778 réponses à ce sujet

[Cutlasskiwi]

BobSmith101 wrote...

Working within a background is standard for PnP. Rarely will the DM let you just make up anything you like.

But it still doesn't come close to the freedom I get with a real live DM.

It's how much the games impose on the present that has changed. For example.
In ME2 Shepard sees Talis face. The player does not.
In DA2 Hawke greets a bunch of people the player has never seen before.
In ME3 it opens with a character you have never seen before even though Shepard seems to know them.
DA2 has huge "black outs" where Hawke dissapears for years but does not change. Like going into a stasis chamber.
Paraphrase - unless you are the type that speaks without thinking, what you say should never come as a suprise. 

Ok, so Hawke greets a bunch of people the player has never seen before. Isn't that true for every other game? I didn't know any of the characters when I first started a Dalish origin or any of the other origins.

The 'missing years' is a problem in DA2. I had hoped that we would get a DLC to fill them in. As was the paraphrases. But they are looking into making it better and hopefully they will.

While it's not going to bother someone who 3rd persons. It does represent a very fundamental shift to requiring 3rd person to rationalise it.
If you are going that far, you may as well fix the  character and push out the advantages of the cinematics and paraphrasing to drive the story rather than give the character multiple ways to say the same thing.

Yes, that is the difference (as I see it). There have always been two ways to play a BioWare game, 1st and 3rd person. Now it seems that BioWare has decided to go for the 3rd person. There is no need to fix the character completely but if they did they need to do branching story better than they do now, IMO. Actually, they should do that anyway.


..need coffee now.

[schalafi]

If we have to have cutscenes, at least let us pause them.

[AkiKishi]

Pasquale1234 wrote...

Maclimes wrote...

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

I invite Xilizhra to try playing a tabletop RPG without putting any effort into designing the character's personality.

That's true. That's what I DON'T want in my video games, though. If I wanted to play a PnP, I would play a PnP. In fact, I do! I love them! But I want my video games to provide an experience that PnP cannot provide. To me, that's the point. 

For me, the point is to emulate the PnP experience at my convenience, without having to schedule and assemble a group of other players.

I'm sure that was the sort of the goal with the older CRPGs. You could probably say that most CRPG players had some form of PnP experience.
Not sure that is the case anymore though.

Modifié par BobSmith101, 18 juillet 2012 - 07:59 .

[Sylvius the Mad]

BobSmith101 wrote...

I'm sure that was the sort of the goal with the older CRPGs. You could probably say that most CRPG players had some form of PnP experience.
Not sure that is the case anymore though.

That continues to be what I want from them.

What would you say the point is?

[Fredward]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...
That continues to be what I want from them.

What would you say the point is?

Whatever the player wants it to be. Hence the disaparate opinions.

[Maclimes]

Foopydoopydoo wrote...

Sylvius the Mad wrote...
That continues to be what I want from them.

What would you say the point is?

Whatever the player wants it to be. Hence the disaparate opinions.

I disagree on that point. A GAME is whatever the player wants it to be. But a game of a specific genre, or at least advertised as such, does need to meet whatever qualifications are generally acknowledged as standards for the genre. That, I think, is Sylvius's beef with DA2: It advertised itself as a traditional, tactics/decisions based RPG (like most of Bioware's older titles), but turned out to be more of a cinematic/adventure game with some RPG-like elements.

If that's what you want, that's great. But it was deceptively presented, or perhaps we all just assumed incorrectly.

[Cimeas]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Cimeas wrote...

I love the voiced protagonist. I *hate* that Hawke was a boring, sad person who could either be a dick, a sarcastic idiot who doesn't care about others' suffering, or a hopeless optimist who thinks everything will turn out 'just fine'.

What if the thing you hate is a consequence of the thing you love?

I'm curious, though.  What about the voiced protagonist do you love?  What are its positive characteristics?  What did it do for the game, from your point of view?

I've never really asked anyone this question before.

I see the superficial benefits of the voice - that all the characters in the scene are modelled to the same degree, and that different types of scenes can be staged - but the other consequences of the voice are such that overall the voice is a negative feature for me.

On balance, you seem to like the voice, despite a negative consequence that you purport to hate.

I suppose this is a fair enough question.   As said very well...

Xilizhra wrote...
Just... not talking. It's like driving a mobile, combat-capable camera around. There's little sense of character and you have to completely invent it with no help from the game whatsoever.

 

I think of RPGs like a sort of combination of two great things that I love.   The first thing is video games, with all their tactics and different paths and lore and backstory and satisfying gameplay, whatever it may be.   The second thing is movies, full of relationships and drama and choices( for the characters of course)

In an RPG, I can make those choices.   Sometimes I'm a no-name guy, Mr Tag-Along, while the real talking heroes have the adventure.   Other times I'm a set character, but the best thing about my movie is that I can decide what happens.  I can decide, at important plot points, which path I want to take.   Sure, sometimes for storytelling reasons I can't pick everything I might want to, but many times I can.   I can explore environments, question characters, read lore and find out more about the world. How I would have liked in Star Wars for example, to just walk around and explore Coruscant for an hour, but of course I couldn't, because it's a film and action has to happen. 


Sometimes, I play the RPGs that you like, other times I play the ones you don't.   But I always, without fail, find myself drawn more into the games with voiced protagonists, whether they are reasonably blank (Shepard) or very set (Adam from Deus Ex).   For me, that dream, the dream of a huge 40 hour movie that I can build, a world I can hopefully  explore at my leisure (at least sometimes), characters I can build or not build relationships with, side quests I might or might not do, feels so, so, so much more real if I can hear my character.   They feel like they inhabit the world around them.  

A game with a silent protagonist can be a great game, but it still feels like a film in which the main character cannot speak, instead communicating by writing down things on a notepad and handing it to people. 

[Realmzmaster]

Many players today do not want a pnp experience because they do not engage in that form of role playing.
D & D and other role playing systems are no longer the hotbed of activity they use to be. There are more ways to socially engage in a group. No longer do you have to try to organize a play session. The Internet has made it possible through online multiplayer to do what DN sessions use to do.

They are free to play MMOs that provide the experience. You no longer have to physical be in the same location. You can even have a pnp session online if you wish.

Most gamers today are not products of a pnp experience and probably do not care about it. That fortunately or unfortunately is the wave of the future. So unless pnp systems make a roaring comeback this trend will continue.

Even WoTC biggest seller is not D & D but Magic the Gathering which provides a different social experience.

[bEVEsthda]

Cimeas wrote...
I think of RPGs like a sort of combination of two great things that I love.   The first thing is video games, with all their tactics and different paths and lore and backstory and satisfying gameplay, whatever it may be.   The second thing is movies, full of relationships and drama and choices( for the characters of course)

In an RPG, I can make those choices.   Sometimes I'm a no-name guy, Mr Tag-Along, while the real talking heroes have the adventure.   Other times I'm a set character, but the best thing about my movie is that I can decide what happens.  I can decide, at important plot points, which path I want to take.   Sure, sometimes for storytelling reasons I can't pick everything I might want to, but many times I can.   I can explore environments, question characters, read lore and find out more about the world. How I would have liked in Star Wars for example, to just walk around and explore Coruscant for an hour, but of course I couldn't, because it's a film and action has to happen. 


Sometimes, I play the RPGs that you like, other times I play the ones you don't.   But I always, without fail, find myself drawn more into the games with voiced protagonists, whether they are reasonably blank (Shepard) or very set (Adam from Deus Ex).   For me, that dream, the dream of a huge 40 hour movie that I can build, a world I can hopefully  explore at my leisure (at least sometimes), characters I can build or not build relationships with, side quests I might or might not do, feels so, so, so much more real if I can hear my character.   They feel like they inhabit the world around them.  

A game with a silent protagonist can be a great game, but it still feels like a film in which the main character cannot speak, instead communicating by writing down things on a notepad and handing it to people. 

But why should anyone call what you describe a "RPG" ? 

It's just an interactive movie. That's all it is.

[Pasquale1234]

bEVEsthda wrote...

Cimeas wrote...
I think of RPGs like a sort of combination of two great things that I love.   The first thing is video games, with all their tactics and different paths and lore and backstory and satisfying gameplay, whatever it may be.   The second thing is movies, full of relationships and drama and choices( for the characters of course)

But why should anyone call what you describe a "RPG" ? 

It's just an interactive movie. That's all it is.

The first paragraph says it all - video game + movie.

Form > function.

Because PnP serves up the function of RPGs just as well as any video game.

I remember a Mike Laidlaw post from about a year ago when he was discussing some of his strategy for streamlining the game mechanics with the stated goal of making RPGs more accessible to people unfamiliar with them.

It's no wonder that noone seems to know what an RPG is anymore.

[Cimeas]

Pasquale1234 wrote...

bEVEsthda wrote...

Cimeas wrote...
I think of RPGs like a sort of combination of two great things that I love.   The first thing is video games, with all their tactics and different paths and lore and backstory and satisfying gameplay, whatever it may be.   The second thing is movies, full of relationships and drama and choices( for the characters of course)

But why should anyone call what you describe a "RPG" ? 

It's just an interactive movie. That's all it is.

The first paragraph says it all - video game + movie.

Form > function.

Because PnP serves up the function of RPGs just as well as any video game.

I remember a Mike Laidlaw post from about a year ago when he was discussing some of his strategy for streamlining the game mechanics with the stated goal of making RPGs more accessible to people unfamiliar with them.

It's no wonder that noone seems to know what an RPG is anymore.

All I'm saying is that instead of Mario/Battlefield, which are pure gameplay, RPGs can include all the relationships, character drama, and storytelling that a good movie can.   That is all.   Also, I'm not a newcomer to the genre.  I've been playing RPGs since Planescape.   Perhaps you started before that, but I do have experience with older games as well. 

[AkiKishi]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

BobSmith101 wrote...

I'm sure that was the sort of the goal with the older CRPGs. You could probably say that most CRPG players had some form of PnP experience.
Not sure that is the case anymore though.

That continues to be what I want from them.

What would you say the point is?

To make RPGs that can be played without needing any PnP experience or excessive headgaming.

[AkiKishi]

bEVEsthda wrote...

But why should anyone call what you describe a "RPG" ? 

It's just an interactive movie. That's all it is.

And older RPGs were interactive books.

Now putting things on screen may remove the need to imagine (like with a book vs a movie) but it's still the same formula.

[bEVEsthda]

BobSmith101 wrote...

bEVEsthda wrote...

But why should anyone call what you describe a "RPG" ? 

It's just an interactive movie. That's all it is.

And older RPGs were interactive books.

Now putting things on screen may remove the need to imagine (like with a book vs a movie) but it's still the same formula.

 Even if I would agree with that, the immediate reaction is:

But not only  interactive books. RPGs, including "older" RPGs allow roleplay. They have very big holes in them which they allow the player to fill. This is not about cinematics vs text. It's perfectly possible in a cinematic game as well.
 
And if they would figure out how to make the cinematics ambient, and important details as character expression a function of player input, gameplay, it would even be possible to make it 100% cinematic.

I seem to have seen you argue quite a lot for completely abandoning roleplay, and let cinematics plug all holes with predefined content. That's what you say all the time, no compromise, go movie all the way. That would leave us with just a movie, even if it's interleaved with stints of console combat and choice-forks.

This is not gameplay adapting to "new" technology. It's possible with very old technology, and is very old. Consider Dragon's Lair for instance. Except for the novelty value of Dragon Lair, which also had an art-value, this sort of games has had a very limited market, throughout the history of videogaming.
Older gamers rightly regard it as an insult to their gaming intelligence, younger players have no patience for cut-scene movies. Leaves only the FF audience (but even SqE seem to be moving in different directions).

Modifié par bEVEsthda, 19 juillet 2012 - 10:50 .

[AkiKishi]

bEVEsthda wrote...
 Even if I would agree with that, the immediate reaction is:

But not only  interactive books. RPGs, including "older" RPGs allow roleplay. They have very big holes in them which they allow the player to fill. This is not about cinematics vs text. It's perfectly possible in a cinematic game as well.
 
And if they would figure out how to make the cinematics ambient, and important details as character expression a function of player input, gameplay, it would even be possible to make it 100% cinematic.

I seem to have seen you argue quite a lot for completely abandoning roleplay, and let cinematics plug all holes with predefined content. That's what you say all the time, no compromise, go movie all the way. That would leave us with just a movie, even if it's interleaved with stints of console combat and choice-forks.

This is not gameplay adapting to "new" technology. It's possible with very old technology, and is very old. Consider Dragon's Lair for instance. Except for the novelty value of Dragon Lair, which also had an art-value, this sort of games has had a very limited market, throughout the history of videogaming.
Older gamers rightly regard it as an insult to their gaming intelligence, younger players have no patience for cut-scene movies. Leaves only the FF audience (but even SqE seem to be moving in different directions).

Because in a cinematic game that is the best solution. It works for Witcher2 , it works for Deus Ex. It's different since it shifts the emphasis. But it still keeps the elements of roleplaying games like choices and consequences and multiple endings.

I recall watching in horror when a friend played FFXIII and skipped all the cutscenes. But he still enjoyed the fighting and character crafting.That's not even an option in DA2 "you still have to go through all that annoying conversation stuff" (his words not mine.

I don't regard it as an insult to my intelligence, perhaps because I see nothing particulary intelligent in picking a number from 1 to 5.
Cut scene movies are a big part part of any game that tells a story now. CoD has them in the single player game. Is there a difference in watching a CoD cutscene and watching a FF cutscene ? Not at all.

Modifié par BobSmith101, 19 juillet 2012 - 12:35 .

[Il Divo]

bEVEsthda wrote...

Cimeas wrote...
I think of RPGs like a sort of combination of two great things that I love.   The first thing is video games, with all their tactics and different paths and lore and backstory and satisfying gameplay, whatever it may be.   The second thing is movies, full of relationships and drama and choices( for the characters of course)

In an RPG, I can make those choices.   Sometimes I'm a no-name guy, Mr Tag-Along, while the real talking heroes have the adventure.   Other times I'm a set character, but the best thing about my movie is that I can decide what happens.  I can decide, at important plot points, which path I want to take.   Sure, sometimes for storytelling reasons I can't pick everything I might want to, but many times I can.   I can explore environments, question characters, read lore and find out more about the world. How I would have liked in Star Wars for example, to just walk around and explore Coruscant for an hour, but of course I couldn't, because it's a film and action has to happen. 


Sometimes, I play the RPGs that you like, other times I play the ones you don't.   But I always, without fail, find myself drawn more into the games with voiced protagonists, whether they are reasonably blank (Shepard) or very set (Adam from Deus Ex).   For me, that dream, the dream of a huge 40 hour movie that I can build, a world I can hopefully  explore at my leisure (at least sometimes), characters I can build or not build relationships with, side quests I might or might not do, feels so, so, so much more real if I can hear my character.   They feel like they inhabit the world around them.  

A game with a silent protagonist can be a great game, but it still feels like a film in which the main character cannot speak, instead communicating by writing down things on a notepad and handing it to people. 

But why should anyone call what you describe a "RPG" ? 

It's just an interactive movie. That's all it is.

I'd argue that's all RPGs ever were. Or at least, the best aspects of them.

[bEVEsthda]

Il Divo wrote...
I'd argue that's all RPGs ever were. Or at least, the best aspects of them.

But you can't argue that.

It really is that simple. Despite all arguments and attacks by FF and DA2 fans, here in these forums over the past year, you can't argue about how others experience the games.

You can only tell us what the game is to you.

And this last statement, by you, is highly consistent with the opinions you have voiced earlier. So I can't say it comes as a surprise to me. Another thing that it doesn't do, is mean anything at all to me. It changes nothing for me.

Modifié par bEVEsthda, 19 juillet 2012 - 02:19 .

[Pygmali0n]

BobSmith101 wrote...

Cut scene movies are a big part part of any game that tells a story now. CoD has them in the single player game. Is there a difference in watching a CoD cutscene and watching a FF cutscene ? Not at all.

Maybe true Bob - but does that mean you want RPGs to be the same single experience for everybody?

I would say cut down on the total number of cutscene events if they threaten player choice and agency. And I assume that we are working on the premise that they do?

More often than not in an RPG that focuses on player choice, any cutscene event ought to have several alternatives (ideally even at the beginning of the story) - this would likely, but not necessarily, lead to multiplying the number of cutscene alternatives needed for later events (though if the tech uses the in-game engine, I can't see why it would be too much of a stretch on resources).

I'm of the opinion that cutscenes are apt to force you down a tunnel of a single choice and focus. Also in my view, because you are separated from the action (you are watching a 'film') and not in the game, they subtract from the different and immediate drama and suspense experience that games can provide.

Modifié par Pygmali0n, 19 juillet 2012 - 02:41 .

[AkiKishi]

bEVEsthda wrote...

Il Divo wrote...
I'd argue that's all RPGs ever were. Or at least, the best aspects of them.

But you can't argue that.

It really is that simple. Despite all arguments and attacks by FF and DA2 fans, here in these forums over the past year, you can't argue about how others experience the games.

You can only tell us what the game is to you.

And this last statement, by you, is highly consistent with the opinions you have voiced earlier. So I can't say it comes as a surprise to me. Another thing that it doesn't do, is mean anything at all to me. It changes nothing for me.

Not so. That only applies to things in your head. Things that are on screen and the same for everyone is a different matter.

If I for example describe the Witcher. When you play the Witcher, that is what you will get. If on the other hand I try to describe one of my 8 Wardens it's meaningless to anyone but me since a good deal of that detail is from my own imagination. I was doing some sorting and came across my old IWD files which contains details of all the characters, parties and sub stories I ran through IWD. It's great that the game allowed me to do that. But I'm the only person with those files.

While you can tell us how great this experience of how you are playing the games are. It's only applicable to you. The new RPG goal as I see it is to make the games the same for everyone regardless of experience.

[Pygmali0n]

BobSmith101 wrote...

While you can tell us how great this experience of how you are playing the games are. It's only applicable to you. The new RPG goal as I see it is to make the games the same for everyone regardless of experience.

Then it's not an RPG - you can easily change the meaning of the words to mean, for example, 'playing the role of Hawke'. But, questions of style and story quality aside, if the game changes follow the same path as DA2 the likely result is that it'll end up as indistinguishable from any generic console adventure game.

Modifié par Pygmali0n, 19 juillet 2012 - 02:49 .

[AkiKishi]

Pygmali0n wrote...

BobSmith101 wrote...

Cut scene movies are a big part part of any game that tells a story now. CoD has them in the single player game. Is there a difference in watching a CoD cutscene and watching a FF cutscene ? Not at all.

Maybe true Bob - but does that mean you want RPGs to be the same single experience for everybody?

I would say cut down on the total number of cutscene events if they threaten player choice and agency. And I assume that we are working on the premise that they do?

More often than not in an RPG that focuses on player choice, any cutscene event ought to have several alternatives (ideally even at the beginning of the story) - this would likely, but not necessarily, lead to multiplying the number of cutscene alternatives needed for later events (though if the tech uses the in-game engine, I can't see why it would be too much of a stretch on resources).

I'm of the opinion that cutscenes are apt to force you down a tunnel of a single choice and focus. Also in my view, because you are separated from the action (you are watching a 'film') and not in the game, they subtract from the different and immediate drama and suspense experience that games can provide.

I don't think that will ever be the case. Even if we watch the same linking cutscenes our games will never be the same. But we can say we are both experiencing the story and characters 100%. One of us is not filling the space with their imagination while the other is just looking at a blank space.

My arguement is that it would simply be unfair to require a PnP background or to require imagination to get 100% out of the game. If you polled the people here, you would more than likely find that older people go one way younger people go the other. Being somewhat in the middle I've had the experience of PnP but since I got introduced to JRPGs some years ago it's broadened my horizons.

[AkiKishi]

Pygmali0n wrote...

BobSmith101 wrote...

While you can tell us how great this experience of how you are playing the games are. It's only applicable to you. The new RPG goal as I see it is to make the games the same for everyone regardless of experience.

Then it's not an RPG - you can easily change the meaning of the words to mean, for example, 'playing the role of Hawke'. But, questions of style and story quality aside, the likely result is that it'll end up as indistinguishable from any generic console adventure game.

Not an RPG by what definition though ? 

Out of all the RPG's I've played they have only had a couple of common elements.

1. A character that is not a direct extention of the players abilities
2. A story
3. Growth

Everything else varies from game to game.

[Pygmali0n]

But is one of those common elements:

4. Everything is the same for every player, regardless of experience (i.e. there is no meaningful choice).

?

[AkiKishi]

Pygmali0n wrote...

But is one of those common elements:

4. Everything is the same for every player, regardless of experience (i.e. there is no meaningful choice).

?

Thats never been the case. Although I suppose if you have millions of people playing there is probably someone who did the exact same things as you.

Take Final Fantasy X if you reduce it to cutscenes then yes everyone gets the same game. That is the story as presented. Whether you have 20 years of PnP experience or have never heard of RPGs before.
However you still have BliztBall (whch I spent more time playing than the plot) numerous other bonus areas, characer specific weapon quests. Dodging lightnig, hunting for Cacturs, the list goes on and on. Plus the super secret ultimate boss ending.

Throw in the possible builds of the characters and you get a huge ammount of variation. Now do you see those things you do as part of the story and the game  ? Or do you just see the cutscenes as the game ?

Modifié par BobSmith101, 19 juillet 2012 - 03:06 .