244 réponses à ce sujet

[kelsjet]

nicodeemus327 wrote...
This game has more role playing in the first half hour then most "traditional RPGs" have in entire game.

This point is demonstrably false.

nicodeemus327 wrote...
Roleplaying != character progression. Huge, huge difference. Also you're missing something (or playing on casual) if you don't think character progression exists. You certainly felt stronger at the end of the game compared to the beginning.

Equality does not preclude mutual inclusiveness. Character progression is widely accepted by both players and developers as a central part to the RPG genre. Naturally, I stress the word "part", since thinking that an entire genre is defined by a single point (or the lack of a single point like you are doing in your post) is utterly naive.
Ironically, you spend the first part of your post stating how "Rolyplaying != character progression", and then you spend the next part of your post stating how there was character progression in ME2, and hence Roleplaying must exist.
Logically, that means that you are asserting both "roleplaying = character progression" to be true as well as "roleplaying != character progression" to be true as well.

I think you are just a confused little man. Who clearly has very little grasp on the subject matter of what defines genres and what constitutes role playing games.

[Taiyama]

I agree with every point, OP. This is exactly why I didn't enjoy ME2 as much as ME1.

[Wintermist]

nicodeemus327 wrote...

Roleplaying != character progression. Huge, huge difference. Also you're missing something (or playing on casual) if you don't think character progression exists. You certainly felt stronger at the end of the game compared to the beginning.

You know what? I didn't feel stronger at the end. Here's why. It didn't take long to have access to all abilities, talking about adept now. And as soon as I had all abilites I could only add on to their strength, but as enemies got tougher the tougher I got, I never got to experience being stronger than anyone. I can take Mass Effect 1 as an example here, there was more abilities to one character and when you got stronger, you experienced it.

You may have felt you grew, but I didn't.

[Nozybidaj]

periaqueductal_gray wrote...

3. Relationships

Bioware has become adept at the dialogue of seduction.  In fact, they have become so comfortable with this formula that we can now seduce and romance no less than seven characters.  However, they have proven to be shockingly tone deaf when it come to dealing with characters already in relationships.  In life, as in most art, relationships become truly interesting after a couple has hooked up, when one finds all the hidden flaws and unxepected delights that had been previously hidden.  The fact that no dialogue was included even acknowledging your previous relationship is quite frankly unforgivable.  Presumably the writers were trying to show a rocky part of the relationship, but even fights and hurt feelings would have preferable to this. 

I agree with all your points but especially this.  For the relationship to have a troubled and rocky period would there not actually need to BE a relationship?

[nicodeemus327]

jienoma wrote...

I strongly disagree, RPG is a set of rules that are used to define a genre, RPG is character developement and progression through skills, itemization and levels. If it's only the story that defines an RPG even Half Life could be a glorious role playing game. Since the times of Ultima to the last Dragon Age, the whole definition of RPG is very well written in more than 20 years of gaming industry.

Is hard to define ME2 an RPG, it has something of it in the shallow skill developement, but is still to few to keep entretained the hungry roleplay crowd that has been nourished with games like Ultima, Morrowind, NWN and who remembers what games i've played in the last 20 years, i've lost the count... and the short/long term memory.

Just to understand what i mean, is not because i don't consider ME2 an RPG, i don't have to like it, nor have you, it's simply a consideration, you can appreciate a game beyond its genre, more precisely, it's not a genre that makes a game great, still in my opinion, i can't look at ME2 without thinking to the huge opportunity they've thrown away in the process of simplification to appeal a larger share of gamers.

I apologize for my terrible english

Role playing is just assuming the role of someone. A lot of games could be considering role playing. Mass Effect 2 carries that genre (while games like half life do not) because role play is one of the major focuses of the game (along with action filled combat) hence action-rpg.

You could take out levels, stats and everything and the game would still be role playing.

Modifié par nicodeemus327, 09 février 2010 - 08:50 .

[Wintermist]

nicodeemus327 wrote...

Role playing is just assuming the role of someone. A lot of games could be considering role playing. Mass Effect 2 carries that genre (while games like half life do not) because role play is one of the major focuses of the game (along with action filled combat).

You could take out levels, stats and everything and the game would still be role playing.

Then, in gaming terms, it would be considered an adventure game.

Modifié par Wintermist, 09 février 2010 - 08:49 .

[nicodeemus327]

kelsjet wrote...

nicodeemus327 wrote...
This game has more role playing in the first half hour then most "traditional RPGs" have in entire game.

This point is demonstrably false.

nicodeemus327 wrote...
Roleplaying != character progression. Huge, huge difference. Also you're missing something (or playing on casual) if you don't think character progression exists. You certainly felt stronger at the end of the game compared to the beginning.

Equality does not preclude mutual inclusiveness. Character progression is widely accepted by both players and developers as a central part to the RPG genre. Naturally, I stress the word "part", since thinking that an entire genre is defined by a single point (or the lack of a single point like you are doing in your post) is utterly naive.
Ironically, you spend the first part of your post stating how "Rolyplaying != character progression", and then you spend the next part of your post stating how there was character progression in ME2, and hence Roleplaying must exist.
Logically, that means that you are asserting both "roleplaying = character progression" to be true as well as "roleplaying != character progression" to be true as well.

I think you are just a confused little man. Who clearly has very little grasp on the subject matter of what defines genres and what constitutes role playing games.

I'll agree there's different aspects to character progression. However the OP was refering to combat in the part I quoted. The things he listed do not mean character progression is missing.

You're making a bunch of assumptions about video games genres and their requirements to be considered part of that genre. Study up on Video Game Taxonomy.

[nicodeemus327]

Wintermist wrote...

nicodeemus327 wrote...

Roleplaying != character progression. Huge, huge difference. Also you're missing something (or playing on casual) if you don't think character progression exists. You certainly felt stronger at the end of the game compared to the beginning.

You know what? I didn't feel stronger at the end. Here's why. It didn't take long to have access to all abilities, talking about adept now. And as soon as I had all abilites I could only add on to their strength, but as enemies got tougher the tougher I got, I never got to experience being stronger than anyone. I can take Mass Effect 1 as an example here, there was more abilities to one character and when you got stronger, you experienced it.

You may have felt you grew, but I didn't.

Harbringer seemed much easier at the end of the game then at Horizon. I could blow up their barriers and armor much quicker.

[jienoma]

Murmillos wrote...

Great post OP.

The problem is not that ME2 is ME2, is that ME2 differs greatly from ME1. ME2 if you never knew anything about ME1 stands on its own as a fantastic game. There is just so much changed, gutted, chucked and removed for the sake of doing so.

Most of ME1 complaints wanted something slightly fixed to the already existing set up.

Mako driving was boring because the worlds where boring - you should have made more fun to explore worlds with water and lava and tree and cliffs. And improve on the structures found/explored. Not gut out free roaming exploring for short hand held simplistic simple path missions.

People had a problem with the inventory because there was too much glut. Too many worthless manufactures and minuscule upgrades. Gutting the inventory system wasn't the way to go, you should have streamlined and focused the weapons/upgrades into something meaningful - and less annoying.

True, but the impression is that they've done what they've done to the Mass Effect frachise, not to address some of the complaints raised for the first episode, but only to appeal a larger community, sell more games with a more forgiving gameplay, losing, in the process, part of the old community and remains to be seen, if the sacrifice is worty or not.

[nicodeemus327]

Wintermist wrote...

nicodeemus327 wrote...

Role playing is just assuming the role of someone. A lot of games could be considering role playing. Mass Effect 2 carries that genre (while games like half life do not) because role play is one of the major focuses of the game (along with action filled combat).

You could take out levels, stats and everything and the game would still be role playing.

Then, in gaming terms, it would be considered an adventure game.

The action would still exist so no.

[JrayM16]

A well thought out and unbiased post. However, I have some disagreements I would like to address, categorized by each of you points:



1. It needs to be established that the mako stuff in ME1 was awful. From the cookie cutter planets to the bad controls to the repetitive and boring mission objectives, the UNC worlds in ME1 were a bore. Something needed to be done. However, I do agree w/ you that they should have been improved rather than nixed. But, the side missions that are there are short, diverse, and simple, very well done, but too few. Also, I don't think we can fully judge this until the FREE Hammerhead dlc comes out and we see how they tackle bringing the exploration stuff back.



2. If you think about it, ME1 was a collectathon as well, just more subtle. You were collecting the pieces you needed to get to Ilos. Though I would agree ME2 somewhat lacks an overarching plot, I still think the real things that make or break a story(ie writing, characters, twists) are much better than in ME1. ME2 is one of the few games where I was actually shocked by several plot twists.



3. I didn't mind most of the things you said about relationships, but I would like to voice a different complaint. Even on paragon, my Shep was a dick in relationships. For instance, the PARAGON option during one conversation w;/ Miranda was "Love? I'm jsut trying to get you into bed." While this may have been sarcastic, it kind of disgusted me a bit. Other than that, I thought the romances were quite well done.



4. I would agree its more simple but where I differ is that I think the simplicity actually serves the game and makes it better. I wont go into too much minutia though. Also, the abilities actually do change tactics when you get them specialized. Super slo mo adrenaline burst and high resistance adrenaline burst both caused me to use different tactics. W/ the former, I would wait behind and activate when a group of enemies were out opf cover so I could mow them down in super slo mo, while w/ the latter I would either use to face a tougher enemy directly that I would not otherwise, or charge the enemy line, there are other examples but this post is long.



5. I disagree but I can't really offer much explanation, partly because i don't understand all you points, partly, because I don't see your complaints really present in the game at all.

[Murmillos]

To role play, you must have some measurement on the progression of your character. If you can't measure progression, then how are you role playing?

I guess you can say ME2 has the role playing element of tracking your Paragon and Renegade skills which can affect future outcomes (which mostly just boils down to can you get an additional speech dialog option or not).

But all RPG's since the birth of RPG's has been the ability to track and measure the growth and advancement of your character which you can compare with other people.

ME1/ME2 may be the birth of a new type of RPG element, but for now most PRG elements still require some type of character growth that must be measured. If you can't track growth, then you are just playing an Adventure game.

ME2 feels more like an Action Adventure game then it does an RPG.

Modifié par Murmillos, 09 février 2010 - 08:56 .

[kelsjet]

nicodeemus327 wrote...
You're making a bunch of assumptions about video games genres and their requirements to be considered part of that genre.

List 1 assumption I made in my post.

[BiancoAngelo7]

cheers to the OP very well written and I agree on everything but I reserve judgement for the world exploration as (presumably) we're getting the hammerhead and all the explorable planets with it.



Apart from that, IMMERSION is my biggest flaw for ME2.



Mission Complete Screens - No boarding or disembarcing the normandy - NO SQUAD ARMOR WHEN IN SPACE?????



FAIL

[nicodeemus327]

Murmillos wrote...

To role play, you must have some measurement on the progression of your character. If you can't measure progression, then how are you role playing?

I guess you can say ME2 has the role playing element of tracking your Paragon and Renegade skills which can affect future outcomes (which mostly just boils down to can you get an additional speech dialog option or not).

But all RPG's since the birth of RPG's has been the ability to track and measure the growth and advancement of your character which you can compare with other people.

ME1/ME2 may be the birth of a new type of RPG element, but for now most PRG elements still require some type of character growth that must be measured. If you can't track growth, then you are just playing an Adventure game.

ME2 feels more like an Action Adventure game then it does an RPG.

There's many ways in which to measure progression. For example, paragon / renegade points are measurements of progression. Number of squad mates, number of loyal squad mates, number of weapons, number of upgrades, number of armor pieces. These are very similar metrics to the "traditional RPG" elements that people say are missing.

The values for those metrics are different. That's probably why it feels so different. Too many people are used to the traditional RPG numbers.

Modifié par nicodeemus327, 09 février 2010 - 09:01 .

[nicodeemus327]

kelsjet wrote...

nicodeemus327 wrote...
You're making a bunch of assumptions about video games genres and their requirements to be considered part of that genre.

List 1 assumption I made in my post.

Your last sentence in particular. I disagree with you so you assume I don't have the knowledge.

[jienoma]

nicodeemus327 wrote...

jienoma wrote...

I strongly disagree, RPG is a set of rules that are used to define a genre, RPG is character developement and progression through skills, itemization and levels. If it's only the story that defines an RPG even Half Life could be a glorious role playing game. Since the times of Ultima to the last Dragon Age, the whole definition of RPG is very well written in more than 20 years of gaming industry.

Is hard to define ME2 an RPG, it has something of it in the shallow skill developement, but is still to few to keep entretained the hungry roleplay crowd that has been nourished with games like Ultima, Morrowind, NWN and who remembers what games i've played in the last 20 years, i've lost the count... and the short/long term memory.

Just to understand what i mean, is not because i don't consider ME2 an RPG, i don't have to like it, nor have you, it's simply a consideration, you can appreciate a game beyond its genre, more precisely, it's not a genre that makes a game great, still in my opinion, i can't look at ME2 without thinking to the huge opportunity they've thrown away in the process of simplification to appeal a larger share of gamers.

I apologize for my terrible english

Role playing is just assuming the role of someone. A lot of games could be considering role playing. Mass Effect 2 carries that genre (while games like half life do not) because role play is one of the major focuses of the game (along with action filled combat) hence action-rpg.

You could take out levels, stats and everything and the game would still be role playing.

Not, but i understand what you're trying to say, you have to understand that for me, to make a point in a foreign language is difficoult, but i'll try.

RPG is a very large set of rules that define a genre, like a car is a set of parts assembled in a definite way.

Assuming the role of the character you're playing is not playing an RPG, if i play X-Plane i'm assuming the role of a pilot, but i'm not playing an RPG, that's for sure (and it's even much more complex than an RPG).

ME2 lacks not the role playing part, but some of the RPG parts: no itemization, light skills personalization, plus a plethora of other things present in the first episode that needed some tweaking, like planet exploration, not a definitive cut.

[mjboldy]

Murmillos wrote...

Great post OP.

The problem is not that ME2 is ME2, is that ME2 differs greatly from ME1. ME2 if you never knew anything about ME1 stands on its own as a fantastic game. There is just so much changed, gutted, chucked and removed for the sake of doing so.

Most of ME1 complaints wanted something slightly fixed to the already existing set up.

Mako driving was boring because the worlds where boring - you should have made more fun to explore worlds with water and lava and tree and cliffs. And improve on the structures found/explored. Not gut out free roaming exploring for short hand held simplistic simple path missions.

People had a problem with the inventory because there was too much glut. Too many worthless manufactures and minuscule upgrades. Gutting the inventory system wasn't the way to go, you should have streamlined and focused the weapons/upgrades into something meaningful - and less annoying.

I agree with the OP and definitely this post. This is exactly what I was thinking when I looked back on ME2. Bioware just got a little over-zealous with our suggestions.

[nicodeemus327]

jienoma wrote...

Assuming the role of the character you're playing is not playing an RPG, if i play X-Plane i'm assuming the role of a pilot

You are role playing however its not the focus of the game. The focus of that game is to fly a plane or whatever so its called a flight simulator. However in Mass Effect 2 the focus of the game is role playing (assuming the role of Commander Shepard) and action (killing lots and lots of mercs) that's why its called an action role playing game.

I can understand if you feel character progression is lacking in same areas but its certainly there.

The set of rules you mention doesn't have to be large. It just has to be large enough so the player can assume the role of the intended character.

Modifié par nicodeemus327, 09 février 2010 - 09:17 .

[Zhaocore]

Oh they streamlined all right, they streamlined ALL the way...and then some.

[kelsjet]

nicodeemus327 wrote...
You're making a bunch of assumptions about video games genres and their requirements to be considered part of that genre.

?

nicodeemus327 wrote...
I disagree with you so you assume I don't have the knowledge.

as well as

nicodeemus327 wrote...
I disagree with you so you assume

This just in folks. If you disagree with nicodeemus327, you are automatically wrong.

/rollseyes

I am done with this troll.

[jienoma]

nicodeemus327 wrote...

jienoma wrote...

Assuming the role of the character you're playing is not playing an RPG, if i play X-Plane i'm assuming the role of a pilot

You are role playing however its not the focus of the game. The focus of the game is to fly a plane or whatever so its called a flight simulator. However in Mas Effect 2 the focus of the game is role playing (assuming the role of Commander Shepard) and action (killing lots and lots of mercs) that's what its called an action role playing game.

I can understand if you feel character progression is lacking in same areas but its certainly there.

Also the set of rules you mention doesn't have to be large. It just has to be large enough so the player can assume the role of the intended character.

The rules of an RPG game are well established, not an amout of casual rules that the developer put in the game, skill progression, levels, itemization just to name a few. ME2 could be still an action rpg with a decent itemization, but now is more of a TPS with a good story, disjointed from the first episode and divided in a set of episodes.

[Conjurous Rex]

Amazing post OP, completely agree. Especially the part about exploration in the original game. There was something amazing about cruising over the vast uncharted worlds. Though they were just simple terrain maps, it was very enjoyable. Here's hoping they can bring this sense of exploration back with the Hammerhead tank.

[TJSolo]

nicodeemus327 wrote...

jienoma wrote...

Assuming the role of the character you're playing is not playing an RPG, if i play X-Plane i'm assuming the role of a pilot

You are role playing however its not the focus of the game. The focus of that game is to fly a plane or whatever so its called a flight simulator. However in Mass Effect 2 the focus of the game is role playing (assuming the role of Commander Shepard) and action (killing lots and lots of mercs) that's why its called an action role playing game.

I can understand if you feel character progression is lacking in same areas but its certainly there.

The set of rules you mention doesn't have to be large. It just has to be large enough so the player can assume the role of the intended character.

Your idea that "assuming a role" is RPGing is too expansive and can be applied to a lot of games that are RPGs and are not RPGs.

"Assuming a role" is part of every game I can think of that I have played, yet that does not mean every game I have played is an RPG.

You use that statement illogically to support only ME2 as being an RPG but not other games.
Just like your other statements that progression != RPG but then you saying ME2 does have progression so it is a RPG.

[jienoma]

BiancoAngelo7 wrote...

cheers to the OP very well written and I agree on everything but I reserve judgement for the world exploration as (presumably) we're getting the hammerhead and all the explorable planets with it.

Apart from that, IMMERSION is my biggest flaw for ME2.

Mission Complete Screens - No boarding or disembarcing the normandy - NO SQUAD ARMOR WHEN IN SPACE?????

FAIL

No squad armor anywhere...