215 réponses à ce sujet

[Sylvius the Mad]

MerinTB wrote...

I can't say I hate the game - it's no NWN

While I did like Torment, I preferred NWN.

[Soul Cool]

You could try looking into Kingdom's of Amalur: Reckoning. I'm pretty sure the PC is not voiced (I can't seem to find any confirmation or denial of this, but I'll make sure to try to ask it for the next weekly developer Q&A session).

It's also supposed to be extremely open-ended, allowing you to completely ignore the 'main story' and any of the faction quest in order to pursue any of the side quest or just to explore the world. Not sure if it's what you're looking for, but could be worth looking in to.

The only thing that would be a snag would probably be combat if you're not into action-oriented games.

Modifié par Soul Cool, 22 septembre 2011 - 07:14 .

[Cyberarmy]

BTW Do you know you can create your own party at BG2 when playing multiplayer mode?
İt can satisfy your needs to a point.

Don't remember about BG1 tough. Would be nice to start as 6 and import them all to BG2 after Tales Of The Sword Coast.

Hımmmm actually a nice idea. Gonna research that and try.

Well dammit its 2012 and we can still paly games from 1998-2000...

[UrkOfGreyhawk]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

UrkOfGreyhawk wrote...

I think most of the builders in here will back me up when I say keeping track of dialog variables to the ungodly degree that BG and BG2 did (and to a lesser degree DAO) is a much bigger hassle than planning and balancing encounters.

Regardless of whcih approach is easier, I think allowing the player to create the whole party is just better game design.

If joinable companions are more work, then that only strengthens the argument for not having them.

Except now you're not really role playing. Any D&D player will tell you that the really important aspect of role playing isn't so much the players interactions with the world (ie DM), but their interactions with one another. This is where the real role playing takes place. When plans are formulated compromises must be made because everyone has their own unique agenda and this is what shapes the outcome of the adventure more than anything else. When a game allows you to build your entire party from scratch you don't have to worry about anybodies sensibilities or motivations but your own. Without imbuing comapanions with personalities, foibles, demands, and goals of their own the game stops being an RPG and becomes a simple strategy/adventure game. Any motivations you ascribe to your characters, any "role playing", is intellectual masturbation at best without any real meaning or consequence.

Modifié par UrkOfGreyhawk, 22 septembre 2011 - 08:49 .

[MerinTB]

[quote]bussinrounds wrote...
[/quote]    Why did you waste so much time on the terrible NWN oc ?   That game is all about the MP and created content by the community.
[/quote]

Mutli-player is not my thing.  If I want to play with other people, I'll get other people together in the same room and table-top.  Either board games, card games, or role-playing.

Video gaming is a solitary activity for me.

Not that I've not tried... I joined three different persistent world NWN games.  One that I had to audition to get into (and yes I got in), but if I thought BG1 was slow, how persistent world NWN games go (at least the 3 I tried) were days to weeks of waiting to even find someone to interact with who didn't shoo me away or some such. 

Not.  My.  Thing.

I've also tried MANY MMO's over the last, oh, 15+ years (I was in the Dark Sun beta) - and, while in my college days I loved me some MUSHes and MUXes, the only fun I ever had with MMO's were 1 - in forums with others waiting for the game to be released, 2 - solo'ing.

So if NWN's main focus was on multi-player, that could be a contributing factor to me NOT liking it.

...

mainly, though?  3rd Edition D&D rules combined with that infernal wheel - that's the killer combo of ick.

[MerinTB]

Cyberarmy wrote...
BTW Do you know you can create your own party at BG2 when playing multiplayer mode?
İt can satisfy your needs to a point.

I have done that, and it does make ME happier.   The UI is a little wonky doing it that way, but you can pull it off.  That said, you miss a lot of content that is pre-gen character specific - and without the banter of party-members to help fill some of the exploring dead time, uh, BG2 is a tedious drudge at times.

[MerinTB]

UrkOfGreyhawk wrote...
...snip...

Got it.  You love the BG series.  You don't like "create your own party" games.  You think that pre-gen characters and their dialog is one of the best thing of single-player RPGs.

I'm going to cut short endlessly debating with you and just say - we disagree.

[Sylvius the Mad]

UrkOfGreyhawk wrote...

Any motivations you ascribe to your characters, any "role playing", is intellectual masturbation at best without any real meaning or consequence.

I insist that's all roleplaying ever is.  It's a thought experiment.

Soul Cool wrote...

You could try looking into Kingdom's of Amalur: Reckoning. I'm pretty sure the PC is not voiced (I can't seem to find any confirmation or denial of this, but I'll make sure to try to ask it for the next weekly developer Q&A session).

The Reckoning PC certainly isn't voiced in the gameplay demos they've made available.  If that wasn't actually true in the game, I suspect they would have mentioned it.

[UrkOfGreyhawk]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

UrkOfGreyhawk wrote...

Any motivations you ascribe to your characters, any "role playing", is intellectual masturbation at best without any real meaning or consequence.

I insist that's all roleplaying ever is.  It's a thought experiment.

Dude you need to get out of the house more. I mean, I'll agree that it may be true that there is no such thing as a real SP role playing experience. I've proposed that myself on many occasions which is why I'm such a mad NWN fan. It's entirely possible that in order to be real "role playing" the experience must be shared. Such experiences are invariably more satisfying than anything SP has to offer.

If that's what you're saying than... granted. It may very be that real SP roleplaying is impossible. I don't think so, but I'll accept the possibility.

But if you're suggesting that creating six characters and attributing characteristics in your head for each is role playing... nope. What? Do you have little conversations in your head between characters? That's just being silly. Or maybe psychotic. Whatever little chats or squabbles you may attribute to your characters none of them are ever going to do anything you dont want them to do. That's what I mean when I say it's " without any real meaning or consequence."

Anyway, BG and games like it make a real attempt to emulate the party dynamic. The NPCs have needs and desires of their own, and how they interact with you and one another effects the of the game. It's an actual game element. That's why I consider it an RPG while I look at SP icewind dale as an adventure game.

MerinTB wrote...

UrkOfGreyhawk wrote...
...snip...

Got
it.  You love the BG series.  You don't like "create your own party"
games.  You think that pre-gen characters and their dialog is one of the
best thing of single-player RPGs.

I'm going to cut short endlessly debating with you and just say - we disagree. [smilie]../../../images/forum/emoticons/grin.png[/smilie]

No. What I'm saying is that without that dynamic it's not role playing at all. It's just a linear strategy/adventure game with a swords and sorcery theme.

Modifié par UrkOfGreyhawk, 22 septembre 2011 - 07:29 .

[MerinTB]

UrkOfGreyhawk wrote...
...snip...

Once more - we disagree.

Table top is different than computer.  Playing with a group of friends and a DM is different than playing a cRPG.

What you are doing is like saying that since real football (or shooting real guns) is nothing like playing Madden (or Call of Duty), then to call them "sports" or "shooting" games is wrong.

You have to take in context.  Role-playing can be a therapeautic or an educational tool, in an AA meeting or in the elementary school classroom.  Role-playing game, with a bunch of guys rolling dice, is NOT the same thing - but the word role-playing still shares something of a similar meaning.
A computer role-playing game is an entirely different animal from the first two "RP" examples, but the "role-playing" still has simularities.  Moreso, however, role-playing means something slightly different in each case - or in each CONTEXT.

Divorce yourself from comparing table top D&D with friends and a DM FROM computer (or video, if you prefer) role-playing games.
Separate the concepts in the same way you'd separate the Bears vs. the Vikings from you holding a 360 controller and playing as the Bears against the computer's Vikings, ok?
Or how you'd separate being actually IN the military to playing a military FPS.

Like Madden, via video game mechanics, is trying to emulate a real football game (but, shock of shocks, you get to control ALL members of your football team (AND EVEN be the coach!) while the computer controls the other team), most cRPGs were trying to emulate the table top experience (by the comptuer being the DM and monsters and NPCs while you, the player, controlled ALL the party members.)

They AREN'T the same things.  They cannot be the same thing.  One is by yourself, via simulation on a computer, playing at doing what the other is really doing with other people physically.  That's what the majority of cRPGs for most of computer gaming history have been attempting... to emulate the table-top experience via simulation for one individual.
cRPGs ARE role-playing, just like a classroom exercise in seeing how a court case unfolds or an AA meeting where you pretend you are at a party and turn down an alcoholic drink are role-playing, just like sitting around with your buddies and a game master and rolling polyhedrons is role-playing... they share similarities in the use of the term "role-playing"...
but they are all DIFFERENT as well.

Okay?  Trying to say that because one isn't the other means that one cannot be called the same as the other is preposterous.  Playing football is playing sports, but playing Madden is playing a SPORTS game.  Okay?

*sighs*

Congratulations, you got me to forgo trying to avoid the pointless debating.

Modifié par MerinTB, 22 septembre 2011 - 07:57 .

[UrkOfGreyhawk]

You've effectively argued against yourself. Granted the medium is different. It's not about what the game does, it's about what the game is trying to emulate. Now assuming that we accept that RPG still means "role playing game" the "role playing" aspect is still there.

Madden is an excellent example. No. You're not playing football. But the game tries very hard to emulate the actual experience: teams, player stats, fields, injuries, etc. Sure it gives you total control. It's not a sports RPG, even though you're still bound by the player stats and may very well fumble the ball even if you don't do anything wrong.

No. It is not the real thing. But it is attempting to emulate the real thing.

This is why BG and Torment, NWN, and DAO fit into the definition of a role playing game for me. The games attempt to emulate a role playing experience.

Icewind Dale makes no such attempt. It's not that they tried and failed. They didn't even try. To continue your tabletop gaming analogy ID is more like an elaborate miniatures battle. There's no role playing going on, just strategy. And like most strategy games ID has a linear plot that gives it a continuity in the form of a swords and sorcery adventure, ergo it fits much better into the adventure/strategy category.

I'm not saying ID isn't a good game for what it does. I've played it and enjoyed it. I've played a lot of adventure/strategy games. I'm just saying it isn't, and it isn't really even trying to be, a role playing game. Just because the marketing guys saw the words Dungeons & Dragons and decided in order to sell it they had to put the words RPG on the box doesn't make it so.

Modifié par UrkOfGreyhawk, 22 septembre 2011 - 09:15 .

[Soul Cool]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...
The Reckoning PC certainly isn't voiced in the gameplay demos they've made available.  If that wasn't actually true in the game, I suspect they would have mentioned it.

Pretty sure it isn't voiced, but don't want to make an idiot out of myself by saying the PC isn't and have another person reveal that it is.

[Sylvius the Mad]

UrkOfGreyhawk wrote...

This is why BG and Torment, NWN, and DAO fit into the definition of a role playing game for me. The games attempt to emulate a role playing experience.

Icewind Dale makes no such attempt. It's not that they tried and failed. They didn't even try.

You're making an error.

A traditional tabletop game features several participants: the game master, and multiple players.  A CRPG, which attempts to reproduce the tabletop experience without the need for other people, can do this in several ways.

You are fixated on the idea that the game should take the place both of the game master and of all of the players but one, leaving the single player filling the same role within the game's structure as he would were he a player in a tabletop game.

Why?

First, note that in a tabletop game a player can play more than one character at a time.  1st and 2nd edition AD&D did this a lot with the follower system - when a character reached a certain level, he automatically attrtacted followers.  Some DMs left the control of those followers in the players' hands.

Second, why should the single player in a CRPG fill the role of a single player in a tabletop game?  He could just as well fill the role of the GM, with the computer playing the part of the characters (this would produce a sort of super-deep variation on the tower-defense game).  Or perhaps the player could fill the role of multiple players - perhaps even all of them (or perhaps just some of them, as in ToEE or Wizardry 8).

You've created an arbitrary standard, and are arguing from it as if it's an objective standard of truth.

[Sylvius the Mad]

UrkOfGreyhawk wrote...

No. What I'm saying is that without that dynamic it's not role playing at all.

Why not?  I'm certainly able to roleplay the interactions of multiple characters.  That the game doesn't require that of me doesn't prevent me from doing it.

[UrkOfGreyhawk]

Sylvius do me the courtesy of reading the posts before rebutting. I've already addressed most of these issues. It's fine if you disagree, but don't ask me to repeat myself because you're too lazy to listen to the other side of a debate.

Some DMs will allow you to play more than one character at a time, but I certainly never will and I don't personally know any who do precisely because it's bad role playing. As to henchmen, they do what they're told... unless they don't. But that's role playing too. A good DM will never give carte blanche to a player's control of a henchman. He may let you hold the character sheet and make you keep track of the damage, but try ordering a henchman to hurl himself into a pit of green slime he'll reply with a hearty, "YOU jump into the pit. I quit."

As for your idea about letting the player take the role of the dungeon it's a GREAT idea. It's actually been done a couple of times.
http://www.gog.com/e.../dungeon_keeper
http://www.gog.com/e...ungeon_keeper_2

These are mad fun games, too. But they're NOT role playing games.

A "role playing game" should at least try to include "role playing" as part of it's gameplay. I just don't see how that's an "arbitrary standard".

Modifié par UrkOfGreyhawk, 22 septembre 2011 - 11:39 .

[mesmerizedish]

So is the gamemaster of a tabletop game not playing a roleplaying game?

[Sylvius the Mad]

UrkOfGreyhawk wrote...

Sylvius do me the courtesy of reading the posts before rebutting.

I did.

You said:

UrkOfGreyhawk wrote...

Except now you're not really role playing. Any D&D player will tell you that the really important aspect of role playing isn't so much the players interactions with the world (ie DM), but their interactions with one another. This is where the real role playing takes place. When plans are formulated compromises must be made because everyone has their own unique agenda and this is what shapes the outcome of the adventure more than anything else.

There's no reason why a single player can't still do that among his multiple characters.  That you don't trust them not to metagame away conflicts doesn't mean that they will.  It just means that you don't think people will roleplay unless they're forced to roleplay,.

But that's silly.  These are roleplaying games.  Why else are we playing them if not to roleplay?

In fact, I would argue that I can have a more satisfying roleplaying experience when controlling multiple characters interacting with each other because I can then have greater confidence that those characters will be played appropriately.  I don't know when another player has broken character for the sake of expedience.  But I know that I haven't.

Some DMs will allow you to play more than one character at a time, but I certainly never will and I don't personally know any who do precisely because it's bad role playing. As to henchmen, they do what they're told... unless they don't. But that's role playing too. A good DM will never give carte blanche to a player's control of a henchman. He may let you hold the character sheet and make you keep track of the damage, but try ordering a henchman to hurl himself into a pit of green slime he'll reply with a hearty, "YOU jump into the pit. I quit."

That's basically a morale check.  PCs should be subject to those, too.

A "role playing game" should at least try to include "role playing" as part of it's gameplay. I just don't see how that's an "arbitrary standard".

I agree entirely.  The arbitrary standard you've established, though, is in your definition of roleplaying.  As long as the player constinues to make in-character decisions, he's still roleplaying, no matter for how many different characters he is doing that.

Modifié par Sylvius the Mad, 22 septembre 2011 - 11:54 .

[MerinTB]

ishmaeltheforsaken wrote...
So is the gamemaster of a tabletop game not playing a roleplaying game?

Ding!

Thank you.

[MerinTB]

UrkOfGreyhawk wrote...
Madden is an excellent example. No. You're not playing football. But the game tries very hard to emulate the actual experience: teams, player stats, fields, injuries, etc. Sure it gives you total control. It's not a sports RPG, even though you're still bound by the player stats and may very well fumble the ball even if you don't do anything wrong.

No. It is not the real thing. But it is attempting to emulate the real thing.

Yes.

By letting you control ALL THE PLAYERS ON THE TEAM.  And the coach.

Kinda like you controlling the entire party of adventurers.  You know.

Cause in a football game there are other players, who make decisions and react to things different than if they were all robots controlled by one person.

I've also very often wondered if most sports games, like Madden, but especially wrestling games, shouldn't be considered at least pseudo-RPGs.  One of the things that used to draw me to wrestling games (even though I don't like wrestling) is that you could often make a wrestler, name and stats and appearance, and often in story-modes there were some choices to make and such.

You are seeing the need for there to be OTHER PLAYERS for it to be role-playing.  But you'd also need OTHER PLAYERS to play football.  I argue that it's less weird for one person to role-play by themself (ever heard of solo adventures?) than for one person to play real football by themself.

cRPGs emulate the adventuring party and character creation parts of the game... it cannot adequately emulate other players.  No matter how well written NPCs and pre-gens are, they will always be ridiculously flat as compared to a DM and other players.

IMO, why bother?

This is why BG and Torment, NWN, and DAO fit into the definition of a role playing game for me. The games attempt to emulate a role playing experience.

Icewind Dale makes no such attempt. It's not that they tried and failed. They didn't even try.

The one set does and other set doesn't even try to fit YOUR ARBITRARY DEFINITION of an RPG.  And this is straying into "thread closing" territory if you are going to start arguing what an RPG is.  You are welcome to your views on what makes an RPG game as far as you are concerned, but when you stray into telling others that they are wrong for holding different views... well...

thread closure territory.  I'd tread lightly.  For Sylvius's sake.

To continue your tabletop gaming analogy ID is more like an elaborate miniatures battle.

Like D&D?

I'm not saying ID isn't a good game for what it does. I've played it and enjoyed it. I've played a lot of adventure/strategy games. I'm just saying it isn't, and it isn't really even trying to be, a role playing game. Just because the marketing guys saw the words Dungeons & Dragons and decided in order to sell it they had to put the words RPG on the box doesn't make it so.

By your defintion of what a cRPG should be you disqualify pretty much ALL cRPGs that came before Baldur's Gate.  Even Wasteland wouldn't qualify.
Seminal game series like Bard's Tale, Might and Magic, Wizardry, Phantasie, all of SSI's Gold Box games (about twenty of them, including the classic Pools series as well as Krynn and Buck Rogers), Wizard's Crown... I could go on and on.
You are targetting Icewind Dale, but your arguments remove ALL those "RPGs" from being RPGs.

When 99% of the field of games for about two decades doesn't fit your definition, I think your definition might be a bit off.

Or just arbitrary, as I said earlier.

[Tommy6860]

MerinTB wrote...

Tommy6860 wrote...

MerinTB wrote...

Tommy6860 wrote...
While Wasteland was a treat, Planescape:Torment was that game for me

...

You know, I'm not even going to comment. :innocent:

Then you concede

No, but really, I loved Wasteland, it was awesome (I was 28 when that game came out), but PS:T is still my fav all time RPG. Considering it has a set protagonist, something I dislike in a RPG, that game, IMO, has absolutely the best writing and dialogue I have ever experienced in a game before. It was so good for me, as to make the game that special, despite of my dislike for a set protagonist.

I love Black Isle.  Trust me, I wanted to love that game.  I came to it late, like 2004 I believe, but I could not get into it.  Sometimes things happen and I like games when I give it another go - Arcanum, for example, I failed to get into twice but the third time was the charm!  I gave NWN 5 goes before finishing the OC and... wait, no, I hate NWN, bad example.

P:ST bored me.  I tried three times, last time was probably about a year ago.  I don't begrudge people liking it - different strokes and all that - but it's slow, ponderous, and I didn't get to make my character.  Where other people found a fascinating world with a compelling story, I found myself not caring about any of it. *shrug*

To each their own as it really comes down to tastes.. I have no illusion that all games that I like should be all games that everyone else likes as well. The story drew me in deeply. But, mainly it was the writing and the dialogue. The ending chocies are incredible, IMO. I also do not like a set protagonist where i cannot create my own character, yet oddly enough, this game is in my tops. You can however, change you class during the game and stats, something that isn't allowed in many cRPGs (V;tMB allows stats changing, but not a class change).

I can't say I hate the game - it's no NWN - but it does irritate me
how often it gets tossed around as the ultimate example of gaming
goodness.

I loved NWN oc and it exspansions, I may be one of the few here that expressed a great love for NWN, but that is me and how I exerienced it.. I never played NWN2 though.

I do however, find your "irritate" remark a bit intolerant, considering your previous statement that you don't begrudge people liking it (PS:T). I don't bemoan those who games they love as irritatiing if my exerience to them was not at all appealing. I can see the game being irritating, if it didn't appeal to you though. I also didn't say Torment is the ultimate in whatever for everyone else, only that the game did that  for "me"; there's a difference in that respect when making the "tossed around" claim.

[MerinTB]

Tommy6860 wrote...

I do however, find your "irritate" remark a bit intolerant, considering your previous statement that you don't begrudge people liking it (PS:T). I don't bemoan those who games they love as irritatiing if my exerience to them was not at all appealing. I can see the game being irritating, if it didn't appeal to you though. I also didn't say Torment is the ultimate in whatever for everyone else, only that the game did that  for "me"; there's a difference in that respect when making the "tossed around" claim.

It goes like this -

Me (or someone else with similar tastes) "I like to be able to make my own character in an RPG game."
PST Fan (or just someone being snarky) "Torment is a set protagonist and the best RPG ever so you're wrong."

That happens.  A. Lot.

Other than that, it's fairly common for many people to get annoyed at whatever gets trumped too much by too many people as "great."  Just ask half the people on here how they feel when BioWare games are compared to The Witcher 2 or Skryim. <_<

[addiction21]

Ummmmm.... so I am a day behind in posting this. ToEE kicked my ass up and down my, yours, and that person you dont like street and I loved every minute of it.

[Tommy6860]

[quote]Sylvius the Mad wrote...

[quote]Tommy6860 wrote...

Tell me where you get this introspection because the game doesn't offer me the ability to do that, there is no choice in how to approach the game outside of choosing my class and stats.. I have literally put in over 1000hrs into that game, unless you are playing some other Oblivion?[/quote]
The problem is that you're waiting for the game to tell you that you've made a decision - you want the game to validate your decisions - and that's never going to happen.

You have choice after choice in Oblivion.  When you first leave the prison, where do you go?  Why?  Oblivion lets you have an incredibly detailed answer to that question, and there's a very good chance it will never contradict you.  So then that character you've designed, with his complex motives for that one action, can go out and do everything else in the game world based on the principles behind that first decision.

Does your character trust the king?  Does he think he was telling the truth, or was he evasive?  How does your character feel about hereditary rulers generally?
[/quote]
What you asked here is that I can do that with any game I so please. Hell, I can do that while playign COD:MW, but the gameplay and path doesn't change, I had no choices in it, no matter how much I want my imagination  to flow. Reading a book would be better suited to follow your premise here.

You are not and do not have the ability to not know what you are suppsoed to do. you asked, "When you leave the prison, where do you go?" The game actually tells you your quest and where you need to go next, there's an elimination of greyness right there. I honestly do not see where you get this. When the king is killed by the Mythic Dawn after getting the pendant, you are directed by Baurus to go to the Weynon Priory and see Brother Jaufree(sp?). So tell, how is this not knowing what to do next. That right there, put a limit on the imagination, no? I can roam freely and venture into the various Ayleid ruins, castles caves, etc that I encounter, but they mainly offer stats and level grinding, not that I am roleplaying since I don't know what to RP for. I already set-up my character class and stats that I want, so that part of RPing is completed befoe I leave the sewers The game directs me to my quest and I therefore play it out as the game directs.

Any RPing is eliminated by the fact that I cannot change up how and what I can do in the story and with NPCs. Unlike BG, KoTOR, DA:O, even ME, where I can elements of the plots, I cannot with Oblivion, This, IMO is a serious hinderance to RPing. Seriously, if just imagining that you "are" doing this is RPing, I won't begrudge it, but, then you'd have to concede the imagination just doesn't stop on so called "RPGs", they can apply to any game and genre you so please,a nd if so, well then, I can accept that.

[quote]

The answers to these question inform every decision your character makes in the world, right down to what sort of armour to wear and which questions to ask a random NPC,

[/quote]

You do the ame thing in KoTOR, DA:O and a wholet of other RPGs as well, so why is that any more special to RPing with Oblivion. I actually found Daggerfall to be the best of the TES series for RPing, Oblivion is by far the worst, IMO.[quote]
[quote]What role palying are you talking about. What is your definition of role playing in Oblivion. I cannot make chocies that have effects on the story or plot states.  I cannot change a direction any quest goes, they are all set in stone. The only choices I have for all quests, except the main quest-line, is to choose to do them or not.[/quote][/quote]
[quote]
But why you do them or not is up to you, and there are effectively infintie choices in between the quests.

How your character reacts to the outcome of one quest can influence his future decisions pertaining to a new quest.

As I mentioned above, you're asking for the game to tell you that you've made an important decision, and it can't do that, because only you can know why or to what degree any decision you made was important.

[/quote]


Yes, there are many chocies to make between quests. What I said was, that nothing you do during the quests, how you appraoch the quests, whatever, they do not change how the quests ultimately plays out. Your dialogue remains the same,a nd if you choose a dilogue that doesn't allow for the quest to continue, you get no other alternative. You have to re-ask the dialogue, choosing the answer you didn't originally use to make it work. That isn't RPing, that's a process of elimination.[quote]
[quote]Must be another Oblivion, because you cannot choose within the realm you just listed above, they don't exist outside of actually choosing a quest or not. How does one find introspection by refusing quest, you cannot know anything about it until you accept doing it anyway. Once you accept it, the only thing you can do is ignore it and go on. You cannot go to the quest giver and state a change of mind at the acceptance of the quests, or at any time during said quests.[/quote][/quote]
[quote]
What do you mean "once you accept it"?  You've accepted a quest only when your character has agreed to do it.  Whether the game puts the quest in your journal is irrelevant.  Whether your character told the quest-giver he accepted the quest is irrelevant.  Your character could have been lying.  Your character could have just wanted more information, and telling the quest-giver that he accepted the quest was the only way to get that information.

Do you ever know why your character does things?  It sounds like you're just going through the motions of playing the game, making gameplay decisions from the player's perspective.  That's nothing like what I would call roleplaying.

Whether the game allows you to create your character's personality doesn't matter to you, because you never let the character make any decisions himself.
[/quote]

I didn't agree to anything Sylvius, this is why I don't understand that you are not getting this. You have no choice to turn down a quest in Oblivion, that's a fact, for the main questline. Unless you just want to raom around, making discoveries of new locations and grinding, well then that's fine. If you want to finish the game's story, you have to accepot the quests. There's no telling Jaufree(sp?) that you don't want to go to the Cloud Ruler Temple. If you don't go, you've simply paused the main quest-line, it's that simple.[quote]
[quote]If your imagination does that, well, I don't what to say to that, that is you, but the game does not offer that at all.[/quote][/quote]
[quote]
Of course it's my imagination.  Roleplaying only ever happens in the player's mind.
[/quote]

Of course, as long as the game offers the effect that my imagiantion can allow the game to do that, namely, that I have choices that have effects. In Oblivion, other than just imagining I actually made a change, the game does not reflect that like msot RPGs do.[quote]


[quote]Mass Effect, though lacking in RPing for me as well (ME2 is much worse), Mass Effect has far more player agency than does Oblvion, not counting what I can imagine only.[/quote][/quote]
[quote]
Vastly less.  ME doesn't even let you control what your character says or how he says it.
[/quote]

It surw does, though seriously limited. I can choose dialogue that has a meanuinful effect on NPCs and the plots. Not so in Oblivion. Again, ig you say your imagination does this, then that msot certainly should apply to ME, if only youa re limiting that effect because it is ME only. Oblivion, doesn't offers this, exceot in the "Infamy" stat.[quote]
[quote]Anyway, even though you stated Oblivion didn't let on to what you thought you were supposed to be doing, that is only a good thing, if trhe game offered that your choices made differences within the game itself, it doesn't. In Oblivion, you cannot have introspection within the realm of the game playing it out for you, or you role playing it. The game is set in stone with no variation at all. You cannot make choices (I honestly don't see where you get these choices), which would be a prerequisite to having introspection and especailly role palying.[/quote][/quote]
[quote]
When you start an RPG, when your character is faced with his very first choice, how do you decide what to do?

If you're roleplaying, you should consult that character's personality (designed by you) to see what it is he will do under those circumstances.  And that personality should be able to answer just about any question you ask it.
[/quote]

That depend on what the game offers at the beginning. Like Oblivion, I chose my initial stats and class, then moved along the way the game "forces" me to. Until I get another chance to enhance my class and stats. Those are the only paths I can choose to take. After that, it is all the game that decides. Yes, I understand that I want to go the direction of a Wizard in Oblivion, but the game doesn't reflect that, now does the story reflect that I am a wizard? )absolutely not) Only I reflect that class in that my abilities I use and are limited to that of a wizard.
[quote]
[quote]What you can do in that maybe you can roleplay (if that is what you want it to be) what you want roaming aorund, but it doesn't change the order in which you have to do things.[/quote][/quote]
[quote]
Why do you have to do anything?  Why do you perceive the game as having a path, or a beginning, middle, and end?
[/quote]

No perception needed, the game gave that to me. so these questions are irrelevant to the game. Had the game been that you have figure out what you need to do to finish it, then your point would have been taken long ago and I wouldn't have discussed this any farther. Unfortunately, the game does not do that. If you are talking, like, when I walk out from the sewers into the world, yes, I know the quest I have to do, thought I know nothing else about the world. But that goes for just about any RPG out there. I didn't know that I was going to be a Grey Warden in DA:O when I started my City Elf Origin, and where I needed to go when I started, see? But the game tell me these things as I finished parts of the quests. Oblvion, as far as questing acts no differently.

PS:T actually did what you say better than any RPG I have ever played. I didn't know anything about myself when I woke up in the morgue. In Oblivon, I knew I was a prisoner being told I have a misson to do.

Modifié par Tommy6860, 23 septembre 2011 - 01:43 .

[Tommy6860]

MerinTB wrote...

Tommy6860 wrote...

I do however, find your "irritate" remark a bit intolerant, considering your previous statement that you don't begrudge people liking it (PS:T). I don't bemoan those who games they love as irritatiing if my exerience to them was not at all appealing. I can see the game being irritating, if it didn't appeal to you though. I also didn't say Torment is the ultimate in whatever for everyone else, only that the game did that  for "me"; there's a difference in that respect when making the "tossed around" claim.

It goes like this -

Me (or someone else with similar tastes) "I like to be able to make my own character in an RPG game."
PST Fan (or just someone being snarky) "Torment is a set protagonist and the best RPG ever so you're wrong."

That happens.  A. Lot.

Other than that, it's fairly common for many people to get annoyed at whatever gets trumped too much by too many people as "great."  Just ask half the people on here how they feel when BioWare games are compared to The Witcher 2 or Skryim. <_<

Well, I guess that is how you take things. I tend not to take things personally regarding one's dislike or like for a game. It isn't like PS:T is thrown around at every turn here. I no more would tell others that the TW2 is better than DA2 (though my prefernces has me disliking DA2 greatly), because they liked DA2 better; they are going to like what they like. All I pointed was the ad hominem, it doesn't work for making a point. I get that you didn't care for PS:T, and that's fine. I don't get that that you feel affronted by the mere mention that one likes it and therefore, it irritates you.