233 réponses à ce sujet

[Sylvius the Mad]

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.

Let me try to understand how you use the wheel, then.  Rather than just telling me my preferences shouldn't matter, let's compare the ways in which we select dialogue options.

When you're presented with the dialogue wheel, how do you choose what it is you're going to select?

When I'm playing an RPG, I choose the dialogue option that is consistent with my character's personality.  My character has a complex set of beliefs, values, and goals, not to mention his specific objectives with regard to this conversation.  He wants to acquire some specific information, if he can.  At the same time, he wants to avoid giving out information that might be damaging to him or his companions.  And he might have a preference regarding whether the other guy is still standing at the end.

So given that, how would you suggest I choose options from the dialogue wheel.  I can't tell from the wheel what information Shepard is going to divulge, or even whether he'll ask a question.  So how can I be said to be choosing options in a way to suits the character I'm playing?  Even if I'm playing a pre-set character, for you to claim that I'm playing him I need to be making these choices constantly throughout the game, and ME's dialogue wheel prevents it.

[Sylvius the Mad]

the_one_54321 wrote...

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.

I paused and aimed right through ME.  Load up a sniper rifle (even at close range), pause the game, aim, and then unpause and fire.  It worked especially well in combination with Lift.

[JaegerBane]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

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

Of course they aren't. I wouldn't expect them to be - not entirely. Normal human beings do not construct whole sentences in advance. That's why people trip up over words and can be misunderstood.

The reason I liked it was the intent was depicted rather than the specific action. That always struck me as something that seemed a lot more natural than picking an option from an arbitrary list.

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.

Sylvius, please, I have enough lectures from you about what role playing consists off to last a lifetime. Everyone on these boards has. The definition of role playing is extremely loose, and I'm frankly sick of self-appointed experts pulling their own definition out of thin air like it's the holy truth. If you want to think that, fine, do it. Just stop using your own opinion as a foundation for your entire point.

I can see what you're getting at but ultimately it sounds like your bee in your bonnet is stemming from simply not knowing what precisely is going to be said before it is said. I can't think of any situations in where I was genuinely surprised by what Shep did. *mumble something* came out as Shep trying to do an Ash from Army of Darkness. 'Time to shut you up!' came out as a punch. These aren;t really things that are out of the blue.

I've lost count of the number of times I've needed to convey a point and chosen words on the fly that weren't really ideal, in real life. That's why I liked the system in ME. I don't try to pretend that it is superior, however, and I wish to god that you'd stop doing so with your preference.

[wrexingcrew]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

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.

That's a significantly better articulation of what I tried to suggest a page or two back about combat.  The difference between the first Mass Effect and other BioWare games, in terms of combat, was a matter of degree - not a binary.

the_one_54321 wrote...

but ME is an action game.... it's a shooter. you point-click-boom the badguys.

Again, no.  It's real-time with pause, with chance-to-hit determined in significant part by stats.  There is more player skill input than there is in a D&D ruleset-based game, true - but player skill is not the dominant feature of the combat mechanics.

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

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.

Wittgenstein certainly wouldn't agree with that interpretation of use theory - unless you're suggesting that the conventional reading of Wittgenstein is wrong.

[JaegerBane]

the_one_54321 wrote...

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.

I'm afraid RPGs have never been a 'specific concept', any more than card games and board games have been 'specific concepts'. Dungeons and Dragons was a specific concept. The whole VTM thing that White Wolf made was also a specific concept.  They certainly weren't the same thing but fell under the overarching banner of RPGs.

This has been discussed before, but cRPGs are not PnP RPGs. There is no sensible reason to assume that they function in the same way, beyond the same vague intent. 

[JaegerBane]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...
When I'm playing an RPG, I choose the dialogue option that is consistent with my character's personality.  My character has a complex set of beliefs, values, and goals, not to mention his specific objectives with regard to this conversation.  He wants to acquire some specific information, if he can.  At the same time, he wants to avoid giving out information that might be damaging to him or his companions.  And he might have a preference regarding whether the other guy is still standing at the end.

And I think there is the problem. The subtleties of what you mention above are effectively outside the capability of any canned response system. In order to truly support this, you'd need the AI in games to intelligently react to anything you could think of. Neither wheels or lines of text provide this.

I am assuming you have a specific example of what you're talking about here, as I'm having a bit of bother understanding how the wheel fails in this regard but the lines of text succeeds.

[KingDub]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

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.

What a bunch of crap. You absolutely get to pick what Shepard says in Mass Effect, just as much as any other game. Sure, the dialog options are usually just summaries of what he's going to say in dialog. But frankly, there isn't an RPG out there that's any different. If you think that Shepard says exactly the same thing no matter what dialog option you select, then you haven't played the game.

The only RPG I can think of that had anything close to the type of system you're demanding is Wizardry 8. You literally typed questions into a dialogue box, and the AI would look for keywords and respond to you. Never beat the game, but I found that system incredibly frustrating at first, as I spent a lot of time writing questions that didn't have answers. It was impossible to tell what an AI character knew or didn't know.



That said, I am pretty disappointed that Bioware chose to dumb down Mass Effect 2 so much. Almost all of the roleplaying elements, aside from the story, have been removed. There are no equipment drops. You can't really switch out your armor. The Weapons don't even appear to have stats to indicate which ones are better than others. There's no HP, and each character has four to five skills at most, with four abilities.

It's still a fun game, but I don't understand what the benefit of removing those things was. Why are video game sequels designed for new players and not the fanbase that allowed them to be developed? I know the interface in ME1 had problems, but I loved the amount of customization you could do with characters' equipment. That aspect of the game is completely gone now.

I thought Mass Effect 1 was a solid RPG. Just because it had a live action segment with guns didn't mean that it was an action game. Look at Oblivion... it's real time action as well, but no one calls that an action game. You do make your own character, but in Mass Effect 1 you still determined Shepard's personality. Which, in effect, means you're role playing.

Very disappointed with the trend to dumb down games these days. I guess Dragon Age is as good as it's going to get. Mass Effect 2 could have been a great RPG with all the improved dialogue, but it's more of an action game with a few role playing elements. Still fun, but not exactly what I was hoping for.

Modifié par KingDub, 27 janvier 2010 - 12:25 .

[Sylvius the Mad]

JaegerBane wrote...

The reason I liked it was the intent was depicted rather than the specific action.

That's all dialogue options ever are.  That's why I've always viewed the pre-written full dialogue options as abstractions themselves.  I select a complete sentence, and that complete sentence (including my reading of it)  represents what my character wants to convey, but the actual words or actions used to convey it are left to me (because they're not portrayed explicitly in the game).  That works wonderfully.

So Mass Effect fails in two ways.  First, the wheel gives me only 2-3 words with which to convey my intent to the game, which doesn't allow for nearly enough detail, and by voicing the PC and acting out the conversation cinematically, I now have no ability to fill in those blanks myself.

In early RPGs, where you typed in one-word questions like NAME or JOB, your character wasn't saying those things alone; he was asking questions about those subjects in an intelligeble manner.  But by forcing specific actions on your charcter without meaingful input from you, the game robs you of control.

I've lost count of the number of times I've needed to convey a point and chosen words on the fly that weren't really ideal, in real life.

Why?  Why not pause and think through your response more thoroughly?  I routinely make people wait for several seconds for my answers to questions.  Or even between sentences within the answer.  And sometimes I'll back up and edit.

[beermilk]

Its not an RPG unless Shepard, a trained marine, has to level up his/her weapon proficiency skills during a suicide mission.

[Sylvius the Mad]

wrexingcrew wrote...

Wittgenstein certainly wouldn't agree with that interpretation of use theory - unless you're suggesting that the conventional reading of Wittgenstein is wrong.

The young Wittgenstein who wrote the Tractatus Logico Philosophicus would, I think, agree with me.

The elder Wittgenstein who wrote Philosophical Investigations (where the use theory appears) would not.

[JaegerBane]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

JaegerBane wrote...

The reason I liked it was the intent was depicted rather than the specific action.

That's all dialogue options ever are.  That's why I've always viewed the pre-written full dialogue options as abstractions themselves.  I select a complete sentence, and that complete sentence (including my reading of it)  represents what my character wants to convey, but the actual words or actions used to convey it are left to me (because they're not portrayed explicitly in the game).  That works wonderfully.

So Mass Effect fails in two ways.  First, the wheel gives me only 2-3 words with which to convey my intent to the game, which doesn't allow for nearly enough detail, and by voicing the PC and acting out the conversation cinematically, I now have no ability to fill in those blanks myself.

In early RPGs, where you typed in one-word questions like NAME or JOB, your character wasn't saying those things alone; he was asking questions about those subjects in an intelligeble manner.  But by forcing specific actions on your charcter without meaingful input from you, the game robs you of control.

It's not really about what you imagine them saying. If you choose to assume you character is actually saying something completely different but same gist as what the text says, then that's your perogative. But ultimately the wheel options are just more concise summaries. If you find 2-3 words insufficient then, ultimately, that is your issue. I don't remember being mystified by any potential responses in ME1. They're not exactly complex.

Why?  Why not pause and think through your response more thoroughly?  I routinely make people wait for several seconds for my answers to questions.  Or even between sentences within the answer.  And sometimes I'll back up and edit.

Presumably because my job isn't so devoid of pressure or importance that I can make people wait several seconds every time I have something to add. Frankly, that sounds rather odd.

[Sylvius the Mad]

beermilk wrote...

Its not an RPG unless Shepard, a trained marine, has to level up his/her weapon proficiency skills during a suicide mission.

It's not an RPG unless Shepard, a trained marine, is skilled with his weapons regardless of the physical skill of the player.

In addition to all this dialogue stuff, I think RPGs should be stat-driven.  Otherwise they suffer some severe internal inconsistency.

[Sylvius the Mad]

JaegerBane wrote...

Presumably because my job isn't so devoid of pressure or importance that I can make people wait several seconds every time I have something to add.

Apparently your job is so important that you're allowed to make mistakes and say things that aren't true.

[wrexingcrew]

JaegerBane wrote...

I don't remember being mystified by any potential responses in ME1. They're not exactly complex.

That's actually my biggest issue with the dialogue system in Mass Effect. Roleplaying is a secondary concern for me in ME; as a consequence I'm pretty tolerant of things like voiced PC dialogue. It's still a concern for me, though, and having responses that don't correspond well to their prompts - particularly when they're voiced and remove all doubt about what said - interferes considerably.

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

The young Wittgenstein who wrote the Tractatus Logico Philosophicus would, I think, agree with me.

The elder Wittgenstein who wrote Philosophical Investigations (where the use theory appears) would not.

Very true. That was imprecise of me to not specify.

[the_one_54321]

JaegerBane wrote...
I'm afraid RPGs have never been a 'specific concept', any more than card games and board games have been 'specific concepts'. Dungeons and Dragons was a specific concept. The whole VTM thing that White Wolf made was also a specific concept.  They certainly weren't the same thing but fell under the overarching banner of RPGs.

This has been discussed before, but cRPGs are not PnP RPGs. There is no sensible reason to assume that they function in the same way, beyond the same vague intent.

you rather conveniently ignore the fact that before those games (and chain mail) RPGs didnt exist. all that existed was role play therapy, which is something entirely different.

those games define RPG because they were the first RPGs. it's actually a very simple concept. that which comes first defines what comes after. the intent is not vague. the specific defining features of the concept are quite clear. it's just that, as i mentioned early, people like to dismiss this in favor of whatever they mistakenly have always thought RPG meant.

[the_one_54321]

duplicate

Modifié par the_one_54321, 27 janvier 2010 - 02:29 .

[the_one_54321]

duplicate

Modifié par the_one_54321, 27 janvier 2010 - 02:29 .

[fairandbalancedfan]

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

Don't be sorry. I like reading these debates. I suppose you don't enjoy typing them out.

[Mordaedil]

I'd have to agree with Sylvius and the_one to a degree.



Mass Effect was barely an RPG. You had interactions, sure, but that makes it an adventure game, not necessarily an RPG. Story all games have these days.



Game mechanics wise, it seems that most people that are disagreeing with the two are forgetting something very important: Their arguments make games that already are defined as a different genre into RPG's. Suddenly the Sims is an RPG, because it has all the ingredients of interaction between characters. Suddenly GTA is an RPG(this is going to be true one day, but it's not really one yet), because offers to much choice.



Despite what values are core to RPGs, I think RPG's have become so much less than RPG's, that I'm considering completely ignoring genre meanings. Already people love obfuscating what a genre makes. Mass Effect sure isn't the first of them.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Genre descriptions used in a way that actually told me things about the game would be nice.

I dislike having to make decisions in real-time while playing games. I will generally avoid games that require that of me. Mass Effect had no such requirement, but try learning that from the marketing materials. I didn't even know we could aim while paused until months after release, and only then did I buy the game.

[gibb0n85]

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)

Too early for maths....

[LucidStrike]

As far as I'm concerned, so long as ME is based around player choice, it's an RPG.

Modifié par LucidStrike, 27 janvier 2010 - 08:46 .

[BouhPwet]

IMHO, the question is not so much about ME2 being an RPG a shooter, it's more about why a distinct community of players is disappointed with the game.

Mind you, disappointed doesn't necessarily mean that you cannot enjoy the game at all, it can be lots of fun, at times. But it means that it didn't meet the expectations.

From what I've read and gathered (and I finished the game myself), the disappointment comes from the fact that BioWare went overboard with the changes, thereby also giving the impression that there are less possibilities for RPG-like customization. A few examples:


Inventory, loot etc.:
Agreed, no one likes spending time sorting through clutter. But getting rid of the inventory/drop system altogether ? That was probably a bit  too much.

It seemed that BioWare managed to design a good system with DA:O, with "controlled" drops, fixed merchant lists, limited vendor loot. Also, you could not end up with too much useless cash by the end of the game, and high end items were expensive. You had to make choices about what you were going to acquire first (e.g. Lifegiver or Rosethorn ?).

For ME2, a "middle-ground" approach could have been better.

There are "extremes" with a Diablo-system on one end (suitable to hack'n slash, where almost each kill drops something), and "nothing" on the other hand (action-oriented, usually FPS/TPS and the likes), and BioWare went all the way to the "nothing" system.


Level up: Agreed, the ME1 approach where 1 skill point gives you a barely noticeable +2% isn't very "rewarding". But now, with only a few skills and 4 levels, the steps are too big.

In ME2, one mission can prove a bit challenging, and then the next one be completely trivialized by the fact that you unlocked some level 4 abilities in the mean time.

Here again, some middle-ground would have been possible.

In ME1, you could "unlock" new abilities as you leveled up (giving a stronger sense of progression), and even open up new weapons for your teammates (btw, you could also change the weapon they equipped in combat). This felt like having more possibilities for customization (your own character, and your teammates), and thus having a greater impact on how the game plays out.


Of course, innovation as in trying new things, is good. Revolution over evolution is also what opens up new paths, create new genres etc. But BioWare created expectations with ME1, and had attracted a certain type of players. By going too far with some of the changes, they somehow "alienated" part of that community.

The "shouting" would probably have been less if they had gone more progressively with the changes, or ahd implemented those in another franchise, with no "pre-conceptions" and "expectations".

Modifié par BouhPwet, 27 janvier 2010 - 09:28 .

[Trand]

After playing for about 5 hours, feels like a hybrid.

[Vaeliorin]

KingDub wrote...
Just because it had a live action segment with guns didn't mean that it was an action game. Look at Oblivion... it's real time action as well, but no one calls that an action game.

You're wrong about this.  Oblivion was an action game.  As soon as combat is more dependent on player skill than character skill, you're no longer playing an RPG (and are generally playing an action game.)