256 réponses à ce sujet

[phantomrachie]

DA:I probably marks the end of AAA CRPGs but Kickstarter is bringing good CRPGs back with Pillars of Eternity and Tides of Numenera (okay, Tides of Wasteland 2, lol)

 

Witcher 3 is probably more CRPG than DA:I though. Hopefully, and Cyberpunk 2077 is gonna be CRPG too I think.

 

The Witcher series can't be considered a cRPG because it abandoned basically all the elements that exist in a pen & paper RPG.

 

A cRPG is trying to emulate, as much as possible, the Pen & Paper experience. At least it was originally, which is why many of the original RPG used DnD style mechanics.

 

Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that it's a bad thing that the Witcher is an aRPG or just RPG (depending on your definition) instead of a cRPG, just that it can't be considered a cRPG.

 

I don't understand why there is no room for multiple types of RPGs.

 

I had a blast playing both Wasteland 2 & DA:I but I enjoyed them for different reasons.

 

Why do all 'proper' RPGs have to be a call back to DnD?  It is nonsensical to think that all  RPGs must play in exactly the same way as they always have. If other video game genres took that approach all FPSs would still be Doom style, and we never would've gotten games like Goldeneye and CoD.

 

We've got RPGs with fully formed characters (the Witcher series), RPGs with characters with a bit of backstory (DA series) and RPGs with characters who are a blank slate (Elder Scrolls) 

 

Not all RPGs types will suit all RPG fans, personally I don't like the Witcher, but we've got so much choice in the types of RPGs that we can play, that it doesn't matter if one game doesn't suit us, because we can play another one.

 

It's a great time to be an RPG fan, let's not forget that by forcing all RPGs to fit some imaginaire box.

[Rawgrim]

By the standards you were measuring Bethesda's games by, it woulc very much be an RPG. You create your character, you roleplay, you level your character's abilities which affects your performance in career mode.

 

No you don't roleplay. Do you have dialogues? Can you solve quests in several ways? Do you interact with the world around you? Make moral choices?

 

A golf game has zero roleplaying in it. Are you drunk?

[TurretSyndrome]

Look to Larian studios. I'm not kidding. Divinity: Original Sin was a solid game, even though the main storyline was too predictable. The company found a strong fanbase to continue making isometric cRPGs which allow players a lot of freedom and interaction in the games. I hear they're expanding their workforce and are working on two more titles based on the same engine used for D:OS. All thanks to the success of that game. 

 

Don't look to Dragon Age for anything close to providing a cRPG experience. The franchise seems to have moved on even from it's DA:O roots let alone revisiting old style RPG systems.

[SofaJockey]

I am truly worried that DA:I spells the death of the CRPG. ...

Sadly, with DA:I the line is broken.

 

After six pages of semantic argument, I've come to the conclusions:

• These definitions of different types of RPG are largely unhelpful.
• DAI is terrific for what it does (and in the future can be better).
• If DAI is the death of cRPG then that deserves to die if no-one else is interested.
• No game studio should be expected to carry the candle for a type of game that is unpopular.
• Or if it does have an audience (if a smaller one), then games will be made to address that audience.

[Bowhunter4L]

Actually DA:I didn't kill the CRPG, DA:O somewhat did. Some people might remember back in the day when BW first started talking about DA on the forums of old. They said that they wanted to create there own world with there own rule set to where they didn't have to follow the then current rule set by AD&D that was present in BG and BG2.( also including both IWD games). All of the DA three games are basically action RPG's. like someone else had posted there is different types of RPG's. A true rpg is PNP style then CRPG is like BG and IWD series and action RPGs like DA , the Witcher series, KOA and so on. And again BW wanted to do something of there own vision and they have done a hell of a job. I also wanted to add is that the BG and IWD is based off of the forgotten realms world which was owned by AD&D ( WOTC) now.

[TennesseeTuxedo]

I am truly worried that DA:I spells the death of the CRPG. 

 

I think these definitions have much variation.  Not sure DA ever fit squarely into that sub-genre.  DAI belongs in some arcade-like RPG-lite sub-genre.

[ShinsFortress]

I haven't seen and played a decent CRPG for quite some time..  DA:I isn't the death of it, it's the stone above the grave.

 

Maybe CRPG as a genre will come back to life one day, a Resurrection Spell of some power!  Until then, you've got A-RPGs and open world more sandbox-y stuff.

[Fast Jimmy]

Well, but this is precisely what the problem here is, isn't it? If we conclude that the tactical/sensible thing is to focus down the CC-capable squishies, not only it doesn't take any heat off them, but if anything it's the opposite, it renders them even more of priority target.

I remember the days before aggro and the only way to keep your squishes alive was to have them as far back from the fight as you could, with your meat shields actually needing to be placed somewhere logical, instead of spamming shouts or taunts or whatever to let them run around like a lunatic.

[katokires]

Actually DA:I didn't kill the CRPG, DA:O somewhat did. Some people might remember back in the day when BW first started talking about DA on the forums of old. They said that they wanted to create there own world with there own rule set to where they didn't have to follow the then current rule set by AD&D that was present in BG and BG2.( also including both IWD games). All of the DA three games are basically action RPG's. like someone else had posted there is different types of RPG's. A true rpg is PNP style then CRPG is like BG and IWD series and action RPGs like DA , the Witcher series, KOA and so on. And again BW wanted to do something of there own vision and they have done a hell of a job. I also wanted to add is that the BG and IWD is based off of the forgotten realms world which was owned by AD&D ( WOTC) now.

If action RPG is without action like DAO, I don't mind it at all. My only problem with action RPGs, is, exactly, action. Funny isn't it? Thus when we take action out of the equation it is ok. But why would someone call a RPG without action like DAO a action RPG? Doesn't it need action in it? Also, DA2 frightened the hell out of me because combat LOOKS like there is action in it, but control wise it is THANK GOD ALMIGHTY the same actionless combat from DAO.

My definition of non-action is issue orders, my definition of action is "do yourself". If I click and my character automatically moves and do what has to be done I consider non-action but if I have to run myself, a press buttons for things to happen like Zelda, Witcher and DAI, then I consider action RPG

[Elsariel]

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.

Oooh, really? That's on my Steam wishlist. I need to check it out.

[Reymoose]

Oooh, really? That's on my Steam wishlist. I need to check it out.

 

Both 'The Banner Saga' and 'Divinity: Original Sin' have two of the best soundtracks of 2014 hands down. If nothing else, check them out for the scores.

 

[Bowhunter4L]

If action RPG is without action like DAO, I don't mind it at all. My only problem with action RPGs, is, exactly, action. Funny isn't it? Thus when we take action out of the equation it is ok. But why would someone call a RPG without action like DAO a action RPG? Doesn't it need action in it? Also, DA2 frightened the hell out of me because combat LOOKS like there is action in it, but control wise it is THANK GOD ALMIGHTY the same actionless combat from DAO.
My definition of non-action is issue orders, my definition of action is "do yourself". If I click and my character automatically moves and do what has to be done I consider non-action but if I have to run myself, a press buttons for things to happen like Zelda, Witcher and DAI, then I consider action RPG

I think I know what you're talking about . To me a "action " RPG is pacticular in combat where its smooth wether or not it has tactic camera compared to a game like FF( JRPG) or like the BG or IWD series( could be wrong it's been like 10years since I've played them).

[keyip]

No you don't roleplay. Do you have dialogues? Can you solve quests in several ways? Make moral choices?

 

 

The term "roleplay" has little to do with any of these ideas. It may involve these but it also may not.

 

At the end of the day Skyrim is mostly an action game with diluted RPG mechanics (combat is more reliant on the player than stats, although not as bad as Oblivion) combined with a hiking sim. Trying to defend it because you can "roleplay", then trying to make up your own definition of "roleplay" is just ridiculous. 

 

What's the difference between Skyrim and "The Sims"? Can we call "The Sims" an RPG because you can create your own character and "roleplay"?

[MadDemiurg]

The term "roleplay" has little to do with any of these ideas. It may involve these but it also may not.

 

At the end of the day Skyrim is mostly an action game with diluted RPG mechanics (combat is more reliant on the player than stats, although not as bad as Oblivion) combined with a hiking sim. Trying to defend it because you can "roleplay", then trying to make up your own definition of "roleplay" is just ridiculous. 

 

What's the difference between Skyrim and "The Sims"? Can we call "The Sims" an RPG because you can create your own character and "roleplay"?

Mkay, give your own definition of what is an RPG so we at least see where you're coming from. There are too many points of view on this atm.

[otis0310]

If your still looking for proper crpgs in Bioware then stop, they made it evidently clear that its a thing of the past concerning them. Instead look forward to Torment tides of Numenera and Pillars of Eternity. An for actual RPGS wait for Fallout 4 and the next Elder Scroll.

 

Couldn't agree more.  Bioware has no intention of ever making another good CRPG, just generic slop like DAI.  But that does not mean that CRPGs  are dead, not as long as we have a couple Indie companies around, and of course, Bethesda.

 

We all know that basically any company bought by EA will be gutted and destroyed to the point that they can count the number of years they have left on one hand.  So while their customers will be livid at what is happening to them, their competitors will be ecstatic. 

 

Think of Bethesda, I can just imagine a fruit basket showing up at EAs doorstep a few years ago:

"Congratulations on your recent acquisition of Bioware, and we thank you for all of the customers this will send our way."

[Realmzmaster]

Mkay, give your own definition of what is an RRG so we at least see where you're coming from. There are too many points of view on this atm.

 

There lies the problem there is no definitive definition of cRPG. What you have is basically a generic definition that can fit a wide variety of games. Then you have sub definitions like action rpg, traditional rpg, western rpg to differentiate from japanese rpg (jRPG).

 

Everybody has their definition and list of items of what they think an cRPG should have but  the definitions differ and the checklists differ.

 

Also since most cRPGs are based either on an existing ruleset from a p & p rpg (GURPS, Tunnels & Trolls, World of Darkness, The Dark Eye, Runequest, Mega Traveller etc) which differ from each other or the company devised their own ruleset like SPECIAL for Fallout or DA which broke from D & D.

 

Therefore you have one poster saying it is not a crpg and the other saying it is, because each has their own definition and checklist of features.

 

Now throw in the point that a lot of other games are taking on cRPG like features and a comprehensive definition goes out the window.

 

Which brings me back to a question I asked on the forums before: What is a proper cRPG?

 

I know many of you have your definition but which is the definitive one?

[SofaJockey]

...

Which brings me back to a question I asked on the forums before: What is a proper cRPG?

I know many of you have your definition but which is the definitive one?

 

A reasonable question but ultimately an academic one.

From my perspective I'm enjoying DAI, whatever someone decides it is or isn't and

I trust BioWare will make more like it.

[keyip]

Mkay, give your own definition of what is an RRG so we at least see where you're coming from. There are too many points of view on this atm.

 

Generally speaking there are 2 ways you can go with CRPGs. The first is if you acknowledge the early forms of computer RPGs as one of the key roots in the genre's development. If you do so you're generally a fan of combat sim games. So the game must have a combat system which rewards your characters skills and not the player's twitch abilities. There should also be some level of exploration and ideally narrative , but early forms of CRPG were based off tabletop wargames and thus that's the key component for a lot of people: Combat system + stats which have a depth and are meaningfully applied, yes? This is why so many old-school CRPG fans love Divinity: Original Sin and Blackguards, both games feature excellent combat systems. People who share this definition should be aware that they're basically playing a sim game, you could call it a subgenre of the sim genre if you wish. I should note that Skyrim fails here - action combat. It's more a life-sim than an RPG, because the sim aspects of the game don't focus on the combat system but other parts of the world.

 

The second definition is for those who are aware that the first CRPGs on the computer were only emulating those elements of an RPG that computers could replicate at that time. In other words, CRPGs focused on the combat system because that's all computers could replicate. People who define RPGs with this in mind emphasise that an RPG is about a group of people roleplaying characters together to create their own story, so for these people it's the ability to affect narratives which are important. In D&D tabletop games for example, the players come together to create their own story. Josh Sawyer from Obsidian emphasises this viewpoint when he says

 

"If the central narrative is meaningly interactive, I would classify it as an RPG. That is, I consider interactive storytelling to be the primary defining characteristic of RPGs... More specifically, if you have the ability to define and express your character(s) personality in a way that significantly alters the development of the story, it's an RPG. If you don't have that ability, it's not... text adventure games don't allow you to define and express your character's personality in a way which meaningfully changes the development of the story. ( http://fallout.wikia...and_defines_RPG )

 

So those are the two methods people generally use to define CRPGs. Skyrim fails on both counts, it has a combat system which relies heavily on a player's twitch abilities, and it doesn't have an interactive narrative. To be fair though, interactive narratives are rare so people tend to focus on the first definition.

[tmp7704]

Somehow you ignored the rest of my post. There are lots of competitive (on a level unimaginable to BW) games where this works.

If I ignored it, that's because it's something I felt you already brought up and I responded to it, a page back http://forum.bioware...4#entry18398424

At this point it's pretty much going in a circle, so I'm inclined to drop it. When it comes specifically to examples of "these show it can be done", i'll just point out that you largely bring up genres different than small scale tactics-oriented RPGs, and that these games come with certain gameplay differences which you note. Be it many more units involved or "a lot of running".

[Rawgrim]

The term "roleplay" has little to do with any of these ideas. It may involve these but it also may not.

 

At the end of the day Skyrim is mostly an action game with diluted RPG mechanics (combat is more reliant on the player than stats, although not as bad as Oblivion) combined with a hiking sim. Trying to defend it because you can "roleplay", then trying to make up your own definition of "roleplay" is just ridiculous. 

 

What's the difference between Skyrim and "The Sims"? Can we call "The Sims" an RPG because you can create your own character and "roleplay"?

 

Doesn't matter what some ignorant people claim "roleplaying" is these days. Some devs are just trying to move the goalposts because they keep failing at creating a roleplaying game. Mostly it is action with 1-2 rpg elements, and they wonder why people complain.

 

Skyrim and Oblivion both have lots of non-combat skills. You can play the character according to what morals and goals you give him. That is roleplaying. Combat isn't very reliant on the player in Skyrim, though. The damage you do comes from the perks and the skill the character has with the weapon. All the player really does is press the attack button.

 

You aren't forced to hike too much in Skyrim. You can fast travel. Did you want to be able to fly or teleport constantly instead?

 

If you don't see the difference between The Sims and Skyrim you are either trolling, or one dense individual. The sims is a simulation game. Look it up.

[keyip]

Skyrim and Oblivion both have lots of non-combat skills. You can play the character according to what morals and goals you give him. That is roleplaying. Combat isn't very reliant on the player in Skyrim, though. The damage you do comes from the perks and the skill the character has with the weapon. All the player really does is press the attack button.

 

 

Once again roleplaying has little to do with specific qualities and is ONLY about acting out a role. Secondly, damage is enhanced by your skills but whether you hit or miss has everything to do with your twitch abilities as a player. In a CRPG whether you hit or miss is dependent upon your character's skills.

 

 

You aren't forced to hike too much in Skyrim. You can fast travel. Did you want to be able to fly or teleport constantly instead?

 

You mean in an exporation based game, the game doesn't force you to do a lot of exploring.....

 

If you don't see the difference between The Sims and Skyrim you are either trolling, or one dense individual. The sims is a simulation game. Look it up.

 

I know exactly what the difference between Skyrim and the Sim is. Do you?

[Rawgrim]

Generally speaking there are 2 ways you can go with CRPGs. The first is if you acknowledge the early forms of computer RPGs as one of the key roots in the genre's development. If you do so you're generally a fan of combat sim games. So the game must have a combat system which rewards your characters skills and not the player's twitch abilities. There should also be some level of exploration and ideally narrative , but early forms of CRPG were based off tabletop wargames and thus that's the key component for a lot of people: Combat system + stats which have a depth and are meaningfully applied, yes? This is why so many old-school CRPG fans love Divinity: Original Sin and Blackguards, both games feature excellent combat systems. People who share this definition should be aware that they're basically playing a sim game, you could call it a subgenre of the sim genre if you wish. I should note that Skyrim fails here - action combat. It's more a life-sim than an RPG, because the sim aspects of the game don't focus on the combat system but other parts of the world.

 

The second definition is for those who are aware that the first CRPGs on the computer were only emulating those elements of an RPG that computers could replicate at that time. In other words, CRPGs focused on the combat system because that's all computers could replicate. People who define RPGs with this in mind emphasise that an RPG is about a group of people roleplaying characters together to create their own story, so for these people it's the ability to affect narratives which are important. In D&D tabletop games for example, the players come together to create their own story. Josh Sawyer from Obsidian emphasises this viewpoint when he says

 

"If the central narrative is meaningly interactive, I would classify it as an RPG. That is, I consider interactive storytelling to be the primary defining characteristic of RPGs... More specifically, if you have the ability to define and express your character(s) personality in a way that significantly alters the development of the story, it's an RPG. If you don't have that ability, it's not... text adventure games don't allow you to define and express your character's personality in a way which meaningfully changes the development of the story. ( http://fallout.wikia...and_defines_RPG )

 

So those are the two methods people generally use to define CRPGs. Skyrim fails on both counts, it has a combat system which relies heavily on a player's twitch abilities, and it doesn't have an interactive narrative. To be fair though, interactive narratives are rare so people tend to focus on the first definition.

 

Skyrim's combat is based on the character's skill with the weapon, the perks he has taken to boost his weapon skill, what modifications he has done to the weapon via crafting (his crafting skill is a factor) or\and enchanting (enchanting skill is a factor).

Plenty stuff there that puts the combat firmly within the rpg camp.

 

Are you saying that Ultima Underworld and Vampire the Masquerade aren't rpgs either?

[tmp7704]

I remember the days before aggro and the only way to keep your squishes alive was to have them as far back from the fight as you could, with your meat shields actually needing to be placed somewhere logical, instead of spamming shouts or taunts or whatever to let them run around like a lunatic.

Yes; but you do understand why the "days before agro" are "the days before agro" and not the present state of things, right? Turned out enough people didn't like having to stay as far back from the fight as they could, and having no influence over enemies beyond just standing in place somewhere logical and wondering what's the purpose of wearing all this armour if their characters are never the ones that actually get hit.

[thats1evildude]

DOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOM

[Rawgrim]

Once again roleplaying has little to do with specific qualities and is ONLY about acting out a role. Secondly, damage is enhanced by your skills but whether you hit or miss has everything to do with your twitch abilities as a player. In a CRPG whether you hit or miss is dependent upon your character's skills.

 

 

You mean in an exporation based game, the game doesn't force you to do a lot of exploring.....

 

 

I know exactly what the difference between Skyrim and the Sim is. Do you?

 

1. Nope. Roleplaying is also about headcanon. First person view. Fallout 3 + New Vegas + Vampire the Masquerade: Bloodlines, has the same thing. Even Morrowind. Those aren't rpgs are they?

 

2. Are you saying a roleplaying game should force the player in a certain direction? That is railroading. Big no no in rpgs. If you want to explore in Skyrim you can do so til your eyes bleed, if you wish. Or not do it if you don't want to.

 

3. Yes. I clearly do since I brought up the notion that there is a difference between them.