1230 réponses à ce sujet

[Sylvius the Mad]

In Exile wrote...

So, bluntly, definitions are never a matter of opinion.

That's what I said. 

They most certainly are, regardless of which position you take on categorization or meaning.

Let's suppose you believe that there are definite and unique meanings, and that these definite and unique meanings have one and only one appropriate word/sound/etc. that can apply to them.

Even so, we can still debate whether the word/sound/etc. is appropriate for one particular meaning versus another.

Moreover, it is an issue of whether or not we discover the meaning and affix to it a name, or have a name that we assign a meaning. That itself can be debated.

Even in logic, where a definition is only a matter of convention, we can still debate on other merits which convention is appropriate.

Recall that I think only formal definitions are actually definitions.

Do you think formal definitions are a matter of opinion?

No, that's false. I would assume you agree that something increases freedom only if it expands your possible options.

Yes.
 
I suspect we're defining options differently.  I don't think an option needs to be viable to be an option.

But you have not appreciated my criticism. I am challenging the very things you consider choices. I am being more fundamental

Yes, but your position relies on an assertion on which mine does not.  Me saying something is possible requires less justification that your position that something is not possibly true.

No, your claim is stronger than that, because you are claiming that there is an alternative possible definition for what story is.

No, I'm claiming there exists a definition for story which is being mischaracterised.

It does not. It provides an argument for a definition.

No it doesn't.  It makes an assertion about the definition without having justified it, and then goes on to show what that definition would mean.  That's not an argument.  That's conjecture.

If we accept the definition, it follows trivially that other kinds of narrative cannot be possible and be a story. So the point at issue is the definition; all else is consequence.

Yes, but there's no reason given to accept the definition.  And if we were to accept the definition based on its logical consequences, that would be little more than rationalisation.

The definition needs to precede the reasoning.

[Dorateen]

AlanC9 wrote...

Dorateen wrote...

Rght on, Sylvius!

Harumph!

Dorateen! Good to see you.

I'm gonna stay out of the debate here. I'm down with J.L. Austin and Stanley Fish -- I guess you could say I'm a Sophist. I just don't think I'll have the time to participate.

Heh, I have no interest in participating in this discussion. Just giving some encouragement to an old ally. Fight the good fight.

Harumph!

[Reacher Gilt]

If I wanted a tightly-plotted, author driven narrative i'd read a novel or watch a movie, and I do, they're great. However, the entire purpose of any video game, what differentiates them from any other form of entertainment, is the provision of interactive storytelling, or as Sylvius puts it: emergent narrative. Hell even in MW2 the player gets to decide how the firefights play out. Every single game, RPG or no, must have player input as its focus, otherwise it's not a game. Bioware cannot out-cinematic a movie, or provide a more tightly woven plot than any novel. This should be obvious.

Emergent narrative may not be the objective pinnacle of storytelling, but it is for video games.

tl;dr version: Slivius is right. This should come as no great surprise.

Modifié par Reacher Gilt, 30 juillet 2010 - 01:40 .

[Orchomene]

The discussion about stories being authored or emergent  narrative reminds me of the tension you can see during a PnP session.
On one side, the GM has his scenario in his hands and on the other side, the players want to enjoy a game where they are not railroaded to. At some point, the players may want to diverge from the scenario and the DM has the choice to either follow the players (maybe trying later to come back to the scenario) or to force the players into the scenario.
A bad DM will force at all price, even illogically, players into the scenario because he doesn't feel safe to master a game where he does not know the scenario in advance.
It's the same problem here, basically. In a RPG, if the scenario is entirelly written in advance, then there is no replayability and it may be a good game, but not really a RPG anymore. Are jRPG real RPGs ? Well, it may be a matter of taste, but it's so far from a good PnP session that I can't feel I'm playing a RPG.
It's more or less the same with both ME games or JE. Even DAO is pretty poor in this. It's never been the better aspect of Bioware games. Bioware games are more for people that want to be counted a story than people that want to write a story.

[TheMadCat]

In Exile wrote...

It might shock you, but some people think the RPG element are the story, dialogue and narrative. Yes, yes, I get it, you think statistics matter, go play adventure games, yadda yadda. Bioware can think otherwise and not be lying or misleading anyone.

Well, those people are wrong. Call of Duty games have a story, dialogue, and a narrative does that make them an RPG? The same for the C&C series of games, are those RPG's? Mecanics are what are used to classify each game and seperate themselves within their respective genres. If simply have a story was a prereq for an RPG 95% of the games out their could consider themselves as RPG's.

[In Exile]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...
Recall that I think only formal definitions are actually definitions.

Do you think formal definitions are a matter of opinion?

Yes, because formal definitions can easily be a matter of convention. Even if we agree on the truth of each theorem, we can debate the appropriate symbols for each, and even for the particular elements.

Yes.
 
I suspect we're defining options differently.  I don't think an option needs to be viable to be an option.

How can something be an option if it is not viable? Put another way, how can you argue I have a choice (and therefore freedom) when in fact it is only possible for me to choose one thing?

Put another way - are you trying to make an argument similar to, say, compatibilism in determinism.

Yes, but your position relies on an assertion on which mine does not.  Me saying something is possible requires less justification that your position that something is not possibly true.

That's false. If your posibility relies on the imposibility of something else, then it is equivalent to saying that something is not true. It's merely a matter of implication.

No, I'm claiming there exists a definition for story which is being mischaracterised.

Which in other words is a claim for the existence of a particular definition for story. Mischaracterized implies a standard of comparison, and if you are using a standard of comparison, you must have something to compare to. The thing you are comparing to is what you are asserting.

No it doesn't.  It makes an assertion about the definition without having justified it, and then goes on to show what that definition would mean.  That's not an argument.  That's conjecture.

That's false. Something can be an argument without a justified conclusion. In fact, something can be an argument with a poor or false conclusion. What makes something an argument is the form and the assertion, not the truth of the statement (in your eyes).

But I suspect this will be a debate like we will (and have) had on things like lying. Certain things are not possible without jointly account for the intention of what the other person is doing.

Saying something that is false and lying are not the same thing, because what matters is the intention of the person making the statement. It is the same with an argument. Poor argument or not (in your eyes) what makes it an argument is whether or not it is being considered an argument by the person making it, and whether or not it is a poor argument (in your eyes), it is immaterial.

Yes, but there's no reason given to accept the definition.  And if we were to accept the definition based on its logical consequences, that would be little more than rationalisation.

That is not what I said. What I said was that you were debating nonsensically. If I believe in that position (however misguided I may be) telling me about all of the consequences I logically reject is meaningless. Demonstrating it is baseless for me to reject them is something else entirely, but that goes right back to having to debate the virtue of the definition.

The definition needs to precede the reasoning.

No, that's also false. In that case you would just be arbitrarily naming things, and definitions would have no value. We have names for things so we know what we are refering to. Establishing what it is we are refering to to give it a name is the appropriate approach.

[In Exile]

Reacher Gilt wrote...

If I wanted a tightly-plotted, author driven narrative i'd read a novel or watch a movie, and I do, they're great. However, the entire purpose of any video game, what differentiates them from any other form of entertainment, is the provision of interactive storytelling, or as Sylvius puts it: emergent narrative. Hell even in MW2 the player gets to decide how the firefights play out. Every single game, RPG or no, must have player input as its focus, otherwise it's not a game. Bioware cannot out-cinematic a movie, or provide a more tightly woven plot than any novel. This should be obvious. 

That's just absurd. No one is saying that players should be railroaded. But what is up for debate is the kind of narrative players have control over. KoTOR versus IWD had a very tight narrative. You had very many things defined about your character. Yet in KoTOR the world was reactive; it would respond to who specifically as the player versus follow an empty pre-determined direction.

Introducing MW2 is stupid. No one is debating some extreme pole here. We are debating how much fan fiction a player should write for a particular type of game, and whether these are then exclusive.

[In Exile]

TheMadCat wrote...

Well, those people are wrong. Call of Duty games have a story, dialogue, and a narrative does that make them an RPG? The same for the C&C series of games, are those RPG's? Mecanics are what are used to classify each game and seperate themselves within their respective genres. If simply have a story was a prereq for an RPG 95% of the games out their could consider themselves as RPG's.

Oh noes! Can you show me the divine bible of RPGs, handed to you by the RPG god from Mt. Baldur's Gate defining RPGs so? What's that you say? Genre conventions are just categorizations made by a user base so we can tell different games apart? Companies have to obligation to respect some highly specific definition only you use?

Call of Duty does not have dialogue. It has lines. There is no player input. There is no variable plot scenario. Trying to equivocate the games is stupid.

[yoda23]

Khayness wrote...

Zanderat wrote...

That's what the ME franchise is for.......

BioWare is working with the rEApers, the patterns are there, buried in the data.

Wow folks, I'm just trolling with PR lines.

Well said!

[Sidney]

In Exile wrote...

Oh noes! Can you show me the divine bible of RPGs, handed to you by the RPG god from Mt. Baldur's Gate defining RPGs so? What's that you say? Genre conventions are just categorizations made by a user base so we can tell different games apart? Companies have to obligation to respect some highly specific definition only you use?

Call of Duty does not have dialogue. It has lines. There is no player input. There is no variable plot scenario. Trying to equivocate the games is stupid.

All games have some element of plot, many of added in RPG'ish things like leveling. The difference for an RPG is that you want your choiced to affect things in the game world. In DAO I make a game choice and all the elves die a horrible death at the hands of wolves. That has some sort of game world meaning and that is the difference between most non-RPG's and an RPG. Some games like Bioshock will dance up to and myabe over that line and blur them but nothing you do in AC2 for example will make that play out any differently, same with CoD you are correct.

You can have all the RPG-ish mechanics you want in something like X-Men Ultimate alliance but that really isn't an RPG to me despite having dialog, levels, loot. Even an MMORPG like WoW seems to fail to deliver much on the interaction with the world other than grinding through it.

[In Exile]

Sidney wrote...
All games have some element of plot, many of added in RPG'ish things like leveling. The difference for an RPG is that you want your choiced to affect things in the game world. In DAO I make a game choice and all the elves die a horrible death at the hands of wolves. That has some sort of game world meaning and that is the difference between most non-RPG's and an RPG. Some games like Bioshock will dance up to and myabe over that line and blur them but nothing you do in AC2 for example will make that play out any differently, same with CoD you are correct.

You can have all the RPG-ish mechanics you want in something like X-Men Ultimate alliance but that really isn't an RPG to me despite having dialog, levels, loot. Even an MMORPG like WoW seems to fail to deliver much on the interaction with the world other than grinding through it.

I happen to agree with you completely. But not everyone will. For example, they will say that a game that allows your choice to affect the gameworld is just an adventure game if the protagonist isn't ambiguous and they can't invent a personality they can only hold in their heads, etc.

So this is what I mean by an RPG just being a genre convention no one can agree on.

[Sidney]

Orchomene wrote...

It's the same problem here, basically. In a RPG, if the scenario is entirelly written in advance, then there is no replayability and it may be a good game, but not really a RPG anymore. Are jRPG real RPGs ? Well, it may be a matter of taste, but it's so far from a good PnP session that I can't feel I'm playing a RPG.
It's more or less the same with both ME games or JE. Even DAO is pretty poor in this. It's never been the better aspect of Bioware games. Bioware games are more for people that want to be counted a story than people that want to write a story.

Bioware games are always as you say about you being in their story. You are on a river, the end is set all you get to do is choose which channels you get to go down but in the end they all dump out in the same place.

You can't really write your own story in a CRPG. It is a weakness of the "C" part of that. Even in the most sandboxish games like Morrowwind you are either part of the story or you aren't. Once you leave the main quest (and we all did) you are basically doing an unconnected series of sidequests.

[TheMadCat]

In Exile wrote...

Oh noes! Can you show me the divine bible of RPGs, handed to you by the RPG god from Mt. Baldur's Gate defining RPGs so? What's that you say? Genre conventions are just categorizations made by a user base so we can tell different games apart? Companies have to obligation to respect some highly specific definition only you use?

What are you rambling on about here? I said RPG's can't be defined as games with stories and dialogue because games that have no desire to be classed as RPG's contain those aspects. Mechanics are a more traditional way of seperating RPG's because they contain peices that are unique to an RPG, much more so then a story and dialogue.

Call of Duty does not have dialogue. It has lines. There is no player input. There is no variable plot scenario. Trying to equivocate the games is stupid.

Dialogue has nothing to do with player input or choices, the definition of dialogue is a written or verbal conversation between two people. Call of Duty has that, thousands of games from varying genres have that. If that's not what you implied use better terminology.

Modifié par TheMadCat, 30 juillet 2010 - 03:42 .

[Sidney]

In Exile wrote...

I happen to agree with you completely. But not everyone will. For example, they will say that a game that allows your choice to affect the gameworld is just an adventure game if the protagonist isn't ambiguous and they can't invent a personality they can only hold in their heads, etc.

So this is what I mean by an RPG just being a genre convention no one can agree on.

Well and I've been down the "chose a voice" and play dress up bit with plenty of folks who seem to love those elements of the game. They're cosmetic to me because I can play most games and pick color and appearance in plenty of games - hell at one point in NCAA Football I could design a college, pick colors, logos and names. Then I could create a player - full body construction, wonderfully unvoiced - and then level him up from Freshman to Sophomore and get his Speed and Accuracy stats to pump up. If mechanics matter then that was an RPG.

I'm far more concerned about interaction, plot and choice within that plot than I am about what hairstyle I have.

[In Exile]

TheMadCat wrote...

What are you rambling on about here? I said RPG's can't be defined as games with stories and dialogue because games that have no desire to be classed as RPG's contain those aspects.

No, you were falsely equivocating story, dialogue and narrative as it exists within a Bioware game, with whatever thin veener is slapped onto an FPS in order to score points.

Mechanics are a more traditional way of seperating RPG's because they contain peices that are unique to an RPG, much more so then a story and dialogue.

Dialogue is itself a mechanic in an RPG. So is an interactive story wherein you can influence the plot. And we even had a two page debate on narrative. So if you want to use the broadest meaning for these terms to score points, I suppose you can.

But at that point I can just say all games use statistics, since they're just really a consequence of how programming works, and even Call of Duty had HP, damage, per weapon damage. So there you have it: all games use statistics as a matter of what it means to be a game programmed on a computer, so using statistics will fail to tell RPGs apart.

Of course, you don't mean that absurd definition above, but then I didn't either and apparently we both have to be obtuse for now to score cheap points.

Dialogue has nothing to do with player input or choices, the definition of dialogue is a written or verbal conversation between two people. Call of Duty has that, thousands of games from varying genres have that. If that's not what you implied use better terminology.

Remind me how the dialogue wheel is independent of player input or choice. Ah, wait, we're still scoring cheap points.

[Vaeliorin]

Sidney wrote...

In Exile wrote...
I happen to agree with you completely. But not everyone will. For example, they will say that a game that allows your choice to affect the gameworld is just an adventure game if the protagonist isn't ambiguous and they can't invent a personality they can only hold in their heads, etc.

So this is what I mean by an RPG just being a genre convention no one can agree on.

Well and I've been down the "chose a voice" and play dress up bit with plenty of folks who seem to love those elements of the game. They're cosmetic to me because I can play most games and pick color and appearance in plenty of games - hell at one point in NCAA Football I could design a college, pick colors, logos and names. Then I could create a player - full body construction, wonderfully unvoiced - and then level him up from Freshman to Sophomore and get his Speed and Accuracy stats to pump up. If mechanics matter then that was an RPG.

I'm far more concerned about interaction, plot and choice within that plot than I am about what hairstyle I have.

I would argue that both mechanics and ability to have some control over the direction of the story matter.  The specifics of the mechanics don't matter, really, other than that they must define your character within his world such that his abilties, not the player's, are paramount in his interaction with that world (which is why, for example, rather than having the tab key highlight things, I'd rather have a perception skill/score, and things will automatically be highlighted as interactable if your character spots them.)

[In Exile]

Vaeliorin wrote...

I would argue that both mechanics and ability to have some control over the direction of the story matter.  The specifics of the mechanics don't matter, really, other than that they must define your character within his world such that his abilties, not the player's, are paramount in his interaction with that world (which is why, for example, rather than having the tab key highlight things, I'd rather have a perception skill/score, and things will automatically be highlighted as interactable if your character spots them.)

Like in Bloodlines. Man, there were a lot of great RPG implementations in that game. Too bad it's so buggy....

[Vaeliorin]

In Exile wrote...

Vaeliorin wrote...
I would argue that both mechanics and ability to have some control over the direction of the story matter.  The specifics of the mechanics don't matter, really, other than that they must define your character within his world such that his abilties, not the player's, are paramount in his interaction with that world (which is why, for example, rather than having the tab key highlight things, I'd rather have a perception skill/score, and things will automatically be highlighted as interactable if your character spots them.)

Like in Bloodlines. Man, there were a lot of great RPG implementations in that game. Too bad it's so buggy....

I...guess?  I haven't played Bloodlines.  I'm not a fan of the whole vampires with guns setting.  It's why I only finished the first half of VtM:Redemption.  Vampire:Dark Ages, however, is awesome. 

Mostly, it's just kind of the way things work in PnP games.  I'll describe the readily visible details, and people will make perception checks (which are instant) to see if they notice anything, and then if they want to investigate something further they can make search checks (which take time) to try and find things they might have missed.

[Sidney]

Vaeliorin wrote...
I would argue that both mechanics and ability to have some control over the direction of the story matter.  The specifics of the mechanics don't matter, really, other than that they must define your character within his world such that his abilties, not the player's, are paramount in his interaction with that world (which is why, for example, rather than having the tab key highlight things, I'd rather have a perception skill/score, and things will automatically be highlighted as interactable if your character spots them.)

I'll agree with that to a point. Nothing annoys me more in Oblvion that that me, the player, must pick a lock. No matter how good my character is at picking a lock I (the player) suck at it. Same thing in FO3 with that hacking a terminal game. I'm awful with word games (hate Scrabble and Boggle and their ilk) but my very smart character shouldn't be bad at it. The player will always intrude on the character - the riddles in Andraste's Temple  don't care how smart/dumb your character is - but trying to minimze that is always good. The fact that in ME2 half of combat is about my twitch factor annoys me much, much more with the game than the voiced protganonist.

[Vaeliorin]

Sidney wrote...

Vaeliorin wrote...
I would argue that both mechanics and ability to have some control over the direction of the story matter.  The specifics of the mechanics don't matter, really, other than that they must define your character within his world such that his abilties, not the player's, are paramount in his interaction with that world (which is why, for example, rather than having the tab key highlight things, I'd rather have a perception skill/score, and things will automatically be highlighted as interactable if your character spots them.)

I'll agree with that to a point. Nothing annoys me more in Oblvion that that me, the player, must pick a lock. No matter how good my character is at picking a lock I (the player) suck at it. Same thing in FO3 with that hacking a terminal game. I'm awful with word games (hate Scrabble and Boggle and their ilk) but my very smart character shouldn't be bad at it. The player will always intrude on the character - the riddles in Andraste's Temple  don't care how smart/dumb your character is - but trying to minimze that is always good. The fact that in ME2 half of combat is about my twitch factor annoys me much, much more with the game than the voiced protganonist.

Yes, of course you have to supply the mind of your character.  Otherwise you'd end up just watching the game instead of playing it.  Like you said, the objective is to try to minimize the limitations the player places upon the character.

[TheMadCat]

In Exile wrote...



No, you were falsely equivocating story, dialogue and narrative as it exists within a Bioware game, with whatever thin veener is slapped onto an FPS in order to score points.

A story is a story and dialogue is dialogue, regardless of quality and implementation. I don't understand why you'ere trying to break it down into such. 

Dialogue is itself a mechanic in an RPG. So is an interactive story wherein you can influence the plot. And we even had a two page debate on narrative. So if you want to use the broadest meaning for these terms to score points, I suppose you can.

But again, an interactive plot isn't unqiue to games which want to be coined as RPG's. Would you consider The Longest Journey, Jedi Academy, and Dark Messiah of Might and Magic as RPG's?

But at that point I can just say all games use statistics, since they're just really a consequence of how programming works, and even Call of Duty had HP, damage, per weapon damage. So there you have it: all games use statistics as a matter of what it means to be a game programmed on a computer, so using statistics will fail to tell RPGs apart.

Did I simply say statictics are what seperate an RPG from the rest of the pack? No.

An RPG uses a variety of mechanics to seperate itself; leveling and character building from a numerical standpoint, loot and inventory systems, progressive difficulty, some form of an economy, and several other things including interactive stories and player driven dialogue. The point I've been trying to make is it's not one single aspect that can be used to define an RPG (Stat building as some were using or a story with player choices as you and others are using), it's various mechanics that when rolled together become unique to the RPG.

Remind me how the dialogue wheel is independent of player input or choice. Ah, wait, we're still scoring cheap points.

It's not, never said it was. What does that have to do with the definition of dialogue?

Modifié par TheMadCat, 30 juillet 2010 - 04:11 .

[Orchomene]

One can say all day long that there is nothing like a definition of cRPG, to the point where everything and thus nothing is a RPG. Of course there is no real explicit and admitted by all definition of a RPG, but there is an implicit yet subjective one : if a computer game is trying to be and succeeds in being sufficiently close to the experience of a tabletop RPG, then this is a RPG.

It thus needs a ruleset to determine characters and actions, freedom of choice, interactions, dialogues, ... But in the end, it's the set of all the aspect that would make it a RPG or not. And of course, puting some games in the category or not may be highly subjective for games being at the limit of this implicit definition.

[Riona45]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

You prefer an authored narrative.  I prefer an emergent narrative.  But the assertion was made above that the pinnacle of story-based gaming was necessarily authored over emergent.  And I don't buy it.

Emergent narrative is wonderful--I'm just not convinced that it can be done all that well in a video game, or at least, not as well as an authored narrative.  In a tabletop game, it works perfectly.

[Bryy_Miller]

Emergent narrative will never, ever work in a video game. Why? Computers can't think.

[Riona45]

Orchomene wrote...

The discussion about stories being authored or emergent  narrative reminds me of the tension you can see during a PnP session.
On one side, the GM has his scenario in his hands and on the other side, the players want to enjoy a game where they are not railroaded to. At some point, the players may want to diverge from the scenario and the DM has the choice to either follow the players (maybe trying later to come back to the scenario) or to force the players into the scenario.
A bad DM will force at all price, even illogically, players into the scenario because he doesn't feel safe to master a game where he does not know the scenario in advance.
It's the same problem here, basically. In a RPG, if the scenario is entirelly written in advance, then there is no replayability and it may be a good game, but not really a RPG anymore. Are jRPG real RPGs ? Well, it may be a matter of taste, but it's so far from a good PnP session that I can't feel I'm playing a RPG.

It may be the same problem with a video game, but it doesn't have the same solution.  You can't expect games to simulate a pen and paper session because there's no human DM--everything has to be scripted in advance.  As a player in two different tabletop games (neither of which has an overly scripted storyline), it seems clear to me that it's the human DM that makes all the difference in this debate.