256 réponses à ce sujet

[10K]

One game will not kill a genre. You want a good CRPG, go play The Banner Saga. It was developed by a few guys whom used to be apart of BW.

[Terodil]

I think what we really need is a proper, reviewed definition of "RPG", "cRPG", "aRPG" etc. Many of the debates had in this forum seem to stem from incongruencies in peoples' understanding of these terms.

 

I don't currently have much time but as an example, let me question the glowing example some people make of BG. I'd posit that BG is, in fact, not a good RPG. While you can indeed roll your own character(s), the story is utterly linear. The plot does not branch significantly at all.

 

So what does it take to make a game an RPG?

- branching plot lines?

- attribute points?

- round-based vs. realtime?

- comprehensive lore background vs. "freestyle"?

- 'collection' type quests or crafting?

- ...

 

I think bringing "MMO" into the whole mix further dilutes the discussion, since I'd consider that an orthogonal attribute of an RPG, i.e. not related to the core of what constitutes an RPG at all. Ideally all that says is that a large number of people enjoy the game concurrently via network.

[Rawgrim]

One game will not kill a genre. You want a good CRPG, go play The Banner Saga. It was developed by a few guys whom used to be apart of BW.

 

That one is rotten. Female names for male characters, and vice versa.

[Rawgrim]

I think what we really need is a proper, reviewed definition of "RPG", "cRPG", "aRPG" etc. Many of the debates had in this forum seem to stem from incongruencies in peoples' understanding of these terms.

 

I don't currently have much time but as an example, let me question the glowing example some people make of BG. I'd posit that BG is, in fact, not a good RPG. While you can indeed roll your own character(s), the story is utterly linear. The plot does not branch significantly at all.

 

So what does it take to make a game an RPG?

- branching plot lines?

- attribute points?

- round-based vs. realtime?

- comprehensive lore background vs. "freestyle"?

- 'collection' type quests or crafting?

- ...

 

I think bringing "MMO" into the whole mix further dilutes the discussion, since I'd consider that an orthogonal attribute of an RPG, i.e. not related to the core of what constitutes an RPG at all. Ideally all that says is that a large number of people enjoy the game concurrently via network.

 

Giving the player full control over his own character, externally and internally. Also: let the character be firmly planted in the driver's seat. Never in the passenger's seat. Bioware seems more into telling a story to the player now, instead of letting the player feel like he is the story. Too much railroading, autodialogue, and an insane amount of limitations added to the character creation, is ruining the series. Feels more like Uncharted or something, than a roleplaying game. I have a sneaking suspicion some of the devs haven't even played an rpg before.

[Ieldra]

As I see it, at the core of the fantasy/sf roleplaying game lies the idea of creating a character of your choice to live in a fictional world, and doing what you want with them, which hopefully results in some interesting things happening. Anything more is decoration.

 

The problem is for that to work, the world needs to be responsive to your characters' actions, and the less limited that responsiveness is, the more real the world and the stories in it feel. It doesn't matter as much if the world is actually changed by our actions or statements, but it should acknowledge them and not ignore them. The most recent convincing implementation of that philosophy was, IMO, Fallout New Vegas. We had a big encompassing story with many elements of the world loosely connected to it, and it felt really responsive in the sense that if you pulled a string somewhere, multiple other elements were often affected and reacted differently to you after you pulled that string.

 

We paid for that with lots of quest bugs, as the developers were unable to track the millions of permutations created by the many decisions you could make which were designed to affect other elements. We also paid with a lackluster presentation and no voice acting for the main character.

 

If you want a better presentation and more voice acting, you need to reduce the complexity of the world drastically. That's regrettable, but it's how things are at the present. Not just because voice acting is expensive, but because it takes more planning. A written line can be changed in five minutes if you suddenly notice it doesn't fit. Changing a spoken line requires a lot of organization.

 

So what did Bioware do when they switched to cinematic presentation with full voice acting? Two things: they limited the responsiveness of the world to those aspects they think meaningful for the story, and they isolated areas from each other and created "responsiveness bubbles" where your choices would be reflected mainly within this bubble and only very rarely affected anything outside of it. That is a valid approach, but its limitations are felt by the player, even considering that the player character is always caged in a role anyway in a story-driven game. It is still a roleplaying game in the sense that you have options to shape your character, and there is responsiveness to how you express yourself as a character, but it feels - and is - much more railroaded. ME went further and reduced character expression, eventually eliminating it completely in ME3 and limiting your options to plot-affecting decisions. Personally, I see that as the point where the term "roleplaying" ceased to apply, though there's obviously a big YMMV area.

 

As I see it, these days there are three main elements in single-player rpgs implemented on electronic media, of which you can implement two well, but always pay a price in the third:

1. Freedom of character expression and high responsiveness of the world to your decisions. Also a large and complex world in the first place.

2. A good story with well-realized characters.

3. A good presentation and voice acting for your protagonist.

 

Fallout: NV has 1 and some of 2. DAI has 2 and 3. I don't know an example of 1 and 3. Personally, I see the limitations of DAI and deeply regret them, but I also see that things are significantly better than in the ME games, and I can vary my character more than in DA2. DAO had a more complex world, but it also had - see the list above - no voice acting for the protagonist. DAI actually has attempted to implement more freedom of expression and a more complex world than its predecessor and way, way more than the ME games. I think Bioware has been trying to bring back those elements that made the classics great while not sacrificing so much in area 3. The result is - of unfortunate necessity - a compromise, but IMO it is not legitimate to use DAO or earlier games as a measuring stick if you also want cinematic scenes and a voiced protagonist. Look instead at Bioware's first four implementations of games with voiced protagonists, and you see that things have improved from there in area 1. 

 

The ideal cRPG, for me personally, would feature a complex world like Fallout:NV and present all the parts of its complex interacting tapestry of stories with fully voice-acted cinematic scenes where our characters have a great variety of options to express themselves. It is not possible to create that game at present if you don't have a spare billion bucks to dedicate to it. Or so.

 

So I take the games I play for what they want to be, and for what they can be. DAI did many things well. Others, not so well. It works for some, it doesn't work for others. But whatever it does well, key aspects of the idea of roleplaying are implemented. Are they way more limited than I would prefer? Hell yes! But DAI is still taking me on a great ride, and I can see where it attempts to do better than Bioware's other fully voice-acted games. More often than not, it is successful. I would like those improvements to continue in future games.

[MadDemiurg]

That one is rotten. Female names for male characters, and vice versa.

Well, that's probably not the worst thing that can happen in a game. At least it has some choices that actually matter (not '"matter" like in most BW games) a moderately challenging (if overly simplistic) combat and a story that is not too overused.

 

As I see it, these days there are three main elements in single-player rpgs implemented on electronic media, of which you can implement two well, but always pay a price in the third:

1. Freedom of character expression and high responsiveness of the world to your decisions. Also a large and complex world in the first place.

2. A good story with well-realized characters.

3. A good presentation and voice acting for your protagonist.

 

Fallout: NV has 1 and some of 2. DAI has 2 and 3. I don't know an example of 1 and 3. 

C'mon, DA:I has a good story? Where are your standards? In fact, a lot of non RPGs (Bioshock for istance) have a much better story than most RPGs, so while a game needs to have a story to be an RPG it's probably not what makes it different from other genres. As for good presentation and voice acting for your protagonist, I think I disagree. In fact, it limits representation of your character to how it is implemented in the game opposed to how you see him/her yourself, so it actually takes away from the RPG part for me. A lot of action games have voiced protagonists as well. From all your 3 points I'd say that only the first half of the first one is defining for RPGs.

[zeypher]

I wish they get rid of main character voice, give me more stats and more complexity. Heh for all the money wasted on voice actors both new vegas and skyrim have sold more individually than entire DA franchise.

[MadDemiurg]

Now, in regards to what are "RPG", "aRPG" and "cRPG" (im my opinion).

 

Well, lets not forget that "RPG" stands for "role playing game" . So this is a game that allows you to roleplay a certain character as you see fit. This means you're in control of behavior of your character, both in regards to storytelling and combat mechanics. The less it is limited, the better. It is also usually nice to see that your choices actually affect smth as there's little point in them if they don't. For instance, in DA/ME series dialogue option choices mean less and less with each installment. I don't see a huge difference between picking 4 options that have the same outcome opposed to just watching a cutscene.

 

I think "cRPG" term is used to refer to computer implementations of tabletop RPGs. These are usually turn based and have relatively complex mechanics because this is what makes tabletop games fun (and realtime is impossible for such games). Many people consider these to be "real" RPGs, I'm not sure I agree with this statement.

 

"aRPGs" use action game mechanics (which would've been impossible for tabletop games) in place of classic "tabletop like" mechanics. It's debatable which one is better, but it definitely seems that the new generation of gamers can't stomach anything requiring to add up a few numbers, so this is the way to go for many studios now.

 

Overall I feel like action and rpg genres are merging atm, because it's rare to see an action game without some character progression nowdays, and RPG mechanics are being simplified in many latest releases.

[Ieldra]

C'mon, DA:I has a good story? Where are your standards? In fact, a lot of non RPGs (Bioshock for istance) have a much better story than most RPGs, so while a game needs to have a story to be an RPG it's probably not what makes it different from other genres. As for good presentation and voice acting for your protagonist, I think I disagree. In fact, it limits representation of your character to how it is implemented in thee game opposed to how you see him/her yourself, so it actually takes away from the RPG part for me. A lot of actions games have voiced protagonists as well. From all your 3 points I'd say that only the first half of the first one is defining for RPGs.

I said "single-player rpgs implemented in electronic media". If I judged games by the standards of literature, about every rpg plot I've ever seen in an rpg falls far short of "good". And a single-player rpg needs stories. Not necessarily big epic ones, and not necessarily one encompassing story, but something the player can experience that falls under the core idea of "hopefully interesting things will happen" I mentioned at the start of my post. DAI's story is good enough to serve in that capacity. It touches several interesting themes and it's not mindless. Just forget about the main antagonist, he's just there as the backdrop for the interesting things. 

 

Also, a good presentation is desirable. Why? Well, why are we on a computer or console? I can have worlds I mostly imagine with my tabletop rpg group. Visual and auditory presentation lie at the core of what the medium adds to the genre. It is intellectually dishonest to discard them as unimportant.

[tmp7704]

The original CRPGs never had herb gathering or crafting.

Which hardly means they were better RPGs for that. One could argue that having something other than combat for your character to do actually increases range of role-playing opportunities, not harm the game.

For what little it's worth even games like Divinity:OS come with crafting today. Somehow it doesn't appear to prevent the self-appointed "guardians of the RPG incline" from singing its praises.

[MadDemiurg]

I said "single-player rpgs implemented in electronic media". If I judged games by the standards of literature, about every rpg plot I've ever seen in an rpg falls far short of "good". And a single-player rpg needs stories. Not necessarily big epic ones, and not necessarily one encompassing story, but something the player can experience that falls under the core idea of "hopefully interesting things will happen" I mentioned at the start of my post. DAI's story is good enough to serve in that capacity. It touches several interesting themes and it's not mindless. Just forget about the main antagonist, he's just there as the backdrop for the interesting things. 

 

Also, a good presentation is desirable. Why? Well, why are we on a computer or console? I can have worlds I mostly imagine with my tabletop rpg group. Visual and auditory presentation lie at the core of what the medium adds to the genre. It is intellectually dishonest to discard them as unimportant.

Well, tbh I would prefer "interesting things actually happen" to "hopefully interesting things will happen" as you've put it, and there are cRPGs with interesting stories out there. DA:I, I would rate below average in terms of plot.

 

I agree about good presentation, I just don't want to have a precet presentation for the main character, voice included (unless I really like the character, but that's very subjective). I'm all for having voice actors for other characters, good graphics etc (although it's much less important for me than other elements).

 

Which hardly means they were better RPGs for that. One could argue that having something other than combat for your character to do actually increases range of role-playing opportunities, not harm the game.

For what little it's worth even games like Divinity:OS come with crafting today. Somehow it doesn't appear to prevent the self-appointed "guardians of the RPG incline" from singing its praises.

I don't see anything wrong with crafting personally. Tabletop games like D&D have crafting rules... I have problems with grinding though as generally it's just a time sink. I see why devs put it in a subscription based MMOs but why it is needed in a single player game is beyond me. Maybe because MMO players have actually grown to enjoy it and now can't live without it. I would classify it as a form of masochism.

[tmp7704]

I have problems with grinding though as generally it's just a time sink. I see why devs put it in a subscription based MMOs but why it is needed in a single player game is beyond me.

You could as well ask why 90% of typical (solo) cRPG is fighting trash enemies in pointless encounters just to get some XP to level up and loot/gold for the next tier of equipment. And why oddly enough not only players don't generally complain about it, but if you dare to suggest these parts could be skipped with a button it's mobs and pitchforks time.

Tevye the dairyman put it perhaps best, with the most appropriate gesture to boot:



(tradition. it's a funny thing)

[In Exile]

[edit: Apparently the forum ate my post]

 

I was going to say that a lot of RPGs like IWD and ToEE are basically combat sims. It's something venerated that I don't quite get. 

[MadDemiurg]

You could as well ask why 90% of typical (solo) cRPG is fighting trash enemies in pointless encounters just to get some XP to level up and loot/gold for the next tier of equipment. And why oddly enough not only players don't generally complain about it, but if you dare to suggest these parts could be skipped with a button it's mobs and pitchforks time.

Tevye the dairyman put it perhaps best, with the most appropriate gesture to boot:



(tradition. it's a funny thing)

Well, tbh I never liked killing trash mobs for xp either, even though the process is at least a little bit more involved than picking up elfroots. In terms of xp, I liked Vampire: The Masquerade Bloodlines system for instance, where you only got awarded for quest completion (and got more points for playing smart). I also prefer RPGs where you can avoid combat altogether if you want it like Fallout, but these don't seem to come out often.

[Darkly Tranquil]

CRPGs are alive and well and living on Steam.

[MadDemiurg]

[edit: Apparently the forum ate my post]

 

I was going to say that a lot of RPGs like IWD and ToEE are basically combat sims. It's something venerated that I don't quite get. 

IWD was pretty tough though (or at least I was bad at games when I played it ), and I can appreciate challenging combat where you actually need to think about stuff you're doing. Doesn't necessarily make it a good RPG as in "role playing" game, still fun to play though.

[Realmzmaster]

I find it interesting that design choices that people do not like are given the label MMOCRPG elements until another poster points out that those elements existed in cRPGs long before MMOCRPGs. For example Dungeonmaster and Ultima Underworld 1 & 2 are considered excellent cRPGs but they also introduce first person realtime action in a 3D environment.

 

I also find it interesting that posters talk about BG1, BG2 ands DAO as traditional cRPGS especially DAO that introduce a great deal of the MMOCRPG elements.

 

So what defines a cRPG as having MMO elements? 

 

Unless the character is a complete tabula rasa (which Bioware has never created) the story will always limit what the gamer can do. Other gamers consider IWD  (Icewind Dale) to be a decent cRPG even though there is absolutely no interaction in the party period. No companion banner, no romance etc. Those points that many gamers say make a Bioware game. The only party interaction is complete headcanon. 

 

IWD was made by Obsidian using the Infinity engine. So what makes a cRPG?  Because IMHO there is a difference between a role playing game and a roll playing game. But, YMMV.

[MadDemiurg]

There's no perfect RPG released (at least to me), some get certain elements right while failing at others. To me the game is good if I enjoy at least 50% of it. If the game has crap story but interesting tactical (or action actually) combat I can enjoy it. If it has interesting plot, but boring combat I can also enjoy it, unless I'm forced to spend 95% of the gameplay time on the boring combat that is.

 

I have always found romance extremely gimmicky in BW games and a form of fanservice. I would rather not have it in the game at all and have resources spent elsewhere unless it contributes to the plot somehow. A lot of people seem to like it though. Party banter can be nice, but I wouldn't say it's an essential element I can't live without.

[In Exile]

There's no perfect RPG released (at least to me), some get certain elements right while failing at others. To me the game is good if I enjoy at least 50% of it. If the game has crap story but interesting tactical (or action actually) combat I can enjoy it. If it has interesting plot, but boring combat I can also enjoy it, unless I'm forced to spend 95% of the gameplay time on the boring combat that is.

 

I have always found romance extremely gimmicky in BW games and a form of fanservice. I would rather not have it in the game at all and have resources spent elsewhere unless it contributes to the plot somehow. A lot of people seem to like it though. Party banter can be nice, but I wouldn't say it's an essential element I can't live without.

 

I can't enjoy RPG combat for its own sake very much. It's fun until I've broken it via powergaming but after that there's no more charm to it unless there's a reason for me to play it. So I'm quite the opposite.

 

I think the romance gimmick works as a dimension of RP, and humanizes the protagonist. It's one of those things that makes the PC more than just an exceptionally talented murderer. 

[zeypher]

what 3 lines and a tumble is now called romance? no way in hell can bioware stuff be called romance, no depth click 3 heart icons and you sorted appraoch. 

[In Exile]

what 3 lines and a tumble is now called romance? no way in hell can bioware stuff be called romance, no depth click 3 heart icons and you sorted appraoch. 

 

I don't know what game you played, but it's obviously not DA:I. Or DA:O for that matter. 

[MadDemiurg]

I can't enjoy RPG combat for its own sake very much. It's fun until I've broken it via powergaming but after that there's no more charm to it unless there's a reason for me to play it. So I'm quite the opposite.

 

I think the romance gimmick works as a dimension of RP, and humanizes the protagonist. It's one of those things that makes the PC more than just an exceptionally talented murderer. 

It depends on how fast can you break it. If it takes more than 1 playthrough then it's all good. If you broke it at 20% completion mark... not so much. Some games (admittedly very few) are reasonably challenging even if you powergame, most often these are not RPGs though (but given how the lines between genres become blurry many of these can at least be classified as having RPG elements).

 

I would approve of the romance thingy if it didn't feel so shallow, and I feel it always would as long as it's disconnected from the story. But if they work it into the story they probably won't be able to make a dozen variations of it to satisfy all genders, races, orientations, xenophiles (looking at you ME) and god know what weird fetishes they'll be adding in new games.

[luism]

For the sake of maintaining the overdramatic essence intended, we shall pretend that these do not exist...

Why not I always have lol

[AlanC9]

 
I was going to say that a lot of RPGs like IWD and ToEE are basically combat sims. It's something venerated that I don't quite get.

Well, that's how the genre started. Back then you could have a combat sim like Wizardry, or have a plot and characters and be an Infocom game. Couldn't fit both on the same floppy disc, I guess.

[TheOgre]

The MMOfication (if there is such a thing) began with NWN. NWN removed permadeath or the possibility of protagonist death resulting in a game over. The Bioware games prior to NWN had permadeath (BG1 & BG2) as did the Gold Box games and just about all the early crpgs.

 

DAO further up the ante by including regenerating health and mana. DAO also added cooldowns. All of those are according to some posters on this forum MMO elements. DA2 took it a step further and added instant health and mana regen after each combat.  

 

DAI is actually going back. It has removed regenerating health and mana. DAI has removed healing in combat from the mage which actually fits the lore. Healing in combat by lore is the providence of the Spirit Healer like Anders or Wynne not every mage.

 

So how is DAI all of a sudden considered more MMO? 

 

If you ask many of the posters on this forum they may not be in favor of timed events or QTEs. In fact many of the early crpgs did not have timed events. 

 

Some of them are not particularly fond of the time events in DAI. Saving all the NPCs in Haven is one such timed event. .  

Also are you telling me that your warden did not pick elfroot. metals and other materials for potions, poisons and traps?

You are telling me that the warden's party did not take trips to the sellers that had unlimited amounts of certain resources (like the quartermaster in the Circle Tower with unlimited lyrium)? I thought the warden had a Blight to end.

Did your warden stop to do the Crime wave or take out Gaxkang? Surely the warden had better activities to engage in? You mean your warden did not engage in the chantry board, Mage Collective or the Blackstone Irregulars?

 

Wait, wait.. While I do not disagree with the whole, healing element..

 

Can you tell me why a meteor is less lethal than a reaver's dragon claw? Keep in mind, you can spam these abilities over and over again.

 

Bubbles, preventative damage and the like, or guard.. why do they allow these things if it's going back to it? Isn't it a fancy way of healing, preventing incoming damage? I ask because  while I believe bubbles came long before DA:I, I have never seen a game with a 'guard' system where even scouts/mages can generate guard with items.

 

The itemization, crafting, rng in schematics found (Oh and this is a peach right here, if you want your ultimate setup, good luck because hoo boy, you just run out of tier 3 chests to loot end game). So, ya ask why it's considered more MMO.. Well, this element alone is a good justification.

 

yeah, combat, healing mages were MMO quality.. But I recall way back to games having support magic beyond that of a bubble (like increased haste in attacks or resistance magic). Seems the only reason why you'd have a mage in DA:I is to bubble or interact with mage only environment things. A lot of spells just lack the raw killing power melee have, and in strides!

 

Just saying man, would love to go back to healing magic if it meant getting support magic with badass damage spells, much more than a glorified bow and arrow (the staff auto attack).