289 réponses à ce sujet

[ArcaneJTM]

Plaintiff wrote...

ArcaneJTM wrote...
Funny, considering the entire premise of the last part of the prologue and the whole of act 1 is that it does.

Only because the family has the privilege of being human. If they were elves or dwarves, they would have no claim to the Amell estate in the first place, and no amount of money would help them get it.

The whole reason the Hawke family goes to Kirkwall in the first place is because they believe they have family and a comfortable home there. Even if there were any dwarves or elves living in Lothering, they'd have gone somewhere else, maybe Orzammar, or Denerim.

Not necessarilly.  Perhaps the family are servents, or wealthy merchants, or living in the alienage or any number of things really.  Plus, there's always the idea that Hawke was simply adopted as a child.  That one pretty much leaves the rest completely intact, which is why I bring it up. 

Point is, there are thousands of ways that alternate races of Hawke could be added that would have zero negative impact on the overall plot.  Frankly the whole apostate mage thing causes more problems than being a dwarf or an elf would.  Especially after Meridith hits her "really, really paranoid" phase.

By the way, there were in fact at least one family of elves living in Lothering, or nearby at least.  They got robbed by bandits as they were fleeing the darkspawn from the south.  I believe there's an elf in the circle mage origin that mentions he's from Lothering as well.

Hey, you're the one that brought it up.  I'm just pointing out that it's not as disasterous as you make it out to be.

By the way, even living legends have to obey the law.  People aren't going to just let you walk around stealing everything that isn't nailed down just because your "special".  Besides, it makes the gameplay better if there are, you know, consequences for breaking the law.

Then they mustn't realize that the world is going to be destroyed. Shouldn't that take precedence?

If he's robbing you blind, he's not saving the world now, is he? 

Shartan was before the exhalted march on the Dales, which had far more influence on present attitudes towards elves.  And Garahel was a Grey Warden. (who ended the fourth blight, fyi)  Grey Warden tends to trump everything else.

The chantry isn't exactly enthusiastic at the idea of giveing mages the chance to perform an exceptional service either you know.

First, fourth, whatever. I knew it started with an F.

The Chantry has accepted bribes in exchange for granting certain freedoms to high-born mages, though.

No reason to assume that a wealthy elf or dwarf wouldn't be able to grease some palms.  The elves just tend to excel at poverty, so you don't see many wealthy ones.  Also, the sword on his back might make people a little less inclined to make a big deal about his ears while he's giving them money.  Just a thought.

Modifié par ArcaneJTM, 15 mai 2013 - 05:36 .

[Volus Warlord]

EntropicAngel wrote...

You're saying the opinions of humanity define reality. I disagree with that sentiment. Whether or not people agree with it, it DOES have a solid definition. Mine may be wrong, but if it's wrong, it's DEFINITELY wrong--me thinking mine is right doesn't change that one bit.

In some circumstances, you'd be right.

However, with the purely artificial and imiginary nature of an RPG, perception is reality. It is NOT like someone saying "I think that mountain is an ocean! Therefore, it must be an ocean."  It's more along the lines of someone saying "I think movie X is horrible." What makes them define it that way? WHO THE HELL KNOWS? Likewise, if someone makes a game and says "This game is an RPG" that makes it an RPG. 

[UnderlAlDyingSun]

I gotta say, I kinda agree with the OP. No wait, not kinda I do.

[MerinTB]

EntropicAngel wrote...
And, I never said a roleplaying game must allow you to create a new character, I just said that it requires that you be able to define the character--and by define, I don't mean "elf or dwarf, mage or warrior." Geralt is pre-defined. Further, Geralt's character is pre-defined.

MerinTB wrote...
Role-playing ISN'T defining a character.
...
Until you can accept that this is the antecedent, the root, the core origin, of a role-playing game, you cannot begin to try and define what IS or IS NOT an rpg.

EntropicAngel wrote...
I'm not talking about role-playing. I'm talking about a role-playing game. You can roleplay in Call of Duty. You do, in fact: you assume that character's identity. You do in pretty much every video game nowadays.

That's why a more rigorous definition for RPG is needed.

You have to start with two of the three words, EA.  An RPG is a role-playing game.  It's a game in which you role-play.

While you CAN role-play in Call of Duty, or while playing everything from Tetris to Monopoly, or in real-life while ordering coffee from Starbucks... the fact that you CAN do something during another activity DOESN'T define that activity.  

You can jog in place while getting coffee and no one suddenly needs a new definition of "exercise" as a result. You can have a sex scene in movie and no one suddenly needs a new definition of what a porno movie is.

Because you can add one thing to another doesn't mean you change the definition of the other.  Adding an apple to a pie doesn't mean that we need to redefine fruit, and no one is going to be confused and call a pie a fruit even though there is FRUIT IN IT.

The only way you can even ATTEMPT to define what a role-playing game is, and this doesn't answer what the definition is but it is where you must start if you are being honest, is to:

1 - look at the words and what definitions exist in dictionaries and encyclopedias (check "authorities" and "consensus")
2 - look at things called RPGs for examples to help you create a category (check "precedence" and "common traits")

So you have to take all the definitions that established authorities of definitions give (academic works, again, like dictionaries and encyclopedias, as well as large group consensus definitions like wikipedia and major gaming magzines and web sites) and you have to take all the games that have ever been called RPGs since the genre was, more or less, invented by Gygax and Arnenson back in the 70's.

You will, though I'm sure you'll reject due to it not fitting your world view on this, discover that most definitions fail to use the word define or phrase define a character.  You will also, as much as you keep dismissing the majority of tabletop and cRPGs, discover that the kind of character defining you are looking for is absent.

Modifié par MerinTB, 15 mai 2013 - 05:43 .

[Kaiser Arian XVII]

EntropicAngel wrote...

MerinTB wrote...

Role-playing ISN'T defining a character.

I'm not going to touch "what is a role-playing game" because that way leads to madness, especially on BSN.

But I will vigorously correct you on your fresh and inaccurate understanding of what it is to play a role.

You've seen nothing to disprove your opinion?  How about established definitions:

Free Dictionary - 
role play: To assume or represent in a drama; act out; To assume or act out a particular role
Dictionary.com -
role play: to assume the attitudes, actions, and discourse of (another),especially in a make-believe situation in an effort to understanda differing point of view or social interaction; to experiment with or experience (a situation or viewpoint) by playing a role
MacMillan Dictionary -
role-play: an activity in which you pretend to be someone else, especially in order to learn newskills or attitudes
Merriam-Webster -
role-play: to act out the role of;to represent in action; to play a role

Nowhere is the definition of role-playing require the role-player to create a new character.  Mostly role-playing is used to help someone understand another person.

Until you can accept that this is the antecedent, the root, the core origin, of a role-playing game, you cannot begin to try and define what IS or IS NOT an rpg.

I'm not talking about role-playing. I'm talking about a role-playing game. You can roleplay in Call of Duty. You do, in fact: you assume that character's identity. You do in pretty much every video game nowadays.

That's why a more rigorous definition for RPG is needed.

I agree with. It is not simply Roleplay(ing) + Game. The meaning of RPG is more complex and vague than that.

Modifié par Legatus Arianus, 15 mai 2013 - 05:46 .

[A Crusty Knight Of Colour]

It's a weird day when someone has a definition that would see Heavy Rain and Monkey Island as RPGs, yet Ultima and Wasteland as not-RPGs.

[Enigmatick]

^By EA's rules Planescape Torment is not a RPG

[MerinTB]

Volus Warlord wrote...
I don't care if it's painful. It's accurate. I value accuracy over desirability.

The reason I say there is no rigorous definition of an RPG is because NO ONE CAN AGREE ON ONE. No one can make up there damn mind about what it is or isn't. Apparently.

Skyrim is an RPG. Oh wait, no it's not.

The Witcher is an RPG. Oh wait, no it's not. 

What makes an RPG an RPG?

Is it an inventory system? Some people think so. Some don't.

Is it customizable characters? Some people think so. Some don't.

Is it heavy emphasis on storytelling and dialogue? Some people think so. Some don't.

Is it a leveling system, or a similar form of character gameplay progression? Some people think so. Some don't.

So, as no one can make up their damn mind about what is and is not an RPG, I say it's up to the developer. There are definitions, but there are apparently numerous conflicting defintions. As the definitions are both numerous and conflicting, I say all those defintions are useless on that basis. So, rather than arbitrary line toss-ups, I say it's the developer's call. 

You know, I had rejected engaging you in debate when you started this point in an earlier post.

But this post, especially the highlighted part at the end... I think I agree with it.

If the developers honestly believe it is an RPG, then I guess it should be considered such.

Until the ESRB or GDC or some "official" body comes up with clear definition for what a game must contain before it can be labeled on a box as an RPG, at least.

[Volus Warlord]

Makes sense, but it's wrong.

You are saying the term "RPG" has a distinct definition, because when you think of RPG, you think of a very specific set of attributes.

I say it does not, because no one agrees on what composes and RPG and what doesn't. When there is no definition, opinion becomes the definition.

The term "FPS" is not comparable to RPG, because FPS IS rigorously defined in gameplay, where RPG is not.

[MerinTB]

EntropicAngel wrote...

Volus Warlord wrote...
In some circumstances, you'd be right.

However, with the purely artificial and imiginary nature of an RPG, perception is reality. It is NOT like someone saying "I think that mountain is an ocean! Therefore, it must be an ocean."  It's more along the lines of someone saying "I think movie X is horrible." What makes them define it that way? WHO THE HELL KNOWS? Likewise, if someone makes a game and says "This game is an RPG" that makes it an RPG. 

A definition is not the same thing as an opinion.

A stapler is a stapler is a stapler. My bottle of PURE LEAF tea sitting here is not a stapler, no matter how much I want it to be. Similarly, an X genre of game is an X genre of game. Saying Assassin's Creed is an FPS doesn't make it so.

Now, what can vary IS the definition: how do you define a stapler? But, when a definition for a stapler is formed, simplay saying something else is a stapler because you think it's kind of like a stapler is false, absolutely irrevocably false.


We've stepped back a bit with this discussion. I have my definition of RPG, which is fine to discuss, but you're arguing that a definition is inaccurate because people disagree on what it means. That's just not true. Whatever a stapler is, it IS a specific (or class of) thing and that only.

Whatever an FPS is, it IS that one thing and that one thing only. Whatever an Adventure game is, it IS that one thing and that one thing only. Whatever an RPG is, it IS that one thing and that one thing only.

Whatever the definition is for something (like RPG, as Merin and I are arguing), it IS that one thing only, and saying it's something else doesn't make it so.

Does that make sense? 

Ready for your head to spin?

Pluto - is it a planet?  For about 75 years it was.  Then an agency came along, gave a concrete definition of what a planet IS--characteristics an astonomical body must have to be called a planet--and Pluto stopped being one.

It is possible that, someday, some official body will come along and give a "this is the uptmost authority accepted definition of what a role-playing game is" and suddenly, when that is done, things like the Bard's Tale games, Diablo and maybe even The Witcher will suddenly be like Pluto - stripped of their defining label.

But that hasn't happened.  Your definition, EA, is more opinion than fact.

...

And how in the name of Adams and Gaiman did I end up on the OTHER side of the argument about definitions? 

[GodChildInTheMachine]

EntropicAngel wrote...


I wasn't aware when had anything to do with whether one was correct or not.

It doesn't, but experience is in many ways correlative to one's capability for forming correct viewpoints. Your definition of RPGs is coming from a place of relative ignorance, and is also contradictory to decades worth of consensus about what nominally defines an RPG. You are arguing that The Witcher 2, among other games, does not contain role-playing elements or allow you to define the character's motivations even though you admit to never having played the game. 

A Role-Playing Game is loosely defined as a game in which the player assumes the role of a character. It could be one you created. It could be Morgan Freeman. You don't necessarily have to have control over any part of plot or characterization. Other than that, what makes an RPG is a question of mechanics; the most commonly acepted traits of an RPG are that there is a system for character progression, that the player may use the character to explore a fictional setting, and that actions are made indirectly by the character on the player's behalf. 

Many RPGs allow for character creation, but that is not an essential part of the genre's definition.

How is FF XIII any less of an RPG than VII? VII let you name your characters, and VII let you pick among two or three dialog options about five times in the game. For all intents and purposes, Cloud was a set a character as could be. What about III (real 3, not 6)? The character was essentially nonexistant. You had no control over dialog. How is that any more of an RPG?

I have to wonder if you have played any of these games. By definition, they are all RPGs. There is not an argument there for you. The only question is how much each of them utilize RPG elements. FFXIII is completely linear, you have no control over exploration, there are no puzzle elements and the story exists entirely in non-interactive cut scenes. Yet, you assume control of one or more characters in the game, it contains a system for character progression, and actions are carried out by the character on behalf of the player. Therefore it is an RPG, even if only in as nominal a way as possible. 

You know that both FFVII and III contain more RPG elements than XIII. Or, at least you would if you have indeed played all three of them. That question is rhetorically dishonest.

Higher freedom of exploration, more puzzle elements and any amount of control over the direction and order of plot events all contribute to the former two games being 'more' of RPGs than FFXIII. Because they contain more RPG elements. Get it?

The sad thing is, I am arguing on your side in this thread by saying that more RPG elements in an RPG can't be a bad thing.

[GodChildInTheMachine]

CrustyBot wrote...

It's a weird day when someone has a definition that would see Heavy Rain and Monkey Island as RPGs, yet Ultima and Wasteland as not-RPGs.

I don't think EA is even aware that those games exist.

[ArcaneJTM]

To me, what defines an RPG would mainly be the ability to step into the role of a character well beyond simply wearing his shoes, which is what an FPS basically is. The more you can take on that role, the more of an RPG the game becomes. That's why character development and variety are so important. They are tools which allow you to become the character rather than simply watch the character. It's an entirely different level of entertainment.

Saying that these tools must be sacrificed for a better story or vice verse is like saying the movie is better than the book, therefore all movies are better than books. It simply isn't true. They are different ways of experiencing the same thing.

[GodChildInTheMachine]

I think you need to reread this paragraph:

 A Role-Playing Game is loosely defined as a game in which the player assumes the role of a character. It could be one you created. It could be Morgan Freeman. You don't necessarily have to have control over any part of plot or characterization. Other than that, what makes an RPG is a question of mechanics; the most commonly acepted traits of an RPG are that there is a system for character progression, that the player may use the character to explore a fictional setting, and that actions are made indirectly by the character on the player's behalf.

That is the definition of an RPG. CoD could not be an RPG, because it does not have a system for character progression, and all actions are taken directly by the player based on their personal skill and reflexes.

You are arguing that about half of what are UNIVERSALLY considered RPGs are not RPGs, and some of those games are considered the best RPGs of all time. 

You can not tell me that Planescape: Torment, the Ultima games and Betrayal at Krondor are not RPGs without being, simply put, wrong.