239 réponses à ce sujet

[Shepard the Leper]

MrFob wrote...

Oh calm down, will ya? I am not trying to define an RPG here. I am talking about the validity of a specific gaming mechanic or rather the combination of two gaming mechanics:
1. Align cursor point with another point on the screen and click to hit
2. Use stat points for your character that determine how well you will be able to align those two points
Period!
Happy now? Or would you like to keep arguing about semantics?

I merely tried to argue that stats =/= rpgs.

That is an opinion and I respect that. I have a different one but what you say makes perfect sense. I just got confused with the Deus Ex example, someone used before because it does pretty much the same thing as ME1.

Stats can be used, but not to mimic accuracy when the player has to manually aim in the first place. You either design a system in which the player has to aim him/herself, or a system in which a NPC aims (automatically) based on a stat system.

This is a sensitive point in the rpg community, but there is nothing "heretic" about a rpg that requires the player to be (slightly) skilled at pointing cursors. I don't consider rpgs to be gambling machines, and have dumb luck determine success or failure. If I like to gamble I go to the casino, when I play games, I want to influence what's happening (which is the essence of games). 

Well, I don't have any training with firearms. If I'd aim at someone's head (not that I would want to do that) and pull the trigger, maybe I would not hit the moon due to ballistic issues but I most certainly would not hit the head either.
I can however very well align a mouse cursor with a point on the monitor which some people who have actually been in a firelight in real life might considder as incredibly dumb - nothing more.
You see, it is a matter of perspective.

But you can say that about every game. When you play a game like FIFA and select Barcelona, you don't have to teach Messi how to play ball. He already can, it's up to the player to get the most out of his abilities. Shepard is an elite soldier (kinda like Messi is an elite football player) - it doesn't make any sense to have Shepard being unable to wield guns (when starting the game).

Obviously, I cannot play ball the way Messi does in real-life. But if I had to train for hours or days, to make FIFA's Messi capable to complete a pass over 10 feet succesfully, I would be furious about FIFA - a total waste of time. I don't want similar crap in ME.

P.S. I'm talking in a general way, so don't consider this a personal attack. I'm only getting a bit tired when people  preach that stats are the things that make a rpg. In fact, I'm not even interested in rpg. I'm interested in playing fun games and I'm glad the devs think alike.

[Shepard the Leper]

Varen Spectre wrote...

From this perspective, skills and skillpoints have been one of the most distinctive elements of "RPG" genre for a very, very long time.

I admit, the influx of modern "RPG hybrids" makes things really interesting and it seems that it will eventually either cause the redefintion of RPG genre or invention of a new term / (sub) genre. But untill that happens, I am absolutely positive that in general, skillpoints are still considered as important part of RPGs.  

Skills are critical - you need options how to solve issues. Skillpoints are close to redundancy.

In most games, skillpoints (and leveling) are not about progression at all. They are about not getting any weaker and/or being able to do the same things you did before.

In ME2 you can use Warp on a LOKI's armor and remove it in one go, having Warp rank 2 @ level 5 (for exampl). When you reach level 21 you need Warp rank 4 to do the same thing. That's what I call an artificial sense of progession. You've gained many levels, invested many skillpoint and you can do nothing you already could. In short, all time spent in leveling screens and distributing skillpoints has been a (near) total waste of time.

I view skillpoints as something that (usually) reduces the overall experience. I prefer to actually play the game and have fun - not increasing the damage of attack X by 5% each level, to counter the enemy's 5% increase in health. That's tedious and boring and, again, has nothing to do with playing games.

[crsoadd]

Il Divo wrote...

crsoadd wrote...

Well I wouldn't consider Diablo to be an RPG. It is a hack and slash dungeon crawler. It may have RPG mechanics for combat but if I remember right, there was really no social interaction or dialog to be had. Much like the game Torchlight. These sorts of games can be addicting for a while but for me personally, I tend to lose interest after a whie with out any story. I think an RPG must have stat driven gameplay for combat and social interactions. Also, in what possible way was planescape not an RPG?

Well, this all comes back to the how we define RPG argument, but for me I try to refer back to pen and paper, which has supported both the combat/dungeon focused gameplay and story/narrative driven gameplay. Diablo falls under the former and simply isn't what I look for in my games. But it's like JRPGs, which are often considered role-playing games, without providing control over the character.

The point about Planescape is that Gatt often distinguishes between "adventure game" and "RPG" elements. Planescape is very often praised for the ability to complete the entire game through dialogue, focusing almost entirely on the characters and storyline. Assuming I play the game by that route, by Gatt's definition we have an issue, since I'm not engaging in any meaningful stat-based gameplay.

 

Actually you are, there are stat and skill checks in dialog just like there is with combat. Having a certain stat at a certain level provided you different options in dialog. For example, having extremely high WILL and mentioning the name... I believe it was Adon literally willed a person named Adon into existence who you could even then convince to give you some free items. You had strength determine if you could intimidate an NPC or not also. That is just based off of Attributes and doesn't even take into account skills. Which were also used. So Planescape is an RPG regardless of how you play it.

[Varen Spectre]

 

Shepard the Leper wrote...
Skills are critical - you need options how to solve issues. Skillpoints are close to redundancy.

In most games, skillpoints (and leveling) are not about progression at all. They are about not getting any weaker and/or being able to do the same things you did before.

In ME2 you can use Warp on a LOKI's armor and remove it in one go, having Warp rank 2 @ level 5 (for exampl). When you reach level 21 you need Warp rank 4 to do the same thing. That's what I call an artificial sense of progession. You've gained many levels, invested many skillpoint and you can do nothing you already could. In short, all time spent in leveling screens and distributing skillpoints has been a (near) total waste of time.

I view skillpoints as something that (usually) reduces the overall experience. I prefer to actually play the game and have fun - not increasing the damage of attack X by 5% each level, to counter the enemy's 5% increase in health. That's tedious and boring and, again, has nothing to do with playing games.

Well the way you describe it, it sounds like it has a lot to do with level-scaling of enemies. I agree in this regard. I have never really liked when the same or very similar enemies were getting stronger and stronger without any physical or quipment changes. I also felt like the developers were denying me the right to experience the improved abilities of my character for the sake of gameplay and challenge.

In my opinion, the game should provide both types of opponents - those, that are constantly the same, so that I can really feel the difference and progress of my character during my playthrough and those, that are "keeping up with" my character (preferably with visual changes) so that the game does not get easier and easier as I progress. Those should be in important parts of the game. So, I am not fan of level scaling, when it comes to "toughness" of enemies. In other areas, I think it's mostly OK.

But still, in general I still think that skills and skillpoints are a good thing - they can really change and enrich gameplay if they are done right (e.g. summoning in Morrowind) and they can nicely simulate the growth of my character. Of course, they shouldn't be negated by level-scaled enemies, because then leveling up indeed becomes rather pointless.

Nevertheless, whether the skillpoints survive as a part of RPGs or not will not depend on us and our discussions and that was my original point.

[Shepard the Leper]

Varen Spectre wrote...

Well the way you describe it, it sounds like it has a lot to do with level-scaling of enemies. I agree in this regard. I have never really liked when the same or very similar enemies were getting stronger and stronger without any physical or quipment changes. I also felt like the developers were denying me the right to experience the improved abilities of my character for the sake of gameplay and challenge.

In my opinion, the game should provide both types of opponents - those, that are constantly the same, so that I can really feel the difference and progress of my character during my playthrough and those, that are "keeping up with" my character (preferably with visual changes) so that the game does not get easier and easier as I progress. Those should be in important parts of the game. So, I am not fan of level scaling, when it comes to "toughness" of enemies. In other areas, I think it's mostly OK.

But still, in general I still think that skills and skillpoints are a good thing - they can really change and enrich gameplay if they are done right (e.g. summoning in Morrowind) and they can nicely simulate the growth of my character. Of course, they shouldn't be negated by level-scaled enemies, because then leveling up indeed becomes rather pointless.

Nevertheless, whether the skillpoints survive as a part of RPGs or not will not depend on us and our discussions and that was my original point.

I believe level-scaling to be a very poor concept. My main gripe with this concept, besides those you mentioned already, is that you can only use your character's full-potential near the end of the game. When playing ME you start with almost nothing, severely limiting the options available to the player during the early parts of the game. I don't like this at all. Something could be learned from puzzle-games in this regard. Games were you have to use the same skills, but in new and increasingly challenging ways, is a much better way to make things gradually harder.

IMHO the sense of progression can be achieved without the need to 'level-up' constantly. Or to use the words of Dolores Umbridge: "Progress simply for progress' sake must be discouraged, for that progress is progress without a purpose."

[MrFob]

Shepard the Leper wrote...
I merely tried to argue that stats =/= rpgs.

Fair enough and I agree with that.

Stats can be used, but not to mimic accuracy when the player has to manually aim in the first place. You either design a system in which the player has to aim him/herself, or a system in which a NPC aims (automatically) based on a stat system.

This is a sensitive point in the rpg community, but there is nothing "heretic" about a rpg that requires the player to be (slightly) skilled at pointing cursors. I don't consider rpgs to be gambling machines, and have dumb luck determine success or failure. If I like to gamble I go to the casino, when I play games, I want to influence what's happening (which is the essence of games). 

Well, that is the point where we disagree. IMO it is perfectly valid to combine the two. ME1 even gives you pretty good visual feedback on the point by representing your accuracy with the size of your reticle-circle. And if you disable the aiming aid in the options it is not like the game aims for you. You still have to do it, you just have to account for this accuracy variable and incorporate it into your tactics (e.g. if you are not that good with an assault rifle, just use it in close combat and use your pistol for more accurate aiming, etc.). It also ensures that e.g. only the soldier and the infiltrator can effectively use a sniper rifle which makes class gameplay more unique. It is an arguable point, I know, and I understand that you don't like it. I am merely pointing out that there are those of us, who do like it.
BTW (and this is not aimed towards you,Leper), still no one commented on the weird Deus Ex comparison.

But you can say that about every game. When you play a game like FIFA and select Barcelona, you don't have to teach Messi how to play ball. He already can, it's up to the player to get the most out of his abilities. Shepard is an elite soldier (kinda like Messi is an elite football player) - it doesn't make any sense to have Shepard being unable to wield guns (when starting the game).

Obviously, I cannot play ball the way Messi does in real-life. But if I had to train for hours or days, to make FIFA's Messi capable to complete a pass over 10 feet succesfully, I would be furious about FIFA - a total waste of time. I don't want similar crap in ME.

P.S. I'm talking in a general way, so don't consider this a personal attack. I'm only getting a bit tired when people  preach that stats are the things that make a rpg. In fact, I'm not even interested in rpg. I'm interested in playing fun games and I'm glad the devs think alike.

Yes, exactly my point. I was arguing that you cannot say that a certain gaming mechanic as - as you put it - incredibly dumb, just because you don't like it. It is just as valid or "realistic" - or whatever word you want to use - as using keys on a keyboard to move a soccer player. The question is, just as you said: What is fun? I think the combination we had in ME1 was fun. I play a lot of straight shooter too but I liked the combination just like I liked it in Deus Ex or Alpha Protocol. It is different but still (or maybe even more) fun IMO.
As you may have inferred from my earlier post, I don't care about the categorisation of games into RPGs or whatever either. I also just want to play fun games I am ok with what BW does with ME at the moment but I am a little sad that they completely abandoned the combination system from ME1 instead of tuning and improving it.

P.S.: I suppose I was a little hostile in my earlier post as well (English is not my first language). If so, I apologise. I am here for the discussion and as far as I am concerned, it is a good one. Cheers!

[Il Divo]

crsoadd wrote...

Actually you are, there are stat and skill checks in dialog just like there is with combat. Having a certain stat at a certain level provided you different options in dialog. For example, having extremely high WILL and mentioning the name... I believe it was Adon literally willed a person named Adon into existence who you could even then convince to give you some free items. You had strength determine if you could intimidate an NPC or not also. That is just based off of Attributes and doesn't even take into account skills. Which were also used. So Planescape is an RPG regardless of how you play it.

But where's the attack rolls? Saving throws? Spells? Party-based combat?

What you're forgetting is that when Planescape is played through the "dialogue approach", the actual number of meaningful statistics drops greatly. Attributes were a great example. I started my character off with an 18-19 intelligence/Wisdom and got through every dialogue option in the game no problem.

Admittedly, it's been a while since I played, but I don't think Planescape ever had a "skill check" in the manner of KotOR, where it's chance based modified by a skill roll. Instead, the game merely checks what level your attribute is at and provides dialogue options in accordance with your score. It's still stat-based, but the importance to gameplay is now minimal. Dialogue gameplay does not provide even remotely the same amount of stat-based gameplay as combat. Hence where the "not an RPG" argument comes from.

[Gatt9]

MrFob wrote...

Shepard the Leper wrote...
I merely tried to argue that stats =/= rpgs.

Fair enough and I agree with that.

Stats can be used, but not to mimic accuracy when the player has to manually aim in the first place. You either design a system in which the player has to aim him/herself, or a system in which a NPC aims (automatically) based on a stat system.

This is a sensitive point in the rpg community, but there is nothing "heretic" about a rpg that requires the player to be (slightly) skilled at pointing cursors. I don't consider rpgs to be gambling machines, and have dumb luck determine success or failure. If I like to gamble I go to the casino, when I play games, I want to influence what's happening (which is the essence of games). 

Well, that is the point where we disagree. IMO it is perfectly valid to combine the two. ME1 even gives you pretty good visual feedback on the point by representing your accuracy with the size of your reticle-circle. And if you disable the aiming aid in the options it is not like the game aims for you. You still have to do it, you just have to account for this accuracy variable and incorporate it into your tactics (e.g. if you are not that good with an assault rifle, just use it in close combat and use your pistol for more accurate aiming, etc.). It also ensures that e.g. only the soldier and the infiltrator can effectively use a sniper rifle which makes class gameplay more unique. It is an arguable point, I know, and I understand that you don't like it. I am merely pointing out that there are those of us, who do like it.
BTW (and this is not aimed towards you,Leper), still no one commented on the weird Deus Ex comparison.

But you can say that about every game. When you play a game like FIFA and select Barcelona, you don't have to teach Messi how to play ball. He already can, it's up to the player to get the most out of his abilities. Shepard is an elite soldier (kinda like Messi is an elite football player) - it doesn't make any sense to have Shepard being unable to wield guns (when starting the game).

Obviously, I cannot play ball the way Messi does in real-life. But if I had to train for hours or days, to make FIFA's Messi capable to complete a pass over 10 feet succesfully, I would be furious about FIFA - a total waste of time. I don't want similar crap in ME.

P.S. I'm talking in a general way, so don't consider this a personal attack. I'm only getting a bit tired when people  preach that stats are the things that make a rpg. In fact, I'm not even interested in rpg. I'm interested in playing fun games and I'm glad the devs think alike.

Yes, exactly my point. I was arguing that you cannot say that a certain gaming mechanic as - as you put it - incredibly dumb, just because you don't like it. It is just as valid or "realistic" - or whatever word you want to use - as using keys on a keyboard to move a soccer player. The question is, just as you said: What is fun? I think the combination we had in ME1 was fun. I play a lot of straight shooter too but I liked the combination just like I liked it in Deus Ex or Alpha Protocol. It is different but still (or maybe even more) fun IMO.
As you may have inferred from my earlier post, I don't care about the categorisation of games into RPGs or whatever either. I also just want to play fun games I am ok with what BW does with ME at the moment but I am a little sad that they completely abandoned the combination system from ME1 instead of tuning and improving it.

P.S.: I suppose I was a little hostile in my earlier post as well (English is not my first language). If so, I apologise. I am here for the discussion and as far as I am concerned, it is a good one. Cheers!

The problem is,  stats define the character,  and the character defines the Role.  In ME,  you could be bad at shooting but an expert at diplomacy and technical skills,  and the game represented that.  In ME2,  the only way you could be bad at shooting,  or technical skills,  was to intentionally fail,  and you could not be a Shepherd that was bad at Diplomacy.

That's why the stats exist,  they define the character and create the Role.  Combat god,  technical genius,  silver-tongued,  the Role you want to play.

Removing them makes the character undefined,  and the Role undefined,  and just makes the game about You,  the real You.  Which then ceases to be an RPG,  and becomes something else.  Usually an Adventure game,  sometimes a Shooter.

[crsoadd]

Il Divo wrote...

crsoadd wrote...

Actually you are, there are stat and skill checks in dialog just like there is with combat. Having a certain stat at a certain level provided you different options in dialog. For example, having extremely high WILL and mentioning the name... I believe it was Adon literally willed a person named Adon into existence who you could even then convince to give you some free items. You had strength determine if you could intimidate an NPC or not also. That is just based off of Attributes and doesn't even take into account skills. Which were also used. So Planescape is an RPG regardless of how you play it.

But where's the attack rolls? Saving throws? Spells? Party-based combat?

What you're forgetting is that when Planescape is played through the "dialogue approach", the actual number of meaningful statistics drops greatly. Attributes were a great example. I started my character off with an 18-19 intelligence/Wisdom and got through every dialogue option in the game no problem.

Admittedly, it's been a while since I played, but I don't think Planescape ever had a "skill check" in the manner of KotOR, where it's chance based modified by a skill roll. Instead, the game merely checks what level your attribute is at and provides dialogue options in accordance with your score. It's still stat-based, but the importance to gameplay is now minimal. Dialogue gameplay does not provide even remotely the same amount of stat-based gameplay as combat. Hence where the "not an RPG" argument comes from.

You have absolutely no point here or I just really fail to see it. Are you trying to claim that since you the player made a consious decision to play Planescape as a diplomat, talking your way out of everything. That this some how makes everything else that was put into the game, that is still in the game and can be accessed at anytime if you the player chooses.... that some how it magically no longer exists and the game is restricting you some how? All of those things still exist in the game, you the player are just not choosing to utilize them and that is part of the beauty of an actual RPG. You're argument to me, boils down to this. If you're playing an FPS and you choose not to fire your gun and instead just run and jump around it is no longer an FPS. It is now a platformer. No, it is still an FPS.

The argument was that stat based gameplay is not really in ME2, at least I am guessing that is where you're coming from. I haven't back tracked in this topic to find out so forgive me if I am wrong. You're example is of a game that DOES have these elements. In PS:T things are stat driven, in ME2 they are not. You may say that the powers are but they are no more RPG mechanics than powers you can upgrade in games such as Devil May Cry, God of War, Ninja Gaiden, etc.

Or maybe the argument was that some how PS:T is not an RPG according to the argument on stats... even though everything in the game is stat based. So, it just seems to me that you're proving yourself wrong with the statement you've made above. Is you're point that dialog requires less die rolls as combat? Well, combat is more complicated, thus more die rolls. Are they still both stat driven and separate player skill from character skill? Yes, yes they do.

But on a different note, to those who like to repeat the words stagnation over and over. Let me tell you something. PnP RPG's are only restricted by your imagination. And to say that a genre that once strived to recreate this experience on the pc or console has reached it's limit and can no longer grow or come any closer to it's original goal. That it has stagnated, is laughable. There's tons of things that could be worked on, tweaked, improved, and new innovative things that could be implemented to bring things closer to the PnP experience. But instead developers decide to butcher the genre and move further and further away from this. And don't get me wrong. I love, LOVE action RPG's. My 2 favorite games ever are Deus Ex and VTM:Bloodlines. But some of my other favorites are PS:T, Fallouts 1 & 2, BG2, and even NWN.

Modifié par crsoadd, 10 août 2011 - 09:05 .

[Il Divo]

crsoadd wrote...

You have absolutely no point here or I just really fail to see it. Are you trying to claim that since you the player made a consious decision to play Planescape as a diplomat, talking your way out of everything. That this some how makes everything else that was put into the game, that is still in the game and can be accessed at anytime if you the player chooses.... that some how it magically no longer exists and the game is restricting you some how? All of those things still exist in the game, you the player are just not choosing to utilize them and that is part of the beauty of an actual RPG. You're argument to me, boils down to this. If you're playing an FPS and you choose not to fire your gun and instead just run and jump around it is no longer an FPS. It is now a platformer. No, it is still an FPS.

Then it's still an issue of genre conventions. Bioware labels their game RPG. However, to use your example, if I can play the game like an fps, but the developers do not label their game an fps/platformer, things become difficult. This is the issue Bioware runs into, with their rather heavy emphasis on dialogue/narrative.

The argument was that stat based gameplay is not really in ME2, at least I am guessing that is where you're coming from. I haven't back tracked in this topic to find out so forgive me if I am wrong. You're example is of a game that DOES have these elements. In PS:T things are stat driven, in ME2 they are not. You may say that the powers are but they are no more RPG mechanics than powers you can upgrade in games such as Devil May Cry, God of War, Ninja Gaiden, etc.

Actually, the powers are a stat-driven mechanism. It's a bit less than what Mass Effect 1 featured (and substantially less than pure RPGs, but it is there).
 

Or maybe the argument was that some how PS:T is not an RPG according to the argument on stats... even though everything in the game is stat based. So, it just seems to me that you're proving yourself wrong with the statement you've made above. Is you're point that dialog requires less die rolls as combat? Well, combat is more complicated, thus more die rolls. Are they still both stat driven and separate player skill from character skill? Yes, yes they do.

 KotOR is not  a racing game, although it features swoop racing. A game's genre is utlimately a matter of threshold. In the case of Planescape, played using diplomacy, the game resembles something closer to what people often call "adventure games" than an RPG, where there is greater emphasis on dialogue and very little on using your stats. In Planescape, once I've given my character that 19 intelligence/wisdom, the use of stats in my gameplay is dramatically reduced. In combat, stats play a role in everything I do.  

[crsoadd]

Il Divo wrote...


Then it's still an issue of genre conventions. Bioware labels their game RPG. However, to use your example, if I can play the game like an fps, but the developers do not label their game an fps/platformer, things become difficult.

No, you've missed the point I was making. The argument we were making was that things must be stat driven in a game to be considered an RPG. And since ME2 has virtually no stat driven gameplay at all, some RPG fans don't like calling it an RPG. (cough because it isn't cough) Then you try to argue that PS:T is not an RPG because stats don't affect dialog. But they do. Then you try to claim that since you can CHOOSE to play the game through mostly dialog that it is soe how less of an RPG, even though at anytime you can engage in combat. And not to mention the fact that the game gives you the option to CHOOSE to play that way by building your character to be effective as a diplomat. All stat based and separating character and player skill, just like combat. See, that is the thing about RPGs they give you the freedom to approach things the way you want to and to build a character that can fill that role. You want to play a smooth talking diplomat, you can. A battle hardened warrior, sure why not.
A sneaky sneaky thief of the shadows, yeah you can do that too. And again, it is entirely stat driven.

I was pointing out that a game had stat driven gameplay vs one that didn't. You're stance... which is crazy, was that if you ignore a large part of the content in the game. An entire style of play that you as the player could utilize at any given moment, then that game can no longer be considered an RPG.... even though the one part of gameplay you focused on, which was dialog, was stat driven. And then you tried to claim that after you've raised your STATS up so far that you met most or all of the stat checks you wanted in dialog. That somehow the game was no longer an RPG once you built a character to meet those stat requirements and then play accordingly. Pretty ridiculous argument. And in my attempt to point out how ridiculous I thought your argument was I made the comparrison to and FPS and the use of a jump button. Saying that just because you choose not to fire a weapon in an FPS and then decide to just run and jump around in the game instead, does not make that game a platformer. It is still very much a shooter.

Actually, the powers are a stat-driven mechanism. It's a bit less than what Mass Effect 1 featured (and substantially less than pure RPGs, but it is there).

There is nothing about the powers in the game that are any more stat driven than powers you'd find in the action games I listed.
 

 KotOR is not  a racing game, although it features swoop racing.

You're all over the place aren't you? So now a minigame is considered a major part of a game that only requires you to race one time because of the story. But no, you're right. I remember saving the galaxy by challenging Malak to a race. Tottally a racing game.

A game's genre is utlimately a matter of threshold.

This I can agree with to a point. But most of these games that blur the line between what is an RPG and what isn't can be placed into sub genres. But there is a point where a game no longer even fits into a sub genre of RPG and I'd argue ME2 is an example of this.

In the case of Planescape, played using diplomacy, the game resembles something closer to what people often call "adventure games" than an RPG, where there is greater emphasis on dialogue and very little on using your stats.

Yeah, except for the fact that dialog in an advenure game is not stat driven... at all. In an RPG it is. Just like the dialog in PS:T is stat driven, and the dialog in ME2, Heavenly Rain, LA Noir, etc... are not stat driven at all. So you're argument falls flat on its face.

In Planescape, once I've given my character that 19 intelligence/wisdom, the use of stats in my gameplay is dramatically reduced. In combat, stats play a role in everything I do.  

Nothing is reduced. You've simply made a character with a sufficient enough level to pass the majority or maybe even all stat checks in dialog that involve either Wisdom or Intelligence. The stat checks didn't go anywhere, they still happen whether you pass them or not. If you were to try a dialog option and it had a stat check of wisdom or intelligence at 20 or up to 25, then you'd fail or it wouldn't be an option to begin with. And no, it is not just in combat that stats play a part in everything you do, they play a part in everything you do IN THE ENTIRE GAME! That means dialog and combat and picking pockets and... EVERYTHING! DO YOU UNDERSTAND?!?!?!?!?

[Il Divo]

crsoadd wrote...

No, you've missed the point I was making. The argument we were making was that things must be stat driven in a game to be considered an RPG. And since ME2 has virtually no stat driven gameplay at all, some RPG fans don't like calling it an RPG. (cough because it isn't cough) Then you try to argue that PS:T is not an RPG because stats don't affect dialog. But they do. Then you try to claim that since you can CHOOSE to play the game through mostly dialog that it is soe how less of an RPG, even though at anytime you can engage in combat. And not to mention the fact that the game gives you the option to CHOOSE to play that way by building your character to be effective as a diplomat. All stat based and separating character and player skill, just like combat. See, that is the thing about RPGs they give you the freedom to approach things the way you want to and to build a character that can fill that role. You want to play a smooth talking diplomat, you can. A battle hardened warrior, sure why not.
A sneaky sneaky thief of the shadows, yeah you can do that too. And again, it is entirely stat driven. 

No, I argued that Planescape could also be seen as an adventure game, since it can be played almost entirely through dialogue. Once I choose my initial character set up, stats become less important to manage. It is effectively an adventure game, where I'm choosing dialogue. Combat is specifically more important in terms of RPG mechanics than anything dialogue based, hence why it is more in-keeping with stat-based mechanics.

Keep in mind also that played through combat, I'm not simply playing with dialogue options. I'm actually engaging in tactical combat, where I have six different party members's stats to take into account.

I was pointing out that a game had stat driven gameplay vs one that didn't. You're stance... which is crazy, was that if you ignore a large part of the content in the game. An entire style of play that you as the player could utilize at any given moment, then that game can no longer be considered an RPG.... even though the one part of gameplay you focused on, which was dialog, was stat driven. And then you tried to claim that after you've raised your STATS up so far that you met most or all of the stat checks you wanted in dialog. That somehow the game was no longer an RPG once you built a character to meet those stat requirements and then play accordingly. Pretty ridiculous argument. And in my attempt to point out how ridiculous I thought your argument was I made the comparrison to and FPS and the use of a jump button. Saying that just because you choose not to fire a weapon in an FPS and then decide to just run and jump around in the game instead, does not make that game a platformer. It is still very much a shooter.

It would make the game an RPG/adventure hybrid, based on some how some choose to use the terms.

There is nothing about the powers in the game that are any more stat driven than powers you'd find in the action games I listed.

Beyond the fact that powers are stat-driven? Mass Effect 2's system is Mass Effect 1's, with fewer skills (which I was disappointed by). They simply condensed 12 meaningless ranks into 4 meaningful ranks, where each rank costs more. They're essentially the same. The ME series however was always considered to be RPG-lite.
 

  You're all over the place aren't you? So now a minigame is considered a major part of a game that only requires you to race one time because of the story. But no, you're right. I remember saving the galaxy by challenging Malak to a race. Tottally a racing game.

You're very quick to judge. Perhaps you should have considered the whole argument before resorting to foolish comments such as this. No game exists within a genre on an absolute scale. Everything will always be relative, which is the point regarding RPG elements. A game can be "more" or "less" RPG than another game.

The point about KotOR as a racing game is that the element is there, but it's hardly on a level that the game will meet what you'd ask for in a racing game. Hence, KotOR's genre is a "threshhold", which you demonstrate by mentioning that racing is only required once. All genres can function much the same way.

This I can agree with to a point. But most of these games that blur the line between what is an RPG and what isn't can be placed into sub genres. But there is a point where a game no longer even fits into a sub genre of RPG and I'd argue ME2 is an example of this.

No more than Mass Effect 1, unless you count Mass Effect's inventory, which relied upon inequalities, to be a great example of RPG mechanics.

Yeah, except for the fact that dialog in an advenure game is not stat driven... at all. In an RPG it is. Just like the dialog in PS:T is stat driven, and the dialog in ME2, Heavenly Rain, LA Noir, etc... are not stat driven at all. So you're argument falls flat on its face.

Are you sure you want to go with that argument? I recommend you go back and play all those old Bioware games. Because the game includes stat-driven dialogue, do not think that all dialogue in the game is stat-driven. This applies to Planescape as well, although Bioware dialogue is admittedly even less stat-driven.

Edit: I should also point out that most games accepted as RPGs from Bioware/Obsidian fall into that territory of "adventure game", where a substantial part of the game is played out through dialogue. Not even a quarter of my dialogue options could be said to be stat-driven.

Nothing is reduced. You've simply made a character with a sufficient enough level to pass the majority or maybe even all stat checks in dialog that involve either Wisdom or Intelligence. The stat checks didn't go anywhere, they still happen whether you pass them or not.

There are no "stat checks", which is what you keep confusing. This is not KotOR. I do not get a persuade skill where my character has a random chance for success. Planescape's dialogue is based on your total score. If I have a 20 intelligence/wisdom, I automatically pass all dialogue.

If you were to try a dialog option and it had a stat check of wisdom or intelligence at 20 or up to 25, then you'd fail or it wouldn't be an option to begin with. And no, it is not just in combat that stats play a part in everything you do, they play a part in everything you do IN THE ENTIRE GAME! That means dialog and combat and picking pockets and... EVERYTHING! DO YOU UNDERSTAND?!?!?!?!?

You'll forgive me if I don't take your capital letters to be a sign of a good argument. Look at your own previous example of the fps/platforming hybrid. If you play the game like a platformer, all the fps elements are still there. But you purposely chose to focus on non-fps elements, hence a hybrid. Planescape functions the same way, hence my remarks as a hybrid. Played using dialogue, all I have are occasional attribute responses. You're trying to make out that combat and non-combat rely on similar levels of stats when it's not even remotely close.

Played using the dialogue approach, Planescape is stat-based at certain points, but there are also more points in the game where dialogue is simply dialogue, with no stats taken into account. Hence why it could be seen closer to an adventure game.

Modifié par Il Divo, 11 août 2011 - 12:32 .

[crsoadd]

It would make the game an RPG/adventure hybrid, based on how some choose to use the terms.

Care to elaborate? In what ways is it an adventure game? It isn't the dialog, since the dialog has stat checks. So how is it like an adventure game?

Beyond the fact that powers are stat-driven? Mass Effect 2's system is Mass Effect 1's, with fewer skills (which I was disappointed by). They simply condensed 12 meaningless ranks into 4 meaningful ranks, where each rank costs more. They're essentially the same. The ME series however was always considered to be RPG-lite.

 Really? How are they any more stat driven than what you find in any of those action games I listed? Because you can upgrade them? You can do that in the action games I listed also. So how are they stat driven? Are there rolls to determine there effectiveness? No, there isn't. Can you think of anything? Because I really can't.

And could you give me a definition of RPG-lite? Its a term I've seen used only recently in the last few years and I can't for the life of me think of what would fall under it that isn't either already considered an Action RPG or just isn't an RPG at all. It just sounds like some kind of buzz word, and it reminds me of dumb lite beer commercials. lol.

You're very quick to judge. Perhaps you should have considered the whole argument before resorting to foolish comments such as this. No game exists within a genre on an absolute scale. Everything will always be relative, which is the point regarding RPG elements. A game can be "more" or "less" RPG than another game.

Yes, which is why they are sub genres of the RPG.

The point about KotOR as a racing game is that the element is there, but it's hardly on a level that the game will meet what you'd ask for in a racing game. Hence, KotOR's genre is a "threshhold", which you demonstrate by mentioning that racing is only required once. All genres can function much the same way.

But these things are often never a main focus of the game and are something extra that is added in. Sometimes it isn't required to participate in to progress through the game.

No more than Mass Effect 1, unless you count Mass Effect's inventory, which relied upon inequalities, to be a great example of RPG mechanics.

There is no stat driven dialog anymore, and the combat is virtually entirely player based instead of character based. As in, you aim and shoot at something then you hit it. Has nothing to do with how well your character aims. Thus not an RPG component. The powers are not much more an RPG mechanic than those found in action games such as Devil May Cry, God of War, etc. An inventory system is the least problematic thing for ME2 when considering it an RPG or not.

Are you sure you want to go with that argument? I recommend you go back and play all those old Bioware games. Because the game includes stat-driven dialogue, do not think that all dialogue in the game is stat-driven. This applies to Planescape as well, although Bioware dialogue is admittedly even less stat-driven.

Edit: I should also point out that most games accepted as RPGs from Bioware/Obsidian fall into that territory of "adventure game", where a substantial part of the game is played out through dialogue. Not even a quarter of my dialogue options could be said to be stat-driven.

Yes, I am. I never claimed all dialog was stat driven. Should there be a die roll when replying to a simple yes or no question in the game? No, of course not. That would be ridiculous.

There are no "stat checks", which is what you keep confusing. This is not KotOR. I do not get a persuade skill where my character has a random chance for success. Planescape's dialogue is based on your total score. If I have a 20 intelligence/wisdom, I automatically pass all dialogue.

Really? If there are no stat checks than why is that you need to have a stat to meet or exceed a certain level in the game to "pass" dialog? Is it because there is a stat check that probably looks something like this: If WIS >= 20 then dialog pass, If WIS < 20 then fail. What would that be? That would be a stat check. And at any time where the stat of Wisdom is used in conversation something like this is done. Regardless of whether or not you have a high enough stat, it keeps checking through out the entire game.

You'll forgive me if I don't take your capital letters to be a sign of a good argument. Look at your own previous example of the fps/platforming hybrid. If you play the game like a platformer, all the fps elements are still there. But you purposely chose to focus on non-fps elements, hence a hybrid. Planescape functions the same way, hence my remarks as a hybrid. Played using dialogue, all I have are occasional attribute responses. You're trying to make out that combat and non-combat rely on similar levels of stats when it's not even remotely close.

Played using the dialogue approach, Planescape is stat-based at certain points, but there are also more points in the game where dialogue is simply dialogue, with no stats taken into account. Hence why it could be seen closer to an adventure game.

Choosing to focus on one element of a game and ingoring other elements does not make it a hybrid. It does not magically change the code with in the game. You are just playing a game with strict rules that you the player has implemented yourself to make the game come across as something it is not. It's like watching a comedy and putting your hands over your ears every time there is a joke and then calling the movie a drama or something other than a comedy. It doesn't work, just like your argument. Also, I specifically mentioned that combat is more stat driven because simulating combat is more complex, which is why there are more rolls involved. All I've ever claimed is that there are stats involved in dialog... there are. Which makes dialog stat driven, it is. Sorry for the caps earlier, was getting frustrated over some miscomunication between us.

[Il Divo]

[quote]crsoadd wrote...


Care to elaborate? In what ways is it an adventure game? It isn't the dialog, since the dialog has stat checks. So how is it like an adventure game? [/quote]

Dialogue. We went through this. Most dialogue is not stat-based, which is contrary to your claim. There are more than a few instances of conversation where dialogue occurs without stat checks. The argument only works if every dialogue is stat-based, which it is not. And even there, we still have the issue that the role of stats is very limited in dialogue.

Choices would be another area. Ex: Choosing to leave Morte on the pillar of skulls.

[quote]
 Really? How are they any more stat driven than what you find in any of those action games I listed? Because you can upgrade them? You can do that in the action games I listed also. So how are they stat driven? Are there rolls to determine there effectiveness? No, there isn't. Can you think of anything? Because I really can't. [/quote]

And we can say those action games have RPG elements. You have the ability to improve your powers, much like in Mass Effect. With the sequel, duration, strength, and range of my powers is entirely affected by stats. The primary difference between ME and ME2 is the number of skills, number of ranks, and that Mass Effect has some character based skill incorporated into its shooting gameplay.  

My primary point is that Mass Effect really isn't on a much higher tier of RPG than ME2. The original still had player-based skill, through grenades, shooting/aiming, sprinting, cover system, etc. ME2 only reduced your number of skills and character-based aiming. And I suppose the inventory, but that was an abomination (imo).  

[quote]
And could you give me a definition of RPG-lite? Its a term I've seen used only recently in the last few years and I can't for the life of me think of what would fall under it that isn't either already considered an Action RPG or just isn't an RPG at all. It just sounds like some kind of buzz word, and it reminds me of dumb lite beer commercials. lol. [/quote]

"RPG lite" isnt really a definition. It's more of a threshold. Alot of gamers consider Mass Effect to be an RPG-lite, because of the larger emphasis on player-based skill, especially in comparison to past Bioware games. Depending on whom you speak with, Mass Effect 2 is called the same or a tps with "RPG elements".

Basically, it's an issue of how stat-heavy a game chooses to be. Mass Effect is light on stats. Compare that to Dungeons and Dragons, which has race options, which impact your attributes. Attributes which impact your skills. Skills which impact your feats. All of which is based around your class. But you get the idea. Action RPGs, as you mention, are another example.

[quote]
But these things are often never a main focus of the game and are something extra that is added in. Sometimes it isn't required to participate in to progress through the game. [/quote]

But that's not the point. You're still applying the threshold. You just described racing as not being a main focus. You again acknowledged the threshhold with that statement. KotOR can be considered an RPG because emphasizes turn/stat-based gameplay over racing elements. Planescape might be looked on as an Adventure Game (or even a hybrid), because of the heavy emphasis on dialogue, choice, and interactive narrative.

[quote]
There is no stat driven dialog anymore, [/quote]

Charm and intimidate still exist, which are based on how high your respective score is. That sounds like a stat.

[quote]
and the combat is virtually entirely player based instead of character based. [/quote]

So was Mass Effect's, which only incorporated a small amount of character-based aiming. That's the only difference between them. You still have to aim your gun, sprint, dive into cover, throw grenades, etc, which is all player-based. 
 
[quote]
As in, you aim and shoot at something then you hit it. Has nothing to do with how well your character aims. [/quote]

ME was again the same. I aim the gun in Mass Effect while enemies move around. That is the definition of player-based. What is character-based is that when leveling up I can also alter the accuracy of the targeting reticule.

[quote]
Thus not an RPG component. The powers are not much more an RPG mechanic than those found in action games such as Devil May Cry, God of War, etc. [/quote]

Which was (yet again) the case with Mass Effect. The problem is not your conclusion that ME2 is mostly a tps. The problem is mainly your conclusion that ME was an RPG, when the only alteration was that there is no character-based skill while aiming a gun.

[quote]

Yes, I am. I never claimed all dialog was stat driven. Should there be a die roll when replying to a simple yes or no question in the game? No, of course not. That would be ridiculous. [/quote]

Then it's an Adventure Game element. Again, replay old Bioware games. How much stat-based dialogue is there? Outside of persuade checks, very little. Speaking with Carth in the Taris Apartments, learning about Bastila's back story,  speaking to your companions on the Ebon Hawk, learning that you are Revan. From my recollection, not a single one of these moments requires any sort of stat check and there are many more besides them. Almost all dialogue in a Bioware game is not stat-driven, so I'm not really seeing how it can be considered an RPG element.

[quote]

Really? If there are no stat checks than why is that you need to have a stat to meet or exceed a certain level in the game to "pass" dialog? Is it because there is a stat check that probably looks something like this: If WIS >= 20 then dialog pass, If WIS < 20 then fail. What would that be? That would be a stat check. And at any time where the stat of Wisdom is used in conversation something like this is done. Regardless of whether or not you have a high enough stat, it keeps checking through out the entire game. [/quote]

Either way, we're arguing semantics. But a "check" as I've always heard the term used refers to a die roll. Ex: A persuade check means d20 + appropriate modifier. Planescape does not do that, hence why I continue pointing out that there are not "stat checks". But this isn't really either of our main points.

[quote]
Choosing to focus on one element of a game and ingoring other elements does not make it a hybrid. [/quote]

Yes it does, especially when the game offers a substantial means of avoiding a gameplay element. Planescape provides me a method of playing the game almost entirely through dialogue, which offers a completely different (and purposely not stat-heavy) style than combat. That sounds like a hybrid. 

[quote]
 It does not magically change the code with in the game. You are just playing a game with strict rules that you the player has implemented yourself to make the game come across as something it is not. It's like watching a comedy and putting your hands over your ears every time there is a joke and then calling the movie a drama or something other than a comedy. It doesn't work, just like your argument.  [/quote]

Completely different scenarios, comparing two entirely different mediums.  If I'm watching a comedy, the director purposely placed that joke to be heard. If I choose to ignore the joke, that''s my fault. It's an example of designer intent. The developers of Planescape purposely placed different methods of approaching conflict, not all of them stat-focused. If I play the game in a manner which is dialogue-heavy, it's because they allowed it. I didn't contradict designer intent.

If you want another example, if someone makes an action/thriller film, I cannot avoid the action while enjoying the thriller, because as the viewer I am intended to embrace the whole experience.

[quote]
Also, I specifically mentioned that combat is more stat driven because simulating combat is more complex, which is why there are more rolls involved. All I've ever claimed is that there are stats involved in dialog... there are. Which makes dialog stat driven, it is. Sorry for the caps earlier, was getting frustrated over some miscomunication between us.
[/quote]

Is it really so much more complex though? Even if I were to accept your conclusion, it still raises the issue that dialogue has been reduced to a single inequality (Wis > 20 = pass), where combat is a complex series of stat mechanics. Even there, you run into problems because using combat Planescape is a much more stat-heavy RPG than dialogue, where it relies entirely on what you call stat checks. A much more complex stat system could be designed for dialogue as well, but there I suspect most players would be less interested.

As I said, it's still nowhere near the same scale.

Modifié par Il Divo, 12 août 2011 - 04:16 .

[Phaedon]

Someone is trying to pass up ME1's skill system as an RPG element but ME2's as an action element? At the same time?