1067 réponses à ce sujet

[Raphael diSanto]

Skalman91 wrote...

Murmillos wrote...

Skalman91 wrote...

A role playing game to me has nothing to do with the mechanics of the game AT ALL.
For me, a role playing game role playing game is defined by its deep story, well written characters and superb dialogue with lots of story arcs and open endings.

Personally, I couldn't care less about stats and ****.
Gameplay mechanics, inventory, loot, stats, all of that are pretty meaningless for a role playing game to be good. The important thing is that the characters, the voice acting and the dialogue/choices are solid, everything else is just a bonus.
So i don't even consider diablo or dungeon siege to be in the genre.

Diablo is still pretty fun to play on occasion though.

So you just described that you like Adventure Game and dislike RPG's.

RPG's typical include the "stats and ****.", as the "stats and ****." allows you define your characters role and allow to give you a measure of character progress and growth.

No, stats are not what defines a role playing game, stats are not needed for a game to be a role playing game, although most of them do have stats of some kind, because it's an easy way to make the game.

We will not have a perfect role playing game until the stats are not the main focus of the gameplay mechanics or gone entirely. A stat based game is in itself very immersion breaking, for several reasons I do not have the time nor will to go into detail about at the moment.

But this is merely my opinion and I will not force it on anyone, but as this is a forum for sharing ones opinion on different matters, I thought I'd post mine.

I totally agree - I've posted this a bunch of times elsewhere.

For me, the essence of an RPG is character development, dialogue and personality. Choices, choices, choices. It's not about loot, or levels, or exp, or stats.

Role isn't about class, or stats. Not in the way it was originally coined in the term roleplaying game.

I can understand if people who are newer to the RPG scene don't get this, since now we have defined "roles" within a team, and that means tank, healer, dps, classes, divisions, all that stuff.

But roleplaying, in its most pure and simple form is improvisational method acting. It's playing a role (not a class based on in-game mechanics, but a role), the way an actor plays a role. That kind of role. That's what the "role" in roleplaying meant, means, and will always mean.

ME1 and ME2 both allow me to play a role. I take on the role of Commander Shepard, and I can make the decisions i want that Shepard to make as I progress through the story. No, it's not an open-ended story, because the technology doesn't exist to allow us to do that in cRPGs yet. If you want that, play tabletop with a skilled, creative and improvisational GM.

But within the context of the story that BioWare have laid out for me, I get to decide how Commander Shepard solves problems. I get to decide what his moral values are, what actions he will or won't take.

That's a roleplaying game. The fact that I shoot a gun instead of swinging a sword while doing it is completely irrelevant.

[Kalfear]

Grilled Trout wrote...

I get it.... fine... so some of you think Mass Effect 2 isn't an RPG anymore. I say it is more than a competent RPG... perhaps one of the best I have played. So no amount of arguing about it will change anyone's mind. Now, can we accept the fact that everyone will have different opinions and just move on now?

If you hate the game so much or think it is rubbish, then do yourself a favor and stop playing the game. No offense, but the continuous insistence of people posting about how this game sucks or how this game is not an RPG is getting very tiresome. It's been rinsed and repeated dozens and dozens of time... in the end, nobody cares but you, and no amount of anyone's complaints will change a mind of someone who likes and appreciates this game for being a good RPG.

Errr who said anyone is playing it still?

You do know you dont have to be playing a game to post on the forums, or that little aspect go over your head?
I played ME2 once, tried a second time and couldnt do it, but I still continue to post every day because I learned from the shooter fanatics that if you dont beat a topic to death, nothing will get done.
They got their way and shooter aspects added to ME2 and im just making sure Bioware knows to go back to RPG first for ME3!

Amazes me how many shooter folk whine about people using THEIR TACTICS now the shoe on other foot!

[Sylvius the Mad]

[quote]Lusitanum wrote...

the Dalish Elf is the only one who has a real reason to go through the Proving. [/quote]
The dwarven gladiator arena?  That's all optional.

Or am I thinking of the wrong thing?
[quote]I still do. I'm just wondering why you had such ease on shaping reality to the rules of the Arcane Warrior and yet have so much trouble on doing the same with Shepard.[/quote]
Because Shepard can prve me wrong, thus undoing all my good work.  That's my primary complaint about Mass Effect.  Since I can't control what Shepard says, I can't know for sure that he won't break the personality and back story I built.

Other games do have this same problem, but to a much lesser extent.  In DAO when Morrigan asks you about your mother, there are a number of options available, but none of them come close to the truth of the City Elf's mother, which is told is considerable detail during that origin.  The other origins don't have any problem with conversation, but the City Elf does.
[quote]"Oh, I really liked the way I built him, a Warrior wielding two swords. By the end of the game, he looked quite cool. / Yeah, but what about his personality, what did you think of that? / Well... he was a Human Noble... / And you pretty much just played him as yourself, didn't you? / Yeah, I know it's a bit narcissitic... / Nah, not really, that's just how people play a role-playing game, they see a situation and act in kind as to what they would do if they were actually faced with that problem. There's nothing wrong with that."[/quote]
Actually, I don't think people actually do that.

I've recently been trying to play as character who's a lot like me, and it's been quite difficult, because his behavior runs contrary to how I normally have my characters behave in games.  Like you, I usually have my characters talk to everybody within the game.  But I wouldn't ever do that in that same situation.  I don't like initiating conversations or talking to people I don't know, so I'm having to avoid all sorts of NPCs (and quest opportunities) because I'm just not that personable, so neither is this character.  But acting that way in game is proving to be quite a lot of work.

In Lothering, there's a woman who's just standing there by herself, and I suspect most players have their characters go up and talk to her (she wants traps).  But would you actually do that if you were there yourself?  Would yuo approach everyone in the town one at a time and strike up a converastion?  Of course you wouldn't.

You're not playing yourself. You're playing an idealised version of yourself.  What you're doing is no different from proper roleplaying, but you already have most of the background work done because you're already a complete person.

I agree that there's nothing wrong with that, but it's not meaningfully different from what I do when I play.

The problems in ME arise when Shepard says something you wanted him not to say, and that can happen (and did, to me, on my first playthrough).  It was in the first conversation with Anderson and Udina after meeting Tali, and Shepard make a factual claim that I (the player) didn't believe to be true, and thus would never had directed Shepard to say it.  The rest of the conversation was based around Anderson and Udina taking that claim as fact and making decisions based on it, but actually disagreed with what Shepard had said, and thus what everyone was no doing.  I wanted to tell them to stop, but the game just assumed I agreed with Shepard (which would make sense if I'd actually chosen that dialogue) and went on its merry way.  From that moment on, it wasn't my game.  I wasn't in control.  I wasn't playing Shepard, because Shepard went and did something I didn't want him to do that directed the whole plot from that point forward.

And I'm using male pronouns for Shepard because mst people seem to have played a male Shepard.  My particular experience is with a female Shepard (because the male Shepard VO didn't suit any character I wanted to play).
[quote]Unless they start breaking the 4th wall, no. You've never seen a Dragon Age character raising the quesiton as to why some bodies decompose in less than 5 seconds while others apparently endure for all eternity.[/quote]
That would actually be lampshade hanging.

I found it really irritating that the death mechanic was seemingly random in DAO.  Okay, sure, the party members don't die when they're killed, but enemies do.  Except when enemies are needed for some plot-related discussion after teh fight, but then they're injured.  And then Bann Teagan stood up after I'd killed him and was no worse for wear at all.  That was dumb.
[quote]Well, some biotics have been tweaked out to balance the game so, even though they have the same names and basic abilities, they work in slightly different ways. For instance, now and enemy can have one, two or all three degrees of protection before you can damage their Health: Armor, Biotic Barrier and Kinetic Shields. Lift won't work on an enemy who has Armor or Warp won't work on an enemy who has Shields but it can damage his Biotic Barrier or his Health.[/quote]
And there's no in-game explanation for this, I suspect.

And what's with the global cooldown?  How does that make sense when we didn't have one in ME?
[quote]It's also a bit inconsistent since these powers didn't have those properties in the first game, but since it adds to the tactical element of the game and encourages you to bring different party members with you depending on what kind of opposition you're expecting to find, it's easier to overlook.

And that is supporting an inconsistency because it adds to the enjoyment of the game.[/quote]
That it's an inconsistency removes enjoyment from the game.
[quote]Right, but people enjoy them because they're set out to achieve a goal. Be it just playing as given character, enjoying the story, finishing the game, unlocking achievements, playing with friends or whatever, there's always something to attain.

That's what I meant with "not getting anywhere" when I mentioned the whole "playing chess with yourself" thing because, like I said, it's a good mental exercise, but you're not going anywhere if you're playing a tactical game where your opponent knows your ever intentions and you know his too.[/quote]
Okay, I see what you're saying, but now I don't see how that's analogous to roleplaying gameplay.
[quote]Because I don't establish something when I'm playing a defined character in a defined storyline? [/quote]
But then how do you make decisions on his behalf - especially at the start of the game?
[quote]Although I noticed that you never actually answered to my "less role-playing doesn't mean that it ceases to be a role-playing game" statment that I've made a few pages back.[/quote]
And I would disagree with that.  If the game allows roleplaying whenever there's a decision to be made, then it's a roleplaying game.  Since ME doesn't not allow roleplaying during the literally hundreds of decisions made during conversation, it fails.

It doesn't matter whether the character's pre-determined.  Torment accommodated roleplaying, and it forced you to play the Nameless one, who had a specific appearance and gender that were both immutable.  What matters is the nature of the decision-making.  Mass Effect does not give the player sufficient control over the PC during conversation.  The ability to avoid saying specific things would be sufficient.  Since even you admit Mass Effect does not do this, Mass Effect does not meet the conditions that allow roleplaying.
[quote]Again, haven't we been though this? I've already said I have nothing against the way Baldur's Gate handles the way your party can see and share that knowledge with each other. This is one of the game mechanics where I think a lack of realism only benefits the game.[/quote]
Yes, but I'm questioning whether that's a lack of realism.  The game shows you what your character can see.  Since you have a bunch of characters, it shows you what each of them can see.

If there's a failure of realism here, it's that you allow your characters to act based on information not available to them.
[quote]Given that it's a nuke and you don't want to give your enemy an opportunity to get it disarmed, I'd expect it to be as short as possible.[/quote]
As short as possible, but no shorter.  How short is that?  We don't know.
[quote]Euripides: The best prophet is common sense, our native wit.

Henry Ward Beecher: The philosophy of one century is the common sense of the next.

Terence: What a grand thing it is to be clever and have common sense.

Thomas H. Huxley: Science is nothing, but trained and organized common sense.

Lusitanum: The notion of common sense is common sense in itself.[/quote]
I had a professor who said "The common sense of any era is roughly equivalent to cutting-edge philosophy of three centuries earlier."

I suspect the gap is somewhat smaller than that; the ideas of Immanuel Kant seem pretty widely accepted even by people who've never heard of him, for example.  But, should those of us who've studied philosophy more recent than three centuries old be bound by ideas we see as obsolete?  Isn't it possible - or even likely - that some of common sense is simply incorrect and has been subsequently improved upon?

But more importantly, if there's no repository of common sense, it is a useful tool in a detailed discussion such as this one?  There's no formal definition of what's common sense, and we need one in order to work from a relevantly similar frame of reference.  Alternately, we can just ignore common sense and defend everything from the ground up.

I'd prefer the latter.
[quote]That's the difference from when you play something where your planning isn't subject to chance: you don't have to waste your time with trying to same thing, hoping that at least this time your great plan will work. If it's good, it works, if it's not, it won't. It means that you can technically beat a game based solely on how good you are, not on how many times you happen to get screwed up when you shouldn't have.[/quote]
You like the pass/fail.  I like the detailed grading information.
[quote]If it was caused by the game deciding I should lose this time just because it said so, then I'm going to get frustrated because it's basically telling me to do the same thing while I pray for it to be in a better mood next time.[/quote]
That's not a rational response.
[quote]They're videogames, which means that some of the things will fall under the responsibility of the one who's playing them. Weren't you the one complaining about the lack of imput and how ME might as well be a movie and now you want it to play itself?[/quote]
I'm drawing a distinction between how roleplaying games work and how other videogames work.  In a roleplaying game, the setting exists independently of the player, and the player has no manifestation within that setting.  This is how tabletop games worked, and this is how CRPGs work as well.

That it's a rioleplaying game makes it different in kind.  That's why genre-mixing doesn't work with RPGs.  You cannot accommodate player skill (as required by almost every other videogame genre) without violating the central tenets of roleplaying.
[quote]Isnt' the vast majority of games based on playing with someone that has the skills your don't? Seriously...[/quote]
But not all the skills.  You're requiring that I be a good shot if I want Shepard to be a good shot.  Why should Shepard's characteristics matter with regard to how fast he can run and not to how well he can shoot?

It doesn't make any sense.
[quote]Because that's basically how ME already was after a couple of levels?[/quote]
Only if you focused on weapon skills.  And, as you point out, that wasn't true at the beginning.

Incidentally, I'd be interested to see how accurate real world soldiers are with an assault rifle against small moving targets at a range of 20 metres.  I'd wager that Mass Effect's stat-driven aiming was more realistic than ME2's perfect aim.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Raphael diSanto wrote...

But roleplaying, in its most pure and simple form is improvisational method acting. It's playing a role (not a class based on in-game mechanics, but a role), the way an actor plays a role. That kind of role. That's what the "role" in roleplaying meant, means, and will always mean.

ME1 and ME2 both allow me to play a role.

I don't take issue with your definition of roleplaying, but I disagree that Mass Effect allows it.  Because the dialogue wheel doesn't let you see what you're choosing, Shepard can (and does) say things that are relevantly dissimilar from what you intended. 

[FlintlockJazz]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Raphael diSanto wrote...

But roleplaying, in its most pure and simple form is improvisational method acting. It's playing a role (not a class based on in-game mechanics, but a role), the way an actor plays a role. That kind of role. That's what the "role" in roleplaying meant, means, and will always mean.

ME1 and ME2 both allow me to play a role.

I don't take issue with your definition of roleplaying, but I disagree that Mass Effect allows it.  Because the dialogue wheel doesn't let you see what you're choosing, Shepard can (and does) say things that are relevantly dissimilar from what you intended. 

If he says something you did not intend, then you are roleplaying him wrong.  Remember, Shepard is a pregen, and therefore alot of his attributes and personality has already been predefined, think of it as the GM telling you that you are not roleplaying the character as he would act and showing you how you should be thinking of playing him.  If you are unable to take on a role that you wouldn't normally create yourself then playing a game with a pregen like ME2 is never going to satisfy you.

[Murmillos]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Raphael diSanto wrote...

But roleplaying, in its most pure and simple form is improvisational method acting. It's playing a role (not a class based on in-game mechanics, but a role), the way an actor plays a role. That kind of role. That's what the "role" in roleplaying meant, means, and will always mean.

ME1 and ME2 both allow me to play a role.

I don't take issue with your definition of roleplaying, but I disagree that Mass Effect allows it.  Because the dialogue wheel doesn't let you see what you're choosing, Shepard can (and does) say things that are relevantly dissimilar from what you intended. 

Then shouldn't ANY dialogue prevent you from playing any type of RP then? Because even if it is written out in full, any of the given choices could still not match how you perceive your character to act/be. This means you are still having to break immersion just to satisfy the "closest" answer to move the dialogue forward.

Shepard conversation dialog is no different then any other COMPUTER-RPG game. You often get results and choices that are not your character. That is the limit of computer games. If you want to argue that ME isn't role playing, I can easily take that and say you can't role play at all in computer games period.

[HeyBlade789]

Mass effect 1 Was the story driven game, where combat was good but not like OMG, mass effect 2 however i believe does not have as good as story but has a better combat system, i would LOVE for mass effect 3 to be both an more!

[Sylvius the Mad]

Murmillos wrote...

Then shouldn't ANY dialogue prevent you from playing any type of RP then? Because even if it is written out in full, any of the given choices could still not match how you perceive your character to act/be. This means you are still having to break immersion just to satisfy the "closest" answer to move the dialogue forward.

With full dialogue options it should be less of a problem because you're then able to choose to avoid specific responses if they run directly contrary to your character design.  The only way the problem persists is if every option is unacceptably different from anything your character might do, but that seems unlikely.

Shepard conversation dialog is no different then any other COMPUTER-RPG game. You often get results and choices that are not your character. That is the limit of computer games.

But ME makes that a hard limit by acting out the conversations cinematically and voicing the PC's lines.

Really, without the cinematic presentation or PC voice-over, the dialogue wheel would simply be a keyword system, very much like the dialogue engine used in Oblivion (for example).  That would work fine.

My acting out the conversations ME produces an explicit representation of exactly what your character said and how he said it.  That replaces what had been implicit content.  There was never any requiprement in previous games that your character said exactly what the written line said.  Dialogue was an abstraction, just like hit points are an abstraction.

It was only because Mass Effect has an explicit portrayal over which you have no control that the game fails to allow roleplaying.

FlintlockJazz wrote...

If he says something you did not intend, then you are roleplaying him wrong.  Remember, Shepard is a pregen, and therefore alot of his attributes and personality has already been predefined, think of it as the GM telling you that you are not roleplaying the character as he would act and showing you how you should be thinking of playing him.  If you are unable to take on a role that you wouldn't normally create yourself then playing a game with a pregen like ME2 is never going to satisfy you.

I don't mind playing a pregenerated character.  But I can't roleplay him if I don't know anything about him.

Sure, I don't get to decide that he becomes a Spectre - he decides that on his own.  But why did he do it?  The colours all manner of choices I'm given later in the game, but I can't get him to behave coherently without knowing the answers to these questions.  Unless, I suppose, I just metagame the dialogue wheel and always pick the paragon or renegade responses regardless of what they say.  But then why not just ask me once at the start of the game and then let me watch it?

The game asks for my input hundrds of times, and there's no way to know what it is I'm choosing until after I've done it.

[FataliTensei]

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.  <_<

What happened was that BioWare wanted to make more money, and by luring the fans of ME1 back because it's ME, and luring the shooter demographic in because that's what they focused on at the expense of everything else, they figured they could make much more money  <_<

[Murmillos]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Murmillos wrote...

Then shouldn't ANY dialogue prevent you from playing any type of RP then? Because even if it is written out in full, any of the given choices could still not match how you perceive your character to act/be. This means you are still having to break immersion just to satisfy the "closest" answer to move the dialogue forward.

With full dialogue options it should be less of a problem because you're then able to choose to avoid specific responses if they run directly contrary to your character design.  The only way the problem persists is if every option is unacceptably different from anything your character might do, but that seems unlikely.

Shepard conversation dialog is no different then any other COMPUTER-RPG game. You often get results and choices that are not your character. That is the limit of computer games.

But ME makes that a hard limit by acting out the conversations cinematically and voicing the PC's lines.

Really, without the cinematic presentation or PC voice-over, the dialogue wheel would simply be a keyword system, very much like the dialogue engine used in Oblivion (for example).  That would work fine.

My acting out the conversations ME produces an explicit representation of exactly what your character said and how he said it.  That replaces what had been implicit content.  There was never any requiprement in previous games that your character said exactly what the written line said.  Dialogue was an abstraction, just like hit points are an abstraction.

It was only because Mass Effect has an explicit portrayal over which you have no control that the game fails to allow roleplaying.

FlintlockJazz wrote...

If he says something you did not intend, then you are roleplaying him wrong.  Remember, Shepard is a pregen, and therefore alot of his attributes and personality has already been predefined, think of it as the GM telling you that you are not roleplaying the character as he would act and showing you how you should be thinking of playing him.  If you are unable to take on a role that you wouldn't normally create yourself then playing a game with a pregen like ME2 is never going to satisfy you.

I don't mind playing a pregenerated character.  But I can't roleplay him if I don't know anything about him.

Sure, I don't get to decide that he becomes a Spectre - he decides that on his own.  But why did he do it?  The colours all manner of choices I'm given later in the game, but I can't get him to behave coherently without knowing the answers to these questions.  Unless, I suppose, I just metagame the dialogue wheel and always pick the paragon or renegade responses regardless of what they say.  But then why not just ask me once at the start of the game and then let me watch it?

The game asks for my input hundrds of times, and there's no way to know what it is I'm choosing until after I've done it.

ME is still an RPG, it just may not be a typical RPG that gives you the full range of RP options.  The RP is there, just not in that open unlimited style that you want.  There are many different flavors of RPG's, from ones where you play a single pregenerated character with no selection other then the weapons and armors that they wear and the general outcome is that everybody dies (or is saved depending on the script), and then there are those games that allows for more open characters and story line - but no matter how you like it, computer games have limits that you just sometimes have to blindly ignore and not meta game yourself over it.

RPG's can fall among all the ranges from wide open customization and exploration to narrow band tightly focused style & limits.

In short, yes ME is a PRG ultra-lite, and yes its not a RPG that you seem to enjoy due to its hard limitations, but just because you don't enjoy those limitations, doesn't mean that ME isn't an RPG - it just means its a new style of RPG's or fits into a sub-genre of an already existing one.

Nobody is asking you to enjoy the RP aspects of Shepard, but you do have to recognize it the ability too, is there.

Modifié par Murmillos, 26 mars 2010 - 08:57 .

[Tazzmission]

Murmillos wrote...

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Murmillos wrote...

Then shouldn't ANY dialogue prevent you from playing any type of RP then? Because even if it is written out in full, any of the given choices could still not match how you perceive your character to act/be. This means you are still having to break immersion just to satisfy the "closest" answer to move the dialogue forward.

With full dialogue options it should be less of a problem because you're then able to choose to avoid specific responses if they run directly contrary to your character design.  The only way the problem persists is if every option is unacceptably different from anything your character might do, but that seems unlikely.

Shepard conversation dialog is no different then any other COMPUTER-RPG game. You often get results and choices that are not your character. That is the limit of computer games.

But ME makes that a hard limit by acting out the conversations cinematically and voicing the PC's lines.

Really, without the cinematic presentation or PC voice-over, the dialogue wheel would simply be a keyword system, very much like the dialogue engine used in Oblivion (for example).  That would work fine.

My acting out the conversations ME produces an explicit representation of exactly what your character said and how he said it.  That replaces what had been implicit content.  There was never any requiprement in previous games that your character said exactly what the written line said.  Dialogue was an abstraction, just like hit points are an abstraction.

It was only because Mass Effect has an explicit portrayal over which you have no control that the game fails to allow roleplaying.

FlintlockJazz wrote...

If he says something you did not intend, then you are roleplaying him wrong.  Remember, Shepard is a pregen, and therefore alot of his attributes and personality has already been predefined, think of it as the GM telling you that you are not roleplaying the character as he would act and showing you how you should be thinking of playing him.  If you are unable to take on a role that you wouldn't normally create yourself then playing a game with a pregen like ME2 is never going to satisfy you.

I don't mind playing a pregenerated character.  But I can't roleplay him if I don't know anything about him.

Sure, I don't get to decide that he becomes a Spectre - he decides that on his own.  But why did he do it?  The colours all manner of choices I'm given later in the game, but I can't get him to behave coherently without knowing the answers to these questions.  Unless, I suppose, I just metagame the dialogue wheel and always pick the paragon or renegade responses regardless of what they say.  But then why not just ask me once at the start of the game and then let me watch it?

The game asks for my input hundrds of times, and there's no way to know what it is I'm choosing until after I've done it.

ME is still an RPG, it just may not be a typical RPG that gives you the full range of RP options.  The RP is there, just not in that open unlimited style that you want.  There are many different flavors of RPG's, from ones where you play a single pregenerated character with no selection other then the weapons and armors that they wear and the general outcome is that everybody dies (or is saved depending on the script), and then there are those games that allows for more open characters and story line - but no matter how you like it, computer games have limits that you just sometimes have to blindly ignore and not meta game yourself over it.

RPG's can fall among all the ranges from wide open customization and exploration to narrow band tightly focused style & limits.

In short, yes ME is a PRG ultra-lite, and yes its not a RPG that you seem to enjoy due to its hard limitations, but just because you don't enjoy those limitations, doesn't mean that ME isn't an RPG - it just means its a new style of RPG's or fits into a sub-genre of an already existing one.

Nobody is asking you to enjoy the RP aspects of Shepard, but you do have to recognize it the ability too, is there.

i think the hardcore rpg fans expected me to be like ff.... and i think those same  hardcore rpg fans need to understand that yes me is a rpg  but also mixed with a shooter its always been like that since me1. i feel me2 is similar to me1 but with a more fluid controll system and beutifull ghraphics. people call me2 gears of war with rpg elements but i played gears and trust me gears isnt no rpg and not even close to one

[Baragei]

HeyBlade789 wrote...

Mass effect 1 Was the story driven game, where combat was good but not like OMG, mass effect 2 however i believe does not have as good as story but has a better combat system, i would LOVE for mass effect 3 to be both an more!

Why can't we all agree on this?

[Tazzmission]

Baragei wrote...

HeyBlade789 wrote...

Mass effect 1 Was the story driven game, where combat was good but not like OMG, mass effect 2 however i believe does not have as good as story but has a better combat system, i would LOVE for mass effect 3 to be both an more!

Why can't we all agree on this?

both games are the same imv and thats fun and epic. yea yea the me2  final battle wasnt as great as me1 but still it was a great fun game.

[TheDarkHuntress]

I too would like to see more RPG immersion or at least have Shepard be able to sit in a chair or lay on her bed.



As it is now, all she can do is run around her cabin and look at her messages while standing.

[Dudeman315]

Tazzmission wrote...

i think the hardcore rpg fans expected me to be like ff.... and i think those same  hardcore rpg fans need to understand that yes me is a rpg  but also mixed with a shooter its always been like that since me1. i feel me2 is similar to me1 but with a more fluid controll system and beutifull ghraphics. people call me2 gears of war with rpg elements but i played gears and trust me gears isnt no rpg and not even close to one

And yet ME2 is closer to Gears than it is to ME1 odd.  So let's present this can of worms . . .ME2 vs WWE SmackDown vs. Raw 2009 is more RPGish?

Both let you create a character and play that role as it makes decisions to progress a story line. WWE has more customization and a leveling up system where you gain more stats. WWE has combat through wrestling instead of shooter combat.  WWE let's you fail a mission and still keep playing on a path that takes that failure into account. So really is WWE a role playing games since it's a game where you play a role(so is pong if you look up the definition of role)?

Modifié par Dudeman315, 26 mars 2010 - 10:56 .

[Pocketgb]

Personally, I find ME2 closer to Gears of War because ME1 tried it and sucked at it. So for me to call it closer to GoW (i.e. Kratos lawl) is saying it's actually enjoyable this time around.

In terms of how it played out, ME1 was just a third person shooter with spells. ME2 is the same thing, even if it plays out differently than ME1.

TheDarkHuntress wrote...

I too would like to see more RPG immersion or at least have Shepard be able to sit in a chair or lay on her bed.

As it is now, all she can do is run around her cabin and look at her messages while standing.

Walking through the new Normandy is pretty chill, though. The ambience is actually rather soothing.

Wouldn't mind a bit more interactivity with the environment, though. The only way I was able to get immersed in Oblivion was an item that performed emotes: reading, writing, sitting, and pondering all get me into one of my most favorite custom-created characters I've ever made. I love her

Modifié par Pocketgb, 26 mars 2010 - 11:21 .

[Sylvius the Mad]

Tazzmission wrote...

i think the hardcore rpg fans expected me to be like ff.

This sort of comment always really bothers me because I don't like FF, or JPRGs generally.

[EternalWolfe]

Out of curiosity, does anyone else notice that this argument is inane?  Even if everyone suddenly joined together and agreed what a RPG is(or isn't), it doesn't get us anywhere.  If Sylvus accepted Lusitanum's definition, would he suddenly find himself perfectly fine with the way ME works?  I doubt it.  If Lusitanum, instead, turned to Sylvus' definition, would he find he now enjoyed creating highly-defined characters and found things like ME dialogue disruptive to his experince?  Again, probably not.

Same goes for everyone - if you like inventories, then having RPG definition mean 'has an inventory' or not won't make a difference.  If you like expansive skill systems, the definition of RPG doesn't really matter.  So all the arguements of RPG definition merely fall to the side, instead focusing on the wants and desires of the individual and what they want RPG to define specificly.  I understand the whole arguement started between people argueing 'Its not a RPG without this' and other responding with 'that's not what a RPG is', but both arguements fail, since RPG is nothing more then a title, a term slapped on by overgeneralizing(as two games with RPG title may have drasticly different systems, not even adding in hybrids) of the most basic of its systems.

[EmperorSahlertz]

The only place I know of where Roleplaying is connected with loot and customization is in computergaming....

[Toxik King]

You guys take this too seriously.

btw, what's wrong with fps', they're fun

[OneDrunkMonk]

Worth noting that in order to get the beautiful graphics and detailed environments all without frame rate drops, texture pops and vsync issues something had to be cut or "dumbed down."

[Vaeliorin]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Tazzmission wrote...
i think the hardcore rpg fans expected me to be like ff.

This sort of comment always really bothers me because I don't like FF, or JPRGs generally.

I was going to comment on it, but I've kind of given up on having this argument.  Since it always ends up descending to people assuming you think ME is a bad game if you don't think it's an RPG, I just don't bother any more.