194 réponses à ce sujet

[spock06]

Striker257 wrote...

Tactics, customization, building a character or group. Exploring, speaking to people, working on multiple "quests/missions/assignments/" whatever at one time. Finding new upgrades and doing more damage.

So far a lot of what makes an RPG immersive and tactical has been removed in favor of a stream lined generic experience.

Tactical?  If you want to play a tactical game play Counter Strike.  Or WarCraft III.  Where did this notion come from that RPGs are "tactical?"  Granted, I'll agree that Baldur's Gate and PlaneScape were tactical RPGs that required strategy and planning, just as ME2 is a shooter RPG that requires reflexes and accuracy.  But Oblivion?  Fallout 3?  Fable?  These are not in any way tactical games.  Besides which, everything you mentioned is in ME2....And its anything but generic

[The Shelf]

Striker257 wrote...

Well said. I've been playing RPGs since the original Final Fantasy and while every one is different, the changes from Mass Effect 1 to Mass Effect 2 are prety dramatic on the RPG element.

Um...  The only major differences between the two are the level cap and the number of items you can pick up.  Everything else is just a minor game mechanic tweak (like ammo vs. heat management).

[tmelange]

Striker257 wrote...

tmelange wrote...

spock06 wrote...

 I have a question for all those complaining that ME2 is not a "real" RPG:  What is a REAL RPG?

Likely, when people say ME2 is not a "real" RPG, they are not referring to the definition of the words "role-playing". Obviously, in ME2 you are playing the role of Cmdr. Shepard. At it's simpliest analysis, therefore, ME2 is a RPG.

I don't know about anyone else, but when I simplify the issue and say that ME2 has only "elements" of a RPG, or that it's not a "real" RPG, I mean that ME2 does not typify the genre. And it doesn't. The game is light on what most people who have played RPGs historically have come to expect from a game with that genre label.

Well said. I've been playing RPGs since the original Final Fantasy and while every one is different, the changes from Mass Effect 1 to Mass Effect 2 are prety dramatic on the RPG element. There are definitely different styles of RPGs and I like most of them. If I was going from Oblivion to Mass Effect. Or from Dragon Age to Final Fantasy, I would expect a very different experience. What I don't expect is a huge shift in style of games from the same company like Bioware. Especially when it is a direct sequel.

That's exactly how I feel. I'm happy enough with ME2. I understand what BW is doing with meshing the two genres, but in my opinion, their amalgamation has rather severely depleted the traditonal RPG elements. I mean, there are no stats. I can't figure out how much damage I'm doing with the guns. THERE ARE NO STATS. )

I love the ME universe for what it is, and I respect Bioware for trying to bring the best parts of the RPG genre to the unwashed shooter masses, but, please, don't expect me not to notice that the decisions made to streamline the game have disporportionally impacted the areas of the genre that might not be so popular or understandable to the non-traditional RPG player but went to the core of my expectations for a game labeled "RPG."

But it's all good. ME2 is a shooter with a pretty RPG outer shell. Very much like an M&M.

[spock06]

The Shelf wrote...

Striker257 wrote...

Well said. I've been playing RPGs since the original Final Fantasy and while every one is different, the changes from Mass Effect 1 to Mass Effect 2 are prety dramatic on the RPG element.

Um...  The only major differences between the two are the level cap and the number of items you can pick up.  Everything else is just a minor game mechanic tweak (like ammo vs. heat management).

I agree...where are people getting this "massive shift in tone" from?  

[Besetment]

So far ME2 is one of the best games I've ever played and a big part of that comes from taking away things that are good about the game instead of constantly measuring it against things it isn't.

So many people on this forum have such a specific idea of what a Mass Effect game needs to be that you just set yourself up for disappointment. I'm sorry but it needs to be said. Yeah, its not as tactical as Counter-Strike. Thats because its not Counter-Strike. Yeah it doesn't have the vast sprawling world of Daggerfall. Yeah you guessed it. Its not Daggerfall nor is it trying to be. What you have is a mix of these elements but the real driving force of the game is its compelling and original world. The writing is by far the best writing Bioware has ever done and it is the only game to date other than ME1 to make a game that is simultaneously a cinematic experience. Only it does that better than ME1. So many others fail on this point that its not even funny. These are things to like about the game and things you can take away from the experience of playing it.

Maybe if more people on this forum played without expectation, without being blinded by nostalgia you might find something to like about ME2 because there are lots of things to like about it as long as you stop trying to make it something its not.

Modifié par Besetment, 01 février 2010 - 08:03 .

[finnithe]

Why does it matter WHAT it is? It's a good game regardless of the genre.

[spock06]

I think people are also overlooking some of the incredible RPG elements ME1 and now ME2 have brought to the table, namely the BEST conversation and dialogue mechanics in any game EVER. It is amazing to me that ME2 doesn't get more credit for this. Seeing as conversations SHOULD be at the heart of any RPG and ME's conversations are on a level so far above any other game currently out or in development...

[the_one_54321]

tmelange wrote...
Obviously, in ME2 you are playing the role of Cmdr. Shepard.

No, you're not, actually. You're just directing his toon around, and making plot decisions for the character. If you were playing the role, you'd give him instructions, and he would carry them out without you pointing the gun and pulling the trigger for him. The plot deicisions are just what make it good.

[tmelange]

the_one_54321 wrote...

tmelange wrote...
Obviously, in ME2 you are playing the role of Cmdr. Shepard.

No, you're not, actually. You're just directing his toon around, and making plot decisions for the character. If you were playing the role, you'd give him instructions, and he would carry them out without you pointing the gun and pulling the trigger for him. The plot deicisions are just what make it good.

Huh? When a person "plays a role" they assume the mantle of the character, e.g. they become the actor, the prime mover. What you are describing in your third sentence is directing, like what a director does. With actors. I don't understand your point.

[exboomer]

spock06 wrote...

 I have a question for all those complaining that ME2 is not a "real" RPG:  What is a REAL RPG?

Is it being able to loot a lot of items that are mostly useless?
Is it having to sift through a ton of unnecessarily complicated interface menus?  (I probably spent the majority of my time playing Oblivion in one menu or another)
Is it having "lots of content" and an "open world"? (translation:  a million 'fetch' quests and the ability to have a lot of meaningless conversations with badly written and unimportant characters)

If thats what you think makes an RPG, than I guess ME2 isn't one.  However, if like me you think what really makes a good RPG is
A strong plot wherein the player feels as through they themselves are advancing it
Memorable, unique characters the player is actually interested in
A variety of locales the player can explore at his/her own pace

and most importantly
Fun gameplay

Than ME2 is a pretty good example of focusing on what MATTERS in an RPG and trying to make the actual gameplay as FUN as possible.

The game is not perfect.  It has flaws.  There are certain aspects of ME1 they canned which I feel just needed tweaking, not trashing.  Yet, it is FUN.  YOU are in control of the story, YOU influence the characters, and the gameplay, i.e. the combat, is on par with most shooters.  I don't understand all this QQing about ME2 not being a "real" RPG.  Define "real" RPG and I would be more inclined to listen, just just saying OMG THE INVENTORY IS GONE AND THERES NO LOOT ITS NOT AN RPG is childlike and missing the point.

See ME1 and DAO for what real rpg's are all about. They dumbed ME2 down for all the short attention span shooter fans who are unable or unwilling to invest the time it takes to build up your character from a rookie into a powerful character able to defeat the end game boss.  One of the things I hate the most about this game is having the Illusive Man tell me where I need to go and what I need to do. In ME1 I was free to do the missions in any order I wanted without anyone telling me what to do. And the plot shortcuts in this game are just incredible.  All in all I am incredibly disappointed in what Bioware did to this game.

[Andaius20]

spock06 wrote...
I agree...where are people getting this "massive shift in tone" from?  

If I was to hazard a guess, it would be from the total reworking of the stats and skill trees, the complete lack of the old mods system, lack of squad customization, Less free form exploration in the missions, The whole ammo system, (It's totally not the same as the heat management system. If it was you'd auto respawn ammo when not shooting your gun.) Plus, some classes are missing powers completely. Vanguard doesnt' have barrier Ive heard about alot recently.

This is just the stuff I've heard or observed on the live feeds, I'm sure I can name more once I actually start to play the game on the 4th. Don't get me wrong fro mwhat I've seen it looks like a good game I just don't like what it did with various elements.

Modifié par Andaius20, 01 février 2010 - 08:12 .

[jarred1907]

You slap on 4-6 more guns in each catagory (rifle, pistol, etc). Slap 6-8 more pieces of armor to each catagory (chest, shoulders, greaves, etc). Then allow you to apply these pieces to your team (molded to their body types) with color customization. AND ALL OF THESE COMPLAINTS GO AWAY. Because all the other complaints would be too insignificant to waste time posting about.

[Mr.Skar]

finnithe wrote...

Why does it matter WHAT it is? It's a good game regardless of the genre.

This.

While both sides of this particular argument have good points to make (when we can get a clear discussion going, not just a flame war) at the end of the day ME2 is fun.

[Striker257]

spock06 wrote...

Striker257 wrote...

Tactics, customization, building a character or group. Exploring, speaking to people, working on multiple "quests/missions/assignments/" whatever at one time. Finding new upgrades and doing more damage.

So far a lot of what makes an RPG immersive and tactical has been removed in favor of a stream lined generic experience.

Tactical?  If you want to play a tactical game play Counter Strike.  Or WarCraft III.  Where did this notion come from that RPGs are "tactical?"  Granted, I'll agree that Baldur's Gate and PlaneScape were tactical RPGs that required strategy and planning, just as ME2 is a shooter RPG that requires reflexes and accuracy.  But Oblivion?  Fallout 3?  Fable?  These are not in any way tactical games.  Besides which, everything you mentioned is in ME2....And its anything but generic

Not real time tactics. The tactics involved in building a powerful and balanced group. Its all but gone. Oblivion is missing that, but you at least customize your character way more in depth to balance it out.

And ME2 doesn't let you do missions and assignments as you wish and at one time. Every time I complete a mission BOOM right to the ship. You can't level while progressing through a mission. You don't run into upgrades all the time.

The skills are extremely limited. You don't customize your entire group. And I may have missed it, but it doesn't look like there is a persuade/intimidate/coerce or whatever ability which has been in every Bioware game I've played.

The citadel is much smaller, and so are the places I've explored on missions.

[exboomer]

Mr.Skar wrote...

finnithe wrote...

Why does it matter WHAT it is? It's a good game regardless of the genre.

This.

While both sides of this particular argument have good points to make (when we can get a clear discussion going, not just a flame war) at the end of the day ME2 is fun.

It is a fun game to play, but it isn't anywhere as immersive as the first one was and I think that's what most people are complaining about.

[the_one_54321]

tmelange wrote...

the_one_54321 wrote...

tmelange wrote...
Obviously, in ME2 you are playing the role of Cmdr. Shepard.

No, you're not, actually. You're just directing his toon around, and making plot decisions for the character. If you were playing the role, you'd give him instructions, and he would carry them out without you pointing the gun and pulling the trigger for him. The plot deicisions are just what make it good.

Huh? When a person "plays a role" they assume the mantle of the character, e.g. they become the actor, the prime mover. What you are describing in your third sentence is directing, like what a director does. With actors. I don't understand your point.

Role playing is not amatuer actor hour. Role playing is assuming the role of the character. This means the character is in the game, not you. That means that the characters abilities replace your own. That means that if you are aiming the gun and pulling the trigger instead of the character then you are not role playing that character.

If role playing were about play acting then no electronic game would ever be role playing because you can't act out anything. All you do is make dialog selections. Making a dialog slection is not acting out the role, it is choosing form the pre-defined options the writers give you. The only exception to this is multiplayer where you make up your own dialog and interactions.

[tmelange]

jarred1907 wrote...

You slap on 4-6 more guns in each catagory (rifle, pistol, etc). Slap 6-8 more pieces of armor to each catagory (chest, shoulders, greaves, etc). Then allow you to apply these pieces to your team (molded to their body types) with color customization. AND ALL OF THESE COMPLAINTS GO AWAY. Because all the other complaints would be too insignificant to waste time posting about.

I don't necessarily think this is the case. I do think the changes made to the traditional RPG framework were pervasive. Which is neither here nor there, and depends completely on BW's strategic goals and the desires of the person playing as to whether the change was successful. I can only speak for myself but the lack of an inventory system, where the player can evaluate stats and build out their own team is like removing stats from a fantasy sports league. You can watch the games but the fun that is represented by the analysis is gone.

The linear nature of the missions brought to mind Devil May Cry, and is a stark departure from the way a person would ordinarily expect to navigate a RPG. It's...jarring not to be able to stop a mission and come back later, sans being booted back to the start, or to have the story propel you in a certain direction via a conversation with TIM without your volition.

Etc. etc. No need to go over every point. I think the game is great for what it is. I just don't like to act as if it is a paragon of the RPG genre when it is really...a bit of a slap in the face to the traditional RPG enthusiast. It's a monument to gutting the genre, basically saying that the little things that we've enjoyed most over the years are too "insular" to translate. :shrug: And that's fine. Don't expect me not to complain about it, though.

Modifié par tmelange, 01 février 2010 - 08:30 .

[the_one_54321]

SkullandBonesmember wrote...
Let me provide a couple quotes.

Me:
Spanning from the original boards, the gamers on this forum seem to in my opinion fall into 1 of 4 categories.

The first being the RPG fans who like loot and level grinding.

The second being shooter or to a lesser extent action fans who feel combat is just as important as the plot and character interaction.

The third being shooter and or action fans who feel combat should take priority ABOVE plot and character interaction and as I've said like 'SPLOSHUNS.

The fourth are RPG fans who above all else feel games live and die by story and character interaction.

I and another forum member Nozy fall into the latter group. Fans from this latter group feel the combat overshadowed the plot and "dumbed down" the sequel compared to ME. This is the popular consensus on other boards as well when it comes to people from the latter category.

A quote from Nozy:
Is the RPG genre something static that will never change? Is the "core fan base" some kind of uniform group all wanting the same thing? For me ME2 is all about getting rid of the nonsensical roleplaying game implementations (like overly bloated loot systems and overly complex character builds) and instead focusing on that which furthers roleplaying; like realism and immersion. Romances are a powerful tool as they tap into deeper emotions and can motivate a player on a whole new level.

If I was simply about "killing everything that moves" I would pick a pure shooter, not an RPG. Levelling up, and skill and attribute allocation is character development in the narrowest possible sense and best confined to MMORPGs who focus on this area to compensate for the lack of story or roleplaying.

A game that has the potential to be almost perfect is the upcoming Heavy Rain for the PS3. THAT is what an RPG should strive for. Only problems with it are going to be I'm pretty sure there's just one romance option and it won't be more than 13 hours.

You completely exclude the stance that I, and some others who have posted on threads like this, are taking. We fit into none of the catagories you've neatly listed.

[Sylvius the Mad]

spock06 wrote...

I think people are also overlooking some of the incredible RPG elements ME1 and now ME2 have brought to the table, namely the BEST conversation and dialogue mechanics in any game EVER. It is amazing to me that ME2 doesn't get more credit for this. Seeing as conversations SHOULD be at the heart of any RPG and ME's conversations are on a level so far above any other game currently out or in development...

What?  ME's dialogue engine is the one thing that prevents the game from being an RPG at all.  The dialogue wheel prevents roleplaying by hiding your character's actions from you until after they've been performed.  You don't get to choose what Shepard does.  Directing Shepard's actions is like firing at a dart board with a howitzer: aim in the general direction and hope for the best.

That's not roleplaying.  ME's dialogue system is a travesty and I hope I never again see it in any game.

[spock06]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

spock06 wrote...

I think people are also overlooking some of the incredible RPG elements ME1 and now ME2 have brought to the table, namely the BEST conversation and dialogue mechanics in any game EVER. It is amazing to me that ME2 doesn't get more credit for this. Seeing as conversations SHOULD be at the heart of any RPG and ME's conversations are on a level so far above any other game currently out or in development...

What?  ME's dialogue engine is the one thing that prevents the game from being an RPG at all.  The dialogue wheel prevents roleplaying by hiding your character's actions from you until after they've been performed.  You don't get to choose what Shepard does.  Directing Shepard's actions is like firing at a dart board with a howitzer: aim in the general direction and hope for the best.

That's not roleplaying.  ME's dialogue system is a travesty and I hope I never again see it in any game.

Uh...what?  The dialogue wheel is brilliant.  It actually makes you pay attention and listen to the conversations.  You do control shepard's actions by picking the general mindset behind each answer.  If you think its more fun to read five different mini paragraph answers, all of which result in the same outcome for the conversation, then go play Dragon Age or Fallout.  Not to mention the interrupt option.  It feels as though the player is in control of hi/her own movie.  What dialogue system is better?  I hated Dragon Age for a number of reasons, one of which my character NEVER SAID A WORD.  In almost every RPG, your character just stares blankly at whoever he's talking to.  Thats not roleplaying.

[the_one_54321]

spock06 wrote...
Thats not roleplaying.

It's more role playing that you are given a set of dialog options and have the choose between them and then the voice actor acts it all out for you? 

I like both types, and I think voice acting can add a lot of depth and imersion to a game when it's done right. But whether or not the character talks out loud or makes complicated facial expressions doesn't impact the game being an RPG or not. It's unrelated.

[the_one_54321]

SkullandBonesmember wrote...

the_one_54321 wrote...
You completely exclude the stance that I, and some others who have posted on threads like this, are taking. We fit into none of the catagories you've neatly listed.

So you don't think "combat is just as important as story"? You would actually play a game like Heavy Rain over ME2? I think not.

You miss the point. My only concern is proper definition. I have nothing to say in terms of it being a good game or not. It just doesn't fit any well reasoned definition of RPG.

[Mordaedil]

spock06 wrote...

I hated Dragon Age for a number of reasons, one of which my character NEVER SAID A WORD.  In almost every RPG, your character just stares blankly at whoever he's talking to.  Thats not roleplaying.

Now kids, what does roleplaying mean?

It means to enact a role of someone else, trying to act as you think they'd act to the best of your ability to imitate them.

Let's face it, Mass Effect took that out of your hands. You can direct the plot a bit, you can sort of guide Shepard along a series of tubes, but in the end, it's like driving a car from the backseat. You're not really in control, but you pretend you are.