212 réponses à ce sujet

[IggyD]

*ahem*

social.bioware.com/forum/1/topic/103/index/1136379/1#1156837

[Kalfear]

bumping the title



Bring back the RPG!!!

Topics been posted to a crazy amount so no sence saying same thing over again.

You know what the majority wants in ME3

[MarauderESP]

Stinkface27 wrote...

Firstly, your post is well-written, OP - so thank you for that. I understand what you're saying but I disagree.

I do not understand why people continue to define RPGs as anything other than exactly what they are: role playing games. RPGs are not games that have x, y or z - they are games in which you play a role. The inventory, exploration, xp per kill etc are NOT what makes an RPG an RPG, they are things that have become standard for them, but they are not necessary or genre-making/breaking. BioWare has pushed outside both the RPG box for this game, which they have earned the right to do after all the textbook RPGs they have pumped out.

Another thing I do not understand is why people refuse to accept this coupling of RPG and FPS. Why are you so determined to put Mass Effect in one box or the other? Why can't it be genre-bending?

Personally, I felt that ME2 felt a little bare in some places that were meant to feel streamlined. As if they intended to cut the fat but cut a bit too much of the meat in the process. However, I think that the direction they took in this game was a big improvement over ME1, in many of the places where others feel it was "RPG light".

Just my 2 cents.

WOWOWOOWOW!!!!!! i can´t belive it..... a good answer........damm a POLITE and well done ANSWER........ hey Stinkface27 can u open a class for those.....how can i discribe them.... "your opinion sucks, and i´m right and gtfo" guys and teach them how to have a discussion on the forums?.....

well, RPGs here its a good definition....., ME2 its as stinkface says a "Light RPG" and that its my opinion too, its a good game, the only thing i see of a rpg is the story (doing it Good/Bad/no side(sometimes)) the rest of the game i feel it like any other shooter.....

and i say this becouse i PAID for the game as u did and i have the SAME right to say i dont like this as u do to say all is perfect....

sorry for my english but is not my first language and im a bit rusty on it

[Taiko Roshi]

I've been trying to work out a compromise by playing DA:O, when I want a semi-decent RPG fix until the bugs kill the game, and ME 2 when I don't want to put any effort or thought into a game. Its working well. Just have to hang in there until the next Borderlands DLC then I'll be as happy as Larry.

Modifié par Taiko Roshi, 12 février 2010 - 09:48 .

[FlintlockJazz]

wrdnshprd wrote...

you make some good points here, and maybe i should have clarified what i meant by 'tradition'.  im talking strictly in video game terms.   all of those video games you mentioned still had one thing in common.. it had at least some way of being able to customize the effectiveness of your character through stats.. to demonstrate what i mean lets take a look at each of the games you mentioned:

final fantasy:

had inventory
had attribute stats
had ways to customize your party (do i want to focus this character in being a white mage, black mage, warrior, etc)

Baldur's Gate

used the D20 D&D system and included feats, skills, spells, etc. 

Oblivion

this is a good definition of a hybrid because this game DID use the reflex skills of the player in combat.  however, there was still a system in place to effect how you wanted to customize your character..  did i want to be a mage, warrior, thief?  what kind of mage? elemental, healing, etc.  and these had a lot of influance in how the character played in game that had nothing to do with the player's reflex skills.  not so much in ME2.

Diablo

again, a good definition of a hybrid because the skill of the player was used quite well.. however, again there was still an effective system in place in customizing your character.  you had the robust loot system of course, but u also had the skill trees and stat bonus decisions you had to make during each level up.  also, each class had different paths you could follow and the gameplay was different for each path.

Deus Ex

IMO this is probably the best definition of a hybrid because it had so much depth.  you had stealth, you could target specific parts of the body, etc.  yet there was a ton of skills and abilities you had to think about that affected the character as well..  you could really customize your character the way you wanted.. and to be honest, besides the ammo, loot really wasnt the issue.. it was more 'do i want my character to be a sniper?  how about a rifleman?  or how about should i specialize in shotguns to utilize the different ammo types?  what about hacking and security?  and it goes on and on. 

Now lets take a look at ME2

In ME2, sure you can select what type of class you want.. but lets take the soldier for example.. i cant say.. am i going to focus on assault rifles or shotguns or sniper rifles.. i just know everything off the bat.  also, i have a pre-determined path to follow pretty much in my selected class and the specializatoin you pick up  doesnt usually give off more than a 10% boost to stats.  it really has no bearing on how my character plays out. i am willing to bet if i never selected 4 for any of the skills for a given class i could still go through the game on any difficulty and still do pretty well.  that to me is not character customization.  and that is my problem with ME2. 

and really all they have to do to improve this is give me more customization options for my armor AND for my squadmates, include omni-tool upgrades,  and include a bit more selection for the weapons (say 5 guns per category).  thats all.  if they do this i can live with the drop in skill customization.

All you opinion, and like arses is just as valid.  I consider ME2 to be an RPG, and it fits the definition as I explained, just because you don't like it doesn't stop it from being one.  The point I was making is that there are vast differences in what is defined as a RPG.

Oh, and Diablo is not a hybrid, it is a RPG, just one that is purely about the combat (which consists of clicking).  It lacks the actual part of roleplaying however, and yet people still consider it a RPG.  Hell, you could argue that it's the diametrical opposite to ME2 in terms of roleplay experience: it is all about phat loot and character stats, not actually about the characters involved.

Final Fantasy, many people consider it an interactive book more than an RPG, and the character customisation is laughable, you do not get to choose who your character is nor do you get to choose what your character looks like.  Yet it's still classed as an RPG though many people, myself included, would not consider it as such.  I'm not gonna go on their boards though and declare it not a RPG, because it is, just not the type I like. 

Baldur's Gate, you could argue that it was a hybrid RPG/strategy game as you played multiple characters.  Yet it was defined as a RPG, not a hybrid, yet again showing the variation in what is a roleplay game.

I fully understood what you meant by tradition, I just disagree totally with you.  Just because it's not the type of roleplay game on type of roleplayer likes doesn't make it any less an RPG, otherwise Final Fantasy would have to have all RPG references on their boxes removed.  If you want to complain about the lack of loot or stats that's fine, but claiming ME2 is not an RPG isn't helping much.

Modifié par FlintlockJazz, 12 février 2010 - 10:28 .

[Riot Inducer]

IggyD wrote...

*ahem*

social.bioware.com/forum/1/topic/103/index/1136379/1#1156837

Yes! I'm glad my wading through mass of flame and troll-sludge was worth it! A legitimate well thought out suggestion.

At any rate to the topic at hand, both sides have some points, I feel they did trim a bit too much of the "stats 'n' inventory" stuff out but for a lot of the functions this is a good thing. But also both parties have some members that really need to take a chill pill, I haven't seen so many flames since I ran into that Vorcha flamethrower squad back on Omega (sorry that joke was terrible, I'm worse than EDI:blush:).

First off let me just say that I am  tired of the arguments for ME1's inventory system and weapon variety, just to clarify there were four weapons in ME1, only four, and every mission you picked up at least fifty more of the same thing. Every assault rifle worked just like every other assault rifle, you just got different paint jobs, one of two different models, and a different damage stat.

ME2 employs a far more varied and "shooter-eque" style of dealing with weapons, different weapons function noticeably different, the Avenger AR is an entirely different weapon to use than the Vindicator BR and there are merits to both. Having the "upgrade" weapon doesn't necessarily mean you should never use the "starter" weapon ever again. And where I think this variety shows the most is with the new heavy weapons, taking the flamethrower or cryo gun means you won't have the hard hitting power of the grenade or missile launcher to deal with a pratorean boss but it does mean you'll have lots of new tactical options with your flamer or freeze-ray. Large varieties of weapon functionality but with limited carrying options are what a lot of shooters' gameplay is built upon and I feel it was a great choice for ME2, I simply hope they can deliver even more weapon variety to us in the future.

Now all that said, I completely agree with  IggyD in that the research method of upgrading was extremely rigid and linear offering no customization or thought to the process. I sincerely hope that ME3 will include a weapon modification/upgrade system that can be tailored by the player and would cause players to think about how they want to alter their weapon. Things like, "Should I get the increased magazine capacity or the increased damage upgrade for my BR?" should be things we can consider and do instead of just, "Where do I find the next AR damage research?" 

And as long as we're on the subject of customization, I liked ME2's system for armor upgrading/customization a lot more than ME1's. Swapping out different armor pieces actually changing the appearance of the armor is great, not to mention that I can custom paint my armor however I want instead of having to stomach the eye-searing coloration of an armor suit just because it's the best stat-wise I have at the time. The only thing I would like to see changed is allowing us to modify our squad-mates armor/outfits in a similar way, it was nice that each one got their own unique look but it was rather disappointing all we could ever customize on them was swapping between 2 different colored suits.

Now ME2 is a great game better than the first in many ways, but it is by no means perfect, in places I think BioWare cut back a bit much on the "stats 'n' inventory" bits, in others I feel they made great leaps forward in both the storytelling and gameplay. Now I hope we can express our concerns and hopes regarding how the Mass Effect series will continue to evolve without all this pointless flaming and trolling in the future...but this still being the internet, I'm not holding my breath  

[Allattar1]

Ill say again that people in general, and gamers especially get too tied up into classifying things into little boxes.



They stop appreciating what something is and start asking why is it not the same as.

An RPG at its heart and soul is not defined by inventory, or levels or any of that. Just becuase a lot of RPGs have followed each other down the same route, it leads to expectation.



I also feel that expectations of people are dangerous and can actually destroy a concept becuase they cannot fit things into a little box. I hate this tendency to box things up and package them as a specific thing.



I love ME2, but that doesn't mean I wouldnt like some things expanded.

I particularly like the way that the choices of weapons actually give us differences, the different sniper rifles all act differently. In ME1 they don't act differently just give us small stat changes, and in a few cases just look different.



What I hope continues is the idea that different items perform differently, rather than change stats.



If I could point out something that could be worth changing is that the skills of ammo type or weapon enhancements dont do anything tangible, or allow us to customise the weapons we have. For instance if we research a scope, that we get a scope that can be fitted to a rifle and then used as one. Or if a grip is researched to stabilise the cone of fire, it can be added to the gun. eg allowing us to customise the items from within the ship and for each squad member. I will admit the research approach is perhaps a level of abstraction too far and loses players as they cant see the effect. Plus rpger's seem to like there stats and numbers to help them add up. Similarly the other criticism is you cannot change the equipment of your team members. Again in ME1 the equipment was fairly standard and offered only minor changes in looks. Being able to customise your team armours in a similar way to Sheppard would bring that back into a more tangible effect again.



As to level progression, and a sense of advancement. This is a bane of rpgs. People want to advance and advance. However taken as its extreme it can be difficult for a trilogy, you want to feel like a god at the end of 1, but at the start of 2 you need to be back to square 1 again? Consistency goes out the window.

There where some criticism for DA:O becuase players where having battles scaled for them, to allow freedom of where to go.



My opinion is that levels are very limiting on game scope and freedom. Personally I would prefer levels having a limited effect, but that as you progress more options of abilities are opened up to you. Whilst remaining balanced with the others. That way you don't end up with the horrible scenario of a dragon being hard to kill,but come back 20 levels later and you can walk it.



Now the posts from players complaining about ME2 are generally abusive to start with, so they get abuse back. post like an idiot, get an idiot reply. It should be clear though that ME2 is not your standard rpg and doesn't look like it ever was meant to be.



Those people accusing of dumbing down? well honestly what do you want? if it is stat heaven plus lots of loot numbers and levels to ponder over. I dont think the ME series is really your thing, seeing as it is right up there on the genre breaking scale.

[contact_eric]

I loved Mass Effect 2, and felt that most of the changes were improvements. ME1's inventory system was excessively detailed for the minimal differences offered between incremental upgrades in armour or weapons. If there had been only three levels of upgrades in ME1 the system might have worked a lot better, but ME2's solution seems equally valid to me.



With regards to the RPG vs FPS debate, I think people are missing what Bioware is really trying to achieve with the Mass Effect series. This is about "interactive storytelling". Maybe I'm dating myself, but does anybody remember those old choose-your-own-adventure books? Everything was pre-written, but as the reader/player you constantly got to choose how to react to a given situation - in the end every reader felt like they had a unique adventure.



Playing Mass Effect (1, 2 or evenutally 3) is like creating your own personalized movie - one that'll be the equivalent of 6 seasons worth of a TV series. Bioware has taken elements of RPGs and FPSs that are suited giving players this sort of interactive experience. I think that's a really out of the box approach that we should thank them for trying.



I look forward to seeing what tweaks they make for ME3.

[Mass_Casualty]

Alright, a lot to respond to.

1) Exploration: you don't fix something that is only slightly broke by eliminating it. If you think that spending 10 minutes per planet using that scanner is better, that's your opinion, however, it is definitely not any less mundane than driving around a landscape. An easy fix would be to have random mercs/pirates/slavers appear on the planets. Also, in ME1, you couldn't land on a planet unless there was a mission or assignment associated with it so it isn't like there was nothing to do. Again, the exploration was completely removed instead of fixed. With 2 discs, they could easily have added a bit more variety to the planetside bunkers and some random enemy scripts. Removal isn't a real solution, it's a lazy man's solution. Commence Bioware defense tactics.

2) Experience System: For those of you who think this game is still an RPG, go revisit Nintendo, Super Nintendo, Sega Genesis, and even Playstation 1. After 3 decades of playing RPG video games, i can assure you, this is not an RPG. It is an action game with some little RPG elements like "experience points" and customizable armor mixed in. As to the posters who said that this is simply an upgraded version of ME1's kill-based xp system, you are a little confused. The ME2 system would be more efficient if they cut out XP entirely and simply allowed you to choose power promotions at the end of each mission. That's basically what's happening. Once in a while on higher levels, you might get 2 groups of power-points. Other than that, XP is basically a facade to keep the "RPG" element. Finally, in ME1, you had the option of hopping out of the tank to fight enemies (like Colossus and Armatures) on foot for extra experience points and there were Merc/Geth groups on some explorable planets to increase your experience. ME2 is run and gun PLAIN AND SIMPLE.

3) RPGs are generally much more involved in character development both with dialogue AND actual gameplay. Not so much in ME2 as all your squadmates will have the same "promotions" and "powers" in every single playthrough. There isn't very much leeway at all for custom tailoring them. In ME1, you could tailor EACH squadmate differently in every playthrough. Alenko could serve 3-4 different roles (Bio-heavy, Tech-heavy, First-Aid Heavy, or Balanced) and each Talent could be increased in strength incrementally. In ME2 it's oversimplified. Again, ME2 is an ACTION SHOOTER with a couple RPG elements. You can argue till your blue in the face, but it won't change the game into an RPG.

4) The equipment: Someone here said that the equipment menu in ME1 was "horrible". Again, this shows the bias towards Action-Shooter heavy preferences over RPG elements. The equipment screen in ME1 allowed you to not only choose between more accurate weapons or more powerful weapons, but they also allowed you to mix and match different weapon upgrades and ammo types. Once again, the result is only MORE customization abilities and detailed character tailoring. However, once you can buy the Spectre gear, there is little else you need until getting to the next level of Spectre gear (X). This is simply an oversight in design, NOT A FLAW. You don't remove something like this because of a simple number-based design oversight. Simply make more weapons VIABLE alongside Spectre gear with different strengths (IE a much higher strength weapon with less accuracy).

5) Last one - the Upgrade system: ME2's upgrade system is different. I still like it, but it remains less of an RPG style feel to it (which was my original point). I prefer to be able to mix and match different upgrades to guns in the field and without needing to grab resources for it. Why not just buy the actual upgrade in a store instead of just the plans? Either way would work, but they should not have done away with such intensely customizable systems as the Equipment/Upgrade from ME1. There were a lot of really cool and different upgrades once you got into the higher levels in ME1 which are not present in ME2.

Finally, ME2 is an obvious Run-and-Gun game no matter what genre you use to describe it. Complete mission, choose power promotions, go to the Tech lab for upgrades. Rinse repeat.

I would like to point out that I THOROUGHLY enjoyed ME2. It's a great game. It's a great ACTION SHOOTER game. If you insist that it is an RPG, then it is a subpar,not-so-great RPG in that it lacks many factors that make an RPG outstanding. Those features are heavily present in ME1. That's all I gots to say.


EDIT: Oh, and to those posters who are upset (for some juvenile reason) that the title of the thread has "ME3" in it, the thread really has NOTHING TO DO WITH ME3.  It was to point out the dropping of RPG elements in ME2. Perhaps YOU should be the one reading before posting.

Modifié par Mass_Casualty, 12 février 2010 - 12:17 .

[RighteousRage]

Kalfear wrote...

bumping the title

Bring back the RPG!!!
Topics been posted to a crazy amount so no sence saying same thing over again.
You know what the majority wants in ME3

Actually several million people bought ME 2 and only a few thousand (at most) have posted here on these forums so no, we don't know what the majority wants.

[xaliqen]

OP is right. Bring back the RPG. That is all.

[RighteousRage]

Also, Mass_Casualty, in all fairness, the consoles you listed as having exemplary RPGs mainly had FF-ripoff JRPGs with nearly no dialogue choices whatsoever, with the only interaction being repeatedly fighting random battles and deciding which of your team would be in the front row as opposed to the back.

[RighteousRage]

Personally there are three things that annoy me most about ME 2:



1. The upgrade system is annoying to deal with - as if it makes more sense to have 3 iterations of every weapon type in the universe and then a billion "packets" of "research data" lying around for them

2. The music is not as memorable (except for Suicide Mission and Legion)

3. They utterly removed planet exploration rather than doing something like adding a controllable shuttle so hills wouldn't be a problem

[Mass_Casualty]

RighteousRage wrote...

Kalfear wrote...

bumping the title

Bring back the RPG!!!
Topics been posted to a crazy amount so no sence saying same thing over again.
You know what the majority wants in ME3

Actually several million people bought ME 2 and only a few thousand (at most) have posted here on these forums so no, we don't know what the majority wants.

Too true.  No matter what we have to say here on the forums, EA and Bioware have plans for ME3 and have probably been developing it since they finished ME2.  Majority doesn't really get a say in things like this.  Civilization might be one of the only series that can be influenced by fans (b/c most players are on some kind of strategy forum on the net).

There are several things i like better about ME2. Graphics are fixed up (no texture pop-ins) and more detailed graphics/sound.  The shield/barrier/armor system they put in is awesome.  If anything, this alone adds a bit to the replay value of the game that was lost to things discussed in my OP and above posts.  More characters is NEVER a bad thing. I like the duck and cover system for ME2 better than ME1.  Actually, if you go back and play ME1 (adjusting for not needing to tap A to cover), you may find that you play it much better after playing ME2.

[kraze07]

OP hit the nail on the head. If they take some of the aspects of ME2 like the one's he mentioned and combine them with elements from the first game and we'd have a near perfect game in our hands.

[Vigor Mortivore]

I'm seriously thinking about selling this game.

The replay value is about the same as watching a movie 3 times in a row.

[Mass_Casualty]

RighteousRage wrote...

Also, Mass_Casualty, in all fairness, the consoles you listed as having exemplary RPGs mainly had FF-ripoff JRPGs with nearly no dialogue choices whatsoever, with the only interaction being repeatedly fighting random battles and deciding which of your team would be in the front row as opposed to the back.

Dialogue choices are a modern occurence and didn't really appear in any older RPGs.  However, weapons/armor/items/side missions/explorable land were all present in those games, FF-rip off or not.  A JRPG is just that. Not all JRPGs ripped off FF and FF ripped off of some JRPGS

not really the point, though. My point was that the classic RPG elements are missing.

To add (directed at a poster higher above): I understand what the anagram R.P.G. stands for.  However, after having games developed over 30-40 years, certain elements form up the industry's definition of the genre RPG.  Most of these are not represented in ME2.

All this is just labeling, though.  The label RPG in my OP stands for "all the elements that were in ME1 that pointed at classical RPG video game structure that are missing from ME2".  easier to just say "bring back the RPG".

[MarauderESP]

Mass_Casualty wrote...

Alright, a lot to respond to.

1) Exploration: you don't fix something that is only slightly broke by eliminating it. If you think that spending 10 minutes per planet using that scanner is better, that's your opinion, however, it is definitely not any less mundane than driving around a landscape. An easy fix would be to have random mercs/pirates/slavers appear on the planets. Also, in ME1, you couldn't land on a planet unless there was a mission or assignment associated with it so it isn't like there was nothing to do. Again, the exploration was completely removed instead of fixed. With 2 discs, they could easily have added a bit more variety to the planetside bunkers and some random enemy scripts. Removal isn't a real solution, it's a lazy man's solution. Commence Bioware defense tactics.

2) Experience System: For those of you who think this game is still an RPG, go revisit Nintendo, Super Nintendo, Sega Genesis, and even Playstation 1. After 3 decades of playing RPG video games, i can assure you, this is not an RPG. It is an action game with some little RPG elements like "experience points" and customizable armor mixed in. As to the posters who said that this is simply an upgraded version of ME1's kill-based xp system, you are a little confused. The ME2 system would be more efficient if they cut out XP entirely and simply allowed you to choose power promotions at the end of each mission. That's basically what's happening. Once in a while on higher levels, you might get 2 groups of power-points. Other than that, XP is basically a facade to keep the "RPG" element. Finally, in ME1, you had the option of hopping out of the tank to fight enemies (like Colossus and Armatures) on foot for extra experience points and there were Merc/Geth groups on some explorable planets to increase your experience. ME2 is run and gun PLAIN AND SIMPLE.

3) RPGs are generally much more involved in character development both with dialogue AND actual gameplay. Not so much in ME2 as all your squadmates will have the same "promotions" and "powers" in every single playthrough. There isn't very much leeway at all for custom tailoring them. In ME1, you could tailor EACH squadmate differently in every playthrough. Alenko could serve 3-4 different roles (Bio-heavy, Tech-heavy, First-Aid Heavy, or Balanced) and each Talent could be increased in strength incrementally. In ME2 it's oversimplified. Again, ME2 is an ACTION SHOOTER with a couple RPG elements. You can argue till your blue in the face, but it won't change the game into an RPG.

4) The equipment: Someone here said that the equipment menu in ME1 was "horrible". Again, this shows the bias towards Action-Shooter heavy preferences over RPG elements. The equipment screen in ME1 allowed you to not only choose between more accurate weapons or more powerful weapons, but they also allowed you to mix and match different weapon upgrades and ammo types. Once again, the result is only MORE customization abilities and detailed character tailoring. However, once you can buy the Spectre gear, there is little else you need until getting to the next level of Spectre gear (X). This is simply an oversight in design, NOT A FLAW. You don't remove something like this because of a simple number-based design oversight. Simply make more weapons VIABLE alongside Spectre gear with different strengths (IE a much higher strength weapon with less accuracy).

5) Last one - the Upgrade system: ME2's upgrade system is different. I still like it, but it remains less of an RPG style feel to it (which was my original point). I prefer to be able to mix and match different upgrades to guns in the field and without needing to grab resources for it. Why not just buy the actual upgrade in a store instead of just the plans? Either way would work, but they should not have done away with such intensely customizable systems as the Equipment/Upgrade from ME1. There were a lot of really cool and different upgrades once you got into the higher levels in ME1 which are not present in ME2.

Finally, ME2 is an obvious Run-and-Gun game no matter what genre you use to describe it. Complete mission, choose power promotions, go to the Tech lab for upgrades. Rinse repeat.

I would like to point out that I THOROUGHLY enjoyed ME2. It's a great game. It's a great ACTION SHOOTER game. If you insist that it is an RPG, then it is a subpar,not-so-great RPG in that it lacks many factors that make an RPG outstanding. Those features are heavily present in ME1. That's all I gots to say.


EDIT: Oh, and to those posters who are upset (for some juvenile reason) that the title of the thread has "ME3" in it, the thread really has NOTHING TO DO WITH ME3.  It was to point out the dropping of RPG elements in ME2. Perhaps YOU should be the one reading before posting.

/agree 100%

[FlintlockJazz]

Mass_Casualty wrote...

RighteousRage wrote...

Also, Mass_Casualty, in all fairness, the consoles you listed as having exemplary RPGs mainly had FF-ripoff JRPGs with nearly no dialogue choices whatsoever, with the only interaction being repeatedly fighting random battles and deciding which of your team would be in the front row as opposed to the back.

Dialogue choices are a modern occurence and didn't really appear in any older RPGs.  However, weapons/armor/items/side missions/explorable land were all present in those games, FF-rip off or not.  A JRPG is just that. Not all JRPGs ripped off FF and FF ripped off of some JRPGS

not really the point, though. My point was that the classic RPG elements are missing.

To add (directed at a poster higher above): I understand what the anagram R.P.G. stands for.  However, after having games developed over 30-40 years, certain elements form up the industry's definition of the genre RPG.  Most of these are not represented in ME2.

All this is just labeling, though.  The label RPG in my OP stands for "all the elements that were in ME1 that pointed at classical RPG video game structure that are missing from ME2".  easier to just say "bring back the RPG".

False.  A cRPG is an attempt at a RPG on a computer, dialogue choices were not implemented in older versions as much due to limitations that are now being overcome.  RPG covers many different styles and many different mediums, if you only like one subset of RPGs that's fine, but please be aware that stating that something is not an RPG does not make it true, it's just not catering to your style of RPG.

[yoomazir]

I can only agree with TC, I don't have big hopes to see ME3 with more rpg content like ME1 but I think I' ve found ME1 spiritual successor in Obsidian videogame Alpha Protocol.

[Mass_Casualty]

@Flintlock Jazz:

You're arguing semantics. And your semantics aren't really supportable. We both agree there were NOT dialogue options in earlier RPGs (whatever the reasons). I LIKE the dialogue options. That isn't part of my discussion.

Please provide a plethora of examples on the "different types of RPG". I know there are different types. But where are the RPGs with no equipment menu, no REAL xp system, limited "magic or powers" (2-3 to a squadmate), and a run-and-gun playstyle?

Your point is just a statement of semantics and has not much to do with the original point.

Modifié par Mass_Casualty, 12 février 2010 - 12:56 .

[Amikae]

yoomazir wrote...

I can only agree with TC, I don't have big hopes to see ME3 with more rpg content like ME1 but I think I' ve found ME1 spiritual successor in Obsidian videogame Alpha Protocol.

Define "RPG content". Because as far as im aware of Mass Effect 2 has the best roleplaying there is. And i mean quality not quantity like in DAO where you have 30 hours of dialog 90% of which is irrelevant.

Get your facts straight. RPG=roleplaying. Dont whine about old and broken mechanics.

[yoomazir]

Amikae wrote...

yoomazir wrote...

I can only agree with TC, I don't have big hopes to see ME3 with more rpg content like ME1 but I think I' ve found ME1 spiritual successor in Obsidian videogame Alpha Protocol.

Define "RPG content". Because as far as im aware of Mass Effect 2 has the best roleplaying there is. And i mean quality not quantity like in DAO where you have 30 hours of dialog 90% of which is irrelevant.

Get your facts straight. RPG=roleplaying. Dont whine about old and broken mechanics.

ME2 best roleplaying? please
quatlity dialog that is your rpg definition? if so I would suggest you to go to a theater and not playing videogames.

[FlintlockJazz]

Mass_Casualty wrote...

@Flintlock Jazz:

You're arguing semantics. And your semantics aren't really supportable. We both agree there were NOT dialogue options in earlier RPGs (whatever the reasons). I LIKE the dialogue options. That isn't part of my discussion.

Please provide a plethora of examples on the "different types of RPG". I know there are different types. But where are the RPGs with no equipment menu, no REAL xp system, limited "magic or powers" (2-3 to a squadmate), and a run-and-gun playstyle?

Your point is just a statement of semantics and has not much to do with the original point.

No it's not, and I explained why in my earlier posts if you had taken the time to read them.  CRPGs are based on the tabletop RPGs, maybe you should look them up instead of relying on your 30 year experience with a limited range of RPGs, especially since your experience seems limited to the console RPGs from Japan.  As to the dialogue, that is considered one of the main parts of many RPGs, and it was you who brought it up trying to discredit it, I just pointed out that it was due to lack of resources that they did not include it in early CRPGs.

You may state that my point is semantics, but that does not make it true, I have explained my reasoning, so please explain how it is semantics.