112 réponses à ce sujet

[SleeplessInSigil]

MightySword wrote...

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.

He will have no further ambition then because all worldly desires will have been fulfilled by that point.

[the_one_54321]

SleeplessInSigil wrote...

MightySword wrote...

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.

He will have no further ambition then because all worldly desires will have been fulfilled by that point.

Indeed, when this happens, residence in the world will no longer be necessary.

[Statulos]

Mr. Gaider pointed out the part about nostalgia and I couldn´t agree more on that.



I will say that I have enjoyed not so old RPG´s (Planescape: Torment), quite old games (Betrayal at Krondor) and very, very old RPG´s (Eye of the Beholder) and being objetive, the experience I got from above mentioned games has improved quite a lot comparing to games like Fallout 3 (with all its flaws) and more recently, Dragon Age or Mass Effect 1 & 2.



Why? Because I get the sense that I get very similar forms of entertainment in the very end; which orbitate arround storytelling. The joy of a good RPG is a good narration. Sure, you tell me, every game is a narration! But the very core of a RPG, the very basis is narration unlike games such as FPS which are there for the tension and adrenaline rush, or all those old genres that seems to be completely dead (Rtype style or Final Fight style games).



In fact, the degree of entertainment has improved since being fair, the degree of inmersion Dragon Age archives is far, far better than, let´s say, Baldur´s Gate 2. When I say that Aristotle would put his seal of approval in Bioware´s recent works is because it seems like they have followed the guidelines of his Poetic almost step by step: they are more and more mimetic with "reality", the main character has high intentions (stop the Blith, save the galaxy...) and one way or another, identification with one or many characters occur. So yeah, boys and girls; that´s called catharsis and the genre is tragedy!



To put it in more graphic terms, all the above is archived because Morrigan (for example) sounds, looks and feels more real than Viconia (to follow the examples of characters I consider quite paralell and love), giving us, players, a better sense of mimesis and thus, a better narration.

[KneeTheCap]

I love you, and I wanna have your baby!



In other words, couldn't agree more. Nostalgia plays a big part, whether you acknowledge it or not...

[Statulos]

As an intellectual experiment, it would be interesting to see an RPG that basicaly works the opposite way: instead of getting the player to identify with the characters, to archive the oppossite effect: not identifiying with them or what Bertol Brecht named "Verfrendung" (defamiliarization).

[KneeTheCap]

Umm, how would it work? Care to give an example?

[Statulos]

Planescape: Torment is the closest I have seen to that. All the elements in the game have some LSD feeling; the characters´ personalities are so extreme that is very difficult to associate them to actual people you may know or even yourself. And the "hero" is not noble, does not follow high ideals or even the game does not have a "glorious" end.



On the other hand, the environment is not "coherent" to the real world (it´s interanly coherent, though) and it´s laws; it will feel alien to pretty much everyone except someone high on LSD.



Still, Planescape:Torment is ultimately a story of redemption; a non-conventional one, sure, but a story of redemption.



Still, if you have the chance, get to see Mother Courage and Her Children at some point to understand the kind of representation I´m talking about.

[bzombo]

--Master of All-- wrote...

I guess it's a trade off, really. Based on what DG said, it seems that modern RPGs are highly expensive to produce, and they rarely return sales numbers that can compete with the flagship shooter, action, and casual gaming titles. My thought is if that's the case, then maybe RPGs shouldn't always try to compete with other genres on the graphics and window dressings front.

I'm not sure if this could ever be justified, but what if a small group of developers within Bioware occasionally produced an "old school" RPG, with stripped-down graphics and more text-based dialogue. In other words, content-heavy, yet cheap to produce. Even though the sales numbers would likely be significantly lower than a full-fledged AAA title, maybe you could still pull a profit on it, because of the low development cost. Granted, you would still have to market it, and that has a cost as well.

I'm willing to bet many people would pay $20-30 for a Bioware RPG even if if it was made in the Infinity engine and had text-based dialogue.


Edit: I guess this has already been brought up.

the problem with not competing with other genres in graphics is the number of people it alienates. even supposed "hard core" rpg fans have done nothing but whine and complain about dragon age's graphics, which although not extra super duper spiffy are not bad like some try to claim. by trying to appeal to a larger amount of pc players the graphics were toned down a bit. consoles are firmly entrenched now, and you have to sell on the console to make serious money. so now you have to make a game that pc and console gamers will like. if you go 2d the console people will run for the hills. even with a limited budget the sales will be hard to generate. i would love another rpg to be made on the infinity engine, but i think if it was to ever happen it would be an indie project or made by planet baldur's gate.

[flem1]

Vaeliorin wrote...

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.

You're assuming "RPG" in fact has a narrow definition, and that this coincides with what you like about the genre.  This is not, given actual usage, the case.

Modifié par flem1, 16 février 2010 - 08:20 .

[the_one_54321]

flem1 wrote...
his is not, given actual usage, the case.

To [bad place] with the "actual usage." The only thing the "actual usage" does is breed confusion. Pick a definition based on something rational and do not change it.

[bzombo]

flem1 wrote...

Vaeliorin wrote...

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.

You're assuming "RPG" in fact has a narrow definition, and that this coincides with what you like about the genre.  This is not, given actual usage, the case.

a lot of people seem to blend fantasy rpg and rpgs in general and expect the same thing. a fantasy rpg has certain game mechanics others do not, such as dragon age vs mass effect 2. while me2 is more action centered, that does not make it not an rpg, just not a fantasy style rpg. the rpg label has broadened quite a bit in the last 10 years or so. maybe companies should be a bit more specific in how they label their games. fantasy rpg, action rpg, and so on.

[the_one_54321]

People, even BioWare is not calling ME2 an RPG.

[Baracuda6977]

is it just me or is the conversation most likely skewed as we are on a BIOWARE SITE?

[spottyblanket]

I like JRPGS and I like Bioware games (notice I didn't say WRPGS--haven't played enough of them).

[MightySword]

the_one_54321 wrote...

SleeplessInSigil wrote...

MightySword wrote...

the_one_54321 wrote...
I could die happy

You lack ambition then.

He will have no further ambition then because all worldly desires will have been fulfilled by that point.

Indeed, when this happens, residence in the world will no longer be necessary.

I won't be happy until I can play RPG like .Hack//

[the_one_54321]

.hack// is what they play in heaven.

[Godak]

Vaeliorin wrote...

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.

Have you ever heard of sub-genres? We have a large, inclusive umbrella genre that we call "RPGs" and we have many, smaller groups that have specific terms used to describe what sets them apart from the other sub-genres. From what I'm hearing from you, it seems that you're only interested in CRPGs, a sub-genre of RPGs. Just because you only like RPGs that fall under the CRPG specifications doesn't mean that other games you don't like aren't still RPGs.

Again, if you try to "rigidly define" what an RPG is, you will end up shooting yourself in the foot.

[Skydiver8888]

the_one_54321 wrote...

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.

This.

This, i think, is why i preferred Morrowind to Oblivion, and why I love the older Bioware games, DA:O, etc.  Mainly because I kinda suck at the whole hand-eye coordination thing  (I'm old!) and when i play a character, I want to escape.  I want to play that character, which has different abilities than I do in the real world.  Skydiver8888 does not know how to swing a sword properly.  Elle Cousland does, thank goodness.

Honestly, the genre that is still mostly getting this right (and is profiting) is MMORPGs.  all of them are stat based, which is why I like them.  Sure, MMOs have other issues, but they are RPGs in my mind, based on this definition.

[Baracuda6977]

the_one_54321 wrote...

.hack// is what they play in heaven.

/shoots self in face immediatly

[Doug84]

David Gaider wrote...

eyesofastorm wrote...
If BG2 was a huge success and DA is a success (it seems so to me, but I haven't seen the inside numbers), then are these games not being made becasue there is no market, or is there no market because these games are not being made?

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.

May I ask, assuming its not a corporate 'secret', how did DA:O do in terms of capital invested vs sales - i.e. did it make a profit over the life time of the project? I'd be willing to include the DLC and novels in this, as they wouldn't exist without the primary IP (i.e. the game). Of course, DA:O Awakening is yet to come, but I'm curious to see if Bioware did well off of DA:O to date.

And may I ask the same of the Mass Effect franchise? I presume that did well or else the trilogy would have been cut short.

Basically, I'm asking if the 'Bioware style' of RPGs are sustainable in the modern market place. Primarily because I have an interest in Bioware doing well so I have excellent games to play . And inspite of what some other people have said in other forums, I actually really like where Bioware have gone with the Mass Effect series whilst still loving Dragon Age: Origins.

As for the topic at hand, RPG to me means "Playing a Role in a game world where I can have an impact on events". No more, no less. The nature of the combat system, inventory or lack of, gameplay style and so forth have little to no baring on whether its an RPG or not.  

Hence why I refuse outright to accept JRPGs as RPGs. I would accept them as adventure games. But in the typical JRPG, the story is set in absolute inmovable stone. Doesn't necessarily make them bad games (although they definitely are not my cup of tea), but does exclude it from RPG land.

Bioware let you have an impact on the worlds they create, which is what I love about 'W' RPGs (though they are 'True' RPGs to my mind). Ok, its not like you have absolute freedom to do anything at all, but Bioware and other RPG developers do try and push what can be done with the medium.

[Doug84]

the_one_54321 wrote...

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.

Skydiver8888 wrote...
This.

This, i think, is why i preferred Morrowind to Oblivion, and why I love the older Bioware games, DA:O, etc.  Mainly because I kinda suck at the whole hand-eye coordination thing  (I'm old!) and when i play a character, I want to escape.  I want to play that character, which has different abilities than I do in the real world.  Skydiver8888 does not know how to swing a sword properly.  Elle Cousland does, thank goodness.

Honestly, the genre that is still mostly getting this right (and is profiting) is MMORPGs.  all of them are stat based, which is why I like them.  Sure, MMOs have other issues, but they are RPGs in my mind, based on this definition.

The very first RPGs where pen and paper, and roved around story telling with the combat being only apart of the process. I don't see why the combat is suddenly the focus of what you're thinking of. And the stats where a means to an end - how do you define what a character can and can't do? Stats. Does this means stats are an inherent part of role playing? No, they are simply a trade off that alot of people seem to accept as the only method of achieving that end.

[Baracuda6977]

an interesting thought, has there EVER been a true RPG where you DIDN'T level up your character? the simple ability to switch weapon types and looks as you progress the story seems like an untouched category





also, as i once paraphrased from a great man, remember playing mousetrap where every little device fired off in perfect order for an epic finale? where did that go in video games!?



that said, a big problem is, there is a 'best' story, the one the writers wanted to happen, character development functions perfectly and you can easily fall in love (not literally) with the characters, world and plot of a design game like that, as RPGs increasingly allow people to shape their own stories wouldn't strain the writing to make X number of great stories that all have the same quality as the intended?

[the_one_54321]

Doug84 wrote...
The very first RPGs where pen and paper, and roved around story telling with the combat being only apart of the process.

Actually the very first RPGs were an evolution of strategy combat games. They went from groups of units to directing a single character.

[Vaeliorin]

flem1 wrote...

Vaeliorin wrote...

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.

You're assuming "RPG" in fact has a narrow definition, and that this coincides with what you like about the genre.  This is not, given actual usage, the case.

Actual usage is the problem.  The term RPG (at least in regards to computer games) has been so diluted as to essentially be meaningless.  The scope of games that the game industry puts under the umbrella of "RPG" is such that the term is completely useless.  You get anything from action games (Diablo) to TPS (ME series) to FPS (Borderlands, which was marketed as an RPG before release) to JRPGs (which would be better described as adventure games with fighting) to actual RPGs (you know, characters interact with the world according to their abilities, not the player's, and you have actual control over the words and emotions of your own character, within the limitations of computerization.)

Don't get me wrong, I'm not condemning any of those types of games (I like ME1 and ME2, for example, I just take issue with them being labeled RPGs) and I'm certainly not claiming that games were better in the "old days" (even if I do prefer turn-based combat.)  But there was a time where you could pick up a game labeled as an RPG, and instead of getting any of half a dozen different playstyles, you knew exactly what sort of gameplay you could expect.

Oh, and to address Godak's point of sub-genres, I'd rather that games be placed under sub-genres based upon their gameplay type.  So Diablo would be a stat-and-loot driven action game, ME would be a story-driven TPS, Borderlands would be a loot-driven FPS, JRPGs would be stat-based-combat-driven adventure games, and RPGs could have sub-genres such as open world, linear, first-person, third-person, turn-based, real-time with pause, etc.

I guess I just don't understand why every game that has some sort of loot mechanic, stat mechanic, story or some combination of the three has to be labeled as an RPG nowadays.

Doug84 wrote...
Does this means stats are an inherent part of
role playing? No, they are simply a trade off that alot of people seem
to accept as the only method of achieving that end.

Stats aren't an inherent part of role-playing.  Stats are, however, an inherent part of a role-playing game.  This is an issue that it seems people either can't or don't want to grasp.  A role-playing game demands that there be role-playing, but role-playing in itself doesn't make a role-playing game.  Cops and Robbers or Cowboys and Indians involve role-playing, but they aren't role-playing games, because they lack rules.

Modifié par Vaeliorin, 17 février 2010 - 01:19 .

[the_one_54321]

Vaeliorin wrote...
...

I was agreeing with you almost completely, but most JRPGs are not "action" in the least bit. Some of the Final Fantasy's have even been fully turn based tactical, like playing a miniatures RPG.