109 réponses à ce sujet

[mjkjets]

TommyServo wrote...

OP summarized my thoughts exactly, with the same points that I've raised in the past - that once you've gotten Colossus and Spectre X with frictionless materials that's it.

I'd like to make one important point. Bioware is famous for making traditional RPGs. Troof. ME2 isn't a traditional RPG. NEITHER was ME1. It wasn't anything remotely like a traditional RPG. But some people can't seem to wrap their heads around the idea that Bioware would make a game that's not a traditional RPG, so they're trying to fit ME into that framework.

Granted, both games have some aspects that typically go hand in hand with traditional RPGs, like leveling and a certain amount of character customization. But at it's gameplay core, ME was - and is - a shooter.

Well said. I like your username. Maybe I'll change mine to CrowTRobot

[mjkjets]

double post

Modifié par mjkjets, 03 février 2010 - 10:52 .

[Warlokki]

Okay, now you're just insulting me without any ****ing reason. What a ****ing moron... I never said you were wrong but you claim that i am? Only that saying "i don't need to explain" sounds moronic, like you'd be some Medieval king.
I never say someone is wrong when it comes to opinions. Rather i want and i try to see things from their viewpoints (while explaining mine). But apparently i shouldn't bother when people don't appreciate that.

EDIT, still should quote post..

Modifié par Warlokki, 03 février 2010 - 10:54 .

[SinHound]

So buck up chum!  You've actually caused someone to question their opinion on the intarwebz!

IMPOSSIBLE! My sense of reality is completely shattered. Up is now down, Blue is now apple. AM I REALLY ME!?

[newcomplex]

k

[newcomplex]

Kevil wrote...

Let me start by saying that I don't really care if ME2 is or is-not an RPG.  It is a fun game that I enjoy.

SinHound wrote...

...the player's knowledge and abilities should have no influence on the character's knowledge and abilities.

And see, right there.  THAT is one of the first statements I've read on these forums that makes me think about whether or not this really is an RPG.  I have been under the "ME2 is still an RPG" camp.  So buck up chum!  You've actually caused someone to question their opinion on the intarwebz!

That being said, with Shepard and ME I would not want to backslide into "I have to level up to shoot" land (Perfectly fine for a boot-camp to galactic-savior story though).  So I actually sort of agree, MY skill determines my character's actions... and so maybe it isn't a true through and through RPG.  It definetly containst the story elements of a video game RPG, but my character can't have combat prowess exceeding what I posess.

Love the game!  Having a blast!  RPG status not a big deal to me!

The quote you quoted was completely illogical, what hes describing is a movie, in every RPG ever, your ability at playing the game influences your characters profiency.  

The only difference is what is emphasized, tactics and mechanical knowledge in tradionaly rpgs versus accuracy and spacial awareness in ME2.

Modifié par newcomplex, 03 février 2010 - 10:54 .

[SinHound]

Warlokki wrote...

Okay, now you're just insulting me without any ****ing reason. What a ****ing moron... I never said you were wrong but you claim that i am? Only that saying "i don't need to explain" sounds moronic, like you'd be some Medieval king.
I never say someone is wrong when it comes to opinions. Rather i want and i try to see things from their viewpoints (while explaining mine). But apparently i shouldn't bother when people don't appreciate that.

Eh, your point?

Modifié par SinHound, 03 février 2010 - 10:55 .

[Daeion]

TommyServo wrote...

OP summarized my thoughts exactly, with the same points that I've raised in the past - that once you've gotten Colossus and Spectre X with frictionless materials that's it.
 

Yes but you had to build to that, all RPGs top out at some point even MMORPGs but you don't start out with those items.

[FlintlockJazz]

SinHound wrote...

Twitchmonkey wrote...

SinHound wrote...

It's not. It's really not. Granted, it depends on your definition of RPG (PnP RP'er here, it's where the majority of my definition comes from), but ... yeah.

Really, it's a good game - and it deserves to be treated as such (I think ME/ME2 are the best games released this generation), but the complaints are relatively valid.

Good response, you've provided plenty of evidence to back up your stance, that's the sort of thing I like to see on these forums.

OP: I probably agree with you on many points, but I just haven't got the strength to read any more rants, from either side. Hopefully someone will come by to intelligently comment.

I don't have to back up my points, that's the thing. This is all opinion, and mine is derived from 18 years of playing PnP RP's, and 20 years of playing video game RP's. In my opinion, his assertation is incorrect. There's no point in posting WHY because people don't care for reasons. Their opinions are already set in stone. It's how the internet works, remember?

Now, if you want me to build a paper on what exactly defines an RPG and compare it to both ME1 and ME2, frankly it's not going to happen.

Honestly? I'll give you -ONE- point. Avid RP'ers will generally agree that the player's knowledge and abilities should have no influence on the character's knowledge and abilities. Since in ME1, you gain skills in the guns that increase the accuracy (and thus Sheps' knowledge and abilities with the weapons), and in ME2 it's based purely on player skill - you can see right there that on THAT point, ME1 is more of an RPG than ME2.

I really could go on, but what's the point?

As someone who has supposedly rp'ed as long as you have, I'm quite disappointed that you don't seem to have picked up on a key point of roleplay:  it's very definition and method of play varies drastically that one form of rp may not be recognised as rp by another and vice versa.  For instance, many roleplayers play the game for loot and stats, they are not so interested in playing a character as they are building up their stats, often refered to as rollplayers since it's all about getting the right stats for their dice rolls.  Another group of roleplayers play roleplay games in order to play a character and might not even bother with stats or loot, as long as people play according to their characters.

Now, your last point, it's completely wrong I'm sorry to say.  If a player, while playing their character, puts forth an amazing performance of persuasion to try to convince an NPC of a course of action, should this then fall to dice rolls or should the player's performance be taken into account?  This varies from group to group, and larping shows that combat skills can also be treated the same way, as LARP requires the player to be competent in combat (or at least larp-combat) in order to portray his character's skill.  So really, your one point is quite flawed...

[Warlokki]

SinHound wrote...

Warlokki wrote...

Okay, now you're just insulting me without any ****ing reason. What a ****ing moron... I never said you were wrong but you claim that i am? Only that saying "i don't need to explain" sounds moronic, like you'd be some Medieval king.
I never say someone is wrong when it comes to opinions. Rather i want and i try to see things from their viewpoints (while explaining mine). But apparently i shouldn't bother when people don't appreciate that.

You said you played a PnP without an inventory system. There are no Pnp's without an inventory system. Therefore you must either be lying, or wrong. I believe my point still stands.

There was no "real" inventory system. We ddin't really write anything specific down and we took a lot of things granted when it came to what we had.
A bit like ME and ME2 handled quest items. They don't appear anywhere really, but you still have 'em. *Shrug* Should've written it more clearly.

EDIT now you're editing your posts afterwards? Or just late?

Modifié par Warlokki, 03 février 2010 - 10:58 .

[Jalem001]

OP is spot on.

Also, to this guy:

It is a stupid design choice for ME2 the developers did. No intelligent soldier would go into a firefight in damaged armor. No battle hardened chick would go in a intense firefight half naked. No covert operative worth her salt would go in a hot zone without armored protection.

So you take issue with most of the outfits characters wear in RPGs?

Modifié par Jalem001, 03 février 2010 - 10:59 .

[newcomplex]

http://en.wikipedia....ryteller_System



ruleset for vampire masquerades that had comprehensive rulebook, but lacked a formal inventory system.



rabblerabblerabble.

[FlintlockJazz]

SinHound wrote...

I played pnp RPG (friends rules) where we were pretty much able to select armor and weapons right from start... and use them VERY well. No less RPG. We had no inventory system really either...

Child, there isn't a single PnP system in existance that doesn't have an inventory system (unless you were actually talking about a homebrew pnp, in which case ... I abstain from commenting). Also, every PnP allows you to select weapons and armor from the start (WoD does this well, IMO).

Yes there are, Amber for one.  Many White Wolf games, as they involve characters that probably have vast amounts of equipment, use a resource system instead where you roll to see if you have an item.  Really you seem to have very little experience in pnp systems...

[Daeion]

Jalem001 wrote...

OP is spot on.

Also, to this guy:

It is a stupid design choice for ME2 the developers did. No intelligent soldier would go into a firefight in damaged armor. No battle hardened chick would go in a intense firefight half naked. No covert operative worth her salt would go in a hot zone without armored protection.

So you take issue with most of the outfits characters wear in RPGs?

Well honestly from a logical point of view they don't make sense.  I mean why is it that every merc and soldier, including shep is running around in full armor but my squadmates are running around in everyday clothes?

[SinHound]

As someone who has supposedly rp'ed as long as you have, I'm quite disappointed that you don't seem to have picked up on a key point of roleplay:  it's very definition and method of play varies drastically that one form of rp may not be recognised as rp by another and vice versa.

I've seen no such thing. The systems may be different, and the settings may vary massively - but the experience is relatively the same across the board.

For instance, many roleplayers play the game for loot and stats, they are not so interested in playing a character as they are building up their stats, often refered to as rollplayers since it's all about getting the right stats for their dice rolls.

We look down upon them. We always have.

Another group of roleplayers play roleplay games in order to play a character and might not even bother with stats or loot, as long as people play according to their characters.

Exactly. Roleplayers. That's the point.

Now, your last point, it's completely wrong I'm sorry to say.  If a player, while playing their character, puts forth an amazing performance of persuasion to try to convince an NPC of a course of action, should this then fall to dice rolls or should the player's performance be taken into account?

If your character is not persuasive, then your character is not persuasive. Ever. Period. The point is playing the CHARACTER within the bounds of who they are, and streatching that as far as it can go.

This varies from group to group, and larping shows that combat skills can also be treated the same way, as LARP requires the player to be competent in combat (or at least larp-combat) in order to portray his character's skill.  So really, your one point is quite flawed...

So, your one real point is that LARP'ing nullifies my point? You're wrong, actually. Though I don't consider LARP'ing to be true RP'ing, I know many LARP groups that force you to act within the bounds of the character, and any actions you take are assume to be at the base ability of the character.

There was no "real" inventory system. We ddin't really write anything specific down and we took a lot of things granted when it came to what we had.

So, because you didn't use the system means that the system didn't exist? Like I said, unless it's homebrew, an inventory system exists.

ruleset for vampire masquerades that had comprehensive rulebook, but lacked a formal inventory system.

Not a subject you really want to debate with me, broham. I played VtM for years, along with a wide variety of the oWoD and nWoD systems. They ALL have formal inventory systems, just it's a different idea of "formal" and what constitutes "inventory". Generally, you know the equipment you carry, and have a "good idea" of what you have access to. It's still an inventory system.

Yes there are, Amber for one.  Many White Wolf games, as they involve characters that probably have vast amounts of equipment, use a resource system instead where you roll to see if you have an item.  Really you seem to have very little experience in pnp systems...

No, you roll to see if you have the funds to have the item (and any good storyteller will demand you have a good reason to have the item if you didn't previously declare it). There's a distinction. Anyone doing anything else needs to reread the rulebooks... I haven't even heard of Amber, though.

[Daeion]

newcomplex wrote...

http://en.wikipedia....ryteller_System

ruleset for vampire masquerades that had comprehensive rulebook, but lacked a formal inventory system.

rabblerabblerabble.

You don't need an inventory system but it adds more to a game then not having one.

[spock06]

I agree with the OP. I wouldn't mind a few more weapons and armor for squadmates but its not a big deal and doesn't make ME2 "not an RPG"

[FlintlockJazz]

SinHound wrote...

As someone who has supposedly rp'ed as long as you have, I'm quite disappointed that you don't seem to have picked up on a key point of roleplay:  it's very definition and method of play varies drastically that one form of rp may not be recognised as rp by another and vice versa.

I've seen no such thing. The systems may be different, and the settings may vary massively - but the experience is relatively the same across the board.

For instance, many roleplayers play the game for loot and stats, they are not so interested in playing a character as they are building up their stats, often refered to as rollplayers since it's all about getting the right stats for their dice rolls.

We look down upon them. We always have.

Another group of roleplayers play roleplay games in order to play a character and might not even bother with stats or loot, as long as people play according to their characters.

Exactly. Roleplayers. That's the point.

Now, your last point, it's completely wrong I'm sorry to say.  If a player, while playing their character, puts forth an amazing performance of persuasion to try to convince an NPC of a course of action, should this then fall to dice rolls or should the player's performance be taken into account?

If your character is not persuasive, then your character is not persuasive. Ever. Period. The point is playing the CHARACTER within the bounds of who they are, and streatching that as far as it can go.

This varies from group to group, and larping shows that combat skills can also be treated the same way, as LARP requires the player to be competent in combat (or at least larp-combat) in order to portray his character's skill.  So really, your one point is quite flawed...

So, your one real point is that LARP'ing nullifies my point? You're wrong, actually. Though I don't consider LARP'ing to be true RP'ing, I know many LARP groups that force you to act within the bounds of the character, and any actions you take are assume to be at the base ability of the character.

There was no "real" inventory system. We ddin't really write anything specific down and we took a lot of things granted when it came to what we had.

So, because you didn't use the system means that the system didn't exist? Like I said, unless it's homebrew, an inventory system exists.

ruleset for vampire masquerades that had comprehensive rulebook, but lacked a formal inventory system.

Not a subject you really want to debate with me, broham. I played VtM for years, along with a wide variety of the oWoD and nWoD systems. They ALL have formal inventory systems, just it's a different idea of "formal" and what constitutes "inventory". Generally, you know the equipment you carry, and have a "good idea" of what you have access to. It's still an inventory system.

Yes there are, Amber for one.  Many White Wolf games, as they involve characters that probably have vast amounts of equipment, use a resource system instead where you roll to see if you have an item.  Really you seem to have very little experience in pnp systems...

No, you roll to see if you have the funds to have the item (and any good storyteller will demand you have a good reason to have the item if you didn't previously declare it). There's a distinction. Anyone doing anything else needs to reread the rulebooks... I haven't even heard of Amber, though.

So essentially what you're saying is that if you don't consider it roleplaying then it's not roleplaying.  Right, you are one of those type of people: thinks their way is the only way and that everyone else is wrong.  In essence, one of those very people you seem to have a problem with. 

Very well, I could argue that sometimes characters can achieve things that they would normally not be able to according to stats, and so ruling it out due to some stat goes against playing your character, that just because some larp groups may not allow you to do something if your character can't (as a player you'd still need to be skilled at larp-fighting in order to pull it off though..) still doesn't disprove that fact that many do and so not all avid roleplayers agree with your point, and that just because you may not consider larp proper roleplay doesn't stop it from being so, and if it does then that would mean that no computer game can ever be a roleplay game because it's not pnp either, but I won't because you're one of those type of people.  Bye!!!

PS.  You also disproved your entire point by agreeing that roleplaying can involve completely ignoring the rules, therefore who cares what rules ME uses if you're still able to play your character.

Modifié par FlintlockJazz, 03 février 2010 - 11:27 .

[Daeion]

spock06 wrote...

I agree with the OP. I wouldn't mind a few more weapons and armor for squadmates but its not a big deal and doesn't make ME2 "not an RPG"

ME2 is a Shooter RPG so it's still a RPG, it's just less of a RPG then the first which was a RPG shooter.

Modifié par Daeion, 03 février 2010 - 11:24 .

[spock06]

Daeion wrote...

spock06 wrote...

I agree with the OP. I wouldn't mind a few more weapons and armor for squadmates but its not a big deal and doesn't make ME2 "not an RPG"

ME2 is a Shooter RPG so it's still a RPG, it's just less of a RPG then the first which was a RPG shooter.

honestly, who gives a s**t? why do we have to label it as a shooter-rpg or rpg-shootzomg.  Its an awesome game that I am throughly enjoying and that is that.  is there some kind of "RPG Richtometer" whereas we say oh well ME1 measure a 8.3 on the RPG scale, ME2 only get s 5.6?? Who cares.

Modifié par spock06, 03 février 2010 - 11:28 .

[LyonVanguard]

ME2 is not an RPG, atleast not as much as the first ME1. You don't have to be an rpg purist to see why.

[SinHound]

So essentially what you're saying is that if you don't consider it roleplaying then it's not roleplaying.  Right, you are one of those type of people: thinks their way is the only way and that everyone else is wrong.  In essence, one of those very people you seem to have a problem with.

No, Rollplayers are not Roleplayers, and Rollplayers don't Roleplay. LARP'ing isn't REALLY Roleplaying, it's like...RP lite. There is a consensus on this. EDIT: I would never disavow Rollplayers or LARPers, as they are basically cousins.

Very well, I could argue that sometimes characters can achieve things that they would normally nto be able to according to stats, and so ruling it out due to some stat goes against playing your character,

Then do so. Aside from extremely lucky rolls, I can see no situation.

that just because some larp groups may not allow you to do something if your character can't

The system disagrees. House rules can't be debated. It has ALWAYS been agreed that your character is not you. There has always been a distinction.

(as a player you'd still need to be skilled at larp-fighting in order to pull it off though..)

Most LARP'ing tends to avoid fights because of this rule - because people generally play characters that AREN'T themselves. EDIT: And magic? You LARP magic too. There isn't a single person on the face of the planet that can shoot fire from their fingertips, and yet that's okay when LARPing.

still doesn't disprove that fact that many do and so not all avid roleplayers agree with your point,

So because people can choose to ignore system rules, there is no system?

and that just because you may not consider larp proper roleplay doesn't stop it from being so,

I never said it wasn't, but it TECHNICALLY isn't proper roleplay. Granted, LARP'ing is probably the best RP'ing in terms of conversation so it does have benefits.

and if it does then that would mean that no computer game can ever be a roleplay game because it's not pnp either

I said to begin with that it's far too complicated to get into, but if you don't consider the origins then you can't rate something as to how close it is to the genre, no?

Modifié par SinHound, 03 février 2010 - 11:32 .

[Warlokki]

LyonVanguard wrote...

ME2 is not an RPG, atleast not as much as the first ME1. You don't have to be an rpg purist to see why.

So, where's ME1 more RPG?
Just because you have to spent more skill points to gain marginal upgrades?
Carrying 150 weapons and armors with you (and where the hell are you carryinh them?
Because in many cases both renegade and paragon dialogue have same response and effect?
Because you can explore an empty square kilometer of many planets?

[Katecheta]

OP presented logical arguments and backed them up by facts, not opinions. It doesn't happen often on this board. I agree with him.

Modifié par Katecheta, 03 février 2010 - 11:36 .

[FlintlockJazz]

SinHound wrote...

So essentially what you're saying is that if you don't consider it roleplaying then it's not roleplaying.  Right, you are one of those type of people: thinks their way is the only way and that everyone else is wrong.  In essence, one of those very people you seem to have a problem with.

No, Rollplayers are not Roleplayers, and Rollplayers don't Roleplay. LARP'ing isn't REALLY Roleplaying, it's like...RP lite. There is a consensus on this.

Very well, I could argue that sometimes characters can achieve things that they would normally nto be able to according to stats, and so ruling it out due to some stat goes against playing your character,

Then do so. Aside from extremely lucky rolls, I can see no situation.

that just because some larp groups may not allow you to do something if your character can't

The system disagrees. House rules can't be debated. It has ALWAYS been agreed that your character is not you. There has always been a distinction.

(as a player you'd still need to be skilled at larp-fighting in order to pull it off though..)

Most LARP'ing tends to avoid fights because of this rule - because people generally play characters that AREN'T themselves.

still doesn't disprove that fact that many do and so not all avid roleplayers agree with your point,

So because people can choose to ignore system rules, there is no system?

and that just because you may not consider larp proper roleplay doesn't stop it from being so,

I never said it wasn't, but it TECHNICALLY isn't proper roleplay. Granted, LARP'ing is probably the best RP'ing in terms of conversation so it does have benefits.

and if it does then that would mean that no computer game can ever be a roleplay game because it's not pnp either

I said to begin with that it's far too complicated to get into, but if you don't consider the origins then you can't rate something as to how close it is to the genre, no?

Now you are just deliberately twisting my words.  I did not say some larp groups ignored their rules I said that they don't follow the concept that you were claiming every 'avid' roleplayer follows.  Most larping does not avoid fights, I don't know what larping you've been to but obviously by your statements you don't do it and so don't know what you are talking about. 

You seem to be dictating how people should roleplay, where is this consensus that larp is not roleplay?  Because there isn't one, it is roleplay by the very definition of roleplay, just because you don't like it because you get beaten up at it doesn't make it any less so.  Please, give me something more to work with here, because at the moment you are coming across as not only a roleplay fascist but one who doesn't even know what he's talking about.  Consider the origins of CRPGs in order to explain why they are roleplay and LARP isn't?  They both have the same origin mate, roleplay.

You come on, patronise people, and then prove that you not only don't know what you're talking about but are merely just trying to force your own views down on everyone, people roleplay how they want, just because it's not your way doesn't make them any less of a roleplayer, just different.  But I doubt any of this will get through to you, so I'm off to bed now, night.