461 réponses à ce sujet

[AlanC9]

Lumikki wrote...
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.

Of course, you can end up coming to the conclusion that there simply isn't any single logical condition that defines the RPG category. Some categories work like that -- if you have enough of various factors you qualify, and if you don't ythen you don't qualify.

[Lumikki]

Yep, but if there is one single condition what does define it, then isn't that what really defines it?

I mean other "features" can add something to genre too, but if these other features can be found in many different games, then they doesn't really define anything. Good thing is that RPG actually has something what defines it very easy as something what other games doesn't really have.

I  mean RPG is about role-playing, but many other games can also be role-played if needed. How ever, only RPG allows ability play with different kind of characters (abilities) in same game.

Modifié par Lumikki, 19 février 2011 - 09:32 .

[Il Divo]

Evil Johnny 666 wrote...

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.

In a JRPG, I am simply an observer. Who is Tidus? Who is Cloud? Who is Yuna? If I wanted, I could give you a very detailed summary of who each of these characters are. I could tell you their personality, their actions, and morality and that would not change whether I was explaining it or some other guy. A JRPG is irrespective of player input.  

You are selectively pointing out small segments of Mass Effect 1/2 where you aren't involved while ignoring the overall focus of the games. What of significance is happening in those moments that it's necessary I control? Even in DnD, I don't need to be hand-holding my character when our DM decides to fast travel us to the BBEG's lair.

When I decided to chastise Ashley for her actions on Eden Prime, I (the player) made a conscious choice which was reflected through Shepard. When I killed Matriarch Benezia, I (the player) made a conscious choice to murder the Rachni Queen. When I watched Mordin kill Malon, I (the player) made a conscious choice to keep the genophage data.

Throughout Mass Effect 1 and 2, this is the key aspect. Yes, there are moments in every game where we (the players)are not at the forefront. Even in DnD, the DM will railroad you in order to create an experience. Otherwise, if the DM is unable to decide what happens, how can we have a game? The key lies in balancing DM control with player choice. There is no player choice in JRPGs. It is 100% DM and 0% player. In Golden Sun, I am merely taking the players through an entirely predefined adventure. In Mass Effect, I am continuously inparting my own personal style through dialogue, actions, and moral choices.

[Il Divo]

Terror_K wrote...

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.

Not necessarily. 'RPG' is broad for a reason. If I wanted to, I could redefine your own definition. How many Pen and paper RPGs have existed which feature real time combat? I could argue that every RPG has used some kind of turn-based system so by definition Mass Effect can't be an RPG. How many RPGs exist without people creating their own character personalities? I don't know of many. If all RPGs merely require numbers, then suddenly most RTS games are now RPGs when whey have traditionally occupied a different category.

That's the issue here: I'm not opposed to your definition. You saw something you liked in Pen and Paper (statistics). You took those statistics, and for you that's to a large degree what role-playing games are about. I saw something I liked (dialogue/interacting with other characters) and for me, that's at the forefront of what it means to be an RPG. A third person could see 'freedom' and for them, that's the final say. That's really how it works. The only thing I think we can recognize 'across the board' as RPGs are pen and papers.

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.

Because your definition itself only applies to you. Your definition is not my definition. You've presupposed that your definition is the 'standard'. We do not have the definition of role-playing game available to us.You yourself admitted that you had to look at every pen and paper to find a common link, so there can't be a 'standard'.  Instead, it's left to us (the players and inheritors of this fine tradition) to look at these games and decide what about them we loved so much. Applying a single definition is made even more complicated when most Pen and Paper developers admit that their games allow a large number of playstyles and opportunities.

Hell, in the 3.5 DM's Guide, they themselves said that you could play the game with very few combat encounters with a huge emphasis on role-playing/dialogue. That does not invalidate your definition (as they also offer one for more combat-based gameplay), but it sure as hell provides an equal justification for mine.

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.

Certainly, if all you're after are numbers. However, if someone who's played DnD were to ask me to recommend for them an RPG, I'm not likely to put forward a title where I'm just rolling dice and nothing else. Again, numbers for many (myself included) do not qualify as the 'DnD experience'. Saying that I am playing an RPG when I am merely in charge of numbers-keeping dilutes everything that the RPG experience represents, imo. If these cRPGs do not play in any way  like the style of DnD, what good was the definition?

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.

Ah, but this is my point. How is it that we perceive RPGs? Which aspect of the RPG (role-playing freedom vs. stats) is more loved/important? With no disrespect, notice that as time has passed, the statistics have become reliant on the role-playing, not the other way around. Traditions change and evolve over time. RPGs as they were 20 years ago are not as they are now. More emphasis has been placed on role-playing than in the past while these other aspects have been diluted.

The Mass Effect series is not the ADnD system, neither was Jade Empire. Even Kotor with its real time style was a departure from BG and NwN and even older games. In comparison, these newer ones are 'dumbed down' if we are talking specifically game mechanics. But I feel they make up for this with their overall enhanced story, characters, and experience.

Modifié par Il Divo, 19 février 2011 - 03:37 .

[Grand_Commander13]

Freedom is far more important in a roleplaying game. Old school "RPGs" bolted the freedom of RPing on top of a war game, so the games themselves reflected the war game genre they were based on; the initial cRPGs reflected these war gaming roots of the RPG, but modern cRPGs are starting to get the message that RPGs have always been about more than just the tactical combat and character building (which was, itself, an innovation that the jRPG set character hasn't picked up).

If we were totally honest jRPGs would be called jWGs (and many of the fondly remembered cRPGs, such as the Wizards series, would similarly be called cWGs), as there are no traceable amounts of "roleplaying" in them.

[Evil Johnny 666]

Lumikki wrote...

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.

Exactly. RPGs need progression, it has been in every single RPG video game, it is what defines the genre as it is the element that ties every single RPG the MOST together. Take out character progression as being essential to RPGs, and you have several games which shares no other RPG element, how can they be of the same genre if they share nothing important? Character progression is the most essential thing in RPGs, thus you can't take it off.

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.

Yes, I always have the possibility to denature a shooter, to make it not a shooter. This means nothing at all. I could say Halo is just a very fresh new take on the RPG genre, except it's not an RPG. If you take out a key element, no matter if your trying to make something different, you're still changing the nature.

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.

I haven't played any shooter where I didn't shoot either, there's a reason.

Ask question like this:

If game has character progression is it allways 100% guaranteed to be RPG?

If it's more than "character gets better" and there's real abilities to get better, well yes of course.

If  game has no character progression is it impossible it to be RPG?

No.

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.

Let me re-quote you:

but I don't have ever seen RPG without some kind fo statical build.

It's not something merely common if it's in every damn game.

[Evil Johnny 666]

@Il Divo, didn't you said earlier that you considered JRPGs to be primitive RPGs? I'm not debating what makes an RPG a stronger one, but what defines it, what is fundamental. JRPGs may be primitive depending on who you ask (considering there is always a strong emphasis on story, character development, combat and customization, there's enough other important RPG aspects for me to view them as not primitive. There may be lacking real dialogues and real character choise - is there even real character choice in ME2 besides choosing which pre-determined Shepard you want and which class? - but it makes up for other elements, some of which ME2 lacks) but they're still RPGs and that's only what matters.

Grand_Commander13 wrote...

Freedom is far more important
in a roleplaying game. Old school "RPGs" bolted the freedom of RPing on
top of a war game, so the games themselves reflected the war game genre
they were based on; the initial cRPGs reflected these war gaming roots
of the RPG, but modern cRPGs are starting to get the message that RPGs
have always been about more than just the tactical combat and character
building (which was, itself, an innovation that the jRPG set character
hasn't picked up).
If we were totally honest jRPGs would be called
jWGs (and many of the fondly remembered cRPGs, such as the Wizards
series, would similarly be called cWGs), as there are no traceable
amounts of "roleplaying" in them.

Except tabletops, LARPs and cRPGs aren't the same thing. They are on different mediums, thus exploiting the medium's strentgh at the expense of their weaknesses. Using the same argument, only MMOs are real RPGs since they're the only one to keep the multiplayer interaction of the tabletops and LARPs, but then they also lack the interactivity with the story. cRPGs exist because of the differences the medium offered, MMOs exist because normal cRPGs could offer some elements, at the expense of elements only cRPGs can offer. You have to principally define them by what the medium offers them compared to others.

Modifié par Evil Johnny 666, 19 février 2011 - 07:09 .

[AlanC9]

Evil Johnny 666 wrote...

Exactly. RPGs need progression, it has been in every single RPG video game, it is what defines the genre as it is the element that ties every single RPG the MOST together. Take out character progression as being essential to RPGs, and you have several games which shares no other RPG element, how can they be of the same genre if they share nothing important? Character progression is the most essential thing in RPGs, thus you can't take it off.

That doesn't necessarily follow. Here's a hypothetical: let's say Bio makes a game that is in every way identical to ME, except that you start at max level. (Not all that hypothetical, actually, since ME already has NG+.) Is that game an RPG?

If not, are NG+ ME players not playing an RPG anymore? What if someone uses console comands to level up Shepard to max level before playing a bit of ME? Is he still playing an RPG?

[Il Divo]

Evil Johnny 666 wrote...

@Il Divo, didn't you said earlier that you considered JRPGs to be primitive RPGs? I'm not debating what makes an RPG a stronger one, but what defines it, what is fundamental. JRPGs may be primitive depending on who you ask (considering there is always a strong emphasis on story, character development, combat and customization, there's enough other important RPG aspects for me to view them as not primitive. There may be lacking real dialogues and real character choise - but it makes up for other elements, some of which ME2 lacks) but they're still RPGs and that's only what matters.

Unfortunately, that is not all what matters given the scope of the matter. Answer me this: if your technical definition is so different from everything in the actual experience, how useful of a definition is it? 

Again, imagine playing DnD like a JRPG to get the full picture of your definition. Your DM creates all the characters, defines their abilities, spells, etc. He decides what their names, what their personalities will be, what's happening in the story, and how these characters will interact with each other, while you (the player) have sole control over combat. That is how a JRPG is played.  To my knowledge, that is not how pen and paper has traditionally been played. Hence why the definition is not absolute.

is there even real character choice in ME2 besides choosing which pre-determined Shepard you want and which class?

Dialogue, character interactions, morality system, frequent opportunities to define my character,etc. I'd say there is a good amount of choice. Absolute freedom? Hardly, but if we had absolute freedom, we couldn't have a game experience to begin with.

Modifié par Il Divo, 19 février 2011 - 08:09 .

[Evil Johnny 666]

Il Divo wrote...

Evil Johnny 666 wrote...

@Il Divo, didn't you said earlier that you considered JRPGs to be primitive RPGs? I'm not debating what makes an RPG a stronger one, but what defines it, what is fundamental. JRPGs may be primitive depending on who you ask (considering there is always a strong emphasis on story, character development, combat and customization, there's enough other important RPG aspects for me to view them as not primitive. There may be lacking real dialogues and real character choise - but it makes up for other elements, some of which ME2 lacks) but they're still RPGs and that's only what matters.

Unfortunately, that is not all what matters given the scope of the matter. Answer me this: if your technical definition is so different from everything in the actual experience, how useful of a definition is it?

How is it so different? Character progression is a major element in every RPG. If I talk to someone who never played Morrowind how you need to increase stats, and talk in detail of that aspect, the person will have a very good idea of the game when he will actually play it. Same thing for pretty much every RPG, then it gets blurry when RPGs are particularly bare-bones.

Again, imagine playing DnD like a JRPG to get the full picture of your definition. Your DM creates all the characters, defines their abilities, spells, etc. He decides what their names, what their personalities will be, what's happening in the story, and how these characters will interact with each other, while you (the player) have sole control over combat. That is how a JRPG is played.  To my knowledge, that is not how pen and paper has traditionally been played. Hence why the definition is not absolute.

Except you don't play tabletops on a computer. Were is all the DnD social aspect in cRPGs? Inexistant. It's normal, it's not on the same medium, so you can't compare too much, it's the medium that truly defines what it is. You can't compare book and movie storytelling, because both mediums allow different things at the expense of others, it's what the format allows that defines it. Structure defines function.

is there even real character choice in ME2 besides choosing which pre-determined Shepard you want and which class?

Dialogue, character interactions, morality system, frequent opportunities to define my character,etc. I'd say there is a good amount of choice. Absolute freedom? Hardly, but if we had absolute freedom, we couldn't have a game experience to begin with.

Dialogue, character interactions and the morality system are all the same thing. Shepard is 3 characters divided in 3 dialogue choices; the good Shepard on top, the normal one in the middle and the renegade on the bottom. Morality is tied to that, character interactions are tied to to dialogue system. Choose the top answer in one conversation and choose one of the others in the following one, and you might contradict what you just said or sound totally out of character.

AlanC9 wrote...

Evil Johnny 666 wrote...

Exactly.
RPGs need progression, it has been in every single RPG video game, it
is what defines the genre as it is the element that ties every single
RPG the MOST together. Take out character progression as being essential
to RPGs, and you have several games which shares no other RPG element,
how can they be of the same genre if they share nothing important?
Character progression is the most essential thing in RPGs, thus you
can't take it off.

That doesn't necessarily follow.
Here's a hypothetical: let's say Bio makes a game that is in every way
identical to ME, except that you start at max level. (Not all that
hypothetical, actually, since ME already has NG+.) Is that game an RPG?

That's stupid. You don't make a game with a character progression system if it's not used. If you take it, out, it's not the same thing anymore.

If
not, are NG+ ME players not playing an RPG anymore? What if someone
uses console comands to level up Shepard to max level before playing a
bit of ME? Is he still playing an RPG?

Using cheats of NG+ in no way changes the game at all. It changes you experience, yes, but it doesn't change the game. NG+ is just a mechanic, it's another way to play the game, but the game isn't designed around a player using NG+, thus NG+ has no implication there whatsoever. Plus, I never max up my stats after a single playthrough.

Modifié par Evil Johnny 666, 19 février 2011 - 08:34 .

[Il Divo]

Evil Johnny 666 wrote...

How is it so different? Character progression is a major element in every RPG. If I talk to someone who never played Morrowind how you need to increase stats, and talk in detail of that aspect, the person will have a very good idea of the game when he will actually play it. Same thing for pretty much every RPG, then it gets blurry when RPGs are particularly bare-bones.

Try Call of Cthulhu. There is little conventional character progression in the form of stats. There's also little to no combat, yet it's considered a pen and paper role-playing game. Progression is great, yet different groups give it a different emphasis. Some pen and paper games don't even have level ups. Neither did Deus Ex, yet it's considered one of the greatest RPGs of our age.  

Except you don't play tabletops on a computer. Were is all the DnD social aspect in cRPGs? Inexistant.

Not so. Companions=social interactions. In DnD, everyone apart from your own character is considered an npc. That it's not played by an actual person is irrelevant, because the npcs are retained. In video games, the computer becomes your DM and the developers create your npcs. You still represent a single chosen PC following an interactive medium.

It's normal, it's not on the same medium, so you can't compare too much, it's the medium that truly defines what it is. You can't compare book and movie storytelling, because both mediums allow different things at the expense of others, it's what the format allows that defines it. Structure defines function.

'You can't compare too much'. The entire point of this discussion has been how do cRPGs relate to pen and paper, on which they are based.

Yes, obviously some things are going to change in the transition from pen and paper to video game, but if we are going to call these video games 'Crpgs', then they should have some relation to their origin, hence why your point doesn't work. If the video game does not resemble an actual RPG in any sense, how is it a useful definition?

You're saying that I can't compare book and movie story-telling. Well, I can compared Baldur's Gate to DnD and say there is some relation. I can compare Kotor. I can even compare Jade Empire. Yet, notice that it's the JRPG that finds itself sinking if subjected to the same scrutiny.

Dialogue, character interactions and the morality system are all the same thing. Shepard is 3 characters divided in 3 dialogue choices; the good Shepard on top, the normal one in the middle and the renegade on the bottom. Morality is tied to that, character interactions are tied to to dialogue system. Choose the top answer in one conversation and choose one of the others in the following one, and you might contradict what you just said or sound totally out of character.

They are not always the same. Darkwatch is a perfect example of this. It has a very flimsy good vs. evil system, yet there is no dialogue. Yes, they are tied together, but they each have a separate sphere. JRPGs have none of this.

If
Using cheats of NG+ in no way changes the game at all. It changes you experience, yes, but it doesn't change the game. NG+ is just a mechanic, it's another way to play the game, but the game isn't designed around a player using NG+, thus NG+ has no implication there whatsoever. Plus, I never max up my stats after a single playthrough.

But you just violated your own definition. Character progression marks the RPG, according to you. If I max out my stats, I am no longer progressing, so how am I still playing an RPG?

Modifié par Il Divo, 19 février 2011 - 08:54 .

[Evil Johnny 666]

[quote]Il Divo wrote...

[quote]Evil Johnny 666 wrote...

How is it so different? Character progression is a major element in every RPG. If I talk to someone who never played Morrowind how you need to increase stats, and talk in detail of that aspect, the person will have a very good idea of the game when he will actually play it. Same thing for pretty much every RPG, then it gets blurry when RPGs are particularly bare-bones. [/quote]

Try Call of Cthulhu. There is little conventional character progression in the form of stats. There's also little to no combat, yet it's considered a pen and paper role-playing game. Progression is great, yet different groups give it a different emphasis. Some pen and paper games don't even have level ups. Neither did Deus Ex, yet it's considered one of the greatest RPGs of our age. [/quote]

Haven't played the original Deus Ex yet, so I can't really talk about it. And I did say cRPGs didn't necessarily need level ups and such thing, only that it needs progression, which most certainly need stats to be processed in some way or another. Plus, I never said tabletops all had character progression, in fact, I actually said that to reinforce the point that computers make it so much easier, which is probably one of the reasons it transited to computers in the first place, to put a new twist on the genre and explore different possibilities the original tabletop can't cover.


[quote][quote]
Except you don't play tabletops on a computer. Were is all the DnD social aspect in cRPGs? Inexistant. [/quote]

Not so. Companions=social interactions. In DnD, everyone apart from your own character is considered an npc. That it's not played by an actual person is irrelevant, because the npcs are retained. In video games, the computer becomes your DM and the developers create your npcs. You still represent a single chosen PC following an interactive medium.[/quote]

I don't agree with that at all. In traditional RPGs, people who play other characters roleplay as much as you, NPCs certainly don't roleplay.


[quote][quote]
It's normal, it's not on the same medium, so you can't compare too much, it's the medium that truly defines what it is. You can't compare book and movie storytelling, because both mediums allow different things at the expense of others, it's what the format allows that defines it. Structure defines function. [/quote]

'You can't compare too much'. The entire point of this discussion has been how do cRPGs relate to pen and paper, on which they are based.

Yes, obviously some things are going to change in the transition from pen and paper to video game, but if we are going to call these video games 'Crpgs', then they should have some relation to their origin, hence why your point doesn't work. If the video game does not resemble an actual RPG in any sense, how is it a useful definition? [/quote]

Except defining RPGs with progression doesn't make them unlike anything of the original genre. As soon as you have real character progression, some things are bound to follow or at least much easily than any other type of game. I never played any game with real character progression that doesn't feature quests or customization in a certain way. Yes, cRPGs should relate to traditional RPGs in a way, but the genre certainly can - and did - use the advantages of the medium to evolve in different tangents, that's only normal and expected, that doesn't make them less RPGs.


[quote]You're saying that I can't compare book and movie story-telling. Well, I can compared Baldur's Gate to DnD and say there is some relation. I can compare Kotor. I can even compare Jade Empire. Yet, notice that it's the JRPG that finds itself sinking if subjected to the same scrutiny. [/quote]

Well, you can always compare if you want, but that doesn't mean you'll come up with anything relevant. The fact that JRPGs are not as similar to DnD than Baldur's Gate is doesn't say much. There's always a bit of room for trying. If you want me to try to do something similar, compare Baldur's Gate to Jade Empire and JRPGs, notice how they all have character progression, quests, customization, a deep story that directly involves the character - I don't mean by interaction here - and heavy character development. But then compare those games to any of another genre, and you'll notice how they won't share so many similarities.


[quote][quote]
Dialogue, character interactions and the morality system are all the same thing. Shepard is 3 characters divided in 3 dialogue choices; the good Shepard on top, the normal one in the middle and the renegade on the bottom. Morality is tied to that, character interactions are tied to to dialogue system. Choose the top answer in one conversation and choose one of the others in the following one, and you might contradict what you just said or sound totally out of character. [/quote]

They are not always the same. Darkwatch is a perfect example of this. It has a very flimsy good vs. evil system, yet there is no dialogue. Yes, they are tied together, but they each have a separate sphere. JRPGs have none of this.[/quote]

JRPGs focus on a deeper story involving your character instead. Since you can't choose between shallow pre-determined characters to barely change anything about the game - in ME games, it's pretty much only your character who is interactive, the story itself has only 2 or 3 key moments which you can actually do something about it, but otherwise it's solely defining your character between two very typical archetypes. Instead, JRPGs focus on a much richer story that involves the protagonist, since you don't need to particularly define him (you can still do in combat and some JRPGs do have choices regarding your character, they're just more underground) the developpers can make him as interesting as possible. The only thing about Shepard (at least in ME1, since he's not interesting at all to me in ME2 because of given reasons) that makes him interesting is that I have control over who he is, and not who he is in itself. WRPGs focus on giving you choice to define your character, and JRPGs focus on making an as interesting as possible character for you to feel engaged in the story - in a different way since the same goal isn't achieved in the same way.


[quote][quote]If
Using cheats of NG+ in no way changes the game at all. It changes you experience, yes, but it doesn't change the game. NG+ is just a mechanic, it's another way to play the game, but the game isn't designed around a player using NG+, thus NG+ has no implication there whatsoever. Plus, I never max up my stats after a single playthrough.
[/quote]

But you just violated your own definition. Character progression marks the RPG, according to you. If I max out my stats, I am no longer progressing, so how am I still playing an RPG?[/quote]

Huh? I could be using invincibility cheats in Halo and run through every level that way. In fact, you can still do that without cheats. Does that make the game less a shooter because I don't need to shoot? No. It's not because I'm playing a game not as it was intended, and that it happens to not be in accordance to what type of game it should be that it's not of that type of game anymore. Seriously, this particular argument is particularly silly.

PS: Maxing out stats throught a playthrough MEANS I progressed. If you're on your 10th NG+, you're just abusing the game and not playing it accordingly to its core mechanics.

[Gatt9]

[quote]Il Divo wrote...

[quote]Evil Johnny 666 wrote...

How is it so different? Character progression is a major element in every RPG. If I talk to someone who never played Morrowind how you need to increase stats, and talk in detail of that aspect, the person will have a very good idea of the game when he will actually play it. Same thing for pretty much every RPG, then it gets blurry when RPGs are particularly bare-bones. [/quote]

Try Call of Cthulhu. There is little conventional character progression in the form of stats. There's also little to no combat, yet it's considered a pen and paper role-playing game. Progression is great, yet different groups give it a different emphasis. Some pen and paper games don't even have level ups. Neither did Deus Ex, yet it's considered one of the greatest RPGs of our age.  [/quote]

Call of Cthulhu is a wonderfull example,  it's completely dependent upon your Sanity stat.  Which you trade for character progression IIRC.

[quote]
[quote]
Except you don't play tabletops on a computer. Were is all the DnD social aspect in cRPGs? Inexistant. [/quote]

Not so. Companions=social interactions. In DnD, everyone apart from your own character is considered an npc. That it's not played by an actual person is irrelevant, because the npcs are retained. In video games, the computer becomes your DM and the developers create your npcs. You still represent a single chosen PC following an interactive medium.[/quote]

This is kind of misleading.  An NPC in D&D is a Character the DM controls,  the PC's are the characters the DM does not control.  They're all played by an actual person.  D&D also permits one person to play more than one PC at one time,  assuming the person keeps each PC seperate.  In fact,  it's quite common in smaller groups, so that the DM doesn't have to take on the additional load of tracking another in-depth task.

[quote]
[quote]
It's normal, it's not on the same medium, so you can't compare too much, it's the medium that truly defines what it is. You can't compare book and movie storytelling, because both mediums allow different things at the expense of others, it's what the format allows that defines it. Structure defines function. [/quote]

'You can't compare too much'. The entire point of this discussion has been how do cRPGs relate to pen and paper, on which they are based.

Yes, obviously some things are going to change in the transition from pen and paper to video game, but if we are going to call these video games 'Crpgs', then they should have some relation to their origin, hence why your point doesn't work. If the video game does not resemble an actual RPG in any sense, how is it a useful definition?

You're saying that I can't compare book and movie story-telling. Well, I can compared Baldur's Gate to DnD and say there is some relation. I can compare Kotor. I can even compare Jade Empire. Yet, notice that it's the JRPG that finds itself sinking if subjected to the same scrutiny. [/quote]

The only limitation of a CRPG is the inability to respond to arbitrary actions.  I cannot pee in the fountain in a CRPG.  Everything else can,  and usually is,  present.

The JRPG is actually more of an RPG than ME2.  The JRPG retains character based skill,  character progression,  and places you in a Role.  One of the most defining RPG module series was the original Dragonlance modules.  They placed you in predefined roles with predefined outcomes.  The entire design was to tell you a story of your party becoming heroes.  You could wing it,  and have the DM improvise some other resolution, but the modules did not offer that outcome.

This is no different from FF7,  placing you in a predefined role with a predefined outcome.  Sure,  you've no freedom.  But that doesn't invalidate it,  unless you're willing to take the stance that one of the RPG genres defining works wasn't an RPG.

Are JRPG's freedomless one-dimensional experinces?  Yes,  certainly.  But they're still RPGs as they meet Character based skills,  character progression,  and give you a Role you are filling.

[quote]
[quote]
Dialogue, character interactions and the morality system are all the same thing. Shepard is 3 characters divided in 3 dialogue choices; the good Shepard on top, the normal one in the middle and the renegade on the bottom. Morality is tied to that, character interactions are tied to to dialogue system. Choose the top answer in one conversation and choose one of the others in the following one, and you might contradict what you just said or sound totally out of character. [/quote]

They are not always the same. Darkwatch is a perfect example of this. It has a very flimsy good vs. evil system, yet there is no dialogue. Yes, they are tied together, but they each have a separate sphere. JRPGs have none of this.[/quote]

As above,  it's not requisite.  Diablo has no dialogue or morality,  but it is an RPG,  monty haul,  but still an RPG.  Neither dialogue nor morality are necessary for an RPG.  The system exists without either.  None of the framework of an RPG is dependent on dialogue or morality.  You can excise them completely,  and still have all of the rules that constitute an RPG,  you can have an entire AD&D session without the players saying a word.  OTOH,  you cannot have one that consists only of dialogue without the rules that constitute AD&D.  At that point,  you're LARPing and not RPGing.

I'm explaining this badly,  please bear with me.  What I mean is,  you can play an entire game of AD&D from the start of a module to the end without the players engaging in dialogue so long as the DM's part consists of "You must go do this" ala Diablo,  and everything in AD&D still functions.

But you cannot have the entire game consist of Players never doing anything else than talking and still be playing AD&D...

PC:  I'm going to steal the diamond
DM: Ok,  lets see if you succeed
Everyone sits silently for 15 seconds
PC: I've decided I succeeded.
DM: Ok,  good.

Without the rules framework based on character based skill,  the system degenerates into LARPs at very best.  It ceases to be playing an RPG and becomes some form of group-based storytelling.

[quote]
[quote]If
Using cheats of NG+ in no way changes the game at all. It changes you experience, yes, but it doesn't change the game. NG+ is just a mechanic, it's another way to play the game, but the game isn't designed around a player using NG+, thus NG+ has no implication there whatsoever. Plus, I never max up my stats after a single playthrough.
[/quote]

But you just violated your own definition. Character progression marks the RPG, according to you. If I max out my stats, I am no longer progressing, so how am I still playing an RPG?[/quote]
[/quote]

Honestly,  I don't know if you intended it this way,  but this just came off as trolling.  I think we're all well aware that at some point the system has reached it's limits in terms of believability and has to stop.  Otherwise you reach a point where you're killing dragons with one hit and making the Gods fetch you beer for fear of beatings.  RPGs by their very nature hit a point of ridiculousness at the end of their level curve.  Level caps are placed for the person who's gotten every last experience point so that they can finish the game with some degree of challenge in the final battle.

Further,  some RPG systems flatly state that a DM should pull a character's card at a certain level.  Dragonlance initially recommended that level 14+ characters be "Taken to dwell with the Gods".  AD&D encouraged them to go from adventurers to rulers of some sort dealing with macro-scale issues. (Which we see implemented to a degree in Baldur's Gate 2).

RPG's aren't meant to be endless,  the system itself requires there to be an endpoint.  The goal in balance is to make sure the story end and the level curve end are in close proximity to each other.

But honestly,  none of this changes the fact that ME2 failed to be an RPG.  In fact,  it just further shows it isn't.  It has no character progression,  it's story is just as one-sided as a JRPG (I can't tell Cerebus I won't work for them),  the morality options are a function of my ability to press a button really fast without warning,  it is much closer to playing Gears of War and Uncharted combined than it is either Mass Effect or any other RPG. 

Modifié par Gatt9, 19 février 2011 - 10:12 .

[tonnactus]

Lunatic LK47 wrote...


Hello: Shepard is *SPECIAL FORCES!* (i.e. BEST OF THE BEST SOLDIER). ME1's design had more holes than swiss cheese when it came to "LOLZ, level up weapons just to shoot accurately." There's something called EXTENSIVE TRAINING for a reason.

And now shepardt is too dumb to use different ammo types without points in it.Or should i call it enchantement?(Mass Effect 2 the fantasy game)
A real improvement ,right? Still,why shepardt has to learn tech and biotics skills again,but could shoot weapons straight...
Rpg didnt work without skill progression,plain and simple.

[Whatever42]

tonnactus wrote...

Lunatic LK47 wrote...


Hello: Shepard is *SPECIAL FORCES!* (i.e. BEST OF THE BEST SOLDIER). ME1's design had more holes than swiss cheese when it came to "LOLZ, level up weapons just to shoot accurately." There's something called EXTENSIVE TRAINING for a reason.

And now shepardt is too dumb to use different ammo types without points in it.Or should i call it enchantement?(Mass Effect 2 the fantasy game)
A real improvement ,right? Still,why shepardt has to learn tech and biotics skills again,but could shoot weapons straight...
Rpg didnt work without skill progression,plain and simple.

Agreed. Both ME1 and ME2 are total trash. Everyone should go play FNV.

[AlanC9]

Evil Johnny 666 wrote...

AlanC9 wrote...

Evil Johnny 666 wrote...

Exactly.
RPGs need progression, it has been in every single RPG video game, it
is what defines the genre as it is the element that ties every single
RPG the MOST together. Take out character progression as being essential
to RPGs, and you have several games which shares no other RPG element,
how can they be of the same genre if they share nothing important?
Character progression is the most essential thing in RPGs, thus you
can't take it off.

That doesn't necessarily follow.
Here's a hypothetical: let's say Bio makes a game that is in every way
identical to ME, except that you start at max level. (Not all that
hypothetical, actually, since ME already has NG+.) Is that game an RPG?

That's stupid. You don't make a game with a character progression system if it's not used. If you take it, out, it's not the same thing anymore.

So your response to a hypothetical is to put your fingers in  your ears and shout "LA LA LA I CAN'T HEAR YOU"??

If not, are NG+ ME players not playing an RPG anymore? What if someone
uses console comands to level up Shepard to max level before playing a
bit of ME? Is he still playing an RPG?

Using cheats of NG+ in no way changes the game at all. It changes you experience, yes, but it doesn't change the game. NG+ is just a mechanic, it's another way to play the game, but the game isn't designed around a player using NG+, thus NG+ has no implication there whatsoever. Plus, I never max up my stats after a single playthrough.

So it's still an RPG without having progression if someone else could have played the game with progression? You're serious?

Modifié par AlanC9, 20 février 2011 - 01:27 .

[Evil Johnny 666]

AlanC9 wrote...

Evil Johnny 666 wrote...

That's stupid. You don't make a game with a character progression system if it's not used. If you take it, out, it's not the same thing anymore.

So your response to a hypothetical is to put your fingers in  your ears and shout "LA LA LA I CAN'T HEAR YOU"??

sigh Usually, you use hypotheticals for something that can't happen because of x or y, but can technically be done, otherwise, it's like if we're arguing over if oranges or apples taste better, and you get all: "let's say hypothetically, if oranges taste like pineapples which taste better than apples, then oranges taste better than apples" but that makes no sense, because technically, an orange isn't a pineapple.

Let me turn over the question, let's say that someone makes a game identical to Halo in every way, except you have infinite health and can run through missions without killing everyone, is it still a shooter? - except it's not a particularly good example as it's not about nullifying a mechanic. Well, it's not that bad of an example, shooting is even less necessary if I don't need to keep myself alive.

Don't you realize how ridiculous that argument is? Seriously, it sounds like trolling. If you're making sure to nullify a certain mechanic, it's as if it's not there. There's no other way to put it.

Using cheats of NG+ in no way changes the game at all. It changes you experience, yes, but it doesn't change the game. NG+ is just a mechanic, it's another way to play the game, but the game isn't designed around a player using NG+, thus NG+ has no implication there whatsoever. Plus, I never max up my stats after a single playthrough.

So it's still an RPG without having progression if someone else could have played the game with progression? You're serious?

It's not the game that is offering you no progression, it's you that makes sure you nullify a certain mechanic. Which goes back to the point above. If a game is built upon a certain mechanic, that mechanic helps - or define, depending on the nature - the game, if you nullify that mechanic on purpose, or exploiting an element of the game, that doesn't undo anything. Again, I could be deciding to go through Halo without shooting, does that does not make Halo a shooter?


Can't you realize you're getting into fallacious argumentation? You know, everyone can come up with made up hypothetics to serve their cause as argumentation, that's using invalid arguments. From the link:

The Latin version literally means "a request for the beginning or premise."

Modifié par Evil Johnny 666, 20 février 2011 - 01:05 .

[AlanC9]

Evil Johnny 666 wrote...

sigh Usually, you use hypotheticals for something that can't happen because of x or y, but can technically be done, otherwise, it's like if we're arguing over if oranges or apples taste better, and you get all: "let's say hypothetically, if oranges taste like pineapples which taste better than apples, then oranges taste better than apples" but that makes no sense, because technically, an orange isn't a pineapple.

Let me turn over the question, let's say that someone makes a game identical to Halo in every way, except you have infinite health and can run through missions without killing everyone, is it still a shooter? - except it's not a particularly good example as it's not about nullifying a mechanic. Well, it's not that bad of an example, shooting is even less necessary if I don't need to keep myself alive.

Don't you realize how ridiculous that argument is? Seriously, it sounds like trolling. If you're making sure to nullify a certain mechanic, it's as if it's not there. There's no other way to put it.

Itals mine. Nullifying the progression mechanic is the point of the hypothetical. Without the mechanic, is it still an RPG? The proposition is that the mechanic defines an RPG. So, is a game with everything a RPG has except the progression mechanic an RPG?

It's not the game that is offering you no progression, it's you that makes sure you nullify a certain mechanic. Which goes back to the point above. If a game is built upon a certain mechanic, that mechanic helps - or define, depending on the nature - the game, if you nullify that mechanic on purpose, or exploiting an element of the game, that doesn't undo anything. Again, I could be deciding to go through Halo without shooting, does that does not make Halo a shooter?

If you can play Halo like a platformer and enjoy it, then I would say you're playing a platformer. But I don't think there's anything real about the categories we put games in in the first place. If you want to say that only the code counts rather than particular gamers' experiences, we can go back to hypotheticals.

Edit: that bit about categories probably wasn't clear. What I was getting at is that categories are just boxes we put the games in. Changing how you play the game doesn't change the game. Whether it changes what box you put the game in depends on how you define the box.

Can't you realize you're getting into fallacious argumentation? You know, everyone can come up with made up hypothetics to serve their cause as argumentation, that's using invalid arguments. From the link:

The Latin version literally means "a request for the beginning or premise."

If you want to accuse me of a particular fallacy, make a case.

Modifié par AlanC9, 20 février 2011 - 02:31 .

[Evil Johnny 666]

AlanC9 wrote...
Itals mine. Nullifying the progression mechanic is the point of the hypothetical. Without the mechanic, is it still an RPG? The proposition is that the mechanic defines an RPG. So, is a game with everything a RPG has except the progression mechanic an RPG?

First off, you ignored the whole Halo thing. I used the hypothetical and nullified the shooting mechanic and proved Halo is not a shooter. Like I already pointed out, such hypotheticals ARE a fallacy, look it up. Making assumptions that CAN'T be true is not a valid argument. Otherwise, we can hypotheticize ANYTHING and everything we know is false. Continue to try to argue more about that, and I officially consider you a troll. If I'd make a poll, even with all the people here who can't make decent arguments, I'm sure the majority would at least acknowledge you as a troll.

If you can play Halo like a platformer and enjoy it, then I would say you're playing a platformer. But I don't think there's anything real about the categories we put games in in the first place. If you want to say that only the code counts rather than particular gamers' experiences, we can go back to hypotheticals.

Edit: that bit about categories probably wasn't clear. What I was getting at is that categories are just boxes we put the games in. Changing how you play the game doesn't change the game. Whether it changes what box you put the game in depends on how you define the box.

Then why are you even here? If you believe a game can change its genre like we change underwear - which is not possible because you were using an unvalid argument - then why are you arguing in the first place about what defines RPGs? Also something to make me consider you're a troll.

Can't you realize you're getting into fallacious argumentation? You know, everyone can come up with made up hypothetics to serve their cause as argumentation, that's using invalid arguments. From the link:

The Latin version literally means "a request for the beginning or premise."

If you want to accuse me of a particular fallacy, make a case.

Click the highlighted word. I hope you don't want me to read it for you. Plus, the quote just under explains the latin name given to that particular type of fallacy. "A request for the beginning or premise" It strangely looks like the definition of an hypothetical, don't you think? Hey, you don't even need to read the link as it's pretty self-explanatory.

Modifié par Evil Johnny 666, 20 février 2011 - 03:55 .

[Terror_K]

Il Divo wrote...

Terror_K wrote...

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.

Because your definition itself only applies to you. Your definition is not my definition. You've presupposed that your definition is the 'standard'. We do not have the definition of role-playing game available to us.You yourself admitted that you had to look at every pen and paper to find a common link, so there can't be a 'standard'.  Instead, it's left to us (the players and inheritors of this fine tradition) to look at these games and decide what about them we loved so much. Applying a single definition is made even more complicated when most Pen and Paper developers admit that their games allow a large number of playstyles and opportunities.

Hell, in the 3.5 DM's Guide, they themselves said that you could play the game with very few combat encounters with a huge emphasis on role-playing/dialogue. That does not invalidate your definition (as they also offer one for more combat-based gameplay), but it sure as hell provides an equal justification for mine.

But I'm not using "my definition" I'm using the industry standard definition. It doesn't only apply to me, because it's the rule that applies to the entire industry and is universally recognised as such. I'm not saying what I prefer in RPGs and what I personally think is the best and most important aspects in this case when defining an RPG and RPG elements; I'm referring to exactly what the professional gaming industry as a whole refers to as an RPG and RPG elements, and has been for almost 30 years.

That is the difference here. Every single magazine and website and anything else related to the gaming industry, when they label the game as being an "RPG" the game has a statistical character progression system. Every time. Stats, skills, XP, levels, etc. and stuff like that is how the industry always defines an RPG. Not playing a character, not whether the player has varied choices and not whether the game has a good story. That's not an opinion, that's a cold, hard fact. I may look for different things than you in an RPG, and enjoy different factors more than others, but that's the way it simply is. I merely choose to adopt the industry standard definition when referring to RPGs, while you decide to adopt your own version, even if it contradicts them.

Modifié par Terror_K, 20 février 2011 - 05:03 .

[SilentK]

The more rpg there is in the game the happier I am =)

[Lumikki]

Terror_K wrote...

But I'm not using "my definition" I'm using the industry standard definition. It doesn't only apply to me, because it's the rule that applies to the entire industry and is universally recognised as such. I'm not saying what I prefer in RPGs and what I personally think is the best and most important aspects in this case when defining an RPG and RPG elements; I'm referring to exactly what the professional gaming industry as a whole refers to as an RPG and RPG elements, and has been for almost 30 years.

I'm sorry, but you use defination as what defines RPG, is more how you want it to be defined. Meaning while you defination is fine, it's too narrow and doesn't allow other kind of RPG's even exist. Example how I defined, you defination will fit inside my defination, nothing prevents it. How ever, what I consider still as RPG doesn't fit in under you defination. Meaning you defination will leave out other possibilities for RPG.

What you consider RPG defination, is not industry standard defination, it's too narrow for it.

I played ones mmorpg what role-players made, it was called  "Seed". It doesn't exist anymore, but it had no level system, no combat, no experience and so on.. It was made for role-playing.  I could say it had very light progression and skill system.

Modifié par Lumikki, 21 février 2011 - 07:10 .

[Ulzeraj]

Terror_K wrote...
But I'm not using "my definition" I'm using the industry standard definition. It doesn't only apply to me, because it's the rule that applies to the entire industry and is universally recognised as such. I'm not saying what I prefer in RPGs and what I personally think is the best and most important aspects in this case when defining an RPG and RPG elements; I'm referring to exactly what the professional gaming industry as a whole refers to as an RPG and RPG elements, and has been for almost 30 years.

The industry calls games like Borderlands and Diablo as "RPG". You said you played dnd 3.5rd then you should know that as fun as they may be such hack'n'slash games should never be considered RPG (the R still stands for Roleplay even on our dark times). So it concludes the so called standard is also subjective.

Also, please post your sources about the so called "industry standards". Is there a RFC for RPGs?

Lumikki wrote...

I played ones mmorpg what role-players made, it was called  "Seed".
It doesn't exist anymore, but it had no level system, no combat, no
experience and so on.. It was made for role-playing.  I could say it had
very light progression and skill system.

Ultima Online didnt had levels or classes. Who dares to exclude UO from the "RPG Industry Standard™" definition?

Modifié par Ulzeraj, 21 février 2011 - 07:19 .

[Terror_K]

You really are something else, Lumikki. Only you on these forums would say that if were to say that "1+1=2" that I'm wrong and it's only my opinion that it is.

[Jebel Krong]

no, he's right terror-K you throw around "industry standard definitions" as a term that classifies all rpgs, yet when ME2, for example, doesn't conform to this, it's derided. you don't get to define rpgs, rpg-makers do.