332 réponses à ce sujet

[PsychoBlonde]

Cstaf wrote...

Not sure you answered the question i asked however. That looks like a wish-list for a RPG which is a entirely different thing. Otherwise that is a very specific list of requirements for a game to be considered RPG [smilie]http://social.bioware.com/images/forum/emoticons/smile.png[/smilie].
And i can't think of a game that covers all that, especially the second paragraph (but i would love a game with that function though).

Actually Dungeons and Dragons Online does most of what's in that paragraph 2--all of it, if you decide to join a permadeath guild.  I'd also suggest looking at Realms of Arkania (super-obscure game FTW!), which had absolutely murderous poison and disease mechanics just to START.  Granted, it was a CHORE to play.

For me, there are two factors, the lack of either makes a game Not An RPG.  #1 is Conversation Options.  #2 is Character Customization.  Now, there doesn't have to be a WHOLE LOT of either of those, but if I'm not choosing what my character can say (or ask about, in the case of Morrowind), and at least some aspect of my stats/appearance, it's not an RPG.

[Sylvius the Mad]

EntropicAngel wrote...

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.

I played it.  I didn't like it at all.

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.

I completely agree.  Having full control over the character and wanting the game to react to those choices is a pipe dream.  It's simply not a credible expectation.  Furthermore, the desire to see the game react to the player's choices is the main reason I think we're seeing the player's choiecs being constrained.

As such, I'm not terribly concerned with having visible direct reactions to the player's choices at all.  I would argue instead that we should seek to maximise player choice and control and recognise that the reaction we do see within the game is itself an indirect reaction to our choices, even if our choices are not explicitly acknowledged.

Every choice the player makes for his character influences the game.  it influences how his character perceives the game world, which in turn influences future player decisions (assuming the player is attempting to maintain character coherence).  And every event within the game is potentially a reaction to character choices, regardless of whether that reaction is different from what it would be had the initial choice been different.

If I choose to have Hawke mock Fenris, and Fenris remains stoic, Hawke could interpret this as Fenris not getting the joke, or Fenris being indifferent to mockery, or Hawke having delivered the line badly and ruined the joke.  Whichever the player chooses affects Hawke's future decisions regarding his behaviour toward Fenris.  Alternatively, if I choose to have Hawke comfort Fenris, and Fenris remains stoic (exacly the same behaviour we saw above), Hawke could interpret this as Fenris not welcoming the comfort, or Fenris internalising his pain.

These options all arise from player choices, even though the game hasn't reacted differently at all.

[zyntifox]

HeriocGreyWarden wrote...

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.

Then i think i'll pass.

[Realmzmaster]

PsychoBlonde wrote...

Cstaf wrote...

Not sure you answered the question i asked however. That looks like a wish-list for a RPG which is a entirely different thing. Otherwise that is a very specific list of requirements for a game to be considered RPG [smilie]http://social.bioware.com/images/forum/emoticons/smile.png[/smilie].
And i can't think of a game that covers all that, especially the second paragraph (but i would love a game with that function though).

Actually Dungeons and Dragons Online does most of what's in that paragraph 2--all of it, if you decide to join a permadeath guild.  I'd also suggest looking at Realms of Arkania (super-obscure game FTW!), which had absolutely murderous poison and disease mechanics just to START.  Granted, it was a CHORE to play.

For me, there are two factors, the lack of either makes a game Not An RPG.  #1 is Conversation Options.  #2 is Character Customization.  Now, there doesn't have to be a WHOLE LOT of either of those, but if I'm not choosing what my character can say (or ask about, in the case of Morrowind), and at least some aspect of my stats/appearance, it's not an RPG.

Realms of Arkania trilogy (Shadows over Riva, Star Trail and Blade of Destiny)  is fun to play along with Temple of Elemetal Evil  (TOEE) and Pool of Radiance: Myth Drannor. Ahh! good times. 

[Eternal Phoenix]

HeriocGreyWarden wrote...

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 .

It has action combat though and rather than having statistics you level up, you have levels of skills in a skill tree which determine your statistics. Quests, dialogue, choices and consequences are handled like a traditional RPG though. I guess it's subjective. The Witcher either falls into modern traditional RPG for some people or action-RPG with traditional RPG elements for others. I believe most traditional RPG's (modern or otherwise) need statistic based combat like Baldur's Gate, Planescape, NWN or DA:O to be truly traditional.

For me, if an RPG has you mashing buttons in combat, it's an action-RPG but it can either lean to the action side more (Dragon Age 2) or to the traditional RPG side more (The Witcher 2).

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.

Planescape: Torment = Set character.
Arx Fatalis = Set voiced character.

Both are considered RPG's by most. Arx Fatalis doesn't even have a dialogue tree (your choices are made via actions) and yet it feels so old school. I personally prefer customizable characters but set characters doesn't exactly break an RPG especially when you're allowed to role play them.

The main problem with Geralt is that while you can influence some of his views and choose who he sides with, other things can't be influenced. However one has to keep in mind that Geralt is from a book and therefore can't have a personality which completely contradicts the lore and backstory. In Planescape and Arx Fatalis, the main characters (who both have no names which allows the player to identify with them more) can have their views, beliefs and alignments influenced completely. Arx also allows for slight customization as you can choose different faces for your character.

Cstaf wrote...

HeriocGreyWarden wrote...

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.

Then i think i'll pass.

 

The Witcher 2 gives you more control over Geralt than Mass Effect 3 gives you over Shepard.

Example of dialogue below:

 

Modifié par Elton John is dead, 08 août 2012 - 08:47 .

[deuce985]

It's too hard to say, IMO.

I do know this though, RPG is arguably the most diversified genre in the industry. Because of this, lines are easily blurred on what is actually an RPG. Especially today in gaming. The industry has really shifted towards borrowing "RPG elements" in the majority of games today. Call of Duty's entire online system is built on RPG mechanics. Open world games fill their world in with content by using RPG elements.

It's a genre that has so much depth, everyone is borrowing from it now. So, it's really hard to define a RPG in my eyes.

It's probably one of the only genres where everybody has a different definition to what an RPG actually is. That alone tells you how much variety is in the genre...

This thread just proves it.

Modifié par deuce985, 08 août 2012 - 08:48 .

[Sylvius the Mad]

Elton John is dead wrote...

For me, if an RPG has you mashing buttons in combat, it's an action-RPG but it can either lean to the action side more (Dragon Age 2) or to the traditional RPG side more (The Witcher 2).

Dungeon Siege was widely refered to as an action-RPG when it was released, because there wasn't much to the game aside from wandering along a linear path and killing monsters.  But is also had an extremely laid-back combat system that was often called "click-and-watch", and, frankly, the click wasn't even necessary.

And I loved it.

But I'll agree that an action-RPG does require action combat.  I keep forgetting that DA2 actually had button-mashing on consoles, because it didn't on PC (and if it did I would have immediately disabled it).

Planescape: Torment = Set character.

But not a set personality, which makes all the difference.

[thats1evildude]

You're switching him to a "Ranged" attack mode, correct? If he's left at Default, he might indeed just stand there unless you direct him to attack someone.

[zyntifox]

Elton John is dead wrote...

The Witcher 2 gives you more control over Geralt than Mass Effect 3 gives you over Shepard.

Example of dialogue below:

 

That may be but since i don't consider Mass effect 3 a RPG but a interactive action game, and a good one at that, the bar is pretty low in terms of player control.

[Emloch]

The RPG genre has, no doubt, evolved. Dungeons and Dragons, the pen and paper game, is the grandfather of everything RPG. Eventually this transcended into video games as they became popular. Though they still remained a “niche” market for quite some time, they eventually became a more popular form of video game.
The gaming industry has changed over the years. Technology allows for a more realistic gaming experience and with that comes bigger development budgets. Bigger budgets mean more risk. To offset that risk, developers need to ensure that they get their game in as many hands as possible. Despite being a more popular genre now than years ago, “true” RPGs are still a lesser genre of choice in the gaming world which is why developers seem to be transforming these games into more of an RPG/action hybrid. This is an attempt to cater to the masses and please everyone.

Opinions vary so it is hard to define what an RPG is. However, looking back at the birth of the RPG (D&D pen and paper) you can, at least, form some sort of idea of what a game of this genre should encompass.
Essentially, a role playing game is just what the name of the genre implies; you play the role of (pretend to be) some particular person and behave as they would behave, not as you would. Hence, you become an actor. This translates a little differently to video game RPGs.

In my opinion, there are three criteria which must be met in order for a game to be a true RPG:
-The game should be driven by a great/epic story. You should also have the ability to make choices that have an impact and affect the outcome of the story. Different possible endings/outcome depending on the choices you make.
-You should have full control over the inventory and equipment that your main character and all companions wears and utilizes. I would also prefer no restrictions on who uses what, even if there are penalties or hindrances.
- Freedom of choice to pick skills, feats and abilities for all of your characters as they progress. You should be able to build the character(s) you want to build.

In a nutshell, I think freedom is the key to building an epic RPG. The more freedom you have in an RPG, the more real it feels. The more realistic, the more immersive and engrossing the experience will be. Character creation/customization, extensive conversation options, large open world to explore, companions to venture with and being able to craft/create/modify items are all desirable elements of a an epic RPG.
Armor and weapon restrictions are unrealistic. Anyone can pick up and swing a sword, whether your good at it, is another matter. The more places you can go, the more buildings you can enter, the better. Etc., etc., etc.

What I think would be the ultimate RPG element would be a co-op mode to play with friends. I’m not talking about those D&D “top-down view”, “hack n slash”, “point and click” games or an MMO. What I would love to see is a two or four player RPG with a huge open world to explore together. Almost like a pen and paper D&D campaign turned into a video game very similar in gameplay style to either DA:O or Skyrim.

Modifié par Emloch, 09 août 2012 - 03:49 .

[zyntifox]

Emloch wrote...

The RPG genre has, no doubt, evolved. Dungeons and Dragons, the pen and paper game, is the grandfather of everything RPG. Eventually this transcended into video games as they became popular. Though they still remained a “niche” market for quite some time, they eventually became a more popular form of video game.
The gaming industry has changed over the years. Technology allows for a more realistic gaming experience and with that comes bigger development budgets. Bigger budgets mean more risk. To offset that risk, developers need to ensure that they get their game in as many hands as possible. Despite being a more popular genre now than years ago, “true” RPGs are still a lesser genre of choice in the gaming world which is why developers seem to be transforming these games into more of an RPG/action hybrid. This is an attempt to cater to the masses and please everyone.

Opinions vary so it is hard to define what an RPG is. However, looking back at the birth of the RPG (D&D pen and paper) you can, at least, form some sort of idea of what a game of this genre should encompass.
Essentially, a role playing game is just what the name of the genre implies; you play the role of (pretend to be) some particular person and behave as they would behave, not as you would. Hence, you become an actor. This translates a little differently to video game RPGs.

In my opinion, there are three criteria which must be met in order for a game to be a true RPG:
-The game should be driven by a great/epic story. You should also have the ability to make choices that have an impact and affect the outcome of the story. Different possible endings/outcome depending on the choices you make.
-You should have full control over the inventory and equipment that your main character and all companions wears and utilizes. I would also prefer no restrictions on who uses what, even if there are penalties or hindrances.
- Freedom of choice to pick skills, feats and abilities for all of your characters as they progress. You should be able to build the character(s) you want to build.

In a nutshell, I think freedom is the key to building an epic RPG. The more freedom you have in an RPG, the more real it feels. The more realistic, the more immersive and engrossing the experience will be. Character creation/customization, extensive conversation options, large open world to explore, companions to venture with and being able to craft/create/modify items are all desirable elements of a an epic RPG.
Armor and weapon restrictions are unrealistic. Anyone can pick up and swing a sword, whether your good at it, is another matter. The more places you can go, the more buildings you can enter, the better. Etc., etc., etc.

What I think would be the ultimate RPG element would be a co-op mode to play with friends. I’m not talking about those D&D “top-down view”, “hack n slash”, “point and click” games or an MMO. What I would love to see is a two or four player RPG with a huge open world to explore together. Almost like a pen and paper D&D campaign turned into a video game very similar in gameplay style to either DA:O or Skyrim.

So... Baldur's gate 1 and 2 aren't RPGs? I think whether the story is good/epic/bad/awful won't make a game a RPG. Same thing goes for party inventory. In my view whether a game is a RPG or not is soley down to the games restriction to shape and control the protagonist. I would even argue that The Sims is closer to a RPG than a lot of games made today that is market as a RPG.

Edit: I think the games that pulls this off the best the last couple of years, excluding DA:O, are Skyrim and Kingdom of Amalur. Now, i don't like either of those games due to the combat but i think they leave a lot of room for RP.

Modifié par Cstaf, 09 août 2012 - 04:37 .

[Sylvius the Mad]

EntropicAngel wrote...

I actually recently ran into a very serious problem with this. I started a mage Hawke, and quickly discovered that auto-attack was disabled. So, when enemies magically appear and start shooting bolts or attacking me, Hawke just stands there. He doesn't even attack back.

Now, when I tell him to attack he does, at least until that enemy is dead. Then it goes back to waiting for player input.

I'd say that's how it's supposed to work.  That Hawke keeps attacking the target you've selected is the auto-attack.  Otherwise you'd need to trigger every attack separately (button-mashing).

Or are you saying that Hawke does nothing even if you're directly controlling a different character?

[Emloch]

Cstaf wrote...

Emloch wrote...

The RPG genre has, no doubt, evolved. Dungeons and Dragons, the pen and paper game, is the grandfather of everything RPG. Eventually this transcended into video games as they became popular. Though they still remained a “niche” market for quite some time, they eventually became a more popular form of video game.
The gaming industry has changed over the years. Technology allows for a more realistic gaming experience and with that comes bigger development budgets. Bigger budgets mean more risk. To offset that risk, developers need to ensure that they get their game in as many hands as possible. Despite being a more popular genre now than years ago, “true” RPGs are still a lesser genre of choice in the gaming world which is why developers seem to be transforming these games into more of an RPG/action hybrid. This is an attempt to cater to the masses and please everyone.

Opinions vary so it is hard to define what an RPG is. However, looking back at the birth of the RPG (D&D pen and paper) you can, at least, form some sort of idea of what a game of this genre should encompass.
Essentially, a role playing game is just what the name of the genre implies; you play the role of (pretend to be) some particular person and behave as they would behave, not as you would. Hence, you become an actor. This translates a little differently to video game RPGs.

In my opinion, there are three criteria which must be met in order for a game to be a true RPG:
-The game should be driven by a great/epic story. You should also have the ability to make choices that have an impact and affect the outcome of the story. Different possible endings/outcome depending on the choices you make.
-You should have full control over the inventory and equipment that your main character and all companions wears and utilizes. I would also prefer no restrictions on who uses what, even if there are penalties or hindrances.
- Freedom of choice to pick skills, feats and abilities for all of your characters as they progress. You should be able to build the character(s) you want to build.

In a nutshell, I think freedom is the key to building an epic RPG. The more freedom you have in an RPG, the more real it feels. The more realistic, the more immersive and engrossing the experience will be. Character creation/customization, extensive conversation options, large open world to explore, companions to venture with and being able to craft/create/modify items are all desirable elements of a an epic RPG.
Armor and weapon restrictions are unrealistic. Anyone can pick up and swing a sword, whether your good at it, is another matter. The more places you can go, the more buildings you can enter, the better. Etc., etc., etc.

What I think would be the ultimate RPG element would be a co-op mode to play with friends. I’m not talking about those D&D “top-down view”, “hack n slash”, “point and click” games or an MMO. What I would love to see is a two or four player RPG with a huge open world to explore together. Almost like a pen and paper D&D campaign turned into a video game very similar in gameplay style to either DA:O or Skyrim.

So... Baldur's gate 1 and 2 aren't RPGs? I think whether the story is good/epic/bad/awful won't make a game a RPG. Same thing goes for party inventory. In my view whether a game is a RPG or not is soley down to the games restriction to shape and control the protagonist. I would even argue that The Sims is closer to a RPG than a lot of games made today that is market as a RPG.

Edit: I think the games that pulls this off the best the last couple of years, excluding DA:O, are Skyrim and Kingdom of Amalur. Now, i don't like either of those games due to the combat but i think they leave a lot of room for RP.

My apologies. I should've clarified a little more. I used the words "You should also..." meaning that what followed in the sentence was not criteria but rather desire. I should've ended with "but as long as the story is there, that's all that matters." Yes, I believe that the Baldur's Gate series, as well as Icewind Dale and the like are all true RPG's.

We all have varying definitions of what an RPG is. The best we can do is look to the genre’s origin, the pen and paper games, to best define what it is. You should have control over the character’s evolution and choices (that encompasses what they do, where they go and what tools and equipment they choose to use). There should also be a story or stories to provide direction and purpose. Essentially, you are an actor playing a role in a movie or show.

The Sims is a simulation, not an RPG. There is no story or purpose, merely goals to meet one day at a time. I believe that DA:O is probably the best RPG I’ve ever played. It does so much right with very few issues. It has a fantastic story, provides freedom of choice with your character and companions and does a fantastic job at bringing the NPC’s and your companions to life. They feel like real people. I don’t mind the action oriented combat such as Skyrim and KoA , as long as the story, freedom of choice and character customization is there.

EDIT: Other great RPGs are the WItcher series. Fantastic.

Modifié par Emloch, 09 août 2012 - 05:54 .

[zyntifox]

I am not saying The Sims is a RPG, i am saying that it is closer than a lot of other "RPGs" games because you can play it as a RPG. I haven't played The Sims (only watched the girlfriend played it) but just because there isn't a story or purpose in the game, which i actually think there is, won't stop you from having a story or purpose. In terms of roleplayability BG > DA:O > The Sims > DA2 > Mass Effect. But that's just my opinion.

[Rawgrim]

I am not sure if I would call The Witcher an rpg though. More like an action\\adventure game with some rpg elements in it. You can`t create your own character, after all.

The last "proper" rpg I played was Drakensang (+the sequel). Anything after that has mostly been acion games in disguise,

[gangly369]

SteveGarbage wrote...



For me, in broad terms:
-An RPG must have a good story and memorable characters.
-An RPG must have some form of an experience/leveling mechanic and character stats/skills
-An RPG must have some sort of inventory system that I can manipulate, with items that can alter my character's stats/skills.

100% agree. It's always about the story and characters with me. I never go into a game and actually try and turn that character into me, like some other people do. It just doesn't make sense to me (not that there is anything wrong with people doing that). It's probably why I can't get into the Elder Scroll games; sure the environments are great and everything, but the main story and the maj of the side quests leave a lot to be desired

[Nomen Mendax]

Emloch wrote...

...

You should have control over the character’s evolution and choices (that encompasses what they do, where they go and what tools and equipment they choose to use). There should also be a story or stories to provide direction and purpose. Essentially, you are an actor playing a role in a movie or show.

...

Except that an RPG should allow the actors (players) to improvise. 

The thing that most defines a RPG (to me) is the freedom to make choices (which should affect the game world) and to play the role as I want with the personality that I want.  These are hard to achieve in a computer game and Bioware seems to be losing interest in making this kind of game.  As far as I'm concerned a RPG doesn't necessarily need inventory, or character levels or a particular style of combat (or any combat). 

[wowpwnslol]

There were few games in the last decade that consituted themselves as true RPG's. Often, it were the greedy corporates shoving trash down our throats in order to make money, nothing more. Games were dumbed down for the common multitude and features deemed as "frustrating" for the casual gamer were removed. The RPG genre has been declining in the recent years, that is no secret. I am still holding hopes for a company that has the balls to make a classic RPG that caters to true hardcore gamers, not console ADD 12 year olds armed with mommy's credit card. Sadly, even great companies like Bioware sold themselves out to corporate monsters like EA who are only interested in the bottom line, not the art of creating games like BG2, which will forever be remembered as classics.

[Sylvius the Mad]

EntropicAngel wrote...

No, when I'm controlling someone else he attacks normally.

That's by design.  Characters you are controlling don't do anything without your input.   And that's a good thing - that's the only way to prevent characters from entering combat when you don't want them to do so.  I often select 2 or 3 characters at a time to keep them out of trouble.

The only game I know that had all of the characters act on their own without player input was the original Dungeon Siege, and while I really enjoyed it its combat system was widely derided.

But the Dragon Age games would actually work in the same way, the way you expected, if you could deselect all of the characters.  And the devs even had the means to do that during testing, but they didn't include that feature in the finished game.

[Plaintiff]

Maria Caliban wrote...

Cstaf wrote...

At what point does a RPG turn into another genre?

When marketing says it does.

Fans have this idea that 'genre' is an objective concept, but that's not correct. Modern genres are a product of publishers and store managers that are designed to group together items for a customer. They answer the question 'What shelf should I put this on?' and nothing more.

People who liked the Witcher might like Dues Ex: Human Revolution and might like Fallout: New Vegas because they share some aspects that those customers enjoy.

Academia tends to have their own 'genres' but they're more specialized that what you'll find in any store. Postcolonial literature is a genre, but not one you'll find on the shelf of a Waterstones.

Exactly this. Genre is a subjective concept.