189 réponses à ce sujet

[LinksOcarina]

bEVEsthda wrote...

I think you're wrong, of course. Well, half-wrong then, and extrapolating. But what does it matter? What's your point? Where do you want to go with this?
The heart of the matter is that you could role-play DA:O just fine. Just as most Bioware games prior to ME2 and DA2.

Really my point was to say why I disagree with what Curlain said,  and why most BioWare RPGs were either a-typical to what people define as Western RPGs to begin with, or not Western RPGs at all.  So really I don't have to go anywhere with this unless if you want to continue talking about it. 

That said, it does matter to me a great deal because a lot of the problems I keep seeing with people is that they say Dragon Age II is a bad BioWare RPG. Since then I have seen great arguments and terrible arguments as to why, but many of them boil down to what you just said, it's not the type of game I wanted to play.

But it always left a nagging question in my head as to why people say that, when the type of game Dragon Age, and pretty much every BioWare game sans Shattered Steel and MDK, always is a story-driven RPG over anything else, and despite changes mechanically, this still holds true between both games. So if it really comes down to a question of fundamental mechanics, it honestly makes no sense in my mind because the mechanics are superfluous to begin with when the story is the emphasis.

But thats me. 

Modifié par LinksOcarina, 17 avril 2012 - 06:07 .

[bEVEsthda]

LinksOcarina wrote...

bEVEsthda wrote...

I think you're wrong, of course. Well, half-wrong then, and extrapolating. But what does it matter? What's your point? Where do you want to go with this?
The heart of the matter is that you could role-play DA:O just fine. Just as most Bioware games prior to ME2 and DA2.

Really my point was to say why I disagree with what Curlain said,  and why most BioWare RPGs were either a-typical to what people define as Western RPGs to begin with, or not Western RPGs at all.  So really I don't have to go anywhere with this unless if you want to continue talking about it. 

That said, it does matter to me a great deal because a lot of the problems I keep seeing with people is that they say Dragon Age II is a bad BioWare RPG. Since then I have seen great arguments and terrible arguments as to why, but many of them boil down to what you just said, it's not the type of game I wanted to play.

But it always left a nagging question in my head as to why people say that, when the type of game Dragon Age, and pretty much every BioWare game sans Shattered Steel and MDK, always is a story-driven RPG over anything else, and despite changes mechanically, this still holds true between both games. So if it really comes down to a question of fundamental mechanics, it honestly makes no sense in my mind because the mechanics are superfluous to begin with when the story is the emphasis.

But thats me. 

Well, that's the weaknes with relying on labels I guess. The fundamental difference exists, since a large part of the gamers clearly perceive it. So either we need new labels, or we are reading in too much or too little in old labels.

(just a sidetrack: There's a similar problem with "role-play". Different people clearly mean different things, but yet use same label. Discussions could be clearer, sometimes, one thinks.)

[LinksOcarina]

bEVEsthda wrote...

LinksOcarina wrote...

bEVEsthda wrote...

I think you're wrong, of course. Well, half-wrong then, and extrapolating. But what does it matter? What's your point? Where do you want to go with this?
The heart of the matter is that you could role-play DA:O just fine. Just as most Bioware games prior to ME2 and DA2.

Really my point was to say why I disagree with what Curlain said,  and why most BioWare RPGs were either a-typical to what people define as Western RPGs to begin with, or not Western RPGs at all.  So really I don't have to go anywhere with this unless if you want to continue talking about it. 

That said, it does matter to me a great deal because a lot of the problems I keep seeing with people is that they say Dragon Age II is a bad BioWare RPG. Since then I have seen great arguments and terrible arguments as to why, but many of them boil down to what you just said, it's not the type of game I wanted to play.

But it always left a nagging question in my head as to why people say that, when the type of game Dragon Age, and pretty much every BioWare game sans Shattered Steel and MDK, always is a story-driven RPG over anything else, and despite changes mechanically, this still holds true between both games. So if it really comes down to a question of fundamental mechanics, it honestly makes no sense in my mind because the mechanics are superfluous to begin with when the story is the emphasis.

But thats me. 

Well, that's the weaknes with relying on labels I guess. The fundamental difference exists, since a large part of the gamers clearly perceive it. So either we need new labels, or we are reading in too much or too little in old labels.

(just a sidetrack: There's a similar problem with "role-play". Different people clearly mean different things, but yet use same label. Discussions could be clearer, sometimes, one thinks.)

Well, I don't see it as a weakness of relying on labels, I think it just needs a clarification on labels. This is one of the points Extra Credits said that I liked, where it depends on the inherent feelings one has when playing a game that define what type of game it is, vs the mechanics and graphics and other aspects of the game, even though that is impossible to measure. 

[Curlain]

LinksOcarina wrote...



Extra Credits is half right in regards to those differences (a lot of stuff they pointed out in their 3 parter is kind of off to be honest, mainly the history and the issues surrounding the "decline" of Light RPGs) That said, I will say you are right about expression, but wrong about fantasy, if using their terms for a moment will help.

As I pointed out above, one of the bigger ones is emphasis on story for Light RPGs vs Western RPGS, and despite giving you a customizable protagonist for Dragon Age: Origins, in the end you are still the Warden. So really, even from the standpoint of what Extra Credits is saying, Dragon Age has Light RPG leanings because it more desirable for a cleaner storyline that is about the interpersonal relationships, character dynamics, world issues and world introduction vs the exploits of the main character in a non-linear structure, living out the fantasy as we see fit.

Portnow's issues of fantasy, of putting yourself in the role do not really show up in BioWare games. They have elements of it in character creation and character building, as you say, but the storyline is essentially the same. It is the details in-between that are different. Let me put it this way, do you really become something you are not as the Warden? In the games narrative it makes it like that, humble origins into a thrusted situation, but that is all about the personal story of a character named Cousland,  Amell,  Tabris or Aeudcan. Those characters all exist in-game, it just so happens one of them was lucky enough to have Duncan intervene on their behalf, so we see what happens to him as he becomes this legendary Gray Warden.

So yes, the Warden is the protagonist, but the Warden is also an established character despite building him from the ground up. We just build the legend of the warden over becoming the warden, what they look like, what weapons and armor they use, who they like and hate, what they believe. By building the legend of the Warden we do give it personal expression, but  we are telling the story of the Warden more than being placed in the story of the Warden. 

So it is a very interesting mix of both in some regards, but I would still not call it a hallmark to Western RPGs in the end. 

I think this where we see things fundementally differently.  The Warden is role, the very use of the title indicates that to me.  It's the story of someone who became the key figure at that time and place, but role is there, but the person is blank.  No character exists till the player creates them, just that the game will have a Grey Warden who by chance or fate will be able to become the key figure.  You establish who that person is, what they are like, and establish their story.  The other characters from the other Origins never filled that role, and they no more exist in a playthrough that doesn't involve them the any unname character from anywhere else in Thedas (they are never meet, reffered to or appear in another Origin playthrough, they are no more relevent then a guy living in Orlais at the time).  So for it there is no established character, only a vacant role for a character you create and whose story you develop.

After all, for me in that definition (as I understand it) almost no game would be a wRPG, in the ES games which most would accept as a wRPG, in Arena the PC fills the role of a minor member of Uriel Septim VII's court who is sent to get the parts of I think the Septre of Chaos (been a long time since I played that game ) and becomes the Hero of Tameriel or similar.  In Daggerfall you are agent for Uriel Septim sent to Daggerfall to deal with Lysander's Ghost, in Morrowind your cast in the role of the Nevarine, and in Skyrim you fill the role of the Dragonborn.  Sure you can ignore the main quests, but you could do that with the BG games as well, so under this almost no game would be classed as wRPG.

And for me, the established narrative is background, like the setting and quests are background to the personal narrative of the PC.  For example, someone can write a personal story of a character involved in an historical event,  The events play out the same, but the real story isn't really about that, it's about the character the story focuses on (same is true of biographies to an extent).  Origins established narrative and set-up supplies the Blight, the npcs, companions and events, and that a Grey Warden ended up being a key figure in the events.  The story however you provide as you create and develop who that person is who becomes the Grey Warden in question, how they changed, why they did things and what happened to them and what their views and experiences were (and how those changed).  Their personal story and person is for you define.

That's how I interpret the material (though I'm say what I've true for everyone, etc), so like I said, I think we view things very differently on these points.

Edit: edited for more clarity.

Modifié par Curlain, 17 avril 2012 - 11:01 .

[the_one_54321]

LinksOcarina wrote...
it depends on the inherent feelings one has when playing a game that define what type of game it is, vs the mechanics and graphics and other aspects of the game, even though that is impossible to measure.

I disagree. So. Much.

This type of "everyone's interpretation is valid at the same time" crap irritates the living hell out of me. Define a set of strictly applied game mechanics and give them a label. End of story. Byond that, all it boils down to is whether or not a particular lable is or is not accurate. Then no question of quality or reception or enjoyment even comes into the picture. No subjective bias of terms ever comes into the picture.

[Meris]

LinksOcarina wrote...

always is a story-driven RPG over anything else

If you feel the need to specify that its not just a RPG, but narrative driven then how can you not see that 'story-driven' is, also, an enormous generalization that doesn't take into account numerous other factors?

[Wozearly]

the_one_54321 wrote...

This type of "everyone's interpretation is valid at the same time" crap irritates the living hell out of me. Define a set of strictly applied game mechanics and give them a label. End of story.

I'm not sure its that simple, because different genres have started adapting each others' mechanics left, right and centre.

Historically, you could have said that an RPG was about creating a character within the limits of the game engine and then playing 'their story' throughout the time period of the game. Mechanistically, barring a few deviations, the core game mechanics almost all had progression elements based on permanent skill / stat development over playing time, mostly using an experience point system equating either to combat progression, quest line completion, or action attempts. Often this would be complemented by unique abilities that were unlocked as you went along and/or linked to certain defined classes that pushed characters into developing along certain pre-defined specialist routes. They might have companions of other classes that could be brought along.

So far, so good. Clearly games played around with these elements (e.g. character creation might be restricted to playing a single defined character, but having freedom of choice around class), but you 'knew an RPG when you saw one'.

Problem is that as soon as you allow a deviation, other games fit that description that would not traditionally be classed as RPGs. Take GTA San Andreas. Your characterisation options are only visual and your inital stat selection is fixed, but skills develop over time through actions, you follow CJ's story throughout the time period of the game, there are main and side quests and there are temporary companions. Its only 'classes' and 'unique' abilities short of an RPG, and neither feature is common to all RPGs in any case. You could also make a credible argument for DoW2 meeting the criteria as well.

In the examples above, I'd argue that they're an action game and an RTS game, but with distinct RPG elements. But how do you define an 'action' game - one that requires twitch-based mechanics rather than dice-roll mechanics? That would separate GTA:SA from the DA series, but not really from Mass Effect. Its even harder with DOW2.

The way that a game 'feels' to play is often what defines its genre, and there are a number of examples of games that have stepped outside of the classic labels of their genre and nonetheless been a success. You could also sub-label genres to death and still have difficulty fitting games into the required boxes based on hard, strictly defined criteria.

I think its always going to be a subjective opinion based on the player's own view.

[the_one_54321]

Wozearly wrote...
how do you define an 'action' game - one that requires twitch-based mechanics rather than dice-roll mechanics?

Yes.

Wozearly wrote...
That would separate GTA:SA from the DA series, but not really from Mass Effect.

You point and shoot. It's a shooter.

Wozearly wrote...
The way that a game 'feels' to play is often what defines its genre,

No. That's just the marketing department telling you what to think.

[Wozearly]

the_one_54321 wrote...

Wozearly wrote...
how do you define an 'action' game - one that requires twitch-based mechanics rather than dice-roll mechanics?

Yes.

Wozearly wrote...
That would separate GTA:SA from the DA series, but not really from Mass Effect.

You point and shoot. It's a shooter.

Wozearly wrote...
The way that a game 'feels' to play is often what defines its genre,

No. That's just the marketing department telling you what to think.

Then by that logic, Skyrim is an action game and GTA is a shooter. Neither label seems entirely accurate, and there are a number of other genre hybrids that stand alongside them.

This isn't the marketing department telling me what to think (not least as I have a marketing background and no vested interest in perpetuating any alleged marketing myths here), its simply a statement that its incredibly difficult to apply accurate labels to games that intentionally alter some of the 'classic' mechanics of their genre and become hybrids to some degree or another.

The fact that successful hybrids exist and that people can apply the labels differently isn't a fault of the labels, or a fault of the people applying them, its a demonstration that what you're trying to label ultimately relies on a subjective element because the mechanics classic to any particular genre are not mutually exclusive. You can have an RPG with shooter elements that most people would agree is an RPG, or a shooter with RPG elements that most people would agree is a shooter.

[In Exile]

the_one_54321 wrote...
You point and shoot. It's a shooter.

I also drive. Does that make it a driving sim? 

ETA: In GTA4 (I think) I go on dates. Is it a dating sim?

Modifié par In Exile, 19 avril 2012 - 09:50 .

[Wozearly]

In Exile wrote...

the_one_54321 wrote...
You point and shoot. It's a shooter.

I also drive. Does that make it a driving sim? 

ETA: In GTA4 (I think) I go on dates. Is it a dating sim?

Part of the marvel of the GTA series is that as its developed, its managed to hybridise so many concepts so successfully.

You spend a lot of time driving, but its not a driving sim. You spend a lot of time shooting at things, but its not a shooter. You spend time flying, but its not a flght sim. Its intentionally humorous, but not a comedy. You have character development and explicit quests, but its not an RPG. You have clothing customisation and 'dating' mechanics, but its not a date sim. Its had territorial control mechanics, but isn't an RTS.

Its technical genre label is "open world action/adventure game". Up until the_one_54321's post, I have never heard it referred to as a shooter.

This "labels cannot be defied" argument isn't looking any less shaky to me...

Modifié par Wozearly, 19 avril 2012 - 10:06 .

[thats1evildude]

the_one_54321 wrote...

You point and shoot. It's a shooter.

By that logic, Duck Hunt was an FPS.

Modifié par thats1evildude, 19 avril 2012 - 10:12 .

[Maria Caliban]

the_one_54321 wrote...

LinksOcarina wrote...
it depends on the inherent feelings one has when playing a game that define what type of game it is, vs the mechanics and graphics and other aspects of the game, even though that is impossible to measure.

I disagree. So. Much.

This type of "everyone's interpretation is valid at the same time" crap irritates the living hell out of me.

Wherein your "I'm going to create a set of strict and absolute set of rules with no room for nuance, exception, or common sense. Also, if people don't agree with these rules they are wrong," is obviously superior and frustrates no one.

[Meris]

Wozearly wrote...

You have character development and explicit quests, but its not an RPG.

I'd argue that every game has 'roleplaying potential', especially simulations since that's what RPGs are - a very specific kind of simulation that branches to a enormous amount of subgenres.

[Realmzmaster]

The problem with labels is that they are at best generalizations. People use labels to categorize products. The problem comes when a product fits more than one label. Do you create a new label for that product or do you try to lump it under an existing label. Usually it starts off lumped into an existing label until more products like it emerge. When like products emerge then a new label may be necessary or the product gets cross listed under different labels.

Some gamers want to narrowly define a game to a particular label, but all games do not fit those narrow definitions so you either enlarge the definition, create a new one or list the game with several labels if there is not one dominant feature.