1133 réponses à ce sujet

[In Exile]

Jigero wrote...

Yet 99.9% of JRPGs don't have that.

Those are just anime games, though. My ex-girlfriend was super into amine, and went I was introduced to that whole world by her, I quickly realized just how the culture that developed those games and our is so dramatically different.

The best way I can put it is that JRPGs are sort of like Harry Potter: The Game or Twilight: The Game. They take a medium that is aimed primarily at teenagers in most of its production and repeatedly recycle the same story tropes as a game.

It's actually a pretty fascinating phemonemon, but Japanese games absolutely have to be seen through the cultural lense that produced them.

It's why Final Fantasy V+ is nothing like Final Fantasy I. Look how the game moved from "jobs" (i.e. class), prototypical for a PnP cRPG adaptation to the spiky haired, 15 year old world-saving melodramatic protagonists you see today.

[slikster]

I'd just like to thank Khavos for finally giving some people an eureka moment and finally understanding what many of us are so upset about. Kudos for getting across what we could not.

[Hawksblud]

Jigero wrote...
Yet 99.9% of
JRPGs don't have that.

TBH, I have very little experience with JRPGs so I can't really comment. From what I know, visual novels are also popular, so there's another line to be drawn, perhaps? I'd welcome any light you could shed on the subject.

relhart wrote...
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.

Hmmm. I think my personal genre definitions are different than yours, simply because I got into roleplaying through playing preset roles. Instead of tabletop or similar, I started out forum-based roleplaying with characters from tv shows, etc. So I'm more used/ more comfortable with a somewhat pre-defined character. I love Shepard, for example.

In Exile wrote...
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.

*nods* I see your point. For some reason that I cannot pinpoint, I have no trouble playing Shepard and yet Geralt seems very difficult for me to get into. Maybe it's just a personal player thing.

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.

And these are two very different viewpoints, which makes the genre very interesting... and difficult to define. And yet people who enjoy one end of the spectrum often enjoy the other, while not being drawn to other genres. So what unifies the two?

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.

Perhaps. The meta is making my head spin.

[In Exile]

Hawksblud wrote...
*nods* I see your point. For some reason that I cannot pinpoint, I have no trouble playing Shepard and yet Geralt seems very difficult for me to get into. Maybe it's just a personal player thing.

Personally, I have the same issue. But for me it's all visual. I just hated the model for Geralt in the game. If the Witcher 2 was done the exact same way, but with what I see as a less ugly protagonist, I seriously will relate to Geralt more.

And these are two very different viewpoints, which makes the genre very interesting... and difficult to define. And yet people who enjoy one end of the spectrum often enjoy the other, while not being drawn to other genres. So what unifies the two?

I look at them as two different things, so it might just be that a person can happen to like one or the other or both? They're not mutually exclusive, except in the logical sense (i.e. you can't do both simulatenously).

Perhaps. The meta is making my head spin.

Nothing like late-night analysis of video-games. Makes one feel pretentious and important. And by pretentious and important I mean not either.

[HTTP 404]

there's two type of gamers. Gamers playing characters and Gamers who want to be the characters.

[Onyx Jaguar]

But what if I prefer Sim City

[Dave of Canada]

Onyx Jaguar wrote...

But what if I prefer Sim City

Then you are the God of Cities.

[Khavos]

HTTP 404 wrote...

there's two type of gamers. Gamers playing characters and Gamers who want to be the characters.

I don't know about that.  The run of IWDII that I remember most fondly was a party of cowardly bards who ended up getting involved in the storyline entirely by accident.  I certainly didn't want to be any of them, but I'm glad that I had the opportunity to create them, and always regret it when a new RPG comes out that thinks being the cookie cutter Billy Badass savior of the ENTIRE UNIVERSE is more interesting.  

[In Exile]

I think IWD can be a good metric for taste. I happen to hate create-a-party games. Unless it has absolutely brilliant gameplay, wouldn't even think of getting it. Even with brilliant gameplay, it probably wouldn't be anything more than a casual purchase.

I just do not see the appeal in what I find to be effectively a non-reactive world.

[Sylvius the Mad]

In Exile wrote...

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.

'Yes, but the latter is the wrong way to do it.

What something is is defined by its chracteristics.  How we define it is irrelevant to what it is.

In Exile wrote...

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.

Everythingyou do in the game while playing it is a part of gameplay.  Inventory management is a part of gameplay.  minigames ar a part of gameplay.

By what non-arbitrary standard could anyone possible draw a line between some in-game events and others and describe only some of them as gameplay?

In Exile wrote...

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.

The problem with using Wikipedia as a source on an issue like this is that it will tend to reflect the current popular
opinion, without regard for the popular opinion of just a few years ago (let alone the popular opinion of 2 decades ago), and that an opinion is more popular now is not a reason to think it is more accurate.  In fact, given that nearly every popular opinion in history has ultimately been shown to be false, shouldn't we expect the same is true of those currently popular?

Modifié par Sylvius the Mad, 13 août 2010 - 05:38 .

[In Exile]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...
Yes, but the latter is the wrong way to do it.

Take it up with Wittgenstein.

What something is is defined by its chracteristics.  How we define it is irrelevant to what it is.

Are you sure you're a nominalist? Whenever we talk about definitions, you just channel the realist position awfully well.

We've got a potentially infinite number of objects each with a potentially infinite number of characteristics. If we agree that sufficiency/neccesity cannot be criteria for how we classify objects, then what could allow us to even create a taxonomy of a class of things?

Which characteristics should I look at? Which are relevant? Relevance realization is, at least for now, an intractable philsophical problem.

[Sylvius the Mad]

I wasn't done with my editing. I made another point, as well.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Daur wrote...

You can ROLE PLAY in DA2

That remains to be seen.

I insist that roleplaying was impossible in Mass Effect.  DA2 uses very similar dialogue mechanics.

[Riona45]

HTTP 404 wrote...

there's two type of gamers. Gamers playing characters and Gamers who want to be the characters.

It's possible to enjoy both ways to play.

[Sylvius the Mad]

In Exile wrote...

If we agree that sufficiency/neccesity cannot be criteria for how we classify objects...

Why would we agree to that?  Isn't that exactly how I'm suggesting we should classify objects?

Isn't that how we determine what anything in the world is - by comparing it to some standard?

[SirOccam]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Daur wrote...

You can ROLE PLAY in DA2

That remains to be seen.

I insist that roleplaying was impossible in Mass Effect.  DA2 uses very similar dialogue mechanics.

I disagree, though I will admit that it was nowhere near as deep or rewarding as DAO. But I don't think the dialogue wheel or the concomitant paraphrasing was to blame. They've said that it would be possible to replace DAO's dialogue with the dialogue wheel and not lose anything.

[Hawksblud]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

I insist that roleplaying was impossible in Mass Effect.  DA2 uses very similar dialogue mechanics.

Hmm. I would have to strongly disagree. Could you possibly expound upon this? (Or just point me back in comments.) What definition of roleplaying are you using here, or rather what does roleplaying mean to you, as a term?

[Sylvius the Mad]

Riona45 wrote...

HTTP 404 wrote...

there's two type of gamers. Gamers playing characters and Gamers who want to be the characters.

It's possible to enjoy both ways to play.

Yes, but some people don't enjoy both ways.

[AlanC9]

In Exile wrote...

Take it up with Wittgenstein.

Oh gods.... we'll be here all night now.

[Riona45]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Yes, but some people don't enjoy both ways.

And your point is?  I didn't know I was supposed to account for the tastes of every person on earth.

Modifié par Riona45, 13 août 2010 - 05:59 .

[Sylvius the Mad]

Hawksblud wrote...

Hmm. I would have to strongly disagree. Could you possibly expound upon this? (Or just point me back in comments.) What definition of roleplaying are you using here, or rather what does roleplaying mean to you, as a term?

First, the PC voice over meant that there were a wide variety of personality types that were simply incompatible with Shepard's voice.  The way Shepard said things was entirely wrong for a great many possible personalities.  That's a severe limit on roleplaying freedom right there.

But the bigger problem was the implementation of the dialogue wheel.  The incredibly poorly written paraphrase options (if they were intended to give you an idea of what the subsequent line would be, then they were poorly written - if they were intended to be obfuscatory then they were very well written) meant that Shepard could very easily say or do something entirely out of character.  Since you're the player, you decide what Shepard's character is (how else could you possibly roleplay him if you don't know exactly what reactions are possible for him?), so whenever he experiences any phenomenon, you get to decide how he feels about that.

Then, presented with the dialogue wheel, you select the option that you think is consistent with the reaction you just created (and that was his reaction - if you're the one making the decisions then what you decided his reaction was unequivocally was his reaction) - and then suddebnly Shepard says or does something that is not consistent with that reaction, and now his behaviour makes no sense at all.

That's why I think roleplaying was impossible.  There was no way to prevent Shepard from behaving nonsensically.

And, with only a very limited number of different ways to play him (so constrained by the voice), can you accurately be said to have chosen at all?  The illusion of choice isn't good enough - you actually need to be able to choose.

SirOccam wrote...

They've said that it would be possible to replace DAO's dialogue with the dialogue wheel and not lose anything.

And that frightes me a lot, because it suggests they don't know what the problems with the wheel were.

Modifié par Sylvius the Mad, 13 août 2010 - 06:00 .

[Hawksblud]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...
First, the PC voice over meant that there were a wide variety of personality types that were simply incompatible with Shepard's voice.  The way Shepard said things was entirely wrong for a great many possible personalities.  That's a severe limit on roleplaying freedom right there.

Mmm. I think the part where you and I disagree is that I loved J.Hale's VO and it fit very well with the Shepard I imagined. I do see how not liking the VO could be a dealbreaker, though. (Oh, Mark Meer, you are the reason I cannot play male!Shep.) I think also, we disagree on the balance between creating a character to become/becoming the character that has been created. Different playstyles, I guess.

[Dave of Canada]

Hawksblud wrote...

Mmm. I think the part where you and I disagree is that I loved J.Hale's VO and it fit very well with the Shepard I imagined. I do see how not liking the VO could be a dealbreaker, though.

Honestly, the only reason I wasn't able to play Female Shepard was due to Jennifer Hale. She sounded too butch for the character I had imagined and the Jacob dialogue options were horrible.

Modifié par Dave of Canada, 13 août 2010 - 06:07 .

[joey_mork84]

Valente11 wrote...

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.

I agree with this part.. However..

Valente11 wrote...
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.

The entire bolded section of the post above is nothing more than ridiculous, unnecessary, opinionated, biased garbage. As for the unbolded parts, I have seen people in the DMV doing exactly what you mentioned. It is pathetic and that's the only part of that paragraph I agree with. But, just like the rest of it, its off-topic (in ANY thread) and unnecessary.

So.. By all means, don't let this little post stop you from enjoying your flaming and all that.. Carry on..

[Throw_this_away]

filetemo wrote...

They say they want to push the rpg genre, but it's not true, what they want is to make interactive adventures.

In bioware's wildest dreams, they get rid of inventory, skills, tactical combat, leveling up, customisation options and stats. All those heavy and difficult to learn rpg things that make them unatractive to casual gamers. They can't do it yet, because hardcore rpg gamers still have power, but they really would like their games to stop getting labeled rpgs, because that's like a stigma for the fps crowd.

Bioware's perfect game would be: premade character, choices, love interests, different endings and simple combat "press A to win" they are moving slowly to that, Heavy Rain with swords and magic.

Do you remember those books of "choose your own adventure"? that's what bioware wants to do.

They are forcing us to assume slowly the changes made to dilute the rpg traits, and in 5 years we will call bioware games "adventures" because the rpgs will be no more.

Then maybe, they'll get their dream of selling 10 million units.

no