1067 réponses à ce sujet

[FlintlockJazz]

SurfaceBeneath wrote...

FlintlockJazz wrote...
The people who are complaining are those who grew up on Final Fantasies and World of Warcraft or are the tabletop players commonly refered to as rollplayers who believe that its the stats that define the genre and the requirement to have a cumbersone inventory is all that is needed. 

Hey man, I've done more roleplaying in World of Warcraft than I've done in any other video game. I do think that no kind of game comes closer to the authentic PnP experience than MMOs.

Oops, sorry!  No offence intended, just was trying to turn the poster's logic on themself.  Sometimes you do find some good amongst the slime.   Hell, even I did WoW for a while.  I should probably edit it to properly define who I'm talking about...

Modifié par FlintlockJazz, 11 mars 2010 - 11:45 .

[SurfaceBeneath]

FlintlockJazz wrote...
Oops, sorry!  No offence intended, just was trying to turn the poster's logic on themself.  Sometimes you do find some good amongst the slime.   Hell, even I did WoW for a while.  I should probably edit it to properly define who I'm talking about...

No worries! Just wanted to point it out is all

[Terror_K]

FlintlockJazz wrote...

Terror_K wrote...

The definition of an RPG was never a problem even as little as 5-6 years ago. It's only been in the latter half of the last decade when more genres have blended and blurred that it's become a problem, when younger and more modern "gamers" think anything with a story, choices and consequences and even simply playing a role constitutes an RPG. Too many take the name of the term too literally, and now we have people calling games "RPGs" that aren't and have never been officially considered as such. Heavy Rain, for instance, is not an RPG, but adheres to so many peoples' own definition these days just because it has the things they like or they commonly see in many RPGs.

Actually, its the other way around.  Many people who know of and played cRPGs from the old days are now seeing the fruition what was intended all along: the realisation of tabletop RPG in a computer environment.  The people who are complaining are those who grew up only knowing the Final Fantasies and World of Warcraft games while never bothering with the lore or are the tabletop players commonly refered to as rollplayers who believe that its the stats that define the genre and the requirement to have a cumbersone inventory is all that is needed. 

RPG has always covered a wide range of gamestyles, hell the difference between WRPGs and JRPGs attest to this.  What really needs to be done to solve this problem is the definition and use of the sub-genres in RPGs, to avoid crying by those wanting a level grinding game.

Funny... since I grew up playing the old SSI AD&D cRPG's and the like in the late 80's and early 90's, as well as playing pen and paper RPG's for many years, and yet I'm complaining about it. I also don't like the Final Fantasy series and don't play WoW.

From a certain perspective you are correct, but the problem is while the production and presentation values of cRPG's have been going up over the years, the complexity and depth from a behind-the-scenes statistical standpoint has been going down. We're getting games that have more complex storylines, more variations and are closer to cinematic interactive movies, but they're getting simpler. One of the reasons I consider KotOR one of the greatest RPG's is because it sits squarely in the middle now: when cRPG's had the proper statistical depth and complexity, and when they were just starting to become more like interactive cinema you could really immerse yourself in. Mass Effect has improved on the latter, but has weakened in the case of the former, as have most cRPGs over the years. Dragon Age Origins is the closest thing we've gotten to the perfect mesh of the two.

Modifié par Terror_K, 11 mars 2010 - 12:13 .

[FlintlockJazz]

Terror_K wrote...

FlintlockJazz wrote...

Terror_K wrote...

The definition of an RPG was never a problem even as little as 5-6 years ago. It's only been in the latter half of the last decade when more genres have blended and blurred that it's become a problem, when younger and more modern "gamers" think anything with a story, choices and consequences and even simply playing a role constitutes an RPG. Too many take the name of the term too literally, and now we have people calling games "RPGs" that aren't and have never been officially considered as such. Heavy Rain, for instance, is not an RPG, but adheres to so many peoples' own definition these days just because it has the things they like or they commonly see in many RPGs.

Actually, its the other way around.  Many people who know of and played cRPGs from the old days are now seeing the fruition what was intended all along: the realisation of tabletop RPG in a computer environment.  The people who are complaining are those who grew up only knowing the Final Fantasies and World of Warcraft games while never bothering with the lore or are the tabletop players commonly refered to as rollplayers who believe that its the stats that define the genre and the requirement to have a cumbersone inventory is all that is needed. 

RPG has always covered a wide range of gamestyles, hell the difference between WRPGs and JRPGs attest to this.  What really needs to be done to solve this problem is the definition and use of the sub-genres in RPGs, to avoid crying by those wanting a level grinding game.

Funny... since I grew up playing the old SSI AD&D cRPG's and the like in the late 80's and early 90's, as well as playing pen and paper RPG's for many years, and yet I'm complaining about it. I also don't like the Final Fantasy series and don't play WoW.

From a certain perspective you are correct, but the problem is while the production and presentation values of cRPG's have been going up over the years, the complexity and depth from a behind-the-scenes statistical standpoint has been going down. We're getting games that have more complex storylines, more variations and are closer to cinematic interactive movies, but they're getting simpler. One of the reasons I consider KotOR one of the greatest RPG's is because it sits squarely in the middle now: when cRPG's had the proper statistical depth and complexity, and when they were just starting to become more like interactive cinema you could really immerse yourself in. Mass Effect has improved on the latter, but has weakened in the case of the former, as have most cRPGs over the years. Dragon Age Origins is the closest thing we've gotten to the perfect mesh of the two.

I could argue that the use of stats and dice in tabletop RPGs was that it was a pre-Computer era attempt at simulation, to facilitate the player taking on their character's role, however some people have now taken those stats as the ends rather than the means.  Nothing wrong with that, its just a different style of roleplay, but adopting other methods does not invalidate them, its just a different focus. 

Some people classify JRPGs as prime examples of RPGs, as they include all the stats and inventories typical of a RPG, however others also consider them to be nothing more than interactive stories due to the complete railroading of their plots and characters.  It could be argued that Baldur's Gate and DAO are not RPGs but rather small tactical combat simulators since you are not playing one character but a group with dialogue added in for instance.  The genre is more undefined and ambiguous than alot of people think.

[AngryFrozenWater]

FlintlockJazz wrote...

Sir Caradoc wrote...

Shavon wrote...

Mass Effect 1 was rpg-lite, but that was
fine with me, the story was awesome, Shepard was very customizable, it
became a unique game per person who played.  Maybe a little too light,
but still one of my favorite games of all time.  Mass Effect 2, amazing
combat (imo), a decent story, despite certain characters getting the
shaft, but it's no longer what Biwoare does best: an rpg.

So,
Bioware, what happened?  We're getting guns for dlcs?  Are we going to
get any story-driven stuff, similar to Bring Down the Sky?  Or the
excellent dlc's for Dragon Age?  I know a game company can put out more
than one type of genre, but it seems like Bioware is trying to cross
genres at the expense of the game.  

Ok, discuss, flame I don't
care, I just want the rpg stuff back.  [smilie]../../../images/forum/emoticons/angry.png[/smilie]

You
are not alone.

I haven't still bought me2 as I'm waiting for the
price to drop. I enjoyed mass effact 1 a lot mainly because of the
fresh scifi setting and epic storyline. Character progression was
somewhat rewarding, but  the whole inventory was a big mess and at the
end of day player's twitch skill mattered more than his character build.
It saddening because with a combat system similar to Dragon age the
first mass effect could have been an instant classic, proper inventory,
good strategic combat, better customization of your party etc would
added so much depth.The whole third person action combat system felt so
akward.

Me2 seems to offer more the same. I don't doubt that
storytelling will once again  blow my mind, and party interaction is
good old bioware style, but combat and other gameplay mechanics have
been scaled down towards action crowd. Its alright i quess if you love
action games, but I love classic rpg gameplay. I'm not saying that I
wouldn't play action games, its just that i don't buy them with full
price and they aren't on my top  priority list. Moreoever judging by the
various gameplay videos combat feels still somewhat akward and quite
predictable even though controls have been improved. But it has also
lost quite much depth at the same.

Have you actually tried the game?

To me things are simple. If a given game doesn't appeal to me simply by judging what I read about it, then I am likely not to buy it. Too bad if it was a game that I actually would have liked. Another has taken its place instead. Who cares? You? Besides, he says he'll buy it when the price drops. So, it's not too late, is it?

[Richard_I]

I too think it's a bit on the stripped down side...there is a lot to do, but a lot of it is just go from point A to point B and shoot some things on the way there. The shooting is fun initially, but the character development is totally uninspiring.  With an RPG a lot of the fun is in developing your character(s) in interesting ways that actually effect how they play very deeply.

For instance, I should have to take Mordin in my party if I'm not a tech expert myself if I want to break through locked doors etc, otherwise I should be forced to shoot my way through the front entrance (related point, even the level design is totally linear, there's rarely more than one way to to something, because the character options are so limited it's all just "shootout every time").

One RPG aspect it did get perfect is story and dialogue structure, they're  BRILLIANT.

[FlintlockJazz]

AngryFrozenWater wrote...
To me things are simple. If a given game doesn't appeal to me simply by judging what I read about it, then I am likely not to buy it. Too bad if it was a game that I actually would have liked. Another has taken its place instead. Who cares? You? Besides, he says he'll buy it when the price drops. So, it's not too late, is it?

I don't care whether he likes the game or if he buys it, I'm just wondering why he's commenting on a game he has not played.  Whats it to you whether I ask him if he has played the game or not?  Whats it to him if some people think its and rpg and others think its not if he hasn't played the game?

[grellas]

I agree with topic starter.

More RPG please ^^

[AngryFrozenWater]

FlintlockJazz wrote...

AngryFrozenWater wrote...
To me things are simple. If a given game doesn't appeal to me simply by judging what I read about it, then I am likely not to buy it. Too bad if it was a game that I actually would have liked. Another has taken its place instead. Who cares? You? Besides, he says he'll buy it when the price drops. So, it's not too late, is it?

I don't care whether he likes the game or if he buys it, I'm just wondering why he's commenting on a game he has not played.  Whats it to you whether I ask him if he has played the game or not?  Whats it to him if some people think its and rpg and others think its not if he hasn't played the game?

If you didn't care whether he likes it or not then why did you ask him your initial question?  You just sound like you want to shup him up or others who critisize the game. If not then I apologize.

Modifié par AngryFrozenWater, 11 mars 2010 - 04:22 .

[Grilled Trout]

What is your definition of an "RPG?" Is it bunch of statistics, levels, endless loots, and clunky combat based on dice rolls? To me, a great RPG means being given a choice to affect the story of the game by having choices to make different decisions, supported by great story and cast, and fun combat. Mass Effect 2 does all of these things very well. So what's not so RPG about it?



And this topic has been beaten to death how many dozens of times now?

[SolitonMan]

I've stated elsewhere the same sentiment showing up in some of the messages in this thread - the idea that you can't really emulate an RPG on a computer.  A true role playing game isn't limited in choice or story - the rules simply guide how choices are resolved.  Characters take actions that change the game world and thus the story as play commences.  The fact that story is and always will be inherently limited on a platform that lacks the versatility of the human imagination means that we'll never have on the computer what I as a player would truly love - a whole world for me alone to explore wherein every npc is a chance to interact and I can try - and probably fail - at anything I wish to attempt. 

Ultimately I think labels are pointless.  The point of a game is to have fun.  I mean, at least that's why I play games. 

I really haven't been having fun with ME2, but that's ok, I put it aside for now and pulled out something else for a bit.  Once we have more DLC I'll revisit the game and see if the balance switches my experience (emphasis on MY) from mostly annoying to mostly fun.

Bashing Bioware or any game developer for the games they put out is as pointless as labelling games.  While a label may help with a general idea of the type of gameplay experience to expect from a specific title, I think a developer would do well to provide more concrete descriptions of the gameplay mechanics and move away from labels.  ME2 might be described as a TPS combat system with a story-based mission structure and limited character customization.  But ultimately it seems the crux of the issue is IS IT FUN?

Another thought I've seen in this thread is the idea that games need to evolve to stay cool, relevant, whatever.  I don't agree with this in general.  If something is fun, why should it change?  I hate change purely for the sake of change.  If there isn't a good reason for a change, why make it?  How much has, say, chess changed?  (And yes, I realize that it HAS changed, but certainly not as drastically nor in as short a time as computer games change).  I still pull out my Xbox copy of Namco Museum to load up Pac Man or Galaga or Galaxian.  They're still fun games.  If a change isn't an improvement, why make it?

If someone was publishing more adventures for Neverwinter Nights (either version) I'd happily fire up the PC to play them.  Just because the gameplay or graphics or details haven't changed, I'm always happy to have a new story to run through.  If they published new stories regularly, I'd be buying them regularly.  They don't need to make the new flashy to make an enjoyable experience.

I'd like to see ME3 return to the same immersive feel of ME1, but keep the things that were improved in ME2.  Lose the tedium of ME2 (planet scanning, samey combats).  Meld the good from both into an overarching superior experience that's fun and replayable.

[FlintlockJazz]

AngryFrozenWater wrote...

FlintlockJazz wrote...

AngryFrozenWater wrote...
To me things are simple. If a given game doesn't appeal to me simply by judging what I read about it, then I am likely not to buy it. Too bad if it was a game that I actually would have liked. Another has taken its place instead. Who cares? You? Besides, he says he'll buy it when the price drops. So, it's not too late, is it?

I don't care whether he likes the game or if he buys it, I'm just wondering why he's commenting on a game he has not played.  Whats it to you whether I ask him if he has played the game or not?  Whats it to him if some people think its and rpg and others think its not if he hasn't played the game?

If you didn't care whether he likes it or not then why did you ask him your initial question?  You just sound like you want to shup him up or others who critisize the game. If not then I apologize.

If he has played the game then I am more than willing to discuss the pros and cons of it with him, but if he has not then there isn't much to discuss, as half the conversation would be discerning what he actually knows about the games and what he thinks he knows about the game.  Oh, and you yourself sound like you are trying to discredit me just because I have a different opinion about the game than you, but I won't presume.  Cast aspersions based on one post that really had **** all to do with you and was not in any way intended in the way you are trying to make it out to be all you want, enjoy.

[Mikenator700]

I agree with OP. ME2 was just too linear this time around. Aside from recruit missions (which were just level-ups of Liara's from ME1) and loyalty missions (just like Garrus and Dr. Saleon), we were forced to do every major story mission in the game in a certain order.

Also I missed the stat system from ME1. Maybe not as jumbled or as much stuff, but I liked seeing the statistics between each weapon and equipment. Being able to buy and sell what I wanted sold the experience for me.
Also: omni-gel. I loved that stuff. Did it just become obselete or prohibitted the 2 years we were dead.

Mind you, I'm not a crazy gamer outside of shooters. I've only ever played FPS's like COD, Halo, and Rainbow. So when I found that ME2 was less of a story-driven game and more of a shooter, I was disapoint. Still, one hell of a game though.

Ackillez (below me), like you didn't just post that because of what I said. Such a nice person...

Modifié par Mikenator700, 11 mars 2010 - 06:46 .

[Ackillez]

The only thing dumbed down in here are the retards asking for 'RPG ELEMENTZ!!!!'



A hundred skillpoints and 374 shotgun varieties with customization opportunities does not make a game more of a roleplaying game. Beat your dead horse somewhere else...

[Raniall]

Oh look another one of these threads.

*air quotations* "RPG elements"...we have dismissed this claim.

[spacehamsterZH]

Mikenator700 wrote...

I agree with OP. ME2 was just too linear this time around. Aside from recruit missions (which were just level-ups of Liara's from ME1) and loyalty missions (just like Garrus and Dr. Saleon), we were forced to do every major story mission in the game in a certain order.

Uh, except the loyalty and recruitment quests make up like 80% of the game's content and you can do all of that any way you please.

Totally agree with you on the weapons stats, though. They clearly HAVE different damage characteristics, and it really annoys me that I can't see them.

[Sylvius the Mad]

[quote]SurfaceBeneath wrote...

MMOs are closer to "true" RPGs than any single player game since you're at least allowed to create your own character and play in a shared space with other players, which is how PnP roleplaying games were always intended to be played in the first place.[/quote]
I wasn't really considering the multiplayer aspects.  I don't enjoy multiplayer.

I solo MMOGs.
[quote]JaegerBane wrote...

Everyone thinks you're asking for that because that is what you're writing in your posts. TJSolo makes a good point in that you see written text as kosher because it can be 'interpreted', which, frankly, is absolute nonsense. You're drawing an arbitrary line between interpreting text and speech.[/quote]
I'm drawing an entirely non-arbitrary line between explicit content and implicit content.  Some content is in the game; I expect the game to react to that.  Some content is not in the game, and thus unknowable to the designers; it would be impossible for the game to react to that.

If there's an arbitrary line being drawn here it's by people who think that full-text dialogue is somehow different in kind from keyword or text-parsing dialogue.

The dialogue wheel in Mass Effect would actually work really well for me if the PC didn't have a voice-over and the conversations weren't cinematic.  Then we'd basically have a keyword dialogue system like Oblivion, and that would work fine.

[quote]This is the issue. You've got your own bizarre concept of what constitutes 'implicit' and 'explicit' lines. Very few people, including the majority of the audience, the game devs, and the reviewers couldn't give a **** about this issue.[/quote]
I dispute that.  I'm confident game designers generally, and BioWare in particular, are aware of the difference between content that's actually in the game and content that is not.
[quote]Murmillos wrote...

Does the game allow you to customize your character to include such aspects as: sex, race, face, class, talents?[/quote]
I don't see that as necessary.


[quote]Does the game allow you to further flavor your character to include equitable items, clothing, loot, food - anything seen as "extra" that doesn't dictate your character, but allows you to further create an attachment to the "avatar" that represents you.[/quote]
In an RPG, you don't have an avatar that represents you.  This is part of the problem here.  People are looking at the game the same way they'd look at a shooter where they themselves (the player) is represented in the game.

But that's not true in an RPG.  You're not in the game.  Your character is in the game, and your character is not you.  This is the main reason I object to RPGs relying on the physical skill of the player or making anything physical within the game be anything other than stat-driven.  Your character is not you.  That's the whole point of RPGs.


[quote]Does the game allow you to customize your character in personality, such as: good or evil, smart or dumb, charismatic or repulsive, loner or leader (or anything in between)? The more options the game allows you to identify with your character, the more of an RPG it is.[/quote]
I would agree with this, but Mass Effect doesn't actually contain this feature.

You're denying the existence of necessary conditions, but you're not supporting your position at all.  You're just asserting it.
[quote]JaegerBane wrote...

Where I draw the line is when they start telling other people, the industry, the rest fo the world, that their, as fluffeh called it, 'trivial checklist' is somehow more valid or more important than anyone else. PArticularly when the changes they suggest would represent a step backward and would conflict with what has already been put forward.[/quote]
A step backward?  Who's being arbitrary now?

Why is that backward?  Why isn't it just different?


[quote]To be honest I find it arrogant to an almost comical degree that they take it upon themselves to drone on with their purist sermons based on nothing more than the fact that this is what they think.[/quote]
But it's more than that.  When new features prevent what were previously core features of the game from functioning, that needs to be made known.

I don't think most gamers understand opportunity costs.
[quote]Grilled Trout wrote...

What is your definition of an "RPG?" Is it bunch of statistics, levels, endless loots, and clunky combat based on dice rolls? To me, a great RPG means being given a choice to affect the story of the game by having choices to make different decisions, supported by great story and cast, and fun combat. Mass Effect 2 does all of these things very well. So what's not so RPG about it?[/quote]
Mass Effect fails to allow you to control your character's words, actions, or personality.  That's the problem.
[quote]SolitonMan wrote...

Ultimately I think labels are pointless.  The point of a game is to have fun.  I mean, at least that's why I play games. [/quote]
Of course.  But what's fun to you?

Everyine likes to have fun.  But what each of us finds fun is different.  That's the basis of these discussions.
[quote]FlintlockJazz wrote...

Actually, its the other way around.  Many people who know of and played cRPGs from the old days are now seeing the fruition what was intended all along: the realisation of tabletop RPG in a computer environment.[/quote]
I agree entirely that this is the whole point of CRPGs.  To reproduce a tabletop RPG experience without the need for other people.

But a tabletop RPG experience was stat-driven.  A tabletop RPG experience allowed you tremendous control over your character's words and actions.  Your character's personality was entirely under your control.

CRPGs have been moving in that direction for years, but then Mass Effect comes along and moves in entirely the opposite direction. 

Modifié par Sylvius the Mad, 11 mars 2010 - 09:57 .

[Trixster09]

Those who are asking for more RPG what are you looking for exactly?

ME2 great character development and interactive story your decide the outcome of those are 2 major elements I wish i had in a lot of other RPGs. A lot of ppl are saying the story wat to linear this time around. Well it direction they took it in it may seem that way. Getting your team together took most of the game. This particular part was Character driven get most of it out the way so ME3 can focus on the main story.



And we pretty much know there will be character returning in ME3 so no need to go do everyone's personal mission.



How is making the invitory and other stuff simpler making it loose RPG elements thats not what make this game great or and RPG. IMO it was a good move go play ME1 and be honest which one plays smoother. I could see if a game like Monster Hunter took or nerf custimzation and inv but no problem in ME2.



What are you looking for some WoW style where you do fetch quest and hunt 100 of so and so monster? :/

[AngryFrozenWater]

This is what I think about the talents. Currently crew members only have 3 talents (plus 1 for the loyalty mission) and the player has 6 talents (plus 1 bonus). In comparison to ME1 that's a lot less talents. In ME3 the level cap will be increased from 30 to 60. This allows the import of the ME2 player stats. The active talents will be doubled to facilitate levels 31 to 60. That will bring back the number of talents to ME1 levels. It would match earlier promises from BW and also explain why they insist that nothing has been lost. Well... Except a bit in ME2 of course. Anyway... I hope this becomes true. I would love to see some more stuff in ME3.

Modifié par AngryFrozenWater, 11 mars 2010 - 08:35 .

[Gorn Kregore]

slimgrin wrote...
we get "blockbuster" games loaded with useless cut scenes and hackneyed game mechanics.

We already had a game which was like that, if I remember clearly it was

[TJSolo]

Gorn Kregore wrote...

slimgrin wrote...
we get "blockbuster" games loaded with useless cut scenes and hackneyed game mechanics.

We already had a game which was like that, if I remember clearly it was

Damn good game.
Hope it gets a proper sequel in ME3. :innocent:

[Jaysonie]

TJSolo wrote...

Gorn Kregore wrote...

slimgrin wrote...
we get "blockbuster" games loaded with useless cut scenes and hackneyed game mechanics.

We already had a game which was like that, if I remember clearly it was

Damn good game.
Hope it gets a proper sequel in ME3. :innocent:

It did, in Mass Effect 2.

[TJSolo]

Jaysonie wrote...

TJSolo wrote...

Gorn Kregore wrote...

slimgrin wrote...
we get "blockbuster" games loaded with useless cut scenes and hackneyed game mechanics.

We already had a game which was like that, if I remember clearly it was

Damn good game.
Hope it gets a proper sequel in ME3. :innocent:

It did, in Mass Effect 2.

I said proper.

[Jaysonie]

TJSolo wrote...

Jaysonie wrote...

TJSolo wrote...

Gorn Kregore wrote...

slimgrin wrote...
we get "blockbuster" games loaded with useless cut scenes and hackneyed game mechanics.

We already had a game which was like that, if I remember clearly it was

Damn good game.
Hope it gets a proper sequel in ME3. :innocent:

It did, in Mass Effect 2.

I said proper.

I know what you said.
Mass Effect found a proper sequel in Mass Effect 2.