3223 réponses à ce sujet

[konfeta]

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

We get to read and interpret the statement you gave us. If you give us a nebulous, easily deconstructable definition of what an RPG is, the language of your definition is faulty and the burden of the communication failure is on you.

But, again, that's besides the point. Even you yourself admitted that the label is irrelevant and that you care for a particular set of features in a game that you would then call and RPG and enjoy playing and viewing it as such. Why do you insist on trying to give an objective definition, an action that is inherently contradictory to your own statement?

[AlanC9]

the_one_54321 wrote...

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? 

Yes, we do. ME2 was much more fun

[Epic777]

the_one_54321 wrote...

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.

DAO + ME = KOTOR all over again

[Foolsfolly]

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

I quoted exactly what you said. 'Focusing on one character instead of a group' and then you said there's a difference between playing a group or not. Which is not the point. You said "focus" which means focusing on that character. Baldur's Gate, KOTOR, and Dragon Age don't just focus on the PC. In fact, DA2 seems to go out of its way to prove that the PC is not as important as the NPC companions.

I think what you're seeing is that your definition is flawed. But instead of admitting that you're rationalizing that no one understands your sagely words.

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....

I assumed he meant tactical pausing where you can issue orders by pausing the combat. Still, there are many RPGs (let's say the Elder Scrolls games for example) that do not allow for tactical pausing.

[the_one_54321]

konfeta wrote...
We get to read and interpret the statement you gave us. If you give us a nebulous, easily deconstructable definition of what an RPG is, the language of your definition is faulty and the burden of the communication failure is on you.

Then next time maybe you should ask the poster for more clarity instead of trying to put words in his mouth.

[the_one_54321]

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

Utter tripe....

What does this have to do with anything? You can't change the direction the car is going while you're paused. But you can issue instructions to the Character and NPCs when you're paused in an RPG.

[Foolsfolly]

the_one_54321 wrote...

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

Utter tripe....

What does this have to do with anything? You can't change the direction the car is going while you're paused. But you can issue instructions to the Character and NPCs when you're paused in an RPG.

But that still doesn't make it an RPG. Turn based Strategy games have tactical pauses before you make any move. You decide what unit to move where, what unit to attack, or what you do durning your turn (diplomacy and the like).

Likewise, again, not all RPGs have tactical pauses. Does that make those game not RPGs?

You see how mechanics cannot be the sole thing that decides what an RPG are?

Modifié par Foolsfolly, 11 juillet 2011 - 10:42 .

[In Exile]

the_one_54321 wrote...
Because it irritates me to see people fall for it. 

They'll either learn eventually are or are too stupid to be worth it. IMO, anyway. 

Unless you mean it teaches them that "RPG = those features," but then that comes back to caring about the definition for the features instead of the features.

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.

No. But it does sound like you are saying that if you had a choice in how to make a game for yourself, you'd just vary the story & lore and keep the gameplay like DA:O. Which is, again, what you're arguing the "mainstream" does. 

Not that there's anything wrong with that. I'm just arguing that I think your approach is not so different from the very maligned mainstream. 

edit:

also, definitions via neccesary and sufficient conditions never work. It just creates the back and forth headache you're seeing right now, where someone is wrong on the internet. 

Modifié par In Exile, 11 juillet 2011 - 10:41 .

[the_one_54321]

It's a matter of separating the character's performance from your own. Tactical pausing is idea, but not strictly necessary. The character's performance is still dictated by its stats, though it's less effective when it also requires you to keep up on issue actions. But a tactics system like in FFXII or DA:O also does a great job of fixing this.

[Foolsfolly]

also, definitions via neccesary and sufficient conditions never work. It just creates the back and forth headache you're seeing right now, where someone is wrong on the internet.

Agreed. It is not my place change someone's mind on the internet.

[Klijpope]

the_one_54321 wrote...

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

Utter tripe....

What does this have to do with anything? You can't change the direction the car is going while you're paused. But you can issue instructions to the Character and NPCs when you're paused in an RPG.

I was being facetious.

It's the only sane response to this incoherent, shifting, contradictory, and obsolete argument.

The RPG is absorbing everything else, and no longer needs stat crunching, turn-based loot collecting in order to function. It can draw upon a whole host of game mechanics to structure its interactive narrative around. It's called progress.

Modifié par Klijpope, 11 juillet 2011 - 10:46 .

[Il Divo]

Amazing how we always manage to come full circle in the "What is an RPG?" debate.

[the_one_54321]

RPG is not "absorbing" everything else, it's just becoming more and more like every game that happens to sell a million copies in one day. As I've said before.

Even if you want to separate the term RPG from loot collecting and stats, I still want look collecting and stats in the game. I LIKE loot collecting and stats. And there are fewer and fewer games that still use them every year.

[EDIsMYHO]

Seeing the actual interview made it make more sense. He's saying you don't need to have these crazy rediculous stats before it starts playing like you'd like it to. I like the idea. The E3 interview/demo really showed what they were talking about .The game looks fantastic, the weapon modding with actual physical differences is amazing, the stats are like the perfect blend between 1 and 2, the exploration looks like the perfect blend between one and two...

Pretty much this game is going to be the most purely amazing piece of software you could ever insert into a piece of gaming hardware.

[konfeta]

Amazing how we always manage to come full circle in the "What is an RPG?" debate.

I am telling you, Far Cry 3 from this year's E3 is going to win an Oscar for social commentary on internet debates.

[EDIsMYHO]

the_one_54321 wrote...

RPG is not "absorbing" everything else, it's just becoming more and more like every game that happens to sell a million copies in one day. As I've said before.

Even if you want to separate the term RPG from loot collecting and stats, I still want look collecting and stats in the game. I LIKE loot collecting and stats. And there are fewer and fewer games that still use them every year.

There's plenty of interviews where it says you find weapon/armor in the world around you. And money's still going to be collected throughout the world. So more loot that ME2.

[JayhartRIC]

the_one_54321 wrote...

It's a matter of separating the character's performance from your own. Tactical pausing is idea, but not strictly necessary. The character's performance is still dictated by its stats, though it's less effective when it also requires you to keep up on issue actions. But a tactics system like in FFXII or DA:O also does a great job of fixing this.

Which just brings us right back to a "threshold" definition that asks, "How much stat progression does it take to be an RPG?"

[the_one_54321]

The threshold is very simple. It's the UI. I can only select targets and give instructions. If I start doing the actual doing, ie aim the gun or swing the sword, then we've crossed the threshold.

[darth_lopez]

the_one_54321 wrote...

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.

I'd just like to point out If you can't pause the game yet you have hot keys (ala MMORPG)  the players skill at button pushing is still quite active and affects the game immensly. For example in real time if you hit 2 when you meant to hit 3 you hit 2 it registered 2 even if the character was intended to use 3. This is at least less likely with a tactical pause cause you can typicaly retract the order. 

In any RPG you still Point and Click to select a target then you hit the applicable ability button or point and click to the applicable ability. Unless you simply use an auto attack or some sort of script in your combat the players intuitions and own dexterity of hand and more importantly the mental wit of the player. There is absolutely no game that completely removes the Players own Reflexes and Key attributes let alone an RPG.

on executing vs instructing
In tes when i click the mouse button to primary attack I'm not executing the attack myself. I'm telling them what action to use and the Character is executing the action of slash just as if i right clicked in Kotor to to target and default attack an enemy. There is literally no difference unless you physically swing your arm with the sword or chant the words of a spell all you are doing is instructing the character to execute the specific action associated with the key or button. Infact you new distinction Invalidates even More RPGs from RPG status. On top of that you've also decided D&D, and all other table tops are not  RPGs as the player and the character share as the same entity and are both responsible for execution of abilities

[Klijpope]

the_one_54321 wrote...

It's a matter of separating the character's performance from your own.  

Absolute tosh. That was just simpler to code, or the only way to code, rpgs back in the day. Those limits no longer have to apply.

So if the technology existed in 2003 to put functional starship combat into KOTOR, where you were flying around in an upgradable Ebon Hawk (instead of a couple of levels shooting a turret gun) shooting sith fighters, that would mean KOTOR was no longer an rpg, but a flight simulator? 

[MightySword]

the_one_54321 wrote...
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.

And ... your point being? I don't see the problem in what you're saying, assuming you're trying to say it's a problem. I'll quote this from Bioware, and before people lamenting it's because Bioware had changed since EA took over, this quote came from the time before that, on the old forum: "in case you forgot, we are Bioware Corp, as in Cooporation, not Bioware Charity or Bioware Nonprofit". I think it was either Priestly or Henley who said that back then, and they have a point.

- They have to make profit, and that means their game have to sell. You may come up with any brainwashing conspiracy you can, but a fact remain that people buy games because they are fun to them, and good business sense dictate you make a game to the population who are buying more.

- Secondly, I don't understand the complain. Since it's not like you have to buy those "millions of copies in one day", neither they are the only one on the market. Let me ask, how do you go around and buy your game, how do you scout the market. Are you only playing game that run a head line on gamespot? Are you aware that there are other games that are NOT triple A exist? I don't think you do, because if you do, you wouldn't be making that statement. Or rather ... there isn't a point. In fact, I think in the past 2 years about 80% of my game acquistion have been indie tittles, and I bet that most people wouldn't even hear about them.

- And this bring back to the first point, the cost. Games like ME or DA looks good, sound good but they come with a cost. I think you took the graphic and sound for granted and just complain about the gameplay. These asset cost a lot to make, so naturally they have to make sure it's sold to the most people. If you play indie game though, it's the complete opposite. For the most part they have the gameplay front covered pretty well, but what they never have is the resource. You play indie game or small time developers then you have to accept the fact that your game will look and sound like crap, I love indie games, but that's where we are ATM. It's often you hear players complaining how EA release buggy games and treat paying customers as beta tester? HA, indie games are of many magnitude worse than that, and we all accepted it with a smiling faces. The nice thing about their communities is that in pretty much every games I frequents, we admit we're a niche community with unique taste. We're content that there are developers making games for us, but our ideal of fun probably won't be widely accepted. I'll be honest, while I enjoy their games, I'll never invest triple A asset in those companies if it's profit I'm after.

So unique games are still out there ... if you're bother to look ... and willing to put up with their short coming.

Modifié par MightySword, 11 juillet 2011 - 11:05 .

[Il Divo]

the_one_54321 wrote...

The threshold is very simple. It's the UI. I can only select targets and give instructions. If I start doing the actual doing, ie aim the gun or swing the sword, then we've crossed the threshold.

So what exactly are "action RPGs" then?

By that definition, everything from WoW, to Diablo, to Kingdom Hearts, to Jade Empire are not RPGs?

Modifié par Il Divo, 11 juillet 2011 - 11:02 .

[darth_lopez]

the_one_54321 wrote...

The threshold is very simple. It's the UI. I can only select targets and give instructions. If I start doing the actual doing, ie aim the gun or swing the sword, then we've crossed the threshold.

You the player are only ever giving instructions you never actually execute the actions only the character ever executes the actions, except in D&D.

[Klijpope]

the_one_54321 wrote...

It's a matter of separating the character's performance from your own. Tactical pausing is idea, but not strictly necessary. The character's performance is still dictated by its stats, though it's less effective when it also requires you to keep up on issue actions. But a tactics system like in FFXII or DA:O also does a great job of fixing this.

the_one_54321 wrote...

The threshold is very simple. It's the UI. I can only select targets and give instructions. If I start doing the actual doing, ie aim the gun or swing the sword, then we've crossed the threshold.

Absolute tosh. That was just the limitations of code back in the day, limits that no longer have to apply.

So if the technology existed in 2003 to put functional starship combat into KOTOR, where you were flying around in an upgradable Ebon Hawk (instead of a couple of levels shooting a turret gun) shooting sith fighters, that would mean KOTOR was no longer an rpg, but a flight simulator?

Modifié par Klijpope, 11 juillet 2011 - 11:05 .

[Epic777]

the_one_54321 wrote...

RPG is not "absorbing" everything else, it's just becoming more and more like every game that happens to sell a million copies in one day. As I've said before.

Even if you want to separate the term RPG from loot collecting and stats, I still want look collecting and stats in the game. I LIKE loot collecting and stats. And there are fewer and fewer games that still use them every year.

I completely disagree. More genres are adding RPG elements such as bioshock or dawn of war 2.  If the rigid definietion of an RPG is your litmus test, RPGs have stayed pretty much the same over the years (of course they are exceptions).