1002 réponses à ce sujet

[Phaedon]

[quote]Varen Spectre wrote...
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. [/quote]
Err...nope?

You mix a single feature with other features and drawbacks and expect to have something representantive of either games? Or systems?

Your scenarios are 100% manufactured, not representative of either game at all, and are also flawed.
It has absolutely nothing to do about what systems allows for control over more variables.

Even so, you go ahead and call that "deep". I am baffled, because I have been looking up four dictionaries of three different languanges (I am not kidding) for close to half an hour, and there is nothing like that there.

My only logical assumption out of this, is that you label "deep" the system that you enjoy more. Not what is meaningful. Or is literally deep. Which is rather impossible, but whatever.

[quote]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]
Umm, I have never ignored that question.

For the zillionth time, you don't have direct access over any actual variables. I repeat. No, direct, access. Unless you are modding the game that is. You are just labelling some attributes that control actual groups of variables. Of course that is fundamentally flawed, because the very system is based on diversity per batches of actual variables, and you are trying to propose the exact opposite.

[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]Eh, okay, but how come you use the "deeper doesn't necessarily mean better" card then? Are we debating on stats or depth after all?

[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]
Considering that I was not actually carrying any measuring instruments, I do expect people to get a general idea of what I mean, and instead not to throw "deep" around in the same way they would use "derp". There are words with actual meanings.

[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 how is what you propose, depth?

Why is not "volume"?

Or "weight"?

Probably not very accurate use of the words either, but hey, I still can't see why you don't want to have a practical definition of depth.

[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). [/quote]
I am sorry, but...how does that even come close to making a statistic meaningful?

Is it guaranteed to have more effective changes? Obviously not, probably the opposite.

Is it going to specialize a character in a more meaningful way? Apparently not, since you don't agree that that was the point of the system...

Does it have a more important effect in-game? Not really?

[quote]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.[/quote]
No, I am not saying that it isn't as important.

I am saying that it has absolutely nothing with how meaningful a statistic is, and your assumption that "Bigger overall difference matters even if it is split in dozens of levels" is flawed. I have explained why at least twice already, and I am willing to do so again.

[quote]Until now it would be as objective as my proposal (in terms of arguability) only with different subject of measuring.[/quote]
For starters, I don't think that there is any doubt over what idividual change in each game is more meaningful...

[quote]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.[/quote]
It also blocks the option to not specialize, which is a huge plus for me.

[quote]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 =…).[/quote]
If I am getting the gist of what you are saying, no, that's not what I am saying.

Each idividual attribute change in ME2 could have been theoretically game-breaking, yes. Is it? I have yet to see a complaint over ME2's balance.

[quote]And perception of what would or would not cause balance problems is IMO quite subjective. So I have decided to call your approach “subjective”.[/quote]
Um, okay. Let's look at the end result. Which game, objectively carries the most complaints over broken balance?

[quote]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]
Yeah well, using the word "depth" to describe "size" is an incorrect use of English. Sorry if I sound too aggressive, but you are either using it as a compliment for the sake of using it, or you are using the word incorrectly. I'd hate to have spent so much effort and money into learning English and being wrong about that, honestly. Surely you agree that words such as:

• Big,
• Small,
• Great,
• Tiny,
• Vast,
• Tall,
• Gigantic,
• Short,
• Wide,
• Enormous,
• Huge.

Are more appropriate?


[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.[/quote]In that case, why are you defending "growth" as a valid progression model in ME1?


[quote]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.
[/QUOTE]
Yeah, well, I guess it's too bad you can't do that, considering that both games use completely different scales of measuring. For example, you have to do guesswork, yes, guesswork, just to implement ME2 weapons in the same measuring system in ME1, even if you are NOT using ME1's measuring system but one you have created on your own. And I am talking about percentages here, which would have been the only way to achieve something like that.


[quote]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]
But you are still using "depth" to define what you explicitly describe as "volume"?

[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]
Yeah, stop right there.

I know that it is your opinion, what I am looking for is a basic explanation behind it.

And I am not just looking at the size of choices, I am looking at the depth of changes.

[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).[/quote]
Back in the lack of scaling days? Or the 90/00s games with the primitive balance and creature creation?

[quote]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]).[/quote]
Which didn't happen in the case of ME1, and is therefore not relevant to this debate.

[quote]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.[/quote]
I have used some of those "revamp" systems myself, and I didn't like them at all. Do you want to know why people complain about level scaling? Here is a hint: Check the motto of RPG Codex.

The games don't become less challenging at all. They just have actually working learning curves. Don't get me started on complaints over level design...

[quote]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.[/quote]
Not enforcing specialization? In games with branching tech trees?

Sparta or not, this is madness.

[quote]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]
Yes, I am afraid that you are in the minority. There were a lot of complaints about the balance.

[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.[/quote]
Okay, well, please, do everyone a favour and don't be.

ME1's (im)balance was regarded as one of the game's biggest issues. Do you see many people complaining about that for ME2? I know I haven't.

And I am not only talking about professional reviewers.

[quote]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.[/quote]
Then you didn't dig well enough. The analysis of metacritic reviews for ME2 cites several reviews for saying that they were glad for the removal of specific features and enjoy ME2's progression.

[quote]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]
The level up system? Big problem?

As in that it made people rage? Yes, it did, but that's not the issue here. The issue at hand is the balance.

[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.[/quote]I can't say I agree. I don't see the point of using words in a different manner than the common vocabulary sets them to be. I don't call ketchup sauce, "mustard".

[quote]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]
My preferrences? Not at all. From where did you deduce that? I have been explicit that I am going to try to use the word for what it is, and not as a shallow compliment.

[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]If you insist, by all means include it. This is not a ME1 vs ME2 overall comparison and I don't consider those aspects "better or worse" but different.
[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.[/quote]What the third guy has to say is irrelevant to balance.
And the second guy essentially agrees with the first one.

[quote]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]
I doubt they'd be helpful for developers. Feedback is supposed to be about the general sense one got from the game, not gaming fans attempting to sound sophisticated to matters concerning game design.

This has obviously failed, as some changes between ME1 and 2 would show.

[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 you see how it is flawed, then? You are not looking at the big picture at all if you don't really examine how level-to-level transition works.
[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?…[/quote]That is pretty straightforward. Adapting to a build, whether you are creating it on the go, or following a guide.


[quote]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…[/quote]
Er, no? Why would you relate that to specialization at all? 

[quote]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]
And if we are talking about ME2, they are boosted by other skills and/or other features.

[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]Doesn't really answer my point...
[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]Not when you are comparing idividual changes from one game to another based on percentages, not at all.
[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]Um. That is entirely irrelevant. You claim that you can choose not to level up, which is plain wrong.
[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…  [/quote]
Yes, of course. A game's most important feature, it's core is it's gameplay.

And while I consider ME1 to be a rather big "f*ck you" to gaming design and with little to no redeemable features, I don't have the heart to rate it a 6/10, as I would objectively.
[/quote]

[Gatt9]

SpiffySquee wrote...
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. 

This is where your arguement keeps breaking down.

1.  CRPG's are computer implementations of the Pen and Paper RPG experience.  That's the entire point behind the genre,  to create a computer representation of the PnP RPG experience.  Just like the entire point behind implementing computer Chess is to get computer Chess,  not checkers.

2.  As such,  any implementation must be reasonably translatable both ways.  If,  at any point,  a critical system breaks during the translation,  then you failed to implement the computer representation you were attempting.  You cannot create a racing simulator based on cars with square wheels.

The definition is,  and has been,  very concrete.  The only issue is the people who keep stating "Yeah,  but I think RPG's should be like this...",  which is pretty much the equivalent of saying "Yeah,  but I think Corvettes should be like a Ford Focus 'cause I like Ford Focus".  The definition of the genre doesn't change because you and a few other people want the genre to be something else.

This is the crux of the problem.  People who hate RPG mechanics,  but for some strange reason want to be RPG Players.  What you want are Action-Adventure games,  which is just fine,  but RPG's are not Action-Adventure games.  So I'm *really* fuzzy on why you keep insisting that RPG's become Action-Adventure games.

Especially since Bioware stopped calling it RPG's and switched to Action-Adventure months ago.

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

It would *really* help if you'd ever actually played an RPG.  While it is possible to implement an item-less RPG,  items are generally short-term character progression independent of experience.

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

Again,  we're at the issue of your significant lack of RPG experience.  Dragonlance,  1980's,  one of TSR's best selling module series.  Among a great many others that included pre-defined characters in order to accelerate the process of organization in sessions with limited time.

In fact,  that series of modules featuring pre-defined characters was so successfull that it launched a novel series with well over 120 entries and lasted around 20 years,  something few,  if any,  novel series have done.

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.

Again,  lack of RPG experience.  It is quite possible,  in pretty much every RPG system devsied,  to create an entire Roleplaying session devoid of any choice beyond that which you find in any given RTS,  and to do it without violating a single rule.

Further,  you still do not understand the difference between an RPG and a LARPS.  An RPG doesn't have a link between the character personality and the player,  in an RPG they're completely seperate entities.  In an RPG your character is not you,  in a LARPS,  you are the character.  This is why all of the RPG systems devised had extensive rules for various facets of the character's personality,  because it was not yours. 

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

Progression systems existed in Checkers long before RPGs existed.  "King me!".  Character progression isn't a fundamental requirement for an RPG system,  just a desired one.

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.

I'll concede that Fallout New Vegas had sufficient RPG aspects to be considered an RPG,  it was translatable so long as you dropped the Real Time shooter part.

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.

Again,  RPG experience.  No RPG system requires choices as a prime component of gameplay,  this is a facet of the narrative,  not the RPG system.

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.

Massive lack of knowledge and experience. 

The Bard's Tale's,  Wasteland,  Phantasie,  Ultimas,  Gold box games,  Eye of the Beholder series,  Might and Magic series,  Fallout,  Fallout 2,  Planescape,  Baldur's Gate,  Baldur's Gate 2,  Icewind Dale,  Icewind Dale 2,  KotOR,  etc,  etc.

None of them required Player Skill to play,  beyond high-level decision making.  All of them functioned on the premise that the Character had understanding that that Player did not,  not the other way around.  None of them assumed that the player was an expert swordsman,  or fluently versed in the ways of magic.  In every one of them,  the Characters were the ones with those skills.

It's becoming increasingly apparent you've not only never played a PnP RPG,  but that you've also never played a CRPG.

Modifié par Gatt9, 29 septembre 2011 - 11:31 .

[darth_lopez]

Phaedon wrote...

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.

I would say don't link Small Inventories to RPGs, when you look at the history of RPG games every RPG in existence typically has a medium-massive item index and an inventory list for the character, maybe it would be better to use the word Item index to describe this than inventory might be a bad word choice on my part. It's certaintly a Decent feature that helps, only helps, to distinguish the RPG from other games of similar design. It's a Genre Convetion and what happens when you strip the fiction from sci-fi or the science from the fiction? you get one or the other not both. This is my point while Inventories/item indexes(large ones) aren't all that make an RPG it helps define the genre and make it stand out from other games.

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.

My point was simply most(if not all) Video Games, including COD, Metro2033 GTA IV..etc... Give you specific pre-determined Pre-written character to play as There for you are Role Playing in every game once you pick up that controller or sit at that keyboard and start the game. Why is that? in order to play any game you must to some degree Role Play the character, Decide what actions, be it minor and non-story affecting or the inverse, See the things that do as well as forumulating opinions off of what information the character knows and such. Characters that do speak or express themselves still allow the player to role play, because aside from the fact you are playing the character(a predifined role created by the devs for gameplay and story) Role Playing is more of a state of mind and not a true game mechanic.

also i would disagree that most RTS through you into a distinct character, at least the ones that i've played. I'd still say RTS are more throwing the character into an Omniscient General View point.

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

yes, which is why Progression, Skills, and Large item indexes/inventories are what define FPS/RPGs from straight FPS and why neither progression or inventory/item index alone distinguish an RPG in its entirety.

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.

The point i was trying to make here was in refrence to his "If you just strip ME down ot an FPS and keep the freedom of choice and you participate in Role Playing your character" spiel in one of the videos, some where in the first 5 minutes of 1. My point was Striping the inventory progression etc... From Fallout (arguably the freest RPG in convo here) what do you get? simply an FPS not an RPG. By squees video reasoning however It's an RPG because the player simply needs to role play.

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.

The character reacts in a very specific way to story in everyway, even shepard is stuck between (typically) 3 very similar decisions My point was not to assert GTA as an RPG by convential methods but only by squees arguments/contradictions. the point was to show how far the You "If you can roleplay and have freedom of choice it's an RPG" argument presented in the videos destroys the genre convention and allows for games clearly not RPG to qualify. Apparently i must not have explained my examples well enough i apologize v.v

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.

I'm not entirely sure what you mean by player character distinction? Most of my 2 posts has been dedicated to trying to show the problem with the Idea presented with squees video "That if you can RP it and it has freedom of choice it's an RPG" is tremendously flawed and he contradicts himself on Numerous Points, Notably his comments regarding JRPGs which are arguably the closest RPGs to achieve "Role Play" and Not "Player Projection" that is commonly associated with Western RPGs.

[Solmanian]

You know, when you guys write a 2+ pgaes reply, it's just discourage people from reading it.

[SpiffySquee]

Gatt9 wrote...

SpiffySquee wrote...
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. 

This is where your arguement keeps breaking down.

1.  CRPG's are computer implementations of the Pen and Paper RPG experience.  That's the entire point behind the genre,  to create a computer representation of the PnP RPG experience.  Just like the entire point behind implementing computer Chess is to get computer Chess,  not checkers.

And here is where your argument breaks down. No game developer ever tried to claim they could give the same freedom of a table top RPG. This idea that if they cannot perfectly duplicate a table top RPG it can't be considered an RPG is an idea you came up with. The point of CRPGs is to give the player control over the personality, and development of the character. It is to allow you (as much as possible) to pretend you are that character and develop their personalities and abilities in a way you like. Just because a table top RPG will always be better at this does not mean it is the only thing that can be called an RPG. You're trying to say that because a prop plane cannot reach the maneuverability, speed, or height of a F-22, it can't be called an air plane.


You keep claiming that this definition is concrete, then show me. Show me even one other person (much less the majority of people) who state that a CRPG must be completely compatible with a table top RPG or it cannot be considered and RPG. If it is concrete than lots of people should share this view. So far you are the only person who I have ever seen say that.

[SpiffySquee]

[quote]darth_lopez wrote...
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]

You are nitpicking details to ignore the point of the argument. Stats are a means to an end, not the end itself. If we all took a vote and did not use a rank system, then there would have been no stat and the RPG would still survive. The point I was making was that stats are there to make the game work and to place limiters on what people can and cannot do. They are not what makes an RPG an RPG.

For example, most FPS have stats. Is this what defines something as an FPS? No. The fact that you are playing a game where you shoot guns (or some other projectile) from the first person point of view is what makes it an FPS. The stats, inventory, and settings can all change or be left out and it would still be an FPS. An RPG, in my opinion, is an RPG because it gives you control over the character's personality and development. It allows to to pretend (within reason)  you are the character and not controlling some predefined personality. As long as these elements are in the game and the game reacts to your decisions, it is a RPG, or at least has RPG elements.

[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]

Trowing a roll of toilet paper into a trashcan is a skill. How hard I throw it, if I arc it, if I put a spin on it, and how accurate I am are what determines if it goes in or not. All of these are under my control and practice can make me better at it. I can roll a dice all day and never get better at it. That is the difference between random chance and a skill. Trowing a roll of toilet paper into a trash can has no random chance in it. (with the exception of someone bumping into you while making a shot, or some other miraculous random occurrence)

In any case, you are trying to show how the system of throwing a toilet paper in a trash can can be simulated by rolls and armor class, or vice verse. This is just proving my point that it is only a tool. What are you trying to argue? That a game needs game mechanics? Of course they do. My argument was that these mechanics are not what make an RPG an RPG.

Here is the deal; if you replace dice rolls with throwing toilet paper a game can still be an RPG. If you take out the ability to control your character's personality and reactions to the world around them then a game is no longer an RPG. Thus, dice are a means to an end, not the end itself.

[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]

Stop quoting half my argument and taking it for the whole argument. I say, numerous times that an RPG is a game in which you have control over a characters personality, development, and reactions. You can pretend (withing reason) you are them, and the world reacts in different ways depending on your choices. This is very different from just playing a role, and that is why I said you need to pay attention to the entire video, not jsut the parts you want to.

As for the actors, I stated that they were similar, not the same. I clearly stated that they do not have the freedom of a role play character.  I have to ask if you have ever done any serious acting (I mean something more than a high school play). No Drama major, or professional actor would agree with what you have said. Actors have an amazing amount of control and influence over their characters. They may have lines to say, but how they are said, what emotions or facial reactions are given, and the general tone of the character are all things implemented by the actor. It is the difference between the Jack Nicholson Joker and the Heath Ledger's joker. On paper, they would look fairly similar. The actors, however, owned their roles and made them like night and day from each other.

[quote]

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]

Putting limitations on what you can choose is not the same as taking away the option all together. No matter how many times you play FF10 Tidus will always say the same things, feel the same way, and make the same story decisions. He love the same girl, hates the same dad, laughs at the same jokes etc etc etc. their is NO player control over Tidus' feeling, emotions, or reactions.

[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 :/ [/quote]

Again, every serious actor would disagree with you. By the way, I'm not trying to insult your intelligence. Most people do not realize how much control actors have over their characters. If I had not been a drama major for 2 years, I would not know either.

[quote]
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]

How does this have anything to do with my argument? Bioware allows you to make choices about how Shepard views the world, his friends, and his loved ones. They let you shape his personality and the world around you reacts to these decisions. I never said that it is a perfect system or that you have absolute freedom. In fact the video says quite the opposite.

[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]

Listen very carefully. An RPG must let you have control over the character's personality, views, and reactions to the world around them. The world around them must also react to these different point of view or actions. Trowing cards on a table and saying, "I'm a summoner because I only cast summons"  does not come anywhere close to this. You can think this in your head, heck you can even come up with your own story for your character in your head, but the cards never react to this.

[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[/quote]

We are talking about Role playing GAMES, not Role Playing in general. Show me a definition for that. If I asked for the definition of an airplane, would you show me the definition of flying? Of course not, because that covers much more than what we are talking about.


You can think anything you want about Soap, but the game will never care. It does not react to anything you think when it comes to Soap's personality. You can think that Soap loves puppies all you want, but if the game never reacts to this then it does not matter. As I have said over and over, the game must react to your different personalities. 

[quote]
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]

And I am telling you that you are not paying attention to what I am saying and making up arguments. Stop that.


[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]

It would only be ethnocentric if I said my opinion was the only correct opinion like you keep trying to do. I know what Japanese game developers feel an RPG is. I disagree with them. This does not mean I am ignorant. It simply means I disagree. I never said they were wrong for thinking the way they do, merely that I do not share their opinion.

[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]

And this is why I said you need to pay attention to the entire video and not just the parts you want to. I may say that you take on a role, but I then go on to explain what I mean in the rest of the video. You taking one sentence out of context without considering the argument as a whole, does not make my argument flawed. Even if you did not understand the video, I have explained myself many times now.
[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]

First of all, I had to read this about 5 times to even come close to understanding you. Please try to be clearer, because you are not writing coherently. Secondly, you must not have read what I just wrote so I will re-type it for you.

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.

Read it again, very carefully, and then tell me where in my video I said that you HAVE TO choose different options every time you play. The ability to play Shepard differently and have the world react to it is what matters. The game is an interactive move WHEN YOU HAVE NO CHOICE but to to the same things every time.


[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]

[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]

And I disagree with your "general definition", so now what? I feel that table top Role playing games are call this because you create a character and play the role of that character. You can control their personality, and views and the world reacts to this. I feel everything else is mechanics to make the game work and are just a means to an end. Since most if not all table top RPGs fit this description, you can't say my definition is wrong. This is why the definition of what makes an RPG an RPG is subjective.


[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]
[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]

And you have demonstrate on several occasion so far that you do not care about what I really said. You only care about what you want to hear. You continuously say that I, "simply suggest that anything where i can pretend to be my character is an RPG" The argument in the video was much deeper than that, but you ignored it. I told you several times that you misunderstood me and explained what I was saying. You continue to ignore that as well. If you insist of pretending that that is all I said and ignore the rest of the argument, than I have nothing more to say to you.

Modifié par SpiffySquee, 30 septembre 2011 - 04:24 .

[Shepard the Leper]

Gatt9 wrote...

SpiffySquee wrote...
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. 

This is where your arguement keeps breaking down.

1.  CRPG's are computer implementations of the Pen and Paper RPG experience.  That's the entire point behind the genre,  to create a computer representation of the PnP RPG experience.  Just like the entire point behind implementing computer Chess is to get computer Chess,  not checkers.

2.  As such,  any implementation must be reasonably translatable both ways.  If,  at any point,  a critical system breaks during the translation,  then you failed to implement the computer representation you were attempting.  You cannot create a racing simulator based on cars with square wheels.

The definition is,  and has been,  very concrete.  The only issue is the people who keep stating "Yeah,  but I think RPG's should be like this...",  which is pretty much the equivalent of saying "Yeah,  but I think Corvettes should be like a Ford Focus 'cause I like Ford Focus".  The definition of the genre doesn't change because you and a few other people want the genre to be something else.

This is the crux of the problem.  People who hate RPG mechanics,  but for some strange reason want to be RPG Players.  What you want are Action-Adventure games,  which is just fine,  but RPG's are not Action-Adventure games.  So I'm *really* fuzzy on why you keep insisting that RPG's become Action-Adventure games.

Especially since Bioware stopped calling it RPG's and switched to Action-Adventure months ago.

Gatt9, you're trying to prove something impossible here. RPG is a word only, a concept, nothing more. Your entire argumentation is very similar to a religious extremist who considers anyone with a (slightly) different view to be an infidel or whatever. AFAIK you don't have to grow a Taliban beard, pray five times a day, and blow yourself up to be a Muslim; and someone who doesn't agree with everything the Vatican says can still be Catholic.

There are an infinite number of ways to "define" what makes a game a "RPG", like there are infinite ways to "define" or "interpret" (the color) "Red". Say we have an ocean of a "perfect" red liquid and we add a single drop with a different color. How many drops do we have to add to chance the color? Technically only one, though there's nobody who can tell the difference with the naked eye.

Computers are way beyond what you can do or simulate with "Pen and Paper". Things change, mix and evolve. A high-end $ 10,000 pc from the 90's is considered a piece of junk by todays standards. The "meaning" of words (or concepts) evolve too. Your opinion (what makes a RPG) obviously hasn't evolved, which is perfectly fine, but please stop trying to dismiss other opinions or interpretations of being "wrong".

The Bard's Tale's,  Wasteland,  Phantasie,  Ultimas,  Gold box games,  Eye of the Beholder series,  Might and Magic series,  Fallout,  Fallout 2,  Planescape,  Baldur's Gate,  Baldur's Gate 2,  Icewind Dale,  Icewind Dale 2,  KotOR,  etc,  etc.

None of them required Player Skill to play,  beyond high-level decision making.  All of them functioned on the premise that the Character had understanding that that Player did not,  not the other way around.  None of them assumed that the player was an expert swordsman,  or fluently versed in the ways of magic.  In every one of them,  the Characters were the ones with those skills.

Have you ever played a Total War game? I ask because they meet your requirements yet I doubt there are many people who consider Total War games RPG's.

Every game you've listed can easily be labeled Action-Adventure games. Making your own history in Total War games is also quite adventurous and action-packed btw. Because you use a different set of criteria on which you base your opinion (what makes games RPG's) than SpiffiSquee doesn't make your opinion the only and definite one. Everything in your previous post represents your opinion only - nothing more, nothing less.

[Phaedon]

[quote]Gatt9 wrote...
This is where your arguement keeps breaking down.

1.  CRPG's are computer implementations of the Pen and Paper RPG experience.  That's the entire point behind the genre,  to create a computer representation of the PnP RPG experience.  Just like the entire point behind implementing computer Chess is to get computer Chess,  not checkers.[/quote]
Source? As in, source that is not "Gatt9's World Factbook"? 

Computer role-playing games are roleplaying games developed for computers and played using computers. And PnP games are far from the first use of RPGs, as proven, I believe, three or four times, already.

Sure, you can prove that the first CRPGs were heavily influenced by PnP RPGs. Well good for you, that doesn't change the definition at all. King's Quest and Syberia are adventure games, and last time I checked, I didn't navigate my way through a cave complex using text commands such as ">West", ">North" or ">What do you mean MS-DOS is not RESPONSIVE?".



[quote]2.  As such,  any implementation must be reasonably translatable both ways.  If,  at any point,  a critical system breaks during the translation,  then you failed to implement the computer representation you were attempting.[/quote]
The computer what? I can assure you that not a single AAA RPG was developed in the past 5 years by saying "Oh, hey, let's emulate a PnP RPG!"

If anything, any product based on lack of creativity, was emulating video game models, what with the party systems and the specific types of inventories, squad tactics etc.

 [quote]You cannot create a racing simulator based on cars with square wheels.[/quote]
You can create a racing GAME based on cars with square wheels, however.

[quote]The definition is,  and has been,  very concrete.[/quote]
"Ahahahahueheheyuuhehehe"
-George Washington

"We must not allow the clock and the calendar to blind us of previous years of forum wars, or we will make the same mistakes again".
-HG Wells

 [quote]The only issue is the people who keep stating "Yeah,  but I think RPG's should be like this...",  which is pretty much the equivalent of saying "Yeah,  but I think Corvettes should be like a Ford Focus 'cause I like Ford Focus".  The definition of the genre doesn't change because you and a few other people want the genre to be something else.[/quote]
That's actually a good presentantion of what you are doing right now. What is even funnier is that no one actually got to debate on other definitions, when there are in fact,a sh*t ton, but just keeps on finding flaws in the definition that disallows player/character interaction and focuses solely on statistical progreesion. If KOTOR or BG are RPGs, then so is Mass Effect. 

[quote]This is the crux of the problem.  People who hate RPG mechanics,  but for some strange reason want to be RPG Players.  What you want are Action-Adventure games,  which is just fine,  but RPG's are not Action-Adventure games.  So I'm *really* fuzzy on why you keep insisting that RPG's become Action-Adventure games.[/quote]
What's even worse in all of this drivel, is the fact that you use the term "Action-Adventure" to define a genre. I suppose that this is you hating Adventure mechanics? Or is it that you want to rename a genre to be what you wish to be?

[quote]Especially since Bioware stopped calling it RPG's and switched to Action-Adventure months ago.[/quote]
Hurpity durr, herpity derp. Surely you mean "high octane adventure".

I don't know, I kinda feel this is describing the story, rather than gameplay, because I am honestly looking for things to point and click at, and riddles to solve, and I can't find any in ME3 so far! How sad.


[quote]It would *really* help if you'd ever actually played an RPG.  While it is possible to implement an item-less RPG,  items are generally short-term character progression independent of experience.[/quote]That's incredibly silly, even with your definition.
Statistical and character progression can be achieved without changing your items or having a functional inventory enviroment. Whoever thinks that inventories were invented by RPGs and are RPG mechanics, should have a firing squad assigned to them. Metaphorically.

[quote]Again,  we're at the issue of your significant lack of RPG experience.  Dragonlance,  1980's,  one of TSR's best selling module series.  Among a great many others that included pre-defined characters in order to accelerate the process of organization in sessions with limited time.

In fact,  that series of modules featuring pre-defined characters was so successfull that it launched a novel series with well over 120 entries and lasted around 20 years,  something few,  if any,  novel series have done.[/quote]I have never touched Dragonlance. But knowing you, I am sure that you think that having a character (a la The Witcher, for example), that you can make choices with throughout the game, is pre-determined for you. Does that stop RTSs and FPSs usually assigning a pre-determined character as the player? No. Does that stop Dragonlance from being an RPG? I don't know.

[quote]Again,  lack of RPG experience.  It is quite possible,  in pretty much every RPG system devsied,  to create an entire Roleplaying session devoid of any choice beyond that which you find in any given RTS,  and to do it without violating a single rule.[/quote]And it is possible to get blindfolded when playing Mass Effect to remove any roleplaying as well. Awesome observation.

Considering that PnP RPGs require you to explain your character's actions, obviously not.

[quote]Further,  you still do not understand the difference between an RPG and a LARPS.  An RPG doesn't have a link between the character personality and the player,  in an RPG they're completely seperate entities.  In an RPG your character is not you,  in a LARPS,  you are the character.  This is why all of the RPG systems devised had extensive rules for various facets of the character's personality,  because it was not yours.  [/quote]
Good job, Gatt. Just because you decided to not reply in the previous three posts that called you out on excluding LARPs as Non-RPGs, or stating that PnP RPGs coined the term RPGs, it doesn't actually mean that you can just scream "Trallalala, I am not listening! I am not listening!". Unless you use some sort of text to speech program when reading this thread, which is an explanation that would, honestly, explain a lot of things.

I too, love the PnP RPGs they had in the 50s. Or the undocumented games they played before then.

But, seeing as you like to rely on authorities, here are some for you:

• Werewolf: The Apocalypse (2nd Edition). White Wolf. 1994. pp. Chapter 1. ISBN 1-56504-112-7. "Although Werewolf is a game, it is more concerned with storytelling than it is with winning. Werewolf is a tool enabling you to become involved in tales of passion and glory, and to help tell those stories yourself."
• GURPS (4th Edition). Steve Jackson Games. 2004. pp. Chapter 1. "But roleplaying is not purely educational. It's also one of the most creative possible entertainments. Most entertainment is passive: the audience just sits and watches, without taking part in the creative process. In roleplaying, the "audience" joins in the creation. The GM is the chief storyteller, but the players are responsible for portraying their characters. If they want something to happen in the story, they make it happen, because they're in the story."
• Dungeons & Dragons Player's Handbook (4th Edition). Wizards of the Coast. June 6, 2008. pp. Chapter 1. ISBN 0-7869-4867-1. "A roleplaying game is a storytelling game that has elements of the games of make-believe that many of us played as children."

Not satisfied? Let's look at what Wizards of the Coast have to say about themselves:
[quote]What is a roleplaying game? 
The D&D game is a fantasy game of your imagination. It is part acting, part storytelling, part social interaction, part war game, and part chance. You and your friends create characters that develop and grow with each adventure they complete. One player is the Dungeon Master (DM). The DM controls the monsters and enemies, narrates the action, referees the game, and sets up the adventure. Together, the Dungeon Master and the players make the game come alive.[/quote]

Hrm. And this happens to be describing ADnD. Oh well.


or

"Guys, guys, "You need to use your imagination" was never the catchphrase of tabletop RPGs, let's retcon history, go,go,go, double time it!"


[quote]Progression systems existed in Checkers long before RPGs existed.  "King me!".  Character progression isn't a fundamental requirement for an RPG system,  just a desired one.[/quote]You know, you have yet to consider my question, which I have posted at least twice.

Why do you think that The Sims 3 is not an RPG?

[quote]I'll concede that Fallout New Vegas had sufficient RPG aspects to be considered an RPG,  it was translatable so long as you dropped the Real Time shooter part.[/quote]
As much as KOTOR which required you to use, for example your shields when the time was right? Or was, when you were to click that button in the bottom right corner controlled by a stat, and not the player?

Or the fact that different enemies react differently to different powers in other RPGs. Is that controlled by the computer too? 

Or the fact that there are specific RPGs without tactical pausing that require good eye-to-hand co-ordination?
[quote]Again,  RPG experience.  No RPG system requires choices as a prime component of gameplay,  this is a facet of the narrative,  not the RPG system.[/quote]That's funny. You have decided to dig yourself in this hole by claiming that CRPGs are based on tabletop RPGs. Had you not done that, you wouldn't have to come in full disagreement with the creators of D&D:

What is a roleplaying game? 
The D&D game is a fantasy game of your imagination. It is part acting, part storytelling, part social interaction, part war game, and part chance. You and your friends create characters that develop and grow with each adventure they complete. One player is the Dungeon Master (DM). The DM controls the monsters and enemies, narrates the action, referees the game, and sets up the adventure. Together, the Dungeon Master and the players make the game come alive.

or:

Waskul, Dennis; Lust, Matt (2004). "Role-Playing and Playing Roles: The Person, Player, and Persona in Fantasy Role-Playing"

"Interactivity is the crucial difference between role-playing games and traditional fiction. Whereas a viewer of a television show is a passive observer, a player at a role-playing game makes choices that affect the story"

Or the fact that storytelling is one of the primary functions of the GM and usually the players, too.

[quote]Massive lack of knowledge and experience.  

The Bard's Tale's,  Wasteland,  Phantasie,  Ultimas,  Gold box games,  Eye of the Beholder series,  Might and Magic series,  Fallout,  Fallout 2,  Planescape,  Baldur's Gate,  Baldur's Gate 2,  Icewind Dale,  Icewind Dale 2,  KotOR,  etc,  etc.

None of them required Player Skill to play,  beyond high-level decision making.  All of them functioned on the premise that the Character had understanding that that Player did not,  not the other way around.  None of them assumed that the player was an expert swordsman,  or fluently versed in the ways of magic.  In every one of them,  the Characters were the ones with those skills.

It's becoming increasingly apparent you've not only never played a PnP RPG,  but that you've also never played a CRPG.[/quote]

As immature as the term may be...did you just have a brainfart of massive proportions?

I have played Might and Magic IX, Fallout 1,2,3 (but not NV yet), Planescape Torment, All of the BG series and of course KOTOR.

Every single one of them requires PLAYER interaction and player SKILL.

Last time I checked, it was you who chose the build for your character.
It was you who chose when to use potions or skills.
And on which enemies.
It was you who selected party members.
It was you who had to position the PC in a proper tactical position.
It was you who often had to think fast and react fast.

It was who didn't have enough skill and didn't interact properly when your character dies.

In some games, you have to right-click to interact. In others, you have to left-click. And that involves shooting as well.

I won't even note how cut and slash games are considered by many of "your crowd" as a subgenre or RPGs.
[/quote]

Modifié par Phaedon, 30 septembre 2011 - 08:33 .

[The Interloper]

So many posts with so much text for such a small point. Ah, internet, I love you so.
ME2 has mutability and customizability. So does ME1. That's what it comes down to at the end of the day.

[Eduadinho]

Boom and Phaedon delivers the knockout punch!!!

[PaulSX]

only table-top/pen and paper role player will disagree mass effect 2 is an rpg, but PnP rpg is just a most popular sub-genre of role playing games. there are still people who play live-action role playing game or just simply do RPG reading

[Red Son Rising]

lil surprised this thread is still alive, seems like a moot point to argue to me but apparently this is still a hot topic. as long as bioware bangs out another game like mass effect 2 i dont care what ppl classify it as at this point, ill be happy to call it a great game and play till my eyes bleed

The Interloper wrote...

So many posts with so much text for such a small point. Ah, internet, I love you so.
ME2 has mutability and customizability. So does ME1. That's what it comes down to at the end of the day.

agreed, that was a lot of scrolling.

[darth_lopez]

Solmanian wrote...

You know, when you guys write a 2+ pgaes reply, it's just discourage people from reading it.

what's sad is it won't matter because i doubt squees capable of understanding what i'm saying at this point.

[Gatt9]

Eduadinho wrote...

Boom and Phaedon delivers the knockout punch!!!

In no specific order...

-He spent weeks calling RPGs board games because he didn't realize the board games were new and not what D&D is.
-He tried to claim that trucks are cars
-He tried to spin out some convuluted inheritance excuse completely missing the concept of the base class
-His primary source for his information is the introductory paragraph of wikipedia
-He still hasn't figured out the difference between an RPG and a LARPs despite the fact that they have completely different acronyms.
-At one point he even claimed I should go read the "Roleplaying rules" in my 1st edition AD&D books,  clearly showing he's never been near one,  there's almost none in there.
-Nor did he realize that D&D is the new acronym,  AD&D is what the original product line is.

If you guys haven't figured it out yet,  he makes stuff up as he goes,  and then tries to cover up his lack of understanding with excuses later.  Usually by strawmanning out an arguement completely different from what was originally said,  IIRC there's a beautiful example of that early in this very thread.

Nor has he "Knocked out" anything,  I've got a few decades worth of evidence on my side.  He has the introductory paragraph on wikipedia written by some random unknown person...a source an elementary school teacher wouldn't even accept.

Hence the reason why I quit dealing with his long-winded responses where he tries to strawman out some other arguement months ago.  People ask why I don't bother reading most of the responses,  you and Phaedon are why.  It's a waste of my time.  Which is sad,  because there's some people with real points worth debating,  I'm just tired of sorting through the background noise.

Modifié par Gatt9, 01 octobre 2011 - 01:18 .

[JedTed]

Video game genres are not the same as they were 10-15 years ago. Deal with it!

[DeathDragon185]

Just because you don't swing a sword around doesn't mean it's not a RPG.
more action type combat does NOT CHANGE THE ROLE PLAYING ASPECT ONE BIT!!!. YOU STILL HAVE CHOICES, DIFFERENT DIALOG OPTIONS, CUSTOMIZATIONS .etc. jesus ****ing christ, so if you don't have to trudge through gameplay to get to the next part of the story it means it's not a RPG????

*sigh* This is why I stick to playing JRPG's most of the time.

[darth_lopez]

[quote]SpiffySquee wrote...



You are nitpicking details to ignore the point of the argument. Stats are a means to an end, not the end itself. If we all took a vote and did not use a rank system, then there would have been no stat and the RPG would still survive. The point I was making was that stats are there to make the game work and to place limiters on what people can and cannot do. They are not what makes an RPG an RPG.

For example, most FPS have stats. Is this what defines something as an FPS? No. The fact that you are playing a game where you shoot guns (or some other projectile) from the first person point of view is what makes it an FPS. The stats, inventory, and settings can all change or be left out and it would still be an FPS. An RPG, in my opinion, is an RPG because it gives you control over the character's personality and development. It allows to to pretend (within reason)  you are the character and not controlling some predefined personality. As long as these elements are in the game and the game reacts to your decisions, it is a RPG, or at least has RPG elements.
[/quote]

It's not nitpicking it's an appropriate detailing of the situation. the point is not that all games have stats, cause that's a true statment too, the point is again that meaningful stats Stats, and the sense of level progression and Player Controlled stat manipulation skill development etc..., Help define the RPG video game as it's own genre taking away from that control, and in some cases depth, plures the line between RPGs and other games. Lack of Player controlled skill progression in Deus Ex: HR makes it not much more than an FPS. :/ same for Fallout and many other games (Especially once the inventory is gone) It's not that Stats Are the only thing that make an RPG but that they Help greatly in defining them. They are a part of the Genre Convention that makes an RPG video game an RPG video game.

[quote]

Trowing a roll of toilet paper into a trashcan is a skill. How hard I throw it, if I arc it, if I put a spin on it, and how accurate I am are what determines if it goes in or not. All of these are under my control and practice can make me better at it. I can roll a dice all day and never get better at it. That is the difference between random chance and a skill. Trowing a roll of toilet paper into a trash can has no random chance in it. (with the exception of someone bumping into you while making a shot, or some other miraculous random occurrence) [/quote]
you've never payed attention to the detailed mechanics of DnD have you? you get modifiers to improve  your dice rolls etc.. This is in essence the same thing as Tossing a Ball the same way and you yourself (the players intelligence) in both cases ways heavily on the situation and how the numbers, in the Toilet paper instance 1 or 2, add up. You miss the larger more abstract argument.

[quote]
In any case, you are trying to show how the system of throwing a toilet paper in a trash can can be simulated by rolls and armor class, or vice verse. This is just proving my point that it is only a tool. What are you trying to argue? That a game needs game mechanics? Of course they do. My argument was that these mechanics are not what make an RPG an RPG.
[/quote]
I'm not saying it's not a Tool you tool xD. It's a tool that not only improves and facilitates Gameplay But also Works as a dividing line to determine what is Digitally and RPG and What is Not. It's Not 100% needed to be random but typically there are some form of stats gain and player manipulation of it in RPGs this helps to distinguish the game genre from other games. Completely Ridding it from Video Games Destroys part of the Barrier that is RPG.
[quote]
Here is the deal; if you replace dice rolls with throwing toilet paper a game can still be an RPG. If you take out the ability to control your character's personality and reactions to the world around them then a game is no longer an RPG. Thus, dice are a means to an end, not the end itself.
[/quote]

In regards to Toilet Paper vs dice rolls: No **** sherlock It's not rocket science to figure out a type of combat system. Dice or shooting is a mean to an ends both tend to be fairly random and affected somehow by ingame stats and players intution

On the personality and reactions: That's debatable and certaintly not necessary in the digital area, as almost every game allows you to control to some degree character personality(totally optional) And Certaintly EVERY game requires Reacting to the World around them, that's the point. Making character personality is not required in an RPG game. it simply isn't, Bioware is probably one of 2 copanies that do anything with that at all.

[quote]



Stop quoting half my argument and taking it for the whole argument. I say, numerous times that an RPG is a game in which you have control over a characters personality, development, and reactions. You can pretend (withing reason) you are them, and the world reacts in different ways depending on your choices. This is very different from just playing a role, and that is why I said you need to pay attention to the entire video, not jsut the parts you want to.
[/quote]
You say that two times maybe? but it's not necessary Role Playing doesn't entail Personality or Development, Just reactions If that is truly your definition of RPG in your opinion RPGs haven't existed until 2000 thats it. they are a recent game genre etc... But this is not the case. the genre has existed for a long long time and most RPGs, in the grand scheme of things, Do not offer control over personality, only developement in combat which is in all games to some extent, and Reactions are in all video games.

Stop missing the point. dropping RPG to that Degree allows you to Say COD is an RPG Why you ask? Because The players combat development determines how good  soap is, the player decides how soap reacts to the world, and of course the palyers ideas and opinions on the story are essentially soaps because he has no voice

[quote]
As for the actors, I stated that they were similar, not the same. I clearly stated that they do not have the freedom of a role play character.  I have to ask if you have ever done any serious acting (I mean something more than a high school play). No Drama major, or professional actor would agree with what you have said. Actors have an amazing amount of control and influence over their characters. They may have lines to say, but how they are said, what emotions or facial reactions are given, and the general tone of the character are all things implemented by the actor. It is the difference between the Jack Nicholson Joker and the Heath Ledger's joker. On paper, they would look fairly similar. The actors, however, owned their roles and made them like night and day from each other.
[/quote]

Let me know when a hamlet actor orders pizza and marries ophelia on stage during hamlet. Heath Ledger's joke while amazing MATCHED the Actual Joker and what was Expected from the Joker, He did not make his own inflection of the joker. The difference between Jack nicholson and Heath Ledger isn't that Heath Ledger Inflected his personality into the the joker and made the joker his own joker, It's that he is the Ideal actor who completely Submerged himself in to the Role of the Joker going as far as he could to Effectively Act Out a pre-existing, pre-defined character, if Joker in Dark knight sat down ordered pizza, arrested batman and killed the panguin started fighting crime because Heath wanted to be a Paragon it wouldn't have been the joker it wouldn't have been good. ULtimately He died because he Submerged himself so far into the role rather than projecting himself over it.
[quote]
Putting limitations on what you can choose is not the same as taking away the option all together. No matter how many times you play FF10 Tidus will always say the same things, feel the same way, and make the same story decisions. He love the same girl, hates the same dad, laughs at the same jokes etc etc etc. their is NO player control over Tidus' feeling, emotions, or reactions.
[/quote]

it's the same thing, the devs decided that Limiting/removing story decisions and variations Was the best way to stell the story. Your compliance or agreement with the characters motives is not required to Role PLayer, I'm Sure Heath Ledger didn't support or condone the joker blowing up a hospital and holding inmates hostage.


[quote]
Again, every serious actor would disagree with you. By the way, I'm not trying to insult your intelligence. Most people do not realize how much control actors have over their characters. If I had not been a drama major for 2 years, I would not know either.
[/quote]
I'm sure after arguing with you i understand why you used "had not been" over "wasn't"  and then specified the time period, you arne't a drama major currently and you obviously dropped out of the program for some reason or postponed it i'd guess it's because you don't understand how Heath Ledger was truly Role Playing and not your pervese and inaccurate definition of it.

[quote]


How does this have anything to do with my argument? Bioware allows you to make choices about how Shepard views the world, his friends, and his loved ones. They let you shape his personality and the world around you reacts to these decisions. I never said that it is a perfect system or that you have absolute freedom. In fact the video says quite the opposite.
[/quote]
The point was it's bioware specific, and maybe 2 other studios? In anycase Bioware is the only company who consistently allows for this, and even then it's not "truly" free.  It's not a requirement in any Video Game RPG to have that freedom. That's like Arguing that our constitution actually protects Rights, it actual protects privellages that we culturally view as human rights,


[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]

Listen very carefully. An RPG must let you have control over the character's personality, views, and reactions to the world around them. The world around them must also react to these different point of view or actions. Trowing cards on a table and saying, "I'm a summoner because I only cast summons"  does not come anywhere close to this. You can think this in your head, heck you can even come up with your own story for your character in your head, but the cards never react to this.
[/quote]

If you pretend you are a planeswalker it does that's the magik of roleplay and imagination good sir(which is all you need to roleplay an original corrector) If pretending to be a something or another is not part of Role Play let me know and i'll gladly retweak. IN this case you could imagine the surounding to be anything Like LARPers do Unless you go so far as to say Larping is not Roleplay aswell check'n mate. accept your over generalization and retweak your arguments.

Furthermore the Cards in all these games don't need to react, in Magic they are simply Spells casted by a planeswalker there is no need for their reaction as they are weapons, Yugioh the cards are simpyl projections and have no emotion, pokemon is a little trickier but ultimately boils down to they are tools not characters.

[quote]


We are talking about Role playing GAMES, not Role Playing in general. Show me a definition for that. If I asked for the definition of an airplane, would you show me the definition of flying? Of course not, because that covers much more than what we are talking about.
[/quote]
Linked you a wiki article is that not good enough? i described 20 years of RPG tabletop and Video Game need you more? I 've shown how stats, inventory/item index etc.. are genre coneventions used to distinguish from other games. I don't see how this is Difficult to describe when you look at things with reason and logic and use intelligence when looking at the situation. Not just blindly forging forward to press your own definition. If at some point the definition i gave, and the Wiki article fail in agreement point them out please. Keep in mind my definition is more for western RPGs and only Video Games.
[quote]
You can think anything you want about Soap, but the game will never care. It does not react to anything you think when it comes to Soap's personality. You can think that Soap loves puppies all you want, but if the game never reacts to this then it does not matter. As I have said over and over, the game must react to your different personalities. 
[/quote]

You claimed what makes an RPG an RPG is being able to Role Play the character numerous times did you not? And don't say you don't cause you say it more than that "RPGs are Bioware style" (paraphrase) the game doesn't have to care the game acknowledges that you are willing to play the role of their predescribed character which is Role Playing, There By making it an RPG by your standard on one hand and contradictory to your other standard. The point of this was to Highlight the contradiction you made. However even in general all Video Games require Role Playing to a degree.

[quote]
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]

And I am telling you that you are not paying attention to what I am saying and making up arguments. Stop that.


[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]

It would only be ethnocentric if I said my opinion was the only correct opinion like you keep trying to do. I know what Japanese game developers feel an RPG is. I disagree with them. This does not mean I am ignorant. It simply means I disagree. I never said they were wrong for thinking the way they do, merely that I do not share their opinion.
[quote]
[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]

And this is why I said you need to pay attention to the entire video and not just the parts you want to. I may say that you take on a role, but I then go on to explain what I mean in the rest of the video. You taking one sentence out of context without considering the argument as a whole, does not make my argument flawed. Even if you did not understand the video, I have explained myself many times now.
[/quote]

You apparently stil ldon't recognize the inaccuracies, and flaws of your statements in the videos. I've listend to them a couple of times i see nothing different from now than i did when i first posted. Furthermore it's not taking a sentence out of context i typically quote you as you're leading into big themes of your video that you extrapolate on even further and only further contradict yourself. Very few times have i quoted just 1 sentence that didn't lead to you trying to explain a bigger picture and sticking y the sentence for the bigger picture. Suggestion Write your speach down next time instead of adlibbing.

[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]

First of all, I had to read this about 5 times to even come close to understanding you. Please try to be clearer, because you are not writing coherently. Secondly, you must not have read what I just wrote so I will re-type it for you. [/quote] yeah i must've been feeling the rush to get to my 3 o'clock class at that point my bad.

In anycase you ignore that There is a concious difference in roleplaying and story structuring if i do not experiment with new options after a while and i simpyl pick things off of my idea of what makes the better story it's less role play more story structuring. Why is this? Because Role play involves Playing a Role. If i make decisions i like all the time i'm not playinga role I'm Projecting myself into the game. Thereby it's not role playing. It's Me Structuring a story that i like.
[quote]
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.

Read it again, very carefully, and then tell me where in my video I said that you HAVE TO choose different options every time you play. The ability to play Shepard differently and have the world react to it is what matters. The game is an interactive move WHEN YOU HAVE NO CHOICE but to to the same things every time.
[/quote]

Regarding options you do outright say well sometimes you don't have other options. again Bioware doesn't give you real freedom of choice they give you the illusion of freedom of choice. They constrain you you are allowed to choose of 3-6 responses in general quite a few result in the same lines occuring but different type of "alignmnet gain" for the character and that's all. for example Arguing party members in ME 2 if you want to keep them there are 2 choices You can Renegade it, or you can Paragon it to get them to stay together But if you take the nuetral road Or else you are forced to pick a side are you not? there a numerous segments of ME 2 where renegade options or paragon options or even nuetral options D all result in the same Response and Do not relevantly change the story (more in ME 2 than in ME 1) How is this any different than Final Fantasy saying this is howw things are and this is how they will be? It's not all Bioware did was say " This is how things are and this is how things will be but if it makes you feel better you can pick meaningless flavor text that have very little real meaning or even that big of an impact on your character...but his face lights up now if your "renegade" cause we won't really let you be bad^^v"

So even though you pick the same thing happens everytime there is no real choice in mass effect and most western games with dialogue options, I would say Deus Ex has more freedom here but i honestly haven't played it enough yet to say it does (only 2 playthroughs right now) But this is where bethesda truly delivers, Their COnversation does not indicate alignment but rather your actions do, and this allows you to play in an amazing variety of ways through out their games.

[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]

[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]

And I disagree with your "general definition", so now what? I feel that table top Role playing games are call this because you create a character and play the role of that character. You can control their personality, and views and the world reacts to this. I feel everything else is mechanics to make the game work and are just a means to an end. Since most if not all table top RPGs fit this description, you can't say my definition is wrong. This is why the definition of what makes an RPG an RPG is subjective.
[/quote]
They are Called "Role Playing Games" because that is PART of what you do in a tabletop, though it is why they were named RPGs, I play dnd every firday with my trio of old highschool buddies  I personally suck at roleplaying i find it weird and mildly embarrasing to talk on behalf of a characters when i'm more used to selecting an option or something similar and much more simple, Which is why i'm the looney of the bunch easier to clown around than be serious, You can also play for other characters of other players if say they say sure, but you can't make character decisions aside from combat, you could even use a character then never talk or antyhing in character use him as a proxy which is what i initially did In anycase how do i play if i don't roleplay sometimes? Well the important thing is that you remember without the Dice there is no game, with out the stats there is no game, with out the progression there is no game. Playing The game is not Role Playing alone that's just Role PLaying, that's just Acting that's just telling a story in it's base essence. What makes the game a game is the opportunity to achieve success through the means presented, What were those means in dnd(arguably a the most influential RPG of all time) Dice, Stats, Progression. Even in your "Barrack Buddy's" Game There was Dice (the means of determining hits and success or failure) the was Progression (your advancement in rank) and Skills/feats(your command ability). this is where the G in RPG comes from, with out these it is not a game One cannot simply RP and call it a Game... You can play DnD with out Role Playing, it's not hard, You can play anything with out Role playing because role playing is a state of mind not a gameplay mechanic, or even a generalized statement in regards to describe being given a character to play, There by making your definition poor, over simplified, too general, and misdirecting. Anything, and i do mean anything, can be Role Play and anyone can play any role given to them in a game, infact to play games you have to play a predescribed role given to you thus by your definition making them an RPG due to the actual definition of RP and your poorly formed idea that the game mechanics are just a means to an end. when infact at least in Video Games the game mechanics are what define the Genres.

[quote]
[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]
[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]

And you have demonstrate on several occasion so far that you do not care about what I really said. You only care about what you want to hear. You continuously say that I, "simply suggest that anything where i can pretend to be my character is an RPG" The argument in the video was much deeper than that, but you ignored it. I told you several times that you misunderstood me and explained what I was saying. You continue to ignore that as well. If you insist of pretending that that is all I said and ignore the rest of the argument, than I have nothing more to say to you.
[/quote]
Your argument was unfortunately not much deeper, ignored deeper aspects of the RPG, and the larger fact that all Video Games involve Role player (in the sense you've been given a role to play and you play it..so the traditional sense xD ignoring whether you are allowed to affect character developement, personality and story aspects or not)
You voiced your opinion in an active argument did you not? am i not free to criticize your poor arguments(or 'opinions' as you dismiss them), and i have quite valid points in many places. What you say here, doesn't consittently match what you say in your video, and you've more or less tried proving me wrong than trying to prove your points. You've attempted to invalidate my arguments as Being "narrow minded" unwilling to accept other opinions and dictorial. While in this last post i'm sure it comes off as dictorial, that is only because you can't see beyond your own 'opinion' you cannot begin to fathom reasonable thinking, and do not see the more abstract picture here beneath the surface of your favorite game. It's people like you who are leading to the death of RPGs and the oversimplification of Video Games in general. When this industry is robbed of all complexity and becomes like a cigarrette company selling the flavor of the week. Do Yourself a favour Go back, watch your videos then go read your posts to me and my posts to you. Figure out what the **** you were trying to say in the videos then Post an appropriate response.

[Il Divo]

Gatt9 wrote...


-He tried to claim that trucks are cars

No, he's taking a particular grouping of games and giving them a category. Names are given meaning by society, not by you. Mass Effect is called an RPG. Oblivion is called an RPG.  You claim "But no! They can't be RPGs, because of x, y, or z". Yet, Deus Ex is an RPG, and Warren Spector himself couldn't even provide a decent definition. The Bioshock developers consider themselves RPG developers, yet their terminology is completely different. And Dungeons and Dragons itself includes provisions for role-playing and describes itself as "part story-telling".

You're taking stat-based gameplay, which is critical to your terminology, and complaining that all of us don't accept it as the universal term for "RPG", which demonstrates ignorance in language, definitions, and their roles in society. In other words: this is your definition, and yours alone.

-His primary source for his information is the introductory paragraph of wikipedia

And I believe earlier someone chose to pull out the Oxford English Dictionary, which you also chose to ignore. Wikipedia is typically considered an invalid source, because it can be edited by anyone. However, the fact that they chose to allow that particular title is indicative of how RPGs will be perceived by the Internet.


Edit: I'd also like to reiterate my earlier point: these are all semantics arguments, and have very little value. Everyone here is grouping games according to some criteria, simply fighting over who gets to use the word "Role-playing game". If I group stat-based games together and call them "apple games", the terminology does not affect the criteria by which they have been grouped.  Basically, these arguments have very little value.

Modifié par Il Divo, 01 octobre 2011 - 02:20 .

[Varen Spectre]

*sigh* I die little inside whenever I imagine that somebody has go through this wall of text.

Just like I have always stated in my PMs, please check my post and reply only if you do not have anything better or more important to do. I would hate myslef if I knew that I am slowing down new Mass Effect fanzine or something...

[quote]Phaedon wrote...

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.[/quote]

Well firstly, I wouldn’t say that overall size of the change between the lowest and highest level is not meaningful or that it can’t tell us something useful. It describes how much can variable or set of variables which make one power or attribute of power or weapon or item  (such as damage or damage protection) be changed.

For example, if one game allows the player to upgrade (or level up) damage up to 100% and the other up 300%, it means that in the 1st game the player has greater freedom. The game allows him to make a main character that could be 4 times stronger than he (she) was in the beginning and 2 times stronger than the main character could maximally be in the 2nd game. In other words, the effect of maxed out stat is greater in the 1st game than it is in the 2nd game.

Moreover, if the damage was not the only attribute which can be up-graded (leveled up)  to greater degree in the 1st game, but there were many others (health, speed, etc.), it would be possible say that the 1st game gives player greater overall freedom in developing the attributes of main character.

What it does not tell though is if the people would enjoy this freedom. I’ll leave that to individual preferences.

As for why did I pick this unfortunate approach?

Honestly, I don’t know… I never thought about measuring or comparing depth of two statistical systems. I guess… I just approached the supposed idea or task “measure the depth of two game stat systems and compare them“ the same way I would approach the task of measuring and comparing depth of anything else should it be the trench, field of view, colour palette, tone or database (not sure if you agree with the last one).

That means finding all attributes that are somehow related to measured object and finding their minimum and maximum values that describe it.

Of course I was aware of the fact that depth may mean quality as much as it may mean the difference between highest and lowest point, the closest and furthest point or the most and least intensive value.

So I had to pick between quality which is rather subjective and hardly measurable thing, since people like different things and like them to different degree and or something that could not contested. The things that can’t be contested are number of variables attached to stat systems, the level to which the variables can be changed, the number of choices within the stat systems and size of effects of those choices.

I am convinced that last the two do not represent entire effect of stats what so ever. The game can have bigger individual levels but as long as the other one can emulate that by adding several smaller levels together, from perspective of overall size of stat systems, it doe snot matter. Just like, it would not matter if somebody has decided to measure smaller sections within trench or field of view. The same goes for number of choices, because the effect of several choices in game with smaller levels can be accomplished by one or fewer
choices in game with larger levels. And picking choices within stat systems which are not marginal does not matter from the perspective of overall size of stats either just like working with 8bit colour palette would not represent possibilities of 16 bit colour palette.

Like you called it once? The literal meaning of depth? Well, I would like to call my approach that way but depth can literally mean quality as well. So, at best, it is the simulation of all those meanings which reflect exact and measurable size, dimension or spectrum. And I am convinced that stats can be measured in exact, uncontested way.    

[quote]We can't tell what kind of progression the game has? What?[/quote]

Well, I’ll go with what as of now I understand by “growth” and “specialization” based on this discussion. Feel free to correct me or redefine the terms if you want. After all, I am asking you to define or explain “growth” and “specialization” many times in this post.

So far, I have been under the impression that by “growth” I should mean the option to develop so many talents (skills) at the same time (or at the same pace) that it would (or should) not be possible to call it “specialization”
while improving in comparison to enemies. Whether it would be 5, 8 or 12 talents out of those 12 available is up to discussion and would probably change according to selected difficulty, since the level-scaling of enemies, which is dependant on difficulty, would reduce or increase the room for not specializing.

By specialization I simply meant the fact that main character does not have his (her) skills developed equally or evenly but “specializes” in selected few ones which are developed to greater degree than the remaining ones. So it could be said, that any game which allows the player to develop skills at different pace allows specialization.

Then there is the question whether pursuing “growth” or “specialization” are viable options in the game. I am convinced that not every game allows the “growth” – not every game allows the player to develop several skills while being better than enemies. Of course, it would be necessary to calculate whether it is indeed true, but based on our subjective impressions, we both have agreed, that for example Mass Effect 2 is most likely not one of those games. In Mass Effect 2, if player does not specialize (if he [she] does not focus on developing one or very few selected skills), then the enemies are going to punish him (her). In other words, the well rounded builds are most likely not viable options in Mass Effect 2 (though, at the end of the game, Shepard again starts to be quite well-rounded). 

As for Mass Effect 1... I am not so sure. Like I said, if I would go with Bioware’s interpretation of what is “baseline Mass Effect experience” i.e. the default difficulty, which sets the default relations between Shepard’s strength and the strength of enemies and that is normal difficulty… then I am convinced, that player is allowed to develop quite a lot of skills without being punished.

Is that “growth”? That’s probably up to further discussion, but what is safe to say is, that it is not the same type of specialization that is required in Mass Effect 2.    

Of course, all this applies to relation between Shepard's "strength" and "strength" of individual enemies. Specialization might very well still be more useful approach with respect to game's overall difficulty which may depend not only on "toughness" of individual enemies, but also on their numbers, positioning, game's design, etc.  
[quote]Why are people not claiming that this is a JRPG yet, then?[/quote]

I haven’t played any JRPG yet so I don’t know whether people should or should not complain that Mass Effect 1 was or wasn’t like JRPGs. SpiffySquee’s video already points out some differences between Mass Effect and JRPGs... Maybe the reason lies there.

[quote]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.[/quote]

I am sorry but I don’t understand. What kind of choice? The choice between investing and not investing skillpoints in some of the available powers or talents? In this regard, both Mass Effects are similar. Whether the player decides to invest skillpoints or not is up to him (her) in both games. If he (she) decides not to invest them, he (she) will have to face progressively harder enemies (because they are more or less successfully designed to give a challenge to player who invests those skillpoints somewhere) in both games. There is only one or maybe two differences.

The first one is that Mass Effect 1 should not be that difficult (because of worse A.I., more exploitable level design and probably not as intense level scaling) even if player does not invest the skillpoints anywhere. This one is probably uncontestable. The second difference, and I am not sure if this one would be real, is that there is a chance that Mass Effect 1 also allows growth if the player does invest those skillpoints somewhere. But as of now I am not sure about it.   

[quote]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.[/quote]

Why do you think that Mass Effect 1 would discourage people from specialization? Because it would not punish the players who do not pursue it (as severely as it should)? There are several stages between discouraging from something and not enforcing it. That, or I must have misunderstood you. ¯\\_  _/¯  

[quote]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,[/quote]

Well I do not understand this point at all. But, as I have pointed out earlier, there is a good chance that I understood by "growth" and "specialization" something else. Either way, please elaborate on this.
 
[quote] BioWare replicated most systems in place with classic RPGs but chose not to for the core part? Progression?[/quote]

Why do you think there is no progression? IRC, even you have stated that near the end you have blasted through enemies completely easily. What about your claims that some of the later items were “overpowered”?

Isn’t that the progression of the main character or his (her) equipment, when he (she) is actually stronger in comparison to individual enemies than he (she) was in the beginning and can defeat them with more ease? That’s how majority of RPGs I have played work - that the enemies who were challenge in the beginning are much easier in the end and they are gradually replaced by new ones or their numbers are higher. IMO, Mass Effect 1 at least tried to do this. Whether it was succesful or not depends on individual preferences. 

[quote]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.[/quote]

Where? Obviously not on Metacritic’s or Gamespot’s website, since I have checked that pretty thoroughly and have found very few complaints like that at best. From what I have seen, the most common issues seemed to be too complex and tedious menus, bad A.I. and bad (boring, clunky, unresponsive, limited) combat, and DRM for PC users. I can give you the repetitive environments if you want (I have seen several complaints about that).

Not that your points are not valid in themselves. It's just the number of complaints about them }at least on GS and MC, which have some of the largest databases of user reviews) pale in comparison to unmber of complaints about the things I listed. 

This leads me to believe that you must be mostly relying on opinions posted here on official forums (I haven’t checked the reactions here and I wasn’t here when the topic was popular). That would also explain why you emphasize those issues that much (aside from personal dissappointment), because seeing almost pure criticism in some kind of feedback thread (which is a good thing, because that is the main reason of such threads) would definitely give a different impression than seeing mixture of good and bad points in user reviews in user review databases in online magazines. Of course that's just speculation.

[quote]Err...nope?

You mix a single feature with other features and drawbacks and expect to have something representantive of either games? Or systems?[/quote]

As long as I would be able to measure or calculate them all, I do not see a problem with that. The overall verdict
would be based on which game has “won” in more of those comparisons.

[quote] Your scenarios are 100% manufactured, not representative of either game at all, and are also flawed.

It has absolutely nothing to do about what systems allows for control over more variables.[/quote]

Hmm, let’s see... 

(If I made a mistake somewhere, anyone please feel free to correct me.)

Example 1:
The type of variable – the temporary shield booster (shields) (pretty fancy name isn't it:P)
The powers and talents that affect it the most:

In Mass Effect 1: – Barrier (master barrier), in Mass Effect 2 – Geth shield boost / barrier / fortification (all increase shields equally) 

The size of most common increments to shields:

In Mass Effect 1: – by far the most common addition of shields from level to level is 20 points which could mean addition from 3% (in case of armour with the strongest shields which has 600 points) to 40% (in case of the weakest armour which has shields with 49 points) of shields. But since vast majority of armours have shields somewhere around 200 + points, I think we could conclude that such shield addition is quite small (around 10% depending on armour).   

In Mass Effect 2: the most common (and the only) addition of shields per level is 25% of shields.

The total effect of maxed out power:

In Mass Effect 1: Master barrier adds 1000 shield points which means addition of shields from 167% in case of armour with the strongest shields to 2040% in case of armour with the weakest shields. Since like I said, majority of armours seem to have shields somewhere around 200 + points, it means that average addition approaches 500%.

In Mass Effect 2: The overall addition of shields in case of maxed out barrier, fortification and geth shields is 100%.

So conclusions:

Which of the Mass Effects has larger individual levels? Well if we were nitpicky we could say Mass Effect 1, but since Mass Effect 1’s armour with the weakest shields is far from Mass Effect 1‘s standard, we can probably conclude that most of the time it would be Mass Effect 2.

Which of the Mass Effects the maxed out power has greater effect? It’s Mass Effect 1. Even in case of the strongest armour, the addition means at least 167% which is more than 100 % in case of Mass Effect 2’s powers.

Example 2:

The type of variable: – the damage reductant (no shields which work in different way)

The powers and talents that influence it the most:

In Mass Effect 1 – immunity (master immunity), in Mass Effect 2 probably hardened adrenaline rush (since most of the powers work like shields rather than damage reductants)

The size of most common increments:

In Mass Effect 1: 50% for the 1st level, 10% for the 2nd  level and 20% for the 3rd level.   

In Mass Effect 2: it is only those 50% in case of hardened adrenaline rush

The total size of damage reduction:

In Mass Effect 1: 80% overall damage reduction

In Mass Effect 2: 50% overall damage reduction

So  conclusions:

In which of the Mass Effects the most common additions per level are smaller? Well, the biggest change in Mass Effect 1is as big as that one in Mass Effect 2. The rest of them are far smaller. So it’s safe to say that majority of ME1’s level changes are smaller.

Which of the Mass Effects allows the player to level up (up-grade) the power that reduces the received damage to greater degree? It’s Mass Effect 1. The combined effect of + 50% + 10% and + 20% is obviously larger than the effect of + 50% of Mass Effect 2’s hardened adrenaline rush.

So now tell me, where does my hypothetical scenario about one game which has smaller level-to-level additions but larger combined effect of all levels than the other game which has larger individual increments per level but smaller overall effect of all levels differ from the examples I provided?

But… please note, I am not saying that Mass Effect 1 allows to level up (up-grade) all powers to greater degree than Mass Effect 2. All I am saying is, that we would need to compare most of the powers, talents, up-grades this way to find out which game allows to level up majority of powers to greater degree.

[quote]Umm, I have never ignored that question.

For the zillionth time, you don't have direct access over any actual variables. I repeat. No, direct, access. Unless you are modding the game that is.[/quote]

Well, I agree that the size itself is not a valid indicator of game’s actual quality. However, I do not see a reason why shouldn’t I, as a player who is supposed to control powers, skills, armours, weapons etc., be interested in overall effect of my maxed out ability even if I am not a modder. After all, I do have an acces to mechanism which allows me to change them (the leveling and skill systems).

[quote]You are just labelling some attributes that control actual groups of variables. Of course that is fundamentally flawed, because the very system is based on diversity per batches of actual variables, and you are trying to propose the exact opposite.[/quote]

Sometimes it can be batch of variables – e.g. damage + area of effect + some drawbacks. Sometimes not – health increase. In case of powers which affect more variables, I would calculate them both independantly and as batch and compare individual variables and batches separately. If there wasn't anything llike that in the other game, it would probably mean default victory for the game that uses that type of variable. But I am open to suggestions here.

As for diversity, IRC, it was you who wanted to deny Mass Effect 2 getting points for having much diverse powers. I have always stated that in my comparison, I would focus on how different the powers are from each other and
to what degree they can be modified (leveled up).

[quote]Eh, okay, but how come you use the "deeper doesn't necessarily mean better" card then? Are we debating
on stats or depth after all?[/quote] 

I do not see any conflict in my line of thinking. As of now, I haven’t expressed whether and how much i liked the stats in Mass Effects yet.

[quote]And how is what you propose, depth? Why is not "volume"? Or "weight"?[/quote]

I am not sure if volume would be correct. The volume usually reflects more than just size of differences between two marginal states. It also encompasses everything in between. Both you and I agree that the amount of states between two marginal ones should not be important.

As for weight, I don’t know how it could be used here. The only way that comes to my mind is as adjective that
describes importance, but that would fit your approach more (like choices have more “weight”).

As for your list of words related to size (big, small, great, tiny, vast, tall, gigantic, short, wide, enourmous, huge), I think that some of them (big, small, tiny, huge) could be used to describe the differences both between individual levels and probably between the lowest and highest level as well. Some could be used more or less correctly to express amount of choices (wide, enormous, huge, vast) and some probably would not have use in description of stats at all (tall, short, gigantic[?]). However, I am convinced that none of them would implement that supposed statistical system has many different variables and that thy are modifiable to great degree.
 
[quote]I still can't see why you don't want to have a practical defintion of depth[/quote]

Because what is and what is not practical is quite subjective. I wanted to take personal preferences out of the calculations.

[quote]Is it going to specialize a character in a more meaningful way? Apparently not, since you don't agree that that was the point of the system...[/quote]

Why not? Doesn’t the higher maximum limit of skill(s) mean that player can specialize to greater degree? In other words, that the difference between maxed out “specialized” skill and intact “non specialized” skill can be bigger? If the game has lower maximum skill cap then time when player can not invest skillpoints into "specialized" skill but has to invest them in something else will come much earlier.

[quote]Does it have a more important effect in-game? Not really?[/quote]

Providing that it would turn out that for example some powers or weapons can be maxed out to greater degree in Mass Effect 1 than in Mass Effect 2 (which is almost certain), wouldn’t that correlate with your claim that some of items in Mass Effect 1 were more powerful than the most powerful items of that type in Mass Effect 2?

I would say it would. I leave the question, whether it would be a good or bad thing to other people for their personal feedbacks.

[quote]It also blocks the option to not specialize, which is a huge plus for me.[/quote]

I have already asked it once, but I must have lost you somewhere. How can you call a Shepard who has let’s say all skills at level 2 (e.g. adrenaline rush lvl.2, concussive shot lvl. 2, combat mastery lvl.2, all those ammo powers
lvl.2, etc.) specialized? Where do you see specialization in that? (and we were talking about the size of changes between individual levels, not about level scaling here).

[quote]If I am getting the gist of what you are saying, no, that's not what I am saying.

Each idividual attribute change in ME2 could have been theoretically game-breaking, yes. Is it? I have yet to see a complaint over ME2's balance.[/quote]

Unfortunately, it is.

The fact that majority of people think that Mass Effect 2 has balanced main character’s growth (or specialization) and difficulty (or strength) of enemies better does not make it an objective claim.

Each of the guys who are O.K. with it may appreciate it to different degree (some of them may praise it, some of them may think that it was a decent but nowhere near as good as the first group claims it is and some of them may just tolerate it).

Moreover, I have seen posts in which people complained that leveling system in Mass Effects (both) is meaningless because of level-scaling (the reason of dissatisfaction was perception that Shepard’s growth was too small or non-existent and these complaints were more common in Mass Effect 2's case), posts in which people complained that enemies were too strong (which is similar but the reason of dissatisfaction was actual difficulty of fights and again this type of complaints was much more common in Mass Effect 2's case), etc. 

Then there is another aspect - the size of changes between individual levels. For example I like smaller individual levels (I have explained it in my earlier posts) and hence I think that levels in Mass Effect 2 were little bit too big
for me. Also there were too few of them. And I am convinced that I am not alone.

After all, there is quite big group of people who claimed that Mass Effect 2 was “dumbed down”. I disavow and condemn such expressions, because I do not see anything “dumber” in Mass Effect 2’s system. Clearly the developers had different goals in mind when they designed it. But my point is, that if I tried to find people who like games which have smaller levels but have more of them, among these guys, then I guess, I would be very
successful.

So... no. The claim that Mass Effect 2 has balanced level scaling and main character’s “growth” (or “specialization”) better than Mass Effect 1is by no means objective. Regardless of the ratio between people who agree or disagree with it.

Unlike for example the claim, that power that boosts shields can be leveled up in Mass Effect 1 to greater degree than in Mass Effect 2. Unless I made a mistake in my calculations or unless, somebody will disprove it by testing it in the game in which case the opposite would be objective.    

[quote]Um, okay. Let's look at the end result. Which game, objectively carries the most complaints over broken balance?[/quote]

That’s quite clever use of word “objective” in the situation which is very related to the previous one. However, there are some differences…

In the first situation, there is no single criterion which could define the balance (e.g. I like when my Shepard at
the end of Mass Effects is much stronger than he [she] was at the beginning so I would think that game would be perfectly balanced, if it would make defeating individual enemies at the end of the game easier than it was at the beginning and than it was in reality. You on the other had obviously seek challenge so you would probably prefer if individual enemies at the end of the game were stronger. Not to mention that our skills might be different and what might be very well balanced difficulty for me might be very easy for you. Also, it is obvious that you and Bioware have [or at least used to have] different perceptions of what should be called “normal” difficulty. Which again is O.K., but it nicely illustrates the diversity of opinions.). As a result, there are different perceptions of balance. 

In the second situation, there is only one criterion – the number of complaints. It is possible to come with definitive answer on question which game carried more complaints.

But that does not make the certain perception of balance objective. Only more common. Also be careful not to use this type of argument against Didymos1120.:happy: He (she) would school you about inadequacy of use of argumentum ad populum in online discussions.      

[quote]In that case, why are you defending "growth" as a valid progression model in ME1?[/quote] 

Well, I do not expect to answer correctly as long as I would not know what do you exactly mean by “growth”. E.g. in how many skills in Mass Effect 1 or 2 would I have invest to call Shepard’s progression a growth. Providing that we will agree on what growth means, we can check if Mass Effect allows it or not.

[quote] Yeah, well, I guess it's too bad you can't do that, considering that both games use completely different scales of measuring. For example, you have to do guesswork, yes, guesswork, just to implement ME2 weapons in the same measuring system in ME1, even if you are NOT using ME1's measuring system but one you have created on your own. And I am talking about percentages here, which would have been the only way to achieve something like that.[/quote] 

Of course the percentages are the key. But guesswork? What do you want to guess when you can calculate it exactly?

All that is needed to be done IMO is to pick the default (first) unleveled (un-upgraded) weapon, armour, item or power the attribute(s) of which we want to compare (or measure and compare) with attribute(s) of other (or leveled up) weapons, armours, items or powers and if we know or trust the value of that attribute, that is stated somewhere in game’s menu, Wikia, or another guide and don’t mind or don't know the effects level scaling ,set it as 100%. If we do not trust the number stated in those sources or we want to see how would that modified power work on level-scaled enemies, than measure how much time or attacks does it take to kill an enemy or Shepard or his (her) shields (depending on what we want to measure) and set the result of measuring as 100%.

Then level (upgrade) that attribute up or pick another weapon, armour, item, check the value that is attached to it and convert it to percentage according to the first power, item, weapon, etc. (that should be a simple math in the vein of “if 210 is 100% how much % is 315“) or if we do not trust those numbers or we want to see how can level – scaled enemies mix things up, measure how much time, shots, attacks, etc. does it take to kill the (level – scaled) enemy with that (leveled up) weapon, armour, item or power and compare the results with the first one.

And by compare I mean formula:

percentage = time to kill enemy with 1st (or unupgraded) weapon x 100 - 100
                         time to kill enemy with 2nd (or upgraded) weapon

or

percentage = shots (attacks) to take down enemy with  1st (or unupgraded) power x 100 - 100
                            shots (attacks) to take down enemy with 2nd (or upgraded) power

Then repeat the procedure for the powers, weapons, items, etc. in the other game and compare the percentages between them.

(as always, anyone please correct me if I made a mistake somehere)

No guesswork, just some measuring and math. The only problem would be accuracy but I am working on the solution.

Just one remark, this formula presumes that enemies do not scale as quickly as measured attribute. And I am not sure if that applies to both games. 

[quote]I have used some of those "revamp" systems myself, and I didn't like them at all. Do you want to know why people complain about level scaling? Here is a hint: Check the motto of RPG Codex.[/quote] 

I have never been there… I checked their motto… and I am not sure I understand… The people complain about level – scaling, because it is not used in such way that enemies would scale up “to their level“? Like 1:1 ratio? Or is it some kind of sarcasm or pun? I am lost.

[quote]Back in the lack of scaling days? Or the 90/00s games with the primitive balance and creature creation?

Not enforcing specialization? In games with branching tech trees?

Sparta or not, this is madness.[/quote] 

No, no my Persian guest, that is a reality in many modern games such as Witcher 2 or Deus Ex Human Revolution which do not have any level – scaling or Fallout 3, which doesn’t have that severe level scaling as Mass Effect 2 (Yao Guai was definitely harder foe for my character at level 8 or so than was Deathclaw for
my character which has reached level 20, even if I did not pursue selected few skills, but developed many of them pretty evenly – well, at least according to me and other posters that I have seen on some other forums), so that player can either develop main character’s skills pretty evenly or at least a lot of them, or if he (she) wants to, he (she) can focus on selected few levels, all that without facing punishment or too much punishment for not focusing on selected few skills (specializing).

I guess that increases the chance that most of them may not represent a proper challenge for you. Which is O.K. and I encourage you to voice your criticism,… but you should not be surprised if there will be a large group of people with different preferences (e.g. most of members on DE HR forums welcomed the information DE HR will not have level-scaling).

As for branching trees, I think it is safe to conclude that Witcher 2 and DE HR, do have them. As for Fallout 3, I would not say it has branching trees but neither has Mass Effect 1. Or by branching trees you mean something else than having the option to evolve (modify) slected skill in different ways (e.g. advanced hacking / stealthier hacking or higher slash damage to single enemy / slash damge to more enemies).
  
[quote]Yes, I am afraid that you are in the minority. There were a lot of complaints about the balance.[/quote]

I am fine with that… But as of now, out of the modern RPGs / hybrids that I have played (Mass Effects, Alpha Protocol, Witcher 2, Deus Ex HR, Fallout 3), I can say that Mass Effect 2 was the game with the most intensive level – scaling. So, it’s not like that such strict level - scaling is standard in gaming industry.

Not that it is a big deal for me anyway… I find it completely negligible in comparison to everything that Mass Effect 2 handled excellently.

[quote]Okay, well, please, do everyone a favour and don't be.

ME1's (im)balance was regarded as one of the game's biggest issues. Do you see many people complaining about that for ME2? I know I haven't.

And I am not only talking about professional reviewers.[/quote]

When you look at Metacritic, it’s pretty wild ou there, I would say. People complain about anything and everything. At the time of writing this text, the guy in recommended “positive (green)“ review was complainging about
RPG system in Mass Effect 2.

As long as the amount of complaints wasn’t on the scale of Dragon Age 2 or Duke Nukem Forever, I would say that it could not have been such a big deal as you are trying to make out of it. User reviewers are clear after all – everywhere from Metacritic, through IGN to Gamspot, the averaged user reviews range from 8,5 (metacritic Xbox) to 9,1 (Gamespot Xbox) which is pretty good score.  

[quote]Then you didn't dig well enough. The analysis of metacritic reviews for ME2 cites several reviews for saying that they were glad for the removal of specific features and enjoy ME2's progression.[/quote]

Do you mean this one?

I do not see anything about imbalance there. Not about the imbalance we are discussing here – the supposed imbalance between character's growth and game's difficulty or imbalance between size of individual levels and players' perception of progression.

Not to mention that if I have to “dig deeper” to find some complaints about Mass Effect in this regard, because there is nothing that would pop up immediately (outside of things I mentioned in my previous post which don’t have anything to do with any balance whatsoever), than it must mean that issue of balance could not have
been that big.  

[quote]The level up system? Big problem?

As in that it made people rage? Yes, it did, but that's not the issue here. The issue at hand is the balance.[/quote]

If the reviewer says the leveling system “works very well” or that “it is really good and surprisingly easy” without pointing out any problems related to it such balance between how far player can level up and how tough / easy the
enemies would become or how big / small the changes between levels are and how the player feels about “specialization” or “growth” of the main character, then it is safe to presume that he (she) did not have a problem with that.

After all, he (she) is a reviewer – he (she) is paid to point out things that might be an issue for (some) consumers. 

So the final set of questions would be… Did Bioware fail to deliver a balanced game? Did vast majority of professional paid reviewers fail to notice that? Did more than 30 000 (!) people who contributed to those aggregate databases such as Metacritic, Gmaespot’s, IGN’s user reviews, fail to notice that and complain about it as well?

I can’t help myself but I am coming to conclusion that Mass Effect’s balance must not have been a big deal outside of smaller closed groups of players. That of course does not make the opinion that Mass Effect 1 wasn't a balanced game any less valid. Only the claim that many people complained about it (in comparison to people who did not complain).   

[quote]My preferrences? Not at all. From where did you deduce that? I have been explicit that I am going to try to use the word for what it is, and not as a shallow compliment.[/quote]

As long as you are going to maintain (…= 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 =…) your definition and perception of depth will be subjective. Your perception of what is and is not balanced might be the most common perception around, but that would not make it objective.

[quote]That is pretty straightforward. Adapting to a build, whether you are creating it on the go, or following a guide.[/quote]
What does that mean in terms of picking skills and investing skillpoints in them?

There are 12 talents in Mass Effect 1 and 7 (plus 1 bonus) powers in Mass Effect 2. How many skills of the main character can player develop in order to be still called specialized? How many more skillpoints do those specialized skills have to have to considered the skills in which the main character specializes?

[quote]Not when you are comparing idividual changes from one game to another based on percentages, not at all.[/quote]

What you propose is an ideal scenario in which the parameters of enemies (their health, maybe shields / barrier, the damage they inflict) scale at the same pace as Shepard’s (probably according to the best equipment available at that point of time) and you know the exact level-scaling mechanism which is based solely on percentage (e.g. 50% of Shepard’s level). That is nice, but very pretty far-fetched assumption.

The first problem we may have is how to measure effectiveness powers that boost Shepard’s equipment. It is more than likely that at certain level Shepard will have an option to pick several new weapons or other items. The question obviously is, according to which of them, if at all, are enemies scaled? For example, if developer expected that the most common weapon on certain level would be certain weapon and scaled the enemies on that level accordingly, then picking up any other weapon and testing the effect of power which is supposed to increase damage of that type of weapons may distort the results – the power may look weaker than it would be if the player used the “proper” weapon.

I don’t know... maybe I am complicating things, but unless you can guarantee that what I said above is not the case, we have to be prepared for worse (more complicated) alternative.

Another problem, and here I am quite certain that it is a real problem, is an assumption that level scaling mechanism is solely based on percentage. Unless we know this for sure, we should not presume that. I have seen some posts in which some guys claimed that level-scaling mechanism is something like “certain percentage of Shepard’s level + something“ (e.g. 75% of Shepard’s level + 7 levels). Obviosly since such level of enemies would consist of fixed part and variable part, the increase of enemies' strength per level would not be straightforward.

[quote]Um. That is entirely irrelevant. You claim that you can choose not to level up, which is plain wrong.[/quote]

Well, feel free to propose another method how to measure the effect of leveling up in situation in which enemies scale up (level up) at faster rate than main character and you don’t know the exact level scaling mechanism - all you see is that they are harder than they were in the beginning but you don"t know by what margin and what role does your leveled up power play in it. ¯\\_  _/¯

Modifié par Varen Spectre, 03 octobre 2011 - 11:18 .

[littlezack]

Il Divo wrote...

Gatt9 wrote...


-He tried to claim that trucks are cars

No, he's taking a particular grouping of games and giving them a category. Names are given meaning by society, not by you. Mass Effect is called an RPG. Oblivion is called an RPG.  You claim "But no! They can't be RPGs, because of x, y, or z". Yet, Deus Ex is an RPG, and Warren Spector himself couldn't even provide a decent definition. The Bioshock developers consider themselves RPG developers, yet their terminology is completely different. And Dungeons and Dragons itself includes provisions for role-playing and describes itself as "part story-telling".

You're taking stat-based gameplay, which is critical to your terminology, and complaining that all of us don't accept it as the universal term for "RPG", which demonstrates ignorance in language, definitions, and their roles in society. 

I'd say it demonstrates his arrogance more than anything else. The idea that anything he's done qualifies him to be one whose definition of RPG is relevant. At the heart of his argument, he believes that his definition of an RPG is the only acceptable one simply because he's played a lot of them.

[Il Divo]

littlezack wrote...

I'd say it demonstrates his arrogance more than anything else. The idea that anything he's done qualifies him to be one whose definition of RPG is relevant. At the heart of his argument, he believes that his definition of an RPG is the only acceptable one simply because he's played a lot of them.

Which is a mistake alot of us get into. Experience is always helpful, as a qualifier. But it doesn't give universal knowledge. I still find the argument unnecessary. Gatt sees RPG as "stat-focused". Okay, that's great. If we ignore the term RPG, would we call Mass Effect 2 a "stat-focused" game? That would be getting to the heart of the issue and we'd probably have alot more agreement between forum goers, but the definition of RPG always takes priority.

[Varen Spectre]

SpiffySquee wrote...

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. 

Very nicely expressed different opinion.

If you don't mind, I would like to give you a compliment for your style of writing (or at least that post since I haven't checked others). I am becoming a fan of your writing.:happy:Keeping assumptions at minimum, taking into account, that the other forumite may simply view things differently and encouraging posters to ask before accusing...

Me likey. 

[darth_lopez]

JedTed wrote...

Video game genres are not the same as they were 10-15 years ago. Deal with it!

ON the brighter side fo things here even if we can't seem to define RPG(and agree on the criterion/genre conventions), at least we all seem to agree, except maybe gatt, that all Bioware and Bethesda rpgs and most Western RPGs are actual RPGs right? (with regards to the popular idea and Hostorical/cultural  Concepts)

Modifié par darth_lopez, 01 octobre 2011 - 08:30 .

[Phaedon]

@darth_lopez and Varen Spectre I'll try to respond to your posts tomorrow.

[quote]Gatt9 wrote...
In no specific order...[/quote]
Jesus, Gatt. You do realize that people do realize that you are going to ignore them after they prove you wrong within one or two posts and that they keep debating with you for the kick of it, right? At least grow a quad and respond to them directly for once. Aren't the krogan a great example?

[quote]-He spent weeks calling RPGs board games because he didn't realize the board games were new and not what D&D is.[/quote]
Me and my friends were probably the only ones in the entire area to be playing D&D games back in high school. One of them even tried to create his own RPG, with his own ruleset and everything, ended up messing it so much that it was unplayable. Tabletop translates perfectly to board in Greek, and from the definitions I find online, it's a perfectly valid definition in English as well.

[quote]-He tried to claim that trucks are cars[/quote]
I was originally going to call you out on a post of yours from some weeks back claiming that cars basically hadn't changed since their inception, but it seems like I don't need to!

[quote]-He tried to spin out some convuluted inheritance excuse completely missing the concept of the base class[/quote]
Inheritance excuse? You are making more sense than usual.

[quote]-His primary source for his information is the introductory paragraph of wikipedia[/quote]
Actually, like every time I use Wikipedia articles as sources, I examine and quote directly their own sources. The quality of a Wikipedia article is fully dependant on its referrences, and unless you have a problem with any of them, you will just have to deal with it.

Considering that most of the sources are from Wizards of the Coast themselves, I'd like to see you try that.

[quote]-He still hasn't figured out the difference between an RPG and a LARPs despite the fact that they have completely different acronyms.[/quote]
Live Action Role Playing is not a subcategory of Role Playing.
Live Action Role Playing Games are not a subcategory of Role Playing Games.
Tabletop Role Playing Games are not a subcategory of Role Playing Games, they are that roleplaying has to offer!
Computer Role Playing Games are not subcategories of Role Playing Games, they are actually...COMPUTERTOP Roleplaying Games.

Nice deduction there, Watson.



[quote]-At one point he even claimed I should go read the "Roleplaying rules" in my 1st edition AD&D books,  clearly showing he's never been near one,  there's almost none in there.[/quote]
I didn't. Solely for the reason that I would never tell you to look at AD&D but OD&D, if anything.

But this, just in, guys. OD&D is no tru arr pee gee either.

[quote]-Nor did he realize that D&D is the new acronym,  AD&D is what the original product line is.[/quote]


This is getting better and better.

[quote]If you guys haven't figured it out yet,  he makes stuff up as he goes[/quote]
Like saying that CRPGs are supposed to be emulations of PnP RPGs?


[quote]Nor has he "Knocked out" anything,  I've got a few decades worth of evidence on my side.  He has the introductory paragraph on wikipedia written by some random unknown person...a source an elementary school teacher wouldn't even accept.[/quote]
Decades? How softcore. Try centuries.
Roleplaying and games revolving around it have existed for wayyy before you can imagine. 

Also, surely you mean the Oxford Dictionary? 

[quote]Hence the reason why I quit dealing with his long-winded responses where he tries to strawman out some other arguement months ago.[/quote]
That's not how a straw man argument works at all, unless your factbook has a better definition, of course.


[quote] People ask why I don't bother reading most of the responses,  you and Phaedon are why.  It's a waste of my time.  Which is sad,  because there's some people with real points worth debating,  I'm just tired of sorting through the background noise.[/quote]
Wait!

Does that mean that you will stop copy/pasting your posts in every thread every few weeks? Without bringing new arguments or sources or ideas?

Dawww

Modifié par Phaedon, 03 octobre 2011 - 07:48 .

[darth_lopez]

Phaedon wrote...


@darth_lopez and Varen Spectre I'll try to respond to your posts tomorrow.

SO yeah, my last post to squee was filled with anger and rage, and probably unintelligible in a few areas. I'll just give you a quick summary of what i was going for in my posts in general, though i'm sure you've noticed by now you are a smart fellow pheadon.


 in anycase my big argument is that the Mechanics are what, on the computer/for video games, Seperate RPG from different Video Games Taking away mechanics (in the VGRPGs case large item index, and player progression and choice of skills) Is making it the same as most other games. Though i wouldn't argue that a game is an RPG simply because they have these things, or isn't one because it lacks them, But That these are important genre conventions for video game RPGs that help to define them as an RPG and taking them away could, not necessarily will, result in a less than satisfactory RPG or a washed down one.

My complaint with squee is that the Generalization of RPG as simply a game where you Role Play Is far too broad and is contradicted by the additional stipuluation of being able to control the PC's Personality developement and Story progression 100% of the time. Role Play is not, only, Player Projection but assuming a Role and Playing as it in DnD and other TTRPGs (PnPRPGs whatever) Role playing is equivelent to impromptue acting that can't be accurately simulated on a Computer system or in a game other than Table Tops. Thus all video game RPGs present you limited choices but allow for the illusion of freedom so that they can cover a finite set of options for story and character progression. Meaning that just like FF, ME has already defined what shepard can and cannot be Any idea that the player can freely choose what shepard is, is nothing more than an intended illusion to simulate TTRPGs to some degree. Fall Out is slightly more free than ME  but it ultimately all comes down to the character has already been defined for you by the developer you are simply allowed to follow down 1 of any combination of 3 typical roads(Nuetral, Evil(renegade), Good (paragon).

therefore by Squees arguments, that an RPG is simply Role Playing all games qualify for RPG status as all require a degree of literal role play, and by the stipulation that they must present you freedom of choice to develope the character how you want (the story and character's personality in particular)  Not only contradicts the original claim, but also makes no video game an RPG.

The game mechanics, and their similarity to those of earlier RPGs, is what ultimately Determines RPG when coupled to some degree of finite RP.

-He still hasn't figured out the difference between an RPG and a LARPs despite the fact that they have completely different acronyms.

Live Action Role Playing is not a subcategory of Role Playing.
Live Action Role Playing Games are not a subcategory of Role Playing Games.
Tabletop Role Playing Games are not a subcategory of Role Playing Games, they are that roleplaying has to offer!
Computer Role Playing Games are not subcategories of Role Playing Games, they are actually...COMPUTERTOP Roleplaying Games.

Nice deduction there, Watson.

I would just like to proopose refining this a bit to make the point a wee bit better, ( i really hope that is mostly sarcasm on your part Pheadon)
refined tree



Just proposing
For bigger picture This

Can we all agree to this general setup?

Noticed a mistake fixed

Modifié par darth_lopez, 04 octobre 2011 - 02:26 .