| |
Site Navigation
Main
News
Forums
Games
Games Database
Top 100
Release List
Support Files
Features
Reviews
Previews
Interviews
Editorials
Diaries
Misc
Download
Gallery
Music
Screenshots
Videos
Miscellaneous
Staff Members
Privacy Statement
|
|
|
|
yeesh
Keeper of the Gates
Joined: 03 May 2002
Posts: 113
Location: Unofficially representing Queens |
We've split into two issues here, which I think we should at least identify:
1) Can a CRPG take into account a player's physical abilities?
-> I believe that it is not a violation of the law of noncondradiction to say this could be debated. I don't understand why it is inherently acceptable for a character to be mentally under the direct control of the player but the physical aspect can only be simulated. A computer could easily simulate both, and then you could just create a character and watch the computer play him/her based solely on the stats you've rolled. Obviously that would be much less fun (well, there is ProgressQuest), so there is a compromise made to allow the player to substitute his/her brain for the character's. But you must recognize that this is a compromise to the purity of a stat-based character. Take a D&D character; she has an alignment and stats, she should realistically have her own agenda. With computers, all of this could be the input to run her totally independantly of the player. Dialogue choices, morality choices, combat choices (they could implement a courage stat, morale is a very common strategy game concept), all this would realistically be better served by cross-referencing stats to alignment and probably making a virtual dice roll because that's d20 for you.
But that wouldn't be fun, or much of a game, so you get to make all these choices for her; despite her morale, despite her alignment, despite her Int and her Wis. It's a breach of the simulation, but it's done in the name of gameplay. We're OK with it.
My point is that your argument, Roqua, is that the physical side of the simulation must be strictly maintained despite the fact that every RPG and CRPG by necessity violates the mental side. I understand where you're coming from, but I disagree. There is no inherent logic to one side being breachable and the other side being inviolable. Just because this is the way things were before Diablo because back then there was no real-time gaming does not make a law out of "no action in RPGs".
2) Why isn't Silent Storm an RPG?
-> Niteshade asked, but somehow the above argument got brought into the response despite the fact that S2 doesn't actually contain any action elements. This is a whole other can of worms, because even if you turned Diablo (which I remind everyone does feature COMPLETELY stat-based combat once you click on something) into a very tedious turn-based game, it still easily fails to be a CRPG in the eyes of many here. They argue (not to put words into mouths) that there's more to being an RPG than stat-based gameplay. Me, I've always been a believer that Diablo even as it stands now is 100% CRPG tastiness, because I believe:
A game is an RPG to the extent that it is focused on developing the power of your character(s).
I'm going to put that in my sig. But this argument never really ends. |
Sat Aug 20, 2005 7:37 pm |
|
|
Roqua
High Emperor
Joined: 02 Sep 2003
Posts: 897
Location: rump |
Niteshade, sorry if you think I was turning this into a you and me thing. It’s basically a me vs. everyone thing.
I have never said I didn’t like Gothic or Arx. I do dislike Diablo 2, but I enjoyed Diablo 1 when I played it with a friend on the PS. I also kind of liked BG:DA, FO:BoS, Heroes of D&D, and other games that are not rpgs, that my wife likes to play since they are two player games.
Gothic and Arx are not rpgs because they have twitch combat. I don’t think any of the diablos are rpgs since they don’t have roleplaying or even an attempt at roleplaying. SS has no roleplaying. Having twitch combat or no roleplaying doesn’t make a game a bad game or a game I do not like, as I tend to like them more than the rpgs that come out, such as NWN and the Kotors.
Taste has nothing to do with genre. What I like or don’t like has nothing to do with what genre a game gets placed in. The game mechanics decide what category the game gets placed in.
quote:
This is not actually true. Even the very first CRPGs on the apple often had little reflex aspects built into them. And that only increased from there. A number of more traditional non computer RPGs will have physical skill elements as well. What you seem to be saying is that you will never consider a game with aspects based on physical abilies to be a RPG. And that's opinion (and one that pretty much everyone here seems to disagree with).
No, its not opinion. It is a logical conclusion. You cannot separate the mental aspects of roleplaying out of roleplaying, it is impossible. There has never been any physical sharing in rpgs. The character is an independent physical entity, filled with life and personality and given direction by the player; and further the character is not limited by my physical abilities. If I play a super strong half-orc, he doesn’t become weaker or less able to lift things because I am weak. If I play a super fast and agile thief, he isn’t limited by my poor physical reflexes and timing. That is based on logic and historical precedence. And what rpgs are about.
quote:
That was one of my favorite things about those 2 games. But no other game really used it to that extent. Plus there were plenty of other inteligent things your stupid character could still do. The point is still that there will always be an element of skill in games that is seperate from your character.
Yes, there are plenty of other int things a stupid character can do. That is where roleplaying comes in. If you make a stupid character to min/max the game can’t make you personally stupid to match. Again, roleplaying is a mental activity, which includes creating a personality for a character and making decisions to support the personality you created. If you had no intention of roleplaying to begin with, what do you expect? Separating the mental influence out of roleplying is impossible as it relies completely on your mind.
And yes, I would recommend Imperial Glory if you like the old Romance of the Three Kingdom games, Shogun, Nobonunga’s Ambition (or whatever its called), and games of that nature. It has a TB world map, and RT sea and land combat.
quote:
“I believe that it is not a violation of the law of noncondradiction to say this could be debated. I don't understand why it is inherently acceptable for a character to be mentally under the direct control of the player but the physical aspect can only be simulated. A computer could easily simulate both, and then you could just create a character and watch the computer play him/her based solely on the stats you've rolled.”
Where would the roleplaying go? It would turn into a movie then. The g in rpg stands for game. The rp stands for roleplaying. Together it is a roleplaying game. It is impossible to separate the mental influence out of a roleplaying game, because then there wouldn’t be any roleplaying or any game. Answer this: it is possible for people to add action twitch elements into a pen and paper game, why haven’t they? Because it would stop being a roleplaying game. Rpgs have always separated the character’s and the player’s physical abilities, and always will.
quote:
“Obviously that would be much less fun (well, there is ProgressQuest), so there is a compromise made to allow the player to substitute his/her brain for the character's. But you must recognize that this is a compromise to the purity of a stat-based character. Take a D&D character; she has an alignment and stats, she should realistically have her own agenda. With computers, all of this could be the input to run her totally independantly of the player. Dialogue choices, morality choices, combat choices (they could implement a courage stat, morale is a very common strategy game concept), all this would realistically be better served by cross-referencing stats to alignment and probably making a virtual dice roll because that's d20 for you.
But that wouldn't be fun, or much of a game, so you get to make all these choices for her; despite her morale, despite her alignment, despite her Int and her Wis. It's a breach of the simulation, but it's done in the name of gameplay. We're OK with it.”
What’s more fun? Rolling dice and adding/subtracting or shooting cans with wrist-rockets and trying to hit cats with paper towel rolls? Fun has nothing to do with genre. Fun falls under taste and preferences.
quote:
“My point is that your argument, Roqua, is that the physical side of the simulation must be strictly maintained despite the fact that every RPG and CRPG by necessity violates the mental side. I understand where you're coming from, but I disagree. There is no inherent logic to one side being breachable and the other side being inviolable. Just because this is the way things were before Diablo because back then there was no real-time gaming does not make a law out of "no action in RPGs".”
Please tell me how you could separate the mental side out of rpgs? It is impossible. There would be no roleplaying and no game. The mental side has always been there because roleplaying is a mental activity. You infuse a physically independent entity with life, personality, behavior, blah blah. That is the nature of the game. Always has been, always will be.
quote:
Why isn't Silent Storm an RPG?
“-> Niteshade asked, but somehow the above argument got brought into the response despite the fact that S2 doesn't actually contain any action elements. This is a whole other can of worms, because even if you turned Diablo (which I remind everyone does feature COMPLETELY stat-based combat once you click on something) into a very tedious turn-based game, it still easily fails to be a CRPG in the eyes of many here. They argue (not to put words into mouths) that there's more to being an RPG than stat-based gameplay. Me, I've always been a believer that Diablo even as it stands now is 100% CRPG tastiness, because I believe:
A game is an RPG to the extent that it is focused on developing the power of your character(s).
I'm going to put that in my sig. But this argument never really ends.”
Then we are right back to the wwe game, republic the revolution, imperial glory, and many many non-rpgs being rpgs.
SS is a squad tbs. That is a genre and SS fits into it perfectly. SS has no choices. The devs programmed no choices. Because they made a squad tbs and not an rpg. There is no roleplaying in SS. Because it is a squad tbs. UFO and X-Com had stat based combat and weapon progression and were tbs’s, same as the JA’s. And weapon progression isn’t an rpg requirement. Just an element.
Why weren’t SS, the UFO’s/x-coms, and the JA’s marketed as rpgs? Because they aren’t and the devs knew it. At the time of all their releases they were marketed as squad tbs’s. You guys decided they were rpgs because they had stats.
_________________
Vegitarian is the Indian word for lousey hunter. |
|
Sat Aug 20, 2005 9:10 pm |
|
|
niteshade
Keeper of the Gates
Joined: 09 Jul 2005
Posts: 100
|
"No, its not opinion. It is a logical conclusion."
Ah but see being an opinion and being what you consider to be a logical conclusion are not mutually exclusive. Pretty much all opinions are logical conclusions in the minds of the person with the opinion. But in order for something to be a fact, it has to be universally agreed on and not open for debate. Since your pretty much the only one here who considers this to be a logical conclusion, there is really no way to consider this a fact.
"You cannot separate the mental aspects of roleplaying out of roleplaying, it is impossible. There has never been any physical sharing in rpgs."
Once again this just isn't true. From the very first RPGS that came out in the days of Wizardry 1, to the old school live action roleplaying games that predate computer games, there have always been roleplaying games with a physical aspect in them.
"Yes, there are plenty of other int things a stupid character can do. That is where roleplaying comes in."
A fair enough argument. But let me put it another way. No matter how smart your character is in a purely mental game, it can't completely make up for the player being stupid. Just like no matter how agile your character is in a partially reflex based game, it can't completely make up for a player with no reflexes. I just don't think there is any difference between the two.
Saying that these games have always had mental aspects is irrelevent, because is true for every game.
"And yes, I would recommend Imperial Glory if you like the old Romance of the Three Kingdom games, Shogun, Nobonunga’s Ambition (or whatever its called), and games of that nature. It has a TB world map, and RT sea and land combat. "
I used to like those games back in the day, but I don't go for the giant strategic map kind of games as much anymore. Still, maybe I will check it out.
"SS is a squad tbs. That is a genre and SS fits into it perfectly. SS has no choices. The devs programmed no choices. Because they made a squad tbs and not an rpg. There is no roleplaying in SS."
Ok but how is it any different then any other classic RPG like say the original wizardry games, or even some of the later ones? You get a ton of choices in where you move around, what mission locations to go to, how to fight. There's little social interaction, but I could say that about alot of RPGs. It's interesting to note that Hammer and Sickle (the sequel) plans to actually add social interaction choices, story paths and the like while keeping the squad based combat. Will it still no longer be a RPG then?
"Why weren’t SS, the UFO’s/x-coms, and the JA’s marketed as rpgs? Because they aren’t and the devs knew it. At the time of all their releases they were marketed as squad tbs’s. You guys decided they were rpgs because they had stats."
Well first I should say here that right now I'm the only one arguing that SS could easily be viewed as a RPG, and that's not even an opinion I'm all that strongly attached to. It's worth noting that SS and JA were both reviewed and partially marketed as being squad based RPGs. X-com was not. I suspect part of the reason for this is because you don't have any attachment to your soldiers in X-com, they just die and you hire new ones. While this was possible to do in JA and SS, it was a major disaster, just as it would be if you had to replace a wizardry character with a brand new one. |
|
Sun Aug 21, 2005 6:27 pm |
|
|
Roqua
High Emperor
Joined: 02 Sep 2003
Posts: 897
Location: rump |
quote:
Originally posted by niteshade
"No, its not opinion. It is a logical conclusion."
Ah but see being an opinion and being what you consider to be a logical conclusion are not mutually exclusive. Pretty much all opinions are logical conclusions in the minds of the person with the opinion. But in order for something to be a fact, it has to be universally agreed on and not open for debate. Since your pretty much the only one here who considers this to be a logical conclusion, there is really no way to consider this a fact.
"You cannot separate the mental aspects of roleplaying out of roleplaying, it is impossible. There has never been any physical sharing in rpgs."
Once again this just isn't true. From the very first RPGS that came out in the days of Wizardry 1, to the old school live action roleplaying games that predate computer games, there have always been roleplaying games with a physical aspect in them.
"Yes, there are plenty of other int things a stupid character can do. That is where roleplaying comes in."
A fair enough argument. But let me put it another way. No matter how smart your character is in a purely mental game, it can't completely make up for the player being stupid. Just like no matter how agile your character is in a partially reflex based game, it can't completely make up for a player with no reflexes. I just don't think there is any difference between the two.
Saying that these games have always had mental aspects is irrelevent, because is true for every game.
"And yes, I would recommend Imperial Glory if you like the old Romance of the Three Kingdom games, Shogun, Nobonunga’s Ambition (or whatever its called), and games of that nature. It has a TB world map, and RT sea and land combat. "
I used to like those games back in the day, but I don't go for the giant strategic map kind of games as much anymore. Still, maybe I will check it out.
"SS is a squad tbs. That is a genre and SS fits into it perfectly. SS has no choices. The devs programmed no choices. Because they made a squad tbs and not an rpg. There is no roleplaying in SS."
Ok but how is it any different then any other classic RPG like say the original wizardry games, or even some of the later ones? You get a ton of choices in where you move around, what mission locations to go to, how to fight. There's little social interaction, but I could say that about alot of RPGs. It's interesting to note that Hammer and Sickle (the sequel) plans to actually add social interaction choices, story paths and the like while keeping the squad based combat. Will it still no longer be a RPG then?
"Why weren’t SS, the UFO’s/x-coms, and the JA’s marketed as rpgs? Because they aren’t and the devs knew it. At the time of all their releases they were marketed as squad tbs’s. You guys decided they were rpgs because they had stats."
Well first I should say here that right now I'm the only one arguing that SS could easily be viewed as a RPG, and that's not even an opinion I'm all that strongly attached to. It's worth noting that SS and JA were both reviewed and partially marketed as being squad based RPGs. X-com was not. I suspect part of the reason for this is because you don't have any attachment to your soldiers in X-com, they just die and you hire new ones. While this was possible to do in JA and SS, it was a major disaster, just as it would be if you had to replace a wizardry character with a brand new one.
I only have time to answer the first part. The law of noncontradiction came from logic. Logic is scientific and philosophic. You can have a philosophical fact. Such as if we all agree that all boys are good. And agree that I am a boy. The only conclusion we could reach is that I am good. Every other conclusion would contain a fallacy.
There are some forms of logical thinking that do not seem to contain a fallacy but are not true. Such as asserting all college students can read. John can read. Conclusion: John is a college student. A lot of non college studnets can read. A lot of boys aren't good. So we must have be talking about 100% of the time for logic to work. As Aristotle said, "One cannot say of something that it is and that it is not in the same respect and at the same time."
I base my logic on tried and true logical premises. Opinion means nothing in logic, as with science. Thats why people that talk about morality and ethics in absolutes drive me nuts. Epistomology, metaphysics, and ethics are all schools of philosophy. They are all things that are not provable, thats why people have been talking about them forever. But most things that are not abstract, like what is an rpg, what is a cabinet, what is a dresser, what is a door, what is a crt monitor, what is an lcd flatscreen can all be defined and are easily to logically catagorize.
In the linguistic world there are two types of people, i forget their names but i read an article on them. One is a fundamantalist. They do not believe non-standard words are actual words, such as irregardless. The other group says language is dynamic and the definition of words changes and new words should be accepted as standard words.
People see this argument as more like the language argument. Its not. This is a logic argument. How people see things doesn't matter, all that matters is what is and what isn't. And twitch games aren't rpgs. No one has tried to prove how they can be, just tell me what they think.
Everyone is saying something can change and still be the same thing. When something changes, or evolves, it stops being what it was and becomes something new. Twitch action games with rpg elements broke off from the rest of the genre and became something new. They cannot be called an rpg since you cannot play a role and yourself at the same time.
Why are games that have never been considered rpgs now being called rpgs. II don't see everything in black and white, the only way to prove anything as fact logically it has to be true 100% of the time. So its either yes or no. Not maybe or possibly. The sun will rise in the east=fact. 100% sure the sun will rise in the east. You need oxygen to breath. This is black and white. If you have zero oxygen you will die. Logical conclusion. e=mc^2. Its not e might be mc^2. Its not e often equals mc^2. E always equals mc^2. Black and white. You cannot come to a logical fact without being correct 100% of the time. Your theory would not even be theory, because its disprovable.
_________________
Vegitarian is the Indian word for lousey hunter. |
|
Sun Aug 21, 2005 9:55 pm |
|
|
Roqua
High Emperor
Joined: 02 Sep 2003
Posts: 897
Location: rump |
Add note:
Lets take dogs and say they are games. You have different breeds (genres). To be considered to be of a breed you must not be mixed. A shitzu (or however you spell it) stops being a shitzu if its bred with a pitbull. It becomes not a pitbull and not a shitzu. Its a new thing, a shitzu-pitbull mix. So it is only part-shitzu and not a real shitzu. If shitzu was an rpg you would say it is only part rpg when it is bred with a pitbull (action twitch game).
My argument is there is no such thing as a part rpg. Either you are or are not an rpg. Just like you either are or are not a purebred shitzu. If you have some rpg elements does not make an rpg. If you have some shitzu blood you are not a purebred shitzu.
_________________
Vegitarian is the Indian word for lousey hunter. |
|
Sun Aug 21, 2005 10:10 pm |
|
|
yeesh
Keeper of the Gates
Joined: 03 May 2002
Posts: 113
Location: Unofficially representing Queens |
I love you Roqua.
I can't believe how much time you spend trying to explain the basic tenants of logic to a group of people who are so clearly educated and intelligent (if you'll pardon my raging immodesty). I can't figure out if truly you don't understand that your definition of RPG is simply one of many possibilities, or if you're just screwing with us. Either way, talking to you is a rare blend of frustrating and compelling.
You say, "Everyone is saying something can change and still be the same thing. When something changes, or evolves, it stops being what it was and becomes something new", and yet you insist on using the same definition for pen and paper roleplaying games as for computer roleplaying games. Do you honestly think the experience of a Saturday night of Dungeons and Dragons with 4 friends belongs in the same genre as a session of Ultima II? Is that a shih tzu and a shih tzu? I don't think so; I think it's a shih tzu and one of those Sony robot dogs. And yet, when we try and say the CRPG should have it's own separate definition, you say this is a contradiction. It is not. You are in fact contradicting yourself by refusing to acknowldge the difference between 2 totally different activities: traditional roleplaying, and single-player computer roleplaying. In light of the words at the beginning of this paragraph, they deserve 2 distinct definitions.
As I've written in the past, playing computer sports games is not at all the same as playing sports. Is that true, or am I making it up? If it is true, how on earth can it be a violation of the law of noncontradiction to say the same thing about computer roleplaying games? It's true that we are separated by more than just language, but you keep steering the argument in that direction. Once again, I maintain that is is not a logical truism that the physical side of the simulation is inviolable and the mental side is not. Why would it be? You say yourself:
quote:
How can my level 18 warrior who is a masterswordsman be restricted by my physical skill? As soon as he is restricted by my physical capapilities, I stop playing the role of him and either partially or fully become him, therefor the role I asume is me or partly me.
but you fail to explain why that argument is any different than this one:
quote:
How can my level 18 Scholar who is a classically-educated genius be restricted by my mental skill? As soon as his brainpower is restricted by my mental abilities, I stop playing the role of him and either partially or fully become him, therefor the role I asume is me or partly me.
It's the same words, it's the same argument. If yours is true (logically), then mine must be as well. If mine isn't, then how can yours be? Maybe they're both true, but the answer is "so what?" In the interests of making a fun game, you can assume phsyical control or mental control, you can replace the character's abilities with your own. You have not shown how the mental replacement is logically distinct from the physical one.
_________________
A game is an RPG to the extent that it is focused on developing the power of your character(s). |
|
Mon Aug 22, 2005 3:31 am |
|
|
Roqua
High Emperor
Joined: 02 Sep 2003
Posts: 897
Location: rump |
Niteshade and yeesh,
I haven't given up yet. I think I might be on the verge of converting someone somewhere to the lightside. But my new work actually makes me work so I can't reply yet. Hang in there and I will crush your arguments as soon as possible and learn you whats right.
_________________
Vegitarian is the Indian word for lousey hunter. |
|
Wed Aug 24, 2005 12:20 am |
|
|
Roqua
High Emperor
Joined: 02 Sep 2003
Posts: 897
Location: rump |
I really disagree about ufo/x-com. I had the same team from beginning to end (in all of the games the troops gain in skill and ability), and the same with Silent Storm. My guys in the JA’s changed as I was able to afford better contracts with mercs with better equipment and stats.
I do not understand how people cannot differentiate between mental and physical. You cannot ever, I repeat, cannot ever, I repeat, cannot ever, I repeat, cannot ever, remove the mental aspect of roleplaying as it is a mental activity. You cannot breathe life into a vessel without having a mind. Otherwise trees could roleplay. A big part of roleplaying is creating a personality and making decisions as that personality would. It is imposible to remove the mental aspects, as said before it would cease to be a game and roleplaying would be impossible.
What can happen, and often does, is mental related abilities are restricted. Whether the restriction is through dialogue or other mechanics, it happens. Mental abilities can also give bonuses, such as extra skill points or spells, such as in D&D 3.5. Barter is a battle of wits, better barter skill=better prices. The examples are numerous and so obvious that I find pointing them out to be silly. If you have played rpgs before, 5 million examples should pop to mind.
RPGS have never had activities influenced by the player’s physical abilities. It has always relied on player’s mental abilities, because that is the nature of the game. Saying since they have never relied on the player’s physical abilities so rpgs shouldn’t rely on the player’s mental facilities at all is a very poor line of reasoning, as it would cease being a game or include roleplaying.
Roleplaying games have never, never, relied on player’s physical abilities. And have always relied on player’s mental abilities to some extent. You cannot completely remove the mental aspects of roleplaying. The character you create and roleplaying depends on you for guidance and direction. You speak through him as him, you make decisions through him as him. If he (the character) acted autonomously, the roleplaying aspect of ROLEPLAYING games would disappear, and the game aspect of roleplaying GAME would also. It would turn into a movie or a story, which are not rpgs.
Rpgs are an offshoot of wargaming. Wargamming is a combat simulation. Roleplaying added freestyle roleplaying of created personalities between battles, whereas wargamming was just the battles. Roleplaying handed people a set of rules and an empty book with a beginning plot and setting and asked them to fill the book with an adventure.
Pen and paper roleplaying games CAN add an action element to combat or other game activities. When a player wants his character to jump a pit the GM could ask the player to make the same jump in real life to see if the character makes it. A player who wants his character to shoot an orc could be asked by the GM to shoot an elastic at a can. You CAN have the player’s physical abilities impact events in the game that characters abilities should dictate. But it doesn’t happen. Why? It would stop being a roleplaying game.
A natural evolution of rpgs that does not change the core function of the activity due to the medium of computers is TB combat turning to RT combat. I do not like RT combat but that is just my opinion on which is better. The computer can make all the calculations at once, unlike a GM. Making all the calculations at once does not change the activity and make it something the activity was never meant to be. Such as adding a twitch element to combat or other activities does. When my physical abilities impact the character’s physical abilities the game is not an rpg. Bottom-line.
Lets say I had the ability to enter another persons body. I enter the body of Bruce Lee. Bruce Lee is pretty good at the kung-fu. I am not. His body is flexible and agile. Mine is not. If I created a new life and personality for Bruce Lee, and when I got into a brawl Bruce Lee’s kung-fu skill and physical attributes were not hampered by my poor physical abilities and lack of kung-fu skill he would still be a kung-fu master. And I would be playing a real life rpg.
If I entered the body of a man that was slower, weaker, and less able to fight than I am and I got in a fight and used my physical abilities and better fighting ability I would not be playing the role of a slower, weaker, poor fighting man. I would be playing me. Therefore, I would not be playing a real life rpg. And I have the law of non-contradiction to support this. You cannot play a role while simultaneously playing yourself. It is impossible. I also have the fact that all rpgs have never relied on the player’s physical abilities, only the character’s. These things are impossible to get around. You can say, “Well, I think…” or, “I believe…” or, “The way I see things…” and ignore these things, but they won’t go away. Adding the player’s physical abilities to an rpg makes it stop being an rpg.
_________________
Vegitarian is the Indian word for lousey hunter. |
|
Sat Aug 27, 2005 5:15 pm |
|
|
Guest
|
quote:
If I entered the body of a man that was slower, weaker, and less able to fight than I am and I got in a fight and used my physical abilities and better fighting ability I would not be playing the role of a slower, weaker, poor fighting man.
Have you ever played gothic? Try too kill strong monster whit weak character it is not hard it is imposibole, it was posbole to kill troll or orc but that also can be solved (make it imposibole to block orc atack if you don't have str anought and winnning would be practicly imposibole). In gothic you can fell that you character is to weak to win or strong enought, and fight don't requaire much of yours psychical abilities.
Whot about the game whit tactical combat? You don't use stats of your charactr for tactical combat, you do it yourself. |
|
Sun Aug 28, 2005 4:29 pm |
|
|
peterb
Village Dweller
Joined: 13 Oct 2003
Posts: 21
|
Hi, Ender. This is peterb, who wrote the Tea Leaves article you quoted. I like your commentary. You've raised a lot of good points.
I think that there is a key aspect of this debate that you gloss over, however. Even if one were to accept your definition of an RPG as requiring "stat-based gameplay" -- which I don't -- that says nothing whatsoever about the user interface of the game. The fundamental point I was trying to make in my rough notes was not that it's a fundamental mistake to use a spreadsheet to influence gameplay, but that it's a mistake to think that that spreadsheet must be displayed to the user. That computer RPGs developed this way is a historical curiosity, nothing more (if you appeal to the tabletop RPG tradition, note that in most games the dungeon master, the role played by the computer in CRPGs, typically hid not only some, but most stats and rolls from the players.)
Will there always be a core group of people that thinks that editing a spreadsheet makes for a great game? Sure. I expect a lot of us are in this very room. But in the long term this form of gameplay's days are numbered, and it's better to start thinking about what you want to replace it now, rather than after all the RPG developers are either producing games that people only buy to see the movies (Squaresoft) or bankrupt (everyone else).
To the person who said that I am mistaken about inventory drudgery because Diablo II sold a lot of copies, all I can do is point out two things: (1) the inventory management in Diablo II was, in fact, one of the most common complaints about the game, and (2) that Diablo II is 5 years old, and expectations -- particularly user interface expectations -- change over time. Wizardry I sold a ton of games, but if someone released a game like it today that required the player to draw their own maps on grid paper in order to win, you would hunt down the designer and beat him like the dog he was. It was not even 15 years ago that it was considered acceptable to release a game that required the user to reboot their computer with a boot disk (Ultima VII, anyone?) In the intervening years, "works on my host operating system without requiring special configuration effort" has moved from a nice luxury to an absolute hard requirement. There will never again be a succesful game with as irritating an inventory interface as Diablo II. Customer UI expectations only get more stringent over time. That's a good thing. |
|
Sun Aug 28, 2005 5:06 pm |
|
|
Shadow Aspect
Guest
|
quote:
Originally posted by Roqua
And I have the law of non-contradiction to support this. You cannot play a role while simultaneously playing yourself. It is impossible.
I was drawn into this discussion via RPGCodex.
I merely want to take issue with this point you've stated. You seem to be flat out contradicting yourself. Whenever you play a computer game, you can be defined as 'playing yourself'. Any decisions you make will be subtley (sp?) influenced by your life experiences, how you developed as you grew up. You cannot separate that from the role you are attempting to 'pretend' you are.
Or as I put it on the Codex:
quote:
Your opinion of the definition of what makes an rpg an rpg is not a fact. To (ab)use this 'law of noncontradiction', an opinion cannot be a fact, once an opinion becomes provable to be true, then it is no longer an opinion, it has become fact.
My opinion is that since no role you play can be entirely detached from what makes you you (thus, you can never truly be 'in character' - it will always be affected by your past experiences, etc), you cannot claim the absolute definition of an rpg as you have done.
|
|
Wed Aug 31, 2005 10:46 am |
|
|
Roqua
High Emperor
Joined: 02 Sep 2003
Posts: 897
Location: rump |
quote:
Originally posted by Shadow Aspect
quote:
Originally posted by Roqua
And I have the law of non-contradiction to support this. You cannot play a role while simultaneously playing yourself. It is impossible.
I was drawn into this discussion via RPGCodex.
I merely want to take issue with this point you've stated. You seem to be flat out contradicting yourself. Whenever you play a computer game, you can be defined as 'playing yourself'. Any decisions you make will be subtley (sp?) influenced by your life experiences, how you developed as you grew up. You cannot separate that from the role you are attempting to 'pretend' you are.
Or as I put it on the Codex:
quote:
Your opinion of the definition of what makes an rpg an rpg is not a fact. To (ab)use this 'law of noncontradiction', an opinion cannot be a fact, once an opinion becomes provable to be true, then it is no longer an opinion, it has become fact.
My opinion is that since no role you play can be entirely detached from what makes you you (thus, you can never truly be 'in character' - it will always be affected by your past experiences, etc), you cannot claim the absolute definition of an rpg as you have done.
But can you admit that role playing is an act of creation? Did Norman Rockwell inject some of himself into his paintings? Did Rodan's statues not have some of him in them? Art has sometimes been described as personal expresion. If you create something it will always be part of you. You are saying I am wrong because something that is created maintains some of the creators personality, when the sepration cannot be there. Did the staue of Atlas holding the world on his shoulders become impossible because the sculptor wasn't able to hold the world on his shoulders?
When you roleplay you create a seperate entity and give it direction. A separtion of that is impossible. But rpgs have never had player physical abilities factor into character physical ability. You are saying something possible and that has always been that way cannot be true if something that is impossible can't be true.
_________________
Vegitarian is the Indian word for lousey hunter. |
|
Thu Sep 01, 2005 2:25 am |
|
|
Shadow Aspect
Guest
|
Mostly I'm trying to show that while your opinion of what defines an RPG is completely valid, so is the opinion and definition of other people. You believe an RPG character should not rely at all on player physical skills, I accept that, but I don't agree an RPG is defined as something that must involve no player skill.
Also, I'm trying to point out that the law of non-contradiction cannot be applied to something as ephermeal as the extent to which a character is influenced by the players mind or body, do you see?
Your comment about artists and the influence their 'self' infuses into the art doesn't reinforce your position, but I believe slightly substantiates mine... Yes, roleplaying is an act of creation, but it can be said that while a painting is completed after a time (admittedly, not always quickly, and sometimes, with later adjustments) a character is eternal, it is not simply created over a short period of time, it will grow, yet be continually affected throughout the time you play it, by your real life.
My post may or may not make a huge amount of sense, I'm inexperienced at debating  |
|
Fri Sep 02, 2005 12:08 pm |
|
|
|
Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3
All times are GMT. The time now is Thu Apr 11, 2019 1:08 pm
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
