392 réponses à ce sujet

[Sylvius the Mad]

You call a game an RPG because of its narrative and interactive framework, not its combat.

Those are all the same thing.

[Lebanese Dude]

Those are all the same thing.

But combat has little to do with narrative. The scripted events during combat are definitely part of the story, but the actual execution is not.

 

Although you can roleplay through combat, it's merely an additional means of doing so. It's not crucial.

As Robmokron said, Legend of Zelda is a definitive RPG and it can only be played in one way with regards to combat.

[Sylvius the Mad]

But combat has little to do with narrative. The scripted events during combat are definitely part of the story, but the actual execution is not.

Although you can roleplay through combat, it's merely an additional means of doing so. It's not crucial.
As Robmokron said, Legend of Zelda is a definitive RPG and it can only be played in one way with regards to combat.

In a roleplaying game, every aspect of the game should allow, and ideally support and encourage, roleplaying.

I think you and I disagree about what the narrative is. It's obviously the story of the game, but that story is written as you play by the choices your character makes and the things your character does. The story the writers give us is an important part of the setting, and the setting is probably the biggest piece of the puzzle when it comes to informing the narrative, but it is not itself the narrative.

I know almost nothing about Zelda (having only once ever tried to play something called an RPG on a console), but based on its platform and period I suspect the combat relies on player reflexes, and the encounters are tailored to be defeated a specific way. If that's the case, Zelda does not have RPG combat.

[Lebanese Dude]

In a roleplaying game, every aspect of the game should allow, and ideally support and encourage, roleplaying.

I think you and I disagree about what the narrative is. It's obviously the story of the game, but that story is written as you play by the choices your character makes and the things your character does. The story the writers give us is an important part of the setting, and the setting is probably the biggest piece of the puzzle when it comes to informing the narrative, but it is not itself the narrative.

I know almost nothing about Zelda (having only once ever tried to play something called an RPG on a console), but based on its platform and period I suspect the combat relies on player reflexes, and the encounters are tailored to be defeated a specific way. If that's the case, Zelda does not have RPG combat.

 

No we don't actually disagree about the narrative. I too believe that everything is inherently connected.

 

I just don't think that combat is a good reflection of what the player does (from  a roleplaying perspective).

 

Picking talents and specializations to role-play your character makes sense. You wouldn't pick Blood Mage if you were a Chantry apologist.

 

Implying that hitting someone for 32 points of damage at a rate of 2 hits per second doesn't follow the same logic.

Does it matter what level you are or how much damage you do (numbers) when role-playing your character?

 

What do you consider to be RPG combat?

 

Zelda is one of the first RPGs ever made. It's unfair to not call it an RPG by your standards when it is what set the standard back then.

[Ieolus]

No we don't actually disagree about the narrative.

I just don't think that combat is a good reflection of what the player does.
Does it matter what level you are or how much damage you do (numbers) when roleplaying your character?

Picking talents and specializations to role-play your character makes sense.
Implying that hitting someone for 32 points of damage at a rate of 2 hits per second doesn't.

What do you consider to be RPG combat?

You don't get it. An RPG's combat is about the character's skills and not the player's.

[Lebanese Dude]

You don't get it. An RPG's combat is about the character's skills and not the player's.

 

I don't think I ever implied that I thought otherwise?

[Sylvius the Mad]

No we don't actually disagree about the narrative. I too believe that everything is inherently connected.

I just don't think that combat is a good reflection of what the player does (from a roleplaying perspective).

Picking talents and specializations to role-play your character makes sense. You wouldn't pick Blood Mage if you were a Chantry apologist.

Implying that hitting someone for 32 points of damage at a rate of 2 hits per second doesn't follow the same logic.
Does it matter what level you are or how much damage you do (numbers) when role-playing your character?

To the extent that they inform your character's decisions (including tactical decisions), or affect the outcome of combat, yes.

What do you consider to be RPG combat?

Rule-based. Not action-based. I decide what my character wants to try to do, and the character then attempts it, succeeding or failing on his own merits.

If I'm drunk or injured or especially alert or highly skilled should have no effect.

Zelda is one of the first RPGs ever made. It's unfair to not call it an RPG by your standards when it is what set the standard back then.

Since it followed many Wizardry and Ultima games that did things very differently, that seems like a stretch.

Moreover, the earliest RPGs were tabletop games. They were always rules-based. And the earliest CRPGs, of which the earliest I've played was released a full 9 years before the first Zelda game, largely emulated tabletop play.

And that's what I think CRPGs should do - emulate a tabletop RPG experience without the need for other players. Nothing with mandatory action combat, or a rigidly defined protagonist, or purely linear story, would count.

[Anomaly-]

No sure if this should be here but I really do not get people's obession with living in the past...

 

All the complaints are because people are saying how great BG and DAO are and how all the new games are "DAI is NOT DAO", "BG2 has much better content than DAI", "DA2 sucks soooo much compared to DAO".

 

BG1/BG2/DAO: perhaps they should just keep making remakes/graphical overhual of them and spend less time thinking of new ideas since people would compare and not like it. And remakes/remastered are excellent money-grabbers nowadays (both GTA V and Last of Us Remastered are selling very well). And surprise surprise, gamers are giving great reviews on them.

 

they somehow failed to see that new ideas are progressive. I think most people would want to see the new elements being introduced instead of having the same old thing again and again. I am pretty sure if the game mechanics remained the same throughout, people would say Bioware staff are not progressive and have run out of ideas blah blah blah.

 

Here is how I see it:

 

DAO: main complaint was the combat as it is not fast enough and offer little 'excitement'

DA2: they upgrade the combat system and make it faster and more flashy

 

DA2: lack of quests, lack of areas, repetitive areas, poor story (too linear and your choice does not matter), droves of enemies falling from the sky

DAI: full of quests (even though they are sidequests), areas too large to be explored, non-repetitive areas, a definite improvement in story-telling and cinematics, NO MORE enemies falling from the sky

 

but now we have:

 

DAI: awful controls and fps, SLOW! it plays like a MMO! the story is too 'over-the place' because of the boring neverending fetch quests

 

Haiz...

 

People are just never satisfied even though Bioware did try to take in the comments and try to improve.

 

I expect DA4 will be without any fetch quests, mostly linear, turned-based combat (to prevent awful tactical cam controls) and plays exactly like a JRPG. But expect complaints on those as well.

 

if you are sooooooooooooooooo good, please make a game and make sure it is a hit even after 20 years (much like BG and DAO).

 

if not, just stay in the past and be content with DAO and played it till the end of time because DAO is never coming back (though I wouldn't mind a remake).

 

This post is riddled with logical fallacies and I couldn't disagree with it more. I know I'm one of the "old-school" gamers you're talking about, but you couldn't be more mistaken. It's not that I'm living in the past, nor that I am opposed to new ideas. The important point is whether or not this new thing is an improvement. I love that I can check my email, send voice commands and surf websites on my smartphone anytime I like. That is an objective improvement to my life.

 

However, let me give you an example of something new I don't consider an improvement: 3d movies. I've never seen a 3d movie that I didn't enjoy more in 2d. They give me a headache, make me dizzy/naeuseous and the majority of the screen is out of focus for many of the scenes. I'm always surprised at how many things I notice in the background when watching in 2d that were indiscernible in 3d. So let me get this straight. I pay more money to see less of the movie, and leave feeling sick? It makes no sense. It's an inferior experience to me, but many people eat it up thinking that something newer and more expensive is better.

 

Likewise, whatever is gained in voice acting/cinematics in newer games is often less significant to me than what is lost in terms of player choice and experience. The fact that I can no longer spend stat points on level up, have fewer skills to choose from, fewer approaches to combat, more clunky controls and fewer role-playing options can only be seen as a step backward to me. But omg look! Fancy cinematics and dragons!

 

As for making a better game myself, believe me, I'd love to. I spent many hours modding the crap out of DA:O, trying to make it into what I felt was an objectively superior gameplay experience. However, money and time constraints of being a full-time student, as well as trying to make a profit in an audience that seems more interested in shiny things than deep gameplay all make the notion of starting a game studio less than feasible.

 

 

RPG is the only genre of game where I do not trust user reviews. Why?

 

RPG nerds are the nerdiest nerds to ever nerd a nerd fest.

 

God. Just awful. If it isn't exactly like they want something to be, usually some 15 year old outdated game mechanic, or a 1500 deep skill tree, 99% of which you will never use, they will blow up review sites with their hate.

 

Let's look at Divinity: Original Sin. I think it is junk, a throwback to old rpg's. Turn based and isometric view? Come on, this isn't 1998. But the uber nerds are nut hugging it to death. Must remind them of puberty or something.

 

To each their own I guess, give them what they want and all that. But they could shut up a bit when they don't get what they want.

 

I don't consider myself a nerd. I'm athletic, with no serious allergies and have no difficulty talking to an attractive member of the opposite sex. What I do consider myself is a somewhat intelligent consumer. I care about what I'm getting for my money. I don't like to pay the same price for what I feel is an inferior experience. As far as the RPG genre goes, less choice/options can only be an inferior product to me.

 

But genres aren't as strict as you are implying they are.

 

It's an RPG because it's a game which allows role-playing as a character. How it allows you to do so is within the game's programming and is the producer's prerogative.

 

If that's the case, then Super Mario World is an RPG. As is Sonic the Hedgehog.

 

I believe an RPG is all about choices. Anything that allows less choice is less of an RPG, and an objectively inferior product.

[RSX Titan]

You don't get it. An RPG's combat is about the character's skills and not the player's.

It appears you don't get how developers have altered the concept of what an RPG is. From a business standpoint it makes more sense financially to make action games with rpg elements rather than games transplanted from tabletop. Your point of view is the epitome of what the OP was trying to say when they started the thread.

[Ieolus]

It appears you don't get how developers have altered the concept of what an RPG is. From a business standpoint it makes more sense financially to make action games with rpg elements rather than games transplanted from tabletop. Your point of view is the epitome of what the OP was trying to say when they started the thread.

Developers don't get to make that decision. They can't alter the concept. All they can do is make a game. If it isn't up to snuff, or the expectations set are misleading, you get this last week on this forum.

[RSX Titan]

Developers don't get to make that decision. They can't alter the concept. All they can do is make a game. If it isn't up to snuff, or the expectations set are misleading, you get this last week on this forum.

Nonsense. Definitions evolve all the time. The problem here is that your definition of what an RPG is hasn't changed. Also I hate to break it to you but EA and Bioware as well every other developer on the planet will trade 100k traditionalists for a million casual fans. Don't believe for a second that they care what you or any other so called hardcore/oldschool fan thinks.

[Eelectrica]

Nonsense. Definitions evolve all the time. The problem here is that your definition of what an RPG is hasn't changed. Also I hate to break it to you but EA and Bioware as well every other developer on the planet will trade 100k traditionalists for a million casual fans. Don't believe for a second that they care what you or any other so called hardcore/oldschool fan thinks.

Yeah, no. Look at Larian with divinity and Obsidian with Pillars of Eternity and Torment. Game developers developing RPG's for the PC market. Games that simply won't run on Console due to their limitations.

I accept that BioWare has to appeal to the mainstream market and that's fine, just don't toss everything aside. Setable tactics for characters was a great innovation getting rid of it, not progressive.

[RenAdaar]

Now that you mention it.... A baldurs gate 1 and 2 remake in this engine would be amazing..... 

[RSX Titan]

Yeah, no. Look at Larian with divinity and Obsidian with Pillars of Eternity and Torment. Game developers developing RPG's for the PC market. Games that simply won't run on Console due to their limitations.
I accept that BioWare has to appeal to the mainstream market and that's fine, just don't toss everything aside. Setable tactics for characters was a great innovation getting rid of it, not progressive.

Don't get me wrong. I don't agree with it but you have to remove emotion from it and think about the business side. Gaming is big business now which is something most gamers don't realize. Sure you'll have a few outliers like the ones you mentioned but they are far from the norm.

[Ieolus]

Nonsense. Definitions evolve all the time. The problem here is that your definition of what an RPG is hasn't changed. Also I hate to break it to you but EA and Bioware as well every other developer on the planet will trade 100k traditionalists for a million casual fans. Don't believe for a second that they care what you or any other so called hardcore/oldschool fan thinks.

Again that doesn't change a non-RPG magically into an RPG.

[RSX Titan]

Again that doesn't change a non-RPG magically into an RPG.

Yes it does. You and a small number of tabletop traditionalists have a rigid view of what an RPG is. That is the entire crux of the problem. I loved DAO and played through it 10+ times. The combat sucked and was boring as hell. Ill take DA:I's combat any day. Action oriented combat has been a great addition to the genre and sales back that up. The fact combat requires the player's input doesn't make it any less of an RPG. The genre has evolved, why can't you?

[Ieolus]

Yes it does. You and a small number of tabletop traditionalists have a rigid view of what an RPG is. That is the entire crux of the problem. I loved DAO and played through it 10+ times. The combat sucked and was boring as hell. Ill take DA:I's combat any day. Action oriented combat has been a great addition to the genre and sales back that up. The fact combat requires the player's input doesn't make it any less of an RPG. The genre has evolved, why can't you?

Again, just doesn't work that way, no matter how much you talk of evolving. You can get hybrids, which is what Inquisition is. Doesn't make it a bad game. Does make it a bad RPG though.
Just because you want to redefine what a genre means doesn't mean we will let you.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Nonsense. Definitions evolve all the time.

George Orwell warned about this.

Letting the definition change robs us of the ability to discuss the features associated with the old definition. If I talk abour roleplaying, but people don't understand what I mean, language has beckme less useful.

I will not stand idly by while game developers create a lexical gap where there hadn't been ome previously.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Yes it does. You and a small number of tabletop traditionalists have a rigid view of what an RPG is. That is the entire crux of the problem. I loved DAO and played through it 10+ times. The combat sucked and was boring as hell. Ill take DA:I's combat any day. Action oriented combat has been a great addition to the genre and sales back that up. The fact combat requires the player's input doesn't make it any less of an RPG. The genre has evolved, why can't you?

I play these games tp roleplay. I find roleplaying fun.

I do not, however, find most other video games fun. Shooters are boring. God of War was boring. Final Fantasy VII was boring.

If they are going to label their games roleplaying games, I will continue to insist they permit roleplaying. And if they don't, I'm going to make a huge nuisance of myself in order to increase the PR cost of that design decision.

I recognize that EA will make decisions based on cost benefit analysis. But if I can change the balance of those costs and benefits by moving the margins of public opinion, I'm going to do that.

RPG will not go the way of R&B on my watch. R&B should stand for rhythm and blues, but somehow the definitions of those terms diverged. And since the same term continued to be used, there was likely a time during the transition wherein different people used the term R&B differently, thus causing confusion.

For the record, I refuse to use the modern definition of R&B (largely to induce conversations on this topic).

Also for the record, I do categorise DAI as a roleplaying game. Its mechanics are compatible with roleplaying. BioWare got it right (though it would work better if BioWare had bothered to document any of it).

[danielkx]

Yes it does. You and a small number of tabletop traditionalists have a rigid view of what an RPG is. That is the entire crux of the problem. I loved DAO and played through it 10+ times. The combat sucked and was boring as hell. Ill take DA:I's combat any day. Action oriented combat has been a great addition to the genre and sales back that up. The fact combat requires the player's input doesn't make it any less of an RPG. The genre has evolved, why can't you?

DA2 sales were substantially less than DAO on all platforms so how do the sales back that up?

[Aedan317]

DAI: full of quests (even though they are sidequests), areas too large to be explored, non-repetitive areas, a definite improvement in story-telling and cinematics, NO MORE enemies falling from the sky

 

If you think this garbage story telling is an "improvement", then you are truly retarded. DA:I story is so bad it makes Dragon age 2 look like a masterpiece. These con artists promised this would be more like dragon age origins. they said it would have 40 different endings( which is a lie, there is only one ending and you cant change it). they failed on this harder than DA2. theyre mainstreaming sellout liars.

[Potatoespotate]

If you think this garbage story telling is an "improvement", then you are truly retarded. DA:I story is so bad it makes Dragon age 2 look like a masterpiece. These con artists promised this would be more like dragon age origins. they said it would have 40 different endings( which is a lie, there is only one ending and you cant change it). they failed on this harder than DA2. theyre mainstreaming sellout liars.

They said there would be 40 major variations of endings. And also to the rest of your statement: No.

[dantares83]

If you think this garbage story telling is an "improvement", then you are truly retarded. DA:I story is so bad it makes Dragon age 2 look like a masterpiece. These con artists promised this would be more like dragon age origins. they said it would have 40 different endings( which is a lie, there is only one ending and you cant change it). they failed on this harder than DA2. theyre mainstreaming sellout liars.

my dear, i don't really care about your opinion on the story. if u like DA2's one better, so be it.

 

But ur behaviour of holding on to hot coal instead of letting it go will do u in in life sooner or later. and belive me, i used to hold on to feuds and it was horrible.

 

so just let it go and focus on the good. if there is really no good or anything, leave the forums and of course any future games because it will help u better.

[Aedan317]

my dear, i don't really care about your opinion on the story. if u like DA2's one better, so be it.

 

But ur behaviour of holding on to hot coal instead of letting it go will do u in in life sooner or later. and belive me, i used to hold on to feuds and it was horrible.

 

so just let it go and focus on the good. if there is really no good or anything, leave the forums and of course any future games because it will help u better.

no, what u need to do is fuk off back to far cry 4. every true bioware fan knows this is nothing more than a bastardized version of dragon age to easily draw in the masses of young unintelligent children like yourself.

 

 

on a side note,  99% of these people who are saying we are "stuck in the past" are playing dragon age inquisition for the first time, and probably never played the previous games anyway.

[Angloassassin]

no, what u need to do is fuk off back to far cry 4. every true bioware fan knows this is nothing more than a bastardized version of dragon age to easily draw in the masses of young unintelligent children like yourself.

 

 

on a side note,  99% of these people who are saying we are "stuck in the past" are playing dragon age inquisition for the first time, and probably never played the previous games anyway.

 

Speaking as a member of a 7 person household, who's had 5/7 play Most (Some All) of Bioware's RPG's. Ontop of being a sort of ring-leader for a local group of players. I find that to be quite a bold and baseless statement. With typical "You're not a true fan" arguments, wrapped up with "If you like this, go play something else cause - reasons".

 

Yes, yes - we get it. You have a strong passion for the older titles, but going out and attacking people - quite visibly ,(text joke, bahaha), is a big no-no. 

 

Nor does it give you any sort of footing to stand on when trying to build an argument. And I find it funny how you consider that Anyone enjoying DA:I is... What was it? 

 

 young unintelligent children like yourself.  - Ah yes, that...

 

My Dad's getting into his 50's, Played D&D, even had a buddy who was into LARP'ing, and *MADE* A full set of chainmail. And he's held Dragon Age: Origins in a special spot in his heart. Probably has 10+ (Completionist) playthroughs, both that *And* DA2. And, (Bugs withstanding), declared DA:I his personal favorite. 

 

Are you calling someone, who's roots were founded in what people considered to be the early lifeblood of Bioware - a child? Tsk, tsk... 

 

 

Do you kiss people you love with that mouth? Or are they afraid of getting filled with all the hot air?