112 réponses à ce sujet

[Vaeliorin]

the_one_54321 wrote...

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.

I didn't say JRPGs are action.  I said they are adventure.  They let you play through a story, but give you essentially zero control over how the story and characters develop, and as such they fall outside the definition of role-playing games.

Final Fantasy Tactics is my 3rd favorite JRPG, btw.

Modifié par Vaeliorin, 17 février 2010 - 01:23 .

[the_one_54321]

Vaeliorin wrote...

the_one_54321 wrote...

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.

I didn't say JRPGs are action.  I said they are adventure.  They let you play through a story, but give you essentially zero control over how the story and characters develop, and as such they fall outside the definition of role-playing games.

You know that D&D modules used to come with pre-made characters, right? Playing the character was the point. Not creating it. Though that part was great too.

[Doug84]

Vaeliorin wrote...

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.

I still disagree on this point. Stats are a means to an end, not the end itself. Its cargo-cult, if you will, to say that RPG => stats. I imagine this upcoming Heavy Rain game does not feature stats at all, and yet from what I understand, its an RPG in pure form.

[Vaeliorin]

the_one_54321 wrote...

Vaeliorin wrote...

the_one_54321 wrote...

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.

I didn't say JRPGs are action.  I said they are adventure.  They let you play through a story, but give you essentially zero control over how the story and characters develop, and as such they fall outside the definition of role-playing games.

You know that D&D modules used to come with pre-made characters, right? Playing the character was the point. Not creating it. Though that part was great too.

Yes, I'm aware of that.  But even with pre-made characters, you got to control the character's decisions.  JRPGs don't let you do that.  You have no control over what the character says, feels, or does (unless JRPGs have radically changed in the last 3-4 years...I'll admit I haven't been staying abreast of them lately.)

[the_one_54321]

Doug84 wrote...

Vaeliorin wrote...

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.

I still disagree on this point. Stats are a means to an end, not the end itself. Its cargo-cult, if you will, to say that RPG => stats. I imagine this upcoming Heavy Rain game does not feature stats at all, and yet from what I understand, its an RPG in pure form.

Play acting is not really the same as role playing. If it's you that's doing all the work, and your skills that are making all the accomplishments, then it's a representation of you in the game, instead of a role that you are playing.

[Vaeliorin]

Doug84 wrote...

Vaeliorin wrote...

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.

I still disagree on this point. Stats are a means to an end, not the end itself. Its cargo-cult, if you will, to say that RPG => stats. I imagine this upcoming Heavy Rain game does not feature stats at all, and yet from what I understand, its an RPG in pure form.

You're missing the distinction between role-playing and role-playing game.  If Heavy Rain doesn't have stats, then it might feature role-playing in pure form (I'm not overly familiar with the game) but it isn't a role-playing game.

Essentially what I'm saying is that a role-playing game requires 2 elements.  The ability to play a role, and a way to resolve that character's actions within the world.  While this can be as simple as rock/paper/scissors or a flip of a coin, it is more traditionally done with stats (as not relying on simple luck is ultimately more satisfying.)

Modifié par Vaeliorin, 17 février 2010 - 01:32 .

[the_one_54321]

Vaeliorin wrote...
But even with pre-made characters, you got to control the character's decisions.  JRPGs don't let you do that.  You have no control over what the character says, feels, or does (unless JRPGs have radically changed in the last 3-4 years...I'll admit I haven't been staying abreast of them lately.)

A lot of them do allow that. And a number of the old ones still allowed it to some degree. Chrono Trigger on the SuperNintendo had ten different endings. (though only about five of them actually mattered, it was still a number of meaningful alternate endings)

[Godak]

Vaeliorin wrote...

Doug84 wrote...

Vaeliorin wrote...

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.

I still disagree on this point. Stats are a means to an end, not the end itself. Its cargo-cult, if you will, to say that RPG => stats. I imagine this upcoming Heavy Rain game does not feature stats at all, and yet from what I understand, its an RPG in pure form.

You're missing the distinction between role-playing and role-playing game.  If Heavy Rain doesn't have stats, then it might feature role-playing in pure form (I'm not overly familiar with the game) but it isn't a role-playing game.

Yes, it is. Stats have nothing to do with Role Playing. The fact that it has gameplay constitutes the "game" portion of RPG. The fact that you make decisions that can seriously alter the course of the story covers the 'role playing' part. I'm with Doug: stats are a means to an end, and they have no bearing over "Is 'x' game an RPG?".

Modifié par Godak, 17 février 2010 - 01:32 .

[Doug84]

Vaeliorin wrote...

Doug84 wrote...

Vaeliorin wrote...

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.

I still disagree on this point. Stats are a
means to an end, not the end itself. Its cargo-cult, if you will, to
say that RPG => stats. I imagine this upcoming Heavy Rain game does
not feature stats at all, and yet from what I understand, its an RPG in
pure form.

You're missing the distinction between
role-playing and role-playing game.  If Heavy Rain doesn't have stats,
then it might feature role-playing in pure form (I'm not overly
familiar with the game) but it isn't a role-playing game.

I think we have a fundamental disagreement on the definition of the term "Role-Playing Game"

the_one_54321 wrote...

Doug84 wrote...

Vaeliorin wrote...

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.

I still disagree on this point. Stats are a means to an end, not the end itself. Its cargo-cult, if you will, to say that RPG => stats. I imagine this upcoming Heavy Rain game does not feature stats at all, and yet from what I understand, its an RPG in pure form.

Play acting is not really the same as role playing. If it's you that's doing all the work, and your skills that are making all the accomplishments, then it's a representation of you in the game, instead of a role that you are playing.

And role playing is not the same as acting. If the lines are already written by the director, then that is acting, not role playing. And are you really saying the player has no accomplishments or skills in stats based RPG after grinding exp, working on strategies to maximize DPS, minimize damage, and defeat bosses with special immunities?

[Vaeliorin]

the_one_54321 wrote...

Vaeliorin wrote...
But even with pre-made characters, you got to control the character's decisions.  JRPGs don't let you do that.  You have no control over what the character says, feels, or does (unless JRPGs have radically changed in the last 3-4 years...I'll admit I haven't been staying abreast of them lately.)

A lot of them do allow that. And a number of the old ones still allowed it to some degree. Chrono Trigger on the SuperNintendo had ten different endings. (though only about five of them actually mattered, it was still a number of meaningful alternate endings)

There are 14 different endings in the Playstation re-release.   Most of them require new game+ however (and as such don't really count, as far as I'm concerned.)

And while I'll acknowledge that some JRPGs do offer a few choices (mostly a good or bad ending in my experience), they still don't allow you control over your character's speech or emotions.  You're unable to play the role of your character for the vast majority of the game.

[Godak]

Vaeliorin wrote...

And while I'll acknowledge that some JRPGs do offer a few choices (mostly a good or bad ending in my experience), they still don't allow you control over your character's speech or emotions. 

Neither do CRPGs. They give you a few pre-determined phrases. You have the illusion of choice, but you can't just say whatever you please.

By your definition, we can never have "true" RPGs, as we will never really have choice, only selection.

[Vaeliorin]

[quote]Godak wrote...

[quote]Vaeliorin wrote...

[quote]Doug84 wrote...

[quote]Vaeliorin wrote...

[quote]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.[/quote]

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.

[/quote]

I still disagree on this point. Stats are a
means to an end, not the end itself. Its cargo-cult, if you will, to
say that RPG => stats. I imagine this upcoming Heavy Rain game does
not feature stats at all, and yet from what I understand, its an RPG in
pure form.[/quote]

You're missing the distinction between
role-playing and role-playing game.  If Heavy Rain doesn't have stats,
then it might feature role-playing in pure form (I'm not overly
familiar with the game) but it isn't a role-playing game.

[/quote]

Yes,
it is. Stats have nothing to do with Role Playing. The fact that it has
gameplay constitutes the "game" portion of RPG. The fact that you make
decisions that can seriously alter the course of the story covers the
'role playing' part. I'm with Doug: stats are a means to an end, and
they have no bearing over "Is 'x' game an RPG?".[/quote]

Okay, I'll
admit, stats is probably a bad term to use.  The question is "Does the
game have some mechanic wherein the skills of the character (not the
player) determine the succcess and or failure of the character's
actions?"  Stats is simply the most common way in which this is done.

[quote]Godak wrote...
[quote]Vaeliorin wrote...
And
while I'll acknowledge that some JRPGs do offer a few choices (mostly a
good or bad ending in my experience), they still don't allow you
control over your character's speech or emotions.[/quote]
Neither do
CRPGs. They give you a few pre-determined phrases. You have the
illusion of choice, but you can't just say whatever you please.

By your definition, we can never have "true" RPGs, as we will never really have choice, only selection.[/quote]
Sigh...do I really need to add "within the limitations of computerization" to
every post?  Regardless, I can still determine my character's emotions,
even if I (theoretically) can't control every word out of their mouth.

[quote]Doug84 wrote...
[quote]Vaeliorin wrote...
[quote]Doug84 wrote...
[quote]Vaeliorin wrote...
[quote]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.[/quote]
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.[/quote]
I still disagree on this point. Stats are a
means to an end, not the end itself. Its cargo-cult, if you will, to
say that RPG => stats. I imagine this upcoming Heavy Rain game does
not feature stats at all, and yet from what I understand, its an RPG in
pure form.[/quote]
You're missing the distinction between
role-playing and role-playing game.  If Heavy Rain doesn't have stats,
then it might feature role-playing in pure form (I'm not overly
familiar with the game) but it isn't a role-playing game.[/quote]
I think we have a fundamental disagreement on the definition of the term "Role-Playing Game"[/quote]
Probably.  You seem to define it solely on role-playing, while I add the requirement that their be a mechanic to resolve success/failure dependent upon the skill of the character, not the player (because otherwise it doesn't really make sense.  My ability to swing a sword/click a button should have no bearing upon my character's ability to fight with a sword.)

[Doug84]

Vaeliorin wrote...

Doug84 wrote...

Vaeliorin wrote...

Doug84 wrote...

Vaeliorin wrote...

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.

I still disagree on this point. Stats are a
means to an end, not the end itself. Its cargo-cult, if you will, to
say that RPG => stats. I imagine this upcoming Heavy Rain game does
not feature stats at all, and yet from what I understand, its an RPG in
pure form.

You're missing the distinction between
role-playing and role-playing game.  If Heavy Rain doesn't have stats,
then it might feature role-playing in pure form (I'm not overly
familiar with the game) but it isn't a role-playing game.

I think we have a fundamental disagreement on the definition of the term "Role-Playing Game"

Probably.  You seem to define it solely on role-playing, while I add the requirement that their be a mechanic to resolve success/failure dependent upon the skill of the character, not the player (because otherwise it doesn't really make sense.  My ability to swing a sword/click a button should have no bearing upon my character's ability to fight with a sword.)

Yes, here is our disagreement. But by the same token, my willingness to grind exp, work out DPS with a calculator, nor my ability to locate strategy guide should have an impact on my characters ability in combat. Regardless of how you dress it up, the player will always have an impact on the character's abilities, even if the combat is stat based.

[Vaeliorin]

Doug84 wrote...

Vaeliorin wrote...

Doug84 wrote...

Vaeliorin wrote...

Doug84 wrote...

Vaeliorin wrote...

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.

I still disagree on this point. Stats are a
means to an end, not the end itself. Its cargo-cult, if you will, to
say that RPG => stats. I imagine this upcoming Heavy Rain game does
not feature stats at all, and yet from what I understand, its an RPG in
pure form.

You're missing the distinction between
role-playing and role-playing game.  If Heavy Rain doesn't have stats,
then it might feature role-playing in pure form (I'm not overly
familiar with the game) but it isn't a role-playing game.

I think we have a fundamental disagreement on the definition of the term "Role-Playing Game"

Probably.  You seem to define it solely on role-playing, while I add the requirement that their be a mechanic to resolve success/failure dependent upon the skill of the character, not the player (because otherwise it doesn't really make sense.  My ability to swing a sword/click a button should have no bearing upon my character's ability to fight with a sword.)

Yes, here is our disagreement. But by the same token, my willingness to grind exp, work out DPS with a calculator, nor my ability to locate strategy guide should have an impact on my characters ability in combat. Regardless of how you dress it up, the player will always have an impact on the character's abilities, even if the combat is stat based.

Sure, because otherwise you'd end up with a game that plays itself (which might be interesting, but I think would ultimately not be very satisfying.)  However, combat is not the only situation in games where the character's abilities and not the player's should determine success/failure.  For example, my ability to pick locks (or play some silly lock-picking minigame) should not determine my character's ability to pick locks.  Similarly, whether or not I'm charismatic and able to effectively argue people around to my side shouldn't affect (I think that's the right one...I can never keep effect/affect straight) whether or not my character is able to do so.  How quick I am shouldn't determine my character's ability to dodge an attack.  There are a myriad of examples.

Regardless, the point is that if I'm only able to play someone with the same physical/mental capabilities as myself in a game, I'm not really able to play any role other than "me, in NeverNeverLand" or wherever the game happens to be taking place.

[SleeplessInSigil]

You know, if y'all were actually having fun with whatever your idea of "RPG" is, you'd be playing that instead of arguing about what it is that you're playing. 



What's it matter to the way you have fun if you can or can't convince others that it is fun? Unless convincing others is how you have fun. In which case, good luck! 

[Baracuda6977]

where does immersion come into this?



for me, actually clicking the attack button each time, individually comboing the enemies and fighting my own way turns the avatar on screen into 'me', it sucks me in and i act like the construct personality i made for them (usually my own, changes on replays) all of a sudden I am saving fereldan from the blight and damn Loghain to hell for killing my savior! its not just little puppets that act like people



personally, i can mentally handle any situation and know what i want my characters to do, but i can't physically do it, but the pixels on the screen can



isn't the essence of role-playing becoming someone else? i don't want to be a puppet master but the person



why do you want to factor yourself out of the game? are you some accountant with lobster claws who only trusts numbers instead of his hands?

[Doug84]

Vaeliorin wrote...

Doug84 wrote...

Vaeliorin wrote...

Doug84 wrote...

Vaeliorin wrote...

Doug84 wrote...

Vaeliorin wrote...

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.

I still disagree on this point. Stats are a

means to an end, not the end itself. Its cargo-cult, if you will, to

say that RPG => stats. I imagine this upcoming Heavy Rain game does

not feature stats at all, and yet from what I understand, its an RPG in

pure form.

You're missing the distinction between

role-playing and role-playing game. If Heavy Rain doesn't have stats,

then it might feature role-playing in pure form (I'm not overly

familiar with the game) but it isn't a role-playing game.

I think we have a fundamental disagreement on the definition of the term "Role-Playing Game"

Probably. You seem to define it solely on role-playing, while I add the requirement that their be a mechanic to resolve success/failure dependent upon the skill of the character, not the player (because otherwise it doesn't really make sense. My ability to swing a sword/click a button should have no bearing upon my character's ability to fight with a sword.)

Yes, here is our disagreement. But by the same token, my willingness to grind exp, work out DPS with a calculator, nor my ability to locate strategy guide should have an impact on my characters ability in combat. Regardless of how you dress it up, the player will always have an impact on the character's abilities, even if the combat is stat based.

Sure, because otherwise you'd end up with a game that plays itself (which might be interesting, but I think would ultimately not be very satisfying.) However, combat is not the only situation in games where the character's abilities and not the player's should determine success/failure. For example, my ability to pick locks (or play some silly lock-picking minigame) should not determine my character's ability to pick locks. Similarly, whether or not I'm charismatic and able to effectively argue people around to my side shouldn't affect (I think that's the right one...I can never keep effect/affect straight) whether or not my character is able to do so. How quick I am shouldn't determine my character's ability to dodge an attack. There are a myriad of examples.



Regardless, the point is that if I'm only able to play someone with the same physical/mental capabilities as myself in a game, I'm not really able to play any role other than "me, in NeverNeverLand" or wherever the game happens to be taking place.

What I'm trying to say is that your ability as a player ARE affecting the combat performance of your character even in a stat based environment. For example, if you are just bad at mathematics or at following the rules of the combat system, your lack of ability will affect the character's performance. If you don't know the difference or impact between the DC and AC modifiers, that will affect your ability to handle your character.



For example, I never pen and paper role played in my youth, so I've no idea how the D&D combat system works. Someone who's been D&Ding their whole life will have a massively better understanding of the combat system and its rules than me.



I fail to see how that is really any different from 'shooter' type combat - other than one is a mental limit, the other can be a physical reaction one. Both are limits, fundamentally, imposed by the player on the character.



Though the lock-pick/charm factors I do agree with. That should be stat based if its not consequence based. (for example, if you've saved town X before, town X should be automatically charmable).



As for the idea of a game that plays itself...well, the combat plays you could theoritcally do that way. Have purely stat based outcome...though its wholy theoritical and questionable as to if its worth donig that way, heh.

[Vaeliorin]

SleeplessInSigil wrote...
You know, if y'all were actually having fun with whatever your idea of "RPG" is, you'd be playing that instead of arguing about what it is that you're playing.

I'm not in the mood to game right this instant...besides, I'm watching a basketball game.

Unless convincing others is how you have fun.

I do enjoy arguing debating.

Mostly, I'm worried that the dilution of the concept of RPGs will result in a gaming market that no longer makes games that I find enjoyable.  Or, perhaps that the gaming industry will stop making games that I find enjoyable, but keep telling me that it hasn't, and trying to tease me back, resulting in me being angry/annoyed/depressed that "the next great RPG" isn't really an RPG at all.

[Baracuda6977]

Vaeliorin, i think you and me are invisible in this thread

[Vaeliorin]

Doug84 wrote...
*snips lots of quotes*

What I'm trying to say is that your ability as a player ARE affecting the combat performance of your character even in a stat based environment. For example, if you are just bad at mathematics or at following the rules of the combat system, your lack of ability will affect the character's performance. If you don't know the difference or impact between the DC and AC modifiers, that will affect your ability to handle your character.

For example, I never pen and paper role played in my youth, so I've no idea how the D&D combat system works. Someone who's been D&Ding their whole life will have a massively better understanding of the combat system and its rules than me.

I fail to see how that is really any different from 'shooter' type combat - other than one is a mental limit, the other can be a physical reaction one. Both are limits, fundamentally, imposed by the player on the character.

The issue I see here is that a mental limit is easily overcome with a little effort and perhaps a little help (also, if you can't remember the rules, you can always look them up ).  A physical limit, not so much.  No matter how hard I try, for example, I'll never be able to compete with top players of FPS's.  I simply don't have the physical skills.  I've yet to encounter an RPG system that is so complex that someone of reasonable intelligence can't easily grasp it if they actually make an effort (though, admittedly, I'm often told my idea of reasonable intelligence is unreasonable).

Though the lock-pick/charm factors I do agree with. That should be stat based if its not consequence based. (for example, if you've saved town X before, town X should be automatically charmable).

It depends what you're trying to convince them of, though.  If you're trying to convince them they need to start sacrificing babies or something extreme like that (admittedly, this is an extreme example), I don't think that should ever be automatic (unless it's some sort of evil town where they already sacrifice toddlers, and you're just trying to get them to move to newborns.)  Reasonable things, however, I have no problem with being automatic in such a situation.

As for the idea of a game that plays itself...well, the combat plays you could theoritcally do that way. Have purely stat based outcome...though its wholy theoritical and questionable as to if its worth donig that way, heh.

There are actually games I can think of that do play out combat without any firect input.  I find them ultimately unsatisfying (and incredibly frustrating when the AI does stupid things!) and as such I don't generally play them.

Modifié par Vaeliorin, 17 février 2010 - 02:36 .

[flem1]

the_one_54321 wrote...

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.

Sylvius? 

[flem1]

Vaeliorin wrote...

flem1 wrote...
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.)

Well, I sort of agree with you.  "RPG" doesn't mean one obvious thing, so perhaps the industry would benefit from sharpening this brand into something specific.  On the other hand, every one of the above sub-genres *does* wear its D&D heritage pretty strongly.  (My broad definition, as mentioned way above.)  Different subgenres emphasize different parts of the D&D experience, but none of them cover all.

The problem is, early computer RPGs (my first was Wizardry) played a lot more like JRPGs than they did BG2 or Torment.  So how are JRPGs (for example) actually not in the genre?

I would abandon the whole "not a RPG" argument, because that horse has left the barn.  You'd get further saying "traditional RPG" or such.  Look at pen and paper games:  you don't see people saying something's "not a RPG" because it has nontraditional (including dice-free) conflict resolution mechanics.  Ditto the computer side.

[Godak]

Vaeliorin wrote...

  Regardless, I can still determine my character's emotions,
even if I (theoretically) can't control every word out of their mouth.

Not true. There is always emotional context that comes with the predetermined phrases.

[Baracuda6977]

you could always break the dialogue choices down to what they are, individual cases of like :



**** evil

witty evil

coward

i hate you

i love you!

i must save everyone!

MONEY!

ur an idiot

MY WAY

ur mother is a llama

etc.



what is actually written there is just an example of these bases IMO

[Veex]

Vaeliorin wrote...

The issue I see here is that a mental limit is easily overcome with a little effort and perhaps a little help (also, if you can't remember the rules, you can always look them up ).  A physical limit, not so much.  No matter how hard I try, for example, I'll never be able to compete with top players of FPS's.  I simply don't have the physical skills.  I've yet to encounter an RPG system that is so complex that someone of reasonable intelligence can't easily grasp it if they actually make an effort (though, admittedly, I'm often told my idea of reasonable intelligence is unreasonable)

I think you've discovered your own contradiction here. It is unreasonable to think that everyone plays at an even playing level in any genre of game. One person who may excell at FPS games might struggle mightily with RPGs. There are different aptitudes for certain tasks and not having the highest of those doesn't make you unintelligent. The issue isn't whether you can compete with top FPS players, but rather if you can play the game to some level of satisfaction in my opinion.