99 réponses à ce sujet

[wrdnshprd]

edit:  made this post more readable lol as it was copied from another forum.. i tried updating it but its still doing the same thing.. just going to reply to it in another post.. sorry guys

i know this topic has
been beat to death, but i have been reading up on the evolution on
FFXIII and how it is changing the FF series, and it got me thinking on
this yet again.  here is what i came up with:

i think people
need to remember that certain gameplay elements define a genre. Sorry..
its true.  RPGs, for example, need some way of customizing a character
outside of a simple dialogue tree. For me, it doesnt matter
if there
is a sphere system for level up, if MP was removed and replaced with a
point system (FFXIII), if towns were removed (in FFXIII this is also
going to be true), if the perspective of the camera is
first-person/third-perso/isometic, or if the combat is real-time or
turn based. As long as i can customize my character the way i want, and
the way i customize my character is the primary focus as to how that
character performs in combat - im ok with the game being called an rpg
because my ability to use the controller to aim a weapon or hit a
button should have minimal effect on the outcome of combat. 

Obviously
there are RPGs out there where timing and quick thinking are important,
however one thing stays constant regardless of the combat mechanics.. i
still have to make decisions on how i want to make up the characters..
do i want character A to be a white mage or black mage? do i want this
character to have a focus on ranged weapons or melee? Do I want this
character to focus on defense or DPS? Do i want character A to level up
Attack A or Attack B? etc.. and each of these decisions affect how well
that character does in combat.  perfect timing and mastering the combat
mechanics may give me bonuses, but in the end its how i customize the
characters that matter.

shooters on the other other hand are
defined with reactionary combat.. ie. your ability to aim a weapon with
a controller and fire accurately play a critical role in to whether you
are successful in combat. it doesnt matter whether you are a black
mage, white mage, commando, medic.. etc.. you're ability to aim, fire
accurately, and reaction skills define how well you do in the game. you
might have different weapons, have different skills, etc. but yor
actual skills as a player are the focus.. with RPGs, again, its how you
customize the character.thus genres can evolve all they want, but
certain fundamental things need to stay. if not, fans of each genre
will get unhappy. take away the character customization from RPGers..
RPG fan get unhappy.. take away the skill of the player from a shooter
fan and change the combat to be totally stat based.. shooter fan gets
unhappy. its just the way it is, and that my friends is the bottom
line.. thoughts?

Modifié par wrdnshprd, 15 février 2010 - 10:19 .

[Grand_Commander13]

My thoughts? The text formatting on your post is terrible, that's what I think.

[Sphaerus]

What Grand said.

The way you formatted and raped grammar made your post completely unreadable. I doubt I missed much.

[wrdnshprd]

edit:  made this post more readable lol..

i know this topic has
been beat to death, but i have been reading up on the evolution on
FFXIII and how it is changing the FF series, and it got me thinking on
this yet again.  here is what i came up with:

i think people
need to remember that certain gameplay elements define a genre. Sorry..
its true.  RPGs, for example, need some way of customizing a character
outside of a simple dialogue tree. For me, it doesnt matter
if there
is a sphere system for level up, if MP was removed and replaced with a
point system (FFXIII), if towns were removed (in FFXIII this is also
going to be true), if the perspective of the camera is
first-person/third-perso/isometic, or if the combat is real-time or
turn based. As long as i can customize my character the way i want, and
the way i customize my character is the primary focus as to how that
character performs in combat - im ok with the game being called an rpg
because my ability to use the controller to aim a weapon or hit a
button should have minimal effect on the outcome of combat. 

Obviously
there are RPGs out there where timing and quick thinking are important,
however one thing stays constant regardless of the combat mechanics.. i
still have to make decisions on how i want to make up the characters..
do i want character A to be a white mage or black mage? do i want this
character to have a focus on ranged weapons or melee? Do I want this
character to focus on defense or DPS? Do i want character A to level up
Attack A or Attack B? etc.. and each of these decisions affect how well
that character does in combat.  perfect timing and mastering the combat
mechanics may give me bonuses, but in the end its how i customize the
characters that matter.

shooters on the other other hand are
defined with reactionary combat.. ie. your ability to aim a weapon with
a controller and fire accurately play a critical role in to whether you
are successful in combat. it doesnt matter whether you are a black
mage, white mage, commando, medic.. etc.. you're ability to aim, fire
accurately, and reaction skills define how well you do in the game. you
might have different weapons, have different skills, etc. but yor
actual skills as a player are the focus.. with RPGs, again, its how you
customize the character.thus genres can evolve all they want, but
certain fundamental things need to stay. if not, fans of each genre
will get unhappy. take away the character customization from RPGers..
RPG fan get unhappy.. take away the skill of the player from a shooter
fan and change the combat to be totally stat based.. shooter fan gets
unhappy. its just the way it is, and that my friends is the bottom
line.. thoughts?

edit:  sigh.. will try another thread...  moral of this story dont copy a post from another thread lol

Modifié par wrdnshprd, 15 février 2010 - 10:21 .

[Grand_Commander13]

So much less painful without the wicked-jagged edges. I like where your head's at: what makes a game an RPG is wholly divorced from what makes a game a shooter. Neither takes away from the other, as they don't really even speak much (though RPG elements of customization, we have seen, do have some nice things to say to the shooter elements).

[peterflam]

me1 was great. me2 went with the the consolized, broader appeal nonsense and the result was monotonous combat, laughable customization choices, and a more linear game in general.



duck, shoot, duck, power, shoot, rinse repeat. go on to next objective, meet plot character, skip dialog you heard 50 times. deal with your crew's problems, play the same missions 99 percent exactly the same due to ridiculous map designed that funnels you to the same exact spot. ridiculous environments consisting of boxes and waist high square rocks to facilitate the dull cover-based combat.

[Grand_Commander13]

peterflam wrote...

me1 was great. me2 went with the the consolized, broader appeal nonsense and the result was monotonous combat, laughable customization choices, and a more linear game in general.

Yes, the game which was originally designed for a console and later as an afterthought ported to the PC is the One True Game that later suffered after the developers decided to design its sequel for the console.

And by the way: choosing what order you do your linear missions in doesn't make a game nonlinear.  Boring combat does not make a game an RPG, superfluous sub-par options do not mean you have customization opportunities.

[Thompson family]

i know this topic has
been beat to death ...

Yep.

[wrdnshprd]

guess people are tired of talking about this eh.. i personally enjoy the debate.

[FiOth]

Grand_Commander13 wrote...

peterflam wrote...

me1 was great. me2 went with the the consolized, broader appeal nonsense and the result was monotonous combat, laughable customization choices, and a more linear game in general.

Yes, the game which was originally designed for a console and later as an afterthought ported to the PC is the One True Game that later suffered after the developers decided to design its sequel for the console.

And by the way: choosing what order you do your linear missions in doesn't make a game nonlinear.  Boring combat does not make a game an RPG, superfluous sub-par options do not mean you have customization opportunities.

Exactly. Really, what's with you "PC FTW!" people anyway? Is it an inability to touch a gamepad, do you think you'll get burnt in the process?

ME1 was developed for the XBOX360 initially. THEN it was ported to the PC. Combat in the first game was fun for a while but putting so much weight in stats and classes made the whole shooting affair a drag due to "problems" related to it's generic RPG roots: Damage and chance to hit based on stats and not actual skill, lack of weak points and ridiculous amounts of health and shielding that didn't really make sense or add to the experience. What they did in ME2 is a work of genius imo, it makes you feel like you are actually continuing the adventure after ME1 - no swimming reticles and n00bish combat efficiency in the beginning - while retaining a basic RPG formula in terms of customization. 100% RPG in character interaction, 85% shooter and 15% RPG as far as action is related. The best from both worlds.

Playing on a PC does not make you a "serious gamer". If you prefer the input devices, free modding or anything else be my guest. If you want to be sure that the game will run at 100% no matter when you bought your system and you enjoy the luxury of a big TV in front of a comfortable couch play on a console. Just please, don't diminish the game's worth by trying to patronize it under your personal perspective.

[FiOth]

Grand_Commander13 wrote...

peterflam wrote...

me1 was great. me2 went with the the consolized, broader appeal nonsense and the result was monotonous combat, laughable customization choices, and a more linear game in general.

Yes, the game which was originally designed for a console and later as an afterthought ported to the PC is the One True Game that later suffered after the developers decided to design its sequel for the console.

And by the way: choosing what order you do your linear missions in doesn't make a game nonlinear.  Boring combat does not make a game an RPG, superfluous sub-par options do not mean you have customization opportunities.

Exactly. Really, what's with you "PC FTW!" people anyway? Is it an inability to touch a gamepad, do you think you'll get burnt in the process?

ME1 was developed for the XBOX360 initially. THEN it was ported to the PC. Combat in the first game was fun for a while but putting so much weight in stats and classes made the whole shooting affair a drag due to "problems" related to it's generic RPG roots: Damage and chance to hit based on stats and not actual skill, lack of weak points and ridiculous amounts of health and shielding that didn't really make sense or add to the experience. What they did in ME2 is a work of genius imo, it makes you feel like you are actually continuing the adventure after ME1 - no swimming reticles and n00bish combat efficiency in the beginning - while retaining a basic RPG formula in terms of customization. 100% RPG in character interaction, 85% shooter and 15% RPG as far as action is related. The best from both worlds.

Playing on a PC does not make you a "serious gamer". If you prefer the input devices, free modding or anything else be my guest. If you want to be sure that the game will run at 100% no matter when you bought your system and you enjoy the luxury of a big TV in front of a comfortable couch play on a console. Just please, don't diminish the game's worth by trying to patronize it under your personal perspective.

[Sibbwolf]

wrdnshprd wrote...

Obviously
there are RPGs out there where timing and quick thinking are important,
however one thing stays constant regardless of the combat mechanics.. i
still have to make decisions on how i want to make up the characters..
do i want character A to be a white mage or black mage? do i want this
character to have a focus on ranged weapons or melee? Do I want this
character to focus on defense or DPS? Do i want character A to level up
Attack A or Attack B? etc.. and each of these decisions affect how well
that character does in combat.  perfect timing and mastering the combat
mechanics may give me bonuses, but in the end its how i customize the
characters that matter.

You want a fantasy (or fantasy-hybrid) RPG, not a Sci-Fi 'RPG'.

As for custumising the character... this comes up time and time again. Commander Shepard is NOT your character.

[FiOth]

Damn, just noticed that I double posted by mistake above. Sorry about that people.

[Lord Exar]

Modifié par Lord Exar, 15 février 2010 - 11:03 .

[Moogliepie]

Everyone has their own definition of RPG. For me,ME2 an RPG. Some don't consider JRPGs like Final Fantasy as true RPGs, but FF fans would probably disagree. There are people who don't consider Diablo II an RPG, and some who do. There are people who don't consider WoW an RPG, unless you are actually chatting in-character.



People who insist ME2 isn't an RPG, fall back on the idea that a game where player skill trumps character skill is not an RPG. Interestingly, LARPing would not be considering role-playing according to this definition. As much as LARPers deserve ridicule, I don't think any serious pnp gamer would make the claim that LARP isn't role-playing.

[Moogliepie]

FiOth wrote...

Grand_Commander13 wrote...

peterflam wrote...

me1 was great. me2 went with the the consolized, broader appeal nonsense and the result was monotonous combat, laughable customization choices, and a more linear game in general.

Yes, the game which was originally designed for a console and later as an afterthought ported to the PC is the One True Game that later suffered after the developers decided to design its sequel for the console.

And by the way: choosing what order you do your linear missions in doesn't make a game nonlinear.  Boring combat does not make a game an RPG, superfluous sub-par options do not mean you have customization opportunities.

Exactly. Really, what's with you "PC FTW!" people anyway? Is it an inability to touch a gamepad, do you think you'll get burnt in the process?

ME1 was developed for the XBOX360 initially. THEN it was ported to the PC. Combat in the first game was fun for a while but putting so much weight in stats and classes made the whole shooting affair a drag due to "problems" related to it's generic RPG roots: Damage and chance to hit based on stats and not actual skill, lack of weak points and ridiculous amounts of health and shielding that didn't really make sense or add to the experience. What they did in ME2 is a work of genius imo, it makes you feel like you are actually continuing the adventure after ME1 - no swimming reticles and n00bish combat efficiency in the beginning - while retaining a basic RPG formula in terms of customization. 100% RPG in character interaction, 85% shooter and 15% RPG as far as action is related. The best from both worlds.

Playing on a PC does not make you a "serious gamer". If you prefer the input devices, free modding or anything else be my guest. If you want to be sure that the game will run at 100% no matter when you bought your system and you enjoy the luxury of a big TV in front of a comfortable couch play on a console. Just please, don't diminish the game's worth by trying to patronize it under your personal perspective.

Thank you. I am sick to death of the elitist PC-gamer attitude. I encountered it a lot in EVE online when I discussed other games. This kind of crap is so 1990's. There isn't as big a schism anymore. Most games are ported to one or the other these days. I used to be a harcore PC gamer, but I sick of keeping up with hardware requirements. Consoles are easier, I can rent games, buy them used, and there are plenty of multiplayer games that I can play with someone else in the same room. On top of that, retail availability of PC games has really gone down. 

[Sidac]

[Elder Drake]

A little more character customization would have gone a long ways. Dead Space's protagonist was more customizable, even the mp part of COD: MW2 is for crying out loud. I feel like ME2 is more of a scripted movie that Bioware made that they threw some interactivity in with it. I do not truly feel like "It's my story" because the "Make Shepard your own" options are so generic that they could remove them completely and I honestly wouldn't miss them. Bioware=Epic RPGs and storytelling, loved every one of their games till now. I still can't get how this game is receiving 96%avg scores. That is my opinion though and I obviously don't pretend to speak for the majority. ME2 to me was not worth the $75 USD I paid for the CE. Maybe EA will grace me with some content I can buy to bring me back but got to say..overall disappointed. And whomever designed the ending must have been smoking the good stuff because...seriously, that last interactive segment was so ludicrous I actually laughed when it literally popped up. Epic fail.

[Soruyao]

Here's a simple solution: Lets create a new genre that the mass effect games are part of. Lets call it RPS.



1. Do you like this new genre? Y/N (If yes, go to 2, if no, go to 3.)

2. Play the game some more.

3. Don't play the game some more.



Me1 was NOT more complex than ME2. There was a bunch of vendor trash that we all ignored, three weapons we ever actually used per type, and they all acted the same. We had incrimental increases in skills that didn't change anything and a bunch of abilities that all do exactlty the same thing. It was all illusory choice. Smoke and mirrors. Me2 has more complexity and a greater variation in builds.

[lukandroll]

TC, you're actually right on you analisis abour RPG vs Shooter; oh and never mind about the text formating, there some BioWare fanboys over this site that are beyond help,

FiOth wrote...

Grand_Commander13 wrote...

peterflam wrote...

me1 was great. me2 went with the the consolized, broader appeal nonsense and the result was monotonous combat, laughable customization choices, and a more linear game in general.

Yes, the game which was originally designed for a console and later as an afterthought ported to the PC is the One True Game that later suffered after the developers decided to design its sequel for the console.

And by the way: choosing what order you do your linear missions in doesn't make a game nonlinear.  Boring combat does not make a game an RPG, superfluous sub-par options do not mean you have customization opportunities.

Exactly. Really, what's with you "PC FTW!" people anyway? Is it an inability to touch a gamepad, do you think you'll get burnt in the process?

ME1 was developed for the XBOX360 initially. THEN it was ported to the PC. Combat in the first game was fun for a while but putting so much weight in stats and classes made the whole shooting affair a drag due to "problems" related to it's generic RPG roots: Damage and chance to hit based on stats and not actual skill, lack of weak points and ridiculous amounts of health and shielding that didn't really make sense or add to the experience. What they did in ME2 is a work of genius imo, it makes you feel like you are actually continuing the adventure after ME1 - no swimming reticles and n00bish combat efficiency in the beginning - while retaining a basic RPG formula in terms of customization. 100% RPG in character interaction, 85% shooter and 15% RPG as far as action is related. The best from both worlds.

Playing on a PC does not make you a "serious gamer". If you prefer the input devices, free modding or anything else be my guest. If you want to be sure that the game will run at 100% no matter when you bought your system and you enjoy the luxury of a big TV in front of a comfortable couch play on a console. Just please, don't diminish the game's worth by trying to patronize it under your personal perspective.

You conviniently omited that the ME1 pc port was MUCH more better than the 360 version, better reviews are proof of this.
But any way, to each his own, what you call "noobish shooting" is what we called a Underleveled character, have you ever play another RPG in your life???? Do you expect? be a commando GOD right from the begining?? Please, people, if you want that, go play COD4 or MW2, those are the games for you.
Leave character planing and customization to us and go frag someone in COD.

[Grand_Commander13]

lukandroll wrote...

You conviniently omited that the ME1 pc port was MUCH more better than the 360 version, better reviews are proof of this.
But any way, to each his own, what you call "noobish shooting" is what we called a Underleveled character, have you ever play another RPG in your life???? Do you expect? be a commando GOD right from the begining?? Please, people, if you want that, go play COD4 or MW2, those are the games for you.
Leave character planing and customization to us and go frag someone in COD.

I absolutely despise the conceit that an RPG character must start out as a weakling.  Maybe it's just because of how far Gothic took this trope (you go from getting beat up by scavengers to beating the snot out of demons), but I don't understand why stat growth is seen as so necessary.  The "need new toys to play with" could easily be satisfied by allies with newer, cooler powers and some sweet upgrades to the Normandy.  Shooters do it with new guns, not by your character going from being a wannabe to a Best There Ever Was.

[lukandroll]

Grand_Commander13 wrote...

lukandroll wrote...

You conviniently omited that the ME1 pc port was MUCH more better than the 360 version, better reviews are proof of this.
But any way, to each his own, what you call "noobish shooting" is what we called a Underleveled character, have you ever play another RPG in your life???? Do you expect? be a commando GOD right from the begining?? Please, people, if you want that, go play COD4 or MW2, those are the games for you.
Leave character planing and customization to us and go frag someone in COD.

I absolutely despise the conceit that an RPG character must start out as a weakling.  Maybe it's just because of how far Gothic took this trope (you go from getting beat up by scavengers to beating the snot out of demons), but I don't understand why stat growth is seen as so necessary.  The "need new toys to play with" could easily be satisfied by allies with newer, cooler powers and some sweet upgrades to the Normandy.  Shooters do it with new guns, not by your character going from being a wannabe to a Best There Ever Was.

Then you despise RPGs mein freud

[Grand_Commander13]

And you dishonor them.

[Frotality]

good points for bioware to consider about blending the 2 genres.

now this PC/360 war youve gone and started? let me start by saying that i am mostly a console gamer, and that PC gamers have good reason to consider themselves better than console players. why? because no F-bombing 8yr old will ever play baldur's gate, no MW clan would have anything to do with age of empires, so on and so forth. gaming started as a niche market for nerds on their PCs. consoles took gaming mainstream, and its simple logic that mainstream appeal must= simple. PC gamers are the sargeants and console gamers are the privates, its simple ranking structure, we came in second, thats just how it is, regardless of how great you think you are, you arent the sargeant.

[Wolfehunter]

FiOth wrote...

Exactly. Really, what's with you "PC FTW!" people anyway? Is it an inability to touch a gamepad, do you think you'll get burnt in the process?

I don't like consoles never did never will. Just my preference. 

ME1 was developed for the XBOX360 initially. THEN it was ported to the PC. Combat in the first game was fun for a while but putting so much weight in stats and classes made the whole shooting affair a drag due to "problems" related to it's generic RPG roots: Damage and chance to hit based on stats and not actual skill, lack of weak points and ridiculous amounts of health and shielding that didn't really make sense or add to the experience. What they did in ME2 is a work of genius imo, it makes you feel like you are actually continuing the adventure after ME1 - no swimming reticles and n00bish combat efficiency in the beginning - while retaining a basic RPG formula in terms of customization. 100% RPG in character interaction, 85% shooter and 15% RPG as far as action is related. The best from both worlds.

This is very true. I know ME1 is a console game ported to PC.  I wasn't happy about it. ME1 still a great for a console game. But I bought it from a bargan bin so I don't care much...

Playing on a PC does not make you a "serious gamer". If you prefer the input devices, free modding or anything else be my guest. If you want to be sure that the game will run at 100% no matter when you bought your system and you enjoy the luxury of a big TV in front of a comfortable couch play on a console. Just please, don't diminish the game's worth by trying to patronize it under your personal perspective.

-It has nothing to do with being better gamer. It mostly has to do with control of the product you own. If you try to take control your console and mod it what do you think will happen? 

-It has to do with the ability to mod the game and add value. Cool thing about PC world is you can improve the game's by moding it.  The only limitation of the game is its engine and modders imagination.

-Its about taking advantage of the PCs better hardware if you can afford it.  Cheaper to own a console. I get it.

Most will like consoles because the system is more convenient. Slap a dvd in and it works. PC guys have to tweak and jury rig games. I've been doing that since DOS days using config.sys and autoexec.bat's lol...

Good times.