1067 réponses à ce sujet

[A Fhaol Bhig]

slimgrin wrote...

A Fhaol Bhig wrote...

Well, for you maybe.

But for me its the combat, story, characters.

Personally, I wish one of the new game+ options was getting to jump right into any level and replay it without wading through the story.

Don't get me wrong, I loved the story, and especially the characters. But neither are as replayable as the combat IMO.

I admit, this is a side to you have I have not seen. I thought you hated the game, didn't notice you were just highly critical.

The combat is awesome ^^
I don't get when some people complain about stuff like "omg boxes! its obvious their is going to be a fight!" when that happens in hundreds of other games...

[SurfaceBeneath]

ThePatriot101 wrote...

Someone hand me an M-920 Cain, I got a thread to finally nuke.

No, it's fun watching a thread cannabalize itself.

[kaskouka]

Having an inventory full of junk I had to sell or salvage after each mission wasn't rpg for me. That was only a waste of time as the "exploration" with the Mako was (same planets, same buildings). The weapons were all the same ... I'm not unhappy to get rid of that crap from ME1.

In ME2 I still have a good story, good characters, great places to explore, some "big" moral choices and an improved combat system. That's all I need to have fun with it.

[SkullandBonesmember]

Agreed Shalon. I want the RPG stuff back too. Check out my post in the review thread.

[SkullandBonesmember]

kaskouka wrote...

Having an inventory full of junk I had to sell or salvage after each mission wasn't rpg for me. That was only a waste of time as the "exploration" with the Mako was (same planets, same buildings). The weapons were all the same ... I'm not unhappy to get rid of that crap from ME1. In ME2 I still have a good story, good characters, great places to explore, some "big" moral choices and an improved combat system. That's all I need to have fun with it.

ME1 focused on story and characters above all else. ME2 focused on combat above all else.

[Murmillos]

kaskouka wrote...

Having an inventory full of junk I had to sell or salvage after each mission wasn't rpg for me. That was only a waste of time as the "exploration" with the Mako was (same planets, same buildings). The weapons were all the same ... I'm not unhappy to get rid of that crap from ME1.
In ME2 I still have a good story, good characters, great places to explore, some "big" moral choices and an improved combat system. That's all I need to have fun with it.

Don't get us wrong, nearly everybody has the same complaint as you do in regards to these issues.  The debate is; "How well did Bioware go in correcting/addressing those complaints.. "To far, just right, or not far enough."

The majority of us don't want to see ME1 system ever again, but on the same point, ME2 system didn't fix the issue; Bioware just ignored and removed those elements completely.  We feel Bioware took the easy way out.  Because the elements of a shooter are better to design then the elements of a well engaged flowing RPG.

Modifié par Murmillos, 12 mars 2010 - 04:25 .

[casedawgz]

With the logic people are using to accuse ME2 of not being an RPG, I have to ask. Do these people think that Jade Empire was an RPG? Because it was really no more an RPG than ME2. Probably less, actually.

[Terror_K]

Jade Empire is an action-RPG, though is probably BioWare's most RPG-Lite game yet. That's why I consider it amongst BioWare's weakest titles, even if I still enjoyed it and it had a great story and characters and lots of dialogue options and ways to complete quests. It was a bit short too.

[Kyanos1a]

Hopefully now that they have the combat where they want it they will go back to the great character developement  and story paths they are known for

Modifié par Kyanos1a, 12 mars 2010 - 04:57 .

[Phaedra Sanguine]

Yea, bring back inventory! Cause I'm an anal-retentive moron!

[TornadoADV]

Paxcorpus wrote...

Yea, bring back inventory! Cause I'm an anal-retentive moron!

Nobody is forcing you to min-max buddy.

No, it's fun watching a thread cannabalize itself.

I agree, we can never have enough Modern Warfares on the market and they go through all the trouble of naming them different titles. I have to say I'm feeling spoiled, though the lack of akimbo 1887s is a bummer for me.

Modifié par TornadoADV, 12 mars 2010 - 04:56 .

[Murmillos]

Paxcorpus wrote...

Yea, bring back inventory! Cause I'm an anal-retentive moron!

Ahh yes.. some other clueless poster who dribbles out rhetoric crap because they have failed to read and understand what is being asked for.

Modifié par Murmillos, 12 mars 2010 - 05:09 .

[Murmillos]

casedawgz wrote...

With the logic people are using to accuse ME2 of not being an RPG, I have to ask. Do these people think that Jade Empire was an RPG? Because it was really no more an RPG than ME2. Probably less, actually.

As Terror_K said, Jade Empire is an RPG because it has a lot of the typical elements found in an RPG, but the choice of options were paper thin. You could select your character, but couldn't modify them in any detail (gender, clothing, and hair selection being static). The strongest RPG element in the game were stat/point allocation into the 3 disciplines and which fighting styles(skills) you wanted to level up. The loot was minor (weapon choices) - and optional loot (gems) was not a strong element, but at least decent. The rest of it was just a action-story line.

Not that there was anything wrong in the set up that Jade Empire used - it doesn't make it any less of a game (or at least I wouldn't personally think it was Bioware weakest title); just if you were looking for strong character customization, or any other deep RPG elements, you arn't going to find any in Jade Empire and the Action-RPGlite is a fair title for the game.

Jade Empire did well and didn't have pages on endless pages for not having loot because it came to the table and set the mood - thats how it was going to be done, and it was generally accepted.

Now imgaine if Jade Empire 2 came out, and it had a loot system like ME1.  There would be more issues with the change of the loot system that massive, then keeping the loot system the first Jade Empire had.

Modifié par Murmillos, 12 mars 2010 - 05:22 .

[Shadowravyn]

After reading all 16 pages, it seems that a few people have hit upon one of the biggest issues in this thread. That is, What makes a game (computer game in this case) an RPG?

But there is no set answer. Many may have a set answer for themselves, but the reality is that the RPG genre has grown to include so many sub-genres that there can not be one set, end all, be all definition. And this is nothing new. By many peoples definitions here, Diablo and other "action" RPGs are not RPGs. Remember when Fallout 3 was announced? There was a year of continual back and forth that Bethesda was raping the corpse of Fallout by not having it be isometric and turn-based.

Let's look at some of the sub-genres. Action RPGs (Diablo, Sacred, etc.), JRPGs (Final Fantasy, Dragon Quest), WRPGs (Elder Scrolls, Planescape, Might and Magic, etc.), Old School RPGs (SSI Gold Box series, Lands of Lore, Ultima, etc.), MMOs (WOW, Ultima Online, etc.) even newer ones like the European RPGs (Risen, etc.), all of these are very different to each other and this is only a sampling of the different sub-genres. Then there are specific areas that people will focus on. Isometric vs. first person. Real time vs. Turn based. Linear vs. Open World. Creating Characters from Scratch vs. Choosing a pre-made character.

The point is that at the present, all of these are still considered to fall under the umbrella of RPGs. Everyone is able to say they don't feel that some of these are true RPGs, but that is not the case because there is no such thing (in computer games) as a "true" RPG. If a game does not meet your specific criteria for what you feel is a "true" RPG, fine, but that does not mean it is not an RPG.

Until this is understood, the argument will continue to go in circles. There are many of these sub-genres that I really don't feel meet what I what I look for in an RPG, but I am not going to say they aren't RPGs. Just not may cup of tea.

I don't know if anyone will agree with me, and I guess that's ok as well. I just think it would make everyones life easier if we talked about what we considered to be an RPG, instead of demanding that such and such is the only acceptable definition of an RPG.

Thanks

Modifié par Shadowravyn, 12 mars 2010 - 02:14 .

[Zem_]

Shadowravyn wrote...

After reading all 16 pages, it seems that a few people have hit upon one of the biggest issues in this thread. That is, What makes a game (computer game in this case) an RPG?

Totally irrelevant.  The only reason people are trying to make the argument at all is that they believe it does or does not justify the decisions made going from ME1 to ME2.  e.g. "If it is an RPG, then it must have inventory and Bioware was wrong (objectively) not to include it."

Which is nonsense.  Call it a shooter.  Call it an RPG.  Call it a pink elephant.   It doesn't change what the game is nor does it prove to anyone what does or does not belong in the game.  If people like inventory systems and getting xp every time they kill, then theys should just say so.  Stop pretending your opinion is justifiably correct.   It is no more or less than anyone else's opinion.  If you don't like the games Bioware makes, then stop buying them, because the opinions that carry weight are the ones expressed in dollars, not the number of characters in a forum post.

[hawat333]

Let's see what RPG stands for. RolePlaying Game. What do you do in ME2? Playing a Role.



On the DLC contents, we get loots. Like in a hack'n'slash.

Couldn't care less for a gun.

But hey,

they are free additional contents. You know, candy to keep us silent



The real DLCs for ME2 are Zaeed, the HammerHead and Kasumi.

[Lusitanum]

SkullandBonesmember wrote...

ME1 focused on story and
characters above all else. ME2 focused on combat above all else.

Exactly, because ME2 had absolutely no compelling story or characters that made you genuinely care about them. I mean, when I played Dragon Age, I loved my companions so much that I thought "This is the most likable bunch of companions I've ever seen in a game. Even those that I don't agree with (like Morrigan) are interessting, well-develloped and always have something to add to the game. It's just a shame my own character is such an uninteressting mute." And then came ME2 where I was actually emotionally torn between my characters, because I loved them all so much. I hated Jack when I saw her trailer but in the game I kept hovering between those two Yes or No options about wheter or not I should continue romancing her instead of Tali. BTW, I chose yes, and to this day I'm torn about that decision.

No game in the history of ever made me spend so much time trying to decide which way to go on a decision. So what was that crap about focus on combat over story and characters? 

Shadowravyn wrote...

After reading all 16 pages, it seems that a few people have hit upon one of the biggest issues in this thread. That is, What makes a game (computer game in this case) an RPG?

But there is no set answer. Many may have a set answer for themselves, but the reality is that the RPG genre has grown to include so many sub-genres that there can not be one set, end all, be all definition. And this is nothing new. By many peoples definitions here, Diablo and other "action" RPGs are not RPGs. Remember when Fallout 3 was announced? There was a year of continual back and forth that Bethesda was raping the corpse of Fallout by not having it be isometric and turn-based.

Let's look at some of the sub-genres. Action RPGs (Diablo, Sacred, etc.), JRPGs (Final Fantasy, Dragon Quest), WRPGs (Elder Scrolls, Planescape, Might and Magic, etc.), Old School RPGs (SSI Gold Box series, Lands of Lore, Ultima, etc.), MMOs (WOW, Ultima Online, etc.) even newer ones like the European RPGs (Risen, etc.), all of these are very different to each other and this is only a sampling of the different sub-genres. Then there are specific areas that people will focus on. Isometric vs. first person. Real time vs. Turn based. Linear vs. Open World. Creating Characters from Scratch vs. Choosing a pre-made character.

The point is that at the present, all of these are still considered to fall under the umbrella of RPGs. Everyone is able to say they don't feel that some of these are true RPGs, but that is not the case because there is no such thing (in computer games) as a "true" RPG. If a game does not meet your specific criteria for what you feel is a "true" RPG, fine, but that does not mean it is not an RPG.

Until this is understood, the argument will continue to go in circles. There are many of these sub-genres that I really don't feel meet what I what I look for in an RPG, but I am not going to say they aren't RPGs. Just not may cup of tea.

I don't know if anyone will agree with me, and I guess that's ok as well. I just think it would make everyones life easier if we talked about what we considered to be an RPG, instead of demanding that such and such is the only acceptable definition of an RPG.

Thanks

That was a really interessting read, thanks for that.

I just wish the Internet wasn't filled with so many RPG elitists that always see their favorite game as the "pure" form of RPGs and everything else is just pandering to the "kids" who aren't as mentally develloped as they are because apparently their games are the pinacle of intelectual exertion due to the fact that you have to memorize a couple of gameplay rules.

Seriously, you'll get this in every single RPG in existence. The Morrowind crowd will bash the Oblivion fans because apparently losing that annoying hit-chance that made you miss an enemy that was right in front of you makes you an idiot. Meanwhile, the D&D crowd will bash the Morrowind crowd because the fact that you can train your skills however you like means that classes dissapear and multi-classing is true food for the brain. Oh, and of course the Dragon Age fans have a tendency to dislike Mass Effect, the game that has "no gameplay whatsoever" because getting a tank, a DPS dealer, a caster and a healer together in a group and beating the game using the same party and tactics over and over again must test your mental skills in ways I can't even fathom.

Hell, even the Mass Effect crowd is guilty of this on their own game. Just bring up the word "multiplayer" and watch the ranting begin, with sentences like "just give us the deep RPG experience and leave the shooting to all the idiots who can't think". I mean, seriously, are you actually saying this about a game where you spend the vast majority of your time shooting stuff up?

Now don't get me wrong, I love all these games. I loved Morrowind and Oblivion and I played them to death. I loved Knights of the Old Republic (still one of my most beloved games of all time) and Neverwinter Nights, even if NWN2 sucked, thanks to Obsidian. Fallout 1 and 3 also kept me busy for a very long time and they will do it again since I intend to play those games again in the future. I also really liked Jade Empire despite the repetitive combat and the absolute excess of dialog that just kept repeating facts that had already been established. I was also really anxious for Dragon Age and until I beat it, I couldn't touch any other game. And, of course, I love Mass Effect 1 and 2.

They're all great games, in their own right. And what some do different from others aren't always flaws, just different ways of offering different gameplay experiences in order to keep the games fresh. And despite what the elitists are trying to do by demanding the same kind of games over and over again, at least these games are envolving in new and exciting ways and are opening new paths for us to enjoy them. So why shouldn't we just give them a chance to do so?

[Shadowravyn]

Zem_ wrote...

Shadowravyn wrote...

After reading all 16 pages, it seems that a few people have hit upon one of the biggest issues in this thread. That is, What makes a game (computer game in this case) an RPG?

Totally irrelevant.  The only reason people are trying to make the argument at all is that they believe it does or does not justify the decisions made going from ME1 to ME2.  e.g. "If it is an RPG, then it must have inventory and Bioware was wrong (objectively) not to include it."

Which is nonsense.  Call it a shooter.  Call it an RPG.  Call it a pink elephant.   It doesn't change what the game is nor does it prove to anyone what does or does not belong in the game.  If people like inventory systems and getting xp every time they kill, then theys should just say so.  Stop pretending your opinion is justifiably correct.   It is no more or less than anyone else's opinion.  If you don't like the games Bioware makes, then stop buying them, because the opinions that carry weight are the ones expressed in dollars, not the number of characters in a forum post.

Actually Zem,  that's really what I was saying.  The main point of my post was that people are trying to say that their opinion of what makes an RPG are the only ones that count.  I agree the label doesn't matter, but was only trying to respond to the postings so far.

I guess what I am saying is that I do agree with you.

[Dinkamus_Littlelog]

Ive got a dead horse for all you Bioware apologists: stop bleating on about the inventory system. I dont know if you noticed, but a lot of people can ignore ME2s absence of an inventory system thats equally as bland compared to ME1s. A lot of people are saying "Where the hell did the story go" because ME2 is all about the combat above all else.



90% of the game is recruitment and loyalty missions of which 90% of those missions are almost always combat. The majority of the side missions are about combat (not to mention pathetically shallow and brief), and the few that arent normally involve walking 15 paces and then its done with.



The least Bioware could do is own up to the fact that they made an almost complete shooter game, instead of bull****ting that the RPG elements are not only still there, but even have the nerve to suggest they are stronger than ME1.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Lusitanum wrote...

So, does that mean that DA:O isn't an RPG either? Because, just like Shepard, if I don't put my mouse on something and tell them to do the most basic of things, they'll just stand there. Like Shepard, if I point away from combat and click on it, they just get slaughtered.

I tell him what to do.  I don't do it for him.

ME actually allowed for this by letting us aim while paused.  That reduced aiming to target selection, and then determined accuracy using Shepard's stats.

ME2 doesn't use Shepard's stats, so if I aim while paused I'll never miss now (which is exactly how I'll play ME2 should I ever acquire it).

Why aren't these characters fighting their enemies? Why are they being killed by monsters and yet the still keep standing there or running everywhere? Why aren't they casting spells and making decisions according to the situation?

They will, actually.  DAO's tactics system allows for that.  BioWare even released one of their internal mods that allows that to work for all the characters at once.

casedawgz wrote...

With the logic people are using to accuse ME2 of not being an RPG, I have to ask. Do these people think that Jade Empire was an RPG? Because it was really no more an RPG than ME2. Probably less, actually.

I'd call Jade Empire an RPG.  It allowed character development (when I say character development, I'm talking about the character's personality).  The action-combat was more of a mini-game than an RPG element, but I don't mind mini-games in RPGs.  My first ever CRPG (Questron) had several minigames in it.

hawat333 wrote...

Let's see what RPG stands for. RolePlaying Game. What do you do in ME2? Playing a Role.

No you don't.  The implementation of the dialogue wheel prevents that.  You don't ever get to choose what Shepard says or does in conversation.

All of the RPGs mentioned in this thread share that common element.  They allow the player to roleplay his character.

ME does not.  ME fails the most basic test available.

[Lusitanum]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

I tell him what to do.  I don't do it for him.

Same thing, different mechanic. You still have to move them to the right spots, you still have to prioritize targets and you still have to use some kind of direct control if you don't want to end up toast. God knows you can't let the AI in charge of anything. <_<

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

ME actually allowed for this by letting us aim while paused.  That reduced aiming to target selection, and then determined accuracy using Shepard's stats.

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

ME2 doesn't use Shepard's stats, so if I aim while paused I'll never miss now (which is exactly how I'll play ME2 should I ever acquire it).

Meaning that half a second later, when the enemy takes a step to the side, you'll have to pause and aim again in order to land another shot.

Does anyone even care about the opinion of someone who doesn't even know which side of the gun makes the bullets come out in a videogame that revolves around shooting things?

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

They will, actually.  DAO's tactics system allows for that.  BioWare even released one of their internal mods that allows that to work for all the characters at once.

No, they won't, actually. Given the incredibly idiotic AI, they'll still need constant babysitting not only because you'll always find hundreds of situations where you can't program your companions to do what you want them to (why can't I tell my Rogue to focus on backstabbing? Why can't I tell my Tank to Shield Bash an enemy that attacks with melee weapons that turns its attention to said Rogue?) but the AI will still insist on being stupid even after that. I've lost count to the amount of times my characters died because my healer just forgot to cast a Heal spell even though it had maximum priority, all the mana that it could need and the spell wasn't in a cooldown fase.

Also, the limited number of tactical slots was a complete waste of time.

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

I'd call Jade Empire an RPG.  It allowed character development (when I say character development, I'm talking about the character's personality).  The action-combat was more of a mini-game than an RPG element, but I don't mind mini-games in RPGs.  My first ever CRPG (Questron) had several minigames in it.

There's no character development on something that has no personality. Period.

Dawn Star had character development, Sky had character development, Sagacious Zu had tons of character development, your guy was just a mute that had some facial expressions every now and then.

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

No you don't.  The implementation of the dialogue wheel prevents that.  You don't ever get to choose what Shepard says or does in conversation.

Except when you're very explicitly given the choice to do so with the very clear dialogue choices?

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

All of the RPGs mentioned in this thread share that common element.  They allow the player to roleplay his character.

And so does Mass Effect. Hell, Mass Effect even goes beyond those games by letting you role-play a freaking role, someone with actual emotions, backstory and defined personality and goals instead of the blank slates that we were given up until now where we could fit a few dozens of trucks through their motivations.

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

ME does not.  ME fails the most basic test available.

It's fun, enjoyable and it has probably the best lead character in an RPG in the last decade, if not more. How dare they? <_<

[Sylvius the Mad]

Lusitanum wrote...

Meaning that half a second later, when the enemy takes a step to the side, you'll have to pause and aim again in order to land another shot.

Sure, but then at least my physical skill doesn't matter.

I pause about that often in party-based RPGs all the time.

Does anyone even care about the opinion of someone who doesn't even know which side of the gun makes the bullets come out in a videogame that revolves around shooting things?

Why would you assume that I'm not a good shot?  Whether I'm a good shot is irrelevant; what I'm complaining about is that my skill is a variable at all.

There's no character development on something that has no personality. Period.

If your character ever fails to have a personality, that's your fault.  Why didn't you give him a personality?  Why didn't you design the entire personality in advance?

That's now tabletop RPGs work.  That's how CRPGs work.  That's just how RPGs work.  So, yes, if you completely skip an important part of character design, your character will have glaring faults.  Does this honestly surprise you?

Except when you're very explicitly given the choice to do so with the very clear dialogue choices?

They're not "very clear", because they lack a complete enumeration of the information conveyed by the subsequent utterance and cinematic portrayal.

They're entirely unclear.  They're obfuscatory.

And so does Mass Effect. Hell, Mass Effect even goes beyond those games by letting you role-play a freaking role, someone with actual emotions, backstory and defined personality and goals instead of the blank slates that we were given up until now where we could fit a few dozens of trucks through their motivations.

Again, if someone can't aim when playing a shooter, that's their failing, not the game's failnig.  Similarly, if you can't roleplay when playing an RPG, that's your failing, not the game's.

I have never played a character in an RPG where I didn't completely understand his background, motivations, beliefs, values, and goals.  Not once.  Because I created those characters and populated their minds.

You apparently built a mindless robot and then were surprised when he didn't have his own opinions.

It's fun, enjoyable and it has probably the best lead character in an RPG in the last decade, if not more. How dare they? <_<

Shepard was a very interesting character.  Unfortunately, we were not permitted to play him (or her - I vastly preferred FemShep's VO).

Modifié par Sylvius the Mad, 12 mars 2010 - 08:35 .

[Lusitanum]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Sure, but then at least my physical skill doesn't matter.

I pause about that often in party-based RPGs all the time.

Party-based RPGs won't obviously have the same game mechanics as shooter RPGs, now will they? Would you also complain about the lack of a pausing aim in a game like Rainbow Six? And even RS doesn't have all the learning wheels ME has with all aiming assists.

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Why would you assume that I'm not a good shot?  Whether I'm a good shot is irrelevant; what I'm complaining about is that my skill is a variable at all.

If you need to pause and is aiming is an issue, then I have to question why would that ever be a problem.

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

If your character ever fails to have a personality, that's your fault.  Why didn't you give him a personality?  Why didn't you design the entire personality in advance?

Why didn't I give him a personality? Oh wait, let me think about it... oh yes, because that's not my goddamned job! I don't have to make up for any plot holes that a story might have by making up some reasons in my head, I don't have to justify the fact that a given NPC might go out of character due to bad writing, I don't have to make cheesy dialog sound good, I don't have to try and explain any inconsistencies that a story might have, and I sure as hell shouldn't have to warp my mind around the MAIN - FREAKING - CHARACTER non-existant personality, who's supposed to be at the center of all this and the driving force behind pretty much everything that's going on around it.

If making up excuses in your head for everything that's wrong and lacking in a story is what we're supposed to do while enjoying a given work, then that means that Twilight is actually a really good saga. At least their fanbase keeps justifying the most outrageous actions of the characters in those books with excuses that they came up in their heads as to why they're acting that way. What's the difference between that and giving my characters a backstory and motivs that nobody but me will see?

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

That's now tabletop RPGs work.  That's how CRPGs work.  That's just how RPGs work.  So, yes, if you completely skip an important part of character design, your character will have glaring faults.  Does this honestly surprise you?

Yes it does, because that's not how RPGs work. This genre has evolved beyond tabletop a few decades ago, you might want to wake up, and in this day and age, where technology allows you to make the "G" in "RPG" actually mean something, storytelling and character development are starting to change from the mute, uninspired and absolutely unlikable characters and storylines from the past into living, breathing entities. We've been working hard to make games into something that can actually be called "art", we'd thank you if you didn't keep stalling us with 70's clichés.

Also, even if CRPGs were supposed to be like tabletop RPGs, wouldn't you be expected to also make up your own setting in your head, as well as your character?

And your enemies?

And the fights?

And the world around you?

And the story?

And the events that would happen?

And pretty much everything that involves the computer in CRPGs?

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

[/i]They're not "very clear", because they lack a complete enumeration of the information conveyed by the subsequent utterance and cinematic portrayal.

They're entirely unclear.  They're obfuscatory.

It's the exact same thing you've seen in every single RPG in existence: first option is good, second one is neutral and the last one is bad. Seriously, you could even play those games without looking at your options and you'd be just fine, what's so bad with just conveying the spirit of the sentence with a pattern like that?

And before you resort to your favorite word (Metagaming!) I'd recommend you actually look up its definition before using it this time.

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Again, if someone can't aim when playing a shooter, that's their failing, not the game's failnig.  Similarly, if you can't roleplay when playing an RPG, that's your failing, not the game's.

If I can't role-play because I have no role and no interesst in the character, then no, it's not my fault. Just like if I don't like a defined character because I just feel nothing for him (i.e. Isaac from Dead Space), then that's probably because the developers didn't do a very good job on turning him into an appealing character and nobody in their right mind would tell me I have to like him because I need to make up for the game's shortcomings.

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

I have never played a character in an RPG where I didn't completely understand his background, motivations, beliefs, values, and goals.  Not once.  Because I created those characters and populated their minds.

You apparently built a mindless robot and then were surprised when he didn't have his own opinions.

I didn't build a mindless robot, that's what I was given. I'm not supposed to build a gaming world from the ground up if feels empty and unappealing. I'm not expected as a gamer to put different music and sound effects if the sound design is flawed. I'm not going to fill in the blanks on a story that's poorly explained. I shouldn't have to blinfold myself to make up for the shortcomings of a flawed combat system. And I sure as hell am not supposed to come up with the centerpiece of the whole damned game when I play as the main character!

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Shepard was a very interesting character.  Unfortunately, we were not permitted to play him (or her - I vastly preferred FemShep's VO).

Given the pride I hear in the voices of the people I know when they talk about their playthroughs in ME, hearing them refer to what they call "my Shepard", feeling like they owned their decisions and shaped their experiences, and hearing they, say things like "bah, it would take more than that to kill my Shepard!" after seeing his "death" in the Launch
Trailer really tells you something about "not being permitted to play as him".

On the other hand, when I ask my friends the name of their first Dragon Age character, half of them have forgotten it. I myself only remember it because I know I gave him one of my Internet names spelled backwards. And even then, I have to think on my Internet name and put it backwards, instead of just remembering my character. That's just how much we didn't care, even if we loved the game (to varying degrees, of course).