101 réponses à ce sujet

[TheJediSaint]

EntropicAngel wrote...

Thanks, Urgon.

J. Reezy wrote...

To play a role goes beyond who you are as a person imo. I figured it naturally encompasses what you can and can't do.

By that definition, anything is an RPG. Anything.

To be fair, RPGs have always been difficult to define.

[Urgon]

It's more that the term RPG means diffirent things to diffirent persons.
EntropicAngels definition is not the same with someone who comes for a P&P backround and grew up with dungeon crawlers on PC, or with someone who plays only JRPGs, or someone who his first game was Fallout 1.

[TheJediSaint]

Urgon wrote...

It's more that the term RPG means diffirent things to diffirent persons.
EntropicAngels definition is not the same with someone who comes for a P&P backround and grew up with dungeon crawlers on PC, or with someone who plays only JRPGs, or someone who his first game was Fallout 1.

Which means either that RPG have a broad definition, or their definition is a moving target (IE, the definition changes with context).

[Urgon]

EntropicAngel wrote...

Urgon wrote...

It's more that the term RPG means diffirent things to diffirent persons.
EntropicAngels
definition is not the same with someone who comes for a P&P
backround and grew up with dungeon crawlers on PC, or with someone who
plays only JRPGs, or someone who his first game was Fallout 1.

I
should point out that I have made a concession (not a new one). I
personally don't view quote unquote "RPG combat" as having anything to
do with role-playing, with character defining, but I'm willing to
concede it as a type of RPG--I call them Combat RPGs. True RPGs I call
Character RPGs.

I have done similar discussions in other forums. People categorize RPGs as combat RPGs, character RPGs, action RPGs etc.. Codex for example considers "True RPGs", the games where the focus is on Choices&Consequenses. That has overlap with character RPGs, but not 100%.

Modifié par Urgon, 30 mars 2013 - 05:45 .

[Sylvius the Mad]

Urgon wrote...

I have done similar discussions in other forums. People categorize RPGs as combat RPGs, character RPGs, action RPGs etc.. Codex for example considers "True RPGs", the games where the focus is on Choices&Consequenses. That has overlap with character RPGs, but not 100%.

I dispute that any game that lacks character control can offer choices.  After all, how can you make choices on behalf of a character if you do not know all the details of that character's personality?  By what mechanism are those choices made?

As such, I would describe the choice&consequence RPGs as a subset of the character RPGs.  You can't have choice without character.

[Urgon]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Urgon wrote...

I have done similar discussions in other forums. People categorize RPGs as combat RPGs, character RPGs, action RPGs etc.. Codex for example considers "True RPGs", the games where the focus is on Choices&Consequenses. That has overlap with character RPGs, but not 100%.

I dispute that any game that lacks character control can offer choices.  After all, how can you make choices on behalf of a character if you do not know all the details of that character's personality?  By what mechanism are those choices made?

As such, I would describe the choice&consequence RPGs as a subset of the character RPGs.  You can't have choice without character.

Not sure i understand. Can you give some examples of what you mean?

[Urgon]

EntropicAngel wrote...

I think he means this:

To actually MAKE a choice, you must know the character. You must be able to form the character.

And that last sentence is the definition of a character RPG (more or less).

I understood that and i agree completelly IF he means what i think he means. . I was asking for examples from games that did that good in his opinion, and more importandly games that didn't allow him to form the character. Or is simply about a
pre-set protagonist?

Modifié par Urgon, 30 mars 2013 - 08:50 .

[The Hierophant]

EntropicAngel wrote...

J. Reezy wrote...

I should've responded to this sooner, I had something more to clarify what I meant but I've almost forgotten it. I believe what I wanted to add to this was that player-defined decisions of what a character is capable of would make something an RPG. To use Assassin's Creed as an example, the player has no choice in the role that the main character is thrust into and the skills that fit that role. The MC is always an assassin, his role and skills are already defined within that world, with no input from the player. Of course, then there is the lack of being able to define how the main character is as a person, how he feels about this or that. My first response was not omitting it, I just figured there was more to an RPG than just that.

That's not very good reasoning (don't take offense, none is intended). By the same token, Hawke is thrust quite effectively into his role, as a refugee then as the Champion. The player has no control over that. Same as in KotOR, you have no control over (SPOILERS SPOILERS SPOILERS) being Revan.

Same as you have no control over the exile being the exile (KotOR II). Same as you have no control over Mike Thornton being a field agent (Alpha Protocol).

Now, in every one of those games--Assassin's Creed included, by the way--you have control over how your character approaches combat (up the page). So then, why isn't AC considered an RPG?

Both of the underlined comments highlight that you either misread the golden words or are being obtuse on purpose. The sentences in gold are what J. Reezy believes discounts AC as an RPG, and further defines his view on the requirements of what makes an RPG beyond your views. His last sentence even clarifies his stance on your view which is highlighted in blue.

Modifié par The Hierophant, 01 avril 2013 - 05:45 .

[The Hierophant]

EntropicAngel wrote...

I would argue that the "role" the main character "is thrust into" is not related to their combat choices, but to their role in the story. And that's almost always fixed.

You're definitely right on the second one, the lack of skill progression.

And as for the final point you bring up (the blue), there are plenty of so-called "RPGs" where you don't define how your character feels. Like say, the Final Fantasy series.

Good points but i'm meh on trying to define what an RPG is at this point in time as there's been so many subgenres, deviations, mutations since the days when live action roleplaying were popular, DnD dropped around 40 years ago, and Final Fantasy, Dragon Quest, GURPS & NetHack were released in the mid to late 80s etc. It's like looking at the whole roster of Olympic sports and trying to find concrete similarities between them.

There needs to be an official 7 person council consisting of 3 non conformist old farts, 3 youngling newbies, and 1 person who's mostly a moderate to judge what are RPG requirements. 

Modifié par The Hierophant, 02 avril 2013 - 06:33 .

[Gibb_Shepard]

EntropicAngel wrote...

J. Reezy wrote...

I should've responded to this sooner, I had something more to clarify what I meant but I've almost forgotten it. I believe what I wanted to add to this was that player-defined decisions of what a character is capable of would make something an RPG. To use Assassin's Creed as an example, the player has no choice in the role that the main character is thrust into and the skills that fit that role. The MC is always an assassin, his role and skills are already defined within that world, with no input from the player. Of course, then there is the lack of being able to define how the main character is as a person, how he feels about this or that. My first response was not omitting it, I just figured there was more to an RPG than just that.

That's not very good reasoning (don't take offense, none is intended). By the same token, Hawke is thrust quite effectively into his role, as a refugee then as the Champion. The player has no control over that. Same as in KotOR, you have no control over (SPOILERS SPOILERS SPOILERS) being Revan.

Same as you have no control over the exile being the exile (KotOR II). Same as you have no control over Mike Thornton being a field agent (Alpha Protocol).

Now, in every one of those games--Assassin's Creed included, by the way--you have control over how your character approaches combat (up the page). So then, why isn't AC considered an RPG?

Because you have absolutely no choice on molding the character you're playing in Assassin's Creed. So it's not an RPG.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Urgon wrote...

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Urgon wrote...

I have done similar discussions in other forums. People categorize RPGs as combat RPGs, character RPGs, action RPGs etc.. Codex for example considers "True RPGs", the games where the focus is on Choices&Consequenses. That has overlap with character RPGs, but not 100%.

I dispute that any game that lacks character control can offer choices.  After all, how can you make choices on behalf of a character if you do not know all the details of that character's personality?  By what mechanism are those choices made?

As such, I would describe the choice&consequence RPGs as a subset of the character RPGs.  You can't have choice without character.

Not sure i understand. Can you give some examples of what you mean?

Sure.

So far, the voiced protagonist games serve as excellent examples of characters whose personalities I am unable to control, but since the voice itself is contentious let's not muddy the issue.  I'll deal strictly with silent protagonist games.

As Entropic Angel mentions, KotOR2 is clearly a game in which the player does not know the PC's personality well enough to make decisions on his behalf.  The Exile has past experiences - experiences he appears to remember - which are relevant to what's going on around him, but the player is unaware of those experiences.  The player does not know the Exile's past, but the Exile's past is clearly relevant.  How, then, can the player make the Exile's choices?  The player cannot know the Exile's state of mind, as the player lacks the Exile's point-of-view.  The Exile's experiences shape his interpretation of events, and his interpretation of events informs his decision-making.  We need those details every step of the way in order to keep the chain of reasoning going, and in KotOR2 we simply don't have it.

Entripic Angel also mentions that I think KotOR allows the player tremendous control over the PC's personality, but, again, since this is contentious for some fairly obvious reasons, I'm instead going to offer the NWN OC as an example of strong player control.  There are other games that also work to varying degrees - DAO works brilliantly if you don't play a City Elf (and ignore the Warden's facial expressions during cinematics) - but the NWN OC is a strong example in all aspects of this issue.

Why is the PC enrolled in the Neverwinter Academy?  This is a basic question, and the answer informs most other decisions the PC will make early in the game.  What are his feelings toward the school?  Or his classmates?  Or his instructors?  Or the City of Neverwinter?  In order for the player to make the PC's decisions on any issue associated with these entities, he needs to know what his character's opinion of these entities.  Without knowing that, the player might choose an option that is incompatible with the sum total of his character's past experiences.

The effect of this is that the character might be left in a situation where none of the available options suit him, or where he does something that is incompatible with the player's understanding of his previous motives.

Let's try it with other games.  Why is the KotOR PC on the Endar Spire?  Again, we're asking this question from the PC's perspective - the truth isn't relevant.  The player can choose literally any reason for the PC to be on the Endar Spire, and the game never tells him he's wrong.  But in KotOR2, why is the Exile on the Ebon Hawke?  The player is not free to answer that question as he sees fit, because the Exile has pre-written past experiences of which the player is unaware, and thus the player cannot know whether the justifications he invents will be retroactively undone by the PC's backstory.

[Sylvius the Mad]

simfamSP wrote...

This rubs me the wrong way Sylvius. What exactly are you saying here?

If a game were to present us with a single personality, and we would make choices based on that personality, wouldn't those options be pointless because the others were, afterall, breaking character?

If the game did present the player with a single personality for the PC, and that personality was so detailed as to leave no room at all for interpretation, and the options presented throughout the game were completely unambiguous in their implications vis-a-vis that personality, then yes, those other options would be pointless.  They may as well not exist at all.

You've just described a book or movie.

I suggest, however, that the player should be able to define the character as he sees fit, and do so with sufficient detail that those choices offered during the game do largely become trivial, where some of the available options are then character-breaking (and thus I presume the player would not select them).  But, a different player would define his character differently, thus producing a different viable path through the game.

Imagine playing two characters simultaneously (in separate playthroughs).  In the beginning, the choices they have would be identical, but their interpretation of their options would differ, and their choices were differ.  As the game progressed, those two playthroughs would resemble each other less and less, but within each the options presented to the PC would be largely as you describe - with only one vialble path.  But the two characters' paths might differ greatly.

[dreamgazer]

Glad to see Nocturne made the cut. (thumbs up)

It's a shame that New Vegas got a bad rep around its release due to the bugs, because it's really a hell of an RPG that truly rewards and punishes for decisions made. And it has one of my favorite DLCs ever produced, too: Old World Blues.

All I can do is nod in agreement at the rest of the choices, which are mostly what I'd expect from RPG Codex.

[Urgon]

I found a quote from Obsidian's designer Josh Saywer from an old interview he mada at the codex.

"1. What's your definition of RPG? What features are important to you and why?

I think the ability to make personality choices through my character that influence the outcome of things in the world is the only requirement for a game to be an RPG.

I don't think that the character I play needs to be one invented by me, but I have to be in control of aspects of that character's personality. And the way in which I choose to express that character's personality needs to have significant effects on the state of the world. The more the world reacts to my character's personality, the better.

I do not think that item collection, stat screens, combat style, or the presence of a lot of dialogue make a game an RPG. Using this definition, I've never shipped a game with strong RPG elements."
http://www.rpgcodex....tent.php?id=127