1133 réponses à ce sujet

[shootist70]

Merced256 wrote...

Yea, character progression in the form of stats and new skills is incredibly archaic. Who would've ever thought that its a medium to introduce new tactics, varied gameplay and good ole fashioned fun. No, that entire system has never been used to good effect and therefore should be axed like it might as well have been in ME2. After all, everyone loves riding a cinematic roller coaster with the replayability resting solely on the illusion of choice.

Gear/stats/inventory IS an illusion of choice. Roleplaying should involve progression through impact of choice on plot and characters, not progression through choice of what gear to use and skills to update. The former is totally in keeping with fiction, which is the only thing that RPG's really should represent. The latter are archaic, and might have suited the genre when it didn't have the technology or the talent to give us real fictive choice, but times have moved on, and it's time folks let go of their personal preferences and let the genre evolve along with the tech.

Sure, ME2 isn't perfect, but it's a step in the right direction, an exploration of the future of the genre. Old-school RPG's are a step back into the limits of the past.

Modifié par shootist70, 14 août 2010 - 07:20 .

[AlanC9]

filetemo wrote...

AlanC9 wrote...


So the definition of "skill" is something that only some non-disabled people can do? "Disabled" in this context meaning someone who can't do whatever we've decided "normal" people can do?

a skill is something that takes an effort and not everybody in their particular conditions can do without proper training or without possessing an unusual trait
do we have to define what a skill is now too? and what a disabled person is?or are those definitions "my particular opinions" too?

Considering the way you and In Exile were talking past each other, I figured we do need a definition. My definition works better since under your definition walking would be a skill -- it just happens to be one that every non-disabled person has been trained in.

[Merced256]

shootist70 wrote...

Merced256 wrote...

Yea, character progression in the form of stats and new skills is incredibly archaic. Who would've ever thought that its a medium to introduce new tactics, varied gameplay and good ole fashioned fun. No, that entire system has never been used to good effect and therefore should be axed like it might as well have been in ME2. After all, everyone loves riding a cinematic roller coaster with the replayability resting solely on the illusion of choice.

Gear/stats/inventory IS an illusion of choice. Roleplaying should involve progression through impact of choice on plot and characters, not progression through choice of what gear to use and skills to update. The former is totally in keeping with fiction, which is the only thing that RPG's really should represent. The latter are archaic, and might have suited the genre when it didn't have the technology or the talent to give us real fictive choice, but times have moved on, and it's time folks let go of their personal preferences and let the genre evolve along with the tech.

What makes your definition of a RPG anymore valid than mine?

Also, character progression isn't solely a emotional or personal progression. If i were thrown in to the middle of a war i'd be a pretty horrible shot, bad door kicker, bad everything. If i survived even 6 months i'd be substantially better at all those things. If we want to be realistic i'd probably have degraded morally and emotionally too, but we'll ignore that part.

But it sounds like all you want is interactive movies where all you do is click option A, B or C. Sorry, there are movie theatres for a reason. But i guess i respect your definition of what constitutes a RPG even though it has absolutely no basis.

Modifié par Merced256, 14 août 2010 - 07:24 .

[Merced256]

I also don't get how gear/stats/inventory are anything resembling the illusion of choice. All of those things dictate how YOUR character plays the game. Gear defines how you kill stuff, tactics, etc. Stats dictate how good you are with particular gear and other things like cunning checks. Inventory is directly related to gear and is a part of that system. Theres no illusion behind the choices you make concerning these things. They all have a tangible impact on how you spend a majority of your time playing the game, which is in combat (OMG THE BARBARISM).

[shootist70]

Merced256 wrote...

What makes your definition of a RPG anymore valid than mine?

 
i'll give you a summarised interpretation. My definition is in-keeping with fictive ideals...and that's all an RPG is - a form of fiction. It is far more so than, say, an FPS, which is more of a 'game'. The dated mechanics you refer to take RPG's back to being more of a game because they're artificial devices to simulate depth, and they add nothing to fictive elements because they're not an integral part of it. They actually tend to bog it right down. They also represent classic immersion and suspension of disbelief breakers.

But it sounds like all you want is interactive movies where all you do is click option A, B or C. Sorry, there are movie theatres for a reason.

Nope. What I want is where the genre should be heading, and where Bioware are taking early steps in taking it - true fictive roleplaying and entertainment, and not formulaic playing with mechanics to beat a game. Those things should be ruthlessly ripped out for the reasons in my first para.

Modifié par shootist70, 14 août 2010 - 07:39 .

[AlanC9]

Just for my own enlightenment, what's your gaming background, shootist70? You too, slimgrin. I'm always curious if these different beliefs about what an RPG ought to be are based in how someone came to gaming.

[shootist70]

slimgrin wrote...

So we might as well stop killing things in RPG's? Only talking now?

Strawman - dismissed. Heroic saga's have been packed full of killing since the Illiad. Come back with a better argument

Modifié par shootist70, 14 août 2010 - 07:43 .

[PearlSora]

nnn

[Merced256]

So you're really advocating the removal of the G from RPG? Seriously?



And then you use lines like

where the genre should be heading

Wow, i mean.. i don't even know what to say. You're not only advocating the death of a 30 year old genre in favor of a form of entertainment that already exists, but you also believe your sole interpretation of where the genre should go is correct. Man..

[Merced256]

AlanC9 wrote...

Just for my own enlightenment, what's your gaming background, shootist70? You too, slimgrin. I'm always curious if these different beliefs about what an RPG ought to be are based in how someone came to gaming.

Sounds to me like this is exactly what he wants:

www.imdb.com/title/tt0259711/

[shootist70]

AlanC9 wrote...

Just for my own enlightenment, what's your gaming background, shootist70? You too, slimgrin. I'm always curious if these different beliefs about what an RPG ought to be are based in how someone came to gaming.

Fair question. I first got into RPG's as a little kid when the genre first started on computers with text only games (yes, I've been a nerd since an early age). But i'll play just about anything that's decent, don't care what the genre is. RPG's have barely evolved in that time until recently - the graphics got  better and the complexity increased but it's been more of the same old mechanics for a long time. Some RPG purists might spit on the names of Bethesda and Bioware but I'm welcoming the direction they're taking this cliched, derivative genre in.

[shootist70]

Merced256 wrote...

AlanC9 wrote...

Just for my own enlightenment, what's your gaming background, shootist70? You too, slimgrin. I'm always curious if these different beliefs about what an RPG ought to be are based in how someone came to gaming.

Sounds to me like this is exactly what he wants:

www.imdb.com/title/tt0259711/

Ad hominem. If you can't debate fairly don't bother at all.

Modifié par shootist70, 14 août 2010 - 07:50 .

[Merced256]

shootist70 wrote...

Merced256 wrote...

AlanC9 wrote...

Just for my own enlightenment, what's your gaming background, shootist70? You too, slimgrin. I'm always curious if these different beliefs about what an RPG ought to be are based in how someone came to gaming.

Sounds to me like this is exactly what he wants:

www.imdb.com/title/tt0259711/

Ad hominem. If you can't debate fairly don't bother at all.

Who cares? I certainly do not. I'll kick your dog too, call the morality police.

And as far as i'm concerned theres no debate going on, you're advocating that a game genre become something other than a game and all i can really say is i disagree completely on the basis that i wish for the game to remain a game. If you want to "RP" without the interaction that makes a game a game then vanilla sky is right up your alley brah.

Modifié par Merced256, 14 août 2010 - 07:56 .

[shootist70]

Merced256 wrote...

[
Who cares? I certainly do not. I'll kick your dog too, call the morality police.

So what? The only point here is debate, and calling you out on logical fallacies show's you've got nothing worthwhile to contribute. Job done.

[shootist70]

slimgrin wrote...

I'm sorry guys, but this concept of not needing stats and inventory and strategy ( which ME2 had in spades btw, just in the background) boggles my mind. I haven't played a Bioware game yet that doesn't use these elements, and yet so many fans of Bioware want to get rid of them altogether. Do they really just want an interactive story and nothing more?

Shootist70 claiming that weapon type and inventory are the illusion of choice is nonsense. You choose the wrong squad and weapons for a level in ME2 and you might die. It's all about choice. I'm beginning to think people are way too enamored with the interactive cut scenes Bioware does.

You're polarising for effect. Characters need gear in the same way that any warrior needs a weapon and armour or whatever. The point here is not to make them the focus of the game and the way to progress further into it. ME2 had gear, yet the inventory screen was consigned to the background - perfect.

Modifié par shootist70, 14 août 2010 - 08:06 .

[Merced256]

shootist70 wrote...

Merced256 wrote...

[
Who cares? I certainly do not. I'll kick your dog too, call the morality police.

So what? The only point here is debate, and calling you out on logical fallacies show's you've got nothing worthwhile to contribute. Job done.

The point is that there is nothing to debate. My definition of a RPG is extremely flexible in contrast to yours, which is HUR HUR PRETTY CUTSCENE.. OOO DIALOG OPTIONZ HURRRRRRRR.

Am i misrepresenting your opinions with my crude analogy? BAWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWW. Actually i would contend that i'm not misrepresenting anything other than painting you as the retard i feel you just may be.

[Merced256]

slimgrin wrote...

shootist70 wrote...

slimgrin wrote...

I'm sorry guys, but this concept of not needing stats and inventory and strategy ( which ME2 had in spades btw, just in the background) boggles my mind. I haven't played a Bioware game yet that doesn't use these elements, and yet so many fans of Bioware want to get rid of them altogether. Do they really just want an interactive story and nothing more?

Shootist70 claiming that weapon type and inventory are the illusion of choice is nonsense. You choose the wrong squad and weapons for a level in ME2 and you might die. It's all about choice. I'm beginning to think people are way too enamored with the interactive cut scenes Bioware does.

You're polarising for effect. Characters need gear in the same way that any warrior needs a weapon and armour or whatever. The point here is not to make them the focus of the game and the way to progress further into it. ME2 had gear, yet the inventory screen was consigned to the background - perfect.

Perfect for an action title, yes. Limited for an RPG.
 
But a fun game nonetheless. I won't argue with that.

But hes too sophisticated to play a mere action title, no matter how much it resembles what he wishes the RPG genre to morph in to.

[shootist70]

Merced256 wrote...

The point is that there is nothing to debate. My definition of a RPG is extremely flexible in contrast to yours, which is HUR HUR PRETTY CUTSCENE.. OOO DIALOG OPTIONZ HURRRRRRRR.

Am i misrepresenting your opinions with my crude analogy? BAWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWW. Actually i would contend that i'm not misrepresenting anything other than painting you as the retard i feel you just may be.

lol..didn't have the effect you wanted, just made me smile. Might as well stick a neon sign on your head saying 'I lost and didn't like it'. Bit of a shame because debate shouldn't be a competition, but if you're going to debate like a loser you'll be seen as one.

[Merced256]

shootist70 wrote...

Merced256 wrote...

The point is that there is nothing to debate. My definition of a RPG is extremely flexible in contrast to yours, which is HUR HUR PRETTY CUTSCENE.. OOO DIALOG OPTIONZ HURRRRRRRR.

Am i misrepresenting your opinions with my crude analogy? BAWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWW. Actually i would contend that i'm not misrepresenting anything other than painting you as the retard i feel you just may be.

lol..didn't have the effect you wanted, just made me smile. Might as well stick a neon sign on your head saying 'I lost and didn't like it'. Bit of a shame because debate shouldn't be a competition, but if you're going to debate like a loser you'll be seen as one.

Perhaps you'd like to inform us of what we are debating? That your definition of a RPG is actually already a genre that is, in fact, called something other than a RPG? As before theres really nothing to debate. Especially when you choose to be so rigid about what defines a RPG.