194 réponses à ce sujet

[LolaRuns]

Of course language changes and evolves but isn't "oh everybody decides for themselves what RPG means to them" a bit on the esoteric side?

"only halfway RPG" and mocked by the "purists"

Since when is being an RPG a badge of honor? Why is it an insult for ME2 not to be one? I'm sure MW2 or GTAwhatever their number is now wouldn't be offended if anybody accused them of not being an RPG. RPG as a genre is not inherently superior to any other genre so why is mocking to say it's not one? At the best "being X" is a reccommendation along the lines of "if you like games previously labeled type X you might like this one". And I do think that ME 2 has a higher chance of vowing a shooter fan or of disappointing to at least some types of RPG fans. Not because it is a bad game but because of lacking certain things people who like RPGs might be looking for (while having many other incredibly entertaining and worthwhile qualities to it).

Modifié par LolaRuns, 01 février 2010 - 11:11 .

[spock06]

the_one_54321 wrote...

spock06 wrote...
Explain.

I've already explained it to you. Like five times, by now. Are you just not listening, or just completely disregarding it?

Having just gone back and read everything you posted in the thread, you have not given any concrete definition as to what YOU think an RPG is.  No disrespect intended.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Veex wrote...

You'll just have to accept that this company is capable of making more than just turn based RPGs.

The company has never made a turn-based RPG.  In this respect, ME is just like all of their RPGs except Jade Empire.  ME, DAO, KotOR, NWN, and BG are all real-time with pause.

spock06 wrote...

So RPGs = no emphasis on player skill whatsoever and leave all combat up to randomly determined dice rolls?

Ideally, yes.  If I'm playing a space marine, that marine should be good at shooting things.  But as ME2 is designed, if I'm lousy at shooting things then Shepard will be too, and that makes no sense within the game.  Shepard's an experienced soldier; how could he possibly not be at least vaguely competent?

Modifié par Sylvius the Mad, 01 février 2010 - 11:13 .

[spock06]

 Nounrole-playing game (plural role-playing games)(games) A type of game, played either with pencil and paper, on a computer, or through another medium, in which the player(s) assume the role of a character. Gameplay is usually determined in part by statistics attached to each character and frequently influenced by a character class.

[spock06]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Veex wrote...

You'll just have to accept that this company is capable of making more than just turn based RPGs.

The company has never made a turn-based RPG.  In this respect, ME is just like all of their RPGs except Jade Empire.  ME, DAO, KotOR, NWN, and BG are all real-time with pause.

BG and KoTOR appeared to be realtime, but the mechanics of the game were operating in "turns" after a fashion.  Not quite turnbased, but not real time either

[LolaRuns]

*puts in a minute of silence for turn based RPGs*

[Ahglock]

spock06 wrote...

Ahglock wrote...

spock06 wrote...

the_one_54321 wrote...

spock06 wrote...
Explain.

I've already explained it to you. Like five times, by now. Are you just not listening, or just completely disregarding it?

You haven't explained anything.  You continue to refer to the genre and history of RPGs, yet when I argue your point your ignore it or make strawman claims such as "This is untrue."  "WoW is a bad RPG."  WHY WoW a bad RPG?  According to all the criteria you have given, it should be an excellent RPG?  

Meeting criteria does not make something good.  It has been explained to you by multiple people but you seem hell bent on disregarding it.  Given how this thread started out with insults it is not a surprise. 

I'm not hell bent on disregarding anything.  All I want is a reasonable explanation as to why an RPG must fit into the D&D molding, which is what I feel has been implied by the one and others, although they have not explictly said so.  I have not insulted anyone who has not insulted me.  I simply feel as though RPGs do not have to be confined into a specific box, anything outside of the box being labeled as a "only halfway RPG" and mocked by the "purists".  Personally, we can debate this all we want, but BioWare undoubtedly knows more about RPGs than any of us and they are the ones making the games so this is all pointless.  It is a good way to waste time at work though

You sort of open up with snide insulting commentary.  Don't expect a particualrly responsive crowd when you do so.

I can describe what makes a drink a beer, that doesn't make budweiser a good beer even though it meets all the criteria.  It is the same thing here, all the criteria of what makes a RPG has been expalined to you.  What makes a game a good game is on another list, to be a good RPG you need both.  WOW only has the needed RPG eleemnts, not what makes a good game. 

[spock06]

Only because when i made the thread there were about 10 other thread screaming about ME2 not being an RPG because of streamlined stats and no inventory



My point was that what most people are saying makes an RPG is not, infact what makes an RPG. Actual game mechanics matter less to me than plot and character development, which I feel are the core values of the RPG genre. I just think perhaps the definition of what an RPG really is should perhaps be re examined. ME2 is not a traditional RPG like Dragon Age or Fallout 3. However, it is NOT a shooter by any means either. Thats all.

[Sidney]

GHOST OF FRUITY wrote...

RPG's are different things to different people. To some, they fit the description of following a story, and having an impact on that story with your actions and how you play it. Mass Effect 1 and 2 are those types of RPG.

To others, RPG's are statistic based grindathon's with thousands of variations of armour, loot and tactical set up. Mass Effect 1 and 2 do not fit this discription and nor did Bioware ever state it would.

Thankfully Bioware have kept Mass Effect something that many RPG's i've played simply aren't - fun.

I think i'd rather stand with ME1 and ME2 as RPG's rather than things like Diablo or WoW. The former my character makes a difference in the world in the latter I collect crap and level up. People are way, way, way too wrapped up in the collector side of things.

Watching RPG'er run away from a great pair of games is as baffling to me as watching punks I knew run away from London Calling. In both cases these oddball fundamentalists refuse to admit that anything that didn't play by a VERY narrow set of rules can fit in their preferred genre.

[Sylvius the Mad]

spock06 wrote...

Are you actually implying that the combat in DA:O is superior to that of ME?

I'm not really discussing the combat at all.  I think the combat is immaterial.

I do strongly prefer DAO's combat to ME's combat.  I get to control the whole party, my success or failure is determined by my planning rather than my physical skills, and my characters never nonsensically fail to have skills they should have within the gameworld's lore.  If I give a DAO character the ability to fire a certain bow, he fires it with accuracy determined by his stats.  In ME, my skill plays a part (this is even more true in ME2), and that breaks the game's setting.

whiteraider wrote...

Roleplay is about investigating choices and consequences, more than about mechanics of how a set of arbitary STATs govern outcomes!

Unfortunately, ME's dialogue wheel prevents you from making choices on Shepard's behalf, so ME fails your test.

GHOST OF FRUITY wrote...

RPG's are different things to different people. To some, they fit the description of following a story, and having an impact on that story with your actions and how you play it.

I agree.

Mass Effect 1 and 2 are those types of RPG.

No they are not.  The player does not get to make meaningful choices in Mass Effect, purely as a result of the dialogue system.

AlanC9 wrote...

What you want and what will happen are not related. Language will do what language does, what language has always done. Proper grammar changes over time. Sometimes slang usage becomes proper grammar, sometimes it doesn't.

Formal definitions never change.

Just out of curiosity, what's your stance on split infinitives?

I deem them incorrect.  Similarly, I oppose ending a sentence with a preposition.

[Ahglock]

spock06 wrote...

 Nounrole-playing game (plural role-playing games)(games) A type of game, played either with pencil and paper, on a computer, or through another medium, in which the player(s) assume the role of a character. Gameplay is usually determined in part by statistics attached to each character and frequently influenced by a character class.

Okay so you found a defintion that basically says what people have been telling you.  If that is clearer to you great. 

Notice this part " Gameplay is
usually determined in part by statistics attached to each character"  That is the core of a RPG as has been said multiple times in this thread.  Is all gampleay determined by that, nope you still have to decide who to attack, where to go, who to talk to etc.  But when you decide to throw a punch the success of the punch is determined by the character and not your leet button mashing skills.  As bad ass as the Naruto games by Ubisoft were they still were not RPGs, it was a fighter game with story and elements typically associated with RPGs. 

ME2 the success is determined by your shooter skills and not by the character Shaprd. 

There are plently of elements typically associated with a RPG, and yes inventory management is one of them.  But typically associated with is not the same as its core definition.  You can lose some of the things that are typically associated with the genre and still be a RPG, but once you lose the RPG core it is no longer a RPG. 

This does not make it a bad game, I just beat ME2 for the first time and given that I had 3 deaths I feel the need to go back and play it again.  If it sucked I would not be playing it again even if I failed to have a perfect game.  It just isn;t a RPG, it is a 3rd person shooter with a conversation tree and some character customization and leveling.  ME2 dropped the core of what makes a RPG and has some of the things typically assocaited with RPGs like classes and leveling.  That does not make it an RPG though, it just makes it a shooter with some add ons that are typically associated with an RPG. 

[LolaRuns]

Actual game mechanics matter less to me than plot and character development, which I feel are the core values of the RPG genre.

Why would that be exclusive to RPGs? There are plenty of shooters or action games that have good stories and good stories usually contain character development as part of that story. Shooters generally seem to try to import the decision idea into their games as well (think of all the Protoype/infamous discussions). Many Sandbox games give you some freedom about what quests to do in what order and also often have a strong story backbone. If what you state are indeed the core values of RPGs why shouldn't that count.

Again, where the badge of honor in being an RPG game vs. an action game with RPG elements or a sandbox game with RPG elements. What's the point of all this hippie argument about changing the def of RPG. Why not make up a new word that hits better what ME2 is?

Watching RPG'er run away from a great pair of games is as baffling t

Who is running away? Few RPGer probably play RPGs exclusively. So why wouldn't somebody check it out just on account of it being a good game even when it's not an RPG. Can't I enjoy let's say Wii Sports or MarioKart just because they aren't RPGs? 

Modifié par LolaRuns, 01 février 2010 - 11:28 .

[Sylvius the Mad]

spock06 wrote...

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Veex wrote...

You'll just have to accept that this company is capable of making more than just turn based RPGs.

The company has never made a turn-based RPG.  In this respect, ME is just like all of their RPGs except Jade Empire.  ME, DAO, KotOR, NWN, and BG are all real-time with pause.

BG and KoTOR appeared to be realtime, but the mechanics of the game were operating in "turns" after a fashion.  Not quite turnbased, but not real time either

There was an underlying turn structure, but the gameplay was real-time.  Opponents did not wait for you to make decisions unless you paused the game (the same is true in Mass Effect).  Movement happened outside the turn structure, and you could restart the turns at any moment, regardless of how many full turns had elapsed (as long as it was more than one).  Multiple characters could act simultaneously.  BG and KotOR were real-time (with pause).  Just like Mass Effect and DAO.  The only difference was that actions in BG and KotOR all took the same amount of time to execute.

ToEE was turn-based.  Fallout was turn-based.  Ultima IV was turn-based.  BG was not.  KotOR was not.

[sleepforever]

spock06 wrote...

Only because when i made the thread there were about 10 other thread screaming about ME2 not being an RPG because of streamlined stats and no inventory

My point was that what most people are saying makes an RPG is not, infact what makes an RPG. Actual game mechanics matter less to me than plot and character development, which I feel are the core values of the RPG genre. I just think perhaps the definition of what an RPG really is should perhaps be re examined. ME2 is not a traditional RPG like Dragon Age or Fallout 3. However, it is NOT a shooter by any means either. Thats all.

cant study knowing i spent 75$ on a game that don't deserve it!!!!!!!!! + 1 Spock06!!! i agree with u

[Ahglock]

spock06 wrote...

Only because when i made the thread there were about 10 other thread screaming about ME2 not being an RPG because of streamlined stats and no inventory

My point was that what most people are saying makes an RPG is not, infact what makes an RPG. Actual game mechanics matter less to me than plot and character development, which I feel are the core values of the RPG genre. I just think perhaps the definition of what an RPG really is should perhaps be re examined. ME2 is not a traditional RPG like Dragon Age or Fallout 3. However, it is NOT a shooter by any means either. Thats all.

Fallout 3 was not much of a RPG either, it and oblivion started the trend for bethesda where they moved away form making the stats determine sucess.  It influenced the degree of success but that is a bit different.  Still more of a RPG than ME2, but not a pure RPG.  As I said in anothe rpost the dictionary definition of RPG is pretty close to what others here have been saying, and story and character development sin't what makes a RPG.  That helps to make a game good, but not make a game a RPG.  And mass effect 2 is totally a 3rd person shooter, outside of a few conversations all you are doing is grabbing cover and lining up crosshares to make a shot. 

[Ahglock]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

spock06 wrote...

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Veex wrote...

You'll just have to accept that this company is capable of making more than just turn based RPGs.

The company has never made a turn-based RPG.  In this respect, ME is just like all of their RPGs except Jade Empire.  ME, DAO, KotOR, NWN, and BG are all real-time with pause.

BG and KoTOR appeared to be realtime, but the mechanics of the game were operating in "turns" after a fashion.  Not quite turnbased, but not real time either

There was an underlying turn structure, but the gameplay was real-time.  Opponents did not wait for you to make decisions unless you paused the game (the same is true in Mass Effect).  Movement happened outside the turn structure, and you could restart the turns at any moment, regardless of how many full turns had elapsed (as long as it was more than one).  Multiple characters could act simultaneously.  BG and KotOR were real-time (with pause).  Just like Mass Effect and DAO.  The only difference was that actions in BG and KotOR all took the same amount of time to execute.

ToEE was turn-based.  Fallout was turn-based.  Ultima IV was turn-based.  BG was not.  KotOR was not.

Not that it matters but you could make BG turn based it was one of the options it would pause every time any of your characters turns came up.  It was not the default, but it could be done. 

[spock06]

Ahglock wrote...

spock06 wrote...

 Nounrole-playing game (plural role-playing games)(games) A type of game, played either with pencil and paper, on a computer, or through another medium, in which the player(s) assume the role of a character. Gameplay is usually determined in part by statistics attached to each character and frequently influenced by a character class.

Okay so you found a defintion that basically says what people have been telling you.  If that is clearer to you great. 

Notice this part " Gameplay is
usually determined in part by statistics attached to each character"  That is the core of a RPG as has been said multiple times in this thread.  Is all gampleay determined by that, nope you still have to decide who to attack, where to go, who to talk to etc.  But when you decide to throw a punch the success of the punch is determined by the character and not your leet button mashing skills.  As bad ass as the Naruto games by Ubisoft were they still were not RPGs, it was a fighter game with story and elements typically associated with RPGs. 

ME2 the success is determined by your shooter skills and not by the character Shaprd. 

There are plently of elements typically associated with a RPG, and yes inventory management is one of them.  But typically associated with is not the same as its core definition.  You can lose some of the things that are typically associated with the genre and still be a RPG, but once you lose the RPG core it is no longer a RPG. 

This does not make it a bad game, I just beat ME2 for the first time and given that I had 3 deaths I feel the need to go back and play it again.  If it sucked I would not be playing it again even if I failed to have a perfect game.  It just isn;t a RPG, it is a 3rd person shooter with a conversation tree and some character customization and leveling.  ME2 dropped the core of what makes a RPG and has some of the things typically assocaited with RPGs like classes and leveling.  That does not make it an RPG though, it just makes it a shooter with some add ons that are typically associated with an RPG. 

But your success or failure in combat IS determined by your character just as much as your shooter skills.  If you dont level up any of your abilities good luck getting through some of the tough fights, especially on higher difficulty settings.  You keep saying ME2 has dropped the "core" of what makes an RPG...and as I keep asking what this "core" is, as well as stating what I feel it is (characters, story, player choice, dialogue) I am told that this has been said to me 5 times and I should shut up.  Yet looking through this thread I cannot find anywhere where you have said what you feel the core of a RPG is?  Statistic based gameplay? I am not trying to be offending I just want a straight answer.

[Sidney]

LolaRuns wrote...

Why would that be exclusive to RPGs? There are plenty of shooters or action games that have good stories and good stories usually contain character development as part of that story.

The ability to actually interact with the world matters. Bioshock has a great story but your Mute player is basically the same as half of the mute players out there (you make 1 decision in the game to save or not the LS's). Uncharted has a nifty story but you can't "change" the narrative. Heck even something like Icewind Dale hich has all the character tweaking and customization you want doesn't allow your party to really "do" anything other than ride the rails in the game.

In both ME and DAO you interact with the world in a much greater level. You can save or kill people and party members. Finish events in more than one way. The outcomes of your PC's decisions in either game won't be unique because of the sheer volume of players but your actions will, on average, not match most other players actions.

[Sidney]

spock06 wrote...
But your success or failure in combat IS determined by your character just as much as your shooter skills.  If you dont level up any of your abilities good luck getting through some of the tough fights, especially on higher difficulty settings.  You keep saying ME2 has dropped the "core" of what makes an RPG...and as I keep asking what this "core" is, as well as stating what I feel it is (characters, story, player choice, dialogue) I am told that this has been said to me 5 times and I should shut up.  Yet looking through this thread I cannot find anywhere where you have said what you feel the core of a RPG is?  Statistic based gameplay? I am not trying to be offending I just want a straight answer.

Your biotics are 100% character stats driven and not shooter skilled so apparently I can make ME a RPG by only using biotics. Even shooting isn't 100% my control because my ammo skills will affect how much damage I can do and to whom.

[OneDrunkMonk]

As I've said before a lot of conventional RPG gameplay elements don't work or don't make sense in Mass Effect. For me all I would want more of in ME (as in ME3) is the ability to assign attributes to level characters as I see their role in my squad (or how about auto-level based upon what tech/biotic/weapons I have them use most often) and the ability to give more percise squad commands or even a gambit system.



But no I don't want to be running around looking for loot, or a 150 item inventory, or have to do any sort of grind to level up.

[spock06]

Sidney wrote...

LolaRuns wrote...

Why would that be exclusive to RPGs? There are plenty of shooters or action games that have good stories and good stories usually contain character development as part of that story.

The ability to actually interact with the world matters. Bioshock has a great story but your Mute player is basically the same as half of the mute players out there (you make 1 decision in the game to save or not the LS's). Uncharted has a nifty story but you can't "change" the narrative. Heck even something like Icewind Dale hich has all the character tweaking and customization you want doesn't allow your party to really "do" anything other than ride the rails in the game.

In both ME and DAO you interact with the world in a much greater level. You can save or kill people and party members. Finish events in more than one way. The outcomes of your PC's decisions in either game won't be unique because of the sheer volume of players but your actions will, on average, not match most other players actions.

IMO this is what makes an RPG an RPG: your impact.  Deus Ex is one of my favorite games of all time, and a great RPG.  It is quite similar to the ME games in that it combined shooter combat with RPG interactions.  When you shot someone, you hit them.  There were a lot of skills and weapons and implants to customize your Denton, moreso than ME, but at its core the two games are very similar.  I think one would be hard pressed to argue that Deus Ex was not a real RPG.  So why not ME?

[LolaRuns]

(characters, story, player choice, dialogue)

Halo has a story. Adventure games have dialog. Sandbox games have choice (and story and dialog and characters). Lots and lots and lots of action games have great storytelling. It seems pretty esoteric to consider that the "core" of RPG. The idea that that is the core of any more ambitious game hits the point much more clearly to me.

Statistic based gameplay?

Well technically that would also include any trading simulation type game... heck even most sports manage games.



But what you do is to me like claiming that dodgeball and chess are the same game because both are fun and both include having to make decisions. And while there might be a lot of people to whom both dodgeball and chess might appeal they are still not the same thing. It's kinda like arguing whether table tennis is more like tennis or more like a board game.

[Graunt]

ME2 is an RPG in the truest sense, not because it has or doesnt
have dice rolls and stats stats stats, but because you do get to choose
a role, sometimes well implemented, sometimes not, but your choosen
role affects outcomes to events and how people see your character!

No it doesn't.  The only "choice" you have is what skillset you're going to use (class) but you're stuck with the role of "Commander Shephard".  You're grasping at straws really hard and are pretty much using the logic that any time you play a game where you are controlling something that represents something other than yourself, you're playing an RPG.

[Survivor Coach]

For another interesting perspective on the definition of RPG, check Yahtzee's Extra Punctuation column on The Escapist.

[spock06]

[quote]LolaRuns wrote...

[quote](characters, story, player choice, dialogue) [/quote]

Halo has a story. Adventure games have dialog. Sandbox games have choice (and story and dialog and characters). Lots and lots and lots of action games have great storytelling. It seems pretty esoteric to consider that the "core" of RPG. The idea that that is the core of any more ambitious game hits the point much more clearly to me.

[/qoute]

I hear you, in games like Halo the story is not the focal point.  The game doesn't revolve around the story, the story is merely an excuse for addictive action gameplay.  Whereas in an RPG, the gameplay generally takes second place to the story and characters.  I like ME2 because I think it has struck a near perfect balance between the two, but I would still consider it an RPG first and foremost.