296 réponses à ce sujet

[Iakus]

Sumthing wrote...

The interactivity part of games is why they can tell stories better. A story in a game does not do the same thing a story in a movie does. A story in a game is often shapeable by the player. The player can interact with the story and the gameworld. Games can allow the player to choose what happens in the story. The story can then be told better, because it is being told the player wants it to be told. Another thing unique to games is their ability to be able to simulate and generate worlds on demand. You can't do this with a movie, but you can do it with a game. Dwarf Fortress, for example. You can generate massive, non-linear worlds, and still enjoy the story you create with your characters. A movie cannot be randomly generated, it has to follow a specific plot, a specific storyline. Games don't have these restrictions. In Morrowind, for example, I could just entirely ignore the main storyline, and go adventure around, creating my own stories. Games with linear storylines may as well not have a story.

Using your logic, movies should just not try to tell stories. Books can do that perfectly. Movies should be used for what they can do that is unique, showing moving images and scenes. For movies to be taken seriously, they should shine in beautiful images and scenes, not story.

Indeed.

People's concept of "gameplay" is too narrow.  Dialogue is gameplay.  Decision-making is gameplay.  Interaction is gameplay.  In effect, role playing is gameplay.  It's more than just killing things and taking their stuff.  Or puzzle-solving.

I think that sitting back and being told a story isn't gameplay by anyone's definition.  So in that sense, yeah the "cinematic experience" hurts everyone.

[The Heretic of Time]

iakus wrote...

People's concept of "gameplay" is too narrow.  Dialogue is gameplay.  Decision-making is gameplay.  Interaction is gameplay.  In effect, role playing is gameplay.  It's more than just killing things and taking their stuff.  Or puzzle-solving.

No, you need to learn what "gameplay" really means. Everything you just listed are game-mechanics, not gameplay.

Game mechanics =/= gameplay.

Modifié par Heretic_Hanar, 08 juillet 2013 - 01:51 .

[Arcian]

Seival wrote...

I wasn't a fan of expanding the current Mass Effect story until recently. I'm not telling it would be nice to have a game about "Archangel plot" or something like that, but I'm starting to think it would be very nice to expand ME3 events by series of non-heavily-RPG games. What I want to say is that prequels or sequels in MEU are very unlikely. The risk to upset large groups of fans is too high in these cases. But expanding the most intense events of the whole story sounds like a really good idea, don't you think so?

Why do I think new ME games should be less RPG, and utilize just few RPG elements? Without character creation, interactive dialogues, a lot of choices to make, and save import mechanics devs could concentrate much more on creating really immersive atmosphere with truly great story. I think the greatest example of what I'm talking about is The Last of Us game. Just imagine a game similar to The Last of Us, and taking place during the Reaper invasion on Earth. It could be a series of games about some survivors on Earth, Citadel, Omega, or some remote colony.

So, what do you think? Is it a good idea to make ME3 story much larger than it already is?

Taking the good parts of Game A (which is considered an amazing game) and putting them in Game B (which is much less amazing) doesn't make Game B a more amazing game.

Besides, Mass Effect has turned to **** precisely BECAUSE it was aping after other games.

[Iakus]

Heretic_Hanar wrote...

iakus wrote...

People's concept of "gameplay" is too narrow.  Dialogue is gameplay.  Decision-making is gameplay.  Interaction is gameplay.  In effect, role playing is gameplay.  It's more than just killing things and taking their stuff.  Or puzzle-solving.

No, you need to learn what "gameplay" really means. Everything you just listed are game-mechanics, not gameplay.

Game mechanics =/= gameplay.

Gameplay is how you interact with the game.  Just because you don't like it doesn't make it not gameplay

[BaladasDemnevanni]

iakus wrote...

Heretic_Hanar wrote...

iakus wrote...

People's concept of "gameplay" is too narrow.  Dialogue is gameplay.  Decision-making is gameplay.  Interaction is gameplay.  In effect, role playing is gameplay.  It's more than just killing things and taking their stuff.  Or puzzle-solving.

No, you need to learn what "gameplay" really means. Everything you just listed are game-mechanics, not gameplay.

Game mechanics =/= gameplay.

Gameplay is how you interact with the game.  Just because you don't like it doesn't make it not gameplay

Eh, I think this is just a semantics argument. "This is what gameplay is" "No, this is what gameplay is".

The important point (for me) is that interactivity through choice-making and dialogue makes games capable of telling a far more personal story than either books or movies are capable of. I'd prefer to see more focus placed on games like Heavy Rain, for example.

Fun as they are, games like Super Mario will never say anything profound about anything.

Modifié par BaladasDemnevanni, 08 juillet 2013 - 03:38 .

[The Heretic of Time]

iakus wrote...

Heretic_Hanar wrote...

iakus wrote...

People's concept of "gameplay" is too narrow.  Dialogue is gameplay.  Decision-making is gameplay.  Interaction is gameplay.  In effect, role playing is gameplay.  It's more than just killing things and taking their stuff.  Or puzzle-solving.

No, you need to learn what "gameplay" really means. Everything you just listed are game-mechanics, not gameplay.

Game mechanics =/= gameplay.

Gameplay is how you interact with the game.  Just because you don't like it doesn't make it not gameplay

This has nothing to do with not liking something and everything to do with using proper terminology to avoid confusion.

I've been studying Game Architecture & Design for the past 3 years. Unless my professors and teachers at my university all have it wrong, I think we can both assume that I know what I'm talking about.


Game-mechanics are how you interact with the game. Gameplay is the resulting continues interaction between the player and the game-mechanics.

For example: Super Mario Bros

in Super Mario Bros, jumping, running and shooting fire-balls are game-mechanics. Reaching the end of a level without falling into a pit or running into an enemy is gameplay.

Modifié par Heretic_Hanar, 08 juillet 2013 - 03:43 .

[DirtyPhoenix]

BaladasDemnevanni wrote...

Fun as they are, games like Super Mario will never say anything profound about anything

You know... profoundment (is that a word) has nothing to do with whether a game is linear or has choices, and everything to do with how the individual games are actually handled. For example, Bioshock Infinite and TLoU, I found them a lot more "profound" than all the ME games.

[CronoDragoon]

Heretic_Hanar wrote...

This has nothing to do with not liking something and everything to do with using proper terminology to avoid confusion.

By your own description of the difference, some of the things iakus listed are indeed gameplay, while others are mechanics. For example, the dialogue wheel is a game mechanic which helps produce the specific type of gameplay known as role-playing.

In any case, game devs like to focus on discussing game mechanics because it's much less of a vague/subjective term. Seeing the wide variety of "gameplay" definitions from different game devs illustrates why.

[The Heretic of Time]

CronoDragoon wrote...

By your own description of the difference, some of the things iakus listed are indeed gameplay, while others are mechanics. For example, the dialogue wheel is a game mechanic which helps produce the specific type of gameplay known as role-playing.

Roleplaying... that's a very vague subject that as of yet has not seen a clear translation to the video-game medium. What is "roleplaying"? Ask 3 people and you'll get 3 different answers.

In any case, game devs like to focus on discussing game mechanics because it's much less of a vague/subjective term. Seeing the wide variety of "gameplay" definitions from different game devs illustrates why.

Gameplay is very important to think about as a game-developer, because that's what makes the game either a lot of fun or really boring. Game-mechanics are just a means to an end. Fun gameplay is that end.

Modifié par Heretic_Hanar, 08 juillet 2013 - 03:56 .

[Seboist]

BaladasDemnevanni wrote...

Fun as they are, games like Super Mario will never say anything profound about anything.

I take Super Mario more seriously than a "serious" game where someone is brought back from the dead without anybody caring(ME2).

[dreamgazer]

Wikipedia on gameplay vs. game mechanics:

Gameplay refers to the overall game experience or essence of the game itself. There is some confusion as to the difference between game mechanics and gameplay. For some, gameplay is nothing more than a set of game mechanics. For others, gameplay—especially when referenced in the term of "basic gameplay" -- refers to certain core game mechanics which determine the overall characteristics of the game itself.

For example, the basic gameplay of a shooting or fighting game is to hit while not being hit. In a graphic adventure game, the basic gameplay is to solve puzzles related to the context. The basic gameplay of poker is to produce certain numerical or categorical combinations. Golf's basic gameplay is to hit a ball and reach a designated spot.

The goal of these games is slightly different from the gameplay itself. For example, while reaching the end of a stage (platform), killing the boss, advancing your characters' progress through the story (RPG) or sinking the ball into a hole (golf) may be the purpose of playing a game, the fun of playing a game is derived primarily by the means and the process in which such goal is achieved. Basic gameplay defines what a game is, while game mechanics determine what the entire game consists of.

However, from a programming or overall design perspective, basic gameplay can be deconstructed further to reveal constituent game mechanics. For example, the basic gameplay of fighting game can be deconstructed to attack and defense, or punch, kick, block, dodge and throw which can be further deconstructed to strong/weak punch/kick. For this reason, game mechanics is more of an engineering concept while gameplay is more of a design concept.

[DarthLaxian]

AresKeith wrote...

Necanor wrote...

The Last of Us and Uncharted are great games, but they have low replay value and the stories have flaws. Naughty Dog is overhyped imo.

I can't see ME work as a linear game at all.

And Bioware stories doesn't have flaws?

of
course they do have "flaws" (also it would call what i now mention a
game breaker - it's maliciously deceitful IMHO, because we were promised
something else entirely...should have dragged them into the courts for
it IMHO...lying to our face and then only giving us the EC and the slapp
in the face "Refuse Ending"):

like crappy endings (Dragon Age II
and Mass Effect 3 - i am looking at you), starting to appeal to the
shooter crowd (Mass Effect 3 - with it's linear story and hopeless
setting without any replay value what so ever IMHO...i play it for a few
minutes sometimes, because for a shooter it is good action - but for a
story driven game it does not life up to expectations...even more as we
are not part of any of the main battles (even the mission to earth feels
wrong, as there is no really big force fighting near us, no Krogan
ripping things to pieces, no salarian STG-Snipers, no Turians holding a
line against reapers etc....i feel so left out while playing that
game...i don't even get to visit the crucible or seeing my war Assets
(like having command of them) etc. - just no)

so yeah, they do have big flaws


as for expanding with non RPG games?

well,
i am conflicted about that - on the one hand it might attract new
people to the franchise (shooter players - also appealing to the
COD/Battlefield-Crowd IMHO was stupid in ME3, players of RTS games and
players of space games (i would have loved to pilot the Normandy myself
for a change or - for RTS - having command of my own
battlegroup/ground forces [smilie]http://social.bioware.com/images/forum/emoticons/smile.png[/smilie])
on the other hand, i would like the next Mass Effect game to go "back
to the roots" (also i would love to be able to have a first person
perspective while fighting), giving us talents, skills etc. while still
being an action-rpg (and thus winning fans back that left after the ME3
debacle - fans that have been with bioware for ages sometimes as IMHO loyal
fans are worth a lot more then the hip/mainstream-crowd...even more as
there are not many companies in the industry that can pull of really
good RPGs that I like (hell, give me ME1 or 2 and Dragon Age: Origins
any day or KOTOR - i love those games a lot more then say "The Witcher",
"Gothic" and "TES" (even Skyrim) etc.))

so, well it's a: MAYBE for me...(i would probably buy the games, but i would rather have a real ME-Game again - with even better fighting mechanics then the third one (that is the only thing that game was better at then ME1 and 2) as this "one button for everything"-crap got on my nerves...even more so as the PC-Keyboard has many many buttons (and with one button for everything, i could not even use the marko-function of my keyboard)<_<)

greetings LAX

[The Heretic of Time]

dreamgazer wrote...

Wikipedia on gameplay vs. game mechanics:

Gameplay refers to the overall game experience or essence of the game itself. There is some confusion as to the difference between game mechanics and gameplay. For some, gameplay is nothing more than a set of game mechanics. For others, gameplay—especially when referenced in the term of "basic gameplay" -- refers to certain core game mechanics which determine the overall characteristics of the game itself.

For example, the basic gameplay of a shooting or fighting game is to hit while not being hit. In a graphic adventure game, the basic gameplay is to solve puzzles related to the context. The basic gameplay of poker is to produce certain numerical or categorical combinations. Golf's basic gameplay is to hit a ball and reach a designated spot.

The goal of these games is slightly different from the gameplay itself. For example, while reaching the end of a stage (platform), killing the boss, advancing your characters' progress through the story (RPG) or sinking the ball into a hole (golf) may be the purpose of playing a game, the fun of playing a game is derived primarily by the means and the process in which such goal is achieved. Basic gameplay defines what a game is, while game mechanics determine what the entire game consists of.

However, from a programming or overall design perspective, basic gameplay can be deconstructed further to reveal constituent game mechanics. For example, the basic gameplay of fighting game can be deconstructed to attack and defense, or punch, kick, block, dodge and throw which can be further deconstructed to strong/weak punch/kick. For this reason, game mechanics is more of an engineering concept while gameplay is more of a design concept.

In other words, what I just said in a few sentences rather than a few paragraphs.

Also, don't trust Wikipedia. It's not always accurate. In this case it is though.

Modifié par Heretic_Hanar, 08 juillet 2013 - 04:00 .

[Kel Riever]

Well, if we are moving away from RPG video games, because 'they're SUCH a burden" or somesuch nonsense, then may I recommend the next Mass Effect game look like this:



Come on!  Everything best about video games!  If you don't like it, you probably aren't a fan....

[ShepnTali]

Every video game RPG ever is what I would call canned role playing. I don't really like calling them RPG's when we get down to it. They're really just games with some dialogue choices. I think I've 'role played' more in Madden games.

Modifié par ShepnTali, 08 juillet 2013 - 04:14 .

[dreamgazer]

Heretic_Hanar wrote...

In other words, what I just said in a few sentences rather than a few paragraphs.

Also, don't trust Wikipedia. It's not always accurate. In this case it is though.

Fully aware of how to "properly" use Wikipedia, Hanar, but thanks.

I thought having a third-party, non-biased explanation---with some added expounding to get the point across---would help the conversation along.

[angol fear]

Kel Riever wrote...

Well, if we are moving away from RPG video games, because 'they're SUCH a burden" or somesuch nonsense, then may I recommend the next Mass Effect game look like this:



Come on!  Everything best about video games!  If you don't like it, you probably aren't a fan....

The problem is that mass effect, from the first till the third, is an action rpg, not a rpg.

[CronoDragoon]

iakus wrote...

I think that sitting back and being told a story isn't gameplay by anyone's definition.  So in that sense, yeah the "cinematic experience" hurts everyone.

Games need a certain level of uninteractivity to be tolerable, though. Where that balance rests is subjective and changes from person to person. For everyone there is a "sweet spot" of interactivity.

[AresKeith]

I think this thread proves that Bioware should just end the ME IP and just make a new one

[BaladasDemnevanni]

pirate1802 wrote...

BaladasDemnevanni wrote...

Fun as they are, games like Super Mario will never say anything profound about anything

You know... profoundment (is that a word) has nothing to do with whether a game is linear or has choices, and everything to do with how the individual games are actually handled. For example, Bioshock Infinite and TLoU, I found them a lot more "profound" than all the ME games.

I never said it did. But a game which focuses strictly on gameplay mechanics or more specifically combat rarely have the goal of saying anything, period. The multiplayer of games like ME3 or Halo 2 have one thing in mind: kill things. Sports games are similar. They're fun on a popcorn entertainment sort of way, much like the Avengers.

Bioshock Infinite doesn't need choices to be profound, although I personally hated the game. It did have characters, dialogue, and a plot which quite a few people enjoyed though. And that's more than enough for an experience to be meaningful.

Not sure what TLoU is an abbreviation for.

Modifié par BaladasDemnevanni, 08 juillet 2013 - 04:22 .

[Redbelle]

Seival wrote...

I wasn't a fan of expanding the current Mass Effect story until recently. I'm not telling it would be nice to have a game about "Archangel plot" or something like that, but I'm starting to think it would be very nice to expand ME3 events by series of non-heavily-RPG games. What I want to say is that prequels or sequels in MEU are very unlikely. The risk to upset large groups of fans is too high in these cases. But expanding the most intense events of the whole story sounds like a really good idea, don't you think so?

Why do I think new ME games should be less RPG, and utilize just few RPG elements? Without character creation, interactive dialogues, a lot of choices to make, and save import mechanics devs could concentrate much more on creating really immersive atmosphere with truly great story. I think the greatest example of what I'm talking about is The Last of Us game. Just imagine a game similar to The Last of Us, and taking place during the Reaper invasion on Earth. It could be a series of games about some survivors on Earth, Citadel, Omega, or some remote colony.

So, what do you think? Is it a good idea to make ME3 story much larger than it already is?

It's not a bad idea, per se, its just that.

It's not a BioWare model of game design.

Naughty Dog, who made the last of us, can be said to make good platformers with good combat and very, very good, not wooden at all, voice acting supported by character models.

The argument being made that ME spin off's should be more like this is to say the folowing.

BioWare should make games like other developers make games.

And doing that would make Bioware, less Bioware, and more mainstream in their developments.

Nuh, uh.

For thosewho do not know, BW used rule book RPG's to inform their early games. Imaging how they could be brought to life on the computer screen. That's been pared down abit in Mass Effect, but that's still where the early days Mass Effect came from.

And that came from KoToR, and Jade Empire etc.

I don't think they should stop making good RPG elements, cause dammit! That's who BW is! That is their identity. And 30 year old somethings who have been with BW since Baldurs Gate will know that they have been reinterpreting and refining their model over the years. Sometimes for good. Sometimes not.

But if BW ever choose to follow someone else in how they develop their games instead of following their own unique model and improving upon it..........

Well, they may as well change the sign on their studio's to whoever they emulate. Or shut up shop and see if that studio's hiring.

And for the neighsayer's of RPG's based upon rulebooks, a question.

Looking forward to CyberPunk?

[BaladasDemnevanni]

Seboist wrote...

BaladasDemnevanni wrote...

Fun as they are, games like Super Mario will never say anything profound about anything.

I take Super Mario more seriously than a "serious" game where someone is brought back from the dead without anybody caring(ME2).

I'm so happy for you.

[CronoDragoon]

pirate1802 wrote...
profoundment (is that a word)

Profundity?

BaladasDemnevanni wrote...
Not sure what TLoU is an abbreviation for.

The Last of Us.