1507 réponses à ce sujet

[AlanC9]

Was KingRanger agreeing with me?

[Kalfear]

In Exile wrote...

the_one_54321 wrote...
Name a single genre of games where this can't be easily tacked on, or hasn't already been done. Shooters already have it. I think some fighteres too. Racing games already have improvement progression. RTSs have had it since WCIII I think. So.. maybe sports games? Those do already try to mimic the real life abilities of real life athletes though.

All genres, in fact. In which shooters do you have story choices? In which shooters do you customize your apperance? In which racing games do you exist as a person apart from a car unit driving to win? 

Games absolutely lack an interactive narrative wherein you can partially customize a character for deep and meaningful choices.

To a certain extent "the_one" is right Exile, at least speaking of the more recent releases anyways! Your right as well in a more restictive sense but hes got a point you cant ignore.

Starcraft has a huge story (if you watch the trailer (damn fine trailer btw)) but the game is obviously not a RPG. FallOut3 had a 10 hour throw away story and 100+ hours of shooting. I call that a shooter with a story, some less refined folks call it a RPG. Mass Effect 2, it had a linear as all hell story (that you couldnt really affect) and a ton of combat shooting. Some less refined players call that a RPG, I call it a Shooter with a story.

I never played Obsidian but im lead to beleive (by reliable sources) it was fantasy version of FallOut3. Giant sandbox that lacked direction and story! With out the story driving the game, its not a RPG, its simply not.

Point is, in modern day games, most of them do have a back story of some sort now, even it it doesnt effect or matter to the game play, a small story is there!

Now for others so Exile doesnt think this all directed to him/her.

As for customization, The Witcher had far more customization then Mass Effect 2 or Fall Out 3 had. Not sure what version of the Witcher less refined players like Alan played but Witcher had customization. As Slim said, wasnt perfect was a boat load better then other games they tag (falsely) as RPGs. Yeah the combat was action based but AGAIN (for those that didnt understand first time I said it) as long as the cmabt supports THE STORY, its a RPG, style and depth of combat doesnt matter! STORY MATTERS.

If the story just gives reason for the main point of game, the combat, like FO3, ME2, Diablo 1, 2 and 3, and other titles, then your not playing a RPG.

Seriously, its not rocket science here.

Lastly, Slim is right, no one I know thinks the Witcher was perfect! Slim knows I think the English voice acting for Geralt is one level below terrible cause I posted it where it mattered and hopefully devs could see the feedback. Dandelion has nothing on Lelianna as a bard singing (its not even a contest). Killing Drowners gets damn boring at times in the swamp. there is a ton of things Witcher didnt do great but its positives still vastly out weight its negatives! Story, inventory, interaction with NPCs, customization, these things CD Projekt did get right mostly (or at least when compared to shooters like ME2 and FO3)

DA:O wasnt perfect either but its positives grossly outweighted its negatives!
ME1 wasnt perfect either but its positives grossly outweighted it negatives!

Yet in ME2, most of the stuff that did work in ME1 was removed
From the reports thus far, much of what worked in DA:O is being removed!
CD Projekt however seems to have grasped you dont change the positives, you change the stuff that didnt work, and THATS THE LESSON I (me personally) WANT BIOWARE TO LEARN ALREADY. Its way to late for ME2 and probably to late for DA2 but hopefully if it gets said enough times they learn it for future games! 
YOU DONT CHANGE WHAT WAS WORKING!

[DragonRageGT]

Kalfear wrote...

In Exile wrote...

the_one_54321 wrote...
Name a single genre of games where this can't be easily tacked on, or hasn't already been done. Shooters already have it. I think some fighteres too. Racing games already have improvement progression. RTSs have had it since WCIII I think. So.. maybe sports games? Those do already try to mimic the real life abilities of real life athletes though.

All genres, in fact. In which shooters do you have story choices? In which shooters do you customize your apperance? In which racing games do you exist as a person apart from a car unit driving to win? 

Games absolutely lack an interactive narrative wherein you can partially customize a character for deep and meaningful choices.

To a certain extent "the_one" is right Exile, at least speaking of the more recent releases anyways! Your right as well in a more restictive sense but hes got a point you cant ignore.

Starcraft has a huge story (if you watch the trailer (damn fine trailer btw)) but the game is obviously not a RPG. FallOut3 had a 10 hour throw away story and 100+ hours of shooting. I call that a shooter with a story, some less refined folks call it a RPG. Mass Effect 2, it had a linear as all hell story (that you couldnt really affect) and a ton of combat shooting. Some less refined players call that a RPG, I call it a Shooter with a story.

I never played Obsidian but im lead to beleive (by reliable sources) it was fantasy version of FallOut3. Giant sandbox that lacked direction and story! With out the story driving the game, its not a RPG, its simply not.

Point is, in modern day games, most of them do have a back story of some sort now, even it it doesnt effect or matter to the game play, a small story is there!

Now for others so Exile doesnt think this all directed to him/her.

As for customization, The Witcher had far more customization then Mass Effect 2 or Fall Out 3 had. Not sure what version of the Witcher less refined players like Alan played but Witcher had customization. As Slim said, wasnt perfect was a boat load better then other games they tag (falsely) as RPGs. Yeah the combat was action based but AGAIN (for those that didnt understand first time I said it) as long as the cmabt supports THE STORY, its a RPG, style and depth of combat doesnt matter! STORY MATTERS.

If the story just gives reason for the main point of game, the combat, like FO3, ME2, Diablo 1, 2 and 3, and other titles, then your not playing a RPG.

Seriously, its not rocket science here.

Lastly, Slim is right, no one I know thinks the Witcher was perfect! Slim knows I think the English voice acting for Geralt is one level below terrible cause I posted it where it mattered and hopefully devs could see the feedback. Dandelion has nothing on Lelianna as a bard singing (its not even a contest). Killing Drowners gets damn boring at times in the swamp. there is a ton of things Witcher didnt do great but its positives still vastly out weight its negatives! Story, inventory, interaction with NPCs, customization, these things CD Projekt did get right mostly (or at least when compared to shooters like ME2 and FO3)

DA:O wasnt perfect either but its positives grossly outweighted its negatives!
ME1 wasnt perfect either but its positives grossly outweighted it negatives!

Yet in ME2, most of the stuff that did work in ME1 was removed
From the reports thus far, much of what worked in DA:O is being removed!
CD Projekt however seems to have grasped you dont change the positives, you change the stuff that didnt work, and THATS THE LESSON I (me personally) WANT BIOWARE TO LEARN ALREADY. Its way to late for ME2 and probably to late for DA2 but hopefully if it gets said enough times they learn it for future games! 
YOU DONT CHANGE WHAT WAS WORKING!

Only one remark must be done to this very clear and well done post:

Of course Starcraft is not a RPG. It is a Real Time Strategy game, for crying out loud! How else could we, the GT's, have beaten most of the world SC players in those good old days, including some amazing Koreans like the Julies Sisters? And Blizzard really screwed us up by restricting us to a Latin American server. Guess we can only beat Argentinians now... (My SC2 delayed and the guy is supposed to arrive tomorrow from NYC. I dreaded the thought of playing it with a Portuguese/Spanish version.) Another big mistake by Blizzard. We always had the US version released here with no dubbing. The least they could do was to include English in the Port/Spanish version. Hot keys suck so bad in translated versions.. they make no sense like Build Barracks! Terran FTW!

For the rest, you said it so many times, I agreed since I first read it and I keep forgetting it when I want to say it. Yes, the Story in The Witcher is the most important thing and it is a cool one too. With most of the side stories adding to that. The combat is fun, true, and we can even grind a little for some more exp/level ups since stuff respawn in minor proportions but still. It is the Story that drives me through long gaming sessions and makes me anxious to start the next session the next day!

And one should always have a Drowner, a Wraith, a Vampire and a Giant Centipede repelent amulets to use when you're kind not in the mood for a fight, it is not worthy or your toxicity is too high, you're out of White Honey and the next potion could kill you instead of heal you. So, why risk a battle before resting and breweing some pots?

There is a ton of things Witcher didnt do great but its positives still vastly out weight its negatives!  (My edit: like 100ton of things that it did great)
DA:O wasnt perfect either but its positives grossly outweighted its negatives!
ME1 wasnt perfect either but its positives grossly outweighted it negatives!

There, this says it all.

Modifié par RageGT, 06 août 2010 - 04:53 .

[elearon1]

It seems to me the argument here isn't "what is an rpg" but "what is the mechanical definition of a crpg" and the two are very different questions.



An rpg is a game in which you play a role, move through a story, make choices that impact that story, and engage in acting out a character.



The only *real* rpgs are those played at tables with character sheets and dice rolls. (and sometimes the dice rolls are replaced by another mechanic) You engage in a story being told by multiple people and typically only control your own character in that story. It is, in many ways, like playing pretend or a choose your own adventure novel.



In crpgs the game developer is the GM and your character is always going to be limited at creation in some way. (though the latter is often the case in pen and paper games as well) CRPGS also tend to have some mechanical similarities - something about inventory, tactical combat, a conversation tree, and the illusion that you're making a difference. While related, crpgs and rpgs are not the same thing - they simply cannot be - so computer games have to have definitions that help define them as one genre over another.



I don't recall a lot of roleplaying in Oblivion, so that might be better called an adventure game. Diablo is an action adventure game. ME2 had a great deal of roleplaying but deviated from some crpg norms, so probably qualifies as an action crpg.



Ultimately you seem to be having two arguments here: The computer gaming group says "without certain mechanics it isn't an rpg" while the roleplayers say "so long as it has *rpg* elements, then it's an rpg." And neither one seems ready to acknowledge they are coming from two different perspectives.

[Merci357]

elearon1 wrote...

An rpg is a game in which you play a role, move through a story, make choices that impact that story, and engage in acting out a character.

Choices that impact the story have nothing at all to do with a RPG, it's simply no part of it's definition. Oh, I agree with you, I expect them these days, but they are, at least were, no requirement. Otherwise simply everything labeled RPG in the late 80's and early 90's were no RPGs at all. Just think about SSI Gold Box games, for reference. You played a role (class), yes, and had a story, but you had no choice at all - no dialogue, just monologue, and only one possible way to solve quests. However, solving quests was necessary to progress, maybe that's a common denominator.

Modifié par Merci357, 06 août 2010 - 06:01 .

[elearon1]

Again, my first definition was of roleplaying - not necessarily computer role playing - as I mention later in that post, they are two different things and from this difference arises some of the confusion and contention in this thread.



*Modern* crpgs also have some element of story impact, but older crpgs had very little. Still it could occasionally be found in decisions concerning who to let live, how to solve a mission - whether by generosity or suffering - whether or not to let person or group X suffer at the hands of another. These smaller choices could often have some minor impact in just how you received future quests or from who you received aid. We expect more direct involvement in modern crpgs and I think it is the depth of this involvement which will ultimately draw the distinction between "true" crpgs and the pretenders, such as shooters with a framing story.

[Kenrae]

elearon1 wrote...

It seems to me the argument here isn't "what is an rpg" but "what is the mechanical definition of a crpg" and the two are very different questions.

An rpg is a game in which you play a role, move through a story, make choices that impact that story, and engage in acting out a character.

The only *real* rpgs are those played at tables with character sheets and dice rolls. (and sometimes the dice rolls are replaced by another mechanic) You engage in a story being told by multiple people and typically only control your own character in that story. It is, in many ways, like playing pretend or a choose your own adventure novel.

I've always said the same. No computer game has ever been a "real" rpg. But there's a type of computer game that traditionally has been labelled as "rpg". I just say they're crpgs and go with it.

In crpgs the game developer is the GM and your character is always going to be limited at creation in some way. (though the latter is often the case in pen and paper games as well) CRPGS also tend to have some mechanical similarities - something about inventory, tactical combat, a conversation tree, and the illusion that you're making a difference. While related, crpgs and rpgs are not the same thing - they simply cannot be - so computer games have to have definitions that help define them as one genre over another.

The funny thing is that modern rpgs have deviated a lot from these similarities. I love HeroQuest (NOT the board game) and there you don't have attributes, you don't have classes, you don't have an inventory and the rules are the same whether it's combat, a debate, trying to romance a princess or steal a treasure. I can't imagine a computer game like that.

Ultimately you seem to be having two arguments here: The computer gaming group says "without certain mechanics it isn't an rpg" while the roleplayers say "so long as it has *rpg* elements, then it's an rpg." And neither one seems ready to acknowledge they are coming from two different perspectives.

Very different perspectives. And even amongst roleplayers there are differences. It's not the same a d&d player than a Call of Cthulhu player.

[elearon1]

>>The funny thing is that modern rpgs have deviated a lot from these similarities. I love HeroQuest (NOT the board game) and there you don't have attributes, you don't have classes, you don't have an inventory and the rules are the same whether it's combat, a debate, trying to romance a princess or steal a treasure. <<



Which is why I didn't mention any of those things relating to non crpgs. I have played a number of PnP games which don't have classes or levels - I don't see how you can't have inventory, as these are simply the things your character carries around, but most of the other stuff is up in the air. (personally I am fond of stats, as they help set parameters for a character, but the rest really depends on the quality of the system and the people involved with the game) Personally I'm not particularly fond of the "one rule to do it all" systems either, as I like a different flavor to the mechanics when doing different things, but I can see the argument about how that takes one's attention away from mastering the learning curve and gets them right into the game.



I think a computer game *could* do most of those things; the Call of Cthulhu computer game had an inventory, but no classes, levels, skills, or the like and worked just fine. (the game actually had some other issues, but the character design was fine ... mind you, that was most certainly not a crpg)



In general I don't think I want a computer game that doesn't have levels and skill progression of some sort, as in the crpg that is a sign of your character advancement. It is not the same as a PnP game where advancement in character, connections, and such can be almost entirely roleplayed. There are simply concessions one has to make when moving from one medium to the other.

[Nerevar-as]

slimgrin wrote...

TMZuk wrote...

RageGT wrote...
.........

Let's see, I'm 46 and have played most games that came out since Diablo 1 which was the milestone in cRPG......

If Diablo was an RPG, then I guess Starcraft was a space-simulation. Diablo had next to nothing in dialogue, options, choises or any other RP element. It was Hack Slash Stab Hack Hack Hack Slash Burn Hack Slash Stomp Slash.....

Perhaps if it had been sold as "Groo the Barbarian the RPG", I'd accept it as an RPG, but even Groo had more humour than Diablo.

I know this thread is about The Witcher, but I can't resist bringing up a game called Divine Divinity, a cult classic by Larian studios. I'm only a few hours in, but it appears to marry the game play of Diablo with a more involved story and old school rpg leveling reminiscent of D&D. I'm liking it so far.  

Try Ego Draconis after you finish it then, but wait until the expansion is out in a few months.

Funny thing is Witcher combat is stat based. That´s why you usually but not always fail when you swing Strong Style to a light enemy, and your attacks don´t hit always, plus parries and dodges. It´s all skills you can improve when you level up or use some potions.

[Kenrae]

elearon1 wrote...

>>The funny thing is that modern rpgs have deviated a lot from these similarities. I love HeroQuest (NOT the board game) and there you don't have attributes, you don't have classes, you don't have an inventory and the rules are the same whether it's combat, a debate, trying to romance a princess or steal a treasure.

Which is why I didn't mention any of those things relating to non crpgs. I have played a number of PnP games which don't have classes or levels - I don't see how you can't have inventory, as these are simply the things your character carries around, but most of the other stuff is up in the air.

Well, in this game, you basically write the stuff that is important to your character, not every little tiny bit. So, King Arthur's charsheet would mention Excalibur, and it would be a skill (everything is a skill), but you don't write down his armor, every piece of copper he has, 14 rings, 3 amulets, etc. You're supposed to have basic equipment for your profession and skills unless there's some story reason not to and, in that case, you'll have a negative modifier or won't be able to use a skill at all.

(personally I am fond of stats, as they help set parameters for a character, but the rest really depends on the quality of the system and the people involved with the game)

I play RuneQuest and Call of Cthulhu a lot too, so it's not that I'm against them. But it works here. If you want to have a strong character, you'd have a "strong" skill. Oh, there aren't any list of available skills, everything can be a skill like "Qunari sidekick" or "Relationship to my clan".

Personally I'm not particularly fond of the "one rule to do it all" systems either, as I like a different flavor to the mechanics when doing different things, but I can see the argument about how that takes one's attention away from mastering the learning curve and gets them right into the game.

Sometimes I feel like playing this game, sometimes I feel like playing other, more traditional, games. What it achieves though is giving the same importance to any kind of confrontation instead of combat ending being more important 99% of cases.

I think a computer game *could* do most of those things; the Call of Cthulhu computer game had an inventory, but no classes, levels, skills, or the like and worked just fine. (the game actually had some other issues, but the character design was fine ... mind you, that was most certainly not a crpg)

Betrayal at Krondor was skill-based too. No classes, no levels, not even experience points, you got better at the skills you used.

In general I don't think I want a computer game that doesn't have levels and skill progression of some sort, as in the crpg that is a sign of your character advancement. It is not the same as a PnP game where advancement in character, connections, and such can be almost entirely roleplayed. There are simply concessions one has to make when moving from one medium to the other.

I completely agree. Well, except on the levels, but you can have skill progression without levels.

[In Exile]

Kalfear wrote...
To a certain extent "the_one" is right Exile, at least speaking of the more recent releases anyways! Your right as well in a more restictive sense but hes got a point you cant ignore.

No, he doesn't. Having a story and having an interactive story is not the same thing at all. If it was, they would be called the same yet; clearly they are not, as one has a qualifier.

Starcraft has a huge story (if you watch the trailer (damn fine trailer btw)) but the game is obviously not a RPG. FallOut3 had a 10 hour throw away story and 100+ hours of shooting. I call that a shooter with a story, some less refined folks call it a RPG. Mass Effect 2, it had a linear as all hell story (that you couldnt really affect) and a ton of combat shooting. Some less refined players call that a RPG, I call it a Shooter with a story.

Oh, well, if the "less refined" dare to call it an RPG...

It's good that you're refined and intelligent, and you can correct their stupidy. It's good that we have superior people like you showing us the light.

I never played Obsidian but im lead to beleive (by reliable sources) it was fantasy version of FallOut3. Giant sandbox that lacked direction and story! With out the story driving the game, its not a RPG, its simply not.

So we've gone from not needing a story to be an RPG, to needing a story to be an RPG?

Point is, in modern day games, most of them do have a back story of some sort now, even it it doesnt effect or matter to the game play, a small story is there!

The point was that you didn't need an RPG to get an interactive story driven game. But it seems like you do need an RPG to get precisely this. So whether or not some linear fixed story is there is completely irrelevant to the point.

CD Projekt however seems to have grasped you dont change the positives, you change the stuff that didnt work, and THATS THE LESSON I (me personally) WANT BIOWARE TO LEARN ALREADY. Its way to late for ME2 and probably to late for DA2 but hopefully if it gets said enough times they learn it for future games! 
YOU DONT CHANGE WHAT WAS WORKING!

Unless it isn't working. Sadly, "less refined" people were apparently working on that game, and look at the travesty that came out. They need a true seer like you, to show them the error of their ways. What would we do without your greatness raining down from the heavens, in BOLD ALL-CAPS.

[In Exile]

Merci357 wrote...

Choices that impact the story have nothing at all to do with a RPG, it's simply no part of it's definition. Oh, I agree with you, I expect them these days, but they are, at least were, no requirement. Otherwise simply everything labeled RPG in the late 80's and early 90's were no RPGs at all. Just think about SSI Gold Box games, for reference. You played a role (class), yes, and had a story, but you had no choice at all - no dialogue, just monologue, and only one possible way to solve quests. However, solving quests was necessary to progress, maybe that's a common denominator.

And they shouldn't be, in the modern sense of the word. The issue is that there have been a lot of dramatic subranches in the RPG family, with the advance of technology and the ability to tell different kinds of stories that you really do not see with other general gameplay types (except for potentially strategy games).

[AlanC9]

In Exile wrote...
It's good that you're refined and intelligent, and you can correct their stupidy. It's good that we have superior people like you showing us the light.

You probably should have explicitly flagged this as sarcasm.

[AlanC9]

slimgrin wrote...
And meanwhile, this thread is totally derailed. This was a discussion about two franchises that I happen to think heavily influenced each other. Instead, we are having that wonderfully inane debate about what the f*ck an rpg is. 20 plus years of gaming, and apparently nobody can figure it out. I don't care anymore.  

I guess people just like the "what is an RPG" topic.

[the_one_54321]

In Exile wrote...
No, he doesn't. Having a story and having an interactive story is not the same thing at all. If it was, they would be called the same yet; clearly they are not, as one has a qualifier.

Because GTA games don't have interactive stories at all. And there are no RTS games that have a leveling system, items, loot, and main protagonists and NPCs. And racing games don't have their own upgrade systems. And there have been no shooters that have in depth stories or leveling systems. And there have been no games outside of RPGs where you can choose the order with which you tackle problems. Oh, and only RPGs have stories that also include side quests.

Ok, that's enough sarcasm.

Seriously, consider what you are suggesting defines an RPG and just how many other types of games have it as well. RageGT had a much better deffinition of what constitutes an RPG. I don't fully agree with him because I think the limit also includes that you can controle the PCs actions (click to shoot, press to slash, etc) but his remains, by far, the best thought out defnition I've read out of everything that has been offered on these forums over the years.

[DragonRageGT]

the_one_54321 wrote...

In Exile wrote...
No, he doesn't. Having a story and having an interactive story is not the same thing at all. If it was, they would be called the same yet; clearly they are not, as one has a qualifier.

Because GTA games don't have interactive stories at all. And there are no RTS games that have a leveling system, items, loot, and main protagonists and NPCs. And racing games don't have their own upgrade systems. And there have been no shooters that have in depth stories or leveling systems. And there have been no games outside of RPGs where you can choose the order with which you tackle problems. Oh, and only RPGs have stories that also include side quests.

Ok, that's enough sarcasm.

Seriously, consider what you are suggesting defines an RPG and just how many other types of games have it as well. RageGT had a much better deffinition of what constitutes an RPG. I don't fully agree with him because I think the limit also includes that you can controle the PCs actions (click to shoot, press to slash, etc) but his remains, by far, the best thought out defnition I've read out of everything that has been offered on these forums over the years.

Were you being sarcastic about RTS? Because you surely know that Warcraft III has it all. Leveling system, items, loot, and main protagonists and NPCs, Quests and Subquests. But it is still a RTS with RPG elements because at the end of the day, Peons wins the game!  (Can't wait to get my SC2! Hopefully the guy arrives tomorrow with it! Heard it has some RPG elements as well for the campaign? Anyone here playing it mplayer?)

And thank you for your kind words. But let's get this thread back to Topic? Like, what would we like to see from The Witcher in DA2?

I for one, would love to see the Lady of the Forest back and allowing us some interaction like this with the Lady of the Lake... hehe

The Witcher - HD - The Goddess and The Knight - (or the Jest)

[Bfler]

Although it doesn't fit Geralts person the moment when the Lady gives him the sword is my favourite scene of the game.

Would be nice if there are some scenes containing a few traditional aspects of chivalry in DA2..

[Nerevar-as]

I knew there was a reason I played in Polish. Still better voice than the Spanish though.



I don´t think is OOC for Geralt, though. The Lady is not exactly a human noble and he would respect the way she is. And the sword is a great weapon. This one is for the monsters.

[Ju13es]

[quote]

The Witcher really is a dark mature fantasy, while DAO simply isn't at all dark IMO./quote

I thought dragon age was a pretty dark game. How brood mothers are made? You cant get much more mature than that. Very disturbing in my books

[Nerevar-as]

And the Broodmother of Awakenings was Fan Disservice to the max, wouldn´t have minded the silly love scene censorship there.
But that´s part of the setting. It´s not so dark in the sense that whenever the Warden can take charge of a situation there´s always a happy ending available, only can  think of the Alistair-Loghain choice and Morrigan romance were you can´t get what you want.
On the other side, it´s probably the reason I´ve played a lot more DA than Witcher even if I consider the latter the better game.

Modifié par Nerevar-as, 06 août 2010 - 11:27 .

[DragonRageGT]

slimgrin wrote...

Ahh..the escapist. This guy has gained notoriety by being a fast-talking douche bag.

Lol. But I still LMAO every time I watch that particular review. And many true points in it. Still, like Nerevar,  I've played a lot more DA:O than The Witcher because the replayability factor, for me, is a lot higher in Dragon Age, even if The Witcher is an awesome game. I cannot start 2 runs in a row in The Witcher without getting a bit bored with the repetition, although if I did find many different stuff and quests in different runs thru it. That's because the game division into chapters limits how much different can I do in every new run.

DA:O, with 6 different origins and many possible Main Chars, together with a huge freedom to choose the path, specially in the first part, has allowed me to have some 20 full runs with it and never ever repeated two of them exactly the same.

And this big replayability, for me, is what I fear that DA2 will not be able to match.