147 réponses à ce sujet

[AlanC9]

Archereon wrote...
But the basic defenition of an RPG is a game who's gameplay is derived at least in part from Dungeons and Dragons...

As in...

-Meaningful levels.
-Meaningful stats and/or skills
-Meaningful equipment and some sort of inventory managment.
-Strategic combat, and often  "Active ability" combat.
-(generally) party based gameplay)

At the risk of getting the thread locked for even engaging in this kind of thing, there have been plenty of RPGs over the years which are completely missing one or several of those. So this is a list that an RPG has some of, not all of.

[AlanC9]

Ortaya Alevli wrote...

AlanC9 wrote...

Vylan Antagonist wrote...
Still, unless I just blissfully managed to forget, I don't recall her being idolized quite like Tali, inspiring hundreds of pages of weird fetishistic inflation pics and the like.

That might have been just how that era worked. I don't recall any characters inspiring that sort of thing a decade ago.

There were some, but not in the same way. Intense marketing geared towards that direction was involved. Lara Croft comes to mind.

I'll have to take your word for it; I wouldn't have seen that stuff for Lara Croft since the game never interested me.

[Addai]

ziggehunderslash wrote...

Addai67 wrote...

??  Don't follow you.  I'm talking about the fact that we got all new companions (Oghren excepted) in Awakening, which we then never saw again, new faceless companions for Golems of Amgarrak, new faceless companions in Witch Hunt, etc.  I mean, it's true, there was very little continuity in the DLCs at all, but it was the companion discontinuity that struck me the most and seemed the most unfortunate, since companion interaction was such a strength of DAO.

Read the bit I wrote a page back about the writers. Sure they could add depth to each character, but you can't assume everyone has played the preceding game, meaning you need to essentially tell a new personal story with each appearance of the character. That's going to be a little contrived, as are the methods you use to keep them alive. But most of all, maybe they've just said what they wanted to say with that character, and no matter how much you might have loved it, it doesn't follow that theres more to be told.

That's a factor in new games, certainly.  Not so much in DLCs.  As an aside, I really hope that if they do DLCs at all for the new game, that the quality is better.

As for not having more to be told, as I said, the writer himself says otherwise for certain characters.  Especially given that they like open-ended endings, there is always more that can be told.  It sounds to me like a case of marketing saying "we need new, we need splashy."

[the_one_54321]

AlanC9 wrote...
At the risk of getting the thread locked for even engaging in this kind of thing, there have been plenty of RPGs over
the years which are completely missing one or several of those. So this is a list that an RPG has some of, not all of.

That depends on who you ask, since most folks flat out refuse to accept any plain objective definition of RPG. I'm never going to accept any genre distinctions within video games that aren't entirely based on the mechanics used in the gameplay.

Modifié par the_one_54321, 24 novembre 2010 - 07:26 .

[Ortaya Alevli]

AlanC9 wrote...

I'll have to take your word for it; I wouldn't have seen that stuff for Lara Croft since the game never interested me.

For your own sake, keep it that way. I wish I never saw that stuff, either.

[maxernst]

Archereon wrote...

Gleym wrote...

crimzontearz wrote...

Unless Dragon age is turning into a freaking FF-like rpg

Don't be silly. Dragon Age 2 isn't even an RPG in the first place (if adding stats to level up abilities counts as an RPG, I guess that means God of War is one too; similarly, if customizing my armor and appearance makes it an RPG, then so is Halo - and no, multiple choice answers in a cutscene isn't enough to count as an RPG), so how could it turn into a Final Fantasy knockoff?

lol.  I don't really think there is such thing as a proper RPG.  Everyone has their own defenition.

But the basic defenition of an RPG is a game who's gameplay is derived at least in part from Dungeons and Dragons...

As in...

-Meaningful levels.
-Meaningful stats and/or skills
-Meaningful equipment and some sort of inventory managment.
-Strategic combat, and often  "Active ability" combat.
-(generally) party based gameplay)

I don't actually think everybody has a different definition--there's basically two schools and you've just cited one of them.  I don't care for that definition because it excludes LARPG's and focuses on strategic elements rather than roleplaying.  I'll grant that it seems to have gained a certain traction in the computer gaming industry. 

The other school uses a definition much more closely related to the English word roleplaying and better capturing the essence of Dungeons & Dragons rather than its rules is stated by the oxford english dictionary:

"a game in which players take on the roles of imaginary characters,
usually in a setting created by a referee, and thereby vicariously
experience the imagined adventures of these characters".

Even better is this one cited in Wikipedia as being from a book on roleplaying games:

"A role-playing game (RPG) is a broad family of games in which players
assume the roles of characters in a fictional setting. Players take
responsibility for acting out these roles within a narrative, either
through literal acting, or through a process of structured
decision-making or character development."

I think there are some people (Sylvius, probably) who consider both the
statistical character development and roleplaying to be necessary, but in general most people's definitions fall into one of these camps.  Of course, like many things, there's a continuum between what everyone would agree is an RPG and what everyone would agree is not, and where to draw that line is a secondary problem that causes arguments on top of the ones about the basic characteristics of RPG's.

Modifié par maxernst, 24 novembre 2010 - 07:27 .

[Ziggeh]

Addai67 wrote...

As for not having more to be told, as I said, the writer himself says otherwise for certain characters.  Especially given that they like open-ended endings, there is always more that can be told.

Oh, absolutely, but you have to consider whether they would want to (as in, would they find it interesting to), as well as whether that continuation would work as an independant one for new folk. With someone like Morrigan they've probably worked this out ahead of time, so it should work smoothly, but that's not going to work in every case. As Gaider said, they've got to think about the game they're making at the time first, and the franchise second.

Modifié par ziggehunderslash, 24 novembre 2010 - 07:30 .

[crimzontearz]

I recall someone asking "what is wrong with having a different main character with each successive game"



Uh...how to put this?



Ok, for anyone who played table top rpgs, how many times were you FORCED to change character during a campaign/chronicle (not talking one shot adventures or stories) aside for his/her death? I'm not talking personal choice stemmed from boredom or curiosity I'm talking about "having no other choice but to change character in spite of him/her being still alive and well". Like your DM/ST telling you "yeah sorry sport hand in your CS and make a new one....I want to try something new". Try to pull that with your players...a lot of them will be pissed. Anyway this is not the point.



I'm sure I'll grow attached to my hawke (god that sounded wrong) and whatever companions are thrown at me by Bio...I just hope they will not be throw-aways in between chapters

[MightySword]

the_one_54321 wrote...
Please no. Seriously. No more alien sex. Not even the blue sexy women.

The problem is though, these blue alien women is not sexy AT ALL, the game just want to force you into thinking that, which is the problem. If they're actually genuilly sexy arthestically, then there is no problem at all.

[David Gaider]

crimzontearz wrote...
I recall someone asking "what is wrong with having a different main character with each successive game"

Uh...how to put this?

Ok, for anyone who played table top rpgs, how many times were you FORCED to change character during a campaign/chronicle (not talking one shot adventures or stories) aside for his/her death?

That might be comparable if Dragon Age were a single campaign or chronicle. It's not. DA2 is a new story. The same may be true for a potential DA3. A better tabletop comparison would be a player thinking he should be allowed to keep playing his character even though his game master has started a new campaign and has asked him to roll something new.

[AlanC9]

crimzontearz wrote...
Ok, for anyone who played table top rpgs, how many times were you FORCED to change character during a campaign/chronicle (not talking one shot adventures or stories) aside for his/her death? I'm not talking personal choice stemmed from boredom or curiosity I'm talking about "having no other choice but to change character in spite of him/her being still alive and well". Like your DM/ST telling you "yeah sorry sport hand in your CS and make a new one....I want to try something new". Try to pull that with your players...a lot of them will be pissed. Anyway this is not the point. 

Even assuming that DA2 and DAO are part of a single campaign, which DG is rightly contesting, this was standard operating procedure in AD&D (I can't speak to 3.0/3.5; not enough PnP experience). Very high-level characters typically got put on the retired list except for special one-shot save-the-world bits and the like. As module H4, The Throne of Bloodstone, says, "You now have characters of surpassing power, of a level at which most adventurers retire."

Modifié par AlanC9, 24 novembre 2010 - 08:14 .

[Vylan Antagonist]

crimzontearz wrote...

I recall someone asking "what is wrong with having a different main character with each successive game"

Ok, for anyone who played table top rpgs, how many times were you FORCED to change character during a campaign/chronicle (not talking one shot adventures or stories) aside for his/her death? I'm not talking personal choice stemmed from boredom or curiosity I'm talking about "having no other choice but to change character in spite of him/her being still alive and well". Like your DM/ST telling you "yeah sorry sport hand in your CS and make a new one....I want to try something new". Try to pull that with your players...a lot of them will be pissed. Anyway this is not the point.

I'm sure I'll grow attached to my hawke (god that sounded wrong) and whatever companions are thrown at me by Bio...I just hope they will not be throw-aways in between chapters

Point taken. Now, how many times have you let players continue to use the same characters during entirely new campaigns? Let's say you just finished one campaign and are about to start a new adventure path. Do you let your players bring in their level 30 Wizard/Bloodmage/Demigod into the new campaign? Maybe each game is better thought of as a separate campaign than different chapters in the same one?

I mean, I'm sure I'll get attached to my Thrawbink Hawke and will want to keep using him, but if the adventure of my Thrawbink Hawke comes to a satisfying conclusion in this game, that's okay too.

(Edit) E;fb. Twice.

Modifié par Vylan Antagonist, 24 novembre 2010 - 08:27 .

[AlanC9]

the_one_54321 wrote...

AlanC9 wrote...
At the risk of getting the thread locked for even engaging in this kind of thing, there have been plenty of RPGs over
the years which are completely missing one or several of those. So this is a list that an RPG has some of, not all of.

That depends on who you ask, since most folks flat out refuse to accept any plain objective definition of RPG. I'm never going to accept any genre distinctions within video games that aren't entirely based on the mechanics used in the gameplay.

Sure, but we always end up with a grab-bag of mechanics doing different things for apparently different reasons. Maybe there's some underlying quality of "RPGness" that these things contribute to somehow, and we could figure out how and why. Or maybe there is no such quality -- but in that case, is there any such thing as an RPG?

[Maria Caliban]

the_one_54321 wrote...

Please no. Seriously. No more alien sex. Not even the blue sexy women.

Long has man gazed up into the night sky, seen the endless array of the cosmos, and wondered what unknown and unimaginable nookie there was to be found among the stars.

Taking alien sex out of science fiction is like removing FTL travel; you can do it, but you're sucking out a great deal of fun for little benefit.

blothulfur wrote...

No for DA3 I want a suit of armour made from all former companions skulls, and I will laugh as the forumites wail and gnash their teeth at the loss of beloved favourites and thrust out my leliana skull jockstrap and proclaim "eat this".

BioWare companions inspire such diverse and colorful reactions.

Modifié par Maria Caliban, 24 novembre 2010 - 08:41 .

[Vylan Antagonist]

David Gaider wrote...

That might be comparable if Dragon Age were a single campaign or chronicle. It's not. DA2 is a new story. The same may be true for a potential DA3.

Excellent. My bold prediction of Hawke as the the final villain hasn't been rendered impossible yet. The dream yet lives.

[roundcrow]

Maria Caliban wrote...

Long has man gazed up into the night sky, seen the endless array of the cosmos, and wondered what unknown and unimaginable nookie there was to be found among the stars.

LOL

FWIW, I was excited when I heard that the Warden wouldn't be along for the ride this time. I've been looking forward to seeing more of Thedas from someone else's perspective.  I don't think it's a bad thing to change characters in each game if the game world itself stays reasonably consistent, which doesn't seem to be considered important in something like the FF series.  

[edit...

A better tabletop comparison would be a player thinking he should be allowed to keep playing his character even though his game master has started a new campaign and has asked him to roll something new.

This.  Perhaps I game with sadists, but none of my game masters would ever dream of this sort of thing.  It's not really a new campaign if you're not naked in prison at level 1.]

Modifié par roundcrow, 24 novembre 2010 - 08:43 .

[the_one_54321]

AlanC9 wrote...

the_one_54321 wrote...

AlanC9 wrote...
At the risk of getting the thread locked for even engaging in this kind of thing, there have been plenty of RPGs over
the years which are completely missing one or several of those. So this is a list that an RPG has some of, not all of.

That depends on who you ask, since most folks flat out refuse to accept any plain objective definition of RPG. I'm never going to accept any genre distinctions within video games that aren't entirely based on the mechanics used in the gameplay.

Sure, but we always end up with a grab-bag of mechanics doing different things for apparently different reasons. Maybe there's some underlying quality of "RPGness" that these things contribute to somehow, and we could figure out how and why. Or maybe there is no such quality -- but in that case, is there any such thing as an RPG?

My definition is quite simple and completely without the potential for confusion. (there I go say ing "my definition" god I a hate that, definitions are not subjective, people just flat out refuse to be anything but subjective)

If your physical abilities are replaced by the statistics of the character to determine the characters performance, then it is an RPG.

Every other genre of game is defined by identical means with regard to their own mechanics. RPG seems to be the only exception. Oh except that if the game has a good story and character development, suddenly they can choose to apply RPG or not apply RPG as a label as seems most convenient for marketing.

Darth Gaider wrote...
That might be comparable if Dragon Age were a single campaign or chronicle. It's not. DA2 is a new story. The
same may be true for a potential DA3. A better tabletop comparison would be a player thinking he should be allowed to keep playing his character even though his game master has started a new campaign and has asked
him to roll something new.

Also, in films and books we change perspectives how many variable times? Saying "why are we changing main characters?" is ... well it isn't anything except a faceless gripe that you want more of your old character because that's just what you want to have and you want it you want it you want it.

Stories change perspective sometimes. It's unfortunate if that's not what you want from this story, but sometimes that's just how they are written. It doesn't mean they are of less quality.

Modifié par the_one_54321, 24 novembre 2010 - 08:45 .

[bsbcaer]

Addai67 wrote...

That's a factor in new games, certainly.  Not so much in DLCs.  As an aside, I really hope that if they do DLCs at all for the new game, that the quality is better.

As for not having more to be told, as I said, the writer himself says otherwise for certain characters.  Especially given that they like open-ended endings, there is always more that can be told.  It sounds to me like a case of marketing saying "we need new, we need splashy."

An aside to your aside...I really hope that they bypass DLC for at least two GOOD expansion packs.  Or, at the very least, decide to compile and sell the DLC in disk form (as Fallout 3 did with its DLC)

[TTTX]

David Gaider wrote...

crimzontearz wrote...
I recall someone asking "what is wrong with having a different main character with each successive game"

Uh...how to put this?

Ok, for anyone who played table top rpgs, how many times were you FORCED to change character during a campaign/chronicle (not talking one shot adventures or stories) aside for his/her death?

That might be comparable if Dragon Age were a single campaign or chronicle. It's not. DA2 is a new story. The same may be true for a potential DA3. A better tabletop comparison would be a player thinking he should be allowed to keep playing his character even though his game master has started a new campaign and has asked him to roll something new.

David has a point here, but I think the title of Dragon age 2 has been from the start misunderstood (I thought it was all the business with Hawke was a joke BW was making when I first heard about it), since many thought that it was a direct sequel to Origins but in reality DA2 is a new chapter in the land of Thedas.

[Maria Caliban]

They should pull a Witcher and have companions die due to decisions you made ten hours ago.

[bsbcaer]

crimzontearz wrote...

I recall someone asking "what is wrong with having a different main character with each successive game"

Uh...how to put this?

Ok, for anyone who played table top rpgs, how many times were you FORCED to change character during a campaign/chronicle (not talking one shot adventures or stories) aside for his/her death? I'm not talking personal choice stemmed from boredom or curiosity I'm talking about "having no other choice but to change character in spite of him/her being still alive and well". Like your DM/ST telling you "yeah sorry sport hand in your CS and make a new one....I want to try something new". Try to pull that with your players...a lot of them will be pissed. Anyway this is not the point.

I'm sure I'll grow attached to my hawke (god that sounded wrong) and whatever companions are thrown at me by Bio...I just hope they will not be throw-aways in between chapters

I think a beter analogy might be with TV series.  How often do you have the main arc for one episode focus on one group of the cast, while a sub arc with another happens at the same time?  If you think of it as THEDAS: The Series; you have one plot going on with the Warden, while somewhat contemporanously, you have another plot with Hawke...Personally, Im interested in seeing how and where this plot goes, but I (personally) never really saw the Warden as a character that could drive a series of games

[crimzontearz]

Ok sorry guys it is hard for ne tot ype from work on my smartphone (yes I'm being a naughty naughty boy)



Perhaps, David, your comparison falls a little flat to me because in both my groups of Dark Ages Vampire and AD&D the decision to move on to a whole new story with a whole new cast was always a shared one between me (the DM/ST) and the rest of the players since, after all, it is not only MY story it is theirs too. Perhaps (most likely) this is different with videogame-form RPGs but that is not the point



My point is, as I said before, that I hope plotline deaths will not be as common. And the point of the thread was to let people voice their opinions on the matter.



Oh and...any news on NG+ David? LOL sorry NG+ is to me what PC gameplay is to Brocklolly

[schalafi]

[quote]David Gaider wrote...

[quote]Lord_Valandil wrote...
Well, in my humble opinion, Mr. Gaider...Letting the dead Wardens to continue their stories in Awakening kind of screwed up the continuity.[/quote]

And, to be frank, the situation with Awakening had nothing to do with continuity or our desire (or lack thereof) to preserve it. It's not something we decided to implement in that fashion-- and that's a fact of game development, in that what's best for the story isn't always going to be what we can do. That's not something a writer can plan for, obviously, but there it is... and the most heartfelt forum posts in the world aren't going to change that.

[quote]But knowing that the Dragon Age franchise will continue to grow (hopefully, I really hope for a DA3 in the future), I guess it would be nice to continue the story, even if we don't have the control of the same character.
I mean...not bringing back from the dead a character that's...well, dead. Or that sort of stuff...
But I have complete faith in you guys.[/quote]

[quote]And of course we will continue the story. Occasionally we do run into situations where something we did earlier (like killing off a character) makes it incredibly inconvenient down the road. Even faced with that, I still wouldn't sacrifice that earlier moment just to leave my options open later on. There's no guarantee that later will come, after all. And while I recognize that some fans will have a stricter view on continuity even then we will, that doesn't mean we don't think about it or will treat it as inconsequential... it simply means we don't have a problem making an end-run around it when it serves our needs.[/quote]I don't like members of my party dying just to enhance a story, or further a plot. If I have been with them throughout the game, It's like losing a friend and not being able to do anything to change it... ever.

Modifié par schalafi, 24 novembre 2010 - 09:55 .

[the_one_54321]

Please no random character resurrections. Please please please. It more often ruins story lines than works for them. It's like fighting cancer and winning. Sure, it can be done, but who actually wants to try?

[David Gaider]

crimzontearz wrote...
Perhaps, David, your comparison falls a little flat to me because in both my groups of Dark Ages Vampire and AD&D the decision to move on to a whole new story with a whole new cast was always a shared one between me (the DM/ST) and the rest of the players since, after all, it is not only MY story it is theirs too. Perhaps (most likely) this is different with videogame-form RPGs but that is not the point

Hey, I'm not the one who brought up the tabletop comparison.

Obviously we have more than six players to craft a story for, therefore any element of personal consultation is out of the question. We are moving onto a new campaign. If you don't want to play, that's entirely up to you-- just leave the damned Doritos, okay? And the Mountain Dew.

My point is, as I said before, that I hope plotline deaths will not be as common. And the point of the thread was to let people voice their opinions on the matter.

Sure, but if someone makes silly analogies that doesn't mean they can't be called on it. There's a point, after all, at which expecting a videogame to have something in common with the tabletop RPG you have going with your friends begins to break down.

Oh and...any news on NG+ David? LOL sorry NG+ is to me what PC gameplay is to Brocklolly

And the amount of my personal interest in either of those issues would cause the universe to implode if it became any less. Yet you people keep asking me about them. Clearly you are nihilists.