| |
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
|
|
|
|
cronos
Village Dweller
Joined: 07 Jan 2003
Posts: 7
|
Well I think that Morrowind fits in all of these points or something....Well MW has it all and Morrowind is really the best RPG I ever played! |
Thu Jan 23, 2003 2:33 pm |
|
|
Applebrown
Eager Tradesman
Joined: 13 Nov 2002
Posts: 36
Location: Canada |
quote:
Both a game like "Warcraft III" or alike, and a game like Baldurs gate 2, would get these two criterias checked, while Warcraft III do it barely, BG2 does it a lot deeper, which fairly should give more RPG-points, but how much more. Again we have to decide with neutrality if possible!
I think we still need to scale each criteria into more points, depending of how much of each criterias (if possible) is covered!
I had given this consideration last night... in fact, a lot of consideration. What I eventually decided was this. Baldur's Gate and Warcraft III we'd consider two very different breeds of RPG, correct? The example above is exactly one criteria out of, possibly one hundred, that we will rank the games. Baldur's Gate is going to have an extremely large array of criteria met (for RPG's), while Warcraft III is probably going to have a minimum amount. By that virtue alone, because we're rating not just on that one criteria, but many across many categories, Baldur's Gate's eventual score is going to me much higher.
You also brang up a couple other very good points. One is in the first paragraph when you mentioned that some categories will be weighted more than others and that people would want to know. This system is flexible in that regard. In case you misunderstood part of my post above this one (which I'd understand), there will still be "categories" and subcategories. However, the criteria in them will count exactly as much as the criteria in another category. What we could do is this, and ONLY to let people know which categories the game is dominant in.
Gameworld:
-criteria 1
....
-criteria 14
Story:
-criteria 1
......
-criteria 10
Interactiveness:
criteria 1
.....
criteria 9
And so on...
Now, because each of the criteria on our scale will be weighted (we will try) approximately equally... all we do is count up how many criteria in a certain "category" are met, and divide that by the number of criteria in that category to get a percentage. So, in the example above, if we end up with 10 criteria in the Story category, and a particular game nicks off 8 of them, then the Story aspect of the game gets 80%. This is great because at the end, we'll have the game ranked in each of the categories as a percentage, and at the very end, we'll have the bottom line score! So, if a game get's 9 out of 10 on Story say, and 13 out of 14 on Interactiveness, but has an RPG Index of say (based on our total criteria) 40. (out of the say 85 that we end up with)... a person looking at that will know exactly where the game's strong points are and where it's lacking on the total RPG scale. A person might even then infer that this is more an interactive story than an RPG.
With regards to another good point you made, you talked about certain criteria needing varying levels of intensity. I would agree strongly with this, except for the fact that this exact idea needs to be thought on more. Last night, I wavered back and forth about putting in an example that had, for instance, two exactly same criteria but with different levels of intensity, such as your giving 1 points, 2 points, 3 points for Medium, Large, Huge.
Hypothetically speaking, let's say we do break down one criteria by giving it a possible 3 points... for example "small influence", "medium influence", "large influence". Besides the problem of bringing in a substantial amount of subjectivity from those statements, which is exactly what we don't want (and we could tailor it I realize so that it could be limited), there is another issue. This is the same idea of adding in levels to categories, only now we'd be doing it with individual criteria, weighting the overall RPG index higher because particular criteria weighed more heavily than others. Thus, it would be inflating or deflating the as-objective-as-we-can total RPG Score with subjectivity, while without these "bonus points", if a game simply nicks off 7 of 8 of the Character Creation criteria, it would be "Character Creation"-centric, with no need of bonus points. But I completely understand you're wanting to give the reader exact details as to what the game is like. This requires more thought, so I'll sum up below for now.
The whole problem we face is, what _in essence_ do we want to tell the reader? What are our goals? Is it to tell them every detail about the game? Or is it to give a simple RPG index of the whole game in general, with helpful "top-rated" categories (based on percentages) so that they know a particular part of the game is more influencial than others, RPG-wise? Or both? This is a difficult problem, but not something that can't be overcome. I had a thought of letting the reader know some specifics of the index, such as with your bonus points, only without rating the criteria any higher. For instance:
-Multiple professions upon character creation (Light, Medium, Heavy) -
it would still rate as one point, but would tell the reader that this particular aspect was say "Heavy". It's the same as your 1 point, 2 points, 3 points above only it's always 1 point but telling the reader that it's "Heavy". But I'd really rather not choose criteria that has to be measured in another way or given extra bonus points. It's a difficult thing, and won't be solved probably until we set down and do the actual work to see what works and what doesn't. It'll be easier once we establish what exactly do we want to do with this. What are our exact goals?
Applebrown |
|
Thu Jan 23, 2003 2:51 pm |
|
|
Michael C
Black Dragon
Joined: 09 Jul 2001
Posts: 1595
Location: Aarhus, Denmark |
Hi Applebrown
I've just read your remarks, so I haven't had time to think about all your questions, but some of them I want to comment right away, and some of them I want to think over.
Our goal could be 2 fold:
The Basic version:
Ex.
Game: Demongate:
RPG-Score:
Story: 76 %
Characters: 89%
Gameworld:65%´
Combat: 39%
NPC: 22%
Manipulation: 67%
Overall: 60%
Graphics .....
Gamehours... Etc.
This version shows the games strong and weak RPG-elements, and I think gives you a good idea if it's a RPG for you or not, if you don't buy all RPG's anyway.
Well the second version could be an extended page where you can see which criteria is checked or not, for the gamer interested in details.
Applebrown I agree with almost anything you said in your previous post, about trying no keep personal influences out of the score, and I agree with many of your solutions, however one (for now) I can't find the ultimate solution for yet: Scale of criterias: I guess you agreed that some criterias should be mentioned with scales. You don't like giving more score points, but instead want to add a statement like Ex "Minor, Medium, More, Huge".
But I not convinced that putting statement onto criterias instaed of points would make the reviewer using the system more or less subjective. He might think the game is huge others think it's medium!
Well I will come back a little later with more comments, I need to think more over some of your suggestions!
_________________
Moderator on RPGdot.com Forum.
Member of the Nonflamers guild.
Member of the Sport fan club. |
|
Thu Jan 23, 2003 3:51 pm |
|
|
HiddenX
The Elder Spy
Joined: 20 Jul 2001
Posts: 749
Location: NRW / Germany |
To distribute the points in a "fair" way we need a little more math:
and a tree stucture for the criterions.
The sum of the weights is always 1 for one category. So we can map more important criterions high in the tree with a high weight, and less important criterions low in the tree with a low weight.
example:
category 1 splits in
{
criterion 1 splits in
{
criterion 1.1 (weight (0.25)
criterion 1.2 (weight 0.25)
}
criterion 2 (weight 0.5)
}
category 2 splits in
{
criterion 2 splits in
{
criterion 2.1 weight (0.5)
criterion 2.2 splits in
{
criterion 2.2.1 weight (0.125)
criterion 2.2.2 weight (0.125)
criterion 2.2.3 weight (0.125)
criterion 2.2.4 weight (0.125)
}
}
}
category 3
...
category 4
...
category 5
...
category 6
for each criterion you can still give a point value from 1 to 5
just weight all criterions (Multiplication with the point value) and sum them up for the final result.
advantage: we can be more precise
disadvantage: we need a lot of calculating
_________________
=Member of The Nonflamers' Guild= |
|
Thu Jan 23, 2003 8:09 pm |
|
|
Applebrown
Eager Tradesman
Joined: 13 Nov 2002
Posts: 36
Location: Canada |
Hi HiddenX.
I'm don't know if I'd agree with the thought of distributing any weight to the points. That was my main issue with version .6. It's akin to saying "I think" this feature of an RPG is more important then the next feature, so I'll simply give it more weight. All the categories in .6 were rated as RPG light to RPG heavy. What I think you're saying is that we should still assign point values to each criterion that needs it, and additionally, assign that criterion a weight. To me, that's adding another layer of subjectivity. Who determines the weights? Who assigns the levels? The answer is that the maker of the system determines the weights (one layer of subjectivity) and the reviewer of the game determines the score of each criterion (another level).
We'd all probably agree that gameplay is more important then say, story. After all, we can read a good book to get a good story. But it's not saying story isn't important. That's why it has its own category. That in itself, that is to say, how many points in the Story category a game has, is enough to tell its importance in that category, and propel it further in the RPG scale.
Here's a reason for keeping all the criteria equal within the Category. Say someone favors their RPG's with just a single choice at the beginning, and later, through the story, has that character develop. Well, if we favor "multiple races/professions" at character creation as weighing more than "single race/profession choice" at character creation, we've just said to the person who likes a single player at the beginning, "This RPG might not be for you" when in fact it met the requirement they were looking for.
I guess there's two systems of thought emerging here, and they should be explained before we get much further with whatever direction we decide. One is that, with the final form, we should be very specific in telling the reader somehow every detail about the game, so that they can be better informed. The other is that whatever the final form, it should prove as more of a general guideline in their decision to play. I also see all of us trying to merge these two into an all-inclusive form, and that I think is the difficult part.
Let's take something that has been bothering me. I'm a reader of the review and I like lots of choices at character creation as opposed to couple choices. Well, if we ultimately just give the category "CHARACTER" a single percent value, which related to how many nicks the game scored in that category (like my suggestion above), the person, ME, would be unable to tell whether the game met my criteria of being able to have lots of diversity at the beginning. So the problem with that is that we're not giving enough information for that person. But let's think about it. Aren't we?
We're not giving a full review of the game, in which we talk about everything we can think of, give an overview of the story, etc. Most reviews do that, as WELL as give either some or more detailed scores at the end (take IGN for instance). Their reviews (and GameSpot and many others too) are detailed out in prose, and then summarized in their scores.
The examples in the thread of the reviews by Arhu and others gave only a single rating at the end, with a little description of each category. That same reader would not know the details of the all the criteria that were checked off. So even the system before didn't alert the readers of the final score about all each of the details. However, the system in itself was more geared to specific criteria that had to be met, so it was easier to tell what a game was like based on the score, you just didn't know the specifics.
Anyway, like I said before, let's determine what we actually want, then go from there.
Applebrown |
|
Thu Jan 23, 2003 9:14 pm |
|
|
Ariel
Harmonious Angel
Joined: 21 Jul 2001
Posts: 432
Location: Germany |
Hello! First of all, very nice ideas there! Regarding one of Apple's previous posts, Michael said everything I was going to mention in his first reply this morning, so I can go straight to the rest. 
MC: ~Game: Demongate: RPG-Score:
Story: 76%, Characters: 89%, Gameworld:65%, Combat: 39%, NPC: 22%, Manipulation: 67%
Overall: 60%~
According to Apple's suggestions, the overall rating would not be a sum of all categories, but rather a sum of all distinct elements. Hence the overall 60% could very well be something else. An extreme example:
Story: 18 out of 20 possible criteria are met -> 90%
Characters: 1 out of 5 possible criteria is met -> 20%
If each category is measured equally, we would end up with (90+20)/2 = 55% overall. However, if we rate each of our elements equally, it would be (18+1)/(20+5) = 76%. That's quite a difference. One problem I see with the second rating is that it's sort of counter intuitive, because each category would of effectively be weighted for no immediately apparent reason. Because of this it should somehow be made clear that the Overall rating is not directly linked to the individual ratings. Also, it all depends on whether we do manage to come up with equally important criteria in a grand scheme, or not.
Apple: ~With regards to another good point you made, you talked about certain criteria needing varying levels of intensity. I would agree strongly with this, except for the fact that this exact idea needs to be thought on more.~
I also agree that there need to be different weightings for certain criteria, simply because some of them are exclusive by nature. A small world can't be huge at the same time and vice versa. Of course that brings in subjectivity, but I don't see how that can be avoided. Just by splitting up different criteria and giving one "main quality" more atomic elements than others there is subjectivity involved. If we don't include those exclusive criteria, we would rule out some of the qualities that are definitely RPG elements.
Apple: ~The whole problem we face is, what _in essence_ do we want to tell the reader? What are our goals? Is it to tell them every detail about the game? Or is it to give a simple RPG index of the whole game in general~
Both could be done, probably. _In essence_, it would be a simple RPG index, the details are rather convenient byproducts that let players compare games with each other. In my opinion the system should quantify the "RPGness" of a game, provide an index of preferably all possible RPG elements. For this goal I think it suffices to define what an RPG element actually is. For me,
RPG elements are everything that represents and encourages roleplaying, identification with the character, and immersion in the game world both realistically (freedom, interactivity and believability in all its forms) and emotionally (story).
With roleplaying and immersion I've named two very delicate subjects, and there exist probably as many different views of them as there are players out there. Still I would like this system to give a common and more or less measurable ground for the whole RPG concept(s).
So, what kind of element fulfills the requirements I listed? To answer this I would like to propose a simple definition of the term "RPG", not considering how this term is used elsewhere, like (C)RPG or (P&P)RPG...
A (perfect) Role Playing Game is equal to a perfect, scripted Virtual Reality in which the player is an actor
It should be scripted because this way the player can emotionally take part in an adventure or interesting encounters, which helps immersion. The details of this script, however, remain hidden. The player should be an actor since he has to know that he is acting, otherwise it would be no different from the real world, hence no (Role) Playing is involved.
Now, every little thing that can be regarded as a small step towards this scripted VR is an RPG element. With that image in mind, one could start to think of particular elements that could be present in games. These do include subjective criteria like "size of the gameworld", although I now believe that the actual size is not that important, but rather the freedom you have in it on a grand scale, because it makes you think more that you are in charge of your own actions, not stuck to restricted areas that are defined by some unnatural boundaries.
Maybe there are ways to get rid of weighted criteria, because at least in this example, "freedom" can be descibed by using additive criteria as a set of possibilities (you can go straight from start to end, you can explore areas individually, you can go back to earlier places, you are totally free to go where you want (maybe restricted by natural borders)), as opposed to "size" which is really exclusive.
For cases where criteria have to be weighted, I would go for Michael's proposal but make individual criteria for each, with a score attached, instead of scores within each criterion. Weighting may be subjective, but I think it's not much different from having more single criteria for the same RPG quality... If possible, though, criteria should be made additive, not exclusive.
Example:
1 - Day & Night shift
1 - Day & Night shift have impact on game
(These are additive.)
1 - Small world
2 - Medium world
3 - Large world
(These are exclusive, although I think that the "size" criterion is superfluous as it can be covered by "freedom").
So much for the more fundamental goal of the system as I personally would like to have it. In regard to Apple's latest post, we could in the end always group certain elements to single "categories", like "Characters", and calculate the rating of met requirements in just that category. Or group subelements of that category to "Character Creation" and "Character Development", calculating the rating for each of those subgroups individually. This would be an easy way to inform players in a meaningful way. All we need to do is to define all these RPG elements, and find out what RPG players might be interested in. Obviously the few categories we already named, like Story, Manipulation etc. are a good indication for that.
Additionally, we could provide a list of the amount of criteria met, or even a list of all met criteria.
_________________
“Through the sounds of falling rain, through the clouds of bitter times
I see the pure grace of your smile, in dreams of the warmth in your eyes” - Tim North |
|
Thu Jan 23, 2003 9:42 pm |
|
|
Applebrown
Eager Tradesman
Joined: 13 Nov 2002
Posts: 36
Location: Canada |
It's almost a full-time job thinking about this stuff 
Anyway, Arhu you bring up a lot of good points. And your definitions of what an RPG is are (...is are... good grammar) fantastic. According to your definitions though, "RPG Heavy" on the previous scale doesn't exactly mean a "Perfect Roleplaying Game", because as you put it:
A (perfect) Role Playing Game is equal to a perfect, scripted Virtual Reality in which the player is an actor
Would you consider Wizardry VIII a perfect roleplaying game according to the definition above? It IS "RPG Heavy" according to the scale though. So there's some discrepancy between what you want to rate, and what the scale actually is. That's what I'm getting at. What we want. Do you want to have a scale that's based on your definition of a perfect roleplaying game? Because I think that's a very reasonable definition of what most people would consider the perfect RPG.... as an aside, hense why I gave Deus Ex such high marks ... as I think it fits at least that bill extremely well.
What I'd like to avoid are subjectively simple statements such as:
Small World
Medium World
Large World
While innocent by themselves, every person who rates the game is going to have a different box checked off. To some, the world of Ultima was large (me). To others, it was tiny... compared to say, Everquest. Let's try first of all to get rid of relative words like that, where the meanings could be interpretive of relative to other games.
Usually relative words are adjectives.
Big, a lot, varied, strong
One of my original goals was to make this sort of a scientific quantification exercise when I first posted. Let's see if we can't narrow down the qualities of an RPG while being as objective as possible. Almost like thinking of any game as a light cloth, with us spreading it out and letting it drift lightly from above onto the table, which is full of peaks and valleys, and seeing exactly where the cloth rises and where it falls. Without a lot of thought. This of course requires people to have played the game of course, like any review. If we have enough reviews those peaks and valleys will average out.
Let's go back to your first paragraph, Arhu:
If each category is measured equally, we would end up with (90+20)/2 = 55% overall. However, if we rate each of our elements equally, it would be (18+1)/(20+5) = 76%. That's quite a difference.
Yes it is a difference. There are pitfalls to both ways of doing things. For instance, I'll give an in depth example.
If we stick with the categories we've made (and I suggest going over everything on further revisions including categories to see where we can streamline and simplify to the lowest common denominator where possible), we'd could have something like this:
Game: Mark of the Wolf (made up)
Category A
15 out of a possible 23 criteria checked. (15/23) = 65%
Category B
4 out of a possible 10 criteria checked. (4/10) = 40%
Category C
10 out of a possible 13 criteria checked. (10/13) = 77%
Category D
9 out of a possible 15 criteria checked. (9/15) = 60%
Category E
3 out of a possible 11 criteria checked. (3/11) = 27%
First, I'll point out the problem of doing it one way or another, as described in Arhu's paragraph above. Let's say we make each category equal, and average out the percentages:
5 categories, and 65%, 40%, 77%, 60%, and 27%.
Total = 269%. Total RPG Average = 269%/5 = 53.8%
The problem with this is that we are weighting each individual criteria in some categories as more important than the ones in others, simply because there are less criteria in some categories than in others, which make those more valuable because there are fewer.
Here's the other solution described above:
Total # of criteria = 23 + 10 + 15 + 13 + 11 = 72
Total # of criteria met = 15 + 4 + 10 + 9 + 3 = 41
Criteria met divided by Total Criteria = 41/72 = 56.9%
Take all the individual elements and then add them up, and divide by the total number of elements. In this solution, it's approx. 57%. Not as big a difference as I'd have thought. As Arhu pointed out though, the problem with this solution is that here we're making some Categories weigh more than others, because we're treating all criteria equally and there's not as many criteria in some categories as in others.
So, here's my brilliant solution! <heheh> For the total RPG Index, we simply average out those two scores. That way, we're averaging putting more emphasis on categories with putting more emphasis on criteria within the categories, and balancing that with a final score right in the middle. In the example above, we'd take 56.9% + 53.8% / 2 = 55.3% = 55%.
In Arhu's example in the post above, we'd take 55% + 76% / 2 = 65.5% = 66% using the even/odd round up rule.
Finally, I think we might be getting somewhere.
Applebrown
edited: fixed grammar in one sentence |
|
Thu Jan 23, 2003 11:06 pm |
|
|
HiddenX
The Elder Spy
Joined: 20 Jul 2001
Posts: 749
Location: NRW / Germany |
Hi Applebrown,
For sure weights are 'subjective', even which categories,criterions we choose or choose not is 'subjective'.
But we can make the system more 'objective' if not one person alone chooses the categories, criterions and the weights, but a group of rpg-experts.
(version 0.6 for example is a milestone of a long discussing process)
Furthermore the scoring system should be available to the reader of the review, so someone can say:
'these rpg-expert-idiots gave only a weight of 10% to the xyz criterion - I would weight it with 50%, so my private score is ...'
_________________
=Member of The Nonflamers' Guild= |
|
Thu Jan 23, 2003 11:58 pm |
|
|
Michael C
Black Dragon
Joined: 09 Jul 2001
Posts: 1595
Location: Aarhus, Denmark |
We can't eliminate subjectivity totally, as we must decide which criterias must be equally important, I agree here with Hidden X.
Arhu's suggestion about making more criterias with same topic with different advancement, is also an idea I toyed with:
Ex
Criteria 1: Up to 3 different races/professions for character.
Criteria 2: Up to 10 different races/professions for character.
Criteria 3: Over 10 different races/professions for character.
I know it's not subjective, but I can't see that we at some point can come beyond it!
I however agree with "Applebrown" that our criteria must be precise, so it leaves no room for personal preferences (Not using words like: Small, Big, many, plentifull), but this will be on cost of subjectivity. So in the example above I need to have specific numbers.
_________________
Moderator on RPGdot.com Forum.
Member of the Nonflamers guild.
Member of the Sport fan club. |
|
Fri Jan 24, 2003 10:15 am |
|
|
Michael C
Black Dragon
Joined: 09 Jul 2001
Posts: 1595
Location: Aarhus, Denmark |
If we can agree on the 6 main categories: Story, Characters, Gameworld, Combat, NPC's, and manipulation as the main categories, which should cover all the RPG-elements we can find.
I still believe that a result (goal) from our system should be two-fold:
The simple, but quite informative anyway:
Ex.
Game: Demongate:
RPG-Score:
Story: 76 %
Characters: 89%
Gameworld:65%´
Combat: 39%
NPC: 22%
Manipulation: 67%
Overall: 60%
The overall score based on category average or number of criteria average, shouldn't be our biggest concern right now, as this score only can be used to compare with other games using the same system!
The category scores however is more important, and give ME a better information about the RPG-element intensitivity in each category!
Note Applebrown, we should not distinguise if it's good or bad RPG-elements, meaning if two games scoring in a category saying: "Over 20 sidequest". One game uses get this and that, and bring this to there etc, and the other game, has deep and twisting quests instead, which for ME is far more interesting, but would not show in the score!
The complex result:
Should be like the simple list but additionally with all the criterias (marked or unmarked)
I think our next step, should be making a list with all the criterias (Not scaled or with any adjective of deepness (Ex.size), just all the criterias we can find under each of the 6 main categories, then we should take it from there, and we will soon meet the tough part of our problems.
_________________
Moderator on RPGdot.com Forum.
Member of the Nonflamers guild.
Member of the Sport fan club. |
|
Fri Jan 24, 2003 1:33 pm |
|
|
Michael C
Black Dragon
Joined: 09 Jul 2001
Posts: 1595
Location: Aarhus, Denmark |
STORY:
1. Development of story (Pace, twisting)
2. Player impact on story (Variations, and solution complexity)
3. Story endings.
4. Side stories
5. Extra story material possible for extensive story readers (Ex books)
CHARACTERS:
1. Character choices
2. Number of Characters (Party)
3. Character development complexity.
4. Impct on societies (reputation, guilds, movement etc.)
NPC's
1. Merchants
2. Dialogue complexity
3. Societies
4. Daily bussiness (Not standing around doing nothing)
5. Story impact
GAMEWORLD
1. Size
2. Area variations
3. Number of different societies
4. Freedom (Exploring)
5. Time cyclus
MANIPULATION
1. Interactive elements (Barrels, doors, water etc.)
2. Item complexity (Amount, combinations, use variations)
3. Puzzles ( Traps, switches, locks, levers etc)
4. Assignments (To do list)
5. Enviroment change possibility.
COMBAT
1. Pace
2. Action possibilities
3. Strategic impact
4. Enemy complexity
Now here is a starting list, feel free to find additionally criterias, or better word choices. I know as many of the criterias is written now, we can't decide a check mark for them in relation to a game, as they need more specific demands, but it's exactly the hard part, and where we must loose our demands for a complete subjective free system!
_________________
Moderator on RPGdot.com Forum.
Member of the Nonflamers guild.
Member of the Sport fan club. |
|
Fri Jan 24, 2003 2:33 pm |
|
|
Lintra
Elf Friend
Joined: 23 Apr 2002
Posts: 9448
Location: Bermuda, the triangle place with SANDY BEACHES |
The only change to the list I would make it to remove the number of charcters. A great RPG can have one or a party of characters.
In fact, to be closest to the PnP version of an RPG only one character should be the best, with a "party" of NPC possible.
_________________
=Member of The Nonflamers' Guild=
=Just plain clueless= |
|
Fri Jan 24, 2003 5:34 pm |
|
|
Ariel
Harmonious Angel
Joined: 21 Jul 2001
Posts: 432
Location: Germany |
Good evening!
Apple: ~According to your definitions though, "RPG Heavy" on the previous scale doesn't exactly mean a "Perfect Roleplaying Game" (..) Would you consider Wizardry VIII a perfect roleplaying game according to the definition above?~
No, because.. please read on. The RPG definition I provided above is not fully fleshed out, but suffices as a rough idea I think. And consider that the RPG and -element definitions are tied with each other. For obvious reasons the sum of all RPG elements should make up the essential idea of what an RPG is. For instance, having choices is always a good thing - choosing an adequate avatar for your alter ego, being able so select its look and set its attributes, lets you tune to the role you are going to play even before you are going to act. If your own, free will is taken away from you, if you are confined or forced to do something that goes against your own nature, you will likely feel detached and don't particularly care for the character that is supposed to be you. If that happens, you don't play a role anymore and are but a puppet.
Well, in an attempt to answer your question, let me quote one important paragraph of yours:
~***Extremely important*** It's critical that we do not limit the list to criteria that ONLY make a traditional RPG. If all the criteria we have make up the exact game like, say Wizardry VII or VIII, or Bard's Tale, then we've done nothing except throw a scale that rates on a curve, with Wizardry VII or VIII being at the upper limit. This is not what we want. The only way to prevent this is to work and REwork the system from exceptional amounts of experience, as to what ALL encompasses RPG's, not just the "traditional" RPG.~
This is what I am trying to do, by providing (I hope) reasonable common grounds on which we can base further revisons of the former system. For the sake of objectivity I agree that
- we should not only take elements from "traditional" RPGs into account
- we should get rid of RPG specific terms that originate from these traditional RPGs
- we should avoid subjective terms like "small", "large" etc.
I believe these points can be taken care of if we stop thinking of RPGs strictly as computer games, or P&P games, or Live Action games, but more of an alternate reality that incorporates the essence of what all these (traditional) RPGs are about.
For better clarification let me rephrase my two definitions into one:
~.~.~
An ideal Role Playing Game is equal to a perfect, scripted Virtual Reality in which the player is an actor. This VR is made up of "RPG elements" which are everything that represents and encourages roleplaying, identification with the character, and immersion in the game world both realistically (freedom, interactivity and believability in all their forms) and emotionally (story, action and interaction with other sentient beings).
.~.~.
I've changed and added a few things, and albeit the wording or conceived meaning may still not be perfect, I reason that if we can all agree to such an abstract notion it would be easier for us to find "objective" criteria for games.
I would not consider Wizardry VIII, or any other possible game for that matter, a perfect RPG, but it would probably still get a fairly high rating, because I believe that all RPGs actually describe facets of the VR concept I described above. I guess that Wizardry has many RPG elements, but one that I can think of which fails is the amount of characters you control. In that I agree with Lintra - for a good character identification it would be best to play only one hero, namely you, who is accompanied by other characters (NPCs or even better - humans) who give direct feedback to your very presence.
This is one point where our old system is maybe too tightly bound with "traditional" RPGs. However, otherwise I think it describes the most important forms of RPG elements rather well.
Regarding the Overall Rating...
~So, here's my brilliant solution! <heheh> For the total RPG Index, we simply average out those two scores.~
I think that's a good idea. But let's try out each of the three together when we are finally able to review some games, to better see what they bring us. Also, in the end it would be nice if one could put different weighs to each category to one's own liking, like HiddenX said in his last post. While the final game ratings would (hopefully) be objective, the end user could afterwards apply his personal preferences and subjectivity to it.
Well! Now it's probably time to start finding nifty RPG elements, isn't it? Apparently Michael has already started, which provides a great list to expand upon, along with the criteria of the old system.
Michael: I agree that we should have a simple and complex represenation of a game's attributes, but let's keep that for later. The 6 categories are totally ok in my opinion (took long enough to find out what might be of interest).
I'll try to come up with additional general criteria that we can use to extract atomic elements from, but first I need to take a break as I'm quite exhausted right now. And maybe you have already listed everything possible anyway... 'Later.
Lintra: I think that the number of characters can stay in, for the reason I stated above somewhere (boy, my mind is mud), which I think was the same reason you put into words yourself in your last sentence.
PS: If we begin defining the actual elements, lets start with only one category - I guess that would be complex enough for a start.
_________________
“Through the sounds of falling rain, through the clouds of bitter times
I see the pure grace of your smile, in dreams of the warmth in your eyes” - Tim North |
|
Fri Jan 24, 2003 10:06 pm |
|
|
Applebrown
Eager Tradesman
Joined: 13 Nov 2002
Posts: 36
Location: Canada |
Just a quick reply here. I'm working on criteria for different categories at the moment. I like that a lot of people are taking all suggestions seriously. A question:
IF, you had a perfect virtual reality of a world... IF you were not really living as you thought (all of us right now), and yet this was all a game, and you had to classify what we call existence as a game genre, what type of genre would this be?
Take your time answering. Look away if you have to and come back.
Take your answer, and ask yourself this question. Isn't that kind of reality what we should be making criteria for? Isn't that reality, plus any reality in our imagination, what we should be making criteria for? After all, that is how we classify the genre answer above.
Thinking about that gives me a sense of bewilderment and astonishment, that one genre, out of all of them, should have so much power. It also gives me a sense that all other genres are derivative from that one, in some way or another. That the answer above is somehow the great creator of all genres and of all categories. I guess what I'm saying, is that the genre above that we classified and have been trying to get a grip on, is actually, the imagination with a focus.
Applebrown |
|
Sat Jan 25, 2003 12:05 am |
|
|
Ariel
Harmonious Angel
Joined: 21 Jul 2001
Posts: 432
Location: Germany |
Quick reply to a quick reply...
"Imagination with a focus", I like the ring of that. If I had to name this type of genre you described, I would call it "life".
In my opinion, however, there is a difference between a game and reality as we know and experience it. There's a few movies about these kind of VRs, the most popular probably being The Matrix, then there are The 13th Floor, eXistenZ, even the Truman Show, and others which I haven't seen. From these movies, I think eXistenZ was closest to a game of some sort from the actors' point of view, followed by the 13th Floor (if my memory serves me right, I don't really remember certain elements of the story). The virtual world described in the Matrix or the Truman Show, on the other hand, was indistinguishable from reality for the people who played a part in it (humanity in the Matrix, Truman in the Truman Show). For them it was reality.
If it wasn't for the fact that Truman knew nothing of the real world around him, The Truman Show would have been a pretty good example of the virtual RPG reality I tried to describe above. For the audience Trumans little world and life was a game, not so for the man himself.
In a nutshell, I think the goal of an RPG is to create a virtuality in which you, the protagonist, have total control over your entire self within the world, that includes your appearance, mind and actions. It is a "good" VR if you tend to "forget" that you are playing a game, without having to give up your identity. Though if you forget so much that the game becomes your reality then there's no point of playing, IMO.
~That the answer above is somehow the great creator of all genres and of all categories.~
Interesting thought, and I agree with it. Swen Vincke, the lead programmer of Larian Studios who developed Divinity, had written down some similar impressions, which you can read here if you like. Just scroll down to "Divinity and co". Also of interest to this topic is the chapter below the latter, called "On immersion", which mostly reflects my own opinion and was very inspiring...
_________________
“Through the sounds of falling rain, through the clouds of bitter times
I see the pure grace of your smile, in dreams of the warmth in your eyes” - Tim North |
|
Sat Jan 25, 2003 8:03 pm |
|
|
|
|
|
