Something went wrong. Try again later

snide

This user has not updated recently.

2692 1858 636 108635
Forum Posts Wiki Points Following Followers

Woah, got too many questions about Mass Effect 2

 OK. I guess there needs to be some clarification about my comments on TNT about Mass Effect 2 as I received way too many PMs on the subject. 
 
First let me start by saying that of all games released last year, I'd put Mass Effect 2 up there pretty high as the a game I would recommend to a random gamer I met on the street under the age of 30. This is strictly a personal opinion and more a commentary on the direction of the industry in general. This discussion is specifically only meaningful to those who are familiar with the history of Bioware and the Western RPG genre. 
 
It is of my opinion that Dragon's Age will likely turn out to be one of the last, if not the last AAA produced single-player CRPG. What do I mean by the term CRPG? As an acronym, Computer Role Playing Game. Put in less generic terms, the type of RPG that follows the traditions of the Rogue, Ultima, Gold-Box, Wizardry, Might & Magic and Infinity Engine era.  I leave out The Elder Scrolls mostly because it has never been a party based game, and always existed in real-time in the first perspective. In that sense, The Elder Scrolls series was always more about exploration than combat. My guess is that over time, even the Elder Scrolls style games will rapidly devolve into games more along the lines of Fallout 3. That is to say, action games with light, meaningless skill progression that exist in large, explorable worlds. Are they RPGs? Yes. Are they part of the same genre of the old CRPGs I love? No. They share more in common with Red Dead Redemption than Wizardry.
 
If you ask the majority of people what they like about RPGs, they'll normally talk about the story. But to be honest, the story in most video games is horrible, and outside of a couple true gems like Planescape, we're really talking about great stories in relative terms within the medium. What I, and I believe some people who grew up on CRPGs really enjoyed, was the complicated, challenging and more importantly... flexible combat systems that existed in those games. When you're asking me to pinpoint how I can consider this genre dead, I'm pointing to the tactical combat portion of it. The story in Dragon Age was relatively great, and by all means Mass Effect 2 seems to be better, but I thought Dragon Age was a great game because the combat was rewarding. 
 
The combat in Mass Effect 2 is boring. It's is a shooter more than an RPG. That's OK, I like shooters and I certainly like STALKER and BioShock, so what's the deal? Well, I also think Mass Effect 2 is a shitty, uncomplicated, floaty shooter with fairly meaningless skill upgrades that they are for the most part pre-set and easy to choose. Fuck yeah I want better shields. Fuck yeah I want better X attack. The actual combat involves me moving from set-piece to set-piece Gears of War style. See those barricades? Oh. I guess a fight is about to happen, I better go hide behind this wall where I'm suddenly impenetrable from anything. Because of the meatiness of the health and shields in these types of games, you largely die because of a lack of patience (trying to kill them too fast) vs. making bad decisions in strategy. I miss the puzzles of battle. I miss counterspells. I miss crowd control. I miss focus fire. I even miss the idea of things like tumble rolls. I miss knowing that in some battles I should take the mage out first, but in others I should prolly sleep his minions and take out the healer.
 
Please don't confuse this with me thinking games are too easy. I can up the difficulty in games like Mass Effect 2 and make them difficult. But that change normally only effects my caution, not my planning. I'll admit, I couldn't make it through Mass Effect 2. But that was because the fights at hour 15 were the same fights I had at hour 2. I just couldn't walk through any more barricaded chambers. The rock, paper, scissors shield mechanics created a formula that was static throughout the course of my time in the game.
 
I did enjoy the story and the characters for the most part. It's what got me through the first game. But once I found that I was going through another assemble the team style plot device (it was a weakness in DA too), even that couldn't keep me going. You want me to walk through all 3 ship decks with their individual loading points to get to the fun conversations? Ugh... at least in Dragon Age they were all sitting at that one camp. Morrigan was all of 10 steps away. Having to make my way through the ship in ME2 was the worst. I quit. I had to. I finished one of those world missions and went through all that mediocre combat and now I've gotta spend 30 minutes walking around just so that I don't feel I'm missing out on anything. Done. End. Rage Quit. 
 
But this is the new style of "RPG". They are essentially hybrid shooters with dialog trees. Deus Ex plus. Remember when Deus Ex 2 came out and the whole world groaned? That is what I think about Mass Effect 2. Oh... OK, so you took all the challenging bits out of a the good style of game you used to make (I'm talking infinity engine), made the world progression a lot more linear and made it so that it's impossible to totally gimp your character with the trade off that non of these skill choices really matter. 
 
It's certainly nothing new, and it's not Mass Effect 2's fault. If we're looking to point the finger, KOTOR is certainly the one that lead us here. I only chide Mass Effect 2 so much because I'm bitter no one is making combat CRPGs anymore. The Eastern Block style games are closest. They are both challenging and radically different. Say what you will about the technical qualities of games like STALKER, The Void or Amnesia. They are god-damned different that it takes you a couple hours just to figure out how to play them correctly. Look, that limits their appeal, but shit, that's what I enjoy out of games these days: a novel approach.  
 
I wouldn't be so mad about these games existing other than that they are pure replacements, rather than alternatives to the style of game in which they preceded. I wouldn't lose all hope though. There's still an audience for this stuff. We're not huge, but I get PMs almost daily from people who miss the old style combat CRPGs. That's what the independent gaming movement will eventually find. It's not just about games like Braid that push you outside of the mainstream to some higher plane, it's simply about reaching a smaller, passionate audience. We're out there and we're waiting. 

272 Comments

273 Comments

Avatar image for nickscorner
NicksCorner

569

Forum Posts

5

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 1

Edited By NicksCorner

Great read. Bring back infinity ingine games again!

Avatar image for mewarmo990
mewarmo990

862

Forum Posts

1131

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 1

Edited By mewarmo990

My introduction to CRPGs was KOTOR, and I loved it. Since then I've worked my way back through time thanks to GoG.com (with the exception of Dragon Age) and I think I see what you're saying, Dave. Basically, you miss a genre that is almost extinct in the industry.
 
Today's generation of games is not only less complicated, they're... different. I guess by design that makes them somewhat easier, but that's not really the point. To use BioWare as an example, following their games back and forward through time since KOTOR, it's easy and a little depressing to see how character dialogue and interaction - a main selling point of theirs - get distilled down into ME2 starting with KOTOR. It doesn't mean they're not good; I really enjoyed ME2 for what it was - a Gears-style shooter with great dialogue and limited skill progression - but it was nothing compared to ME1, which was more balanced regarding shooter vs. RPG, and completely unrecognizable compared to Baldur's Gate II, which I started playing a couple of weeks ago.

Avatar image for avantegardener
avantegardener

2491

Forum Posts

165

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 11

Edited By avantegardener

I find myself agreeing with you quite a bit. Mass effect 2, probably my favourite game of last year. But yet the points you make are totally valid, your primary interaction is arguably a second rate gears of war knock off. What it does so expertly create is atmosphere and immersion, and these for me anyway, make up for any weakness in the actual 'gameplay'.

Avatar image for jayzilla
Jayzilla

2709

Forum Posts

18

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 7

Edited By Jayzilla

I think bethesda should implement Demons' Souls combat mechanics into Skyrim or something really similar to it. They also need better character animations. That has always been their weakness. 

Avatar image for renegadesaint
RenegadeSaint

1640

Forum Posts

75

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 4

User Lists: 2

Edited By RenegadeSaint

I understand what you're saying, Dave. Well-written.

Avatar image for raven10
Raven10

2427

Forum Posts

376

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 27

User Lists: 5

Edited By Raven10
@Von said:
" Well, nothing modern is going to beat Ultima IV and VII it seems. ;) (maybe Sword of Fargoal, but that's a dungeoncrawler, not a pure-blood RPG)   I also agree on most parts regarding ME2, especially the things about combat since that's what killed the fun for me and turned the latter half of the game into utter boredom, just to get to the damn ending. "
Richard Garriot wrote on his Twitter a while back that he was working on a new game. Maybe him and EA have made amends and we will get an oldschool Ultima game.  That would be amazing. But honestly, no RPG will ever beat those two games. Plain and simple. Yes many RPG's look better and some will have better stories, but those RPG's defined gaming in a way no other RPG can. 
 
@snide - I really like shooters that offer more strategy than having the quickest trigger finger. I thought that Crysis was a great example of a shooter with strategic combat that was about more than firing as quickly as possible. As for RPG's, I'm not a fan of turn based games, but I like strategy in my gaming. I enjoyed Mass Effect 2 but I agree that it ditched almost all the strategy from the first game, and definitely from older RPG's. Times change and ours is a more action oriented era. Shame really.
Avatar image for twigger89
twigger89

360

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 3

Edited By twigger89

Let's just hope Dragon Age 2 is more DA:O than it is ME2

Avatar image for ahoodedfigure
ahoodedfigure

4580

Forum Posts

41781

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 6

User Lists: 64

Edited By ahoodedfigure
@sarahsdad:  I'm all for that sort of world-adjustment. The more the better!  I realize that it'll take a paradigm shift for those sorts of changes to feel really dramatic and far-reaching, though, since it takes a ton of work to basically give the game a makeover each time. I'm still waiting for games to reach a point where computing power is actually used to help fill in the gaps in a convincing way. Too often we get one extreme or the other, with Daggerfall levels of randomness or games that are very deep but feel like they're etched in bronze rather than being a living world.
 
Anyone play Darklands?  Or is this thread dead?
 
...
 
I'm always late to the party. *kicks rock*
Avatar image for jeanluc
jeanluc

4063

Forum Posts

7939

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 11

User Lists: 13

Edited By jeanluc  Staff
@snide:  
 I can understand and respect you opinion Dave, I think its just different then mine because of the time periods in which we grew up. 
One of the first ever RPGs I played was KOTOR, and I love that game. I played Dragon Age and Mass Effect 2 and loved both those games as well. 
 
But I do think that your right. Its not that any of these games are bad, its that there different and should stay that way. Games like Mass Effect 2 shouldn't be the replacement of CRPGs, but instead should stand next to them as one of the many different styles of RPGs. 
So yes, I too think its sad that the CRPGs aren't being made anymore. Why can't we have both?
Avatar image for sarahsdad
sarahsdad

1339

Forum Posts

3436

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 2

User Lists: 21

Edited By sarahsdad
@ahoodedfigure: That makes more sense. I was on a train of thought were I was thinking you meant that the dev. should be adapting the type of game on the fly, which didn't make sense. 
I agree with you that it's a great feeling when the adjustments are in how the world responds to what you're doing. 
Speaking of which, and not to go back to the well twice in one day, but I'm looking forward to the Dragon Age game coming up, especially if they're able to put in world changes over time based on the character actions.
Avatar image for ahoodedfigure
ahoodedfigure

4580

Forum Posts

41781

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 6

User Lists: 64

Edited By ahoodedfigure
@sarahsdad:  Designers already sort of adapt to player choice, some of them do anyway, by allowing player choices to have consequences. Bioware is sometimes really good at that-- looking at all the potential actions a player can do, even when you do them out of the expected order, sometimes having little surprises there waiting for you, even if it's just a bit of extra dialog acknowledging what you did. Doesn't mean it always happens, doesn't mean it's consistently satisfying, but I like that they think those things through ahead of time.  
 
One of the alternatives I guess is to put things on rails, another is to limit the consequences (which is a tactic in some open world games, leading to some absurd nonplussed reactions from NPCs), and some games adapt through level scaling of encounters and such.  My point is, though, that designers have a different, somewhat more difficult role of not being able to see what a player does, yet still being expected to provide a fun experience; one of the hallmarks of the pen and paper milieu is the understanding that players can do unexpected things.
Avatar image for armaan8014
armaan8014

6325

Forum Posts

2847

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 11

User Lists: 17

Edited By armaan8014
@Abendlaender said:
" Sir, you are a wise, wise man. It's hard to find people who share my feelings about Mass Effect 2. Witcher 2 is the only RPG I look forward to in 2011 and I used to be a RPG Fan... "
I share the exact same feelings! And i'm so glad to see Dave felt the same as well.
Avatar image for sarahsdad
sarahsdad

1339

Forum Posts

3436

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 2

User Lists: 21

Edited By sarahsdad
@ahoodedfigure said:
 
 I like just about any good entry, doesn't matter if it's something I'm supposed to like or not. I'm more about if they achieve the goals they set out to do or not. A lot of games fail that while still being what others define as perfect examples of RPGs. Some game bog down in intricate mechanics, some games are so much about story that you don't actually have enough choices for it to even be considered a game by most people's estimation.  In the pen and paper world, you blame those excesses on the GM, but in computer gaming the GM is just sending you handouts, and it's up to the designers to actually adapt to player choice. I feel another essay brewing... "
 
There's the trouble in some cases, achieving the goal. Unless you know ahead of time what the developer was going for, how do you tell (aside from games that come out broken, and fail) if the developer did what they wanted, or if they did what you hoped they were going to do? 
I think some of the dev diary videos lately are really nice for that. I watched the recent one for Dragon Age 2 this morning, and even though I was already interested in the game, it's nice to see the definition of what they're going for. 
 
Now as far as the designers adapting to player choice, I may disagree with you about that unless you're talking about a longer term strategy than just a single game.
Avatar image for tennmuerti
Tennmuerti

9465

Forum Posts

1

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 7

Edited By Tennmuerti
@Jimbo said:

" The Witcher / The Witcher 2 doesn't fit what Dave is talking about at all.  If it goes anywhere it goes in the Mass Effect category.  If somebody is gonna sit there and tell me that The Witcher had 'complicated, challenging and flexible' combat then I am calling shenanigans on this whole discussion. "

It does if you install the insane difficulty mod. (it rebalances the combat and adds exta difficulties above the standard ones)
Then you need to approach each type of enemy differently with varied tactics and trategies. Stack different types of status effects and constantly be using different types of potions and blade oils.
 
 @Hamz said:

" Counterspells. That's a word you don't hear much, if at all, these days. "

Fucking counterspells, how do they work?
 
Spell contingencies is where it's at :P
Avatar image for tennmuerti
Tennmuerti

9465

Forum Posts

1

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 7

Edited By Tennmuerti
@snide: 
I love you oh so very much.
100% agree
Avatar image for ahoodedfigure
ahoodedfigure

4580

Forum Posts

41781

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 6

User Lists: 64

Edited By ahoodedfigure
@sarahsdad:  I've been trying to work in GM analogies for a while, with an emphasis on possibilities for design in games to come, but yeah, you lay down different emphases and it appeals to different players. If someone in a pen and paper game said that what they were playing wasn't an RPG because it was missing this or that people would just tell them to find a different game. Pen and paper is inclusive, it has to be because it's a niche hobby.  Now that CRPGs and the like are popular, everyone's into defining themselves through factions.  
 
I like just about any good entry, doesn't matter if it's something I'm supposed to like or not. I'm more about if they achieve the goals they set out to do or not. A lot of games fail that while still being what others define as perfect examples of RPGs. Some game bog down in intricate mechanics, some games are so much about story that you don't actually have enough choices for it to even be considered a game by most people's estimation. 
 
In the pen and paper world, you blame those excesses on the GM, but in computer gaming the GM is just sending you handouts, and it's up to the designers to actually adapt to player choice. I feel another essay brewing...
Avatar image for example1013
Example1013

4854

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

Edited By Example1013
@snide: Hah, That's awesome! Tell him he helped make one of the greatest MMOs of all time!
Avatar image for kingzetta
kingzetta

4497

Forum Posts

88

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 4

Edited By kingzetta
@snide:
 Well the reason that people had such a reaction to what you said on TNT, is because you came off as a game snob.
It's not that you're a game snob, it's just you like what you like and that's that.
Avatar image for snide
snide

2692

Forum Posts

1858

Wiki Points

108635

Followers

Reviews: 3

User Lists: 14

Edited By snide
@example1013: Oh man you mentioned Shadowbane. Whiskey Media Trivia. Our lead engineer Andy McCurdy worked on that game!
Avatar image for thehbk
TheHBK

5674

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 3

User Lists: 6

Edited By TheHBK

RPGs all follow different conventions for combat but what really brings them into one common genre is the way the player interacts with the story and how saying certain things or taking certain actions can change the story.  Thats what its really about and Mass Effect 1 and 2 do an amazing job of that.  You may not like the combat but the role, as in story role, part is great. 

Avatar image for fontan
Fontan

319

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

Edited By Fontan
@ZimboDK said:
" @snide:  Damn Dave. If I ever go to the US, let me buy you a beer, 'cause I completely agree with everything in that post. "
Then make that two beers.
Avatar image for jimbo
Jimbo

10472

Forum Posts

2

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 3

Edited By Jimbo
@Fudge91: Personally, I'd consider Heavy Rain to be about the purest form of video game RPG there is - it's all RPing all the time afaik.  GTA 4 and Bioshock do give you some opportunity to roleplay, but it's about 2 choices in ~20 hours.  If you played a more active role in the narrative of those games, I'd consider them to be RPGs too.
Avatar image for fudge91
fudge91

208

Forum Posts

55

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

Edited By fudge91
@Jimbo said:

" @Hashbrowns said:

"The rulesets and basic game mechanics are NOT THEMSELVES Role Playing.  Role Playing is about choice, flexibility, and an ability to influence events in a meaningful way; it has nothing to do with Dexterity, Strength, Defense, or any other numerical statistic-based mechanic."

Well said and I absolutely agree.  I really do not understand the argument that says Mass Effect is no longer an RPG.  You are straight up Role Playing throughout the whole game.  RPG stands for "Role Playing Game", not "Loot & Stat Game".
 
Saying "It's not an RPG, it's a Shooter!" also makes no sense.  The terms are not mutually exclusive and they're referring to different aspects of the game.  It's like describing a car and saying "It's not a fast car, it's a blue car!" - no, the car is fast and blue.  ME2 is an RPG and a Shooter.  If that doesn't fit with our need to neatly pigeonhole games into one exact category, then we need to come up with more/better categories. "
Aren't RPG's more about making your own charachter with a playstyle and an attitude that fits you. Cause choices and consequences  arent really the main point anymore, plenty of games have that now (Heavy Rain, GTA IV, Bioshock..)
Avatar image for fongghoul
FongGhoul

252

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 4

Edited By FongGhoul

I wouldn't say something like DA is the last great AAA CRPG. ME 1 and 2 (and probably DA2) are just examples of the development of new styles. It doesn't mean old-school CRPG's are dead, they're just not as popular right now. 
 
A few years ago, people might have said hardcore 2D fighting games were dead, and died with the development of flashy (but usually less deep) 3D fighting games. Then we saw a crazy revival of the Street Fighter series, re-releases of games like Garou MOtW anf the KOF series, BlazBlue, and an upcoming AAA 2D Mortal Kombat game. 
 
The deep, hardcore strategic CRPG genre may have slowed down and AAA releases may be few or none, but years down the road someone might come up with a new game that manages to spark interest again. Or maybe we'll see newer WRPG's start to get deeper and more strategic as people get bored with them. If there's a good game to be developed within a genre, it ain't dead.

Avatar image for sarahsdad
sarahsdad

1339

Forum Posts

3436

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 2

User Lists: 21

Edited By sarahsdad
@ahoodedfigure said:
I play pen and paper games now and again, and even within THOSE, some of them emphasize crunchy, rules-heavy mechanics for dictating how the universe works with strategy and tactics sort of taking over playing sessions, and some of them are all about making stuff up as you go along, throwing in some random elements only to make things more interesting.   
Exactly. some systems emphasize stats all over the place, some . . .not so much. 
 
It might also be fair to say that, in ME:2 for example, Bioware is effectively our GM, and our GM is more interested in making stuff happen in cool ways and at cool times than in nitty-gritty stating.
Avatar image for example1013
Example1013

4854

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

Edited By Example1013
@ZagZagovich: Hah, nah, you never came off as an asshole. You just came off as a guy who sees great value in modern games, and who doesn't dwell on the past, like I do. If anything, I feel like I was being a bit of an ass, especially about the FPS thing. About COD skill, I really can't tell you whether or not it's hard to learn for sure (i.e. it's my opinion really) because I can't remember back to when I wasn't good at online shooters (which may or may not have ever happened--like I said, I can't remember).
Avatar image for zagzagovich
zagzagovich

836

Forum Posts

1095

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 1

Edited By zagzagovich
@example1013: 
Now I sound like an asshole. Sorry if it came off this way. Never intended to sound like old games don't deserve the love or anything like that.
 And about SF III. I meant culturally relevant. Of coarse everything is relevant to somebody but on the big picture it was nowhere near what SF II or even Alpha was. SF II was popular enough that here I still meet people who remember a pirate version of it for the NES and think it was an official one. Versions of Alpha were also circulating for PSX although rarer but I didn't even know about III existing before M3 was emulated. Which is kind of weird in retrospect since Dreamcast was pretty popular here and by that point some sort of tournament scene existed. It's a fine game and all but there are reasons why it took so long for a new one to come out and why IV was nearly passed on before the development began. But whatever. this is way offtopic and with each post I feel more and more like an ass.
BTW. If you want a crazy hardcore PvP MMO check out Fallout online. Not the official one but the unofficial russian made game. It's really brutal and sure takes time to learn how to play. I think you can find it on mod db now translated and all. That is not my kind of thing but it's a pretty crazy one.
Avatar image for example1013
Example1013

4854

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

Edited By Example1013
@ZagZagovich: I'm not saying I don't enjoy mainstream, easy-to-get-into games. Streamlined games are awesome. I love plenty of the new games that come out. I love Borda lanz, COD, Pokemon, hell, just about any really popular game that's come out. I'm actually really easy to please, in general.
 
But my tastes have definitely been shaped by the games I've played. I really love complex, deep, pure open-world PVP MMOs (of which no good ones exist anymore). That's what I really like. I wouldn't pay for WoW, because that's not my thing. I might be willing to play for free, and I might enjoy it for what it is, but I wouldn't enjoy it as much as a Shadowbane-style game. I might enjoy D&DO, but that's because I've heard that it's basically pen-and-paper D&D rendered graphically, which I find really appealing. 
 
It's the same thing with single player RPGs. Dragon Age: Origins was a game I liked. I really enjoyed how the game played. But I really can't say it's my favorite style of game, regardless of how many hours I played it. I really prefer ARPG loot-a-paloozas, like Champions of Norrath, where you're constantly  getting newer, cooler weapons and armor and things.
 
Also, irrelevancy depends on perspective. SFIII might be irrelevant to the average gamer, but is it objectively irrelevant? I'd say no, because people do enjoy and like playing that game. SFIII is relevant to its fans.
 
I'd like to see some of these different styles of games resurrected. Because game design is now starting to branch out into smaller niches, similar to what TV is doing with cable networks versus the traditional, over-the-air networks, this can become a reality. And while I'm not going to tell you to care about those games that are completely out of touch from mainstream society, I'd ask you to let me care about them, and allow me to have my opinion on the problems/things I don't like about some of these massive-audience games that we see selling millions and millions of copies.
Avatar image for wickedfather
WickedFather

1694

Forum Posts

7

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

Edited By WickedFather

I'm so glad this post is here.  Kotor and Mass Effect 2 are not great games, they're 8/10 at best.  Their biggest drawback is that they're just too dry and dull and are a gameplay missmash that don't do any one thing really well.

Avatar image for ahoodedfigure
ahoodedfigure

4580

Forum Posts

41781

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 6

User Lists: 64

Edited By ahoodedfigure

I think where it all falls apart is where we play the terminology game.  If you remove generic terms and actually talk about what you like specifically, it gets clearer.  Just about everyone I've met has enjoyed slightly different aspects of what RPGs in all their forms have offered over the years.  When we say that we like RPGs because they have X, it's inevitable that you'll find someone to contradict it.
 
I play pen and paper games now and again, and even within THOSE, some of them emphasize crunchy, rules-heavy mechanics for dictating how the universe works with strategy and tactics sort of taking over playing sessions, and some of them are all about making stuff up as you go along, throwing in some random elements only to make things more interesting.  If someone forced me to to pick between one or the other and call it an RPG and the other something else, I'd rather walk away than answer since every one of them are, in some ways, connected to term RPG, whether or not that particular definition would appeal to anyone.
 
As to which kinds of games I prefer?  That's about opinion, and not quite the same topic.
 
I'm OK with these sorts of discussions, though, because I just like hearing about how diverse the opinions are.  Beyond that, I hope the subject never fully closes, since this kind of enthusiasm is rare.  Just don't pop a vein over it, everyone.

Avatar image for jimbo
Jimbo

10472

Forum Posts

2

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 3

Edited By Jimbo
@Hashbrowns said:

"The rulesets and basic game mechanics are NOT THEMSELVES Role Playing.  Role Playing is about choice, flexibility, and an ability to influence events in a meaningful way; it has nothing to do with Dexterity, Strength, Defense, or any other numerical statistic-based mechanic."

Well said and I absolutely agree.  I really do not understand the argument that says Mass Effect is no longer an RPG.  You are straight up Role Playing throughout the whole game.  RPG stands for "Role Playing Game", not "Loot & Stat Game".
 
Saying "It's not an RPG, it's a Shooter!" also makes no sense.  The terms are not mutually exclusive and they're referring to different aspects of the game.  It's like describing a car and saying "It's not a fast car, it's a blue car!" - no, the car is fast and blue.  ME2 is an RPG and a Shooter.  If that doesn't fit with our need to neatly pigeonhole games into one exact category, then we need to come up with more/better categories.
Avatar image for zagzagovich
zagzagovich

836

Forum Posts

1095

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 1

Edited By zagzagovich
@example1013: 
Aww c'mon dude. You can't go into that kind of terms. If I went into having a better appreciation of deep stuff because of having a unique perspective it wouldn't be an argument. For example: because I live in Russia and was born after the USSR crumbled I have expirienced in 10 years everything from ZX Spectrum to Playstation 2. There is literally no genre or video game era that I haven't experienced in some form while growing up. I learned English thanks to video games, I skipped school thanks to video games, I got and lost friends thanks to them, I failed some exams, wasted time, learned a lot of computer stuff ect. But I can't throw that as a point around. No matter how much I appreciate games, industry or even just the memories I have it doesn't give me anything more than a point of reference. I know how a ZX spectrum can catch spontaneously fire or how amazing was the first mission in C&C but why would that make me miss Space Sims? It's silly. Time passes. Games do become irrelevant. There was a passionate fanbase for SFIII but it was way to complicated for a new player. Space sims at one point used every key on the querty keyboard. Adventure games got to the point of developers insulting customers who didn't like to get stuck because they didn't pick up a stick in the begining of the game. When it comes to this point they become irrelevant. Temporarily but still. The only thing I'm asking is to not dismiss the games if they streamline things. Clear that mind frame. You can totally do it and enjoy the game for what it's worth.
Avatar image for onyxghost
onyxghost

405

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 4

Edited By onyxghost

Damn, Dave. I disagree. I like were RPG's are headed. KOTOR was a favorite of mine. Don't get me wrong I'm not calling you out. I just think the old way lasted a long ass time and it needed to change. This is just what it's changing into now. I also played DA and all the expansions. I also played Ultima Online...when it was new. I think as tech grows more accessiable to smaller pubs. we will see the return of CRPG's

Avatar image for example1013
Example1013

4854

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

Edited By Example1013
@ZagZagovich: I'm not really upset about Mass Effect not being a CRPG. I really think that, in this whole thread, ME has really just become the outlet for disappointment at the loss of the older style of games. Yes, older games, and older RPG systems, can be quite difficult to learn, and it's important to make games for people who don't have a frame of reference. But that doesn't mean that that style of game is in some way irrelevant today. There is still a market out there for that.
 
And when I say hardcore games, I mean games that are deep enough that it does take a long time to really understand and master them. COD ability comes with nothing but time. The only reason that I'm able to do well in COD is because I've been playing FPSes since Goldeneye came out the N64, including a long stint playing SOCOM 3 online. It has nothing to do with me personally. It's all about the fact that I've basically been conditioned to react, either with the trigger or the knife, over all those years. The game isn't very deep or hard to understand. In fact, I can sum up tactics in about a sentence: shoot the other guy first. Gameplay really doesn't get much deeper than that in COD (demo and the like just add one more: don't die before plant/defuse is finished).
 
But I'm really coming from a different place as a gamer than probably 90% of the people who play nowadays, which is probably why I have a taste for games that require a deep understanding of a complex system to play.
Avatar image for zagzagovich
zagzagovich

836

Forum Posts

1095

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 1

Edited By zagzagovich
@example1013: 
It was just an example of some powers. You get 6 skills for each of 6 classes, each one of them can be modified by reaching a maximum level plus you can adopt a unique skill out of any of your teammates with 32 powers in total with each having 2 variations. It is a lot of powers but since you only get 7 at once you can without problem decide what you want and how you want to upgrade it. None of these include ability to use certain weapons. Those are restricted to different classes and are not upgradeable as in the first game.
 
Also yes hand holding can be bad. Especially in games that you really don't need it that much like Legend of Zelda series where you have to run around a town doing fetch quests and tutorials on things you can get in seconds, but to be fair RPGs could use some better ways of teaching you how to play. Since most of the ideas behind how they work are not as understandable to people without the point of reference. Take Rogue for example. It's a simple bare bones dungeon crawler with what seems like a confusing and archaic interface. I've been avoiding rogue-likes for years because I had no idea how you were supposed to play them with every guide being made for so called "hardcore" gamers I just gave up and haven't touched them for years. But a few months back I found a remake of Sword of Fargoal. It was a straight remake with just some simple graphics and UI but in minutes I got everything I needed to know not just to play SoF but any rouge like out there. They may be more complicated but I understand the concepts behind them and that is all you need. That whole hardcore gamer nonsence just makes these kinds of games unaccessible to new audiences that, I should remind you, constantly appear with each generation getting older every day. You never have an inherent idea of how video games work so you got to learn it somewhere. That's why fighting games were dead before SF IV, that's why point and click adventure games were dead before telltale and so on with every dead genre. You got to account for new people and with complexity of old RPGs it's probably the hardest genre to explain to a new person.
 
Also you are drastically underestimating competitive players in new shooters. I bought Modern Warfare 2 only after a few weeks of it being out and I could never get even close to anyone in normal modes. Camping is the easiest way to get yourself killed since people know all the usual places where people camp. You got to be real fast and precise to get any kind of kill streak on there. At one point I had to just play the third person playlist because people can't make a fast switch between the first person and third person. And unrelated to competitive stuff the co-op mode in it is really good. especially on higher difficulties. I had a great time coordinating simultaneous sniper shots and finding a way to defend the building against hordes of enemies. All of that takes skill and writing it off as some kind of simple time waster would be pretty careless.
 
But all of that is unrelated to what I was trying to say in the first place. Mass Effect never was a CRPG. So there is no reason to be bitter about the second one not being it either. It's a completely competent third person shooter with pretty good implementation of RPG elements. Even if there is no way to fail in character creation those skills you update mix up your game in a fun way making an ordinary cover shooting system a more interesting and flexible one. Also comments on elder scrolls and fallout kind of threw me off. Especially when fallout is terrible if you play it as a shooter and elder scrolls is even worse if you play it brute force style. BUT THAT IS NOT IMPORTANT. NONE OF THIS IS. Just neat to rant about video games. You guys are great.
Avatar image for example1013
Example1013

4854

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

Edited By Example1013
@ZagZagovich:  Well, to reply to what you said to me:
 
How I see it is, there are things that are useful to one build/class that are completely useless to another. If you make something useful to everybody, then everybody is going to use it, and there will be less variety.
 
What you said about Mass Effect...those are general gameplay choices, and they effect how you play, but in all those options you listed, you only gave 2 directions to go in. When you have only 2 choices, it's fairly easy to make both choices viable. But what if you have 4 or 5? What about 10? It's much harder, if not impossible, to provide that kind of complexity, and still make every combination viable.
 
Of course Shadowbane was an intensely unique game, for a variety of reasons, which is why I can't completely relate to Dave's experiences through mine. But it brings me to another problem with newer games, along a similar line: hand-holding, safe, vanilla gameplay. WoW is the chief offender in the MMO world: players can't do anything of consequence, and the game is fairly safe overall. Many games share this issue, though. There really aren't many "hardcore" games left out there. And I'm not talking about masocore games, which are hard and frustrating by design, forcing the player to rote memorize routes and such to get through.
 
I'm talking about games that require patience and skill to really get good at, and be successful in. Games that require actual skill. Anyone can pick up CoD and get right into it. With a bit of effort and learning, they can figure out how to be largely successful, too (for instance, camping). Dragon Age is really easy to understand if you've ever played an RPG before, and there really aren't any complex gameplay mechanics to learn, or any deep strategies to dig into.
 
 The reason is probably because most players want easier, more accessible games, and so developers build games to suit those needs.Again, as Dave mentioned, though, this is where independent developers come in: they can develop to gamer niches like this, feeding a smaller, dedicated target audience, rather than having to appeal to the masses.
Avatar image for cptbedlam
CptBedlam

4612

Forum Posts

7

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

Edited By CptBedlam

I really like the the story and presentation of mass effect 1 & 2 that rivals and surpasses established sci-fi franchises like for example Star Wars.
 
And I really like shooters, too.
 
But Dave is right: ME(2) is a shitty and boring shooter. I'm about 35 hours in and it continuously makes me laugh how poorly the levels are designed. There is no surprise involved whatsoever. If you see walls for cover, it is 100% certain that a fight will break out there.
If Bioware had only put in some situations or missions that surprise you by NOT making you fight even though you expected it, It'd would've reduced this issue somewhat. 
But no, each and every mission that has the player carrying weapons is exactly the same: talk at the start, reach cover and fight, talk in the middle ("the target is on the other side of the valley/court/complex"), reach cover and fight, talk at the end. The formulaic nature of the missions It really pulls me out of the experience and the world.
 
Another example for the bad mission design are the "gear-up"- rooms that you encounter in between missions before bigger fights (yeah, I see this room and know immediately that there's some bigger fight coming up around the corner). They all have the same stuff in them - no matter what planet or what enemy you fight against. I also find it baffling how each alien race drops the same kind of ammo. That makes the enemies appear way less threatening in my opinion.

Avatar image for zagzagovich
zagzagovich

836

Forum Posts

1095

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 1

Edited By zagzagovich
@example1013: 
Sure. I get complexity and at some point depth but as you said out of 22 classes there were at least 2 viable builds and more than 12 at max. So all the other ones are non viable and there is no reason to use them. And if there is a better design why would you use a worse one? That thing really put me off on most of MMORPGs. There is always a better build than the one you create yourself and at best you get to reroll your character but usually you got to start over. That whole idea of builds that are better is just infuriating to me. It's as close to breeding genetically perfect people as we can get at this point. And I'm not a fan of that idea.

As I said previously I never got far into Dragon Age so I don't know about loose skill points but In Mass Effect 2 I haven't had that problem. Even though the skill tree is very limited you still have a choice of what kind of character you want to play. Do you want buffs or projectile powers? Do you want them to affect one dude hard or many dudes light? Do you want to disable them for some time so you can shoot through the shields and armor or give them some raw damage? You can't have all of them at once but any way you choose to upgrade is perfectly viable if you know how to use it. And if you don't, you can just reroll any character with a bit of money and see what you find good for you.
 
Also I find it that Dave sells strategic play in real-time games a bit short. It's like you never had to take out the mage in Diablo before dealing with his minions, or never had to shoot down a ton of small ships in a Shoot 'em up before shooting at the boss. Sure you rarely think about it as much as you would in a turn based game but you still do it, and it's still crucial to your survival. Even in Gears of War, that Dave dismissed as a game where you sit behind cover and shoot, as soon as you hear boomer approaching you know you need to kill him first or he would just blow you up cover or not. And on the other hand you have to kill smaller enemies like tickers before they get past your cover and self destruct. Sure, you sit behind cover and shoot but you still have to do all those strategic tricks that you would in an RPG. In last portion of HL2: Episode 2 you hunters shoot down your strider busters before they stick on striders so you have to kill them first. In pretty much every Shoot 'em up ever you benefit from taking out guns on bosses before trying to go for the weak spot. In DOOM you got to kill the archvile before the smaller enemies because he resurrects them. In Left 4 Dead you have to cooperate with your teammates to not startle the witch by ignoring her and not using flashlights. In all multiplayer shooters since the first quake you got to know the map and know how to use tricks like bunny hopping or rocket jumping to get ahead of others. I can go on and on. You have to use strategy in pretty much every real time game there is. I'm not even mentioning strategy games themselves. I get that he is talking more about having a party of characters and using their abilities on specific targets but Mass Effect 1 was never any good at that. The AI there was so bad that you were better of not giving it any commands at all. And the second game actually improved on that. You had a limited amount of powers so you could with ease manage all of yours and your teammate's in battle. Even combining them for better results.
 
I get that no one wants to see their favorite genre fade away and any kind of game that seems to replace it would bring out the poison but at some point you got to let go. Anger in general is not a good feeling to have but anger toward something good is worse. You can miss out on a lot of good new experiences just because you are so fond of old ones.
 
P.S.
About Normandy. It was way better than roaming around town having to load every house in search of actual quest people in games before radar maps.
Avatar image for example1013
Example1013

4854

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

Edited By Example1013
@ZagZagovich said:
" P.S. Since when not being able to gimp your character = meaningless RPG elements? Also why do you think that real time combat can't be strategic? "
The real problem isn't that you can't gimp your character. That's just a symptom of an underlying problem--lack of depth.
 
Look at Dragon Age: Origins. The Warrior  tree is so small that by level 22, I stopped leveling up (actively--I still gained XP and levels, I just didn't upgrade) because I actually had skill points that I couldn't spend on anything in my specialization. The only choice is really weapon type, and there aren't very many differences between them. 2 weapons deals a lot of damage with less mitigation, weapon/shield deals little damage with a lot of mitigation, 2h weapon is down the middle, and archery deals small amounts of damage from range. There aren't even any build design decisions past that, because you'll literally purchase and be able to use every single skill at higher levels.
 
What BioWare did is take out the choices that older, more complex progression systems force you to make in design, in the name of creating an ungimpable character. So now you've got vanilla character design--it's all the same flavor.
 
I never played CRPGs. In fact, the only true computer game I ever played was an MMO called Shadowbane. But that game had an extremely deep and complex character design system, to the point that it could realistically take a player a year to learn how to build a character that was even functional, nevermind optimal.
 
I'll give some stats, for an example in that game. Out of 22 classes, each had at least 2 viable builds, this being a minimum for only a few classes. The Warrior class had upwards of about 12 different viable design archetypes, not taking into account the more nuanced differences, such as subclasses and races. Unlike Dragon Age, where both str and dex figure into damage and attack, only one stat figured into both, depending on the weapon. So if you invested all your points into dexterity, but used a strength-based weapon, you'd be completely useless, and thus gimped.
 
But this allowed for more nuanced creation. Rather than just throwing points into whatever stats you wanted and coming out with a workable character, you had to make a choice. But this created more variety. Because rather than just, y'know, having all 2h warriors play the same, you could have 4 or 5 different ways to make a 2h warrior, and each one would play differently.
 
Simple character design is great for accessibility and getting people into the game quickly, but it's just that: simple. And for people who enjoy complex, strategic design that requires planning, modern choices just seem meaningless.
 
This, of course, doesn't even get into complexities in gameplay, like what Dave was talking about when he mentioned the whole take-out-the-wizard-first thing.
 
There were other tactics involved (like entire groups, as in 10 people or more, specced out for one type of fight, matching up opponents with a spec that can be effective, and a bunch of other stuff), so I don't share Dave's CRPG experience, but I know what it's like to play a really intricate, strategic RPG, versus what we have today, for better or for worse.
Avatar image for yothatlimp
YoThatLimp

2545

Forum Posts

329

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 6

Edited By YoThatLimp

This is like comparing the UK and US versions of the office, both great things, but both of the things in question are great for different reasons. 
 
On one side you have classic CRPG's and the other side you have a streamline experience like Mass Effect 2. 
 
I get bonnerific combat, stats, and rule sets on one hand, on the other I get a slick, cinematic, fun 3rd person cover based shooter. 
 I pause for both sides in this argument :P

Avatar image for aaronchance
aaronchance

150

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

Edited By aaronchance

The games market has become so mainstream that any sort of tactical or strategic play has been pushed entirely to the margins. Most people just don't have the patience for it, so no major publisher will invest in it, especially when it's a harder game to develop and balance compared to the 'fill the corridors full of cover ducking enemies' of Mass Effect 2. The scale of something like even the original Balder's Gate is beyond the quirky indie crowd, though I'm surprised all the European RPGs are action based and not at all tactical. Guess that style never took off there. When they do strategy, they like it so dense the average person can't even tell that it's a game. 
 
It's personally disappointing for me since I couldn't stand the characters and plot of Dragon Age. I thought it was the most trite, predictable bullshit I've ever been asked to stomach, full of moronic characters who act according to how the plot needs them to, instead of being the ones driving the plot forward as in all good stories. I really did enjoy the combat though. Maybe DA2 will borrow Mass Effect's storytelling ability AND NOTHING ELSE.

Avatar image for fattony12000
fattony12000

8491

Forum Posts

22398

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 4

Edited By fattony12000

I like games.

Avatar image for zagzagovich
zagzagovich

836

Forum Posts

1095

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 1

Edited By zagzagovich

Kind of get what you are saying but I can't relate. Never liked overly strategic games mostly because the payoff was never satisfying. Low res sprites with reused animations made combat in old RPGs really unappealing for me so besides Fallout 1/2 and Planescape I never finished any of them. Even with later ones like Neverwinter Nights I never got into it. Hell, I didn't even get 15 hours into Dragon Age. Rpg combat is too dependent on dice rolls to look exiting. I get that it's upsetting to see your favorite style of gaming go and be replaced with something completely different but you got to change your mindset when you play a game or else it will just get you angry. I was really disappointed when Deus Ex 2 came out but It was just for that reason. Recently I decided to replay them back to back and there really is nothing to be upset about with the second one. The first one is actually less enjoyable because of it's arcane design. 

Also Mass Effect one was as much of a shooter as the second one but bugged down with horrible inventory system and abilities that you could ignore. So I don't see any reason to be upset about the second one being more of a shooter. Besides it being developed by Bioware who did MDK 2 way before it... But I'm just trying to diffuse that bitterness to a game that really doesn't deserve it.
 
P.S.
Since when not being able to gimp your character = meaningless RPG elements? Also why do you think that real time combat can't be strategic?

Avatar image for wh1terav3n
wh1terav3n

622

Forum Posts

1611

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 2

User Lists: 15

Edited By wh1terav3n

I would say I agree with you, except I don't. Maybe I'm too young of a gamer (I'm 20), but I cut my teeth on KOTOR from an RPG standpoint. I do enjoy ME1 and KOTOR more than ME2, I feel like they streamlined it too much, but that said, ME2 is a fantastic game with a great world and great story. I'll be honest, I've tried some CRPGs, mainly Fallout 1 and Baldur's Gate 2, since Dragon Age on a console doesn't count IMO, and...I just don't like them. They're...I guess...they just require more time investment to LEARN how to play than I'm willing to give in my busy schedule.
 
I hope ME3 looks back to ME1 and KOTOR and finds a happy middle with ME2, but honestly I think ME3 will basically be a slightly upgraded, about the same depth ME2, which I'm actually perfectly okay with. I do agree with you that CRPGs are probably mostly dead, but I just don't think that the 20 and under generation cares much anymore.

Avatar image for sinkwater
Sinkwater

529

Forum Posts

486

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 3

Edited By Sinkwater

Japan and eastern europe will always make games that require tactics, strategy, careful character building, etc.   Hopefully.

Avatar image for natesaint
Natesaint

148

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 1

Edited By Natesaint

ME1 is a superior game to ME2 for many reasons, but ME2 is bioware melding into another genre. It has become their push into a shooter oriented market. I love both games, and I love shooters and RPG's so I was sated. A good game is a good game, screw what genre it is. ME3 will hopefully meld the best of the first two games, although I believe Bioware will continue to push it in the direction set by ME2.
Avatar image for muttersometaxicab
MuttersomeTaxicab

826

Forum Posts

5471

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 25

Agreed on absolutely every front.

Avatar image for mcghee
McGhee

6128

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 2

Edited By McGhee
@zoner said:
" @McGhee_the_Insomniac:  
  
"
HA! I know I gave you the "Good day, sir." But a Ren & Stimpy reference makes you alright in my book. XD  
+1
Avatar image for brendan
Brendan

9414

Forum Posts

533

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 7

Edited By Brendan

Why is everyone noting The Witcher as an old school CRPG?  That game was an easy as hell single character action focused RPG.   
 
EDIT:  Great game, just so it can be said.
Avatar image for deactivated-5e49e9175da37
deactivated-5e49e9175da37

10812

Forum Posts

782

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 14

Thinking about this topic more made me think about how young our medium is.  The games industry is 30-35 years old, which puts us somewhere in the Humphrey Bogart era if comparing to film.  I thought about how BioWare began making niche games, and did that well, and decided on their own volition that they wanted to take the elements of those niche games they enjoyed, and move them into more and more accessible formats.  It made me think of film directors and how their work changes throughout their careers/lives, and how most of our developers (directors) are so young in comparison.
 
I've heard mentions of how there's no room for AAA budget traditional CRPGs... there never really was.  The RPG as a genre is so widely accepted now that I think people forget how hard it was to get them made in the 90s.  It wasn't until Final Fantasy VII that the JRPG became something you'd put money behind, rather than a limited release thing for fans only.  Dave is right, it will take the indie developers who only want to create the kind of games they like for those throwbacks to reappear.  
 
From what I can tell, the things that Dave and others desire from those games are not the same thing I desire.  I desired the complex narratives and player interaction and choice that only they offered... I was not going to get meaningful dialogue or choice from action games of that era.  The grognard, hyper-complicated combat and punishing difficulty was simply a chore to master in order to get more of the story.  I feel the same way about modern JRPGs, like the Persona series.  Love the narrative, but the 'gameplay' is brutal.  Meanwhile, I went through Mass Effect 2 several times just so I could try different classes and see how they handle combat.  And yes, you have to completely change your philosophies playing an Engineer from playing a Soldier.  You have to think about who you're going to back yourself up with, and which powers you're going to upgrade.  At least on Veteran/Hardcore.