480 réponses à ce sujet

[PoopyStuff]

Well if it runs on numbers

your party members never reach 0 in combat.



they can fight and fight and fight. and never reach 0

they are in a sense immortal.



sorry, that's retarded in a game that has the nerve to even utter the name baldur's gate next to it.

[RinpocheSchnozberry]

Bryy_Miller wrote...

RinpocheSchnozberry wrote...

Merced256 wrote...

Also if your going to say there is no need to scale to that point, then what exactly is the need for levels, stats, skills and abilities? You know, those things that help define a RPG for the crowd that doesn't also include NFSU, Halo, and MLB2k10 as RPGs.

Levels and stats are there to excite the Excel crowd.  They're ultimately superflurous, along with so-called "realism," since it's a role playing game.  It's a game about a character's story. 

This is a video game. It runs on numbers.

I don't get it.

Wrong.      It's a video game, it runs on entertaining the player.  Otherwise it's a coaster.

[RinpocheSchnozberry]

slimgrin wrote...

RinpocheSchnozberry wrote...


Levels and stats are there to excite the Excel crowd.  They're ultimately superflurous, along with so-called "realism," since it's a role playing game.  It's a game about a character's story. 

More bullsh*t. Or maybe your just trolling.

I notice that you came in very hostile and rude and didn't contribute to the converstation. 

You quoted my opinions and I'm standing by them. 

[Merced256]

RinpocheSchnozberry wrote...

slimgrin wrote...

RinpocheSchnozberry wrote...


Levels and stats are there to excite the Excel crowd.  They're ultimately superflurous, along with so-called "realism," since it's a role playing game.  It's a game about a character's story. 

More bullsh*t. Or maybe your just trolling.

I notice that you came in very hostile and rude and didn't contribute to the converstation. 

You quoted my opinions and I'm standing by them. 

You're really going to play the hostile and rude card after the way you choose to dismiss peoples opinions which varry from yours? I didn't know douche baggery could reach suchs heights.

[Lyssistr]

 Strictly speaking RPGs is about playing a role and everything depends on that role.

 E.g. outcome of a fight should not depend at all on whether I *the player* have slow reflexes, it should depend on whether I *the fictional character* can go through this fight. This is why aRPGs are not in the same subgenre as CRPGS. in aRPGs you need both player skill, tactics and character stats, in CRPGs you need tactics and character stats.

 The depth of the fictional character and how much its required to have that, pretty much defines "how" RPG a game is. In BG (II) many great things were there

1. tactically testing battles (requiring a well tuned character & well geared = char depth).
2. many party members (more stats, alignements).
3. great variety in enemies.
4. enemies needing a "niche" tactic which cannot be done by characters of insufficient depth.
5. RTwP (combat relies solely on tactics & character skill, not player skill).
6. allot of interesting lewt (contributing to character stats -> contributing to depth).
7. A huge battle landscape which pretty much makes combat require unique tactics each time

Non RP-wise BG II also had

8. A breadth of choices adding replay value
9. Interesting lore
10. interesting characters
11. top down view

There would be even more depth if more of combat could be skipped through e.g. charisma but oh well, you can't have all in life.

Note that I don't consider BG II difficult, I consider it interesting.

BG II was not perfect, DAO also shares many of these points as well and has some advantages on its own right, like better graphics, voiceovers etc.

For me DA2 is not betraying the "return to roots" thing by doing a VOed protagonist, not continuing my warden or a new dialogue system. I had hoped for DA2 to continue Bio's return to roots by making the jump that made BG->BGII+ToB so evident, more roleplaying depth but it seems they chose to go the aRPG route. I had even hoped they'd do the extra step and add what's missing from BGII, be able to avoid nearly all fights should you choose to raise diplomacy related stats.

 I don't have doubts DA2 will be a decent game, with interesting story but I was pretty disappointed to see it departed from the roots in that respect. I didn't want a BG II clone, I wanted the elements that made BG II a great RPG besides a great game in general.

 DA2 will have roleplaying options, that's for sure but it won't be a "return to the roots" type of RPG, which is what made me excited about DA franchise in the first place. 

 Being a little cautious on what I buy, I'll probably skip DA2, until it reaches ~4-5 pounds and then play it over a weekend. Should it be BGII material, I'd buy it on day 1, whatever the price and play it for the whole year.

 For long-term enjoyment it seems that I'll stick with Diablo III, which is a franchise I never looked into for roleplaying depth but rather for hacking & slashing *with friends* online (very important for an aRPG).

[RinpocheSchnozberry]

Not apologizing for my *opinions,* but totally willing to listen to why you think I'm wrong. 

Modifié par RinpocheSchnozberry, 08 octobre 2010 - 01:24 .

[In Exile]

Lyssistr wrote...
 E.g. outcome of a fight should not depend at all on whether I *the player* have slow reflexes, it should depend on whether I *the fictional character* can go through this fight. This is why aRPGs are not in the same subgenre as CRPGS. in aRPGs you need both player skill, tactics and character stats, in CRPGs you need tactics and character stats.

Strictly speaking, though, the game does rely on player skill. For example, I could construct a brilliant character who ostensibly is a phenomenal tactician. But if I, the player, am poor at tatical and/or strategic planning, then in fact my character will neccesarily share this weakness in combat, in the same way that despite the fact the character should ostensibly be a brilliant swordsman, he is not by virtue of my lack of reflexes.

While a  cRPG purist might want to demarcate between player skill and character skill, it only applies to a particular realm of skills, and not to all possible skills.

So merely saying that an aRPG is not in the same subgenre as a cRPG because of the reliance on reflexes is misleading. Take the Witcher as an example. In principle, Geralt is a brilliant swordsman and a talented witcher, which in fact means he is knowledgable about monster lore and alchemy. In fact, the player could be a terrible swordsman (by lacking the so called twitch factor) but could also be a terrible alchemist (by lacking the capacity to accurately plan for encounters via potions & alchemy, and manage the system as a whole).

I don't see any substantive distinction between reflex and tactic.

[Lyssistr]

In Exile wrote...

Lyssistr wrote...
 E.g. outcome of a fight should not depend at all on whether I *the player* have slow reflexes, it should depend on whether I *the fictional character* can go through this fight. This is why aRPGs are not in the same subgenre as CRPGS. in aRPGs you need both player skill, tactics and character stats, in CRPGs you need tactics and character stats.

Strictly speaking, though, the game does rely on player skill. For example, I could construct a brilliant character who ostensibly is a phenomenal tactician. But if I, the player, am poor at tatical and/or strategic planning, then in fact my character will neccesarily share this weakness in combat, in the same way that despite the fact the character should ostensibly be a brilliant swordsman, he is not by virtue of my lack of reflexes.

While a  cRPG purist might want to demarcate between player skill and character skill, it only applies to a particular realm of skills, and not to all possible skills.

So merely saying that an aRPG is not in the same subgenre as a cRPG because of the reliance on reflexes is misleading. Take the Witcher as an example. In principle, Geralt is a brilliant swordsman and a talented witcher, which in fact means he is knowledgable about monster lore and alchemy. In fact, the player could be a terrible swordsman (by lacking the so called twitch factor) but could also be a terrible alchemist (by lacking the capacity to accurately plan for encounters via potions & alchemy, and manage the system as a whole).

I don't see any substantive distinction between reflex and tactic.

Well, the distinction between reflexes and tactics is pretty evident, else you'd have chess champions flying eurofighter jets.

[In Exile]

Lyssistr wrote...

Well, the distinction between reflexes and tactics is pretty evident, else you'd have chess champions flying eurofighter jets.

In the context of my post, I meant that as one being distinct from the other with regard to skill. How is reflex a player skill separate from the character, but tactical accumen not a player skill separate from the character?

[Bryy_Miller]

RinpocheSchnozberry wrote...

Bryy_Miller wrote...

Levels and stats are there to excite the Excel crowd.  They're ultimately superflurous, along with so-called "realism," since it's a role playing game.  It's a game about a character's story. 

This is a video game. It runs on numbers.

I don't get it.

 It's a video game, it runs on entertaining the player.  Otherwise it's a coaster.

Mind explaining to me, a feeble minded halfling, how video games run on the power of entertainment? The computer needs to crunch numbers in order to display data.  Even old Sierra games ran on numbers. 

Let me give you an example: Mass Effect 2's suicide mission. How does that work simply on story, if you take away all the variables?

How does an RPG meet your definition of an RPG if you take away choice?

Or is choice just there for the Excel crowd?

RinpocheSchnozberry wrote...

Hit points (and shields and parries and biotic powers) are just mechanic for telling a story.  They shouldn't be confused with something important to the game.

What you're describing is, as Slim has before stated, a book. Well, sorry, this is an interactive experience, and as such, can't survive simply on words.

It should also be noted that, using this logic, nothing is important to the game design. Not the levels, characters (because they obviously are just mechanics for telling a story), or even dialogue.

RinpocheSchnozberry wrote...

Not apologizing for my *opinions,* but totally willing to listen to why you think I'm wrong.  [smilie]http://social.bioware.com/images/forum/emoticons/joyful.png[/smilie]

Because they are just your opinions.

Modifié par Bryy_Miller, 08 octobre 2010 - 02:42 .

[Lyssistr]

In Exile wrote...

Lyssistr wrote...

Well, the distinction between reflexes and tactics is pretty evident, else you'd have chess champions flying eurofighter jets.

In the context of my post, I meant that as one being distinct from the other with regard to skill. How is reflex a player skill separate from the character, but tactical accumen not a player skill separate from the character?

skill is pretty generic in context, I was referring strictly to action video games skill.

reflexes or speed of reactions is a body characteristic, it belongs to the avatar. Essentially in a CRPG it is your brain controlling the avatar's body. You can choose how the avatar behaves but the players physical characteristics shouldn't affect how the avatar plays.

[CoS Sarah Jinstar]

RinpocheSchnozberry wrote...

Not apologizing for my *opinions,* but totally willing to listen to why you think I'm wrong. 

You should, because they're laughable at best.

[RinpocheSchnozberry]

CoS Sarah Jinstar wrote...

RinpocheSchnozberry wrote...

Not apologizing for my *opinions,* but totally willing to listen to why you think I'm wrong. 

You should, because they're laughable at best.

I agree!  The reasons you think I'm wrong are laughable.  :lol:

[Sylvius the Mad]

Lyssistr wrote...

This is why aRPGs are not in the same subgenre as CRPGS. in aRPGs you need both player skill, tactics and character stats, in CRPGs you need tactics and character stats.

Historically this wasn't true of Action RPGs.  Those were just RPGs containing minimal non-combat gameplay.

Dungeon Siege was widely viewed as an Action RPG when it was released (it was routinely called a "Diablo-clone" even though there was no twitch aspect, not click-to-swing mechanic, and you could literally not do a thing and just watch your party fight).

Modifié par Sylvius the Mad, 08 octobre 2010 - 03:41 .

[Lyssistr]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Lyssistr wrote...

This is why aRPGs are not in the same subgenre as CRPGS. in aRPGs you need both player skill, tactics and character stats, in CRPGs you need tactics and character stats.

Historically this wasn't true of Action RPGs.  Those were just RPGs containing minimal non-combat gameplay.

Dungeon Siege was widely viewed as an Action RPG when it was released (it was routinely called a "Diablo-clone" even though there was no twitch aspect, not click-to-swing mechanic, and you could literally not do a thing and just watch your party fight).

I'm not sure what you're trying to get across. By the way, I'm not trying to make aRPGs sound like a lesser species, it's just not the sort of game I'd like DA2 to be and aRPGs without multi == nogo for me. 

[RinpocheSchnozberry]

[quote]Bryy_Miller wrote...

Mind explaining to me, a feeble minded halfling, how video games run on the power of entertainment? The computer needs to crunch numbers in order to display data.  Even old Sierra games ran on numbers. 

Let me give you an example: Mass Effect 2's suicide mission. How does that work simply on story, if you take away all the variables?

How does an RPG meet your definition of an RPG if you take away choice?

Or is choice just there for the Excel crowd?

[/quote]

I never said there should be no choice.  You decided to add those words.  What I said is that choices should be material to the story.  What I said is that the useless garbage from the old days of RPGs... the endless conversation trees of NWN and DAO, the pointless min/max item comparisons, inventory management... that should all be dumped in favor of ME2's inventory and the conversation wheel (like we're going to see in DA2).  That will be good stuff and offer real choices where it matters-- And where it matters is the story of the role your character plays in the world.  Role playing game.

What belongs to the Excel crowd is pouring over strength and dexterity variables and trying to get one half point more resistance to elf music so your saving throw versus unicorn giggles will result in an automatic success.  Boring! 

RPGs are about entertaining me so that I buy your next game.  :-)  That is how RPGs run on entertainment.


[quote]

[quote]RinpocheSchnozberry wrote...

Hit points (and shields and parries and biotic powers) are just mechanic for telling a story.  They shouldn't be confused with something important to the game.
[/quote]

What you're describing is, as Slim has before stated, a book. Well, sorry, this is an interactive experience, and as such, can't survive simply on words.

It should also be noted that, using this logic, nothing is important to the game design. Not the levels, characters (because they obviously are just mechanics for telling a story), or even dialogue.
[/quote]
[/quote]

BZZZZZZZT!  Wrong.  Your Warden, your Hawkette needs other characters and a setting.  Those are the things that allow you to interact and make the choices that create the story of your Hawkette.  When facing down the Head Templar, how did Hawke convince them to go into one on one combat?  Did Hawkette pass the gom jabbar or did she totally Kobiashi Maru it?  That's playing a role.  That's a story.

At no point any place anywhere do you need to know that Hawkette has a +15 in tiki torch maintenance thanks to her underpants of fortitude.  There's no need at all to know that your quest reward will be either stockings with a single +1 or two +0.5s.  The numbers don't mean crap in an RPG.  They're window dressing, they're candy wrapper, they're dross and garbage.

It's very amusing to me that when I say mechanics are less important than story, you assume I don't want choice.  To me, that suggests you equate mechanics with choice, which might be where we part ways.  I fart on numbers.  I fart on them and then I cup and throw.


As for an interactive experience not surviving on words, that's bologna.  We're having an interactive experience aren't we?  Also, I ran about 4 years of a Mage: The Ascension game without ever once rolling dice.  It's easily done.



When we get right down to it, Morrigan was absolutly right.  Someone people are afraid of change and will fight against it with every fiber of their being.  I snerked when I first hear her say it, and I'm giggling now.

Modifié par RinpocheSchnozberry, 08 octobre 2010 - 03:56 .

[Sylvius the Mad]

Lyssistr wrote...

I'm not sure what you're trying to get across. By the way, I'm not trying to make aRPGs sound like a lesser species, it's just not the sort of game I'd like DA2 to be and aRPGs without multi == nogo for me. 

I'm pointing out how fluid the definitions are.

We all have our own preferences (for example, I can't tolerate any click-to-attack mechanic - even The Witcher was too actiony for me), but what's particular annoying is that we also all appear to have our own definitions.

[Lyssistr]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Lyssistr wrote...

I'm not sure what you're trying to get across. By the way, I'm not trying to make aRPGs sound like a lesser species, it's just not the sort of game I'd like DA2 to be and aRPGs without multi == nogo for me. 

I'm pointing out how fluid the definitions are.

We all have our own preferences (for example, I can't tolerate any click-to-attack mechanic - even The Witcher was too actiony for me), but what's particular annoying is that we also all appear to have our own definitions.

I wasn't stating a generic personal preference, rather a personal preference for the course of DA2, even if it's probably too late to do that. 

[Bryy_Miller]

RinpocheSchnozberry wrote...
As for an interactive experience not surviving on words, that's bologna.  We're having an interactive experience aren't we?  

But we're not a video game. 

I'm sensing that you have absolutely no idea what I'm talking about, and in that case, I have no idea how to make it clearer to you.

Good day, sir. I said good day.

Modifié par Bryy_Miller, 08 octobre 2010 - 04:19 .

[Merced256]

slimgrin wrote...

RinpocheSchnozberry wrote...


I never said there should be no choice.  You decided to add those words.  What I said is that choices should be material to the story.  What I said is that the useless garbage from the old days of RPGs... the endless conversation trees of NWN and DAO, the pointless min/max item comparisons, inventory management... that should all be dumped in favor of ME2's inventory and the conversation wheel (like we're going to see in DA2).  That will be good stuff and offer real choices where it matters-- And where it matters is the story of the role your character plays in the world.  Role playing game.

First off, you might enjoy adventure games more than rpg's, so Heavy Rain is probably the type of game for you. It's all about story.

Secondly, this is precisely the type of influence ME2 has had on the rpg landscape: a cinematic interactive game is now an rpg, because you have cut scenes where you decide between dialog choices.

This is why I both love and revile ME2. I don't want other rpg's to copy it. I like old school stat comparisons and strategic choice with weapons, classes, and such. When did this stuff become such a bore to people? It's not a bore to me. I want the whole package.

ME2, as good as it was, did not provide the whole package.

I agree completely, but i'm fairly certain it never went away. Its just that the market expanded to a point where the people who feel those things are a bore are the majority. Blame consoles, religion, contaminated drinking water, lack of chlorine in the gene-pool, whatever. At this point i don't dispute it because the evidence is there, if it weren't true then bioware and everyone else wouldn't tailor their games to that crowd. ME2 apparently was enough to get it a movie deal, why not throw dragon age in there too. You won't generate any additional sales these days by saying throwback to BG2 because their targeted demographic just isn't old enough. But bioware really can't lose by going this route because even if they lose the hardcore CRPG fans they'll gain that back 5-10 fold in people who liked that "New Sh*t" DA trailer.

Modifié par Merced256, 08 octobre 2010 - 05:54 .

[CoS Sarah Jinstar]

slimgrin wrote...

RinpocheSchnozberry wrote...


I never said there should be no choice.  You decided to add those words.  What I said is that choices should be material to the story.  What I said is that the useless garbage from the old days of RPGs... the endless conversation trees of NWN and DAO, the pointless min/max item comparisons, inventory management... that should all be dumped in favor of ME2's inventory and the conversation wheel (like we're going to see in DA2).  That will be good stuff and offer real choices where it matters-- And where it matters is the story of the role your character plays in the world.  Role playing game.

First off, you might enjoy adventure games more than rpg's, so Heavy Rain is probably the type of game for you. It's all about story.

Secondly, this is precisely the type of influence ME2 has had on the rpg landscape: a cinematic interactive game is now an rpg, because you have cut scenes where you decide between dialog choices.

This is why I both love and revile ME2. I don't want other rpg's to copy it. I like old school stat comparisons and strategic choice with weapons, classes, and such. When did this stuff become such a bore to people? It's not a bore to me. I want the whole package.

ME2, as good as it was, did not provide the whole package.

This x100 minus any love for ME2.

[CoS Sarah Jinstar]

Merced256 wrote...

slimgrin wrote...

RinpocheSchnozberry wrote...


I never said there should be no choice.  You decided to add those words.  What I said is that choices should be material to the story.  What I said is that the useless garbage from the old days of RPGs... the endless conversation trees of NWN and DAO, the pointless min/max item comparisons, inventory management... that should all be dumped in favor of ME2's inventory and the conversation wheel (like we're going to see in DA2).  That will be good stuff and offer real choices where it matters-- And where it matters is the story of the role your character plays in the world.  Role playing game.

First off, you might enjoy adventure games more than rpg's, so Heavy Rain is probably the type of game for you. It's all about story.

Secondly, this is precisely the type of influence ME2 has had on the rpg landscape: a cinematic interactive game is now an rpg, because you have cut scenes where you decide between dialog choices.

This is why I both love and revile ME2. I don't want other rpg's to copy it. I like old school stat comparisons and strategic choice with weapons, classes, and such. When did this stuff become such a bore to people? It's not a bore to me. I want the whole package.

ME2, as good as it was, did not provide the whole package.

I agree completely, but i'm fairly certain it never went away. Its just that the market expanded to a point where the people who feel those things are a bore are the majority. Blame consoles, religion, contaminated drinking water, lack of chlorine in the gene-pool, whatever. At this point i don't dispute it because the evidence is there, if it weren't true then bioware and everyone else wouldn't tailor their games to that crowd. ME2 apparently was enough to get it a movie deal, why not throw dragon age in there too. You won't generate any additional sales these days by saying throwback to BG2 because their targeted demographic just isn't old enough. But bioware really can't lose by going this route because even if they lose the hardcore CRPG fans they'll gain that back 5-10 fold in people who liked that "New Sh*t" DA trailer.

I agree 100%, the funny thing is DAO and ME2 have almost competely the same total sales numbers. Granted ME2 isn't yet available on PS3 (January) but still, to say there's not a big enough market to support the type of hardcore classic CRPG that Origins is is laughable and outright false.

But you're 100% correct, we're not longer the target demographic, as most of the target demographic isn't old enough to appreciate titles like BG/BG2/IWD etc.

Modifié par CoS Sarah Jinstar, 08 octobre 2010 - 06:01 .