1067 réponses à ce sujet

[nelly21]

@Murmillos

I will win because my argument is based on fact and yours is based on emotion.

I ask for an explanation because your definitions for what constitutes an rpg are more variable than a color palette at Loews.

Combat:

Third Person Shooting. This is common in both games. ME 2 made the switch to entirely skill based shooting instead of partially skill based shooting. The major difference is the inclusion of ammo. All this changed was that instead of waiting 5-10 seconds for a weapon to cool down, you could immediately reload and continue firing. Hardly an earth-shattering change.

Focus on story:

Both games are story driven. ME 1 was plot driven while ME 2 is character driven. Saying one is better than the other is a matter of taste and is therefore irrelevant in this dicussion. Other than the focus of the story, the manner in which the story is told really didn't change. You could do missions in any order you wished (except for two plot heavy missions). There were characters that you didn't have to recruit if you didn't want to. Again, not seeing the enormous change.

Skills:

Both games have you progressing in preset skill sets based on your characters class. The only difference between both games is the reduction of squad skills and the exclusion of weapon skills. Less rpg focused than ME 1 to be sure. But the skills themselves are exteremely important. I defy anybody to complete the game without spending skill points (I tried this on Veteran) and tell me that they make no difference in gameplay.

Inventory:

The biggest difference between the two games. ME 1 had a mess of an inventory and ME 2 has almost none. This IS a major departure from rpg conventions. Personally, I would of liked customizable armor for squadmates. However, I must ask if you enjoyed navigating through ME 1 invetory windows. If you did, good for you. Most of us didn't. But I'll give this point to you. The ME 2 system is a complete 180 from the original.

Exploration:

While ME 1 had a bit more exploration, it was smoke and mirrors. You didn't go to new and interesting places. You went to the same planet with different textures over and over again. The N7 missions at least add variety to these side excursions. Each one has different goals and environments. Continuing from ME 1 is the fact that some of these missions start mini story lines. Either way, whether it's the superficial exploration of ME 1, or the streamlined version in ME 2, exploration is mostly the same: find system, find planet you can land on, find mision, accomplish mission, leave. Different system, but it accomplishes the same thing.

Input of player on Shepard's character:

Identical in both games.

In the end. The revolutionary differences are the inventory and the exclusion of the Mako. The combat mechanics changed to accomodate the faster pace but it wasn't like going from turnbased to real time. The rest of the differences are negligible unless rpgs are entirely defined by ponderous inventories.

So again, I ask the question. What is an rpg? And more importantly, how was ME 1, which was already rpg/tps hybrid SO MUCH MORE rpg than ME 2? Is the balance more towards TPS this time around? Undoubtedley. But it's no where near as bad as you purists claim it is.

Modifié par nelly21, 16 mars 2010 - 08:17 .

[EternalWolfe]

Really, this whole rpg arguement needs to stop - there is no set definition of an RPG, and people's definition of an RPG seems to be limited to what they like out of other titles that are labeled RPGs. Like the inventory from another RPG? Well, that must mean inventory is a MUST for an RPG. Like the character devolopment? Yep, you guessed it, sure throw that in.



In the end, it just becomes an endless arguement about personal definitions and likes about previous RPGs someone has played. "It should have it because its supposed to be an RPG" is a fallen argument if no one can agree on a definition, because then it becomes an argument about the definition of an RPG.



I would think that discussing the elements themselves and how they might be improved upon to more fit your like would be a better way to get progress then just saying "It needs this to be an RPG". Not that that's going to turn out any better, I suppose.



*sigh* Whatever.

[nelly21]

EternalWolfe wrote...

Really, this whole rpg arguement needs to stop - there is no set definition of an RPG, and people's definition of an RPG seems to be limited to what they like out of other titles that are labeled RPGs. Like the inventory from another RPG? Well, that must mean inventory is a MUST for an RPG. Like the character devolopment? Yep, you guessed it, sure throw that in.

In the end, it just becomes an endless arguement about personal definitions and likes about previous RPGs someone has played. "It should have it because its supposed to be an RPG" is a fallen argument if no one can agree on a definition, because then it becomes an argument about the definition of an RPG.

I would think that discussing the elements themselves and how they might be improved upon to more fit your like would be a better way to get progress then just saying "It needs this to be an RPG". Not that that's going to turn out any better, I suppose.

*sigh* Whatever.

Thank You. My point exactly.

[TJSolo]

nelly21 wrote...

EternalWolfe wrote...

Really, this whole rpg arguement needs to stop - there is no set definition of an RPG, and people's definition of an RPG seems to be limited to what they like out of other titles that are labeled RPGs. Like the inventory from another RPG? Well, that must mean inventory is a MUST for an RPG. Like the character devolopment? Yep, you guessed it, sure throw that in.

In the end, it just becomes an endless arguement about personal definitions and likes about previous RPGs someone has played. "It should have it because its supposed to be an RPG" is a fallen argument if no one can agree on a definition, because then it becomes an argument about the definition of an RPG.

I would think that discussing the elements themselves and how they might be improved upon to more fit your like would be a better way to get progress then just saying "It needs this to be an RPG". Not that that's going to turn out any better, I suppose.

*sigh* Whatever.

Thank You. My point exactly.

There isn't a point to debate with some people that pretend to be blind to the fact ME2 is light on RPG elements.
There isn't a set definition to be an RPG. Still several BW posts and interviews clearly state ME2 is lighter on the RPG than the previous game.
At least for ME3 it looks like there will be more of an attempt to include richer RPG elements.

So thank you Bioware for hearing the RPG concerns and hopefully getting the RPG mix in ME3 perfect.

http://www.talkxbox....rticle3779.html

[Gorn Kregore]

Murphy's law of rpg purists. "we're always right ur always wrong, since ur wrong ur inferior to us purists ha-ha-ha"

[Murmillos]

nelly21 wrote...

I will win because my argument is based on fact and yours is based on emotion.

I ask for an explanation because your definitions for what constitutes an rpg are more variable than a color palette at Loews.

Thoughts of grandeur much? Your argument of 'fact' has no more fact then my so called 'emotion'.  Its my point of view vrs your point of view of what makes up a game.

That's because there is no single definition that makes up an RPG. RPG are a sum of their parts. No single element is required, but the many elements together make up an RPG. In the end, RPGs require giving players the choice in shaping and creating their character and its world. The more choices you give a player (or even just perceived choices) the strong the RPG elements are viewed. If you remove player choices, the RPG elements are viewed as weaker.

ME1 had its flaws, but it gave more choices to the player, more skills, more items (even if it was a glut filled system that required a fix), a larger world to explore - or not to explore.

Skills:

Inventory:

Exploration:

So again, I ask the question. What is an rpg? And more importantly, how was ME 1, which was already rpg/tps hybrid SO MUCH MORE rpg than ME 2? Is the balance more towards TPS this time around? Undoubtedley. But it's no where near as bad as you purists claim it is.

You quoted the three main reasons whats wrong with ME2. Who cares if it was smoke and mirrors, IT gave the impression of scale. ME2 feels like you are going from shooter zone to shooter zone. Yes ME1 suffered from the bland copy and paste issue - but that's a separate issue.  The three above issues gave the player a larger set of choices in which made Shepard and the world which Shepard roamed in.

ME2 still has those elements, but its perceieved as weaker, deminished, tacked on, superficial and bland.

And what the hell does "purist" mean anyways.. How can you have a purist RPG when there isn't a single RPG element that is required?  Is this some vain attempt at a insult that lets you sit smugly in your computer chair wondering how i'm going to retort?.

HAA!!! Chew on that burning rebuttal you filthy "Purist" you!! No body dares cross me to think about doing it twice again! HAAA!!! READ MY WORDS and weep as I twirl my finger around my evil mustache with one hand, and pet my evil ploting cat with my other hand!

[Gorn Kregore]

Murmillos wrote...


HAA!!! Chew on that burning rebuttal you filthy "Purist" you!! No body dares cross me to think about doing it twice again! HAAA!!! READ MY WORDS and weep as I twirl my finger around my evil mustache with one hand, and pet my evil ploting cat with my other hand!

rofl ur so funny so randum!!1

[jgordon11]

Murmillos wrote...

And what the hell does "purist" mean anyways.. How can you have a purist RPG when there isn't a single RPG element that is required?  Is this some vain attempt at a insult that lets you sit smugly in your computer chair wondering how i'm going to retort?.

Purist (n): One who practices or urges strict correctness, especially in the use of words.

[TJSolo]

Gorn Kregore wrote...

Murphy's law of rpg purists. "we're always right ur always wrong, since ur wrong ur inferior to us purists ha-ha-ha"

What is an rpg purist and who would be one?
Does having played Kotor1/2, ME1/2, FO3, Lost Odyssey, Tales of Vesperia, Fable1/2 and Oblivion(recent buy cause it was cheap) a purist? Even though those games are not the only ones I do play.
How about just a gamer.

"If anything has been dumbed down, it's the people who claim ME1 was any more an RPG than ME2"

You might want to review several of BW interviews and post that do call ME2 less of an RPG than ME1. Then again I suppose you like having a sig that is aggressive and if it is inaccurate.

[nelly21]

Of course! How could I be so dense? The most identifiable trait of an rpg is the IMPRESSION of freedom, the PERCEPTION rpg elements and the FEELING of the experience.



I now see how your opinion is not guided by emotion in any way, shape or form. (Please apply liberal amounts of sarcasm to the above sentence at your convenience)



So in review:



The constitution of an rpg is undefinable. But ,according to you, ME 1 was an rpg and ME 2 is not.



Got it.

[Murmillos]

nelly21 wrote...

Of course! How could I be so dense? The most identifiable trait of an rpg is the IMPRESSION of freedom, the PERCEPTION rpg elements and the FEELING of the experience.

I now see how your opinion is not guided by emotion in any way, shape or form. (Please apply liberal amounts of sarcasm to the above sentence at your convenience)

So in review:

The constitution of an rpg is undefinable. But ,according to you, ME 1 was an rpg and ME 2 is not.

Got it.

I still dont' understand how your head hasn't caved in due to dense black hole you have going in there....

One more time for the brick minded.

RPGs require you playing a "role". The more choices a game gives you in the ability in letting you customize and letting you play a role, the more "RPG" elements a game have, and the strong it is perceived as an PRG.  If the game has weak elements, or less choices in allowing you in playing a role, the lesser the game is perceived as an RPG.

ME1 gave stronger perception of RPG elements, it is thought of (and argued for) having stronger RPG elements then ME2, which gives a perception of lesser/less developed RPG elements.

Anybody can agree the constitution of an RPG is undefinable, because nobody can define an RPG, even those whom have focused their lives making the best RPG games todate can't define "R - P - G". RPG's are based on elements (as gone over above). It's the quality of your elements which define your game as an RPG - and how good of an RPG it is.

I have never once stated ME2 is not an RPG.. I've only stated ME2 has weaker ME2 qualities/elements then compared to ME1, even given the large number of flaws and issues with ME1.

ME2 is closer to a story telling TPS, while ME1 was closer to the HYBRID RPG/TPS scale.

[Gorn Kregore]

TJSolo wrote...

You might want to review several of BW interviews and post that do call ME2 less of an RPG than ME1. Then again I suppose you like having a sig that is aggressive and if it is inaccurate.

oh no a point has been stated and i cant counter it so instead im gonna try putting on the cool shades and start spouting out irrelevent things!!11

[TJSolo]

Gorn Kregore wrote...

TJSolo wrote...

You might want to review several of BW interviews and post that do call ME2 less of an RPG than ME1. Then again I suppose you like having a sig that is aggressive and if it is inaccurate.

oh no a point has been stated and i cant counter it so instead im gonna try putting on the cool shades and start spouting out irrelevent things!!11

Sort of what you have been doing all along with "purist" statements.
Nothing new here.
Moving along.

[Gorn Kregore]

lol

[Sylvius the Mad]

nelly21 wrote...

Combat:

Third Person Shooting. This is common in both games. ME 2 made the switch to entirely skill based shooting instead of partially skill based shooting. The major difference is the inclusion of ammo. All this changed was that instead of waiting 5-10 seconds for a weapon to cool down, you could immediately reload and continue firing. Hardly an earth-shattering change.

The earth-shattering change was the elimination of stat-driven aiming.

Skills:

Both games have you progressing in preset skill sets based on your characters class. The only difference between both games is the reduction of squad skills and the exclusion of weapon skills. Less rpg focused than ME 1 to be sure. But the skills themselves are exteremely important. I defy anybody to complete the game without spending skill points (I tried this on Veteran) and tell me that they make no difference in gameplay.

But what the skills do in ME2 is very different from what they do in ME.  See my above point about stat-driven aiming.

Inventory:

The biggest difference between the two games. ME 1 had a mess of an inventory and ME 2 has almost none. This IS a major departure from rpg conventions. Personally, I would of liked customizable armor for squadmates. However, I must ask if you enjoyed navigating through ME 1 invetory windows. If you did, good for you. Most of us didn't. But I'll give this point to you. The ME 2 system is a complete 180 from the original.

To be fair, BioWare hasn't actually produced a good inventory system since NWN.  List inventories are bad; no wonder people didn't like ME's inventory system.

That said, simply removing inventory was a gross overreaction.

Input of player on Shepard's character:

Identical in both games.

Correct.  Effectively zero player input in both games.  Both games fail to be RPGs on this point.

[AlanC9]

Murmillos wrote...
The more choices you give a player (or even just perceived choices) the strong the RPG elements are viewed. If you remove player choices, the RPG elements are viewed as weaker.

Perceived choices?

If what makes an RPG an RPG is inherently subjective, what's the point in continuing with the thread? People will just say that they think ME2 has strong RPG elements, or that they think it has weak elements, and then what?

[Murmillos]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Correct.  Effectively zero player input in both games.  Both games fail to be RPGs on this point.

In what context?  Going by all your "rules" and "requirements", there isn't a single computer RPG game that could be considered an RPG.

[Murmillos]

AlanC9 wrote...

Murmillos wrote...
The more choices you give a player (or even just perceived choices) the strong the RPG elements are viewed. If you remove player choices, the RPG elements are viewed as weaker.

Perceived choices?

If what makes an RPG an RPG is inherently subjective, what's the point in continuing with the thread? People will just say that they think ME2 has strong RPG elements, or that they think it has weak elements, and then what?

The same reasons these threads come up every single day - Thats why.  If it isn't an issue, then why do these threads keep on re-occurring? Maybe because IT is an issue and people DO have different perceptions.

[Blakes 7]

In support of me2, it is more of an rpg then me1 simply because it has more story, more options for interacting with companions(loyalty missions), more ways to effect the world.



Remember role-playing?



Sure combat systems are usually tied to skills; but combat systems are abstractions of the world; this is just bioware's take on what fits the mass universe better.



Where in role-playing definition is inventory important?; space marines start out with skills, right? Combat is supposed to be fast and it makes little sense to start out crap and work your way up. Sure customisation helps personalise your character, but just because this element gets pared down doesn't make me2 less of an rpg:



case closed in my humble opinion.

[A Fhaol Bhig]

EternalWolfe wrote...

Really, this whole rpg arguement needs to stop - there is no set definition of an RPG, and people's definition of an RPG seems to be limited to what they like out of other titles that are labeled RPGs. Like the inventory from another RPG? Well, that must mean inventory is a MUST for an RPG. Like the character devolopment? Yep, you guessed it, sure throw that in.

In the end, it just becomes an endless arguement about personal definitions and likes about previous RPGs someone has played. "It should have it because its supposed to be an RPG" is a fallen argument if no one can agree on a definition, because then it becomes an argument about the definition of an RPG.

I would think that discussing the elements themselves and how they might be improved upon to more fit your like would be a better way to get progress then just saying "It needs this to be an RPG". Not that that's going to turn out any better, I suppose.

*sigh* Whatever.

Modifié par A Fhaol Bhig, 16 mars 2010 - 10:47 .

[nelly21]

Mass Effect 2 is not an rpg.



The decision whether your Shepard is male or female: not a choice

The class you choose to play as: not a choice

Playing the game as paragon, renegade or something in between: not a choice

Choosing what order to recruit your squad mates and whether to recruit them all: not a choice

Choosing between moral issues and squad loyalty: not a choice

Deciding who survives the suicide mission: not a choice

Deciding whether to hand over the most advanced artifact in the galaxy to arguably the most organization in the galaxy: Not a choice



Mass Effect 2 is clearly devoid of all choice. Therefore, I will defend my position by saying that rpgs cannot be clearly defined but that I am absolutely sure that Mass Effect 1 was more of an rpg than Mass Effect 2. Why, because I say so.

[Murmillos]

oh.. I see how you are taking this.. Here is your ball.. you can go home with it.

[Pocketgb]

I consider both to be of the same RPG status: ME2 puts less emphasis on RPG elements (loot is not an RPG element), while ME1 put more of an emphasis on terrible RPG elements.

[MassEffect762]

Murmillos wrote...

nelly21 wrote...

SkullandBonesmember wrote...

Schneidend wrote...

What happened to this being an RPG? Nothing.

For the millionth time, the original was very much an RPG and much more when compared to its sequel.

How so?

Explaining it would be like trying to explain somebody who is pretending to be color blind the color red. Everybody knows that he isn't color blind, be he is being a arse and pretending that he is. Thus.. there is no way we will be able to win in this argument - you will win no matter what case we make.

As its been presented time and time over again in how we feel ME2 has less RPG elements then ME1 did. Technically, ME2 is still an RPG within the hybrid of RPG/TPS, but we feel the RPG parts have diminished enough where they feel often superficial (tacked on) and bland.

The scale - as I perceive both ME1 and ME2 over-all:
[RPG --------------------------------- HYBRID ---------------------------------- TPS]
[ ------------------------- ME1 -------------------------------------- ME2 ------------ ]

Amen. +1

[MarloMarlo]

RPG is very simple to define. It's self-explanatory. Genres tend to be descriptive; this is one of those times.



The "G" in RPG doesn't represent a particular set of rules. Arguing that a game is more or less of an RPG because of a particular implementation of stats or inventory or something else that isn't role playing doesn't make sense. If it has role playing and rules to make it a game then it's an RPG.



It's "RPG," not "RPGME1SIS" (role playing game with Mass Effect 1's stats and inventory systems)