Most disappointing RPG of all time.

[QUOTE="musalala"]

[QUOTE="MikeMoose"]

I can't for the life of me figure out how Mass Effect 2 is supposed to be a dissapointment.

Eddie-Vedder

Mass effewct 2 and 3 were not rpg"s...More like action games with light RPG mechanics. Mass effect 1 was a RPG

How was Mass Effect 3 not a rpg? Its character developement and item system they took the best from both the first and second.. And that was the main complaint with ME2 in why people claimed it wasn't a rpg compared to the first..

Wow I cant believe I forgot Diablo 3... Maybe thats for good reason... man did they ruin that game

[QUOTE="NeonNinja"]

The Deep Roads was the best part.... :/

Yeah, I loved Dragon Age: Origins!

Sagem28

Same here.

Oghren is a true bro.

Final Fantasy XIII, probably.

Never actually played a Black Isle game. But even if one uses stats, levelling, and classes as the defining feature, it's there in the Mass Effect series, even in 2 and 3. It's just not a traditional set since it's contextual to the setting of the game. The series can't be disqualified based on that criteria.

But what I'm really saying is that while stats and levelling does have it's part in the genre (was never saying otherwise), neither is it the sole defining feature to what sets role playing games apart from other genres. Otherwise games like Force Unleashed and COD would also be RPGs.

Role playing is defined more by the experience you get from its game design beyond just mechanics alone. There are gameplay aspects that levelling and inventory doesn't always facilitate such as personal character growth, not just abilities but attitude & perspective, interaction with the world around you, and basically playing the game in such a way that the character is an extension of yourself. The core of role playing.

This can also work the other way as well, if a game lets you make choices or has branching story paths, but you still play with a static character, you don't evolve or develop them along the lines you want to make them an expression of your play style. So really RPGs need to be a combination of both plyer driven interaction as well as the means to grow your character (the levelling in what ever form it takes within the fiction).

AdobeArtist

Yeah, I know you haven't played a Black Isle game. Saying ME2 is an RPG does kind of, you know, give that away. Even according to your own description, ME2 and 3 are so ridiculously sterile compared to what any Black Isle game offers that labelling them the same would be like labelling New Vegas and Counterstrike the same as "FPS".

How do you go from the ridiculously limited binary choices ME has to "the character is an extension of yourself" then? What about the RPGs where character personalities are static like the majority of JRPGs on the SNES or games like World of Warcraft?

And more importantly, how come you say Pokèmon games aren't RPGs? They most definitely fit your description considering they're all about the experience, on top of having their own share of proper RPG mechanics, although the character dynamism and growth is implicitly done through building your own party rather than a shifting personality.

[QUOTE="DarkLink77"][QUOTE="siLVURcross"] Eh wasn't that bad. I felt certain parts were extremely dull, others pretty fun. Also I'm one of the few I guess who actually liked The Fade.NeonNinja

The Deep Roads was the best part.... :/

Yeah, I loved Dragon Age: Origins!

[QUOTE="AdobeArtist"]

Never actually played a Black Isle game. But even if one uses stats, levelling, and classes as the defining feature, it's there in the Mass Effect series, even in 2 and 3. It's just not a traditional set since it's contextual to the setting of the game. The series can't be disqualified based on that criteria.

But what I'm really saying is that while stats and levelling does have it's part in the genre (was never saying otherwise), neither is it the sole defining feature to what sets role playing games apart from other genres. Otherwise games like Force Unleashed and COD would also be RPGs.

Role playing is defined more by the experience you get from its game design beyond just mechanics alone. There are gameplay aspects that levelling and inventory doesn't always facilitate such as personal character growth, not just abilities but attitude & perspective, interaction with the world around you, and basically playing the game in such a way that the character is an extension of yourself. The core of role playing.

This can also work the other way as well, if a game lets you make choices or has branching story paths, but you still play with a static character, you don't evolve or develop them along the lines you want to make them an expression of your play style. So really RPGs need to be a combination of both plyer driven interaction as well as the means to grow your character (the levelling in what ever form it takes within the fiction).

N30F3N1X

Yeah, I know you haven't played a Black Isle game. Saying ME2 is an RPG does kind of, you know, give that away. Even according to your own description, ME2 and 3 are so ridiculously sterile compared to what any Black Isle game offers that labelling them the same would be like labelling New Vegas and Counterstrike the same as "FPS".

How do you go from the ridiculously limited binary choices ME has to "the character is an extension of yourself" then? What about the RPGs where character personalities are static like the majority of JRPGs on the SNES or games like World of Warcraft?

And more importantly, how come you say Pokèmon games aren't RPGs? They most definitely fit your description considering they're all about the experience, on top of having their own share of proper RPG mechanics, although the character dynamism and growth is implicitly done through building your own party rather than a shifting personality.

He said Pokemon is not an RPG? If so, Adobe, why should anybody take your opinion seriously on this matter if you seriously believe that?

[QUOTE="N30F3N1X"]

[QUOTE="AdobeArtist"]

Never actually played a Black Isle game. But even if one uses stats, levelling, and classes as the defining feature, it's there in the Mass Effect series, even in 2 and 3. It's just not a traditional set since it's contextual to the setting of the game. The series can't be disqualified based on that criteria.

But what I'm really saying is that while stats and levelling does have it's part in the genre (was never saying otherwise), neither is it the sole defining feature to what sets role playing games apart from other genres. Otherwise games like Force Unleashed and COD would also be RPGs.

Role playing is defined more by the experience you get from its game design beyond just mechanics alone. There are gameplay aspects that levelling and inventory doesn't always facilitate such as personal character growth, not just abilities but attitude & perspective, interaction with the world around you, and basically playing the game in such a way that the character is an extension of yourself. The core of role playing.

This can also work the other way as well, if a game lets you make choices or has branching story paths, but you still play with a static character, you don't evolve or develop them along the lines you want to make them an expression of your play style. So really RPGs need to be a combination of both plyer driven interaction as well as the means to grow your character (the levelling in what ever form it takes within the fiction).

GreySeal9

Yeah, I know you haven't played a Black Isle game. Saying ME2 is an RPG does kind of, you know, give that away. Even according to your own description, ME2 and 3 are so ridiculously sterile compared to what any Black Isle game offers that labelling them the same would be like labelling New Vegas and Counterstrike the same as "FPS".

How do you go from the ridiculously limited binary choices ME has to "the character is an extension of yourself" then? What about the RPGs where character personalities are static like the majority of JRPGs on the SNES or games like World of Warcraft?

And more importantly, how come you say Pokèmon games aren't RPGs? They most definitely fit your description considering they're all about the experience, on top of having their own share of proper RPG mechanics, although the character dynamism and growth is implicitly done through building your own party rather than a shifting personality.

He said Pokemon is not an RPG? If so, Adobe, why should anybody take your opinion seriously on this matter if you seriously believe that?

the most disapointing rpg ive ever played was xenosaga:zurwil dermacht

or something like that....disapointed in the battlesystem,and the characters were meh....the cutscenes are 2 long

[QUOTE="AdobeArtist"]

Never actually played a Black Isle game. But even if one uses stats, levelling, and classes as the defining feature, it's there in the Mass Effect series, even in 2 and 3. It's just not a traditional set since it's contextual to the setting of the game. The series can't be disqualified based on that criteria.

But what I'm really saying is that while stats and levelling does have it's part in the genre (was never saying otherwise), neither is it the sole defining feature to what sets role playing games apart from other genres. Otherwise games like Force Unleashed and COD would also be RPGs.

Role playing is defined more by the experience you get from its game design beyond just mechanics alone. There are gameplay aspects that levelling and inventory doesn't always facilitate such as personal character growth, not just abilities but attitude & perspective, interaction with the world around you, and basically playing the game in such a way that the character is an extension of yourself. The core of role playing.

This can also work the other way as well, if a game lets you make choices or has branching story paths, but you still play with a static character, you don't evolve or develop them along the lines you want to make them an expression of your play style. So really RPGs need to be a combination of both plyer driven interaction as well as the means to grow your character (the levelling in what ever form it takes within the fiction).

N30F3N1X

Yeah, I know you haven't played a Black Isle game. Saying ME2 is an RPG does kind of, you know, give that away. Even according to your own description, ME2 and 3 are so ridiculously sterile compared to what any Black Isle game offers that labelling them the same would be like labelling New Vegas and Counterstrike the same as "FPS".

How do you go from the ridiculously limited binary choices ME has to "the character is an extension of yourself" then? What about the RPGs where character personalities are static like the majority of JRPGs on the SNES or games like World of Warcraft?

And more importantly, how come you say Pokèmon games aren't RPGs? They most definitely fit your description considering they're all about the experience, on top of having their own share of proper RPG mechanics, although the character dynamism and growth is implicitly done through building your own party rather than a shifting personality.

Cats are not ducks, and Skyrim isn't a goddamn RPG (no 56k)

[QUOTE="N30F3N1X"]

[QUOTE="AdobeArtist"]

Never actually played a Black Isle game. But even if one uses stats, levelling, and classes as the defining feature, it's there in the Mass Effect series, even in 2 and 3. It's just not a traditional set since it's contextual to the setting of the game. The series can't be disqualified based on that criteria.

But what I'm really saying is that while stats and levelling does have it's part in the genre (was never saying otherwise), neither is it the sole defining feature to what sets role playing games apart from other genres. Otherwise games like Force Unleashed and COD would also be RPGs.

Role playing is defined more by the experience you get from its game design beyond just mechanics alone. There are gameplay aspects that levelling and inventory doesn't always facilitate such as personal character growth, not just abilities but attitude & perspective, interaction with the world around you, and basically playing the game in such a way that the character is an extension of yourself. The core of role playing.

This can also work the other way as well, if a game lets you make choices or has branching story paths, but you still play with a static character, you don't evolve or develop them along the lines you want to make them an expression of your play style. So really RPGs need to be a combination of both plyer driven interaction as well as the means to grow your character (the levelling in what ever form it takes within the fiction).

Yeah, I know you haven't played a Black Isle game. Saying ME2 is an RPG does kind of, you know, give that away. Even according to your own description, ME2 and 3 are so ridiculously sterile compared to what any Black Isle game offers that labelling them the same would be like labelling New Vegas and Counterstrike the same as "FPS".

How do you go from the ridiculously limited binary choices ME has to "the character is an extension of yourself" then? What about the RPGs where character personalities are static like the majority of JRPGs on the SNES or games like World of Warcraft?

And more importantly, how come you say Pokèmon games aren't RPGs? They most definitely fit your description considering they're all about the experience, on top of having their own share of proper RPG mechanics, although the character dynamism and growth is implicitly done through building your own party rather than a shifting personality.

Cats are not ducks, and Skyrim isn't a goddamn RPG (no 56k)

[QUOTE="Vaasman"]

Mass Effect 3. Anyone who disagrees is obviously a moron.

mems_1224

[QUOTE="AdobeArtist"]

Never actually played a Black Isle game. But even if one uses stats, levelling, and classes as the defining feature, it's there in the Mass Effect series, even in 2 and 3. It's just not a traditional set since it's contextual to the setting of the game. The series can't be disqualified based on that criteria.

But what I'm really saying is that while stats and levelling does have it's part in the genre (was never saying otherwise), neither is it the sole defining feature to what sets role playing games apart from other genres. Otherwise games like Force Unleashed and COD would also be RPGs.

Role playing is defined more by the experience you get from its game design beyond just mechanics alone. There are gameplay aspects that levelling and inventory doesn't always facilitate such as personal character growth, not just abilities but attitude & perspective, interaction with the world around you, and basically playing the game in such a way that the character is an extension of yourself. The core of role playing.

This can also work the other way as well, if a game lets you make choices or has branching story paths, but you still play with a static character, you don't evolve or develop them along the lines you want to make them an expression of your play style. So really RPGs need to be a combination of both plyer driven interaction as well as the means to grow your character (the levelling in what ever form it takes within the fiction).

N30F3N1X

Yeah, I know you haven't played a Black Isle game. Saying ME2 is an RPG does kind of, you know, give that away. Even according to your own description, ME2 and 3 are so ridiculously sterile compared to what any Black Isle game offers that labelling them the same would be like labelling New Vegas and Counterstrike the same as "FPS".

How do you go from the ridiculously limited binary choices ME has to "the character is an extension of yourself" then? What about the RPGs where character personalities are static like the majority of JRPGs on the SNES or games like World of Warcraft?

And more importantly, how come you say Pokèmon games aren't RPGs? They most definitely fit your description considering they're all about the experience, on top of having their own share of proper RPG mechanics, although the character dynamism and growth is implicitly done through building your own party rather than a shifting personality.

[QUOTE="AdobeArtist"]

Never actually played a Black Isle game. But even if one uses stats, levelling, and classes as the defining feature, it's there in the Mass Effect series, even in 2 and 3. It's just not a traditional set since it's contextual to the setting of the game. The series can't be disqualified based on that criteria.

But what I'm really saying is that while stats and levelling does have it's part in the genre (was never saying otherwise), neither is it the sole defining feature to what sets role playing games apart from other genres. Otherwise games like Force Unleashed and COD would also be RPGs.

Role playing is defined more by the experience you get from its game design beyond just mechanics alone. There are gameplay aspects that levelling and inventory doesn't always facilitate such as personal character growth, not just abilities but attitude & perspective, interaction with the world around you, and basically playing the game in such a way that the character is an extension of yourself. The core of role playing.

This can also work the other way as well, if a game lets you make choices or has branching story paths, but you still play with a static character, you don't evolve or develop them along the lines you want to make them an expression of your play style. So really RPGs need to be a combination of both plyer driven interaction as well as the means to grow your character (the levelling in what ever form it takes within the fiction).

N30F3N1X

Yeah, I know you haven't played a Black Isle game. Saying ME2 is an RPG does kind of, you know, give that away. Even according to your own description, ME2 and 3 are so ridiculously sterile compared to what any Black Isle game offers that labelling them the same would be like labelling New Vegas and Counterstrike the same as "FPS".

How do you go from the ridiculously limited binary choices ME has to "the character is an extension of yourself" then? What about the RPGs where character personalities are static like the majority of JRPGs on the SNES or games like World of Warcraft?

And more importantly, how come you say Pokèmon games aren't RPGs? They most definitely fit your description considering they're all about the experience, on top of having their own share of proper RPG mechanics, although the character dynamism and growth is implicitly done through building your own party rather than a shifting personality.

I see now in my last argument about RPGs being about the underlying experience beyond just the surface mechanics, that I was too vague about what the experience is that drives the RPG from other genres. And namely that is making you the player, as the character in the story and universe. This has as much to do with the divide between WRPGs and JRPGs, not just specifically to Mass Effect vs Pokemon.

In Pokemon and yes most JRPGs, the main character you control is their own character, already designed not just in outward appearance but in internal qualities - their motives, goals, desires, attitude, behaviors and so on. But is that really role playing, is the question I have posed numerous times. Role playing, as the name implies is about playing a role, which is findamentally different from merely being in control of a character.

This is what you get from WRPGs, not just ME but the Elder Scrolls games, Dragon Age, KOTOR, Baldur's Gate, and Witcher, among others. Instead of being given a pre-designed avatar, you're dropped into your own character that through your own interactions, are experiencing the world around you. You personalize your own character in which to live in the world, again both in outward appearance (in some cases race & gender) as well as your choices (from dialog to party interaction to quest goals fulfilled) that shape the attitude and motives of your character.

The character really is YOU. Isn't that what role playing should be? More importantly is that the kind of experience you get in Gears of War, Killzone, Halo, or Vanquish or any other shooter most people here compare Mass Effect with? This is why I always push that ME is more RPG than shooter. Yes, shooting is the main combat mechanic (along with biotics and tech for "spells") but that isn't Mass Effect's total gameplay experience. Because unlike Gears where you are given a predefined avatar in the form of Marcus Feenix, you interact with the universe of ME through your own character. Shepard is outwardly shaped by you (and choosing the gender changes how different NPCs relate to you) and his/her qualities are what you decide to imbue in your version of Shepard.

The flip side I brought up that still wasn't addressed; if mechanics are the primary definition of RPGs, does that make games like Force Unleashed and COD, that have levelling and in the case of COD classes, role playing games? I mean most people recognize COD as an FPS and Force Unleashed as an action adventure.

Oh and as for Pokemon, I knew that statement would bite me in the ass, but I guess nobody picked up on my satire :P. When I said "Why is Pokemon being brought up in an RPG discussion?" it was a parody of so many people making similar remarks of ME. I actually am aware that Pokemon is an RPG, in that very old school "traditional" manner akin to other 8bit and 16bit series of the time. But if people are so quick to dismiss ME based on a lack of old school mechanics (where in reality they are there in a reimagined sci-fi form) why not dismiss Pokemon for the lack of player driven character role playing?

[QUOTE="Jag85"]

This thread kind of sums up what the "role-playing" in "role-playing game" was originally supposed to mean:

Cats are not ducks, and Skyrim isn't a goddamn RPG (no 56k)

Dj-Dampleaf

Personally, I couldn't care less whether or not he thinks Skyrim is an RPG, but what the thread is correct in pointing out is what the term "role-playing" originally meant when the genre was created, not what people think it means now.

I see now in my last argument about RPGs being about the underlying experience beyond just the surface mechanics, that I was too vague about what the experience is that drives the RPG from other genres. And namely that is making you the player, as the character in the story and universe. This has as much to do with the divide between WRPGs and JRPGs, not just specifically to Mass Effect vs Pokemon.

In Pokemon and yes most JRPGs, the main character you control is their own character, already designed not just in outward appearance but in internal qualities - their motives, goals, desires, attitude, behaviors and so on. But is that really role playing, is the question I have posed numerous times. Role playing, as the name implies is about playing a role, which is findamentally different from merely being in control of a character.

This is what you get from WRPGs, not just ME but the Elder Scrolls games, Dragon Age, KOTOR, Baldur's Gate, and Witcher, among others. Instead of being given a pre-designed avatar, you're dropped into your own character that through your own interactions, are experiencing the world around you. You personalize your own character in which to live in the world, again both in outward appearance (in some cases race & gender) as well as your choices (from dialog to party interaction to quest goals fulfilled) that shape the attitude and motives of your character.

The character really is YOU. Isn't that what role playing should be? More importantly is that the kind of experience you get in Gears of War, Killzone, Halo, or Vanquish or any other shooter most people here compare Mass Effect with? This is why I always push that ME is more RPG than shooter. Yes, shooting is the main combat mechanic (along with biotics and tech for "spells") but that isn't Mass Effect's total gameplay experience. Because unlike Gears where you are given a predefined avatar in the form of Marcus Feenix, you interact with the universe of ME through your own character. Shepard is outwardly shaped by you (and choosing the gender changes how different NPCs relate to you) and his/her qualities are what you decide to imbue in your version of Shepard.

The flip side I brought up that still wasn't addressed; if mechanics are the primary definition of RPGs, does that make games like Force Unleashed and COD, that have levelling and in the case of COD classes, role playing games? I mean most people recognize COD as an FPS and Force Unleashed as an action adventure.

Oh and as for Pokemon, I knew that statement would bite me in the ass, but I guess nobody picked up on my satire :P. When I said "Why is Pokemon being brought up in an RPG discussion?" it was a parody of so many people making similar remarks of ME. I actually am aware that Pokemon is an RPG, in that very old school "traditional" manner akin to other 8bit and 16bit series of the time. But if people are so quick to dismiss ME based on a lack of old school mechanics (where in reality they are there in a reimagined sci-fi form) why not dismiss Pokemon for the lack of player driven character role playing?

AdobeArtist

Did you get that "experience" argument from the Extra Credit video on JRPG vs WRPG? Because I don't really see much value in it. "Experience" is something subjective, because we don't all play games for the same reasons. Some people may play Mass Effect for the combat or exploration, while others may play it for the character interactions ordating sim elements. If we're going to go on something as subjective as "experience", then we wouldn't really have a clear definition of what the genre is, not to mention it would be just as easy to confuse them with other genres (for example, action-adventures, graphic adventures, visual novels, dating sims, etc.). What has always defined video game genres is the mechanics, which can be defined objectively, not something subjective like "experience".

Like that thread I posted above pointed out, many people misunderstand what the term "role-playing" originally meant when the genre was created. What the term originally referred to was not "making choices", because that was something adventure games and visual novels did better (and arguably still do better to this day). What the term "role-playing" originally referred to was the class system, a concept that is slowly being abandoned by the RPG genre (WRPGs more so) in recent years. The "roles" you are playing in a traditional RPG is the different types of jobs/classes, each with their own advantages and disadvantages within the gameplay. In some of the more popular modern RPGs, it's no longer necessary to limit yourself to a specific "role", but they're becoming more like action-adventures, with less restrictions on what kind of "role" you play in terms of gameplay.

As for the JRPG and WRPG comparison, there was no clear distinction between them originally (and arguably there still isn't much distinction today). There was very little that differentiated the early Ultima and Final Fantasy games, for example. JRPGs and WRPGs both evoled over time and today have little in common with traditional JRPGs and WRPGs (both of which arguably had more in common with each other than they do with modern JRPGs or WRPGs).

Did you get that "experience" argument from the Extra Credit video on JRPG vs WRPG? Because I don't really see much value in it. "Experience" is something subjective, because we don't all play games for the same reasons. Some people may play Mass Effect for the combat or exploration, while others may play it for the character interactions ordating sim elements. If we're going to go on something as subjective as "experience", then we wouldn't really have a clear definition of what the genre is, not to mention it would be just as easy to confuse them with other genres (for example, action-adventures, graphic adventures, visual novels, dating sims, etc.). What has always defined video game genres is the mechanics, which can be defined objectively, not something subjective like "experience".

Like that thread I posted above pointed out, many people misunderstand what the term "role-playing" originally meant when the genre was created. What the term originally referred to was not "making choices", because that was something adventure games and visual novels did better (and arguably still do better to this day). What the term "role-playing" originally referred to was the class system, a concept that is slowly being abandoned by the RPG genre (WRPGs more so) in recent years. The "roles" you are playing in a traditional RPG is the different types of jobs/classes, each with their own advantages and disadvantages within the gameplay. In some of the more popular modern RPGs, it's no longer necessary to limit yourself to a specific "role", but they're becoming more like action-adventures, with less restrictions on what kind of "role" you play in terms of gameplay.

As for the JRPG and WRPG comparison, there was no clear distinction between them originally (and arguably there still isn't much distinction today). There was very little that differentiated the early Ultima and Final Fantasy games, for example. JRPGs and WRPGs both evoled over time and today have little in common with traditional JRPGs and WRPGs (both of which arguably had more in common with each other than they do with modern JRPGs or WRPGs).

Jag85

As a matter of fact I did see that Extra Creditz feature (on the whole they have very insightful commentaries) but they just worded differently philosophies I've been expressing for a few years here.

But in any case, to the part I highlighted, if you feel that is true, do you categorize COD and Force Unleashed as RPGs, as they incorporate mechanics of levelling and classes?

Perhaps another way to examine this; looking at mechanics out of context can be misleading. It's just as much the experience the developers are trying to achieve, both through mechanics and game design, that is just as relevant as the mecahnics on their own. Sure they have a bearing on the experience but are only part of the equation.

FF13 followed by DA2

the mass effect series are rpgs. if you think they aren't, that's not my problem, it's just your opinion, nothing more.

[QUOTE="Jag85"]

Did you get that "experience" argument from the Extra Credit video on JRPG vs WRPG? Because I don't really see much value in it. "Experience" is something subjective, because we don't all play games for the same reasons. Some people may play Mass Effect for the combat or exploration, while others may play it for the character interactions ordating sim elements. If we're going to go on something as subjective as "experience", then we wouldn't really have a clear definition of what the genre is, not to mention it would be just as easy to confuse them with other genres (for example, action-adventures, graphic adventures, visual novels, dating sims, etc.). What has always defined video game genres is the mechanics, which can be defined objectively, not something subjective like "experience".

Like that thread I posted above pointed out, many people misunderstand what the term "role-playing" originally meant when the genre was created. What the term originally referred to was not "making choices", because that was something adventure games and visual novels did better (and arguably still do better to this day). What the term "role-playing" originally referred to was the class system, a concept that is slowly being abandoned by the RPG genre (WRPGs more so) in recent years. The "roles" you are playing in a traditional RPG is the different types of jobs/classes, each with their own advantages and disadvantages within the gameplay. In some of the more popular modern RPGs, it's no longer necessary to limit yourself to a specific "role", but they're becoming more like action-adventures, with less restrictions on what kind of "role" you play in terms of gameplay.

As for the JRPG and WRPG comparison, there was no clear distinction between them originally (and arguably there still isn't much distinction today). There was very little that differentiated the early Ultima and Final Fantasy games, for example. JRPGs and WRPGs both evoled over time and today have little in common with traditional JRPGs and WRPGs (both of which arguably had more in common with each other than they do with modern JRPGs or WRPGs).

AdobeArtist

As a matter of fact I did see that Extra Creditz feature (on the whole they have very insightful commentaries) but they just worded differently philosophies I've been expressing for a few years here.

But in any case, to the part I highlighted, if you feel that is true, do you categorize COD and Force Unleashed as RPGs, as they incorporate mechanics of levelling and classes?

Perhaps another way to examine this; looking at mechanics out of context can be misleading. It's just as much the experience the developers are trying to achieve, both through mechanics and game design, that is just as relevant as the mecahnics on their own. Sure they have a bearing on the experience but are only part of the equation.

[QUOTE="AdobeArtist"]

[QUOTE="Jag85"]

Did you get that "experience" argument from the Extra Credit video on JRPG vs WRPG? Because I don't really see much value in it. "Experience" is something subjective, because we don't all play games for the same reasons. Some people may play Mass Effect for the combat or exploration, while others may play it for the character interactions ordating sim elements. If we're going to go on something as subjective as "experience", then we wouldn't really have a clear definition of what the genre is, not to mention it would be just as easy to confuse them with other genres (for example, action-adventures, graphic adventures, visual novels, dating sims, etc.). What has always defined video game genres is the mechanics, which can be defined objectively, not something subjective like "experience".

Like that thread I posted above pointed out, many people misunderstand what the term "role-playing" originally meant when the genre was created. What the term originally referred to was not "making choices", because that was something adventure games and visual novels did better (and arguably still do better to this day). What the term "role-playing" originally referred to was the class system, a concept that is slowly being abandoned by the RPG genre (WRPGs more so) in recent years. The "roles" you are playing in a traditional RPG is the different types of jobs/classes, each with their own advantages and disadvantages within the gameplay. In some of the more popular modern RPGs, it's no longer necessary to limit yourself to a specific "role", but they're becoming more like action-adventures, with less restrictions on what kind of "role" you play in terms of gameplay.

As for the JRPG and WRPG comparison, there was no clear distinction between them originally (and arguably there still isn't much distinction today). There was very little that differentiated the early Ultima and Final Fantasy games, for example. JRPGs and WRPGs both evoled over time and today have little in common with traditional JRPGs and WRPGs (both of which arguably had more in common with each other than they do with modern JRPGs or WRPGs).

ReadingRainbow4

As a matter of fact I did see that Extra Creditz feature (on the whole they have very insightful commentaries) but they just worded differently philosophies I've been expressing for a few years here.

But in any case, to the part I highlighted, if you feel that is true, do you categorize COD and Force Unleashed as RPGs, as they incorporate mechanics of levelling and classes?

Perhaps another way to examine this; looking at mechanics out of context can be misleading. It's just as much the experience the developers are trying to achieve, both through mechanics and game design, that is just as relevant as the mecahnics on their own. Sure they have a bearing on the experience but are only part of the equation.

While every game has you controlling a character, not every game has you defining a character, nor allowing you to interact with the world around you through your character. So there's a world of difference between controlling a character (most action adventure games) and role playing through your character.

But in any case, to the part I highlighted, if you feel that is true, do you categorize COD and Force Unleashed as RPGs, as they incorporate mechanics of levelling and classes?

AdobeArtist

THat's why COD and FU are action games with some RPG elements, instead of RPGs.

[QUOTE="ReadingRainbow4"][QUOTE="AdobeArtist"]

AdobeArtist

While every game has you controlling a character, not every game has you defining a character, nor allowing you to interact with the world around you through your character. So there's a world of difference between controlling a character (most action adventure games) and role playing through your character.

CRPG? It's more choosing your own adventure than role-playing, and many CRPG choices are fluffs which have no "real consequences," feels more like larping alone with the develeopers holding your hands, than larping with others in presence recongnizing your roleplaying.

FFVII - I was expecting much more...and i was dissapointed with it, i mean its a great game and even if i played it after its release i enjoyed it, there are some great moments like the infamous Aerith death and the music was quite good too...however i was just expecting more, i keep saying that VIII was the game VII should have been.

FFXIII - Again, i liked it, but i was expeting more, the battle system is fantastic and its quite possible one of the prettiest games i've played, but it was lacking on other things like characters, music, plot and structure of the game.

I'm sure there are more, but those are at the top of my head right now.

Diablo III. That game makes me a saaad panda.

CRPG? It's more choosing your own adventure than role-playing, and many CRPG choices are fluffs which have no "real consequences," feels more like larping alone with the develeopers holding your hands, than larping with others in presence recongnizing your roleplaying.

ghostofzabis

In reality, what got translated from DnD into videogame format was the ruleset, not the gamemaster role. And that's a good thing, because there are pen and paper adventures that are completely linear, you can also find crap GM, which won't allow you any freedom. But even then you will still be playing pen and paper RPG, just not particularly good session of it.

[QUOTE="Jag85"]

Did you get that "experience" argument from the Extra Credit video on JRPG vs WRPG? Because I don't really see much value in it. "Experience" is something subjective, because we don't all play games for the same reasons. Some people may play Mass Effect for the combat or exploration, while others may play it for the character interactions ordating sim elements. If we're going to go on something as subjective as "experience", then we wouldn't really have a clear definition of what the genre is, not to mention it would be just as easy to confuse them with other genres (for example, action-adventures, graphic adventures, visual novels, dating sims, etc.). What has always defined video game genres is the mechanics, which can be defined objectively, not something subjective like "experience".

Like that thread I posted above pointed out, many people misunderstand what the term "role-playing" originally meant when the genre was created. What the term originally referred to was not "making choices", because that was something adventure games and visual novels did better (and arguably still do better to this day). What the term "role-playing" originally referred to was the class system, a concept that is slowly being abandoned by the RPG genre (WRPGs more so) in recent years. The "roles" you are playing in a traditional RPG is the different types of jobs/classes, each with their own advantages and disadvantages within the gameplay. In some of the more popular modern RPGs, it's no longer necessary to limit yourself to a specific "role", but they're becoming more like action-adventures, with less restrictions on what kind of "role" you play in terms of gameplay.

As for the JRPG and WRPG comparison, there was no clear distinction between them originally (and arguably there still isn't much distinction today). There was very little that differentiated the early Ultima and Final Fantasy games, for example. JRPGs and WRPGs both evoled over time and today have little in common with traditional JRPGs and WRPGs (both of which arguably had more in common with each other than they do with modern JRPGs or WRPGs).

AdobeArtist

As a matter of fact I did see that Extra Creditz feature (on the whole they have very insightful commentaries) but they just worded differently philosophies I've been expressing for a few years here.

But in any case, to the part I highlighted, if you feel that is true, do you categorize COD and Force Unleashed as RPGs, as they incorporate mechanics of levelling and classes?

Perhaps another way to examine this; looking at mechanics out of context can be misleading. It's just as much the experience the developers are trying to achieve, both through mechanics and game design, that is just as relevant as the mecahnics on their own. Sure they have a bearing on the experience but are only part of the equation.

Regarding COD and Force Unleashed, it depends on which mechanics play a bigger role in the game. They may have levelling mechanics, but are they central to the game design like they are in, say, Mass Effect or Final Fantasy? Also, I'm not quite sure what you mean about COD and Force Unleashed having "classes"? Because I was more referring to job roles rather than weapon classes.

Either way, the "experience" you are referring to can be quantified in a more objective way. If certain mechanics are more central to the game design than others, then that more or less equates to the kind of "experience" the developers may have been intending.

Star Ocean 4 - worst plot, characters, and dialogue in an RPG ever!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

One of the few games I never completed...and I would rather eat sh*t than finish that rubbish.

Adobe why do you always bring in the PnP definition of RPG? Those tabletop games are different than RPGs in gaming and thus they should be separated.

[QUOTE="ghostofzabis"]

CRPG? It's more choosing your own adventure than role-playing, and many CRPG choices are fluffs which have no "real consequences," feels more like larping alone with the develeopers holding your hands, than larping with others in presence recongnizing your roleplaying.

AdrianWerner

In reality, what got translated from DnD into videogame format was the ruleset, not the gamemaster role. And that's a good thing, because there are pen and paper adventures that are completely linear, you can also find crap GM, which won't allow you any freedom. But even then you will still be playing pen and paper RPG, just not particularly good session of it.

Video game rpgs are only partial imitations of table rpg due to the hardware limitation, that's why it should be categorized as crpg.

Even with crap DM with linear campaign, there should be more actions that can be performed.

For example, in a bar fight, what can you do with a table?

You may lift it and throw the table at others. You may lift the table then smash it against others. You can flip it, kick it, throw it out of windows to catch attention, etc; depending on the severity you've caused, it may have different results. In crpg, due to the limitation, the most thing you can do with a table is "move it" with no actual results, hide behind it as cover, or destroy it and (might) get hostile. But that's too much to ask for I think for a crpg I guess. :P

Consequences from choices in crpg are also usually extremely limited. There are games that no matter what you choose, you'll get the definite ending, which means your choices have no real consequences. These kind of games may make games into several segments, after each "turning point" your previous actions became nullflied. You might destroy a town at the end of a chapter, however whether destroying the town or not usually has no actual consequences in the later games. (at best it's just referred, a minor quest/character, or shown on a slidebar) You don't get back to visit the town, there won't be nations / major factions hostile against you due to your cruelty, there wouldn't be ingame economical changes due to your action (this can be handled just by a few sentences and different item categories, but still rarely to been seen), etc.

ie. In DAO no matter what you chose in the prologue, you'll become grey warden. Lots of choices become nullifed after you became Grey Warden (though some are still briefly mentioned) In TW2, no matter what you chose, Nilfgaard invade north kingdom. Kill the town leader / king has little to no consequences once you reach the next chapter. (maybe it gets mentioned in 1 or 2 sentences? didn't notice)

Personally, I think if a crpg is really trying to be as RPGish as possible, I would imagine it to be a sandbox strategy game/character free-roaming with world timed events goint on. So depend on your actions, you may trigger some events, may stop some events, and some randomness of npc may also cause certain events not happening. If you join a faction that is involved with certain world events, you may see it differently from the inside view and might even have some choice altering them, instead of just knowing it happen with brief information. The thing is even without your interferring, the world should still feel dynamic with npc trade/ warfare / negotiation / and set events triggered by either time, presence of certain npcs in x locations, occupation of certain location by set countries, etc. Most RPG seem to center on the main character's triggering too much. There are no npc adventurers going to dungeons when you sleep for a year, npcs don't war till you say so, npcs won't trade unless you visit them, etc.

Surely there are still limitations on the hardware, however at least it's possible to roleplay more easily imo. While the nations are at war, you may just play as a farmer / smith / pirates / adventurer / merchant / shop keeper / bandits/ etc. and beat the game without interferring the war, if you prefer a more military life, your character can join x faction through enlisting/hiring/recommendation of npcs with positions.

For example, in a bar fight, what can you do with a table?

You may lift it and throw the table at others. You may lift the table then smash it against others. You can flip it, kick it, throw it out of windows to catch attention, etc; depending on the severity you've caused, it may have different results. In crpg, due to the limitation, the most thing you can do with a table is "move it" with no actual results, hide behind it as cover, or destroy it and (might) get hostile. But that's too much to ask for I think for a crpg I guess. :P

ghostofzabis

That's too much to ask from most mainstream PnP RPGs though, as they have to rulesets for such actions. Heck...stuff like DnD4 is bassicaly designed to be played with figures, on grid map, which is bassicaly like a turn-based combat taken live from.

ie. In DAO no matter what you chose in the prologue, you'll become grey warden. Lots of choices become nullifed after you became Grey Warden (though some are still briefly mentioned) In TW2, no matter what you chose, Nilfgaard invade north kingdom. Kill the town leader / king has little to no consequences once you reach the next chapter. (maybe it gets mentioned in 1 or 2 sentences? didn't notice)ghostofzabis

Which is fine point, except most official printed adventures are exactly like that. Some of the very best campaigns ever written (Orient Express, Last Supper etc) were just like that.

Personally, I think if a crpg is really trying to be as RPGish as possible, I would imagine it to be a sandbox strategy game/character free-roaming with world timed events goint on. So depend on your actions, you may trigger some events, may stop some events, and some randomness of npc may also cause certain events not happening.

ghostofzabis

Personally, I think if a crpg is really trying to be as RPGish as possible, I would imagine it to be a sandbox strategy game/character free-roaming with world timed events goint on. So depend on your actions, you may trigger some events, may stop some events, and some randomness of npc may also cause certain events not happening.

AdrianWerner

(dunno how to quote separately)

As long as DM rules it, it can be done. :P

Personally I found many written adventure paths more of an adventure with RPG elements. Maybe I simply prefer sandbox?

Yeah, I don't think being a full rpg is ever possible without a DM. And even with a DM, (s)he might disallow certain criminal acts such as arson, rape, and certain offensive behaviours. Online game has a better chance resembling a RPG than a single-player game since each other player is also "dming" in certain perspective within the developers' set world campaign, compared to single player games where the dm is only the devlopers.