54 réponses à ce sujet

[ChaosAgentLoki]

Sidney wrote...

ChaosAgentLoki wrote...

I think this differing view on Roleplaying amongst a variety of gamers is what's causing part of the problem. For me, a roleplaying game is defined by the usage of strategy, levels, attributes and skills. The choices and dialogue systems are bonuses (in my case). However, this is not the case for everyone and that is where the trouble with this question comes in. .

..and I am exactly the opposite. Role playing is about playing a role that requires character agency (choice, interaction and effect on a story or world). Playing a game about levels and skills is nothing that Jagged Alliance and XCOM haven't done but those aren't role playing games. 

Where skills and attributes (but not levels) enter into things is that role playing games (for me) should have the character do things not the player. I hate the lockpicking in Skyrim for example - or decrpyting in ME -  because character skills allows you to access the lockpicking min-game but it doesn't drive success. You the player do.

Fair enough, yet, my point's been proven. I enjoy all aspects of Roleplaying (those that you listed are a lot of fun for me) and those that I listed were just what defines it to me from other genres of games (primarily Action/Adventure which much of what you listed could, not that it necessarily does, fall under), however, if Bioware tried to incorporate the game solely with my basic identifiers, then there would be a ton of people who were upset that it did not fit their idea of Roleplaying. People's tastes and views on that term differ, and not everyone will be satisfied with what Bioware presents them with.

[Sidney]

ChaosAgentLoki wrote...

Sidney wrote...

ChaosAgentLoki wrote...

I think this differing view on Roleplaying amongst a variety of gamers is what's causing part of the problem. For me, a roleplaying game is defined by the usage of strategy, levels, attributes and skills. The choices and dialogue systems are bonuses (in my case). However, this is not the case for everyone and that is where the trouble with this question comes in. .

..and I am exactly the opposite. Role playing is about playing a role that requires character agency (choice, interaction and effect on a story or world). Playing a game about levels and skills is nothing that Jagged Alliance and XCOM haven't done but those aren't role playing games. 

Where skills and attributes (but not levels) enter into things is that role playing games (for me) should have the character do things not the player. I hate the lockpicking in Skyrim for example - or decrpyting in ME -  because character skills allows you to access the lockpicking min-game but it doesn't drive success. You the player do.

Fair enough, yet, my point's been proven. I enjoy all aspects of Roleplaying (those that you listed are a lot of fun for me) and those that I listed were just what defines it to me from other genres of games (primarily Action/Adventure which much of what you listed could, not that it necessarily does, fall under), however, if Bioware tried to incorporate the game solely with my basic identifiers, then there would be a ton of people who were upset that it did not fit their idea of Roleplaying. People's tastes and views on that term differ, and not everyone will be satisfied with what Bioware presents them with.

See to me a lot of poeple love the mechanics more the the character part. Skyrim has sold a ton of games off the strength of game mechanics because the story ceertainly isn't anything to write home about.

You are correct, you could have a choice/decision tree sort of action game much like you have looting, leveling, skills and such as well - Arkham City, Assasins Creed, Bioshock all had variants of levelling and skill trees.

Most games, as with things like ME, TW2, Skyrim are on a continumum of action/RP. The DA* series is really one of the last stands of the old school BG type point n' click your characters do everything and I wonder if that "purity" of vision survives into DA3.

[ChaosAgentLoki]

Sidney wrote...

See to me a lot of poeple love the mechanics more the the character part. Skyrim has sold a ton of games off the strength of game mechanics because the story ceertainly isn't anything to write home about.

You are correct, you could have a choice/decision tree sort of action game much like you have looting, leveling, skills and such as well - Arkham City, Assasins Creed, Bioshock all had variants of levelling and skill trees.

Most games, as with things like ME, TW2, Skyrim are on a continumum of action/RP. The DA* series is really one of the last stands of the old school BG type point n' click your characters do everything and I wonder if that "purity" of vision survives into DA3.

Yeah, I can see that. Same as I can see how you feel about Dragon Age having been the last stand of the classic cRPGs like Baldur's Gate, etc. As I am a console RPG player, for me it is the games that try to invigorate the turn based RPG of old. So, I know where you're coming from with your expectations for DA.

[Rurik948]

It is a good question. Role-playing for me is different from game mechanics.
Role-play is the creation of your protagonist. Playing a game you create or customize a certain type of personality.
For example, a mage story in DA.O. There were at least three choices in various dialogs which let a player choose whether his character remembers his life before the Tower or not. If he does this could be a sign of more rejecting attitude to the Chantry, while the character who takes the tower as his only home is more inclined to negotiation with the existing order of things.
The game-mechanics such as crafting, weapon and armor enchantment could be a great fun (like in Skyrim, Drakensang. The River of Time or The Witcher 2) and the main reason to beat the game on hardcore, but if the role-play is not worked out well I still feel the game "lacks something".

Modifié par Rurik948, 27 avril 2012 - 09:09 .

[Pasquale1234]

Sidney wrote...

Pasquale1234 wrote...

And it has precious little to do with decision making.  The amount of control I had over Hawke's dialog and behaviors made me feel like a partial director, but not the actor (role-player).

You had no less control than you did in DAO. You are never the actor in any CRPG you are always the director because the script has been written for you. In DAO my control only extended as far as having him say the very brief things Bioware allowed me to select him to say and usually those didn't cover my desired responses either.

The fallacy of the statement I underlined is pretty self-evident if you look to any actor playing a role using a pre-written script.

Since the Warden was not voiced, I could modify the verbiage and deliver the line in whatever way best suited the character I was role-playing.  And since the game provided mostly over-the-shoulder camera angles, I found it fairly easy to ignore the on-screen avatar and instead focus more on what the Warden was actually seeing.  I was able to imagine my Warden reacting in ways that best suited the character I had created and understood.  I found it much more difficult to do that with a voiced, cinematic avatar.

My Warden never once surprised me by saying something different from what I had selected.  My Warden never said anything without my direct input (outside of battle cries and an occasional bark), or reacted with out-of-character facial expressions.  Hawke did all of these things frequently.

You and plenty of other are making an artificial distinction between the two games when they both shared the same underlying problem that most RPG's share - limited dialog spoken or not - and a very narrow range of reasons for your actions. The answer is not to say "We want more DAO's limited set of dialog" but to say we want to see the next step in creating a more open and interactive environment for dialog.

Limited dialog options and story choices are expected and acceptable.  A character's motivations (reasons for making those choices) are only limited by the imagination of the players - unless the writers assign a reason to be spoken by the VO.  As for a "more open and interactive environment for dialog", I feel that DA2 took a giant step backward.