248 réponses à ce sujet

[Yuoaman]

Deus Ex isn;t an rpg

This cracked me up, you should do comedy professionally.

[Morroian]

And like I said, i really don't see that as a meaningful distinction. In gameplay terms, they're exactly the same.

 

You interpreting it in purely functional terms not in role playing terms. It seems BW also share your interpretation which IMHO is a shame coming from one of the major rpg designers. 

[Mukora]

You interpreting it in purely functional terms not in role playing terms. It seems BW also share your interpretation which IMHO is a shame coming from one of the major rpg designers. 

Dude, I play DnD. I'm a big fan of making characters with specific stats and making sure the character's personality and abilities fit those stats.

 

But that's not how Dragon Age works. Attributes in the game are purely gameplay things. They don't impact the story in any meaningful way. And that's fine. I mean, seriously. if they were actually related to roleplaying that'd be so much worse. Like, how does killing a pride demon make me smarter and more dextrous?

[AshenEndymion]

Dude, I play DnD. I'm a big fan of making characters with specific stats and making sure the character's personality and abilities fit those stats.
 
But that's not how Dragon Age works. Attributes in the game are purely gameplay things. They don't impact the story in any meaningful way. And that's fine. I mean, seriously. if they were actually related to roleplaying that'd be so much worse. Like, how does killing a pride demon make me smarter and more dextrous?

 
This is true.  And, at this point, it makes me wonder why Bioware even allows the player to see the value of a character's attributes to begin with...  After all, the only values that matter, with regards to combat, are attack and defense.  So those are the only values worth viewing and adjusting.
 
After all, removing the ability to see a character's attributes would be like removing the ability to see the approval rating of companions:  Removing a "gamey" feature so that players don't get caught up in trying to maximize a number and instead just play the game...

[Mukora]

Well, we can still change attributes with gear. So it's probably helpful to see what they look like.

 

Though I suppose it'd have the same effect if you could just see "Attack, Defense, Crit Rating, Health and Stamina."

[Elhanan]

This is true.  And, at this point, it makes me wonder why Bioware even allows the player to see the value of a character's attributes to begin with...  After all, the only values that matter, with regards to combat, are attack and defense.  So those are the only values worth viewing and adjusting.
 
After all, removing the ability to see a character's attributes would be like removing the ability to see the approval rating of companions:  Removing a "gamey" feature so that players don't get caught up in trying to maximize a number and instead just play the game...

Wrong franchise; that one is the ME series. The DA series has Attributes.

[Morroian]

As to Deus Ex, it's an ARPG. I think that makes it an RPG pretty clearly, but if someone wanted to make the distinction of ARPGs they could be - albeit saying "Deus Ex isn't an RPG" is a poor way to do that. (Mass Effect is also an ARPG, as is DA2. But DA:O and DA:I are classically just labeled RPG.) 

 

Deus Ex is an FPS with some rpg elements thats all. There is no role playing as different characters you just have choices between different abilities.

[Mukora]

Deus Ex is an FPS with some rpg elements thats all. There is no role playing as different characters you just have choices between different abilities.

Yeah there is? Have you played Deus Ex? It's all about making choices that have different outcomes.

[Morroian]

Dude, I play DnD. I'm a big fan of making characters with specific stats and making sure the character's personality and abilities fit those stats.

 

But that's not how Dragon Age works. Attributes in the game are purely gameplay things. They don't impact the story in any meaningful way. And that's fine. I mean, seriously. if they were actually related to roleplaying that'd be so much worse. Like, how does killing a pride demon make me smarter and more dextrous?

 

Why do they have to impact the story to be meaningful? In both DAO and DA2 you can use the attributes to role play different characters even if the story proceeds regardless of your choices. The same is true of Skyrim. 

[Mukora]

Why do they have to impact the story to be meaningful? In both DAO and DA2 you can use the attributes to role play different characters even if the story proceeds regardless of your choices. The same is true of Skyrim. 

Yeah, sure. But that's on the player. It's obviously not an intentional design decision BioWare made, and it's certainly not something they're obligated to maintain.

 

And personally, I find it really difficult to roleplay a character based on my attributes when those attributes change every level. It's a lot easier to just ignore them and see them as gameplay abstractions.

[Morroian]

Yeah there is? Have you played Deus Ex? It's all about making choices that have different outcomes.

 

Choices about branching outcomes in isolation are not necessarily role playing. IMHO JC Denton and Adam Jensen are fundamentally the same characters no matter what.

[Mukora]

Choices about branching outcomes in isolation are not necessarily role playing. IMHO JC Denton and Adam Jensen are fundamentally the same characters no matter what.

I'd rather not get into an argument about what makes an RPG, but I'll just say I disagree and move on.

[Muspade]

Choices about branching outcomes in isolation are not necessarily role playing. IMHO JC Denton and Adam Jensen are fundamentally the same characters no matter what.

So, The Witcher Is not an RPG because the character Is Geralt no matter what you do?



The definition of "Roleplay" Is: To assume or act out a particular role. This particular role can be Adam Jensen or Geralt, or even a self-made character. All are a variant and can be roleplayed with differing freedom.

[AlanC9]

Choices about branching outcomes in isolation are not necessarily role playing. IMHO JC Denton and Adam Jensen are fundamentally the same characters no matter what.

As mentioned, your definition would seem to rule out tons of games that are commonly accepted as RPGs. You sure that's where you want to draw the line?

[berrieh]

Deus Ex is an FPS with some rpg elements thats all. There is no role playing as different characters you just have choices between different abilities.

 

No, Deus Ex is officially labeled as an ARPG. You do not have to have multiple characters to be an RPG, as others have pointed out. Some RPGs let you do that and some do not, just like some have party-based mechanics and some do not. To that point, JRPGs - a major RPG subgenre/type that was the most popular kind of RPG for a long time - have set, distinct characters as well.

 

Your definition of an RPG is simply incorrect. Only a few Western RPGs would actually fit your standard definition. Most RPGs in the genre do not have character creators (it has become more popular in recent years and has existed since the CRPG days of old). Really, being able to develop the character's abilities, stats, and capabilities is basically what makes an RPG - modern gamers, in Western RPGs, expect some degree of choice and consequence as well. Though, again, JRPGs lack that and yet they are still RPGs. 

 

Naturally, this idea has gotten confused as various other genres have adapted some RPG-style progression. 

 

Again, Deus Ex is labeled as an Action RPG. Obviously, it has FPS elements since it has shooting - just as ME does. 

[AlanC9]

Can't you pick poor dialogue choices and fail? In ME3, if a Paragon or Renegade persuasion is available, you can use it with success (that's what the game is telling you by making it available) but you don't have to. You could play a big dummy who says the wrong thing. But you would have to make the choice.

I can choose to make my PC fail, sure. This is not at all the same thing as that character not having the capability to succeed. To make such a choice requires me to break character, assuming that my character would want to succeed. In the case of Skyrim, this is me disagreeing with the basic premises of the series' approach to roleplaying. In the case of ME3, it's just a lousy implementation in that particular game.

However, most AAA games are accessible games. That's just the way it goes. There are plenty of games available for people who aren't interested in that, particularly on PC.

Sure. While I think a lot of the whining in threads like this about the terrible taste of the gaming masses is a bit overblown, I do agree that most gamers do have genuinely lousy taste. (Then again, I'm just as likely to find myself in an argument with the self-styled CRPG purists.)

[berrieh]

I can choose to make my PC fail, sure. This is not at all the same thing as that character not having the capability to succeed. To make such a choice requires me to break character, assuming that my character would want to succeed. In the case of Skyrim, this is me disagreeing with the basic premises of the series' approach to roleplaying. In the case of ME3, it's just a lousy implementation in that particular game.

 

I don't see it as choosing to make your PC fail and breaking character. Rather, it's roleplaying a character who is too dumb to succeed. I don't see how you can argue it's a problem that you're no longer given the ability to roleplay what you want and use your imagination when the game gives you that option but you just can't use your roleplaying skill and imagination to do it. I don't see how the system giving you the options to RP and fail is less freedom or worse execution than giving you the option to set attributes and later fail. (I honestly don't. Feel free to explain it.) But if you're RPing your character and he's dumb, then wouldn't you pick dumb dialogue choices? 

 

Sure. While I think a lot of the whining in threads like this about the terrible taste of the gaming masses is a bit overblown, I do agree that most gamers do have genuinely lousy taste. (Then again, I'm just as likely to find myself in an argument with the self-styled CRPG purists.)

 

 

To me, accessibility /= poor taste. By accessibility, I mean that giving players greater freedom and enjoyment within the moment is more important than adhering to some idea (wrongly formed, if you ask me, since there are plenty of old exceptions in both p&p and video game RPGs) of how attributes should function. 

[Rawgrim]

I'll play. All three Mass Effects (only actual stat is health; everything else is skills). Morrowind with the GCD mod. Several of the Ultimas. Quite a few early CRPGs, back before the form got stale. Plus some things like Starflight that you might say aren't RPGs because they don't have actual levelling, only skill development

 

I will give you Mass Effect 1. Morrowind with a certain kind of fan made mod? Come on. You get to raise your stats in Morrowind too, you pick 3 to boost. Not sure what Ultima game you are referring to, but you get to boost your stats when you pray at a shrine (to level up), or get trained by a trainer who increases this and that stat.

[JimBlandings]

*que droning speech that won't change anyone's mind anyway*

Regardless of people's claims because THEY want the game to fit into a box of their description... DA:I is not solely about a singular character called the Inqusitor - but rather that character's ability to shape and mold the world around him/her through an organization called:  The Inquisition.

Because of this - a phenomenal amount of work "seems" (I haven't played it) to have been put into creating a system where you can play the role of a leader of a world altering organization by building it "mostly" from the ground up and shaping it through the course of the game.

 

Due to that extra effort - some things about the personal character - were automated.  I'm sorry it upsets people - but that's life.  

 

It is interesting that people talk about "in a box" - when they can't even wrap their heads around the idea that the choices a character makes through their Inquistion or shaping their world are "part of their character" and that has, presumably, been massively enhanced and added to. 

 

I can play a million character builders... I want Inquisition - as a game - to be a little more out of the box and feel like a more dynamic single player RPG.  RPG - to me - means the storytelling aspect.  Given what I DO know about the game - I am very hopeful.

 

I hope you didn't choke when you were guzzling all that PR bs down.

[JimBlandings]

Thinking "outside" the box only makes the game harder than it already should. Anyways, I heard that your stats are lower or the enemy's stats are higher when playing on Hard or Nightmare, and this shouldn't be be a problem if you just want a challenge. Just play the game for what it is and if you don't like it, well trade it back for money. Otherwise, people like me don't really care about automatic stats allocation as I just want to focus on the story, the characters and the way I equip my companion. I was really tired of having to make sure I had enough stats to equip X, Y or Z back in DAO or DA2, now that I know that all the weapons have a level fence, this will make things easier for me.

 

Go watch a movie or read a book, you shouldn't be playing video GAMES.

[Muspade]

I hope you didn't choke when you were guzzling all that PR bs down.

 

Being a douchebag Is getting more attractive, I see.

[azarhal]

 
This is true.  And, at this point, it makes me wonder why Bioware even allows the player to see the value of a character's attributes to begin with...  After all, the only values that matter, with regards to combat, are attack and defense.  So those are the only values worth viewing and adjusting.
 
After all, removing the ability to see a character's attributes would be like removing the ability to see the approval rating of companions:  Removing a "gamey" feature so that players don't get caught up in trying to maximize a number and instead just play the game...

 

Except that the attributes are directly modified by the player and allow them to controller many derived stats, not just attack and defenses. 

 

And removing the ability to see the character's attributes is not where like removing the ability to see the approval rating of companions. The attributes are part of progression (even when provided by gears), the approval rating is not part of your character progression. It's a way to compute how companions should react to your actions. Being able to see the approval rating is not important unless you want to metagame your actions, which is not the intended design of the feature.

[ianvillan]

Dude, by "easier" they mean "faster". The MP setup is lighter on content, so they can just whip in and out without having to load or tweak a more asset heavy SP build. You seem to think they went into the MP environment, used the MP mode to play with encounters, and then threw it all back into the SP mode. They didn't. You are twisting the information they provided and then saying that they lied about it, which they haven't. SP combat has at least two major differences from MP combat (the number of abilities available and the ability to pause and use a tactical camera). One is not a hastily revised version of the other, and BW did not gimp SP mode because all they cared about was making MP fun. 

 

This is where we are in fundamental disagreement, I believe that the SP encounters should be designed individually for the SP game to make each different encounter the best they can be, not what is fun in MP and then copied to the SP game.

 

I would say that SP game has many differences to MP including many different environments each one that needs to be taken into account, the different enemy types for the encounters instead of being designed around the three groups in MP, how can you have a good encounter design when it is not created with the enemies in mind. The classes of the PC and companions are different to MP classes and should be taken into account for the SP design. The level your group could be at when facing some encounters should be taken into account in SP game instead of having all levels be able to do them. The goals of the encounters should go towards their creation instead of just surviving to the end. and the abilities, pause and Tac cam as well.

 

To design the encounters in MP just because it is faster does not make sense, Bioware has the Dev controls to go to any point in the game and design and change what they want, yet will go to a different game and design an encounter for the SP game using assets and maps that are different for what they have, to me that would seem slower and make more work for them.

 

Bioware agrees with you that using the MP portion of the game to design for the SP portion is better and faster so that is how they designed it. Bioware says that they have totally separate MP and SP teams that work separately and that MP has no effect what so ever on the SP game if you believe them fine but to point out that the MP has had a major effect on the SP game is not twisting their words but stating facts from what they have told us.

[Morroian]

So, The Witcher Is not an RPG because the character Is Geralt no matter what you do?
 

 

There are people who argue that yes. I have not played them because I disliked the beginning of TW1