297 réponses à ce sujet

[A Fhaol Bhig]

Daeion wrote...

A Fhaol Bhig wrote...

Daeion wrote...

A Fhaol Bhig wrote...

I see no real lack of RPG elements.
But thats just me.

It's not that there is a lack of them, this game certainly isn't as restrictive as say Gears, it's just that when compard to ME, it seems to fall short.  Like I and others have said, RPGs mean different things to different people, so to each their own.

Agreed to the "each their own"
but I shall agree to disagree also, because I like ME2 more.

(wait, or are you talking about the amount of traditional RPG things like loot from ME being absent?)

Yes, I'm talking about traditional RPG items such as loot or being able to customize your squads gear.  Sure loot isn't exactly absent, but when you compare it to games like KOTOR or ME, ME2 falls short.

Oh sure I agree with that. I wouldn't mind being able to get some loot, for say, every five enemies you kill, rarity depending on level, and what kind of enemies you killed.

Just more than in ME2, and WAY less than in ME.

[Bob5312]

I don't understand why we're trying to decide whether ME2 is an RPG or not, and what the definition of an RPG should be. I can understand that if some people went in expecting an extensive inventory and corpse-looting, they would be disappointed. But looting was never a big part of ME1; you got stuff randomly dropped in your inventory after killing enemies once in awhile, but that was it.

Frankly, looting always seemed out of place in Mass Effect; for a game that tries as hard as this one to make sense, it can't explain how Shepard can carry twenty guns and three sets of armour, or why a varren would have a weapon upgrade on its corpse. Or why you have to buy all of your equipment (would a poor Spectre just go save the galaxy naked and unarmed?) Or who keeps giving you credits for killing people. But if that's your thing, hey, good for you.

If that's what defines an RPG to you, then ME2 is not an RPG. If character interaction and development (you know, playing a role) is what defines an RPG to you, then ME2 is an RPG. Regardless of what you call it, it's still the same game. To say that it 'fails as an RPG' is like saying it 'fails as a turn-based strategy game'; that is, it fails to be something it never intended to be.

Play the game for what it is, and if you don't or can't enjoy it, well, that's unfortunate, but it doesn't mean that the game is somehow 'wrong'.

Edit:  Also, a number of people have brought up the Mako.  I'm a bit unclear about when a poorly-controlled, floating, bouncing tank became a requirement for an RPG. 

To be fair, I think people are bemoaning the lack of exploration of open environments in ME2.  That's a fair point, though it's not related to whether the game is an RPG or not.  But as much as I like open areas to explore, the ones in ME1 were so poorly designed and implemented that I would rather they be excluded than retained in that form.  You got dropped on a planet, searched around for a little while for the one mountain that you could actually drive up to get to your objective, killed the three guards outside, and then you were in a bunker.  Again.  Sure, there was a big open world out there; but there was nothing to actually do in it except look for rocks and get stuck in the level geometry.

Modifié par Bob5312, 10 mars 2010 - 01:07 .

[A Fhaol Bhig]

Bob5312 wrote...

I don't understand why we're trying to decide whether ME2 is an RPG or not, and what the definition of an RPG should be. I can understand that if some people went in expecting an extensive inventory and corpse-looting, they would be disappointed. But looting was never a big part of ME1; you got stuff randomly dropped in your inventory after killing enemies once in awhile, but that was it.
Frankly, looting always seemed out of place in Mass Effect; for a game that tries as hard as this one to make sense, it can't explain how Shepard can carry twenty guns and three sets of armour, or why a varren would have a weapon upgrade on its corpse. Or why you have to buy all of your equipment (would a poor Spectre just go save the galaxy naked and unarmed?) Or who keeps giving you credits for killing people. But if that's your thing, hey, good for you.
If that's what defines an RPG to you, then ME2 is not an RPG. If character interaction and development (you know, playing a role) is what defines an RPG to you, then ME2 is an RPG. Regardless of what you call it, it's still the same game. To say that it 'fails as an RPG' is like saying it 'fails as a turn-based strategy game'; that is, it fails to be something it never intended to be.
Play the game for what it is, and if you don't or can't enjoy it, well, that's unfortunate, but it doesn't mean that the game is somehow 'wrong'.

We're not arguing (with exception of one person so far that no-one agrees with) wether or not Mass Effect 2 is an RPG, we are arguing about how in depth both the standered RPG elements (leveling up, powers, classes etc) and the non-standerd elements of Mass Effect come together to cause the game to be in some people's opinions to shallow of an RPG, or just fine.

[Bob5312]

A Fhaol Bhig wrote...

We're not arguing (with exception of one person so far that no-one agrees with) wether or not Mass Effect 2 is an RPG, we are arguing about how in depth both the standered RPG elements (leveling up, powers, classes etc) and the non-standerd elements of Mass Effect come together to cause the game to be in some people's opinions to shallow of an RPG, or just fine.

Sorry, maybe I was unclear.  What I mean is that it seems to come down ultimately to a matter of personal taste in games, and that there is therefore no hope for any consensus.  Whether it is 'too shallow an RPG, or just fine,' in your words, is, I would argue, dependant more on one's personal definition of what an RPG is than on the merits of the actual game. 

To use the example of corpse-looting: whether the absence of this makes the game a poor RPG shouldn't really matter.  It either improves the game as a whole, or not; if it makes the game more an RPG but takes away from the gameplay then it should be dropped.  Whether you believe that it does in fact take away from the gameplay will be a matter of personal taste.

Regardless, I personally think that the game kept the soul of the RPG while trimming out some of the unnecessary and extraneous bits.  Comparing item stats to get the best weapons and armour from the dozens in your inventory is, I believe, an obsolete gameplay device from the early days of RPGs that has been thankfully discarded in ME2.  A bit more exploration might be nice, but the game-design as a whole works very well. 

[A Fhaol Bhig]

It always comes down to personal taste, hence the discussion.



I agree with you, in some areas I believe they trimmed to much, but I still personally believe ME2 to be superior.

[A Fhaol Bhig]

Thanks man XD



But to be honest, some of the people who disagree with me, have some valid points.

[MoonChildTheUnholy]

Arcian wrote...

A Fhaol Bhig wrote...

Thanks man XD

But to be honest, some of the people who disagree with me, have some valid points.

Sure, but some scratches doesn't make a car useless.

The car might not be useless but i wouldn´t buy it .

[SirVincealot]

A Fhaol Bhig wrote...

RPG's pretty much all come from Dungeons and Dragons, in which you control a ROLE, and PLAY the GAME. You have criticals, and super effectives, and dice rolls and so on.

[snip]

Ammo types, different ones give different amounts of damage, and are effective versus different types of enemies and armours/shields. Warp ammo is super effective against health, barriers, and armor. An RPG element, Armour Piercing is VERY effective against health and Armour. Having different attacks, or in this case, ammo for different situations is anothe staple of RPG's.

Your reply - though maybe not what you intended - reduces RPGs to "counters" and, ultimately, to mere variations of rock-paper-scissors.

However representative that may be of *some* RPGs (D&D magic being a case in point) it has not much to do with what other game systems try to do (there is nothing like that in CALL OF CTHULHU, for example) or with the thesis you started your post with.

Try again.

SirV

[Daeion]

A Fhaol Bhig wrote...

Daeion wrote...

A Fhaol Bhig wrote...

Daeion wrote...

A Fhaol Bhig wrote...

I see no real lack of RPG elements.
But thats just me.

It's not that there is a lack of them, this game certainly isn't as restrictive as say Gears, it's just that when compard to ME, it seems to fall short.  Like I and others have said, RPGs mean different things to different people, so to each their own.

Agreed to the "each their own"
but I shall agree to disagree also, because I like ME2 more.

(wait, or are you talking about the amount of traditional RPG things like loot from ME being absent?)

Yes, I'm talking about traditional RPG items such as loot or being able to customize your squads gear.  Sure loot isn't exactly absent, but when you compare it to games like KOTOR or ME, ME2 falls short.

Oh sure I agree with that. I wouldn't mind being able to get some loot, for say, every five enemies you kill, rarity depending on level, and what kind of enemies you killed.

Just more than in ME2, and WAY less than in ME.

I don't think I've seen anyone make a pro loot arguement saying we need to go back to the ME system because that system was on crack, but what we have in ME2 is the exact opposite.  There has to be a happy middle ground that can keep both sides happy.

[Daeion]

Bob5312 wrote...

Frankly, looting always seemed out of place in Mass Effect; for a game that tries as hard as this one to make sense, it can't explain how Shepard can carry twenty guns and three sets of armour, or why a varren would have a weapon upgrade on its corpse. Or why you have to buy all of your equipment (would a poor Spectre just go save the galaxy naked and unarmed?) Or who keeps giving you credits for killing people. But if that's your thing, hey, good for you.

By that same token, I can also make the arguement that it's unrealistic that I would go through the entire galaxy, killing howmany stupid mercs and none of them had money, weapons, armor, or mods that I might find useful.  I will agree that carry 50 weapons, 50 mods, and 25 sets of armor is unrealistic, but then again it's also unrealistic to think that in about 140 years we are going to be instantainiously hopping across the galaxy.
Varen gets the mod by attacking some random mod and swallowing it?

[OasisForever1991]

Posted in the other RPG thread. Read it please.

Casey Hudson quote:

"Mass Effect
1 is a RPG with shooter elements"

"Mass Effect 2 is a RPG with even MORE
shooter elements"

ME2: that's the game Bioware has made.
It's the same thing but with better
combat.

IMO: ME1 has the feeling
of the Mass Effect universe and also it makes you feel even MORE
connected with the story and the characters and everything Mass Effect
than ME2 did. ME2 felt so "automatic". It was hard for me to feel the
sense of exploration and the greater feeling of being Commander Shepard.
And I say "being" Shepard because I didn't really feel like "I" was
Shepard or you know that "this is my character" in ME2 because of this
"atuomatic" (in a way) story.

ME2 cannot come close to the feeling ME1 gave you about being in
the Normandy and exploring the universe, running around Noveria for the
first time and saying to yourself and feeling
"oh god, I hope i didn't like miss anything" and also Noveria felt so
big kinda and actually "cold" or ariving on the The Big C for the first
time and actually feeling Humans
are aprat of this Galactic society, trying to get a foot hold in this
great we just dicovered.

For me it all comes down to this:

People
will make these threads because of little things (atleast for them)
that don't live up to a RPG or a RPG
with even MORE shooter elements (ME2). And ask "why" or "whree" is
everything. But for me it's all about the feeling. Because I never got any REAL feeling from a video
game untill ME1 and I hated to see that go in ME2 and that's the only
thing I cared about was the MASS EFFECT FEELING of this great SCi-FI
Isaac Asimov high minded novel video game that is Mass Effect 1.

And
people can't say that ME2 isn't a RPG with shooter elements because I
got the freaking Project Director telling us what game they have made.
And they know MORE than we do about what Mass Effect 1 and 2 is and what
they have made. Enough is enougth
people call it what ever you want, I know what Mass Effect 2 IS.
And the only I didn't like was it didn't give me that Mass Effect FEELING. It is not about weapons or
clothes or custimization or whatever. Bioware has told us what ME2 is
(and it isn't going to change haha).

[SirVincealot]

Bob5312 wrote...
... for a game that tries as hard as ME to make sense, it can't explain how Shepard can carry twenty guns and three sets of armour, or why a varren would have a weapon upgrade on its corpse. Or why you have to buy all of your equipment (would a poor Spectre just go save the galaxy naked and unarmed?) Or who keeps giving you credits for killing people. But if that's your thing, hey, good for you.

Last things first: ME2 is all about being paid for killing people, so both that argument, and Joker's comment about the difference between Zaeed and Shep, are non-sensical.

Shepard's carrying capacity is not in question here, anymore than his/her inability to open a thin metal door while equipped with the Cain "nuclear" cannon.

Those two things (and a hundred others such as how "fireball" spells in medieval games never set fire to the wooden rooms in which they are detonated) are gaming tropes.

Finally, MASS EFFECT makes no sense. None whatsoever. It's just another space opera, where "Eezo" or "the Force" or "Adam" or "Dilithium crystals" somehow do everthing like some kind of godly cosmic goo.

This goo, incidentally, also fills gaps and holes in the story of all games.

If we stop to examine internal logic in games, we are truly lost in the brambles of nebbishness.

SirV

Modifié par SirVincealot, 10 mars 2010 - 06:34 .

[Cornelian]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Cornelian wrote...

For those two points (caracter speaking & restricted RPG), I say ME trilogy is a new kind of RPG game : a movie-like game in which you are the hero.
It is the first, and i hope it is not the last.

That's not a new kind of RPG.  That's an adventure game.  That's Sam & Max, or 7th Guest.

I don't mind BioWare making adventure games; I just want people to realise what they are.

I usually don't answer to mad people because they always know the real truth of life and all the things, and have for mission to put others on the good way of thinking.

But, i can do it once.

Adventure game and role playing game don't exclude each other.

[Gatt9]

Bob5312 wrote...

I don't understand why we're trying to decide whether ME2 is an RPG or not, and what the definition of an RPG should be. I can understand that if some people went in expecting an extensive inventory and corpse-looting, they would be disappointed. But looting was never a big part of ME1; you got stuff randomly dropped in your inventory after killing enemies once in awhile, but that was it.

Frankly, looting always seemed out of place in Mass Effect; for a game that tries as hard as this one to make sense, it can't explain how Shepard can carry twenty guns and three sets of armour, or why a varren would have a weapon upgrade on its corpse. Or why you have to buy all of your equipment (would a poor Spectre just go save the galaxy naked and unarmed?) Or who keeps giving you credits for killing people. But if that's your thing, hey, good for you.

If that's what defines an RPG to you, then ME2 is not an RPG. If character interaction and development (you know, playing a role) is what defines an RPG to you, then ME2 is an RPG. Regardless of what you call it, it's still the same game. To say that it 'fails as an RPG' is like saying it 'fails as a turn-based strategy game'; that is, it fails to be something it never intended to be.

Play the game for what it is, and if you don't or can't enjoy it, well, that's unfortunate, but it doesn't mean that the game is somehow 'wrong'.

Edit:  Also, a number of people have brought up the Mako.  I'm a bit unclear about when a poorly-controlled, floating, bouncing tank became a requirement for an RPG. 

To be fair, I think people are bemoaning the lack of exploration of open environments in ME2.  That's a fair point, though it's not related to whether the game is an RPG or not.  But as much as I like open areas to explore, the ones in ME1 were so poorly designed and implemented that I would rather they be excluded than retained in that form.  You got dropped on a planet, searched around for a little while for the one mountain that you could actually drive up to get to your objective, killed the three guards outside, and then you were in a bunker.  Again.  Sure, there was a big open world out there; but there was nothing to actually do in it except look for rocks and get stuck in the level geometry.

I don't understand either,  because if you know what the difference between RPG(Character based skill) and Shooter(Player based skill) is,  it's really clear that ME2 is not an RPG at all.  It takes more than dialogue to make an RPG,  otherwise nearly every game would be defined as an RPG. 

ME2 fails the litmus test for RPG,  all that matters is my skill,  the character's skill is essentially non-existant.  At that point it becomes a pure shooter.

[FlyingWalrus]

Like I said in the other thread, bro: play ME2 from beginning to end without upgrading a single character talent. Not yours, not your allies'. And no weapon upgrades either. No ship upgrades while we're at it. Should be a cakewalk since ME2 isn't an RPG and you can get by on raw skill and truegrit™, right?

[Gazrion]

@flyingWalrus

LOL i like what you said if people actually try this im sure they will realise that this is an rpg.



@Gatt9

When i played me2 (doing me1 again at mo) there was deffinatly more rpg elements then conversation trees. maybe you just missed them

[FlyingWalrus]

I forgot to mention that it is to be done on Insanity. Surely an action-based, non-RPG shooting game can be beaten easily by someone with mad skillz on even the hardest difficulty level without upgrading a single thing.

[Daeion]

FlyingWalrus wrote...

Like I said in the other thread, bro: play ME2 from beginning to end without upgrading a single character talent. Not yours, not your allies'. And no weapon upgrades either. No ship upgrades while we're at it. Should be a cakewalk since ME2 isn't an RPG and you can get by on raw skill and truegrit™, right?

What class are we picking for this?  Not sure why you added ship upgrades to the list since it only affects story elements, not actual gameplay ones.

[UHitMeInTheEar]

WillG027 wrote...

The lack of character customisation and RPG elements leads to a feeling of detachment with the characters.
This just made the whole walkthrough feel of the game more evident and, in the end, I just didn't care what happened because I didn't have control of the characters in any meaningful way, and therefore, no emotional investment in them.
The system implemented for upgrading may aswell have done itself for all the impact it has on the characters or outcome.

ME2 was a massive dissappointment. Really dumbed down game. It felt like I was being led through it the whole time, making it feel like a game for casual gamers, and really unstimulating. A game that requires no brains whatsoever.

Bioware srewed the pooch with ME2 and ruined everything that was good about the game from ME1.

Mass Effect 2 could have truly been such a special gaming world if they had chosen to further refine the more traditional RPG elements from the first game. It's such a shame that they have, instead, taken the game towards the other end of the spectrum, more towards a brain dead, shoot everything on screen till your at the end of the corridor approach with the franchise.

Biggest disappointment in the gaming sequel history.

So let me guess you stop hanging out with friends who don't let you dress them?  The attachement an in game character generates from the player, for most sane individuals, would probably be the same way we find find attachment in the real world, communicating with and/or spending time with a person. 
More then likely you have a social or mental disorder and should probably see a psychiatrist.

[Sylvius the Mad]

SurfaceBeneath wrote...

Sylvius the Mad wrote...
I don't mind BioWare making adventure games; I just want people to realise what they are.

You mean that you want people to perceive the game as you see it?

I want us to agree on standard definitions.

[javierabegazo]

For the sake of space, please move RPG discussion to the more recently created thread