How is emulating a system you own to play a game you own theft?Isn't that emulation, and isn't emulation theft, and isn't theft bad?
That doesn't make any sense.
How is emulating a system you own to play a game you own theft?Isn't that emulation, and isn't emulation theft, and isn't theft bad?
Isn't that emulation, and isn't emulation theft, and isn't theft bad?
It's actually really fascinating what places ME3 ISN'T winning at, and it's not like all awards are accounted for yet. Yeah, it may be running away with RPG of the year awards, but it's rather fascinating when Spike's VGA gives GotY to the Walking Dead and IGN to Journey. Seems to really be indicating how AAA games were this year.The very idea that ME 3 won game of the years yet this didn't really shows games journalism for what it is - soulless.
Isn't that emulation, and isn't emulation theft, and isn't theft bad?
Quite frankly it's probably really true nonetheless that (significant) parts of (video game journalists) haven't played the game. While there is no definite "anti Nintendo bias", it's equally ludicrous to assume that there is in no way any bias whatsoever. Just because there is no conspiracy* doesn't mean there is no bias (at all).
*And there isn't. Sorry conspiracy nutjobs.
I feel this argumentation doesn't entirely take into account the specific situation/state of the video game industry/video game media. There's a reason people laugh at the idea of Nickelback winning 'Best Album' or Michael Bay winning 'Best Direction'.
It should be obvious that the current state of video game media (and the medium itself) is vastly different from other forms of entertainment (right now). One can debate whether the most mainstream game (of appropriate "quality") should win many awards or in this case why Mass Effect 3 is actually winning so much though.
But again, we've had countless discussions about video game media and we'd probably only end up at the same conclusions.
Isn't that emulation, and isn't emulation theft, and isn't theft bad?
There's ways to do that purely with what you own, not even downloading someone else's copy. However that might not be kosher with the DMCA (even if that IS an infamously hated piece of legislature), and I imagine for people who don't want to fuss with settings or want to be absolutely sure it runs "as intended" it still isn't an option they want to use.
This shouldn't matter unless it was considered in the previous years. A game should be up for awards for one year, whether it was 2010 or 2012.It's a 2010 game, though.
And going with that logic, we shouldn't count any game that came out in Japan a year+ prior to its English release.
Plenty of people didn't import from Europe, just as plenty didn't import from Japan. The game came out in 2012 in North America, and it was a first time play for those people.
I don't disagree with anything you say here.
I'm pretty certain the reason ME3 will be winning most awards over Xenoblade is because it's played by far more of the journalists voting. That said, I don't think there is an ideal solution since RPGs can take 100 hours to complete. You can't ask each journalist to play each RPG the same way a movie critic could spend a couple hours watching each noteworty film. At least not without a significant overhaul of how this stuff works.
With a finite amount of time journalists will play the games they have to review or the games that are most appealing to them. It's unfortunate, but their tastes in games gives them an inherent bias, as you say.
I just wish people realize it's their taste and not some malicious bias or bribery that causes this to happen. JRPGs won't win mainstream awards because they have fallen out of mainstream taste. Xenoblade was a great JRPG but it's full of plenty of JRPG quirks/tropes and it isn't groundbreaking enough to break into the mainstream and win RPG of the year.
I wasn't serious
You said emulation was theft. If you own the game and the system, you're not stealing anything, so it isn't theft.Ya that's what I'm a bit concerned about. These reassurances that "it's ok if you have the game" or "it's ok if you delete it after 48 hours"... I'm not sure if they're legally based.
Nintendo also doesn't seem to like any workarounds even if they're just to play legally bought copies. I softmodded my wii so it could play imported games (removing region locking) but it just became so irritating as Nintendo kept trying to disable it with their updates and I just gave up.
As previously mentioned, it has more to due with Xenoblade fans expressing their love for the game in every thread possible. This has been going on for 3 years now.
nice, thanks for sharing.Not exactly a mainstream gaming site, but Xenoblade appeared in Gizmag's round up
lolIn a word? Yep. Nintendo didn't give out enough mountain dew this year.
Isn't that emulation, and isn't emulation theft, and isn't theft bad?
A lot of emulators for disk based systems will use the actual game disks (via your DVD drive). I have never used Dolphin, but I have done that in the past for other systems like the Sega Saturn when my console's laser was dying.
ignoring the systems does not make mass effect less of an RPG, there are a lot of Action RPG's you can beat without leveling.
You do enough of talking, leveling, questing and looting for it to be an RPG. The story even has (limited) player agency. Unless of course you have a very specific criteria that an RPG must meet that ME does not.
that was necessaryI don't think it's getting snubbed. The fact that it even gets nominated in some outlets shows that people recognize the quality of the game.
As for why some people, including me, get horribly disgusted whenever Xenoblade is brought up on NeoGAF these days... incoming rant:
Hardcore Xenoblade zealots are some of the most insufferable and pathetic fanboys I've come across online. It's not enough that there's a good game and you played it and can discuss it. No. If it is not recognized and accepted by every single human being that it is the best thing ever, then it is a grave injustice! Let's tell everyone how they're wrong! Let's shit up thread after thread but bringing up the game over and over in every argument! Let's namedrop the game in unrelated threads where people might have never heard of the game as a defense to anything and everything! Wooo! Roflmao. I'm fucking glad that 2010 and 2011 are behind us, and with each passing year, the game is slowly getting forgotten by the mass majority of people.
My point was that those "systems" don't mean anything at all. They're essentially fluff thrown in so that it can keep some small connection to the RPG genre. The game is a shooting game at it's core and none of the stats or anything like that have any bearing on how successful you are. Quests are ultimately pointless filler (if you can really call them "quests" in the first place). Leveling also doesn't mean anything and really doesn't affect your overall power that much.
Either way, it's my opinion on the matter and while I appreciate that they have some RPG elements in there, it's not really an RPG, but a shooter like Gears of War trying to be an RPG.
It's actually really fascinating what places ME3 ISN'T winning at, and it's not like all awards are accounted for yet. Yeah, it may be running away with RPG of the year awards, but it's rather fascinating when Spike's VGA gives GotY to the Walking Dead and IGN to Journey. Seems to really be indicating how AAA games were this year.
Why should a game be forced to have shitty traditional, clunky RPG combat to be considered one? This aspect of ME3 should be applauded. I wonder if the combat was bad like ME1 or even turn-based if people would consider it an RPG then.
Face it, times have changed and genres are now hybrid more than anything else. This does not make an open world + racing game less of either genre, nor does it make a shooter + rpg game (like ME3) less of either genre.
This thread has kinda run its course, but I'll just say it prompted me to check some obsessive lists I've kept, and it appears that 2012 is the worst year for English-released RPGs in the last decade for me. I didn't really think about it, but between the personal disappointments (Xenoblade, Last Story), the RPGs that weren't for me (Mass Effect, Devil Survivor, Pokemon, the G__R games), and games that are incredibly low priorities (FF13-2, Eliminage, Grimrock), there wasn't a single RPG I enjoyed. That's kinda crazy. Average is usually 7 per year, I wonder what happened? Next year looks to be much more up my alley, but it's pretty weird that I had to go all the way back to 2002 to find a comparable slump year.
People are drama queens.
Why should a game be forced to have shitty traditional, clunky RPG combat to be considered one? This aspect of ME3 should be applauded. I wonder if the combat was bad like ME1 or even turn-based if people would consider it an RPG then.
Face it, times have changed and genres are now hybrid more than anything else. This does not make an open world + racing game less of either genre, nor does it make a shooter + rpg game (like ME3) less of either genre.
I agree with this 100%. Basically, we are given an RPG with great graphics, sound and story - with the combat almost as good as gears of war with more strategy involved (Biotics/tech powers/cooldowns/etc) - and people complain its a shooter?
One thing i cant stand about JRPGs are the archaic random battle/combat system. I actually look forward to the big stand offs and battles in ME3 because its going to take some actual skill in overcoming the enemies rather than selecting "attack" from a menu and watching it happen.
I love what ME3 has done for RPGs - an interesting sci fi world, great combat, multiplayer and interesting characters that arent 10 year old boys with spiky hair named Edge Maverick.
And "I love what ME3 has done for RPGs"? Maybe I'm just being pedantic, but I'd say what Mass Effect has done for RPGs if not Bioware period... especially as what ME3 specifically brought to the table was the most overblown reaction to an ending ever seen, and that's to an ending that really was terrible!It's okay to dislike JRPGs, really it is. It's another thing altogether to go through the mental gymnastics you are here in order to justify your opinion.
Why should a game be forced to have shitty traditional, clunky RPG combat to be considered one? This aspect of ME3 should be applauded. I wonder if the combat was bad like ME1 or even turn-based if people would consider it an RPG then.
Face it, times have changed and genres are now hybrid more than anything else. This does not make an open world + racing game less of either genre, nor does it make a shooter + rpg game (like ME3) less of either genre.
Except the Xenoblade combat and encounter system has very little in common with classic JRPG systems. There are no random encounters, no separate battle screens, combat isn't turn based, there are no consumables, everything is on cooldowns, you can move in realtime and positioning is important. It's basically a streamlined version of the World of Warcraft combat system, plus additional systems like tension, vision and chain attacks, minus consumables and MP.I agree with this 100%. Basically, we are given an RPG with great graphics, sound and story - with the combat almost as good as gears of war with more strategy involved (Biotics/tech powers/cooldowns/etc) - and people complain its a shooter?
One thing i cant stand about JRPGs are the archaic random battle/combat system. I actually look forward to the big stand offs and battles in ME3 because its going to take some actual skill in overcoming the enemies rather than selecting "attack" from a menu and watching it happen.
I love what ME3 has done for RPGs - an interesting sci fi world, great combat, multiplayer and interesting characters that arent 10 year old boys with spiky hair named Edge Maverick.
It's not that stats are inherently incompatible with shooters, it's that ACCURACY stats are inherently incompatible, or at least you need to tread carefully with. You can definitely still do damage and critical boosts, along with effects that affect character speed, reloading, etc. Basically I think you have to take the approach of augmenting skill, rather than hindering skill.
Though I wouldn't treat action RPGs as inherently a different genre: they're just one subgenre under the general RPG umbrella, just as something like Dragon Age Origins or Dragon Quest can be defined as traditional RPGs, or something like FFT would be called a tactical/strategy RPG. Saying it's "an action RPG, not an RPG" comes off as trying to deliberately segregate it or make it come off as inherently lesser.
I agree with this 100%. Basically, we are given an RPG with great graphics, sound and story - with the combat almost as good as gears of war with more strategy involved (Biotics/tech powers/cooldowns/etc) - and people complain its a shooter?
One thing i cant stand about JRPGs are the archaic random battle/combat system. I actually look forward to the big stand offs and battles in ME3 because its going to take some actual skill in overcoming the enemies rather than selecting "attack" from a menu and watching it happen.
I love what ME3 has done for RPGs - an interesting sci fi world, great combat, multiplayer and interesting characters that arent 10 year old boys with spiky hair named Edge Maverick.
Except the Xenoblade combat and encounter system has very little in common with classic JRPG systems. There are no random encounters, no separate battle screens, combat isn't turn based, there are no consumables, everything is on cooldowns, you can move in realtime and positioning is important. It's basically a streamlined version of the World of Warcraft combat system, plus additional systems like tension, vision and chain attacks, minus consumables and MP.
Because the stuff that generally makes the combat in RPGs clunky is also what generally makes the game a RPG or not. Stats, but more specifically stats not player skill that determines how good your character is at something. That is one of the cores of the genre and something none of the Mass Effects(well 2 and 3. ME1 is debatable) really have. Ergo they are not RPGs, but because the do have a many of the other RPG elements they are Action RPGs. Nothing is wrong with Action RPGs. If you value great shooting above clunky stat based shooting it seems the way to go.
More dudebros played Mass Effect 3 and other games on their PSTriples and 360s than the Wii and its GameStop-exclusive Xenoblade. These same folk frequent GameSpot, IGN, and the like, and they probably don't read GAF. We should have the GAF awards, voted by us gamers.
I have a suspicion, based on a few things, that if such a vote occurred Mass Effect 3 would also win GAF's RPG of the year.
Call it the Metal Gear Solid 4 effect.
There's NO way
Not really. ME3 just gets too much hate because of its horribad ending. I found ME3 to be better than Xenoblade.
Reading the negative user reviews on Metacritic, I'm not sure I'd put much stock in the user score.I was shopping around for gift ideas for my nephew and I was browsing Metacrtic to see how user review scores stacked up against critic scores. The majority of scores are rubbish because they barely register above 20 entries.
While with critics Xenoblade earned a score of 92, among 263 users the score was 8.3.
You can have stat progression without the needlessly convoluted battle systems of typical JRPGs. I was playing the nino kuni demo last week and I spent more time looking at the HUD than what was actually happening on screen. Ditto for FFXIII. The worst experience I had was Xenosaga, where the battles felt like math homework instead of fun.
I have a suspicion, based on a few things, that if such a vote occurred Mass Effect 3 would also win GAF's RPG of the year.
Call it the Metal Gear Solid 4 effect.