Pretenders want to pretend they are the character, thus only story and choices matter to them, gameplay is mostly a distraction and they hate things like inventory and loot.
Game players prefer a system they can get into, analyze, learn, and use. LIke min/maxing builds/gear/party ins and outs of combat, challenging boss fights etc..
Game players camp - we like a good story, and choices, and character development, but we recognize that the stories in videogames are usually a bit bland and recycled from film/books.
I agree for the most part on your categorization.
I find myself to be the bold section, its part of why i loved NWN2 so much despite its problems.
When i was younger and those "rpgesque" novels were popular i read a few of them. I never liked them much , and seeing how they never really hit mainstream i can only wonder why its suddenly golden when ME2 does it.
Pretenders want to pretend they are the character, thus only story and choices matter to them, gameplay is mostly a distraction and they hate things like inventory and loot.
Game players prefer a system they can get into, analyze, learn, and use. LIke min/maxing builds/gear/party ins and outs of combat, challenging boss fights etc..
Game players camp - we like a good story, and choices, and character development, but we recognize that the stories in videogames are usually a bit bland and recycled from film/books.
hmmmmm, so wonder what I come in as under your thinnly veiled attempt at trolling others!
Story matters the most to me as does customization which includes learning, leveling, inventory.
Combat comes a distant 3rd is true, Id gladly give up overly challenging boss combats for better stories but this is where we truely differ.
In DA:O, I felt we had ALL ASPECTS of game covered. Now you cheering cause the story is gone? Why cheer about anything being removed? Cheer when something is bettered and I see nothing being better then DA:O.
Devs have said the comabt stays the same for the PC (though since then they have copntradicted themselves numberous times which means combat probably has changed and they just in spin mode).
Story is lesser Inventory is lesser freedom is lesser
Seeing the patern here?
I really dont understand you action freaks, you constantly cheers for lesser products and try to insult others in doing so!
but we recognize that the stories in videogames are usually a bit bland and recycled from film/books.
Harsh but true.
Anyone extolling story in a video game, saying that it should be the overwhelming focus of an rpg, needs to take a trip to the local library. Video game stories are still quite hackneyed by literary standards. Even the best of them. Many gamers praise the story when done well, because the bar has already been set so low. Better that developers continue to focus and innovate where it counts the most: gameplay. And story can act as a framework.
Edit: just read your post Kalfear, and I basically agree. Ideally, nothing should get nerfed. But as an avid reader, I can't help but put in my two cents on the element of story in games.
Pretenders want to pretend they are the character, thus only story and choices matter to them, gameplay is mostly a distraction and they hate things like inventory and loot.
Game players prefer a system they can get into, analyze, learn, and use. LIke min/maxing builds/gear/party ins and outs of combat, challenging boss fights etc..
Based on those descriptions, I would have Mass Effect franchise to alienate both groups.
The pretenders can't pretend because the dialogue wheel prevents roleplaying, and the gameplayers can't see the rules of the game.
Pretenders want to pretend they are the character, thus only story and choices matter to them, gameplay is mostly a distraction and they hate things like inventory and loot.
Game players prefer a system they can get into, analyze, learn, and use. LIke min/maxing builds/gear/party ins and outs of combat, challenging boss fights etc..
Game players camp - we like a good story, and choices, and character development, but we recognize that the stories in videogames are usually a bit bland and recycled from film/books.
Please, what I love is that being someone who now admits to basically wanting to play Dragon Age: Excel is claiming to be a fan of role playing where, go figure, playing a role is right in the title of things. Frankly you sound like you should be more comfortable with FIFA Championship Manager or an NFL Franchise simulator where you adjust the price of hot dogs to maximize profits, scout college players and pick a new logo and uniform every year.
The roleplaying Taliban thinks that system defines the genre. The problem is that there's nothing in the world unique about skills or inventory or combat. Bioshock and Assasins Creed both had these elements along with leveling - you could even change Ezzio's outfits so it was super fun! You could put all the inventory, stats and skills you wanted into AC3 and as long as every story told with Ezzio turns out the exact same way there's no role playing going on.
I can still recall the dinks who hated Fallout because RPG's had to have a classes just like AD&D did because THAT is the only role playing out there. Somethings will never change.
Pretenders want to pretend they are the character, thus only story and choices matter to them, gameplay is mostly a distraction and they hate things like inventory and loot.
Game players prefer a system they can get into, analyze, learn, and use. LIke min/maxing builds/gear/party ins and outs of combat, challenging boss fights etc..
Game players camp - we like a good story, and choices, and character development, but we recognize that the stories in videogames are usually a bit bland and recycled from film/books.
Aside from the obvious negative connotations for "pretenders" and positive ones for "game players," this actually isn't a bad distinction to make.
I am pretty solidly in the first camp, though I in no way want to "pretend" I am the character. That doesn't mean I don't want to RP or that I don't get invested in the story. But to me, this is just as much "gameplay" as the activities described in the second group. I don't know what I'd call them--RPers vs. Number-Crunchers maybe?--but they are both valid ways of enjoying a game. It's not like only one group is actually "playing" the game and the other is just daydreaming off in La La Land.
If the future of rpg's is destined to be nothing more than a series of conversational cut-scenes, then I need to explore a new genre.
But hey, you'd still have choice.
Samara: "So Shepard, should we take the left path or the right?"
If the future of rpg's is destined to be nothing more than a series of conversational cut-scenes, then I need to explore a new genre..
Conversation is so overated compared with selling worn leather boots you herocially stripped off the feet of a dead orc after you rifled his pockets for spare change.
You argument is basically that you can't have a non-combat RPG - which is an interesting question for the role playing Taliban.
Here a question for the role-playing Taliban, a scenario call it what you will. RPG Gods build a game based around The Big Sleep. It captures the gritty world of 1940's film noir where you guide your character through a world of shady characters with questionable motives and you can be anyone from hard bitten Philip Marlowe type to a suave Nick Charles type to a sleezy Jack Vincennes type. Now, you play as a solitary detective - no party combat. There's no magic armor in the 1940's. There's no balm, salves, potions or any crap like that. There's no magic. There are guns - but not many types and obviously no magical weapons - not even the magic without calling them that upgraded weapon types from ME - just plain old guns. There's nothing to buy from merchants but the stuff you'd buy in the 1940's (in other pretty much nothing you'd need/want for your job). There's nothing to really min/max on. You will fight but not often because Johnny Law doesn't like a shoot 'em up.
no, that's an adventure game. RPG's have pen and paper origins and must have some system of numeric combat behind the scenes turn or semi-turn based with percentages of chance to strike and damage based on numeric stats
no, that's an adventure game. RPG's have pen and paper origins and must have some system of numeric combat behind the scenes turn or semi-turn based with percentages of chance to strike and damage based on numeric stats
I didn't say it didn't have stat based combat you made that assumption. Make combat wholly stat driven, doesn't change anything about the game. It uses the same type of combat system that the old Fallout used - heck it sits on the SPECIAL system if you want (it'd be the best choice honestly for this sort of game).
Here a question for the role-playing Taliban, a scenario call it what you will. RPG Gods build a game based around The Big Sleep. It captures the gritty world of 1940's film noir where you guide your character through a world of shady characters with questionable motives and you can be anyone from hard bitten Philip Marlowe type to a suave Nick Charles type to a sleezy Jack Vincennes type. Now, you play as a solitary detective - no party combat. There's no magic armor in the 1940's. There's no balm, salves, potions or any crap like that. There's no magic. There are guns - but not many types and obviously no magical weapons - not even the magic without calling them that upgraded weapon types from ME - just plain old guns. There's nothing to buy from merchants but the stuff you'd buy in the 1940's (in other pretty much nothing you'd need/want for your job). There's nothing to really min/max on. You will fight but not often because Johnny Law doesn't like a shoot 'em up.
Can that type of game even be an RPG to you?
That seriously sounds like an awesome game. An awesome RPG, in fact.
filetemo wrote...
Sidney wrote...
Can that type of game even be an RPG to you?
no, that's an adventure game. RPG's have pen and paper origins and must have some system of numeric combat behind the scenes turn or semi-turn based with percentages of chance to strike and damage based on numeric stats
Why?
I can certainly see why pen and paper RPGs had to have that, but why must the same be true of video game RPGs?
no, that's an adventure game. RPG's have pen and paper origins and must have some system of numeric combat behind the scenes turn or semi-turn based with percentages of chance to strike and damage based on numeric stats
I didn't say it didn't have stat based combat you made that assumption. Make combat wholly stat driven, doesn't change anything about the game. It uses the same type of combat system that the old Fallout used - heck it sits on something like the SPECIAL system if you want . That change your answer?
If the future of rpg's is destined to be nothing more than a series of conversational cut-scenes, then I need to explore a new genre..
Conversation is so overated compared with selling worn leather boots you herocially stripped off the feet of a dead orc after you rifled his pockets for spare change.
You argument is basically that you can't have a non-combat RPG - which is an interesting question for the role playing Taliban.
Here a question for the role-playing Taliban, a scenario call it what you will. RPG Gods build a game based around The Big Sleep. It captures the gritty world of 1940's film noir where you guide your character through a world of shady characters with questionable motives and you can be anyone from hard bitten Philip Marlowe type to a suave Nick Charles type to a sleezy Jack Vincennes type. Now, you play as a solitary detective - no party combat. There's no magic armor in the 1940's. There's no balm, salves, potions or any crap like that. There's no magic. There are guns - but not many types and obviously no magical weapons - not even the magic without calling them that upgraded weapon types from ME - just plain old guns. There's nothing to buy from merchants but the stuff you'd buy in the 1940's (in other pretty much nothing you'd need/want for your job). There's nothing to really min/max on. You will fight but not often because Johnny Law doesn't like a shoot 'em up.
Can that type of game even be an RPG to you?
RPG? I don't know. Potentially boring game? Yes. I see no reason to eliminate stats, loot, and inventory. And I have yet to see a good argument for doing so, unless Bioware just wants to make adventure games. ME2 already comes perilously close to being nothing more than an adventure game, albeit a good one.
You tell me: checkers or chess. Which do you think is the better game?
RPG? I don't know. Potentially boring game? Yes. I see no reason to eliminate stats, loot, and inventory. And I have yet to see a good argument for doing so, unless Bioware just wants to make adventure games. ME2 already comes perilously close to being nothing more than an adventure game, albeit a good one.
You tell me: checkers or chess. Which do you think is the better game?
Again, why would you not have stats? Never said that. You can roll your own 1940's detective and have all the happy stats based combat you want when you have it. Your ability to charm blonde bombshells or intimidate Peter Lorre-esuqe low liifes is all based on your stats. Hell, I'll go better than Oblivion and let your stats control your ability to pick a lock or crack a safe because your characters stats should control stuff in an RPG.
What you deftly dodge because you know you are basically out of luck on this is that inventory isn't needed for an RPG. Like it or not, and I hate it with a burning passion as much as your OCD demands you to love it, it can be part of an RPG but there is no need for it to be in an RPG.
Seriously for you stats, inventory, min/max, party building dweebs isn't Jagged Alliance 2 really the game you want to play far, far more than BG2? JA2 has it all, stats, leveling, a ton of looting and selling, tactical combat (way better tactical combat than anything in any RPG) and none of that annoying conversational cut scene boredom?
BTW, if something like The Big Sleep is "boring" to you then you need a ton of help.
If the future of rpg's is destined to be nothing more than a series of conversational cut-scenes, then I need to explore a new genre..
Conversation is so overated compared with selling worn leather boots you herocially stripped off the feet of a dead orc after you rifled his pockets for spare change.
You argument is basically that you can't have a non-combat RPG - which is an interesting question for the role playing Taliban.
Here a question for the role-playing Taliban, a scenario call it what you will. RPG Gods build a game based around The Big Sleep. It captures the gritty world of 1940's film noir where you guide your character through a world of shady characters with questionable motives and you can be anyone from hard bitten Philip Marlowe type to a suave Nick Charles type to a sleezy Jack Vincennes type. Now, you play as a solitary detective - no party combat. There's no magic armor in the 1940's. There's no balm, salves, potions or any crap like that. There's no magic. There are guns - but not many types and obviously no magical weapons - not even the magic without calling them that upgraded weapon types from ME - just plain old guns. There's nothing to buy from merchants but the stuff you'd buy in the 1940's (in other pretty much nothing you'd need/want for your job). There's nothing to really min/max on. You will fight but not often because Johnny Law doesn't like a shoot 'em up.
Can that type of game even be an RPG to you?
No, thats a action adventure kind of game. In fact it sounds exactly like the blade runner game(which was awesome).
We know peoples definitions of RPGs are different. But fundamentally speaking the better ones have always had levels, skills, loot, and a lot of combat. The best ones also incorporated story, hence KotOR being the single greatest rpg ever made in many peoples minds.
ME2 had a lot of combat. But the loot was... and the levels/skills were literally fluff since you could quite easily beat the game without using them or "speccing" in to them.
So the fear is DA2 = ME2 where theres combat, dialog, decent story, but meaningless levels, skills, and loot. But loot was a pretty weak point of DA:O too, so it could be overlooked as long as a sufficient attempt was made to include it.
RPG? I don't know. Potentially boring game? Yes. I see no reason to eliminate stats, loot, and inventory. And I have yet to see a good argument for doing so, unless Bioware just wants to make adventure games. ME2 already comes perilously close to being nothing more than an adventure game, albeit a good one.
You tell me: checkers or chess. Which do you think is the better game?
Again, why would you not have stats? Never said that. You can roll your own 1940's detective and have all the happy stats based combat you want when you have it. Your ability to charm blonde bombshells or intimidate Peter Lorre-esuqe low liifes is all based on your stats. Hell, I'll go better than Oblivion and let your stats control your ability to pick a lock or crack a safe because your characters stats should control stuff in an RPG.
What you deftly dodge because you know you are basically out of luck on this is that inventory isn't needed for an RPG. Like it or not, and I hate it with a burning passion as much as your OCD demands you to love it, it can be part of an RPG but there is no need for it to be in an RPG.
Seriously for you stats, inventory, min/max, party building dweebs isn't Jagged Alliance 2 really the game you want to play far, far more than BG2? JA2 has it all, stats, leveling, a ton of looting and selling, tactical combat (way better tactical combat than anything in any RPG) and none of that annoying conversational cut scene boredom?
BTW, if something like The Big Sleep is "boring" to you then you need a ton of help.
I'm a stat and inventory dweeb. No denial here. Stats and inventory mean strategy.
I would see nothing boring or OCD about having access to a variety of gadgets and weaponry for a 1940's detective. If I had to play through the game with all the same equipment and weapons, then it's not the game for me. Most game makers, I might add, feel the same way. Unless you think your detective talking his way out of every situation makes for exciting gameplay.
Heavy Rain sounds like your type of game. You should look it up. Thank god Bioware doesn't make games like Heavy Rain.
If we're going to be defining an RPG as loosely as some of you like to, then does that mean every game with a set role to play as is automatically an RPG? Is Kane and Lynch an RPG because you play a defined role, and also have two possible endings?
I agree with a lot of filetemo's points, if they are a bit exaggerated. Bioware has been lying to us, or at the very least trying to smooth talk their way around the forum goers in most threads where concerns are raised by fans of DA:O. If they are making a more streamlined game to appeal to a more base audience at least tell us, in a straightforward and direct fashion. That's all, if you're going after sales first and foremost without much thought given to the quality of the game and without your established fanbase in mind, then come out and say it.
So far what has been said and gleaned from articles can logically point to Bioware chasing the skirt of console kiddies and non RPG fans. There comes a point where streamlining features is no longer the beloved PR word "innovation", and at that point it just becomes a gross oversimplifcation.
And to those who are just telling filetemo to just leave if he has a problem with what is going on, what gives you the right? If someone has an issue with the game, then let them voice it, this is a forum for the discussion of the upcoming game, and discussion isn't simply limited to, "OMG DA2 LOOKS SO GOOD OMFG". Because trust me, I'm sure he's not happy coming to these forums only to be disappointed by new information that alienates him as a fan, and I'm sure he's also not fond of being accosted by abrasive and rude forum goers who are on the opposite side of the spectrum.
If we're going to be defining an RPG as loosely as some of you like to, then does that mean every game with a set role to play as is automatically an RPG? Is Kane and Lynch an RPG because you play a defined role, and also have two possible endings?
I agree with a lot of filetemo's points, if they are a bit exaggerated. Bioware has been lying to us, or at the very least trying to smooth talk their way around the forum goers in most threads where concerns are raised by fans of DA:O. If they are making a more streamlined game to appeal to a more base audience at least tell us, in a straightforward and direct fashion. That's all, if you're going after sales first and foremost without much thought given to the quality of the game and without your established fanbase in mind, then come out and say it.
So far what has been said and gleaned from articles can logically point to Bioware chasing the skirt of console kiddies and non RPG fans. There comes a point where streamlining features is no longer the beloved PR word "innovation", and at that point it just becomes a gross oversimplifcation.
And to those who are just telling filetemo to just leave if he has a problem with what is going on, what gives you the right? If someone has an issue with the game, then let them voice it, this is a forum for the discussion of the upcoming game, and discussion isn't simply limited to, "OMG DA2 LOOKS SO GOOD OMFG". Because trust me, I'm sure he's not happy coming to these forums only to be disappointed by new information that alienates him as a fan, and I'm sure he's also not fond of being accosted by abrasive and rude forum goers who are on the opposite side of the spectrum.
We know peoples definitions of RPGs are different. But fundamentally speaking the better ones have always had levels, skills, loot, and a lot of combat. The best ones also incorporated story, hence KotOR being the single greatest rpg ever made in many peoples minds.
Skills and stats I agree with 100%. No problems there. Your character does things in RPG's not you. A big gripe with Oblivion was lock picking was done by me, not my character. In FO3 I had to solve stupid hacking puzzles not my character. Same gripe with ME2 where I am not very good at shooter combat and thus Shep, no matter his background, isn't good at using guns. Those are all poor elements in an RPG.
The rest, not so much. Yes the best games had the things you list but that is an artifact of the fact that ALL of them had it. Plenty of crappy RPG;s had those elements. Most of the great games succeeded in spit of their inventory systems though. BG2 certainly never gripped anyone for combat.
Leveling, so does that mean - and just trying to tie to any vague sense of reality - that if you write a game that covers 3 days you can't have an RPG because there's no way your *foo* skill gets any better over just three days? Is thier a minimum amount of leveling, what if I have 2 levels? Is that enough to be an RPG?
Looting -- I don't even know where that came from. I thought it was a relic of pen and paper but god help me i actually watched a pen and paper session - or part of it- here: and there was no looting in that whole sessions other than the thing they went into a dungeon to get. Maybe that's an oddity but is that not an RPG session?
The bigger problem is that looting, per se, isn't even the problem. There is, contrary to the opinions of some, looting in ME2. You acquire money from locked chests...err umm, safes. You get magical runes, oh wait I mean weapons upgrades. You find blueprints for new guns. I've never gotten the ME2 hate because looting is actaully meaningful. The things you find are useful. What seems to cheese folks off is that you don't find the useless crap that overwhelms you like a tidal wave of vendor trash in DAO, ME, KoTOR or BG2. I think more than anything that is what most folks want to see go the way of the Dodo Bird. I like The Summer Sword, I don't like Worn Leather gloves.
I'd have more sympathy for the inventory management as strategy mini-game crowd if there was any strategy. There's a distinct hierarchy of weaponry and armor in DAO, or BG2 or FO1,2,3 for that matter. 95% of everyone has the same stuff at the end of the game. There's not much trick to it. Your inventory capacity is so bloated that you aren't having to make any trade off in any of those games anyway. You can drag along 3 suits of armor if you want and enough swords to start your own army. If the game made me make a shotgun or Tommy Gun type decision for my next mission because I can only hold one gun at a time (like a real person) then that might be an interesting part of the game because you have to think about your tactics and the scenario you are going into but having a mysterious parallel dimension where I can truck along the National Armory isn't.
Saying you need combat is saying that there are types of roles you can't do. There's no way to role play a game as a pacifist? Quaker role playing is impossible?
So far what has been said and gleaned from articles can logically point to Bioware chasing the skirt of console kiddies and non RPG fans. There comes a point where streamlining features is no longer the beloved PR word "innovation", and at that point it just becomes a gross oversimplifcation.
The only problem is that 99% of that stuff is based off something as vague as "more streamlined combat." Instead of waiting or asking for details, people make ridiculous assumptions as to what that means. "Oh clearly it's going to be all 'Press X to win' now!"
"New cinematic feel?" What does that mean? "Hot-rodded graphics?" "Dynamic combat system?"
Then even when it's not vague, it gets blown way out of proportion. "We want to sell 10 million units" becomes " [They are] going after sales first and foremost without much thought given to the quality of the game." News that Hawke has a voice and the dialogue is in a wheel shape means the game is going to be a clone of Mass Effect 2.
It only sounds like they're lying because you're putting words in their mouths and you can't understand the concept that they didn't actually say what you thought they said.
So, in short, if you want to pretend that statements like "Bioware [are] chasing the skirt of console kiddies and non RPG fans" are conclusions that are in any way remotely logical, then be prepared for a lot of "lies." Because as more news comes out, you're going to be shown how wrong those suppositions are. The only thing is, instead of realizing that you were wrong, you'll just choose to assume that they lied the first time.
I really only care about the story combat and leveling up. I like having gear and all that but having to wade through a ton of loot just slows the game down. I would rather be doing fun things like questing and interacting with the characters rather than worrying about loot.
Ce sujet est fermé
Retour en haut
and the levels/skills were literally fluff since you could quite easily beat the game without using them or "speccing" in to them. 
