99 réponses à ce sujet

[HTTP 404]

Ragabul the Ontarah wrote...

Well for one, you had more autosaves so if you died you got started right back at the beginning of the quicktime event and didn't have to fight the whole boss again or whatever. Also, the game is just so fast-paced and action oriented that it almost hypes your senses all up. You're just waiting to spring all the time. It's like playing a summer blockbuster. It's the most cinematic game I have ever played bar none (well except for ME2 maybe but ME2 is more like one of those war/drama/epics that come out at Christmas than a blockbuster.)

like LOTR movies coming out during the holidays?? Im just messin with you

[joriandrake]

In Exile wrote...

joriandrake wrote...

the fact about character skill being a lot more important than player skill will never change as a basic description for RPG-s, I didn't even know anyone would argue against that

Okay: character skill is irrelevant to an RPG.

Some people think it's gameplay stuff that like this that makes an RPG. Other people think it's silent VO and the ability to use your imagination to say things 100 different ways that makes an RPG. Other people think it is the quality and focus on the story compared to all other games. Basically everyone has their opinion, and you're missing one divine inspired text to prove your case.

After all, PnP uses number crunching as a technological limitation.

it is a different thing to calculate based on stats and skills damage to an enemy monster than to bash the head of the GM with an actual sword because you would be better at swordfight than your halfling mage

[errant_knight]

joriandrake wrote...

In Exile wrote...

joriandrake wrote...

the fact about character skill being a lot more important than player skill will never change as a basic description for RPG-s, I didn't even know anyone would argue against that

Okay: character skill is irrelevant to an RPG.

Some people think it's gameplay stuff that like this that makes an RPG. Other people think it's silent VO and the ability to use your imagination to say things 100 different ways that makes an RPG. Other people think it is the quality and focus on the story compared to all other games. Basically everyone has their opinion, and you're missing one divine inspired text to prove your case.

After all, PnP uses number crunching as a technological limitation.

it is a different thing to calculate based on stats and skills damage to an enemy monster than to bash the head of the GM with an actual sword because you would be better at swordfight than your halfling mage

It's all those things together. Different people all have favorite ones, and the balance can vary from game to game, but to be a high quality, traditional RPG, all those things are required.

[joriandrake]

pretty much if you can "force" your character to use your own/player abilities instead of the character's own skills the game becomes less RPG and more something else (FPS, action, adventure, or whatever)

[MonkeyKaboom]

Zhijn wrote...

Very much doubt they would take such a fantastic rpg like DAO and turn DA2 into a mindless third person action with "some" rpg. That would make zero sens when you consider the success of DAO!.
And im sure the "internet" would never forgive such a change.

LOL because DA:O required anything more than a passive glimpse of consciencious decision making.....

[Kalfear]

MonkeyKaboom wrote...

Zhijn wrote...

Very much doubt they would take such a fantastic rpg like DAO and turn DA2 into a mindless third person action with "some" rpg. That would make zero sens when you consider the success of DAO!.
And im sure the "internet" would never forgive such a change.

LOL because DA:O required anything more than a passive glimpse of consciencious decision making.....

Me thinks Monkey getting ME2 and DA:O mixed up!

DA:O was freaking War and Peace in complexity compared to ME2s paint by number conversation scheme

[Massadonious1]

Kalfear makes a funny.

As long as you set up your tank to keep aggro, set up your healer to heal and/or set up everyone else to chug a potion at a certain interval(s), you can pretty much auto-attack your way to victory.

Also, I always find it rather humorous when people describe video game "complexity" as if it required the firing off of more neruons than doing something else "less" complicated in another video game.

It takes as much intelligence and brainpower to set up your tactics as it does to shoot someone who is shooting back at you or to use heavy weapons against heavily armored targets and whatnot.

Which is, very little.

Modifié par Massadonious1, 21 juillet 2010 - 09:13 .

[MonkeyKaboom]

Massadonious1 wrote...

Kalfear makes a funny.

As long as you set up your tank to keep aggro, set up your healer to heal and/or set up everyone else to chug a potion at a certain interval(s), you can pretty much auto-attack your way to victory.

Pretty much.  Heck Wrynne is set up just about perfectly as is when you get her anyways. 

Big open rooms with no element of environment to use in combat what so ever.  An AI that was dumber than bricks.  Heck half the game you can just set you party on HOLD and drop Storm of the Century in the next room over since Blizz/Tempest just drop where you click them without line of site.  The enemies just sit there and take it half the time.  Anyone claiming DA:O was any sort of strategic achievement must be used to playing Legoland Adventure or something.  DA is easy mode.  The hardest fight in the game can be insta win as long as one person in the party has Cone of Cold.

[soteria]

1. ME2 is a shooter, not an RPG. It fails the fundamental check, Character Skill > Player Skill. Character skill defines RPG, Player skill defines Shooter. There's no merging the two, they're polar opposites. It's what defines each genre, whichever you implement is what genre of gameplay you get. Pretending there's an RPG leveling system doesn't make it an RPG, just a Shooter that lets you pick what your secondary fire mode is.

I'll bite. Character skill vs player skill does not define an RPG. That's what defines the difference between tactical combat and action. It's why Red Alert is an RTS and MW is a shooter--one uses stats to resolve combat, and the other uses player skill. If character skill truly defined an RPG, then every strategy game out there is an RPG. Using your abbreviated definition here, Heroes of Might and Magic is an RPG because it has a leveling system and uses stats, or character skill, to resolve combat. ME and Oblivion are role-playing games because they allow the player to (gasp) role-play. MW2, Red Alert, and HoMM are not RPG's because there's no RP to be found in any of them.

[joriandrake]

soteria wrote...

1. ME2 is a shooter, not an RPG. It fails the fundamental check, Character Skill > Player Skill. Character skill defines RPG, Player skill defines Shooter. There's no merging the two, they're polar opposites. It's what defines each genre, whichever you implement is what genre of gameplay you get. Pretending there's an RPG leveling system doesn't make it an RPG, just a Shooter that lets you pick what your secondary fire mode is.

I'll bite. Character skill vs player skill does not define an RPG. That's what defines the difference between tactical combat and action. It's why Red Alert is an RTS and MW is a shooter--one uses stats to resolve combat, and the other uses player skill. If character skill truly defined an RPG, then every strategy game out there is an RPG. Using your abbreviated definition here, Heroes of Might and Magic is an RPG because it has a leveling system and uses stats, or character skill, to resolve combat. ME and Oblivion are role-playing games because they allow the player to (gasp) role-play. MW2, Red Alert, and HoMM are not RPG's because there's no RP to be found in any of them.

it is one of the basic elements to describe an RPG, not the ONLY one

[Orchomene]

soteria wrote...

1. ME2 is a shooter, not an RPG. It fails the fundamental check, Character Skill > Player Skill. Character skill defines RPG, Player skill defines Shooter. There's no merging the two, they're polar opposites. It's what defines each genre, whichever you implement is what genre of gameplay you get. Pretending there's an RPG leveling system doesn't make it an RPG, just a Shooter that lets you pick what your secondary fire mode is.

I'll bite. Character skill vs player skill does not define an RPG. That's what defines the difference between tactical combat and action. It's why Red Alert is an RTS and MW is a shooter--one uses stats to resolve combat, and the other uses player skill. If character skill truly defined an RPG, then every strategy game out there is an RPG. Using your abbreviated definition here, Heroes of Might and Magic is an RPG because it has a leveling system and uses stats, or character skill, to resolve combat. ME and Oblivion are role-playing games because they allow the player to (gasp) role-play. MW2, Red Alert, and HoMM are not RPG's because there's no RP to be found in any of them.

Well, it does.
RPG is Role playing game. That means playing a role. That is, you are not playing yourself in your kitchen making your lunch, you're playing someone else in a different environment (that can be close to modern time).
Thus, this "someone else", let's call him/her PC, has strengthes and weaknesses you need to pay attention too. This is the PC that solves situations under your control. So, if you remove the PC skill involvement, you have not a RPG, you have an adventure game like Monkey Island or Runaway.
It's not that it requires more cleverness, it's just that it essentially requires your only thoughts and not coordination. Shotter games may require thoughts too, but it requires also coordination. When you only require thoughts, the reactions of the PC is closer than what you would expect from the PC. When you require also coordination, you have a PC that is closer to you than to him/herself. Like if I'm very bad in coordination but playing the best archer that exists, I will miss every arrow shot if coordination is required. Thus, the skills of the PC are not anymore the skills of the best archer.
Nowadays, most of the RPGs that are developped use this TPS/FPS/Whatever systems using coordinations. Very few use a very tactical and character based skill system. thus, is this really necessary that shooter fans go in the forums of the few game remaining that don't play like PewPew to ask for more PewPew ? Do you think I should go in a MW forum and ask to have character based aiming system ?

[soteria]

it is one of the basic elements to describe an RPG, not the ONLY one

That's not what he said. "It's what defines each genre," "the fundamental check," "character skill defines RPG." Tactical combat ("character skill") is the defining characteristic of a strategy game, not an RPG. I don't understand why you would attempt to define an RPG by combat, since it's easy enough to conceive of a role-playing game that doesn't require any combat at all. The rest is just a value judgment: some players have a strong preference for RPGs with tactical combat. That doesn't make RPGs that they don't like something else.

Modifié par soteria, 21 juillet 2010 - 10:47 .

[soteria]

It's not that it requires more cleverness, it's just that it essentially requires your only thoughts and not coordination. Shotter games may require thoughts too, but it requires also coordination. When you only require thoughts, the reactions of the PC is closer than what you would expect from the PC. When you require also coordination, you have a PC that is closer to you than to him/herself. Like if I'm very bad in coordination but playing the best archer that exists, I will miss every arrow shot if coordination is required. Thus, the skills of the PC are not anymore the skills of the best archer.

What does it matter how close the PC is to yourself? A lot of players report that they "role-play" characters who are basically themselves anyway. Or, what if in real life I'm a general? In that case, tactical combat is what I do and the game just became more a reflection of myself. After all, generals don't engage in actual combat like a shooter. Besides, in tactical combat the skill of the player is still involved.

Nowadays, most of the RPGs that are developped use this TPS/FPS/Whatever systems using coordinations. Very few use a very tactical and character based skill system. thus, is this really necessary that shooter fans go in the forums of the few game remaining that don't play like PewPew to ask for more PewPew ? Do you think I should go in a MW forum and ask to have character based aiming system ?

Wait, you just said that very few modern RPGs use tactical combat. You're going to have to clarify, because at this point I'm not really sure what your position is.

[EmperorSahlertz]

You don't roleplay in Red Alert or Modern Warfare because you are not given a role to play (in multiplayer anyway). In ME and DA and every other RPG ever we are given a clear cut character to play even in their multiplayer segments.

[Akizora]

I didn't notice any stripping down of roleplaying elements in ME2, unless you somehow count NOT omnigelling 100 items after each mission for "stripping down roleplaying elements". I had everything I had in ME1 in ME2, companions, conversations, quests (that mattered), research, various outcomes and interactions in cutscenes, upgrades, levelling, skills and most importantly, storytelling and characterisation.

if all of that is in DA2, I will be one happy camper to tell you the truth.

Modifié par Akizora, 21 juillet 2010 - 11:23 .

[EmperorSahlertz]

Some people are of the conviction that customization=100s of useless items=Good RPG.



Some of the ME1 fans also enjoyed being able to equip their team mates in the exact same items as Shepard so that you could have a party of 3 looking identical (which they would, since once you had Obsidian armor, or whatever its name was, you would use that).

[Orchomene]

Without combat, there is no real distinction between a RPG and an adventure game. A RPG has rules that define the outcome of an action depending on the skill of the one trying to do this action. It's closer to a strategy game than to a shooter game in this.

After that, the amount of hybrid games has diluted the concept of RPG into several different kind of games but people go on calling all those games RPG since there is no specific game name. Sometimes they add an attribute to the genre, like Action RPG or MMO RPG.

In the end, it's because of a bad usage of the same name that this name has no more meaning. But at the origin, RPG was a concept that was more defined and was linked to the P&P RPGs.

RPG, in concept is closer to acting in a play more than a sport : for an action attempted, a rule/GM/scenarist/whatever having the responsibility of it would give the outcome. This outcome is based on the character skills and not the actor skill. It doesn't matter when acting if Sean Connery is good at shooting if he plays the role of James Bond. What matters is the skill the character James Bond has. This is essentially the same in a RPG.

Of course, some people don't like this, some people would rather have the player skill involved, but why on Earth do people want that the game are still called RPGs ? It's not important to them if they play it nonetheless.

On the contrary, when I buy a RPG, I'm expecting to get a RPG, not some crappy shooter game with dialogues. Nowadays, it's becoming more and more difficult to find a RPG that corresponds to the concept of a RPG because of this artificial "lack of definition" that comes from blatant ignorance of the true meanings of words used.

More than that, we can see more and more people that don't enjoy RPG but like action/adventure games that ask for stripping RPG from what make those games RPG saying that those things are just issues and don't want to manage. They are like vampires that don't find sufficient to have only 80% of the market dedicated to them. They want all the game market. For one good reason : action games have poor scenarii and overall are short term games with replayability only in multiplayer settings. Thus, games that have some well written scenarii are attracting them.

Well, to be honest, this is the lazy way to solve the issue : downgrading a genre instead of upgrading another genre. Just go to MW and I don't know what games forum to ask developpers there to write proper scenarii to their games.



But it's not only the issue with the customers. It's the issue of the whole market that gives emphasis only to strong budget/high graphics and sounds games. Thus, game developpers think they need to put a lot of money into the game. With skyrocketing budget of several millions, producers need to find a lot of customer. Thus mainstreaming games to attract a lot of casual gamers seems to be a necessity in their eyes. Well, I don't know if this is true, BG sold about 5 millions. But nobody has to put millions in a game to develop a good game. PST, BG, Fallout costs were ten times cheaper than modern games at least and have a higher quality.



What is lacking in this video game industry is a real distance taken by professional critics that could appreciate artistic creations. It may be because of the young age of the industry, but reviewers are far from the literacy or movies critics. What are put above all in the reviews are "polish", "graphics", "stuning-action-dynamic-epic-battle-of-death".

It's like having teenagers deciding what movie would get the Oscar.

[soteria]

Without combat, there is no real distinction between a RPG and an adventure game. A RPG has rules that define the outcome of an action depending on the skill of the one trying to do this action. It's closer to a strategy game than to a shooter game in this.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm having a hard time thinking of an "adventure game" in which you actually role-play. Seems like adventure games are more accurately characterized by exploration and puzzle-solving while telling a certain story. Having a story doesn't make a game an RPG--most games do that. Puzzle-solving and exploration aren't definitive of RPG's, either, since platformers and other games involve puzzles, and strategy games involve exploration. Tactical combat is not definitive of RPG's, since as I already stated other games have virtually identical combat.

RPG, in concept is closer to acting in a play more than a sport : for an action attempted, a rule/GM/scenarist/whatever having the responsibility of it would give the outcome. This outcome is based on the character skills and not the actor skill. It doesn't matter when acting if Sean Connery is good at shooting if he plays the role of James Bond. What matters is the skill the character James Bond has. This is essentially the same in a RPG.

I agree assuming a role and "acting" is the core concept of an RPG. As you say, though, it's more like a play than a sport. Does a play have to contain combat for it to be a play? Of course not. Do the players/actors have to resolve every conflict with combat? Only if the writer calls for it. Some people don't enjoy plays or movies without combat, but that's another story. It's still a play. A sport, of course, has to be active.

Your reference to tabletop is noted, but largely irrelevant. Combat was resolved a certain way in tabletop RPGs because of the limitation of the medium, not because stat-based combat is definitive of the genre. It would be patently unfair to base the outcome of combat on personal skill, since most of us have little to no experience in swordplay, archery, or magic, and no one is expected to train their personal agility or strength to higher levels to be successful in a game. Fortunately, computers don't have that same limitation, allowing for a greater variety in combat simulation. As for "RPG combat shouldn't/doesn't involve player skill," that's not even a true statement. Dragon Age does involve player skill--that's why some players are better than others. It's a different skillset than what is required in ME, but in both cases success in combat requires player skill.

Of course, some people don't like this, some people would rather have the player skill involved, but why on Earth do people want that the game are still called RPGs ? It's not important to them if they play it nonetheless.

On the contrary, when I buy a RPG, I'm expecting to get a RPG, not some crappy shooter game with dialogues. Nowadays, it's becoming more and more difficult to find a RPG that corresponds to the concept of a RPG because of this artificial "lack of definition" that comes from blatant ignorance of the true meanings of words used.

More than that, we can see more and more people that don't enjoy RPG but like action/adventure games that ask for stripping RPG from what make those games RPG saying that those things are just issues and don't want to manage. They are like vampires that don't find sufficient to have only 80% of the market dedicated to them. They want all the game market. For one good reason : action games have poor scenarii and overall are short term games with replayability only in multiplayer settings. Thus, games that have some well written scenarii are attracting them.

All this is no more than your saying, "I prefer tactical combat in my RPGs and I resent players that enjoy role-playing but happen to enjoy a different type of combat." In reply to your comments on history, I'll note that many people were against he forward pass in American football when it was originally introduced, and probably said things like "this is the lazy way to solve the issue: downgrading a game instead of upgrading another game." Oh well?

[Tantum Dic Verbo]

soteria wrote...


I'll bite. Character skill vs player skill does not define an RPG. That's what defines the difference between tactical combat and action. It's why Red Alert is an RTS and MW is a shooter--one uses stats to resolve combat, and the other uses player skill. If character skill truly defined an RPG, then every strategy game out there is an RPG. Using your abbreviated definition here, Heroes of Might and Magic is an RPG because it has a leveling system and uses stats, or character skill, to resolve combat. ME and Oblivion are role-playing games because they allow the player to (gasp) role-play. MW2, Red Alert, and HoMM are not RPG's because there's no RP to be found in any of them.

The internet has taught me that "what I'm used to" is the one, true defining characteristic of an RPG.  Hell, as a long-time PnP'er, I could argue that CRPG's don't qualify because the stories are so inflexible.

I just hope that people can at least start recognizing that they're arguing personal preferences instead of some objective standard of RPG-ness.

[Chuvvy]

Blackbaron15 wrote...

Definatly if you hate drinking Dr Pepper.

You could have gotten the codes online bro.

[ReinaHW]

I'm hoping they won't go the tiny text route like with ME2, that was annoying. There's no way I can manage to get an HDTV, it's well beyond my budget and I don't like being forced to get one because of tiny text and other annoyances that require an HDTV to fix.



They still haven't bothered to fix the tiny text in ME2, I would love to get that game finished and I can't since I can't read any of the mission objectives and other information.

If they do that with DA2, then that's going to be another annoyance that will limit any enjoyment.

[CybAnt1]

Well, I would add only one point. RPGs have always been dependent on character progression. Your character(s) progresses in their skillset over time. Whether they use a level system (as most do), or a skill points system without levels, the bottom line is your character gets better and better at things they do over time. Indeed, for those who love the gearhead aspect of this (it's why there are forums here devoted to it), you can plan your character's progression over time, and what things you want to focus on. Archery? Stealth? Melee?

Here's the key thing: making game outcomes dependent on character skill means character progression becomes important. Making game outcomes independent of character skill means character progression becomes less important.

Again, is it the sole defining attribute of an RPG? No. But I do think it's one of them. You get the joy not only of "role" playing your character the way you want to play them alignment/personality/morality/etc. wise, or customizing their race/class/gender, but building them, so to speak, the way you want to, with various proficiencies. 

Modifié par CybAnt1, 21 juillet 2010 - 04:43 .

[Stanley Woo]

We are already having a similar discussion about the direction of DA2 in this thread. Please take your discussion there. Thank you.



End of line.