184 réponses à ce sujet

[addiction21]

batlin wrote...

Jade Empire had a good story, but people often forget about the absolute crap gameplay.

If you don't remember it, here's how it went:

-Only invest in Thousand Cuts, one ranged magic, and Spirit Theif

-Spam Thousand Cuts style

-Throw fireballs when fighting ranged

-Spam the Spirit Theif style when out of mana

-and if there's a lot of enemies, use Focus and Spirit power.

There, once you've figured this out you've pretty much beaten the game.

Yes BioWare has never done well at their own gameplay. Baldurs Gate to KoToR those games were built on a pre existing ruleset. Since then its been far more shallow and just as easy to break.

Sorry if I had to be the person to break that to you.

[Sylvius the Mad]

FitScotGaymer wrote...

Um, no offense but Ultima wasn't exactly a game famous for its "character design" process. I mean wasn't The Avatar pretty much a pregenerated character?

Not even close.  You had total control over the Avatar's background, personality, values, and tactics.

[Sylvius the Mad]

simfamSP wrote...

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Maclimes wrote...

They ALWAYS have to limit your options, and they ALWAYS have. This is not new. The only thing that's new is the way it is being done.

I'll hapily concede that.

DA2's problem wasn't that it didn't give you enough options.  DA2's problem was that you weren't allowed to choose among them.

Hmm... you mean that there were options which were obviously there, but the game decided that they didn't exist? Or something else?

The game didn't tell you what they were, so you weren't able to choose among them.  All you could do was guess and hope.

Guessing is not choosing.

[Direwolf0294]

addiction21 wrote...

batlin wrote...

Jade Empire had a good story, but people often forget about the absolute crap gameplay.

If you don't remember it, here's how it went:

-Only invest in Thousand Cuts, one ranged magic, and Spirit Theif

-Spam Thousand Cuts style

-Throw fireballs when fighting ranged

-Spam the Spirit Theif style when out of mana

-and if there's a lot of enemies, use Focus and Spirit power.

There, once you've figured this out you've pretty much beaten the game.

Yes BioWare has never done well at their own gameplay. Baldurs Gate to KoToR those games were built on a pre existing ruleset. Since then its been far more shallow and just as easy to break.

Sorry if I had to be the person to break that to you.

Wait, are you saying KoTOR had more complex gameplay? You could finish the whole game by just spamming one attack.

[AkiKishi]

addiction21 wrote...

Yes.

The only time I can think of when I could create my own character as I saw fit was with Ice Wind Dale. You could pick everything from race to class and write your own backstory. Not just for the main character but for every party member.
Even then you were stuck with premade avatar photos.

As I recall you could edit those and import your own. I could be thinking of IWD II though.

For pure creativity IWD/II can't be beat.

[AkiKishi]

addiction21 wrote...

batlin wrote...

Jade Empire had a good story, but people often forget about the absolute crap gameplay.

If you don't remember it, here's how it went:

-Only invest in Thousand Cuts, one ranged magic, and Spirit Theif

-Spam Thousand Cuts style

-Throw fireballs when fighting ranged

-Spam the Spirit Theif style when out of mana

-and if there's a lot of enemies, use Focus and Spirit power.

There, once you've figured this out you've pretty much beaten the game.

Yes BioWare has never done well at their own gameplay. Baldurs Gate to KoToR those games were built on a pre existing ruleset. Since then its been far more shallow and just as easy to break.

Sorry if I had to be the person to break that to you.

It does get really tedious after a while.

[Zanallen]

I always used that tiger style...

[wsandista]

BobSmith101 wrote...

For pure creativity IWD/II can't be beat.

I would argue that NWN is close, if not equal, in that regard.

[wsandista]

Maclimes wrote...

So you're saying it's impossible to have a voiced protagonist that actually works in an RPG?

Yes, a voiced PC only can work in a RDG.

[Cimeas]

A good example of these people who think that Deus Ex, The Witcher, Mass Effect, any game with a voiced protagonist is not an RPG is the use of the word 'gay'.

Originally, 'gay' did not mean homosexual. It meant 'happy', and you can see examples, for example in on of Enid Blyton's children's books I believe there is a line that goes something like: 'And the threesome walked gayly along, through the forest'. However, in order to project a better image of homosexuality at a time when aids was though to be most rampant among that community, people began using 'gay' as a synonym for that.

Slowly the meaning changed, to the point that if I were to say now to someone that 'I'm feeling gay today', It would be assumed to mean I would be homosexual, rather than happy.

In a similar way, whereas 'RPG' used to mean 'game in which I can define and choose every aspect of my character and meticulously roleplay them in a way I see fit and everything must be stat based and not player-skill based and I need to be able to make every single decision about my character's life',

now it means 'adventure game with some player agency and at least limited character customization and choice in story'.

The definition has changed. If people call CDPR or Eidos Montreal RPG developers, they are RPG developers, and Deus Ex/TW2 *are* RPGs.


-John

[wsandista]

If the game doesn't allow role-playing, how can you call it a role-playing game?

[Cimeas]

wsandista wrote...

If the game doesn't allow role-playing, how can you call it a role-playing game?

I believe I discussed this before, but 'role-playing' is playing a role, simple as. 

When I was five years old, I roleplayed as some random cowboy sometimes, but other times I role-played as Iron Man, or Darth Vader.   In the same way I can play a random character in Neverwinter Nights, or I can play the set character Geralt of Rivia in The Witcher 2.

Modifié par Cimeas, 18 juillet 2012 - 01:20 .

[batlin]

Direwolf0294 wrote...

Wait, are you saying KoTOR had more complex gameplay? You could finish the whole game by just spamming one attack.

Hah, maybe if you played on the easiest setting.

Cimeas wrote...

A good example of these people who think that Deus Ex, The Witcher, Mass Effect, any game with a voiced protagonist is not an RPG is the use of the word 'gay'.

Originally, 'gay' did not mean homosexual. It meant 'happy', and you can see examples, for example in on of Enid Blyton's children's books I believe there is a line that goes something like: 'And the threesome walked gayly along, through the forest'. However, in order to project a better image of homosexuality at a time when aids was though to be most rampant among that community, people began using 'gay' as a synonym for that.

Slowly the meaning changed, to the point that if I were to say now to someone that 'I'm feeling gay today', It would be assumed to mean I would be homosexual, rather than happy.

In a similar way, whereas 'RPG' used to mean 'game in which I can define and choose every aspect of my character and meticulously roleplay them in a way I see fit and everything must be stat based and not player-skill based and I need to be able to make every single decision about my character's life',

now it means 'adventure game with some player agency and at least limited character customization and choice in story'.

The definition has changed. If people call CDPR or Eidos Montreal RPG developers, they are RPG developers, and Deus Ex/TW2 *are* RPGs.


-John

No, the definition hasn't changed. Case in point, Skyrim.

The difference in RPGs nowadays is developers are siding with more "action-oriented RPGs" because they feel their customers are too stupid to handle tactical combat and haven't the attention span to role play

[wsandista]

Cimeas wrote...

I believe I discussed this before, but 'role-playing' is playing a role, simple as. 

When I was five years old, I roleplayed as some random cowboy sometimes, but other times I role-played as Iron Man, or Darth Vader.   In the same way I can play a random character in Neverwinter Nights, or I can play the set character Geralt of Rivia in The Witcher 2.

But you played the cowboy or Iron Man or Darth Vader. You knew exactly what you would do, how you would do that, and why you would do that.

With Geralt, Adam, Shepard and Hawke, you can only direct the character. If the PC does things that the player doesn't explicitly consent to,then the player isn't playing them.

[Cimeas]

wsandista wrote...

Cimeas wrote...

I believe I discussed this before, but 'role-playing' is playing a role, simple as. 

When I was five years old, I roleplayed as some random cowboy sometimes, but other times I role-played as Iron Man, or Darth Vader.   In the same way I can play a random character in Neverwinter Nights, or I can play the set character Geralt of Rivia in The Witcher 2.

But you played the cowboy or Iron Man or Darth Vader. You knew exactly what you would do, how you would do that, and why you would do that.

With Geralt, Adam, Shepard and Hawke, you can only direct the character. If the PC does things that the player doesn't explicitly consent to,then the player isn't playing them.

Sure, but when I played Iron Man or whatever, I could do *anything*.  In an RPG, theres only a set number of choices.   Also, there were never times when I felt player agency was lost in anything important.   Hawke never does anything stupid, and it never broke the roleplaying that was going on in my head, at least.

The only time when I felt that the PC (Hawke) let me down was in Mark of The Assassin when I couldn't kill Tallis or take the list from her.

[batlin]

Cimeas wrote...

Sure, but when I played Iron Man or whatever, I could do *anything*.  In an RPG, theres only a set number of choices.

That's because developers aren't able to program every possible choice a player can make, not because it's actually ideal. Isn't it ironic then how RPGs have by and large become more linear as technology gets better? Wouldn't it make far more sense to give RPG players more choices as opposed to making a game less of an RPG and more of an action game?

Also, there were never times when I felt player agency was lost in anything important.   Hawke never does anything stupid, and it never broke the roleplaying that was going on in my head, at least.

Never anything stupid, you say? Like how Anders makes a very clear threat to the Chantry and Hawke is totally unable to do anything about it? Or even convince Anders to change his mind? Or how about sitting on his/her ass for three years at a time as the Qunari occupation gets worse and as an obviously tyrannical and bigoted Meredeth gains more influence?

Modifié par batlin, 18 juillet 2012 - 01:50 .

[AkiKishi]

Cimeas wrote...

Sure, but when I played Iron Man or whatever, I could do *anything*.  In an RPG, theres only a set number of choices.   Also, there were never times when I felt player agency was lost in anything important.   Hawke never does anything stupid, and it never broke the roleplaying that was going on in my head, at least.

The only time when I felt that the PC (Hawke) let me down was in Mark of The Assassin when I couldn't kill Tallis or take the list from her.

We must have very different definitions of the word.Hawke was the poster child for stupid.

Modifié par BobSmith101, 18 juillet 2012 - 01:54 .

[Sylvius the Mad]

Direwolf0294 wrote...

Wait, are you saying KoTOR had more complex gameplay? You could finish the whole game by just spamming one attack.

But you could also focus on non-combat skills and still win the game.  Malak could be defeated using only the Demolitions skill.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Cimeas wrote...

A good example of these people who think that Deus Ex, The Witcher, Mass Effect, any game with a voiced protagonist is not an RPG is the use of the word 'gay'.

Originally, 'gay' did not mean homosexual. It meant 'happy', and you can see examples, for example in on of Enid Blyton's children's books I believe there is a line that goes something like: 'And the threesome walked gayly along, through the forest'. However, in order to project a better image of homosexuality at a time when aids was though to be most rampant among that community, people began using 'gay' as a synonym for that.

Slowly the meaning changed, to the point that if I were to say now to someone that 'I'm feeling gay today', It would be assumed to mean I would be homosexual, rather than happy.

In a similar way, whereas 'RPG' used to mean 'game in which I can define and choose every aspect of my character and meticulously roleplay them in a way I see fit and everything must be stat based and not player-skill based and I need to be able to make every single decision about my character's life',

now it means 'adventure game with some player agency and at least limited character customization and choice in story'.

The definition has changed. If people call CDPR or Eidos Montreal RPG developers, they are RPG developers, and Deus Ex/TW2 *are* RPGs.

You can't change formal definitions like that.  Doing so renders language largely useless.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Cimeas wrote...

Hawke never does anything stupid, and it never broke the roleplaying that was going on in my head, at least.

You weren't doing any roleplaying in your head.  You said before that you never decided what Hawke's preferences were until the game required it of you, and then if the game told you something else was true you accepted it and moved on, even if that contradicted your previous in-game decisions.

[Maclimes]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Cimeas wrote...

A good example of these people who think that Deus Ex, The Witcher, Mass Effect, any game with a voiced protagonist is not an RPG is the use of the word 'gay'.

You can't change formal definitions like that.  Doing so renders language largely useless.

Wrong. You can and should. Language evolves with the people that use it. This has always been the case, and is one of the many functions of language: To express our thoughts. If the language never changes, but the thoughts do, then the language becomes useless.

Anyway, define "RPG" for me. Formally. Officially.

[batlin]

Maclimes wrote...

Wrong. You can and should. Language evolves with the people that use it. This has always been the case, and is one of the many functions of language: To express our thoughts. If the language never changes, but the thoughts do, then the language becomes useless.

Anyway, define "RPG" for me. Formally. Officially.

A roleplaying game is a game in which you roleplay.

And playing a role goes beyond just controlling a character. It also includes a great deal of player agency. The less control you ave over your character, the less of an RPG the game is.

[Maclimes]

batlin wrote...

Maclimes wrote...

Wrong. You can and should. Language evolves with the people that use it. This has always been the case, and is one of the many functions of language: To express our thoughts. If the language never changes, but the thoughts do, then the language becomes useless.

Anyway, define "RPG" for me. Formally. Officially.

A roleplaying game is a game in which you roleplay.

And playing a role goes beyond just controlling a character. It also includes a great deal of player agency. The less control you ave over your character, the less of an RPG the game is.

So, the "RPG"ness of something can be on a sliding scale? A game can be "more RPG" than another game?

[batlin]

Maclimes wrote...

So, the "RPG"ness of something can be on a sliding scale? A game can be "more RPG" than another game?

Of course. A game that allows you more roleplaying is more of an RPG than one that barely lets you roleplay at all (Dragon Age: Origins vs. Dragon Age 2). Same as a puzzle game with more puzzles is more of a puzzle game than one that has less (Myst vs. Phantasmagoria)

[bEVEsthda]

Maclimes wrote...

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Cimeas wrote...

A good example of these people who think that Deus Ex, The Witcher, Mass Effect, any game with a voiced protagonist is not an RPG is the use of the word 'gay'.

You can't change formal definitions like that.  Doing so renders language largely useless.

Wrong. You can and should. Language evolves with the people that use it. This has always been the case, and is one of the many functions of language: To express our thoughts. If the language never changes, but the thoughts do, then the language becomes useless.

Anyway, define "RPG" for me. Formally. Officially.

You are correct in how language works. St Mad is however also correct in that formal definitions cannot be changed that way. However, it does seem as if 'RPG' is not a formal definition.

The mere fact that some people want to use "RPG" for something else, only means that the term "RPG" becomes meaningless. It changes nothing about the games or preferences. You have only deprived a community of the word for their preferences. As common as that vile act of oppression may seem, it never changes the actual content of the preferences.