1067 réponses à ce sujet

[Lusitanum]

[quote]Sylvius the Mad wrote...

But the game is real life from your character's point of view.  Are his desires about his life that different from your desires about yours?[/quote]

YES! That's why it's called a videogame: because it's not real, in case I need to remind you. We play a game to escape from our every day lives, and one of the things we search for is a little thing called "a challenge". Games like Torchlight falied to do this and what do you get from your target audience? A feeling of "Holy ****, I am so ****ing bored!"  Believe me, I'm at a point where I wouldn't mind that the work I have to do would stop pilling up on me (these are going to be a few weeks where I won't be around all that much, BTW) but if a game does that to do me, then I'll just put it back on the shelf and go for something else.

So yeah, in a nutshell, our desires as gamers do conflict with those that our characters have. Reminds me of a moment in ME2 where my Shepard commented something like "You know, just once I'd like to ask for something and have people say "Sure, let's go right now, no strings attached"". It would be great for Shepard, but it would make for an incredibly boring game, now wouldn't it?

[quote]Sylvius the Mad wrote...

A game isn't.  That's the whole point.  An RPG is not relevantly similar to other types of games.[/quote]

No, of course it's not. That's why it's right there on the whole role-playing game thing. And why it's marketed as such. And belongs to the category of a videogame. And is enjoyed by gamers around the world. And I'd love to know just how much high you could get after that one.

[quote]Sylvius the Mad wrote...

You can't defeat a normative claim with a descriptive claim.  "No is implies an ought."[/quote]

Just did, I'm afraid.

[quote]Sylvius the Mad wrote...

But why would you want to?  And why would you necessarily have the opportunity?[/quote]

Because it would be kind of stupid if you couldn't even open your mouth if someone decided to stop selling your something to you on the basis that you ruined when you're obscenely wealthy and in need of their supplies.

Sounds familiar?

[quote]Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Where's the metagame?  It's only metagaming if you take into account the consequences of your characters action even when your character wouldn't know those things.  Don't do that.[/quote]

If the game insists on ruining my game by arbitrarly throwing its gameplay mechanics into my way, then I have to.

[quote]Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Absolutely.  That's what roleplaying is.  Games that don't permit roleplaying are not roleplaying games.[/quote]

Right, that's what roleplaying is, even though it stopped being a core element of the genre decades ago, that's just what they are.

How can something completely irrelevant to the definition of anything be essential to what it is? That's a major contradiction you've got going there.

[quote]Sylvius the Mad wrote...

You never had to do that in Dragon Age unless you forgot that you were playing a party-based game.

DAO and ME aren't relevantly similar in this regard.  In ME you're playing one character.  In DAO you're playing several at a time (just like other party-based CRPGs).[/quote]

And in case you forgot, ME is not a party-based game, nor was that the point. It's a squad-based game and it follows squad-based game mechanics.

For someone that goes on and on about following concepts that have been dead for ages, you sure are fast to ignore the basics of gameplay mechanics that are being used today.

[quote]Sylvius the Mad wrote...

My Arcane Warrior explanation wasn't complete.  I haven't ever bothered to come up with a decent explanation for that because I don't really like the class, and I don't need to come up with one for the game to be fun.

A big hole in the explanation is not an inconsistency.  A contradiction within the explanation is.

[..]

I admit I don't know how the Arcane Warrior works.  But I don't need to know how it works.  As long as there's a possible explanation available the setting isn't broken.

Mass Effect, on the other hand, will neatly eliminate the possibility of there being a sensible explanation by presenting mutually exclusive statements as if they're both true.

That's how logic works.  Contradictions are bad.  Everything short of contradiction is acceptable.  It's binary.[/quote]

Wrong again with your brilliant "logic", it's the exact opposite: if there's no adequate explanation given by the story itself to a given aspect, then its setting is broken. I don't care how many explanations you or anybody can make up in your heads, if the setting tells me "this action carries that consequence" and then breaks that rule as it sees fit, then it's an inconsistency.

That's Writting 101. Because otherwise, how believable a given setting is would depend on how many fans you have and how creative they can get with what little information you've given them.

[quote]Sylvius the Mad wrote...

And thus you demonstrate you don't, in fact, know what the words mean.

How judgmental it might have been has no bearing on whether it was a supposition.[/quote]

No, it doesn't, but I'm just commenting on how full of yourself you get even in a mere supposition.

[quote]Sylvius the Mad wrote...

And your "vague guess" was off by almost an order of magnitude.

It needed to be corrected.[/quote]

Again, I haven't played the game in months, I have a justification for my mistake. Do you have one for all the incredibly off-the-mark assumptions you've made so far?

[quote]Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Compartmentalization.  It's an important skill.  I suggest you learn it.[/quote]

Belief in the existence of groups is unscientific.  Groups don't satisfy
Ockham's Razor.

Your own words. What happened to that?

[quote]Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Are you even paying attention?

I was responding to your specific assertion that one advantage of the Mako was the ability to one-shot kill mutliple enemies at a time.  Given the XP penalty, that's clearly not actually an advantage.[/quote]

Wrong. Wrong. And Wrong.

You were answering to, and I quote

"Unless you consider jumping or
just driving out of the way of
said slow moving projectiles while you blast the enemy away with
superior firepower."

Slow moving projectiles. You know, that little blue thing that the Colossi fire at you? That's not a thing that you can get in a one-shot kill, last time I checked. Nor are they usually close enough to each other to allow you to hit more than one with a single blast.

And again, Colossi or not, my point still stands: if the XP penalty really bugs you all that much (for all the odds and good of getting an extra level right at the end of the game), just soften them up, get out and kill them. It's incredibly simple, really.

[quote]Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Everything else I already refuted with the discussions of stealth and manoeuvrability.[/quote]

Yes, you refuted with the non-existant stealth, since you can't sneak on anything and the manouverability that is ofsett by lack of superior shields, weaponry, travelling speed in an emergency situation and the ability to vault over enemy fire.

So, again, you refuted nothing.

[quote]Sylvius the Mad wrote...

You've just pauinted yourself into a corner.

At what point is it a measurement, then?  You're so adamant that there's some sort of dividing line between a measurement and a comparison.  What is it?

Not all measurements are precise.  That's the source of the old joke about how 2+2=5 for extremely large values of 2.  But that they're imprecise doesn't prevent them from being measurements.

But if you think they do, exactly how precise does a measurement have to be before you think it's a measurement?

I await your acquiescence.[/quote]

If 2+2=5 in large values, then the scales have to adapt and be more precise. Otherwise, they're not measuring, they're just making an educated guess, and I'll think of them as measurements again when they're actually doing so.

[quote]Sylvius the Mad wrote...

For what will you trade it?

That's how you measure it.  Every day, you make dozens (probably hundreds) of decisions, and you do so by weighing options against each other.  And here you are denying that such a thing is possible.[/quote]

Oh, I don't know, what's the market value for love and respect for the people you care these days? I know it's been fluctuating a lot lately, so I'm not sure.

Sorry, I try to avoid the whole "Rien ne se vend mais tout s'achète./L'honneur et
même la sainteté./Ça va." thing. So I won't trade it, nor would I know for how much I should do it if I ever lost my Humanity and decided to become like you.

[quote]Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Yes.  I presuppose almost nothing.  It's one of my gretest strengths.[/quote]

Hence the Baseless Assumptions™ and the inability to ever admitting to change your take on anything.

That's the biggest lie you've told so far. Congratulations on your new record.

[quote]Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Yes, but you could see that early enough to make good resource management decisions and thus win the gme more often than not.[/quote]

Meaning = forfeit the game and wish for better luck next time, where you would be put in the exact same situation where you opponent has more opportunities to adapt to your game than the opposite.

[quote]Sylvius the Mad wrote...

That the opponent was cheating doesn't mean the cards weren't produced at random.  We got here discussiing your irrational fear of randomness.[/quote]

Right, and this is why it's not irrational: because we've already seen that randomness is skewed more often than not when you're playing against a machine who can cheat while you are powerless to do anything about it. Again, like Pazaak, Triple Triad or even Puzzle Quest.

[quote]Sylvius the Mad wrote...

If you don't really care, why not just let the games be developed as I see fit?[/quote]

Because you're still a lot of fun when take in small quantities. :happy:

[quote]Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Logical claims are demonstrably true of demonstrably false.  This, incidentally, is the right time for the excluded middle.  If I make my case well, then anyone who sits back and works through the logic will see that I've done so.  But those incapable of understanding the logic will never get there.

I can't control whether you understand me, so all I can do is make a good case and then I'm done.

This is why communication isn't a thing.  Each of us acts independently, and neither has any control over hw his remarks are interpreted by the other.[/quote]

And since logic has been replaced by presumptuousness and preconceptions ages ago... where does that leave you again?

[quote]Sylvius the Mad wrote...

You've just shown that's how they're formed.  That is demonstrably not how they work.

If they did work as you described then they wouldn't actually serve their function as formal definitions.  And defintions that are not formal defintions are not definitions.[/quote]

They're still the same things as the acronym RPG: words that have changed and adapated to how they are used by it's speakers, even if they're not following the words that form them to the letter or are even used in the same sense that they were when first created.

Shift happens, dude. Especially in a words that are used across the world by hundreds of millions of people.

[quote]Sylvius the Mad wrote...

But I'm not doing that.  I'm defending the merits themselves.

Your personal and suibjective opinion should never matter to anyone but you.  What I'm trying to do here is give people the tools to form less subjective opinions so we can actually have meaningful conversations.

If we all work from our own definitions, then we'll never get anywhere.

And again, you failed to offer the definition I requested.

Oh, and I'vesaid nothing at all resembling "it fails to have this aspect that I happen to like, so it's not an RPG".  I'm defining the genre independently of whether I like certain features.  For example, I like levels, but I explicity said earlier in the thread that I don't think they're required for a game to be an RPG.

I don't care what the definitions are; I just want formal definitions we can use to discuss game features.[/quote]

Sure, but going for the "it's in the word right there" and "it was like this before, so it must always be so" won't get us anywhere, since they're completely and utterly flawed, now will they?

[quote]Sylvius the Mad wrote...

It's laughable that you think Saussure would be on your side in this debate.  His concept of linguistic dualism is exactly the point you're not getting in the hospital example.[/quote]

Then again, you said the same thing about Bioware's joke and dropped that thing too with no further comment, so I'm taking that for what it is: an irrelevant retort.

[quote]Sylvius the Mad wrote...

That doesn't even make any sense in this context.  What is how the world works?

The world can easily be described without positing the unnecessary concept of society and instead describing our behaviour individually.[/quote]

Maybe, but that won't change the fact that socities still exist, does it?

[quote]Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Because it would disprove your assertions.

Not that you seem to care about whether your assertions are correct.[/quote]

If you never did, why should I?

[quote]Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Then I would be irrational.[/quote]

Or "Human" as we like to call them.

[Lusitanum]

Little side-note here:

Terror_K wrote...

Yes... to a degree. To be truly happy I'd want stats to return, as well as the ability to mod my weapons to some degree and a greater selection of them (and to make them more random, rather than this linear they're always in the same place crap that completely eliminates any notion of looting or the thrill of the hunt for items). Stats would definitely be a start though, and I'd be happier than I am with the ME2 system if they were back... but they alone would not be enough to placate me. I seriously doubt BioWare will revert things back as much as I like, and imagine at the most we'll just get the ME2 system with maybe a few more weapons and the stats visible, which is a plus but... not enough for me. I'd even be happy with them eliminating the inventory still and sticking with the ME2 weapons loadout system if they simply gave us the above things.

Funnily enough I actually made the following mock-up for another topic here a couple of months back or so:-



And it got a pretty positive response from a lot of people, so I sent it to Christina Norman, and she was kind enough to thank me for the suggestion. So, unless she was merely being polite and its been forgotten, at least one of the devs has had a look at this. All in all, it's not that different from what ME2 already has... it just adds a bit more depth.

That was awesome, great job on that.

I was dissapointed with the lack of actual data on how a given gun works on ME2. I mean, how are we supposed to make tactical choices on what gear to use if all we get is a vague text description? ME1 made the whole inventory seem irrelevant since there was always a gun that was better in every way to the one you had equiped until you got to the Spectre gear, but at least until that point there were a few weapons here and there that made you think "does this amount of extra damage make it worth the loss of accuracy and shots before overheat".

It was rare, not all that enganging and given the amount of items you picked up felt more like busy work ("great, more crap to sell/turn into medigel), but at least you had actual data on how a gun compared to another when you were equipping your team.

[Chellick]

Please bring the RPG back!
Terror_k: That stat page is awesome. You have made a leap in the right direction!

-Chellick

Modifié par Chellick, 13 avril 2010 - 04:34 .

[Sad Dragon]

Terror_K wrote...

Funnily enough I actually made the following mock-up for another topic here a couple of months back or so:-

Damn it and here i was going to make some mockups and ask you stuff, and you go and beat me to it and you put a hell of a lot more effort into it as well
That said now i can just ask questions which makes me happy ^^

First of - I like your mockup it looks damn good tbh. But i still have come questions

Are the modification - such as good ol' combat optics - in your version selected kind of like how they where in ME1 where you have a list of mods you could add?
If so, would a mix of the ME1 system and ME2 work for you as well.

Ex: You run around and scan things or even buy the Combat Optics modification. This modification can then be upgraded through a system like the ME2 upgrade system. When you then choose to add a mod to your weapons you would choose from the different kinds you have unlocked though their level would be determined by the ammount of upgrading you have done.

Have to agree with Pocketgb that the numbers tell you very little. For instance without an explanation to how the penetration stat works its just a random number. All i look at is ,is it higher or lower then my previous gun - something that will in the end ultimatly ammount to a liner progression through weapons just like we have in ME2.

I personaly think this can be made easier. To make it more clear how things work. I am not bashing you at all though im just thinking that we can still improve on the system even more.
A stat like "Shots per heatsink" would also be nice in there - if we use heatsinks and all. Another thing that i personaly thing would be nice is that instead of making us just look at higher numbers all the time - thats to say
looking for upgrades  - how about if we can actualy get some side grades that is of use?


Ex. To build of your mockup. Split penetration into two stats. Shield Pen and Armor Pen. Make it clear that we have two nrely equal guns - but one has 275 arm pen but 0 sheild pen and the other is reverced. You also have a third gun which sits at 150 in both penetration stats but has slightly lower damage. None of them are really better then the other they just mean i will have to choose how i want to play the game.

Sure they "tried" to do something like it - in part - in ME2 but without having to go digging around for the math somewhere - as it is not explained ingame - their efforts fell flat.
Though personaly i think stats needs to be explained. Say that the Penetration stat number indicates the extra damage the weapon will do to the different types of defences for instance, or something to that effect.

We would still find pure and simple upgrades which would make an old weapon obsolite - or we could simple get upgrades for the weapons. This so that instead of having a weapon now rendered useless by the appearanse of the new weapon the old weapon simply get replaced with the upgraded one.

Just some thoughts ^^

/TSD

[Marked One]

This is why I preferred the first over the second.

[SkullandBonesmember]

Lusitanum wrote...

Let me guess. You play as renegade. Well I play mostly paragon. 

But the game is real life from your character's point of view. Are his desires about his life that different from your desires about yours?

The way I roleplay my Shepard mirrors my desires about life. The shooter fans, the ones who prefer 'SPLOSHUNS over story, usually play as renegade. Note, that doesn't apply to everybody, but for most I've come across personally.

[Daeion]

Lusitanum wrote...
I was dissapointed with the lack of actual data on how a given gun works on ME2. I mean, how are we supposed to make tactical choices on what gear to use if all we get is a vague text description?

Why would you need to make a choice?  The computer does it for you and the notes specifically tell you a weapon is an upgrade compared to the orlder weapon.  It's great, you don't need to think, heck, in ME3 I hear they are going to include an auto play feature where the game just plays for you so you don't need to make any choices.

Modifié par Daeion, 13 avril 2010 - 05:18 .

[Sylvius the Mad]

[quote]Lusitanum wrote...

So yeah, in a nutshell, our desires as gamers do conflict with those that our characters have.[/quote]
But our desires as roleplayers can't do that, because that's what roleplaying is.  We adopt the persona of our characters.

This is why I keep saying that RPGs are different from other games in the same way that all other videogames are the same as each other.  The vast majority of videogames (I'm also one of those people who feels that the distinction between videogames and computer games is important) cater to gamers.  These are people who want the game to entertain them directly, and that the point of playing the game is for the gamer to have fun.

RPGs are not like that.  RPGs are supposed to offer an environment in which the player can engage in satisfying roleplaying.  That they're roleplaying is the fun part, though I usually think it's more accurate to describe the experience as satisfying rather than fun.  Sort of like finishing a big work project - it might not have been fun to do, but it was satisfying experience.  Roleplaying is very much like that.
[quote]
No, of course it's not. That's why it's right there on the whole role-playing game thing. And why it's marketed as such. And belongs to the category of a videogame. [/quote]
And that's where we disagree.  I don't think CRPGs fall within the videogame category.
[quote]Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Just did, I'm afraid. [/quote]
Except it doesn't work.  It can't.  "No is implies an ought."  You need to follow the rules of inference in order to have an intelligent conversation.

[quote]Right, that's what roleplaying is, even though it stopped being a core element of the genre decades ago,[/quote]
But that can't happen.

Hospitals treat the sick.  That's what they do.  That's what they've done as long as there have been hospitals.  They haven't always been called hospitals, and whatever has been called a hospital might not actually be one, but what makes something a hospital - using the modern definition - has been firmly established.  It can't change.

The features that make any game an RPG are immutable.  Why don't you get this?

I recognise that you're just going to tell me I'm wrong, but your decscriptions of things changing over time (like hospitals) are entirely consistent with my point, so why don't you understand?

[quote]That's a major contradiction you've got going there.[/quote]
You're grossly misusing the word "contradiction".  You've been doing it all thread.

[quote]For someone that goes on and on about following concepts that have been dead for ages, you sure are fast to ignore the basics of gameplay mechanics that are being used today.[/quote]
What if I think the modern conventions of the genre are a mistake?

Let's just ignore the conventions of the genre.  Let's start from the ground up and discuss what the features are and what they do.

If you keep presupposing things like the conventions of the genre when those are exactly what we're discussing (so presupposing them can only lead to question begging), we'll never get anywhere.

[quote]Wrong again with your brilliant "logic", it's the exact opposite: if there's no adequate explanation given by the story itself to a given aspect, then its setting is broken.[/quote]
Is the world broken because you don't know how gravity works?

[quote]I don't care how many explanations you or anybody can make up in your heads, if the setting tells me "this action carries that consequence" and then breaks that rule as it sees fit, then it's an inconsistency.[/quote]
Yes, that would be inconsistency.

I've just drawn a distinction that you clearly haven't understood, because in this one response you've managed to describe an actual contradiction (something we both agree is bad) and a simple gap I would call implicit content, and you don't seem to see the difference.

[quote]No, it doesn't, but I'm just commenting on how full of yourself you get even in a mere supposition.[/quote]
No, that's what you're doing now.  You're not actually attempting to maintain a coherent position.  You're just baiting me.

[quote]Again, I haven't played the game in months, I have a justification for my mistake. Do you have one for all the incredibly off-the-mark assumptions you've made so far?[/quote]
Show me an assumption I've made and I'll justify it.

Ideally, show me three.  You say there are many.  Show me three.
[quote][quote]Belief in the existence of groups is unscientific.  Groups don't satisfy
Ockham's Razor.[/quote]
Your own words. What happened to that?[/quote]
Nothing at all.  It's still true.

What does that have to do with compartmentalisation?
[quote]Wrong. Wrong. And Wrong.

You were answering to, and I quote

"Unless you consider jumping or
just driving out of the way of
said slow moving projectiles while you blast the enemy away with
superior firepower."

Slow moving projectiles. You know, that little blue thing that the Colossi fire at you? That's not a thing that you can get in a one-shot kill, last time I checked. Nor are they usually close enough to each other to allow you to hit more than one with a single blast.[/quote]
But, having actually played Mass Effect, I'm aware that enemies were often clustered.  The occasions where you can guarantee that you'll only hit one of them were pretty limited.

[quote]And again, Colossi or not, my point still stands: if the XP penalty really bugs you all that much (for all the odds and good of getting an extra level right at the end of the game), just soften them up, get out and kill them. It's incredibly simple, really.[/quote]
And contrived.  And it ignores the other benefits of moving on foot.

DId you ever notice that the game explicitly accommodates moving on foot in some Mako content.  On Virmire, when you arrive at the Salarian base, you'll get a different cutscene depending whether you arrived on foot or in the Mako.

I learned that one because I had been using your approach (bring the Mako - jump out to fight - jump back in to drive), but then the Mako at some point fell through the world so I couldn't get back into it (it was still on the minimap, but miles below the tidepool in which I stood).  It was then that I decided to leave the Mako behind in the future, because bringing it along was too much hassle.  And then the game went and recognised my choice by giving me a different cutscene.

So fault me for learning the game's lesson, if you must.
[quote]Yes, you refuted with the non-existant stealth, since you can't sneak on anything and the manouverability that is ofsett by lack of superior shields, weaponry, travelling speed in an emergency situation and the ability to vault over enemy fire.[/quote]
Try maintaining your position when vaulting over enemy fire if you weren't parked on level ground.

On foot, Shepard and his team can run up hills at the same speed at which they cross level ground.  The Mako doesn't do that.  The Mako is far less effective at dodging fire on uneven terrain.

[quote]If 2+2=5 in large values, then the scales have to adapt and be more precise. Otherwise, they're not measuring, they're just making an educated guess, and I'll think of them as measurements again when they're actually doing so. [/quote]
How precise does a measurement have to be to be a measurement, then?  Draw the line for me.

You clearly think that there is some necessary standard of precision that needs to be met.  What is it?  And why do you draw the line there, and not an extra decimal place further?

I guarantee you don't have an answer to this.

[quote]Oh, I don't know, what's the market value for love and respect for the people you care these days?[/quote]
Make me an offer.
[quote]Sorry, I try to avoid the whole "Rien ne se vend mais tout s'achète./L'honneur et
même la sainteté./Ça va." thing. So I won't trade it, nor would I know for how much I should do it if I ever lost my Humanity and decided to become like you.[/quote]
You limit yourself unduly.

[quote]Meaning = forfeit the game and wish for better luck next time, where you would be put in the exact same situation where you opponent has more opportunities to adapt to your game than the opposite.[/quote]
No.  As I've said, Pazaak was a winnable game.  That you don't see how the strategy can work is not evidence that it doesn't work.

[quote]Right, and this is why it's not irrational: because we've already seen that randomness is skewed more often than not when you're playing against a machine who can cheat while you are powerless to do anything about it. Again, like Pazaak, Triple Triad or even Puzzle Quest.[/quote]
No, we've seen that sometimes the machine has knowledge of the future that is denied you.  That isn't evidence of anything at all to do with the randomness.

Semantics matter.

[quote]Because you're still a lot of fun when take in small quantities.[/quote]
Then we're done.  I'll feed this troll no longer.

Modifié par Sylvius the Mad, 13 avril 2010 - 09:21 .

[Sad Dragon]

Completly off topic. But wouldnt 2+2=6 for extremely large values of 2?

[Tawg]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

But our desires as roleplayers can't do that, because that's what roleplaying is.  We adopt the persona of our characters.

This is why I keep saying that RPGs are different from other games in the same way that all other videogames are the same as each other.  The vast majority of videogames (I'm also one of those people who feels that the distinction between videogames and computer games is important) cater to gamers.  These are people who want the game to entertain them directly, and that the point of playing the game is for the gamer to have fun.

Could you explain what you mean when you say 'RPGs are different from other games in the same way that all other videogames are the same as each other'?  That's a slight bit confusing.  Almost as if you just said 'Dogs are different from other household animals in the same way that all other household animals are the same'  That really doesn't explain anything you mean as far as I can tell, it just alludes to a difference between the two?

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

RPGs are not like that.  RPGs are supposed to offer an environment in which the player can engage in satisfying roleplaying.  That they're roleplaying is the fun part, though I usually think it's more accurate to describe the experience as satisfying rather than fun.  Sort of like finishing a big work project - it might not have been fun to do, but it was satisfying experience.  Roleplaying is very much like that.

I agree about Roleplaying being not nessicary fun durring but usually ending with satisfaction, however RPG is not an accronim you can simply ascribe the meaning is a sum of it's parts.  As a genre of video games it offers little to no resemblence to the much more strict use of Roleplaying you are using.

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Hospitals treat the sick.  That's what they do.  That's what they've done as long as there have been hospitals.  They haven't always been called hospitals, and whatever has been called a hospital might not actually be one, but what makes something a hospital - using the modern definition - has been firmly established.  It can't change.

That's untrue; The laws of nature can't change (As far as we know). We will never have H3O make the mollecule we call water, but the word water itself is meaningless form of comunication we use to discribe something constant.  That's part of the reason different langues exist, and why not all langues end up having a direct translation for a word another might.  What we call hospitals is firmly established true, but what hospital might mean in the future could change, as I'm sure it has before.  What you mean to say is that the underlaying idea of what a hospital is won't change, which is true, because that's what the word discribes, the word itself is meaningless in a void with out the idea it discribes.

Does that sound correct?

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

The features that make any game an RPG are immutable.  Why don't you get this?

I recognise that you're just going to tell me I'm wrong, but your decscriptions of things changing over time (like hospitals) are entirely consistent with my point, so why don't you understand?

We just had a large argument about this a few pages back, and honestly, RPG is a very mish-mash turm you can't hope to convay any real meaning with.  It is very mutable, and no one even holds the same meaning themselves.

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

What if I think the modern conventions of the genre are a mistake?

Let's just ignore the conventions of the genre.  Let's start from the ground up and discuss what the features are and what they do.

If you keep presupposing things like the conventions of the genre when those are exactly what we're discussing (so presupposing them can only lead to question begging), we'll never get anywhere.

Yes, and if you went to a different nation with customs you don't normally adhear to, you would follow their rules if you must, regardless of if you thought they were right.  If you had to say good-bye instead of Hello, (Like Bizzaro world maybe) you could easily understand the difference and adapt.

you can't expect people to play on your terms, Logic is great, but the methods people use to convay are as varied as hell.  you have to acomidate understanding between poeople more than just talk down to them.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Sad Dragon wrote...

Completly off topic. But wouldnt 2+2=6 for extremely large values of 2?

No.  Large values of two must be smaller than 2.5.  Anything bigger than that is a small value for 3.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Tawg wrote...

Could you explain what you mean when you say 'RPGs are different from other games in the same way that all other videogames are the same as each other'?  That's a slight bit confusing.  Almost as if you just said 'Dogs are different from other household animals in the same way that all other household animals are the same'  That really doesn't explain anything you mean as far as I can tell, it just alludes to a difference between the two?

Videogames cater to the player.

RPGs cater to the character.

I agree about Roleplaying being not nessicary fun durring but usually ending with satisfaction, however RPG is not an accronim you can simply ascribe the meaning is a sum of it's parts.  As a genre of video games it offers little to no resemblence to the much more strict use of Roleplaying you are using.

But that they accommodate roleplaying is the central feature of roleplaying games.  So when determining whether a game is an RPG, shouldn't the extent to which it allows roleplaying be the very first thing we consider?

That's untrue; The laws of nature can't change (As far as we know). We will never have H3O make the mollecule we call water, but the word water itself is meaningless form of comunication we use to discribe something constant.  That's part of the reason different langues exist, and why not all langues end up having a direct translation for a word another might.  What we call hospitals is firmly established true, but what hospital might mean in the future could change, as I'm sure it has before.  What you mean to say is that the underlaying idea of what a hospital is won't change, which is true, because that's what the word discribes, the word itself is meaningless in a void with out the idea it discribes.

Does that sound correct?

Not at all.

Yes, you've correctly described how the use of specific words  changes over time, but I explicitly set that aside.  I wasn't talking about that.

That the words used to describe something change has no bearing at all on what the thing is you're describing.  What something is is distinct from what it is called.  I'm taking about what roleplaying games are, not what they are called.

To do this, we need to settle on a particular preiod's definition and use it regardless of what period we're describing.  The place where we treat sick people isn't always going to be called "hospital", but that has no bearing on whether it is the place we treat sick people.  So, if we agree to call that place "hospital" for the purposees of this discussion, then we've removed the complication from different people from different regions or eras using other words to decribe it (or using "hospital" to describe something else entirely).

Do you understand the distinction I'm drawing?  Lusitanium clearly never did.  Do you?

This distinction is important.  Without it, we're all slaves to newspeak just like Orwell said we were.

We just had a large argument about this a few pages back, and honestly, RPG is a very mish-mash turm you can't hope to convay any real meaning with.  It is very mutable, and no one even holds the same meaning themselves.

Again, you're describing how the term is used, which is completely irrelevant.

you have to acomidate understanding between poeople more than just talk down to them.

I have no control over how people interpret what I say or write.  All I can do is try to eliminate ambiguity.

But when people completely ignore points I've made explicitly, then I'm just stuck.

Modifié par Sylvius the Mad, 13 avril 2010 - 09:42 .

[illerianna]

Psuedo-intellectual fight!



Yes, I'm aware this post is not constructive in the least, but, hell. A majority of this thread is the result of nerd rage, a few too many Red Bulls, a thesaurus, and a Staff of +10000 Internets.

Keep arguing. It's pretty damn funny. The whole concept of "opinion" has been beaten and killed, so let's smite each other with our intellect! I can't wait until we start whipping out random degrees in physics, psychology, literature, or whatever else is relevant to this discussion. Or have we gotten there yet? My feeble mind cannot stomach the 40+ pages of this.

[CatatonicMan]

Off topic:

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

No.  Large values of two must be smaller than 2.5.  Anything bigger than that is a small value for 3.

Not necessarily. It depends on what method you are using to round the numbers (ceiling, floor, 5-up/down, even-up/down w/ odd-down/up, etc.)

On topic:

Holy quote war, Batman!

illerianna wrote...

I can't wait until we start whipping out random degrees in physics, psychology, literature, or whatever else is relevant to this discussion. Or have we gotten there yet?

We can be there in a few seconds. For example, I've got a BS in Mechanical Engineering.

Modifié par CatatonicMan, 13 avril 2010 - 11:05 .

[Terror_K]

Sad Dragon wrote...

Damn it and here i was going to make some mockups and ask you stuff, and you go and beat me to it and you put a hell of a lot more effort into it as well
That said now i can just ask questions which makes me happy ^^

First of - I like your mockup it looks damn good tbh. But i still have come questions

Are the modification - such as good ol' combat optics - in your version selected kind of like how they where in ME1 where you have a list of mods you could add?
If so, would a mix of the ME1 system and ME2 work for you as well.

Ex: You run around and scan things or even buy the Combat Optics modification. This modification can then be upgraded through a system like the ME2 upgrade system. When you then choose to add a mod to your weapons you would choose from the different kinds you have unlocked though their level would be determined by the ammount of upgrading you have done.

My basic concept here was to bring back the weapon modding system from ME1, at least in some form, and that while it wouldn't necessarily have the same mods (or even the ones I used there) that there would be some similar ones (i.e. I'm a big fan of bringing back the proper radar and bringing back Combat Optics. ME2's radar was a joke.)

The concept beyond that was that either there are no levels for each type of mod, or there are a smaller amount of them and you upgrade them via research upgrades on The Normandy. You only need to find or buy one type of each kind of mod by scanning them, ala ME2's system, so they don't clog your inventory. Perhaps one can even bring back looting in some form by you scanning the dead's dropped weapons for them and there's a random chance the mod will be there, while those who want to avoid scanning bodies for the mods can simply buy them from somebody instead, i.e. either hunt for them and get them free, or pay for them and avoid the need to hunt: the choice is yours, and it reintroduces a looting system some players have missed without directly forcing it on people at the same time. I also think one would have to upgrade their weapons to take mods first, and each upgrade would add an extra mod slot, so one starts with empty guns with no slots, then researches three more times to get all three.

Have to agree with Pocketgb that the numbers tell you very little. For instance without an explanation to how the penetration stat works its just a random number. All i look at is ,is it higher or lower then my previous gun - something that will in the end ultimatly ammount to a liner progression through weapons just like we have in ME2.

I personaly think this can be made easier. To make it more clear how things work. I am not bashing you at all though im just thinking that we can still improve on the system even more.
A stat like "Shots per heatsink" would also be nice in there - if we use heatsinks and all. Another thing that i personaly thing would be nice is that instead of making us just look at higher numbers all the time - thats to say
looking for upgrades  - how about if we can actualy get some side grades that is of use?


Ex. To build of your mockup. Split penetration into two stats. Shield Pen and Armor Pen. Make it clear that we have two nrely equal guns - but one has 275 arm pen but 0 sheild pen and the other is reverced. You also have a third gun which sits at 150 in both penetration stats but has slightly lower damage. None of them are really better then the other they just mean i will have to choose how i want to play the game.

Sure they "tried" to do something like it - in part - in ME2 but without having to go digging around for the math somewhere - as it is not explained ingame - their efforts fell flat.
Though personaly i think stats needs to be explained. Say that the Penetration stat number indicates the extra damage the weapon will do to the different types of defences for instance, or something to that effect.

We would still find pure and simple upgrades which would make an old weapon obsolite - or we could simple get upgrades for the weapons. This so that instead of having a weapon now rendered useless by the appearanse of the new weapon the old weapon simply get replaced with the upgraded one.

Just some thoughts ^^

/TSD

To be honest, these stats were really just supposed to be representative visually of what many of us were wanting in the thread at the time: visible stats. The actual stat attributes chosen in that case actually came from an early muck-up of the weapons inventory from one of Christina Norman's own slides for her GDC presentation, which does prove that initially they were likely going to still be present in ME2, but they later decided to cut them... probably out of fear that they'd put off the shooter fanboys or something, or that it would get in the way of their giant children's book of an interface with its massive pictures and text and no real info at all.

Putting some more thought into it and into what you said, I agree that splitting the penetration attribute into two separate ones is a good idea. I've always been of the opinion that when it comes to weapons like these that one would need to have a good selection of balanced weapons that each have their own strengths and weaknesses, but none are king of all, so the player has to decide whether they want more damage or better armour penetration, thermal clip capacity, accuracy, etc. as well. If one also had mods that allowed them to boost stats slightly, then people can design their own weapons and either decide to compensate for a gun's weakness by putting in a mod that brings up its lesser attributes, or they can decide to boost up an already high attribute to make it even better (e.g. making a super-damaging hand cannon, or one that just tears through shields) and of course the offset of this too is that by modding weapons to boost your gun's stats too much, you're missing out on the additional mods, such as Combat Optics or one of the mods that would give bonus damage to synthetics or organics, etc.

Oh, and incidentally, the little extra bar of yellow there is supposed to indicate the bonus given from the research upgrade. This would also apply to mods if they gave any bonuses to, so the orange bar represents your gun's base damage and the rest is bonus damage.

[EternalWolfe]

Terror_K wrote...

My basic concept here was to bring back the weapon modding system from ME1, at least in some form, and that while it wouldn't necessarily have the same mods (or even the ones I used there) that there would be some similar ones (i.e. I'm a big fan of bringing back the proper radar and bringing back Combat Optics. ME2's radar was a joke.)

The concept beyond that was that either there are no levels for each type of mod, or there are a smaller amount of them and you upgrade them via research upgrades on The Normandy. You only need to find or buy one type of each kind of mod by scanning them, ala ME2's system, so they don't clog your inventory. Perhaps one can even bring back looting in some form by you scanning the dead's dropped weapons for them and there's a random chance the mod will be there, while those who want to avoid scanning bodies for the mods can simply buy them from somebody instead, i.e. either hunt for them and get them free, or pay for them and avoid the need to hunt: the choice is yours, and it reintroduces a looting system some players have missed without directly forcing it on people at the same time.

I would have no problem with this system.  It makes sense within the universe - possibly more then the current setup, brings back looting w/o overloading the player with 90% useless items, and gives back a good amount of weapon customization.  Except one thing -

Terror_K wrote...

 I also think one would have to upgrade their weapons to take mods first, and each upgrade would add an extra mod slot, so one starts with empty guns with no slots, then researches three more times to get all three.

This makes little sense.  I have to upgrade my guns to modify it(which are, themselves, upgrades)?  I could understand weapon-specific upgrades, where you are modifying something that is an integral within the main system of the weapon - but I don't see what you would need to upgrade to be able to  . . . er, upgrade.  I could live with it, no problem(after all, I've played games that made far less sense), but I just don't see the sense behind it.

I would (personally) make it a modular system.  Split the modifications between multiple areas(Barrels, Heat Sinks, Ammo Block, ect, ect).  This makes sense in several senses - assuming these are just modifications to current parts or more effective replacements to existing parts, there would be no reason why you couldn't have both a Barrel upgrade and a Heat Sink upgrade - but it wouldn't make sense to be able to double upgrades(two High Caliber Barrel upgrades, for instance).

This also allows for a more effective modding process, allowing for more tweaking of various stats to make a gun yours.  It also allows for an easily controllable setup for how far guns can be altered with the mods, while still allowing a large amount of choice.

[Terror_K]

EternalWolfe wrote...

Terror_K wrote...

 I also think one would have to upgrade their weapons to take mods first, and each upgrade would add an extra mod slot, so one starts with empty guns with no slots, then researches three more times to get all three.

This makes little sense.  I have to upgrade my guns to modify it(which are, themselves, upgrades)?  I could understand weapon-specific upgrades, where you are modifying something that is an integral within the main system of the weapon - but I don't see what you would need to upgrade to be able to  . . . er, upgrade.  I could live with it, no problem(after all, I've played games that made far less sense), but I just don't see the sense behind it.

I would (personally) make it a modular system.  Split the modifications between multiple areas(Barrels, Heat Sinks, Ammo Block, ect, ect).  This makes sense in several senses - assuming these are just modifications to current parts or more effective replacements to existing parts, there would be no reason why you couldn't have both a Barrel upgrade and a Heat Sink upgrade - but it wouldn't make sense to be able to double upgrades(two High Caliber Barrel upgrades, for instance).

This also allows for a more effective modding process, allowing for more tweaking of various stats to make a gun yours.  It also allows for an easily controllable setup for how far guns can be altered with the mods, while still allowing a large amount of choice.

Actually, I agree... this idea works much better. My basic logic was that you've got a standard gun and your modifying it so that you can add extra mods on without making the gun bulky or inefficient. But I like your idea more, and it makes more sense.

[Sad Dragon]

Terror_K wrote...

Oh, and incidentally, the little extra bar of yellow there is supposed to indicate the bonus given from the research upgrade. This would also apply to mods if they gave any bonuses to, so the orange bar represents your gun's base damage and the rest is bonus damage.

This was something that was severly lacking in ME1. -Thumbs up- been playing ME2 so much of late i had forgotten about it. Good catch

EternalWolfe wrote...

I would (personally) make it a
modular system.  Split the modifications between multiple areas(Barrels,
Heat Sinks, Ammo Block, ect, ect).  This makes sense in several senses -
assuming these are just modifications to current parts or more
effective replacements to existing parts, there would be no reason why
you couldn't have both a Barrel upgrade and a Heat Sink upgrade - but it
wouldn't make sense to be able to double upgrades(two High Caliber
Barrel upgrades, for instance).

-nods-

On another note, not gonna quote the whole convo. This part however isnt mutualy exclusive with Terror_Ks "Upgrading weapons to get mod slots". Though the only reason i can think of to have that system is from a  developers POV as they can use it to limit progression so that they can be (more) sure that you dont progress too fast through the Weapon power levels.

Assuming here that the upgrading weapons to give them mod slots mean that you start of with the factory standard gun - with 0 mod slots. You then essentialy modify a part of the weapon so it can be tempered with giving you a mod slot for that part. Once you then find a modification that modifies that area of the gun you can go ahead and temper with the weapon and install the mod.

Again, this would probably only be benificisial to make a more controlled upgrade curve for the modifications. This through making sure that even though the different upgrades will give you an edge it dosnt make the game silly easy, removing any resembelence to a challenge. Of course there are numorous other ways of doing this as well.

Limiting the usefullness of the modifications - This will however make them less usefull further down the road unless they can be upgraded.

Limiting the droprate (for looting/scanning) or making them really expensive. - This might be the better way to go but would have the effect that, if you bring back the looting, it can render it useless.

Ill have to think some more about this but i thought i should just put this out there for people to think about in the mean time ^^

/TSD

Modifié par Sad Dragon, 14 avril 2010 - 08:54 .

[Tawg]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Videogames cater to the player.

RPGs cater to the character.

Ok, I suppose I can accept that.  Although I fail to see how your original statement carried that meaning, I maybe just missed something in the argument from before perhaps?

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

But that they accommodate roleplaying is the
central feature of roleplaying games.  So when determining whether a
game is an RPG, shouldn't the extent to which it allows roleplaying be
the very first thing we consider?

Perhaps that is true with Pen and Paper Roleplaying Games, since we can assume then it is the express desire of the players to actually be playing a role, however I think your assertion that determining if a game is an RPG we first need to consider the roleplaying extent.

The standard of the industry is not at all the amount of actual roleplaying a player get's to do in RPG's like in series such as Final Fantasy Series, Shin Megami Tensei, Dragon Quest;  Most of which have little to any roleplaying within, taking the form instead of a guided story book for the player to unravel while playing what ever mechanics the game impliments.  I would dare say most fans of video games (Or even computer games) would relate the genre of RPG with things that Terror does, A leveling up system providing character progession, new skills, inventory systems, and the likes.

Granted I agree with you, to me RPG should mean the game presents an amont of actual role-playing, however I understand that current gaming conventions dictate otherwise.  I think I've seen you refer to them as cRPG before? As in Computer RPG's I believe? And to an extent I could understand that most 'RPG's on the computer are far more to the standards you hold in the term 'RPG' but I still believe the term is simply not used that way as a standard.

I'd also be interested on your opinion on MMO-RPGs (Which are primarily on PC's, are there any console?);  I assume you would take the stance that 'Yes you can choose to fully play the role of your character' though only with other players, since the general NPC's lack true story line or dialog options, just 'questing' and 'grinding' to level up characters (As per what I would say RPG is actually ment to discribe).

Sylvius the Mad wrote...


Not at all.

Yes, you've correctly described how the use of
specific words  changes over time, but I explicitly set that aside.  I
wasn't talking about that.

That the words used to describe something change has no bearing at all on what the thing is you're describing.  What something is is distinct from what it is called.  I'm taking about what roleplaying games are, not what they are called.

To
do this, we need to settle on a particular preiod's definition and use
it regardless of what period we're describing.  The place where we
treat sick people isn't always going to be called "hospital", but that
has no bearing on whether it is the place we treat sick people.  So, if
we agree to call that place "hospital" for the purposees of this
discussion, then we've removed the complication from different people
from different regions or eras using other words to decribe it (or
using "hospital" to describe something else entirely).

Do you understand the distinction I'm drawing?  Lusitanium clearly never did.  Do you?

This distinction is important.  Without it, we're all slaves to newspeak just like Orwell said we were.

Very well, I understand this point fully; Well perhaps not.  The problem I see is that, there is no way to seperate a word (Or what something is Called) from what something is.  Or perhaps not that you can't seperate them (As clearly you can, or the very ability to discuss this would be moot) but that, there is no differentiating between when people call games RPGs (Such as Final Fantasy) and when you refer to what is a Roleplaying Game.  The problem is that you throw around the acronym 'RPG' with the understand of is, and everyone elses arguments revolve around 'RPG' as called;  I'm not sure if there is simply not a clear way to differentiate it, or maybe that the people you are arguing with just truely don't understand.

I may have missed a bit more than I know, because while I understand the current situation, I'm not sure I know where it stems from, where you saying ME2 is not an RPG or something?

Sylvius the Mad wrote...


Again, you're describing how the term is used, which is completely irrelevant.

If it was completely irrelevant it wouldn't be such a point of contention.  Even though you grasp what you are refering to as wholely seperate from the terms use, it is very relevant to understand how other people will recive the term when you use it.  It's the basis of mis-comunication that two people don't use a term to the same meaning, which is cearly the problem between you two currently, correct?

Which means it's [typical] use is just as relevant as your use.  Or we couldn't understand why they aren't on the same page, right?

Sylvius the Mad wrote...


I have no control over how people interpret what I say or write.  All I can do is try to eliminate ambiguity.

But when people completely ignore points I've made explicitly, then I'm just stuck.

I don't know how that works out in your head exactly but, when ever I feel I need to make an argument, or any statement for that matter, I always consider how someone might interpret what I say(/write) since it is of the utmost importance to not directly mis-comunicate when trying to convay any message. 
For instance if I (for some reason) thought the word 'Phat' was an emense compliment, and truely believed it; I could still understand that the statement 'Man, you are phat!' would most likely be taken in the most unflatering light until I dispeled the minomer between me and to whomever I said that.

I can't say that I know fully if you and the other (Who-s-his-face) have been entirely clear with each other, although I'm sure you have tried.  It's just that you can't talk down on people when they aren't getting something, it makes the situation into the current 'Stop feeding the troll' thing, when maybe he just needed a more helpful explination he understood (Or is perhaps unable, and a troll).  Eh, I dunno proper etiquite on this forum so I don't know when people have been reduced to simply idiots or mis-informed individuals.

[Tawg]

illerianna wrote...

Psuedo-intellectual fight!



Yes, I'm aware this post is not constructive in the least, but, hell. A majority of this thread is the result of nerd rage, a few too many Red Bulls, a thesaurus, and a Staff of +10000 Internets.

Keep arguing. It's pretty damn funny. The whole concept of "opinion" has been beaten and killed, so let's smite each other with our intellect! I can't wait until we start whipping out random degrees in physics, psychology, literature, or whatever else is relevant to this discussion. Or have we gotten there yet? My feeble mind cannot stomach the 40+ pages of this.

Not constuctive?
Look at that sweet Gif you found!

On a side note, I hold no degree, no interwebz staff (Unfortunately), don't drink Red Bull(/energy drinks or coffee even), and for the most part I know the words I use fully (Though I fail at spelling often, and dictionary is my buddy).
I can't speak for anyone else

[Tawg]

Anyhow, as for the whole Inventory fun I'm missing out on; I need to interject.

Terror, that was a pretty sweet picture you did there, photoshop much?

I read most of what you guys were talking about; and there was plenty but hmm, I don't know where I stand on the whole inventory system.  It's a lot of thinking to impliment a whole system!  Although I do think the ME1 system was lacking in that it was by far over burdened by useless junk to Medi-gel, so I guess that isn't the best plan to do that again.  The current system of 'finding' guns & upgrades is fine enough, although lacking in scope I think most would agree.

I was going to suggest the Diablo-esque system of 'Socketed' guns for mods?  But then item questing becomes a focus, as well it almost assuredly re-introduces the Cornucopi-nventory-a problem.  I could see either Terror's or Wolfe's suggestion, although Terror's is clearly easier (And more controlable like Sad said).

Also I'd like to point out that they sorta had a handle on the issue you have with multiple of one upgrade type (Two barrels for instance)... or actually I guess not, more like they just used more logic with the Ammo only getting one possible upgrade at once? ;D

I'd also like to add that while the 'Middle' road or two extremes method of gun choice (Like Terror and Sad were discussing, about the Shield/Armor Pen bla bla), I also think it's not entirely a bad thing for a game to have sub-par equipment if it bases any of it's story/it helps convay fluff or interest by having guns that are just lacking (Like if there was a handful of companies each gun was made by like in ME1 where it was mostly just extra sillies added for fluff but meant nothing.)  Also the small nuances of ME1's invo with the companies I think was not that successful since it almsot always just boiled down to which had the best damage to any player.

Do you guys thing the game should go back to having skills that determine your proficency with guns? Like in ME1 where if you didn't have the skill you basically just 'Point & shoot' and the other ones you got bonuses to damage and accuracy?  I never minded that system (Unless my only gun over-heated on the last boss fight for christ sake! took me so long to figure out why my team-mates stopped shooting for 'no reason' lol)  Although I think people would argue against the feigned shooter game-play perhaps (I liked it mostly)
I suppose that system would also allow for much clearer progresion of enemy skill, rather than the generic AI of a shooter that can never truely improve that much, and the scaling of damage to health, which shouldn't be the basis of difficulty (**** this guy just does too much damage!).

Sorry for spelling err'z bed time for me

Modifié par Tawg, 14 avril 2010 - 11:34 .

[Sad Dragon]

Tawg wrote...

Do you guys thing the game should go back to having skills that determine your proficency with guns? Like in ME1 where if you didn't have the skill you basically just 'Point & shoot' and the other ones you got bonuses to damage and accuracy?  I never minded that system (Unless my only gun over-heated on the last boss fight for christ sake! took me so long to figure out why my team-mates stopped shooting for 'no reason' lol)  Although I think people would argue against the feigned shooter game-play perhaps (I liked it mostly)
I suppose that system would also allow for much clearer progresion of enemy skill, rather than the generic AI of a shooter that can never truely improve that much, and the scaling of damage to health, which shouldn't be the basis of difficulty (**** this guy just does too much damage!).

Sorry for spelling err'z bed time for me

First things first. Gnight mate and see you around when you next log - unless im sleeping then O.o;

Now then to the question at hand. From a pure RPG standpoint it would make sence to bring back the weapon skills. Though from a more action TPS perspective it isnt that good of an option. An alternative could be to bring back weaponskills in a very different way. Instead on focusing on the attribute bonuses the skill gave you - like better aim and higher damage - you could just focus on the ability side of the weapon skills. As an example we can take Carnage for the shotgun or Overkill for Assault Rifles. This would mean that you could bring back weapon skills - giving more depth to the RPG in a way as each character would have more skills - but not detracting from the shooter asspects.

The enemy progression could just as well be based on an all together different mechanic. It could involve you
current level in one way or another. Ex: Accuracy = 0.4 + (playerlevel / (playermaxlevel * 2) ).
Not an optimal solution to calculating accuracy mind you just a very basic example.
You could also forgo accuracy and just have a fixed accuracy depending on enemy type and simply spawn different enemies depending on player level. Though i suppose that depends on how you would do it. If both the players and squadmates as well as enemies inherates a Actor class which already have all the stat mechanics in it, then it would make more sense to use the stat system that is already there.

/TSD

Modifié par Sad Dragon, 14 avril 2010 - 02:11 .

[Sylvius the Mad]

Tawg wrote...

Perhaps that is true with Pen and Paper Roleplaying Games, since we can assume then it is the express desire of the players to actually be playing a role, however I think your assertion that determining if a game is an RPG we first need to consider the roleplaying extent.

Does the desire of the players matter?  If basketball players universally desire to kick the ball into a larger basket lying on the ground, that doesn't change what basketball is to suit them  That just means they've stopped playing basketball and are now playing soccer.

The standard of the industry is not at all the amount of actual roleplaying a player get's to do in RPG's like in series such as Final Fantasy Series, Shin Megami Tensei, Dragon Quest;  Most of which have little to any roleplaying within, taking the form instead of a guided story book for the player to unravel while playing what ever mechanics the game impliments.

And for this reason, I've long held that JRPGs are not RPGs, and never really have been.  They were misnamed from the start as a result of mimicking the structure of RPGs, but since they're lacking the core component they fail to be actual RPGs, regardless of their name.

I would dare say most fans of video games (Or even computer games) would relate the genre of RPG with things that Terror does, A leveling up system providing character progession, new skills, inventory systems, and the likes.

And again, is the broader perception of the audience relevant?

Granted I agree with you, to me RPG should mean the game presents an amont of actual role-playing, however I understand that current gaming conventions dictate otherwise.

I recognise both those things as well.  As such, the current gaming conventions require correction.

I think I've seen you refer to them as cRPG before? As in Computer RPG's I believe? And to an extent I could understand that most 'RPG's on the computer are far more to the standards you hold in the term 'RPG' but I still believe the term is simply not used that way as a standard.

And again, I agree with you.  But I consider that a misuse of the term and a misapplication of the standard.

I'd also be interested on your opinion on MMO-RPGs (Which are primarily on PC's, are there any console?);  I assume you would take the stance that 'Yes you can choose to fully play the role of your character' though only with other players, since the general NPC's lack true story line or dialog options, just 'questing' and 'grinding' to level up characters (As per what I would say RPG is actually ment to discribe).

You assume incorrectly.

Most MMORPGs do accommodate quite a lot of PvE roleplaying.  The game doesn't help with that much, but as long as you get tto decide what your character says and does then there's room in the game for roleplaying.

I think you're conflating how the game can be played with how the game is played, and those are two very different things.  Yes, the way most people play MMORPGs involves effectively no PvE roleplaying; they engange in PvE content simply to grind and level up.  But that doesn't make that playstyle mandatory.

I do worry about the roleplaying opportunities in SWTOR, however, as BioWare appears to be reusing the one feature from ME that was the greatest barrier to roleplaying: the paraphrased dialogue wheel with voiced PC speech.

Very well, I understand this point fully; Well perhaps not.  The problem I see is that, there is no way to seperate a word (Or what something is Called) from what something is.  Or perhaps not that you can't seperate them (As clearly you can, or the very ability to discuss this would be moot) but that, there is no differentiating between when people call games RPGs (Such as Final Fantasy) and when you refer to what is a Roleplaying Game.  The problem is that you throw around the acronym 'RPG' with the understand of is, and everyone elses arguments revolve around 'RPG' as called;  I'm not sure if there is simply not a clear way to differentiate it, or maybe that the people you are arguing with just truely don't understand.

Conversations like this should help.

I assume you know what a siege is.  If I showed you a siege, you would recognise it based on its characteristics.

If I then took you back in time and showed you something just the same, with the same characteristics, could you identify it there?  Since you identified it as a siege before based on those characteristics, I suspect you could identify it in the past based on those same characteristics, and you'll call it a siege.

Though, the people there would think you were crazy, as a siege - to them - is a seat or a throne.

This happens because what something is - in this case, a specific martial tactic - is distinct from what it is called.

That people do tend to fall back on the use of words with which they are most familiar is why I start these discussions with a clear definition so I can use the term in a meaningful way and be understood.  A roleplaying game, as I shall use the term, is a game that accommodates and revolves around roleplaying.

But then two pages later someone comes along and tells me that's not what an RPG is, and thus demonstrates that he has completely missed the point.

I may have missed a bit more than I know, because while I understand the current situation, I'm not sure I know where it stems from, where you saying ME2 is not an RPG or something?

I do hold that ME2 is not an RPG, but I also hold that ME wasn't an RPG, either.  If there's a difference, it would be that ME2 appears not to be an RPG by design, as it eliminated many features from ME that gave the game an internally consistent setting in which to roleplay (like the stat-driven aiming), whereas ME failed the be an RPG simply through the implementation of a single feature (the PC voice-over) and the other mechanical changes that feature required.  I see it as entirely plausible that BioWare simply didn't realise the consequences of that were as anti-RP as they turned out.

If it was completely irrelevant it wouldn't be such a point of contention.  Even though you grasp what you are refering to as wholely seperate from the terms use, it is very relevant to understand how other people will recive the term when you use it.  It's the basis of mis-comunication that two people don't use a term to the same meaning, which is cearly the problem between you two currently, correct?

Yes, but I've given him all the information necessary to bridge that gap.  There's nothing more I can do.

I don't know how that works out in your head exactly but, when ever I feel I need to make an argument, or any statement for that matter, I always consider how someone might interpret what I say(/write) since it is of the utmost importance to not directly mis-comunicate when trying to convay any message. 
For instance if I (for some reason) thought the word 'Phat' was an emense compliment, and truely believed it; I could still understand that the statement 'Man, you are phat!' would most likely be taken in the most unflatering light until I dispeled the minomer between me and to whomever I said that.

I can't say that I know fully if you and the other (Who-s-his-face) have been entirely clear with each other, although I'm sure you have tried.  It's just that you can't talk down on people when they aren't getting something, it makes the situation into the current 'Stop feeding the troll' thing, when maybe he just needed a more helpful explination he understood (Or is perhaps unable, and a troll).  Eh, I dunno proper etiquite on this forum so I don't know when people have been reduced to simply idiots or mis-informed individuals.

My position would be more clear to you if we had similar starting points.

If you stop using the word "communication" as it it describes something that exists or occurs, this will be easier.  Comunication isn't a thing.  When two people have a conversation, they're acting independently of one another.  There is no reason to posit some gestalt creation and call it "communication".  One person speaks - the other interprets.  That's all that's happening.  Neither one has any control over their combined communication, because communication doesn't exist.

[Tawg]

@Sylvius

Alright, I suppose I can understand that intent can't be a determining factor in what something is. Check.

And I already knew you don't think that JRPGs/RPGs (as they are typically marketed) are not Roleplaying Games;  But you can't simply ignore that the term RPG is used to refer to said games.  Sure you may consider it a disregard for the meaning of the accromyn, or word, or what ever offece you take, but you can't go to a gaming store and tell them to stop calling them RPGs nor would you be able to get them to stop marketing them as RPGs.  Is that correct?  We have an understanding that despite the words meaning, it holds another meaning.

And yes, the perception is entirely relevant!  Perceptions are all we have to facilitate the communications between each other as humans.  The fact is that roleplaying games are a constuct of our (Humans) own, there is no natural form of role playing, animals are too base for such things.  Language is a constuct of humans, and as such there is no way to devorce it from human perception entirely when speaking of things that can not be carried beyond language barriers.

The problem then is that people from different origins will develop different understandings of what a given word means. (As in your example of the siege, where people of the past would not have the understanding I, from the current time, do). 
True this mis-understanding doesn't change the object of discussion, the Siege for me(attack on a castle for them) will still be a set a characteristics to be idetified by what ever word is chosen.  The issue then is that, if I were to lack a different word to discribe this 'Object of discussion' with the people of the past we would be at an impass.  I could use the method of discribing the features, to get us on the same page, and that is fine;  However it is much more likely I would try to find the right word to use to discribe the object, one that they could interpret as I intend them to given their perception of language.

You see, I know you know that language evolves (As per your siege example) so you have to understand what language is at it's base.  It is simply model of standard for everyone to use to facilitate understanding in communication.  And the issue is that there is no one language (As much as it should be American, F'yeah!) (That was a joke by the way), and even within a language there can be any number of divergent dialects that use different words, have their own, and so on.

I don't even know what I'm driving towards; As you presented it, if you completely define what you are refering to (as I'm sure you did) there can be no decent beyond ignorance and [trolling].  So I am already on that page with you, so we're clear.

You do have to be understanding of people who only end up seeing part of the conversation later and not understanding your meaning.  Well you don't have to be understanding but, you at least can understand that you aren't using the word the same and clarify (as I would have to in the Siege situation).

If in the future 'Roleplaying' as per your definition, were to have an entirely different word put to it, say 'Tarbufgal' then you could just as easily understand their underlying meaning once they found a way to comunicate it to you.  But the future people would do well to keep in mind your perception of language and, if they knew you know the idea by the word 'Roleplaying', could greatly ease the communication between with it;  At which point you could discuss the object with either term, as an understanding would have been formed.

Anyways, that all is rather pointless, I'm not even sure we're on different sides of the fence, I think we both already understand..  I think I'm just trying to get you to concede the point that it is helpful to consider the oposing sides view point more than just clearly defining the term, so you can better facilitate their understanding.  As well perceptions matter greatly in communication, but I'm sure you think once you've run a certain circuit of logic that the issue is lost on them.

Also, just so we're clear

com·mu·ni·ca·tion
n.  

• The act of communicating; transmission.
• • The exchange of thoughts, messages, or information, as by speech, signals, writing, or behavior.
  • Interpersonal rapport.
  • The art and technique of using words effectively to impart information or ideas.
  • The field of study concerned with the transmission of information by various means, such as print or broadcasting.
  • Any of various professions involved with the transmission of information, such as advertising, broadcasting, or journalism.
  • A system, such as mail, telephone, or television, for sending and receiving messages.
  • A network of routes for sending messages and transporting troops and supplies.
  • An opening or connecting passage between two structures.
  • A joining or connecting of solid fibrous structures, such as tendons and nerves.
• communications (used with a sing. or pl. verb)
  • The art and technique of using words effectively to impart information or ideas.
  • The field of study concerned with the transmission of information by various means, such as print or broadcasting.
  • Any of various professions involved with the transmission of information, such as advertising, broadcasting, or journalism.
  • A system, such as mail, telephone, or television, for sending and receiving messages.
  • A network of routes for sending messages and transporting troops and supplies.
  • An opening or connecting passage between two structures.
  • A joining or connecting of solid fibrous structures, such as tendons and nerves.
• Something communicated; a message.
• communications A means of communicating, especially:
  • A system, such as mail, telephone, or television, for sending and receiving messages.
  • A network of routes for sending messages and transporting troops and supplies.
  • An opening or connecting passage between two structures.
  • A joining or connecting of solid fibrous structures, such as tendons and nerves.
• communications The technology employed in transmitting messages.
• Biology
  The transfer of information from one molecule, cell, or organism to
  another, as by chemical or electrical signals or by behaviors.
• Anatomy
  • An opening or connecting passage between two structures.
  • A joining or connecting of solid fibrous structures, such as tendons and nerves.

com·mu'ni·ca'tion·al adj.




The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition
Copyright © 2009 by Houghton Mifflin Company.
Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.


Cite This Source

Communication is a noun, thus a person, place, or.. thing.  And I believe definition 2.a. discribes our current volly of 'One person speaks - the other interprets.' 
Although I would be greatly interested in seeing your view if that indeed is all that's
happening.
Becuase we control our communications with our use of language, and the communication between us does exist, as far as I am aware; Although I will not hold that lie against you.

Modifié par Tawg, 14 avril 2010 - 10:41 .

[Kusy]

yeah, I know I already posted this here...

but reposting it brings joy to my heart.