1002 réponses à ce sujet

[TwistedComplex]

Vyse_Fina wrote...

That's why Bioware stopped calling 3 a RPG right?

"a" rpg

[Redcoat]

This is starting to remind me of the old "roll-playing versus role-playing" argument, where you have the "role-players" who insist that character-based skill, stat checks, dice rolls, and such only "get in the way," "aren't immersive," "don't involve actual role-playing," and so on. The "roll-players" then insist that "role-players" ought to stick to LARPing and keep their terrible acting out of their games.

Of course, I would say that "Roll-playing" is the only thing you CAN do in a CRPG, since a computer can't recognise "acting."

[Il Divo]

Redcoat wrote...

This is starting to remind me of the old "roll-playing versus role-playing" argument, where you have the "role-players" who insist that character-based skill, stat checks, dice rolls, and such only "get in the way," "aren't immersive," "don't involve actual role-playing," and so on. The "roll-players" then insist that "role-players" ought to stick to LARPing and keep their terrible acting out of their games.

Of course, I would say that "Roll-playing" is the only thing you CAN do in a CRPG, since a computer can't recognise "acting."

It's not that the computer can't recognize acting, but rather how much acting it can recognize is limited. Characters do respond to player dialogue, actions, romances, etc, which builds the sense that you are role-playing. The problem is that, with a pen and paper DM, the # of role-playing options are effectively limitless, where a cRPG can't imagine all the permutations.

However, even pen and paper possesses its own limitations. Since you are playing with other characters, you are forced to "share the spotlight" and often must consult when making decisions. Certain role-playing concepts (such as evil characters) can also be restricted, on the chance that it results in party-killing.

[Phaedon]

 

 Gatt9 wrote...
An RPG is a computer translation of a Pen and Paper experience,  and for it to fullfill this criteria,  it must be translatable back to PnP.  From there the counter-responses are all "But I want them to be like this!",  pure attempts to divide RPG offline and RPG online into two completely different catagories.

didymos1120 wrote...

Phaedon wrote...
Other than your usual self-contradictive cr@p about LARPs, are you seriosly saying that the term "role-playing game" wasn't coined until DnD ADnD?

Yep, you're absoultely correct on this score.  The Oxford English Dictionary's earliest citation (sorry, it does require a subscription) for the term dates from 1954:
1954 H. I. Driver Multiple Counseling vi. 115 The rules of this role-playing game included reversing roles at anytime in the conversation the leader dictated.

Phaedon wrote...Other than your usual self-contradictive cr@p about LARPs, are you seriosly saying that the term "role-playing game" wasn't coined until DnD ADnD?
Get out. Original role-playing games had NOTHING to do with what you call RPG. 
If you want to post random links of badly done websites, here is another one: http://www.rpg.net/o...goverview.html.
I could go as far as post a GeoCities site. 

Periodic Retreats to Denial Mode: An In Depth Study of Online Debates

brb writing paper

[Varen Spectre]

Ouch, this post is bigger than any other before... Any medicaments against graphomania?  Anyway, whoever decides to read this good luck... 

[quote]Phaedon wrote...

Well, I appreciate your stance, too, but I honestly don't see this coming to an end.

We have yet to agree on a single definition of "depth".[/quote]

Mmm, I don’t think we have to… and I don’t mean it in any negative way.

Despite that you accuse me of forgetting about the beginning of our discussion, I am convinced that I remember it quite well. You said that in your opinion ME2 had stats several times deeper than ME1. Consequently, I asked you why and you explained yourself – firstly the reasons and later in the discussion, also what you actually mean by deeper.

So, I guess that’s it.

It turned out that by deeper you meant something else than what I originally expected (I thought about the depth of stats purely as indicator of size [scale] of degree to which variables can be modified and alternatively also as
indicator of number of variables which can be modified), so of course your perception of “depth” of ME1’s or ME2’s stats was different than mine… but… that’s O.K. At least for me.

Like I said (and even you in the beginning), I don’t see any fun in discussing the meaning or appropriate use of words (you can see that from many of my previous posts in which I asked [let] you to decide what term should we use in our further discussion), especially those that can have more meanings or uses…

Moreover, I have even said that if I had accepted your definition of depth, I would have most likely come to similar conclusion… that the stats in ME2 are undoubtedly deeper. With one difference though, that I generally prefer little
bit smaller levels, so my perception of what would be perfect balance between size of effects of individual levels (your “= Attributes which allow the player to not just be static, but diverse from State A to State B without causing balance problems =”) and feeling of progression would be somewhat different and as a result, ME2 would be for me little bit “too deep” (too big differences between levels, too fast progression, etc.). 

So I don’t think there’s much more to do. Well, except for figuring out what Bioware wanted to accomplish by creating ME1 stat system the way they created it… But that’s already been taken into account in your definition of depth.

[quote]And yet, what you are saying here is:

That objectively, BioWare planned to have both systems at once, but just failed in the balance a bit, and that the latter is actually subjective.

Suppose that that is true, though the burden of proof is on you on this one. The fact that they actually had scaled enemies and still failed to balance the game means the problem obviously lies far deeper than the execution.[/quote]

Well, it’s really hard to presume what developers wanted to accomplish with their game… Also it is by far my least favorite type of discussion – to speak on behalf of other people, especially the developers of one of my favorite games…

So I don’t know… but let’s look at what we know or can figure out about ME1:

- Like you said, ME1 provides player with several squadmates who excell at different things, as a result player’s character does not have to be (decently) good at everything but can fully focus on selected few abilities and perfect
them. The combination of specialized Shepard with specialized squadmates then provides room for teamplay and makes game easier. I agree with everything. The question though is, does ME1 encourage specialization or does it enforce it by punishing those who do not pursue it?

- Bioware used to be, and at the time of development, definitely were pretty happy with how the level-scaling worked:

“The difficulty scales up to the level of the player perfectly. We do have adjustable difficulties in the options screen for those players who want things to be harder or easier, but the game instinctively keeps things challenging and fun as you play.”
 
And they weren’t even talking about harder difficulties but probably something in the middle.

- As Mass Effect Wikia states, not all enemies scale at the same pace as Shepard on majority of difficulties. That means that player does not have to invest everything to selected few skills to keep up with enemies... And as we have seen, Bioware was saisfied with that… And yes, you can pick hardcore dfficulty as a referential one, but that way you are probably picking the setting with artificially boosted enemies for players who want "things to be harder" than Bioware originally intended as "baseline Mass Effect experience".

- Player can’t invest all his (her) skillpoints into the talents he (she) may want to. Not sure if you remember it, but limits to which talents can be developed are being unlocked only gradually as Shepard reaches higher levels (IRC firstly player can invest only 4 talent points into a particular talent, later 8 or something like that, etc. until entire talent is unlocked completely). This means that even if player solely wanted to pursue Shepard’s specialization, he (she) can’t. He (she) has to invest talent points somewhere else or not invest them until the talent is unlocked further.

- ME1 was the first game in the series… It’s safe to presume that developers would not want to overdo it with restrictions, limits or punishments in their new game, first in the series …

So, now I have two options… 

… Either to think that Bioware indeed wanted to pursue specialization and “failed to” enforce it by properly setting level scaling system, blocked it / slowed it down by placing talent limits which prevent player to invest skillpoints into one talent and thus truly develop it at faster rate than others, and were so bold with their (unfortunately “badly executed”) specialization system, that they did not care, that many players may fail to understand it and may screw themselves with badly invested skillpoints (not into few specialized talents) in their new game… 

… Or I can think that Bioware wanted to create a game that would reward specialization (well, relative specialization, since as I have pointed out, there are many restraints) and creative builds, but would not punish those who can’t / won’t make them and thus created a game that allows to develop a character with either evenly developed abilities (with which the game would be playable and player would not be punished, but would not be rewarded in comparison to "specialization" either) - which could in our discussion translate into allowing “growth” (as long as Shepard could still improve at faster rate than majority of his (her) enemies, which should not be that hard to accomplish, on some of the lower / middle difficulties [which were probably mentioned in the interview I posted] or properly picked and (in comparison to other talents relatively) specialized abilities (with which the player will be rewarded by overall more powerful team and easier times during battles) - which should translate into encouraging but not enforcing specialization. 

Since I presume that developers from Bioware are smart guys (Mass Effects are great games after all), the idea that they “failed” so badly with their plan, does not seem plausible to me. IMO it seems more like they were not fully committed to the idea of specialization back then.

As for the question whether they failed to make a balanced game and whether it is subjective or not, check further paragraphs (somewhere near the end).

[quote]And that is far from the actual issue, since 

1) pragmatically, your concepts explicitly state features that are not found in the Mass Effect games. Therefore, they can't be relevant.[/quote]

Well, in order for you to say, whether the point which I wanted to highlight by my example (that focusing on measuring individual levels may result in neglecting overall effect which might be larger in the other game) is relevant to Mass Effects’ stats systems or not, you would actually need to know which Mass Effect allows to modify majority of variables to larger overall degree. 

If you know that, please tell me and we can end this discussion immediately, because that is (was) my main issue – to not ignore the question, which of the Mass Efffects allows to change majority of variables (damage, health, protection,etc.) to larger degree.

Given though, how you started to compare health boosts from ME1 with damage boosts in ME2, I would probably need to check your comparison for potential mistakes… 

[quote]2) you politely refuse to contribute to nailing a definition of depth, so that we can actually debate on something meaningful and not just beat around an invisible bush.[/quote]

I can express my opinion on stats easily (and take some flak for it as I did when I expressed my opinion about “balance” in ME1  That’s O.K. JK.), but I would definitely do so without using the term deep. I do not want to confuse anyone by using terms which can be interpreted in more than one way.

[quote]Reinventing the wheel won't help, unless we want to invent a square wheel to avoid the real reason behind the wheel.

Depth is a word with a rather straightforward consensus on its definition.[/quote] 

And yet I am convinced that, when you said that stats in ME2 are several times deeper than stats in ME1, not everyone knew (or would know) what you meant by that without your further explanation.

[quote]Since you have chosen to actually ignore the specific origins of the debate and still want to debate over depth when at the same time you say that depth is not necessarily a good thing (which tbh, is beyond me), you will have to apply the metaphorical definition of "deep" on "stat" or "choice".[/quote]

But that’s what I did in my previous post with all those “of course… if I agreed that depth means something more
than just size (scale)…”.

[quote]And you are directly contradicting about what you said multiple times earlier about depth.

So, is "deep" to be used as a compliment or a characteristic?[/quote]

I don’t think I am contradicting myself,... maybe I haven’t expressed myself clearly enough. So I’ll try again. 

Like I said, so far I have only considered “depth” of particular stat (e.g. health) as a size of changes between
unleveled and maxed out variable (e.g. unleveled and maxed out health), in other words, between two marginal states of particular variable.

Why marginal and not any other states? Well I believe that if I have decided to measure anything else than size
of differences between two marginal states, I would ignore the size overall effect of leveling up that variable on gameplay.

In other words, there could be a game which could have larger (more meaningful) individual levels (let’s say + 30% or something relatively big) but if their combined effect (let’s say 4 levels which each adds those 1 30% I mentioned, so in total they add 120%) was smaller than combined effect of levels in other game which would have smaller individual levels (let’s say each level + 10%, but in total they would add 200%), I would not call that particular stat deeper, because the level to which the stat system of that game could influence the gameplay would be smaller (effect of +120% is at least mathematically smaller than effect of +200%).

And I think that if people measured solely this aspect (which game can change [level up / upgrade] variable to larger degree), there would be virtually no room for arguing. Because there wouldn’t be anything to argue about. It would be just a question of comparing which number (either calculated or measured) would be larger.

So, I have dared to call this approach in some of my previous posts as “objective”, but maybe the better names would be exact and neutral. Exact because it’s just a question of size of numbers and neutral because it does not describe my or anyone else’s feelings towards those stat systems (if I wanted to give Bioware feedback and express my opinion about the stats I would most likely do so without using the word deeper at all). 

Now let’s compare it with your conditions of how to measure depth. Firstly you say that the size of overall effect of stats or particular stat (i.e. overall size of  how much can be particular variable changed) is not as important in determining its depth as how big are  the differences between individual levels.

Until now it would be as objective as my proposal (in terms of arguability) only with different subject of measuring.
Of course, even at this point someone could argue that the other game (the one with smaller individual levels but larger total effect) actually emulates all the states (or all the options) of the game with larger individual levels (it
just requires to add two or three skillpoints instead of one) and allows to influence the gameplay further (all those levels that exceed the total effect of levels of the game with larger individual levels), but I guess, the objectivity of this method would be still defendable.

Where you however add subjective aspect is your condition that the size of differences between levels (regardless
of whether individual or maximum and minimum) can’t be so big that they would, according to you, cause balance problems. (…= Attributes which allow as drastic change from State A to State B without causing balance problems = Attributes which allow the player to not just be static, but diverse from State A to State B without causing balance problems =…).

And perception of what would or would not cause balance problems is IMO quite subjective. So I have decided to call your approach “subjective”.

Now to the part in which I am, according to you, contradicting myself… I stated that if (and that if is important because it is supposed to express hypothesis) I agreed that depth is something more than just a size (scale), that it is expression of what player considers meaningful, then I would come to similar conclusion as you… Since I used conjunction “if”, I don’t see any contradiction with my previous line of thinking.

[quote]Ehm, okay. In which case, why do you still maintain that the supposed (objective?) powerful Shepard by the end of ME1 was an actual thing, and not an illusion brought to you by other factors?[/quote]

I don’t… I said it was my subjective impression and I am not relying on it too much.

I am very aware of the option that the perception of supposedly “more powerful” Shepard might have been a result of other factors such as worse A.I. ,much more exploitable level design, etc. Or… it might have been a result of being able to up-grade / level up Shepard and his equipment to greater degree than in ME2.

I don’t know… But I have already encouraged anyone to actually calculate, measure and compare in which game the maxed out (maxed out because I want to see maximum effect) weapons, items, armors, abilities (those that are similar) have larger effect in comparison to the most basic ones… 

… by saying, that I would accept the exact results (exact comparisons of numbers [either calculated ones - by counting the numbers alleged in game menus / manuals / etc. or measured ones – by actually measuring how much faster can maxed out Shepard kill an enemy, how much damage he [she] can take, etc. – something like  this) as a fact.

In other words, if somebody has shown me that indeed, in Mass Effect 2 the powers can be maxed out to greater degree (they have larger effect) I would thank him and would admit that it must have been worse A.I., bad design, nostalgia or something else that caused, that I misunderstood the actual effects of stats in ME1.

So hopefully, once and for all, I do not want to convince anyone that Shepard at the end of ME1 was more powerful than Shepard at the end of ME2 in comparison to their respective enemies.

[quote]You are either going to use deep as a compliment or not. 

I am still waiting for a definite answer, but you don't actually seem to have decided by yourself.[/quote]

Well as of now I have taken the “depth of stats” as a size, scale or degree to which variables (powers, abilities, effects of items) can be modified. Because IMO, that reflects the overall degree to which stats can or at least should influence the gameplay (damage + 80% should influence gameplay more than damage + 50%) better. What you are doing is more like comparing (measuring) size of choices… but not entire stat systems – not what is the maximum that player can do with (get out of) those systems. 

[quote]You prefer a game that requires less challenge? You think that it is more deep?

Yeah, I expected this, and honestly, I don't really like repeating myself.

On one hand, you can just spread the points in the skills around, and your Shepard will be the same as before. It's just that the game will be getting progressively easier. A backwards learning curve was intended? Considering that there are dozens of games with "growth" as progression that don't do that... Well...no.[/quote]

Mmm, individual fights with the same type of enemies can (should) be easier with that type of approach. And I for
one don’t think it would be a bad thing, because that was a feature which was, and in many RPGs still is, quite prominent (as the main character levels up, the same types of enemies become weaker and weaker so that player really feels like his character is improving).

However, the fact that same type of enemies would be weaker and weaker as the player progresses, does not necessarily mean that game itself has to be easier and easier. The game can throw more enemies at the player, the enemies might be positioned in much more refined way and last but not least, the game can replace the weaker enemies with newer and stronger types (which though can be considered as a variation of level-scaling if the replacing is done according to player’s level [which is not the case of all those colossi and armatures]).

If all these aspects would be combined appropriately, I don’t think there would be many complaints. To the
contrary, I have seen many complaints about level-scaling itself (especially in Morrowind and Oblivion) and the fact that there are mods which disable it only confirms, that there is a group of people who don’t like it to the point that they are willing to spend a lot of time to just change / remove it in games, the developers of which release proper modding tools.

However, I don’t think that level-scaling per se is a bad thing. It can be a very useful tool to tweak the difficulty and prevent the situation in which game would become too easy. On the other hand, I don’t like the idea of using it as a method of enforcing specialization and punishing players for diverting from pursuing two / three crucial skills.

As for Mass Effect 1, maybe I am really in small minority in this, but I think that Mass Effect 1 handled the question
of level-scaling on majority of difficulties quite well. The enemies were getting better and better (e.g. Geth troopers were probably slowly getting stronger and when it seemed no longer viable to level them up, they were replaced by “shock” troopers. The stronger types of enemies [Geth destroyers, juggernauts] were more and more common in later levels, etc.), but not to the point that they would make “Shepard’s growth (improvement)” barely noticeable and I don’t think, that game became easier and easier because of that (late combinations of armatures and hoppers were some of the strongest in entire game IMO). 

[quote]Yeah, let's not bring what is subjective and what is not into this. At this point, we might as well call the debate off and say that every single thing in the world is subjective.

The thing is, I have yet to see a single person who claimed that ME1 was a balanced game. And I have yet to see one person who denied that specific items broke the game. The thing is, what they don't game is that that is not the fault of the items.

That's the fault of BioWare's progression system 100%. You start with specialization having a minimal statistical effect, and end with specialization having NO effect at all. Why? Because when you are blasting through everything at ease, you won't even think about using your powers.

And growth? I didn't feel that my Shepard was becoming more powerful, because everything I invested to, no matter it's little initial significance, just started becoming even less significant. What I felt was that the game was
providing less of a challenge, continously.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

:ph34r:and also:ph34r:

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

By all due respect, I have not once pointed out to anything subjective and suggested to use it for measurement.[/quote]

“= Attributes which allow the player to not just be static, but diverse from State A to State B without causing
balance problems =”

I am convinced that question what is or is not balanced and what caused the imbalance could receive many different answers from different people.

Just take us for example… I even said that I like ME2 (including its gameplay) more than ME1 and yet I did not have any issues with ME1’s leveling or level-scaling system. Not to mention all those guys who actually like ME1 more than ME2. I have even checked some reviews (both ME1’s to see if somebody thought that its leveling system, level scaling and growth / progression ratio was bad and ME2’s if reviewers thought that these things have been improved) and… I haven’t found much. On the other hand, I have even found some guys who actually gave credit ME1 for its leveling system:

"The leveling system works very well, and it does force some tough choices, because all the skills are relatively useful." or "The experience and leveling system is really good and surprisingly easy."

So, I don’t know, maybe ME1’s leveling system indeed was a big problem in certain communities (for example
maybe here on official forums) but in general, I don’t think that it was such a big deal. I also skimmed through some Metacritic and Gamespot user reviews and…  I can say that, people were either happy with the game altogether (all those 9/10s and 10/10s), or the most criticzed things were menus (for being too complicated) and A.I. (for being bad). Last but not least there were some 4/10s for “not being faithful to original Bioware’s principles / not being RPGs (I guess there might be something true about that elitism you mentioned) or “sucking at everything”... but no signs of pure dissatisfaction with imbalance or game progression. 

[quote]Whether we end up finding a middle ground about "depth" is depentant on you, now.[/quote]

Mmm, like I said, I don’t think that it is necessary to even continue this discussion.... I mean, I understand what you are saying, what your principles are and why... and I don’t want you to loosen your definition to find some kind of middle ground with me.

After all, unlike me, you have incorporated your preferences in your definition of depth. So it’s more important for you to stick with it than it would be for me to stick with mine. Just out of my curiosity, I’ll probably keep pursuing attributes and methods, which would be independent from personal preferences and hence not contestable… but I would not try to convince anyone that my way is the correct one. 

[quote]And I can think of a lot of old-school and more modern RPGs that do that kind of stuff. And they generally put a LOT of emphasis on their stats. So I doubt that that is relevant, in defence of ME1.[/quote]

Well, it’s quite obvious even from the most basic observations, that ME2 has handled this approach better. But if we have decided to really make some kind of analysis of depths of stats of both games I would still count this aspect in.

My reasons would be: 

- I am quite a completionist and I usually try to include as much aspects as possible when I am trying to analyze
something.
- The fans of one game or the other (in this case ME2) would not be able to complain that the aspect in which their favorite game excels was not included.
- Supposedly, if the games were equal in all other aspects (or “have won” in equal number of categories) this could tip the final judgment in favor of ME2 (remember, I am not defending ME1, I am “brainstorming” on how to make as objective and conclusive [at least IMO] comparison [analysis] of Mass Effects’ stats as possible.).     

[quote]Yeah...because depth obviously has to do with putting large numbers in varaibles, which cause the imbalance.[/quote] 

Well, the answer on what is balanced and what is not would again be subjective… Somebody may say that Shepard at level 50 in ME1 was “overpowered”. Somebody else may think that enemies scaled too much and the effects of leveling up were not noticeable at all. The 3rd guy may say that his vision of depth has nothing to do with how much more or less powerful has his Shepard became at the end of the game but rather with how big were individual steps in the process of his leveling up, etc.

IMO all their opinions would be valid, interesting and useful for developers… But at the same time they would
argue about their preferences… So I have decided to try to base my judgment on something that would not be disputable by any of them… And that would IMO be the overall effect of stats (the overall size of difference between minimum and maximum value of particular variable). I have decided to pick overall size because it’s the only thing that reflects the fact that variable in one game can be modified to a larger degree than it the other game. It is impossible to confirm that just by comparing size of individual levels.

[quote]By that logic, ME2 becomes instantly better when you mod the value of the last level of each attribute and add a couple of zeroes.[/quote]

Well, I said that “my deep” does not equal good or useful… It’s just size. The size of change between unleveled and maxed out variable. The size of maximum effect of particular stat (variable) on gameplay. Whether such size (effect) would be good or bad for gameplay and whether the process through which the maximum level would be achieved, is enjoyable… is different question… Which can be answered only subjectively.   

[quote]Do post an example of a single attribute that has nothing do with specialization. The level scaling variation obviously exists there for balancing, and seeing how that turned out...um, yeah.[/quote]

Firstly, we would need to agree on what is specialization… in case of ME1, ME2 and / or both. Do you consider as
skills that have something to do with specialization all skills that are inherent to particular class or just some of them?…

Based on your posts I was under impression that by specialization you would mean situation in which player (Shepard) would (or could) significantly develop only few (three or four) talents in order to be able to keep up with enemies… If so, than any talent that is not one of three – four crucial talents in which player invests heavily, would be a talent outside of player’s (Shepard’s) specialization…

If you meant strictly talents that are not associated with particular class, than there aren’t any except for charm, intimidate and spectre training (but this can boost other skills so I would not write it off completely). If we were talikng about talents which are not “signature” talents (the talents which are heavily used by particular classes), than I would also add health / medicine.  

[quote]You actually just mentioned that Insanity had more than a 1:1 ratio in the previous paragraph. Anyway... even though that hypothesis is untrue for everything up to Hard for me, it's flawed by itself.[/quote]

Well, from what I have read, 1:1 ratio applies to standard enemies on insanity. Higher than 1:1 ratio applies to
bosses and sub-bosses (whatever that means) on insanity. But I recommend you to check Wikia or something else.

[quote]Didn't you say that that was subjective and that the only way to determine the depth of stats would be to look at them idividually?[/quote]

Yes, and…? Level-scaling can influence most of them. In other words, in every individual comparison of similar stats the effects of which are influenced by level scaling in the game, it would be necessary to take level-scaling into account. Providing that we would not be satisfied with pure calculations of numbers stated in game menus or external game guides, which we shouldn’t.

[quote]Except that levelling up is not tied with assigning points.[/quote]

Yes, but in the situation in which enemies level up faster than main character, the only way how calculate any
effect of stats (since main character would be weaker and weaker as the game would progress), would be to compare the effects of investing and not investing skillpoints in particular talent (power). I know it is not the same as being able to compare how has main character’s ability improved throughout the whole game, but that’s not possible when enemies level up faster than main character.

[quote]I'll be honest with you and go ahead and say that I don't find ME1 an enjoyable "game" at all. I do find it an awesome experience, but that is actually in spite of it's gameplay.[/quote]

Wow. In my book  ME1 8/10  as a game (at the time of my 1st playthrough probably 9,5 /10) and 9,5 / 10 as an experience, ME2 9/10 as a game (at the time of my 1st playthrough probably 9,5 /10 as well) and 10/10 as an
experience… but I said I am very tolerant guy. BTW I like how you, in your assessments, differentiate between game’s qualities and the experience they provide…  

Modifié par Varen Spectre, 24 septembre 2011 - 11:51 .

[Bostur]

Redcoat wrote...

This is starting to remind me of the old "roll-playing versus role-playing" argument, where you have the "role-players" who insist that character-based skill, stat checks, dice rolls, and such only "get in the way," "aren't immersive," "don't involve actual role-playing," and so on. The "roll-players" then insist that "role-players" ought to stick to LARPing and keep their terrible acting out of their games.

Of course, I would say that "Roll-playing" is the only thing you CAN do in a CRPG, since a computer can't recognise "acting."

Thats how I always see it.

Mental excersise: What happens to Roll-playing when you take away the rolling?

[Gatt9]

Bostur wrote...

Redcoat wrote...

This is starting to remind me of the old "roll-playing versus role-playing" argument, where you have the "role-players" who insist that character-based skill, stat checks, dice rolls, and such only "get in the way," "aren't immersive," "don't involve actual role-playing," and so on. The "roll-players" then insist that "role-players" ought to stick to LARPing and keep their terrible acting out of their games.

Of course, I would say that "Roll-playing" is the only thing you CAN do in a CRPG, since a computer can't recognise "acting."

Thats how I always see it.

Mental excersise: What happens to Roll-playing when you take away the rolling?

That's an easy one,  you get Adventure games.  Adventure games are RPG's without dice.  Offline,  known as LARPSing.

[Redcoat]

Bostur wrote...

Redcoat wrote...

This is starting to remind me of the old "roll-playing versus role-playing" argument, where you have the "role-players" who insist that character-based skill, stat checks, dice rolls, and such only "get in the way," "aren't immersive," "don't involve actual role-playing," and so on. The "roll-players" then insist that "role-players" ought to stick to LARPing and keep their terrible acting out of their games.

Of course, I would say that "Roll-playing" is the only thing you CAN do in a CRPG, since a computer can't recognise "acting."

Thats how I always see it.

Mental excersise: What happens to Roll-playing when you take away the rolling?

Technically, I can "role-play" in nearly any game. For example, I could "role play" as a drunk driver in Need for Speed: Shift by getting totally hammered before playing, or "role play" as a Shepard with bad aim in ME2 by jiggling the mouse a lot during combat. But in both instances, the "role" exists only in my head, so I saying that a game allows "role-playing" is not sufficient to call it an "RPG."

[Kakita Tatsumaru]

But if the game take your roleplay into account and respond accordingly then it is an RPG.
Besides, from the beginning of the RPG, roleplaying is also dictated by interaction with other characters which you could never have in Need for Speed.

[Chromie]

Redcoat wrote...

Technically, I can "role-play" in nearly any game. For example, I could "role play" as a drunk driver in Need for Speed: Shift by getting totally hammered before playing, or "role play" as a Shepard with bad aim in ME2 by jiggling the mouse a lot during combat. But in both instances, the "role" exists only in my head, so I saying that a game allows "role-playing" is not sufficient to call it an "RPG."

But roleplaying isn't only done through story. It can be just character customization like in Elder Scrolls, Gothic or Risen and Need for Speed doesn't offer that.

[Gibb_Shepard]

Redcoat wrote...

Bostur wrote...

Redcoat wrote...

This is starting to remind me of the old "roll-playing versus role-playing" argument, where you have the "role-players" who insist that character-based skill, stat checks, dice rolls, and such only "get in the way," "aren't immersive," "don't involve actual role-playing," and so on. The "roll-players" then insist that "role-players" ought to stick to LARPing and keep their terrible acting out of their games.

Of course, I would say that "Roll-playing" is the only thing you CAN do in a CRPG, since a computer can't recognise "acting."

Thats how I always see it.

Mental excersise: What happens to Roll-playing when you take away the rolling?

Technically, I can "role-play" in nearly any game. For example, I could "role play" as a drunk driver in Need for Speed: Shift by getting totally hammered before playing, or "role play" as a Shepard with bad aim in ME2 by jiggling the mouse a lot during combat. But in both instances, the "role" exists only in my head, so I saying that a game allows "role-playing" is not sufficient to call it an "RPG."

This x12.

[FlyingWalrus]

Gatt9 wrote...

Bostur wrote...

Redcoat wrote...

This is starting to remind me of the old "roll-playing versus role-playing" argument, where you have the "role-players" who insist that character-based skill, stat checks, dice rolls, and such only "get in the way," "aren't immersive," "don't involve actual role-playing," and so on. The "roll-players" then insist that "role-players" ought to stick to LARPing and keep their terrible acting out of their games.

Of course, I would say that "Roll-playing" is the only thing you CAN do in a CRPG, since a computer can't recognise "acting."

Thats how I always see it.

Mental excersise: What happens to Roll-playing when you take away the rolling?

That's an easy one,  you get Adventure games.  Adventure games are RPG's without dice.  Offline,  known as LARPSing.

Diceless RPGs. Checks made on a table rather than with a RNG and a modifier.

Still an RPG.

You can't explain that.

[littlezack]

Oh, he can. Or, at least, he can try. In excruciating detail.

[Gatt9]

FlyingWalrus wrote...

Gatt9 wrote...

Bostur wrote...

Redcoat wrote...

This is starting to remind me of the old "roll-playing versus role-playing" argument, where you have the "role-players" who insist that character-based skill, stat checks, dice rolls, and such only "get in the way," "aren't immersive," "don't involve actual role-playing," and so on. The "roll-players" then insist that "role-players" ought to stick to LARPing and keep their terrible acting out of their games.

Of course, I would say that "Roll-playing" is the only thing you CAN do in a CRPG, since a computer can't recognise "acting."

Thats how I always see it.

Mental excersise: What happens to Roll-playing when you take away the rolling?

That's an easy one,  you get Adventure games.  Adventure games are RPG's without dice.  Offline,  known as LARPSing.

Diceless RPGs. Checks made on a table rather than with a RNG and a modifier.

Still an RPG.

You can't explain that.

It's the same difference,  probability tables or probability done by dice are identical.  Statistics textbooks contain pages of randomly generated numbers in the back for people to use,  just as if they'd generated them on their own.

Doesn't matter who rolled the dice,  someone somewhere did.

Oh, he can. Or, at least, he can try. In excruciating detail.

And you wonder why people claim Bioware's chasing after an audience that doesn't want to have to read?  If 3-4 paragraphs is too much for you?

Of course,  one has to wonder if you make the same complaint about Phaedon's rambling defenses,  somehow I doubt it.

[littlezack]

Gatt9 wrote...
Oh, he can. Or, at least, he can try. In excruciating detail.


And you wonder why people claim Bioware's chasing after an audience that doesn't want to have to read?  If 3-4 paragraphs is too much for you?

Of course,  one has to wonder if you make the same complaint about Phaedon's rambling defenses,  somehow I doubt it.

Oh, don't even start.

I read ****ing Huck Finn in three days. I read the Op Ed page in both my local paper and USA Today every day. I've written two complete books - not published, I'll admit, but I wrote them. I've won NaNoWriMo. My fingers hit the keyboard and my eyes scan the paper more in a week than some people do in a decade.

Do not question my reading skill or love of it. I love good, thoughtful writing. You ramble and posture, your arguments are poor and your manner is annoying. Most of the time you basically say the same things and restate the same points, only in different order. There's no need for you to make the posts as long as you do; you could bring it down to one or two paragraphs and make your point just as clear, if not more so. Lengthy writing does not equal quality writing' in fact, it's quite often the opposite. Any idiot can pad a simple point long on after it's due, but taking a complex idea and expressing it in minimal space? That's the true challenge of writing. Brevity is the soul of wit.

As for Phaedon, I don't care for his all that much, but he at least brings something worthwhile to the forum in the form of his known features thread. You just show up every day or so, vomit out your high-horsed opinion, then disappear as mysteriously as you came. You're a wastrel.

Modifié par littlezack, 26 septembre 2011 - 03:22 .

[P38 ace]

Dude i so love your vid's you so need to make more of them, love it, love it, love it.!!!!!

Now i am in the party of "its still a role-pleying game but they toned down a lot of the "general" role playing elements that like you said are associated with an RPG, but are not reallly in the difinition

I love the story and the options ME 1 AND 2 gave you, But the whole game play between those moments felt more like a COD run and gun than a "establiahed" RPG should

i felt like everything the little COD 10 year olds complained about where thrown out the widow and replaced with something the is not "typical" in an RPG of Mass Effects calibier when what the Devs should have done was just tweek the few things and make them better, and not have the controversy of a completly differant way of doing things
ie. Elevators replaced with loading screens, that took the unbroken feel of the ME1 RPG feel out
cause when you do a laoding screen, that short moment snaps you back to RW and you lose the emmertion feel the ME1 gave you.

that is all

[Phaedon]

Varen Spectre, I'll be replying to your post tomorrow. 

Gatt9 wrote...
And you wonder why people claim Bioware's chasing after an audience that doesn't want to have to read?  If 3-4 paragraphs is too much for you?

Of course,  one has to wonder if you make the same complaint about Phaedon's rambling defenses,  somehow I doubt it.

Although I very much doubt that the fact that you always resort to insults when you can't debate with someone doesn't pretty much ultimatelly render you, by itself, as part of the elitist crowd who troll anyone who disagrees with their immature ideas about the world in general, and who think that the best gaming has to offer was in the 90s,but...

Well...let's just say that crying about everyone else other than you being a retarded kiddie who plays whatever has been advertised more on TV, certainly does.

Here is a newsflash:
You are the one who is notorious for whining, being in constant denial and insulting rather than debating anyone.

If you can't maintain a mature conversation, go back to RPG Codex and cry about the new Deus Ex being anime, or that 3D games are the worst thing to happen to gaming since Uwe Ball. It will hurt less, and you won't get your rose-tinted glasses punched off, accidentally.

Besides, I have the ~deepest ™ username on BSN.

Redcoat wrote...
Technically, I can "role-play" in nearly any game. For example, I could "role play" as a drunk driver in Need for Speed: Shift by getting totally hammered before playing, or "role play" as a Shepard with bad aim in ME2 by jiggling the mouse a lot during combat. But in both instances, the "role" exists only in my head, so I saying that a game allows "role-playing" is not sufficient to call it an "RPG."

Umm...no.

You are either throwing meaningless hyperboles around hoping to catch something, or you haven't played non-RPGs in ages.

You can't roleplay in games where you are a set character.

"Hmm, okay, but what about modern shooters?"

Yeah, those shooters don't actually offer roleplaying, they tend to offer more and more statistical progression these days, which is rather hilarious, but not really my point.

Forget the fact that you don't create your character. Or the fact that there are no choices. Or that there is a set objective. Or that you can't interact with people in different ways.

Your character has no voice. Even if you think that you are roleplaying, the character can never show it. Since it blocks your roleplaying from the game world, it is therefore, not an RPG.

Your argument is further flawed, because every single CRPG in history requires player interaction.
Diablo requires you to move fast, for example, and BG requires you to think up tactics. But, what is that? Moving your cursor and left-clicking instead of right-clicking? No, IMPOSSIBLE. It is not an RPG.

Modifié par Phaedon, 27 septembre 2011 - 08:10 .

[Phaedon]

Varen Spectre wrote...
Mmm, I don’t think we have to… and I don’t mean it in any negative way.

Despite that you accuse me of forgetting about the beginning of our discussion, I am convinced that I remember it quite well. You said that in your opinion ME2 had stats several times deeper than ME1. Consequently, I asked you why and you explained yourself – firstly the reasons and later in the discussion, also what you actually mean by deeper.

So, I guess that’s it.

It turned out that by deeper you meant something else than what I originally expected (I thought about the depth of stats purely as indicator of size [scale] of degree to which variables can be modified and alternatively also as
indicator of number of variables which can be modified), so of course your perception of “depth” of ME1’s or ME2’s stats was different than mine… but… that’s O.K. At least for me.

Like I said (and even you in the beginning), I don’t see any fun in discussing the meaning or appropriate use of words (you can see that from many of my previous posts in which I asked [let] you to decide what term should we use in our further discussion), especially those that can have more meanings or uses…

Moreover, I have even said that if I had accepted your definition of depth, I would have most likely come to similar conclusion… that the stats in ME2 are undoubtedly deeper. With one difference though, that I generally prefer little
bit smaller levels, so my perception of what would be perfect balance between size of effects of individual levels (your “= Attributes which allow the player to not just be static, but diverse from State A to State B without causing balance problems =”) and feeling of progression would be somewhat different and as a result, ME2 would be for me little bit “too deep” (too big differences between levels, too fast progression, etc.). 

So I don’t think there’s much more to do. Well, except for figuring out what Bioware wanted to accomplish by creating ME1 stat system the way they created it… But that’s already been taken into account in your definition of depth.

Well, alright.

As I have said in the past, I respect your opinion. But I disagree with the definition you have selected for the word "depth". I just can't imagine "depth" being anything but something that is meaningful, so if you could explain what you think by that word, I'd be interested.

Well, it’s really hard to presume what developers wanted to accomplish with their game… Also it is by far my least favorite type of discussion – to speak on behalf of other people, especially the developers of one of my favorite games…

We can't tell what kind of progression the game has? What? 

Why are people not claiming that this is a JRPG yet, then?

So I don’t know… but let’s look at what we know or can figure out about ME1:

- Like you said, ME1 provides player with several squadmates who excell at different things, as a result player’s character does not have to be (decently) good at everything but can fully focus on selected few abilities and perfect
them. The combination of specialized Shepard with specialized squadmates then provides room for teamplay and makes game easier. I agree with everything. The question though is, does ME1 encourage specialization or does it enforce it by punishing those who do not pursue it?

Except that it doesn't give you a choice. You have to spend your points somewhere, or you'll continue leveling up and not progressing at all. Not in growth, not in specialization.

- Bioware used to be, and at the time of development, definitely were pretty happy with how the level-scaling worked:

“The difficulty scales up to the level of the player perfectly. We do have adjustable difficulties in the options screen for those players who want things to be harder or easier, but the game instinctively keeps things challenging and fun as you play.”
 
And they weren’t even talking about harder difficulties but probably something in the middle.

Well, it's clear to me then?

They attempted to encourage specialization by actually working level scalled enemies but that didn't work out in the end? It is obvious that people were not happy with the balance. Therefore, BioWare must have done something wrong.

- As Mass Effect Wikia states, not all enemies scale at the same pace as Shepard on majority of difficulties. That means that player does not have to invest everything to selected few skills to keep up with enemies... And as we have seen, Bioware was saisfied with that… And yes, you can pick hardcore dfficulty as a referential one, but that way you are probably picking the setting with artificially boosted enemies for players who want "things to be harder" than Bioware originally intended as "baseline Mass Effect experience".

Satisfied? You mean that they were satisfied with their system encouraging specialization or DIScouraging it? Because whether BioWare (and BioWare is not one person, even if that person is honest) liked it or not, I can assure you that they were among the few ones that did. Games are not supposed to be played in a way that you never die through them. The challenge is removed. You might as well go ahead and remove the level scaling that was supposedly trying to provide you with a challenge.

- Player can’t invest all his (her) skillpoints into the talents he (she) may want to. Not sure if you remember it, but limits to which talents can be developed are being unlocked only gradually as Shepard reaches higher levels (IRC firstly player can invest only 4 talent points into a particular talent, later 8 or something like that, etc. until entire talent is unlocked completely). This means that even if player solely wanted to pursue Shepard’s specialization, he (she) can’t. He (she) has to invest talent points somewhere else or not invest them until the talent is unlocked further.

Yes, it's called gradual specialization.

It exists everywhere, even Civ. You get more options as you progress, as the skill tree is branching. I fail to see how this is relevant.

- ME1 was the first game in the series… It’s safe to presume that developers would not want to overdo it with restrictions, limits or punishments in their new game, first in the series …

That is no excuse for failing to provide the necessary challenge for a lot of people. Or mislabelling the difficulty levels.

So, now I have two options… 

… Either to think that Bioware indeed wanted to pursue specialization and “failed to” enforce it by properly setting level scaling system, blocked it / slowed it down by placing talent limits which prevent player to invest skillpoints into one talent and thus truly develop it at faster rate than others, and were so bold with their (unfortunately “badly executed”) specialization system, that they did not care, that many players may fail to understand it and may screw themselves with badly invested skillpoints (not into few specialized talents) in their new game…

Yup.

… Or I can think that Bioware wanted to create a game that would reward specialization (well, relative specialization, since as I have pointed out, there are many restraints) and creative builds, but would not punish those who can’t / won’t make them and thus created a game that allows to develop a character with either evenly developed abilities (with which the game would be playable and player would not be punished, but would not be rewarded in comparison to "specialization" either) - which could in our discussion translate into allowing “growth” (as long as Shepard could still improve at faster rate than majority of his (her) enemies, which should not be that hard to accomplish, on some of the lower / middle difficulties [which were probably mentioned in the interview I posted] or properly picked and (in comparison to other talents relatively) specialized abilities (with which the player will be rewarded by overall more powerful team and easier times during battles) - which should translate into encouraging but not enforcing specialization.

There are three problems with this:

a) They didn't give any choice at all. Your level progresses whether you want it or not, and growth battles specialization,again, whether you want it or not,
BioWare replicated most systems in place with classic RPGs but chose not to for the core part? Progression?
c) The burden o' proof is still on you, I am afraid, and it's a rather controversial claim you are making there.

Since I presume that developers from Bioware are smart guys (Mass Effects are great games after all), the idea that they “failed” so badly with their plan, does not seem plausible to me. IMO it seems more like they were not fully committed to the idea of specialization back then.

They must have, seeing as a) difficulty, and balance, as well as c) copy/paste items were some of the biggest complaints the game had.

I'll be replying to the rest when I have time. Nice to be debating with you as always.

[darth_lopez]

---Clarification cause there seems to be discussion here this is directe dtowards the OP i've not read anything else----
Can you please just stop making ill thought arguments? just do me that favor.

I'm sorry It's just kinda hard to agree with your position specifically when it's so damned flawed in the first bloody video! Whats really sad is that i agree that it's an RPG it's just not a good RPG. Before i elaborate on this Lets go over your Central flaw in this particular video, and while i respect your opinion and i'm not telling you how to think i'll voice mine that you're doing it wrong no offense meant but you you seem to forget there are Hordes of games that Have you take on A role and Make relevant decisions to that role and thereby play the character as you intend.

The quote

squee youtubed
            He developed [...] with no stats [incoherence] We had like a leveling system but no real inventory [...] [Essentially playing basketball with trashcan deterimed accuracy of characters]

Problem 1 You obviously had some stat system for individual characters, maybe not sophisticated but a stat system none the less to dictate level? how was that kept likely by the number of enemies killed (i.e. form of experience points) Or maybe he did award actual xp in any case you gained it, If you leveled or had a leveling system worth note you would obviously have skills affected by it and probably some combat feats as well. Spot, search, stealth,  just to make some simple things accuracy etc.. Improved rapid shot, double tap etc... What ever if you don't have skills you don't have a leveling system if you don't have a leveling system then you can pull the no stats card But you claim its existence thus stats exist.

Accuracy of shot deterimend by trashcan basketball=combat statististics in a non traditional form but statistics non the less. basically all you do here is flip a coin heads you hit tails you don't it's a metaphoric 2 sided dice, the physical activity doesn't take the fact you still role by chance, slightly affected by natural skill.(like any traditional RPG) So far i fail to see how your initial example expressed anything different from a typical RPG, table top or otherwise.

Inventory an RPG does not make, however Video Game RPGs Do need a sizable inventory to distinguish from other games. For example if you took fallout Dropped the inventory to 1 set of armor Ammo and only 8 guns? (FONV only has 8 hot keyes right?) Then drop All but 5 feats, and take away non combat skills what are you left with? The typical FPS game play, note COD perks (aka combat feats) a few guns you can choose from (inventory) a small leveling system that only unlocks new guns and more combat feats, Online Gameplay? You can play whatever kind of character you want online hell i can be the bloody emporers champion with a ballistic knife or whatever. In your opinion at this point This=RPG. Despite it being Clearly an FPS -.- i'm really hoping you see the point soon cause i have more examples, Crysis (at least one of them) conforms to this same trend, as does Space Marine, and many other FPSs by this standard of super minimal stat management allowed by your system (for table tops that you seem to expand to VGs your friend made a Table Top). Anywho not only have you managed To include nearly all modern FPS as RPGs But you've Completely Included Every RTS in existence. The only games where your decisions are entirely your own. What's the problem with this? RTS are obviously not RPG. (How you might ask, well in an RTS you are a General Over Seeing his vast armies, Prime examples Total War, Civ, C&C, DOW, DOW2, Warcraft, SWEAW, etc.... Alll RTS) Now what genre haven't we included in your super broad what Makes an RPG? Nothing really, assuming the player can somehow act as another person or fill a role given to him by the game and play it.  Infact even your example of what's not an RPG is in itself an RPG Leading us to this:

Squee youtubed and youtube wept.
Most JRPGs are not roleplaying games at all [...statements of this is your opinion as if though that somehow takes away the idiocy of your argument (not you just it) no offense it's just bad reasoning i'm sorry...] A Role Playing game where you fill the shoes of a characte ryou play the role of a character is not what japanese RPGs are about Take FFX for example...

.....I just need to ask If you are not given a role to fill in a JRPG, and you aren't playing the Role of a character How are you at all playing the game? All games Drop you into a Predescribed Role of sorts, even ME 1 and 2 i didn't pick shepard over a turian why can't i do that? This decision on bioware's to limit my character creation to only human Limits my ability to RolePlay as a Turian Saving the galaxy, In anycase All games drop you into a predesignated Role, No game doesn't except maybe Terraria and Minecraft, You have a character you can play as, you are filling the Role that character has in the story, Freedom of Choice is something Unique to Bioware, Bethesda and those guys who made the original Deus ex when you look at the history of RPGs, at least western ones, oh and tabletops but people don't refer to Tabletops as simply RPGs they specify Tabletop RPGs, by the way another interesting conundrum in your example Yugioh(duelist), pokemone TCG (trainer), MTG(planeswalker) etcc... all trading card games are now RPGs. All Video Games give you a Role to Fill and a Character to play as, I didn't enjoy playing as Soap in MW 1 i didn't enjoy playing as some CIA spook in BO i didn't enjoy being the general in that battle where i my brother died cause an arrow went through his neck in Shogun 2, subsequently i didn't enjoy dying from that arrow after i advanced too far trying to rally the troops, i played as Link in OOT and as Link 2 in windwaker and as link 3 in twilight princess and as link 4 in etc... I Played as solid snake and progressed stealthily through levels or violently killed folks ...or both... i played as blah blah blah and such such such. This paragraph/wall'o'text here is to point out that even the games you claim aren't RPGs contradict your own statement.

You go so far as to claim that you have no control over his(titus) character personality or actions... Which in itself highlights another problem. Apprently you didn't play the game cause he just bot moved completely through the game(obviously an exageration).  You must control the character to get to the end of the story it's just that simple. Whether you had Control over character personality does not an RPG(VG) make Again to point out massive flaws with this I don't have Control over my personality in Titan Quest yet it is clearly an RPG, i think all would agree with this. Even if they didn't by previous reasoning you've already included COD as an RPG, and halflife, and Homefront, and ...(list goes on until nearly all video games are stated.) And none of these aforementioned ones offer Freedom of thought? or opinion or maybe it is better to say no player prescribed growth of the character in anyway. Most have silent voices entirely interpretable or uninterpretable by the player. You don't need to have freedom of choice to be playing a role and playing a character. All video games use some degree of role play

While Typically i would Give you ground on Final Fantasy and Most JRPGs not being RPGs your previous arguments you must accept it as an RPG or amend your argument :/ sorry. You also miss a Massive cultural difference in videogames between west in east(believe it or not a cultural game divide exists) Also considering JRPGs non RPG on the basis they have no real dynamic character forces you to count out WoW, most MMOs, Titan Quest, and Many other multiplayer RPGs that are accepted as RPGs and in some cases considered good examples of such a game genre. Skip down to cultural differences and Edumacate yourself on the issue regarding Western Definition of RPG vs JRGP  Like i said while typically i would agree 75% with you on JRPG i feel i must point out the flaw in the "All an RPG needs is to be an RPG is a player playing a role of a character" in relation to JRPGs specifically, It's a horrible standpoint and it literally destroys genre barriers. It also inadvertantly makes judging genre very subjective -.- which is a bad thing.

I have played ME 1 and 2 at least 5 times
total the same exact way dialogue and decision wise. I've effectively
created a set story/canon for myself But by your standards in part 2 i've stripped the RPG from it because i'm no longer Role Playing i'm simply formatting the story in the same manner continously. The other times i've done stuff opposite my norm to see how they turned out with out really having a strong desire or opinion to do that. So i guess ME1 and ME 2 are just interactive movies for me eh? At least according to your "opinion"

Frankly I feel you move the debat backwards instead of forward making RPG less easily defined than it really is, it already has been and remained defined for video games for at least 20 years now. There is nothing particularly hard at detailing what an RPG is.
what is an RPG Video game?
1. A game where you play a role and-
2. A game where you detail your characters stats and-
3. A game where you have flexibility of choice in regards to weapons and armor and-
4. A game where stats are important and-
5. Traditionally a game where combat is decided by instant dice roll via computer or some other stat based system and-
6. Sometimes in the First Person but not always and-
7. Has a Detailed and Valuable story and occasionally allows the character to make pivotal decisions but not necessarily and-
8. A game where exploration is a typically a big theme-

Honestly from what you put forward i think/feel that you have never really played DnD, stats, inventory, skills, are all important parts of Combat, general gameplay and the fun of playing a different character. Infact Differing skills and stats Are a necessity because that Differentiates Even Further Between You and the Character.AND Adds to the characters own Worth and value and distinction. Why are inventories, weapon diversity, armor diversity needed in Video Game RPGs But not so much in Table Tops (i for one completely ignore my inventory and only carry what i need ammo etc.. But typically my DMs hand out bags of holding like candy so no worries)? This stuff is all needed So that the RPG can stand out From Halo, Shogun, COD, and other games in general so that the player can choose how they will fight over being told how to fight which is again an amazingly big part of DnD. Why do most RTSs not qualify no real inventory or skill systems  and you are not controlling 1 character but a multitude why do most FPS not qualify no real inventory or skill systems and in both cases their stories are usually weak incomparrison to the RPG(real inventory and skill systems being at least7+ weapons, 2 or 3 armors and at least 6 different skills and Usually 6 different character stats(attributes) these are just my estimates as to what RPGs typically have).

Is mass Effect an RPG? Yes. Is mass effect 2 an RPG? Yes but it's leaning more towards the shooter than an RPG is the simple reasonable answer when you evaluate the facts.


Now please don't be offended Squee, i mean no harm/offense and i spent 2 hours typing this. I just felt your points were weakly formulated and contradictory aswell as being all inclusive/ far too broad. Your opinion is what it is, and i'm sure that you are probably set in your opinion that your argument/expression was as wellformed as you believe But i personally see your opinion about as well formed as this slide in your presentation of a Foreign soldier speaking about US army Facts. Infact it might be a great comparrison to the situation. You've inadvertantly made Dozens upon DOzens of Non-RPGs dress as an RPG through the positions laid out in your speach, just as you made the foreign soldier Role Play a US One.

in short anything can be a Role Play, it takes something different and well organized to be a Role Playing Video Game.

dear lord i hope most of that is coherent btw.

Modifié par darth_lopez, 29 septembre 2011 - 09:22 .

[SpiffySquee]

[quote]darth_lopez wrote...

---Clarification cause there seems to be discussion here this is directe dtowards the OP i've not read anything else----
Can you please just stop making ill thought arguments? just do me that favor.

I'm sorry It's just kinda hard to agree with your position specifically when it's so damned flawed in the first bloody video! Whats really sad is that i agree that it's an RPG it's just not a good RPG. Before i elaborate on this Lets go over your Central flaw in this particular video, and while i respect your opinion and i'm not telling you how to think i'll voice mine that you're doing it wrong no offense meant but you you seem to forget there are Hordes of games that Have you take on A role and Make relevant decisions to that role and thereby play the character as you intend.

The quote
[quote]squee youtubed
            He developed [...] with no stats [incoherence] We had like a leveling system but no real inventory [...] [Essentially playing basketball with trashcan deterimed accuracy of characters]
[/quote]

Problem 1 You obviously had some stat system for individual characters, maybe not sophisticated but a stat system none the less to dictate level? how was that kept likely by the number of enemies killed (i.e. form of experience points) Or maybe he did award actual xp in any case you gained it, If you leveled or had a leveling system worth note you would obviously have skills affected by it and probably some combat feats as well. Spot, search, stealth,  just to make some simple things accuracy etc.. Improved rapid shot, double tap etc... What ever if you don't have skills you don't have a leveling system if you don't have a leveling system then you can pull the no stats card But you claim its existence thus stats exist. [/quote]

Incorrect. You are assuming that the leveling up helped a players ability to accomplish things. It did not. In this game (as simple as it was) all leveling did was dictate your rank among other players. I.E. were you a Sargent, staff Sargent etc. etc. You gained Xp, but this only let you raise in rank. All a higher rank allowed you to do was make command decisions. If a choice had to be made, they highest rank made it. If they died, or were not able to, the next highest rank made the decision. Leveling up, in no way shape or form allowed you to kill anything more easily, or perform any task with greater ability. Therefore, a leveling system does not equal a stat system. I admit, I did not go into what the leveling system was, but you should have asked for more details before making such assumptions.


[quote]
Accuracy of shot deterimend by trashcan basketball=combat statististics in a non traditional form but statistics non the less. basically all you do here is flip a coin heads you hit tails you don't it's a metaphoric 2 sided dice, the physical activity doesn't take the fact you still role by chance, slightly affected by natural skill.(like any traditional RPG) So far i fail to see how your initial example expressed anything different from a typical RPG, table top or otherwise. [/quote]

So professional basketball is just a disguised dice system? You make it sound like basketball players rely mostly on luck and just a little on skill. That is ridiculous. There was no random chance involved in our system, only natural skill.  You were good enough to make it or you were not. If what you said was correct than everyone playing will have an equal chance of making the same shot. Htat was obviously not the case since some people were much better at throwing things into a trash can, and thus, hit much more often. You might as well be trying to say that my ability to hit a target with a rifle in real life is mostly luck, or my ability to open a door has nothing to do with my skill at turning a door knob.

[quote]
Inventory an RPG does not make, however Video Game RPGs Do need a sizable inventory to distinguish from other games. For example if you took fallout Dropped the inventory to 1 set of armor Ammo and only 8 guns? (FONV only has 8 hot keyes right?) Then drop All but 5 feats, and take away non combat skills what are you left with? The typical FPS game play, note COD perks (aka combat feats) a few guns you can choose from (inventory) a small leveling system that only unlocks new guns and more combat feats, Online Gameplay? You can play whatever kind of character you want online hell i can be the bloody emporers champion with a ballistic knife or whatever. In your opinion at this point This=RPG. Despite it being Clearly an FPS -.- i'm really hoping you see the point soon cause i have more examples, Crysis (at least one of them) conforms to this same trend, as does Space Marine, and many other FPSs by this standard of super minimal stat management allowed by your system (for table tops that you seem to expand to VGs your friend made a Table Top). Anywho not only have you managed To include nearly all modern FPS as RPGs But you've Completely Included Every RTS in existence. The only games where your decisions are entirely your own. What's the problem with this? RTS are obviously not RPG. (How you might ask, well in an RTS you are a General Over Seeing his vast armies, Prime examples Total War, Civ, C&C, DOW, DOW2, Warcraft, SWEAW, etc.... Alll RTS) Now what genre haven't we included in your super broad what Makes an RPG? Nothing really, assuming the player can somehow act as another person or fill a role given to him by the game and play it.[/quote]

At this point I have no choice but to believe you simply watched another video, or could not comprehend even the most basic ideas I was presenting. I stated that an inventory was not necessary for a game to be an RPG. When did I ever say that any game without an extensive inventory IS an RPG? That's like saying a car does not need doors, and thus... anything without doors is a car!
I never stated anything of the sort. Please watch video again and pay attention. I stated that an RPG could be so with or without an inventory. I in no way suggested that lack of an inventory made a game an RPG, or that it was the only required factor.
[quote]
 Infact even your example of what's not an RPG is in itself an RPG Leading us to this:

[quote] Squee youtubed and youtube wept.
Most JRPGs are not roleplaying games at all [...statements of this is your opinion as if though that somehow takes away the idiocy of your argument (not you just it) no offense it's just bad reasoning i'm sorry...] A Role Playing game where you fill the shoes of a characte ryou play the role of a character is not what japanese RPGs are about Take FFX for example...
[/quote]

.....I just need to ask If you are not given a role to fill in a JRPG, and you aren't playing the Role of a character How are you at all playing the game?*snip to save space*[/quote]

Again, go watch the video and pay attention. I said FF10 was not a true RPG because you had no control of Tidus' personality. You have no control of his emotions, his decisions, or his reactions to the events around him. You are simply playing an interactive movie. (not that this is bad, I love that game) In a role playing game, table top or otherwise, you are creating the personality of the character. You decide how they see the world, what kind of person they are, what they like or dislike. Where can you do that for Tidus? Where do you get to choose how he feels about his father, or Yuna? You can't, and thus, it is not what I would consider to be role playing. 

You're arguments about me thinking card games are now RPGs are so ridiculous I'm not even going to refute them. Watch the videos again and pay attention to the entire thing, not just what you want to hear.

[quote]
You go so far as to claim that you have no control over his(titus) character personality or actions... Which in itself highlights another problem. Apprently you didn't play the game cause he just bot moved completely through the game(obviously an exageration).  You must control the character to get to the end of the story it's just that simple. Whether you had Control over character personality does not an RPG(VG) make Again to point out massive flaws with this I don't have Control over my personality in Titan Quest yet it is clearly an RPG, i think all would agree with this.[/quote]

Then we simply disagree. I feel that the idea of Role playing is to have the ability to control the personality and decisions of the character. You don't. That is your right, but don't act like your opinion is fundamentally correct when it is no more valid than my opinion. 

[quote]
While Typically i would Give you ground on Final Fantasy and Most JRPGs not being RPGs your previous arguments you must accept it as an RPG or amend your argument :/ [/quote]

No, you need to actually pay attention to the videos and stop putting arguments into my mouth. I have never suggested that lack of an Inventory automatically makes a game an RPG so your argument has not validity. 

[quote]
sorry. You also miss a Massive cultural difference in videogames between west in east(believe it or not a cultural game divide exists) Also considering JRPGs non RPG on the basis they have no real dynamic character forces you to count out WoW, most MMOs, Titan Quest, and Many other multiplayer RPGs that are accepted as RPGs and in some cases considered good examples of such a game genre. Skip down to cultural differences and Edumacate yourself on the issue regarding Western Definition of RPG vs JRGP  [/quote]

The videos are displaying my personal opinion on what makes an RPG. It was not a study on the cultural differences between east and west. I understand their are different points of view. I acknowledged that at the beginning of the video. Knowing they exist does not mean I have to agree with them.
[quote]
Like i said while typically i would agree 75% with you on JRPG i feel i must point out the flaw in the "All an RPG needs is to be an RPG is a player playing a role of a character" in relation to JRPGs specifically, It's a horrible standpoint and it literally destroys genre barriers. It also inadvertantly makes judging genre very subjective -.- which is a bad thing. [/quote]

you know what else is a bad thing? Ignoring most of my video and suggesting that I said, "All an RPG needs is to be an RPG is a player playing a role of a character" 
I said that having control over a character's personality, views, reactions, and growth, as well as having the game world respond to the differences views and decisions of your character are what make a game an RPG. So either, you did not understand the video, or you are ignoring the most important parts.  


[quote]
I have played ME 1 and 2 at least 5 times
total the same exact way dialogue and decision wise. I've effectively
created a set story/canon for myself But by your standards in part 2 i've stripped the RPG from it because i'm no longer Role Playing i'm simply formatting the story in the same manner continously. The other times i've done stuff opposite my norm to see how they turned out with out really having a strong desire or opinion to do that. So i guess ME1 and ME 2 are just interactive movies for me eh? At least according to your "opinion" [/quote]

What in the world...? Just because you play the story the same way every time does not mean you don't have the option to do it differently. When did I ever say that you MUST change your character's personality every time you play for it to be an RPG? I simply said you need the ability to do so if you chose.

What you are saying is as silly as saying, "I never used a shot gun in Mass Effect. I guess Bioware never gave you the option to use a shot gun!"
[quote]
Frankly I feel you move the debat backwards instead of forward making RPG less easily defined than it really is, it already has been and remained defined for video games for at least 20 years now. There is nothing particularly hard at detailing what an RPG is.
what is an RPG Video game?
1. A game where you play a role and-
2. A game where you detail your characters stats and-
3. A game where you have flexibility of choice in regards to weapons and armor and-
4. A game where stats are important and-
5. Traditionally a game where combat is decided by instant dice roll via computer or some other stat based system and-
6. Sometimes in the First Person but not always and-
7. Has a Detailed and Valuable story and occasionally allows the character to make pivotal decisions but not necessarily and-
8. A game where exploration is a typically a big theme-[/quote]

Where did you get this definition? Websters? Encyclopedia Britannica? None of these? Oh, well I guess that is just your opinion then. The whole point is that RPGs don't have a set definition. I simply made a video stating what I think an RPG is and why. I make no attempt to tell people that it is THE DEFINITIVE definition of the term. Sadly, most people, like yourself, try to convince everyone that their way is the only way. 

[quote]
Is mass Effect an RPG? Yes. Is mass effect 2 an RPG? Yes but it's leaning more towards the shooter than an RPG is the simple reasonable answer when you evaluate the facts.[/quote]

No, it is merely one way of looking at it. It is not the only responsible answer, and the fact that you think so suggests an unwillingness to accept that other points of views are as valid as yours.

[quote]
Now please don't be offended Squee, i mean no harm/offense and i spent 2 hours typing this. I just felt your points were weakly formulated and contradictory aswell as being all inclusive/ far too broad. Your opinion is what it is, and i'm sure that you are probably set in your opinion that your argument/expression was as wellformed as you believe But i personally see your opinion about as well formed as this slide in your presentation of a Foreign soldier speaking about US army Facts. Infact it might be a great comparrison to the situation. You've inadvertantly made Dozens upon DOzens of Non-RPGs dress as an RPG through the positions laid out in your speach, just as you made the foreign soldier Role Play a US One.

in short anything can be a Role Play, it takes something different and well organized to be a Role Playing Video Game.

dear lord i hope most of that is coherent btw.

[/quote]

I am not offended. I understand the difference between attacking arguments and attacking a person. the same applies for me, I have no grudge against you or your views. If anything I have written comes off as an insult, it was not meant that way. I simply think that you need to pay more attention to what I am actually saying and stop believing that your views are the only correct views.
In the videos, I stated that other opinions are not wrong, I just do not understand them. I invite people to explain why they feel I am wrong. As far as this goes, you did that and that's great! The problem is, you made far too many assumptions about my arguments that are invalid, mis-understood many key points of my videos, and suggested I made many arguments that I never made. It would be better to ask before assuming. 

For example, had you said, "What did the leveling system entail? As far as I know, it denotes a stat system."
I would have understood that I needed to go into more detail, and you would not have made a false assumption.
If you had asked, "So, do you believe that any game that does not have an extensive inventory is an RPG?"
I would have answered no and believed that I simply had not explained myself well enough. As it is, you made another false assumption. 
Basically, before you ask someone, "Can you please just stop making ill thought arguments? just do me that favor?" Make sure you fully understand the arguments they are making in the first place. 

Modifié par SpiffySquee, 29 septembre 2011 - 04:49 .

[Solmanian]

I liked how one of the commentaters wrote Mass effect is not an rpg because there are too many limitations on the story. "facepalm", making ME into GTA in space will not make it into a better rpg. Half the role players are complaining about the story not being limited enough: "Why the hell am I/Shepard wasting my time doing fedex quests (remember that slarian in ME2 wanted you to plant his packages on illium and omega?) when galactic civilization hangs in the balance?"

[Solmanian]

Lets agree on something first: rpg without combat is pretty boring. I know some of you might disagree, but that the general consensus. Since rpg and combat goes hand in hand, does it realy matter what the combat system used to deliver the plot? Does it have to be diablo style from above? I believe many will agree that rpg's aren't confined that way anymore. The medium for the combat can a shooter or an RTS, but there is obvius difference between COD and ME: in an rpg, your decsions shape the plot. In other genres your just along for the ride.

[darth_lopez]

[quote]SpiffySquee wrote...

[quote]darth_lopez wrote...

---Clarification cause there seems to be discussion here this is directe dtowards the OP i've not read anything else----
Can you please just stop making ill thought arguments? just do me that favor.

I'm sorry It's just kinda hard to agree with your position specifically when it's so damned flawed in the first bloody video! Whats really sad is that i agree that it's an RPG it's just not a good RPG. Before i elaborate on this Lets go over your Central flaw in this particular video, and while i respect your opinion and i'm not telling you how to think i'll voice mine that you're doing it wrong no offense meant but you you seem to forget there are Hordes of games that Have you take on A role and Make relevant decisions to that role and thereby play the character as you intend.

The quote
[quote]squee youtubed
            He developed [...] with no stats [incoherence] We had like a leveling system but no real inventory [...] [Essentially playing basketball with trashcan deterimed accuracy of characters]
[/quote]

Problem 1 You obviously had some stat system for individual characters, maybe not sophisticated but a stat system none the less to dictate level? how was that kept likely by the number of enemies killed (i.e. form of experience points) Or maybe he did award actual xp in any case you gained it, If you leveled or had a leveling system worth note you would obviously have skills affected by it and probably some combat feats as well. Spot, search, stealth,  just to make some simple things accuracy etc.. Improved rapid shot, double tap etc... What ever if you don't have skills you don't have a leveling system if you don't have a leveling system then you can pull the no stats card But you claim its existence thus stats exist. [/quote]

Incorrect. You are assuming that the leveling up helped a players ability to accomplish things. It did not. In this game (as simple as it was) all leveling did was dictate your rank among other players. I.E. were you a Sargent, staff Sargent etc. etc. You gained Xp, but this only let you raise in rank. All a higher rank allowed you to do was make command decisions. If a choice had to be made, they highest rank made it. If they died, or were not able to, the next highest rank made the decision. Leveling up, in no way shape or form allowed you to kill anything more easily, or perform any task with greater ability. Therefore, a leveling system does not equal a stat system. I admit, I did not go into what the leveling system was, but you should have asked for more details before making such assumptions.
[/quote]

Leveling system instantly Details Stats, XP is a statistic is it not? unless you misunderstand what statistics are. Dictating who can make high level decisions is what any group of DnD does when someone has the High Diplomacy/etc... Basically you used rank indicate general combat prowess/experience through the gain of experience points. Person with HIghest rank is passively given "Command" Which can be viewed as a perk/Feat/Skill/Trait. There is nothing unique special or different from this from currently existing TableTops, except in most table tobs 'Rank' in this matter is decided by the players.
[quote]
[quote]
Accuracy of shot deterimend by trashcan basketball=combat statististics in a non traditional form but statistics non the less. basically all you do here is flip a coin heads you hit tails you don't it's a metaphoric 2 sided dice, the physical activity doesn't take the fact you still role by chance, slightly affected by natural skill.(like any traditional RPG) So far i fail to see how your initial example expressed anything different from a typical RPG, table top or otherwise. [/quote]

So professional basketball is just a disguised dice system? You make it sound like basketball players rely mostly on luck and just a little on skill. That is ridiculous. There was no random chance involved in our system, only natural skill.  You were good enough to make it or you were not. If what you said was correct than everyone playing will have an equal chance of making the same shot. Htat was obviously not the case since some people were much better at throwing things into a trash can, and thus, hit much more often. You might as well be trying to say that my ability to hit a target with a rifle in real life is mostly luck, or my ability to open a door has nothing to do with my skill at turning a door knob.
[/quote]

Yes actually, most sports typically revolve around team work and heavier objects than Paper and a basket. The average individual is likely to have 50% chance of getting an Object into a small hoop, even then any "natural skill" you have in this can be viewed as unknown skill modifiers for your accuracy (in the same way a Ranger gets a +2 if his dex is 14-15 to hit) You simply haven't measured the modifier it still exists on some level. But ultimately it's a coin toss you have 2 options get it in or miss. Most sports aren't that difficult to play in general, not saying anyone plays like a pro typically, and are played from everyone from kindergarten to college and beyond. there's nothing to particularly proud of if you're on a professional sports team, good example of this the detroit lions they loose nearly all their games every year they are a professional sports team.

in regards to chances did you not say he made it harder for you by moving the basket from time to time, just making the shots harder to hit and your chances of making them lower? <---This would reflect armor class in a typical Tabletop RPG. It's very very simple. but simplicity does not strip the stat/chance system from the game.

[quote]
Inventory an RPG does not make, however Video Game RPGs Do need a sizable inventory to distinguish from other games. For example if you took fallout Dropped the inventory to 1 set of armor Ammo and only 8 guns? (FONV only has 8 hot keyes right?) Then drop All but 5 feats, and take away non combat skills what are you left with? The typical FPS game play, note COD perks (aka combat feats) a few guns you can choose from (inventory) a small leveling system that only unlocks new guns and more combat feats, Online Gameplay? You can play whatever kind of character you want online hell i can be the bloody emporers champion with a ballistic knife or whatever. In your opinion at this point This=RPG. Despite it being Clearly an FPS -.- i'm really hoping you see the point soon cause i have more examples, Crysis (at least one of them) conforms to this same trend, as does Space Marine, and many other FPSs by this standard of super minimal stat management allowed by your system (for table tops that you seem to expand to VGs your friend made a Table Top). Anywho not only have you managed To include nearly all modern FPS as RPGs But you've Completely Included Every RTS in existence. The only games where your decisions are entirely your own. What's the problem with this? RTS are obviously not RPG. (How you might ask, well in an RTS you are a General Over Seeing his vast armies, Prime examples Total War, Civ, C&C, DOW, DOW2, Warcraft, SWEAW, etc.... Alll RTS) Now what genre haven't we included in your super broad what Makes an RPG? Nothing really, assuming the player can somehow act as another person or fill a role given to him by the game and play it.[/quote]

At this point I have no choice but to believe you simply watched another video, or could not comprehend even the most basic ideas I was presenting. I stated that an inventory was not necessary for a game to be an RPG. When did I ever say that any game without an extensive inventory IS an RPG? That's like saying a car does not need doors, and thus... anything without doors is a car!
I never stated anything of the sort. Please watch video again and pay attention. I stated that an RPG could be so with or without an inventory. I in no way suggested that lack of an inventory made a game an RPG, or that it was the only required factor.[/quote]

you misunderstand this segment I was simply trying to show why Video Game RPGs need an invnetory, and a large one, it's to draw the line between the other game types that's it. The inventory in Deus Ex: HR helped to define it marignaly by distancing it further from say Half LIfe, or maybe even crysis(i'v enever played i just no they have cyborg skills) which is an incredibly similar FPS wheres Deus EX:HR is an FPS RPG
You say thisThis Any game where i play a Role and Play as that Role is an RPG. Numerous times. More importantly you contradict yourself with the actor Previously you claim it's making the character, Actors aren't paid to make characters they are payed to Play Predesigned characters in the same way one plays a Predesigned JRPG character, or anyother Video Game Character. What you did was more akin to stating anything with an Engine and Wheels is a car thus turning lawnmores, planes and some helicopters, along with all other automibiles, into 1 thing a dinky car.

[quote]
[quote]
 Infact even your example of what's not an RPG is in itself an RPG Leading us to this:

[quote] Squee youtubed and youtube wept.
Most JRPGs are not roleplaying games at all [...statements of this is your opinion as if though that somehow takes away the idiocy of your argument (not you just it) no offense it's just bad reasoning i'm sorry...] A Role Playing game where you fill the shoes of a characte ryou play the role of a character is not what japanese RPGs are about Take FFX for example...
[/quote]

.....I just need to ask If you are not given a role to fill in a JRPG, and you aren't playing the Role of a character How are you at all playing the game?*snip to save space*[/quote]

Again, go watch the video and pay attention. I said FF10 was not a true RPG because you had no control of Tidus' personality. You have no control of his emotions, his decisions, or his reactions to the events around him.[/quote]
Going back to your actor example from youtube. How does an actor have any control over the character he plays? He's told In act 3 "you need to be angry and then i want you to knock that vase over". Not that in Act 3 "You have 3 options a paragon, regade, and Nuetral option if you do either of the 3 will will immediately react to it allowing you to fully RP your character"
Remember those limitations you talked about earlier in the Video THis is a good Example of one. The Story Writers Put the limits on you to tell a better story rather than give you massive options and possibly have a week story. Infact this an Argument Japanese Game Designers Put forward from time to time if you paid attention to the Cultural Controversy of an RPG.
[quote]
You are simply playing an interactive movie. (not that this is bad, I love that game) In a role playing game, table top or otherwise, you are creating the personality of the character. You decide how they see the world, what kind of person they are, what they like or dislike. Where can you do that for Tidus? Where do you get to choose how he feels about his father, or Yuna? You can't, and thus, it is not what I would consider to be role playing. 
[/quote]
You don't have to make decisions about the character his personality, etc.. an Actor (the ideal Role Player) Certaintly doesn't get that unless it's minor very few instances are there when characters get to do whatever they want typically They are told how to act. If an actor playing hamlet decided to order pizza and Marry ophelia instead of Brooding and Trying to kill his uncle it wouldn't be much of a play would it :/

Something that may present a problem here for you is understanding that Bioware has never really let you run free, They give you the illusion of freedom in there games. They do it quite well. It's a western RPG and true to it's type in sense of scale but story line decisions are bottlenecked down to 3-6 options typically 2 much like Kotor. Bethesda games are open world allowing you to do whatever you want when you awant and approach most things from any direction and are probably the pinnacle of Freedom in an RPG while Deus Ex games have tried to bvridge the Middle Ground Between the 2 while allowing Freedom of Movement thorugh a stage and constraining Story decisions to a few bigger broader options. You need to understand that Bioware isn't the master of freedom but the master of the illusion of freedom.
[quote]
You're arguments about me thinking card games are now RPGs are so ridiculous I'm not even going to refute them. Watch the videos again and pay attention to the entire thing, not just what you want to hear.
[/quote]
No they do, as a Planeswalker in magic(what you has a player btw) you cast spells that summon creatures into battle at your hand with Magic powers you build up over time from the 5 different schools. Simply by summoning monsters and Playing you are Role PLaying as a planeswalker.
PokemonTCG is a bit weird but the basic idea you are a pokemon trainer throwing pokemon out into a very dynamic battle in a bid to win the match. (this one might be a stretch)
Yugioh is the same case as MTG, if you play a monster or "summon it" you are essentially Role Playing Random Duelist guy #12 etc... Whatever you want to call him, There were even decks based around major show characters. so it wouldn't be exactly that hard to do xD What seperates TCGs from RPGs is the state system, though there are some RPGs that use cards as well which is why the stats, invnetory etc... Are needed in some capacity to aid in distinguishing the game genre table top or video game in this case.

[quote]
[quote]
You go so far as to claim that you have no control over his(titus) character personality or actions... Which in itself highlights another problem. Apprently you didn't play the game cause he just bot moved completely through the game(obviously an exageration).  You must control the character to get to the end of the story it's just that simple. Whether you had Control over character personality does not an RPG(VG) make Again to point out massive flaws with this I don't have Control over my personality in Titan Quest yet it is clearly an RPG, i think all would agree with this.[/quote]

Then we simply disagree. I feel that the idea of Role playing is to have the ability to control the personality and decisions of the character. You don't. That is your right, but don't act like your opinion is fundamentally correct when it is no more valid than my opinion. 
[/quote]
Actually controling character Personality is a nice plus to many western
RPGs but not a requirement for an RPG or even Role Playing(which there is a definition for and you seemingly ignore it is slightly more in agreement with me than you), In anycase you do control the
decisions of the character in any game the statement is far too broad to
be used in the way you are using it. Bringing me back to Soap He has is silent through out most of MW 1 I can make him think anything i want, i can make him kill anything i want. I control his Personality and His Decisions. MW1 is not an RPG though

in anycase simply admit your argument/points were flawed as they were, Remove actors from mention in your video and we have a deal to agree to dissagree, because Now you say that Actors are Not Role Players in your Opinion.
i'm not arguing my opinion of RPG to you i'm stating your positions were ill coonstructed and poorly executed. And trying to point out obvious flaws in your reasoning something that apparently goes over your head in the situation.

[quote]
[quote]
While Typically i would Give you ground on Final Fantasy and Most JRPGs not being RPGs your previous arguments you must accept it as an RPG or amend your argument :/ [/quote]

No, you need to actually pay attention to the videos and stop putting arguments into my mouth. I have never suggested that lack of an Inventory automatically makes a game an RPG so your argument has not validity. 
[/quote]
No you need to pat attention to your videos
[quote]
[quote]
sorry. You also miss a Massive cultural difference in videogames between west in east(believe it or not a cultural game divide exists) Also considering JRPGs non RPG on the basis they have no real dynamic character forces you to count out WoW, most MMOs, Titan Quest, and Many other multiplayer RPGs that are accepted as RPGs and in some cases considered good examples of such a game genre. Skip down to cultural differences and Edumacate yourself on the issue regarding Western Definition of RPG vs JRGP  [/quote]

The videos are displaying my personal opinion on what makes an RPG. It was not a study on the cultural differences between east and west. I understand their are different points of view. I acknowledged that at the beginning of the video. Knowing they exist does not mean I have to agree with them.[/quote]

You ignore Cultural difference entirely Stating out right Most JRPGs are not RPGs, You fail to understand or acknowledge Western RPGs and JRPGs as 2 seperate Genre of RPG 1 where freedom and immersion is attempt the other Where Story perfection is attempted. Netiher are not RPGs both Are. Personal Opinion does not trump Facts or cultural differences. This could be considered to some degree Being massively Ethnocentric towards foreign video games.

[quote]
[quote]
Like i said while typically i would agree 75% with you on JRPG i feel i must point out the flaw in the "All an RPG needs is to be an RPG is a player playing a role of a character" in relation to JRPGs specifically, It's a horrible standpoint and it literally destroys genre barriers. It also inadvertantly makes judging genre very subjective -.- which is a bad thing. [/quote]

you know what else is a bad thing? Ignoring most of my video and suggesting that I said, "All an RPG needs is to be an RPG is a player playing a role of a character" 
I said that having control over a character's personality, views, reactions, and growth, as well as having the game world respond to the differences views and decisions of your character are what make a game an RPG. So either, you did not understand the video, or you are ignoring the most important parts.  
[/quote]
What's really bad is you say both but you say the former more than the latter Obviously you didn't pay attention to the words coming out of your mouth.
[quote]
[quote]
I have played ME 1 and 2 at least 5 times
total the same exact way dialogue and decision wise. I've effectively
created a set story/canon for myself But by your standards in part 2 i've stripped the RPG from it because i'm no longer Role Playing i'm simply formatting the story in the same manner continously. The other times i've done stuff opposite my norm to see how they turned out with out really having a strong desire or opinion to do that. So i guess ME1 and ME 2 are just interactive movies for me eh? At least according to your "opinion" [/quote]

What in the world...? Just because you play the story the same way every time does not mean you don't have the option to do it differently. When did I ever say that you MUST change your character's personality every time you play for it to be an RPG? I simply said you need the ability to do so if you chose.

What you are saying is as silly as saying, "I never used a shot gun in Mass Effect. I guess Bioware never gave you the option to use a shot gun!"
[/quote]

It's not about options according to you about options at this point in your videos If i play the story 5 times the same way i'm less roleplaying and more structuring the story to my prefered outcome. Role Playing inherently involves some experimentation. You also state in one of the 2 videos "if you need to Pick the paragon option to achieve something and you want to achieve it and it's the only way to do it Then You gotta do it cause you set a goal for yourself to do it." Which is one of the many ways Bioware only presents the illusion of freedom, mostly because of the archaiac star wars morality chart they have in this case but yeah. You state right there that You must in some cases come out of the comfort zone. You say elsewhere something to the effect that if you aren't RPing your character then it's not an RPG it's an Interactive movie. So yeah... Don't what in the world me buster. I don't pick my shepards decisions because i Role PLay them i pick them because they will structure the story better There Fore Mass Effect in your opinion to me is an Interactive Movie, Which is not the case.
[quote]
[quote]
Frankly I feel you move the debat backwards instead of forward making RPG less easily defined than it really is, it already has been and remained defined for video games for at least 20 years now. There is nothing particularly hard at detailing what an RPG is.
what is an RPG Video game?
1. A game where you play a role and-
2. A game where you detail your characters stats and-
3. A game where you have flexibility of choice in regards to weapons and armor and-
4. A game where stats are important and-
5. Traditionally a game where combat is decided by instant dice roll via computer or some other stat based system and-
6. Sometimes in the First Person but not always and-
7. Has a Detailed and Valuable story and occasionally allows the character to make pivotal decisions but not necessarily and-
8. A game where exploration is a typically a big theme-[/quote]

Where did you get this definition? Websters? Encyclopedia Britannica? None of these? Oh, well I guess that is just your opinion then. The whole point is that RPGs don't have a set definition. I simply made a video stating what I think an RPG is and why. I make no attempt to tell people that it is THE DEFINITIVE definition of the term. Sadly, most people, like yourself, try to convince everyone that their way is the only way. 
[/quote]
Maybe you should look at DnD, and nearly all other RPGs? these are common items in all of them. Infact i'd dare say the most basic bits of all of them typically when 20+ RPGs share these characteristics they work as a great basis for defining an RPG.

I didn't say it was a perfect system i just said we have a general definition thanks to all of the ones that do satisfy those 8 points.

[quote]
[quote]
Is mass Effect an RPG? Yes. Is mass effect 2 an RPG? Yes but it's leaning more towards the shooter than an RPG is the simple reasonable answer when you evaluate the facts.[/quote]

No, it is merely one way of looking at it. It is not the only responsible answer, and the fact that you think so suggests an unwillingness to accept that other points of views are as valid as yours.
[/quote]

The responsible answer? wtf... No Mass Effect 2 is an RPG by the most objective analysis maybe not the best but it is an RPG Does it learn to the shooter side of the force yes it does.  I have no problem accepting other opinions when they are well formed. But yours are not. You do not evaluate the situation in an reasonable way you simply suggest that anything where i can pretend to be my character is an RPG which is not the case. Cause i can pretend to be my character in every game.

[quote]
Now please don't be offended Squee, i mean no harm/offense and i spent 2 hours typing this. I just felt your points were weakly formulated and contradictory aswell as being all inclusive/ far too broad. Your opinion is what it is, and i'm sure that you are probably set in your opinion that your argument/expression was as wellformed as you believe But i personally see your opinion about as well formed as this slide in your presentation of a Foreign soldier speaking about US army Facts. Infact it might be a great comparrison to the situation. You've inadvertantly made Dozens upon DOzens of Non-RPGs dress as an RPG through the positions laid out in your speach, just as you made the foreign soldier Role Play a US One.

in short anything can be a Role Play, it takes something different and well organized to be a Role Playing Video Game.

dear lord i hope most of that is coherent btw.

[/quote]
[quote]
I am not offended. I understand the difference between attacking arguments and attacking a person. the same applies for me, I have no grudge against you or your views. If anything I have written comes off as an insult, it was not meant that way. I simply think that you need to pay more attention to what I am actually saying and stop believing that your views are the only correct views.
[/quote]
I accept the existence of other opinions at no point do i say you're entirely wrong and i'm right I say your Arguments are Flawed. You obviously do not understand the difference if you made this conclusion.
[quote]
In the videos, I stated that other opinions are not wrong, I just do not understand them. I invite people to explain why they feel I am wrong. As far as this goes, you did that and that's great! The problem is, you made far too many assumptions about my arguments that are invalid, mis-understood many key points of my videos, and suggested I made many arguments that I never made. It would be better to ask before assuming.
For example, had you said, "What did the leveling system entail? As far as I know, it denotes a stat system."
I would have understood that I needed to go into more detail, and you would not have made a false assumption.
If you had asked, "So, do you believe that any game that does not have an extensive inventory is an RPG?"

I
would have answered no and believed that I simply had not explained
myself well enough. As it is, you made another false assumption.
Basically, before you ask someone, "Can you please just stop making ill thought arguments? just do me that favor?" Make sure you fully understand the arguments they are making in the first place. 
[/quote]

No see you confuse Assumption with reasoning. Was i or was i not correct you had an Xp that determined your level? I was Correct in the Leveling system had some impact on the player, in this case "Command Decisions" Essentially promoting that individual player to the group leader. This served as a singular skill/feat and still renders my reasoning close enough. You still had a stat system even if it was non-traditional it was still there.
Next point the comment about the inventory you suggest stripping ME down to an FPS -non substantial inventory etc... And it would still be an RPG because you Role PLay the character basically. How does that at all agree with your statement here [quote]
"So, do you believe that any game that does not have an extensive inventory is an RPG?"
I
would have answered no and believed that I simply had not explained
myself well enough. As it is, you made another false assumption. [/quote]
it doesn't  that's the problem. You basically say in your Video Inventory Doesn't Matter, COmabt Stats don't matter all that matters is the Role Playing, then you make the assertion that JRPGs aren't RPGs even though they give you a Predesigned role to play, and a character to control. The Act of Role Playing does not entail Originality It does not require originality and you make the assumption that RPGs Do Require originality and Options Even though the literal definition of RP  is quite clear that it's optional and all you need to do to RP is play a predesigned Role to play. Who designs the role is Irrelevant be it the Guys at Square enix in FF or the You in a Bioware Game or Bethesda Game. you use the argument that what an RPG is is simply playing a role through out most of the first video then attack games that give you a well defined role to play.

That is the problem here. you ignore the fact that Game Mechanics in Video Games is what categorizes them Nothing else. an RTS is an RTS because it's large scale, DA:O was not an RTS but had RTS elements why because it was an RPG that relied on player altered stats and small scale combat. an FPS is an FPS because well it's an FPS you have some guns and you shoot things with typically no regard for whats around, Deus Ex is an RPG FPS because it gives you Stats, and an Inventory that can be more than just guns and nades, RPGs as a gametype/genre require stats and inventory in some capacity, though not necessarily custom characters, any game can give you choices and options in the story it doesn't mean it's an RPG Shoot the burning korean soldiers in homefront or not to shoot them? To kill civilians in GTA or not? These all let me deterimine my characters personality and his ideas, this an RPG doesn't necessarily make not because it isn't important to western RPGs but because it is included in nearly all other games some how. Metro 2033 is another good example of Choice inclusion in an FPS that is clearly not an RPG. 

Modifié par darth_lopez, 29 septembre 2011 - 07:17 .

[Phaedon]

I barely managed to skim over the last couple of posts, but here you go:

1) Don't link inventories to RPGs. That's just wrong. Pragmatically and ETHICALLY. Yes, you are a terrible person.

2) FPSs and especially RTSs tend to assign you to a specific pre-determined character.

3) Those that do not, block roleplaying. It's not that they offer choice, they actually break the link between the player and the character personality. Because there is none.

4) Progression systems DO exist on FPSs these days, but especially RPGs.

5) Well, duh, if you try extremely hard to forget about every single roleplaying section in the two latest Fallout games and also remove progression and character customization you will have a shooter. Okay.

6) You don't have a custom character in GTA games. Even in the rare occasions where choice exists, the character reacts in a very specific way, and is thus, pre-determined. See: GTA IV.

7) Player - Character distinction is a silly claim to hold, because every CRPG to date requires player interaction AND skill. That in many cases, the character would normally not possess, at that.

Modifié par Phaedon, 29 septembre 2011 - 07:48 .