216 réponses à ce sujet

[xsdob]

Why is this thread still alive?

[LinksOcarina]

because you just resurrected it?

Crap! Now I did too!

[Amioran]

Baconandliver wrote...
I'm not denying that the thematic element of order vs. chaos is there, but it is expressed in such a shallow way, in such a lackluster story, that it is irrelevant.

It depends if this happens because the execution is flawed or just because you think it is so because you cannot make the proper connections lacking knowledge of the theme.

For now what I've read around are only examples of the latter. When people will start providing examples of the former then I could either agree with them, depending on what they say (read my response to a guy of RPGCodex concerning this in a previous page).

Baconandliver wrote...
In order for the themes and ideas expressed in a story to have any value at all, the story must first be competently written. ME isn't some surrealist creation where thematic elements mean everything and logical plot cohesion means nothing. Even if it were, as I said before, the themes are explored in a rather shallow way, making it a poor effort by that standard as well.

It doesn't matter if the narrative is surrealist, symbolic or not. There are elements that are inherent in the theme that you cannot explain because it will take too much time and it will completely interrupt the narrative to do so.

In the previous example of Ellis and American Psycho, he couldn't certainly explain the existential theme to make the reader understand perfectly the meaning of the actions of the protagonists and American Psycho is not certainly surrealist or symbolic or ermetic.

Baconandliver wrote...
This is exactly what I mean. You have stated in this thread that in order to understand and critique ME3, one must study "(Kant, Shopenahuer, Nietzsche, Adorno, Heiddeger, Sartre, Ouspensky, Hegel, Csikszentmihalyi etc. etc.)"

No, I stated that the theme behind ME is a well known, complex and important one, and motivated so by quoting names of great philosopher debating and writing tractates on it. I never said that you need to study all of them fully to understand the theme.
 
I said that you would need to know the theme well to write an objective review of the narrative, but this doesn't necessarily mean that you have to study all the works of those authors in full. The fact is that almost nobody here (or in the reviews that pretend to judge the narrative) know the theme at all, if not for the name of it. This is a completely different thing. Between knowing a theme well and not knowing it at all (especially for certain ones) there's a world of a difference.

Baconandliver wrote...
To require them as a prerequisite is to place them on the same level in terms of depth.

Not at all. This is a completely non sequitur.

Baconandliver wrote...
It is entirely possible to judge ME without having a deep understanding of the theme of order and chaos.

As I stated in a previous post, certainly you can, but lacking the full context you are prone to take things in a different way or to not understand something completely and if in the case this happens for the lack of understanding of the theme the fault is yours, not of the author.

Then it also depends on what you intend by "deep". You don't certainly need a deep understanding of the theme to get what I say. You just have to know it a little more than just the name and what it means from hypotetic/logical parameters.

Baconandliver wrote...
As I said before, ME isn't meant to be surrealist. Logical plot cohesion is a must for the type of story ME sets out to be. If it fails in that regard, it has failed, no matter what themes it contains. ME3 fails completely at this, and its story can be fairly judged as a failure.

"Logical plot cohesion" it depends for what it is intended by it. Some "illogical plot" that many here point out are not at all because they are perfectly explained in the theme. As I said before "there are elements that are inherent in the theme that you cannot explain because it will take too much time and it will completely interrupt the narrative to do so."

Modifié par Amioran, 25 avril 2012 - 07:27 .

[dragon_83]

Han Shot First wrote...

I stopped reading after the author stated that Mass Effect 2 was "more of a third person shooter with stats than a true hybrid."

Yes, it was a deep and hardcore RPG. Now go and jump off a cliff.

[Meshaber]

dragon_83 wrote...

Han Shot First wrote...

I stopped reading after the author stated that Mass Effect 2 was "more of a third person shooter with stats than a true hybrid."

Yes, it was a deep and hardcore RPG. Now go and jump off a cliff.

Because there is obviously nothing between Planescape: Torment and Gears of War<_<

[Petrikles]

It is about time somebody stopped coddling Bioware. They are becoming arrogant, like, "our game is good, we just need to explain the ending a bit more". Their plots and storyline were good in ME1, with an unnecessary overdramatic ending (Sovereigns shields failing, why was that again?), declined to some interim-story (Cerberus as shady grey was good, Collectors and gene-goo-made reapers not), and reaching an absolute boring bottom with ME3. No development and no satisfying explanations to almost every aspect of the story, just a check-off of various mandatory plot-stops.

Really, three weeks after I finished the single player, I come to realize more and more that ME3 destroyed for me the remaining good aspects of the ME series. I stick around for a surprising fun multiplayer, but the recurring bugs (biotics in general, and also the vanguard) start to irritate and annoy me, as they steal a lot of my already very precious game time.

Really, the review might not be entirely jusified in its negativity, but they got it right in quite some parts.

[jaza]

xsdob wrote...

Why is this thread still alive?

Why do you make such useless posts?

As for the review: spot on.

[Phaedon]

Baconandliver wrote...
I guess I just have to disagree that their assessment is unfair. Sure, only Walters called it 'hard sci fi', but he was the lead writer, and it's not like anyone in the Bio camp said "uh... no, no it isn't". That sort of thing coming from the lead writer is a claim from the developers. Short of every Bioware employee calling it hard sci fi, I don't really see what more you could ask for before someone's allowed to call them out on it.

Are you being sarcastic?

Not to be rude, or anything, but you don't have to do good research to discover that every single thing you have stated is...objectively incorrect? I can't think of a better statement to describe them. To start with, you just assert various things without justifying them in the least. 

1) Walters didn't say that it's hard sci-fi. The Codexians just can't read.
He said that it's a sci-fi that somehow, subjectively, its boundaries can be seen by some as 'hard'.

2) Had Walters even actually said something like that, the problem is that he has been a lead writer for only the half of ME2 and ME3. Casey Hudson, however, the lead producer, who came up with the idea of the universe and worked with others to establish it properly, has specifically said that it's a homage to sci-fi shows from the 70s. Hell, Walters himself makes very specific allusions to Star Trek and Star Wars. 

3) I expect them to learn to read English, for starters.

Baconandliver wrote...
Anyway, a site devoted to cRPGs, which are few and far between as it is, especially in their classic form, is obviously going to have a lot of old games on its list of favourites, so I don't see what the relevance of pre vs post 04 games is.

"
Anyway, a site devoted to cRPGs, which are few and far between as it is [...] 
a lot of old games "

...nice.



http://en.wikipedia....ing_video_games 

"especially in their classic form"

RPG Codex[/b] > putting the 'role' back in role-playing. A highly prestigious gaming 
magazine with news and views on the latest and not so latest RPGs. 

Sounds legit. 

It's not as if part of the problem is that they are supposedly standing for true RPGs, you'll just have to go ahead and fabricate properties of the community.

Not to mention the fact that the list was compiled by one individual, and most people on the site seem to have their own likes and dislikes. Also, as I pointed out, 70.5% of people there seem to highly approve of a game that came out last year. I doubt it's the only one.

Compiled by one individual, quoted by another individual as 'things we like', characterized by another individual (me) as a personal parody.  

Also characterized by a second individual who appears to be a regular at the forums, as a list that 'everyone but insane forumites like', but that is absolute horse ****, seeing as the list includes BG 1 and 2.

most people on the site seem to have their own likes and dislikes 

As deduced by which criteria?

Looks like a pretty good RPG forum to me, just less heavily censored than most, with all the pros and cons that entails. It also seems more focused on the classic style of RPG, which I consider a massive plus.

Sure. In the same way that /v/ is a good video game forum.

I've always considered ME to be more 'choose your own adventure with guns' than RPG anyway. The Playground subforums in particular seem very entertaining, and I'll probably end up registering there, if only to lurk.

An...'RP'G without RP. Sure, as established by whom? The good ol' classic RPGs? That differentiated themselves from war strategy games? The ones established by Wizards of the Coast? 

Well, yeah, sorry to burst your bubble:

What is a roleplaying game?[/b] 
The D&D game is a fantasy game of your imagination. It is part acting, part storytelling, part social interaction, part war game, and part chance. You and your friends create characters that develop and grow with each adventure they complete. One player is the Dungeon Master (DM). The DM controls the monsters and enemies, narrates the action, referees the game, and sets up the adventure. Together, the Dungeon Master and the players make the game come alive. 

http://www.wizards.c....aspx?x=dnd/faq 

Modifié par Phaedon, 25 avril 2012 - 06:52 .

[deus_]

RPG...

R: Roles as in a script.
P: Playing as in...IM THE ACTOR BUT I CAN FREE FORM BY CHOOSING 1 OF 3 DIALOUGES GIVEN TO ME AND BE ALL AWSOME AND STUFF.
G: Games...as in *snort* I dunno...LUDO i guess...does it matter?


What Gygax did was move the scope from Armies on Battlefield to individuals (roles) in a World.

And to simulate a world he needed to create mechanics and rules that defined the interaction and set CONSTRAINTS on what the characters could do and succeed in.
Without it, roleplaying becomes just pretending stuff while doing an unrelated activity.

Actually...RPG is an poor name which does not give a good description of 3/4 of what its about.

And CRPG can't facilitate the GMs ability to judge and respond to an unlimited range of player input...so really, no CRPG has ever accomodated the "Roleplay" part anyway.
It can however accommodate most character traits and corresponding rules and dynamics.

That..is what matters....not having literature with your own persona.

Modifié par deus_, 27 avril 2012 - 02:04 .

[Phaedon]

deus_ wrote...
What Gygax did was move the scope from Armies on Battlefield to individuals (roles) in a World.

Which is BS, because impersonal individual units with set  'traits' and characteristics already existed in war games.

And to simulate a world he needed to create mechanics and rules that defined the interaction and set CONSTRAINTS on what the characters could do and succeed in.

Welcome to every game made by humanity and played by more than 10 people?

Without it, roleplaying becomes just pretending stuff while doing an unrelated activity.

Playing a role tends to involve that you know.

an unrelated activity. 

Where did you pull that from? Because that's not how the 'roleplaying' of any dictionary I know works.

Actually...RPG is an poor name which does not give a good description of 3/4 of what its about.

I'm sorry you don't like it. I wasn't the one to call it a role-playing game when I gave my players the ability to describe their characters and the actions taken by them.

 That..is what matters....not having literature with your own persona.

What matters is that ODnD and early PnPs are less restrictive and more fun than CRPGs? Yeah, alright, cool. Maybe you should consider that most of our gaming buddies stopped playing those kind of RPGs midway through high school, so we don't have much of a choice rather than play CRPGs.

Or you know, the fact that CRPGs constantly offer new universes with fresh characters, and anything post-2000 tends to be able to emulate a better storyteller than a random PnP GM.

And CRPG can't facilitate the GMs ability to judge and respond to an unlimited range of player input...so really, no CRPG has ever accomodated the "Roleplay" part anyway.
It can however accommodate most character traits and corresponding rules and dynamics.  

I'm not sure if that's what you wanted to say initially, but what you are saying here is that the computer is a very restricted GM. Well, so are the various GMs now with the latest rulesets of various PnPs.

[Akka le Vil]

Very nice review. Well written, well argumented. And seeing some of the fanboyist clowns in this thread has been a good laugh too - especially all the rants about "elitism", which are rather funny when said elitism is proved to be a good thing by the very same posts that badmouth it

[Amioran]

Akka le Vil wrote...

Very nice review. Well written, well argumented. And seeing some of the fanboyist clowns in this thread has been a good laugh too - especially all the rants about "elitism", which are rather funny when said elitism is proved to be a good thing by the very same posts that badmouth it

Thank you for resureccting the thread, adding something constructive to it. What would have been of this thread without your insightful comments?

I'm very happy to see how you debated arguments, proven your point, said something of concrete without resorting to name calling when not knowing what to say. To summarize: you have been a very intelligent and interesting person, not all at looking as an idiot sheep with an IQ of an aomeba (as many others, me included sadly, many times look), having nothing to say apart the usual poor attempt at an insult.

Please return again. We will be lost without your precious brain.

P.S: the last part doesn't make any sense. You neither understood the way the word "elitism" was used. And here I hoped looking at the thread resurrected that someone maybe could have replied something interesting to keep the discussion on. I suppose you cannot hope what it cannot be possible.

Modifié par Amioran, 27 avril 2012 - 05:19 .

[Akka le Vil]

Amioran wrote...

Akka le Vil wrote...

Very nice review. Well written, well argumented. And seeing some of the fanboyist clowns in this thread has been a good laugh too - especially all the rants about "elitism", which are rather funny when said elitism is proved to be a good thing by the very same posts that badmouth it

Thank you for resureccting the thread, adding something constructive to it. What would have been of this thread without your insightful comments?

I'm very happy to see how you debated arguments, proven your point, said something of concrete without resorting to name calling when not knowing what to say. To summarize: you have been a very intelligent and interesting person, not all at looking as an idiot sheep with an IQ of an aomeba (as many others, me included sadly, many times look), having nothing to say apart the usual poor attempt at an insult.

Please return again. We will be lost without your precious brain.

P.S: the last part doesn't make any sense. You neither understood the way the word "elitism" was used. And here I hoped looking at the thread resurrected that someone maybe could have replied something interesting to keep the discussion on. I suppose you cannot hope what it cannot be possible.

Yeah yeah I "resurrected" a thread from a whopping one hour "death", I'm just feeling soooo guilty !

And thank you for delivering another dose of delicious irony, being since the very start everything you rant against - and this post is no exception, to the point it seems to be purposedly written in this way.

[Amioran]

Akka le Vil wrote...
Yeah yeah I "resurrected" a thread from a whopping one hour "death", I'm just feeling soooo guilty !

And thank you for delivering another dose of delicious irony, being since the very start everything you rant against - and this post is no exception, to the point it seems to be purposedly written in this way.

In fact it is.

Thank you again for adding something constructive to the thread.

[Akka le Vil]

Amioran wrote...

In fact it is.

Thank you again for adding something constructive to the thread.

What, bitter that it's something you never managed ?

[deus_]

Phaedon wrote...

deus_ wrote...
What Gygax did was move the scope from Armies on Battlefield to individuals (roles) in a World.

Which is BS, because impersonal individual units with set  'traits' and characteristics already existed in war games.

And to simulate a world he needed to create mechanics and rules that defined the interaction and set CONSTRAINTS on what the characters could do and succeed in.

Welcome to every game made by humanity and played by more than 10 people?

Without it, roleplaying becomes just pretending stuff while doing an unrelated activity.

Playing a role tends to involve that you know.

an unrelated activity. 

Where did you pull that from? Because that's not how the 'roleplaying' of any dictionary I know works.

Actually...RPG is an poor name which does not give a good description of 3/4 of what its about.

I'm sorry you don't like it. I wasn't the one to call it a role-playing game when I gave my players the ability to describe their characters and the actions taken by them.

 That..is what matters....not having literature with your own persona.

What matters is that ODnD and early PnPs are less restrictive and more fun than CRPGs? Yeah, alright, cool. Maybe you should consider that most of our gaming buddies stopped playing those kind of RPGs midway through high school, so we don't have much of a choice rather than play CRPGs.

Or you know, the fact that CRPGs constantly offer new universes with fresh characters, and anything post-2000 tends to be able to emulate a better storyteller than a random PnP GM.

And CRPG can't facilitate the GMs ability to judge and respond to an unlimited range of player input...so really, no CRPG has ever accomodated the "Roleplay" part anyway.
It can however accommodate most character traits and corresponding rules and dynamics.  

I'm not sure if that's what you wanted to say initially, but what you are saying here is that the computer is a very restricted GM. Well, so are the various GMs now with the latest rulesets of various PnPs.

Well that was pointless, I try to explain to you the constraints in roleplaying that actually touches the deffinition of it being a game.

But nooo...DPRK is democratic and RPG' consist of free form escapism.

Or you know, the fact that CRPGs constantly offer new universes with fresh characters, and anything post-2000 tends to be able to emulate a better storyteller than a random PnP GM. {/quote]

 
HAH! and how did that turn out?

If you want a better storyteller...get a subscription to HBO....read books...COMICS(Don Rose rules BTW).

RPG narrative are fun because they are rooted in the challenges in the game,
and the unpredictability, the metagaming, failures and sucesses makes the playthrough much more fun and meaningfull, then being forcefed a structured story from a washed out creative director doing fan service.




I am actually...SERIUSLY going to propose that everyone start use the term Do It Yourself adventures/Interactive fiction.
Fine, it sells...the major marketshare has spoken.

But don't drag down the RPG genre for those who rightfully belives that gameplay should come first.

Modifié par deus_, 27 avril 2012 - 11:27 .

[Phaedon]

deus_ wrote...
Well that was pointless, I try to explain to you the constraints in roleplaying that actually touches the deffinition of it being a game.

And I say that Monopoly has the same kind of restrictions. And you ignore that.
You know, you can still play Monopoly without rules. As you can with RPGs. It's just that someone is bound to cheat sooner or later.

But nooo...DPRK is democratic and

DPRK is not democratic simply because their values and executive bodies, rather than their inner policies are not democratic by definition. 

RPG' consist of  free form escapism.

I say that they do, and I can back it up with evidence from at least one third party. What say you?

HAH! and how did that turn out?

Seeing as I am an avid player of modern RPGs, I'd say pretty nicely.

If you want a better storyteller...get a subscription to HBO....read books...COMICS(Don Rose rules BTW).

First of all, it's Rosa.

Second of all, I already do all of that stuff.

Third of all, I enjoy a good interactive story more than a good story of a character not controlled by the player/viewer/reader.

Furthermore, I also enjoy other gameplay mechanics of RPGs as well.

RPG narrative are fun because they are rooted in the challenges in the game,
and the unpredictability, the metagaming, failures and sucesses makes the playthrough much more fun and meaningfull, then being forcefed a structured story from a washed out creative director doing fan service.

Metagaming makes the game more fun? Well, alright. Burden of proof has been invoked, and it is up to you to explain yourself, I suppose.

Unpredictability. Along with metagaming? Yeah, OK.

Please don't use 'meaningful'. Christ. It's like the hellhole of subjectivity.

forcefed a structured story from a washed out creative director doing fan service. 

Yes, well, here's another argument: Herpa derp, durp 
herp. 

When in lack of an argument, always insult the opponnent's position by diminishing its value. And if you think that we are talking about being 'forced' into a structured story and having no control of your character, then you haven't been paying attention to me at all. There's a big difference between interactive adventures and RPGs.

I am actually...SERIUSLY going to propose that everyone start use the term Do It Yourself adventures/Interactive fiction.
Fine, it sells...the major marketshare has spoken.

Yeah, those are mighty fine. Here's the problem: I have no control over the character, books don't tend to have much of an audio/video output, etc.

If you are that certain that the difficulty and pre-planning come first, you should try rock climbing instead.

But don't drag down the RPG genre for those who rightfully belives that gameplay should come first.

If you really believe that, go play a strategy game, or one of those modded 'RPG' strategy games. There are tons.
They are completely void of compelling story, have no interactive storytelling whatsoever and focus very heavily on gameplay. You are going to love them.

Or you know, if you really think that gameplay comes first...

...play a shooter.


Didn't see that coming, did ya? 

Modifié par Phaedon, 30 avril 2012 - 10:27 .