194 réponses à ce sujet

[freedman007]

tmelange wrote...

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.

well said i agree

[Mezinger]

Elvhen Veluthil wrote...

To the OP and all those that says ME2 is and RPG, do you find it so insulting to accept that ME2 is a great shooter with a great story? Bioshock and Halo are games that comes in mind, only that the story and the mood in ME2 is much more complicated, and you have a say to some things through conversation. Great games both of them, and after having played ME2 for a couple of hours, it seems like a great game too. Why do you insist that ME2 is a RPG? What, does that make you feel better, more sophisticated? Is it necessary to name it RPG for it to be a great game and you to be able to enjoy it?

And to all the Bioware fanboys out there, I bet Bioware/EA marketing team is dying to advertise ME2 as a shooter (gameplay-wise), they tried to present DAO as an action RPG after all. So stop thinking that you are doing Bioware a favor by writing one-lines (how old are those people by the way?) and offending the RPG folks that voice their opinion.

The label "RPG" isn't the point... the fact that it no longer elicits the label RPG with that certain hard to explain feeling you get from playing and RPG is the point. There's an important and subtle(?) difference here... it's not about the label but the label is used to cut down on the amount of typing required to make your point.

[Mezinger]

freedman007 wrote...

tmelange wrote...

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.

well said i agree

Indeed nicely said! I didn't read the whole thread before launching into my diatribe. 

Modifié par Mezinger, 02 février 2010 - 02:34 .

[freedman007]

 i'm not going to argue whether or not ME2 is an rpg, because lets face it every rpg is different and has a different feel to it ff7 was a completly different gaming experience than oblivion yet both can be considered rpg. i think  for me it  is that the over all game playing experience between ME1 and ME2 had changed in alot of ways in just the over all feel to the game.
 
i wont to go into every detail but just some observations: the free form elements from ME1 have been either scaled back in places like the new citys or removed entirly like the side questsin favor of a more linear style shooter  , i know that the original game had some issues in that the the exploration could get repetative in some respects i mean if you have seen one pirate bunker you have prettty much seen them all, but the hostile alien planets that these missons were on i thought were pretty amazing in how they looked and felt and added a very unique aspect to the mass effect universe that i personally had never seen before. i had hoped that these elements would have been improved and mabye made the mako a more entertaining aspect to the game  rather than scrapping it.  

ME2 is still a great game there is no doubt the story is still solid and the characters are well done but removing the inventory all together in stead of refining it seems an odd choice aswell as removing the ability to customize armor on your squad mates, the old system was bulky i know but it could have been cleaned and mabye givin players a few choices rather than taking them away entirley. i look at it this way Bioware has gone to great lenghts to create this very immersive and detailed universe. through the in game codex they have alot of detail about how there technology works and how powerful mass effects weapons have become and armor etc etc.. and then to have a one of your sqaudemates fighting through a dereclict ship in space with a massive hole in the side of it  eating bullets wearing nothing but a skin tight body suit just did not seem for me to fit in over all mass effect experience. i know its not a huge deal to some people but for me customization of the characters gives a more solid and fleshed out feel to the gamplay, removing it for me makes "some" aspects of the gamplay feel a little hollow.
in the end though i love the mass effect story line and the characters development is great i had alot of fun playing the game i just hope they bring back some elements from the first.

Modifié par freedman007, 02 février 2010 - 03:30 .

[daemon1129]

For me, RPG is a game where I can pretend to be a certain person, or create this person, and be him in a video game, So to me Mass Effect is a RPG game. But just like any other games, RPG games also got a tons of must have features, that don't really mean Role Play. Like looting for example. Picking up items and buying and selling is more like a economic game really. Leveling is a default RPG must have feature. Because it defines how you grow and improve in the "world". So ME2 isn't very RPGish because its leveling is too simple. Lots of games these days are mixed genre, lots of games that aren't RPG got some kind of leveling system. BioShock can be considered "leveling" when you pick upgrades and stuff, Lets assume D&D way is the ultimate ROG leveling system, and Bioshock's picking phasmid and gaining adams is the nowadays RPG wanna bes, ME2's more like Bioshock than D&D. A good story doesn't mean its a RPG, a good story is required on any games, not just RPG. So ME is not really RPG, even with its good story. Player making choices, your being that person, and your making choices, thats Role Playing. But then again, you get to choose in Bioshock too, does that makes in RPG? No. If Fallout 3 is the Ultimate RPG in terms of its huge choice base gameplay, And Bioshock's saving or sucking is a choice system that mimics RPG games, ME would be around the middle, Shepard is limited by its little ammount of dialog choices, and its clear mission goal. Most outcome is only slightly different, the ending is still the same no matter what. Sherpad saves the galaxy, even he died doing it. In a way Bioshock got a bigger choice than ME, since its either a happy ending, or sad, or in between. ME is happy ending no matter what, collectors are defeated. Customizations are for defining the person you are Role Playing, so a RPG needs a good customization system. If the SIms 3 is the ultimate customizations even tho its not a RPG, and Bioshock's zero customization, ME would be no where near Sims 3, and its just a step above Bioshock. 3 -4 options for each weapon types? Character creation is restricted to editing templates? Armor can change 3 parts and changes its color, but no changing for DLC armor? Sherpad is limited to 1 bonus power, while the rest are chosen when you choose a class, ME's customization is leaving a lot more to be desire. The engaging atmosphere makes you really feel like Role Playing this person, so a good engaging atmosphere is needed..If Fallout 3 got the best RPG atmosphere due to its open world design, and its unique wasteland atmosphere, and Bioshock's Rapture is the best for a shooter, ME's atmosphere is lacking compare to either one of them. Although this is to blame for the technology nowadays does not allow such scale like ME's universe to be onlyput into 2 DVDs, its a shame. With Sherpard going around plaents to recruit new memebers, you only get to visit 3 cities, while the rest are small and uninteresting places, with little interaction after side quests. So this is how a define a good RPG, and clearly ME2 isn't really RPG to me at all.



For those who read this and some how find it offensive on how I compare ME2 to other games, please note that I love ME1 & 2 a lot (if that makes you feel any better), and its only because of how much I pay attention to it, for me to find out all its flaws.

[Sylvius the Mad]

AlanC9 wrote...

Unreasonable? No, eminently reasonable.

We likely differ on the definition of reasonable.

If grammar rules weren't arbitrary, I feel pretty confident that you would personally adopt the correct rules and defend them against all comers.

Yes.  Note my tireless advocacy of the serial comma.

An individual or group can deem a grammar rule valid or not, but there's no way to prove that a grammar rule is true. As with rules, so with definitions. "RPG" means whatever it's used to mean.

No.  Definitions can (and must be to be useful) formalised.

A definition that is not a formal definition fails to function as a definition.  Therefore, the term "formal definition" is redundant.

[RogueAI]

Well it sure as hell isn't Mass Effect 2.

Mass Effect 2 is a shooter, period.

[Ilintar]

I find it quite interesting that people can deem a game a pure shooter when the shooting part actually takes up less than 30% of the playing time (out of my head, did not count it, but I think it's about that).



I do believe that one of the problems here lies in the fact that many people are confusing RPG's en masse with a specific subgenre of RPG's. Specifically, since many of the earlier BioWare games were based off D&D, many posters here seem to demand D&D-like qualities from computer RPGs. It's enough just to look at the tabletop market to see that many RPG games there don't fit those criteria.



It's not really that important for an RPG to have stats. Yes, there are statless RPG systems, as well as those without inventories, exponential or even linear character development, randomized dice rolls for abilities and many of the things some people here seem to take for granted in an RPG. There is one thing RPG's do have in common though, and that's, surprisingly, the role-playing element.



Now, it has been argued that if we just take the role-playing element, then nigh every computer game is an RPG. I do believe that statement is false and I think it has to do with my starting remark. A game is an RPG when you control your character in a variety of situations, or more precisely, during various activities. Thus, a game where you only control your character's shooting missions, or their battles as a general, or even just a series of conversations (although I've yet to see a pure "dialog game") is not an RPG. Also, a game where you follow your character through various predicaments, but have no say on his actions is no RPG either - it is an interactive movie or an adventure game depending on the specifics. The two key components (which have been parts of the quoted definitions as well) are IMO therefore: control and variety of activities. ME2 has both, therefore, in my book, it's an RPG. Although of course, as is often the case with definitions, YMMV.

[Ilintar]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

No.  Definitions can (and must be to be useful) formalised.

A definition that is not a formal definition fails to function as a definition.  Therefore, the term "formal definition" is redundant.

On the contrary. Natural language definitions are never formal.

A definition is formal when it is done within the framework of a formal system. For example, a definition of a right angle within mathematics is formal. Whenever you use natural-language terms, outside any formalized theory, no definition can be formal.

A definition within natural language can still have redeeming qualities - for example, it can still be strict, i.e. not use any relative or clearly ambiguous terms. For example, having "being fun" inside a definition is clearly bad unless you explicitly make the definition relative to the agent (that is, something being an X _for a Y_).

[Mordaedil]

If definitions change to the point where the words in such a meaning (in this case being roleplay), why are these definitions even worth keeping? Why has RPG's come, after 20 years of iterations, to mean "story-based shoot people quick-time events with selective basis on statistics, level ups and ammo collection"?



This kind of definition bothers me, because people I work with will usually go "Oh, have you tried Mass Effect 3?" "No." "But you like RPG's, right? You should like ME3, it's the best RPG this year." "That's because there hasn't been an RPG in 2 years." "What are you talking about? Halo 4 was released just last month." "..."

[Sereaph502]

People talking about ME2 being linear are funny.



ME1 was linear. Even more so than ME2. Do I go to planet A, B, or C first? I have to do two before I can go to planet D.



ME2: Do I get this guy, this guy, or this guy first? ZOMG MORE? Who do I go for first?



Also: I'd much rather have my own skill determine my character rather than random dicerolls.

[Sidney]

Ilintar wrote...

I do believe that one of the problems here lies in the fact that many people are confusing RPG's en masse with a specific subgenre of RPG's. Specifically, since many of the earlier BioWare games were based off D&D, many posters here seem to demand D&D-like qualities from computer RPGs. It's enough just to look at the tabletop market to see that many RPG games there don't fit those criteria.

I always ask, what is Jade Empire. It is linear and non-inventory with real time combat but it also has stat making and die rolls behind the scenes. I know it didn't sell as well as some Bioware efforts and is that game's deviation from the accepted format what doomed it?

What is Bioshock? Is that a shooter? I've had shooter people tell me it is an RPG because you "level" and add skills and ****** around with upgrading guns. I've disagreed with them on that point. Bioshock is a game at it's core that is a shooter with RPGish elements grafted to it. ME is clearly a different beast than Bioshock. You can't play the game and not feel the difference and the difference is how much you interact with and affect the world beyond shooting it. There's a difference between the two games and it isn't more than just a matter of degrees it is a matter of the core feel of both games.

[Countdreg]

Going back to the early CRPGs, and looking at what separates a crpg from other genres of computer games, I can find these characteristics. CRPGS have some form of character development, through stats, skills, abilities, levels, that has an effect on gameplay, and is advanced through character action. They also have some form of item collection, with new items having an effect on gameplay.Those are the common factors between all crpgs. It has nothing to do with the style of combat, linearity, dialog or visual character customization. If Mass Effect 2 (or any game) meets these two criteria, it is some form of CRPG.

[Killian Kalthorne]

My definition of what a Traditional RPG is:

Dragon Age



My definition of what a Action RPG is:

Mass Effect 1



My definition of what a shooter is:

Mass Effect 2

[WhiskeyKnight]

Do stats and loot make an RPG what it is? To my mind, an RPG is about inhabiting a character and making meaningful choices. On this account, ME2 represents perhaps the truest representation of an RPG this generation. At a certain point, the semantics arguments become meaningless. Whatever label you want to slap on it, ME2 is a huge leap forward in gaming.



Oh, I also love the armor customization.

[spock06]

Elvhen Veluthil wrote...

To the OP and all those that says ME2 is and RPG, do you find it so insulting to accept that ME2 is a great shooter with a great story? Bioshock and Halo are games that comes in mind, only that the story and the mood in ME2 is much more complicated, and you have a say to some things through conversation. Great games both of them, and after having played ME2 for a couple of hours, it seems like a great game too. Why do you insist that ME2 is a RPG? What, does that make you feel better, more sophisticated? Is it necessary to name it RPG for it to be a great game and you to be able to enjoy it?

And to all the Bioware fanboys out there, I bet Bioware/EA marketing team is dying to advertise ME2 as a shooter (gameplay-wise), they tried to present DAO as an action RPG after all. So stop thinking that you are doing Bioware a favor by writing one-lines (how old are those people by the way?) and offending the RPG folks that voice their opinion.

Honestly, you're right.  My original issue was that looking at posts on the forums it seemed many people were using the non traditional RPG status of ME2 and pointing to it as a reason to bash the game.

[elmephd1]

RPG is predominately about playing and acting out a role and having a greater focus on the narrative. I know that seems like a duh statement, but an RPG isn't about a game system or rules (since most of that is handled by the computer) or what type of weapon is being used. It's also not about dice rolls, which again were simply there to introduce a random element, one which isn't needed in more "realistic" gameplay. Stats still exist, with an increase based on levels and equipment, but even that isn't required to play a role.

It certainly isn't a third person shooter any more then Oblivion is a hack and slash. The plot is the focus 100% of the time, while the shooting itself is 50% of it. The rest of the time your either exploring towns, talking to your friends and allies or out exploring the galaxy. Not to mention there are more rewards based on roleplay then there are based on combat (since I believe Exp is fixed in dungeons), where consistently playing out a role brings extra rewards.

Hell, Samara's loyalty quest doesn't involve you even firing a shot, that was all about playing out your role.

Platformer is a description of a game mechanic, turn-based is a description of a game mechanic, 1st person shooter is a description of a game mechanic. The RPG isn't and the only reason it's treated as if it is, is because of how gaming evolved on consoles in the early days.

If we were to speak in terms of novels, the game mechanic would be whether the story is written in first person or the third person. It effects how the story is told, but not the stories genre.

[Sylvius the Mad]

I think an Action RPG still needs to be an RPG. It's just light on non-combat gameplay. Dungeon Siege and Diablo are action-RPGs.

Ans since someone asked, I count Jade Empire as an RPG because you still get to roleplay your character. A pure RPG needs to be stat-driven (the_one is correct), but I'm willing to allow a game to be called an RPG as long as it supports an emergent narrative in the way that RPGs traditionally have. And Jade Empire does.

Mass Effect does not.

[Eldertech]

RogueAI wrote...

Well it sure as hell isn't Mass Effect 2.

Mass Effect 2 is a shooter, period.

When is the last time you made dialogue decisions in Ghost Recon or Equipped gear you purchased in Battlefield.
o wait  have you ever placed skill points in UT?  nope...
This is a hybrid  RPG with FPS elements.
If they listed it as a FPS people would be saying its an RPG.. but the big picture is..  does it matter?
the game is kick a....  period.

Modifié par Eldertech, 02 février 2010 - 08:04 .