297 réponses à ce sujet

[Seboist]

EntropicAngel wrote...


Oh, I accepted that Final Fantasy has never been an RPG a long, long time ago. Doesn't mean it isn't still awesome.

Final Fantasy are RPGs, just because you can't slap a hairstyle on a self-insert or engage in game assisted make believe(ex. Bioware style non-choices) doesn't make it any less of one.

Final Fantasy V  in particular wipes the floor with with both BW and even CDPR's offerings in terms of character customization(dat job system ).

[A Crusty Knight Of Colour]

Fast Jimmy wrote...

And it's funny to me, because Madden, FIFA and NBA2K sell WAY more than RPGs these days.

I could see taking the path to stupidville if it resulted in more sales. But these games that sell 10 million+ every year? Their systems and concepts are the way more advanced ones. It's the exact opposite of what a gaming exec would say to expect... yet people are still designing games like gaming execs think they should be.

To be fair, the sales are generated because of the sports themselves. I wouldn't attribute it to the character systems or anything. Yet most people are able to grasp how to make characters in Sports games and deck them out with appropriate stats. Sports games are generally looked at as casual games too.

What I want to know is why that suddenly becomes completely incomprehensible and akin to accounting or complex spreadsheet calculations once the Sports aspect is removed from it and say, Fantasy is added in it's place. I know that is the jargon and reasoning execs and the like use to justify "streamlining", but a fair amount of gamers believe that too. It baffles me.

[Fast Jimmy]

Seboist wrote...

EntropicAngel wrote...


Oh, I accepted that Final Fantasy has never been an RPG a long, long time ago. Doesn't mean it isn't still awesome.

Final Fantasy are RPGs, just because you can't slap a hairstyle on a self-insert or engage in game assisted make believe(ex. Bioware style non-choices) doesn't make it any less of one.

Final Fantasy V  in particular wipes the floor with with both BW and even CDPR's offerings in terms of character customization(dat job system ).

You spelled Final Fantasy 6 wrong.

And you also spelled "job system" wrong. It's spelled "Espers."

Modifié par Fast Jimmy, 17 décembre 2013 - 12:45 .

[Rusty Sandusky]

If that linear corridor called Final Fantasy XIII is an RPG then I'm not going to call games 'RPG' and judge them on their own merit.

[dreamgazer]

Seboist wrote...

Pretty sad how sports games are more complex RPGs than what's getting passed around as such in the west.

I've seen this posted a few times, and I still think it's sort of an unfair representation of the skill tree and stats in ME3, which do have many of the textual figures printed in the sub-trees and a wider range of choices.  The customization level has, obviously, been downscaled from ME1, but there's more to it than that.   And it's certainly an uptick from ME2. 

[spirosz]

That's Seboist only argument, that's why.

[Fast Jimmy]

CrustyBot wrote...

Fast Jimmy wrote...

And it's funny to me, because Madden, FIFA and NBA2K sell WAY more than RPGs these days.

I could see taking the path to stupidville if it resulted in more sales. But these games that sell 10 million+ every year? Their systems and concepts are the way more advanced ones. It's the exact opposite of what a gaming exec would say to expect... yet people are still designing games like gaming execs think they should be.

To be fair, the sales are generated because of the sports themselves. I wouldn't attribute it to the character systems or anything. Yet most people are able to grasp how to make characters in Sports games and deck them out with appropriate stats. Sports games are generally looked at as casual games too.

What I want to know is why that suddenly becomes completely incomprehensible and akin to accounting or complex spreadsheet calculations once the Sports aspect is removed from it and say, Fantasy is added in it's place. I know that is the jargon and reasoning execs and the like use to justify "streamlining", but a fair amount of gamers believe that too. It baffles me.

See, I'm not sure this is true. 

I mean, sure, you don't see copies of English Cricket Board 2014 flying off the shelves right now (pro-tip: it's not a real game, for all you cricket fans who started foaming at the mouth).

But a game like the NFL Blitz series, a game that was relatively popular for a few years, wound up dying out. Why? I'd say it's because it was a rather shallow system that didn't account for anything other than button mashing and using the same strategies to trick the computer every time. 

But popular, long-enduring sports games don't do that. Why? Because sports are, inherently, strategy games. It matters if I pick the Denver Broncos over the Minnesota Vikings in Madden 2014, mostly because the passing stats for Peyton Manning dwarf those of Christian Ponder, while the rushing stats of Adrian Peterson are (until he got injured) god-level tier. These are different "builds" for different teams and players. Meaning you can't run the same plays or strategies with one team and have them work with another. Nor can you get away with having Drew Brees dump it off to Jimmy Graham every single play against Seatle's brutal pass defense, because you'll wind up with more interceptions than Eli Manning.

So successful sports games move more towards simulation rather than stimulation. Because in that realism is a huge amount of challenge and enjoyment. 

And, I might mention, there is also the inherent bonus in losing not being a Game Over screen. If you play as the Knicks against the Heat, chances are you are going to get your taint handed to you. The talent level between the teams is insanely lopsided. Yet a player playing a season game as the Nets isn't doomed from the start from ever completing a season of NBA2K simply because they will likely lose to the Heat. You can lose and still play on. You can be defeated and not have to say "well, I guess I'll have to press reload and play this exact same segment again and hope for a better outcome."

Sports fans understand failure. They have to - it's an inherent part of sports. Its possible (even neccessary) to have imbalances between groups. Its an expectation that losing will happen. Its also the very nature of most games that a surprise upset can happen anytime someone steps onto the court.

Most games, especially RPGs, are not designed that way. It's "win or die" in more instances than can be realistically counted. So a build that is sub-optimal is, quite literally, a death sentence. Few players want to slag through a game and constantly be courted with struggle, failure after failure until they FINALLY get lucky enough to move on. That's not satisfying. But playing a crappy team and making it to the playoffs by your talent, management and sheer determination, despite taking a beating in some games along the way? That's a HECK of a lot of fun. 

I'm not sure, entirely, what RPGs should do to improve their games, but I know why sports games can be insanely complex and yet still popular - because the penalty for failure is not NEARLY as high as it is with RPGs. No one likes being told "memorize this rule book before you pick up a game or else you will die before you get out of the tutorial level." Yet it's not uncommon at all for a new player of a sports game to take a large handful of losses before getting secure with the mechanics and the feel of things.

Modifié par Fast Jimmy, 17 décembre 2013 - 01:06 .

[Rusty Sandusky]

J. Reezy wrote...

ThisOnesUsername wrote...

If that linear corridor called Final Fantasy XIII is an RPG then I'm not going to call games 'RPG' and judge them on their own merit.

You mean you didn't judge "RPGs" on their own merit before? Shame on you.

I meant the argument of "I don't like this game because it's not an RPG". Not that I've actually disliked anything because of that but I have thought of it.


(this coming from someone who likes Mass Effect 2 and 3)

Modifié par ThisOnesUsername, 17 décembre 2013 - 01:04 .

[slimgrin]

EntropicAngel wrote...

Bioware games have a habit of...nullifying, perhaps, or ignoring your choices,

Well that's the understatement of the century. And it is a problem, because it means your choices don't affect the narrative like they should. In The Witcher, the way the story plays out defines what type of Geralt you are roleplaying. Instead of 'I'm evul so I push man out window' or 'I'm a saint, so I'll save planet x'.

Modifié par slimgrin, 17 décembre 2013 - 01:14 .

[spirosz]

EntropicAngel wrote...

slimgrin wrote...

Well that's the understatement of the century. And it is a problem, because it means your choices don't affect the narrative like they should. In The Witcher, the way the story plays out defines what type of Geralt you are roleplaying. Instead of 'I'm evul so I push man out window' or 'I'm a saint, so I'll save planet x'.

Why should they?

No, really: why should they?

I agree, you can still achieve satisfying "role-playing" and to an extent that it would be considered an "RPG" without there being "consquences" in the story.  The story can go on the same (to an extent obviously), regardless of the impact the PC makes, but in those moments there should be defining moments that make the PC you, if you catch what I'm saying.  

In KOTOR, you're still Revan, you still can't save the Endar Spire, you still end up doing "x", etc - but I'm pretty sure all the characters I made were different because of what the game allowed me to develop with the protagonist him/herself.

Modifié par spirosz, 17 décembre 2013 - 05:50 .

[spirosz]

What was the point you were trying to refer to?

[spirosz]

EntropicAngel wrote...

Just that the dialog system DOES allow you to define each character differently.

Yeah, I agree.  Even if it does have illusion, there is still defining aspects that shouldn't be ignored. 

[spirosz]

The Mad Hanar wrote...

Look, Bioware just needs to be honest. If they don't plan on every choice having consequences, then they shouldn't dangle the "THINK ABOUT EVERYTHING YOU DO" carrot in front of their consumers.

I've never played through The Witcher series, so I don't know how honest their carrot is.

There is impact, but again - the series wasn't advertised with "choices" like that.