3223 réponses à ce sujet

[Ace of Dawn]

JayhartRIC wrote...

sympathy4saren wrote...

General question:

In The Force Unleashed, you as Starkiller at the end of the game can choose to fight Darth Vader (and kill him) or Emperor Palpatine (almost defeating him, but dying).

One is a Canon ending, on is not. The endings are completely different, and you choose.

Is The Force Unleashed an RPG?

One choice in the whole game does not make it an RPG.

But why? RPGs need you to make a choice? How many choices in a game are needed to be considered an RPG? Were RPGs essentially non-existant before the last generation?

[Il Divo]

Ace of Dawn wrote...

But why? RPGs need you to make a choice? How many choices in a game are needed to be considered an RPG? Were RPGs essentially non-existant before the last generation?

 It's an issue of thresh-holds. Take KotOR as an example. I have the option of swoop-racing, but I doubt most players would define KotOR as a racing game first. How much racing does a game need to be considered a racing game?

[the_one_54321]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...
If the event happens during gameplay then it might contradict your character design.  Events that happen prior to the beginning of teh game inform your character design, so any contradiction there is your fault.  Your ability to roleplay a character isn't  altered by pre-game events (though your ability to roleplay any character is).

Events that take place any time after character creation - so both during and after gameplay - have the ability to violate the coherence of your character.  For this reason I tend to ignore game epilogues, because there's no way they can be written to accommodate my character, so I simply don't acknowledge them.  But in-game events can't simply be ignored like that, because they have a demonstrable effect on the events around the player's character.  If I want my character to protect someone, and my character then kills that someone, how can I ignore that?  The entire game will likely think I've killed that person, and all of the NPC's reactions might be affected by that knowledge of an event I deny.  What sort of game does that make?

Choosing to differentiate between one thing the game tells you happened and another thing the game tells you happened is arbitrary. I still think you're violating your own rules here. From what I've seen it's as though you want the game universe rule to apply where it is convenient and to not apply where it is not.

There are some events that the game specifically demnstartes occurring. If you're going to ignore some of them, you need a strict reason why you are able to do so. Like in dialog where you assert that you never see or hear your character speak and therefore no tone is actually demonstrated.

Sylvius the Mad wrote...
I ask again, if the water sources were not delicate, are you them lying to me with that question?

In this example I am not, but it is possible that one might.

Sylvius the Mad wrote...
Therefore, those in control are not interested in solving the water problem.  I'd suggest you stop worrying about it.

It's an important problem and the fact tha I am not the one that is in charge doesn't mean that I shouldn't continue to atempt to influence those that are.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

In the sense that if I wanted it to rip off another game's mechanics, I'd be looking at Rainbow Six and Ghost Recon before Gears of War (TPS) or say, KOTOR (RPG).

I'd like to see the entire game using something like Splinter Cell Conviction's Mark and Execute feature.

Or VATS.  But I want M&E or VATS for every single shooting event.  I'd like never to aim and fire my weapon in real time.

[Savber100]

I seriously wish ME would be like this in terms of RPG elements:

Mind you.. I still love ME but the depth and choices offered are looking pretty damn good in DX.

[Bnol]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Lumikki wrote...

sympathy4saren wrote...

Many people note that shooting elements in Mass Effect were flawed. So improvements were made in ME2.

Why didn't the rpg elements receive the same attention and allotment for improvement?

That's is good point.

The supposed improvement of ME's shooting elements completely removed an important RPG element.

RPGs need stat-driven combat.

Not sure what you definition of stat-driven combat is, whether it is combat totally based on stats or whether stats just play a majority role.  PnP RPGs needed complete stat-driven combat as it was the only way to simulate the combat.  Modern vidoe games have various ways to simulate the combat.  Some are more active than others.  Obviously when you play a game you don't have the skill/strength/endurance that your character has.  Nor do you have "magical" powers that your character has.  While I think stats are important for shaping of your character and providing combat limitations and balance, I don't find that stats have to be the dominant factor for it to be an RPG.  Further, stats don't necessarily have to affect things like aim to have an important influence on combat.  It is difficulty to make a fluid, fast paced, and fun TPS with stats affecting the aim (Deus Ex was the only game where it worked for me, although it was a FPS).  Aim based stats are frustrating or alternatively trivial depending on the game.  You can instead use +damage, or rate of fire, reload time (sniper's being able to reload while in scope at higher leves) in terms of improving your weapon skill.

[In Exile]

Halo Quea wrote...
This would be a good point if you didn't have to invest points in ammo powers.   That's like saying that an experienced soldier needs advanced training just to load his guns.    It's just a ridiculous notion.

Just wanted to point out you don't. Those are level pre-reqs.

[In Exile]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...
That parenthetical is your problem.  The truthfulness of the statement isn't contained within the statement.

Yes, it is. Because "said truthfully" doesn't mean the statement is true; it means I believe it is true. My belief that is a true statement is an assumption I am conveying.

[JayhartRIC]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Upsettingshorts wrote...

In the sense that if I wanted it to rip off another game's mechanics, I'd be looking at Rainbow Six and Ghost Recon before Gears of War (TPS) or say, KOTOR (RPG).

I'd like to see the entire game using something like Splinter Cell Conviction's Mark and Execute feature.

Or VATS.  But I want M&E or VATS for every single shooting event.  I'd like never to aim and fire my weapon in real time.

http://en.wikipedia....pectrum_warrior


I think a ME game like Full Spectrum Warrior would also be good.

[the_one_54321]

Bnol wrote...
Not sure what you definition of stat-driven combat is,

If it's not stat driven, you're not playing the role, you're playing you. If ME was an RPG then Shepard would aim the gun, I would only tell him what to aim it at.

[In Exile]

[quote]Sylvius the Mad wrote...
You agreed to the joining ceremony.  That wasn't forced.  [/quote]

Even if that were true, I didn't agree to drink a concoction that would kill me. And I didn't agree to join a man who kills his recruits.

And I never agreed to to this. It was always a lie, with a plan to escape from Duncan later.

This is the equivalent of saying that you agreed to invade the mansion in the City Elf quest to save the women, so you ought not have the choice to betray them to Vaugh. New information. New circumstances.

[quoteYes, once you've agreed to it you're forced to complete it, but that's not unlike saying that after you jump out of the plane you're forced to fall.  You're still the one who jumped.  Jumping was still your choice.[/quote]

That's not the same thing at all. There is no intertia in the choice. I could have lied. You yourself make it a point to say that even if the literal dialogue is "I want to undertake the Joining," my character could be lying.

[quote]As for Malak, you're missing the point.  I'm not claiming that you can choose any path you can imagine.  I'm saying that among the available paths, you get to choose one.  That's what makes ME2 and DA2 different from KotOR and DAO.  The earlier games showed you the options, and you got to choose.  The newer games don't bother showing you the options first.[/quote]

That's false. ME and DA2 show you the options prior to your choice. They don't show you the literal statement of the dialogue. But that has nothing to do with how choice is presented.

[quote]That's the difference.  That's what I'm talking about.  Whether any game gives you options you like is irrelevant, as none of the games can do that in all cases.[/quote]

What you are debating is freedom; but this freedom to make decisions independent of the background facts does not exist, i.e. no game is designed to allow you to create a character from scratch without contradictions. Every Bioware PC is pre-defined as the game goes on.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Bnol wrote...

Not sure what you definition of stat-driven combat is, whether it is combat totally based on stats or whether stats just play a majority role.  PnP RPGs needed complete stat-driven combat as it was the only way to simulate the combat.  Modern vidoe games have various ways to simulate the combat.

Here's a litmus test.  If it's not playable by a quadriplegic, then it's not RPG combat.

[Lumikki]

the_one_54321 wrote...

Bnol wrote...
Not sure what you definition of stat-driven combat is,

If it's not stat driven, you're not playing the role, you're playing you.

You are wrong. You are not playing you, even if you could do that too.

But you are acting the role, meaning you become the character, because this is role-playing.
It's difference between controlling the character by the role and acting characters role.

[In Exile]

the_one_54321 wrote...
If it's not stat driven, you're not playing the role, you're playing you. If ME was an RPG then Shepard would aim the gun, I would only tell him what to aim it at.

Combat in DA:O isn't stat driven, even if you use companion AI instead of directly controlling them (in which case it really isn't stat driven).

ETA:

Put another way, as long as you are using your own intellect and abilities and not your character's abilities when picking where to aim the gun, you are playing yourself.

It's a silly argument, because in games the player ends up playing them, so they can't avoid relying on the player's skill unless they're a simulation.

Modifié par In Exile, 06 juillet 2011 - 09:22 .

[tonnactus]

Lumikki wrote...

Exactly, what means hole Mass Effect just got turned to normal slow RPG.
.

This is not really slow...
But i agree that the dogde moves looks silly.

[Sylvius the Mad]

In Exile wrote...

Sylvius the Mad wrote...
You agreed to the joining ceremony.  That wasn't forced. 

Even if that were true, I didn't agree to drink a concoction that would kill me. And I didn't agree to join a man who kills his recruits.

And I never agreed to to this. It was always a lie, with a plan to escape from Duncan later.

Then why, when Duncan told you to come talk to him when you were ready for the ceremony, did you then go talk to him?

I agree the non-interactive cutscene is a bad feature.  But that sort of event is not nearly as prevalent throughout DAO as it is in ME2 where it happens with nearly every spoken line.

That's false. ME and DA2 show you the options prior to your choice. They don't show you the literal statement of the dialogue. But that has nothing to do with how choice is presented.

It has everything to do with the choice.  If you don't know what the choice entails, then you can't be accurately described as having chosen it.

If I ask you to choose what's behind Door #1 or what's behind Door #2, you're not choosing between a car and a goat - you're choosing between two doors.

What you are debating is freedom; but this freedom to make decisions independent of the background facts does not exist, i.e. no game is designed to allow you to create a character from scratch without contradictions.

What the game is designed to allow is immaterial.  What the game actually allows is what matters.

I would like the game to be designed to minimise those contradictions, though, not create them several times each minute like ME and DA2.

Modifié par Sylvius the Mad, 06 juillet 2011 - 09:25 .

[tonnactus]

In Exile wrote...


Combat in DA:O isn't stat driven,

???
When your amount of strength decide if you hit with a melee weapon  and how much damage is done with it,a game is stat driven.

Modifié par tonnactus, 06 juillet 2011 - 09:28 .

[Lumikki]

tonnactus wrote...

In Exile wrote...


Combat in DA:O isn't stat driven,

???
When your amount of strength decide if you hit with a melee weapon  and how much damage is done with it,a game is stat driven.

Yeah, even I did not get that one... DAO is stats driven in my opinion..

[In Exile]

tonnactus wrote...
???
When your amount of strength decide if you hit with a melee weapon  and how much damage is done with it,a game is stat driven.

And yet choosing the ideal way that weapon is used is 100% a player based decision.

To give you an example: if I was really stupid (IQ 85) but I wanted to play DA:O and design a "smart" character who was also a brilliant general, that would actually take a lot of player skill. 1) I would need to learn the leveling system. 2) I would need to play the game using my owns strategic abilities.

The game has hit rolls and dices and these are stat based... but the combat itself is all player skill.

The point is, whenever you want to argue "RPGs are about character skill," that argument is stupid, because there is always a level of player skill involved. It's just how many layers and systems you want to add in separating the two.

Modifié par In Exile, 06 juillet 2011 - 09:32 .

[Sylvius the Mad]

In Exile wrote...

Combat in DA:O isn't stat driven, even if you use companion AI instead of directly controlling them (in which case it really isn't stat driven).

ETA:

Put another way, as long as you are using your own intellect and abilities and not your character's abilities when picking where to aim the gun, you are playing yourself.

But that's roleplaying.  In-character decision-making is roleplaying.

The player's physical skill at aiming isn't in-character.

[the_one_54321]

In Exile wrote...

the_one_54321 wrote...
If it's not stat driven, you're not playing the role, you're playing you. If ME was an RPG then Shepard would aim the gun, I would only tell him what to aim it at.

Combat in DA:O isn't stat driven, even if you use companion AI instead of directly controlling them (in which case it really isn't stat driven).

ETA:

Put another way, as long as you are using your own intellect and abilities and not your character's abilities when picking where to aim the gun, you are playing yourself.

It's a silly argument, because in games the player ends up playing them, so they can't avoid relying on the player's skill unless they're a simulation.

Ahem:

Lumikki wrote...

the_one_54321 wrote...

Bnol wrote...
Not sure what you definition of stat-driven combat is,

If it's not stat driven, you're not playing the role, you're playing you.

You are wrong. You are not playing you, even if you could do that too.

But you are acting the role, meaning you become the character, because this is role-playing.
It's difference between controlling the character by the role and acting characters role.

My emphasis added. This should answer the questions posed by both quoted posts.

[the_one_54321]

In Exile wrote...
To give you an example: if I was really stupid (IQ 85) but I wanted to play DA:O and design a "smart" character who was also a brilliant general, that would actually take a lot of player skill. 1) I would need to learn the leveling system. 2) I would need to play the game using my owns strategic abilities.

Or you play it on easy and change the rules of the reality you play in.

[In Exile]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...
Then why, when Duncan told you to come talk to him when you were ready for the ceremony, did you then go talk to him?

To tell him I was going to quit. You have that option, and Duncan says it's not an option, and you're not allowed to pull a Jory. Just like how the game forces you to actually listen to Duncan if he conscripts you.

It has everything to do with the choice.  If you don't know what the choice entails, then you can't be accurately described as having chosen it.

But you do know what the choice entails. The choice is always explained to you. What you're talking about, again, is a dialogue choice. But saying that the dialogue choices are (in your view) restricted, is not the same as saying that the behavioural choices are unknowable.

If I ask you to choose what's behind Door #1 or what's behind Door #2, you're not choosing between a car and a goat - you're choosing between two doors.

But that's not what you do in DA2 or ME1-2. You choose a car or a goat - but you don't choose how you say you want a car or goat. It's like pressing a button that says "car" or "goat"

What the game is designed to allow is immaterial.  What the game actually allows is what matters.

Th system doesn't allow it.  Math does not allow theorems that are inconsistent. But an incompetent person can believe inconsistent theorems.

That you think you can do something (or that something is true) does not mean that it is true.

I would like the game to be designed to minimise those contradictions, though, not create them several times each minute like ME and DA2.

The ME series and DA2 do minimize contradictions, or at best net positives. It goes right back to it being impossible for a player to ever pick tone.

[Lumikki]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

The player's physical skill at aiming isn't in-character.

Yes, it is. I don't hold the gun or shoot the gun, character does, I just order "directly" where to aim and say when to shoot. How to I give the order in UI is no issue, it's just tool how its done. Main point is, does player role-play the character. If player is role-playing the character it is in-character.

Don't mix classic RPG and ability role-play character, they are different thing.

Modifié par Lumikki, 06 juillet 2011 - 09:45 .

[In Exile]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...
But that's roleplaying.  In-character decision-making is roleplaying.

It's not roleplaying. If my character is smarter than I am, I cannot make those decisions.

Let us say I have to play a physics RPG, and the "gameplay" is solving real world physics problems. My character has an IQ of 180 and is a brilliant physics. To advance, I must submit an exhaustive proof in theoretical physics done under my own power.

That's not an in-character choice.

The player's physical skill at aiming isn't in-character.

Intelligence is no less physical.

the_one_54321 wrote...
Or you play it on easy and change the
rules of the reality you play in.

That still doesn't make it character skill. It's player skill - the level of player skill is just decreased. Does playing ME2 on easy mean the player isn't aiming the gun?