89 réponses à ce sujet

[Barbarossa2010]

BTW, I just recently finished Mass Effect and for players like me, it is a near perfect fusion of the best of both worlds. I would fix the cover system and the third person point of aim and swing, but I could pick apart (and I have) any game. ME still had serviceable gun play and I'm told, much of the shooter elements were fixed in ME2. I'm also told Bioware reduced the stats management requirements and the maddening number of upgrades, which should help draw more players like me toward the RPG.

So I can't wait to play it to see the difference...that is, once I have this Dragon Age chip off my shoulder, of course.

Modifié par Barbarossa2010, 27 mars 2010 - 02:30 .

[Dudebag]

ModerateOsprey wrote...

Daewan wrote...
RPG skills that are transferable to the real world: Problem solving. Problem identification. Basic math. Complex pattern recognition. Basic social interaction. Patience.FPS skills that are transferable to the real world: Eye-hand coordination. Fine motor control.Hrm.... which set of idiots do you think is more employable?

Someone with both sets of skills as well as the ability to compare dispassionately. For FPS, you forgot observation, pattern recognition, spatial awareness, situational awareness and more. I could go on with extra skills for RPGs, but I think my point is made. 

Dudebag wrote...Can I give you a word of advice? I dont think that your prospective employer would be too impressed if you put "proficient at playing RPGs" on your resume as RPGs arent really a true test of ones intelligence, besides half the skills you mentioned arent needed in most RPGs and the other half you really only need to know the basics of.

I am an employer and, actually, this may very well swing me to offering an interview.

Ok so you claim to be an employer, what exactly is it that you would be considering hiring Daewan for and how exactly does the ability to play cRPGs or video games relate to the job? Now I can understand that knowledge of video games would probably be a prerequisite for a job as a game tester or cashier at EB Games, but any other job I would have my doubts at how useful it would be to put on your resume "good at video games".

However if you are hiring a person because he has the same hobbies as you I dont think it really counts as you are not hiring the person because of his skills but because he shares your interests. In that case putting video games on your resume would be as effective as me putting snowboarding on my resume and giving it to an employer who enjoys going snowboarding.

Of course this is the internet after all and ModerateOsprey could be pulling arguments out of his arse, whether he is telling the truth or not we shall never know.

[Dudebag]

Barbarossa2010 wrote...

randumb vanguard wrote...

6)have you SEEN the tactics screen on dragon age? that's not simple....Now shooters, they are GENERALLY simple (point shoot, repeat) I also play shooters so don't give me any of that, "more simple then rpg" crap because it is a complete untruth

I have said my peice feel free to respond.

That's exactly it!  Great point. 
Listen, I'm an shooter goon from the Wolfenstein/Doom days forward.  My favorite games are definetly FPSs and TPSs.  DA:O was my first RPG.  I actually bought it after viewing the trailer and thought it would be pretty cool to try something new after 17 years of pretty much the same thing. 

Shooters definitely test/exercise sensory/reaction times, reflexes, eye-hand, situational awareness, and to some extent problem solving/decision-making.  In truth, these expand geometrically and are stressed to the extreme in the shooter multi-player environment, playing in real time against other human (not AI) players.  The Team aspect of mult-player requires alot from the players.  It takes a bit more than quick reflexes to survive long enough to make a difference and win a Deathmatch against a level 80 team in GOW2.  It takes a smattering of discipline, cooperation, a lot of situational awareness and some level of intelligence to win in a team-based environment.  I must give my shooter brethren their due here having been immersed in it for years.  I am, and always will be, a fan of the shooter genre.

Having said that, the point above refutes the OPs contention.  The tactics screen alone in DA offers a level of complexity that is just not to be found in Quake, GOW, HALO, or COD.  This took the longest for me to get used to, but once I learned it, it made all the difference in understanding the comat system of the game and being able to effectively fight engagements.  There is nothing comparable in the shooter genre that requires that level of rudimentary analysis and decision making just to create an effective team.  Granted, your team is majority controlled by AI (when you are in-character) but the player makes the decisions in the tactics screen to affect the AI control over the party members.  An additional level of complexity is offerred, in that you can override anything you've "programmed" in the tactics screen, by using the radial menu to que up no small number of talents, sustained abilities or enabling items for any given situation.
.
Additional complexity is seen in equipping and levelling you and your party members. Again, there is nothing that is comparable in shooters.  This makes the difference in whether your party falls at the outset of an engagement or can stand to the end in a fight against a boss foe like the Baronness or Mother (try either on Hardcore or Insane sometime).  Not only do you have to master the talents and skills of a Shield and Weapon warrior (which I chose) and learn a new form and tempo of combat; but you must also grasp and understand the unique abilities of rogues and (God, please make them go away) mages (and their mind numbing number of spells and abilities) and their many subordinate specializations is not easy work.  It took me multiple playthroughs to understand the combat system, and the extraordinary number of talents to maximize the damage dealt and surviviability of my party.  There is a lot of trial and error for the initiated, which went to a whole new level for the uninitiated like me.

There are also any number of ways for a hardcore RPGer to handicap his or herself in the game which only compounds the complexity, but I won't even bother with that, as it is well understood.  Add to this, the dialogue and social aspects of the game, which adds another dimension and serves to force the goal-oriented player to jump through self-imposed hoops and...well, you get the idea.
 
Shooters have the edge on stressing reflexes, there is no doubt, but RPGs require a level of discovery learning, analysis, problem solving and decision making that finds no counterpart in the shooter realm.  Shooters have their stressors and RPGs have theirs.  There really is no comparison to draw as they are different gaming systems and to compare, to me, seems sort of futile.  The OPs claim that shooter players are somehow superior in the gaming world and that RPG players are "idiotic" is well...idiotic!
 

I think you missed the point, it is not about the complexity of the game itself but the the level of intelligence required by the player themselves to play the game, any idiot can stumble their way through most RPGs by following a simple rule, better gear + higher stats = more powerful. Sure Dragon Age takes a bit more thinking and use of tactics on harder difficulties, but set it to easy and by following the simple rule even the idiot can stumble his way through Dragon Age.

However I must say Dragon Age is a special case and even on the harder difficulties most RPGs dont require the same level of intelligence and use of tactics that is used in Dragon Age. Saying that Dragon Age represents the standard RPG is like saying that Deus Ex represents the standard FPS. If we look at most RPGs like Diablo, Fable, Final Fantasy, World of Warcraft ect victory is mostly determined by stats and gear.

Barbarossa2010 wrote...
The OPs claim that shooter players are somehow superior in the gaming world and that RPG players are "idiotic" is well...idiotic!

Again you miss the point, I am not trying to claim that one side is superior and one side is inferior, what I am trying to do is debunk the claims made by some RPG players that they are superior because they play RPGs.

[Feraele]

Sloth Of Doom wrote...

Are people with no registered games trolls?

Blah blah bah for multiple paragraphs spuriously mentioning some trolls with no registered games.

Another paragraph that lumps everyone in together based on a stupid assumption.

Summation.

Lets face it, people without registered games are trolls.

As always...Sloth speaks the truth.

As for the OP's premise....I am an rpg gamer...recently divorced from MMO addiction.   I look to the story and the characters to provide my entertainment...skills and such are extra tools to work with.   

I don't know how I fit into your stereotype..or even if I do.     I certainly don't spend my time in yelling matches (platform wars) and the like..here, matter of fact I have stated a few times, that platform wars are silly.

As for being elitist or any other tag you want to add to those of us who LIKE A GOOD STORY...not so, not true.

I am here because I want to be..and am here because I am sociable...being a sociable person does not fit with being an elitist..the two ideas kind of clash don't you think? 

Anyway...carry on thinking..what you think....does it matter to me?   Nope. 

Modifié par Feraele, 27 mars 2010 - 10:37 .

[Feraele]

Beetgreen wrote...

Sloth Of Doom wrote...

Are people with no registered games trolls?

Blah blah bah for multiple paragraphs spuriously mentioning some trolls with no registered games.

Another paragraph that lumps everyone in together based on a stupid assumption.

Summation.

Lets face it, people without registered games are trolls.

The name calling was a bit trolling, but insults aside I think the original poster made a legitimate point.  Mass Effect 2 has vastly superior gameplay to Mass Effect 1.
The shooting mechanics are improved(no auto-aim, and it actually matters where you hit your enemies), and the AI is superior.  The player can no longer rely on weapons and upgrades to win the battles.
I think some players get a sense of satisfaction in finding new loot which allows them to overcome obstacles while others prefer skill and tight reflexes.

Personally I find ME1 too clunky....but being that I have gamed online for years, and have possibly been spoiled by "better" graphics, better more user friendly games....that might be my problem.

It certainly put me off trying ME2....but its not lost yet....eventually I will look for something to do..and ME is still on my hard drive.    I "may" ..."tough" it out and play it anyways, just to see what all the hype is about.

BTW ...tried Final Fantasy 11....didn't like it...too many pokemon type creatures in it...I am not into "cutesy"...games.    Nor anime.    Just not a fan.

[ModerateOsprey]

Dudebag wrote...

ModerateOsprey wrote...

Daewan wrote...
RPG skills that are transferable to the real world: Problem solving. Problem identification. Basic math. Complex pattern recognition. Basic social interaction. Patience.FPS skills that are transferable to the real world: Eye-hand coordination. Fine motor control.Hrm.... which set of idiots do you think is more employable?

Someone with both sets of skills as well as the ability to compare dispassionately. For FPS, you forgot observation, pattern recognition, spatial awareness, situational awareness and more. I could go on with extra skills for RPGs, but I think my point is made. 

Dudebag wrote...Can I give you a word of advice? I dont think that your prospective employer would be too impressed if you put "proficient at playing RPGs" on your resume as RPGs arent really a true test of ones intelligence, besides half the skills you mentioned arent needed in most RPGs and the other half you really only need to know the basics of.

I am an employer and, actually, this may very well swing me to offering an interview.

Ok so you claim to be an employer, what exactly is it that you would be considering hiring Daewan for and how exactly does the ability to play cRPGs or video games relate to the job? Now I can understand that knowledge of video games would probably be a prerequisite for a job as a game tester or cashier at EB Games, but any other job I would have my doubts at how useful it would be to put on your resume "good at video games".

However if you are hiring a person because he has the same hobbies as you I dont think it really counts as you are not hiring the person because of his skills but because he shares your interests. In that case putting video games on your resume would be as effective as me putting snowboarding on my resume and giving it to an employer who enjoys going snowboarding.

Of course this is the internet after all and ModerateOsprey could be pulling arguments out of his arse, whether he is telling the truth or not we shall never know.

Oooo, such vitriol. No call for that.

You are right ,of course. You don't know whether I am an employer or not, if you would really like to know I could send credentials and proof via PM, tho' that would irk me to do so. I have no real reason to lie. FWIW, I am the MD of a small software company and my attitude to life is a bit old hippy (well, quite a bit actually).

Employers look for all kinds of things on resumes, or CVs as we call them here in the UK. In reality, I have never hired someone purely on the strength of the application form/CV/resume. These just aid in selecting for interview - which is what I said in my post. It is well known among employers that all resumes received from prospects should be taken with a pinch of salt.

Your original line as to what may be put on a resume was 'proficient at playing RPGs'. I replied it may swing me to offer an interview, not a job - one step at a time is usually prudent. Why would I do this? Also, you said:

"Ok so you claim to be an employer, what exactly is it that you would be considering hiring Daewan for and how exactly does the ability to play cRPGs or video games relate to the job?"

As this thread shows, there is quite wide range of mental and sometimes physical skills required for playing computer games and these skills are transferable into the real world. I have my own real world experience of this. I have tabletop games to thank for sparking an interest in a very large range of subjects. Indeed, the ability to transfer skills from one discipline to another is a pretty well accepted requirement for a quality employee.

Interests, what people do in their spare time is a very good indicator as to what their motivations are in life are and can indicate the types of task they like to do as well as the range of knowledge they may posess. Look again at the list that Daewan started to compile: Problem solving. Problem identification. Basic math. Complex pattern recognition. Basic social interaction. Patience.

Yeah, we want people that truly can do those things (damn right) and if we can talk about games at work as well, then that is a big bonus. I didn't agree with all he said and said so in my reply. I also smiled at your response about learning basic social interaction from RPGs - no, that wouldn't be smart. We would, of course, require other skills that are properly job related. For the type of work we do in our company, we would definitely be more interested in people who have RPG skills over snowboarding given that the job related skills were identical, for example.

Anyhow, believe what you will. I am not here to justify who I am, but to hang out and talk games and other stuff.

Finally, the subject of your thread asked if RPG players were idiots? Well, I think you have the answer to your question.

[Onyx Jaguar]

**Issue immediate warning



**Thread has high levels of Smug, evacuation may be necessary

[Dudebag]

ModerateOsprey wrote...

Dudebag wrote...

ModerateOsprey wrote...

Daewan wrote...
RPG skills that are transferable to the real world: Problem solving. Problem identification. Basic math. Complex pattern recognition. Basic social interaction. Patience.FPS skills that are transferable to the real world: Eye-hand coordination. Fine motor control.Hrm.... which set of idiots do you think is more employable?

Someone with both sets of skills as well as the ability to compare dispassionately. For FPS, you forgot observation, pattern recognition, spatial awareness, situational awareness and more. I could go on with extra skills for RPGs, but I think my point is made. 

Dudebag wrote...Can I give you a word of advice? I dont think that your prospective employer would be too impressed if you put "proficient at playing RPGs" on your resume as RPGs arent really a true test of ones intelligence, besides half the skills you mentioned arent needed in most RPGs and the other half you really only need to know the basics of.

I am an employer and, actually, this may very well swing me to offering an interview.

Ok so you claim to be an employer, what exactly is it that you would be considering hiring Daewan for and how exactly does the ability to play cRPGs or video games relate to the job? Now I can understand that knowledge of video games would probably be a prerequisite for a job as a game tester or cashier at EB Games, but any other job I would have my doubts at how useful it would be to put on your resume "good at video games".

However if you are hiring a person because he has the same hobbies as you I dont think it really counts as you are not hiring the person because of his skills but because he shares your interests. In that case putting video games on your resume would be as effective as me putting snowboarding on my resume and giving it to an employer who enjoys going snowboarding.

Of course this is the internet after all and ModerateOsprey could be pulling arguments out of his arse, whether he is telling the truth or not we shall never know.

Oooo, such vitriol. No call for that.

You are right ,of course. You don't know whether I am an employer or not, if you would really like to know I could send credentials and proof via PM, tho' that would irk me to do so. I have no real reason to lie. FWIW, I am the MD of a small software company and my attitude to life is a bit old hippy (well, quite a bit actually).

Employers look for all kinds of things on resumes, or CVs as we call them here in the UK. In reality, I have never hired someone purely on the strength of the application form/CV/resume. These just aid in selecting for interview - which is what I said in my post. It is well known among employers that all resumes received from prospects should be taken with a pinch of salt.

Your original line as to what may be put on a resume was 'proficient at playing RPGs'. I replied it may swing me to offer an interview, not a job - one step at a time is usually prudent. Why would I do this? Also, you said:

"Ok so you claim to be an employer, what exactly is it that you would be considering hiring Daewan for and how exactly does the ability to play cRPGs or video games relate to the job?"

As this thread shows, there is quite wide range of mental and sometimes physical skills required for playing computer games and these skills are transferable into the real world. I have my own real world experience of this. I have tabletop games to thank for sparking an interest in a very large range of subjects. Indeed, the ability to transfer skills from one discipline to another is a pretty well accepted requirement for a quality employee.

Interests, what people do in their spare time is a very good indicator as to what their motivations are in life are and can indicate the types of task they like to do as well as the range of knowledge they may posess. Look again at the list that Daewan started to compile: Problem solving. Problem identification. Basic math. Complex pattern recognition. Basic social interaction. Patience.

Yeah, we want people that truly can do those things (damn right) and if we can talk about games at work as well, then that is a big bonus. I didn't agree with all he said and said so in my reply. I also smiled at your response about learning basic social interaction from RPGs - no, that wouldn't be smart. We would, of course, require other skills that are properly job related. For the type of work we do in our company, we would definitely be more interested in people who have RPG skills over snowboarding given that the job related skills were identical, for example.

Anyhow, believe what you will. I am not here to justify who I am, but to hang out and talk games and other stuff.

Finally, the subject of your thread asked if RPG players were idiots? Well, I think you have the answer to your question.

You have quite the knack for saying a lot without saying nothing, I do not doubt that you would need these skills to play a RPG like Dragon Age but what I am getting at is that it only scratches the surface of these skills, pretty much any gamer can get through an RPG like Dragon Age with only a basic grasp of the skills mentioned by Daewan.

Can you give me some examples of how a RPG like Dragon Age puts these skills to the test?

[ModerateOsprey]

Dudebag wrote...

You have quite the knack for saying a lot without saying nothing, I do not doubt that you would need these skills to play a RPG like Dragon Age but what I am getting at is that it only scratches the surface of these skills, pretty much any gamer can get through an RPG like Dragon Age with only a basic grasp of the skills mentioned by Daewan.

Can you give me some examples of how a RPG like Dragon Age puts these skills to the test?

Like I said, I don't have to justify anything to you. You made a comment, I disagreed. I tried to outline what I meant. You have decided to dismiss it. I am more than happy to discuss the why I think this further, but am not in the remotest interested in trading personal insults with you.

In answer to your question, I probably could, but suspect I would be wasting my Saturday afternoon doing so.

[Jamelo]

you saying the rest of the game was horrible besides the story instantly takes any credibility from your post.

[MerinTB]

SithLordExarKun wrote...

MerinTB wrote...

PontiusPilate wrote...

i must be an idiot than, because i thought final fantasy was turn based RPG...'could be wrong..reading up there from the guy who said it wasn't, i am wrong i guess ;|..

It hasn't been turn based (for the most part) since 7.

Tactics and Tactics Advanced were turn-based.

I'm feeling like a broken record on this one.

Turn based = each player (or character) gets an uninterrupted turn in which no one else can take a turn until that player is done
Real time= combat is continuous based on a clock that doesn't pause for any one player - each participant (player or NPC or monster) acts simultaneously.

ATB uses a clock that runs constantly, and any character or monster can attack at any time without having to wait for a different character to have gone.

Having charging bars for abilities does not mean turn based.  Combat relying on the stats of the characters instead of the twitch skills and button mashing of the player does not mean turn based.

---

I understand I'm fighting a losing battle here - most don't seem to care what words mean as long as they can use them to attack things they don't like.

FFX is turn based.

I think I had read that it was, but wasn't positive, hence the "(for the most part)" in my statement.

[Galders]

However I must say Dragon Age is a special case and even on the harder difficulties most RPGs dont require the same level of intelligence and use of tactics that is used in Dragon Age. Saying that Dragon Age represents the standard RPG is like saying that Deus Ex represents the standard FPS. If we look at most RPGs like Diablo, Fable, Final Fantasy, World of Warcraft ect victory is mostly determined by stats and gear.

Wow thats quite a list of RPG's games there to base your argument on... well except that... Diablo is an action RPG, FF is a JRPG, a very different Genre really sharing some concepts but it would be like comparing a sneak game to a FPS. Both may involve at some point shooting but the guy who approaches either one the same way is going to be in for a surprise. a JRPG is a Story you push along, it's road has already been set, your choices are limited. A 100% completed end game of FF from two players will be identical, a 100% completed RPG on the other hand will not be.

World of Warcraft is a MMORPG, and frankly is not a Roleplaying game at all. It is a Rollplaying game. In short your argument rests on a game that was old a decade ago, two games that are not even RPG's and a third game that... I'm not even sure what catergory to place it in. Well done.

Now try thinking about such games as Arcanum, Fallout 1,2 and yeah 3, Planescape Torment, Baldurs Gate 1, 2 and Throne of Bhaal.  Elder Scrolls series.

[Barbarossa2010]

Dudebag wrote...

Barbarossa2010 wrote...

randumb vanguard wrote...

6)have you SEEN the tactics screen on dragon age? that's not simple....Now shooters, they are GENERALLY simple (point shoot, repeat) I also play shooters so don't give me any of that, "more simple then rpg" crap because it is a complete untruth

I have said my peice feel free to respond.

That's exactly it!  Great point. 
Listen, I'm an shooter goon from the Wolfenstein/Doom days forward.  My favorite games are definetly FPSs and TPSs.  DA:O was my first RPG.  I actually bought it after viewing the trailer and thought it would be pretty cool to try something new after 17 years of pretty much the same thing. 

Shooters definitely test/exercise sensory/reaction times, reflexes, eye-hand, situational awareness, and to some extent problem solving/decision-making.  In truth, these expand geometrically and are stressed to the extreme in the shooter multi-player environment, playing in real time against other human (not AI) players.  The Team aspect of mult-player requires alot from the players.  It takes a bit more than quick reflexes to survive long enough to make a difference and win a Deathmatch against a level 80 team in GOW2.  It takes a smattering of discipline, cooperation, a lot of situational awareness and some level of intelligence to win in a team-based environment.  I must give my shooter brethren their due here having been immersed in it for years.  I am, and always will be, a fan of the shooter genre.

Having said that, the point above refutes the OPs contention.  The tactics screen alone in DA offers a level of complexity that is just not to be found in Quake, GOW, HALO, or COD.  This took the longest for me to get used to, but once I learned it, it made all the difference in understanding the comat system of the game and being able to effectively fight engagements.  There is nothing comparable in the shooter genre that requires that level of rudimentary analysis and decision making just to create an effective team.  Granted, your team is majority controlled by AI (when you are in-character) but the player makes the decisions in the tactics screen to affect the AI control over the party members.  An additional level of complexity is offerred, in that you can override anything you've "programmed" in the tactics screen, by using the radial menu to que up no small number of talents, sustained abilities or enabling items for any given situation.
.
Additional complexity is seen in equipping and levelling you and your party members. Again, there is nothing that is comparable in shooters.  This makes the difference in whether your party falls at the outset of an engagement or can stand to the end in a fight against a boss foe like the Baronness or Mother (try either on Hardcore or Insane sometime).  Not only do you have to master the talents and skills of a Shield and Weapon warrior (which I chose) and learn a new form and tempo of combat; but you must also grasp and understand the unique abilities of rogues and (God, please make them go away) mages (and their mind numbing number of spells and abilities) and their many subordinate specializations is not easy work.  It took me multiple playthroughs to understand the combat system, and the extraordinary number of talents to maximize the damage dealt and surviviability of my party.  There is a lot of trial and error for the initiated, which went to a whole new level for the uninitiated like me.

There are also any number of ways for a hardcore RPGer to handicap his or herself in the game which only compounds the complexity, but I won't even bother with that, as it is well understood.  Add to this, the dialogue and social aspects of the game, which adds another dimension and serves to force the goal-oriented player to jump through self-imposed hoops and...well, you get the idea.
 
Shooters have the edge on stressing reflexes, there is no doubt, but RPGs require a level of discovery learning, analysis, problem solving and decision making that finds no counterpart in the shooter realm.  Shooters have their stressors and RPGs have theirs.  There really is no comparison to draw as they are different gaming systems and to compare, to me, seems sort of futile.  The OPs claim that shooter players are somehow superior in the gaming world and that RPG players are "idiotic" is well...idiotic!
 

I think you missed the point, it is not about the complexity of the game itself but the the level of intelligence required by the player themselves to play the game, any idiot can stumble their way through most RPGs by following a simple rule, better gear + higher stats = more powerful. Sure Dragon Age takes a bit more thinking and use of tactics on harder difficulties, but set it to easy and by following the simple rule even the idiot can stumble his way through Dragon Age.

However I must say Dragon Age is a special case and even on the harder difficulties most RPGs dont require the same level of intelligence and use of tactics that is used in Dragon Age. Saying that Dragon Age represents the standard RPG is like saying that Deus Ex represents the standard FPS. If we look at most RPGs like Diablo, Fable, Final Fantasy, World of Warcraft ect victory is mostly determined by stats and gear.

Barbarossa2010 wrote...
The OPs claim that shooter players are somehow superior in the gaming world and that RPG players are "idiotic" is well...idiotic!

Again you miss the point, I am not trying to claim that one side is superior and one side is inferior, what I am trying to do is debunk the claims made by some RPG players that they are superior because they play RPGs.

Listen, I'm with you in a lot of what you say.  But the "idiotic" claim won't stand.  I know your frustration to some extent.  Hanging out on this board for any length of time, it is easy to develop a certain opinion about the RPG community.  But, most of that comes from an extreme minority.  Many of them are arrogant, smug, weird (in the I sit around my one bedroom apartment in my underwear all day sort of way, and think this s#!+ is real), and will pretty much b!+c# about anything even when there is really nothing legitimately to b!+c# about. 

I get it.

But you know what?  We have the same level of arrogance, extremism, and air of superiority on our side.  I've played COD, HALO and Gears for years and have been in more parties than I care to remember, but you know full well we have the same sort too.  They're in your face, act like screaming monkeys in a s#!+ fight, are convinced of their superiority, and believe themselves God's gift to the gaming world. 

You're frustrated by a very small group of people. 

But your thread is really only airing your frustration rather than making a valid comparison.  You are not an idiot, I know that, and most RPGers are not idiots either.  Intelligence is a poor point of comparison, if looked at objectively.  I'd have to give it to the something like Dragon Age if so, because it demands that you manage stats, equipment, levelling, talents, etc.  There's no real path either, by which to determine sequence or where to go/what to do, like there is in a Shooter campaign.  You have to think your way to play the game thoroughly, rather than follow a pre-programmed path. 
 
Which of these requires more reflexive skill and situational awareness (and by here I mean immediate situational awareness [you may not see your opponent sneaking up on you until you are a mist of spray from his shotgun])?  Well, that clearly goes to the multiplayer shooters. 
 
Which requires more brain horsepower to manage leveling, talents, specializations, equipment, and have a larger sense of situational awareness (strategically) throughout the entire game?  I’d have to say, role players like Dragon Age.
 It's just different.  Two different means to a gaming end.

C'mon, even if you're in a tough part of a campaign play in COD MW on Veteran, lets face it, enough re-tries and you'll find the footsteps to take and targets you need to hit to get through.  On Casual in most games, it's not even a challenge, even for newbs.  But multiplayer is where the real challenge lies for many of the reasons you have pointed out.  But again, the focus is on reflexes and immediate situational awareness, not to mention, repetitive building of minor skills.

Now, if I had to choose which was "harder," let's say to either: beat a level 80 team in Deathmatch or Execution on "River" in GOW2 or Defeat the Archdemon, Mother or Baroness in DA on Insane?,  I'd have to say the multi-player deathmatch was "harder."  But, not because of the intellectual output required.  If you do not have the situational awareness, teamwork and reflexes to win in multi-player, it's a long road of repetition and team building to get to that level and you are going to be smacked down a lot before you are competitive.  But which requires the most intellectual power?  Easily that's the fight against Bosses in DA on Insane.  You will not tune your team to the level required to even survive, much less produce max damage, without a lot of trial and error, experimentation, and re-tries. 

I know what you're getting at, but this community won't because you've gotten in their face like their minority nuts have done to you.  Don't focus on the s#!+heads of this community any more than you would focus on them on our side. Ignore them, it's pretty easy once you get used to it.  If they get to you, just imagine two-piecing them with a Gears shotgun or taking their head off with your favorite sniper rifle in whatever game; remember you probably could do that if given the chance.

Dragon Age and Mass Effect are fun games.  Play them and have a good time and ignore the pooh-heads.  When Bioware decides to branch out into multi-player, take out your frustration on them then.  I think if you argued which genre was "harder" (and define that narrowly) you'd have more spirited and fun debate, and wouldn't be angering people who might otherwise agree with you, and not allow anyone to call you a  troll (which I honestly don’t think you are).

Peace 

[addiction21]

Yes.

P.S.
Portal

Modifié par addiction21, 27 mars 2010 - 09:26 .

[It Is Massively Effective]

hmm...a thread that seems to have been designed with the sole intention of p*ssing off a certain group of people, what's that called again? But seriously, and it's probably been said already, the only thing FPS games have over RPG's is hand eye coordination, and I don't consider hand eye coordination a skill that requires superior intelligence, I consider it athletic ability, which baseball and basketball players require. Both genres (depending on the game) have a need for preparation and strategy to make your upcoming battle much easier for you, but the objective is still the same, keep dealing out damage until your enemies fall. Games that I consider to require brain power are puzzle games such as the "Simeon Meade" series.

[Darkened Dragon]

Before I head off to catch some z's before work, let me clarify something. A "true" RPG is far from what a lot of people view them to be. There is RPG, cRPG, jRPG, MMORPG, and various other offsprings of RPG you could say.



Now a true RPG is defining the character via some sort of generation formula. Then playing the role of said character without premade decisions. In a true RPG there is no select this or that and then move forward. Its all about the "Here's whats going on, now what are ya going to do?" decisions. Some go as far as making you specify how you attack while some rely on mathematical systems thrown into randomization of dice rolls. If your character doesn't speak properly to the wrong person, hope you're ready for the consequences.



Then, there are the puzzles and riddles that get thrown into the mix. Where regardless if you know the answer, you have to play the character to the generated stats.



There's a lot more to RPG than just that, and a lot of times you have to use your head and think outside the box, else its back to character generation you go.



Now, as you were talking about cRPG's, most likely, yeah it has been dumbed down from the true form. How can it not be, its premade and computer driven. But what draws the crowds is the "feel" of the game, and actually seeing the story played out via your decisions, regardless of how yes or no they are. Well at least for me it is anyway.

[FrankJones420]

 Some of them are. Some FPS players are idiots too though. As are some fighting game players, as are some chess players, as are some teachers. Every group of people has idiots in them, and in differing amounts. How many librarians do you think could rebuild an engine? How many auto mechanics know about quantum mechanics?

Its not like RPGs are using words that you have to look up in the dictionary or anything like that, and its not like FPSs actually make you math out your bullet trajectories. Game developers try to make games understandable by as many people as possible. The only thing that affects the type of games you like to play is your preference for pretending.

I wonder why FPS games aren't usually of a fantasy genre? And how come RPGs usually aren't futuristic? I myself prefer sword and sorcery type of settings, and I also happen to prefer RPGs to any other type of game. Are those two things related? I dunno. Maybe I really just like storytelling and a fantasy setting provides more for the imagination? Maybe there is a relation to people interested in science and also play futuristic setting games. Maybe people that play FPSs are really just into guns. Maybe they are more competitive. Maybe RPG players like to do silly math equations about how much damage they should do with a certain attack. I'm guilty of a little of all of those things.

We're all good at something.

[Galders]

I'll tell you the secret through when you have a few hours free did you have fun? If the answer is yes then who cares what game it was that gave you that fun?

[TheMufflon]

Look, it's perfectly simple, the ranking goes thusly:

1) RPG players.
2) Adventure Game players.
3) TBS (Turn-Based Strategy) Players
4) RTS Players.
5) Platformer players.
6) Beat-em-up players.
7) JRPG players.
8) FPS players.
9) TPS players.
10) People who play sports games.

Modifié par TheMufflon, 28 mars 2010 - 01:38 .

[Godak]

TheMufflon wrote...

Look, it's perfectly simple, the ranking goes thusly:

1) RPG players.
2) Adventure Game players.
3) TBS (Turn-Based Strategy) Players
4) RTS Players.
5) Platformer players.
6) Beat-em-up players.
7) JRPG players.
8) FPS players.
9) TPS players.
10) People who play sports games.

...And if you play all of the above?

[GnusmasTHX]

Yes. We are.

[Torhagen]

me is RPG player me is too stuped to onderstand waht is ritten here

[The Grey Spectre]

Torhagen wrote...

me is RPG player me is too stuped to onderstand waht is ritten here

Torhagen! YOU SO STUPID! I guess I hit you on head with club again huh?!