645 réponses à ce sujet

[Icinix]

Onyx Jaguar wrote...

RPG means nothing really

labels are meaningless

Thats what I thought until one day I bought Dog Food instead of Fritz.

I ate about nine sandwhich's and everytime thought ' Damn, this tastes like dog food.'

[addiction21]

Onyx Jaguar wrote...

RPG means nothing really

labels are meaningless

It means something but that time has passed. I have felt for a long time that it is a archaic term left over from a different time. Something that described PnP conversions to a video game format but we have so much more now. There is so much more variety in the "RPGs" that are delivered that the blanket term of RPG is no longer adequate to describe any single game.

[Onyx Jaguar]

Icinix wrote...

Onyx Jaguar wrote...

RPG means nothing really

labels are meaningless

Thats what I thought until one day I bought Dog Food instead of Fritz.

I ate about nine sandwhich's and everytime thought ' Damn, this tastes like dog food.'

See back in my day we would have just called that un-cultured grains

Not catchy but specific

[SirOccam]

Wulfram wrote...

If Action RPG doesn't mean anything, then perhaps someone should tell Ray Muzyka, so he can stop babbling nonsense?

It's not that it means nothing, exactly, just that it means different things to different people. There are threads in here that go on for dozens of pages about what "RPG" means.

Anyway, it's not wrong to use words with relative meaning...you just assume a risk of misunderstanding just like every time you communicate.

[Tsuga C]

Onyx Jaguar wrote...

RPG means nothing really

labels are meaningless

I do hope that Sylvius see this...little gem. 

[Collider]

RPG = roleplaying game. Dragon Age 2 offers roleplaying in abundance - as far as I'm concerned - it's already a roleplaying game by virtue of that. I suppose the "action" bit refers to the heightened pace of the game.

[Brockololly]

JohnEpler wrote...

I should note that many of the people on DA2 team would consider themselves 'PC gamers', as it were. Though I currently split my time about 50/50 between the PC and consoles, I grew up on Gold Box RPGs and MUDs.

Having said that, I don't think it's unfair or inaccurate of David to suggest that there are some people (and Merin, I'm not including you among their number) who do genuinely believe that PC gamers are somehow more intelligent and discerning than console gamers (and, conversely, some people on the console side of things who believe that all PC gamers are elitist snobs). This is, of course, a separate argument from whether or not certain types of gameplay translate well to console controllers as opposed to a KBaM setup.

If anyone wants to discuss the division between console and PC games in greater detail, my inbox is always open But I like to believe that one's platform of choice has little to nothing to do with intelligence or critical thinking and everything to do with personal preference.

The whole "PC Gaming Master Race" or "Console Bro" labels are just stupid. Gamers just want to be sure they're playing the absolute best version of the game that they can for their platform of choice. Each platform has unique strengthes and weaknesses and when dealing with a multiplat game, gamers just want the game to play up to those strengths and unique assets of their platform of choice- whether thats PC, PS3 or 360.

Its just a fact that the PC can do things the consoles can't hardware wise and input wise and that the consoles can do unique things and require unique attention too. So people get pissy when a multiplatform game gets announced only to find out its being designed with one specific platform in mind and that changes being made to the game are being done with one platform in mind while only hearing how other features from the other platform are being trimmed and cut back.

If a game is going to be multiplatform gamers just want each version to feel like it was designed and built from the ground up to take advantage of their platform of choice and not just hastily ported over.

[Lord Gremlin]

Well, you can call any real-time gameplay style game an "action"... As far as I know, DA2 will be faster, which is good (it was annoying when you issue orders, and then bring the pause wheel again only to see 3 characters executed your order and one - still moving into position). Also, maybe I'm the only one, but sometimes DAO felt like you're controlling a unit in RTS, like, you know, third person Warcraft 3. Which is incredibly bad IMO. I hope this clunkiness is gone for good.



Since you can pause the game, controls on PC and consoles are not that different. If anything, PC allows to issue a lot of commands via hotkeys without pausing - not really crucial to experience IMO. What is bad about DAO on PS3 (version I play) is some obvious mistakes and flaws in control scheme. For example, non-selectable pets. You can select them when targeting friendly spell, but for some reason cycling through party just stupidly skips them. Such things. The issue with DAO was, actually, lack of polish of console versions.

[Mystranna Kelteel]

Collider wrote...

RPG = roleplaying game.

"Roleplaying" is much too vague a term to be used to classify a genre.

Any game in existence can be technically called a roleplaying game because in order to play a game you have to play a role.

In Q*Bert you play the role of Q*Bert, hopping around on blocks.
In Tetris you play the role of a block manipulator. Are these games RPG's? Most people would say no, but anyone could make the claim that they are.

[bjdbwea]

JohnEpler wrote...

If anyone wants to discuss the division between console and PC games in greater detail, my inbox is always open But I like to believe that one's platform of choice has little to nothing to do with intelligence or critical thinking and everything to do with personal preference.

I think so too. And indeed, as DA:O and Fallout 3 among other games have proved, even on consoles there's a significant market for good and proper RPGs. There are obviously many console gamers who enjoy depth and "lengthy" dialogues and everything else. And who don't need every game to be actionified and made more "immediate" and "accessible". So why don't you just develop another game for these players - on PC and consoles - instead of changing the formula in a way that makes it appear as if you think that most players - on PC and consoles - need everything to be made simpler and easier and more superficial?

Modifié par bjdbwea, 26 août 2010 - 11:11 .

[Wulfram]

SirOccam wrote...
It's not that it means nothing, exactly, just that it means different things to different people. There are threads in here that go on for dozens of pages about what "RPG" means.

Anyway, it's not wrong to use words with relative meaning...you just assume a risk of misunderstanding just like every time you communicate.

But it does mean something pretty clear.  BG series, NWN and KotOR aren't action RPGs, Jade Empire and Mass Effect are.  It's just being blurred because they want to be able to say it's changed to a new audience while  playing down that change to their established fans.

[addiction21]

Mystranna Kelteel wrote...

Collider wrote...

RPG = roleplaying game.

"Roleplaying" is much too vague a term to be used to classify a genre.

Any game in existence can be technically called a roleplaying game because in order to play a game you have to play a role.

In Q*Bert you play the role of Q*Bert, hopping around on blocks.
In Tetris you play the role of a block manipulator. Are these games RPG's? Most people would say no, but anyone could make the claim that they are.

The thing is that RPG is a holdover from a time that it was manily used to descibe things such as D&D but so much has changed since that time.
The term RPG is used too loosely by too many and too many think it means something specific.

It has turned into a wide genre but too many still hold on to an idea it means one thing even tho it has become (not sure if this term is correct) a general descriptor.

[Kevin Lynch]

From what I can tell (and I may be wrong), but the "Action" in the aRPG tag may refer more to the comment made during that vid that the reaction of your character to your commands will be more dynamic than in DA:O. It doesn't necessarily strike me as meaning the game is going to become a Diablo-clone (which, to me, is the guide for aRPGs, although some choose to label them hack'n'slash...blahblahblah). Essentially, making the characters react in a way that allows us to feel the same sense of adrenaline rush, excitement, fear, etc, without making it a twitch-based click-fest is what I'm looking for the "action" label to mean in DA2. I'll have to see how it pans out to determine if they succeeded in meeting my expectation.

[PanosSmirnakos]

David Gaider wrote...

... DAO was an action-oriented RPG, and we've clearly amped up the action element in DA2. That doesn't mean the story and characters are any less important to us-- these things don't exist in exclusion to each other, not on the game side and not on the platform side-- ...

DA:O was an action-oriented RPG? I'm sorry Mr. Gaider, although I respect you as a writer, I fully disagree here. What about the title you gave it as the "Baldur's Gate successor", it was another marketing trick? I play mainly RPGs and all their sub-genres and I can't understand how DA:O (at least the PC version) is classified by you as an action RPG... For me DA:O was a modern and improved version of Neverwinter Nights I & II with a simplified but very similar combat system and with a few features / ideas / mechanics based on Baldur's Gate. Also, I think one of the reasons for the success of DA:O was the fact that we had years to see a pure RPG like DA:O. The market is full of action RPGs or action games with RPG elements. By the way, I have no problem with DA 2 being a more action based RPG, but I simply can't understand why you suddenly call a game like DA:O action-oriented. You had promoted it to us for years as the  "Baldur's Gate successor" or a back to the roots traditional RPG. Is this a new way to justify the new direction of DA 2?

Modifié par PanosSmirnakos, 26 août 2010 - 11:20 .

[Kilshrek]

Semantics.



I just think when action rpg gets thrown out there, games like Diablo come to mind. Point n click, hack n slash. Which is no bad thing, look at how successful Diablo is. I know I'll be getting Diablo 3 when it comes out.



People on both sides of this argument are obviously tired of saying the same things, which kinda seems to be "Team PC" : They're catering to consoles! "Team Console" : They're being snobby!



Why? I mean, it has to be an accepted fact that a game released for all platforms will not be the same on all platforms. Simple example, MW 2 on the PC is most definitely not the same as MW 2 on consoles. Sure the core game might be the same but you definitely don't handle the game the same way. Controls are always gonna be way different. I tried out shooters for consoles once or twice when they first came out and gave up pretty quickly. A mouse and keyboard trumps a set of controllers any day in a shooter.



A different form of the argument can be applied here, just the numbers on the keyboard already give you more options than a console controller. Game makers have to adapt to the restrictions of the console system. So here is where PC gamers are always concerned, how much has to be sacrificed to make the game console friendly? I don't believe it is possible to bring the exact same game to all platforms, but I don't make games so what do I know?



I just think guys need to cool down, not yell at each other so much (but this is the internet, who am I kidding?) and just, be very vocal about their concerns, without stepping on too many toes. I find being nice in most situations can't hurt your cause, especially if the people on the other side have what you want (Dragon Age 2, anyone?)



A final note, I'm a PC gamer, and I cringe every time PC gamers get labeled as elitists because games are adapted to consoles. I'd just like to point out GTA IV, which was one of the most horrible console ports I've ever seen(which was of course rectified after several GB of patches), from a game that started out on the PC. I'd played just about every GTA game, from the first top-down game, yes, till IV. I just felt disappointed by the whole thing, which seems to be a trend. It just seems unfair for PC gamers to be judged so quickly when there is legitimate concern when many games have the PC as an afterthought.



tl;dr, pc vs console argument is old, and people need to chill.

[Anarya]

addiction21 wrote...

Mystranna Kelteel wrote...

Collider wrote...

RPG = roleplaying game.

"Roleplaying" is much too vague a term to be used to classify a genre.

Any game in existence can be technically called a roleplaying game because in order to play a game you have to play a role.

In Q*Bert you play the role of Q*Bert, hopping around on blocks.
In Tetris you play the role of a block manipulator. Are these games RPG's? Most people would say no, but anyone could make the claim that they are.

The thing is that RPG is a holdover from a time that it was manily used to descibe things such as D&D but so much has changed since that time.
The term RPG is used too loosely by too many and too many think it means something specific.

It has turned into a wide genre but too many still hold on to an idea it means one thing even tho it has become (not sure if this term is correct) a general descriptor.

The problem is game genres nowadays are more like a continuum than separate boxes.

[In Exile]

Was the Witcher an action RPG? You have people on this site praising it as the salvation of PC-oriented RPGs, as doing everything Bioware isn't. Others decry it as a terrible trend, not a real RPG, etc. The reality of it is that the game had timed combat that depened on the character's skills in part, and on the player's part on the other hand.

So if I say the Witcher was an action RPG, what does that mean, precisely?

Personally, I thought the combat in the Witcher was more fun and more tactical than in DA:O, but that's just a matter of taste.

[Wulfram]

`When I use a word,' Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, `it means just what I choose it to mean -- neither more nor less.'

[Onyx Jaguar]

Even on the console I wouldn't put that additional tag on Dragon Age: Origins



The system's use of a hybrid turn-based and real time check similar to NWN nullifies that. I'd assume something more active for an action limiter (for instance a Tales game, press a button and you attack, wait for cool down press button attack, not press button "watch" "intervene" that NWN and DA:O had)

[Reaverwind]

Kevin Lynch wrote...

From what I can tell (and I may be wrong), but the "Action" in the aRPG tag may refer more to the comment made during that vid that the reaction of your character to your commands will be more dynamic than in DA:O. It doesn't necessarily strike me as meaning the game is going to become a Diablo-clone (which, to me, is the guide for aRPGs, although some choose to label them hack'n'slash...blahblahblah)..

Or dungeon-crawler. A number of us reserve the action-RPG label for games like Deus Ex, TES, Gothic and the Witcher series, which rely heavily on player input for combat.

I don't see DA2 being any more "actiony" than DA:O, although it is nice to hear they're apparently dropping the forced party-repositioning-at-combat start nonsense.

Modifié par Reaverwind, 26 août 2010 - 11:23 .

[Tsuga C]

Wulfram wrote...
But it does mean something pretty clear.  BG series, NWN and KotOR aren't action RPGs, Jade Empire and Mass Effect are.  It's just being blurred because they want to be able to say it's changed to a new audience while  playing down that change to their established fans.

Now you're playing with fire, Wulfram.   Remember the Roman saying, "Truth begets hatred." 

[In Exile]

Kilshrek wrote...
A final note, I'm a PC gamer, and I cringe every time PC gamers get labeled as elitists because games are adapted to consoles. I'd just like to point out GTA IV, which was one of the most horrible console ports I've ever seen(which was of course rectified after several GB of patches), from a game that started out on the PC. I'd played just about every GTA game, from the first top-down game, yes, till IV. I just felt disappointed by the whole thing, which seems to be a trend. It just seems unfair for PC gamers to be judged so quickly when there is legitimate concern when many games have the PC as an afterthought.

tl;dr, pc vs console argument is old, and people need to chill.

The thing is, if you say that you're frustrated by DA2 because you feel the PC implementation will be poor, and that it will effectively be a console port, that's a justified position. If the next thing you say is this happenss because they are dumbing it down for consoles you are being offensive. Do you see the distinction?

I happen to prefer the PC to the console because I like mouse+keyboard more for any game that isn't real-time action like say Devil May Cry or God of War. Action RPGs, in my opinion, can suck hardcore if the gameplay mechanics aren't done well (like ME1 - god, the combat was just brutal and not fun at all).

[Rubbish Hero]

In Exile wrote...

Was the Witcher an action RPG?.

CRPG.