76 réponses à ce sujet

[Hizoka003]

Brixxer600 wrote...

Hizoka003 wrote...

the mindless XBox shooter crowd are extremely happy with the game. The BioWare RPG fans are not. The sad thing is the retarded shooter demographic is much larger then the intelligent RPG fan demographic.

I have considered myself a Bioware RPG fan  since KOTOR and i'm delighted with the game on 360 thanks. 

yeah thats not exactly going back far into BioWares RPG lineup. I'm talking the Buladers gate fans and what not

An Xbox owener is not going to be one thats had a great experiance with great RPGs because Xbox has been devoid of the majority of good RPG games

[Sibbwolf]

wrdnshprd wrote...

i also agree that dialogue and choices are important ELEMENT to RPGs. They are what set apart a good RPG from a great RPG, they are not what DEFINES an RPG, at least in the video game world.

So, any game that has an inventory and stat system is an RPG, even if there's no real "RP" element? Sorry, that's what you're saying even if that's not your intention.

The important word for RPGs is immersion. For example:

Why do i say this? i say this because if they added dialogue, choices, and an actual good story to COD4, would that game be considered an RPG? no. it would be considered one oft he best shooters ever because on top of an already great game, it actually had a story and your choices actually matter.

Even if they add an inventory and a stat system to COD4, the player is always going to be detached from the character. The whole point of RPGs is that the player feels what the character feels - thus the need for immersion.

I'm glad they streamlined the stat system in ME2 and removed completely pointless stats, and stats that made no sense (I'm a War-hero sniper, but can't use a sniper rifle... right..). I'm also glad they removed the the copy-paste inventory system.

I want them, in ME3, to expand on the new armour options by spreading it to customising the whole team, not just the central character. I'd be happy for them to add new stats in, as long as those stats weren't "stats for the sake of stats". The thing I want most from ME3 is the immersion I've come to expect from any good RPG - the other two things are nowhere near as important.

[Hannofant]

@Hizoka003

I have never layd a finger on a controller (I had a gameboy back in 1996 and played tetris). i started playing PC games with Civilization II and Baldurs Gate. I play BGII, Kotor I+II, Gothic I+II+III, NWN 1, Vampires Bloodlines, The Witcher, Oblivion and ME1. I played one shooter in my gameing career (except for LAN-partys) which was Mafia until today. I love ME2 and I am happy that they got rid of the useless skills and the agonizing inventory.

Do you mind stopping to speak for me? It makes you look like the guys form your "mindless XBox shooter crowd". Thank you very much.

[Hannofant]

double post

Modifié par Hannofant, 08 février 2010 - 07:24 .

[wrdnshprd]

Hannofant wrote...

wrdnshprd wrote...

i also agree that dialogue and choices are important ELEMENT to RPGs. They are what set apart a good RPG from a great RPG, they are not what DEFINES an RPG, at least in the video game world.

Why do i say this? i say this because if they added dialogue, choices, and an actual good story to COD4, would that game be considered an RPG?

Yes it would be. Because if you play a ROLE, have a great stroy, dialog and a lot of choices that change the story or the character of your character it is a roleplaying game.

so what are JRPGs (i.e grandia, star ocean, tales, lost odysee, etc) then?  these games have zero choices that affect the story, average dialogue at best, and an overall average - to below average - story arch,  but are still considered rpgs (and arguably some of the best in the JRPG on the market besides final fantasy).  why? because of the mechanics of the game.

Modifié par wrdnshprd, 08 février 2010 - 07:28 .

[Draguzul]

I'm tired of seeing this same old nonsense about ME2 is not an RPG. Its a shooter with talking - I understand you're all entitled to your opinion, so understand because you post it here I'm allowed to trash your opinion because I think my opinion is superior.



So first - lets take a look at this RPG statement and try to understand what defines an RPG game. The standard definition of an RPG is just as it stands for, role playing game. So this encompasses anything from Mario, to Final Fantasy. So long as there is character progression, a game is an RPG. An RPG is not defined by the game play mechanics present, it is defined by the role you are playing.



To further this degree of thinking, I say its unfair to criticize a game based soley on the fact that for you and your misguided representation of what an RPG is or isn't. You'd be better served saying you felt it lacked an inventory, or that you felt item progression wasn't up to your standard as set forth in ME1 where you could outfit your squad mates. Or maybe you're just upset there weren't enough different gun models and you didnt' feel like you ever got out of your suit. That would be more constructive and more conducive to a well thought review of the game and why you disliked it.



Don't get me wrong, I don't mind that you disliked the game. I can see some of these very flaws in the game each time I play, I'm not a fanboy persay, I'm just sick and tired of the word RPG being twisted and manipulated into meaning things in which it clearly does not represent.



RPG stands for role playing game. Remember that. Quit with the sloppy thinking and calm down for 5 seconds and think about why you really dislike the game.

[Draguzul]

wrdnshprd wrote...

Hannofant wrote...

wrdnshprd wrote...

i also agree that dialogue and choices are important ELEMENT to RPGs. They are what set apart a good RPG from a great RPG, they are not what DEFINES an RPG, at least in the video game world.

Why do i say this? i say this because if they added dialogue, choices, and an actual good story to COD4, would that game be considered an RPG?

Yes it would be. Because if you play a ROLE, have a great stroy, dialog and a lot of choices that change the story or the character of your character it is a roleplaying game.

so what are JRPGs (i.e grandia, star ocean, tales, lost odysee, etc) then?  these games have zero choices that affect the story, average dialogue at best, and an overall average to below average story arch but are still considered rpgs (and arguably some of the best in the JRPG market besides final fantasy).  why? because of the mechanics of the game.

So what are they considered? An RPG. You're still playing a role. There is still progression and it has nothing to do with game mechanics. Do you save the world in your spare time? Maybe you conjure up fire out of thin air? Or do you work a 9-5 job like the rest of us average folk? Your role is as its defined in any game setting - seen through the eyes of the character on screen. In older games, the hero almost always was silent - do you know why? Because you were fulfilling that role.

Now because a hero talks and voices opinions that we may not agree with, we come to understand this character and naturally through any story the character will progress with different behavior and opinions as shown at the start of the story.

[Frigid Leaf]

The first rule of video game forums is that very few people who actually like the game come to the forum to post about it. People who are pissed off about something come here to whine. It gives the impression that the "fans" don't like the game, but I guarantee you, the vast majority of people who played Mass Effect 2 like it.

Edit: Also, about the Borderlands being a better FPS/RPG hybrind than ME2 thing. I think it's lost on people that RPG stands for ROLE PLAYING GAME, as in, you are playing a role. To me, that necessitates having story, and character, and choices. Borderlands had none of those. It was a first person shooter with RPG elements. It was an FPS with a talent treee and loot. There was no dialogue, and most of the story was told through quest text which wasn't even voice acted. It was the World of Warcraft style of quest and story design and the Diablo style of loot applied to a first person shooter. There were character classes, but they really weren't all that different because each class only had one active ability aside from firing your guns, and there is only so much passive bonuses can do to differentiate the classes.

That all may have come off as overly critical, but I'm not saying that Borderlands is a bad game. In fact, I quite enjoyed it. It's just that I think it's unfair to Mass Effect 2 to hold Borderlands up as a better RPG when it was lacking many RPG elements as well. It was just lacking different elements than ME2. While Borderlands lacks story, choice, characters, and distinct classes, Mass Effect 2 lacks a huge variety of loot, item upgrades that are interesting choices (eg having to pick decreased heat generation or decreased recoil in ME1, versus just upgrading all your guns and you get the benefits of every upgrade all the time in ME2), and an open world feeling (although no Bioware game has been an open world).

Mass Effect 2 has character classes. It has active abiltiies that you use in combat in addition to your guns. It may not have as many as ME1, but I would argue that those that are present are all more useful and meaningful than in ME1, and the character classes are even more distinct with the addition of class specific abilties. ME2 has story, it has dialogue, it has characters, it has choices. It has you PLAYING A ROLE, even if it lacks many of the traditional "systems" aspects of RPGs suchs as stats and loot. Whether you prefer Borderlands' or ME2's style of role playing is up to you, but I think it's unfair to hold up one as a better example of role playing than the other.

Modifié par Frigid Leaf, 08 février 2010 - 07:47 .

[Hannofant]

Well that's why I don't think they are good RPGs and never had the need to play them. I understand that you are unhappy that they got rid of the elements that mattered to you. But from my point of view you are talking about an aspect of traditional RPGs I don't care about.

Lets just talk about the weapons system: It makes a lot of sense that you pick your weapons from an armory instead of a used one form some merc. Why should it be better than a new one? You could improve this system and make the researchable weapon mods different choices or just give us more weapons. I like progression in RPGs but only if it pulls me into the world and not out of it (like in ME1).

Modifié par Hannofant, 08 février 2010 - 07:40 .

[Hizoka003]

Draguzul wrote...

I'm tired of seeing this same old nonsense about ME2 is not an RPG. Its a shooter with talking - I understand you're all entitled to your opinion, so understand because you post it here I'm allowed to trash your opinion because I think my opinion is superior.

So first - lets take a look at this RPG statement and try to understand what defines an RPG game. The standard definition of an RPG is just as it stands for, role playing game. So this encompasses anything from Mario, to Final Fantasy. So long as there is character progression, a game is an RPG. An RPG is not defined by the game play mechanics present, it is defined by the role you are playing.

To further this degree of thinking, I say its unfair to criticize a game based soley on the fact that for you and your misguided representation of what an RPG is or isn't. You'd be better served saying you felt it lacked an inventory, or that you felt item progression wasn't up to your standard as set forth in ME1 where you could outfit your squad mates. Or maybe you're just upset there weren't enough different gun models and you didnt' feel like you ever got out of your suit. That would be more constructive and more conducive to a well thought review of the game and why you disliked it.

Don't get me wrong, I don't mind that you disliked the game. I can see some of these very flaws in the game each time I play, I'm not a fanboy persay, I'm just sick and tired of the word RPG being twisted and manipulated into meaning things in which it clearly does not represent.

RPG stands for role playing game. Remember that. Quit with the sloppy thinking and calm down for 5 seconds and think about why you really dislike the game.

by that vomit you just sputed every game is an RPG, only someone purely ignorant could think of that

[AtreiyaN7]

I was pretty sure beforehand based on all the videos and information available at the time that ME2 was going to be more streamlined, so it was not a huge shock to me. I believe that it's still RPG lite as the first game was, just more streamlined and polished. Simplification does not necessarily make something dumbed down. If you look at a Zen rock garden, it's all about simplicity and removing unnecessary frills. Does that mean that a rock garden is somehow less of garden than a knot garden (I watch a lot of landscaping/gardening shows, what can I say)? It's a matter of the rock garden having a simpler, cleaner aesthetic than the fussy knot garden. I look at it that way - only replace "aesthetic" with "game mechanics." Of course, how much is "pruned" (yes, more gardening) can be too much for some people to accept and that ruins the game for them (their loss).

Anyway, I doubt it's a 50/50 split - it's probably more like the people who are exceedingly rigid in their views and have a narrow definiton of what constitutes an RPG are the ones being the most vocal. I've played games like Ultima IV, etc. in the olden days of gaming, but geez, I don't miss things like eating food or drinking (the salarian game attendant reminded me of that with his comments about eating/drinking and real-time travel - lol). That particular feature basically went he way of the dodo and does anyone miss it terribly? Maybe some do (most probably don't).

It would be nice if BioWare can achieve a happy medium that satisfies everyone, but it's a difficult thing to do. People are going to complain no matter what in all likelihood.

Modifié par AtreiyaN7, 08 février 2010 - 08:16 .

[Draguzul]

Hizoka003 wrote...

Draguzul wrote...

I'm tired of seeing this same old nonsense about ME2 is not an RPG. Its a shooter with talking - I understand you're all entitled to your opinion, so understand because you post it here I'm allowed to trash your opinion because I think my opinion is superior.

So first - lets take a look at this RPG statement and try to understand what defines an RPG game. The standard definition of an RPG is just as it stands for, role playing game. So this encompasses anything from Mario, to Final Fantasy. So long as there is character progression, a game is an RPG. An RPG is not defined by the game play mechanics present, it is defined by the role you are playing.

To further this degree of thinking, I say its unfair to criticize a game based soley on the fact that for you and your misguided representation of what an RPG is or isn't. You'd be better served saying you felt it lacked an inventory, or that you felt item progression wasn't up to your standard as set forth in ME1 where you could outfit your squad mates. Or maybe you're just upset there weren't enough different gun models and you didnt' feel like you ever got out of your suit. That would be more constructive and more conducive to a well thought review of the game and why you disliked it.

Don't get me wrong, I don't mind that you disliked the game. I can see some of these very flaws in the game each time I play, I'm not a fanboy persay, I'm just sick and tired of the word RPG being twisted and manipulated into meaning things in which it clearly does not represent.

RPG stands for role playing game. Remember that. Quit with the sloppy thinking and calm down for 5 seconds and think about why you really dislike the game.

by that vomit you just sputed every game is an RPG, only someone purely ignorant could think of that

Yes, by that vomit, it does indeed mean every game is an RPG because there is progression in one form or another. RPG as it is defined universally(Role playing game) is that sort of fallacy. Basing agruments on a fallacy without any real intellectual thought is something you should be ashamed of however. Because you want RPG to mean anything with an inventory system that you want, leaves people like me wondering why an RPG has to adhere to you and your laws governing how an RPG must be. Don't bother with spouting more gibbles about how its about what you want. Yes it is about what you want, you vote with your dollar as far as purchasing this game.

But when you come here, get on a soap box and decide that you need generalize with sloppy thinking what an RPG ought to be as according to 'everyone' - you then need to understand that its really not constructive, pretty poor thinking. If you think its not an RPG, then by all means list why you think it isn't an RPG and I bet you're only going to come up with game mechanics that don't add or detract from the progression or role you are playing.

[wrdnshprd]

@ Draguzul:

i actually dont dislike the game. im just disappointed in it.. you can have both.

you can like the game for its outside the box thinking regarding save files (i.e. importing characters from ME1).

You can like a game for great character quests.

You can like a game for fixing the bugs regarding textures and graphics

You can like a game for improving the cover system and AI

That being said...

you can be disappointed that the game no longer allows you to customize the armor of your party members.

you can be disappointed that the game no longer has a strong selection of weapons (did they really have to go as far as they did?)

You can be disappointed that your squadmates dont react to you as much.. to me it seemed that i was the only one there when on a mission.. then all the sudden during combat the squad mates arrived. thats not immersion

you can be disappointed that the amount of skills you got during level up was trimmed down considerably.

so again.. its not that i completely hate the game, its just a disappointment. i respect bioware a lot and put them on a completely different level than most developers out there.. and i just felt they failed big time at delivering the rpg aspect of the game. Also that comment from the bioware exec is not encouraging.. they are sending the message that this type of thing is going to continue.

Modifié par wrdnshprd, 08 février 2010 - 07:51 .

[Sibbwolf]

That's a good way to put it, wrdnshprd.



The immersion in ME2 was good, but took a great hit from lack of "banter" with the squad mates, in particular during missions. Oddly its usually the little things.. *sigh*.

[Hizoka003]

wrdnshprd wrote...

@ Draguzul:

i actually dont dislike the game. im just disappointed in it.. you can have both.

you can like the game for its outside the box thinking regarding save files (i.e. importing characters from ME1).

You can like a game for great character quests.

You can like a game for fixing the bugs regarding textures and graphics

You can like a game for improving the cover system and AI

That being said...

you can be disappointed that the game no longer allows you to customize the armor of your party members.

you can be disappointed that the game no longer has a strong selection of weapons (did they really have to go as far as they did?)

You can be disappointed that your squadmates dont react to you as much.. to me it seemed that i was the only one there when on a mission.. then all the sudden during combat the squad mates arrived. thats not immersion

you can be disappointed that the amount of skills you got during level up was trimmed down considerably.

so again.. its not that i completely hate the game, its just a disappointment. i respect bioware a lot and put them on a completely different level than most developers out there.. and i just felt they failed big time at delivering the rpg aspect of the game. Also that comment from the bioware exec is not encouraging.. they are sending the message that this type of thing is going to continue.

exactly, its not up to BioWares standard. It was a disapointment, but that does not make it a bad game.

And to Draguzul not every game is an RPG, if you truely think that then you really are the personification of "ignorance is bliss"

Modifié par Hizoka003, 08 février 2010 - 07:56 .

[TheConfidenceMan]

Reviews mean little to nothing. Invisible War got generally high scores, the PC version still holding a 80% rating on Metacritic.



Big sites like IGN, GI, and Gamespy gave it 90% or above, Gamepro gave it 100% calling it even better than the original, a laughable statement by any measure.



Looking back it's generally considered a terrible sequel that pretty much ruined the franchise for fans. When the game launched, Ion Storm forums looked pretty much like this forum does now - fans complaining, others defending every change, developers resolute that they made the right decisions, with some of the very same arguments being made with respect to ME2 being dumbed down.



More "meaningful" choices, "streamlined" mechanics, more of a shooter at the expense of stats and customization, etc... did Deus Ex no favors yet supposedly now they're all great ideas. Harvey Smith acknowleged later on that mistakes were made, that he was listening to the wrong people.



When I read Bioware trying to defend the changes it sounds like they're trying to convince themselves as much as the fans that it was all for the better. As far as I'm concerned, this is their Invisible War, albeit one that sold better.

[DarthCaine]

The majority loves the game, it's only a vocal minority that's the problem. Here:
http://social.biowar...093/polls/1659/

Go check Gamespot's user score, it's 9.3(PC) and 9.4(360) and only a few games have a that high score (it's higher than ME1's)

Modifié par DarthCaine, 08 février 2010 - 08:01 .

[Draguzul]

Hizoka003 wrote...

wrdnshprd wrote...

@ Draguzul:

i actually dont dislike the game. im just disappointed in it.. you can have both.

you can like the game for its outside the box thinking regarding save files (i.e. importing characters from ME1).

You can like a game for great character quests.

You can like a game for fixing the bugs regarding textures and graphics

You can like a game for improving the cover system and AI

That being said...

you can be disappointed that the game no longer allows you to customize the armor of your party members.

you can be disappointed that the game no longer has a strong selection of weapons (did they really have to go as far as they did?)

You can be disappointed that your squadmates dont react to you as much.. to me it seemed that i was the only one there when on a mission.. then all the sudden during combat the squad mates arrived. thats not immersion

you can be disappointed that the amount of skills you got during level up was trimmed down considerably.

so again.. its not that i completely hate the game, its just a disappointment. i respect bioware a lot and put them on a completely different level than most developers out there.. and i just felt they failed big time at delivering the rpg aspect of the game. Also that comment from the bioware exec is not encouraging.. they are sending the message that this type of thing is going to continue.

exactly, its not up to BioWares standard. It was a disapointment, but that does not make it a bad game.

And to Draguzul not every game is an RPG, if you truely think that then you really are the personification of "ignorance is bliss"

That can go both ways my fellow conspirator. You're ignorant because you disregard what the established community has decided RPG means. At least Wrdnshprd seemed to understand exactly what I was saying - saying its not an RPG is like saying World of Warcraft isn't an RPG because you don't make choices, or EVE Online isn't an RPG because you never see your character beyond a portrait. What you really ought to be discussing is why you disliked the game, instead of using sloppy thinking with a smattering of shameful ignorance.

Modifié par Draguzul, 08 février 2010 - 08:02 .

[Solid N7]

Hizoka003 wrote...

Brixxer600 wrote...

Hizoka003 wrote...

the mindless XBox shooter crowd are extremely happy with the game. The BioWare RPG fans are not. The sad thing is the retarded shooter demographic is much larger then the intelligent RPG fan demographic.

I have considered myself a Bioware RPG fan  since KOTOR and i'm delighted with the game on 360 thanks. 

yeah thats not exactly going back far into BioWares RPG lineup. I'm talking the Buladers gate fans and what not

An Xbox owener is not going to be one thats had a great experiance with great RPGs because Xbox has been devoid of the majority of good RPG games

Hizoka your are freak and otaku period.

[Hizoka003]

DarthCaine wrote...

The majority loves the game, it's only a vocal minority that's the problem. Here:
http://social.biowar...093/polls/1659/

Go check Gamespot's user score, it's 9.3(PC) and 9.4(360) and only a few games have a that high score (it's higher than ME1's)

being a good game and being unhappy with the game are exclusive. ME2 is a good game but its still a dissapointment for 50 bucks IMO. It fells too much like a carbon copy shooter not enough like and RPG.

People make be happy with 20-24 hours of gameplay but i think games should be double that. You spend 50 bucks on a game you should get a fair amount of game play out of it. Look at WoW for example (yes i know its an MMORPG) but for 50s (when released) you got 1 month of play time and in that month playing constantly you would be lucky to hit max level. Now in Wow for you can get the orginal and both x-pacs for i think less then 50 bucks and you have to play for at least 100 hours to get max level and thats knowing every quest in the game.

[MPaBkaTa123]

I just fail to understand. Hizoka why do you hate shooters and/or Xbox users so much, why do you insist on repeating the same thing about "True RPGs" in every single topic you visit. I can understand and even agree with constructive criticism against ME2 especially some of the well written and interesting posts however all you do in these topics is to insult people who like shooters, insult people who find your arguments flawed and then leave.

With that out of the way, ME2 was great, its problems (scanning, sidequests with no dialogue, and no party banter) are minor and do not substract that much from the greater whole. In my humble opinion the games are equal with ME1 having better atmosphere and background and ME2 having a better combat system and a few really great squad members.

[wrdnshprd]

one last point id like to make..



regarding the story, if you take out the character quests and the references from ME1, i felt M2s contribution to the overall story arch was weak at best. im not going to go into a lot of detail due to spoilers..



but i will say this.. the final battle in ME1 was much stronger, the choice you had to make at the end of ME1 felt much more personal and compelling, and the overall villain IMO had a much stronger influence.



Also, i played ME1 about 4 times before putting it down and moving on.. With ME2, i got about 25% through my second playthrough and i dont think ill finish.. i might finish it just to see some of the renegade stuff.. but that would be it.

[MPaBkaTa123]

To the above poster.



I have to agree on the final choice thing, while i found the suicide mission to be awesome the final choice just seemed a bit less than what I expected.

[thenakman]

I dislike shooters. I generally only play stratagy and RPGs. I play a crapload of Pen and Paper D&D. ME was a great game, and IMO ME 2 is even better. Sure there are some things that should really be changed, but overall I felt it was an honest to god improvement.

[Murmillos]

My reaction?

blah.. the characters are blah, the story is blah.. the game is blah.. did I mention blah yet?

I'm going to give Infiltrator as my 3rd and final playthru - but I just have zero reasons to come back to this game other then to test out DLC's after that. no reason to want to play this game again and again and again.

What ever lasting appeal which made me want to play ME1 18 times over.. just hasn't be felt for ME2.

Modifié par Murmillos, 08 février 2010 - 08:27 .