188 réponses à ce sujet

[Hollingdale]

No, timers suck.

[AlanC9]

I'm going to have to come down as a skeptic on the whole "emergent narrative" theory. Story itself is a technology, and we've got thousands of years of experience in determining what works in a story and what doesn't. Different media haven't changed this all that much; a TV writer can still read Aristotle on the subject and gain some insights, for instance. Right now, what emerges in a freeform CRPG just isn't very good.



It'll work someday, when RPGs are set up by modelling plot elements and dynamically molding the physical world to fit, rather than the reverse. A good GM does something like this now in a PnP game. We're nowhere near being able to realize this in a CRPG.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Reaverwind wrote...

I concur. The emergent narrative is far more important to an RPG, and the central narrative should only provide the backdrop. Else, all you have is an interactive movie.

This is the core of my "Mass-Effect-is-not-an-RPG" argument.

Decision-making matters.

[LH000]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Reaverwind wrote...

I concur. The emergent narrative is far more important to an RPG, and the central narrative should only provide the backdrop. Else, all you have is an interactive movie.

This is the core of my "Mass-Effect-is-not-an-RPG" argument.

Decision-making matters.

It is role-playing what does matter in RPG. Decision-making have to be therefore inevitably implemented. (Simply to enable most players to identify themselves with their characters to some sensible extent.)   

But I don't see how linear locations-ordering or focusing on central narrative contradicts this feature in general.  

[Hollingdale]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Reaverwind wrote...

I concur. The emergent narrative is far more important to an RPG, and the central narrative should only provide the backdrop. Else, all you have is an interactive movie.

This is the core of my "Mass-Effect-is-not-an-RPG" argument.

Decision-making matters.

But you make a ton of decisions in the dialogues. How is that not not roleplaying?  It seems to me that you don't consider the game an RPG simply because there is not much room for choice outside of the game's script which I definitely don't agree with. Then again I'd personally call any form of roleplaying outside of what is explicitly stated in the game to be metagaming and hardly something can be used to define the type of game. But perhaps I am wrong and the term RPG should be limited to games which are made so as to encourage this metagaming that roleplaying is. Nonetheless any story driven game with an exp can be called an RPG nowadays and if you look at the origin of the term I agree it makes little sense but I also want to stress that terms do develop semanticaly and that I personally don't think they can be missused so long as they are understood. But how then, does one distinguish between a classical RPG and a story driven albeit completely linear game wholly devoid of choice with an exp system? Both are called RPG's. Bleh, you have a point. But I don't get why Mass Effect wouldn't be an RPG anyway, seeing as it contains a ton of choices.

Also what are your thoughts on bethesdea's games? Their games arguably contain more choices than any of Bioware's yet I would say they are inferior.

[Realmzmaster]

Role playing matters in a RPG, but one central point to role playing is decision making. From deciding what companion to pick up, what weapon to use, what spell to pick for your character or companion, what area to explore first and in DA:O even how you choose to address people (like the King when you first meet him).

Your decisions shape the role you play and your role affect your decisions.

[luckyirish.dowd]

I've read the first page and then just skipped to the end, so it's possible that someone has already said this, but how about this compromise:



Instead of simply having Bioware's classic intro, 1st chapter, split chapters, recombine chapters, end chapter format (like the KOTORs, Mass Effects, and DA:O) or FFX/FFXIII's extreme linearity, why don't they try to combine the two. Have sections of the game that do the "choose the order" branches, then couple of linear, plot building events, then back to "choose the order", then linear, and so forth until the end of the game. My thinking for this is:



Straight linearity suck and has little to no replay value. Take FFXIII, for instance. EVERYTHING until ch11 is completely scripted out. Even who you can use in your party and who your party leader is, for goodness sake! I have no desire to replay the game simply because NOTHING will be different. At all. There's not even a single side quest till the end of the game. You can't even upgrade weapons and accessories well until ch11. It's pointless to replay 30+ hours of the exact same bull. Now, granted, this is the most extreme case that I've ever seen. Most JRPG's do a good job by having some side quests and character options throughout the entire course of the game, so they don't feel stall. What SOME linearity does do for an RPG is allow for plot building elements to have a natural place in the story that allows the entire party a chance to react to. It's not: Logain did something somewhere else, and who cares? It's: the main bad guy just did something... and here's how it's DIRECTLY effecting you! Linearity is able to better establish the characters, the world, the bad guys, and everyone's place in it.



One the flip side, though, "free choice" pervents the game from getting stale fast...so long as it's effects are actually seen in the plot. If I can choose when and where I do things, and how, and have it actually have some medium to major effect on a plot, then it allows me to replay the game several times over and not get bored. Notice that I said it "effects the plot." Choosing different character classes like in KOTOR and testing them out in combat, but not having them change the story, is still playing the exact same game. So is giving the only major plot choice at the end of the game, like the classic "do I become evil now or stay good" option RIGHT BEFORE THE LAST AREA. If 95% of the game is the same, choice doesn't matter. That's why there needs to be viable consequences that can be felt early on that carry over later on in the game.



What I recommend is a format like this (note: "chapters" relate to major gatherings of plot events, not necessarily a "point A->B->C" play style were you can't do anything else until they're done, including exploration or side questing. It just means that you'll EVENTUALLY have to complete those events in that order to continue the game.)



Intro

ch1

3-4 split paths

ch2

ch3

MAJOR CHOICE

3-4 split paths

ch4

ch5

3-4 split paths

ch6

MAJOR CHOICE

3-4 split paths

ch7

end



Something like this would do several things. First, instead of only having the typical "choose between these paths, complete them, then end the game," it would have several times that you can decide how you want to do events. Secondly, with several chapters inbetween, it'll offer plenty of character and plot building oppertunities. Thirdly, having several major choices will dramatically change how the game ends up. And having some earlier will allow you time to see those changes, instead of just getting a different movie ending as the only real effect. The forth thing that will happen is that split paths will no long take absolutely forever to get just ONE of them done (I FRICKIN' HATE DOING THE BROKEN CIRCLE QUEST!!!!! It traps you in one area, is rediculously long, boring, and doesn't have any visible effect on the entire world or the plot other than the end of the game on who joins who. It's completely pointless otherwise!).



Finally, if done correctly, the developers can write the game were if you choose one path before another it will have some minor consequences on what happens over all that build up with several split paths. This will mimick the real world were the bad guys just don't stop to give you time to explore three entirely different areas. Instead, if you decide to do events in a different order, it might change something from "prevent the princess' capture, then kill the invading army" to "rescue the princess, then kill the invading army" or "revenge the princess' death, and kill the invading army." Depending on if you do something early, late, or later, some of the minor details will change but the overall objective "defeat the army" remains the same. Then, at the next insection of the game, if you prevented the princess' capture, she may be a nice person doing good things for her kingdom in the future (and giving you items for it), or if rescueing her, she may be more cautious and withdrawn (making her kingdom react differently and giving you different items) or, if you failed to save her, the next in line may be cruel and militant in response (making the kingdom into a dark place and giving you different items). Later on, when that kingdom comes to help you during the final battle, the soldiers that it gives you depends on the state that it's in. Healers for happy, tanks for cautious, or warriors for aggresive.



When you do that with EVERY branching path in a group, and then with SEVERAL groups, you get an entirely unique feel for each game, depending on how you decide to play it. And that's not even factoring in good and evil choices or character classes.



I think that a blend of the two styles would be good, denoting different places in the story were each is used. The timing of your split path choices also have an effect on the game, that way it actually matters if I choose Circle Tower first or Red Cliff. Think about what the game would be like if you got the chance to stop Uldren before things went to hell, or got there after it, or got there after all the mages were transformed, or after the knights moved in and were getting slaughtered trying to clean up the mess. The feel for the game would change dramatically, even if the outcome was still about the same.

[Hollingdale]

It's all fine in theory, but that's an awful long and complicated game you've created. To be frank,  with todays production requirements I believe it's just not possible to make such a game.

Hencewhy linearity combined with moral choices that affect the world and sidequesting remains the most economic and playable solution!

Modifié par Hollingdale, 14 avril 2010 - 07:47 .

[Sylvius the Mad]

Hollingdale wrote...

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

This is the core of my "Mass-Effect-is-not-an-RPG" argument.

Decision-making matters.

But you make a ton of decisions in the dialogues.

No, you don't.

You're never able to know what you're choosing until after the fact.  That's not choice.  It's not possible to make an informed or intelligent decision during any conversation in Mass Effect because the dialogue wheel hides all the alternatives from you.  Its primary role is obfuscatory.

You never get to choose what Shepard says, even from a small pre-written selection like DAO or KotOR.  You're never able to make choices with any confidence that Shepard won't later contradict your choice without warning you first.  Shepard speaks and acts without your foreknowledge; as such, you cannot be reasonably described as being in control of Shepard's behaviour.

[caradoc2000]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

You're never able to know what you're choosing until after the fact.  That's not choice.  It's not possible to make an informed or intelligent decision during any conversation in Mass Effect because the dialogue wheel hides all the alternatives from you.  Its primary role is obfuscatory.

You never get to choose what Shepard says, even from a small pre-written selection like DAO or KotOR.  You're never able to make choices with any confidence that Shepard won't later contradict your choice without warning you first.  Shepard speaks and acts without your foreknowledge; as such, you cannot be reasonably described as being in control of Shepard's behaviour.

Lol.

"You have the right to remain silent. Anything you say can and will be used against you."

[Vicious]

This thread turned idiotic fast.

[DragonShepard138]

I like it how it is.

[Hollingdale]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Hollingdale wrote...

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

This is the core of my "Mass-Effect-is-not-an-RPG" argument.

Decision-making matters.

But you make a ton of decisions in the dialogues.

No, you don't.

You're never able to know what you're choosing until after the fact.  That's not choice.  It's not possible to make an informed or intelligent decision during any conversation in Mass Effect because the dialogue wheel hides all the alternatives from you.  Its primary role is obfuscatory.

You never get to choose what Shepard says, even from a small pre-written selection like DAO or KotOR.  You're never able to make choices with any confidence that Shepard won't later contradict your choice without warning you first.  Shepard speaks and acts without your foreknowledge; as such, you cannot be reasonably described as being in control of Shepard's behaviour.

I admit no matter what your choices are you allways play as Shephard. Still you do get to choose between good, neutral and evil Shephard. But that's only three choices! One might say, but one would be misstaken unless one chooses to be either purely good, neutral or evil in which case the same could be said for most Bioware games. And regardless, the player is most certainly in control of Shephard. Sure you can't make Shephard do whatever you want but you can't do that with any character in any Bioware game either as they are all limited by the offered dialogue options. Indeed the limits of dialogue options allways, in a way, makes for a prefabricated personality, it's just more clear with Shephard.

The contradictions you speak of, I assume are those that can arise when you choose a certain dialogue option with a motive for it (in accordance with the the character your believe yourself to be roleplaying) allready in your head only to find that the character afterwards acts as if though he choose it for a wholly different reason, which thus deviates the characters personality from that which you mean to roleplay. This problem arises in other Bioware games to, I seldom find that I can roleplay a character and have the game go along with it perfectly, so long as there are limited dialogue options (or so long as you don't think exactly like the writer of the script did) this problem will allways arise.

Arguably problems like the aforementioned occur more often in Mass Effect which has sacrificied a bit of player choice in order to have a fully voiced main character who acts realisticaly. It's not a good tradeoff in my opinion but it doesn't change the fact that Mass Effect remains an RPG as it still contains all the elements required.

Sure you can draw a line and say: ''No less choices than this or the game may not be called an RPG!'' But that line is sure to be very blurry.

Modifié par Hollingdale, 16 avril 2010 - 01:46 .

[Sylvius the Mad]

Hollingdale wrote...

The contradictions you speak of, I assume are those that can arise when you choose a certain dialogue option with a motive for it (in accordance with the the character your believe yourself to be roleplaying) allready in your head only to find that the character afterwards acts as if though he choose it for a wholly different reason, which thus deviates the characters personality from that which you mean to roleplay. This problem arises in other Bioware games to, I seldom find that I can roleplay a character and have the game go along with it perfectly, so long as there are limited dialogue options (or so long as you don't think exactly like the writer of the script did) this problem will allways arise.

I find it far easier to avoid the problem in other BioWare games because I can avoid the dialogue options that contradict my character's past behaviour.

But I can't do that in Mass Effect because I can't see them.

So it's not so much a question of being to choose what to do, but more being able to choose what not to do.  BioWare's other games allow this at least most of the time (and arguably all of the time), whereas Mass Effect allows this not at all under any circumstances.

Some choice is more choice than none.  I require that RPGs allow at least some choice.