232 réponses à ce sujet

[Seival]

How can user play a role in a video game? There are five different ways:
(1) By choosing his character(s) behavior via different pre-made dialogue or non-dialogue options.
(2) By making decisions that will affect the way the story will be told.
(3) By choosing and playing combat (tank, dps, heal/support, etc) or non-combat (herbalist, smith, etc.) role.
(4) By developing his character(s), improving them in a way to perform their combat or non-combat role better.
(5) By choosing race and/or gender of his character before starting the game.

What some users mistakenly consider as RPG elements? The following features that have nothing to do with playing a role:
(1) Exploration. Opening a fog of war or searching chests/environments for some valuables isn't playing a role.
(2) Detailed character creation. Just the game's visual settings, not a role playing.
(3) Huge open world. Just one of approaches to environment design in any game, not a role playing.
(4) More than just one character player can control. RPG game may have only one character player can control.

Features from the second list are not what make an RPG. And game may have just one feature from the first list to be called an RPG game (at least partially).

Considering all of this, I don't understand why some people call Mass Effect a "non-RPG game". Also, I don't understand why some people think that NME with, say, just two features from the first list and without any features from the second list "wouldn't be an RPG game". BioWare can sacrifice some RPG elements plus avoid feature creep in order to tell the story much better. And why shouldn't they do so, if they will decide to follow this path? The game will still be an RPG, and BioWare already told that their main goal is to tell really amazing stories.

Also, tell me please, why some people still measure game's quality by some features quantity, not by the features quality? How are 20 really well-made dialogue scenes can be worse than 80 poorly made ones? How 4 really interesting abilities can be worse than 100 unbalanced and duplicating ones? Why do some people think that game with great visual part "is always worse than a game with outdated graphics"? Where did all of these strange quality measures came from? Conservatism? Most likely... But conservatism is the engine of stagnation, you know?

Modifié par Seival, 07 janvier 2014 - 04:41 .

[Seival]

IllusiveManJr wrote...

Popcorn time?

No, better think about the points I made, and answer on the topic.

[naughty99]

You can distill the concept you outlined above of playing a role down to simply "making choices you think your character would make."

It's the same concept whether you are an actor playing a role in a scene on a stage, a player in a pen and paper RPG, or a videogame RPG. You define the role in some way and then you simply take actions you think the character would take in a given situation.

If the game is open world where you have more freedom to choose which objectives you think your character would pursue, or if there are detailed branching quests, these all serve simply to present more more opportunities to play the role by making choices you think your character would make.

Modifié par naughty99, 07 janvier 2014 - 04:56 .

[Liamv2]

INB4 cod is best RPG comments.

[naughty99]

What is NME?

[Liamv2]

Next
Mass
Effect

[Seival]

naughty99 wrote...

You can distill the concept you outlined above of playing a role down to simply "making choices you think your character would make."

It's the same concept whether you are an actor playing a role in a scene on a stage, a player in a pen and paper RPG, or a videogame RPG. You define the role in some way and then you simply take actions you think the character would take in a given situation.

If the game is open world where you have more freedom to choose which objectives you think your character would pursue, or if there are detailed branching quests, these all serve simply to present more choices, more varied ways you can play the role.

More =/= better. The more things devs are going to make within one persistent product - the less quality each separate thing will have.

Modifié par Seival, 07 janvier 2014 - 04:56 .

[naughty99]

Seival wrote...

More =/= better. 

Not when it comes to choices in a role playing game, IMO.

If there are very few choices, for example an extremely linear game, then there are very limited opportunities to play the role.

[Seival]

naughty99 wrote...

Seival wrote...

More =/= better. 

Not when it comes to choices in a role playing game, IMO.

If there are very few choices, for example an extremely linear game, then there are very limited opportunities to play the role.

I believe that just 2 key choices performed within long enough amazingly realistic and emotional scenes provide user with much better quality of role playing, than 10 key choices performed within poorly made scenes, while these 10 key choices performed within poorly made scenes only provide user with greater quantity of role playing.

Modifié par Seival, 07 janvier 2014 - 05:10 .

[naughty99]

Seival wrote...

naughty99 wrote...

Seival wrote...

More =/= better. 

Not when it comes to choices in a role playing game, IMO.

If there are very few choices, for example an extremely linear game, then there are very limited opportunities to play the role.

I believe that just 2 key choices performed within long enough amazingly realistic and emotional scenes provide user with much better quality of role playing, than 10 key choices performed within poorly made scenes, while these 10 key choices performed within poorly made scenes only provide user with greater quantity of role playing.

I'd agree it's certainly not arithmetic, and you are proposing rather hypothetical scenarios; however, a game consisting primarily of cutscenes, even top notch cutscenes with excellent acting, where you make only two choices in the entire game does not quite sound like it would present an opportunity to play any sort of role. Sounds a bit more like an interactive movie.

[AresKeith]

Oh look a Seival thread

The second list is what adds to the RPG experience

[Seival]

naughty99 wrote...

Seival wrote...

naughty99 wrote...

Seival wrote...

More =/= better. 

Not when it comes to choices in a role playing game, IMO.

If there are very few choices, for example an extremely linear game, then there are very limited opportunities to play the role.

I believe that just 2 key choices performed within long enough amazingly realistic and emotional scenes provide user with much better quality of role playing, than 10 key choices performed within poorly made scenes, while these 10 key choices performed within poorly made scenes only provide user with greater quantity of role playing.

I'd agree it's certainly not arithmetic, and you are proposing rather hypothetical scenarios; however, a game consisting primarily of cutscenes, even top notch cutscenes with excellent acting, where you make only two choices in the entire game does not quite sound like it would present an opportunity to play any sort of role. Sounds a bit more like an interactive movie.

Well, let's compare Mass Effect Trilogy to Beyond: Two Souls for example. Most of ME dialogue options are just different lines of behavior that do not affect the story. Beyond doesn't have as much options for different lines of behavior, but it has more key points where your actions (or inactivity) change the flow of the story (sometimes even removing or adding the entire episodes).

Comparing these two games, I believe that the interactive-move provided me with much better quality of roleplaying, and told the story much better in general, than a regular RPG game. The interactive-move had less amount of actual gameplay, but this is just an interactive-movie genre feature.

Modifié par Seival, 07 janvier 2014 - 05:52 .

[spirosz]

How the hell did I know this was going to be a Seival thread.

[spirosz]

Curious question: when did consequences become a key factor in roleplaying?

[Seival]

AresKeith wrote...

Oh look a Seival thread

The second list is what adds to the RPG experience

Adds only in terms of quantity and time required to play the game. The second list is not about quality. The second list will only distract devs from making the features from the first list better.

[Steelcan]

Seival wrote...

AresKeith wrote...

Oh look a Seival thread

The second list is what adds to the RPG experience

Adds only in terms of quantity and time required to play the game. The second list is not about quality. The second list will only distract devs from making the features from the first list better.

yes because all open world environments only detract from RPG experiences?

Exploration and character creation are also a waste of time?

[Liamv2]

It is true that less choices allow for more reactivity in the game, however more choice makes the character seem more like yours than some cardboard cut out. I've played games where one choice can change the entire second half of the game but the main characters always tend to be bland.

[spirosz]

Technically there were no "removals" of any episodes in Beyond, but were some shorter or longer because of certain dialogue? Of course. The only real change is at the end when you choose which path you want to take and the consequences within that path.

[dreamgazer]

Seival wrote...

How can user play a role in a video game? There are five different ways:
(1) By choosing his character(s) behavior via different pre-made dialogue or non-dialogue options.
(2) By making decisions that will affect the way the story will be told.
(3) By choosing and playing combat (tank, dps, heal/support, etc) or non-combat (herbalist, smith, etc.) role.
(4) By developing his character(s), improving them in a way to perform their combat or non-combat role better.
(5) By choosing race and/or gender of his character before starting the game.

What some users mistakenly consider as RPG elements? The following features that have nothing to do with playing a role:
(1) Exploration. Opening a fog of war or searching chests/environments for some valuables isn't playing a role.
(2) Detailed character creation. Just the game's visual settings, not a role playing.
(3) Huge open world. Just one of approaches to environment design in any game, not a role playing.
(4) More than just one character player can control. RPG game may have only one character player can control.

Features from the second list are not what make an RPG. And game may have just one feature from the first list to be called an RPG game (at least partially).

You keep saying the bolded, but it's simply not correct. 

[spirosz]

I've been able to roleplay about four completely different characters in Skyrim because of the open world setting Bethesda was able to flesh out. From the way they approach combat, the character creation, following certain lore traits and how they relate to doing certain quests. Avoiding the main quest line, while still doing everything else. There is a lot to do in there.

[AresKeith]

Seival wrote...

AresKeith wrote...

Oh look a Seival thread

The second list is what adds to the RPG experience

Adds only in terms of quantity and time required to play the game. The second list is not about quality. The second list will only distract devs from making the features from the first list better.

Except it really doesn't and it's the devs choice to add them

[spirosz]

J. Reezy wrote...

#THANKYOUBASEDSEIVAL

BSN needed this.

[Seival]

spirosz wrote...

I've been able to roleplay about four completely different characters in Skyrim because of the open world setting Bethesda was able to flesh out. From the way they approach combat, the character creation, following certain lore traits and how they relate to doing certain quests. Avoiding the main quest line, while still doing everything else. There is a lot to do in there.

This is quantity. Not quality. And open world has nothing to do with things you discribed. You could do the same even if the Skyrim would be heavily instanced labyrinth of small playable zones.

Modifié par Seival, 07 janvier 2014 - 06:04 .