3223 réponses à ce sujet

[wizardryforever]

Bostur wrote...

Garrison2009 wrote...

I still honestly don't understand when role playing went from actually playing as a character in a fictional world (pretending you were in someone else shoes) to, for all intended purposes, statistics management (rearranging stats and sorting through hundreds of useless items in your inventory to find one that has a better Dexterity bonus or something)...

That happened sometimes in the 1980's when game developers imagined it could be fun to use RPG mechanics in a video game. By definition it isn't possible to roleplay solo, but the mechanics used by popular RPGs like AD&D made for interesting computer games. So a genre was born using roleplaying game mechanics in sort of an adventure game, but without the roleplaying obviously.

When people talk about roleplaying in a computer game, its more like a game of imagination, filling in the blanks. This is very much the same thing that happens when we read a book, watch a movie or listen to a piece of music. But I'll admit that some computer games give that activity another angle.

MMO's are an interesting development in this case, because they are multiplayer games. And because of the multplayer element roleplaying is now an option on the computer. And some MMOs do have strong roleplaying communities. Neverwinter Nights also tried to investigate the roleplaying potential in a video game, by making the engine multi-player capable and moddable.

I don't see how multiplayer is necessary for roleplaying.  If the computer controlled NPCs are well designed, you really don't need anyone else.  You can act as whatever role the game's framework allows.  Other people aren't required for roleplay, anymore than other people are required for eating dinner.  Yeah it is more enjoyable with other people, but it really isn't necessary.

[lazuli]

Terror_K wrote...


It's actually more the other way around when it comes to cRPGs. 10 years ago there would have been no real argument as to what an RPG was on gaming forums, as games knew what they were.

No, I don't think so.  RPG players have been getting their knickers in a bunch about classification for much longer than ten years.  I remember engaging in heated debates about whether or not Diablo could be considered an RPG, especially when compared to Baldur's Gate.

[CroGamer002]

I agree with Casey.

[Bostur]

wizardryforever wrote...

Bostur wrote...

Garrison2009 wrote...

I still honestly don't understand when role playing went from actually playing as a character in a fictional world (pretending you were in someone else shoes) to, for all intended purposes, statistics management (rearranging stats and sorting through hundreds of useless items in your inventory to find one that has a better Dexterity bonus or something)...

That happened sometimes in the 1980's when game developers imagined it could be fun to use RPG mechanics in a video game. By definition it isn't possible to roleplay solo, but the mechanics used by popular RPGs like AD&D made for interesting computer games. So a genre was born using roleplaying game mechanics in sort of an adventure game, but without the roleplaying obviously.

When people talk about roleplaying in a computer game, its more like a game of imagination, filling in the blanks. This is very much the same thing that happens when we read a book, watch a movie or listen to a piece of music. But I'll admit that some computer games give that activity another angle.

MMO's are an interesting development in this case, because they are multiplayer games. And because of the multplayer element roleplaying is now an option on the computer. And some MMOs do have strong roleplaying communities. Neverwinter Nights also tried to investigate the roleplaying potential in a video game, by making the engine multi-player capable and moddable.

I don't see how multiplayer is necessary for roleplaying.  If the computer controlled NPCs are well designed, you really don't need anyone else.  You can act as whatever role the game's framework allows.  Other people aren't required for roleplay, anymore than other people are required for eating dinner.  Yeah it is more enjoyable with other people, but it really isn't necessary.

Roleplaying gaming, as invented by Gary Gygax with D&D requires a game master and a number of players. This is the form of RPG that was later used by computer games. There is another psychological term called roleplaying where a person takes on the role of someone else. There was an old game called "Alter Ego" that explored that route. It's actually playable online:
http://www.playalterego.com/

That kind of general roleplaying is possible in many context, and in most computer games that have characters. Does that make them RPGs?


I am not saying your way to roleplay is wrong. But when discussing the subject its important to define the terms so that we agree on what we are discussing. Computer RPGs has so far been defined by a relatively strict formula, very different from roleplaying in general. When someone use the term RPG in the context of a computer game, it makes sense to refer to that formula.

[InvincibleHero]

Gatt9 wrote...

Not all that simple.

To take on a Role,  you have to have a defined Character,  as an undefined character isn't a Role.  To define a Character,  he has to have intrinisic qualities that affect outcomes independent of You.

ME provides a modicum of that through the Charm/Intimidate skill.

ME2,  Oblivion,  Skyrim,  they do not.  The thing on the screen can't succeed or fail independent of you succeeding or failing.  The thing on the screen has no intrinsic qualities,  it's undefined.  Therefore it's not a Character,  and not a Role.  It's an Avatar for your abilities and qualities.

Assigning arbitrary qualties that the game doesn't recognize,  support,  or enforce isn't Roleplaying.  You're pretending,  the game takes no notice.  Kind of like when my 100% paragon pushed someone off a roof in cold blood,  and no one blinked when the paragon of virtue commited a cold-blooded murder.  Not only does the game not take note,  but even Shepherd's established Morality is disregarded so it is not an intrinsic quality.

Without a defined character,  there is no Role.  Only an Avatar.  At that point,  it cannot be an RPG.  Which is why ME2's a Shooter,  why Oblivion's an Adventure game,  and why ME3 will very likely be a Shooter.

Your defintion just made the original D&D into not an RPG. An avatar is just the mechanism through which you roleplay. My dozens of pen and paper characters were my avatars and purely defined by me. It is the fact that we can guide and make some ciritcal decisions that make a computer game an RPG. The more you define the character without player input the less it is an RPG. More like an interactive movie. So you got it opposite as Oblivion is more pure RPG not less.

RP is active That character cannot exist without out you breathing life and giving it direction. If something exists on its own as you describe that is not RP. The character only lives through you not you through it. Might as well watch a movie if you want a pre-dfefined charcter that can exist without our input. Shepard needs our decisions or the story halts and doesn't progress. A shooter requires finishing levels with objective points while an RPG has lots of social interactions and decision points as well as combat levels to traverse.

Computers are just poor substitutes for imagination and real breathing DMs. Very few games adequately enforce roleplaying. At least there is a tongue and cheek sequence about looting in ME 2.

[I99I Dragoon]

I did always want a deeper RPG experience. The weapons and armor was too simple, and while I do want a character-driven story, I also don't want it too linear with basic character improvement, which in my opinion, makes the story shallow, and not offering much replayability.

[Sanunes]

I think defining a game as a RPG is next to impossible to please people for everyone has different definitions of what RPG means to them. Some people want an inventory system, some want exploration, some want stats, some want character development independent of stats, some want dialogue choices, and there are probably more.

I think on this subject people need to realize that nobody is wrong and nobody is right for the RPG genre was really never defined completely for I can't remember if a game ever met all those criteria so there has never been a game that can be called a RPG according to everyone.

Regarding Mass Effect 3, from what I have seen and heard I will probably enjoy it more then Mass Effect 2 for they are re-introducing some systems that I thought should have been in Mass Effect 2 that were present in Mass Effect 1 and at the end of the day that is what I look for in a game, a game to enjoy.

I have also noticed that more and more games are taking bits and pieces of different genres to make their game more interesting and fun to play to more people, so maybe in a few years there will be less genres for they all seem to have intersecting lines on what they incorporate.

[Arrow70]

wizardryforever wrote...

I think what this all boils down to is that Bioware has its own definition for what an RPG is.  If that definition is different from yours, then tough toenails.  Bioware is not going to change their view on the subject just because some vocal "fans" decide to bombard the rest of us (and Bioware) with their completely arbitrary definition of what an RPG is.  Bioware is sticking with their definition since it is, you know, their game.  They'll do what they think is best, while taking fan criticism with a huge block of salt.

Quoted for truth- Bioware is the one devoloping the game and shouldn't cater to every sigle person who feels they are a "real fan"

[AlanC9]

Saphra Deden wrote...

AlanC9 wrote...

I don't see my Morrowind PC unless I hit TAB. Is that an RPG even if I don't hit TAB?

Way to miss the point, kid. It's not where you physically see the character, it is whether there is anyone to interact with them, any actions for them to take other than walking through a linear map and shooting things.

In Morrowind there is a character if you want there to be. There is a living and intricate world for that character to be part of and both can affect the other.

If you really want to though you can create a character in any setting, any voiceless protagonist is a character if you want them to be. It's all in your head.

Kid? Heh.

My bad for responding to what you posted rather than what you meant.

[Phaedon]

BioWare enough dumbing down.

Of your community that is.

Role-playing games are obviously not about the role-playing, you silly Casey Hudson. Just because you co-develped KOTOR and BG, it doesn't mean that you are anything but a fanatic streamliner. Admit it.

Never mind about:

Modern shooters having more 'passive' stats than 'old-school' RPGs. (Selectively old-school of course, because everyone thinks that stats just got born instantly along with RPGs)

Simulation games have more active, modifiable stats than RPG will ever have. Therefore they are better RPGs, along with shooters.

Silly, BioWare, thinking that RPGs are about roleplaying.

PS: Will everyone stop using "action/adventure" as a genre?
Action RPGs are a subgenre of RPGs, while shooter games are a subgenre of action games.

Adventures have as much to do with shooters and RPGs as...

nevermind, I can't think of genres that could be further apart.

[Dangerfoot]

The stats and the inventory were the "game" part of the RPG. They were the means to make an interactive narrative into a game.

The role playing is the genre defining trait. Without it, it's just a stat-based game.

Putting a stats game into a shooter game doesn't make it a Role Playing Game.

[In Exile]

sbvera13 wrote...
You didn't ask me specifically, but I'll offer my answer.  The short of it: it was small enough to not matter.

Unless you really, really hate it. By my 8th playthrough, I wanted the mako to die in fire a thousand times over. My favourite part of the game was it exploded on the Citadel and knowing it isn't coming back.

The long of it: on repeated playthroughs, I simply don't do the planet exploring.  There's no reason to, and a quick trip from the drop point to x building for an assignment is harmless. In the major plot missions, the terrain and hostile encounters are designed with Mako gameplay in mind, and are actually enjoyable for the short time they last.  If they were longer, of course, it would have been tedious, but driving around Feros or Therun blasting things for a few minutes is fun.

I just edit saves for the plot flags now. I don't think driving around anywhere with the mako is fun; in fact, I think the linear mako levels are anti-fun.

AlanC9 wrote...
I think the problem's with progression, not
the loot itself. In original Traveller, the local law and tech levels
determine what you can actually use for the current adventure; you're
much better off having SMG skill than Battle Dress, since you're going
to get more chances to use it.. And then there's Torg, where you can
only use whatever works under the local axioms. And so forth.

I think that kind of captures the essence: we can have items of widely different quality... so long as you start allowing for quantiative leaps in what you use and have restrictions on the use.

I'm just anti-loot.

ETA:

Phaedon wrote...
Adventures have as much to do with shooters
and RPGs as...

nevermind, I can't think of genres that could be
further apart.

How about...

... flight simulars and (I bet they exist) porn games.

Modifié par In Exile, 01 juillet 2011 - 06:24 .

[Phaedon]

Gatt9 wrote...

Not all that simple.

To take on a Role, you have to have a defined Character, as an undefined character isn't a Role. To define a Character, he has to have intrinisic qualities that affect outcomes independent of You.

ME provides a modicum of that through the Charm/Intimidate skill.

Of course you guys.

Pfft, there is no such thing as multi-layered personalities.


There are no people who are a@#holes other than specific stuff that they are sensitive with.

Or nice people who get worked up over some specific stuff.

Or some hypocrites who try to be nice in public while they are jerks in their personal lives.

I can go on, but should I?

[Phaedon]

Moreover, to think that BioWare hasn't promised more "RPG" elements, is either being deliberately ignorant, or too lazy to read the stickied threads.

[In Exile]

Bostur wrote...
I am not saying your way to roleplay is wrong. But when discussing the subject its important to define the terms so that we agree on what we are discussing. Computer RPGs has so far been defined by a relatively strict formula, very different from roleplaying in general. When someone use the term RPG in the context of a computer game, it makes sense to refer to that formula.

If we go that route, RPGs were originally wargames, so it's wrong to actually evaluate an RPG on the basis of non-combat content, and so really Bioware is driving at the true heart of want an RPG is by throwing it back to the combat.

[Terror_K]

In Exile wrote...

This is a serious question: why do you feel the gameplay in ME2 is the same, but not the Mako in ME1?

Because in The Mako I can go where I want how I want (except in the main-mission Mako parts). I can see why people would find The Mako tedious from a gameplay perspective, though I tend to think it's the planets themselves that are the issue more than the vehicle, but as a fan of sci-fi and space in general I just loved the ability to go to these barren worlds. It really immersed me and made me feel like I was out there in the (mostly) unknown and in real space. Reminds me of photos and footage of places like Mars, Venus, etc.

In either case, you're asking me to compare one part of one game with the entirety of another, which doesn't seem quite right. The reason ME2 feels the same is because I don't really feel anything changes much between playthroughs from my experience. There's no real alternate ways to approach quests beyond the final dialogue choices of paragon or renegade for the most part, the levels themselves are linear and rarely let me deviate, every item is always in the same place, etc. There's no surprises, almost no chances to change things up really and I just can't immerse myself in the game like I could with ME1. Ironic considering the devs claimed they were trying to make it more immersive.

ME1 felt like an experience, ME2 just felt like another game, like any other. I lived ME1 and just lost myself in it. With ME2 I just feel like I'm sitting at my PC, tapping keys and moving my mouse while looking at a screen, just like I do with most other things I play. And there's too much that takes me out of the game and bothers me to really get into it. I understand this is a personal thing, but ME2, despite going on about choices and consequences and dynamic narrative just feels linear to me, and after I did my main paragon and renegade playthroughs everything I've played since feels like retreading old ground.

[whywhywhywhy]

Yeah save the galaxy front sentient flying battleships with epic ground battles when the reapers should be bombarding our butts to the stone age. So makes a lot of sense to erase rpg elements to focus more on that........or does it? If I want a fps I'd pick up call of duty or Battlefield any other shooter!

BW tempts fate by doing this if the majority of the fans leave because they change the game into fps genre, the temporary fans will move on to the next faster then they can blink an eye and they will have successfully killed the ip. I know I've gone from being on the fence because how poorly me2 turned out to definately not preordering, now I don't even know If I'll buy the game now.

Modifié par whywhywhywhy, 01 juillet 2011 - 07:01 .

[In Exile]

Terror_K wrote...
Because in The Mako I can go where I want how I want (except in the main-mission Mako parts).

... but it's the same content. You're doing the same thing over and over. Eventually you run out of unique maps just like you run out of unique enemies, and it repeats.

I can see why people would find The Mako tedious from a gameplay perspective, though I tend to think it's the planets themselves that are the issue more than the vehicle, but as a fan of sci-fi and space in general I just loved the ability to go to these barren worlds. It really immersed me and made me feel like I was out there in the (mostly) unknown and in real space. Reminds me of photos and footage of places like Mars, Venus, etc.

So, really, you just like the content. You prefer driving the mako to the 3rd person shooter content.

In either case, you're asking me to compare one part of one game with the entirety of another, which doesn't seem quite right.

No. I'm asking you to compare one repetitive gameplay feature (the combat) to another reptitive gameplay feature (the driving).

The reason ME2 feels the same is because I don't really feel anything changes much between playthroughs from my experience. There's no real alternate ways to approach quests beyond the final dialogue choices of paragon or renegade for the most part, the levels themselves are linear and rarely let me deviate, every item is always in the same place, etc.

This is exactly what ME1 is. No quest have multiple approaches, but some quests are exclusive. All the levels are linear, except for the empty mako driving, and that content is identical across all the worlds.

There's no surprises, almost no chances to change things up really and I just can't immerse myself in the game like I could with ME1. Ironic considering the devs claimed they were trying to make it more immersive

There are no surprises in ME1 either, once you've played it once. It's all great that you like ME1 more, but none of the features you've listed (aside from the mako) are exclusive to it.

ME1 felt like an experience, ME2 just felt like another game, like any other. I lived ME1 and just lost myself in it. With ME2 I just feel like I'm sitting at my PC, tapping keys and moving my mouse while looking at a screen, just like I do with most other things I play.

Like I said - it just sounds like you liked ME1 more. There's nothing wrong with that, but so far you haven't pointed to anything that made ME1 feel like an experience that was unique to it beside the barren worlds, which were certainly an "experence" but more like how a coffee enema would be an "experience" (IMHO).

And there's too much that takes me out of the game and bothers me to really get into it. I understand this is a personal thing, but ME2, despite going on about choices and consequences and dynamic narrative just feels linear to me, and after I did my main paragon and renegade playthroughs everything I've played since feels like retreading old ground.

ME1 is just as linear.

For the record, I want to point out you used the world "feels" 6 times. It's clear that one game resonated with you more, but I don't see a feature outside of the UNC to point to that's ME1 exclusive.

[littlezack]

I'd actually say the majority of people who play the game don't really give a crap about classifying Mass Effect as an RPG or not - they play the game because they find it fun. The people who obsess over this sort of thing don't represent a large group, despite what they'd like to believe. They're a minority. A very small, and often unpleasable, minority.

Modifié par littlezack, 01 juillet 2011 - 06:56 .

[whywhywhywhy]

littlezack wrote...

I'd actually say the majority of people who play the game don't really give a crap about classifying Mass Effect as an RPG or not - they play the game because they find it fun. The people who obsess over this sort of thing don't represent a large group, despite what they'd like to believe. They're a minority. A very small, and often unpleasable, minority.

I doubt that me1 was a million+ seller and that game was basically a rpg with shooter elements, I don't think me3 wil do as well as 1 or 2 did, bw is making all the wrong moves

[Gunderic]

Phaedon wrote...

BioWare enough dumbing down.

Of your community that is.

Role-playing games are obviously not about the role-playing, you silly Casey Hudson. Just because you co-develped KOTOR and BG, it doesn't mean that you are anything but a fanatic streamliner. Admit it.

Never mind about:

Modern shooters having more 'passive' stats than 'old-school' RPGs. (Selectively old-school of course, because everyone thinks that stats just got born instantly along with RPGs)

Simulation games have more active, modifiable stats than RPG will ever have. Therefore they are better RPGs, along with shooters.

Silly, BioWare, thinking that RPGs are about roleplaying.

PS: Will everyone stop using "action/adventure" as a genre?
Action RPGs are a subgenre of RPGs, while shooter games are a subgenre of action games.

Adventures have as much to do with shooters and RPGs as...

nevermind, I can't think of genres that could be further apart.

This post gave me cancer.

[littlezack]

whywhywhywhy wrote...

littlezack wrote...

I'd actually say the majority of people who play the game don't really give a crap about classifying Mass Effect as an RPG or not - they play the game because they find it fun. The people who obsess over this sort of thing don't represent a large group, despite what they'd like to believe. They're a minority. A very small, and often unpleasable, minority.

I doubt that me1 was a million+ seller and that game was basically a rpg with shooter elements, I don't think me3 wil do as well as 1 or 2 did, bw is making all the wrong moves

Mass Effect was a million seller. If it wasn't, there probably wouldn't have been any Mass Effect 2. Hell, if Mass Effect 2 wasn't a million seller, there probably wouldn't be a Mass Effect 3. They ain't making this games purely out of the goodness of their hearts.

But, okay, let's stop and talk for a second about that last statement, making all the wrong moves. See, when someone around here says something about 'Bioware is betraying the fans!', they're basically saying 'Bioware is betraying the fans like me'.  The problem with that mentality is that it acts like Bioware should only ever care about catering to one group of fans, regardless of what that might mean for sales and whatnot. It acts like only one group of fans matter. Which is, frankly, a little selfish.

People all want different things from this game. If Bioware just nailed down and listened to one group of fans, they'd wind up pissing off another group. Every group is just as valid in their fandom as the othes, and you just can't please everyone. The best course of action is to get as close to a consensus as possible, listen to fan input, but temper it with your own judgment first. You can't please everyone. You just can't.

[Whereto]

Ehh, I don't find loot or a inventory realistic or satisfying to say the least, but each to their own. Though then again I loved the witcher, just loot made far more sense, I just can't see Shepard going into houses etc and finding anything of use, as he kinda has everything he needs on ship and what ever he finds, isn't going to be in substantial quantity