Modifié par the_one_54321, 19 juillet 2011 - 07:22 .
Biowares Take on on deeper RPG mechanics. "Forget about stats and loot. More combat.
Débuté par
Darji
, juin 30 2011 09:47
-
Ce sujet est fermé
- Show only BioWare posts
#3126
Posté 19 juillet 2011 - 07:22
the_one_54321
-
- Members
- 6 112 messages
"Why are you people even talking about this. Now let me give you my opinion on the topic." *eyeroll*
Retour en haut
#3127
Posté 19 juillet 2011 - 07:23
Ace of Dawn
-
- Members
- 553 messages
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.
Brilliant!
The subject of the ongoing discussion is more clearly defined after 125 pages than the genre itself.
#3128
Posté 19 juillet 2011 - 07:27
Sylvius the Mad
-
- Members
- 24 106 messages
[quote]Luc0s wrote...
Please define "roleplaying". Because I see that you put much emphasis on the word "roleplaying", which I fully understand because else the whole term "role-playing-game" would be pretty useless.
But what IS roleplaying? Is it decision-making that defines roleplaying? Is it character progression that defines roleplaying? Or is "playing the role of a character" that defines roleplaying?
In my opinion, it's the last. I define roleplaying as "playing the role of a character".[/quote]
I define roleplaying as "in-character decision-maiking".
Assuming a pre-defined role isn't playing since you don't get to make decisions on behalf of that character. And you can't make those decisions in-character without knowing the character's full set of preferenecs.
[quote]But if "playing the role of a character" would be the only requirement for a game to be defined as a RPG, 90% of all the games on the market would be a RPG. So it's not as simple as that. It clearly takes more than just "playing the role of a character" for a game to be labeled as a RPG.[/quote]
You're confusing playing a role with assuming a role. If you're not in control, then you're not playing. You're just painting-by-numbers.
[quote]It's a fact that Final Fantasy is a RPG because of several reasons. The most obvious reason is that the label on the game's cover says "RPG".[/quote]
The labels panders to populat opinion. It's a marketing tool I see no reason to trust the label.
I can write a game and call it an RPG. That alone doesn't make it an RPG. Seriously, you just appealed to the label as a sufficient condition. Really?
[quote]Which is exactly what Final Fantasy does. You build a party, make decisions on who you want in your party or not, you select skills for each party members, make up a combat tactic and travel through a (mostly) open world from objective to objective. I know some FF games (such as FF7 and FF13) are incredibly linear, but most FF games are not. Besides, just because FF7 and FF13 are pretty linear doesn't mean they don't deserve the RPG label all of the sudden.[/quote]
Since you aren't in control of Cloud's personality, (look at all that non-interactive dialogue, for example), you can't make in-character decisions on his behalf. If you choose to go exploring (which the game allows) for some reason that the game later contradicts as part of the linear narrative, then the game just broke your character.
RPGs can't do that and still be RPGs.
[quote]So? Your point is? I can name plenty of RPG games where you get a pre-made party and you're forced to play with that one. All the Mario&Luigi RPG games for example. [/quote]
You were appealing to the origins of the genre as some sort of arbiter of standards. I pointed out that what you were calling the origins were in fact a middle period. You missed the origins of CRPGs by a decade.
The earliest CRPG I've played is Oubliette. It was written for the PLATO mainframe, and was released in 1977. It's a fine game, and a good example of an early CRPG.
[quote]Again, bull****. Almost every classic RPG had classes and roles.[/quote]
Yes, but they weren't tied together. That's the assertion you made, and I refuted it.
If you keep moving the goalposts, then we're not going to get anywhere.
[quote]Even when you're allowed to experiment with those classes, such as D&D, you still have classes. No matter how you play the priest, the warrior or the monk, you're still the priest, the warrior or the monk. Just because you like to tank with your cleric in D&D doesn't mean you're not a cleric. You're still a cleric.[/quote]
But the role that Cleric fills within the party isn't fixed. He can be a tank, or a nuker, or healer, or even a utility character with little or no combat role.
Remember, before 3E, D&D Clerics didn't even necessarily have healing spells.
[quote]So really, I don't see what point you're trying to prove here. That in RPGs you can play a class different then originally intended? So what?[/quote]
Thus classes were not closely associated with combat roles. You claimed they were, and you were wrong.
[quote]Heck, even you that puts so much emphasis on roleplaying should know that The Sims is not an RPG because you don't roleplay in The Sims.
You are not the characters that live in your Sims house. In every RPG, you are the character.[/quote]
You're about to make some really good points that reveal my ignorance with regard to The Sims, but I'm going to stop you here.
You are not your character in an RPG. You control your character, but your character is a person in his own right, an independent entity.
This is why stats are important. Otherwise your character would just be an avatar of you in the game world, and he would be good at the things you are good at and bad at the things you are bad at.
In an RPG, your character's mind is populated by you, yes, but he doesn't necessarily share your opinions. If you are you character, that separation would be impossible.
Look at a CRPG. You can play it once with a character with one personality, and then play it again with a character who has a completely different personality. You'll get a very different gameplay experience each time because the character you're controlling is different. What he does, and why he does it, and how he interprets the events around him, and what he thinks of the people he meets - those things can change.
Your personality doesn't change. Since your characters' personalities can, they clearly then cannot be you.
Now, to the stuff you got right:
[quote] In The Sims, you're not. In The Sims you merely tell little characters that are controlled by an A.I. what to do as some sort of "god figure" and all you can do is hope that these little characters actually do what you ask them to do.
All the characters in The Sims have their own will. They decide when they need food. They decide when they're bored. They decide when they want to sleep. You would think that if The Sims was a roleplaying-game, then you as the player could decide when your digital character is hungry, tired or bored, no? But you don't make those decisions, the A.I. does. You don't actually get to decide how your characters behave, the A.I. does. You can only guide the A.I. controlled characters.[/quote]
I didn't know this. I assumed you actually controlled the characters. What you describe sounds like Railroad Tycoon, but with people.
I have no idea why anyone would play that game. That sounds awful. And it is most certainly not an RPG.
As I admitted earlier, I was working from descriptions of the game posted by others. I've never played it.
[quote]Besides, how hard is it to understand that The Sims is a simulation game? It's a sim, not an RPG. It literally says so in the title too! Why do you think The Sims is called The SIMS? Well, obviously because it's a sim game, not a RPG game.[/quote]
I think the best RPGs are, at their core, simulations. They simulate a world, and your character lives in that world as you direct.
[quote]AlanC9 wrote...
Edit: but if emergent narrative counts then any game has narrative, [/quote]
Sure. But my point is that the narrative that matters in an RPG is the emergent narrative. A tightly-woven authored narrative precludes an emergent narrative, and the emergent narrative is where the roleplaying happens.
[quote]AlanC9 wrote...
I think ME2 has more role-playing than SMAC.[/quote]
I'd love to know what roleplaying you think exists in ME2 (or ME, for that matter), because I don't see any. At all. That dialogue system completely prevents it.
[quote]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.[/quote]
I've typically heard it described as a first-person sneaker. A stealth shooter would be a game like some aspects of Alpha Protocol, or Splinter Cell Conviction, where there's a heavy sneaking component but you still ultimately shoot enemies as a core (or even just an effective) tactic.
In general, attacking people at all in Thief is a good way to get killed. Moreover, most of the game can be beaten without engaging in combat at all. Sneak in, steal stuff, sneak out. No one sees you, no one dies.
That can't be called a shooter. Calling that a shooter wouldn't make any sense at all.
[quote]the_one_54321 wrote...
Why is it required that you know your character intimately? Why is it perfect role playing or no role playing at all?[/quote]
To make a decision on behalf of the character, you need to know that he won't later contradict that decision. When you make a decision, you make that decision in a context that included every opinion you currently hold. If you aren't aware of your opinions, then you're likely to contradict yourself.
You can't make decisions in that sort of environment, because you don't know what your premises are.
[quote]You've constructed a false dichotomy here. I assert that you can roleplay imperfectly.[/quote]
How? How do you decide what your character is going to do ant any given opportunity to make a decision without firtst knowing that character?
Please explain that to me. How do you choose without knowing the relevant choice criteria?
[quote]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.[/quote]
I would further require UI and interaction mechanics that prevent the character from ever doing something you didn't explicitly direct. You not only have to press a button to make it happen, but you have to know what it is you're telling the character to do before you press that button.
This is why ME2's interrupts (and dialogue) don't work. You cannot know what your character is going to do before you input the command. Both ME2 and DA2 do this horribly. We can't tell whether we're going to be polite or confrontational when talking to The Illusive Man. We can't tell whether we're going to sneer or smile at the slavers.
Please define "roleplaying". Because I see that you put much emphasis on the word "roleplaying", which I fully understand because else the whole term "role-playing-game" would be pretty useless.
But what IS roleplaying? Is it decision-making that defines roleplaying? Is it character progression that defines roleplaying? Or is "playing the role of a character" that defines roleplaying?
In my opinion, it's the last. I define roleplaying as "playing the role of a character".[/quote]
I define roleplaying as "in-character decision-maiking".
Assuming a pre-defined role isn't playing since you don't get to make decisions on behalf of that character. And you can't make those decisions in-character without knowing the character's full set of preferenecs.
[quote]But if "playing the role of a character" would be the only requirement for a game to be defined as a RPG, 90% of all the games on the market would be a RPG. So it's not as simple as that. It clearly takes more than just "playing the role of a character" for a game to be labeled as a RPG.[/quote]
You're confusing playing a role with assuming a role. If you're not in control, then you're not playing. You're just painting-by-numbers.
[quote]It's a fact that Final Fantasy is a RPG because of several reasons. The most obvious reason is that the label on the game's cover says "RPG".[/quote]
The labels panders to populat opinion. It's a marketing tool I see no reason to trust the label.
I can write a game and call it an RPG. That alone doesn't make it an RPG. Seriously, you just appealed to the label as a sufficient condition. Really?
[quote]Which is exactly what Final Fantasy does. You build a party, make decisions on who you want in your party or not, you select skills for each party members, make up a combat tactic and travel through a (mostly) open world from objective to objective. I know some FF games (such as FF7 and FF13) are incredibly linear, but most FF games are not. Besides, just because FF7 and FF13 are pretty linear doesn't mean they don't deserve the RPG label all of the sudden.[/quote]
Since you aren't in control of Cloud's personality, (look at all that non-interactive dialogue, for example), you can't make in-character decisions on his behalf. If you choose to go exploring (which the game allows) for some reason that the game later contradicts as part of the linear narrative, then the game just broke your character.
RPGs can't do that and still be RPGs.
[quote]So? Your point is? I can name plenty of RPG games where you get a pre-made party and you're forced to play with that one. All the Mario&Luigi RPG games for example. [/quote]
You were appealing to the origins of the genre as some sort of arbiter of standards. I pointed out that what you were calling the origins were in fact a middle period. You missed the origins of CRPGs by a decade.
The earliest CRPG I've played is Oubliette. It was written for the PLATO mainframe, and was released in 1977. It's a fine game, and a good example of an early CRPG.
[quote]Again, bull****. Almost every classic RPG had classes and roles.[/quote]
Yes, but they weren't tied together. That's the assertion you made, and I refuted it.
If you keep moving the goalposts, then we're not going to get anywhere.
[quote]Even when you're allowed to experiment with those classes, such as D&D, you still have classes. No matter how you play the priest, the warrior or the monk, you're still the priest, the warrior or the monk. Just because you like to tank with your cleric in D&D doesn't mean you're not a cleric. You're still a cleric.[/quote]
But the role that Cleric fills within the party isn't fixed. He can be a tank, or a nuker, or healer, or even a utility character with little or no combat role.
Remember, before 3E, D&D Clerics didn't even necessarily have healing spells.
[quote]So really, I don't see what point you're trying to prove here. That in RPGs you can play a class different then originally intended? So what?[/quote]
Thus classes were not closely associated with combat roles. You claimed they were, and you were wrong.
[quote]Heck, even you that puts so much emphasis on roleplaying should know that The Sims is not an RPG because you don't roleplay in The Sims.
You are not the characters that live in your Sims house. In every RPG, you are the character.[/quote]
You're about to make some really good points that reveal my ignorance with regard to The Sims, but I'm going to stop you here.
You are not your character in an RPG. You control your character, but your character is a person in his own right, an independent entity.
This is why stats are important. Otherwise your character would just be an avatar of you in the game world, and he would be good at the things you are good at and bad at the things you are bad at.
In an RPG, your character's mind is populated by you, yes, but he doesn't necessarily share your opinions. If you are you character, that separation would be impossible.
Look at a CRPG. You can play it once with a character with one personality, and then play it again with a character who has a completely different personality. You'll get a very different gameplay experience each time because the character you're controlling is different. What he does, and why he does it, and how he interprets the events around him, and what he thinks of the people he meets - those things can change.
Your personality doesn't change. Since your characters' personalities can, they clearly then cannot be you.
Now, to the stuff you got right:
[quote] In The Sims, you're not. In The Sims you merely tell little characters that are controlled by an A.I. what to do as some sort of "god figure" and all you can do is hope that these little characters actually do what you ask them to do.
All the characters in The Sims have their own will. They decide when they need food. They decide when they're bored. They decide when they want to sleep. You would think that if The Sims was a roleplaying-game, then you as the player could decide when your digital character is hungry, tired or bored, no? But you don't make those decisions, the A.I. does. You don't actually get to decide how your characters behave, the A.I. does. You can only guide the A.I. controlled characters.[/quote]
I didn't know this. I assumed you actually controlled the characters. What you describe sounds like Railroad Tycoon, but with people.
I have no idea why anyone would play that game. That sounds awful. And it is most certainly not an RPG.
As I admitted earlier, I was working from descriptions of the game posted by others. I've never played it.
[quote]Besides, how hard is it to understand that The Sims is a simulation game? It's a sim, not an RPG. It literally says so in the title too! Why do you think The Sims is called The SIMS? Well, obviously because it's a sim game, not a RPG game.[/quote]
I think the best RPGs are, at their core, simulations. They simulate a world, and your character lives in that world as you direct.
[quote]AlanC9 wrote...
Edit: but if emergent narrative counts then any game has narrative, [/quote]
Sure. But my point is that the narrative that matters in an RPG is the emergent narrative. A tightly-woven authored narrative precludes an emergent narrative, and the emergent narrative is where the roleplaying happens.
[quote]AlanC9 wrote...
I think ME2 has more role-playing than SMAC.[/quote]
I'd love to know what roleplaying you think exists in ME2 (or ME, for that matter), because I don't see any. At all. That dialogue system completely prevents it.
[quote]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.[/quote]
I've typically heard it described as a first-person sneaker. A stealth shooter would be a game like some aspects of Alpha Protocol, or Splinter Cell Conviction, where there's a heavy sneaking component but you still ultimately shoot enemies as a core (or even just an effective) tactic.
In general, attacking people at all in Thief is a good way to get killed. Moreover, most of the game can be beaten without engaging in combat at all. Sneak in, steal stuff, sneak out. No one sees you, no one dies.
That can't be called a shooter. Calling that a shooter wouldn't make any sense at all.
[quote]the_one_54321 wrote...
Why is it required that you know your character intimately? Why is it perfect role playing or no role playing at all?[/quote]
To make a decision on behalf of the character, you need to know that he won't later contradict that decision. When you make a decision, you make that decision in a context that included every opinion you currently hold. If you aren't aware of your opinions, then you're likely to contradict yourself.
You can't make decisions in that sort of environment, because you don't know what your premises are.
[quote]You've constructed a false dichotomy here. I assert that you can roleplay imperfectly.[/quote]
How? How do you decide what your character is going to do ant any given opportunity to make a decision without firtst knowing that character?
Please explain that to me. How do you choose without knowing the relevant choice criteria?
[quote]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.[/quote]
I would further require UI and interaction mechanics that prevent the character from ever doing something you didn't explicitly direct. You not only have to press a button to make it happen, but you have to know what it is you're telling the character to do before you press that button.
This is why ME2's interrupts (and dialogue) don't work. You cannot know what your character is going to do before you input the command. Both ME2 and DA2 do this horribly. We can't tell whether we're going to be polite or confrontational when talking to The Illusive Man. We can't tell whether we're going to sneer or smile at the slavers.
#3129
Guest_The Big Bad Wolf_*
Posté 19 juillet 2011 - 07:27
Guest_The Big Bad Wolf_*
Guest_The Big Bad Wolf_*
-
- Guests
the_one_54321 wrote...
"Why are you people even talking about this. Now let me give you my opinion on the topic." *eyeroll*
Way to miss what I was saying.
I'm saying that none of it really matters, as almost every game out there can be called an rpg of some sort. So what's the point?
#3130
Posté 19 juillet 2011 - 07:29
AlanC9
-
- Members
- 35 601 messages
Sylvius the Mad wrote...
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.
This is dependent on the player. You're not in control because you routinely misinterpret the paraphrases and interrupts. I am in control because I interpret them correctly.
Modifié par AlanC9, 19 juillet 2011 - 07:30 .
#3131
Posté 19 juillet 2011 - 07:32
VoiceOfPudding
-
- Members
- 157 messages
The Big Bad Wolf wrote...
the_one_54321 wrote...
The Big Bad Wolf wrote...
Not to sound like like a jerk, but who the hell cares?Really? Really?? Really???The Big Bad Wolf wrote...
And besides, COD's multiplayer is technically an rpg.
Yes, really. I consider an rpg is a game where you can play different roles, level up, get different weapons, abilities and all that.
And COD's multiplayer, along with BFBC2, does that. So yeah, it's an rpg. Also, that makes Crysis an rpg as well.
well because it's online wouldn't it be a mmorpg?
#3132
Posté 19 juillet 2011 - 07:35
tobynator89
-
- Members
- 1 618 messages
VoiceOfPudding wrote...
The Big Bad Wolf wrote...
the_one_54321 wrote...
The Big Bad Wolf wrote...
Not to sound like like a jerk, but who the hell cares?Really? Really?? Really???The Big Bad Wolf wrote...
And besides, COD's multiplayer is technically an rpg.
Yes, really. I consider an rpg is a game where you can play different roles, level up, get different weapons, abilities and all that.
And COD's multiplayer, along with BFBC2, does that. So yeah, it's an rpg. Also, that makes Crysis an rpg as well.
well because it's online wouldn't it be a mmorpg?
Nah to small to really be considered massive (in game size not population), make it an morpg and that pretty much seals it.
#3133
Posté 19 juillet 2011 - 07:36
the_one_54321
-
- Members
- 6 112 messages
Making a decision without knowing every applicalbe piece of information is an every day occurrance.Sylvius the Mad wrote...
Please explain that to me. How do you choose without knowing the relevant choice criteria?
#3134
Guest_Nyoka_*
Posté 19 juillet 2011 - 07:38
Guest_Nyoka_*
Guest_Nyoka_*
-
- Guests
Ah, labels. They're so fun to discuss. Not.
#3135
Posté 19 juillet 2011 - 07:40
sp0ck 06
-
- Members
- 1 318 messages
AlanC9 wrote...
Sylvius the Mad wrote...
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.
This is dependent on the player. You're not in control because you routinely misinterpret the paraphrases and interrupts. I am in control because I interpret them correctly.
This.
The game makes it quite apparent LT interrupt = benevolent way of solving problem, RT interrupt = ruthless way of solving problem. Pretty simple system. If you can't properly gauge the tone of what Shep is going to say/do based off dialogue wheel choices, perhaps you aren't reading the options carefully. I think it wheel does a pretty good job of giving a "mindset" to Shep's actions.
It's certainly better than older systems where the NPCs say the exact same things to you and most conversations end the exact same way regardless of what dialogue you choose. Ultimately, optioned dialogue in any cRPG is constrained to the amount of text and dynamics of characters the developers were able to put in, ME's dialogue system is far superior to most.
#3136
Posté 19 juillet 2011 - 07:54
Sylvius the Mad
-
- Members
- 24 106 messages
The stuggles your colony faces are absolutely affected by your choices. How you deal with those hardships or opportunities (and why) is the game's narrative.Phaedon wrote...
What. Alpha Centauri and TS don't even have a plot that changes according to your choices, your choices are absolutely meaningless.
I won't accept those numbers without supporting data, but I wouldn't be surprised to see something counter-intuitive appear, no.In fact, by that logic, 95% of simulation games are RPGs, while 70% of games considered as RPGs actually aren't.
Items are resources. What possible definition of resource could you be using that excludes items?Inventory has nothing to do with resource management, it has to do with item management. You can't exactly equip a resource.
That lost time remains lost. If you build a Network Node, it generates Research Points over time. But the resources you consumed to build it cannot then be used to build something else, so whatever benefits you might have gained had you made a different choice are lost forever.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?
If you instead built a fortification, then you've defended you base starting right now, but you lose (forever) that headstart in tech research.
#3137
Posté 19 juillet 2011 - 08:05
Sylvius the Mad
-
- Members
- 24 106 messages
[quote]AlanC9 wrote...
[quote]Sylvius the Mad wrote...
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]
This is dependent on the player. You're not in control because you routinely misinterpret the paraphrases and interrupts. I am in control because I interpret them correctly.[/quote]
Guessing right is still guessing. You don't know the outcomes any more than I do. You just had better luck.
If I bet $1000 on black at the roulette table, whether that was a good decision has nothing at all to do with whether it comes up black.
Unless you think there's some method you can follow which consistently and measurably predicts the outcomes. And if you do, please share it.
[quote]the_one_54321 wrote...
Making a decision without knowing every applicalbe piece of information is an every day occurrance.[/quote]
Every potentially relevant piece of information? Yes. Every available piece of information? Why would that ever happen? Do you really make decisions without bothering to consider relevant facts you have handy in your own head?
I'm not talking about gathering extra information. I'm talking about using knowledge you already possess. If you're choosing between choice A and choice B, and the information you have is sufficient to make you favour A over B, do you sometimes then still choose B? Even though you know you want A?
If so, then you're a danger to yourself and others.
[quote]sp0ck 06 wrote...
This.
The game makes it quite apparent LT interrupt = benevolent way of solving problem, RT interrupt = ruthless way of solving problem. Pretty simple system. [/quote]
Too simple. Benevolent vs. Ruthless isn't enough detail.
When I'm talking to the Illusive Man at the beginning of ME2, and I want to be polite and cooperative, should I choose Paragon options or Renegade options?
I tried Paragon, because in ME that was generally what produced a more polite Shepard. And yet, when talking to TIM it made Shepard aggressive and confrontational.
How was I supposed to know that? How could anyone have known that?
[quote]It's certainly better than older systems where the NPCs say the exact same things to you and most conversations end the exact same way regardless of what dialogue you choose.[/qu ote]
This can't ever have been a problem, because your character doesn't know what an NPC would have said under different circumstances. Those circumstances never came to pass.
You can't even ever know this happens unless you break character. Your metagaming is your own problem.
[quote]Sylvius the Mad wrote...
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]
This is dependent on the player. You're not in control because you routinely misinterpret the paraphrases and interrupts. I am in control because I interpret them correctly.[/quote]
Guessing right is still guessing. You don't know the outcomes any more than I do. You just had better luck.
If I bet $1000 on black at the roulette table, whether that was a good decision has nothing at all to do with whether it comes up black.
Unless you think there's some method you can follow which consistently and measurably predicts the outcomes. And if you do, please share it.
[quote]the_one_54321 wrote...
Making a decision without knowing every applicalbe piece of information is an every day occurrance.[/quote]
Every potentially relevant piece of information? Yes. Every available piece of information? Why would that ever happen? Do you really make decisions without bothering to consider relevant facts you have handy in your own head?
I'm not talking about gathering extra information. I'm talking about using knowledge you already possess. If you're choosing between choice A and choice B, and the information you have is sufficient to make you favour A over B, do you sometimes then still choose B? Even though you know you want A?
If so, then you're a danger to yourself and others.
[quote]sp0ck 06 wrote...
This.
The game makes it quite apparent LT interrupt = benevolent way of solving problem, RT interrupt = ruthless way of solving problem. Pretty simple system. [/quote]
Too simple. Benevolent vs. Ruthless isn't enough detail.
When I'm talking to the Illusive Man at the beginning of ME2, and I want to be polite and cooperative, should I choose Paragon options or Renegade options?
I tried Paragon, because in ME that was generally what produced a more polite Shepard. And yet, when talking to TIM it made Shepard aggressive and confrontational.
How was I supposed to know that? How could anyone have known that?
[quote]It's certainly better than older systems where the NPCs say the exact same things to you and most conversations end the exact same way regardless of what dialogue you choose.[/qu ote]
This can't ever have been a problem, because your character doesn't know what an NPC would have said under different circumstances. Those circumstances never came to pass.
You can't even ever know this happens unless you break character. Your metagaming is your own problem.
#3138
Posté 19 juillet 2011 - 08:12
Lumikki
-
- Members
- 4 239 messages
The growth does happens in most RPG's, that's true. BUT role-playing it self doesn't require any growth. Role-playing can have growth, but it's not requirement, it's more based if character does growth or not in the story.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.
Did you look my list of three, was story and progression in that list?Progression is also essential to RPGs. A game without story and/or character progression is not a RPG.
Name one RPG that doesn't have story and/or character progression yet is labeled as an RPG.
1. Story with interaction with enviroment (dialogs or items)
2. Player defined character (customation)
3. Progression (character advance)
Look up the REAL history of role-playing and RPG's, where it's comes. Look even before PnP RPG's as why hole genre was created in first place. You will see it was about role-playing what started hole genre. That's why it's called "Role-Playing Games". Some of people just have forgoten what ROLE-PLAYING is.I do not define RPG based solely on my own experiences. My own experience as a game-designer and gamer do play a role, but only a small role. I define RPG based on what the game-industry says and how the RPG genre originated. If we look at the origin of the RPG genre, we can clearly see that it came from the pens-n-paper roleplaying games. That gives us a hint on what it takes to be an RPG.
PnP RPG's was created sertain ways because there was no other way to simulate role-playing with people who could not play they role well enough without those rules. People started arguing what they can do and not, so they wanted clear rules, like laws how to play. So they created rules to help, so those rules are TOOL for role-playing, but they where NEVER the actual role-playing.
You know that some PnP RPG players have also played without rule books, because they become so good at it, that they did not really need rules anymore. Because RULES was just TOOL for role-playing, they where NEVER the role-playing it self.
History of RPG's (PnP style RPG's where it all begings, from acting roles in war games)
Role-playing refers to the changing of one's behaviour to assume a role, either unconsciously to fill a social role, or consciously to act out an adopted role.
Modifié par Lumikki, 19 juillet 2011 - 09:13 .
#3139
Posté 19 juillet 2011 - 08:17
sp0ck 06
-
- Members
- 1 318 messages
Sylvius the Mad wrote...
Guessing right is still guessing. You don't know the outcomes any more than I do. You just had better luck.
If I bet $1000 on black at the roulette table, whether that was a good decision has nothing at all to do with whether it comes up black.
Who said anything about guessing? Unless you just spin your joystick/mouse and choose random responses to every dialogue, you aren't guessing. The game generally gives you a pretty good idea about the tone of your response.
Too simple. Benevolent vs. Ruthless isn't enough detail.
What what YOU do? If you had made this game, what system would YOU have implemented, realistically?
This can't ever have been a problem, because your character doesn't know what an NPC would have said under different circumstances. Those circumstances never came to pass.It's certainly better than older systems where the NPCs say the exact same things to you and most conversations end the exact same way regardless of what dialogue you choose.
You can't even ever know this happens unless you break character. Your metagaming is your own problem.
My metagaming? What does that even mean? Unlike you, I don't believe my character is real. I think he's a bunch of pixels that I am directly controlling, because I'm playing a damn video game. You've been complaining how ME2 dialogue gives no choice, player has no control, blah blah, but here you say it doesn't matter at all. How can you want to control everything the character does, but not want the player to be cognizant of the game? Furthermore, if "this can't ever have been a problem," why have any dialogue choice at all? Every conversation should be the same, every time?
Modifié par sp0ck 06, 19 juillet 2011 - 08:18 .
#3140
Posté 19 juillet 2011 - 08:18
Rohx
-
- Members
- 55 messages
Personally I feel "RPG" as synonym of Story driven games with exploration and interaction with the world, as opposed to the gameplay driven games.
In the 90s when we had games like Mario, you go from point A to B, and you ended a level.
In a Computer RPG you had to interact to people to know where you where going like betrayal at Kondor.
JRPG started a trend with fixed characters, games like FF or Dragon Quest. Where you walked the world where a cute story was told.
After some time CRPG like Baldur’s gate was more or less the same the game gave you a fixed character, in this is you the son of a god and this is your story.
The RPG tag was placed in many variations of games, especially Japan’s market, soon after games that had levels systems and loot where considered RPG despite having a gameplay closer to a Mario game. Also Story driven games are, right now, the standard in the market, Game like Batman:AA have good story and lets you play the Roll of Batman or an Uncharted Game.
Other games tagged as RPG just for having Levels and loot. Games like Diablo where tagged as RPG, despite having little to no story or character interaction, etc. Borderlands is a first person shooter mixed with Diablo. Games like GTA and other sand box games to have RPGs elements.
But still years passed and People consider this games RPG it’s set on stone its on people perception of that makes a game more or less RPGish.
The trend of pure CPRGs, comes with the perception that over all other stuff there is the decision and consequences. Only a small amount of games published and considered RPG have this. And for most RPG players is the heart of what a PRG are know for.
If you can’t take decisions that have different outcomes and maybe endings then it’s not a real RPG.
It’s a valid point because I feel that way too. But on the mind of plenty for players games with loot and levels or story driven games are also RPG, and that’s something we can’t change.
Only a handful of developers do this pure RPGs games, games like Bioware, Cd project red with the witcher, obsidian with Fallout new Vegas, etc. (Bethesda has a fixed story and there not much consequences for your actions in the story)
Back on Bio and ME3 I personally liked ME2 it was a grate game with fun Gameplay and good enough story.
Things that I feel they could do better is in the decision making process to much black and white not enough gray areas.
Also I like to be able to customize the looks on my followers, I don’t care about stats or loot, but be able to choose how they look AKA having more than 1-2 choices. People think loot may fix this (having more to chose), but the fact that I love better stats and that bottlenecks the loot because the best gear is not always the look you want for you team.
For example Garrus armor, why he has a hole in his armor, after I save him, man I should be able to buy a new one, And I hate when you charge money for a DLC to change stuff like this. I know you want to make money but still man, stuff like that makes me want to stop buying stuff like that. In the end ME2 had a lot of little things that need polish.
But that’s just me.
In the 90s when we had games like Mario, you go from point A to B, and you ended a level.
In a Computer RPG you had to interact to people to know where you where going like betrayal at Kondor.
JRPG started a trend with fixed characters, games like FF or Dragon Quest. Where you walked the world where a cute story was told.
After some time CRPG like Baldur’s gate was more or less the same the game gave you a fixed character, in this is you the son of a god and this is your story.
The RPG tag was placed in many variations of games, especially Japan’s market, soon after games that had levels systems and loot where considered RPG despite having a gameplay closer to a Mario game. Also Story driven games are, right now, the standard in the market, Game like Batman:AA have good story and lets you play the Roll of Batman or an Uncharted Game.
Other games tagged as RPG just for having Levels and loot. Games like Diablo where tagged as RPG, despite having little to no story or character interaction, etc. Borderlands is a first person shooter mixed with Diablo. Games like GTA and other sand box games to have RPGs elements.
But still years passed and People consider this games RPG it’s set on stone its on people perception of that makes a game more or less RPGish.
The trend of pure CPRGs, comes with the perception that over all other stuff there is the decision and consequences. Only a small amount of games published and considered RPG have this. And for most RPG players is the heart of what a PRG are know for.
If you can’t take decisions that have different outcomes and maybe endings then it’s not a real RPG.
It’s a valid point because I feel that way too. But on the mind of plenty for players games with loot and levels or story driven games are also RPG, and that’s something we can’t change.
Only a handful of developers do this pure RPGs games, games like Bioware, Cd project red with the witcher, obsidian with Fallout new Vegas, etc. (Bethesda has a fixed story and there not much consequences for your actions in the story)
Back on Bio and ME3 I personally liked ME2 it was a grate game with fun Gameplay and good enough story.
Things that I feel they could do better is in the decision making process to much black and white not enough gray areas.
Also I like to be able to customize the looks on my followers, I don’t care about stats or loot, but be able to choose how they look AKA having more than 1-2 choices. People think loot may fix this (having more to chose), but the fact that I love better stats and that bottlenecks the loot because the best gear is not always the look you want for you team.
For example Garrus armor, why he has a hole in his armor, after I save him, man I should be able to buy a new one, And I hate when you charge money for a DLC to change stuff like this. I know you want to make money but still man, stuff like that makes me want to stop buying stuff like that. In the end ME2 had a lot of little things that need polish.
But that’s just me.
#3141
Posté 19 juillet 2011 - 08:18
tobynator89
-
- Members
- 1 618 messages
And so the pointless sophism drags on, never getting anywhere.
#3142
Posté 19 juillet 2011 - 08:26
Phaedon
-
- Members
- 8 617 messages
[quote]Sylvius the Mad wrote...
The stuggles your colony faces are absolutely affected by your choices. How you deal with those hardships or opportunities (and why) is the game's narrative.[/quote]
nar·ra·tive[/i]/ˈnarətiv/Noun: A spoken or written account of connected events; a story: "a bare narrative[quote]II won't accept those numbers without supporting data, but I wouldn't be surprised to see something counter-intuitive appear, no.[/quote]
Knock yourself out.
http://en.wikipedia....imulation_games
It's the very concept of a simulation game that leads to what I say, btw. They don't give you a definite protagonist, they have stats, gameplay "choices", no narrative, etc.
If ME1/2 doesn't have choices, then most RPGs, don't.
[/quote][quote]Items are resources. What possible definition of resource could you be using that excludes items?[/quote]
Items are not resources. Resources is something to collect to invest on somewhere. Items are relatively unique, both in their stats and their purpose.
[/quote][quote]
That lost time remains lost. If you build a Network Node, it generates Research Points over time. But the resources you consumed to build it cannot then be used to build something else, so whatever benefits you might have gained had you made a different choice are lost forever.[/quote]
And you still don't answer my point. Theoretically, most simulation games don't have a time limit, so your argument is also very debatable either. ME1/2 have story choices, simulation games? They have gameplay choices that are meaningless to the story and the character.
If you really think that WRPGs are the only true RPGs, then you probably stopped paying attention to the phrase "interactive storytelling", in the word "interactive".
Hell, by that logic even COD: MW2 is an RPG.
You have inventory and loot, if you kill enemy X, then enemy Y can kill one of the NPCs that act as your allies, and you can also collect resources (grenades).
The stuggles your colony faces are absolutely affected by your choices. How you deal with those hardships or opportunities (and why) is the game's narrative.[/quote]
nar·ra·tive[/i]/ˈnarətiv/Noun: A spoken or written account of connected events; a story: "a bare narrative[quote]II won't accept those numbers without supporting data, but I wouldn't be surprised to see something counter-intuitive appear, no.[/quote]
Knock yourself out.
http://en.wikipedia....imulation_games
It's the very concept of a simulation game that leads to what I say, btw. They don't give you a definite protagonist, they have stats, gameplay "choices", no narrative, etc.
If ME1/2 doesn't have choices, then most RPGs, don't.
[/quote][quote]Items are resources. What possible definition of resource could you be using that excludes items?[/quote]
Items are not resources. Resources is something to collect to invest on somewhere. Items are relatively unique, both in their stats and their purpose.
[/quote][quote]
That lost time remains lost. If you build a Network Node, it generates Research Points over time. But the resources you consumed to build it cannot then be used to build something else, so whatever benefits you might have gained had you made a different choice are lost forever.[/quote]
And you still don't answer my point. Theoretically, most simulation games don't have a time limit, so your argument is also very debatable either. ME1/2 have story choices, simulation games? They have gameplay choices that are meaningless to the story and the character.
If you really think that WRPGs are the only true RPGs, then you probably stopped paying attention to the phrase "interactive storytelling", in the word "interactive".
Hell, by that logic even COD: MW2 is an RPG.
You have inventory and loot, if you kill enemy X, then enemy Y can kill one of the NPCs that act as your allies, and you can also collect resources (grenades).
Modifié par Phaedon, 19 juillet 2011 - 08:28 .
#3143
Posté 19 juillet 2011 - 08:26
the_one_54321
-
- Members
- 6 112 messages
There is no effective difference within one of these games. At least there certainly is not when you are playing a game like ME3 or DAII. So why make a distinction between these and FF? Again, where is the threshold?Sylvius the Mad wrote...
Every potentially relevant piece of information? Yes. Every available piece of information? Why would that ever happen?
edit: As an allusion to some of the above posts, if the player points the gun and pulls the trigger (as opposed to only designating targets) then it is not RPG mechanics.
Modifié par the_one_54321, 19 juillet 2011 - 08:41 .
#3144
Posté 19 juillet 2011 - 08:44
T764
-
- Members
- 161 messages
The element of choice in ME's conversations pulls the game out of being a straight shooter, unfortunately those choices do not give me the ability to truly feel that Shepard is my character, rather that i can prod him or her in certain directions.
Regardless of what class or personality my Shepard had the way that problems are solved is fixed, regardless of how i thought that Shepard would act in a given situation the actual choices are limited.
ME is not an rpg that plays like a shooter, it is a shooter with interactive conversations. It, like other Bioware games, is combat broken up by conversation.
Like DA2, ME2 suffers from its faster pacing, i felt pushed to rush the game whereas i prefer to move at my own pace.
So i don't want more combat, more loot or more stats, i want more choices in how i solve the problems presented, i don't want the combat to feel like the focus of the game.
Regardless of what class or personality my Shepard had the way that problems are solved is fixed, regardless of how i thought that Shepard would act in a given situation the actual choices are limited.
ME is not an rpg that plays like a shooter, it is a shooter with interactive conversations. It, like other Bioware games, is combat broken up by conversation.
Like DA2, ME2 suffers from its faster pacing, i felt pushed to rush the game whereas i prefer to move at my own pace.
So i don't want more combat, more loot or more stats, i want more choices in how i solve the problems presented, i don't want the combat to feel like the focus of the game.
#3145
Guest_KaidanWilliamsShepard_*
Posté 19 juillet 2011 - 08:51
Guest_KaidanWilliamsShepard_*
Guest_KaidanWilliamsShepard_*
-
- Guests
Luc0s wrote...
I'm for stats where stats are needed and against stats where stats are redundant.
For example, all those armor-stats from the armor-pieces in ME2 seemed pretty redundant to me. Sure, those tiny little bonuses for health, shields and headshot-damage could mean all the difference on Insanity, but on Vetaran or lower these stats really became absolutely redundant. Those +5% more shields (to give an example) really didn't make a difference on Veteran.
Never play on Veteran, because i play for the story, not for the shooting.
The thing that was so ridiculous about these supposed armor mods, was that you couldnt see them, and your armor was worthless untill you bought them. I may as well, have gone out into the field in one of Mirandas spandex body suits untill i was able to scrounge up enough dirt to buy those blasted upgrades.
What I would like to see is that Shepard just wears his standard classic N7 armor through the entire ME3 game but we could upgrade it with lab-upgrades (ME2 already had this next to the extra stat-boosts on the armor-pieces themselves).
Long story short: I don't need customizable armor. I in fact wish to be able to keep Shepard's classic N7 armor and still get the +5% shield bonus for my Insanity playthrough where those shields actually matter (as a Vanguard that is).
I don't care what people say about the definition of an RPG, stats are an important and common part of an RPG experience for MANY, MANY people, and armor custimization has always been a crowd favorite when it comes to Mass Effect games. Sorry to say, i think that you got your wish though. God help Bioware.
As for stats like "accuracy" and other stats like that: Totally redundant and doesn't make much sense either. I'm fine if ME3 would adapt the Gears of War game-mechanics completely when it comes to combat. What I saw in the E3 demo made me hopeful. From what I saw, ME3's combat will be more seamless, streamlined and more like the combat from Gears of War.
I think Gatt9 once wrote, that what they did was cripple the shooter mechanics in an attempt to make the weapon stats relevant in both games, and that it was ridiculous that a soldier, that had been in the alliance since he or she was 19, couldnt shoot straight without stats. Genius post. You say that you know your RPG's better than most, because you are a game designer, but then you say that you want Mass Effect to be more like Gears Of War? This makes absolutely no sense dude.
#3146
Posté 19 juillet 2011 - 09:01
Sylvius the Mad
-
- Members
- 24 106 messages
"Spoken or written"? That's a very narrow defintion. What of narrative art? You can tell a story using only pictures - that story is still a narrative.Phaedon wrote...
nar·ra·tive[/i]/ˈnarətiv/Noun: A spoken or written account of connected events; a story: "a bare narrative
http://www.nlc-bnc.c...016/NQ28273.pdf
That's a thesis written about narrative art of the bronze age Aegean. Any narrative we can glean from that art must not be written, because we can't read the written language of the period.
Most RPGs let you choose what your character is going to say. ME1/2 don't.If ME1/2 doesn't have choices, then most RPGs, don't.
Compare that to DAO or KotOR, which allow you to choose what your character will say hundreds of times throughout the game.
Storytelling is not a core component of RPGs.If you really think that WRPGs are the only true RPGs, then you probably stopped paying attention to the phrase "interactive storytelling", in the word "interactive".
Roleplaying is.
#3147
Posté 19 juillet 2011 - 09:05
Sylvius the Mad
-
- Members
- 24 106 messages
I'm not sure I understand the distinction you're making.the_one_54321 wrote...
edit: As an allusion to some of the above posts, if the player points the gun and pulls the trigger (as opposed to only designating targets) then it is not RPG mechanics.
If we assume a game isn't going to limit you those shooting only at those thingsit thinks are viable targets, then you would need to be able to select anything at all, even if it wasn't a real object (but instead, say, a space between objects). Since the game cannot possible identify things that don't exist as discrete objects, the only way to allow that would be to allow something that looks exactly like manual aiming.
Would you be happier if you could trigger the weapon while paused, and then have it shoot the target" you identified once play resumed?
You can almost do that in ME1/2, but you can also shoot in real time. Simply don't shoot in real time, and you suddenly have the RPG interface you want.
#3148
Guest_Luc0s_*
Posté 19 juillet 2011 - 09:11
Guest_Luc0s_*
Guest_Luc0s_*
-
- Guests
[quote]Sylvius the Mad wrote...
Assuming a pre-defined role isn't playing since you don't get to make decisions on behalf of that character. And you can't make those decisions in-character without knowing the character's full set of preferenecs.
You're confusing playing a role with assuming a role. If you're not in control, then you're not playing. You're just painting-by-numbers.
[/quote]
Oh really? So I guess I wasn't really playing the role of Jesus back in highschool when I actually played the lead role in our Jesus Christ Super Star highschool musical?
The entire script for the musical was already written and the character of Jesus Christ was already pre-defined. I merely had to play him. But I guess I was not really playing his role because I didn't get to make his decisions myself, right?
Sorry, but your definition of "roleplaying = in-charater decisionmaking" fails.
And no, you also don't need to know the character's full set of preferences in order to be able to play the role of a character. For example, I didn't know what Jesus' favorite food was, yet I was able to play the role of Jesus Christ without a problem in our highschool musical.
[quote]Sylvius the Mad wrote...
The labels panders to populat opinion. It's a marketing tool I see no reason to trust the label.
[/quote]
Funny, because you would think that if the cover of Final Fantasy says "RPG" but it isn't really an RPG, people would be dissapointed after playing the game. Yett hey aren't. In fact, a lot of people think the Final Fantasy series is (one of) the best RPG series on the market. Lots of people place Final Fantasy 7 on their top 10 'best RPGs ever made' list.
[quote]Sylvius the Mad wrote...
I can write a game and call it an RPG. That alone doesn't make it an RPG. Seriously, you just appealed to the label as a sufficient condition. Really?
[/quote]
Yes. Because there is no reason why developers should put a different label on their game than what the actual game actually represents. For example: Why on earth would I put the label "action-adenture game" on my new first-person-shooter game? It doesn't make anys ense. It will only cause confusion and ****** people off.
Those labels are there for a lot of reasons, marketing is not one of them.
[quote]Sylvius the Mad wrote...
Since you aren't in control of Cloud's personality, (look at all that non-interactive dialogue, for example), you can't make in-character decisions on his behalf. If you choose to go exploring (which the game allows) for some reason that the game later contradicts as part of the linear narrative, then the game just broke your character.
RPGs can't do that and still be RPGs.
[/quote]
I've already said why in-character decision making is not essential to roleplaying.
And I've yet to play my first Final Fantasy (or any jRPG game) where the linear story-line contradics any decisions I as a played made.
When I decide to take a break from the main-quest and start doing some side-quests then that already is a in-character decision. Who I choose to take with me in my party can be an in-character decision or an out-of-character decision (much like in Mass Effect, where you can take party members with you for story reasons or for combat reasons).
Sorry, but I've never seen Final Fantasy break any characters. In fact, I dare to say that because the main character's personality is already pre-written by Square-Enix, most of the FF characters are much more fleshed out and more more believable than Commander Shepard will ever be, regardless of your in-game decisions in Mass Effect.
Writing the character's personality that you're about to play is a very careful decision made by the jRPG developers. They made this decision to take freedom away from the player so they can actually flesh-out the player's character better and make the story and role that you play all the more believable.
[quote]Sylvius the Mad wrote...
You were appealing to the origins of the genre as some sort of arbiter of standards. I pointed out that what you were calling the origins were in fact a middle period. You missed the origins of CRPGs by a decade.
The earliest CRPG I've played is Oubliette. It was written for the PLATO mainframe, and was released in 1977. It's a fine game, and a good example of an early CRPG.
[/quote]
Middle period? Don't be so silly. It all started with Dungeons an Dragons. The PnP RPG of Dungeons & Dragons was released in 1974 and a year later in 1975 the first CRPG was released, called Dungeon.
Sorry, but I think it's clear that the PnP RPGs predate the CRPGs and the PnP RPGs were in fact the inspiration for the CRPGs.
So sorry, you're wrong. Please do your research a little better.
[quote]Sylvius the Mad wrote...
Yes, but they [the classes] weren't tied together. That's the assertion you made, and I refuted it.
[/quote]
What? That's bull****. I never said the clases were tied together (whatever that means). So no, you refuted nothing. In anything, I refuted you. You said the classic RPGs didn't have classes. I said they did have classes. I was right and you were wrong.
[quote]Sylvius the Mad wrote...
If you keep moving the goalposts, then we're not going to get anywhere.
[/quote]
What? If anyone is moving the goalpost, it's you, not me. You said that the classic RPGs didn't have classes. I said they did have classes. Now all of the sudden you agree that they did have classes but that they weren't tied together (whatever that means). Make up your damn mind!
[quote]Sylvius the Mad wrote...
But the role that Cleric fills within the party isn't fixed. He can be a tank, or a nuker, or healer, or even a utility character with little or no combat role.
Remember, before 3E, D&D Clerics didn't even necessarily have healing spells.
[/quote]
So? Your point? Seriously, what point are you trying to make?
Here, let me make my point very clear:
Regardless of how you played your roles and classes, you still had to pick a role/class in the classic RPGs, for example a cleric. This role/class formed the very foundation of who you are and what abilities you can learn.
If you pick a cleric, than you have a certain pool of abilities to choose from. If you're a warrior, you have a different pool of abilities to choose from. It's true that in D&D these pools can overlap each other (for example many different classes can focus in hand-to-hand combat, not only the monk) but the classes are still there to give you a foundation and a pool of skills to choose from.
The fact that you decided to play your cleric as a tank or the fact that the early cleric didn't even have a healing spell doesn't mean jack sh*t.
[quote]Sylvius the Mad wrote...
Thus classes were not closely associated with combat roles. You claimed they were, and you were wrong.
[/quote]
Stop pulling strawmen on me. I never said the classes where closely associated with combat roles. I only said that classes formed the foundation of your character and his/her abilities. So no, I wa
[quote]Sylvius the Mad wrote...
You're about to make some really good points that reveal my ignorance with regard to The Sims, but I'm going to stop you here.
You are not your character in an RPG. You control your character, but your character is a person in his own right, an independent entity.
[/quote]
Indeed and that's why even jRPGs where the character in his own right is already fleshed out by the developer are still RPGs. Final Fantasy is still an RPG, regardless of the fact that Cloud Strife is fleshed out character that can't really be customized in his looks or personality. You can still customize and evolve his skills to your own likings though.
However, the big difference between The Sims and Final Fantasy is that in The Sims you do not play from the perspective if the character(s).
In The Sims you play from a "god perspective" where you watch over your characters and help them in their everyday tasks.
In Final Fantasy you play from the perspective of (for example) Cloud Strife and you experience the story and game from his perspecitve. You as the player really crawl in his role, so to speak.
[quote]Sylvius the Mad wrote...
This is why stats are important. Otherwise your character would just be an avatar of you in the game world, and he would be good at the things you are good at and bad at the things you are bad at.
[/quote]
Very true. That's why almost all RPGs have stats. RPGs let you put points in those stats to develop specific skills, that gives you the illusion of character growth and character progression.
[quote]Sylvius the Mad wrote...
In an RPG, your character's mind is populated by you, yes, but he doesn't necessarily share your opinions. If you are you character, that separation would be impossible.
[/quote]
Indeed and that's why you shouldn't have a problem with the fact that many jRPGs already define and flesh-out the character for you.
[quote]Sylvius the Mad wrote...
Look at a CRPG. You can play it once with a character with one personality, and then play it again with a character who has a completely different personality. You'll get a very different gameplay experience each time because the character you're controlling is different. What he does, and why he does it, and how he interprets the events around him, and what he thinks of the people he meets - those things can change.
Your personality doesn't change. Since your characters' personalities can, they clearly then cannot be you.
[/quote]
Tell me how those things can change without you the player making those decisions.
If the personality of my character depents on the player, then the main character does not have a personality, it would be a blank slate and I as the player am able to fill in the blanks with my decisions.
Anyway, my point is: The whole "the personality of your character can change depending on how you play him/her" is not nessesary for a game to be allowed to labeled as an RPG. It's just an extra feature that became especially popular in the more modern CRPG games.
[quote]Sylvius the Mad wrote...
[About The Sims] I have no idea why anyone would play that game. That sounds awful. And it is most certainly not an RPG.
As I admitted earlier, I was working from descriptions of the game posted by others. I've never played it.
[/quote]
Thank you good sir! No seriously, THANK YOU! I'm so happy that finally someone sees that The Sims isn't an RPG. Can you believe it that many people here in this thread actually did play The Sims and still think and think that it's an RPG?
[quote]Sylvius the Mad wrote...
I think the best RPGs are, at their core, simulations. They simulate a world, and your character lives in that world as you direct.
[/qoute]
I think I agree with that. But I think you can now see the difference between The Sims and an actual RPG right? I mean at least we both agree now that The Sims isn't an RPG, even though it's a simulation, right?
Assuming a pre-defined role isn't playing since you don't get to make decisions on behalf of that character. And you can't make those decisions in-character without knowing the character's full set of preferenecs.
You're confusing playing a role with assuming a role. If you're not in control, then you're not playing. You're just painting-by-numbers.
[/quote]
Oh really? So I guess I wasn't really playing the role of Jesus back in highschool when I actually played the lead role in our Jesus Christ Super Star highschool musical?
The entire script for the musical was already written and the character of Jesus Christ was already pre-defined. I merely had to play him. But I guess I was not really playing his role because I didn't get to make his decisions myself, right?
Sorry, but your definition of "roleplaying = in-charater decisionmaking" fails.
And no, you also don't need to know the character's full set of preferences in order to be able to play the role of a character. For example, I didn't know what Jesus' favorite food was, yet I was able to play the role of Jesus Christ without a problem in our highschool musical.
[quote]Sylvius the Mad wrote...
The labels panders to populat opinion. It's a marketing tool I see no reason to trust the label.
[/quote]
Funny, because you would think that if the cover of Final Fantasy says "RPG" but it isn't really an RPG, people would be dissapointed after playing the game. Yett hey aren't. In fact, a lot of people think the Final Fantasy series is (one of) the best RPG series on the market. Lots of people place Final Fantasy 7 on their top 10 'best RPGs ever made' list.
[quote]Sylvius the Mad wrote...
I can write a game and call it an RPG. That alone doesn't make it an RPG. Seriously, you just appealed to the label as a sufficient condition. Really?
[/quote]
Yes. Because there is no reason why developers should put a different label on their game than what the actual game actually represents. For example: Why on earth would I put the label "action-adenture game" on my new first-person-shooter game? It doesn't make anys ense. It will only cause confusion and ****** people off.
Those labels are there for a lot of reasons, marketing is not one of them.
[quote]Sylvius the Mad wrote...
Since you aren't in control of Cloud's personality, (look at all that non-interactive dialogue, for example), you can't make in-character decisions on his behalf. If you choose to go exploring (which the game allows) for some reason that the game later contradicts as part of the linear narrative, then the game just broke your character.
RPGs can't do that and still be RPGs.
[/quote]
I've already said why in-character decision making is not essential to roleplaying.
And I've yet to play my first Final Fantasy (or any jRPG game) where the linear story-line contradics any decisions I as a played made.
When I decide to take a break from the main-quest and start doing some side-quests then that already is a in-character decision. Who I choose to take with me in my party can be an in-character decision or an out-of-character decision (much like in Mass Effect, where you can take party members with you for story reasons or for combat reasons).
Sorry, but I've never seen Final Fantasy break any characters. In fact, I dare to say that because the main character's personality is already pre-written by Square-Enix, most of the FF characters are much more fleshed out and more more believable than Commander Shepard will ever be, regardless of your in-game decisions in Mass Effect.
Writing the character's personality that you're about to play is a very careful decision made by the jRPG developers. They made this decision to take freedom away from the player so they can actually flesh-out the player's character better and make the story and role that you play all the more believable.
[quote]Sylvius the Mad wrote...
You were appealing to the origins of the genre as some sort of arbiter of standards. I pointed out that what you were calling the origins were in fact a middle period. You missed the origins of CRPGs by a decade.
The earliest CRPG I've played is Oubliette. It was written for the PLATO mainframe, and was released in 1977. It's a fine game, and a good example of an early CRPG.
[/quote]
Middle period? Don't be so silly. It all started with Dungeons an Dragons. The PnP RPG of Dungeons & Dragons was released in 1974 and a year later in 1975 the first CRPG was released, called Dungeon.
Sorry, but I think it's clear that the PnP RPGs predate the CRPGs and the PnP RPGs were in fact the inspiration for the CRPGs.
So sorry, you're wrong. Please do your research a little better.
[quote]Sylvius the Mad wrote...
Yes, but they [the classes] weren't tied together. That's the assertion you made, and I refuted it.
[/quote]
What? That's bull****. I never said the clases were tied together (whatever that means). So no, you refuted nothing. In anything, I refuted you. You said the classic RPGs didn't have classes. I said they did have classes. I was right and you were wrong.
[quote]Sylvius the Mad wrote...
If you keep moving the goalposts, then we're not going to get anywhere.
[/quote]
What? If anyone is moving the goalpost, it's you, not me. You said that the classic RPGs didn't have classes. I said they did have classes. Now all of the sudden you agree that they did have classes but that they weren't tied together (whatever that means). Make up your damn mind!
[quote]Sylvius the Mad wrote...
But the role that Cleric fills within the party isn't fixed. He can be a tank, or a nuker, or healer, or even a utility character with little or no combat role.
Remember, before 3E, D&D Clerics didn't even necessarily have healing spells.
[/quote]
So? Your point? Seriously, what point are you trying to make?
Here, let me make my point very clear:
Regardless of how you played your roles and classes, you still had to pick a role/class in the classic RPGs, for example a cleric. This role/class formed the very foundation of who you are and what abilities you can learn.
If you pick a cleric, than you have a certain pool of abilities to choose from. If you're a warrior, you have a different pool of abilities to choose from. It's true that in D&D these pools can overlap each other (for example many different classes can focus in hand-to-hand combat, not only the monk) but the classes are still there to give you a foundation and a pool of skills to choose from.
The fact that you decided to play your cleric as a tank or the fact that the early cleric didn't even have a healing spell doesn't mean jack sh*t.
[quote]Sylvius the Mad wrote...
Thus classes were not closely associated with combat roles. You claimed they were, and you were wrong.
[/quote]
Stop pulling strawmen on me. I never said the classes where closely associated with combat roles. I only said that classes formed the foundation of your character and his/her abilities. So no, I wa
[quote]Sylvius the Mad wrote...
You're about to make some really good points that reveal my ignorance with regard to The Sims, but I'm going to stop you here.
You are not your character in an RPG. You control your character, but your character is a person in his own right, an independent entity.
[/quote]
Indeed and that's why even jRPGs where the character in his own right is already fleshed out by the developer are still RPGs. Final Fantasy is still an RPG, regardless of the fact that Cloud Strife is fleshed out character that can't really be customized in his looks or personality. You can still customize and evolve his skills to your own likings though.
However, the big difference between The Sims and Final Fantasy is that in The Sims you do not play from the perspective if the character(s).
In The Sims you play from a "god perspective" where you watch over your characters and help them in their everyday tasks.
In Final Fantasy you play from the perspective of (for example) Cloud Strife and you experience the story and game from his perspecitve. You as the player really crawl in his role, so to speak.
[quote]Sylvius the Mad wrote...
This is why stats are important. Otherwise your character would just be an avatar of you in the game world, and he would be good at the things you are good at and bad at the things you are bad at.
[/quote]
Very true. That's why almost all RPGs have stats. RPGs let you put points in those stats to develop specific skills, that gives you the illusion of character growth and character progression.
[quote]Sylvius the Mad wrote...
In an RPG, your character's mind is populated by you, yes, but he doesn't necessarily share your opinions. If you are you character, that separation would be impossible.
[/quote]
Indeed and that's why you shouldn't have a problem with the fact that many jRPGs already define and flesh-out the character for you.
[quote]Sylvius the Mad wrote...
Look at a CRPG. You can play it once with a character with one personality, and then play it again with a character who has a completely different personality. You'll get a very different gameplay experience each time because the character you're controlling is different. What he does, and why he does it, and how he interprets the events around him, and what he thinks of the people he meets - those things can change.
Your personality doesn't change. Since your characters' personalities can, they clearly then cannot be you.
[/quote]
Tell me how those things can change without you the player making those decisions.
If the personality of my character depents on the player, then the main character does not have a personality, it would be a blank slate and I as the player am able to fill in the blanks with my decisions.
Anyway, my point is: The whole "the personality of your character can change depending on how you play him/her" is not nessesary for a game to be allowed to labeled as an RPG. It's just an extra feature that became especially popular in the more modern CRPG games.
[quote]Sylvius the Mad wrote...
[About The Sims] I have no idea why anyone would play that game. That sounds awful. And it is most certainly not an RPG.
As I admitted earlier, I was working from descriptions of the game posted by others. I've never played it.
[/quote]
Thank you good sir! No seriously, THANK YOU! I'm so happy that finally someone sees that The Sims isn't an RPG. Can you believe it that many people here in this thread actually did play The Sims and still think and think that it's an RPG?
[quote]Sylvius the Mad wrote...
I think the best RPGs are, at their core, simulations. They simulate a world, and your character lives in that world as you direct.
[/qoute]
I think I agree with that. But I think you can now see the difference between The Sims and an actual RPG right? I mean at least we both agree now that The Sims isn't an RPG, even though it's a simulation, right?
Modifié par Luc0s, 19 juillet 2011 - 09:12 .
#3149
Posté 19 juillet 2011 - 09:18
Lumikki
-
- Members
- 4 239 messages
I agree, but you can't really role-play anything without some kind of story what you role-play. I mean, you have character for role, but when you do something you are writing your own (open world) story or acting role in (pre-)writen story. Both ways it is about storytelling too.Sylvius the Mad wrote...
Storytelling is not a core component of RPGs.
Roleplaying is.
Modifié par Lumikki, 19 juillet 2011 - 09:22 .
#3150
Guest_KaidanWilliamsShepard_*
Posté 19 juillet 2011 - 09:21
Guest_KaidanWilliamsShepard_*
Guest_KaidanWilliamsShepard_*
-
- Guests
@Luc0s
I like Gears Of War just as much as the next guy, but when you put Gears Of War in my Mass Effect, its like putting whiskey in my iced latte!
I like Gears Of War just as much as the next guy, but when you put Gears Of War in my Mass Effect, its like putting whiskey in my iced latte!
