3223 réponses à ce sujet

[EternalPink]

Gatt9 wrote...

EternalPink wrote...

The problem with having to hit rolls and so on is that at low level you have characters that according to there back story have trained for years to get to where they are, so then when they can't use a certain weapon due to stat restriction or they miss something they should easily hit (most games involve killing low level stuff at the beginning so how can a warrior thats trained for years manage to miss hitting a rat with a sword?)

1.  Actually,  that's a problem with the backstory,  in a *very* few RPGs.  Most RPGs,  the backstory is that you're not such a great warrior.  The problem is entirely the backstory,  if you're going to present someone as skilled,  then you should be starting them at level 5.

Then how is a level 1 warrior different from a level mage, cleric, ranger etc.....

By being the warrior class itself and being able to progress it (going off to your old teacher to learn how to fight slightly better happens in some MMO's i've played but not RPG's) they have learnt enough to be able to hit small defenseless animals

2.  A Rat isn't going to hold still for you to hit it with a sword.  This is a ready example of why stat-based gameplay is necessary,  because you obviously have never tried to hit a Rat with a sword if you think it's that simple.

Honestly we don't have rats here and i'd be sort of worried if we did so I've never attempted to hit a rat, i did however use to do fencing and while i was never brilliant at it the amount of skill needed to hit something that doesn't also have a sword is very very very small.

So if I as a kid doing a couple of hours a week managed to pick that up then i'd expect a character who has trained for the warrior class to be able to do the same.

Or are we now saying there are no class distinctions? a lvl 1 mage should beat a lvl 1 warrior in a melee fight?

And then when you get to high level due to soft caps/hard caps and min/maxing you end up in a sitation where you will never miss, DA:O had this when you were fighting darkspawn at the end and for me my elf warden was 1 shotting them with a sword.

Now you've got a problem with the designer of the specific game(Module,  whatever you'd like to call it),  not the system.  Because the difficulty is supposed to scale relative to your abilities and maintain an even balance at equivalent creature levels to your own.

Designers failing isn't a problem with the system.  It's a problem with the designers.

This is a flaw with every cRPG i've ever played so if the system is unimplementable to a satisfactory standard then the system is flawed but the arguement on whether its the system, design or implementation can be for another day

Slightly off topic but i absolutely loved how BG2 dealt with the min/maxers, everybody remember the brain sucking illithds? those ones that could hit you and do -5 intelligence which stacked until you were at 0 intelligence and dead.

Still makes me chuckle remembering all the min/max warriors that had int at 3 whining about that

Those were mucnhkins,  not the min/maxers.  Min/maxers try to minimize their liabilities and maximize their assets,  they knew not to gimp their IQ.  Munchkins try to super-max their primary skill at the cost of completely disregarding weakness,  and pretty commonly fall prey to creatures that aim for their weakness.

Your arguing a name/term now - its not worth the time getting into a arguement about this.

Modifié par EternalPink, 19 juillet 2011 - 12:19 .

[Sylvius the Mad]

[quote]tonnactus wrote...
[quote]Merci357 wrote...

As an example - what else to use besides Starfang in DA:O as a 2H warrior, if you don't deliberately downgrade to a lesser weapon?[/quote]
There were a lot of god mauls in the game who also had better armor penetration.[/quote]
This also assumes that you're choosing weapons solely based on their effectiveness.

There are any number of other possible criteria your character might deem relevant.
[quote]Luc0s wrote...

Have you, or any of you guys who complain about Mass Effect's accuracy's stat ever played a modern First-Person Shooter? Or even a Third-Person Shooter? I think not.[/quote]
I certainly haven't.  The last FPS I played was Delta Force 2.  I also played Half-Life briefly.  That's as recent as my FPS experience gets.
[quote]Call of Duty has weapon-based accuracy. A snipe-rifle in Call of Duty is pixel-precise accurate, but an SMG certainly isn't. Your accuracy is also influenced by your movement (if you walk you shoot less accurate, if you stand still you shoot reasonably accurate, if you crouch you shoot really accurate).
This means that with an SMG you can still miss the enemy even when you stand still, crouch and point the gun exactly at your enemy's head. That's because the SMG just isn't an accurate gun to begin with.
The player can see how accurate a gun shoots depending on how big the crossair is. You see a little cross scaling up or down showing how accurate you can shoot with that weapon at that moment.

Gears of War is basically exactly the same as Call of Duty but from a Third-Person perspective and you couldn't crouch in Gears of War.

Mass Effect 2 is basically almost exactly the same as Gears of War.[/quote]
I doubt Gears of War or Call of Duty allowed the player to aim while paused.

That's a important feature in both ME and ME2.
And Mass Effect 1 wasn't so different. The only difference in ME1 is that ME1 had more stats influincing your accuracy.[/quote]
ME2 also had smoother movement.  In ME, your targetting reticle bounces up and down when you run.  In ME2 that doesn't happen.

ME2 made aiming much easier.
[quote]Luc0s wrote...

That's not necassry at all. You can have a role-playing game without the ability to choose how your character acts or what his/her personality is.

Final Fantasy qualifies as an RPG game, yet the character that you play and his/her personality is created by Square-Enix and given to you (the player) to play with. [/quote]
You're going about this entirely backward.  Set the definition first, and then see what games fit it.  If you look at the games people label as Roleplaying Games as the source for your definition, you're liable to end up with an internally inconsistent standard.
[quote]In FF you don't make any dialogue decisions or morality decisions whatsoever.[/quote]
This is why it isn't an Roleplaying Game.  There's no roleplaying in FF at all.

[the_one_54321]

Luc0s wrote...
I did read your posts on the last few pages and I don't see how I missed anything. Maybe I misunderstood you. If that's the case then I'm sorry for missing the point, could you please explain the point you were trying to make?

You made pretty much the same point that I did. Shooters have already optimized the application of weapon statistics. But it's not about the weapon, it's about the character.

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

the_one_54321 wrote...
Untrue. There is no requisite that you must be the one making the decisions.

How could you possibly be said to be playing the role if you're not the one making the decisions?  What exactly is the gameplay?  What is the player's job in this game you're describing if it's not roleplaying?

Arguably, so long as the actions of the character are in character, it doesn't matter where they get direction from. What makes it a game is that the player has some form of agency over these actions. In some games that agency is restricted to combat and other suck skill interactions. In other games it's entirely narrative based. And in other games it's various combinations of the two.

[vader da slayer]

EternalPink wrote...

vader da slayer wrote...

the problem with shooter mechanics in an rpg is that the user needs to be the determinate of accuracy and not stats. before you go off on me let me explain.

in a traditional fantasy RPG (swords, dragons etc) you target an enemy and then whether you hit them or not is usually based on a hit rating stat or a stat that affects your ability to hit them. with a gun (or bow and arrow) its HIGHLY FRUSTRATING (see morrowind, litterally one of the only 2 things I didn't like in morrowind) to be aiming right at something at less than 100 feet with them standing still and you someone miss.

the above reason is why a lot of mp rpgs (such as mmo's) will use the target a person then hit the auto-attack button (usually only for melee and classes that use ranged weapons) for ranged physical dmg and probably would need to be done if the ME IP ever entered the MMO or any kind of non twitch based shooter adversarial game mode.

The problem with having to hit rolls and so on is that at low level you have characters that according to there back story have trained for years to get to where they are, so then when they can't use a certain weapon due to stat restriction or they miss something they should easily hit (most games involve killing low level stuff at the beginning so how can a warrior thats trained for years manage to miss hitting a rat with a sword?)

And then when you get to high level due to soft caps/hard caps and min/maxing you end up in a sitation where you will never miss, DA:O had this when you were fighting darkspawn at the end and for me my elf warden was 1 shotting them with a sword.

Slightly off topic but i absolutely loved how BG2 dealt with the min/maxers, everybody remember the brain sucking illithds? those ones that could hit you and do -5 intelligence which stacked until you were at 0 intelligence and dead.

Still makes me chuckle remembering all the min/max warriors that had int at 3 whining about that

right but most properly planned stats systems account for this by saying something like

chance to hit = (enemy lvl - your level) + X% + Y%

where X is some base chance to hit (anyone can miss even trained soldiers).and Y is the chance to hit granted from either a direct increase to hit or some stat (like agility in Morrowind) that increases chance to hit.

so basicly your chance to hit depends on the level defference between you and who you are fighting (bigger difference means less chance to hit so if the level difference is 5 you have a higher chance to miss than say if its a difference of 2), base hit chance and hit chance thats increased from gear/stats.

this also makes sense from a trained soldier stand point as a higher level character would be better trained and would be able to possible "know" how to avoid being hit while the gear thing increasing chance to hit is akin to stabiliztion systems in guns.

in short: its not that they wouldn't be able to hit but that at the start they have a decent chance to miss (this kinda thing prevents start of Morrowind where you cant hit rats).

[Varen Spectre]

Phaedon wrote...

Here's a little game that I am sure you will find pretty interesting,

Does The Sims 3 have stats? Yes it does.
Does The Sims 3 have an inventory? Yes, it has a "party inventory" and you can often "equip" items from it.
Does The Sims 3 have statistical progression? Yes, you intentionally pick actions that raise your stats.
Does the stats in The Sims 3 have an effect on your character? Yes, for example having a high fitness skill makes it more likely that people will find you attractive and it will make you win in fights, if your opponents skill is too low.
Does The Sims 3 differentiate character from player? Yes.
Does The Sims 3 allow you to create a character? Yes, one that you customize and select his or her personality.
Does The Sims 3 have loot? Yes, you can steal stuff and search people's trash.

Is The Sims 3 an RPG?

No fair, I am late and already heard the answer. Nah, nevermind, I would have been wrong anyway... 

Well firstly, I have never played the Sims, so I will have to rely on my very basic knowledge and on what was stated here. Secondly, I've never known the definition of RPGs and have never tried to force my opinion on what RPG is on anyone else. However, for general purposes, I have been quite comfortable with the "traditional" (I'll use this word a lot) classification of genres as used to be applied by gaming magazines. It's true that with all these multi and cross-genre games, it is not that useful anymore, but unless I find better, I'll have to keep it...

So... with this mindset, my purely subjective answer would have ranged from "Yes, but a very bad one..." to "No,... but... in order to avoid any preliminary conclusion, I would like to add, that I think, that the most of the abovementioned aspects are / were used in (traditional) RPGs so prominently, that they are / were rightfully labelled as RPG elements (maybe except for inventory, which was probably even more important in classic adventure games) and their complete removal from a (traditional) RPG would have caused, that such game would have no longer met the (traditional) RPG criteria, set by magazines that I used to read."... depending on the quality of the story in Sims 3.

I guess, I am a little bit more comfortable with my 2nd answer though. Well, this example kind of reminds the use of "RPG elements" in strategy games, sport games (various career modes), racing games, etc. when these games, despite their sometimes heavy use of these mechanics, are / were still classified according to their dominant features or original purposes. So I guess, the Sims 3 is / would eventually be classified as a simulation game.

However, the fact, that these so called "RPG elements" are also used in games from genres other than RPGs, IMO, does not mean that calling them according to their original(?) genre or a genre that uses them most (i.e. RPGs) is wrong, let alone that they are not vital element of (traditional) RPGs. Just like an implementation of racing or sport minigames / elements into an action or RPG game would not mean, that particular "racing" or "sport elements" should not be called "racing / sport elements" anymore or that they are not important part of the "sport" / "racing" games theselves, the widespread use of "RPG elements" outside of RPGs should not tempt to such conclusions as well...

That being said, I absolutely agree that story and choices and consequences and I would even say the combat, are, IMO, more important than any other element / mechanic, because they represent both most of game's content and main purpose. I just wouldn't downplay the rest of the "RPG elements" too much, because without them, the game may lack some really funny and enriching features. 

[Gatt9]

Varen Spectre wrote...

Phaedon wrote...

Here's a little game that I am sure you will find pretty interesting,

Does The Sims 3 have stats? Yes it does.
Does The Sims 3 have an inventory? Yes, it has a "party inventory" and you can often "equip" items from it.
Does The Sims 3 have statistical progression? Yes, you intentionally pick actions that raise your stats.
Does the stats in The Sims 3 have an effect on your character? Yes, for example having a high fitness skill makes it more likely that people will find you attractive and it will make you win in fights, if your opponents skill is too low.
Does The Sims 3 differentiate character from player? Yes.
Does The Sims 3 allow you to create a character? Yes, one that you customize and select his or her personality.
Does The Sims 3 have loot? Yes, you can steal stuff and search people's trash.

Is The Sims 3 an RPG?

No fair, I am late and already heard the answer. Nah, nevermind, I would have been wrong anyway... 
 

Actually,  technically speaking,  The Sims is an RPG.  It's a level-less RPG,  without a narrative,  but it achieves all the fundamental qualities necessary.

One could translate it readily to PnP without losing anything in the process.

It'd be boring,  but it is an RPG.  You assume a Role,  defined by a Character,  seperating his skills from yours.

Should one of the common definitions of RPG remain exactly the same since the 70s, then I'd say that that's a bad thing.

I could fill a hundred pages with examples of games that've stood for decades or centuries.

OTOH,  nothing has changed about FPS's in 20 years.  Nothing about RTS's in 15 years give or take.  Platformers,  Adventure games,  Simulations,  Fighters,  etc.

So why exactly should RPGs be the only game to change,  and why exactly should it change into TPS or Action-Adventure which are already defined and seperate genres?

Seriously.  Anyone.  Why should RPG's be the only genre to change,  and why must they change to become the other genres?

Because I'm *seriouly* not seeing the logic there that RPGs should become TPS's and Action-Adventure,  and how exactly just putting the acronym on some other genre is improvement.

Modifié par Gatt9, 19 juillet 2011 - 03:22 .

[InvincibleHero]

@Varen Spectre

Nope Sims 3 is not an RPG. It has what is called a simulation. All a rpg system is simulating this is the function of RPG elements like stats levels and HPs. The roleplaying is breathing the life into the character and giving it direction. Some people think the simulation part is the RPG. They truly do not understand RPGs.

[the_one_54321]

InvincibleHero wrote...
Some people think the simulation part is the RPG. They truly do not understand RPGs.

<-click me

[InvincibleHero]

Xaenn wrote...

Nope here's why. What you say and do is the roleplaying. Directing the actions of the character and injecting personality. the items are only ever props. really most people are going to use the best items anyway. It is roleplaying if you're zaeed and you use a shi**y old rifle that is more worthless than a modern one because you love it. then it can define you. If you wear a fedora with no benefits over a kevlar helmet then it might be identifying character. If you use the best at the time and work towards best in game then that is min-maxing.

That argument doesn't really work, you're saying it's not possible to wear an item that is great for me and have it define me at the same time? Even if I was mix-maxing, the gear still defines who I am. If I'm wearing all gear to increase a certain stat that improves daggers, probably defines me as a dagger rogue, thus meaning I personally, prefer daggers, meaning I could or do have lots of experience in daggers (my character does in her background) or their my choice. It is a personality choice, it defines me, my character who I am. Saying "Nope," doesn't any less true. You can only use what you got as well, ultimately their isn't a lot of gear choices in games now-a-days, you're going to encouter very simular chioces by players, so you'll never really have something thats completely unique.

No I don't want miss miss miss while the opponents drill you more accurately than they should. If you haven't figured it out random number generators stink or favor the computer ones over yours by design. Rolling a dice to hit while playing PnP is fun and not so much in a computer game that depicts all the action on-screen. It is active so why not give more control to the player. Agency is great in games IMO.

You sound like you're making complaints about the original, I meant use the same stat concept, not they should use the broken combat template. Realistically you aren't going to be amazing at every gun you use unless perhaps you are a 'solider'. Having your gun actually miss makes sense, even would be more immersible, however I believe that to be more semantics as people will argue Shepard is military trained and would know how to use them all 'perfectly. Never made a reference to the dice system, although I wouldn't want the dice system in Mass-Effect (although I do love the dice system). I have terrible luck with roles. Combat in the second one was pretty bad as far as that goes though, where every enemy had nearly 100% accuracy. 

Recently went back and played Baldur's Gate and Knights of the Old Republic. Forgot how much fun they were.  How often I miss...

In that sense I can agree it defines how you approach combat and gameplay. It really doesn't tell anything about what your character would do in any number of situations other than he has daggers equipped. I'm saying what you wear is irrelevant to deciding issue like keep genophage data or destroy it. That is the roleplaying.

When you said accuracy I assumed you meant like in ME1. It's terrible ina RTS with shooter elements. It works if you make turn-based combat but ME never was about that. You do miss many times in ME2 despite having the pointer on them. It has a spray pattern for the SMG and assault rifle for instance. The pistol and sniper rifle are pretty pin point. Really with the speed of the projectiles if you've got line of sight then it should be hit excepting rapid fire weapons which they do illustrate well.

Well with an accuracy stat a random dice roll or some mechanism is necessary to determine hit and miss.

Yeah you do until you get very high level and only miss on a 1 or 2. It has been in all RPGs I played POR Ruins of MYth Drannor was the biggest offender though.  Even then you miss more than 5% of the time. Its when you notice the computer might hit you 3-4 times in a row despite needing a 17+ while you could be opposite and miss 3 in a row hitting on everything but 1-3.

[AlanC9]

Gatt9 wrote...
So why exactly should RPGs be the only game to change,  and why exactly should it change into TPS or Action-Adventure which are already defined and seperate genres?

Seriously.  Anyone.  Why should RPG's be the only genre to change,  and why must they change to become the other genres?

Has anyone made any such argument? I haven't read anyone saying that other genres shouldn't change. 

I'm not sure if I should call "strawman" or "not actually reading the thread" here.

[AlanC9]

Luc0s wrote...

Gatt9 wrote...
Actually,  technically speaking,  The Sims is an RPG.  It's a level-less RPG,  without a narrative,  but it achieves all the fundamental qualities necessary.

One could translate it readily to PnP without losing anything in the process.

It'd be boring,  but it is an RPG.  You assume a Role,  defined by a Character,  seperating his skills from yours.

Sorry, but The Sims is not an RPG for the very reason that it doesn't have a narrative.

The classic and original definition of the RPG genre puts more emphasis on the story-driven elements and the fact that you as the player crawl into the role of the main character(s) and experience a certain story with the character(s) usually through quests.

The Sims obviously does not match that critiria, not even a little, as it doesn't have a story whatsoever.
Well, some people make their own stories in The Sims, but that's a whole 'nother story.

You obviously havne't been reading Gatt9's posts for long if you think this argument will work. His genre definitions are not yours.

[InvincibleHero]

the_one_54321 wrote...

InvincibleHero wrote...
Some people think the simulation part is the RPG. They truly do not understand RPGs.

<-click me

Wow I absolutely can't oppose such an excellent factual rebuttal.

D&D which started RPGs is about two things. Players creating characters and roleplaying them. The second is DMs being the numbers and rules judge, providing the adventures,  and determining the role playing efficacy of the players.

The books state any rule you like you can change. How is that for saying the rule system is what it is about? Don't like the numbers for Str then change them or eliminate it. Inventory can be ditched so no encumberance. Do you get how Gygax and the other creators said the rules are not important to role playing? Likely not.

They have alignments for the purpose of the DM determining whether something another player did is in charcter. ie) is their role playing consistent to what they determined. If not the DM assigns a new alignment and consequences to the player.

I was a moderator for the POR boards at UBI and ran a thread where 4 others were PCs and I was DM. We did away with most of the rules and concentrated on storytelling and making combats more cinematic. All were of opinion that was better than actual campaigns and rolling dice and strictly adhering to rules slavishly. What was fun was not getting a +2 sword but talking to Christian D'orc clothing merchant or determining who broke this person out of jail and why? There were dungeon delves like in an abandoned church but they were there for a purpoose not mindless loot and pillage.

You can have all the stats in the world in a computer game and it does not make it an RPG. You can have very few stats and the game is most definitely an RPG. The RPG elements are just a  framework for the gameplay.

[InvincibleHero]

KaidanWilliamsShepard wrote...

OOOHHH GOD!
I am really sorry dude but!
The sims IS an RPG, at least by definition, not by "new meaning".
Role Playing Game, you design your character, you make decisions based on your personal interests and morals.
Its most definitely a role playing game, and a very successful one at that. You play a role, one that you create for yourself.

Nope EA knows their genres and they don't put RPG on the box for a reason. True you create characters like you would a PC in D&D but the ruleset isn't role playing. You can direct the Sims in a limited fashion without actual role playign involved. It is a sandbox people simulator period. There is no story progression at all. You can pick personality traits, but cannot give them one by your actions.

[Drake_Hound]

Stats and loot doesn´t make a game a roleplay , it is the imagination that does it .
That some people become so fascinated with min maxing and maths to perfection fine .
But it doesnt make it a roleplay , the system is fine in ME2 and what i see deepened out in ME3 with more choices , it more choices the more roleplay it is .
But overload the choices with all balanced crap , then it is boring like hell .
What make people love a game is finding the uber combination , as long that is almost possible.
Is already good enough for roleplayers nowadays .
Is all the tower defense clones that is flooding the Iphone Ipad Apps roleplaying ?
Cause they have levels stats and loot , no it damn hell isn´t

[Ihatebadgames]

So it boils down to DOOM + story is the future of RPGs.Simple combat,no stats.Streamlined.

[the_one_54321]

InvincibleHero wrote...
EA knows their genres

<-click me


Ok, but seriuosly, you are all aware that all forms of role playing games originall deliberately sought to completely mask your own abilities with those of the characters, right? Even LARPing does that in it's own way. In video games it's done with stats as a means of not having the player interact with the world independant of the characters abilities.

Modifié par the_one_54321, 19 juillet 2011 - 05:20 .