308 réponses à ce sujet

[Mr. MannlyMan]

Final Fantasy 13 Fangirl wrote...

Terror_K wrote...

LinksOcarina wrote...

Mylia Stenetch wrote...

No it is not. It is a Fantasy RPG, where you play a predefined character with predetermined traits.

So, why can't that be a true RPG, when it is just as valid as any role-playing mechanic and is fairly popular for story-based role-playing games? 

Because the character isn't truly yours. The more pre-defined a character is, the less roleplaying takes place, because a predefined character is limited to still adhering to certain factors and limitations according to their personality and other factors that are pre-defined. Mass Effect is a classic example of this too: as Shepard you're always playing a human, an Alliance soldier, a galactic hero and somebody name "Shepard". The game doesn't give you the freedom to bo beyond those boundaries, so while Shepard can be a Renegade, he/she still has to be a hero in the end. Compared to the like of BG, KotOR and even Jade Empire where you get to define your character a lot more and get to choose to actually be an evil tyrant at the conclusion.

That's why P&P is always going to be better than any CRPG: because it doesn't force the limitations on you that a CRPG does. You have as much freedom as the GM has imagination, and while there are rules, when creating a character you're given pretty much unlimited freedom within those rules to make that character. You're never told that you're "this guy" and to do "this thing" at all. BG and NWN are about as close as CRPGs have gotten, and even they have limitations. But they still let you choose your race, sex, alignment, skills, etc. fully and don't force you into playing a set character.

What are you talking about!? You clearly don't seem to know what a real RPG is suppossed to be like. Games like Mass Effect and Final Fantasy are RPGs because they have characters that are already made for you. You find yourself getting more attached to the characters and caring about their struggles if they already have a personality made for them. For example I really found myself caring about Shepard's story and I was actually really upset whenever I saw Shepard struggling to save organic life in ME2 and ME3. RPGs like Skyrim (which I have actually played over 30 hours of it) are RPGs because they have RPG elements in them but not true RPGs because of lack of story and characters developtment. Although ME's gameplay was NOT RPG gameplay it still had these two elements that every RPG needs. Amazing story and character developtment, remember that.

Mass Effect is an RPG because it allows you to play Shepard in a variety of different ways, interact with characters in a variety of different ways, play two different genders, and basically define how you want Shepard to exist within the story that's set out for you. If the character in Mass Effect was completely pre-defined for us, Shepard would be Sheploo, femShep wouldn't exist, and there'd be no option to play as a gay character. Shepard would be a stereotypical macho marine, born on Earth, a renegade with a paragon streak (think Jack Bauer). Not everyone is drawn to that kind of protagonist; RPGs that offer many different options for roleplaying and customization offer greater potential for drawing in gamers of all types. Just look at female gamers; the mere presence of a female protagonist in a sci-fi shooter-RPG draws swarms of them, why? Because they don't usually get this chance to play a character like that.

That's what roleplaying is. The opportunity to play a character the way you want to play within a single game and story. JRPGs don't really offer that. The first two Mass Effect games had plenty of roleplaying opportunities. You still played this space marine who was trying to save the world, but you had a tonne of options:

-male or female
-colonist, spacer or earthborn
-paragon or renegade
-reckless or patient
-murderous or just
-straight or gay (only femShep could be outwardly gay, though)
-friendly with the crew or strict and businesslike
-racist or open-minded
-religious or atheist
-and on and on and on......

Mass Effect was supposed to be this hybrid of deep Westernized RPG fused with a cinematic storytelling approach featuring a fully-voiced main character. That was the main selling point of Mass Effect, but over the course of the trilogy, it's been overshadowed by its shooter component. The marketing and the game design of ME3 pandered endlessly to the shooter demographic, and the story and RPG aspects lost out at every turn. Autodialogue, linear story progression, your choices being funneled into the EMS mechanic, etc. etc... it's all gotten worse in the last segment, and it seriously hurt my enjoyment of the story, despite the Shepard character and the main plot being more focused (although it might have also been affected by the barrage of silly one-liners and lazy plot devices throughout).

And to Skyrim: story and character development are plentiful in that type of game, but the narrative lacks a solid framework. It's light on story progression and structure, but it's a lot closer to the pure definition of an RPG than the Mass Effect games are.

[Terror_K]

Final Fantasy 13 Fangirl wrote...

What are you talking about!? You clearly don't seem to know what a real RPG is suppossed to be like. Games like Mass Effect and Final Fantasy are RPGs because they have characters that are already made for you. You find yourself getting more attached to the characters and caring about their struggles if they already have a personality made for them. For example I really found myself caring about Shepard's story and I was actually really upset whenever I saw Shepard struggling to save organic life in ME2 and ME3. RPGs like Skyrim (which I have actually played over 30 hours of it) are RPGs because they have RPG elements in them but not true RPGs because of lack of story and characters developtment. Although ME's gameplay was NOT RPG gameplay it still had these two elements that every RPG needs. Amazing story and character developtment, remember that.

Seriously? Seriously?!!

You're telling somebody who has been playing real P&P RPGs for over 20 years that I don't know what a "real RPG is supposed to be like." Have you played a tabletop/P&P RPG at all, or just CRPGs? Becuase it's only with CRPGs that you get the character made for you, and CRPGs are derived from tabletop/P&P ones.

Playing an RPG is supposed to be about roleplaying a character. The more freedom you have to roleplay that character and make them your own, the stronger the roleplaying nature of the game is. The Final Fantasy series isn't a good example because you're too often stuck playing a pre-defined character of a pre-defined class with a pre-defined motive, be they Cloud, Squall, Tidus, Lightning or whoever. I can only direct them so far because their personalities are restricted.

When you play a P&P RPG you can completely define your character. You can define how they look, sound, what species they are, what gender they are, what food and colours they like and dislike, how they feel about X person, faction, species, religion or philosophy. You get to choose fully how they feel about the NPCs you come across and the other player characters. You can even give them your own background, history, friends, enemies and allies. You're not restricted by dialogue choices or the limitations of the questline before you, and can approach things different ways. You can attribute anything you want to them so long as it fits the setting you're in and you adhere to the restrictions set in place for character building.

The more roleplaying freedom you have, the better the roleplaying is, and the more pre-defined a character is, the less freedom you have and the less yours they are. When I create characters for my tabletop P&P RPGs, I'm never restricted by what my character can say and do, never restricted into doing a quest so many limited ways, never told they have to look like X, speak using a voice that sounds like the Main Voice Actor or Actress, and get to choose my own motivations, beliefs, likes, dislikes, strengths and weaknesses. I get to mould them completely, and don't get told I have to feel sad because I see a child die, or angry because I see a character I don't even like get killed, or that I have to save the world. It's my choice what I do, what I don't do, and how I do it or not.

Modifié par Terror_K, 25 juillet 2012 - 05:26 .

[Maias227]

I've played the tabletop roleplay and I don't really agree with the more freedom the better because well then the "best" rpg would be you thinking about something as there would be ulimited freedom in that. I liked Mass Effect as a rpg because of the many choices and paths you could follow which made it different game experience for most people.

[Mr. MannlyMan]

Maias227 wrote...

I've played the tabletop roleplay and I don't really agree with the more freedom the better because well then the "best" rpg would be you thinking about something as there would be ulimited freedom in that. I liked Mass Effect as a rpg because of the many choices and paths you could follow which made it different game experience for most people.

The difference here is that we're talking about games within the videogame medium.

"Roleplaying" is what you're thinking of. It doesn't have to have anything to do with videogames. Anyone can do it, with or without props/costumes; but you'd have to do without the massive space setpieces, the music, the cinematics, etc... it can be fun, but not quite the experience that a cinematic videogame offers.

Edit: Mass Effect is a trilogy of cinematic, story-driven action RPGs. This whole issue is a matter of balance between those genres. For many, the tradeoff between the action/cinematics and the RPG was too much. We don't feel connected to our characters like we used to, and for a game that prides itself on character stories and interaction, that's a critical flaw in its design. Unless it would rather pride itself on its awesum shooter bits (which it has been doing since they started marketing the game).

Modifié par Mr. MannlyMan, 25 juillet 2012 - 06:58 .

[Grand Admiral Cheesecake]

RPG definitions are meaningless because no one can agree on a set group of identifiers.

That said I enjoyed ME3 the least out of the trilogy.

ME1 had interesting characters and showed me the setting in a way that I could appreciate.

ME2 expanded on that and was much more fun to play *yep I liked the gameplay*

ME3 had good combat and some parts *Rannoch and Tuchanka* were brilliant...but when it comes down to it I expected better from Bioware. Never angry, just disappointed.

Modifié par Grand Admiral Cheesecake, 25 juillet 2012 - 09:44 .

[simonrana]

Fredvdp wrote...

Allen Spellwaver wrote...

rediculous point.If ME3 is not an RPG then ME2 is closer to a shooter.ME2 has even less RPG elements.ME3 is more like a balance between 1 and 2.

In my opinion it's the role-playing that makes a game an RPG, and ME2 did that much better than ME3 because of its dialog system. ME3 has too much auto-dialog and Shepard is not always who I want him to be. This is especially true for Shepard's reaction to [SPOILER REMOVED. Just realized I'm in general discussion.] I wasn't even allowed to laugh with Joker's joke, even as a renegade.

My thoughts exactly. Every RPG has the ocassional drop the ball moment where they force a reaction on the PC that doesn't necessarily match how you played him (e.g. in DAO Return to Ostagar, the Warden automatically looks pained at finding King Cailan's body on the cross). But virtually all of ME3 is like this. And even when you do occasionally get dialogue options I found they often didn't tally well to the Shepard they let you make in the last two games.

To be fair ME2 made this mistake sometimes as well - ME2 paragon Shepard is very different to ME1 paragon. To make them fit I had to make a new ME1 paragon Shepard that was happy to use his fists on bad guys. But at least there was still a lot of scope to develop a lot of Shepard's that felt diverse. In ME3 it feels like there's only one personality for Shepard, and that is why it doesn't feel like an RPG.

[simonrana]

wizardryforever wrote...
And come on, there really aren't that many cases of "auto-dialogue" where I felt that a dialogue wheel would have made any difference.  I didn't really see many places where I wish I'd had the option to say something different.   What Shepard says makes sense given the situation, and I'd rather have auto-dialogue than two/three options that say essentially the same thing.  Hell, in ME1, there were several places where all three options did say the same thing.  I'd rather the devs not deceive me with illusions of choice.  If there is no choice to be made, don't try to make it look like there is one.

I respectfully but completely disagree. The auto-dialogue often conflicted with what I expected Shepard's reaction to be. And more importantly the automation took away the sense of being in control Shepard - he became a character in a story that you are just passively watching.

I used to be annoyed by the false impression of choice in the early conversations in ME1 (e.g. when all the options for describing Shepard's vision triggered the exact same dialogue) but this is not an improvement. I wouldn't say go back to that mechanism either - instead they should have stuck to giving you different dialogue choices all the time. ME2 did it spot on, so why not ME3?

[simonrana]

Mr. MannlyMan wrote...
The Mass Effect series could have rid itself of all RPG elements except the dialogue wheel, and it would still be considered great. The dialogue wheel was perhaps the most crucial focal point of the entire series, turning the interesting story, characters and universe into a deeply personal experience.

Mass Effect 3 sold the dialogue mechanic (its most prized RPG mechanic) short. There were far too
few instances of it, with far too few options. I lost a LOT of the
connection I had previously had with Shepard and the rest of the game's
cast, and it was due in no small part to ME3's tightly constrained
dialogue.

This. OMG this soooo much this. Now that you've put it into words I don't know how I didn't think of it but yes but the biggest fault with ME3 (other than the ending) is this.

[Gnaeus.Silvanus]

ME3 is similar to Borderlands, its a role-playing shooter!

[Mylia Stenetch]

Final Fantasy 13 Fangirl wrote...

Mylia Stenetch wrote...



JRPG's =/= True RPG. The closest thing we have to that is tabletop. Until the day in games, where it is goes verbatum on what you say there will be no true, just the broad stroke of rpg.

I have no idea what you are talking about. Can you please explain your message more clearly, thanks.

There is no such thing as a true role playing video game. The closest thing people have to a true role-playing enviroment, is tabletop games, or people who do work with the SCA. Where you are fully acting out a role, there is nothing predefined, and it is how you actually react to the enviroment around you.

RPGs in video games will never be a true-rpg. You are taking characters and are playing through them, it is all pre-determined and your "paths" are already set before you. Although for someone admiting they are a FF fangirl, I am not surprised you say that FF13 is. FF13 is still just a rpg in the top level which once down another level shows it as a jrpg. 

[Mylia Stenetch]

LinksOcarina wrote...

Mylia Stenetch wrote...

Final Fantasy 13 Fangirl wrote...

That's because it's not. It is a first person shooter with RPG elements in it. Games like Final Fantasy XIII, Final Fantasy XIII-2, and The Last Story are true RPGs. If you want to play an RPG only game then play games like the ones that I just listed. The only reason why an RPG gamer like myself got into the ME games in the first place is because of the amazing characters, story, graphics, and music in the game. The gameplay is "okay."

JRPG's =/= True RPG. The closest thing we have to that is tabletop. Until the day in games, where it is goes verbatum on what you say there will be no true, just the broad stroke of rpg.

HBC Dresden wrote...

You haven't played The Witcher 2? And you all are discussing "true" RPGs? The Witcher 2 is the best true RPG in the last decade.

 

No it is not. It is a Fantasy RPG, where you play a predefined character with predetermined traits.

So, why can't that be a true RPG, when it is just as valid as any role-playing mechanic and is fairly popular for story-based role-playing games? 

Or is it supposed to be a game more akin to Skyrim, which in term is more like the tabletops in term of character building (albiet done poorly IMO) and pure freedom. 

As I said, video games in general are not really true RPGs, Skyrim comes close, some MMOs on how they are built come close. Still they key thing to be a pure/true RPG is that you have full control on what your avatar does, that means what you say she actuall says, your attitude is that's attitude etc. Games have predefined responses and traits for you to choose.

Tabletop RPGs would be the standard for true-rpgs, where you build everything about the character, and it is not from a list that is given to you. Now to the Witcher 2 it is a Fantasy RPG, I am not saying that it is a bad game or anythng, just that it is a Fantasy RPG. Also I am not saying it does not have valid role-playing mechanics, but it is not a true-rpg.

The only time we will ever see a true RPG is when they build (all possiblilities) is a Vitural Realm, where we it will be based on our movements, and how we talk/respond to the enviroment or people.

[Fixers0]

Neither do I.

[JaegerBane]

Mylia Stenetch wrote...

There is no such thing as a true role playing video game. The closest thing people have to a true role-playing enviroment, is tabletop games, or people who do work with the SCA. Where you are fully acting out a role, there is nothing predefined, and it is how you actually react to the enviroment around you.

RPGs in video games will never be a true-rpg. You are taking characters and are playing through them, it is all pre-determined and your "paths" are already set before you. Although for someone admiting they are a FF fangirl, I am not surprised you say that FF13 is. FF13 is still just a rpg in the top level which once down another level shows it as a jrpg. 

I think this is a perfect example of why arguing about whether something is an RPG or not is totally futile - when there's such extreme interpretations that people are actually saying that RPGs 'don't exist', its clear that the basic characteristics of the RPG genre represent a tiny subset of what people on here are defining as an RPG.

Modifié par JaegerBane, 25 juillet 2012 - 06:04 .

[LinksOcarina]

Mylia Stenetch wrote...

LinksOcarina wrote...

Mylia Stenetch wrote...

Final Fantasy 13 Fangirl wrote...

That's because it's not. It is a first person shooter with RPG elements in it. Games like Final Fantasy XIII, Final Fantasy XIII-2, and The Last Story are true RPGs. If you want to play an RPG only game then play games like the ones that I just listed. The only reason why an RPG gamer like myself got into the ME games in the first place is because of the amazing characters, story, graphics, and music in the game. The gameplay is "okay."

JRPG's =/= True RPG. The closest thing we have to that is tabletop. Until the day in games, where it is goes verbatum on what you say there will be no true, just the broad stroke of rpg.

HBC Dresden wrote...

You haven't played The Witcher 2? And you all are discussing "true" RPGs? The Witcher 2 is the best true RPG in the last decade.

 

No it is not. It is a Fantasy RPG, where you play a predefined character with predetermined traits.

So, why can't that be a true RPG, when it is just as valid as any role-playing mechanic and is fairly popular for story-based role-playing games? 

Or is it supposed to be a game more akin to Skyrim, which in term is more like the tabletops in term of character building (albiet done poorly IMO) and pure freedom. 

As I said, video games in general are not really true RPGs, Skyrim comes close, some MMOs on how they are built come close. Still they key thing to be a pure/true RPG is that you have full control on what your avatar does, that means what you say she actuall says, your attitude is that's attitude etc. Games have predefined responses and traits for you to choose.

Tabletop RPGs would be the standard for true-rpgs, where you build everything about the character, and it is not from a list that is given to you. Now to the Witcher 2 it is a Fantasy RPG, I am not saying that it is a bad game or anythng, just that it is a Fantasy RPG. Also I am not saying it does not have valid role-playing mechanics, but it is not a true-rpg.

The only time we will ever see a true RPG is when they build (all possiblilities) is a Vitural Realm, where we it will be based on our movements, and how we talk/respond to the enviroment or people.

Well you are right, no RPG is a true RPG, but no RPG is also a table-top here either.

And to be honest, table-top RPGs are not a good standard to have for a true RPG either, because a majority of them are mired in uneccessary mechanics that limit role-playing, more than allow for it. 3rd Edition and 4th Edition D&D are great examples of this in some respects; mainly in terms of class bonuses and powers, and the lack of real need for checks of perception, bluffing, diplomacy, and so forth when dealing with monsters, or the lack of grounded rules for variance and "forced roleplay," i.e, getting people into the spirit of the game and having fun with their characters instead of conforming to character archetypes and rules. 

So a true RPG is impossible in any sense of the word as it is. Because there is so much variance in both play style and what the player personally enjoys, its a trick question to begin with.  So it is not like, say what Terror-K believes, because that is just an opinion on what a true RPG is, and it is a preference of play-style over anything else, versus FinalFantasyXIIIFangirl, who prefers another style of RPG.

Both are right, both are good styles. Both also cancel each other out because both are valid and under the same RPG umbrella. But both also have a fundamental difference in what is focused: for Terror-K, it is pure freedom and customization, for FFXIIIFG, it is story and character. 

So when we get a hybrid beast involved, it becomes tricky indeed...

Modifié par LinksOcarina, 25 juillet 2012 - 08:46 .

[Mylia Stenetch]

Final Fantasy 13 Fangirl wrote...

Mylia Stenetch wrote...




There is no such thing as a true role playing video game. The closest thing people have to a true role-playing enviroment, is tabletop games, or people who do work with the SCA. Where you are fully acting out a role, there is nothing predefined, and it is how you actually react to the enviroment around you.

RPGs in video games will never be a true-rpg. You are taking characters and are playing through them, it is all pre-determined and your "paths" are already set before you. Although for someone admiting they are a FF fangirl, I am not surprised you say that FF13 is. FF13 is still just a rpg in the top level which once down another level shows it as a jrpg. 

So you are basically saying that no RPGs (JRPG and Western RPGs) are true role-playing video games? You think that true role-playing games are only the kind where you make your own character? You think that it is a bad thing to be restricted to a character that is already made for you? 

I think that all RPGs (JRPG and Western RPG) are RPG games, I personally think that some RPGs are better than others. Whenever I play an RPG I always decide for myself whether or not it is a true role-playing game or not, I don't automatically say that it is a true RPG before I even play it. I don't understand how it is a bad thing to have your characters already made for you. I mean, I find myself feeling closer to the character if they already have a personalitly and friends/enemies made for them. You are definetly not restricted when playing an RPG as a character that is already made for you, you have plenty of freedom to do stuff and progress at your own pace. Saying that RPGs where your character is already made for you is not a real RPG is just dumb. All RPGs are RPGs some are just better than others, and some are considered to be what a real RPG should be like. I like it better when I already have a character made for me and you don't, it's no big deal, we both just like different kinds of RPGs that's all, we are both obviously RPG fans.

I am not saying Western, European, or Japanesse PRGs are not RPGs, I am saying they are not TRUE-RPGs. That subset falls into the lines of table-top games. What video games are like ME, TW, FF, are all RPGs I do not deny that, but for people to put them into the pedistal of TRUE-RPGS, they are not.

[AlanC9]

LinksOcarina wrote...

Well, in your opinion at least. To be honest, the notion that a pre-defined character is silly because it limit's role-playing is really foolish too...especially considering most RPGs always had you as a pre-determined character in some form. Skyrim, you are a Dovhakin..you don't have to be, but you are always marked as one. In Ultima for a majority of the games you are the Avatar, Kingdoms of Amalur you are  a guy outside of the fate (chosen one mentality). All of them are defined characters you can mold, but not fully control. This type of hybridisation has been around  for years. 

And honestly, Baldurs Gate was very similar in terms of that as well, since you were pretty much always the bhaalspawn in the end. You always find out you are the sibling to the antagonist and you always eventually fight them at the end.  Race/class are irrelevent to the character build, since you always got to the same endpoint.

Hell, BG was more restrictive than most RPGs. Whatever your race, whatever your class, you were raised in Candlekeep by Gorion. You may be nonhuman, but everything you know about "your" culture comes from books and maybe the odd traveller.

[Terror_K]

LinksOcarina wrote...

And to be honest, table-top RPGs are not a good standard to have for a true RPG either, because a majority of them are mired in uneccessary mechanics that limit role-playing, more than allow for it. 3rd Edition and 4th Edition D&D are great examples of this in some respects; mainly in terms of class bonuses and powers, and the lack of real need for checks of perception, bluffing, diplomacy, and so forth when dealing with monsters, or the lack of grounded rules for variance and "forced roleplay," i.e, getting people into the spirit of the game and having fun with their characters instead of conforming to character archetypes and rules. 

While there should always be a great degree of freedom, I think many RPGs such as 4th Edition AD&D have gone too far in their freedom and are starting to essentially dumb down tabletop P&P RPGs to make them more accessible and popular just like many of modern CRPGs are. I'm all about story over mechanics and the fact that mechanics and rules shouldn't always get in the way, but rules and restrictions are also necessary in an RPG as well. Like anything it's about balance. If the rules are too loose and there's too much freedom, then you can start to lose the things that help define factors of the RPGs. class restrictions, for example, exist not just for balance, but to help define the class and make them unique, and to stop character from being masters of all trades, or at least curb it to the point where if you do want to be a master of all trades it costs you a lot more time and effort to do so.

Aside from the basic rules of the universe/setting and the GM's word as pretty much God of the campaign, your roleplaying itself shouldn't be limited. But your builds and the mechanics behind them still need boundaries and rules to keep things real and provide challenge beyond just combat encounters. A player should have to be smart when building a character and not just be able to throw anything together and make them work. They need to be limited and focused to give room for other characters to shine. And, to be honest, most of the fun I've had in tabletop games are the ones where we all have to deal with complications and weaknesses with our characters as opposed to those that are perfect builds with no downsides. With the groups I play with, we'll even often give our characters our own complications if the rules down directly force them on us (e.g. in a Mutants and Masterminds campaign I played recently, my character had several factors I gave them that were negative factors of my own accord: they were ice-based, so I gave them not only a weakness to fire, but a fear of it. I chose to make them Soviet in an American setting where anti-Communist sentiment is high, and as an extension of that made them poor. I came up with several NPCs they would know, not just friends, but antagonists and enemies as well, etc.)

Overall, the point is, freedom is great, but you still need rules and boundaries set for you. Too much freedom can do as much harm as not enough.

[fchopin]

Final Fantasy 13 Fangirl wrote...

Mylia Stenetch wrote...

I am not saying Western, European, or Japanesse PRGs are not RPGs, I am saying they are not TRUE-RPGs. That subset falls into the lines of table-top games. What video games are like ME, TW, FF, are all RPGs I do not deny that, but for people to put them into the pedistal of TRUE-RPGS, they are not.

That's your opnion but I believe that you are wrong. You believe what you want and I'll believe what I want.

I have to agree with Final Fantasy 13 Fangirl, jrpg’s usually have better stories and better characters in the games they make.
 
People should stop with the jrpg’s are not real rpg crap just to satisfy some inner superiority they think the west has as it’s just an illusion.
 
Jrpg’s have set characters and a set character will always be superior to a character we try to change in to what we want, with voice added to player character it has now become almost impossible to make an rpg where you can create your character how you like, changing facial features is well and fine but that does not make the character.

[Mylia Stenetch]

Final Fantasy 13 Fangirl wrote...

That's your opnion but I believe that you are wrong. You believe what you want and I'll believe what I want.

I have no problem with that, I am just putting my opinion out there on it. While I belive your opinion is wrong, it is your opinion on the matter.

fchopin wrote...I have to agree with Final Fantasy 13 Fangirl, jrpg’s usually have better stories and better characters in the games they make.
 
People should stop with the jrpg’s are not real rpg crap just to satisfy some inner superiority they think the west has as it’s just an illusion.
 
Jrpg’s have set characters and a set character will always be superior to a character we try to change in to what we want, with voice added to player character it has now become almost impossible to make an rpg where you can create your character how you like, changing facial features is well and fine but that does not make the character.

I never said JRPGs are not real RPGs. If you look at what I said they are not true-rpgs. I am not saying nothing else about it or some hidden agenda to show superiority. I said table-top or Skyrim come close but are not really. To me the closest you will ever see to a real true-rpg is people who are in the SCA or build a virtual reality system to play a game.

Still as said western and Japanesse are just RPGs. There are superiors games on both sides of the ocean, to say one is superior to the other is just opinion at best. Also making the character how you want it has always been a key part of an RPG, cause you want to put a little piece of yourself into the character so it is unique to you. FF games gave you that through building the stats and the mechanics of the character and it has been consistent for that. 

Western does that with some of their games, but they began to make it as building your on avatar also since you can make it closley resemble you also, pulling the immersion more. It is taste for what you want, but both western and JRPGs have their stance on how there brand of rpgs go.

Modifié par Mylia Stenetch, 26 juillet 2012 - 01:29 .

[squee365]

Who cares what Mass Effect 3 is, you all hate it anyway.

[fchopin]

squee365 wrote...

Who cares what Mass Effect 3 is, you all hate it anyway.

I do not hate the game my friend, i like the game even if it's not an rpg.

[LinksOcarina]

Terror_K wrote...

LinksOcarina wrote...

And to be honest, table-top RPGs are not a good standard to have for a true RPG either, because a majority of them are mired in uneccessary mechanics that limit role-playing, more than allow for it. 3rd Edition and 4th Edition D&D are great examples of this in some respects; mainly in terms of class bonuses and powers, and the lack of real need for checks of perception, bluffing, diplomacy, and so forth when dealing with monsters, or the lack of grounded rules for variance and "forced roleplay," i.e, getting people into the spirit of the game and having fun with their characters instead of conforming to character archetypes and rules. 

While there should always be a great degree of freedom, I think many RPGs such as 4th Edition AD&D have gone too far in their freedom and are starting to essentially dumb down tabletop P&P RPGs to make them more accessible and popular just like many of modern CRPGs are. I'm all about story over mechanics and the fact that mechanics and rules shouldn't always get in the way, but rules and restrictions are also necessary in an RPG as well. Like anything it's about balance. If the rules are too loose and there's too much freedom, then you can start to lose the things that help define factors of the RPGs. class restrictions, for example, exist not just for balance, but to help define the class and make them unique, and to stop character from being masters of all trades, or at least curb it to the point where if you do want to be a master of all trades it costs you a lot more time and effort to do so.

Aside from the basic rules of the universe/setting and the GM's word as pretty much God of the campaign, your roleplaying itself shouldn't be limited. But your builds and the mechanics behind them still need boundaries and rules to keep things real and provide challenge beyond just combat encounters. A player should have to be smart when building a character and not just be able to throw anything together and make them work. They need to be limited and focused to give room for other characters to shine. And, to be honest, most of the fun I've had in tabletop games are the ones where we all have to deal with complications and weaknesses with our characters as opposed to those that are perfect builds with no downsides. With the groups I play with, we'll even often give our characters our own complications if the rules down directly force them on us (e.g. in a Mutants and Masterminds campaign I played recently, my character had several factors I gave them that were negative factors of my own accord: they were ice-based, so I gave them not only a weakness to fire, but a fear of it. I chose to make them Soviet in an American setting where anti-Communist sentiment is high, and as an extension of that made them poor. I came up with several NPCs they would know, not just friends, but antagonists and enemies as well, etc.)

Overall, the point is, freedom is great, but you still need rules and boundaries set for you. Too much freedom can do as much harm as not enough.

I have the bolded part up there emphasized, because thats what we need, we need simpler mechanics in table-tops or else it becomes a side-show of insanity in terms of rules and mechanics. One game I played once was Aces and Eights,  a tabletop that won an award, and the rules basically map out shooting down to each action being a roll for say, making your gun go off, if you hit the target, how far the bullet travels, if it scatters, where you hit, if its a weak hit or strong hit, does it kill you outright, etc.

Thats one person making an attack action. That is not good game design.

So we need simple, because uneccesary crunch in tabletops, and RPGS in video games, is what kills them for the most part. That said, simple needs to be good too. 4th Edition D&D was decent at it, but with each subsequent release of content it got worse and worse, because we had nagging issues left over that can gimp the game. My favorite example is dealing with monsters. Say your encounters a young white dragon. the book tells you the alignment and level you would see them in, and you can adjust accordingly of course but most DM's never do that.

But what if this white dragon was held captive by a band of crazy cultits and is being bound by a magic spell? What if you release it? Do you attack it immediately for more xp, does it ignore you and fly away? You can role-play this, but would 4th Edition, or any edition of D&D even allow such a thing because of pre-requisites on monster builds?

Yeah I know this focuses on alignments but that is kind of a broken system to begin with. But I digress. My point is that simple is good, but needs to be done well. It needs to be spelled out for you and have a nuance or two in the mechanics that allows it to be complex and fun, while being both flexible for role-playing. Basically, it has rules, of course, but the rules allow the mechanics to work, instead of breaking the mechanics when you give them too much freedom, or too little. Honestly, the only system I know that does this in a table-top setting is the cardinal system, and it is only found in the 2nd editions of the Ironclaw games by Sanguine, so it's small time and independent. d20 doesn't do it well, GURPS doesn't work as well as it should, and other systems, like the one used in Aces & Eights or say Elicpse Phase, can just **** right off for being complex for complex sake, it seems. 

Modifié par LinksOcarina, 26 juillet 2012 - 10:37 .