112 réponses à ce sujet

[SkullandBonesmember]

Shows my ignorance regarding the Infinity engine. I retract my last statement. I still feel RPGs need to be focused on plot but needs to stay with up-to-date tech/hardware/software. Some text based dialogue is OK for now, like how they used it in Persona 3, but even then you can only decide what to say through text. 10 years in the future it will feel like a step backwards though.

the_one_54321 wrote...

Right off the bat, I want to say that my definition of all genres is purely technical. I think that all these kinds of things should be defined with such technicality simply to avoid this whole mess of "is it an RPG or isn't it?" (it's not btw) The definition of RPG is, indeed, incredibly limiting, but that is not a restriction or a criticism to any game or any developer. It is simply the proper application of the label. Whether a game is an RPG or not an RPG or whatever other crazy mix-n-match label you guys come up with next, it's a great game or a terrible game or anything in between based on its merits, or lack thereof, and not based on the proper application of a genre label.

BioWare has, quite clearly, started to go far away from where they started in making RPGs, to the point that one of the biggest title is clearly not an RPG and they aren't even trying to say otherwise. I don't see anything specifically wrong with that, so long as the game is awesome. And by all accounts the game is awesome. However, I do worry for the future of the real RPG genre or "classic" RPG as those with more forgiveness in labels are calling it. Isn't there still room for real RPGs to still be made? Isn't there still some money to be made in producing those games? The recent releases from BioWare have me very impressed at the quality, but a little disconcerted at the style.

QFT.

[--Master of All--]

[quote]the_one_54321 wrote...

*Good analysis* [/quote]

QFT.
[/quote]

Regardless of the genre label applied to ANY game Bioware makes, there are certain qualities that define the Bioware "style" of game. These are the elements that make Bioware games the top of their class, and transcend genre, game mechanics, and setting. For example, one of the defining qualities of Bioware is the caliber of writing and storytelling they can achieve in a game. Being able to have an impact on that storyline and a sense of involvement with the setting and characters, even an illusory one, is what Bioware games are all about, IMO. Less-than-ideal game mechanics can easily be overshadowed by a good story, and I think for Bioware, this is definitely the case.

[MandatoryDenial1]

David Gaider wrote...

Personally, I find it interesting that so many RPG players claim to be fans of the genre but make their requirements for what constitutes an actual RPG so narrow that it doesn't seem to be a genre at all but simply a selection of their few favorite titles. A few titles does not make a genre, after all.

I think part of the problem is that there really was no definition as to what was actually an RPG early on.  FPS for instance is pretty clear what you mean, RPG really is not especially when you consider what RPG's consist of today.  Most often and specifically thinking of games like Diablo for instance, there is no role to be played other than kill X of these and come back for Y reward.  What is amazing to me is how widespread the definition has become.  I guess what I am trying to get at is that in the absence of a definition early on, the term has come to mean whatever any development company wants it to mean.  Thus you have MMORPGs that leave the player with little to no role to be played in their games.  Leaving the player to come to the inescapeable conclusion that they have no real role to play in the setting at all other than to collect the latest and greatest piece of cheese in the MMO personwheel.

David Gaider wrote...
Another thing which I find interesting is the role that nostalgia plays in this. These same players will often swear up and down that there is no nostalgia, but I suspect part of what made older games so special to them is because they were new. That seems like it should be self-evident, but I see a lot of people running on the assumption that the novelty they felt playing an earlier game can be recaptured simply by replicating the features in their entirety -- and looking at those features as if they could exist independently of each other, rather than in the context of a game where there are often trade-offs.

Dave I find myself wondering if you really believe that its just nostalgia.  As a gamer I can say with 100% certainty that I have yet to find any game that has come out since the "golden age" of the interplay RPG's that even approached the complexity and polish of the player defining his/her role in the setting as did Baldur's Gate, Fallout 2, or Planescape Torment.  To me as a gamer who has long waited for those RPG's, I have found myself continually disappointed with what came afterwards.  Don't get me wrong there have been some really fun games that has followed such as Deus Ex, the first Gothic, Vampire: The Masquerade Redemption, and KOTOR.  Even these though didn't approach the quality or complexity of the Interplay RPG's.  I remember saying this long ago and up until very recently, it was almost as if the development studios were afraid to try to bring out really well designed RPG.  That is why I have been so happy to see the return of some games with depth such as the Witcher, DA: Origins and Mass Effect 2.  These have been games that seem like they were cut from the same cloth as those games that came before in the Interplay era. 

David Gaider wrote...
It's also strange that these same people will make contradictory demands: they want novelty and innovation, while simultaneously wanting nothing to actually change. If there was an RPG they liked in the past, they want a new RPG to be made that's just like it but to feel as fresh and new as when they played it back then -- ignoring the fact that they are no longer who they were.

You will be happy to know that I am not one of those people.  I was really happy with the blending of RPG and FPS.  I was happy to see it because it was proved a very long time ago that this could be a winning combination.  Eidios for all the game they make that I find reason to hate, Deus Ex proved long ago that the RPG genre could be blended seemlessly with FPS,  I think Mass Effect 2 took this to a whole new level.  As an old time gamer I couldn't be happier with how Mass Effect 2 turned out.

 Let me share with you some things that I like in RPG's:

1.  Followers who act like they are living participants in the story instead of portable scenery.  I like personalities, I was so happy to see this return with Dragon Age: Origins.

2.  Continuity:  In a roleplaying game its nice to know that your choices mattered.  This was something that really made Mass Effect 2 stand out and shine.  It was really neat to see for instance the Virmire choice remembered.  The "Cameo" reminding me that this choice would impact me in 3 was totally awesome.  I am already invested in 3 and you can bet I am preordering/looking forward to how things ultimately turn out.

3.  I want to see my choices matter.  In Dragon Age: Origins, the choices I made in the Landsmeed really hurt. I honestly couldn't believe how it turned out.  I had thought I got everything right and knew exactly where things were going to go, only to leave it being totally turned over.  My choices mattered, I was able to play a role.  That is what should define an RPG in my opinion.

Modifié par MandatoryDenial1, 16 février 2010 - 01:54 .

[MerinTB]

SkullandBonesmember wrote...
Hi. The dialogue system is VERY NEW to RPGs but in my opinion will also be VERY CRUCIAL to the future of the genre.

Depends on what you mean by "dialog system" and "VERY NEW."

If you mean the exact system that Bioware made for Mass Effect, then yes it's barely 5 years in the market.  But that system, while cool, is tweaks on a game mechanic that has existed longer than Bioware.

Ultimas had dialog with NPCs where you could choose what you ask.
Treasures of the Savage Frontiers had what was probably the first NPC you could choose to form a romantic relationship with (choices, not fixed in story.)

Dialog choices in a CRPG are pretty old, actually.  Bioware has just added great depth to said system.

[Baracuda6977]

thinking about it, IMO at least, the problem with making RPGs is that replay sucks COMPLETELY



when compared to games like HALO or COD, with those, it was a few maps, a voice over telling you to kill and some cool graphics and you have millions of ppl hooked, (sounds like drugs doesnt it)



in an RPG, its the story, you play to discover the story (or watch numbers steadily rise but i hate that), maybe you can go back for nostalgia or to get your choices right, slash completly evil but then its like, "... ... when is the next million dollar game coming out?"



the future of RPGs may very well diverge into two groups, MMO's and cheapo stories



if an MMO was made where you played yourself in a player run, fantastical world of magic and war where your part in your faction shaped the world map and blah blah blah, with REAL combat (ie not clicking skill buttons and watching an animation but pulling off attack combos with real player skill involved) it would take off like no other IMO



the other niche will probably polorize and get broken down rpgs with far branching stories that can turn completely different but at the cost of graphics and polish





note that both these end results involve the player shaping the flow of the game with real(ish) interactions



replay is where its at

[SkullandBonesmember]

Who's to say there will never be a branching plot RPG the equivalent to the shooter genre of Halo? And Heavy Rain arguably has better graphics when compared to ME2.

[Baracuda6977]

maybe im a tad too pessimistic, it would be legendary if that came into being, but i dont think the cost of making that compared to what little they would get back would make it hard to push through



side note, how epic would it be if a company made my aforementioned MMO, pay to play, but you get big subscriptions for buying their mini niche games based in the MMO world?

[Giantevilhead]

MandatoryDenial1 wrote...

David Gaider wrote...
Another thing which I find interesting is the role that nostalgia plays in this. These same players will often swear up and down that there is no nostalgia, but I suspect part of what made older games so special to them is because they were new. That seems like it should be self-evident, but I see a lot of people running on the assumption that the novelty they felt playing an earlier game can be recaptured simply by replicating the features in their entirety -- and looking at those features as if they could exist independently of each other, rather than in the context of a game where there are often trade-offs.

Dave I find myself wondering if you really believe that its just nostalgia.  As a gamer I can say with 100% certainty that I have yet to find any game that has come out since the "golden age" of the interplay RPG's that even approached the complexity and polish of the player defining his/her role in the setting as did Baldur's Gate, Fallout 2, or Planescape Torment.  To me as a gamer who has long waited for those RPG's, I have found myself continually disappointed with what came afterwards.  Don't get me wrong there have been some really fun games that has followed such as Deus Ex, the first Gothic, Vampire: The Masquerade Redemption, and KOTOR.  Even these though didn't approach the quality or complexity of the Interplay RPG's.  I remember saying this long ago and up until very recently, it was almost as if the development studios were afraid to try to bring out really well designed RPG.  That is why I have been so happy to see the return of some games with depth such as the Witcher, DA: Origins and Mass Effect 2.  These have been games that seem like they were cut from the same cloth as those games that came before in the Interplay era. 

Neverwinter Nights 2 was pretty good. It had the kind of character interaction that Baldur's Gate and Planescape: Torment had.

Mask of the Betrayer was great. The story was intriguing and very well written. It also had one of the best evil endings ever.

[SkullandBonesmember]

Thanks to jacksmedula1, I have a new sig.
What ya'll think?

Modifié par SkullandBonesmember, 16 février 2010 - 08:22 .

[flem1]

IMO people are freaking out about the genre because of Obsidian's inability to run as tight a ship as Bioware and ship finished games (more or less) on time. Another successful studio in the genre would soothe many.



It's true, though, that "RPG" isn't defined by a particular gameplay mechanic. Instead it means "any game significantly derived from D&D" -- whether on the mechanics side (JRPGs) or story/playacting/setting (most WRPGs). But this is a good thing, right? That means every gameplay-mechanic genre can eventually be transformed by RPG goodness. If more shooters were like ME2, I'd play a lot more shooters.

[Merci357]

David Gaider wrote...
Hard to say. There are a lot of assumptions regarding what will sell, both within the industry as well as amongst the fanbase. I'm not sure DA is the best model to bring up -- most developers couldn't have worked on a game for as long as we did, and when you're looking at sales you really have to also look at the amount of expense that was incurred in its creation. That kind of development cycle simply isn't very sustainable in the long run.

But honestly, you wouldn't do DA, if you don't think it can be a profitable franchise in the long run. As much as I regard BioWare as a company that cares for their own games, because they genuinely like the kind of games they produce, DA isn't meant as a gift, but as a founding stone of an IP that can make money - maybe not with the initial retail release, tough.

On topic - I really don't care about what a ©RPG has to be, for me, that's just a label, and I'm sure someone can come up with technical terms about character progression, items, whatever, that must be included, or otherwise it isn't a true RPG. However, I happed to like CRPGs since the days of The Bard's Tale or Phantasie, but why is that? Is it the complex character and rule system, that undoubtly adds a lot of replayability? Or is it because RPGs always incorporated more story, more decisions then most other games?
It's the later for me, and that's why I regard DA as an "interactive novel", and ME2 as an "interactive" movie. Even tough, technically a story isn't even a real requirement for the label RPG, it's the reason I like BioWare games so much - great story telling, and I'm able to shape and develop this story.

[spottyblanket]

The only thing I know is that I'll be in the 7th level of heaven of heaven if bioware did a JRPG style steampunky game that played like KOTOR.



I think JRPGS are a dying breed right now, because they are all too samely and you can't interfere with the story as much or talk to the characters like you can in dragon age.

[Tekbear]

like someone said before i think RPG games mean something different for everyone, however i would say that they have to involve somekind of story involvement for everybody.

I wouldn't put games that feature an upgrade and inventory system into the RPG genre. still i would put a game like Deus Ex in there - just because you had impact on the story by your actions.



i can understand that for some people the whole development business is vital to an rpg but the bit i played of ME2 at the presentation i didn't miss that part really because in a game that caters towards a cinematic experience upgrading means breaking the flow a lot. in a turn based game this is easier implemented and also can be a lot of fun. however if i think back, one of the things in ME1 i wasn't too thrilled about was the inventory system and the handling of upgrades. i don't want to think about that when i'm in the middle of a great story.

[Vaeliorin]

Godak wrote...
I'm of the crowd that thinks that the RPG genre should be far more inclusive. All attempts to make some sort of "line" to define what is and isn't an RPG game have failed quite massively.

Making the RPG genre more inclusive is a bad idea, though.  If I'm looking for new games to play, when I look under RPGs, I actually want to see games that are RPGs.  Not just games that have a story or games where you play a character, but honest to goodness RPGs.  This is why the genre of RPGs does need to be rigidly defined.  It drives me batty that I have to sift through so many non-RPG games labelled as RPGs when I'm looking for something to play.

[the_one_54321]

spottyblanket wrote...
I think JRPGS are a dying breed right now, because they are all too samely and you can't interfere with the story as much or talk to the characters like you can in dragon age.

Tell that to SquareEnix and their fast approaching release date(s).

[RetrOldSchool]

To really put actual criteria for an RPG is probably impossible. Other genres are often based on very factual specifications:
- Camera (first person, third person)
- Gameplay type (shooter, hack-nslash, beat-em-up, real-time strategy, sports, platform)
These are easy to define, but an RPG can be turn based or real time, it can be FP, TP. None of those factors can therefore define RPG and since playing a "role" can be applied to most story driven games, even games like GTA IV and Halo, then it's hard to put the cirteria Role-playing in there too.

However, people can have their own criteria of what they consider an RPG.

I would say that the criteria that I personally like to be included are:

-Heavy story focus (whether linear or non-linear)
-Customization (can be party-wise, character-wise, equipment-wise etc)
-Experience and leveling (preferably)
-Meaningful interaction with the world (NPC's, areas etc, which is a reason I have a hard time categorizing Fable and Fable 2 as RPGS's, though most people do)

Loot, character creation etc aren't any "musts" IMO, but for others, it might just be.
EDIT: missed the end of a sentence

Modifié par RetrOldSchool, 16 février 2010 - 03:52 .

[the_one_54321]

RetrOldSchool wrote...
I would say that the criteria that I personally like to be included are:

-Heavy story focus (whether linear or non-linear)
-Customization (can be party-wise, character-wise, equipment-wise etc)
-Experience and leveling (preferably)
-Meaningful interaction with the world (NPC's, areas etc, which is a reason I have a hard time categorizing Fable and Fable 2 as RPGS's, though most people do)

See, I look at the very first RPGs and define the genre based on that.

Substitution of the players abilitis with the characters abilities. Thus, any game where the character is defined by stats and acts in the game outside of you direct control, except for the instructions you give him, is an RPG.

Any game where you have direct control of the action is not an RPG. If you aim the gun and pull the trigger, instead of the character, it's not an RPG. If you swing the sword by pressing a button, instead of telling the character who to attack and he swings on his own, it's not an RPG.

[Vansen Elamber]

We have to remember that the Internet changed everything when it comes to gaming of almost any kind and RPG's and Adventure games it changed the most. Why? You might be asking? Well because back before the internet was there to browse you had to go out and buy a clue book if you got stuck in a game, and now all you have to do is type in the name of the game you are playing followed by, "walkthrough" and you will find hundreds of solutions to your "stuck problem".

So what I am saying is back when games like the old Ultima RPG's were new they took the average player much much longer to complete, and they seemed a lot harder then they do now because you basically had to find all the answers for yourself or just give up playing the game.

However if you would have had the internet back when those old RPG's were new, how easy would they have been back then? A lot easier then most games are today is the answer because back then games came on several floppy disks and realistically how could the developers have possibly put as much content into them as they can now with games on DVD's and even Blue Ray?

The Internet, and technolgy changed everything....

Modifié par Vansen Elamber, 16 février 2010 - 04:26 .

[the_one_54321]

Vansen Elamber wrote...
you basically had to find all the answers for yourself

Am I the only one that still does this anyway? (except in those games that are designed to be uncompletable unless you get the guide, I really hate that)

Modifié par the_one_54321, 16 février 2010 - 04:05 .

[RetrOldSchool]

the_one_54321 wrote...

RetrOldSchool wrote...
I would say that the criteria that I personally like to be included are:

-Heavy story focus (whether linear or non-linear)
-Customization (can be party-wise, character-wise, equipment-wise etc)
-Experience and leveling (preferably)
-Meaningful interaction with the world (NPC's, areas etc, which is a reason I have a hard time categorizing Fable and Fable 2 as RPGS's, though most people do)

See, I look at the very first RPGs and define the genre based on that.

Substitution of the players abilitis with the characters abilities. Thus, any game where the character is defined by stats and acts in the game outside of you direct control, except for the instructions you give him, is an RPG.

Any game where you have direct control of the action is not an RPG. If you aim the gun and pull the trigger, instead of the character, it's not an RPG. If you swing the sword by pressing a button, instead of telling the character who to attack and he swings on his own, it's not an RPG.

That's a good way to define the genre, though I don't agree with it. But it is a very "yes" or "no" type of defintion, which is good, 'cause then it's easy for you to apply it to games.

One way to look at it is, like you said, the first RPG's, which were text based and based on PnP I guess? Though IMO LARP is also a form of RP:ing, and in some LARP's they don't have dice etc.

[Vansen Elamber]

the_one_54321 wrote...

Vansen Elamber wrote...
you basically had to find all the answers for yourself

Am I the only one that still does this anyway? (except in those games that are designed to be uncompletable unless you get the guide, I really hate that)

I am not saying everyone goes and finds a walkthrough during the install of a new game now days, but the average player most likely does at some point use the internet to find answers to stuck problems in games, and developers know this. However back when the Internet was not there for everyone to use like it is now, you had very few choices if you were stuck. So when you finally did find your solution, it seemed more "epic" to you because you did it all by yourself. I can remember even phoning friends back then and talking for hours on the phone about points in the game we were stuck at, now I do all of that on forums with people I don't even know. Its completely different now and that is because of the Internet and other technologies....

Modifié par Vansen Elamber, 16 février 2010 - 04:12 .

[the_one_54321]

RetrOldSchool wrote...
That's a good way to define the genre, though I don't agree with it. But it is a very "yes" or "no" type of defintion, which is good, 'cause then it's easy for you to apply it to games.

One way to look at it is, like you said, the first RPG's, which were text based and based on PnP I guess? Though IMO LARP is also a form of RP:ing, and in some LARP's they don't have dice etc.

Well I figure it's fair to say that Gygax and Arneson defined it, since they invented it.

[SleeplessInSigil]

Reminds me of something similar on the Fallout 3 boards.

Nevermind the story, or the character-skill-versus-player-skill dilemma, but the way FO3 presents its world and puts you in it, is the future of Role-Playing. ★



Oh and let me copy-paste myself from one of the Oblivion-bashing threads on here, whether it's exactly relevant to this discussion or not:



Let's be objective.


Every medium that tells an story, has a different Characters:Setting ratio.

Some Settings enhance their characters, others repress them. Some Characters steal the focus from their settings, whereas some characters exist only to explore them.

• Dragon Age: Origins, has a complex and fleshed-out Setting, highlighted Characters, but it has a rather simple plot - Unite four kingdoms and kill the Dragon? Very little, if at all, room for variation, except in the order you recruit those Kingdoms in.
  
  The side-quests, if they can be called that, appear pretty much tacked-on as an afterthought.

• Fallout 3, has a complex and fleshed-out Setting as well, but one that by its nature more-or-less oppresses the characters taking part in it. A simple main-storyline but lots of intricate side-quests with numerous ways to accomplish them (i.e. Tenpenny's.)
  
  Look at it as the science-fiction version of Dark Sun rather than Elder Scrolls: Oblivion. If you prefer to be sat on a knee and read some bedtime story about dwarves and elves, there are elements in FO3 that will attempt to cater to you, such as providing a rails-track from start to finish, but if you stick solely to those elements, you will be disappointed.

Also, there's apparently 3 major divisions on the Linearity:Freedom scale in CRPGs:

• On one end, you get games like Fallout 3 and some Ultimas. In FO3, there is an unparalleled freedom of exploration, with a very wide margin for playing absolute Good or Evil, while permitting greater experimentation in combat, often to very satisfying results. Dynamic NPCs that have their own lives, and with behavior and dialog which change to reflect the events you took part in.
  
  You can complete most quests without going through any intermediate steps, even if you had not acquired the Quests yet.

• In the middle, you get BioWare, Infinity Engine and most other Western RPGs: Some freedom in role-play, but ultimately acting within a pre-packaged template, together with some illusion of freedom in travel: there are numerous "checkpoints" that you have to pass through for extended periods of time:
  
  Origin -> [Ostagar -> Wilds -> Lothering] -> [Brecilian/Orzammar/Redcliffe/Tower] -> Denerim. That's it.
  
  Whereas Baldur's Gate II offered you some "forks" (choices between mutually-exclusive chapters and locations in the story) Dragon Age has none. The progression itself is pretty much linear, except if you sidetrack once into the excellent Stone Prisoner DLC, and other characters' "personal" quests.
  
  NPCs tend to be little more than static signposts nailed into the ground, waiting to be read some mandatory pieces of dialog off from.

• On the other end of the scale, you have JRPGs like Final Fantasy: A very static but highly-involved story that you are more-or-less carried through "on rails," with greatly emphasized characters and a degree of cinematic presentation that has yet to be witnessed in any Western RPG: http://zoome.jp/violet/diary/184
  
  Check out the in-game opening cinematic, or the TGS 2009 US Trailer. Those videos appear to tell more of an story in a few minutes than say, Dragon Age or Fallout do in hours, not counting the Codex entries and other pre-existing lore.

You really cannot hate games like Final Fantasy while preferring Dragon Age over Fallout 3 for the same reasons.



Very few stories get the balance JUST RIGHT: Planescape: Torment

If Dragon Age was made in the Fallout 3 engine, or if an FO3-like game had the character/party interplay of a BioWare product, together with the cinematic flair of a Final Fantasy, this Universe would explode in a supernova of Awesomeness. <3



Yes.

Modifié par SleeplessInSigil, 16 février 2010 - 04:56 .

[the_one_54321]

SleeplessInSigil wrote...If Dragon Age was made in the Fallout 3 engine, or if an FO3-like game had the character/party interplay of a BioWare product, together with the cinematic flair of a Final Fantasy, this Universe would explode in a supernova of Awesomeness. <3

I could die happy.

[MightySword]

the_one_54321 wrote...

SleeplessInSigil wrote...If Dragon Age was made in the Fallout 3 engine, or if an FO3-like game had the character/party interplay of a BioWare product, together with the cinematic flair of a Final Fantasy, this Universe would explode in a supernova of Awesomeness. <3

I could die happy.

You lack ambition then.