1133 réponses à ce sujet

[Merced256]

Stan did nothing of the sort.

His entire last paragraph was essentially that. Hail Dragon Effect.

Modifié par Merced256, 13 août 2010 - 03:22 .

[Sylvius the Mad]

Merced256 wrote...

His entire last paragraph was essentially that. Hail Dragon Effect.

That's not at all what he said, though.  He wasn't explicity talking about the PC (he used the PC from ME in an earlier example, but in his conclusion he returned to his broader point), and he wasn't even explicitly talking about BioWare's games, let alone DA2.

Stan did not say what you think he said.  Maybe he meant to - we can't know that - but he unequivocally did not say it.

[In Exile]

Merced256 wrote...

You define something by its characteristics. Remove characteristics and its no longer a reflection of what it previously defined. Take a RPG, remove some RPG elements, is it still a RPG? No, at best its a game with RPG elements.

Here is the problem with this statement: it suggests that we categorize things on the bais of a kind of neccesary/sufficient list, i.e. something is a chair if you can sit on it. This view completely fails to account for how we actually categorize objects.

What we actually do is judge typicality in some important way. The mechanism is still up for debate, but overall there is very strong evidence that we have an idea of classes of things on the basis of how a subjective rating of how good something is as an illustration of category.

So for example, a robin and an ostrich are both birds (as far as we are concered) but a robin is a better (more prototypical) example of what a bird is.

The issue with adding and removing features is that no one feature is particularly neccesary. So whether Mass Effect or Dragon Age are the robin or the bird for the genre depends entirely on the set of central features you think belong to an RPG.

Since like someone else pointed out, there was a temporal swap of features, what someone who played KoTOR as their first RPG and someone who played Ultimate II as their first RPG will just have different ideas of central features.

[SirOccam]

I think it's the classic form/function debate. I think story, relationships, dialogue, choices, etc. are the intangible "form" elements, while combat mechanics, stats, rules, etc. are the tangible "function" side of it.

In most things I value function over form, meaning I'm not a big fan of decorative centerpieces but at the same time I don't want to wear an 80's calculator watch or have an ugly couch. But with RPGs, I guess I'm the other way around. I'm all about the feeling the game evokes, rather than the rules by which it does so.

Modifié par SirOccam, 13 août 2010 - 03:27 .

[BrandonMotz]

hmmmm



I think the gams they put out now are no different than when KotR was fresh. Everything has been improved upon of course, but it still essentially the same game experience just in a different world.



If they goto a "Push A button to win" I will stop buying Bioware games. If I want that Ill go play with my Wii.



The fact that they put so much effort into these games goes without saying that they listen, but I very much doubt that they will "downgrade" their games by making them kid friendly.

[Jonathan Seagull]

Khavos wrote...

I suppose I'm saying what it has to be like.  You can't simply throw dialogue options into Modern Warfare 2 and suddenly call it an RPG, which is essentially what you seem to be suggesting.  

You are only saying what it has to be like for you.  Which is fine, as long as you understand that you aren't the arbiter of what is and isn't an RPG.  And for the record, I wasn't suggesting anything, much less that.  I was saying that I don't think the style of combat is (IMO) the deciding factor of whether something is an RPG.  I will say that I understand your later comment about meaning gameplay more than combat specifically a bit more.

Also for the record, I pretty much agree with SirOccam and Saibh.  Having choices and paths throughout the game that lead to different outcomes is much more what RPGs are about to me.  But just to me.

Modifié par Jonathan Seagull, 13 août 2010 - 03:39 .

[Mydalis]

Khavos wrote...

Jonathan Seagull wrote...

Khavos wrote...

An RPG combat system, for one. I did a ME2 run on Insanity without ever spending a talent point. The game wasn't impossible - it wasn't even noticeably more difficult than if I had spent them all. It was a shooter. It was built as a shooter, with RPG bits tacked on where they could fit - and Bioware doesn't deny this, by the way. That leaves it as a shooter with dialogue options. If that fits your definition of an CRPG, more power to you - it doesn't fit mine. There are far better action/shooter developers out there, and Bioware's writing isn't any better than theirs in terms of plotlines. Their storytelling gives them a slight edge, but it's quite rare that I want to play a game solely for the decent storytelling rather than the actual gameplay.

Who's to say what an "RPG combat system" has to be like? The nature of the combat system alone does not, IMO, determine whether a game is an RPG or not, even though certain styles of combat are traditionally more associated with RPGs.
[

I suppose I'm saying what it has to be like. You can't simply throw dialogue options into Modern Warfare 2 and suddenly call it an RPG, which is essentially what you seem to be suggesting.

An RPG combat system is one in which the character's abilities, rather than the player's, determine combat outcomes. ME2 was a shooter. I like shooters. I play them frequently. That's how I can recognize them. Nothing I did to Shepard in ME2 made him shoot better or worse. Again, I ran through the game on Insanity without ever spending a talent point. It wasn't more difficult, just slightly more tedious. The game did not have an RPG combat system, it had a shooter combat system. Thus, in my book, it was a craptastic RPG. And, for the record, it was only a mediocre shooter.

A more honest question would be, can something be an rpg and also be a first person shooter I think. Just throwing some dialogue choices in Modern Warfare 2 wouldn't make it an RPG imo any more than throwing RPG elements in Dawn of War 2 or Starcraft 2. But if they threw all the RPG bits from Mass Effect 2 into a FPS, I think it very well could be an RPG.

But then that could be because I just don't put as much emphasis on combat as an important part of rpgs i guess. Even in computer games the systems seem to change quite a bit. But in pen and paper there are tons of different systems, and I'm not going to say they're unimportant, they can be really interesting. But it's still possible in my opinion to have a game session without any combat at all. I honestly, think the main reason they exist is to put constraints on the players and resolve conflicts and other game issues impartially(well, mostly). So you don't have people going "Nuh-uh, Coolelf, the ranger, is too fast to get hit by some silly kobold!" and someone else going "He totally got hit! They jumped out and ambushed you!" Instead, you get a system with rules that go ok roll a die, 10 he missed or 20 he hit. Vastly oversimplified, but the point is there.

I simply don't think rolling dice before combat would make Mass Effect 2 any better, nor would hitting autoattack and then queueing up the fast shot and powershot skill. I think the combat for Mass Effect 2 works well for 2 main reasons. 1. Like it or hate it, the presentation fo the game is very cinematic- switching from cutscenes or exploration to combat and then back is very fluid. You don't get taken out of the game that often(well, minus the loading screens but they try to place them pretty well), a slower system would feel more gamey. There's nothing wrong with gamey; I'd actually like another good turn-based strategy rpg sometime, but I don't think it would work well for Mass Effect 2. And 2. Shepard is basically just a big space marine, he's good with guns. Shooter combat sort of fits the character's abilities in this case. For me combat is less important, so shooting guys in the head, just as good as dice rolling for me so long as it fits, and in the case of Mass Effect 2; I happen to think it does.

For full disclosure, the Baldur's Gate series is probably my favorite game series, but I thought Mass Effect 2 was a great game. It had some problems; one or two more main story missions would've helped(well, if they were substantive and not just filler), but I enjoyed it mostly. I even enjoyed the inventory changes while many, apparently, did not. I wish there had been a few more options and I wish that you could still customize your squadmates(did really miss this part) but if the option is tons of stuff that is virtually identical except for a few numbers or a smaller inventory that has items that are more unique and actually feel different from one another- I'd rather have the smaller inventory. It would also be nice to be able to mod the weapons and armor but that's neither here nor there and I digress.

That said, going through without spending skill points, just seems like an odd point and is a part of your post that I just really don't get . They're there and they affect the character, you can use them but you chose not to. If you want to argue the game is too easy, this is a fine point for that, but it doesn't seem to have much to do with your definition of rpg combat. Levelling up and using skill points does make the character stronger. Just because you can beat the game with a weaker character doesn't make that untrue.

Anyway, lots of this is subjective. I think you could argue that ME2 was a third person shooter with RPG elements or an RPG with third person shooter combat. I think there's enough emphasis on the RPG bits to make it an RPG, but I could certainly see the argument that it's the former. Getting way off topic though, should probably return to actually talking about Dragon Age 2.

They changed some stuff, not much info out. But given the Bioware track record I'll probably buy it barring some unforeseen horrors in the future. Hopefully it will have an interesting story and some memorable moments.

Modifié par Mydalis, 13 août 2010 - 03:43 .

[In Exile]

Khavos wrote...

So you did a successful DA:O Nightmare run with all of your characters having no talent points allocated to anything?  Honestly, I don't believe you.

No talent or not stat allocations? I did a no talent/skill [save persuade for the PC] allocation run partway but got bored on the tedium of the deep road if it counts. It's a pain, but a 4 warrior/rogue archer party with the right specification can be succesful. I did it in the vanilla game, though, so there were some abilities you had hardwired as a base.

[In Exile]

SirOccam wrote...

I think it's the classic form/function debate. I think story, relationships, dialogue, choices, etc. are the intangible "form" elements, while combat mechanics, stats, rules, etc. are the tangible "function" side of it.

In most things I value function over form, meaning I'm not a big fan of decorative centerpieces but at the same time I don't want to wear an 80's calculator watch or have an ugly couch. But with RPGs, I guess I'm the other way around. I'm all about the feeling the game evokes, rather than the rules by which it does so.

I'm a form when function is sufficient kind of guy, I suppose. So long as the function side of a game is satisfactory, I'm picking purely on form.

Though why dialogue, relationship management and choices aren't gameplay elements is totally arbitrary. You can easily say all of these things are gameplay in a meaningful sense of the word.

I personally agree with your distinction, but you will find people (e.g. Sylvius) who say dialogue is part of gameplay.

[Dave of Canada]

I'll just leave this here.

Made in cooperation with Bryy.

Modifié par Dave of Canada, 13 août 2010 - 03:49 .

[SirOccam]

In Exile wrote...

SirOccam wrote...

I think it's the classic form/function debate. I think story, relationships, dialogue, choices, etc. are the intangible "form" elements, while combat mechanics, stats, rules, etc. are the tangible "function" side of it.

In most things I value function over form, meaning I'm not a big fan of decorative centerpieces but at the same time I don't want to wear an 80's calculator watch or have an ugly couch. But with RPGs, I guess I'm the other way around. I'm all about the feeling the game evokes, rather than the rules by which it does so.

I'm a form when function is sufficient kind of guy, I suppose. So long as the function side of a game is satisfactory, I'm picking purely on form.

Though why dialogue, relationship management and choices aren't gameplay elements is totally arbitrary. You can easily say all of these things are gameplay in a meaningful sense of the word.

I personally agree with your distinction, but you will find people (e.g. Sylvius) who say dialogue is part of gameplay.

I do think it's all part of gameplay, but form is intangible, left-brain kind of stuff, while function is more tangible and orderly and right-brain. Well it's not a perfect analogy. How dialogue works I guess would be "function," but the dialogue itself, the spoken lines and the meaning of them, is what I was referring to. So if they want to break all the rules about how various things work, I won't care as long as the resultant feel is good. The ends, in this case, justify the means.

[Merced256]

In the last 5 pages we've pretty much come to the consensus that core definition of a RPG is fundamentally different between people. However, i think a good question to ask is: How akin is your definition of RPG to what traditionally defines the Action Adventure genre?



Take out ME2's pathetic leveling and skill point system and you have what? The very essence of a Action Adventure game.



So that brings us back to the point of watering down or outright removing RPG elements and then arguing the game is still a RPG. At some point it stops looking like a RPG and more like an action adventure game. Weak RPG elements DOES NOT A RPG MAKE. And yes, it is phrased that way intentionally.



ME2 is basically a voiced over, prettier, shooteresque Full Throttle, Grim Fandango, and Escape from Monkey Island. Does that make it a bad game? No, in fact it makes it a good game, but its only a RPG because of one very weak element that could've been completely ignored( as others have said). I personally don't want a Dragon Age game in that vein, at least not when the option for a more traditional CRPG is present. But whose to say it was.

[Mydalis]

Dave of Canada wrote...

I'll just leave this here.

Made in cooperation with Bryy.

Lol, had not seen one of those for Dragon Age 2 yet- kudos on some of those lines.

[SirOccam]

Dave of Canada wrote...

I'll just leave this here.

Made in cooperation with Bryy.

ROFL. That is freaking hilarious.

Seriously, though...Hitler makes some good points.

[Dave of Canada]

Ragabul the Ontarah wrote...


Old meme is old.

It's ancient, yes. Although it had to happen.

[Onyx Jaguar]

Also Valve is privately owned

[Dave of Canada]

Onyx Jaguar wrote...

Also Valve is privately owned

They've been teamed directly with Electronic Arts since 2005, though.

[Onyx Jaguar]

Dave of Canada wrote...

Onyx Jaguar wrote...

Also Valve is privately owned

They've been teamed directly with Electronic Arts since 2005, though.

EA has worked with them as a distributor, however EA has recently decided to stop distribution for other companies in order to cut costs.

Market collapse and all.

[Valente11]

Merced256 wrote...

Stan did nothing of the sort.

His entire last paragraph was essentially that. Hail Dragon Effect.

incorrect. You are taking things way out of context and making a genralization, which proves nothing but your perception of something, which is flawed.

Also, this thread proves the dilusional sense of entitlement that western gamers(and consumers) suffer from. It's almost as pathetic as the people who boss around any government employee at the DMV because they believe their taxes pay for their paychecks, lol. Yea, it's almost that pathetic.

[Bryy_Miller]

Ragabul the Ontarah wrote...

Dave of Canada wrote...

I'll just leave this here.

Made in cooperation with Bryy.

Old meme is old.

You are just so jealous.

[Dave of Canada]

Onyx Jaguar wrote...

Dave of Canada wrote...

Onyx Jaguar wrote...

Also Valve is privately owned

They've been teamed directly with Electronic Arts since 2005, though.

EA has worked with them as a distributor, however EA has recently decided to stop distribution for other companies in order to cut costs.

Market collapse and all.

I've followed this but I didn't think Valve was one of them?

[Onyx Jaguar]

Valve is awesome I even enjoyed Ricochet back in the day, but not as much as Reflexive's Ricochet



wait what

[Onyx Jaguar]

Dave of Canada wrote...

Onyx Jaguar wrote...

Dave of Canada wrote...

Onyx Jaguar wrote...

Also Valve is privately owned

They've been teamed directly with Electronic Arts since 2005, though.

EA has worked with them as a distributor, however EA has recently decided to stop distribution for other companies in order to cut costs.

Market collapse and all.

I've followed this but I didn't think Valve was one of them?

Valve is good, but EA isn't, and I do not know if they will continue distribution of the physical copies of Valve's games or if Valve will choose to do it themselves or find another distributor.  

It's a strange thing.  Valve makes game, Valve publishes game, EA (except in the case of Orange Box which they themselves ported) distributes them.  It's similar to publishing but not quite the same.