942 réponses à ce sujet

[septembervirgin]

Since there is already Bioware employee interest, might I suggest sketching up a quick DA3 webpage (might take weeks but that's kinda quick) to commercialize the game for those who don't hang around forums. It will be something shiny for people to look at and it will draw interest to the game.

You don't have to include information about DA3 -- that would only invite imitators and decrease the initial appeal of any summarized plot descriptions for the game. Just make it look *special* and fun. Lots of killer penguins and trained attack tomatoes. The primary thing to do is tell us what we already know, make it look fancy, allure the game consumer, and maybe put up a few comedic interviews by old DA characters on what they hope for the new game including a messenger from the Grey Warden who is too busy to directly comment.

Wasn't there a televised interview with Zevran once back when DAO was still being hyped?

[mesmerizedish]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Upsettingshorts wrote...

My position inherently disputes your premise.

The_one has an even lower tolerance for action combat than I do.  As far as he's concerned, any instance of action combat immediately disqualifies a game from any further consideration.

That's a fallacious view. It is alright to say "Beyond this threshold, I don't care." It is not alright to say "Beyond this threshold, it is all the same."

His use of a "==" symbol suggests objectivity.

[the_one_54321]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...
We were talking about the autonomy of the player character, not the autonomy of the player.  I was arguing that the maximum acceptable autonomy of the player character is zero.  You are responding as if I was calling for a maximum of zero loss of player freedom.

The two are related by a symmetric pendulum. Inverse proportionality. The only way for the character to gain a degree of autonomy is for the player to lose a directly proportional amount. 

Remember ambiguity. There is mechanical autonomy and ambiguous autonomy. The player loses mechanical and/or ambigous autonomy, and the character recieves that autonomy.

ishmaeltheforsaken wrote...

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Upsettingshorts wrote...
My position inherently disputes your premise.

The_one has an even lower tolerance for action combat than I do.  As far as he's concerned, any instance of action combat immediately disqualifies a game from any further consideration.

That's a fallacious view. It is alright to say "Beyond this threshold, I don't care." It is not alright to say "Beyond this threshold, it is all the same."

His use of a "==" symbol suggests objectivity.

"Beyond this point, I don't care" is precisely what I am saying. I play action games. I do not play action games produced by BioWare. BioWare is bad at action and good at the other things they have done in the past.

Action combat == action combat is a tautological truth. Any game that has action combat has action combat. The other aspects of the game are unrelated to whether or not a game has action combat. If it has it, then it has it.

Modifié par the_one_54321, 27 mars 2012 - 01:50 .

[Maria Caliban]

I love this thread.

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Maria Caliban wrote...

I'm going to defend the thread title: As long as one other person agrees with that the OP says, 'we' is correct. It doesn't mean everyone, just more than one.

I knew i liked you for a reason.

I aim to please.

Modifié par Maria Caliban, 27 mars 2012 - 01:43 .

[Ziberg]

I Wish DA2 never happened, I personally like their older games, ME2+3 were not RPG's Imo, while DA2 was a RPG but It was poorly done, Granted I Did enjoy all those games (Kinda for DA2) I miss the RPGs were what You did mattered (Jade Empire).
Personally I think DA3 should start by Hawke having a stomach ache and running off into the forset never to be seen again.
What ever Bioware does, as long as they don't pull a DA2 again, I will support them.

Modifié par Ziberg, 27 mars 2012 - 02:08 .

[Realmzmaster]

Maria Caliban wrote...

I'm going to defend the thread title: As long as one other person agrees with that the OP says, 'we' is correct. It doesn't mean everyone, just more than one.

Though yes, it's often co-opted to mean 'all right minded people.'

I will bow to your wisdom, but remember when the poster first posted he/she was only an I. The other we had not chimed in.

[Blastback]

Realmzmaster wrote...

Maria Caliban wrote...

I'm going to defend the thread title: As long as one other person agrees with that the OP says, 'we' is correct. It doesn't mean everyone, just more than one.

Though yes, it's often co-opted to mean 'all right minded people.'

I will bow to your wisdom, but remember when the poster first posted he/she was only an I. The other we had not chimed in.

True, but enough of us had expressed our opinions in the past that anyone who cares to look would know that a number of players share the OP's basic position.

[Sylvius the Mad]

the_one_54321 wrote...

The two are related by a symmetric pendulum. Inverse proportionality. The only way for the character to gain a degree of autonomy is for the player to lose a directly proportional amount. 

No, now you're equating a loss of control with a loss of freedom.  Those two things are not the same.

Look at chess.  In chess, the player has total control over his pieces.  During his turn, they never do anything he doesn't tell them to do.

But he does not have total freedom.  A rook cannot move diagonally.

That's the mistake you're making.  You're saying that the chess player has less control over his pieces because they are constrained by the rules of the game.  And that's not true.  He has less freedom, but he does not have less control.

Moreover, we weren't even talking about freedom  We were talking about autonomy.  Obviously if the chess pieces move on their own, the player has lost control.  And simply stopping that from happening does not restore total freedom.  This is what you're saying, but it's not relevant to the question of character autonomy.

[the_one_54321]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

the_one_54321 wrote...
The two are related by a symmetric pendulum. Inverse proportionality. The only way for the character to gain a degree of autonomy is for the player to lose a directly proportional amount. 

No, now you're equating a loss of control with a loss of freedom.  Those two things are not the same.

Look at chess.  In chess, the player has total control over his pieces.  During his turn, they never do anything he doesn't tell them to do.

But he does not have total freedom.  A rook cannot move diagonally.

That's the mistake you're making.  You're saying that the chess player has less control over his pieces because they are constrained by the rules of the game.  And that's not true.  He has less freedom, but he does not have less control.

Moreover, we weren't even talking about freedom  We were talking about autonomy.  Obviously if the chess pieces move on their own, the player has lost control.  And simply stopping that from happening does not restore total freedom.  This is what you're saying, but it's not relevant to the question of character autonomy.

I'll counter-example.
You say that allowing the character to act outside of your directions is a loss of roleplaying ability. Such that Hawke cannot be roleplayed because he speaks words without being directed to.

I am saying that the first instance of a character doing something without being directed happened the first time games switched to graphical interfaces. Potentially, I'm reaching a bit. It could, rather, be the first time an RPG was created with a graphical interface.

[Sylvius the Mad]

the_one_54321 wrote...

I am saying that the first instance of a character doing something without being directed happened the first time games switched to graphical interfaces. Potentially, I'm reaching a bit. It could, rather, be the first time an RPG was created with a graphical interface.

I know you're saying that.  I just don't see the connection.

What is it the character did, then, that was an autonomous action?  What does the Ultima IV Avatar (or someone similar) do autonomously?

[the_one_54321]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

the_one_54321 wrote...

I am saying that the first instance of a character doing something without being directed happened the first time games switched to graphical interfaces. Potentially, I'm reaching a bit. It could, rather, be the first time an RPG was created with a graphical interface.

I know you're saying that.  I just don't see the connection.

What is it the character did, then, that was an autonomous action?  What does the Ultima IV Avatar (or someone similar) do autonomously?

Decides to accept a quest without prompting from you.

[Sylvius the Mad]

the_one_54321 wrote...

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

the_one_54321 wrote...

I am saying that the first instance of a character doing something without being directed happened the first time games switched to graphical interfaces. Potentially, I'm reaching a bit. It could, rather, be the first time an RPG was created with a graphical interface.

I know you're saying that.  I just don't see the connection.

What is it the character did, then, that was an autonomous action?  What does the Ultima IV Avatar (or someone similar) do autonomously?

Decides to accept a quest without prompting from you.

Does he?  Outside of JRPGs, I have never seen that happen with an unvoiced protagonist.

[the_one_54321]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...
Does he?  Outside of JRPGs, I have never seen that happen with an unvoiced protagonist.

You're telling me that there is no instance in an 8bit western developed game where a character makes a decision without prompting? 

Modifié par the_one_54321, 27 mars 2012 - 02:14 .

[Dragoonlordz]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

the_one_54321 wrote...

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

the_one_54321 wrote...

I am saying that the first instance of a character doing something without being directed happened the first time games switched to graphical interfaces. Potentially, I'm reaching a bit. It could, rather, be the first time an RPG was created with a graphical interface.

I know you're saying that.  I just don't see the connection.

What is it the character did, then, that was an autonomous action?  What does the Ultima IV Avatar (or someone similar) do autonomously?

Decides to accept a quest without prompting from you.

Does he?  Outside of JRPGs, I have never seen that happen with an unvoiced protagonist.

Mass Effect 3 had it, just be being in the area it gets added to your list of quests/missions. But this is not a debate that interests me and my only interest was in the living world vs immersion element. So I'll bow out of this specific part of the discussion. Though should add he was voiced but he never spoke to them.

Modifié par Dragoonlordz, 27 mars 2012 - 02:13 .

[hoorayforicecream]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

I hold that roleplaying is the most important aspect of a roleplaying game, yes.

It seems this is the crux of your argument. I contend that immersion and flow are essential elements of making a good game, which I believe supercede the requirements for it to be 'role playing' at all.

You're arguing that any game being made should try to conform to some sort of platonic ideal for "role playing", simply because it is stated to be so by genre. If they simply called it a cinematic fantasy epic with role-playing elements, your reasoning would no longer be valid. It is possible for people to value elements like cinematography, immersion, flow and pacing alongside player agency. I contend that these are all more valuable to making a good cinematic fantasy epic with role-playing elements than rigidly adhering to one man's interpretation of a platonic ideal.

[the_one_54321]

hoorayforicecream wrote...
 rigidly adhering to one man's interpretation of a platonic ideal.

One man's interpretation my aunt fanny. I'll never accept that "it's all subjective" catch-all bogus justification for false advertising.

I don't give one [expletive deleted] what the marketing department has to say about any game. Definitions are definitions. I will never acknowledge a change in definition because the progression of marketing in games tells me I should.

Role Playing Games have Role Playing mechanics, or they are not Role Playing Games.

That said, it's perfectly fine for a game to not be a Role Playing Game. There's lots of other kinds of games that are very good. But from BioWare, all I want is Role Playing Games. Genuine Role Playing Games. Other developers make the other kinds of games with much higher proficiency. Having an excellent story does not undo the low quality of the other charactersitcs. Case in point; ME is a lousy shooter.

Modifié par the_one_54321, 27 mars 2012 - 02:55 .

[hoorayforicecream]

the_one_54321 wrote...

hoorayforicecream wrote...
 rigidly adhering to one man's interpretation of a platonic ideal.

One man's interpretation my aunt fanny. I'll never accept that "it's all subjective" catch-all bogus justification for false advertising.

I don't give one [expletive deleted] what the marketing department has to say about any game. Definitions are definitions. I will never acknowledge a change in definition because the progression of marketing in games tells me I should.

Role Playing Games have Role Playing mechanics, or they are not Role Playing Games.

That said, it's perfectly fine for a game to not be a Role Playing Game. There's lots of other kinds of games that are very good. But from BioWare, all I want is Role Playing Games. Genuine Role Playing Games. Other developers make the other kinds of games with much higher proficiency. Having an excellent story does not undo the low quality of the other charactersitcs. Case in point; ME is a lousy shooter.

Bioware doesn't make Role Playing Games using the term defined by Sylvius. Bioware has never made Role Playing Games, as per his definition. Bioware made games that have been close, but never quite there.

Role Playing games have role playing mechanics. But other games can also have role playing mechanics without having to adhere to the platonic ideal Role Playing Game. They just don't emphasize them or weight them to the exclusion of other qualities, and as such don't necessarily have to be called Role Playing games.

To Sylvius, it's absolute. Either it gives 100% explicit control of the character to the player forever, or it is not a role playing game. I'm fine with that. I want Bioware to continue the path they're on, and I'll happily call it something else if the terminology is that important to you.

Modifié par hoorayforicecream, 27 mars 2012 - 03:06 .

[eyesofastorm]

hoorayforicecream wrote...
I want Bioware to continue the path they're on, and I'll happily call it something else if the terminology is that important to you.

Will Bioware?  If they would, then the healing could finally begin.  

[hoorayforicecream]

eyesofastorm wrote...

hoorayforicecream wrote...
I want Bioware to continue the path they're on, and I'll happily call it something else if the terminology is that important to you.

Will Bioware?  If they would, then the healing could finally begin.  

Does it matter? The industry definition of role-playing game basically means a game focused on leveling up and experience points. There are entire subgenres that have little or nothing to do with playing a role or character agency/control (MMORPGs, Tactical RPGs, Action RPGs). If you want Bioware to do it, you should probably start campaigning against the entirety of the gaming industry as well.

[eyesofastorm]

hoorayforicecream wrote...

eyesofastorm wrote...

hoorayforicecream wrote...
I want Bioware to continue the path they're on, and I'll happily call it something else if the terminology is that important to you.

Will Bioware?  If they would, then the healing could finally begin.  

Does it matter? The industry definition of role-playing game basically means a game focused on leveling up and experience points. There are entire subgenres that have little or nothing to do with playing a role or character agency/control (MMORPGs, Tactical RPGs, Action RPGs). If you want Bioware to do it, you should probably start campaigning against the entirety of the gaming industry as well.

But I think that's exactly why many of us grew over the years to love Bioware above all other developers... because they made games that we love... games just for us.  They stopped and we looked around and saw that no one was making those games anymore and Bioware didn't help because they were still saying that they were making games for us... but not really.  That's why I say the healing could begin.  If they won't commit to us, then cut us loose in no uncertain terms.  Its the decent thing to do.  But they won't because they still want our money.  I stopped buying their games, but I have trouble letting go of the hope that they will once again make a game for me... because I know they can.  That's why I have so much hope for kickstarter.  If someone will serve the audience I belong to again, I can let Bioware fly free and not have to pick at a wound that being abandoned in one of my very favorite forms of entertainment has opened.  

[Plaintiff]

the_one_54321 wrote...
Role Playing Games have Role Playing mechanics, or they are not Role Playing Games.

What are "role-playing mechanics"?

D&D uses different mechanics to Call of Cthulhu, tabletop RPGs use different mechanics than text-based adventures, which in turn differs from LARP, which differs from videogames.

Whenever I ask anyone to define 'Role-Playing Games' for me, all they are ever able to come up with is a list of commonly accepted, conventional characteristics, none of which can objectively be said to be essential to the experience.

So I'm forced to conclude that there is no such thing as a "true" RPG.

As an aside, I love it when people act like Bioware has personally wounded them. It makes me giggle.

Modifié par Plaintiff, 27 mars 2012 - 03:28 .

[Blastback]

Plaintiff wrote...

the_one_54321 wrote...
Role Playing Games have Role Playing mechanics, or they are not Role Playing Games.

What are "role-playing mechanics"?

D&D uses different mechanics to Call of Cthulhu, tabletop RPGs use different mechanics than text-based adventures, which in turn differs from LARP, which differs from videogames.

Whenever I ask anyone to define 'Role-Playing Games' for me, all they are ever able to come up with is a list of commonly accepted, conventional characteristics, none of which can objectively be said to be essential to the experience.

So I'm forced to conclude that there is no such thing as a "true" RPG.

I'd imagine mechanics based on stats and leveling up via some form of experiance.