416 réponses à ce sujet

[Static Entropy]

Terror_K wrote...

Static Entropy wrote...

Anyway, I think it's silly to equate RPGs with stats and whatnot.  RPGs are, at their heart, games that allow players to interact with the story through choice in ways that traditional mediums and genres do not.

Not this again... <_<

For the fifty billionth time stats are vital to RPG's. Stop mixing up interactive story-driven games with RPG's.

No, they're not vital.  They're just a very robust system that's proven very useful over the years.  I mean, don't get me wrong, I play ASL and Battletech, so it's not like I'm afraid of math, but you're taking something that's typical of RPGs and saying that it's essential.  They're just another way to describe a character and provide a framework for his/her interaction with the world--that's all.

[Schneidend]

Terror_K wrote...

Not this again... <_<

For the fifty billionth time stats are vital to RPG's. Stop mixing up interactive story-driven games with RPG's.

I have to agree here. By that fallacious definition, Army of Two: The 40th Day is an RPG, while a simple hack-and-slash dungeon crawl played with D&D rules is not an RPG. That is a laughable notion. Stats like hit points, armor class, physical strength, etc. that are made plainly and numerically visible to the player and are affected by the player make a game considered an RPG. An interactive story makes the game interactive and story-driven, and nothing else.

[Terror_K]

No, you are taking something that's typical of RPGs and saying that it's essential. There are dozens of games out there that are story-driven and have players making choices and divergent paths and the like, but they're NOT all RPG's. Every single game officially considered to be an RPG out there has a stat-based system in place. Every single one. Not all games that are story-driven and have choices and consequences are RPG's.



God, I wish it was 10 years ago again sometimes...

[ChaoticBroth]

Let's see what RPG stands for. Role Playing Game.

Over the years, the lines between what's an RPG and what isn't have grown pretty confused. Stats, back in the day, were used to evaluate levels of skill for your character and compare their skill levels to others - at least that's how I saw it. You're playing a role.  Since you're playing a role, it means you're going through a story of sorts, with you as the lead actor. People have really confused RPGs for being games where numbers matter the most, while what makes a role-playing game a role-playing game as opposed to a math game with formulas from various levels of hell is the story. That's it, really. Stats, grinding, and all that are actually only minutely necessary. Back then, perhaps, it was necessary to do so in video games, but nowadays, when choices in storyline can be programmed to create a large amount of possibilities, is it really necessary? I think not.

[Soruyao]

Schneidend wrote...

Terror_K wrote...

Not this again... <_<

For the fifty billionth time stats are vital to RPG's. Stop mixing up interactive story-driven games with RPG's.

I have to agree here. By that fallacious definition, Army of Two: The 40th Day is an RPG, while a simple hack-and-slash dungeon crawl played with D&D rules is not an RPG. That is a laughable notion. Stats like hit points, armor class, physical strength, etc. that are made plainly and numerically visible to the player and are affected by the player make a game considered an RPG. An interactive story makes the game interactive and story-driven, and nothing else.

I understand that is how people usually refer to it, but it strikes me as a strange semantically that a game where you play a role can be anything but a role playing game.  Maybe we need a new term to avoid this confusion.

[Schneidend]

ChaoticBroth wrote...

Let's see what RPG stands for. Role Playing Game.

Over the years, the lines between what's an RPG and what isn't have grown pretty confused. Stats, back in the day, were used to evaluate levels of skill for your character and compare their skill levels to others - at least that's how I saw it. You're playing a role.  Since you're playing a role, it means you're going through a story of sorts, with you as the lead actor. People have really confused RPGs for being games where numbers matter the most, while what makes a role-playing game a role-playing game as opposed to a math game with formulas from various levels of hell is the story. That's it, really. Stats, grinding, and all that are actually only minutely necessary. Back then, perhaps, it was necessary to do so in video games, but nowadays, when choices in storyline can be programmed to create a large amount of possibilities, is it really necessary? I think not.

What? So, according to you, Army of Two: The 40th Day, a game that has a consistent plot in which you make moral decisions in the storyline, is an RPG. The majority of career modes in wrestling games where you choose who to fight and feud with, then, are also RPGs. Infamous, where you make several major moral decisions, is also an RPG.

Inversely, Super Mario RPG, D&D dungeon crawls without characterization, nearly every JRPG ever made, games where you make no storyline decisions, are not RPGs. Is that what you are, in fact, attempting to argue? So the entire industry just, completely wrong, then?

[Daeion]

Static Entropy wrote...

Terror_K wrote...

Static Entropy wrote...

Anyway, I think it's silly to equate RPGs with stats and whatnot.  RPGs are, at their heart, games that allow players to interact with the story through choice in ways that traditional mediums and genres do not.

Not this again... <_<

For the fifty billionth time stats are vital to RPG's. Stop mixing up interactive story-driven games with RPG's.

No, they're not vital.  They're just a very robust system that's proven very useful over the years.  I mean, don't get me wrong, I play ASL and Battletech, so it's not like I'm afraid of math, but you're taking something that's typical of RPGs and saying that it's essential.  They're just another way to describe a character and provide a framework for his/her interaction with the world--that's all.

What RPG doesn't have stats that you improve?

[Terror_K]

No. The definition or term shouldn't change simply because there are more hybrids and the new "gamer" generation don't know what the definition is and take the word "roleplaying" far too literally. The likes of Fahrenheit, It Came from the Desert (along with most Cinemaware titles), Indiana Jones and the Fate of Atlantis, Cruise for a Corpse, and GTA IV don't suddenly become RPG's now because people these days don't know the definition. Any non-linear game would become an RPG then, and there'd be RPG's with little story and/or that are entirely linear that would suddenly no longer be RPG's.



Conform with the way it already is and don't try to change it because you don't feel it fits your definition of it.

[Murmillos]

Terror_K wrote...

BioWare have stated several times themselves that they designed the game to appeal to a broader audience; an audience that is usually scared by RPG's because they have too much complexity and are generally more involved than... well... I'll just say the simpler, more popular titles that said audience tends to play.

Feel free to read between the lines there, as I'm sure some of you will do. It's only fair... I did the exact same thing with what BioWare have said.

My overall point is that one can make things too simple, just as one can make things too complex.

Your "broader audience" is not scared of complexity, they don't like dealing with tedious and sometimes mindless boring features that have negligable upgrades.  You can have a complex system that is fun and entertaning - that is what BioWare is trying to find.  Puting enough points to upgrade and unlock Advanced to Master was the fun part of the system.  Putting 1 point into to get a 2% increase was not fun.  Solution, Make the point upgrade system scaling where you get the big rewarding upgrades, while getting rid of of the boring featureless "micro" improvements.  Also, the last level can be evoloved to fit your playing style.  In both the same brush, the system got simplier and more complex.  In the end, the fun rewarding factor improved - and hopefully with a positive impact on the game play.

Again as I've stated before, Bioweare is trying to get rid of the complex systems that are tedious that most people don't have the time, energy or mood to deal with (thats what real life is for), and to create a complex system that is fun and engaging to replace what was removed.  They may get some parts right, they may not.  But down right insulting everybody because they didn't create Mass Effect 2 for you, is out of line.

Modifié par Murmillos, 22 janvier 2010 - 04:17 .

[Schneidend]

Besides, isn't this all a moot point? The "RPGs" these people are talking about, the one where you don't improve your starts at all, don't even exist.



Moreover, Mass Effect 2 IS going to have stats. So, it's an RPG whether you subscribe to the real definition, or overly literal insanity.

[Daeion]

ChaoticBroth wrote...

Let's see what RPG stands for. Role Playing Game.

Over the years, the lines between what's an RPG and what isn't have grown pretty confused. Stats, back in the day, were used to evaluate levels of skill for your character and compare their skill levels to others - at least that's how I saw it. You're playing a role.  Since you're playing a role, it means you're going through a story of sorts, with you as the lead actor. People have really confused RPGs for being games where numbers matter the most, while what makes a role-playing game a role-playing game as opposed to a math game with formulas from various levels of hell is the story. That's it, really. Stats, grinding, and all that are actually only minutely necessary. Back then, perhaps, it was necessary to do so in video games, but nowadays, when choices in storyline can be programmed to create a large amount of possibilities, is it really necessary? I think not.

So is ODST a roleplaying game then?

[ChaoticBroth]

Daeion wrote...

ChaoticBroth wrote...

Let's see what RPG stands for. Role Playing Game.

Over the years, the lines between what's an RPG and what isn't have grown pretty confused. Stats, back in the day, were used to evaluate levels of skill for your character and compare their skill levels to others - at least that's how I saw it. You're playing a role.  Since you're playing a role, it means you're going through a story of sorts, with you as the lead actor. People have really confused RPGs for being games where numbers matter the most, while what makes a role-playing game a role-playing game as opposed to a math game with formulas from various levels of hell is the story. That's it, really. Stats, grinding, and all that are actually only minutely necessary. Back then, perhaps, it was necessary to do so in video games, but nowadays, when choices in storyline can be programmed to create a large amount of possibilities, is it really necessary? I think not.

So is ODST a roleplaying game then?

Never played it, wouldn't know. I see stats as simply a means for character growth, and when that's achieved through other means, they're really not that necessary in my eyes. Maybe I should've said that in my post, I don't know. But this is my opinion. Whatever you think of it, it's not in my power to dictate over it or undermine it.

[Murmillos]

I agree with Terror_K here, about stats. They are vital, but their complexity is not required for a game to be an RPG. You need some progression and ability to track, improve and select the upgrades your player character. Either it be thru a skill tree, stat allocation points, a mixture of both or another system all together - there needs to be an element that shows progression in your characters growth. If your character can' not show measured, then you are just playing a story driven adventure. Now - liner growth (meaning your character has no choice in how they improve) does not count. Choices between choosing between A B C or how many choices there are, must be present - and a slight penalty that if you go one way, you can't get everything else later on. Choose A - miss out on D, choose D, can't get B.. etc.etc.



It does not need to be complex or the core element of the game play, but it must exist and have a strong foundation that changes improved upon can be measured against another character - regardless of class.

[Schneidend]

ChaoticBroth wrote...
Never played it, wouldn't know. I see stats as simply a means for character growth, and when that's achieved through other means, they're really not that necessary in my eyes. Maybe I should've said that in my post, I don't know. But this is my opinion. Whatever you think of it, it's not in my power to dictate over it or undermine it.

If by, "other means," you mean that you accure more power as the story progresses, well, they've already done that many times. That would make Banjo-Kazooie, Devil May Cry, God of War, and Legacy of Kain: Soul Reaver RPGs. That is patently absurd.

[Tokalla]

Soruyao wrote...

I understand that is how people usually refer to it, but it strikes me as a strange semantically that a game where you play a role can be anything but a role playing game.  Maybe we need a new term to avoid this confusion.

As the present emphasis on stats over actual dynamic roleplay interaction seems to be more valued by those claiming RPG purism, I would instead suggest they use the term Character Progression based RPG (as I still do validly feel they are indeed RPGs, merely those with an alternative emphasis on what defines a role).  While I am certain that the preference for further use of the term RPG would be desired, it seems counter intuitive to relabel those who place an emphasis on the ability to act as the role of the character (and feeling that greater freedom in decision making or interaction with the environment enhances gameplay) as something other than Roleplaying (though I suppose Role based RPG would be acceptable, although redundant).

I feel it should also be mentioned that making the formal rules governing an RPG less transparent aids actual roleplaying, as being hung up on the arbitrary rules designed to allow the character to interact with the world impedes immersion (and facilitates metagaming).  While I find nothing wrong with enjoying tinkering with stats (and have often done so out of boredom), I don't really feel that defining a genre based on the technological limitations that were present when it first appeared rather than the goal it was attempting to achieve is a good philosophy.  Simply because the traditional cRPGs of a decade ago were restricted to primarily using nothing but the formal rules systems of the PnP RPGs they were derived from is not a very good reason to claim that nothing beyond the usage of those type of systems matter.  To do so blatantly disregards what the intentions of those who designed the cRPGs were attempting to do (develop a manner in which the player had more control over the role they played within a game).

[xxSgt_Reed_24xx]

todahouse21 wrote...

But if they played the original you know that its not over quickly.

And attention span?

Staying alive while checking your ammo while aiming at targets while finding cover

OR

Planning a move. Inactivley watch it play out. Ponder whether to use the magic chrystal of all-encompassing goodness or the dark of (insert random demon name here) on your next turn.

Seriously, I think the shooter aspect requires more attention.

I 100% agree with you!

That's the one thing I wanted to be different in KOTOR. I wanted to actually do the fighting and swinging of the lightsaber myself, NOT have it determined by a "dice roll". I love pretty much all other aspects of the RPG.

[Terror_K]

Murmillos wrote...

Terror_K wrote...

BioWare have stated several times themselves that they designed the game to appeal to a broader audience; an audience that is usually scared by RPG's because they have too much complexity and are generally more involved than... well... I'll just say the simpler, more popular titles that said audience tends to play.

Feel free to read between the lines there, as I'm sure some of you will do. It's only fair... I did the exact same thing with what BioWare have said.

My overall point is that one can make things too simple, just as one can make things too complex.

Your "broader audience" is not scared of complexity, they don't like dealing with tedious and sometimes mindless boring features that have negligable upgrades.  You can have a complex system that is fun and entertaning - that is what BioWare is trying to find.  Puting enough points to upgrade and unlock Advanced to Master was the fun part of the system.  Putting 1 point into to get a 2% increase was not fun.  Solution, Make the point upgrade system scaling where you get the big rewarding upgrades, while getting rid of of the boring featureless "micro" improvements.  Also, the last level can be evoloved to fit your playing style.  In both the same brush, the system got simplier and more complex.  In the end, the fun rewarding factor improved - and hopefully with a positive impact on the game play.

Again as I've stated before, Bioweare is trying to get rid of the complex systems that are tedious that most people don't have the time, energy or mood to deal with (thats what real life is for), and to create a complex system that is fun and engaging to replace what was removed.  They may get some parts right, they may not.  But down right insulting everybody because they didn't create Mass Effect 2 for you, is out of line.

Then why, pray tell, are shooters far, far, FAR more popular than RPG's? Why is it that Dragon Age, while popular, is nowhere near as big as seller as Halo, Gears of War, or CoD 4.2? If the mainstream audience are so into complexity rather than simplicity, why are they lapping up the simplest of titles and hardly touching the deeper ones? BioWare shouldn't need to market and change the game to appeal to them if they're already interested in the first place... but they're not. Why?

[Schneidend]

Terror_K wrote...

Then why, pray tell, are shooters far, far, FAR more popular than RPG's? Why is it that Dragon Age, while popular, is nowhere near as big as seller as Halo, Gears of War, or CoD 4.2? If the mainstream audience are so into complexity rather than simplicity, why are they lapping up the simplest of titles and hardly touching the deeper ones? BioWare shouldn't need to market and change the game to appeal to them if they're already interested in the first place... but they're not. Why?

Well, to be fair, Modern Warfare 2 has some RPG-like aspects in the perk system, kill-streak rewards, deathstreak rewards, and the qunatitative progression in the multiplayer that give you more of each of those things as well as new weapons and items to use.

[Soruyao]

Terror_K wrote...

Then why, pray tell, are shooters far, far, FAR more popular than RPG's? Why is it that Dragon Age, while popular, is nowhere near as big as seller as Halo, Gears of War, or CoD 4.2? If the mainstream audience are so into complexity rather than simplicity, why are they lapping up the simplest of titles and hardly touching the deeper ones? BioWare shouldn't need to market and change the game to appeal to them if they're already interested in the first place... but they're not. Why?

Might it be possible that shooters have more complexity than is immediately apparent?  (At least in the multiplayer department?)

I've put a good amount of time into halo's multiplayer, but when I tried to play gears 2 I got blown away repeatedly because I didn't know all of the little intricacies behind how to use each gun and where each kicked and how much, and how to do this that and the other thing.  

When you set someone down into an rpg, often times you can give them a basic idea of what they need to do and how and they will be mostly fine, however if you try to explain to someone how to play a shooter online, you will have to explain quite a deal more for them to have a fighting chance.

I know this wasn't on your list, but left 4 dead 2 might be the most complex game I have ever played.   There are so many little things you need to know to play that game competetively that I have a feeling I could write a good 10 pages worth of strategy and not have given you everything you need to know.

[Tokalla]

Terror_K wrote...

No. The definition or term shouldn't change simply because there are more hybrids and the new "gamer" generation don't know what the definition is and take the word "roleplaying" far too literally. The likes of Fahrenheit, It Came from the Desert (along with most Cinemaware titles), Indiana Jones and the Fate of Atlantis, Cruise for a Corpse, and GTA IV don't suddenly become RPG's now because people these days don't know the definition. Any non-linear game would become an RPG then, and there'd be RPG's with little story and/or that are entirely linear that would suddenly no longer be RPG's.

Conform with the way it already is and don't try to change it because you don't feel it fits your definition of it.

I'm afraid that attempting to defy the natural evolution of language is a pointless effort.  Language evolves as new variations occur, and often due to common usage ascribing new meaning to already existing terms.  I would also say you seem to be assigning the definition of what an RPG is (in the medium of video game) based almost entirely upon tradition, while disregarding what those who made the games that formed those traditions were attempting to create (a recreation of the tabletop PnP experience limited by their technological and financial capabilities).  Simply because it couldn't be done better, does not mean we should ignore the spirit of the genre for its outdated conventions.  Genres are meant to be broad and vaguely defined concepts, not rigidly defined with a precise list of required points of which a specified number must be present.  I would actually say that the essence of what an RPG is will begin to matter more than the systems that have been traditionally used in them as those systems become more common elements in other genres (which hybrids such as ME show are becoming much more widely accepted due to its obvious mass appeal).

[Static Entropy]

Daeion wrote...

Static Entropy wrote...

Terror_K wrote...

Static Entropy wrote...

Anyway, I think it's silly to equate RPGs with stats and whatnot.  RPGs are, at their heart, games that allow players to interact with the story through choice in ways that traditional mediums and genres do not.

Not this again... 

For the fifty billionth time stats are vital to RPG's. Stop mixing up interactive story-driven games with RPG's.

No, they're not vital.  They're just a very robust system that's proven very useful over the years.  I mean, don't get me wrong, I play ASL and Battletech, so it's not like I'm afraid of math, but you're taking something that's typical of RPGs and saying that it's essential.  They're just another way to describe a character and provide a framework for his/her interaction with the world--that's all.

What RPG doesn't have stats that you improve?

If you start a new+ playthrough of ME when you're already at level 60, and you have the best armor and the Spectre Gear, is it still an RPG?

Anyway, I'm not arguing that a good RPG isn't going to have any stats involved (and if it's sounded that way, then it's my fault)--they're a very good way for the player to be able to change the way he interacts with his environment.  After all, without them we're basically forced into LARPing, which while I do consider a kind of RPG, is not exactly my kind of thing.  My point is that they are nothing more than a tool for storytelling in genre that is defined by interactive storytelling.  Their presence doesn't make a game an RPG (otherwise we'd have to call most tabletop wargames RPGs), and the complexity of the numbers involved mean nothing for determining how an RPGey a game is other than the extent to which they help the player connect to the character.

I do agree, however, that genre boundaries are becoming increasingly blurred--I just don't think it's a bad thing.  After all, nothing is stopping me from loading up Planescape Torment, or, God forbid, pulling out the polyhedrals.

Edit: I feel pretty redundant after reading Tokalla's post.

Modifié par Static Entropy, 22 janvier 2010 - 04:45 .

[Schneidend]

Static Entropy wrote...
If you start a new+ playthrough of ME when you're already at level 60, and you have the best armor and the Spectre Gear, is it still an RPG?

Um, yes, because your performance is still affected by your stats. That you have achieved the highest point of progression does not change the entire ****ing genre of the game. What kind of question is that?

[Bootsykk]

...I think we're getting the terms 'Tactical and Turn-based Role-Playing Game' and just 'Role-Playing Game' confused...



But really, all that makes an RPG an RPG is roleplay... where you take up the direct role of a character. It's the same thing as LARPing, just using a different media. However, RPGs are commonly associated with Tactical and Turn-Based gaming, so if it is to be assumed that one cannot exist without the other, then that would make me quite the fool.

[Static Entropy]

Schneidend wrote...

Static Entropy wrote...
If you start a new+ playthrough of ME when you're already at level 60, and you have the best armor and the Spectre Gear, is it still an RPG?

Um, yes, because your performance is still affected by your stats. That you have achieved the highest point of progression does not change the entire ****ing genre of the game. What kind of question is that?

What if you had never played the game before and started with someone else's level 60 character?

Modifié par Static Entropy, 22 janvier 2010 - 04:46 .

[Soruyao]

Tokalla wrote...
 (which hybrids such as ME show are becoming much more widely accepted due to its obvious mass appeal).

Please tell me you did this on purpose.