925 réponses à ce sujet

[Merced256]

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

Its odd how so many people apparently enjoy the inventory management and filler quests the most in their RPGs... Its kinda sad the amount of conservatism they feel towards those pointless parts of the games. Inventory is completely irrelevant to the game and filler quests are boring, wake up and face the thruth..

thruth huh?

[In Exile]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

If you find the character you designed generic, design him differently.

Its the design I enjoy.  It's the character development - that is, me developing a character - that I enjoy.

What you're describing is just watching the development of someone else's character.

The game doesn't let you do this. The human noble I created would have removed both Alistair and Anora from the race for the thrown, and through political accumen and negotiation put himself on the throne with another major noble as his queen. 

Dragon Age does not allow me to interact with the world in the ways that I want.

You can make whatever claims you want about character development, but part of developing your character is the action you choose to engage in the world, independent from what other characters do. The game simple does not allow me to choose outcomes, or even embark on outcomes, that the characters I design would.

So I am forced to rationalize why I would choose something completely out of character, exactly as you complain about the dialogue re: Shepard in ME.

Don't do that.  Instead, work our your PC's reaction, and then find the pre-written dialogue option that is consistent with that.  Not often is there only one thing your character could possibly say in a specific circumstance, but once you've chosen such a thing you'll likely be wed to it (it's a sort of confirmation bias).  So instead, determine your PC's impression of what just happened and what the NPC said, and then before choosing a line you'd like to say, read the options available to you and pick the one that suits your PC best.

Except it is quite possible that none of the pre-written options fit whenver you are forced into a flavour choice, or whenever you are forced into an action.

What you say here applies with VO - the only debate is that you say that VO fails to adequately express in the world what you think the line should have said. Well, that's my response with the silent VO - the line fails to adequately express what I wanted. You will counter by saying than in ME you see the character acting in out, whereas in DA (or other silent VOs) you do not, so you can mind-wipe it away. My response to that is what it always was: you are being inconsistent, because there is no logical imperative in your interpretation of video-games to prevent you from willfully ignoring what you are shown on screen.

It doesn't, as fanfictions clearly show. Can you imagine the
narrative horrors that goes in the head of half of these "creators" when
given free reign to make up their own crazy stories about their
characters?

*shuders* ../../../images/forum/emoticons/crying.png

Furry Picard/Spock/Kirk chocolate bath orgies are not your type? 

[In Exile]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...
I happily play a role I create every time I play Alpha Centauri (which is a turn-based strategy game from 1998).

I would argue that Alpha Centauri is more of an RPG than Mass Effect is, and no one thinks Alpha Centauri is an RPG.

Ha! I actually do the same. That game is brilliant. You even have a quasi-dialogue system with the diplomacy. I would never call it an RPG, but there are just not enough words to describe how phenomenal a game that is.

[AlanC9]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...
I happily play a role I create every time I play Alpha Centauri (which is a turn-based strategy game from 1998).

I would argue that Alpha Centauri is more of an RPG than Mass Effect is, and no one thinks Alpha Centauri is an RPG.

I'm confused. In SMAC you have to play one of the faction leaders. How are they less defined than Shepard?

The game itself holds up fine, though I'm not sure it was all that much of an advance over Civ2.

Modifié par AlanC9, 31 août 2010 - 12:33 .

[In Exile]

AlanC9 wrote...

I'm confused. In SMAC you have to play one of the faction leaders. How are they less defined than Shepard?

The game itself holds up fine, though I'm not sure it was all that much of an advance over Civ2.

You can create your own. All you are fixed with is the portrait and the unit apperances, I believe.

[Lusitanum]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

If you find the character you designed generic, design him differently.

Again, I'm past the age of playing with dolls, thank you very much. And I'm not so in love with myself to not know that a professional writer can make an interssting character better than I can.

I mean, when a work of fiction actually bothers to give you a main character instead of just throwing you a blank sheet of paper and say "you want a good character to play with? Then do it yourself, I don't get paid enough for this."

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Its the design I enjoy.  It's the character development - that is, me developing a character - that I enjoy.

Yes, and I also enjoy learning Japanese on my own, with my own resources and without help. It's very challenging and I love the thrill of it, but that doesn't mean that making a game that forces you to do the same would be a good idea, now would it?

But of course, speaking in "I's" isn't going to get us anywhere, is it? So kindly stop it.

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

What you're describing is just watching the development of someone else's character.

Yeah, that's the whole point in enjoying a story that's being laid out before you. You might influence where it goes or what some characters do (that's the beauty of videogames) but you shouldn't have to design the center piece of the story. What's next? Make up your own setting? Just leave the player design the world, it's history, characters, events, etc? Granted, it would give you a lot of creative freedom, but that's not what we want to when we're trying to play a story.

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Then you're playing in a way that sets you up for failure.

When someone voices this complaint, I find it's usually because he went a step too far when reacting to the dialogue and constructed a specific thing he wanted his PC to say.

Don't do that.  Instead, work our your PC's reaction, and then find the pre-written dialogue option that is consistent with that.  Not often is there only one thing your character could possibly say in a specific circumstance, but once you've chosen such a thing you'll likely be wed to it (it's a sort of confirmation bias).  So instead, determine your PC's impression of what just happened and what the NPC said, and then before choosing a line you'd like to say, read the options available to you and pick the one that suits your PC best.

Someone already replied to this better than I, read that instead.

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Will you sometimes have problems?  Yes.  Will it be 80% of all lines uttered (like my problems in ME)?  No.

So what? That's not the point.

The point is that in one you're supposed to have total freedom and in the other you're more restricted. And there's nothing wrong with either of them, but when they don't work as they should, that's when I get to complain.

It's like a comparison between an open-ended game and a linear one. They're both great and there's nothing inherently wrong with either of them, but when you find out that the open-ended game is actually just a series of corridors with the odd crossroads that just lead to the same place anyway, then I feel cheated.

So, do I mind that in ME the lines aren't exactly how I wanted them to be? No, it's a game with a defined character and I'm not supposed to influence it all that much. Do I mind that I'm so restricted in DA? Hell yes, because you're promissing me all this freedom and then you keep cutting my options.

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

No one is offering you a chance to do what ever you please.  I've njot asked for that.  No one is claiming that any game has given the player that kind of freedom.

No, I know they're not offering me the chance to do whatever I please, I know that, but they're saying that I have the chance to mold my character however I want and most of the time, I'm thinking "I want to say this" but I'll be lucky if I ever get the chance say something remotely similar.

It's especially annoying when I want to ask about important information but then the conversation just keeps going and I don't ever get a chance to ask it. That's just idiotic.

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

No, we would like our characters to think and feel whatever we please.  What they do is something else entirely.

And we would like our characters to actually think and feel, or at least look like it, instead of always acting like emotionless automatons.

[Tirigon]

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

You dont want role-playing, you want role-creation.Role-playing is about you getting a role to play, never ever is it neccesarily one that you created. Some of the older RPGs got set characters you, just got to define them through choices in the game. Somehow the DnD style RPG has spoiled people and made them unable to play accept a role and just define it within the frames of the game.

Well, if it´s a good character like Geralt in the Witcher that´s ok. But it sucks to play a cliched assclown like Shepard.

[Tirigon]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Shooter mechanics are problematic because they're driven by the player's skill, not by the character's stats.  It breaks the setting to have someone who doesn't even exist in the game world be that directly involved in the outcome of events.

Well but if the character has no stats at all that doesn´t matter much. The Character is still defined by  itself. And if it is in reality me who does the fighting that just helps me to feel more like the character.
For example, in DAO I found it annoying to play an archer if until level 20 this archer misses more arrows than I do in Real life.....

[Tirigon]

shootist70 wrote...

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Universally speaking, nothing works any way. Universals don't have exceptions.

Rhetorical. You will never change my mind on this either. If it were true we wouldn't have been using some of the same dramatic concepts for over two thousand years now.

Some of the same dramatic concepts suck since over twothousnad years now.....

[SirOccam]

MerinTB wrote...

Okay, I'm rarely one to call out bad analogies because I can usually see what people are getting at.  But for a metaphor / analogy to work, you have to be comparing like things or things with similar qualities.

You did NOT.  You took my choice of fruit as an analog and set up a straw man.

Let me explain as briefly as I can:
I was talking about elements of a game that are shared across genres.  So I translated that into elements of food that are shared across different types of food. 
It's simple logic -
if group A (apples) are a subset of group B (fruit) and you are trying to show that it is different from group's D, E, F,and G (pear, tomato, bananna, lettuce) because it is in group B (fruit) you have proven nothing because D, E, and F are all in group B as well and your statement is false.
if group 1 (apples) has properties W (sweetness), X (crunchiness), Y (chewiness) and Z (nourishing) but you want something that has the properties Y and Z but not W and X, any search engine would eliminate apples from your search.

Yes, I understand your analogy. The only problem is you're choosing to define the things some people don't want as things that make up the essence of the fruit in question...in this case, "sweetness and crunchiness."

In your example, the way you set it up, it works like you want it to. If someone says they want an apple that is not sweet and not crunchy, then in essence they would be better off with a different fruit (or even a non-fruit) altogether. But that's because "sweet" and "crunchy" basically define what an apple is. It's like saying you want a tree that isn't made of wood.

But the problem I have with that analogy is that I don't think the things in question are anywhere nearly that essential to the nature of an RPG. Obviously people's opinions on what is crucial and what is not will vary (and some people will say that NOTHING of what makes up a "traditional" RPG is non-crucial).

What you did was to say-
apples have a skin naturally, but can have the skin stripped from them artificially
you say you want apples without skins but somehow we are refusing to accept that the skin can be removed
and further showing signs of our disconnect from reality we tell you that if you are looking for skinless apples you should get an orange, which is clearly not an apple AND HAS A THICKER SKIN.

No, no, you completely misunderstood. The "orange" thing is just to demonstrate that you are suggesting something significantly different from what they are actually saying they want. "I love apples, but I don't like the skin" sounds conceptually similar to "I love RPGs, but I don't like clunky inventory systems." Therefore, telling someone that he really wants a shooter or whatever sounds a lot like "you really want an orange" to me. In both cases, you are telling them what they want, and telling them that what they want is something significantly differen than what they're describing.

You attempt at an analogy both sets up a straw man (no one was saying that apples cannot have skins, and no one was saying that an RPG needs any one mechanic) and makes people making my argument seem like jerks (you want no skin on your apple?  then have a different fruit with a thicker skin HA!)

I beg to differ. LOTS of people are saying that RPGs have to have the things the original poster complained about. Thus all the outrage at him even daring to suggest doing away with them. And again, the "orange" thing was just meant to illustrate the concept of suggesting something totally different...the thickness of the orange's skin wasn't even part of my thought process. Replace it with a grape or something if you like.

See, we don't see a clunky inventory or pointless side quests or other tedium as central to the essence of an RPG. They're the distasteful outer shell that detracts from the overall experience. They are something one puts up with, but does not relish. And now some of us are simply asking...why should we put up with it? Why can't someone make an apple with no skin?

Again, see above.  No one told the guy who wanted the skin off his apple to eat an orange.
There is no "sacred cow" element to RPGs for most people, seriously, just elements that are so common to RPGs and so rare to non-RPGs that they pretty much define the genre.  Inventory is not an RPG element either, really, as again adventure games and shooter games have inventories as well.

Are we reading the same thread? Look at how much flak he's taking just for saying he doesn't like certain things about traditional RPGs. People ROUTINELY use straw man arguments in cases like these. If you don't like stats, or inventory management, or pointless fetch quests, then you want "more explosions" or to be able to "press X to win" or any number of other retarded exaggerations.

Both here and in other threads there is a severe backlash against the notion of removing or even altering anything that has been a traditional part of RPGs. I'm not saying everyone is so closed-minded, but it's been outright stated that anything outside of PnP isn't a real RPG. Somewhere in there (I think that was the thread) I even mentioned not liking the whole concept of "tanking" as well as that of "hitpoints." You can just imagine the amount of proverbial jihads that prompted.

I think I've overused that particular metaphor enough, but hopefully it's more clear.

It was actually obsfucating.

Then let me restate the problem, as I see it.

You are thinking of the RPG label as something prescriptive, while I am using it descriptively. In your Google example (searching for "Y and Z but not W or X"), you say any search engine would exclude RPGs from that search. But I say it would only do that because RPGs traditionally have W and X. But just because those things are labeled as RPGs, it doesn't mean that all RPGs MUST fit that description. If someone made an RPG without W or X, then voila, the search engine would return that result.

Essentially, you seem to be looking at the situation after the fact. You're saying that since RPGs have these things, then anything that doesn't have these things isn't an RPG. I'm saying that RPGs don't HAVE to have those things...they just do, more or less, so far.

[Tirigon]

MerinTB wrote...
But here goes -
Many argue that Mass Effect is a cRPG.  I'm on the fence, but for argument's sake let's say it is.  It's sold as an RPG, it's described by reviewers, fans and sites like wikipedia as an RPG.  So it's an RPG.
Mass Effect is a shooter.  Third person shooter, but a shooter.
You "create" your version of Shepard.  There's one.

See earlier post.

Vampire:The Masquerade - Bloodlines.  It uses the Half-Life 2 engine.  You can run and gun in third or first person.  It's most certainly an RPG, but it is also a shooter (if you use guns.)

I admit I have never played it. But I´m hearing so many good things about it I´ll try it out as soon as I can bring myslef to stop playing StarCraft2.

Spellforce is an RTS / RPG hybrid.  You create a character at the start of the game (race, class, abilities, name) but most of the game is played as an RTS.  I have never played it.  I bet it is far more RTS than RPG (at least as I would see it) but you wanted to create your character.

I have played it. You can CREATE a character, but not ROLEPLAY it. Also, it´s a very boring and badly balanced RTS.

Try Alpha Protocol.  If DA2 and ME1 & ME2 can be RPGs, then Alpha Protocol is an RPG.  Again, I'm on the fence there about it really being an RPG, but anywho.  You create your version of Mike Thorton and play him as you like, but it is like a Splinter Cell or Rainbow Six type game otherwise.

Might try once it costs less.

Here's the trick, though - once you can either create a character or level-up/change a character over time, most people will label that game an RPG.  So if you are looking for a Shooter or an RTS that allows you to create a character and develop them throughout the game but not have it labeled an RPG, you are out of luck.
But that's the last I'll be answering you - at least until I see you are no longer insulting people.

See? and that´s why I doubted your ability to understand me which you chose to take as insult. Which says more about you than about me, but nevermind.
Because AGAIN you totally miss the point. I want a character I can ROLEPLAY - with all the stuff like romances, way too much dialogue etc we know from DAO, and hopefully even more. With meaningful choices like in The Witcher.
NOT with developing them throughout the game (well, developing personality I want, but not the "character with stats and skills).
IN FACT ALL THIS CHARACTER DEVELOPMENT BY LEVELING IS WHAT I DON´T WANT, WHAT ANNOYS ME ABOUT RPGS.

[DAJOSEPH25]

fanman72 wrote...

 Let's be honest here - a lot of elements from  traditional RPGs are really unncessary and don't add to the overall experience of playing a video game.  The strengths of many RPGs - storyline, characters, etc. is something I don't think bioware will be skimping out on anytime soon.  Now don't get me wrong, the gameplay in DA was fun but was overall it wasn't the greatest gameplay experience in the world.  The storyline, mood/atmosphere, and memorable characters more than made up for what I perceived to be technical gameplay shortcomings.  Mass Effect 1 had similar issues, most of which were fixed in ME2.  No I dont' care about dealing with a clunky inventory as long as i can alter my character's equipment's appearance.  No I don't care about dealing with inventory weight.  No I don't care about leveling up.  No I don't care about spending half of my time travelling to different places back and forth for "fetch this" type quests (what I call filler time).  

Keep the characters, story, plot, visuals, graphics, choices etc interesting.  Those are the only elements i really care from an RPG.  Then for all I care it can play like Dragon Effect 2.


*Is a typical Bioware forum posting nerd*



*Enjoys looting a new water bottle from a dead hurlock so that he can sell it for 3 copper*



*Spends 15 minutes getting to appropiate vendor because you're running out of inventory space*





My point is that there are a significant amount of elements among traditional RPGs which are flat out annoying and detract from the gameplay experience, rather than add to it

I skipped your entire analogy, but if they make Dragon Age 2 like Mass Effect that would be a ****ING JOKE.

[darth randas]

Your not the only one, but I certainly hope your one of the few.

I don't care if they want to gut some of the filler. I don't care if they want to give the game mass effect quality production values. But the last thing I want, Bioware to do, is gut another one of their franchises. Make no mistake, I do not regret buying Mass Effect 2, Its characters, its story, its world, as with the original was amazing. But they stream lined the game way too far for my liking. The combat was too easy, in so far that non weapon specialized classes were jokes. Who played small roles, in combat when the appropriate enemies showed themselves, but always ended up playing second fiddle, to soldiers. Further there was too little strategy neccessary to succeed.

Mass Effect 2, on a moment to moments basis, felt like a hollow on the rails shooter. The loss of experience, and loot, removed the feeling that I was constantly being rewarded. The feeling that I was constantly improving my characters situation, and that he was constantly getting stronger. The simplified skill tree, removed from me, any anticipation for skill ups. The loss of weapon, and armor diversity, hurt both the strategy portion of the game, and the reward portion. The streamlined, one time only, uninteresting modification system, didn't feel very rewarding at all. The lack of any real exploration, hurt the spaces believability for me. The inability to find items lieing about, made trecking through the enviroment, to get to the next gamespace with enemies, after beating all nearby enemies, mind numbingly boring. Atleast these moments in tradition role playing games, have a promise of potential hidden reward, to keep me sane.

Traditional role playing pillars, make the experience much more rewarding, expecially for people with patience. For reasons that boil down to human psychology. It is this reason, that the video game that absorbs the most time our of the human race, is world of warcraft. And it is this reason, that action games, first person shooter games, and even multiplayer games, are adopting role playing game mechanics. It is this reason, that causes Call of Duty, and its leveling up/ perk based system, to be the most successful console multiplayer game.


Again, you want to buffer up the graphical fidelity, lose the low quality filler, and boost the production values? Be my guest. If you want to make it feel less like a turn based, D&D game, then that won't be the end of the world, even though I enjoy that type of game, and no one is making them any more. So long as the combat, skill trees, character progression, loot, weapon and armor diversity, and dialouge don't lose its depth (or better yet gets even deeper) im going to be satisfied. Because those are things that are significant parts of what makes role playing games compelling experiences to me.

But if the game releases, and it feels as equally hollow as mass effect 2 did, on a moment to moment basis (not neccessarly macroscopicly) , I am giving up on Bioware. Thats not to say I will never buy one of their games. But they would have lost my unwavering trust, and I will from that point on, treat them with the same skepticisim I do most developers.

Modifié par darth randas, 31 août 2010 - 03:08 .

[Sylvius the Mad]

In Exile wrote...

The game doesn't let you do this. The human noble I created would have removed both Alistair and Anora from the race for the thrown, and through political accumen and negotiation put himself on the throne with another major noble as his queen.

You're choosing options that aren't available.  If ever you've listened to me explain how I play, I can't do that.

And beside, you can't know that was ever even possible.  It requires control over implicit content, something you say you don't have.  The King needs to be chosen by the noble families.  You say "political acumen" like it's something that doesn't require other people's approval.

Dragon Age does not allow me to interact with the world in the ways that I want.

But it does allow you to be the person you want.

Any person, when presented with some stimulus, can react in a variety of ways.  I'm suggesting that you should select your character's behaviour from among those options presented, and choose the one that best suits your character.  If you choose an action first without consulting the game, you're just setting yourself up for disappointment.

You can make whatever claims you want about character development, but part of developing your character is the action you choose to engage in the world

I disagree.  What I do doesn't change who I am.  this is true in the real world, and it's true in an RPG.

Except it is quite possible that none of the pre-written options fit whenver you are forced into a flavour choice, or whenever you are forced into an action.

But far less likely.  A voiced and acted protagonist like ME presents you with a single event you didn't get to choose, so unless you wanted to do that exact thing you're out of luck.

But in DAO, you get to avoid specific lines and you get to choose the delivery.  A voiced PC only serves to exacerbate the very problem you've just described.

We should be trying to make the problem smaller, not bigger.

What you say here applies with VO - the only debate is that you say that VO fails to adequately express in the world what you think the line should have said. Well, that's my response with the silent VO - the line fails to adequately express what I wanted.

Therefore, you can't be happy with either mechanic.  So why do you bother having a preference?

[Sylvius the Mad]

Lusitanum wrote...

So, do I mind that in ME the lines
aren't exactly how I wanted them to be? No, it's a game with a defined
character and I'm not supposed to influence it all that much.

I mind because Shepard is a dull character.  And he's an idiot who says dumb things at inopportune times.

I had
no interest in following his story, because his success or failure
simply did not matter to me.  He was just another person I don't really kow and don't really like.  And those people - people I don't know - die every day, and it doesn't seem to bother me.  So why would I care about Shepard?

Do I mind that I'm so restricted in DA? Hell yes, because you're
promissing me all this freedom and then you keep cutting my
options.

I don't see how what you were promised makes any difference.  The game you get is the same regardless of your expectations.

No, I know they're not offering me the chance to do whatever I please, I know that, but they're saying that I have the chance to mold my character however I want and most of the time, I'm thinking "I want to say this" but I'll be lucky if I ever get the chance say something remotely similar.

Being able to make your character whomever you'd like is not the same as being able to make your character do whatever you'd like.  You admit you don't think the game is offering the chance to do whatever you please, but when you don't get to do whatever you please you complain about it?

That seems entirely contrary to your earlier point about expecation.

It's especially annoying when I want to ask about important information but then the conversation just keeps going and I don't ever get a chance to ask it. That's just idiotic.

Just like in ME when I wanted to be evasive and Shepard decided to tell Udina exactly what he'd learned.

If the game isn't going to listen my input, why is it asking for my input?

And we would like our characters to actually think and feel, or at least look like it

Those are two very different things.  Your character's behavour (his expression of his thoughts or feelings) is an action, that thing you said you didn't expect the game to allow you.  But your character's thoughts - those are yours to decide throughout DAO.

[AlanC9]

In Exile wrote...
The game doesn't let you do this. The human noble I created would have removed both Alistair and Anora from the race for the thrown, and through political accumen and negotiation put himself on the throne with another major noble as his queen. 

Or he would attempt to do those things, anyway. Even a game that allowed such options wouldn't have to let the player succeed with them.

[AlanC9]

In Exile wrote...

AlanC9 wrote...

I'm confused. In SMAC you have to play one of the faction leaders. How are they less defined than Shepard?

You can create your own. All you are fixed with is the portrait and the unit apperances, I believe.

IIRC the faction abilities are also set -- social types you can't run and bonus powers you get. I suppose you could come up with some other rationale for these, but that's not at all a free choice. It's sort of the reverse of an RPG  with a known background for the character, since you're shaping a background to fit the faction rather than shaping a character to fit a known background.

[MerinTB]

SirOccam wrote...
Yes, I understand your analogy. The only problem is you're choosing to define the things some people don't want as things that make up the essence of the fruit in question...in this case, "sweetness and crunchiness."

In your example, the way you set it up, it works like you want it to. If someone says they want an apple that is not sweet and not crunchy, then in essence they would be better off with a different fruit (or even a non-fruit) altogether. But that's because "sweet" and "crunchy" basically define what an apple is. It's like saying you want a tree that isn't made of wood.

There are sour apples.  And you can eat mushy apples.  "Sweet" and "crunchy" are aspects of many apples, but don't define an apple alone.  There are other fruits, and food that isn't fruit, that are "sweet" and "crunchy" beyond apples.

I never set up that apples need to be W, X, Y and Z - just that they are descriptors of apples.  If someone wants Y and Z but not W nor X, why look for apples?  Why not look, instead, for food that have Y and Z but not W and X?  Seems appropriate to me.

I didn't set up anything to "work like I wanted it to" - I saw how the situation looked to me, and came up with an analogy to try and explain it another way so hopefully people would better understand what I was saying.

If there was anything I "wanted", it was for the person complaining to find games that made him or her happy and to stop trying to change other games that were mostly what he or she didn't want into what he or she did.  I think that's a bigger win for them than for me, honestly.

But the problem I have with that analogy is that I don't think the things in question are anywhere nearly that essential to the nature of an RPG. Obviously people's opinions on what is crucial and what is not will vary (and some people will say that NOTHING of what makes up a "traditional" RPG is non-crucial).
(...)
The "orange" thing is just to demonstrate that you are suggesting
something significantly different from what they are actually saying
they want. "I love apples, but I don't like the skin" sounds
conceptually similar to "I love RPGs, but I don't like clunky inventory
systems." Therefore, telling someone that he really wants a shooter or
whatever sounds a lot like "you really want an orange" to me. In both
cases, you are telling them what they want, and telling them that what
they want is something significantly differen than what they're
describing.

For a term to have meaning, it has to have a generally accepted definition.  Most definitions of complex items involve defining characteristics, either a list long enough that if you find most of them you are pretty sure you have the right item OR list characteristics that are unique to said item so you are pretty sure you aren't looking at the wrong item.

If, without defining terms for the variables, an Game Type 1 could have elements A, B, C, D, E, F, and G - but most Game Types had elements F and G, and Game Types 2 and 3 also have D and E - and you and have someone who doesn't want A, B or C but did want D, E, F and G... why is it wrong to tell them that Game Type 1 is probably not right for them (as it will often have some combination of A, B, C, and D)  but that Game Types 2 and 3 are more their speed.

You are thinking of the RPG label as something prescriptive, while I am using it descriptively. In your Google example (searching for "Y and Z but not W or X"), you say any search engine would exclude RPGs from that search. But I say it would only do that because RPGs traditionally have W and X. But just because those things are labeled as RPGs, it doesn't mean that all RPGs MUST fit that description. If someone made an RPG without W or X, then voila, the search engine would return that result.

Essentially, you seem to be looking at the situation after the fact. You're saying that since RPGs have these things, then anything that doesn't have these things isn't an RPG. I'm saying that RPGs don't HAVE to have those things...they just do, more or less, so far.

If you really want to know what I am thinking (and not only are you pretty far from the mark in regards to what I was responding to initially AS WELL AS what my thoughts on "what defines a cRPG") go follow my series of articles here -
http://ingenre.com/2...n-rpg-part-one/
http://ingenre.com/2...n-rpg-part-two/
http://ingenre.com/2...rpg-part-three/
and hopefully (if you aren't the kind of person who sees more than a paragraph and types out "tldr") you will see that I do no such thing as say "there must be X for it to be Y!"  The series isn't done yet, so I've not gotten to what i think defines a cRPG yet - but the process is well underway and I think you'd be able to see that I am not starting from a point of "this has been this way so it must be this way" but instead am actually starting at the words, their definitions, and their definitions in context and then am moving through "what has been" -
you cannot dismiss precedent for definition, as that is often how people define things.  It is an important way to do so.  Not the only way, but a way.

----

In anycase, this is getting to be a pointless back and forth.  I was addressing one, then another, and now another person and all those responses seem to be tied together as well as to what other people are posting even in different threads.  I'm not arguing for EVERY argument that EVERY person posts elsewhere.  I'm representing one view point, one that coincides with the viewpoint of others I've seen, and that's it.  If it seems to kind of dovetail with some views of people who take things to extremes well beyond anything I'm saying myself, that doesn't mean what I say should be jumbled with what they say.

So I'll stop adding my voice to this thread.  I think I've stated my points clearly - whether they are understood by themselves in their own context or view through the prism of other people's words and/or agendas is not something I can control.

[Gatt9]

Tirigon wrote...

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Shooter mechanics are problematic because they're driven by the player's skill, not by the character's stats.  It breaks the setting to have someone who doesn't even exist in the game world be that directly involved in the outcome of events.

Well but if the character has no stats at all that doesn´t matter much. The Character is still defined by  itself. And if it is in reality me who does the fighting that just helps me to feel more like the character.
For example, in DAO I found it annoying to play an archer if until level 20 this archer misses more arrows than I do in Real life.....

You're confusing a "Role" with an "Avatar".

Fortunately,  James Cameron has provided us with the perfect well known example to differentiate between the two states.

In the movie Avatar,  when our main character is in the form of his Blue-man persona,  his blue man has all of the skills of the Marine.  He speaks english,  he knows how to use a rifle,  he cannot hunt or shoot a bow,  he cannot ride or fly.  This is because his blue man is an Avatar for his skills.  He did not assume the Role of a blue man. 

If had assumed a Role,  he would not be able to speak English,  he would not be able to wield a rifle with skill,  he would be able to ride and fly.  This is because he would assume the skills the Blue-people know,  and none of his skills as a Marine would be pertinent or present.

This is the defining factor between a Shooter and an RPG,  and precisely why Oblivion,  Fallout 3,  and Mass Effect 2 are not RPGs.  Because you do not assume a Role in those games.  The object on the screen is an Avatar for your personal skill with the controller. 

This is why Dragon Age Origins is an RPG.  Because your skill with the controller is irrelevant.  All that matters is your character's skills.  Those determine hits,  and damage.

What you want is a Shooter,  a game in which you possess an Avatar.  Not a Role-player,  not an RPG, where your character's skills are what matters.

As far as Shephard/Hawke go,  this is technically a Role.  You can accept a Role of a pre-defined Character.  The venerable Dragonlance orginal modules demonstrate this.  You took on the Role of predesigned characters,  but the story itself was developed by your actions with those characters.  A Role does not have to be personally created,  it can be pre-designed.

But what it cannot *ever* be is an Avatar.  At that point,  you've crossed the defining characteristic of genres.  You can *never* have a Role that is an Avatar.  Those two concepts are polar opposites,  unmergable,  and why the above mentioned games very clearly fall into the genres they do.  No matter what marketing wants to tell you.

[SirOccam]

MerinTB wrote...

For a term to have meaning, it has to have a generally accepted definition.  Most definitions of complex items involve defining characteristics, either a list long enough that if you find most of them you are pretty sure you have the right item OR list characteristics that are unique to said item so you are pretty sure you aren't looking at the wrong item.

If, without defining terms for the variables, an Game Type 1 could have elements A, B, C, D, E, F, and G - but most Game Types had elements F and G, and Game Types 2 and 3 also have D and E - and you and have someone who doesn't want A, B or C but did want D, E, F and G... why is it wrong to tell them that Game Type 1 is probably not right for them (as it will often have some combination of A, B, C, and D)  but that Game Types 2 and 3 are more their speed.

No, of course it's not wrong. But again, in this particular case, I don't think the problems they have are significant enough that they need to look to a completely different genre. Just speaking for myself, I agree with most of the things the OP said, yet I like RPGs. DAO is probably my favorite game of all time. I put up with the things I don't like because the things I do like are done so well.

If it were something huge, like, say, if he said he didn't like dialogue, then yeah I'd say he should probably look elsewhere. But all he's advocating for here is less tedium. Therefore I don't think the suggestions are really warranted. If I were him, I'd respond by saying "I don't WANT to play a shooter or an adventure game or whatever. I want an RPG that doesn't include so many chores."

Maybe part of my problem with your system above is that A-G are being treated with equal weight. Surely his points are relatively minor (save perhaps the one about leveling). I guess I just don't see why we should be saying "I don't like a complicated inventory system, therefore I should look at some other genre." There's no reason an RPG can't omit A-C and still have D-G and still be called an RPG.

If you really want to know what I am thinking (and not only are you pretty far from the mark in regards to what I was responding to initially AS WELL AS what my thoughts on "what defines a cRPG") go follow my series of articles here -
http://ingenre.com/2...n-rpg-part-one/
http://ingenre.com/2...n-rpg-part-two/
http://ingenre.com/2...rpg-part-three/
and hopefully (if you aren't the kind of person who sees more than a paragraph and types out "tldr") you will see that I do no such thing as say "there must be X for it to be Y!"  The series isn't done yet, so I've not gotten to what i think defines a cRPG yet - but the process is well underway and I think you'd be able to see that I am not starting from a point of "this has been this way so it must be this way" but instead am actually starting at the words, their definitions, and their definitions in context and then am moving through "what has been" -
you cannot dismiss precedent for definition, as that is often how people define things.  It is an important way to do so.  Not the only way, but a way.

I don't want to dismiss precedent, but neither do I want to be constrained by it. In your first post in this thread, you tell the OP that he should try adventure games or action games, where he can avoid the "RPG stuff" he doesn't like. That sounds an awful lot like saying those things are inextricably part of RPGs. I (and probably the OP) would argue that those things aren't "RPG stuff", but more like "stuff that most RPGs seem to have for some reason." There is a difference there, albeit a subtle one.

I read your articles; I like them so far. Using the rating system you proposed there: I don't see how the changes he proposes would hurt the game's score in any of the three areas to such an extent that it would not still be very much an RPG.

Having a non-clunky inventory doesn't seem to have any effect on any of the three scores. Same with inventory weight.

Leveling up probably would hurt the second number, but that's only if you don't allow for another way of handling it. All he said is that he doesn't care about it; that doesn't mean it can't be part of the game. Why can't leveling be handled in a way more sophisticated than simply giving you an arbitrary number? Maybe you could still upgrade your abilities/spells but do away with the actual level number. Maybe your level could be reflected in the way people respond to you.

And finally there's travelling back and forth feeling like a "go-fer." I don't see this being reflected in your system either. There can still be travel, and there can still be choices regarding where you travel. All he's saying here is that he'd rather they seem a little more...germane. Vital? Relevant? I'm not sure what the right word is, but "go get 10 widgets" isn't it.

In any case, I think that as long as he's not advocating giving up one of the three areas themselves--like saying "no character creation," "no control of character's growth during the game," or "no effect on story"--then I think it's far too soon to tell him he should be giving up on the RPG genre.

In anycase, this is getting to be a pointless back and forth.  I was addressing one, then another, and now another person and all those responses seem to be tied together as well as to what other people are posting even in different threads.  I'm not arguing for EVERY argument that EVERY person posts elsewhere.  I'm representing one view point, one that coincides with the viewpoint of others I've seen, and that's it.  If it seems to kind of dovetail with some views of people who take things to extremes well beyond anything I'm saying myself, that doesn't mean what I say should be jumbled with what they say.

So I'll stop adding my voice to this thread.  I think I've stated my points clearly - whether they are understood by themselves in their own context or view through the prism of other people's words and/or agendas is not something I can control.

If you wish. Personally I think it's an interesting discussion, even if misunderstandings did or can occur...or are occurring as we speak.

Modifié par SirOccam, 31 août 2010 - 08:05 .

[In Exile]

[quote]Sylvius the Mad wrote...

You're choosing options that aren't available.  If ever you've listened to me explain how I play, I can't do that. [/quote]

You are focusing on the wrong aspect of the analogy.

When we discussed ME, you mentioned that you generated a background and personality for Shepard, as you typically do. You played the game for some time, before you encountered a line that was so dramatically different from how you envisioned your Shepard that it was impossible for the character to produce the line, and none of the lines you choose could (i) fit your character concept and (ii) possibly be consistent with anything you did before.

This is precisely the Landsmeet for my character. Nothing in the game up to that point indicated that my personality is non-viable until at that particular point.

[quote]And beside, you can't know that was ever even possible.  It requires control over implicit content, something you say you don't have.[/quote]

It requires absolutely no such thing. My character was ambitious and wanted to become King. Ever since Alistair mentioned that Eamon had the reputation to replace Loghain, it was very clear to my character that as the son of one of the most powerful and respect nobles in the land, the only Teyrn for generations and (as far as anyone is aware) the prospective heir to Highever, he was as good a choice as Eamon.

This all obfuscates the broader issue, however: that the game invalidated a personality three-quarters of the way through, in virtue only of its design, with absolutely no option available that could be meaningfully chosen by this character.

[quote]The King needs to be chosen by the noble families.[/quote]

Right, they vote on the King. We've got bastard of uncertant parentage and common-born daughter of conviced traitor. Contrast that with Hero of Redcliffe, Cousland, owed political favours by several of the nobles helped during the Landsmeet, mythic hero chosen by Andraste to recover her mortal remains... well, you've got a damned impressive political narrative.

[quote]You say "political acumen" like it's something that doesn't require other people's approval.[/quote]

Politics, if you've ever played it, is a lot less about what other people think and a lot more about what you can make other people think.

[quote]But it does allow you to be the person you want.[/quote]

No, it does not. You seem to think being who you want is about some self-contained internal imagine. It is not. Being the person you want beings being able to take actions, even if failure is absolutely gauranteed. Because options that are the only possible choices for characters are not available, these characters are non-viable. When this occurs mid-way through the game, the entire thesis that the mere presence of a silent-VO allows for meaningful roleplay as compared to a VO is undermined.

[quote]Any person, when presented with some stimulus, can react in a variety of ways.  I'm suggesting that you should select your character's behaviour from among those options presented, and choose the one that best suits your character.  If you choose an action first without consulting the game, you're just setting yourself up for disappointment.[/quote]

As I brought it up before, you repeatedly choose options without consulting the game, and then apply an inconsistent standard in justifying your choice.

[quote]I disagree.  What I do doesn't change who I am.  this is true in the real world, and it's true in an RPG.[/quote]

No, you misunderstand. Who you are determines what you do. There are certain things, that in virtue of who you are, you would not do. There are other things, which in virtue of who you are, you will do. When you are faced with a particular situation where any action consistent with your own character is impossible, merely by how the writers envisioned the scenario, then we have constrained choice forced on the player.

Silent PC a far worse offender in denying me the ability to have insight into what the game allows and what character builds are viable compared to VO.

[quote]But far less likely.  A voiced and acted protagonist like ME presents you with a single event you didn't get to choose, so unless you wanted to do that exact thing you're out of luck.[/quote]

A voiced protagonist as in ME presents you with the clear ability to express motivation and establish consistent. It is then possible to quickly and accurate predict what future choices are possible, what assumptions the game is making about you the narrative progresses, and what ultimately is and is not possible in-game, all leading to a far more satisfying conclusion.

Being told 2/3rds through the game that my character has to choose actions that are logically impossible for him is not fun, especially when given no prior warning.

[quote]But in DAO, you get to avoid specific lines and you get to choose the delivery.  A voiced PC only serves to exacerbate the very problem you've just described.[/quote]

No, it does not. You say that to role-play, you need to identify the confines that you are placed in game. This seems like a dramatically inconsistent thing for you to say given your attitude on the relation between your character and the world (e.g. the discussion regarding Trask lying to you in KoTOR), but let me take this for granted.

In this situation, to create a character that is not incompatible with the game, I need to know what is and is not possible in game. With non-existent tone, no lines on motivation, and only behavioural choices, I can invent quite a lot of things. As it often turns out, these are always non-viable because of the very narrow set of behaviours that the game allows, which are simply not possible given my motivations.

[quote]We should be trying to make the problem smaller, not bigger.[/quote]

That's obvious; but we have yet to agree on what the problem is.

[quote]Therefore, you can't be happy with either mechanic.  So why do you bother having a preference?[/quote]

How do you infer that? I far prefer VO to silent VO because I am far less constrained by VO - it is quite easy to see what the limits of the game are, what expressions you are allowed to have, and to be the method actor that the game requires you to be.

[In Exile]

AlanC9 wrote...

Or he would attempt to do those things, anyway. Even a game that allowed such options wouldn't have to let the player succeed with them.

Right, that's what I mean. The outcome of your choices is up to the writers. But the issue of whether or not you'd embark on those is to a degree up to you, though obviously there is just the basic give and take that you can't run off to the free marches from the blight and expect them to design an entire game for you (not with your warden, at least).

AlanC9 wrote...
IIRC the faction abilities are also set --
social types you can't run and bonus powers you get. I suppose you could
come up with some other rationale for these, but that's not at all a
free choice. It's sort of the reverse of an RPG  with a known background
for the character, since you're shaping a background to fit the faction
rather than shaping a character to fit a known background.

It's been very long since I played the game. I thought you could select different bonuses for the factions. I recall you could come up with a name, a motivation, a description... but it's been years.

[Tirigon]

Gatt9 wrote...

What you want is [ ....]  Not a Role-player,  not an RPG, where your character's skills are what matters.

Exactly. However, I still want to ROLEPLAY the character. Not during combat, but in Dialogue and in the way the world reacts to me.

A good example is the Witcher: Your combat success is mostly determined by your timing (skills have a big impact too, but if you fail to chain your attacks even highlevel attacks will do very little damage), nevertheless you are definitely playing the Role of Geralt and don´t have an avatar.

[Mike2640]

The sword-play only gets you so far though. You need to level up the Aard signs (Spells) if you want to survive in the later chapters, as well as make sure you have the right potions for the encounter. There is way more to the combat than the timed mouse clicks. Geralt himself says "A witcher without potions is only half a witcher."
By making sure your skills were upgraded and the potions prepared, you were even further involved in the role of a Witcher. Skills and stats are just as important to role-playing as dialogue.

Modifié par Mike2640, 31 août 2010 - 01:37 .

[Lusitanum]

Tirigon wrote...

Well but if the character has no stats at all that doesn´t matter much. The Character is still defined by  itself. And if it is in reality me who does the fighting that just helps me to feel more like the character.
For example, in DAO I found it annoying to play an archer if until level 20 this archer misses more arrows than I do in Real life.....

Speaking of which, ever played Morrowind? Wasn't it incredibly annoying when your character kept missing a slow, low-levelled enemy that was right in front of him just because your character sucked too hard. I won't care how useless you are with a weapon, you should be able to hit the immobile monster that is bitting you in the knees because you're allowing it to live too long. I mean, dying to a scrib just because my character decided not to hit a few times (while the little bugger never had any problem with it) must have been the most humiliating videogame death I've ever suffered in my life.

And this got especially ridiculous when I got really high-levelled, was a master with Short Blades, but as soon as I equiped a long sword, my wrist would physically hurt from clicking so much just trying to kill the lowliest of enemies. Why? Because I had a skill Blades skill of 5.

Tirigon wrote...

Try
Alpha Protocol.  If DA2 and ME1 & ME2 can be RPGs, then Alpha
Protocol is an RPG.  Again, I'm on the fence there about it really being
an RPG, but anywho.  You create your version of Mike Thorton and play
him as you like, but it is like a Splinter Cell or Rainbow Six type game
otherwise.

Might try once it costs less.

And
maybe once it doesn't such so bad that it kills the entire franchise
before it even starts too? I mean, I'm just saying, you might get frustrated at the game's shortcomings and at the fact that there will never be a continuation to its story...

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

I mind because Shepard is a dull
character.  And he's an idiot who says dumb things at inopportune times.

I had no
interest in following his story, because his success or failure simply
did not matter to me.  He was just another person I don't really kow
and don't really like.  And those people - people I don't know - die
every day, and it doesn't seem to bother me.  So why would I care about
Shepard?

Your opinion. I also have no interesst in following Random Savior of Faeru - I mean, Thedas #57, thank you very much, especially since everytime I see his stupid mug I'm always reminded that I'm just looking at an automaton with no life in it.

Dislike Shepard all you want, it doesn't chage that at least (s)he has a personality. Defined characters will never please everybody but at least one can establish a connection to them because there's something human in them.

On the other hand, whenever my PC is in a scene, I have get always the same dope-eyed expression. It kills the immersion, it kills my connection to the world, it kills its credibility and it kills any tension or emotion that a scene might have. That's really a problem when you're watching something especially moving and it gets ruined by your character's mere presence.

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

I don't see how what you were promised
makes any difference.  The game you get is the same regardless of your
expectations.

Yes, thanks for pointing out the obvious, what does that have to do with being told that you can role-play your character any way you want and then not getting that?

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Being
able to make your character whomever you'd like is not the same as
being able to make your character do whatever you'd like.  You admit you
don't think the game is offering the chance to do whatever you please,
but when you don't get to do whatever you please you complain about it?

That
seems entirely contrary to your earlier point about expecation.

Did you even read what I wrote or are you just writting because you have nothing better to do? I mentioned molding your character and make him say what I want him too. I'm not asking to have unlimited options, like join the Archdemon or just run away from it all and never look back. I'm talking about wanting to play a given kind of character and then realise that most of the time the option to say what I really want to say isn't there.

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Just
like in ME when I wanted to be evasive and Shepard decided to tell
Udina exactly what he'd learned.

If the game isn't going to
listen my input, why is it asking for my input?

Because it has a structured character.

And again, how it this any different from wanting to not answer a question in DA and then finding out that all three options you're getting are just more or less polite ways of saying exactly what I don't want to say? And it's especially annoying when I just want make a more informed decision, but I can't because I accidentally chose the line of dialog that continues the conversation instead of the one that provides aditional information.

At least ME has the decency of putting the Investigation queries separate and in a defined pattern, so that you can decide when you want to know more and when you just want to get on with. Which is completely unlike DA, where sometimes the line is at the top, sometimes it's at the bottom, other times it's in the middle and other times they're all designed to move the conversation forward and choosing one of them doesn't alter a single line of dialog.

It's in these latter situations that I have to ask: If the game isn't going to
listen my input, why is it asking for my input?

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Those are two very
different things.  Your character's behavour (his expression of his
thoughts or feelings) is an action, that thing you said you didn't
expect the game to allow you.  But your character's thoughts - those are
yours to decide throughout DAO.

And? Big deal, they're not to make my character any less of an unlikable placeholder. Come up with all the (fanfic) depth you want, if it's never actually reflected on your character it's completely irrelevant. It's like having a really nice design of a piece of armor or a weapon in your mind: if it's not materialised, what's it good for?

Mike2640 wrote...

The sword-play only gets you so far
though. You need to level up the Aard signs (Spells) if you want to
survive in the later chapters, as well as make sure you have the right
potions for the encounter. There is way more to the combat than the
timed mouse clicks. Geralt himself says "A witcher without potions is
only half a witcher."
By making sure your skills were upgraded and
the potions prepared, you were even further involved in the role of a
Witcher. Skills and stats are just as important to role-playing as
dialogue.

Again, that says a lot about how a player can connect to a character through gameplay. I'm currently so bored with the stupid, repetitive and shallow combat that, not only don't I feel the urge to play the game, I sense no urgency or threat to the story. I'm playing Awakening for the first time on Nightmare and I really couldn't be less uninteressted on what I'll face throughout the game.

My party can kill anything in their way by using the same tactics over and over again. From the lowest deepstalker to the most fearsome boss, I know that I'm just going to butcher everything in my way, regardless of what the game throws at me.

The only thing that could possibly spark my interesst (and the only reason why I'm still playing the damned game) is knowing what happens to the NPCs in the game, whether they'll actually make it through the game (I know there's a big choice later on).

As for my PC, honestly, I couldn't care less if he lives or dies. He's just a constant slot on my party composition that could be filled with any other of my companions and it would make the story much better. At least then I could expect some kind of emotion when a big, bad monster threatens to rip them to shreds and eat their innards while they're still alive.