RPG purists.

[DVS Storm]

Well people have been complaining a lot about Mass Effect 2 and Dragon Age 2(even though it isn't out yet). Mainly because they are not "proper RPGs". Too linear or dumbed down or whatever expression people use. I personally love Mass Effect 2 and I'm really looking forward for Dragon Age 2(Dragon Age:Origins is awesome too). I don't really care if the game is a bit simpler but there are of course people who start shouting about it in the forums(such as the Escapist). Now everyone has their opinions but seriously??? The game is automatically shit if you don't have manage your stats or queue your attacks?? Of course I'm talking about RPG purists. I've got nothing personal against them but I'm just really fucking annoyed because of their behavior(of course we are all individuals but this is just a general picture that I've noticed). For example the conversations about ME2's genre. I see no point in debating over it. It is a RPG and if you think of it, it actually isn't that much simpler than the first ME or Jade Empire(actually Jade Empire is the most linear Bioware RPG imo). But well I hope that this isn't gonna start another falme war(it will but still). What do you people think? Is it that bad if the game a bit more linear and what do you think about purists in general?

EDIT: I'm not saying that the style of these games is a right way to go. I personally would like to have more options than two when you are choosing something important. Well at least the choices in DA or ME aren't THAT black and white(in some situations of course but at least they are not as bad as in Fable 3).

 

[THAC0]

For me, the last good rpg was most likely Phantasy Star 4 on the genesis.

So I guess that makes me about as purist as you can get, and i don't have a problem with games like ME or DA. They are fun and good examples of what you can do with the PRG genre...if that is what you are into.

 

[ChupathingyX]

To me RPG's have always been about being able to choose everything about your character. You should be able to join whoever you want and fight however you want. Now I havn't played Mass effect but I think what people might be angry at is that you are forced to be the captain or whatever of the Normandy and you have to be "Shepard".

But like I said I havn't played it so I wouldn't know for sure, correct me if I'm wrong.

 

[Le_Lisra]

"Yes."

Thing is, your behavior, OP, annoys the people that annoy you just as much.

There are things worth debating and there things that are not, and this clearly isn't.

 

[King Crab]

forget about being an rpg purist or any bullshit like that. I just don't like mass effect or mass effect 2 as games. I ain't critisizing people who do or anything, just that I played them, and thought they were boring. same goes for DA origins.

I'll put it this way; I've played through Arcanum almost twenty times, and I keep going back to baldurs gate, but once I finished DA I uninstalled it and havn't even thought of playing it again.

 

[D_987]

Well people have been complaining a lot about Mass Effect 2 and Dragon Age 2(even though it isn't out yet).

Well the dumbing down of RPG elements are a part of the issue, but the major point is that Mass Effect 2, as far as RPG's go, is just a bad game...part of the reasoning behind that is the lack of depth, and why the hell would you want to bring this topic up again when it was debated, extensively in other threads [http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/9.256641-Mass-Effect-is-not-an-RPG?page=1]?

 

[DVS Storm]

"Yes."

Thing is, your behavior, OP, annoys the people that annoy you just as much.

There are things worth debating and there things that are not, and this clearly isn't.

Yeah I thought a while before I made this thread. I don't really think that I'm above them or a better person.

 

[archvile93]

To me RPG's have always been about being able to choose everything about your character. You should be able to join whoever you want and fight however you want. Now I havn't played Mass effect but I think what people might be angry at is that you are forced to be the captain or whatever of the Normandy and you have to be "Shepard".

But like I said I havn't played it so I wouldn't know for sure, correct me if I'm wrong.

How many RPGs let you actually do that? None of the old school ones I remember, and even the most open ones (Bethesda) railroad you into the unchanging main plot, or I just missed the part that gives you the option to side with the world destroying psychopath (and even in the very few cases that I've seen that do, it just gives you a non standard game over or it's right at the end so you just get a cutscene). Which ones do? I'm actually curious.

 

[Velocity Eleven]

there doesnt even seem to be any consensus as to what "RPG" even means... The main thing I despise about lots of western RPGs though is how you're forced to make lots of "decisions" that only affect the storyline rather than a strategy that advances the gameplay. I seriously couldn't play Dragon Age more than 20 minutes because by that point the game just felt like a cutscene that I needlessly had to put effort into

 

[DVS Storm]

Butthurt because people think you have low standards, OP?

Rhetorical question.

Thing is, some people want depth in their gameplay. Having a meaningful loot and skill system helps a lot. Mass Effect series has neither, Dragon Age only has a skill system. And it's borked as hell.

Those are basic RPG elements and as I said I have nothing against other peoples opinions. Just the way they express them.

 

[Jaranja]

To me RPG's have always been about being able to choose everything about your character. You should be able to join whoever you want and fight however you want. Now I havn't played Mass effect but I think what people might be angry at is that you are forced to be the captain or whatever of the Normandy and you have to be "Shepard".

But like I said I havn't played it so I wouldn't know for sure, correct me if I'm wrong.

How many RPGs let you actually do that? None of the old school ones I remember, and even the most open ones (Bethesda) railroad you into the unchanging main plot, or I just missed the part that gives you the option to side with the world destroying psychopath. Which ones do? I'm actually curious.

Mount & Blade.

 

[Link XL1]

To me RPG's have always been about being able to choose everything about your character. You should be able to join whoever you want and fight however you want. Now I havn't played Mass effect but I think what people might be angry at is that you are forced to be the captain or whatever of the Normandy and you have to be "Shepard".

But like I said I havn't played it so I wouldn't know for sure, correct me if I'm wrong.

i dont know of anyone having a problem with being called shepard. the only reason they did it was so that the npcs could call you something, instead of mysteriously never saying your name out loud (neverwinter nights 2). it fit in nicely with giving the player a voice actor.

the only requirement of an RPG is that it be a Role Playing Game (its kinda in the name). to be an RPG you should be able to make decisions and you should be able to customize your character to a degree (this is something Borderlands failed at, and thus i call it an FPS/Hack n Slash).

as far as being linear goes... well, that makes no difference! if a game is linear that doesnt mean it worse then a nonlinear game, or an open world game. so basically the Mass Effect games are equally RPGs and 3rd person shooters. and Dragon Age (while i was disappointed with the first one) is a perfectly fine RPG.

 

[Netrigan]

If they were truly RPG purists, they'd reject the video games as a simplification of D&D in the first place

I'm currently playing Dragon Age and the one thing that I think the game does poorly is combat. 90% of the time, it's fine, but the moment you start using any sort of run-and-gun tactics you notice that the combat system is operating under very funny rules. I've been hit by punches thrown across the room, because when the punch started, the die had been cast... I was going to get hit for 28 damage, no matter where I was in relation to the attacker when the punch actually landed. It gives the illusion of real-time combat, but if you've ever tried to use basic guerrilla tactics like shoot and retreat, you discover that you're taking all sorts of impossible damage. I've actually taken crossbow bolts from behind walls, because I happened to be running past a doorway when the attack started. I'm pretty sure I've even taken damage *after* a fight was over, because there were still a couple of attacks queued up... unless there's some other explanation as to why my character is going "oh" and a shower of blood is erupting from her.

Improved combat mechanics are needed in these games. Certainly not a really simplified combat system like Fable II & III have (which I consider a fantasy sandbox game, not an RPG). I thought Fallout 3 had a pretty decent system, which added the VATS system on top of a system that utilized accuracy rates. I'd also recommend they use the Call Of Duty 4 auto-lock-on system when aiming for players who don't have the real-life combat skills. Anything that makes the basic mechanics simple enough for anyone, while relying on character builds for success. Mind you, any proper combat system will reward better reflexes, but that's what difficulty levels are for.

 

[Caspertjuhh]

I am a mass effect fan, and I only play games since ME1. But, i do agree that multiple choices are more important than more combat. I might make a long post later this night, but now I have to stop. BYE

 

[Torrasque]

I just don't like RPGs that are not fully customizable.
ME was fun, mostly because the gameplay was fun, the story was alright, and there was alot of side-tracking, but it wasn't one of the "ZOMG AMAZING RPG!!!!"s that I like to collect, because you can't really control shit all about your crew. Their equipment, their talents, their play-style, and a few minor things here and there, but thats it.

I like games like Ogre Battle 64, or Oblivion, where you get to control every facet of your character, and for the most part, the people that you give a damn about.

People are entitled to their own opinions, so let them play what they want.
I'll argue that the only "true" RPG that exists is class DnD, and every other RPG is doin it rong.

 

[Nimcha]

Well people have been complaining a lot about Mass Effect 2 and Dragon Age 2(even though it isn't out yet).

Well the dumbing down of RPG elements are a part of the issue, but the major point is that Mass Effect 2, as far as RPG's go, is just a bad game...part of the reasoning behind that is the lack of depth

Lack of depth? Seriously? How much more depth do you want?

 

[Anti Nudist Cupcake]

Those games were fun but mass effect forced you to be a certain character and the choices weren't nearly as broad as in, for instance fallout 3.
The Dialog from shepard sucks too, he decides for himself what he wants to say.
And in mass effect 2, you don't have an inventory.

How is this roleplaying? I like those games, but they are not my idea of an rpg.

And dragon age had ALL the classic rpg elements but the combat ruined it for me.

 

[Trildor]

I think one of the primary things lacking from most RPGs these days is the lack of meaningful choice as far as the story goes, as well as the lack of options when presented with certain situations.

In Fallout 2, for example, your actions had impact and there was always a number of ways to solve any given problem.

 

[DVS Storm]

And dragon age had ALL the classic rpg elements but the combat ruined it for me.

Yeah the combat was pretty bad. I mostly hate the fact that someone hit you with a melee weapon even though you were across the room if the attack was started before you started to move. And sometimes it was pure clusterfuck.