61 réponses à ce sujet

[Moogliepie]

SkullandBonesmember wrote...

Soruyao wrote...

There haven't been any complaints about the current game's system besides cryptic statements that the game isn't an RPG anymore and the fact that it was oversimplified and dumbed down somehow.

These arguments are highly based in opinion and can't be argued properly because there is no solid agreed upon definition for what an RPG is, and because 99% of the complexity that was removed from ME1 was issulsory complexity that had no actual effect on gameplay.

Could the game be a little more complex? Sure, but it's definitely more complex than ME1 was.    Is ME2 magically a different genre from ME1 because gameplay was tweaked a little?

Combat in the first made it easy for a fan like me who wouldn't normally be into shooters and others to ease in comfortably to the game without feeling a 'SPLOSHUNS overload. Again, there was more of an emphasis on combat in ME2 at the EXPENSE OF OVERALL STORY compared to 1.

I still don't buy this. The one thing that was most certainly NOT changed from ME1 to ME2 was the emphasis on story. In fact I think it plays an even more important role. Your opinion on the quality of writing may vary, but you can't honestly deny that story plays a huge role in ME2.

[Moogliepie]

SkullandBonesmember wrote...

Moogliepie wrote...

Your age comment is hilarious. I could list all the old school games I played long before there were even VGA graphics, but I'm not getting into a gamer e-peen contest with some pathetic loser who thinks that equates to e-street-cred. 

Learn the difference between disagreeing, and attacking, and grow the **** up if you are so old.

http://social.biowar...index/1231972/1

And this is coming from an ME2 fanboy.

MandatoryDenial1 wrote...

David Gaider wrote...
Another
thing which I find interesting is the role that nostalgia plays in
this. These same players will often swear up and down that there is no
nostalgia, but I suspect part of what made older games so special to
them is because they were new. That seems like it should be
self-evident, but I see a lot of people running on the assumption that
the novelty they felt playing an earlier game can be recaptured simply
by replicating the features in their entirety -- and looking at those
features as if they could exist independently of each other, rather
than in the context of a game where there are often trade-offs.

Dave
I find myself wondering if you really believe that its just nostalgia. 
As a gamer I can say with 100% certainty that I have yet to find any
game that has come out since the "golden age" of the interplay RPG's
that even approached the complexity and polish of the player defining
his/her role in the setting as did Baldur's Gate, Fallout 2, or
Planescape Torment.  To me as a gamer who has long waited for those
RPG's, I have found myself continually disappointed with what came
afterwards.  Don't get me wrong there have been some really fun games
that has followed such as Deus Ex, the first Gothic, Vampire: The
Masquerade Redemption, and KOTOR.  Even these though didn't
approach the quality or complexity of the Interplay RPG's.  I remember
saying this long ago and up until very recently, it was almost as
if the development studios were afraid to try to bring out really well
designed RPG.  That is why I have been so happy to see the return of
some games with depth such as the Witcher, DA: Origins and Mass Effect.

What's your point? I consistently put Baldur's Gate, Fallout 1&2 (hate FO3), and Ultima VI and VII as my favorite all time RPGs. That has NOTHING to do with this ME1 vs. ME2 debate, because ME1 isn't even in the same ballpark as those games when it comes to being an RPG. In fact, I think that just clarifies what I'm trying to say. 

[Sphaerus]

Soruyao wrote...

Just make up a new genre that ME1 and ME2 both fit in. Call it RPS. (Role play shooter.)

Does that work so far? Okay, here's a flowchart:

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.

This solution is clean and simple and removes all need for pointless argument and repetetive copy pasted topics that don't bring any new discussion.

My new favourite argument against this complaint.

[Frotality]

Kalfear wrote...

Moogliepie wrote...

In my opinion it was not, and I am sick of people talking about it as if it were the pinnacle of RPGs.  ME1 attempted to blend RPG elements with FPS elements, and ended up coming short on both accounts. 

You know what im sick of. Kids complaining about others when they have no clue what they talking about!

Mass Effect was the BEST Sci Fi RPG created to date and most definately was rich with core RPG systems and concepts.

-Character growth beyond just level? Check (you had create and choose how good your character was in every aspect of game)
-Story that you effected and influenced? Check
-well developed characters you interact with and they interact with you? Check
-Different weapons and armor? Check
-inventory/loot system? Check
-ect ect ect? Check

Of course Mass Effect 1 was a RPG with shooter qualities and it was the BEST Sci Fi RPG created to date! BAR NONE!

Im so sick and tired of these kiddies making assinine statements about topics they have no clue about!
Just say you liked ME2 more and move on, done make a troll post talking about stuff you arent old enough or smart enough to understand.

The people upset about ME2 have a RIGHT and REASON to be upset. Unlike you who have NO RIGHT and NO REASON to complain and whine about them.
You liked ME2 because it was a shooter, good for you! Thats all you need to say. Others have stronger opinions and require explanations, and unlike you their explanations have been based in reality!

Listen kid, I probably been a fan of Bioware games longer then you been alive. Bioware puts out great products 90% of the time but they do drop the ball occationally and Biowares real fans are going to tell them when that happens to keep them honest and focused at a level we have all come to expect from them. Like it or not, ME2 was not at that level for the mass majority of people that posted their thoughts. This is called feedback and is eccential for Bioware to hear so they can fix the mistakes the next time around. You might disagree but thats all it is, disagreement.
Whats not needed is you and yours attacking those people for speaking their minds. You do not know better then those others and saying you do (as you say in your post) serves no purpose of a constructive nature.

productive fan 101

i applaud you sir

[finnithe]

I liked how in ME2 squad members became integral, even in the endgame. I've seen a video of someone soloing some of the harder parts of ME1 as an Adept on Insanity. The thing about the strategy the person was using was that it was easily replicated. Even in ME2's endgame,



I don't think Bioware was aiming to make the ME franchise a traditional RPG. I'm not really sure how work a traditional RPG would work for a gun-focused game, because a shooter relies on skill derived from hand-eye coordination and quick tactical decisions, while RPG's are numbers-based games that rely on skill derived from planning skills. I haven't played a game where both have been integrated well (I would not say ME1 is a good example of this due to the number of gamebreakers), but I am a relatively young gamer, so if anyone could cite an example of this, I would try and find that game.



Why does ME have to be a traditional game anyways?

[Wildfire Darkstar]

baller7345 wrote...

I see it as still a RPG. Nothing says it can't be real time or that everything has to be based on skills. I've played table top RPG's for years as well as "classic" RPG's. Its a different take on the genre and very refreshing after years of point and click combat.

RPGs have incorporated real-time elements for decades: Final Fantasy IV was the first such game I played, back in 1991, but I doubt it was the first. Every BioWare RPG has been real-time (though most have the ability to pause to strategize). I can't remember the last time I saw a commercially successful, old-school, turn-based RPG for a major system (a handful of niche titles for the DS or PSP, maybe, but nothing more).

But, well, skill/statistic based gameplay is one of the cornerstones of the genre, and, really, what separates it from action games, or shooters, or whatever else. Particularly nowadays, when you'd be hard presed to find any major title (outside of puzzle games) that doesn't incorporate some sort of plot and characterization.

[Wildfire Darkstar]

finnithe wrote...

I don't think Bioware was aiming to make the ME franchise a traditional RPG. I'm not really sure how work a traditional RPG would work for a gun-focused game, because a shooter relies on skill derived from hand-eye coordination and quick tactical decisions, while RPG's are numbers-based games that rely on skill derived from planning skills. I haven't played a game where both have been integrated well (I would not say ME1 is a good example of this due to the number of gamebreakers), but I am a relatively young gamer, so if anyone could cite an example of this, I would try and find that game.

Fallout 3 does a pretty good job of it, IMO. It may not have the story or characterization of Mass Effect, but in terms of gameplay it's much, much closer to a traditional RPG than either Mass Effect or Mass Effect 2, and combat melds both player-skill and statistic calculation pretty close to seamlessly, with an arguably greater emphasis on the latter.

Mass Effect 1 was exactly what it was advertised as: an RPG/shooter hybrid. It was, IMO, fairly well balanced between the two genres, even though the two didn't always mesh together well. Mass Effect 2 is certainly a better polished games, but it achieved that polish by looking at the places in which the RPG and shooter mechanics of ME1 were in conflict and, in pretty much every situation, dropping or deemphasizing the RPG mechanic in favor of the shooter mechanic. It's still a hybrid, but it's much closer to, say, Borderlands (a game I despised despite everyone else apparently loving) than Fallout 3: shooter first, RPG second.

[pillz here]

Soruyao wrote...

Just make up a new genre that ME1 and ME2 both fit in. Call it RPS. (Role play shooter.)

Does that work so far? Okay, here's a flowchart:

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.

This solution is clean and simple and removes all need for pointless argument and repetetive copy pasted topics that don't bring any new discussion.

Didn't Borderlands already create that genre?

[Soruyao]

Lets see, was the inventory system in ME1 more complex than the one in ME2? If you remove all the vendor trash you have 2 and sometimes 3 weapons in each weapon type (of which there are 4) that look different besides simple color swaps. You have 1 and sometimes 2 ways that those weapons actually fire (geth pulse rifle), but that you will only use one of because the stats are better.



You have weapon mods that barely change the way the gun works besides making it hit slightly harder or making it fire forever without ever overheating.



When you cut out all the illusory choice you end up with everyone's guns ending up being a spectre weapon with frictionless, and everyone's armor being a collossus something or other with two HP/shield/make me not die mods in it. ME2 seems like it has less complexity until you realize that everything you see is actually there. WYSIWYG



Was the leveling system more complicated? Here was a bunch more illusory choice. Lets take the soldier for example: Every soldier leveled their weapon skill first so they could actually do damage. Then they put points into armor so they could wear heavy armor. Then they put points into shields and fitness and their class skill, which all do exactly the same thing. (Make you die slower) 3 or 4 times a mission you stop your combat and go into a menu and pick which incredibly small incrimental upgrade you feel like adding. Sometimes you get an ability like fitness, which makes you not die, or marksman, which makes you just shoot better, or shield boost, which makes you not die. Then you get adrenaline boost which lets you use your two abilities which make you not die and your ability that makes you shoot better again.



There's so much choice here, I mean, you could put points into one of your abilities that make you not die, or the OTHER ability that makes you not die! Or the one that lets you melee slightly harder and lets you shoot better and make yourself not die more often!



WOW. that's super complicated! We have 2 abilities that do the exact same thing, and 1 ability that just makes your gun shoot a little faster. Thrilling. This is the pinnacle of RPG progression.



Truly, ME2's system pales in comparison to the INCREDIBLE choice offered by ME1's amazing system. I recind my argument, ME1 was the most RPG like RPG ever, and ME2 isn't an RPG at all. The fact that the choices in ME2 actually matter and influence your playstyle but happen less often is totally EAware dumbing down the game for the stupid and illiterate shooter children who don't write intelligent posts ever or bring up actual issues with what anyone on my side says about this.



I want vendor trash. If you disagree with me on any one of these points, you're an idiot.



And a dumb face.

[vhatever]

pillz here wrote...

Soruyao wrote...

Just make up a new genre that ME1 and ME2 both fit in. Call it RPS. (Role play shooter.)

Does that work so far? Okay, here's a flowchart:

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.

This solution is clean and simple and removes all need for pointless argument and repetetive copy pasted topics that don't bring any new discussion.

Didn't Borderlands already create that genre?

Umm, ME came out before borderlands. Even though I like/liked borderlands, calling it an RPG is extremely liberal. There is absolutely no player choice in the game aside from how you build your character. I guess you could skip doing side missions, if you consider that a "choice". Still a good game, but really stretches the RPG umbrella pretty wide.

Modifié par vhatever, 16 février 2010 - 04:15 .

[Patrickblah]

Moogliepie wrote...

In my opinion it was not, and I am sick of people talking about it as if it were the pinnacle of RPGs.  ME1 attempted to blend RPG elements with FPS elements, and ended up coming short on both accounts. 

how can a third person shooter have first person shooter elements and what were those in ME?

[MassEffect762]

Yes ME1 was an RPG/shooter/adventure in my opinion.



ME2 was a shooter/adventure game in my opinion.

[Soruyao]

Borderlands had vendor trash and ME2 didn't, therefore borderlands is an RPG and ME2 isn't!

I'm glad we figured that one out, it was really confusing me! This stuff is complicated. Lets go get some pancakes.

Modifié par Soruyao, 16 février 2010 - 04:32 .

[GRRiMREEAPeR]

uhhhh Yes it was... but barely. the slim leveling up, keeps it a rpg i guess...
but after KOTOR and ME1, id hardly call it a true Rpg

[SithLordExarKun]

Moogliepie wrote...

Kalfear wrote...

Moogliepie wrote...

In my opinion it was not, and I am sick of people talking about it as if it were the pinnacle of RPGs.  ME1 attempted to blend RPG elements with FPS elements, and ended up coming short on both accounts. 

You know what im sick of. Kids complaining about others when they have no clue what they talking about!

Mass Effect was the BEST Sci Fi RPG created to date and most definately was rich with core RPG systems and concepts.

-Character growth beyond just level? Check (you had create and choose how good your character was in every aspect of game)
-Story that you effected and influenced? Check
-well developed characters you interact with and they interact with you? Check
-Different weapons and armor? Check
-inventory/loot system? Check
-ect ect ect? Check

Of course Mass Effect 1 was a RPG with shooter qualities and it was the BEST Sci Fi RPG created to date! BAR NONE!

Im so sick and tired of these kiddies making assinine statements about topics they have no clue about!
Just say you liked ME2 more and move on, done make a troll post talking about stuff you arent old enough or smart enough to understand.

The people upset about ME2 have a RIGHT and REASON to be upset. Unlike you who have NO RIGHT and NO REASON to complain and whine about them.
You liked ME2 because it was a shooter, good for you! Thats all you need to say. Others have stronger opinions and require explanations, and unlike you their explanations have been based in reality!

Listen kid, I probably been a fan of Bioware games longer then you been alive. Bioware puts out great products 90% of the time but they do drop the ball occationally and Biowares real fans are going to tell them when that happens to keep them honest and focused at a level we have all come to expect from them. Like it or not, ME2 was not at that level for the mass majority of people that posted their thoughts. This is called feedback and is eccential for Bioware to hear so they can fix the mistakes the next time around. You might disagree but thats all it is, disagreement.
Whats not needed is you and yours attacking those people for speaking their minds. You do not know better then those others and saying you do (as you say in your post) serves no purpose of a constructive nature.

Wow, did I touch a nerve? First off, I have every right to argue my opinion, just as the ME1 fanboys have their right. If you don't understand that, then just stop posting here. These forums are not the solve providence of whiners. 

Your age comment is hilarious. I could list all the old school games I played long before there were even VGA graphics, but I'm not getting into a gamer e-peen contest with some pathetic loser who thinks that equates to e-street-cred. 

Learn the difference between disagreeing, and attacking, and grow the **** up if you are so old.

Just ignore him, he suffers from superiority complex and bashes anybody that tried to argue that ME2 is a far better game than ME1.

Modifié par SithLordExarKun, 16 février 2010 - 04:44 .

[baller7345]

Wildfire Darkstar wrote...

baller7345 wrote...

I see it as still a RPG. Nothing says it can't be real time or that everything has to be based on skills. I've played table top RPG's for years as well as "classic" RPG's. Its a different take on the genre and very refreshing after years of point and click combat.

RPGs have incorporated real-time elements for decades: Final Fantasy IV was the first such game I played, back in 1991, but I doubt it was the first. Every BioWare RPG has been real-time (though most have the ability to pause to strategize). I can't remember the last time I saw a commercially successful, old-school, turn-based RPG for a major system (a handful of niche titles for the DS or PSP, maybe, but nothing more).

But, well, skill/statistic based gameplay is one of the cornerstones of the genre, and, really, what separates it from action games, or shooters, or whatever else. Particularly nowadays, when you'd be hard presed to find any major title (outside of puzzle games) that doesn't incorporate some sort of plot and characterization.

I understand that stat based gameplay has been one of the cornerstones of the genre but it doesn't have to be.  ME2 still has a basic stat progression which actually works better in my opinion.  Back to the bit where I don't think an RPG has to be stat based.  While the majority of RPG's are heavily stat based there is nothing in the genre that states that it has to be.  Change isn't always a bad thing and neither is non stat based combat if it is implemented correctly.  I don't play RPG's for character builds I play for story and character interaction two parts I think are important to a RPG than stats. 

While the majority of video game RPGs have been stat based there have been quite a few table top RPGs that have more or less no stats and still play beautifully.

It really comes down to what you want out of an RPG and as long as that is delivered then stats or no stats its still RPG its just not what some think an RPG should be which I believe leads to the genre eventually becoming stale like JRPGs are starting too.

On another note I know that many straight turn based games are going away and in some cases I think this is a shame since some games were great as turnbased.  I loved Golden Sun and I'm now stuck waiting for years and years to get what may be one of the last great turn based RPGs.  I wasn't trying to say that all RPG are turned based that sentence just came out bad

I guess it all comes down to opinion and that some people may be put off by the changes to the Mass Effect franchise I however saw it as a refreshing change of pace for the genre. 

[lukandroll]

Moogliepie wrote...

In my opinion it was not, and I am sick of people talking about it as if it were the pinnacle of RPGs.  ME1 attempted to blend RPG elements with FPS elements, and ended up coming short on both accounts. 

When I first got it, I thought the infiltrator sounded cool, and I would get to play like a high-tech theif, similar to the Scoundrel in KOTOR. But ultimately, it only made a difference in combat, giving me  a few skills to edge out Geth. In KOTOR having different abilities meant you could resolve situations in completely different ways. ME1's role-play aspects, other than dialog options, fell flat. Inventory and gear customization does not make an RPG.

The skill system is problematic in ME2, but it was ridiculous in ME1. Having a skill for each weapon class, meant you started out grossly incompetent for a military COMMANDER with all weapons, and could end up ridiculously overpowered once you passed level 30. I keep reading people complain about the lack of Charm/Intimidate skills, but those were a joke in ME1. Anyone who played through the game more than once figured out you didn't need to spend any points in them, so they didn't bother. Read any build posted and none of them recommend putting points into Charm/Intimidate. To me that indicates, most people didn't like having to spend their skill points on that anyway.  Too make it work, either they needed to scrap them as skills, or scrap the effect of Paragon/Renegade actions on acquiring them. They went with the former. 

It maybe would have made sense to keep them as skills if ME1 was a more complete role-playing system like previous Bioware games, but it wasn't, nor was it intended to be. 

With ME1, Bioware wasn't trying to make an RPG, they were trying to make an interactive action-story, much like they tried to do with Jade Empire. So before you go crying about how EA is forcing Bioware to dumb their games down, realize that they have been moving in this direction for a while now. 

Possible all RPG mechanics, as the skills system, paragon/renegade, loot and inventory......
Basicaly all RPG elements from ME1 are similar to KOTOR
As a matter of fact, its bloody too similar to kotor....
So kotor its not an RPG too?

[Wildfire Darkstar]

baller7345 wrote...

I understand that stat based gameplay has been one of the cornerstones of the genre but it doesn't have to be.  ME2 still has a basic stat progression which actually works better in my opinion.  Back to the bit where I don't think an RPG has to be stat based.  While the majority of RPG's are heavily stat based there is nothing in the genre that states that it has to be.  Change isn't always a bad thing and neither is non stat based combat if it is implemented correctly.  I don't play RPG's for character builds I play for story and character interaction two parts I think are important to a RPG than stats.

I take your point, and I certainly don't want to suggest that character builds and stat-based gameplay are the be-all and end-all of the genre. But I don't think it's either descriptive or useful to define a genre by characteristics which aren't even remotely unique to that genre. Non-RPG computer games were sporting stories and character interaction as early as the 1980s, and particularly in recent years, there's nary a mainstream, non-puzlle/casual game out there that doesn't make at least a token effort towards storytelling. Some are quite effective at it, as well: both Half-Life and BioShock are well noted for their storytelling, and few people will mistake them for RPGs.

Mass Effect 2 can be a good game without being RPG, and, similarly, I can recognize it as a well-made game without finding it especially appealing to my own tastes. But to defend its RPG credentials by citing elements that aren't unique to RPGs is disingenuous, IMO. It's why I keep bringing up the Super Mario example around here: the fact that Mario can shoot fireballs doesn't make Super Mario Bros. a shooter. You pretty much need to ability to shoot things if you're going to call your game a shooter, but shooting things alone isn't enough. And the same goes for RPGs.

Stat-based gameplay may or may not be a requirement of the RPG genre, but there needs to be something that distinguishes it from any other genre, and, especially in 2010, having a developed story and characterization isn't good enough. I'm not against variety and experimentation, of course, but for some reason that particular argument is only ever trotted out for RPGs. No one would take me seriously if I argued that player skill doesn't necessarily have to a factor in the FPS/TPS genre, or that the FPS/TPS genre is letting itself become stale by limiting itself to gameplay that relies on player skill. But that seems to be quite a popular counterargument whenever someone raises an objection to the removal of character-skill based gameplay elements from RPGs.

[baller7345]

Wildfire Darkstar wrote...

baller7345 wrote...

I understand that stat based gameplay has been one of the cornerstones of the genre but it doesn't have to be.  ME2 still has a basic stat progression which actually works better in my opinion.  Back to the bit where I don't think an RPG has to be stat based.  While the majority of RPG's are heavily stat based there is nothing in the genre that states that it has to be.  Change isn't always a bad thing and neither is non stat based combat if it is implemented correctly.  I don't play RPG's for character builds I play for story and character interaction two parts I think are important to a RPG than stats.

I take your point, and I certainly don't want to suggest that character builds and stat-based gameplay are the be-all and end-all of the genre. But I don't think it's either descriptive or useful to define a genre by characteristics which aren't even remotely unique to that genre. Non-RPG computer games were sporting stories and character interaction as early as the 1980s, and particularly in recent years, there's nary a mainstream, non-puzlle/casual game out there that doesn't make at least a token effort towards storytelling. Some are quite effective at it, as well: both Half-Life and BioShock are well noted for their storytelling, and few people will mistake them for RPGs.

Mass Effect 2 can be a good game without being RPG, and, similarly, I can recognize it as a well-made game without finding it especially appealing to my own tastes. But to defend its RPG credentials by citing elements that aren't unique to RPGs is disingenuous, IMO. It's why I keep bringing up the Super Mario example around here: the fact that Mario can shoot fireballs doesn't make Super Mario Bros. a shooter. You pretty much need to ability to shoot things if you're going to call your game a shooter, but shooting things alone isn't enough. And the same goes for RPGs.

Stat-based gameplay may or may not be a requirement of the RPG genre, but there needs to be something that distinguishes it from any other genre, and, especially in 2010, having a developed story and characterization isn't good enough. I'm not against variety and experimentation, of course, but for some reason that particular argument is only ever trotted out for RPGs. No one would take me seriously if I argued that player skill doesn't necessarily have to a factor in the FPS/TPS genre, or that the FPS/TPS genre is letting itself become stale by limiting itself to gameplay that relies on player skill. But that seems to be quite a popular counterargument whenever someone raises an objection to the removal of character-skill based gameplay elements from RPGs.

I think the reason this arguement comes up is because Role Playing Game really doesn't say what the genre is in terms of gameplay elements so it can be taken loosely.  As to why nobody brings this up for shooters at this point is beyond me.  Many shooters not have large amounts of RPG elements yet nobody seems to make the arguement that they have the right to be called RPG's yet some people (not saying this has anything to do with our discussion) say games like fallout 3/ME are shooters.

Over the past 5 years I've really had my definition of what a RPG can be change, its getting to the point where there are very few pure genre games.  I figure in 10 years we may not even know what differs between major action games and major RPG games.  I'm not sure we can keep saying that just because something doesn't fit the classic mold that it isn't in a specific genre.  I believe this applies to all genres.

As to why the arguemnt never seems to come up in other genres I'm guessing its because us RPG players seem to critique our games much more than fans of other genres.

I don't know I get your point and a few years ago I would have called foul on stating ME as an RPG but seeing where the gaming genre's are going I have broadened my interpretation.  Not to say I see halo/gears as RPGs.


P.S. Sorry for anything that doesn't read well I've modified this thing 4 times after reading over it and I'm giving up being completely coherrent tonight.

Modifié par baller7345, 16 février 2010 - 05:38 .

[EternalWolfe]

Wildfire Darkstar wrote...

baller7345 wrote...

I understand that stat based gameplay has been one of the cornerstones of the genre but it doesn't have to be.  ME2 still has a basic stat progression which actually works better in my opinion.  Back to the bit where I don't think an RPG has to be stat based.  While the majority of RPG's are heavily stat based there is nothing in the genre that states that it has to be.  Change isn't always a bad thing and neither is non stat based combat if it is implemented correctly.  I don't play RPG's for character builds I play for story and character interaction two parts I think are important to a RPG than stats.

I take your point, and I certainly don't want to suggest that character builds and stat-based gameplay are the be-all and end-all of the genre. But I don't think it's either descriptive or useful to define a genre by characteristics which aren't even remotely unique to that genre. Non-RPG computer games were sporting stories and character interaction as early as the 1980s, and particularly in recent years, there's nary a mainstream, non-puzlle/casual game out there that doesn't make at least a token effort towards storytelling. Some are quite effective at it, as well: both Half-Life and BioShock are well noted for their storytelling, and few people will mistake them for RPGs.

Mass Effect 2 can be a good game without being RPG, and, similarly, I can recognize it as a well-made game without finding it especially appealing to my own tastes. But to defend its RPG credentials by citing elements that aren't unique to RPGs is disingenuous, IMO. It's why I keep bringing up the Super Mario example around here: the fact that Mario can shoot fireballs doesn't make Super Mario Bros. a shooter. You pretty much need to ability to shoot things if you're going to call your game a shooter, but shooting things alone isn't enough. And the same goes for RPGs.

Stat-based gameplay may or may not be a requirement of the RPG genre, but there needs to be something that distinguishes it from any other genre, and, especially in 2010, having a developed story and characterization isn't good enough. I'm not against variety and experimentation, of course, but for some reason that particular argument is only ever trotted out for RPGs. No one would take me seriously if I argued that player skill doesn't necessarily have to a factor in the FPS/TPS genre, or that the FPS/TPS genre is letting itself become stale by limiting itself to gameplay that relies on player skill. But that seems to be quite a popular counterargument whenever someone raises an objection to the removal of character-skill based gameplay elements from RPGs.

The easist way to explain the notable element that gets a game the RPG genre title in the video game industry is Character Devolopemnt.  Stats are one form, but there is also Skill-use systems, Skill-point systems, Skill-tree systems, equipment progression, level progression, ect.  The last one is usually mixed with another, of course, whether its stats that increase when you level, whether you get skill points to spend, or if you get access to new skills(or choose new skills) at level ups.

All in all, it comes down to this: Character devolopment is about watching your character grow(game-play wise) as you level.  Which is enjoyable for some, not for others, that is all opinion of course.

That said, ME is supposed to mix TPS and RPG genres(with a bit of adventure thrown in for fun).  I found ME1 to be a so-so shooter and an good RPG with some badly implemented elements.  ME2, I think, is a good shooter, and a so-so RPG with a some badly implemented elements. 

I want ME3 to fall in the middle: ME2's ship-inventory and modular armor, with modular/moddable weapons and enough parts to make customization more important.  A more expansive skill system with both active and passive skills to choose from like ME1's(but not the gun skills, or at least not to the point where you get stupid things like a trained soldier weaving his rifle like he was drunk or missing with a shotgun from point blank range).  Maybe more loot(in conjuction with the increase armor/weapon parts) from enemies, but scanned and recreated on the normandy, rather then carried in a magic backpack.  You get the idea.

[Moogliepie]

EternalWolfe wrote...

Wildfire Darkstar wrote...

baller7345 wrote...

I understand that stat based gameplay has been one of the cornerstones of the genre but it doesn't have to be.  ME2 still has a basic stat progression which actually works better in my opinion.  Back to the bit where I don't think an RPG has to be stat based.  While the majority of RPG's are heavily stat based there is nothing in the genre that states that it has to be.  Change isn't always a bad thing and neither is non stat based combat if it is implemented correctly.  I don't play RPG's for character builds I play for story and character interaction two parts I think are important to a RPG than stats.

I take your point, and I certainly don't want to suggest that character builds and stat-based gameplay are the be-all and end-all of the genre. But I don't think it's either descriptive or useful to define a genre by characteristics which aren't even remotely unique to that genre. Non-RPG computer games were sporting stories and character interaction as early as the 1980s, and particularly in recent years, there's nary a mainstream, non-puzlle/casual game out there that doesn't make at least a token effort towards storytelling. Some are quite effective at it, as well: both Half-Life and BioShock are well noted for their storytelling, and few people will mistake them for RPGs.

Mass Effect 2 can be a good game without being RPG, and, similarly, I can recognize it as a well-made game without finding it especially appealing to my own tastes. But to defend its RPG credentials by citing elements that aren't unique to RPGs is disingenuous, IMO. It's why I keep bringing up the Super Mario example around here: the fact that Mario can shoot fireballs doesn't make Super Mario Bros. a shooter. You pretty much need to ability to shoot things if you're going to call your game a shooter, but shooting things alone isn't enough. And the same goes for RPGs.

Stat-based gameplay may or may not be a requirement of the RPG genre, but there needs to be something that distinguishes it from any other genre, and, especially in 2010, having a developed story and characterization isn't good enough. I'm not against variety and experimentation, of course, but for some reason that particular argument is only ever trotted out for RPGs. No one would take me seriously if I argued that player skill doesn't necessarily have to a factor in the FPS/TPS genre, or that the FPS/TPS genre is letting itself become stale by limiting itself to gameplay that relies on player skill. But that seems to be quite a popular counterargument whenever someone raises an objection to the removal of character-skill based gameplay elements from RPGs.

The easist way to explain the notable element that gets a game the RPG genre title in the video game industry is Character Devolopemnt.  Stats are one form, but there is also Skill-use systems, Skill-point systems, Skill-tree systems, equipment progression, level progression, ect.  The last one is usually mixed with another, of course, whether its stats that increase when you level, whether you get skill points to spend, or if you get access to new skills(or choose new skills) at level ups.

All in all, it comes down to this: Character devolopment is about watching your character grow(game-play wise) as you level.  Which is enjoyable for some, not for others, that is all opinion of course.

That said, ME is supposed to mix TPS and RPG genres(with a bit of adventure thrown in for fun).  I found ME1 to be a so-so shooter and an good RPG with some badly implemented elements.  ME2, I think, is a good shooter, and a so-so RPG with a some badly implemented elements. 

I want ME3 to fall in the middle: ME2's ship-inventory and modular armor, with modular/moddable weapons and enough parts to make customization more important.  A more expansive skill system with both active and passive skills to choose from like ME1's(but not the gun skills, or at least not to the point where you get stupid things like a trained soldier weaving his rifle like he was drunk or missing with a shotgun from point blank range).  Maybe more loot(in conjuction with the increase armor/weapon parts) from enemies, but scanned and recreated on the normandy, rather then carried in a magic backpack.  You get the idea.

I don't think you can get a good definition of RPG. God of War has progression in abilities, strength, hit points, and equipment. Would anyone call that an RPG? Grand Theft Auto 3 introduced freedom in the game world that most traditional RPGs only dreamed of. Is GTA III an RPG? 

[Moogliepie]

Patrickblah wrote...

Moogliepie wrote...

In my opinion it was not, and I am sick of people talking about it as if it were the pinnacle of RPGs.  ME1 attempted to blend RPG elements with FPS elements, and ended up coming short on both accounts. 

how can a third person shooter have first person shooter elements and what were those in ME?

Don't get me started on this nonsensical debate. TPS and FPS are the same f'n thing, only the camera position is slightly changed. You can code any TPS to be an FPS with a very minor change (or vice versa) and it wouldn't make a major difference in gameplay. If they did it in ME, you wouldn't get to see your character's ass, and would have a slightly reduced field of view in exchange for more precise control. Otherwise it would be the same thing. Don't believe me? Go play GRAW2 in multiplayer mode where you can switch from over-the-shoulder view to FP view in the options menu, and you will see it's the same f'n game.

[lukandroll]

Soruyao wrote...

Lets see, was the inventory system in ME1 more complex than the one in ME2? If you remove all the vendor trash you have 2 and sometimes 3 weapons in each weapon type (of which there are 4) that look different besides simple color swaps. You have 1 and sometimes 2 ways that those weapons actually fire (geth pulse rifle), but that you will only use one of because the stats are better.

You have weapon mods that barely change the way the gun works besides making it hit slightly harder or making it fire forever without ever overheating.

When you cut out all the illusory choice you end up with everyone's guns ending up being a spectre weapon with frictionless, and everyone's armor being a collossus something or other with two HP/shield/make me not die mods in it. ME2 seems like it has less complexity until you realize that everything you see is actually there. WYSIWYG

Was the leveling system more complicated? Here was a bunch more illusory choice. Lets take the soldier for example: Every soldier leveled their weapon skill first so they could actually do damage. Then they put points into armor so they could wear heavy armor. Then they put points into shields and fitness and their class skill, which all do exactly the same thing. (Make you die slower) 3 or 4 times a mission you stop your combat and go into a menu and pick which incredibly small incrimental upgrade you feel like adding. Sometimes you get an ability like fitness, which makes you not die, or marksman, which makes you just shoot better, or shield boost, which makes you not die. Then you get adrenaline boost which lets you use your two abilities which make you not die and your ability that makes you shoot better again.

There's so much choice here, I mean, you could put points into one of your abilities that make you not die, or the OTHER ability that makes you not die! Or the one that lets you melee slightly harder and lets you shoot better and make yourself not die more often!

WOW. that's super complicated! We have 2 abilities that do the exact same thing, and 1 ability that just makes your gun shoot a little faster. Thrilling. This is the pinnacle of RPG progression.

Truly, ME2's system pales in comparison to the INCREDIBLE choice offered by ME1's amazing system. I recind my argument, ME1 was the most RPG like RPG ever, and ME2 isn't an RPG at all. The fact that the choices in ME2 actually matter and influence your playstyle but happen less often is totally EAware dumbing down the game for the stupid and illiterate shooter children who don't write intelligent posts ever or bring up actual issues with what anyone on my side says about this.

I want vendor trash. If you disagree with me on any one of these points, you're an idiot.

And a dumb face.

You seem bitter whenever someone bring up ME2 lack of RPG mechanics, and I can see why... Maybe your real interest in RPGs are the story and characters. Maybe classic RPG mechanics as stat planing, character building, strategy, etc; bores you. But that's part of an RPG love it or hate it.
You got to understand, there's a lot of people, including me, that loved the first game, with its flaws and all, and maybe we were expecting a game more like ME1, but fixed, instead we got a streamlined shooter with little to no RPG mechanics.
You also seem to forget that not all RPG gamers like shooters, its like there is this stupid fassion that if you like games you automaticaly GOT to like shooters, its not. ME1 had the shooter and RPG mechanics in a well balanced matter, ME2 is definely more shooter. On top of that, instead of fixing the problems ME1 had, BioWare choose to scrap them completely, they choose to focus on shooter fans making the shooter mechanics more interesting, intead of fixing the RPG mechanics to please their core audience.
That's one of the main reasons of why there so many complains.
I hope ME3 can mend this and mix this two faces of the same coin in a more balanced and subtle way, because right now the house is clearly divided.

Modifié par lukandroll, 16 février 2010 - 06:50 .

[MPaBkaTa123]

[Insert 5 pages worth of going back and forth and random troll posts here]

[Mendelevosa]

Why does the genre of ME and ME2 matter? A game is a game. I could care less if Mass Effect was an RPG, FPS, or Sports game. As long as the game is good, then that's all that matters to me.