Modifié par Rojahar, 08 août 2012 - 02:46 .
The RPG genre
Débuté par
zyntifox
, août 07 2012 04:26
#26
Guest_Rojahar_*
Posté 08 août 2012 - 02:46
Guest_Rojahar_*
Guest_Rojahar_*
-
- Guests
Does it really matter what label you put on a game or how you decide to categorize it?
Retour en haut
#27
Posté 08 août 2012 - 04:01
Realmzmaster
-
- Members
- 5 510 messages
Rojahar wrote...
Does it really matter what label you put on a game or how you decide to categorize it?
Yes, It does if you are trying to market the game. Sellers like to know what category to put the game in much like what is done with books and other merchandise.
#28
Guest_Rojahar_*
Posté 08 août 2012 - 04:18
Guest_Rojahar_*
Guest_Rojahar_*
-
- Guests
Realmzmaster wrote...
Rojahar wrote...
Does it really matter what label you put on a game or how you decide to categorize it?
Yes, It does if you are trying to market the game. Sellers like to know what category to put the game in much like what is done with books and other merchandise.
Of course, but why do some of you people get so worked up over which games are and aren't a "true" RPG?
#29
Posté 08 août 2012 - 04:44
Realmzmaster
-
- Members
- 5 510 messages
Rojahar wrote...
Realmzmaster wrote...
Rojahar wrote...
Does it really matter what label you put on a game or how you decide to categorize it?
Yes, It does if you are trying to market the game. Sellers like to know what category to put the game in much like what is done with books and other merchandise.
Of course, but why do some of you people get so worked up over which games are and aren't a "true" RPG?
Some gamers have a certain idea of what elements they think should be in a "true" rpg based on games they have played in the past. I simply know what elements I like to see in a rpg. I am not under any illusion. I know that many gamers will not want to see some of those elements. My main criteria is that I have fun with the game. I am not as tied to what some consider to be a "true" rpg. But for others YMMV.
#30
Posté 08 août 2012 - 06:09
Sylvius the Mad
-
- Members
- 24 112 messages
If we want a game that allows deep roleplaying as a playstyle, we need terminology that lets us ask for that. Allowing the definition to be used imprecisely causes people who don't see value is deep roleplaying to misunderstand our requests.Rojahar wrote...
Of course, but why do some of you people get so worked up over which games are and aren't a "true" RPG?
Even now, some people claim that Dragon Age 2 does allow roleplaying, even though the player is often not in control of his character.
#31
Posté 08 août 2012 - 06:11
Sylvius the Mad
-
- Members
- 24 112 messages
I had a similar experience. I found The Witcher's combat system unrelentingly awful, and managed fewer than 10 hours before I gave up.SteveGarbage wrote...
HeriocGreyWarden wrote...
Have you ever tried The Witcher games,guys?I consider that a true RPG
Yeah, I played about 10 hours then quit. Didn't care for the early story, didn't care for the battle mechanics at all, definitely didn't like its grossly clunky menus and was as well turned off by the mostly lousy presentation of the game.
I've heard that it's one of the staples of the modern CRPG genre, but the mechanics of my first attempt to play it soured me to the whole thing.
#32
Guest_EntropicAngel_*
Posté 08 août 2012 - 07:02
Guest_EntropicAngel_*
Guest_EntropicAngel_*
-
- Guests
To me, an RPG is a game that allows to to define your character, usually in the sense of conversation or story choices or combat.
Now, I have trouble calling a game an RPG based simply on "combat." Sure, it is defining, but it doesn't really strike me as personal
Final Fantasy: the Final Fantasy series is well-known, famous and indeed infamous as a JRPG. However, I hesitate to call it an RPG. As the series really isn't a series but several segregated games given similar titles, I'll list a couple.
FF III: I've played through...maybe half of this. The game's story is set in stone: there are no story choices. It is an open world but there is no story choice. Open world does not equal RPG. Now, one might call this an RPG based on the combat, but I have a hard time doing that. I suppose it's possible to call it a light RPG because the combat-related character skills are chosen.
FF XIII: This game is NOT open-world, hardly at all. This game starts off with a twenty-hour dungeon.
I'd say that this game is initially a light RPG based on the emphasis on choices for levelling and skills, just like III. However, in the end you have access to all available skills (when I say skills I don't mean the actual battle skills, I mean skill as in each battle option--commando, ravager, medic, etc) for each character, so it kind of falls apart.
Skyrim: Basically a combination of the two above. It is an open-world, but an open world an RPG does not make.
You are initially limited in your levelled skills, but the more you level you can essentially choose anything. Combat is generic hack-and-slash. I have more to say on this story-wise, but I'll talk about it after the next couple of games. Basically, Skyrim is barely an RPG.
DA: by far the most RPG-game I've ever played. When you level, you pick a few points in certain skills--and you're stuck with it. There's no point where you level up enough to max out each point. Hence, you really do "define" you character in combat: The curve of definition stays straight, as opposed to game like Skyrim or FF XIII, where your character is highly defined near the beginning of the game, but loses definition near the end.
And on a higher level, you have to pick your class, which limits the abilities your PC is capable of. A rogue or a warrior can't cast magic. A mage can't fight with a sword (outside of an arcane warrior, but that's a whole different animal that the standard mage). There are certain limitations created for your character.
That's the defining characteristic of an RPG, I personally feel. Limitations. More on that later.
ME: This is somewhat up to DA's standards, in the sense that levels provide a very clear path for your character. Somewhat less in ME2, where you could almost max everything.
And there aren't many class limitations, outside of the sense of "powers." The only thing I can think of offhand is the ability to use biotics or not.
Now, the part I've been avoiding: the story and conversation.
This is really what I feel defines an RPG: the ability to define your character in a personal sense, not just when they fight. You can show motivations, thoughts. emotions, in conversation. You can also show things about your character in story choice: it allows you to define their beliefs. This is one area where FF and Skyrim fail miserably and DA and ME really shine.
FF: Story is completely scripted, you have no effect over it. The same for the characters. They are individual characters--they aren't YOU. This makes for great characters--I love Light with all my heart--but not the best PCs, and certainly lacking in the RPG department.
Skyrim: the story is once again scripted. You have a little bit of choice over it, but the same thing happens in the end. However, here's my real problem with Skyrim:
There are no limits. You can become the leader of the Warrior's Guild, the leader of the Mages' Guild, the leader of the Theives' Guild, the leader of the "Murderers' Guild," and savior of Skyrim all at once. It's too much. There aren't really any choices; it's more "how much (of everything) do you want to do?" Not "This choice, or this one."
You aren't really defining your character, you're simply accumulating. I want to point out that there are a few points where Skyrim overcomes this, but they are few and far between.
And, no real conversation choices defining your character. The PC is pretty much devoid of any in-game feelings or beliefs: you may RP them in your own head, but it never transitions to the game really. Someone watching your playthrough wouldn't necessarily be inclined to wonder about your characters motivations and beliefs.
This flows over into combat. In Skyrim, want to be a sword-and-shield warrior? No problem! Just pick 'em out, and you're golden. Now want to be a daggers-weilding rogue? Easy! Just smith them and you're good. There's no choice. In DA, you can be a bow-and-arrow rogue or a daggers rogue--but never, never both in one playthrough.
Back to DA: Very very good in this sense. The games are filled with either-or scenarios in lots of the more prominent quests: Branka (and the golems) or the Paragon's crown. The mages or the templars. The dales or the werewolves (although this one is undermined by the possibility for both). The mercenaries or the theives (beginning of DA ][). The mages or the templars (the entirety of the game, essentially).
It is similar for ME, though most of the choices are smaller with the big choices not really coming up until the third game (geth vs quarian, continued genophage vs NOT, etc).
DA (and ME) however are reigning champions in the sense of actually defining your character. The BW conversation system is absolutely perfect for this. A few things {voiced PC, the sense in the games with dialog wheels of a different "emotion" for each option on the wheel [diplomatic, neutral/HERPADERP (DA ][), aggressive]} limit it, but it is excellent, just excellent for defining one's character.
This is where I think a real RPG lies, in allowing one to create or define a role. Skyrim doesn't let you do that. Final Fantasy doesn't let you do that. DA and ME (to a lesser extent) do.
I've heard a lot about The Witcher, and I actually purchased the first off of Steam, but I have yet to download it and play it.
Now, I have trouble calling a game an RPG based simply on "combat." Sure, it is defining, but it doesn't really strike me as personal
Final Fantasy: the Final Fantasy series is well-known, famous and indeed infamous as a JRPG. However, I hesitate to call it an RPG. As the series really isn't a series but several segregated games given similar titles, I'll list a couple.
FF III: I've played through...maybe half of this. The game's story is set in stone: there are no story choices. It is an open world but there is no story choice. Open world does not equal RPG. Now, one might call this an RPG based on the combat, but I have a hard time doing that. I suppose it's possible to call it a light RPG because the combat-related character skills are chosen.
FF XIII: This game is NOT open-world, hardly at all. This game starts off with a twenty-hour dungeon.
I'd say that this game is initially a light RPG based on the emphasis on choices for levelling and skills, just like III. However, in the end you have access to all available skills (when I say skills I don't mean the actual battle skills, I mean skill as in each battle option--commando, ravager, medic, etc) for each character, so it kind of falls apart.
Skyrim: Basically a combination of the two above. It is an open-world, but an open world an RPG does not make.
You are initially limited in your levelled skills, but the more you level you can essentially choose anything. Combat is generic hack-and-slash. I have more to say on this story-wise, but I'll talk about it after the next couple of games. Basically, Skyrim is barely an RPG.
DA: by far the most RPG-game I've ever played. When you level, you pick a few points in certain skills--and you're stuck with it. There's no point where you level up enough to max out each point. Hence, you really do "define" you character in combat: The curve of definition stays straight, as opposed to game like Skyrim or FF XIII, where your character is highly defined near the beginning of the game, but loses definition near the end.
And on a higher level, you have to pick your class, which limits the abilities your PC is capable of. A rogue or a warrior can't cast magic. A mage can't fight with a sword (outside of an arcane warrior, but that's a whole different animal that the standard mage). There are certain limitations created for your character.
That's the defining characteristic of an RPG, I personally feel. Limitations. More on that later.
ME: This is somewhat up to DA's standards, in the sense that levels provide a very clear path for your character. Somewhat less in ME2, where you could almost max everything.
And there aren't many class limitations, outside of the sense of "powers." The only thing I can think of offhand is the ability to use biotics or not.
Now, the part I've been avoiding: the story and conversation.
This is really what I feel defines an RPG: the ability to define your character in a personal sense, not just when they fight. You can show motivations, thoughts. emotions, in conversation. You can also show things about your character in story choice: it allows you to define their beliefs. This is one area where FF and Skyrim fail miserably and DA and ME really shine.
FF: Story is completely scripted, you have no effect over it. The same for the characters. They are individual characters--they aren't YOU. This makes for great characters--I love Light with all my heart--but not the best PCs, and certainly lacking in the RPG department.
Skyrim: the story is once again scripted. You have a little bit of choice over it, but the same thing happens in the end. However, here's my real problem with Skyrim:
There are no limits. You can become the leader of the Warrior's Guild, the leader of the Mages' Guild, the leader of the Theives' Guild, the leader of the "Murderers' Guild," and savior of Skyrim all at once. It's too much. There aren't really any choices; it's more "how much (of everything) do you want to do?" Not "This choice, or this one."
You aren't really defining your character, you're simply accumulating. I want to point out that there are a few points where Skyrim overcomes this, but they are few and far between.
And, no real conversation choices defining your character. The PC is pretty much devoid of any in-game feelings or beliefs: you may RP them in your own head, but it never transitions to the game really. Someone watching your playthrough wouldn't necessarily be inclined to wonder about your characters motivations and beliefs.
This flows over into combat. In Skyrim, want to be a sword-and-shield warrior? No problem! Just pick 'em out, and you're golden. Now want to be a daggers-weilding rogue? Easy! Just smith them and you're good. There's no choice. In DA, you can be a bow-and-arrow rogue or a daggers rogue--but never, never both in one playthrough.
Back to DA: Very very good in this sense. The games are filled with either-or scenarios in lots of the more prominent quests: Branka (and the golems) or the Paragon's crown. The mages or the templars. The dales or the werewolves (although this one is undermined by the possibility for both). The mercenaries or the theives (beginning of DA ][). The mages or the templars (the entirety of the game, essentially).
It is similar for ME, though most of the choices are smaller with the big choices not really coming up until the third game (geth vs quarian, continued genophage vs NOT, etc).
DA (and ME) however are reigning champions in the sense of actually defining your character. The BW conversation system is absolutely perfect for this. A few things {voiced PC, the sense in the games with dialog wheels of a different "emotion" for each option on the wheel [diplomatic, neutral/HERPADERP (DA ][), aggressive]} limit it, but it is excellent, just excellent for defining one's character.
This is where I think a real RPG lies, in allowing one to create or define a role. Skyrim doesn't let you do that. Final Fantasy doesn't let you do that. DA and ME (to a lesser extent) do.
I've heard a lot about The Witcher, and I actually purchased the first off of Steam, but I have yet to download it and play it.
#33
Guest_Logan Cloud_*
Posté 08 août 2012 - 07:24
Guest_Logan Cloud_*
Guest_Logan Cloud_*
-
- Guests
Personally, I don't think there is "RPG Combat". Many RPGs have different combat systems, and what people usually seem to think "RPG Combat" is, is stat-based.
RPG means Role Playing Game. You assume the role of your hero, and you define that hero the way you want. That shouldn't be limited to stats. It should be limited to the skill of the player. And the personality of your character.
I really dislike systems like in DA or the original ME. Stacking up points isn't fun. Who actually wants to look at a screen with a bunch of numbers, rather than playing the game? That's exactly why I can't make myself enjoy D&D.
Now as EA said, Skyrim's pretty mindless in terms of combat, but it does have a good system for leveling. You should get better with something as you use it. That's how things work. Believe me, if I could just spend skill points in real life, I probably wouldn't be so scrawny.
Fable 2 did the same thing, but did it in a stat-based way too. Use melee, and you got blue orbs. Use will, you get red orbs. Use skill and you get yellow orbs. With general EXP being green.
Now as EA also pointed out, this allows you to collect skills, rather than choose the ones you want. That's very true. It's not really defining your character from a combat perspective. Then again, that's not what makes an RPG and RPG if you ask me.
I think of an RPG as a game that defines the CHARACTER. Not the character's skills. I want an RPG to let me open up my character's personality, emotions, beliefs, etc. Fallout does the best job I've ever seen in terms of variations in dialogue. And it even factors into the stats to where you can persude someone to do what you want based on a skill. Not just a speech skill, ANY skill. If my explosives skill is high enough, I can school some moron with my knowledge of bombs. Same with medicine, guns, science, etc.
So now as you can see, I'm all for stats, so it's probably hard to tell which side I'm on. Personally, I want a game where I can be trained in something, without having a number by it. I'd like a system like in Fallout, but instead of spending skill-points, I get better with something as I practice.
I thought Skyrim would do that, and that's why I was so excited for it, but I was very disappointed.
RPG means Role Playing Game. You assume the role of your hero, and you define that hero the way you want. That shouldn't be limited to stats. It should be limited to the skill of the player. And the personality of your character.
I really dislike systems like in DA or the original ME. Stacking up points isn't fun. Who actually wants to look at a screen with a bunch of numbers, rather than playing the game? That's exactly why I can't make myself enjoy D&D.
Now as EA said, Skyrim's pretty mindless in terms of combat, but it does have a good system for leveling. You should get better with something as you use it. That's how things work. Believe me, if I could just spend skill points in real life, I probably wouldn't be so scrawny.
Fable 2 did the same thing, but did it in a stat-based way too. Use melee, and you got blue orbs. Use will, you get red orbs. Use skill and you get yellow orbs. With general EXP being green.
Now as EA also pointed out, this allows you to collect skills, rather than choose the ones you want. That's very true. It's not really defining your character from a combat perspective. Then again, that's not what makes an RPG and RPG if you ask me.
I think of an RPG as a game that defines the CHARACTER. Not the character's skills. I want an RPG to let me open up my character's personality, emotions, beliefs, etc. Fallout does the best job I've ever seen in terms of variations in dialogue. And it even factors into the stats to where you can persude someone to do what you want based on a skill. Not just a speech skill, ANY skill. If my explosives skill is high enough, I can school some moron with my knowledge of bombs. Same with medicine, guns, science, etc.
So now as you can see, I'm all for stats, so it's probably hard to tell which side I'm on. Personally, I want a game where I can be trained in something, without having a number by it. I'd like a system like in Fallout, but instead of spending skill-points, I get better with something as I practice.
I thought Skyrim would do that, and that's why I was so excited for it, but I was very disappointed.
#34
Posté 08 août 2012 - 09:15
Pzykozis
-
- Members
- 876 messages
Seems in this thread asthough RPG in a lot of cases is just synonymous with "games I like". Rather than something that actually defines a game.
#35
Posté 08 août 2012 - 09:51
fchopin
-
- Members
- 5 068 messages
For me the most important option is to define if the pc character is defined by the player or defined by the game.
If the character is defined by the game then the character becomes like Shepard in ME3 and Geralt from the witcher games and it is possible to use auto dialogue without breaking character integrity.
If the character is player defined and voiced like Hawke then we have a problem as the player needs to know what the character will say before the character speaks as this is the only way to be able to define a character.
With Hawke we have no idea what the character will say but we also have to try to make the character say what we want so it becomes a guessing game if we pick the correct option or not or the character speaks with a different intend.
I have no problem with dialogue in the ME games but only in DA2.
I know there are more options for RPG's but this is the main problem that Bioware will have in the next DA3 game, if they do the dialogue the same as DA2 it will fail unless they define the player character.
If the character is defined by the game then the character becomes like Shepard in ME3 and Geralt from the witcher games and it is possible to use auto dialogue without breaking character integrity.
If the character is player defined and voiced like Hawke then we have a problem as the player needs to know what the character will say before the character speaks as this is the only way to be able to define a character.
With Hawke we have no idea what the character will say but we also have to try to make the character say what we want so it becomes a guessing game if we pick the correct option or not or the character speaks with a different intend.
I have no problem with dialogue in the ME games but only in DA2.
I know there are more options for RPG's but this is the main problem that Bioware will have in the next DA3 game, if they do the dialogue the same as DA2 it will fail unless they define the player character.
Modifié par fchopin, 08 août 2012 - 10:01 .
#36
Guest_EntropicAngel_*
Posté 08 août 2012 - 10:09
Guest_EntropicAngel_*
Guest_EntropicAngel_*
-
- Guests
fchopin wrote...
For me the most important option is to define if the pc character is defined by the player or defined by the game.
If the character is defined by the game then the character becomes like Shepard in ME3 and Geralt from the witcher games and it is possible to use auto dialogue without breaking character integrity.
If the character is player defined and voiced like Hawke then we have a problem as the player needs to know what the character will say before the character speaks as this is the only way to be able to define a character.
With Hawke we have no idea what the character will say but we also have to try to make the character say what we want so it becomes a guessing game if we pick the correct option or not or the character speaks with a different intend.
I have no problem with dialogue in the ME games but only in DA2.
I know there are more options for RPG's but this is the main problem that Bioware will have in the next DA3 game, if they do the dialogue the same as DA2 it will fail unless they define the player character.
What about if they drop the whole "tone" thing? I think that would go a long way towards helping the text match what is said (as well as allowing greater freedom in the conversation).
#37
Posté 08 août 2012 - 10:14
fchopin
-
- Members
- 5 068 messages
EntropicAngel wrote...
fchopin wrote...
For me the most important option is to define if the pc character is defined by the player or defined by the game.
If the character is defined by the game then the character becomes like Shepard in ME3 and Geralt from the witcher games and it is possible to use auto dialogue without breaking character integrity.
If the character is player defined and voiced like Hawke then we have a problem as the player needs to know what the character will say before the character speaks as this is the only way to be able to define a character.
With Hawke we have no idea what the character will say but we also have to try to make the character say what we want so it becomes a guessing game if we pick the correct option or not or the character speaks with a different intend.
I have no problem with dialogue in the ME games but only in DA2.
I know there are more options for RPG's but this is the main problem that Bioware will have in the next DA3 game, if they do the dialogue the same as DA2 it will fail unless they define the player character.
What about if they drop the whole "tone" thing? I think that would go a long way towards helping the text match what is said (as well as allowing greater freedom in the conversation).
If they drop the tone icons and add text that is similar to what the pc will say it would help but they don't want to do this.
#38
Posté 08 août 2012 - 11:07
AngryFrozenWater
-
- Members
- 9 088 messages
There is a deliberate move towards action games. It is not even up for debate, because BW simply stated that this is the way they want their games to go. BW observes this trend in general and they want to follow it, because they feel that's were the money is. The problems for me is that if that trend turns out the be true then all games will transform in a grey pulp that looks the same for each genre.
BioWare’s Muzyka: Line Between RPGs, Shooters Blurring.
I think its better to try to find new ways to enhance existing genres than in blending it with elements that sell the most. BW will obviously not agree of course, because they feel that RPGs are a niche market and that action games sell way more copies. They must have been shocked when they found out that a RPG like Skyrim sold over 10 million copies (a target they wanted to reach with DA2, which reached 2 million only). It doesn't matter whether you like Skyrim or not, but the difference between DA2 and Skyrim is that DA2 cut content or simplified features to make it feel like an action game and produce it cheaper and that Skyrim tried to improve their existing strong and weak features.
10 million sales is BioWare's new target.
Needless to say that DA2 never reached that target and if BW is continuing on their new set route of producing games in the most economical way then I doubt DA3 will sell more than DA:O, which sold more than DA2.
BioWare’s Muzyka: Line Between RPGs, Shooters Blurring.
I think its better to try to find new ways to enhance existing genres than in blending it with elements that sell the most. BW will obviously not agree of course, because they feel that RPGs are a niche market and that action games sell way more copies. They must have been shocked when they found out that a RPG like Skyrim sold over 10 million copies (a target they wanted to reach with DA2, which reached 2 million only). It doesn't matter whether you like Skyrim or not, but the difference between DA2 and Skyrim is that DA2 cut content or simplified features to make it feel like an action game and produce it cheaper and that Skyrim tried to improve their existing strong and weak features.
10 million sales is BioWare's new target.
Needless to say that DA2 never reached that target and if BW is continuing on their new set route of producing games in the most economical way then I doubt DA3 will sell more than DA:O, which sold more than DA2.
Modifié par AngryFrozenWater, 08 août 2012 - 11:22 .
#39
Posté 08 août 2012 - 11:47
Baronesa
-
- Members
- 1 934 messages
Sylvanpyxie wrote...
A Role-Playing Game, to me, is a game in which I can manipulate the personality of the Protagonist.
If I cannot influence the choices, beliefs, responses and opinions of the Player Character, then it's not an RPG.
That's my opinion, as simple as it gets.
This is a good opinion to cover the core of the issue.
Notice the bolded part, it is not directly a representation of your own morals, but one that would let you pick extremes as well as nuanced stances for your character and then the world MUST react to that.
You must be able to create a character that fits the world's background. a good RPG has a strong believable (not realisitc) world, a world on which you can explore and learn it's lore jut for the sake of it, not because it is related to a quest or anything else. On a good RPG your curiosity will simply reward you with more information, maybe more dialogue or interaction.
Control and customization should not be taken out of the player's hands. Dumbing down inventories or getting rid of that part of an RPG game is, in my view a big flaw. Not only should you be able to select whatever item you want to use, you should have a very broad selection of them, and furthermore, you should be able to customize the way you look physically and also how you present yourself.
The actual mechanics of combat bear no consequence to the genre, you could have the combat as a first person shooter, or maybe 3rd person shooter, or a classical isometric view, or complete 3rd person control. Combat could be in turns or real time. That is just a very minor aspect that do not change the genre.
What should never be optional, is your actions affecting the world, but also the world should react to your actions.
A strong story is also a must for a RPG. It must be a story that engages you, that presents some mystery, that rewards you with more information as you advance. It would not try to impose feelings on you. Events will happen and if you connected or not with a character, a cause... or a town , their loss will impact you, no matter what, but if you barely got to knew them, you will simply shrug it off. Trying to lead you with a leash to FEEL what the narrator wants you to feel is the antithesis of a good RPG (vent boy, I'm looking at you)
#40
Posté 08 août 2012 - 01:07
InfinitePaths
-
- Members
- 1 432 messages
Tons of customization,tons of preperation for combat,combat is ultra hard even on easy.Many charathers with their own personality and motives.Many side quests.The story is enganging and most importantly the decisions you make are huge and have great effect on the outcome of the game.Especially in TW2...Cstaf wrote...
HeriocGreyWarden wrote...
Have you ever tried The Witcher games,guys?I consider that a true RPG
Never tried it. What elements in that game makes it a RPG for you?
EDIT:This game has a dark world not Dragon age,you will enounter:sexsism,racism,rape,murder pilage...A great Dark fantasy RPG
EDIT 2:NO BLACK AND WHITE,just GREY.No Bioware fairy tale
Modifié par HeriocGreyWarden, 08 août 2012 - 01:18 .
#41
Posté 08 août 2012 - 01:09
InfinitePaths
-
- Members
- 1 432 messages
Elton John is dead wrote...
Traditional RPG's = Baldur's Gate series, Planescape, Fallout 1&2.
Modern Traditional RPG's = Dragon Age: Origins
Action RPG's = Dark Souls, Divine Divinity, Divinity 2, Deus Ex series, The Witcher, Mass Effect series.
Loot RPG's = Diablo series, Torchlight series, Borderlands series
Sometimes each sub-genre will contain elements from another sub-genre. Dark Souls for example has a huge emphasis on statistics and and feels old-school. There's a learning curve and wondering into the high-leveled areas will lead to your death. There's curses and permanent consequences such as where killing people will lead to their death for the rest of playthrough. The Witcher on the other-hand also has an emphasis on skills you choose but is more concerned with dialogue and choices you make which lead to consequences and greatly impact the story. Quests are handled in an old-school way where there's no quest markers (from what I can recall). There's also potions and things you can make which enhance your statistics which is basically temporary buffing and needed as a strategy for later difficulties.
Then there's Divine Divinity which is a combination of an action-RPG and traditional RPG because there were choices to make, heavy dialogue, a dialogue tree, importance of statistics and consequences but the combat was more action-orientated and at times there was a lot of it whereas at others times you would be going about and talking to people and making choices.
I called DA:O a modern traditional RPG because it's a combination of old-school RPG's with some features from recent RPG's such as quest markers and more limitation but the whole features of a party, party customization, statistic based combat and a dialogue tree remains.
Diablo and the like are loot RPG's (or action-loot-RPG's or hack n slash RPG's) with the main aim of building your character up with better equipment and increasing their skills, levels and statistics but it's not a traditional RPG in any way or form because it lacks a dialogue tree, has no choices, there's no character development in terms of personality or what cause you side with and so on.
So you have the RPG genre with several sub-genres.
Modern Traditional RPG's:The witcher .
#42
Posté 08 août 2012 - 01:11
InfinitePaths
-
- Members
- 1 432 messages
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HedLjjlSy3Y
You must look at the first link and you will be convinced how good it is
Modifié par HeriocGreyWarden, 08 août 2012 - 01:14 .
#43
Posté 08 août 2012 - 01:14
Baronesa
-
- Members
- 1 934 messages
HeriocGreyWarden wrote...
Tons of customization,tons of preperation for combat,combat is ultra hard even on easy.Many charathers with their own personality and motives.Many side quests.The story is enganging and most importantly the decisions you make are huge and have great effect on the outcome of the game.Especially in TW2...
Both Witcher games have a GREAT flaw however...
A set character...
I can't play as my gender... I can't play as some other person that I want to explore that world.
Look at ME for example, we all are Shepard... but every Shepard is different enough... different ethnicity, sexual orientation, morals, look... Hell, even on ME1 you could define if you were religious or not in a conversation.
In that regard Witcher is closer to JRPG on which you are given a set of characters and you have to advance the story.
As wonderful as the game is, the lack of choice in the main character is a deal breaker for me, and for other female gamers out there.
Modifié par Baronesa, 08 août 2012 - 01:17 .
#44
Posté 08 août 2012 - 01:20
InfinitePaths
-
- Members
- 1 432 messages
Baronesa wrote...
HeriocGreyWarden wrote...
Tons of customization,tons of preperation for combat,combat is ultra hard even on easy.Many charathers with their own personality and motives.Many side quests.The story is enganging and most importantly the decisions you make are huge and have great effect on the outcome of the game.Especially in TW2...
Both Witcher games have a GREAT flaw however...
A set character...
I can't play as my gender... I can't play as some other person that I want to explore that world.
Look at ME for example, we all are Shepard... but every Shepard is different enough... different ethnicity, sexual orientation, morals, look... Hell, even on ME1 you could define if you were religious or not in a conversation.
In that regard Witcher is closer to JRPG on which you are given a set of characters and you have to advance the story.
As wonderful as the game is, the lack of choice in the main character is a deal breaker for me, and for other female gamers out there.
I laugh at you,JRPG is not TW2.Just becouse you can't customize his looks doesn't mean you create his personality and story.Looks are not so important,they are just looks(altrough in TW2,you can change hair,and there is so much armor in the game...that look diferently.).You have so many choice in main charather,so many decisions,and so many dialouge options,no lineral story like in Bioware games,you create your own Geralt!
My Geralt is Figther for non-human rights,he is a gentelmen to women,he stays loyal to Triss and never cheats her.Thinks cool and objective and takes time to make a decision,not out of impulses but thinking what decision is better for the greater good of all.
My friend's Geralt is a rasist,he just likes to murder,he doesn't treat women or non-humans with respect and just do what he wants.He doesn't cares about the good of all,he is just selfish and does what he pleases and makes choices out of impulses.
Now becouse of our choices we played 2 different charathers,we went to different locations,sideded with different people.And just played a whole other non-linerar game
EDIT:DAO is so linelar SPOILERS you must go to the tower of magi,you must go to the elves,Redclife and to Orzamar,and you must kill the archdemon.In TW2 you must not fight the last boss you can just let him go.In TW2 you decide who is your ally,who is your enemy and where is worth going and what is worth doing!
Modifié par HeriocGreyWarden, 08 août 2012 - 01:28 .
#45
Guest_Nyoka_*
Posté 08 août 2012 - 01:44
Guest_Nyoka_*
Guest_Nyoka_*
-
- Guests
HeriocGreyWarden,
go tell that to the zillion guys saying they play Manshep because WELL DUH I'M A GUY!
go tell that to the zillion guys saying they play Manshep because WELL DUH I'M A GUY!
#46
Posté 08 août 2012 - 01:52
zyntifox
-
- Members
- 712 messages
Does this Geralt talk without player input? Because that is a big no no for me.
#47
Posté 08 août 2012 - 03:19
AudioEpics
-
- Members
- 108 messages
Tricky question! I'd say that in video games, the term RPG refers to games that somehow resemble tabletop RPGs but that still leaves a lot of room for widely different types of games (after all, D&D is a very different tabletop RPG than, say, Call of Cthulu) and on itself this also doesn't answer *in what way* a particular video game may or may not be similar to tabletop RPGs.
I guess there are different ways in which a game can be an RPG. Diablo has character progression through levels, magic items, classes and a whole bunch of other tropes that are reminiscent of D&D. However, it doesn't offer any control over the storyline, which is of marginal importance anyway.
The Witcher offers a complex story with many different possible outcomes based on the player's choices, but it forces you into the role of a pre-existing character that is already fleshed out in a number of novels and has a clearly defined personality, whichever way you play the game.
Dragon Age allows players to control the looks and personalities of their characters, but has them controlling an entire party during combat.
All of these games can be entertaining in their own way and are both similar and different from tabletop RPGs in some way.
We all have our own reasons for enjoying what we consider to be "true RPGs" and I'm no exception. To me, the Bethesda formula is my favorite, simply because in a game like Skyrim, I feel creative with my character and highly proactive as a player. That doesn't stop me from enjoying Dragon Age and Mass Effect for their engaging storylines and difficult choices, however.
I guess there are different ways in which a game can be an RPG. Diablo has character progression through levels, magic items, classes and a whole bunch of other tropes that are reminiscent of D&D. However, it doesn't offer any control over the storyline, which is of marginal importance anyway.
The Witcher offers a complex story with many different possible outcomes based on the player's choices, but it forces you into the role of a pre-existing character that is already fleshed out in a number of novels and has a clearly defined personality, whichever way you play the game.
Dragon Age allows players to control the looks and personalities of their characters, but has them controlling an entire party during combat.
All of these games can be entertaining in their own way and are both similar and different from tabletop RPGs in some way.
We all have our own reasons for enjoying what we consider to be "true RPGs" and I'm no exception. To me, the Bethesda formula is my favorite, simply because in a game like Skyrim, I feel creative with my character and highly proactive as a player. That doesn't stop me from enjoying Dragon Age and Mass Effect for their engaging storylines and difficult choices, however.
#48
Posté 08 août 2012 - 04:29
InfinitePaths
-
- Members
- 1 432 messages
Cstaf wrote...
Does this Geralt talk without player input? Because that is a big no no for me.
Not in anything important,for every single important choice,or dialiuge option you decide what to say.
#49
Posté 08 août 2012 - 04:44
Sylvius the Mad
-
- Members
- 24 112 messages
AngryFrozenWater wrote...
BioWare’s Muzyka: Line Between RPGs, Shooters Blurring.
Dr. Ray is completely wrong about that. Action elements in an RPG always need to be optional to allow the character's skills to differ from those of the player. The Mass Effect games are a terrific examples of this - superficially, the games look like shooters, and they can be played like shooters, but they can also be paused and played like RPGs.
Personally, I paused to aim almost every shot when I played ME, and the game was vastly better for having that option.
#50
Guest_EntropicAngel_*
Posté 08 août 2012 - 05:37
Guest_EntropicAngel_*
Guest_EntropicAngel_*
-
- Guests
Most of the problem I have with The Witcher is that every person who plays the game on here praises it constantly and literally cannot accept any criticism about it.
This is something I have trouble accepting. There's no way for an RPG to react validly to all nuances of character: it's just too ambitious. I think the choice is more important than the consequence.
Baronesa wrote...
Notice the bolded part, it is not directly a representation of your own morals, but one that would let you pick extremes as well as nuanced stances for your character and then the world MUST react to that.
This is something I have trouble accepting. There's no way for an RPG to react validly to all nuances of character: it's just too ambitious. I think the choice is more important than the consequence.
Modifié par EntropicAngel, 08 août 2012 - 05:39 .
