislabled. Charcerization through dialouge choices is merely one fascet of RPGs.

90% of RPGs ARE mislabled. Most are adventure/action games. RPG rules were created to facilitate role playing so that two individuals could agree on an outcome. Watch some kids playing cops and robbers sometime. They're role playing. Adults just created a bunch of codifed rules they could agree upon before starting their own game.