406 réponses à ce sujet

[the_one_54321]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...
What?  Clearly I'm not.  That doesn't make any sense at all.

You certainly seem to object pretty loudly to the notion of the game not allowing you to interpret your character as feely as you used to.

[Altima Darkspells]

In Exile wrote...

No silent VO RPG has even remotely made room for the sarcastic extrovert.

Vampire the Masquerade: Bloodlines disagrees.  The Malkavian is about as snarky and sarcastic as any character, ever.  Helps if you play her on your second run through the game.

[In Exile]

Altima Darkspells wrote...

Vampire the Masquerade: Bloodlines disagrees.  The Malkavian is about as snarky and sarcastic as any character, ever.  Helps if you play her on your second run through the game.

The Malkavian is nuts half the time. Hilarious, but not the kind of hilarious I was going for.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Dhiro wrote...

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

First, I don't think RPGs are video games.

Why? :<

Look at chess.  Chess is a challenge for the player, and there's a clear objective.  Chess has winning conditions.

This isn't unlike the environment that is placed before the characters in an RPG, but it bears very little resemblance to the situation the player of an RPG finds himself in.

An RPG is more like you directing a chess player to play a certain way.  Chess still has winning conditions - an explicit objective for the chess player - but you aren't the chess player.  Your objectives are different.  You could want your chess player to play in a way to stymie his opponents' advances without ever seeking victory himself.  You could want your chess player to irrationally avoid ever moving his rooks.  Your winning conditions as the RPG player rest in your adherence to these goals you invented for your chess player.  So your chess player might lose game after game, or he might win, or he might frustratingly play to draws - but his performance relative to the winning conditions of his game has nothing to do with your performance relative to your own, self-imposed, winning conditions.

Video games, like most games, provide winning conditions to the player.  They're designed as challenges for the player, and the player can succeed or fail.  But RPGs don't do that.  They provide an environment in which the player can establish his own winning conditions, and whether he succeeds in reaching them is entirely up to him.

I am not calling for a sandbox, here.  A sandbox RPG is simply one that doesn't establish fixed winning conditions for the characters.  RPGs can establish very rigid winning conditions for the characters, like in my chess example above, but the success of the characters in reaching those winning conditions only matters to the player's objectives if he decided it was so.

[the_one_54321]

If you believe that video games are definitively not RPGs, then why do you want to be able to role play in them?

[tmp7704]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Video games, like most games, provide winning conditions to the player.  They're designed as challenges for the player, and the player can succeed or fail.  But RPGs don't do that.  They provide an environment in which the player can establish his own winning conditions, and whether he succeeds in reaching them is entirely up to him.

RPGs do typically provide you with a "campaign" that's a set of objectives the player has to fullfill in order to "win" the game.

[JrayM16]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Dhiro wrote...

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

First, I don't think RPGs are video games.

Why? :<

Look at chess.  Chess is a challenge for the player, and there's a clear objective.  Chess has winning conditions.

This isn't unlike the environment that is placed before the characters in an RPG, but it bears very little resemblance to the situation the player of an RPG finds himself in.

An RPG is more like you directing a chess player to play a certain way.  Chess still has winning conditions - an explicit objective for the chess player - but you aren't the chess player.  Your objectives are different.  You could want your chess player to play in a way to stymie his opponents' advances without ever seeking victory himself.  You could want your chess player to irrationally avoid ever moving his rooks.  Your winning conditions as the RPG player rest in your adherence to these goals you invented for your chess player.  So your chess player might lose game after game, or he might win, or he might frustratingly play to draws - but his performance relative to the winning conditions of his game has nothing to do with your performance relative to your own, self-imposed, winning conditions.

Video games, like most games, provide winning conditions to the player.  They're designed as challenges for the player, and the player can succeed or fail.  But RPGs don't do that.  They provide an environment in which the player can establish his own winning conditions, and whether he succeeds in reaching them is entirely up to him.

I am not calling for a sandbox, here.  A sandbox RPG is simply one that doesn't establish fixed winning conditions for the characters.  RPGs can establish very rigid winning conditions for the characters, like in my chess example above, but the success of the characters in reaching those winning conditions only matters to the player's objectives if he decided it was so.

But wouldn't these player-defined goals be winning conditions of sorts?  And since when are explicit winning conditions a defining aspect of videogames?

Modifié par JrayM16, 31 janvier 2011 - 09:54 .

[The Gentle Ben]

Sylvius doesn't really want to "play" the game or navigate its content. He wants to create an experience somewhere within the game's narrative and parameters. I doubt he cares for the analogy, but he wants to write fan-fiction inside someone else's book, while others are content to read it.

[the_one_54321]

JrayM16 wrote...
But wouldn't these player-defined goals be winning conditions of sorts?  And since when are explicit winning conditions a defining aspect of videogames?

It's something of a defining aspect for all games, actually. Arguably, an activity without a winning condition is just that: an activity. It's all very loose, however.

[Wompoo]

Depends on the story or type of game I guess, but I enjoy a voiced protagonist moreso then a silent one. Then again I really enjoyed the old Thief 1 and 2 games and the way Garrett would tell the story. There has been many many times however in rpgs when I really wanted to hear my PC and couldn't... consequently they always seemed to be lacking something, emotion/drama. With more cinematic story telling, I think it is a must have.

[Dhiro]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Dhiro wrote...

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

First, I don't think RPGs are video games.

Why? :<

Look at chess.  Chess is a challenge for the player, and there's a clear objective.  Chess has winning conditions.

This isn't unlike the environment that is placed before the characters in an RPG, but it bears very little resemblance to the situation the player of an RPG finds himself in.

An RPG is more like you directing a chess player to play a certain way.  Chess still has winning conditions - an explicit objective for the chess player - but you aren't the chess player.  Your objectives are different.  You could want your chess player to play in a way to stymie his opponents' advances without ever seeking victory himself.  You could want your chess player to irrationally avoid ever moving his rooks.  Your winning conditions as the RPG player rest in your adherence to these goals you invented for your chess player.  So your chess player might lose game after game, or he might win, or he might frustratingly play to draws - but his performance relative to the winning conditions of his game has nothing to do with your performance relative to your own, self-imposed, winning conditions.

Video games, like most games, provide winning conditions to the player.  They're designed as challenges for the player, and the player can succeed or fail.  But RPGs don't do that.  They provide an environment in which the player can establish his own winning conditions, and whether he succeeds in reaching them is entirely up to him.

I am not calling for a sandbox, here.  A sandbox RPG is simply one that doesn't establish fixed winning conditions for the characters.  RPGs can establish very rigid winning conditions for the characters, like in my chess example above, but the success of the characters in reaching those winning conditions only matters to the player's objectives if he decided it was so.

Ooh, I see. So in the end, the conditions of the 'win' in the RPG is up to the player, right? As in, my character Cora made the Ultimate Sacrifice and Leliana killed herself. Cora losed a lot, but everything was as I planned, so it was a win situation for me. I think I understand what you're trying to say, it's a good point, at the very least :<

[Sylvius the Mad]

the_one_54321 wrote...

If you believe that video games are definitively not RPGs, then why do you want to be able to role play in them?

I don't.  That I want to roleplay is why I object to CRPGs being made to resemble video games.

Are you assuming that all CRPGs are video games?

[Sylvius the Mad]

the_one_54321 wrote...

It's something of a defining aspect for all games, actually. Arguably, an activity without a winning condition is just that: an activity. It's all very loose, however.

Roleplaying is, I think, better described as an activity rather than gameplay.

NErWOnek wrote...

maybe there will be an option to "disable character voiceovers" and You'll only have subtitles ?

We've been explicitly told that we're not getting that.

[JrayM16]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

the_one_54321 wrote...

If you believe that video games are definitively not RPGs, then why do you want to be able to role play in them?

I don't.  That I want to roleplay is why I object to CRPGs being made to resemble video games.

Are you assuming that all CRPGs are video games?

What are some CRPGs that are definetely not videogames?

[GreenSoda]

One blank opening statement with no further arguing his own point -OP is simply trolling.



Next he will proclaim that DA needs multiplayer to go with the times.

[JrayM16]

GreenSoda wrote...

One blank opening statement with no further arguing his own point -OP is simply trolling.

Next he will proclaim that DA needs multiplayer to go with the times.

While the OP is clearly trolling I think it's still a valid discussion.

[the_one_54321]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...
I don't.  That I want to roleplay is why I object to CRPGs being made to resemble video games.

Sylvius the Mad wrote...
Roleplaying is, I think, better described as an activity rather than gameplay.

I think you are mistaken in your assertion that CRPGs are not video games. I think you are mistaken in your assertion that role playing is strictly an activity. In many ways it is just an activity, but when role playing you are very often, almost exclusively in fact, encouraged to either develop a goal or to persue a presented goal. It's called a role playing game because there are specific aspects of the activity that make it also a game. You don't have to role play that way if you don't wish to but to expect to see common corolations between role playing without the game part in CRPG and a lack of the aspects that make it a game and not just an activity is asking for something has never really been offered. I think perhaps what you want to be playing is darn near The Sims. Or at least I would think that if you didn't also want to be prompted for motivations in character and plot development. I think your desires are fairly contradictory.

Furthermore I would assert that all RPGs are in fact video games and that your objection to such is a mistake and simply a projection of your desire to see specific gameplay in those video games.

Modifié par the_one_54321, 31 janvier 2011 - 11:05 .

[Sylvius the Mad]

JrayM16 wrote...

What are some CRPGs that are definetely not videogames?

All of them.  I think the categories are mutually exclusive.

[MKDAWUSS]

Faust1979 wrote...

 It's 2011 a mute hero was fine in the 80s and 90s when games and hardware didn't have a lot of power. But it's 2011 now. It's time to leave the mute hero in the past. Games need to grow and change not stay in the past. Dragon Age is one fun game but the mute hero is a relic of the past. 

Anyone remember what happened when Mario got a voice in Super Mario 64? Many fans at the time said his voice sucked and wished the same wouldn't happen to Link in Zelda 64 (now known as The Legend of Zelda: Ocarina of Time). There's legit arguments for and against a voiced PC.

[the_one_54321]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

JrayM16 wrote...
What are some CRPGs that are definetely not videogames?

All of them.  I think the categories are mutually exclusive.

And I believe that you are definitively mistaken. The fact that you are capable of ignoring the presented goal does not imply that the goal does not exist. In this case, the matter is not related to what happens in the game world, it is a matter of how the game is constructed and presetned: completely independant of how things may be played out within the game world.

Well, I guess it's not 100% inpedendant of how it plays out in the game world because the game world is what tells the player what the goal is. But that does not alter the fact that the game is presented as a game: with a goal.

Modifié par the_one_54321, 31 janvier 2011 - 11:26 .

[Sylvius the Mad]

the_one_54321 wrote...

And I believe that you are definitively mistaken. The fact that you are capable of ignoring the presented goal does not imply that the goal does not exist. In this case, the matter is not related to what happens in the game world, it is a matter of how the game is constructed and presetned: completely independant of how things may be played out within the game world.

Well, I guess it's not 100% inpedendant of how it plays out in the game world because the game world is what tells the player what the goal is. But that does not alter the fact that the game is presented as a game: with a goal.

You jumped a level of reality there.

The in-game goal definitely exists, but it's a goal for the character, not for the player.

[the_one_54321]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...
You jumped a level of reality there.

The in-game goal definitely exists, but it's a goal for the character, not for the player.

No, that is exactly what I was trying to point out: the game presents you the player with a goal, not the character. The game world presents the character with a goal as a means of informing the player what his/her goal is.

CRPGs are definitively video games because they have an ending and a specific way(s) to reach that end. The goal exists independant of the game world, and is only presented to you via the game world.

Modifié par the_one_54321, 31 janvier 2011 - 11:40 .

[Nighteye2]

Dave of Canada wrote...
So it's my preference that the tone of the line should be written down, as if to remove confusion. I'd honestly consider having no paraphrase and simply a tone icon (sort of similar to Alpha Protocol) to be an improvement over the unvoiced protagonist. Though I'm not the only one who thinks it and I'm hardly the majority who believes this.

Yes, full-text + tone indicator would be the best system, combining both. And then, to avoid the repetition, remove the PC VO. 

[Sylvius the Mad]

the_one_54321 wrote...

The game world presents the character with a goal as a means of informing the player what his/her goal is.

First, I don't even think that's possible without forcing the player to break character.  This was an important part about my complaint regarding the Ilos trench run.

Second, that's an unneecssary restriction.  If I play a Human Noble with rage issues who can't behave sensibly under fire and charges to his death minutes after Howe's Attack on Castle Cousland, what's wrong with that?  Didn't I just roleplay a very short career?

[the_one_54321]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...
First, I don't even think that's possible without forcing the player to break character.  This was an important part about my complaint regarding the Ilos trench run.

Second, that's an unneecssary restriction.  If I play a Human Noble with rage issues who can't behave sensibly under fire and charges to his death minutes after Howe's Attack on Castle Cousland, what's wrong with that?  Didn't I just roleplay a very short career?

The fact that you sometimes choose to ignore the goal of the end game does not imply that the goal does not exist. There is no rule that says you aren't allowed to do that. The goal of the end game still exists.