142 réponses à ce sujet

[Il Divo]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

I don't understand why any player would ever perceive any aspect of the game as being anything other than something that exists within the game world.  How an NPC reacts tells us about that NPC.  If the NPC reacts in a way that I didn't expect, that just means I was wrong about how the NPC would react.  That happens often enough in the real world, so why would that be a problem in the game world?

Simple: in real life, if someone acts in a manner I don't expect, I typically have the ability to express this in some fashion, whether by words or actions.

If I say hello to someone and they respond by taking a giant crap on the floor, in the real world I have the ability to draw attention to it. If I say something in a positive tone and someone responds with anger, I should have the ability to inquire about the source of said anger or further clarify my own intent, much like real life.

This is where the "imagine your tone/intent" argument falls apart.

[Il Divo]

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

Considering that most people barely even plays through the entire game, saying that roleplaying is a "key feature" of an RPG, is actually stretching it. It is a feature sure, but not a key one.

Just to be clear, why would we make that assumption? If players aren't finishing the game, it's not just roleplaying they're cutting out. It's pretty much everything else.

[EmperorSahlertz]

Il Divo wrote...

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

Considering that most people barely even plays through the entire game, saying that roleplaying is a "key feature" of an RPG, is actually stretching it. It is a feature sure, but not a key one.

Just to be clear, why would we make that assumption? If players aren't finishing the game, it's not just roleplaying they're cutting out. It's pretty much everything else.

Roleplayers are a minority, even in RPGs. RPGs for computers, are not actually about roleplaying, but more about inventory, customization and heavy story elements.

[AlanC9]

Story elements aren't involved in role-playing?

[EmperorSahlertz]

AlanC9 wrote...

Story elements aren't involved in role-playing?

Of course they are. But roleplaying is not neccesarily involved in storytelling. At least not the roleplaying that most people on here claim is the true form of roleplaying...

[Cainhurst Crow]

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

Il Divo wrote...

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

Considering that most people barely even plays through the entire game, saying that roleplaying is a "key feature" of an RPG, is actually stretching it. It is a feature sure, but not a key one.

Just to be clear, why would we make that assumption? If players aren't finishing the game, it's not just roleplaying they're cutting out. It's pretty much everything else.

Roleplayers are a minority, even in RPGs. RPGs for computers, are not actually about roleplaying, but more about inventory, customization and heavy story elements.

Than why aren't they just called TFG's or Tedious Filler Games instead of RPG's than? At least that would be more accurate to reality.

[Il Divo]

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

Il Divo wrote...

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

Considering that most people barely even plays through the entire game, saying that roleplaying is a "key feature" of an RPG, is actually stretching it. It is a feature sure, but not a key one.

Just to be clear, why would we make that assumption? If players aren't finishing the game, it's not just roleplaying they're cutting out. It's pretty much everything else.

Roleplayers are a minority, even in RPGs. RPGs for computers, are not actually about roleplaying, but more about inventory, customization and heavy story elements.

That's not my point. If someone fails to finish a game, you have no way of determining the cause merely from the fact that they failed to finish the game.

It's like taking data which says that most people failed to finish Diablo 3 to indicate that it's due to the inventory system. That can be determined only with further inquiry. So let's say quite a few players didn't finish DA2. Why is that immediately indicative that role-playing is the problem? It could be boredom, the plot, the characters, the changes from DA:O, etc.  

Modifié par Il Divo, 10 juillet 2013 - 04:50 .

[pdusen]

Darth Brotarian wrote...

pdusen wrote...


No, the problem isn't that the full line isn't present, the problem is that the player doesn't know exactly what the protagonist is going to say as a result of their choice. This is true whether you paraphrase or write out the entire line, because exactly what the protagonist says depends on more than just the line; it depends on tone, inflection, context, etc.

So in other words, you want a verbatim transcript of what the character is going to say before you select the option, along with everything else such as a tone intecator, a little blurb on the side to say the inflection, and probably a reminder prompt on what you said before to give context?

Yeah, such a simple thing to do really, fitting all that inside a non-intrusive interface that doesn't pop-up to tkae up half the screen.

No, I don't want any of those things. As I said in the part of my post you didn't quote, I like the Dialog Wheel as it stands. What I was doing was stating the actual complaint that many people have about the dialog wheel, because the person I was replying to did not understand the actual complaint correctly.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Ziggeh wrote...

I don't expect conversation to operate in the way they would in real life

That is exactly what I expect, and I think the dialogue systems in BioWare's silent protagonist games mimicked real-world conversations just about perfectly.

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

Considering that most people barely even plays through the entire game, saying that roleplaying is a "key feature" of an RPG, is actually stretching it. It is a feature sure, but not a key one.

How is completion releevant?  I routinely fail to finish games - and I start far more playthroughs than I finish - but I'm roleplaying all the way in every one.

But I stop playing once I think I've exhausted the interesting roleplaying with that character.  In DAO, now, this tends to happen after completing the second of the big 4 quests.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Il Divo wrote...

Simple: in real life, if someone acts in a manner I don't expect, I typically have the ability to express this in some fashion, whether by words or actions.

If I say hello to someone and they respond by taking a giant crap on the floor, in the real world I have the ability to draw attention to it. If I say something in a positive tone and someone responds with anger, I should have the ability to inquire about the source of said anger or further clarify my own intent, much like real life.

This is where the "imagine your tone/intent" argument falls apart.

I think you're highlighting a different problem.  You're objecting to the inability to drive the conversation - the be socially dominant.  You're objecting to the inability to intriduce topics into a conversation, rather than juts follow along where the NPC leads.

That is, I think, an unrelated issue.  It does appear more in the silent protagonist games, largely as a reult of how they're written, but that relationship is by no means a necessary one.

Also, I would argue that the paraphrases create very similar problems.  Just as you would like to be able to react to misunderstandings (something I don't do, because I don't typically presume to know whether an NPC has understood me), I would like to be able to correct myself when I misspeak.  If the PC says something I don't want him to say, or even something I don't think is true, I should be able to revise that statement.  But I can't do that.

This, of course, isn't necessary with full text dialogue options, because the PC never says something I don't want him to say, as I've chosen his exact line.

[Sylvius the Mad]

pdusen wrote...

No, the problem isn't that the full line isn't present, the problem is that the player doesn't know exactly what the protagonist is going to say as a result of their choice. This is true whether you paraphrase or write out the entire line, because exactly what the protagonist says depends on more than just the line; it depends on tone, inflection, context, etc.

So we should endeavour to give control of those things to the player, as well.

And so far, the silent protagonist does a much better job of it than the voiced protagonist does.

[Salaya]

pdusen wrote...

No, I don't want any of those things. As I said in the part of my post you didn't quote, I like the Dialog Wheel as it stands. What I was doing was stating the actual complaint that many people have about the dialog wheel, because the person I was replying to did not understand the actual complaint correctly.

This is rich. So, let's see if I understand this: I don't undertsand my own complaint? I need someone else to explain it to me?

I stated a complaint: dialog wheel does not show the full line text. Then I exposed a possible alternative to this problem. You may like it or not; you may think that dialogue wheel is fantabulous. But you can't just bring your own problem, statement or complaint and make it appear as if it was mine.

Saying that wanting the full line text has anything to do with meaning, tones, and/or every concept you want to add is something you bring to the discussion by your own accord. Not because has anything to do with my problem. First, you assume that I have any problem with understanding the meaning. Second, you assume that meaning has anything to do with my complaint. And third, you say that I don't understand the problem.

As I have said, bringing a solution for an imaginary problem that has some resemblance to the other, does not make that solution valid for both problems.

Modifié par Salaya, 10 juillet 2013 - 06:10 .

[EmperorSahlertz]

Il Divo wrote...

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

Il Divo wrote...

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

Considering that most people barely even plays through the entire game, saying that roleplaying is a "key feature" of an RPG, is actually stretching it. It is a feature sure, but not a key one.

Just to be clear, why would we make that assumption? If players aren't finishing the game, it's not just roleplaying they're cutting out. It's pretty much everything else.

Roleplayers are a minority, even in RPGs. RPGs for computers, are not actually about roleplaying, but more about inventory, customization and heavy story elements.

That's not my point. If someone fails to finish a game, you have no way of determining the cause merely from the fact that they failed to finish the game.

It's like taking data which says that most people failed to finish Diablo 3 to indicate that it's due to the inventory system. That can be determined only with further inquiry. So let's say quite a few players didn't finish DA2. Why is that immediately indicative that role-playing is the problem? It could be boredom, the plot, the characters, the changes from DA:O, etc.  

I didn't say roleplaying was the problem... I said that roleplaying in an RPG is not a key feature, sicne it is not an important one in modern RPGs. Sure, it is a feature, but it is not important to most gamers. Thus, it isn't a key feature, which is why it is repeatedly reduced in most modern RPGs.

[EmperorSahlertz]

Darth Brotarian wrote...

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

Il Divo wrote...

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

Considering that most people barely even plays through the entire game, saying that roleplaying is a "key feature" of an RPG, is actually stretching it. It is a feature sure, but not a key one.

Just to be clear, why would we make that assumption? If players aren't finishing the game, it's not just roleplaying they're cutting out. It's pretty much everything else.

Roleplayers are a minority, even in RPGs. RPGs for computers, are not actually about roleplaying, but more about inventory, customization and heavy story elements.

Than why aren't they just called TFG's or Tedious Filler Games instead of RPG's than? At least that would be more accurate to reality.

For the same reason that RTSs aren't called: Highly unrealstic war games, with no elements of strategy and barely any of tactics....
RPG is a stamp from which people expect, inventory management, customization, party based combat, and a heavy story element, with the possibility of roleplay. Roleplay are not required, and most people actually doesn't bother with the roleplay.

[Sylvius the Mad]

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

I didn't say roleplaying was the problem... I said that roleplaying in an RPG is not a key feature, sicne it is not an important one in modern RPGs.

The suggest that roleplaying is not a central component in roleplaying games is absurd on its face.

RPG means roleplaying game.  Never will that change.

[Sylvius the Mad]

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

RPG is a stamp from which people expect, inventory management, customization, party based combat, and a heavy story element, with the possibility of roleplay.

The possibility of roleplay is all I want.  That is what I think is required from a roleplaying game.

But many of these modern games don't give us even that.

It doesn't matter whether most gamers do it.  It only matters whether they can.

[Cainhurst Crow]

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

Darth Brotarian wrote...

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

Il Divo wrote...

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

Considering that most people barely even plays through the entire game, saying that roleplaying is a "key feature" of an RPG, is actually stretching it. It is a feature sure, but not a key one.

Just to be clear, why would we make that assumption? If players aren't finishing the game, it's not just roleplaying they're cutting out. It's pretty much everything else.

Roleplayers are a minority, even in RPGs. RPGs for computers, are not actually about roleplaying, but more about inventory, customization and heavy story elements.

Than why aren't they just called TFG's or Tedious Filler Games instead of RPG's than? At least that would be more accurate to reality.

For the same reason that RTSs aren't called: Highly unrealstic war games, with no elements of strategy and barely any of tactics....
RPG is a stamp from which people expect, inventory management, customization, party based combat, and a heavy story element, with the possibility of roleplay. Roleplay are not required, and most people actually doesn't bother with the roleplay.

It just baffles me. It's like hearing someone who says they want to cook say "I don't need food or any ingrediants or seasonings. Just a stove, utensils, some nice cuboards, and a sink."

[xkg]

EmperorSahlertz wrote...
Roleplayers are a minority, even in RPGs.

EmperorSahlertz wrote...
Sure, it is a feature, but it is not important to most gamers.

EmperorSahlertz wrote...
and most people actually doesn't bother with the roleplay

Of course you have the datas to prove these claims ? I would gladly see it if you have some links.
If you know this because "all of you friends" or something similar, don't even bother responding. 

[Cainhurst Crow]

What even is "the roleplay" Sahlertz is referring to? Does he mean it literally as in people don't get into playing out the role of their character in the story?

[MerinTB]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

EmperorSahlertz wrote...
I didn't say roleplaying was the problem... I said that roleplaying in an RPG is not a key feature, sicne it is not an important one in modern RPGs.

The suggest that roleplaying is not a central component in roleplaying games is absurd on its face.

RPG means roleplaying game.  Never will that change.

This.  +1 million.

[EmperorSahlertz]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

I didn't say roleplaying was the problem... I said that roleplaying in an RPG is not a key feature, sicne it is not an important one in modern RPGs.

The suggest that roleplaying is not a central component in roleplaying games is absurd on its face.

RPG means roleplaying game.  Never will that change.

Indeed. But like with RTS, the "roleplaying" in RPG is taking a backseat, and is being moved further and further back in the modern cRPG, in favor of telling a specific story.
Originally, and I'm talking tabletop RPG here, the roleplaying of the RPG was alpha-omega. But with the current generation, less of an emphasis is placed on roleplaying, and a far bigger focus is on action and story in itself. Basically the only true RPG we got these days are the tabletop ones. The computer ones, barely hold any roleplaying potential.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Tabletop games are multiplayer. CRPGs were always our only option for singleplayer roleplaying.

As for the direction modern games are heading, I'm looking forward to Wasteland 2.

[MerinTB]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...
Tabletop games are multiplayer. CRPGs were always our only option for singleplayer roleplaying.

As for the direction modern games are heading, I'm looking forward to Wasteland 2.

Unless you are specifically just referring to creating your own party (YAY!), then I'd say -

Also Shadowrun Returns.  And Project Eternity.  And Torment: Tides of Numenera.

[Plaintiff]

I did not realise that niche crowd-funded projects were single-handedly changing the "direction" of modern games.

[addiction21]

Plaintiff wrote...

I did not realise that niche crowd-funded projects were single-handedly changing the "direction" of modern games.

For those that have wanted what those games have proposed to have then it would be changing the direction of modern games. It would be a clear sign such games are still viable and don't need the massive marketing campaigns and overinflated budgets the suits believe games need to turn a profit. Given EA and Valve have already extended a open hand to many of these projects to help distribute thru their digital services. If they succeed at this is yet to be seen.

Modifié par addiction21, 11 juillet 2013 - 12:26 .