1133 réponses à ce sujet

[Xena_Shepard]

FedericoV wrote...

TMZuk wrote...


cRPG's are limited in that sense, because you can only program so many choises and options. However, while the hardware and the programming tools gets better and better, it would seem that Bioware is insisting on creating streamlined action-adventures, where you are rail-roaded along. You meet fascinating characters, and time and time again you are in to your knees in gore, but the actual choises you have, are becoming ever more limited. It's a mad rollercoaster-ride, but like all roller-coaster rides, there can be no deviation.

ME2 had moved so far from the RPG definition, that it no longer could be called an RPG, IMO. I'm pretty certain that is where DA2 is headed as well.

Baldur's Gate has less choices and consequences than ME2. So BG was not an RPG?

Less is not the same as none at all, which is what this ENTIRE thread is getting at, the idea that BioWare is trying to totally phase out key elements off an RPG, not change them or vary them which is perfectly fine, totally REMOVE them.

Why can't you people get that?

Aside from the fact that ME2 was barely an RPG in and of itself...

Modifié par Xena_Shepard, 14 août 2010 - 01:37 .

[FedericoV]

Xena_Shepard wrote...


As I said, you can label those games "RPG"s all you want, but unless they have the core traits of D&D they aren't RPGs are defined by the game genre, they're action/adventure.

Even ME2 was more shooter/action/adventure with some RPG tacked on somewhere along the line. People seem to think "Oh it has a story it MUST be an RPG because it has a story!!" what kind of bull**** logic is that eh? Halo has a story yet last time I checked it's nothing like an RPG.

And as I said that's plain bull****. The games that do not have the core traits of D&D (wich one btw?) are not D&D but they are still RPGs. I've played them and I know what I'm talking about. Maybe, they aren't good RPGs for your personal tastes, but that's a different topic.

[Clover Rider]

filetemo wrote...

Some Geth wrote...

filetemo wrote...

a FPS is a FPS, if the camera is on the characters ear, it's not a FPS, it's thirdpersonshooter with close to the ear camera.

the definition of an rpg is as monolythic as a fps. it is, or it is not, there's no grey zone.

But what if a FPS had sex with an RPG and had a baby :innocent:.

the fps would steal the kid and bring it to fpsland and call it mass effect 2

Ok that imo is not all that bad if the game is good .

[Khavos]

SirOccam wrote...
Well this is entirely about semantics now. Both adding and removing are forms of variation, are they not? In automatic cars, they removed the clutch pedal, didn't they?

And added a place for you to keep your makeup.

[Tirigon]

filetemo wrote...

SirOccam wrote...

 So automatics aren't "real" cars?

automatics are dumbed down cars, but still cars.

a car it's what it has been all it's life: a set of four wheels with a steering wheel.
when cars fly and are controlled by a joystick, they're not cars anymore. They will be transportating floating devices. But not cars.

Wrong. Flying cars are still cars.

And RPGs that don´t follow pen´n´paper-rules are still RPGs if there is roleplaying.

[hannibal555]

When you line up the Bioware (RPG) games from Baldur's Gate to Mass Effect and Dragon Age,
you cannot ignore that that there is a general trend of loss of complexity in the game mechanics.
I'm not speaking of story here, mind you.
You will see this trend even in Mass Effect towards ME 2.
Same is true for DA -> DA2.
If this change is necessarily worse or better is subject to taste of course.
Obviously, those who love complexity will be pissed off by this direction.

But Bioware's RPG games are indeed changing over time from a classical DnD like style to a more action adventure style.
Still, this is a matter of taste.
But the change obviously is there.

[Xena_Shepard]

FedericoV wrote...

Xena_Shepard wrote...


As I said, you can label those games "RPG"s all you want, but unless they have the core traits of D&D they aren't RPGs are defined by the game genre, they're action/adventure.

Even ME2 was more shooter/action/adventure with some RPG tacked on somewhere along the line. People seem to think "Oh it has a story it MUST be an RPG because it has a story!!" what kind of bull**** logic is that eh? Halo has a story yet last time I checked it's nothing like an RPG.

And as I said that's plain bull****. The games that do not have the core traits of D&D (wich one btw?) are not D&D but they are still RPGs. I've played them and I know what I'm talking about. Maybe, they aren't good RPGs for your personal tastes, but that's a different topic.

Well since D&D invented the RPG game genre...Anything not following the model of inventory systems, attribute points, skills, feats, and being able to customize your character is NOT an RPG, it's an ACTION/ADVENTURE game, pure and simple.

[SirOccam]

TMZuk wrote...

There's a clear definition to a hammer. A hammer can be a clawhammer, a sledgehammer etc, etc. They all have something in common that makes them hammers. And axe, however, isn't a hammer. A crowbar isn't a hammer.

There's a clear definition to what a car is. It can be a racecar, a lorry, a 4WD, and many other things. But a motorcycle isn't a car.

But motorcycles have things in common with cars. They both have wheels, they both have motors, they both run on petroleum.

All you're illustrating here is that some attributes are more crucial than other attributes. But we already knew that. WHY is a crowbar not a hammer? It can certainly be used as one, if the situation is desperate enough; I've done it myself. (And no, I'm not arguing that a crowbar is a hammer.) Why are claw hammers and ball peen hammers both hammers, despite their differences? I say it's because their differences are not significant enough to declare them items of an entirely different classification, and I'm sure you'd agree.

Well, then, the natural progression of that logic is to then ask what makes a difference significant enough? Who decides what has to stay and what can go? The point is that you are declaring things to be different without giving any kind of rationale. Just like you say the differences between a claw hammer and a ball peen hammer are small enough that they are both hammers, I say the differences between D&D P&P and another game can be small enough to consider that game an RPG. And that includes ME2, though I fully acknowledge that it is a shooter/RPG hybrid and not just a straight up RPG. Combat is to RPGs as a claw is to a hammer, I say. Part of what one might consider the "classic" idea of a hammer, but by no means necessary.

Oh yeah, meant to ask...do you consider DAO an RPG? Because combat isn't turn-based.

Modifié par SirOccam, 14 août 2010 - 01:42 .

[Clover Rider]

Tirigon wrote...

filetemo wrote...

SirOccam wrote...

 So automatics aren't "real" cars?

automatics are dumbed down cars, but still cars.

a car it's what it has been all it's life: a set of four wheels with a steering wheel.
when cars fly and are controlled by a joystick, they're not cars anymore. They will be transportating floating devices. But not cars.

Wrong. Flying cars are still cars.

And RPGs that don´t follow pen´n´paper-rules are still RPGs if there is roleplaying.

Will someone tell Japan to make the damn flying cars soon i want one .

[Xena_Shepard]

Tirigon wrote...

filetemo wrote...

SirOccam wrote...

 So automatics aren't "real" cars?

automatics are dumbed down cars, but still cars.

a car it's what it has been all it's life: a set of four wheels with a steering wheel.
when cars fly and are controlled by a joystick, they're not cars anymore. They will be transportating floating devices. But not cars.

Wrong. Flying cars are still cars.

And RPGs that don´t follow pen´n´paper-rules are still RPGs if there is roleplaying.

Then I guess every game in existence is an RPG? Because you play a role or 'roleplay' in just about every game.

RPG was never meant to be taken at literal word value, it was just a simple name for what D&D started.

And 'flying cars' are not cars, you may CALL them cars, but they'd be actually defined by another word that would be invented upon THEIR invention, since, y'know, flying cars don't ACTUALLY exist yet, and probably won't ever exist.

[Clover Rider]

Xena_Shepard wrote...

Tirigon wrote...

filetemo wrote...

SirOccam wrote...

 So automatics aren't "real" cars?

automatics are dumbed down cars, but still cars.

a car it's what it has been all it's life: a set of four wheels with a steering wheel.
when cars fly and are controlled by a joystick, they're not cars anymore. They will be transportating floating devices. But not cars.

Wrong. Flying cars are still cars.

And RPGs that don´t follow pen´n´paper-rules are still RPGs if there is roleplaying.

Then I guess every game in existence is an RPG? Because you play a role or 'roleplay' in just about every game.

RPG was never meant to be taken at literal word value, it was just a simple name for what D&D started.

And 'flying cars' are not cars, you may CALL them cars, but they'd be actually defined by another word that would be invented upon THEIR invention, since, y'know, flying cars don't ACTUALLY exist yet, and probably won't ever exist.

Oh yes they will .

[hannibal555]

Could you spamming trolls quit talking about cars?

[filetemo]

Tirigon wrote...
Wrong. Flying cars are still cars.

And RPGs that don´t follow pen´n´paper-rules are still RPGs if there is roleplaying.

cars have four wheels and don't fly, if they fly, they're not cars.

pen and paper rules ARE rpgs. it's like saying "having sex is still having sex even if there's no other person than you involved" or "sticking your dick on your own ass is still sex"

NO.

[Xena_Shepard]

hannibal555 wrote...

Could you spamming trolls quit talking about cars?

We aren't talking about cars, we're using cars as an analytical argument point.

[Tirigon]

Xena_Shepard wrote...


Well since D&D invented the RPG game genre...Anything not following the model of inventory systems, attribute points, skills, feats, and being able to customize your character is NOT an RPG, it's an ACTION/ADVENTURE game, pure and simple.

Well, since RPG means ROLEPLAYING game and "not inventory systems, attribute points, skills, feats, and being able to customize your character"  game every game that includes roleplaying as a strong part of it is an RPG.
Period.

[Tirigon]

Xena_Shepard wrote...

 y'know, flying cars don't ACTUALLY exist yet, and probably won't ever exist.

You just proved your stupidity because prototypes actually DO exist already.

And yes, this prototypes are called cars....

[Clover Rider]

Xena_Shepard wrote...

hannibal555 wrote...

Could you spamming trolls quit talking about cars?

We aren't talking about cars, we're using cars as an analytical argument point.

I don't get the love for old cars look the cars that are new are so fast so I think Dragon Car 2 will be good .

[Xena_Shepard]

Tirigon wrote...

Xena_Shepard wrote...


Well since D&D invented the RPG game genre...Anything not following the model of inventory systems, attribute points, skills, feats, and being able to customize your character is NOT an RPG, it's an ACTION/ADVENTURE game, pure and simple.

Well, since RPG means ROLEPLAYING game and "not inventory systems, attribute points, skills, feats, and being able to customize your character"  game every game that includes roleplaying as a strong part of it is an RPG.
Period.

Ok, then by your bull**** logic, EVERY game is an RPG, because you play a role in EVERY single game in EXISTENCE. Period.

[hannibal555]

Xena_Shepard wrote...

hannibal555 wrote...

Could you spamming trolls quit talking about cars?

We aren't talking about cars, we're using cars as an analytical argument point.

... which is pointless.
You can trash talk all day long about what is RPG and what not, and still
without any sane chance of conclusion.
That is what I intended to express

Modifié par hannibal555, 14 août 2010 - 01:47 .

[filetemo]

Tirigon wrote...

Xena_Shepard wrote...


Well since D&D invented the RPG game genre...Anything not following the model of inventory systems, attribute points, skills, feats, and being able to customize your character is NOT an RPG, it's an ACTION/ADVENTURE game, pure and simple.

Well, since RPG means ROLEPLAYING game and "not inventory systems, attribute points, skills, feats, and being able to customize your character"  game every game that includes roleplaying as a strong part of it is an RPG.
Period.

The definition of roleplaying is "inventory systems, attribute points, skills, feats, and being able to customize your character"
by your definition you can roleplay a movie or a commercial if you really get inside the character being displayed.

[FedericoV]

Xena_Shepard wrote...

Less is not the same as none at all, which is what this ENTIRE thread is getting at, the idea that BioWare is trying to totally phase out key elements off an RPG, not change them or vary them which is perfectly fine, totally REMOVE them.

Because you identify RPG with D&D wich is a narrow and not objective definition of RPG.

Why can't you people get that?

What you don't get is that Bioware (since Kotor) has choose to concentrate on storytelling. To do so, they have gradually removed from their games the old and trite D&D features that hamper storytelling. It could be a bad move or a good move (numbers show that they are mostly right) but that's the Bioware I have experienced since Kotor.

Aside from the fact that ME2 was barely an RPG in and of itself...

In BG I you have NO CHOICES to make. In BG II very small ones. In ME1 and 2 you have major choices to make that affects the result of each major quest. If the definition of a CRPG is based upon choices and consequences, then ME 2 is an RPG while Baldur's Gate I is not.

Modifié par FedericoV, 14 août 2010 - 01:49 .

[Tirigon]

filetemo wrote...

pen and paper rules ARE rpgs. it's like saying "having sex is still having sex even if there's no other person than you involved" or "sticking your dick on your own ass is still sex"

NO.

Thing is, masturbating ( = having sex with noone else involved, as you call it) IS in fact a kind of sex........

[Xena_Shepard]

Tirigon wrote...

Xena_Shepard wrote...

 y'know, flying cars don't ACTUALLY exist yet, and probably won't ever exist.

You just proved your stupidity because prototypes actually DO exist already.

And yes, this prototypes are called cars....

I love how you say I proved my own stupidity and in the same breath you prove what an idiot you are, not even prototypes of "flying cars" exist, now HOVER vehicles, yes, prototypes of those exist, they simply use a fan system to propel themselves a few feet off the ground, thanks for playing.

[GardenSnake]

Bryy_Miller wrote...

GardenSnake wrote...

filetemo wrote...

Bryy_Miller wrote...
Nope. The fans never own a character created by someone else. 

oh yes we do. If you make me believe a character is like this, and make me love him for it, do not present it to me in a radically new form or you'll make me rage, and not only will I not buy your comic/movie/game/novel, but I will also flame you in your blog/forum/deeepest corner of the internet you hide in.

Agreed. Han Solo for example, at this point in time, is as much a die hard star wars fan's as he is Lucas'. He's transcended just being a character in a movie. He's an icon and so much more. If Lucas were to remake the original trilogy and cast hhmmm.... Shia Labeouf for example (I have nothing against the actor, I actually love his work, Transformers be damned) and rewrote Han to be a gay transexual, you could bet there would be hell to pay. Sure, it IS Lucas' character, but there comes a certain point when something becomes so grand and so loved that the owner loses some of their ownership subconsciously to the fans that made that thing into the epic that it is now. Sure Origins isn't quite on par with Star Wars in terms of popularity and fanbase, but RPG gamers are a passionate bunch.

But legally, Han Solo is not yours, and should not be treated as if he is yours.

Ya, so? Are people bound to what's legal and what's not? You can't kill according to law, but people still do it.

[SirOccam]

filetemo wrote...

Tirigon wrote...
Wrong. Flying cars are still cars.

And RPGs that don´t follow pen´n´paper-rules are still RPGs if there is roleplaying.

cars have four wheels and don't fly, if they fly, they're not cars.

Why do they have to have four wheels? Just because they normally do?

And although you have declared the three-wheeled variety not to be real cars, it seems plenty of other people do.