942 réponses à ce sujet

[eyesofastorm]

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"?

This is largely irrelevant because, however you define role playing mechanics, each subsequent Bioware game strips more of them away.  

[Plaintiff]

Blastback wrote...

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. 

Okay.

So if you stripped out the levelling mechanic from Skyrim, but every other feature was still intact, would it be less of a role-playing game?

[the_one_54321]

hoorayforicecream wrote...
Bioware doesn't make Role Playing Games using the term defined by Sylvius.

Accurate.

hoorayforicecream wrote...
Bioware has never made Role Playing Games, as per his definition.

Inaccurate.

Ambiguity is suffient to allow for roleplaying, if it is experienced properly. I don't play that way, but he does.

Plaintiff wrote...

Blastback wrote...

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.

Okay.

So if you stripped out the levelling mechanic from Skyrim, but every other feature was still intact, would it be less of a role-playing game?

I wouldn't call Skyrim a Role Playing Game, even if the status quo does. The character does not swing the sword, you do. It is a definitive distinction that does not affect the quality of the game at all, but does affect the label.

I would never call The Wicher a series of RPGs either. Even if I enjoyed The Witcher.

A Role Playing Game replaces you with the character. Your personal attributes do not affect the characters attributes or effectiveness in any situation, with the exception that you create the character and its attributes and characteristics.

Modifié par the_one_54321, 27 mars 2012 - 03:33 .

[eyesofastorm]

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

Why?

[Plaintiff]

eyesofastorm wrote...

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"?

This is largely irrelevant because, however you define role playing mechanics, each subsequent Bioware game strips more of them away.  

Without a standardised definition, that will be difficult to prove.

[eyesofastorm]

Plaintiff wrote...

eyesofastorm wrote...

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"?

This is largely irrelevant because, however you define role playing mechanics, each subsequent Bioware game strips more of them away.  

Without a standardised definition, that will be difficult to prove.

Not at all.  You make a big list of EVERYTHING that ANYONE considers an RPG mechanic.  Then you look at each subsequent game and say, "What from this list is in this game?"  The list will get smaller because they sure aren't adding RPG mechanics.  

[Blastback]

Plaintiff wrote...

Blastback wrote...

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. 

Okay.

So if you stripped out the levelling mechanic from Skyrim, but every other feature was still intact, would it be less of a role-playing game?

Hey, I was just awnsering the mechanics question, don't look at me for "What is an RPG":P

[the_one_54321]

eyesofastorm wrote...

Plaintiff wrote...

eyesofastorm wrote...

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"?

This is largely irrelevant because, however you define role playing mechanics, each subsequent Bioware game strips more of them away. 

Without a standardised definition, that will be difficult to prove.

Not at all.  You make a big list of EVERYTHING that ANYONE considers an RPG mechanic.  Then you look at each subsequent game and say, "What from this list is in this game?"  The list will get smaller because they sure aren't adding RPG mechanics.

Mostly accurate. ME3 did (re)introduce weapon customization. But that's it.

[eyesofastorm]

the_one_54321 wrote...

Mostly accurate. 

I tend towards hyperbole, based firmly in fact (thank you), for dramatic effect and entertainment value.  You know this.  

[Plaintiff]

eyesofastorm wrote...

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

Why?

It's just funny. The same way that sock puppets are funny.

And it's odd to me, because videogames are, like film and literature, essentially, a creative endeavour, based on the personal artistic vision of one or more individuals. And yet, only in the videogame industry do we see customers claiming that individual companies or developers have "lost their way" or "betrayed their loyal fanbase".

If J.K. Rowling wrote a new novel that wasn't Fantasy, would that be a betrayal of all the readers that loved Harry Potter?

Looking at the case and player manual for my copy of DA2, nowhere does it refer to itself as a 'role-playing game' or any approximation fo the term. It certainly doesn't call itself a 'spiritual successor to Baldur's Gate'. The closest I've found is the blurb that calls it an "All-new adventure in the Dragon Age saga". And that seems perfectly accurate to me.

[the_one_54321]

eyesofastorm wrote...

the_one_54321 wrote...
Mostly accurate.

I tend towards hyperbole, based firmly in fact (thank you), for dramatic effect and entertainment value.  You know this.

But what you said was almost 100% accurate. That makes it hard to set asside at hyperbole.

Every subsequent game since NWN has introduced less role playing in one form or another.

.......

Anyway, the point is that I want an RPG from BioWare. An actual RPG. Not some other type of game with a story and some leveling functions wrapped around it. They were much better at building actual RPGs with stories wrapped around them.

They haven't been making them for over a year now. Maybe they'll never make one again. But I keep on asking them to because they were good at it, and almost no one else makes them anymore, either.

Modifié par the_one_54321, 27 mars 2012 - 03:49 .

[eyesofastorm]

Plaintiff wrote...

eyesofastorm wrote...

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

Why?

It's just funny. The same way that sock puppets are funny.

And it's odd to me, because videogames are, like film and literature, essentially, a creative endeavour, based on the personal artistic vision of one or more individuals. And yet, only in the videogame industry do we see customers claiming that individual companies or developers have "lost their way" or "betrayed their loyal fanbase".

If J.K. Rowling wrote a new novel that wasn't Fantasy, would that be a betrayal of all the readers that loved Harry Potter?

Looking at the case and player manual for my copy of DA2, nowhere does it refer to itself as a 'role-playing game' or any approximation fo the term. It certainly doesn't call itself a 'spiritual successor to Baldur's Gate'. The closest I've found is the blurb that calls it an "All-new adventure in the Dragon Age saga". And that seems perfectly accurate to me.

1) Nowhere but in the gaming industry is a particular audience more underserved.  I attribute this to the youth of the industry, but that makes it no easier to deal with.

2) I contend that games cannot be judged the same as other forms of art/entertainment.  In no other medium does the audience participate as thoroughly as in a game and, as such, in no other medium does the audience have as personal a connection with the work.  It then follows that gaming audiences will have stronger, more personal feelings about the works and/or the creators of these works.  It's not surprising at all.  I suspect you only find it "funny" because you don't belong to an underserved audience yet.

Modifié par eyesofastorm, 27 mars 2012 - 03:51 .

[eyesofastorm]

the_one_54321 wrote...

eyesofastorm wrote...

the_one_54321 wrote...
Mostly accurate.

I tend towards hyperbole, based firmly in fact (thank you), for dramatic effect and entertainment value.  You know this.

But what you said was almost 100% accurate. 

Yet you felt the need to critque it.  I am not StM (no offense there at all StM).  I care about getting the point across, and if possible, enjoying myself in the process.  

[the_one_54321]

eyesofastorm wrote...
Yet you felt the need to critque it.

I do that. You know this.

[eyesofastorm]

the_one_54321 wrote...

eyesofastorm wrote...
Yet you felt the need to critque it.

I do that. You know this.

Point.

[K Le Blanc]

Having played Baldur's Gate series, Icewind Dale I &2, even played Planescape Torment. I know that there no way to build a true rpg unless you do it as a online game since the game would be so huge in order to have every senerio possible, they do the best they can with the restraints put on the writers and programmers

[kingtigernz]

It's amazing the lengths Bioware are going to force fans away.To me is seems this mythical causal audience(that is not there for Dragon Age type games) is more important.Why are Bioware trying to force fans away at every turn???who knows.

Modifié par kingtigernz, 27 mars 2012 - 04:41 .

[Realmzmaster]

Blastback wrote...

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.

Which is true, but one person can only speak for himself or herself. I speak only my opinion and try not to speak for any one else. So I do not use the collective we.

[Maria Caliban]

Plaintiff wrote...

And it's odd to me, because videogames are, like film and literature, essentially, a creative endeavour, based on the personal artistic vision of one or more individuals. And yet, only in the videogame industry do we see customers claiming that individual companies or developers have "lost their way" or "betrayed their loyal fanbase".

This is common to fanbases of all mediums. See: Star Wars Prequels.

eyesofastorm wrote...

1) Nowhere but in the gaming industry is a particular audience more underserved.  I attribute this to the youth of the industry, but that makes it no easier to deal with.

There are underserved audiences in all mediums. If you create a specific, narrow definition of acceptable content, you'll be underserved.

2) It then follows that gaming audiences will have stronger, more personal feelings about the works and/or the creators of these works.

People have strong, personal feelings for a work and the creators because they're inclined to have those feelings. This is going to happen in any artistic medium that supports storytelling.

Modifié par Maria Caliban, 27 mars 2012 - 06:11 .

[staindgrey]

I know it's been said a million times over in this thread already but...

OP, your "we" is not collective. I wanted my DAII expansion pack. Despite DAII's flaws as an incomplete game, I liked the direction. I enjoy the gameplay more than DAO. I am also a paying fan with an opinion.

This is why Bioware is trying to listen to all feedback. Not just yours.

[Realmzmaster]

No cRPG that I know of has been a true role playing game. The best that the game can be is an approximation of the p n p experience. There is no single definitive definition of a computer role playing game.

Yes, gamers can give a list of what they think should be in a computer role playing game, but everyone's list would not be the same. There would be similarities. Some gamers will leave features off their list because they require to much micromanagement. Other features would be left off because they are not fun. Others because they are too realistic for a fantasy game. Others because they are boring or dull. Others because they hinder gameplay.

I know what I want in a crpg, Everyone is not going to want what I want. I want a true tactical crpg like TOEE. I want weather conditions that affect the party. If it is cold and the party is not properly prepared I want to see frostbite or sun burn. I want food, water and weight requirements. I want my party to complain about being tired and need rest. The party actually has to camp and rest.

I want the ability to die of thirst, starvation or exhaustion. I want the ability to dodge and evade to be based on dexterity with the armor worn taken into consideration.
I want the removal of instant health and mana regeneration. The end to an endless supply of normal arrows.
I want a realistic stealth option and I do not mean the one in DAO. I want the ability to walk into a bar and buy a round for everyone and if the party is down on its luck have those people buy the party food and water.

I want to go back and be able to roll for my characters attributes or step through a portal with number representing each attribute changing over head. I want an end to level scaling and the return of random encounters.
That is just a few wants off the top of my head.

Modifié par Realmzmaster, 27 mars 2012 - 06:27 .

[adlocutio]

Plaintiff wrote...
What are "role-playing mechanics"?

Sylvius the Mad wrote...
... the amount of autonomy a player's character can comfortably have within the framework of roleplaying is zero.  The extent to which a player can accept [character] autonomy is the extent to which the player isn't roleplaying.

(Brackets mine) There is your essential roleplaying rule. Any RPG mechanic must allow the player to have all the autonomy to determine the character's behavior, and the character's behavior, not the player's, should be the only thing to affect the game world.  The extent to which a player's skill is involved in shooting in ME, for example, is the extent to which the player is not roleplaying.

How the RPG mechanics model the character and it's behavior is immaterial. Levels are merely a way to reflect character growth. There are other ways to model this.  There doesn't necessarily have to be any progression at all, if it's reasonable to model a character who never improves at anything.

Rolling a d20 is merely a way to randomize the character's interaction with the game world. Again, replaceable. Randomization isn't necessary, either, as you can have predetermined consequences for any action.

Hit Points are a gamist abstraction, and are certainly unnecessary, though they're a relatively easy way to model fatigue, wounds, or relative well-being. But, if this isn't relevant to the particular game, it can be discarded.

Attributes reflect the character's abilities relative to the rest of the game world. They define degree of skill or ability. They are useful, but not necessary, as it is possible to roleplay a character in a setting in which relative strength or dexterity may never be an issue.  Of course, if your character is swinging a sword, then strength is probably relevant, so the game should model it where applicable.

In other words, there aren't really any specific RPG mechanics which are of themselves necessary to make an RPG, so long as the ones that are used model the character and not the player, while allowing the player absolute control.

This, as Sylvius has discussed, does not mean absolute freedom to do anything conceiveable. If a player only has two choices he or she still has absolute control so long as the decision belongs entirely to the player.

[Calbeb]

I actually would have wanted a Dragon Age 2 expansion pack. I bought both DLC packs and greatly enjoyed them.

I liked Dragon Age 2, I thought it was a solid 8/10 Action/RPG with some great characters. Was it as good as Origins? No.

With that said, do I just want a "spiritual successor" to Baldur's Gate. No.. I don't want that either. I want something new, that maybe is halfway between the old-school roots of Origins and the more casual game design of Dragon Age 2.

Mainly, I want a sense of scale, better encounter deisgn, and variety of Origins. I also want the improved character development, combat flow and overall visual design of Dragon Age 2. If they can hit that, I'll be happy.

[ianvillan]

David Gaider wrote...

AgenTBC wrote...
Oh god, please don't use Skyrim as inspiration for future Bioware games. NO NO NO NO NO NO NO.

The problem is exactly what we refer to by suggesting we don't want to talk specifics until we have something to show.

What do we mean when we say Skyrim is a source of inspiration? Well, clearly we mean that DA3 would be like Syrim in every respect... a copy of the game, its action-oriented gamplay, its single protaganist and story-delivery method and so forth.

Or not.

Far better for us to show what we mean, as opposed to having people jump to conclusions and react in horror (as Dragon Age and the TES series are fundamentally different in their design goals) and demand explanations we can't really give yet-- and, even if we could, it'd be in words only... and, even though I'm a writer, there's really only so much that words can convey.

So I'll just say that's not the entire story and I'd suggest caution before reading too much into that.

The doctors are the main ones in charge of Bioware when they do interviews and say they want to take from Skyrim what are we to think.

You have Mike and Mark saying that they want to disscuss with us but only when they have definate information to talk about, and then it seems you have the Ray and Greg who just want to hype the series by mentioning one of the most popular games to be released recently.

I would appreciate Ray Muzyka and Greg Zechuks imput on what they want in the next Dragonage game and would like to see them more on the forums and what they mean by taking Skyrim as a source of inspiration.

[dragonfire100]

Ok people you can stop with the attacks and spam pictures you dont want this tread to get locked