1133 réponses à ce sujet

[In Exile]

filetemo wrote..

DAO is turn based. Turn based doesn't only means you stand in a line like in final fantasy VII.
You attack, and your selected enemy attacks next. There's a turn queue for every character involved in the battle, even if it looks chaotic, DAO is indeed turn based, the developers said it.

No; Dragon Age: Journeys was a turn-based RPG.

A turn-based RPG depends on how the round mechanics work; round mechanics do not exist in DA. With individual rounds that are not anchored, you're really hitting real-time in every meaningful sense of the word.

[filetemo]

In Exile wrote...

filetemo wrote...
it's called metagaming. DM strongly avoid this or directly do not allow this. If you know something your character doesn't, you can't use that in-game.If you wanna play a creative bard but yourself are not very creative, the right way is to ask the DM "I do have a stat of 45 in charisma, can I come up with a song that motivates the soldiers?

And the DM says "Indeed, you compose an inspiring song that gives them +6 hitpoints"

You do not need to create the song. If you can't come up with something funny, the DM will declare you did it in game.

That's not his example. Let's say you are trying to play a particularly intelligent wizard - the Sherlock Homes of the world, according to the stats and player description. You are working with your party to track down the source of a magical plague. There are some clues around, laid by the DM. You, the player, is spectacularly unintelligent- bottom quartile, let's say. Your character should, by all expectation, connect the dots. Yet the DM leaves these hooks, and you cannot figure it out. So does the DM say, your character is smart enough to know this, so this is what you know? How do you resolve this?

you say "I perform an intelligence check" and the DM says "you pass the check so your character finds the connections"

but obviously you guys keeping to use examples where absolutely mentally impaired people attemps to play rpgs invalidates your questions somehow, it's like "what if I was so dumb that my warrior was superstrong but I forgot my dice at home so I can't attack?"

[filetemo]

In Exile wrote...



No; Dragon Age: Journeys was a turn-based RPG.

A turn-based RPG depends on how the round mechanics work; round mechanics do not exist in DA. With individual rounds that are not anchored, you're really hitting real-time in every meaningful sense of the word.

no

no

no

no.you.don't.

there's round mechanics in DA, developers said it time ago.

[SirOccam]

In Exile wrote...

SirOccam wrote...

The closest science comes is probably the taxonomy and nomenclature found in Biology. There are strict rules about what is or is not a bird, for example, and any scientist who goes "look, it has wings, so it's a bird and that is that" would be a laughingstock. So would one who insists that penguins aren't birds because they can't fly and their "idea" of what a bird is is something that flies.

I see you've never had to deal with plant taxonomy before. New species born every minute, or every hour, depending on how exactly you're classifying things.

Just felt like pointing that out. Speaking as someone who was forced by his university to take an evolutionary biology course in first year, taxonomy is just as muddled as any area in science when you get into the nitty gritty of it. Math is the best example for clearly defined sets of things, and physics too, because of how mathematical it is. The farther away you move from math and let the real world push on your view, the harder categorization becomes.

That's not what I meant. I think you're more or less agreeing with me.

I didn't bring up math because for the most part, their labels are objective. Nothing can "feel" like an integer if it's not an integer. They're not going to discover a new number that doesn't fit the current label of "integer" but compel scientists to revise the meaning of "integer."

The closest science comes to being related to this issue at all, based on my admittedly rudimentary knowledge (I personally did not like biology, though I preferred it to chemistry), is in the biological system of taxonomy. It is much more likely to have labels that evolve and change based on new information. I was looking for an example of something that would change, not something that wouldn't.

If any of the sciences can be compared to "deciding whether or not to call something an RPG," I felt that biology's taxonomic nomenclature system is the closest example. Math and whatnot with their clearly-defined, objective rules are just about the farthest.

Video game genre naming is far from an exact science. Math is about as exact as you can get.

[maxernst]

SirOccam wrote...

filetemo wrote...

the point is somebody said pnp rpgs are "accepted" as "possibly valid" definitions of an rpg. pnp rpgs are the one and only valid standard where a computer game can be considered an rpg

...in your opinion.

Except that you also exclude with your RPG definition some tabletop pnp RPG's....for some strange and still unexplained reason, specific game mechanics that aren't present in all tabletop games need to be if the game is played on a computer.

[In Exile]

filetemo wrote..
.
you say "I perform an intelligence check" and the DM says "you pass the check so your character finds the connections"

but obviously you guys keeping to use examples where absolutely mentally impaired people attemps to play rpgs invalidates your questions somehow, it's like "what if I was so dumb that my warrior was superstrong but I forgot my dice at home so I can't attack?"

But how is that different from hitting the "I win" button? You're essentially saying you create a "character" which is a glut of statistics, you program your encounters (which we can approximate to a group of IF statements depending on dice roll outcomes) and then you can just hit "GO!" and the game will play itself.

In essence, you're saying that for a game to be an RPG it has to play itself, or you somehow consider creating builds not a skill or something.

[filetemo]

SirOccam wrote...

Math is about as exact as you can get.

as is the definition of an rpg, computer-based or pnp

are you guys trying to """"win"""" the argument by exhaustion? because you should just say so.

[Il Divo]

filetemo wrote...

you say "I perform an intelligence check" and the DM says "you pass the check so your character finds the connections"

but obviously you guys keeping to use examples where absolutely mentally impaired people attemps to play rpgs invalidates your questions somehow, it's like "what if I was so dumb that my warrior was superstrong but I forgot my dice at home so I can't attack?"

I am simply noting that there is a connection between player and character skill. You might say that traditional pen and paper games do not make use of a player's physical skills. And you'd be right in saying so. But I fail to see how an rpg is no longer such because it begins to make use of a player's physical skill. I would say that if you're relying on intelligence checks to solve every encounter, then you are not 'playing', merely rolling the dice for your DM.

I would also say any cRPG then is guilty of bias when there is no impartial DM to interfere. In Dragon Age, there is not an impartial DM who decides my character is intelligent enough to understand tactics even on the most basic level. This is why some people find Nightmare to be incredibly easy while others incredibly difficult. One person plays their Mage incredibly well while another plays it like a fool.

Now following this, how is there a strict 100% certain definition of rpg? Some focus on combat, some on role-playing, some on a good mix, some on story, etc. What is your 'formula' so to speak?  

Modifié par Il Divo, 14 août 2010 - 03:31 .

[SirOccam]

maxernst wrote...

SirOccam wrote...

filetemo wrote...

the point is somebody said pnp rpgs are "accepted" as "possibly valid" definitions of an rpg. pnp rpgs are the one and only valid standard where a computer game can be considered an rpg

...in your opinion.

Except that you also exclude with your RPG definition some tabletop pnp RPG's....for some strange and still unexplained reason, specific game mechanics that aren't present in all tabletop games need to be if the game is played on a computer.

Except my definition was not meant as a hard and fast rule, and I went out of my way to indicate as much. Plus, my definition didn't exist 5 seconds before reading that post.

I wrote...

My definition is something like "an RPG is a game in which you take on
the persona of a character you've created, and you make their decisions
interpersonally as well as regarding the development of their strengths
and weaknesses." That's probably not even a good one.

*snip*

If I ever come across
a game that feels like an RPG but doesn't fit this description, I'll
revise it accordingly. The application of labels is a descriptive act, not a prescriptive one. In other words, the label describes, it doesn't control or influence.

I only wrote that "definition" for the purposes of argument. I don't think we NEED a scientifically-based hard rule for what makes an RPG. Again, what is important to ME is story above all, customization probably next. Stats and math and whatnot are way down at the bottom of the list, if they're even on it at all.

[In Exile]

SirOccam wrote...

That's not what I meant. I think you're more or less agreeing with me.

Oh, I wasn't very clear. I do agree with you entirely. I just wanted to point out that even taxomony is actually not exact at all, and "is a bird a bird" is actually a pretty complicated question that we're going on mostly convention and genetics at this point. Not so much for mammals, but once you hit the genetic nightmare that is plants, oh, you're not working out this taxonmy in a coherent fashion any time soon.

If any of the sciences can be compared to "deciding whether or not to call something an RPG," I felt that biology's taxonomic nomenclature system is the closest example. Math and whatnot with their clearly-defined, objective rules are just about the farthest.

Video game genre naming is far from an exact science. Math is about as exact as you can get.

Right, I think the comparison is very good. I just wanted to point out that even if RPG naming was like taxonomy, taxonomy isn't actually powerful enough for a person to say, based on the validity of this comparison I can justify my claim that this and only this is an RPG.

[maxernst]

[quote]SirOccam wrote...

[quote]maxernst wrote...

[quote]SirOccam wrote...

[quote]filetemo wrote...

the point is somebody said pnp rpgs are "accepted" as "possibly valid" definitions of an rpg. pnp rpgs are the one and only valid standard where a computer game can be considered an rpg[/quote]
...in your opinion.

[/quote]

Except that you also exclude with your RPG definition some tabletop pnp RPG's....for some strange and still unexplained reason, specific game mechanics that aren't present in all tabletop games need to be if the game is played on a computer.[/quote]
Except my definition was not meant as a hard and fast rule, and I went out of my way to indicate as much. Plus, my definition didn't exist 5 seconds before reading that post.

[quote]I wrote...

.
[/quote]

Sorry, that comment was directed at filetemo, not you

[SirOccam]

filetemo wrote...

SirOccam wrote...

Math is about as exact as you can get.

as is the definition of an rpg, computer-based or pnp

are you guys trying to """"win"""" the argument by exhaustion? because you should just say so.

Arrgh, no it's not! If the last dozen pages or so have shown ANYTHING, it's that it's difficult to even find two people who agree on what an RPG is. Even people on the same side.

It's only "exact" to you because you have an overly exacting definition! It doesn't mean your definition is accurate. There is no way to prove one side or the other; that's what I've been saying all this time. It's entirely subjective.

It feels like you're trying to win by exhaustion, because you keep declaring "this is what an RPG is." People can show counter-example after counter-example, but you just say "no, that's not an RPG. This is an RPG." That's not reasoning.

[maxernst]

SirOccam wrote...

maxernst wrote...

SirOccam wrote...

filetemo wrote...

the point is somebody said pnp rpgs are "accepted" as "possibly valid" definitions of an rpg. pnp rpgs are the one and only valid standard where a computer game can be considered an rpg

...in your opinion.

Except that you also exclude with your RPG definition some tabletop pnp RPG's....for some strange and still unexplained reason, specific game mechanics that aren't present in all tabletop games need to be if the game is played on a computer.

Sorry, my comment was aimed at filetemo, not you.

[In Exile]

filetemo wrote...

as is the definition of an rpg, computer-based or pnp

are you guys trying to """"win"""" the argument by exhaustion? because you should just say so.

No. We just don't agree that you can come up with concrete definitions like you seem to think you can. Like how your last definition I quoted would include Dynasty Warriors: Empire 6 as an RPG.

[filetemo]

In Exile wrote...





But how is that different from hitting the "I win" button? You're essentially saying you create a "character" which is a glut of statistics, you program your encounters (which we can approximate to a group of IF statements depending on dice roll outcomes) and then you can just hit "GO!" and the game will play itself.

In essence, you're saying that for a game to be an RPG it has to play itself, or you somehow consider creating builds not a skill or something.

well, somehow, yes.

creating a build is a skill, and a good build can play the game for itself. So in essence yes, the skill in rpgs is creating the build, adjusting the tactics before the fight and then do minor adjustments during the fight.

Look at DAO: doing a good build, and presetting tactics before fights, you were able to just sit back and see your characters destroy your enemies without you having to touch the keyboard. There's the skill, not to mash x button to slash harder.

Modifié par filetemo, 14 août 2010 - 03:34 .

[In Exile]

filetemo wrote...
creating a build is a skill, and a good build can play the game for itself. So in essence yes, the skill in rpgs is creating the build, adjusting the tactics before the fight and then do minor adjustments during the fight.

So then how can an RPG be independent of player skill? That's just a stupid definition.

You say the RPG is independent of physical skill, but that's also a stupid definition. What you do when you play an FPS is barely physical - it is all cognitive processing, relating to attentional distribution, attention scaling, multi-tasking and visuospacial representation.

Video games are by their very nature almost exclusively cognitive. Just because you think consciously thinking about something is "intellectual and independent of player skill" and being able to attend to several different things and react quickly is not is just your arbitrary definition, and completely contrary to how cognitive neuroscience would define the same thing.

If we are appealing to science as a legitimate authority for categorization, I wonder if you'll tell the person writing a thesis in cognitive neuroscience what is and isn't cognitive processing.

Look at DAO: doing a good build, and presetting tactics before fights, you were able to just sit back and see your characters destroy your enemies without you having to touch the keyboard. There's the skill, not to mash x button to slash harder.

First off, you can play DA without using tactics at all. In fact, I find tactics to be a terrible pain and play without them all the time, just using the pause option.

That being said, even if watching the game play itself was what an RPG should be, how is that independent of any kind of player skill?

[SirOccam]

In Exile wrote...

Right, I think the comparison is very good. I just wanted to point out that even if RPG naming was like taxonomy, taxonomy isn't actually powerful enough for a person to say, based on the validity of this comparison I can justify my claim that this and only this is an RPG.

Ah, gotcha.

maxernst wrote...

Sorry, my comment was aimed at filetemo, not you.

Ah, gotcha.

[filetemo]

rpg involve mind skill, fps require physical skill, because it requires coordination between brain-eye-hand. rpg only requires to "think" not to "think and then move accordingly and fast"



is it so hard to understand? I already gave the 90 year old playing DAO example.

[Il Divo]

filetemo wrote..

is it so hard to understand? I already gave the 90 year old playing DAO example.

Indeed. And I would still say that the 90 year old, even without considering hand eye coordination, will have more than enough to worry about, to the point where he will most likely have trouble coordinating his characters' actions in Dragon Age. He is not playing on equal terms with the 20 year old, full of energy. Like it or not, the fast-paced movement, music, and crazy special effects don't have the best effects on an old mind. There are other physical skills to consider as well: ability to handle a keyboard/controller properly, etc. The 90 year old ultimately is not playing on equal terms with the 20 or 30 year old.   

[asaiasai]

Faz432 wrote...

To be fair people can go on what's happened before in recent history to get an idea of what will happen in the future, and when you look at the direction Bioware went with ME1 to ME2 then the assumption that they are pushing their games away from RPG to action/adventure is valid.

Valid point and is one that i am concerned about with DA2, there are many here who will disagree but i thought ME was a deeper more complex game/story than ME2. ME2 was a good game do not get me wrong but was it ME or DAO good, not in a million years. 

DAO and ME had a much better implementation of a morality system, in that the player could make a sacrifice stats wise in order to better mold thier character. Those moments when you had to decide to use 2 points in cunning to open up the next persuasion level, or Intimidate vs charm in ME created subtle differences in the character and the perception of the world towards the character/ player.  Sure all this did was open up alternative dialog options, but for the value of the title these things also created a reason to go back and play the game again. I think this is some of the depth that was lost in ME2 and if that is a concern of yours for DA2 it is a valid one, as we all have seen the STARK differences between ME and ME2. Add into this multiple choice when it comes to key moments in the story and the experience is much deeper because until the player goes back they like somethimes in life will wonder if they made the right decision.

Asai

Modifié par asaiasai, 14 août 2010 - 04:47 .

[G30rg13]

Bryy_Miller wrote...

filetemo wrote...

SirOccam wrote...

What have they actually done that indicates any of this?

mass effect 2.

premade personality character, no inventory, option to autolevel, etc...

Mass Effect 1: Premade character, option to autolevel.

There's inventory in ME2. It's no as NEEDLESSLY COMPLEX as ME1, but it is there.

At the beginning of Mass 1 you can either choose a prmade character and jump right into the game, or you can select background (Earthborn, Colonist, Spacer) and service history (War Hero, Sole Survivor, Ruthless) Then you can edit appearance and class. The same in Mass 2 if you choose not to import, also decisions from the first game affect the second, and choices from both will affect the third.

'premade personality character, no inventory, option to autolevel, etc... ' You have no grounds to say this, I've checked your profile, you don't own ME 1 or 2 or even DA:O.

There is an inventory in Mass 2 just not as crazy and messy as in was in the first. I have to say I like it better that way. At least I can gor 5 feet without getting over-encumbered and being forced to sit for an hour converting 200 things into omni-gel. That's what ruined ME 1 and DA:O for me.

The Autolevel option is just that AN OPTION you don't HAVE to have it on, I don't like it either, but I just don't use it, and even going as far back as KOTOR you can autolevel, it's not like it's new or anything.

Do your research or play the game before you assault the developers. At least point out REAL PROBLEMS. If anything DA:O had more fixed origins than Mass Effect does. You pick your race and your class and there's only one option left! With Mass Effect its ANY combo for ANY class.




...I love ranting:D

[Kalfear]

asaiasai wrote...

Faz432 wrote...

To be fair people can go on what's happened before in recent history to get an idea of what will happen in the future, and when you look at the direction Bioware went with ME1 to ME2 then the assumption that they are pushing their games away from RPG to action/adventure is valid.

Valid point and is one that i am concerned about with DA2, there are many here who will disagree but i thought ME was a deeper more complex game/story than ME2. ME2 was a good game do not get me wrong but was it ME or DAO good, not in a million years. 

DAO and ME had a much better implementation of a morality system, in that the player could make a sacrifice stats wise in order to better mold thier character. Those moments when you had to decide to use 2 points in cunning to open up the next persuasion level, or Intimidate vs charm in ME created subtle differences in the character and the perception of the world towards the character/ player.  Sure all this did was open up alternative dialog options, but for the value of the title these things also created a reason to go back and play the game again. I think this is some of the depth that was lost in ME2 and if that is a concern of yours for DA2 it is a valid one, as we all have seen the STARK differences between ME and ME2. Add into this multiple choice when it comes to key moments in the story and the experience is much deeper because until the player goes back they like somethimes in life will wonder if they made the right decision.

Asai

I totally feel Bioware moving away from the RPG genre for what they preceive to be the money loaded main stream consumer! As of yet, it hasnt happened with ME1 and DA:O both outselling ME2 in total sales.

I said this in the Witcher thread and ill say it here. I beleive its Biowares intent to make their games more like interactive movies then traditional RPGs.

The problem is there seem to be getting bad advice on how to do that, to have a successful movie, you first need a successful script! All the bells and whistles normally will not matter if your story cant hold its own.
In ME2, we saw the story completely fold under the weight of the production and become nothing more then justification for the combat action!
ME1 was Die Hard, amazing story with fast action driving the narative
ME2 was Universal Soldier 5, throw away story so main character can kick and punch and shoot lots!

The problem as I see it is Bioware, for what ever reason doesnt seem to understand this is where they went wrong with ME2, or if they do, they not admitting it which is making their cunsumer base worried.
Are they really so blind they dont see where they failed?
Perhaps they have grown to much and ego to big? Based on some Bioware personal posts, ego definately in play there.

the consumer, just wants Bioware to come out and say, no spin, no nothing, just say "we understand story has to be the #1 priority above all else and story is what made our games so great before".
Do that and most of the worry goes away!
Say it, but dont mean it (like Christina Norman did to us with ME2), and your customer base goes away as well.

Personally I think Bioware not sure how to advance, if they make promises and break them (AGAIN), they all but done for as a dev studio. But if they keep playing spin that statement, like they been doing, they going to also bleed customers at a alarming rate!

The obvious answer to me is make story the priority, but im not a Bioware employee and dont know what their internal plan is.

Gotta say, what they doing right now, its not working! From someone on the outside looking in.

[Sylvius the Mad]

In Exile wrote...

In essence, you're saying that for a game to be an RPG it has to play itself, or you somehow consider creating builds not a skill or something.

It's a skill that exists outside the game world.

Twitch combat is a skill that needs to exist inside the game world.

The latter breaks the game.  The former does not.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Il Divo wrote...

Like it or not, the fast-paced movement, music, and crazy special effects don't have the best effects on an old mind.

The abiltiy to pause the game every 2 seconds or less (something I do when playing DAO) eliminates two of those concerns, and the volume control eliminates the third (I sually have the volume wuite low when I play, as well - I often can't hear the music outside of combat)

There are other physical skills to consider as well: ability to handle a keyboard/controller properly, etc.

A mouse is remarkably forgiving for a patient user.

My standard holds.  A proper RPG should be playable by a quadriplegic.  A tabletop RPG certainly can be.

[Daur]

If you can role play





it's an RPG