3223 réponses à ce sujet

[AlanC9]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...
Sorry, but Final Fantasy  REALLY IS an RPG, like it or not, it's a fact.

If it's a fact, then you could justify that assertion.

Here I am happily justifying my assertions, and all you're doing is making declarations without any foundation at all.

He could be saying that the term "RPG" actually has no content -- if players call a game an RPG then it is an RPG. Don't know if that's what he's actually saying.

I can't think of an early CRPG (pre-1984) that handed you a pre-gen party and forced you to play with that one.

Unless Zork and some of the other Infocom titles count. Someone proposed that a bit upthread. I don't buy it either.

Most classic RPG video-games also had specific roles for the characters in the party, such as warriors, mages, healers, rangers, etc. etc., much like the original table-top roleplaying-games, which are in fact the inspiration for the classic turn-based RPG video-game mechanics.

That's a revisionist position that's routinely put forward by modern tabletop publishers (like Wizards of the Coast).  I don't recall specific roles being closely tied to specific classes until EverQuest (1999).  AD&D (both 1st and 2nd edition, and D&D even as late as edition 3.5) happily supported non-standard class roles.  But try tanking with a Cleric in any modern game.  DAO was a bit of a throwback both in that you could tank with any class, and that you had enough crowd-control options that tanking wasn't even necessary if you didn't want to do it.

AD&D? IIRC the DMG instructs the DM to punish players who deviate from class stereotypes. Fighers must "boldly lead."

And I thought Clerics could tank just fine in 3.5.

AlanC9 wrote...

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.

For games in those genres to change comparably, they would need to lose their core defining characteristics.  Imagine an FPS game without any aiming or shooting, for example.  Would it still be a shooter?  Is Thief a shooter?

My point was that no one is saying anything at all about whether other genres should stay the same. Thinking it over, "strawman" is the right call there. Gatt9's been letting his rhetoric run away with him lately.

No, Thief isn't a shooter.  I've never encountered anyone who thought it was.  But why not?  If RPGs can still qualify as RPGs even after we remove the roleplaying, why can't shooters still be shooters when we remove the shooting?

If these threads have taught us anything, it's that we have no consensus on what "roleplaying" means in this context. I think ME2 has more role-playing than SMAC. You don't.

And Thief is commonly classed as a "stealth shooter." A subgenre of shooter, like action-RPG. You may deny that such a class exists, but if others find the class useful, that fight's unwinnable.

Modifié par AlanC9, 19 juillet 2011 - 03:04 .

[Daiyus]

Personally, add a layer of customisation and almost anything could be defined as an RPG. BioShock has a strong story, and many options on weapons/plasmids. Even CoD online could be classified as an RPG as you select things for your "role".

Now as far as classic RPG's go then you're looking far closer for details, and most "RPG's" of modern eras fall short (and I definitely include epic games like Morrowind in that statement).

I think RPG is such a loose term that it's impossible to actually label anything as such anymore. To me all RPG means is freedom to choose. I like choices in my games, so I look for the RPG moniker. It's why I like Mass Effect, and I did prefer elements of 1 over 2, and vice versa.

[AlanC9]

Luc0s wrote...
No, level up, XP or some form of character growth is absolutely essential to RPGs. Without it, it's not an RPG.
Really, I can't think of any RPG where your character didn't grow through stat-increases.

Original Traveller. Though they changed that fairly quickly.

But I believe the point was that you don't have to do XP or levels to have character growth. You can implement learn-by-doing, for instance. It works OK in PnP; not so well in a CRPG since the incentives are very bad.

Modifié par AlanC9, 19 juillet 2011 - 03:54 .

[the_one_54321]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...
Every in-game decision is a roleplaying decision, from which helmet to wear to which skill to learn to whether to flank your opponent.  Every one.

And you need to know your character intimately in order to make any of them.

Why is it required that you know your character intimately? Why is it perfect role playing or no role playing at all? You've constructed a false dichotomy here. I assert that you can roleplay imperfectly.

More to the point, I assert that all CRPGs involve some imperfect roleplay. If this is true then the burden lies with you to distinguish the threshold wherein the gameplay transitions from imperfect role play to not roleplay. I have provided you with my threshold: the UI and interaction mechanics that prevent you from substituting your own abilities for the characters.

[the_one_54321]

I'll say again the the difference between most FF games and games like DA is simply branching paths. A conglomerate of linear paths is effectively the same as a single linear path. The only difference is the creation of perception.

As for the Sims, in an RPG you cannot simply abstractly and directly alter the game environment. This is because to do so would violate the notion of having a setting to play in. Otherwise your setting is that you are playing a limited god figure rather than any of the characters in the game. Other than this, everything about The Sims plays like a poorly made RPG.

[VoiceOfPudding]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

the_one_54321 wrote...

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.

Even if you're just making combat decisions, how can you know those decisions are in-character without having
dfetailed knowledge of that personality?

Every in-game decision is a roleplaying decision, from which helmet to wear to which skill to learn to whether to flank your opponent.  Every one.

And you need to know your character intimately in order to make any of them.

Agree completely, and i also find this as an argument against the Larp idea of cRPGs: without stats you could suddenly decide you are playing, say, a tank character who soaks up all damage that is thrown his/her way. Without the stats to back it up it has absolutely no bearing on how long your character actually lasts in combat. You deciding that you're character is a tank does not make it a tank.
With stats you can decide you're going to play the same type of character but any change will not be noticeable until you dedicate the stats to it. With each point you dedicate towards fulfilling this role as a tank you become more proficient as a tank but you miss out in other areas; you're focus on being a tank has left other areas short and mean's that your character is less ideal for filling roles outside of the tank role.
Stat allocation will define a characters role and proper knowledge of  the function of each stat is necessary to mould your character into the role you want it to fill

[AlanC9]

the_one_54321 wrote...
As for the Sims, in an RPG you cannot simply abstractly and directly alter the game environment. This is because to do so would violate the notion of having a setting to play in. Otherwise your setting is that you are playing a limited god figure rather than any of the characters in the game. Other than this, everything about The Sims plays like a poorly made RPG.

I'm not sure I buy this. NWN2's OC let you alter Crossroads Keep in a fairly abstract manner. Unless the issue is that in The Sims you can alter 100% of the game environment, including every character in the game.

Modifié par AlanC9, 19 juillet 2011 - 06:25 .

[sp0ck 06]

I wouldn't consider The Sims an RPG because it's not about story or characters. It's about creating a world for digital people to inhabit and then playing around with that world. Thus I would classify the Sims as a "God Game," much like SimCity or the Tycoon games, or Populous. To me, an RPG is about creating a character inside a world that already exists. One of the big draws of RPGs is exploring and learning about the world, not creating it yourself. ME definitely fulfills this RPG aspect admirably, in fact I would say this is the best RPG element of the games.

The Sims certainly has stat based character progression though, so for all those on this thread who seem to feel that is the single defining feature of an RPG, I guess they could call it that.

[the_one_54321]

AlanC9 wrote...

the_one_54321 wrote...
As for the Sims, in an RPG you cannot simply abstractly and directly alter the game environment. This is because to do so would violate the notion of having a setting to play in. Otherwise your setting is that you are playing a limited god figure rather than any of the characters in the game. Other than this, everything about The Sims plays like a poorly made RPG.

I'm not sure I buy this. NWN2's OC let you alter Crossroads Keep in a fairly abstract manner. Unless the issue is that in The Sims you can alter 100% of the game environment, including every character in the game.

In The Sims it's part of the core gameplay. Other RPGs let you do other things with different game mechanics. Deffense turret mini games, puzzle games, tactical mini games. But those are small additions to the what the core gameplay offers.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Phaedon wrote...

Right. ME1/2 are not RPGs, The Sims and Alpha Centauri are. And both lack big choices and a narrative. All they have is stats. 

But yeah, if you basically admit that that's the biggest element of RPGs and consider the SIms and Alpha Centauri to be such, then good for you. Proves my point, I think.

Whereas, you've missed my point.

ME and ME2 don't have choices, which is why I think they're not RPGs.  Because your control of Shepard is hiddden from you behind that obfuscatory paraphrase system, and the cinematics routinely steal control away from you and force Shepard to do potentially character-breaking things, I don't think you can be reasonably described as being in control.

Alpha Centauri, on the other hand, grants you enormous control.  The game never tells you that you didn't build that base for the reasons you think you did.  It never makes your forces behave in ways would wouldn't have chosen.  Alpha Centauri (and, preumably, The Sims), let's you make decisions on behalf of your characters.

ME2 goes out of its way to prevent that.  The interrupt system alone is a game-breaking design flaw.

And TS3 is a much better "RPG" than Alpha Centauri. Character creation, character/player differentiation, inventory, loot, skills and statistical progression.

You don't need skills and statistical progression if you have well balanced opportunity costs.

It seems that almost no one understands opportunity costs, though, so me appealing to them in an argument never seems to do any good.

And inventory is effectively just resource management.  SMAC has that.

[Phaedon]

[quote]the_one_54321 wrote...

I'll say again the the difference between most FF games and games like DA is simply branching paths. A conglomerate of linear paths is effectively the same as a single linear path. The only difference is the creation of perception.

As for the Sims, in an RPG you cannot simply abstractly and directly alter the game environment. This is because to do so would violate the notion of having a setting to play in. Otherwise your setting is that you are playing a limited god figure rather than any of the characters in the game. Other than this, everything about The Sims plays like a poorly made RPG.[/quote]
I am going to agree. Although TS3 (I am just using TS3 because TS2 and 1 didn't really have 'loot' or an 'inventory, as far as I remember) has all of the supposed elements than an elitist could point out that apply to an RPG, it somehow is not considered one by them.


[quote]Sylvius the Mad wrote...
Whereas, you've missed my point.

ME and ME2 don't have choices, which is why I think they're not RPGs.  Because your control of Shepard is hiddden from you behind that obfuscatory paraphrase system, and the cinematics routinely steal control away from you and force Shepard to do potentially character-breaking things, I don't think you can be reasonably described as being in control.[/quote]
Uh-huh.

[quote]Alpha Centauri, on the other hand, grants you enormous control.  The game never tells you that you didn't build that base for the reasons you think you did.  It never makes your forces behave in ways would wouldn't have chosen.  Alpha Centauri (and, preumably, The Sims), let's you make decisions on behalf of your characters.

ME2 goes out of its way to prevent that.  The interrupt system alone is a game-breaking design flaw.[/quote]
What. Alpha Centauri and TS don't even have a plot that changes according to your choices, your choices are absolutely meaningless.

ME1 and 2 have some meaningful repercussions on your actions, even if they are limited, and yet somehow they don't have choices, while the previous two simulation games do. Okay.

In fact, by that logic, 95% of simulation games are RPGs, while 70% of games considered as RPGs actually aren't.

I do like how you only used ME2 this game. I love subjectivity.


[quote]You don't need skills and statistical progression if you have well balanced opportunity costs.

It seems that almost no one understands opportunity costs, though, so me appealing to them in an argument never seems to do any good.

And inventory is effectively just resource management.  SMAC has that.[/quote]
Inventory has nothing to do with resource management, it has to do with item management. You can't exactly equip a resource.

Opportunity cost? Hah, in the ME games, you lose or earn lines of dialogue, parts of the storyline. What do you lose at simulation games? An obscure statistic that you can probably regather/change a few minutes later?

[/quote]

[tobynator89]

The Big Bad Wolf wrote...

I'm sorry if I'm being off-topic, but what exactly is this thread about? This thread is too long for me to read what it's about.

mostly its the same group of people whining endlessly about what constitutes an RPG, a genre so ill defined that every game in existance has some elements of it. 

[Siven80]

tobynator89 wrote...

The Big Bad Wolf wrote...

I'm sorry if I'm being off-topic, but what exactly is this thread about? This thread is too long for me to read what it's about.

mostly its the same group of people whining endlessly about what constitutes an RPG, a genre so ill defined that every game in existance has some elements of it. 

Pretty much that.

[M.Erik.Sal]

Phaedon wrote...

Alpha Centauri, on the other hand, grants you enormous control.  The game never tells you that you didn't build that base for the reasons you think you did.  It never makes your forces behave in ways would wouldn't have chosen.  Alpha Centauri (and, preumably, The Sims), let's you make decisions on behalf of your characters.

ME2 goes out of its way to prevent that.  The interrupt system alone is a game-breaking design flaw.

What. Alpha Centauri and TS don't even have a plot that changes according to your choices, your choices are absolutely meaningless.

ME1 and 2 have some meaningful repercussions on your actions, even if they are limited, and yet somehow they don't have choices, while the previous two simulation games do. Okay.

In fact, by that logic, 95% of simulation games are RPGs, while 70% of games considered as RPGs actually aren't.

I do like how you only used ME2 this game. I love subjectivity.

A minor poin; but SMAC does actually have some major desicions (at the very end) that strongly affect the narrative. Still doesn't make SMAC an RPG, because the focus of the game is not on an individual or group of protagonists but rather on the tactical and strategic choices you make. SMAC's story and writing are superb, but ultimately ancilliary to the game itself and provide only a veneer with which to justify game mechanics and not an effort to impose or construct a story.

Modifié par M.Erik.Sal, 19 juillet 2011 - 07:06 .

[Phaedon]

tobynator89 wrote...

The Big Bad Wolf wrote...

I'm sorry if I'm being off-topic, but what exactly is this thread about? This thread is too long for me to read what it's about.

mostly its the same group of people whining endlessly about what constitutes an RPG, a genre so ill defined that every game in existance has some elements of it. 

That pretty much.

[the_one_54321]

The Big Bad Wolf wrote...
Not to sound like like a jerk, but who the hell cares?

The Big Bad Wolf wrote...
And besides, COD's multiplayer is technically an rpg.

Really? Really?? Really???

Modifié par the_one_54321, 19 juillet 2011 - 07:12 .

[Phaedon]

Really? Really?? Really???

You have people saying that TS3 is a true RPG whereas ME1/2 are not in the same page, btw.

[tobynator89]

Did I just crash a thread the size of your average novel with one sentence?

[the_one_54321]

Phaedon wrote...

Really? Really?? Really???

You have people saying that TS3 is a true RPG whereas ME1/2 are not in the same page, btw.

And?

My astonishment was at the hypocrisy of his judgement being followed by the same kind of statement he was judging.