1279 réponses à ce sujet

[Sylvius the Mad]

Meltemph wrote...

You realize we are arguing over perspective, correct? Which means that what Morrian wrote is not technically wrong. From my perspective, the story is being told at me, only like some books I used to read in jr high, I got to make choices and turn to a different pages based on my choices.

Then you're not roleplaying.

If you're not roleplaying, why are you playing roleplaying games?

[Meltemph]

I am roleplaying with these, just I am assuming the role of the character I am playing(adopting a role), while you are changing your behaviour to assume a role. These differences, I would have to imagine, definitely change the perspective of playing the game.

[MerinTB]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Meltemph wrote...

You realize we are arguing over perspective, correct? Which means that what Morrian wrote is not technically wrong. From my perspective, the story is being told at me, only like some books I used to read in jr high, I got to make choices and turn to a different pages based on my choices.

Then you're not roleplaying.

If you're not roleplaying, why are you playing roleplaying games?

They are playing BioWare games for the story and the story choices in the game, not for getting to make their own character.

I doubt ANYONE comes to BioWare as their first choice for "I want a game where I get to make my own character."  They come for the story.

Whether that's good or bad is subjective.  I think BioWare is GREAT at storytelling, and would have been a company to rival Sierra and Infocom for the adventure game market.
Due to the BG series and the D20 mechanics behind KotOR, and the demise of cRPG studios like Black Isle and Troika and such, BioWare became the de facto, default cRPG makers.

And successfully morphed a whole generation's view of cRPGs to mean "story, and story choices."

There's a point when language purists probably have to give up arguing "that's not what that word means!" after the common man has hi-jacked it inappropriately for so long that it's original meaning is lost.

I'm not at the point with RPG yet, personally... but it may be inevitable.

[Sylvius the Mad]

If you're letting the story be told at you, how can you make decisions for your character? You don't know him.

If create your own detailed character and direct him through the game, then you're able to make decisions for him because you know exactly how he feels about pretty much everything. But that would mean you'd be the best person to decide what his tone was when he says any particular line.

[Sylvius the Mad]

MerinTB wrote...

They are playing BioWare games for the story and the story choices in the game, not for getting to make their own character.

And my point is that those story choices are impossible to make unless you make your own character.

The only way you can do it without your own character is if you pay no heed to the coherence of your character's behaviour.

If I'm not choosing my character's behaviour every step of the way - seeing how my design deals with various stimulus - then I'm bored.  I have no interest in directing someone else's character.

I doubt ANYONE comes to BioWare as their first choice for "I want a game where I get to make my own character."  They come for the story.

I come to EVERY game for character creation and direction.

And successfully morphed a whole generation's view of cRPGs to mean "story, and story choices."

That view is wrong.

There's a point when language purists probably have to give up arguing "that's not what that word means!" after the common man has hi-jacked it inappropriately for so long that it's original meaning is lost.

Never.

[Meltemph]

If you're letting the story be told at you, how can you make decisions for your character? You don't know him.

If create your own detailed character and direct him through the game, then you're able to make decisions for him because you know exactly how he feels about pretty much everything. But that would mean you'd be the best person to decide what his tone was when he says any particular line.

Well, and there is where another big difference is between someone like you and someone like me. I want a story told to me, and which allows me to participate in that story. You want to be a almost literal part of the story, you want to tell the story yourself(so to speak). I'm trying to fit the role as best as I possibly can, you are trying to create the role in its entirety.

Nothing wrong with either of our way of playing, only difference is changes in the dialog system will obviously effect your enjoyment much more so then mine(for good or ill). And as for people like me, we obviously limit how many ways the story can be told. We all have our cons to how we play the game, and I do sincerely hope that you still will be able to play your way, but from my perspective, VO's just make my way of playing(filling a role) much more satisfying.

how can you make decisions for your character? You don't know him.

Because the game explains who he is and always shows my characters limits(Unless it is a mud or MMO or something with no structure, then I would be more apt to play a game like you).

Modifié par Meltemph, 01 octobre 2010 - 05:24 .

[Beerfish]

I would hazard to guess that the story teller is going to tell the story depending on how you play and the decisions you make, not the other way around.



It's funny how some people will uses some aspects of 'roleplaying' to make a point but then totally ignore those same aspects (decision making for instance.) in another game they have decided is not a roleplaying game (for example Mass Effect)

[MerinTB]

Meltemph wrote...

I am roleplaying with these, just I am assuming the role of the character I am playing(adopting a role), while you are changing your behaviour to assume a role. These differences, I would have to imagine, definitely change the perspective of playing the game.

Then you are role-playing when you play Master Chief or Marcus Fenix or the blocks from Tetris and the shoe from Monopoly.

There's a point where taking a word (role-play) from outside of a given context (computer role-playing game) and breaking it into it's components (role, play) and then using those components to derive a meaning (role  - a persona, play - to act as, role-play = to act as a persona) and finally to shove that meaning, out of context, into the original context to morph the meaning.

Don't think this is true?

I will take a bow. (at a sporting good shop the speaker is handed a hunting tool)
I will take a bow. (at a performance the speaker accepts adulation from his audience)

Out of context: I will take a bow. (setting: speaker at a sporting good store; interpreter taking word out of context: bow means a physical act to accept praise; interpreter says that it is acceptable for the speaker, at the sporting good store, to really be accepting praise from the clerk for no contextual reason BUT the interpreter points to the word "bow" and the definition he has chosen.)

Inside the context of RPG, role-playing DOESN'T mean the same thing as it does in the context of, say, a seminar or a couple's wedding anniversary night.  When attached to GAME, role-playing means creating your own character to experience in the game's setting.

You don't create Master Chief.  You don't create the shoe.  You can act out their persona's all you want, but they are not RPG characters.  An avatar in a game can be an RPG character, but being an avatar in a game does not MEAN it is an RPG character.

---

There is no honest disagreement about definition.  There is false controversy, supported by those who DON'T want to be constrained by a defintion. 
Or there's confusion by those who don't seem to understand that the same word can have different meanings in different contexts.

[Meltemph]

Inside the context of RPG, role-playing DOESN'T mean the same thing as it does in the context of, say, a seminar or a couple's wedding anniversary night. When attached to GAME, role-playing means creating your own character to experience in the game's setting.

There is no such standard definition for RPG's. There have been plenty of industry recognized RPG's where you didn't even create your character and even then, that still does not change the actual meaning of role playing. You are defining how one has to roleplay inside of a game, but your only basis for making a certain way of roleplays as "fact" is you own preferences.



In Halo you have no control over your character in the story sense, you are not part of the actor, so to speak. In RPG's you are. You re trying to limit the definition so you can lay claim to a certain "type" of genre, but that does not make it so, just because you want it to.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Meltemph wrote...

There is no such standard definition for RPG's. There have been plenty of industry recognized RPG's where you didn't even create your character and even then, that still does not change the actual meaning of role playing. You are defining how one has to roleplay inside of a game, but your only basis for making a certain way of roleplays as "fact" is you own preferences.

Character creation, as it is generally understood, is not necessary for roleplaying.

But personality creation is.

For example, in Torment you're handed a character and yuo don't get to decide anything about his appearance of his past.  But you are given free reign in deciding what his personality is, and that allows him to make decisions based on that personality.

If the game doesn't allow you to create the personality, then you (the player) have no basis from which to make any decisions for him at all.  The game requires that you select something to progress (for example, in the very first conversation in Mass Effect when you have no idea who Shepard is if you didn't create his personality), but without that personality information available to you there's no way for you to do that without just guessing.

[Meltemph]

Character creation, as it is generally understood, is not necessary for roleplaying.



But personality creation is.



For example, in Torment you're handed a character and yuo don't get to decide anything about his appearance of his past. But you are given free reign in deciding what his personality is, and that allows him to make decisions based on that personality.



If the game doesn't allow you to create the personality, then you (the player) have no basis from which to make any decisions for him at all. The game requires that you select something to progress (for example, in the very first conversation in Mass Effect when you have no idea who Shepard is if you didn't create his personality), but without that personality information available to you there's no way for you to do that without just guessing.

No you don't NEED what you say you need. It is all supposition and perspective and opinion that you are arguing about. As long you can actively play a role in the actual story of a game, you can role-play.



There is no absolute fact you can point to for it, it is all perspective. You are trying to play word games for the sake of how you play and how you perceive all RPG's should be played, but the only thing you have is arguments for a type of role-playing.

[MerinTB]

Meltemph wrote...

Inside the context of RPG, role-playing DOESN'T mean the same thing as it does in the context of, say, a seminar or a couple's wedding anniversary night. When attached to GAME, role-playing means creating your own character to experience in the game's setting.

There is no such standard definition for RPG's. There have been plenty of industry recognized RPG's where you didn't even create your character and even then, that still does not change the actual meaning of role playing. You are defining how one has to roleplay inside of a game, but your only basis for making a certain way of roleplays as "fact" is you own preferences.

In Halo you have no control over your character in the story sense, you are not part of the actor, so to speak. In RPG's you are. You re trying to limit the definition so you can lay claim to a certain "type" of genre, but that does not make it so, just because you want it to.

Words exist for a reason, Meltemph.  They need to have generally accepted meanings or else there is no point in trying to communicate.

Sometimes the best way to define something is to pick what they mostly have in common, and sometimes it is best to pick the feature that they mostly have in common that other similar things lack to give you the clearest definition.

If the characteristic you choose to define something by is a characteristic that many things share then it is not a good characteristic to help differentiate that something from other things.

Example:  What is a banana?  A banana is yellow.  Ah, so the school bus is a banana.
What is a banana?  A banana is the fruit of a banana tree.  Ah, so the school bus is NOT a banana.

In that sense:
do other, non-RPG games let you take on the role of a character?  Yes, pretty much all games.  Taking on the role of a character cannot be considered a defining characteristic of an RPG as it's a fairly universal characteristic of all games.
do other, non-RPG games have deep stories?  Yes, many many genres of games have deep, intense stories - from survival horror to adventure games to action games to shooters to strategy.  If many genres of games have deep stories it cannot be a definining characteristic of an RPG.
do other, non-RPG games have story choices that affect your character and/or the outcome of the story?  YES.  Adventure games.  Strategy games.  Shooter games.  Choices cannot define an RPG.
do other, non-RPG games let you build and name your own character and move that chosen character through the world? almost never.  Making your own character is a defining characteristic of an RPG.

It's really that simple.  You can of course find exceptions to the rule, but they are few and far between.

Now I'm not here going to the extreme of saying that Mass Effect is not an RPG, or that Shepard is not "created by you" (I think that's debatable, but not my point.)

What RPG's usually have that most other genres usually do NOT is the ability to make your own character.

You can argue til you are blue in the face that this is not so, that RPG just means "playing a given role"... and then you are defining most games as RPGs, and the definition RPG has no meaning... which may suit YOU fine, but there are plenty of other people who like having a game that is called an RPG and that means something to them.

So go ahead and tell me I am wrong again, as many are want to do.  And then use some logic, as opposed to anecdotes (examples and personal opinions / feelings / beliefs) to prove me wrong and you right.  You need more than being able to constantly bring up PST.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Meltemph wrote...

No you don't NEED what you say you need. It is all supposition and perspective and opinion that you are arguing about. As long you can actively play a role in the actual story of a game, you can role-play.

Then answer my question.

By what standard do you choose your very first dialogue option in a game?

You can't select based on what the character would say, since you don't yet know the character.  So how do you do it?

[Meltemph]

What RPG's usually have that most other genres usually do NOT is the ability to make your own character.

Besides stat based systems, strong story development, growth of ones character, character customization?

. which may suit YOU fine, but there are plenty of other people who like having a game that is called an RPG and that means something to them.

You assume that is my only qualifier, why I don't know, but all you dont know what my other qualifiers are. And I am not and have not been brining them up because all it would do as take away form teh current discussion.

So go ahead and tell me I am wrong again, as many are want to do.

I wasn't saying you were wrong(at least in the sense of what you constitute as a RPG for you), what I am saying you are wrong about, is trying to pigeon-hole the definition to meet your exact preferences.

You need more than being able to constantly bring up PST.

Sorry, you lost me on this one.

Modifié par Meltemph, 01 octobre 2010 - 06:16 .

[Meltemph]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Meltemph wrote...

No you don't NEED what you say you need. It is all supposition and perspective and opinion that you are arguing about. As long you can actively play a role in the actual story of a game, you can role-play.

Then answer my question.

By what standard do you choose your very first dialogue option in a game?

You can't select based on what the character would say, since you don't yet know the character.  So how do you do it?

By my own perspective how how the story is being told, how I would think would best fit the story I want to see to fruition, or my expectation of a response(whether that expectation is realized or not). 

[Sylvius the Mad]

I ask that question honestly, by the way.

To this day I have no idea how I was supposed to play Mass Effect. At no point in that game did I feel like I had any significant control over Shepard's behaviour.

[MerinTB]

Meltemph wrote...

MerinTB wrote...
What RPG's usually have that most other genres usually do NOT is the ability to make your own character.

Besides stat based systems, strong story development, growth of ones character, character customization?

Stat based system:
Starcraft 2.  Bioshock.  Medieval Total War.  Street Fighter.  Shenmue.  Dawn of War.  The Warriors. (I can go on forever.)
You call all of those RPG's?

Strong Story Development:
Every single Sierra game (that, alone, is a lot.)  Blade Runner.  The Suffering.  Max Payne.  Still Life.  Warcraft 3.  Red Dead Revolver.  The Wing Commander games.  Noctropolis.  Dreamweb.
You call all of those RPGs?

Growth of one's character:
(personality-wise or skills/stats?  the former, all Sierra games again... wait, that's a bad thing to try and define, let's go with the latter - stat growth (which, I guess, is stat based systems with player ability to manipulate?) - and keep the stats on the character(s) you control and not on, say, your country or your planet)
Overlord.  Neuromancer.  Armored Core.  Spider-man 2.  Hulk Ultimate Destruction.  Lord of the Rings: Two Towers, Buffy the Vampire Slayer, Sins of a Solar Empire, the Hunter games... I, again, could go on and on.
You call all of those RPGs?

Character customization:
(customizing your character POST game start, as in you are given a character that you don't get to make but you can chose, later, what, stat growth?  That's handled above.  You get to customize the character by, what, story choices?  Too vague, and you'd have said "make choices in the story" or some such.  All I can think of what you mean is what the character looks like, as in clothing and maybe face and such, but NOT starting stats or name or the like?  We'll go with appearance customization, whether at the start of the game or throughout the game, and you can correct me later.  That is pretty narrow, but I'll give it a go.)
Street Fighter.  The Suffering.  Many games for little girls, like Bratz and Barbie.  The Sims, pretty much all of them.  Spore.  Every single "Avatar" game on XBOX Live.  Here's a link to a whole bunch of dress-up games: http://www.dressupgames.com/sims.html  Does Heromachine or the South Park character creator count?  How about boxing, wrestling, and fighting games where you design what your combatant looks like, like Wrestlemania 2000?
You call all of those RPGs?

I think you've proven, not disproven, my point.

[Meltemph]

I love how you separate all those things I mentioned into single subsets, and then claim I proved your point. As for character customization, I am talking bout equipment in general(looks, gear, ect). No SINGLE aspect makes the RPG genre, just like no single aspect makes a game a FPS.

[phatpat63]

Skepticism. . . deepening.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Meltemph wrote...

No SINGLE aspect makes the RPG genre

Roleplaying makes the RPG genre.

[Meltemph]

You need more then role-playing to have a game Sylvius...

[Sylvius the Mad]

I think RPGs and games are different things.

[Meltemph]

0_o, we are still talking about video-games, right?

[Sylvius the Mad]

Meltemph wrote...

0_o, we are still talking about video-games, right?

We never were.  We were talking about RPGs, which I don't think are a subset of video-games.

Video-games are games, and thus they are an exercise for the player.  The player's skill matters.  The player's decisions or performance determines success or failure.

RPGs are not like that.  RPGs are simply venues wherein the characters can act.  Success on the part of the player lies in the act of roleplaying.  If the character you're playing makes an in-character decision that gets him killed, that isn't failure for the player.  Since the decision was in-character, that's a successful roleplaying experience.

The fun in roleplaying resides in the act of roleplaying, regardless of what consequences the characters might face.

[Meltemph]

We were talking about RPGs, which I don't think are a subset of video-games.

Unless they ARE video-games... I don't see how you could argue otherwise.