75 réponses à ce sujet

[Al Foley]

The roleplaying genre is more about you being the writer, than acting. In a roleplaying game the player is in the driver's seat. Never in the passenger's seat.

I really disagree.  

[Rawgrim]

Just curious:  Is the original Mass Effect a good example of a role playing game? 

 

Nope. But the level-up system is a good one for an rpg. Or rather, way better than in ME2 and 3. Being able to change ammo isn't a skill.

[Rawgrim]

I really disagree.  

 

Well...that is allowed, but you are wrong hehe. Trust me. I make rpgs for a living. Been playing them for 30 years too. Roleplaying is about freedom to create, play, and develop your very own character. A video game can't implement full freedom etc, by any means, but the more options you get, the better. Which is why games like Fallout 2 are held in such high regard.

[Al Foley]

Well...that is allowed, but you are wrong hehe. Trust me. I make rpgs for a living. Been playing them for 30 years too. Roleplaying is about freedom to create, play, and develop your very own character. A video game can't implement full freedom etc, by any means, but the more options you get, the better. Which is why games like Fallout 2 are held in such high regard.

And I feel Inquisition did that.  Reletively well.  

[midnight tea]

In DA:I, though, you have very very few ways to shape your character at all. And given that the game actually takes control over the character many many times, it is bordering on the player having to play an NPC.

 

Hmmmm yes, because making Inquisitor either a beloved hero with a bunch of friends and allies or barely tolerated near-tyrant with hardly any supporters - or something in between - is not a choice at all.

[Rawgrim]

I don't see it that way. From the beginning, I never wrote in PnP RPGs. That was the GM/DM. I was there for the ride, acting out my character's part in the DM's scenario. And my favorite experiences in computer games was when I was mostly there for the ride too.

 

Poor DM, then. A DM can add quests and all kinds of stuff, but a player should never feel like he\her is only along for the ride.

[Rawgrim]

You sound like a DM. Not a player. The player gets drunk, makes a name and class, and rolls dice.

 

Been a DM about 500 times too That is fun as well, but for different reasons.

[Rawgrim]

Hmmmm yes, because making Inquisitor either a beloved hero with a bunch of friends and allies or barely tolerated near-tyrant with hardly any supporters - or something in between - is not a choice at all.

 

You could use your new found power for good, while at the same time use it to gain more power, make shady allies, gain wealth, + + +. Plenty options to toss in there.

[Al Foley]

So if people could chose up to five Inquisition perks before the game for their characters what would it be? 

[Rawgrim]

And I feel Inquisition did that.  Reletively well.  

 

It didn't. You get to pick guy with sword and shield, guy with big sword, guy with daggers, guy with bow, guy with magic. That is 5 choices when it comes to weapon styles. Pretty damn limited. For personality you get 2 options. Good guy for the people, or reluctant guy for the people.

You only get to use 8 abilities during combat, for no good reason. And you have zero skills that you can use outside of combat.

 

Compare that to the myriad of options you have in BG2 or Fallout, and you will see how very very small inquisition is in that area.

[Rawgrim]

So if people could chose up to five Inquisition perks before the game for their characters what would it be? 

 

Nothing. Because that has to do with the inquisition, and organization. It is a resource, not a part of the character itself.

 

And it would be a plot hole as well. Being able to get an organization to give you something, before it has even been formed.

[Rawgrim]

Wait.. what are we talking about now? You can't really do much of that. 

 

It really stands out to me with a dwarf/carta Inquisitor. Such a good opportunity for a self-serving lyrium smuggler character, but yet, the story is written for a more heroic or duty minded type. And someone at least partially concerned with more Chantry stuff (be it love or hating the Chantry. But never self-interested or as an outsider).

 

I meant plenty of options the game could have had. the game doesn't have those options. Which was my point.

[Al Foley]

It didn't. You get to pick guy with sword and shield, guy with big sword, guy with daggers, guy with bow, guy with magic. That is 5 choices when it comes to weapon styles. Pretty damn limited. For personality you get 2 options. Good guy for the people, or reluctant guy for the people.

You only get to use 8 abilities during combat, for no good reason. And you have zero skills that you can use outside of combat.

 

Compare that to the myriad of options you have in BG2 or Fallout, and you will see how very very small inquisition is in that area.

I just do not think many of that stuff effects role playing.  Aside from the personality options that is.  Most of those are not really about role playing.  

[PhroXenGold]

Nope. But the level-up system is a good one for an rpg. Or rather, way better than in ME2 and 3. Being able to change ammo isn't a skill.

 

Now personally, I feel that ME1's levelup system (much like the inventory and weapon customisation/upgrading) was, at least compared to ME2, complexity purely for the sake of complexity. The majorty of the point you could spend on levelup did....to all intents and purposes, nothing. +3% damage is unnoticable and is frankly a waste of the player's time. There were maybe 3 meaningful upgrades for each of the weapon skills, and yet you had to spend a dozen or so points in that category to get them. ME2, while not perfect, cleared out the crap and kept what mattered - the upgrades that make a difference. The change in dialogue "skills" was also a good thing. By making them tied to you actually using that aspect of dialogue, intead of somthing you advance when you level up, it's much more believable and realistic. In ME1, you got better at threatening or convincing people by...shooting geth. In ME2, you got better at threatening people by actually, you know, threatening people.

[Al Foley]

That's the thing though. Some of these are character based. Not organization based. Like the dialogue perks. That makes more sense with lifetime education. Not sitting in the Inquisition library for the past month.

Agreed.  Though Raw does bring up a point I wish there were more 'Inquisition perks' that would improve the entire Inquisition as a whole.  

[Rawgrim]

I just do not think many of that stuff effects role playing.  Aside from the personality options that is.  Most of those are not really about role playing.  

 

You can pick weapon styles based on your background\upbringing. That is roleplaying. And spells, I guess, based on your character's personality. A kindly mage, for example might be more inclined to have healing spells and protective spells. While an angry teinter mage might be more about fire spells. The same goes for rogues. Someone wh has grown up in the streets might be more inclined to use daggers due to a background that involves a bunch of alley fights. While a dalish rogue might not be skilled at lockpicking, but more focused on traps. So designing your character based on background has a lot to do with roleplaying, and also what his personality might be.

[Al Foley]

You can pick weapon styles based on your background\upbringing. That is roleplaying. And spells, I guess, based on your character's personality. A kindly mage, for example might be more inclined to have healing spells and protective spells. While an angry teinter mage might be more about fire spells. The same goes for rogues. Someone wh has grown up in the streets might be more inclined to use daggers due to a background that involves a bunch of alley fights. While a dalish rogue might not be skilled at lockpicking, but more focused on traps. So designing your character based on background has a lot to do with roleplaying, and also what his personality might be.

Fair enough, just never really thought of it like that. 

[Rawgrim]

That's the thing though. Some of these are character based. Not organization based. Like the dialogue perks. That makes more sense with lifetime education. Not sitting in the Inquisition library for the past month.

 

Yes but you get them by improving the organisation, not the character himself. What the perks does is basically allowing the character to google information about certain things.