735 réponses à ce sujet

[FedericoV]

MerinTB wrote...

But what I find confusing (and humorous) is that in the same paragraph you claim that you are NOT trying to define what is an RPG, what makes a better form of role-playing...
and then you go on to do EXACTLY THAT - define role-playing as "social gaming" and single-player RPGs as "not allowing real roleplaying."

Yes, I believe that tabletop RPGs are a social experience and that they are the true form of RPGs since the hobby begun as a tabletop social experience. You know, social, that kind of game that requires having friends to play with and making a shower from time to time. Adventure Books and solo games are not RPGs for me. They are different kind of games.

But maybe you are confused because you forgot the part when I said that it's my definition, my opinion, that I could be wrong and that the end it's irrelevant since we cannot solve the issue once and for all.

And what I find very humorous is that you completely ignored the rest of my argumentation wich at the end was the meat of my point.

Modifié par FedericoV, 10 octobre 2010 - 04:47 .

[MerinTB]

[quote]FedericoV wrote...
[quote]MerinTB wrote...
But what I find confusing (and humorous) is that in the same paragraph you claim that you are NOT trying to define what is an RPG, what makes a better form of role-playing...
and then you go on to do EXACTLY THAT - define role-playing as "social gaming" and single-player RPGs as "not allowing real roleplaying."
[/quote]
Yes, I believe that tabletop RPGs are a social experience and that they are the true form of RPG since the hobby begun as a tabletop experience.
[/quote]
So you are stating what an RPG is, by declaring it's "true form", correct?
[quote]But maybe you are confused because you forgot the part when I said that it's my definition, my opinion, that I could be wrong and that the end it's irrelevant[/quote]
You are defining what an RPG is.  After saying you weren't defining what an RPG is, you go ahead and say what you believe an RPG to be.  A social experience.
Being your opinion, or even irrelevant, doesn't mean you weren't doing it.
In one breath you said you weren't... and before you finished exhaling your breath you did.
Saying one thing, doing another.

[quote]or because you were not much interested in the rest of my argumentation wich at the end was my point (how to improve the voice over in videogame RP games?). [/quote]

That is true.  Largely because I wasn't responding to voice in videogame stuff at all.  I was respoding to the entire post of which I quoted, in which a discussion of "needing other players as RPGs are social gaming" was the thrust of your point in that post.
Whatever you added later is moving away from the point I was discussing - you saying that RPGs are social gaming...
and then saying that, while you are defining what RPGs are, you aren't going to define what RPGs are.

That's all I was responding to.  Those two points.  Which have nothing to do with voice in a cRPG.<_<

As for "table-top RPG's being a social experience", I present exhibits:
http://www.mythic.wo...age9/page9.html - the GM Emulator
http://www.jfreels.com/Gaming.html - ZTown Solo RPG
http://www.projectaon.org/en/Main/Home - you can play Lone Wolf online now, for free!
http://en.wikipedia....Dragons_modules - do a search on that page for the word "solo"

That's just a small sampling of not-electronic, not board-game (you could argue Runequest or Castle Ravenloft, both solo-able, are "RPG games" if you like), kinds of solo RPGs available.
Your "need other players" definition is false.  It's a characteristic of many types of games, and not all RPGs have more than one player.  In fact (especially considering cRPGs) many don't.

--

In the long run, though, it's more entertaining to me that you "aren't defining what role-playing is" by stating, in your opinion that may be irrelevant, what TRUE role-playing is.


[/quote]

Modifié par MerinTB, 10 octobre 2010 - 04:57 .

[CoS Sarah Jinstar]

Sidney wrote...

CoS Sarah Jinstar wrote...

Eh not really, you'd just rather be told a story rather than making a vested effort into the characters you're playing. I can understand that, doesn't make it wrong. It does bother me when people come right out and say that I can't play the way I've been playing CRPG's for years though, its certainly news to me at least.

No one has told you can't play the way you have for years. ME2 and DAO are the same thing as BG2 or KoTOR. You have a character. You can create the look and feel of that character. You get to pick a class for that character. That character has a specific role in a story - these aren't open world games where you can wander off and really not do the main story. That character gets to make choices in the game. Those choices are limited by the options provided by the dev team. You are allowed to select from those options in the game. The game reacts to those selections based again on the code work done by the dev team. That is the "role playing" that happens in each game.

Now what you htought you were doing might be different than that but it wasn't. You've built up this whole vision of what these games are and aren't but at the core they're the same thing.

Again you're completely waving off implied tone from a non voice protagonist vs voiced dialog, its not this cut and dry "same thing" you continue to imply it is, and be it off screen or not allows for a more personal attachment to your character.

You just don't get the same feeling from the way ME does it,  especially due to how dialog is paraphrased where the player on the first play through is 9 out of 10 times guessing exactly how Shepard will deliver dialog.

The only sameness about it is the conversation choices are all written and obviously aren't infinate but it does not offer the same feel if you're looking for something deeper than just following along and making on the fly dialog choices.

[FedericoV]

MerinTB wrote...

In the long run, though, it's more entertaining to me that you "aren't defining what role-playing is" by stating, in your opinion that may be irrelevant, what TRUE role-playing is.

You should explain me at first why I should care about your entarteinment . You are the one who likes to solo !

Joking aside, I think that there is nothing wrong in expressing an opinion about a topic while admitting that you could be all wrong about it or admitting that probably the earth would not stop to roll because of it. And then trying to bring the debate on what I consider to be a more objective or pragmatic level (maybe I completely fail at that it but it was worth the effort).

Modifié par FedericoV, 10 octobre 2010 - 05:22 .

[FedericoV]

PS:

MerinTB wrote...

That is true.  Largely because I wasn't responding to voice in videogame stuff at all.  I was respoding to the entire post of which I quoted, in which a discussion of "needing other players as RPGs are social gaming" was the thrust of your point in that post.

No, you do not understand well (maybe it's my fault, in case sorry). I was just trying to say that videogames RPGs and tabletop are like apples and oranges, so there is no point to judge the validity of a feature in a videogame comparing it to its tabletop counterpart . If you want to say that tabletop RPGs and videogames RPGs are the same kind of hobby, more power to you.

Modifié par FedericoV, 10 octobre 2010 - 05:32 .

[Lumikki]

FedericoV wrote...

Yes, I believe that tabletop RPGs are a social experience and that they are the true form of RPGs since the hobby begun as a tabletop social experience. You know, social, that kind of game that requires having friends to play with and making a shower from time to time. Adventure Books and solo games are not RPGs for me. They are different kind of games.

But maybe you are confused because you forgot the part when I said that it's my definition, my opinion, that I could be wrong and that the end it's irrelevant since we cannot solve the issue once and for all.

I understand what you mean by tabletop RPG, but here is other view point. Why does technical implementation how it's done define RPG. I mean, if people roleplay in garden or inside house (tabletop) or with computer (mmorpgs) has to do with defining roleplaying as social experience? All of them can be social experience, because they are just places and tools to create the roleplaying possibility. Also try not to mess real life sociality and roleplaying sociality.

Modifié par Lumikki, 10 octobre 2010 - 06:55 .

[FedericoV]

Lumikki wrote...

I understand what you mean by tabletop RPG, but here is other view point. Why does technical implementation how it's done define RPG. I mean, if people roleplay in garden or inside house (tabletop) or with computer (mmorpgs) has to do with defining roleplaying as social experience? All of them can be social experience, because they are just places and tools to create the roleplaying possibility.

Yep, MMORPG are social games, but single player RPGs are not by definition. The only thing we can say for sure is that they are different kind of games even if they share a similar label (RPG) and that the "media" influences the game very much. Can we agree on that?

Also try not to mess real life sociality and roleplaying sociality.

I was not messing, just joking. Honestly, I founded hard even to discuss that tabletop RPGs were created as games to be played in group (than I think that we can call them social games).

[Lumikki]

FedericoV wrote...

Yep, MMORPG are social games, but single player RPGs are not by definition. The only thing we can say for sure is that they are different kind of games even if they share a similar label (RPG) and that the "media" influences the game very much. Can we agree on that?

Sure, single player RPG's are different than multiplayer RPG's. You have point there, but other ways they both can also be RPG as well.

Is it defined in somewhere that social interaction has to become from real life person, why can't it become from  npcs?

Modifié par Lumikki, 10 octobre 2010 - 07:29 .

[upsettingshorts]

CoS Sarah Jinstar wrote...
The only sameness about it is the conversation choices are all written and obviously aren't infinate but it does not offer the same feel if you're looking for something deeper than just following along and making on the fly dialog choices.

It's not a question of shallow versus deep.  It's a question of how one fundamentally approaches CRPGs.

To someone like Silvius or yourself the change - a dialogue wheel and voiced protagonist - of feeling is a negative because it no longer allows you to suspend disbelief in the same way.

To someone like me the change - a dialogue wheel and voiced protagonist - of feeling is positive because it is a much more effective method of delivering the feel of a conversation.

Not to sound like a broken record but the conversation we all got into a couple pages ago explains why.   It isn't about deepness, it's about deciding to be consciously aware you're playing a game or not.  That doesn't mean I can't roleplay a character, but I do roleplay within the confines of vaguely predetermined choices - so as such categorizing my playstyle as "on the fly" isn't quite accurate.  That doesn't make it a shallower experience - indeed, creativity can and often does thrive on limitations.  Why do I play this way? Because I feel that leads to a more enjoyable CRPG experience than - just to pick an example - Sylvius' example of his cowardly socially anxious character.  It's a matter of personal taste and not a desire to be walked through a plot versus that of inventing something truly new, however much it might dramatically contradict the setup presented by the writers.  As to how and why I play this way, see two pages ago.

That's where I draw the line between it and the tabletop RPG experience.

Modifié par Upsettingshorts, 10 octobre 2010 - 07:31 .

[the_one_54321]

CoS Sarah Jinstar wrote...
Its the_one's favorite hobby, trying to tell Sylvius how he's played CRPG's for years is somehow "wrong".

Um, no. Not at all. I think you should stop interpreting my posts for me. I'll explain my possitions myself, thanks.

Actually I wasn't claiming that there was anything at all wrong with the way he played (up until the comments about willful psychosis, anyway) jus that his extrapolation of his playstyle on to what the game actually is was not appropriate. I still don't think it is, but there is no arguing with someone that uses willful psychosis and applied existentialism as a means of immersion.

[David Gaider]

Aaaaand now we've veered fully onto "what is an RPG?"



Seriously, folks. It seems like the same people who keep doing this. If you can't restrain yourselves and take it to Off Topic, then you'll be shown the door. As interesting as the subject is, steering every thread onto a theoretical debate on the nature of RPG's is NOT WHAT THIS FORUM IS FOR.



Shutting it down.