1279 réponses à ce sujet

[SirOccam]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

SirOccam wrote...
The game doesn't choose your dialogue choices for you, does it?

Yes it does.

So you didn't use the joystick to highlight one of the options? It just moved there on its own like a Ouija board?

Besides (and I hesitate to bring this up again), you could use that same argument in DAO. You know the words, but you don't know the tone. I know you have your own system for compensating for this, but that's (obviously) not part of the game.

And again, you're wrong.  You say "you don't know the tone", and in doing so you're presupposing that there is some tone there to know.

There isn't.  There's text.  That's all their is.  The writers wrote assuming a tone, but that tone isn't in the game.  I can't hear it.  Can you hear it?  Make me an audio file of that tone.

The tone isn't there.

No, I agree, we can't hear it. That's...pretty much what I'm saying.

I'd buy what you're saying if your choices were only labeled by numbers or even left blank. But you do have some idea of what Shepard is going to say or do.

No.  I repeatedly and consistently did not.

That's just hyperbole. Everyone agrees it was usually pretty bad, but you're just taking it to extremes. Millions of people were able to get through the game just fine with some idea of what they were choosing for Shepard to say. Just because you apparently weren't is not enough justification to go around saying Mass Effect offered the player NO choice in dialogue.

Yes, it really is. It's an uninformed choice. If I am on a game show and I choose to wager all my winnings against whatever is behind Door #2, even though I don't know what's there, it doesn't mean I didn't make a choice.

You chose door #2.

But what you're claiming above is that you chose the goat.

You didn't choose the goat.  you chose door #2.  With ME we were talking about choosing Shepard's actions and directing her behaviour.  We're not allowed to do that.  We're allowed to choose the paragon option, or the option that's paraphrased a certain way, but we're not actually allowed to choose the action.

You're claiming that the game show contestant intentionally and wilfully chose the goat.  And that's just not true.

No I'm not. You just have this thing about foreknowledge being essential to "choice," when it's really not. In the above scenario, I did choose the goat. I didn't know exactly what I was choosing, but I chose all the same. That's actually not even a good example because in such a situation, you really DON'T have any clue about what's behind the door. In Mass Effect, you did. Sometimes it was only that, a clue, but it wasn't nothing. You weren't just choosing Option A, Option B, or Option C.

In Mass Effect 2, if you choose the renegade option with the TV reporter, you might not expect him to sucker punch her, but that's what happens. That's what that choice means. Not knowing beforehand doesn't mean you didn't choose to be a renegade in that situation. You knew, for example, he wasn't going to give her a hug. It was going to be something hostile.

[cachx]

Meltemph wrote...

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.

Also, as far as I know the "G" in "RPG" still stands for "Game".

[JrayM16]

I would add that atleast with ME2's interrupts, there were multiple visual clues that would indicate what shep would do. For instance, in the scene where you interrogate that guy in Thane's personal quest you can see Shep's fist clench right before the interrupt comes up, indicating that you'll probably punch the guy if you choose the interrupt.



Even in the dialogue wheel, I felt that if I paid attention to the context of the conversation coupled with the little blurbs on the wheel that I could make an informed decision. I can think of only one or two times where I picked an option that made Shep say something I did not intend.

[Bryy_Miller]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

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.

YOU never were, they clearly were. Don't do that, Sylvius, it's not clever.

[JrayM16]

Bryy_Miller wrote...

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

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.

YOU never were, they clearly were. Don't do that, Sylvius, it's not clever.

I think it's pretty pretensious to say RPGs are not videogames.  Table-top RPGs aren't, but Bioware RPGs are clearly videogames, I don't think anyone on Earth would seriously contest their videogame nature. 

But I shall play ball with Sylvius a bit, what makes them not videogames?

[MerinTB]

Meltemph wrote...
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.

I was making a point -

that a defining characteristic of something is a characteristic that the said something has that other similar things do no have.

CHARACTERISTIC.

I had gone through a bunch of commonly stated elements of RPGs - like deep story, choices, and so on - and pointed out how they are not DEFINING because they are common to many games.

I then posited that the ability to create your own character and move that character through the game as you saw fit is a defining characteristic of RPGs as 1 - almost all RPGs allow you to do this (there are exceptions: PST being the glaring one most often brought up), and 2 - almost no other genre ever allows this (I'm sure you could find some, but they are VERY rare and I'd argue once you find that aspect you'll find enough other commonly accepted RPG elements that it's probably an RPG hybrid)

So, let's recap:
I am saying you CAN define what is an RPG.  I am saying you can clearly define it because you best define something by picking a characteristic of said something that it almost always has that other things (particularly similar things) almost never have.  It is how you define something best, as far as I am aware.
I put forth one such characteristic.

You, Meltemph, quoted that one part somewhat out of context, the part where I put forth "creating your own character(s) you can move through the game at will" as a singular defining characteristic, separate from where I had made my argument that any characteristic that broadly applies to many game genres cannot be used to define any one of those genres and listed a bunch of elements common to RPGs as if to dispute the one I put forth as definitive.

You did prove my point - do I need to reiterate the point AGAIN?  Or will you continue to GISH GALLOP on me?

You listed a bunch of elements that you can find in many game genres.  I said as much, and took each one of your elements and listed games that contained them that weren't RPGs (unless you consider any of those I listed RPGs.)

You sarcastically take something I said out of context of the point I was making and then criticize me for somehow misrepresenting you.

Let me quote, nearly in full (with some selective editing of what I initially posted to say space), what you seem to be saying I am misrepresenting -

Meltemeph said...

MerinTB said...

Meltemeph said...

MerinTB said...
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.
(...)
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.
(...)
What RPG's usually have that most other genres usually do NOT is the ability to make your own character.
(...)
use some logic, as opposed to anecdotes (examples and personal opinions / feelings / beliefs) to prove me wrong and you right.

"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: ((list of examples of non-RPGs with this element))

Strong Story Development: ((list of examples of non-RPGs with this element))

Growth of one's character: ((list of examples of non-RPGs with this element))

Character customization: ((apparently you wanted this to be " equipment in general(looks, gear, etc) and I think most of my answers still stand as examples of non-RPGs that let you do that))

I love how you separate all those things I mentioned into single subsets, and then claim I proved your point.

So in conclusion: I am listing the "creating your own character(s) you control through the game in any way you see fit" as a definitive characteristic of RPGs.  As in it's the only characteristic that almost all RPGs share but is all but non-existant in other game genres.
" No SINGLE aspect makes the RPG genre" - You are right.  And I never claimed to list the ONLY characteristic, just the definitive one.
A definitive one that makes it really easy to define what is an RPG.  A very high percentage of games called RPGs will have this characteristic, and very very few non-RPG games will have it.
All other "aspects" as you call them (I prefer elements, but whatever) may be often found in RPGs (common) but are also often found in other genres as well (so they are not definitive.)

That's logic.

Q.E.D.

Modifié par MerinTB, 01 octobre 2010 - 07:42 .

[Meltemph]

 "creating your own character(s) you control through the game in any way you see fit"

No video- game does this, you have limited control through the game, in any way you see fit, but ti is limited. That definition in and of itself for a video game is to vague.  Otherwise you are putting Diablo and its ilk, or games like  in the same light, and saying it is more of a RPG then ME or Witcher.  Hell, if your main qualifier is creating your own character and controlling him in "any way you see fit", based on the limitations of video games, you have to count tony Hawk and just about any sports game out there as an RPG, since, inside the world of the game, you have full control.

Modifié par Meltemph, 01 octobre 2010 - 08:10 .

[MerinTB]

Meltemph wrote...

 "creating your own character(s) you control through the game in any way you see fit"

No video- game does this, you have limited control through the game, in any way you see fit, but ti is limited. That definition in and of itself for a video game is to vague.  Otherwise you are putting Diablo and its ilk, or games like  in the same light, and saying it is more of a RPG then ME or Witcher.  Hell, if your main qualifier is creating your own character and controlling him in "any way you see fit", based on the limitations of video games, you have to count tony Hawk and just about any sports game out there as an RPG, since, inside the world of the game, you have full control.

And now is where I stop trying to reason with you because you are now just arguing and nitpicking and trying be right.

"No video game lets you control your characters through the game in any way you see fit" - because games are limited?
You may as well argue that you can't make a character ever, because the game limits your options.
Or that you don't have any choice in the game because the game has limited your choices.

You, again, aren't using logic or reason - you are deliberatly twisting words and trying anyway you can to pull a word out here, or quote me out of context there, to win some points or something somehow to make you feel like you are coming out ahead.

No, you are just desperate to make me wrong somehow.  You ARE continuing the Gish Gallop.  And I am done trying to discuss this with you.

If you want to "win" instead of come to some kind of understanding, accept that you have "won."  Congratulations.

[Meltemph]

You may as well argue that you can't make a character ever, because the game limits your options.

Or that you don't have any choice in the game because the game has limited your choices.

No, because even sports games lets you do what you are saying. You said that creating your own character and control through the game in any way you see fit, is the qualifier, according to you, because it is not seen much in other games, but it is. Just because you like to claim that I am obfuscating(I would say you are doing this more so) the issue doesn't mean I am, it just means you don't like what I am saying.



If anyone is trying to "win" the argument it is you, because you are the one saying you are right, and whoever disagree's with you is wrong, I however have not done that. I am arguing it is not as simple as you want it to be.

[Sidney]

MerinTB wrote...

So in conclusion: I am listing the "creating your own character(s) you control through the game in any way you see fit" as a definitive characteristic of RPGs.  As in it's the only characteristic that almost all RPGs share but is all but non-existant in other game genres.
" No SINGLE aspect makes the RPG genre" - You are right.  And I never claimed to list the ONLY characteristic, just the definitive one.
A definitive one that makes it really easy to define what is an RPG.  A very high percentage of games called RPGs will have this characteristic, and very very few non-RPG games will have it.
All other "aspects" as you call them (I prefer elements, but whatever) may be often found in RPGs (common) but are also often found in other genres as well (so they are not definitive.)

That's logic.

Q.E.D.

Bad logic, explain the best RPG ever was Planescape Torment and you played - badabing- a fixed role.

Unless by "create" you mean build up a "profile" of that character by having meanigful interactions with the game world - then you are right but just controlling stupid crap and even appearance like name doesn't really matter.

[Sylvius the Mad]

[quote]SirOccam wrote...

So you didn't use the joystick to highlight one of the options?[/quote]
My mouse cursor, yes, but those options were not dialogue.
[quote]No, I agree, we can't hear it.[/quote]
Because it isn't there.
[quote]I repeatedly and consistently did not.[/quote]
That's just hyperbole. Everyone agrees it was usually pretty bad, but you're just taking it to extremes. Millions of people were able to get through the game just fine with some idea of what they were choosing for Shepard to say. Just because you apparently weren't is not enough justification to go around saying Mass Effect offered the player NO choice in dialogue.[/quote]
I found the failure rate to be somewhere one failure for every two selections.  That's multiple failures per conversations throughout the game.

That means the odds of me navigating through any given conversation without an error was remarkably small.

As for the other players, I have yet to see any one of them offer me any direction as to how to navigate the wheel options with a higher success rate.  This suggests to me that the vast majority of were making far less specific choices among the options.

If two paraphrase options were available, what is the relevant difference between them?  With full dialogue options, we can see ALL of the differences, so we're able to choose.  But with the paraphrased options only some of the differences mattered.  What means was available to determine which differences those were?
[quote]No I'm not. You just have this thing about foreknowledge being essential to "choice," when it's really not. In the above scenario, I did choose the goat. I didn't know exactly what I was choosing, but I chose all the same. That's actually not even a good example because in such a situation, you really DON'T have any clue about what's behind the door. In Mass Effect, you did. Sometimes it was only that, a clue, but it wasn't nothing. You weren't just choosing Option A, Option B, or Option C.[/quote]
Yes, you were.  I have seen no evidence that anyone is able to select options with any clear idea of what the consequence will be time after time.
[quote]In Mass Effect 2, if you choose the renegade option with the TV reporter, you might not expect him to sucker punch her, but that's what happens. That's what that choice means. Not knowing beforehand doesn't mean you didn't choose to be a renegade in that situation. You knew, for example, he wasn't going to give her a hug. It was going to be something hostile.[/quote]
But what?  What level of hostility is appropriate for that character?

If "hostile" is as detailed a selection as was available, then there was no ability to roleplay a character.

[Sylvius the Mad]

cachx wrote...

Also, as far as I know the "G" in "RPG" still stands for "Game".

What something is called doesn't change what it is.

JrayM16 wrote...

I would add that atleast with ME2's interrupts, there were multiple visual clues that would indicate what shep would do. For instance, in the scene where you interrogate that guy in Thane's personal quest you can see Shep's fist clench right before the interrupt comes up, indicating that you'll probably punch the guy if you choose the interrupt.

Assuming you noticed in time and were able to react accordingly.

Those interrupts really highlight why ME2 was a game rather than an RPG.  The player's inability to react to that little icon and those imprecise clues renders Shepard unable to engage in certain types of behaviour.  Dialogue in ME2 is a test for the player, rather than simply the character having a conversation.

JrayM16 wrote...

But I shall play ball with Sylvius a bit, what makes them not videogames?

I explained that above.

The player is a participant in a game.  In an RPG the player doesn't even exist.  Only the characters exist.  The characters are unaware they're fictional.  They cannot speak to the player.  They cannot intend to give the player information.

A good example of this would be the instruction from the squadmates in ME to do the Ilos trench run in the Mako.  This was probably intended as an instruction to the player, but since I was roleplaying I didn't even consider that the characters were trying to talk to me (since, from their perspective, I don't exist).  As such, Shepard dismissed the advice as cowardice.

If you're playing ME as a game and you do this, then you failed.  You can't complete the Ilos trench run on foot, and will get a Game Over screen every time.  But playing it as an RPG, you acted in character, and thus you've already won.  The act of roleplaying is the reward.  And that particular character who made the decision... she died, and the galaxy was destroyed.

The trouble with ME and ME2 is that roleplaying in this way is rarely possible - particularly in conversations - because the characters aren't able to remain in character reliably.

[SirOccam]

[quote]Sylvius the Mad wrote...

[quote]SirOccam wrote...

So you didn't use the joystick to highlight one of the options?[/quote]
My mouse cursor, yes, but those options were not dialogue.[/quote]
Okay, I keep going back to cars for my analogies; I'm not sure why. But here's another one:
Say you win a contest and the prize is a new car. You get to choose the car you want out of a selection of 3 or 4. Someone holds up blurry pictures of each car, and you get to point to the one you want. The pictures are not cars themselves, but each one stands for one particular car. Seeing a picture isn't nearly as good as getting to fully inspect the cars, but you still get a general idea of what you're getting. If you choose the red sports car picture (the picture is too fuzzy to fully make out what it is), maybe you'll get a Porsche or maybe a Mazda Miata, but you're not going to get a Dodge Ram pickup.

Maybe you were hoping for or expecting the Porsche, but you got the Miata. It doesn't mean you didn't choose the Miata. You chose what the picture of the red car represented. Likewise, in ME, you choose what the paraphrases represent. It might not be what you expected or wanted, but you still chose it. If you like, you can choose a different option next time. The option you chose stands for one thing, and it will always be that same thing.

[quote][quote]No, I agree, we can't hear it.[/quote]Because it isn't there.[/quote]
Yes, agreed. And that's why you have to supply it yourself, outside of the game. I'm not going to get into this argument again, but all I'm saying is that even if you can see every word, it still doesn't give you a complete understanding.

[quote][quote][quote]I repeatedly and consistently did not.[/quote]
That's just hyperbole. Everyone agrees it was usually pretty bad, but you're just taking it to extremes. Millions of people were able to get through the game just fine with some idea of what they were choosing for Shepard to say. Just because you apparently weren't is not enough justification to go around saying Mass Effect offered the player NO choice in dialogue.[/quote]
I found the failure rate to be somewhere one failure for every two selections.  That's multiple failures per conversations throughout the game.

That means the odds of me navigating through any given conversation without an error was remarkably small.

As for the other players, I have yet to see any one of them offer me any direction as to how to navigate the wheel options with a higher success rate.  This suggests to me that the vast majority of were making far less specific choices among the options.[/quote]
Yes, exactly. This is what I'm getting at. They were very unspecific, compared to Origins, but they were still choices. Sometimes it was little more than a guess. But it was still a choice. You didn't HAVE to choose that response; you could have chosen something else.

[quote]If two paraphrase options were available, what is the relevant difference between them?  With full dialogue options, we can see ALL of the differences, so we're able to choose.  But with the paraphrased options only some of the differences mattered.  What means was available to determine which differences those were?[/quote]
Well the most obvious was that the blue choices were generally diplomatic or peaceful. The red ones were hostile or confrontational. Again, you don't know exactly what he's going to say, but if you choose a blue answer, you have a vague idea of what's going to answer next.

[quote][quote]No I'm not. You just have this thing about foreknowledge being essential to "choice," when it's really not. In the above scenario, I did choose the goat. I didn't know exactly what I was choosing, but I chose all the same. That's actually not even a good example because in such a situation, you really DON'T have any clue about what's behind the door. In Mass Effect, you did. Sometimes it was only that, a clue, but it wasn't nothing. You weren't just choosing Option A, Option B, or Option C.[/quote]
Yes, you were.  I have seen no evidence that anyone is able to select options with any clear idea of what the consequence will be time after time.[/quote]
And I never said you did have a "clear" idea. All along I've been saying it has been anything but clear. My point is that it's still an idea, unclear or not.

[quote][quote]In Mass Effect 2, if you choose the renegade option with the TV reporter, you might not expect him to sucker punch her, but that's what happens. That's what that choice means. Not knowing beforehand doesn't mean you didn't choose to be a renegade in that situation. You knew, for example, he wasn't going to give her a hug. It was going to be something hostile.[/quote]
But what?  What level of hostility is appropriate for that character?

If "hostile" is as detailed a selection as was available, then there was no ability to roleplay a character.[/quote]
If your character is likely to be hostile, then you can choose the hostile option. Otherwise you can choose the diplomatic option, or the neutral one. That is roleplaying, just not with the amount of specificity that you prefer.

And what do you say to people who say they were able to roleplay as Shepard? Do you tell them they're simply wrong? Obviously everyone has his or her own tastes and preferences. Yours are such that YOU were unable to roleplay as Shepard, but that doesn't mean it was impossible. Other people don't have the same demanding requirements as you, and that opens up more possibilities for them.

Modifié par SirOccam, 01 octobre 2010 - 09:20 .

[AlanC9]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

cachx wrote...

Also, as far as I know the "G" in "RPG" still stands for "Game".

What something is called doesn't change what it is.

But since that's true, what's the point of even having a debate about "RPGs"?

Edit: of course, I try to have it both ways , since I''ve been simultaneously arguing that it doesn't matter if a game is an RPG or not and that ME is an RPG. Sometimes I find pointless arguments to be entertaining nonetheless. You too?

A good example of this would be the instruction from the squadmates in ME to do the Ilos trench run in the Mako.  This was probably intended as an instruction to the player, but since I was roleplaying I didn't even consider that the characters were trying to talk to me (since, from their perspective, I don't exist).  As such, Shepard dismissed the advice as cowardice.

Why would (that particular) Shepard think of this advice as cowardice rather than maximizing combat power? Wasn't it Sun Tzu who said that a lion uses all its might when attacking a rabbit?

If you're playing ME as a game and you do this, then you failed.  You can't complete the Ilos trench run on foot, and will get a Game Over screen every time.  But playing it as an RPG, you acted in character, and thus you've already won.  The act of roleplaying is the reward.  And that particular character who made the decision... she died, and the galaxy was destroyed.

You do realize that calling this successful makes you something of an outlier among RPG players, right? Or job is not just to supply the personality, but also the intelligence.

Modifié par AlanC9, 01 octobre 2010 - 09:19 .

[MerinTB]

Sidney wrote...

MerinTB wrote...

So in conclusion: I am listing the "creating your own character(s) you control through the game in any way you see fit" as a definitive characteristic of RPGs.  As in it's the only characteristic that almost all RPGs share but is all but non-existant in other game genres.
" No SINGLE aspect makes the RPG genre" - You are right.  And I never claimed to list the ONLY characteristic, just the definitive one.
A definitive one that makes it really easy to define what is an RPG.  A very high percentage of games called RPGs will have this characteristic, and very very few non-RPG games will have it.
All other "aspects" as you call them (I prefer elements, but whatever) may be often found in RPGs (common) but are also often found in other genres as well (so they are not definitive.)

That's logic.

Q.E.D.

Bad logic, explain the best RPG ever was Planescape Torment and you played - badabing- a fixed role.

I already had.

MerinTB wrote ...
the only characteristic that almost all RPGs share but is all but non-existant in other game genres
...
A very high percentage of games called RPGs will have this characteristic
...
You can of course find exceptions to the rule, but they are few and far between.
...
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.

And my whole definition of what I mean by definitive characteristic.  You aren't arguing against my point - you are arguing that a game can be an RPG without the player creating their own character at the start.  That is not the opposite of my point at all - it is an accepted condition of my point.

There will always be exceptions.  There will always be outliers.

And there will always be people saying, "Ah, you said the sky was blue, but at night it's black! Hah, I beat you!"

Modifié par MerinTB, 01 octobre 2010 - 09:22 .

[Sylvius the Mad]

SirOccam wrote...

Okay, I keep going back to cars for my analogies; I'm not sure why. But here's another one:
Say you win a contest and the prize is a new car. You get to choose the car you want out of a selection of 3 or 4. Someone holds up blurry pictures of each car, and you get to point to the one you want. The pictures are not cars themselves, but each one stands for one particular car. Seeing a picture isn't nearly as good as getting to fully inspect the cars, but you still get a general idea of what you're getting. If you choose the red sports car picture (the picture is too fuzzy to fully make out what it is), maybe you'll get a Porsche or maybe a Mazda Miata, but you're not going to get a Dodge Ram pickup.

My experience in Mass Effect was more like I tried to ask for the fuzzy red sports car, but somehow instead I got up on stage and announced I was donating my prize to charity.

My intent was routinely not even vaguely similar to the outcome.  This is my point.

Maybe you were hoping for or expecting the Porsche, but you got the Miata. It doesn't mean you didn't choose the Miata. You chose what the picture of the red car represented. Likewise, in ME, you choose what the paraphrases represent. It might not be what you expected or wanted, but you still chose it. If you like, you can choose a different option next time. The option you chose stands for one thing, and it will always be that same thing.

So you're saying the only way to play the game is to play through every conversation 8 times to see what all the options are, take a bunch of notes, and then go back and actually roleplay.

And that's a good game to you?

Yes, agreed. And that's why you have to supply it yourself, outside of the game. I'm not going to get into this argument again, but all I'm saying is that even if you can see every word, it still doesn't give you a complete understanding.

"Every word" is all there is.  That's the very definition of a complete understanding.

The only way that understanding could be incomplete is if there's some other meaningful content that's hidden from us (like tone), but you just agreed the tone isn't there.

Yes, exactly. This is what I'm getting at. They were very unspecific, compared to Origins, but they were still choices. Sometimes it was little more than a guess. But it was still a choice. You didn't HAVE to choose that response; you could have chosen something else.

So I can only roleplay subnormal characters whose intent is never more detailed than "be hostile"?

Way to see the game.

And if this is true, they should have documented that restriction.  "Save the galaxy as a developmentally disabled marine!"

Well the most obvious was that the blue choices were generally diplomatic or peaceful. The red ones were hostile or confrontational. Again, you don't know exactly what he's going to say, but if you choose a blue answer, you have a vague idea of what's going to answer next.

The persuade and intimidate options - they had what was effectively an intent icon attached to them.

Those weren't always available.  If I was choosing between two options, and they were paraphrased differently, but were also at different wheel locations, should I choose based on the phrasing or the wheel location?  How to I weigh those things if they disagree?

This is why the wheel was a problem.  It was unclear how to use it.  I even came to the ME forum and asked for help.  None was offered.

And I never said you did have a "clear" idea. All along I've been saying it has been anything but clear. My point is that it's still an idea, unclear or not.

And again, there is some threshold below which unclear information ceases to be information.  At some point the noise overwhelms the signal.

If your character is likely to be hostile, then you can choose the hostile option. Otherwise you can choose the diplomatic option, or the neutral one. That is roleplaying, just not with the amount of specificity that you prefer.

Then it's not roleplauying.  If Shepard can (and did) routinely say and do things which directly contradicted his previous behaviour (based on the motives I assigned), then I can't be reasonably said to have been in control.  The character I was trying to play wouldn't have behaved like that.  But again and again he did.

And what do you say to people who say they were able to roleplay as Shepard? Do you tell them they're simply wrong?

Repeatedly.

[AlanC9]

MerinTB wrote...
So in conclusion: I am listing the "creating your own character(s) you control through the game in any way you see fit" as a definitive characteristic of RPGs.  As in it's the only characteristic that almost all RPGs share but is all but non-existant in other game genres.
" No SINGLE aspect makes the RPG genre" - You are right.  And I never claimed to list the ONLY characteristic, just the definitive one.
A definitive one that makes it really easy to define what is an RPG.  A very high percentage of games called RPGs will have this characteristic, and very very few non-RPG games will have it.
All other "aspects" as you call them (I prefer elements, but whatever) may be often found in RPGs (common) but are also often found in other genres as well (so they are not definitive.)

That's logic.

Q.E.D.

Not quite D. there.

You've already accepted that some games which are RPGs do not have this supposedly definitive aspect. Is "definitive" the right word for an aspect that is not a necessary and sufficient condition, and therefore doesn't actually define the class? I'll provisionally grant you the sufficient part, although "in any way you see fit " is so imprecise as to be worthless.

Regardless, this condition doesn't seem to do anything for us. Since there are exceptions, any given game can  be an exception itself. Even accepting your logic provides no assistance whatsoever in determining whether or not ME2 is an RPG, or whether DA2 will be.

[Sylvius the Mad]

AlanC9 wrote...

Why would (that particular) Shepard think of this advice as cowardice rather than maximizing combat power?

Partly the way Kaidan said it (which may have been intended as comedy).  Partly because, throughout that game, Shepard had eschewed the Mako as loud and cumbersome, generally preferring steatth.

Wasn't it Sun Tzu who said that a lion uses all its might when attacking a rabbit?

Sun Tzu also said "the pinnacle of military deployment approaches the formless, for if it is formless not even the deepest spy can discern it nor the wise make plans against it."

In that Shepard's experience - particularly in enclosed spaces - all the Mako did was make it easier to get hit.  Not to mention how stealthy it wasn't.  The big gun on the Mako also had exactly the same maximum effective range as a sniper rifle.

Combine that with the prohibitive XP penality for using it in combat and there was no reason to fight in that thing pretty much ever.

Though I can see why some Shepard's might disagree.

You do realize that calling this successful makes you something of an outlier among RPG players, right? Or job is not just to supply the personality, but also the intelligence.

What if you're roleplaying a dumb character?  Or a naive character?

[Sylvius the Mad]

MerinTB wrote...

And my whole definition of what I mean by definitive characteristic.  You aren't arguing against my point - you are arguing that a game can be an RPG without the player creating their own character at the start.  That is not the opposite of my point at all - it is an accepted condition of my point.

There will always be exceptions.  There will always be outliers.

Definitions can't have exceptions.

[MerinTB]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...
Definitions can't have exceptions.

Bow means a tool for hunting...
unless, in context, it means a gesture for accepting praise.

Hmmm...
definition of bow had exceptions based on context.

Guess they CAN have exceptions - or English is now WRONG!

[Stanley Woo]

Let's get it back on topic and cut it out with the sniping and bickering, please. if this becomes yet another "what is an RPG?" thread, i will shut it down.

[AlanC9]

MerinTB wrote...
Bow means a tool for hunting...
unless, in context, it means a gesture for accepting praise.

Hmmm...
definition of bow had exceptions based on context.

Guess they CAN have exceptions - or English is now WRONG!

Um... those are different words. Different pronunciations, and one's a verb and the other's a noun.

And words don't have exceptions to their definitions, they have multiple definitions. Not at all the same thing.

(Sorry, Mr. Volus Sir. Couldn't resist)

[MerinTB]

AlanC9 wrote...

MerinTB wrote...
So in conclusion: I am listing the "creating your own character(s) you control through the game in any way you see fit" as a definitive characteristic of RPGs.  As in it's the only characteristic that almost all RPGs share but is all but non-existant in other game genres.
" No SINGLE aspect makes the RPG genre" - You are right.  And I never claimed to list the ONLY characteristic, just the definitive one.
A definitive one that makes it really easy to define what is an RPG.  A very high percentage of games called RPGs will have this characteristic, and very very few non-RPG games will have it.
All other "aspects" as you call them (I prefer elements, but whatever) may be often found in RPGs (common) but are also often found in other genres as well (so they are not definitive.)

That's logic.

Q.E.D.

Not quite D. there.

You've already accepted that some games which are RPGs do not have this supposedly definitive aspect. Is "definitive" the right word for an aspect that is not a necessary and sufficient condition, and therefore doesn't actually define the class? I'll provisionally grant you the sufficient part, although "in any way you see fit " is so imprecise as to be worthless.

Definitions of Definitive:
a[/i] : serving to define or specify precisely <definitive laws> b[/i] : serving as a perfect example : quintessential <a definitive bourgeois>

You can walk around language and chose different definitions to words I use if you want - but I gave you my point, and exhaustively explained, repeatedly exhaustively even, what "definitive characteristic" means in the context of my point I was making.

You, also, are not disputing my point.  You are taking words I am using and pointing out that they can mean other things as well.
And you are ignoring parts of my point (the allowance for exceptions, of which there must always be as nothing is absolute) to point out that I'm somehow ignoring those parts I "didn't" point out.

As for "in any way you see fit" let me adjust that, then, to say "move your character(s) through the game by your own choices."  Better?  You know what I mean, but if you want to keep nitpicking on it, by all means.

Regardless, this condition doesn't seem to do anything for us. Since there are exceptions, any given game can  be an exception itself. Even accepting your logic provides no assistance whatsoever in determining whether or not ME2 is an RPG, or whether DA2 will be.

Sure it does.  It gives us one characteristic that, when we see it, we are almost certain we have an RPG.
ME2 arguably DOES have it - you get first name, you get stats, you get appearance, you get some background information you can pick.  You create your own character, more or less.  There are some pre-defined limits to Shepard that may seem more limiting than many other games, but you made all of him (or her) save race, last name and the fact that he must be in the Alliance military.

DA2, for all intents and purposes, will also let you make your character.  You have to start in Lothering, you have to have this set family, you have to be human, you will be the Champion of Kirkwall... there are many pre-defined aspects to whom Hawke will be... but there is more control of the creation of the character than not.

And...

see, logically debating with people has just flipped my opinions on the ME and DA2 character creation.

[MerinTB]

Ok, Mr. Woo...



I'm out of the thread. My apologies.

[SirOccam]

[quote]Sylvius the Mad wrote...

[quote]SirOccam wrote...

Maybe you were hoping for or expecting the Porsche, but you got the Miata. It doesn't mean you didn't choose the Miata. You chose what the picture of the red car represented. Likewise, in ME, you choose what the paraphrases represent. It might not be what you expected or wanted, but you still chose it. If you like, you can choose a different option next time. The option you chose stands for one thing, and it will always be that same thing.[/quote]
So you're saying the only way to play the game is to play through every conversation 8 times to see what all the options are, take a bunch of notes, and then go back and actually roleplay.

And that's a good game to you?[/quote]
The only way for you, perhaps, but then you are very particular about how you roleplay. I thought both Mass Effect games were great fun, and I thought I was able to roleplay to a sufficient degree in both. Not as easily as in DAO, and I do prefer DAO, but I loved both ME games. So yes, I did think they were good games.

[quote][quote]Yes, agreed. And that's why you have to supply it yourself, outside of the game. I'm not going to get into this argument again, but all I'm saying is that even if you can see every word, it still doesn't give you a complete understanding.[/quote]
"Every word" is all there is.  That's the very definition of a complete understanding.[/quote]
That's not "complete," though. Printed text can only convey so much. Tone, body language, etc. all play meaningful parts in communication. Leave out any one (or all) of them and your understanding is not complete, by definition. That doesn't mean what we have can't be sufficient. You draw that "sufficiency" line somewhere between ME and DAO...I draw it below ME.

[quote]The only way that understanding could be incomplete is if there's some other meaningful content that's hidden from us (like tone), but you just agreed the tone isn't there.[/quote]
I'm thinking of "hidden" and "not there" as the same in this instance. I agree that the player doesn't have access to it, in any case, but not that the game wasn't designed with it in place.

[quote][quote]Yes, exactly. This is what I'm getting at. They were very unspecific, compared to Origins, but they were still choices. Sometimes it was little more than a guess. But it was still a choice. You didn't HAVE to choose that response; you could have chosen something else.[/quote]
So I can only roleplay subnormal characters whose intent is never more detailed than "be hostile"?[/quote]
When it comes to Mass Effect...apparently so.

[quote][quote]Well the most obvious was that the blue choices were generally diplomatic or peaceful. The red ones were hostile or confrontational. Again, you don't know exactly what he's going to say, but if you choose a blue answer, you have a vague idea of what's going to answer next.[/quote]
The persuade and intimidate options - they had what was effectively an intent icon attached to them.

Those weren't always available.  If I was choosing between two options, and they were paraphrased differently, but were also at different wheel locations, should I choose based on the phrasing or the wheel location?  How to I weigh those things if they disagree?

This is why the wheel was a problem.  It was unclear how to use it.  I even came to the ME forum and asked for help.  None was offered.[/quote]
That's unfortunate that no one helped you. Personally I chose based on the paraphrase first, location second. I took them both into account. If something sounded good but was in the renegade spot, I thought "it's probably going to be something d*ckish."

[quote][quote]And I never said you did have a "clear" idea. All along I've been saying it has been anything but clear. My point is that it's still an idea, unclear or not.[/quote]
And again, there is some threshold below which unclear information ceases to be information.  At some point the noise overwhelms the signal.[/quote]
And for you, that point was clearly above what ME could deliver. For me, it wasn't.

[quote][quote]And what do you say to people who say they were able to roleplay as Shepard? Do you tell them they're simply wrong?[/quote]
Repeatedly.[/quote]
Well that just about sums up everything perfectly. Because you were unable to do something, that means anyone who felt they could were just deluding themselves. Nice.