477 réponses à ce sujet

[Terror_K]

Massadonious1 wrote...

To be honest, I'm glad some of the so called "staples" of the genre are going the way of the dinosaur. While I'm all for customization, sticking in often bloated statistical and micro-managing options, like inventories without a true purpose, like crafting, simply for the sake of genre defining is not the way to go. Bad mechanics are bad regardless of what genre it belongs to or originated from.

There's a difference though between bad mechanics and good mechanics that are just poorly executed.

Think of it this way, you are developing an RPG based on your life. While you understandably have to include some "features" like daily wardrobe selection, (which plenty of people enjoy in games already) do you really need to go full throttle and include things like organizing your closet or doing your taxes? Would you really subject people to participating in such things, simply so they could get the most out of their "role"?

With anything one can go too far, be it one way or the other. ME1 I agree went a bit far with its RPG elements for what it was trying to accomplish, but ME2 went too far the other way and became too simple. As it stands Shepard isn't properly defined at all via the RPG elements, and all you really have is a bunch of combat abilities attributed to him/her and that's pretty much it, along with a progression system that is seemingly completely arbitrary and meaningless. There's absolutely nothing that really defines Shepard outside of dialogue choices now, and absolutely no context or logic to his/her progression. The whole system has been stripped of any depth or meaning to the bare bones.

[Wusword77]

Terror_K wrote...

I just want to make a few quick, personal points...

1) The overall point is fairly simple when it comes down to it: many longtime RPG fans like complexity. Developers these days are trying to make their game more accessible, and are thus cutting out the complexity to do so. Thereby, they are cutting out one of the factors that many longtime RPG fans like. To me their "streamlining" and making their games "more accessible" in this manner is largely akin to somebody making a cake without any chocolate in it and yet trying to claim and act like it's still a chocolate cake just because they maybe sprinkled some chocolate hail on the top.

I like complexity in my games, but it's a matter of the RIGHT type of complexity.  Having complexity for the sake of complexity is just foolish.  Having to go through 40 menus to see all the adjustments equiping your +6 Sword instead of your +5 Sword is not a good form of Complexity, it's a waste of my time.  Managing an inventory where your character carries 7 different armors, 18 different weapons, and 40 different accessories isn't complex, it's tedious, pointless, and feels like it breaks character at points (unless you have a bag of holding, which every RPG in the past seemed to have).  Having a whole list of 25 "skills" where only 3-5 of them are acutally used in game isn't complex, it's an underhanded way to make players continue to level up to replace the points they put in Underwater Basket Weaving when they should have put it in Persuade for the Pursuade dialog options.

What complexity is being taken out, that isn't there simply for the sake of Complexity?  What are we losing that can't be done in a less tedious fashion?

2) I agree with the sentiment that BioWare (and other developers) have garnered a lot of people who claim to love RPGs and be RPG fans, but seem to more accurately want story-driven action and/or adventure games. There are just so many people in this thread that don't seem to even "get" RPGs and don't even get why a statistical form of progression is necessary that illustrates that.

Considering no one can define what an RPG is and what the stables of the Genre are, what makes you think that YOU "get" what a "RPG" is?

3) Its amazing how BioWare's philosophy has changed, particularly since the EA take-over. Look at Dragon Age for instance: the things the developers were saying then were so contrasting compared to what they're saying now and when they were making DA2. The voiced vs. silent protagonist is a classic and obvious example, with the developers flip-flopping between games. In the former case they defended the silent protagonist against those who wanted a voiced character for all the right reasons: about how it gives the player more control, more variety and choices for roleplaying and dialogue, allows them a larger game and more choice of races for the player, how it allows the player to define their character's personality more and give them their own voice, etc. and that overall it's merely a mechanic one can use or not, and isn't dated. Then with DA2 we've since had Laidlaw and co. saying they believe BioWare will never do a silent protagonist again, that it's a dated, archaic mechanic, that a voiced protagonist is more immersive (I personally disagree completely) and more cinematic and because that's where all their games are going now , etc.

Whats amazing about a company deciding to move in a new direction?  Plus having a "voiced" (I'm using the term loosely here) protagonist isn't anything new.  Square did this decades ago in the FInal Fantasy games and it's worked out for them.  I agree that a silent protagonist isn't a dated mechanic, but it is not something that fits into every RPG (or game for that matter).  Something like a silent protagonist should be used based purely on the story the game wants to tell, like when your building a character from the ground up (like in DA:O).  A silent protagonist shouldn't be used in a game where the main character has a set back story.

5) Finally, I raise the question: can you make a game accessible and streamlined and still keep it deep and complex? I'd like to think the answer is "yes" to that, but BioWare have yet to prove it. At all. And it doesn't seem they're even trying. I'm sure people will say that the DA2 team have eaten a lot of humble pie lately, but I saw a fairly recent comment from Laidlaw that basically said they're looking to find a balance between DA2 and Origins. That just says to me they're lost and not even working in the area they should.

Until people can agree (or even formulate) what makes a game "deep and complex" you are asking for an impossible task to be completed.  Take the argument about making companions armor fixxed in ME2.  Equipping armor in ME1 was not complex by any stretch, as armor only effected 3 stats.  At the end game you only needed 1 type of armor, as it was VASTLY stronger then the rest of them.  That isn't complex in anyway.  

Complex would be having 3-5 different armors, all close in stats, to chose from where your talents and skills also effect how good your armor preforms, in addition to how the armor affects your character in actual gameplay (like movement, amount of ammo held, use of powers, viability of cover, ect.).  That would be complex.

Complex shouldn't mean a game plays and looks like an old title.  Complexity in a game should mean that it effects the game in a manner that requires us to think about our decisions and how they would alter the way we play the game.

[naughty99]

Wusword77 wrote...

I like complexity in my games, but it's a matter of the RIGHT type of complexity.  Having complexity for the sake of complexity is just foolish.  Having to go through 40 menus to see all the adjustments equiping your +6 Sword instead of your +5 Sword is not a good form of Complexity, it's a waste of my time.  

You make a great point Wusword.

Greater complexity can certainly enhance the role-playing experience, but only when it actually adds meaningful choices and activities for the player.

You can add hundreds of stats to a game in a half-assed effort to mimic D&D math, but without meaningful choices, actions you can choose to perform in order to take on the role of your character, those stats do not make it any more of a role-playing game.

Modifié par naughty99, 10 août 2011 - 08:57 .

[Lord Phoebus]

Wusword77 wrote...
Still no actual definition on what a RPG is.

RPG's are the only Genre that does not have a solid definition, all others are based off gameplay elements (or even camrea angles), but RPGs vary so much in game play that you can't define the genre by 1 or even 2 game play aspects.

About 10-12 years ago there was a gameplay based definition that defined what a CRPG was. A CRPG was the computer simulation of a PnP RPG system.  It did not need to be an established PnP system, but it did have to follow rules that could be played in a PnP.  Just like the TBS genre is based on wargaming, so was the CRPG genre based on PnP RPG.  That meant the games were turn based like TBS, but opposed to controlling armies, you controlled either an individual or a group of individuals that formed a party.  Any game that was a RPG in that time would have those mechanics.  The difference between TBS and RPG was one of scale.  That changed with games like Diablo that called itself an Action RPG and the Baldur's Gate series that introduced RTWP.  What RTS was to TBS, RTWP was to the RPG.  Since then changes to the genre have spiralled out of control and the title is meaningless.

The traditional gameplay definition does still exist but virtually no games made since 2000 would fit in that box. 

[Nightdragon8]

hmm... I agree that would be true but, other than the PnP part of the definition, I would say that in relity RPG is still well and good. Considering you have things like +hit chance and +crit chance

Thats basicly the same thing as D&D feats, that add +(static number) to hit, and chaning a crit on a 20 to a crit on a 19-20, or 18-20 and so on.

So in reality the RPG mencanics are still good. Even with Diablo, and more so with Diablo 2 considering Diablo 2 had said hit and cirt chance modifiers.

So other than the PnP aspect of the modern games RPG still applies. As far as I know the 2 main systems out there are the D6 and the D20 systems. In computers I Wouldn't doubt they use a D100 system.

Now Masseffect going more towards 3rd person shooter than RPG, but you still have static skills and what not. Also most 3rd Person shooters don't have any choices you can make.

Modifié par Nightdragon8, 10 août 2011 - 08:14 .

[A Crusty Knight Of Colour]

Lord Phoebus wrote...

Wusword77 wrote...
Still no actual definition on what a RPG is.

RPG's are the only Genre that does not have a solid definition, all others are based off gameplay elements (or even camrea angles), but RPGs vary so much in game play that you can't define the genre by 1 or even 2 game play aspects.

About 10-12 years ago there was a gameplay based definition that defined what a CRPG was. A CRPG was the computer simulation of a PnP RPG system.  It did not need to be an established PnP system, but it did have to follow rules that could be played in a PnP.  Just like the TBS genre is based on wargaming, so was the CRPG genre based on PnP RPG.  That meant the games were turn based like TBS, but opposed to controlling armies, you controlled either an individual or a group of individuals that formed a party.  Any game that was a RPG in that time would have those mechanics.  The difference between TBS and RPG was one of scale.  That changed with games like Diablo that called itself an Action RPG and the Baldur's Gate series that introduced RTWP.  What RTS was to TBS, RTWP was to the RPG.  Since then changes to the genre have spiralled out of control and the title is meaningless.

The traditional gameplay definition does still exist but virtually no games made since 2000 would fit in that box. 

I disagree, honestly. We've been having real time and action RPGs for longer than Diablo and Baldur's Gate.

Ultima VII, arguably the best in the series, was real time. Darklands, a personal favourite of mine, had what would could be called a precursor to Baldur's Gate's RTwP. Then of course there's the Ultima Underworld games, and so forth.

I think what's really changed in the genre is the move away from a universal ruleset in terms of depth, flexibility and overarching importance. For example, the Elder Scrolls retains much of the first two, but is lacking in the latter (or at least Oblivion lacked in the latter). Of course, this means the move away emulating PnPs. So in that, there's agreement. But I don't agree about TBS being the defining game mechanic of RPGs.

Now, I do think personally that it's much easier to get that depth, flexibility and overarching importance with a turn based combat system, but that's a different issue.

Modifié par mrcrusty, 10 août 2011 - 08:54 .

[SalsaDMA]

FoxShadowblade wrote...

There is a major flaw in everyone's logic who argues this: Your going to buy the game, no matter what. BioWare doesn't care past that.

But do I buy it at release, or do I wait till it gets on a sale?

I think they care about THAT.

So far I'm still waiting for DA2 to get down below the 10 quid line before I will bother with trying it. Chances are, with Silvermans "awesome" marketing, that I will do the same with ME3 as things are looking up.

[KenKenpachi]

mrcrusty wrote...

I disagree, honestly. We've been having real time and action RPGs for longer than Diablo and Baldur's Gate.

Exactly, and Turn based games like FF7. The typical RPG market is also way larger overall than the CRPGer's market. Bioware aims for more than that one little group now. Most other companies never aimed at it. So the Question I think LP is reading it as are CRPG's dead? Maybe. But most of the RPGers I ever known were console players from the NES-PsX and onwards.

[A Crusty Knight Of Colour]

KenKenpachi wrote...

Exactly, and Turn based games like FF7. The typical RPG market is also way larger overall than the CRPGer's market. Bioware aims for more than that one little group now. Most other companies never aimed at it. So the Question I think LP is reading it as are CRPG's dead? Maybe. But most of the RPGers I ever known were console players from the NES-PsX and onwards.

Well, you may have brought an unintentional point, but one I do want to explore.

Why do North American RPG makers ignore the market outside of North America when making RPGs? Specifically Europe and Japan.

I understand that to some degree, it's out of their hands (publishers) but when they talk about "expanding the market" or "increasing accessibility", it's always aimed at people who don't play RPGs in the first place. Surely if you don't want to move away from the genre entirely, you'd try and aim at these untapped markets of millions of people who are already fans of the genre. Right?

Modifié par mrcrusty, 10 août 2011 - 01:47 .

[Terror_K]

Wusword77 wrote...

I like complexity in my games, but it's a matter of the RIGHT type of complexity.  Having complexity for the sake of complexity is just foolish.  Having to go through 40 menus to see all the adjustments equiping your +6 Sword instead of your +5 Sword is not a good form of Complexity, it's a waste of my time.  Managing an inventory where your character carries 7 different armors, 18 different weapons, and 40 different accessories isn't complex, it's tedious, pointless, and feels like it breaks character at points (unless you have a bag of holding, which every RPG in the past seemed to have).  Having a whole list of 25 "skills" where only 3-5 of them are acutally used in game isn't complex, it's an underhanded way to make players continue to level up to replace the points they put in Underwater Basket Weaving when they should have put it in Persuade for the Pursuade dialog options.

What complexity is being taken out, that isn't there simply for the sake of Complexity?  What are we losing that can't be done in a less tedious fashion?

I agree, but you're using hyberbole here (not that I also haven't in arguments before, but still...). My basic point is that while, yes, sometimes things can be unnecessarily complex in an RPG, one shouldn't strip out complexity entirely either. My main issue with people who claim ME2 was merely "streamlined" is that I don't think it was because the idea of streamlining is to make things easier and simpler to use, yet still retain the full functionality, and I don't feel ME2 did that. Complexity and customisation is a good thing, but the point is that you should make it user-friendly and easy, but not actually lose the functionality and complexity in the process. ME2 was too guilty of simply stripping, overautomating and watering down its predecessor's mechanics rather than actually streamlining them.

Things like modding, massive reduction of skills, lack of customisation, focus on purely combat abilities, cutting armour classes, cutting omni-tools and biotic amps, etc. were things that were lost and could have been done better rather than just being cut entirely. I'm sure a bunch of people will scream, "but weapon-modding is coming back!" but I'll still have to say, "Yes, but it should never have gone in the first place."

Beyond that, I actually find we didn't gain much except for maybe a bit less faffing about in ME2, and the fact I personally found it more tedious that the game half-playing itself for me outside of basic combat and dialogue choices and that almost every playthrough is essentially the same. A game can be tedious by not letting you tweak and play with things enough just as much as it can be for making you do it too much unnecessarily.

Considering no one can define what an RPG is and what the stables of the Genre are, what makes you think that YOU "get" what a "RPG" is?

Aside from how long I've been playing them and the many different kinds, the fact that my definition is the one shared by the industry as a whole. Everything that's been labeled as an RPG by the industry and not just by personal opinions is what I consider an RPG. Not because I believe that following their definition is merely the choice we all should make because they do, but because I happen to agree with it. As much as people argue about what an RPG is the simple fact is this: an RPG by definition of the industry as a whole has some form of statistical character progression and ruleset that governs the game and that is the major focus of the game. Baldur's Gate, Fallout, the SSI Gold Box titles, Oblivion, Diablo 2, FF VII, Mass Effect, etc. all have this, and that's what I consider to be an RPG.

Roleplaying a character isn't the defining factor because almost every game does that, and dialogue and choices with impact aren't because plenty of adventure and other non-RPG games do that too. A statistical progression and ruleset is the one factor that all RPG games, as defined by the industry itself, have. I think too many people are caught up in what they believe is important to them as an RPG rather than what really defines one. Many people really don't care about the statistical side and like the narrative, dialogue and dynamic choice elements that many modern RPGs have chosen to incorporate, but that's merely a common factor to modern RPGs that they like, and not actually the elements that truly define it. I enjoy these elements a great deal myself, and they're actually why I prefer BioWare RPGs to most others, but I don't define an RPG by these factors because I realise they are secondary, optional factors and not primary ones when it comes to a definition. I define an RPG by what it actually is, not by what I enjoy most about it.

Whats amazing about a company deciding to move in a new direction?  Plus having a "voiced" (I'm using the term loosely here) protagonist isn't anything new.  Square did this decades ago in the FInal Fantasy games and it's worked out for them.  I agree that a silent protagonist isn't a dated mechanic, but it is not something that fits into every RPG (or game for that matter).  Something like a silent protagonist should be used based purely on the story the game wants to tell, like when your building a character from the ground up (like in DA:O).  A silent protagonist shouldn't be used in a game where the main character has a set back story.

There's nothing wrong with a voiced-protagonist per se. I believe that either method is a tool one can choose to use or not, and agree that it depends on the circumstances as to whether one is better over the other. What I don't agree with is a lead BioWare developer basically saying that this is a false assumption, that the silent protagonist is dated/archaic and one that'll never be used again in future BioWare games in such a stubborn, obtuse manner. Especially in a series that suits it far more than a voiced one (i.e. Dragon Age). But then that series overall has gone from "epic return to our PC, RPG roots and spiritual successor of Baldur's Gate" to "short, generic, console-oriented action RPG made for the mainstream" before the IP barely even took off.

Until people can agree (or even formulate) what makes a game "deep and complex" you are asking for an impossible task to be completed.  Take the argument about making companions armor fixxed in ME2.  Equipping armor in ME1 was not complex by any stretch, as armor only effected 3 stats.  At the end game you only needed 1 type of armor, as it was VASTLY stronger then the rest of them.  That isn't complex in anyway.  

Complex would be having 3-5 different armors, all close in stats, to chose from where your talents and skills also effect how good your armor preforms, in addition to how the armor affects your character in actual gameplay (like movement, amount of ammo held, use of powers, viability of cover, ect.).  That would be complex.

Complex shouldn't mean a game plays and looks like an old title.  Complexity in a game should mean that it effects the game in a manner that requires us to think about our decisions and how they would alter the way we play the game.

I largely agree with your statement. But I also have to ask how either ME2 or DA2 brought complexity to the table at all? It's all well and good to say, "ME1 was't terribly complex" but you can't exactly damn one game for trying and failing when its sequel just didn't even seem to try at all, and deliberately so to pretty much avoid all complexity possible.

[sp0ck 06]

The endless debate about what is or is not an RPG and where ME fits will never be decided. I could argue that almost every modern video game has statistical progression and a ruleset.

There are so many different systems of RPGs, and so many ideas about "what makes an RPG" that it's almost impossible to draw a line and say "these games are not RPGs, these games are." Games like Mass Effect, Red Dead Redemption, BioShock, Heavy Rain, Diablo...all push genre boundries. Yet it seems it's always the RPG fans who are upset by these games. I've never seen anyone complaining that ME isn't a real shooter, or that Diablo isn't a real action game. I think it's because 10-20 years ago, RPGs were a very niche genre that encompassed a specific fanbase. Over time, as game budgets increased and games became more mainstream, developers like BioWare started pushing out from the traditional RPG constraints. I understand why this upsets old school RPG fans, but I don't think this makes games like ME "worse."

It's just not an RPG in the traditional sense. So what? I don't think BW should feel like they "have" to put in an inventory, or lots of stat sheets, because "this HAS to be an RPG." They just need to make the best game they can, genre definitions be dammed.

That being said, I think there's some simple, minor things they could throw in that not only would appease the grognards, would make for a more enjoyable game.

-Give us a real team character sheet screen, a la BG2. Doesn't have to be loaded on stats, but just give us some info. Like, which team members have been used the most. Who has the most kills? Most used powers? Strongest enemy defeated? Include a bio and the skill trees, of course.

-Here's an RPGish idea for medi gel: make it a valuable resource, stored on the Normandy. It can be sold, "donated" at various places (like the clinic on Omega) for paragon points, or towards shadowy research groups for renegade points, taken on missions for combat (of course), and be required for unlocking powerful armor upgrades. It could be created from mined resources, using some complex formula no one would understand and the number crunchers could figure out.

Give up us more RPG features only if it results in a better game, not just for the sake of having RPG features.

[Spatia]

Evolution is good (and inevitable) but developers must not lose touch with what fans want from the genre.

The action RPG sub-genre is thriving at the moment - the real challenge seems to be to create a tactical RPG that fits with comtemporary video games without watering down gameplay elements.

A lot of traditional RPG elements are frustrating (long-winded item management, grinding) so the trick is to remove what is frustrating to the everyday gamer whilst keeping what makes the genre immersive (strong dialogue, deep character progression, tactical combat, exciting quests).

An RPG doesn't need to be a watered down action RPG to have widespread appeal.

Modifié par Spatia, 10 août 2011 - 04:04 .

[In Exile]

Terror_K wrote...
2) I agree with the sentiment that BioWare (and other developers) have garnered a lot of people who claim to love RPGs and be RPG fans, but seem to more accurately want story-driven action and/or adventure games. There are just so many people in this thread that don't seem to even "get" RPGs and don't even get why a statistical form of progression is necessary that illustrates that.

This point is re-hashed so often it is almost like religious dogma, but that doesn't make it true. 

We don't want adventure games. Adventure games have fixed protagonists, fixed stories, gameplay we are not interested in (by and large). "Story-driven" games, as well, offer no customization for the protagonist, no branching plot choice with the opportunity to generate motives for actions, the list goes on.

More importantly, people like me (who basically disagree with you on everything) would agree that "statistical progression" is neccesary to an RPG... but then we'd radically disagree on what it means to implement that, how it should be implemented, and what it means in general to have it. 

For example, I'd say ME1 lacked it and ME2 implemented it as well as ME1.

Whenever you want to make your point about some vague statement that you think means something specific, you wind up with the exact same problem you had in your OP when you say that "77% of people disapprove".  

3) Its amazing how BioWare's philosophy has changed, particularly since the EA take-over. Look at Dragon Age for instance: the things the developers were saying then were so contrasting compared to what they're saying now and when they were making DA2. The voiced vs. silent protagonist is a classic and obvious example, with the developers flip-flopping between games.

It really isn't. Bioware always stands up for their current game over their past games. It's been their modus operandi since as long as I've been following the company.

Here's the best example: in ME1, Bioware defended VO as the next big thing in RPGs, as the way to get even closer to your character, and especially defended the paraphrase as a way of putting you in the shoes of your character by letting you pick the thoughts as they formed your head. 

The exact analogy given was that when people have ideas or desires they want to voice, they don't carefully compose them - they do it on the fly, and they don't always say exactly what they though.

But Bioware bactracked on this totally for ME2, with their BS third vs. first person narrative jive. 

More importantly, Bioware stopped caring about what you think are core RPG design elements with KoTOR, when it radically simplified the design, and then made JE and ME1. 

In the former case they defended the silent protagonist against those who wanted a voiced character for all the right reasons: about how it gives the player more control, more variety and choices for roleplaying and dialogue, allows them a larger game and more choice of races for the player, how it allows the player to define their character's personality more and give them their own voice, etc. and that overall it's merely a mechanic one can use or not, and isn't dated. 

No. They said this stuff because they wanted 1) to pander to a fanbase and 2) to try and justify it to ME fans, who were at that point their major fanbase. 

As I keep having to say, Bioware was never the company you thought it was. Hell, they were at the forefront of DLC development back with "premium modules" for NWN. 

[In Exile]

mrcrusty wrote...
I understand that to some degree, it's out of their hands (publishers) but when they talk about "expanding the market" or "increasing accessibility", it's always aimed at people who don't play RPGs in the first place. Surely if you don't want to move away from the genre entirely, you'd try and aim at these untapped markets of millions of people who are already fans of the genre. Right?

No, they're really not western RPG fans at all. Japanese RPGs have mechanics that are somewhat similar... but the kind of story design is totally alien to what RPGs fans would want, because there RPG mechanics are pure gameplay, and dialogue & story aren't gameplay.

It's the absolute height of story-gameplay segregation. Fixed protagonists, no dialogue choices, the "game" ruleset being 100% independent from the "story" ruleset. There are games that out and out talk about "story" mode and "gameplay" mode. 

[KenKenpachi]

In Exile wrote...

mrcrusty wrote...
I understand that to some degree, it's out of their hands (publishers) but when they talk about "expanding the market" or "increasing accessibility", it's always aimed at people who don't play RPGs in the first place. Surely if you don't want to move away from the genre entirely, you'd try and aim at these untapped markets of millions of people who are already fans of the genre. Right?

No, they're really not western RPG fans at all. Japanese RPGs have mechanics that are somewhat similar... but the kind of story design is totally alien to what RPGs fans would want, because there RPG mechanics are pure gameplay, and dialogue & story aren't gameplay.

It's the absolute height of story-gameplay segregation. Fixed protagonists, no dialogue choices, the "game" ruleset being 100% independent from the "story" ruleset. There are games that out and out talk about "story" mode and "gameplay" mode. 

Wow guess I'm not an RPG gamer then...-sighs- *removes Jade Empire from his X-box live, ME:1, ME:2, various other RPG's.* All because I happen to like JRPGS and FF7....wow.

mrcrusty wrote...
Well, you may have brought an unintentional point, but one I do want to explore.

Why do North American RPG makers ignore the market outside of North America when making RPGs? Specifically Europe and Japan.

I understand that to some degree, it's out of their hands (publishers) but when they talk about "expanding the market" or "increasing accessibility", it's always aimed at people who don't play RPGs in the first place. Surely if you don't want to move away from the genre entirely, you'd try and aim at these untapped markets of millions of people who are already fans of the genre. Right?

Ask me it has to do with the Good Ole "Lulz Asians are Alien from us" far too many people like Exile up there have in reguards to them in general. Its still alive and well, [raticularly state side, I've Heard Anime Called "****** Crap" more often than anything else.

[SirLysander]

Lord Phoebus wrote...

About 10-12 years ago there was a gameplay based definition that defined what a CRPG was. A CRPG was the computer simulation of a PnP RPG system.  It did not need to be an established PnP system, but it did have to follow rules that could be played in a PnP.  Just like the TBS genre is based on wargaming, so was the CRPG genre based on PnP RPG.  That meant the games were turn based like TBS, but opposed to controlling armies, you controlled either an individual or a group of individuals that formed a party.  Any game that was a RPG in that time would have those mechanics.  The difference between TBS and RPG was one of scale.  That changed with games like Diablo that called itself an Action RPG and the Baldur's Gate series that introduced RTWP.  What RTS was to TBS, RTWP was to the RPG.  Since then changes to the genre have spiralled out of control and the title is meaningless.

The traditional gameplay definition does still exist but virtually no games made since 2000 would fit in that box. 

And even then, digital RPGs can be only a representation of what a real-world (Tabletop) RPG can do.

As pointed out, what "makes" an RPG is not the mechanics involved but how, within those mechanics, decisions and choices (especially choices!) are presented and made. 

Some definitions for clarity; I linked to a video earlier - decisions lead to goal-solving (need more damage, should I use the +4 sword or the +6 sword?) versus determining what the goal is ("Join the Dark Brotherhood?" or to a much lesser extent "Let DA2 sibling die, join X, or join the Wardens?')  DA:O was clever in disguising decisions as choices - the best example is Elves vs Werewolves.  On the face (and most of the considerations) it looks like a choice between the two; however, within the context of the game, especially for the final battle, it's a decision between melee fighters and ranged fighters.  Other than the Mages, there are no other ranged fighters.  Who do you "chose" now?   I'm just afraid that the choice of LI in ME1 is going to come back in ME3 as a delayed-optimization decision.  (Or, look at it this way - would you replay ME1 and ME2 is it turns out having the Rachnai around in ME3 is an immense, substantial, help?  Or, the other way - a massive hinderance?)

And, lest you think I think Tabletop is a panacea, try this: go to your Friendly Local Gaming Store (the one with the books, not the DVDs) and yell out: "1st Ed AD&D, 2nd Ed AD&D, Red Box/OD&D, 3.x Ed D&D, or that _____ they call 4th Edition - which is better?"  Make sure you have bombsquad-capable body armor, and more'n a few tazers.  It makes the 'CRPGs - adapting or dying' debate here look like a sedate discussion over tea.

[In Exile]

KenKenpachi wrote...
 Wow guess I'm not an RPG gamer then...-sighs- *removes Jade Empire from his X-box live, ME:1, ME:2, various other RPG's.* All because I happen to like JRPGS and FF7....wow.

That's not what I'm saying. What I'm saying is that FF7 (for example) is different enough from ME1 that you can't make the same game to appeal to both fans, because they don't want the same game. FF7 fans could be ME1 fans, but ME1 is very different from FF7. 

Ask me it has to do with the Good Ole "Lulz Asians are Alien from us" far too many people like Exile up there have in reguards to them in general. Its still alive and well, [raticularly state side, I've Heard Anime Called "****** Crap" more often than anything else.

What the hell are you talking about? 

What I said, again, was that JRPGs are very different from western RPGs, and it's not as simply as just saying "Look! ME1 is an RPG! You should like to too because your genre has the word RPG in it!"

Modifié par In Exile, 10 août 2011 - 07:50 .

[Rockworm503]

I think RPG as a term should just die.... hear me out
The use of the term has lost meaning.
Some people call anything an RPG from Zelda to Uncharted why? Because you play a role in a game? Then you have people who refuse to see anything outside of stats and turn based.
So RPG as we know it needs to go. If the game is good who cares what label it has?

[Lord Phoebus]

mrcrusty wrote...

I disagree, honestly. We've been having real time and action RPGs for longer than Diablo and Baldur's Gate.

Ultima VII, arguably the best in the series, was real time. Darklands, a personal favourite of mine, had what would could be called a precursor to Baldur's Gate's RTwP. Then of course there's the Ultima Underworld games, and so forth.

I'll conceed there were a few exceptions to the rule, but they didn't have the overall influence on the genre that Diablo and the Infinity Engine had.  You can't argue the fact that those games marked a turning point in the direction of the WRPG market.

[Lord Phoebus]

Rockworm503 wrote...

I think RPG as a term should just die.... hear me out
The use of the term has lost meaning.
Some people call anything an RPG from Zelda to Uncharted why? Because you play a role in a game? Then you have people who refuse to see anything outside of stats and turn based.
So RPG as we know it needs to go. If the game is good who cares what label it has?

I agree the term in the current market is meaningless and should die.

What's more reviewers don't judge RPG gameplay based on the gameplay of the genre that the game is using.  That lets the crop of modern 'RPGs" get away with bad mechanics.  The reason I like ME2 more than ME isn't because it's a better RPG, neither of them are RPGs, but because it's a better TPS.  I really don't mind that BioWare is making games in different genres, but I object to them being called RPGs, and if you make a game in a different genre make sure the gameplay measures up to other games in the genre.  So if you make a TPS-"RPG" the gameplay should be at least as good as GoW, if it's a FPS it should be a match for Far Cry or FEAR, if it's Action it should match Batman:AA or God of War.  Frankly, both BioWare and Bethesda have been handled with kid gloves when it comes to their gameplay.

Modifié par Lord Phoebus, 10 août 2011 - 08:29 .

[KenKenpachi]

In Exile wrote...
What the hell are you talking about? 

That's not what I'm saying. What I'm saying is that FF7 (for example) is different enough from ME1 that you can't make the same game to appeal to both fans, because they don't want the same game. FF7 fans could be ME1 fans, but ME1 is very different from FF7. 

What I said, again, was that JRPGs are very different from western RPGs, and it's not as simply as just saying "Look! ME1 is an RPG! You should like to too because your genre has the word RPG in it!"

Hmm my mistake the way your post was worded reminded me of some typical attitudes in terms of things and idea's from the east. This is the net after all, can't really put emotions into words. 

In any case on to your reply.


I on the first part don't feel that is the case. I like RPGs in general but for differing points on a game to game base. However some RPGS like Mass Effect have done well on the international Market. And I wouldn't say ME:1-2 are WRPGS so much as the new design of RPG's in general. And I myself have never liked your more typical CRPG's.

And while True many RPG's today reguardless of WRPG or JRPG are mostly the same in most respects. More so in Mechanics, look at say FF13 and your typical RPG today, in terms of Mechanics and usser interface they are getting closer and closer, mainly the Western ones are "dumbing down" to the same level, while stories stay the same, which to me makes perfect sense given the far larger market globally and stateside that started with JRPG's versus CRPGs.


But the Market isn't dying. I loved Turn based RPG's and I used to turn down any real time ones, but I tried them, and now I just can't play turn based for long periods and I dont expect them to come back. Alot of CRPGers I've seen on here can't handle that it seems.  I mean as long as we can keep in the Region of say Skyrim, ME:3 and to an Extent DA:2 I'm happy. To me its more based on either a well scripted story with leveling mechanics, or multiple path with same mechanics to make an RPG. Not rolling a ****ing wizard and having 1000 items.  The worse thing that can happen and has is Fable 3. Which it and its next game I will never call an RPG.


But as rock pointed out those games have went so far, and changed so much, why bother? There is no RPG's period. There are many games with RPG elements crossed with other things, such as Origins beaing and Action Adventure RPG. Or Fallout a Shooter RPG. But what was the last "Real" RPG? Last I can think of was in the 90's.

Modifié par KenKenpachi, 10 août 2011 - 08:17 .

[Wusword77]

Terror_K wrote...
I agree, but you're using hyberbole here (not that I also haven't in arguments before, but still...). My basic point is that while, yes, sometimes things can be unnecessarily complex in an RPG, one shouldn't strip out complexity entirely either. My main issue with people who claim ME2 was merely "streamlined" is that I don't think it was because the idea of streamlining is to make things easier and simpler to use, yet still retain the full functionality, and I don't feel ME2 did that. Complexity and customisation is a good thing, but the point is that you should make it user-friendly and easy, but not actually lose the functionality and complexity in the process. ME2 was too guilty of simply stripping, overautomating and watering down its predecessor's mechanics rather than actually streamlining them.

Things like modding, massive reduction of skills, lack of customisation, focus on purely combat abilities, cutting armour classes, cutting omni-tools and biotic amps, etc. were things that were lost and could have been done better rather than just being cut entirely. I'm sure a bunch of people will scream, "but weapon-modding is coming back!" but I'll still have to say, "Yes, but it should never have gone in the first place."

Beyond that, I actually find we didn't gain much except for maybe a bit less faffing about in ME2, and the fact I personally found it more tedious that the game half-playing itself for me outside of basic combat and dialogue choices and that almost every playthrough is essentially the same. A game can be tedious by not letting you tweak and play with things enough just as much as it can be for making you do it too much unnecessarily.

But what constitutes "streamlining" and what is "watering it down?"  I consider the removal of unimportant skills to be streamlining, while others consider it as "watered down."  How it is a skill system "watered down" when you get one skill point per level and there are less skills to put points into as opposed to it being steamlined?

Most of this argument, much like the argument about what makes a game "complex" is all based on a matter of opinion.  

Aside from how long I've been playing them and the many different kinds, the fact that my definition is the one shared by the industry as a whole. Everything that's been labeled as an RPG by the industry and not just by personal opinions is what I consider an RPG. Not because I believe that following their definition is merely the choice we all should make because they do, but because I happen to agree with it. As much as people argue about what an RPG is the simple fact is this: an RPG by definition of the industry as a whole has some form of statistical character progression and ruleset that governs the game and that is the major focus of the game. Baldur's Gate, Fallout, the SSI Gold Box titles, Oblivion, Diablo 2, FF VII, Mass Effect, etc. all have this, and that's what I consider to be an RPG.

Roleplaying a character isn't the defining factor because almost every game does that, and dialogue and choices with impact aren't because plenty of adventure and other non-RPG games do that too. A statistical progression and ruleset is the one factor that all RPG games, as defined by the industry itself, have. I think too many people are caught up in what they believe is important to them as an RPG rather than what really defines one. Many people really don't care about the statistical side and like the narrative, dialogue and dynamic choice elements that many modern RPGs have chosen to incorporate, but that's merely a common factor to modern RPGs that they like, and not actually the elements that truly define it. I enjoy these elements a great deal myself, and they're actually why I prefer BioWare RPGs to most others, but I don't define an RPG by these factors because I realise they are secondary, optional factors and not primary ones when it comes to a definition. I define an RPG by what it actually is, not by what I enjoy most about it.

I agree with you here 100%.  I consider an RPG to have some form of statistical progression.  Problem is not everyone feels that way, which is why many debates like this will always happen.

I largely agree with your statement. But I also have to ask how either ME2 or DA2 brought complexity to the table at all? It's all well and good to say, "ME1 was't terribly complex" but you can't exactly damn one game for trying and failing when its sequel just didn't even seem to try at all, and deliberately so to pretty much avoid all complexity possible.

My objective was to point out that people bash ME2 for lacking the "complexity" of ME1 when ME1's complexity was superficial at best.  It's further proff that complexity really lies in the eye of the beholder.

[In Exile]

KenKenpachi wrote...
Hmm my mistake the way your post was worded reminded me of some typical attitudes in terms of things and idea's from the east. This is the net after all, can't really put emotions into words.  

Apology accepted. People admitting their mistakes online is even rarer than that, and I should have been more clear myself.

I on the first part don't feel that is the case. I like RPGs in general but for differing points on a game to game base. However some RPGS like Mass Effect have done well on the international Market. And I wouldn't say ME:1-2 are WRPGS so much as the new design of RPG's in general. And I myself have never liked your more typical CRPG's.

Neither have I. But when I think about JRPGs... I think of essentially the typical shonen anime storyline with gameplay in-between the story portions. It's archetypical, at this point. 

And while True many RPG's today reguardless of WRPG or JRPG are mostly the same in most respects. More so in Mechanics, look at say FF13 and your typical RPG today, in terms of Mechanics and usser interface they are getting closer and closer, mainly the Western ones are "dumbing down" to the same level, while stories stay the same, which to me makes perfect sense given the far larger market globally and stateside that started with JRPG's versus CRPGs.

I think western mechanics could be catchy, but JRPG turn based is very different than western turn-based, with the only exception being the JRPG turn-based strategy games.

But the Market isn't dying. I loved Turn based RPG's and I used to turn down any real time ones, but I tried them, and now I just can't play turn based for long periods and I dont expect them to come back. Alot of CRPGers I've seen on here can't handle that it seems.  I mean as long as we can keep in the Region of say Skyrim, ME:3 and to an Extent DA:2 I'm happy. To me its more based on either a well scripted story with leveling mechanics, or multiple path with same mechanics to make an RPG. Not rolling a ****ing wizard and having 1000 items.  The worse thing that can happen and has is Fable 3. Which it and its next game I will never call an RPG.

I'm not even sure I'd call the next Fable a game. Isn't it some onrails kinetic shooter?

[KenKenpachi]

Yeah but whats his name over at lionhead says its an RPG and a game, a "innovation", honestly I'm sick of listening to him...

And yeah the Turn based styles do differ. As to the Manga style, yeah the newer JRPGs are alot like that, why I play very few of them now. Its not like Say back with FF7 and Legend of Dragoon. Still I don't think we'll see turn based minus on handhelds. But overall I think that all things considerd the RPG market is doing well. I mean with the global downturn, and the small pool of players when you look at other game types, it could be alot worse.

[In Exile]

KenKenpachi wrote...

Yeah but whats his name over at lionhead says its an RPG and a game, a "innovation", honestly I'm sick of listening to him...

That's your mistake. I'm pretty sure he calls a toilet bowl "an ocean of calm, ready to accept the useless excess of the tired and exhausted man." Saying he peddles BS is an understatement of epic proportions.

And yeah the Turn based styles do differ. As to the Manga style, yeah the newer JRPGs are alot like that, why I play very few of them now.

If you start reading manga & anime (I had an ex-gf who was really into them, so I went through all of shonen with her, and I'm a bit of a seinen/martial arts fan now) you really see how the least imaginative and innovative stories around are JRPGs, in the sense that it's exactly like how western media just has a set view of science fiction/fantasy.

Let me put it this way: if a high school setting (FF8) is involved, then it's as deritative as anime can get. 

Its not like Say back with FF7 and Legend of Dragoon. Still I don't think we'll see turn based minus on handhelds. But overall I think that all things considerd the RPG market is doing well. I mean with the global downturn, and the small pool of players when you look at other game types, it could be alot worse.

I really liked Legend of Dragoon. My second RPG beside FF8 (and man, I didn't like FF8). 

Modifié par In Exile, 10 août 2011 - 09:35 .