416 réponses à ce sujet

[Tokalla]

Soruyao wrote...

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.

[Schneidend]

Static Entropy wrote...


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

Then you're playing somebody else's stats and are therefore still playing an RPG, because your stats, even max stats, still affect your character's performance. Just because you use a character sheet you didn't create in D&D doesn't mean you are suddenly not playing D&D.

Juneya wrote...

...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.

Then Army of Two: The 40th Day is an RPG? In that game, you assume the role of mercenaries Salem or Rios and make decisions throughout a cohesive storyline. I'd just like somebody to answer this question.

Modifié par Schneidend, 22 janvier 2010 - 04:55 .

[Terror_K]

You take up the role of a character in almost every game out there. Even in Pong you take the role of "left paddle"



If you ignore or gradually filter out the basic elements that are necessary in defining the definition (in this case a statistical progression system), you're basically throwing the term out the window and replacing it entirely. There's a point when you take enough away from something that it no longer is that something at all. Take a spine away from a book and it's no longer a book; it's a collection of pages. Take the wings off a plane and it's no longer a plane. Take the stats system away from an RPG and it's no longer an RPG.

[Merci357]

Terror_K wrote...
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.

It came from the Desert... now that's a quite ancient memory, almost forgot about the good old Cinemaware games, might be tempted to try it again... or Wings, or Defender of the Crown, or S.D.I.

Well, on topic, the technical definiton of RPG is just playing as a character. That's it. We assume RPGs to have a levelling and skill system. Today, RPGs tend to have choices, lots of them. But that's just a new development, and something entirely different. Games become more "cinematic" - something (and the mention of good old Amiga Cinemaware games shows it) that has been tried decades ago, only today the gaming platforms allow it easily. RPGs can be as cinematic as Dragon Age shows, but they don't have to be.

[Static Entropy]

Schneidend wrote...

Static Entropy wrote...


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

Then you're playing somebody else's stats and are therefore still playing an RPG, because your stats, even max stats, still affect your character's performance. Just because you use a character sheet you didn't create in D&D doesn't mean you are suddenly not playing D&D.

Then Army of Two: The 40th Day is an RPG? In that game, you assume the role of mercenaries Salem or Rios and make decisions throughout a cohesive storyline. I'd just like somebody to answer this question.

By your logic then, Halo is an RPG, because the devs have decided on stats for Master Chief--he has a value for strength, agility, aim, charisma, and wisdom that all affect your character's performance in-game and in cut-scenes.  He even has class based skills like Driver(Human Tanks).

Regarding Army of Two, I haven't played that game but I imagine the points of choice aren't anywhere near as common as what is present in what we typically consider RPGs--throughout the conversations we experience in Mass Effect, Dragon Age, BG, Fallout, D&D, Call of Cthulu, etc.  we probably make easily 100 times the choices.  As such, I might say Army of Two would qualify as a super-super-super-light RPG, or perhaps a shooter with RPG elements .

[Soruyao]

Terror_K wrote...

You take up the role of a character in almost every game out there. Even in Pong you take the role of "left paddle"

If you ignore or gradually filter out the basic elements that are necessary in defining the definition (in this case a statistical progression system), you're basically throwing the term out the window and replacing it entirely. There's a point when you take enough away from something that it no longer is that something at all. Take a spine away from a book and it's no longer a book; it's a collection of pages. Take the wings off a plane and it's no longer a plane. Take the stats system away from an RPG and it's no longer an RPG.

The problem with this is that the words that make up role playing game have meaning, even if they aren't the ones that some people do.   If you take them on their own, then yes, army of two:40th day is an RPG.   However, we have attributed meaning to the term beyond what the words themselves actually mean.

It would be as if instead of calling them books, they were called Apparatuses for Reading Words, or APWs.   This would understandably confuse people, because even if we were refering only to the paper form of books with pages and chapters, someone could understandably argue that technically a stop sign is an APW.   The proper thing to do would be to come up with a new term that doesn't have so much word baggage inside of it that refers to other things than what it actually is.

Modifié par Soruyao, 22 janvier 2010 - 05:21 .

[Static Entropy]

Merci357 wrote...

Well, on topic, the technical definiton of RPG is just playing as a character. That's it. We assume RPGs to have a levelling and skill system. Today, RPGs tend to have choices, lots of them. But that's just a new development, and something entirely different. Games become more "cinematic" - something (and the mention of good old Amiga Cinemaware games shows it) that has been tried decades ago, only today the gaming platforms allow it easily. RPGs can be as cinematic as Dragon Age shows, but they don't have to be.

The increased level of choice is only really new for electronic RPGs--and even then, we had games a fairly equivalent level of choice back in the golden days of the isomorphics.

Modifié par Static Entropy, 22 janvier 2010 - 05:09 .

[Tokalla]

Terror_K wrote...

You take up the role of a character in almost every game out there. Even in Pong you take the role of "left paddle"

Perhaps you place yourself in the roll of an inanimate left paddle, but there is actually no implied roleplay in Pong.  I also feel that making the extreme claim that you take on roles with exceedingly limited capacity for personalization and interaction with the story are rather disingenuous acts of hyperbole.  We all realize there is a certain level of freedom to define the gameplay experience that should exist within RPGs, but your insistance on a stat based progression system to exist is no more valid than your claims that Pong has us play the role of a paddle.

This is not to say that stat based progression is not a useful, easily recognized, and effective manner for RPGs to achieve their goal.  All I am saying is that it is no more required than a dialog tree.

Take the stats system away from an RPG and it's no longer an RPG.

Currently that may seem true for a restricted medium like video games, but by no means is that true for more traditional types of RPGs.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freeform_role-playing_game

[Merci357]

The increased level of choice is only really new for electronic RPGs--and even then, we had games a fairly equivalent level of choice back in the golden days of the isomorphics.

Yes, of course, but look back before these isometrics, to, let's say, The Bard's Tale, Dungeon Master, the Phantasie series or Gold Box SSI games, there you had (almost?) no choices at all, but a story, and characters. Even though they are classic cRPGs. Choices don't make or break a RPG, that's just a lable, a genre.
And, at least for me, a lable that has almost no relevance anymore. Yes, I like complex system of character progress, but even more I like to influence a story - that's why I compare modern games to movies.

[Schneidend]

Static Entropy wrote...

By your logic then, Halo is an RPG, because the devs have decided on stats for Master Chief--he has a value for strength, agility, aim, charisma, and wisdom that all affect your character's performance in-game and in cut-scenes.  He even has class based skills like Driver(Human Tanks).

What? Not even close. Master Chief's stats are hidden, and can't be altered in any way, shape, or form, but nice try.

Regarding Army of Two, I haven't played that game but I imagine the points of choice aren't anywhere near as common as what is present in what we typically consider RPGs--throughout the conversations we experience in Mass Effect, Dragon Age, BG, Fallout, D&D, Call of Cthulu, etc.  we probably make easily 100 times the choices.  As such, I might say Army of Two would qualify as a super-super-super-light RPG, or perhaps a shooter with RPG elements .

In Army of Two: 40th Day, you make a significant moral decision within the first fifteen minutes. You
choose whether or not to kill a man who has been helping you on your mission from the game's outset for extra pay. That's more than I can say for ME1.

Modifié par Schneidend, 22 janvier 2010 - 05:27 .

[Darth_Shizz]

Terror_K wrote...

You take up the role of a character in almost every game out there. Even in Pong you take the role of "left paddle"

I quite enjoy roleplaying Frogger, though it never ends particularly well...

[Darth_Shizz]

Schneidend wrote...

Static Entropy wrote...

By your logic then, Halo is an RPG, because the devs have decided on stats for Master Chief--he has a value for strength, agility, aim, charisma, and wisdom that all affect your character's performance in-game and in cut-scenes.  He even has class based skills like Driver(Human Tanks).

What? Not even close. Master Chief's stats are hidden, and can't be altered in any way, shape, or form, but nice try.

Nor can the stats of a pre-built character belonging to a friend, which I believe was his point 

[eternalnightmare13]

todahouse21 wrote...


Is it the lack of chocobos? I bet it's the lack of chocobos.

WTF BIOWARE IZ TEH EVIL!!!!!  SELLOUTS!!!!!!!!!!!!1111111!!!!!!!!!!!!  

NO CHOCOBOS?!?1? WHA?!  IMM GUNNA CANCEL MY PREDOR!

F U   EA/BIOWARE!!!!!!!!!!!!! 

[Static Entropy]

Schneidend wrote...

Static Entropy wrote...

By your logic then, Halo is an RPG, because the devs have decided on stats for Master Chief--he has a value for strength, agility, aim, charisma, and wisdom that all affect your character's performance in-game and in cut-scenes.  He even has class based skills like Driver(Human Tanks).

What? Not even close. Master Chief's stats are hidden, and can't be altered in any way, shape, or form, but nice try.

But you can't change the stats of a level 60 character either, other than to, say, change weapons, which Master Chief can also do.  So is it just being able to see the numbers that makes a game an RPG?  That seems pretty arbitrary to me--in either case you have a set of predefined characteristics determining how you interact with the gameworld.

In Army of Two: 40th Day, you make a significant moral decision within the first fifteen minutes. You
choose whether or not to kill a man who has been helping you on your mission from the game's outset for extra pay. That's more than I can say for ME1.

Actually, the three encounters with survivors on Eden Prime offer a considerable degree of choices, with more granularity as well.  Killing or not killing doesn't provide the same kind of character detail as choosing whether to intimidate or charm someone (or, rather, the combination of smaller and bigger choices allows for a more defined character--which is what we have in a game like Mass Effect).

[Murmillos]

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?

Because I just told you if you actually took the time to understand what I was saying, and just not read the words.

Because most of the other RPG titles are full of complex unrewarding stat systems that offer little gameplay benefit other then to wave your epeenis around going "I'm a lv 50 elvel mage from Rivendell".  And before then, most RPG's have been turned based, or just sitting there making passive choices with no involvement from the player other then clicking on a mouse button every so often.

Click here.. wait for magical dice that allows me to hit.. magical dice roll for how much damage, magical dice roll to block, didn't block, magical dice roll to see how much damage I took.  Oh lets see, 1d4+2 against armor 1d6+3.

For a lot of people.. they don't like this game play, they LIKE taking an active part, their own skill being a key requirement to the either success or failure.

Thats why the above games are so popular, they like the active aspect of the game more then they do complexity.  That doesn't mean they don't like complexity or afraid of it - just most active FPS games NEVER offered it the way RPG's offered it.  FPS offer complexity in the concept called tactics "What to do in a given situation."  If you think pickig up FPS just means picking up a gun and going "HURR DURR DURR" and running around with your weapon, you are going to find that you'll be spending most of your time dead.

Modifié par Murmillos, 22 janvier 2010 - 05:53 .

[Destenoth]

Schneidend wrote...

Static Entropy wrote...

By your logic then, Halo is an RPG, because the devs have decided on stats for Master Chief--he has a value for strength, agility, aim, charisma, and wisdom that all affect your character's performance in-game and in cut-scenes.  He even has class based skills like Driver(Human Tanks).

What? Not even close. Master Chief's stats are hidden, and can't be altered in any way, shape, or form, but nice try.

Regarding Army of Two, I haven't played that game but I imagine the points of choice aren't anywhere near as common as what is present in what we typically consider RPGs--throughout the conversations we experience in Mass Effect, Dragon Age, BG, Fallout, D&D, Call of Cthulu, etc.  we probably make easily 100 times the choices.  As such, I might say Army of Two would qualify as a super-super-super-light RPG, or perhaps a shooter with RPG elements .

In Army of Two: 40th Day, you make a significant moral decision within the first fifteen minutes. You
choose whether or not to kill a man who has been helping you on your mission from the game's outset for extra pay. That's more than I can say for ME1.

Ahem. Rachni. Virmire. Council. Surely the timing of when choices appear in the game has no bearing on their worth?

As for what RPG means, the name doesn't really fit the definition in my opinion. I'm not saying anyone's defintion is wrong, just that when you think about it, the words Role Playing Game don't immediately suggest stats and number crunching. I suppose it's now just become another example of the peculiarities of the English language. Like how lackadaisical has nothing to do with flowers .

EDIT: Forgot to proof read ><

Modifié par Destenoth, 22 janvier 2010 - 05:46 .

[Terror_K]

Tokalla wrote...

We all realize there is a certain level of freedom to define the gameplay experience that should exist within RPGs, but your insistance on a stat based progression system to exist is no more valid than your claims that Pong has us play the role of a paddle.

Fine. If you want to remain ignorant to the truth, go ahead. I'm sick of trying to educate ignorant children who refuse to see the truth despite the evidence.

This is not to say that stat based progression is not a useful, easily recognized, and effective manner for RPGs to achieve their goal.  All I am saying is that it is no more required than a dialog tree.

Like the dialogue trees in games like Fahrenheit, It Came From the Desert, Indiana Jones and the Fate of Atlantis, etc. that were not RPG's and were never considered as such. And then there's the RPG's that don't even have dialogue at all. The act of merging genres may be a good idea in the physical sense, but it's been hell on defining the genre. If the definition of RPG changes just because the new generation can't handle the simple truth and feel that it needs a literally naming convention for the definition, then I think I'd kill myself.

[Schneidend]

Static Entropy wrote...
But you can't change the stats of a level 60 character either, other than to, say, change weapons, which Master Chief can also do.  So is it just being able to see the numbers that makes a game an RPG?  That seems pretty arbitrary to me--in either case you have a set of predefined characteristics determining how you interact with the gameworld.

You can change equipment, mods, amps, and omni-tools, which all affect your stats. Moreover, somebody still had to build that character to that point. The game does not change genres when the controller changes hands. To suggest otherwise is ridiculous.

Actually, the three encounters with survivors on Eden Prime offer a considerable degree of choices, with more granularity as well.  Killing or not killing doesn't provide the same kind of character detail as choosing whether to intimidate or charm someone (or, rather, the combination of smaller and bigger choices allows for a more defined character--which is what we have in a game like Mass Effect).

While I agree that smaller choices allow more detailed character development, choosing whether or not to kill a man for more money has many magnitudes more gravity than choosing whether or not to punch a clairvoyant lunatic in the face. Salem and Rios are already mercenaries with their own personalities. The player merely decides their ethics, or lack thereof, in a given situation. By the "making decisions in an interactive storyline makes an RPG" definition, this makes AoT an RPG.

[Darth_Shizz]

Terror_K wrote...


Fine. If you want to remain ignorant to the truth, go ahead. I'm sick of trying to educate ignorant children who refuse to see the truth despite the evidence.

 Hey Tokalla, I think you just broke Terror 

Modifié par Darth_Shizz, 22 janvier 2010 - 05:50 .

[Murmillos]

Static Entropy wrote...

Schneidend wrote...

Static Entropy wrote...


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

Then you're playing somebody else's stats and are therefore still playing an RPG, because your stats, even max stats, still affect your character's performance. Just because you use a character sheet you didn't create in D&D doesn't mean you are suddenly not playing D&D.

Then Army of Two: The 40th Day is an RPG? In that game, you assume the role of mercenaries Salem or Rios and make decisions throughout a cohesive storyline. I'd just like somebody to answer this question.

By your logic then, Halo is an RPG, because the devs have decided on stats for Master Chief--he has a value for strength, agility, aim, charisma, and wisdom that all affect your character's performance in-game and in cut-scenes.  He even has class based skills like Driver(Human Tanks).

Regarding Army of Two, I haven't played that game but I imagine the points of choice aren't anywhere near as common as what is present in what we typically consider RPGs--throughout the conversations we experience in Mass Effect, Dragon Age, BG, Fallout, D&D, Call of Cthulu, etc.  we probably make easily 100 times the choices.  As such, I might say Army of Two would qualify as a super-super-super-light RPG, or perhaps a shooter with RPG elements .

Your logic is flawed, as you can never play as another type of Master Chief.  Master Chief has one single roll and class.  Shepard for the other hand, can change.  He can be any of 6 different classes, and his talents choices can be different, as in not leveled up from other Shepards of the same class - also along with adding in the bonus talents.  My Shock Trooper Vanguard with Singularity is different then his Nemesis Adept with AR which is different then her Commando Inflitrator with AI Hacking.

Again, if you can't measure character progress (very broad term - and even Halo doesn't have one) then the game is not an PRG.

(slightly edited...)

Modifié par Murmillos, 22 janvier 2010 - 05:57 .

[Static Entropy]

Schneidend wrote...

You can change equipment, mods, amps, and omni-tools, which all affect your stats. Moreover, somebody still had to build that character to that point. The game does not change genres when the controller changes hands. To suggest otherwise is ridiculous.

Once you get the Savant X Amp/Tool, there's no reason to switch.  Master Chief can change guns that affect your stats, as it were (plasma pistol is basically a mod that does 500% shield damage and -80% physical damage).  Moreover, the devs built Master Chief to that point, just like another player built UberShep to level 60--why does it matter if it was a dev or another player defining your character when the end result is the same to you?  And I'm not suggesting that the genre changes when you switch out players; what I'm suggesting is that your definition of an RPG leads to this logically confusing conclusion.

Actually, the three encounters with survivors on Eden Prime offer a considerable degree of choices, with more granularity as well.  Killing or not killing doesn't provide the same kind of character detail as choosing whether to intimidate or charm someone (or, rather, the combination of smaller and bigger choices allows for a more defined character--which is what we have in a game like Mass Effect).

While I agree that smaller choices allow more detailed character development, choosing whether or not to kill a man for more money has many magnitudes more gravity than choosing whether or not to punch a clairvoyant lunatic in the face. Salem and Rios are already mercenaries with their own personalities. The player merely decides their ethics, or lack thereof, in a given situation. By the "making decisions in an interactive storyline makes an RPG" definition, this makes AoT an RPG.

Yes, but Mass Effect also offers many larger choices (even the choice to commit genocide) and it fills the spaces in between with meaningful smaller choices.   As I said before, the limited nature of your choices in Army of Two make the game seem like a very light RPG; after all, it doesn't seem like you get much of a choice between defining yourself as a pyschotic mercenary or an extremely pyschotic mercenary, thus the player is barred from the relative freedom of character creation that is typical of RPGs.

[Tokalla]

Terror_K wrote...

Fine. If you want to remain ignorant to the truth, go ahead. I'm sick of trying to educate ignorant children who refuse to see the truth despite the evidence.

Your inability to refrain from tossing about insults does not augment your capacity to debate an invalid point.  Perhaps you will next insist that when playing ping pong the athletes involved are roleplaying as their respective paddles?  Since all pong was designed to be was a virtual form of ping pong, that must be the case..right?

You should also refrain from making foolish assumptions about the age and/or maturity level of others, unless you are actively seeking to demonstrate a judgemental attitude of intolerance.  Reliance on ad hominem is not a very viable method of debate.

Like the dialogue trees in games like Fahrenheit, It Came From the Desert, Indiana Jones and the Fate of Atlantis, etc. that were not RPG's and were never considered as such. And then there's the RPG's that don't even have dialogue at all. The act of merging genres may be a good idea in the physical sense, but it's been hell on defining the genre. If the definition of RPG changes just because the new generation can't handle the simple truth and feel that it needs a literally naming convention for the definition, then I think I'd kill myself.

You seem to have missed the point.  I never said dialog trees were inherently limited to being used in RPGs.  I stated they were no more inherent than stat based progression, as there are definitely games that incorporate that mechanic but are not RPGs.  By trying to show how dialog trees are not required, you have only strengthened my example, not weakened it.  At no point has the RPG genre been utterly defined by stat based progression, regardless of how common and useful a tool it may be within the genre.  As more games outside the genre incorporate elements of RPG mechanics into them, I think you will fin the necessity of redefining what is considered an RPG necessary (as some people such as myself have already watched and accepted multiple adjustments to definitions we grew up with).  The actual truth is that language is never static, it always adjusts to fit the majority of those who speak it.  That won't change what RPG has meant, but it certainly can change what is does (and will) mean. 

[Murmillos]

Static Entropy wrote...

Once you get the Savant X Amp/Tool, there's no reason to switch.  Master Chief can change guns that affect your stats, as it were (plasma pistol is basically a mod that does 500% shield damage and -80% physical damage).

A) A lot of RPG's have best in slot items.... 

Weapon properties/effects are not player character stats - thus not RPG mechanics.  Unless the weapon does alter player stats. Like a "Magical golden sword of +5 STR".  If a weapon does 50% more damage to shields, its not the player charater stat that is being modified, its only that weapons special ability.

What are you going to say next.. A sniper rifle is a stat mod because it allows you see and shoot further?  Or is it because that what the weapon does?

[sakay]

I think the backlash against the shooter elements of the game among classic RPGers has more to do with the fact that many of us find the shooter element...trying. 

As in we are bad at it. 

As in unless I am really concentrating I am almost as likely to shoot my companions as I am the enemy and dying constantly is really frustrating.  That is not fun and relaxing.

Not that all RPGers are as pathetic as I am, but most of us want the story and exploration out of an RPG.  The whole advantage of having an alter-ego that is far more buff and coordinated than I am is that my character should be far more coordinated than I am.

The story was worth it and I love the strategy.  Believe me, when you can barely hit the broadside of a barn, strategy is important.  I don't generally play shooters for a reason, though.  I'm not whining about it.  I just turned my Shepard into more of a support/healer and travelled with tanks. 

ME1 was a great game, but I can see why it didn't appeal to many of the hardcore RPG fans.

[Static Entropy]

Murmillos wrote...

Your logic is flawed, as you can never play as another type of Master Chief.  Master Chief has one single roll and class.  Shepard for the other hand, can change.  He can be any of 6 different classes, and his talents choices can be different, as in not leveled up from other Shepards of the same class - also along with adding in the bonus talents.  My Shock Trooper Vanguard with Singularity is different then his Nemesis Adept with AR which is different then her Commando Inflitrator with AI Hacking.

Again, if you can't measure character progress (very broad term - and even Halo doesn't have one) then the game is not an PRG.

(slightly edited...)

Incorrect, in this instance, because in the hypothetical situation we have been playing around with, Shephard cannot change--we have already chosen a fully leveled Shephard, and we can neither change his class on the fly, nor change his attributes, nor meaningfully change his stats except through the kind of weapon selection that is also present in Halo.  The fact that other possible Shephards exist does not change the fact that we can go through a playthrough with a maxed out Shephard for whom their is no meaningful statistical progress.  However, I would argue that his progress through the story is significant, and that the development of UberShep as an imaginary individual based on the results of the player's choices is what allows us call Mass Effect an RPG, even if we were to play it without ever changing our Shephard.