3223 réponses à ce sujet

[tobynator89]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Storytelling is not a core component of RPGs.

Roleplaying is.

That is singlehandedly the most brilliantly retarded phrased comment I've heard today.
 

[Varen Spectre]

Well, the "mainstream" classification of games' genres (which formed by reviewers' opinions, popular opinions, traditions, distributors' classification, etc.) is kind of inacurate and sometimes may even appear as inconsistent or illogical. 

But that's O.K. IMO, because it's main reason has always been to help players (usually readers of various magazines) keep track of incoming games which were supposed to have same or similar features as games they previously played and enjoyed. Not to provide basis for sophisticated discussions.

In order to make such acquaintance with similar games as accurate and more importantly as useful as possible, the main emphasis has always been put on the most distinguishable and memorable features. I would say that simplicity and memorability of these criteria has taken priority over any logic or complexity. Another important factor IMO was the size of the communities, that were willing to follow particular genres and potential subgenres. I guess sometimes it was beneficial to split one genre into more (e.g. shooters were split into 1st person and 3rd person), because the groups of players interested in these genres were big enough to allow  them to become separate sections within genre classification, sometime it probably wasn't (rpgs?, adventures?).

As a result, we have 1st person shooters, platformers, adventures, action adventures, RPGs, etc., i.e. the genres that not only overlap each but together, do not make much sense. However, they obiously seem to be very practical.

This IMO explains why despite the fact, that some games have many elements from one genre, they are still attributed to another. It's because their most memorable (dominant) features are so related to another genre, that it would be impractical to "mislead" all those gamers, readers and potential buyers.

So I can understand if some games with RPG features are assigned by majority of gamers, reviewers, etc. to other genres (probably because features from other genres have "outweighted" so called RPG elements) while others are not.  

The question, whether definitions of particular genres and their key elements should or could be redefined, is more interesting... 

As a person, who prefers clarity and consistency and also likes to have access to records of all past situations and options (read: not very flexible), I would prefer creation of new genres and terms (if necessary) instead of redefining the existing ones. Exagerated hypothetical(!) example: If games from particular genre cease to use majority of what used to be key elements of that genre, I would rather classify them according to (brand) new genre, instead of claiming that times have changed and old elements no longer represented this genre so change was necessary... That way, I would have two genres and can compare which one has elements that suit me more.

Nevertheless, just like wih all previous classifications in history, providing that any changes will really be needed, it will be pure practicality and usefulness on industry level, that will determine, whether current genres will be redefined or will be abandoned and new will emerge. 

[Sylvius the Mad]

sp0ck 06 wrote...

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.

The tone isn't enough.  What information is going to be divulged?  Is your character going to make an assertion, or ask a question?  Any of these details could potentially conflict with a motive you assigned for some previous action.

If you decided, for example, that Shepard doesn't trust Anderson, and had that distrust drive your decision-making earlier in the game, it would be catastrophic to have Shepard then unexpectedly rely on Anderson as if she trusts him.

What what YOU do?  If you had made this game, what system would YOU have implemented, realistically?

I would have used full-text options and not voiced Shepard.

My metagaming?  What does that even mean?  Unlike you, I don't believe my character is real.

 
But he does.;  He thinks he's real.  So his decisions should be based on that perspective, not your perspective.

I think he's a bunch of pixels that I am directly controlling, because I'm playing a damn video game.

That's the problem.  Don't play a game.  Play a character.

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?

The NPC responses could be the same every time, sure.  It would make the game less interesting, but that wouldn't impede roleplaying.

[tobynator89]

KaidanWilliamsShepard wrote...

tobynator89 wrote...

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Storytelling is not a core component of RPGs.

Roleplaying is.

That is singlehandedly the most brilliantly retarded phrased comment I've heard today.
 

Why?
Because it makes sense and its a fact?

we have different definitions of roleplaying

Deal with it.

[the_one_54321]

KaidanWilliamsShepard wrote...

tobynator89 wrote...

Sylvius the Mad wrote...
Storytelling is not a core component of RPGs.

Roleplaying is.

That is singlehandedly the most brilliantly retarded phrased comment I've heard today.

Why?
Because it makes sense and its a fact?

No, it's because he doesn't like it but can't come up with a better response than that.

[the_one_54321]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...
The tone isn't enough.

And yet so many players are able to so consistently anticipate the outcomes! Why do you suppose that is?

Sure, there's never really a 100% success rate, but then that goes back to the whole "perfect or nothing at all" issue for which you have yet to provide a viable threshold for imperfection.

[tobynator89]

KaidanWilliamsShepard wrote...

Dealt with, but you cant deny that Role Playing in a Role Playing game, is more important than the quality of the story?

Yes I can

[the_one_54321]

KaidanWilliamsShepard wrote...

tobynator89 wrote...

KaidanWilliamsShepard wrote...

tobynator89 wrote...

Sylvius the Mad wrote...
Storytelling is not a core component of RPGs.

Roleplaying is.

That is singlehandedly the most brilliantly retarded phrased comment I've heard today.

Why?
Because it makes sense and its a fact?

we have different definitions of roleplaying

Deal with it.

Dealt with, but you cant deny that Role Playing in a Role Playing game, is more important than the quality of the story?

He says "we have different blah blah balh. Deal with it" after responding to someone else's definition with "that's the stupidest thing I've heard today." 

Why are you taking him seriously intead of just berating him?

[back pain]

I couldn't care less if Mass Effect 1, 2 or 3 fit some random person on the internet's definition of an "RPG", what I care about is whether or not the game is good. Mass Effect was legendary, Mass Effect 2 was even better, and from what I have seen Mass Effect 3 looks like the second coming.

[EternalPink]

tobynator89 wrote...

And so the pointless sophism drags on, never getting anywhere.

We do now seem to be repeating ourselfs from the previous 125 odd pages although unless someone is sitting with a gun to your head you do have the option not to read it.

Doubt there will be agreement since there are peeps like me that are very inclusive in what we feel is an RPG and others who are very exclusive on what they feel is an RPG so i doubt we'll make much progress even if it goes for another 125 pages.

Made me chuckle few times so all good fun tho

Modifié par EternalPink, 19 juillet 2011 - 09:48 .

[AlanC9]

KaidanWilliamsShepard wrote...
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.

True, but.... so what? As someone without a Bioware tag on my handle, it's not my job to think about what "MANY, MANY people " want to see in a game. I just don't see why you're bringing this up.

[sp0ck 06]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

sp0ck 06 wrote...

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.

The tone isn't enough.  What information is going to be divulged?  Is your character going to make an assertion, or ask a question?  Any of these details could potentially conflict with a motive you assigned for some previous action.

If you decided, for example, that Shepard doesn't trust Anderson, and had that distrust drive your decision-making earlier in the game, it would be catastrophic to have Shepard then unexpectedly rely on Anderson as if she trusts him.

What what YOU do?  If you had made this game, what system would YOU have implemented, realistically?

I would have used full-text options and not voiced Shepard.

My metagaming?  What does that even mean?  Unlike you, I don't believe my character is real.

 
But he does.;  He thinks he's real.  So his decisions should be based on that perspective, not your perspective.

I think he's a bunch of pixels that I am directly controlling, because I'm playing a damn video game.

That's the problem.  Don't play a game.  Play a character.

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?

The NPC responses could be the same every time, sure.  It would make the game less interesting, but that wouldn't impede roleplaying.

So essentially, you don't care about gameplay, you just want the game to conform to your idea of "roleplaying."

Here's a question:  is an actor in a play role-playing?  When I played Benedick in Much Ado About Nothing in college, I wasn't just spouting lines that had already been written.  I became the character, within the confines of the script.  That, to me, is what role-playing is (in video games, as an actor, PnP) :  playing out a character within the confines of the system.  In the case of Benedick, that system is Shakespeare's brilliant dialog.  In Mass Effect, it's the game mechanics and story created by BioWare.  In Baldur's Gate, its an emulation of D&D confined within the Infinity Engine.

So, as Benedick, I was not controlling his actions or speech.  I didn't even control where he stood.  Those values had already been set, by Shakespeare and by our director.  Does that mean I couldn't become the character?

 Benedick didn't "think he was real," because he is nothing without ME, just as Shepard is nothing without the player.  Sitting there pretending you aren't playing a video game doesn't change the fact that's exactly what you are doing.  If, instead, you choose to become Shepard within the confines of the game and its system, you're no longer pretending, you're role playing.   

[the_one_54321]

Luc0s wrote...
I believe Mass Effect falls into the last category. It's a hybrid-RPG. It combines elements from the thid-person-shooter genre and the RPG genre together, so it would be a TPS-hybrid-RPG.

I still maintain that the TPS UI and RPG UI are mutually exclusive. Being one means that it cannot be the other.

sp0ck 06 wrote...
Here's a question: is an actor in a play role-playing?

No, the actor is acting. Acting can be role playing, like in LARPing, but they are not necessarily the same and in a play it is only acting.

Modifié par the_one_54321, 19 juillet 2011 - 10:02 .

[the_one_54321]

Luc0s wrote...
I too gave my role as Jesus Christ in our highschool's Jesus Christ Super Star musical as an example of how you can actually "roleplay" a character without the need of freedom and in-game character decisions.

You need to have some form of player agency in order for it be a game. Acting in a play is 100% dictated. There is no variable outcome for anything, whether based on player choice or based on numerical simulation. There is zero agency.

[sp0ck 06]

the_one_54321 wrote...

Luc0s wrote...
I too gave my role as Jesus Christ in our highschool's Jesus Christ Super Star musical as an example of how you can actually "roleplay" a character without the need of freedom and in-game character decisions.

You need to have some form of player agency in order for it be a game. Acting in a play is 100% dictated. There is no variable outcome for anything, whether based on player choice or based on numerical simulation. There is zero agency.

This is completely and utterly wrong.  If you had ever acted a major role in a formal dramatic production you would know otherwise.  There are infinite variables within every delivered line.  It's not a game per se, but it is certainly a "purer" form of role playing than any RPG (with the exception of LARP).

As an example:  compare Jack Nicholson's portrayal of the Joker with Heath Ledger.  Would you say they are the same character?  Sure, the script is radically different.  The director is different.  The plot is different.  But is it the written lines that create the character?  The action scenes?  It is the choices the actor makes with what he is given that define a character.  Just as it is the choices the player makes that define Shepard.