174 réponses à ce sujet

[Clover Rider]

Luc0s wrote...

Some Geth wrote...
Oh you are a hypocrite.

And most of the time you don't have any real facts in your debates.

Also don't take it the wrong way it was just a joke (for the most part).:innocent:

Oh... you again...

Listen, if you're going to be an ass,  at least have the decency to do it in a PM or something. 

If you have nothing to add to the conversetion then please just... don't post, okay?

Thanks.


(And no, this is not a joke, I'm super serious.)

I was not being an ass and why should I PM you to help your debating skills?

Well what should I add to this conversetion? I myself like a lot of Role Playing Game styles.

And I call tell you are not joking, you never joke but you are funny somehow...

[the_one_54321]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...
That way, I could play The Witcher once with one Geralt, and then I could play it again with a different Geralt.  Whether either of my designs matches the Geralt in Andrzej Sapkowski's books makes no material difference.

This is incorrect, but you don't realize it because you didn't play through the whole game.

You can take different decision routes in The Witcher, but the character is always "Geralt in Andrzej Sapkowski's books." That is how he behaves for every single decision. And you do hear and see it because everything is voiced and shown.

[Clover Rider]

Luc0s wrote...

Some Geth wrote...
And I call tell you are not joking, you never joke but you are funny somehow...

I reported both of your comments in this topic as off-topic and I reported them for harrasment.

You clearly intent to provoke me, but I'm not going to play along with your childish games. I rather debate with serious people who take this topic and their opponents seriously.


Now please, stay on topic or don't post at all. Lets keep this mature shall we?

Fine, you want me to take you seriously I will.

I do agree with some of your points on Role Playing Games but I myself can play any RPG if it has good gameplay and or a good plot.

As for what is a "Role Playing Game" It is hard for me to say since I do like a lot of the "styles".

Modifié par Some Geth, 20 juillet 2011 - 10:20 .

[Clover Rider]

Luc0s wrote...

Some Geth wrote...

I do agree with some of your points on Role Playing Games but I myself can play any RPG if it has good gameplay and or a good plot.

As for what is a "Role Playing Game" It is hard for me to say since I do like a lot of the "styles".

Which points do you agree with?

I also can enjoy almost any style of RPG, as long as the story, narratives and aesthetics are good. 

The fact that most RPGs have very good narrative and aesthetics is the very reason why I actually love the RPG gerne as  a whole.


Which RPG styles are your favorites?

I agree with how a lot of roleplaying decisions are completely superficial but I do not see it as a bad thing all the time.

As for my favorites I have to say for now I really like Bioware's style and The Witcher 2's style.

But hey I am a guy who likes JRPGs as well. lol

Modifié par Some Geth, 20 juillet 2011 - 10:43 .

[Gatt9]

Luc0s wrote...

the_one_54321 wrote...

Luc0s wrote...
Thanks for the link. However instead of picking up where we left off in the previous thread, I suggest lets start a fresh start. Some discussions were only going around in circles. This is the chance to start anew and hopefully this time we'll actually get somewhere.

If you'd like to take the discussion in a different direction, feel free to.

Well, we all have a different opinion on what makes a game an RPG it seems and it seems we're never going to agree. Well, maybe you and I mostly agree, but us and Syl will never agree.

So why not focus on what actually matters. In the previous topic, some of us where complaining about the direction most western developers take the RPG genre to. Some of up complain that today's RPGs aren't really RPGs anymore.

So let me ask: Why?

Also: What does everyone think that makes an RPG actually good? What elements do you want/need to be satisfied with your RPG and makes a video-game worthy of the label RPG?

To answer these questions...

Why?

RPG's are Character Based Skill dependent,  for you to take on a Role you need to seperate you from your Character as much as possible,  in order to create the Role itself. 

ME2 fails this,  Shepherd has no intrinsic qualities,  he cannot fail unless you do,  he cannot succeed unless you do,  he has no personality,  even his Paragon/Renegade status can be disregarded on a whim,  it doesn't define him at all.  Shepherd is just an on-screen representation for your skills,  your abilities,  your words.

That means there's no Role,  because it's just all about you.

Oblivion is another fine example.  Once again,  the Character has no intrinsic qualities,  he's not good,  he's not bad,  as you progress through the game and do things,  he is never defined by it.  He's again just a piece of art to represent You.

The problem is,  a Role isn't about You,  it's about the Role.

Further complicating the problem is that even character progression is eliminated.  In both games,  due to level scaling,  you can kill everything in the game provided it's location is unlocked.  The leveling systems are illusionary,  because the creatures in the world remain at a constant level of difficultly directly related to your level.  You cannot find something you cannot do/kill.

This is the problem with Western RPGs.  They're not about the Role anymore,  they're not about the Character,  they're about You.

Finally,  the System's are constantly being "Streamlined" down,  where "Streamlined" is a euphimism(Right word?),  for removing complex things that prevent non-RPG players from playing them.  Not because it improves RPGs,  but because they want to improve sales.

They pull out anything that requires a little bit of understanding and/or reading the manual,  no to-hit rolls,  you can't miss.  Defense is gone from ME series,  no resistances to anything,  no attribute modifiers,  no character-based skill checks.  Everything that required any understanding or reading of instructions is gone.

As I said,  it's not because there was anything wrong with them,  it's just because Timmy picked up the game on a whim,  found he had to read a instruction manual,  and complains about it.  It's been a decade long battle of attrition. 

"Why is my guy missing,  he's right in front of him! This game is stooopid!"
"Why can't I kill that big dragon at level 5? I can get to him,  so I should be able to kill him!  This game is stooopid!"
"I took everything out of Intelligence for my fighter and put it in strength,  now he talks like an idiot!  This game is stooopid!"

Each cycle removes another round of "stooopid" features because non-RPG players don't want to read the instructions to understand what's happening.  Which gets us to where we are today,  Bethseda can't figure out what attributes do.

"Oh,  they don't do anything but increase mana",  well,  they would have if Bethseda hadn't actually already removed everything they were supposed to do in the first place.  Sure,  remove all of the functions of an object,  and you'll discover the object has no functions.  The problem isn't the object,  it's that they removed things that shouldn't have been removed.

So what are we left with?  Choice?  No,  not really.  Bethseda games don't have choices.  Either do X,  or do not do X,  but either way,  nothing happens.  Bioware games aren't any better now.

I played a 100% Paragon,  my buddy a 100% Renegade.  We had the same quests,  the same companions,  the same items,  the same outcomes,  the only thing that was different was the words spoken.  The actual end results were identical,  even when I outright violated my Morality by kicking someone off a building in cold blood,  the outcome was identical...nothing.

So there isn't even really any choice,  like everything else "Streamlined",  it's gone too.  "What do you mean I can't go get the Uber-sword because I told the guy to sit on a candlestick!  This game is stoooopid!"  Now,  it's all safety-scissors,  do whatever you want and you'll get everything.

So basically,  all of the core elements of an RPG have been removed.  Which essentially leaves us with other types of games,  with the wrong label on them.  There's nothing left of the RPG genre here,  it's all been distilled down to other genre's because the actual concepts of RPGs have been "Streamlined" out to sell a couple more boxes to people who hate RPG's.

What does it take to make a good RPG?  Character based skill,  character progression through both leveling and loot,  well designed setting,  gameplay to fit the intended pacing (Meaning RTS,  RTwP,  TB),  good story,  and ultimately the ability to carve your own path through the story,  the list is in order of importance for me.

@The_One,  ty for linking me!

[EternalPink]

I'm sorry i still don't agree that twitch based combat means a game can not be role played.

While i'm not saying games are currently doing this i have a hypothetical sitation for what could be done as the platforms have advanced.

PnP someone has to be the enemies, usually the GM so we can consider the GM to be role playing whichever thing we are currently killing, to keep it fair they are doing rolls according to the same rules that you have to follow and you'd expect them to follow behavior typical for that sort of enemy (i.e a vampire would wanna suck ya blood), a really good GM could role play a enemy really well so lets say you loose a fight rather than the GM killing you all he could have the enemy he's roleplaying decide to put you all in chains to be sold for slaves (would prevent the game ending if the GM didn't want it to end and allow you to loose fights) so the next part of the adventure would be escaping from being a slave and so on...

The key part being that the GM is role playing the enemies, not that there rolling dice, so they are going to play to win/kill rather than let you kill them which would have made PnP combat unrealistically easy and boring.

To some extent the AI in current games has got better, not good enough to match a human opponent which is why most multiplayer games have end game content that involves playing other humans but if we can create enemy AI to the point that the computer can role play a enemy following a behavior pattern that matches its roll/class its no longer handicapped in twitch combat.

[the_one_54321]

But an AI is artificial. It is a simulation, effectively equivalent to a statistical representation since it is entirely coded. It is not "twitching," it is programed.

[Gatt9]

Luc0s wrote...

Gatt9 wrote...

What does it take to make a good RPG?  Character based skill,  character progression through both leveling and loot,  well designed setting,  gameplay to fit the intended pacing (Meaning RTS,  RTwP,  TB),  good story,  and ultimately the ability to carve your own path through the story,  the list is in order of importance for me.

I don't share much of your negativity about modern western RPGs and I certainly don't make such a big deal out of it, but I fully understand where you're comming from and I absolutely understand your concerns.

I'm actually more flexible than it sounds,  while it's riding the edge,  I consider ME to be an RPG.  It makes an effort to implement Character Based Skill to some degree,  and while it has a bit more twitch than you'd think I would find acceptable,  it actually manages to hold it's own IMO.

I'll also count Diablo amongst RPGs,  and I count JRPGs as full-fledged RPGs,  because while very minimal,  they fullfill the most basic requirements.

Essentially,  I look at it as,  "Can I translate this to PnP without major loss of function",  I could,  in all 3 cases I can construct a PnP RPG system from that that isn't so different from D&D.

Contrast that to ME2,  "Can I translate this to PnP"?,  Not really.  The combat system becomes a total loss,  there's no loot system,  and since creatures come at a difficulty level equivalent to level 2,  there's no character progression,  because all you're doing is killing faster,  not killing bigger challenges.  I also lack the attribute system,  I can't define a PnP character from ME2.

A similiar event occurs with Oblivion,  though not as drastic (Never thought I'd say that!),  I can translate it to PnP,  but the system itself become non-functional in the process,  as the skill advancement system is very superficial,  and it has the same problem with character progression as ME2.

PnP someone has to be the enemies, usually the GM so we can consider the GM to be role playing whichever thing we are currently killing, to keep it fair they are doing rolls according to the same rules that you have to follow and you'd expect them to follow behavior typical for that sort of enemy (i.e a vampire would wanna suck ya blood), a really good GM could role play a enemy really well so lets say you loose a fight rather than the GM killing you all he could have the enemy he's roleplaying decide to put you all in chains to be sold for slaves (would prevent the game ending if the GM didn't want it to end and allow you to loose fights) so the next part of the adventure would be escaping from being a slave and so on...

The key part being that the GM is role playing the enemies, not that there rolling dice, so they are going to play to win/kill rather than let you kill them which would have made PnP combat unrealistically easy and boring.

You're not wrong,  but I think you're missing a facet there.

The thing is,  there needs to be some definition of how combat is resolved,  based upon your character.  Combat isn't resolved by your ability to hit the GM,  it's resolved by your Character's ability to hit the Vampire.  This the reason for the dice rolls,  because your Role has to hit the Vampire,  not you hitting  the GM. 

What you're describing,  for the most part,  is more narrative than it is Role.  Playing the Vampire is playing a Role,  but the slaves part is more narrative.  The GM is picking an alternative path through the story for you,  rather than restarting,  based on the outcome.  Roleplaying would only be involved if that enemy were a Slaver,  rather than some non-specific type of enemy.

To some extent the AI in current games has got better, not good enough to match a human opponent which is why most multiplayer games have end game content that involves playing other humans but if we can create enemy AI to the point that the computer can role play a enemy following a behavior pattern that matches its roll/class its no longer handicapped in twitch combat.

That's actually very possible right now,  especially on a multi-core system.  Those are just decision trees,  with seperate ones defined for each type of enemy.  You'd need a base AI class that would handle navigation,  and build behavioral classes on that.  It's very possible,  but the problems are....

1.  The PS3 is a cripple.  The Cell processor is what's known as an "In order" chip,  which means that when it gets to a point in the code that says...

if(something)
       dothis
else if(something else)
       dothis
repeat 5 more times or so

Each time the PS3 sees that "If",  it stops and waits until it finds out if it's true or false.  The more if's you have,  the more the PS3 sits and does nothing.  It's *very* slow with code that does alot of branches.  In contrast,  the PC will (This is very rough description),  when it sees the "If" and it's working it out,  it'll also use resources to "dothis" and then if the answer is "True" it's already done,  if it's "False",  it loses nothing.  The PC is very accurate in it's guesses,  >95% IIRC.

AI is alot of "If",  the PS3 can't handle advanced AI,  it'll cave.

2.  The 360 is pretty weak.  The 360 can do out of order processing,  but it's got 3 cores,  one of which is running the OS,  leaving the other two to handle the game.  Further,  all physics are done on CPU,  it has no physics processing ability,  and it's memory limited.  It could do advanced AI,  but it'd limit the number of enemies on screen pretty badly.

3.  Why bother doing solid AI when you can toss in a half-baked Mutliplayer and cut costs instead?  That's the route alot of publishers push,  don't bother doing good AI,  put multiplayer in and use the AI from the 90's.

That's what holds back good AI,  technologically,  we're capable of terrifyingly good AI.

[grregg]

Before we go back to the topic....

Lack of branch prediction in Cell is a bit of a pain in the neck, but it does not make it a cripple. To a large degree you can compensate for it in software (and I'm sure Cell compilers can help you here), even more so since you know exactly the hardware you're coding for.

As far as massive if-then-else constructs, they're simply to be avoided whether you have branch prediction or not as they are always slow since sooner or later they will blow up the instruction pipeline. If you need a massive rule system, Rete algorithm is your friend. That's what expert systems use anyway.

[sp0ck 06]

Gatt9 wrote...


What does it take to make a good RPG?  Character based skill,  character progression through both leveling and loot,  well designed setting,  gameplay to fit the intended pacing (Meaning RTS,  RTwP,  TB),  good story,  and ultimately the ability to carve your own path through the story,  the list is in order of importance for me.

@The_One,  ty for linking me!

According to the order of importance in your list, World of Warcraft would be considered a stellar RPG.  It has a great setting, everything is stat based, enormous amount of loot, the whole game is about progression, and you can do whatever you want.

Personally, while I find WoW a fun and addictive game, I would not consider it to be a great RPG.  I mean, why does every RPG have to be able to fit into a PnP system?  Any game you play is ultimately going to be about you, seeing as without the player, there is no character, there is no game.  To me, ME2, while obviously not a traditional RPG, is still a system under which role-playing occurs.  It's just a different kind of system.  It ditches the stat based character in favor of the cinematic based character.  Shepard is defined by the players choices, within the limits of the system.  You mentioned how you and your friend both played 100% Paragon Shepard's and everything turned out the same.  Well the plot may be the same, the locations...but if you choose different dialogue, different decisions in missions, that is a different Shepard.

I can make two wildly different characters in Fallout...doesn't really change much in the grand scheme of the game.  Same basic plot, same setting, same NPCs.  So I don't really see how that's a criticism of ME.

You say having stats seperates the PC from the player, whereas having ME-style combat makes the game all about YOU.  Ok...but in a stat based game, the player is choosing the stats.  The PC is completely defined by the player.  It's just as much about "player skill" as ME...skill in correctly manipulating the systems of the game, knowing how to make powerful builds, etc.

[the_one_54321]

I would not consider Diablo an RPG, though I think it's a very fun game. You click the button to swing the sword. That's me not the role or the character.

I would consider WoW to be a phenomenally designed RPG. But because of the style of implementation of the multiplayer element, it largely looks like pure crap to actually play.

[88mphSlayer]

i forgot that topic even got that far... i think i posted on page 3 or 4 about why i feel loot serves a purpose beyond loot itself - that it forces developers to come up with global economic systems that force towns and npc's and generally a more believable world than if everybody were a soldier (part of the reason i like star trek more than star wars is that it's a livable place vs the latter which seems unsustainable even in its own weird ways of existing)

i think having that livable world really dictates everything from morality to reasons why players should want to save that world and what role the player ultimately takes and why it matters

part of the reason ME2 didn't work for me as much as the first game was that it was more rooted in "crazy action" using elements rooted in the first game, but not a lot of its own roots to build on, at the end of the day the 2 years time between ME1 and ME2 feels disconnected because what i see in ME2 feels like a universe that would be depopulated very quickly and unable to be livable - that there is a total lack of real loot in ME2 further disconnects the player from the world they're interacting with

[Sylvius the Mad]

sp0ck 06 wrote...

Sylvius, what exactly to you characterize as a "substantive decisions"? Choosing a written dialog option while conversing with a tavern patron?

Sure.  But how about choosing your words carefeully when talking to the Council?  Or Udina?

Or your squadmates.  If Shepard is managing these people, isn't how he manages them a substantive decision?

ME has more "substantive decisions" that radically alter the story and characters then any other game I can think of, with the possible exception of Deus Ex.

A decision is substantive, I think, if the player has options that differ meaningfully.

Read that carefully  The options should differ meaningfully.  The outcomes, which is what you're talking about, aren't known until after the choice is made, so they cannot affect the quality of the choice itself.

So, yes, basically every dialogue option in the game has the potential to be a substantive one, unless of course the game decides not to let you see what it is you are choosing.

[Sylvius the Mad]

the_one_54321 wrote...

You can take different decision routes in The Witcher, but the character is always "Geralt in Andrzej Sapkowski's books." That is how he behaves for every single decision. And you do hear and see it because everything is voiced and shown.

I'm not In Exile.  I don't think the behaviour necessarily expressd personality.

I think that some behaviour is incompatible with some personalities, but just because two people behave the same way doesn't mean that their personalities are identical.  If they used different means to reach their decisions, then they are different.  And different enough to matter, for me.

Even if it's something as simple as tending to side with or against aggressors.  Chosing the follow first-impressions or last words.  These are differences.

The problem with ME is that I can't make those choices because I don't know what Shepard is going to say, so if I'm making some fine distinction the writers didn't anticipate I'm liable to be immediately contradicted by my character.

But that can't happen if I'm choosing the full line.

[the_one_54321]

Except that it can still happen when the character is voiced and acted and staged. You don't know if Geralt is going to sneer at the slavers and speak with a disgusted tone of voice.