3223 réponses à ce sujet

[EternalPink]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

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.

Welcome to real life, since the alternative to change is death i think you should learn to live with change, perhaps you should re-consider your terms since we aren't applying to a point 30 years ago we are applying them to the present.

And by sticking your head 30 years in the past your ignoring 30 years worth of development on the platform we use to run the games regardless of genre

[the_one_54321]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...
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?

Intuition. It works. For some anyway. Though,  no, I can't tell you exactly what the line or facial expressions will be. A portion of the intuition is adaptation. Allowing my vision of the character to alter in minute amounts, so as to match what's on the screen. Backwards roleplaying, if you will.

EternalPink wrote...
Welcome to real life,

Screw that. I'm using the old definitions anyway.

Modifié par the_one_54321, 19 juillet 2011 - 11:15 .

[VoiceOfPudding]

Luc0s wrote...

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Why?  Why would you think that [people would be disappointed after playing FF and realizing it's not an RPG even though the label says so]?

Because labels help people identifying a game and it can help people in deciding which game they should buy.

If I like RPGs and I buy a game because the label of the cover says "RPG" then I expect that the game is an RPG. If I would put the game into my console, play it and find out it's not an RPG I would be pissed off.

I don't think anyone I know has actually bought a FF game because they wanted to play an rpg but i realize that's probably just my experience with the genre. :happy:

[Boiny Bunny]

I don't think this argument is going anywhere.

The best we can do is to conclude that there is in fact, no strict definition of an RPG.  We can argue till we're all blue in the face about what exactly it means to 'role play', but there is no definitively correct answer.

So, rather than arguing about the strict definition of a term that doesn't actually have a strict definition, why don't we move the discussion back to actual features of games?

Modifié par Boiny Bunny, 19 juillet 2011 - 11:56 .

[AlanC9]

Boiny Bunny wrote...

I don't think this argument is going anywhere.

The best we can do is to conclude that there is in fact, no strict definition of an RPG.  We can argue till we're all blue in the face about what exactly it means to 'role play', but there is no definitively correct answer.

So, rather than arguing about the strict definition of a term that doesn't actually have a strict definition, why don't we move the discussion back to actual features of games?

What a good idea.

[AlanC9]

EternalPink wrote...

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

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.

Welcome to real life, since the alternative to change is death i think you should learn to live with change, perhaps you should re-consider your terms since we aren't applying to a point 30 years ago we are applying them to the present.

And by sticking your head 30 years in the past your ignoring 30 years worth of development on the platform we use to run the games regardless of genre

Wait a minute. While I don't agree with Sylvius on the specifics here, why should he agree with change just because it's happened?  Change isn't automatically good.

[the_one_54321]

Luc0s wrote...
Really? Really dude? REALLY?

Hey! You stole my bit!

[EternalPink]

AlanC9 wrote...

EternalPink wrote...

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

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.

Welcome to real life, since the alternative to change is death i think you should learn to live with change, perhaps you should re-consider your terms since we aren't applying to a point 30 years ago we are applying them to the present.

And by sticking your head 30 years in the past your ignoring 30 years worth of development on the platform we use to run the games regardless of genre

Wait a minute. While I don't agree with Sylvius on the specifics here, why should he agree with change just because it's happened?  Change isn't automatically good.

We going more OT now but...

"why should he agree with change just because it's happened? Change isn't automatically good"

The answers in the question, its happened whether its good or bad is irrelevant, its happened so we have to deal with it.

So attempting to debate using terms that meant something 30 years ago (which you want to stick with) with people who don't/can't (i'm 29 so i don't know any of them and if english is your second language your screwed since any definitions looked up will be wrong) is at best going to lead to misunderstanding.

[the_one_54321]

Luc0s wrote...
Well the first time I ever played Final Fantasy was when I was playing Chrono Trigger in the SNES and my friend said "yo if you like RPGs like Chrono Trigger you should totally check out the Final Fantasy genre."

That was the first time I actually took the effort to check out Final Fantasy. It was because I loved RPGs like Chrono Trigger.

My first RPG was Final Fantasy. The original Final Fantasy. That was even before I started playing D&D.

Also, FFXII has a tactics system almost identical to DA:O.

Modifié par the_one_54321, 20 juillet 2011 - 12:46 .

[LiquidLogic2020]

I would like a fall out 3 styled loot system in part in mass 3, have your standard gear but then have a powerful specialist weapon as a reward for certain side quests. The loot was over the top in mass one but to take it out entirely was just moronic, even a few friends of mine that I got into mass 1 missed loot in mass 2 and they were straight up shooter fans. When it comes to it we all like finding better gear, the upgrades in mass 2, while useful, were dull.

[EternalPink]

I thought that aspect of Fallout 3 was good as well since being able to repair one gun by taking another gun apart for the pieces makes sense and it gives you a reason to keep looting when you've already got that gun since in a lot of games once you've got a good weapon theres no point picking up any more (except for sale)

[Gatt9]

EternalPink wrote...

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

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.

Welcome to real life, since the alternative to change is death i think you should learn to live with change, perhaps you should re-consider your terms since we aren't applying to a point 30 years ago we are applying them to the present.

And by sticking your head 30 years in the past your ignoring 30 years worth of development on the platform we use to run the games regardless of genre

You're a bit confused.

Making a TPS and putting the word RPG on it isn't changing what an RPG is,  it's mislabelling a TPS. 

With all due respect,  you're just reiterating marketing lines that more than a few companies use to try and drum up sales,  by claiming it's something other than what it is.

I think you should learn to seperate marketing speak from real qualities,  for starters,  if it's gameplay is equivalent to a TPS,  then it's a TPS,  no matter what the box said.

I'm often left wondering if a number of people on this board would buy a carton of milk,  find OJ in it,  and insist that OJ is now milk.

Because that's all they're really doing.

Because at the end of the day,  no matter how much you insist a TPS is an RPG,  RPGs are still emulations of PnP RPGs,  and PnP RPGs still aren't TPS's.

[EternalPink]

Gatt9 wrote...

EternalPink wrote...

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

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.

Welcome to real life, since the alternative to change is death i think you should learn to live with change, perhaps you should re-consider your terms since we aren't applying to a point 30 years ago we are applying them to the present.

And by sticking your head 30 years in the past your ignoring 30 years worth of development on the platform we use to run the games regardless of genre

You're a bit confused.

Making a TPS and putting the word RPG on it isn't changing what an RPG is,  it's mislabelling a TPS. 

With all due respect,  you're just reiterating marketing lines that more than a few companies use to try and drum up sales,  by claiming it's something other than what it is.

I think you should learn to seperate marketing speak from real qualities,  for starters,  if it's gameplay is equivalent to a TPS,  then it's a TPS,  no matter what the box said.

I'm often left wondering if a number of people on this board would buy a carton of milk,  find OJ in it,  and insist that OJ is now milk.

Because that's all they're really doing.

Because at the end of the day,  no matter how much you insist a TPS is an RPG,  RPGs are still emulations of PnP RPGs,  and PnP RPGs still aren't TPS's.

Okay lets say for the sake of arguement thats true... Says who?

And please do not link to two RPG boards as if they were the authority on earth about all things RPGish, there not there two forums.

You keep bringing up PnP, okay lets look there, classic PnP a character wants to attack a monster, lets say a Orc, person playing the character rolls for attack throw etc and whoever is doing the GM roll would do the Orc roll.

Lets say they lost there dice for a minute so instead they toss a coin, cut a deck of cards or whatever to attempt to bring in some randomisation of events (this is what dice do).

In your world it seems like the above would be the end of the world in mine we'd carry on and go back to rolling once the dice were found.

Now i've not actually brought up TPS's but since you do are we saying that all that a role playing game is, is how combat is resolved? since thats the only difference between a TPS and someone rolling dice, its resolving a portion of the game.

In a game that is just a TPS (CoD) the combat is the reason for playing, i personnally am not a CoD fan but my friends that are play it on multiplayer and they enjoy killing other people that are also playing multiplayer, so other than fun/bragging there is no other purpose to the combat.

In ME1 when i wanted to rescue Liara i had to kill a bunch of geth, i did happen to enjoy killing the geth but I wasn't killing the geth for fun i was killing the geth so i could activate the mining laser and rescue liara, so the combat had a start point and a end point and a reason for it, it didn't have to be fun but if a game had large chunks of unfun in it i'd call it a poor game.

Whether I'd resolved that combat from the start point to the end point with twitch/point and click/ throwing dice should not matter unless we are saying that combat is all that matters.

Modifié par EternalPink, 20 juillet 2011 - 01:24 .

[The Spamming Troll]

can you guys start talking about how important it is to have biotics work through protections.

i feel like thats the most important RPG feature in any game.

.....that biotics work through defenses.

bioticsshouldworkthroughdefenses.

[Sylvius the Mad]

[quote]Luc0s wrote...

And your apple and banana analogy completely fails. An apple is not objectively an apple and a banana is not objectively a banana. There is nothing about the apple that says "hi, I'm an apple".

The only reason why the red-green round fruit is an apple and the long curved yellow fruit is a banana is because we decided to give those fruits those labels.[/quote]
No, see, you're completely missing the point.

The long curved yellow fruit is called a banana because that's what we decided to label it.  My point is that if we decide to label it "apple", that it remains a long curved yellow fruit.

So, an RPG (1981 definition) remains an RPG (1981 definition) no matter how the term RPG gets misused over time as 1981 drifts into history.  Similarly, a shooter (1995 definition) will always remain a shooter (1995 definition), even if an identical game in 2010 is called an RPG (2010 definition).

You appear to be unable to discuss the genre labels independently of their current application, and that's why you don't understand.

This about it like an economist correcting monetary figures for inflation.  $1 is always $1, but $1 (1950 $) is a much larger amount than $1 (2010 $).  And you can't compare values across eras without correcting for that change in unit value.

Similarly, we can't talk about game genres over time without correcting for the change in label usage.  And the easiest way to do that is to establish immutable criteria for each label.

And yet you resist that.  Why?
[quote]In Final Fantasy, the decisions you can make do not depend on your character's personality. The player can decide where to go, which quests he wants to do, how he wants to explore the world. It has no influence on the character and the character has no influence on these decisions.

And I doubt those decisions such as "where shall I go?" or "which quest shall I complete first?" contradict Cloud's personality. In fact, they don't. So I don't see your problem.[/quote]
That's absurd.  Of course those decisions could contradict Cloud's personality.  Why does he choose to go to any given location?  Is it because he likes it there, or he's trying to get away from someone else, or because he doesn't trust something someone told him?  Why?

Again, I ask: How do you make that first decision?

You're avoiding the question.  You don't seem to understand why the question is relevant, but that's not a barrier to answering it.  You're being evasive.
[quote]PnP favors my argument because the classic RPG video-games, including Final Fantasy, adopted the game-mechanics from the PnP RPG games. That's what defined these games as RPG games.[/quote]
But that definition doesn't carry through.  Just because FF got called an RPG because it shared a resemblance to tabletop RPGs with regard to combat mechanics, that doesn't then establish FF as some sort of lynchpin from which the definition can then grow.

If you want to point the the course, then point to the source.  By your own admission, FF isn't that.  Therefore, a feature appearing in FF can't be relevant to the genre definition.

Put another way, that FF was called an RPG does not then make the features of FF RPG features.  The RPG features are what make FF an RPG.  FF is not what makes the features RPG features.

Even if I accept that FF is an RPG (which it isn't, because it lacks the necessary roleplaying component), that doesn't mean that subsequent JRPGs are RPGs just because FF was.
[quote]You clearly have trouble with using basic logic don't you? If I indeed consistently misrepresented your opinion, as you claim I do, then wouldn't it be more logical to conclude that maybe I misunderstood you?[/quote]
That would be a baseless conclusion.

My logic is without peer.
[quote]And I use "class" and "role" interchangably. They are the same to me. So maybe that's what caused the misunderstanding?[/quote]
Yes.

Your role is the job you perform in combat.  Your class is the set of possible abilities you have.

The two are only closely related if the classes are extremely narrowly defined, and that combat mechanics are arbitrarily rigid.
[quote]That you define as roleplaying isn't roleplaying.

Or maybe I misrepresent or misunderstand you again? By all means, please define roleplaying one more time, just to be sure.[/quyote]
Roleplaying is in-character decision-making.

When roleplaying, you should never break character.  You should never consider information not available to your character.  You should never take into account your knowledge that you are playing a game.  Ideally, you wouldn't even be aware of it.

[Brenon Holmes]

Ok... this topic is interesting, but not ME3 related. Suggestion... move the discussion to a more appropriate venue. :happy:

Modifié par Brenon Holmes, 20 juillet 2011 - 05:22 .

[the_one_54321]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...
Roleplaying is in-character decision-making.

And how is it exactly that the characters in FF ever make a decision that is out of character?