104 réponses à ce sujet

[wsandista]

deuce985 wrote...


This isn't true. By this definition, then all the sub-genres of RPG don't exist. That means games like Diablo aren't RPG.

It isn't.

RPG is defined by a set amount of mechanics that fit into the category. If it has enough, then it's considered a RPG and fits into one of the many genres. The problem with RPG is they're so diversified, many people argue what a RPG is. That's what happens when you have the biggest genre in gaming(depth wise).

The one mechanic across all RPGs is role-playing. You don't do that in Diablo or Zelda. Role-playing is taking the role of a character on, pretending you are them if you will.(note: not pretending they are you that is projection) With games like Diablo or Zelda(and DA2 and ME I would argue) you guide a character, not actually role-play them. Just because the PC can level-up doesn't make it an RPG.

Modifié par wsandista, 14 mai 2012 - 08:42 .

[wsandista]

MichaelStuart wrote...

But the result was the same.
I went to forest looking for troops and I got troops. No matter who you pick, they had add nothing to the story or the way the final battle was fought.
I just think the only difference plot wise between Zelda and Dragon age, is that dragon age gives a illusion of choice.
If its better to have a illusion of choice or to be honest about it, I think that comes down to personal taste.

Me personal, I prefer illusion, but don't think being honesty makes a bad RPG.

Who were those troops? Did you preserve the Anvil of the Void? Make peace between Werewolves and Elves or slaughter one side? Defile the Urn of Sacred Ashes? Invoke the Right of Annulment on the mages? Who if anyone was sacrificed to stop the Archdemon? Those choices heavily affected the story. In Zelda, there is no choice on how to deal with the situations besides the ONE decided by the writers. In DA, you still only do what the writers let you, but at least you have a choice between a few options.

Out of topic question:If a protagonist communicates body Language and facial expressions are they a classed as a Silent or Mute protagonist.

Both can do them.

Modifié par wsandista, 14 mai 2012 - 08:49 .

[Wozearly]

Dakota Strider wrote...

Before there were rpg computer/video games, there was Dungeons and Dragons, and before there was D&D, there was war games.

...and before there were war games, there was war.

And the people who enjoyed war howled with dismay at the rise of war games and cried "This is a terrible idea. Its completely dumbing down the genre. Its far less gritty and realistic and a shameless attempt to go for the wusses in the mass market who just don't understand that having limbs blown off is part of the experience. You just can't get that with a pen and paper wargame.

"Don't get me wrong, I have nothing against pen and paper. I quite enjoyed that whole war poetry thing last year, but now everything's being designed so that it works on pen and paper.  Seriously, everyone knows that the graphics on pen and paper are absolutely awful compared to a proper war bring run on a proper battlefield.

"Frankly, I'm sick of seeing everyone sell out to war games just because its 'safer' and has a 'wider appeal'. This country only cares about profit, and if they can't learn their lessons from The Witcher 2 (are you sure this is right? Ed.) then I'll just stop going over the trenches for them and they can keep their war gamer audience happy."

[Sutekh]

Three things:

- I'm surprised Morrowind is behind Oblivion

- Too bad oldies are excluded, because there were some who really should be there

- For the love of Cain, where's VtM: Bloodlines?

[MichaelStuart]

wsandista wrote...

MichaelStuart wrote...

But the result was the same.
I went to forest looking for troops and I got troops. No matter who you pick, they had add nothing to the story or the way the final battle was fought.
I just think the only difference plot wise between Zelda and Dragon age, is that dragon age gives a illusion of choice.
If its better to have a illusion of choice or to be honest about it, I think that comes down to personal taste.

Me personal, I prefer illusion, but don't think being honesty makes a bad RPG.

Who were those troops? Did you preserve the Anvil of the Void? Make peace between Werewolves and Elves or slaughter one side? Defile the Urn of Sacred Ashes? Invoke the Right of Annulment on the mages? Who if anyone was sacrificed to stop the Archdemon? Those choices heavily affected the story. In Zelda, there is no choice on how to deal with the situations besides the ONE decided by the writers. In DA, you still only do what the writers let you, but at least you have a choice between a few options.

I feel when options lead to the same result, then they pointless.
Every choice I made, lead to the same outcome, I got troops for the final battle and they all were killed by the archdemon. The Troops may have been different, but if they do the same thing as the other troops whats the point.
Which brings me back to original point in this Topic.
The combat in Dragon Age is terrible and that is why it is not in my top ten list of RPG's  

[Realmzmaster]

The problem is when one starts to define what a role playing games is or is not. It was mentioned that Diablo III is not a role playing game. If the definition is that a role playing game has role playing then Diablo fits. The game allows you to create a character from one of five classes and assume that role. You make decisions throughout the game on how to equip the character and what attributes to raise. Diablo falls under the area of action rpg and dungeon crawl.

If you state that Diablo is not an crpg then you are ignoring some of the original crps like Rogue and Wizardry which were combat heavy and gigantic dungeon crawls..

Role playing is a broad genre.

The list in my opinion leaves out many innovative games like Ultima IV, Might and Magic series and the Bard's Tale. This is going to happen with any list that asks for people's opinion.

Also the console versus PC debate is a non-starter for me. A console is a computer. It is a dedicated machine instead of being general purpose like a PC. There are microprocessors and computers embedded into everything from VDRs to washing machines to chess playing computers. Those are simply dedicated machines. Consoles are getting more powerful and sophisticated. In the past leyboard and other perpherials have turn those consoles into computers and computers have been made into consoles.

DOA gave a good illusion of choice. MichaelStuart is correct that the end result is the same. The point of DOA is to defeat the ArchDemon and you recruit armies to do so. The isslusion of choice may or may not matter to the player. For some if the end result is the same there is not difference. A difference which makes no difference is no difference.
Others see their choices along the way as affecting the world for good or bad. Both are correct. It is a matter of perspective.

Modifié par Realmzmaster, 14 mai 2012 - 10:39 .

[Sutekh]

MichaelStuart wrote...

The Troops may have been different, but if they do the same thing as the other troops whats the point.

They didn't. Mages don't fight like Templars. Werewolves don't fight like Dalish archers. The addition of golems did make a difference.

And this is only considering the end result, which, btw, wasn't really the point of the whole "get your army" ordeal.

[Zanallen]

Sutekh wrote...

They didn't. Mages don't fight like Templars. Werewolves don't fight like Dalish archers. The addition of golems did make a difference.

And this is only considering the end result, which, btw, wasn't really the point of the whole "get your army" ordeal.

And they were all absolutely useless. I have beaten the battle of Denerim and the archdemon without even once summoning troops. The purpose of any of the armies is cannon fodder to keep the darkspawn mooks off of the PC and his companions, the only worthwhile members of the whole damn alliance.

[anotherunoriginalname]

since i have finished my 16th full campaign of dao, i decided to try da2 and a little regretting it, as it is nowhere near as good as dao. the main thing that bothers me is that if you refuse the quest givers you are forced to go back and accept the quests before you are allowed to enter the deep roads does that sound like this??? ---> I feel when options lead to the same result, then they pointless.

[wsandista]

MichaelStuart wrote...


I feel when options lead to the same result, then they pointless.
Every choice I made, lead to the same outcome, I got troops for the final battle and they all were killed by the archdemon. The Troops may have been different, but if they do the same thing as the other troops whats the point.
Which brings me back to original point in this Topic.
The combat in Dragon Age is terrible and that is why it is not in my top ten list of RPG's  

They weren't pointless though, preserving the Anvil of the Void had a much bigger impact than Golems joining the Dwarves for battle. The same goes for every other decision made. They heavily influenced the story (especially the ending), and the future of those involved.

Judging from the list of games you put in your top 10, it is understandable that you don't like the DAO combat. However DAO combat is actually considered more actiony than previous games like BG(2) or NWN(2), which were very tactical and which DA was supposed to emulate. So why should a game that was created to appeal to one group of players be changed to please another group? Especially when that other group already has quite a bit of titles to choose from in their preferred genre?

Modifié par wsandista, 15 mai 2012 - 02:12 .

[Sutekh]

Zanallen wrote...

And they were all absolutely useless. I have beaten the battle of Denerim and the archdemon without even once summoning troops. The purpose of any of the armies is cannon fodder to keep the darkspawn mooks off of the PC and his companions, the only worthwhile members of the whole damn alliance.

Not the point. The armies were different, they fought differently. I've beaten the Archdemon without armies too (forgot to summon them, to tell the truth), but that was on my nth playthrough, when I knew the battle by heart. On my first ones, I was damn happy they were there.

[anotherunoriginalname]

from your quote:
Not the point. The armies were different, they fought differently. I've beaten the Archdemon without armies too (forgot to summon them, to tell the truth), but that was on my nth playthrough, when I knew the battle by heart. On my first ones, I was damn happy they were there.

i know what you meant, i did the same thing too, the army availability choice is REALLY about which community you let live and let die

[Dakota Strider]

Zanallen wrote...

And they were all absolutely useless. I have beaten the battle of Denerim and the archdemon without even once summoning troops. The purpose of any of the armies is cannon fodder to keep the darkspawn mooks off of the PC and his companions, the only worthwhile members of the whole damn alliance.

So it is not necessary to use the army to battle the darkspawn that the Warden and his own small party encounter.  The battle of Denerim is much larger than the small area that the Warden can be in, at any one time.  Even if you cannot see it, that army is fighting off the largest share of the darkspawn, that allows the Warden and three companions to make it to the final battle with Archdemon.  Just because you do not witness it, does not mean it does not happen.  And without all the allies you gather, the army would not have a chance to do that.  

Welcome to role playing games, where sometimes you need to use your imagination to understand what is going on around you.  

[wsandista]

Dakota Strider wrote...


Welcome to role playing games, where sometimes you need to use your imagination to understand what is going on around you.  

Obviously you haven't seen what most of the DA2 crowd who need everything explicitly stated believe RPGs should be like.

[Zanallen]

Dakota Strider wrote...

So it is not necessary to use the army to battle the darkspawn that the Warden and his own small party encounter.  The battle of Denerim is much larger than the small area that the Warden can be in, at any one time.  Even if you cannot see it, that army is fighting off the largest share of the darkspawn, that allows the Warden and three companions to make it to the final battle with Archdemon.  Just because you do not witness it, does not mean it does not happen.  And without all the allies you gather, the army would not have a chance to do that.  

Welcome to role playing games, where sometimes you need to use your imagination to understand what is going on around you.  

How does that mean that the choice between armies matters? They all serve the absolute same function of being a distraction for the warden and his party. It doesn't matter if you have mages or templars or werewolves or elves or an extra ten golems or the Legion of the Dead at your back. It is a "choice" with absolutely no impact or meaning.

And thank you for the snide comment at the end. Of course, you are wrong. RPGs aren't about imagination. You are limited to what is presented within the game. You can say your character is whatever you want him to be, but if the game doesn't recognize it, it isn't real. Imagination is the key to P&P RPGs and fanfiction, not video games.

[Dakota Strider]

wsandista wrote...

Dakota Strider wrote...


Welcome to role playing games, where sometimes you need to use your imagination to understand what is going on around you.  

Obviously you haven't seen what most of the DA2 crowd who need everything explicitly stated believe RPGs should be like.

More often than you would think. 

[wsandista]

Of course, you are wrong. RPGs aren't about imagination.

Dakota Strider wrote...

wsandista wrote...

Dakota Strider wrote...


Welcome to role playing games, where sometimes you need to use your imagination to understand what is going on around you.  

Obviously you haven't seen what most of the DA2 crowd who need everything explicitly stated believe RPGs should be like.

More often than you would think. 

"RPGs aren't about imagination." <_<

That is what many folks who like the new cinematic direction Bioware has taken probably believe.

Modifié par wsandista, 15 mai 2012 - 03:45 .

[Realmzmaster]

I notice that the list referenced has a good number of Action-RPGS in the list including Freedom Force at 11, Diablo II at 14, Freedom Force Versus the Third Reich at 19, Fable at 21, Diablo I at 22, Dungeon Siege at 23, Diablo II:Lord of Destruction at 24,Marvel:Ultimate Alliance at 25, Dungeon Siege II at 28 and Titan Quest at 32. I thought Diablo was not a role playing game? At least Wizardry 8 pops up at 37 and TOEE comes in at 50.

[Cyberarmy]

Sutekh wrote...

Three things:

- I'm surprised Morrowind is behind Oblivion

- Too bad oldies are excluded, because there were some who really should be there

- For the love of Cain, where's VtM: Bloodlines?

That list is bloody wrong mate, im just ignoring it

[Sutekh]

Zanallen wrote...

And thank you for the snide comment at the end. Of course, you are wrong. RPGs aren't about imagination. You are limited to what is presented within the game. You can say your character is whatever you want him to be, but if the game doesn't recognize it, it isn't real. Imagination is the key to P&P RPGs and fanfiction, not video games.

And now we're gonna play, "Let's state the obvious" 

- He's got a different opinion. He's not wrong.

- RPGs are about whatever the people playing them think they're about. You don't get to dictate how people experience their games and tell them they're doing it wrong. Seriously.

And now entering opinion territory:

- Roleplaying has always been about transcending reality. In PnP, you're some nerd in casual clothes with dice and a char sheet pretending to be a paladin in shining armor, a three-hundred years old vampire or a poor schmuck from the 1900's hunting / being hunted by the Deep Ones. Fanfiction isn't roleplaying, unless you're writing self-inserts, which is considered by many as Bad Fanfiction. In cRPG, you deal with the binary stuff you're given and can go beyond that by adding your own twist. As long as the game doesn't contradict you explicitly, you're good. 

Case in point: if Dakota wants to pretend the armies are fighting in the background, he can. It's his playthrough, his own pocket universe. There's nothing in the game that explicitly tells him, "No, this is impossible".

--

wsandista wrote...

That is what many folks who like the new cinematic direction Bioware has taken probably believe. 

Just because people like something you don't (yours truly included) doesn't mean you can extrapolate unrelated preferences and opinions, especially based on one single (rather radical) sample. Assuming and generalizing don't make a point. You're better than that. 

--

Cyberarmy wrote...

That list is bloody wrong mate, im just ignoring it

 Sound advice 

[Fast Jimmy]

I can't understand how Fallout 3 made this list at all, let alone topped it.

Don't get me wrong... its a great game. But it suffers from horrible ending syndrome almost as bad as Mass Effect 3 does. If you slapped some epilogue slides in there like what you see in Fallout New Vegas, then we can talk.

In fact, switch out Fallout 3 with Fallout New Vegas at the top and we're fine.

[Realmzmaster]

Imagination has always been part of roleplaying. You can imagine anything you want within the context of the game world. The game world is the limiting factor. For example taking Sutekh example of a shining paladin. As long as you adhere to the rules of paladinhood you character remains a paladin. If you commit an egregious act you will fall to fighter class (The 4th edition of D & D change all of this. So it only applies to editions 1 to 3).. No amount of imagination will change that status. The game world reality does not allow it.

The only way to regain the paladin status is to atone for the act assuming the game world allows it.
That is how game world reality contradicts imagination. The game world enforces the rules.

The problem with any list is that it is all opinion. Opinion is something we can agree or disagree on.

[Realmzmaster]

sjpelkessjpeler wrote...

This is what Wiki has to say about role playing games:

http://en.wikipedia....ying_video_game

and the deffinition.

The definition in wikipedia is very broad because the genre is very broad. The article attempts to cover the possible variations from wcrpg to jcrpg and anything in between. 

The problem is that everyone on the list have their idea of what a crpg should be and that defintion varies from gamer to gamer. The other problem is when one gamer says their definition is better or the definitive. That is a no win situation, because it is all opinion. My opinion is as valid as anyone else's opinion.

An informed opinion is usually based on facts, but all opinions do not have to be based on facts. Opinions can be based on assumptions,  traditions etc. For example it is opinion that the Paladin class should be under the warrior (fighter) class because that is the way D & D did it (tradition) when it could fit under the Cleric class.
There is no defintive iron clad definition of crpg. The genre has many sub-genres.

Now gamers can state what they want in a crpg in terms of mechanics, but you get into problems when you state my definition is better than your definition.

Modifié par Realmzmaster, 15 mai 2012 - 04:56 .