461 réponses à ce sujet

[Gorlist187]

well actually this is how you could fix the inventory system....

We all know from Me1 that if you got an avenger 1 , then picked up the avenger 2...all of a sudden you have both guns in your inventory....just auto replace the avenger 1 with the avenger 2 if you find it and if you find a vindicator 1,,,,you will still have 2 different guns in your weapon load out to choose from and whenever you find that next better gun...maybe spend some points or something in the armory to upgrade it from 1 to 2 ETC, and be able to find Attachments as well that you can interface with in your ships armory.



Perhaps even have a customised color and design system for weapons like we have with our armor....





and the thermal clip BS is just BS....may as well call them AMMO MAGS i fire 1 round out of 30 that 1 round should cool down enough if im not firing my weapon lol...MAke thermal Clips make more sence if a weapon on full auto will make you deplete a clip in 30 shots, ok eject the clip put new one in...if you are firing rounds faster than your clips can regenerate...it makes sense to just quickly switch out clips....but it makes no sense for it to act like Ammo, i want a hybrid of Mass effect 1 and 2 when it comes to weapon heating and cooling, and not just a glorified name for an ammunition clip.....Like depending on clip size single shot weapons should take like 4 seconds after each shot to regenerate the same clip, or you can just switch out clips and fire when ready



maybe guns that have 12 rounds regen 2 shots per second...or something like that, you all get the idea....





No more DLC WEAPON PACKS!!!! All types of guns should be found somewhere in the game, give us a reason to do some of the irrelevent side missions, On some hidden planet you find a unique weapon or armor piece....and not something you "Out of Game decide to magically have the weapons and armor in your Locker" that doesnt make any sense



LAST BUT NOT LEAST PUT A FRICKIN JUMP BUTTON IN THE GAME

It makes no sense that I can Be so bad ass as a character but when a 4 to 5 foot obsticle is in my way that i have to go all the way around all because its just a Tad too high for me to do that Vault maneuver

[Evil Johnny 666]

Terror_K wrote...

It's simple. What is the one factor that every single game that's come out that's considered to officially be an RPG has? The answer: statistical character progression with multiple ways to build your character statistically with an overall form of progression and a ruleset that determines these things. It's as simple as that. Despite being called an "RPG" the "roleplaying" aspect isn't even necessary, and can be pushed well into the background. Games like ADOM have pretty much no roleplaying and no choices and sometimes even no real storyline beyond a bunch of quests and things to kill. This may not be the definition some people like and it may not be what most people like about RPGs, and it may even be misrepresentation to a degree, but that's the way it is.

Exactly. You shoot in all shooters, you drive in all driving games and you beat up people in all fighting games. You have character progression in every damn RPG, which the same can't be said about other elements other people judge as essential. There's essential elements, and there's important ones. There's elements that makes the basis, and there's others that deepen things, like dialogue, choice/freedom and customization. They are all important elements of the genre, but they don't make an RPG. Otherwise Far Cry 2, Skate, Grand Turismo and plenty other games would be RPGs.

[Destroy Raiden_]

I vote RPG for 3.

[wizardryforever]

Evil Johnny 666 wrote...

Terror_K wrote...

It's simple. What is the one factor that every single game that's come out that's considered to officially be an RPG has? The answer: statistical character progression with multiple ways to build your character statistically with an overall form of progression and a ruleset that determines these things. It's as simple as that. Despite being called an "RPG" the "roleplaying" aspect isn't even necessary, and can be pushed well into the background. Games like ADOM have pretty much no roleplaying and no choices and sometimes even no real storyline beyond a bunch of quests and things to kill. This may not be the definition some people like and it may not be what most people like about RPGs, and it may even be misrepresentation to a degree, but that's the way it is.

Exactly. You shoot in all shooters, you drive in all driving games and you beat up people in all fighting games. You have character progression in every damn RPG, which the same can't be said about other elements other people judge as essential. There's essential elements, and there's important ones. There's elements that makes the basis, and there's others that deepen things, like dialogue, choice/freedom and customization. They are all important elements of the genre, but they don't make an RPG. Otherwise Far Cry 2, Skate, Grand Turismo and plenty other games would be RPGs.

Even if this is completely true (I have my doubts), then ME2 still counts as an RPG, or was that your whole point?  ME2 has plenty of stat-based progression, it just isn't as complicated and time-consuming as in certain other RPGs.  The whole point of the character builds forums is because there are plenty of ways to customize character stats.  ME1 and ME2 are hybrids of RPG and shooter, with the two components working together rather than competing.

[Evil Johnny 666]

I have stated several times ME2 is an RPG, just a very basic one. Even the stats of ME2 are... anti-RPG in a way, as they're more about earning weapon ammo types and such than real character abilities. Basically, I think ME2 is almost a glorified shooter (with a mediocre TPS foundation) with limited stats and a dialogue system. Really, there's not much more to it.

[Il Divo]

Gatt9 wrote...

Here's your problem.

Define taking on a Role.  In Super Mario Bros I play the "Role" of a plumber by your definition,  therefore it's a RPG.  In Saint's Row,  I play the "Role" of a gangster,  and therefore it's an RPG.  In Doom,  I'm a Space Marine,  so Doom's an RPG too.

Taking on a role: the ability to involve myself to a degree in how I create a character whether through personality, abilities, decisions with consequences, etc while participating in an interactive story with that character.

The problem is that you've misinterpreted the definition. Although every video game involves 'taking on a role', every video game is still not a role-playing game. This stems from the lack of any choice, freedom, or the ability to alter my character's personality in any reasonable fashion. I am not the gangster when I play Saint's Row. Neither am I the space marine. My 'role-playing' begins and ends with combat, hence why it's not role-playing.

DnD has always involved player-Dm-player interaction, which is something Jrpgs and many video games under your definition lack. So if we are going to reference DnD/Pnp in deciding the definition of RPG, it is equally necessary to rely on these aspects as well.

 
It's not sufficient to say "I'm taking on a Role".  You have to define the Role you are taking on.  It's also insufficient to say "Because I'm having conversations and making choices,  I'm taking on a Role",  because by token of that arguement,  Wing Commander 3 is an RPG.  You had conversations and made choices that affected the outcome. 

But the game was clearly not an RPG by any stretch.

Super Mario 'RPG' was a game that clearly incorporated turn-based combat and statistics, yet the idea that it resembled the spirit of PnP's in any sense is also a stretch.  

So you have to define what encompasses taking on the Role.  To do so,  you have to establish the bounds of your character,  and what he can and cannot do.  To establish those bounds,  the game requires a basis of defining this character.  The *only* means to do so is through stat based character bounds.  Pretending in your head that this is your character doesn't make it an RPG,  pretending your character is allergic to pistols doesn't make it so,  because tomorrow your character can pick up a pistol without issue.  Only through stat based established bounds can your character be a Role,  it is the only way for those bounds to hold true.

 Taking a role begins and ends with choice, that is all. Where is this correlation between 'role-playing' and numbers? Statistics are simply a gameplay mechanic, as every world is governed by rules. But that is all. Statistics are not the only method in existence of defining how a character functions.

That is how you define a Role,  and why stat based characters are the fundamental basis for an RPG.  Because other than that,  it's just pretending,  and suddenly every game is an RPG by virtue of pretending.  Suddenly,  Super Mario Bros is an RPG because I'm pretending I'm a plumber.

...And yes,  I'm pretty sure it's people who need educating. 

And this is why your definition fails at making any kind of useful distinction in why we should define RPG as you've described. In defining an RPG by stats, you've essentially diluted it of what the DnD experience entails. The DnD game, as it is played, is more than just rolling d20s and writing down numbers.

If someone were to ask for the definition of an apple, I cannot do justice to what an apple is by simply pointing to a picture of an apple and saying "this". This is why your technical definition does not help us. DnD has typically involved stats, DnD has also typically involved an interactive story, dialogue, many other elements, the same elements which you now find in your average CRPG. And notice which feature it is that continues to persevere; where stats make their way back and forth depending on the game, every Bioware game has embraced dialogue/choice as a feature.

The JRPG is the perfect negation of your definition. It is an RPG in how you've defined it, yet bears little to no resemblance to DnD as it is played. In the JRPG, I am not Tidus, Yuna, etc. I make them kill people, then I put my controller down and watch them do things that I have absolutely no control over. In DnD, there is rarely (if ever) an 'off' button on role-play. I do not stop being my character until role-play is over. In the examples you've listed above, Mario, Doom, etc. None of them are role-playing games because your role as the character begins and ends with combat. I have no voice in how or why Mario goes about doing what he does any more than I may affect Sora's personality in Kingdom Hearts, for all its statistical based combat.

Modifié par Il Divo, 18 février 2011 - 12:50 .

[Lumikki]

Terror_K wrote...

The answer: statistical character progression with multiple ways to build your character statistically with an overall form of progression and a ruleset that determines these things.

Not really. There is no need to game be statical or have progression to be RPG. How ever, you main point is right, it's about ability play role with different kind of characters. Problem you defination is that you don't just say what  the RPG defination is, but you also say how it has to be done. Example build or choose character, you can still roleplaying in both. What progression has to do with role-playing? You can role-play without progression too. Just because you don't advance anywhere doesn't limit players ability role-play. Sure, it's more fun to advance, but that's not what defines role-playing in games. Every game reward players some ways, but rewards doesn't define genre. Point is to leave defination as open as possible so that it doesn't lock the technical design of the game it self to have something what isn't really needed for make it RPG, because there could be other design possibilities. Example you go in four hour LARP session, you don't need to advance anywhere to have fun with the character roles people are role-playing. It's the difference what is "heart" of RPG as what defines RPG from other genre and how you see it's most the time done in games. If you define RPG how it's done most the time or what you self like, you can lock all other possibilities how it could be done out too. So, keep the definition as wide as possible, like it's base only.

Modifié par Lumikki, 18 février 2011 - 04:12 .

[Evil Johnny 666]

Lumikki wrote...

Terror_K wrote...

The answer: statistical character progression with multiple ways to build your character statistically with an overall form of progression and a ruleset that determines these things.

Not really. There is no need to game be statical or have progression to be RPG. How ever, you main point is right, it's about ability play role with different kind of characters. Problem you defination is that you don't just say what  the RPG defination is, but you also say how it has to be done. Example build or choose character, you can still roleplaying in both. What progression has to do with role-playing? You can role-play without progression too. Just because you don't advance anywhere doesn't limit players ability role-play. Sure, it's more fun to advance, but that's not what defines role-playing in games. Every game reward players some ways, but rewards doesn't define genre. Point is to leave defination as open as possible so that it doesn't lock the technical design of the game it self to have something what isn't really needed for make it RPG, because there could be other design possibilities. Example you go in four hour LARP session, you don't need to advance anywhere to have fun with the character roles people are role-playing. It's the difference what is "heart" of RPG as what defines RPG from other genre and how you see it's most the time done in games. If you define RPG how it's done most the time or what you self like, you can lock all other possibilities how it could be done out too. So, keep the definition as wide as possible, like it's base only.

Progression isn't a reward per se, it's a mechanic. Progression certainly has something to do with role-playing, it deepens your role over time. When you start Morrowind for example, you don't start particularly specialized, you start as someone with very broad skills in a certain group of skills, but as time advances you define much more your abilities and skillset. Basically, progression is a format adaptation. It's what every RPG inherited by becoming a videogame, so it's something that has been part of video game RPGs since its inception, thus something essential. After more than 20 years of existence, you can't take out an element and say it's not essential since it wasn't as important in what influenced the genre (namely table top RPGs); it's a mechanic that has always been there and defined the genre since forever. So progression is something video games RPGs adopted since the media could allow it much more easily than tabletops or LARPs. It was like: "hey, let's use this opportunity to refine the genre in this new medium!" and was kept ever since, hey, why make things simpler if you could play a tabletop or LARP instead? Probably one of the reasons progression is so important in vg RPGs and was always kept. But truth is, video game RPGs and tabletops aren't the same thing. It's like saying biking is the same thing as playing a biking video game, it isn't as there's fundemental differences.

EDIT: And the point of cRPGs wasn't to mimmick tabletop RPGs or LARPs for the computer, as the whole social aspect is difficult to recreate for example. Add there that cRPG's advantage is being able to play alone, and it's even more obvious there's big differences between vg RPGs and table tops/LARPs. It was just to offer a different twist on the genre, character progression being probably the most important one. Since they were mostly single player experiences, character progression is something that made them worthwhile.

Modifié par Evil Johnny 666, 18 février 2011 - 11:30 .

[Terror_K]

Evil Johnny already responded to you pretty well, but I'm going to as well.

Lumikki wrote...

Not really. There is no need to game be statical or have progression to be RPG.

Yes there is. Every RPG has this. Take it away, and it's not an RPG any more.

How ever, you main point is right, it's about ability play role with different kind of characters. Problem you defination is that you don't just say what  the RPG defination is, but you also say how it has to be done. Example build or choose character, you can still roleplaying in both. What progression has to do with role-playing? You can role-play without progression too.

You can "roleplay" in almost every game out there. In Halo you can roleplay as Master Chief, but it's not an RPG, it's a shooter. In Arkham Asylum you can roleplay as Batman, but it's not an RPG, it's an action-game. In Saints Row 2 you can roleplay as pretty much whatever character you want to craft, but it's not an RPG, it's an open-world action game. The list goes on. The ability to "roleplay" does not an RPG make.

Just because you don't advance anywhere doesn't limit players ability role-play. Sure, it's more fun to advance, but that's not what defines role-playing in games.

No, it's not what defines roleplaying in games. It is, however, what defines a roleplaying game, i.e. an RPG.

Every game reward players some ways, but rewards doesn't define genre. Point is to leave defination as open as possible so that it doesn't lock the technical design of the game it self to have something what isn't really needed for make it RPG, because there could be other design possibilities. Example you go in four hour LARP session, you don't need to advance anywhere to have fun with the character roles people are role-playing. It's the difference what is "heart" of RPG as what defines RPG from other genre and how you see it's most the time done in games.

Roleplaying in real life is not the same as roleplaying in a cRPG though. Again, most games these days have you roleplaying to some degree, but they aren't all RPGs. Similarly, there are RPGs out there like ADOM where you can barely roleplay at all, and it's pretty much just a bunch of dungeon crawls and killing things and getting better and finding stuff. You play an @ on an ASCII gamemap and there's no dialogue, no choices and no chance to craft a personality at all, yet it's an RPG.

If you define RPG how it's done most the time or what you self like, you can lock all other possibilities how it could be done out too. So, keep the definition as wide as possible, like it's base only.

No, you are actually the one defining the RPG by what you like. I'm defining it not by how an RPG is "done most of the time" but how it is done every time. That's what a definition is: a common factor that is indicative of the meaning of a thing in all cases. You can't define a cRPG by "roleplaying" when it's not always there, and plenty of things that do have it aren't classed as an RPG, but you can by statistical progresion when it's commonplace in all games considered cRPGs. It's like saying the factor that defines a car is that it has four wheels, despite the fact that things like trolleys, skateboards and even desks can have four wheels, yet aren't a car, and the fact that there are things like the Robin Reliant that is a car and only has three wheels.

[Il Divo]

Terror_K wrote...

You can "roleplay" in almost every game out there. In Halo you can roleplay as Master Chief, but it's not an RPG, it's a shooter. In Arkham Asylum you can roleplay as Batman, but it's not an RPG, it's an action-game. In Saints Row 2 you can roleplay as pretty much whatever character you want to craft, but it's not an RPG, it's an open-world action game. The list goes on. The ability to "roleplay" does not an RPG make.

No you can't. In Halo, you are simply guiding Master Chief as he kills Covenant. That is all. In cut-scenes, you are the passive observer. 'Role-playing' is as much defined by the world itself reacting to your actions in some definitive fashion. In cut scenes, I put down my controller because I am not Master Chief. I am simply an observer. The ability to decide that Master Chief is now a grenade-maniac does not suddenly put the character in the player's control.

That is what sets all the games you listed apart from RPGs. In Kotor, aside from the opening crawl, you are always in control of your character every step of the way.

[Grand_Commander13]

What Terror_K did was attack a strawman argument. There are fools who insist that you can roleplay a character in games like Half-Life 2 or Morrowind, despite the game doing nothing to recognize the antics you impose on the story within the confines of your own mind.

No choice means no RPG. No stats, however? Tell me which is more of an RPG? Deus Ex: Invisible War or Diablo 2? Mmmmmmmm hmmmmmmmmmm.

[Lumikki]

I can see that we have come the disagreement what actually defines the split of this community as what RPG is.

Terror_K. You defination as what RPG is only fits sertain type of computer role-playing games. While my defination fits also in all role-playing games, even the real lifes ones, like LARP. Character progression is nice in RPG and I like it too, but it's not requirement for RPG. You can create character progression even in adventure and shooter or strategy game, but still it doesn't make them RPG. Only real thing what defines RPG is players ability play role with different kind of characters in same game. If you can play role with only one character as unable to play any other kind of character, it's often called adventure game. Example you play thief in some game and are unable adjust any abilities of that character, even with progress of those pre-define "skills", that game would not be consider as RPG. Because you can't shape you character at all or choose different kind of character, it's pre-define and player had no other choises that role-play, if player wants, only that one character.

Think about it, how does progression make game RPG if you can put it to adventure or shooter game too and still it doens't make them to RPG. What "feature" really change the genre to RPG if you add it to game.

Modifié par Lumikki, 19 février 2011 - 02:42 .

[Terror_K]

Il Divo wrote...

No you can't. In Halo, you are simply guiding Master Chief as he kills Covenant. That is all. In cut-scenes, you are the passive observer. 'Role-playing' is as much defined by the world itself reacting to your actions in some definitive fashion. In cut scenes, I put down my controller because I am not Master Chief. I am simply an observer. The ability to decide that Master Chief is now a grenade-maniac does not suddenly put the character in the player's control.

That is what sets all the games you listed apart from RPGs. In Kotor, aside from the opening crawl, you are always in control of your character every step of the way.

So I suppose Final Fantasy XIII isn't an RPG then since it constantly has your character(s) in cutscenes where you have no control of things? There are cutscenes that look like they should be boss-battles, but it all unfolds around you with no input. As much as I dislike FF XIII, it's still an RPG.

And what of other non-RPG's that let you fully control your character and even give you multiple choices? Heavy Rain is a standout modern example of this, and Cinemaware's old titles are a classic examples of early examples. Point'n'click adventure games have also exhibited this.

Again, RPGs are not actually defined by roleplaying, despite the name. There are plenty of RPGs with next to none of it and plenty of non-RPGs with loads of it.

Lumikki wrote...

Terror_K. You defination as what RPG is only fits sertain type of computer role-playing games.

No, it fits all computer RPGs. Not some, not even just most. All.

While my defination fits also in all role-playing games, even the real lifes ones, like LARP.

Aside from the fact that cRPGs are actually a different beast than real life ones and P&P ones, no it doesn't. I've already proven this dozens of times by listing several games that fit your definition but aren't RPGs, and have never been considered as such. Or are you just ignoring this? You can't just say "an RPG is defined by roleplaying" when there are several examples where that's not the case at all.

Character progression is nice in RPG and I like it too, but it's not requirement for RPG.

Again, except that I've proven that it is. Which you continuously and frustratingly seem to ignore, as usual, just like in the Paragon/Renegade roleplaying restriction cases. Things aren't just the way you say they are just because you say they are, particuarly when others bring up constant examples of you being wrong.

You can create character progression even in adventure and shooter game, but still it doesn't make them RPG. Only real thing what defines RPG is players ability play roles with different kind of characters in RPG.

But you need a statistical model and ruleset to have that. A character is defined by their abilties as much as they are by their ability to make decisions. And, again, there are plenty of RPGs where the player has no real choice beyond building their character and whether to proceed or not. Diablo 2 was brought up just now, and is a classic example: it's pretty much just about items and building your character. There's no real choice when it comes to quests beyond "do them or not" and the story unfolds exactly the same way no matter what you do. There is dialogue, but no real dialogue choices, since its either simply stuff that progresses the completely linear plot or pipe/history from Deckard Cain.

If
you can play role with only one character as unable to play any other kind of character, it's often called adventure game.

What about The Witcher? In every sense its classed as an RPG, but you're stuck playing Geralt, a set character who can't be altered, and you're only ever one class: Witcher. Most Final Fantasy games have you stuck playing set roles too, who can never really be altered that much. If DA2 ended up narrowing things even more so Hawke could only be a male who looks like default Hawke and could only be a Fighter, would it cease to be an RPG?

Example you play thief in some game and are unable adjust any abilities of that character, even with progress of those pre-define "skills", that game would not be consider as RPG. Because you can't shape you character at all, it's pre-define and player had no other choises that role-play if player want only that one character.

You do realise that you're referring to statistical progression here rather than actual roleplaying, right? The ability to play different classes and build your characters skills is exactly what I was talking about.

Think about it, how does progression make game RPG if you can put it to adventure or shooter game too and still it doens't make them to RPG. What does "feature" really change the genre to RPG if you add it to game.

Other games can have RPG elements, but that doesn't make them an RPG, because one needs to be able to actually build and shape their character and have variety. GTA: San Andreas is a classic example, since you could increase CJ's skills such as driving, biking, swimming, and fat (not a skill I know, but... nonetheless) via activities in the game. It's not an RPG because CJ doesn't gain experience in some manner and doesn't have a vast array of skills you can give him; it's just him getting better as he goes, and there's no real classes for him or different ways to build him.

Modifié par Terror_K, 19 février 2011 - 03:01 .

[Il Divo]

Terror_K wrote...

So I suppose Final Fantasy XIII isn't an RPG then since it constantly has your character(s) in cutscenes where you have no control of things? There are cutscenes that look like they should be boss-battles, but it all unfolds around you with no input. As much as I dislike FF XIII, it's still an RPG.

No, it's not, at least by my definition. What you described is the exact problem. You are simply not the character. In all role-playing games, my character is involved. The story is told in a manner that my input is allowed.

In DnD, what you describe is the equivalent of the DM giving you control over statistical combat, then deciding everything else that happens, including your character's personality, actions, freedom, etc. As we know, this isn't how DnD has traditionally been played.

And what of other non-RPG's that let you fully control your character and even give you multiple choices? Heavy Rain is a standout modern example of this, and Cinemaware's old titles are a classic examples of early examples. Point'n'click adventure games have also exhibited this.

They certainly resemble the DnD spirit more in this regard. In DnD, I am part of an interactive narrative. It is not simply a game where the DM imagines monsters. Interactive narrative, being the key phrase. Heavy Rain is an interactive narrative.

Again, RPGs are not actually defined by roleplaying, despite the name. There are plenty of RPGs with next to none of it and plenty of non-RPGs with loads of it.

And notice that few (if any) by your definition are still around, excluding the Final Fantasy Series. RPGs have come to rely more on the choice/dialogue perspective than on statistics.  

Modifié par Il Divo, 19 février 2011 - 02:39 .

[Terror_K]

Il Divo wrote...

Terror_K wrote...

So I suppose Final Fantasy XIII isn't an RPG then since it constantly has your character(s) in cutscenes where you have no control of things? There are cutscenes that look like they should be boss-battles, but it all unfolds around you with no input. As much as I dislike FF XIII, it's still an RPG.

No, it's not, at least by my definition. What you described is the exact problem. You are simply not the character. In all role-playing games, my character is involved. The story is told in a manner that my input is allowed.

In DnD, what you describe is the equivalent of the DM giving you control over statistical combat, then deciding everything else that happens, including your character's personality, actions, freedom, etc. As we know, this isn't how DnD has traditionally been played.

And in bold here is the key point: too many people here are giving their own definitions of what an RPG is. And that's exactly what I'm trying to point out: the definition you (and others) are giving to RPGs is not the universal, industry standard definition of RPGs. Whether you agree with the definition or not, you have to at least acknowledge that that is the way it is, and that when referring to "RPG" elements that's what is being referred to. Whenever a reviewer or anybody says, "this game has RPG elements" they're not talking about the ability to roleplay in whatever game they're talking about; they're talking about the inclusion of statistical progression elements.

The problem isn't that you (and others) have their own definitions of RPGs that determine what fits the category for you personally. The problem is that you (and others) treat your own definition as if it is the universal industry standard definition, when it's not. You (and others who do the same) can't go around sprouting all these things about something being an RPG or not when you're using a definition that only applies to you. When using a term in an argument or discussion that is the focal point of said discussion everybody must have a common understanding and agreement of said term.

They certainly resemble the DnD spirit more in this regard. In DnD, I am part of an interactive narrative. It is not simply a game where the DM imagines monsters. Interactive narrative, being the key phrase. Heavy Rain is an interactive narrative.

And yet the old SSI AD&D games themselves didn't even have this. They wouldn't therefore fit your definition, but are yet none-the-less still RPGs.

And notice that few (if any) by your definition are still around, excluding the Final Fantasy Series. RPGs have come to rely more on the choice/dialogue perspective than on statistics.  

Yes, the industry is changing. I approve of the greater roleplaying freedom and greater quality of narrative and character in the modern RPG, but I feel that they're pulling too far away from the key elements too. I feel the likes of KotOR and DA:O had the balance about right. I especially loved DA:O because it was the best stuff from old-school RPGs like the SSI AD&D titles and Baldur's Gate, combined with the best aspects of newer, more cinematic titles. Now I feel like BioWare are starting to continue on too much and are starting to pass that great balance they once found before.

Modifié par Terror_K, 19 février 2011 - 03:05 .

[Lumikki]

Terror_K wrote...

Lumikki wrote...

Example you play thief in some game and are unable adjust any abilities of that character, even with progress of those pre-define "skills", that game would not be consider as RPG. Because you can't shape you character at all, it's pre-define and player had no other choises that role-play if player want only that one character.

You do realise that you're referring to statistical progression here rather than actual roleplaying, right? The ability to play different classes and build your characters skills is exactly what I was talking about.

Think about it, how does progression make game RPG if you can put it to adventure or shooter game too and still it doens't make them to RPG. What does "feature" really change the genre to RPG if you add it to game.

Other games can have RPG elements, but that doesn't make them an RPG, because one needs to be able to actually build and shape their character and have variety. GTA: San Andreas is a classic example, since you could increase CJ's skills such as driving, biking, swimming, and fat (not a skill I know, but... nonetheless) via activities in the game. It's not an RPG because CJ doesn't gain experience in some manner and doesn't have a vast array of skills you can give him; it's just him getting better as he goes, and there's no real classes for him or different ways to build him.

Okey, think what you self sayed here. Shape "or choose" character to be different, that's also what I have talked as what define RPG. Character progression may exist most of cRPG's, but that doesn't define what RPG genre is.  You can have game with character progression without ability shape or choose different kind of character, but it isn't RPG.

Modifié par Lumikki, 19 février 2011 - 03:06 .

[Whatever42]

Lumikki wrote...

I can see that we have come the disagreement what actually defines the split of this community as what RPG is.

Terror_K. You defination as what RPG is only fits sertain type of computer role-playing games. While my defination fits also in all role-playing games, even the real lifes ones, like LARP. Character progression is nice in RPG and I like it too, but it's not requirement for RPG. You can create character progression even in adventure and shooter or strategy game, but still it doesn't make them RPG. Only real thing what defines RPG is players ability play role with different kind of characters in same game. If you can play role with only one character as unable to play any other kind of character, it's often called adventure game. Example you play thief in some game and are unable adjust any abilities of that character, even with progress of those pre-define "skills", that game would not be consider as RPG. Because you can't shape you character at all or choose different kind of character, it's pre-define and player had no other choises that role-play, if player wants, only that one character.

Think about it, how does progression make game RPG if you can put it to adventure or shooter game too and still it doens't make them to RPG. What "feature" really change the genre to RPG if you add it to game.

You know, replaying ME2 recently, I have to contest that no-progression idea. In Obilvion, like in ME2, your enemies scale with you. Going back 10 levels later to kill that spider that killed you at level 1 is pointless - it scaled up and is still no pushover. ME2 does the same thing. But as your abilities grow and as you accumulate skill bonouses (which is basically loot), your power does grow considerably.

At the beginning of the game, I had to do a lot of defense stripping with my adept. However, half-way through the game, I singularity/pull, have squadmate warp, follow it with my warp and opponent is dead and everyone near him is flat on their backs with most of their defenses down. My character very certainly progressed.

And I had choices getter there - did I want to do the mission and get the upgrades for defenses first? Did I want to get my biotic upgrades first? How did I want to sync up my abilities with my biotic squadmates?

To say the tactical element of the game is gone is just wrong - there is progression, there is planning. Could it be deeper? Sure, but I'm not sure how that would fit with the shooter mechanics of the game. And it certainly isn't less deep than ME1.

Modifié par Whatever666343431431654324, 19 février 2011 - 03:05 .

[Evil Johnny 666]

Il Divo wrote...

Terror_K wrote...

You can "roleplay" in almost every game out there. In Halo you can roleplay as Master Chief, but it's not an RPG, it's a shooter. In Arkham Asylum you can roleplay as Batman, but it's not an RPG, it's an action-game. In Saints Row 2 you can roleplay as pretty much whatever character you want to craft, but it's not an RPG, it's an open-world action game. The list goes on. The ability to "roleplay" does not an RPG make.

No you can't. In Halo, you are simply guiding Master Chief as he kills Covenant. That is all. In cut-scenes, you are the passive observer. 'Role-playing' is as much defined by the world itself reacting to your actions in some definitive fashion. In cut scenes, I put down my controller because I am not Master Chief. I am simply an observer. The ability to decide that Master Chief is now a grenade-maniac does not suddenly put the character in the player's control.

That is what sets all the games you listed apart from RPGs. In Kotor, aside from the opening crawl, you are always in control of your character every step of the way.

Except in Fable I/II/III, plenty of JRPGs, several Mass Effect 1 and 2 cutscenes (Shepard's death, the Normandy getting in the Omega relay, the IM/Miranda cutscene, the ME2 closing cutscene, the one where the Collectors attack Horizon, Reaper attack on the Citadel, plenty of other little ME1 cutscenes. And you bet there's more WRPGs using such cutscenes. And there ARE cutscenes in both KOTOR games beside the opening one which you do not control your character.

[Evil Johnny 666]

Lumikki wrote...

I can see that we have come the disagreement what actually defines the split of this community as what RPG is.

Terror_K. You defination as what RPG is only fits sertain type of computer role-playing games. While my defination fits also in all role-playing games, even the real lifes ones, like LARP. Character progression is nice in RPG and I like it too, but it's not requirement for RPG. You can create character progression even in adventure and shooter or strategy game, but still it doesn't make them RPG. Only real thing what defines RPG is players ability play role with different kind of characters in same game. If you can play role with only one character as unable to play any other kind of character, it's often called adventure game. Example you play thief in some game and are unable adjust any abilities of that character, even with progress of those pre-define "skills", that game would not be consider as RPG. Because you can't shape you character at all or choose different kind of character, it's pre-define and player had no other choises that role-play, if player wants, only that one character.

Think about it, how does progression make game RPG if you can put it to adventure or shooter game too and still it doens't make them to RPG. What "feature" really change the genre to RPG if you add it to game.

I already explained this right before this post, look it up. Video game RPGs and tabletop/LARPs are NOT the same thing. If they were, there wouldn't be much point to video game ones. RPGs transited to video games because they offered more than what traditional RPGs could do, and that is why you can't use one all-englobing definition. Tabletops and LARPs are not exactly the same thing either, as both enables you to do different things, and those are the reasons why there exist different ways to RPG. Traditional RPGs aren't single player experiences, thus you can't compare. One of the biggest resons RPGs transited to video games is exactly this, the possibility to play alone very easily and make your character progress also much more easily, that's the reason there was character progression from the get go, because it was one of the appeal of transiting RPGs to video games in the first place. You can't compare two things on different mediums. Yes cRPGs came from tabletops and LARPs, but it's not because they were influenced by something that they are the same thing as the influence, like I said. Again, I went into this in detail before. You basically restated what you already said instead of attending the points I made about it.

[Lumikki]

To define RPG you need to do it so that you don't close out other RPG options what could possible exist in RPG, just because defination of RPG. Do, you understand this? Meaning you don't say someting has to be color Red, you say there has to be color, if only color has the meaning, not exactly what color it is.

You people base you defination of RPG based how you know the RPG is, not as what it also can be. Meaning just because something hasn't been done yet, doesn't mean it cant' exist in RPG. So, you have go the more abstract defination as base what RPG is without going to exact details how it's done now days. Leave the how it will be arrived open, just define what is minimal what it needs to have.

If I say, player has to shape character, does it mean same situations can't be arrived by player choose the character. I mean if you can shape 64 different character, then choosing from 64 different character is same. So, I don't say any of these, I say player has to have ability play with different kind fo characters. It doesn't define how this choise or shaping is done, because we have no possibility way know what other ways there is to arrive same result.

PS: Video game RPGs and tabletop RPG/LARPs are NOT the same thing, but when we talk as RPG, they are all role-playing games (RPG). Don't define hole RPG genre based your idea as what traditional CRPG is.

Modifié par Lumikki, 19 février 2011 - 05:29 .

[Evil Johnny 666]

Lumikki wrote...

To define RPG you need to do it so that you don't close out other RPG options what could possible exist in RPG, just because defination of RPG. Do, you understand this? Meaning you don't say someting has to be color Red, you say there has to be color, if only color has the meaning, not exactly what color it is.

You'd have to rephrase that.

You people base you defination of RPG based how you know the RPG is, not as what it also can be. Meaning just because something hasn't been done yet, doesn't mean it cant' exist in RPG. So, you have go the more abstract defination as base what RPG is without going to exact details how it's done now days. Leave the how it will be arrived open, just define what is minimal what it needs to have.

There's is a difference between adding something, and taking off something. The former was never in question. But you can't take out something that always has been present in the genre, and still claim it's from that genre. Particularly if there's nothing else that unites the genre as much as this element. You can't deny that character progression is what all RPGs have the most in common.

If I say, player has to shape character, does it mean same situations can't be arrived by player choose the character. I mean if you can shape 64 different character, then choosing from 64 different character is same. So, I don't say any of these, I say player has to have ability play with different kind fo characters. It doesn't define how this choise or shaping is done, because we have no possibility way know what other ways there is to arrive same result.

It's not the same thing at all. It's not the end result that counts, but HOW you got there. You don't play a game solely for the ending, but the experience of playing it. I'm pretty sure you don't judge the quality of the game by the end result, but by if the whole experience, going from point A to point B is fun, which also affects your enjoyment of the end result. Personally, even if choosing between shaping up my character or having a pre-defined character give me the same results, I will chose the ability of shaping up my character every time. I know this is subjective, but which is best is not my point, my point is that it's the journey that defines something, not the end result.

PS: Video game RPGs and tabletop RPG/LARPs are NOT the same thing, but when we talk as RPG, they are all role-playing games (RPG). Don't define hole RPG genre based your idea as what traditional CRPG is.

You just said it, they are not the same thing. Yes they're all RPGs, but they are different RPGs. Defined differently. They all have their particularities that reflects the advantage of the medium, and that's what defines them. Apples and oranges are both fruits, but you compare McIntosh with Smiths, not McIntosh with McAin oranges.

EDIT: I never defined all RPGs based on what cRPGs are, you must have misread, because I said something entirely different. I compared cRPGs with other types of RPGs, I compared how they were different and why, which is mostly what the medium allows. It's like for movies/books/video games, the narrative, the story telling depends on what the medium allows. You can't recreate the same narrative in all 3, it's the differences between the mediums that defines how you write a story in a book compared to a movie.

Modifié par Evil Johnny 666, 19 février 2011 - 06:07 .

[AlanC9]

Terror_K wrote...

Lumikki wrote...

Not really. There is no need to game be statical or have progression to be RPG.

Yes there is. Every RPG has this. Take it away, and it's not an RPG any more.

Umm.... there are some RPGs without progression. Unless you're prepared to decanonize Traveller, for instance.

I can't think of any without statistic-defined characters, though.

[Lumikki]

Evil Johnny 666 wrote...

Lumikki wrote...

To define RPG you need to do it so that you don't close out other RPG options what could possible exist in RPG, just because defination of RPG. Do, you understand this? Meaning you don't say someting has to be color Red, you say there has to be color, if only color has the meaning, not exactly what color it is.

You'd have to rephrase that.

You people base you defination of RPG based how you know the RPG is, not as what it also can be. Meaning just because something hasn't been done yet, doesn't mean it cant' exist in RPG. So, you have go the more abstract defination as base what RPG is without going to exact details how it's done now days. Leave the how it will be arrived open, just define what is minimal what it needs to have.

There's is a difference between adding something, and taking off something. The former was never in question. But you can't take out something that always has been present in the genre, and still claim it's from that genre. Particularly if there's nothing else that unites the genre as much as this element. You can't deny that character progression is what all RPGs have the most in common.

Yes, you can take something off, if it doesn't define what the genre is. Also just because I say something isn't required, doesn't allways mean taken off. Just that it doesn't define the genre or it could be replaced with something else. I have never denyed that most RPG has character progression. I'm just agaist saying that it's IMPOSSIBLE to build RPG without it. How ever, if you define that RPG HAS TO have character progression in defination, then you also say RPG can't exist without character progression. That's what we have been arguing without you.

Don't define so that you lock out other possibilities how RPG can ALSO build. Because you never know how someone is gonna make they RPG. Meaning if you look really the heart of RPG, what's required and what not, then you see the possibilities what RPG still has.

I think there could be RPG's without progression, but I don't have ever seen RPG without some kind fo statical build. How ever, I don't want to say statical build is required for RPG, because it also defines too much how something has to be done. When we should leave open the how it's done and only conserate what RPG really is. There is allways other possibilities to stuff in different ways.


Ask question like this:

If game has character progression is it allways 100% guaranteed to be RPG?
If  game has no character progression is it impossible it to be RPG?

If those two above question gets even one NO, then character progression doens't define RPG gendre. it's the different between what's common in gendre and what defines it. Example it's hard to define what is shooter genre, because many shooter elements can be also in other games. How ever, there are few things than defines it. Like Shooter genre is build stronly around combat and so that it's about player skill as targeting, not character. How ever, today many shooters, like other genres too, starts to include other gendres in it to them, like to be more hybrids. it's just question what's the strongest part.

Modifié par Lumikki, 19 février 2011 - 08:13 .

[Ahglock]

AlanC9 wrote...

Terror_K wrote...

Lumikki wrote...

Not really. There is no need to game be statical or have progression to be RPG.

Yes there is. Every RPG has this. Take it away, and it's not an RPG any more.

Umm.... there are some RPGs without progression. Unless you're prepared to decanonize Traveller, for instance.

I can't think of any without statistic-defined characters, though.

It has been a long time since I played first edition traveller so I may have forgotton things, but as far as I remember there was progression, it just wasn't progression through career paths at character creation.  Which amusingly I do remember dieing in.  Shouldn't have taken another tour of duty, in my history I guess.  But hey I could be wrong, it was like 1980, still while I don't think my skills got much better I do remember getting better and not just through gear.  You got perks or something.

[AlanC9]

Maybe you're thniking of the training system they patched in with one of the later books.... Mercenary?