86 réponses à ce sujet

[MerinTB]

Fexelea wrote...

Merin, what I meant is that there is no "epic" decision making but rather a bunch of happenings or small choices that result in things. You can chose to save Jean or Nightcrawler, yes, and that has an impact in a future that you are told is not immutable at all. It has no effect in what is the "main arc" of the story itself.

Making decisions that affect the outcome of the story's main plot does not make a game an RPG, nor does the lack of said decision making prevent a game from being an RPG.

As I said, I can list many games that you cannot affect the ending of the game (the main plot's resolution) outside of winning or losing (and most of the time that is just dying and GAME OVER vs. finishing the game with the pat ending.)  If your definition of "epic" decision making has switched from your earlier "epic decision making, you didn't really affect the world with your
actions" to "effect in what is the "main arc" of the story itself", my list of such games suddenly becomes more important.

Now I'm sticking specifically to what I had said earlier (cannot affect the ending of the game other than winning or losing) and assuming that said definition of "epic decisions" coincides with your new definition (affecting the main arc of the story) as opposed to your old (affect the world with your actions.)

Baldur's Gate 2 - you either defeat Jon Irenicus and get your soul back, or you don't.  There's no other outcome to the game.  Party members, romances, which factions you choose to side with, what side quests you complete or skip, your alignment - none of that affects the end of the story.
Final Fantasy VII- you either win the battles that let Holy be free and "stop" Meteor (well, the centuries in the future ending is the end result) or it's game over, no variance.
Icewind Dale - you either stop Belhifet from reopening Jerrod's Stone, or it's game over.
Ultima - You defeat Mondain and are rewarded by Lord British.  Or you die.
Bard's Tale - You defeat Magnar and save Skara Brae - or you fail.
Pool of Radiance - You save Phlan from Tyranthraxus - or you don't.

I could keep listing.  I doubt that anyone would look at that list and say "Those aren't RPGs - you can't really affect the ending or the game world other than finishing the story!"

Marvel Ultimate Alliance's choices (the Futures) are bigger decisions and effects than any made in the games I listed above.

Now there ARE CRPGs that you can make choices and the ending of the main story arc reflects those choices (most of Bethesda's games like Oblivion and Fallout 3; KotOR; Mass Effect 1 & 2; Fallout to a small degree; Planescape: Torment, VTM: Bloodlines) but the majority of those are in the last decade (of a genre that's existed for close to 40 years) - going to my point that the kind of decision making you are pointing out as a defining element of CRPGs is a relatively new element of these games not a foundation.

MUA2 does not allow you to have any control over your player stats beyond 4 abilities common to all characters that make very little difference if you just always keep them balanced or if you only ramp up one (I did both ways on Super Heroic and legenday, Ms Marvel kicks ass either way). That would be considered a binding element of crpgs, but you do not see the "requires level x" when entering an area, or getting a character or anything, so the system might as well not be there and there would be no difference.Only bosses drop loot. You can equip only 1 item. The powers for every character follow linear and predictable paths that are not that different from each other in terms of output (of course animation etc is). The game is very action oriented, and for me it has crossed the line.

And how about a list of classic CRPGs in which you don't get to name your character or choose a class or anything, but are just giving a character to play even if you can "level them up"?
Final Fantasy (pick a number) (yes, I know, you CAN rename your character if you want to, but it is still Cloud (or whomever) with the new name you gave him.)
Golden Sun (same as FF)
Shadowrun (you are Jake)
Kotor (you are Revan, whatever other name you give yourself, AND you will be a Jedi using a lightsaber and the force whether you want to or not)
Deus Ex (you are JC Denton)
VTM: Redemption (you are Christof the crusade knight and then you are a brujah-made vampire)

Being able to make your own character is not an essential part of a CRPG, either, though it is much more a staple element than major story-changing decision making.

I'm not touching the loot and equipment parts of "what makes an RPG" other than to say you don't need those for a game to be an RPG.

There are no "binding elements" that make a CRPG.  One could say making a character, but many don't let you make a character at all (Shadowrun, Final Fantasy, Deus Ex) - one could say experience points, but then you'd have to eliminate games like VTM: Bloodlines or Oblivion that use different advancement systems.  You can't argue having a party, which seems central to so many CRPGs, as then you eliminate The Witcher and NWN and Shadowrun and Diablo and all the Elder Scrolls games.  Loot seems key, unless you consider how many FPS and adventure games have loot (would you really consider Maniac Mansion, Halo or Warcraft 3 to be any sort of RPGs?)

--

In the end maybe MUA didn't have the elements that YOU like in an RPG, but the definiton of what makes a CRPG isn't set in stone.

You quoted the wikipedia article under your terminology of "binding elements of rpgs" but the article in question, about computer role-playing games, makes no such claims about such a list.  In fact, if you take the basic definitons they give early on:
"Despite a spectrum of features and game styles, there are some elements
common to the CRPG genre. Perhaps the most salient is that of the avatar, with its quantized characteristics that
typically evolve over the course of the game, and take the place of the
gamer's own skill in determining game outcomes. Another common element
in CRPGs is a well-developed fictional setting." and " The stories featured usually involve a group of characters (a party)
who have joined forces in order to accomplish a mission or "quest". Along the way, the adventurers must face a great
number of challenges and enemies (usually monsters inspired by fantasy,
and, to a lesser extent, science fiction and classic mythology)."

In these senses, MUA fits the definitions better than Oblivion or The Witcher or Fallout 3.  MUA has "avatars with quantizied characteristics that evolve over the course of the game", "a well developed fictional setting", "a group of characters who have joined forces to accomplish a mission" who "face a great number of challenges and enemies (usually monsters inspired by fantasy, and, to a lesser extent, science fiction and classic mythology."

---

Fexelea, we could go back and forth all day about what makes a CRPG and what doesn't, but in the end a general consensus matters.  While you can find outliers (like many of the sites you quote) the overall accepted definition of CRPG includes the sub-genres like action-rpg.  MUA, like Diablo, like VTM: Bloodlines and Oblivion, are action RPGs - and the ACTION part comes in because player skill influences combat instead of just the character stats.

If you want to come down and say that "MUA" is not what you consider a CRPG, I cannot argue against your opinion.
But when you declare that it just isn't an CRPG based on a selective criteria you choose, even if you find other opinions to back you up it doesn't make it so.

Overall, in general, the majority accepts that action RPGs are a subgenre of CRPGs.  Some purists may want stats-only combat in a party-based, turn-based combat system with experience points, lots of items to find and buy and sell, towns to visits and dungeons to explore . . . but they are limiting themselves in their definitions, not defining what games actually fit into the realm of Computer Role-Playing Games.

[Fexelea]

MerinTB wrote...

Fexelea wrote...

Merin, what I meant is that there is no "epic" decision making but rather a bunch of happenings or small choices that result in things. You can chose to save Jean or Nightcrawler, yes, and that has an impact in a future that you are told is not immutable at all. It has no effect in what is the "main arc" of the story itself.

Making decisions that affect the outcome of the story's main plot does not make a game an RPG, nor does the lack of said decision making prevent a game from being an RPG.

You are focusing your analysis on my commentary on what I saw as a weak attempt on dev's part. I will not argue about what makes and not an RPG, since games in general are branching and hybrids abound, therefore making any such definitions is pointless. However I can say that my conception of RPG includes main input into the main story, which can branch/have different paths/actually be affected by the player. This is not the only aspect. Not all aspects need to be present. But the absence or sub-standard appearance of many contributing factors does change the perception of what genre a game belongs to.

MerinTB wrote...
As I said, I can list many games that you cannot affect the ending of the game (the main plot's resolution) outside of winning or losing (and most of the time that is just dying and GAME OVER vs. finishing the game with the pat ending.)  If your definition of "epic" decision making has switched from your earlier "epic decision making, you didn't really affect the world with your
actions" to "effect in what is the "main arc" of the story itself", my list of such games suddenly becomes more important.

I am not switching anything. I was trying to be cordial and express my view in a clearer way. Those two are the same thing.

MerinTB wrote...
Now I'm sticking specifically to what I had said earlier (cannot affect the ending of the game other than winning or losing) and assuming that said definition of "epic decisions" coincides with your new definition (affecting the main arc of the story) as opposed to your old (affect the world with your actions.)

Your assumption is wrong and you have misinterpreted and misrepresented my original proposition.

MerinTB wrote...

MUA2 does not allow you to have any control over your player stats beyond 4 abilities common to all characters that make very little difference if you just always keep them balanced or if you only ramp up one (I did both ways on Super Heroic and legenday, Ms Marvel kicks ass either way). That would be considered a binding element of crpgs, but you do not see the "requires level x" when entering an area, or getting a character or anything, so the system might as well not be there and there would be no difference.Only bosses drop loot. You can equip only 1 item. The powers for every character follow linear and predictable paths that are not that different from each other in terms of output (of course animation etc is). The game is very action oriented, and for me it has crossed the line.

And how about a list of classic CRPGs in which you don't get to name your character or choose a class or anything, but are just giving a character to play even if you can "level them up"?
Final Fantasy (pick a number) (yes, I know, you CAN rename your character if you want to, but it is still Cloud (or whomever) with the new name you gave him.)
Golden Sun (same as FF)
Shadowrun (you are Jake)
Kotor (you are Revan, whatever other name you give yourself, AND you will be a Jedi using a lightsaber and the force whether you want to or not)
Deus Ex (you are JC Denton)
VTM: Redemption (you are Christof the crusade knight and then you are a brujah-made vampire)

Being able to make your own character is not an essential part of a CRPG, either, though it is much more a staple element than major story-changing decision making.

I'm not touching the loot and equipment parts of "what makes an RPG" other than to say you don't need those for a game to be an RPG.

There are no "binding elements" that make a CRPG.  One could say making a character, but many don't let you make a character at all (Shadowrun, Final Fantasy, Deus Ex) - one could say experience points, but then you'd have to eliminate games like VTM: Bloodlines or Oblivion that use different advancement systems.  You can't argue having a party, which seems central to so many CRPGs, as then you eliminate The Witcher and NWN and Shadowrun and Diablo and all the Elder Scrolls games.  Loot seems key, unless you consider how many FPS and adventure games have loot (would you really consider Maniac Mansion, Halo or Warcraft 3 to be any sort of RPGs?)

--

In the end maybe MUA didn't have the elements that YOU like in an RPG, but the definiton of what makes a CRPG isn't set in stone.

You quoted the wikipedia article under your terminology of "binding elements of rpgs" but the article in question, about computer role-playing games, makes no such claims about such a list.  In fact, if you take the basic definitons they give early on:
"Despite a spectrum of features and game styles, there are some elements
common to the CRPG genre. Perhaps the most salient is that of the avatar, with its quantized characteristics that
typically evolve over the course of the game, and take the place of the
gamer's own skill in determining game outcomes. Another common element
in CRPGs is a well-developed fictional setting." and " The stories featured usually involve a group of characters (a party)
who have joined forces in order to accomplish a mission or "quest". Along the way, the adventurers must face a great
number of challenges and enemies (usually monsters inspired by fantasy,
and, to a lesser extent, science fiction and classic mythology)."

No, I was not referring to the wikipedia entry as you have interpreted.

I did not quote, but referenced Wikipedia since you originally linked it so I deducted you accepted it as a legitimate source. The part I indended to highlight with my linking was: "... However, many CRPG fans would say that the exclusion of these games from the genre stems from the lack of decision in character advancement, one of the key aspects in most CRPGS..."

Your assertions regarding the existance or otherwise of binding elements that define rpgs are just opinions, and as valid as mine.

You are being fallacious by assuming that the absence of any one of this elements is what disqualiifies the game as an RPG in my view, when it is a combination of the factors that results in such. I will now quote my original post, so that you can maybe see what I meant differently as you now have a wider background of what I meant:

Fexelea wrote...

Whilst I love MUA 1 and 2 like any decent Marvel fan would, they really don't quite make it into the rpg bag.

And yes, the OP was being absurd, which makes make a point about how absurd the anti Jrpg claims are.

MerinTB wrote...

Fexelea, we could go back and forth all day about what makes a CRPG and what doesn't, but in the end a general consensus matters.  While you can find outliers (like many of the sites you quote) the overall accepted definition of CRPG includes the sub-genres like action-rpg.  MUA, like Diablo, like VTM: Bloodlines and Oblivion, are action RPGs - and the ACTION part comes in because player skill influences combat instead of just the character stats.

RPGamer and 1up are "outliers"? I don't believe so. You claimed to know what "most people who played the game thought". I instead provided links to reviewers who highlight the lack of the RPG side of these games. The fact that you don't agree with them does not make them any less valid than any other site you might find yourself agreeing with in this subjective matter.

MerinTB wrote...
If you want to come down and say that "MUA" is not what you consider a CRPG, I cannot argue against your opinion.
But when you declare that it just isn't an CRPG based on a selective criteria you choose, even if you find other opinions to back you up it doesn't make it so.

Neither does it make it so for your to declare it is an RPG when there is a considerable amount of people who think it is a beat-em-up with RPG elements. You repeatedly state that there are no cast-in-stone definitions yet you cast-in-stone the elements that are not part of that definition. Surely you see how that is fallacious reasoning: If the definition is fluid, then both what IS and what IS NOT part of it can change at anytime.

MerinTB wrote...
Overall, in general, the majority accepts that action RPGs are a subgenre of CRPGs.  Some purists may want stats-only combat in a party-based, turn-based combat system with experience points, lots of items to find and buy and sell, towns to visits and dungeons to explore . . . but they are limiting themselves in their definitions, not defining what games actually fit into the realm of Computer Role-Playing Games.

Again, I have no statistics to either agree or disagree with yoru "majority" comments.

I do not see how the statement is relevant to my original post, nor why you feel so compelled to try to dissuade me that my perceptions, and those of other people who also play and like this game, are wrong based on your own equally biased perception.

[AngryFrozenWater]

AmstradHero wrote...

Sticking with Mass Effect... so the fact that humans rule the galaxy alone instead of with other races isn't significant? The Krogan either being reformed under Wrex or continuing to kill each other into extinction means nothing?  The fact that the Rachni are killed off entirely or exist in the outer reaches of space once more is cosmetic? What about curing the Genophage? Destroying the Geth Heretics?

Indeed. From the user's perspective these choices had no impact to the ME2 story whatsoever.

Whether or not you opted for keeping the Council alive or for Udina or Anderson the effect is the same. Reapers are hidden under the carpet. Didn't you notice that? They won't help you. At best you can get your symbolic spectre status back. Either way, only Cerberus is willing to go after the reapers.

Wrex may have united his people, but if he dies all missions involving Wrex play out exactly the same. The only things that differ are the clan leader and the dialog lines.

The rachni choice shows up as a cameo. In ME2 the queen sends her love and promises aid through a messenger. I cannot speculate what happens with her in ME3, but I doubt it will change the course of the game.

Again, I cannot speculate about the genophage, because nothing earth shattering has happened with that in ME2 other than new choices.

If you destroy the heretics then they won't be in ME3. If you didn't destroy them they will integrate with the friendly geth. Either way... They will be gone in ME3. Convenient, don't you think?

Modifié par AngryFrozenWater, 01 mars 2010 - 10:55 .

[AmstradHero]

AngryFrozenWater: You missed the point, and you're not roleplaying, you're metagaming. The main part of the ME2 story continued similarly despite your choices - that's because of the limited ability to diverge from a core plot as part of a trilogy.  But the individuals within that world are significantly changed, and the player's actions affect the game world (as opposed to merely the game itself) to a huge degree.

Do I care that either the human or non-human council sweeps the reapers under the carpet? Nope. Are there a whole bunch of other dialogue options that are different because of that choice? YES. News broadcasts and numerous NPCs make reference to it.

I liked the rachni appearance, and I fully expect some effect in ME3. Heck, in ME1, the Salarian council member tells you "your actions may have far-reaching consequences". I sure as heck hope he was referring to ME3.  And I personally love the difference between Wrex and Wreav - they're very different characters and interact with you in quite a different way, even if mechanically they serve the same purpose in the game of providing the means for Grunt's loyalty mission.

This is what I mean about roleplaying.  Yes, you can argue, "we pick up X party members and do X loyalty quests, we get the Reaper IFF, go kick Collector butt". But the way in which it is done varies.  There are a lot of subtle references that you seem to be missing (or simply ignoring for the sake of argument) that change because of the choices you make in ME1 and ME2. Some things change. Others must stay the same.

[AngryFrozenWater]

I am not metagaming. I am simple. If BioWare tells me that choices have impact then I want to see that impact. There is no impact. It's only cosmetic. And whether or not you think I am able to role play according to your definition has nothing to do with it. Anyway... I am out of this discussion and won't derail the topic any further.

[Loerwyn]

FALLOUT (1)!
Just about every game before Bioware's Baldur's Gate came along, I geuss. That game was enormously succesfull, so you get clones of it. I don't know much about those older RPG's (except Battletech: Crescent Hawk's inception). Then there are the Elder Scrolls games who have their own unique system.

Fallout and Elder Scrolls use a very, very, very similar system. Fallout uses the SPECIAL roleplaying system, and Morrowind/Oblivion's is very similar.
But for the most part old/new RPGs do take a lot of inspiration from D&D. Might & Magic does, for example. Realms of Arkania 1-3 + Drakensang use The Dark Eye system but it's more in-depth than D&D's, I believe.

[MerinTB]

Fexelea wrote...
I will not argue about what makes and not an RPG, since games in general are branching and hybrids abound, therefore making any such definitions is pointless.

On this we completely agree.  Trying to determine what is or is not an CRPG based on whether a certain individual element is in the game or not is an exercise in futility. 
I'm really not trying to just argue for argument's sake.  I'm going to try to be briefer in my responses, so I apologize ahead of time if you think important context is eschewed for the sake of readibility.

Fexelea wrote...

MerinTB wrote...
If your definition of "epic" decision making has switched from your earlier "epic decision making, you didn't really affect the world with your  actions" to "effect in what is the "main arc" of the story itself", my list of such games suddenly becomes more important.

I am not switching anything. I was trying to be cordial and express my view in a clearer way. Those two are the same thing.
(,,,)
Your assumption is wrong and you have misinterpreted and misrepresented
my original proposition.

But they really aren't the same thing.  Affecting the world, in a story, means something you do affects the planet or civilization or at least major area setting of that story.  Affecting the world and affecting the story can be completely different things.  You cannot argue that in MUA that your actions in the game deciding whether or not Thanos takes over the Earth is not an example of your actions affecting the world.  Affecting the story, however, can be as small as clearing one your character's name or escaping a prison - both of which could be the main thrust of the game's story but really have little affect on the game world the story takes place in.

That's the distinction I'm making.  MUA, all those futures aren't tied directly into the main story of the game (stopping Doom) so you could argue your second point, but not your first.  Stopping Mephisto from invading the Earth or causing the Shi'ar to aid Earth by stopping an asteroid from hitting the west coast of the USA are world-affecting results of player actions and decision in the game.  Maybe you could try to argue that missing finding the Ultimate Nullifer isn't really a "decision", but whether or not you take the time to save Liliandra sure is a decision in the game.

The main focus of a story in a game doesn't have to be some world-affecting situation, and some world-affecting situation doesn't have to be the focus of the game.

You didn't repeat your point, Fexela.  You changed it.  Or corrected it to what you really meant.  Either way, I had to adjust my response accordingly.  My assumptions may have been wrong, Fexela, but they were based solely on the words you used.  I'm not misrepresenting you when I quote you ENTIRELY and refer to what you said in the COMPLETE CONTEXT of your post. 

The main point of your original response to me, singling out one game series out of a list I gave to nitpick about "is this REALLY a CRPG?" (paraphrasing) to go off later on a longer rant about it-
and here, despite trying to be brief, I'll quote you again:

1st-
Whilst I love MUA 1 and 2 like any decent Marvel fan would, they
really don't quite make it into the rpg bag

2nd-
The first game didn't have any epic decision making, you didn't really
affect the world with your actions

3rd-
The game can be described and marketed as many things, but the core
depth that would make an rpg seems to be lacking.

4th-
what I meant is that there is no "epic" decision making but rather a
bunch of happenings or small choices that result in things (...) It has no effect in
what is the "main arc" of the story itself

Again, in an attempt to be brief, I'm skipping over the control over character advancement argument and sticking with your decision-making argument.
And I'm also pointing out where you make definitive claims, which do not read as opinions but as if you are stating facts.
At several times you do point out certain things are just your opinion, but it is on things such as chosing a side in MUA2.
You also clearly state that MUA 1 & 2 are not rpgs by your standards, standards that while you may think you presented as solely your standard you go out of your way to find places to back you up as if your OPINION needs backing up to be your opinion.

From the start (before you jumped in to nitpick on series of games from a list of games I gave) i just picked games that are categorized and reviewed as CRPGs, whether action or turn-based, tactical-strategy or story-based ... just whether they are made, marketed, and reviewed as CRPGs.  Whether you or some other players or  some game reviewers don't think the "rpg elements are enough for it to be considered a real rpg" (paraphrasing) is irrelevant to my listing western CRPGs that are not based on Tolkien or D&D or medieval lore.

Our whole debate on MUA 1 & 2 is a huge digression from my initial post which was addressing the OP.

In the context of the OP, who's defending JRPGs with his post attacking WRPGs, MUA 1 & 2 are definitely enough CRPG to go up against the likes of FF VII and Golden Sun or really almost any JRPG (I'm sure there are ones that have decision making or what but the majority are very much linear story with set ending based, and I'm sure there are ones you can completely make your character but for the most part they are pre-definied characters you make and form your party with and while you can level them up, as you complain about MUA 1 & 2 the choicest you make are largely inconsequential for whether the characters can win the game or not).

(continued in another post)

[MerinTB]

Fexela wrote...

MerinTB wrote...
You quoted the wikipedia article under your terminology of "binding elements of rpgs" but the article in question, about computer role-playing games, makes no such claims about such a list.

No, I was not referring to the wikipedia entry as you have interpreted.

I did not quote, but referenced Wikipedia since you originally linked it so I deducted you accepted it as a legitimate source.

Right, let's once more walk down the path of attacking wikipedia as not being legitimate, because instead of people at Britannica who are paid money make decisions on what is true or not in their encyclopedia, wikipedia builds off of a general consensus and is constantly updated.  Wikipedia is ONE reference source, as reliable or unreliable as any other website, encyclopedia, etc.  The knee-jerk reaction of people attacking it as some kind of source of falsehoods is such a ridiculous meme that scientifically has been proven baseless (the journal Nature did a study that concluded wikipedia is no more or less accurate than (I can't remember the exact brand) a trusted, big name print encyclopedia.  Some controversial topics, like politics and religion, tend to need some heavy moderation - but for something as ridiculously simple as what games are CRPGs I think wikipedia is pretty safe.

In a paragraph in which you DO assert there are elements that are required to be in a CRPG-

MUA2 does not allow you to have any control over your player stats beyond 4 abilities common to all characters that make very little difference if you just always keep them balanced or if you only ramp up one (I did both ways on Super Heroic and legenday, Ms Marvel kicks ass either way). That would be considered a binding element of crpgs, but you do not see the "requires level x" when entering an area, or getting a character or anything, so the system might as well not be there and there would be no difference. Only bosses drop loot. You can equip only 1 item. The powers for every character follow linear and predictable paths that are not that different from each other in terms of output (of course animation etc is). The game is very action oriented, and for me it has crossed the line.

You give a whole paragraph about affecting the growth of your character's stats.  This is obviously important to you as part of a CRPG.  And you reference a wikipedia entry as a hypertext link under the title "binding elements of crpgs" - so you must take your points and the quoting of that link to be important, or why waste nearly half your post on it?
I simply responded that the wikipedia article you linked to under the title "binding elements of crpgs" does not, in fact, have such a list nor claim that any one aspect or element is essential to classifying a game as a CRPG.  Unless you take the parts that I quoted from same article, which list nothing about story-decision making nor any of the other things you list in your paragraph.  It was a completely misleading link when taking in the context of your parapgraph and your post.

Fexela
You are being fallacious by assuming that the absence of any one of this elements is what disqualiifies the game as an RPG in my view, when it is a combination of the factors that results in such.

I was not attempting to be misleading or to deceive.  I'm not trying to convince others that you are saying things you are not.  Don't qualify me as being fallacious, please, as you are saying I am deliberately trying to misrepresent you.  Were I to do that I wouldn't even bother to quote you.  I honestly am responding to what I interpret you are saying.

You said MUA 1 & 2 didn't qualify as CRPGs. 
I said that according to the people who made the game, sold the game, and reviewed the game, they were in the RPG or action RPG category.  I listed several things in the games that are considered elements of CRPGs.  You dismissed the elements I listed as not being "RPG enough" (paraphrasing / interpreting).  I responded that those elements were "more RPG" than many games that are also defined as CRPGs.  You dismissed all those arguments and examples, "clarified" (I'd say changing, but now I'm nitpicking) your original point on what qualified as decision-making (to you, I'm guessing) ...

and then the argument has, at this point, devolved into each of us saying "you are entitled to your opinon, but..."

Which is where an argument usually becomes pointless.

The game is sold as and is reviewed as an RPG or action RPG.  Most players (reading what they say) consider it an action RPG.  Those who say it doesn't even qualify as an action RPG are the outliers.  Ah, outliers, let's get to that as my last point on this.

continued in a final post

Modifié par MerinTB, 01 mars 2010 - 06:33 .

[MerinTB]

Fexela wrote...

MerinTB wrote...
Fexelea, we could go back and forth all day about what makes a CRPG and what  doesn't, but in the end a general consensus matters.  While you can find outliers (like many of the sites you quote) the overall accepted definition of CRPG includes the sub-genres like action-rpg.  MUA, like Diablo, like VTM: Bloodlines and Oblivion, are action RPGs - and the ACTION part comes in because player skill influences combat instead of just the character stats.

RPGamer and 1up are "outliers"? I don't believe so. You claimed to know what "most people who played the
game thought". I instead provided links to reviewers who highlight the lack of the RPG side of these games. The fact that you don't agree with them does not make them any less valid than any other site you might find yourself agreeing with in this subjective matter.

You are right - I'm anectdotally saying that "most people" accept it based on my personal observations.  It's a pointless area to explore, what "most gamers think" since it's hard to find reliable polling of that kind.  Let's drop what "most people" think, then, as it's too hard to quantify.

But I can statistically prove that the reviews that say  MUA is not an action RPG are indeed outliers.  When you understand that it doesn't matter if the site is Bob's 1 Person Reads It website or IGN, when the review is well away from what the majority of reviews state, it's an
outlier - positive or negative.  In statistics it's when most polls show something at around 60-70 %, but you have 1 poll showing it at 30% and one at 97% - the 30% and 97% are outliers.  That's not me deciding that -
that's what an outlier IS.

Going to metacrtic, which for the XBOX lists 26 reviews (and I'll just look at this for now, but I promise you on the PC side it'll be similar):

"The game includes tons of gameplay, a plethora of Marvel characters, a great presentation, and successfully balances the action and RPG elements, while letting players choose just how much they want to micromanage. Marvel: Ultimate Alliance has something for everyone: Marvel fans, those looking for an easygoing blast-a-thon, and even more RPG-centric action RPG fans" - PGNX
" RPG and dungeon crawler fans along with comic-book lovers will find much to love about MUA. " - Cheat Code Central
"with better focus on what players want, including four (useful!) costumes per character, a plethora of villians and heroes from Marvel lore, better visuals, tighter RPG elements, less of the Chatty-Cathy moments, and FAR
more tough boss and mini-boss battles, Marvel Ultimate Alliance could be the geekfest that keeps players wrapped onto whatever platform they chose like a pair of tight blue spandex with a big 4 on the chest. " - Gamingtrend
"As an RPG, Ultimate Alliance fares pretty well aside from the simplistic puzzles you’ll encounter in the game." -
Gamezone
"Just when you think you have seen just about everything they can do with the super-hero, action-RPG genre Raven manages to take it up yet another notch. (...) So, if you love comics, super-heroes, or just want to experience a fun and challenging action-RPG, Ultimate Alliance delivers the goods." - Gamecrhonicles

and I could keep going. 

None of the reviews say it isn't an action rpg.  The WORST I can find, that you quoted, is "The only real complaint is
that, yeah, it's absolutely loaded with characters, customizability, and extra content to uncover, but at its heart Ultimate Alliance is still a beat-em-up. Between the RPGish leveling, bits of gear dropped by certain bosses, and the occasional enemy with a random ability like self-healing or enhanced toughness, the game edges just a little bit into Diabloish action-RPG territory, but it's only putting its toes a couple inches over the line" from 1UP. 
Again, I think it's generally accepted that Diablo is an action RPG, but the 1UP quote is saying that MUA 1's only flaw is that it slips a little bit into the action-RPG territory of Diablo.  Uhm, he's saying it qualifies as an action rpg, if "only putting its toes a couple inches over the line." 
That's the worst you can really get - saying that it JUST qualifies.

When 26 out of 26 reviews all call it an action RPG, and the worst you can get is one saying it "edges just a little bit" into the action RPG territory, I'd say that reviews that say it isn't an action RPG are the outliers.

Let's look at the reviews you quoted, because I think  there's more of the misleading quoting from you going on -

RPGFan, your title for the link "highlight the lack of RPG elements" - "Marvel Ultimate Alliance is an action RPG, but the balance between action and RPG is skewed more towards action." (empahsis mine)
PSXExtreme, your title for the link "an over simplified attempt at a genre that begs for more" - "Marvel Ultimate Alliance is an action-RPG that would be any Marvel fan's wet-dream." The site lists the genre as action RPG.  As to what genre it is saying it is an oversimplified version of, the reviewer is talking about hack slash and no action rpg - "If you're looking for a deep hack and slash title along the lines of Baldur's Gate: Dark Alliance, look elsewhere. Marvel Ultimate Alliance is an over simplified attempt at a genre that begs for more. This just isn't hack and slash done right -- it feels more like an arcade game than anything else"
In what is, itself an outlier, an overall negative review, the reviewer NEVER BRINGS UP RPG ELEMENTS. 
The only times the word RPG appear are the two times I quoted.
Then there's the 1UP quote.  Noted.
And  the other quotes are about MUA2 so to try and keep this as brief as possible (I'm failing miserably) I won't
extend to those.

But your quoted sources don't even back up your contention that you have "read plenty of reviews" that (paraphrasing your intent as I see it) "point out how lacking as RPGs/action RPGS MUA is." After all, you said

Fexelea wrote...
I instead provided links to reviewers who highlight the lack of the RPG
side of these games.

No you didn't.  As I pointed out, those reviews did NOT "highlight the lack of the RPG side" - one clearly states it is an action RPG with more action than RPG, another one that never even considered the RPG question (focused on the hack and slash question), and the last said that the game just barely fits the action RPG title.
EVEN IF I GIVE YOU THE LATTER, you found 1 out of many, and 1 out of over 20 is indeed an outlier.

Since even in your examples, and from all of metacritic, the best I could find (and I may well have missed something, I'm sure I did somewhere) was the one review saying MUA just barely edges into action RPG territory, I'd say that it can be empirically proven that any review that says MUA isn't an action RPG is an outlier.

That doesn't mean you have to accept that it is a CRPG to you, but it DOES mean that the consensus amongst game reviewers is that it qualifies as an action RPG, which is a subgenre of CRPG.

Modifié par MerinTB, 01 mars 2010 - 07:29 .

[Joshua Hawkeye]

Fallout and Elder Scrolls use a very, very, very similar system. Fallout uses the SPECIAL roleplaying system, and Morrowind/Oblivion's is very similar.

I fail to see the differences, actually.
Oblivion and Morrowind: Skills go up as you use them. a certain growth in your primary skills means you gain a level, at which point you select stats (Strength, Endurance) to increase .The increase is dependent on how much you used that stat.
Fallout: You devise your SPECIAL points, then select tag skills, and then select 'traits', which are things which add both a bonus and a malus to your character (Stronger but slower, More attractive to people of the opposite gender but incite jealousy at the people of the same one, a higher melee damage but a lower amount of critical hits, etc. I absolutely love that system'. During the game you gain Experience. Once you gain enough experience you levellup, where you get points to invest into your skills (Investing points in tag skills means a double gain), and ocassionally you can choose a perk, which means a bonus to your character.

And then, Morrowind and Oblivion are real time first person, and Fallout is turn based (not to mention that the Fallout system matters more. Having a low perception and a low gun skill menas you can hardly hit anything, in Oblivion, you can snipe just about everyone with your bow starting at level 1, but that's... I don't know. This post is about levellup systems, I am not going to discuss the differneces in actual gameplay and the depth of the roleplay in this post..).

Modifié par Joshua Hawkeye, 01 mars 2010 - 07:51 .

[Loerwyn]

The difference, Joshua, is I've not seen anything that directly attributes the SPECIAL system to Morrowind/Oblivion. They might actually use that particular system but I've not seen anything to say that it is so I went with "very similar".

[Fexelea]

Merin your posts are far from concise so I do not see how mutilating, extrapolating and parapharsing my points has served brevety in the slightest. I actually think it is just providing fuel to an unimportant argument based on opinons, that neither of us should disqualify.

Real brevity is:

You posted a list of games. I commented on one that I (and others!) do not view as an RPG, and commented on the OP's intention.

You decided to deviate us off post by focusing on the first sentence of my post. Please do not attribute intentions to my actions. Nitpicking is what you are doing with my posts: you seem to select what you see as defensible and obscure the rest.

You introduced a list of things that made it an RPG in your view. I highlighted weak aspects in all of the areas. You then contended some of the areas, I tried to clarify my position, you saw it as me "changing my point". I tried to explain I was just rephrasing as a cordiality, you insist that your interpretation of my words is more valid than mine, which is of course ridiculous.

Then you state that none of those areas (that you introduced) are what "makes an rpg", which is a contradiction. You continued to say that there are no binding elements of rpgs yet x y or b are not part of that definition. That's an immediate logical fallacy.

I provided links that highlight an opinion many hold. I am not obliged to go do research to prove either way, as we cannot come to empirical conclusions. Your links and interpretations are as good as mine, and in the end all it means is that there are two takes on this subject. Reiterating an opinion does not make it a fact, and recurring "majorities" or "from what I read" is just as valid as my view and my "from what I read".

Surely you see how this discussion has become pointless. I do not know if it is purposeful or otherwise, but you continue to misrepresent my comments in what seems like an attempt to avoid the fact that what I stated in line one of this paragraph is true. You are not right. I am not right. This game is one that has been critiziced for not having rpg elements when it claims it does, and has been described as a beat-em-up "at heart" plenty of times. I do not care what the game is marketed or sold as: I marketed and sold chewing gum as an acidity relief aid last year, does it mean it is so? . It is irrelevant what you perceive as a majority. It is irrelevant what you interpret to be 26/26 when to me all those 26 reviews actually had the same criticism I have and in my experience it is a widely spread conclusion this is a beat-em-up amongst fans. The consensus that you referr to is based on your interpretation of those reviews, and your personal bias as to what makes one important and one not.