177 réponses à ce sujet

[Megakoresh]

OdanUrr wrote...

What constitutes a personal story again?

Basically a plot which gives reasons to the PC to care personally about things or pursue personal desires. E.g. follow a career, build and defend a family, go on a treasure hunt to gain money for himself that kind of stuff.

DA: O is not a personal story because the goal is something you personally would never pursue. Same with Mass Effect games for example.

If you played Witcher 1 and 2 you've seen the best to this date depiction of personal story. There, the big grand conflicts, the likes of which Origins quests make your own conflicts and the sole purpose for your existence, are occuring around the main character and interfering with his personal goals and mission.

You are ultimately given the feeling like you are living the life in that world instead of exisiting with a singular purpose of saving it.

If in Witcher 2 I had the possibility to sacrifise myself to end some bit turmoil I would have likely done all i could to avoid it. As it stands, however, in Origins I feel no attachment to PC because through the entire game is was made clear to me that the only purpose I exist is to end the Blight.

Modifié par Megakoresh, 23 février 2013 - 10:30 .

[Sacred_Fantasy]

LinksOcarina wrote...
Simply put, it really doesn't matter how you play the game because the intent of the mechanics is still more important in the end, since its what serves as the framework for how you actually play.

Really? So what is the intend of the mechanics enforced by a story being told and cinematic conversation device ? To whom the story is being told and why? Who are you intended to be by the mechanics?  The PC or The player outside the story? Why?  Have you ever think about this questions? Because that's what differentiate between JRPG and WRPG.

And No, the term JRPG and WRPG is not bull****. JRPG is intended to be played by watching while wRPG is intended to be played by journeying. To me, I don't recognize JRPG as RPG. Watching is not equal to playing and not equal to assuming the role of the character in the story. But I have no intention to derail the topic. So back to the topic, why should other peoples' "personal" story matter to player? Why should Hawke's personal story matter to me? As you said Hawke is not me, therefore why should his story be personally matter to me? 

Modifié par Sacred_Fantasy, 23 février 2013 - 10:54 .

[Get Magna Carter]

Megakoresh wrote...

OdanUrr wrote...

What constitutes a personal story again?

Basically a plot which gives reasons to the PC to care personally about things or pursue personal desires. E.g. follow a career, build and defend a family, go on a treasure hunt to gain money for himself that kind of stuff.

DA: O is not a personal story because the goal is something you personally would never pursue. Same with Mass Effect games for example.

...

Are you really saying that if your life and the lives of all your friends and family and your home and possessions were at risk and you had the ability to do something about it (and did not expect someone else to come to the rescue), you wouldn't?

[Dabrikishaw]

Sacred_Fantasy wrote...
And No, the term JRPG and WRPG is not bull****.

They are, sorry to burst your deluded bubble. Those terms are for drawing the battle lines between fandoms and their tastes, it's no different than console warrinf in execution and design.

[Sacred_Fantasy]

Dabrikishaw wrote...

Sacred_Fantasy wrote...
And No, the term JRPG and WRPG is not bull****.

They are, sorry to burst your deluded bubble. Those terms are for drawing the battle lines between fandoms and their tastes, it's no different than console warrinf in execution and design.

I'm sorry if you cannot see the differences. The term is recognized by both wRPG and JRPG developers. BioWare, Bethesda, Square Enix etc acknolwdge this term. jRPG is originated from Japan out of their interest with animate movie. wRPG however, is born from strategy board game, inspired from Pen and Paper roleplaying experience. 

Modifié par Sacred_Fantasy, 23 février 2013 - 11:07 .

[bEVEsthda]

Dabrikishaw wrote...

Sacred_Fantasy wrote...
And No, the term JRPG and WRPG is not bull****.

They are, sorry to burst your deluded bubble. Those terms are for drawing the battle lines between fandoms and their tastes, it's no different than console warrinf in execution and design.

No, it's you who are in blissful ignorance, and therefore easily recognized as not a role-player in wRPG style, because to us the difference is huge and very clear.

[LinksOcarina]

Sacred_Fantasy wrote...

LinksOcarina wrote...
Simply put, it really doesn't matter how you play the game because the intent of the mechanics is stil
l more important in the end, since its what serves as the framework for how you actually play.

Really? So what is the intend of the mechanics enforced by a story being told and cinematic conversation device ? To whom the story is being told and why? Who are you intended to be by the mechanics?  The PC or The player outside the story? Why?  Have you ever think about this questions? Because that's what differentiate between JRPG and WRPG.

And No, the term JRPG and WRPG is not bull****. JRPG is intended to be played by watching while wRPG is intended to be played by journeying. To me, I don't recognize JRPG as RPG. Watching is not equal to playing and not equal to assuming the role of the character in the story. But I have no intention to derail the topic. So back to the topic, why should other peoples' "personal" story matter to player? Why should Hawke's personal story matter to me? As you said Hawke is not me, therefore why should his story be personally matter to me? 

The bolded part is so wrong I kind of want to slam you for being arrogant, but I won't in the end. 

To answer your question though, the intent of the mechanics are used to tell a story. Stories are often narratively linear, and have context within them that can't be changed. The context of the stories can always be manipulated, especially in RPGs, but the plot rarely deviates from its intended outcome, so a lot of the design of such games follows this, from semi-linear questlines, a large supporting cast, and often personal relationships becoming prominant, all of which is done to foster a sense of drama and pacing to tell the story given to you.  

The story is also being told to the audience and the reason why is for enjoyment, simple enough really. Storytelling is always about enjoyment, and having a degree of interactivity is not just something born out of Japan, it has been somethng seen in the U.S for years as well. One of my favorites is Betrayal at Krondor. And as ive said, most of BioWare repitoire follows this "hybridization" of protagonists who are disconnected from the player, but connected via roleplaing to tell a story. Who you are intended to be varies; in Origins it is the Warden, in Dragon Age II it is Hawke, an so on and so forth. Established character or not,  the protagonist is the 

The PC and the player are never one in the same. Mechanically that is sort of the point. When I play as a Warden or Hawke, I am playing as a Warden or Hawke, simple as that. Their personality is shaped by me, so im a director dictating their performance in the story. Your milage for all of this mattering to you, however, is subjective of course. If you don't like the personal stories, or the fashion of games being made, then don't play it. Thats your preference in the end. 

But that doesn't predate context of what something is either, especially if you presume your terminology is correct when at best, its just slang that is meant to be categorizing and demeaning, depending on who you ask. 

Modifié par LinksOcarina, 23 février 2013 - 11:41 .

[Get Magna Carter]

Sacred_Fantasy wrote...

Dabrikishaw wrote...

Sacred_Fantasy wrote...
And No, the term JRPG and WRPG is not bull****.

They are, sorry to burst your deluded bubble. Those terms are for drawing the battle lines between fandoms and their tastes, it's no different than console warrinf in execution and design.

I'm sorry if you cannot see the differences. The term is recognized by both wRPG and JRPG developers. BioWare, Bethesda, Square Enix etc acknolwdge this term. jRPG is originated from Japan out of their interest with animate movie. wRPG however, is born from strategy board game, inspired from Pen and Paper roleplaying experience. 

JRPGs are RPGs created in Japan derived from the PnP game Dungeons and Dragons
WRPGs are RPGs created in Europe and America derived from the PnP game Dungeons and Dragons

other differences are tendencies, not rules

Modifié par Get Magna Carter, 23 février 2013 - 11:56 .

[Sacred_Fantasy]

LinksOcarina wrote...
To answer your question though, the intent of the mechanics are used to tell a story.

Then what is the intent of roleplaying?

LinksOcarina wrote...

Stories are often narratively linear, and have context within them that can't be changed. The context of the stories can always be manipulated, especially in RPGs, but the plot rarely deviates from its intended outcome, so a lot of the design of such games follows this, from semi-linear questlines, a large supporting cast, and often personal relationships becoming prominant, all of which is done to foster a sense of drama and pacing to tell the story given to you.

The story is also being told to the audience and the reason why is for enjoyment, simple enough really. Storytelling is always about enjoyment, and having a degree of interactivity is not just something born out of Japan, it has been somethng seen in the U.S for years as well. One of my favorites is Betrayal at Krondor. And as ive said, most of BioWare repitoire follows this "hybridization" of protagonists who are disconnected from the player, but connected via roleplaing to tell a story.

See? This is where your point of view about the story itself is confined and limited. A story is not about narrative only. It's about experience. A story is a window of life, which you can view from inside the frame or outside the frame. You can narrate a story through any storytelling mechanics or you can experience the story without even  narrating them to anyone. Your day to day life is your story too. Is it mandatory for you to narrate them? Some people do, in the form of personal diary or biography etc.. Some people don't. But stories do not confined themselves within the context of narrative. Story is a journey of life whether it's narrated or not. It's an ongoing process and the outome can and always be changeable. The most important matter is the experience you get from the story, whether as the character in the story or as an unrelated observer outside the story. 

LinksOcarina wrote..

Who you are intended to be varies; in Origins it is the Warden,

Intend by who? You or BioWare?

LinksOcarina wrote..


in Dragon Age II it is Hawke, an so on and so forth.

It's obvious, the intend is solely done by BioWare, where you get to choose between subtle or humorous or agrressive character and nothing else. The entire response and gameplay or ( roleplaying ) is center around this 3 personalities and nothing else. Sure, you can opt to mix and match the three tones but your dominant personality is always determined and guided by BioWare. You can sound agrresive and subtle but you will always be friendly and helpful to other people according to BioWare.   

LinksOcarina wrote..

Established character or not,  the protagonist is the The PC and the player are never one in the same. Mechanically that is sort of the point.

They're not the same. While I can never be the Warden in real life, ( The warden and DAO doesn't exist in real life ), I can be the same person as the Warden in DAO. I am the Warden in DAO. OR I can pretend to be someone else like Amber Cousland, but  I'm still the Warden in the story of DAO. That's the mechanic intend to be played in wRPG's Pen and Paper roleplaying. You play AS the Warden. Not Play WITH the Warden or Hawke or Cloud in jRPG's Final Fantasy. You play your role as the Warden by viewing the world through the warden's eyes and you think and emote the warden's thought and emotions. NOT WATCHING  those moron response played out by BioWare in the form of cinematic experience and OOC's auto dialogue 

LinksOcarina wrote..

When I play as a Warden or Hawke, I am playing as a Warden or Hawke, simple as that.  Their personality is shaped by me, so im a director dictating their performance in the story.

No you are not. You are choosing the personaliy designed by BioWare and watching it play out, simple as that. But yeah, that's make you a director instead of a roleplayer because I don't see any connection bewteen directing a character and pretending to be the character.

LinksOcarina wrote..

Your milage for all of this mattering to you, however, is subjective of course. If you don't like the personal stories, or the fashion of games being made, then don't play it. Thats your preference in the end. 

But that doesn't predate context of what something is either, especially if you presume your terminology is correct when at best, its just slang that is meant to be categorizing and demeaning, depending on who you ask.

You do not answer my question. So I asked again, Why should other people personal story matter to player? If Hawke is not me or my created character, then why should Hawke's personal story matter to me?  

Modifié par Sacred_Fantasy, 24 février 2013 - 12:36 .

[Sacred_Fantasy]

Get Magna Carter wrote...

Sacred_Fantasy wrote...

Dabrikishaw wrote...

Sacred_Fantasy wrote...
And No, the term JRPG and WRPG is not bull****.

They are, sorry to burst your deluded bubble. Those terms are for drawing the battle lines between fandoms and their tastes, it's no different than console warrinf in execution and design.

I'm sorry if you cannot see the differences. The term is recognized by both wRPG and JRPG developers. BioWare, Bethesda, Square Enix etc acknolwdge this term. jRPG is originated from Japan out of their interest with animate movie. wRPG however, is born from strategy board game, inspired from Pen and Paper roleplaying experience. 

JRPGs are RPGs created in Japan derived from the PnP game Dungeons and Dragons

 PnP game Dungeons and Dragons has never been popular in Japan. It's animated movie they're interested with. Heck, they can't even tell the difference between playing the character by internal or by external. 

[LinksOcarina]

Sacred_Fantasy wrote...
snip...

All of the above is predicated on the first question you ased, which has no answer to it. The intent of roleplaying is as vague as what an RPG is. I am playing video games like Dragon Age how I play tabletop games, enjoying a storyline thats being told to me, and rolling with the punches as they go, along with manipulating events through my own actions. There is no difference between being the director vs the actor in this case; because in both contexts its the same thing. 

As to the question of why should it matter, as I said it depends on the player, like everything else. If you don't see it mattering, then thats your choice in the end. If I see/ it mattering, its my choice in the end. It is what I look for vs what you look for. BioWare provides what I look for, why does it make that perception invalid then in a medium that has many definitions. By what you look for Dragon Age II is not a good game. But what you look for is not universal or even the correct way of doing things, and frankly I am sick of people imposing definitions based on opinions. 

Modifié par LinksOcarina, 24 février 2013 - 12:51 .

[LinksOcarina]

Sacred_Fantasy wrote...

Get Magna Carter wrote...

Sacred_Fantasy wrote...

Dabrikishaw wrote...

Sacred_Fantasy wrote...
And No, the term JRPG and WRPG is not bull****.

They are, sorry to burst your deluded bubble. Those terms are for drawing the battle lines between fandoms and their tastes, it's no different than console warrinf in execution and design.

I'm sorry if you cannot see the differences. The term is recognized by both wRPG and JRPG developers. BioWare, Bethesda, Square Enix etc acknolwdge this term. jRPG is originated from Japan out of their interest with animate movie. wRPG however, is born from strategy board game, inspired from Pen and Paper roleplaying experience. 

JRPGs are RPGs created in Japan derived from the PnP game Dungeons and Dragons

 PnP game Dungeons and Dragons has never been popular in Japan. It's animated movie they're interested with. Heck, they can't even tell the difference between playing the character by internal or by external. 

Look up The Black Onyx and Wizardry, which are widely popular in Japan. And look up the name Yuji Horii, the guy who made the first Light RPGs for consoles over the PC. 

[Sacred_Fantasy]

LinksOcarina wrote...

Sacred_Fantasy wrote...
snip...

All of the above is predicated on the first question you ased, which has no answer to it. The intent of roleplaying is as vague as what an RPG is. I am playing video games like Dragon Age how I play tabletop games, enjoying a storyline thats being told to me, and rolling with the punches as they go, along with manipulating events through my own actions. There is no difference between being the director vs the actor in this case; because in both contexts its the same thing.

Do the Game Masters tell you to sit down and enjoy while he tell you the story or do they let you create your own character and  let you play your own story by choosing your own path provided by the Game Master? Because the experience of a story being told as a passive audience is not equal to the experience of journeying a story as an active roleplayer. One story is designed for you to be passive audience while the other one design you be the active gamer.

LinksOcarina wrote...

As to the question of why should it matter, as I said it depends on the player, like everything else. If you don't see it mattering, then thats your choice in the end. If I see/ it mattering, its my choice in the end. It is what I look for vs what you look for. BioWare provides what I look for, why does it make that perception invalid then in a medium that has many definitions. By what you look for Dragon Age II is not a good game. But what you look for is not universal or even the correct way of doing things, and frankly I am sick of people imposing definitions based on opinions. 

Because without any proper definition and guideline, people like the Japanese developer can and will continue to say that watching is equal to roleplaying. As the result, like you said roleplaying will always remain vague, when the concept is really simple. It's either you assume the role of fictional character ( whether your own creation or preset character ), or Not. Directing a character is not equal to roleplaying. I can direct Pac Man or Super Mario, but it doesn't mean I'm roleplayin as Pac Man or Super Mario. They have their story too. 

[Sacred_Fantasy]

LinksOcarina wrote...
Look up The Black Onyx and Wizardry, which are widely popular in Japan. And look up the name Yuji Horii, the guy who made the first Light RPGs for consoles over the PC.

From the guy who share the same mindset with this guys?

It is not uncommon for Western RPGs to be called "crap games" by players in Japan,[53] where the vast majority of console role-playing video games originate,[102] and where Western RPGs remain largely unknown.[103] The developer Motomu Toriyama also criticized Western RPGs, stating that they "dump you in a big open world, and let you do whatever you like [which makes it] difficult to tell a compelling story."[104] Hironobu Sakaguchi noted that "users like to categorise" Western RPGs as "a sort of different style, born from first person shooters."[70]

http://en.wikipedia....ying_video_game
Yeah sure. Rolled eyes.

Modifié par Sacred_Fantasy, 24 février 2013 - 01:24 .

[Megakoresh]

Get Magna Carter wrote...
Are you really saying that if your life and the lives of all your friends and family and your home and possessions were at risk and you had the ability to do something about it (and did not expect someone else to come to the rescue), you wouldn't?

In a game? Nah not really, the cliche conflicts never have an authentic feeling. And in Origins the PC doesn't have any family or friends or whatever, Origins quest made sure it was so. You could say that your companions are such, but given that they are there again with this same reason you are, you do not really see the life past the point of compeltion for any of them, so why should you care?

An exception is probably Alistair and Morrigan. Those had the feeling that they are meant to keep going and have other important things in their life from the very start, which it turns out they do, especially Morrigan. But exceptions only strengthen the rule. And in the end it's PC we are talking about here. Again, play Witcher games, there is no better argument than that.

Modifié par Megakoresh, 24 février 2013 - 08:59 .

[bEVEsthda]

Sacred_Fantasy wrote...

LinksOcarina wrote...

As to the question of why should it matter, as I said it depends on the player, like everything else. If you don't see it mattering, then thats your choice in the end. If I see/ it mattering, its my choice in the end. It is what I look for vs what you look for. BioWare provides what I look for, why does it make that perception invalid then in a medium that has many definitions. By what you look for Dragon Age II is not a good game. But what you look for is not universal or even the correct way of doing things, and frankly I am sick of people imposing definitions based on opinions. 

Because without any proper definition and guideline, people like the Japanese developer can and will continue to say that watching is equal to roleplaying. As the result, like you said roleplaying will always remain vague, when the concept is really simple. It's either you assume the role of fictional character ( whether your own creation or preset character ), or Not. Directing a character is not equal to roleplaying. I can direct Pac Man or Super Mario, but it doesn't mean I'm roleplayin as Pac Man or Super Mario. They have their story too. 

QFT
Thankyou for fighting this battle. I've recently started to suspect that we actually must. That otherwise, developers, grown up on consoles and FF, will try to transform their market to their convenient formula. There is a clash for gamers' perceptions and habits.  All of this confusion would never have happened if Square Enix had just called their game "movie-game" instead of "RPG".

That one way or the other, to play the game, a wRPG, is not more correct than the other, is just rhetoric. It doesn't matter if it's true. What matters is that a jRPG can't be played wRPG-style. And this is an as big disaster for wRPG players as it would be for Sub-sim players to be offered a console platformer instead.
So I think we must take on this battle.

Modifié par bEVEsthda, 24 février 2013 - 09:54 .

[Megakoresh]

bEVEsthda wrote...
That one way or the other, to play the game, a wRPG, is not more correct than the other, is just rhetoric. It doesn't matter if it's true. What matters is that a jRPG can't be played wRPG-style. And this is an as big disaster for wRPG players as it would be for Sub-sim players to be offered a console platformer instead.
So I think we must take on this battle.

I think DA2 actually suffered from being too jRPG-ish. There was little room to maneuvre, not enough choice and interaction or involvement with personal lives of yourself and charcaters. For instance in Origins you actually had to talk to them in camp, you could talk to them at any time on a huge number of topics. This created a real bond, attachment to the characters. Much more so than DA2 "ZeVarriBella wanted to talk to you at XYZ because you completeled quest 'Wipe your ass without toilet paper.template'" appearing in your journal after a seccessful ass-wipe quest.

Modifié par Megakoresh, 24 février 2013 - 10:13 .

[Get Magna Carter]

Megakoresh wrote...

Get Magna Carter wrote...
Are you really saying that if your life and the lives of all your friends and family and your home and possessions were at risk and you had the ability to do something about it (and did not expect someone else to come to the rescue), you wouldn't?

In a game? Nah not really, the cliche conflicts never have an authentic feeling. And in Origins the PC doesn't have any family or friends or whatever, Origins quest made sure it was so. You could say that your companions are such, but given that they are there again with this same reason you are, you do not really see the life past the point of compeltion for any of them, so why should you care?

An exception is probably Alistair and Morrigan. Those had the feeling that they are meant to keep going and have other important things in their life from the very start, which it turns out they do, especially Morrigan. But exceptions only strengthen the rule. And in the end it's PC we are talking about here. Again, play Witcher games, there is no better argument than that.

1) do you mean the conflict seems unrealistic (and you meet elves, demons and wizards in real life)?
2) the human noble still has a brother, the city elf has a father and cousins, the dalish elf has a clan, the dwarf noble has a servant, etc.
3) as I stated in an earlier post the witcher is a "lone hero" type of game which is very different to the "team leader" variety of game which Bioware makes.  A "lone hero" game can focus on that hero, but a "team leader" game can't

[Get Magna Carter]

Sacred_Fantasy wrote...

Get Magna Carter wrote...

Sacred_Fantasy wrote...

Dabrikishaw wrote...

Sacred_Fantasy wrote...
And No, the term JRPG and WRPG is not bull****.

They are, sorry to burst your deluded bubble. Those terms are for drawing the battle lines between fandoms and their tastes, it's no different than console warrinf in execution and design.

I'm sorry if you cannot see the differences. The term is recognized by both wRPG and JRPG developers. BioWare, Bethesda, Square Enix etc acknolwdge this term. jRPG is originated from Japan out of their interest with animate movie. wRPG however, is born from strategy board game, inspired from Pen and Paper roleplaying experience. 

JRPGs are RPGs created in Japan derived from the PnP game Dungeons and Dragons

 PnP game Dungeons and Dragons has never been popular in Japan. It's animated movie they're interested with. Heck, they can't even tell the difference between playing the character by internal or by external. 

This is off-topic and should be discussed in a seperate thread preferably by people who (unlike you) have some knowledge of the topic discussing the different approach Japanese tend to take to PnP RPGs and how the first game in the Final Fantasy series was a blatant Dungeons and Dragons rip-off.

[Megakoresh]

Get Magna Carter wrote...
1) do you mean the conflict seems unrealistic (and you meet elves, demons and wizards in real life)?
2) the human noble still has a brother, the city elf has a father and cousins, the dalish elf has a clan, the dwarf noble has a servant, etc.
3) as I stated in an earlier post the witcher is a "lone hero" type of game which is very different to the "team leader" variety of game which Bioware makes.  A "lone hero" game can focus on that hero, but a "team leader" game can't

1) Cliche is not the same as unrealistic.
2) And there is like 1 or 2 dialogues with them through the entire game and barely any mention anywhere
3) I think DA2 went in the right direction when it tried to blend lone hero story and team leader one.

Also I have to ask what does "focus on the hero" have to do with anything? Fas as I know I was talking about the goals and conflicts. Hero or team, you can have the conflict be personal or have it be the "3Bs"(Big Bad Black thing).

The story I love the most is one in which the main character has a personal goal and at the same time is being dragged into the 3Bs and has to manage to two somehow making choices between these, with one affecting the other and so on. Nobody says that no team leader can have personal goals.

For example the ideal DA3 for me would be where you play as someone very important, tasked by duty to solve some big problem. But you also have troubles with family, or an estate or a personal enemy (like Howe, but active) that you need to deal with. And then when you recruit people you are expected to get involved in their personal lives too and help them, otherwise why would they help you deal with your own crap, right?

I certainly don't want Elder Scrolls type of "Here is world, go do ****." story, but neither do I want "Here is this Big Bad Black horde of ugly and smelly thugs and you are apprently the only one in the country who isn't a complete pacifist so solve it all and we'll make sure you have nothing else to worry about".

I already told you: I don't feel like I am living in the world if I exist with one purpose. I feel like I am just on a mission. An interesting, long mission with lots characters and stuff, but still. It's how I feel in a shooter, when i need to go from A to B and that's all I am there for. I want an RPG like DA to feel different than that.

Notice also how there is never an aftergame in any DA games. That's also contributing to the point.

[LinksOcarina]

bEVEsthda wrote...

Sacred_Fantasy wrote...

LinksOcarina wrote...

As to the question of why should it matter, as I said it depends on the player, like everything else. If you don't see it mattering, then thats your choice in the end. If I see/ it mattering, its my choice in the end. It is what I look for vs what you look for. BioWare provides what I look for, why does it make that perception invalid then in a medium that has many definitions. By what you look for Dragon Age II is not a good game. But what you look for is not universal or even the correct way of doing things, and frankly I am sick of people imposing definitions based on opinions. 

Because without any proper definition and guideline, people like the Japanese developer can and will continue to say that watching is equal to roleplaying. As the result, like you said roleplaying will always remain vague, when the concept is really simple. It's either you assume the role of fictional character ( whether your own creation or preset character ), or Not. Directing a character is not equal to roleplaying. I can direct Pac Man or Super Mario, but it doesn't mean I'm roleplayin as Pac Man or Super Mario. They have their story too. 

QFT
Thankyou for fighting this battle. I've recently started to suspect that we actually must. That otherwise, developers, grown up on consoles and FF, will try to transform their market to their convenient formula. There is a clash for gamers' perceptions and habits.  All of this confusion would never have happened if Square Enix had just called their game "movie-game" instead of "RPG".

That one way or the other, to play the game, a wRPG, is not more correct than the other, is just rhetoric. It doesn't matter if it's true. What matters is that a jRPG can't be played wRPG-style. And this is an as big disaster for wRPG players as it would be for Sub-sim players to be offered a console platformer instead.
So I think we must take on this battle.

 You are fighting a war that doesn't exist by taking up this cause.

Roleplaying is not just playing in a role, for example. Its also steeped in mechanics of the role, power gaming as they say. Same with tactical games and dungeon crawls, which are not about roleplaying but troop and resource management and big battle fighting for greater rewards. Team interaction is a big one now too, co-op games like Borderlands 2 and Dead Island are blurring the lines further, becoming role-playing games in different set pieces and rules that are tailor made for team efforts. Keep in mind these  are RPG definitions i'm ok with because they define mechanics vs country of origin like the other two terms. JRPG and WRPG are too vague because the genres do mix a lot, as BioWare has shown in the past ten decades.

Not to menton we have more sub-classifications going on that are important to discuss, but thats hot air at this point. Really though, the only rhetoric that is being expouted it what you keep saying. You are citing your preference over another style in the same subgenre. Nothing wrong with that. But to dimiss a different genre entirely, well, thats arrogance only pure grognards would hold. What matters, in the end, is the mileage the player has with the given style of the game. If you dont like the story driven style, don't play the ****ing game, versus demeaning an entire genre with a non-existant standard. 

Modifié par LinksOcarina, 24 février 2013 - 09:40 .

[bEVEsthda]

LinksOcarina wrote...

You are fighting a war that doesn't exist by taking up this cause.

Roleplaying is not just playing in a role, for example. Its also steeped in mechanics of the role, power gaming as they say. Same with tactical games and dungeon crawls, which are not about roleplaying but troop and resource management and big battle fighting for greater rewards. Team interaction is a big one now too, co-op games like Borderlands 2 and Dead Island are blurring the lines further, becoming role-playing games in different set pieces and rules that are tailor made for team efforts. Keep in mind these  are RPG definitions i'm ok with because they define mechanics vs country of origin like the other two terms. JRPG and WRPG are too vague because the genres do mix a lot, as BioWare has shown in the past ten decades.

Not to menton we have more sub-classifications going on that are important to discuss, but thats hot air at this point. Really though, the only rhetoric that is being expouted it what you keep saying. You are citing your preference over another style in the same subgenre. Nothing wrong with that. But to dimiss a different genre entirely, well, thats arrogance only pure grognards would hold. What matters, in the end, is the mileage the player has with the given style of the game. If you dont like the story driven style, don't play the ****ing game, versus demeaning an entire genre with a non-existant standard. 

The war doesn't exist to you. Since likely there is not much difference for you. I've progressively become more and more convinced, that people who play jRPGs don't see the difference. And the battle, just to make things clear, is very much about that there really is a difference! You deny this. And Bioware, these days, often seem too.

I do not have much preferences for whatever mechanics of management and fighting. Those are not important. It's just fluff. To me, combat exists only to put dread and obstacles into the experience. The world is the limit on how an RPG can implement those things, as far as I'm concerned. And on the other side: Resolving combat in a way akin to, or derived from D&D, doesn't make a wRPG. Handling powerups in a way akin to, or derived from D&D leveling, doesn't make a wRPG.

I do not care about the country of origin. That's not what wRPG or jRPG terms is about for me. It's about what kind of genre the game belongs to. Otherwise the terms would be meaningless. Certainly, wRPGs could be made in Japan. Certainly, jRPGs have been made in the west. 

I do not "dismiss" jRPGs entirely, as you put it. I dismiss that I have any interest in that genre, in its pure form. It has to be substantially diluted by wRPG'ness, as in player defined&controlled  character personality.

There is nothing that mix, about allowing the player define and roleplay the character, and showing you a movie with a predefined character talking and acting on his own.

I like story driven games. Story driven wRPGs. Like BG, IWD, KotOR, DA:O. Why would I else be here?

The standard doesn't exist to you, maybe. Does the rainbow not exist, just because a blind man can't hear it?

Modifié par bEVEsthda, 24 février 2013 - 10:29 .

[AstraDrakkar]

I think you should create your personal story BY saving the world.

[Stokie Stallion]

I play the games has me.. if i come to a choice and i dont know how it will affect the game/story i just think.. what would i do, so getting to know characters and npc's morals etc means alot to me. i'll side with the ones i care about etc. in DA2 i like the templars uphold the law etc but ifelt for the mages so i sided with them, has for romances its who id more likely want to be with the quiet elf or the off her ****** pirate, easy choice lmao. so for me its personal story and its nice to complete the story with my choices and think yeah i did that

[Wulfram]

I think the best truly "personal stories" I've seen from Bioware are actually a couple of the class stories in SW:tOR, even if they're a bit submerged in the MMO grind.

Sith Inquisitor is a solid attempt at the whole rise to power thing that the marketing said DA2 was about. I wouldn't call it especially deep, but it does keep the focus on the PC and is a lot of fun.

Imperial Agent asks a lot of questions about things like loyalty, and is actually quite reactive to your choices.

They're both arguably more preset characters than most Bioware RPGs have, but there's still a lot of ground to put your own spin on things. And they could probably both do with a "Screw the Empire" option that isn't available in a MMO but should be possible in a single player game.

(The Smuggler story might also be considered fairly personal, but I didn't really like it. Jedi stories aren't very personal, but still pretty OK.)