233 réponses à ce sujet

[wrexingcrew]

Houkka wrote...

Genres generally have no strict definitions, because they're just terms people start using, not something an expert develops in a laboratory and confines within a strict definition.

I'm not all the way on board with some of your other points, but you're exactly right here. Much as I love Plato, the whole "words/concepts refer to fixed ideas" bit just isn't how language works. The English language predominantly adheres to Wittgenstein's "use theory of meaning" - and "RPG" is not an exception.

If I have to settle on a Platonic definition, I'm fine with the one Sylvius advocates, as I said earlier. But I'd prefer to say that Sylvius captures what people mean when they talk about "role-playing" games.

[WillieStyle]

the_one_54321 wrote...

a third person shooting action game with levels and variable dialog?

TPSAGlvg?

either way, it still doesnt fit the genre defenition of RPG. in an RPG you have no direct control over the character except to give it instructions. everything is decided with numbers and stats. that is what creates the difference between Action games and Role Playing games. otherwise they'd be the same thing.

I really enjoyed both Dragon age and Mass Effect 1 and have pre-ordered ME2.
I think I understand your mechanics-based definitions for the different genres:
-Action games: you beat things based on your skill (fast reflexes, aim etc.)
-Roleplaying game: you beat things based your character's skill (their defence rating, attack rating etc.)

While that was a valid definition back in the fully turn-based days, it's hardly valid today.
Once RPGs moved to real-time 3D engines reflexes and other forms of "player skill" became a lot more important.

Take Dragon Age for instance.
If you're fast enough and good enough at strafing with your mouse, you can actually backstab enemies with your rogue without needing to imobilize them or have a tank hold their attention.
If you're quick enough, you can run out of range while an enemy is still swinging his big ol' ax at you.

Other mechanical "RPGs" have similar features.

With advances in technology, the era in which player skill did not affect outcomes in RPGs is long gone.  It's just more obvious in the case of Mass Effect because the setting has guns.  But even Sword n' Sorcery RPGs are converging "mechanically" with action games with similar settings (Prince of Persia, God of War etc).

I'd argue that the era of "no direct control over ones character" only existed because of technological limitations and it was inevitable that it would go the way of 20-sided dice. 
This may be unsettling for those who don't trust their "twitch" skills but as long as there are enough difficulty settings I don't think you should let the change in mechanics dissuade you from playing a game you'd otherwise enjoy.

Modifié par WillieStyle, 26 janvier 2010 - 01:39 .

[the_one_54321]

none of the games you mention are actually real time. DA:O has a pause function, on top of it's sequencing structure.

also, "the way of the 20-sided die?" are you aware that PnP RPGs is still a pretty large industry with tons of fans?

Modifié par the_one_54321, 26 janvier 2010 - 03:05 .

[mewarmo990]

Oh, this thread again?

[Sylvius the Mad]

Elvhen Veluthil wrote...

I haven't play ME1, but from what I have seen and read about it, it's not much of an RPG (voiced PC = no RPG for me, without a saving throw). Yes you can "roleplay" it, as you can roleplay "Super Mario Bros", or "Doom", or any other game with a well defined avatar.

No, it's even worse than that.  You CAN'T roleplay in Mass Effect because you're never allowed to choose Shepard's words or actions in conversation.  At no point - not once in the entire game - does the game let you choose what you want Shepard to say.  Never.  At best it asks you to navigate an obfuscatory dialogue mini-game that seems designed solely to prevent you from knowing what Shepard will do as a result of your selection.

And sorry, fairandbalanced, but I appear to have grown more concise.

In an RPG, you get to choose what your character would say.  You probably won't have total freedom to say whatever you'd like, and in most modern games you're limited to choosing between a handful of well-defined, pre-written options, but you get to choose.  Not so in ME.  In ME, you never get to see what you've selected until after you've done it.  You are entirely unable to avoid specific responses without having played through that exact conversation before.  The only way to get through a conversation such that you're actually selecting Shepard's words and actions is by saving beforehand, working through every possible series of events within that conversation tree to learn what they are, and then reloading and only then actually choosing what your character says and does.

Why they didn't just let us choose between the written options I don't know... oh, wait, yes I do.  Apparently it would be tiresome or repetitive to read out the full option and then listen to Shepard say it, so they removed one half of that pair.  The wrong half.  Rather than keeping the choice part where we actually get to roleplay, BioWare decided to keep the cinematic presentation and voice-acting such that we get a lot of pretty pictures and supposedly deep emotions (someone else's emotions, given that we can't choose them ourselves, so we can't tell if they're deep) but we lose any and all ability to roleplay.  The proper solution would have been to lose the voice-acting.  Or keep it and let people complain about repetitiveness.  Anything but removing player agency.

Here's the test.  In the moment between selecting an option on the dialogue wheel and Shepard carrying out the subsequent actions, ask yourself this: "What is Shepard about to do, and why?".  If you don't answer the first half, the game will provide it for you, but the game will never tell you the second part.  That has to come from you.  So, in that moment, you should be able to KNOW what Shepard is going to do and why he's going to do it, and you can't ever be wrong about that.  If you are, or even if you can be, then you weren't given a real choice.  You didn't get to choose in any meaningful way.

Edit: And I think post-tractatus Wittgenstein is pretty deeply flawed.

Modifié par Sylvius the Mad, 26 janvier 2010 - 03:40 .

[Darth_Shizz]

 I must admit, I was highly disappointed to find out that BW would be making another exclusive shooter. BRING BACK REAL RPGS!

Anyway, as soon as I discovered the travesty-basket that was ME2's changes, I immediately went and bought a real RPG to tide me over.

http://uk.pc.ign.com.../1038889p1.html

It received a cracking review. The reviewer even went as far as rating it up there amongst the classic RPGs; ones such as Ghouls and Goblins, Pong, Bully, Duke Nukem Forever...and let us not forget the brilliant Kingdom Hearts.

Cancel your orders people. I speak the only real truth.

Modifié par Darth_Shizz, 26 janvier 2010 - 03:56 .

[AlanC9]

Sylvius, why are you hanging out on an ME board anyway?

As for not knowing what Shepard's going to say, that's just you. There were maybe three points in all of ME1 where Shepard said something that wasn't in line with what I meant him to say, and one of them was my fault for making a bad assumption (the dialog options should never be read sarcastically). One was genuine bad design -- a Renegade option where I shot someone out-of-hand despite only intending to threaten him. The third I can't remember, but I figured I'd leave it open since there very well might have been another.

I'm not going to get into a discussion of Wittgenstein, but are you actually opposing the use theory, or was that just a drive-by?

[Chained_Creator]

Christina Norman wrote...

adam_grif wrote...

OP acts as though TPS and RPG are mutually exclusive. They aren't. It's both.

I endorse adam_griff's explanation!

Going math nerd for a moment, the answer is true, as in A || B == true if A is true, B is true, or both A & B are true (in this case A & B are both true)

Oh, no, not mathematical logic. Nooooo. *dies an agonizing, mathematical logic induced death*

[wrexingcrew]

AlanC9 wrote...

I'm not going to get into a discussion of Wittgenstein, but are you actually opposing the use theory, or was that just a drive-by?

I suspect the former taking the form of the latter (for the sake of staying on-topic).  Obviously I'll let Sylvius speak to that, though.

[the_one_54321]

the sarcasm around here could at least be funny while it's being insulting. disappointing. but also childish and insulting. i weep for the state of the forums. when the polite people are funnier than the rude ones and the rude ones outnumber the polite ones, everyone looses.

[Mordaedil]

AlanC9 wrote...

Sylvius, why are you hanging out on an ME board anyway?

I don't know about Sylvius, but I have these updates on my front-page full of people I like posting in this forum, because they are excited about these games while I am not.

I'm guessing that, like Sylvius, the thread title of this particular thread is something he'd want to form an opinion on and share it so that a more adverse viewpoint can be adopted so it doesn't fall very one-sidedly down on the fence that "this is an RPG and you are stupid" arguments.

Mass Effect might be more offering than most RPG shooters, but it's still one of my least favorite Bioware games. Or games labeled as an RPG.

Heck, I feel it's a step back from Ultima IV, of all things.

[LordNige]

ME was never about the stats, it was about the decisions you made, the cinematic dialogue and the combat

[Sylvius the Mad]

AlanC9 wrote...

Sylvius, why are you hanging out on an ME board anyway?

Because people are wrong on the internet?

As for not knowing what Shepard's going to say, that's just you. There were maybe three points in all of ME1 where Shepard said something that wasn't in line with what I meant him to say

See?  There you just answered the wrong question.

Whether Shepard said something "in line with what you meant" is irrelevant.  The question was, did you know that Shepard would not say something inconsistent with some other option you'd choose in the game (past or future)?

And of course you didn't know that.  That wasn't knowable.  It wasn't knowable because it was possible for Shepard to say something you didn't expect, as you demonstrated with your examples.  In fact, because Shepard may have deviated from your intention previously, your margin for error was even smaller to avoid Shepard contradicting himself.

Plus, it was also much harder to keep track of Shepard's behaviour and play him as some sort of sensical character when his choices were not my choices.  So they didn't necessarily make sense to me.

One was genuine bad design -- a Renegade option where I shot someone out-of-hand despite only intending to threaten him.

Right, so for you to have been able to roleplay right there, you need to be able to explain to yourself,right now, exactly why Shepard shot that person rather than just threatening him.  How did that advance Shepard's agenda?  If you don't know that at every single point in the game, then you're not roleplaying.

I'm not going to get into a discussion of Wittgenstein, but are you actually opposing the use theory, or was that just a drive-by?

It was just a drive-by, but I do think the use theory was being misapplied above.  Since the only useful definitions are formal defintions, and formal definitions are clearly not subject to the use theory, then the use theory has nothing useful to say.

[Sylvius the Mad]

the_one_54321 wrote...

none of the games you mention are actually real time. DA:O has a pause function, on top of it's sequencing structure.

So does ME.

BioWare makes real-time with pause combat mechanics.  The only game they've made that both purports to be an RPG and doesn't use a real-time with pause is Jade Empire.

And Jade Empire was a good game.  And it was an RPG.

[the_one_54321]

Mass Effect lacks the sequencing structure used in others of their games. NWN is actually, completely turn based if you look at it's mechanic carefully. It's just that it is masked with real time animations. Same goes with BG. They used the full 6 second turn structure of D&D rules, with characters and enemies acting within the timed structure. Mass Effect has you point the gun, and you pull the trigger, in real time all except for the pause-and-select-abilities option.

[Sylvius the Mad]

the_one_54321 wrote...

Mass Effect lacks the sequencing structure used in others of their games. NWN is actually, completely turn based if you look at it's mechanic carefully. It's just that it is masked with real time animations. Same goes with BG. They used the full 6 second turn structure of D&D rules, with characters and enemies acting within the timed structure. Mass Effect has you point the gun, and you pull the trigger, in real time all except for the pause-and-select-abilities option.

Each shot takes time.  They don't all take the same amount of time, but that's already true in DAO, as well.

Plus, analog events like movement happened outside the round-structure, even in BG.  You didn't need to wait for a new round to start to take a different action as long as the last round in which you did act had expired - you could restart the six-second timer at any moment.

Also, you're making a false distinction between firing your weapon and using biotic or tech abilities.  They're all part of the same game; they're governed by the same structure.  Not to mention that you can pause and aim your weapon, thus eliminating the real-time aspect of target selection.  The only thing ME did different was not allow the firing of your weapon while paused (or the use of the scope), but that was an entirely arbitrary limitation and one I've repeatedly asked to have removed.

[the_one_54321]

you cant have analog motion inside of a timed structure without making it real time. the only other option is full strategic movement turn based. that doesnt make it any less of a timed structure. and the distinction is still there. in ME when you click the button, the gun fires. in the other games when you click the button your character starts doing the actions you instructed him to. it is not the same kind of direct control.



also, i was unaware that you could aim during pause. that is really really stupid. it worked in Valkyria Chronicles because it was a turn based strategy game, but ME has real time shooter combat. how ridiculously weak to be able to aim during pause with those kinds of mechanics.

[JaegerBane]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...
In an RPG, you get to choose what your character would say.  You probably won't have total freedom to say whatever you'd like, and in most modern games you're limited to choosing between a handful of well-defined, pre-written options, but you get to choose.  Not so in ME.  In ME, you never get to see what you've selected until after you've done it.  You are entirely unable to avoid specific responses without having played through that exact conversation before.  The only way to get through a conversation such that you're actually selecting Shepard's words and actions is by saving beforehand, working through every possible series of events within that conversation tree to learn what they are, and then reloading and only then actually choosing what your character says and does.

Why they didn't just let us choose between the written options I don't know... oh, wait, yes I do.  Apparently it would be tiresome or repetitive to read out the full option and then listen to Shepard say it, so they removed one half of that pair.  The wrong half.  Rather than keeping the choice part where we actually get to roleplay, BioWare decided to keep the cinematic presentation and voice-acting such that we get a lot of pretty pictures and supposedly deep emotions (someone else's emotions, given that we can't choose them ourselves, so we can't tell if they're deep) but we lose any and all ability to roleplay.  The proper solution would have been to lose the voice-acting.  Or keep it and let people complain about repetitiveness.  Anything but removing player agency.

Sylvius, you've gone over all of this before. No matter how many times you repeat yourself, it doesn't change the fact that this is no more than a simple issue of you not liking the way it was presented. It's entirely up to you whether you like or dislike a given feature, but trying to claim it 'interferes with roleplaying' by not being able to see the specific words that your character spits out ahead of time was never a particularly sensible argument. That's what lead to all that complete absurdity where you claimed that every sentence you've ever spoken is always thought out in it's entirety.

What you define as 'roleplay' is, unfortunately, not the same as everyone else's definition. Your opinion is your own, but for the love of sanity, all this guff about how Bioware killed role-playing via convo wheels is getting rather stale.

Here's the test.  In the moment between selecting an option on the dialogue wheel and Shepard carrying out the subsequent actions, ask yourself this: "What is Shepard about to do, and why?".  If you don't answer the first half, the game will provide it for you, but the game will never tell you the second part.  That has to come from you.  So, in that moment, you should be able to KNOW what Shepard is going to do and why he's going to do it, and you can't ever be wrong about that.  If you are, or even if you can be, then you weren't given a real choice.  You didn't get to choose in any meaningful way.

I'm not really sure what you're getting at here. Are you saying that the wheel options don't actually correlate to the actions, all the time?

[the_one_54321]

the whole "definitions are variable because it's a convenient way to get around admitting that what you say makes sense" get's pretty darn stale pretty quick as well. but you dont see anyone dropping that tired old statement. no, in fact you see them posting it over and over and over.



my opinion? "subjectivity" is the fall-back concept people use when they dont want to admit they are wrong.

[Archaven]

I've read couple of threads and i'm getting alot of similar opinions that ME2 has been stripped off the RPG title.. which concerns me alot. I really hate the dumb down of RPG elements, no inventory management, no keybindings, shallow skills/specialization...



I'm really unsure if i should buy this game anymore...

[JaegerBane]

the_one_54321 wrote...

the whole "definitions are variable because it's a convenient way to get around admitting that what you say makes sense" get's pretty darn stale pretty quick as well.

I have no idea what this means.

How do variable definitions mean that you make sense? Variable definitions of what?

but you dont see anyone dropping that tired old statement. no, in fact you see them posting it over and over and over.

my opinion? "subjectivity" is the fall-back concept people use when they dont want to admit they are wrong.

Funnily enough, I agree. Ultimately I prefer the Wheel system, particularly this soon after finishing Dragon Age. But That's just because I dislike having to select lines of text from a list like I'm a mechanical doll. I don't try to pretend that my preference is the one that truly makes a game a role-playing pinnacle of awesomeness, and I wish others would stop trying to do so too.

[Sylvius the Mad]

the_one_54321 wrote...

also, i was unaware that you could aim during pause. that is really really stupid. it worked in Valkyria Chronicles because it was a turn based strategy game, but ME has real time shooter combat. how ridiculously weak to be able to aim during pause with those kinds of mechanics.

The ability to aim while paused is what keeps ME from being a pure action game.  That's what makes ME tolerable.

JaegerBane wrote...

Sylvius, you've gone over all of this before. No matter how many times you repeat yourself, it doesn't change the fact that this is no more than a simple issue of you not liking the way it was presented.

And you clearly don't understand my complaint.

I'm not really sure what you're getting at here. Are you saying that the wheel options don't actually correlate to the actions, all the time?

I'm saying the results of your wheel selection are not knowable.

When next you're playing ME or ME2, and you're in a conversation, take a moment to stop and think about what you're doing.  When you choose the option on the wheel you want, what's going to happen?  Why is Shepard about to do whatever he's about to do?  Answer that, hold that answer in your mind (or better yeet, write it down), and then select your wheel option.

What happened?  Does your exaplanation of why Shepard just did that make any sense?  I suspect it often won't, as you didn't actually know what Shepard was about to do, so any effort to explain it is likely futile.  It's certainly going to fail some of the time.

And that's the problem.  Roleplaying involves you being the mind of your character.  If your character does anything at all you don't fully expect, then roleplaying is impossible.

[the_one_54321]

JaegerBane wrote...

the_one_54321 wrote...

the whole "definitions are variable because it's a convenient way to get around admitting that what you say makes sense" get's pretty darn stale pretty quick as well.

I have no idea what this means.

it means that i am tired of people posting "it is defined as whatever i want it to be defined as." no, it isnt. mucking around with the definition based on popular appeal is what created this discrepancy in the first place. Role Playing GAMES is a very specific concept and was invented and implemented in a very specific way with a few very specific defining concepts. trying to change that out of a matter of convenience has only confused and obfuscated the whole situation with regard to game labels.

JaegerBane wrote...

Funnily enough, I agree. Ultimately I prefer the Wheel system, particularly this soon after finishing Dragon Age. But That's just because I dislike having to select lines of text from a list like I'm a mechanical doll. I don't try to pretend that my preference is the one that truly makes a game a role-playing pinnacle of awesomeness, and I wish others would stop trying to do so too.

it has nothing to do with what makes the game good or bad. it is only in regard to the definition of the label placed on the game. my understanding is that ME is a fantastic game. (i never bought it because of SecuROM) and ME2 looks to be an absolutely fantastic game. (i am planning to get this one when i have time to play it)

[the_one_54321]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

The ability to aim while paused is what keeps ME from being a pure action game. That's what makes ME tolerable.

but ME is an action game....



it's a shooter. you point-click-boom the badguys. tacking on the story, characters, and customization just makes it better than any other shooter out there.