3223 réponses à ce sujet

[Foolsfolly]

Il Divo wrote...

In Exile wrote...

Il Divo wrote...
Were these honestly all the recommendations? The OP of the thread didn't mention a brief list like "I already played KotOR and all these other games." If so, I find myself at a loss for words (figuratively).

There was a lot of lamenting that the last "true" RPG (for all its faults, which were many) was MoTB. Then a lot of talk about indie developers and how mainstream developers don't make RPGs. 

But I'm pretty sure RPG codex barely thought DA:O was worth the title of an RPG, and that it was an insult to BG. 

I just finished reading through that thread. If there is such thing as a "Hell on Earth", then that's probably it. I wonder how they enjoy....anything.

No one hates a game as much as a game's 'die hard' fans.

[hwf]

Someone With Mass wrote... The problem in ME1's case is that you could just add another mod that negated the primary mod's negative stats. [...] I think they'll give more options than damage boosters, so you can choose if you want to go, for example, for more accuracy at the expense of potential more damage because it takes up a slot.

One mod that negated the other's negatives is exactly the number play I was aiming to point to, to be honest! 
As you mention, more accuracy at the expensive of potential damage is a great way to go about it and I truly hope it'll be like that - yet I didn't get that vibe from their E3 demo.

hwf wrote... Nearly every mod should have a + and - attribute and it should deviate a bit what it improves and messes up; this way you get to puzzle a bit.
Foolsfolly wrote... That's how it used to be. Replaying KOTOR2 now and their upgrade system is such a fun thing. [...] I realized that in my second play through Mass Effect and have never once done anything different.

Totally missed KOTOR2 having a +/- itemization scheme. Funny, since I did play it. Long time ago though.
New Vegas was awesome, much better then FO3, but yeah the upgrades and ammo itemization was simply "+better", no real number play.

Those optimals like "Tungsten" or "Shredder" were once again the simple/braindead "choice" simply because there wasn't a tradeoff to make; it was the only sane option - and I'd like to not see that again.
Yet choosing between "Frictionless Materials X" and "Rail Extension VII" felt like a proper choice in playstyle to me - that type of tradeoff decision is what I would like to have in ME3.

Modifié par hwf, 11 juillet 2011 - 09:42 .

[konfeta]

Damnit, foolsfolly. You ninjad my wall of text with your wall of text. Well, to largely reduce mine:

Other genres have very easy, fundamental concepts by which they are objectively defined and can be explained to someone by pronouncing the genre label. RPGs do not - they have a laundry list of features that grows as technological innovation pushes forward. Take a look at the list from a random time frame slice and you will find proponents of that specific list being as the ideal RPG.

If someone asks me what Halo is, I tell them FPS, they know that they run around shooting people with guns from perspective of the dude with guns. Everything after that is detail and specifics. If someone asks me what Vampire: Bloodlines is, and I tell them RPG, what do they think? World of Warcraft? Some forgotten MUD? Some ancient text based RPG ala Might and Magic? A Final Fantasy offering? Baldur's Gate? Diablo? Deus Ex? Mass Effect? Hell, Pokemon? Games with massively different fundamentals even at simple player perspective level, let alone other stuff.

Modifié par konfeta, 11 juillet 2011 - 09:50 .

[hwf]

In Exile wrote... There was a lot of lamenting that the last "true" RPG (for all its faults, which were many) was MoTB. Then a lot of talk about indie developers and how mainstream developers don't make RPGs.

RPGCodex might be stuck in the past but their obstinent obsession and ranting caused them to compare something to PS:T, favorably.
That something turned out to be NWN2's Mask of the Betrayer, in their review of it.

Actually caused me to buy the NWN2 series. Anyone who reads this and hasn't played MotB should consider it at least.

[the_one_54321]

"RPGs don't have a short list of easy to objectively identify features."

Sure they don't if you're trying to hamfist in the stuff that marketing feeds you about RPGs just to try to sell more games.

An RPG is a strategy game where you focus on just one character to play out instead of a whole group of them. What matters is that the characters abilities preclude your own. Meaning, I don't aim the gun and I don't swing the sword. I just tell the character what to swing or shoot at and the character does the rest on its own.

The actual genesis of tabletop gaming shows us exactly this transition from strategy war games to role playing. With that genesis specifically going from directing groups of units to controlling and role playing a single individual.

[konfeta]

So, Baldur's Gate is not an RPG?

[the_one_54321]

How do you get from my post to "Baldur's Gate" is not an RPG? Baldur's Gate has the exact mechanics used in AD&D.

[Foolsfolly]

An RPG is a strategy game where you focus on just one character to play out instead of a whole group of them

Bye, bye, Baldur's Gate, KOTOR, Dragon Age, Fallout because of the more than one character. Bye, Bye, Diablo and other hack-n-slash RPGs because there's no real strategy.

What matters is that the characters abilities preclude your own.

Bye, bye any game that is not turn based because real time games require the player to be fast enough to hit key strokes in order and in time. Allowing for player skill to be as important if not more important than character skill.

Congratulations. You've cut out almost every single CRPG in the world with your definition.

And since it bares repeating on a new page:

Foolsfolly wrote...

the_one_54321 wrote...

Never mind that every single video game genre is defined by it's mechanics. Except RPGs. For some reason. Some indistinct, incommunicable reason.

Let's look at Strategy games.

Strategy games where you control whole armies against other forces. This can be turned based, isometric viewed, or even have heroes who level up and learn abilities. End of the day if you control armies against another army with a focus on strategy and tactics than it's an RTS. WarCraft 3, for example has heroes and inventories and is still a RTS game.

How about FPS.

You are a single character armed with weapons. The experience is focused on being this one person in this one event. It can have RPG elements, squad ordering, companions that follow you (though for a long time those types of escort missions were a bane to all those who live), and you can even have a game where you don't shoot anybody and still be a FPS. Or even First person games where the object is to avoid combat at all costs.

Puzzle games?

You play as no one and no army. Your objective to solve puzzles. Nothing else. Those puzzles can range from any manner of puzzle from any level of difficulty.

TPS?

Third person perspective. You shoot things. It can have RPG elements like GTA: San Andreas or Crackdown. It can have racing elements, squad combat, strategy elements even. All that matters is that the perspective is third person and you shoot a weapon.

And now we're at RPGs.

What do they need to be RPGs? You play a role that the player costumizes, other games allow this. You have inventory and skills? Other games have those as well. Does perspective matter? If so what about the Elder Scrolls games which allow for changing between First and Third whenever the player wants? Do the weapons count?

The biggest difference for RPGs and any other genre is how they tell their stories. In RTS you fight and win through tactics and stratagy. You play the campagin they design by defeating tougher and tougher armies until you win and see the story as told.

FPS and TPS are similar. You shoot the bad guys and beat the game as done.

Puzzle games, you beat them and feel sorta happy before starting another one.

RPGs allow for the player to make choices with consquences. They generally have a greater focus on world building on creating a world in which the player becomes engrossed in. The game reacts to player choices more often and in the end of the game it's more likely for an RPG to have multiple endings based on player choice.

None of these things are unique to RPGs. The Thief series is a FPS and its world was very detailed and included many books and NPC conversations that expanded on that world, giving it detail and engrossing the player. Many games have multiple endings. FPSs routinely have reactive enviroments. TPSs even have player choice have consquences, such as the Spliter Cell games.

But the key thing here is that the PC is your creation. Not only do you design the face, you decide how that character acts and reacts. And the game allows it.

Genres defined only by mechanics would have many exceptions and sub-genres and mixed genres. The entire point of genres was to define the differences between certain types of games. And the mechanics of those games have mingled with each other for so long that mechanics alone cannot be the only way to define a genre.

[konfeta]

An RPG is a strategy game where you focus on just one character to play out instead of a whole group of them.

That part. By the definition you have given, any RPG with a party system is no longer an RPG. But that's besides the point. The point is, again, as always, is that RPG is ill defined as a function of various RPG fans giving different priorities to various components of the RPG laundry feature list.

Holy crap, fools, you ninja me yet again with another wall of text. Jesus.

Modifié par konfeta, 11 juillet 2011 - 10:10 .

[In Exile]

the_one_54321 wrote...
Significant amount of irony here considering that you two are talking to the guy that has said on numerous occasions that I don't care whether or not people agree with me on whether or not something is "RPG" enough, so long as the specific features I want in the game are in the game. 

Except on this occasion, where you lamented the use of the RPG label. I'm sorry, but I don't keep very close track of your all views. 

You literally said: "...slapping an RPG label over all the marketing, and enjoying runaway financial success. that you all are looking down in Gatt9 in spite of this..."

So what I said is entirely in line with what you said.

Also a significant amount of irony in defending the "modernization" of games when all it really amounts to is "take what was popular before and make it just like every other generic game being made." 

That's interesting, because you're suggesting the same approach within RPG mechanics. I mean, that's exactly what you suggest in the very post I'm quoting (take DA:O mechanics and apply them to ME3).

VoiceOfPudding wrote...
People suggest good old movies all the time so that people who do not watch them the first time round may decide to do so and benefit from watching a good movie. Similarly, it's not exactly breaking the rules of logic to assume that a website that's, if the name is anything to go by, dedicated to rpg's would suggest old rpgs that other people may benefit from the experience.

Why would you think I'm ragging on them for "breaking the rules of logic"? I'm just pointing out that for that poster  the last few good RPGs came out circa 1990, 10+ years before the sacred cows of this particular forum (whether it's PS:T, or BG, or BG II, or Fallout 1/2). 

It would be the same as someone saying that there have been no good movies since 1976. Certainly they're entitled to their opinion, but it says something about the type of fan the forum attracts, which was what the post was talking about. 

ETA: 

To illustrate my point:

The problem with Secrets (and Matrix Cubed, come to think of it) is that it's just so bland and rushed. In a way it seems like a cash grab more than anything else if you compare it to Curse, a game that is probably even better than Pool of Radiance. It has too much combat, too little plot, and falls on the wrong side of the AD&D fun zone in terms of character levels. However, I've had fun with the game. If you play it right after the better Gold Box games it's a real disappointment and probably difficult to get through. If you play it after trying something **** like Oblivion or Dragon Age then you'll realise just how much better the Gold Box formula is, even if the content itself is uninspired. In other words, it's not ****. It's just **** in comparison to the rest. 

Modifié par In Exile, 11 juillet 2011 - 10:14 .

[Bnol]

the_one_54321 wrote...

"RPGs don't have a short list of easy to objectively identify features."

Sure they don't if you're trying to hamfist in the stuff that marketing feeds you about RPGs just to try to sell more games.

An RPG is a strategy game where you focus on just one character to play out instead of a whole group of them. What matters is that the characters abilities preclude your own. Meaning, I don't aim the gun and I don't swing the sword. I just tell the character what to swing or shoot at and the character does the rest on its own.

The actual genesis of tabletop gaming shows us exactly this transition from strategy war games to role playing. With that genesis specifically going from directing groups of units to controlling and role playing a single individual.

The thing is because of marketing the genre has taken on other things, and a lot of players have accepted it.  You can fight it all you want, and stay purist, but I find RPG a good descriptor for games having various RPG-style elements to the game.  It is easier to describe a game in a tag of action/rpg than to have action game with loot/character customization/story even if stats are not the dominant aspect of gameplay.  Sure, if a game only has only one RPG mechanic in passing then it should not be labeled as such, but I have seen very few games be marketed as RPGs that did not consist of multiple RPG-style mechanics that had more than a minimal impact to the gameplay.

[the_one_54321]

Controlling a party is not the same as playing multiple characters. Imoen is her own character, but you control her in the party.

If you can pause the game, you are not taking actions in real time.

Even if you can't pause the game, if what you do is give the characters instructions and not actually execute the actions for them (read: point and click to shoot or tap A to swing the sword) then the character's abilities still preclude your own.

[the_one_54321]

In Exile wrote...
Except on this occasion, where you lamented the use of the RPG label. I'm sorry, but I don't keep very close track of your all views.

Sure I lament the use of the RPG label. But whether they call it an RPG or a Line Dance, I still want specific features in the game.

In Exile wrote...
That's interesting, because you're suggesting the same approach within RPG mechanics. I mean, that's exactly what you suggest in the very post I'm quoting (take DA:O mechanics and apply them to ME3).

Wow, this is the first time in a while that I saw someone specifically alter the context of a post to make it sound like something it's not. Maybe you didn't do it on purpose or maybe you didn't actually read the rest of the post.

I did go on to say that while I would prefer that it played in DA:O, I'm perfectly happy with the game so long as they keep improving and refining it's shooter mechanics.

[Foolsfolly]

::gives In Exile a beer::

Good man. Good man.

[konfeta]

Controlling a party is not the same as playing multiple characters. Imoen is her own character, but you control her in the party.

I had no difficulty making a party of my own characters in Baldur's Gate. Though, in essence, you are weaseling to justify your arbitrary RPG definition as the "correct" one. Your "own" character is still defined by the sum of total dialogue lines put in by the game developer. You just have more freedom to direct it and less money spent on not giving it voice acting. Baldur's Gate is a party focused RPG. A contradiction by your own definition.

Furthermore - if you have to twist and defend your definition against obvious attack points, it's not really clear or intuitive. Which, again, brings me to my point:

The point is, again, as always, is that RPG is ill defined as a function of various RPG fans giving different priorities to various components of the RPG laundry feature list.

You have no authority derived whenever from personal expertise or consensus or reference by people with appropriate expertise. You have no evidence to prove that your definition is the correct one. All you have is a readied demonstration of how ill defined RPGs truly are.

[Foolsfolly]

Controlling a party is not the same as playing multiple characters. Imoen is her own character, but you control her in the party.

No, now you're altering your grand and masterful definition of RPGs which originally stated:

An RPG is a strategy game where you focus on just one character to play out instead of a whole group of them.

Focuses on one character, ala Oblivion or Morrowind. Not on a team, you specifically stated "instead of a whole group." You also threw in the fact that a RPG is a Strategy game which is hilarious.

[Klijpope]

This is as reductive as saying "a feature of maleness is the ability to grow a beard" means that "if it does not have a beard, it is not a man".

You can pause any game, by the way. Like, racing games...

Utter tripe....

[AlanC9]

the_one_54321 wrote...
Consider this:
Sports games? I think they're boring as hell, but there's millions of people that love them to death.
Racing games? Same story.
Shooters? I love shooters. Mostly brainless fire fights but a hell of a lot of fun.
Strategy games? Several different kinds with very different focus and I like most of them a lot.

So a game just needs to be fun right? Mix all those together. Whatever comes out should be orgasm in a electrical circuit, right?

The only thing "the game needs to be fun" accomplishes is that every new game is becoming more and more like the last huge blockbuster to sell millions of copies in one day.

This makes no sense at all. Mashing all genres together randomly won't make a game more fun, right? You can't use that as an argument against the principle that "the game needs to be fun."

[konfeta]

I think the glorious brocopalypse console slave race appeasers at E3 gave us the perfect summary of the "what's an RPG" argument:

http://www.youtube.c...rVX3G6s#t=6m30s

(watch the whole video, [it's the E3 Far Cry 3 clip], if you haven't to get the full context)

Modifié par konfeta, 11 juillet 2011 - 10:25 .

[the_one_54321]

I'm not twisting the definition. You're trying to tell me what I meant. You don't get to decide what I meant.

"Focus on one character" does not absolutely need to mean that you are only ever allowed to control one character. In tabletop strategy games you control groups of units and move them around the field engaging in battles. In an RPG you take one individual from those groups of units and you develop it into an actual character instead of just a list of stats. And in a CRPG you toss in NPCs. It's not a difficult concept at all, and I don't really believe that you don't understand. I think you're just trying to be difficult with me for the sake of being difficult with me.

[In Exile]

the_one_54321 wrote...
Sure I lament the use of the RPG label. But whether they call it an RPG or a Line Dance, I still want specific features in the game.  

Why, though? If you do the research, they can't possibly trick you. You didn't buy DA2 because of the difference between the label and content, right?

Wow, this is the first time in a while that I saw someone specifically alter the context of a post to make it sound like something it's not. Maybe you didn't do it on purpose or maybe you didn't actually read the rest of the post.

I did go on to say that while I would prefer that it played in DA:O, I'm perfectly happy with the game so long as they keep improving and refining it's shooter mechanics.

I'm not saying you want ME to change. I'm just saying what according to what you wrote, if they were going to give you your ideal ME, it would be awesome if they just reproduced a system instead of created a new one. I just found that al little funny, because that's precisely what you said you disliked about the mainstream: finding a system that works and then beating the horse so dead it comes back to life. 

[Epic777]

@the_one_54321 Yikes, never try and define rigidly what an RPG is or is not. It is as nebulous as a language of a political trying to weasel his way out of a scandal.

[AlanC9]

the_one_54321 wrote...


An RPG is a strategy game where you focus on just one character to play out instead of a whole group of them.

So Icewind Dale isn't an RPG?

[the_one_54321]

AlanC9 wrote...
This makes no sense at all. Mashing all genres together randomly won't make a game more fun, right?

Well now that we've played ME1 with shooter aiming/target selection and RPG accuracy and skills, we know this is true, don't we? 

[the_one_54321]

In Exile wrote...
Why, though? If you do the research, they can't possibly trick you. You didn't buy DA2 because of the difference between the label and content, right?

Because it irritates me to see people fall for it.

In Exile wrote...
I'm not saying you want ME to change. I'm just saying what according to what you wrote, if they were going to give you your ideal ME, it would be awesome if they just reproduced a system instead of created a new one. I just found that al little funny, because that's precisely what you said you disliked about the mainstream: finding a system that works and then beating the horse so dead it comes back to life.

The difference is that I'm not arguing in favor of changing ME to be more like DA:O. I would just be more satisfied if they had done so.