1133 réponses à ce sujet

[Merced256]

Expressing an opinion equates to overinflated sense of entitlement amirite? Hell, its almost as if someone feels like they might be entitled to posses an opinion, let alone express it. Also, you have an extremely overinflated sense of entitlement when you wish to comment on your observations about western society. Especially when it lacks relevance. Also, expressing your DMV scenario would likely indicate you enjoy the comforts of western society. Biting the hand that feeds and all aside, i have to laugh.

[In Exile]

SirOccam wrote...
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.

That's just a degree of resolution issue, though. We have form if we zoom out, and function when we zoom in. They're not mutually exclusive. We can have the same constituent elements arranged in different ways to get an ideal form too, so that two hypothetical poral opposites, person-who-values-only-form and person-who-values-only-function can each have their ideal product.

So, effectively, saying combat ought to feel intuitive is a subjective form issue, whereas saying gameplay should be stat based is a function issue.

I do like the notion of form/function, though. I think it captures a nice part of the debate on the whole, but I don't think we need the dichotomy for gameplay elements.

[Riona45]

SirOccam wrote...

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.

I thought it was funny too actually.

[Bryy_Miller]

Ragabul the Ontarah wrote...

Bryy_Miller wrote...
You are just so jealous.

Mildly annoyed?  Yes.  

Wow, dude, calm yer horses, it's just a video on the internets.

[Dave of Canada]

Ragabul the Ontarah wrote...

Off topic (if this thread can be said to have a topic)?

It cannot.

[Bryy_Miller]

I'm not baiting you. I just think it's odd that you felt you needed to respond so vehemently.

[Onyx Jaguar]

Somebody hates Hitler!

[Dave of Canada]

Onyx Jaguar wrote...

Somebody hates Hitler!

*gasps* What did he do to deserve th-

Oh...

[Bryy_Miller]

Oh. Well then. Carry on.

[In Exile]

Merced256 wrote...

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.

That's not true at all, though. I quickly googled the genre, and action adventure game me games such as Zelda and God of War.

Moreover, you look at Wikipedia for their genre classification and they fit action-RPG under action adventure as a subgenre, which fits right in until you see that they classify the Diablo series as logically being an example of a subgenre of action adventure, which is just contrary to the notion you're driving at.

Let's say that we do remove the leveling and skill point system, though. What do we still have? Character customization, re: apperance and gender. Branching dialogue, branching choice, branching story, branching character relationships. Most of all, you have the potential illusion of ownership.

I think Mass Effect and games like it are sufficent to qualify for their own genre. They've evolved out of the RPG genre so should be a subgenre within that branch, since they looked to the story and character elements as crucial and looked to advance those.

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.

Well, like I said - Diablo 2 is apparently action adventure according to Wikipedia, RPG elements themselves are nebulous nonsense thus far.

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.

Those games were puzzle driven, though. They weren't concerned with user customizability of the avatar, or even with characterization of said avatar, and to a degree with the kind of story involved.

You can look and say, for example, these games had conversation trees and so they are similar, but that's just too shallow of a comparison.

[Khavos]

In Exile wrote...

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.

Both, as I think that'd be the closest analogue to not spending talent points, not using upgrades, etc. in ME2.  If you leave your character exactly as he is when you first wake up in the operating room in ME2, he's functional throughout the entire game.  I don't think that would be the case with DA:O.

[Khavos]

Jonathan Seagull wrote...

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.

So would Heavy Rain be an RPG, then? 

[Daur]

If you can ROLE PLAY in a game it IS an rpg.



You can ROLE PLAY in DA2 so therefore DA2 is an rpg



Not that hard people...

[Hawksblud]

In Exile wrote...

They weren't concerned with user customizability of the avatar, or even with characterization of said avatar, and to a degree with the kind of story involved.

How important is customization of the avatar and/or characterization of that avatar important, I wonder? The Witcher has come up several times on this board as an example of a good-- even called great-- RPG, and critics seem to have hailed it as such. And yet, since the game is based on a book character, he is relatively uncustomizable and comes with a rather preset characterization. Is there room for interpretation? Yes, though the extent may obviously be argued. However, the game is an RPG because we put ourselves into the character's, well, character and live his life. Let's look at a drastically different example: Oblivion. Another critically acclaimed RPG, but completely different. We have almost complete customization opportunities. The game barely gives any cues for characterization, and you can pick many paths, even ignore the main storyline completely. So what do these two games have in common that makes them, undeniably, RPGs? It isn't the fantasy setting, not really. Maybe it's just stepping into a character's shoes, no matter how customizable that character is? I don't know.

[In Exile]

Khavos wrote...

Both, as I think that'd be the closest analogue to not spending talent points, not using upgrades, etc. in ME2.  If you leave your character exactly as he is when you first wake up in the operating room in ME2, he's functional throughout the entire game.  I don't think that would be the case with DA:O.

That's not a good analogue though, because damage does not scale with level. Having fixed damage rates can just be argued as a form of level-scaling, though, so I don't think the analogy to a no upgrade run in ME2 to DA.

DA has a broken loot system, for example, so you couldn't use certain items without leveling.

Also, ME2 had implicit stat growth, since for example your health (I believe) increased with your level by default.

[Hawksblud]

Let's check Wiki...
"the changing of one's behavior to fulfill a social role"
"a game in which the participants assume the roles of characters and collaboratively create stories."
"Within the rules, [players] may improvise freely; their choices shape the direction and outcome of the games."
I think that last one is key, actually. Having choices to shape the direction and outcome of a game, while staying within a set of rules. COD doesn't have this; Mass Effect and Dragon Age, and Oblivion and The Witcher and Baldur's Gate do.

Modifié par Hawksblud, 13 août 2010 - 04:44 .

[M.S. Rose]

I actually agree with the OP. But not as an attack at BioWare. I don't think they cared for true RPG's in the first place, it just happens to be the fans they attracted and now that they are doing what they feel they want to do they are continually disappointing them because they have been labled wrong.

It's really not BioWares fault. Well.....actually it kind of is.

Modifié par M.S. Rose, 13 août 2010 - 04:45 .

[Saibh]

Khavos wrote...

Jonathan Seagull wrote...

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.

So would Heavy Rain be an RPG, then? 

I didn't explicitly define what I believed to be an RPG, but I did say it was the ability to assume a role and a story. Since Heavy Rain is essentially one long QTE--you press a button and they do what they're supposed to do--I'd hardly count it. Having "different outcomes" is essentially any time you mess up. Perfect endings mean you did everything perfectly.

[Jonathan Seagull]

Khavos wrote...

So would Heavy Rain be an RPG, then? 

Having not played Heavy Rain, I can't answer that question.  My point stands that I don't think combat -- and combat alone -- is what defines an RPG.  You have every right to feel differently, but we may have to agree to disagree.

Modifié par Jonathan Seagull, 13 août 2010 - 04:48 .

[hexaligned]

Hawksblud wrote...

In Exile wrote...
They weren't concerned with user customizability of the avatar, or even with characterization of said avatar, and to a degree with the kind of story involved.

How important is customization of the avatar and/or characterization of that avatar important, I wonder? The Witcher has come up several times on this board as an example of a good-- even called great-- RPG, and critics seem to have hailed it as such. And yet, since the game is based on a book character, he is relatively uncustomizable and comes with a rather preset characterization. Is there room for interpretation? Yes, though the extent may obviously be argued. However, the game is an RPG because we put ourselves into the character's, well, character and live his life. Let's look at a drastically different example: Oblivion. Another critically acclaimed RPG, but completely different. We have almost complete customization opportunities. The game barely gives any cues for characterization, and you can pick many paths, even ignore the main storyline completely. So what do these two games have in common that makes them, undeniably, RPGs? It isn't the fantasy setting, not really. Maybe it's just stepping into a character's shoes, no matter how customizable that character is? I don't know.

Well by my defiition Elder Scrolls is an RPG and Witcher is an action game.  The 'Role" in RPG isn't about PLAYING a role, you do that in every game ever made, it's in creating your own character and dictating how they develope as you go along.  I have a hard time considerng any Bioware game a true rpg just because they are typicaly so story driven with little to no real wiggle room.  Like I said though, that's my own biased outlook on genres.

[Jigero]

Hawksblud wrote...

Let's check Wiki...
"the changing of one's behavior to fulfill a social role"
"a game in which the participants assume the roles of characters and collaboratively create stories."
"Within the rules, [players] may improvise freely; their choices shape the direction and outcome of the games."
I think that last one is key, actually. Having choices to shape the direction and outcome of a game, while staying within a set of rules. COD doesn't have this; Mass Effect and Dragon Age, and Oblivion and The Witcher and Baldur's Gate do.

Yet 99.9% of JRPGs don't have that.

The only reason why RPGs are called RPGs is because "stat point placing game" isn't as catchy.

Modifié par Jigero, 13 août 2010 - 04:51 .

[In Exile]

Hawksblud wrote...
How important is customization of the avatar and/or characterization of that avatar important, I wonder?

That's a good question, and I think it's highly suggestive in the end. I think I can best illustrate what I mean by addresing the specific points you raise.

The Witcher has come up several times on this board as an example of a good-- even called great-- RPG, and critics seem to have hailed it as such. And yet, since the game is based on a book character, he is relatively uncustomizable and comes with a rather preset characterization.

That's not so, though. They give Geralt amnesia, so they effectively give him a personality base on a leash like Shepard. You can go run the gamut from well-intentioned extreminist to outcast freedom fighter to idealist in a cracksack world pretty well.

They even have an in-game quest called Identity that revolves around defining who Geralt now believes he is.

http://witcher.wikia...he_Road.27s_End

That has a good summary of the variability in Geralt, and the best part is that some of these answers are triggered by choices that you make in-game and refered back to by other characters.

Geralt is in some ways a lot more fixed than Shepard (because his replies are taken outside of the player control totally at parts) but then at other times you have very poignant moments where you can define who Geralt fundamentally is. You have the opportunity to pick motives in the game; Bioware has always treated this very distantly, whereas the Witcher attacks it directly.

I was drawn in as Geralt (despite the fact that the model is ass-ugly by my taste, and so very hard for me to usually play games where I am so visually not into the PC) because of the opportunity to really carve out who Geralt is as a person.

Is there room for interpretation? Yes, though the extent may obviously be argued. However, the game is an RPG because we put ourselves into the character's, well, character and live his life.

I would agree entirely with this, but even within the people who agree, I think there's just no agreement for what it means to believe this.

Someone would say, I can put myself in place of the character only when I can invent a background and the game will not contradict it, making the experience self-referential. Others will say, I can place myself in the place of the character only when the game is reactive; the game could dramatically restrict my self-referential options, but if it dynamically responds to the bounded ones, I have an RPG.

Let's look at a drastically different example: Oblivion. Another critically acclaimed RPG, but completely different. We have almost complete customization opportunities. The game barely gives any cues for characterization, and you can pick many paths, even ignore the main storyline completely. So what do these two games have in common that makes them, undeniably, RPGs? It isn't the fantasy setting, not really. Maybe it's just stepping into a character's shoes, no matter how customizable that character is? I don't know.

To build on what I said above, ME and Oblivion are sort of poles on the above spectrum. ME (and the Witcher) are very bounded so you're a living character, part of the world with very many fixed attributes. Oblivion makes you such a blank canvas that unless you fill it in, you're less than the least person possible.

Since people take being in character and being involved with the character as such dramatically different thing, I think you see both called as RPGs solely for character identification reasons because people will not agree on what character identification means.