391 réponses à ce sujet

[TheMufflon]

the_one_54321 wrote...

Who ever said that you had to be in control of a characters actions to be playing his role?

If you are not in control of the character, you are obviously not playing him.

[the_one_54321]

If the character is the character, you have no say over what the character says or does. Otherwise, it's not the character, it's your own creation.



Alternatively, it could be the character you created and you decided what that character will do or say.



A character can exist completely independent of your ability to control or initially crate it. The existence of a character does not require your input. Nor does it preclude your input.

[TheMufflon]

the_one_54321 wrote...

If the character is the character

Tautologies are by defenition irrelevant as arguments.

You have no say over what the character says or does. Otherwise, it's not the character, it's your own creation.

This implies that a character cannot also be my creation, which is incorrect. It also implies that I cannot be given control of another's creation, which is also incorrect.

Modifié par TheMufflon, 15 mai 2010 - 09:00 .

[TheMufflon]

the_one_54321 wrote...

A character can exist completely independent of your ability to control or initially crate it. The existence of a character does not require your input. Nor does it preclude your input.

A character is a fiction, it cannot exist without being created by a conciusness and it cannot act without being controlled by one.

I'm not sure what you're driving at, but you're not making any sense.

Modifié par TheMufflon, 15 mai 2010 - 09:02 .

[Twitchmonkey]

I do so love JRPG-centric ontology debates.

[TheMufflon]

Ju-0n wrote...

At least the Japanese know how to release polished games

Truly? If was led to believe that you could not, in fact, polish a turd.

[TheMufflon]

Twitchmonkey wrote...

I do so love JRPG-centric ontology debates.

What can I say, I've been reading some Sartre and felt inspired.

[Twitchmonkey]

TheMufflon wrote...

Truly? If was led to believe that you could not, in fact, polish a turd.

Mythbusters has proved this false. By following the ancient art of dorodango, or mud polishing, you can in fact make a shiny sphere of feces. I accept your apology.

[TheMufflon]

Twitchmonkey wrote...

Mythbusters has proved this false. By following the ancient art of dorodango, or mud polishing, you can in fact make a shiny sphere of feces. I accept your apology.

My mistake then, Square Enix's turds may indeed be polished.

[Twitchmonkey]

TheMufflon wrote...
My mistake then, Square Enix's turds may indeed be polished.

I always pictured Moogles as polished white turds, like they had back in the '70s.

[Fexelea]

TheMufflon wrote...

Fexelea wrote...

Maybe if you read my entire post and try to understand the context you wouldn't categorize faulty reasoning when what I outlined is rather logical.

My argument applies to the rest of your post as well. The things you listed that  a CRPGs must have some of were: Customizable stats, customizable equipment, story, party and quests. I posit that the video game genre of CRPGs got their name and defenition from their non-digital forebearers, the RPGs. I have played RPGs that had no stats, no custumizable gear, no party, no quests and no pre-set story but were nontheless RPGs. Thus it would seem illogical to base the defenition of CRPGs on these things.

No your argument does not apply, because you are missing my point: having any of the parts, or the abscense of any of the parts, does not define what is or is not. I didn't say that those are "must"  haves and I am talking about MY interpretation of what I consider or not to classify an RPG.

We cannot forever tie a definition to a long forgotten application. The words that we use everyday are a clear example of how things change and definitions adapt. In this instance, your position offers a narrow and outdated perspective on what would be an rpg. Things change, and as rpgs remain UNDEFINED except by a set of shared characteristics, those are the only things we can go with. Modern videogames are trying to blurr the lines between genres and making. Whilst I oppose Bio's "dissing"  of what Jrpgs have to offer due to the lack of focus on what Bioware considers important, I am also unwilling to detract back to nitpicking why no game is an rpg and all games are rpgs. It is of no useful outcome for anyone.

There is a general understanding of what makes the genre. And even the wikipedia entry highlights " A key feature of the genre is that characters grow in power and abilities, and characters are typically designed by the player" .

[TheMufflon]

Fexelea wrote...

No your argument does not apply, because you are missing my point: having any of the parts, or the abscense of any of the parts, does not define what is or is not.

I am not speaking of the abscense of any of the parts, I'm am speaking about the abscence of all the parts. If not having a single one is nessercary for the game to be a CRPG, it is simply a list of this that may or may not exist in CRPG and is thus irrelevant and may complemented by Eiffel towers and old timey bicycles.

We cannot forever tie a definition to a long forgotten application.

Long forgotten applications? I got together with my PnP RPG group last Sunday.

The words that we use everyday are a clear example of how things change and definitions adapt. In this instance, your position offers a narrow and outdated perspective on what would be an rpg.

I think the millions of people who play PnP RPGs would disagree with you when you say their perspective of thier hobby is outdated.

Things change, and as rpgs remain UNDEFINED except by a set of shared characteristics, those are the only things we can go with.

How else would you define a genre, if not by shared charcteristics?

Modifié par TheMufflon, 15 mai 2010 - 10:35 .

[Fexelea]

TheMufflon wrote...

I am not speaking of the abscense of any of the parts, I'm am speaking about the abscence of all the parts. If not having a single one is nessercary for the game to be a CRPG, it is simply a list of this that may or may not exist in CRPG and is thus irrelevant and may complemented by Eiffel towers and old timey bicycles.

But I never said that so you are assuming and or/paraphrasing and answering to that, therefore it has nothing to do with my post

TheMufflon wrote...
Long forgotten applications? I got together with my PnP RPG group last Sunday.

I am talking about video gaming. The origins of video gaming rpg genre and its current situation have little in common

TheMufflon wrote...
I think the millions of people who play PnP RPGs would disagree with you when you say their perspective of thier hobby is outdated.

I agree with them. I never said such thing.

TheMufflon wrote...
How else would you define a genre, if not by shared charcteristics?

Depends on what you define as characteristics, the relevance that you apply to each, etc. Regardless irrelevant to my original point and posting. You are misinterpreting.

Modifié par Fexelea, 15 mai 2010 - 11:16 .

[TheMufflon]

Fexelea wrote...

But I never said that so you are assuming and or/paraphrasing and answering to that, therefore it has nothing to do with my post.

What you said was

For me, an rpg has a number of the following:

From which two possible meanings can be draw. Since you didn't specify which, I responded to both.

For clairty: The first possible meaning is that and a CRPG must have some of the items on the list (ie the 'number' must be positive and non-zero), to which I responded by pointing out that it's an illogical defenition because of the roots of the term RPG.

The second possible meaning is that the list constitutes items that may or may not exist in a CRPG, which means that the 'number' may be zero and a trivial solution thus exists.

The origins of video gaming rpg genre
and its current situation have little in common

Yes, but since both old and new games are considered CRPGs the defenition must lay in that commonality. My point is that that commonality is the ability to interact with the story, which is as true in Zork as it is in Dragon Age.

[Fexelea]

TheMufflon wrote...

What you said was

For me, an rpg has a number of the following:

From which two possible meanings can be draw. Since you didn't specify which, I responded to both.

For clairty: The first possible meaning is that and a CRPG must have some of the items on the list (ie the 'number' must be positive and non-zero), to which I responded by pointing out that it's an illogical defenition because of the roots of the term RPG.

I am referring to video games, as the thread is about video games. It is not an illogical definition because:
1. I didn't provide a definition
2. The roots of the term rpg are not relevant as a static point of comparison  when it comes to the application of the word to encompass as a genre in modern videogame context.

TheMufflon wrote...
The second possible meaning is that the list constitutes items that may or may not exist in a CRPG, which means that the 'number' may be zero and a trivial solution thus exists.

Unfortunate that both of your interpretations are off-base.

TheMufflon wrote...all

Fexelea wrote... The origins of video gaming rpg genre
and its current situation have little in common

Yes, but since both old and new games are considered CRPGs the defenition must lay in that commonality. My point is that that commonality is the ability to interact with the story, which is as true in Zork as it is in Dragon Age.

I do not think that there must be a commonality between them, as things evolve and adapt. I think there are a set of characteristics that have become common rpg territory and I do not believe that influencing the story outcome outweighs the other aspects. However I do think that an rpg without character development, by which I mean experience, levels, stats etc quickly falls out of the equation: that is what I meant when I said I find stats at the core. I am talking about current gaming, and I am not basing on pnp applications.

[Fexelea]

TheMufflon wrote...

What you said was

For me, an rpg has a number of the following:

From which two possible meanings can be draw. Since you didn't specify which, I responded to both.

For clairty: The first possible meaning is that and a CRPG must have some of the items on the list (ie the 'number' must be positive and non-zero), to which I responded by pointing out that it's an illogical defenition because of the roots of the term RPG.

I am referring to video games, as the thread is about video games. It is not an illogical definition because:
1. I didn't provide a definition
2. The roots of the term rpg are not relevant as a static point of comparison  when it comes to the application of the word to encompass as a genre in modern videogame context.

TheMufflon wrote...
The second possible meaning is that the list constitutes items that may or may not exist in a CRPG, which means that the 'number' may be zero and a trivial solution thus exists.

Unfortunate that both of your interpretations are off-base.

TheMufflon wrote...all

Fexelea wrote... The origins of video gaming rpg genre
and its current situation have little in common

Yes, but since both old and new games are considered CRPGs the defenition must lay in that commonality. My point is that that commonality is the ability to interact with the story, which is as true in Zork as it is in Dragon Age.

I do not think that there must be a commonality between them, as things evolve and adapt. I think there are a set of characteristics that have become common rpg territory and I do not believe that influencing the story outcome outweighs the other aspects. However I do think that an rpg without character development, by which I mean experience, levels, stats etc quickly falls out of the equation: that is what I meant when I said I find stats at the core. I am talking about current gaming, and I am not basing on pnp applications.

[TheMufflon]

Fexelea wrote...
I didn't provide a definition

For me, an rpg has a number of the following:

By that statement you are either giving your defenition of a CRPG as something that contains a number of the things on the list or giving your defenition of the things on that list as things that exist in CRPGs.

One is wrong, the other is trivial.

I do not think that there must be a commonality between them, as things evolve and adapt.

If there no longer is commonality between them they can no longer be the same genre, and a new genre would have to be defined for the new games. But there is enough commonality between them that they are still considered the same genre.

I am talking about current gaming, and I am not basing on pnp
applications.

Implying that PnP applications are not current gaming.


Oh, and it's common curtesy to delete one of your posts when
accidentaly double posting, to reduce the ammount of clutter.

Modifié par TheMufflon, 15 mai 2010 - 01:24 .

[Fexelea]

TheMufflon wrote...

Fexelea wrote...
I didn't provide a definition

For me, an rpg has a number of the following:

By that statement you are either giving your defenition of a CRPG as something that contains a number of the things on the list or giving your defenition of the things on that list as things that exist in CRPGs.

No I am not giving a definition as I am not giving limits. I said that, to me, an rpg has a number of X elements. That doesn't mean it ends there. To me, cake has a number of the following: sugar, eggs, vanilla, flower. It doesn't mean cheese cake is not cake.

Are you being obtuse for the sake of it or can you really not understand?

TheMufflon wrote...
One is wrong, the other is trivial.

Irrelevant and unfounded conclusion.

TheMufflon wrote...
If there no longer is commonality between them they can no longer be the same genre, and a new genre would have to be defined for the new games. But there is enough commonality between them that they are still considered the same genre.

But who draws what lines? Who are you referring to? I said I see no need for commonality. There is no need to say that as pastry has sugar salty croissant cannot be pastry. You are talking yourself in circles, answering to your interpretation of positions instead of seeing what I am trying to say.

TheMufflon wrote...

I am talking about current gaming, and I am not basing on pnp
applications.

Implying that PnP applications are not current gaming.

Sigh. For the last time: "gaming" as in "videogaming" pnp not videogaming. Not what I am referring to. Please stop trying to twist my meaning to fit your argument.

TheMufflon wrote...
Oh, and it's common curtesy to delete one of your posts when
accidentaly double posting, to reduce the ammount of clutter.

You are very funny. I didn't see the double post. But now I'm gonna leave it there just because I can. ;D

[FarplaneGuide]

I think that rpg should be defined by gameplay elements, not story progression.

Heavy rain has choices, but to me it's not an rpg. Even if you could create your

own character instead of playing with the ones given to you, it would still not be

an rpg.



RPG to me is a game that lets you create a gameplay role. Through

classes, leveling and skill points I can define a gameplay role that suits my

playing style. I can be a warrior or a mage, have dual handed sword or an axe.

Final fantasy 13 lets me do that. By selecting which character is going to have

which roles, leveling them and combining them into paradigms I can create

teams that fight how I want them to.



Games like Battlefield also let you choose a role, but you can't really change them.

That's what rpg is to me. A game that lets me create a gameplay role i like. It

can be done with classes, skills, attributes, weapons, armor, levels. Game doesn't

have to have all of those of course.



Abilities to create your own character and have choices are important to me, but I don't think

they should be the only elements used in defining a video game genre.

[Batman90]

This whole thing is dumb. The Final Fantasy series consists of highly, highly polished games, and so are BioWare games. With that said, he's right. JRPGs aren't really "RPGs." But that doesn't mean that BioWare RPGs are truly "RPGs," either.

Mass Effect 2 is one of the greatest RPGs in years. Its story-telling, its character development, its dialogue, its gameplay... all top-notch stuff. Much better than FFXIII's stuff, in fact. So, if he wanted to be arrogant and call FFXIII ****, then he could very well do so; BioWare certainly has the right to go around bashing other developers, because in the end, their RPGs are so much better than the rest. In terms of gameplay, story-telling, and all of that RPG-related stuff.

However, that's not what he's doing.

He's not calling JRPGs "crap," just saying that, according to his definition of an RPG, they're not RPGs. Everyone has their own definition of the RPG genre; hell, you can say that video RPGs don't really exist. For a couple of reasons; the first is that you can't truly role-play in videogames. Everything is always programmed, scripted, and planned; the infinite scope of imagination is not involved.

The second reason is that what distinguishes video RPGs from other genres--character growth/development--is being adapted by all other genres. If we keep using the "It's a story-focused game with emphasis on character growth" definition of "RPG," then hell, every videogame will be an RPG.

So, he's right about FFXIII not being an RPG, but there's a flipside to this; BioWare RPGs aren't true RPGs either. Even though Mass Effect 2 has some branching plot points, in the end, it's still a narrative-driven experience with a main character that shares basic similarities no matter who plays the game. Shepard is always going to be the first human spectre, he (Or she) is always going to have been working for the Systems Alliance military (Cerberus in the second game), he (Or she) will have always stopped Saren and his army of geth atop the Citadel.[/b]

Dragon Age is closer to being a "classic" RPG, but it's still a story-driven narrative that lacks imaginative freedom. The closest things to classic RPGs would be Bethesda's RPGs, but even they are bound by what the creators of the games have made. You don't "make your own adventure," you merely choose some adventures among a ****load packed in to a sandbox game (And unfortunately for Bethesda RPGs, this results in all of their NPCs and plotlines being incredibly dull).

The fact of the matter is, the freedom of a true PnP RPG is impossible to obtain in a videogame, and the closer you try to get to that level of freedom, the more simplistic and less polished the plot of a game becomes. In the end, BioWare will have to decide whether to live up to their company's "mission statement"--"to develop the world's finest story-driven games"--or go the Bethesda route and try to make their games sandbox "do whatever the **** you want" experiences. Thankfully, BioWare continues to live up to their "mission statement," instead of walking down the Bethesda path.

Seeing as the "RPG" genre is going to die anyway (As every genre is adopting RPG elements), I think it's time to just stop using the RPG label to describe these games, both J and W. Mass Effect will be a third person shooter, Dragon Age will be an action/strategy hybrid, Fallout 3 will be a shooter/survival game, Final Fantasy will be an action/strategy hybrid.

In the end, it would just make more sense that way.

[the_one_54321]

TheMufflon wrote...

the_one_54321 wrote...
A character can exist completely independent of your ability to control or initially crate it. The existence of a character does not require your input. Nor does it preclude your input.

A character is a fiction, it cannot exist without being created by a conciusness and it cannot act without being controlled by one.

I'm not sure what you're driving at, but you're not making any sense.

No, you're just not getting it, or you're intentionally ignoring it.

The character does not require your input. You don't need to tell the character what to say to be playing the role. You play a role that is pre-defined instead of defined by you. The character's composition supercedes your intent because someone else defined this character.

The opposite can also be true. But even in these cases, a writer pre-defined all potential outcomes for your character, so no matter how intricate or involved your decision  making is, you don't have any definitive control. Only in table top games can you have this kind of control. So there are no video games in existence that fit this criteria.

To say that a video game must let you define the character and shape the outcome is to say that no video games are actually RPGs.

[Batman90]

the_one_54321 wrote...

TheMufflon wrote...

the_one_54321 wrote...
A character can exist completely independent of your ability to control or initially crate it. The existence of a character does not require your input. Nor does it preclude your input.

A character is a fiction, it cannot exist without being created by a conciusness and it cannot act without being controlled by one.

I'm not sure what you're driving at, but you're not making any sense.

No, you're just not getting it, or you're intentionally ignoring it.

The character does not require your input. You don't need to tell the character what to say to be playing the role. You play a role that is pre-defined instead of defined by you. The character's composition supercedes your intent because someone else defined this character.

The opposite can also be true. But even in these cases, a writer pre-defined all potential outcomes for your character, so no matter how intricate or involved your decision  making is, you don't have any definitive control. Only in table top games can you have this kind of control. So there are no video games in existence that fit this criteria.

To say that a video game must let you define the character and shape the outcome is to say that no video games are actually RPGs.

Look at actors in a play or film, for example; they're taking up the roles of the characters in a script.

Now of course, one could argue, "well, that's a different defintion of role-playing," but as I mentioned in my previous post, video RPGs aren't "real RPGs" anyway, so that point is moot.

[TheMufflon]

the_one_54321 wrote...

The character does not require your input. You don't need to tell the character what to say to be playing the role. You play a role that is pre-defined instead of defined by you. The character's composition supercedes your intent because someone else defined this character.

If the character isn't responding to my input, then I am not control the character. This is given by the defenition of control. If I'm not controling the character, I'm not playing it I'm just watching it: It's just an NPC to me. A character in a narrative is defined by his actions, if I cannot define the chracter within the narrative I cannot truly control it.

The opposite can also be true. But even in these cases, a writer pre-defined all potential outcomes for your character, so no matter how intricate or involved your decision  making is, you don't have any definitive control.

If get to chose my characters actions I have definitive control. The fact that I can only chose from a number of preset options only mean that I do not have infinite control.

To say that a video game must let you define the character and shape the outcome is to say that no video games are actually RPGs.

Except there are games where you define your character and shape the outcome, and those are CRPGs.

[Archdemon Cthulhu]

Batman90 wrote...

This whole thing is dumb. The Final Fantasy series consists of highly, highly polished games, and so are BioWare games. With that said, he's right. JRPGs aren't really "RPGs." But that doesn't mean that BioWare RPGs are truly "RPGs," either.

Mass Effect 2 is one of the greatest RPGs in years. Its story-telling, its character development, its dialogue, its gameplay... all top-notch stuff. Much better than FFXIII's stuff, in fact. So, if he wanted to be arrogant and call FFXIII ****, then he could very well do so; BioWare certainly has the right to go around bashing other developers, because in the end, their RPGs are so much better than the rest. In terms of gameplay, story-telling, and all of that RPG-related stuff.

However, that's not what he's doing.

He's not calling JRPGs "crap," just saying that, according to his definition of an RPG, they're not RPGs. Everyone has their own definition of the RPG genre; hell, you can say that video RPGs don't really exist. For a couple of reasons; the first is that you can't truly role-play in videogames. Everything is always programmed, scripted, and planned; the infinite scope of imagination is not involved.

The second reason is that what distinguishes video RPGs from other genres--character growth/development--is being adapted by all other genres. If we keep using the "It's a story-focused game with emphasis on character growth" definition of "RPG," then hell, every videogame will be an RPG.

So, he's right about FFXIII not being an RPG, but there's a flipside to this; BioWare RPGs aren't true RPGs either. Even though Mass Effect 2 has some branching plot points, in the end, it's still a narrative-driven experience with a main character that shares basic similarities no matter who plays the game. Shepard is always going to be the first human spectre, he (Or she) is always going to have been working for the Systems Alliance military (Cerberus in the second game), he (Or she) will have always stopped Saren and his army of geth atop the Citadel.[/b]

Dragon Age is closer to being a "classic" RPG, but it's still a story-driven narrative that lacks imaginative freedom. The closest things to classic RPGs would be Bethesda's RPGs, but even they are bound by what the creators of the games have made. You don't "make your own adventure," you merely choose some adventures among a ****load packed in to a sandbox game (And unfortunately for Bethesda RPGs, this results in all of their NPCs and plotlines being incredibly dull).

The fact of the matter is, the freedom of a true PnP RPG is impossible to obtain in a videogame, and the closer you try to get to that level of freedom, the more simplistic and less polished the plot of a game becomes. In the end, BioWare will have to decide whether to live up to their company's "mission statement"--"to develop the world's finest story-driven games"--or go the Bethesda route and try to make their games sandbox "do whatever the **** you want" experiences. Thankfully, BioWare continues to live up to their "mission statement," instead of walking down the Bethesda path.

Seeing as the "RPG" genre is going to die anyway (As every genre is adopting RPG elements), I think it's time to just stop using the RPG label to describe these games, both J and W. Mass Effect will be a third person shooter, Dragon Age will be an action/strategy hybrid, Fallout 3 will be a shooter/survival game, Final Fantasy will be an action/strategy hybrid.

In the end, it would just make more sense that way.

It took eleven pages, but we have a winner.