Mass Effect 3 - Twice the dialogue of the first two games?

And that is YOUR definition. To others an RPG is something else entirely.

Humor me then DN… What is your definition? Oh and that was just a tiny part of my own definition of "RPG", there are obviously different sub-genres like aRPG where the whole player vs character skill discussion is moot.

There most assuredly are characteristics intrinsic to what constitutes a "RPG". Unless the definition you apply is inclusive to the point that it has no meaning when assigning it to a game… If every game is an RPG, as you seem to suggest is quite possible, then no game is an RPG. At that point it is an irrelevant qualifier as it fails to provide an accurate description.

RPG elements is such a useless buzzword to me these days. Pretty much every game has "RPG elements".

I couldn't agree more, that is the sentiment I was hoping to evoke from at least one person. Be careful though, your opinions are subjective and thus entirely irrelevant to the users who disagree with you… There is no point in expressing yourself - expression, civil discourse and logic are subjective.

Originally Posted by DoctorNarrative
Quality is subjective and pretty irrelevant. The point is half their staff are still making the same style of party-based pausable tactical RPG. It's not like they completely dropped that style of game to make Mass Effect, they make both.

DA2 was not tactical, it was throwing completely random waves at the player. Bioware themselves have admitted as much.

Originally Posted by DoctorNarrative
Quality is subjective and pretty irrelevant. The point is half their staff are still making the same style of party-based pausable tactical RPG. It's not like they completely dropped that style of game to make Mass Effect, they make both.

How is it irrelevant? Basically, you are trying to say, individual's taste does not matter. You do realise its that individuals who makes up the whole group, and for developers it's that individuals that they need to satisify to make sales.

Originally Posted by Motoki
DA2 was not tactical, it was throwing completely random waves at the player. Bioware themselves have admitted as much.

If you play on hard or nightmare it requires tons of strategy to succeed. I'm not really going to debate that, because it is a fact. If you play in those modes and run around whacky-whacky style you won't last 30 seconds.

People seem to think because DA2 is flawed it is automatically terrible, or because it is faster it is automatically an action game. I find these conclusions pretty preposterous.

Originally Posted by purpleblob
How is it irrelevant? Basically, you are trying to say, individual's taste does not matter. You do realise its that individuals who makes up the whole group, and for developers it's that individuals that they need to satisify to make sales.

You're not taking my comments as the response they were intended to be at all. The person was implying Bioware switched from Baldur's Gate 2 style games to making shooters like Mass Effect. I was simply pointing out that Dragon Age is the same genre/style of game as BG2 and KOTOR, even if you personally dislike the quality of it or the changes they made to it.

The entire point is that Bioware did not abandon that style of game at all.

Originally Posted by DoctorNarrative
If you play on hard or nightmare it requires tons of strategy to succeed. I'm not really going to debate that, because it is a fact. If you play in those modes and run around whacky-whacky style you won't last 30 seconds.

People seem to think because DA2 is flawed it is automatically terrible, or because it is faster it is automatically an action game. I find these conclusions pretty preposterous.

It's such a fact that Bioware went out of their way to point out that the combat wasn't tactical prior to their last patch and that unlike the base game, the expansion made combat tactical. Yeah that's a fact.

Also, your definition of still making "the same kind of game" is extremely broad.

Originally Posted by DoctorNarrative
The point is half their staff are still making the same style of party-based pausable tactical RPG.

Essentially DA2 is the same type of game as Baldur's Gate because it utilizes party based, real time, pausable combat. By that definition some JRPGs are the same type of game as Baldur's Gate. It's basically like saying that all turn based RPGs are the same type of game or all action combat based RPGs are the same type of game.

At any rate, you will come back with some bla bla bla nonesense because you are always right and everything you say is a fact, while what others say is subjective.

Originally Posted by MasterKromm
Humor me then DN… What is your definition? Oh and that was just a tiny part of my own definition of "RPG", there are obviously different sub-genres like aRPG where the whole player vs character skill discussion is moot.

There most assuredly are characteristics intrinsic to what constitutes a "RPG". Unless the definition you apply is inclusive to the point that it has no meaning when assigning it to a game… If every game is an RPG, as you seem to suggest is quite possible, then no game is an RPG. At that point it is an irrelevant qualifier as it fails to provide an accurate description.

My definition of RPG is pretty irrelevant, though I will provide it below. The point is that you do not define what an RPG is and then it becomes law. You say that without a firm definition the term has no meaning, but obviously that is an exaggeration just to make some kind of snarky jab. RPG implies stats, exploration, dialogue trees and other such things, even if the focus on those things varies in intensity from one RPG to another.

Some people seem to think an RPG is and always will be the original pen and paper games like D&D, and that the closer a videogame comes to emulating that the more RPG it is. This is just as silly as saying a true comedy movie is Charlie Chaplain and that anything varying too much from that is not a real comedy movie. Times change, technology allows for new ways to roleplay, tastes differ, etc. etc.. What was firmly the definition of an RPG in 1970 is not guaranteed to be the definition of an RPG in 2011. For some an RPG is picking a class, for some it is dialogue choices, for some it is stats, for some it is loot, for some it is as simple as dungeon diving.

Me personally, I started RPG gaming with Fallout in 1997. I was a PC gamer since 1993 or so but stuck to shooters and adventure games until '97. Entering the genre with Fallout, Baldur's Gate, Icewind Dale, Daggerfall, Fallout 2 and eventually Gothic, Morrowind, Arcanum and others, my RPG "definition" mostly revolves around exploring vast open worlds and talking to people. Tactical combat was certainly a big part of a lot of those games, but for me the reason I liked them and played them was to explore, discover and learn about worlds that could only exist in videogames. The combat was good fun too, but not the main reason I was there. So when people say a game without stat-based combat is not an RPG, I just chuckle. RPGs were never about that for me.

I guess if I had to define the term it would be any game where your choices significantly effect the gameplay. That allows you to choose a role, which then somehow makes the game different than if you had chosen a different role. The choices offered to you could be in the realm of stats, story decision, class or even the order you go through the game. Mass Effect offers a ton of choice and ability to create a role.

Originally Posted by DoctorNarrative
You're not taking my comments as the response they were intended to be at all. The person was implying Bioware switched from Baldur's Gate 2 style games to making shooters like Mass Effect. I was simply pointing out that Dragon Age is the same genre/style of game as BG2 and KOTOR, even if you personally dislike the quality of it or the changes they made to it.

The entire point is that Bioware did not abandon that style of game at all.

That does not mean quality does not matter. There are lot of games out there with simialr style/genre as you put it. What makes indivual game different it not just genre, but the quality of games. Bioware have sticked to similar style, yes, I agree. You can even put it that DA series of an evolution of BG series. I don't disagree with that. But their recent efforts (especially DA2) really need some work. There are people who loved/liked those games, but there were also a LOT of concerns and disappointment in terms of quality of the game. Maybe it's because they had to develop those games for seperate platforms - a lot of depth seems to be sacrificed to get them on consoles.

Originally Posted by Motoki
It's such a fact that Bioware went out of their way to point out that the combat wasn't tactical prior to their last patch and that unlike the base game, the expansion made combat tactical. Yeah that's a fact.

The spawning enemies hurt the player's ability to make tactical decisions about placement and enemy priority at the start of battle. I would never say otherwise. That flaw alone does not change the game from a tactical combat game to something else, however.

Essentially DA2 is the same type of game as Baldur's Gate because it utilizes party based, real time, pausable combat. By that definition some JRPGs are the same type of game as Baldur's Gate. It's basically like saying that all turn based RPGs are the same type of game or all action combat based RPGs are the same type of game.

At any rate, you will come back with some bla bla bla nonesense because you are always right and everything you say is a fact, while what others say is subjective.

The rolley eyes at the end of everything really make you look like a git.

Anyway, it's funny you characterize me as someone "laying down the law" and saying my opinion rules when my whole point is that these things are subjective. Dragon Age 2 is not a bad game because you say so, RPGs are not defined as _____ because someone says so, etc. etc.

Originally Posted by purpleblob
That does not mean quality does not matter. There are lot of games out there with simialr style/genre as you put it. What makes indivual game different it not just genre, but the quality of games. Bioware have sticked to similar style, yes, I agree. You can even put it that DA series of an evolution of BG series. I don't disagree with that. But their recent efforts (especially DA2) really need some work. There are people who loved/liked those games, but there were also a LOT of concerns and disappointment in terms of quality of the game. Maybe it's because they had to develop those games for seperate platforms - a lot of depth seems to be sacrificed to get them on consoles.

Again, I made no quality statements about the game. Not sure what you're debating here. I only said the quality of DA2 is irrelevant in regards to them still making that kind of RPG.

As for the last part I am pretty sure all the flaws in DA2 are related to its accelerated development cycle, rather than the evil console boogeyman. Pretty much everyone agrees that the main flaws of the game are repeated environments, lack of differences from choices and the battles not being well designed or laid-out properly. All those things basically root in the fact that they developed the game in about a year.

Originally Posted by DoctorNarrative
]The rolley eyes at the end of everything really make you look like a git.

That's great because I think you're an idiot so the feeling is mutual.

Originally Posted by Motoki
That's great because I think you're an idiot so the feeling is mutual.

I find it amusing you came at me about forcing my will upon others, yet you're the one throwing personal insults around because you don't like my opinions. I'm a passionate debater, I'm going to argue my points and I'm not going to pretend I agree with you or think you make sense. I'm sorry if that bothers you.

I assume since you didn't reply to my actual points that you're done with the conversation.

Originally Posted by DoctorNarrative
I find it amusing you came at me about forcing my will upon others, yet you're the one throwing personal insults around because you don't like my opinions. I'm a passionate debater, I'm going to argue my points and I'm not going to pretend I agree with you or think you make sense. I'm sorry if that bothers you.

I assume since you didn't reply to my actual points that you're done with the conversation.

Actually, you didn't reply to my point above that your definition of "the same type of game" equating simply to the style of combat is extremely broad and vague allowing for the categorizing of games of radically different tones and styles together simply because of similiarities in combat so I am going to assume you are done with the conversation. I'm sorry if that bothers you and I'm not going to pretend to agree with you.

Cut the personal insults, please. Argue the point, not the person, or leave the thread.

Originally Posted by Motoki
Actually, you didn't reply to my point above that your definition of "the same type of game" equating simply to the style of combat is extremely broad and vague allowing for the categorizing of games of radically different tones and styles together simply because of similiarities in combat so I am going to assume you are done with the conversation. I'm sorry if that bothers you and I'm not going to pretend to agree with you.

Why don't you tell me why you don't think BG2 and KOTOR are the same type of game as DA2.

Originally Posted by DoctorNarrative
Why don't you tell me why you don't think BG2 and KOTOR are the same type of game as DA2.

If you honestly don't notice the difference from playing them then I don't think anything I can say will change your mind.

I always use DAO in my examples just because DA2 is such a hot button topic that people can't usually get over their hate for it to look at it objectively. But I'd definitely say that DAO was a logical evolution from KOTOR, definitely far more detailed and complex and in my opinion just a better game overall.

I am currently playing DA2 and I think I am in the middle of chapter 2. I am enjoying the game and in few cases even more so than DAO and ME games! My enjoyment is increased by the fact that I only paid about £8 for it!

The big plus working in DA2 favour is its story. It so much different from many other save the world stories. I actually like this kind of stories. A nobody trying to make it big in the world etc. I have actually bought into the mages verses templars things and I care for many of the NPC companions (more so ME2 and even DAO). When I say "about the same" I mean same level in a different way

I don't think combat is dumped down from DAO (ME games are easier than this). I found myself pausing the game lot and always making decisions for my character and my NPC companions. I spend ages looking at the level up screen to make decision.

I did find the wave combat annoying but I think its part of the tactual challenge now. In many cases you know more waves will come so you have to converser some of your skills or even mana etc.

My biggest annoyance with the game right now is how they reused areas. Its not big deal for game play or anything but it shows the dev did not pay enough time or attention. They wanted to make quick money. Its that thought which is annoying more than anything!

Also I am not sure if DA2 is less of an RPG than say KOTOR games or even NWN OC. I think complexity of the combat mechanics are about the same. DA2 has more C&C hence branches than any of those games. I think KOTOR has slightly betetr memorable NPC companions but thats about it. The RPG mechanics are about the same too (rule sets, inventory, gear etc). So I don't think DA2 is worse than KOTOR or NWN OC.

I think DAO is better game than DA2 and that's mainly for the origins stories concept so its pity that DA2 does not have that.

Yeah the combat in DA2 is really not that much different then the combat in DA1, it's just that rounds go by a little faster. Alot of the complaints you read about DA2 are severaly overblown, and often made by people who never actually played the game. There are even some things that it does a lot better then the original. But there are still a lot of complaints about it which are in fact quite valid, ie reusing areas and overuse of waves even when it doesn't make sense. I liked the old crafting system better too.

Overall though the big reason I like DAO alot better then DA2 was the story. DA2 does an interesting job of storytelling and really fleshes out interesting parts of the game world that DAO only hints it. But in the end it just never grabs me in the same way that DAO grabbed me after the human noble origin story and the battle of Ostraggar.

So most hate and complaining is from people who never played the game huh? I have played it twice with the added dlc and it still feels the same to me. Its not the worst game I ever played but it still feels like something is missing when playing.

I'm also glad some people enjoy the story but to me its just another oh thanks for what you did now screw you endings.

As for what is an RPG who the hell knows since the consumer and developer have no clue themselves. Its the old example of having 10 people asked how to solve a problem and all ten have a different opinion and solutions.