Log in or Sign up

Tacticular Cancer: We'll have your balls

Having trouble staying logged in? Note: We are rpgcodex.NET not .COM. Trying to login via .com will cause issues. Make sure you are on rpgcodex.net to login and all will be fine.

And if the Password Recovery doesn't work (there was an error transitioning accounts during the upgrade), use the "contact us" link right down the bottom right of the forums and harass us about it. Include your account name and its e-mail address (or whatever parts of it you remember).

"This message is awaiting moderator approval": All new users must pass through our moderation queue before they will be able to post normally. Until your account has "passed" your posts will only be visible to yourself (and moderators) until they are approved. Give us a week to get around to approving / deleting / ignoring your mundane opinion on crap before hassling us about it. Once you have passed the moderation period (think of it as a test), you will be able to post normally, just like all the other retards.

Second-Best Thread ever (Part 3) [occasionally NSFW]

Discussion in 'General Gaming' started by Jaesun, Mar 15, 2011.

Page 238 of 604

Clockwork Knight Arcane

Joined:

May 6, 2009

Posts:

8,837

Location:

Fighting rats inside my anus

Mar 5, 2012 Stats Ignoring

#5926

Click here and disable ads!

treave said: ↑

Stinger said: ↑

Isn't "roleplaying" what the player is supposed to do, not the developer? A game can give you a million choices, but they're still choices the developer chose for you. Roleplaying is something that happens in ones imagination.

I'm not saying the developers are doing it wrong, I'm saying that roleplaying is what you imagine about your character's emotion and motivations, not what choices are in the game.

This is where I imagine that the real motivation behind Fallout's plot was a love triangle between the Vault Dweller, Harold, and the Master, right?

If it made your experience richer and more intense, then why are you complaining? Gosh, you entitled kids are a bore.

nomask7 said:

If you've ever worked in a kindergarten, you've probably noticed how one child sometimes begins to chant something, such as "all bears are toys, all bears are toys", then other children will join in with him, so that after a while every child in the room is chanting, "all bears are toys, all bears are toys." You might put in, "No they are not. That one in the picture, for example." They would continue, "all bears are toys, all bears are toys."

That really happens, and quite often too. It's also exactly how adults in academia think and behave most of the time.
TheEntitledOne Arbiter

Joined:

Jan 12, 2012

Posts:

1,135

Mar 5, 2012 Stats Ignoring

#5927

Clockwork Knight said: ↑

treave said: ↑

Stinger said: ↑

Isn't "roleplaying" what the player is supposed to do, not the developer? A game can give you a million choices, but they're still choices the developer chose for you. Roleplaying is something that happens in ones imagination.

I'm not saying the developers are doing it wrong, I'm saying that roleplaying is what you imagine about your character's emotion and motivations, not what choices are in the game.

This is where I imagine that the real motivation behind Fallout's plot was a love triangle between the Vault Dweller, Harold, and the Master, right?

If it made your experience richer and more intense, then why are you complaining? Gosh, you entitled kids are a bore.

please don't use the E word in the 'dex

The only good jRPG is the H-RPG, so check my LPs:
(All of them NSFW)
LP: WORDS WORTH -- Rance 1 -- Rance 02 -- Rance 3
Humanity has risen! Magister

Joined:

Mar 29, 2010

Posts:

6,262

Location:

Ottawa, Can.

Mar 5, 2012 Stats Ignoring

#5928

Ed123 said: ↑

http://www.gamasutra.com/view/news/...ss_Effect_challenged_my_definition_of_RPG.php

Mass Effect 1 was an RPG. ME2 was clearly not, and ME3 looks to follow in it's "Gears of Mass Effect" footsteps, for good or ill.

The "saviour of western RPGs" is no longer making RPGs. But someone else is, so all is well. ("The king is dead! Long live the king (Bethesda)!""

I like Mr Molynux's definition of RPG best: Over the course of the game the player gains new abilities and becomes ever stronger.

Some retard called "Eric Schwartz" commented as well

Rowan, with all due respect, this article demonstrates you have no grasp of what makes an RPG an RPG. The fact that you even call Rogue a "hack-and-slash" shows me you a) probably have never played Rogue or a roguelike in your life and b) probably have not played the majority of examples you cite in this article.

Role-playing games are not about "playing a role" and your questioning your definition shows you simply do not have a solid understanding of the genre in the first place. The fact that you agree to this and yet it forms the crux of your entire argument is laughable at best, as well.

Still, I think the thing that's most suspect up-front is your definition of what makes an RPG. Let's take a look:

"A role-playing game involves a character or small group of characters presented with obstacles. Overcoming those obstacles improves the character(s) ability to overcome future obstacles, and published random numbers are used to determine success or failure of various actions."

Wow, I guess just about every game made these days is an RPG! Looks like all those players complaining about a glut of real RPGs in the mainstream games industry must just be full of hot air, right? I mean, have they played Serious Sam? That's one of the best RPGs ever - it's got an obstacle every second!

How about we start with a more reasonable definition of what makes an RPG? Now, as a hybrid genre, it's impossible to come up with something that works for every game, but if I take yours and make a few reasonable changes:

A role-playing game involves a character or small group of characters who operate within a ruleset that is, in most instances, universally applicable to both player and non-player characters within the game world. Over the course of the game, the player manipulates functions of characters in order to obtain statistically probable outcomes as defined explicitly within the game mechanics, and the player's characters increase their probability for success through increasing base statistics and attributes (i.e. strength, dexterity), available skills and feats (Flurry, Power Attack), and/or by collecting supplementary modifiers (i.e. equipment). RPGs often, but do not always, place emphasis on social interaction, environmental interaction, and narrative, with the rules defined above influencing outcomes.

Now, I admit this is a bit rocky and still open to interpretation, but I think it is far more accurate and less vague than your "you play a role!" definition which falls apart under any scrutiny.

What can we take away from this regarding Mass Effect?

Well, the first Mass Effect was clearly an RPG:

1) It featured advancement of character abilities and attributes as a central mechanic (paragon/renegade system, inventory items, weapon mods, skills, etc.)
2) Its combat relied more heavily on character statistics (health, damage, skills available) in determining outcomes
3) It had a heavy emphasis on narrative and presented the player with (simple) puzzles and much of its gameplay (close to 50%) involved social interaction.
4) Non-combat options were not extremely abundant, but did exist - a few parts of the game featured alternate routes that had a greater emphasis on character interaction, many side-quests featured no combat at all, and while there were mini-games that influenced certain outcomes, there were character skill requirements attached to them.

Was it the "most pure" RPG ever? Hell no, but at least it had some reasonable foundations that were rooted in RPG tradition. Now let's take a look at Mass Effect 2:

1) It did not feature advancement as a central mechanic - the only thing the player unlocks are a limited tier of abilities and modest upgrades to existing functionality. You can get through the game at level 1 just fine, without performing any upgrades at all, which suggests character advancement is simply unnecessary to the design rather than integral.
2) Its combat relied almost exclusively on player skill, with character skills adding flavour and extra tactical options - in traditional shooters much of this functionality could simply be included within different guns, suggesting that statistics are not important.
3) Social interaction was dramatically pared back in Mass Effect 2 - while there is dialogue and the paragon/renegade system remains, the requirements for those options have been toned down statistically-speaking, and upwards of 70% of the game consists of standard Gears-style cover shooting. The "combat sections" and "dialogue sections" are very clearly defined and most of the game's social interaction can be skipped over with no ill effects.
4) Non-combat mechanics have been relegated to mini-games. There are no skills or attributes related to them at all, except for paragon/renegade, which, as I mentioned, has been toned down in terms of significance on gameplay and dialogue options available.

Does this say, to me, that Mass Effect 2 is less of an RPG? Probably, but it certainly does not make me question my definition of what an RPG is - if anything it further affirms it.
5
Login to Reply or Like 5

Eric Schwarz 2 Mar 2012 at 9:30 am PST
Supplementary:

You can define RPGs all you like as being about narrative, or about playing a role, or what have you, but ultimately genres are defined by their mechanics, and games are primarily defined by which genres they draw the most from. I do not see why RPGs are any different:

Shooters are shooters because you shoot things.
Puzzle games are puzzle games because you solve puzzles.
Sports games are sports games because you play sports.
Platform games are platform games because you jump on platforms.

Now, it's certainly true that many games incorporate different elements of different genres. Most games feature puzzles, or elements of RPGs, or shooters, or platformers, or what have you. But then, that's why we tend to go with the primary mechanic. Is Mario Kart a shooter because you can shoot shells at other karts? No, of course not, just as I think it's clear Call of Duty is not an RPG despite having RPG-style progression mechanics in multiplayer. You touch on this in your article but leave the question open when really, there is no question.

RPGs are made a bit more difficult to define because the "role-playing" definition that comes from the tabletop community doesn't really translate over to the computer realm. What's more, RPGs are a hybrid genre that, more than any other, incorporate elements of strategy games, adventure games, interactive fiction, and so on. We tend to *know* an RPG when we play it, but due to our fuzzy understanding of where those lines begin and end we tend to go back to the "role playing", which in reality is not applicable when it comes to videogame RPGs.

However, while our definition is a little hazy, I think it's very easy to reconcile this problem. What about RPGs most defines them? Interactions and manipulations of explicit statistics by the player, and advancement of a single character or party in accordance with a ruleset which is, in most cases, applicable to most other characters in the game. While the title we use is a misnomer, our understanding of the genre isn't. We see this outside of games all the time. Jazz music, for instance - exactly what does "jazz" refer to in music theory? Yet we have no idea understanding jazz when we experience it.

Frankly, this whole discussion on genre is a non-issue - and if you're interpreting role-playing games as being able role-playing because of the title of the genre, then you're Doing It Wrong. Does that mean we need a better title for the genre? Probably, but good luck with that.

Another insulting comment that didn't even seem to read the article. If you do a better job of reading my piece and engage with it like a human being instead of a warrior, perhaps I'll read this wall of text.

He does defend himself afterwards, albeit not in a satisfactory manner.

I thought that Gamasutra was the only good mainstream site left, it looks like it is starting to decline as well.

2 Timothy 4:3 said:

For there shall be a time, when they will not endure sound doctrine; but, according to their own desires, they will heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears

Noted gay activist Masha Gessen said:

I also think equally that it’s a no-brainer that the institution of marriage should not exist. …(F)ighting for gay marriage generally involves lying about what we are going to do with marriage when we get there — because we lie that the institution of marriage is not going to change, and that is a lie.
hoopy Learned

Joined:

Oct 12, 2011

Posts:

1,547

Location:

Suspended in a ghost jail

Mar 5, 2012 Stats Ignoring

#5929

You can define RPGs all you like as being about narrative, or about playing a role, or what have you, but ultimately genres are defined by their mechanics, and games are primarily defined by which genres they draw the most from. I do not see why RPGs are any different:

Shooters are shooters because you shoot things.
Puzzle games are puzzle games because you solve puzzles.
Sports games are sports games because you play sports.
Platform games are platform games because you jump on platforms.

Role-playing games are role-playing games because you role-play, and role-playing is defined as follows:

Role-playing games are games in which players assume the roles of fictional characters and collaboratively create stories. Players determine the actions of their characters based on their characterization, and the actions succeed or fail according to a system of rules and guidelines. Within the rules, players can improvise freely; their choices shape the direction and outcome of the games.

Frankly, this whole discussion on genre is a non-issue - and if you're interpreting role-playing games as being able role-playing because of the title of the genre, then you're Doing It Wrong.

If games call themselves role-playing games but contain little or no role-playing, it is the games that are at fault.

Admiral jimbob said:

I kind of want to make a comic called Hoopy House of Horror about hoopy being the only sane man in a world gone mad with gangs of roving government-issued feminist negroes out for his blood. I'm not sure it can do justice to the unending shriek of terror that is his psyche, though.
Ed123 Liturgist

Joined:

Apr 24, 2010

Posts:

7,368

Location:

banal

Mar 5, 2012 Stats Ignoring

#5930

TheEntitledOne said: ↑

Clockwork Knight said: ↑

treave said: ↑

Stinger said: ↑

Isn't "roleplaying" what the player is supposed to do, not the developer? A game can give you a million choices, but they're still choices the developer chose for you. Roleplaying is something that happens in ones imagination.

I'm not saying the developers are doing it wrong, I'm saying that roleplaying is what you imagine about your character's emotion and motivations, not what choices are in the game.

This is where I imagine that the real motivation behind Fallout's plot was a love triangle between the Vault Dweller, Harold, and the Master, right?

If it made your experience richer and more intense, then why are you complaining? Gosh, you entitled kids are a bore.

please don't use the E word in the 'dex

1 Codexer

1,344,130,000 Reds

NO WAY OUT
Ed123 Liturgist

Joined:

Apr 24, 2010

Posts:

7,368

Location:

banal

Mar 5, 2012 Stats Ignoring

#5931

Ed123 said: ↑

http://www.playthepast.org/?p=2509

if (!isNative()){return false;}: De-People-ing Native Peoples in Sid Meier's Colonization

In a previous post I asked if the game Colonization was offensive enough. That post explored my own experience playing the game as a way to think through what the game means and what it says. As a result of that post, Rebecca Mir, an M.A. candidate at Bard Graduate Center, worked up a rather extensive paper exploring some of those issues in further depth. In preparation for a book chapter on the game that Rebecca and I are working on we thought we would take the opportunity to blog through and invite a broader discussion of some of the ideas that we hope to engage with in that chapter. This will likely be the first in a series of posts which we co-write. In this post we explore what happens when you make Native peoples playable in the game.

tl;dr code is racist

http://www.rockpapershotgun.com/2012/03/04/the-sunday-papers-208/#comment-page-3

Scroll down a bit.

Even our old enemies at RPS were shocked by the imbecility of the article in question. Predictably, Kieron Gillen rode in to decree that the hoi polloi Just Don't Get It™.

1 Codexer

1,344,130,000 Reds

NO WAY OUT
Clockwork Knight Arcane

Joined:

May 6, 2009

Posts:

8,837

Location:

Fighting rats inside my anus

Mar 5, 2012 Stats Ignoring

#5932

In a previous post I asked if the game Colonization was offensive enough.

As Morris put it, “A game about colonization that’s entirely about controlling the settlers can either force the player to do horrific things or let him avoid doing it and whitewash some of the worst events of human history. Either option is offensive.”

EVERYTHING IS OFFENSIVE

YEAH I AM YELLING WHAT OF IT? STOP STARING AT ME

WHAT THE FUCK LOOK AT ME WHEN I'M SPEAKING TO YOU

nomask7 said:

If you've ever worked in a kindergarten, you've probably noticed how one child sometimes begins to chant something, such as "all bears are toys, all bears are toys", then other children will join in with him, so that after a while every child in the room is chanting, "all bears are toys, all bears are toys." You might put in, "No they are not. That one in the picture, for example." They would continue, "all bears are toys, all bears are toys."

That really happens, and quite often too. It's also exactly how adults in academia think and behave most of the time.
Phelot RPG Codex Staff

Joined:

Mar 28, 2009

Posts:

17,922

Mar 5, 2012 Stats Ignoring

#5933

Clockwork Knight said: ↑

In a previous post I asked if the game Colonization was offensive enough.

As Morris put it, “A game about colonization that’s entirely about controlling the settlers can either force the player to do horrific things or let him avoid doing it and whitewash some of the worst events of human history. Either option is offensive.”

EVERYTHING IS OFFENSIVE

YEAH I AM YELLING WHAT OF IT? STOP STARING AT ME

WHAT THE FUCK LOOK AT ME WHEN I'M SPEAKING TO YOU

Wow. I guess the solution is the bar Colonialism as a setting in any video game, but then that would mean we are trying to bury the truth I DONT KNOW WHAT TO DO

"I agree that two times two makes four is an excellent thing; but if we are dispensing praise, then two times two makes five is sometimes a most charming little thing as well."
Clockwork Knight Arcane

Joined:

May 6, 2009

Posts:

8,837

Location:

Fighting rats inside my anus

Mar 5, 2012 Stats Ignoring

#5934

You have to take every chance to apologize for what your people did centuries before you were born. It's the only way. Did you already shed a tear for the holocaust today?

edit: oh god there's more

Among the most problematic elements of the game’s structure is the fact that native peoples and Europeans are not even algorithmically the same kind of people. Native peoples are unable to establish new cities, they simply wait for Europeans to take advantage of them in trade or obliterate and loot their civilizations.

Personally, I avoid RPGs because goblinoids don't get XP from killing my party. Ugh, so demeaning.

nomask7 said:

If you've ever worked in a kindergarten, you've probably noticed how one child sometimes begins to chant something, such as "all bears are toys, all bears are toys", then other children will join in with him, so that after a while every child in the room is chanting, "all bears are toys, all bears are toys." You might put in, "No they are not. That one in the picture, for example." They would continue, "all bears are toys, all bears are toys."

That really happens, and quite often too. It's also exactly how adults in academia think and behave most of the time.
visions Arbiter

Joined:

Jun 10, 2007

Posts:

1,335

Location:

here

Mar 5, 2012 Stats Ignoring

#5935

Phelot said: ↑

Wow. I guess the solution is the bar Colonialism as a setting in any video game, but then that would mean we are trying to bury the truth I DONT KNOW WHAT TO DO

Tbh I didn't read anything like that in the article. Just wanking about "analyzing our depictions of natives" (doing so based on such game mechanics is quite dumb of course, and equivalent to what CK pointed out with rpgs and goblinoids), the usual overdone shit that is quite common in humanities. Issues (or "issues") like this are what these people write about, and are of course quite pointless (especially in this example), but nowhere is it implied in the article that such depictions should be banned.

It's just mental onanism.
Stinger Liturgist

Joined:

Aug 13, 2011

Posts:

1,262

Mar 5, 2012 Stats Ignoring

#5936

Hah. So the thread I posted earlier lead to a goldmine after all:

http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/posts.php?discussion=13309358180A90920100&page=1

The good folks at TV tropes try to define what an RPG is. Can they come to a better conclusion than the codex? Do they come up with a definition that gets to the heart of what exactly is so appealing about RPGs? Let's find out:

Not the mechanics, that's for sure. If it were the mechanics then some of the online FPS's would be RPG's because they have a leveling system.

Off to a great start already!

Which is why I refuse to discuss RP Gs with people who think "RP Gs are games where you play a role." because circular arguments never cease.

THANK YOU

I would say that an RPG is a game that allows you to define your character. Their personality, their motivations. The standard approach in video games is to give you a character, and your only role is in getting him from one scripted cut scene to the next, with no real say in how the story progress.

A lot of the classic RP Gs aren't actually role-playing games. I love games like Chrono Trigger or EarthBound, but they're not actually role-playing games. They seemed to be shoe-horned into the RPG genre because they involved dealing with stats and equipment, something common to tabletop RP Gs. But they gave you no more say in the character or story than any other game.

But because the early RP Gs were based on stat and equipment management, that became the definition to a lot of people. A lot of people feel that RP Gs are defined by mechanics, which infuriates me, because that is the least important part! The most important part about an RPG is that it's a role-playing game.

I'll make a comparison. Mass Effect is an RPG. Uncharted is not. In Mass Effect, you take on the role of Commander Shepard. You define the character. You decide what motivates him: a love of adventure, a desire to protect the innocent, a desire to keep humanity strong, xenophobia, whatever. In Uncharted, you control Nathan Drake, whose personality and motivations are already laid out. In Mass Effect, your decisions influence the story, albeit in usually minor ways. In Uncharted, the story is already written. Uncharted is basically a movie. Your only purpose is to shoot the people you're told to shoot. Mass Effect is a role-playing game, where you actually get to take part in the story itself. You get to shape the cut scenes. Uncharted could add experience points and resource management, but that wouldn't magically transform it into an RPG, because you're still not actually defining the character or shaping the story.

Mechanics don't make an RP Gs. It's actually possible to have an RPG with no stats. They exist, though they're not common. One thing and one thing only defines an RPG: Are you role-playing a character? If you're only controlling a pre-made character, then no. If you're deciding how your character reacts to events, then yes.

GUYS OLD RPGS AREN'T ACTUALLY RPGS CAUSE I CAN'T LARP! MIND=BLOWN

I love the fact that he says having a predefined character means the game isn't an RPG...and then he says Mass Effect is an RPG.

What follows is a bunch of posts arguing over whether Mass Effect actually is an RPG or not before this definition pops up.

Here's how I define an RPG:
A role playing game involves a player creating a character or party of characters.

a) The player can create a diverse variety of highly specialised character builds and over the course of the game improves this build through a variety of stats through either attributes (e.g. Dexterity, strength, mana etc) Skills/Feats/Spells and/or through additional modifiers such as inventory and equipment. These are what I'd call RPG elements.

b) The difference between an RPG and a game with RPG elements is that in an RPG these RPG elements are an essential component of the game. The way I test this is to see how far I can play through a game without using the character system or inventory whatsoever. If I can play the game without using the RPG elements, then it's not an RPG, simple as that.

c) (optional) Often but not always the player is able to use this build in other substantial ways such as interacting with the gameworld through either solving quests in multiple ways based on the build (e.g. stealth characters sneak around instead of shooting shit up) or affecting the gameworld and storyline through the player's choices in dialogue or through interaction with the environment (e.g. killing a certain NPC causes a divergent storyline/questline).

This criteria, imo, includes both JRP Gs and WRP Gs as both genres place a heavy emphasis on building a character(s) in a well defined ruleset that applies not only to the player but to the surrounding NP Cs. While I personally prefer games that include c) in a meaningful way, I'd have to admit that saying that c) is a necessary component of RPGs would rule out far too many games.

So using this criteria, the TES games are all RP Gs- yes even Skyrim and Oblivion. I don't personally like those games and I think Skyrim is a bit too simplified but the RPG elements are certainly there and they're meaningful.

On the other hand, looking at the Mass Effects. ME 1 has fairly detailed character progression, since there were so many stats it allowed for a diverse and specialised build, it'd be impossible to play the game without using the character system since you can't hit anything without pumping some points. IMO, while the gunplay was weak it'd definitely be called an RPG. ME 2 on the other hand, featured a highly simplified character system and inventory. You could, maybe argue the case that the game allowed for diverse builds thanks to a class system but those RPG elements were in no way meaningful. On my first playthrough of ME 2 I played an Adept. I didn't put a single point into anything and just shot people with an SMG even though as an Adept I should've been focusing on biotics. The combat mechanics relied purely on player skill and as such, despite having a terrible build, I had no problem with the game on veteran difficulty. In my opinion, ME 2 therefore isn't an RPG. It's a shooter with some shallow RPG elements.

Well hey...that's not so bad. It's a pretty inclusive definition that's still well defined and doesn't use any of that nebulous 'roleplaying'. Do the others at TVT agree with them? Well, it gets lost in more arguments over Mass Effect (The Greatest RPG Ever) before the genius who posted the earlier post responds with:

I could not disagree with you more. To me, the idea that an RPG is defined by mechanics instead of actual role-playing is frustrating. Mass Effect 2 is absolutely an RPG. Without question. Because you're actually role-playing Commander Shepard. You're deciding how Shepard reacts to events around him. Your dialogue choices mean something.

I hate the idea that what defines an RPG is math. An RPG is about far more than deciding whether you want to increase Constitution or Agility. A role-playing game is about the role-playing, pure and simple.

Well...shit, that's that guys. The authority has spoken. Roleplaying games are about roleplaying...no matter how meaningless that word is- if you can stretch out a LARPing backstory it's an RPG.

.
.
.
.

THIS IS WHY I JOINED THE CODEX

Crooked Bee and Marsal Brofist this.
Infinitron RPG Codex Staff

Joined:

Jan 28, 2011

Posts:

16,968

Mar 6, 2012 Stats Ignoring

#5937

Shadow Scythe = possible Codex spy?

Shadow Scythe said:

The idea that RP Gs are about 'roleplaying' is meaningless and poorly defined. Fuck that word, seriously, and fuck the definition that RP Gs are about 'roleplaying'. I can play Half Life 2 and pretend Gordon Freeman has a phobia of water and stack crates so that I never end up in puddles...that doesn't mean it's a fucking roleplaying game. I can play Zelda Oo T and talk to the princess and when she asks me to help her I get a meaningless set of dialogue options that railroad me into one option ('Yes') that is also not a fucking roleplaying game.

Marsal Brofists this.
anus_pounder Scholar

Joined:

Mar 20, 2010

Posts:

3,749

Location:

Johannesburg

Mar 6, 2012 Stats Ignoring

#5938

Shadow Scythe = Eric Schwartz = Sea ? I'm just guessing here.
Stinger Liturgist

Joined:

Aug 13, 2011

Posts:

1,262

Mar 6, 2012 Stats Ignoring

#5939

I must have missed that. I think he/she edited it in later. Must have finally flipped over everything that was said.

I've seen them post Sea's articles before in different threads though they don't take credit for it..it's a possibility.
visions Arbiter

Joined:

Jun 10, 2007

Posts:

1,335

Location:

here

Mar 6, 2012 Stats Ignoring

#5940

If you're deciding how your character reacts to events, then yes.

OH HEY I DECIDE WHETHER DOOMGUY SHOOTS FIRST AT THE IMPS OR THE CACODAEMON. You choose how to react to events in every fucking game. And in every game where you are manifested in the gameworld as an avatar or a party of avatars, you choose how your "character(s)" (ie: you) react to events.
MMXI Arbiter

Joined:

Apr 28, 2011

Posts:

2,180

Mar 6, 2012 Stats Ignoring

#5941

anus_pounder said: ↑

Shadow Scythe = Eric Schwartz = Sea ? I'm just guessing here.

= Wizardry!
Infinitron RPG Codex Staff

Joined:

Jan 28, 2011

Posts:

16,968

Mar 6, 2012 Stats Ignoring

#5942

Could also be "Wizardry", from RPS. Somehow I get the feeling that using different aliases on different forums is his MO...

EDIT: Nice try, MMXI!
Infinitron RPG Codex Staff

Joined:

Jan 28, 2011

Posts:

16,968

Mar 6, 2012 Stats Ignoring

#5943

visions said: ↑

If you're deciding how your character reacts to events, then yes.

OH HEY I DECIDE WHETHER DOOMGUY SHOOTS FIRST AT THE IMPS OR THE CACODAEMON. You choose how to react to events in every fucking game. And in every game where you are manifested in the gameworld as an avatar or a party of avatars, you choose how your "character(s)" (ie: you) react to events.

It's interesting how these biodrones have completely internalized the separation that modern Bioware games have placed between the 'fighting' bits and the 'talking' bits. They realize, probably subconsciously, that the fighting bits are just filler that doesn't matter, to the point where they don't probably don't think of them as part of the 'real' game at all. For them, going through combats is just a mechanical thing you have to do, like having to go to a menu and click 'Load Game' to load a game.
And since only the conversation scenes are the 'real' game, that line of reasoning would probably be utterly weird to them. Combat isn't 'events', it's just a...uh....thing!

In short, as we say in these parts, they don't even know what they don't know.
MMXI Arbiter

Joined:

Apr 28, 2011

Posts:

2,180

Mar 6, 2012 Stats Ignoring

#5944

Ed123 said: ↑

http://www.rockpapershotgun.com/2012/03/04/the-sunday-papers-208/#comment-page-3

How did I miss this? No, not the Colonization stuff, but the RPG shit we've been talking about.

Ajh said:

To me any game that has you telling a story and somehow growing stronger over the course of the game is an RPG. Of course this puts games like Zelda in the mix too, but I don’t mind, since I like Zelda. And theoretically it puts things like Assassins Creed in the mix, which ..hmm..works for me.

Interesting. So basically if he likes a game then he's fine with it being an RPG even if it isn't? Derp.

theleif said:

there are diceless systems, there are character-less systems, card driven, and even practically rule-less systems today.

Rule-less RPGs? What do you buy? An empty set of books? Where are the Wikipedia entries for all these different rule-less systems? In fact, what differentiates all these rule-less systems? Derp.

theleif said:

I could be an exception, but 2 of my most memorable PnP experieces was one where I started with a pre generated character (in an RPG named Kult), and the second one was an adventure, that lasted 3 sessions, in which I made only 1 roll, using my archaeology skill to find a book in a library. The rest was pure role playing.

If his character had only a single skill check during the course of the entire game, did most of his character's statistics even matter? He's basically saying that all forms of role-playing are RPGs. Derp.

Jade Raven said:

I see RPG’s as only a sub-genre, admittedly a large sub-genre, but one all the same. When I categorise my own games I put them in only for genres; action, adventure, strategy and simulation/other.

Adventure games for me are defined by the focus of the game being on story and characterisation. This encompasses all known RPGs for me. RPG is a technical genre, related to its mechanics (like an RTS is part of the broader Strategy genre).

TL;DR: RPG is not a proper genre, it is part of the larger Adventure genre and so is ME3.

Don't know what to say other than I pity this guy. Also, mondblut will fume at this post if he ever sees it. At least Wizardry points out that if it is a sub-genre of any of those then strategy would be the most fitting. Derp.

theleif said:

And that’s why most roguelikes are not RPG:s at all. Not because they don’t contain RPG elements, because they do, but because what they contain is not enough to make them an RPG. And they don’t tell a story.

What? Roguelikes don't contain enough RPG elements to be considered RPGs yet Mass Effect does? Derp.

ThTa said:

However, I will argue vehemently that these mechanics are not part of what makes an RPG, and insisting they should be has strictly negative and restrictive consequences. BioWare has always offered a primarily story-focused RPG experience, one that uses the flexibility of the video game medium to allow people’s decisions to have an influence on said story in a meaningful and perceivable way; not to offer ever more complex dice-rolls and spreadsheets of statistics, as some seem to desire. BioWare could do away with all of their stats and loot, and I’d still argue their “combat and conversation” design offers a stronger RPG experience than most competitors.

Ah. The age old "RPGs would be better without stats" argument. I wonder what this guy was saying in 1974 after reading about D&D. "This is really awesome, but imagine if I could play D&D without the D&D! It'd be like actual role-playing! Thanks Gygax!" Derp.

theleif said:

I wouldn’t call Dungeons of Dredmor an RPG anyway. It’s a dungeon crawler. It’s not about creating/telling a story in any way. Having stats and levels in it doesn’t make it an RPG any more than it does CoD online.

I doubt many will agree with me on this, but I’s day that Sleep is Death is one of the purest RPG:s on the PC.

So a game with character development/customisation that allows you to play the game in different ways based on how you've defined them isn't an RPG, yet a "game" that is merely computerised role-playing is an RPG? So I guess to this cunt Sleep is Death is a better RPG than D&D because it doesn't have stats. Derp.

Crooked Bee Brofists this.
Admiral jimbob nope

Joined:

Sep 29, 2009

Posts:

6,266

Location:

nope

Mar 6, 2012 Stats Ignoring

#5945

look why are you still denying the whole you being Wizardry thing we do not have a "look but don't touch" rule like gay forums
Clockwork Knight Arcane

Joined:

May 6, 2009

Posts:

8,837

Location:

Fighting rats inside my anus

Mar 6, 2012 Stats Ignoring

#5946

MMXI said: ↑

Ajh said:

To me any game that has you telling a story and somehow growing stronger over the course of the game is an RPG. Of course this puts games like Zelda in the mix too, but I don’t mind, since I like Zelda. And theoretically it puts things like Assassins Creed in the mix, which ..hmm..works for me.

Interesting. So basically if he likes a game then he's fine with it being an RPG even if it isn't? Derp.

pictured: classic rpg gameplay

nomask7 said:

If you've ever worked in a kindergarten, you've probably noticed how one child sometimes begins to chant something, such as "all bears are toys, all bears are toys", then other children will join in with him, so that after a while every child in the room is chanting, "all bears are toys, all bears are toys." You might put in, "No they are not. That one in the picture, for example." They would continue, "all bears are toys, all bears are toys."

That really happens, and quite often too. It's also exactly how adults in academia think and behave most of the time.
MMXI Arbiter

Joined:

Apr 28, 2011

Posts:

2,180

Mar 6, 2012 Stats Ignoring

#5947

Admiral jimbob said: ↑

look why are you still denying the whole you being Wizardry thing we do not have a "look but don't touch" rule like gay forums

But why would Wizardry post on here when he's got the fabulous Rock Paper Shotgun all to himself?
Stinger Liturgist

Joined:

Aug 13, 2011

Posts:

1,262

Mar 6, 2012 Stats Ignoring

#5948

Oh wow that thread is getting pretty heated now. ShadowScythe/Sea continues to fight the good fight . I might wait and see how this resolves before I post the lulz.
Unorus Janco Lurker

Joined:

Dec 29, 2011

Posts:

511

Location:

Ambrosia

Mar 6, 2012 Stats Ignoring

#5949

I know it's old as shit, but...

English check: failed
Stinger Liturgist

Joined:

Aug 13, 2011

Posts:

1,262

Mar 6, 2012 Stats Ignoring

#5950

Ok I don't think the thread's going anywhere now. It seems to have died down.

Let's see the stupid shit people say:

Falco said:

But equally I hate the fact that people think game mechanics define what is an RPG. If it doesn't weapon customization or an inventory system or proper leveling up apparently its not an RPG. BS. What a stupid and archaic system to follow. They might have been what defined RP Gs in the past, but game developers should not be bound by such petty matters when making RP Gs if they can find alternative ways of allowing people to build their own characters.

Character building is a stupid and archaic system. It's all about fucking as many companions as you can guys! This is true roleplaying.

ShadowScythe responds with some further explanation (and continues to put down Mass Effect) and gets told this:

setnakhte said:

But your choices in ME1 affected the story in ME2, and your choices in ME2 will affect the story in ME3. Just because there's a mode that cuts out the dialogue in ME3 doesn't mean that it's not an RPG, because there's also a mode that has it. Your definition of RPG seems to be centred on mechanics, rather than, you know, role-playing.

Does anyone even fucking know what roleplaying is guys?

Anyway, the original genius (I believe his name is Tiamatty) returns for more:

Tiamatty said:

"If you go with that definition, you rule out far too many crpgs for my liking."
Yes. Because they're not truly role-playing games. Because you're not role-playing. If you're not role-playing, you're not playing a role-playing game. Doesn't mean the games are less great. EarthBound is an awesome game, but it's not an RPG, regardless of its mechanics.

ME 2 is an RPG because you're role-playing. Yes, yes, it's limited dialogue options, but there's still plenty in there. When you're talking to people, you get to decide how Shepard reacts to what people say. It's not just a simple "Yes-or-no, " it's actually giving you a choice on how Shepard feels.

But then you take most of the Final Fantasy series. You have absolutely no say in the story. The full extent of the actual role-playing is saying yes or no, and most of the time, it pretty much forces you to pick one to advance the story. Your character is already defined when you start playing, and you have no influence at all on their growth as an individual. The player has no more influence on the character's personality than in a Mario game. That is not role-playing.

And I find it insane that people believe that assigning skill points is more important than the actual role-playing side. Those mechanics only exist to serve the story. It is not the other way around. The story does not serve the stats, the stats serve the story. It is entirely possible to have a role-playing game that doesn't use any stats at all. It can be done. There is absolutely no reason it couldn't be done. Mass Effect could've been a straight third-person shooter, with no skill trees, no item management, nothing of the sort, but it would still be an RPG, because it is still a role-playing game. Fallout, Skyrim, Fable, all of them are RP Gs, not because of the mechanics, but because you're role-playing.

It's in the name. Role-playing game. That's what RPG means. It's role-playing. A game where you are playing out a role. Role-playing isn't about how much experience you need to reach the next level. if that's how you role-play, then you are a shitty role-player.

ROLEPLAYING!

At this point even ShadowScythe is raging over all this talk of roleplaying:

ShadowScythe said:

That's a really messed up idea you have there. You are essentially disregarding an entire genre because of one fairly recent addition to the genre that you believe defines it entirely. I'm sorry but that shows to me that you haven't really played RP Gs at all.
...
Please stop saying the word roleplay. It pisses me off to no end and it doesn't strengthen your argument in any way.

As I already pointed out several times earlier: Roleplaying is such a bullshit term which can be stretched to mean anything. The idea that you think it simply means dialogue options is quite ridiculous. Especially when the example you use is one of the worst examples of a game with dialogue options around.

I can 'roleplay' an FPS character by doing dumb shit in the game and pretending it's in character. I can 'roleplay' a character in Skyrim by making up an insane backstory about secretly being an alien from space but that doesn't make the FPS an RPG and that isn't the reason Skyrim is an RPG.

I can 'roleplay' by choosing from a limited range of dialogue options and that can help to define a character. Of course ME 2 is a terrible example of this as all you do is choose to be a dick or an angel and in the long run a lot of the choices get retconned or never amount to anything. You definitely do not define your own personality, half the time the personality is chosen for you. Hell, in ME 3 regardless of what you've been doing thus far, Shepard will take a kid's death really seriously. Explain to me how that fits your definition of roleplaying when ME 2 and 3 (and hell ME 1 as well) have so much forced characterisation for shepard? Go play Planescape Torment or Fallout New Vegas before you start going on about how great ME 2's dialogue system is because it's actually fucking terrible.

Finally, I can also 'roleplay' a mage by speccing out a mage focused build and as such spam spells instead of attacking people with swords.

Roleplaying is a meaningless term, so please stop with just saying "YOU ROLEPLAY!!!1111" in your argument. Explain what you mean without using that word.

An RPG is not about choice and consequence or about dialogue, it's a nice, relatively recent addition to the genre but that doesn't mean it's the only aspect to focus on.

That doesn't mean it shouldn't be included in the definition. I've already explained my definition and it's included there but it isn't necessary. The genre needs to include various different types of character building, whether that's through personality or stat progression, and focusing on one is needlessly limiting.

Up until Bioware starting dumbing down their games, RP Gs were about character building and progression with Choice and Consequence as an added bonus. Even Bethesda sticks with a character system with choice as a very minimal aspect (seriously, choice in Skyrim didn't really change anything in the long term)- and no matter how simplified Skyrim is it still has better depth than ME 2 or 3. I don't think RP Gs need to change their definition because one company has started making incredibly shallow games.

I mean, no matter how you look at it, ME 2 isn't an RPG. From a personality defining side, it's terrible. It lacks none of the depth of something like Planescape Torment and the choices and quests have none of the branching of an actual RPG like Fallout. I recommend you play other games so that you understand why I'm saying that no matter how you look at it ME 2 is far too shallow to be an RPG.

Tiamatty said:

"You are essentially disregarding an entire genre because of one fairly recent addition to the genre that you believe defines it entirely."

No. I'm saying the genre was given the wrong name. Dungeons and Dragons is an RPG. It's not an RPG because you assign numbers to different areas. It's an RPG because you're giving a character the personality and motivations you choose to give him.

But then video games started coming out that had mechanics based on the tabletop RP Gs. But despite giving little more control over the character's personality than any other video game, it was decided to just call them RP Gs.

And that annoys me. It's wrong. Mechanics don't matter. What matters is whether you're given control over your character's personality. And the Mass Effect games DO give you that control. YOU decide if Shepard is merciful or vengeful. YOU decide if Shepard values cooperation or independence. YOU decide if Shepard respects other races or resents them. You decide how Shepard treats his crew members, how he treats people on the streets, whether he tries diplomacy or goes straight to killing people. Hell, ME 1 lets you decide if Shepard believes in god or not. Whether all your choices ultimately lead to the same result doesn't really change matters. You're still role-playing.

Dear god...Biodrones don't even care that the Mass Effects don't even have real choices as long as they have the illusion of choice. So basically fake choices = RPG?

Also fuck all those old games, stupid shit, why were they even called RPGs? There was no fake dialogue options!

A little bit unrelated but Tiamatty responds to someone else's post with this gem:

"In Video Games, having any part of the gameplay subservient to the story is a terrible idea that has been attempted many times and has never resulted in anything of quality."
No. Story should always come first. Gameplay should be based on how you want to tell the story, not the other way around.

...God I really hate Bioware right now.

ShadowScythe said:

I roleplayed the L-block.

You got to choose which direction he went. Was he vertical or horizontal? Such an insane depth of choice. And the consequences, OH GOD THE CONSEQUENCES!

Tetris is a roleplaying game guys.

Poor guy's gone insane.

After a while the thread starts to die out with petty infighting over some other crap instead but ShadowScythe says one last thing that I found funny:

ShadowScythe said:

Anyway, what genre is Heavy Rain? Isn't that game purely about interacting and making choices? I'd say ME 2 has more in common with something like that than with Ultima.

EDIT: Wikipedia calls it an interactive drama.

SOUNDS FINE TO ME.

Sounds fine to me too. Interactive Drama it is.

There's plenty more derpy shit in that thread but most of it is unrelated and is the usual Biodrone nonsense of claiming story as far more relevant and gameplay & stats are archaic and stupid.

(You must log in or sign up to reply here.)

Page 238 of 604

(buying stuff via the above links helps us pay the hosting bills)