3223 réponses à ce sujet

[Xewaka]

In Exile wrote...

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.

You do realize that this caveat applies to tabletop RPGs as well.

[In Exile]

Xewaka wrote...
You do realize that this caveat applies to tabletop RPGs as well.

Absolutely. I think that it's logically impossible for any kind of game not to be based on player skill. Instead, I'm using this argument to get at the heard of what the debate is about:

The kind of player skill that ought to be part of an RPG.

What sets games apart isn't that the player is active in them (this is neccesary for it to be a game to begin with) but rather how the player plays. What RPG combat is about the kinds of player skills that are engaged.

[Lumikki]

In Exile wrote...

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.

Actually it can be, it's just bad role-playing. Meaning player is trying to do best, but fails to role-play character correctly.
But it's still role-playing. Same way if player is using mouse to aim, if it's not done the way character would done shooting, then it's just bad role-playing. You can't except every player role-play perfectly every kind of character.

Modifié par Lumikki, 06 juillet 2011 - 09:50 .

[Sylvius the Mad]

In Exile wrote...

But you do know what the choice entails. The choice is always explained to you.

No it isn't.  More often than not, I don't know what the consequences of a given wheel option will be.  And the interrupt system was completely opaque.

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"

But I can't tell if the "car" option means that I'll chose the car, or destroy the car, or make some off-hand comment about cars generally.

The dialogue options in ME, ME2, and DA2 are a complete mystery.  It's pure guesswork.

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.

That I do something does mean that it is possible to do that thing.

You're telling me that it's not possible to do something that I can demonstrably do.

You could do it, too.  I've explained how at great lengths.  You would just need to abandon your overly permissive standard of evidence.

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.

It wasn't impossible to pick tone in the earlier games.  You keep saying it was, but it clearly was not.

But this isn't about tone.  This is about literal content.  It's impossible to pick literal content in DA2 and the ME series because that content is hidden from you.  There is no way for you to know what a line will say prior to you having selected it.   That you ever fail means that you didn't know.

[the_one_54321]

In Exile wrote...
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?

Well no, the thing with ME is that ME isn't and has never been an RPG.
In DA:O, however, changing the difficulty will change the percieved mental capabilities of the player. In an "easy" world, the player is much smarter, so playing a brilliant strategist is possible. You change the world until your own mental abilities mirror the characters. It's up to the player to take advantage of this or not. Outside of this, applying mental statistics to combat is impossible. In other respects, having the character's statistics works completely.

[Sylvius the Mad]

In Exile wrote...

Intelligence is no less physical.

Agreed.  Let's make puzzles stat-driven, too.  If we reduce the player's input purely to personality choices, then we've eliminated player skill.

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?

Player skill affecting aiming in the ME games is optional.  You can aim while paused.  Unless you're counting the ability to use a mouse to select items even in the absence of time constraints as player skill, then there isn't any in ME.

This is why I think it was foolish to eliminate stat-driven aiming in ME, because there already isn't any player skill in aiming in the ME games.

[the_one_54321]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...
This is why I think it was foolish to eliminate stat-driven aiming in ME, because there already isn't any player skill in aiming in the ME games.

ME is not an RPG!
Removing stat-driven aiming was a HUGE improvement because it stopped treating a mechanic that is entirely not-RPG as though it is RPG. It stopped pretending to be an RPG and thus made the game actually playable for a lot of players that found the pretending incredibly frustrating.

Modifié par the_one_54321, 06 juillet 2011 - 10:05 .

[Bnol]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Agreed.  Let's make puzzles stat-driven, too.  If we reduce the player's input purely to personality choices, then we've eliminated player skill.

Yes lets reduce the game to a choose your own adventure movie, with combat/puzzle simulations....  I bet that will do really well.

[Lumikki]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Player skill affecting aiming in the ME games is optional.  You can aim while paused.  Unless you're counting the ability to use a mouse to select items even in the absence of time constraints as player skill, then there isn't any in ME.

This is why I think it was foolish to eliminate stat-driven aiming in ME, because there already isn't any player skill in aiming in the ME games.

Can't much say to this anything. I don't mean any harm, but I feel like talking to someone who doesn't even have clue about what TPS combat is. Pause to aim in TPS combat? Who the hell would do that? Pause is there so you can give commands to you squad members.

[Sidney]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

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

The ME1 game of simon isn't a role playing element, neither is Oblivion's lockpicking, nor FO's terminal hacking. I think all of those are true. Stats don't allow YOU the player to do something (model for all of those)  the player character should do things for me.

The thing is I can make a great case that Oblivion's combat isn't an RPG - timing shield raises and sword strikes is about me, not to mention trying to aim a bow. Same thing with non-VATS combat in FO3/NV.

[Sidney]

In Exile wrote...

What sets games apart isn't that the player is active in them (this is neccesary for it to be a game to begin with) but rather how the player plays. What RPG combat is about the kinds of player skills that are engaged.

The skills and "strategy" are mine - who to attack, what power/spell to use. There's no way to avoid that unless you just 100% script your PC but then again you wrote the script. In the end, my PC acts on my will - be it to attack an orc, pick a lock or solve a puzzle. I play through my character I don't play the character.

[EternalPink]

Surprised this thread is still going.

Stats do not make a RPG, whether we are talking about computer games or pen and paper, in pen and paper you have a human opponent so if you want to do something totally off the wall (rather than attempting to strike down the evil dragon you asked it if it wanted to go for a mcdonalds) you can since the human GM can improvise that.

Computers obviously can't do that, they can only display the options that the game developers have put into the game and to allow a computer to do the job of the human GM it needs something it can quantify (stats) otherwise every combat encounter would play out as programmed.

In early PC games where graphical power was heavily limited compared to today the only way of showing damage was to have -32 HP appear by the character/monster you were trying to kill, with today's game's thats not really necessary since it is possible to render damage on a opponent so rather than giving us a stat of -32 HP a game can render -32 HP worth of damage on the monster so you can see your attack and a visual representation of the damage you've done.

So why are we still holding stats up as the hall mark of a RPG? next it will be isometric view

Baulders Gate 2 is considered a brilliant RPG by most and used a isometric view which lots of people liked but i'll bet good money they didn't go into that project saying we must use isometric, instead they looked at what they could do with computers of the time and created the graphics to fit it

Modifié par EternalPink, 06 juillet 2011 - 10:24 .

[Bnol]

Again, if an RPG is solely stat and decision driven, with no twitch or other player skill present it is a turn-based RPG.  If that is your definition ME was never a RPG and a lot of other games with the RPG classification are not RPGs, and if that is the only RPG you want to play I don't understand why you played ME or ME2.  It is obvious the industry doesn't feel like turn-based RPGs are the only RPGs.  Thus, it is all about levels of degrees and thresholds.  For me I have a lower threshold for RPG in terms of combat if there is also the engaging story with C&C, because that story and C&C brings more of the role-playing to the RPG, than a shooter or action game with stats.

Modifié par Bnol, 06 juillet 2011 - 10:29 .

[the_one_54321]

EternalPink wrote...
...

I hate everything you just said. Please don't influence games that I will end up playing.

Bnol wrote...
I don't understand why you played ME or ME2.

Because I also like shooters.

Incidentally, I also really don't give a crap what the industry thinks is or isn't an RPG. Marketing doesn't get to arbitrarily change definitions, at least not as far as I'm concerned.

Modifié par the_one_54321, 06 juillet 2011 - 10:27 .

[Lumikki]

the_one_54321 wrote...

EternalPink wrote...
...

I hate everything you just said. Please don't influence games that I will end up playing.

Aren't you doing same?

[Bnol]

the_one_54321 wrote...

EternalPink wrote...
...

I hate everything you just said. Please don't influence games that I will end up playing.

Bnol wrote...
I don't understand why you played ME or ME2.

Because I also like shooters.

Incidentally, I also really don't give a crap what the industry thinks is or isn't an RPG. Marketing doesn't get to arbitrarily change definitions, at least not as far as I'm concerned.

Stop snipping one line out of my sentence without the proceeding clause because it is completely out of context.  I stated if all you wanted to do was play a turn-based RPG why would you play ME, it was never marketed as such.  It doesn't matter what you individually classify a "true" rpg as, as you will have to know what the industry definition or classification is in terms of what you are going to buy. 

[Gatt9]

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.

Actually,  he's right,  you're wrong.

In an RPG,  the Character's ability to succeed or fail is independent of your ability to succeed or fail,  because you know absolutely nothing about firing a nuclear weapon or fighting a dragon,  but he does.  This differenetiation of skill is represented by stats.

What you are proposing is actually the exact opposite of what you're intending.  You're not acting the Role,  your skill is all that matters,  your character is undefined,  and all you're doing is inserting yourself as the Marine instead of taking on the Role of the Marine.  The Marine cannot fail,  because he has no intrinsic qualities,  only your qualitites.

I've said this several times before.  My 100% paragon murdered someone in cold blood by pushing them off a building,  without consequence.  This cannot occur in an RPG,  because in an RPG that is in direct contrast to my Character's intrinsic personality,  and in violating it,  there are reprocussions. 

But for ME2,  this can occur without a hitch,  because my Character has no intrinsic personality,  no quality whatsoever.  The game ignores it,  because even those "Paragon" points are irrelevant,  all that matters is me.

Since the game ignores it,  I can't possibly be taking on a Role.  I just violated the "Role" of my character without signifcant cause,  which should create a problem.  It doesn't,  so my "Role" doesn't exist,  because the game just completely ignored the fact that I commited the single biggest violation possible of my "Role".

All that's left then is me,  which means there wasn't a Role to start out with.  I was just self-inserting my bad mood at that moment,  despite the fact that Shepherd appeared perfectly calm both before and after.

In an RPG,  volating my Role carries penalties.  My companions would've reacted,  I may have suffered further consequences.

So in short,  what you propose,  in the context of ME2,  is not Roleplaying.  I have no Role,  it's not defined,  there's no recognition of my Role,  nothing,  the game just proceeds without pause no matter what I do.

[the_one_54321]

Lumikki wrote...

the_one_54321 wrote...

EternalPink wrote...
...

I hate everything you just said. Please don't influence games that I will end up playing.

Aren't you doing same?

But what I said wasn't so completely full hurtfull hurtfull just plain mean talk about butchering good RPG mechanics.

Bnol wrote...

the_one_54321 wrote...

Bnol wrote...
I don't understand why you played ME or ME2.

Because I also like shooters.

Incidentally, I also really don't give a crap what the industry thinks is or isn't an RPG. Marketing doesn't get to arbitrarily change definitions, at least not as far as I'm concerned.

Stop snipping one line out of my sentence without the proceeding clause because it is completely out of context. I stated if all you wanted to do was play a turn-based RPG why would you play ME, it was never marketed as such. It doesn't matter what you individually classify a "true" rpg as, as you will have to know what the industry definition or classification is in terms of what you are going to buy.

I didn't leave in only one line to remove the context. I left the line that matters. I answered above specifically regarding what you're elaborating here. I played it because Iike shooters. I've never said the ME should be like other RPGs.

Modifié par the_one_54321, 06 juillet 2011 - 10:47 .

[EternalPink]

Gatt9 wrote...

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.

Actually,  he's right,  you're wrong.

In an RPG,  the Character's ability to succeed or fail is independent of your ability to succeed or fail,  because you know absolutely nothing about firing a nuclear weapon or fighting a dragon,  but he does.  This differenetiation of skill is represented by stats.

What you are proposing is actually the exact opposite of what you're intending.  You're not acting the Role,  your skill is all that matters,  your character is undefined,  and all you're doing is inserting yourself as the Marine instead of taking on the Role of the Marine.  The Marine cannot fail,  because he has no intrinsic qualities,  only your qualitites.

I've said this several times before.  My 100% paragon murdered someone in cold blood by pushing them off a building,  without consequence.  This cannot occur in an RPG,  because in an RPG that is in direct contrast to my Character's intrinsic personality,  and in violating it,  there are reprocussions. 

But for ME2,  this can occur without a hitch,  because my Character has no intrinsic personality,  no quality whatsoever.  The game ignores it,  because even those "Paragon" points are irrelevant,  all that matters is me.

Since the game ignores it,  I can't possibly be taking on a Role.  I just violated the "Role" of my character without signifcant cause,  which should create a problem.  It doesn't,  so my "Role" doesn't exist,  because the game just completely ignored the fact that I commited the single biggest violation possible of my "Role".

All that's left then is me,  which means there wasn't a Role to start out with.  I was just self-inserting my bad mood at that moment,  despite the fact that Shepherd appeared perfectly calm both before and after.

In an RPG,  volating my Role carries penalties.  My companions would've reacted,  I may have suffered further consequences.

So in short,  what you propose,  in the context of ME2,  is not Roleplaying.  I have no Role,  it's not defined,  there's no recognition of my Role,  nothing,  the game just proceeds without pause no matter what I do.

Yes it can happen

Did anybody see your paragon shephard do this? does anybody care? is there any evidence? if there was evidence would anybody care? Did the person you killed in cold blood murder someone two minutes before you showed up and thus justify what you did?

Your squaddies depending on which ones vary from insane killers to lawful (to them) killers so would any of the ones on the insane side of the curve care? would any of the lawful ones? Its a merc in a building that's owned by someone whose's just been killing there low level grunts so being alive in the building sort of indicates they don't have a clean consciousness.

[the_one_54321]

EternalPink wrote...
Yes it can happen

Did anybody see your paragon shephard do this? does anybody care? is there any evidence? if there was evidence would anybody care? Did the person you killed in cold blood murder someone two minutes before you showed up and thus justify what you did?

Your squaddies depending on which ones vary from insane killers to lawful (to them) killers so would any of the ones on the insane side of the curve care? would any of the lawful ones? Its a merc in a building that's owned by someone whose's just been killing there low level grunts so being alive in the building sort of indicates they don't have a clean consciousness.

Getting in trouble for it or not is really only accessory to the major problem which is that it happens at all. Or, that's a major problem if you are really intent on role playing Shepard as your own character.

[Il Divo]

EternalPink wrote...

Yes it can happen

Did anybody see your paragon shephard do this? does anybody care? is there any evidence? if there was evidence would anybody care? Did the person you killed in cold blood murder someone two minutes before you showed up and thus justify what you did?

Your squaddies depending on which ones vary from insane killers to lawful (to them) killers so would any of the ones on the insane side of the curve care? would any of the lawful ones? Its a merc in a building that's owned by someone whose's just been killing there low level grunts so being alive in the building sort of indicates they don't have a clean consciousness.

It's also important to distinguish between "limitations on role-playing" and "all role-playing is impossible".

Every game has a point where the developers are not able to develop every single choice we would like. You run into this same issue with every Bioware game.

[EternalPink]

Well my answer would be for a 100% paragon player not to choose a renegade interrupt since you could ignore it.

[Il Divo]

the_one_54321 wrote...

Or, that's a major problem if you are really intent on role playing Shepard as your own character.

Why is it a problem if I have Shepard push someone off a building?

[the_one_54321]

Granted, but it's pretty extreme to have a "paragon" character just randomly murder a guard.

Though, Enternal Pink is correct, above.

Modifié par the_one_54321, 06 juillet 2011 - 10:51 .

[Fleetleader101]

RPG... umm you mean role playing game right?

Well that could mean a lot of things, but I agree with casey. I dont like games where I keep getting confused about how to add weapons and such to my team. (ie mass 1) I liked mass 2 way better where I felt like most of the fights had a point to them. Thats what a good RPG should do.

They should provide a sense of choice and progression, but they should not entail huge menus and such for pointless combinations. I think more gun options and armor options for commander shep is a great idea though.