10273 réponses à ce sujet

[E-MailA.K.A.Mr.Fox]

Kosmiker wrote...

I'm very very dissapointed with the drinks in this game, they taste awfully, except maybe for the cocktail mix you can make at Kasumi's bedroom.

thats one of us, seriously thou, i liked this part of ME2, just the helmet drink was too much lol.

[Solaris Paradox]

Il Divo wrote...

You have a point, except that Bioware rpgs feature interactive dialogue which is presented through the story and the characters, rather than cut-scenes where you are a passive observer (Ex: Halo). In this way the "story" is just as much a part of the gameplay as the shooter elements, if not more.  

Interactive dialogue is all well and good, but at the end of the day, story in a video game--however much interactivity a game injects into it--exists only to provide a context to the gameplay. It exists to give the player an excuse to jump around in unrealistic, doped-up platforming sequences, an excuse to shoot things that shoot back, an excuse to direct a team or four larger-than-life fantasy heroes in a strategic point-and-click combat system. Or what have you.

I'm not saying ME2 got the balance quite right, but at the end of the day it's a videogame doing what a videogame is supposed to do.

[bjdbwea]

That is an outdated view. A view that many developers and publishers unfortunately still share, and that's one reason they often put to little effort into the story, but that should change. BioWare were one of the few who always put much emphasis on the story, and that's exactly why many people hold them in such high regard. It's unfortunate that with ME 2, they made so many steps back, including in this regard.

Modifié par bjdbwea, 25 août 2010 - 01:13 .

[Kosmiker]

E-MailA.K.A.Mr.Fox wrote...

Kosmiker wrote...

I'm very very dissapointed with the drinks in this game, they taste awfully, except maybe for the cocktail mix you can make at Kasumi's bedroom.

thats one of us, seriously thou, i liked this part of ME2, just the helmet drink was too much lol.

I think the helmet drink was a way for BW to say "Hey! This is too shi**y for you to drink, just use it to clean your helmet lenses please".

[Kappa Neko]

Hmmm. I've been quite dissatisfied with games for the current console generation. Most of my xbox games are RPGs, so my main ciritcisms is directed at that genre. I've been trying for a while to pin down what exactly is not right with RPGs these days. It's not as easily to determine as one might think. Hence the discussion in this thread.
I do agree that gameplay is being dumbed down. One could be mean and speculate it's because kids these days are too stupid for challening battle systems. But I think it has more to do with people prefering games that don't require you to invest too much into to understand. With older RPGs it took you quite a while to really get the hang of the game. You had to plow through tons of information on the battle and skill system. I remember the Final Fantasy series and how whenever I bought the newest adventure I'd always think I'll never understand it.  I played FFX for over 200 hours !!! (that includes hours of Blitzball just for fun). I guess today  people don't have the time for this kind of intensive gaming experience or they aren't so committed anymore. I don't know. I can only speculate.
For me dumbing down means that the battle and skill systems are not as complex anymore and don't leave much room for individualized character building.
On the other hand, it is true that RPGs have never had mind-blowing interlectually challenging stories and deep characters. Most games feature the same theme over and over again: (adolescent) hero and his company save the universe or planet or whatever. For me, a good RPGs is not about having a unique story (that is awesome, of course) but about having  fun exploring a fictional world. About having a fun battle system. Because what most people seem to have forgotten, RPG means spending most of the game making your characters stronger, which means fighting!  There are websites that allow you to watch a game as a string of cutscenes like a movie. I did this a couple of months ago with FFXII because I had forgotten the story and thought I'd refresh my memory. The cutscenes add up to 6 hours if I remeber correctly. I played the game for 120 hours. So I guess that means you spend about 80-90% of the game fighting.
How come everybody is upset about ME being too much about shooting?! You actually do talk a lot with people. You don't have to. Might as well race through the game in a few hours. But then you're not playing it right.
The biggest difference to the older RPGs is the length of the game. As I have said I used to play games for 100-200 hours. Now you have 40 hours if you're lucky. Most games are shorter still. ME1 was really short. That was the thing that really disiappointed me.
The story of ME is not that original either. But that's the case with 90% of all games. Why? because the developers are lazy as everybody else. Maxium profit at the smallest effort. Why come up with something deep and complicated that might scare people off when the usual works just fine!
So BW did what others did before them: take a gripping if not very orinigal story, add good details and some character depths and turn it into a great gaming experience.
ME2 is even less original story-wise but still manages to be highly enjoyable.
I play RPGs because I expect to be introduced to new worlds with cool creatures I can interact with. This world needs to make sense. What the characters in this world do needs to make sense. And ME accomplished that. Here we have a unique world that BW filled with life. They actually did a better job in ME2 when it comes to exploring this world, in my opinion.
I could write more but I gotta go. I apologize for grammatical incorrectness. I'm not a native speaker!

[Lumikki]

bjdbwea wrote...

The market for proper RPGs is still there, even in this increasingly superficial society.

First what is proper RPG or superficial society, is also just opinion. My point is that you seem to exlude your self and think anything different isn't proper or good. Are you sure that they aren't as good as you are, just have little different taste of games. What you may wanted to say that there is still market for traditional RPG's what you self like alot. Yes there is.

But I think that it's not just a case of "the market wants it". I rather think that the companies and the media are actively shaping what the mainstream wants. First, by not providing alternatives in the first place. Thereby, what they say people want, is the only thing people can buy anyway, "proving" them right. Second, by constantly telling them "you need this, this is cool, this is the way to go." They do this not because they actually believe that, but because the resulting games are cheaper and quicker to produce.

I think you have some point here, I have seen this happen with some products. How ever, it's not so much what companies forces to us something, even if they have done that too. More like what most of people seem to want and buy, what shapes the products. Also new kind of technology advancements can cause products to shift sertain directions.

Modifié par Lumikki, 25 août 2010 - 02:12 .

[Pocketgb]

Dinkamus_Littlelog wrote...
However, do you not see the point in that if ME1 was already a "streamlined" RPG/Shooter experience, we have every right to be upset when Bioware taks that already thin and precarious formula and turns it into an out an out shooter with only the most pathetic RPG lip service?

I see a lot of things.
I see no point in attempting to 'hold onto' the RPG elements in ME1 when they were so miniscule to even bother with, hence why when people use the term "dumbed down" to descrbe ME2 I take it with the slightest grain of salt.
I see very little strength in advocating that ME2 was for the 'shooter crowd' when the gunplay in ME2 is just as anti-RPG as it was in ME1.

But I do see people being upset in change. Not for the better, not for the worse, just change in itself.
However, I also see people being upset at a lack of change.

[Fhaileas]

Lumikki wrote...
First what is proper RPG [...]

I think the definition is largely defined by what isn't an RPG. FPS and Adventure games are two examples that narrow what a RPG can be.

While stats and micro-management are not the definition of an RPG (nor grinding... but thank Blizzard for that), they are a traditional and integral part of their background.

Simply providing dialog choices and branching story doesn't make an RPG, that would make it an Adventure game (which has a long history of doing just that).

You can't really alter the narrative like you can do in non-virtual role-playing since coding such a game would be nigh impossible. Strictly speaking this means that no computer game can really be considered an RPG... however that is a tad pedantic and hard-line.

That said... a few games do come close to this ideal... I personally have never finished the main story line in Morrowind even though I have invested hundreds of hours into the game. I found it much more enjoyable just to wander around and do my own thing. That would be a fine example of real Role-Playing i.e. predefined world with no preordained linear script for the protagonist to adhere to.

That really leaves stats and inventory management as the only real options for the majority of computer RPGs to distinguish them from other game types.

Which sort of leave leaves ME2 as not an RPG at all, but as an FPS/Adventure. However many people have said the same about ME1 too.... so it's hardly a new conclusion. The gameplay makes much more sense if you look at it as an Adventure game too. However Adventure games are not in fashion right now (that does appear to be changing of late) so marketing dictates it must be called an RPG.

Modifié par Fhaileas, 25 août 2010 - 02:31 .

[Il Divo]

Fhaileas wrote...

I think the definition is largely defined by what isn't an RPG. FPS and Adventure games are two examples that narrow what a RPG can be.

Yet, even this isn't definitive. Deus Ex is considered one of the greatest games ever made and it's considered to be an fps and rpg.

Simply providing dialog choices and branching story doesn't make an RPG, that would make it an Adventure game (which has a long history of doing just that).

That said... a few games do come close to this ideal... I personally have never finished the main story line in Morrowind even though I have invested hundreds of hours into the game. I found it much more enjoyable just to wander around and do my own thing. That would be a fine example of real Role-Playing i.e. predefined world with no preordained linear script for the protagonist to adhere to.

The problem becomes: how can we find a universal definition of rpg? Shall we base it entirely on Pen and Paper experiences? Should only people who play those games be qualified to answer? How about experience as a DM? Is that necessary? Let's say we do decide that only people who play pen & paper are qualified, what then? There are so many different campaign styles. Some people only use role-playing as a device to reach the next dungeon crawl, where combat is the main focus. Some rely more on the narrative where combat is the exception, not the rule. Some DMs railroad their players. Some give as much choice as they can allow. Can we really find a definition for "everyone"?

I love Morrowind. It's an incredible game, yet it too has its limits. People say freedom is a staple of rpgs, yet DMs rarely allowed their players to explore an entire world from the get-go. There may be some leeway, your DM might improvise an encounter, but freedom comes at the expense of the narrative (which Morrowind and Oblivion demonstrate). So how can we come across this definition of rpg that some seem so intent on pushing through? It's utterly impossible. One person's rpg is another's adventure game. One's fps is another's rpg.

I see a lot of things.
I see no point in attempting to 'hold onto' the RPG elements in ME1 when they were so miniscule to even bother with, hence why when people use the term "dumbed down" to descrbe ME2 I take it with the slightest grain of salt.
I see very little strength in advocating that ME2 was for the 'shooter crowd' when the gunplay in ME2 is just as anti-RPG as it was in ME1.

But I do see people being upset in change. Not for the better, not for the worse, just change in itself.
However, I also see people being upset at a lack of change.

And this is the exact issue I have. Alot of people here are claiming that Mass Effect 2 dropped the proverbial bomb on us, and yet admit that Mass Effect already dumbed down the formula. Mass Effect 2 is "too much shooter" but Mass Effect still qualifies as a Bioware rpg. I saw alot more controversial departures in Mass Effect by way of style than I did in Mass Effect 2.

Modifié par Il Divo, 25 août 2010 - 03:32 .

[Il Divo]

Solaris Paradox wrote...

Interactive dialogue is all well and good, but at the end of the day, story in a video game--however much interactivity a game injects into it--exists only to provide a context to the gameplay. It exists to give the player an excuse to jump around in unrealistic, doped-up platforming sequences, an excuse to shoot things that shoot back, an excuse to direct a team or four larger-than-life fantasy heroes in a strategic point-and-click combat system. Or what have you.

I'm not saying ME2 got the balance quite right, but at the end of the day it's a videogame doing what a videogame is supposed to do.

But you're missing the point. In a Bioware game, story is gameplay. The only difference is it's less typical than what some come to expect. People are used to watching aliens get their heads blown off in Halo, so they look at the shooting mechanics in Mass Effect and say "Oh, that's obviously gameplay!". That's become the standard. So, when I'm talking to Ashley about her faith in God, trying to figure out the right reaction to romance her, am I suddenly not playing the game? Am I not engaging in a series of calculations to produce a desired result? Is Heavy Rain not a video game since it doesn't possess a separate combat system?

Again, you are not a passive observer to events like in Halo. You (the protagonist) have an active role in the events of the story taking place. As such, your story, dialogue, whatever becomes a part of your gameplay, just as much as killing someone with a gun or stabbing them with a sword.

Modifié par Il Divo, 25 août 2010 - 03:38 .

[Lumikki]

Fhaileas wrote...

While stats and micro-management are not the definition of an RPG (nor grinding... but thank Blizzard for that), they are a traditional and integral part of their background.

I quoted this because here is one most important word to understand when it comes to RPG. Word traditional. Why?

Because just because something is traditional, doesn't mean it has to be that way. Mostly because when people understand where the tradition has come, then they understand why it's so. Traditional RPG has come from simulating board roleplaying games. Because in there you needed a lot of numbers and dice roles keep everyting in control. They where behavior rules for players. How ever, roleplaying it self doesn't requires any numbers. So, games doesn't have to follow traditions when making roleplaying games. Because roleplaying is just player playing role in story and usually have character development. Character development or choise of roles, how ever can be made without showing a lot of numbers for player.

Simply providing dialog choices and branching story doesn't make an RPG, that would make it an Adventure game (which has a long history of doing just that).

Adventure game is very close to roleplaying game. The difference is usually that adventure game is concentrating more in solving puzzles and roleplaying game more in character development. How ever, the line is very blurr and can sometimes even vanish. Mostly because there is no definition how much something has to be in game to be in some category.

Modifié par Lumikki, 25 août 2010 - 04:21 .

[Fhaileas]

Il Divo wrote...

Fhaileas wrote...

I think the definition is largely defined by what isn't an RPG. FPS and Adventure games are two examples that narrow what a RPG can be.

Yet, even this isn't definitive. Deus Ex is considered one of the greatest games ever made and it's considered to be an fps and rpg.

Not quite. Deus Ex was not an RPG, it had RPG elements. Just as it was not an FPS, but had FPS elements. It was was a medley of many different affairs. Just like the earlier Elder Scrolls games and to a lesser extent ME1, it didn't do everything perfectly (or even necessarily well) but it fused them together in a way that made sense.

Simply providing dialog choices and branching story doesn't make an RPG, that would make it an Adventure game (which has a long history of doing just that).

That said... a few games do come close to this ideal... I personally have never finished the main story line in Morrowind even though I have invested hundreds of hours into the game. I found it much more enjoyable just to wander around and do my own thing. That would be a fine example of real Role-Playing i.e. predefined world with no preordained linear script for the protagonist to adhere to.

The problem becomes: how can we find a universal definition of rpg? Shall we base it entirely on Pen and Paper experiences? Should only people who play those games be qualified to answer? How about experience as a DM? Is that necessary? Let's say we do decide that only people who play pen & paper are qualified, what then? There are so many different campaign styles. Some people only use role-playing as a device to reach the next dungeon crawl, where combat is the main focus. Some rely more on the narrative where combat is the exception, not the rule. Some DMs railroad their players. Some give as much choice as they can allow. Can we really find a definition for "everyone"?

I love Morrowind. It's an incredible game, yet it too has its limits. People say freedom is a staple of rpgs, yet DMs rarely allowed their players to explore an entire world from the get-go. There may be some leeway, your DM might improvise an encounter, but freedom comes at the expense of the narrative (which Morrowind and Oblivion demonstrate). So how can we come across this definition of rpg that some seem so intent on pushing through? It's utterly impossible. One person's rpg is another's adventure game. One's fps is another's rpg.
 

Fair enough. When it comes to video games, I do understand why the medium leads to heavy story telling with little control over most of what happens. I mean game programmers can only allow for so many contingencies. I do however think that the future of computer RPGs lies more in the direction of sandbox games like "Oblivion" or "Fallout 3" than in the direction of say "Mass Effect" which despite the presence of some stats is barely a shadow of an RPG anymore as of the second installment. Heck, half the time choosing different options in conversations just changes tone more than actually resulting in anything different happening. 

Once someone creates a sandbox where the little quests and characters can be as involved as the stuff going on in the more cinematic "RPGs" I think success will have been achieved with the genre. We aren't there yet, but I imagine it will come eventually. I think a key element is going to be easy to work with voice creation technology, allowing programmers to create the voices, inflection, delivery, etc.. they need from whole cloth in a studio without needing an actor. Similar tech exists, but it's not all that prevalent right now. One of the big barriers afflicting game design is of course voicework and the time and expense it takes, but I imagine this will not always be the case. Once voices become easier to do, you'll probably see more options becoming available due to being able to easily produce more lines, and less need to feel people need to be rushed through all the characters and not "miss anything" because of all the effort taken.

Modifié par Fhaileas, 25 août 2010 - 05:33 .

[Fhaileas]

Lumikki wrote...

Fhaileas wrote...

While stats and micro-management are not the definition of an RPG (nor grinding... but thank Blizzard for that), they are a traditional and integral part of their background.

I quoted this because here is one most important word to understand when it comes to RPG. Word traditional. Why?

Because just because something is traditional, doesn't mean it has to be that way. Mostly because when people understand where the tradition has come, then they understand why it's so. Traditional RPG has come from simulating board roleplaying games. Because in there you needed a lot of numbers and dice roles keep everyting in control. They where behavior rules for players. How ever, roleplaying it self doesn't requires any numbers. So, games doesn't have to follow traditions when making roleplaying games. Because roleplaying is just player playing role in story and usually have character development. Character development or choise of roles, how ever can be made without showing a lot of numbers for player.

I understand your perspective but "traditionally" Role Playing Games, RPGs, come from the Pen and Paper games that originated in the seventies. Mainly Dungeons and Dragons which kind of set the whole thing off and is the most well known. For a game to be classified as an RPG it needs to have similarities with the mechanics of these games. Roughly put; alterable stats linked with the player/characters which form attributes which determine the course of play. If a game has this it is an RPG. RPG has nothing to do with story or acting. It is possible to play DnD with no semblance of story or even communication, just throw some goblins in a room with a PC and roll some dice. You still have an RPG but no story to speak off.

Of course the typical argument comes up that I'm ignoring the role (which you aptly mention) of part of Role playing games but I argue not at all. First of all you do not need to act or even talk to take a role. By rolling dice and deciding what spell/attack/ability a character uses is taking the role, the DM takes the roles of the monsters, a player takes the role of their army in a game of Warhammer, a player takes the role of Shepard in Mass Effect etc. However the taking of a role itself does not make something an RPG. You still need the stats, if you didn't nearly every game would be an RPG, Bowling would be an RPG so would Poker and pin the tail on the donkey.

Simply providing dialog choices and branching story doesn't make an RPG, that would make it an Adventure game (which has a long history of doing just that).

Adventure game is very close to roleplaying game. The difference is usually that adventure game is concentrating more in solving puzzles and roleplaying game more in character development. How ever, the line is very blurr and can sometimes even vanish. Mostly because there is no definition how much something has to be in game to be in some category.

I beg to differ. Adventure games have been know to have character development as well albeit following literary conventions of personal and emotional growth, rather than statistics, skills and abilities that affect "gameplay".

Modifié par Fhaileas, 25 août 2010 - 05:53 .

[Lumikki]

Yes, but you define roleplaying games based lack of possibilities, based what board games where in past. Meaning if old days something was not possible to be made to work how it should be, because lack of technology abilities, so that lack of possibility is part what defines hole gendre. It's like saying first car defines what future cars has to be, because traditions.

My point is that computers can free players from numbers and stats and allow player to consenrate the main thing, what was allways playing role in story. What wasn't possible with board roleplaying games same ways it's possible now in computer games.

You basicly say that without showing numbers for player there isn't roleplaying games. That's just BS.

Modifié par Lumikki, 25 août 2010 - 06:16 .

[Vena_86]

Lets just wait for The Witcher 2 then we can see what modern roleplaying can look like.

[Il Divo]

Fhaileas wrote...

Not quite. Deus Ex was not an RPG, it had RPG elements. Just as it was not an FPS, but had FPS elements. It was was a medley of many different affairs. Just like the earlier Elder Scrolls games and to a lesser extent ME1, it didn't do everything perfectly (or even necessarily well) but it fused them together in a way that made sense.

Which still depends on to whom you are speaking and how you define rpg. Yes, Elder Scrolls games are distinct in that they all take place in the first person, but the first person view doesn't inhibit their ability to function as role-playing games. Hence my point that we'll never narrow down on a "perfect definition". I do think it's important to point out that most of the people arguing in this thread, whether for or against Mass Effect 2, all seem to regard Deus Ex as an rpg.

Fair enough. When it comes to video games, I do understand why the medium leads to heavy story telling with little control over most of what happens.

But the point is that even in full pen and paper games it's not uncommon for the players to have little or not control over the events at hand (railroading). Certainly, we can say that a good DM will make this practically unnoticeable, but the effect is still there and it's pronounced. The idea of exploring a complete open world with a tight narrative is very appealing, but it's difficult for some even in the world of dnd.

This is partially why DnD often encourages "Good" parties, rather than neutral or evil. It's much easier to direct a campaign where all your good players need to know is where the orcs went that burned down the town, than it is for the evil characters who each may need a separate motivation at hand.

Once someone creates a sandbox where the little quests and characters can be as involved as the stuff going on in the more cinematic "RPGs" I think success will have been achieved with the genre. We aren't there yet, but I imagine it will come eventually. I think a key element is going to be easy to work with voice creation technology, allowing programmers to create the voices, inflection, delivery, etc.. they need from whole cloth in a studio without needing an actor. Similar tech exists, but it's not all that prevalent right now. One of the big barriers afflicting game design is of course voicework and the time and expense it takes, but I imagine this will not always be the case. Once voices become easier to do, you'll probably see more options becoming available due to being able to easily produce more lines, and less need to feel people need to be rushed through all the characters and not "miss anything" because of all the effort taken.

I do think that this is the direction rpgs are heading in, but we're not quite there yet. That's a huge element of the Bethesda vs. Bioware debate, where the former offers large open worlds, freedom, relatively free role-playing but very unfocused while the latter offers a more direct "You are this character, doing this, helping this person" which produces a more focused goal at the expense of freedom. This results in questions like "Why would my Commander Shepard help the Council if he hates aliens?" and things of this sort in every Bioware game.

I understand your perspective but "traditionally" Role Playing Games, RPGs, come from the Pen and Paper games that originated in the seventies. Mainly Dungeons and Dragons which kind of set the whole thing off and is the most well known. For a game to be classified as an RPG it needs to have similarities with the mechanics of these games. Roughly put; alterable stats linked with the player/characters which form attributes which determine the course of play. If a game has this it is an RPG. RPG has nothing to do with story or acting. It is possible to play DnD with no semblance of story or even communication, just throw some goblins in a room with a PC and roll some dice. You still have an RPG but no story to speak off.

Of course the typical argument comes up that I'm ignoring the role (which you aptly mention) of part of Role playing games but I argue not at all. First of all you do not need to act or even talk to take a role. By rolling dice and deciding what spell/attack/ability a character uses is taking the role, the DM takes the roles of the monsters, a player takes the role of their army in a game of Warhammer, a player takes the role of Shepard in Mass Effect etc. However the taking of a role itself does not make something an RPG. You still need the stats, if you didn't nearly every game would be an RPG, Bowling would be an RPG so would Poker and pin the tail on the donkey.

There's something I feel I should draw your attention to. Taken from p. 8 of the Dungeon Master's Guide regarding "Styles of Play":

Deep-Immersion Storytelling

The Free City of Greyhawk is threatened by political turmoil. The PCs must convince the members of the ruling council to resolve their differences, but can only do so after they have come to terms with their own differing outlooks and agendas. This style of gaming is deep, complex, and challenging. The focus isn't on combat but on talking, developing in-depth personas, and character interaction. A whole game session may pass without a single die roll.

In this style of game, the NPCs should be as complex and richly detailed as the PCs--although the focus should be on motivation and personality, not game statistics. Expect long digressions from each player about what his or her character will do, and why. Going to a store to buy iron rations and rope can be as important an encounter as fighting orcs. (And don't expect the PCs to fight the orcs at all unless their characters are motivated to do so). A character will sometimes take actions against his players better judgment, because "that's what the *character* would do." Adventures in this style of play deal mostly with negotiations, political maneuverings, and character interaction. Players talk about the "story" that they are collectively creating.

Rules become less important in this style. Since combat isn't the focus, game mechanics take a back seat to character development. Skill modifiers take precedence over combat bonuses, and even then the actual numbers often don't mean much. Feel free to change rules to fit the player's roleplaying needs. You may even want to streamline the combat system so that it takes less time away from the story.

That does not seem to rely on statistics at all while staying true to the spirit of dnd. It also goes against what you are claiming is necessary for a game to be an rpg, based on dnd. The problem with your definition is quite simply that whether I am rolling statistics or using hand-eye coordination I am still "taking the role" of that character in both instances, whether I am deciding if Master Chief will throw a grenade or the Wizard will drop a fireball.

Modifié par Il Divo, 25 août 2010 - 06:50 .

[bjdbwea]

Then every game where you control a single character would be an RPG. This leads to two possible conclusions: Either the term RPG is too broad and therefore useless, or it should only be applied if the game provides (a significant amount of) the additional features that so far defined the RPG genre. I would think the latter is the better conclusion.

[tonnactus]

Pocketgb wrote...

I see very little strength in advocating that ME2 was for the 'shooter crowd' when the gunplay in ME2 is just as anti-RPG as it was in ME1.

Thats why i still invest points in the assault rifle skill in Mass Effect 2.
But wait...

[Bourne Endeavor]

Since we are discussing character interaction between everyone excluding Shepard, I would like to bring up points of reference that while minimal in ME1, should have been expanded on in ME2. Examples...



- Ash briefly crewing out Liara if a love angle is pursued

- Wrex shooting Fist and in my case, Garrus shouting: "What the hell are you doing?!"

- The entire party concerned with what will happen with Wrex on Virmire

- Adam's initial nerves of having Tali muck with the ship controls.

- Your team offering their opinion on your decision involving the Council, Rachni and etc. (Garrus' dialogue if you kill the Council was poor mind you)



Those are all prime examples of the characters voicing an opinion and acknowledging one another. In ME2 we are barely treated to character interaction as a whole outside of the Loyalty quests, which are fairly good. Ash makes a momentary nod if Garrus is with you, sighing that even he has 'joined' Cerberus. Why can we not have more of this?



This is not a matter of RPG elitism, it is simply a matter of us wanting more. If dialogue is such a trivial waste for some of you, the option to skip is available. Why must we suffer removed content so you are required to smack the X button a couple additional times? What is bothersome is how the shooter crowd is so frequently catered to. You have a legion of generic games, some excellent, some mediocre. Us RPG fans do not even have JRPGs much nowadays. Mass Effect is the first series in years to claim the ladder since Final Fantasy has no idea what it is doing with itself. You best believe we will complain wholeheartedly to keep it our RPG.

[Il Divo]

bjdbwea wrote...

Then every game where you control a single character would be an RPG.

I'm afraid not. The point of the quote is that you don't need numbers and statistics in order to role-play. Halo is not a role-playing game at all, even though I control a single character because I have absolutely no impact on his personality in any way, shape or form. I don't control dialogue, backstory, pretty much anything. Role-playing can relate strictly to your character's personality impacting the game. Sure, you can say statistics are necessary to role-play, but how? Explain to me the difference in "role-playing" between pressing a button to throw a grenade or rolling 3d6 to determine a fireball's damage.
 
DnD also usually provides a framework for why you're killing wave after wave of monsters, even if it's not a deep story. "Orcs are raiding the town! Kill them!"

This leads to two possible conclusions: Either the term RPG is too broad and therefore useless, or it should only be applied if the game provides (a significant amount of) the additional features that so far defined the RPG genre. I would think the latter is the better conclusion.

So what are the "additional features" that have so far defined the rpg genre? My source comes right from a 3.5 Dungeon Master's Guide. Shall we look for a quote from the 2.0 hand book instead? What do you think we'll find? Is there a dnd book that says "If you are not making frequent use of die rolls, then you are not role-playing?"

As you can tell by this thread, there are a million and one different perceptions on what constitues a "role-playing game". Hell, if you want to cite DnD and statistics as a source, then I will tell you that Mass Effect is in some ways worse than Mass Effect 2 with respect to inventory. DMs typically don't typically pile 50 copies of the exact same long sword on PCs, nor do they force you to carry all that excess loot, but then there probably is a group out there that does this. My point is you're not going to find this "perfect definition", even if you cite dnd as your source.

Modifié par Il Divo, 25 août 2010 - 07:31 .

[tonnactus]

Bourne Endeavor wrote...

Since we are discussing character interaction between everyone excluding Shepard, I would like to bring up points of reference that while minimal in ME1, should have been expanded on in ME2.

And was even reduced/completly cutted.And this in a "character  driven" game.Shepardt didnt have a team,he has
only some puppets isolated from eachother.
But shepardt himself is only a marionette of the illusive man.

[shootist70]

bjdbwea wrote...

or it should only be applied if the game provides (a significant amount of) the additional features that so far defined the RPG genre. I would think the latter is the better conclusion.

But then we're still stuck with identifying what constitutes 'roleplaying' and we'd still be going off-topic.

This is what 'roleplaying' means to me: I've been playing RPG's for over 10 years, and yet I still found playing something like Rockstar's Red Dead Redemption to be far more of a roleplaying experience than most of the stats-driven, soulless RPG's I've tried in the past. It had decent story, characters and even a whiff of subtext. The only thing it didn't have was real roleplaying choice.

The thing about that sort of classic western setting is that people might prefer playing though it with any one of the gunslinger character archetypes we associate with the genre. Now, imagine if we took all RDR's character interactions and stuck in various options that might represent some of those archetypes. Now imagine that we branched off the main storyarc in various directions according to those choices.

Now THAT would be roleplaying - giving the player the chance to play through the fictive medium with a recognisable role that they've chosen for themself. That's all you need. The stats driven gear fest only serves to bog this down with mechanical and intrusive detail, and that's anathema to decent storytelling.

Personally I think ME2 has a fairly decent stab at it, but it's early steps in a decent direction for the genre.

[bjdbwea]

Il Divo wrote...

As you can tell by this thread, there are a million and one different perceptions on what constitues a "role-playing game".

Perhaps, but frankly, the perceptions of shooter fans on what constitutes an RPG are of little interest to me. I'm not telling them what makes a shooter either. And more importantly, I don't go to a shooter forum and demand the game to be changed to my liking as an RPG fan. They would probably not react very friendly to that, and understandably so.

[shootist70]

bjdbwea wrote...
Perhaps, but frankly, the perceptions of shooter fans on what constitutes an RPG are of little interest to me. I'm not telling them what makes a shooter either. And more importantly, I don't go to a shooter forum and demand the game to be changed to my liking as an RPG fan. They would probably not react very friendly to that, and understandably so.

Tsk tsk. Seriiously, If your arguments are based on polarisations and generalisations then you're just going to come across as totally subjective and biased. The folks who will make more sense are those who simply talk in terms of what constitutes good roleplaying as far as entertainment and player experience are concerned, and not in terms of some pigeonholed definition. As I said elsewhere on these forums recently, artists and creators of all sorts often detest it when fans pigeonhole their work like that.

[Fhaileas]

Il Divo wrote...

There's something I feel I should draw your attention to. Taken from p. 8 of the Dungeon Master's Guide regarding "Styles of Play":

Deep-Immersion Storytelling

The Free City of Greyhawk is threatened by political turmoil. The PCs must convince the members of the ruling council to resolve their differences, but can only do so after they have come to terms with their own differing outlooks and agendas. This style of gaming is deep, complex, and challenging. The focus isn't on combat but on talking, developing in-depth personas, and character interaction. A whole game session may pass without a single die roll.

In this style of game, the NPCs should be as complex and richly detailed as the PCs--although the focus should be on motivation and personality, not game statistics. Expect long digressions from each player about what his or her character will do, and why. Going to a store to buy iron rations and rope can be as important an encounter as fighting orcs. (And don't expect the PCs to fight the orcs at all unless their characters are motivated to do so). A character will sometimes take actions against his players better judgment, because "that's what the *character* would do." Adventures in this style of play deal mostly with negotiations, political maneuverings, and character interaction. Players talk about the "story" that they are collectively creating.

Rules become less important in this style. Since combat isn't the focus, game mechanics take a back seat to character development. Skill modifiers take precedence over combat bonuses, and even then the actual numbers often don't mean much. Feel free to change rules to fit the player's roleplaying needs. You may even want to streamline the combat system so that it takes less time away from the story.

That does not seem to rely on statistics at all while staying true to the spirit of dnd. It also goes against what you are claiming is necessary for a game to be an rpg, based on dnd. The problem with your definition is quite simply that whether I am rolling statistics or using hand-eye coordination I am still "taking the role" of that character in both instances, whether I am deciding if Master Chief will throw a grenade or the Wizard will drop a fireball.

Just because DnD claims to support a play style does not mean it does; look at the context of the very quote you have provided. DnD is effectively saying "You may not use the rules at all", at which point you're really not playing DnD.