3223 réponses à ce sujet

[AlanC9]

KaidanWilliamsShepard wrote...

AlanC9 wrote...

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.

I only bring it up, because people keep denying that stats and custimization matter, when it REALLY still does.
thats all, understand?

I get that you like these features. The fact that some unspecificed percentage of RPG fans also think these features are important is obvious.

But that's not an actual argument in favor of having these features --- excpet in the very limited sense that an RPG that doesn't satisfy the traditionalists might fail in the marketplace.

[the_one_54321]

sp0ck 06 wrote...

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.

I played Don John back in high school, actually.
Yes, you can have vastly different performances. Doesn't affect the movie beyond style, perception and reception. If Heath had acted exactly like Nicholoson the movie would have still progressed exactly the same. Acting can be part of roleplaying if you're playing a tabletop game or LARPing. But it's not required, in exactly the same way you're saying that the lines can be written for you instead of chosen by you.

Modifié par the_one_54321, 19 juillet 2011 - 10:22 .

[sp0ck 06]

the_one_54321 wrote...

sp0ck 06 wrote...

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.

I played Don John back in high school, actually.
Yes, you can have vastly different performances. Doesn't affect the movie beyond style, perception and reception. If Heath had acted exactly like Nicholoson the movie would have still progressed exactly the same. Acting can be part of roleplaying if you're playing a tabletop game or LARPing. But it's not required, in exactly the same way you're saying that the lines can be written for you instead of chosen by you.

Haha, nice (Don John)

I'm not talking about the movie's progression, I'm talking about the character of Joker...

Actually, your point reinforces mine.  A full Renegade Shepard is a competely different character then a full Paragon.  Doesn't drastically change the progression of the game, which is kind of the whole point.  It's about creating a playing a character within a confined system.  Just as an actor does in a play, so does a gamer in an RPG (to a certain extent, I'm speaking in very broad terms).

[VoiceOfPudding]

sp0ck 06 wrote...

It is the choices the actor makes with what he is given that define a character.

This singular sentence is why I think stats are a vital part of any cRPG worthy of the name. You are not actually playing a "blank slate" as many believe (edit: during the game I mean here), rather your character is defined at the very start by the stats you gave him. What follows in the game is just your choices which are limited by  your stats.

Edit: In this way you're able to avoid situations that end up with your paragon shep renegade kicking a merc out of a window( I don't like bringing up this example because i know that the ME series isn't intended as a pure rpg)

Modifié par VoiceOfPudding, 19 juillet 2011 - 10:32 .

[the_one_54321]

sp0ck 06 wrote...
Haha, nice (Don John)

It cannot be denied but I am a plain dealing villain!

sp0ck 06 wrote...
Actually, your point reinforces mine.  A full Renegade Shepard is a competely different character then a full Paragon.  Doesn't drastically change the progression of the game, which is kind of the whole point.  It's about creating a playing a character within a confined system.  Just as an actor does in a play, so does a gamer in an RPG (to a certain extent, I'm speaking in very broad terms).

But all interactions in a movie are pre-dictated. All combat outcomes. All story outcomes. All other skill interaction outcomes. There are zero variables, outside of the actor's performance. Everything except artistic representation is pre-rendered. It's not a game, therefore it's not RPG. Though, yeah, I'll grand that it can be role playing in the same way that LARPing is role playing, but it is not the same as LARPing in that LARPing actually involves interpretative dynamic outcomes.

But then, I think we may have just misunderstood on that front and never actually had a disagreement.

[sp0ck 06]

VoiceOfPudding wrote...

sp0ck 06 wrote...

It is the choices the actor makes with what he is given that define a character.

This singular sentence is why I think stats are a vital part of any cRPG worthy of the name. You are not actually playing a "blank slate" as many believe (edit: during the game I mean here), rather your character is defined at the very start by the stats you gave him. What follows in the game is just your choices which are limited by  your stats

In traditional RPGs, this is absolutely true.  But Mass Effect is not a traditional RPG.  What you are given in ME are not stats and loot (although there are iterations of both), but rather a rich story, intense shooter combat and a ton of acted dialogue.  ME ditches the stat defined character and replaces it with a cinematically defined character.

Personally, I love both styles.  I have long been a fan of many RPGs in the traditional sense.  ME is just a different kind of game.

[VoiceOfPudding]

sp0ck 06 wrote...

VoiceOfPudding wrote...

sp0ck 06 wrote...

It is the choices the actor makes with what he is given that define a character.

This singular sentence is why I think stats are a vital part of any cRPG worthy of the name. You are not actually playing a "blank slate" as many believe (edit: during the game I mean here), rather your character is defined at the very start by the stats you gave him. What follows in the game is just your choices which are limited by  your stats

In traditional RPGs, this is absolutely true.  But Mass Effect is not a traditional RPG.  What you are given in ME are not stats and loot (although there are iterations of both), but rather a rich story, intense shooter combat and a ton of acted dialogue.  ME ditches the stat defined character and replaces it with a cinematically defined character.

Personally, I love both styles.  I have long been a fan of many RPGs in the traditional sense.  ME is just a different kind of game.

Damn you got in before my edit

Edit: Also perhaps it's time this thread was moved to OT as I'm not entirely sure if this is still just about ME

Modifié par VoiceOfPudding, 19 juillet 2011 - 10:35 .

[the_one_54321]

sp0ck 06 wrote...
intense shooter combat

And right there is the sticking point. You replace your personality with the character's personality, but you do not do so with the mechanics because shooter mechanics are specifically designed to make you point and shoot. So you're not really playing the role. Not even in the sense of a play where you can pretend to fight and outcomes are dictated based on whatever the intended ability and intent of the character is. Here, you completely replace an aspect the character with an aspect of yourself.

It is a very technical sticking point, but it is the technicality on which I have been sticking this entire time. It has no bearing on how enjoyable the game is or isnt. It related only to the technical accuracy of the lable.

[sp0ck 06]

the_one_54321 wrote...

But all interactions in a movie are pre-dictated. All combat outcomes. All story outcomes. All other skill interaction outcomes. There are zero variables, outside of the actor's performance. Everything except artistic representation is pre-rendered. It's not a game, therefore it's not RPG. Though, yeah, I'll grand that it can be role playing in the same way that LARPing is role playing, but it is not the same as LARPing in that LARPing actually involves interpretative dynamic outcomes.

But then, I think we may have just misunderstood on that front and never actually had a disagreement.

This is true, from the perspective of the audience.  From the actor's perspective, there are almost unlimited choices s/he could have made that might have changed everything.

Of course, a actor is not = to an RPG.  But as the RPG makes choices, whether they be stat allotments or romantic pursuits or dialogue choices, s/he is making those decisions within a defined and preset system, which bears a certain similarity to how an actor makes his decisions within the system of the writing/directing.

My original point is that there are many different systems under which role playing might occur, old school text based, DnD, LARPing, modern RPGs like DA and the Witcher, Mass Effect, and yes, acting in a drama.  We all have spent 130 pages arguing about which system is "best" or "true."  I believe ultimately, its up to the individual to decide what they like best and roll with it.  Although I will continue to defend ME series as RPGs because I believe they contain a valid system for role play to occur.

[Sylvius the Mad]

[quote]Luc0s wrote...

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? [/quote]
This is why "playing the role" is not equivalent to "roleplaying".

Acting is not roleplaying.  Actors are told what to say and how to say it.  Their craft is mimicry.
[quote]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]
This conclusion relies upon your incorrect conflation of acting and roleplaying.
[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.[/quote]
Why?  Why would you think that?


A lot of people listen to music they call R&B, and they really enjoy their "R&B" music.  And yet modern "R&B" music often contains little rhythm and no blues.  So it's not Rhythm and Blues.  Therefore it's not R&B.
[quote]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]
And every one of them has misidentified the genre.
[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.[/quote]
So you admit the labels pander to public opinion.  The people think FF is an RPG, so Square labels it an RPG and those people are happy.

Do you really not see what you've done?

Imagine a group of people who claim to love apples.  They go on and on about how much the like apples, those long thin yellow fruits that grow on palm trees.

If I want to sell those people fruit, I clearly should call that fruit "apples", because that's what they call it.  That's what they think they want.  But I shouldn't actually give them apples, because the thing they want is actually a banana.  So I'll get bananas, label them as apples, and those people will eagerly buy the fruit and be happy with their purchase.

But that doesn't change that what they just ate were bananas, not apples.
[quote]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.[/quote]
So, when you play FF7, what criteria do you use to make the very first in-game decision?  Has Cloud's personality already been explained to you in detail, or do you learn it as part of playing through the game?  If you don't already know who Cloud is, how do you make that decision?  How do you know that the basis for that decision won't later be contradicted by Cloud's personality?
[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.[/quote]
You weren't appealing to tabletop gaming.  you were appealing to Final Fantasy, a game that came out in 1987.

As for PnP D&D, it exhibits all of the characteristics I'm claiming are important, with none of the limitations imposed by FF or ME2.  PnP gaming favours my argument, not yours.
[quote]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.[/quote]
I would agree.  I've said many times that the primary objective of any CRPG should be to recreate the PnP RPG experience without the need for other players.
[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]
No, I said the classic RPGs didn't enforce roles by class.  Fighters didn't need to be tanks.  Clerics didn't need to be healers.

You're completely misrepresenting my position, and you're doing it so consistently that I wonder if you're doing it on purpose.
[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.[/quote]
You said:
[quote]Most classic RPG video-games also had specific roles for the characters in the party[/quote]
Here's the link.
[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]
My problem with that is that it leaves no room in which I can roleplay.

If Cloud's personality is predetermined and fixed, what am I for?  What is the point of there being a player at all?
[quote]Tell me how those things can change without you the player making those decisions.[/quote]
They can't.  That's ny point.  This is why having a pre-written personality for the character prevents roleplaying.

[EternalPink]

sp0ck 06 wrote...

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. 

I think your trying to compare something that isn't really comparable.

In a play, lets say Macbeth, I could try and get into the role of a scottish thane with a pushy wife and a chance at the throne and for the sake of the arguement lets say i do.

But as a actor i know there are tools to help my performance, moderating my volume to give my words emphasis for example, i'm doing this because as a actor i know this is a effective technique which if i was truely in the role and getting into role was all that was required I wouldn't be able to do.

So what a paid professional can do is not the same as what we do when we role play for fun, we are doing it within the limit of our imagination to have fun, they are doing it to get paid.

[sp0ck 06]

the_one_54321 wrote...

sp0ck 06 wrote...
intense shooter combat

And right there is the sticking point. You replace your personality with the character's personality, but you do not do so with the mechanics because shooter mechanics are specifically designed to make you point and shoot. So you're not really playing the role. Not even in the sense of a play where you can pretend to fight and outcomes are dictated based on whatever the intended ability and intent of the character is. Here, you completely replace an aspect the character with an aspect of yourself.

It is a very technical sticking point, but it is the technicality on which I have been sticking this entire time. It has no bearing on how enjoyable the game is or isnt. It related only to the technical accuracy of the lable.

Then we'll just have to respectfully agree to disagree, although I'll probably keep arguing about it.  See my post above.

[sp0ck 06]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

This is why "playing the role" is not equivalent to "roleplaying".

Acting is not roleplaying.  Actors are told what to say and how to say it.  Their craft is mimicry.

You are wrong, and know nothing about acting. 

Modifié par sp0ck 06, 19 juillet 2011 - 10:45 .

[Sylvius the Mad]

the_one_54321 wrote...

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.

There's nothing ever close to a 100% success rate.  I suspect your success rate never exceeds 70%.  And a 30% error rate is far too high.

I might accept a 2% error rate.

AlanC9 and I have a deal that we'll document our attempts to use the paraphrases in the DA2 DLC to see how accurate we are.  We'll record detailed expectations prior to selecting dialogue options, and then we'll record the results of that selection to see how often we guessed correctly.

And yet so many players are able to so consistently anticipate the outcomes!

Can you?  Show me.  What means do you use?

[EternalPink]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

A lot of people listen to music they call R&B, and they really enjoy their "R&B" music.  And yet modern "R&B" music often contains little rhythm and no blues.  So it's not Rhythm and Blues.  Therefore it's not R&B.

I've cut to just the bit thats relevant.

If lots of people are calling it something (i.e the majority) then thats what it is, we call a tree a tree but if every human alive suddenly decided to call a tree by something else then we'd call it by something else.

Thats how languages adapt.

So just because in the past we've associated a term with a certain name/object/activity doesn't mean that we will do until the end of time.

My grandfather called his radio a wireless yet when i speak to anybody today about wireless we are not talking about radio's

Modifié par EternalPink, 19 juillet 2011 - 10:48 .

[the_one_54321]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...
Can you?  Show me.  What means do you use?

What does it matter unless you figure I'm just not telling the truth?

Sylvius the Mad wrote...
I suspect your success rate never exceeds 70%.

And how do you figure that? I'm telling you otherwise. This goes back to the above. Do you think I'm just lying about it? 

Luc0s wrote...
Simply put: A RPG is a (video)game where you play a role.

When you're acting a role in a production, your ability to fight (or what have you) is dictated by the character you play. In DA:O your ability to fight (or what have you) is dictated by numerical statistics representing the character's abilities in the game's engine. In TPS mechanics, your ability to fight is dictated by your ability to react, aim and fire which is interpreted by the game's engine from your direct input.

Modifié par the_one_54321, 19 juillet 2011 - 10:55 .

[Varen Spectre]

Luc0s wrote...

@Varen Spectre:

Very insightful post. Very well written too. I agree with most things you said.

In fact, the industry already does come up with new labels when new games become too deviant from the established genre(s). Most of the time these new labels become sub-genres of the original genre.

For example, within the classic RPG genre we have seen various sub-genres over the years. To name a few: Turn-based-RPG, action-RPG, tactical-RPG, MMO-RPG and hybrid-RPG.

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.

Lol, thank you  ... 

Either way it won't be within our capabilities to influence this... What we as dedicated fans and gamers can do though... is to take a look at interesting mechanics and features within all these genres and sub-genres and speculate / suggest which of them and in what form might be used in upcoming Mass Effect game(s). Funny thing is that such discussions even do start, but they usually stop after few posts and majority of posters return to "What  is RPG?" instead. 

But,... I am optimistic and perceive the development of this thread as a spiral instead of a circle. So I'll definitely keep an eye on it.

Modifié par Varen Spectre, 19 juillet 2011 - 11:02 .

[Sylvius the Mad]

EternalPink wrote...

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

A lot of people listen to music they call R&B, and they really enjoy their "R&B" music.  And yet modern "R&B" music often contains little rhythm and no blues.  So it's not Rhythm and Blues.  Therefore it's not R&B.

I've cut to just the bit thats relevant.

If lots of people are calling it something (i.e the majority) then thats what it is, we call a tree a tree but if every human alive suddenly decided to call a tree by something else then we'd call it by something else.

No, you're missing the point.

What it's called changes.  What it is doesn't.

[Sylvius the Mad]

the_one_54321 wrote...

And how do you figure that? I'm telling you otherwise. This goes back to the above. Do you think I'm just lying about it? 

I don't think you're measuring the same thing I'm measuring.

But we can't see the relevant differences until we make available both our data and our methodolgy.

[the_one_54321]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

the_one_54321 wrote...
And how do you figure that? I'm telling you otherwise. This goes back to the above. Do you think I'm just lying about it? 

I don't think you're measuring the same thing I'm measuring.

But we can't see the relevant differences until we make available both our data and our methodolgy.

You think you can't play Shepard because you both cannot know what he is going to do nor substitute what he does with your own interpretations. I'm saying that I can know what Shepard is going to do, the same way AlanC said earlier.

[EternalPink]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

EternalPink wrote...

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

A lot of people listen to music they call R&B, and they really enjoy their "R&B" music.  And yet modern "R&B" music often contains little rhythm and no blues.  So it's not Rhythm and Blues.  Therefore it's not R&B.

I've cut to just the bit thats relevant.

If lots of people are calling it something (i.e the majority) then thats what it is, we call a tree a tree but if every human alive suddenly decided to call a tree by something else then we'd call it by something else.

No, you're missing the point.

What it's called changes.  What it is doesn't.

lol

"By the 1970s, rhythm and blues was used as a blanket term for soul and funk. In the 1980s, a newer style of R&B developed, becoming known as contemporary R&B."

What it is didn't change, what we associated the term R&B with did change, which is what i said.

For someone that likes pointing out that others missed there point, perhaps work a little harder at understanding others peoples hmm?

[Sylvius the Mad]

the_one_54321 wrote...

You think you can't play Shepard because you both cannot know what he is going to do nor substitute what he does with your own interpretations. I'm saying that I can know what Shepard is going to do, the same way AlanC said earlier.

But that's not what we were talking about.  We're discussing, specifically, your ability (or anyone's ability) to interpret the paraphrases such that you know what the resulting line (and corresponding actions) are going to be.

Regardless of our ability (or inability) to apply abstractions or substitute interpretations, what is actually happening on the screen, and did you know about it in advance?

I'm tempted to pull some examples from DA2 for you, since you haven't played the game.  Recall that thread I started about that one paraphrase dealing with slavers.  The game offered no indication at all that Hawke would sneer at or disapprove of the slavers.

[Sylvius the Mad]

EternalPink wrote...

What it is didn't change, what we associated the term R&B with did change, which is what i said.

The problem here, then, is that some of us want to talk specifically about roleplaying games as they were defined 30 years ago, and compare modern games to that definition.

But you people changing the language have robbed us of the tools to do so.