10273 réponses à ce sujet

[CroGamer002]

iakus wrote...

Mesina2 wrote...

Can somebody define me what's RPG?
Because GTA San Andreas and GTA 4 are consider to be RPG!!!!!!

I can't comment on the GTA series.  I have never played them.  As to what is an rpg, I'm sure there are a lot of definitions based on personal taste.  Some will place more stock in one aspect than another.  There are also different degrees of how "strong" or "weak" an rpg is.

I posted a few pages back what I think are important aspects to an rpg.  here it is again, in order of preference (for me):

1) Strong, interactive story,

2) Well-developed characters (npcs and party members) with well-written dialogue

3) Plot advancement and consequences  based on decisions I make.

4) Customizable character (skills, equipment, specialties, class abilities)

5) Side quests as well as a main story

6) Explorable enviroment, preferably with  interactive elements as well


If the Grand Theft Auto gamesare strong, or ast least moderate, in these six categories, then maybe they are rpgs.  Though somehow I doubt they'd be to my taste

Then both GTA SA, 4( moderate) and ME2( strong) are classified as RPGs then.

[bjdbwea]

No.

[Iakus]

Mesina2 wrote...

iakus wrote...

Mesina2 wrote...

Can somebody define me what's RPG?
Because GTA San Andreas and GTA 4 are consider to be RPG!!!!!!

I can't comment on the GTA series.  I have never played them.  As to what is an rpg, I'm sure there are a lot of definitions based on personal taste.  Some will place more stock in one aspect than another.  There are also different degrees of how "strong" or "weak" an rpg is.

I posted a few pages back what I think are important aspects to an rpg.  here it is again, in order of preference (for me):

1) Strong, interactive story,

2) Well-developed characters (npcs and party members) with well-written dialogue

3) Plot advancement and consequences  based on decisions I make.

4) Customizable character (skills, equipment, specialties, class abilities)

5) Side quests as well as a main story

6) Explorable enviroment, preferably with  interactive elements as well


If the Grand Theft Auto gamesare strong, or ast least moderate, in these six categories, then maybe they are rpgs.  Though somehow I doubt they'd be to my taste

Then both GTA SA, 4( moderate) and ME2( strong) are classified as RPGs then.

Like I said, ME 2 is (imo)  an rpg, though a very poor one.  I find it very much lacking in most categories.

GTA series, like I said, haven't played so can't comment on.

[Pocketgb]

Ungh, if there's one thing this thread does not need it's the semantics of what makes an RPG. There's a whole other thread for that if need be.

Modifié par Pocketgb, 30 juin 2010 - 09:45 .

[CroGamer002]

Pocketgb wrote...

Ungh, if there's one thing this thread does not need it's the semantics of what makes an RPG.

No.

[onotix]

What really bothered me was the lack of loot and purchases. After i found the battle rifle (and hand cannon) no other rifle (or pistol) stood up to it. What i like about me1 was that there was always a better rifle or gun or pistol. and i hate n7 armor. Scorpion ftw.



On a brighter note i did like me2's story better, the crew appealed to me more, new Normandy is sexy,and Shepard can get drunk. Don't judge me.

[Xeranx]

onotix wrote...

What really bothered me was the lack of loot and purchases. After i found the battle rifle (and hand cannon) no other rifle (or pistol) stood up to it. What i like about me1 was that there was always a better rifle or gun or pistol. and i hate n7 armor. Scorpion ftw.

On a brighter note i did like me2's story better, the crew appealed to me more, new Normandy is sexy,and Shepard can get drunk. Don't judge me.

Another person who loves the scorpion armor.  Nice. 

[SSV Enterprise]

onotix wrote...

What really bothered me was the lack of loot and purchases. After i found the battle rifle (and hand cannon) no other rifle (or pistol) stood up to it. What i like about me1 was that there was always a better rifle or gun or pistol. and i hate n7 armor. Scorpion ftw.

On a brighter note i did like me2's story better, the crew appealed to me more, new Normandy is sexy,and Shepard can get drunk. Don't judge me.

ME1's loot system was mostly pointless.  There were only four types of guns, and any "better" gun within the class worked exactly the same as any other gun, it just was more accurate/did more damage/overheated slower.  You found too many of them, and there wasn't really any reason to keep any once you found a better gun.  Looting in RPGs usually works because they are in a fantasy setting, where items often have lore behind them and can have varied buffs.  I'll find a sword, and it'll have this whole background of how it was used by an ancient warrior to fight off an evil invasion, and I'll be like "Cool!  I have to keep this!"  The varied buffs can also mean each sword has its advantages and disadvantages without being better or worse overall than the other.  ME1's loot system completely lacked such motivation.  The only weapons even remotely having this appeal were the HMW Spectre Gear weapons and the Geth pulse rifles.

ME2's weapons system was better because it was more suited for a shooter game.  Each weapon you can find has a distinctly different funtion, and none is specifically better than the other (the Vindicator has a lower rate of fire than other assault rifles(and SMGs), the hand cannon fires slower and can deal less total damage per clip than the regular pistol, due to smaller clips).  Now you may say "But it's supposed to be an RPG"!  No, it's supposed to be a shooter/RPG hybrid.  If the shooter elements are going to suffer because of the RPG combat elements, why add shooter combat elements at all?  The RPG elements are still there to a lesser extent, in the form of weapons upgrades.

[Zulu_DFA]

SSV Enterprise wrote...
The RPG elements are still there to a lesser extent, in the form of weapons upgrades.

The form weapons are upgraded is not an RPG element. It's a strategy game element.

In RPGs you can usually upgrade each gun (blade) individually. Upgrades are usually mutually exclusive.

In ME2 upgrades go to the entire category of weapons, affect all "units" and are supplemental. Morever, you need to mine minerals to purchase the upgrades in a very strategy-game fashion.

Modifié par Zulu_DFA, 01 juillet 2010 - 06:27 .

[Massadonious1]

worm_burner wrote...
Even if ME1's were pointless at least they were there.

You don't really endorse that, do you? No matter what the genre or game, I would never wish for broken or superfulous mechanics just for the sake of having them.

Modifié par Massadonious1, 01 juillet 2010 - 06:29 .

[javierabegazo]

Massadonious1 wrote...

worm_burner wrote...
Even if ME1's were pointless at least they were there.

You don't really endorse that, do you? No matter what the genre or game, I would never wish for broken or superfulous mechanics just for the sake of having them.

Yeah, if it's broken, don't just leave it in there for sake of "fitting into a genre". That's just lazy and bad designing. That's how genre's become stale and that's how you get a dozen games of a certain genre that don't really differ from one another

[CroGamer002]

javierabegazo wrote...

Massadonious1 wrote...

worm_burner wrote...
Even if ME1's were pointless at least they were there.

You don't really endorse that, do you? No matter what the genre or game, I would never wish for broken or superfulous mechanics just for the sake of having them.

Yeah, if it's broken, don't just leave it in there for sake of "fitting into a genre". That's just lazy and bad designing. That's how genre's become stale and that's how you get a dozen games of a certain genre that don't really differ from one another

Agreed.
Even though it's stupid to remove inventory it's still better not to have broken one.

Modifié par Mesina2, 01 juillet 2010 - 07:18 .

[Jigero]

iakus wrote...

Mesina2 wrote...

Can somebody define me what's RPG?
Because GTA San Andreas and GTA 4 are consider to be RPG!!!!!!

I can't comment on the GTA series.  I have never played them.  As to what is an rpg, I'm sure there are a lot of definitions based on personal taste.  Some will place more stock in one aspect than another.  There are also different degrees of how "strong" or "weak" an rpg is.

I posted a few pages back what I think are important aspects to an rpg.  here it is again, in order of preference (for me):

1) Strong, interactive story,

2) Well-developed characters (npcs and party members) with well-written dialogue

3) Plot advancement and consequences  based on decisions I make.

4) Customizable character (skills, equipment, specialties, class abilities)

5) Side quests as well as a main story

6) Explorable enviroment, preferably with  interactive elements as well


If the Grand Theft Auto gamesare strong, or ast least moderate, in these six categories, then maybe they are rpgs.  Though somehow I doubt they'd be to my taste

Heh funny because over half the games we consider  a "RPG" don't have half of the things you mentioned.

[Terror_K]

javierabegazo wrote...

Massadonious1 wrote...

worm_burner wrote...
Even if ME1's were pointless at least they were there.

You don't really endorse that, do you? No matter what the genre or game, I would never wish for broken or superfulous mechanics just for the sake of having them.

Yeah, if it's broken, don't just leave it in there for sake of "fitting into a genre". That's just lazy and bad designing. That's how genre's become stale and that's how you get a dozen games of a certain genre that don't really differ from one another

Except that ME2 is by far the more generic of the two games. It may have brought in some shooter mechanics that technically worked better, but it brought almost nothing new to the table. The one exception could be considered the interrupts, but these were intended for the original game and are really just flashy quicktime events when you get down to it.

I personally don't think ME1's mechanics were pointless, I just think they were a little broken. And being a little broken means that they certainly didn't need binning in favour of the simplest, shallowest  and most linear of solutions.

[SithLordExarKun]

Terror_K wrote...

javierabegazo wrote...

Massadonious1 wrote...

worm_burner wrote...
Even if ME1's were pointless at least they were there.

You don't really endorse that, do you? No matter what the genre or game, I would never wish for broken or superfulous mechanics just for the sake of having them.

Yeah, if it's broken, don't just leave it in there for sake of "fitting into a genre". That's just lazy and bad designing. That's how genre's become stale and that's how you get a dozen games of a certain genre that don't really differ from one another

Except that ME2 is by far the more generic of the two games. It may have brought in some shooter mechanics that technically worked better, but it brought almost nothing new to the table. The one exception could be considered the interrupts, but these were intended for the original game and are really just flashy quicktime events when you get down to it.

I personally don't think ME1's mechanics were pointless, I just think they were a little broken. And being a little broken means that they certainly didn't need binning in favour of the simplest, shallowest  and most linear of solutions.

Simplicity works.

[bjdbwea]

Terror_K wrote...

Except that ME2 is by far the more generic of the two games. It may have brought in some shooter mechanics that technically worked better, but it brought almost nothing new to the table. The one exception could be considered the interrupts, but these were intended for the original game and are really just flashy quicktime events when you get down to it.

I personally don't think ME1's mechanics were pointless, I just think they were a little broken. And being a little broken means that they certainly didn't need binning in favour of the simplest, shallowest  and most linear of solutions.

This.

Everyone who wants simplicity: Go play a pure shooter. There are countless games for you. Pew-pew!

But please, accept that not every game with guns needs to be made simple for you.

Modifié par bjdbwea, 01 juillet 2010 - 02:24 .

[Zulu_DFA]

bjdbwea wrote...

Terror_K wrote...

Except that ME2 is by far the more generic of the two games. It may have brought in some shooter mechanics that technically worked better, but it brought almost nothing new to the table. The one exception could be considered the interrupts, but these were intended for the original game and are really just flashy quicktime events when you get down to it.

I personally don't think ME1's mechanics were pointless, I just think they were a little broken. And being a little broken means that they certainly didn't need binning in favour of the simplest, shallowest  and most linear of solutions.

This.

Everyone who wants simplicity: Go play a pure shooter. There are countless games for you. Pew-pew!

But please, accept that not every game with guns needs to be made simple for you.

This^^.

(And I love shooters, the good ones.)

[Lumikki]

Terror_K wrote...

I personally don't think ME1's mechanics were pointless, I just think they were a little broken. And being a little broken means that they certainly didn't need binning in favour of the simplest, shallowest  and most linear of solutions

Problem is if you start fixing what was broken in ME1 inventory system, what you think is left?

Examples:

Versions I, II, III, IV and so on, needed to be fixed because they has allmost no difference. Steps was so small that player did not even notice the difference and it just created alot of junk items. Also, there was same weapons with different names, needed to be fixed. It doesn't really much matter is overhead speed 36.5 or 37.2, because player will NOT notice the difference in gameplay. Hole inventory system in ME1 was about NUMBERS, not real variety of different kind of items.

What ME2 tryed to do is fix the ME1 problems and some way they even did success, but some other way they did not. They did improve system so that there isn't any more junk items, but they also lost the induviduality for characters and some customation was lost, what was actually working fine. Meaning, ME2 items are now too general. Simple way to say, they simplifyed it too much.

My point is by saying that ME1 inventory was little bit broken is just understatement, it was broken big time. And fixing it would had redused items to allmost non existen.  What ME2 did was the fix. Good system is not huge amount of junk items, it's about big variety usefull different kind of items. ME1 did not have real variety as nice items, it had huge amount of same kind junk items.

Modifié par Lumikki, 01 juillet 2010 - 03:34 .

[SSV Enterprise]

worm_burner wrote...

Except that every shooter out has more weapons than ME2 did. Even if ME1's were pointless at least they were there.  In ME2 the weapons were definitely more varied and there was a difference between them which was great, but there should have still been an option to modify them.  Whether that be using mods like in ME1 or upgrading the same way armor was upgraded.  

You can get more weapons through DLC.  The total count of different weapons with DLC, including heavy weapons, is 24.  25 on PC with the Incisor sniper rifle.

I agree with you in part on that last point.  It would have been better for the upgrade system to have had a level of interchangeability, like with the armor upgrades.

bjdbwea wrote...

This.

Everyone who
wants simplicity: Go play a pure shooter. There are countless
games for you. Pew-pew!

But please, accept that not every game
with guns needs to be made simple for you.

I hate it when people, either ME2 supporters or critics, are snobbish like this.  The shooter mechanics are not the only reason that I play the game:  I mainly play for the story, characters, atmospheric universe, and control.  However, that does not mean I should sit idly by and not care about the shooter mechanics.  ME1's shooter mechanics were complex to the point of being annoying, and it had little point.  ME2 simplified things, but as long as that makes it more fun to play, I don't care. 

That's the ultimate goal of any game:  to be fun.  It doesn't matter if it's supposed to be a RPG, shooter, platformer, whatever.  If trying to be such a thing makes the game less enjoyable, game developers shouldn't be held slave to genre expectations- they should just do the best they can to make it as fun as possible.  IMHO, ME2 succeeded more in this regard than ME1.

[Zulu_DFA]

Lumikki wrote...

Terror_K wrote...

I personally don't think ME1's mechanics were pointless, I just think they were a little broken. And being a little broken means that they certainly didn't need binning in favour of the simplest, shallowest  and most linear of solutions

Problem is if you start fixing what was broken in ME1 inventory system, what you think is left?

I-II-III-...-X should have been removed.

"Omnigel All" button should have been added. And the ability to "store" some items with the "intendant" (Jacob) on the Normandy (in case you might think those items are good and may come in handy later, to load out a new squadmate, for instance)

Lees loot should have been placed in crates and fall out of killed enemies.

All this would have been easy to implement and to be learned by players.

The hardest part of it was how to make the omnigel and money economy more balanced. The task seems to have been tabbed as "we are not up to it" and the money economy was drawn a new and made quite simple. While the omnigel economy was removed completely.

[Zulu_DFA]

SSV Enterprise wrote...
I mainly play for the story, characters, atmospheric universe, and control. 

All of which was dumbed down in favor of the shooter mechanics. That's the point of compaining about them. Nobody would mind the shooter mechanics if they weren't coming at the expense of everything more important else.

[SSV Enterprise]

Zulu_DFA wrote...

All of which was dumbed down in favor of the shooter mechanics. That's the point of compaining about them. Nobody would mind the shooter mechanics if they weren't coming at the expense of everything more important else.

I respectfully and completely disagree. I find ME2 mostly better in these regards.

[Zulu_DFA]

SSV Enterprise wrote...

Zulu_DFA wrote...

All of which was dumbed down in favor of the shooter mechanics. That's the point of compaining about them. Nobody would mind the shooter mechanics if they weren't coming at the expense of everything more important else.

I respectfully and completely disagree. I find ME2 mostly better in these regards.

Well, as they say, to each their own... But seriously, wow...