Purkake

But the Collectors are doing something and you have to spot them!

This is how I imagine this froum:

Mutant with railgun, no? Mutant cyborg?

Instead of derailing the Mass Effect 2 thread any further, I decided to make a new thread to discuss what makes a game an RPG. There is a wide variety of games billed as "RPGs" from Diablo to Deus Ex to Baldur's Gate to Final Fantasy to Mass Effect, one might even make a pretty decent case for Bioshock being an RPG. So what are the bare minimum requirements for something to be called an RPG? Disclaimer: The purpose of this thread is not to find out some universal truth or create the perfect system for categorizing RPG, rather it's to have an intelligent discussion on the nature of RPGs.

It had cyborgs with railguns. I rest my case.

It's real, in case any of you are hesitating. I have the original, but anyone who hasn't played it should do it just for the awesome FMVs.

Mostly because Bioshock 2 didn't descend from the heavens and lead them to the promised land. It's pretty sad, to be honest.

I never said it was a pure RPG, I don't think they make those anymore. It's just not "a shooter" and EA's intentions or marketing don't play into it either. Mass Effect 2 is what it is and that's not a shooter. EDIT: If you didn't like ME2, just say that and your reasons. This way we can avoid page-long discussions over definitions

It started off with IWTK3 complaining about it being a shooter, which it clearly isn't. If you can see the differences between ME2 and Stalker, you should be able to see my point. Stalker is focused on the combat while Mass Effect 2 is focused on character interaction.

ME2 and Deus Ex both have enough RPG elements to be considered RPGs, whatever else they are doesn't really play into it. Stalker and Bioshock are hanging somewhere between. And the time when you can level up matters because? If the choices don't matter you just get a bad RPG, not a shooter. There are plenty of RTSs with little to no resource management(starting with Ground Control). Yes, a lot of RPGs have an inventory, but why is it vital to the RPG part of the game? It's just something that RPGs usually have, it doesn't make the Roleplaying part any better or worse.

I don't see why it matter when you can level up. The RPG-ness of a game should be determined by the character interaction, choices and consequence, not the inventory or combat systems. If it doesn't "feel" like an RPG to you, too bad.

This shouldn't really be a surprise to anyone, but people on the official boards(thread titles contain spoilers) are outraged over the game. I feel for 2K's community manager, this happened back in 2007 as well.

@IWTK3: Not really and the experience system didn't "go away". I do miss some kind of an inventory, though. Once again Bioware went from one extreme to the other.

I'm just saying that they were badly implemented. Having all the different ammo varieties from ME1 would have been great. I'm sure they could have created some more powers for the soldier, they have been making games for a while now.

Oh, it's you again. Sorry, but the RPG-ness of a game isn't determined by the combat system.

@Will:It seemed like an afterthought added only to pad out the lack of skills and it should have used a different activation mechanic from abilities. The graphics were nice, but there was still the odd low-texture background in some places and there was something wrong with the lighting in some places(like Normandy's mess hall). A big step up from ME1, though.

Another thing that annoyed me was turning the different ammo types into skills, that was probably the worst thing they could have done with them. The distribution between the classes was pretty random and switching them put all the other abilities on cooldown, which made me just stick with one. Spending skill points on them was pretty much a waste as well, at least as an infiltrator. They really need to think of something different for ME3.

Giant Bomb quicklook of the demo. The voice acting seems somewhat wooden and controls look pretty bad, but I'm probably biased. Oh and the latest Idle Thumbs mentioned that you control the speed and direction of the animations by how fast(or slow) you move the stick which can lead to some hilarious situations if you don't do it exactly as the game wants you to.

If Bioshock 2's weapons were like Bioshock 1's, then I agree. But then again, most FPSs manage to get that right. I really don't know what ME2 was trying to do with it's weapon system, it feels like they just stopped halfway though.

@Will: I think the split at the last skill level was a good start. Maybe have ~3 paths for each of the skills or some kind of mix and match system? So you could upgrade the radius/damage/duration/whatever separately and have unique bonuses for focusing on a path. This way you could have one super-charged ability or a choice of multiple specialized ones. As for Thane, the most dangerous assassin in the galaxy, he has the weakest excuse ever for being a good guy, "I don't kill people, I let my evil drell alter ego take over and do all the dirty work". Bioware, I am disappoint.

The Steam version has a DOSBox wrapper but no DRM.

Being in cover most of the time makes more sense to me. The problem was that, even though Bioware improved their level design and variety considerably, the battles were still pretty static. They need to look at games like Uncharted 2 and make each big battle a huge set piece with its own unique twist(more than "shoot the generators, then the boss"). Movable/destructible cover, enemies with unique abilities that force you to change your tactics, dynamic battlefields(like the train level in UC2), etc. For example, the shield drain radiation on the Tali recruiting mission was an awesome idea, but completely underutilized so it ended up being an annoyance more than anything else.

As if ME1's combat wasn't peak-a-boo or most cover-based shooters for that matter. Some blindfire and supression would be nice, though.

I totally forgot about the weapons, I think they went from way too many to way too few. If you're going to have three different weapons in each category, please make sure that they are at least really unique. I may be going a dark road here, but maybe having customizable addons to weapons is better than "+20% damage" and whatnot? Make it so that you can't have all the upgrades and actually have to choose them based on your playstyle. This will add tons of depth to the system. Then you'll have to do something about the Biotics and Tech stuff as well, but I don't have a clue about that.

Taking credit/blame and what role they have in the development are two different things. It would be nice if they had some creative control over the game, but even if they don't they will still get money that they can use for future projects. It might matter to the people here, but in the greater scheme of things it's win-win for Obsidian.