1067 réponses à ce sujet

[SurfaceBeneath]

SirVincealot wrote...

Is it daytime where you work? Or are you a night owl as I am?

It seems to me that when RPGs were first ported - and they were the first to *be* ported - stats came to the fore since computers are such good statisticians.

And we have been trying to break that mold ever since, with more or less success.

I agree with the imitation. Computer games can only, so far, attempt to imitate a certain type of game mechanics. Not surprisingly, what they're best at are stats: combat stats, inventory stats, disposition stats.

Which is also why romance in MASS EFFECT are so domino-esque. Push this tile, now that one . . .

No one has tried to make a CALL OF CTHULHU crpg (there is an adventure game published by Beth.) The brand certainly isn't strong enough but more importantly, the Chaosium system is too dependent on variables to work in a machine that basically crunches numbers to arrive at a set result (integers here, non-integers there).

We need V.I.s

Let's get Avina in here!

SirV

I work as a night shift gamemaster for a (semi/formally) popular massively multiplayer online game actually

Lets see, where to begin. Well, I think first off we have to understand that the reason that "rules" exist in pen and paper games are primarily as an adaptation from Tabletop Wargames at the time in order to form a sort of shared reality between players, a set of laws that all players must abide by and which ground their game. It is certainly possible to roleplay without any rules of any kind, however that's something you can do more than adequately online through an online chat program, so of course we should make the distinction that indeed CRPGs certainly have to have a ruleset of some kind that can ground the player in a predefined world.

However, the real root of the issue is where are these rulesets defined as being "RPGish" and "Non-RPG". Every piece of video game software is, in essence, a set of numbers, rules, and code. Even Doom has basic stats such as "weapon does X damage". On the other end, most good turn based strategy games have rulesets FAR beyond your typical RPG. Civilization or (my favorite) Alpha Centauri are complex beyond anything I've seen in any CRPG. Now, typically we see certain conventions in RPGs, such as loot, inventory, leveling up, etc. However, these vary drastically between different games and not only that, but the only reason those concepts really do exist is due to the particular PnP RPG systems they attempted to emulate, all of which tend to vary even more drastically from one another. Not all PnP systems have loot and inventory and leveling up. And it's not a simple sum game either. For instance, 4th edition of Dungeons and Dragons is much more streamlined and contains fewer "rules" than 2nd edition. Without starting an edition war, does that make it less of an RPG? I would argue quite the contrary, as the established rules are in most cases less asinine (2nd edition dnd had an awful lot of rules that existed for very suspect reasons) and frees up restrictions on roleplaying. I would argue that in the case of the inventory/loot discrepency between ME1 and ME2 is much the same.

[Gatt9]

SurfaceBeneath wrote...

SirVincealot wrote...

SurfaceBeneath wrote..
Is there another objective category that we can judge whether a game is an RPG or not by?

I offer destiny as a yardstick. If I ultimately don't have a say in my destiny, it's not a RPG.

So I think we need to look at the intent of the game. Are you given at least some autonomy as a player to influence the game in a unique way? If so, then I think the game does classify, for all intents and purposes, as an RPG

My answer is emphatically NO. You, the player, cannot influence the game in a unique way: you can only make the code run.

There is no way for me to play MASS EFFECT as other than a shooter. I can't decide to play it like THIEF. Or switch between the two. Or no do the main quest at all. Or kill the cigarette dude and take over the organization. Or rejoin the Navy. Or go to Geth space and build an army with Legion. Or turn over a table, open a door, break a window that the designers have not specifically prepared.

This is not even the apparence of freedom, as in Bethesda Softworks games. It's pure straightjacket.

IT DOES NOT MAKE THE GAME ANY LESS FUN. So let's not have any of *those* arguments, please.

Point is: my destiny is in Carey Hudson's and his team's hands. Not mine.

Counterpoint?

Regards,
SirV

I'm not sure what you mean. Can you define your destiny in any other computer RPG out there? Not really. In most RPGs, you play a character involved in a "story" in some manner, however the ultimate goal of that story is always defined by the story's author, even if they might provide a few different options, these are merely permutations of the ending the author intended to have. I can only think off hand of a few RPGs that meet your criteria barely, that being the original Fallout and to a lesser extent Arcanum and Fallout 2. And even then, the endings are mere permutations that the storyteller included. It's a slightly looser straight jacket as you describe it, but no less a straight jacket. Certainly no Bioware RPGs allow for that kind of control over your destiny.

I think, at the core, RPGs were first ported over to the computer medium in an attempt to recreate the pen and paper experience of acting out as not just a character, but the embodyment of the player assuming a fantastic role. Being that no developer or computer can possibly fully account for the endless possibility and permutations the human imagination allows, no digital facsimile can possibly approach the level of freedom that any good pen and paper roleplay allows. However, that doesn't mean that the medium cannot attempt to imitate it, and this is where I would allow catagorization of games as "RPGs"

Excuse me for long response times. I happen to be at work while posting

That's exactly the point.  We know what an RPG is offline,  and what the rules are that define it.  You'd never claim that a group of kids playing War in the backyard we're playing an RPG unless they defined and followed a specific set of rules that outlined exact Roles and seperated the kid's personal skill from the skills of the Role they undertook.  Meaning,  if one of those kids was assigned the Role of demolitions,  it'd be pointless to have his personal skill in explosives be the deciding factor in whether or not he succeeded,  there'd be some other established rule for whether or not his demolitions worked.  Essentially,  we'd either move the kids into "Rule-less Play" or "LARPs" but they could not exist in both.

So we know exactly what constitutes an RPG offline,  why is there any arguement to what constitutes it in a cRPG?  It's the exact same yardstick.  If all that matters is my ability to aim,  I'm not playing an RPG,  I'm not in a Role,  I simply have an Avatar on screen.

It is the rules that establish the breaking point between the Player's abilities and the Character's abilities that are the defining aspect of an RPG,  both in a cRPG and a PnPRPG,  it is a fundamental basis that cannot be eliminated without breaking the genre.  Just like an RTS cannot ever be completely Turn-Based.

The defining aspect of an RPG is just simply,  whose Skill matters?  Even in a LARPs,  it's a defining aspect.  Everything else is just unique characteristics that are setting-independent.

But it is that defining aspect which clearly shows,  ME2 is not an RPG.

[Murmillos]

SurfaceBeneath wrote...
It is certainly possible to roleplay without any rules of any kind,

Calvin Ball ...

Wait.. what? 

Modifié par Murmillos, 10 mars 2010 - 10:23 .

[SurfaceBeneath]

Gatt9 wrote...
That's exactly the point.  We know what an RPG is offline,  and what the rules are that define it.  You'd never claim that a group of kids playing War in the backyard we're playing an RPG unless they defined and followed a specific set of rules that outlined exact Roles and seperated the kid's personal skill from the skills of the Role they undertook.  Meaning,  if one of those kids was assigned the Role of demolitions,  it'd be pointless to have his personal skill in explosives be the deciding factor in whether or not he succeeded,  there'd be some other established rule for whether or not his demolitions worked.  Essentially,  we'd either move the kids into "Rule-less Play" or "LARPs" but they could not exist in both.

What? Make pretend is the basic and "pure" form of Roleplay. Kids who play soldier in their back yard are definitely roleplaying to some extent. I used to play ninja turtles at school in elementary school (*cough*uptocollege*cough). I was always Raphael. That was me roleplaying... stepping into the role of Raphael and playing it.

It is the rules that establish the breaking point between the Player's abilities and the Character's abilities that are the defining aspect of an RPG,  both in a cRPG and a PnPRPG,  it is a fundamental basis that cannot be eliminated without breaking the genre.  Just like an RTS cannot ever be completely Turn-Based.

The defining aspect of an RPG is just simply,  whose Skill matters?  Even in a LARPs,  it's a defining aspect.  Everything else is just unique characteristics that are setting-independent.

But it is that defining aspect which clearly shows,  ME2 is not an RPG.

I heavily disagree. "Skills" are an abstraction, a neutral measure of your character's skill in something when the mechanics of the game do not provide a concrete measure. Since you do not get to control the arc and power of your character's sword swings in say, Final Fantasy or Baldur's Gate, such events are left to an arbitrary number to determine which the player has a certain mathematical control over. However, some games, such as Oblivion or Morrowind, allow you to swing your sword in real time and it connects with the enemy or does not, however the hit chance is not left to a number, but rather the player's ability to hit that target. Some RPGs require that the player cast spells by moving their mouse across the screen to form a certain geometric shape. That surely is dependent on player skill to do so. And then there's the first and second Mass Effects, where the player has to aim properly in order to hit their opponent. While Mass Effect did provide an "auto-aim" to somewhat compensate, you still had to have your cursor pointed fairly closely to your target to hit.

Another example from PnP: Most roleplaying games are very ad hoc when it comes to conversations and social encounters. Every edition of Dungeons and Dragons has said that social skills are not meant to replace these encounters, only to provide a secondary benefit and aid the player in the encounter. Most good DMs will still have the player, as an example taken from the Player's Handbook, convince the Duchess why she should aid the Adventurers against the orc horde that threatens the kingdom. These encounters are not left to numbers or abstract rules, but rather at the discretion of the DM. The players are not able swing their swords or cast their spells at actual ogres, so there are rules to determine these abstract values. In situations where the players are able to actually participate in an encounter, such as the beforementioned social encounter, then those rules are usually reduced or removed completely.

Modifié par SurfaceBeneath, 10 mars 2010 - 10:54 .

[Deflagratio]

SirVincealot wrote...

Deflagratio wrote...

According to your definition, the RPG genre doesn't exist in software based games.

Correct. But I am willing, unlike you, to listen and debate in order to change my mind according to the soundness of counter-arguments.

This view of mine was not always so. And it may change.

Stick to the past, and the world will leave you behind. Humanity is based on progression, to do anything less is to be a failure of a human being.

Ad-hominem, contemptuous and *completely* besides the point of the last few posts.

SirV

Well, I see you maxed your selective reading skill. I said it was in your right to think that, because the father of RPG himself, Gary Gygax would agree. But my Counterpoint was that everything in human creation has to evolve in order to stay relevant, artistic definition included. Just as a broad example that even a moron like yourself could understand; Vehicle 100 years ago meant Horse-drawn cart, Vehicle nowadays includes Scram Jet anti-sattlite Military Strike craft. But I can see you're just a typical forum troll who can't stand the taste of Humble pie. So how's that burn sauce taste? I bet it's hot.

Oh yah, and just so you know, the Forum actually shows your name, I have no idea why you feel the need to sign the bottom. Oh wait, you're an egotystical C-ocksneeze riding on a high horse of dumbfu ckery. Smiles n' Sunshine precious!

Modifié par Deflagratio, 10 mars 2010 - 11:00 .

[Murmillos]

Deflagratio wrote...

Well, I see you maxed your selective reading skill. I said it was in your right to think that, because the father of RPG himself, Gary Gygax would agree. But my Counterpoint was that everything in human creation has to evolve in order to stay relevant, artistic definition included. Just as a broad example that even a moron like yourself could understand; Vehicle 100 years ago meant Horse-drawn cart, Vehicle nowadays includes Scram Jet anti-sattlite Military Strike craft. But I can see you're just a typical forum troll who can't stand the taste of Humble pie. So how's that burn sauce taste? I bet it's hot.

Oh yah, and just so you know, the Forum actually shows your name, I have no idea why you feel the need to sign the bottom. Oh wait, you're an egotystical C-ocksneeze riding on a high horse of dumbfu ckery. Smiles n' Sunshine precious!

That was rude.. but I am laughing.  This was made from Win.  

Thank you.

[Vaeliorin]

SurfaceBeneath wrote...

Gatt9 wrote...
That's exactly the point.  We know what an RPG is offline,  and what the rules are that define it.  You'd never claim that a group of kids playing War in the backyard we're playing an RPG unless they defined and followed a specific set of rules that outlined exact Roles and seperated the kid's personal skill from the skills of the Role they undertook.  Meaning,  if one of those kids was assigned the Role of demolitions,  it'd be pointless to have his personal skill in explosives be the deciding factor in whether or not he succeeded,  there'd be some other established rule for whether or not his demolitions worked.  Essentially,  we'd either move the kids into "Rule-less Play" or "LARPs" but they could not exist in both.

What? Make pretend is the basic and "pure" form of Roleplay. Kids who play soldier in their back yard are definitely roleplaying to some extent. I used to play ninja turtles at school in elementary school (*cough*uptocollege*cough). I was always Raphael. That was me roleplaying... stepping into the role of Raphael and playing it.

It's roleplaying, but it's not a roleplaying game.  Games have rules.

It is the rules that establish the breaking point between the Player's abilities and the Character's abilities that are the defining aspect of an RPG,  both in a cRPG and a PnPRPG,  it is a fundamental basis that cannot be eliminated without breaking the genre.  Just like an RTS cannot ever be completely Turn-Based.

The defining aspect of an RPG is just simply,  whose Skill matters?  Even in a LARPs,  it's a defining aspect.  Everything else is just unique characteristics that are setting-independent.

But it is that defining aspect which clearly shows,  ME2 is not an RPG.

I heavily disagree. "Skills" are an abstraction, a neutral measure of your character's skill in something when the mechanics of the game do not provide a concrete measure. Since you do not get to control the arc and power of your character's sword swings in say, Final Fantasy or Baldur's Gate, such events are left to an arbitrary number to determine which the player has a certain mathematical control over. However, some games, such as Oblivion or Morrowind, allow you to swing your sword in real time and it connects with the enemy or does not, however the hit chance is not left to a number, but rather the player's ability to hit that target. Some RPGs require that the player cast spells by moving their mouse across the screen to form a certain geometric shape. That surely is dependent on player skill to do so. And then there's the first and second Mass Effects, where the player has to aim properly in order to hit their opponent. While Mass Effect did provide an "auto-aim" to somewhat compensate, you still had to have your cursor pointed fairly closely to your target to hit.

This is why Oblivion and Morrowind are not RPGs, and contributes to why ME isn't an RPG.  It's not a role-playing game if player skill determines the abilities of the character.  The skills of the character (as defined by the character's stats) should determine the success or failure of the character, not the player's ability to point with a mouse.

Another example from PnP: Most roleplaying games are very ad hoc when it comes to conversations and social encounters. Every edition of Dungeons and Dragons has said that social skills are not meant to replace these encounters, only to provide a secondary benefit and aid the player in the encounter. Most good DMs will still have the player, as an example taken from the Player's Handbook, convince the Duchess why she should aid the Adventurers against the orc horde that threatens the kingdom. These encounters are not left to numbers or abstract rules, but rather at the discretion of the DM. The players are not able swing their swords or cast their spells at actual ogres, so there are rules to determine these abstract values. In situations where the players are able to actually participate in an encounter, such as the beforementioned social encounter, then those rules are usually reduced or removed completely.

A good DM won't let a player's proficiencies make up for a character's deficiencies.  If you've got a player with a 6 intelligence orc and you let him use complicated logical arguments in a social encounter, you're a bad DM.  The point is to play the character's abilities, and, in the end, the character's abilities should determine success/failure.  Thus, good role-playing may mitigate a failure or provide a bonus on a check, but the check should still be rolled.  Otherwise, social skills are pointless.  If you ignore the character's skills, you're essentially doing free-form roleplaying, with potentially some miniature wargame mixed in.

Modifié par Vaeliorin, 10 mars 2010 - 12:00 .

[SurfaceBeneath]

Vaeliorin wrote...
It's roleplaying, but it's not a roleplaying game.  Games have rules.

We had rules too. I shoot someone, they fall over. You're saying that make pretend isn't a game? Funny.

A good DM won't let a player's proficiencies make up for a character's deficiencies.  If you've got a player with a 6 intelligence orc and you let him use complicated logical arguments in a social encounter, you're a bad DM.  The point is to play the character's abilities, and, in the end, the character's abilities should determine success/failure.  Thus, good role-playing may mitigate a failure or provide a bonus on a check, but the check should still be rolled.  Otherwise, social skills are pointless.  If you ignore the character's skills, you're essentially doing free-form roleplaying, with potentially some miniature wargame mixed in.

A good DM will use a mixture of both, and only penalize the player for "relying" on their skills. By your definition, a player with low intellect should not use complicated logical arguments, but that doesn't mean that they can't say to a stingy merchant "You give supplies or I SMASH!" if he has a high intimidation score. Those are based some surface rules, and more importantly a concept the player has made for their character, but the point is that if the player is lazy and is just trying to roll dice to pass a social encounter in a roleplaying game, than a good DM should punish him for it, even if his social "skills" are triple buffed with a side of munchkin. Or else why have social encounters at all if it simply becomes the equivilent of find/remove traps with a penalty being that your party takes X amount of political damage?

If you disagree with me, consult the Player's Handbook for any version of Dungeons and Dragons. Consider that many groups houserule out social checks altogether. Does that make their roleplay game less valid than someone who lets rolls solely determine the outcome of social encounters? Quite the opposite I argue.

This is why Oblivion and Morrowind are not RPGs, and contributes to why
ME isn't an RPG.  It's not a role-playing game if player skill
determines the abilities of the character.  The skills of the character
(as defined by the character's stats) should determine the success or
failure of the character, not the player's ability to point with a
mouse.

Morrowind and Oblivion not RPGs? Well... at least I know where you're arguing from anyway, though I'm pretty certain with that mentality there's not much a point in me arguing further. You're placing yourself in a very rigid and indefensible position.

So is Civilization an RPG than? How about Starcraft? Those are entirely defined by their stats.

Modifié par SurfaceBeneath, 10 mars 2010 - 12:11 .

[SurfaceBeneath]

Oh, is World of Warcraft not an RPG because raids require very precise timing and pvp requires quite proficient reaction time? These are both player skills, not character skills.

Warcraft 3 has leveling hero units that command other units. How is this sufficiently different from your hero in Baldur's Gate commanding your party to differentiate one as an RPG and the other as an RTS.

Is XCOM UFO Defense an RPG since it has both loot, leveling, and inventory?

Modifié par SurfaceBeneath, 10 mars 2010 - 02:57 .

[Darkhour]

Murmillos wrote...

Darkhour wrote...

slimgrin wrote...

I also liked allocating points to my conversational abilities (charm intimidate)

To sum up, the whole system did a good job of putting me at the helm, so to speak. I like lots of options in my games.

Seriously? Wow... just... wow.

That was a horrible system. not only was it redundant, but pigeon holed you into being all paragon or all renegade. Spliting points would not only result in both renegade and paragon being too low to make alot of dialog choices, but you would would be seriously underdeveloped combat wise.

I have a hard time understanding what Bioware was thinking (if they were thinking) when they implimented it. How anyone could have liked it, in the context of a game like ME, is beyond me.

Underdeveloped combat wise?  Not really.  I can play any class in ME1, put 16 full points into Charm/Intimidate (plus getting the free points) - and still be just as effective as somebody whom puts in no points into those talents.  The total combat time would amount to less an hour of combat difference - if that much. There are very few skills that required full 12 points into.  Warp, Fitness and your weapon of choice were the only things that "really" required the full 12 points.  Throw at 12 points was wicked too - but never needed.

To many people saw ME1 as a combat game and went "Hurr derp derp... speech skills suck!"

There is no purpose to having a paragon/renegade bar AND having a intimidate/charm skill. It's simply a redunandant waste of programming. But you're entiltled to your personal likes and dislikes, no matter how strange, but but that does change the fact.

And I never bothered with maxing warp or even developing fitness in ME1. It comes down to playstyle preference. They way I play combat wise is incompatible with wasting points in both paragon AND renegade. In order to play a particular type of personality I had to invest in intimidate to add variety, although my bar was mostly paragon.  I personally think it's ass backwards if your actions don't decide your dialog choices and personality, but skill points.

[Darkhour]

SirVincealot wrote...

Mobs still won't go around obstacles taller than they are; rarely brave a staircase *but* will proceed into a hail of bullets in open ground; squad mates often climb *atop* cover instead of vaulting to the safe side (I've got a screenie of Garrus standing on a 20-foot tall pylon if you want).

Yes, the AI is not perfect which I've already stated. There are some bugs. But is is WAY BETTER than ME1. WAY BETTER. The vast majority of the time the squad does take cover, can fend for themselves and they actually do what you tell them to do. Where in ME1 they've just stand in the middle of an area 50% of the time, nothing died unless I killed it 95% of the time and giving them orders either did nothing or they ran to the cover stop you directed them to and them immediate go back to being retarded. In ME2 they actually go to a cover spot and... *gasp* stay there.

One thing much more deadly now are rocket launcher-wielding mobs. Other than that the A.I. is merely improved, not overhauled.

Yes, then I guess you agree with me that ME2 has better AI than ME1.

Equipped with Charge, Barrier and the DLC shotgun, I can do just that on Hardcore difficulty - and have had to, due to Tali Z'hora's suicidal tendencies and Samara's total lack of self-preservation, presumably due to her ginormous cleavage diverting precious blood away from her brain.

No, you can't. You cannot stand in the middle of a run taking fire from all the enemies without any cover and survive. You can take a handful of enemies at a time in a small area, but not if they are spread out and all simultaneously directing their fire at you.

Yes, it's improved. No, it's not better than Wrex or Garrus had in the first game - two mates with excellent backstory and motivations.

Garrus was a whiney little **** in ME1. When I heard that somebody on Virmire would die I had already decided to kill him off. Now he's a badass extraordinaire that I wouldn't even consider letting die.

Wrex has nice lines and is the best guy to bring around in that regard(and combat wise too), but his actual dialog in ME1, although good, cannot compare to the ME2 cast... except, I'll admit, Zaeed.

"Forced against your will"? Really? Were you tied to a chair with battery acid poured onto your nether parts while this went on?

Yes. I clear a room and then the painfully ill conceived item keep or gel screen is forced on me when I enter the inventory screen. You can't omni-gel all, you have to agree to every gel action and to top it off the item order randomizes after each deletion so you can;t just run through the list if there is one item in that batch of 60 that you do want. Yes, battery acid pouring into a pee hole is more like it. 

I'll split the difference with you, how's about that? Instead of a dozen suits with five texture jobs, let's make it an even 10 instead of the grand total of *ONE*. By the by, neither the Colossus i4.photobucket.com/albums/y144/silversorrow/zzMEss.jpg, nor the Mercenary i4.photobucket.com/albums/y144/silversorrow/MercenaryFemale-LightMediumHeavy.jpg armors are "ugly" - to anyone with discerning tastes that is.

Your opinion is noted.

Colossus is pretty horrible. The colors are right, but the pattern... ugh!! Looked good on females though. And everything that wasn't in bright colors looks good on Wrex.  Mercenary is cool and the other armor types that look like stripes shaped into armor. But the rest was... blah. Colossus of male human or garrus was particularly disturbing. 

And I don't think Garrus owning two suits will fly or, most astonishingly stupid, the fact that his updated "loyalty" suit is also shot to hell (in the exact same place because it's just a lazy retex)

The Cerberus ship repaints armor. It doesn't replace it. The only gripe I'd have is that lack of vaccuum suits for certain squad members.

[Murmillos]

Darkhour wrote...

Murmillos wrote...

Darkhour wrote...

slimgrin wrote...

I also liked allocating points to my conversational abilities (charm intimidate)

To sum up, the whole system did a good job of putting me at the helm, so to speak. I like lots of options in my games.

Seriously? Wow... just... wow.

That was a horrible system. not only was it redundant, but pigeon holed you into being all paragon or all renegade. Spliting points would not only result in both renegade and paragon being too low to make alot of dialog choices, but you would would be seriously underdeveloped combat wise.

I have a hard time understanding what Bioware was thinking (if they were thinking) when they implimented it. How anyone could have liked it, in the context of a game like ME, is beyond me.

Underdeveloped combat wise?  Not really.  I can play any class in ME1, put 16 full points into Charm/Intimidate (plus getting the free points) - and still be just as effective as somebody whom puts in no points into those talents.  The total combat time would amount to less an hour of combat difference - if that much. There are very few skills that required full 12 points into.  Warp, Fitness and your weapon of choice were the only things that "really" required the full 12 points.  Throw at 12 points was wicked too - but never needed.

To many people saw ME1 as a combat game and went "Hurr derp derp... speech skills suck!"

There is no purpose to having a paragon/renegade bar AND having a intimidate/charm skill. It's simply a redunandant waste of programming. But you're entiltled to your personal likes and dislikes, no matter how strange, but but that does change the fact.

And I never bothered with maxing warp or even developing fitness in ME1. It comes down to playstyle preference. They way I play combat wise is incompatible with wasting points in both paragon AND renegade. In order to play a particular type of personality I had to invest in intimidate to add variety, although my bar was mostly paragon.  I personally think it's ass backwards if your actions don't decide your dialog choices and personality, but skill points.

Ahh yes.. apparently nothing ME did was right or correct in the idea of RPG.. by your points alone, ME first mistake is for being on a computer.  As no matter what anybody debates about.. you have a 1UP to misdirect or change the nature of the argument.

[ShuMaKisO]

lol, still? ^^^^^^^^^

[Commander Darmok]

Ah yes, rpg features. We have dismissed this thread.

[SirVincealot]

Deflagratio wrote...
Well, I see you maxed your selective reading skill. I said it was in your right to think that, because the father of RPG himself, Gary Gygax would agree. But my Counterpoint was that everything in human creation has to evolve in order to stay relevant, artistic definition included. Just as a broad example that even a moron like yourself could understand; Vehicle 100 years ago meant Horse-drawn cart, Vehicle nowadays includes Scram Jet anti-sattlite Military Strike craft. But I can see you're just a typical forum troll who can't stand the taste of Humble pie. So how's that burn sauce taste? I bet it's hot.

Oh yah, and just so you know, the Forum actually shows your name, I have no idea why you feel the need to sign the bottom. Oh wait, you're an egotystical C-ocksneeze riding on a high horse of dumbfu ckery. Smiles n' Sunshine precious!

Flinging feces is a time-honoured practice of intellectual roaches who churlishly scream to be heard. When asked by the learned to construct a meaningful argument, they are time and again found to have nothing to say but banalities - apparently typed by a monkey with concomitent spelling skills. Or is that three monkeys?

Piffle ain't in it.

As always, once the mob-pleasing curtain of injurious "funny" is drawn back, the stammering dwarf is revealed in all his pathetic, pallid mediocrity.

SirV

Modifié par SirVincealot, 10 mars 2010 - 04:48 .

[Darth Drago]

Darkhour wrote...
There is no purpose to having a paragon/renegade bar AND having a intimidate/charm skill. It's simply a redunandant waste of programming. But you're entiltled to your personal likes and dislikes, no matter how strange, but but that does change the fact.

And I never bothered with maxing warp or even developing fitness in ME1. It comes down to playstyle preference. They way I play combat wise is incompatible with wasting points in both paragon AND renegade. In order to play a particular type of personality I had to invest in intimidate to add variety, although my bar was mostly paragon. I personally think it's ass backwards if your actions don't decide your dialog choices and personality, but skill points.

-The paragon/renegade bar and charm/intimidate skills worked hand in hand. By choosing dialog and possible resulting actions from either paragon/renegade you got points in it that raised that bar. After getting a certain percent in one of them you earn a free talent point as well as unlock more rank boxes for its related talent. When your charm/intimidate talent was high enough you were able to choose the paragon/renegade dialog choices. Charm and intimidate were skills you needed to learn to do this.

In ME2 just like all the talents, oh sorry they even renamed them to be called powers now and like all the powers they got all messed up as well.You still get the paragon/renegade points in a similar way but now they dropped the actual charm/intimidate skills because somehow following the paragon or renegade route now suddenly makes you good at them. Just like how Shepard is suddenly able to bypass security and hack computers regardless of class. Hey, who needs a tech specialist anymore?

Modifié par Darth Drago, 10 mars 2010 - 06:05 .

[JKoopman]

Collider wrote...

Shavon wrote...

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

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

Ok, discuss, flame I don't care, I just want the rpg stuff back.  <_<

Yes, let's have the nightmare inventory and useless and clunky abilities back. Oh wait. I actually hate that. ME2 ftw. Mass Effect is an RPG. roleplaying game. You are roleplaying as Shepard.

Just like you roleplay Marcus Fenix when you play Gears of War or you roleplay Samus Aran when you play Metroid. Every genre involves roleplaying to some extent. What separates the RPG genre from everything else is game mechanics; game mechanics which ME1 posessed that have been "streamlined" right out of ME2.

They should really just rename it Mass-Market Effect, as that's exactly what's happened.

[JaegerBane]

SirVincealot wrote...

Deflagratio wrote...
Well, I see you maxed your selective reading skill. I said it was in your right to think that, because the father of RPG himself, Gary Gygax would agree. But my Counterpoint was that everything in human creation has to evolve in order to stay relevant, artistic definition included. Just as a broad example that even a moron like yourself could understand; Vehicle 100 years ago meant Horse-drawn cart, Vehicle nowadays includes Scram Jet anti-sattlite Military Strike craft. But I can see you're just a typical forum troll who can't stand the taste of Humble pie. So how's that burn sauce taste? I bet it's hot.

Oh yah, and just so you know, the Forum actually shows your name, I have no idea why you feel the need to sign the bottom. Oh wait, you're an egotystical C-ocksneeze riding on a high horse of dumbfu ckery. Smiles n' Sunshine precious!

Flinging feces is a time-honoured practice of intellectual roaches who churlishly scream to be heard. When asked by the learned to construct a meaningful argument, they are time and again found to have nothing to say but banalities - apparently typed by a monkey with concomitent spelling skills. Or is that three monkeys?

Piffle ain't in it.

As always, once the mob-pleasing curtain of injurious "funny" is drawn back, the stammering dwarf is revealed in all his pathetic, pallid mediocrity.

SirV

Vincelot, Deflag's post could have been more politely written, true.

But the core concept of what he's trying to get across - that stressing about what makes an RPG, and denouncing 'fake RPGs' from the pulpit as pretenders, and all that rubbish - he's got a point. All of the drama is crap. Pure crap. Genres either evolve or die. Every single game genre today has gone through major changes to stay competitive. Genres which didn't evolve are no more.

This whole argument about 'RPGs do this and are playable by paraplegics and must allow the player to pour their very soul into each an every line spoken by their character' - it comes across sounding like half these people aren't aware that the games are on computer and are no longer PnP. 

And no offence, but responding to the guy's post with lots of big words is the type of thing Howard Moon of The Mighty Boosh would do.

[Sylvius the Mad]

SurfaceBeneath wrote...

Vaeliorin wrote...

This is why Oblivion and Morrowind are not RPGs, and contributes to why ME isn't an RPG.  It's not a role-playing game if player skill determines the abilities of the character.  The skills of the character (as defined by the character's stats) should determine the success or failure of the character, not the player's ability to point with a
mouse.

Morrowind and Oblivion not RPGs? Well... at least I know where you're arguing from anyway, though I'm pretty certain with that mentality there's not much a point in me arguing further. You're placing yourself in a very rigid and indefensible position.

I'm sympathetic to Vaeliorin's position that RPGs should be stat-driven.  I don't require they be entirely stat-driven (and Morrowind and Oblivion are partly stat-driven, as how effective those sword swings are is determined by stats), but that certainly lessens the burden on the rest of the game's need to allow other forms of roleplaying.

Because the Elder Scrolls games have such a free-form dialogue system, I'm inclined to call them roleplaying games.  Just not very good ones.

So is Civilization an RPG than? How about Starcraft? Those are entirely defined by their stats.

Starcraft doesn't grant enough opportunities for player decisions to matter independently of the player's physical skills.  Civilization (and even more so Alpha Centauri) are entirely consistent with roleplaying.  I wouldn't call them roleplaying games because other features (the turn-based strategy) are more important features for those games, but one can roleplay one's way through Alpha Centauri.  I do that a lot.

In a roleplaying game, you (the player) play a character within the game.  If the game isn't stat driven, then you're not playing a character - you yourself are playing the game.

Mass Effect 2 clearly fails Vaeliorin's standard.

But Mass Effect (and ME2) fails the other half of the standard, as well.  In ME, you're not actually able to play the character.  The character acts on his own within the game, independently of your input.  That's why I don't think Mass Effect is an RPG.  Mass Effect has stat-driven aiming.  The ability to aim while paused effectively reduced the player's role in combat to target selection.  But Mass Effect fails to be an RPG because the player isn't actually able to play the character in any part of the game where the character gets to make a meaningful decision.

Simply removing the dialogue wheel and PC voice-over (with the associated cinematic conversations) would make Mass Effect an RPG in my eyes.

[Sylvius the Mad]

SurfaceBeneath wrote...

Oh, is World of Warcraft not an RPG because raids require very precise timing and pvp requires quite proficient reaction time? These are both player skills, not character skills.

Does anyone actually think WoW is an RPG?

I certainly don't.

[JaegerBane]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

SurfaceBeneath wrote...

Oh, is World of Warcraft not an RPG because raids require very precise timing and pvp requires quite proficient reaction time? These are both player skills, not character skills.

Does anyone actually think WoW is an RPG?

I certainly don't.

Oh no, not this again....

'Waaaah I and only I have the strength and power to bestoweth the title of RPG on those that I deem worthy!'.

Sylvius, we've heard all this before. If you want to personally consider any game as an RPG or non-RPG it's up to you, but please, don't keep peddling that ludicrous list of RPG criteria that you keep waving at people. You're starting to sound like a parrot.

[Sylvius the Mad]

I was to discuss what those criteria are, and why. Clearly Vaeliorin found an audience who is unfamiliar with the RPG traditionalist's position. So we're sharing it.

[Soban]

To me, the core of RPG is Story and making decisions that effect that story. So I say give me more story and more decisions to be made and the game will be more RPG-like. Take away leveling completely and turn it into a FPS. Whatever, just give me the story and decisions to be made.

[Darkhour]

Darth Drago wrote...

In ME2 just like all the talents, oh sorry they even renamed them to be called powers now and like all the powers they got all messed up as well.You still get the paragon/renegade points in a similar way but now they dropped the actual charm/intimidate skills because somehow following the paragon or renegade route now suddenly makes you good at them.

Yeah... that would be the logical conclusion when it comes to behavioral patterns. I must have missed intimidation trainer or VH1's new show  N7: Charm School being filmed on the SR-1. I was unaware that having a particular personality required training to become "good at it".

Just like how Shepard is suddenly able to bypass security and hack computers regardless of class. Hey, who needs a tech specialist anymore?

Yeah, either bringing Miranda on every mission until I get Tali or Legion or be broke and not able to afford fuel, probes or any upgrades from merchants sounds like a great idea.   Thanks for bringing up yet another improvement: Not having to always take particular people with you to access stuff.


Luckily, people who nitpick over pointless, frivolous and illconcieved devices that don't improve gameplay are in the minority. Good job cleaning up the mistakes in ME1, Bioware. Keep up the good work.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Soban wrote...

To me, the core of RPG is Story and making decisions that effect that story.

I would agree with that to some degree, though I don't require that the story be pre-written.  A narrative created by the player as a result of his decisions would suffice.

I don't think ME gives us that, because ME doesn't let us make the decisions.