891 réponses à ce sujet

[Gothfather]

I never thought JRPGs were RPGs at all. I think they got the label because they superficially resembled RPGs from the outside, but the gameplay experience was very different.

In FF7, the player has effectively no control over Cloud's personality or how he deals with his companions. His relationship with Tifa always follows a pre-defined path. If you play FF7 multiple times, you can't make Cloud be a different person.

And that's what RPGs allow. You create a character within the rules and that character is yours. And if you play again, you can make a very different character.

Traditionally, western RPGs dropped the character you created into the world with little or no guidance. There might be a story there somewhere, but it was up to you to find it.

To me, the fun in CRPGs is in creating different characters across multiple playthroughs to see how the results differ. But with these tightly written narratives, they don't. Shepard always does basically the same things for basically the same reasons (this last part is the big problem).

BioWare's earlier games didn't have this problem. Baldur's Gate and Neverwinter Nights allowed us tremendous freedom to craft our character's personality. So did KotOR, BioWare's first cinematic game. So did DAO. And so does DAI.

But I can't make Shepard that different from playthrough to playthrough.

 

You refuse to admit acting is role playing so we really have NO ground for discussion. You have they most LIMITED definition of Role playing I have ever encountered. I hazard a guess that if sexy role playing wasn't actually called role playing you'd argue strongly that it isn't role playing. I mean psychologists get people to act out the role of their partners in couple's therapy and call that role playing and actually use the analogy of acting to help explain what they want.

 

Jrpgs ARE ROLE PLAYING GAMES just because you can't control every aspect of the character doesn't mean you can't role play. Role playing ISN'T agency. You keep saying because I  can't choose what the character's X is it isn't role playing but that isn't role playing that is agency. Role playing is acting based on the personality of a character other than yourself, this INCLUDES personalities you didn't create. Role playing ISN'T character creation, making a character isn't role playing it. Acting out choices IS the actual role playing. 

 

Your position has no basis in facts no basis in common agreed upon terminology either. You seem so bloody vested in the principle of "I like role playing. Ergo any game that claims to be an RPG that I don't like isn't an RPG." It is a position that makes zero RATIONAL sense. Instead you have a preferred STYLE of RPG that isn't more valid or less valid than any other RPG, it is simply is your preference.

[Laughing_Man]

JRPG ARE ROLE PLAYING GAMES just because you can't control every aspect of the character doesn't mean you can't role play. Role playing ISN'T agency.

 

A game that does not allow player agency, may be called by some an RPG (in a very loose sense of the word) but is certainly a completely different

take on the meaning of the term RPG.

 

Personally, I have very little interest in JRPG's in general, and in games that do not allow for player agency in particular.

(especially if I happen to dislike the PC or disagree with their choices)

 

So call these games what you will, but they are certainly not in the same category as games that allow for player agency

 

Edit:

Your definition of the word RPG makes it meaningless, because practically anything can be called an RPG if we accept it.

[ssanyesz]

You refuse to admit acting is role playing so we really have NO ground for discussion. You have they most LIMITED definition of Role playing I have ever encountered. I hazard a guess that if sexy role playing wasn't actually called role playing you'd argue strongly that it isn't role playing. I mean psychologists get people to act out the role of their partners in couple's therapy and call that role playing and actually use the analogy of acting to help explain what they want.

 

Jrpgs ARE ROLE PLAYING GAMES just because you can't control every aspect of the character doesn't mean you can't role play. Role playing ISN'T agency. You keep saying because I  can't choose what the character's X is it isn't role playing but that isn't role playing that is agency. Role playing is acting based on the personality of a character other than yourself, this INCLUDES personalities you didn't create. Role playing ISN'T character creation, making a character isn't role playing it. Acting out choices IS the actual role playing. 

 

Your position has no basis in facts no basis in common agreed upon terminology either. You seem so bloody vested in the principle of "I like role playing. Ergo any game that claims to be an RPG that I don't like isn't an RPG." It is a position that makes zero RATIONAL sense. Instead you have a preferred STYLE of RPG that isn't more valid or less valid than any other RPG, it is simply is your preference.

 

Then you're saying that because I'm not a soldier but if i play a FPS game where the PC is a soldier (with or without any backround), then i'm role playing that character, but that doesn't make that FPS game a RPG game. Or the same analogy can be applied to racing games, cause i'm no professional driver, yet i play the role of a professional driver, thus racing games are RPGs... but they are not.

 

Some jrpg games seems/functions more like a TBS game than a RPG.

[Pasquale1234]

You refuse to admit acting is role playing so we really have NO ground for discussion. You have they most LIMITED definition of Role playing I have ever encountered. I hazard a guess that if sexy role playing wasn't actually called role playing you'd argue strongly that it isn't role playing. I mean psychologists get people to act out the role of their partners in couple's therapy and call that role playing and actually use the analogy of acting to help explain what they want.

If that's true, then how do you account for the fact that the dialogue (performed by a VA) and animations (created by the animators) are already pre-recorded? As a player, all I'm doing in dialogue scenes is choosing which version of the pre-recorded scene is played. That sounds more like an editor role to me.

[Monk]

Actors, when allowed, actually do make changes to the words they act out or, even, come up with their own via improvisation. Since role-playing is restricted in "what can be said", the next best thing are the dialog options which give the players the ability to choose which dialog best represents what they would say in the given situation.

[UpUpAway]

A game that does not allow player agency, may be called by some an RPG (in a very loose sense of the word) but is certainly a completely different

take on the meaning of the term RPG.

 

Personally, I have very little interest in JRPG's in general, and in games that do not allow for player agency in particular.

(especially if I happen to dislike the PC or disagree with their choices)

 

So call these games what you will, but they are certainly not in the same category as games that allow for player agency

 

Edit:

Your definition of the word RPG makes it meaningless, because practically anything can be called an RPG if we accept it.

 

But we're not talking about games that do not allow for any player agency... Cinematic games with RPG elements (like Mass Effect) allow for a significant amount of player agency... but not complete player agency or as much player agency as other RPGs that don't rely on voice acted dialogue and cinematics.  A cinematic game with RPG elements can still be a GOOD game and fun to "role play" within them.

 

Your definition of the term "not an RPG" makes it meaningless, because practically anything can be called "not an RPG" if we accept that.

 

People... there's lots of middle ground here for Bioware to make a great game with loads of role playing opportunity without sacrificing cinematics and voice acting.  You're not going to get to make up any character you want to insert into the game... you're going to be asked to "role play" as a certain character within a certain range of personalities appropriate to that story (as deemed by the writer(s) of that story).  You will have to select from whatever dialogue options they provide (i.e. you will not have the ability to write your own dialogue) and the reactions of the NPCs to whatever individual dialogue selections you make will be pre-programmed by the game's developers (that is, you will not be able to "teach" an AI built into the game to react to your character in any particular way you might desire).

[AlanC9]

Then you're saying that if I'm not a soldier but if i play a FPS game where the PC is a soldier (with or without any backround), then i'm role playing that character, but that doesn't make that FPS game an RPG game. Or the same analogy can be applied to racing games, cause i'm no professional driver, yet i play the role of a professional driver.

Well, it isn't crazy to say that many games are role-playing games in that sense. But it's not a useful way to talk about the RPG genre.

[Pasquale1234]

Sure but what if I'm playing a Shep who isn't a moron and that doesn't work for my character?

Good luck with that. I'd suggest that the games present a fair bit of evidence that the Shepard they gave you to play does have some moronic tendencies / moments.
 

There's no valid reason to go off and explore uncharted worlds when you've got 3 decent leads. Even going after Liara, which is the weakest of the three, still has far better chances of yielding useful intel than just exploring random planets.

There are some terminals to be hacked along the way, starting (I believe) in Udina's office. They all have leads about other things going on in the galaxy, some of which may be related to Saren's activities. Do you assume they aren't worth your time?

Is taking down a crime syndicate (Helena Blake's quest) not worth a Spectre's time?

You're also making some assumptions about the quality of the leads you were given.
 

Add in the sense of urgency the main plot tries to throw at you and actually wanting to do the bulk of the game's content now limits my RP potential because I have to break character in order to have a reason to go do any of that content.

The games present quite a few things that some of us find we need to try to ignore or headcanon around, and/or write off as bad writing. The "Race against time" could be one of them.

And speaking of headcanon, the game gives you some other tools / toys to play around with. That first Asari Matriarch writing you came across must have said something - and the game does not specify what that was. That invites you to headcanon them to say whatever you'd like. Perhaps they were numbered journal entries from a former indoctrinated agent of Sovereign (like Benezia) - IIRC, Vigil does mention that Saren / Benezia probably weren't the first. You could headcanon that they were written during the last cycle, when protheans were on Thessia, perhaps telling the asari about the harvest underway. Granted, that specific information requires metagame knowledge, but in this case it is the player's metagame knowledge rather than Shepard's. You can also be non-specific about exactly what they say, and instead choose to have them say something that Shepard would feel makes them worth looking for more.
 

Or I have to RP that I'm playing an idiot who in all reality shouldn't even be promoted to spectre status because they're a god damn idiot.

Do you assume that being a Spectre means do only what the Council tells you to do, strictly following their leads? IIRC, Spectres are tasked with maintaining peace / order throughout the galaxy, and many of them act independently toward that end.

Do you suppose the Council assigned Tela Vasir to put an end to Liara's hunt for the Shadow Broker? Or is that something she took upon herself?

Shepard was given a fair bit of agency to blow them off during those comm chats. It didn't seem to me that they expected Shepard's time to be 100% devoted to chasing Saren. For all we know, they may have had a dozen other Spectres on the case. We do find out later on that they had an STG team on Virmire. Admirals Hackett and Kahoku also took some liberties in assigning other tasks to Shepard.
 

This is part of why I say the first game isn't really any better at roleplaying than the 2nd or 3rd. They give us no real reasons to actually go out and explore all those planets and I now have to tailor my character to fit the reasons rather than making the reasons fit my character as it should be.

But at least you have the agency to make those decisions. Every time you choose to do a thing, you're prioritizing that over every other thing you could do at that time.

In order to rush off and follow only the leads you were given by the Council, your character has to: 1) Believe that Saren really does represent a clear and present danger, despite the flimsy evidence against him, 2) Believe that the leads you've been given truly are the most efficient way to track him down, 3) Believe that none of the other side leads are worthwhile, 4) Believe that none of the other problems in the galaxy are worth your time, 5) Believe that Shepard is the only agent following any of these leads or assigned to track down Saren, 5) Buy into the "race against time" urgency while looking past everything else the game offers. That's quite a lot to take on faith.

[AlanC9]

Good luck with that. I'd suggest that the games present a fair bit of evidence that the Shepard they gave you to play does have some moronic tendencies / moments.

Hey , why should Shepard be different from everyone else in the MEU?

There are some terminals to be hacked along the way, starting (I believe) in Udina's office. They all have leads about other things going on in the galaxy, some of which may be related to Saren's activities. Do you assume they aren't worth your time?Is taking down a crime syndicate (Helena Blake's quest) not worth a Spectre's time?

You have to answer the first question to get to the later ones. Are these other things yielding any chance to help you catch the guy who's going to destroy the Galaxy? If not, then, no, they are not worth Shepard's time. An exception would be stumbling onto one while the Normandy is en route to something important and is dumping drive charge. And the Armstrong missions involve geth. Other than that....

You're also making some assumptions about the quality of the leads you were given. The games present quite a few things that some of us find we need to try to ignore or headcanon around, and/or write off as bad writing. The "Race against time" could be one of them.

Er... yeah, the point is that this is bad design and bad writing, all the way. And yes, when you throw out RP and paper everything over with headcanon the design works better. That's exactly the problem with the design.

[AlanC9]

s1) Believe that Saren really does represent a clear and present danger, despite the flimsy evidence against him,
2) Believe that the leads you've been given truly are the most efficient way to track him down,
3) Believe that none of the other side leads are worthwhile,
4) Believe that none of the other problems in the galaxy are worth your time,
5) Believe that Shepard is the only agent following any of these leads or assigned to track down Saren, 5) Buy into the "race against time" urgency while looking past everything else the game offers. That's quite a lot to take on faith.

Well, in order:

Shepard says she believes point 1. So do Anderson and all other crew members. And given the evidence, how do you get to not believing it?

Point 2 is simply true, since the alternative method is traveling to random clusters and seeing what turns up.

Point 3 is true for almost all other leads. Not Armstrong, maybe not the first Cerberus mission, maybe one or two of the others if you can make a case.

Point 4 is true if point 1 is true.

Point 5 is nonsense. Sitting around hoping that somebody else saves the Galaxy is not rational.

[Addictress]

Not to be that guy but....

 

Geralt can do any number of side quests and witcher contracts on his way to track down Ciri just as Shepard can do side missions on the way to find Saren -___-

 

A lot of journeys in books or any other story are like that... the journeys take such a long time, and the undertaking is so massive, you inevitably have to sustain yourself by acquiring resources and kind of living your life en route. 

 

Like Lord of the Rings... yes, it is urgent that they destroy that ring, but it takes years, during which they have to hunt, talk to various local cultures for help, etc - all of which seem like, with each minute, they delay the goal, but they are simply activities that help build up resources on the way.

 

All of the side missions technically help the Normandy acquire resources. Better weapons and equipment at the least. Improved weapons and equipment are technically in line with trying to reach Saren because they don't know how difficult the final confrontation will be and it's best to be prepared.

[AlanC9]

Not to be that guy but....
A lot of journeys in books or any other story are like that... the journeys take such a long time, and the undertaking is so massive, you inevitably have to sustain yourself by acquiring resources and kind of living your life en route. 
 
Like Lord of the Rings... yes, it is urgent that they destroy that ring, but it takes years, during which they have to hunt, talk to various local cultures for help, etc - all of which seem like, with each minute, they delay the goal, but they are simply activities that help build up resources on the way.
 
All of the side missions technically help the Normandy acquire resources. Better weapons and equipment at the least. Improved weapons and equipment are technically in line with trying to reach Saren because they don't know how difficult the final confrontation will be and it's best to be prepared.

But if you try and play realism here all you do is lampshade the idiotic loot system, and realism fails anyway.

[UpUpAway]

Not to be that guy but....

 

Geralt can do any number of side quests and witcher contracts on his way to track down Ciri just as Shepard can do side missions on the way to find Saren -___-

 

A lot of journeys in books or any other story are like that... the journeys take such a long time, and the undertaking is so massive, you inevitably have to sustain yourself by acquiring resources and kind of living your life en route. 

 

Like Lord of the Rings... yes, it is urgent that they destroy that ring, but it takes years, during which they have to hunt, talk to various local cultures for help, etc - all of which seem like, with each minute, they delay the goal, but they are simply activities that help build up resources on the way.

 

All of the side missions technically help the Normandy acquire resources. Better weapons and equipment at the least. Improved weapons and equipment are technically in line with trying to reach Saren because they don't know how difficult the final confrontation will be and it's best to be prepared.

 

I think that, with ME1, allowing the player to do ALL the side quests after stealing the Normandy was taking it a bit too far, though (and, yes, the player could delay selecting Ilos at that point in order to do any number of side quests without any consequence/impact at all on how the final main mission played out - and this was counter-productive to the story itself).  While some people feel that the writer/developer should not "mete out" game content in any way within an RPG, I think some of that is only appropriate to help the player pace the story somewhat logically (within the framework of the overrall story that the developer is trying to tell through the game).

 

As I said, ME1 did "mete out" game content on the beginning end of the game.  IMO, Bioware should have instead "meted out" the near ending content in such a way that the player would have had to at least go directly to Ilos after stealing the Normandy.  As it was, they seemed to be too busy "forcing" the player to select their LI after a maximum of 2 of the other 3 main mission worlds to bother with introducing any pacing regarding the "Race Against Time."

[Pasquale1234]

Well, in order:

Shepard says she believes point 1. So do Anderson and all other crew members. And given the evidence, how do you get to not believing it?

What your character believes is up to you.

Expecting that your character is 100% certain about everything that comes out of her mouth is a valid RP choice, but it isn't the only one. A character can outright lie, say whatever they think someone else wants to hear, say whatever they think will help them meet their own ends, or say what they think might be true, even when they're less than 100% certain.

Most of the rest of your response is assumption / rationalization or metagame knowledge.

Is there a reason why Shepard should completely trust the Council? Udina? We find out later that the Council isn't telling Shepard everything, as evidenced by the presence of the STG team on Virmire.

[Sylvius the Mad]

You refuse to admit acting is role playing so we really have NO ground for discussion.

Acting IS roleplaying.

Actors know the scope of the role they're playing, however. If we knew that, we cpuld roleplay with someone else's character, too.

Do we know that? Are we given the script in advance so we know everything that character can and can't do? We need this in order to roleplay in a way that is consistent with the parts of the character we didn't write.

If we don't know the scope of the character's personality, on what basis can we make secisions on behalf of that character?

We don't need to create the character to roleplay, but we do need perfect knowledge of the character to roleplay. Creating it ourselves is the one way I've seen that grants is that perfect knowledge.

How do you get perfect knowledge of characters you don't create? Or if you don't have perfect knowledge, how do you make decisions? How do you know what your character wants to do or why he wants to do it or how he feels in any given moment? That knowledge is necessary for roleplaying, so that you can see the character's world from the character's point of view.

How do you do it without perfect knowledge? Or do acquire perfect knowledge by some other means?

[Pasquale1234]

Are these other things yielding any chance to help you catch the guy who's going to destroy the Galaxy?

How do you know whether they will until you do them?
 

While some people feel that the writer/developer should not "mete out" game content in any way within an RPG,

Did someone say that?

I would posit that the more content accessible to the player at any given time, the more agency the player has, the more meaningful decisions can be made wrt priorities.

For example, having a complete set of 12 dossiers for potential recruits allows for more meaningful choice than having only 4 at a time. It enhances quite a few choices that flow from those initial recruits, largely having to do with squad selection.

Also note that Shepard might not have wanted to recruit any of the other potential followers, or any of the first set provided. ME2's structure did not allow that possibility.
 

I think some of that is only appropriate to help the player pace the story somewhat logically (within the framework of the overrall story that the developer is trying to tell through the game).

Some is indeed necessary, but I think that limiting it as much as possible is a worthwhile design goal.

[AlanC9]

What your character believes is up to you.
Expecting that your character is 100% certain about everything that comes out of her mouth is a valid RP choice, but it isn't the only one. A character can outright lie, say whatever they think someone else wants to hear, say whatever they think will help them meet their own ends, or say what they think might be true, even when they're less than 100% certain.Most of the rest of your response is assumption / rationalization or metagame knowledge.Is there a reason why Shepard should completely trust the Council? Udina? We find out later that the Council isn't telling Shepard everything, as evidenced by the presence of the STG team on Virmire.

Walk me through it. Did you actually belive that your Shepards didn't think that Saren was a clear and present danger? Or is this a case where you picked the conclusion you wanted and then found a rationalization for that conclusion?

I mean, I agree that we can make our characters believe nonsense if we want them to, but if a game makes me want to there's something wrong with the design.

Also, how did you get to traveling to random clusters as a rational procedure for investigating Saren. Distrusting the Council doesn't make throwing darts at a star chart sane.

[AlanC9]

How do you know whether they will until you do them? 

Is this how you make RL decisions? Try things at random and see what works?

[UpUpAway]

How do you know whether they will until you do them?


Did someone say that?

I would posit that the more content accessible to the player at any given time, the more agency the player has, the more meaningful decisions can be made wrt priorities.

For example, having a complete set of 12 dossiers for potential recruits allows for more meaningful choice than having only 4 at a time. It enhances quite a few choices that flow from those initial recruits, largely having to do with squad selection.
 

Some is indeed necessary, but I think that limiting it as much as possible is a worthwhile design goal.

 

In ME2, we were given 4 dossiers to complete before Horizon because the game's ending required a minimum of team mates of specific talents in order to complete the SM with any other result than everyone dying, including Shepard.  We could, if we bought the DLC, recruited 8 of the 12 potential squad mates before the Horizon mission, leaving only 4 that were withheld until after Horizon (which really isn't all that far into the game anyways).  What you're really complaining about here is not lack of access to those 4 remaining squadmates, since you could easily decide whether or not to recruit them all before the Collector Ship mission... it's that you can't specifically not recruit 5 of the first 8 available (Miranda, Jacob, Mordin, Garrus, and Jack).  You can decide to not recruit Grunt simply by leaving him in his tank and you don't have to recruit either Zaeed or Kasumi either.  At any rate, the player can readily decide to just not talk to and not use any of their squad mates after they recruit them... so I really don't see what is so darned limiting about that set up.

 

For the record, I've never said that adding in bits of player agency is not a worthwhile design goal... I've only said that it has to be left in the developer's hands to determine what levels of player agency are appropriate for 1) their story and 2) their chosen game platform (e.g. cinematics and voice acting).  Realism is accepting that, within the confines of current IRL computing technology, it is not possible to give the player full character control and design agency and retain other enjoyable elements of a "cinematic, action, voice-acted" game.  Player agency does not mean that the player is given the right to completely "write" their own character in the game.  The IRL limitation is that they will ALWAYS be limited in some ways to just "role-playing" one of whatever number of character-personalities the writer/developers decide they can afford to put into the game itself.

[UpUpAway]

Acting IS roleplaying.

Actors know the scope of the role they're playing, however. If we knew that, we cpuld roleplay with someone else's character, too.

Do we know that? Are we given the script in advance so we know everything that character can and can't do? We need this in order to roleplay in a way that is consistent with the parts of the character we didn't write.

If we don't know the scope of the character's personality, on what basis can we make secisions on behalf of that character?

We don't need to create the character to roleplay, but we do need perfect knowledge of the character to roleplay. Creating it ourselves is the one way I've seen that grants is that perfect knowledge.

How do you get perfect knowledge of characters you don't create? Or if you don't have perfect knowledge, how do you make decisions? How do you know what your character wants to do or why he wants to do it or how he feels in any given moment? That knowledge is necessary for roleplaying, so that you can see the character's world from the character's point of view.

How do you do it without perfect knowledge? Or do acquire perfect knowledge by some other means?

 

Then, just read the game script before playing... You CAN do that... just takes one playthrough.  It is supposed to be a "role-playing" GAME after all.  In that it is a game, you do not need "perfect knowledge" of the character in order to role play... not having "perfect knowledge" is, IMO, part of the fun game-ness of it being a game.

[Pasquale1234]

Walk me through it. Did you actually belive that your Shepards didn't think that Saren was a clear and present danger? Or is this a case where you picked the conclusion you wanted and then found a rationalization for that conclusion?

What difference does it make?

I've made quite a few other suggestions about how and why Shepard might want to engage some of the other content.
 

I mean, I agree that we can make our characters believe nonsense if we want them to, but if a game makes me want to there's something wrong with the design.

The point is that you don't have to take everything the game presents at face value.

Also, I don't think there are very many things that any of us know with 100% certainty. Any shred of doubt opens up other possibilities.
 

Also, how did you get to traveling to random clusters as a rational procedure for investigating Saren. Distrusting the Council doesn't make throwing darts at a star chart sane.

I don't believe I've ever suggested that traveling to random clusters is a rational procedure for investigating Saren.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Well, in order:

Shepard says she believes point 1. So do Anderson and all other crew members. And given the evidence, how do you get to not believing it?

I can declare that I am the Queen of England without believing it to be true.

Point 2 is simply true, since the alternative method is traveling to random clusters and seeing what turns up.

No, there are other leads. Some of the reports you hear in the elevator mention geth.

Point 3 is true for almost all other leads. Not Armstrong, maybe not the first Cerberus mission, maybe one or two of the others if you can make a case.

Whether it's ultimately true has no bearing on whether we might have cause to believe it. Hindsight isn't available.

Point 4 is true if point 1 is true.

Good thing point 1 isn't true.

Point 5 is nonsense. Sitting around hoping that somebody else saves the Galaxy is not rational.

Does the galaxy need saving? Do we know Saren is a threat to the galaxy early on?

[Pasquale1234]

I've only said that it has to be left in the developer's hands to determine what levels of player agency are appropriate for 1) their story and 2) their chosen game platform (e.g. cinematics and voice acting).

And what I'm saying is that story / game structures that provide more agency / wider access to content provide me with a greater set of RP opportunities. I was able to glean much more RP value from ME1 than the sequels.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Also, I don't think there are very many things that any of us know with 100% certainty. Any shred of doubt opens up other possibilities.

THIS!

This is the most important thing anyone has said in this thread.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Then, just read the game script before playing... You CAN do that... just takes one playthrough. It is supposed to be a "role-playing" GAME after all. In that it is a game, you do not need "perfect knowledge" of the character in order to role play... not having "perfect knowledge" is, IMO, part of the fun game-ness of it being a game.

On what basis then do you make in-character decisions if you don't know the character's personality?

Why does he do the things you choose to have him do?