I count any such requirement as twitch-based."Twitch-based." Counter Strike is twitch-based. Mass Effect just requires a bit of hand-eye coordination.
Maybe we should just cut our losses and remove pause to aim altogether.
I count any such requirement as twitch-based.
That's a pretty broad definition of twitch-based.
Removing pause-to-aim would guarantee I wouldn't play.
Yes.
I can't think of another justifiable place to draw the dividing line. Either it requires real-time reactions or it doesn't. If we allow some required coordination but not others, why do we draw the line where we do? How do we justify that?That's a pretty broad definition of twitch-based.
And that would be fine. The franchise would simply cease to be relevant to me.Yes.
To describe all real-time reaction games as "twitch-based," is hyperbolic to the point of being incorrect. There's a difference between requiring real-time reactions and requiring insanely quick and accurate reactions. In terms of real-time games, Mass Effect (due in no small part to its hard cover) is on the lighter end.I can't think of another justifiable place to draw the dividing line. Either it requires real-time reactions or it doesn't.
Like most game design, we play it by ear, run a bunch of play testers by it, and stick with what works. I know it may seem strange to you but this wild and crazy frontier we call videogames doesn't have a rule book. All BioWare need to justify their decisions are a bunch of thumbs up from play testers during development and decent sales.If we allow some required coordination but not others, why do we draw the line where we do? How do we justify that?
The menu would still exist, but it wouldn't pause the game. You'd just need to pick your powers quickly.And that would be fine. The franchise would simply cease to be relevant to me.
I do wonder how abilities would work, particularly abilities for squadmates, particularly with KBM inputs. If the mouse is needed for aiming in real time, that stops it from being available to select abilities. Clickable UI elements would basically become worthless.
I do wonder how abilities would work, particularly abilities for squadmates, particularly with KBM inputs. If the mouse is needed for aiming in real time, that stops it from being available to select abilities. Clickable UI elements would basically become worthless.
Keybinds.
I already only ever need to go into the pause menu once at the start of the mission to add my squadmate's abilities to my own hotbar. Giving us more than 8 slots would solve any issues of too many abilities.
I can play World of Warcraft with 30+ abilities on one character without needing to click the vast majority of them. No BioWare game is ever going to present an issue for a KB/M when it comes to selecting abilities if they let us use fully customizable keybinds.
To describe all real-time reaction games as "twitch-based," is hyperbolic to the point of being incorrect. There's a difference between requiring real-time reactions and requiring insanely quick and accurate reactions. In terms of real-time games, Mass Effect (due in no small part to its hard cover) is on the lighter end.
Is there anything real at stake here? Whatever goes into the set labelled "twitch-based games," it won't change anyone's experience or opinion of the games.
There's the amusement of noting that games like Deus Ex: Human Revolution have timed dialogue responses and as a result would technically be called "Twitch based dialogue games" under that definition.
Is there anything real at stake here? Whatever goes into the set labelled "twitch-based games," it won't change anyone's experience or opinion of the games.
No, I'm just being difficult.
However, if we're always going to end up in a taxonomy debate with Sylvius, I might as well define relevant terms. Sylvius goes to such great pains to insist that Mass Effect be an RPG of such a specific definition. I only wish to imply that Mass Effect's gameplay doesn't need to be so polarized. There is a happy middle that is between real-time action and the hyperbolic "twitch-based" action.
But yes, this specific instance is me being pedantic mostly for the sake of it.
What we call them doesn't change what they are.To describe all real-time reaction games as "twitch-based," is hyperbolic to the point of being incorrect. There's a difference between requiring real-time reactions and requiring insanely quick and accurate reactions. In terms of real-time games, Mass Effect (due in no small part to its hard cover) is on the lighter end.
We can't doscuss anything meaningful without first agreeing on the terms being used in the discussion.No, I'm just being difficult.
However, if we're always going to end up in a taxonomy debate with Sylvius, I might as well define relevant terms. Sylvius goes to such great pains to insist that Mass Effect be an RPG of such a specific definition. I only wish to imply that Mass Effect's gameplay doesn't need to be so polarized. There is a happy middle that is between real-time action and the hyperbolic "twitch-based" action.
But yes, this specific instance is me being pedantic mostly for the sake of it.
To be honest, we could have a 100 page thread discussing what the term RPG means and still get nowhere except me amusing myself by seeing how many definitions I can claim XCOM as a RPG under. I mean, I'm not against such a thread but it really isn't going to get us any closer to having a single definition of RPG that we all agree on.
At this point I'm just gonna say if we want to have any useful discussion that involves the use of that term, we all need to just accept that everybody uses their own definition and make it clear during the discussions what we mean. I'm perfectly aware that when I'm having a discussion with Sylvius that he uses a very specific definition of the term that is not in line with what most other people I've talked to use. I don't agree with it, but I can view his posts knowing what he means.
Insisting that we all hold the one "correct" definition of the word and being nitpicky about it does absolutely nothing but hinders useful discussion because we now have to have a multiple page discussion about what is or isn't a RPG that probably results in me claiming XCOM is a RPG multiple times.
This also only applies to terms which can be ambiguously defined. If you want to tell me you have a different definition of the word apple, I'm probably going to think you're trolling =P
What we call them doesn't change what they are.
I use the label descriptively, not perjoratively.
Since we're being nitpicky about definitions anyway and I'm bored:
You used the label incorrectly if you were trying to use it descriptively. You claimed that any requirement of hand-eye co-ordination is considered "twitch based" however the word twitch is used to refer to a sudden jerking movement(inb4pervertedminds) while hand-eye co-ordination simply refers to using visual information from your eyes to know where to move your hands to accomplish a task.
So unless you're playing either blindfolded or using some kind of device wired directly into your brain, you're using hand-eye co-ordination even in pause to aim. I will be using it to click the post button when I post this reply.
and yes I know that's not what you meant. I'm making an example of why being so nitpicky about definitions doesn't really do much but hinders discussion by being ridiculous about use of a specific term.
What we call them doesn't change what they are.
I use the label descriptively, not perjoratively.
I didn't imply that you used it pejoratively, just that your definition is incorrect. "Twitch-based" is neither insult nor compliment, but regardless of its connotation, it doesn't apply to Mass Effect.
We can't doscuss anything meaningful without first agreeing on the terms being used in the discussion.
Note that I don't typically start out dealing with taxonomy in these discussions; we just eventually get there because we have to keep backing up to resolve disagreements and ambiguity.
I work from first principles. What is this game? If it is that, what characteristics does it need to have? Of the set of characteristics we've described as defining features of that category, is it coherent? If not, back up and adjust it until it is.
You say that player skill shouldn't matter because Mass Effect is an RPG.
You say that timed interrupts are bad design because Mass Effect is an RPG.
You say that enemy stats symmetrical to the player's because Mass Effect is an RPG.
Taxonomy is your argument.
You say that you adjust your definitions to fit the game, yet you seem unwilling to accept that sometimes BioWare like to test our skill and sometimes BIoWare like to speed up the flow of dialog and sometimes BioWare want to emulate the design of other shooters. If you want to adjust your terms, adjust them to those parameters. BioWare don't need to justify any of their design choices with polarized algorithms because Mass Effect doesn't subscribe to such a simple perspective.
Don't come in here declaring "action elements that need to justify their presence in an RPG," because they don't need to. They need to justify their presence in Mass Effect, but incidentally, Mass Effect isn't what you would define as an RPG. Define terms all you want, just don't apply them incorrectly.
Bringing this back into cover. Approaching the problem from your RPG perspective lead you to conclude that cover should simply be removed because it interfered with your roleplaying. No regard for Mass Effect's shooter side whatsoever, yet the solution doesn't need to be so partisan. In fact, it seems the best idea would be to fix the button mapping.
No, I'm just being difficult.
However, if we're always going to end up in a taxonomy debate with Sylvius, I might as well define relevant terms. Sylvius goes to such great pains to insist that Mass Effect be an RPG of such a specific definition. I only wish to imply that Mass Effect's gameplay doesn't need to be so polarized. There is a happy middle that is between real-time action and the hyperbolic "twitch-based" action.
But yes, this specific instance is me being pedantic mostly for the sake of it.
It's worth it, when it's as interesting to read through as your posts are.
Since you're being helpful, help me. What term should I use?Since we're being nitpicky about definitions anyway and I'm bored:
You used the label incorrectly if you were trying to use it descriptively. You claimed that any requirement of hand-eye co-ordination is considered "twitch based" however the word twitch is used to refer to a sudden jerking movement(inb4pervertedminds) while hand-eye co-ordination simply refers to using visual information from your eyes to know where to move your hands to accomplish a task.
So unless you're playing either blindfolded or using some kind of device wired directly into your brain, you're using hand-eye co-ordination even in pause to aim. I will be using it to click the post button when I post this reply.
and yes I know that's not what you meant. I'm making an example of why being so nitpicky about definitions doesn't really do much but hinders discussion by being ridiculous about use of a specific term.
I'm trying to prevent the term "RPG" from losing its meaning. It means roleplaying game: a game based around roleplaying.You say that player skill shouldn't matter because Mass Effect is an RPG.
You say that timed interrupts are bad design because Mass Effect is an RPG.
You say that enemy stats symmetrical to the player's because Mass Effect is an RPG.
Taxonomy is your argument.
I was reaponding to a different point, and for a different reason. As long as those controls are uncoupled, cover is fine.Bringing this back into cover. Approaching the problem from your RPG perspective lead you to conclude that cover should simply be removed because it interfered with your roleplaying. No regard for Mass Effect's shooter side whatsoever, yet the solution doesn't need to be so partisan. In fact, it seems the best idea would be to fix the button mapping.
I'm trying to prevent the term "RPG" from losing its meaning. It means roleplaying game: a game based around roleplaying.
My argument regarding Mass Effect can easily be defeated by simply denying that it's a roleplaying game. But that's not what people do. Instead, they argue (sometimes explicitly) that a game can be partly a roleplaying game, which is like saying someone is slightly dead, or a little bit pregnant.
No, it isn't like saying that, because, as I have said time and again, games aren't that simple nor are the terms that describe them (especially when marketers use the terms so flippantly). Just like there is a gradient to the term real-time, there is a gradient to the term roleplaying. Games can sometimes allow for roleplaying and can sometimes restrict it and sometimes games can only let us roleplay to an extent (i.e. Shepard's general attitude, not his specific dialog). I don't know how that broader definition could soil the reputation of the term RPG, but maybe I'm just too liberal.
But it shouldn't matter, because we're not just saying "Mass Effect needs to be more of an RPG!" or "Mass Effect needs to be less of an RPG!" There's more substantive discussion happening.
But I will not stand by and watch the term RPG be rendered meaningless or be divorced from the term Roleplaying Game like has happened with R&B when compared to Rhythm & Blues.
Then get a blog. Don't waltz around the Mass Effect forum decrying the game's central mechanics as heresy like a conservative priest at a pride parade. We should be having in-depth discussions about what it means to be Mass Effect, not what it means to be an RPG. If every misuse of a term spawns another tangent, we'll always be stuck on the definitions.
I was reaponding to a different point, and for a different reason. As long as those controls are uncoupled, cover is fine.
I have no particular objection to cover-based systems. I do think, however, that a system without hard cover would improve level design, as well as change player behaviour.
Then by all means say that. Level design and player behavior is something I would love to discuss (I even tried to), but it never seems like I get to because you punctuate your argument with "because RPG," and call it a day.
I also think symmetrical mechanics would be interesting, though the RPG argument for that is much stronger.
Sure, symmetrical mechanics are quite frequently interesting, but not because rules need to be symmetrical in an RPG. There's a reason that symmetry is enjoyable in CRPGs and there's a reason that symmetry is enjoyable in action games, but they're not necessarily the same reason.
Since you're being helpful, help me. What term should I use?
You said it earlier: real-time. Mass Effect is a game that requires real-time reactions to events, but unlike Counter Strike or other games with similarly high skill floors, it doesn't require that the player have quick and precise muscle memory "twitches" to be played adequately. The term itself even betrays some of the true finesse involved in
But you can go ahead and use "twitch-based," because I understand what you mean by it.
Since you're being helpful, help me. What term should I use?
I'm trying to distinguish between controls that require a certain speed of response versus those that don't. A shooter clearly falls in the first group. A fully turn-based game falls in the second. I prefer games that fall in the second group, and I also think that roleplaying is rendered incoherent by controls that fall in the first.
Also, when I'm trying to define RPG, I'm looking for one definition of RPG that covers all RPGs (including tabletop RPGs). There should be some necessary and sufficient conditions which clearly demarcate the line between things that are RPGs and things that are not.
And then I'm trying to find titles that are.
As robotic said, you're talking about real time.
As for RPG I have seen so many people try and fail to clearly and precisely define the term to the point where I think it's no longer worth the effort to even try. Most of us can look at game and tell you if we think it's a RPG or not, but once we attempt to put that definition into a written format that can be tested against all games it basically never holds up.
Even on the off chance that such a definition could be found, good luck getting everybody to agree to using it.
My argument regarding Mass Effect can easily be defeated by simply denying that it's a roleplaying game. But that's not what people do. Instead, they argue (sometimes explicitly) that a game can be partly a roleplaying game, which is like saying someone is slightly dead, or a little bit pregnant.
I have frequently told you that Mass Effect isn't a pure RPG, which if you believe a game can't be only partially a RPG then the use of the word pure doesn't matter. You just keep insisting that it is a RPG.
Also what people are talking about is that games can have certain things that are traditionally expected to be found only in RPG video games like stats or an experience and level up system. It's just easier to say a game is "kind of like a RPG" rather than type that whole thing out every time.
The reality is that Mass Effect has certain things normally found in RPGs with certain things normally found in cover based shooters. It's not trying to be a RPG or a cover based shooter, it's trying to be Mass Effect. However you seem to only be able to see the RPG side of things and act like the game should be that and only that and everything else is not good game design. The only time action elements are apparently allowed is if they don't interfere with the RPG.
When it comes to game development, restricting yourself within a very specific definition of a term is a rather pointless and stupid idea. A game's first and foremost goal is to be good and entertain the people playing it, not to follow somebody's definition of the label they wanted to slap on it.
I'm trying to point out which of the game's systems are compatible or incompatible with a pure roleplaying approach to playing the game. That means, no metagaming, no out-of-character knowledge, no player skill, and with the player having perfect information about his character's mental state in every moment of the game (so the protagonist can never surprise the player).As robotic said, you're talking about real time.
As for RPG I have seen so many people try and fail to clearly and precisely define the term to the point where I think it's no longer worth the effort to even try. Most of us can look at game and tell you if we think it's a RPG or not, but once we attempt to put that definition into a written format that can be tested against all games it basically never holds up.
Even on the off chance that such a definition could be found, good luck getting everybody to agree to using it.
I have frequently told you that Mass Effect isn't a pure RPG, which if you believe a game can't be only partially a RPG then the use of the word pure doesn't matter. You just keep insisting that it is a RPG.
Also what people are talking about is that games can have certain things that are traditionally expected to be found only in RPG video games like stats or an experience and level up system. It's just easier to say a game is "kind of like a RPG" rather than type that whole thing out every time.
The reality is that Mass Effect has certain things normally found in RPGs with certain things normally found in cover based shooters. It's not trying to be a RPG or a cover based shooter, it's trying to be Mass Effect. However you seem to only be able to see the RPG side of things and act like the game should be that and only that and everything else is not good game design. The only time action elements are apparently allowed is if they don't interfere with the RPG.
When it comes to game development, restricting yourself within a very specific definition of a term is a rather pointless and stupid idea. A game's first and foremost goal is to be good and entertain the people playing it, not to follow somebody's definition of the label they wanted to slap on it.
I'm trying to point out which of the game's systems are compatible or incompatible with a pure roleplaying approach to playing the game. That means, no metagaming, no out-of-character knowledge, no player skill, and with the player having perfect information about his character's mental state in every moment of the game (so the protagonist can never surprise the player).
Because roleplaying is all I want to do in these games. Any gameplay that isn't roleplaying isn't fun (for me). Action combat is dull and uninteresting. Auto-dialogue reduces the protagonist to an NPC, and I'm never invested in the NPCs.
The marketers should just be ignored. By everyone.No, it isn't like saying that, because, as I have said time and again, games aren't that simple nor are the terms that describe them (especially when marketers use the terms so flippantly).
See, and I don’t think that works. We can't choose even the general attitude if we don't know if the specific line will be consistent with that attitude and its causes.Just like there is a gradient to the term real-time, there is a gradient to the term roleplaying. Games can sometimes allow for roleplaying and can sometimes restrict it and sometimes games can only let us roleplay to an extent (i.e. Shepard's general attitude, not his specific dialog).
If we allow systems that are incompatible with roleplaying, that only diminishes the focus on roleplaying as a driver of design decisions.I don't know how that broader definition could soil the reputation of the term RPG, but maybe I'm just too liberal.
I would argue that the central mechanics of Mass Effect are the shooter mechanics, and all three ME games did a masterful job of accommodating a roleplaying approach to combat (through pause-to-aim).Then get a blog. Don't waltz around the Mass Effect forum decrying the game's central mechanics as heresy like a conservative priest at a pride parade. We should be having in-depth discussions about what it means to be Mass Effect, not what it means to be an RPG. If every misuse of a term spawns another tangent, we'll always be stuck on the definitions.
Point taken.Then by all means say that. Level design and player behavior is something I would love to discuss (I even tried to), but it never seems like I get to because you punctuate your argument with "because RPG," and call it a day.
I'm not sure that lack of movement is a problem. It also might just encourage players to engage at greater range, which I personally would quite enjoy. A more open level design, or more outdoor encounters, would help with that.If we don't have cover or an excess of health, then we likely won't be moving at all. Most people would probably find the first bit of reliable cover and stick there playing whack-a-mole for a while. Hard cover, on the other hand, guarantees relatively safe movement across the battlefield regardless of our health status.
We want to encourage (or at least ensure) movement for all classes. Tankier classes can always run around ignoring cover as they please, but squishier classes shouldn't be hamstrung.
I'll connect those dots, then.Sure, symmetrical mechanics are quite frequently interesting, but not because rules need to be symmetrical in an RPG. There's a reason that symmetry is enjoyable in CRPGs and there's a reason that symmetry is enjoyable in action games, but they're not necessarily the same reason.
I used to call them mandatory action elements. Perhaps I should go back to that.You said it earlier: real-time. Mass Effect is a game that requires real-time reactions to events, but unlike Counter Strike or other games with similarly high skill floors, it doesn't require that the player have quick and precise muscle memory "twitches" to be played adequately. The term itself even betrays some of the true finesse involved in
But you can go ahead and use "twitch-based," because I understand what you mean by it.
Would a deck of cards, steno pad and a #2 pencil be considered a RPG?
And if so, would the rate that I draw a card, flip a card, or jot something down be considered "twitch based"?
You'd need some rules. Otherwise it would just be a toy.
Now, RPGs are also toys (as opposed to games), but not all toys are RPGs.
The rate and which you draw cards would only be an action element ("twitch based", as you call it) if that rate had mechanical relevance.
I'm trying to point out which of the game's systems are compatible or incompatible with a pure roleplaying approach to playing the game. That means, no metagaming, no out-of-character knowledge, no player skill, and with the player having perfect information about his character's mental state in every moment of the game (so the protagonist can never surprise the player).
Because roleplaying is all I want to do in these games. Any gameplay that isn't roleplaying isn't fun (for me). Action combat is dull and uninteresting. Auto-dialogue reduces the protagonist to an NPC, and I'm never invested in the NPCs.
You're actually insisting that Mass Effect is a pure RPG while saying that it's the "right direction" for them to basically remove anything you feel interferes with your specific definition of the word.
I find slapping a label on something and saying "You must be exactly like this" to just be stupid. Mass Effect doesn't need to "be a RPG" or "be a cover based shooter".
Mass Effect needs to be Mass Effect. What it needs to be is true to the originals: A game with a decent story, good characters, branching story paths, and cover based shooting that blends powers and gunplay.
The action elements make Mass Effect what it is just as much as the roleplaying parts. Not every part of a game needs to appeal to you specifically.
Retour en haut