142 réponses à ce sujet

[Lumikki]

Computer games are linears (story based) or they are pre-define playgrounds (sandbox). In all computer games you can do only what is programmed there by game development. Stronger the story is in computer game, more linear it will be.

Biowares games has strong story. Most of choices are not story related, but you characters or companion. Like attitude choices as how you want to go trough the story. Like choices what you want to be, not as where you want the story to go. Story is allways pre-define here.

Different between book and Biowares games, is that in Biowares games you can change the main actors personality in the story, even if the story base is the same. Your different personality (choices) affects small details into the story, but the base story is allways same. Little like You will go in story A -> B -> C -> D -> E -> F allways, but what will happen in those places can have minor differences based your personal choices.

Modifié par Lumikki, 07 janvier 2012 - 10:49 .

[In Exile]

Lumikki wrote...

Computer games are linears (story based) or they are pre-define playgrounds (sandbox). In all computer games you can do only what is programmed there by game development. Stronger the story is in computer game, more linear it will be.

The thing is, if sandox elements ever get to the point that they're actually good, then I think that RPGs will be able to start having both a story and a decent sanbox to play in.

But as it is, to make any feature actually stellar (e.g. stealth) you have to effectively design the game around it.

Like Deus Ex 2. It's a game made for stealth... but it just so happens you can also shoot the place up if you want.

[Shepard the Leper]

Gatt9 wrote...

So then why even bother making an RPG at all?  If you're just going to railroad people into "Walk the path the Developer wants you to walk",  then why even bother making an RPG?  Why not just make a Shooter or a Adventure game and not bother with the pretenses?

Ideally,  RPG's are about letting you decide how to approach a situation.  The ability should be reasonably present,  because it should be up to the Player to decide if that's the approach he wants to take to solve the situation presented to him.

You always walk the path the devs planned for you in advance. There are no games that don't.

So Crysis 1 and 2 are excellent RPGs in your opinion? Because both games let the player decide how they approach a situation? That's BS. Role playing has NOTHING to do with having more than one option; if that was true than almost all games are "RPG".

There are no "real" RP games, only a couple with tiny Role-Playing elements. Skyrim, for example, isn't a RPG at all. It's an exploration / adventure game - nothing more. There isn't any real choice in the game, and consequences do not exist. The only thing the player decides is: "do I start quest A first, second, ... , or last". This is exactly like playing a sport game and decide to play team A first, second, or last. That ain't role-playing.

The Witcher 2 has the most advanced RP elements I've seen in gaming thus far. Your character's choices have a major impact in how the world evolves, how people react to your character, how the plot evolves, who lives or dies, the places you can/will go to etc. Bioware games also have stuff like that build into their games. That is Role-Playing. Your decisions matter and have an impact. A crapload of skills, lots of customization options, lots of weapons, stats and other stuff has nothing to do with Role-Playing. They are what they are: skills, items, hairstyles and so on. 

[AlexXIV]

I don't really think you need to build a world around stealth to have stealth. What you need is give NPCs (and the player) perception. Meaning that they can see and hear. So in a certain area around every NPC you make a perception check whether the NPC noticed you or not. This is the basic system you need to use stealth. Because then you can modify NPCs perception of you by using stealth skills. The funny thing is that it is already in the game. Because obviously some enemies in ME only notice you if you get close enough and they actually can 'see' you. I used it in ME1 already to snipe enemies for example on 'surface' missions on planets. The only thing they needed to do is making more scenarios in which sneaky tactics work.

[turian councilor Knockout]

*points longfinger at OP*

Modifié par turian councilor Knockout, 07 janvier 2012 - 12:22 .

[AlexXIV]

Shepard the Leper wrote...

Gatt9 wrote...

So then why even bother making an RPG at all?  If you're just going to railroad people into "Walk the path the Developer wants you to walk",  then why even bother making an RPG?  Why not just make a Shooter or a Adventure game and not bother with the pretenses?

Ideally,  RPG's are about letting you decide how to approach a situation.  The ability should be reasonably present,  because it should be up to the Player to decide if that's the approach he wants to take to solve the situation presented to him.

You always walk the path the devs planned for you in advance. There are no games that don't.

So Crysis 1 and 2 are excellent RPGs in your opinion? Because both games let the player decide how they approach a situation? That's BS. Role playing has NOTHING to do with having more than one option; if that was true than almost all games are "RPG".

There are no "real" RP games, only a couple with tiny Role-Playing elements. Skyrim, for example, isn't a RPG at all. It's an exploration / adventure game - nothing more. There isn't any real choice in the game, and consequences do not exist. The only thing the player decides is: "do I start quest A first, second, ... , or last". This is exactly like playing a sport game and decide to play team A first, second, or last. That ain't role-playing.

The Witcher 2 has the most advanced RP elements I've seen in gaming thus far. Your character's choices have a major impact in how the world evolves, how people react to your character, how the plot evolves, who lives or dies, the places you can/will go to etc. Bioware games also have stuff like that build into their games. That is Role-Playing. Your decisions matter and have an impact. A crapload of skills, lots of customization options, lots of weapons, stats and other stuff has nothing to do with Role-Playing. They are what they are: skills, items, hairstyles and so on. 

Yeah, what are the different endings then of either Witcher 1 or 2? Because to me it looks you get the same result at the end of any path you walk down. Maybe small things change. You can save some people or let them die. The same thing counts for Skyrim, DA, ME or any other game of the same sort. What exactly are the big choices that change the story of Witcher? I am not even going to adress the fact that none of your decisions of the prequel make it into the sequel.

Modifié par AlexXIV, 07 janvier 2012 - 11:16 .

[Biotic Sage]

In Exile wrote...

Lumikki wrote...

Computer games are linears (story based) or they are pre-define playgrounds (sandbox). In all computer games you can do only what is programmed there by game development. Stronger the story is in computer game, more linear it will be.

The thing is, if sandox elements ever get to the point that they're actually good, then I think that RPGs will be able to start having both a story and a decent sanbox to play in.

Pacing, authorial direction, and appropriately timed reveals/plot points are necessary for good stories.  In a "do whatever you want whenver you want" sandbox game, you will never be able to get those things.  The best linear/Bioware style game will tell a better story than the best sandbox/Bethesda style game.  That's not to say that there aren't merits to both, but in terms of storytelling, one form is superior to the other.

Modifié par Biotic Sage, 07 janvier 2012 - 11:21 .

[Shepard the Leper]

AlexXIV wrote...

Yeah, what are the different endings then of either Witcher 1 or 2? Because to me it looks you get the same result at the end of any path you walk down. Maybe small things change. You can save some people or let them die. The same thing counts for Skyrim, DA, ME or any other game of the same sort. What exactly are the big choices that change the story of Witcher? I am not even going to adress the fact that none of your decisions of the prequel make it into the sequel.

Have you played the Witcher 2 at all?

I only mention the simple decision which side you're going to join. That decision alone determines which places you will visit and which will be closed. It makes some NPCs enemies, others will be friendly and so on.

If you read my post carefully, you should already have noticed that I stated there are NO real RPG out there, there are only games with tiny RP elements (like TW2, and to a far lesser extent ME2). And there are games without anything of the sorts (like Skyrim).

If your point is to say that all games with something resembling a story have very similar endings, then yes, they do, but that has nothing to do with role-playing in general.

[nitefyre410]

AlexXIV wrote...

Shepard the Leper wrote...

Gatt9 wrote...

So then why even bother making an RPG at all?  If you're just going to railroad people into "Walk the path the Developer wants you to walk",  then why even bother making an RPG?  Why not just make a Shooter or a Adventure game and not bother with the pretenses?

Ideally,  RPG's are about letting you decide how to approach a situation.  The ability should be reasonably present,  because it should be up to the Player to decide if that's the approach he wants to take to solve the situation presented to him.

You always walk the path the devs planned for you in advance. There are no games that don't.

So Crysis 1 and 2 are excellent RPGs in your opinion? Because both games let the player decide how they approach a situation? That's BS. Role playing has NOTHING to do with having more than one option; if that was true than almost all games are "RPG".

There are no "real" RP games, only a couple with tiny Role-Playing elements. Skyrim, for example, isn't a RPG at all. It's an exploration / adventure game - nothing more. There isn't any real choice in the game, and consequences do not exist. The only thing the player decides is: "do I start quest A first, second, ... , or last". This is exactly like playing a sport game and decide to play team A first, second, or last. That ain't role-playing.

The Witcher 2 has the most advanced RP elements I've seen in gaming thus far. Your character's choices have a major impact in how the world evolves, how people react to your character, how the plot evolves, who lives or dies, the places you can/will go to etc. Bioware games also have stuff like that build into their games. That is Role-Playing. Your decisions matter and have an impact. A crapload of skills, lots of customization options, lots of weapons, stats and other stuff has nothing to do with Role-Playing. They are what they are: skills, items, hairstyles and so on. 

Yeah, what are the different endings then of either Witcher 1 or 2? Because to me it looks you get the same result at the end of any path you walk down. Maybe small things change. You can save some people or let them die. The same thing counts for Skyrim, DA, ME or any other game of the same sort. What exactly are the big choices that change the story of Witcher? I am not even going to adress the fact that none of your decisions of the prequel make it into the sequel.

 

Still waiting for people to catch on to the fact that non of these games have a true element of  choices.  Only the mere illusion of Choice.   So the whole agruement that an RPG is an RPG because if gives choices is  just moot.  Not even PnP RPGS  give this your still in the DM play ground ...oversteep too much and he end the entire game and kill off  everyone.

[Nevara]

nitefyre410 wrote...

AlexXIV wrote...

Shepard the Leper wrote...

Gatt9 wrote...

So then why even bother making an RPG at all?  If you're just going to railroad people into "Walk the path the Developer wants you to walk",  then why even bother making an RPG?  Why not just make a Shooter or a Adventure game and not bother with the pretenses?

Ideally,  RPG's are about letting you decide how to approach a situation.  The ability should be reasonably present,  because it should be up to the Player to decide if that's the approach he wants to take to solve the situation presented to him.

You always walk the path the devs planned for you in advance. There are no games that don't.

So Crysis 1 and 2 are excellent RPGs in your opinion? Because both games let the player decide how they approach a situation? That's BS. Role playing has NOTHING to do with having more than one option; if that was true than almost all games are "RPG".

There are no "real" RP games, only a couple with tiny Role-Playing elements. Skyrim, for example, isn't a RPG at all. It's an exploration / adventure game - nothing more. There isn't any real choice in the game, and consequences do not exist. The only thing the player decides is: "do I start quest A first, second, ... , or last". This is exactly like playing a sport game and decide to play team A first, second, or last. That ain't role-playing.

The Witcher 2 has the most advanced RP elements I've seen in gaming thus far. Your character's choices have a major impact in how the world evolves, how people react to your character, how the plot evolves, who lives or dies, the places you can/will go to etc. Bioware games also have stuff like that build into their games. That is Role-Playing. Your decisions matter and have an impact. A crapload of skills, lots of customization options, lots of weapons, stats and other stuff has nothing to do with Role-Playing. They are what they are: skills, items, hairstyles and so on. 

Yeah, what are the different endings then of either Witcher 1 or 2? Because to me it looks you get the same result at the end of any path you walk down. Maybe small things change. You can save some people or let them die. The same thing counts for Skyrim, DA, ME or any other game of the same sort. What exactly are the big choices that change the story of Witcher? I am not even going to adress the fact that none of your decisions of the prequel make it into the sequel.

 

Still waiting for people to catch on to the fact that non of these games have a true element of  choices.  Only the mere illusion of Choice.   So the whole agruement that an RPG is an RPG because if gives choices is  just moot.  Not even PnP RPGS  give this your still in the DM play ground ...oversteep too much and he end the entire game and kill off  everyone.

This is true.  While PnP can be expanded at the whims of the DM they are still held to the confines of the rules and "paths" that are already preselected.  Your job as the player is to be a part of the tale and make decisions based on the knowledge you are given.

Are all these supposed "choices" going to matter?  No.  Should they? That's up to who's developed the tale. Players are involved in a story regardless of what happens or not because of constraints that have to be in place. It's all an illusion and people demand instant results about their so-called "consequences" as if they are entitled to it.  

And now I'm going to bed because I'm rambling.

[AlexXIV]

Shepard the Leper wrote...

AlexXIV wrote...

Yeah, what are the different endings then of either Witcher 1 or 2? Because to me it looks you get the same result at the end of any path you walk down. Maybe small things change. You can save some people or let them die. The same thing counts for Skyrim, DA, ME or any other game of the same sort. What exactly are the big choices that change the story of Witcher? I am not even going to adress the fact that none of your decisions of the prequel make it into the sequel.

Have you played the Witcher 2 at all?

I only mention the simple decision which side you're going to join. That decision alone determines which places you will visit and which will be closed. It makes some NPCs enemies, others will be friendly and so on.

If you read my post carefully, you should already have noticed that I stated there are NO real RPG out there, there are only games with tiny RP elements (like TW2, and to a far lesser extent ME2). And there are games without anything of the sorts (like Skyrim).

If your point is to say that all games with something resembling a story have very similar endings, then yes, they do, but that has nothing to do with role-playing in general.

I played witcher 2 and got the same ending for 2 different sides I chose. How does it matter which side you choose? That you get to fight different mobs? That's exactly what someone said about for example soccer games. Choose your team and depending on your choice you play against different teams. Because you can't play against your own team. If that's what makes or breaks an RPG then every game that lets you pick your team is an RPG.

[Severyx]

Pointless rage thread is pointless.

[Kabrex]

To be perfectly honest demanding a sandbox world with real choices is asking for a game that's 10 years in devo. They're not going to script ten or more 'main plots' into a game just to present a greater element of choice. The genre is also technically called Role-Playing Games, as in take on the persona of the character. Choosing dialogue and squadmates as well as appearance and attitude more than fulfills this.

Its laughable to say that there are no real RPG's. Of course there are. The only concept people have difficulty grasping is that their parameters for what defines an RPG are a tad unrealistic. I'm sure its possible to have a game with major impacts depending on your choices, but it would have to be an 8-hour campaign. In order to actually preserve some longevity and story, there needs to be sacrifices.

TL;DR: Genre name is irrelevant. Do you like the game or not?

Modifié par Kabrex, 07 janvier 2012 - 12:13 .

[AlexXIV]

Kabrex wrote...

To be perfectly honest demanding a sandbox world with real choices is asking for a game that's 10 years in devo. They're not going to script ten or more 'main plots' into a game just to present a greater element of choice. The genre is also technically called Role-Playing Games, as in take on the persona of the character. Choosing dialogue and squadmates as well as appearance and attitude more than fulfills this.

Its laughable to say that there are no real RPG's. Of course there are. The only concept people have grasping is that their parameters for what defines an RPG are a tad unrealistic. I'm sure its possible to have a game with major impacts depending on your choices, but it would have to be an 8-hour campaign. In order to actually preserve some longevity and story, there needs to be sacrifices.

TL;DR: Genre name is irrelevant. Do you like the game or not?

The point is that there are games with RPG elements. Some more and some less. Bioware tends to make games with relatively many of these elements so they call them RPGs. Because tbh, for a shooter the action/gameplay of ME1/2 isn't polished enough. Same counts for the DA franchise. They put so many ressources in story and cinematics that they don't really have enough to make their gameplay competitive to pure action games. So they call it RPG so people don't judge it on the action part alone.Which makes sense because their games are not pure action games. They are action RPGs.

[Genshie]

I just think it is hilarious, funny, and ridiculous that these kinds of threads are always made and supported by the same four or so users complaining and bitc**** about the same thing. AND yet they still chat on here and are still probably going to buy the game to complain even more. Either way if you guys hate it so much and are not even going to buy/support the game why are you guys even here? Oh yeah, that is right to trolllololol. It is really sad that these same people constantly spam these threads in something they obviously don't support just because they have nothing better to do. They can ONLY assume what the game is going to be like with the very little info they have that is even official to begin with.

[crimzontearz]

I do agree ME2 was oversimplified...hell christina norman recognized it publicly herself. But we know RPG feature are back...hell we saw stealth portions of the game (if short) and a confirmation of melee builds. Honestly I would not like ME3 to turn into a deus ex hr or a Crysis2 when it comes to that department...honest, I love both those games but that's not ME

[Di-Hydrogen-Monoxide]

Exia001 wrote...

Di-Hydrogen-Monoxide wrote...

An RPG with zero player choice? Well not an RPG.

FF1-9 are still RPGs, there was no choice in those

They were JRPGs which are quite different to western RPGs almost to the extent where some of them should not called RPGs.

[argonian persona]

darkness reborn wrote...

tetrisblock4x1 wrote...

darkness reborn wrote...

Ah yes, "Mass Effect is a RPG", we have dismissed this claim.

No we haven't.

You lot haven't. But we have.

Ah, yes, Darkness Reborn. I concurr.

[Shepard the Leper]

AlexXIV wrote...

I played witcher 2 and got the same ending for 2 different sides I chose. How does it matter which side you choose? That you get to fight different mobs? That's exactly what someone said about for example soccer games. Choose your team and depending on your choice you play against different teams. Because you can't play against your own team. If that's what makes or breaks an RPG then every game that lets you pick your team is an RPG.

You're getting the point I've tried to make. However, having the same ending has little to do with role-playing. It's the decisions you have to make that matter. Decisions in TW2 do impact how things will develop hence why I used that game as an example. Is that the pinnacle of Role-Playing? Of course not, but it's a step in the right direction.

RL is the ultimate RP experience, and in RL you have to make choices. You cannot become a lawyer, doctor and rocket-scientist - you have to chose one. Yet in most (so-called) RPG you can be and do everything without any consequences. The only "choice" you have to make is whether or not you want to complete all quests or just a couple. I consider that pretty lame. That's grinding instead of role-playing.

[nitefyre410]

Genshie wrote...

I just think it is hilarious, funny, and ridiculous that these kinds of threads are always made and supported by the same four or so users complaining and bitc**** about the same thing. AND yet they still chat on here and are still probably going to buy the game to complain even more. Either way if you guys hate it so much and are not even going to buy/support the game why are you guys even here? Oh yeah, that is right to trolllololol. It is really sad that these same people constantly spam these threads in something they obviously don't support just because they have nothing better to do. They can ONLY assume what the game is going to be like with the very little info they have that is even official to begin with.

 

See  now that you know this  you can sit back look at those same 5 or so user make that same agruements and complaints  and be amused.   See its a form affirmation - its the effect of being  in an echo chamber... you hear your  own echo enough obiviously you right  and  someone is agreeing with  you right?   

[Shepard the Leper]

Kabrex wrote...

Its laughable to say that there are no real RPG's. Of course there are. The only concept people have difficulty grasping is that their parameters for what defines an RPG are a tad unrealistic. I'm sure its possible to have a game with major impacts depending on your choices, but it would have to be an 8-hour campaign. In order to actually preserve some longevity and story, there needs to be sacrifices.

TL;DR: Genre name is irrelevant. Do you like the game or not?

I would consider a game that offers multiple 8-hour campaigns, instead an all-in-one campaign that last 30 hours a major improvement for the RPG genre. Unfortunately, developers are highly conservative and too scared to create a game that actually invite replayability. They try to put everything their games have to offer into one playthrough, hence why most games have little replay value which in turn confirms the devs in their (diluted) beliefs (because few people do play those games multiple times).

I used TW2 as an example because CD Projekt did have the guts to design complete Acts (hours of gameplay, characters and areas) which one can only experience with a second playthrough. Your decisions determine which parts of the game are accessible and which are not - that's a rare feat in gaming.

Personally I would love it when you don't have the option to do all quest in ME3 before the endgame. That defeats the meaning of choice and therefore role-playing. I'd rather have a system in which you have to make though decisions. Who are you going to help, which quest are you going to complete, which powerful items do you collect, and so on - before the endgame. This makes it highly interesting to play the game multiple times, to make different decisions and see how they affect the end. But I doubt that will be the case.

[Genshie]

Shepard the Leper wrote...

Kabrex wrote...

Its laughable to say that there are no real RPG's. Of course there are. The only concept people have difficulty grasping is that their parameters for what defines an RPG are a tad unrealistic. I'm sure its possible to have a game with major impacts depending on your choices, but it would have to be an 8-hour campaign. In order to actually preserve some longevity and story, there needs to be sacrifices.

TL;DR: Genre name is irrelevant. Do you like the game or not?

 I'd rather have a system in which you have to make though decisions. Who are you going to help, which quest are you going to complete, which powerful items do you collect, and so on - before the endgame. This makes it highly interesting to play the game multiple times, to make different decisions and see how they affect the end. But I doubt that will be the case.

You just described ME2 and even ME1. You have the choice to do the side quest or not, this is even more heavy in ME1. You even have the choice to recruit peeps or not. (Which I have in some playthroughs, like I never recruit Samara or Thane as an example) You also gather upgrades for your ship before the SM. And offering replayablitly is something that ME2 and ME1 does better than most games out there.

[GreenDragon37]

 A J-RPG. 

[The Elder King]

Genshie wrote...

Shepard the Leper wrote...



 I'd rather have a system in which you have to make though decisions. Who are you going to help, which quest are you going to complete, which powerful items do you collect, and so on - before the endgame. This makes it highly interesting to play the game multiple times, to make different decisions and see how they affect the end. But I doubt that will be the case.

You just described ME2 and even ME1. You have the choice to do the side quest or not, this is even more heavy in ME1. You even have the choice to recruit peeps or not. (Which I have in some playthroughs, like I never recruit Samara or Thane as an example) You also gather upgrades for your ship before the SM. And offering replayablitly is something that ME2 and ME1 does better than most games out there.

I think that he wants that the game forces you to do only a set numbers of quests, and not everyone, so that you have to replay the game to see the quests you missed in the first playtrough. In ME and ME2 you can skip some missions, but you can do every missions if you want.

[crimzontearz]

deus ex is 30 hours and it is impossible to get all the Augs by the end of the game without farming praxis through a glitch and there is no NG+ so you have to do multiple runs to attempt different approaches to the gameplay depending on your chosen Augs....just saying.