243 réponses à ce sujet

[Dormiglione]

AlanC9 wrote...

kcman5 wrote...
 No matter what label you want to put on it, any mystery, sport, auto, action or other game that has a story to it and is manipulated by the story character at it's core value, is still a RPG.. No matter how you slice, dice, convey, portray and label it.

So not matter what anyone else labels any of these games, you'll still label them RPGs?

Well, if you really want to do that I don't suppose the language police are going to come around and lock you up. But if the "RPG" category is that broad, what use is the category?

@AlanC9
i agree with your post

[Oban1961]

Rawgrim wrote...
Action game with dialogue.

Ah, a kindred spirit maybe?
I skimmed the whole thread and am surprised to find so many people talking about combat...

DA2 didn't strike me as an RPG at all, as it lacks what I (personally, privately, subjectively) always considered central: shaping a story by means of choices.

Here some quotes from On Role-Playing Games, a lengthy, but interesting essay covering the whole lot from pen-and-paper, jRPGs, western RPGs ...


Players determine the actions of their characters based on their characterization, and the actions succeed or fail according to a system of rules and guidelines. Within the rules, players can improvise freely; their choices shape the direction and outcome of the games.
...
The tyranny of the cutscene
[...] You get to the point where the only way to make the game financially feasible is to not give the player
any options at all. Thus we see that the path down which Square et. al set down all these years ago led them away from role-playing [...]

I DO realize that I cannot have free choices AND cinematic cutscenes; that there are limits to how many story-twists and branches can reasonably be done in a computer game. I loved DAO, because I thought it had the right mixture of telling a cinematic story and still leaving some flexibility to let me shape it to my liking. With DA2 on the other hand I felt completely rail-roaded having no meaningful choices at all.

So for me DA2 is neither an aRPG nor a "true" RPG. Does that make sense to anybody else?

Modifié par Oban1961, 05 mai 2011 - 09:11 .

[Realmzmaster]

Actually in both games you have the illusion of choice. DA:O just hides the illusion better. Both stories are linear. The end results are the same with a little variation. Any story where the endings are already determined is linear. In DA:O, are you allowed to side with the ArchDemon or Loghain? Are you allowed to save your parents if you are a human noble? Can you avoid being framed if you are a dwarf noble? Why do I have to choose a dwarven king?
You have choice within the framework of the story being told. Which is way CRPGs cannot approach P & P RPGs in this regard. In a P & P RPG the DM can actually entertain such questions and assign a probability of it happening, Roll the dice and see what happens.
The best CRPGs can do is give the illusion of choice. It is how well the designers do that which is the issue.

[Dormiglione]

Realmzmaster wrote...

Actually in both games you have the illusion of choice. DA:O just hides the illusion better. Both stories are linear. The end results are the same with a little variation. Any story where the endings are already determined is linear. In DA:O, are you allowed to side with the ArchDemon or Loghain? Are you allowed to save your parents if you are a human noble? Can you avoid being framed if you are a dwarf noble? Why do I have to choose a dwarven king?
You have choice within the framework of the story being told. Which is way CRPGs cannot approach P & P RPGs in this regard. In a P & P RPG the DM can actually entertain such questions and assign a probability of it happening, Roll the dice and see what happens.
The best CRPGs can do is give the illusion of choice. It is how well the designers do that which is the issue.

- Brecilian Forest
Side with the elves or the witherfang. Either the elves or the werewolve are your allies at the end-battle (an illusion?)

- Redcliffe
Sacrifice the arlessa or bring mages as reinforcment to do the ritual to free the son

- Mage tower
Right of annulment, you have the choice -> allies at the final battle either templar or mages

Should i continue to list up illusions?

Every game leads to a final confrontation, where you have to race against the big boss or fight against it. Now it depends on how many story arcs or story lines can you follow to reach the final fight/encounter.

Dragon Age Origins is a masterpiece. It shows how its done right. This is the reason why so many love Dragon Age Origins.

[AlanC9]

Oban1961 wrote...
Here some quotes from On Role-Playing Games, a lengthy, but interesting essay covering the whole lot from pen-and-paper, jRPGs, western RPGs ...

A deeply flawed article, though interesting. I get that he's turning on the arrogance to try and get his point across, but he dioesn't seem to have any real interest in what anyone who doesn't think the way he does likes about games.

[AlanC9]

Dormiglione wrote...

- Brecilian Forest
Side with the elves or the witherfang. Either the elves or the werewolve are your allies at the end-battle (an illusion?)

- Redcliffe
Sacrifice the arlessa or bring mages as reinforcment to do the ritual to free the son

- Mage tower
Right of annulment, you have the choice -> allies at the final battle either templar or mages

Should i continue to list up illusions?

These are actually pretty weak ones. The Brecilian and tower choices (Branka too) just changes who shows up in the final battle. Killing the Arlessa or not is essentially meaningless. 

[A Crusty Knight Of Colour]

AlanC9 wrote...
These are actually pretty weak ones. The Brecilian and tower choices (Branka too) just changes who shows up in the final battle. Killing the Arlessa or not is essentially meaningless. 

That really depends on how invested you are with the characters and the gameworld. If you don't give two craps about the different peoples in Origins, you're correct.

But if you do care about what happens to them, they are significant choices, because those choices are reflected later in the game, whether it be in the final battle, in the epilogue or somewhere else in the game. It's not necessarily that it changes the game on it's head, but it's how the choices you made are acknowledged and made a difference. It mattered. There were consequences to your actions. It's not really too different to what happens in Dragon Age 2, except that even though you were given choices, there are fewer areas where you felt that it mattered.

[Ari87]

"Both endings are the same" is an asinine point. Of course you defeat the High Dragon at the end of DA:O. That is the entire point of the story. Every story must have a beginning and an end.

Yes, you can't influence the outcome of the ending as much as in other RPGs or in a session of PnP but that is simply due to time and money restrictions during development. DA:O was the better RPG precisely because it managed to give the illusion of meaningful choice and presented us with a summary of how things turned out, even if it was just a brief one.

DA2 does nothing of the sort. None of your choices before the very end matter in any way. There is not even an illusion of choice there. I'm sure this example has been brought up in the past but the ending in this game is like losing 50% of your crew in ME2 no matter what you do. (Which, in turn, would've made ME2 into a less grimdark Gears of War clone...)

[Realmzmaster]

No it is not due to time and money restrictions. It is due to the inherent nature of CRPGs and inability of the designers and programmers to account for everything a gamer might try. The AI of a CRPG cannot improvise. It is set in stone. So you can only have the illusion of choice. As I said it depends on how will the designers can hide and craft the illusion.
The point of DA:O was to gather the armies, defeat Loghain and kill the ArchDemon. Whether I save Connor, lift the werewolf curse and it does not matter which king I pick as long as I get my armies from a purely objective point of view. The wardens are suppose to be an non-political group who only task is to defeat darkspawn and end Blights.
Where is my choice to get Loghain to back down? There is none because that is how the character was written. No matter what choice you make it still comes down to a duel. Even if you tell your whole party to attack the Grand Cleric and other nobles end the fight. (This happens when Loghain health reaches a certain point). At least in DA 2 I can decline the duel with the Arishok and have the whole party battle.
I like both games, but I am not blind to the flaws in both of them and the lack of true choice. The only choices you have are the ones the writers give you and that is all you can have. And bugs in both games can screw up the epilogues.

[A Crusty Knight Of Colour]

The two of you aren't really disagreeing aside from the concept of ultimate freedom being restricted in a game.

"DA:O was the better RPG precisely because it managed to give the illusion of meaningful choice and presented us with a summary of how things turned out, even if it was just a brief one."

[AlanC9]

I don't think we can do this topic justice on a no-DA2-spoilers board, can we?

[A Crusty Knight Of Colour]

Probably right.

But I stick to my point of RPG being an umbrella term, not one of specifics. The RPG genre is freaking massive encompassing lots of subgenres. In that context, Dragon Age 2 is both an RPG and an Action RPG to me, as Action RPGs are merely one form of RPG.

[Perles75]

Haexpane wrote...

kcman5 wrote...

 
There are probably alot of Diablo fans around here, but to be honest, I think it was highly overrated and still is. 

Diablo 1 was properly rated, it was the genesis of the true Action RPG with ATMOSPHERE that sticks.  The town music alone still gives me chills.

I liked Diablo and I don't think it was overrated, but it has nothing of "role-play". I have real problems to consider it a RPG, even an action-RPG.

[Perles75]

Realmzmaster wrote...

Actually in both games you have the illusion of choice. DA:O just hides the illusion better. Both stories are linear. The end results are the same with a little variation. Any story where the endings are already determined is linear. In DA:O, are you allowed to side with the ArchDemon or Loghain? Are you allowed to save your parents if you are a human noble? Can you avoid being framed if you are a dwarf noble? Why do I have to choose a dwarven king?
You have choice within the framework of the story being told. Which is way CRPGs cannot approach P & P RPGs in this regard. In a P & P RPG the DM can actually entertain such questions and assign a probability of it happening, Roll the dice and see what happens.
The best CRPGs can do is give the illusion of choice. It is how well the designers do that which is the issue.

I do not agree. Even if DAO has the same ending (confrontation and victory with the Archdemon), your choices on the way make your mark in the history of the world (of Ferelden at least). Of course you are restricted of SOME choices and not all the possible choices because DAO was not planned as an open-world setting (but frankly, which are the games with a complex plot that leave you complete freedom of choice?), but you cannot say that you do not control anything.

In DA2 the story is more tightly controlled and you have less freedom at large scale, your choices being restricted to affect individual lives (your companions', especially).
But this is not connected with the RPG-actionRPG discussion...

[Altima Darkspells]

Slayer299 wrote...

My definition of DA2 comes because it seems to rely heavily on just combat, (all games have that element), but in DA2 it seems the combat comes at the cost of the story, the NPC's seem flat and 2D, endlessly reused areas, lack of any real choices to name 4 off-hand. While it has less directly in common with D2 and it's virtual combat simulator, it's not that far off in my mind either.

Well, unlike in Origins, combat in DA2 isn't the first among equals when it comes to resolution options.  No, for DA2, combat is the only option.  That doesn't remove it from the WRPG category, that just makes it a bad one.

Which is sorta the problem that people tend to have the game.  Apparently, DA2 is so bad that it warps the reality of the murky genre lines and creates its own circle of gaming hell.

On the other hand, it really does seem like the story is going to suffer.  After all, the game tells you what happens in the first five minutes.  So, basically, the players aren't really emotionally invested since they 'know' how things will end.

Heck, Hawke spends most of her time dicking around in between a few month's work every few years.  If the flippin' champion can't give a tosser's salad about the setting then why should the players?

[Dormiglione]

AlanC9 wrote...

Dormiglione wrote...

- Brecilian Forest
Side with the elves or the witherfang. Either the elves or the werewolve are your allies at the end-battle (an illusion?)

- Redcliffe
Sacrifice the arlessa or bring mages as reinforcment to do the ritual to free the son

- Mage tower
Right of annulment, you have the choice -> allies at the final battle either templar or mages

Should i continue to list up illusions?

These are actually pretty weak ones. The Brecilian and tower choices (Branka too) just changes who shows up in the final battle. Killing the Arlessa or not is essentially meaningless. 

Even if you call them weak choices ( in my opinion they arent weak), they are choices.

[Haexpane]

xkg wrote...

Haexpane wrote...

They can call it whatever they want, they are wrong.  While in the end it's meaningless that they are wrong in terms of impact on the world, that doesn't change it.

It's a Real Time With Pause combat engine, that is by definition , NOT an action RPG.

They WANT it to FEEL like an action RPG, and they got that right, but it's still RTWP, and quite frankly, RTWP is a much better system for party based games anyway.

How can I say a developer is wrong about classifying their own game?

The same way I can say the Colorado Rockie's ownership was wrong when they said the 2007 Rockies were "God's team" and "a championship team".  They own it, shouldn't they know about their own team?

The rockies lost, and god doesn't give a rats arse about sports.  If I remember correctly, they also got swept in 4 straight games.  

They are wrong because why ? Because you said so ? Are you working in game development to say they are wrong and you are right? Why should anyone listen to you not them ?


"RTWP  
Real Time with Pause. An RTWP is a computer game genre in which action happens in real time, but the player has an option of pausing to issue additional commands that are executed once the game is unpaused. This mechanic is mostly used in RPG and strategy games." RTWP

Yes, you are right. RTWP is by definition , NOT an action RPG.... Wait what ????

Read your own post, RTWP is RPG but not ACtion RPG, it's RTWP RPG... it's all right there in your own post.

And as I mentioned in my above posts, this is a SUB GENRE of RPGs that is well known, specifically because Bioware made so many great RTWP games, KOTOR, NWN, Baldur's Gate, etc...

Compare that to Jade Empire, which has no RTWP, it's got a "press button, attack happens" manual dodging, all that stuff.   Clearly Action RPG.

Sub Genres are real, and when you actually look at the game mechanics, it's really not that hard to grasp.

My guess is you WANT to call DA2 an action RPG?  Go ahead, no one is stopping you and the fact that MAJORITY of the world doesn't know what RTWP is and likely doesn't care, none of this will ever matter.

[Haexpane]

Realmzmaster wrote...

Actually in both games you have the illusion of choice. DA:O just hides the illusion better. Both stories are linear. The end results are the same with a little variation. Any story where the endings are already determined is linear.

The best CRPGs can do is give the illusion of choice. It is how well the designers do that which is the issue.

What he said, although this "choice" thing in video games is HIGHLY OVER RATED, as Realz nicely pointed out it's all linear anyway and the choice is fake.

But for some reason people LOVE This whole "choose your own adventure" style.  It started out with Novels designed for young kids, and I read some of them too.  There was this cool idea that you were "controlling" the story.  When in fact, everything was already written and you were just jumping to point X, Point B, point Z etc...

I must make it a political crusade to champion the idea that what defines an RPG video game is the GAME PLAY .  Otherwise every videogame ever made is an "RPG" under the "as long as you role play a character and have a story" label.

[Haexpane]

Perles75 wrote...

Haexpane wrote...

kcman5 wrote...

 
There are probably alot of Diablo fans around here, but to be honest, I think it was highly overrated and still is. 

Diablo 1 was properly rated, it was the genesis of the true Action RPG with ATMOSPHERE that sticks.  The town music alone still gives me chills.

I liked Diablo and I don't think it was overrated, but it has nothing of "role-play". I have real problems to consider it a RPG, even an action-RPG.

Honestly, when I see "RPG" i don't think of "role play" I think of a Videogame Genre.  

When I think of "Role Play" i think of P&P and Furrie creeps.  I've played P&P rpgs WAY BACK in the day very casually, and IMO they were almost nothing like Video Game RPGs for better and for worse.  Aside from the Dice Rolls for combat/skill check etc...

TBPH that's one of the things I thought Bioware did very well in their games, mixing the Dice Roll mechanic into a video game that works.

Again, if "role play" is what makes a videogame an "RPG" then Zelda, Infamous, Mario Bros are all RPGs?

Everything but PONG is an RPG? I say no