Thursday, February 11, 2010
Mass Effect 2: The Future of RPGs?
I haven't played Mass Effect 2 yet. I haven't even finished Mass Effect 1 yet. It was kinda fun, but didn't really suck me in very much. But the hype surrounding Mass Effect 2 makes it sound like it's a whole new deal! Matthew Erazo of GamerNode writes an article putting Mass Effect 2 on a pretty high pedestal:
Why Mass Effect 2 Is the Future of RPGs
In it, he explains how Mass Effect 2 has corrected all of the mistakes of the RPG genre, which he explains, "is so riddled with cliches and rip-offs that it no longer knows what message or experience it wants to deliver. RPGs are supposed to deliver rich stories, interesting characters, and engaging worlds to explore, yet they are so bogged down by useless micromanagement, xeroxed stories, and boring characters."
Um, yeah. Bad games abound in every genre which have those problems. But I want to see how Mass Effect 2 does this all better than everyone else. This could be worth taking notes on! Let's see what makes Mass Effect 2 so awesome. It sounds like this is something I can't wait to play!
Let's roll and see what the future holds:
#1 - No More Stereotypical Characters!
"Each character in your crew, with the exception of two, are fleshed out and have histories, personalities, and demons. What begins as simple characterization leads to deep conversations about past lives and mistakes. Every time I spoke with a one of my crew, I learned something new or helped with their loyalty mission, which shed even more light on them.Most RPGs don't even approach this kind of character development. They are copies of previous roles, with personalities that are common to their profession."
I'm with ya here, Matthew! But I don't think this is a future / past issue - merely a quality issue which a lot of great RPGs of the past have shared.
Although most don't focus quite so deeply on talking with NPCs repeatedly over time to plumb the depths of their character history. That brings up some scary memories of me being cornered at a game store by some kid who hasn't had a bath in at least a week telling me all about his character. I kept saying, "That's nice," while pretending to be fascinated by those books that were a little closer to the door...
Still, while not unique to Mass Effect 2, it sounds like they did a good job here, to which I will offer a speculative "bravo" based on someone else's review. Awesome.
#2 - Player-Driven Story
"Yet in ME2, you can alter the story based on your choices. You're not bound to any strict storyline. You can choose to gain your crews' loyalty, or you can choose to not care about any of them, just the mission. Yes, there is a base plot here, but you can build your own story with it."
Awesome. Truly open-ended, dynamic player-driven stories! This is one of the goals from my old "What makes a great RPG?" article series. Of course, we've had a lot of games where you could run through basically the same storyline with a significantly different flavor based on choices (for example, the way of the Jedi or the way of the Sith?), and we've had games with big changes to the endings based on choices throughout the game (Fallout, for example). And games where you could really chart your path through the story very differently (Deus Ex). But where you could truly alter the entire story based on your choices? This is something of a holy grail, and I'm glad to hear ME2 finally pulled it off. I wasn't sure it would be done in my lifetime.
#3 - The End of Cutscene Dialogs and Evil Dialog Trees
In ME2,"the dialogue wheel allows for flowing conversation." As far as conventional dialog trees, he says "While this does work if the characters aren't backed by voice actors, when there are abrupt pauses in conversations, it takes you right out of the experience."
Okay - the problems I perceive with dialog trees really has nothing at all to do with whether or not voice actors are involved. Is this much improved over the dialog wheel in Mass Effect 1? While that was an interesting variation on the dialog-tree theme, it was still very much just a dialog tree.
But hey, maybe ME2 is different and they did something really cool with it, as he seems to be talking about something totally different here. Outstanding!
#4 - No More Inventory!
"You never have to keep track of your inventory, or gather tons of loot that will serve no purpose other than to be traded for currency later."
Um... okay. I kinda like loot. Hell, that was pretty much the entire gameplay of Diablo II, and I sank way too many hours into that game than I'd like to admit. It was.... what was that word again? Oh, yeah. "Fun."
But I agree that a game doesn't need to have an inventory system to be a great RPG. I mean, I was a hardcore fan of the dice-and-paper RPG "Champions" (before it became an MMO) way back in the early 80's, and there was really no inventory in that game either. And it rocked. But I more than just hesitate to state that it's anything that should be done away with or evolved away from.
#5 - No More Stats! They Are Bad, Too!
Other RPGs "...are so weighed down by confusing combat systems and the always-imposing thought that you can break your character at anytime. Trying playing through the original Fallout or Fallout 2 without some sort of character guide so you don't make a useless build. Or take a look at Arcanum's character screen. While the game's story, world, and character progression are excellent, there are about 20+ stats that you can build, all of them vague and confusing. You never know which one to really build or where to invest. It's overwhelming and is just not fun at times."
Hey, I didn't use a character guide...
But I agree that staring at a big complicated character creation page without a firm idea of what's in store in the game going forward can be intimidating. I mean, sure, if I was playing old-school D&D, I'd use Charisma as my dump stat, but I don't know about this game...
But hey, it sounds like I may be philosophically in the same ballpark here. You should not be able to "break" your character just because you didn't realize that Underwater Basket Weaving wasn't ever going to be used in the game. I think the stats and character building aspects of a game should be part of the fun! RPGs should help players get over the hump to where the prospect of leveling fills the player with excitement and a sense of empowerment over the plethora of options they have to make their character More Awesome and give them a totally unique approach to tackling the challenges of the game --- all of which should be viable. Neat!
So does Mass Effect 2 manage to accomplish this RPG Nirvana? Let's see:
"Instead of having countless stats which lead to countless ways to break your character, each crew member has around six powers to upgrade."
Oh.
#6 - Fixed Progression!
"There is no loot, and money and experience are set, guaranteeing your steady progression through the game. You'll never encounter a boss that is a higher level than you, forcing you to go and grind to try to level up."
And here I was thinking that having the game auto-scale the encounters to your level was bad. Instead, we auto-scale your level to the encounters.
This is progress?
#7 - In the future, RPGs Will Be First-Person-Shooters!
"And by making combat a straight shooter, you don't have to worry about pumping stats into helping you aim or worrying about mana/energy to use powers. The combat is endemic to your skill, and powers are governed by a simple cooldown, allowing you to focus on the action."
...
Uh...
*blink*
My, look at the time! I just remembered I have some library books I have to return, or something.
Labels: Mainstream Games, Roleplaying Games
- posted by The Rampant Coyote @ 5:13 AM (Permalink)
Comments:
Links to this post:
<< Home
I thought the idea RPG allowed you to invent your main character yourself, or, at least, his name.
# posted by 
: February 11, 2010 9:36 AM
: February 11, 2010 9:36 AM
What some people see as the pinnacle of RPGs, others of us see as a very well-done, story-based shooter with RPG elements. While the article goes on about choices, I've been cognizant throughout my entire playthrough of ME2 that I could very easily write a script that would make it so I don't have to interact with the conversations at all (i.e., play all INVESTIGATE options, then pick the Paragon option). The desire to move to cinematic conversations with fully voiced, frequent back and forth between the PC and NPCs vastly limits the number of actual choices they can give to the player.
Likewise, streamlining the skill system reduces choices both obviously (in that you're raising a half dozen skills by 4 levels instead of a dozen by 20 levels) but also in that all of them are now ways to do damage. In ME1, you could make a decision to focus on attack skills, defense skills, or utility skills, and your class made a difference in how many of each you got. Now, the question is mainly what kind of damage you want to do and how often you want to do it (i.e., two lower level powers you can cycle through, or one higher level one).
It's a very good game, and a lot of fun, but I'd argue that in the case of making the game more cinematic than the last one, they've made a game that's less of an RPG than the last one. And I think, as many tabletop gamers have known for decades, the urge to tell an overarching narrative is very hard to coordinate with the freedom of players to actually portray their characters.
Likewise, streamlining the skill system reduces choices both obviously (in that you're raising a half dozen skills by 4 levels instead of a dozen by 20 levels) but also in that all of them are now ways to do damage. In ME1, you could make a decision to focus on attack skills, defense skills, or utility skills, and your class made a difference in how many of each you got. Now, the question is mainly what kind of damage you want to do and how often you want to do it (i.e., two lower level powers you can cycle through, or one higher level one).
It's a very good game, and a lot of fun, but I'd argue that in the case of making the game more cinematic than the last one, they've made a game that's less of an RPG than the last one. And I think, as many tabletop gamers have known for decades, the urge to tell an overarching narrative is very hard to coordinate with the freedom of players to actually portray their characters.
ME2 is an entertaining enough film to put up with how boring the actual game is - heretic that I am, I find shooters about as entertaining as mowing the lawn, and in some respects ME2's combat is a step backward from the original, with the pointless addition of ammo clips. The tremendous reduction in power cooldowns makes up for this to an extent, since you can usually find something to do while you run around the battlefield trying to collect enough ammo to reload.
On a couple of specific points:
ME2 is a fine example of the "slightly different flavour, same basic storyline" model of game design. You start at A, wander freely around the alphabet for a bit, and invariably end up at X. The only real degree of variation in the story is how many of your crew you bothered to recruit and how many got killed in cutscenes leading up to the Climactic Moment, making them unavailable when you choose your two companions for the Big Final Fight Scene. And it's a little disheartening to know that your decision when you get to the Big Ethical Dilemma at the end will be pretty much meaningless when ME3 rolls around; regardless of your choice, it will end up getting reduced to a couple of lines of dialogue in the tutorial. On the upside, you're likely to see lots of minor changes to dialogue and encounters in ME3 based on how you handled minor NPCs and certain quests in ME2, which makes the world feel more "real".
The dialogue wheel is pretty much identical to the original - the one new touch is 'interrupts', moments when you can click a mouse button to derail the current conversation by acting (this could range from shooting the person you're talking with to giving them a hug). A nice incremental improvement, nothing revolutionary, but fun.
Inventory management...a trade-off. On the upside, every upgrade you find is meaningful. On the downside, the resource-gathering required is, literally, painfully boring if you're prone to RSI, since it requires you to hold down the RMB and wave your mouse around a lot.
The lack of stats isn't quite as grim as it sounds - again, every point you spend results in a meaningful upgrade, which is nice. Unfortunately there aren't many abilities to upgrade and there are a lot of points to upgrade them with, so any two characters of the same class will look (and play) very, very similarly, especially at higher levels.
On a couple of specific points:
ME2 is a fine example of the "slightly different flavour, same basic storyline" model of game design. You start at A, wander freely around the alphabet for a bit, and invariably end up at X. The only real degree of variation in the story is how many of your crew you bothered to recruit and how many got killed in cutscenes leading up to the Climactic Moment, making them unavailable when you choose your two companions for the Big Final Fight Scene. And it's a little disheartening to know that your decision when you get to the Big Ethical Dilemma at the end will be pretty much meaningless when ME3 rolls around; regardless of your choice, it will end up getting reduced to a couple of lines of dialogue in the tutorial. On the upside, you're likely to see lots of minor changes to dialogue and encounters in ME3 based on how you handled minor NPCs and certain quests in ME2, which makes the world feel more "real".
The dialogue wheel is pretty much identical to the original - the one new touch is 'interrupts', moments when you can click a mouse button to derail the current conversation by acting (this could range from shooting the person you're talking with to giving them a hug). A nice incremental improvement, nothing revolutionary, but fun.
Inventory management...a trade-off. On the upside, every upgrade you find is meaningful. On the downside, the resource-gathering required is, literally, painfully boring if you're prone to RSI, since it requires you to hold down the RMB and wave your mouse around a lot.
The lack of stats isn't quite as grim as it sounds - again, every point you spend results in a meaningful upgrade, which is nice. Unfortunately there aren't many abilities to upgrade and there are a lot of points to upgrade them with, so any two characters of the same class will look (and play) very, very similarly, especially at higher levels.
Mass Effect 2 is wonderful but it doesn't live up to THAT kind of hype.
No dice rolls? Awesome. No useless stats or abilities? Awesome. Dialogue trees that don't result in awkward pauses? Awesome. No inventory management? Awesome. Well-written, well-voiced characters? Awesome.
But the story isn't dynamic or emergent or anything. It's much like Mass Effect 1: Each location presents you with some problems, which you can solve in Good Guy or Bad Guy fashion. You can choose which locations to visit in which order. This is hardly groundbreaking.
The downside of having really, really small skill and inventory trees is that everyone plays pretty much the same. Because you have such a large cast, you'll get a new power or gun on a regular basis, but if you like to play games with a "favorite team", it gets boring very quickly.
No dice rolls? Awesome. No useless stats or abilities? Awesome. Dialogue trees that don't result in awkward pauses? Awesome. No inventory management? Awesome. Well-written, well-voiced characters? Awesome.
But the story isn't dynamic or emergent or anything. It's much like Mass Effect 1: Each location presents you with some problems, which you can solve in Good Guy or Bad Guy fashion. You can choose which locations to visit in which order. This is hardly groundbreaking.
The downside of having really, really small skill and inventory trees is that everyone plays pretty much the same. Because you have such a large cast, you'll get a new power or gun on a regular basis, but if you like to play games with a "favorite team", it gets boring very quickly.
A bit of going after low hanging fruit, innit? Reviewing a review?
ME2 is a great game and the shooting action is significantly improved from ME1 but in terms of gameplay it's not different in any kind of paradigm shifting way.
The biggest, most significant thing ME2 does from an RPG innovation point of view (and I'm not saying it's the first game to do it, but certainly the biggest-budget one), however, is the carrying over of your decisions from ME1.
Note, I'm not talking about importing a characters stats/equipment/etc. which is somewhat common, but an actual record of the decisions which you make ME1 will affect what you see in ME2. It's not just major decisions like whether you played the first one as a renegade or paragon or let a particular NPC die or not; even really minor decisions were apparently built into the save structure of ME1 and carried over. Without a completed ME1 save game in which certain decisions were made, there is content in ME2 that you will never see.
ME2 is pretty thrilling and impressive from that standpoint, because even though your choices mostly boil down to picking dialogue tree options, the continuity really casts the whole trilogy as one game.
ME2 is a great game and the shooting action is significantly improved from ME1 but in terms of gameplay it's not different in any kind of paradigm shifting way.
The biggest, most significant thing ME2 does from an RPG innovation point of view (and I'm not saying it's the first game to do it, but certainly the biggest-budget one), however, is the carrying over of your decisions from ME1.
Note, I'm not talking about importing a characters stats/equipment/etc. which is somewhat common, but an actual record of the decisions which you make ME1 will affect what you see in ME2. It's not just major decisions like whether you played the first one as a renegade or paragon or let a particular NPC die or not; even really minor decisions were apparently built into the save structure of ME1 and carried over. Without a completed ME1 save game in which certain decisions were made, there is content in ME2 that you will never see.
ME2 is pretty thrilling and impressive from that standpoint, because even though your choices mostly boil down to picking dialogue tree options, the continuity really casts the whole trilogy as one game.
@juv3nal - hey, I go after what I have the intellectual capacity to handle. Low hanging fruit it is! (Though it's not exactly a review...)
I do like the continuity thing though. ME2 does sound like a pretty impressive game... enough so that it makes me want to try and finish ME1.
But the roadmap of the evolution of RPGs as explained in the article leaves me a little cold. Sounds like a grand evolution for the FPS, to my ears, but not the RPG.
I am really, really glad that role-playing games like ME1 and ME2 (and Deus Ex, etc.) exist. I've yet to have one really grab me - yes, including Deus Ex - but I think they are cool. But I think they represent very interesting variants, not milestones leading in a single direction.
I do like the continuity thing though. ME2 does sound like a pretty impressive game... enough so that it makes me want to try and finish ME1.
But the roadmap of the evolution of RPGs as explained in the article leaves me a little cold. Sounds like a grand evolution for the FPS, to my ears, but not the RPG.
I am really, really glad that role-playing games like ME1 and ME2 (and Deus Ex, etc.) exist. I've yet to have one really grab me - yes, including Deus Ex - but I think they are cool. But I think they represent very interesting variants, not milestones leading in a single direction.
I'd go further and say that the important decisions in ME1, in terms of their impact on ME2, were precisely the small ones. Save/kill the Council? Makes no real difference. Save/kill Wrex? Same. Choice of sacrifices on Virmire? No real impact.
How did you deal with the corrupt bureaucrat on Noveria? How did you conclude your dealings with the would-be crimelord Helena Blake? How did you deal with Conrad Werner? The answers to these questions have a much bigger effect on ME2 than any of the "major" choices.
How did you deal with the corrupt bureaucrat on Noveria? How did you conclude your dealings with the would-be crimelord Helena Blake? How did you deal with Conrad Werner? The answers to these questions have a much bigger effect on ME2 than any of the "major" choices.
Let me allow my elitist roots to show for a minute. Role Playing Games were, originally, an offshoot of wargaming, which was a hobby for the IQ 125+ crowd (read anything Dunnigan, et al. have written about the old SPI feedback results). The intended audience *liked* playing with the numbers. I, myself, spent literally dozens of hours building characters for Darklands, a very stat-heavy CRPG.
Unfortunately, the intersection of IQ 125+ folks with time and disposable income is rather limited. If you want mass success, you need to drive down to the lowest common denominator. Fewer stats, then, and dumb it down in general.
That being said, I *like* ME2, unlike say, Dungeon Siege (which I once said was to a real CRPG as an inflatable sex doll was to a real girlfriend), which reduced the stats to a minimum, too.
Good storytelling makes up for a multitude of sins, and ME2 has some memorable moments of humor and pathos. Throw in a few interesting tactical challenges, and it becomes a pleasant time-sink.
Unfortunately, the intersection of IQ 125+ folks with time and disposable income is rather limited. If you want mass success, you need to drive down to the lowest common denominator. Fewer stats, then, and dumb it down in general.
That being said, I *like* ME2, unlike say, Dungeon Siege (which I once said was to a real CRPG as an inflatable sex doll was to a real girlfriend), which reduced the stats to a minimum, too.
Good storytelling makes up for a multitude of sins, and ME2 has some memorable moments of humor and pathos. Throw in a few interesting tactical challenges, and it becomes a pleasant time-sink.
# posted by : February 11, 2010 12:43 PM
: February 11, 2010 12:43 PM
BWAH! Just found out that Brainy Gamer has an article up saying about the same thing, with a more informed opinion (having played ME2). Ah, well. I'm going to invoke the "great minds think alike" dodge...
Mass Effect 2 is fun, but certainly not the mystic holy grail of RPG design.
As pointed out by other people, I don't think there is any one design that qualifies a game as an RPG other than taking on a role and making significant choices for a character that have consequences.
I do find myself agreeing with the article about how tired and trite many RPGs have become. It seems we're constantly playing in a world or game that is essentially Tolkien Homage #798 (Now with NEW window dressing!). I always welcome RPGs with unique and novel (or at least not run into the ground) settings. Mass Effect, VtM: Bloodlines, and Earthbound are all examples of RPGs that dared to do something different. Even Arcanum cut and pasted enough elements around to make something new and engaging from the same old Tolkien mold.
In respect to inventories in RPGs, it all comes down to what works best for an individual game. Unlike some, I don't consider having stats or a collection of 99 McGuffins necessary to identifying an experience as an RPG.
And to be honest the inventory system in Mass Effect 1, at least on the Xbox360 was a horrid mess and one of the most prominent examples of interface failure I've ever seen. Not having to deal with it in Mass Effect 2 was a blessing.
Mass Effect as a series is all about conversations and choices and shooting in a sci-fi universe. Streamlining the focus down to that was a big improvement.
I used to act in theatre, even doing some professional plays that had rehearsals 5-6 hours a day for months on end before running for 3-4 months with the public. That's role-playing, and anything not a prop that furthers the story or authenticity of the scene is dead space and unneeded.
Mass Effect 2 is just an RPG that doesn't believe in micromanagement.
D&D and its kin descended from table-top war games with a lot of stats and numbers to keep track of, first for units and armies, then for individual characters. It is a type of management and numbers game that seems to scratch the same itch as city-building games, but can sometimes be very removed from "role-playing" in the strict dictionary definition of the word. It pains me to see some gamers that decry the use of the label "RPG" for any game that doesn't have endless numbers, menus, and inventories.
I have a whole rant on the general reliance forcing every game into a genre at all, buts that's for another day.
Loved the demo/public test of "Frayed Knights" by the way. It seemed to be a deconstruction and parody of common Tolkien-style RPG tropes that I found very enjoyable. Keep it going in that direction and it'll be unique enough for a buy from me!
As pointed out by other people, I don't think there is any one design that qualifies a game as an RPG other than taking on a role and making significant choices for a character that have consequences.
I do find myself agreeing with the article about how tired and trite many RPGs have become. It seems we're constantly playing in a world or game that is essentially Tolkien Homage #798 (Now with NEW window dressing!). I always welcome RPGs with unique and novel (or at least not run into the ground) settings. Mass Effect, VtM: Bloodlines, and Earthbound are all examples of RPGs that dared to do something different. Even Arcanum cut and pasted enough elements around to make something new and engaging from the same old Tolkien mold.
In respect to inventories in RPGs, it all comes down to what works best for an individual game. Unlike some, I don't consider having stats or a collection of 99 McGuffins necessary to identifying an experience as an RPG.
And to be honest the inventory system in Mass Effect 1, at least on the Xbox360 was a horrid mess and one of the most prominent examples of interface failure I've ever seen. Not having to deal with it in Mass Effect 2 was a blessing.
Mass Effect as a series is all about conversations and choices and shooting in a sci-fi universe. Streamlining the focus down to that was a big improvement.
I used to act in theatre, even doing some professional plays that had rehearsals 5-6 hours a day for months on end before running for 3-4 months with the public. That's role-playing, and anything not a prop that furthers the story or authenticity of the scene is dead space and unneeded.
Mass Effect 2 is just an RPG that doesn't believe in micromanagement.
D&D and its kin descended from table-top war games with a lot of stats and numbers to keep track of, first for units and armies, then for individual characters. It is a type of management and numbers game that seems to scratch the same itch as city-building games, but can sometimes be very removed from "role-playing" in the strict dictionary definition of the word. It pains me to see some gamers that decry the use of the label "RPG" for any game that doesn't have endless numbers, menus, and inventories.
I have a whole rant on the general reliance forcing every game into a genre at all, buts that's for another day.
Loved the demo/public test of "Frayed Knights" by the way. It seemed to be a deconstruction and parody of common Tolkien-style RPG tropes that I found very enjoyable. Keep it going in that direction and it'll be unique enough for a buy from me!
# posted by : February 11, 2010 1:18 PM
: February 11, 2010 1:18 PM
I'm roughly half-way through ME2 and I agree with your views here. Mass Effect 1 and 2 are what I prefer to call Action RPGs. If this is the future of RPGs then good night! I love RPGs that are full of stats and inventory and loot and stuff. That doesn't mean that these should be bothersome but cutting such things away gives Mass Effect a very bland taste in many ways. The characters and environments in ME stand out but the rest of it? I wouldn't call this progress!
Another thing I noticed is that Mass Effect got actually too realistic and immersive for my taste. Simply put the realistic graphics, animations and voice acting doesn't leave much room for my own imagination. It's more like watching a movie, just with the added feature that you can influence to story.
Another thing I noticed is that Mass Effect got actually too realistic and immersive for my taste. Simply put the realistic graphics, animations and voice acting doesn't leave much room for my own imagination. It's more like watching a movie, just with the added feature that you can influence to story.
I like when people call Deus Ex an RPG. Because to me it looks like an FPS with some RPG elements :-P (and yes i like the game and have played it).
Such things make me think that really nobody knows what a (computer) RPG is really about and the genre is probably the less well defined one.
Such things make me think that really nobody knows what a (computer) RPG is really about and the genre is probably the less well defined one.
Although most don't focus quite so deeply on talking with NPCs repeatedly over time to plumb the depths of their character history. That brings up some scary memories of me being cornered at a game store by some kid who hasn't had a bath in at least a week telling me all about his character. I kept saying, "That's nice," while pretending to be fascinated by those books that were a little closer to the door...
I'm a little disappointed to read this comment here. If there's one thing that a "role-playing" game should seek to simulate above all else, it's deep characterization and the potential for complex, emergent relationship dynamics between characters. But it sounds to me like you're playing the "smelly nerd" card on anyone who values that as a goal for CPRGs, while defending your own definition of "RPG" as something like "stat-heavy inventory management game".
Look, feel free to like Diablo and to laugh at anyone who tries to bring deep characterization and dynamic relationships between characters to a video game (which Bioware has done a better job of than just about anyone, although The Sims does it better within a different set of constraints). But don't defend your position by saying that you like "role-playing" games. Obviously the idiosyncratic history of the term "RPG" leads to some semantic conflicts like the one I'm pointing out here, but I think you ought to be a little less dismissive of people who use the literal, rather than historical, meaning of the term.
I'm a little disappointed to read this comment here. If there's one thing that a "role-playing" game should seek to simulate above all else, it's deep characterization and the potential for complex, emergent relationship dynamics between characters. But it sounds to me like you're playing the "smelly nerd" card on anyone who values that as a goal for CPRGs, while defending your own definition of "RPG" as something like "stat-heavy inventory management game".
Look, feel free to like Diablo and to laugh at anyone who tries to bring deep characterization and dynamic relationships between characters to a video game (which Bioware has done a better job of than just about anyone, although The Sims does it better within a different set of constraints). But don't defend your position by saying that you like "role-playing" games. Obviously the idiosyncratic history of the term "RPG" leads to some semantic conflicts like the one I'm pointing out here, but I think you ought to be a little less dismissive of people who use the literal, rather than historical, meaning of the term.
# posted by : February 12, 2010 9:18 AM
: February 12, 2010 9:18 AM
Personally, the more customization of characters a game offers (not just physical appearance, but the whole gambit of powers, stats, skills, etc), the more I enjoy it.
Perhaps I'm just old school.
Perhaps I'm just old school.
@Anonymous #3 ---
There are levels. My preference is actually somewhere in the middle of the road between the two extremes. I wasn't intending to be dismissive, just illustrating that while it's definitely cool and admirable, there are reasons why this should not be considered a yardstick by which other games should be judged.
And, unfortunately, the incident I was referring to here was actually one of two very, very real occurrences. I remember thinking at the time, "Holy cow, I've been attacked by a stereotype!"
There are levels. My preference is actually somewhere in the middle of the road between the two extremes. I wasn't intending to be dismissive, just illustrating that while it's definitely cool and admirable, there are reasons why this should not be considered a yardstick by which other games should be judged.
And, unfortunately, the incident I was referring to here was actually one of two very, very real occurrences. I remember thinking at the time, "Holy cow, I've been attacked by a stereotype!"
Wrote my personal opinion about ME2 here: http://blog.hexagonstar.com/mass-effect-2-the-future-of-rpgs/ Check it out!
Sorry, if this were indeed the 'future of RPG's' there would be a way to complete the story without shooting ANYTHING.
Honestly, I definitely think it's the future of First person shooters. It adds depth and cuts out the baloney admirably... But RPG means 'role playing game', and I don't neccessarily consider 'trimming the fat' to be a virtue for role playing games.
Post a Comment
Honestly, I definitely think it's the future of First person shooters. It adds depth and cuts out the baloney admirably... But RPG means 'role playing game', and I don't neccessarily consider 'trimming the fat' to be a virtue for role playing games.
# posted by : February 17, 2010 7:00 PM
: February 17, 2010 7:00 PMLinks to this post:
<< Home
