332 réponses à ce sujet

[Realmzmaster]

Pasquale1234 wrote...

Sylvius the Mad wrote...
My idea of mindless fun is turn-based strategy games. Roleplaying is a more cerebral endeavour, and there I prefer no action combat for reasons of coherence, but if I just want to plauy a game to relax then I'd almost always choose a turn-based strategy game.

Frantic action isn't fun. Nothing frantic is fun. Frantic action is the antithesis of fun. Fractic action is stressful. I really don't like it.

My recent outings with newer RTS titles are proving a bit too frenetic for my tastes.  When you have generations that had game controllers in their tiny little paws before they could talk - well, the expectations have changed exponentially.

So I'm thinking it might be time to dust off my old copies of Civ, Alpha Centauri, MOO, and the like.  If you have any other favorite titles, I'd appreciate the recommendation.

ETA:

MichaelStuart wrote...
I will admit that due to my dislike of stat based combat, it probably just seems repetitive.

That's cool.  We don't all like the same things.

I like Age of Empires, Age of Mythology, Warcraft II & III, Lords of Everquest, Pirates!, Heroes of Might and Magic and King's Bounty. along with the ones you mentioned.
Lords of Everquest is not exactly a gem, but it is playable.

Modifié par Realmzmaster, 17 août 2012 - 07:59 .

[Pasquale1234]

Realmzmaster wrote...
I like Age of Empires, Age of Mythology, Warcraft II & III, Lords of Everquest, Pirates!, Heroes of Might and Magic and King's Bounty. along with the ones you mentioned.

Where's my notepad?  Ah, there we go...

AoE - love the original, played it a lot.  Recently bought AoE3 on Steam, and it was a bit too hectic for what I was wanting at the time.  I will try it again, though.  It's real-time, not turn-based.

I did play the original Warcraft, and some versions of Heroes.

Thanks for the suggestions.  I'm taking notes. 

[Sylvius the Mad]

MichaelStuart wrote...

The Player character is just the players avatar and should be treated as such.

I reject this idea fully and completely.  This would ruin roleplaying, as the character would no longer truly exist within the setting.  How then should the other characters view him?  The game would then be reduced to being the player's toy, and I'm not interested in playing with toys.

Roleplaying is an elaborate thought experiment.   "What happens if this sort of person finds himself in this situation?"  If the person isn't even real - if the situation exists solely to entertain me - what can we learn from that?

To you third point
As I've said above, leveling can't be ignored without consequence.

I didn't say levelling could be ignored.  I said the specifics behind levelling could be ignored.  You can't ignore gravity, but you can ignore the specifics of how it works.

[Realmzmaster]

Pasquale1234 wrote...

Realmzmaster wrote...
I like Age of Empires, Age of Mythology, Warcraft II & III, Lords of Everquest, Pirates!, Heroes of Might and Magic and King's Bounty. along with the ones you mentioned.

Where's my notepad?  Ah, there we go...

AoE - love the original, played it a lot.  Recently bought AoE3 on Steam, and it was a bit too hectic for what I was wanting at the time.  I will try it again, though.  It's real-time, not turn-based.

I did play the original Warcraft, and some versions of Heroes.

Thanks for the suggestions.  I'm taking notes. 

I like Pirates! except for the dancing mini-game that is used to romance the governor's daughters, but that is because I suck at it..  The original Pirates! had you bring gifts.

Modifié par Realmzmaster, 17 août 2012 - 09:52 .

[Sylvius the Mad]

Pasquale1234 wrote...

The point that Sylvius was trying to make (at least my interpretation of it) is that you don't have to grind your way to level up if you don't enjoy that aspect of the game.

Exactly.  I played Oblivion for about 50 hours, and my character was level 1 the entire time.

The most fundamental aspect of RPGs is that they use character stats and dice-roll calculations to determine the outcome of anything you try to do in the game.

The most fundamental aspect of RPGs is that the player is making his character's decisions.  The player is not making decisions as he would prefer, but is making them as his character would prefer.  The player is subservient to his character.  Roleplaying involves seeing the world through your character's eyes, not your own.

Requiring action combat reverses this relationship.

Many role-players draw distinct lines between the player and the character.

I would argue that this is central to the very definition of roleplaying.

[Sylvius the Mad]

MichaelStuart wrote...

To me, role playing is about playing a character and I no more need the rules for a tabletop wargame to do so,as you need the rules for a action game. All we need is a imagination.

But if the game places limits our imagination by requiring the use of our own skills, where does that leave us?

[Sylvius the Mad]

Pasquale1234 wrote...

So I'm thinking it might be time to dust off my old copies of Civ, Alpha Centauri, MOO, and the like.  If you have any other favorite titles, I'd appreciate the recommendation.

I dusted off my copy of Alpha Centauri for a couple of months last year.  It's still a brilliant game.  And for the first time ever, I won an economic victory.

I picked up Warlock: Master of the Arcane from Steam.  It's an awfully fun turn-based game for whatever miniscule price I paid for it.

Have you played Crusader Kings?

MichaelStuart wrote...
I will admit that due to my dislike of stat based combat, it probably just seems repetitive.

One of the things I really like about NWN is the dance of death combat.  It's slow and stat-driven and uses D&D rules, but the characters never stand exactly where you leave them.  The game models the inpredictablity of combat, and that adds, I think, considerable excitement.

It's a shame BioWare abandoned the dance of death, and it's a shame no other developer has tried it.

Modifié par Sylvius the Mad, 17 août 2012 - 10:11 .

[Pzykozis]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...
I reject this idea fully and completely.  This would ruin roleplaying, as the character would no longer truly exist within the setting.  How then should the other characters view him?  The game would then be reduced to being the player's toy, and I'm not interested in playing with toys.

Roleplaying is an elaborate thought experiment.   "What happens if this sort of person finds himself in this situation?"  If the person isn't even real - if the situation exists solely to entertain me - what can we learn from that?

There's no difference. Avatar or Mental construct its exactly the same. There's no requirement for learning, and there's nothing wrong with entertainment for entertainment's sake...

Neither is the act of roleplaying core to the RPG genre, they're seperate things.

Modifié par Pzykozis, 17 août 2012 - 10:22 .

[Fast Jimmy]

Alpha Centauri remains with me as my favorite Civilization game.

Gah, now I want to go pick it up.

[MichaelStuart]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

MichaelStuart wrote...

To me, role playing is about playing a character and I no more need the rules for a tabletop wargame to do so,as you need the rules for a action game. All we need is a imagination.

But if the game places limits our imagination by requiring the use of our own skills, where does that leave us?

I would argue that imagination could be thought of as a skill.
I don't really see why using one set of skills would hamper the use of others.

[MerinTB]

Pzykozis wrote...
Neither is the act of roleplaying core to the RPG genre, they're seperate things.

What?

Can I introduce you to the concept of sophistry?

[Sylvius the Mad]

Pzykozis wrote...

Neither is the act of roleplaying core to the RPG genre, they're seperate things.

How can roleplaying not be a core component of roleplaying games?  Is the label arbitrary?

[jillabender]

Sylvius the Made wrote…

Frantic action isn't fun. Nothing frantic is fun. Frantic action is the antithesis of fun. Fractic action is stressful. I really don't like it.

I feel much the same way – that's why I prefer turn-based strategy games to real-time strategy games.

Fast Jimmy wrote…

Alpha Centauri remains with me as my favorite Civilization game.

Gah, now I want to go pick it up.

Good choice! Alpha Centauri is one of my favourite games of all time.
It offered so many different viable strategies and satisfying ways to beat the game, and playing each faction actually felt like a different experience. And the writing was great, too… the conversations with Planet were just brilliant.

Modifié par jillabender, 17 août 2012 - 11:50 .

[Realmzmaster]

Pzykozis wrote...


Neither is the act of roleplaying core to the RPG genre, they're seperate things.

I would agree with you if you said roleplaying is not limited to the rpg genre, but roleplaying is certainly essential to the rpg genre.

Modifié par Realmzmaster, 17 août 2012 - 11:44 .

[Sylvius the Mad]

jillabender wrote...

Good choice! Alpha Centauri is one of my favourite games of all time.

It's the only non-RPG in my all-time top 5 list.

[jillabender]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

jillabender wrote...

Good choice! Alpha Centauri is one of my favourite games of all time.

It's the only non-RPG in my all-time top 5 list.

If you don't mind my asking, what other games are on your top five list? My top five are (in no particular order):
Baldur's Gate II, Dragon Age: Origins, Alpha Centauri, Portal, and Civilization IV.

Modifié par jillabender, 18 août 2012 - 12:55 .

[ScotGaymer]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Pzykozis wrote...

Neither is the act of roleplaying core to the RPG genre, they're seperate things.

How can roleplaying not be a core component of roleplaying games?  Is the label arbitrary?

This made me lol.

What a ridiculous assertion. Of course role playing is integral and necessary for a Roleplaying game. That's kind of the point.

If there is no roleplaying then it ceases to be a RolePlaying Game and becomes an Action Adventure Game. Usually. Sometimes a strategy game. Sometimes a shooter.

[wsandista]

Pzykozis wrote...

Neither is the act of roleplaying core to the RPG genre, they're seperate things.

How exactly is roleplaying not a core component of a roleplaying game?

I argue that roleplaying is the only real core component of a roleplaying game.

[Sylvius the Mad]

jillabender wrote...

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

It's the only non-RPG in my all-time top 5 list.

If you don't mind my asking, what other games are on your top five list? My top five are (in no particular order):
Baldur's Gate II, Dragon Age: Origins, Alpha Centauri, Portal, and Civilization IV.

I've been leaving the fifth spot blank to ensure that I can easily add something should I come across it.

In no particular order:
Baldur's Gate, Alpha Centauri, Ultima IV, and Ultima Underworld

I'm reasonably confident that Ultima IV is the greatest CRPG ever made.  And just to show that I can enjoy games made with cutting edge technology, Ultima Underworld had by far the most advanced 3D engine of its day.  It was far beyond Wolfenstein 3D or DOOM (the first FPS games), and it preceded both of them.

Games that sit just outside my top 5 (but I've considered all of them for that fifth spot) are:
Dragon Age: Origins, Knights of the Old Republic, Baldur's Gate II, Neverwinter Nights, Ultima V, Ultima VII, System Shock 2, Planescape: Torment, and Wasteland.

That's right, System Shock 2.  That's a shooter.

Sadly, I was out of gaming through the mid 1990s, and missed both Fallout and Fallout 2 when they were released.

[Pzykozis]

FitScotGaymer wrote...
This made me lol.

What a ridiculous assertion. Of course role playing is integral and necessary for a Roleplaying game. That's kind of the point.

If there is no roleplaying then it ceases to be a RolePlaying Game and becomes an Action Adventure Game. Usually. Sometimes a strategy game. Sometimes a shooter.

Ok, so worded like this if without roleplaying the roleplaying game ceases to be and it's an action adventure, what happens when people don't roleplay?

The RPG genre is my favourite genre of games but I've never roleplayed. Ever. Roleplaying just doesn't interest me. So clearly something is wrong there, lest DA:O, Planescape et al. become action adventure games the assertion that it is integral is a misconception.

You can Roleplay in any game, dependant on whatever limitations you yourself impose on your roleplaying likes and dislikes, but roleplaying is not integral, it's just another way of interacting with the game.

Modifié par Pzykozis, 18 août 2012 - 09:29 .

[Merlex]

Pasquale1234 wrote...

Realmzmaster wrote...
I like Age of Empires, Age of Mythology, Warcraft II & III, Lords of Everquest, Pirates!, Heroes of Might and Magic and King's Bounty. along with the ones you mentioned.

Where's my notepad?  Ah, there we go...

AoE - love the original, played it a lot.  Recently bought AoE3 on Steam, and it was a bit too hectic for what I was wanting at the time.  I will try it again, though.  It's real-time, not turn-based.

I did play the original Warcraft, and some versions of Heroes.

Thanks for the suggestions.  I'm taking notes. 

Master of Orion 2 got me into playing pc games. I also liked :

Warlords
Imperialism, the fine art of taking over the world
Civilization 3
Civilization 4
Galactic Civilizations 2

[MichaelStuart]

Pzykozis wrote...

FitScotGaymer wrote...
This made me lol.

What a ridiculous assertion. Of course role playing is integral and necessary for a Roleplaying game. That's kind of the point.

If there is no roleplaying then it ceases to be a RolePlaying Game and becomes an Action Adventure Game. Usually. Sometimes a strategy game. Sometimes a shooter.

Ok, so worded like this if without roleplaying the roleplaying game ceases to be and it's an action adventure, what happens when people don't roleplay?

The RPG genre is my favourite genre of games but I've never roleplayed. Ever. Roleplaying just doesn't interest me. So clearly something is wrong there, lest DA:O, Planescape et al. become action adventure games the assertion that it is integral is a misconception.

You can Roleplay in any game, dependant on whatever limitations you yourself impose on your roleplaying likes and dislikes, but roleplaying is not integral, it's just another way of interacting with the game.

Well said.
I fully agree that the "Role Playing" and "Game" parts of a RPG are separate things. 

[MerinTB]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...
That's right, System Shock 2.  That's a shooter.

It's by Ken Levine, so what kind of game it is doesn't really count.  He transcends genre.   And it was an RPG hybrid.

People will point to System Shock 2 or Bioshock, which are great games, for Ken's talent - but he had me with Freedom Force.

[MerinTB]

Pzykozis wrote...
Ok, so worded like this if without roleplaying the roleplaying game ceases to be and it's an action adventure, what happens when people don't roleplay?

The RPG genre is my favourite genre of games but I've never roleplayed. Ever. Roleplaying just doesn't interest me. So clearly something is wrong there, lest DA:O, Planescape et al. become action adventure games the assertion that it is integral is a misconception.

You can Roleplay in any game, dependant on whatever limitations you yourself impose on your roleplaying likes and dislikes, but roleplaying is not integral, it's just another way of interacting with the game.

What happens when people take Heroclix mini's and use them to play Marvel Saga?  What happens when people take marbles or Matchbox cars, give them names and personalities, and play with them like most people would play with GI Joes or other action figures?  What happens when someone takes a deck of playing cards and builds a card house?

They are, quite legitimately, using products for things other than what they were created for.

That doesn't change the fact of what they were created for is what they are intended for.

By your excessively self-centered argument, Heroclix are seperate things from miniature gaming, marbles are seperate from playing ringer, and playing cards are seperate from card games.

Deconstructing items from their intended use, because you personally choose to do something different with said items, does NOT change what they were made to be used for.

This is key, here...

language needs to have generally accepted meanings.  We use words with fairly set definitions so we can communicate.  If each individual decides to make up his own personal meanings to words, and tries to force the world to fit to his own definitions while ignoring what the words are generally used to mean, then communication breaks down.

You are trying to artificially, and I'd argue wholly selfishly, strip the definition and meaning from the word roleplaying game so it fits the mold of what you use said games for.  For your own ends, to win and arugment, you are playing with language and deconstructing meanings by using seemingly incongruous examples instead of any and only definitions.

Ergo....

I really think you should take a look at sophism.

[Pzykozis]

MerinTB wrote...

Pzykozis wrote...
Ok, so worded like this if without roleplaying the roleplaying game ceases to be and it's an action adventure, what happens when people don't roleplay?

The RPG genre is my favourite genre of games but I've never roleplayed. Ever. Roleplaying just doesn't interest me. So clearly something is wrong there, lest DA:O, Planescape et al. become action adventure games the assertion that it is integral is a misconception.

You can Roleplay in any game, dependant on whatever limitations you yourself impose on your roleplaying likes and dislikes, but roleplaying is not integral, it's just another way of interacting with the game.

What happens when people take Heroclix mini's and use them to play Marvel Saga?  What happens when people take marbles or Matchbox cars, give them names and personalities, and play with them like most people would play with GI Joes or other action figures?  What happens when someone takes a deck of playing cards and builds a card house?

They are, quite legitimately, using products for things other than what they were created for.

That doesn't change the fact of what they were created for is what they are intended for.

By your excessively self-centered argument, Heroclix are seperate things from miniature gaming, marbles are seperate from playing ringer, and playing cards are seperate from card games.

Deconstructing items from their intended use, because you personally choose to do something different with said items, does NOT change what they were made to be used for.

This is key, here...

language needs to have generally accepted meanings.  We use words with fairly set definitions so we can communicate.  If each individual decides to make up his own personal meanings to words, and tries to force the world to fit to his own definitions while ignoring what the words are generally used to mean, then communication breaks down.

You are trying to artificially, and I'd argue wholly selfishly, strip the definition and meaning from the word roleplaying game so it fits the mold of what you use said games for.  For your own ends, to win and arugment, you are playing with language and deconstructing meanings by using seemingly incongruous examples instead of any and only definitions.

Ergo....

I really think you should take a look at sophism.

Playing a game isn't its intended function? Roleplaying is a perfectly valid form of interaction but it doesn't preclude the fact that games are played in general with or without the role idea attached.

I think you ever so slightly inflate the size of people who actually roleplay vs those that don't.

Also I think trying to pass off the idea that roleplaying has an agreed meaning in and of itself is disingenuous at best. Some of the worst text based fights I've seen are simply because someone isn't RPing rightly.

Its not artificial to bring logic to an arguement, but it can be selfish I guess. The problem with that (me being selfish) is that I'm the one with the completely open idea as to what an RPG is whereas its the people arguing against me who enforce their selfish view of what an RPG is even when such a view is contrarian.

Mass Effect 2 and 3 are not RPGs apparently yet... well y'know. DA2 is not an RPG apparently but... the biggest of course being that the Final Fantasy series aren't RPGs... (or that JRPGs in general aren't actual RPGs) BSN suffers quite a huge amount by some strange insularity. Enforcing its own opinions as though it were the majority... it's not even an acceptable microcosm.

Sophistry, meh whatever.